Subject: [Enum] MEMORANDUM

From: lconroy <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2007 15:17:35 +0000

Hi esteemed co-chairs, Richard,
The status of the MEMORANDUM included in message:
<http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/enum/current/msg05529.html>:
is unstated, and there are open questions for clarification prior
to any substantive comments.

Q:  Are the subscribers to this ENUM ML to assume that comments sent to
this list will be considered by the recipients of the MEMORANDUM, or
that comments should be copied to the IETF-gen ML, or that comments
should be copied to the [email-masked] and/or [email-masked] exploders?

Richard mentioned (in an earlier post to this list) that ITU-T SG2
has an ad-hoc correspondence group awaiting incoming Liaison statements.
See <http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/enum/current/msg05527.html>.

Q:  Is this MEMORANDUM to be used as the basis for any Liaison from  
IAB/IESG
to the ITU-T SG2 ad-hoc correspondence group?

There are many separate statements in the MEMORANDUM, and at least a  
summary
presentation on what the situation is (and why all of it's statements  
are
needed when considering Infrastructure ENUM) would be useful BEFORE any
Liaison is issued. This is not clear at present (at least to me).

Q:  Is there an intention for a Liaison to be sent to the ITU-T SG2  
on this
topic before the Prague meeting?

all the best,
   Lawrence

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

---

From: "Richard Shockey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2007 11:59:43 -0500

> -----Original Message-----
> From: lconroy [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Saturday, February 17, 2007 10:18 AM
> To: IETF ENUM WG; Richard Shockey; Patrik Fältström
> Cc: Richard Stastny
> Subject: [Enum] MEMORANDUM
> 

This is a personal memorandum by Patrick and myself in our capacity as ENUM
WG chairs to IETF management. As such it has no official status. It is not,
you will note, an ID. 

The Memorandum was posted to the list as a courtesy. You will notice I said
FYI. 

> should be copied to the [email-masked] and/or [email-masked] exploders?

You can send any comments you want to whomever you want to. 

However if you or any member of this list wants to comment on the Memorandum
on this list you are certainly free to do. Patrik and I can advise the
IAB/IESG that an ongoing discussion of issues raised by this document is
occurring on this list and any member of the IAB/IESG that wants to monitor
the discussion can do so.

> IAB/IESG to the ITU-T SG2 ad-hoc correspondence group?

That is entirely up to IAB/IESG. 

> summary presentation on what the situation is (and why all of it's
statements are needed when considering Infrastructure ENUM) would be useful
BEFORE any Liaison is issued. This is not clear at present (at least to me).

These are personal observations by myself and Patrik.  Many members of the
IAB/IESG are not familiar with the context in which the Infrastructure ENUM
documents were written. We have provided them with our personal views of the
current situation with our personal recommendations. 

> on this topic before the Prague meeting?

That is entirely up to the IAB/IESG but given the timing of issues and
management turnover given this NOMCOM cycle I would doubt it.