<<< Chronological >>> Author Index    Subject Index <<< Threads >>>

RE: ETSI on Minimum Requirements for European ENUM Trials

  • To: "Stastny Richard" < >
    "Richard Shockey" < >
    < >
  • From: Richard Shockey < >
  • Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 13:14:51 -0400
  • Cc:

A
> > 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)
And I spoke to Orit Levin of Radvision myself at VON and pleaded with her to get a H.323 enumservices draft ready by IETF Atlanta... I think she may be working with Jon Peterson to make sure their IANA registration templates match.

I can assure you there will be SIP documents ready..


>
> 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.
hummm interesting ... Ok


>
> 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.
Well keep a open mind here ... we may find there are some new services where the replacement field is more useful that the regexp... this is one of the things I personally want to query Mike Mealling on at some point ..how does he see the replacement field being used and under what contexts...I'm not so sure since as we all know reading the DDDS documents are "challenging" at best.

The last thing I keep thinking about for trial objectives is the cacheing issues ... any general thoughts on that subject?

Should ENUM enabled proxy's and gatekeepers keep the e164.arpa zone file cached locally?

TTL's?

What DNS optimization strategies should local proxies and gatekeepers pursue if those proxies and gatekeepers maintain the T2 records.?

Should local proxies and gatekeepers even think of maintaining those T2 records?



Regards
Richard

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Richard Shockey, Senior Manager, Strategic Technology Initiatives
NeuStar Inc.
46000 Center Oak Plaza  -   Sterling, VA  20166
Voice +1 571.434.5651 Cell : +1 314.503.0640,  Fax: +1 815.333.1237
<
> or <
> <http://www.neustar.biz> ; <http://www.enum.org> <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

  • Post To The List:
<<< Chronological >>> Author    Subject <<< Threads >>>