Re: ENUM domain names in Poland.

["James Seng" <]

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 F�ltstr�m" 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>
> > >
> >
>
>