[enum-wg] Follow up on Jim Reid's presentation - CRUE and relation to IETF work
Jim Reid jim at rfc1035.com
Fri Apr 28 10:26:30 CEST 2006
On Apr 28, 2006, at 07:58, Michael Haberler wrote: > I'm a bit puzzled though about your slides where you mention > "CRUE" (Carrier Registration in User ENUM) and its potential > international interoperability aspects. > > currently the IETF work on Infrastructure ENUM is progressing > nicely - I expect the long-run solution to be a separate apex (like > ie164.arpa for instance) and http://www.enum.at/ietf/draft-haberler- > carrier-enum-02.html will be the backwards-compatible interim > solution until ITU and friends have their act together. Looks like > all this is done this year. This will provide a easy manageable > home for carrier-related information. Michael, CRUE has no bearing whatsoever on Infrastructure ENUM. This will be apparent when the CRUE document is published on the new UK ENUM web site. [I'll make an announcement about that when it goes on- line.] The object of CRUE is to get lots of meaningful data into the UK ENUM tree so that ENUM-aware applications can be encouraged because there's a better chance of getting a successful ENUM lookup. The scheme is simple. Communications Service Providers register a block of numbers. This gets verified against the regulator's public database of block allocations to CSPs. The registry enters 2 NAPTRs for these numbers: a tel: URI and a sip: URI. The only "control" the CSP has here is the name of the SIP server: ie how non-PSTN calls can be terminated on their network. Now there's a lot of detail about ported numbers, allocation to end users and so forth. But that still doesn't make CRUE a replacement for "Infrastructure ENUM" whatever that happens to mean today. BTW I don't share your optimism that standardisation of Carrier ENUM can be completed this year. But let's not jump down that rat-hole. > I'm a bit concernced about diverging developments - maybe you can > enlighten us where you're heading and how this will interoperate > with the rest of us. CRUE is not a "standard". Or a protocol. It's just a means to get lots of NAPTRs populating the 4.4.e164.arpa name space. So there are no interoperability issues.
[ enum-wg Archives ]