Subject: [Iptel] IANA section of 2806bis and a few other things

From: Cullen Jennings <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 16 Nov 2003 15:56:42 -0800

I was giving this one final read. I apologize for not getting to it sooner.

Can you all (Jonathan too) have a look at the IANA section - my take is that
it is probably not enough to create a new registry. It should probably also
have instructions to update the tel in the URI-Scheme registry to point at
this RFC. Have a read of it and let me know what you think.

My take was that nothing came up in the user=phone debate that would result
in a change to 2806bis. If folks feel otherwise, object really really soon.

It's a NIT but the phone numbers seem to mostly be real numbers. I don't
know the equivalent of example.com is but some carriers in +1  use 999 as an
invalid area code. The 555 area code is reserved for information services so
won't ever point at some poor unfortunate subscriber who gets the number
shown in an RFC. I suspect this could change in Auth 48.

The only place that the Yu tel extension stuff comes up (reference 13) seems
to be in the "Change History" section. I think you could drop that section
and this reference. This could happen in Auth 48.

Cullen

_______________________________________________
Iptel mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iptel

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Sun, 16 Nov 2003 23:11:10 EST

> shown in an RFC. I suspect this could change in Auth 48.

Good thought. In fact, the numbers 555-0100 through 555-0199 are reserved for 
"fictitious use", like in the movies. We should use those for examples (with 
any area code). See http://www.nanpa.com/number_resource_info/555_numbers.html.

Mike