Re: [Enum] RFC1530 (TPC.INT)

["A.M.Rutkowski" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Stephane,

It's not clear whether the historical context
here has been lost or conveniently forgotten
in the penchant for rudeness.

During they heydays of searching for alternative
DNS name structures in 1996, of which ITU secretariat
representatives were a part, there was a recognition
of TPC.INT as "the telephone number domain."  I've
included one of the messages below in what was an
extended IAHC public dialogue about instantiating a
telephone number domain schema.

Around that same time, the same folks promised
the INT domain to the ITU General Secretariat,
although it never really happened, in part because
historically, ITU Secretariats were not supposed to
be in the business of network operations - public
or private.  Some of the remnants can be seen at
http://www.itu.int/net/int/

As part of the deal, the ITU itself - which had
long insisted upon using the CH domain because
it was compatible with their OSI standards -
created an entire INT zone of CNAME aliases to
front end their CH domain name structure that
remains to this day, so they could appear to
be using the INT domain themselves.

E164.INT was then created as a more politically
correct version of TPC.INT  Indeed, you can see
the reference to it in the above notice on the ITU
site.

Last year, E164.ARPA was added to the ARPA zone
while E164.INT was quietly deleted.

The information is pretty much all out there
on sites as a matter of record.

Based on current formal ITU documents recently
released, it's not inconceivable that we could end
up with two or more Designated ENUM Zones in
addition to the Competitive ENUM Zones - all of
which suggests that we might consider some
administrative diversity here.

--tony

>Date: Thu, 21 Nov 96 12:21 EST
>From: [e-mail] (John R Levine)
>To: [e-mail]
>Subject: Re: Long-term viability: telephone numbers as aliases
>Newsgroups: local.iahc
>Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg, N.Y.
>Cc: [e-mail]
>Sender: [e-mail]
>
> >> Current naming conventions probably cannot be sustained...
> >> Most individuals/organizations already have unique identifiers
> >> (telephone numbers) ...
>
>
>There already is a telephone number domain called tpc.int.  Phone
>numbers such as:
>
>         [phone]
>
>are represented by reversing the number and making each digit a component:
>
>         8.6.3.2.5.5.5.2.0.8.1.tpc.int.
>
>It's ugly, but it has the important property that sub-domains can be
>created starting at any digit, just like the real phone system does.
>This scheme was used for an e-mail to fax delivery experiment and it
>wasn't all that successful, partly because of the ugly addresses and
>partly because the experiment, having no budget, depended on volunteer
>sites to do the actual faxing.  It worked technically, each delivery
>site could sign up for the part of the number space that was a local
>call to them.
>
>In any event, if anyone wants phone number based domain addresses,
>here they are.  Personally, I don't want them, partly because they're
>so ugly, but mainly because I greatly value the feature that my domain
>addresses didn't change when I moved, even though all of my phone
>numbers did (other than one old number that I have forwarded at extra
>cost.)
>
>--
>John R. Levine, IECC, POB 640 Trumansburg NY 14886 [phone]
>[e-mail] "Space aliens are stealing American jobs." - MIT econ prof


_______________________________________________
enum mailing list
[e-mail]
http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum