Subject: [Enum] WG objectives in advance of IETF 49 in San Diego

From: Richard Shockey <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 01 Oct 2000 17:57:20 -0400

As you all know our core protocol document was approved as RFC 2916 last 
week but we still have a considerable amount of work to do.

The list has been very quiet the last several weeks but I would like to get 
things going again in preparation for San Diego. We need to start now...

1.  I would like to bring our Requirements Document to last call if 
possible. We had several objections to language in the document before the 
Pittsburgh meetings and at that point I held up going to last call.

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-enum-rqmts-01.txt

I would like the WG to review this document again so we can start the last 
call process ASAP.

Does this document need revisions? If so in what way....

2. I believe that since Pittsburgh it was fairly obvious that that Greg's 
Operations document needed some revisions based on decisions made by the 
WG... once again the sooner we begin discussions again the sooner we can 
conclude this work item.

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-enum-operation-00.txt

3.  We need to look into whether we need a Management Information Base ( 
MIB ) for ENUM. I have privately asked some members of the WG whether they 
would be interested in taking on the work but we should ask ourselves what 
the scope of this work might look like.

4. I am aware that Penn Pfautz's document on Adminstrative issues is 
undergoing substantial revisions and will probably be brought forward as an 
Informational document.

The current version is...

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-pfautz-na-enum-01.txt

For any number of reasons this is going to be a very important document for 
us to review. As new versions of this document are made available I would 
appreciate it if we could discuss it at some length.

5. In addition if any of you are interested in presenting documents in San 
Diego this is your First Call... now is the time to put your drafts is so 
they can be properly discussed on the list in advance of the meeting.

I will request another single 2 1/2 hour slot when reservations open up 
shortly.

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.

Scott - Allison ..is a BOF the way to do this or schedule 2 ENUM meetings? 
Should the BOF have a charter?  I can certainly write one. I would assume 
that we should discuss what kinds of data we need during trial phases etc 
as this moves forward.

Richard Shockey
Senior Technical Industry Liaison
NeuStar Inc.
1120 Vermont Avenue N.W.
Suite 550
Washington DC. 20005
Voice 314.503.0640
Fax to EMail 815.333.1237 (Preferred for Fax)
DC Number 202.533.2811
INTERNET Mail & IFAX : [email-masked]
or   [email-masked]
http://www.neustar.com

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

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