You are here: Home > Participate > Join a Discussion > Mailman Archives
<<< Chronological >>> Author Index    Subject Index <<< Threads >>>

RE: Comments on ENUM Minimum Requirements

  • To: "'Stastny Richard'" < >
    Vincent Humphries < >
  • From: "Rosbotham, Paul" < >
  • Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 08:18:24 +0100
  • Cc: "SPAN11_nar : ETSI SPAN11_nar list" < >

Hi both... just a comment on one aspect...

Paul Rosbotham
Manager, Interconnect Strategy & Technology Regulation
Cable & Wireless plc

Tel :	+44 1344 713246 (Bracknell) / +44 161 266 8607 (Manchester)
Fax :	+44 1344 713015
Mob :	+44 7957 805573

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Stastny Richard [SMTP:Richard.Stastny@localhost]
> Sent:	24 October 2002 17:05
> To:	Vincent Humphries
> Cc:	SPAN11_nar : ETSI SPAN11_nar list; enum-trials@localhost
> Subject:	RE: Comments on ENUM Minimum Requirements
> Hi Vince,
> Comments inline:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Vincent Humphries [
] > > Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2002 5:09 PM > > To: Stastny Richard > > Cc: 'SPAN11_nar : ETSI SPAN11_nar list' > > Subject: RE: Comments on ENUM Minimum Requirements > > > Snip > > > Vince: I am not sure why a web-based interface should be a > > _minimum_ requirement for interworking between ENUM trials. > > If, for simplicity, a particular national trial considers it > > sufficient to rely on faxes or some other acceptable method, > > how would this affect interworking with other trials? > > You are right, in the strict sense of the title of the document, > A web-based interface is not a requirement for interoperability. > But on the other hand, we should keep a certain standard ;-) > IMHO a fax is not an acceptable method now-a-days (not even for > registration, > but definitely not for NAPTR modification). > > > [Rosbotham, Paul] Firstly, in the UK model, there are multiple (non-exclusive) options for who the ENUM Subscriber interacts with, and it could be that the ENUM Subscribers deal ONLY with the ENUM Registrar, with the ENUM Registrar managing the relationship with the DNS Provider (indeed I believe in a "production" system this could be the norm). Hence, it's open to debate whether for all scenarios ANY direct interface between the Subscriber and DNS Provider should be mandated. Richard, I agree with you that any half decent customer-oriented supplier will provide a web interface. However, it is not for us to impose what are really commercial decisions, and if in the future production system an ENUM DNS Provider wants to operate a cheap and cheerful customer interface using fax, and his customers are happy with that (though I doubt they would be), that's their concern. We should impose requirements on interfaces that impact other organisations, eg involving the Tier 1, but those which are fully competitive are a matter for commercial decision, not standardisation. Now, if we take the line that the nature of customer interface shouldn't be mandated in a production system, I see no need to do so in a trial either... ********************************************************************** This message may contain information which is confidential or privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please advise the sender immediately by reply e-mail and delete this message and any attachments without retaining a copy. **********************************************************************

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