Subject: [Enum] (Non)-Progress of certain Enumservices

From: "Stastny Richard" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2005 18:07:21 -0400

Dear all,
 
after Lawrence Conroy's recent post regarding the progress of the VOVI draft,
I want to add the question about the (non)-progress of the other I-D's
related to Enumservices urgently required:
 
ENUM is already implemented as commercial service in some countries
and others will follow until the end of this year.
 
The Enumservices used within these implementations are defined in 
ETSI TS 102 172, but not even half of these Enumservices are decribed i
n RFCs yet (sip, h323, pres, web and ft).
 
Important Enumservices used and required are still only in draft status 
(msg, fax, ifax, sms, mms, void,...). 
sms and mms are also very important for the upcoming implementations 
by 3GPP.
 
In detail:
 
The msg draft:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-enum-msg-04.txt
Last activity 2005-02-16 by Harald:
Version -04 satisfies my concerns about references for mailed *MS messages, 
and has also addressed the reviewer's significant commment. 

The void draft:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-enum-void-00.txt
Last activity WGLC 2005-02-03 (ended 2005-02-21)
Current Status still I-D Exists AND SHEPHERDING AD NOT ASSIGNED YET
 
Just for completeness:
The ifax draft:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-fax-faxservice-enum-03.txt
In RFC Ed Queue since 2004-07-12 ?!?
 
I therefore request a clear position from the IESG whether
A. the IESG is still supportive of progess of ENUM
B. the IESG is not intersted in ENUM anymore
C. the IESG is objecting further progress in ENUM
 
In case A. I would like to see some progress soon.
 
In case of  B. or C. the IESG should say so, saving me. my company
and others unnecessary waste of manpower and travelling expenses
in the future. In this case I would propose to shift further work to
ETSI and continue the work in ETSI TS 102 172.
 
Richard Stastny

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

---

From: Allison Mankin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2005 20:18:49 -0400

Inline

> after Lawrence Conroy's recent post regarding the progress of the VOVI =
> draft,

> Version -04 satisfies my concerns about references for mailed *MS
> messages,> and has also addressed the reviewer's significant commment.
> 
There is also still Ted's Discuss comment unaddressed, as you
and I discussed in our verbal conversation in Minneapolis.  This
is not only only fax: and tel: but also about a resolution on
the uri usage related to mms and smtp interworking.  Please review
the comment again, and perhaps the time has come to have a teleconference
of Ted, you authors, the Chairs (if they want to get involved now, as
not before), and me.

> Current Status still I-D Exists AND SHEPHERDING AD NOT ASSIGNED YET

The I-D Exists or AD is Watching state (which is the only other state
I could give it while in pre-WGLC or WGLC) are pretty similar.
I eagerly await your the Chairs asking for the IETF Last Call.  I 
believe that no such mail has come to iesg-secretary and myself (or
just iesg-secretary).  If it had, the draft would be logged in 
properly to me and would have Publication Requested and we would go
ahead with it.

> Just for completeness:
> The ifax draft:
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-fax-faxservice-enum-03.txt=
> 

Bad situation, stuck on a normative reference.  Had you called
my attention to this, I would have tried to negotiate removal of
the normative reference earlier.  I hate to sound like a bureaucrat,
but I don't have a natural reason to look at the fax WG's document in
the queue :(

Question:  (which I asked you in Minneapolis):  what are
your publication reference deadlines for these enumservice references?  

> A. the IESG is still supportive of progess of ENUM

Very much so.  Absolutely. 

> B. the IESG is not intersted in ENUM anymore

Not the case.

> C. the IESG is objecting further progress in ENUM

No, of course not.

> In case A. I would like to see some progress soon.

Yes, I support that too.

> ETSI and continue the work in ETSI TS 102 172.

The conditions of RFC 3761 require the enumservices to be developed
as IETF RFC's.

RFC publication (time spent in the RFC Editor queue) is not in IESG control,
short of asking for expedited dates when there is another publication
requiring the reference.  Please let me know if specific ETSI or 3GPP
reference deadlines for these documents require us requesting expedited
publication of the approved documents.

Supporting consensus enumservices through the IETF is very much an IESG
desire and goal.  It's what we chartered the WG to do.  

Allison

---

From: Richard Shockey <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 23 Apr 2005 13:32:54 -0400

The I-D Exists or AD is Watching state (which is the only other state
I could give it while in pre-WGLC or WGLC) are pretty similar.
I eagerly await your the Chairs asking for the IETF Last Call.  I
believe that no such mail has come to iesg-secretary and myself (or
just iesg-secretary).  If it had, the draft would be logged in
properly to me and would have Publication Requested and we would go
ahead with it.
For some inexplicable reason I did not submit the request for publication 
after Last Call concluded.
This situation has been dealt with.

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