Subject: [Enum] ENUM root shift

From: Lawrence Conroy <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2002 16:15:46 +0100

Hi Michael, Folks,

In response to my earlier comment,
  At 10:46 am -0400 17/9/02, Michael Mealling wrote:
>  > If it were that simple :) - a better (and valid for ENUM) example would
>>  be /^.*$/6.6.6.3.3.4.9.7.1.4.4.e164.arpa/
>
>Actually, it was that simple. Remember, the replacement field on a 
>non-terminal
>NAPTR is never seen or used beyond that cycle in the algorithm. Just as
>long as the resulting domain-name has the correct NAPTR records associated
>with it. I.e.
>
>First loop produces a query for 2.3.7.0.7.1.7.0.7.7.1.e164.arpa that
>returns a NAPTR that is non-terminal and has "neonym.net" in its
>replacement field. "neonym.net" is queried for NAPTRs and it gets back
>a series of NAPTR records with the correct ENUM NAPTRs that contain
>the valid terminal records...

In the words of many an ITU rec, FFS.

The E2U application is specified specifically for use
within the e164.arpa domain space.

Good timing. It may be the wish of some companies that this
not be the case, but we have been through this argument before.

Anywhere other than e164.arpa. is specifically excluded for
the E2U Application. One can have an ENUM-like service on
any root (or set of alternative roots) one wants, but ENUM
is rooted in one domain space. Neonym.net (or siemens.com)
is not it.

most sincerely,
   Lawrence
-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Roke Manor Research    : This information is provided "as is" and is not
<mailto:[email-masked]>: intended to create any contractual or legal
<tel:+441794833666>    : relationship.

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

---

From: Michael Mealling <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2002 11:26:46 -0400

> within the e164.arpa domain space.

And it is. But we're talking about _internal_ to the algorithm. Not
where the First Well Known Rule is rooted.

> not be the case, but we have been through this argument before.

I am not one of those. I'm speaking personally at this point: ENUM
is intended to have one root. DDDS can't work without that requirement
being adhered to rigourously. But the DDDS _is_ built so that the actual
domain-name being used as a key internal to the algorithm is _opaque_. It
can literally be any valid domain-name.

> is rooted in one domain space. Neonym.net (or siemens.com)

Woah Nelly.... We have to be very clear here. ENUM is _rooted_ in 
E164.ARPA. Once you're inside the algorithm, non-terminal NAPTRs
can point you anywhere. But you still start out in the e164.arpa 
space and delegate down authoritatively. Its the same thing as 
an NS record but it uses a domain-name instead of a IP address.

This discussion is _not_ about alternative roots. If there is
a misunderstanding about that it then we are really talking
past each other...

-MM

-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Mealling	|      Vote Libertarian!       | urn:pin:1
[email-masked]      |                              | http://www.neonym.net
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
!! The Trailblazer spacecraft is going to the Moon! And for just $2500 a gram !!
!! you can send something along with it! Business cards, momentos, cremains,  !!|| anything! See http://www.transorbital.net for details!                     !!

---

From: Richard Shockey <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2002 10:38:30 -0400

>a misunderstanding about that it then we are really talking

Really .... now there is nothing to prevent anyone from developing a 
internal DDDS application for an internal corporate dialing plan ... and if 
the internal well known rules just happen to match the syntax of the 
enumservice fields we develop the net police will not come knocking on the 
door.

>!! you can send something along with it! Business cards, momentos, 
>cremains,  !!|| anything! See http://www.transorbital.net for 
>details!                     !!
>
>

Richard Shockey, Senior Manager, Strategic Technology Initiatives
NeuStar Inc.
46000 Center Oak Plaza   Bldg 10    Sterling, VA  20166
Voice +1 571.434.5651 Cell : +1 314.503.0640,  Fax: +1 815.333.1237
<mailto:[email-masked]> or <mailto:[email-masked]>
<http://shockey.us > ; <http://www.neustar.biz> ; <http://www.enum.org>
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

---

From: Lawrence Conroy <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2002 23:11:57 +0100

At 10:38 am -0400 18/9/02, Richard Shockey wrote, in response to MMs'
clarification of my earlier comment:
>internal DDDS application for an internal corporate dialing plan ... 
>and if the internal well known rules just happen to match the syntax 
>of the enumservice fields we develop the net police will not come 
>knocking on the door.
>

Hi Folks,
   as the initiator of this by my misunderstanding, I'm really happy that
we are all in furious agreement - and that, yes, one can use a different
root, and if it's an internal D3S scheme then the net police won't get ya.

Of course, it may be illegal - with the volume of law that seems to pass
'nourdays, you never know. I trust the IAB/ISOC at least won't arrest the
perps in your CIO's office for contravening clause 2.4-3 of RFC2916bis.
This isn't SIP, after all.

all the best,
   Lawrence

---

From: Lawrence Conroy <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2002 23:20:32 +0100

Hi again Folks,
<snip>
>perps in your CIO's office for contravening clause 2.4-3 of RFC2916bis.
Oops! that should , of course, have been clause 2.4-4.
atb, Lawrence