Subject: [e2md] Doodle poll: Next Conf-Call on Requirements

From: Bernie Hoeneisen <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 May 2010 20:54:40 +0200 (CEST)

Hi,

As decided at the last conf call, we will have a dedicated conf call on 
requirements / use cases.

Please indicate your availabilities on Doodle:

   http://www.doodle.com/3hqunikiwxzkrez5

Goals:

* Get a common understanding on the set of requirements and use cases
   we are going to address

Topics:

* List of Requirements (draft version)
   http://trac.tools.ietf.org/bof/e2md/trac/wiki/RequirementsList

* Use Cases (under construction)
   http://trac.tools.ietf.org/bof/e2md/trac/wiki/UseCases

Note: No other topics are discussed during this call.

Looking forward to you Doodle responses!

cheers,
  Bernie

---

From: Lawrence Conroy <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 May 2010 23:52:17 +0100

Hi Bernie,  folks,
 I am slightly confused. The Dean & Rich show does that :)p

This looks rather like a Bait 'n' Switch deal.

AFAICT, there is an idea to revive the ENUM WG and to work on
*some* of the items in that. I agree++ with that -- ENUM Vivax!
In fact, on list everyone has agreed with that and our friendly
channeled demons don't seem to have raised a complaint yet :).

For ENUM (as opposed to any other WG) ...
First Step:
I'd guess that revival could work on Send-N and Unused.
[Assuming we can roll back some of the more arcane restrictions
in section 1.2 of rfc3761bis and the bit moved into the second
paragraph of the intro of section 2].
These **should** be short term work items.

Even CNAM and SPID could be done in the existing ENUM WG as well,
I suspect. Heck -- we have number portability already, so why not?

Second step:
In the past the IESG appear to have resisted URIs that do not act as
"direct" session initiators to Internet services.
I remember the protracted pain of pushing against that resistance (that
initially included use of telephone numbers, video telephony service,
and even SMS §-/

So ... ISTM that it might be useful to re-charter ENUM to extend its
remit to either unwind these alleged but unwritten rules (or write
them in stone so at last we know what the limits ARE).

-----

SO ... what is the other stuff that you are asking for requirements,
and some seem to be thinking of other RR types, use of other protocols,
indirection, ... ?

It sure isn't ENUM. I seem to have lost track. Clarification required.

all the best,
  Lawrence

On 18 May 2010, at 19:54, Bernie Hoeneisen wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> As decided at the last conf call, we will have a dedicated conf call on requirements / use cases.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> e2md mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/e2md

---

From: Bernie Hoeneisen <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 May 2010 09:49:27 +0200 (CEST)

Hi Lawrence

> This looks rather like a Bait 'n' Switch deal.

I face difficulties to see the connection between your email the one you 
replied to. Your email appears to be a reply to an administrative email 
containing a doodle poll request. Was your reply really meant as a 
followup to the doodle poll request or which email was meant?

> paragraph of the intro of section 2].

[Moved to ENUM as it is about 3761bis.]

> It sure isn't ENUM. I seem to have lost track. Clarification required.

In the upcoming conference call (as decided in the previous call), we 
intend to discuss the requirements. The goal is to find a common 
understanding of the requirements and uses cases. I wish we could even 
walk out of the call with a subset of requirements and use cases that has 
high chances to lead to an agreed charter soon. Though, timing might be
in the way of my wishes...

Or was your question not related to the upcoming conference call, but 
rather to some other email/topic?

cheers,
  Bernie