Re: [Enum] New Draft: Trunk Group Use in ENUM

[Bernie Hoeneisen <[e-mail]>]

Hi Rich

Why don't we use the new process as decribed in

   http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-enum-enumservices-guide

for Trunk Group? So, the document does not need to be WG item.
I believe it is not worth doing anything according to the old process at
this point in time.

cheers,
  Bernie


On Wed, 4 Mar 2009, Richard Shockey wrote:

> 
> To the list ..
> 
>  
> 
> FYI this draft essentially supersedes the previous draft that Tom Creighton
> and I co authored earlier.
> 
>  
> 
> As far as I’m personally concerned this is still a legitimate WG item as it
> describes, in another way , work we had already approved. It does have
> significant applicability in the market today.
> 
>  
> 
> I have no issues with this proceeding as a ENUM WG document unless there are
> objections.  We are close to closure but fast tracking this to WGLC could be
> of help to operators looking at this type of function.
> 
>  
> 
> Comments? Any objections to a fast track?
> 
>  
> 
> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of
> Daryl Malas
> Sent: Wednesday, March 04, 2009 6:16 PM
> To: [e-mail]
> Cc: Tom Creighton
> Subject: [Enum] New Draft: Trunk Group Use in ENUM
> 
>  
> 
> All,
> 
> We have submitted a new draft describing another method for incorporating
> trunk group information in an ENUM response.
> 
> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
> directories.
> 
>     Title           : Trunk Group Use in ENUM
>     Author(s)       : D. Malas, T. Creighton
>     Filename        : draft-malas-enum-trunk-sip-00.txt
>     Pages           : 7
>     Date            : 2009-03-04
> 
> This document concludes that incorporating trunk group parameters
> into an Electronic Number (ENUM) response for the Session Initiation
> Protocol (SIP) [RFC3261] service URI is a more effective approach
> compared to defining a new ENUM service type for a 'trunk'.  Upon
> further review of the existing ENUM trunk group draft
> [I-D.ietf-enum-trunkgroup] and practical operator experience, this
> draft recommends the use of the current trunk group contexts as
> defined in [RFC4904] as additional parameters in the E2U+SIP
> enumservice NAPTR record [RFC3403] URI.
> 
> A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-malas-enum-trunk-sip-00.txt
> 
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Daryl
> 
> -----------------
> Daryl Malas
> CableLabs
> (o) [phone]
> (f) [phone]
> mailto:[e-mail]
> 
> 
>