phone types]

[John K. Doyle, Jr.]

Ginny,

I don't think my original post ever made it to the list. To reiterate:

You should probably take a look at the ITU (formerly CCITT) standard for
"directory numbers." The last time I ever looked at it, it was known as
"E.163" but that's evidently been superseded. So visit http:/www.itu.int/
(See, the .int domain DOES exist :)) and search on "E.164" . That will
return a link to an abstract of the 15-page document on the subject.

One thing to worry about that nobody here has mentioned is possible
changes to the U.S. NPA-NXX standard. We shouldn't get into that here.
Battles on the subject rage regularly in Telecom Digest and other places.
They make "RFC1918 Wars" look tame by comparison. However, the possibility
exists that the "10 digit" U.S. standard might change in the not too
distant future.

John

On Thu, 4 Jan 2001, ginny listman wrote:

> Just a repeat of what I said earlier:
> 
> We (ARIN) would like to format US/CA phone number in the format of
> +1-999-999-9999.  In other words, drop all initial 0's and 1's, and then
> there should be 10 digits.  Then format it.  If there is non-digits, they
> are lost.  If there are not exactly 10 digits, it's an error.  I should
> also mention, extensions would be included on a separate line.  This would
> be a free-form line to include up to 10 chars.
> 
> As far as non-US/CA numbers, we haven't gotten that far.  (But we will get
> there.)
> 
> There was some brief discussion as to whether is should be ".", "-" or " "
> to separate the numbers.  Do we need to revisit?
> 
> Ginny