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 AAA00739 for <enum-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Thu, 21 Feb 2002 00:02:10 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id AAA14503 for enum-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 21 Feb 2002 00:02:11 -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 XAA13515; Wed, 20 Feb 2002 23:53:34 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id XAA13486 for <enum@optimus.ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Feb 2002 23:53:32 -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 XAA00624 for <enum@ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Feb 2002 23:53:27 -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.0000062665; Thu, 21 Feb 2002 04:53:30 +0000
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Sender: lwc@127.0.0.1
Message-Id: <p05100300b89a281cc1eb@[193.118.192.40]>
In-Reply-To: <23309E398D84D5119D0F00306E075139ECEC61@dc02.npac.com>
References: <23309E398D84D5119D0F00306E075139ECEC61@dc02.npac.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2002 04:39:18 +0000
To: "Yu, James" <james.yu@neustar.biz>, 'Jim Reid' <Jim.Reid@nominum.com>
From: Lawrence Conroy <lwc@roke.co.uk>
Subject: RE: [Enum] Re. 2916bis
Cc: enum@ietf.org
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 10:06 pm -0600 20/2/02, Yu, James wrote:

><snip>
>In addition, ENUM, as a DDDS application, also provides the
>mechanism/foundation for many ENUM applications (e.g., SIP, VPIM).  So it
><snip>
To which I reply:
  I'm not comfortable with the terms here (specifically the nasty overload of
"application").

I had thought that "ENUM" included more than just the client application making
the query. As such I tend to use the term "ENUM Application" to be 
analogous with
the program running on the ENUM client.

As for SIP, VPIM, ...
I don't view of them as ENUM applications - at best they're protocols that
can be used to further resolve URIs returned by the ENUM Application. That,
however, is what happens AFTER the DDDS algorithm has done its stuff.

Does that make sense?

All the best,
    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