Subject: [Enum] Re: ENUM Broken?

From: Lawrence Conroy <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2002 15:28:59 +0100

Hi Folks,
  Just when you thought it was safe to come out onto the streets!

To summarise the "URI is insufficient without protocol" view:
At 1:09 pm -0400 28/6/02, Michael Mealling wrote (in response to 
Richard's statement here):
>  > But I definetly see nor reason to add a protocol information.
>
>You need it because URI does _not_ equate with how you are expected
>to access it that particular endpoint. You can use _any_ URI scheme
>within the HTTP protocol. 'urn', 'mailto', 'data', 'news', etc are
>all examples of URIs that do not and never will define a protocl by which
>you access the resource identified by that URI.
...and...
At 5:01 pm -0400 28/6/02, Michael Mealling wrote (In response to my 
statement here):
>  > At what point did instructing the querying end user/client exactly
>>  how to connect to their intended correspondent become a core part of ENUM?
>
>When it became clear that simply identifying the endpoint wasn't sufficient
>for knowing how to interact with that resource since the protocol you use
>to do has a large amount of impact on what services you can express for
>that endpoint.

To summarise the "it just works" view:

At 9:52 pm +0200 28/6/02, Stastny Richard wrote:
>Richard Stastny replies: Ok. I have learned a lot today. For years 
>there were given examples on how to use ENUM, especially mailto+E2U 
>and E2U+mailto. Every dummy out there, including myself and ITU-T 
>SG2 thought you can send an e-mail with this.
>
>Today I have heard, we all are stupid, mailto does not mean what 
>everbody think it means and you need to add a protocol information 
>to get this working. As a dummy MS operating system user you may 
>click on mailto: link, MS Outlook starts, you write an e-mail and it 
>is also received by the recipient, but this is just pure luck.
>
>I have also learned today, that a couple of very sophisticated and 
>wise guys have defined an RFC2916 and even a 2919bis, which has been 
>discussed for 2 years in all necessary and unnecessary standard 
>bodies, but which cannot implemented at least in is simplest 
>version, because at the moment not even ONE bl... ENUM service is 
>defined.
>
>I have also learned (not only today, but since some months), that 
>what is proposed does not work, why it does not work, Nah, you 
>cannot do this and you cannot do that, it should be done in another 
>way, etc.
>
>Can anybody who defined ENUM please explain to me what I shall use in a trial.
>
>What I want is at least a simple basic workable solution, for mail, 
>tel, fax, sms and http: and I want this after Yokohama.
...and...
At 9:06 am +0200 29/6/02, Stastny Richard wrote:
>Maybe we have a serious misunderstanding of the useability of ENUM 
>here, but if am am wrong, I mayself and also a lot of other people 
>in ITU-T, ETSI and other bodies have wasted a lot of their time with 
>a badly designed or explained system from the IETF.

I suspect that a major issue has appeared.

OK - it seems that RFC2916 is being updated not only to formalise the 
processing rules.

(At least) half of the authorship of the proposed rfc2916bis update 
have stated that
RFC2916 is incorrect  - one needs a ->protocol<- rather than just a URI-scheme.

I just want something to implement, after a couple of years of discussion.

Question::
GIVEN that in the following statement, "service" is meant in the 
sense of an entry in the UN*X /etc/services file (i.e. NOT a 
teleservice, as the term has been used on this list):
  "If 'protocol supported by destination end point' is REQUIRED, then 
why not use
   an SRV record, as this is designed to hold the protocol and service 
supported"?

I would suggest that this is -not- the ENUM 'E2U' D3S application.
Instead, this is a different D3S Application, 'E2S', that generates a 
SRV record reference (and in this case the terminal NAPTR will hold 
an "s" flag field).

OK - this is an idea. What d'you think?

all the best,
   Lawrence

-- 
[email-masked]: +44 1794 833666::<my opinions>:

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

---

From: Brandner Rudolf <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2002 21:04:51 +0200

Hi all,

this might be of help:

If a system (end-system or intermediate gateway) detects that it can communicate with the destination (directly and according to the URI), it could do an E2S lookup for selecting the right protocol. Yet another step, but still .....

In addition, the E2S might prove very helpful, if a protocol might be updated. For instance, one bright person invents THE killer protocol for e-mail: cmtp (complex mail transfer protocol). Then the E2S can help to find out whether to use the (then) old style smtp or the new cmtp.

Rudi

> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: Lawrence Conroy [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Gesendet: Montag, 1. Juli 2002 16:29
> An: [email-masked]
> Betreff: [Enum] Re: ENUM Broken?
> 
> 
> Hi Folks,