The E.164 to Uniform Resource Identifiers (URI) Dynamic Delegation Discovery System (DDDS) Application (ENUM)
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 09 and is now closed.
(Gonzalo Camarillo) Yes
(Jari Arkko) No Objection
Comment (2010-06-17 for -)
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: "220.127.116.11.18.104.22.168.0.1.4.8" 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?
(Ron Bonica) No Objection
(Stewart Bryant) (was Discuss, No Objection) No Objection
(Ralph Droms) No Objection
Comment (2010-06-16 for -)
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" ?
(Adrian Farrel) No Objection
(David Harrington) No Objection
(Russ Housley) No Objection
Alexey Melnikov (was Discuss) No Objection
(Tim Polk) No Objection
(Dan Romascanu) (was Discuss) No Objection
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.