Subject: RE: [Enum] ITU ENUM Workshop: Issues for Regulators, Policy Maker s, and Numbering Authorities - January 17, 2001

From: "Hollenbeck, Scott" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 19:20:01 -0500

Doug,

I don't believe that the "Roles & Responsibilities" draft lends itself to
the evolutionary standards track maturity levels (Proposed Standard, Draft
Standard, Standard) as described in RFC 2026.  However, the definition of
the Best Current Practice (BCP) series describes the benefit of identifying
"common guidelines for policies and operations", so perhaps targeting BCP
would be appropriate.

Scott Hollenbeck
VeriSign Global Registry Services 

-----Original Message-----
From: Douglas Ranalli [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2000 5:10 PM
To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [Enum] ITU ENUM Workshop: Issues for Regulators, Policy
Makers, and Numbering Authorities - January 17, 2001

Richard and ENUM list-group,

I'm writing to follow-up on the note from Robert Shaw regarding the upcoming
ITU workshop on ENUM implementation.  My thought is that the "Roles &
Responsibilities" draft that we've been discussing on the list group is a
core document for ENUM and the ITU discussion.  The process of gaining
agreement on the set of "actors" in the ENUM System and the "roles and
responsibilities" of those actors is a foundation for all follow-on ENUM
work.  Based on this, I'd like to propose that we consider making the "Roles
& Responsibilities" draft a standards track document so that we can all work
to gain consensus on a common framework for advancing ENUM.  Please let me
know your thoughts.

Regards,

Doug

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