Re: Send-n, rat holes and real issues

> 
> > What you're looking at is the supposedly authoritative 
> source of data.
> > Better info can be found, but only by talking to the 
> individual CPs...of
> > which there are currently 384, off the top of my head.  
> That's what we're
> > trying to get away from.
> > 
> > The point of Send-N is that the records are set according to what's
> > populated into ENUM.
> And how does the ENUM operator get the data?  It needs to get 
> data from 384
> CPs, plus the regulator, right?  If the ENUM database was a world-wide
> database, it has to get the data from thousands of sources in 
> different
> countries, right?
> 
> Doesn't that imply some sort of standardization?
> 
> And then, having standardized a way to get the data, why is 
> that not good
> enough for everyone? 
> 

Who is "the ENUM operator" in this context?  

My view, in a user-ENUM environment you're talking about the T1 registry for a given country.  When a number's registered today, the Tier 2 has to notify the Tier 1 to make the delegation, as well as populating the NAPTRs on their DNS server.  Add Send-N to the mix, and the Tier 1 also has the task of synthesizing the Send-Ns based upon the info received for that and previous delegations.  As to whether the T1 is prepared to do that...well I can only say that the author of the I-D is the UK T1.  If a country had no need for Send-N (e.g. fixed length plan), then I haven't seen anything in Ray's proposals that mandates Send-Ns be populated.

Of course, if there's a desire to come up with something which meets the requirements of Send-N using something other than ENUM so couldn't leverage existing standards, then there would be a need for new stuff.

As an aside, in the UK portability context, the CDB provider will synthesize Send-Ns according to information populated by the CPs about active numbers.  The management interface has been standardised for providing that information.  I can't go into any detail about the level of support for this by CDB vendors because we're subject to EU Public Procurement legislation at present, but suffice to say that our prospective providers are not flagging support of this as an issue.



This e-mail has been scanned for viruses by the Cable & Wireless e-mail security system - powered by MessageLabs. For more information on a proactive managed e-mail security service, visit http://www.cw.com/uk/emailprotection/ 

The information contained in this e-mail is confidential and may also be subject to legal privilege. It is intended only for the recipient(s) named above. If you are not named above as a recipient, you must not read, copy, disclose, forward or otherwise use the information contained in this email. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender (whose contact details are above) immediately by reply e-mail and delete the message and any attachments without retaining any copies.
 
Cable and Wireless plc 
Registered in England and Wales.Company Number 238525 
Registered office: 3rd Floor, 26 Red Lion Square, London WC1R 4HQ