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

From: "Douglas Ranalli" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2000 08:27:54 -0500

Scott,

Thank you for the clarification and the recommendation.  Based on the way
you've described the BCP designation this sounds like a more appropriate fit
for the "roles & responsibilities" draft.  Richard (ENUM Chair), what's the
mechanism for following up on Scott's recommendation?

Doug

----- Original Message -----
From: Hollenbeck, Scott <[email-masked]>
To: 'Douglas Ranalli' <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>;
<[email-masked]>
Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2000 7:20 PM
Subject: RE: [Enum] ITU ENUM Workshop: Issues for Regulators, Policy Makers,
and Numbering Authorities - January 17, 2001

> 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

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

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2000 06:36:06 -0800

At 08:27 AM 12/1/00 -0500, Douglas Ranalli wrote:
>Based on the way

The process of getting BCP is the same as getting Proposed Standard, except 
for the label.  (Purists might disagree with me, but I believe there are no 
meaningful differences.)

In other words, get a stable specification for which there is consensus, 
and then submit it to the IESG for approval.

d/

=-=-=-=-=
Dave Crocker  <[email-masked]>
Brandenburg Consulting  <www.brandenburg.com>
Tel: +1.408.246.8253,  Fax: +1.408.273.6464

---

From: Richard Shockey <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2000 11:23:10 -0500

>mechanism for following up on Scott's recommendation?

First I completely agree with Scott's assessment..thought I think 
Informational is more relevant here.  I'm of the feeling that ENUM BCP 
documents should be specifically targeted to the technical requirements of 
e164.arpa zone administrators in terms of the optimization of their 
servers, query response times objectives, cache, TTL  etc.

The kinds of data that we should be collecting as part of any trial 
operational plan. Some plans ..I might add I like to see some preliminary 
discussion on. I know I'm trying to herd cats here on where I thing we need 
to go but that my job.

How the geographic zones are to be administered will be the responsibility 
of nation states and it is useful and very appropriate to provide them 
information on current technical thinking.

Second I think we are completely ignoring the complementary draft Penn 
Pfautz and James Yu have produced that discusses similar issues.  I agree 
there are some problems with terms that need to be clarified and definition 
of those terms should cross all documents moving forward.

Third ..we are crossing into WG unchartered territory... and I mean that 
literally.  If the WG wishes to go down this path in the future we 
seriously need to A. Revisit our current milestones elements many of which 
have not been completed. I would still like to see some thinking on whether 
a MIB is still a requirement here. B. Narrowly define what is the scope of 
work we want to develop. C. Request recharter from the IESG.

I'd suggest this as a reasonable plan.

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

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

---

From: Richard Shockey <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2000 11:34:51 -0500

At 06:36 AM 12/1/2000 -0800, Dave Crocker wrote:
>The process of getting BCP is the same as getting Proposed Standard, 
>except for the label.  (Purists might disagree with me, but I believe 
>there are no meaningful differences.)
>

Yes ..but Its just my preference that BCP represent protocol technicial 
thinking ..but I'm not tied to that thinking.

Recharting however seems to me "a good thing"..

Richard Shockey

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 02 Dec 2000 01:46:00 -0500

>thinking ..but I'm not tied to that thinking.

oh.  perhaps.

as I recall the P in BCP was meant to imply operations issues, however.

that does not exclude 'technical thinking', of course, no matter how much 
the ops folks claim that protocol designers think such low thoughts about 
the ops folks.

d/

=-=-=-=-=