From iptel-bounces@ietf.org Thu Aug 18 10:16:22 2005 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1E5lBt-0005T7-Ta; Thu, 18 Aug 2005 10:16:21 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1E5lBr-0005S8-LF; Thu, 18 Aug 2005 10:16:20 -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 KAA07538; Thu, 18 Aug 2005 10:16:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail.oefeg.at ([62.47.121.5]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1E5llc-00022I-HZ; Thu, 18 Aug 2005 10:53:17 -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: Thu, 18 Aug 2005 16:19:48 +0200 Message-ID: <32755D354E6B65498C3BD9FD496C7D461B20B8@oefeg-s04.oefeg.loc> Thread-Topic: [Enum] Re: [voipeer] Re: [Geopriv] Re: [Simple] tel URIs incommonpolicy Thread-Index: AcWj4MHW01Kqk/2cT5epJHRM/1wudAAGBiRgAAFy0tA= From: "Stastny Richard" To: "Brian Rosen" , "Otmar Lendl" , , , X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 67c1ea29f88502ef6a32ccec927970f0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: iptel@ietf.org Subject: [Iptel] RE: [Enum] Re: [voipeer] Re: [Geopriv] Re: [Simple] tel URIs incommonpolicy X-BeenThere: iptel@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: IP Telephony List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: iptel-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: iptel-bounces@ietf.org I strongly support this, because this would finally end the confusion with dialled digits and=20 phone numbers BTW, Brian, please update=20 draft-rosen-iptel-dialstring-02.txt becauseit is obsolete already. In addition, I would propose then a WGLC So I copy this to the iptel list also Richard Stastny OeFEG tel:+43 664 420 4100 enum:+43 780 203 211 callto://fordprefect http://voipandenum.blogspot.com =20 > -----Original Message----- > From: enum-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:enum-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of > Brian Rosen > Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2005 3:36 PM > To: 'Otmar Lendl'; voipeer@lists.uoregon.edu; geopriv@ietf.org; > enum@ietf.org > Subject: RE: [Enum] Re: [voipeer] Re: [Geopriv] Re: [Simple] tel URIs > incommonpolicy >=20 > In step 1, if the phone does not do dialplan interpretation, then what the > user entered is a dialstring, and not a telephone number. This could be > encoded, as you show, as a SIP uri, but might be better encoded as a > dialstring, per draft-rosen-iptel-dialstring-02.txt. A tel uri is > explicitly NOT used to carry a dialstring. >=20 > I think it would be better labeled as a dialstring, and not something that > could be confused as a telephone number. It remains true that the user- > part > of sip:5056416@my-voip-provider.at can only be interpreted by the > my-voip-provider.at domain, so your flow definitely can work. >=20 > Brian >=20 > -----Original Message----- > From: enum-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:enum-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of > Otmar Lendl > Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2005 6:33 AM > To: voipeer@lists.uoregon.edu; geopriv@ietf.org; enum@ietf.org > Subject: [Enum] Re: [voipeer] Re: [Geopriv] Re: [Simple] tel URIs in > commonpolicy >=20 > On 2005/08/18 05:08, Jonathan Rosenberg wrote: > > > > My point is that I think it makes sense to consider the tel URI a URN, > > and that it is merely an accident of history that it wasn't a URN more > > properly. Now, as you and I both know phone numbers in the PSTN are > > abused to represent lots of things, but there is no reason to carry > > forward this confusion into voip. This is why I am proposing that when a > > phone number is in a tel URI, it represents a name. We don't know where > > it is on the network (indeed even if its on an IP network). To know > > that, we translate to an address. That address is a SIP URI. That SIP > > URI can contain a phone number, i.e. > > sip:+19739525000@provider.net;user=3Dphone, however in this format = the > > phone number has been resolved to an address. The act of porting a > > number is a change in the translation of the phone number as a name (the > > tel URI) to the phone number as an address (the SIP URI). > > >=20 > This is a very sensible notion. >=20 > Based on this thinking the dialing of a number on a VoIP-phone > goes through the following conceptual stages: >=20 > 1) User enters a (potentially partial) number on his phone. > The phone appends its default domain and sends the invite to its proxy: > e.g. sip:5056416@my-voip-provider.at >=20 > 2) The SIP proxy applies the local dialplan to translate the > SIP address to an E.164 number: >=20 > e.g. customer is in vienna, thus 5056416 maps to +43 1 5056416 > -> We now have a URN: tel:+4315056416 >=20 > 3) The SIP proxy now tries to route the call. In this example, > user ENUM finds: > "E2U+sip" "!^.*$!sip:office@enum.at!" >=20 > or it could map to the local PSTN gateway with an URI like > sip:+4315056416@AS5300.my-voip-provider.at >=20 > /ol > -- > < Otmar Lendl (lendl@nic.at) | nic.at Systems Engineer > >=20 > _______________________________________________ > enum mailing list > enum@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum >=20 >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > enum mailing list > enum@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum _______________________________________________ Iptel mailing list Iptel@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iptel From iptel-bounces@ietf.org Thu Aug 18 10:42:01 2005 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1E5laj-0003vk-63; Thu, 18 Aug 2005 10:42:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1E5lah-0003qd-7o for iptel@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 18 Aug 2005 10:41:59 -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 KAA09462 for ; Thu, 18 Aug 2005 10:41:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: from 213-152-49-126.dsl.eclipse.net.uk ([213.152.49.126] helo=norman.insensate.co.uk) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1E5mAS-0002pO-Dz for iptel@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Aug 2005 11:18:57 -0400 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by norman.insensate.co.uk (Postfix) with ESMTP id C0B646D90D; Thu, 18 Aug 2005 15:37:23 +0100 (BST) In-Reply-To: <32755D354E6B65498C3BD9FD496C7D461B20B8@oefeg-s04.oefeg.loc> References: <32755D354E6B65498C3BD9FD496C7D461B20B8@oefeg-s04.oefeg.loc> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v734) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: lconroy Subject: Re: [Iptel] RE: [Enum] Re: [voipeer] Re: [Geopriv] Re: [Simple] tel URIs incommonpolicy Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2005 15:41:11 +0100 To: Brian Rosen X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.734) X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: ec7c6dab5a62df223002ae71b5179d41 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: iptel@ietf.org, Stastny Richard , Otmar Lendl X-BeenThere: iptel@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: IP Telephony List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: iptel-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: iptel-bounces@ietf.org Hi Brian, folks, [Note - trimmed CC to remove just iptel - I thought that this was "of interest to" iptel] Herewith a "me too". I take it that Richard has reviewed the draft and thinks it is "ready to go". I like this draft - it's short and to the point, and resolves a LOT of confusion. - it even has a non-empty security section with an issue that is well put. More formally, I have reviewed draft-rosen-iptel-dialstring-02.txt, and believe that it is ready for WGLC/IETF LC. Brian:: My only comment is that it could do with an example SIP URI, to make sure that implementers who only look at the examples DO insert a context parameter into the SIP URI. [The MUST strength statement IS in the text, but from experience ... ] Jonathon:: I note that this is an individual draft, and has just expired. Given the status of the IPTEL WG, should this be adopted as an IPTEL draft and up-issued as "draft-iptel-dialstring-00.txt"? Either way, it's ready to roll, IMHO. all the best, Lawrence On 18 Aug 2005, at 15:19, Stastny Richard wrote: > I strongly support this, because this would > finally end the confusion with dialled digits and > phone numbers > > BTW, Brian, please update > draft-rosen-iptel-dialstring-02.txt > > becauseit is obsolete already. > In addition, I would propose then a WGLC > So I copy this to the iptel list also > > Richard Stastny > OeFEG > tel:+43 664 420 4100 > enum:+43 780 203 211 > callto://fordprefect > http://voipandenum.blogspot.com > > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: enum-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:enum-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf >> > Of > >> Brian Rosen >> Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2005 3:36 PM >> To: 'Otmar Lendl'; voipeer@lists.uoregon.edu; geopriv@ietf.org; >> enum@ietf.org >> Subject: RE: [Enum] Re: [voipeer] Re: [Geopriv] Re: [Simple] tel URIs >> incommonpolicy >> >> In step 1, if the phone does not do dialplan interpretation, then >> what >> > the > >> user entered is a dialstring, and not a telephone number. This