[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Enum] New Draft: Trunk Group Use in ENUM

Hi Bernie, folks,
 Agreed.
If there is a crucial reason to force this through the IETF on the old track, then let's discuss this at the ENUM WG meeting :). 
all the best,
  Lawrence


On 5 Mar 2009, at 08:47, Bernie Hoeneisen wrote:


Hi Rich

Why don't we use the new process as decribed in

 http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-enum-enumservices-guide

for Trunk Group? So, the document does not need to be WG item.
I believe it is not worth doing anything according to the old process at 
this point in time.

cheers,
Bernie


On Wed, 4 Mar 2009, Richard Shockey wrote:


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

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