Re: [Enum] ENUM Query

Bernie Hoeneisen <> Fri, 13 March 2020 20:21 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E93F63A0E05 for <>; Fri, 13 Mar 2020 13:21:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LoB6WSbAJi0q for <>; Fri, 13 Mar 2020 13:21:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8DB273A0DD1 for <>; Fri, 13 Mar 2020 13:21:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost ([]) by with esmtp (Exim 4.86_2) (envelope-from <>) id 1jCqnk-00065E-Qh; Fri, 13 Mar 2020 21:21:00 +0100
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2020 21:21:00 +0100 (CET)
From: Bernie Hoeneisen <>
To: Brian Rosen <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Message-ID: <>
References: =?utf-8?q?=3CDB7PR04MB54183341C4145762B969A0B1C3E40=40DB7PR04MB5?= =?utf-8?q?418=2Eeurprd04=2Eprod=2Eoutlook=2Ecom=3E_=3CDB7PR04MB54186234B942?= =?utf-8?q?64FEA913888EC3E50=40DB7PR04MB5418=2Eeurprd04=2Eprod=2Eoutlook=2Ec?= =?utf-8?q?om=3E?= =?utf-8?q?=3Calpine=2EDEB=2E2=2E20=2E2003071103230=2E19506=40softronics=2Eh?= =?utf-8?q?oeneisen=2Ech=3E_=3CDB7PR04MB5418E392AD73AF330044E0F2C3FE0=40DB7P?= =?utf-8?q?R04MB5418=2Eeurprd04=2Eprod=2Eoutlook=2Ecom=3E?= <> =?utf-8?q?=3CA7704953-E79C-4835-9AE1-A97A567E37FC=40brianrosen=2Enet=3E_=3C?= =?utf-8?q?DB7PR04MB5418B9E732C770A3BC0788FBC3FA0=40DB7PR04MB5418=2Eeurprd04?= =?utf-8?q?=2Eprod=2Eoutlook=2Ecom=3E?= =?utf-8?q?=3CCAOPrzE14Sabbc3TEBm6n2ApPkQPTU2NyVkszuDCcGQzNPE4uYg=40mail=2Eg?= =?utf-8?q?mail=2Ecom=3E_=3CDB7PR04MB541844CC8809562BC5EB407AC3FA0=40DB7PR04?= =?utf-8?q?MB5418=2Eeurprd04=2Eprod=2Eoutlook=2Ecom=3E?= <> <> <> <> <>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.20 (DEB 67 2015-01-07)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; BOUNDARY="37663318-1651444003-1584129119=:23158"
Content-ID: <>
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on; SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Enum] ENUM Query
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Enum Discussion List <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2020 20:21:08 -0000


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 

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.


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 <> wrote:
>>> On 13 Mar 2020, at 16:00, Brian Rosen <> 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