Subject: RE: [Enum] Re: I-D ACTION:draft-shockey-enum-cnam-00.txt

From: "Mowafy, Hala" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2006 12:42:42 -0500

Point well taken about TCAP. And that's why most if not all of the
existing, TCAP-based Name databases have expanded their access to IP
protocols, such as LDAP, SIP, etc..

Hala

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2006 6:29 PM
To: Mowafy, Hala
Cc: [email-masked]; McCandless, Kevin; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [Enum] Re: I-D ACTION:draft-shockey-enum-cnam-00.txt

Mowafy, Hala wrote:
  
> Maybe if you help me understand the ultimate goal/vision, I could 
> appreciate the I-D a bit more.

Eliminate or reduce the need for another class of TCAP query. Access to 
this data on the SS7 network is cumbersome and expensive. There is a 
strong desire on the part of some service providers to migrate to a all 
IP query response system.

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

---

From: Richard Shockey <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2006 16:07:55 -0500

> protocols, such as LDAP, SIP, etc..

I'm certainly aware of many of the LDAP products out there for Name 
Databases. I think the consensus concept inherent in this draft was that 
since proxy's, SS, CMS's etc will now all have extensive 3271 and DNS 
support why not use the existing query response mechanism already 
available to access the Name databases. Adding a LDAP stack _may_ add 
excessive overhead.

In any event the two methods can easily co-exist. The market will decide 
which protocol to use to access the databases.

BTW ..which would you prefer as the URI  Tel: or Data: I still have not 
seen a strong argument on why Tel: is a _bad idea_ , though Data: 
certainly would work.

Thanks again for your comments.

-- 

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: Paul Kyzivat <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2006 08:52:11 -0500

> seen a strong argument on why Tel: is a _bad idea_ , though Data: 

Perhaps its not fair for me to respond to this since I was the one to 
raise the issue in the first place.

The advantage to using Data over Tel is that Data exists and requires no 
extensions to handle this case. To use Tel for this, it must be extended 
with a new cnam parameter that is not useful in any other context and in 
fact will probably add confusion around the use of Tel in other contexts.

Note that I am not attached to Data, but it just seemed to be an 
existing URI that was sufficient for the purpose.

	Paul

>> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] Sent: Monday, 
>> January 23, 2006 6:29 PM
>> To: Mowafy, Hala
>> Eliminate or reduce the need for another class of TCAP query. Access 
>> to this data on the SS7 network is cumbersome and expensive. There is 
>> a strong desire on the part of some service providers to migrate to a 
>> all IP query response system.
>>
>>
> 
>