RE: [Enum] Comments on draft-ietf-enum-infrastructure-enum-reqs

I would not go down this path in ENUM

We had this discussion also in Speermint
and it seems to be very complex

Leave it there

ENUM is delivering an AoR, period

Richard


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dale.Worley@comcast.net [mailto:Dale.Worley@comcast.net]
> Sent: Thursday, November 23, 2006 5:06 PM
> To: enum@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Enum] Comments on
draft-ietf-enum-infrastructure-enum-reqs
> 
>    From: "Pfautz, Penn L, GBLAM" <ppfautz@att.com>
> 
>    The requirement you propose is actually much different and, while
the
>    initial (e.g., Tier 1)
>    response may not be origin-sensitive, further processing is likely
to
> be
>    since
>    A carrier may have different POIs for different interconnection
>    partners.
> 
> Hmmm...  If that's so, you might want to add some explication of that
> in the requirements.  The current definition suggests to the naive
> that the mapping from E.164 number to URI is offered to all comers .
> 
> Indeed, from a technological point of view, it's a fairly complex
> feature to allow different mappings to be delivered to requests made
> on behalf of different originating parties.
> 
> Dale
> 
> _______________________________________________
> enum mailing list
> enum@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum


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