[LINK] Enum musings
Wed, 9 Oct 2002 14:34:31 +1000
>Basically, the telecommunications laws in many countries are based on
>assumptions that are incorrect under the ENUM system.
What about this:
"Enum is based on assumptions which are incorrect under pre-existing
telecommunications numbering systems"? It could be argued that the implied
imperative (we have to get in line with Enum!) is bassackwards...
> -----Original Message-----
> From: James Pearce [mailto:email@example.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, 9 October 2002 12:23
> To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Subject: Re: [LINK] Enum musings
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Chirgwin, Richard" <Richard.Chirgwin@informa.com.au>
> To: <email@example.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, October 09, 2002 9:04 AM
> Subject: RE: [LINK] Enum musings
> > With permission, I'd like to deal with the three responses
> in one message.
> > Ian - you're right about the lack of objective info; and
> thanks for the
> > links.
> > James writes:
> > >As far as I can tell, ENUM was originally designed simply
> to allow VoIP
> > >databases to interconnect easily. The actual software/standard was
> > described
> > >to me as "ridiculously simple". However, the concept
> allows a whole lot
> > >other things to be done, which means that the regulators
> have to get
> > >act together.
> > Interconnecting VoIP databases doesn't per se require Enum.
> Any database
> > be mapped to any other database if you know the metadata. Enum is
> > about expressing non-DNS numbers in a DNS hierarchy.
> Interconnecting databases doesn't require ENUM, but if there's 1,000
> databases worldwide you don't want to have to interconnect all of them
> individually. ENUM is designed (as far as I understand) to
> provide a single
> database (or something) they can connect to. Much like the way the DNS
> > Software is always described as ridiculously simple, unless
> the vendor is
> > trying to justify a vast price (a la SAP) in which case
> they say "this is
> > very complex stuff that needs squillions of dollars in
> In this case I think the software/protocol would be
> incredibly simple, since
> it is just a way to convert one thing (a phone number) into
> another (the
> > About "regulators having to get their act together", I have a really
> > question: why? What is being inhibited by regulators not
> having their act
> > together? and apart from industry-push, what's the evidence that
> > don't have their act together?
> Well, many countries, including Australia, have laws
> concerning the public
> switched telephone system and the way it works. I am not
> familiar with those
> laws, but apparently "when you map telephone numbers into IP
> addresses, its
> not necessarily the case that all those conventions, or even
> requirements, are strictly followed." (I'm quoting a
> technical expert here,
> since I'm not one).
> Basically, the telecommunications laws in many countries are based on
> assumptions that are incorrect under the ENUM system.
> As to why they have to "get their act together", I can't
> answer that. As
> I've already indicated, I don't think the introduction of
> ENUM will have
> much good or ill effect at all.
> For Link list information see http://sunsite.anu.edu.au/link/
For Link list information see http://sunsite.anu.edu.au/link/