Francois Audet wrote:
> I think we might be talking about two different aspects.
>
> For "phone numbers", I agree with you that parity is ok.
>
> For "email-looking addresses", I believe the bar is higher (and we
> have it already with 4474).
OK. THen we aren't far apart. I agree we want and have something better
for email-style addresses where the domain is significant. It is the
"phone number" addresses I am concerned with here. I think we must have
parity, and ideally better when the PSTN isn't involved.
Paul
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Paul Kyzivat [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 11:58
>> To: Audet, Francois (SC100:3055)
>> Cc: Jonathan Rosenberg; IETF SIP List
>> Subject: Re: [Sip] New I-D on RFC4474 and phone numbers
>>
>>
>>
>> Francois Audet wrote:
>>> I'm not sure I agree with that.
>>>
>>> I think we want something that is better than the PSTN. I
>> just don't
>>> think it's the right question to ask.
>> I certainly *want* something better than PSTN. But perhaps we don't
>> *need* that. I think we do *need* something "as good as" the PSTN.
>>
>> But perhaps the first order of business is to come to
>> agreement on what we need.
>
_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
Use [EMAIL PROTECTED] for questions on current sip
Use [EMAIL PROTECTED] for new developments on the application of sip
