Re: [Enum] Now that carrier enum is seperate, will user enum ever be deployed?

[Michael Haberler <mah at inode.at>]

At 14:28 11.08.2005, Michael Mealling wrote:

> Apologies for missing the discussion but after reading
> draft-haberler-carrier-enum I'm curious whether the discussion got to
> whether or not this would cause user enum to never be deployed in any
> useful level?

at least we do not intend to do that for +43 - both are useful and serve 
different purposes

I would conjecture other folks share that thinking (speak up!)

> It would seem that by seperating the two the pressure is
> off of the carriers to implement the rest of the tree?

Unfortunately I fail to detect any significant "pressure on carriers to 
implement User ENUM" in the first place, which is part of the problem - my 
perception is anything from remote interest to blissful ignorance

What I do see is demand for "Carrier" ENUM which will help to get e164.arpa 
delegations in place, registries going, and thus serve both purposes. I 
would assume if a country or NPA decides to get going, eventually both 
trees will be available.

-Michael 


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