IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Enum] ENUM Query

Brian Rosen <br@brianrosen.net> Fri, 13 March 2020 16:51 UTC

Return-Path: <br@brianrosen.net>
X-Original-To: enum@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: enum@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F1093A0E09 for <enum@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 Mar 2020 09:51:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.888
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.888 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, T_SPF_PERMERROR=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=brianrosen-net.20150623.gappssmtp.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id B3dNQuNAWPGw for <enum@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 Mar 2020 09:51:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qv1-xf2b.google.com (mail-qv1-xf2b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::f2b]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BA4073A0E05 for <enum@ietf.org>; Fri, 13 Mar 2020 09:51:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qv1-xf2b.google.com with SMTP id r15so4931821qve.3 for <enum@ietf.org>; Fri, 13 Mar 2020 09:51:53 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=brianrosen-net.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=h6O+PdCyv6sKqzoVgWQKurZYnP5ufV1S8sg09ZB/rvs=; b=qGo1rSH147KpcFNE9u1WRmyxUNj6PGN5wplw8d1rpS+pw9xwRf9H8V3ZTCb2/BjabY 9XTt+iA4Jk8Gnl6aUFd2PsPvvcQyJjp+eduPvaId1BpofUgPAj0uzEP2hXXK4cc3BhIT +L+FtOPyulclDv79mv8SDIkFZMNn1dRWzAdvq9dDdjhcaAM9eflFyR06O/SOOZCz3+QS VYiGbu+AvUSTB34EFgRhnpgdLfrd3yIGaSRqBTKppz7zzpaWDzpE6uP0qlMR7XtPdT1M qaXkw6ZDE0/wOwXbTt0wc4YBX4cTg0VBSx8Kl5i62V7ZpjEwGIPlcRE/ZwOTjIyasO3v UELw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=h6O+PdCyv6sKqzoVgWQKurZYnP5ufV1S8sg09ZB/rvs=; b=cHC7eB7Ad5RH+8zxUYS/UamQ7dnBQ+pkbhdEOhdH6i+HTMZsdSea/0lXYDAcZQQVEw H58O4mNz9CONHAt3+nN+P6JAkrROtSYY1EB3h/na5KCsy9YcH4+o9vGFyIzfJMsB8W1p PJZsnKt+emWLkb3vG2dWKhZlULIwn6IQG07VmISear8izF7P71tFVijzgVSkJEJxSnzg cFg1lQVVuWa5kHaXr0u8vUztzNltQ2srxK8tm65ipQUzjBOSoOSNudqISJ2y2/mbRNua gUGi1Nszd8d+NdwdEhOfUby/4IbthZxEQ6SNVEAIoFHchmmWiulK4PrrnM7KZWwOi66Z 0RfQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: ANhLgQ3Es+jtqo6Qjzrd/aZJ/v1g8jzlBLXRwosKaqKTCJVzlZ+8NHk8 zHSB7P1mnNVcL/c19tJHZny/XWHY3EK7Ug==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADFU+vvbF7CNU2oeM/2pGVaoyG5PQvCTvgRAAtlQpSwAWadltHBhPb2MO4Nrsv5/oMCk5/+8HtPnNA==
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6214:3c9:: with SMTP id ce9mr13324077qvb.212.1584118312584; Fri, 13 Mar 2020 09:51:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from brians-mbp-2871.lan ([72.23.94.147]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id f68sm416653qtb.19.2020.03.13.09.51.51 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 13 Mar 2020 09:51:52 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.0 \(3608.40.2.2.4\))
From: Brian Rosen <br@brianrosen.net>
In-Reply-To: <1E380AD3-F462-4BE0-B22E-818B1C355A3B@rfc1035.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2020 12:51:49 -0400
Cc: IETF ENUM WG <enum@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <0482B082-5F82-47C8-BA23-41F027FDBA18@brianrosen.net>
References: <DB7PR04MB54183341C4145762B969A0B1C3E40@DB7PR04MB5418.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com><ADFB7C13-0783-46A8-B9C9-86D503FF87B9@brianrosen.net> <DB7PR04MB5418DCD96342D69A51AFDF3AC3E50@DB7PR04MB5418.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com><alpine.DEB.2.20.2003041130480.19506@softronics.hoeneisen.ch> <DB7PR04MB54186234B94264FEA913888EC3E50@DB7PR04MB5418.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com><alpine.DEB.2.20.2003071103230.19506@softronics.hoeneisen.ch> <DB7PR04MB5418E392AD73AF330044E0F2C3FE0@DB7PR04MB5418.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com> <alpine.DEB.2.20.2003091520500.23510@softronics.hoeneisen.ch> <A7704953-E79C-4835-9AE1-A97A567E37FC@brianrosen.net> <DB7PR04MB5418B9E732C770A3BC0788FBC3FA0@DB7PR04MB5418.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com><CAOPrzE14Sabbc3TEBm6n2ApPkQPTU2NyVkszuDCcGQzNPE4uYg@mail.gmail.com> <DB7PR04MB541844CC8809562BC5EB407AC3FA0@DB7PR04MB5418.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com> <CAOPrzE3zxuM3Ltfpr9Q_VhOKbLFVXRvtZgexG104Yw+Ed-BGHA@mail.gmail.com> <FD701EE7-989E-4478-A579-42FA40627AF4@shockey.us> <CAOPrzE1OehHB3aG4OQ2ShdYqztOQ5LCuNLOKKfHuRL=4u10gcA@mail.gmail.com> <1E380AD3-F462-4BE0-B22E-818B1C355A3B@rfc1035.com>
To: Jim Reid <jim@rfc1035.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.40.2.2.4)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/enum/GKz5R-NxrQ4U0ymy16SPq-15mLI>
Subject: Re: [Enum] ENUM Query
X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Enum Discussion List <enum.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/enum>, <mailto:enum-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Fri, 13 Mar 2020 16:51:55 -0000

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.
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email