In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Dean Ande
rson writes:
>On Mon, 26 Apr 2004, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
>
>>
>> You're confusing URI methods, protocols, and TLDs disastrously.
>
>I think it is you who is reading too much into the .tel and .mobi TLD.
>
>These are not proposals to put URI method functionality into domain names,
Sure there are. Here's a direct quote from the .mobi proposal:
Businesses and consumers that utilise mobile devices will
be able to take advantage of a wide range of Internet
services and content under the mTLD that have been specifically
tailored for access and use by mobile devices. The sponsored
TLD provides a clearly recognisable mobile label to the
services and content, indicating that they will be easy
and convenient to use with mobile devices. By choice of
suitable mobile-specific technologies, the service offering
can be adapted to mobile-specific characteristics, such as
the limitations of mobile networks and devices (throughput,
temporary signal loss, etc), which will result in a better
user experience for those services.
I find it hard to interpret that text in any other fashion -- they want
to describe end-to-end protocols by DNS name.
There are two proposals for .tel; here's text from one of them:
Sub-domains of ".tel" may not be arbitrarily defined; rather
they are defined in accordance with the ITU E.164 standard.
A valid e164 domain name under the ".tel" TLD is defined
as follows:
Start with a telephone number: 1-212-332-1234.
Remove all non-numeric characters: 12123321234.
Reverse the order of the number: 43212332121.
Separate by dots: 4.3.2.1.2.3.3.2.1.2.1.
Add the sTLD: 4.3.2.1.2.3.3.2.1.2.1.tel.
That looks like an ENUM competitor to me. (The other .tel proposal
looks like a generic TLD at first reading.)
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
