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

RE: ENUM domain names in Poland

  • To: "James Seng" < >
    "Conroy, Lawrence (SMTP)" < >
  • From: "Stastny Richard" < >
  • Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2004 17:24:02 +0200


It could be much simpler. Anybody doing a trial can do what he wants.

Anybody going commercial should use only 2916bis.
In Europe it is even simpler: anybody implemeting ENUM should
use the only official standard available, namely ETSI TS 201 172.

BTW: TS 201 172 will be updated soon to contain at least all 
drafts "approved" by IETF ENUM WG.

Richard

> -----Original Message-----
> From: James Seng [
] > Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2004 5:03 PM > To: Stastny Richard; Conroy, Lawrence (SMTP) > Subject: Re: ENUM domain names in Poland > > Nope, I dont think we should put both variant in the DNS in the long run. > > But it does sound like it is a "good practice" to put it into DNS for now. > We > can also discuss a 'flag day' where we declare 'By 1st Jan 2006, everyone > switch to 2916bis only'. > > Lawrence, if you working on the doc, pls circulate :-) > > -James Seng > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Stastny Richard" <Richard.Stastny@localhost > To: "Conroy, Lawrence (SMTP)" lwc@localhost; "James Seng" > jseng@localhost > > Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2004 7:24 PM > Subject: RE: ENUM domain names in Poland > > > > Lawrence wrote: > > > 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? > > > > Back from vacation: > > > > Interesting that as soon somebody is proposing some real work to > > be done the discussion is dying away immediately ;-) > > > > IMHO putting both variants in ENUM is not a good idea. > > Upgrading existing ENUM clients to understand both 2916 and > > 2916bis is also not a good idea, because it is unnecessary > > work. > > > > The best solution would be to upgrade all existing 2916 based > > ENUMs with a simple scripting run to 2916bis overnight. > > > > Following rationale and way forward: > > -2916bis is approved and only stuck in IANA, so it will come > > (although nobody seems to know when ;-) > > -the argument of some implementers of ENUM that they are > > obliged to implement only RFCs I cannot follow really, because > > in this case they could not implement ENUM at all, because > > not a single "enumservice" is defined in an RFC yet. > > - at least for Europe there is existing a BCP already, > > defineing very well all what needs to be done to be compatible, > > namely ETSI TS 102 172. > > - the document should be updated accordingly to the developments > > over the last year and parts of it could then easily folded back > > to the IETF Grand BCP document proposed in Korea (still waiting on > > input from the far east ;-) > > - there will be an ETSI TISPAN WG4 meeting in two weeks, where > > updates to ETSI TS 102 172 will be discussed. > > -I will be happy to receive input for this document and forward > > it to ETSI during the next week and also afterwards. > > -the results of this updates may be folded back in an ID for San Diego. > > -this leaves also time to finalize then both documents until October, > > (the second ETSI ENUM Plugtest Workshop) > > to use both the ETSI document and the IETF document as basis > > for the ETSI Plugtest event in December. > > > > We should not forget that some ENUM implementations will go > > commercial mid of this year and more will follow until the > > end of the year. > > > > If 2916bis is not an official RFC within mid of the year, the > > only feasible way (at least in Europe) will be to use the > > ETSI TS anyway. > > > > Another option is to remove the IANA stuff from RFC2916bis in > > A similar way it is done with 2806bis by Jonathan (quod licet Jovi, > > also licet bovi ;-) > > > > best regards > > Richard > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Conroy, Lawrence (SMTP) [
] > > > Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2004 7:12 PM > > > To: James Seng > > > > > Subject: Re: ENUM domain names in Poland > > > > > > 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 >>>