On Jun 2, 2008, at 8:37 PM, The IESG wrote:
The IESG has received a request from the Telephone Number Mapping WG (enum) to consider the following document: - 'The E.164 to Uniform Resource Identifiers (URI) Dynamic Delegation Discovery System (DDDS) Application for Infrastructure ENUM ' <draft-ietf-enum-infrastructure-07.txt> as an Informational RFC
To the IESG and the ENUM WG,The ENUM WG and its chairs, together with the RAI Area Directors have asked the IAB for a review on Infrastructure ENUM documents based on the current state of the Internet Drafts in the ENUM working group.
IAB has collected information about Infrastructure ENUM, its rationale, use cases and reviewed the ENUM WG discussion surrounding its deployment challenges. IAB has drawn the conclusion that the current Internet Drafts regarding Infrastructure ENUM are reusing ENUM technology but potentially use it with an alternative anchor other than the e164.arpa domain, as defined in RFC 3761, that was agreed to between IAB and ITU-T.
It is well known that ENUM technology is used today with multiple anchors in both public and private schemes outside of e164.arpa. That said, IAB is generally concerned with the referential integrity of lookup mechanisms that may be used by multiple entities for fundamentally different purposes. Such usage requires that the resolution algorithm produce different responses depending on the context. One such context, when discussing ENUM, is what anchor is in use. This issue is similar to that of the namespace context in the DNS and the uniqueness of the root, which are discussed in RFC 2826. For alternative ENUM anchors to work, agreements are needed on what anchor to use, how the selection of anchors should be controlled, and who should be the registry.
The ENUM working group has created a series of documents regarding Infrastructure ENUM. The IAB understands there is (working group) consensus to publish these documents as RFCs. Based on the reasons laid out above, the IAB suggests the documents be published as Informational RFCs only, as is currently proposed.
The IAB believes that the IETF should not make any unilateral decisions regarding issues about mapping e.164 numbers into the DNS. The possible use of another domain is considered outside the existing agreements surrounding e164.arpa between IAB and ITU-T. Such issues fall within the scope of the ongoing and successful cooperation between the ITU-T and the IETF. Consequently, the IAB plans to send a liaison letter to the ITU-T, and based on the response, the IAB will suggest further steps for the ENUM WG in the IETF.
For the IAB, --Olaf Kolkman
Attachment:
PGP.sig
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ IETF mailing list IETF@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf