Subject: [Enum] draft-ietf-enum-unused

From: Cullen Jennings <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2009 14:01:54 -0600

Who is working on this draft these days? I need someone to remind me  
of the painful history of this draft.

Thanks, Cullen

---

From: "Richard Shockey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2009 16:14:08 -0400

How painful do you want to go ... the problem statement is pretty simple how
do you know if a number has been issued to the carrier but not active or has
any services associated with it. The SIT tone issue. The ENUM database needs
a flag to indicate the status of the number. 

>  -----Original Message-----
>  From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf
>  Of Cullen Jennings
>  Sent: Wednesday, September 09, 2009 4:02 PM
>  To: [email-masked]
>  Subject: [Enum] draft-ietf-enum-unused
>  
>  
>  _______________________________________________
>  enum mailing list
>  [email-masked]
>  https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum

---

From: Bernie Hoeneisen <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2009 22:43:22 +0200 (CEST)

Hi Rich

AFAICT Cullen's question refers to the pain around points raised by the 
former AD leading to the editor stepping down.

I found something concering this in the records:
http://tools.ietf.org/wg/enum/minutes?item=minutes71.html

However, I found no records about what happened afterwards....

cheers,
  Bernie

---

From: Lawrence Conroy <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2009 22:56:27 +0100

Hi Bernie, folks,
  Pain? Nah! that doesn't cover it.
Regarding what happened next, not a lot. I suspect that Hadriel  
volunteered without quite understanding what was involved.

I think by that point Richard Stastny (who initially proposed this)  
had retired, Hadriel had implemented this in two flavours for  
customers -- once in accordance to a VOID draft *and* separately in  
accordance with an Unused draft. (I believe that something not a  
million miles away from unused was involved with the Korean ENUM trial  
as well ;).
For me, having moved text in and out and up and down so many time I  
was losing the ability to see, objections to the data: URL (AFAICT ?!? 
because it was intrinsically evil?!? - ask Rohan) left me unconvinced  
that with me at the typewriter there would be any possibility of this  
getting though IESG before *I* retired.
As I can't see anything wrong with it at all in its latest version  
(having replaced the http: URL with a data: URL as requested), I don't  
know any more.
I do know that this works exactly as described in the draft (qua any  
typos that drifted into it over the years) -- and quite well, at that.

Is that enough?

all the best,
   Lawrence

On 9 Sep 2009, at 21:43, Bernie Hoeneisen wrote:
> Hi Rich
>
> AFAICT Cullen's question refers to the pain around points raised by  
> the former AD leading to the editor stepping down.
>

---

From: "Richard Shockey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2009 22:10:54 -0400

Cullen I ran into this wall myself with CNAM and the lack of clarity within
the IESG on what is and is not the appropriate use of the data URI.

It seemed obscene that you had to define a new URI for a simple telephony
parameter that was pretty well understood.  ;NUMBER=UNUSED ?? 

OK BTW  ;USER=FAX   You don't want to hear the issues there.

>  From: Lawrence Conroy [mailto:[email-masked]]
>  Sent: Wednesday, September 09, 2009 5:56 PM
>  To: Bernie Hoeneisen
>  Cc: Richard Shockey; 'Cullen Jennings'; IETF ENUM list
>  Subject: Re: [Enum] draft-ietf-enum-unused
>  
>  Hi Bernie, folks,

---

From: Jim Reid <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2009 12:13:50 +0100

On 9 Sep 2009, at 21:01, Cullen Jennings wrote:

> Who is working on this draft these days?

Probably no-one. As Lawrence said, the original authors gave up. There  
was a limit on the number of times we were prepared to bang our heads  
on a brick wall. IIRC Hadriel Kaplan and someone else from Acme Packet  
volunteered to take over the draft at the Philly meeting. It doesn't  
appear to have progressed since then.

> I need someone to remind me of the painful history of this draft.

I doubt if those who have been scarred by that experience want to be  
reminded about it. :-(

---

From: Richard Stastny <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2009 22:37:51 +0200

> I doubt if those who have been scarred by that experience want to be 

Jim, I fully agree to that

Richard

---

From: "Richard Shockey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2009 17:35:57 -0400

HI Richard !!!! Wonderful to hear from you again even if it is about a old
sore subject!!!!

>  Of Richard Stastny
>  Sent: Thursday, September 10, 2009 4:38 PM
>  To: Jim Reid
>  Cc: Cullen Jennings; [email-masked]