On Apr 28, 2006, at 09:51, Stastny Richard wrote: ...
JWhat Michael wanted to say is that the temporary solution defined in ...
If you're referring to draft-haberler-carrier-enum-02.txt, I think you are being far, far too optimistic. This draft is badly flawed in too many ways to elaborate here. A discussion on that belongs in another
Jim - we're all very very eager to hear and discuss your most helpful contributions. Help make the world a better place and stamp out such badly flawed drafts. To do so, please: a) detail your concerns on the IETF ENUM WG list (that's where this stuff is being discussed) b) in time (that is, like half a year ago, but late adopters welcome) c) including facts, so you actually convince people d) [optional] make a better proposal (those which yield a really loud hum). I'll support you on your superior superior proposal. -Michael