Subject: RE: [Enum] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-enum-unused-00.txt

From: "JoonHyung Lim" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 02:48:12 +0900

Hi,

First of all, I'm glad to read this draft because I'm now dealing with almost same scenario of Rcode as you wrote in section3, for revising draft(draft-lim-kim-enum-based-softswitch-00.txt) that I submitted on last meeting as a agenda. According to our trial experience, I think this draft will be useful for infrastructure ENUM. 

>> BTW, I've not convinced about the looping issue. Shouldn't the gateway
>> to which call to ENUM-only ranges would be routed provide a "not in
>> service" message?

>And how does the gateway know when to provide a "not in service
>message"?
>You are assuming that there is a dedicated gateway for a given number
>range
>We are assuming that a gateway may serve potentially all number ranges.

In section3.5, If I'm right, I feel this seems focused on so-called "generic gateway" for +43780 case as described on enum.at site. I agree this is good example which makes people understand why "unused" enumservice type needed, and why default strategy doesn't work in this condition. however I think there might be a misunderstanding that "unused" enumservice type is only used for dedicated gateway for given number.

So, I think if you add some comments about looping in case of all number ranges adopted on gateway, on end of section 3.5, motivation of draft will be more generic. 

just opinion.

Regards.

JoonHyung Lim, NIDA

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

---

From: "Pfautz, Penn L, GBLAM" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 13:35:35 -0500

I think I understand the arguments for the need for this for ENUM only
ranges, at least as things have been implemented. Otherwise I don't see
looping as an issue.
I would caution folks not to assume this capability will be implemented
universally, even if infrastructure ENUM, especially if publicly
queryable.

________________________________

From: JoonHyung Lim [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2007 12:48 PM
To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [Enum] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-enum-unused-00.txt

Hi,
 
First of all, I'm glad to read this draft because I'm now dealing with
almost same scenario of Rcode as you wrote in section3, for revising
draft(draft-lim-kim-enum-based-softswitch-00.txt) that I submitted on
last meeting as a agenda. According to our trial experience, I think
this draft will be useful for infrastructure ENUM. 

>We are assuming that a gateway may serve potentially all number ranges.

In section3.5, If I'm right, I feel this seems focused on so-called
"generic gateway" for +43780 case as described on enum.at site. I agree
this is good example which makes people understand why "unused"
enumservice type needed, and why default strategy doesn't work in this
condition. however I think there might be a misunderstanding that
"unused" enumservice type is only used for dedicated gateway for given
number.
 
So, I think if you add some comments about looping in case of all number
ranges adopted on gateway, on end of section 3.5, motivation of draft
will be more generic. 
 
just opinion.
 
Regards.
 
JoonHyung Lim, NIDA

---

From: "Stastny Richard" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 10:46:23 +0100

>So, I think if you add some comments about looping in case of all
number ranges adopted on gateway, on end of section >3.5, motivation of
draft will be more generic. 

Thank you for the comment, we will include this in the next release

Richard

From: JoonHyung Lim [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2007 6:48 PM
To: Stastny Richard; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [Enum] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-enum-unused-00.txt

Hi,

just opinion.

Regards.

JoonHyung Lim, NIDA