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

hi!

first of all - the mail richard and carsten are refering to wasn't sent 
to the ml? i didn't receive it and didn't find it in the archives...

> If you look up this domain, you do not find any NAPTR, (only TXT records)  so how
> can I call you?

well i found naptr records in that domain and they're pointing towards 
an h.323 gw. e.g.:

1.9.0.0.3.7.1.3.0.7.9.4.e164.arpa       order = 100, preference = 100
         flags = "u"
         services = "E2U+h323:voice"
         rule = "!^\+49703173009(.*)$!h323:\1 at gw-amt.innovaphone.com!"
         replacement = (root)

just a thought on some other issues in this thread: voip expanded is 
voice over ip. so e.g. opening an rtp stream is voip, just like 'cat 
/dev/audio | ssh remote.host -c "cat - > /dev/audio"' would be voip. to 
refer to sip i recommend using the word 'sip', or for sip in conjunction 
with enum i recommend using 'sip with enum' or something like that.
and while we're at it: this naptr-stuff is a technical concept. maybe 
the following is true for me only because i'm one of the technical 
people, but i need names for technical concepts, and i need them to be 
kept strictly separate from political stuff. so when i say 'enum' i will 
most probably be refering to the technical concept, what i mean will be 
the dns-naptr concept for tElephone NUmber Mapping. also, when i hear 
'enum' i don't take for granted that this means e164.arpa is used, 
because in practice that would simply be foolish. whether e164.arpa or 
this.domain.is.better is used also is not relevant for this, just like 
it's a different question whether a naptr points to sip or h.323 or 
maybe tincans. other people might see this differently ofc, but just as 
i don't ignore them as i know that the rfc is suboptimal in this point, 
i think to be taken serious enum used with other domains than e164.arpa 
can't be ignored either. and insisting in people saying 'enum-like' or 
'enum with a different domain than e164.arpa' simply doesn't work, i 
guess even changing the rfc would be more feasible...
and BTW: yes, i think not using e164.arpa for enum is generally a not 
too bright idea... and yes, i do support sip (with assistance of enum) 
as voip protocol.

kind regards,

	Chris Heinze