Subject: Re: [Enum] IETF, ENUM and NGN

From: "Peter Williams" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2004 12:27:35 -0400

Well, but The question is whether IETF should recommend/advice/support
such silly implementations.
IAB has already recognized ENUM providers will, and must inevitably use name 
spaces other than those standardized by IAB. It specifically called out this 
in the Informational RFCs disclosing their rationales for the IAB mandates, 
and certain communications with ITU-T.

IETF has never objected before to operators running private zones. Such 
zones often carry enhanced resource definitions/data, shared only with 
custom resolvers.

Do you feel an joint I-D coming on, Jim?

_______________________________________________
enum mailing list
enum at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum

---

From: "Christian de Larrinaga" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2004 17:04:39 -0400

I think seeing this proposed in a structured way would be very helpful to
understanding what the implications might be.

thanks

Christian

-----Original Message-----
From: enum-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:enum-bounces at ietf.org]On Behalf Of
Peter Williams
Sent: 30 June 2004 17:13
To: md at bts.sk; jim at rfc1035.com
Cc: enum at ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Enum] IETF, ENUM and NGN