RE: [Enum] Subject: I-DACTION:draft-ranalli-peek-walter-enum-t1ro les-00.txt

"Ash, Gerald R (Jerry), ALCOO" <gash@att.com> Tue, 28 November 2000 19:35 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 OAA18274 for <enum-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Tue, 28 Nov 2000 14:35:19 -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 OAA29057; Tue, 28 Nov 2000 14:34:42 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA29028 for <enum@ns.ietf.org>; Tue, 28 Nov 2000 14:34:40 -0500 (EST)
Received: from kcmso1.proxy.att.com (kcmso1.att.com [192.128.133.69]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id OAA18050 for <enum@ietf.org>; Tue, 28 Nov 2000 14:34:34 -0500 (EST)
Received: from njb140r1.ems.att.com ([135.65.202.58]) by kcmso1.proxy.att.com (AT&T IPNS/MSO-3.0) with ESMTP id eASJY3G01959; Tue, 28 Nov 2000 14:34:03 -0500 (EST)
Received: from njb140bh2.ems.att.com by njb140r1.ems.att.com (8.8.8+Sun/ATTEMS-1.4.1 sol2) id OAA10687; Tue, 28 Nov 2000 14:33:02 -0500 (EST)
Received: by njb140bh2.ems.att.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2652.35) id <W7030X76>; Tue, 28 Nov 2000 14:34:02 -0500
Message-ID: <1B08859602C8D211B66F0000C0769CFA03A95151@njc240po03.mt.att.com>
From: "Ash, Gerald R (Jerry), ALCOO" <gash@att.com>
To: 'Richard Shockey' <rshockey@ix.netcom.com>
Cc: "Ash, Gerald R (Jerry), ALCOO" <gash@att.com>, enum@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [Enum] Subject: I-DACTION:draft-ranalli-peek-walter-enum-t1ro les-00.txt
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 14:33:51 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2652.35)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
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 9:44 PM 11/27/2000, Richard Shockey wrote:

> If there is a problem it is one of semantics and understanding the new 
> service logic of Internet Telephony.
>
> Assume the case of 1 800 DOG-BONES that wishes to provision ENUM services 
> to accept calls using SIP.
> 
> That number has been delegated to that "subscriber" under the normal terms

> and conditions of 800 service ..so the "controlling party" is known to the

> 800 SMS and can be verified.  The key to ENUM authority is that this 
> verification can be successfully accomplished and that proper
authorization 
> can be delegated from the T1 to the T2 entity that actually holds the 
> Resource Records that provision real service.
>
> Once this is accomplished we can assume that 1 800 DOG-BONES resolves to a

> SIP URL either under the direct control of the "controlling party", to use

> your terms, or to a T2 ENUM service provider that maintains these records 
> under contract for this service under various SLA's etc.
>
> The SIP proxy that ENUM resolves to will maintain the real service logic
of 
> call routing necessary to complete the call based on the numbers 
> "controlling party" requirements.[ time of day etc]  And the syntax of
that 
> service logic is defined by the IPTEL WG as Call Progress Language.
>
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-iptel-cpl-04.txt
>
> The CPL is the real provisioning tool for Call Progress and routing as you

> outline. And the promise of this whole exercise in standards development
is 
> that  service logic now resides within the complete control of the 1 800 
> number holder ..and not the carrier from whom service was delivered.


Is CPL the only choice for service logic?  Suppose the number holder wants
service logic retained in IN/SCP, as is normal today for 800-time-of-day
routing; how does that work (e.g., with a SIP URL)?

Jerry Ash

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