[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [Enum] voipeer agenda/charter uploaded
Caveat:
ENUM (in general) is NOT for defining transit routes.
Only the end-user (User ENUM) or the carrier serving the
number in question = the destination "network" (Carrier ENUM)
is allowed to enter a domain, NEVER a "transit network".
Richard
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Christian de Larrinaga [mailto:cdel at firsthand.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2005 12:22 PM
> To: David Meyer
> Cc: Peter Williams; enum at ietf.org; Stastny Richard
> Subject: 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