RE: New I-D:draft-kaplan-enum-source-uri-00.txt

Hey Lawrence,
Inline...

> -----Original Message-----
> From: lconroy [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2007 3:43 PM
> To: Peter Koch
> Cc: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [Enum] New I-D:draft-kaplan-enum-source-uri-00.txt
>
> Hi Peter, folks,
>   I agree with all of Peter's comments.
> Also...
>    Forget ENUM.
> First, there is no such thing as an ENUM server - only a DNS server
> that acts authoritatively for domains associated (via ENUM) with E.
> 164 telephone numbers.

Ummm... you just defined the ENUM server: "a DNS server that acts authoritatively for domains associated (via ENUM) with E.164 telephone numbers".  Are you saying such devices don't exist?  I'm confused.


> Second, the fact that a modified ENUM client happens to be the source
> of these DNS queries is not significant to the DNS query itself, nor
> is it to the kind of response it receives.

I think what you mean by this is it could be generalized to any/all DNS requests - but I think we're all in vehement agreement it doesn't make sense for the general use of DNS.  Ergo, I pointed it at ENUM (and private ENUM at that).


> However, it's a DNS issue, not an issue for a group that
> specifies the ENUM protocol/algorithm, Enumservices and the
> guidelines for development of Enumservices.

Granted, it could be generalized, but I pointed it to the ENUM WG because it's trying to solve a problem found due to a specific use-case for DNS: namely ENUM.  I don't disagree it probably belongs better in DNSEXT/DNSOPTS.  The ENUM WG chair is waiting to hear back from the AD's if that's the case, I believe.

-hadriel