I support to support e164.arpa. Nobody knows, if an existing distributed call routing system is needed to overcome the limitations of VoIP-oligopols. Von: Edward Shryane <eshryane@ripe.net> Gesendet: Montag, 4. August 2025 11:01 An: David Conrad <drc@virtualized.org> Cc: db-wg <db-wg@ripe.net> Betreff: [db-wg] Re: RDAP for e164.arpa Dear David, On 1 Aug 2025, at 19:56, David Conrad <drc@virtualized.org<mailto:drc@virtualized.org>> wrote: Edward, On Aug 1, 2025, at 2:55 AM, Edward Shryane <eshryane@ripe.net<mailto:eshryane@ripe.net>> wrote: If there is interest in supporting the e164.arpa zone in RDAP domain queries, […] I guess the real question is whether or not anyone actually uses e164.arpa. I found a few hundred queries per day in the Whois query logs for e164.arpa domains. My (perhaps mistaken) impression has been that while it was an interesting idea in theory, in practice non-technical considerations made public ENUM deployment challenging at best, a non-starter at worst. From https://www.ripe.net/manage-ips-and-asns/dns/enum/request-archives/, it looks like there’s been no delegation activity for a decade. If it’s not being used, I suspect spinning up interest in the IETF for an RFC may be difficult… Is our time better spent in supporting e164.arpa in RDAP, or deprecating e164.arpa? If we need to continue to support e164.arpa (per RFC 3245), then I suggest we should also support it in RDAP. The NCC can create a short draft RFC to extend the RDAP domain object type, and update Whois to match. We can request the other RIRs to add a redirect in RDAP for e164.arpa. Regards Ed Shryane RIPE NCC