[Enum] Raw Preliminary Meeting notes from IETF ENUM WG in San Francisco
Richard Shockey <richard@shockey.us> Wed, 09 April 2003 19:53 UTC
Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA12051 for <enum-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Wed, 9 Apr 2003 15:53:32 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h39JwqG22996 for enum-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 9 Apr 2003 15:58:52 -0400
Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h39JwN822963; Wed, 9 Apr 2003 15:58:23 -0400
Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h39J54819151 for <enum@optimus.ietf.org>; Wed, 9 Apr 2003 15:05:04 -0400
Received: from joy.songbird.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA09653 for <enum@ietf.org>; Wed, 9 Apr 2003 14:59:14 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from rshockeybox.shockey.us (inetgw.va.neustar.com [209.173.53.225]) by joy.songbird.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h39J1T108285 for <enum@ietf.org>; Wed, 9 Apr 2003 12:01:29 -0700
Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030409115937.027a59f0@popd.ix.netcom.com>
X-Sender: richard@shockey.us
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9
Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2003 15:02:38 -0400
To: enum@ietf.org
From: Richard Shockey <richard@shockey.us>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Subject: [Enum] Raw Preliminary Meeting notes from IETF ENUM WG in San Francisco
Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum>, <mailto:enum-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Id: Enum Discussion List <enum.ietf.org>
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>
Many thanks to Brian for taking these notes. I apologize for not having posted these sooner. I've added text based on my memory if there are any clarifications here let me know. I'll clean up the text in the meantime ... Remind me about the right initials behind the right folks ENUM Meeting Minutes - Brian Rosen Scribe WEDNESDAY, March 19, 2003 0900-1130 Morning Sessions TSV enum Telephone Number Mapping WG AGENDA BASH JP Jon Peterson - vovi clarifications helped, do we need less time..can this be devoted to 2916 RS Rich Shockey - we'll take it's much time as we need to finish the review of 2916bis this is the most important task for this meeting. Thanks to Scott Bradner for the creation of the ENUM WG and his support for many many years. ( Applause ) ITEM 1 . 2916bis 04 review... a) Some feel DNSSEC with opt-in makes it possible to deploy PF- Patrik Faltstrom Don't see any connection. WG should be neutral KM - helpful SB Scott Bradner - Well discussed in other venues, no need to discuss ?? - DNSSEC without opt-in still useful hum for if it should remain neutral - WIDE AGREEMENT b) Some requests to make latest proposed DNSSEC language stronger. Want to be MUST, but DNSSEC not ready yet PF Patrik Faltstrom Patrik Faltstrom- DNSSEC at SHOULD needs some language MM Mike Mealling - Text talks about ongoing work should be deleted SB Scott Bradner - SHOULD is strong guidance JP Jon Peterson - IESG wants mandatory-to-implement language SB - DNSSEC is not baked, so can't require it yet. Could announce intentions HA - Can say it will be a MUST some day JH - Talking futures doesn't make much sense. May want under some circumstances to do other things RS - Rich Shockey What do we do? DC Dave Crocker - Doesn't like future intentions text. State why it wasn't a MUST, and that's good enough. State requirements for MUST. JP - Jon Peterson Might consider add more text in responsibilities of service designers part of security considerations SB Scott Bradner - DC's idea good, put short synopsis of DNSSEC in doc, say "when it's available, SHOULD becomes MUST" No significant objections to SHOULD. Will add some text to security section on consequences of not implementing it. Text to list within a few hours c) Issues surrounding partial number resolution Client given number outside dialing plan, doesn't know it's not a full E.164, but you don't know it. May get into middle of ENUM, not edge. Do we need a way to figure out that it's busted JP - Jon Peterson Little error handling is available. Need to give advice. Okay if just simple statement that it could happen LC - Intentional partial lookup may be okay. Don't restrict anything JP - Jon Peterson Intentional query for partial is a bad idea because we don't have any meaning for it, so don't allow. RS - Intential Partial Resolution is out of scope for this doc LC - Don't know if there is a good reason to do it, but there might be. Okay for a heads-up on no definition of what can be found. KM - This is an application issue, don't need to see any text DC - Out of scope is right, don't even mention it JP - Jon Peterson Still wants to warn about the problem DC - Dave Crocker Needs OPS discussion because will cause massive numbers of failed queries, much more than current operation D? - Worried about numbers that are subsets of other numbers JP - Jon Peterson Tel URI worried about that, we don't think it's possible KD - Sub-addresses are not E.164. Service numbers are not E.164s Doesn't believe it can happen ?? - It happens in common practice, doesn't matter if they aren't E.164s ?? - "Pilot" numbers exist ?? - Public space means E.164, problem doesn't exist JP - Jon Peterson If you have any subset E.164s, send them to list hum on Text in draft is acceptable - NO ROUGH