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

In line ... as I mentioned before I had the same problem of using the DATA:
uri scheme in my CNAM drafts.

You do not want to know the time and effort I went through to understand
that the use of DATA: would not happen. 

The only solution is another URI type which, for lack of anything better, we
are going to call PSTNDATA:  I have already socialized the general scheme
with the powers that be and there seems to be no general objection to a new
URI type for the specific purpose of general pstn data types in conjunction
with the correct ENUM service registration etc.

This IMHO is the way to go forward on these issues. My personal advice would
be to revise your drafts accordingly.

>  -----Original Message-----
>  From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf
>  Of [email protected]
>  Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2008 12:44 PM
>  To: Richard Shockey
>  Cc: [email protected]; 'Clive D.W. Feather'
>  Subject: Re: [Enum] 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
>  _______________________________________________
>  enum mailing list
>  [email protected]
>  https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum