The agreement of the chairs at the meeting was that the hum
was non-binding since it was deemed inappropriate to make a decision until the
requirements I-D had been agreed on. That being said, I'd certainly welcome
hearing the list's opinions.
Umm... I wasn't there, but have a question.
Which holds more weight, a hum at the f2f meeting or the email
list?
If there is doubt about a decision, shouldn't that be put to the
list in any case?
Why not just poll the list now?
Mike
Stastny Richard wrote:
IMHO there is a minor inconsistency here:
A. Pfautz approach of use of non-terminal NAPTR's
B. Harbler approach with delegation at RIPE/ITU aka [CC]. c.e164.arpa
C. Harbler approach with delegation after RIPE/ITU c. [CC].e164.arpa
D. Using a different (non-e164.arpa) domain
Hum indicates strong preference for B. [CC]. c.e164.arpa delegation of carrier tree at RIPE/ITU.
There where only three options for hum
B and C where one option, the choice between the two was for further discussion
HUMMM ... I distinctly remember offering it up as 4
options ..but my brain cells have not been firing properly of late.
Can
anyone else comment here? I certainly could be mistaken.
BTW, it is Haberler
of course .. sorry ..
-richard
_______________________________________________
enum mailing list
enum at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum
--
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Richard Shockey, Director - Member of Technical Staff
NeuStar Inc.
46000 Center Oak Plaza - Sterling, VA 20166
sip:rshockey(at)iptel.org sip:57141(at)fwd.pulver.com
ENUM +87810-13313-31331
PSTN Office +1 571.434.5651 PSTN Mobile +1 703.593.2683
Fax: +1 815.333.1237
<mailto:richard(at)shockey.us> or
<mailto:richard.shockey(at)neustar.biz>
<http://www.neustar.biz> ; <http://www.enum.org>
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<