Alex: My concerns are not entirely with respect to the current draft but some of the directions that the discussion during the WG session suggested the work might be taking. I've had a lingering concern about the disconnect between what Speermint has proposed (LUF/LRF)and the route that drinks has taken. Since the will of the design team seemed to be to get on with a simple protocol directed toward provisioning DNS RRs I let that ride. Monday's session, however brought up things like more abstraction of routing elements which suggests to me assumptions about the nature of interconnections and my issues with the original ESPP I-D. Brian Rosen's comment about number "ownership" relations also seemed to suggest another complexity that the protocol would try to incorporate. I get concerned about a protocol that either makes a lot of specific assumptions about the nature of the registry and the interconnection framework and/or becomes bloated by trying to incorporate the panoply of possible cases. A more specific issue - the definition of Registrant as an "end user" - this is at least confusing in the context of Infrastructure vs. End User ENUM. I'll keep watching how things evolve. It may be that others conclude they need the added complexity but I wanted to be forthright about my position. Thanks for listening. Penn Pfautz AT&T Access Management +1-732-420-4962 -----Original Message----- From: Alexander Mayrhofer [mailto:alexander.mayrhofer at nic.at] Sent: Monday, July 27, 2009 12:56 PM To: PFAUTZ, PENN L, ATTCORP; drinks at ietf.org Subject: RE: [drinks] Comment on today's drinks discussion > I for one have concerns about how useful the resulting > protocol is likely to be, at least for my company's likely > applications. Penn, Thanks for that "wakeup call" - as we said we want definitely a deployable protocol, so i'm concerned about your statement - could you elaborate of what properties of the current draft would make it less useful for your company's applications, and what could be done to make it fit better? Thanks Alex
Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.