Re: [Enum] I-D Action: New draft - draft-bellis-enum-send-n-00

[Duane <duane at e164.org>]

Richard Shockey wrote:
> Chair hat off ..
> 
> Lawrence I generally agree with the thrust of your analysis. I find it very
> difficult to support the use of 3761 for digit analysis. 3761 was designed
> to query on the full E.164 string not a partial string. We would be going
> down a rat hole we do not want to go, especially now.
> 
> ENUM is a pure 1 to 1 mapping from fully formed E.164 FQDN to URI's. The
> digit strings must be fully formed in advance before query not during. We
> have seen the German arguments etc and have passed on those etc.

If not ENUM, then where does this best fit?

I have doubts about the technical suitability because I can see where
and how it would interfere with existing records, sorry got distracted
and haven't actually done testing.

That said I can see benefit for all ENUM services in being able to find
out if the number is actually valid and using e164.arpa while ambition
was a neat idea to distribute the work back on the regulatory bodies
which is why this was being pushed via ENUM rather then a new service,
and this would also hit exceptions that include Germany etc as well.

Even if a new DNS or other service was invented to cover this, is there
any corrot that can be offered to get people to add and keep this
information updated without the stick from some regulatory body,
although this only applies for a small subset of countries, most
countries will have fixed numbering plans, even the NANP has variable
length numbering based on the prefixes (911, 411, etc), although they
would be special services redirected to normal numbers in the same area
I guess so hmmm.

-- 

Best regards,
 Duane
_______________________________________________
enum mailing list
enum at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum