Skip to main content

The E.164 to Uniform Resource Identifiers (URI) Dynamic Delegation Discovery System (DDDS) Application for Infrastructure ENUM
RFC 5526

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2017-05-16
07 (System) Changed document authors from "Jason Livingood" to "Jason Livingood, Richard Stastny, Penn Pfautz"
2015-10-14
07 (System) Notify list changed from enum-chairs@ietf.org to (None)
2012-08-22
07 (System) post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Lars Eggert
2012-08-22
07 (System) post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Russ Housley
2009-04-23
07 Cindy Morgan State Changes to RFC Published from RFC Ed Queue by Cindy Morgan
2009-04-23
07 Cindy Morgan [Note]: 'RFC 5526' added by Cindy Morgan
2009-04-22
07 (System) RFC published
2009-03-19
07 Amy Vezza State Changes to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent by Amy Vezza
2009-03-18
07 (System) IANA Action state changed to No IC from In Progress
2009-03-18
07 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress
2009-03-18
07 Amy Vezza IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent
2009-03-18
07 Amy Vezza IESG has approved the document
2009-03-18
07 Amy Vezza Closed "Approve" ballot
2008-11-07
07 (System) Removed from agenda for telechat - 2008-11-06
2008-11-06
07 Amy Vezza State Changes to Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed from IESG Evaluation by Amy Vezza
2008-11-06
07 Lars Eggert [Ballot Position Update] Position for Lars Eggert has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by Lars Eggert
2008-11-06
07 Tim Polk [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Tim Polk
2008-11-06
07 David Ward [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by David Ward
2008-11-06
07 Ross Callon [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Ross Callon
2008-11-06
07 Jari Arkko
[Ballot comment]
This is a borderline discuss/comment, and deserves to be talked
about in the call.

Based on Christian's and Pasi's reviews and looking at …
[Ballot comment]
This is a borderline discuss/comment, and deserves to be talked
about in the call.

Based on Christian's and Pasi's reviews and looking at the document
myself, it would be served better by makings its purpose clearer
in the title/abstract/introduction. Are we asking for the domain
allocation with this document or not? Is this a proposal for future
work or all that the IETF needs to do and then someone else is going
to take over the domain part?

Christian Vogt's review:

This document proposes the use of a new DNS domain for Infrastructure ENUM registrations.  The document does not yet define which DNS domain this will be, though, leaving it "to be determined".  If the IESG believes that this amount of content is sufficient to justify the publication of a separate RFC, then this document can go ahead in the publication process, as there are no critical issues IMO.  Alternatively, the document could be held until the new DNS domain is known, so that the new DNS domain could be defined within the document.
2008-11-06
07 Jari Arkko [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Jari Arkko
2008-11-06
07 Jari Arkko
[Ballot comment]
Based on Christian's and Pasi's reviews and looking at the document
myself, it would be served better by makings its purpose clearer
in …
[Ballot comment]
Based on Christian's and Pasi's reviews and looking at the document
myself, it would be served better by makings its purpose clearer
in the title/abstract/introduction. Are we asking for the domain
allocation with this document or not? Is this a proposal for future
work or all that the IETF needs to do and then someone else is going
to take over the domain part?

Christian Vogt's review:

This document proposes the use of a new DNS domain for Infrastructure ENUM registrations.  The document does not yet define which DNS domain this will be, though, leaving it "to be determined".  If the IESG believes that this amount of content is sufficient to justify the publication of a separate RFC, then this document can go ahead in the publication process, as there are no critical issues IMO.  Alternatively, the document could be held until the new DNS domain is known, so that the new DNS domain could be defined within the document.
2008-11-06
07 Jari Arkko
[Ballot comment]
Christian Vogt's review:

This document proposes the use of a new DNS domain for Infrastructure ENUM registrations.  The document does not yet define …
[Ballot comment]
Christian Vogt's review:

This document proposes the use of a new DNS domain for Infrastructure ENUM registrations.  The document does not yet define which DNS domain this will be, though, leaving it "to be determined".  If the IESG believes that this amount of content is sufficient to justify the publication of a separate RFC, then this document can go ahead in the publication process, as there are no critical issues IMO.  Alternatively, the document could be held until the new DNS domain is known, so that the new DNS domain could be defined within the document.
2008-11-06
07 Magnus Westerlund [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Magnus Westerlund
2008-11-06
07 Pasi Eronen [Ballot Position Update] Position for Pasi Eronen has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by Pasi Eronen
2008-11-06
07 Pasi Eronen
[Ballot comment]
On first reading, I had big difficulties in understanding the document
because it doesn't seem to specify anything (that could be implemented
and …
[Ballot comment]
On first reading, I had big difficulties in understanding the document
because it doesn't seem to specify anything (that could be implemented
and used). The title certainly leads the reader to expect a technical
specification describing an alternative to RFC 3761. However, it seems
the document mainly describes the reasoning or motivation of why an
alternative to RFC 3761 would be useful in some circumstances. The
document title should be adjusted accordingly (perhaps "Motivation for
Infrastructure ENUM" or something similar?).
2008-11-06
07 Pasi Eronen
[Ballot comment]
On first reading, I had big difficulties in understanding the document
because it doesn't seem to specify anything (that could be implemented
and …
[Ballot comment]
On first reading, I had big difficulties in understanding the document
because it doesn't seem to specify anything (that could be implemented
and used). The title certainly leads the reader to expect a technical
specification describing an alternative to RFC 3761. However, it seems
the document mainly describes the reasoning or motivation of why an alternative to RFC 3761 would be useful in some circumstances. The
document title should be adjusted accordingly (perhaps "Motivation for
Infrastructure ENUM" or something similar?).
2008-11-06
07 Pasi Eronen [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded by Pasi Eronen
2008-11-06
07 Chris Newman [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Chris Newman
2008-11-05
07 Lisa Dusseault [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Lisa Dusseault
2008-11-05
07 Mark Townsley [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Mark Townsley
2008-11-05
07 Russ Housley [Ballot Position Update] Position for Russ Housley has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by Russ Housley
2008-11-05
07 Cullen Jennings [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Cullen Jennings
2008-11-05
07 Russ Housley
[Ballot discuss]
The Gen-ART Review by Elwyn Davies on 19-Jun-2008 has not been
  addressed.  Elwyn provides a couple of semi-editorial issues and
  the …
[Ballot discuss]
The Gen-ART Review by Elwyn Davies on 19-Jun-2008 has not been
  addressed.  Elwyn provides a couple of semi-editorial issues and
  the IANA considerations are incomplete.  Does this document require
  an IAB statement in line with RFC 3761 regarding the administration
  of the new .arpa sub-domain?

  The Gen-ART Review by Elwyn Davies can be found at:
    http://www.softarmor.com/rai/temp-gen-art/
    draft-ietf-enum-infrastructure-07-davies.txt
2008-11-05
07 Russ Housley [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded by Russ Housley
2008-11-05
07 Dan Romascanu [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Dan Romascanu
2008-11-05
07 Lars Eggert
[Ballot discuss]
Disregard my earlier DISCUSS - I was reviewing it based on the status in the document itself, which says "Intended Status: Proposed Standard". …
[Ballot discuss]
Disregard my earlier DISCUSS - I was reviewing it based on the status in the document itself, which says "Intended Status: Proposed Standard". The ballot and writeup make it clear that the intent is to go Informational, which makes a lot more sense.

Please add an RFC Editor Note that corrects the Intended Status" in the document.
2008-11-05
07 Lars Eggert
[Ballot discuss]
Why is this document going for PS? It "defines the use case for
Infrastructure ENUM and proposes its implementation as a
parallel namespace …
[Ballot discuss]
Why is this document going for PS? It "defines the use case for
Infrastructure ENUM and proposes its implementation as a
parallel namespace to "e164.arpa" as defined in RFC3761".
That's true, but it doesn't define how Infrastructure ENUM
would operate in detail, and it doesn't even request IANA
to allocate the parallel namespace. I think Informational is
much more appropriate.


** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational draft:
    draft-ietf-enum-infrastructure-enum-reqs (ref. '4')

Wasn't last-called, as far as I can tell. (And is no RFC 5067).
2008-11-05
07 Lars Eggert
[Ballot discuss]
** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational draft:
    draft-ietf-enum-infrastructure-enum-reqs (ref. '4')

Wasn't last-called, as far as I can tell. (And is …
[Ballot discuss]
** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational draft:
    draft-ietf-enum-infrastructure-enum-reqs (ref. '4')

Wasn't last-called, as far as I can tell. (And is no RFC 5067).
2008-11-05
07 Lars Eggert [Ballot discuss]
** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational draft:
    draft-ietf-enum-infrastructure-enum-reqs (ref. '4')

Wasn't last-called, as far as I can tell.
2008-11-05
07 Lars Eggert [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded by Lars Eggert
2008-11-05
(System)
Posted related IPR disclosure: Comcast IP Holdings I, LLC's Statement about IPR related to RFC 3953, RFC 4415, RFC 4759, RFC 4769 …
Posted related IPR disclosure: Comcast IP Holdings I, LLC's Statement about IPR related to RFC 3953, RFC 4415, RFC 4759, RFC 4769, RFC 4002, RFC 4355, RFC 4414, RFC 4725, RFC 4969, RFC 4979, RFC 5028, RFC 5278, RFC 5346, RFC 5067, RFC 5076, RFC 5105, RFC 2168, RFC 3401, RFC 3402, RF...
2008-11-01
07 Samuel Weiler Request for Telechat review by SECDIR is assigned to Donald Eastlake
2008-11-01
07 Samuel Weiler Request for Telechat review by SECDIR is assigned to Donald Eastlake
2008-10-30
07 Jon Peterson Placed on agenda for telechat - 2008-11-06 by Jon Peterson
2008-10-30
07 Jon Peterson State Changes to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead::Point Raised - writeup needed by Jon Peterson
2008-10-30
07 Jon Peterson [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Jon Peterson
2008-10-30
07 Jon Peterson Ballot has been issued by Jon Peterson
2008-10-30
07 Jon Peterson Created "Approve" ballot
2008-09-18
07 Jon Peterson State Changes to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead::Point Raised - writeup needed from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead by Jon Peterson
2008-06-25
07 Samuel Weiler Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed. Reviewer: Donald Eastlake.
2008-06-16
07 (System) State has been changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call by system
2008-06-10
07 Amanda Baber IANA Last Call comments:

As described in the IANA Considerations section, we understand this document
to have NO IANA Actions.
2008-06-06
07 Samuel Weiler Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Donald Eastlake
2008-06-06
07 Samuel Weiler Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Donald Eastlake
2008-06-02
07 Amy Vezza Last call sent
2008-06-02
07 Amy Vezza State Changes to In Last Call from Last Call Requested by Amy Vezza
2008-06-02
07 Jon Peterson Last Call was requested by Jon Peterson
2008-06-02
07 Jon Peterson State Changes to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation::AD Followup by Jon Peterson
2008-06-02
07 (System) Ballot writeup text was added
2008-06-02
07 (System) Last call text was added
2008-06-02
07 (System) Ballot approval text was added
2007-12-03
07 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-enum-infrastructure-07.txt
2007-07-31
07 (System) Sub state has been changed to AD Follow up from New Id Needed
2007-07-31
06 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-enum-infrastructure-06.txt
2007-06-14
07 Jon Peterson State Changes to AD Evaluation::Revised ID Needed from AD Evaluation by Jon Peterson
2007-04-27
07 Jon Peterson Merged with draft-ietf-enum-branch-location-record by Jon Peterson
2007-04-24
07 Jon Peterson State Changes to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested by Jon Peterson
2007-01-24
05 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-enum-infrastructure-05.txt
2007-01-22
07 Dinara Suleymanova Draft Added by Dinara Suleymanova in state Publication Requested
2007-01-02
04 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-enum-infrastructure-04.txt
2006-11-15
03 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-enum-infrastructure-03.txt
2006-11-10
02 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-enum-infrastructure-02.txt
2006-11-06
01 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-enum-infrastructure-01.txt
2006-04-24
00 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-enum-infrastructure-00.txt