Re: [Enum] Way forward for the ENUM trilogy
Jim Reid <jim@rfc1035.com> Tue, 14 September 2010 14:41 UTC
Return-Path: <jim@rfc1035.com>
X-Original-To: enum@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: enum@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F6353A697D for <enum@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 14 Sep 2010 07:41:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 vEj9aUacMXDO for <enum@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 14 Sep 2010 07:41:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hutch.rfc1035.com (router.rfc1035.com [195.54.233.65]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 694733A69A5 for <enum@ietf.org>; Tue, 14 Sep 2010 07:41:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gromit.rfc1035.com (gromit.rfc1035.com [195.54.233.69]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: jim) by hutch.rfc1035.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 83C29154202E for <enum@ietf.org>; Tue, 14 Sep 2010 15:41:45 +0100 (BST)
Message-Id: <458E89D6-9525-4633-B194-52F1AE8E427B@rfc1035.com>
From: Jim Reid <jim@rfc1035.com>
To: IETF ENUM list <enum@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1009101508050.22123@softronics.hoeneisen.ch>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"; delsp="yes"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v936)
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2010 15:41:45 +0100
References: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1009101508050.22123@softronics.hoeneisen.ch>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.936)
Subject: Re: [Enum] Way forward for the ENUM trilogy
X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Enum Discussion List <enum.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum>, <mailto:enum-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/enum>
List-Post: <mailto:enum@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:enum-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum>, <mailto:enum-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2010 14:41:23 -0000
Hi Bernie. I'm long past caring about what happens with the two drafts I co-authored. Lawrence and Richard will probably share that opinion. Though they can speak for themselves. Although it is fine by me to give draft-ietf-enum-unused-04 a mercy killing, the reason given is a little misleading. The E2MD discussions don't really apply to the use cases that this draft was aimed at. [Mind you, there is an overlap.] However it's not worth making a fuss about that. It would be nice if there was a more accurate explanation for killing that draft. Lack of progress/interest following an AD review would be a more diplomatic way to put things. You might not want the death of this draft to pollute the future of E2MD.