Subject: [Enum] Enum Resolver

From: "abel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2001 19:29:11 +0800

Hi everybody:
        I am programming ENUM resolver with linux , but think a PROBLEM ( maybe not) .
________________________________________________________________________________
$TTL 86400
@       86400   IN      SOA     pc071.twnic.net.tw. abel.pc071.twnic.net.tw. (
                200105264
                14400
                3600
                3600000
                172800 )
        IN      NS      pc071.twnic.net.tw.
        IN      NS      NS.RIPE.NET.
$ORIGIN 1.4.3.2.2.6.8.8.e164.arpa.
0.0.3.3 60      IN      NAPTR   100     1       "u"     "SIP+E2U"       "!^.*$!sip:[email-masked]!"      .
0.0.3.3 60      IN      NAPTR   100     2       "u"     "SMTP+E2U"      "!^.*$!mailto:[email-masked]"    .
0.0.3.3 60      IN      NAPTR   100     3       "u"     "TEL+E2U"       "!^.*$!tel:+886223411313!"      .
3.1.3.1 60      IN      NAPTR   100     10      "u"     "SMTP+E2U"      "!^.*$!tel:+86535413300"    .
____________________________________________________________________________________________
            
    the last 2 RR, maybe become a RECURSIVE ( you can me , I call you ) ,
    I wonder How to avoid it ? 
    DNS administrator or Resolver SHOULD to fix it !?
    Because maybe I turn number A to number B which is forgien  ( A->B->C->D->A)
    Or it will be a unlimit loop ?

    OR it's my problem , because i am beginer.

    Thanks 

    Abel

---

From: "Clive D.W. Feather" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2001 10:17:53 +0100

> 3.1.3.1 60      IN      NAPTR   100     10      "u"     "SMTP+E2U"      "!^.*$!tel:+86535413300"    .

Should that last one be "TEL+E2U" ? To be honest, I'm having trouble
understanding these codes, since the URI should tell you all you need to
know, surely ?

>     DNS administrator or Resolver SHOULD to fix it !?

This is explained in RFC 2916 section 3.2.2 example 2. "The client is
responsible for loop detection". So your code, resolving the records, needs
to discover the loop and take action.

What isn't clear from the RFC is *which* number in the loop should be
telephoned. The original ? The last one before the loop is detected ?
The one that the original lookup produced ? The 8th number in the loop
(or any other constant number) ?

-- 
Clive D.W. Feather  | Work:  <[email-masked]>   | Tel:  +44 20 8371 1138
Internet Expert     | Home:  <[email-masked]>  | Fax:  +44 20 8371 1037
Demon Internet      | WWW: http://www.davros.org | DFax: +44 20 8371 4037
Thus plc            |                            | Mobile: +44 7973 377646

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

---

From: "abel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2001 19:09:55 +0800

> understanding these codes, since the URI should tell you all you need to
    Yes ,it should be  "TEL+URI"
    sorry.
> to discover the loop and take action.
    Thanks for your answer !
    I think that LOOP maybe unlimit , And to program it is diffcult ,
    Because We have to detect ALL the "TEL+URI" record , and maybe
    they have 100 links .
    is it possible ?

---

From: "Clive D.W. Feather" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2001 12:22:11 +0100

>     Because We have to detect ALL the "TEL+URI" record , and maybe

The classic approach, used in Unix symbolic links, is to take N steps and,
if the process has not terminated, assume that you're in a loop.  On
FreeBSD 3.5 the value of N is called MAXSYMLINKS and defaults to 32; the
resulting error is called ELOOP.

---

From: "A.M.Rutkowski" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2001 07:59:07 -0400

The Internet-Draft is fairly self explanatory.
A visual aid is also attached.

--tony

====================================================================
Framework for ENUM Neutrality                            A.M. Rutkowski
Document: <draft-rutkowski-enum-neutrality-00.txt>        VeriSign, Inc
Expires: 1 Mar 2002                                        29 Aug 2001

                       Framework for ENUM Neutrality

    The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
    http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt

    The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
    http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.

    Abstract

    The pursuit by major national Administrations of declared
    policies of ENUM technical and administrative neutrality among
    implementations in the marketplace suggest the need for a
    framework for such neutrality and a focus on interworking
    among them. [1] [2]  This document draws upon the ENUM Working
    Group archive of discussions as well as public activities in other
    standards forums and the marketplace to construct an ENUM options
    framework for facilitating neutrality.  This framework includes not
    only protocol considerations, but also various critical technical
    and administrative support functions such as authentication and
    ancillary directory services.
====================================================================

---

From: "Tyler Johnson" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2001 10:18:02 -0400

Tony,

I want to commend your efforts here. I have been following ENUM on behalf of
the Internet2 community for some time. We have a strong interest both in a
universal numbering scheme (with associated mapping) and also in a numbering
scheme that is not dominated by governmental or commercial interests.

I have read the document, but want to re-read it more carefully before
offering any technical opinions. However, I believe you have done a service
to the community and this Working Group by bringing up some of the most
important ramifactions of Enum and doing so in a technical format that is
highly consistent with the WG chairs requested protocol.

My first question is to ensure my understanding of your proposal:

As I read this, you are suggesting a system of categorizing methods of
number to address mapping, so that any particular approach can be described
in some well know way. However, you are stopping short of defining an actual
protocol to describe this categorization electronically. Is such a protocol
necessary for automatic internetworking of address resolution systems from
different vendors on different networks? Would this allow for multimodal
searching/mapping and the ability of a customer/system to combine a variety
of different methods into a single service offering? For example:

  MyNumericAddressTranslationPreference=
     private LDAP resolution
     else e164.com
     else e164.arpa

Tyler Miller Johnson
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

---

From: "A.M. Rutkowski" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 10:03:06 -0400

Hi Tyler,

>   MyNumericAddressTranslationPreference=

This seems desirable, and seemingly necessary for automatic
interworking - although automatic interworking as a universal
global goal seems highly unlikely given the diverse impediments
that include not only network and application gateways, but
also different regulatory and business models, and substantial
access management, presence, and privacy variants among customers
and cultures.

Lastly, but perhaps most significantly, is the inherent multiple
levels of indirection encountered in mapping telephone numbers
outside of the PSTN that for other than controlled business
environments, all but preclude *automatic* use for anything
other than IP telephony or LNP without intermediation.

A good statement of the problem set can be found in the PAM
Specification.  The PAM Forum site unfortunately has taken
down draft 3 pending the release of the final 1.0 version in a
few days, but you can find draft 3 at:
http://www.ngi.org/enum/pub/PAMspec_1.0draft3.zip

We have not only the reality of the technology and marketplace
evolution.  The USGOV has declared that ENUM neutrality will
exist within its jurisdiction, and conversely the contributions
to the ITU-T SG2 meeting over the past few days by some rather
compelling administrations make it clear that e164.int or
some other variant will likely prevail as the deJure
implementation in their jurisdictions.

Do you have any ideas for such a searching/mapping capability
or is there any Internet2 work that can be leveraged?

--tony

---

From: Patrik Fältström <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 16:16:39 +0200

>    This document is an Internet-Draft and is NOT offered in
>    accordance with Section 10 of RFC2026, and the author does not
>    provide the IETF with any rights other than to publish as an
>    Internet-Draft.

According to the rules on IPR rules specified in RFC 2026, this draft
presented by Tony can not be discussed in this working group until a new
version is published with an appropriate IPR statement.

I.e. a document which is not offered in accordance with Section 10 of RFc
2026 can not be part of the work of a working group in the IETF.

As this mailing list is the mailing list for a working group, the document
can not be discussed here.

   Patrik Faltstrom
   co-chair of the ENUM working group in the IETF

---

From: "Pat Conley" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 10:51:59 -0400

Tyler asks...

	Is such a protocol necessary for automatic internetworking
	of address resolution systems from different vendors on
	different networks?

One possible mechanism for "address resolution vendors" to broadcast
information about the service is UDDI.  This is a system through
which web services are advertised on the network.  See www.uddi.org
for more information.

pat

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Tyler
Johnson
Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2001 10:18 AM
To: [email-masked]; A.M.Rutkowski
Subject: Re: [Enum] New I-D on ENUM Neutrality Framework

Tony,

Tyler Miller Johnson

---

From: Patrik Fältström <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 16:48:31 +0200

> can not be discussed here.

I was a bit too fast (pointed out by our AD).

It can be discussed, but can not be part of a wg effort.

Remember the "Note-Well" message sent to this list and others (and also
distributed at the IETF).

    Patrik
    co-chair of the working group

---

From: "A.M. Rutkowski" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 10:55:30 -0400

Hi Patrik,

>can not be discussed here.

You can always discuss anything here that is relevant.  Indeed,
the Internet-Draft submission guidelines specifically provide
for the text that was used.  If there was any doubt on the
subject, the author's copyright statement here conveys the
intellectual property to the entire world for any and every purpose.

The type of statement is only relevant if the I-D proceeds to
some more formal status within the IETF, and if that should
occur, subsequent versions can certainly contain any necessary
statement.

--tony