[Enum] Final Rev: Attempt at Consensus on Carrier ENUM Questions

Patrik Fältström <paf@cisco.com> Sun, 26 March 2006 17:13 UTC

Received: from [] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FNYo2-0000nx-5T; Sun, 26 Mar 2006 12:13:34 -0500
Received: from [] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FNYo0-0000na-JJ for enum@ietf.org; Sun, 26 Mar 2006 12:13:32 -0500
Received: from sj-iport-2-in.cisco.com ([] helo=sj-iport-2.cisco.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FNYo0-0007sO-1Q for enum@ietf.org; Sun, 26 Mar 2006 12:13:32 -0500
Received: from sj-core-1.cisco.com ([]) by sj-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 26 Mar 2006 09:13:31 -0800
X-IronPort-AV: i="4.03,130,1141632000"; d="rtf'212?scan'212,208,212"; a="317576590:sNHT52876826"
Received: from imail.cisco.com (sjc12-sbr-sw3-3f5.cisco.com []) by sj-core-1.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id k2QHDVw1003056 for <enum@ietf.org>; Sun, 26 Mar 2006 09:13:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] (ssh-ams-1.cisco.com []) by imail.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.10) with ESMTP id k2QHEC0j000784 for <enum@ietf.org>; Sun, 26 Mar 2006 09:14:13 -0800
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v749.3)
To: IETF ENUM WG <enum@ietf.org>
Message-Id: <A864B2CC-33A5-49AC-9987-B819912B6E88@cisco.com>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="Apple-Mail-55--270233488"
References: <6EEEACD9D7F52940BEE26F5467C02C7302A3A6E8@PACDCEXCMB01.cable.comcast.com>
From: Patrik Fältström <paf@cisco.com>
Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2006 19:13:27 +0200
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.749.3)
DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; l=19504; t=1143393253; x=1143825453; c=relaxed/simple; s=nebraska; h=Subject:From:Date:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Mime-Version; d=cisco.com; i=paf@cisco.com; z=From:=3D?ISO-8859-1?Q?Patrik_F=3DE4ltstr=3DF6m?=3D=20<paf@cisco.com> |Subject:Final=20Rev=3A=20Attempt=20at=20Consensus=20on=20Carrier=20ENUM=20Questi ons |To:IETF=20ENUM=20WG=20<enum@ietf.org>; X=v=3Dmtcc.com=3B=20h=3DeaTJdL7SifrPqMM/G/8F/dzoAG4=3D; b=kdKjb+8kJqzNVI0/ngZLGTIkKjQnJdjJeN0284IxC9YESMqGFCSs/OOIYwrytNuGJdo8oEuX 4yUqAvBxs/qsP6UWqMjmOnc2CZEfPiD18s9ixJRySL2Us2aW0yC9bwxfo8SZ8pNt8/O7Ne+JL4z Se8h1vvgb4ebFHv6z8yCGXD4=;
Authentication-Results: imail.cisco.com; header.From=paf@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( 36 extraneous bytes; message from cisco.com verified; );
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 96e0f8497f38c15fbfc8f6f315bcdecb
Subject: [Enum] Final Rev: Attempt at Consensus on Carrier ENUM Questions
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>
Errors-To: enum-bounces@ietf.org

FYI: The result of hard work by enthusiastic people in Dalls!

Comments to the ENUM list.


Begin forwarded message:

> From: "Livingood, Jason" <Jason_Livingood@cable.comcast.com>
> Date: 23 mar 2006 21.57.47 GMT+01:00
> To: "Alexander Mayrhofer" <alexander.mayrhofer@nic.at>
> Cc: "Stastny Richard" <Richard.Stastny@oefeg.at>, "Otmar Lendl"  
> <lendl@nic.at>, "Richard Shockey" <richard@shockey.us>, Patrik  
> Fältström <paf@cisco.com>, "Pfautz, Penn L, NEO" <ppfautz@att.com>,  
> "Michael Haberler" <mah@inode.at>, <lwc@roke.co.uk>,  
> <lconroy@insensate.co.uk>
> Subject: RE: Final Rev: Attempt at Consensus on Carrier ENUM Questions
> Here is a final copy of the Treaty of Dallas.  Text below or RTF  
> file attached.
> I will leave it up to our WG co-chairs or secretary to decide what  
> to post to the list and minutes regarding this.
> Regards and safe travels,
> Jason
> ===========
> Carrier/Infrastructure ENUM Points of Agreement -- 22 March 2006
> 1. There will be a long-term solution that does things "right" as  
> well as an interim solution that can be used by individual  
> countries to implement an interoperable carrier ENUM tree ASAP.
> 2. In order to project a unified approach to the "right" long-term  
> solution with other standards bodies and NRAs, there will be  
> explicit statements in the affected I-Ds that make it clear that  
> the interim solution will be deprecated upon achievement of the  
> long-term solution.
> 3. There will be a new I-D documenting the carrier ENUM apex.  This  
> will be done in such a way that the location of the infrastructure  
> designator shall not vary by country code; it will be the same for  
> the entire domain and in every country code.  The apex "e164i.arpa"  
> was suggested, but that is tentative only.  Everyone felt .arpa was  
> certainly the correct TLD.  This process will begin ASAP.
> 4. There will be an interim solution that will move ahead as an  
> ENUM working group item ASAP, following the BLR logic and wording  
> of the Michael Haberler's current I-D on this subject.  However,  
> some of the content which relates to DNS RRs in that draft will be  
> split out into a different, new draft.
> 5. This interim solution will state prominently in the I-D, that  
> this is in fact an interim solution that will be deprecated upon  
> approval (loosely timed) of the "right" long-term solution.  This  
> will be at or near the beginning of such an I-D in a special  
> section so that it can easily be located and will be noticed by  
> readers.
> 6. This interim solution will not use a TXT RR, but a new RR type  
> that will be moved ahead in the ENUM WG, with review and  
> consultation from the appropriate DNS WG.
> 7.  In summary, three I-Ds, all in the ENUM WG: document the long- 
> term solution in a carrier-ENUM I-D in the ENUM WG with specifics  
> around the new apex and solution, interim solution I-D in ENUM WG,  
> other BLR/RR-related I-D in the ENUM WG.
> 8.  Timing on new apex carrier ENUM I-D: create -00 ASAP as a WG  
> item.  Jason Livingood volunteers as document editor along with  
> Penn Pfautz and Richard Stastny as co-authors.  It should be noted  
> that this I-D does not necessarily describe carrier ENUM  
> requirements per se; it describes how to implement it in a specific  
> domain apex.
> 9.  Penn Pfautz's requirements I-D, already in process, should  
> continue as-is and move to WGLC soon.
> 10.  Timing on interim-solution I-D: add changes in updated  
> haberler-03 I-D, then adopt as WG item and restart as -00.  Move to  
> WGLC at or before IETF 67.
> 11.  Timing on BLR/RR-related I-D and new apex I-D:  create new I-D  
> ASAP.  Move to WGLC at or before IETF 67.
> 12.  All parties to this agreement will support this in good faith,  
> in its entirety.
> ==========

enum mailing list