Re: [Enum] IETF, ENUM and NGN

[Jim Reid <jim at rfc1035.com>]

>>>>> "Richard" == Stastny Richard <Richard.Stastny at oefeg.at> writes:

    Richard> If the PSTN is moving to IP and therefore seeking for a
    Richard> routing mechanism for E.164 numbers on IP, this may be
    Richard> the DNS, but maybe be not (as Rich said). If the decide
    Richard> to use ENUM-technolgy, ok, but this will be very complex
    Richard> (as everything on the PSTN is), it will be not optional
    Richard> (it cannot be), and it will therefore be orthogonal and
    Richard> independent from (User) ENUM.

    Richard> This also implies that this CANNOT happen in the same
    Richard> tree, because ownership, administration and delegation
    Richard> path are completely different.

AFAICT nobody is suggesting Infrastructure and User ENUM would use the
same tree. The constraints and data models for these things are
completely different. However some people seem to think that if these
two flavours of ENUM use the same domain name, this means they both
have to use the same tree with one model for ownership, administration
and delegation. That doesn't necessarily follow. What some operator
does with its private, internal-use-only version of e164.arpa and how
they populate and manage that is nobody else's concern, apart from the
usual regulatory issues like universal service obligations, fair
competition and so on.

What matters is the operators agree on a domain name for
Infrastructure ENUM. This might as well be e164.arpa since (a) it's
vendor neutral; (b) already an agreed IETF standard; (c) not
controlled by any nation. It's hard to see how any other choice of
domain name could be better (technically or politically). And it
prevents VoIP/SIP applications from getting schizophrenia from
figuring out which domain name they should use based on what network
they're running in today.

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