Subject: RE: [Enum] I've seen no comments on the proposed agenda...

From: "Zmolek, Andrew (Andrew)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 11:49:25 -0700

I agree with Dave and Patrik on this. To that end, it would be nice to
get some guidance from the list regarding how broadly I treat the SRS
discussion. 

Specifically, much of the relevant list discussion has focused on how
"presence" services are exposed in SIP or otherwise. The services
themselves are out-of-scope to ENUM. But a narrower discussion on how
the use of an SRS can relieve ENUM of many privacy and service
capability considerations seems appropriate. 

On the other hand, there seems to be a great deal of interest in
discussing how general-purpose presence is to be realized in conjunction
with ENUM. There are a great many decisions and considerations to be
made here (and the potential for new working groups to be created). To
what degree would the chairs and the participants like to see this wider
issue discussed?

--Andy Zmolek 
    Technology & Standards Engineer 
      CTO Standards 
        Avaya Inc. 

            [email-masked] 
              +1 720 444 4001 

-----Original Message-----
From: Dave Crocker [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Monday, March 04, 2002 11:33 AM
To: Patrik Fältström
Cc: Zmolek, Andrew (Andrew); Lawrence Conroy; Richard Shockey;
[email-masked]
Subject: RE: [Enum] I've seen no comments on the proposed agenda...

At 06:32 PM 3/4/2002 +0100, Patrik Fältström wrote:
>As co-chair, I don't want _presentations_, but use the time for
resolution
>of issues which have been discussed on this mailing list before the
>meeting...
>
>I know it is a detail in what word to use, but...
>
>So, all of you (including myself) which have documents which have been
>discussed, please send a list of issues

Patrik is making such a good suggestion -- requirement, really -- let me

suggest that folks specify exactly what decisions need to be made and
what 
alternatives are available for the decisions.

That way, we will know what to debate, and the presenters will know what

they need to say that is relevant to making decisions, rather than
feeling 
that they must provide more general introductions.

d/

----------
Dave Crocker  <mailto:[email-masked]>
Brandenburg InternetWorking  <http://www.brandenburg.com>
tel +1.408.246.8253;  (new)fax +1.408.850.1850

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

---

From: Patrik Fältström <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 04 Mar 2002 20:02:29 +0100

> capability considerations seems appropriate. 

This is easy.

Anyone which have specific issues with this draft should point out the
_exact_ part of the I-D which they have issues with, and why.

If nothing arrives, the draft is possibly ok.

   paf