Subject: [Enum] (no subject)

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 06:26:35 EST

You mean that, just for the sake of argument, some domain other than 
e164.arpa were to be used the ENUM technology would absolutely not work?  I 
think you are overreaching there. You are cfonfusing technical issues with 
policy.

Herman Silbiger
[email-masked]
--------------------------------------------
>It's the same technology,

Not quite.

ENUM is a technology defined by a particular document issued as a standards 
track RFC.  If you take the time to read it, Tony, you will discover that 
the ENUM technology is specified as working with e164.arpa.

d/

----------
Dave Crocker  <mailto:[email-masked]>

---

From: Jim Reid <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 04:38:06 -0800

>>>>> "Herman" == HSilbiger  <[email-masked]> writes:

    Herman> You mean that, just for the sake of argument, some domain
    Herman> other than e164.arpa were to be used the ENUM technology
    Herman> would absolutely not work?  I think you are overreaching
    Herman> there. You are cfonfusing technical issues with policy.

Actually, I think it's you that's confusing or obfuscating the
two. For ENUM to work, there has to be a single coherent name space
under exactly one domain that expresses E.164 numbers in the DNS: the
Golden Tree. You are right to say that there are no technical reasons
-- at least in DNS terms -- that affect where that Golden Tree is
anchored. However RFC2916 makes it perfectly clear where those numbers
have to be stored. Any other domain that might be used for that
purpose not ENUM. Period. Even if those other domains are positioning
themselves as offering ENUM-type services. The cheerleaders for those
alternate ENUM-like domains are IMO barely different from the
advocates of alternative -- sorry "complementary" -- roots in the DNS.

If there was a Golden Tree under enum-charlatans.bogus-tld and
everyone one the world used it, that would *still* not be ENUM as long
as RFC2916 says that the domain shall be e164.arpa and that RFC hasn't
been updated.

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

---

From: Tony Rutkowski <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 07:59:44 -0500

>as RFC2916 says that the domain shall be e164.arpa and that RFC hasn't

This is nothing more than an orthodox religious
assertion - reminiscent of what was handed down by
de jure standards body adherents a decade ago.

Plainly the technology works irrespective of the
religion.  There are numerous real companies with
significant numbers of customers resolving against
e164.com.

The USGOV has indicated explicitly and repeatedly
that there will be multiple ENUM domains as determined
by the marketplace.  Even the ITU for which you've
been working cannot decree a single ENUM.  It will
simply add another ENUM namespace that will sink or
swim in the market.

Let's focus on the technology rather than the
religion.

--tony

---

From: Jim Reid <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 05:58:26 -0800

Tony, I am not going to rise to your bait. However I will point out
that it's always been Nominum that has paid my salary, not ITU. And
anyway my paymasters are totally irrelevant to this discussion (and to
IETF activities in general). There may be "ENUM-like" services at
enum.com and elsewhere. These might smell and look and feel like
ENUM. But they're not ENUM because RFC2916 says so. That's an
undisputed fact no matter how you try to spin or obscure it.

---

From: Tony Rutkowski <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 09:12:35 -0500

Hi Jim,

>undisputed fact no matter how you try to spin or obscure it.

The ITU reference was not intended as a disparagement.
At some level, the ITU may help promulgate ENUMs - but
it will almost certainly be in it's own controlled tree.

Because some ITU members may choose to do that in e164.int
run by the ITU, doesn't make it any less an ENUM implementation,
even if it doesn't meet some orthodox reading of the RFC and
vicarious denominations of namespaces and protocols.  The
real world will see multiple and constantly evolving ENUMs.

It's time to focus on tools for a real world of multiple
ENUMs, such as DNAME, common registrar interfaces, and
the use of existing verification systems, e.g., LIDB
lookups.

--tony

---

From: "Mark Harris" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 10:43:39 -0500

Hello Jim:

>These might smell and look and feel like

Undisputed Fact.  Hmmm.  So that we can have a meaningful discussion, could
you define "Undisputed"?

>If there was a Golden Tree...(in another tld)
>and everyone one in the world used it,
>that would *still* not be ENUM as long as RFC2916 says that the
>domain shall be e164.arpa and that RFC hasn't been updated.

Are you saying that one of Nominum's customers, Neustar, which operates
Enum.org and an Enum Trial, is not really using Enum at all?

Regards,
Mark

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Jim
Reid
Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2001 8:58 AM
To: Tony Rutkowski
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [Enum] e164.arpa: a technical or policy issue?

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Jim
Reid
Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2001 7:38 AM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [Enum] e164.arpa: a technical or policy issue?

---

From: "David R. Conrad" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 07:51:30 -0800

Mark,

>Undisputed Fact.  Hmmm.  So that we can have a meaningful discussion, could

http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=undisputed

>Enum.org and an Enum Trial, is not really using Enum at all?

Not that it matters, but Neustar is not a customer of Nominum.

This entire thread is among the silliest and most pointless I have seen in 
recent days.

RFC 2916 is quite explicit about how E.164 identifiers are mapped into the 
DNS (see the first sentence of section 2 of RFC 2916) for good technical 
reasons.  This is a simple fact.  This is not religion, despite Tony's 
assertions to the contrary.  The fact that the E.164 identifiers are being 
mapped in other DNS zones than e164.arpa does nothing to alter the text of 
RFC 2916.

Can we move on now?

Rgds,
-drc

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 07:36:13 -0800

At 06:26 AM 10/31/2001 -0500, [email-masked] wrote:

You mean
that, just for the sake of argument, some domain other than e164.arpa
were to be used the ENUM technology would absolutely not work?  I
think you are overreaching there. You are cfonfusing technical issues
with policy.

The idea that one can pick and choose pieces of a specification, but
still claim to be following the specification, is unusual and
problematic.  It is particularly surprising coming from someone with
such a long ITU background, given that the ITU is far pickier about
statements of conformance than is the IETF.

Once again:

e164.arpa
is specified in the IETF ENUM

standards-track
specification.

Follow the
specification and you are doing ENUM.

Deviate
from it and you are not.

There is nothing complicated here, Herman.

(Let's apply Herman's logic to a specification for a chair, and assume
that it says that a chair has 3 or more legs.  Then let's say Herman
decided to build something that has two legs and wants to call it a
chair.  Doesn't work, does it?)

At 09:12 AM 10/31/2001 -0500, Tony Rutkowski wrote:

It's time to focus on tools for a
real world of multiple

lookups.

It is time to start ignoring these distractions and get back to focusing
on living with the real world of computer science.  In this case,
that means working with a unique ENUM root.

For the few people in the world who do not comprehend this requirement,
please read:

RFC 2826,
and

draft-crocker-unique-assign-00.txt

When someone puts forward a technical specification for parallel roots,
and when that specification gains community acceptance, THEN we will have
something meaningful to talk about.

Until then, efforts to pursue this topic are seriously no more than
political distraction.

d/

----------

Dave Crocker
<mailto:[email-masked]>

Brandenburg InternetWorking
<http://www.brandenburg.com>

tel +1.408.246.8253;  fax +1.408.273.6464

---

From: Richard Shockey <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 11:57:03 -0500

>real world will see multiple and constantly evolving ENUMs.

the ITU has not made any determination yet and I do not want the technical 
work of this group disrupted by your political observations

>the use of existing verification systems, e.g., LIDB

Well in Pittsburg ..the concept of using DNAME here was strongly opposed 
and in a hum was rejected by the WG.

Richard Shockey, Senior Manager, Strategic Technology Initiatives
NeuStar Inc.
45980 Center Oak Plaza   Bldg 8     Sterling, VA  20166
1120 Vermont Ave NW Suite 400 Washington DC 20005
Voice 571.434.5651 Cell : 314.503.0640,  Fax: 815.333.1237
<mailto: [email-masked]> or
<mailto: [email-masked]>
<http://www.neustar.com>
<http://www.enum.org>
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

---

From: Tony Rutkowski <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 12:46:21 -0500

>and in a hum was rejected by the WG.

Hi Richard,

It was originally raised by Christian Huitema,
Penn Pfautz, Greg Vaudreuil, and David Peek.
See list archives, 21 Jan 2000, 26 Jun 2000,
26 Jun 2000, 28 Jun 2000.

Notwithstanding your apparently acceptable
engineering analysis undertaken at Pittsburg,
many developments have occurred in the meantime
that suggest a more thorough consideration now
than just humming.

(Guess I missed the humming 101 class in engineering
school.)

--tony

ps.  Even hotter than the list is the chili cookoff
across the street here at Lakeside II.  You should
drop over.  Next time we can do one between NeuStar
and VeriSign. :-)

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 10:11:36 -0800

At 12:46 PM 10/31/2001 -0500, Tony Rutkowski wrote:
>It was originally raised by

Who it was raised by, and when, is irrelevant, Tony.  It was rejected by 
the working group.  You have been apprised of this key fact repeatedly.

Move on.

>many developments have occurred in the meantime

Apparently you fail to understand the engineering work interested in making 
real progress and being used by real people requires making decisions, and 
not constantly revisiting them.

Move on.

>that suggest a more thorough consideration now than just humming.

It is always delightful to see your complete failure to understand IETF 
process, Tony.

Move on.

d/

----------
Dave Crocker  <mailto:[email-masked]>
Brandenburg InternetWorking  <http://www.brandenburg.com>
tel +1.408.246.8253;  fax +1.408.273.6464

---

From: "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 12:32:03 -0600

One has to assume that all of these comments only apply to the
"toy" IPv4 Internet, which is a handy place to do Proof-of-Concept
testing, prior to moving to the real Internet, where production-grade,
Full Deployment occurs.
http://www.dot-biz.com/Registry/Proof-Of-Concept/index.html

Things seem to be progressing nicely, with the three stages:
Early Experimental
Proof-of-Concept and
Full Deployment

This is similar to what is happening with the .BIZ TLD, which is
slowly moving from the Early Experimental Phase (where it was for
7 years) to the Proof-of-Concept Phase. With the recent introduction
of Windows XP, with a Early Experimental version of IPv6 builtin,
more people may be able to help evolve the Internet users to the
real Internet, which will be waiting for their arrival. Don't be surprised
if the real Internet turns out a little different than your toy IPv4 tests,
one can not expect that people will devote too much time and effort
to the aging IPv4 Internet, with all of the new opportunities now open
to them.

Jim Fleming
http://www.DOT-BIZ.com
http://www.in-addr.info
3:219 INFO

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Dave Crocker 
  To: [email-masked] 
  Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2001 9:36 AM
  Subject: Re: [Enum] e164.arpa: a technical or policy issue?

    You mean that, just for the sake of argument, some domain other than e164.arpa were to be used the ENUM technology would absolutely not work?  I think you are overreaching there. You are cfonfusing technical issues with policy. 

  The idea that one can pick and choose pieces of a specification, but still claim to be following the specification, is unusual and problematic.  It is particularly surprising coming from someone with such a long ITU background, given that the ITU is far pickier about statements of conformance than is the IETF.

  Once again:

          e164.arpa is specified in the IETF ENUM 
          standards-track specification.

          Follow the specification and you are doing ENUM.  
          Deviate from it and you are not.

  (Let's apply Herman's logic to a specification for a chair, and assume that it says that a chair has 3 or more legs.  Then let's say Herman decided to build something that has two legs and wants to call it a chair.  Doesn't work, does it?)

  It is time to start ignoring these distractions and get back to focusing on living with the real world of computer science.  In this case, that means working with a unique ENUM root.  

  For the few people in the world who do not comprehend this requirement, please read:

          RFC 2826, and

  When someone puts forward a technical specification for parallel roots, and when that specification gains community acceptance, THEN we will have something meaningful to talk about.  

  Until then, efforts to pursue this topic are seriously no more than political distraction.

  d/

  ----------
  Dave Crocker  <mailto:[email-masked]>
  Brandenburg InternetWorking  <http://www.brandenburg.com>
  tel +1.408.246.8253;  fax +1.408.273.6464 _______________________________________________ enum mailing list [email-masked] http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum

---

From: "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 12:44:17 -0600

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Dave Crocker" <[email-masked]>
> It is always delightful to see your complete failure to understand IETF 

The IETF appears to be focused on the aging, legacy, IPv4 Internet.
The IETF still uses one-dimensional ASCII as its base means of
communication. Some people in the world have moved to 2D (HTML)
and now 3D. It is hard for people to work in these one-dimensional
worlds. People may want to read FlatLand by Edwin Abbott (1884),
to gain some insight into what it is like to move from 3D to 2D and 1D
and back again.

http://www.geom.umn.edu/~banchoff/Flatland/
To
The Inhabitants of SPACE IN GENERAL
And H. C. IN PARTICULAR
This Work is Dedicated
By a Humble Native of Flatland
In the Hope that
Even as he was Initiated into the Mysteries
Of THREE Dimensions
Having been previously conversant
With ONLY TWO
So the Citizens of that Celestial Region
May aspire yet higher and higher
To the Secrets of FOUR FIVE OR EVEN SIX Dimensions
Thereby contributing
To the Enlargement of THE IMAGINATION
And the possible Development
Of that most rare and excellent Gift of MODESTY
Among the Superior Races
Of SOLID HUMANITY
----

Moving forward, the infiniBAND trade association may be the
more likely body where people can find serious work being done
on protocols with a focus on production grade, full deployment.
http://www.infinibandta.org

The "toy" IPv4 Internet is a sewer.
IPv8 is designed to be a swamp to cover the sewer.
IPv16 is the "high-ground"....

...here are some links...

Jim Fleming
http://www.unir.com
Mars 128n 128e
http://www.unir.com/images/architech.gif
http://www.unir.com/images/address.gif
http://www.unir.com/images/headers.gif
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt
http://msdn.microsoft.com/downloads/sdks/platform/tpipv6/start.asp
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/ietf/Current/msg12213.html
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/ietf/Current/msg12223.html