Re: [Enum] ENUM Query

Bernie Hoeneisen <bernie@ietf.hoeneisen.ch> Sat, 07 March 2020 10:55 UTC

Return-Path: <bernie@ietf.hoeneisen.ch>
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 229483A1035 for <enum@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 7 Mar 2020 02:55:18 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.003
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.003 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id aiwlRIKKvWoI for <enum@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 7 Mar 2020 02:55:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from softronics.hoeneisen.ch (softronics.hoeneisen.ch [62.2.86.178]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 18B4B3A1033 for <enum@ietf.org>; Sat, 7 Mar 2020 02:55:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]) by softronics.hoeneisen.ch with esmtp (Exim 4.86_2) (envelope-from <bernie@ietf.hoeneisen.ch>) id 1jAX6j-0001h2-Rq; Sat, 07 Mar 2020 11:55:02 +0100
Date: Sat, 7 Mar 2020 11:55:01 +0100 (CET)
From: Bernie Hoeneisen <bernie@ietf.hoeneisen.ch>
X-X-Sender: bhoeneis@softronics.hoeneisen.ch
To: Wayne Cutler <wcutler@gsma.com>
cc: Brian Rosen <br@brianrosen.net>, "enum@ietf.org" <enum@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: =?utf-8?q?=3CDB7PR04MB54186234B94264FEA913888EC3E50=40DB7PR04MB?= =?utf-8?q?5418=2Eeurprd04=2Eprod=2Eoutlook=2Ecom=3E?=
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.20.2003071103230.19506@softronics.hoeneisen.ch>
References: =?utf-8?q?=3CDB7PR04MB54183341C4145762B969A0B1C3E40=40DB7PR04MB5?= =?utf-8?q?418=2Eeurprd04=2Eprod=2Eoutlook=2Ecom=3E?= =?utf-8?q?=3CADFB7C13-0783-46A8-B9C9-86D503FF87B9=40brianrosen=2Enet=3E_=3C?= =?utf-8?q?DB7PR04MB5418DCD96342D69A51AFDF3AC3E50=40DB7PR04MB5418=2Eeurprd04?= =?utf-8?q?=2Eprod=2Eoutlook=2Ecom=3E?= =?utf-8?q?=3Calpine=2EDEB=2E2=2E20=2E2003041130480=2E19506=40softronics=2Eh?= =?utf-8?q?oeneisen=2Ech=3E_=3CDB7PR04MB54186234B94264FEA913888EC3E50=40DB7P?= =?utf-8?q?R04MB5418=2Eeurprd04=2Eprod=2Eoutlook=2Ecom=3E?=
User-Agent: Alpine 2.20 (DEB 67 2015-01-07)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; BOUNDARY="37663318-128273188-1583575467=:19506"
Content-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.20.2003071105040.19506@softronics.hoeneisen.ch>
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 127.0.0.1
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: bernie@ietf.hoeneisen.ch
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on softronics.hoeneisen.ch); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/enum/cUqK46huHZZyopaG7mJyH-Aca8w>
Subject: Re: [Enum] ENUM Query
X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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, 07 Mar 2020 10:55:18 -0000
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 07 Mar 2020 10:55:18 -0000

Hi Wayne

Thanks for your response.

I think I am getting closer to understand the challenges reagarding ENUM 
in IMS. (It's been a while since my last 3GPP/IMS meeting, which dates 
back to year 2002:ish.)

In the following a preliminery assessment of your options (incl. further 
questions):

> · Enhance the current ProtocolBasedClass of SIP as defined in RFC 3764 
> to add a sub-type - e.g. "SIP/MMTEL" & "SIP/RCS" - with the absence of 
> a sub-type meaning "all services".

This is a no-go, as RFC 6117 does not forsee to use subtype strings other 
than different URI Schemes for Protocol-Based Enumservices. cf. 
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6117#section-4.2.2.2


> · Re-use (or perhaps re-interpret?) an existing result (e.g. 
> ApplicationBasedClass of IM or unifmsg) to mean RCS Messaging - but this 
> feels like a kludge,

Questions:

- What are the differences between im (Enumservice) and RCS as used in 
IMS?

- What are the differences between unifmsg (Enumservice) and RCS as used 
in IMS?


> · Define a new ENUM registry entry to identify RCS Messaging.

Given the information I currently have/understand, this appears to be the 
cleanest approach, i.e.  to define a new Application-Based Enumservice:

- "rcs:sip" with URI Schemes "sip" and "sips"

or both

- "rcs:sip" with URI Scheme "sip"
- "rcs:sips" with URI Scheme "sips"

(depending on the implementation, see also:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6117#section-4.2.3.2 )


If we go down this road, you may also want to consider the same for MMTEL, 
to replace your legacy approach that uses the Protocol-Based Enumservice 
"sip", e.g.:

- "mmtel:sip" with URI Schemes "sip" and "sips"


Note that anything I write here is pre-liminery and MUST NOT be 
interpreted in any way as "decision by the Dedicated Expert for ENUM" (or 
alike), but rather help you to find the right direction for a possible 
upcoming formal IANA registration process.

cheers,
  Bernie

--

http://ucom.ch/
Modern Telephony Solutions and Tech Consulting for Internet Technology