Thus spake "Dean Anderson" <dean@xxxxxxx> > On Thu, 22 Apr 2004, jfcm wrote: > > ".tel" and ".mobi" are technically inconsistent propositions. They confuse > > what belongs to the scheme (protocol/application) with what belongs to the > > naming (users group). The same as was ".web" did in 2000. > > ... > > I have to digest the rest of this further, but I would say right away that > if I connect to http://ibm.tel, I'd probably expect to reach the VOIP > portal, where I could sign up for VOIP services from IBM. I'd expect that > a voip connection to tel://ibm.com would get me to the headquarters > switchboard, and that tel://ibm.tel gets me to the VOIP switchboard (ie > VOIP customer service). You're confusing URI methods, protocols, and TLDs disastrously. The "tel" URI method is for dialing using E.164 numbers, e.g. "tel:+18005551212", which will probably be translated to a different URI via ENUM. For telephones using user/domain names, use the "sip" URI method, e.g. "sip:support@xxxxxxxxxxx". There is no need for a .tel TLD, and adding one ignores existing, logical solutions. Likewise, there is no reason for a .mobi TLD; either mobile clients should use the standard "http" method to negotiate the content/format/encoding with servers as needed via HTTP's existing mechanisms, or if necessary a new method/protocol should be defined, e.g. "wap://www.example.com/". S Stephen Sprunk "Stupid people surround themselves with smart CCIE #3723 people. Smart people surround themselves with K5SSS smart people who disagree with them." --Aaron Sorkin _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf