Subject: [Enum] Update of Carrier ENUM requirements I-D

From: "Pfautz, Penn L, NEO" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2005 16:19:43 -0500

Having looked over the Vancouver minutes of the WG I want to ask if I
should replace "carrier ENUM" with "infrastructure ENUM" before
resubmitting draft-lind-infrastructure-enum-reqs-01 as
draft-ietf-enum-infrastructure-enum-reqs-00.
If so, I would also propose to render "carrier of record" as "service
provider of record" going forward.

Your views?

Thanks,
Penn
-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
Richard Shockey
Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2005 3:50 AM
To: [email-masked]'
Subject: [Enum] Reminder to ID authors.

Documents approved as WG items in Vancouver etc should be resubmitted in

the official manner of draft-ietf-enum-name-version00.txt as soon a 
reasonably possible so we can get them in the document tracking
mechanism.

Copies of ID submitted as WG items for the first time .. aka .00.txt 
versions must be submitted to the chairs so they can approve their 
submission to the ID editors.

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

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

---

From: Richard Shockey <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2005 16:30:46 -0500

> draft-ietf-enum-infrastructure-enum-reqs-00.

Yes .. it seemed to be the consensus of the WG that the word carrier 
seems to be associated with some form of disease.

> provider of record" going forward.

excellent idea.

-- 

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>
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

---

From: Tim Dwight <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2005 15:47:00 -0600

I'm not sure that I agree with changing "carrier of record" to "service
provider of record".  Depends on what the latter means I suppose.  If (as
seems intuitive) "service provider" means "the entity that the customer
perceives as providing the service", and "carrier of record" means "the
entity providing PSTN access for calls to or from the customer", then is a
"service provider of record" an entity that does both?  And is that the
appropriate semantic?

At the risk of inviting flames I'd say that "carrier of record" is the
appropriate term and the Telco-bashing that seems to motivate this change,
is juvenile.

Tim

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
Richard Shockey
Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2005 3:31 PM
To: Pfautz, Penn L, NEO
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: [Enum] Re: Update of Carrier ENUM requirements I-D

> draft-ietf-enum-infrastructure-enum-reqs-00.

Yes .. it seemed to be the consensus of the WG that the word carrier seems
to be associated with some form of disease.

excellent idea.

--