On Wed, Oct 12, 2005 at 03:57:35PM +0100, Christian de Larrinaga wrote: > 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, I'm not sure why one needs stated support for 2826. Asked another way, what more (than RFC 2826) needs to be said about unique roots? Dave
Attachment:
pgpcNapUVP6TD.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum at ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum