IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [e2md] Problem statement, Requirements and Use Cases (was RFC 5507 & RFC 5395)

Ray Bellis <Ray.Bellis@nominet.org.uk> Mon, 17 May 2010 15:09 UTC

Return-Path: <Ray.Bellis@nominet.org.uk>
X-Original-To: e2md@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: e2md@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B51523A6A43 for <e2md@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 17 May 2010 08:09:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.016
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.016 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.583, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6cV9N+lnuvIs for <e2md@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 17 May 2010 08:09:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx4.nominet.org.uk (mx4.nominet.org.uk [213.248.199.24]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 080C13A68CD for <e2md@ietf.org>; Mon, 17 May 2010 08:09:26 -0700 (PDT)
DomainKey-Signature: s=main.dk.nominet.selector; d=nominet.org.uk; c=nofws; q=dns; h=X-IronPort-AV:Received:Received:From:To:Subject: Thread-Topic:Thread-Index:Date:Message-ID:In-Reply-To: Accept-Language:Content-Language:X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:Content-Type:Content-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; b=i75OoactSnukhdMQor4KghoY1DjfyGU7L/SpmcQomy/TSfLrSNSd/Dgs aWUJ7o/djlfEiwTEj+yJVPdlki4a17hv+QJdlsTTkZ/jry9RRO/rwA2iv sFHbwylPoHmCpr5;
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=nominet.org.uk; i=Ray.Bellis@nominet.org.uk; q=dns/txt; s=main.dkim.nominet.selector; t=1274108959; x=1305644959; h=from:sender:reply-to:subject:date:message-id:to:cc: mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:content-id: content-description:resent-date:resent-from:resent-sender: resent-to:resent-cc:resent-message-id:in-reply-to: references:list-id:list-help:list-unsubscribe: list-subscribe:list-post:list-owner:list-archive; z=From:=20Ray=20Bellis=20<Ray.Bellis@nominet.org.uk> |Subject:=20Re:=20[e2md]=20Problem=20statement,=20Require ments=20and=20Use=20Cases=20(was=20RFC=0D=0A=205507=20& =20RFC=205395)|Date:=20Mon,=2017=20May=202010=2015:09:13 =20+0000|Message-ID:=20<C8171AA9.52E5%ray.bellis@nominet. org.uk>|To:=20"PFAUTZ,=20PENN=20L=20(ATTCORP)"=20<pp3129@ att.com>,=20E.164=20To=20MetaData=20BOF=0D=0A=20discussio n=20list=20<e2md@ietf.org>|MIME-Version:=201.0 |Content-Transfer-Encoding:=20quoted-printable |Content-ID:=20<8824dce1-70e9-4dde-bd09-009f39ddc8fe> |In-Reply-To:=20<35FE871E2B085542A35726420E29DA6B03F95813 @gaalpa1msgusr7a.ugd.att.com>; bh=yS/pnQRmBZjzU+U7RXXi4eK4ZqXW2a2SuB4EP0/fsz0=; b=I9ruwMKDDe0wzOxwsRDJMqy8WLSQVocS2J1Q5wOXes9heYOnK9QTVMiA qUAiUbxlN331xga+5YqdWNYHZMKCwHzFGfXo+v7K7NV9eSKS4hk78V/ke VtTWH8WkiC0uHHx;
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.53,247,1272841200"; d="scan'208";a="18689626"
Received: from wds-exc2.okna.nominet.org.uk ([213.248.197.145]) by mx4.nominet.org.uk with ESMTP; 17 May 2010 16:09:17 +0100
Received: from WDS-EXC1.okna.nominet.org.uk ([fe80::1593:1394:a91f:8f5f]) by wds-exc2.okna.nominet.org.uk ([fe80::7577:eaca:5241:25d4%20]) with mapi; Mon, 17 May 2010 16:09:17 +0100
From: Ray Bellis <Ray.Bellis@nominet.org.uk>
To: "PFAUTZ, PENN L (ATTCORP)" <pp3129@att.com>, "E.164 To MetaData BOF discussion list" <e2md@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [e2md] Problem statement, Requirements and Use Cases (was RFC 5507 & RFC 5395)
Thread-Index: AQHK9dLqjbCqBaBNQki9yeCLjcrcQg==
Date: Mon, 17 May 2010 15:09:13 +0000
Message-ID: <C8171AA9.52E5%ray.bellis@nominet.org.uk>
In-Reply-To: <35FE871E2B085542A35726420E29DA6B03F95813@gaalpa1msgusr7a.ugd.att.com>
Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-ID: <8824dce1-70e9-4dde-bd09-009f39ddc8fe>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [e2md] Problem statement, Requirements and Use Cases (was RFC 5507 & RFC 5395)
X-BeenThere: e2md@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: "E.164 To MetaData \(E2MD\) BOF discussion list" <e2md.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/e2md>, <mailto:e2md-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/e2md>
List-Post: <mailto:e2md@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:e2md-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/e2md>, <mailto:e2md-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 17 May 2010 15:09:28 -0000

On 17/05/2010 15:22, "PFAUTZ, PENN L (ATTCORP)" <pp3129@att.com> wrote:

> So I went through the RFCs which seemed to say, "You probably should use a new
> RR type if you're going to get too much data and it's not as bad getting new
> RRs as you think."
> 
> Naïve question: if we said we wanted a WG based on the assumption that we'll
> define new RR type(s) as needed would that settle the naysayers' hash?

It might, but it then doesn't meet some of the technical requirements for
some of the use cases.

For 'Send-N' and 'unused', in particular, NAPTR fits because these answers
are given back instead of "communication end points" in response to the
usual DDDS algorithm query.

A new RR type for those would be self-defeating.

Ray

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email