notes inline.
- I'm not a big fan of accepting new work items in the ENUM working group.A. this is not new work ..the original draft was an approved WG item. Its simply expired. Shockey, R. and T. Creighton, "IANA Registration for an Enumservice Trunkgroup", draft-ietf-enum-trunkgroup-00 (work in progress), July 2008.
I understood that very well. However, the new draft is not the same work - it's some operational experience why we don't need the original work. Fine as well, but not the same work.
Yes it's should be structured as a BCP. The idea is to actually document something that actually works vs waiting another year or whatever to try and create a new enum service. I personally had no objection to completely rewriting the existing 00 draft but the authors chose to submit a new draft.
I preferred to see it as a new draft anyway, because the subject of the draft changed quite a lot (from an Enumservice registration to an operational practice).
What i meant is that i don't think we'd need to accept it as a WG item *just* to reason dropping the "trunk" registration work.
Now if i hear people saying it contains important operational experience, *then* it's a different story.
Whether it should be done in SPEERMINT or ENUM is a different question.
So you want to send this to SPEERMINT where again it will get lost in the shuffle? Daryl, Jason ?? Do you want to do this?
Well, if it's about finding the path of least resistance, then the sedated ENUM WG might work well :)
[...]
More stall and delay. I just don't see the point. Why do you want to get this draft bogged down in some IETF procedural issue? Cant we just fix it and shut the WG down? This draft, again, has real and demonstrable applicability to internal SSP operator networks RIGHT NOW, unlike some RAI drafts I see floating around.
ok, ok, i'm convinced - i was just a bit reluctant to replace work that was expired anyway with new work. If it's the easiest way, the lets proceed it.
Alex