Subject: RE: [Enum] Rough Consensus or time to revist the charter?

From: "Vaudreuil, Greg M (Greg)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2000 10:36:54 -0500

We seem to disagree about the smallest of issues.

I do not believe that a very slightly broader reading of the word "resource"
in charter to permit the use of other resource records is equivalent to
opening up Pandora's box.  Of the many possible ENUM problems that were
ruled out of scope in the well negotiated chartering phase, I do not recall
the returning of other DNS RR's from a telephone number as being one of
them. 

It seems silly to have a separate ENUM-lite working group simply to
standardize the use of ENUM mechanics with other records than NAPTR!  I
assert that use of other, simpler RR's raise no additional interesting
technical issues or substantial interoperability risks to the ENUM work.

Greg V.

-----Original Message-----
From: Patrik Fältström [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Friday, July 14, 2000 3:35 PM
To: Randy Bush; Vaudreuil, Greg M (Greg)
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [Enum] Rough Consensus or time to revist the charter?

At 12.53 -0700 00-07-14, Randy Bush wrote:
>  > The discussion list concerning whether NAPTR is the only DNS 
>resource record
>  > that could be used in the ENUM service apparently was not resolved.
After
>  > several strong statements and growing support for the support of
multiple
>  > DNS resource record types, and no opposition except from the document
>  > author
>
>bzzzzt!
>
>the support for the author's position may not have been as noisy and
>strident as others', but it was clear.  to be clear, i and many others
>support patrik.  very strongly.

(1) NAPTRs are not the only RRs that can be bound to a certain owner 
in DNS. Not at all.

(2) One might want to use E.164 numbers for other things than 
resolving them to a URI.

(3) The current charter of ENUM is about solving the tiny piece of 
the puzzle which have to do with "given an E.164, what URIs can I get 
back".

And, regarding other resource record types, I have still to see the 
need for other RRs to be used in the resolution process which named 
in (3) above. I do not see any need for new RRs and I don't see the 
need for use of for example overloading TXTs.

If Greg is thinking about use of CNAME and DNAME, those are exactly 
like NS records part of the resolution process of a random RR with a 
random owner, and what I have been opposing is having any kind of 
description on the DNS resolution process in this document. Reason is 
that it will (not even might, will(!)) be updated at uneven 
intervals, and this document have nothing to do with that resolution 
process.

Other groups (maybe including a rechartered ENUM) can do other 
things, and I think they should. One reason I heard for the stringent 
charter (I happen to be on the IESG aswell as being a document 
author) was that this are is so large that people need to think about 
one thing at a time. Because of this, ENUM is now working on what 
will be needed regardless of the big picture, namely a mapping from 
E.164 to URIs using DNS, a requirements document which can be applied 
to various services -- which might or might not use the DNS 
resolution process described in the document I am an author of.

I hope that clearified things a bit.

   paf

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

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2000 09:25:34 -0700

> technical issues or substantial interoperability risks to the ENUM work.

great!  then we are safe postponing this embellishment until next time, once
we have demonstrated that we have the basics under control.

randy

---

From: Michael Mealling <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2000 16:44:08 -0400

> technical issues or substantial interoperability risks to the ENUM work.

It actually make sense due to some things that have happened
with the IETF over the past few years. We tend to have some groups
who outgrow their charters and live way beyond their years. Its
a pretty well grounded concensus that we'd rather have more
groups working faster than fewer working slower...

-MM

-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Mealling	|      Vote Libertarian!       | www.rwhois.net/michael
Sr. Research Engineer   |   www.ga.lp.org/gwinnett     | ICQ#:         14198821
Network Solutions	|          www.lp.org          |  [email-masked]