Re: [Enum] WG: New Draft: Trunk Group Use in ENUM RESTART - Second request for guidence

Peter Koch <pk@DENIC.DE> Thu, 14 May 2009 08:11 UTC

Return-Path: <pk@DENIC.DE>
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 416AA3A6FD0 for <enum@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 May 2009 01:11:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.974
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.974 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.275, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 vi4DwZ53-Y-9 for <enum@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 May 2009 01:11:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from office.denic.de (gw-office.denic.de [81.91.160.182]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 487E33A6EFF for <enum@ietf.org>; Thu, 14 May 2009 01:10:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from unknown.office.denic.de ([10.122.65.182]) by office.denic.de with esmtp id 1M4W35-0001mQ-3j; Thu, 14 May 2009 10:12:15 +0200
Received: by unknown.office.denic.de (Postfix, from userid 501) id D3C5C178F22; Thu, 14 May 2009 10:12:14 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Thu, 14 May 2009 10:12:13 +0200
From: Peter Koch <pk@DENIC.DE>
To: IETF ENUM WG <enum@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <20090514081213.GA8060@unknown.office.denic.de>
Mail-Followup-To: IETF ENUM WG <enum@ietf.org>
References: <00c101c9c866$9acf5c30$d06e1490$@us> <C62F54EA.2A63%d.malas@cablelabs.com> <02b701c9d418$1fa3c560$5eeb5020$@us> <alpine.DEB.2.00.0905140858050.6101@softronics.hoeneisen.ch>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.00.0905140858050.6101@softronics.hoeneisen.ch>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i
Subject: Re: [Enum] WG: New Draft: Trunk Group Use in ENUM RESTART - Second request for guidence
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: Thu, 14 May 2009 08:11:15 -0000

On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 09:04:05AM +0200, Bernie Hoeneisen wrote:

> I do disagree with you that silence on this is consent. On top of that 
> many people have expressed their critical opinions earlier on this list.

I have to agree with Bernie here.  For a formal adoption it makes sense to have
at least some volunteers lined up to do the review, unless one is prepared to
continue with the "silence is consent" approach.

> IMHO this draft should go forward outside the ENUM WG as we are 
> shutting it down.

Yes, but: draft-ietf-enum-trunkgroup-00.txt, although expired, still is on the
WG's plate.  So, I think the right questions to ask are

1) Is anybody but the authors/editors of the respective drafts believes the WG
   should say anything in this direction (trunk groups). [But see the "price tag"
   under (4)]
2) Do you agree to abandon the approach in draft-ietf-enum-trunkgroup-00.txt?
3) Is the content of draft-malas-enum-trunk-sip-00.txt a better start instead?
4) Is anybody willing to review draft-malas-enum-trunk-sip-00.txt?

Then publish draft-malas-enum-trunk-sip-00.txt as draft-ietf-enum-trunkgroup-01.txt,
changing the intended state to Informational.

To start answering the question with the caveat already mentioned in
<http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/enum/current/msg06872.html>, the
registration proposed in draft-ietf-enum-trunkgroup-00.txt doesn't really look
like an ENUM service.  From that perspective, the approach proposed in
draft-malas-enum-trunk-sip-00.txt appears more straight forward to me.
However, I think the draft needs more review and it should be clearer on its core
statement; right now it is structured so much as a counter proposal to
draft-ietf-enum-trunkgroup-00.txt, so it doesn't really stand on its own feet --
which is fine for a "-00".
In summary, I'd abstain from (1), answer yes to (2) and (3) and would do (4) as
far as my non experience with the core subject matter allows.

-Peter