From bernie@ietf.hoeneisen.ch Fri Apr 9 13:46:04 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: enum@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: enum@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF7463A6836 for ; Fri, 9 Apr 2010 13:46:04 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.828 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.828 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.771, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yOs3YJIQuVev for ; Fri, 9 Apr 2010 13:46:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from softronics.hoeneisen.ch (softronics.hoeneisen.ch [62.2.86.178]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC3BF3A68AE for ; Fri, 9 Apr 2010 13:46:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]) by softronics.hoeneisen.ch with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1O0L5S-0003ks-5B for enum@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Apr 2010 22:45:58 +0200 Date: Fri, 9 Apr 2010 22:45:58 +0200 (CEST) From: Bernie Hoeneisen X-X-Sender: bhoeneis@softronics.hoeneisen.ch To: IETF ENUM list Message-ID: User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (DEB 1167 2008-08-23) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; format=flowed; charset=US-ASCII X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 127.0.0.1 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: bernie@ietf.hoeneisen.ch X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on softronics.hoeneisen.ch); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Subject: [Enum] Question about Milestone: ENUM Privacy and Security Considerations X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Enum Discussion List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 09 Apr 2010 20:46:04 -0000 Hi, On the ENUM charter there is one milestone we have not (yet) completed: Goals and Milestones: [...] Jul 2006 - ENUM Privacy and Security Considerations as an Informational In the archieves I found a long expired I-D that intended to addresses that milestone: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-enum-privacy-security-01 Does anybody remember, why this work was discontinued? [These discussions are dated back to the times before I started to attend the IETF ENUM WG meetings.] cheers, Bernie, co-chair of the ENUM WG PS: Such information might also be helpful for the current e2md discussions, where some folks consider privacy to be a concern. From richard@shockey.us Fri Apr 9 17:48:00 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: enum@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: enum@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 74C693A693F for ; Fri, 9 Apr 2010 17:48:00 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.911 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.911 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.688, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id M2j+JNsJtK5Y for ; Fri, 9 Apr 2010 17:47:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from outbound-mail-359.bluehost.com (oproxy1-pub.bluehost.com [66.147.249.253]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 4D50F3A6811 for ; Fri, 9 Apr 2010 17:47:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 16302 invoked by uid 0); 10 Apr 2010 00:47:56 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO box462.bluehost.com) (74.220.219.62) by oproxy1.bluehost.com.bluehost.com with SMTP; 10 Apr 2010 00:47:56 -0000 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=default; d=shockey.us; h=Received:From:To:References:In-Reply-To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:X-Mailer:Thread-Index:Content-Language:X-Identified-User; b=OQ+HnP9ULHi+zA5h9LkcG0S4pBn3RUrQ6Ew95ZtEu4AL7PLn6xtri0mUalfhNK5DGEJIuwsPqJ7XBRAbfI/xu9jC6Tjm9dsaX6+lLnnZwiDSMxlc1BNgpzqz1ZnlgF90; Received: from pool-96-231-199-72.washdc.fios.verizon.net ([96.231.199.72] helo=RSHOCKEYPC) by box462.bluehost.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1O0Orb-0003HT-7G; Fri, 09 Apr 2010 18:47:55 -0600 From: "Richard Shockey" To: "'Bernie Hoeneisen'" , "'IETF ENUM list'" References: In-Reply-To: Date: Fri, 9 Apr 2010 20:47:50 -0400 Message-ID: <007801cad847$72ffe110$58ffa330$@us> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0 Thread-Index: AcrYJash02cCo7pQQ9eWbr7w9ozsbAAIbXEw Content-Language: en-us X-Identified-User: {3286:box462.bluehost.com:shockeyu:shockey.us} {sentby:smtp auth 96.231.199.72 authed with richard@shockey.us} Subject: Re: [Enum] Question about Milestone: ENUM Privacy and Security Considerations X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Enum Discussion List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 10 Apr 2010 00:48:00 -0000 Because no one cared .. kill it. -----Original Message----- From: enum-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:enum-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Bernie Hoeneisen Sent: Friday, April 09, 2010 4:46 PM To: IETF ENUM list Subject: [Enum] Question about Milestone: ENUM Privacy and Security Considerations Hi, On the ENUM charter there is one milestone we have not (yet) completed: Goals and Milestones: [...] Jul 2006 - ENUM Privacy and Security Considerations as an Informational In the archieves I found a long expired I-D that intended to addresses that milestone: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-enum-privacy-security-01 Does anybody remember, why this work was discontinued? [These discussions are dated back to the times before I started to attend the IETF ENUM WG meetings.] cheers, Bernie, co-chair of the ENUM WG PS: Such information might also be helpful for the current e2md discussions, where some folks consider privacy to be a concern. _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From bownes@seiri.com Fri Apr 9 21:50:01 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: enum@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: enum@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A7F203A69B4 for ; Fri, 9 Apr 2010 21:50:01 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.977 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lNhf+NOgbk1u for ; Fri, 9 Apr 2010 21:49:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-gy0-f172.google.com (mail-gy0-f172.google.com [209.85.160.172]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE0643A689C for ; Fri, 9 Apr 2010 21:49:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: by gyh4 with SMTP id 4so2061459gyh.31 for ; Fri, 09 Apr 2010 21:49:46 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.231.149.82 with HTTP; Fri, 9 Apr 2010 21:49:46 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <007801cad847$72ffe110$58ffa330$@us> References: <007801cad847$72ffe110$58ffa330$@us> Date: Sat, 10 Apr 2010 00:49:46 -0400 Received: by 10.101.214.10 with SMTP id r10mr1961707anq.170.1270874986191; Fri, 09 Apr 2010 21:49:46 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: From: robert bownes To: Richard Shockey , Bernie Hoeneisen , IETF ENUM list Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Subject: Re: [Enum] Question about Milestone: ENUM Privacy and Security Considerations X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Enum Discussion List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 10 Apr 2010 04:50:01 -0000 I recall quite a hew and cry from the privacy advocates at a few meetings in DC and the enumf talked about it and incorporated some privacy language in the 6001 doc iirc. But it did pretty much come to naught. Bob On 4/9/10, Richard Shockey wrote: > Because no one cared .. kill it. > > -----Original Message----- > From: enum-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:enum-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of > Bernie Hoeneisen > Sent: Friday, April 09, 2010 4:46 PM > To: IETF ENUM list > Subject: [Enum] Question about Milestone: ENUM Privacy and Security > Considerations > > Hi, > > On the ENUM charter there is one milestone we have not (yet) completed: > > Goals and Milestones: > [...] > Jul 2006 - ENUM Privacy and Security Considerations as an Informational > > In the archieves I found a long expired I-D that intended to addresses > that milestone: > > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-enum-privacy-security-01 > > Does anybody remember, why this work was discontinued? > > [These discussions are dated back to the times before I started to attend > the IETF ENUM WG meetings.] > > cheers, > Bernie, co-chair of the ENUM WG > > > PS: Such information might also be helpful for the current e2md > discussions, where some folks consider privacy to be a concern. > > > _______________________________________________ > enum mailing list > enum@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum > > _______________________________________________ > enum mailing list > enum@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum > From gonzalo.camarillo@ericsson.com Fri Apr 16 02:48:06 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: enum@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: enum@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A02F3A6925 for ; Fri, 16 Apr 2010 02:48:06 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.82 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.82 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.221, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Nei5SWwTiOHY for ; Fri, 16 Apr 2010 02:48:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailgw9.se.ericsson.net (mailgw9.se.ericsson.net [193.180.251.57]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F24B3A67AB for ; Fri, 16 Apr 2010 02:48:03 -0700 (PDT) X-AuditID: c1b4fb39-b7b85ae000005cbc-91-4bc8324bae61 Received: from esealmw127.eemea.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.253.124]) by mailgw9.se.ericsson.net (Symantec Brightmail Gateway) with SMTP id 29.08.23740.B4238CB4; Fri, 16 Apr 2010 11:47:55 +0200 (CEST) Received: from esealmw129.eemea.ericsson.se ([153.88.254.177]) by esealmw127.eemea.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Fri, 16 Apr 2010 11:47:10 +0200 Received: from mail.lmf.ericsson.se ([131.160.11.50]) by esealmw129.eemea.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Fri, 16 Apr 2010 11:47:10 +0200 Received: from [131.160.37.44] (EV001E681B5FE2.lmf.ericsson.se [131.160.37.44]) by mail.lmf.ericsson.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id 36E322750 for ; Fri, 16 Apr 2010 12:47:10 +0300 (EEST) Message-ID: <4BC8321D.6040207@ericsson.com> Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2010 12:47:09 +0300 From: Gonzalo Camarillo User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-US; rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100317 Thunderbird/3.0.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: enum@ietf.org X-Enigmail-Version: 1.0.1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 16 Apr 2010 09:47:10.0201 (UTC) FILETIME=[C8A3CE90:01CADD49] X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== Subject: [Enum] Review: draft-ietf-enum-enumservices-guide-19.txt X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Enum Discussion List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2010 09:48:06 -0000 Hi, please, find below my comments on the enumservices guide draft. As soon as these comments are addressed, I will get the IESG as a whole to review the draft. Cheers, Gonzalo Review: draft-ietf-enum-enumservices-guide-19.txt The Introduction mentions both Specification Required and Expert Review. However, they are two different policies, as described in Section 4.1 of RFC 5226. Which policy is to be applied? Section 3 talks about Expert Review but not about Specification Required but Section 3.4 indicates that the policy to be followed is Specification Required. It is important to pick a single policy out of the ones described in RFC 5226 and clarify which one has been chosen. The confusion may come from the fact that Specification Required implies the use of a designated expert. The document should be very clear about what IANA policy applies. Section 11.7 also talks about Expert Review and Specification Required. Section 1 says: The new registration processes have been specifically designed to be decoupled from the existence of the ENUM working group. Later in the document, Section 6.3 says: The authors MUST send an email to . Is the intention to keep that mailing list alive regardless of the existence of the WG? The document should clarify this. Also, the last paragraph of Section 6.3 talks about "Experts". However, at that point in the process, no experts have been designated yet. Who are the "Experts" Section 6.3 refers to? The subscribers of the enum mailing list? Section 6.6 recommends to publish an RFC and provides several alternatives to do that: through a WG, as an AD sponsored RFC, or an an individual submission to the RFC editor. Do we want to recommend one of these alternatives over the others? (e.g., if the enum WG exists, publish it there, otherwise, talk to the RAI ADs). From gonzalo.camarillo@ericsson.com Fri Apr 16 02:48:08 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: enum@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: enum@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1DE9B3A67AB for ; Fri, 16 Apr 2010 02:48:08 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.749 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.749 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.150, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id uOnQb1kOdWQw for ; Fri, 16 Apr 2010 02:48:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailgw9.se.ericsson.net (mailgw9.se.ericsson.net [193.180.251.57]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 08AC33A6863 for ; Fri, 16 Apr 2010 02:48:05 -0700 (PDT) X-AuditID: c1b4fb39-b7b85ae000005cbc-ac-4bc8324c3e1f Received: from esealmw127.eemea.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.253.124]) by mailgw9.se.ericsson.net (Symantec Brightmail Gateway) with SMTP id AC.08.23740.C4238CB4; Fri, 16 Apr 2010 11:47:56 +0200 (CEST) Received: from esealmw129.eemea.ericsson.se ([153.88.254.177]) by esealmw127.eemea.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Fri, 16 Apr 2010 11:47:14 +0200 Received: from mail.lmf.ericsson.se ([131.160.11.50]) by esealmw129.eemea.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Fri, 16 Apr 2010 11:47:13 +0200 Received: from [131.160.37.44] (EV001E681B5FE2.lmf.ericsson.se [131.160.37.44]) by mail.lmf.ericsson.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id C8D252750 for ; Fri, 16 Apr 2010 12:47:13 +0300 (EEST) Message-ID: <4BC83221.3060103@ericsson.com> Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2010 12:47:13 +0300 From: Gonzalo Camarillo User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-US; rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100317 Thunderbird/3.0.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: enum@ietf.org X-Enigmail-Version: 1.0.1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 16 Apr 2010 09:47:13.0779 (UTC) FILETIME=[CAC5C430:01CADD49] X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== Subject: [Enum] Review: draft-ietf-enum-enumservices-transition-04.txt X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Enum Discussion List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2010 09:48:08 -0000 Hi, please, find below my comments on the enumservices transition draft. As soon as these comments are addressed, I will get the IESG as a whole to review the draft. Cheers, Gonzalo Review: draft-ietf-enum-enumservices-transition-04.txt Abstracts should not contain references. Please, remove the reference to RFC 3761 from it (it is OK to mention the RFC without the reference, though). Section 3 talks about the current policy being "Expert Review" and "Specification Required". Per my comments on the enumservices-guide document, this will have to be updated to point to a single IANA policy. From gonzalo.camarillo@ericsson.com Fri Apr 16 02:48:55 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: enum@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: enum@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E9F203A6850 for ; Fri, 16 Apr 2010 02:48:55 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.685 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.685 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.086, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id EVPhZ3LtHIek for ; Fri, 16 Apr 2010 02:48:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailgw9.se.ericsson.net (mailgw9.se.ericsson.net [193.180.251.57]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ADBAA3A69CD for ; Fri, 16 Apr 2010 02:48:54 -0700 (PDT) X-AuditID: c1b4fb39-b7b85ae000005cbc-7a-4bc8327e5012 Received: from esealmw129.eemea.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.253.124]) by mailgw9.se.ericsson.net (Symantec Brightmail Gateway) with SMTP id DB.28.23740.E7238CB4; Fri, 16 Apr 2010 11:48:46 +0200 (CEST) Received: from esealmw129.eemea.ericsson.se ([153.88.254.177]) by esealmw129.eemea.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Fri, 16 Apr 2010 11:47:17 +0200 Received: from mail.lmf.ericsson.se ([131.160.11.50]) by esealmw129.eemea.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Fri, 16 Apr 2010 11:47:17 +0200 Received: from [131.160.37.44] (EV001E681B5FE2.lmf.ericsson.se [131.160.37.44]) by mail.lmf.ericsson.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C2582750 for ; Fri, 16 Apr 2010 12:47:17 +0300 (EEST) Message-ID: <4BC83225.6050903@ericsson.com> Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2010 12:47:17 +0300 From: Gonzalo Camarillo User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-US; rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100317 Thunderbird/3.0.