Subject: [Enum] RE: New I/D: draft-hoeneisen-enum-validation-epp-0 0

From: "Hollenbeck, Scott" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 07:08:36 -0400

> While I don't see E.164 changing any time soon, there are 
> cases where local
> allocations may be longer than the 15 digit limit, and there 
> is no harm in
> leaving space for expansion.

Well, then perhaps a more basic question: why is the number needed in the
extension at all?  You already have the domain name; the number can be
trivially derived from the name.

-Scott-

_______________________________________________
enum mailing list
enum at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum

---

From: Bernie Hoeneisen <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 08:21:04 -0400

Hi Scott and Clive!
Thanks for your feedback!
On Tue, 28 Sep 2004, Hollenbeck, Scott wrote:
While I don't see E.164 changing any time soon, there are
cases where local
allocations may be longer than the 15 digit limit, and there
is no harm in
leaving space for expansion.
Well, then perhaps a more basic question: why is the number needed in the
extension at all?  You already have the domain name; the number can be
trivially derived from the name.
For the major part of the cases I agree with you.
But I am trying to make the extension as generic as possible.
Im can imagine, that certain validation procedures might need this 
optional field.

I am even thinking of adding (optional) elements to be used for 
Contact information of the E.164 number (range) holder, e.g. as reported 
from the Validation Entity. This could enable easier handling of problem 
cases at the Registry.

cheers,
 Bernie

---

From: bob bownes <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 08:32:24 -0400

Hollenbeck, Scott wrote:

One *should* be able to do that, but it is not necessarily the case 
unless the subdomains of an organization match with the dial plan of the 
organization. It also prevent number portability across internal 
organizational boundaries if extension maps to DID.

Additionally, in a sufficiently large organization, there may be 
duplicate extension numbers (or names!) with different DIDs based on 
geography.

---

From: Bob Bownes <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 08:51:05 -0400

Hollenbeck, Scott wrote:
>> While I don't see E.164 changing any time soon, there are cases 
where local
>> allocations may be longer than the 15 digit limit, and there is no 
harm in