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

Re: [Enum] voipeer agenda/charter uploaded

Carrier ENUM is not mentioned here which is good I think.
But it is implied.
I would support a definition of Carrier ENUM as supporting peering/ transit and routing relationships but not for provisioning user services.
The VoiPeer charter seems to agree with this view?

If so then it should be taken on board by those working on a carrier ENUM plan?

Christian de Larrinaga
cdel at firsthand.net
Voex Inc.


On 11 Oct 2005, at 21:52, David Meyer wrote:


    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


_______________________________________________
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