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). > -----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
