[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

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

On 18 mar 2007, at 23.16, Stastny Richard wrote:

I do not really see a problem here 

Ok.

I do not see A, B and C as different camps (I do not understand D),
all of these 3 are valid ENUM applications

As Penn is saying, C is of no concern in IETF,
A is already solved
leaves B open:

Well, it is FOR ME not that simple. The part that holds an E.164 in his hand, and is going to do resolution on it using some ENUM technology is going to use some algorithm. What that algorithm look like is something I feel I want to know before feeling comfortable, and that includes A, B and C (lets ignore D for now).

This is also solved in the WG, the drafts are there
what is missing is a statement from IETF/IESG/IAB to the ITU-T


I completely understand your view.

My proposal is that IESG/IAB is to offer the ITU-T to use also an apex
in .arpa and also to use RIPE NCC to operate the Tier-0,
it is the ITU-T decision to take this offer or chose another apex
(and somebody else to operate it).


This might be one solution. I want input from our ADs on this.

In SG2 Q.1 already a correspondance group has been created
at the last plenary in February (the rapporteur is Karen Mulberry from Neustar)
to deal with this issue (and awaiting a liaison from IESG).

In addition, to my understanding nobody in ITU-T considers that
this will have any influence on e164.arpa and  the Interim Procedures.

That is good news, if it is correct. But also, this is why I do not feel comfortable making any decisions before we have this input/ interaction/whatever.

We are not that far apart as you might think. Or what I might think :-)

So what we need to do is advancing the 4 I-Ds to RFCs and send them with a
letter to ITU-T 

Note that I am *NOT* suggesting any I-D should be thrown away!

   Patrik

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