ENUM contact info should show up in LDAP
Hello, Has any of you ENUM adepts considered the possibility of unleashing ENUM data through LDAP? The thinking here is that ENUM is very suitable as a publishing contact information centrally, and LDAP is an excellent mechanism for retrieving contact information. I have not found it, but an enum2ldap gateway sounds like a useful facility to me. It would support integration with our desktops and mobile devices, and save us entering changed contact information because the original publishing source already did this. There would be a need for DNSSEC to make this sort of publication reliable, which is true for ENUM in general, of course. What is the opinion about such a translator on this list? Cheers, -Rick
On 18 Mar 2013, at 15:47, "Rick van Rein (OpenFortress)" <rick@openfortress.nl> wrote:
What is the opinion about such a translator on this list?
I think it's a waste of time. User ENUM is dead. Sorry. Some sort of LDAP-DNS shim might be interesting as an academic exercise but its real-world utility seems doubtful at best. I don't understand how or why LDAP could be better than DNS for publishing or updating contact data. Sure, you could get better authentication with LDAP, but is that scalable and worth the effort? It's not clear to me why someone would choose to use a heavyweight LDAP transaction instead of a lightweight DNS lookup or dynamic update. There could be a role for LDAP in Carrier ENUM (handwave!), though how that would intersect stuff running on desktops or mobile devices is a bit of a challenge. User ENUM-based applications and services using DNS have pretty much flopped. How would new stuff based on LDAP change that?
-----Original Message----- From: enum-wg-bounces@ripe.net [mailto:enum-wg-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Jim Reid Sent: Monday, March 18, 2013 12:32 PM To: Rick van Rein (OpenFortress) Cc: RIPE ENUM WG Subject: Re: [enum-wg] ENUM contact info should show up in LDAP On 18 Mar 2013, at 15:47, "Rick van Rein (OpenFortress)" <rick@openfortress.nl> wrote:
What is the opinion about such a translator on this list?
I think it's a waste of time. User ENUM is dead. Sorry. Some sort of LDAP-DNS shim might be interesting as an academic exercise but its real-world utility seems doubtful at best. [RS> ] Totally agree. I don't understand how or why LDAP could be better than DNS for publishing or updating contact data. Sure, you could get better authentication with LDAP, but is that scalable and worth the effort? It's not clear to me why someone would choose to use a heavyweight LDAP transaction instead of a lightweight DNS lookup or dynamic update. There could be a role for LDAP in Carrier ENUM (handwave!), [RS> ] [RS> ] The only activity now deploying is Carrier ENUM. The private closed exchange of SIP interconnection data by some mutually agreed to methodology, which more often than not, ends up being an Excel spreadsheet. Even the access to the Carrier ENUM data is probably evenly divided now between 6116 and SIP Redirect. You get a lot of advantages by using SIP as a localized the interconnection database. LDAP performance is the key issue. though how that would intersect stuff running on desktops or mobile devices is a bit of a challenge. User ENUM-based applications and services using DNS have pretty much flopped. How would new stuff based on LDAP change that?
Hi, Thanks for the candid opinion.
I don't understand how or why LDAP could be better than DNS for publishing or updating contact data.
LDAP is reasonably well-integrated with clients all over the place, ENUM is not. It's a matter of bringing the information to the end users who can see its utility.
t's not clear to me why someone would choose to use a heavyweight LDAP transaction instead of a lightweight DNS lookup or dynamic update.
Technically, you are probably right. Except that LDAP is not heavy at all.
User ENUM-based applications and services using DNS have pretty much flopped. How would new stuff based on LDAP change that?
Getting users to easily fetch the contact data… and for the publisher, it has the advantage of updating the primal data and all users would automatically update. A great saving on updating contact lists. -Rick
On 18 Mar 2013, at 18:39, "Rick van Rein (OpenFortress)" <rick@openfortress.nl> wrote:
t's not clear to me why someone would choose to use a heavyweight LDAP transaction instead of a lightweight DNS lookup or dynamic update.
Technically, you are probably right. Except that LDAP is not heavy at all.
We can agree to differ about whether LDAP or DNS is the more lightweight.
User ENUM-based applications and services using DNS have pretty much flopped. How would new stuff based on LDAP change that?
Getting users to easily fetch the contact data… and for the publisher, it has the advantage of updating the primal data and all users would automatically update. A great saving on updating contact lists.
Sorry, I just don't get it. Two of the many problems for User ENUM are getting the tree populated and then keeping published contact data accurate and up to date. I fail to see how LDAP would make these easier. If anything, it will make the content problems worse because it raises more barriers, adds more moving parts and makes it even harder for end users to export their contact data into e164.arpa. I'll be delighted and amazed if you can prove me wrong. If users didn't do this before, why would they do it because of some LDAP back-end thing that they weren't even aware existed? An LDAP approach to contact data could work in some corporate environments. However they've not been the settings that have so far been at the front of the queue to adopt ENUM. I wonder how many address book or contact applications found on the current generation of smartphones and desktops use LDAP for real today. Please note I said "use", not "support". Perhaps this will change once everyone is assimilated into whatever cloud computing monster prevails in the Amazon/Apple/Google/Microsoft slug-fest that's just starting. I used to be a great advocate of ENUM and publishing real-time contact data in the public DNS. Nowadays I see no advantages or incentives to do that, only arguments against it. Most folks' contact data doesn't change *that* often. And when they're not reachable there's no real benefit from publishing that fact. For instance, anyone who needs to contact me will do that regardless of whether I'm asleep or on a plane. So diverting to voicemail or whatever will usually be good enough most of the time. [BTW good luck getting my mother to use an ENUM app -- with or without LDAP. She doesn't even have a mobile phone and rarely surfs the net.] This probably holds true for most of the population most of the time. If you can overcome that inertia, there's a teeny chance User ENUM could have a future.
Returning the LDAP response for the ENUM query in a JSON string will also increase adoption among web developers. No pun intended. Adrian On Mar 18, 2013, at 7:39 PM, Rick van Rein (OpenFortress) wrote:
Hi,
Thanks for the candid opinion.
I don't understand how or why LDAP could be better than DNS for publishing or updating contact data.
LDAP is reasonably well-integrated with clients all over the place, ENUM is not. It's a matter of bringing the information to the end users who can see its utility.
t's not clear to me why someone would choose to use a heavyweight LDAP transaction instead of a lightweight DNS lookup or dynamic update.
Technically, you are probably right. Except that LDAP is not heavy at all.
User ENUM-based applications and services using DNS have pretty much flopped. How would new stuff based on LDAP change that?
Getting users to easily fetch the contact data… and for the publisher, it has the advantage of updating the primal data and all users would automatically update. A great saving on updating contact lists.
-Rick
Just 0,5 ct from an innocent user: LDAP is bloatware, DNS is simple and sufficient enough - but I fear I have to agree in the point that ENUM seems to be as dead is a thing could be.. As long as there is noone taking really care like RIPE does on IP adress-space with clear policies this is, well, who cares(?) (I understand the "problem" between old-style Telcos and the Ripe-community here and dont want to start another Topic on that; just note that its [means ENUM]) -> useless until either party gets it useful, regardless of politics.. In real-life, there is nobody beyond this list (I won't spam you, dont worry ;)), reachable by enum - so what(?).. Michael
participants (5)
-
Adrian Georgescu -
Jim Reid -
Michael Markstaller -
Richard Shockey -
Rick van Rein (OpenFortress)