Subject: RE: [Enum] DNS for E.164-IP Address Mapping

From: BARNOLE Valerie CNET/DAC/ISS <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2000 14:22:10 +0100

I read the Vaha-Sipila draft and I had trouble with understanding if it was
pertinent to have such distinct URLs due to the fact that a same E.164
number can correspond to a fax or to a phone. In that case, would the number
be part of two URL schemes, .tel and .fax ?
I thought it would have been more convenient to stick to one URL like P.
Faltstrom's .e164.int in his "E.164 number and DNS draft" and different
protocols. But maybe I totally misunderstood each draft ? And .e164.int is
not a URL scheme as .tel, .fax and .modem are ?
Thanks for giving me some lightson this issue.

end of message
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 

Valérie Barnole
FT.BD/CNET/DAC/ARS
tel. : + 33 1 45 29 58 39
fax : + 33 1 46 29 31 42

[email-masked]

-----Message d'origine-----
De: Richard Shockey [mailto:[email-masked]]
Date: vendredi 7 janvier 2000 20:34
À: James Yu
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Objet: Re: [Enum] DNS for E.164-IP Address Mapping

At 01:45 PM 1/7/2000 -0500, Jonathan Rosenberg wrote:
>I used the work "mechanism" when URI scheme is the correct term. Check
>rfc2396 for a general discussion. There are many URI schemes defined;
>I'm not sure if there is an IANA procedure somewhere defined for
>registering them.
>
>-Jonathan R.

Well for telephony applications there is a draft outlining how the URL's 
should be defined. I'm sure if there were other types of applications that 
need to be referenced in NAPTR records... Universal Messaging Servers, 
T.38, it should be no trouble defining a simple registration procedure.

Jonathan.... one of the things I'm increasingly concerned about is DNS 
security here. Do you have any thoughts on how much of DNSSEC we might have 
to require?

Title           : URLs for Telephone Calls
         Author(s)       : A. Vaha-Sipila
         Filename        : draft-antti-telephony-url-12.txt
         Pages           : 22
         Date            : 29-Dec-99

This document specifies URL (Uniform Resource Locator) schemes
'tel', 'fax' and 'modem' for specifying the location of a
terminal in the phone network and the connection types (modes of
operation) that can be used to connect to that entity. This
specification covers voice calls (normal phone calls, answering
machines and voice messaging systems), facsimile (telefax) calls and
data calls, both for POTS and digital/mobile subscribers.

A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-antti-telephony-url-12.txt

Richard Shockey
Shockey Consulting LLC
8045 Big Bend Blvd. Suite 110
St. Louis, MO 63119
Voice 314.918.9020
eFAX Fax to EMail 815.333.1237 (Preferred for Fax)
INTERNET Mail & IFAX : [email-masked]
GSTN Fax 314.918.9015
MediaGate iPost VoiceMail and Fax 800.260.4464
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

_______________________________________________
enum mailing list
[email-masked]
http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum

_______________________________________________
enum mailing list
[email-masked]
http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum

---

From: Richard Shockey <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2000 12:46:41 -0600

>Thanks for giving me some lightson this issue.

Well the VahaSipila draft came out of different requirements than that of 
ENUM specifically. It is useful to distinguish the form of communication in 
the URL for applications such as VPIM [Voice Profile for Internet Mail].

How this might work in ENUM is clearly subject to further debate.

In the FAX application it may be necessary to distinguish the preferred 
protocol and destination based on subscriber requirements. The concept of 
"fax" is no longer one protocol. It could be GSTN/T.30, SMTP, ITU/T.38, IPP 
or SIP. If so the URL scheme for each protocol used might be different. If 
the preferred form of connection is purely SIP this will be easier since 
there is already discussion of Caller Preference models in SIP where such 
data will be stored.

Richard Shockey
Shockey Consulting LLC

---

From: BARNOLE Valerie CNET/DAC/ISS <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2000 10:58:11 +0100

So, in the FAX application you quote, wouldn't it be just enough to have in
NAPTR records (see Patrick's draft §3.1), with different priorities, the
service fields "GSTN/T.30+FAX" and "SMTP+FAX" and "ITU/T.38+FAX" ?

For instance, if the fax number is + 33 1 46 29 31 42 :

2.8.0.4.6.2.6.5.8.6.4.e164.int
IN NAPTR 10  10 s "SIP+FAX" "sip:[email-masked]"
IN NAPTR 10 100 s "SMTP+FAX" "smtp._tcp.tele2.se"
IN NAPTR 10 102 s "ITU/T.38+FAX" "t38._tcp.tele2.se"
IN NAPTR 10 104 s "GSTN/T.30+FAX" "t30._tcp.tele2.se"
IN NAPTR 10 106 s "IPP+FAX" "ipp._tcp.tele2.se"
(I apologize, I may have written quite stupid replacement fields for the 3
last items). 

Excuse me for sticking to this question. To me, it looks a little strange to
categorize E.164 numbers (names) according to the technology (pots, isdn,
fax, maybe GSM or PCS, which does not appear in Vaha-Sipila draft but might,
why not). I tend to consider URLs as names compared to IP addresses, so I
tend to disconnect them from any technology. But maybe I am  wrong in
considering URLs as names ?

end of message

Valérie Barnole
FT.BD/CNET/DAC/ARS

-----Message d'origine-----
De: Richard Shockey [mailto:[email-masked]]
Date: lundi 17 janvier 2000 19:47
À: BARNOLE Valerie CNET/DAC/ISS; James Yu
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Objet: RE: [Enum] DNS for E.164-IP Address Mapping

Richard Shockey
Shockey Consulting LLC

---

From: BARNOLE Valerie CNET/DAC/ISS <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2000 17:24:56 +0100

Hope I won't get too lost among the schemes !

If I try to have a clear idea, in the E.164 numbers mapping to URLs
according to Patrick's draft, I see two types of URLs:
Type 1- the first one is the .e164.int URL type, which provides the
infrastructure to store E.164 numbers and looks more like a name, because it
infers nothing on the technology or the service (phone, pots or isdn or
VoIP, fax, modem...).
I confess that even if I do not want to exclude other schemes here, this
e164.int URL scheme looks good to me because of this "name" look. If an
e.164 number becomes portable from pots to another service, this part of the
infrastructure of the mapping will not have to be changed.
Type 2- the second one is the "protocol" type in the rewrite rule field,
with as much schemes as there are different protocols, which indicates which
protocol to use to access the terminal(s). this protocol indication (IIP or
other)is necessary. 

When Patrick and Graham talk about appropriateness or not of different
schemes, is it about type 1 or type 2 ?

By the way, it seems that there are already a few proposed URL schemes, like
the Vaha-Sipila's, the Kurrasch's and probably others. 

Thanks for clarification.

end of message

Valérie Barnole
FT.BD/CNET/DAC/ARS

-----Message d'origine-----
De: Richard Shockey [mailto:[email-masked]]
Date: mardi 18 janvier 2000 17:06
À: BARNOLE Valerie CNET/DAC/ISS
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]'; 'James Yu'
Objet: RE: [Enum] DNS for E.164-IP Address Mapping

>(I apologize, I may have written quite stupid replacement fields for the 3

Yes you are quite correct the above scenario would be apprporiate for a 
future kind of multi-modal "fax machine"

>considering URLs as names ?

I look at a URL as a name of a resource. Within that name are the 
assumptions of what protocols are to be used to access.  If the "fax" 
resource preference was IPP for instance and the NAPTR record contained the 
entry "ipp.foo.com/richard_shockey" the rewrite would under IPP 
rules  ipp://ipp.foo.com/richard_shockey. It is then assumed that the ENUM 
client resolver knows what IPP is (HTTP) or the client must either send the 
"fax" over the GSTN.

Maybe I'm not making myself too clear either....

Richard Shockey
Shockey Consulting LLC