|
|
 |
Re: [enum-wg] COCOM & ENUM ...
- Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2004 09:41:28 +0000
Hi Jim, Richard, Andrzej, Carsten, Folks,
Andrzej does have a production system up and running, which is a
heck of a lot faster than some countries.
It's a shame if an end user (you know, the person who pays for all these
high quality services) can't choose their own ENUM entries. However,
that's
no change from the current situation, so maybe this is no big deal.
Poland has also avoided the hoops over Authentication that have
hypnotised
other Countries. I am a little concerned that any TSP can register any
number,
but that's something for them to argue about amongst themselves.
The only way we could have a more efficient system is to de-couple
telephone
number service provision from eligibility for registration entirely -
say, if
some named person or organisation had the delegation for a CC, and then
chose
their own policy on who got what.
At least we would be saved from the endless discussions on industry
self-regulation
and policy advisory groups (plus their membership, whether or not they
are
representative, and the powers of the groups).
At present, I can't officially register "my" ENUM in a production
system.
If someone else registers it (or a TSP registers it) I can't either.
What's the
difference (apart from years of fruitful discussion on the
interpretation of the
framework directives and whether they apply to a DNS system or IP
addresses)?
all the best,
Lawrence
On 12 Dec 2004, at 09:03, Jim Reid wrote:
"Richard" == Stastny Richard <Richard.Stastny@localhost writes:
Richard> There is only one "minor" problem with the implementation
Richard> in Poland: It is Carrier E**M in e164.arpa
And the problem is......? IMO the only potential problem with this is
that private data could be made public through the DNS.
|
|
|
|
