Re: [Enum] draft-ietf-enum-unused

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

Cullen I ran into this wall myself with CNAM and the lack of clarity within
the IESG on what is and is not the appropriate use of the data URI.

It seemed obscene that you had to define a new URI for a simple telephony
parameter that was pretty well understood.  ;NUMBER=UNUSED ?? 

OK BTW  ;USER=FAX   You don't want to hear the issues there.

>  -----Original Message-----
>  From: Lawrence Conroy [mailto:lconroy at insensate.co.uk]
>  Sent: Wednesday, September 09, 2009 5:56 PM
>  To: Bernie Hoeneisen
>  Cc: Richard Shockey; 'Cullen Jennings'; IETF ENUM list
>  Subject: Re: [Enum] draft-ietf-enum-unused
>  
>  Hi Bernie, folks,
>    Pain? Nah! that doesn't cover it.
>  Regarding what happened next, not a lot. I suspect that Hadriel
>  volunteered without quite understanding what was involved.
>  
>  I think by that point Richard Stastny (who initially proposed this)
>  had retired, Hadriel had implemented this in two flavours for
>  customers -- once in accordance to a VOID draft *and* separately in
>  accordance with an Unused draft. (I believe that something not a
>  million miles away from unused was involved with the Korean ENUM trial
>  as well ;).
>  For me, having moved text in and out and up and down so many time I
>  was losing the ability to see, objections to the data: URL (AFAICT ?!?
>  because it was intrinsically evil?!? - ask Rohan) left me unconvinced
>  that with me at the typewriter there would be any possibility of this
>  getting though IESG before *I* retired.
>  As I can't see anything wrong with it at all in its latest version
>  (having replaced the http: URL with a data: URL as requested), I don't
>  know any more.
>  I do know that this works exactly as described in the draft (qua any
>  typos that drifted into it over the years) -- and quite well, at that.
>  
>  Is that enough?
>  
>  all the best,
>     Lawrence
>  
>  On 9 Sep 2009, at 21:43, Bernie Hoeneisen wrote:
>  > Hi Rich
>  >
>  > AFAICT Cullen's question refers to the pain around points raised by
>  > the former AD leading to the editor stepping down.
>  >
>  > I found something concering this in the records:
>  > http://tools.ietf.org/wg/enum/minutes?item=minutes71.html
>  >
>  > However, I found no records about what happened afterwards....
>  >
>  > cheers,
>  > Bernie
>  >
>  >
>  > On Wed, 9 Sep 2009, Richard Shockey wrote:
>  >
>  >> How painful do you want to go ... the problem statement is pretty
>  >> simple how
>  >> do you know if a number has been issued to the carrier but not
>  >> active or has
>  >> any services associated with it. The SIT tone issue. The ENUM
>  >> database needs
>  >> a flag to indicate the status of the number.
>  >>
>  >>> -----Original Message-----
>  >>> From: enum-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:enum-bounces at ietf.org] On
>  Behalf
>  >>> Of Cullen Jennings
>  >>> Sent: Wednesday, September 09, 2009 4:02 PM
>  >>> To: enum at ietf.org
>  >>> Subject: [Enum] draft-ietf-enum-unused
>  >>>
>  >>>
>  >>> Who is working on this draft these days? I need someone to remind
>  me
>  >>> of the painful history of this draft.
>  >>>
>  >>> Thanks, Cullen
>  >>>
>  >>> _______________________________________________
>  >>> enum mailing list
>  >>> enum at ietf.org
>  >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum
>  >>
>  >> _______________________________________________
>  >> enum mailing list
>  >> enum at ietf.org
>  >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum
>  >>
>  > _______________________________________________
>  > enum mailing list
>  > enum at ietf.org
>  > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum