Re: Enumservices categories (COMMON, X-, P-, ...)

Hi Bernie, folks,

   this will require a small update to the current version of RFC  
3761bis, but IMHO
is a very good plan. If one sees such a "P-xxxx" Enumservice on the  
Internet, then
it SHOULD be ignored. I like this idea.

It also codifies the idea that stuff floating around on a private  
infrastructure
does not need to be specified other than between those "consenting  
networks".

This is different from X-xxx, where at least a notification that it  
is being used
(with some optional information on what it does) is preferred - to  
summarise my
understanding of the position at the YVR ENUM WG meeting.

all the best,
   Lawrence

On 3 Mar 2008, at 13:41, Bernie Hoeneisen wrote:
> Hi,
>
> While reading RFC3761bis and writing the IANA registration
> procedures, some idea crossed my mind:
>
> To fulfill all the (known) requiements of Enum users, it make sense to
> split Enumservices in different categories. So far I see a need for  
> three
> of them:
>
> 1. Ordinary (COMMON) registered Enumservices:
>     - Normal IANA Registration procedures apply
>     - No prefix
>
> 2. Registered Enumservices for Trial/Experimental:
>     - IANA Registration procedures for Trial/Experimental apply
>     - Prefix: 'X-'
>
> 3. Private Enumservices:
>     - Not registered anywhere
>     - Prefix: 'P-'
>
> The last category would not need any special standardization  
> document, as
> IMHO a short definition in RFC3761bis about usage of "P-" in private
> environment is sufficient.
>
> Anybody second this proposal?
>
> Objections?
>
> cheers,
>   Bernie
>
> _______________________________________________
> enum mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum