The probem I see is that COCOM should be not involved in any Carrier ENUM discussion. This may create some "dangerous" confusion on the role of EC and governments on carrier ENUM marco ----- Original Message ----- From: "Richard Shockey" <richard@shockey.us> To: "Jim Reid" <jim@rfc1035.com>; "Stastny Richard" <Richard.Stastny@oefeg.at> Cc: "Andrzej Bartosiewicz" <andrzejb@nask.pl>; "Carsten Schiefner" <enumvoipsip.cs@schiefner.de>; <enum-wg@ripe.net> Sent: Sunday, December 12, 2004 5:00 PM Subject: Re: [enum-wg] COCOM & ENUM ...
At 04:03 AM 12/12/2004, Jim Reid wrote:
> "Richard" == Stastny Richard <Richard.Stastny@oefeg.at> writes:
Richard> There is only one "minor" problem with the implementation Richard> in Poland: It is Carrier E**M in e164.arpa
And the problem is......? IMO the only potential problem with this is that private data could be made public through the DNS.
exactly .. and BTW this is now the #1 topic of discussion within CC 1
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard Shockey, Senior Manager, Strategic Technology Initiatives NeuStar Inc. 46000 Center Oak Plaza - Sterling, VA 20166 sip:rshockey(at)iptel.org sip:57141@fwd.pulver.com ENUM +87810-13313-31331 PSTN Office +1 571.434.5651 PSTN Mobile: +1 703.593.2683, Fax: +1 815.333.1237 <mailto:richard(at)shockey.us> or <mailto:richard.shockey(at)neustar.biz> <http://www.neustar.biz> ; <http://www.enum.org> <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<