Re: [Enum] voipeer agenda/charter uploaded

[Christian de Larrinaga <cdel at firsthand.net>]

Richard

Thanks for the caveat.
I used the word "supporting" very deliberately.

On 12 Oct 2005, at 12:11, Stastny Richard wrote:

> 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".

Yes indeed.

The charter has been very carefully written and the references to sip  
servers and layer 5 gives a very clear message to both L3 but also to  
L6/L7. But it is a coded message.
Carrier ENUM is just not defined enough to call now but its presence  
is sitting here looming large over this proposed activity like the  
uninvited guest who believes he will take over the party.

I don't propose we add the carrier enum term to the charter as that  
would be entirely wrong, but it  would be useful in the charter to  
add stated support for RFC 2826 (L8) principles to protect against  
the formation of split roots in ENUM and ENUM like services should  
ancillary ENUM like roots come to be formed.


Christian

Christian de Larrinaga


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