Subject: RE: [Enum] draft-haberler-carrier-enum-01

From: "Cartwright, Kenneth" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2005 14:41:41 -0500

Ok, point taken.  But I think you'd agree that the referenced document
goes well beyond requirements.  It's proposing a technical solution to
infrastructure ENUM that could be made part of the existing ENUM
specification or created as a separate specification.  And the answer to
this question is, imho, really a key aspect of the proposal.  Is it
proposing an expansion to the definition of what it means to be "ENUM
compliant" or is it proposing something separable?  Just a question, not
a judgment call.

Thanks.
Ken.

-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Shockey [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Monday, November 14, 2005 12:05 PM
To: Cartwright, Kenneth
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [Enum] draft-haberler-carrier-enum-01

Cartwright, Kenneth wrote:
> A couple follow up questions on this doc:
> 
>  
> 
> 1) Has a decision been made on whether Carrier/Infra ENUM will be 
> specificed as a new DDDS Application or an extension to the existing 
> ENUM DDDS Application defined by 3761, or something else entirely? 

No decision has been made. There needs to be a requirements document
first.

-- 

Richard Shockey, Director - Member of Technical Staff
NeuStar Inc.
46000 Center Oak Plaza  -   Sterling, VA  20166
sip:rshockey(at)iptel.org   sip:57141(at)fwd.pulver.com
ENUM +87810-13313-31331
PSTN Office +1 571.434.5651 PSTN Mobile +1 703.593.2683
Fax: +1 815.333.1237
<mailto:richard(at)shockey.us> or
<mailto:richard.shockey(at)neustar.biz>
<http://www.neustar.biz> ; <http://www.enum.org>
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

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