Subject: Re: [Enum] [e2md] Dean's Proxy-Shill Version of the Problem statement

From: "Richard Shockey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 May 2010 21:20:13 -0400

So ... all in favor of re chartering the ENUM WG ..please hum on this list
or the ENUM WG list now attached.

Its time to force the issue. This is important work ultimately central to
making SIP work better. Stall and delay is not a rational option here. SIP
Service providers and IMS providers want clarity and direction on where the
technical standards are moving, if at all. If the IETF doesn't do this it
will be done privately and without proper community and peer review. 

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Ray
Bellis
Sent: Thursday, May 13, 2010 8:39 PM
To: Dean Willis
Cc: E.164 To MetaData BOF discussion list
Subject: Re: [e2md] Dean's Proxy-Shill Version of the Problem statement

> Are the rest of the sentences true and consistent with the work we've
proposed
> to do?

They're consistent with the approach in Bernie's draft.

However on the last call the it was proposed that it might be a good
idea to simply reboot the ENUM WG.  In another message Richard has shown
that much (if not all) of what we want to do is _already_ within charter.

[[[
I first proposed E2M during the Dublin IETF, as a way to mitigate concerns
that a particular ex-AD had over use of E2U for "non-communications data".
AFAICR he was OK with this proposal, which then laid dormant until Bernie
wrote it up.

For my own Send-N draft, my plan had actually been to simply wait for the
ENUM Services Guide draft to become an RFC, and the re-file under the expert
review process.
]]]

Ray

_______________________________________________
e2md mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/e2md

---

From: Bernie Hoeneisen <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 May 2010 10:15:04 +0200 (CEST)

As an individual I see it a viable way to work out at least parts of the 
E2MD cases in the ENUM WG (once we've sorted out which parts are 
suitable). In this case E2MD would continue to work on those parts that 
are not suitable for ENUM.

As a co-chair of the ENUM WG the appropriate answer to this consultative 
hum from Rich is: abstention

cheers,
  Bernie

---

From: Jim Reid <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 May 2010 13:17:17 +0100

> or the ENUM WG list now attached.

hum++

Apologies for a relevant SubjectL header. :-)

---

From: Christian Larrinaga <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 May 2010 14:50:15 +0200

I don't believe IETF should be afraid if others decide to take IETF stuff and do their own take with it. That is not a good reason to do those carbuncle things In IETF. What is a good reason is if the WG is taking the initiative and doing work that is for everyone, scales and isn't just trying to satisfy a need in some walled garden. 

So what would be the workplan? Apologies if I've missed a draft that explains this. In which case I would be grateful for a pointer. 

Christian

On 14 May 2010, at 03:20, Richard Shockey wrote:

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