Re: [Enum] WG: New Draft: Trunk Group Use in ENUM RESTART - Secondrequest for guidence

[Peter Koch <pk at DENIC.DE>]

On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 09:59:24AM -0400, Richard Shockey wrote:

I agree with Bernie that the category is the second decision to make, but ...

> Yes it is important Bernie. BCP has a greater weight than Informational the
> burden of proof is very different. BCP clearly requires extensive community
> review.

... this is the wrong (i.e., reverse) approach.
First, if you are concerned about review, you can have IETF wide Last Call
for Informational documents, as well, even though it is not mandatory.
Second, organizing review and increasing its quality are up to the editors and
the chairs, regardless of the document category.
If I understand correctly, the technique under discussion is to be applied
mostly if not solely to Infrastructure ENUM?  Also, we're reducing the
registration process for ENUM services from Standards Track to Expert Review.
Both indicate to me that BCP is inappropriate because of the lack of breadth.

> NO again. Why do you want to kill this? The WG agreed to do it. I don't

Could you point me to that declaration of consensus, please?

> understand this procedure argument at all. DISPATCH right now is a black
> hole that no one understands how it will work. This is a perfectly simple
> draft with a perfectly simple solution that needs to be clarified so people
> can deploy it correctly.
> 
> IMHO the expertise is here in ENUM not in DISPATCH ..or SPEERMINT. 

There's some irony here in that even though it's all so simple, we don't
really see discussion of the contents of the draft ...

-Peter (who pleas guilty as charged)