RFC 2916: E.164 number and DNS
This RFC has been replaced. Do not implement against it for new work — it was formally obsoleted by RFC 3761.
Current document in this lineage: RFC 6116 — The E.164 to Uniform Resource Identifiers (URI) Dynamic Delegation Discovery System (DDDS) Application (ENUM); RFC 6117 — IANA Registration of Enumservices: Guide, Template, and IANA Considerations
In plain English — editorial summary, not part of the RFC
This document discusses the use of the Domain Name System (DNS) for storage of E.164 numbers. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Document record
- Document ID
- RFC2916
- Published
- September 2000
- Authors
- P. Faltstrom
- Status
- PROPOSED STANDARD
- Stream
- IETF
- Area
- rai
- Pages
- 10
- Also known as
- —
- Obsoleted by:
- RFC 3761
Topics
Standards lineage
This document is one revision in a chain of 4 RFCs, each formally replacing the one before it.
- RFC 2916 (2000)
- RFC 3761 (2004)
- RFC 6116 (2011)
- RFC 6117 (2011) ✓
Referenced by
One later RFC formally updates or obsoletes part of this document.
Related documents
Ranked automatically by shared keywords, IETF area and stream — not by editorial selection.
- RFC 4759The ENUM Dip Indicator Parameter for the "tel" URICurrent
December 2006
- RFC 5346Operational Requirements for ENUM-Based Softswitch UseCurrent
October 2008
- RFC 5483ENUM Implementation Issues and ExperiencesCurrent
March 2009
- RFC 6116The E.164 to Uniform Resource Identifiers (URI) Dynamic Delegation Discovery System (DDDS) Application (ENUM)Current
March 2011
- RFC 2930Secret Key Establishment for DNS (TKEY RR)Updated
September 2000
- RFC 2931DNS Request and Transaction Signatures ( SIG(0)s )Current
September 2000
- RFC 2874DNS Extensions to Support IPv6 Address Aggregation and RenumberingUpdated
July 2000
- RFC 3026Liaison to IETF/ISOC on ENUMCurrent
January 2001
Also filed under
About this page
The document record above — title, authors, date, status, stream, area, relationships, DOI and errata — is imported verbatim from the public RFC Editor index. The “in plain English” section is editorial: written by The metasystema editorial team, not part of the RFC. Where the two differ, the RFC text governs.
Last checked against the RFC Editor index on . RFCs are never revised after publication; changes are issued as new documents.
Data sources · Editorial policy · Report a correction · What is an RFC?