[e2md] Shall we go this way? (was Re: Problem statement, Requirements and Use Cases (was RFC 5507 & RFC 5395))

Bernie Hoeneisen <bernie@ietf.hoeneisen.ch> Wed, 26 May 2010 19:08 UTC

Return-Path: <bernie@ietf.hoeneisen.ch>
X-Original-To: e2md@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: e2md@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3CF2A3A69DC for <e2md@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 26 May 2010 12:08:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.001
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tQWJAh5jvIOy for <e2md@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 26 May 2010 12:08:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from softronics.hoeneisen.ch (softronics.hoeneisen.ch [62.2.86.178]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D4543A6890 for <e2md@ietf.org>; Wed, 26 May 2010 12:08:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]) by softronics.hoeneisen.ch with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <bernie@ietf.hoeneisen.ch>) id 1OHLxR-0005Im-3x for e2md@ietf.org; Wed, 26 May 2010 21:08:01 +0200
Date: Wed, 26 May 2010 21:08:01 +0200
From: Bernie Hoeneisen <bernie@ietf.hoeneisen.ch>
X-X-Sender: bhoeneis@softronics.hoeneisen.ch
To: "E.164 To MetaData BOF discussion list" <e2md@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <1274132277.2972.4.camel@damnableubu>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1005262040560.19988@softronics.hoeneisen.ch>
References: <35FE871E2B085542A35726420E29DA6B03F95813@gaalpa1msgusr7a.ugd.att.com> <C8171AA9.52E5%ray.bellis@nominet.org.uk> <35FE871E2B085542A35726420E29DA6B03F959AB@gaalpa1msgusr7a.ugd.att.com> <1274132277.2972.4.camel@damnableubu>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (DEB 1167 2008-08-23)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 127.0.0.1
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: bernie@ietf.hoeneisen.ch
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on softronics.hoeneisen.ch); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Subject: [e2md] Shall we go this way? (was Re: Problem statement, Requirements and Use Cases (was RFC 5507 & RFC 5395))
X-BeenThere: e2md@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: "E.164 To MetaData \(E2MD\) BOF discussion list" <e2md.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/e2md>, <mailto:e2md-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/e2md>
List-Post: <mailto:e2md@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:e2md-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/e2md>, <mailto:e2md-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 26 May 2010 19:08:13 -0000

Hi E2MD:ers

IMHO something along the lines of what Penn and Dean proposed "agree 
to analyze the problem(s) and solve each appropriately" (see below) 
is a viable strategy to get a E2MD WG approved. This implies a lot of 
wordsmithing to a charter...

We'd need to make a careful selection of initial use cases to be assessed 
in that WG. Furthermore we need a sophisticated strategy to drop certain 
use cases (from the initial list) during the WG forming BoF, if those are 
causing too much harm to the WG approval process. And we need 
Internet-Drafts describing the Use Cases before the WG forming BoF takes 
place.


My questions to all of you:

a) Do you also see this as a viable strategy?

b) Which timeframe do your believe is sensible (Maastricht or Beijing?)

c) Who is willing to actively assist the work on an agreeable charter?

d) Who is willing to write Internet-Drafts describing certain Use Cases?


We'll discuss this as part of tomorrow's conference call. However, 
some initial discussion on this list is most helpful to keep this 
discussion during the call as short as possible. Besides this, your 
opinion will be understood better if it is stated in written.


In case you do not agree with this strategy, please indicate to the list, 
how you believe we should go on with this matter!


cheers,
  Bernie



--

http://ucom.ch/
Tech Consulting for Internet Standardization


On Mon, 17 May 2010, Dean Willis wrote:

> 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
>