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

From: "Hollenbeck, Scott" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 12:09:51 -0500

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Harris [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Friday, February 22, 2002 11:53 AM
> To: Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine; [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: [Enum] ENUM individual draft on root domain. 
> 
> 
> Hi Eric:
> 
> In response to your comment:
> >Today it is draft-holy-sed-script-00.txt, in which s/\.arpa/\.foo/ is
> >retroactively applied to 2916, no doubt because there really 
> is a value
> >proposition in a spelling mistake, and some state's policy 
> needs to see
> >the light of day with an ISOC copyright as an IETF ID.
> 
> Actually, the ".arpa" in 2916 should be changed to ".foo", for a few
> good reasons:

I've had an off-list conversation with both 2916bis editors (Patrik and
Michael) asking a similar question: would it be possible to make 2916bis
completely policy/implementation neutral (basically removing mention of a
specific rooting point in the DNS hierarchy), and perhaps writing a second
e164.arpa implementation profile document?  In the provreg WG we had many
interesting discussions surrounding domain name registration policy vs.
policy-neutral protocol, and I personally found it very helpful to try to
separate the two wherever possible.  A similar split _might_ help us focus
on technical protocol issues in 2916bis rather than perceived policy issues.

-Scott-

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

---

From: Michael Mealling <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 13:13:45 -0500

> on technical protocol issues in 2916bis rather than perceived policy issues.

BUT....

RFC 2916 defined two things (in much the same way that RFC 1035 did):
the ENUM _system_ and a protocol. In much the same way that many
people have private, enterprise level DNS namespaces, there can be
private uses of the protocol that RFC 2916 defined. But the questions is:
are those private uses part of the ENUM _system_? Is your private, 
enterpise DNS namespace part of the DNS system? I hope not.  It would kind 
of defeat the purpose.

So, be clear: are we talking about the protocol or the system? There
never has been anything stopping anyone from using the techniques laid
out in 2916 (or 1035) within their own administrative domain. The only
thing you shouldn't do is be claiming that your private use of the protocol
also means that you are part of the _system_.

Frankly, I don't really care what some one does as part of their internal
or proprietary system. The _utility_ comes from the _system_ and the fact that 
I can interoperate with it and rely on the fact that it's run according to 
the policies and procedures of the namespace. If that weren't the case
then everyone would be using every DNS root someone cared to setup. 
The utility of DNS was never the protocol, its the agreement that everyone
made to use the same root....

Here's my question in response: what is stopping someone from using the
same technique in 2916 with some other root? Why does it matter
that 2916bis specify that its possible to do so? RFC 1035 never said
something like that and nobody ever suggested that it kept them from
setting up their own private domain-name spaces..

-MM

-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Mealling		       | mailto:[email-masked]
Advanced Naming Research Manager       | go:Michael Mealling
Verisign Applied Research              | urn:pin:1

---

From: Patrik Fältström <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 19:44:50 +0100

--On 2002-02-22 12.09 -0500 "Hollenbeck, Scott" <[email-masked]>
wrote:

> e164.arpa implementation profile document?

...and the outcome of that discussion is that the document will not be
split.

This is also checked with our Area Directors.

    paf

---

From: Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 13:52:54 -0500

Afternoon Scott,

>                                         ... In the provreg WG we had many
> policy-neutral protocol ...

Yup. But, none hinged upon the existance, or inexistance, of some particular
namespace, and all of the implementors (honestly, I can't think of a single
alternate rooter writing a line) working in the ICANN (nee IANA) namespace.
No semantics were specified which were gTLD, sTLD, or ccTLD specific, or
knew about root servers (A-M or on-beyond-Zebra), though IMO we didn't do a
creditable job for RIRs and LIRs -- not being specific to a particular name
space isn't the same is not being name space specific.

I don't think a split would help.

Milage varies, honest men and women differ, etc.

Eric

---

From: Randy Bush <[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

---

From: Tony Rutkowski <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 14:53:57 -0500

>   o interpreting uri results of naptr rr lookups

An important omission:

    o alleged authoritative "public" ITU/telecom provider/customer namespace

This is the root of the problem.  :-)

--tony