Re: ENUM domain names in Poland.
- Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 18:47:40 +0200
On Mar 31, 2004, at 18:16, James Seng wrote:
just a matter of curiousity...how many implementations are still using
and not 2916bis?
Cisco in IOS. We are not ready yet...
ps: it does make sense to put both 2916 and 2916bis in the record.
No, this is just a transition issue which I hope is gone pretty
quickly. I would guess the 2916 records are not needed one year after
2916bis is _really_ published as an RFC.
someone should put together a BCP.
Yes, it is hard to convince people to implement after a non-RFC...
----- Original Message -----
From: "Andrzej Bartosiewicz" andrzejb@localhost
To: "Patrik Fältström" paf@localhost
Cc: "Conroy, Lawrence (SMTP)" lwc@localhost; "Stastny Richard"
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
i think it's good idea to support both 2916/2916bis for a while. for
a while as software might not be updated yet according to 2916bis.
our "look-up" & "phone book" applications are still based on rfc2916:
On Mar 31, 2004, at 01:29, Conroy, Lawrence (SMTP) wrote:
looking at the first number (+48225231300) , I note that the ENUM
The service field is "mailto+E2U" - in RFC2916bis the E2U goes at
the field, NOT the end.
Likewise for the second number.
See ETSI's TS 102 172 for the ETSI spec on Interoperability of
all the best,
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...