On Apr 28, 2006, at 07:58, Michael Haberler wrote:
I'm a bit puzzled though about your slides where you mention "CRUE" (Carrier Registration in User ENUM) and its potential international interoperability aspects.
currently the IETF work on Infrastructure ENUM is progressing nicely - I expect the long-run solution to be a separate apex (like ie164.arpa for instance) and http://www.enum.at/ietf/draft-haberler- carrier-enum-02.html will be the backwards-compatible interim solution until ITU and friends have their act together. Looks like all this is done this year. This will provide a easy manageable home for carrier-related information.
Michael, CRUE has no bearing whatsoever on Infrastructure ENUM. This will be apparent when the CRUE document is published on the new UK ENUM web site. [I'll make an announcement about that when it goes on- line.] The object of CRUE is to get lots of meaningful data into the UK ENUM tree so that ENUM-aware applications can be encouraged because there's a better chance of getting a successful ENUM lookup. The scheme is simple. Communications Service Providers register a block of numbers. This gets verified against the regulator's public database of block allocations to CSPs. The registry enters 2 NAPTRs for these numbers: a tel: URI and a sip: URI. The only "control" the CSP has here is the name of the SIP server: ie how non-PSTN calls can be terminated on their network. Now there's a lot of detail about ported numbers, allocation to end users and so forth. But that still doesn't make CRUE a replacement for "Infrastructure ENUM" whatever that happens to mean today. 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.
I'm a bit concernced about diverging developments - maybe you can enlighten us where you're heading and how this will interoperate with the rest of us.
CRUE is not a "standard". Or a protocol. It's just a means to get lots of NAPTRs populating the 4.4.e164.arpa name space. So there are no interoperability issues.