RE: [ITU+IETF] RE: [Enum] Re: Structure of DNS entry for ENUM

	Perhaps because some people want to use enum for resolving telephone
numbers
	other than e.164 globally-unique numbers, such as:
		800 numbers (really names)
		700 numbers (really names)
		private numbering plans

800 and 700 numbers are E.164 numbers. Fully qualified, they would be +1 800
xxx xxxx or +1 700 xxx xxxx. Other countries have similar free phone
services with their own set of E.164 numbers.

Steve Lind
---------------------------------------------------------------
Steven D. Lind                   Tel: (973) 236-6787
AT&T                             Fax: (973) 236-6452  
180 Park Ave., Bldg. 2            e-mail: sdlind@att.com
Florham Park, NJ 07932                 
---------------------------------------------------------------

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	David Oran [SMTP:oran@cisco.com]
> Sent:	Monday, February 07, 2000 2:28 PM
> To:	Keith Moore; Randy Bush
> Cc:	Bill Manning; Richard Shockey; enum@ietf.org; itu+ietf@ietf.org
> Subject:	RE: [ITU+IETF] RE: [Enum] Re: Structure of DNS entry for
> ENUM 
> 
> Perhaps because some people want to use enum for resolving telephone
> numbers
> other than e.164 globally-unique numbers, such as:
> 	800 numbers (really names)
> 	700 numbers (really names)
> 	private numbering plans
> 
> I agree that if something is really truly a globally unique E.164 number
> there should be ony and only one root for resolving them. Unfortunately,
> you
> can't look at a string of digits and know that, unlike an IP address.
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: itu+ietf-admin@ietf.org [mailto:itu+ietf-admin@ietf.org]On Behalf
> > Of Keith Moore
> > Sent: Monday, February 07, 2000 12:43 PM
> > To: Randy Bush
> > Cc: Bill Manning; Richard Shockey; enum@ietf.org; itu+ietf@ietf.org
> > Subject: Re: [ITU+IETF] RE: [Enum] Re: Structure of DNS entry for ENUM
> >
> >
> > > > I find this hard to fathom.
> > >
> > > i am not surprised
> >
> > well, it would seem odd for IETF to insist on consistency of
> > meaning for IP numbers (modulo private address space) but not
> > care about consistency of meaning for E.164 numbers.
> >
> > seems like users' interests are best served by having a consistent
> > meaning, everywhere, for both kinds of address.
> >
> > Keith
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > ITU+IETF mailing list
> > ITU+IETF@ietf.org
> > http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/itu+ietf
> >
> >
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> enum mailing list
> enum@ietf.org
> http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum

_______________________________________________
ITU+IETF mailing list
ITU+IETF@ietf.org
http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/itu+ietf