RE: ETSI on Minimum Requirements for European ENUM Trials
- Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 11:13:43 +0200
Hi Rich,
Rich wrote:
> BTW nice piece of work ..an excellent start.... I have some
> notes and nits
> from my perspective sitting on the other side of the pond.
Nice to see you on this list, your comments are very welcome ;-)
> > SIP ..H.323 I found it interesting there was no detail about these
> services in the document :-)
We are working on this, there is something going on also regarding h323
(last week in SG16 by the Radvision guys)
>
> 10.1 Why is there a discussion of the use of TXT records ..in what
> context? I'm curious ..
We are currently using the TXT record parallel to the NAPTRs for
information.
Our clients are also querying for TXT and displaying eventual TXT
records.
The user may also enter a TXT (look at my numbers). I think we should
replace
this later with an ENUM service and ev. a http: URI. This was the
easiest way
to find out what the users thing about it and if the will use it.
>
> 12. Why are you specifying that the NAPTR replacement field
> must always be
> empty? I know this is TBD but is there a reason for that.
We where discussing this on the ENUM list already and since we
saw currently no use anyway, to simplify the clients we decided,
that the clients may igrnore the field.
Regards
Richard
