Re: [e2md] On the issue of G-SPN's

[Tony Rutkowski <[e-mail]>]

Hi Richard,

Could you amplify on the "by ITU liaision" parenthetical?

Considering the G-SPN notion is being driven by a
NeuStar input into ITU-T, that creates a substantial
NeuStar new revenue opportunity/impact on providers,
chaired by a NeuStar staff member in ITU-T, and
sprinkled with NeuStar people in IETF, some care
seems appropriate about the assertions and process.

I'll offer to help as well.

cheers,
tony



On 5/24/2010 4:47 PM, Richard Shockey wrote:
>
> Though the use case for a G-SPN has been identified by this list and 
> is on the TWKI, I want to make it abundantly clear that I do not 
> believe that ENUM or a E2MD WG should actually define what is the 
> appropriate namespace for G-SPN’s.
>
> It is a requirement for DRINKS ( by ITU liaison) and touches on 
> SPEERMINT ( which IMHO should shut down ). Consequently the logical 
> thing to do is a individual submission.
>
> I’ve offered to try and rough cut a Use Case and Requirements 
> document, which I will do in the not to distant future in 
> collaboration with several others who have offered to help.
>