Subject: [Enum] enumservices in new version of 2916bis

From: Patrik Fältström <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 20:59:32 +0200

I have been discussing how to define enumservice with Michael Mealling
outside of the list, and he and myself have different opinion, so I really
want/need to know what the consensus of the wg is. I ask Richard to be the
wg chair which sort things out.

The format of the service field in the NAPTR is to be:

    E2U+enumservice1+enumservice2+...

My personal view is that enumservice1 (etc) is to be defined in a way so
the client know exactly what he needs to know before selecting the record.
Or rather, if the client get two NAPTR records, and those are like this:

    E2U+enumservice1
    E2U+enumservice2

...then the client must know which one of the two "makes sense" to him.

Regarding "makes sense" both Michael and I see two different axis along
which one have to do a selection:

  - Protocol (basically, URI scheme and/or final protocol to use)
  - Function (talk, fax, chat,...)

Michael suggested that one should have the following _two_ attributes:

   E2U+function+protocol

This is one after defining an enumservice (as a function), one can say
explicitly if the function (such as "talk") is to be on sip/rtp or h323 or
whatever.

Once again, my view is that IF the client need to know more than "talk",
for example what URI scheme which will be the result, then that have to be
clear in the registration of the enumservice itself.

For example, from my point of view, voice call with the help of SIP might
not be enough for a client. One might want to know also what resulting
protocol is to be used after negotiations inside the SIP protocol. Is then
the protocol according to Michaels idea "sip" or "rtp" or "sip+rtp"?

Should "talk" define what protocols are to be used, or do one need two
defnitions, the function and the protocol? A registration of a protocol,
should that be the URI scheme or a separate registration for ENUM?

Or, should we go down the path I suggest? Where the enumservice is to
define whatever is needed?

I need advice. What is the consensus of the group?

I think we should discuss this in Yokohama, but, I want to write something
in the draft which is no too far away...

    paf

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

---

From: Richard Shockey <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 15:47:52 -0400

>wg chair which sort things out.

O I have to be neutral now right? :-)

>     E2U+enumservice1+enumservice2+...

Naming clarification here .... I have usually associated ' enumservice' 
with all data included in the record.

maybe it would be better to define things as

E2U+data1+data2+..

where dataX is defined as elements that could represent Protocol or 
Function or now add Transport...see below

>Michael suggested that one should have the following _two_ attributes:

There seemed to be some consensus on this ... I certainly thought that 
things like

E2U+FAX+SMTP or
E2U+FAX+tel

to be reasonable.

>the protocol according to Michaels idea "sip" or "rtp" or "sip+rtp"?

Well my views on the E2U+function+SIP issue is well known  but you have 
brought up something new ... SIP can be transported over different 
protocols  RTP and RTSP  is this where the hint is given?

I really hope the SIP people will make their views known.

>should that be the URI scheme or a separate registration for ENUM?

I'm assuming that 2916bis  tests for IANA enumservice field registration 
are what we discussed in the past ... applicability statement .. security 
considerations, privacy considerations etc.??

>in the draft which is no too far away...

I think its topic A.  :-)

Richard Shockey, Senior Manager, Strategic Technology Initiatives
NeuStar Inc.
45980 Center Oak Plaza   Bldg 8     Sterling, VA  20166
1120 Vermont Ave NW Suite 400 Washington DC 20005
Voice +1 571.434.5651 Cell : +1 314.503.0640,  Fax: +1 815.333.1237
<mailto: [email-masked]> or
<mailto: [email-masked]>
<http://www.neustar.biz>
<http://www.enum.org>
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

---

From: "Douglas Ranalli" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 16:12:56 -0400

Patrik,

> Michael suggested that one should have the following _two_ attributes:

I support Michael's proposal.  Both approaches are perfectly reasonable but
in working to implement ENUM based solutions we've found value in the
flexibility that comes from being able to sort ENUM records along two
different criteria:

"Function" answers the question: "What does this particular service do?"

"Protocol" answer the question: "How do I talk to this particular service?"

Thank you for your efforts in trying to bring this issue to consensus.

DJR

Douglas Ranalli
NetNumber, Inc.
[email-masked]