could >> > be > >> encoded, as you show, as a SIP uri, but might be better encoded as a >> dialstring, per draft-rosen-iptel-dialstring-02.txt. A tel uri is >> explicitly NOT used to carry a dialstring. >> >> I think it would be better labeled as a dialstring, and not something >> > that > >> could be confused as a telephone number. It remains true that the >> > user- > >> part >> of sip:5056416@my-voip-provider.at can only be interpreted by the >> my-voip-provider.at domain, so your flow definitely can work. >> >> Brian >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: enum-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:enum-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf >> > Of > >> Otmar Lendl >> Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2005 6:33 AM >> To: voipeer@lists.uoregon.edu; geopriv@ietf.org; enum@ietf.org >> Subject: [Enum] Re: [voipeer] Re: [Geopriv] Re: [Simple] tel URIs in >> commonpolicy >> >> On 2005/08/18 05:08, Jonathan Rosenberg wrote: >> >>> >>> My point is that I think it makes sense to consider the tel URI a >>> > URN, > >>> and that it is merely an accident of history that it wasn't a URN >>> > more > >>> properly. Now, as you and I both know phone numbers in the PSTN are >>> abused to represent lots of things, but there is no reason to carry >>> forward this confusion into voip. This is why I am proposing that >>> > when a > >>> phone number is in a tel URI, it represents a name. We don't know >>> > where > >>> it is on the network (indeed even if its on an IP network). To know >>> that, we translate to an address. That address is a SIP URI. That >>> > SIP > >>> URI can contain a phone number, i.e. >>> sip:+19739525000@provider.net;user=phone, however in this format the >>> phone number has been resolved to an address. The act of porting a >>> number is a change in the translation of the phone number as a name >>> > (the > >>> tel URI) to the phone number as an address (the SIP URI). >>> >>> >> >> This is a very sensible notion. >> >> Based on this thinking the dialing of a number on a VoIP-phone >> goes through the following conceptual stages: >> >> 1) User enters a (potentially partial) number on his phone. >> The phone appends its default domain and sends the invite to its >> > proxy: > >> e.g. sip:5056416@my-voip-provider.at >> >> 2) The SIP proxy applies the local dialplan to translate the >> SIP address to an E.164 number: >> >> e.g. customer is in vienna, thus 5056416 maps to +43 1 5056416 >> -> We now have a URN: tel:+4315056416 >> >> 3) The SIP proxy now tries to route the call. In this example, >> user ENUM finds: >> "E2U+sip" "!^.*$!sip:office@enum.at!" >> >> or it could map to the local PSTN gateway with an URI like >> sip:+4315056416@AS5300.my-voip-provider.at >> >> /ol >> -- >> < Otmar Lendl (lendl@nic.at) | nic.at Systems Engineer > >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 >> > > > _______________________________________________ > Iptel mailing list > Iptel@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iptel > _______________________________________________ Iptel mailing list Iptel@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iptel From iptel-bounces@ietf.org Thu Aug 18 11:37:50 2005 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1E5mSk-0003BF-9N; Thu, 18 Aug 2005 11:37:50 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1E5mSi-0003B7-Di for iptel@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 18 Aug 2005 11:37:48 -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 LAA13004 for ; Thu, 18 Aug 2005 11:37:46 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200508181537.LAA13004@ietf.org> Received: from dx28.winwebhosting.com ([70.85.77.84]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1E5n2U-0004iL-DB for iptel@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Aug 2005 12:14:46 -0400 Received: from neustargw.va.neustar.com ([209.173.53.233] helo=BROSENLT41xp) by dx28.winwebhosting.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.52) id 1E5mSY-0007PG-2b; Thu, 18 Aug 2005 10:37:38 -0500 From: "Brian Rosen" To: "'lconroy'" Subject: RE: [Iptel] RE: [Enum] Re: [voipeer] Re: [Geopriv] Re: [Simple] tel URIs incommonpolicy Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2005 11:37:34 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.6353 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2527 In-Reply-To: Thread-Index: AcWkAusIhsvv3rLCT7yp6JFld/HcagAB4byw X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - dx28.winwebhosting.com X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - brianrosen.net X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: a492040269d440726bfd84680622cee7 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: iptel@ietf.org, 'Stastny Richard' , 'Otmar Lendl' X-BeenThere: iptel@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: IP Telephony List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: iptel-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: iptel-bounces@ietf.org I asked the IESG to publish -02 as an individual submission. Jon Peterson is shepherding. Brian -----Original Message----- From: lconroy [mailto:lconroy@insensate.co.uk] Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2005 10:41 AM To: Brian Rosen Cc: Stastny Richard; Otmar Lendl; iptel@ietf.org; Jonathan Rosenberg Subject: Re: [Iptel] RE: [Enum] Re: [voipeer] Re: [Geopriv] Re: [Simple] tel URIs incommonpolicy Hi Brian, folks, [Note - trimmed CC to remove just iptel - I thought that this was "of interest to" iptel] Herewith a "me too". I take it that Richard has reviewed the draft and thinks it is "ready to go". I like this draft - it's short and to the point, and resolves a LOT of confusion. - it even has a non-empty security section with an issue that is well put. More formally, I have reviewed draft-rosen-iptel-dialstring-02.txt, and believe that it is ready for WGLC/IETF LC. Brian:: My only comment is that it could do with an example SIP URI, to make sure that implementers who only look at the examples DO insert a context parameter into the SIP URI. [The MUST strength statement IS in the text, but from experience ... ] Jonathon:: I note that this is an individual draft, and has just expired. Given the status of the IPTEL WG, should this be adopted as an IPTEL draft and up-issued as "draft-iptel-dialstring-00.txt"? Either way, it's ready to roll, IMHO. all the best, Lawrence On 18 Aug 2005, at 15:19, Stastny Richard wrote: > I strongly support this, because this would > finally end the confusion with dialled digits and > phone numbers > > BTW, Brian, please update > draft-rosen-iptel-dialstring-02.txt > > becauseit is obsolete already. > In addition, I would propose then a WGLC > So I copy this to the iptel list also > > Richard Stastny > OeFEG > tel:+43 664 420 4100 > enum:+43 780 203 211 > callto://fordprefect > http://voipandenum.blogspot.com > > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: enum-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:enum-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf >> > Of > >> Brian Rosen >> Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2005 3:36 PM >> To: 'Otmar Lendl'; voipeer@lists.uoregon.edu; geopriv@ietf.org; >> enum@ietf.org >> Subject: RE: [Enum] Re: [voipeer] Re: [Geopriv] Re: [Simple] tel URIs >> incommonpolicy >> >> In step 1, if the phone does not do dialplan interpretation, then >> what >> > the > >> user entered is a dialstring, and not a telephone number. This could >> > be > >> encoded, as you show, as a SIP uri, but might be better encoded as a >> dialstring, per draft-rosen-iptel-dialstring-02.txt. A tel uri is >> explicitly NOT used to carry a dialstring. >> >> I think it would be better labeled as a dialstring, and not something >> > that > >> could be confused as a telephone number. It remains true that the >> > user- > >> part >> of sip:5056416@my-voip-provider.at can only be interpreted by the >> my-voip-provider.at domain, so your flow definitely can work. >> >> Brian >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: enum-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:enum-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf >> > Of > >> Otmar Lendl >> Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2005 6:33 AM >> To: voipeer@lists.uoregon.edu; geopriv@ietf.org; enum@ietf.org >> Subject: [Enum] Re: [voipeer] Re: [Geopriv] Re: [Simple] tel URIs in >> commonpolicy >> >> On 2005/08/18 05:08, Jonathan Rosenberg wrote: >> >>> >>> My point is that I think it makes sense to consider the tel URI a >>> > URN, > >>> and that it is merely an accident of history that it wasn't a URN >>> > more > >>> properly. Now, as you and I both know phone numbers in the PSTN are >>> abused to represent lots of things, but there is no reason to carry >>> forward this confusion into voip. This is why I am proposing that >>> > when a > >>> phone number is in a tel URI, it represents a name. We don't know >>> > where > >>> it is on the network (indeed even if its on an IP network). To know >>> that, we translate to an address. That address is a SIP URI. That >>> > SIP > >>> URI can contain a phone number, i.e. >>> sip:+19739525000@provider.net;user=phone, however in this format the >>> phone number has been resolved to an address. The act of porting a >>> number is a change in the translation of the phone number as a name >>> > (the > >>> tel URI) to the phone number as an address (the SIP URI). >>> >>> >> >> This is a very sensible notion. >> >> Based on this thinking the dialing of a number on a VoIP-phone >> goes through the following conceptual stages: >> >> 1) User enters a (potentially partial) number on his phone. >> The phone appends its default domain and sends the invite to its >> > proxy: > >> e.g. sip:5056416@my-voip-provider.at >> >> 2) The SIP proxy applies the local dialplan to translate the >> SIP address to an E.164 number: >> >> e.g. customer is in vienna, thus 5056416 maps to +43 1 5056416 >> -> We now have a URN: tel:+4315056416 >> >> 3) The SIP proxy now tries to route the call. In this example, >> user ENUM finds: >> "E2U+sip" "!^.*$!sip:office@enum.at!" >> >> or it could map to the local PSTN gateway with an URI like >> sip:+4315056416@AS5300.my-voip-provider.at >> >> /ol >> -- >> < Otmar Lendl (lendl@nic.at) | nic.at Systems Engineer > >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 >> > > > _______________________________________________ > Iptel mailing list > Iptel@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iptel > _______________________________________________ Iptel mailing list Iptel@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iptel From iptel-bounces@ietf.org Thu Aug 18 21:28:46 2005 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1E5vgc-0006uB-QT; Thu, 18 Aug 2005 21:28:46 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1E5vga-0006tx-HT for iptel@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 18 Aug 2005 21:28:44 -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 VAA21309 for ; Thu, 18 Aug 2005 21:28:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: from sb7.songbird.com ([208.184.79.137]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1E5wGP-0007IP-Jm for iptel@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Aug 2005 22:05:48 -0400 Received: from [68.165.240.34] (h-68-165-240-34.mclnva23.covad.net [68.165.240.34]) (authenticated bits=0) by sb7.songbird.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j7J1T0iA020545 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 18 Aug 2005 18:29:02 -0700 Message-ID: <430535AC.2010800@shockey.us> Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2005 21:28:12 -0400 From: Richard Shockey User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.5 (Windows/20050711) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <165FCC93A820D240A62F98E028CEFED002AEEE76@stntexch01.cis.neustar.com> In-Reply-To: <165FCC93A820D240A62F98E028CEFED002AEEE76@stntexch01.cis.neustar.com> X-SongbirdInformation: support@songbird.com for more information X-Songbird: Found to be clean X-Songbird-From: richard@shockey.us X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by sb7.songbird.com id j7J1T0iA020545 X-Spam-Score: 1.1 (+) X-Scan-Signature: c1c65599517f9ac32519d043c37c5336 Cc: fluffy@cisco.com, iptel@ietf.org, "Peterson, Jon" , mankin@psg.com Subject: [Iptel] When can we get the logjam on WGLC documents moving? X-BeenThere: iptel@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: IP Telephony List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0197297902==" Sender: iptel-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: iptel-bounces@ietf.org --===============0197297902== Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
There is the Yu draft ..draft-ietf-iptel-tel-np-05.txt=A0

I think there was consensus that we were finished with the NPDI aka ENUM dip draft. etal .. etal.

Whats the problem ?

--=20


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>&=
gt;>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>&g=
t;>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Richard Shockey, Director - Member of Technical Staff
NeuStar Inc.
46000 Center Oak Plaza  -   Sterling, VA  20166
sip:rshockey(=
at)iptel.org   sip:57141(at)fwd.pulver.com
ENUM +87810-13313-31331
PSTN Office +1 571.434.5651 PSTN Mobile +1 703.593.2683
Fax: +1 815.333.1237
=
<mailto:richard(at)shockey.us> or=20
<mailto:richard.shockey(at)neustar.biz>
<ht=
tp://www.neustar.biz> ; <http://www.enum.org>
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<&=
lt;<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<&l=
t;<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
--===============0197297902== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ Iptel mailing list Iptel@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iptel --===============0197297902==--