[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