Bernie, Alexander, I'm really interested how similar/different are Switch and ENUM.AT (draft-mayrhofer-enum-validation-01) solutions... Could you guys enumerate the major differences and similarities between your implementations (Internet-Drafts)? Andrzej On Mon, 6 Jun 2005, Bernie Hoeneisen wrote:
Hi!
As some of you know, in the IETF, there is some work on-going concerning ENUM and validation of E.164 numbers. At the IETF-62 in Minneapolis. the draft referred below has been approved as a Working Group item of the IETF ENUM WG:
Abstract
This document describes an EPP extension framework for mapping information about the validation process that has been applied for the E.164 number (or number range), which the ENUM domain name is based on. Specified in XML, this mapping extends the EPP domain name mapping to provide an additional feature required for the provisioning of ENUM domain names.
URLs
* http://ietf.hoeneisen.ch/draft-hoeneisen-enum-validation-epp-01.txt * http://ietf.hoeneisen.ch/draft-hoeneisen-enum-validation-epp-01.html
In Switzerland we are running an EPP Server including this extension for the ENUM Tier-1 Registry. So far we did not run into any trouble.
I am about to write an update of this draft. So far I have not received any feedback. Does this mean, that everything in there is just fine or that people are not interested / have not read it at all? ;-)
Besides the technical and other feedback, I'd be interested: - Who is planning to use this EPP extension for ENUM? - Who cannot use this extensions and what are the reasons?
Looking forward for lots of comments!
cheers, Bernie Hoeneisen, Switch, Project Manager ENUM