Re: [Enum] ENUM Query

Of course, it’s actually up to whomever writes the document, certainly not me, to decide how to proceed.

But as I said, it doesn’t matter that much, so I’ll just stop.

Brian

> On Mar 13, 2020, at 4:21 PM, Bernie Hoeneisen <bernie@ietf.hoeneisen.ch> wrote:
> 
> Brian,
> 
> As you likely know, I am the Designated Expert for ENUM appointed by the IESG and my tasks is to sort out questions like this. The process as defined in RFC 6117 includes community review and I will ensure this is happening. In fact my first action was to point Wayne to this list (after I was contacted by IANA acting as a relay), so that the community can engage.
> 
> Which people/groups beyond the community subscribed to this ENUM list you believe are essential to engage in this case?
> 
> YMMV, but I can't see a point to run this through the whole IETF process, as the know-how on ENUM beyond this list is rather limited, i.e. we gain almost nothing if we did. On the other hand, we increase the workload of many people, most having little clue on what ENUM is about.
> 
> As a member of the current NomCom I learned that IESG workload related to document review is a major challenge its members, so let's not add even more to their pile, if there is little to gain.
> 
> cheers,
> Bernie
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --
> 
> http://ucom.ch/
> Modern Telephony Solutions and Tech Consulting for Internet Technology
> 
> 
> On Fri, 13 Mar 2020, Brian Rosen wrote:
> 
>> Because it’s somewhat of a change of what we previously thought of as an enumservice.  I do think it’s the right thing to do, but I would want the community to review that.
>> “We” = IETF.  I can’t speak for the community, this is just my personal opinion.
>> 
>> In the end, the IESG would decide if they object to independent stream, assuming that it’s done that way.
>> 
>> Not worth a lot of argument, IMO.
>> 
>> Brian
>> 
>> 
>>> On Mar 13, 2020, at 12:14 PM, Jim Reid <jim@rfc1035.com> wrote:
>>>> On 13 Mar 2020, at 16:00, Brian Rosen <br@brianrosen.net> wrote:
>>>> I think we want the full review that AD sponsored gets.  Independent stream just gets the “We don’t object” review. In this case I think we want the full review. 
>>> Why? Could you define “we” too?
>>> What’s the problem with just defining a new enumservice and being done with it?
>>> New DNS RRtypes don’t need AD review and I think that should apply to new enumservices too.
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> enum mailing list
>> enum@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum