Subject: [Enum] draft-kaplan-enum-source-uri-00 RESTART

From: Don Troshynski <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 15:40:55 -0400

Seems like a day to bring up old drafts, so here goes...

Where do we stand on draft-kaplan-enum-source-uri-00?  Is there any interest in updating this draft and moving it forward?  This would also make a great way to convey trunk group information as part of the query (and, of course, anything else that can be placed into a URI).  If there is consideration of an Informational or BCP on trunk groups in ENUM, this concept should be acknowledged, as well.  I also think it would be a good idea make the URI concept generic (not explicitly define it to be the source), and maybe extend the definition to include the header name(s).

Thoughts?

Don

---

From: "Richard Shockey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 16:03:57 -0400

Hey no problem Don ..we are trying to clean things up around here.

If I recall this discussion in Phili  we were NOT going to do this in ENUM
but strongly suggested to Hadriel that if he walked this over to the folks
in DNSEXT he would have a reasonable hearing.  IMHO given what this draft
wants to do,  it properly belongs there.

I agree, in the context of ENUM usage,  source URI makes a lot of sense
since this is really not about THE DNS but only the use of DNS as a query
technically locally cached.  I think the DNSEXT folks will understand that.

I recall and Olafur Gudmundsson the DNSEXT co-chair was in the room to hear
Hadriel make his case and Patrik and I spoke to Olafur about this afterwards
at some length.

From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Don
Troshynski
Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2009 3:41 PM
To: Hadriel Kaplan; [email-masked]; [email-masked];
[email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]; David Cullerot
Subject: [Enum] draft-kaplan-enum-source-uri-00 RESTART

Seems like a day to bring up old drafts, so here goes.

Where do we stand on draft-kaplan-enum-source-uri-00?  Is there any interest
in updating this draft and moving it forward?  This would also make a great
way to convey trunk group information as part of the query (and, of course,
anything else that can be placed into a URI).  If there is consideration of
an Informational or BCP on trunk groups in ENUM, this concept should be
acknowledged, as well.  I also think it would be a good idea make the URI
concept generic (not explicitly define it to be the source), and maybe
extend the definition to include the header name(s).

Thoughts?

Don