Re: [Enum] My view of where we are in ENUM

[Andrew Newton <andy at hxr.us>]

On Mar 18, 2007, at 6:19 PM, Jim Reid wrote:

> On Mar 18, 2007, at 18:19, Andrew Newton wrote:
>
> > > C is not participating in IETF but have their own conferences.
> >
> > That's not true, they just don't participate in the ENUM working  
> > group because their problem is already solved.
>
> That's not true either Andy. There's a forest of disjoint trees out  
> there. So many of those in group C have solved their immediate  
> problem. But at the expense of even bigger problems of  
> interconnecting name spaces with competitors who use different  
> trees and/or name spaces.

Well, there was a proposal in ENUM that would have fixed the disjoint  
problem you are talking about for the people in the C area (private  
ENUM trees).  The problem is, the proposal was identified with B  
needs (public infrastructure ENUM) and thus has progressed nowhere.   
I think that speaks well of Patrik's point about no consensus.

> And just because those guys don't come to the ENUM WG doesn't mean  
> there isn't a problem. This is why I believe there's a role for the  
> WG and the IESG/IAB to work out an apex (at the very least) for  
> private infrastructure ENUM. If it's not the IETF that does this,  
> who will? Or could?

I'm well aware of the problem, but there are other solutions to it  
that do not require protocol standardization.  I have a programmer  
working on it right now.

As for an apex for private infrastructure ENUM, I don't think that is  
necessary and would create far more problems than it would solve.  In  
the end, wouldn't it look like a domain registry?  Is there something  
special about an anointed apex that cannot be solved by the use of  
normal domain names?  I don't think the DNS protocol cares, therefore  
this sounds like a question for the ITU or ICANN.

-andy

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