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

From: "Peterson, Jon" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2002 18:47:57 -0600

Comments below.

Jon Peterson
NeuStar, Inc.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Patrik Fältström [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Saturday, February 16, 2002 7:10 AM
> To: Peterson, Jon; 'Kevin McCandless'; [email-masked]'
> Subject: RE: [Enum] Using ENUM for SIP Applications
> 
[snip]
> 
> Should for example the flag in the NAPTR record differ between a SIP URI
> used for presence and one used for gaming and one used for voice calls?
> 
> That MUST be resolved, I would say, before the registration document for
> SIP-related flags is finished.

I agree totally. We present quite a few arguments for one perspective on
this matter in our document. While we don't go ahead and register any
SIP-related flags in the IANA considerations section, future versions of
this document are probably as good a place to register 'sip+E2U' as any.

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.

>    paf

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

---

From: Patrik Fältström <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2002 10:04:00 +0100

--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

---

From: Richard Shockey <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2002 11:28:53 -0500

A
>something we could discuss in MN, at the discretion of the chairs.

I think you can assume that there will be time on the ENUM WG agenda in MN 
for this document. There is obviously a lot of interest in this.  We have a 
2 1/2 hour slot .. and SIPPING has a lot on its plate.

Now we have not cross posted these messages to SIPPING ...to avoid 
overburdening their totally overburdened list ... but we need to keep them 
in the loop and make sure they are aware of this discussion and that we 
probably will discuss the document in MN and that all SIPPING WG 
participants with an interest here might want to attend.

I'm assuming this plan is OK with the SIPPING Chairs....

Richard Shockey, Senior Manager, Strategic Technology Initiatives
NeuStar Inc.
45980 Center Oak Plaza   Bldg 8     Sterling, VA  20166
1120 Vermont Ave NW Suite 400 Washington DC 20005
Voice +1 571.434.5651 Cell : +1 314.503.0640,  Fax: +1 815.333.1237
<mailto: [email-masked]> or
<mailto: [email-masked]>
<http://www.neustar.biz>
<http://www.enum.org>
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

---

From: Rohan Mahy <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2002 13:11:55 -0800 (Pacific Standard Time)

discussing this in ENUM is fine by me.  we can make an announcement during
our first session.

thanks,
-rohan

---

From: Richard Shockey <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2002 22:28:59 -0500

>discussing this in ENUM is fine by me.  we can make an announcement during

I'll be happy to make the announcement myself it you think that will 
help...I do want this as a joint effort.

>-rohan

Thanks again Rohan ..I thought that's how you might feel ..though I want to 
make sure that Brian and Dean concur.

I'm deeply sympathetic to the work load the SIPPING WG has but I want to 
make sure your WG and ours is properly informed at all stages of this 
discussion and that when this document or one that is similar to it comes 
to last call it will be a joint action between both WG's.

A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-sipping-e164-01.txt

BTW for those SIPPING folks who are scratching their heads wondering what 
this thread is all about .

I'm the co-chair of the ENUM WG and if you need more info go to :

http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/enum-charter.html

> based