Re: WG: New Draft: Trunk Group Use in ENUM RESTART - Second request for guidence

On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 09:04:05AM +0200, Bernie Hoeneisen wrote:

> I do disagree with you that silence on this is consent. On top of that 
> many people have expressed their critical opinions earlier on this list.

I have to agree with Bernie here.  For a formal adoption it makes sense to have
at least some volunteers lined up to do the review, unless one is prepared to
continue with the "silence is consent" approach.

> IMHO this draft should go forward outside the ENUM WG as we are 
> shutting it down.

Yes, but: draft-ietf-enum-trunkgroup-00.txt, although expired, still is on the
WG's plate.  So, I think the right questions to ask are

1) Is anybody but the authors/editors of the respective drafts believes the WG
   should say anything in this direction (trunk groups). [But see the "price tag"
   under (4)]
2) Do you agree to abandon the approach in draft-ietf-enum-trunkgroup-00.txt?
3) Is the content of draft-malas-enum-trunk-sip-00.txt a better start instead?
4) Is anybody willing to review draft-malas-enum-trunk-sip-00.txt?

Then publish draft-malas-enum-trunk-sip-00.txt as draft-ietf-enum-trunkgroup-01.txt,
changing the intended state to Informational.

To start answering the question with the caveat already mentioned in
<http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/enum/current/msg06872.html>, the
registration proposed in draft-ietf-enum-trunkgroup-00.txt doesn't really look
like an ENUM service.  From that perspective, the approach proposed in
draft-malas-enum-trunk-sip-00.txt appears more straight forward to me.
However, I think the draft needs more review and it should be clearer on its core
statement; right now it is structured so much as a counter proposal to
draft-ietf-enum-trunkgroup-00.txt, so it doesn't really stand on its own feet --
which is fine for a "-00".
In summary, I'd abstain from (1), answer yes to (2) and (3) and would do (4) as
far as my non experience with the core subject matter allows.

-Peter