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

From: "Zmolek, Andrew (Andrew)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 09:26:43 -0700

> I wonder if the Service tags (Ranelli) presentation should come 
> first, followed by the SRS one, followed by the SIP one, followed 
> by Rudi's TEL one.

I agree with Lawrence that the SIP presentation probably makes more
sense after the SRS one than  before.

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

            [email-masked] 
              +1 720 444 4001 

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

---

From: Patrik Fältström <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 04 Mar 2002 18:32:57 +0100

> sense after the SRS one than  before.

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. After the meeting, the proposed resolution(s) are sent to the
mailing list so people which will not come to Minneapolis can come with
input.

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 you feel have been brought up on
this list no later than 1 week before the WG meeting so we know what we
will discuss.

    paf

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 04 Mar 2002 10:33:01 -0800

At 06:32 PM 3/4/2002 +0100, Patrik Fältström wrote:
>meeting...
>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

---

From: Richard Shockey <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 05 Mar 2002 12:42:59 -0500

At 10:33 AM 3/4/2002 -0800, Dave Crocker wrote:
>that they must provide more general

I certainly concur with this ... the sense I have is that there are general 
issues with the what service fields are appropriate for ENUM and why and 
how in specific cases should records be processed ... aka SIP ...

What are the requirements for service registration ... what is the 
justification for such registrations  given issues of privacy ..what level 
of granularity is necessary ...

this is the beginniing of a general issues resolution list for the service 
drafts etc....any additional suggestions.

In addition I have not seen much comment and suggestion on 2916 bis beyond 
technicial corrections... Patrik had a list of issues that he wanted 
covered ... are we in consensus about these?

################

-Mailman-Version: 1.0
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: Enum Discussion List <enum.ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: [email-masked]

I have here compiled a list of things to be changed to RFC 2916 when
2916bis is created.

(1) It must be made clear that ENUM service is a delegation in the
e164.arpa domain

(2) It must be explained how ENUM-like mechanisms can be used for for
example private dialing plans even though e164.arpa is the tree where ENUM
is located

(3) The use of NAPTR should instead of being some handwaving be a proper
DDDS specification according to the DDDS documents which replaces RFC 2915

(4) A registration mechanism must be created for the first part of the flag
field

(5) Registrations must be made in separate documents for some basic flags,
especially LDAP and TEL which have been asked especially how to handle

(6) Privacy issues must be described more clearly in the security
consideration section which explains that some privacy issues can be
resolved via storage in a secondary storage, like an LDAP database, which
uses an access protocol which can handle authentication and other needed
security mechanisms

(7) Loops must be specified how to detect (i.e. a paragraph should be added
which explains the traditional need for convergence)

(8) Examples must be corrected and made mode clear. For example, there
should be absolutely no confusion about full regular expressions are used.
I.e. any delimiter and any matchingh mechanism can be used

All of this leads to the need for the following document(s) in this wg:

   - 2916bis
   - Registration procedure of ENUM flag fields
   - Flag field registration for whatever needed for TEL URI scheme
   - Flag field registration for whatever needed for SIP URI scheme
   - Flag field registration for whatever needed for MAILTO URI scheme
   - Flag field registration for whatever needed for LDAP URI scheme

I will take care of 2916bis, but as wg co-chair I would appreciate people
interested in working on the other documents.

I suggest we take these 8 issues (and maybe others) as main agenda items on
the IETF meeting in Minneapolis. Further, we add the flag field
discussions, if we have takes, to the agenda aswell.

     paf

>introductions.

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