[#XWM-610908]: Re: [enum-wg] ENUM Adoption - Does a business c ase matter?

Peter


The fact that CRUE is not deployed speaks volumes.

It sounds like it is time to review ENUM in the UK. As 4.4. is  
delegated to Nominet how do you think (UKEC) this can be conducted to  
achieve a happy outcome? In particular bearing in mind that ENUM is or  
should be in the user's control.


Christian

On 22 Jul 2009, at 20:26, peter at gradwell.com wrote:

> Hi
>
> crue is not currently deployed within the uk - there is some debate  
> about whether the 'carriers' in the uk are not loading the database  
> for technical or commercial reasons.
>
> If it is the case that paying for each individual end user  
> registration is just to expensive for a CP to bulk load, then  
> whether a computer program loads blocks of naptr records or a  
> million individual ones, is, in my opinion, irrelivant, and we just  
> need to fix the registry business model.
>
> Cheers
> Peter
>
> Ukec director who owns a voip provider who is looking for the enum  
> business case!
>
>
>
> --- original message ---
> From: Carsten Schiefner <enumvoipsip.cs at schiefner.de>
> Subject: Re: [#XWM-610908]: Re: [enum-wg] ENUM Adoption - Does a  
> business case  matter?
> Date: 22nd July 2009
> Time: 11:47:27 am
>
> Hello Christian,
>
> Christian de Larrinaga wrote:
>>> Coudl you please elaborate a bit here? Do you call for regulators to
>>> make ENUM mandatory?
>>
>> I am saying that when an E.164 is allocated (to an operator) by a
>> regulator it should be entered into the ENUM tree even it simply  
>> returns
>> the tel: uri for the number itself.
>
> I see: like the CRUE principle (http://www.ukec.co.uk/docs/CRUE.pdf)
> deployed in the UK tree 4.4.e164.arpa - am I correct?
>
> Best regards,
>
> 	Carsten
>