Re: telephone URLs, comments on draft-antti-telephony-url-04

Patrik =?iso-8859-1?Q?F=E4ltstr=F6m?= (
Wed, 8 Jul 1998 08:45:17 +0200

Message-Id: <v04011709b1c8c569bf1c@[]>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Wed, 8 Jul 1998 08:45:17 +0200
To: "Roy T. Fielding" <>
From: Patrik =?iso-8859-1?Q?F=E4ltstr=F6m?=  <>
Cc: Larry Masinter <>, uri@Bunyip.Com
Subject: Re: telephone URLs, comments on draft-antti-telephony-url-04

At 18.42 -0700 98-07-07, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
>For example, all of the phone numbers in California are hierarchical.
>That is an awful lot of phones.  Two years ago my office prefix (the three
>numbers after area code) changed.  This year, my office area code changed.
>In neither case was the individual phone number assigned to my office
>"reassigned" by any central authority -- they just changed the switch.

This is a case which might happen where the E.164 allocation is done
historically like it is in the US, i.e. where you have "spare" areacodes
(the ones which do not have 0 or 1 as the second digit). In other parts of
the world, new areacodes have to be created by changing the length of the
number, which in turn means introduction of new digits (changes) in the
phone number.

I.e. the allocation scheme you have in US (country-code 1) is very
specific, and might be a bad example, even though it is a large number of
the phones in the world.

I do though agree with the fact that most people I know that do phone
number planning _want_ changes in area codes to be like the way you
describe. It is not at all the case that can happen though -- unfortunately.