Subject: RE: [Enum] Using ENUM for SIP Applications

From: "Vaudreuil, Greg M (Greg)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2002 20:17:53 -0700

I view SIP (or LDAP) not as a service, but as a protocol.  Protocols can be
used to deliver a number of otherwise unrelated services.  I agree with
Patrick that we need to identify the service here... gaming, IM, live voice
(telephone) or whatever.  Similarly, LDAP may be used for white pages,
yellow pages, application specific database access or any number of other
things.  

There may be alternate protocols for the same service.  In this way I view
Tel and SIP as possible URLs returned, with different weightings, for the
same service of live person-to-person voice communication.

I would like this point clarified in the ENUM documents to be clear that
registrations should be for services.

Greg V.

-----Original Message-----
From: Patrik Fältström [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2002 3:04 AM
To: Peterson, Jon; Peterson, Jon; 'Kevin McCandless'; [email-masked]'
Subject: RE: [Enum] Using ENUM for SIP Applications

--On 2002-02-16 18.47 -0600 "Peterson, Jon" <[email-masked]>
wrote:

> I'd be interested to know whether or not there is basically consensus,
> based on the arguments that we've raised in sipping-e164-01, that we need
> no ENUM service fields for SIP other than 'sip+E2U'. Maybe if we have
> time this is something we could discuss in MN, at the discretion of the
> chairs.

Yes.

MY personal immediate reaction is that it would be good for the client
looking up NAPTR records to know what SIP URI is used for each family of
services.

For example: I (as a person) might have one SIP URI for presence
information, one used for gaming, and one for telephony -- simply because I
buy/get these services from different service providers, and just like with
email, that implies different domain names in the URI.

So, a client which is only interested in presence stuff, why open SIP
connections to SIP URI's before knowing that SIP URI is not interesting at
all?

In some cases of course one "SIP" definition is enough, BUT, as soon as you
have more than one "kind" of service and more than one SIP URI, I think
more information in the flag is needed for faster call setup.

    paf

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

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

---

From: Patrik Fältström <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2002 21:22:35 +0100

> registrations should be for services.

Point taken.

I will try to create a drafty-drafty-draft version of 2916 before the
cut-off for the IETF.

Regardless of whether I manage to do so, I really want people to in the
future send in _text_ that corrects misunderstandings in the text I write.

   paf