Re: [e2md] Dean's Proxy-Shill Version of the Problem statement
Bernie Hoeneisen <[email protected]> Fri, 14 May 2010 10:15:04 +0200 (CEST)
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.enum |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
As an individual I see it a viable way to work out at least parts of the E2MD cases in the ENUM WG (once we've sorted out which parts are suitable). In this case E2MD would continue to work on those parts that are not suitable for ENUM. As a co-chair of the ENUM WG the appropriate answer to this consultative hum from Rich is: abstention cheers, Bernie On Thu, 13 May 2010, Richard Shockey wrote: > So ... all in favor of re chartering the ENUM WG ..please hum on this list > or the ENUM WG list now attached. > > Its time to force the issue. This is important work ultimately central to > making SIP work better. Stall and delay is not a rational option here. SIP > Service providers and IMS providers want clarity and direction on where the > technical standards are moving, if at all. If the IETF doesn't do this it > will be done privately and without proper community and peer review. > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Ray > Bellis > Sent: Thursday, May 13, 2010 8:39 PM > To: Dean Willis > Cc: E.164 To MetaData BOF discussion list > Subject: Re: [e2md] Dean's Proxy-Shill Version of the Problem statement > > >> Are the rest of the sentences true and consistent with the work we've > proposed >> to do? > > They're consistent with the approach in Bernie's draft. > > However on the last call the it was proposed that it might be a good > idea to simply reboot the ENUM WG. In another message Richard has shown > that much (if not all) of what we want to do is _already_ within charter. > > [[[ > I first proposed E2M during the Dublin IETF, as a way to mitigate concerns > that a particular ex-AD had over use of E2U for "non-communications data". > AFAICR he was OK with this proposal, which then laid dormant until Bernie > wrote it up. > > For my own Send-N draft, my plan had actually been to simply wait for the > ENUM Services Guide draft to become an RFC, and the re-file under the expert > review process. > ]]] > > Ray > > _______________________________________________ > e2md mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/e2md > > _______________________________________________ > e2md mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/e2md >