Subject: Re: [Enum] Standard DNS Delegation or CNAME/DNAME Redirection

From: Richard Shockey <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2000 23:47:04 -0500

At 12:56 PM 10/31/2000 -0500, Robert H. Walter wrote:
>Greg, Ann,
>
>Please clarify why you believe CNAME and DNAME resource records
>are required to redirect the DNS query from the designated
>authority to the service registrar?  Why re-issue, reform the
>query when standard DNS delegation will suffice? Consider the
>following scenarios that assume the designated authority for
>1.e164.arpa has provisioned the fully specified E.164 domain
>name 2.1.2.1.5.5.5.0.0.8.1.e164.arpa on behalf of the service
>registrar ACME:

This is a serious issue this list needs to come to consensus on ASAP.  The 
terms of RFC 2916 have been implemented in a IMHO historic agreement 
between the IAB and the ITU and it is fair to assume that there needs to be 
and will be operational testing in the e164.arpa name space shortly.

We have an obligation to continue to move forward and communicate our work 
to SG2/Q1 as necessary.

We must assist Greg and Anne on the Operational document NOW.

Those who believe CNAME or DNAME or other delegation RR are appropriate 
need to speak up  in advance of potential implementers.

What are the advantages of each approach? What are the risks? Is there a 
single optimal solution.. these issues need to be aired out here ..

Is a MIB necessary? 

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

---

From: "A.M.Rutkowski" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2000 06:46:56 -0500

Hi Richard,

>between the IAB and the ITU and it is fair to assume that there needs to 
>be and will be operational testing in the e164.arpa name space shortly.

In light of the approval necessary by national
authorities under the agreement, might not operational
testing in non e164.arpa space occur more quickly?
Does it make any difference at this point?

>We must assist Greg and Anne on the Operational document NOW.

An important related issue is the one you raised in Berlin,
namely the importance of a Level 1 Registry-Registrar interface,
which would also dispose of C interface in the Pfaust-Yu ID.

How do you want to proceed?

--tony

---

From: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2000 09:53:03 -0500 (EST)

I am somewhat concerned by this.  Can you please spell out in more detail
what you propose?  If I follow this, you are pushing for a quick decision
on something basically irrevocable, correct?  Or perhaps I misunderstood?

-- 
		Please visit http://www.icannwatch.org
A. Michael Froomkin   |    Professor of Law    |   [email-masked]
U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
+1 (305) 284-4285  |  +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)  |  http://www.law.tm
                       -->It's warm here.<--

---

From: Richard Shockey <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2000 10:25:51 -0500

At 06:46 AM 11/2/2000 -0500, A.M.Rutkowski wrote:
>Hi Richard,
>
>>This is a serious issue this list needs to come to consensus on 
>>ASAP.  The terms of RFC 2916 have been implemented in a IMHO historic 
>>agreement between the IAB and the ITU and it is fair to assume that there 
>>needs to be and will be operational testing in the e164.arpa name space 
>>shortly.
>

No ..testing can occur using any domain.

>>We have an obligation to continue to move forward and communicate our 
>>work to SG2/Q1 as necessary.
>>

That is a purely operational issue out of scope for this WG...however I am 
aware of the desire to have a Registry Registrar BOF in San Diego..which I 
support and I will attend and actively participate in.

You are correct ...the Pfautz-Yu draft practically cries out for a 
extensiable Registry-Registrar protocol.

It will be my argument at that BOF that the current Hollenbeck (which IMHO 
is excellent ) draft be rewritten to be sufficiently generic to work with 
other application environments..aka ENUM

########

         Title           : Generic Registry-Registrar Protocol Requirements
         Author(s)       : S. Hollenbeck
         Filename        : draft-hollenbeck-grrp-reqs-05.txt
         Pages           : 23
         Date            : 09-Oct-00

This document describes high-level functional and interface
requirements for a client-server protocol for the registration and
management of Internet domain names in shared Top Level Domain (TLD)
registries.  Specific technical requirements detailed for protocol
design are not presented here.  Instead, this document focuses on the
basic functions and interfaces required of a protocol to support
multiple registry and registrar operational models.

A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-hollenbeck-grrp-reqs-05.txt

Richard Shockey
Senior Technical Industry Liaison
NeuStar Inc.
1120 Vermont Avenue N.W.
Suite 550
Washington DC. 20005
Voice 202.533.2811
Fax to EMail 815.333.1237 (Preferred for Fax)
Cell : 314.503.0640
INTERNET Mail & IFAX : [email-masked]
or   [email-masked]
http://www.neustar.com

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

---

From: Richard Shockey <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2000 10:14:33 -0500

>on something basically irrevocable, correct?  Or perhaps I misunderstood?

No Michael ... what I was pushing for was a proper airing of the issue 
here..this is a very technical issue involving what is the optimal method 
in DNS by which, for instance,  a national delegation authority, aka .4.4 
points to the NS of authority for a particular Telephone Number.

There are several methods available ..the question is which is technically 
optimal for the ENUM application.

The issue of delegation is not the question ..only how is the result 
achieved and that answer needs to come from the "Gods of DNS"

Richard Shockey