Subject: [Enum] I-D Action:draft-ietf-enum-enumservices-guide-21.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2010 08:30:01 -0700 (PDT)

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Telephone Number Mapping Working Group of the IETF.

	Title           : IANA Registration of Enumservices: Guide, Template and IANA Considerations
	Author(s)       : B. Hoeneisen, et al.
	Filename        : draft-ietf-enum-enumservices-guide-21.txt
	Pages           : 49
	Date            : 2010-09-13

This document specifies a revision of the IANA Registration
Guidelines for Enumservices, describes corresponding registration
procedures, and provides a guideline for creating Enumservice
Specifications.

A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-enum-enumservices-guide-21.txt

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader
implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the
Internet-Draft.

---

From: Bernie Hoeneisen <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2010 17:50:03 +0200 (CEST)

Status-Update draft-ietf-enum-enumservices-guide:

We just published an interim revision (actually the state we were to 
publish already during IETF-78). It fully addresses all DISCUSSes, except 
David Harrington's, which needed clarification. In the meantime David 
clarified his DISCUSS and we are currently working on it. We aim to
resolve this last DISCUSS soon.

Looking forward to -22!

cheers,
  Bernie, Alex and Jason

---

From: Peter Koch <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2010 19:18:17 +0200

> We just published an interim revision (actually the state we were to 

thanks, Bernie et al.

> resolve this last DISCUSS soon.

there's basicly two changes I could spot from the diff:

1) The draft now aims at "Standards Track" instead of BCP.  This appears
   at least "interesting" for a process document. What is the motivation
   behind this?

2) The expert review process was carefully designed to give guidance to
   both the expert and the requester.  The updated draft version now
   declares this non-normative, making it harder for the expert to
   insist on certain elements.  I understand from partially following
   the discussion in the tracker that there were concerns redefining
   or overruling RFC 5226, but there is precedent for this sort
   of mandatory review guidelines and it is also appropriate to maintain
   a level of quality and interoperable specifications that fit the
   architecture.  Several changes in the normative language seem
   acceptable or even appropriate, but the general relax clause is
   a step too far.  See Section 3.2 of RFC 5226: "Ideally, the designated
   expert follows specific review criteria as documented with the protocol
   that creates or uses the namespace."

-Peter

---

From: Bernie Hoeneisen <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2010 13:39:56 +0200 (CEST)

Hi Peter

Thanks for your feedback.

>   at least "interesting" for a process document. What is the motivation

We updated this on request from the IESG. I actually don't know what's the 
reasoning behind.

@Gonzalo: Could you please clarify on this?

>   that creates or uses the namespace."

We updated this based on the DISCUSS of Dave Harrington. I included Dave 
into this thread.

@Dave: Could you please explain your concerns wtr. to the ENUM community?

cheers,
  Bernie

---

From: Gonzalo Camarillo <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2010 15:19:07 +0300

Hi,

> @Gonzalo: Could you please clarify on this?

the tracker's field contained PS but the document said BCP. The chairs
(Richard) said that the plan had always been to go for PS and not for
BCP, and the IESG did not have any problem with that.

Cheers,

Gonzalo

---

From: "Richard Shockey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2010 08:52:48 -0400

Gonzalo is correct.  Fat thumb error. No conspiracy intended. Logically
given the subject matter it's a PS.

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
Gonzalo Camarillo
Sent: Tuesday, September 14, 2010 8:19 AM
To: Bernie Hoeneisen
Cc: IETF ENUM list; Peter Koch; David Harrington
Subject: Re: [Enum] I-D Action:draft-ietf-enum-enumservices-guide-21.txt

Hi,

Cheers,

Gonzalo

_______________________________________________
enum mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum

---

From: Peter Koch <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2010 00:09:27 +0200

> given the subject matter it's a PS.

assuming that _this_ was now exactly that type of error :-), I'd like to
point to <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/enum/current/msg06548.html>
and surrounding messages. In that discussion we concluded BCP was the
appropriate status.  Please understand, PS would not provide "more value"
than BCP, but both categories just have different functions.

Best regards,
   Peter

---

From: Gonzalo Camarillo <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2010 10:20:07 +0300

Hi,

I will discuss this with the IESG and let you know how to proceed.

Thanks,

Gonzalo

---

From: Gonzalo Camarillo <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2010 10:43:26 +0300

Hi Peter,

as promised, I have discussed this issue (PS vs. BCP) within the IESG.
Some ADs thought PS was more appropriate while other ADs (including
myself) thought BCP would be better. However, we had consensus that this
is a very minor issue; everybody seemed to be able to live with either
PS or BCP.

The thing is that the IETF LC (before I was in the IESG) was for PS:

http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf-announce/current/msg06107.html

Therefore, if we decided to make it a BCP now, we would need to run a
second IETF LC. Therefore, my suggestion is to stick to PS (unless the
WG strongly opposes this way forward).

Thanks,

Gonzalo