Subject: [Enum] NAPTR Record Replacement Field

From: Hong Liu <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2000 12:12:09 -0400

Hi, Patrik,

I have two questions regarding your ENUM draft.

In "draft-ietf-enum-e164-dns-00.txt", you use the replacement field of
the NAPTR RR to store the the URLs for the answer of an E.164 query,
such as a SIP URL "sip:[email-masked]". When I looked through the NAPTR RR
documents, both RFC2168 and "draft-ietf-urn-naptr-rr-03.txt" say that
the replacement field MUST be a fully qualified domain name. Maybe I am
missing something. Could you explain the difference here?

The second question is regarding the service field "N2R". According to
RFC2168, "N2R" is a service that maps an URN to an instance of resource.
Since an ENUM query returns a set of URLs, will that be "N2L" instead?

Thanks in advance for your clarification.

--Hong

_______________________________________________
enum mailing list
[email-masked]
http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum

---

From: Richard Shockey <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2000 11:56:50 -0500

>Since an ENUM query returns a set of URLs, will that be "N2L" instead?

Thanks for your message...one thing I think we should make clear is that 
ENUM is "application agnostic".  Namely how various applications use ENUM 
is essentially up to them.

We should not attempt to define how SIP or VPIM or other applications use 
ENUM. The examples in Patrik's document are _examples_. The use of NAPTR is 
certainly one method..but we should start to make clear that other work 
groups need to begin thinking about specific ID's of how to implement ENUM.

Please Note New Contact Information:

Richard Shockey
Shockey Consulting LLC
5237 Sutherland
St. Louis, MO 63109
Voice 314.503.0640
eFAX Fax to EMail 815.333.1237 (Preferred for Fax)
INTERNET Mail & IFAX : [email-masked]
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

---

From: Patrik Fältström <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2000 14:26:50 +0200

At 11.56 -0500 00-06-09, Richard Shockey wrote:
>The use of NAPTR is certainly one method..but we should start to 
>make clear that other work groups need to begin thinking about 
>specific ID's of how to implement ENUM.

But, the way NAPTR RRs are used must be unique and specified in this 
draft. I.e. what a non-terminal regexp operates on must be unique for 
the ENUM process.

I have tried to define that, and if it is unclear, I have to do some changes.

   paf

---

From: Patrik Fältström <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2000 14:25:47 +0200

>missing something. Could you explain the difference here?

First, it is a mistake that the flag field is not "U" as it should 
(according to draft-ietf-urn-naptr-rr-03.txt). Secondly, as long as 
the process which uses NAPTR RRs specify what an eventual rewrite 
operate on, that is ok. I think I am clear on what an eventual regexp 
for rewrite operates on in the paper. If not, let me know.

>Since an ENUM query returns a set of URLs, will that be "N2L" instead?

As far as I think, N2R is the correct thing, but with flag "U" and a 
URL in the regexp field. Michael?

   paf