[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

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

Hi Rich et al.

On Fri, 22 May 2009, Richard Shockey wrote:


 IMHO it doesn't matter at this point in time whether it will be BCP or
 informational at the end of the day.


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.


Before "Publication Requested" this does not matter too much.



 The more important question is find a proper home for this work: I
 propose this home to be SPEERMINT.


NO .. Bernie you did not listen the SPEERMINT chairs do not want it there.


I am not aware of any statement of rejection from SPEERMINT chair side.
At least Jason stated something different compared to what you claim.

On Thu, 05 Mar 2009, Jason Livingood wrote:

  I'm willing to consider it but only if the ENUM WG chairs feel strongly
  that this should come over to us.  If you guys can process it rapidly,
  and feel it is within your scope, then go for it.  If you are not sure
  it is totally in-scope and you expect to shut down soon so that you
  cannot move the document ahead, then we could fit this in as an
  "implementer-specific" document.  That's a long way of saying we can
  help if you like, but it's really up to you and Patrik.  :-)



Its not in their charter.
As stated earlier (YMMV), I believe this is closer to the SPEERMINT charter than to the ENUM charter. From the SPEERMINT charter: 

  The most focused deliverables of SPEERMINT are best current practices
  regarding exchange of real-time sessions among VoIP and other
  real-time application service providers and, in particular, how
  such calls are routed.



In case SPEERMINT won't  take it, it's up to DISPATCH to decide on this.


NO again. Why do you want to kill this?
I never stated any intention to kill this. What leads you to such a assumption?
Note: Stating "the work shall be carried out elsewhere" is different from "I don't want the work to be done at all". 



The WG agreed to do it.


I do not recall the ENUM WG taking on the new approach as a WG item.
I don't understand this procedure argument at all. DISPATCH right now is a black hole that no one understands how it will work.
Note: DISPATCH is not chartered to carry out work, but to decide where work is carried out best within the RAI area.
This is a perfectly simple draft with a perfectly simple solution that needs to be clarified so people can deploy it correctly.
Well, I am not aware of any I-D that looked simple in the beginning to stay as simple until the end...usually the opposite is the case. 


BTW: What is your schedule to close the ENUM WG?


cheers,
 Bernie