Atlanta is coming up and I'd like to see a more structured and focused
discussion of the issues surrounding this draft and its relationship to the
h.323 and SIP registration draft ...in addition it can be assumed that the
FAX WG and VPIM WG have their own thoughts about how these issues should be
treated.
In the first order of business I'd like to get WG consensus that both the
Levin H.323 registration draft and the SIP registration draft should be
ENUM WG documents immediately. I think these are necessary for upcoming
trials etc and if we have consensus now that is one item we do not need to
deal with in Atlanta.
Second IMHO (personal opinion here) the general concept in the enumservice
compendium document seem to be the concept of descriptors or hints as to
the nature, possible location and function of a particular end point.
That said I'm wondering if we can separate the issue here to a more generic
enumservice concept and enumservice descriptor.
E2U+enumservice:enumservicedescriptor:enumservicedescriptor:etc.
There are complications here since IMHO
E2U+fax and
E2U+tel:fax might be considered the same thing.
Obviously E2U+sip and
E2U+sip:voice are the same etc.
Wearing my WG Chair hat ..I'm not going to say that one syntax is better
that the other ..as some of you may have noted in my Security and Privacy
issues draft I at least postulate that both the minimalist and maximum
views of the issue have practical uses.
I havent seen any comments on my draft ..so
Thoughts etc?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Richard Shockey, Senior Manager, Strategic Technology Initiatives
NeuStar Inc.
46000 Center Oak Plaza - Sterling, VA 20166
Voice +1 571.434.5651 Cell : +1 314.503.0640, Fax: +1 815.333.1237
<mailto:richard(_at_)shockey(_dot_)us> or
<mailto:richard(_dot_)shockey(_at_)neustar(_dot_)biz>
<http://www.neustar.biz> ; <http://www.enum.org>
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<