Subject: [Enum] ITU-T SG2/Q1 Issues Discussion

From: "Jay R. Hilton" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2000 14:40:47 -0400

Richard,

Your email regarding "[ENUM] WG Objectives in advance on IETF 49 in San Diego"
noted that:

>6.  In addition it was brought up in the meeting in Pittsburgh that it may
>be necessary to put together a BOF in San Diego on Administrative and
>Operational issues in ENUM.
>
>As some of you know there has been substantial activity along those lines
>in may forums. There are active discussions with our ITU SG2/Q1 colleagues
>on the resolution of several issues and I imagine there will a great deal
>to report on.

In reference to the discussions in ITU-T SG2/Q1, what is the procedure for
establishing an IETF position on these issues?  Would it be possible to have
discussions on the ENUM list for these issues?  This would include listing the
known/expected issues and then having a dialog on the ENUM list in preparation
for the ITU-T SG2/Q1 meeting.

If we can not establish an "IETF" position at least we would have had some
preparatory discussions.

Thanks in advance,

Jay Hilton

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

---

From: Richard Shockey <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 04 Oct 2000 14:26:35 -0400

At 02:40 PM 10/3/2000 -0400, Jay R. Hilton wrote:

>establishing an IETF position on these issues?

Develop an ID... for discussion on this list....

>  Would it be possible to have
>discussions on the ENUM list for these issues?

Of course...

>  This would include listing the

Excellent...

>If we can not establish an "IETF" position at least we would have had some

I totally agree...

>Jay Hilton

Herman Silbiger is correct here ..