Subject: [Enum] What issues do we need to cover/finalize in Minneapolis?

From: "Richard Shockey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2008 13:34:12 -0400

I have a one hour slot allocated on Friday..but do we even need it?

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> 
<mailto:richard.shockey(at)neustar.biz>

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

---

From: Jim Reid <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2008 19:08:38 +0100

> I have a one hour slot allocated on Friday..but do we even need it?

I suppose it depends on whether we have that process for registering  
service types or not, and how well things have progressed with IANA.

Also, what's happening about send-n and the other bits and bobs that  
seem to be clustering around a new DDDS spec? Is this for the enum WG  
or somewhere else?

---

From: "Richard Shockey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2008 15:11:07 -0400

>  -----Original Message-----
>  From: Jim Reid [mailto:[email-masked]]
>  Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2008 2:09 PM
>  To: Richard Shockey
>  Cc: [email-masked]; 'Patrik Fältström'
>  Subject: Re: [Enum] What issues do we need to cover/finalize in
>  Minneapolis?
>  

Well so far so good. I cant imagine an issue that would require face to face
consensus here.

>  seem to be clustering around a new DDDS spec? Is this for the enum WG

Well that’s why I'm asking the question.  The issue of send-n and UNUSED are
un-resolved. 

SOURCE URI is probably out of scope for ENUM at this time

---

From: Lawrence Conroy <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2008 21:45:47 +0100

Hi Richard, folks,
  I do think there is merit to getting face time to try to get the final
nails driven into the coffins of Experiences, 3761bis, the guidelines
doc, and potentially the X- guidelines doc. IMHO, at least summarising  
the
status at the end of that week and agreeing a way forward Would Be Good.
[Also, finalising the way forward for the residual bits and bobs  
CNAM, ... :]

Re Send-N - I had thought that was to be found a home in another groups,
in Apps (as I recall). Does anyone know what happened next?

Re. Unused - as an ex-author, I was reminded forcefully in YVR that I  
have
no say in the disposition of this document. I do, however, have an  
opinion.
Hadriel volunteered to look at this, but I suspect he's busy (and/or has
understood the meaning of the term sisyphean :).
It doesn't obviously fit with any of the categories in the new  
guidelines
document/process (except "other" :).
I believe it's in use already in a number of Infrastructure ENUM schemes
(some of them are using the original Enumservice "void", FGS).
IMHO, it would be good to document this. However, if it simply isn't
going to be accepted in anything like the way it's used in the real
world, is there a point to this effort?
i.e. Has anyone really got the energy to go through the hoops again
when anyone who needs it has already implemented it (sometimes twice ;).

all the best,
   Lawrence

---

From: "Alexander Mayrhofer" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2008 11:27:28 +0200

> I have a one hour slot allocated on Friday..but do we even need it?

I am pretty confident that we will put it to good use. Even if we just re-iterate over the open things and issues..

Alex

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2008 16:23:40 +0100

> in Apps (as I recall). Does anyone know what happened next?

Jon promised to shepherd this and I've been seeking guidance from him on 
how to progress it but so far without response.

Ray

---

From: Peter Koch <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2008 18:43:56 +0200

> I have a one hour slot allocated on Friday..but do we even need it?

my impression in Dublin was that we were rather short of time.  While
there are mostly procedural and organizational questions left, I'm
pretty sure we can usefully fill at least this one hour.

There's the question of "beta testing" the Enumservices guidlines,
minor remaining tweaks to the draft itself as well as dealing with
x-services. Also a summary and status discussion for a couple of the
documents marked as 'active' or 'in iesg review' could be helpful
for the WG to be able to agree on a schedule for winding down.

Also, I'm tempted to propose a moratorium for adopting new or modified
Enumservices.

-Peter

---

From: "Richard Shockey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2008 14:27:48 -0400

OK ... I'm convinced ... if we have relevant agenda items please forward
them to the chairs so we can process started.

>  From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf
>  Of Peter Koch
>  Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2008 12:44 PM
>  To: IETF ENUM WG

---

From: Otmar Lendl <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2008 09:18:24 +0200

> I have a one hour slot allocated on Friday..but do we even need it?

Although, strictly speaking, this is no longer WG business: Can we have an
update on what's holding up the i-enum (combined and plain) documents?

Publication request was 2007-01-22. We're approaching the two-year
anniversary.

/ol
-- 
// Otmar Lendl <[email-masked]>, T: +43 1 5056416 - 33, F: - 933 //
_______________________________________________
enum mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum