Subject: RE: [ENUM] Revised Charter and Work Plan for ENUM WG

From: Kevin McCandless <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2001 14:10:17 -0700

comments in line

-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Shockey [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Friday, October 19, 2001 12:11 PM
To: Kevin McCandless; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [Enum] Revised Charter and Work Plan for ENUM WG

At 09:04 AM 10/17/2001 -0700, Kevin McCandless wrote:
>Possible enhancements to the new charter could be as follows:
>
>1)  Identify the valid NAPTR records and formats for all possible services
>and update RFC2916.

I think this is implied but we need to make sure that the various WG's that 
have services take on this work of defining the NAPTR records and possible 
application behavior. I dont want to step on the toes of the SIP WG or VPIM 
etc. There will be a need for a IANA registration proceedure for NAPTR 
records etc but that is part of the revision of 2915

I agree that we do not want to step on anyone's toes but it would be useful
to document the NAPTR records in RFC2916.  I have reviewed RFC2915 and that
describes a NAPTR but does not give specific ones.

>2)  Identify enhancements need, protocol etc, that need to be made to allow
>such applications as IE to perform ENUM queries.

I'm not sure what you mean here .. IE is just another application that 
could process NAPTR records.

Maybe a little wishful thinking here.  Knowing that ENUM will flower when
standard applications such as IE have the ability to do ENUM look ups and
bring back valid URIs.

>3)  Work with other task groups to develop possible application uses for
the
>ENUM protocol.  Add these as an appendix to RFC 2916

note above

Several of the work groups have worked on drafts targeting specific examples
of their protocol.  SIP is a good example.  You have drafts such as SIP call
flows and the SIN design team.  This could be an appendix to RFC2916 or
another a completely different draft under the ENUM working group.  So, the
draft or appendix would contain example applications for ENUM based on the
input of the other working groups, VPIM and SIP etc.

>Your items 2-4 look good.
>
>Also, would recommend a meeting at the 52 IETF.

Do you have a proposed agenda??  We dont have any documents to discuss or 
decisions to make or do you just feel there is value in individuals 
updating the ENUM community on current events etc?

Yes, we do not have any drafts to discuss.  But it would be useful to allow
people to voice their opinions in a face-to-face forum on the new charter
for ENUM and discuss possible extensions to RFC2916 or new drafts that need
developing as mentioned above.  Yes, since ENUM is becoming a very hot topic
it would be of value to update the community on current events and
directions.  The meeting does not have to last the typical 1 hour and 30
minutes.

>Let the flaming begin.........
>
>Kevin
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Richard Shockey [mailto:[email-masked]]
>Sent: Sunday, October 14, 2001 7:34 AM
>To: [email-masked]
>Subject: [Enum] Revised Charter and Work Plan for ENUM WG
>
>
>
>After consultation with the area directors Patrik and myself have developed
>a revised charter and work plan for going forward.
>
>The WG had gone into "slumber mode" after IETF Pittsburgh. In our judgement
>there is left over work to complete and there is sufficient new activity in
>various venues to justify considering technical work related to ENUM
>operations & implementations.
>
>At this time since we have no active ID's on the plate so there is no need
>to have a meeting in Salt Lake unless there is demand for it.
>
>The revised charter is open for comments:
>
>#####################################
>
>
>Telephone Number Mapping (enum)
>
>Chair(s):
>mailto:[email-masked]
>mailto:[email-masked]
>
>Transport Area Director(s):
>mailto:[email-masked]
>mailto:[email-masked]
>
>Transport Area Advisor:
>mailto:[email-masked]
>
>Mailing Lists:
>General Discussion:[email-masked]
>To Subscribe: [email-masked]
>In Body: subscribe
>Archive: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf-mail-archive/enum/
>
>Description of Working Group:
>
>This working group has defined a DNS-based architecture and protocol [RFC
>2916] for mapping a telephone number to a set of attributes (e.g. URI's)
>which can be used to contact a resource associated with that number.
>
>Background:
>Telephone numbers now identify many different types of end terminals,
>supporting many different services and protocols. Telephone numbers are
>used to identify ordinary phones, fax machines, pagers, data modems, email
>clients, text terminals for the hearing impaired, etc.
>A prospective caller may wish to discover which services and protocols are
>supported by the terminal named by a given telephone number. The caller may
>also require more information than just the telephone number to communicate
>with the terminal.
>  From the call recipient's perspective, the owner of the telephone number
>or device may wish to control what URI's, calling parties may receive.
>The architecture must allow for different service providers, competing
>openly, to provision the data base of end point information required by
>clients to reach the desired the terminal device or service named by a
>telephone number.
>
>Working Group Revised Goals and Scope:
>1.      The working group will, from a technical viewpoint describe how the
>registry/registrar model used for DNS provisioning could be applied to the
>global ENUM based branches of the DNS hierarchy and document various
>aspects of ENUM administrative / operational procedures within that context
>as Informational
>2.      The working group will update RFC 2916 to reflect the ongoing
>revision of RFC 2915.
>3.      The working group will consider various aspects of privacy,
>security, validation, authentication and provisioning of the global ENUM
>branches of the DNS including RFC 2915 (and revisions) records as
>Informational. Such documents could be used as models for various national
>implementations of RFC 2916 by the appropriate authorities over those
>portions of the global ENUM namespace.
>4.      The Working Group will continue maintain contact and liaison with
>appropriate standards bodies and groups in order to coordinate activities
>and provide appropriate technical input when required, in particular ITU
>Study Group 2 and other national ENUM administrative forums. The Working
>Group, in the sprit of technical exchange, will welcome technical
>information, updates etc.,  from various national ENUM administration
>forums, other standards bodies, as well as documentation on practical
>experiences with implementations of RFC 2916.
>
>Document deliverables:
>1.      Revise and update RFC 2916 appropriate to revision of RFC 2915
>(Standards Track)  April  2002
>2.      Document appropriate ENUM Administrative Procedures (Informational)
>March 2002
>3.      Document appropriate ENUM Operational Procedures
>(Informational)  May 2002
>4.      Document appropriate ENUM Provisioning Procedures and Data Sets
>(Informational) TBD
>
>No Current Internet-Drafts
>Request For Comments:
>E.164 number and DNS (RFC 2916) (18159 bytes)
>
>
>
>  >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>Richard Shockey, Senior Manager, Strategic Technology Initiatives
>NeuStar Inc.
>45980 Center Oak Plaza   Bldg 8     Sterling, VA  20166
>1120 Vermont Ave NW Suite 400 Washington DC 20005
>Voice 571.434.5651 Cell : 314.503.0640,  Fax: 815.333.1237
><mailto: [email-masked]> or
><mailto: [email-masked]>
><http://www.neustar.com>
><http://www.enum.org>
><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>enum mailing list
>[email-masked]
>http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum
>
>_______________________________________________
>enum mailing list
>[email-masked]
>http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum

Richard Shockey, Senior Manager, Strategic Technology Initiatives
NeuStar Inc.
45980 Center Oak Plaza   Bldg 8     Sterling, VA  20166
1120 Vermont Ave NW Suite 400 Washington DC 20005
Voice 571.434.5651 Cell : 314.503.0640,  Fax: 815.333.1237
<mailto: [email-masked]> or
<mailto: [email-masked]>
<http://www.neustar.com>
<http://www.enum.org>
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

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

---

From: Patrik Fältström <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2001 02:08:31 +0200

--On 2001-10-19 14.10 -0700 Kevin McCandless <[email-masked]>
wrote:

> The meeting does not have to last the typical 1 hour and 30
> minutes.

Internet-Drafts are needed, as many people, like myself, is not able to
participate at face to face meeting(s).

I.e. referencing an I-D is the only valuable way of moving forward in the
IETF.

Face to face meetings solve some problems though...and I am happy that some
people will, and can meet.

  paf

---

From: Richard Shockey <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2001 11:49:43 -0400

>people will, and can meet.

Again .. I personally have no objections to one 1 hour meeting etc..in SLC 
but I'd like to get some other views here ASAP since if there is some 
consensus on a quick get together I'd need to request a room and consider 
suggestions for agenda etc..

---

From: "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2001 11:18:10 -0500

What is the problem you are trying to solve ?

