Subject: [Enum] enum: again

From: Lawrence Conroy <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2002 18:37:07 +0100

Hi Folks,
  from posts on this list, it seems that the enum: URI has raised its 
head again.
I missed out on the fun in YOK so I may have missed discussions there, but...
I raised some concerns that don't seem to have been resolved, so here 
we go again:

Proposal:
Use tel: with a parameter to indicate "search ENUM with the URL value".
My Concerns:
'tel:' URL processors exist that follow RFC2806 policy which is to ignore
unrecognised parameters. Any parameter we add to specify "search ENUM" is
by definition unrecognised by existing 'tel:' URL processors. Thus such a
parameter will be ignored by these existing processors.

Note that the same is true by changing the RFC2806bis update to specify
that, by default, the 'tel:' processor MUST search ENUM unless a parameter
is included that specifies otherwise. It just won't work for existing 'tel:'
processors as they don't check ENUM - stating that they must is not going
to change anything.

Comments on tel: versus enum: gratefully received...

all the best,
   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