Subject: [Enum] Re: Rough Consensus or time to revist the charter?

From: Herman Silbiger <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2000 17:42:39 -0400

There are hazards to piecemeal standardization.  It may be like designing a human,
one part at a time: After designing the feeding function you discover two days later
that you also should have designed an elimination function.

[email-masked] wrote:

>
>
> Message: 1
> From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
> To: "Vaudreuil, Greg M (Greg)" <[email-masked]>
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: [Enum] Rough Consensus or time to revist the charter?
> Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2000 09:25:34 -0700
>
> > It seems silly to have a separate ENUM-lite working group simply to
> > standardize the use of ENUM mechanics with other records than NAPTR!  I
> > assert that use of other, simpler RR's raise no additional interesting
> > technical issues or substantial interoperability risks to the ENUM work.
>
> great!  then we are safe postponing this embellishment until next time, once
> we have demonstrated that we have the basics under control.
>
> randy
>
> --__--__--
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2000 16:44:08 -0400
> From: Michael Mealling <[email-masked]>
> To: "Vaudreuil, Greg M (Greg)" <[email-masked]>
> Cc: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Patrik_F=E4ltstr=F6m?= <[email-masked]>,
> Randy Bush <[email-masked]>, [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [Enum] Rough Consensus or time to revist the charter?
> Reply-To: [email-masked]
>
> On Sat, Jul 15, 2000 at 10:36:54AM -0500, Vaudreuil, Greg M (Greg) wrote:
> > It seems silly to have a separate ENUM-lite working group simply to
> > standardize the use of ENUM mechanics with other records than NAPTR!  I
> > assert that use of other, simpler RR's raise no additional interesting
> > technical issues or substantial interoperability risks to the ENUM work.
>
> It actually make sense due to some things that have happened
> with the IETF over the past few years. We tend to have some groups
> who outgrow their charters and live way beyond their years. Its
> a pretty well grounded concensus that we'd rather have more
> groups working faster than fewer working slower...
>

_______________________________________________
enum mailing list
[email-masked]
http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum