Subject: Re: [Enum] ENUM individual draft on root domain

From: "Herman R. Silbiger" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 14:56:43 -0500

> From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
> To: Michael Mealling <[email-masked]>
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [Enum] ENUM individual draft on root domain.
> <[email-masked]>
> Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 11:15:40 -0800
> 
> there seems to be a recurring fallacy here.  ENUM IS NOT A PROTOCOL.  it is
> a convention for use of existing protocols.  that convention involves
>   o the dns protocol
>   o the e164.arpa domain (per iab's rfc 3172)
>   o using naptr ns rrs, and
>   o interpreting uri results of naptr rr lookups
> 
> so statements such as "keep the enum protocol but change 'arpa' to 'greed'"
> or "change naptr to foo" are utterly without technical meaning (other than
> indicating the commercial and/or political interests of those making such
> statements).
> 
> randy
> 
This is an Alice in Wonderland type of argument.  "ENUM is not a
protocol because I say it isn't."  Perhaps is is not a unitary protocol,
but it definitely is an assembly of protocols.

I also don't see any problem with separating the service aspects of ENUM
with the protocol description.  I am quite familiar with such procedures
because of my ITU experience, where this is the usual approach.

Your statements about "changing 'arpa' to 'greed' and 'indicating the
commercial and/or political interests of those making such statements'
may equally well be applied to the proponents of the current RFC2916 and
proposed RFC2916bis.

Herman

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

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 12:28:20 -0800

> protocol because I say it isn't."

no. because it specifies no protocol.  where is the description of the
on-the wire data?  where is the protocol state transition diagram?

> Perhaps is is not a unitary protocol, but it definitely is an assembly
> of protocols.

it is a convention for how to use a specific set of protocols.  if you
don't like which protocols, or the convention of how to use them, no
problem.  build your own.  just don't confuse people by calling it enum.

> with the protocol description.

i agree completely.  you may be a bit dissapointed that removing the null
set does not alter the set of the remaining elements.

> I am quite familiar with such procedures because of my ITU experience

i bet you are

> may equally well be applied to the proponents of the current RFC2916 and

being from the itu world, you may have missed the ietf-wide consensus
process that produced and ratified rfc 2916.

randy

---

From: Bill Manning <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 14:14:01 -0800 (PST)

% it is a convention for how to use a specific set of protocols.  

	convention == protocol

% > Your statements about "changing 'arpa' to 'greed' and 'indicating the
% > commercial and/or political interests of those making such statements'
% > may equally well be applied to the proponents of the current RFC2916 and
% > proposed RFC2916bis.
% 
% being from the itu world, you may have missed the ietf-wide consensus
% process that produced and ratified rfc 2916.

	er, IESG-wide consensus, not IETF-wide.  Most IETF folk
	don't know and were not asked.

% randy

--bill

---

From: Allison Mankin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 22:43:51 -0500

>         don't know and were not asked. 

We can't tell what most IETF folk know at the end of the day,
but they were* asked, via IETF Last Call.

Allison