Subject: [Enum] Declaring an "Implementation"

From: "David P. Peek" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2000 09:44:18 -0400

I have two comments concerning the "last call" on the Falstrom draft.

1. I agree with the comments suggesting the removal of defining a specific
implementation using the NAPTR RR.  Other examples exist in the draft
<draft-peek-enum-itd-00.txt> that show the use of another RR (TXT) that
could be shown in addition to examples defined by the Greg Vaudreuil/Anne
Brown draft.

2. I request that the NAPTR examples be revised so they conform with RFC
2168 and the updated Internet Draft <draft-ietf-urn-naptr-rr-03.txt>.  The
replacment field strings used in the examples currently do not conform to
the requirements of retrieving a URI using the NAPTR.

-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: Patrik Fältström <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2000 17:51:24 +0200

>the requirements of retrieving a URI using the NAPTR.

The examples will be updated. I am waiting at the moment for Michael 
Mealling to correct any mistakes I have in the (not yet published) 
new version of the draft. I.e. I don't want to have any typos in this 
(hopfully) last version.

   paf

---

From: Patrik Fältström <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2000 17:53:09 +0200

>could be shown in addition to examples defined by the Greg Vaudreuil/Anne

With the word standard in the IETF we mean _one_ agreed way of 
solving a specific problem. Not alternative ways. If you have more 
than one alternative, then you don't have interperability.

This WG is to solve the problem to, given a E.164 number, get a set 
of URIs using a DNS-based system.

We can not have alternatives for that piece of the puzzle.

   paf