Re: I-D Action: New draft - draft-bellis-enum-send-n-00

> 
> > Like it or not, for now at least it seems that private ENUM has been 
> > somewhat more successful than public ENUM.
> 
> I haven't seen dns request stats on e164.arpa, but last time they were
> announced e164.org was getting more. In any case I see this useful for a
> lot of VoIP and non-VoIP applications even if the primary beneficiary at
> this stage would be VSPs and proficient home users at this stage.

Duane,

My point about private ENUM vs public ENUM wasn't intended to be about the 
size of the databases - I was hurrying as I had to catch a train.

What I was trying to say is that in private ENUM the semantics are often 
not identical to those of public ENUM.  In particular, Richard's assertion 
that RFC3761 lookups should only be done on complete numbers need not 
apply.

To answer Lawrence's question about why this has been raised again: this 
is the proposed solution for a real application - UK number portability.

In another mail you've just asked why not 'X-'.  Say another country 
decided that 'Send-N' style data was a good idea for their portablity 
database, and then in the future multiple countries decide they'd like to 
intermesh their portability databases so that international calls to 
ported numbers go directly to the recipient CP.  I think it would make 
sense for there to be a common standard for this. 

I'd also counter (re: the wildcard issue) that this does not *break* other 
RFCs.  If your ENUM tree has to use wildcards, then so be it, go ahead and 
use them.  This draft supports an optimisation strategy for overlapped 
dialling, not a requirement.

As it happens the wildcard issue is tied in with the relative vs absolute 
question that Otmar raised.  I'll think further about that, and consult 
with my associates at NICC.

Ray