Re[5]: [ITU+IETF] Re: [Enum] Re: 48th IETF: ENUM ... Sch

[[e-mail]]

     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 <[e-mail]> at INTERNET-IMA
Date:    6/28/00 10:22 AM


At 08:23 PM 6/26/2000 -0400, [e-mail] 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 : [e-mail] 
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
     
     
_______________________________________________ 
enum mailing list
[e-mail]
http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum