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

["Richard Shockey" <richard at shockey.us>]

As Don said the purpose of this draft is to describe a method for trunkgroup
that does not require a new Enumservice type.... a BGP essentially. Which is
why I have no objection to a fast track.

However should someone want to have a E2U+SIP:TRUNK then yes the new
registration method could create that...if and when we can get the document
approved by the IESG this century.

>  -----Original Message-----
>  From: Lawrence Conroy [mailto:lconroy at insensate.co.uk]
>  Sent: Thursday, March 05, 2009 5:01 AM
>  To: Bernie Hoeneisen
>  Cc: Richard Shockey; IETF ENUM list; 'Daryl Malas'; 'Tom Creighton'
>  Subject: 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