Re: [e2md] Draft charter, comments inline <dw>

[Otmar Lendl <[e-mail]>]

A few comments from my side:

On 07.03.2010 22:35, Jay Daley wrote:
> 
> 1.  Creating a new DDDS is not difficult and both far more appropriate
> and deliverable than a new RR.  

Yes. See e.g.
http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-lendl-domain-policy-ddds-02.txt where I key
off the domain and not ENUM-like on the E.164.

> In fact a new RR would be quite wrong
> for this.  We have NAPTR and have to stick with until someone, anyone
> please, comes up with a complete replacement.

Well, you can either go with an ENUM clone, or you might want to restrict
what features of the NAPTR you actually want to use, e.g.

* non-terminals
* RE parsing

I don't have the reference handy, but under the name S-NAPTR something a
bit more lightweight has already been proposed. This is still the same
NAPTR RR on the wire, just the interpretation changed a bit.

> 2.  The privacy issues are out of scope for this group to try to solve
> and are identical to those that come with ENUM, where they have been
> adequately addressed in the CNAM draft.

Yes and no. In terms of PII, yes.

But if you talk about SPIDs and call routing, I have the nagging feeling
that a lot of folks here and in other IETF lists miss the fact that once
you consider multi-homed corporate PBXs and want to do fully featured call
routing from/to them, then the global E.164->SPID mapping data must
de-facto be public.

There just is no way around that.

otmar
-- 
// Otmar Lendl <[e-mail]>, T: [phone] - 33, F: - 933 //