Re: What issues do we need to cover/finalize in Minneapolis?

Hi Richard, folks,
  I do think there is merit to getting face time to try to get the final
nails driven into the coffins of Experiences, 3761bis, the guidelines
doc, and potentially the X- guidelines doc. IMHO, at least summarising  
the
status at the end of that week and agreeing a way forward Would Be Good.
[Also, finalising the way forward for the residual bits and bobs  
CNAM, ... :]

Re Send-N - I had thought that was to be found a home in another groups,
in Apps (as I recall). Does anyone know what happened next?

Re. Unused - as an ex-author, I was reminded forcefully in YVR that I  
have
no say in the disposition of this document. I do, however, have an  
opinion.
Hadriel volunteered to look at this, but I suspect he's busy (and/or has
understood the meaning of the term sisyphean :).
It doesn't obviously fit with any of the categories in the new  
guidelines
document/process (except "other" :).
I believe it's in use already in a number of Infrastructure ENUM schemes
(some of them are using the original Enumservice "void", FGS).
IMHO, it would be good to document this. However, if it simply isn't
going to be accepted in anything like the way it's used in the real
world, is there a point to this effort?
i.e. Has anyone really got the energy to go through the hoops again
when anyone who needs it has already implemented it (sometimes twice ;).

all the best,
   Lawrence


On 15 Oct 2008, at 20:11, Richard Shockey wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Jim Reid [mailto:[email protected]]
>> Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2008 2:09 PM
>> To: Richard Shockey
>> Cc: [email protected]; 'Patrik Fältström'
>> Subject: Re: [Enum] What issues do we need to cover/finalize in
>> Minneapolis?
>>
>> On Oct 15, 2008, at 18:34, Richard Shockey wrote:
>>
>>> I have a one hour slot allocated on Friday..but do we even need it?
>>
>> I suppose it depends on whether we have that process for registering
>> service types or not, and how well things have progressed with IANA.
>
> Well so far so good. I cant imagine an issue that would require face  
> to face
> consensus here.
>
>>
>> Also, what's happening about send-n and the other bits and bobs that
>> seem to be clustering around a new DDDS spec? Is this for the enum WG
>> or somewhere else?
>
> Well that’s why I'm asking the question.  The issue of send-n and  
> UNUSED are
> un-resolved.
>
> SOURCE URI is probably out of scope for ENUM at this time
>
> _______________________________________________
> enum mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum