Re: [Enum] FW: I-D Action: draft-goix-appsawg-enum-sn-service-00.txt

Lawrence Conroy <lconroy@insensate.co.uk> Sat, 03 March 2012 13:00 UTC

Return-Path: <lconroy@insensate.co.uk>
X-Original-To: enum@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: enum@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4852621F86E2 for <enum@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 3 Mar 2012 05:00:20 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.974
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.974 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.025, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_43=0.6]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZDvSh2G+6ZOp for <enum@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 3 Mar 2012 05:00:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from insensate.co.uk (ghost.insensate.co.uk [213.152.49.121]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8136E21F869E for <enum@ietf.org>; Sat, 3 Mar 2012 05:00:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by insensate.co.uk (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9969458F3B6; Sat, 3 Mar 2012 13:00:10 +0000 (GMT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at insensate.co.uk
Received: from insensate.co.uk ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (psyche.insensate.co.uk [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id aiuqLm8KhEaY; Sat, 3 Mar 2012 13:00:09 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by insensate.co.uk (Postfix) with ESMTP id F095258F3AB; Sat, 3 Mar 2012 13:00:08 +0000 (GMT)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
From: Lawrence Conroy <lconroy@insensate.co.uk>
In-Reply-To: <01da01ccf8b8$a535d020$efa17060$@us>
Date: Sat, 03 Mar 2012 13:00:08 +0000
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <35C11485-CA99-49CB-908A-BF74C4CB24E9@insensate.co.uk>
References: <01da01ccf8b8$a535d020$efa17060$@us>
To: laurentwalter.goix@telecomitalia.it
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084)
Cc: IETF ENUM list <enum@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Enum] FW: I-D Action: draft-goix-appsawg-enum-sn-service-00.txt
X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Enum Discussion List <enum.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/enum>, <mailto:enum-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/enum>
List-Post: <mailto:enum@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:enum-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum>, <mailto:enum-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 03 Mar 2012 13:00:20 -0000

Hi Laurent-Walter, Richard, folks,
 As one of the authors of RFC6116, I'm intrigued with section 4 of this draft.

AFAICT, section 4 of this draft specifically states that E2U+acct can be used in an entirely different namespace from ENUM. That's an interpretation of 6116 section 2 that I don't recognise.

The second paragraph of Section 5 is ambivalent on this, but section 4 spells out that a separate apex may be used.
That directly contradicts its example, and in any case the Enumservice template is incorrect for such private use (in that case, it would need to be "limited", not "common" -- see RFC6117 section 5.2.7 **).
=> Was that intended -- does that first paragraph of section 4 of this draft help?

As I understand the second paragraph of section 4, the intention is that an implementation will chase pstn:tel records looking for a domain with an appropriate E2U+acct record. That looks like it's stretching the pstn:tel use given in RFC4769 section 3.1, but ...

The last bullet of section 5.5 of RFC6117 states that the registration doc needs to cover loop mitigation.
It may be unfair, but RFC4769 was not covered by the current rules, so they dodged the bullet of that requirement.
This draft can't, so you will have to spell out the rules for loop mitigation.
Merely referring to RFC4694 is not enough; see the last sentence of section 5 of RFC4694.

Finally, section 5 mentions an "activity wall". I wonder if anyone will know what that means in 10 years time.
It is not mentioned directly in the webfinger draft, so if it's spelt out in the referenced OMA service document, from where can one get that spec?

all the best,
  Lawrence
** [E2U+pstn:tel was registered under the "old" rules; this one is covered by 6117]


On 2 Mar 2012, at 21:08, Richard Shockey wrote:
> -----Original Message-----
> From: i-d-announce-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:i-d-announce-bounces@ietf.org]
> On Behalf Of internet-drafts@ietf.org
> Sent: Friday, March 02, 2012 10:49 AM
> To: i-d-announce@ietf.org
> Subject: I-D Action: draft-goix-appsawg-enum-sn-service-00.txt
> 
> 
> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
> directories.
> 
> 	Title           : ENUM Service Registration for Social Networking
> (SN) Services
> 	Author(s)       : Laurent-Walter Goix
>                          Kepeng Li
> 	Filename        : draft-goix-appsawg-enum-sn-service-00.txt
> 	Pages           : 7
> 	Date            : 2012-03-02
> 
>   This document registers a Telephone Number Mapping (ENUM) service for
>   Social Networking (SN).  Specifically, this document focuses on
>   provisioning 'acct:' URIs (Uniform Resource Identifiers) in ENUM.
> 
> 
> A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-goix-appsawg-enum-sn-service-00.tx
> t
> 
> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
> 
> This Internet-Draft can be retrieved at:
> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-goix-appsawg-enum-sn-service-00.txt