Subject: [e2md] unused: Interesting background info

From: Bernie Hoeneisen <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 9 Apr 2010 21:51:27 +0200 (CEST)

Hi,

I accidently stepped over some history of the "void" Enumservice, which is 
the predecessor of "unused":

  https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-enum-void/#ballot

This might explain some of the concerns raised before and during the BoF. 
In particular I understand now better what Jon Peterson tried to explain 
about "usused", while convincing him to support e2md in the days before 
the BoF.

I am not sure, which of the concerns expressed back then about "void" 
still hold with "unused" and which are obsolete by now.

Does anybody know more about this?

cheers,
  Bernie

---

From: Lawrence Conroy <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 9 Apr 2010 22:17:33 +0100

Hi Bernie, folks,
 This is curious. I'm watching "Groundhog Day" and this comes up.

The one you picked out is an Oooooooold ballot and an old document.
The doc went through many transformations over its extended (and
renamed) lifetime, at any point of which you could pick out another
ballot and another set of different issues.

A general complaint was that we were trying to indicate the absence
of a resource by using a record.
[which is of course what you want to do -- this is a stop sign
 wrapped up as a arguably fake URI]

We DID originally want to put in a link to the numbering authority
for the particular block. However, that URI doesn't progress a session
with the destination number -- rather because this record indicates
that destination number is not in service. Thus that was not acceptable.
The record itself works fine, does what's needed, and has been tested
and used in real networks. It is, however, a looong stretch for ENUM.

=> there are two issues -- this record indicates lack of a resource,
and it doesn't generate a URI. Both of those should be ENUM-specific.

Of this whole process, I do have one regret. One of the more
entertaining versions was unused -07.
That one included a neat idea to avoid the need for wildcards.
Problem is, for some name servers, this neat DNS trick doesn't work.
It does appear to work absolutely fine if you happen to have modern
servers, but whilst that's OK for closed and controlled environments,
it isn't for the interweb.
Pity, really.

all the best,
  Lawrence

On 9 Apr 2010, at 20:51, Bernie Hoeneisen wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I accidently stepped over some history of the "void" Enumservice, which is the predecessor of "unused":
> 
> This might explain some of the concerns raised before and during the BoF. In particular I understand now better what Jon Peterson tried to explain about "usused", while convincing him to support e2md in the days before the BoF.
> 
> I am not sure, which of the concerns expressed back then about "void" still hold with "unused" and which are obsolete by now.
>

---

From: Lawrence Conroy <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 10 Apr 2010 15:15:54 +0100

Hi Folks,
 responding to my own post -- sad.
To clarify/fix the typo, the neat "closest encloser" scheme mentioned
was in the "operational guidance" section (*section* 7) of VOID and
UNUSED (up to -01. After that, it was removed). Richard also included
a brief guide to number plans for the non-"steam phone" folk.

all the best,
  Lawrence

On 9 Apr 2010, at 22:17, Lawrence Conroy wrote:

> _______________________________________________
> e2md mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/e2md