CONSENSUS Option 1 - current text Option 2 - change text to say that things could be at partial nodes, but not E2Us, and thats's all we spec option 3 - declare partial resolution is out of scope Show of hands - little sentiment for option 1. NO ROUGH CONSENSUS between option 2 and 3. LC - I have a pair of subset (Austria) ?? - Might be able to come up with text that works Possible to do this before end of meeting, but move on at the moment ITEM 2. draft-toyoda-faxservice-enum-00.txt Fax over email. Better if you can use telephone number as an address. So, map telephone numbers to an email address, using ENUM. Defines the NAPTR for this purpose. ifax service and mailto URI. RS Rich Shockey Document will move forward in the FAX WG ITEM 3. draft-brandner-enumservice-msg-00.txt RBrandner draft-brandner-enumservice-vovi-00.txt draft-brandner-enumservice-webft-00.txt webft - obvious, but since it's a public database, don't put usernames or paswords in there! msg - will incorporate MMS comments. Solicit other comments hum for accepting these two into enum - ROUGH CONSENSUS TO MAKE THESE DOCUMENTS WG ITEMS Allison Mankin- Do we have the right people looking at the MMS stuff? Lawrence Conrad - Yes, the one response we got was from an MMS person vovi - lots of argument on list. Split into two drafts. Non contentious and contentious. Basically the sip:voice and sip:video are the contentious parts. H.323 stuff is still there. Some issues regarding H.323 version capability and what is deployed. Current deployed H.323 could use the current proposed mechanisms. Orit Levin - Still need discussions to reach consensus. SIP and current H.323 work in similar ways. LC - V4 H.323 would have same issues as sip, current stuff could use vovi OL - vovi for V2 H.323 is usefull. FA - H.323 versions won't matter much, vovi is usefull CJ - version issues are more nuanced, but it doesn't matter Hum - accept vovi without sip stuff as a WG item - NO OPPOSITION, BUT LITTLE SUPPORT. JP - Jon Peterson Not a lot of support, let's not make it a WG item BR - Brian Rosen can be an individual effort LC - Larry Conroy Is there something we should fix? Many people are not here, can still be WG consensus to progress the vovi draft sans references to SIP Hum for WG item vs individual draft - NO CONSENSUS PF - Patrik Faltstrom If we are discussing it, then wants it listed AM - Allison Mankin acceptable to continue to discuss without making it a WG item PF Patrik Faltstrom - Service can be created without making it a WG item ?? - Don't understand what the problem is JP Jon Peterson - It happens, sometimes there is no enthusiasm to work on something Group doesn't have to have a reason LCLayrry Conroy - If there are technical objections, please put them on the list What is the process if there is no WGLC? AM Allison Mankin- AD does an extended Last Call. Submit to AD. WG needs to do the review. ITEM 4. LC - Experimental should be allowed to be an enum service (ie allowed to be IANA registered) X- is not registered. PF Patrik Faltstrom- Could make a simple mod to allow this JP - Jon Peterson Want to exclude INFO PF Patrik Faltstrom- Don't want to have proprietary registrations Restricting to standards track is too strong Will make some adjustments ITEM 5. Back to partial resolutions. Propose to add applicability statement that says: ENUM is for E.164 only MUST only query for what it thinks is a valid E.164. E2U MUST NOT be used for non E.164 Some real time discussion over "what it thinks". JK - Be careful about how explicit rules are BR Brian Rosen- real time editing often doesn't work, ask for general consensus and debate wording on list RS - Rich Shockey - Would like to finish this JP - Jon Peterson even E.164 could change; specs move. PF Patrik Faltstrom- Can't do wordsmithing in a meeting JH - Change to something simpler (cc+some number of digits) RS Rich Shockey- SEND TEXT TO THE LIST ! ITEM 6. draft-peterson-enum-pres-00.txt Jon Peterson defines e2U+pres exact protocol is not specified in enum - negotiated per IMPP (cpp) presence for telephone requires more spec work RG - where would extensions for presence be done? SPIRITS? JP - Apps area or transport area maybe JH - What is relationship to e2u+sip JP - other presence protocols, e.g. mobile telephones,... JR Jonathan Rosenberg - draft assumes presence of phone. Don't have to do that, E.164 to pres uri, doesn't matter what kind of phone JP - True but E.164 represents something in the PSTN Generalizable beyond presence for a phone JH - Looks like rerun of vovi. JP - Accommodates other presence protocols JR - pres URI won't get you a sip uri! JP - yeah, you will be able to get to a sip service RS - Rich Shockey Confused JP - pres: uri dereferences to a service, could be sip, jabber,... LC Layry Conroy - Point is that ENUM gets you pres: and then you are out of DDDS hum should this be a WG item - CONSENUS TO MAKE IT A WG ITEM Meeting closes. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard Shockey, Senior Manager, Strategic Technology Initiatives NeuStar Inc. 46000 Center Oak Plaza - Sterling, VA 20166 Voice +1 571.434.5651 Cell : +1 314.503.0640, Fax: +1 815.333.1237 <mailto:richard@shockey.us> or <mailto:richard.shockey@neustar.biz> <http://www.neustar.biz> ; <http://www.enum.org> <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum
- [Enum] Raw Preliminary Meeting notes from IETF EN… Richard Shockey
- RE: [Enum] Raw Preliminary Meeting notes from IET… Brandner Rudolf