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

From: Richard Shockey <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 13:19:42 -0500

>
>I've had an off-list conversation with both 2916bis editors (Patrik and
>Michael) asking a similar question: would it be possible to make 2916bis
>completely policy/implementation neutral (basically removing mention of a
>specific rooting point in the DNS hierarchy), and perhaps writing a second
>e164.arpa implementation profile document?  In the provreg WG we had many
>interesting discussions surrounding domain name registration policy vs.
>policy-neutral protocol, and I personally found it very helpful to try to
>separate the two wherever possible.  A similar split _might_ help us focus
>on technical protocol issues in 2916bis rather than perceived policy issues.

IMHO the answer to that is NO.

The two issues of domain and implementation are totally inseparable as it 
is in the case of other core infrastructure issues such as IPv6.arpa.

The suggestion, however thoughtful and well meaning, is a Trojan horse for 
the desire of some to stop the deployment of e164.arpa.

Now if we can get back to our regularly scheduled programming....

>-Scott-

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 +1 571.434.5651 Cell : +1 314.503.0640,  Fax: +1 815.333.1237
<mailto: [email-masked]> or
<mailto: [email-masked]>
<http://www.neustar.biz>
<http://www.enum.org>
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

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

---

From: "Mark Harris" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 15:02:13 -0500

Hi Richard:

>the desire of some to stop the deployment of e164.arpa.

If 2916 became policy-neutral, by removing the mandated TLD of ".arpa",
and then "allowed" other implementations, like NetNumber's e164.com (and
others)
to be "officially" considered ENUM, how would that be a Trojan horse for
e164.arpa?

Wouldn't that change, actually allow ENUM (at-large) to thrive...?

Also, who are these Trojans that you are talking about above?

Regards,
Mark

Mark Harris
www.EnumForums.org