Subject: RE: [Enum] FW: Last Call or New Draft? - .arpa or .e;164.itu.int ?

From: BARNOLE Valerie FTRD/DAC/ISS <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2000 12:35:04 +0200

Richard,

My apologies for intruding lately on the .int topic.
It seems that you suggest to remove all references to .int and replace it
with .arpa.
Does it mean that you replace .e164.int with .e164.arpa ?
To my knowledge (probably not big enough !), if it might come difficult to
use e164.int when the ICANN decide to move infrastructure delegations from
.int to .arpa (is it already decided and done ?), it seems that there is no
real reason to use .e164.arpa instead of e164.itu.int. So, wouldn't it be
more neutral and generic to use .foo, as you suggested in an earlier mail ?

Thanks for your highlights on this issue,

Valerie.

end of message
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 

Valérie Barnole
FTR&D/DAC/ARS
tel. : + 33 1 45 29 58 39
fax : + 33 1 46 29 31 42

[email-masked]

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

---

From: Richard Shockey <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 04 Jul 2000 11:00:35 -0500

>.int to .arpa (is it already decided and done ?),

Yes  the Internet Architecture Board has designated .arpa for the use of 
Internet infrastructure issues and has issued a statement to that 
effect.  see below.

>  it seems that there is no

I believe it is fair to assume that e164.xxx will go into .arpa so I've 
asked the authors of the drafts to reflect this fact.

>Thanks for your highlights on this issue,

May 10, 2000 IAB Statement on Infrastructure Domain and Subdomains Over the 
last several months, the IAB has been reviewing, and discussing with ICANN 
and other parties, the handling of various Internet Protocol-related 
infrastructure components that the community has concluded should be placed 
into the DNS. Historically, the most visible infrastructure domain has been 
the IPv4 address reverse-mapping domain. This domain was placed in 
"in-addr.arpa" as part of the initial ARPANET transition strategy from host 
table naming (see, e.g., RFC 881). It became the only active subdomain of 
that domain as the .arpa names that were also part of the transition were 
gradually removed. Other infrastructure domains have been placed under the 
"INT" TLD or under various organizational names. It is in the interest of 
general Internet stability, adequate attention to placement of secondary 
DNS servers, and administrative cleanliness, to start rationalizing this 
situation by locating new infrastructure subdomains in a single domain and 
migrating existing ones to it as appropriate. It appears that our original 
infrastructure domain, "ARPA", redesignated from an abbreviation for 
"ARPANET" to an acronym for "Address and Routing Parameters Area" is best 
suited for this purpose, rather than our getting further entangled with 
issues about what is appropriately an international organization and how 
that domain should be maintained. Consequently, we recommend the following 
to the IESG: (i) No new infrastructure domains should be added to ".INT", 
and protocols that need specific domain roots should be rooted elsewhere 
(see ii) (ii) For the reasons discussed above, new infrastructure domains 
arising from IETF protocols should be allocated in ".ARPA", with that TLD 
to be managed (as essentially it always has been) by the IANA as one of its 
protocol registry tasks. The US Department of Commerce (which reviews TLD 
designations and authorizes ICANN to add tasks to the IANA work list) has 
approved of this use, at our request. (iii) We recommend that IETF-related 
infrastructure subdomains now under .INT be reviewed as to whether the 
costs of moving them exceed the risks of leaving them in place. ICANN is 
committed to the stability of those subdomains for however long they need 
to be in place, with guidance from IAB (or some other body of the IETF's 
choosing) as to their management; we believe that we can work successfully 
with them on transition plans (or "freeze delegation in place" ones) as 
their plans for INT administration evolve. However, we believe that it is 
quite important that the new IPv6 reverse-mapping domain, and any other 
significant new IETF name spaces, be allocated in the ".ARPA" space and not 
in ".INT". John Klensin, for the IAB

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: BARNOLE Valerie FTRD/DAC/ISS <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2000 10:16:30 +0200

Richard,
thank you for your answer and the provided information.
I understand that e164.int has to become e164.arpa. But as it were not
decided that e164.int would be the adhoc subdomain, and as you wisely said
that this choice was not under the purview of ENUM group, I thought that
.foo would have been an easy way to escape political issue of this subdomain
(why not e164.itu.int ? at the IETF/ITU-T SG2 WP1/2 call conference, this
possibility was not excluded). A naive and straight question : in case the
ENUM document quotes e164.arpa instead of .foo, does it cut the way to
e164.itu.int ?

Valerie.

end of message

Valérie Barnole
FTR&D/DAC/ARS

-----Message d'origine-----
De: Richard Shockey [mailto:[email-masked]]
Date: mardi 4 juillet 2000 18:01
À: BARNOLE Valerie FTRD/DAC/ISS
Cc: ENUM List Group
Objet: RE: [Enum] FW: Last Call or New Draft? - .arpa or .e;164.itu.int
?

Richard Shockey
Shockey Consulting LLC
5237 Sutherland
St. Louis, MO 63109
Voice 314.503.0640