[enum-wg] Follow up on Jim Reid's presentation - CRUE and relation to IETF work
Jim Reid jim at rfc1035.com
Sun Apr 30 18:56:34 CEST 2006
On Apr 28, 2006, at 09:51, Stastny Richard wrote: >> 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. > > For terminolgy: Carrier ENUM needs not to be standardized, > it is Infrastructure ENUM. For some definition of these terms. Maybe. :-) No matter what is meant by Carrier ENUM or Infrastructure ENUM, these two things presumably must agree on a name space. Though not necessarily with each other. That choice of name space or zone apex surely must entail standardisation somewhere. Or have I missed something? > JWhat Michael wanted to say is that the temporary solution defined > in the Dallas treaty can be nationally implemented soon (as you > will see) > and could be ready for publication request this fall, so it could > be used > also internationally in a standadized way. If you're referring to draft-haberler-carrier-enum-02.txt, I think you are being far, far too optimistic. This draft is badly flawed in too many ways to elaborate here. A discussion on that belongs in another thread and I'll be happy to initiate this debate. > Another question for clarification about CRUE: > > You mention that for each number a tel and an sip URI is entered. > this requires each operator to provide a ingress element to their > network > > How can this be done? I imagine the hostname lurking in the sip: URI would do that. No?
[ enum-wg Archives ]