Skip to main content

The E.164 to Uniform Resource Identifiers (URI) Dynamic Delegation Discovery System (DDDS) Application (ENUM)
RFC 6116

Yes

(Gonzalo Camarillo)

No Objection

(Adrian Farrel)
(Alexey Melnikov)
(David Harrington)
(Peter Saint-Andre)
(Robert Sparks)
(Ron Bonica)
(Russ Housley)
(Sean Turner)
(Stewart Bryant)
(Tim Polk)

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 09 and is now closed.

Gonzalo Camarillo Former IESG member
Yes
Yes ()

                            
Adrian Farrel Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection ()

                            
Alexey Melnikov Former IESG member
(was Discuss) No Objection
No Objection ()

                            
Dan Romascanu Former IESG member
(was Discuss) No Objection
No Objection (2010-06-15)
A number of acronyms are not expanded at their first occurance. For example: NS, NAPTR, SOA, FQDN (expanded in 3.1, but that is not the first occurance), ABNF, ITU-T TSB.
David Harrington Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection ()

                            
Jari Arkko Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (2010-06-17)
Please consider the issues brought up by Ari Keränen in his review:

1. Introduction

Abbreviations not opened (NAPTR, NS, SOA).

3.2.

    1.  Remove all characters with the exception of the digits.  For
        example, given the E.164 number "+44-20-7946-0148", this step
        would simply remove the leading '+', producing "442079460148".

Should say "[...] simply remove the leading '+' and all '-'"?

    2.  Reverse the order of the digits.  Example: "841064970244"
    3.  Put dots ('.') between each digit.  Example:
        "4.4.2.0.7.9.4.6.0.1.4.8"

The digits in step 3 should also be in the reversed order?


3.4.3. Services Parameters

        service-field = "E2U" 1*(servicespec)
        servicespec   = "+" enumservice
        enumservice   = type 0*(subtypespec)
        subtypespec   = ":" subtype
        type          = 1*32(ALPHA / DIGIT / "-")
        subtype       = 1*32(ALPHA / DIGIT / "-")

Missing ABNF reference. Is the lack of upper limit for number of 
servicespecs and substypespecs intentional?
Peter Saint-Andre Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection ()

                            
Ralph Droms Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (2010-06-16)
minor comments...

I suggest adding a few words  explaining how this doc updates RFC3761, similar to the explanation in the IESG Writeup; e.g., "This document updates RFC3762 to reflect major operational issues discovered during deployment."

(mostly a curiosity question) The IESG Writeup notes that "RFC 3761 is in wide global deployment".  Have the updates in this document been widely deployed?  Have they caused any interoperability issues with deployments that have not been updated?

In section 3.2:

   In order to convert the AUS to a unique key in this database the
   string is converted into a domain name according to this algorithm:

   1.  Remove all characters with the exception of the digits.  For
       example, given the E.164 number "+44-20-7946-0148", this step
       would simply remove the leading '+', producing "442079460148".

Aren't the "-" characters also removed in this example?  I.e., "this step
would simply remove the leading '+' and internal '-' characters" ?
Robert Sparks Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection ()

                            
Ron Bonica Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection ()

                            
Russ Housley Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection ()

                            
Sean Turner Former IESG member
(was Discuss, No Objection) No Objection
No Objection ()

                            
Stewart Bryant Former IESG member
(was Discuss, No Objection) No Objection
No Objection ()

                            
Tim Polk Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection ()