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

"Stastny Richard" <Richard.Stastny@oefeg.at> Tue, 28 November 2006 09:28 UTC

Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GozGM-0000lG-Jr; Tue, 28 Nov 2006 04:28:26 -0500
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GozGL-0000hZ-C3 for enum@ietf.org; Tue, 28 Nov 2006 04:28:25 -0500
Received: from mail.oefeg.at ([62.47.121.5]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GozGJ-0002i5-UL for enum@ietf.org; Tue, 28 Nov 2006 04:28:25 -0500
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: RE: [Enum] Comments on draft-ietf-enum-infrastructure-enum-reqs
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5.7226.0
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2006 10:27:32 +0100
Message-ID: <32755D354E6B65498C3BD9FD496C7D463C52BA@oefeg-s04.oefeg.loc>
In-Reply-To: <200611272004.kARK4ckR009032@dragon.ariadne.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [Enum] Comments on draft-ietf-enum-infrastructure-enum-reqs
Thread-Index: AccSX2vRh1I4KRbuRyKSThJ8BHX0mQAbxvbg
From: Stastny Richard <Richard.Stastny@oefeg.at>
To: Dale.Worley@comcast.net, enum@ietf.org
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 538aad3a3c4f01d8b6a6477ca4248793
Cc:
X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Enum Discussion List <enum.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum>, <mailto:enum-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:enum@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:enum-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum>, <mailto:enum-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: enum-bounces@ietf.org

> If the carriers who are going to be the ones using I-ENUM need to have
> source-specific routing, we need to make sure that the I-ENUM system
> permits source-specific routing, in some method or another.  Given its
> apparent importance, the requirements should at least mention the
> subject and require that we not generate a standard which cannot
> support source-specific routing.

There is one minor problem here: I-ENUM is based on the DNS and the
DNS (at least the public DNS) has no method for source specific replies.

So either we do not use the DNS for E.164 to URI mapping, or we change
how the DNS works. Both options are not within the scope of ENUM WG

Richard

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dale.Worley@comcast.net [mailto:Dale.Worley@comcast.net]
> Sent: Monday, November 27, 2006 9:05 PM
> To: enum@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Enum] Comments on
draft-ietf-enum-infrastructure-enum-reqs
> 
>    From: Otmar Lendl <lendl@nic.at>
> 
>    I agree with Richard here: I-ENUM should return an AoR which act
>    as a "name" and does not contain source specific routing
information.
> 
>    It may well be that further processing is done on this AoR that
leads
>    to different ingress points depending on the source network.
> 
>    That, though, is out of scope for I-ENUM and thus need not be
>    mentioned in this document.
> 
> If the carriers who are going to be the ones using I-ENUM need to have
> source-specific routing, we need to make sure that the I-ENUM system
> permits source-specific routing, in some method or another.  Given its
> apparent importance, the requirements should at least mention the
> subject and require that we not generate a standard which cannot
> support source-specific routing.
> 
> Although I agree that it would probably be best not to have
> source-specificity in the mapping to the SIP AoR, but rather
> downstream in processing from there.
> 
> 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