Re: [Enum] Are we ready to go to WGLC on this?

[Peter Koch <pk at DENIC.DE>]

Thanks, Richard, for responding to my questions.

> Is this ENUM service registration aimed at Proposed or Informational?
> 
> RS> Proposed ..all registration documents are Proposed

I understand that this happened in the past, but now that we're considering
an easier method for registering ENUM services, there might no longer be
an immediate need for Standards Track. By the way, I just overlooked that
the draft's header says "Intended status: Informational".
In this particular case, there's an additional argument for "Informational":
The base IAX spec <draft-guy-iax-03.txt> appears as a normative reference
and the draft does not give the IETF change control (see boilerplate):

   This document may not be modified, and derivative works of it may not
   be created.

So, my understanding is it is unlikely this will be published as anything
else but Informational. As a corollary, the ENUM services document can
only be Informational as well. Whether or not an ENUM service is "derivative
works" is for somebody else to decide.

-Peter

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