IETF Logo Mail Archive

[ITU+IETF] RE: [Enum] Re: Structure of DNS entry for ENUM

Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> Fri, 04 February 2000 16:33 UTC

Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA01905 for <itu+ietf-archive@ietf.org>; Fri, 4 Feb 2000 11:33:29 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA02748 for <itu+ietf-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org>; Fri, 4 Feb 2000 11:32:04 -0500 (EST)
Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA01900; Fri, 4 Feb 2000 11:33:28 -0500 (EST)
Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA02686; Fri, 4 Feb 2000 11:31:34 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA02650 for <itu+ietf@optimus.ietf.org>; Fri, 4 Feb 2000 11:31:33 -0500 (EST)
Received: from rip.psg.com (rip.psg.com [147.28.0.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA01884; Fri, 4 Feb 2000 11:32:56 -0500 (EST)
Received: from randy by rip.psg.com with local (Exim 3.12 #1) id 12GlfB-0004VN-00; Fri, 04 Feb 2000 08:32:53 -0800
From: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: "Manfredi, Albert E" <Albert.Manfredi@PHL.Boeing.com>
Cc: enum@ietf.org, itu+ietf@ietf.org
References: <4102273CEB77D211869200805FE6F59356EDCF@xch-phl-01.he.boeing.com>
Message-Id: <E12GlfB-0004VN-00@rip.psg.com>
Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2000 08:32:53 -0800
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: [ITU+IETF] RE: [Enum] Re: Structure of DNS entry for ENUM
Sender: itu+ietf-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: itu+ietf-admin@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 1.0
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: Joint ITU+IETF Discussion List <itu+ietf.ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: itu+ietf@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

> However, it's not clear to me why the fields of the E.164 number which are
> clearly delineated, such as country code and city/area code, could not at
> least have been kept together, delimited by dots. The long series of dots
> seems a bit excessive?

because only north americans think country codes and city codes are clearly
delineatable in a universal way?

randy

_______________________________________________
ITU+IETF mailing list
ITU+IETF@ietf.org
http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/itu+ietf

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email