RE: [Enum] Subject: I-DACTION:draft-ranalli-peek-walter-enum-t1roles-00.txt

> That number has been delegated to that "subscriber" under the normal
terms
> and conditions of 800 service ..so the "controlling party" is known to
the
> 800 SMS and can be verified.

NO.  The "controlling party" is the subscriber.  The subscriber is not
known to the 800 SMS.

Judith Oppenheimer, 212 684-7210, 1 800 The Expert
Publisher, http://www.ICBTollFreeNews.com
President, http://www.1800TheExpert.com
FREE 800/Domain Classifieds, http://ICBclassifieds.com
Domain Name & 800 News, Intelligence, Analysis

> -----Original Message-----
> From: enum-admin@ietf.org [mailto:enum-admin@ietf.org]On
> Behalf Of Ash,
> Gerald R (Jerry), ALCOO
> Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2000 2:34 PM
> To: 'Richard Shockey'
> Cc: Ash, Gerald R (Jerry), ALCOO; enum@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: [Enum] Subject:
> I-DACTION:draft-ranalli-peek-walter-enum-t1roles-00.txt
>
>
> At 9:44 PM 11/27/2000, Richard Shockey wrote:
>
> > If there is a problem it is one of semantics and
> understanding the new
> > service logic of Internet Telephony.
> >
> > Assume the case of 1 800 DOG-BONES that wishes to provision
> ENUM services
> > to accept calls using SIP.
> >
> > That number has been delegated to that "subscriber" under
> the normal terms
>
> > and conditions of 800 service ..so the "controlling party"
> is known to the
>
> > 800 SMS and can be verified.  The key to ENUM authority is
> that this
> > verification can be successfully accomplished and that proper
> authorization
> > can be delegated from the T1 to the T2 entity that actually
> holds the
> > Resource Records that provision real service.
> >
> > Once this is accomplished we can assume that 1 800
> DOG-BONES resolves to a
>
> > SIP URL either under the direct control of the "controlling
> party", to use
>
> > your terms, or to a T2 ENUM service provider that maintains
> these records
> > under contract for this service under various SLA's etc.
> >
> > The SIP proxy that ENUM resolves to will maintain the real
> service logic
> of
> > call routing necessary to complete the call based on the numbers
> > "controlling party" requirements.[ time of day etc]  And
> the syntax of
> that
> > service logic is defined by the IPTEL WG as Call Progress Language.
> >
> > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-iptel-cpl-04.txt
> >
> > The CPL is the real provisioning tool for Call Progress and
> routing as you
>
> > outline. And the promise of this whole exercise in
> standards development
> is
> > that  service logic now resides within the complete control
> of the 1 800
> > number holder ..and not the carrier from whom service was delivered.
>
>
> Is CPL the only choice for service logic?  Suppose the number
> holder wants
> service logic retained in IN/SCP, as is normal today for
> 800-time-of-day
> routing; how does that work (e.g., with a SIP URL)?
>
> Jerry Ash
>
> _______________________________________________
> enum mailing list
> enum@ietf.org
> http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum

_______________________________________________
enum mailing list
enum@ietf.org
http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum