Subject: [Enum] Future ENUMservice registration process; your feedback is appeciated!

From: Bernie Hoeneisen <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2007 16:39:15 +0200 (CEST)

Hi members of the ENUM Working Group!

On request of our AD (Jon) in Prague we've been looking into the options 
of performing ENUMservice registrations after the ENUM working group has 
been shut down or changed into a dormant state. Text below is a *very 
rough* sketch of the issues and ideas around this, and we'd definitely 
appreciate feedback on this.

The sketch is split in two parts - a potential process flow for 
Enumservice registrations, and questions which need to be answered before 
a process is agreed. It probably makes more sense to answer the questions 
first.

If anybody has more questions, or entirely different ideas, *please* step 
forward and post them.

Rough idea for a future ENUMservice registration process
--------------------------------------------------------

The process should perform the function of Enumservice registration, under 
the aspect that no responsible WG exists ("standalone Registration"?) 
without curtailing the requirements from RFC3761 regarding the 
registration process. A rough outline could look like:

1) Write a new Internet-Draft, according to the principles set out in
    RFC3761 and draft-ietf-enum-enumservices-guide.

2) announce the draft on the [email-masked] list (which will survive the
    working group)
    [option - make an "[email-masked]" mailing list]

3) ask for feedback/review on the list

4) submit the draft as an individual submission to the
    RFC editor || IESG || IANA.

5) At least one expert from a pool of Enumservices experts to review
    the document/service.

6) If the experts agree that this is a useful service (or, can be
    developed into one), the document proceeds directly to
    IESG evaluation (or directly to RFC Editor?)

Open Questions:
---------------

1) Which process applies ("normal" Submission or independent submission)?
    To whom the I-D is submitted ( IESG || IANA || RFC-Editor )?
    Who is in charge of the process? Who is the contact to the author(s)?

2) Independent submission or RAI area WG submission (or similar) or
    sleeping WG?
    Are there similar cases of the same problem (e.g. 2929bis)?
    (According to RFC3761 an Enumservice registrations needs to be
    Standards Track)

3) Do we want to have an expert review in the process? If yes,
    at which state in the process the Expert review is performed?
    What is the exact task of the expert (just syntax, completeness, or
    also appropriateness and similar)?
    Is expert review cunsultance or deciding? Who decides at the end?
    IESG? IANA?
    Is the Expert review needed in every case?

4) As an alternative to experts, a directorate could perform reviews by
    request of the IESG. There are potentially two options for that:
     a) create a dedicated ENUM directorate
     b) approach the DNS directorate whether they could/would do the
         ENUMservices reviews
     Actual question: Is the concept of a directorate viable for reviewing
     Enumservice registrations?

Links:
- http://www.rfc-editor.org/indsubs.html
- ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/internet-drafts/draft-iab-rfc-independent-00.txt
- ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/rfc-editor/rfc-editor-process.gif
- https://datatracker.ietf.org/images/state_diagram.gif
- http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3761.txt
- http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-enum-enumservices-guide-03.txt

Looking forward to your feedback and answers!
  Alex & Bernie

PS: Thanks to Andy Newton for reviewing and contributing to our ideas!

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

---

From: "Richard Shockey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2007 11:30:14 -0400

A few personal notes here but Bernie again you are right again.. there needs
to be a little AD guidance here.

The key here if I recall Jon's ideas were that we were to be very explicit
on what are the appropriate criterion necessary for registration and state
the general case of security considerations for all enumservices.

Document both use case and examples in the registration template etc.

I think the proper place to start is looking at the process for registering
MIME media types.

Creation of a new list is probably a good idea but typically the IESG
appoints a committee or a "master" that reviews this stuff outside the
general scope of direct IESG review. Certainly an AD is appointed to oversee
the process but individual RFC are not required.

Again the AD are going to have to deliver some guidance here.

IMHO Expert review > IESG > IANA

Open Questions:
---------------

Expert review board or individual, I would guess. That would require as you
point out a new mail list.

IMHO all of the above.

Yep good question. But it will probably be the supervising AD of the expert
review committee.

IMHO YES

Maybe ...

Links:
-
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-enum-enumservices-guide-03.tx
t