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

Howdy,
Inline...


> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of
> Richard Shockey
>
> 6 - Presentation by Hadriel Kaplan regarding Private ENUM real-world use.
> - He is suggesting a problem statement that these mechanisms are missing
> source-based queries.
> - This is not a public ENUM issue, but a private one.
> - Proposed solution is to use EDNS0 to define a OPT-RR.
> - The mailing list has suggested other things like LDAP, SQL, and other
> mechanisms.  But Hadriel said there are big reasons why this is not the
> case, such as the speed of DNS, efficiency, low cost, easy distribution of
> data, etc.
> - One speaker (??) suggested that he supported this draft.
> - Lawrence Conroy questioned what WG this should be in, and that ENUM WG
> may
> not be appropriate.  He suggested DNSops or DNSext as potential options,
> since the applications could be more broad that ENUM.
> - Jean-Francois Mule said that he felt high-level requirements are needed
> in
> this draft.  He does not understand the problem or the solution.

That was not my recollection of his comments.  I remember him saying that he saw a need for this, based on Speermint.


> - Peter Koch expressed a strong opinion that this work should be in a
> different WG, not in ENUM.  He felt DNSext was the right WG.
> - Scott Bradner said that there is a party, Verizon, that has a related
> patent, and we should be careful.
> - Tim Dewhite from Verizon said that he felt this was useful to do local
> vs.
> toll lookups.
> - Co-Chairs cut-off discussion for time reasons.  Rich indicated that
> another revision is necessary and there will be more discussion on the
> list.
> - Jon Peterson agreed with Jean-Francois Mule that there needs to be a
> better description of the problem and the solution.
> - Patrick Falstrom also suggested that Hadriel work closely with the
> DNSext
> folks for their input.