Subject: [Enum] WG last call on IANA registration IAX

From: "Richard Shockey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2008 12:31:48 -0400

Title                 : IANA Registration for IAX Enumservice

      Author(s)       : E. Guy

      Filename        : draft-ietf-enum-iax-04.txt

      Pages           : 9

      Date            : 2008-06-17

This document registers the IAX Enumservice using the URI scheme 'iax:' as
per the IANA registration process defined in the ENUM specification RFC3761.

A URL for this Internet-Draft is:

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-enum-iax-04.txt

The intent of the last call is to solicit comments before submitting the ID
to the IESG as a Proposed Standard.

The purpose of a working group Last Call is in the style of "speak now or
forever hold your peace" in case there are fundamental objections which have
not gotten previous or adequate discussion, or minor errors which need
correction.

Work group last call will extend for 2 weeks or so from today June 17 2008
until though we can modify that if new issues come up.

Richard Shockey

Director, Member of the Technical Staff

NeuStar

46000 Center Oak Plaza - Sterling, VA 20166 PSTN Office +1 571.434.5651 PSTN
Mobile: +1 703.593.2683
<mailto:richard(at)shockey.us<richard%28at%29shockey.us>>
<mailto:richard.shockey(at)neustar.biz <richard.shockey%28at%29neustar.biz>>
_______________________________________________
enum mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum

---

From: Peter Koch <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2008 18:58:27 +0200

> to the IESG as a Proposed Standard.

This draft has a normative reference to draft-guy-iax-04, which is in the
RFC editor queue <http://www.rfc-editor.org/queue.html#draft-guy-iax>
waiting for publication as an Informational RFC.

Since the normative reference is correct, how is the downref going
to be handled?
Wouldn't this be a good candidate for a preliminary processing under the
"ENUM service guidelines" document?

NIT: The NAPTR RRs should use the '(' ')' syntax instead of '\' as
     a line end escape (RFC 1035, section 5.1), i.e.:

     $ORIGIN 8.4.1.0.6.4.9.7.0.2.4.4.e164.arpa.

     @     IN NAPTR ( 10 100 "u" "E2U+iax:iax"
                  "!^.*$!iax:example.com/chas!" . )

-Peter

---

From: "Richard Shockey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2008 13:12:31 -0400

>  -----Original Message-----
>  From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf
>  Of Peter Koch
>  Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2008 12:58 PM
>  To: IETF ENUM WG
>  Subject: Re: [Enum] WG last call on IANA registration IAX
>  

Good question ..

>  "ENUM service guidelines" document?

Sure ..but are we sufficiently ready to go to last call after Dublin??

---

From: Lawrence Conroy <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 4 Jul 2008 00:31:52 +0100

Hi Richard, folks

> Good question ..

The current situation in which an Enumservice has to be on the Standards
Track seems unduly rigid in this case, as the IAX protocol (and thus the
URI scheme) is always going to be Informational. There is a spec to  
cover
IAX and thus to specify the URI scheme. The protocol has been in use  
for ages.

Peter also wrote:
>> Wouldn't this be a good candidate for a preliminary processing  
>> under the "ENUM service guidelines" document?
> Sure ..but are we sufficiently ready to go to last call after Dublin??

Pullleeeeese - make the pain stop. If the new Enumservice registration
guide and process is not ready to approve now, it never will be.
I haven't seen anyone come up with a problem with the guide. I'm not  
even
sure that we need to wait for the end of the (Outside) Dublin meeting to
start the WGLC. It will wait in the RFC Editor queue anyway, as it has a
normative reference to 3761bis (no surprise there :).

Even starting the WGLC on the guide now, how long d'you reckon it will  
be
before ANY Enumservice can go through the new process and make it onto
the IANA Enumservice registry?

The IAX Enumservice is useful, is correct, and to block it because it
uses a URI scheme with an Informational Specification is not reasonable.

It is even more cruel and unusual punishment to to make it wait some
time until the WG is done with the guide, then the IETF is done, then
the IESG approves the guide, then the RFC Editor does his/her stuff,
then IANA gets the Enumservice Registry process ready, then the IESG
selects an expert, then Ed Guy has to go through the process again by
submitting it to the ENUM list, waiting for feedback, then sending it
and the template to IANA, then IANA has to pass this to the expert,
then that expert has to approve the request, then IANA has to process
this report and has to update the registry.

All because it has a necessary and reasonable downref to the (obviously)
Informational IAX protocol and URI scheme?
C'mon.

all the best,
   Lawrence