Subject: [Enum] FW: I-D ACTION:draft-hollenbeck-epp-e164-00.txt

From: "Hollenbeck, Scott" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2001 14:22:14 -0400

In the spirit of the note Patrik sent earlier today, I've written the
individual submission I-D described below.  It's intended to be a "stake in
the ground" for discussion using example data derived from RFC 2916.

<Scott/> 

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Monday, August 20, 2001 7:07 AM
To: IETF-Announce; @loki.ietf.org
Subject: I-D ACTION:draft-hollenbeck-epp-e164-00.txt

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
directories.

	Title		: Extensible Provisioning Protocol E.164 Number
Mapping
	Author(s)	: S. Hollenbeck
	Filename	: draft-hollenbeck-epp-e164-00.txt
	Pages		: 39
	Date		: 17-Aug-01
	
This document describes an Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP)
mapping for the provisioning and management of E.164 numbers stored in
a shared central repository.  Specified in XML, the mapping defines
EPP command syntax and semantics as applied to E.164 numbers.

A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-hollenbeck-epp-e164-00.txt

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the username
"anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in,
type "cd internet-drafts" and then
	"get draft-hollenbeck-epp-e164-00.txt".

A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html 
or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt

Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail.

Send a message to:
	[email-masked].
In the body type:
	"FILE /internet-drafts/draft-hollenbeck-epp-e164-00.txt".
	
NOTE:	The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in
	MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility.  To use this
	feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE"
	command.  To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or
	a MIME-compliant mail reader.  Different MIME-compliant mail readers
	exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with
	"multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split
	up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on
	how to manipulate these messages.

Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader
implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the
Internet-Draft.

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

---

From: "Hollenbeck, Scott" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2001 11:28:39 -0400

>From: Richard Shockey [mailto:[email-masked]]
>Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2001 11:08 AM
>To: Hollenbeck, Scott; [email-masked]
>Subject: Re: [Enum] FW: I-D ACTION:draft-hollenbeck-epp-e164-00.txt
>
>
>And on behalf of my co-chair ..I'd like to thank you for the submission. 
>This is indeed a useful contribution to thoughtful technical discussion of 
>ENUM related issues.  However I would want to point out that the problem 
>statement that this document addresses is a potential tool for ENUM 
>provisioning between various entities that is specifically under the 
>authority of national administrations of E.164 resources as outlined in 
>RFC2916 in RFC 3026.

The "authority" issue is precisely why the draft prominently references 2916
and makes no statement anywhere about who manages the E.164 resources.  A
non-normative reference to 3026 could be added to make readers aware of
current thought; such discussion certainly doesn't belong in this document.

<Scott/>

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2001 17:18:51 -0700

>and makes no statement anywhere about who manages the E.164 resources.  A

A rather basic source of tension for discussions combining standards with 
politics (or sociology) is the distinction between mechanism and 
policy.  Until the Internet became a global service, the IETF had very 
little push-back when it failed to make this distinction.

These days, almost anything that touches the DNS seems to bump into 
politics AND sociology.  Hence we get VERY strong push-back to restrict our 
work to mechanism, and keep the heck away from policy.

Specifying the precise set of data objects that are to be used for 
registration appears to be an example of intruding into policy.  Policy is 
more than saying "who".  It includes saying "how".  The specifics 
concerning data semantics are part of the "how".

At the very least, we need to distinguish between standardized syntax, 
versus "required" data semantics.  Possibly we can standardize a means for 
registering (and maybe standardizing) the semantics of some data objects, 
without asserting the policy that they are required.

On the other hand, a global requirement for interoperability might motivate 
requiring some, small set of data semantics.

The above is probably fuzzier than I or anyone reading might like.  I hope, 
nonetheless, the it suggests a line of discussion for clarifying and 
resolving Richard's point.

d/

----------
Dave Crocker  <mailto:[email-masked]>
Brandenburg InternetWorking  <http://www.brandenburg.com>
tel +1.408.246.8253;  fax +1.408.273.6464

---

From: "A.M. Rutkowski" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2001 12:25:06 -0400

At 12:05 PM 8/22/2001, Kevin McCandless wrote:
>ICANN was developed solely to break up the Network Solutions monopoly hold
>on multiple TLDS domains and to add competition in providing the TLDs.

Kevin,

If you check the NTIA policy proceeding record,
you will note that ICANN was created to provide
a collaborative forum for the IANA Function.

--tony

---

From: Kevin McCandless <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2001 09:56:12 -0700

That is fine.  But my comments do not reflect prejudices.  Please do not add
words to my comments.

-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Reid [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2001 11:54 AM
To: Kevin McCandless
Cc: 'Judith Oppenheimer'; 'Patrik Faltstrom'; 'Pat Conley'; 'Richard
Shockey'; 'Chip Sharp'; 'Hollenbeck, Scott'; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [Enum] FW: I-D ACTION:draft-hollenbeck-epp-e164-00.txt 

>>>>> "Kevin" == Kevin McCandless <[email-masked]> writes:

    Kevin> ICANN was developed solely to break up the Network
    Kevin> Solutions monopoly = hold on multiple TLDS domains and to
    Kevin> add competition in providing the TLDs.

There are many places to debate ICANN and its work. This list is not
one of them. Please take your prejudices about ICANN elsewhere. We
discuss ENUM here and ICANN has no involvement in that at all.

---

From: Patrik Fältström <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2001 21:13:10 +0200

--On 01-08-22 14.56 -0400 "A.M. Rutkowski" <[email-masked]> wrote:

> By the
> IESG failing to close down this Working Group,
> it has effectively ceded it to policy discussions,
> unless someone wants to purse an ENUM Lite
> work effort.

The chairs of this wg have chose to have the mailing list and wg alive as
long as discussions go on in the ITU-T, i.e. even though RFC 2916 exists,
we have agreed to have the wg alive so IETF have a forum to discuss
eventual questions that might come from ITU-T. For example during the SG2
meeting in September.

This was last time discussed with our Area Directors and representatives
from ITU-T during the IETF in London.

It is not uncommon for IETF to have at least mailing lists, if even working
groups, stay for some time because of such liason issues.

Further, it is because one of the co-chairs can end up in discussions like
this we have two chairs of most wg's. So the other one can stop a
discussion the first got involved in.

I didn't sign the mail as co-chair, did I? (I do with this though)

But, yes, because of the list exists, policy talk come up on the list.

   paf, co-chair of the working group