Re: [Enum] My view of where we are in ENUM

[Patrik Fältström <paf at cisco.com>]

On 18 mar 2007, at 19.19, Andrew Newton wrote:

> On Mar 18, 2007, at 10:23 AM, Patrik Fältström wrote:
> > [C] Private Infrastructure ENUM
> >
> > ENUM that is NOT in the public DNS, where groups of organisations  
> > on bilateral agreements can make information about the number  
> > public. Only parties signing up to the agreements can access the  
> > data in the DNS.
>
> Actually, they could very well be in the public DNS but reside in  
> private trees.

Correct. We are sort of splitting hairs here. It could be everything  
form public DNS, but a "special apex", via split DNS situations using  
the same root as public DNS, to something that is not even using  
that. There are many shades of grey.

> > C is not participating in IETF but have their own conferences.
>
> That's not true, they just don't participate in the ENUM working  
> group because their problem is already solved.

Ok, let me then rephrase myself, I do not see them participate in the  
discussions.

> > How that branch is created, where it is created, and whether it is  
> > to be created, is based on arguments that I personally feel we in  
> > the IETF are not capable of discussing. Especially as alternative  
> > C people are present in the discussions. Those discussions are  
> > such that I think (for example) ITU-T in SG2 should discuss.
>
> I don't understand how C fits into your conclusion, but I suspect  
> that you are right.

Because how the algorithm how you resolve the E.164 to a URI (or a  
set of URIs) end up being a quite complicated process given A+B+C,  
and how you do it MIGHT include both legal and business decisions.

I am as co-chair of this wg not comfortable declaring consensus  
without input from my AD's (although I immediately cc the IAB as they  
handle the liaison with ITU).

If the wg (or individuals of the wg) think I am wrong, that is fine.  
I accept that. The AD have to tell me what to do anyways.

I have also heard two other "complaints" on how I have handled this  
process, and I do acknowledge that as well:

(1) The discussions I have had with individuals have not been on the  
ENUM wg mailinglist, as they should. People was surprised by the  
message. I understand that.

(2) The wording of the initial message could have been different. I  
should have spent more time editing it. Based on (1) above, I should  
have understood every letter was important. I understand this as well.

I do hope you *NOW* understand what my view is.

    Patrik

_______________________________________________
enum mailing list
enum at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum