Re: [Enum] Why not re-use interim procedures for infrastructure ENUM?

lconroy wrote:
> Hi Richards, folks,
>   (i) Requirements first - that should be fun.

Lawrence ... you know the IETF drill here. We agreed some form of 
Requirements documentation was necessary. That _MUST_ come first.

  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)

That is a item on our charter if you recall.

; 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?

It is the opinion of this particular co-chair that the revision of 
RFC3761bis to go to Draft Standard and a document outlining a protocol 
solution to the Requirements for Infrastructure ENUM are orthogonal issues.

They are separate documents but may be run in parallel.

-- 

 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Richard Shockey, Director - Member of Technical Staff
NeuStar Inc.
46000 Center Oak Plaza  -   Sterling, VA  20166
sip:rshockey(at)iptel.org   sip:57141(at)fwd.pulver.com
ENUM +87810-13313-31331
PSTN Office +1 571.434.5651 PSTN Mobile +1 703.593.2683
Fax: +1 815.333.1237
<mailto:richard(at)shockey.us> or
<mailto:richard.shockey(at)neustar.biz>
<http://www.neustar.biz> ; <http://www.enum.org>
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

_______________________________________________
enum mailing list
enum@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum