Subject: RE: [Enum] Carrier ENUM

From: "Pfautz, Penn L, NEO" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2005 19:13:16 -0400

I agree. I don't see interconnection as *necessarily* meaning private though some 
Parties may choose to implement so. I hope not.

Penn

-----Original Message-----
From: Patrik Fältström [mailto:paf at cisco.com] 
Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2005 6:35 PM
To: Pfautz, Penn L, NEO
Cc: Jim Reid; Stastny Richard; enum at ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Enum] Carrier ENUM

On Jun 23, 2005, at 07:28, Pfautz, Penn L, NEO wrote:

> To be clear, the aspect of carrier ENUM that is the focus of the
> original I-D is carrier ENUM for interconnection
> between carriers.

As I have suggested to you a few times, if "carrier ENUM" is only to  
be used by a known group of organizations and noone else, there is  
absolutely no reason what so ever to have the DNS names in e164.arpa.  
The only reason to have records there is if carriers want to put data  
in DNS that anyone should be able to access.

If the argument for carrier ENUM is to only let some people be able  
to do the lookup, it should be done in a different corner of the DNS  
hierarchy, and what corner that is can be part of the contractual  
agreement between the carriers when they set up their "traffic  
exchange agreement".

    paf

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