Subject: [Enum] Protocol Action: 'The E.164 to Uniform Resource Identifiers (URI) Dynamic Delegation Discovery System (DDDS) Application (ENUM)' to Proposed Standard

From: The IESG <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 08:52:18 -0700 (PDT)

The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'The E.164 to Uniform Resource Identifiers (URI) Dynamic Delegation
   Discovery System (DDDS) Application (ENUM)'
  <draft-ietf-enum-3761bis-09.txt> as a Proposed Standard

This document is the product of the Telephone Number Mapping Working
Group.

The IESG contact persons are Gonzalo Camarillo and Robert Sparks.

A URL of this Internet Draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-enum-3761bis/

1 - Technical Summary

This document discusses the use of the Domain Name System (DNS) for
the storage of E.164 [E164] numbers, and for resolving them into URIs
that can be used for (for example) telephony call setup.  This
document also describes how the DNS can be used to identify the
services associated with an E.164 number. This document includes a
Dynamic Delegation Discovery System (DDDS) Application specification,
as detailed in the document series described in [RFC3401]. This
document obsoletes [RFC3761].

2 - Working Group Summary

Was there anything in the discussion in the interested community that
is worth noting? For example, was there controversy about particular
points or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly
rough? Was the document considered in any WG, and if so, why was it
not adopted as a work item there?

In general except where noted this document represents a excellent
effort to update RFC 3761 on the basis of real operational experiences
and represents the effort of the ENUM WG to close its charter and
declare victory.

3 - Document Quality.

Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a significant
number of vendors indicated their plan to implement the specification?
Are there any reviewers that merit special mention as having done a
thorough review, e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a
conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If there was a
MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review, what was its course
(briefly)? In the case of a Media Type review, on what date was the
request posted?

As noted document reflects and updates RFC 3761 to reflect major
operational issues discovered during deployment. RFC 3761 is in wide
global deployment within e164.arpa as well in private instantiations
within in global carrier networks.

4 – Personnel

Document Shepherd: Richard Shockey
Responsible AD: Gonzalo Camarillo