Re: [Enum] non-E.164 Numbers in ENUM

[Mike Hammer <[e-mail]>]

Likewise, would a check on a number of the form:
tel:+xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxyyy...
also be considered invalid (assuming no separators, x=1-9, y=0-9)?
(+ = global-number = E.164 = 15 digits max)
Mike
At 07:58 PM 9/15/2004 +0100, Jim Reid wrote:
>>>>> "James" == Yu, James <james.yu at neustar.biz> writes:
    James> ENUM resolver (one that generates the ENUM query for a
    James> phone number) can only check if the phone number has more
    James> than 15 digits (a valid E.164# is up to 15 digits long)
    James> because it is not likely to understand the numbering plan
    James> in every country.  It won't be able to know if
    James> 1-571-434-1234-5 is a valid E.164# if it does not
    James> understand the numbering plan for country code 1.
Indeed. In fact it would be very foolish for anyone to put a priori
knowledge of a numbering plan into an ENUM resolver. Especially on an
embedded device like a handset. Numbering plans change. Pretty much
all an ENUM resolver could/should do is check that the input string
conforms to the length and legal character set defined in E.164.
_______________________________________________
enum mailing list
enum at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum

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