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

Well there are multiple IANA procedures for doing this. .what I thought we
wanted to do was select the procedure from the best practices here. The new
URI scheme registration for instance.

[15] Hansen, T, et al., "The "Guidelines and Registration Procedures for New
URI Schemes", RFC 4395, February 2006

I think one thing we should do is check with David Conrad the GM IANA for
input. I spoke to him in Chicago specifically about providing a little
expert guidance of what works and what doesn't.

>  -----Original Message-----
>  From: Bernie Hoeneisen [mailto:[email protected]]
>  Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 5:10 AM
>  To: Richard Shockey
>  Cc: [email protected]; 'Peter Koch'; Livingood, Jason
>  Subject: RE: [Enum] 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
>  >
>  
>  _______________________________________________
>  enum mailing list
>  [email protected]
>  https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum