Re: [Enum] ENUM Query

Richard Shockey <> Fri, 13 March 2020 20:38 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7505A3A0E8C for <>; Fri, 13 Mar 2020 13:38:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.119
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.119 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=0.001, SPF_NEUTRAL=0.779, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (768-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DBa8DWhQH6mU for <>; Fri, 13 Mar 2020 13:38:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C76CE3A0E86 for <>; Fri, 13 Mar 2020 13:38:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 50DC534C35 for <>; Fri, 13 Mar 2020 15:38:38 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from ([]) by cmsmtp with SMTP id Cr4ojhPHhEfyqCr4ojj0JG; Fri, 13 Mar 2020 15:38:38 -0500
X-Authority-Reason: nr=8
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=default; h=Content-transfer-encoding:Content-type:Mime-version:In-Reply-To :References:Message-ID:CC:To:From:Subject:Date:Sender:Reply-To:Content-ID: Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc :Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe: List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=8uuVMZkjnj1VR9tbwZ8EBeejOE5Po8DE0nQTAM5OF/k=; b=FhdLVRCPC+BSEhIDLhbOCOwUPs GISggOTF+U5xyPB8N0Q5GV+4iY4fuVB/baW2AjIZlfdfb5p0mNzgY5djnw7J70I+n2VBYiqEDpCgu wYo2fGhXB/htlV7t/c79ZC44O;
Received: from ([]:53171 helo=[]) by with esmtpa (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <>) id 1jCr4n-0049vi-Sj; Fri, 13 Mar 2020 14:38:37 -0600
User-Agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/16.35.20030802
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2020 16:38:36 -0400
From: Richard Shockey <>
To: Bernie Hoeneisen <>, Brian Rosen <>
Message-ID: <>
Thread-Topic: [Enum] ENUM Query
References: <> <><> <> <> <> <><> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname -
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain -
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain -
X-BWhitelist: no
X-Source-L: No
X-Exim-ID: 1jCr4n-0049vi-Sj
X-Source-Sender: ([]) []:53171
X-Email-Count: 1
X-Source-Cap: c2hvY2tleXU7c2hvY2tleXU7Ym94NTUyNy5ibHVlaG9zdC5jb20=
X-Local-Domain: yes
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Enum] ENUM Query
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Enum Discussion List <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2020 20:38:41 -0000


Richard Shockey

Shockey Consulting LLC

Chairman of the Board SIP Forum


Skype-Linkedin-Facebook –Twitter  rshockey101

PSTN +1 703-593-2683


On 3/13/20, 4:21 PM, "enum on behalf of Bernie Hoeneisen" < on behalf of> wrote:

    As you likely know, I am the Designated Expert for ENUM appointed by the 
    IESG and my tasks is to sort out questions like this. The process as 
    defined in RFC 6117 includes community review and I will ensure this is 
    happening. In fact my first action was to point Wayne to this list (after 
    I was contacted by IANA acting as a relay), so that the community can 
    Which people/groups beyond the community subscribed to this ENUM list you 
    believe are essential to engage in this case?
    YMMV, but I can't see a point to run this through the whole IETF process, 
    as the know-how on ENUM beyond this list is rather limited, i.e. we gain 
    almost nothing if we did. On the other hand, we increase the workload of 
    many people, most having little clue on what ENUM is about.
    As a member of the current NomCom I learned that IESG workload related to 
    document review is a major challenge its members, so let's not add even 
    more to their pile, if there is little to gain.
    Modern Telephony Solutions and Tech Consulting for Internet Technology
    On Fri, 13 Mar 2020, Brian Rosen wrote:
    > Because it’s somewhat of a change of what we previously thought of as an 
    > enumservice.  I do think it’s the right thing to do, but I would want 
    > the community to review that.
    > “We” = IETF.  I can’t speak for the community, this is just my personal 
    > opinion.
    > In the end, the IESG would decide if they object to independent stream, 
    > assuming that it’s done that way.
    > Not worth a lot of argument, IMO.
    > Brian
    >> On Mar 13, 2020, at 12:14 PM, Jim Reid <> wrote:
    >>> On 13 Mar 2020, at 16:00, Brian Rosen <> wrote:
    >>> I think we want the full review that AD sponsored gets.  Independent stream just gets the “We don’t object” review. 
    >>> In this case I think we want the full review. 
    >> Why? Could you define “we” too?
    >> What’s the problem with just defining a new enumservice and being done with it?
    >> New DNS RRtypes don’t need AD review and I think that should apply to new enumservices too.
    > _______________________________________________
    > enum mailing list
    enum mailing list