I-D Action:draft-ietf-enum-enumservices-guide-22.txt

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Telephone Number Mapping Working Group of the IETF.

	Title           : IANA Registration of Enumservices: Guide, Template and IANA Considerations
	Author(s)       : B. Hoeneisen, et al.
	Filename        : draft-ietf-enum-enumservices-guide-22.txt
	Pages           : 49
	Date            : 2010-10-12

This document specifies a revision of the IANA Registration
Guidelines for Enumservices, describes corresponding registration
procedures, and provides a guideline for creating Enumservice
Specifications.

A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-enum-enumservices-guide-22.txt

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader
implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the
Internet-Draft.

_______________________________________________
enum mailing list
enum <at> ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum

FW: I-D ACTION:draft-iab-dns-applications-00.txt

I'm reading this as the "ENUM is considered harmful to the DNS" or don't
even think about E2MD

-----Original Message-----
From: i-d-announce-bounces <at> ietf.org [mailto:i-d-announce-bounces <at> ietf.org]
On Behalf Of Internet-Drafts <at> ietf.org
Sent: Monday, October 18, 2010 2:45 PM
To: i-d-announce <at> ietf.org
Cc: iab <at> iab.org
Subject: I-D ACTION:draft-iab-dns-applications-00.txt 

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
directories.
This draft is a work item of the Internet Architecture Board Working Group
of the IETF.

	Title		: Architectural Considerations on Application
Features in the DNS
	Author(s)	: O. Kolkman, J. Peterson, H. Tschofenig, B. Aboba
	Filename	: draft-iab-dns-applications-00.txt
	Pages		: 23
	Date		: 2010-10-18
	
While the principal purpose of the Domain Name System (DNS) is to
   translate Internet domain names to IP addresses, over time a number
   of Internet applications have integrated supplemental features into
   the DNS to support their operations.  Many of these features assist
   in locating the appropriate service in a domain, or in transforming
   intermediary identifiers into names that the DNS can process.

Re: FW: I-D ACTION:draft-iab-dns-applications-00.txt

Hi Richard, folks,
 ... and you're surprised, given the authorship ?)p

This is a good document, it is needed, and I don't read it that states that ENUM
is a bad idea.

Seriously, this had to be shipped today as it's a -00 draft, so it has some rough edges.

My initial notes on the draft are:

- In 3.1, the end of the second sentence on page 8 "needs work".

- The second sentence of section 3.3 on page 9 also needs work; 1464 applied
  the TXT record that was defined in 1035 for use for arbitrary data. 1464 did
  NOT define the TXT record.

- The last sentence in 4.1.1 on page 12 has "like" when I'd expect "likely".

- The first sentence of 4.2 uses "surfaced" in a slightly odd way; maybe "raised"
  or "exposed"?

- in section 4.2 on first paragraph of page 13, void should be replaced by unused.
  (draft-ietf-enum-void is ancient; the last one was draft-ietf-enum-unused-04.txt).

- The second sentence of the second paragraph of 4.4 on page 14 starts with a typo
  -- should be "In".

- being picky, the second "bullet" of section 5 on page 16 could replace "are only
  depended on" with "only depend".

Re: FW: I-D ACTION:draft-iab-dns-applications-00.txt

Hi Rich et al.

Let's look at the bright side of draft-iab-dns-applications-00.txt:

Finally we have the concerns expressed in written, and thus a much better 
basis for future discussions concerning any ENUM extensions (including 
E2MD).

Hopefully, with this document we can finally get rid of an odd form of 
communication, which was "conveyance of concerns by Grey-Beard-Proxy".

cheers,
  Bernie

PS: I'll try to figure out, on which list draft-iab-dns-applications is 
to be discussed, as the ENUM list is certainly too narrow for this problem 
space.

--

http://ucom.ch/
Tech Consulting for Internet Standardization

On Mon, 18 Oct 2010, Richard Shockey wrote:

>
> I'm reading this as the "ENUM is considered harmful to the DNS" or don't
> even think about E2MD
>
> -----Original Message-----

Which mailing-list for draft-iab-dns-applications-00?

Dear authors of draft-iab-dns-applications,

draft-iab-dns-applications has raised some interest within the ENUM 
community. First discussions took place on the ENUM WG mailing list.

I believe the ENUM WG mailing list is too narrow for this problem space. 
May I ask you which mailing list this document is meant to be discussed?

Unless we get further instructions from you by the end of this week, we'll 
assume that the right place for discussing draft-iab-dns-applications is 
<ietf <at> ietf.org>.

We are looking forward to your answer.

cheers,
  Bernie, co-chair of the ENUM WG

--

http://ucom.ch/
Tech Consulting for Internet Standardization

Re: Which mailing-list for draft-iab-dns-applications-00?

Hmmm... good question.

I would think that a DNS specific list is to narrow as well. The apps area list may be a reasonable place but
that would miss out on a lot of DNS folk. Because of the cross area nature it is probably best to stick to the
IETF list (a technical discussion for a change). 

--Olaf

[top-post]

On Oct 20, 2010, at 10:08 AM, Bernie Hoeneisen wrote:

> Dear authors of draft-iab-dns-applications,
> 
> draft-iab-dns-applications has raised some interest within the ENUM community. First discussions
took place on the ENUM WG mailing list.
> 
> I believe the ENUM WG mailing list is too narrow for this problem space. May I ask you which mailing list this
document is meant to be discussed?
> 
> Unless we get further instructions from you by the end of this week, we'll assume that the right place for
discussing draft-iab-dns-applications is <ietf <at> ietf.org>.
> 
> We are looking forward to your answer.
> 
> cheers,
> Bernie, co-chair of the ENUM WG
> 
> --

Trilogy and IAX draft

Folks,

I have just requested the approval of the last draft of the ENUM
trilogy. I would like to thank the authors of the three drafts for their
work on the last phases of the process.

At this point, the next step for the WG is to revise the following draft
so that it is compliant with the ENUM trilogy we have just approved.

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-enum-iax/

Thanks,

Gonzalo

Re: FW: I-D ACTION:draft-iab-dns-applications-00.txt

_______________________________________________
enum mailing list
enum <at> ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum

Protocol Action: 'IANA Registration of Enumservices: Guide, Template and IANA Considerations' to Proposed Standard

The IESG has approved the following document:

- 'IANA Registration of Enumservices: Guide, Template and IANA 
   Considerations '
   <draft-ietf-enum-enumservices-guide-22.txt> as a Proposed Standard

This document is the product of the Telephone Number Mapping Working Group. 

The IESG contact persons are Gonzalo Camarillo and Robert Sparks.

A URL of this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-enum-enumservices-guide-22.txt

1 - Technical Summary

E.164 Number Mapping (ENUM) provides an identifier mapping mechanism to
map E.164 numbers to Uniform Resource Identifiers.  This document updates
RFC 3761 as part of a suite of including rfc3761bis and a transition
mechanism for the existing IANA registry.  

One of the primary concepts of ENUM is the definition of "Enumservices",
which allows for providing different URIs for different applications of
said mapping mechanism.

This document specifies a revision of the IANA Registry for  
Enumservices, which was originally described in [RFC 3761]. The new
registration processes have been specifically designed to be decoupled
from the existence of the ENUM working group.  

2 - Working Group Summary

Was there anything in the discussion in the interested community that is
worth noting? For example, was there controversy about particular points
or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly rough? Was
the document considered in any WG, and if so, why was it not adopted as a
work item there? 

There was extensive discussion on the alternatives for various processes
involved in the Enumservices registration including what would constitute
Expert Review in this context. The goal was to have a formal process in
place to enable the closure of the ENUM WG.

3 - Document Quality

Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a       
significant number of vendors indicated their plan to implement        the
specification? Are there any reviewers that merit special        mention
as having done a thorough review, e.g., one that resulted in important
changes or a conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If
there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review, what was its
course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type review, on what date was the
request posted?    

Rfc 3761 is globally deployed in multiple contexts and the existing
Enumservice registry has received extensive use.  This new procedure
should simplify the process considerably.

4 – Personnel

Document Shepherd: Richard Shockey
Responsible AD: Gonzalo Camarillo

_______________________________________________
enum mailing list
enum <at> ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum

excessive data in the DNS

On 20 Oct 2010, at 15:43, Peterson, Jon wrote:

> The draft doesn't attribute the story of ringtones in the DNS to any  
> particular source, and perhaps it is apocryphal, but that doesn't  
> exempt it from serving as an illustrative example of excessive data  
> in the DNS.

Jon, I simply don't know what you mean here. Please define  
"excessive", preferably with objective qualitative and quantitative  
metrics. There are plenty of examples of stupid and/or pointless data  
in the DNS. [My favourite was a text-based adventure game.] But who  
gets to decide what's stupid and pointless? Or if those things are  
excessive?

We may well agree that ringtones in the DNS are a possibly apocryphal  
example of "excessive" data. However the people who put that data  
there and those who consume those ringtones would presumably disagree  
with that view. And they'd be right. If whatever they're doing to the  
DNS works for them and isn't harming others, who are we to judge? For  
some definition of we...