Subject: RE: [Enum] draft-brandner-enumservice-vovi-00.txt

From: "Stastny Richard" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 09:57:57 +0100

Conroy, Lawrence (SMTP) writes:

 > Nowhere in the draft was it ever intended that folk MUST use these
 > enumservices for their SIP URIs. If folk want to use a single SIP
 > service, fine. (Nor does it say or imply that in ETSI TS102 172).

may be so, but i was told that based on this draft, authorities in one
european country had mandated the use of either voice or video service
in SIP enum entries that correspond to phone numbers of that country.

-- juha

Could you elaborate where you got this from?
I as the rapporteur of  the above mentioned document would be very
interested to get the information which authorities MANDATED the
use of voice:sip and as Lawrence stated above feel free to to use either
voice:sip or sip. It is also clearly stated in ETSI TS 102 172 that a client shall
look always FIRST for sip and then he may look for voice:sip or video:sip
 
Also as chair of the Austrian ENUM Trial Platform would be interested
to get information on this, because it is definitely not Austria which mandated this
and I do not know any other trial sofar mandating something.
 
So I object strongly to bring up rumors and hearsay in this dicussion.
Maybe you misunderstood something.
 
Richard
_______________________________________________
enum mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 11:00:04 +0200

> Could you elaborate where you got this from?

i heard it from a user of a proxy who asked to make a modification to
the code to support it.  i may have misunderstod the mandated part.  he
later told me that it was not actually mandated to use the voice thing,
but that is was decided do so by the enum pilot participants.

-- juha