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

["PFAUTZ, PENN L, ATTCORP" <ppfautz at att.com>]

OK. I think all we were looking for was a recognition of working group consensus to ask for an apex and a corresponding recommendation to the IAB/IESG (following AD concurrence) to forward the issue to the ITU. 


Penn
-----Original Message-----
From: Patrik Fältström [mailto:paf at cisco.com] 
Sent: Monday, March 19, 2007 5:30 AM
To: richard at shockey.us
Cc: PFAUTZ, PENN L, ATTCORP; enum at ietf.org; iab at ietf.org; 'The IESG'
Subject: Re: [Enum] My view of where we are in ENUM


On 19 mar 2007, at 09.59, Richard Shockey wrote:

> its only that the ITU not
> the IETF can ultimately make that decision and what the appropriate
> administrative procedures are surrounding that apex.

Let me phrase this differently, because I think I understand where  
the sensitivity is. In what Richard is saying lies two things:

1. As co-chairs we can not, given the landscape, declare consensus  
that we need a branch and a specific apex for that branch. We need  
input from AD/IAB.

2. We suggest IAB/IETF cooperate with ITU-T on the question, but  
whether any question is to be sent etc is a decision that lies with  
IAB and IESG.

    Patrik

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