From enum-bounces@ietf.org Fri Jul 29 15:35:37 2005 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Dyadt-00016k-EA; Fri, 29 Jul 2005 15:35:37 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Dyads-00016Q-3w for enum@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 29 Jul 2005 15:35:36 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA03664 for ; Fri, 29 Jul 2005 15:35:33 -0400 (EDT) From: james.f.baskin@verizon.com Received: from ftwmail2.verizon.com ([192.76.86.130]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Dyb9X-0003XY-E2 for enum@ietf.org; Fri, 29 Jul 2005 16:08:22 -0400 Received: from smtpftw.verizon.com ([138.83.130.53]) by ftwmail2.verizon.com (8.13.3/8.13.3) with ESMTP id j6TJZAGI027874 for ; Fri, 29 Jul 2005 14:35:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from usinftwiccmms03.ent.verizon.com (ftwmms03b.interwan.gte.com [138.83.138.67]) by smtpftw.verizon.com (8.13.3/8.13.3) with ESMTP id j6TJYlGc005997 for ; Fri, 29 Jul 2005 14:34:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from 138.83.34.22 by usinftwiccmms03.ent.verizon.com with ESMTP (SMTP Relay); Fri, 29 Jul 2005 15:34:38 -0400 X-Server-Uuid: 2F91DA65-DB13-41BC-8809-D657BCBC59D7 Received: from dwsmtp01.core.verizon.com (dwmail21.interwan.gte.com [138.83.36.17]) by coregate1.verizon.com (8.13.3/8.13.3) with ESMTP id j6TJYcY3003896 for ; Fri, 29 Jul 2005 14:34:38 -0500 ( CDT) Subject: Re: [Enum] E.164 communication assumptions/requirements To: enum@ietf.org X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.10 March 22, 2002 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2005 15:34:13 -0400 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on DWSMTP01/HSVR/Verizon(Release 6.0.2CF2|July 23, 2003) at 07/29/2005 14:34:37 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-WSS-ID: 6EF45B443E81374134-01-01 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 0.3 (/) X-Scan-Signature: bb8f917bb6b8da28fc948aeffb74aa17 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Enum Discussion List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: enum-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-bounces@ietf.org Richard Stastny replied to James McEachern: >>I'm not sure I understand what it would mean to route an ENUM-only number to the PSTN. > >All E.164 numbers needs to be (should be ;-) routed on the PSTN, so an ENUM-only >number is routed to the nearest GW capable of querying ENUM. > >For each such number range at least one default GW exists. >This is especially necessary if say an operator in the US >does not now or does not care that +43780xxxx is >an ENUM only range, the call still can be completed >by simply routing the call to +43 > So there is a kind of ^carrier-of-record^ even for ENUM-only numbers, at least in Austria. I would hope that other countries will require similar arrangements if they allow ENUM-only number assignments. By the way, if the governments of countries allowing assignment of ENUM-only numbers want to consider a completely level playing field for telecommunications users and providers (and require true portability), the number ranges for ENUM-only numbers won't stay purely ENUM when some users port those numbers to PSTN carriers. This may be country- dependent. Jim > >-richard _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From enum-bounces@ietf.org Fri Jul 29 16:36:34 2005 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Dybas-0002lj-39; Fri, 29 Jul 2005 16:36:34 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Dybaq-0002lc-RF for enum@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 29 Jul 2005 16:36:32 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA07870 for ; Fri, 29 Jul 2005 16:36:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from rtp-iport-1.cisco.com ([64.102.122.148]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Dyc6Y-00059C-Ff for enum@ietf.org; Fri, 29 Jul 2005 17:09:20 -0400 Received: from rtp-core-1.cisco.com (64.102.124.12) by rtp-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 29 Jul 2005 13:36:23 -0700 X-BrightmailFiltered: true X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== X-IronPort-AV: i="3.95,154,1120460400"; d="scan'208"; a="3985529:sNHT23328280" Received: from xbh-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com (xbh-rtp-201.cisco.com [64.102.31.12]) by rtp-core-1.