Subject: RE: [Enum] ENUM individual draft on root domain.

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 22:58:49 -0800

It's good that you like simplicitly.

In that spirit:

At 11:05 AM 2/22/2002 -0800, Kevin McCandless wrote:
>1)  ENUM is not .arpa and to say so is allowing policy to be set in an IETF
>draft.  ENUM can reside in any TLD.

please point to the approved standards specification that permits this 
flexibility.

d/

ps.  for extra credit, please resolve the contradiction that that 
specification creates with respect to the relevant IETF standards document.

----------
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]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum

---

From: David Conrad <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2002 09:36:49 -0800

Dave,

> please point to the approved standards specification that permits this

See RFC 1034/1035.  The DNS doesn't care about the magic string that is
appended onto the end of the reversed set of digits that make up the domain
name looked up per ENUM.  ENUM can work just as well if my telephone number
gets translated into 3.0.0.6.1.8.3.0.5.6.1.fun.brandenburg.com as it would
as 3.0.0.6.1.8.3.0.5.6.1.e164.arpa.

It would be really nice, however, if we could all agree on the _single_
string to append.  Unfortunately, this is appearing increasingly unlikely.

Rgds,
-drc

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2002 10:01:41 -0800

David,

Your note highlights confusion between DNS technology and ENUM service.

An assertion was made about ENUM, not about the DNS.  I asked for 
documentation to support that assertion.

You responded with two large, generic citations about the underlying 
DNS.  Since no one was talking about the broad range of DNS capabilities, I 
cannot even guess why you thought those citations are relevant.

Once again:  Where does it say that ENUM is not e164.arpa?

The term came from this working group.

Note that the ITU, for example, is very clear about this, e.g., 
<http://www.itu.int/osg/spu/infocom/enum/>.

The USG similarly constrains itself to that perspective in 
<http://www.enumf.org/documents/2001_07_06_ENUM_Report_Department_of_State_Final.doc> 
except for a broad hypothetical in an appendix.
So anyone claiming that ENUM is other than, or more than, e164.arpa, needs 
to provide documentation of standards work that substantiates this.

Otherwise, the assertion of broader meaning is a matter of personal 
preference, rather than institutional agreement.

d/

----------

---

From: David Conrad <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2002 11:51:39 -0800

Just to be clear:

You appear to be arguing that if there is an implementation of mapping E164
identifiers into the domain name system that follows 2916 letter for letter,
in particular, demanding a single DNS tree, but uses (say) .e164.itu.int,
instead of .e164.arpa, that this would not be "ENUM".

Seems a bit pedantic to me.  As I'm more interested in trying to get the
functionality described in 2916 implemented than in political posturing, I
don't actually care what the domain name string appended is as long as the
technology described is operationally deployable and usable.  Pragmatically
speaking, it remains to be seen (at least to me) whether the community of
interests that define the stuff we're trying to map into the DNS will go
along with e164.arpa.

Rgds,
-drc

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2002 12:30:46 -0800

>instead of .e164.arpa, that this would not be "ENUM".

if there were a transport protocol that used TCP, except for making the 
port number field larger and using fixed-interval retransmission rates, 
would that still be TCP?

If you used RFC 2822, except renamed all the headers to some other set of 
strings and you changed the format of an address, would that still be 
Internet standard mail?

These are, of course, rhetorical questions.

>Seems a bit pedantic to me.

Ahh.  Glad to see you are appreciating the nature of standards.  By there 
essence, they are supposed to be pedantic.  Otherwise, they are certain to 
have no interoperability.

Interoperability?

You know, the sort of thing one loses if you have independent naming trees, 
anchored in different places of the DNS...

d/

----------

---

From: David Conrad <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2002 18:27:24 -0800

Dave,

> anchored in different places of the DNS...

You seem to be missing the bit where I said "a single tree".  If the
IESG/IAB can convince all the administrators of the numbering plans to play
along with e164.arpa, then life is simple.  Unfortunately, I'm skeptical
that life will be that simple...
 
Rgds,
-drc

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2002 21:54:18 -0800

>that life will be that simple...

This began as a question about the use of the term Enum.  You have cleverly 
turned it into a question about multiple trees.

Here are some facts:

         Enum is a term that specifies the work of the Enum working group.

         That work produced a specification

         That specification calls for a particular naming tree, anchored in 
e164.arpa.

1.  If any of the above facts is incorrect, please document the alternative 
truth you are asserting.

2.  As with all other activities in an open world, people and networks are 
free to adopt this specification or another, as they wish.

What they are NOT free to do, with any honesty or integrity, is to adopt 
something else but claim they haven't.

d/

----------

---

From: Patrik Fältström <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 07:52:40 +0100

Have the people discussing this subject (whatever it is) read 2916bis? Part
from Dave Crocker which is very close to the current wording, so I suspect
he cheated ;-)

I have still to see any constructive comments on proposed changes in
2916bis which makes you more happy. Given suggestions, we can see if we
have consensus in the wg to make them. Without suggestions, I only see
massive amounts of hot air.

  paf

--On 2002-02-24 21.54 -0800 Dave Crocker <[email-masked]> wrote:

>> > You know, the sort of thing one loses if you have independent naming
>> > trees, anchored in different places of the DNS...
>> 
>> IESG/IAB can convince all the administrators of the numbering plans to
>> play along with e164.arpa, then life is simple.  Unfortunately, I'm
>> skeptical that life will be that simple...
> 
> 
> This began as a question about the use of the term Enum.  You have
> cleverly turned it into a question about multiple trees.
> 
> Here are some facts:
> 
> 
>          That specification calls for a particular naming tree, anchored
> in e164.arpa.
> 
> 1.  If any of the above facts is incorrect, please document the
> alternative truth you are asserting.
> 
> 2.  As with all other activities in an open world, people and networks
> are free to adopt this specification or another, as they wish.
>

---

From: David Conrad <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 07:49:19 -0800

Dave,

> turned it into a question about multiple trees.

Saturation level reached.

I have NEVER spoken about multiple trees in this thread.  Not sure what
conversation you're involved in, but as I'm not a part of it, this will be
my last comment on this thread.

Rgds,
-drc