In message <Pine.LNX.4.44.0404271736160.27330-100000@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Dean Ande rson writes: >On Mon, 26 Apr 2004, Stephen Sprunk wrote: > >> >> You're confusing URI methods, protocols, and TLDs disastrously. > >I think it is you who is reading too much into the .tel and .mobi TLD. > >These are not proposals to put URI method functionality into domain names, Sure there are. Here's a direct quote from the .mobi proposal: Businesses and consumers that utilise mobile devices will be able to take advantage of a wide range of Internet services and content under the mTLD that have been specifically tailored for access and use by mobile devices. The sponsored TLD provides a clearly recognisable mobile label to the services and content, indicating that they will be easy and convenient to use with mobile devices. By choice of suitable mobile-specific technologies, the service offering can be adapted to mobile-specific characteristics, such as the limitations of mobile networks and devices (throughput, temporary signal loss, etc), which will result in a better user experience for those services. I find it hard to interpret that text in any other fashion -- they want to describe end-to-end protocols by DNS name. There are two proposals for .tel; here's text from one of them: Sub-domains of ".tel" may not be arbitrarily defined; rather they are defined in accordance with the ITU E.164 standard. A valid e164 domain name under the ".tel" TLD is defined as follows: Start with a telephone number: 1-212-332-1234. Remove all non-numeric characters: 12123321234. Reverse the order of the number: 43212332121. Separate by dots: 4.3.2.1.2.3.3.2.1.2.1. Add the sTLD: 4.3.2.1.2.3.3.2.1.2.1.tel. That looks like an ENUM competitor to me. (The other .tel proposal looks like a generic TLD at first reading.) _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
