Re: [FWD] Introduction of new FWD "experimental" service - FWD Vanity Numbers

["Stastny Richard" <]

Hi Daniel,
 
I like your picture, but you got it the wrong way around:
If I consider SIP as the railroad, the native scheme is sip: URIs,
the PSTN/ISDN is the street and the native scheme is E.164,
and the crossing is ENUM.
 
But if you use numbers in SIP, you are a streetcar or tram, so
you have to obey the traffic rules eg E.164.
 
I agree with you that FWD may  ignore the NANP, but not
the global public telephone numbers (E.164)
 
regards
Richard

	-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- 
	Von: Daniel Berninger [
	    
	    
] 
	Gesendet: Fr 08.08.2003 17:44 
	An: FWD@localhost 
	Cc: 
	Betreff: Re: [FWD] Introduction of new FWD "experimental" service - FWD Vanity Numbers
	
	

	As one vote, FWD should completely ignore NANP.  Worrying about NANP is like
	forcing automobiles to travel only along railroads.  FWD can address issues
	that come up on a case by case basis consistent with a focus on the needs
	and interests of end users.  One does need special treatment at "railroad
	crossings" (i.e. PSTN interconnects), but FWD represents a terrific
	opportunity to introduce new thinking.
	
	Dan
	
	http://www.intercommunication.org
	----- Original Message -----
	From: "Stastny Richard" <Richard.Stastny@localhost
	To: FWD@localhost
	Sent: Friday, August 08, 2003 7:14 AM
	Subject: Re: [FWD] Introduction of new FWD "experimental" service - FWD
	Vanity Numbers
	
	
	Hi Jeff, hi Ed,
	
	In principle I think the introduction of vanity numbers and nicknames
	(proper
	SIP addresses) is a good idea, but:
	
	the mess in numbering you are creating together with sipphone.com is
	NOT a good idea.
	
	If you would set up a complete new numbering and dialing plan, ok,
	but you should keep in mind always compatibility with E.164.
	
	But what you and especially sipphone.com are doing is even worse:
	
	sipphone is giving away numbers looking like NANP numbers:
	1-747-xxx-xxxx, but the NPA  747 is unassigned.
	They also map some "real" numbers in, eg 411 and 1-800-555-1212
	All these numbers are at least consistent with the closed NANP (1-10D),
	and you also can dial "locally" with 7 digits
	
	So people may think they are using the NANP, but this is not true.
	Also these numbers cannot be dialed from the PSTN.
	
	Very funny are the cross connections to FWD (393) , iptel.org (477) and
	Iaxtel (700), all using unassigned or reserved NPA.
	
	In case of FWD and iptel.org this is breaking the closed NANP by
	allowing
	any number of digits (instead of 7). So this never can be mapped onto
	E.164
	
	If you are now creating vanity numbers behind 393, allowing 6 to 26!!!
	digits,
	this is very weird, considering also that a complete E.164 may have only
	15 digits.
	
	So even if by miracle FWD, sipphone or iptel.org may get finally these
	NPAs assigned, it would not work.
	
	BTW, it is also weird for global services to align numbers to the NANP,
	you should align to international E.164.
	
	This will be very confusing for users and also be unresolvable in the
	future
	if VoIP and PSTN should be linked.
	
	You are missing a big chance to create a numbering plan compatible with
	E.164,
	because by being able to set up a numbering plan from scatch you could
	avoid the pitfalls and restrictions other numbering plan administrators
	have
	for historical reasons, but you have to obey some basic rules and
	conventions.
	
	BTW, how could I dial any international E.164 number in FWD? '0', '00',
	'011'?
	(Always keep in mind you have a global service)
	
	I think one should first set up a consistent numbering and dialing plan
	first and then create numbers.
	
	I am currently writing a draft on Numbering on VoIP and will send you a
	copy
	as soon as im finished (approx. one week). I also hope we may have a
	talk on
	this at the VON in Boston.
	
	best regards
	Richard