AW: AW: AW: AW: [enum-wg] Kapsch CarrierCom first company to be reached with ENUM (questionable)

Lawrence,

you still manage to ignore my 2 points ;-)

I was not going to debate if Torys do speak H323 or not.  I am not going to debate if any VoIP protocol is "better" or "less nostalgic" than another (we may well debate if one protocol is more suited for a partical purpose than another). I happen to work for a company that make PBX products which support both H.323 and SIP.  But I am polite enough not to assume that the bunch of customers we have using H.323 are somewhat odd or as out-dated as your p166.  

Anyway, I was trying to say that neither VoIP nor ENUM require a SIP-URI.  And that Kapsch wasn't the first company reachable via enum.
Think we have consumed enough bandwidth for that though...

:-) Christoph

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Conroy, Lawrence (SMTP) [mailto:lwc at roke.co.uk]
Gesendet: Freitag, 8. Oktober 2004 15:00
An: Christoph Künkel
Cc: enum-wg at ripe.net
Betreff: Re: AW: AW: AW: [enum-wg] Kapsch CarrierCom first company to be
reached with ENUM (questionable)


Hi Christoph, folks,

  Re. two points -

I have a certain nostalgia for the old days when folk thought that H.323

was the answer to a maiden's prayer and people still voted Tory in the 

UK.

I still have an old Pentium 166 in our lab that must be about the same 

era,

so I DO understand the concept of using whatever old kit is hanging 

around.



Re. 3761/3762 forbidding anything - yup.

Strictly, it's RFC3762 that forbids this, as that slim document is what

registers the h323 Enumservice. 3762 does not mention any sub-sub-type,

so the :voice bit is invalid. Talk to Orit if you think it should be 

changed.


AFAIK, Asterisk is one of the two widest used ENUM-enabled systems, the 
other being SER.

Hence whilst the * enum.c does meet RFCs 3761, 3762, 3764 (and also 

supports

the ETSI 102172 spec), as well as the earlier RFC2915 and RFC2916, 

(i.e. it's

pretty flexible), it breaks with the syntax chosen by your ?hoster?.


So it goes.


all the best,

   Lawrence


On 8 Oct 2004, at 13:25, Christoph Künkel wrote:


> Lawrence,

>

> You still manage to ignore my 2 points ;-)

>

> Nevertheless, regarding the service spec.  This is done by our trial 

> enum NAPTR hoster. See 

> http://www.enum-trial.de/newsletter/newsletter02.htm (at the end) for 
> details [ sorry, I am not aware of an English translation ].

>

> Do you think either RFC 3761 or 3762 forbids this?

> or is enum.c the normative reference?

>

> :-) Christoph

>

>

> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----

> Von: Conroy, Lawrence (SMTP) [mailto:lwc at roke.co.uk]

> [ ... ]

>

> I haven't seen before:  E2U+h323:voice

>

>

> Looking at the code, I suspect that this will successfully break

>

> Asterisk's

>

> enum.c processing.

>


-- 

Visit our website at www.roke.co.uk

Roke Manor Research Ltd, Roke Manor, Romsey, Hampshire SO51 0ZN, UK.

The information contained in this e-mail and any attachments is confidential to
Roke Manor Research Ltd and must not be passed to any third party without
permission. This communication is for information only and shall not create or
change any contractual relationship.