[VoIP] Standards Committee Recommendation

[Dennis D Hock]

Chad,

The last I recall seeing was that the volunteers would be contacted but
didn't see or maybe I blew out accidentally from my in box.  We have been
having problems here at work with the email system.  Then I saw this and
was able to open it and respond to it.

Dennis Hock

-----voip-bounces at ckts.info wrote: -----


To: Voice Over IP Tandem for Analog Switches <voip at ckts.info>
From: "Chad Perkins" <chad at maine.edu>
Sent by: voip-bounces at ckts.info
Date: 11/14/2007 08:19AM
Subject: Re: [VoIP] Standards Committee Recommendation

I don't know if others are having similar problems with the list or
what, but this is the first e-mail I have rec'd on this topic; more
specifically I have not rec'd the e-mail below.

Chad


On 12 Nov 2007 at 21:37, Greg Blakely wrote:

> The silence is deafening.
>
> Since nobody has an opinion other than standards committee members, I
> declare that the new North American numbering scheme is now officially
> one of our standards.
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Greg Blakely
> > Sent: Sunday, November 11, 2007 6:06 PM
> > To: 'Voice Over IP Tandem for Analog Switches'
> > Subject: Standards Committee Recommendation
> > Importance: High
> >
> > The Standards Committee has come up with a document that
> > proposes some changes as to how North American office codes
> > are allocated.
> >
> > There was not unanimous agreement on all points, but a
> > general consensus was obtained.
> >
> > You can (and should) view the entire document at either
> > http://www.ckts.info/standards/CNET-Number-Assignments.pdfor
> > at
> > http://www.shaneyoung.com/cnet/standards/CNET-Standards-Assign
> > ments.pdf.
> >
> > Basically, it proposes that, for North American participants
> > in the network:
> >
> > + Rather than having an assignment of 1-NNX, a smaller block would
> > + be assigned,
> >   along the lines of 1-NXX-X.
> >
> > + Reserving numbers will be discontinued, with participants able to
> > + activate
> >   their selection online when they are ready to start testing
> >
> > + Office codes will not have a zero or one as the second
> > digit of the three digit code.
> >   This leaves open the possibility of using N0/1X as area
> > codes should we ever decide
> >   to go there.
> >
> > + Switchers who already have dialing plans in place that are not in
> > + compliance with
> >   these plans will be grandfathered in to accommodate someone
> > who has gone to the
> >   time and trouble to get online with the non-compliant
> > configuration.  The end fate
> >   of the non-compliant implementations will be discussed in
> > committee at a later date,
> >   and will probably be changed or allowed on a case-by-case basis.
> >
> >
> > This is just MY summary of the document we approved.  PLEASE
> > go to one of the links listed above, and decide for yourself
> > if it is a standard that is generally sound or not.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Greg
> >
> > CNET: +1-652-6610
> >
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> VoIP mailing list
> VoIP at ckts.info
> http://lists.ckts.info/mailman/listinfo/voip
> Project Web Page: http://www.ckts.info/
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.31/1130 - Release Date:
> 11/14/07 9:27 AM
>


_______________________________________________
VoIP mailing list
VoIP at ckts.info
http://lists.ckts.info/mailman/listinfo/voip
Project Web Page: http://www.ckts.info/