<<< Chronological >>> Author Index    Subject Index <<< Threads >>>

Re: ENUM domain names in Poland

  • To: James Seng < >
  • From: "Conroy, Lawrence (SMTP)" < >
  • Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 18:11:49 +0100

Hi James, folks,
<note>
First point - due to a good example of I.T. departments at their very best,
any mail with a dot in the subject is not readable by a certain would-be reader
of this thread - please could folk remove the dot I inadvertently put onto the
end of the title before posting. Mea culpa.
</note>

Yes - I've already considered adding this as part of the ENUM grand unified
Implementers Guide/BCP. I guess someone should summarise this thread on the
IETF ENUM mailing list - any offers?

I have to say I still have qualms over this as it doubles the size of the
replies which IS a problem for existing implementations that realistically
cannot be changed as they're already on the limit of available size in the
JVM on some cell phones (before someone jumps in :). Of course, if everyone
went out and purchased a new smartphone, then this would not be a problem,
(as they wouldn't be running long enough to get a response back :).

However... it IS a migration strategy, and given the sterling work IANA
and the RFC Editor have done** to ensure that I retire before we have a
clear replacement, it may be the least bad solution.

all the best,
Lawrence

** You might think of a Banana Republic, but I couldn't possibly comment.


On 31 Mar 2004, at 5:16 pm, James Seng wrote:

just a matter of curiousity...how many implementations are still using 2916
and not 2916bis?

ps: it does make sense to put both 2916 and 2916bis in the record. perhaps
someone should put together a BCP.

james

----- Original Message -----
From: "Andrzej Bartosiewicz" andrzejb@localhost
To: "Patrik Fltstrm" paf@localhost
Cc: "Conroy, Lawrence (SMTP)" lwc@localhost; "Stastny Richard"
<Richard.Stastny@localhost; enum-trials@localhost
Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2004 6:15 PM
Subject: Re: ENUM domain names in Poland.


I guess they still use RFC 2916 format.
yes, we are still using 2916 format for NAPTR RRs

My *personal* recommendation is to use both 2916 and 2916bis format for
a while as software might not be updated yet according to 2916bis.
i think it's good idea to support both 2916/2916bis for a while. for example
our "look-up" & "phone book" applications are still based on rfc2916:
www.dns.pl/cgi-bin/en_enum_lookup.pl
www.dns.pl/ENUM/enumClient.zip

andrzej

    paf

On Mar 31, 2004, at 01:29, Conroy, Lawrence (SMTP) wrote:

Hi Andrzej,
looking at the first number (+48225231300) , I note that the ENUM data
is broken.

The service field is "mailto+E2U" - in RFC2916bis the E2U goes at the
start of
the field, NOT the end.

Likewise for the second number.

Sigh.

See ETSI's TS 102 172 for the ETSI spec on Interoperability of
European trials.

all the best,
Lawrence

----
On 29 Mar 2004, Andrzej Bartosiewicz wrote:
We are using this domain names for testing in Poland.

Please, do not call me and my friends in the middle of the night... ;)

Andrzej.

0.0.3.1.3.2.5.2.2.8.4.e164.arpa
0.2.9.7.5.0.0.0.6.8.4.e164.arpa
<snip>







  • Post To The List:
<<< Chronological >>> Author    Subject <<< Threads >>>