Subject: RE: [Enum] draft-ietf-enum-operation-00.txt

From: "Manfredi, Albert E" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2000 12:25:12 -0400

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hong Liu [mailto:[email-masked]]

> If we assume a
> distributed administration scheme like DNS today, then Greg's 
> concern is quite
> valid. Note that domain names are generally not portable, 
> hence we need to come
> up with special guidelines for using DNS to handle portable 
> E.164 numbers.

Hmmm. Domain names can be portable. Why not? Which is why I thought this
model works quite well for portable phone numbers too. Except, as Patrik
points out with his numbers, not portable "enough" in a conservative
scenario to handle mobility. But close.

Fast enough to forward the number to your cell phone if you dropped your
keys somewhere before leaving your house, but not always fast enough to keep
track of the actual location of your cell phone while you are driving down
the autobahn.

> So which model do we assume for ENUM, or both, or do we care?
> 
> I hope we can start discussing how delegation is done for 
> ENUM, unless the WG
> chairs declare that it is out of scope.

Agreed.

Bert
[email-masked]

_______________________________________________
enum mailing list
[email-masked]
http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum