Re[5]: [ITU+IETF] Re: [Enum] Re: 48th IETF: ENUM ... Sch
Andrew.Gallant@comsat.com Wed, 28 June 2000 15:47 UTC
Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA26126; Wed, 28 Jun 2000 11:47:31 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA22194; Wed, 28 Jun 2000 11:40:44 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA22166 for <itu+ietf@ns.ietf.org>; Wed, 28 Jun 2000 11:40:43 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from cqmx.corp.comsat.com (cqmx.corp.comsat.com [134.133.184.25]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA25876; Wed, 28 Jun 2000 11:40:43 -0400 (EDT)
From: Andrew.Gallant@comsat.com
Received: from cqgate6.cmc.comsat.com ([134.133.162.21]) by cqmx.corp.comsat.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com; Wed, 28 Jun 2000 11:39:44 -0400
Received: from ccMail by cqgate6.cmc.comsat.com (IMA Internet Exchange 3.13) id 00059FA5; Wed, 28 Jun 2000 11:46:05 -0400
Mime-Version: 1.0
Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2000 11:37:21 -0400
Message-ID: <00059FA5.C22219@comsat.com>
To: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>, Richard Shockey <rshockey@ix.netcom.com>
Cc: paf@swip.net, enum@ietf.org, itu+ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re[5]: [ITU+IETF] Re: [Enum] Re: 48th IETF: ENUM ... Sch
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="IMA.Boundary.5617022690"
Sender: itu+ietf-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: itu+ietf-admin@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 1.0
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: Joint ITU+IETF Discussion List <itu+ietf.ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: itu+ietf@ietf.org
Thanks for this. I'll submit what I can as soon as I can. Wish me luck! ______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________ Subject: Re[4]: [ITU+IETF] Re: [Enum] Re: 48th IETF: ENUM ... Sch Author: Richard Shockey <rshockey@ix.netcom.com> at INTERNET-IMA Date: 6/28/00 10:22 AM At 08:23 PM 6/26/2000 -0400, Andrew.Gallant@comsat.com wrote: > No problem. I agree with you in theory and a great deal in practice. > > OTOH, re NP I was asked, and re ITU (I'm an individual!) for this info > (e.g., status of certain E.164 codes, next meetings, ...) I think face > time is important. Andy.. I'm sympathetic to Randy's concerns..to a point. There are differences in process that have to be understood...and it is the differences in process that often cause the most difficulty between IETF and ITU. In the IETF the work _should_ be done on the list since that is what they are there for. IETF meetings are crammed with lots of issues that need to be resolved in a short period of time. Meetings of WG's at IETF sessions by definition have to be very "structured" in the sense that there is no time for formal "presentations" of protocols or information. The assumption is that there has been work posted to the list and that during the meeting there is a fast recap of the salient issues and then open discussion of the issues involved in the hope that "rough consensus" can be reached, or a path to solution defined. > > It's a shared and interactive medium -- and I certainly will be brief > (if I do in fact present). The few minutes shared as proposed would > be useful and applicable to a larger audience than ENUM, but (again > IMO) not worth repeating nor worth doing in any other/larger group. > To me the tradeoff is worth it on these MORE GENERAL areas. > > I want the day to come when your position comes to apply here. One > trap related to numbering is that it's the tip of many icebergs. When > a group can actually work on requirements and protocols, I'm on your > side. Sorry for the rambling ... > > Let's see what else comes back from the list. I posted my original request in the spirit that folks who wanted to present material at Pittsburgh get their material together NOW, much as you have started to do. Format ID's or, as you have done, create pointers to the relevant documents. I believe that your documents and your presence in Pittsburgh is very valuable. There is a amazing lack of understanding of what Number Portability is within the IETF and how it might relate to ENUM in general. I have also asked James Yu and Mark Foster of NeuStar to consider updating their previous ID on the subject as well. The work of SG2/Q1 in many ways directly impacts our work so it is vitally important that people understand what is happening in the ITU and what the future work plans are. I also firmly believe in the ongoing cooperation between the ITU and the IETF.. and I will bend over backwards, if necessary, to accommodate the wishes of the many distinguished participants in ITU work, such as yourself, who are opening channels of communication between our organizations. So. What I want is for you to submit whatever you want as ID'd by the July 15 deadline. I think we'd all prefer IETF ID's, vs ITU URL's, so the documents can be exposed to a larger audience. I'll hold a spot for you at the ENUM meeting! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Please Note New Contact Information: Richard Shockey Shockey Consulting LLC 5237 Sutherland St. Louis, MO 63109 Voice 314.503.0640 eFAX Fax to EMail 815.333.1237 (Preferred for Fax) INTERNET Mail & IFAX : rshockey@ix.netcom.com <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum
- Re[4]: [ITU+IETF] Re: [Enum] Re: 48th IETF: ENUM … Richard Shockey
- Re[5]: [ITU+IETF] Re: [Enum] Re: 48th IETF: ENUM … Andrew.Gallant