AW: AW: AW: [enum-wg] Kapsch CarrierCom first company to be reached with ENUM (questionable)

Hi Christoph, folks,
  Re. two points -
I have a certain nostalgia for the old days when folk thought that H.323
was the answer to a maiden's prayer and people still voted Tory in the 
UK.
I still have an old Pentium 166 in our lab that must be about the same 
era,
so I DO understand the concept of using whatever old kit is hanging 
around.


Re. 3761/3762 forbidding anything - yup.
Strictly, it's RFC3762 that forbids this, as that slim document is what
registers the h323 Enumservice. 3762 does not mention any sub-sub-type,
so the :voice bit is invalid. Talk to Orit if you think it should be 
changed.

AFAIK, Asterisk is one of the two widest used ENUM-enabled systems, the 
other being SER.
Hence whilst the * enum.c does meet RFCs 3761, 3762, 3764 (and also 
supports
the ETSI 102172 spec), as well as the earlier RFC2915 and RFC2916, 
(i.e. it's
pretty flexible), it breaks with the syntax chosen by your ?hoster?.

So it goes.

all the best,
   Lawrence

On 8 Oct 2004, at 13:25, Christoph Künkel wrote:

> Lawrence,
>
> You still manage to ignore my 2 points ;-)
>
> Nevertheless, regarding the service spec.  This is done by our trial 
> enum NAPTR hoster. See 
> http://www.enum-trial.de/newsletter/newsletter02.htm (at the end) for 
> details [ sorry, I am not aware of an English translation ].
>
> Do you think either RFC 3761 or 3762 forbids this?
> or is enum.c the normative reference?
>
> :-) Christoph
>
>
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: Conroy, Lawrence (SMTP) [mailto:lwc at roke.co.uk]
> [ ... ]
>
> I haven't seen before:  E2U+h323:voice
>
>
> Looking at the code, I suspect that this will successfully break
>
> Asterisk's
>
> enum.c processing.
>