Subject: RE: [Enum] The Matrix

From: "Stastny, Richard" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 31 May 2002 10:09:29 +0200

Lawrence wrote: 
> At 3:59 am +0200 30/5/02, Brandner Rudolf wrote:
> >To me, it looks like this is at least a two dimensional space.

Sorry, it is at least tree dimensional:

The function you can perform, 
the URI and 
the Service related to the URI (e.g voice, fax, sms, etc)

Of course you have the service (have you?) defined with the URI, but are
they consistently defined? My problem is, that at least I have no complete
overview on the URI definitions under discussion.
I would like to see, that e.g. voice or fax can be used with tel, sip, h323
and what else?
  
> OK, folks, place your bets;
> - vertical,
> - horizontal,
> - exhaustive cloud of individual points, or
> - individual column/row headers only (pick your own).
> or...
> - some scheme that is NOT in the above set of choices.
> 
So what is in the jackpot? A lady from Austria just won 22 Mio $ in Las
Vegas.

So, for the horizontal scheme, we either define just the function to
perform, list the URIs allowed and point to the relevant URI description.
But this works only, if peek-ahead is allowed. 
If not, we need to define things like talktelvoice, talksipvoice etc., which
is a bit awkward and not much better then the vertical approach

So the vertical approach comes in:
Use the already proposed URI - service combinations eg telvoice, sipvoice,
etc.. The grouping could be done within the client itself for display. Since
the services are defined explicitely, not all services need to be defined on
the first run, and they can be defined consistently.

So in my opinion the question if peek-ahead is allowed should be clarified.
We could also leave this for later, because:

The two schemes are compatible, since all the names used for the horizontal
scheme are (on purpose) different from the names of the vertical scheme.
Clients could easily live with both schemes, the NAPTR "generators" may
choose one of the two. The final scheme may be selected either in Yokohama
or even after the trials.

I suggest that we come up with two lists, finally ending up in two "drafts"
for IDs. I volunteer to put on the list a proposal for the vertical scheme,
and collect further inputs, maybe Lawrence is doing the hoizontal one?

I think we need something concrete to discuss.

Best regards
Richard

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