[enum-wg] Follow up on Jim Reid's presentation - CRUE and relation to IETF work

On Apr 28, 2006, at 09:51, Stastny Richard wrote:

>> BTW I don't share your optimism that standardisation of Carrier ENUM
>> can be completed this year. But let's not jump down that rat-hole.
>
> For terminolgy: Carrier ENUM needs not to be standardized,
> it is Infrastructure ENUM.

For some definition of these terms. Maybe. :-) No matter what is  
meant by Carrier ENUM or Infrastructure ENUM, these two things  
presumably must agree on a name space. Though not necessarily with  
each other. That choice of name space or zone apex surely must entail  
standardisation somewhere. Or have I missed something?

> JWhat Michael wanted to say is that the temporary solution defined
> in the Dallas treaty can be nationally implemented soon (as you  
> will see)
> and could be ready for publication request this fall, so it could  
> be used
> also internationally in a standadized way.

If you're referring to draft-haberler-carrier-enum-02.txt, I think  
you are being far, far too optimistic. This draft is badly flawed in  
too many ways to elaborate here. A discussion on that belongs in  
another thread and I'll be happy to initiate this debate.

> Another question for clarification about CRUE:
>
> You mention that for each number a tel and an sip URI is entered.
> this requires each operator to provide a ingress element to their  
> network
>
> How can this be done?

I imagine the hostname lurking in the sip: URI would do that. No?