RFC 3245: The History and Context of Telephone Number Mapping (ENUM) Operational Decisions: Informational Documents Contributed to ITU-T Study Group 2 (SG2)
In plain English — editorial summary, not part of the RFC
RFC 2916 assigned responsibility for a number of administrative and operational details of Telephone Number Mapping (ENUM) to the IAB. It also anticipated that ITU would take responsibility for determining the legitimacy and appropriateness of applicants for delegation of "country code"-level subdomains of the top-level ENUM domain. Recently, three memos have been prepared for the ITU-T Study Group 2 (SG2) to explain the background of, and reasoning for, the relevant decisions. The IAB has also supplied a set of procedural instructions to the RIPE NCC for implementation of their part of the model. The content of the three memos is provided in this document for the information of the IETF community.
Document record
- Document ID
- RFC3245
- Published
- March 2002
- Authors
- J. Klensin; IAB
- Status
- INFORMATIONAL
- Stream
- IAB
- Area
- —
- Pages
- 10
- Also known as
- —
Topics
Related documents
Ranked automatically by shared keywords, IETF area and stream — not by editorial selection.
- RFC 1958Architectural Principles of the InternetUpdated
June 1996
- RFC 4840Multiple Encapsulation Methods Considered HarmfulCurrent
April 2007
- RFC 7687Report from the Strengthening the Internet (STRINT) WorkshopCurrent
December 2015
- RFC 8728RFC Editor Model (Version 2)Obsoleted
February 2020
- RFC 8730Independent Submission Editor ModelUpdated
February 2020
- RFC 9120Nameservers for the Address and Routing Parameter Area ("arpa") DomainCurrent
October 2021
- RFC 3439Some Internet Architectural Guidelines and PhilosophyCurrent
December 2002
- RFC 3777IAB and IESG Selection, Confirmation, and Recall Process: Operation of the Nominating and Recall CommitteesObsoleted
June 2004
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?