RE: [Enum] Why not re-use interim procedures for infrastructure ENUM?
"Stastny Richard" <Richard.Stastny@oefeg.at> Mon, 06 February 2006 21:35 UTC
Received: from localhost.cnri.reston.va.us ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1F6E14-0001Au-D2; Mon, 06 Feb 2006 16:35:22 -0500
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1F6E13-0001Ad-7E for enum@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 06 Feb 2006 16:35:21 -0500
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA05375 for <enum@ietf.org>; Mon, 6 Feb 2006 16:33:39 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mail.oefeg.at ([62.47.121.5]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1F6EDF-0002T1-GN for enum@ietf.org; Mon, 06 Feb 2006 16:48:02 -0500
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5.7226.0
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: RE: [Enum] Why not re-use interim procedures for infrastructure ENUM?
Date: Mon, 06 Feb 2006 22:38:55 +0100
Message-ID: <32755D354E6B65498C3BD9FD496C7D462C4819@oefeg-s04.oefeg.loc>
Thread-Topic: [Enum] Why not re-use interim procedures for infrastructure ENUM?
Thread-Index: AcYrYqSq1IX1m9NkRUeIbRsaWQvQ3wAAcre/
From: Stastny Richard <Richard.Stastny@oefeg.at>
To: lconroy <lconroy@insensate.co.uk>, Richard Shockey <richard@shockey.us>
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 14582b0692e7f70ce7111d04db3781c8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: enum@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Enum Discussion List <enum.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum>, <mailto:enum-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:enum@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:enum-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum>, <mailto:enum-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: enum-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: enum-bounces@ietf.org
RFC 3761 Doppelganger proposal: To fullfil the requirements for Infrastructure ENUM stated in http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-lind-infrastructure-enum-reqs-01.txt especially the requirement stated in 2.6. Infrastructure ENUM SHALL be implemented under a TLD that can support reliability and performance suitable for PSTN applications. RFC3761 is endorsed as is with the replacement of step 4 in section 2.4 Valid databases:with 4. Append the string "i.e164.arpa" to the end. Example: 8.4.1.0.6.4.9.7.0.2.4.4.i.e164.arpa OR 4. Append the string ".e164i.arpa" to the end. Example: 8.4.1.0.6.4.9.7.0.2.4.4.e164i.arpa This could be placed in the requiements document itself Richard ________________________________ Von: enum-bounces@ietf.org im Auftrag von lconroy Gesendet: Mo 06.02.2006 19:26 An: Richard Shockey Cc: enum@ietf.org; Stastny Richard Betreff: Re: [Enum] Why not re-use interim procedures for infrastructure ENUM? Hi Richards, folks, (i) Requirements first - that should be fun. What's the schedule for ITU SG2 meetings after January 2007? (ii) People keep talking about rfc3761bis, but I think we're talking about different things - some folks seem to be talking about a "traditional" rfc3761bis (i.e. obsoleting the current RFC 3761); others seem more interested in an RFC3761-doppelganger (i.e. in parallel with RFC 3761). So... are we to work on a replacement doc or one to run in parallel? I'm assuming that the Pfautz/Linn draft is the one you take for requirements. That would seem to tie in with the doppelganger approach, as that draft covers requirements for Infrastructure ENUM only. all the best, Lawrence On 6 Feb 2006, at 15:19, Richard Shockey wrote: > Stastny Richard wrote: >> Richard Shockey wrote: >>> However the "issue" as you call it Richard IMHO would not lie >>> with the >>> IAB. You should re read the charter of the IAB. >>> It would lie with the IESG upon creation of the appropriate RFC that >>> designated an Infrastructure apex. If the RFC is approved there is >>> little or nothing the IAB can do to impede its deployment. >> So to get this going, we first need a RFC 3761bis defining the apex >> If the IESG approves, IAB will start negotiating with RIPE and ITU > > > This is only a personal opinion but I do not believe you need to > wait for 3761bis this could be defined in a separate document once > there is agreement on the requirements. > > As is usual IETF procedure ..requirements _first_ ..then the solution. > >> Translated to practical issues this means: >> 1. we have to move forward with our draft to get a workable >> solution for the next 1 or 2 years (option2) >> 2. we also have to start the procedure by creating draft-enum- >> rfc3761bis. >> Since 2 cannot be finished before May 2006, the question is, >> should be bother ITU-T already >> now or wait for January 2007? >> regards >> Richard _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum
- [Enum] Why not re-use interim procedures for infr… Bernie Hoeneisen
- RE: [Enum] Why not re-use interim procedures for … Lind, Steven D, ALABS
- Re: [Enum] Why not re-use interim procedures for … Stastny Richard
- RE: [Enum] Why not re-use interim procedures for … Rosbotham, Paul
- RE: [Enum] Why not re-use interim procedures for … Antoin Verschuren
- Re: [Enum] Why not re-use interim procedures for … Jim Reid
- Re: [Enum] Why not re-use interim procedures for … Stastny Richard
- Re: [Enum] Why not re-use interim procedures for … Richard Shockey
- Re: [Enum] Why not re-use interim procedures for … Tony Rutkowski
- Re: [Enum] Why not re-use interim procedures for … Richard Shockey
- Re: [Enum] Why not re-use interim procedures for … Stastny Richard
- Re: [Enum] Why not re-use interim procedures for … Clive D.W. Feather
- Re: [Enum] Why not re-use interim procedures for … Richard Shockey
- Re: [Enum] Why not re-use interim procedures for … Jim Reid
- Re: [Enum] Why not re-use interim procedures for … Jim Reid
- Re: [Enum] Why not re-use interim procedures for … Richard Shockey
- Re: [Enum] Why not re-use interim procedures for … Clive D.W. Feather
- Re: [Enum] Why not re-use interim procedures for … Stastny Richard
- Re: [Enum] Why not re-use interim procedures for … Richard Shockey
- Re: [Enum] Why not re-use interim procedures for … Richard Shockey
- Re: [Enum] Why not re-use interim procedures for … lconroy
- RE: [Enum] Why not re-use interim procedures for … Stastny Richard
- Re: [Enum] Why not re-use interim procedures for … Patrik Fältström
- Re: [Enum] Why not re-use interim procedures for … Patrik Fältström