Re: [e2md] Dean's Proxy-Shill Version of the Problem statement

I don't believe IETF should be afraid if others decide to take IETF stuff and do their own take with it. That is not a good reason to do those carbuncle things In IETF. What is a good reason is if the WG is taking the initiative and doing work that is for everyone, scales and isn't just trying to satisfy a need in some walled garden. 

So what would be the workplan? Apologies if I've missed a draft that explains this. In which case I would be grateful for a pointer. 


Christian


On 14 May 2010, at 03:20, 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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> enum mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum