Re: [e2md] On the issue of G-SPN's

-----Original Message-----
From: Tony Rutkowski [mailto:[email protected]] 
Sent: Monday, May 24, 2010 5:07 PM
To: Richard Shockey
Cc: 'E.164 To MetaData BOF discussion list'; [email protected]; 'IETF ENUM
list'; [email protected]
Subject: Re: [e2md] On the issue of G-SPN's

Hi Richard,

Could you amplify on the "by ITU liaision" parenthetical?

I'ts simple ITU wanted to make sure the DRINKS WG left open a field for SPN
use.

http://www.itu.int/md/T09-SG02-090324-TD-PLEN-0071/en


Considering the G-SPN notion is being driven by a
NeuStar input into ITU-T, that creates a substantial
NeuStar new revenue opportunity/impact on providers,
chaired by a NeuStar staff member in ITU-T, and
sprinkled with NeuStar people in IETF, some care
seems appropriate about the assertions and process.

Well whether it creates any revenue for some company especially the one you
mention is none of my concern. :-) Whatever form the SPN takes, its self
evident that SPN create operational efficiencies for service providers both
for internal as well as external session establishment. 

I'll offer to help as well.

cheers,
tony



On 5/24/2010 4:47 PM, Richard Shockey wrote:
>
> Though the use case for a G-SPN has been identified by this list and 
> is on the TWKI, I want to make it abundantly clear that I do not 
> believe that ENUM or a E2MD WG should actually define what is the 
> appropriate namespace for G-SPN's.
>
> It is a requirement for DRINKS ( by ITU liaison) and touches on 
> SPEERMINT ( which IMHO should shut down ). Consequently the logical 
> thing to do is a individual submission.
>
> I've offered to try and rough cut a Use Case and Requirements 
> document, which I will do in the not to distant future in 
> collaboration with several others who have offered to help.
>