Subject: RE: [Enum] Re: draft-ietf-enum-e164-dns-03.txt

From: "Jeff Hinchey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2000 14:06:42 -0500

I agree fully. 

An E.164 number is by ITU definition a fully qualified, globally unique
public number. This implies the number includes the CC. Although national
and local numbers may be E.164 compliant and can be prefixed with CC or
CC/NDC to form an E.164, they are not E.164 numbers. Nor are private
numbers. 

As Paul suggests, if a number is not in fully qualified E.164 format then it
belongs under a different domain and the discussion over the need for a "+"
is irrelevant.

-----Original Message-----
From: Rosbotham, Paul [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Thursday, August 10, 2000 11:47 AM
To: [email-masked]'
Subject: RE: [Enum] Re: draft-ietf-enum-e164-dns-03.txt

Not at all an expert on DNS, but would tend to agree with Bert on this.  I
thought the very fact that the query is to domain e164.arpa indicates that
the number is E.164, not a private numbering plan etc.  Therefore, the "+"
seems redundant.  My assumption had been that if a non-E.164 number were
offered, a different domain would be used.

The E.164 number doesn't contain the "+", it's added for readability reasons
to remind the caller that (s)he'd better add 00, 011 or whatever is used
locally (mobiles actually let you key "+" in many countries).  Internal to
the network, the E.164 number carried is just the digits, not with a leading
"+".  Of course, there is the luxury in the switched network of having a
nature of address field to indicate what type of number it is (national or
international), but we won't go into that...

Andy G is right when he says that the "+" aids readability, but that's at a
user interface level and I thought we were talking about protocol internals
here.

Not going to die in a ditch over this, but it does seem to me that if you
have a domain of e164.arpa, e164 numbers only should be used...

Paul

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Manfredi, Albert E [SMTP:[email-masked]]
> Sent:	10 August 2000 14:49
> To:	'Hong Liu'
> Cc:	[email-masked]'
> Subject:	RE: [Enum] Re: draft-ietf-enum-e164-dns-03.txt
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Hong Liu [mailto:[email-masked]]
> >
> > Andy,
> > 
> > Thanks for the clarification. I agree with you that from a 
> > user perspective, "+" means
> > more than just for readability.
> > 
> > The problem we are discussing here is whether "+" is needed 
> > for ENUM process given the
> > fact that the input is a canonical E.164 number already. I 
> > would like to hear from you
> > and others. Thanks!
> 
> IMO, the + is nice, but isn't enough if we really want to think of this +
> as
> a way to distinguish e.164 from some other numbering schemes we might want
> to implement in DNS the future.
> 
> If the DNS query is made to domain e164.arpa, perhaps use of the + is
> redundant and not particularly helful for the future anyway?
> 
> Bert
> [email-masked]
> 
> _______________________________________________
> enum mailing list
> [email-masked]
> http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum

**********************************************************************
This message may contain information which is confidential or privileged.
If you are not the intended recipient, please advise the sender immediately
by reply e-mail and delete this message and any attachments
without retaining a copy.  

**********************************************************************

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

---

From: Patrik Fältström <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2000 21:36:09 +0200

At 14.06 -0500 00-08-10, Jeff Hinchey wrote:
>As Paul suggests, if a number is not in fully qualified E.164 format 
>then it belongs under a different domain and the discussion over the 
>need for a "+" is irrelevant.

No, as the NAPTR might not give back an endpoint, but instead the 
rewrite will give back a domainname which a _new_ NAPTR query is to 
queried for.

So, just because the first NAPTR have a name in a certain domain 
doesn't mean that the leaf node NAPTR you finally get back is in the 
same domain.

The whole idea with NAPTR and the recursive algorithm is that one can 
and should reuse records in DNS.

   paf