Subject: RE: [Enum] please post issues from yesterdays session

From: "Cartwright, Kenneth" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2005 20:18:53 -0500

Right, I feel that the Requirements section (section 3) in the haberler document further clarifies the carrier er. infrastructure ENUM problem, and is mostly complementary with what's already in the lind document.  ...but it's a small point.
 
Ken

________________________________

From: [email-masked] on behalf of Stastny Richard
Sent: Wed 11/9/2005 4:43 PM
To: Alexander Mayrhofer; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [Enum] please post issues from yesterdays session

This was not brought up by me, but concerns
our draft:

The definitions and terminolgy used in
draft-haberler-carrier-enum-01 should be moved over and aligned
with the definitions and terminology in
draft-lind-infrastructure-enum-reqs-01

Richard

________________________________

Von: [email-masked] im Auftrag von Alexander Mayrhofer
Gesendet: Mi 09.11.2005 18:37
An: [email-masked]
Betreff: [Enum] please post issues from yesterdays session

All,

i'd like to ask you to post any issue which you brought up during
yesterday's WG session on the list.

that would make tracking those issues much more easier.

thanks,

alex

_______________________________________________
enum mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum

_______________________________________________
enum mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum

_______________________________________________
enum mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum