Re: [Enum] Review of draft-yu-enumservice-sms-smpp WG ITEM?

["Richard Shockey" <richard at shockey.us>]

>  -----Original Message-----
>  From: lconroy [mailto:lconroy at insensate.co.uk]
>  Sent: Monday, April 28, 2008 7:54 PM
>  To: Richard Shockey
>  Cc: 'Peter Koch'; enum at ietf.org
>  Subject: Re: [Enum] Review of draft-yu-enumservice-sms-smpp WG ITEM?
>  
>  Hi Richard, folks,
>    I'm neutral either way on trying to push this through or to
>  "do it properly" using rfc3761bis and the guide. You did say before
>  that we should "eat our own dog food" and use the new process, but
>  I understand the commercial imperative to get something out soon.

It would make Dublin a lot easier to schedule. I'm terribly reluctant to go
for 2 hours since we have enough contentious issues to discuss and RAI will
be packed as usual.  I think we need to do our duty here and push out
3761bis and the Registration document to WGLC ASAP.

What is that going to take?

>  
>  Also, choosing a track for James' SMS update depends on whether or not
>  the IESG will be enthusiastic to process the SMS update with the new
>  process (designed to put less load on them) just around the corner
>  - care to guess?

No. Patrik and I are just lowly middle management here. We have no special
insight into the current internal religious rituals of the IESG. James draft
is IMHO pretty routine. My concern is process. If the 3761bis and
Registration get caught up in the IESG blender it could be a year or more
before real action. That is IMHO unacceptable. I thought the same with Jason
Livingoods draft on internal messaging. Just do it now,  but if we are close
to WGLC on Registration OK..but.  Where is the proper cut off point? At what
point do we say no more registration drafts until the new procedure is in
place. Peter Koch has a valid point, as usual.

  
>  However, I'd hate to see 3761bis and the guide held up too long
>  either.
>  
>  IMHO, the Guide is pretty close to complete.
>  The only real question is whether or not we need to do a refreshed
>  "X- guide" soon. Either way, I think the "main" guide is ready to
>  roll.

Is this the consensus of the WG?  Should everyone take one last look at
3761bis and the Registration document? 

Is it appropriate to run the Registration document through David Conrad of
IANA for comments? 

Lawrence .. ?? Send a note to Dave that might help. He is IANA after all.

I'm only asking.
  
>  3761bis should be complete, and will have one more refresh at some
>  point to reflect the WGLC comments Alfred Hoenes gave us (which were not
>  really editorial, IIUC, so that could even be in Authors'48).
>  
>  The authors on these docs have worked really hard to get them
>  together.  I can't see any reason why they should be delayed in the WG.
>  
>  Given the IESG comments on Experiences, do we need some clarification
>  from  Jon on whether or not he thinks that these documents will be
>  acceptable to  the IESG?
>  [3761bis has a chunk of text from Experiences, so I'm no longer sure
>  quite  what's OK and what isn't]

At this point I don't think it's reasonable to ask the AD for pre guidance
on what they might or might not accept. All we can do as a WG is do our
best, throw the document over the transom and wait and see. 

Given that what is the plan?  Do you have a plan? Did you ever see the movie
'The Hunt for Red October'. "So what the plan?" ...you can fill in the rest
of the script.

I do have to express a certain exasperation that the WG has not given more
discussion to 3761bis etc. Though the Registration document has thoroughly
evolved, through WG discussion, into the fine product it is.

>  
>  all the best,
>     Lawrence
>  
>  On 28 Apr 2008, at 17:32, Richard Shockey wrote:
>  > I'd hate to see a perfectly simple registration ID held up too long
>  if
>  > Registration/3761bis this were going to be dragged out past Dublin.
>  >
>  > We do seem to have some trouble getting people to review and
>  > comment on RFC
>  > 3761 bis etc.. the two are somewhat tied together.

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