IETF Logo Mail Archive

RE: [Enum] Re. 2916bis

Lawrence Conroy <lwc@roke.co.uk> Thu, 21 February 2002 05:02 UTC

Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA00761 for <enum-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Thu, 21 Feb 2002 00:02:20 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id AAA14533 for enum-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 21 Feb 2002 00:02:21 -0500 (EST)
Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id XAA13636; Wed, 20 Feb 2002 23:53:45 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id XAA13522 for <enum@optimus.ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Feb 2002 23:53:35 -0500 (EST)
Received: from cundall.co.uk (dorfl.roke.co.uk [193.118.205.3]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id XAA00626 for <enum@ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Feb 2002 23:53:30 -0500 (EST)
Received: from [193.118.192.111] (HELO [158.152.16.98]) by cundall.co.uk (Stalker SMTP Server 1.7) with ESMTP id S.0000062666; Thu, 21 Feb 2002 04:53:34 +0000
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Sender: lwc@127.0.0.1
Message-Id: <p05100301b89a2a935635@[193.118.192.40]>
In-Reply-To: <23309E398D84D5119D0F00306E075139ECEC5C@dc02.npac.com>
References: <23309E398D84D5119D0F00306E075139ECEC5C@dc02.npac.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2002 04:51:46 +0000
To: "Yu, James" <james.yu@neustar.biz>
From: Lawrence Conroy <lwc@roke.co.uk>
Subject: RE: [Enum] Re. 2916bis
Cc: enum@ietf.org, paf@cisco.com, richard.stastny@oefeg.at
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 1.0
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: Enum Discussion List <enum.ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org

At 3:38 pm -0600 20/2/02, Yu, James wrote:
>For (iii), one good example is a non-geographical number (e.g., toll free
>number) that is mapped to a POTS number (geographical number).  There may be
>a "need" to re-submit.
<snip, answered nicely by Patrik>

To which I reply:
   That was my initial thought, but I have been convinced that CNAMEs work
quite well in most circumstances. If you want to just do a Non-Geo number
translation, I think that you can just put a CNAME to the "real" number.
(Thanks to Richard Stastny & Patrik for that one).

In this case, there is no need to re-submit on receipt of a tel: URL,
as you won't get there until the NS and CNAMEs have been processed,
transparent to DDDS.

If anyone DOESN'T think that CNAMEs can be used, please holler.

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

v2.46.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status