Re: preliminary notes from the WG meeting in Philidelphia ..

> I had the same problem with the CNAM draft ..the word from on high is 
that
> they don't want us to use data: but specific URI's.  We are just doing 
what
> we are told. IMHO its similar to the issues with TXT in RR ..its just 
become
> a junk pile for anyone trying to do anything.

I have a potential draft to be co-authored with Clive to formally document 
an ENUM (sub-)service-type and NAPTR record that is to be used in the UK's 
number portability database.

It's currently represented as a (very) short data: URI, containing either 
one or two short numbers, i.e. data:,1 or data:,8-10.  The information 
therein is meta-information about the ENUM tree.

Like Clive, I agree that the data: URI format is perfect for this.  I've 
looked at the currently registered URI schemes and there's nothing else 
suitable.  A previous version of the specification held the information in 
a TXT record but this was discarded in favour of NAPTR records to ensure 
that a single DNS query with QTYPE=NAPTR could return both meta-data and 
real data.

Jon - are we supposed to invent a new URI scheme to represent this?   FWIW 
- there are UK Neustar people involved with this particular project too.

cheers,

Ray

-- 
Ray Bellis, MA(Oxon)
Senior Researcher in Advanced Projects, Nominet
e: [email protected], t: +44 1865 332211