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

From: Kevin McCandless <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 06:49:40 -0800

resending to correct email address.
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Kevin McCandless 
Sent: Friday, February 22, 2002 8:46 AM
To: [email-masked]'
Cc: [email-masked]'
Subject: ENUM individual draft on root domain.

Here is the link to the updated draft from Bill and myself on ENUM root
domain.  We wanted to share our opinions and thoughts with you on this
issue.
 
You can find the updated draft at the URL below.
 
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-dutcher-enum-root-domain-01.txt
<http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-dutcher-enum-root-domain-01.txt> 
 
Sincerely,
 
Kevin........

---

From: "Hollenbeck, Scott" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 13:23:12 -0500

> From: Richard Shockey [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Friday, February 22, 2002 1:20 PM
> To: Hollenbeck, Scott; [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: [Enum] ENUM individual draft on root domain. 
> 
> 
> 
> The suggestion, however thoughtful and well meaning, is a Trojan horse for

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

Completely false.  I plainly suggested development of a companion e164.arpa
implementation profile to _support_ deployment in e164.arpa.  You might
disagree with the utility of the separation, but please don't cast
aspersions where they don't belong.

-Scott-

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

---

From: Patrik Fältström <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 19:42:10 +0100

--On 2002-02-22 11.53 -0500 Mark Harris <[email-masked]> wrote:

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

No. The domain name e164.arpa is decided by the IAB, and what is in use.

Please see relevant documents from IAB talking about this issue.

> 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.

If one is not using e164.arpa you are not following RFC 2916, and therefore
you are not compliant to the ENUM standard.

Not e164.arpa, not ENUM. Full stop.

See section 1.2 in 2916bis.

   paf -- co-chair of the enum wg

---

From: Richard Shockey <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 13:55:05 -0500

A
>aspersions where they don't belong.

Please do accept my humblest apologies ...I did not mean to suggest you 
personally or professionally in any way.

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

---

From: "Hollenbeck, Scott" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 16:54:55 -0500

> From: Patrik Fältström [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Friday, February 22, 2002 3:43 PM
> Reason I asked was because I didn't understand how you wanted the text to
> fit together with what I say in section 1.2.
> 
> I now understand you think this is not connected, or?

Ahh, OK.  Looking at 1.2 I'll recraft the sentence a bit.  How about
changing this:

"This document specifies how "ENUM" works, that is how to handle numbers
allocated according to the ITU-T standard E.164."

to this:

"This document specifies the "ENUM System", that is, procedures and
infrastructure that provide a service that can convert numbers allocated
according to the ITU-T standard E.164 into Uniform Resource Identifiers."

I think it's important to emphasize the _system_ aspect if the document is
to remain structurally as-is.

-Scott-

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 22:33:33 -0800

At 12:09 PM 2/22/2002 -0500, Hollenbeck, Scott wrote:
>  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?

Scott,

Thank you for making this point.

It's scaling properties are quite interesting.

Being clear about policy versus protocol is important.  Deciding what, 
exactly, is really amenable to separation is sometimes a challenge.

That's why I believe that email should specify a protocol with semantics 
about the originator, but giving users the freedom to implement different 
policies for choosing the name of the originator field.  After all, people 
use different languages, so you and I might like From but the French and 
Spanish might prefer De, and the Malaysians are like to want Dari.

At 04:28 PM 2/22/2002 -0500, Tony Rutkowski wrote:
>Hi Patrik,
>You might look at the RBL services arena - which is
>very much DNS based,

Hi, Tony.  This is easily your most creative entropy-inducing effort to 
date.  Either that, or it is your most non-sequitorish effort to date.

>Providers and customers do work these things out in
>the marketplace without the need for governmental
>intervention to bless somebody's best-loved namespace.

Perhaps this explains the difficulties you have with IETF process.  You 
seem unaware that it is a voluntary collaborative effort, with no 
enforcement powers.

The fact that it produces specifications that make constrained, direct 
decisions -- rather than leaving everything open for future negotiation -- 
does not change the community basis of its adoption and use.  (Offhand, the 
EDI standards world is probably best suited to the model you appear to be 
espousing.)

Perhaps you have not noticed that one of that actual benefits of the IETF 
work is that it does not do the kind of technical equivocation you 
seek.  No doubt your early training in other standards venues made it 
difficult to appreciate this point of distinction.  After all, five 
different connection-oriented transport protocols clearly would have been 
superior to the IETF's constraint to only one.

And hence, dear Tony, you need to take your political concerns to places 
that match the criteria you object to.  The IETF is not one of them.

d/

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

---

From: "Hollenbeck, Scott" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2002 09:58:57 -0500

> Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2002 2:40 AM
> Michael privately to me suggested the following change based 
> on input from
> you, and I liked the change. This was sent from him to me in 
> the very last
> second before the draft had to be submitted before the cutoff. I don't
> think the change made it, but in that case we will change 
> text in 1.2 after
> the IETF meeting.
> 
> Please think about what (kind) of change make you happy. The 
> one below is a
> suggestion from Michael..

[snip]

Michael and I exchange some off-list mail on the same text.  The change
suggested makes the point that I think needed to be reinforced; I'm OK with
it.

-Scott-