On Apr 28, 2006, at 09:51, Stastny Richard wrote:
BTW I don't share your optimism that standardisation of Carrier ENUM can be completed this year. But let's not jump down that rat-hole.
For terminolgy: Carrier ENUM needs not to be standardized, it is Infrastructure ENUM.
For some definition of these terms. Maybe. :-) No matter what is meant by Carrier ENUM or Infrastructure ENUM, these two things presumably must agree on a name space. Though not necessarily with each other. That choice of name space or zone apex surely must entail standardisation somewhere. Or have I missed something?
JWhat Michael wanted to say is that the temporary solution defined in the Dallas treaty can be nationally implemented soon (as you will see) and could be ready for publication request this fall, so it could be used also internationally in a standadized way.
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 thread and I'll be happy to initiate this debate.
Another question for clarification about CRUE:
You mention that for each number a tel and an sip URI is entered. this requires each operator to provide a ingress element to their network
How can this be done?
I imagine the hostname lurking in the sip: URI would do that. No?