RE: [Iptel] Is trunk group a new namespace?

"Shan Lu" <shanlu@sentito.com> Mon, 24 January 2005 17:21 UTC

Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA03121 for <iptel-web-archive@ietf.org>; Mon, 24 Jan 2005 12:21:11 -0500 (EST)
Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1Ct8AN-0004AI-5p for iptel-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 24 Jan 2005 12:38:20 -0500
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Ct7bJ-00025w-FX; Mon, 24 Jan 2005 12:02:05 -0500
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Ct7WN-0000x9-NM for iptel@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 24 Jan 2005 11:56:59 -0500
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA29636 for <iptel@ietf.org>; Mon, 24 Jan 2005 11:56:56 -0500 (EST)
Received: from airwolf.sentito.com ([65.202.222.11]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.33) id 1Ct7mt-000380-RS for iptel@ietf.org; Mon, 24 Jan 2005 12:14:05 -0500
Received: (qmail 47102 invoked by uid 1014); 24 Jan 2005 16:56:26 -0000
Received: from shanlu@sentito.com by airwolf.sentito.com by uid 1002 with qmail-scanner-1.22 (clamdscan: 0.80. spamassassin: 2.63. Clear:RC:1(65.202.222.2):. Processed in 0.034022 secs); 24 Jan 2005 16:56:26 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO SAJAK) (65.202.222.2) by airwolf.sentito.com with SMTP; 24 Jan 2005 16:56:26 -0000
From: Shan Lu <shanlu@sentito.com>
To: 'Cullen Jennings' <fluffy@cisco.com>, 'Jonathan Rosenberg' <jdrosen@cisco.com>
Subject: RE: [Iptel] Is trunk group a new namespace?
Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 11:58:00 -0500
Message-ID: <004001c50235$dc394470$eb00000a@SAJAK>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.6626
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1441
In-Reply-To: <BE18F971.2470D%fluffy@cisco.com>
Importance: Normal
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: e8a67952aa972b528dd04570d58ad8fe
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: iptel@ietf.org, "'Vijay K. Gurbani'" <vkg@lucent.com>
X-BeenThere: iptel@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IP Telephony <iptel.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iptel>, <mailto:iptel-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/iptel>
List-Post: <mailto:iptel@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:iptel-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iptel>, <mailto:iptel-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: iptel-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: iptel-bounces@ietf.org
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: f60d0f7806b0c40781eee6b9cd0b2135
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Cullen,

Agreed - I wasn't suggesting the long road. Just wanted to have a tel uri
similar to sip:invalid@invalid.net. For instance,
"tel:-;phone-context=internal" could be useful to indicate attributes of the
resource w/o having to reveal the number. But wasn't suggesting to modify
3966.

Regards,

Shan Lu

>-----Original Message-----
>From: iptel-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:iptel-bounces@ietf.org] 
>On Behalf Of Cullen Jennings
>Sent: Sunday, January 23, 2005 9:49 AM
>To: Shan Lu; Jonathan Rosenberg
>Cc: iptel@ietf.org; Vijay K. Gurbani
>Subject: Re: [Iptel] Is trunk group a new namespace?
>
>
>On 1/21/05 6:27 AM, "Shan Lu" <shanlu@sentito.com> wrote:
>
>> 
>> But you have a point that the I-D went out of its way to address the
>> problem. The real issue, in my opinion, lies in RFC3966. Had 
>3966 allowed
>> tel uri to have empty phone digits (but meaningful 
>parameters), we won't
>> have this discussion at all. As a side note, sip uri allows 
>completely bogus
>> userinfo/hostport but valid uri parameters.
>
>Not as chair...
>
>The issue with a tel URI with no telephone number is that the 
>semantics of
>what you do with are unclear. Imagine a HTTP URI with no host. 
>What does it
>mean? My personally view that is unless we explain to the IESG 
>what it means
>they are likely to tell we are doing the wrong thing and go 
>invent a new URI
>type - this is a long road.
>
>It's true that for some problems, all you need is trunk group 
>information. I
>think this draft on trunk group attributes on a tel is not 
>attempting to
>solve that class of problems. Something else can be done to solve them.
>However, having trunk group information attributes with a tel 
>is useful for
>some other problems and that is what this is well defined for. 
>
>_______________________________________________
>Iptel mailing list
>Iptel@ietf.org
>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iptel
>


_______________________________________________
Iptel mailing list
Iptel@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iptel