Re: [Enum] ENUM Query

[Bernie Hoeneisen <[e-mail]>]

Hi Wayne

My comments inline.

On Mon, 9 Mar 2020, Wayne Cutler wrote:

> So, we are after a mechanism to get a SIP URI for the RCS Messaging 
> Services, and these services comprise things like 1:1 Chat, File 
> Transfer, Geolocation Push etc.
>
> Regarding the differences between RCS Messaging and im/unifmsg, I would 
> say that :-
> 1) im allows users to send and receive typically short, often textual 
> messages in near real-time - which sounds a lot like RCS Chat - and 
> returns an IM URI. So, I think that RCS is more general than im and also 
> the need to translate from the im URI to a SIP URI is an additional 
> minor nuisance.

> 2) unifmsg is about having a unified (voice/video) mailbox capability in 
> the event of a user being unreachable. The RCS services aren't really 
> about the user being unreachable and so this is not really a good fit 
> IMO.

Thanks for clarification.

> So, I think the proposal to have a new Application-Based Enumservice 
> seems reasonable to me. What would be the next steps? Writing an 
> Internet Draft presumably?

RFC 6117 defines the process in details
cf. https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6117#section-6

> Regarding the suggestion to also take a similar approach for MMTEL, I 
> think there are backwards compatibility issues as there are 
> implementations already out there that use the Protocol-Based 
> Enumservice "sip" for MMTEL. Therefore, this is something we wouldn't 
> want to do.

Not sure this creates a new backward compatibility issue. AFAICT, 
using two new Enumservices, new systems would be more efficient and less 
prone to ambiguities. And in the long run you'd get a clean system.

- for old systems you probably need to maintain "sip" (only)
   (provision and lookup). You may add a recommendation to at
   least provision also the new Enumservices "mmtel:sip" and "rcs:sip"
   (pointing to the same as "sip"), which is easy to implement.

- for new systems you could specify:

   - Lookup: use "rcs:sip" or "mmtel:sip" (with priority);
     use "sip", only if no hit with rcs or mmtel (fallback)

   - Provision: "rcs:sip" and "mmtel:sip" would point to the respecive
     services,
     while "sip" could be provisioned to help old systems to find the
     correct service, e.g. a redirection service (or alike) or a system
     that can deal with requests for the "wrong" (mmtel vs. rcs) service.

You could deprecate "sip" Enumservice and after a long enough transition 
period, you may get rid of the "sip" Enumservice altogether.

Does this make sense for your environment?

cheers
  Bernie