To the list ..
FYI this draft essentially supersedes the previous draft that
Tom Creighton and I co authored earlier.
As far as I’m personally concerned this is still a legitimate WG
item as it describes, in another way , work we had already approved. It does
have significant applicability in the market today.
I have no issues with this proceeding as a ENUM WG document unless
there are objections. We are close to closure but fast tracking this to WGLC
could be of help to operators looking at this type of function.
Comments? Any objections to a fast track?
From:
enum-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:enum-bounces at ietf.org] On Behalf Of Daryl
Malas
Sent: Wednesday, March 04, 2009 6:16 PM
To: enum at ietf.org
Cc: Tom Creighton
Subject: [Enum] New Draft: Trunk Group Use in ENUM
All,
We have submitted a new draft describing another method for incorporating trunk
group information in an ENUM response.
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
Title
: Trunk Group Use
in ENUM
Author(s) : D.
Malas, T. Creighton
Filename :
draft-malas-enum-trunk-sip-00.txt
Pages
: 7
Date
: 2009-03-04
This document concludes that incorporating trunk group parameters
into an Electronic Number (ENUM) response for the Session Initiation
Protocol (SIP) [RFC3261] service URI is a more effective approach
compared to defining a new ENUM service type for a 'trunk'. Upon
further review of the existing ENUM trunk group draft
[I-D.ietf-enum-trunkgroup] and practical operator experience, this
draft recommends the use of the current trunk group contexts as
defined in [RFC4904] as additional parameters in the E2U+SIP
enumservice NAPTR record [RFC3403] URI.
A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-malas-enum-trunk-sip-00.txt
Regards,
Daryl
-----------------
Daryl Malas
CableLabs
(o) +1 303 661 3302
(f) +1 303 661 9199
mailto:d.malas at cablelabs.com