Subject: Re: [Enum] drafts you pointed out

From: Richard Shockey <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2001 17:53:38 -0500

At 01:52 PM 11/1/2001 -0800, Kevin McCandless wrote:
>Rich:
>
>I spent some time reviewing the drafts you shared with the ENUM list.  It 
>is not clear how any of these address what valid NAPTR records are.

It defines NAPTR records we have to define what valid protocol+service are 
appropriate for ENUM

>  NetNumber's "ENUM Resolution Protocols and Services" document does 
> attempt to address this question but definitely needs more work; 
> especially in light of Jonathan's comments.   It would appear that ENUM 
> working group is not stepping on other working groups toes by addressing 
> this issue and actually brings in input from the other working groups.

dont get me wrong I thing Ranalli/Walter  ENUM RPS is a fine contribution 
TKS guys !! ... its creating exactly the right type of discussion on a real 
technical issue that needs to be fixed now.

>
>In terms of a meeting, we will have at least one draft to discuss plus 
>some valued scope issues.  The ENUM Forum is working on a informational 
>draft on our efforts today and are interested in sharing that in Salt Lake.

Put it out as an ID ASAP .... !!

Well my personal opinion is that it is premature to have a formal ENUM WG 
meeting during the general IETF in SLC because...

A. revised charter has not been approved by the IESG

B. we have only one document to discuss and ID closing is Nov 9 and real 
discussion on it has just only started

C. getting meeting rooms at this late date might be tough

IMHO it makes more sense to have several working items and wait for a face 
to face in Minneapolis

I know you would like to meet but I haven't heard any more voices about 
clamoring about this.... but WG chair hat off for a moment I hum no.

WG hat on ..... if there is real consensus we have to meet ... then time is 
really really short and I'd have to see some agenda items etc ...

>
>drafts reviewed from the list you sent out:
>draft-ietf-urn-uri-res-ddds-05.txt
>draft-ietf-urn-ddds-05.txt
>draft-ietf-urn-ddds-toc-00.txt
>draft-ietf-vpim-address-02.txt
>draft-ietf-vpim-routing-02.txt

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>
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

---

From: Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 03 Nov 2001 09:06:14 -0500

Howdy everyone,

Here's what I've seen (while being busy doing something else):

Richard Stastny forwarded a (German) proposal that mentioned copyright,
Mark Harris asked a "opt-in" sort of subscriber-publication follow-up,
Ray Anderson cited advice concerning EU law,
Dan Wing asked if an endpoint identifier (number) is personally identifying
information (yes),
Clive Feather commented that 97/66/EC is inapplicable (incorrectly),
Jim Ried commented on "ownership" and existentialism (see below) and also
the scope of 97/66/EC (correctly).

Some informal notes:

	Copyright (or property) isn't the controlling legal theory for
	EU data protection ("privacy" for the US- and OECD-centric).

	Three approaches exist to the problem of "pivacy" and/or data
	protection: a consumer fraud approach (US FTC), a human rights
	approach (EU 95/46/EC [1] and its sequela, e.g., directories),
	and the OECD Guidelines [2] , that lie somewhere between these
	two, in theory, scope and detail.

	I commend to the interested both the general and specific data
	directives, and also the directory and public key directives.

How I come to have an opinion on the subject:

	I've been an active participant in the W3C's P3P Specification
	and Policy Working Groups since leaving Nokia Research and joining
	Engage, an ad network operator. I co-authored another user profile
	onward-transport (registry provisioning) standard [3]. I've worked
	with the WAPF, W3C, and the DNS registry provisioning and extensions
	working groups (provreg and dnsext), and co-chair a moving-towards
	working group activity that is focused on "fixing" the whois protocol.

	I did one year of law school, at a fly-by-night non-accredited law
	school, so where attornies opine or give legal advice on this list
	and I differ with an attorney's opinion or legal advice, mine is a
	non-lawyer opinion.

Full Disclosure:

	I get a paycheck every 14 days from NeuStar. I don't use their
	email system however and theres gobs of things I don't know about
	everything.

It isn't necessary to speculate on the applicable law. There are some well
informed people either on the ENUM list, or easily available to this working
group. Well, the kids need playing with, have a nice weekend everyone.

Cheers,
Eric

[1] http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/fr/lif/dat/1995/fr_395L0046.html
[2] http://www1.oecd.org/dsti/sti/it/secur/prod/priv-fr.html
[3] http://www.cpexchange.org/standard/

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