Subject: [Enum] FW: Last Call or New Draft?

From: "David P. Peek" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2000 10:02:45 -0400

Question for our chair:

In reference to these comments made on the list:

--------
At 10.22 -0500 00-06-26, Vaudreuil, Greg M (Greg) wrote:
>In particular, I believe we need to explicitly require client
>support of the Cname and/or require support of Dname for the ENUM
facilities
>of DNS.

I will check what is required by a DNS client, and how to point out
that every RR which is "required" (like CNAME) must be handled
correctly.

    paf
---------

CNAME and DNAME  are not referenced in the Falstrom draft that is being
declared as “last call”.  Clearly there are many issues with the use of
CNAME and DNAME that have not been discussed within this list group that I’m
sure many of us would like to comment on before a "last call".

Is there going to be a new draft published thereby removing “last call” on
the current draft?  If a new version includes the use of CNAME and DNAME
there will need to be adequate time for comments to be made prior to making
a "last call".
-dp

-------------------------------------
David P. Peek
Director, Technology Strategy
NetNumber
+1-603-362-4315
[email-masked]

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

---

From: Richard Shockey <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2000 10:42:39 -0500

>declared as "last call".  Clearly there are many issues with the use of
>CNAME and DNAME that have not been discussed within this list group that I'm

CNAME and DNAME are issues surrounding delegation to NS that are not part 
of Patrik's draft and it is not necessary to include them.

>Is there going to be a new draft published thereby removing "last call" on
>the current draft?

Well the co-chairs have considerable discretion in these matters. Patrik 
will have to produce a updated version of his draft.  If it is our 
determination that the edits he has made to his document are essentially 
editorial and do not affect the protocol. Then I can declare that the last 
call is finished and move the document forward to the IESG for approval.

>  If a new version includes the use of CNAME and DNAME

The CNAME, DNAME, PTR issues will have to be debated separately  or as part 
of one of Greg's earlier ID.

However new submissions on this matter are always welcome!

############

         Title           : ENUM Service Specific Provisioning:
                           Principles of Operation
         Author(s)       : A. Brown, G. Vaudreuil
         Filename        : draft-vaudreuil-enum-e164dir-01.txt
         Pages           : 9
         Date            : 27-Apr-00

This document outlines the principles for the operation of a
telephone number directory service.  This service provides for the
resolution of telephone numbers into Internet domain name addresses
and service specific directory discovery.

A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-vaudreuil-enum-e164dir-01.txt

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: Wed, 28 Jun 2000 17:56:21 +0200

>sure many of us would like to comment on before a "last call".

No, that will not be added explicitely. "DNS services" or some 
wording like that might be added. We are _not_ going to define how to 
do resolution in DNS for specific RRs, like NAPTRs. That process and 
algorithm is defined in other working groups.

Writing about the use of CNAME and DNAME in this wg is not an option.

>there will need to be adequate time for comments to be made prior to making

There will be a new version.

wg last call is never removed.

The wg chair is making the decision on what to do next, if a new wg 
last call is needed or if we can go for an IETF wide last call.

    Patrik