Subject: [Enum] RFC 3761 bis revision

From: [email-masked] (Scott O. Bradner)
Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2007 13:15:37 -0400 (EDT)

sorry for being tardy here - as was announced on this list a while back
I've agreed to take over the editing 3761bis
(currently draft-ietf-enum-3761bis-01.txt) 

please send the list any specific suggestions/edits/etc asap - I'd 
like to get as many issues worked out as possible before submitting
a revision in a few weeks

tnx

Scott

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

---

From: "Otmar Lendl" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2007 11:50:09 +0200

Scott,

> please send the list any specific suggestions/edits/etc asap 
> - I'd like to get as many issues worked out as possible before 
> submitting a revision in a few weeks

There has been a lot of discussions concerning the "D" flag in
NAPTRs and the use of URI records. The consensus has been that
this is not a workable solution for a User ENUM / Infrastructure
ENUM coexistance. It also blocks the use of DNS wildcards in ENUM
Domains which are often needed when dealing with open numbering plans.

Detailed arguments are here:

http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/enum/current/msg05736.html
http://www.ripe.net/ripe/maillists/archives/enum-wg/2006/msg00116.html
http://www.ripe.net/ripe/maillists/archives/enum-wg/2006/msg00141.html
http://www.ripe.net/ripe/maillists/archives/enum-wg/2006/msg00138.html
http://www.ripe.net/ripe/maillists/archives/enum-wg/2006/msg00119.html
http://www.ripe.net/ripe/maillists/archives/enum-wg/2006/msg00120.html

(Most of the mails were crossposted to the ietf list.)

/ol
-- 
/ Otmar Lendl <[email-masked]>, T: +43 1 5056416 - 33, F: - 933 \
| nic.at Internet Verwaltungs- und Betriebsgesellschaft m.b.H |
\ http://www.nic.at/  LG Salzburg, FN 172568b, Sitz: Salzburg /

---

From: lconroy <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2007 12:06:14 +0100

Hi Otmar,
  Now I'm mightily confused.
The URI draft is no longer considered a candidate for update to
RFC3761. Thus I do not understand how these referenced RIPE emails
relate to an update to *the existing* RFC 3761. They reflect a past
discussion, since resolved.
The authors spell this out in their draft-ietf-enum-uri-01.txt:
"   The next version of this draft should NOT be a work item of the ENUM
    wg, but instead an individual submission of name
    draft-faltstrom-rrtype-uri-00.txt.
".

What is the issue requiring an update to RFC3761 that you think these
mails reflect?

all the best,
   Lawrence

---

From: Otmar Lendl <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2007 13:30:17 +0200

Lawrence,

>  Now I'm mightily confused.

In the ITU sense of the word?

>What is the issue requiring an update to RFC3761 that you think these

Scott asked about changes to draft-ietf-enum-3761bis-01 and not
changes to RFC 3761. 

My mail was not intended to start the discussion anew, but as simple
answers to Scott's question on what edits are needed for -02. It is my
understanding as well, that the removal of the URI RR stuff has been
agreed upon.

To be more specific: In "2.4.1. Flags", remove the D flag, and remove
the URI RRs from 4.1.

Cheers,

/ol

---

From: "Richard Shockey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2007 10:51:10 -0400

The larger issue is what to do with the U flag itself and under what
conditions can a new flag be created. 

>  -----Original Message-----
>  From: Otmar Lendl [mailto:[email-masked]]
>  Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2007 7:30 AM
>  To: lconroy
>  Cc: [email-masked]; Scott O. Bradner
>  Subject: Re: [Enum] RFC 3761 bis revision
>  
>  
>  Lawrence,
>