RE: [Enum] IETF, ENUM and NGN

["Christian de Larrinaga" <cdel at firsthand.net>]

I think seeing this proposed in a structured way would be very helpful to
understanding what the implications might be.

thanks

Christian

-----Original Message-----
From: enum-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:enum-bounces at ietf.org]On Behalf Of
Peter Williams
Sent: 30 June 2004 17:13
To: md at bts.sk; jim at rfc1035.com
Cc: enum at ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Enum] IETF, ENUM and NGN



>Well, but The question is whether IETF should recommend/advice/support
>such silly implementations.

IAB has already recognized ENUM providers will, and must inevitably use name
spaces other than those standardized by IAB. It specifically called out this
in the Informational RFCs disclosing their rationales for the IAB mandates,
and certain communications with ITU-T.

IETF has never objected before to operators running private zones. Such
zones often carry enhanced resource definitions/data, shared only with
custom resolvers.

Do you feel an joint I-D coming on, Jim?



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


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