Re: [Ietf] New .mobi, .xxx, ... TLDs?

Thus spake "Dean Anderson" <dean(_at_)av8(_dot_)com>
> On Thu, 22 Apr 2004, jfcm wrote:
> > ".tel" and ".mobi" are technically inconsistent propositions. They
confuse
> > what belongs to the scheme (protocol/application) with what  belongs to
the
> > naming (users group). The same as was ".web" did in 2000.
> > ...
> I have to digest the rest of this further, but I would say right away that
> if I connect to http://ibm.tel, I'd probably expect to reach the VOIP
> portal, where I could sign up for VOIP services from IBM.  I'd expect that
> a voip connection to tel://ibm.com would get me to the headquarters
> switchboard, and that tel://ibm.tel gets me to the VOIP switchboard (ie
> VOIP customer service).
You're confusing URI methods, protocols, and TLDs disastrously.

The "tel" URI method is for dialing using E.164 numbers, e.g.
"tel:+18005551212", which will probably be translated to a different URI via
ENUM.  For telephones using user/domain names, use the "sip" URI method,
e.g. "sip:support(_at_)example(_dot_)com".  There is no need for a .tel TLD, 
and adding
one ignores existing, logical solutions.

Likewise, there is no reason for a .mobi TLD; either mobile clients should
use the standard "http" method to negotiate the content/format/encoding with
servers as needed via HTTP's existing mechanisms, or if necessary a new
method/protocol should be defined, e.g. "wap://www.example.com/".

S

Stephen Sprunk        "Stupid people surround themselves with smart
CCIE #3723           people.  Smart people surround themselves with
K5SSS         smart people who disagree with them."  --Aaron Sorkin


_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf