RE: I-D Action:draft-ietf-enum-enumservices-guide-05.txt

On Tue, 23 Oct 2007, Richard Shockey wrote:

> Peter thank you for taking the time to comment here... I thought we decided
> that we would use existing procedures here and not reinvent the wheel.


Rich, Peter:
Which of the existing procedures do you have in mind?


Jason:
As the original text for the procdure now proposed in the I-D was 
contributed by you, did you take the idea from an existing 
registration procedure?


cheers,
  Bernie


> http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/07jul/minutes/enum.txt
>
> Expert Review certainly with the option to require IESG review via a RFC.
>
>>  -----Original Message-----
>>  From: Peter Koch [mailto:[email protected]]
>>  Sent: Monday, October 22, 2007 5:33 PM
>>  To: [email protected]
>>  Subject: Re: [Enum] I-D Action:draft-ietf-enum-enumservices-guide-
>>  05.txt
>>
>>  On Mon, Oct 22, 2007 at 12:00:02PM -0400, [email protected]
>>  wrote:
>>
>> > 	Title           : Guide and Template for IANA Registrations of
>>  Enumservices
>> > 	Author(s)       : B. Hoeneisen, et al.
>> > 	Filename        : draft-ietf-enum-enumservices-guide-05.txt
>>
>>  {NIT: use of "<?rfc symrefs='yes'?>" in the xml2rfc source might have
>>  lead
>>        to less changes in the diff and usually makes references easier
>>  to
>>        comprehend}
>>
>>  The ASCII art I like, but I still think the document tries to reinvent
>>  the
>>  wheel by designing a specific review process instead of using the
>>  available
>>  choices.  It also might produce strange corner cases, e.g. where it
>>  demands the proposed service be submitted as "individual submission",
>>  which could even exclude a WG from the proposing a new service (well,
>>  there's a solution to that, but why not get it right in the first
>>  place).
>>
>>  The proposal mixes "Designated Expert" (in 2434bis terms) with "IETF
>>  Review"
>>  by maintaining the requirement that any ENUMservice be published as a
>>  BCP, Standards Track or Experimental RFC.  The draft in question would
>>  be an excellent opportunity to relax that.
>>
>>  IMHO the ENUM service registration should be based on "Expert Review"
>>  plus
>>  "RFC required" with additional guiding information provided to the
>>  Expert-to-be by the various obligatory sections currently present in
>>  the
>>  template.
>>
>>  -Peter
>>
>>  _______________________________________________
>>  enum mailing list
>>  [email protected]
>>  https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> enum mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum
>