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id j6TKaLk8007255; Fri, 29 Jul 2005 16:36:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: from xmb-rtp-20b.amer.cisco.com ([64.102.31.53]) by xbh-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Fri, 29 Jul 2005 16:36:21 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5.7226.0 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: [Enum] E.164 communication assumptions/requirements Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2005 16:36:20 -0400 Message-ID: <072C5B76F7CEAB488172C6F64B30B5E366918F@xmb-rtp-20b.amer.cisco.com> Thread-Topic: [Enum] E.164 communication assumptions/requirements Thread-Index: AcWUdSZIVrjOeCfWQ6Gi+O2CF4YtpgAB6dyA From: "Michael Hammer \(mhammer\)" To: , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 29 Jul 2005 20:36:21.0301 (UTC) FILETIME=[2DF87E50:01C5947D] X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 0a7aa2e6e558383d84476dc338324fab Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Enum Discussion List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: enum-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-bounces@ietf.org Quick check. Is it correct to refer to these as ENUM only numbers, or are they IP-domain numbers for which ENUM is just one method of routing to them. This might be country-specific. Mike =20 > -----Original Message----- > From: enum-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:enum-bounces@ietf.org] On=20 > Behalf Of james.f.baskin@verizon.com > Sent: Friday, July 29, 2005 3:34 PM > To: enum@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Enum] E.164 communication assumptions/requirements >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > Richard Stastny replied to James McEachern: >=20 > >>I'm not sure I understand what it would mean to route an ENUM-only=20 > >>number > to the PSTN. > > > >All E.164 numbers needs to be (should be ;-) routed on the=20 > PSTN, so an > ENUM-only > >number is routed to the nearest GW capable of querying ENUM. > > > >For each such number range at least one default GW exists. > >This is especially necessary if say an operator in the US=20 > does not now=20 > >or does not care that +43780xxxx is an ENUM only range, the=20 > call still=20 > >can be completed by simply routing the call to +43 > > > So there is a kind of ^carrier-of-record^ even for ENUM-only=20 > numbers, at least in Austria. I would hope that other=20 > countries will require similar arrangements if they allow=20 > ENUM-only number assignments. > By the way, if the governments of countries allowing=20 > assignment of ENUM-only numbers want to consider a completely=20 > level playing field for telecommunications users and=20 > providers (and require true portability), the number ranges=20 > for ENUM-only numbers won't stay purely ENUM when some users=20 > port those numbers to PSTN carriers. This may be country- dependent. >=20 > Jim >=20 > > > >-richard >=20 >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > enum mailing list > enum@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum >=20 _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From enum-bounces@ietf.org Fri Jul 29 17:34:35 2005 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DycV1-0002AP-EZ; Fri, 29 Jul 2005 17:34:35 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DycUz-0002AK-1T for enum@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 29 Jul 2005 17:34:33 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA10202 for ; Fri, 29 Jul 2005 17:34:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail.oefeg.at ([62.47.121.5]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Dyd0h-0006Sg-9t for enum@ietf.org; Fri, 29 Jul 2005 18:07:20 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5.7226.0 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [Enum] E.164 communication assumptions/requirements Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2005 23:37:46 +0200 Message-ID: <32755D354E6B65498C3BD9FD496C7D4613C06E@oefeg-s04.oefeg.loc> Thread-Topic: [Enum] E.164 communication assumptions/requirements Thread-Index: AcWUdSZIVrjOeCfWQ6Gi+O2CF4YtpgAB6dyAAAHeftI= From: "Stastny Richard" To: "Michael Hammer \(mhammer\)" , , X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 1a1bf7677bfe77d8af1ebe0e91045c5b Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Enum Discussion List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: enum-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-bounces@ietf.org Mike, James The ENUM-only numbers are real E.164 - in case of the +43780 out of the Austrian numbering plan =20 This implies that the rules are country specific =20 > So there is a kind of ^carrier-of-record^ even for ENUM-only > numbers, at least in Austria. =20 =20 well observed, James ;-) =20 This is a kind of "chicken-and-egg" problem. The rules in Austria require that a registrar needs to have a contract with a "carrier-of-record" operating the gateway, but there is an additional problem: one side the gateway operator may route all numbers within the range, on the other hand the registar cannot insist that calls to his numbers are routed via this gateway. And in addition the registar does not need to provide a VOIP service at all. This is very funny and very disturbing for bell-heads =20 More information only with a consulting contract ;-) =20 -richard ________________________________ Von: enum-bounces@ietf.org im Auftrag von Michael Hammer (mhammer) Gesendet: Fr 29.07.2005 22:36 An: james.f.baskin@verizon.com; enum@ietf.org Betreff: RE: [Enum] E.164 communication assumptions/requirements Quick check. Is it correct to refer to these as ENUM only numbers, or are they IP-domain numbers for which ENUM is just one method of routing to them. This might be country-specific. Mike > -----Original Message----- > From: enum-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:enum-bounces@ietf.org] On > Behalf Of james.f.baskin@verizon.com > Sent: Friday, July 29, 2005 3:34 PM > To: enum@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Enum] E.164 communication assumptions/requirements > > > > > > Richard Stastny replied to James McEachern: > > >>I'm not sure I understand what it would mean to route an ENUM-only > >>number > to the PSTN. > > > >All E.164 numbers needs to be (should be ;-) routed on the > PSTN, so an > ENUM-only > >number is routed to the nearest GW capable of querying ENUM. > > > >For each such number range at least one default GW exists. > >This is especially necessary if say an operator in the US > does not now > >or does not care that +43780xxxx is an ENUM only range, the > call still > >can be completed by simply routing the call to +43 > > > So there is a kind of ^carrier-of-record^ even for ENUM-only > numbers, at least in Austria. I would hope that other > countries will require similar arrangements if they allow > ENUM-only number assignments. > By the way, if the governments of countries allowing > assignment of ENUM-only numbers want to consider a completely > level playing field for telecommunications users and > providers (and require true portability), the number ranges > for ENUM-only numbers won't stay purely ENUM when some users > port those numbers to PSTN carriers. This may be country- dependent. > > Jim > > > > >-richard > > > > _______________________________________________ > enum mailing list > enum@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum > _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From enum-bounces@ietf.org Sat Jul 30 02:23:09 2005 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DykkX-0001va-M8; Sat, 30 Jul 2005 02:23:09 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DykkT-0001sr-4R for enum@megatron.ietf.org; Sat, 30 Jul 2005 02:23:08 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA23660 for ; Sat, 30 Jul 2005 02:23:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from sip.mah.priv.at ([81.223.16.194] helo=www.mah.priv.at) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DylGE-0005pB-V6 for enum@ietf.org; Sat, 30 Jul 2005 02:55:58 -0400 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=mah9.inode.at) by www.mah.priv.at with esmtp (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 1Dykj2-00067m-00; Sat, 30 Jul 2005 08:21:36 +0200 Message-Id: <6.2.1.2.2.20050730081458.056f2a08@localhost> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.1.2 Date: Sat, 30 Jul 2005 08:21:35 +0200 To: "Michael Hammer \(mhammer\)" , , From: Michael Haberler Subject: RE: [Enum] E.164 communication assumptions/requirements In-Reply-To: <072C5B76F7CEAB488172C6F64B30B5E366918F@xmb-rtp-20b.amer.ci sco.com> References: <072C5B76F7CEAB488172C6F64B30B5E366918F@xmb-rtp-20b.amer.cisco.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-C2F6AC4 X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 7d33c50f3756db14428398e2bdedd581 Cc: X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Enum Discussion List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: enum-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-bounces@ietf.org At 22:36 29.07.2005, Michael Hammer \(mhammer\) wrote: >Quick check. Is it correct to refer to these as ENUM only numbers, or >are they IP-domain numbers for which ENUM is just one method of routing >to them. This might be country-specific. Good point. The difference between ENUM-only like the +43780 range and IP-domain numbers is that number status is linked to the ENUM domain: if an ENUM domain exists under 0.8.7.3.4.e164.arpa, the number is assigned, otherwise it is unassigned. Actually, the allocation process is reversed wrt a normal ENUM domain (you have a number, obtain an ENUM domain to go with it): you register the domain for an unallocated number, and simsalabim, you obtain the right in the number once you have the domain. -Michael _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From enum-bounces@ietf.org Sat Jul 30 02:52:15 2005 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DylCh-0000rM-Oe; Sat, 30 Jul 2005 02:52:15 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DylCe-0000rG-QF for enum@megatron.ietf.org; Sat, 30 Jul 2005 02:52:13 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA25296 for ; Sat, 30 Jul 2005 02:52:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from c2bthomr01.btconnect.com ([194.73.73.209] ident=mirapoint) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DyliS-0006l9-LC for enum@ietf.org; Sat, 30 Jul 2005 03:25:05 -0400 Received: from RAYANDERSON.bango.net (host213-120-116-62.in-addr.btopenworld.com [213.120.116.62]) by c2bthomr01.btconnect.com (MOS 3.5.8-GR) with ESMTP id CHS33619; Sat, 30 Jul 2005 07:51:49 +0100 (BST) Message-Id: <6.1.2.0.2.20050730075105.02d61490@smtp.bango.net> X-Sender: randerson001@pop3.btconnect.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.1.2.0 Date: Sat, 30 Jul 2005 07:52:08 +0100 To: james.f.baskin@verizon.com, enum@ietf.org From: Ray Anderson Subject: Re: [Enum] E.164 communication assumptions/requirements In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 68c8cc8a64a9d0402e43b8eee9fc4199 Cc: X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Enum Discussion List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: enum-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-bounces@ietf.org At 20:34 29/07/2005, james.f.baskin@verizon.com wrote: > > > >For each such number range at least one default GW exists. > >This is especially necessary if say an operator in the US > >does not now or does not care that +43780xxxx is > >an ENUM only range, the call still can be completed > >by simply routing the call to +43 > > How can the call be "completed" if there is no human or voice source at that ENUM (i.e. its just a web page for example) _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From enum-bounces@ietf.org Sat Jul 30 03:37:07 2005 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Dylu7-00036d-3B; Sat, 30 Jul 2005 03:37:07 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Dylu4-00036Y-9y for enum@megatron.ietf.org; Sat, 30 Jul 2005 03:37:05 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA26643 for ; Sat, 30 Jul 2005 03:37:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail.oefeg.at ([62.47.121.5]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DymPq-0008J5-VN for enum@ietf.org; Sat, 30 Jul 2005 04:09:57 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5.7226.0 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [Enum] E.164 communication assumptions/requirements Date: Sat, 30 Jul 2005 09:38:37 +0200 Message-ID: <32755D354E6B65498C3BD9FD496C7D4613C06F@oefeg-s04.oefeg.loc> Thread-Topic: [Enum] E.164 communication assumptions/requirements Thread-Index: AcWU09Fo39IFR6eDTeublPBQewyT9QABeDty From: "Stastny Richard" To: "Ray Anderson" , , X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 52e1467c2184c31006318542db5614d5 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Enum Discussion List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: enum-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-bounces@ietf.org >How can the call be "completed" if there is no human or voice source at >that ENUM (i.e. its just a web page for example) RC: service not available -richard ________________________________ Von: enum-bounces@ietf.org im Auftrag von Ray Anderson Gesendet: Sa 30.07.2005 08:52 An: james.f.baskin@verizon.com; enum@ietf.org Betreff: Re: [Enum] E.164 communication assumptions/requirements At 20:34 29/07/2005, james.f.baskin@verizon.com wrote: > > > >For each such number range at least one default GW exists. > >This is especially necessary if say an operator in the US > >does not now or does not care that +43780xxxx is > >an ENUM only range, the call still can be completed > >by simply routing the call to +43 > > How can the call be "completed" if there is no human or voice source at that ENUM (i.e. its just a web page for example) _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From enum-bounces@ietf.org Sun Jul 31 18:17:03 2005 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DzM7D-0005hR-LD; Sun, 31 Jul 2005 18:17:03 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DzM7C-0005hL-F3 for enum@megatron.ietf.org; Sun, 31 Jul 2005 18:17:02 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA22241 for ; Sun, 31 Jul 2005 18:16:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtp.bango.net ([62.254.208.133] helo=erol.Westbrooke.bango.net) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DzMdL-0002xD-Qr for enum@ietf.org; Sun, 31 Jul 2005 18:50:16 -0400 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5.7226.0 Date: Sun, 31 Jul 2005 23:16:36 +0100 Message-ID: <2BC2AEC80DD48B40AAAB98A4BE71B5C979C1D1@erol.Westbrooke.bango.net> Thread-Topic: COMMENTS on draft-ra-shin-enum-mobileweb-01.txt Thread-Index: AcWRFBP675U1yIwYTzmpfVuXfqQ6qAFBmvqg From: "Tim Moss" To: "Ray Anderson" , "lconroy" , "Richard Shockey" X-Spam-Score: 0.8 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 68ba2b07ef271dba6ee42a93832cfa4c Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: enum@ietf.org Subject: [Enum] RE: COMMENTS on draft-ra-shin-enum-mobileweb-01.txt X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Enum Discussion List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: enum-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-bounces@ietf.org I very much agree with Ray here. It would definitely be a good idea to discuss this proposal with the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) Mobile Web Initiative (MWI) as they are putting