|
Hey no problem Don ..we are trying to clean things up around
here. If I recall this discussion in Phili we were NOT going to do
this in ENUM but strongly suggested to Hadriel that if he walked this over to
the folks in DNSEXT he would have a reasonable hearing. IMHO given what this
draft wants to do, it properly belongs there. I agree, in the context of ENUM usage, source URI makes a lot
of sense since this is really not about THE DNS but only the use of DNS as a
query technically locally cached. I think the DNSEXT folks will understand
that. I recall and Olafur Gudmundsson the DNSEXT co-chair was in the
room to hear Hadriel make his case and Patrik and I spoke to Olafur about this
afterwards at some length. From:
enum-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:enum-bounces at ietf.org] On Behalf Of Don
Troshynski Seems
like a day to bring up old drafts, so here goes… Where
do we stand on draft-kaplan-enum-source-uri-00? Is there any interest in
updating this draft and moving it forward? This would also make a great
way to convey trunk group information as part of the query (and, of course,
anything else that can be placed into a URI). If there is consideration
of an Informational or BCP on trunk groups in ENUM, this concept should be
acknowledged, as well. I also think it would be a good idea make the URI
concept generic (not explicitly define it to be the source), and maybe extend
the definition to include the header name(s). Thoughts?
|