Re: FW: I-D Action: draft-goix-appsawg-enum-sn-service-00.txt

Don't get me wrong.  I thought your comments were excellent and completely
in line with the intent and letter of 6117. If the authors make these
changes than its good to go IMHO. 

As for MetaData

Note mandate for Carrier ENUM. Paragraph 70

http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/archive/2012/2012-24.htm

-----Original Message-----
From: Lawrence Conroy [mailto:[email protected]] 
Sent: Saturday, March 03, 2012 1:10 PM
To: Richard Shockey
Cc: 'IETF ENUM list'
Subject: Re: [Enum] FW: I-D Action:
draft-goix-appsawg-enum-sn-service-00.txt

Hi Richard, folks,
 Um -- yeah?
Just in case there was some misunderstanding, neither do I. If someone wants
to use this stuff, bring it on.
(considering the welter of stuff I've put into ENUM, I'm hardly in a
position to complain :).

I don't think the comments I put in were unreasonable -- these will need to
be fixed, so rather than slow things down later I put in comments on the
ENUM-y bits now.

The registration process of 6117 is designed to (i) make the registration
process easier and (ii) cover the bases that need to be covered so folk can
build/use this stuff (not just put it in a document and forget it).

This is one of the first ones through that new process, and its from apps
area/W3C/OMA-led work. Helping folk to ensure it does actually tick the 6117
boxes is hardly meant to be awkward.

all the best from a bemused
  Lawrence



On 3 Mar 2012, at 15:38, Richard Shockey wrote:
> What's the big deal here.  Sure they can clean up some text, but the
intent
> of the process was to make these things simple.  This is another Carrier
> ENUM concept probably in association with RCS or some other scheme.  And
> there are lot more coming.
> 
> I certainly have no objection to this registration moving forward.
> 
> FYI I have it on good authority that the meta data issue is coming back.