[Enum] A Modest Proposal

["James McEachern" <jmce at nortelnetworks.com>]

Richard, 
In your excellent summary of ENUM you said that:

 > 
 > ENUM is only an add on and not basically necessary to route calls.
 > Since URIs are used as address-of-record and contact-address, they are
 > intended to be used to identify the terminating server and terminal and
 > are NOT intended to be used for routing via transit "networks"
 > Therefore ENUM should not be used for this purpose for two reasons:
 > 1. ENUM is not designed for this and lacking the required information
 > 2. it is contradicting the end-to-end philosophy of the Internet.
 > 
 > If NGN proponents are trying to set up mechanism on IP to allow
 > routing of E.164 numbers and also to transfer the complicated routing
 > regime they have between "networks" and also the IN NP databases,
 > they may do so, even they may use ENUM technology. And it
 > is perfectly valid for ETSI and 3GPP dealing with these issues
 > 
and ...
 > 
 > If the PSTN is moving to IP and therefore seeking for a routing
 > mechanism for E.164 numbers on IP, this may be the DNS, but maybe
 > be not (as Rich said). If the decide to use ENUM-technolgy, ok,
 > but this will be very complex (as everything on the PSTN is),
 > it will be not optional (it cannot be), and it will therefore
 > be orthogonal and independent from (User) ENUM.
 > 
 > This also implies that this CANNOT happen in the same tree, because
 > ownership, administration and delegation path are completely
 > different.
 > 
 > Richard

Considering this, and the circular debates of the last few weeks, I'm
starting to think that "our work here is done", and that continuing on to
consider Infrastructure ENUM is at best unnecessary, and a worst down right
harmful.  

Am I missing something?

James

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