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: enum@ietf.org X-Enigmail-Version: 1.0.1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 16 Apr 2010 09:47:17.0607 (UTC) FILETIME=[CD0DDF70:01CADD49] X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== Subject: [Enum] Review: draft-ietf-enum-3761bis-06.txt X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Enum Discussion List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2010 09:48:56 -0000 Hi, please, find below my comments on the 3761bis draft. As soon as these comments are addressed, I will get the IESG as a whole to review the draft. Cheers, Gonzalo Review: draft-ietf-enum-3761bis-06.txt The titles of all subsections under Section 3.3 contain "Non-Terminal NAPTRs". Given that the title of Section 3.3 already mentions that, you may want to consider removing it from the rest of the titles. Regarding the document structure, separating the sections that provide normative behavior for clients and for entities provisioning ENUM services is a very good idea. However, there are a few places in the document where that distinction is not made (or is not clear enough). As an example, the following paragraph at the end of Section 3.3.2.3.3 seems to contain rules for both, clients and provisioning entities: This field MUST be interpreted as holding the FQDN that forms the next key output from this non-terminal rule. Conversely, the Regexp field MUST be empty in a non-terminal NAPTR encountered in ENUM processing, and ENUM clients MUST ignore its content. Another example seem to mix client rules with provisioning rules is Section 3.3.2.3.2. The fact that some of the rules are described in passive voice makes the distinction between both types of rules even less clear. Is the intention with Section 3.5 to summarize all the normative behavior for clients or just to provide additional normative behavior in addition to the normative statements already present in previous subsections under Section 3? The same question about Section 5. Section 9 states that those sections contain "implied protocol requirements". Expanding what that means at the beginning of each of the two sections would be useful. The audience of some normative statements is not clear enough. For example, in Section 1.2: ... and such private use MUST NOT be called "ENUM"... Who must not call such a use ENUM? Implementers? In Section 2, the normative MAY should not be normative: This implies that applications MAY send DNS queries when, for example, a user mistypes a number in a user interface. Section 3.2.1 talks about the possibility of major problems but then only says that it is reasonable to have a common ORDER value to avoid that. Do we want to say RECOMMENDED instead up front instead of waiting until the end of that subsection? That section also says: Thus, one should expect to have a set of NAPTRs in a zone with identical ORDER field values and different PREFERENCE/PRIORITY field values; not the other way around. What happens if it is "the other way around"? Section 3.3.2.1 provides a definition for non-terminal NAPTR. You may want to consider providing that definition before the current Section 3.3.1. In Section 3.3.2.2, is loop detection mandatory, recommended, or just optional? Section 3.4.1: OLD: [RFC2915] and [RFC2916] have been obsoleted by [RFC3401] - [RFC3404] and by this document. NEW: [RFC2915] and [RFC2916] have been obsoleted by [RFC3401] - [RFC3404] and by this document, respectively. From gonzalo.camarillo@ericsson.com Fri Apr 16 03:12:35 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: enum@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: enum@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 750C53A6AE3 for ; Fri, 16 Apr 2010 03:12:35 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -105.627 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.627 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.972, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yXoHQt3+mnoK for ; Fri, 16 Apr 2010 03:12:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailgw10.se.ericsson.net (mailgw10.se.ericsson.net [193.180.251.61]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 552343A67AB for ; Fri, 16 Apr 2010 03:12:34 -0700 (PDT) X-AuditID: c1b4fb3d-b7bf6ae000005bec-4b-4bc8380a38f1 Received: from esealmw127.eemea.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.253.124]) by mailgw10.se.ericsson.net (Symantec Brightmail Gateway) with SMTP id EC.13.23532.A0838CB4; Fri, 16 Apr 2010 12:12:26 +0200 (CEST) Received: from esealmw127.eemea.ericsson.se ([153.88.254.175]) by esealmw127.eemea.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Fri, 16 Apr 2010 12:11:52 +0200 Received: from mail.lmf.ericsson.se ([131.160.11.50]) by esealmw127.eemea.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Fri, 16 Apr 2010 12:11:51 +0200 Received: from [131.160.37.44] (EV001E681B5FE2.lmf.ericsson.se [131.160.37.44]) by mail.lmf.ericsson.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A1BD258B for ; Fri, 16 Apr 2010 13:11:51 +0300 (EEST) Message-ID: <4BC837E7.6040003@ericsson.com> Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2010 13:11:51 +0300 From: Gonzalo Camarillo User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-US; rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100317 Thunderbird/3.0.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: enum@ietf.org X-Enigmail-Version: 1.0.1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 16 Apr 2010 10:11:51.0884 (UTC) FILETIME=[3BCAB0C0:01CADD4D] X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== Subject: [Enum] Review: draft-ietf-enum-edns0-00.txt X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Enum Discussion List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2010 10:12:35 -0000 Hi, we are going to focus on finishing the three main documents first. Once we are done with them, we will focus on the rest of the documents (e.g., this one). Here you have some comments on the edns0 draft. Cheers, Gonzalo Review: draft-ietf-enum-edns0-00.txt The acronym EDNS0 should be expanded in the title of the draft. The document adds an operational requirement to RFC 3761. Why doesn't it add it to rfc3761bis instead? Section 2: OLD: and so it is necessary to implement the standard Extension Mechanisms for DNS as described in RFC 2671[7], NEW: and so it is necessary to implement the standard Extension Mechanisms for DNS (EDNS0) as described in RFC 2671 [7], Section 2.1 mentions a few RFCs but does not include references to them. This should be fixed throughout the document. Cheers, Gonzalo From bernie@ietf.hoeneisen.ch Sat Apr 24 02:05:15 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: enum@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: enum@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E4DF3A6819 for ; Sat, 24 Apr 2010 02:05:15 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.146 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.146 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.453, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id R+fNQua7mgPt for ; Sat, 24 Apr 2010 02:05:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from softronics.hoeneisen.ch (softronics.hoeneisen.ch [62.2.86.178]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 84AEE3A6452 for ; Sat, 24 Apr 2010 02:05:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]) by softronics.hoeneisen.ch with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1O5bIL-0005nq-NT for enum@ietf.org; Sat, 24 Apr 2010 11:05:01 +0200 Date: Sat, 24 Apr 2010 11:05:01 +0200 (CEST) From: Bernie Hoeneisen X-X-Sender: bhoeneis@softronics.hoeneisen.ch To: IETF ENUM list Message-ID: User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (DEB 1167 2008-08-23) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; format=flowed; charset=US-ASCII X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 127.0.0.1 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: bernie@ietf.hoeneisen.ch X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on softronics.hoeneisen.ch); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Subject: [Enum] Missing replaced-by information, need help of the ENUM community X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Enum Discussion List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 24 Apr 2010 09:05:15 -0000 Dear ENUM community The WG chairs have been asked to assess the replacement relationships of their WG drafts. The usual case a replacement relationship occurs is when an individual draft gets "promoted" to a Working Group document. While digging and comparing I found quite some missing replaced-by relationships in the annals of Internet-Drafts and reported them to the IESG Secretariat. (Some of you already got "strange" emails from the tracker system because of this...more such emails will be triggered in the next days) For the following I-Ds prefixed by "draft-ietf-enum" I did not find a predecessor: - draft-ietf-enum-3761bis - draft-ietf-enum-enumservices-guide - draft-ietf-enum-infrastructure (RFC 5526) - draft-ietf-enum-rfc2916bis (RFC 3761) - draft-ietf-enum-e164s2-np - draft-ietf-enum-operation - draft-ietf-enum-rqmts - draft-ietf-enum-uri If you know more about the history, i.e. earlier (individual) draft, of any of the above listed documents, please contact me so that the database at the IESG Secretariat can be corrected. cheers, Bernie, Co-chair of the ENUM WG PS: Note that the IPR disclosure search tool uses these replaced-by relationships, so keeping them up-to-date is actually useful and not just WG hygiene. (Lars Eggert) From root@core3.amsl.com Sat Apr 24 05:00:01 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: enum@ietf.org Delivered-To: enum@core3.amsl.com Received: by core3.amsl.com (Postfix, from userid 0) id 50A233A6AA4; Sat, 24 Apr 2010 05:00:00 -0700 (PDT) From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; Boundary="NextPart" Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <20100424120001.50A233A6AA4@core3.amsl.com> Date: Sat, 24 Apr 2010 05:00:01 -0700 (PDT) Cc: enum@ietf.org Subject: [Enum] I-D Action:draft-ietf-enum-enumservices-transition-05.txt X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Enum Discussion List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 24 Apr 2010 12:00:01 -0000 --NextPart 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 : Update of legacy IANA Registrations of Enumservices Author(s) : B. Hoeneisen, A. Mayrhofer Filename : draft-ietf-enum-enumservices-transition-05.txt Pages : 68 Date : 2010-04-24 This document revises all Enumservices that were IANA registered under the now obsolete specification of the Enumservice registry defined in RFC 3761. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-enum-enumservices-transition-05.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. --NextPart Content-Type: Message/External-body; name="draft-ietf-enum-enumservices-transition-05.txt"; site="ftp.ietf.org"; access-type="anon-ftp"; directory="internet-drafts" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2010-04-24045810.I-D@ietf.org> --NextPart-- From bernie@ietf.hoeneisen.ch Sat Apr 24 05:08:15 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: enum@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: enum@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 564F13A692D for ; Sat, 24 Apr 2010 05:08:15 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.173 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.173 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.426, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fZJyg42UILLB for ; Sat, 24 Apr 2010 05:08:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from softronics.hoeneisen.ch (softronics.hoeneisen.ch [62.2.86.178]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6AA823A69B7 for ; Sat, 24 Apr 2010 05:08:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]) by softronics.hoeneisen.ch with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1O5e9S-000615-Oo; Sat, 24 Apr 2010 14:08:02 +0200 Date: Sat, 24 Apr 2010 14:08:02 +0200 (CEST) From: Bernie Hoeneisen X-X-Sender: bhoeneis@softronics.hoeneisen.ch To: Gonzalo Camarillo In-Reply-To: <4BC83221.3060103@ericsson.com> Message-ID: References: <4BC83221.3060103@ericsson.com> User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (DEB 1167 2008-08-23) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 127.0.0.1 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: bernie@ietf.hoeneisen.ch X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on softronics.hoeneisen.ch); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Cc: IETF ENUM list , Alexander Mayrhofer Subject: Re: [Enum] Review: draft-ietf-enum-enumservices-transition-04.txt X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Enum Discussion List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 24 Apr 2010 12:08:15 -0000 Hi Gonzalo Thanks for your AD feedback on draft-ietf-enum-enumservices-transition-04.txt. We have addressed your feedback and submitted a new revision (-05) to the repository. We believe that all issues have been resolved in -05. cheers, Bernie PS: A revision of enumservice-guide is expected to follow shortly. On Fri, 16 Apr 2010, Gonzalo Camarillo wrote: > Hi, > > please, find below my comments on the enumservices transition draft. As > soon as these comments are addressed, I will get the IESG as a whole to > review the draft. > > Cheers, > > Gonzalo > > > Review: draft-ietf-enum-enumservices-transition-04.txt > > Abstracts should not contain references. Please, remove the reference to > RFC 3761 from it (it is OK to mention the RFC without the reference, > though). > > Section 3 talks about the current policy being "Expert Review" and > "Specification Required". Per my comments on the enumservices-guide > document, this will have to be updated to point to a single IANA policy. > > > _______________________________________________ > enum mailing list > enum@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum > From root@core3.amsl.com Mon Apr 26 00:45:02 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: enum@ietf.org Delivered-To: enum@core3.amsl.com Received: by core3.amsl.com (Postfix, from userid 0) id 65CA63A68BD; Mon, 26 Apr 2010 00:45:01 -0700 (PDT) From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; Boundary="NextPart" Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <20100426074502.65CA63A68BD@core3.amsl.com> Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2010 00:45:02 -0700 (PDT) Cc: enum@ietf.org Subject: [Enum] I-D Action:draft-ietf-enum-enumservices-guide-20.txt X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Enum Discussion List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2010 07:45:02 -0000 --NextPart 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-20.txt Pages : 46 Date : 2010-04-26 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-20.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. --NextPart Content-Type: Message/External-body; name="draft-ietf-enum-enumservices-guide-20.txt"; site="ftp.ietf.org"; access-type="anon-ftp"; directory="internet-drafts" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2010-04-26003922.I-D@ietf.org> --NextPart-- From bernie@ietf.hoeneisen.ch Mon Apr 26 01:47:06 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: enum@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: enum@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 98D303A69E4 for ; Mon, 26 Apr 2010 01:47:06 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.896 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.896 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.897, BAYES_50=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id cI+XfQW7-kKB for ; Mon, 26 Apr 2010 01:47:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from softronics.hoeneisen.ch (softronics.hoeneisen.ch [62.2.86.178]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AAF133A6914 for ; Mon, 26 Apr 2010 01:47:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]) by softronics.hoeneisen.ch with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1O6Jxq-0002rp-SP; Mon, 26 Apr 2010 10:46:50 +0200 Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2010 10:46:50 +0200 (CEST) From: Bernie Hoeneisen X-X-Sender: bhoeneis@softronics.hoeneisen.ch To: Gonzalo Camarillo In-Reply-To: <4BC8321D.6040207@ericsson.com> Message-ID: References: <4BC8321D.6040207@ericsson.com> User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (DEB 1167 2008-08-23) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 127.0.0.1 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: bernie@ietf.hoeneisen.ch X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on softronics.hoeneisen.ch); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Cc: IETF ENUM list Subject: Re: [Enum] Review: draft-ietf-enum-enumservices-guide-19.txt X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Enum Discussion List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2010 08:47:06 -0000 Hi Gonzalo Thanks for your AD feedback on draft-ietf-enum-enumservices-guide-19. We have addressed your feedback and submitted a new revision (-20) to the repository. We believe that all issues have been resolved in -20. For details see comments inline. Have a nice day! cheers, Bernie On Fri, 16 Apr 2010, Gonzalo Camarillo wrote: > Hi, > > please, find below my comments on the enumservices guide draft. As soon > as these comments are addressed, I will get the IESG as a whole to > review the draft. > > Cheers, > > Gonzalo > > > Review: draft-ietf-enum-enumservices-guide-19.txt > > The Introduction mentions both Specification Required and Expert Review. > However, they are two different policies, as described in Section 4.1 of > RFC 5226. Which policy is to be applied? Section 3 talks about Expert > Review but not about Specification Required but Section 3.4 indicates > that the policy to be followed is Specification Required. It is > important to pick a single policy out of the ones described in RFC 5226 > and clarify which one has been chosen. The confusion may come from the > fact that Specification Required implies the use of a designated expert. > The document should be very clear about what IANA policy applies. Fixed ("Specification Required", which implies "Expert Review") > Section 11.7 also talks about Expert Review and Specification Required. > > Section 1 says: The new registration processes have been specifically > designed to be decoupled from the existence of the ENUM working group. Fixed ("Specification Required", which implies "Expert Review") > Later in the document, Section 6.3 says: The authors MUST send an email > to . Is the intention to keep that mailing list alive > regardless of the existence of the WG? The document should clarify this. Fixed (Added a note) > Also, the last paragraph of Section 6.3 talks about "Experts". However, > at that point in the process, no experts have been designated yet. Who > are the "Experts" Section 6.3 refers to? The subscribers of the enum > mailing list? Fixed (clarified) > Section 6.6 recommends to publish an RFC and provides several > alternatives to do that: through a WG, as an AD sponsored RFC, or an an > individual submission to the RFC editor. Do we want to recommend one of > these alternatives over the others? (e.g., if the enum WG exists, > publish it there, otherwise, talk to the RAI ADs). We believe that there is no need put there a specific recommendation (i.e. leave it as it is). The Enumservice Specification authors should decide on this. Furthermore, it makes no sense to still recommend ENUM WG documents, as the WG is to be shut down. From gonzalo.camarillo@ericsson.com Thu Apr 29 02:42:32 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: enum@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: enum@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 351A53A6C41 for ; Thu, 29 Apr 2010 02:42:32 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -105.465 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.465 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.134, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ukDGpisjZ7bl for ; Thu, 29 Apr 2010 02:42:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailgw10.se.ericsson.net (mailgw10.se.ericsson.net [193.180.251.61]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BDC6D3A67E5 for ; Thu, 29 Apr 2010 02:42:28 -0700 (PDT) X-AuditID: c1b4fb3d-b7be7ae000002159-63-4bd954769318 Received: from esealmw127.eemea.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.253.125]) by mailgw10.se.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 0D.3E.08537.67459DB4; Thu, 29 Apr 2010 11:42:14 +0200 (CEST) Received: from esealmw127.eemea.ericsson.se ([153.88.254.175]) by esealmw127.eemea.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Thu, 29 Apr 2010 11:42:14 +0200 Received: from mail.lmf.ericsson.se ([131.160.11.50]) by esealmw127.eemea.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Thu, 29 Apr 2010 11:42:13 +0200 Received: from [131.160.126.170] (rvi2-126-170.lmf.ericsson.se [131.160.126.170]) by mail.lmf.ericsson.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id 469ED2549; Thu, 29 Apr 2010 12:42:09 +0300 (EEST) Message-ID: <4BD95471.1020808@ericsson.com> Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2010 12:42:09 +0300 From: Gonzalo Camarillo User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-US; rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100317 Thunderbird/3.0.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bernie Hoeneisen References: <4BC83221.3060103@ericsson.com> In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 1.0.1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 29 Apr 2010 09:42:13.0921 (UTC) FILETIME=[3F69D110:01CAE780] X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== Cc: IETF ENUM list , Alexander Mayrhofer Subject: Re: [Enum] Review: draft-ietf-enum-enumservices-transition-04.txt X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Enum Discussion List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2010 09:42:32 -0000 Hi Bernie, thanks for addressing my comments. Cheers, Gonzalo On 24/04/2010 3:05 PM, Bernie Hoeneisen wrote: > Hi Gonzalo > > Thanks for your AD feedback on > draft-ietf-enum-enumservices-transition-04.txt. We have addressed your > feedback and submitted a new revision (-05) to the repository. We believe > that all issues have been resolved in -05. > > cheers, > Bernie > > PS: A revision of enumservice-guide is expected to follow shortly. > > > On Fri, 16 Apr 2010, Gonzalo Camarillo wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> please, find below my comments on the enumservices transition draft. As >> soon as these comments are addressed, I will get the IESG as a whole to >> review the draft. >> >> Cheers, >> >> Gonzalo >> >> >> Review: draft-ietf-enum-enumservices-transition-04.txt >> >> Abstracts should not contain references. Please, remove the reference to >> RFC 3761 from it (it is OK to mention the RFC without the reference, >> though). >> >> Section 3 talks about the current policy being "Expert Review" and >> "Specification Required". Per my comments on the enumservices-guide >> document, this will have to be updated to point to a single IANA policy. >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> enum mailing list >> enum@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum >> > From gonzalo.camarillo@ericsson.com Thu Apr 29 02:43:02 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: enum@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: enum@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 803663A65A6 for ; Thu, 29 Apr 2010 02:43:02 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -104.741 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.741 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.369, BAYES_05=-1.11, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3cMVYyxKjQ6X for ; Thu, 29 Apr 2010 02:43:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailgw10.se.ericsson.net (mailgw10.se.ericsson.net [193.180.251.61]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B6CB928C21A for ; Thu, 29 Apr 2010 02:42:52 -0700 (PDT) X-AuditID: c1b4fb3d-b7be7ae000002159-b4-4bd9548e9d31 Received: from esealmw128.eemea.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.253.125]) by mailgw10.se.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 2C.4E.08537.E8459DB4; Thu, 29 Apr 2010 11:42:38 +0200 (CEST) Received: from esealmw126.eemea.ericsson.se ([153.88.254.170]) by esealmw128.eemea.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Thu, 29 Apr 2010 11:42:38 +0200 Received: from mail.lmf.ericsson.se ([131.160.11.50]) by esealmw126.eemea.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Thu, 29 Apr 2010 11:42:37 +0200 Received: from [131.160.126.170] (rvi2-126-170.lmf.ericsson.se [131.160.126.170]) by mail.lmf.ericsson.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D5EE2549; Thu, 29 Apr 2010 12:42:37 +0300 (EEST) Message-ID: <4BD9548D.8030402@ericsson.com> Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2010 12:42:37 +0300 From: Gonzalo Camarillo User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-US; rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100317 Thunderbird/3.0.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bernie Hoeneisen References: <4BC8321D.6040207@ericsson.com> In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 1.0.1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 29 Apr 2010 09:42:38.0014 (UTC) FILETIME=[4DC61DE0:01CAE780] X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== Cc: IETF ENUM list Subject: Re: [Enum] Review: draft-ietf-enum-enumservices-guide-19.txt X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Enum Discussion List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2010 09:43:02 -0000 Hi Bernie, thanks for addressing my comments on this draft as well. Cheers, Gonzalo On 26/04/2010 11:46 AM, Bernie Hoeneisen wrote: > Hi Gonzalo > > Thanks for your AD feedback on draft-ietf-enum-enumservices-guide-19. > We have addressed your feedback and submitted a new revision (-20) to the > repository. We believe that all issues have been resolved in -20. > > For details see comments inline. > > Have a nice day! > > cheers, > Bernie > > > On Fri, 16 Apr 2010, Gonzalo Camarillo wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> please, find below my comments on the enumservices guide draft. As soon >> as these comments are addressed, I will get the IESG as a whole to >> review the draft. >> >> Cheers, >> >> Gonzalo >> >> >> Review: draft-ietf-enum-enumservices-guide-19.txt >> >> The Introduction mentions both Specification Required and Expert Review. >> However, they are two different policies, as described in Section 4.1 of >> RFC 5226. Which policy is to be applied? Section 3 talks about Expert >> Review but not about Specification Required but Section 3.4 indicates >> that the policy to be followed is Specification Required. It is >> important to pick a single policy out of the ones described in RFC 5226 >> and clarify which one has been chosen. The confusion may come from the >> fact that Specification Required implies the use of a designated expert. >> The document should be very clear about what IANA policy applies. > > Fixed ("Specification Required", which implies "Expert Review") > > >> Section 11.7 also talks about Expert Review and Specification Required. >> >> Section 1 says: The new registration processes have been specifically >> designed to be decoupled from the existence of the ENUM working group. > > Fixed ("Specification Required", which implies "Expert Review") > > >> Later in the document, Section 6.3 says: The authors MUST send an email >> to . Is the intention to keep that mailing list alive >> regardless of the existence of the WG? The document should clarify this. > > Fixed (Added a note) > > >> Also, the last paragraph of Section 6.3 talks about "Experts". However, >> at that point in the process, no experts have been designated yet. Who >> are the "Experts" Section 6.3 refers to? The subscribers of the enum >> mailing list? > > Fixed (clarified) > > >> Section 6.6 recommends to publish an RFC and provides several >> alternatives to do that: through a WG, as an AD sponsored RFC, or an an >> individual submission to the RFC editor. Do we want to recommend one of >> these alternatives over the others? (e.g., if the enum WG exists, >> publish it there, otherwise, talk to the RAI ADs). > > We believe that there is no need put there a specific recommendation (i.e. > leave it as it is). The Enumservice Specification authors should decide on > this. Furthermore, it makes no sense to still recommend ENUM WG documents, > as the WG is to be shut down. > > From gonzalo.camarillo@ericsson.com Thu Apr 29 02:52:50 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: enum@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: enum@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 450233A67B2 for ; Thu, 29 Apr 2010 02:52:50 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.492 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.492 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.893, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TuMLojpC5JaA for ; Thu, 29 Apr 2010 02:52:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailgw9.se.ericsson.net (mailgw9.se.ericsson.net [193.180.251.57]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3FF443A65A5 for ; Thu, 29 Apr 2010 02:52:49 -0700 (PDT) X-AuditID: c1b4fb39-b7c85ae000005565-35-4bd956e2eb19 Received: from esealmw128.eemea.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.253.125]) by mailgw9.se.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 7D.8F.21861.2E659DB4; Thu, 29 Apr 2010 11:52:34 +0200 (CEST) Received: from esealmw128.eemea.ericsson.se ([153.88.254.176]) by esealmw128.eemea.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Thu, 29 Apr 2010 11:52:34 +0200 Received: from mail.lmf.ericsson.se ([131.160.11.50]) by esealmw128.eemea.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Thu, 29 Apr 2010 11:52:34 +0200 Received: from [131.160.126.170] (rvi2-126-170.lmf.ericsson.se [131.160.126.170]) by mail.lmf.ericsson.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id 665642549 for ; Thu, 29 Apr 2010 12:52:34 +0300 (EEST) Message-ID: <4BD956E2.5080500@ericsson.com> Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2010 12:52:34 +0300 From: Gonzalo Camarillo User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-US; rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100317 Thunderbird/3.0.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: enum@ietf.org X-Enigmail-Version: 1.0.1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 29 Apr 2010 09:52:34.0593 (UTC) FILETIME=[B15CD910:01CAE781] X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== Subject: [Enum] Advancing the so-called ENUM trilogy X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Enum Discussion List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2010 09:52:50 -0000 Folks, we are going to advance the following three drafts in a batch: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-enum-3761bis/ https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-enum-enumservices-transition/ https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-enum-enumservices-guide/ Their status is the following. All of them have already been IETF LCed. When I inherited these documents, I sent comments on all of them. My comments on the transition and guide documents have already been addressed. As soon as the authors of the bis document have a chance to address my comments, I will get the whole IESG to review them. Cheers, Gonzalo