Re: [Enum] How to correctly set up the request URI?

["Stastny Richard" <Richard.Stastny at oefeg.at>]

This is also my preference, but it is basically what SPEERMINT
expects to be the CRD output from Infrastructure ENUM
(so it could also be a BCP what to put into Infrastucture ENUM ;-)
 
-sta

________________________________

Von: Richard Shockey [mailto:richard at shockey.us]
Gesendet: Fr 02.06.2006 22:59
An: 'Creighton, Tom'; Stastny Richard; speermint at ietf.org
Cc: enum at ietf.org
Betreff: RE: [Enum] How to correctly set up the request URI?






This discussion is best kept in SPEERMINT. IMHO.

s/

your bewildered ENUM WG co-chair

> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Stastny Richard [mailto:Richard.Stastny at oefeg.at]
> > Sent: Friday, June 02, 2006 15:41
> > To: Creighton, Tom; speermint at ietf.org
> > Cc: enum at ietf.org
> > Subject: Re: [Enum] How to correctly set up the request URI?
> >
> > Tom,
> >
> > being in favor of the usage of an AoR in Infrastructure ENUM, I have
> no
> > problems with your proposed words. There are only two issues:
> >
> > 1. There will be some people objecting, I assume.
>
> [Tom Creighton wrote:]
>
> I welcome any comments or recommendations that anyone has to help move
> beyond this discussion.
>
> > 2. Where should this words go?
> > -in the ENUM requirements or in the SPEERMINT requirements?
>
> [Tom Creighton wrote:]
>
> My initial reaction would be to keep it in SPEERMINT as this is a
> peering architecture issue and not a specific ENUM protocol issue, but
> as you said, advice from the 4 chairs would be appreciated.




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