Subject: Re: [Enum] Non-Terrminal NAPTRs Considered Harmful

From: "Stastny Richard" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2005 16:21:03 -0400

>Carriers, yes, but think of the poor stupid device that want to use 
>the information the carriers have put in dns? I.e. only carriers 
>might store things there, everyone might do lookups.

No stupid device will ever look at this information;
the carrier tree is onyl for carrier use and will in most case
point to servers not accessible by end-users anyway

Richard

________________________________

Von: Patrik Fältström [mailto:paf at cisco.com]
Gesendet: Mi 22.06.2005 21:45
An: Stastny Richard
Cc: lconroy; enum at ietf.org; Richard Shockey
Betreff: Re: [Enum] Non-Terrminal NAPTRs Considered Harmful

On Jun 22, 2005, at 07:41, Stastny Richard wrote:

> c1: using non-terminals
> c2. using terminal NAPTRs
> both options having these NAPTRs side-by-side
> in tier 1.
>
> c3: moving the carriers to  e.g 1.2.3.4.carrier.c.c.e164.arpa
> I considered this option as ugly and requiering special clients,
> to derieve the domain to query from the E.164 number and
> knowing the CC structure, but as Lawrence pointed out,
> carriers should know this anyway ;-)
>

Carriers, yes, but think of the poor stupid device that want to use 
the information the carriers have put in dns? I.e. only carriers 
might store things there, everyone might do lookups.

    paf

_______________________________________________
enum mailing list
enum at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum

---

From: Patrik Fältström <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2005 21:42:13 -0400

On Jun 22, 2005, at 13:10, Stastny Richard wrote:
Carriers, yes, but think of the poor stupid device that want to use
the information the carriers have put in dns? I.e. only carriers
might store things there, everyone might do lookups.
No stupid device will ever look at this information;
the carrier tree is onyl for carrier use and will in most case
point to servers not accessible by end-users anyway
Wait a bit...if the data is not accessible for anyone (publicly  
available), it should be in a part of the namespace that is not known  
to others than the ones that have to know.

Else you will get errors that is only possible to detect by waiting  
for a timeout in the DNS lookup, and that is not good enough. That  
will definitely slow down the ENUM lookup too much.

So, what should be stored under e164.arpa is only data that is  
publicly available.

   paf

---

From: Michael Haberler <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2005 03:01:40 -0400

At 03:41 23.06.2005, Patrik Fältström wrote:

...

...

So, what should be stored under e164.arpa is only data that is
publicly available.
"publicly available" doesnt necessarily translate into "openly reachable 
for everybody" - we have that situation already now in the public ENUM tree 
over here:

people make an ENUM entry for their number (eg +43 780 123456) pointing to 
sip:foo at provider.at - which drives the Generic Gateway for +43 780 * 
(virtual number access service)

however, some qualifiy INVITES to their proxy on the originating IP address 
range - if it comes from the gateway, fine - if somebody else sends an 
INVITE, he gets a '407 Proxy Authentication Required' as a response

so that entry is public and conformant but not openly reachable
or is "openly reachable" a requirement posed on all URI's under e164.arpa ? 
It might be an implicit assumption but I havent seen such a requirement

-Michael

---

From: Jim Reid <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2005 05:19:56 -0400

On Jun 23, 2005, at 08:01, Michael Haberler wrote:
"publicly available" doesnt necessarily translate into "openly 
reachable for everybody"
Indeed. The DNS is just a way to make information publicly available. 
It makes no judgements about the content that's stored there. That 
said, advertising information in the public DNS about end-points that 
are not openly reachable is pointless.

or is "openly reachable" a requirement posed on all URI's under 
e164.arpa ? It might be an implicit assumption but I havent seen such 
a requirement
No. And I'm not sure this is an implicit assumption either. Perhaps it 
should be an explicit assumption. Maybe there should be an ENUM WG I-D 
along the lines of Philip Hazel's 
draft-ietf-dnsop-dontpublish-unreachable-03.txt which was about IP 
addresses that should never appear in the public DNS. The ENUM version 
would of course be concerned with unreachable URIs. Or URI end points 
that have access control filters in front of them. Technically, these 
are generally reachable: they're just not accessible to everyone.