Re: [e2md] Problem statement, Requirements and Use Cases (was RFC 5507 & RFC 5395)

Ouch.  I think what Dean might have meant to say was...

"That probably would work.  I think all we need to do is agree to analyze the problem(s) and solve each appropriately, while respecting the concerns and motives of all parties.  We should not assume and force pre-conceived solutions or solution constraints that, after thoroughly analyzing the problem(s) and the solution(s), are inappropriate or unfounded."

Dean, if that's not what you meant to say, please accept my apologies.
:-)

Ken

-----Original Message-----
From: e2md-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:e2md-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Dean Willis
Sent: Monday, May 17, 2010 5:38 PM
To: PFAUTZ, PENN L (ATTCORP)
Cc: E.164 To MetaData BOF discussion list
Subject: Re: [e2md] Problem statement, Requirements and Use Cases (was RFC 5507 & RFC 5395)

On Mon, 2010-05-17 at 13:31 -0400, PFAUTZ, PENN L (ATTCORP) wrote:

> Please sirs, may we have an e2md WG that will analyze proposed use cases guided by RFC 5507 & RFC 5395 and propose appropriate implementations?

That probably would work. I think all we need to do is agree to analyze
the problem(s) and solve each appropriately while respecting the
"rules", rather than insisting on one-size-fits-all hack/slash on ENUM
to define a framework for adding arbitrary metadata into NAPTR records.

--
Dean

_______________________________________________
e2md mailing list
e2md@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/e2md

This e-mail message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s)and may
contain confidential and privileged information of Transaction Network Services.
Any unauthorised review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you
are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.