Subject: Re: [Enum] Fwd: [vpim] Last Call: 'Voice Messaging Directory Service' to Proposed Standard

From: "Stastny Richard" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 07 Feb 2005 09:04:36 -0500

So once again and officially:
 
I suggest or request the following change to
 http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-vpim-routing-08.txt

to use instead of
enumservice voice:dir 
either 
enumservice vpim:ldap (best choice) or
enumservice vpim:dir
 
Rationale:
'voice' (as an Enumservice type) has already been "booked" in the VOVI
drafts.
Vovi-02 has only just expired, and we haven't yet shipped Vovi-3 only
to refresh
it as we're awaiting clarification on what the heck happened with
Vovi's last call
- this was to have taken place once we updated the draft to reflect
concerns with
Vovi-1, which we did, since which time...

As the Enumservice type 'voice' is the 'top' of the IANA tree, we can't
have two
totally different Enumservices with the same type string, even if they
have different
subtypes.

regards
Richard
PS: could anyone please crosspost to the vpim list

________________________________

Von: enum-bounces at ietf.org im Auftrag von Hollenbeck, Scott
Gesendet: Mo 07.02.2005 13:30
An: 'enum at ietf.org'
Betreff: RE: [Enum] Fwd: [vpim] Last Call: 'Voice Messaging Directory Service' to Proposed Standard 

> well you had better get your comments in now ... personally I
> dont see a
> problem with Greg's definitions.

Even better than comments would be specific suggestions or requested
changes.  These two documents have been sitting around for quite a while.  I
want to get them finished so I can close the VPIM working group.

-Scott-

_______________________________________________
enum mailing list
enum at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum

_______________________________________________
enum mailing list
enum at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum

---

From: lconroy <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 07 Feb 2005 11:54:50 -0500

Hi Scott, Richard, folks,
 Me too :)
With this single change, I think they're good drafts and will be a 
useful addition to the RFC pantheon.

I'd also prefer ldap, as the other <type>:<subtype> proposals have had 
the generated URI scheme as the sub-type. Thus my preference is for::
Enumservice name = "vpim", type = "vpim", sub-type = "ldap", generated 
URI scheme = "ldap:"

all the best,
  Lawrence
On 7 Feb 2005, at 14:05, Stastny Richard wrote:
So once again and officially:
I suggest or request the following change to
 http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-vpim-routing-08.txt
to use instead of enumservice voice:dir
   either
enumservice vpim:ldap (best choice) or
enumservice vpim:dir
Rationale:
'voice' (as an Enumservice type) has already been "booked" in the VOVI 
drafts.
Vovi-02 has only just expired, and we haven't yet shipped Vovi-3 only 
to refresh it as we're awaiting clarification on what the heck 
happened with Vovi's last call - this was to have taken place once we 
updated the draft to reflect concerns with Vovi-1, which we did, since 
which time...

As the Enumservice type 'voice' is the 'top' of the IANA tree, we 
can't have two totally different Enumservices with the same type 
string, even if they have different subtypes.

regards
Richard
PS: could anyone please crosspost to the vpim list
________________________________
Von: enum-bounces at ietf.org im Auftrag von Hollenbeck, Scott
Gesendet: Mo 07.02.2005 13:30
An: 'enum at ietf.org'
Betreff: RE: [Enum] Fwd: [vpim] Last Call: 'Voice Messaging Directory 
Service' to Proposed Standard

changes.  These two documents have been sitting around for quite a 
while.  I

-Scott-
---------------------------------------
lawrence conroy    |tel:+44-1794-833666
_______________________________________________
enum mailing list
enum at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum

---

From: Richard Shockey <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 07 Feb 2005 12:15:07 -0500

At 11:50 AM 2/7/2005, lconroy wrote:
Hi Scott, Richard, folks,
 Me too :)
With this single change, I think they're good drafts and will be a useful 
addition to the RFC pantheon.

I'd also prefer ldap, as the other <type>:<subtype> proposals have had the 
generated URI scheme as the sub-type. Thus my preference is for::
Enumservice name = "vpim", type = "vpim", sub-type = "ldap", generated URI 
scheme = "ldap:"

This certainly works for me as well if Greg has no problem with it.

all the best,
  Lawrence

Richard Shockey, Senior Manager, Strategic Technology Initiatives
NeuStar Inc.
46000 Center Oak Plaza  -   Sterling, VA  20166
sip:rshockey(at)iptel.org   sip:57141 at fwd.pulver.com
ENUM +87810-13313-31331
PSTN Office +1 571.434.5651 PSTN Mobile: +1 703.593.2683,  Fax: +1 815.333.1237
<mailto:richard(at)shockey.us> or <mailto:richard.shockey(at)neustar.biz>
<http://www.neustar.biz> ; <http://www.enum.org>
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
_______________________________________________
enum mailing list
enum at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum