[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Enum] voipeer agenda/charter uploaded

IAB required, in a carefully worded policy communciated through a co-chair that its acceptance of Carrier ENUM work itmes is contingent on aligning voipeer.future and enum.future re-chartering. What this WG and its members wants is irrelevant, per the last WG meeting and IAB considerations: all that matters is satisfying IAB's mandate, which we must assume to be in our interests.

We have a good strawman from viopeer; its highly SIP specific, particularly in some ENUM-related areas.

We comment on their charter, BECAUSE we are REQUIRED to align with their goals, objectives, methods, timelines, etc - for good and obivous reasons - if we want Carrier ENUM to be adopted into the standards track.

Remember Carrier ENUM is not formally an IETF standards track activity today, and the rules on becoming so have been stated (and restated, word for word, indicating its a very sensitive topic).



From: "Stastny Richard" <Richard.Stastny at oefeg.at>
To: "Peter Williams" <home_pw at msn.com>,<enum at ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Enum] voipeer agenda/charter uploaded
Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 21:13:38 +0200

I do not understand what you want to say?

This is the voipeer charter discussion and not
the enum charter discussion

BTW, estee,ed enum chairs, is there a enum charter proposal to expect soon.

With soon I mean before Vancouver

Richard


________________________________

Von: enum-bounces at ietf.org im Auftrag von Peter Williams
Gesendet: Di 11.10.2005 21:03
An: enum at ietf.org
Betreff: RE: [Enum] voipeer agenda/charter uploaded




FROM Proposed VIOPEER Charter:

"Routing fo sessions which are not signaled using SIP. In
    particular, voipeer is constrained to consider only those
    scenarios in which call routing is signaled using the
    SIP protocol and addressed by SIP or SIPS URIs or E.164
    (public telephone number) addresses. By extension, national
    and private formats numbering formats are out of scope for
    voipeer"

ENUM has broader scope, including H.323 URLs.

ENUM Charter needs to be session protocol agnostic, in essence. So its the
architectural support for multiple session/setup protocols thats required,
not any particular love of H.323.

Interaction between ENUM and VIOP peering must be only in the generic areas,
not SIP-specific areas.

I see no reason why ENUM should not be optionally "tuned" for today's SIP,
but not "architected" for SIP. There is little doubt that E.164 and ENUM
will, given their role,  be around far longer than SIP will be.

All private and national number formats (that are conforming to E.164 ) are
within the scope of ENUM.

In essence, ENUM is not just a name server for today's SIP proxies. It has a
bigger role to play in the Internet. At the same time, it should play in
today's adoption space!

>From: David Meyer <dmm at 1-4-5.net>
>To: voipeer at lists.uoregon.edu
>CC: enum at ietf.org, sipping at ietf.org, jon.peterson at neustar.biz,
>mankin at psg.com
>Subject: [Enum] voipeer agenda/charter uploaded
>Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 11:06:44 -0700
>
>
>       Please see
>
>       http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/05nov/agenda/voipeer.txt
>
>       Note that the bulk of our session will be devoted to
>       hammering out our charter (charter bashing).
>
>       Thanks,
>
>       Dave


><< attach4 >>




>_______________________________________________
>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





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