Subject: Re: [Enum] TEL URL enumservice registration document

From: Patrik Fältström <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 08:36:50 +0100

On fredag, jan 31, 2003, at 19:40 Europe/Stockholm, Richard Shockey 
wrote:

> It was recently pointed out to me privately that we have no example in 
> 2916bis of a TEL URL.  The question was posed  .."are we going to 
> allow termination to non IP endpoints?"

Another thing, as Richard wrote, the answer to this question is 
obviously "yes", but it also scares me that the question is asked in 
the first place.

I thought it very clearly said that (a) any URI scheme can be used (b) 
enum services need to be registered via specific explicit documents.

Suggestions to changes to the document so it is clearer is appreciated. 
Silence is taken as "the document is fine as is".

Richard has as wg chair told me as editor of the document that he want 
one last version now, before Feb 24, so we can get 2916bis out the door.

It is needed, and I agree with him. We can not live with RFC 2916 any 
longer.

     paf

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

---

From: Patrik Fältström <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 12:19:57 +0100

wrote:

> The answer to that obviously yes but I believe the authors wanted to 
> keep the examples in 2916bis to a minimum as not to create undue 
> confusion.

...and only include examples which are (a) sent in from people which 
request them (b) having strong support in the community.

What has happened with examples in RFC 2916 is that people read the 
examples and not the text in the document. That together with people 
not understanding the word "example" has created problems.

I rather have a (boring) document specifying the minimum needed for 
implementation, and then later a different document on "practices" 
which can explain how the standard is used.

    paf

---

From: Richard Shockey <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 13:25:16 -0500

>enum services need to be registered via specific explicit documents.

And the procedure for those documents are outlined in 2916bis

>Silence is taken as "the document is fine as is".

Yes.. as the non author chair this is exactly how I will interpret rough 
consensus in determining whether to request last call.  The only remaining 
issue is the language in the security considerations on what level of 
DNSSEC support should be implemented and when based on the status of the 
relevant DNSSEC documents and reports on experimental implementations.

>Richard has as wg chair told me as editor of the document that he want one 
>last version now, before Feb 24, so we can get 2916bis out the door.
>
>It is needed, and I agree with him. We can not live with RFC 2916 any longer.

Yes thank you for pointing this out again ... it is my intention to request 
last call on 2916bis ..after we see the 04 revisions ..barring no problems 
...at the earliest possible date..

Richard Shockey, Senior Manager, Strategic Technology Initiatives
NeuStar Inc.
46000 Center Oak Plaza  -   Sterling, VA  20166
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>
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<