Re: Send-n, rat holes and real issues
Duane <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.enum |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Jay Daley wrote: > Exactly!! Which is why we need send-n. Just because you need a solution to a problem doesn't mean it must replicate what PSTN systems already do that's just crazy. Has no one actually got a valid criticism for my suggestion of doing this as a routing type protocol rather than this hack job on ENUM? Seems most ignored my suggestion completely except for one remark about TRIP. -- Best regards, Duane