Jim Fleming
Why gamble with a .BIZ Lottery? Start a real .BIZ Today !
http://www.DOT-BIZ.com
0:212 - BIZ World

----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard Shockey" <[email-masked]>
To: "Patrik Fältström" <[email-masked]>; "Kevin McCandless"
<[email-masked]>; "'Richard Shockey'" <[email-masked]>;
<[email-masked]>
Sent: Sunday, October 21, 2001 10:49 AM
Subject: RE: [ENUM] Revised Charter and Work Plan for ENUM WG

---

From: Tony Rutkowski <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2001 14:09:19 -0400

Hi Patrik,

As the liaison to the ITU-T on ENUM matters,
and co-chair of this working group, perhaps
you could provide guidance about the ITU-T
Rec. E.A-ENUM effort in dealing with scope
and activities.  For example, the recent
French Administration contribution
raises significant issues of overlap and
perhaps regulatory preemption. See
http://www.ngi.org/enum/pub/contrib%20E.A-ENUM-v2.zip

best,
tony

---

From: Patrik Fältström <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2001 20:23:03 +0200

> http://www.ngi.org/enum/pub/contrib%20E.A-ENUM-v2.zip

I did on October 17 forward this document to this mailing together with a
note from ITU where ITU wanted comments on the document. I take for granted
that you and others on this list which have comments already have, or will,
send comments according to instructions in that mail.

   paf

---

From: Tony Rutkowski <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2001 15:59:06 -0400

Hi Patrik,

>send comments according to instructions in that mail.

M. Doisneau just distributed the French Administration
version a few hours ago.

It's not apparent that anything of this nature made it
through the listserve on the 17th.  Indeed, there appear
to be no direct references to or copies of Rec. E.A-ENUM
in the IETF ENUM WG archives, so it might be useful to
resend it.

It's your view then with respect to scope, that the IETF
ENUM WG itself has no views with respect to ongoing
developments in the ITU-T or other external ENUM related
forums, nor intends to be involved in their work on a
continuing basis?

--tony

---

From: Patrik Fältström <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2001 07:20:52 +0200

--On 2001-10-26 15.59 -0400 Tony Rutkowski <[email-masked]> wrote:

> so it might be useful to resend it.

Done.

> forums, nor intends to be involved in their work on a 

The role of this working group is twofold:

- Create documents which the wg list as milestones in the charter,
  and a new version of the charer is currently discussed
- Be a place where review of documents created outside of IETF
  can be discussed in the case one of those end up as individual
  submissions to the IETF

The latter is a request from a couple of groups. I.e. they have asked if it
is possible to use the IETF last call process to get a review on the part
of the documents which (might) touch Internet Protocols, like DNS. The
response from IETF is (as always) "of course".

For example, in a number of groups (including ETSI, European Commission
group on ENUM, European Regulators, ITU SG2 and the ENUM Forum in the US)
there is agreat confusion on DNS operations. I see personally several
"summaries on how DNS work" which is just completely wrong. I have given up
trying to explain. My message have always been "IETF can review the
documents and/or write a generic document on operations" and this have lead
to the new proposed charter you saw.

I get requests every second day on "can not the ENUM wg write a document on
how to use, or not use CNAME, DNAME and NS records".

So, I rather see that, like this ITU document, the documents get a review
by the participants on this mailing list which I claim have better clue on
DNS operations.

   paf

---

From: Tony Rutkowski <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2001 07:40:36 -0400

>by the participants on this mailing list which I claim have better clue on

Patrik,

That's altruistic of you, but what's wrong with
letting the marketplace deal with these matters -
like just about every other protocol?  This would
seem to be particularly the case where the end user
interest is minimal, the market unknown, and very
divergent views exist about what's viable.

Typically working groups (at least in the IETF) are
not kept around forever writing informational documents
waxing poetic about perceived foibles in the marketplace
and how some concept of world order can be maintained.

--tony

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2001 07:46:45 -0700

At 04:40 AM 10/27/2001, Tony Rutkowski wrote:
>like just about every other protocol?

Tony, please do not distort what someone else says and please do not invent 
exceptions that do not exist.

The path the Patrik outlined is quite common during early stages of 
adoption/deployment for new IETF work.

Presumably with your long experience with the Internet, you already know 
that.  Presumably, you re-directed Patrick's response for some other reason.

Presumably your current line of attack has run its course.  Please find a 
new one.

d/

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

---

From: "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2001 11:55:17 -0500

----- Original Message -----
From: "Tony Rutkowski" <[email-masked]>

Patrik,

-----

Some people claim the IETF is technical.
Dave Crocker once said at an IETF meeting in Chicago, "It's all just
marketing".

OK, let's let the marketplace decide which companies should
run the servers (including .COM) on the IPv6 Next Generation Internet.

Jim Fleming
Protect your .COM name....on the Next Generation Internet
http://www.DOT-BIZ.com/COM
0:201 - COM World