Subject: Re: [ENUM] service field in rfc2916bis

From: Lawrence Conroy <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2002 12:15:07 +0100

Hi Folks,
   In answer to Rich's question - "are we close"? I think so, but 
using the earlier BNF roughtly like this:
    servicefield = "E2U" ("-" <uri-scheme>) [*("+" <enumservice>)]
    <uri-scheme> is a URI scheme label registered in an RFC as defined 
according to RFC2717 section 4.
         In the case of a non-terminal NAPTR only, <uri-scheme> is empty.
    <enumservice> is an enumservice label registered in an RFC as 
defined according to 2916 section 3.
Note that in this BNF the URI-scheme is a separate sub-field.

As mentioned earlier, I do not like having the URI-scheme duplicated, and the
other proposed option *(<service> [(":" <URI-scheme>)]) will either result in
the <URI-scheme> being duplicated in each enumservice or included only in one
(or not at all), in which case I have to play "hunt the URI-scheme". I do not
want to do this and do not see a benefit in this formulation over the first.

BTW:
the effect of the optional enumservice list means that it is possible either
for a querying end user or a registrant to include no enumservices 
(no categories
or low level services) in their NAPTR listing. I understand that these are used
as filters on returned NAPTRs ....so...
Question:: Should an empty list be considered as meaning "all" or as "any"?
This is an important end user behaviour issue.

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

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