significant resource into this area, in particular there are three W3C working groups that should be contacted. These are the Device Independence Working Group (DIWG), the MWI Best Practices Working Group (BPWG) and the Device Description Working Group (DDWG). I don't believe that ENUM is necessarily the right place for storing general device capabilities. A single phone number could be used by multiple devices (e.g. if the internet connection is initiated over Bluetooth to a mobile device) with varying capabilities, or the same device may have multiple 'browser' clients installed on it e.g. WML browser, IMODE browser, video player etc. However, ENUM could be a good place for a user to describe their particular preferences with respect to how they would like content to be presented to them, and potentially override any automatic content adaptation that may otherwise occur. This should definitely be worked out in detail with the MWI though rather than splintering off into two (or more) different solutions for achieving the same result. =20 =20 Tim Moss CTO Bango =20 e: tim@bango.com m: +44 78 8779 4032 t: +44 12 2347 2823 w: http://www.bango.com =20 =20 Mobile Content World 2005=20 ****************************************************************** "Come and see us on stand 14 at MCW 2005 Olympia Conference Centre, London, UK 13th - 15th September 2005" www.mobilecontentworld.biz=20 =20 > -----Original Message----- > From: Ray Anderson [mailto:ray@bango.net]=20 > Sent: 25 July 2005 11:42 > To: lconroy; Richard Shockey > Cc: 'enum@ietf.org' ENUM; Tim Moss > Subject: COMMENTS on draft-ra-shin-enum-mobileweb-01.txt >=20 >=20 > Here are my top level comments: >=20 > The idea here seems to be to provide "clues" about the=20 > services available at an ENUM addressible site so that a=20 > device or user that could make use of those clues could=20 > provide a better service to the end user. >=20 > The aims are good, but acfetr careful consideration I believe=20 > that this proposal is wrong in its approach, and also wrong=20 > as an ENUMservice. I recommend the authors get involved in=20 > the Mobile Web Initiative. > http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/ >=20 > (1) Wrong Approach >=20 > The W3C is currently engaged on a Mobile Web Initiative which=20 > is working hard to ensure that web sites can give an improved=20 > experience to mobile users. Currently most web sites are=20 > optimized to big screen users > with a "PC environment (keyboard, distraction level etc.). =20 > There are many=20 > parts to this, not least of which > is that the web site can use information presented by the end=20 > user device (HTTP_ACCEPT among others) to determine how best=20 > to deliver a good experience to users. In addition, the site=20 > can redirect to alternative services that might help, if teh=20 > device has certain characteristics. >=20 > Therefore, the idea of tagging a site with different URL's=20 > that are selected between by the client device or the user=20 > should not be necessary, and in fact is more limited because=20 > the hosting site should be able to evolve and adapt its=20 > capabilities much faster than the client device. >=20 > There are many reasons why one URL for content promotion /=20 > bookmarking / passing on is a good thing. Thats probably why=20 > the .MOBI TLD met with so much derision, and was rejected by=20 > W3C, 3GPP, and content providers. >=20 >=20 > (2) Wrong as an ENUM service >=20 > If the ENUM service approach (not withstanding the above) =20 > was to be useful, then surely it should be available across=20 > all domains, not just those in e164.arpa, for example in=20 > www.neustar.biz so that devices accessing those domains can=20 > also provide more appropriate URL's depending on the support=20 > for WAP, ME, iMode, xHTML, VoiceXML, Flash, etc. In that=20 > case, the extra "clues" should become a general DNS facility,=20 > otherwise only sites accessed by enum URL's could provide the=20 > ease of use. >=20 > In that case I assume there is some other working group that=20 > should look at the proposal. >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > At 13:09 23/07/2005, lconroy wrote: > >Hi Folks, > > In case no-one noticed, the mobileweb draft has been updated > >to "draft-ra-shin-enum-mobileweb-01.txt". > > > >This draft is covered in section 3.3 of the Agenda. > >I would suggest that folk look at the new version BEFORE the ENUM > >meeting - the changes are editorial rather than technical,=20 > but given how some > >people seem to have interpreted the -00 version so far,=20 > perhaps this one > >will clarify things and avoid unnecessary flights of fancy. > > > >I would also advise folk to look at the "modest proposal" draft, but > >as it seems vanishingly unlikely that there will be time to=20 > cover that in > >the meeting, questions/comments to the list would be appreciated. > > > >all the best, > > Lawrence >=20 >=20 _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum