Subject: [Enum] Last Call: E.164 number and DNS to Proposed Standard

From: The IESG <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 15:36:30 -0400

The IESG has received a request from the Telephone Number Mapping
Working Group to consider E.164 number and DNS
<draft-ietf-enum-e164-dns-01.txt> as a Proposed Standard.

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action.  Please send any comments to the
[email-masked] or [email-masked] mailing lists by August 14, 2000.

Files can be obtained via
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-enum-e164-dns-01.txt

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

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 17:53:00 -0400

In general I support this proposal for PS status.

nits:

1. I wonder if N2R should be the only valid service.  To me it seems 
perfectly reasonable to support N2L or N2C as well, even if they are not
defined at present.  or maybe we should define new services.

2. in section 3.1.2, example 1:

    $ORIGIN 4.3.2.1.6.7.9.8.6.4.e164.arpa.
     IN NAPTR 100 10 "u" "sip+N2R"  "!^.*$!sip:[email-masked]!"     .
     IN NAPTR 102 10 "u" "smtp+N2R" "!^.*$!mailto:[email-masked]!"  .

    This describes that the domain tele2.se is preferrable contacted via
    the SIP protocol, secondly via SMTP.

seems like this describes how to contact the entity associated with
phone number +46 89 76 12 34  rather than that associated with the
domain name tele2.se.   

    In both cases, the next step in the resolution process is to use the
    resolution mechanism for each of the protocols, (SIP and SMTP) to
    know what node to contact for each.

you might want to be a bit more specific here: perhaps

In both cases the next step in the resolution process is to use
the mechanisms native to each protocol (e.g. SRV records for SIP 
and MX records for SMTP; other protocols may use A, AAAA, or A6
records.) to determine the set of address(es) at which the service 
may be contacted.  

3. in section 3.1.3, Example 2

    $ORIGIN 4.3.2.1.6.7.9.8.6.4.e164.arpa.
     IN NAPTR  10 10 "u" "sip+N2R"   "!^.*$!sip:[email-masked]!"     .
     IN NAPTR 102 10 "u" "smtp+N2R"  "!^.*$!mailto:[email-masked]!"  .
     IN NAPTR 102 10 "u" "tel+N2R"   "!^.*$!tel:+4689761234!"      .

    Note that the prefered method is to use the SIP protocol, 

I don't understand this notion of preference.  if you want to send email 
or voice mail to the entity associated with this phone number, you're
going to want to use SMTP.  if you want to actually place a voice call,
you're going to want to use SIP or the PSTN.  but what does it mean
to say that "the preferred method is to use the SIP protocol"?
preferred for which operation?

IIRC, this is what the service field was intended for, but we
don't have services defined for most of the anticipated
uses of e.164 numbers..  maybe we should?

4. in the IANA considerations section it implies that names will be
delegated according to E.164.  is this intended to constrain 
(or recommend) the delegation below country-code level, to reflect 
the present delegation of phone numbers to telcos within that country?  

also, I think it would be a good idea if when using terms like 
"Expert Review" RFCs included a reference to the document that 
defines the term.

Keith

---

From: Patrik Fältström <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 09:52:51 +0900

>defined at present.  or maybe we should define new services.

Version 02 was requested to be published a few days ago, but it seems 
that the last call was on 01...and 02 doesn't seem to be in the 
repository yet. And, I am not surprised given the load the days 
before the IETF.

Version 02 defines E2U as a new service, and includes a registration 
template for the E2U service.

>phone number +46 89 76 12 34  rather than that associated with the

That is correct.

>records.) to determine the set of address(es) at which the service

Ok. A good suggestion.

>preferred for which operation?

Good question!

The individual which sets up the NAPTRs can regardless of what the 
senders preferences are regarding what you want to do (send email, 
open a SIP-based conversation or what not) say that SIP is the 
preferred protocol. A paralell example: I personally might list a 
tel: URI, but the mailto: URI will have higher preference, because I 
rather want to receive email than phonecalls.

>uses of e.164 numbers..  maybe we should?

As I said above, the new version uses E2U as the service.

>the present delegation of phone numbers to telcos within that country?

 From my point of view that is (according to the way DNS delegation 
works) up to each entity which get the country code delegated to them.

>"Expert Review" RFCs included a reference to the document that

Ok.

   paf