Re: Review of draft-yu-enumservice-sms-smpp WG ITEM?

>  >
>  > I'm going to assume silence as consent .....
>  >
>  >
>  > >  Subject: Re: [Enum] Review of draft-yu-enumservice-sms-smpp
>  > >
>  > >  So I'm assuming for purposes of argument that there is no
>  objection to
>  > >  making this a WG document.
>  
>  without any disrespect to the document under consideration:
>  Now that we have the "enum services" document in its final stages,
>  wouldn't
>  it be better to use _this_ draft as one test case for "enum services"
>  and thus,
>  with AD backing of course, not adopt it but use the procedure outlined
>  in  "enum services" for review and evaluation?

That would be nice but how close are we to being ready to go to WGLC on the
Registration document? 

Would the Registration draft authors care to comment?

I'd hate to see a perfectly simple registration ID held up too long if
Registration/3761bis this were going to be dragged out past Dublin.

We do seem to have some trouble getting people to review and comment on RFC
3761 bis etc.. the two are somewhat tied together.

>  
>  The fact that this draft updates an existing registration might make
>  it more  difficult, but would also be helpful in getting "enum services"
done.

I'm certainly open minded here ... what does the WG want to do?


>  
>  -Peter
>  _______________________________________________
>  enum mailing list
>  [email protected]
>  https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum