Regarding enum-source-uri-00

During the ENUM session today it was mentioned that there is a
requirement from speermint regarding this.

I disagree. The requirement concerns the selection of ingress elements
depending on the source SIP operator. That does not ipso facto mean that
this has to happen in an ENUM lookup.

In speermint parlance, there are the LUF (who owns a number) and the LRF
(how to I route to the destination) query steps.

For the LUF, the obvious protocol candidate is ENUM. We do NOT need the
source variability there. Who owns a number does not depend on who
is asking. It's a straight forward directory lookup.

The LRF doesn't have a E.164 number as input. Some sort of "who owns
this number" is the input. ENUM thus CANNOT be the protocol for this
lookup. This is the query where the routing decision should be made,
and that decision will be potentially influenced by a lot more
information than just the destination and the source URI.

Speermint hasn't decided on any protocol for the LRF.

It's only if you combine those two lookups into a single query,
that this requirement ends up applying to ENUM.

Merging these queries kills URI-based routing. (How do you do the
source variability with ENUM if the user wants to IM to a SIP URI?)

I strongly advise against this.

/ol
-- 
// Otmar Lendl <[email protected]>, T: +43 1 5056416 - 33, F: - 933
// nic.at Internet Verwaltungs- und Betriebsgesellschaft m.b.H
// http://www.nic.at/  LG Salzburg, FN 172568b, Sitz: Salzburg