RE: draft-iab-dns-applications - clarification re: Send-N

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



And finally, regarding:

"It is unclear why this data is better maintained by the DNS
 than in an unrelated application protocol."

If a device is performing an ENUM dip hoping to find a contactable SIP URI,
it is simply most efficient for the ENUM response to directly include the
Send-N metadata when needed rather than have separate queries using a
different network protocol.  Also, the hierarchical and distributed nature
of the DNS protocol makes it an _ideal_ structural fit for this meta data.

I believe the onus should be on your draft to explicitly identify valid
technical reasons why the DNS protocol should _not_ be used, rather than
make vague hand-waving assertions which appear to have little or no
justification.



RS> Precisely, What is unclear is why the IETF and the IAB is suddenly
trying to block a perfectly legitimate extension of RFC 3761 that is in
various forms of global deployment, proven to work, scale and more
importantly provides a valuable and essential function in the transition
from analog POTS to SIP based communication.  

Just saying no is not a solution to the real issues of number translation in
carrier networks.

Ok a lot of people hate phone numbers including, it seems, 50% of RAI
directorate but they are not going away anytime soon. 

So just say it .. is this the message? Don't even try to charter E2MD? 

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf


[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]