Re: [Enum] WG: New Draft: Trunk Group Use in ENUM RESTART - Second request for guidence
Lawrence Conroy <lconroy@insensate.co.uk> Thu, 14 May 2009 17:03 UTC
Return-Path: <lconroy@insensate.co.uk>
X-Original-To: enum@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: enum@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3073C28C21B for <enum@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 May 2009 10:03:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JUFyGp7NO6Fu for <enum@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 May 2009 10:03:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from insensate.co.uk (ghost.insensate.co.uk [213.152.49.121]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F13A928C2D9 for <enum@ietf.org>; Thu, 14 May 2009 10:01:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by insensate.co.uk (Postfix) with ESMTP id C154C11E611; Thu, 14 May 2009 18:03:45 +0100 (BST)
Message-Id: <5AE93C14-AEC1-4811-A55C-C05753AE5955@insensate.co.uk>
From: Lawrence Conroy <lconroy@insensate.co.uk>
To: Richard Shockey <richard@shockey.us>
In-Reply-To: <02b701c9d418$1fa3c560$5eeb5020$@us>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"; delsp="yes"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v930.3)
Date: Thu, 14 May 2009 18:02:59 +0100
References: <00c101c9c866$9acf5c30$d06e1490$@us> <C62F54EA.2A63%d.malas@cablelabs.com> <02b701c9d418$1fa3c560$5eeb5020$@us>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.930.3)
Cc: 'IETF ENUM WG' <enum@ietf.org>, 'Daryl Malas' <d.malas@cablelabs.com>
Subject: Re: [Enum] WG: New Draft: Trunk Group Use in ENUM RESTART - Second request for guidence
X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Enum Discussion List <enum.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum>, <mailto:enum-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Thu, 14 May 2009 17:03:07 -0000
Hi Richard, folks, Maybe I wasn't clear in my March 3rd mail; IMHO, the original idea using a separate Enumservice is irrecoverable. I join the crowd asking the WG chairs to declare it dead. From experience of Experiences in the IESG, this *new* item should be Informational, NOT BCP. Customers can pull this out the final doc as a requirement regardless of its track. I asked this in March, and I repeat - why isn't this a candidate for Individual or AD-sponsored? all the best, Lawrence On 13 May 2009, at 23:14, Richard Shockey wrote: > No ..I wouldn't say that. > > This was always a very very specialized draft dealing with a very > particular > type of PSTN data and its obvious the WG members are off to other > things. > > Of course some of us have had to deal with the Infrastructure ENUM > issues > ..but that is another sad story. Yes the liaison is coming. > > IMHO silence on this is consent and my strong advise to you is to go > ahead > and rewrite the document with all of the comments so far and submit > it as a > WG document. The chairs will have to approve that we'll come back to > the > list and see then if silence prevails we can kill the old draft and > we'll > just see what happens then. If not then you will have my personal > support to > submit it to the IESG as a individual submission. > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Daryl Malas [mailto:d.malas@cablelabs.com] >> Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2009 6:32 PM >> To: Richard Shockey; 'IETF ENUM WG' >> Subject: Re: [Enum] WG: New Draft: Trunk Group Use in ENUM RESTART - >> Second request for guidence >> >> Richard, >> >> Well, I guess I will throw my hat in the ring. As an author of the >> proposed >> draft, I think this is a valuable draft for the industry. If I am >> the >> only >> one, then I guess the draft is irrelevant. >> >> Regards, >> >> Daryl >> >> >> On 4/28/09 7:05 PM, "Richard Shockey" <richard@shockey.us> wrote: >> >>> Second call .. what is WG consensus here? >>> >>> This is not a silence is consent issue. It requires a form of >> decision. >>> >>> (Chair hat off) I've made my personal sentiments clear. We all >> thought this >>> was a useful WG item. Some folks have come to us with a cleaner form >> of >>> dealing with the use case that does not require a formal enumservice >>> registration. It has wide applicability. Better to create a BCP or >>> Informational than let multiple implementations go off in all sorts >> of non >>> interoperable directions. >>> >>> What does the WG want to do or do you want the chairs to decide? We >> are not >>> going to have a meeting in Stockholm over this. >>> >>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: enum-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:enum-bounces@ietf.org] On >> Behalf >>>> Of Richard Shockey >>>> Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2009 2:29 PM >>>> To: 'Peter Koch'; 'IETF ENUM WG' >>>> Subject: Re: [Enum] WG: New Draft: Trunk Group Use in ENUM RESTART >>>> >>>> >>>> I'd like to take up where we left off on this subject and >> determine >>>> what the WG consensus is on dealing with this issue. >>>> >>>> There is consensus that this is a item we had on the WG plate that >> has >>>> real applicability to applications in use and clarification on how >> these >>>> parameters should be represented in ENUM queries is a "good >> thing". >>>> >>>> The first question is then do we essentially adopt this new draft >> as a >>>> WG item and quickly move it forward? >>>> >>>> The second is as what Informational or BCP? >>>> >>>> >>>>> I have no expertise on the subject matter, but would like to >> share >>>>> some observations on process: >>>>> >>>>> On Fri, Mar 06, 2009 at 02:22:03PM +0000, Lawrence Conroy wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> beware - *who* gets to decide if a WG draft is dead? >>>>> >>>>> usually that's a WG consensus, either explicitly or by lack of >>>> motion >>>>> as to >>>>> be determined by the chairs. In this case however, it seems that >>>> the >>>>> WG >>>>> (or those in the WG who actively follow the matter) have changed >>>> their >>>>> mind >>>>> about the direction of the draft. Posting a new I-D was one way, >>>> but >>>>> if the >>>>> WG consensus is that the solution proposed in >>>>> "IANA Registration for an Enumservice Trunkgroup" is no longer >> the >>>>> right one >>>>> and instead a parameter to the SIP URI, as proposed in Trunk >> Group >>>> Use >>>>> in ENUM >>>>> will do better, then WG consensus could just direct the editors >> to >>>> re- >>>>> write >>>>> accordingly. Now, it seems that the editors change on the fly, >>>> too, >>>>> but that's >>>>> up to the chairs (well, and any new editors) anyway. >>>>> >>>>>> Also, why is putting this new stuff in the clutches of a sleeping >>>>>> WG (or an inchoate one) going to make it any faster getting any >>>> BCP >>>>>> through the IETF/IESG process? Does anyone remember IPTEL? >>>>> >>>>> I am a bit nervous about "fast tracking" in the last minute and >> the >>>>> status of BCP. The former seldomly works out, but the current >>>> work item >>>>> needs to get off the WG's plate anyway. The latter doesn't seem >>>> necessary, >>>>> especially since we're about to re-classify all (or many of) >> those >>>>> Proposed Standards anyway. A purely Informational document would >>>> do, and >>>> is >>>>> definitely more lightweight. The draft would be an Informational >>>>> addendum to RFC 3764, which it needs to reference normatively. >>>>> >>>>> The draft itself, however, isn't really clear about the intended >>>>> status >>>>> "IANA Registration for an Enumservice Trunkgroup". This document >>>> is a >>>>> normative >>>>> reference although it seems to have outlived its usefulness and >>>>> actually the >>>>> registration in there is kind of revoked. >>>>> However, the "trunk" ENUM service doesn't yet appear in >>>>> <http://www.iana.org/assignments/enum-services> if my pattern >>>> matching >>>>> skills >>>>> suffice. So, instead of pursuing the old draft and immediately >>>>> revoking the >>>>> registration (or declaring it a no go), the new (well, "revised") >>>>> draft >>>>> should just state the new intended method of using trunk groups >> in >>>>> ENUM >>>>> and incorporate verbatim the relevant parts of the earlier draft >>>>> (without >>>>> suggesting there actually _is_ a valid ENUM servcie registration) >>>> in >>>>> an >>>>> appendix. >>>>> It wouldn't be the first time an IETF WG started an effort to do >>>> FOO >>>>> and the >>>>> document ends with the title "Why not to FOO". >>>>> >>>>> I'm not sure I follow the rationale in the first paragraph of >>>> section >>>>> 1.2, >>>>> it feels like it's superseded by the newly born 5483 -- >>>>> congratulations, by >>>>> the way. >>>>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> enum mailing list >>> enum@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum >> >> >> ----------------- >> Daryl Malas >> CableLabs >> (o) +1 303 661 3302 >> (f) +1 303 661 9199 >> mailto:d.malas@cablelabs.com >> > > > _______________________________________________ > enum mailing list > enum@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum
- Re: [Enum] WG: New Draft: Trunk Group Use in ENUM Alexander Mayrhofer
- Re: [Enum] WG: New Draft: Trunk Group Use in ENUM Richard Shockey
- Re: [Enum] WG: New Draft: Trunk Group Use in ENUM Livingood, Jason
- Re: [Enum] WG: New Draft: Trunk Group Use in ENUM Richard Shockey
- Re: [Enum] WG: New Draft: Trunk Group Use in ENUM Alexander Mayrhofer
- Re: [Enum] WG: New Draft: Trunk Group Use in ENUM Lawrence Conroy
- Re: [Enum] WG: New Draft: Trunk Group Use in ENUM Peter Koch
- Re: [Enum] WG: New Draft: Trunk Group Use in ENUM Richard Shockey
- Re: [Enum] WG: New Draft: Trunk Group Use in ENUM… Richard Shockey
- Re: [Enum] WG: New Draft: Trunk Group Use in ENUM… Richard Shockey
- Re: [Enum] WG: New Draft: Trunk Group Use in ENUM… Daryl Malas
- Re: [Enum] WG: New Draft: Trunk Group Use in ENUM… Richard Shockey
- Re: [Enum] WG: New Draft: Trunk Group Use in ENUM… Bernie Hoeneisen
- Re: [Enum] WG: New Draft: Trunk Group Use in ENUM… Peter Koch
- Re: [Enum] WG: New Draft: Trunk Group Use in ENUM… Bernie Hoeneisen
- Re: [Enum] WG: New Draft: Trunk Group Use in ENUM… Lawrence Conroy
- Re: [Enum] WG: New Draft: Trunk Group Use in ENUM… Richard Shockey