[Enum] Re. 2916bis

At 8:59 pm +0100 15/2/02, Patrik Fältström wrote:
>I have here compiled a list of things to be changed to RFC 2916 when
>2916bis is created.
<snip>
>(8) Examples must be corrected and made made clear. For example, there
>should be absolutely no confusion about (?that?) full regular 
>expressions are used.
>I.e. any delimiter and any matching mechanism can be used

To which I reply:
    I am having major trouble (apart from just reading the DDDS collection :)
in finding answers to the following questions:
(i)   Is there ever a need to have anything other than a "complete 
replacement" as the rule substitution expression when applying an 
ENUM query to the e164.arpa domain space?

[Point (8) suggests that there is a need for full regular expressions 
- I can't think of a case where this is needed.]

(ii)  Is there ever a need to use a non-terminal NAPTR record when 
dealing with ENUM (e.164.arpa domain space) records?

(iii) RFC2916 states that tel: URIs should be re-submitted to the 
ENUM system, and that the Client is responsible for loop detection.

Richard has suggested that this is not needed; a tel: URI should NOT 
be re-submitted. On reflection, I agree with him - I can't think of a 
particular reason why such a re-submission is needed either - can 
anyone else think of a case?

[If not, the required tel: flag document is not too hard, and there 
may not *be* a problem with loops - it also solves Jon's concerns 
from the sipping-e164 document, I think :]

best regards,
    Lawrence
-- 
lwc@roke.co.uk: +44 1794 833666::<my opinions>:

_______________________________________________
enum mailing list
enum@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum