RE: [Enum] IETF, ENUM and NGN

["Stastny Richard" <Richard.Stastny at oefeg.at>]

John Curran [mailto:jcurran at istaff.org] wrote:
> 
> Hmm...  If some operators really and truly intend to run a data tree
> which is not publicly visible, than I see no need for any standard in
> this area.  The operator (or set of operators which share such a data
> tree) can simply configure an appropriate domain of their choice.
[Richard>] 
Good point. On the other hand, if somebody wants to query both trees
one after the other, it would be nice if the same algorithms and SW could
be used.

This was the basic question I had on Infrastructure ENUM:
Is there anything carriers would like to have in RFC3761 we do 
not now, speak up. If not, fine.

 
> The operator community should be encouraged to put some nominal
> information for their number blocks in the Public ENUM tree, even if this
> is nothing more than a single wildcard record pointing to a default server
> for that operator.  As numbers port, it should be very straightforward
> to insert an appropriate specific DNS record to direct queries to the
> new provider as appropriate, including the degenerate case where a
> knowledgeable user (or user with knowledgeable party under contract)
> arranges to have richer connectivity information put in place under their
> entry.
[Richard>] 
That was exactly what I proposed in a previous e-mail. There is only
one drawback: since wildcards do not work in this case, there is no 
straightforward solution. There is one, but it is not straightforward
(provided by Jim)
It requires a second query for the enclosing zone.

It has also be discussed on this list some two month ago and is already
contained in ETSI TS 102 172 V2.

Richard
> 


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