RE: [Enum] RE: [voipeer] Re: [Geopriv] Re: [Simple] tel URIs incommonpolicy

["Peter Williams" <home_pw at msn.com>]

Concerning recharter,

We have to ensure that ENUM stays on an ENUM-specific mission: while voice
service issues are an important driver, their impact on ENUM must be
compartmentalized within the supporting enumservices. Our mission (here) is
high-level: "Internet convergence with the PSTN"; its not "routing phone
calls".

Let me put it another way - as a program manager, who strategically vouched
for carrier ENUM in the debate.

Because of the class of management requirement (mostly security) that such
as regulated voice services will bring, we needed a _provider-based_
management model, in addition to the user-based management model for data
provisioning. The adoption of carrier ENUM in the charter (if it happens)
convinces me that ENUM may have the architecture to succeed in the intended
operating environments.

Now that the religious phase of WG argument is over, we can perhaps get back
down to Internet engineering. If ENUM leads DNS evolution in practice to
(optionally) adopt just some of the most critical provider-centric
management practices learned other name server infrastructure efforts, we
will have made a big contribution to the Internet's evolution. Small,
incremental infrastructure changes are what we are all about, after large
amounts of email.

..showing that ENUM has all the necessary elements to support regulated
voice was an academic exam that ENUM had to pass: but it's not actually the
goal.

In our charter reformulation, we focus on the infrastructure goals (now that
we have the experience of discussion to better formulate them), not the
particular (but critical) predictor of success.

Peter.

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