RE: [ENUM] Comments to <draft-ietf-enum-e164-gstn-np-03.txt>

["Stastny, Richard" <[e-mail]>]

Thank you Monika for this exhausting (eh, exhaustive) explanation.

To your question:
> Nevertheless I have a general question. What is the aim of this
> IETF-Draft???
> As far as I can see it, this draft once again describes NP and MNP.
> But this has already been done within ITU-T Recommendations and
> Supplements, in ANSI standards and in ETSI standards.
> It could happen that this draft does not correctly describe 
> some issues of
> NP and MNP and maybe contradicts to the standards.
> 
> Why don't we say:
> "NP and MNP are defined in the following standards:
> ITU-T Rec. ....
> ANSI standard ....
> ETSI standard ...."
>

Agreed, but:

I like the draft as an overview, as long as the correct references are
there, even with a warning, that the draft is not complete (they are
informational anyway). Contradictions can be removed, as you have shown.
This also holds for the related <draft-foster-e164-gstn-npusa-03.txt>, which
could even be more detailed, but nevertheless was intersting to read (for an
European).

I think, it saves people time to collect and read all the documents and find
out the relevant parts. ITU and ETSI documents are not so easy to read, and
the draft may serve as a guide. Of course, if you are seriously working, you
should read everything necessary, but we all know, how it is reality  ;-)

And I think there is another reason I have discovered recently: Some IETF
people do not like word documents ;-)

> What additional information is missing in those standards 
> which shall be
> reflected in the IETF-Draft?

good question, anybody any ideas?

> Is it really necessary to know all the codings of a RN and 
> the codings of
> the protocol?

If I consider the currently starting discussion to use ENUM potentially for
everything, it may be not a so bad idea. Even to prove eventually, that you
can't use ENUM for everything!

BTW, I would like on the other side ONE document explaining and listing up
all attributes and parameters currently used or proposed by SIP, PINT, tel:
URIs and whatever-other-drafts in one place, just to be on the save side. 
 
> One issue, for instance, is not even mentioned in the draft, 
> that is NP and
> Completion of Calls to Busy Subscriber (CCBS) which requires 
> mechanisms for
> bearer unrelated signalling messages.
> 
> How should we proceed?

Lets make a list of the information considered missing and input it to the
draft, maybe only as references to the correct standards.

best regards
Richard

_______________________________________________
enum mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum