RE: ENUM domain names in Poland
- 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 Fältström" 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>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >
> >
> >
> >