Subject: Re: [Enum] ENUM individual draft on root domain.

From: Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 10:37:40 -0500

I'm having a bad ID week.

First it was draft-regretable-junk-and-immigration-policy-00.txt, in which
string value pairs were introduced as "new parameters" to a provisioning
protocol that is XML-based, no doubt because schemas and validation tools
are useless clutter, namespaced mechanism scope hadn't been invented, and
some state's policy needed to see the light of day with an ISOC copyright
as an IETF ID.

Today it is draft-holy-sed-script-00.txt, in which s/\.arpa/\.foo/ is
retroactively applied to 2916, no doubt because there really is a value
proposition in a spelling mistake, and some state's policy needs to see
the light of day with an ISOC copyright as an IETF ID.

The practice of vanity publication of "Internet Drafts" as corporate posture
to be "spun" before some clue-limited regulatory body, is an abuse of this
body. Seriously bad memos (Simon Higgs' comes to mind) have been unpublished. 
Both of these are reasonable candidates for de-listing. I'd like to see some
abuses of this body moved to historic status.

Eric

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

---

From: Michael Mealling <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 11:07:49 -0500

> I'm having a bad ID week.

You're not the only one....

> the light of day with an ISOC copyright as an IETF ID.

I had some input into this document and to be fair it is making a point
that isn't to divisive. Yes, it could have possibly been made as a point
on the mailing list but this way its raised the point a little higher.
There's nothing wrong with that.

> abuses of this body moved to historic status.

There's a tradeoff here. In many situations the IETF has a long tradition
of using drafts to contribute to the debate. If someone has enough conviction
behind their idea or point to go through the trouble of putting it in ID form 
and having it in the repository then IMHO that's a good thing. Having a document
like this in the repository doesn't hurt anyone (especially if it is NOT
on the WG's agenda).

In the new comers orientation we tell new IETF participants that there
are two ways to contribute to a WG: participate on the mailing list
or publish an ID. Bill and Kevin are new to this whole IETF process as 
are many on this list. When they first came here they were told that
this is the way to add to the discussion in a really substantive way.
Heck, the IESG has long had a semi-formal policy that if it ain't
in the repository then it simply doesn't exist as far as they're concerned.

Did this document warrant being on the WG's list of documents? No. But
does it deserve derision for being submitted as an ID? No. And that goes
for any other document in the repository...

If the issue is 'vanity publication of "Internet Drafts" then we need
to ban the entire practice of April Fools drafts...

Its just a draft Eric....

-MM

-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Mealling	|      Vote Libertarian!       | urn:pin:1
[email-masked]      |                              | http://www.neonym.net

---

From: Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 11:36:53 -0500

> in the repository then it simply doesn't exist as far as they're concerned.

From the WG document change control perspective, the IESG doesn't exist until
the memo is WG LC'd. WG start-up, shut-down, and other process exceptions
ignored. Symmetry is good.

> for any other document in the repository...

Not all ideas are created equal. In particular, the cardinality of drafts
that have been removed for reasons other than author withdrawal and expiry
is greater than zero. A whole ID for an application of sed with a pattern
space of four characters and a substitute string of three is ... an ID for
seven magnificent characters.

> to ban the entire practice of April Fools drafts...

Now that is something I'd like to see you suggest during plenary open-mic
time, the response would be entertaining. Bring band aides and an analgesic,
and enough of the latter to share.

EOT for me.

Eric

---

From: "Mark Harris" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 11:53:07 -0500

Hi Eric:

>the light of day with an ISOC copyright as an IETF ID.

Actually, the ".arpa" in 2916 should be changed to ".foo", for a few
good reasons:

1) The whole ".int" vs. ".arpa" debate.

2) Some people seem to believe that if ".arpa" is changed to ".int" or
even "e164.com", that it is no longer using the ENUM protocol,
which is an obvious misunderstanding.

I don't think that anyone on this list would argue that e164.com or even
enum.org isn't using the ENUM protocol, but some, in other forums have
tried to say, that if it isn't in ".arpa" than it's not the ENUM standard.

Making that simple change could allow anyone to take advantage of the
ENUM protocol; Private or Public, ITU-level, Country-level or even corporate
implementers, would then, if fact, be using the ENUM standard.

Have A Great Day!

Mark

Mark Harris
www.EnumForums.org

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 09:49:15 -0800

> Actually, the ".arpa" in 2916 should be changed to ".foo", for a few

it should not.  see IAB decision.

> 1) The whole ".int" vs. ".arpa" debate.

there is no debate.  it was a consensus decision.  not everyone agreed.
that's life.

> which is an obvious misunderstanding.

no.  enum is specifically the use of dns in the e164.arpa domain.

e164.co.ke, or any other zone than e164.arpa, is use of the dns for
something else.

but we do have sympathy for your political and commercial interests.

randy

---

From: Michael Mealling <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 13:17:37 -0500

> it should not.  see IAB decision.

PLEASE re-read the latest version. This entire thread has completely
misunderstood the purpose of that document.....

> e164.co.ke, or any other zone than e164.arpa, is use of the dns for

The only thing that draft is saying is that any udpate to RFC2916 should be
cognizant of the debate and that the IAB in conjunction with the ITU might 
change their mind in the future. It never says that it should be something 
beyond what the IAB/ITU says it is or that it should be a multi-valued
property.

-MM