Subject: RE: [Enum] ENUM interworking

From: "Mark Harris" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2001 17:27:52 -0500

Hi Penn:

>The problem with 555 numbers is a different one than that which prompted
the
>discussion of CNAME in the ENUM Forum Interworking Group. This is a very
>special kind of number and not one that should be driving ENUM
>implementation.

I agree.  It just happen to be another example of how using multiple domains
could be used to solve some ENUM issues.  It was a little tangent...sorry.

>To respond to Dave's earlier question [sorry- I was away from e-mail for a
>while and the thread seems to have moved on], the issue in interworking was
>how a registry that choose to store NAPTR records in a domain other than
>e164.arpa, for its own business reasons, could still have a pointer to its
>DNS in the e164.arpa Tier 1.
>This approach was being explored in the spirit of trying to be see what can
>be done to interwork with other trees without changing the fundamental
>approach in RFC2916 which is the focus of the Forum.

Sounds good.

>I'd appreciate any
>feedback on what issues this might raise or alternatives.  Because the
>pointers would be on a number by number basis rather than for blocks CNAME,
>rather than DNAME was the focus.

We'll do our best.  We're still processing the pros and cons of the
different approaches for interworking...

Regards,
Mark

www.EnumNIC.net
www.EnumForums.org

-----Original Message-----
From: Pfautz, Penn L, NNAD [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2001 4:52 PM
To: [email-masked]; Jordyn A. Buchanan; David R. Conrad; Kevin
McCandless; [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]; Bob Wienski
Subject: RE: [Enum] ENUM interworking

Mark:
The problem with 555 numbers is a different one than that which prompted the
discussion of CNAME in the ENUM Forum Interworking Group. This is a very
special kind of number and not one that should be driving ENUM
implementation.

To respond to Dave's earlier question [sorry- I was away from e-mail for a
while and the thread seems to have moved on], the issue in interworking was
how a registry that choose to store NAPTR records in a domain other than
e164.arpa, for its own business reasons, could still have a pointer to its
DNS in the e164.arpa Tier 1.
This approach was being explored in the spirit of trying to be see what can
be done to interwork with other trees without changing the fundamental
approach in RFC2916 which is the focus of the Forum. I'd appreciate any
feedback on what issues this might raise or alternatives.  Because the
pointers would be on a number by number basis rather than for blocks CNAME,
rather than DNAME was the focus.

Thanks,

Penn

-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Harris [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2001 2:44 PM
To: Jordyn A. Buchanan; David R. Conrad; Pfautz, Penn L, NNAD; Kevin
McCandless; [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]; Bob Wienski
Subject: RE: [Enum] ENUM interworking

Hi Jordyn...

>For example, the owner of +1.212.555.1212

Your example is perfect.  "555.1212" is a directory assistance number.  If I
dial 555.1212, I will almost certainly need to be routed differently than
you will, even in the same area code, especially if we have different TSP
carriers.  "Multiple places, One Telephone #"

That is one of many reasons for ENUM needing to be multiple domains, outside
of the Golden tree.
Other reasons are listed in Appendix 1 of the SGA Adhoc on ENUM Report...

Regards,
Mark

www.EnumNIC.net
www.EnumForums.org

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of
Jordyn A. Buchanan
Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2001 1:35 PM
To: David R. Conrad; Pfautz, Penn L, NNAD; Kevin McCandless;
[email-masked]'
Cc: [email-masked]'; Bob Wienski
Subject: RE: [Enum] ENUM interworking

At 08:00 PM 10/31/2001 -0800, David R. Conrad wrote:

>This is not intended to be as flippant as it sounds, but what problem are
>we trying to solve here?  Can you point me to a document that is
>describing the architecture in which using CNAMEs would be appropriate?

The problem trying to be solved is that some records may be stored under a
different domain name.  For example, the owner of +1.212.555.1212 might
wish to store their NAPTR records at 2.1.2.1.5.5.5.2.1.2.1.example.ie, but
still wishes the name to resolve using the "golden tree" and a lookup under
e164.arpa.  CNAMEs were suggested as a way to accomplish this.

If your question is, "why would someone want to do that instead of just
delegating within the same domain using NS records?" then I have no idea.

Jordyn

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

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

---

From: "Pfautz, Penn L, NNAD" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2001 16:51:47 -0500

Mark:

Thanks,

Penn

-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Harris [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2001 2:44 PM
To: Jordyn A. Buchanan; David R. Conrad; Pfautz, Penn L, NNAD; Kevin

Hi Jordyn...

Regards,
Mark

www.EnumNIC.net
www.EnumForums.org

-----Original Message-----

Jordyn