Re: ENUM domain names in Poland

["Conroy, Lawrence (SMTP)" <]

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 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>