Subject: [Enum] draft-lim-kim-enum-based-softswitch-00

From: "Livingood, Jason" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2006 17:11:16 -0500

Continuing discussion from the WG meeting on this I-D -> seems like we
should resolve the problem we're trying to solve with this, or what the
objective of the I-D is.

>From reading the draft a couple of times now, it seems like the authors
are trying to (1) specify a requirement that could be referenced by
softswitch vendors so that such vendors actually support ENUM, which may
simply mean that the switch must have an ENUM client with specific
requirements around the root to be queried and how call routing should
progress after the failure of an ENUM lookup.  Then, another is to (2)
specify the progression of the call routing logic in the switch itself
with first a lookup to infrastructure ENUM and then progression to other
internal tables or other methods.

As a service provider, we've worked on both of these things with our
vendors so I can understand the desire to solve this by implementers.
As the co-authors are from a national agency in Korea though, perhaps
the objective is to specify how implementation should work for vendors
and service providers in Korea?  If so, perhaps this is more a BCP for
Korean implementation / Korean numbering space?  If not, and #1 and #2
are objectives, then maybe a BCP or Informational document is more
appropriate?

Not sure either way - throwing out some discussion points...

Jason

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

---

From: "JoonHyung Lim" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2006 17:30:56 -0800

Right, Primary intended objective is definately '(1)'. I hope this draft
will progress with this objective.

Never intended on Korea-only thing.

As you said, we also had to decide how softswitch works with ENUM during the
implementation period.

And, I think '(2)' might be good objective for this draft in another aspect
of view, but I couldn't find a pure progression about the call routing logic
at this time. It will be another future work we can talking about.

Thanks for your comments.

========================================
JoonHyung Lim
National Internet Development Agency of Korea(NIDA)
========================================

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Livingood, Jason [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Monday, November 06, 2006 2:11 PM
> To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Subject: [Enum] draft-lim-kim-enum-based-softswitch-00
> 
> Continuing discussion from the WG meeting on this I-D -> 
> seems like we should resolve the problem we're trying to 
> solve with this, or what the objective of the I-D is.
> 
> are trying to (1) specify a requirement that could be 
> referenced by softswitch vendors so that such vendors 
> actually support ENUM, which may simply mean that the switch 
> must have an ENUM client with specific requirements around 
> the root to be queried and how call routing should progress 
> after the failure of an ENUM lookup.  Then, another is to (2) 
> specify the progression of the call routing logic in the 
> switch itself with first a lookup to infrastructure ENUM and 
> then progression to other internal tables or other methods.
> 
> As a service provider, we've worked on both of these things 
> with our vendors so I can understand the desire to solve this 
> by implementers.
> As the co-authors are from a national agency in Korea though, 
> perhaps the objective is to specify how implementation should 
> work for vendors and service providers in Korea?  If so, 
> perhaps this is more a BCP for Korean implementation / Korean 
> numbering space?  If not, and #1 and #2 are objectives, then 
> maybe a BCP or Informational document is more appropriate?
>