Today is the last day of IETF. And it is also one of the most important reason why I am attending IETF this time – ENUM or specifically Carrier ENUM.
The (User) ENUM part of the meeting went quite well easily but I think I surprised quite a few people when I stood up and objected to Shin’s mobileweb registration (basically, a ENUMservice for mobile web). Now, Shin is a close friend but I think it is a bad idea to start putting session negiotation information into ENUM. Its a slippery slope to go near there – DNS should remains as DNS – you throw something at it and it give you back something. The capability negiotation should be done within the session setup, and especially HTTP already provides User-Agent negiotation that serves the need.
I can understand why mobileweb would make sense – It is very helpful for a registry/registrar who can start to market a new product (“register your mobile web address now!”) but lets not taint the protocol.
The Carrier ENUM portion of the meeting is far more exciting. Two ideas was thrown around (1) use of non-terminal NAPTR record and (2) use of some defined carrier label delegation under the e164.arpa tree to tie Carrier ENUM tree under e164.arpa. After some interesting discussion, the rough consensus seem to be leaning towards Michael’s proposal using carrier label delegation. I still dont like it but ah, rough consensus is rough consensus and I lost :P.
Most surprising is that the room also have rough consensus that Carrier ENUM as part of the ENUM working group work. This is quite different from the last time we have such discussion where people objects quite strongly against it. In this regard, everyone wins :-)
On different note, SPF/SenderID seem to be dying.
