Re: New Draft: Trunk Group Use in ENUM

Hi Bernie, folks,
  Agreed.
If there is a crucial reason to force this through the IETF on the old  
track, then let's discuss this at the ENUM WG meeting :).
all the best,
   Lawrence


On 5 Mar 2009, at 08:47, Bernie Hoeneisen wrote:

> Hi Rich
>
> Why don't we use the new process as decribed in
>
>  http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-enum-enumservices-guide
>
> for Trunk Group? So, the document does not need to be WG item.
> I believe it is not worth doing anything according to the old  
> process at
> this point in time.
>
> cheers,
> Bernie
>
>
> On Wed, 4 Mar 2009, Richard Shockey wrote:
>
>> To the list ..
>>
>> FYI this draft essentially supersedes the previous draft that Tom  
>> Creighton
>> and I co authored earlier.
>>
>> As far as I’m personally concerned this is still a legitimate WG  
>> item as it
>> describes, in another way , work we had already approved. It does  
>> have
>> significant applicability in the market today.
>>
>> I have no issues with this proceeding as a ENUM WG document unless  
>> there are
>> objections.  We are close to closure but fast tracking this to WGLC  
>> could be
>> of help to operators looking at this type of function.
>>
>> Comments? Any objections to a fast track?
>>
>> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On  
>> Behalf Of
>> Daryl Malas
>> Sent: Wednesday, March 04, 2009 6:16 PM
>> To: [email protected]
>> Cc: Tom Creighton
>> Subject: [Enum] New Draft: Trunk Group Use in ENUM
>>
>> All,
>> We have submitted a new draft describing another method for  
>> incorporating
>> trunk group information in an ENUM response.
>> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
>> directories.
>>     Title           : Trunk Group Use in ENUM
>>     Author(s)       : D. Malas, T. Creighton
>>     Filename        : draft-malas-enum-trunk-sip-00.txt
>>     Pages           : 7
>>     Date            : 2009-03-04
>> This document concludes that incorporating trunk group parameters
>> into an Electronic Number (ENUM) response for the Session Initiation
>> Protocol (SIP) [RFC3261] service URI is a more effective approach
>> compared to defining a new ENUM service type for a 'trunk'.  Upon
>> further review of the existing ENUM trunk group draft
>> [I-D.ietf-enum-trunkgroup] and practical operator experience, this
>> draft recommends the use of the current trunk group contexts as
>> defined in [RFC4904] as additional parameters in the E2U+SIP
>> enumservice NAPTR record [RFC3403] URI.
>> A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
>> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-malas-enum-trunk-sip-00.txt
>> Regards,
>> Daryl
>> -----------------
>> Daryl Malas
>> CableLabs
>> (o) +1 303 661 3302
>> (f) +1 303 661 9199
>> mailto:[email protected]
> _______________________________________________
> enum mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum