RE: [Enum] SchemaSet strawman Proposal

Richard Shockey <rich.shockey@NeuStar.com> Wed, 29 May 2002 20:47 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 ESMTP id QAA02755 for <enum-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Wed, 29 May 2002 16:47:42 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id QAA16748 for enum-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 29 May 2002 16:48:07 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id QAA16191; Wed, 29 May 2002 16:38:34 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id QAA16162 for <enum@optimus.ietf.org>; Wed, 29 May 2002 16:38:32 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from oak.neustar.com (oak.neustar.com [209.173.53.70]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA02475 for <enum@ietf.org>; Wed, 29 May 2002 16:38:08 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from dick.neustar.com (stih650b-s1p2.va.neustar.com [209.173.53.65]) by oak.neustar.com (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id g4TKbic06850; Wed, 29 May 2002 16:37:49 -0400
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20020529161254.028b1d60@popd.ix.netcom.com>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1
Date: Wed, 29 May 2002 16:40:20 -0400
To: Lawrence Conroy <lwc@roke.co.uk>
From: Richard Shockey <rich.shockey@NeuStar.com>
Subject: RE: [Enum] SchemaSet strawman Proposal
Cc: enum@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <p05100300b91acb2b55ce@[193.118.192.41]>
References: <5.1.0.14.2.20020529121102.027a6dd0@popd.ix.netcom.com> <5.1.0.14.2.20020529121102.027a6dd0@popd.ix.netcom.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
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

At 08:26 PM 5/29/2002 +0100, Lawrence Conroy wrote:
>At 12:49 pm -0400 29/5/02, Richard Shockey wrote:
>>In response to Richard Stastny's message:
>>>So a basic group of enumservices for tel could be:
>>>tel, telvoice, telfax, telsms, telmms, telems, telrn, telcic, teldn, ...
>>
>>You could certainly bunch these into a single RFC  ....
>
>Ok, I can acquiesce in that.
>We have now moved completely away from the "high level services" of the
>strawman and towards a whole bunch of similar definitions with a common
>protocol hint but with different 'telecom service' endings.

I simply see this as what do you want to put in a enumservice label.  Any 
reasonable alpha-numeric string will do so long as it is documented ... as 
you say this whole discussion has been about semantics .


>Hey, if we can put these into a single RFC, then I guess the extra
>cut-and-paste is tedious but not too hard.


The key is the way the RFC is written and the need to conform to the 
requirements and tests that 2916bis will insist on.



>>>So for a simple ENUM trial, we may start with:
>>>telvoice, telfax, telsms, sipvoice, h323voice, http, https, mailto
>>
>>this is a useful list
>>
>>Broken Record Speaking :  sip only please. I do'nt see the distinction 
>>between sipvoice, sipvideo, simim, sipgame etc ..all I need to know is sip...
>
>Hot Needle Responding: sipvoice for my WCOM account; sipim for my .NET IM 
>account.
>Or, if preferred, rhovoice or rhoim, to avoid confusion with the URI-scheme.


well we'll just have to wait for Yokohama and the Sumo fest we're going to 
have over this one. :-)





 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Richard Shockey, Senior Manager, Strategic Technology Initiatives
NeuStar Inc.
45980 Center Oak Plaza   Bldg 8     Sterling, VA  20166
1120 Vermont Ave NW Suite 400 Washington DC 20005
Voice +1 571.434.5651 Cell : +1 314.503.0640,  Fax: +1 815.333.1237
<mailto: rshockey@ix.netcom.com> or
<mailto: rich.shockey@neustar.biz>
<http://www.neustar.biz>
<http://www.enum.org>
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<


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