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

Larry Masinter (
Sat, 27 Jun 1998 15:21:06 PDT

From: "Larry Masinter" <>
To: "Al Gilman" <>,
Cc: <>, <uri@Bunyip.Com>
Date: Sat, 27 Jun 1998 15:21:06 PDT
Message-ID: <005601bda219$e0e79f40$>
In-Reply-To: <>
Subject: RE: telephone URLs, comments on draft-antti-telephony-url-04

> Even if we do view url schemes as linked to different methods of
> connecting with a remote resource, the point in fact as regards
> voice vs. FAX is that the methods used are identical. 

For some telephone systems, they're not. My cell phone and IDSN
phones use different dialing methods to invoke fax & data calls
than they do to invoke a voice call.

>  The phone
> nuber is a parameter for the phase of the process which starts
> with obtaining a dial tone locally and ends when you have a ring
> indication returned from the remote connection.

This seems to only be true for analog telephone calls.

> The difference between voice and FAX is more like the difference
> between an http: URL for a CGI script vs. an http: URL for a
> text/plain document.

Apparently not, at least for some telephone systems and computer-invoked
dialing equipment.

> There is a difference in what you do after
> you access the resource, but not in how you access it.  This
> should be made clear in link metadata of some sort, but I at
> least am fully convinced by your first argument that these should
> be known to the URI architecture as one scheme.

I believe that the arguments for using an 'ipp' URL even when layered
on top of 'http' apply to 'fax', even if it were layered identically
on top of 'phone': the fax service is a layered service, typically
layered on top of telephone lines. We might want to see if we could
make the fax URL distinguish between fax via telephone and fax via
Internet fax, with the possibility of the former being automatically
proxied to the latter and the latter having a fallback to the former.