Peter, On Tue, Oct 11, 2005 at 12:23:14PM -0700, Peter Williams wrote: > 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. Can you describe how you feel the IAB "required" this? I'm a little confused as (i). I'm not sure how that IAB can "require" anything; perhaps you mean s/IAB/IESG/ (that would make more sense), and (ii). I'm not sure what you think was "required" WRT Carrier ENUM alignment; there have been a lot of discussions around this, and it would be good to get everyone's assumptions on the table, and to make sure we're all using the same set. Can you (or anyone else) clarify these for us? > We have a good strawman from viopeer; its highly SIP specific, particularly > in some ENUM-related areas. SIP is the Internet-standard signalling protocol, after all. And we are talking about the Internet here (IETF and all). Thanks, Dave > 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
Attachment:
pgpy8WAYMjQ3G.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum at ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum