Subject: [Enum] Re. 2916bis

From: Lawrence Conroy <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2002 17:22:47 +0000

At 8:59 pm +0100 15/2/02, Patrik Fältström wrote:
>I have here compiled a list of things to be changed to RFC 2916 when
>2916bis is created.
<snip>
>(8) Examples must be corrected and made made clear. For example, there
>should be absolutely no confusion about (?that?) full regular 
>expressions are used.
>I.e. any delimiter and any matching mechanism can be used

To which I reply:
    I am having major trouble (apart from just reading the DDDS collection :)
in finding answers to the following questions:
(i)   Is there ever a need to have anything other than a "complete 
replacement" as the rule substitution expression when applying an 
ENUM query to the e164.arpa domain space?

[Point (8) suggests that there is a need for full regular expressions 
- I can't think of a case where this is needed.]

(ii)  Is there ever a need to use a non-terminal NAPTR record when 
dealing with ENUM (e.164.arpa domain space) records?

(iii) RFC2916 states that tel: URIs should be re-submitted to the 
ENUM system, and that the Client is responsible for loop detection.

Richard has suggested that this is not needed; a tel: URI should NOT 
be re-submitted. On reflection, I agree with him - I can't think of a 
particular reason why such a re-submission is needed either - can 
anyone else think of a case?

[If not, the required tel: flag document is not too hard, and there 
may not *be* a problem with loops - it also solves Jon's concerns 
from the sipping-e164 document, I think :]

best regards,
    Lawrence
-- 
[email-masked]: +44 1794 833666::<my opinions>:

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

---

From: Patrik Fältström <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2002 10:00:35 +0100

--On 2002-02-16 17.22 +0000 Lawrence Conroy <[email-masked]> wrote:

> To which I reply:
>     I am having major trouble (apart from just reading the DDDS
> collection :) in finding answers to the following questions:
> replacement" as the rule substitution expression when applying an ENUM
> query to the e164.arpa domain space?

Yes, for example if you have LDAP URI's where the original phone number is
part of the DN in the search part of the LDAP URI. You can then have the
same regular expression for all records (E.164 numbers) that can be reached
by LDAP at that server.

> dealing with ENUM (e.164.arpa domain space) records?

No. That's why RFC 2916 (the current one) only define use of the "U" flag.

> (iii) RFC2916 states that tel: URIs should be re-submitted to the ENUM
> system, and that the Client is responsible for loop detection.

RFC 2916 is unclear. This is why a special document is needed for each
value of "XXXX" in "XXXX-E+U".

   paf