Subject: Re: [Enum] draft-ietf-enum-unused-00.txt

From: "Lupton, Ronan" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 10:42:23 -0000

Richard,

Indeed the key phrase being 'open numbering plans' many states have standard
length plans, unless they opt for open numbering plans. I have the standard
on my desk here.

Many do not treat the DDI definition as we discuss it on IETF ENUM as the
potential additional of suffix digits that it would take to 'literally' call
someone in a open numbering plan.

So you can take back that I am incorrect and I will admit that I could have
used a better form of words.

Many your suggestion to abolish open numbering plans is indeed fruitful ;0)
it would make ENUM easier.

Ronan

-----Original Message-----
From: Stastny Richard <[email-masked]>
To: Lupton, Ronan
CC: [email-masked] <[email-masked]>
Sent: Wed Jan 17 10:26:40 2007
Subject: RE: [Enum] draft-ietf-enum-unused-00.txt

Ronan,

>Just so we don't confuse people, DDI in ENUM speak is different to DDI
PSTN >speak. What we mean in the ENUM context is digits over and above
the >expected national lengths, whereas in PSTN speak we or many
understand it >to conform or be part of an ISDN standard set up or
config.

This is not correct:
1. There is no "expected" national length in open numbering plans

2. Please look at E.164-Annex B

"In instances where a partial number is utilized, the number will be
used in the context of direct-dialling-in supplementary service."

This has nothing to do with ISDN Subaddress

SA is something else and comes after the partial number:

B.3.4 "Sub-addressing may be used separately or in combination with the 
partial number"

Richard

>No, we couldn't have any changes not after debating it for so long at
this >stage. 
>Austria are after all leading the charge!! 
>Ronan 

-----Original Message----- 
From: Stastny Richard <[email-masked]> 
To: Lupton, Ronan; [email-masked] <[email-masked]>;
[email-masked] <[email-masked]> 
CC: [email-masked] <[email-masked]> 
Sent: Wed Jan 17 10:08:16 2007 
Subject: RE: [Enum] draft-ietf-enum-unused-00.txt 

Ronan, 
>DDI being suffix to national numbering schema expected rather than the 
old >telco PABX DDI as many know it! 
I do not really understand what you want to say 
>There is no escape from this in Austria, Germany and perhaps one other 
>country. 
Do you mean Austria has to change this? 
No plans yet 
Richard 

_______________________________________________ 
enum mailing list 
[email-masked] 
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum 
_______________________________________________
enum mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum