Subject: Re: [Enum] New DNS record class values?

From: "David P. Peek" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2000 09:19:53 -0500

>--On 2000-01-19 23.28 -0500, "David P. Peek" <[email-masked]> wrote:
>
>> I look forward to hearing your comments about this two-tier approach that
>> combines DNS and LDAP.
>
>That is one way of spreading/collecting more information about an E.164
>number.
>
>The charter for the ENUM working group have though limited the scope  of
>their work to only work with the basic listing service, and not go into the
>discussion of where to store spoken name and other higher-level attributes.
>Discussions about those imply that things like access control must be
>resolved, which is not an easy task across boundaries between legal bodies
>(such as two ISPs).
>

I agree and understand those issues are outside the ENUM charter.

>So, my personal view is that we will have exactly this two-tier approach
>which you talk about. A basic listing service so I very easilly can get
>information about what services exists so I can initiate the next step in
>call setup, routing exploration, getting more information about peer etc.
>This second layer can though often be different between different protocols
>or type of endpoints (one way in VOICE, one way for FAX, one way in the
>local environment etc).
>
In keeping with ENUM's scope and the current
discussion how would we define this authoriative directory server
(ADS)  pointer using DNS?   Would we followi the current method being
dicussed
and use a NAPTR record?
If so, what would that look like?   A very simply approach for this ADS
discovery, do I
dare say, is to use the A-record in DNS for an E-164 host name.  Avoiding
multiple queries
to DNS and avoiding the use of DNS field parsers is a motivation since we
are dealing
with a potentially long process already (in some cases anyway).  Maybe a
NAPTR record
also exists in conjuction with defining an A-record?   Am I way off here? -
dpp

>ENUM is though not the place to discuss it, but Scott should probably say
>that :-)
>
>   paf
>
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>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: Patrik Fältström <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2000 19:37:14 +0100

--On 2000-01-20 09.19 -0500, "David P. Peek" <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Would we followi the current method being
> dicussed
> and use a NAPTR record?

Define that one can have one of the NAPTR records for the E.164 number
pointing to an LDAP URL.

  paf