[Enum] RFC1530 (TPC.INT)
Stephane Alnet <salnet@cisco.com> Thu, 22 February 2001 23:46 UTC
Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id SAA00627 for <enum-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 18:46:07 -0500 (EST)
Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id SAA27995; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 18:44:59 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id SAA27970 for <enum@ns.ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 18:44:56 -0500 (EST)
Received: from sj-msg-core-2.cisco.com (sj-msg-core-2.cisco.com [171.69.43.88]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id SAA00609 for <enum@ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 18:44:54 -0500 (EST)
Received: from sj-msg-av-3.cisco.com (sj-msg-av-3.cisco.com [171.69.2.19]) by sj-msg-core-2.cisco.com (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id PAA00285 for <enum@ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 15:44:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from salnet-w2k.cisco.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sj-msg-av-3.cisco.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id f1MNiOt05674 for <enum@ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 15:44:24 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20010222183630.00b67ad0@bucket.cisco.com>
X-Sender: salnet@bucket.cisco.com
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 18:44:10 -0500
To: enum@ietf.org
From: Stephane Alnet <salnet@cisco.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Subject: [Enum] RFC1530 (TPC.INT)
Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 1.0
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: Enum Discussion List <enum.ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org
Hi, The recent discussion on Designated vs Competitive models reminded me that there's already a E.164-like hierarchy around there, tpc.int [RFC1530]: "The primary purpose of the tpc.int subdomain is to provide transparent mapping between the Internet and telephony environments". It doesn't provide provisions for ENUM itself but that doesn't seem to be a problem. Has there already been any discussions on re-using that hierarchy (which already has its own policies)? S. _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum
- [Enum] RFC1530 (TPC.INT) Stephane Alnet
- Re: [Enum] RFC1530 (TPC.INT) Richard Shockey
- Re: [Enum] RFC1530 (TPC.INT) A.M.Rutkowski
- Re: [Enum] RFC1530 (TPC.INT) Richard Shockey
- Re: [Enum] RFC1530 (TPC.INT) David R. Conrad
- RE: [Enum] RFC1530 (TPC.INT) Shaw, Robert
- Re: [Enum] RFC1530 (TPC.INT) A.M.Rutkowski
- Re: [Enum] RFC1530 (TPC.INT) A.M.Rutkowski
- Re: [Enum] RFC1530 (TPC.INT) Marshall T. Rose
- Re: [Enum] RFC1530 (TPC.INT) Randy Bush
- Re: [Enum] RFC1530 (TPC.INT) A.M. Rutkowski
- Re: [Enum] RFC1530 (TPC.INT) Marshall T. Rose
- RE: [Enum] RFC1530 (TPC.INT) Shaw, Robert
- RE: [Enum] RFC1530 (TPC.INT) A.M. Rutkowski
- Re: [Enum] RFC1530 (TPC.INT) Bill Manning
- RE: [Enum] RFC1530 (TPC.INT) BARNOLE Valerie FTRD/DAC/ISS
- Re: [Enum] RFC1530 (TPC.INT) Patrik Fältström
- Re: [Enum] RFC1530 (TPC.INT) Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine