From bernie@ietf.hoeneisen.ch Mon Mar 7 10:33:01 2011 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 073403A67FF; Mon, 7 Mar 2011 10:33:01 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.289 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.289 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.310, 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 DJTU8QwNf9e7; Mon, 7 Mar 2011 10:32:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from softronics.hoeneisen.ch (softronics.hoeneisen.ch [62.2.86.178]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B87E13A680C; Mon, 7 Mar 2011 10:32:55 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]) by softronics.hoeneisen.ch with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PwfFw-0005fB-Lc; Mon, 07 Mar 2011 19:34:08 +0100 Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2011 19:34:08 +0100 (CET) From: Bernie Hoeneisen X-X-Sender: bhoeneis@softronics.hoeneisen.ch To: IETF CALDAV 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 Cc: IETF ENUM list Subject: [Enum] I-D Action:draft-hoeneisen-rfc5333bis-00.txt (fwd) 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, 07 Mar 2011 18:33:01 -0000 FYI: Yesterday I have submitted an I-D for a revision of RFC 5333 to include the Calendaring Enumservices related to draft-desruisseaux-caldav-sched. Those had to be stripped from RFC 5333 at a very late stage, to get rid of the dependency on draft-desruisseaux-caldav-sched, which was not ready for publication back then. Looking forward to your feedback, in particular whether there is a need for an Enumservice "ical-sched:http" (besides "ical-sched:https"). cheers, Bernie -- http://ucom.ch/ Tech Consulting for Internet Standardization ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Sun, 6 Mar 2011 15:45:01 From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org Subject: I-D Action:draft-hoeneisen-rfc5333bis-00.txt A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. Title : IANA Registration of Enumservices for Internet Calendaring Author(s) : B. Hoeneisen Filename : draft-hoeneisen-rfc5333bis-00.txt Pages : 13 Date : 2011-03-06 This document registers and updates Enumservices for Internet calendaring. Specifically, this document focuses on Enumservices for scheduling with iMIP (iCalendar Message-Based Interoperability Protocol) and for accessing Internet calendaring information with CalDAV (Calendaring Extensions to WebDAV). A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-hoeneisen-rfc5333bis-00.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@ietf.hoeneisen.ch Thu Mar 10 13:20:24 2011 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 4EFA73A6AB4 for ; Thu, 10 Mar 2011 13:20:24 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.467 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.467 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.668, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_23=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_43=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_46=0.6, 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 KPiUy6l-RzgM for ; Thu, 10 Mar 2011 13:20:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from softronics.hoeneisen.ch (softronics.hoeneisen.ch [62.2.86.178]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6DE423A6AAD for ; Thu, 10 Mar 2011 13:20:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]) by softronics.hoeneisen.ch with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PxnIb-0001Np-3M; Thu, 10 Mar 2011 22:21:33 +0100 Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2011 22:21:33 +0100 (CET) From: Bernie Hoeneisen X-X-Sender: bhoeneis@softronics.hoeneisen.ch To: IETF ENUM list , Gonzalo Camarillo , Robert Sparks , "Peterson, Jon" , Cullen Jennings , Michelle Cotton , Sandy Ginoza , Alice Hagens Message-ID: User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (DEB 1167 2008-08-23) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII; FORMAT=flowed Content-ID: 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: =?ISO-8859-15?Q?Anna_Fil=EDnov=E1?= Subject: [Enum] beer&dinner to celebrate the ENUM WG conclusion 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, 10 Mar 2011 21:20:24 -0000 Dear ENUM:ers and friends After 12 years, we are shortly before conclusion the IETF ENUM WG. The IESG will make a decision on this soon. I guess, we will officially conclude ENUM during the IETF-80 However, to celebrate this happening adequately you are welcome to join the ENUM WG conclusion beer&dinner during IETF-80: * Date / time: Mon 28.03.2011 / 20:00 CET (after Tech Plenary) * Venue: TBD, Prague To ensure there is enough space, please fill in your name at the following URL: http://www.moreganize.ch/bFtzIWjiEdF Looking forward to your participation! cheers, Bernie, ENUM WG co-chair PS: Please forward this email to folks who might not be on the distibution list of this email, but anyhow are / used to be related to the IETF ENUM WG. PPS: Thanks to Anna Filinova form CZ.NIC for helping with the organization of this beer&dinner! -- http://ucom.ch/ Tech Consulting for Internet Standardization From wwwrun@rfc-editor.org Fri Mar 11 18:10:19 2011 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 E0C603A6B77; Fri, 11 Mar 2011 18:10:19 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.121 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.121 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.121, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_93=0.6, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, 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 2+XYWZb3Akc4; Fri, 11 Mar 2011 18:10:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from rfc-editor.org (rfc-editor.org [IPv6:2001:1890:1112:1::2f]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 29DFB3A6B0A; Fri, 11 Mar 2011 18:10:19 -0800 (PST) Received: by rfc-editor.org (Postfix, from userid 30) id 73EE7E0733; Fri, 11 Mar 2011 18:11:39 -0800 (PST) To: ietf-announce@ietf.org, rfc-dist@rfc-editor.org From: rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org Message-Id: <20110312021139.73EE7E0733@rfc-editor.org> Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2011 18:11:39 -0800 (PST) Cc: enum@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org Subject: [Enum] RFC 6116 on The E.164 to Uniform Resource Identifiers (URI) Dynamic Delegation Discovery System (DDDS) Application (ENUM) 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, 12 Mar 2011 02:10:20 -0000 A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries. RFC 6116 Title: The E.164 to Uniform Resource Identifiers (URI) Dynamic Delegation Discovery System (DDDS) Application (ENUM) Author: S. Bradner, L. Conroy, K. Fujiwara Status: Standards Track Stream: IETF Date: March 2011 Mailbox: sob@harvard.edu, lconroy@insensate.co.uk, fujiwara@jprs.co.jp Pages: 22 Characters: 52840 Obsoletes: RFC3761 I-D Tag: draft-ietf-enum-3761bis-09.txt URL: http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6116.txt This document discusses the use of the Domain Name System (DNS) for storage of data associated with E.164 numbers, and for resolving those numbers into URIs that can be used (for example) in 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 obsoletes RFC 3761. [STANDARDS-TRACK] This document is a product of the Telephone Number Mapping Working Group of the IETF. This is now a Proposed Standard Protocol. STANDARDS TRACK: This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the Internet community,and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements. Please refer to the current edition of the Internet Official Protocol Standards (STD 1) for the standardization state and status of this protocol. Distribution of this memo is unlimited. This announcement is sent to the IETF-Announce and rfc-dist lists. To subscribe or unsubscribe, see http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce http://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-dist For searching the RFC series, see http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfcsearch.html. For downloading RFCs, see http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc.html. Requests for special distribution should be addressed to either the author of the RFC in question, or to rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org. Unless specifically noted otherwise on the RFC itself, all RFCs are for unlimited distribution. The RFC Editor Team Association Management Solutions, LLC From wwwrun@rfc-editor.org Fri Mar 11 18:10:41 2011 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 CEB5C3A6B77; Fri, 11 Mar 2011 18:10:40 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.119 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.119 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.119, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_93=0.6, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, 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 64WHjlZv+CpW; Fri, 11 Mar 2011 18:10:40 -0800 (PST) Received: from rfc-editor.org (rfc-editor.org [IPv6:2001:1890:1112:1::2f]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 119CA3A6BCF; Fri, 11 Mar 2011 18:10:40 -0800 (PST) Received: by rfc-editor.org (Postfix, from userid 30) id 628DAE074C; Fri, 11 Mar 2011 18:12:00 -0800 (PST) To: ietf-announce@ietf.org, rfc-dist@rfc-editor.org From: rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org Message-Id: <20110312021200.628DAE074C@rfc-editor.org> Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2011 18:12:00 -0800 (PST) Cc: enum@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org Subject: [Enum] RFC 6117 on IANA Registration of Enumservices: Guide, Template, and IANA 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, 12 Mar 2011 02:10:41 -0000 A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries. RFC 6117 Title: IANA Registration of Enumservices: Guide, Template, and IANA Considerations Author: B. Hoeneisen, A. Mayrhofer, J. Livingood Status: Standards Track Stream: IETF Date: March 2011 Mailbox: bernie@ietf.hoeneisen.ch, alexander.mayrhofer@enum.at, jason_livingood@cable.comcast.com Pages: 40 Characters: 83838 Obsoletes: RFC3761 I-D Tag: draft-ietf-enum-enumservices-guide-22.txt URL: http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6117.txt This document specifies a revision of the IANA Registration Guidelines for Enumservices, describes corresponding registration procedures, and provides a guideline for creating Enumservice Specifications. [STANDARDS-TRACK] This document is a product of the Telephone Number Mapping Working Group of the IETF. This is now a Proposed Standard Protocol. STANDARDS TRACK: This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the Internet community,and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements. Please refer to the current edition of the Internet Official Protocol Standards (STD 1) for the standardization state and status of this protocol. Distribution of this memo is unlimited. This announcement is sent to the IETF-Announce and rfc-dist lists. To subscribe or unsubscribe, see http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce http://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-dist For searching the RFC series, see http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfcsearch.html. For downloading RFCs, see http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc.html. Requests for special distribution should be addressed to either the author of the RFC in question, or to rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org. Unless specifically noted otherwise on the RFC itself, all RFCs are for unlimited distribution. The RFC Editor Team Association Management Solutions, LLC From wwwrun@rfc-editor.org Fri Mar 11 18:11:00 2011 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 B22913A6C85; Fri, 11 Mar 2011 18:11:00 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.117 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.117 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.117, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_93=0.6, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, 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 ZJe1BNBH269e; Fri, 11 Mar 2011 18:10:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from rfc-editor.org (rfc-editor.org [IPv6:2001:1890:1112:1::2f]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 98BA53A6C81; Fri, 11 Mar 2011 18:10:59 -0800 (PST) Received: by rfc-editor.org (Postfix, from userid 30) id E9682E0752; Fri, 11 Mar 2011 18:12:19 -0800 (PST) To: ietf-announce@ietf.org, rfc-dist@rfc-editor.org From: rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org Message-Id: <20110312021219.E9682E0752@rfc-editor.org> Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2011 18:12:19 -0800 (PST) Cc: enum@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org Subject: [Enum] RFC 6118 on Update of Legacy IANA Registrations of Enumservices 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, 12 Mar 2011 02:11:00 -0000 A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries. RFC 6118 Title: Update of Legacy IANA Registrations of Enumservices Author: B. Hoeneisen, A. Mayrhofer Status: Standards Track Stream: IETF Date: March 2011 Mailbox: bernie@ietf.hoeneisen.ch, alexander.mayrhofer@enum.at Pages: 68 Characters: 115372 Updates: RFC3762, RFC3764, RFC3953, RFC4143, RFC4002, RFC4238, RFC4355, RFC4415, RFC4769, RFC4969, RFC4979, RFC5028, RFC5278, RFC5333 I-D Tag: draft-ietf-enum-enumservices-transition-06.txt URL: http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6118.txt This document revises all Enumservices that were IANA registered under the now obsolete specification of the Enumservice registry defined in RFC 3761. [STANDARDS-TRACK] This document is a product of the Telephone Number Mapping Working Group of the IETF. This is now a Proposed Standard Protocol. STANDARDS TRACK: This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the Internet community,and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements. Please refer to the current edition of the Internet Official Protocol Standards (STD 1) for the standardization state and status of this protocol. Distribution of this memo is unlimited. This announcement is sent to the IETF-Announce and rfc-dist lists. To subscribe or unsubscribe, see http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce http://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-dist For searching the RFC series, see http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfcsearch.html. For downloading RFCs, see http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc.html. Requests for special distribution should be addressed to either the author of the RFC in question, or to rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org. Unless specifically noted otherwise on the RFC itself, all RFCs are for unlimited distribution. The RFC Editor Team Association Management Solutions, LLC From richard@shockey.us Sat Mar 12 14:01:27 2011 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 400993A696F for ; Sat, 12 Mar 2011 14:01:27 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.925 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.925 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.260, BAYES_00=-2.599, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, J_CHICKENPOX_93=0.6, 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 RZw+oOigJ84F for ; Sat, 12 Mar 2011 14:01:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from cpoproxy1-pub.bluehost.com (cpoproxy1-pub.bluehost.com [69.89.21.11]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 1CBE03A68AB for ; Sat, 12 Mar 2011 14:01:26 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 9792 invoked by uid 0); 12 Mar 2011 22:02:47 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO box462.bluehost.com) (74.220.219.62) by cpoproxy1.bluehost.com with SMTP; 12 Mar 2011 22:02:47 -0000 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=default; d=shockey.us; h=Received:From:To:Cc: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=c4cZ1QL9gV8154lfN/5sW+7U/BrYYV0avl0iUExSQL33k0vnOa4OCXKjpnC9dt2HniQFtoN/QiHNaBRzzcot6cg/0WB/iic4svvU63lBiFnFc5LyTNt8clYLDSHCGyV/; Received: from pool-71-178-24-118.washdc.fios.verizon.net ([71.178.24.118] helo=RSHOCKEYPC) by box462.bluehost.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PyWta-000624-RX; Sat, 12 Mar 2011 15:02:47 -0700 From: "Richard Shockey" To: "'IETF ENUM list'" References: <20110312021200.628DAE074C@rfc-editor.org> In-Reply-To: <20110312021200.628DAE074C@rfc-editor.org> Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2011 17:02:44 -0500 Message-ID: <000501cbe101$37ef5600$a7ce0200$@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: AcvgWwuDj27IaiTnQMqpQomQ7E2BNwApeJCA Content-Language: en-us X-Identified-User: {3286:box462.bluehost.com:shockeyu:shockey.us} {sentby:smtp auth 71.178.24.118 authed with richard@shockey.us} Cc: 'Gonzalo Camarillo' Subject: Re: [Enum] RFC 6117 on IANA Registration of Enumservices: Guide, Template, and IANA Considerations The Experts .. 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, 12 Mar 2011 22:01:27 -0000 Well its seems it's about time to declare victory... The last thing we need to do is recommend to the IESG the List of Expert Reviewers. Any volunteers? Gonzalo .. I'll volunteer. -----Original Message----- From: ietf-announce-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-announce-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org Sent: Friday, March 11, 2011 9:12 PM To: ietf-announce@ietf.org; rfc-dist@rfc-editor.org Cc: enum@ietf.org; rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org Subject: RFC 6117 on IANA Registration of Enumservices: Guide, Template, and IANA Considerations A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries. RFC 6117 Title: IANA Registration of Enumservices: Guide, Template, and IANA Considerations Author: B. Hoeneisen, A. Mayrhofer, J. Livingood Status: Standards Track Stream: IETF Date: March 2011 Mailbox: bernie@ietf.hoeneisen.ch, alexander.mayrhofer@enum.at, jason_livingood@cable.comcast.com Pages: 40 Characters: 83838 Obsoletes: RFC3761 I-D Tag: draft-ietf-enum-enumservices-guide-22.txt URL: http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6117.txt This document specifies a revision of the IANA Registration Guidelines for Enumservices, describes corresponding registration procedures, and provides a guideline for creating Enumservice Specifications. [STANDARDS-TRACK] This document is a product of the Telephone Number Mapping Working Group of the IETF. This is now a Proposed Standard Protocol. STANDARDS TRACK: This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the Internet community,and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements. Please refer to the current edition of the Internet Official Protocol Standards (STD 1) for the standardization state and status of this protocol. Distribution of this memo is unlimited. This announcement is sent to the IETF-Announce and rfc-dist lists. To subscribe or unsubscribe, see http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce http://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-dist For searching the RFC series, see http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfcsearch.html. For downloading RFCs, see http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc.html. Requests for special distribution should be addressed to either the author of the RFC in question, or to rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org. Unless specifically noted otherwise on the RFC itself, all RFCs are for unlimited distribution. The RFC Editor Team Association Management Solutions, LLC _______________________________________________ IETF-Announce mailing list IETF-Announce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce From jason_livingood@cable.comcast.com Mon Mar 14 06:19:36 2011 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 D9AC33A6D3D for ; Mon, 14 Mar 2011 06:19:36 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.292 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.292 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.570, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_MODEMCABLE=0.768, HOST_EQ_MODEMCABLE=1.368, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_93=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, 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 YXQ6MKwWS-7E for ; Mon, 14 Mar 2011 06:19:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pacdcimo01.cable.comcast.com (PacdcIMO01.cable.comcast.com [24.40.8.145]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 67E4F3A6D36 for ; Mon, 14 Mar 2011 06:19:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ([24.40.55.41]) by pacdcimo01.cable.comcast.com with ESMTP with TLS id 5503620.116273613; Mon, 14 Mar 2011 09:20:55 -0400 Received: from PACDCEXMB06.cable.comcast.com ([fe80::6134:ea50:286a:c0]) by PACDCEXHUB02.cable.comcast.com ([fe80::11d4:f530:37a0:9f4e%12]) with mapi id 14.01.0270.001; Mon, 14 Mar 2011 09:20:45 -0400 From: "Livingood, Jason" To: Richard Shockey , 'IETF ENUM list' Thread-Topic: [Enum] RFC 6117 on IANA Registration of Enumservices: Guide, Template, and IANA Considerations The Experts .. Thread-Index: AQHL4kqg/Z/rnnKS70CY4HOB4sDJ9A== Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2011 13:20:45 +0000 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <000501cbe101$37ef5600$a7ce0200$@us> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.2.0.101115 x-originating-ip: [147.191.125.14] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_C9A38D8D1E028jasonlivingoodcablecomcastcom_" MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: 'Gonzalo Camarillo' Subject: Re: [Enum] RFC 6117 on IANA Registration of Enumservices: Guide, Template, and IANA Considerations The Experts .. 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, 14 Mar 2011 13:19:37 -0000 --_000_C9A38D8D1E028jasonlivingoodcablecomcastcom_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable FINALLY!! (The =9600 was published in February 2006 and we had 22 revisions= .) :-) Jason On 3/12/11 5:02 PM, "Richard Shockey" > wrote: Well its seems it's about time to declare victory... The last thing we need to do is recommend to the IESG the List of Expert Reviewers. Any volunteers? Gonzalo .. I'll volunteer. -----Original Message----- From: ietf-announce-bounces@ietf.org= [mailto:ietf-announce-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org Sent: Friday, March 11, 2011 9:12 PM To: ietf-announce@ietf.org; rfc-dist@rfc-edi= tor.org Cc: enum@ietf.org; rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org Subject: RFC 6117 on IANA Registration of Enumservices: Guide, Template, an= d IANA Considerations A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries. RFC 6117 Title: IANA Registration of Enumservices: Guide, Template, and IANA Considerations Author: B. Hoeneisen, A. Mayrhofer, J. Livingood Status: Standards Track Stream: IETF Date: March 2011 Mailbox: bernie@ietf.hoeneisen.ch, alexander.mayrhofer@enum.at, jason_livingood@cable.comcast.com Pages: 40 Characters: 83838 Obsoletes: RFC3761 I-D Tag: draft-ietf-enum-enumservices-guide-22.txt URL: http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6117.txt This document specifies a revision of the IANA Registration Guidelines for Enumservices, describes corresponding registration procedures, and provides a guideline for creating Enumservice Specifications. [STANDARDS-TRACK] This document is a product of the Telephone Number Mapping Working Group of the IETF. This is now a Proposed Standard Protocol. STANDARDS TRACK: This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the Internet community,and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements. Please refer to the current edition of the Internet Official Protocol Standards (STD 1) for the standardization state and status of this protocol. Distribution of this memo is unlimited. This announcement is sent to the IETF-Announce and rfc-dist lists. To subscribe or unsubscribe, see http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce http://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-dist For searching the RFC series, see http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfcsearch.html. For downloading RFCs, see http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc.html. Requests for special distribution should be addressed to either the author of the RFC in question, or to rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org. Unless specifically noted otherwise on the RFC itself, all RFCs are for unlimited distribution. The RFC Editor Team Association Management Solutions, LLC _______________________________________________ IETF-Announce mailing list IETF-Announce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum --_000_C9A38D8D1E028jasonlivingoodcablecomcastcom_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="Windows-1252" Content-ID: <10627FF7CD7C0440A962C653270204A5@cable.comcast.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
FINALLY!! (The =9600 was published in February 2006 and we had 22 revi= sions.)

:-)

Jason

On 3/12/11 5:02 PM, "Richard Shockey" <richard@shockey.us> wrote:

Well its seems it's about time to declare victory...

The last thing we need to do is recommend to the IESG the List of Expe= rt
Reviewers.

Any volunteers?

Gonzalo .. I'll volunteer.

-----Original Message-----
Sent: Friday, March 11, 2011 9:12 PM
Subject: RFC 6117 on IANA Registration of Enumservices: Guide, Templat= e, and
IANA Considerations


A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.

        
        RFC 6117

        Title:  &nbs= p;   IANA Registration of Enumservices: Guide,
           &nbs= p;        Template, and IANA Consid= erations
        Author:  &nb= sp;  B. Hoeneisen, A. Mayrhofer,
           &nbs= p;        J. Livingood
        Status:  &nb= sp;  Standards Track
        Stream:  &nb= sp;  IETF
        Date:   = ;    March 2011
        Mailbox:  &n= bsp; bernie@ietf.hoeneisen= .ch,
           &nbs= p;        alexander.mayrhofer@enum.at,
           &nbs= p;        jason_livingood@cable.comcast.com
        Pages:  &nbs= p;   40
        Characters: 83838
        Obsoletes:  = RFC3761

        I-D Tag:  &n= bsp; draft-ietf-enum-enumservices-guide-22.txt

        URL:   =      http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6117.txt

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

This document is a product of the Telephone Number Mapping Working Gro= up of
the IETF.

This is now a Proposed Standard Protocol.

STANDARDS TRACK: This document specifies an Internet standards track
protocol for the Internet community,and requests discussion and sugges= tions
for improvements.  Please refer to the current edition of th= e Internet
Official Protocol Standards (STD 1) for the standardization state and<= /div>
status of this protocol.  Distribution of this memo is unlim= ited.

This announcement is sent to the IETF-Announce and rfc-dist lists.
To subscribe or unsubscribe, see

For searching the RFC series, see http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfcsearch.html.
For downloading RFCs, see http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc.html.

Requests for special distribution should be addressed to either the
author of the RFC in question, or to rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org.  Unless
specifically noted otherwise on the RFC itself, all RFCs are for
unlimited distribution.


The RFC Editor Team
Association Management Solutions, LLC


_______________________________________________
IETF-Announce mailing list
--_000_C9A38D8D1E028jasonlivingoodcablecomcastcom_-- From gonzalo.camarillo@ericsson.com Mon Mar 14 14:03:23 2011 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 A5B063A6EF9 for ; Mon, 14 Mar 2011 14:03:23 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.29 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.29 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.291, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_93=0.6, 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 S7591uHyok65 for ; Mon, 14 Mar 2011 14:03:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailgw10.se.ericsson.net (mailgw10.se.ericsson.net [193.180.251.61]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 638933A6EE8 for ; Mon, 14 Mar 2011 14:03:19 -0700 (PDT) X-AuditID: c1b4fb3d-b7bbbae000005311-03-4d7e82ea5f06 Received: from esessmw0191.eemea.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.253.125]) by mailgw10.se.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id F3.12.21265.AE28E7D4; Mon, 14 Mar 2011 22:04:42 +0100 (CET) Received: from mail.lmf.ericsson.se (153.88.115.8) by esessmw0191.eemea.ericsson.se (153.88.115.85) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 8.2.234.1; Mon, 14 Mar 2011 22:04:41 +0100 Received: from [131.160.126.183] (rvi2-126-183.lmf.ericsson.se [131.160.126.183]) by mail.lmf.ericsson.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id E00B323F5; Mon, 14 Mar 2011 23:04:41 +0200 (EET) Message-ID: <4D7E82E9.3020601@ericsson.com> Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2011 22:04:41 +0100 From: Gonzalo Camarillo User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-US; rv:1.9.2.8) Gecko/20100802 Thunderbird/3.1.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Richard Shockey References: <20110312021200.628DAE074C@rfc-editor.org> <000501cbe101$37ef5600$a7ce0200$@us> In-Reply-To: <000501cbe101$37ef5600$a7ce0200$@us> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== Cc: 'IETF ENUM list' Subject: Re: [Enum] RFC 6117 on IANA Registration of Enumservices: Guide, Template, and IANA Considerations The Experts .. 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, 14 Mar 2011 21:03:23 -0000 Hi Rich, the IESG selected Bernie as the primary expert reviewer when this was document was approved. However, he will not be the one reviewing the IAX spec because of his involvement in it. We need to thank Peter for volunteering to do the review this time. Cheers, Gonzalo On 12/03/2011 11:02 PM, Richard Shockey wrote: > Well its seems it's about time to declare victory... > > The last thing we need to do is recommend to the IESG the List of Expert > Reviewers. > > Any volunteers? > > Gonzalo .. I'll volunteer. > > -----Original Message----- > From: ietf-announce-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-announce-bounces@ietf.org] > On Behalf Of rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org > Sent: Friday, March 11, 2011 9:12 PM > To: ietf-announce@ietf.org; rfc-dist@rfc-editor.org > Cc: enum@ietf.org; rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org > Subject: RFC 6117 on IANA Registration of Enumservices: Guide, Template, and > IANA Considerations > > > A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries. > > > RFC 6117 > > Title: IANA Registration of Enumservices: Guide, > Template, and IANA Considerations > Author: B. Hoeneisen, A. Mayrhofer, > J. Livingood > Status: Standards Track > Stream: IETF > Date: March 2011 > Mailbox: bernie@ietf.hoeneisen.ch, > alexander.mayrhofer@enum.at, > jason_livingood@cable.comcast.com > Pages: 40 > Characters: 83838 > Obsoletes: RFC3761 > > I-D Tag: draft-ietf-enum-enumservices-guide-22.txt > > URL: http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6117.txt > > This document specifies a revision of the IANA Registration > Guidelines for Enumservices, describes corresponding registration > procedures, and provides a guideline for creating Enumservice > Specifications. [STANDARDS-TRACK] > > This document is a product of the Telephone Number Mapping Working Group of > the IETF. > > This is now a Proposed Standard Protocol. > > STANDARDS TRACK: This document specifies an Internet standards track > protocol for the Internet community,and requests discussion and suggestions > for improvements. Please refer to the current edition of the Internet > Official Protocol Standards (STD 1) for the standardization state and > status of this protocol. Distribution of this memo is unlimited. > > This announcement is sent to the IETF-Announce and rfc-dist lists. > To subscribe or unsubscribe, see > http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce > http://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-dist > > For searching the RFC series, see http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfcsearch.html. > For downloading RFCs, see http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc.html. > > Requests for special distribution should be addressed to either the > author of the RFC in question, or to rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org. Unless > specifically noted otherwise on the RFC itself, all RFCs are for > unlimited distribution. > > > The RFC Editor Team > Association Management Solutions, LLC > > > _______________________________________________ > IETF-Announce mailing list > IETF-Announce@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce > From gonzalo.camarillo@ericsson.com Tue Mar 22 05:23:37 2011 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 6FAF428C10A for ; Tue, 22 Mar 2011 05:23:37 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.284 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.284 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.285, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_93=0.6, 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 aqFDOzpjwZT3 for ; Tue, 22 Mar 2011 05:23:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailgw10.se.ericsson.net (mailgw10.se.ericsson.net [193.180.251.61]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2841F28C0F0 for ; Tue, 22 Mar 2011 05:23:35 -0700 (PDT) X-AuditID: c1b4fb3d-b7bbbae000005311-37-4d8895248517 Received: from esessmw0247.eemea.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.253.125]) by mailgw10.se.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 37.D1.21265.425988D4; Tue, 22 Mar 2011 13:25:08 +0100 (CET) Received: from mail.lmf.ericsson.se (153.88.115.8) by esessmw0247.eemea.ericsson.se (153.88.115.94) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 8.3.137.0; Tue, 22 Mar 2011 13:25:07 +0100 Received: from [131.160.126.142] (rvi2-126-142.lmf.ericsson.se [131.160.126.142]) by mail.lmf.ericsson.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id 341A7234B for ; Tue, 22 Mar 2011 14:25:02 +0200 (EET) Message-ID: <4D88951E.1020205@ericsson.com> Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2011 14:25:02 +0200 From: Gonzalo Camarillo User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-US; rv:1.9.2.8) Gecko/20100802 Thunderbird/3.1.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: 'IETF ENUM list' References: <20110312021200.628DAE074C@rfc-editor.org> <000501cbe101$37ef5600$a7ce0200$@us> <4D7E82E9.3020601@ericsson.com> In-Reply-To: <4D7E82E9.3020601@ericsson.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== Subject: Re: [Enum] RFC 6117 on IANA Registration of Enumservices: Guide, Template, and IANA Considerations The Experts .. 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: Tue, 22 Mar 2011 12:23:37 -0000 Folks, FYI. since Peter is currently too busy for this review, Jason will take care of doing it. Thanks, Gonzalo On 14/03/2011 11:04 PM, Gonzalo Camarillo wrote: > Hi Rich, > > the IESG selected Bernie as the primary expert reviewer when this was > document was approved. However, he will not be the one reviewing the IAX > spec because of his involvement in it. We need to thank Peter for > volunteering to do the review this time. > > Cheers, > > Gonzalo > > On 12/03/2011 11:02 PM, Richard Shockey wrote: >> Well its seems it's about time to declare victory... >> >> The last thing we need to do is recommend to the IESG the List of Expert >> Reviewers. >> >> Any volunteers? >> >> Gonzalo .. I'll volunteer. >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: ietf-announce-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-announce-bounces@ietf.org] >> On Behalf Of rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org >> Sent: Friday, March 11, 2011 9:12 PM >> To: ietf-announce@ietf.org; rfc-dist@rfc-editor.org >> Cc: enum@ietf.org; rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org >> Subject: RFC 6117 on IANA Registration of Enumservices: Guide, Template, and >> IANA Considerations >> >> >> A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries. >> >> >> RFC 6117 >> >> Title: IANA Registration of Enumservices: Guide, >> Template, and IANA Considerations >> Author: B. Hoeneisen, A. Mayrhofer, >> J. Livingood >> Status: Standards Track >> Stream: IETF >> Date: March 2011 >> Mailbox: bernie@ietf.hoeneisen.ch, >> alexander.mayrhofer@enum.at, >> jason_livingood@cable.comcast.com >> Pages: 40 >> Characters: 83838 >> Obsoletes: RFC3761 >> >> I-D Tag: draft-ietf-enum-enumservices-guide-22.txt >> >> URL: http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6117.txt >> >> This document specifies a revision of the IANA Registration >> Guidelines for Enumservices, describes corresponding registration >> procedures, and provides a guideline for creating Enumservice >> Specifications. [STANDARDS-TRACK] >> >> This document is a product of the Telephone Number Mapping Working Group of >> the IETF. >> >> This is now a Proposed Standard Protocol. >> >> STANDARDS TRACK: This document specifies an Internet standards track >> protocol for the Internet community,and requests discussion and suggestions >> for improvements. Please refer to the current edition of the Internet >> Official Protocol Standards (STD 1) for the standardization state and >> status of this protocol. Distribution of this memo is unlimited. >> >> This announcement is sent to the IETF-Announce and rfc-dist lists. >> To subscribe or unsubscribe, see >> http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce >> http://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-dist >> >> For searching the RFC series, see http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfcsearch.html. >> For downloading RFCs, see http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc.html. >> >> Requests for special distribution should be addressed to either the >> author of the RFC in question, or to rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org. Unless >> specifically noted otherwise on the RFC itself, all RFCs are for >> unlimited distribution. >> >> >> The RFC Editor Team >> Association Management Solutions, LLC >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> IETF-Announce mailing list >> IETF-Announce@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce >> > > _______________________________________________ > enum mailing list > enum@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum > From bernie@ietf.hoeneisen.ch Tue Mar 22 09:27:38 2011 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 0E7C028C0D6 for ; Tue, 22 Mar 2011 09:27:38 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.333 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.333 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.534, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_23=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_43=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_46=0.6, 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 ECJd40tG+Avg for ; Tue, 22 Mar 2011 09:27:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from softronics.hoeneisen.ch (softronics.hoeneisen.ch [62.2.86.178]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D7E828C0ED for ; Tue, 22 Mar 2011 09:27:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]) by softronics.hoeneisen.ch with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Q24Ry-0001p1-Ix; Tue, 22 Mar 2011 17:28:54 +0100 Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2011 17:28:54 +0100 (CET) From: Bernie Hoeneisen X-X-Sender: bhoeneis@softronics.hoeneisen.ch To: IETF ENUM list , Gonzalo Camarillo , Robert Sparks , "Peterson, Jon" , Cullen Jennings , Michelle Cotton , Sandy Ginoza , Alice Hagens In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: 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: =?ISO-8859-15?Q?Anna_Fil=EDnov=E1?= Subject: [Enum] Reminder: beer&dinner to celebrate the ENUM WG conclusion 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: Tue, 22 Mar 2011 16:27:38 -0000 Dear ENUM:ers and friends In case you have not registered for the "beer&dinner to celebrate the ENUM WG conclusion" (Mon 28.03.2011 / 20:00 CEST / Prague) and you would like to join, please register ASAP, latest by Friday on: http://www.moreganize.ch/bFtzIWjiEdF Looking forward to Prague and the beer&dinner! cheers, Bernie -- http://ucom.ch/ Tech Consulting for Internet Standardization On Thu, 10 Mar 2011, Bernie Hoeneisen wrote: > Dear ENUM:ers and friends > > After 12 years, we are shortly before conclusion the IETF ENUM WG. > The IESG will make a decision on this soon. > I guess, we will officially conclude ENUM during the IETF-80 > > However, to celebrate this happening adequately you are welcome to join the > ENUM WG conclusion beer&dinner during IETF-80: > > * Date / time: Mon 28.03.2011 / 20:00 CEST (after Tech Plenary) > * Venue: TBD, Prague > > To ensure there is enough space, please fill in your name at the following > URL: > > http://www.moreganize.ch/bFtzIWjiEdF > > > Looking forward to your participation! > > > cheers, > Bernie, ENUM WG co-chair > > > PS: > Please forward this email to folks who might not be on the distibution list > of this email, but anyhow are / used to be related to the IETF ENUM WG. > > > PPS: > Thanks to Anna Filinova form CZ.NIC for helping with the organization of this > beer&dinner! > > -- > > http://ucom.ch/ > Tech Consulting for Internet Standardization > From jason_livingood@cable.comcast.com Thu Mar 24 05:57:44 2011 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 A78503A689E for ; Thu, 24 Mar 2011 05:57:44 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.286 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.286 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.552, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 lMObxYJ2V3SC for ; Thu, 24 Mar 2011 05:57:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cable.comcast.com (copdcimo01.potomac.co.ndcwest.comcast.net [76.96.32.251]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1740128C0FC for ; Thu, 24 Mar 2011 05:57:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ([24.40.55.42]) by copdcimo01.cable.comcast.com with ESMTP with TLS id 5503630.30776435; Thu, 24 Mar 2011 07:01:22 -0600 Received: from PACDCEXMB06.cable.comcast.com ([fe80::6134:ea50:286a:c0]) by PACDCEXHUB01.cable.comcast.com ([fe80::d1e7:20b5:9b63:21a6%12]) with mapi id 14.01.0270.001; Thu, 24 Mar 2011 08:58:54 -0400 From: "Livingood, Jason" To: Gonzalo Camarillo , Peter Koch , Bernie Hoeneisen , 'IETF ENUM list' Thread-Topic: Expert Review of: draft-ietf-enum-iax-09 Thread-Index: AQHL6iM6Jft64T65h02TvosqZLt4hg== Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2011 12:58:53 +0000 Message-ID: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.2.0.101115 x-originating-ip: [147.191.125.12] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_C9B0B2F01F7FFjasonlivingoodcablecomcastcom_" MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: [Enum] Expert Review of: draft-ietf-enum-iax-09 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, 24 Mar 2011 12:57:45 -0000 --_000_C9B0B2F01F7FFjasonlivingoodcablecomcastcom_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable //Start of Expert Review Document// Expert Review of: IANA Registration for Enumservice 'iax' Document Name: draft-ietf-enum-iax-09 Document Location: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-enum-iax-09 Date Review Requested: 22 March 2011 Date Review Completed: 24 March 2011 Review Conducted By: Jason Livingood > -------------------------------------------- Expert's Note: This review was conducted in accordance with RFC 6117. Speci= fic guidance on the Expert Review process for Enumservices in RFC 6117 is i= n Sections 6.5, and 7. +--------------------------------------+ | Expert's Finding: APPROVED | +--------------------------------------+ Expert's Comments: After conducing my review, it is my expert opinion that = the publication of this registration document for an Enumservice 'iax' is a= pproved. -------------------------------------------- Expert's Detailed Review: I was appointed by the IESG to perform an expert review of this document in= accordance with the Expert Review process described in RFC 6117. -------------------------------------------- Review Step 1: Verify conformance with the ENUM specification RFC 6116. Review Finding: Complies. -------------------------------------------- Review Step 2: Verify that the requirements set out in this document (Secti= ons 3 and 5 of RFC 6117) are met. This includes checking for completeness = and whether all the aspects described in Sections 3 and 5 are sufficiently = addressed. Review Finding: Complies with sections 3 and 5 of RFC 6117. This Enumservic= e's class is properly defined as protocol-based, on the basis of RFC 5456 w= hich documents the IAX protocol. It also properly defines the type, correct= ly omits the subtype since this is not used, and properly defines the URI s= cheme, functional specification, security considerations, intended usage, a= nd Enumservice specification document. A requestor is defined, though for w= hatever reason only one of the two document authors are listed (Klaus Daril= ion has been omitted). -------------------------------------------- Review Step 3: If a use case is provided, the experts should verify whether= the proposed Enumservice does actually match the use case. The experts sh= ould also determine whether the use case could be covered by an existing En= umservice. Review Finding: Complies, with use cases documented in section 3 of the reg= istration document. -------------------------------------------- Review Step 4: Verify that the Enumservice proposed cannot be confused with= identical (or similar) other Enumservices already registered. Review Finding: Complies. -------------------------------------------- Review Step 5: If the Enumservice is classified according to Section 4.2 of= RFC 6117, the experts must verify that the principles of the Class in ques= tion are followed. Review Finding: Complies. The registration qualifies as protocol-based, bas= ed on RFC 5456 which documents the IAX protocol. -------------------------------------------- Review Step 6: In case the Enumservice is not classified, the experts must = verify whether a convincing reason for the deviation is provided in the Reg= istration Document. Review Finding: Not applicable (see Review Step 5 above). -------------------------------------------- Review Step 7: Investigate whether the proposed Enumservice has any negativ= e side effects on existing clients and infrastructure, particularly the DNS= . Review Finding: Complies. No negative side effects on clients or infrastruc= ture can be envisioned by the expert at this time and no one has raised any= such concerns on the ENUM working group mailing list or other relevant IET= F mailing lists of which the expert is aware. -------------------------------------------- Review Step 8: If the output of processing an Enumservice might be used for= input to more ENUM processing (especially services returning 'tel' URIs), = the experts should verify that the authors have adequately addressed the is= sue of potential query loops. Review Finding: Complies. The document does raise the seemingly small pote= ntial for such loops in section 6 of the registration document, which shoul= d be sufficient warning for implementers to ensure that they properly imple= ment this Enumservice. Based on the registration document's examples and a = review of the entire document, no great risk of query loops can be envision= ed at this time. However, the expert reviewer, while an ENUM expert, is not= an IAX protocol expert and is therefore not well versed in all of the poss= ible configurations and common configuration errors of IAX-based services. -------------------------------------------- Additional Expert's Comments: Section 2 of this document correctly provides= the XML that IANA needs for updating their registry. However, while sectio= n 5.2 of RFC 6117 clearly instructs authors of a registration document to p= rovide the registration in XML, this does not preclude authors from describ= ing the registration in plain text in order to enhance the readability of t= heir document. Examples of this can be found in section 2 of RFC 3762, sec= tion 2 of RFC 3764, section 3 of RFC 4002, section 3 of RFC 4355, section 3= of RFC 4415, section 3 of RFC 4769, section 3 of RFC 4969, section 3 of RF= C 4979, section 2 of RFC 5028, section 4 of RFC 5278, and section 2 of RFC = 5333. This is a minor point and no update of the registration document is n= ecessary. -------------------------------------------- Appeals of the Expert Review Process: Appeals of Expert Review decisions fo= llow the process described in Section 7 of RFC 5226 and Section 6.5 of RFC = 2026. //End of Expert Review Document// --_000_C9B0B2F01F7FFjasonlivingoodcablecomcastcom_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <59BE1043EBEF7949A7841F49405228D4@cable.comcast.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
//Start of Expert Review Document//

Expert Review of: IANA Registration for Enumservice 'iax'
Document Name: draft-ietf-enum-iax-09

Date Review Requested: 22 March 2011
Date Review Completed: 24 March 2011

Review Conducted By: Jason Livingood <jason_livingood@cable.comcast.com>

--------------------------------------------
Expert's Note: This review was conducted in accordance with RFC 6117. = Specific guidance on the Expert Review process for Enumservices in RFC 6117= is in Sections 6.5, and 7.

+--------------------------------------+
| Expert's Finding: APPROVED |
+--------------------------------------+

Expert's Comments: After conducing my review, it is my expert opinion = that the publication of this registration document for an Enumservice 'iax'= is approved.

--------------------------------------------
Expert's Detailed Review:
I was appointed by the IESG to perform an expert review of this docume= nt in accordance with the Expert Review process described in RFC 6117. = ;

--------------------------------------------
Review Step 1: Verify conformance with the ENUM specification RFC 6116= .

Review Finding: Complies.

--------------------------------------------
Review Step 2: Verify that the requirements set out in this document (= Sections 3 and 5 of RFC 6117) are met.  This includes checking for com= pleteness and whether all the aspects described in Sections 3 and 5 are suf= ficiently addressed.

Review Finding: Complies with sections 3 and 5 of RFC 6117. This Enums= ervice's class is properly defined as protocol-based, on the basis of RFC 5= 456 which documents the IAX protocol. It also properly defines the type, co= rrectly omits the subtype since this is not used, and properly defines the URI scheme, functional specific= ation, security considerations, intended usage, and Enumservice specificati= on document. A requestor is defined, though for whatever reason only one of= the two document authors are listed (Klaus Darilion has been omitted). 

--------------------------------------------
Review Step 3: If a use case is provided, the experts should verify wh= ether the proposed Enumservice does actually match the use case.  The = experts should also determine whether the use case could be covered by an e= xisting Enumservice. 

Review Finding: Complies, with use cases documented in section 3 of th= e registration document.

--------------------------------------------
Review Step 4: Verify that the Enumservice proposed cannot be confused= with identical (or similar) other Enumservices already registered.

Review Finding: Complies.

--------------------------------------------
Review Step 5: If the Enumservice is classified according to Section 4= .2 of RFC 6117, the experts must verify that the principles of the Class in= question are followed.

Review Finding: Complies. The registration qualifies as protocol-based= , based on RFC 5456 which documents the IAX protocol.

--------------------------------------------
Review Step 6: In case the Enumservice is not classified, the experts = must verify whether a convincing reason for the deviation is provided in th= e Registration Document.

Review Finding: Not applicable (see Review Step 5 above).

--------------------------------------------
Review Step 7: Investigate whether the proposed Enumservice has any ne= gative side effects on existing clients and infrastructure, particularly th= e DNS.

Review Finding: Complies. No negative side effects on clients or infra= structure can be envisioned by the expert at this time and no one has raise= d any such concerns on the ENUM working group mailing list or other relevan= t IETF mailing lists of which the expert is aware.

--------------------------------------------
Review Step 8: If the output of processing an Enumservice might be use= d for input to more ENUM processing (especially services returning 'tel' UR= Is), the experts should verify that the authors have adequately addressed t= he issue of potential query loops.

Review Finding:  Complies. The document does raise the seemingly = small potential for such loops in section 6 of the registration document, w= hich should be sufficient warning for implementers to ensure that they prop= erly implement this Enumservice. Based on the registration document's examples and a review of the entire documen= t, no great risk of query loops can be envisioned at this time. However, th= e expert reviewer, while an ENUM expert, is not an IAX protocol expert and = is therefore not well versed in all of the possible configurations and common configuration errors of IAX-= based services. 

--------------------------------------------
Additional Expert's Comments: Section 2 of this document correctly pro= vides the XML that IANA needs for updating their registry. However, while s= ection 5.2 of RFC 6117 clearly instructs authors of a registration document= to provide the registration in XML, this does not preclude authors from describing the registration in pl= ain text in order to enhance the readability of their document. Examples of= this can be found in  section 2 of RFC 3762, section 2 of RFC 3764, s= ection 3 of RFC 4002, section 3 of RFC 4355, section 3 of RFC 4415, section 3 of RFC 4769, section 3 of RFC 4969,= section 3 of RFC 4979, section 2 of RFC 5028, section 4 of RFC 5278, and s= ection 2 of RFC 5333. This is a minor point and no update of the registrati= on document is necessary.

--------------------------------------------
Appeals of the Expert Review Process: Appeals of Expert Review decisio= ns follow the process described in Section 7 of RFC 5226 and Section 6.5 of= RFC 2026.

//End of Expert Review Document//

--_000_C9B0B2F01F7FFjasonlivingoodcablecomcastcom_-- From bernie@ietf.hoeneisen.ch Thu Mar 24 07:43:33 2011 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 9395328C117 for ; Thu, 24 Mar 2011 07:43:33 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -100.844 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.844 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.845, BAYES_50=0.001, 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 bzSRFWovy5lO for ; Thu, 24 Mar 2011 07:43:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from softronics.hoeneisen.ch (softronics.hoeneisen.ch [62.2.86.178]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A157B3A68DA for ; Thu, 24 Mar 2011 07:43:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]) by softronics.hoeneisen.ch with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Q2lmZ-0003Qf-Iw; Thu, 24 Mar 2011 15:45:03 +0100 Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2011 15:45:03 +0100 (CET) From: Bernie Hoeneisen X-X-Sender: bhoeneis@softronics.hoeneisen.ch To: Klaus Darilion In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (DEB 1167 2008-08-23) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: MULTIPART/MIXED; BOUNDARY="37663318-2001825474-1300977903=:10357" 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' , "Livingood, Jason" , Gonzalo Camarillo Subject: Re: [Enum] Expert Review of: draft-ietf-enum-iax-09 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, 24 Mar 2011 14:43:33 -0000 This message is in MIME format. The first part should be readable text, while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools. --37663318-2001825474-1300977903=:10357 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Hi, Please find the output of the expert review below. In addition, I do have some editorial feedback: @Jason: Please shout, in case you believe these changes are more than just= =20 editorial. * Abstract: Replace XXXX by 6117 Delete the Note for RFC Editor in the beginning * IANA Registration section, : In the elements, there is a reference to "general considerations" of Section 4 mentioned. However, there is no "general considerations" mentioned in Section 4 (anymore?). You might want to simplify this by: See , Section 4. * IANA Registration section, You might want to consider adding yourself as a requester. (It's up to you, of course.) * Security Considerations section RFC 6117 has the following requirement: "Enumservice Specifications do not need to and SHOULD NOT repeat considerations already listed in that document. However, Enumservice Specifications SHOULD include a reference to that section." Please add a reference to RFC 6116, Section 7 (at the end of the Security Consideration section) such as: "For Security considerations that apply to all Enumservices, please refer to RFC 6116, Section 7" (or alike). * Replace any instance of I-D.ietf-enum-3761bis by RFC6116 * Replace any instance of draft-ietf-enum-enumservices-guide by RFC 6117 Can you do the revision during this week, so that I can request=20 publication? cheers, Bernie -- http://ucom.ch/ Tech Consulting for Internet Standardization On Thu, 24 Mar 2011, Livingood, Jason wrote: > //Start of Expert Review Document// >=20 > Expert Review of: IANA Registration for Enumservice 'iax' > Document Name: draft-ietf-enum-iax-09 > Document Location: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-enum-iax-09 >=20 > Date Review Requested: 22 March 2011 > Date Review Completed: 24 March 2011 >=20 > Review Conducted By: Jason Livingood >=20 > -------------------------------------------- > Expert's Note: This review was conducted in accordance with RFC 6117. Spe= cific > guidance on the Expert Review process for Enumservices in RFC 6117 is in > Sections 6.5, and 7. >=20 > +--------------------------------------+ > | Expert's Finding: APPROVED | > +--------------------------------------+ >=20 > Expert's Comments: After conducing my review, it is my expert opinion tha= t the > publication of this registration document for an Enumservice 'iax' is app= roved. >=20 > -------------------------------------------- > Expert's Detailed Review: > I was appointed by the IESG to perform an expert review of this document = in > accordance with the Expert Review process described in RFC 6117.=A0 >=20 > -------------------------------------------- > Review Step 1: Verify conformance with the ENUM specification RFC 6116. >=20 > Review Finding: Complies. >=20 > -------------------------------------------- > Review Step 2: Verify that the requirements set out in this document (Sec= tions 3 > and 5 of RFC 6117) are met. =A0This includes checking for completeness an= d whether > all the aspects described in Sections 3 and 5 are sufficiently addressed. >=20 > Review Finding: Complies with sections 3 and 5 of RFC 6117. This Enumserv= ice's > class is properly defined as protocol-based, on the basis of RFC 5456 whi= ch > documents the IAX protocol. It also properly defines the type, correctly = omits > the subtype since this is not used, and properly defines the URI scheme, > functional specification, security considerations, intended usage, and > Enumservice specification document. A requestor is defined, though for wh= atever > reason only one of the two document authors are listed (Klaus Darilion ha= s been > omitted).=A0 >=20 > -------------------------------------------- > Review Step 3: If a use case is provided, the experts should verify wheth= er the > proposed Enumservice does actually match the use case. =A0The experts sho= uld also > determine whether the use case could be covered by an existing Enumservic= e.=A0 >=20 > Review Finding: Complies, with use cases documented in section 3 of the > registration document. >=20 > -------------------------------------------- > Review Step 4: Verify that the Enumservice proposed cannot be confused wi= th > identical (or similar) other Enumservices already registered. >=20 > Review Finding: Complies. >=20 > -------------------------------------------- > Review Step 5: If the Enumservice is classified according to Section 4.2 = of RFC > 6117, the experts must verify that the principles of the Class in questio= n are > followed. >=20 > Review Finding: Complies. The registration qualifies as protocol-based, b= ased on > RFC 5456 which documents the IAX protocol. >=20 > -------------------------------------------- > Review Step 6: In case the Enumservice is not classified, the experts mus= t > verify whether a convincing reason for the deviation is provided in the > Registration Document. >=20 > Review Finding: Not applicable (see Review Step 5 above). >=20 > -------------------------------------------- > Review Step 7: Investigate whether the proposed Enumservice has any negat= ive > side effects on existing clients and infrastructure, particularly the DNS= =2E >=20 > Review Finding: Complies. No negative side effects on clients or infrastr= ucture > can be envisioned by the expert at this time and no one has raised any su= ch > concerns on the ENUM working group mailing list or other relevant IETF ma= iling > lists of which the expert is aware. >=20 > -------------------------------------------- > Review Step 8: If the output of processing an Enumservice might be used f= or > input to more ENUM processing (especially services returning 'tel' URIs),= the > experts should verify that the authors have adequately addressed the issu= e of > potential query loops. >=20 > Review Finding: =A0Complies. The document does raise the seemingly small = potential > for such loops in section 6 of the registration document, which should be > sufficient warning for implementers to ensure that they properly implemen= t this > Enumservice. Based on the registration document's examples and a review o= f the > entire document, no great risk of query loops can be envisioned at this t= ime. > However, the expert reviewer, while an ENUM expert, is not an IAX protoco= l > expert and is therefore not well versed in all of the possible configurat= ions > and common configuration errors of IAX-based services.=A0 >=20 > -------------------------------------------- > Additional Expert's Comments: Section 2 of this document correctly provid= es the > XML that IANA needs for updating their registry. However, while section 5= =2E2 of > RFC 6117 clearly instructs authors of a registration document to provide = the > registration in XML, this does not preclude authors from describing the > registration in plain text in order to enhance the readability of their > document. Examples of this can be found in =A0section 2 of RFC 3762, sect= ion 2 of > RFC 3764, section 3 of RFC 4002, section 3 of RFC 4355, section 3 of RFC = 4415, > section 3 of RFC 4769, section 3 of RFC 4969, section 3 of RFC 4979, sect= ion 2 > of RFC 5028, section 4 of RFC 5278, and section 2 of RFC 5333. This is a = minor > point and no update of the registration document is necessary. >=20 > -------------------------------------------- > Appeals of the Expert Review Process: Appeals of Expert Review decisions = follow > the process described in Section 7 of RFC 5226 and Section 6.5 of RFC 202= 6. >=20 > //End of Expert Review Document// >=20 >=20 > --37663318-2001825474-1300977903=:10357-- From bernie@ietf.hoeneisen.ch Thu Mar 24 12:16:26 2011 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 D43AA3A68BA for ; Thu, 24 Mar 2011 12:16:26 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.023 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.023 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.576, 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 xfnRPfDHOgFR for ; Thu, 24 Mar 2011 12:16:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from softronics.hoeneisen.ch (softronics.hoeneisen.ch [62.2.86.178]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 795703A659A for ; Thu, 24 Mar 2011 12:16:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]) by softronics.hoeneisen.ch with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Q2q2h-0003vd-V6 for enum@ietf.org; Thu, 24 Mar 2011 20:18:00 +0100 Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2011 20:17:59 +0100 (CET) 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; 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 Subject: [Enum] I-D Action:draft-hoeneisen-rfc5333bis-00.txt (fwd) 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, 24 Mar 2011 19:16:26 -0000 FYI: draft-hoeneisen-rfc5333bis (IANA Registration of Enumservices for Internet Calendaring) will be discussed in APPAREA next Monday. http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/80/agenda/apparea.txt cheers, Bernie -- http://ucom.ch/ Tech Consulting for Internet Standardization ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2011 19:34:08 From: Bernie Hoeneisen To: IETF CALDAV list Cc: IETF ENUM list Subject: I-D Action:draft-hoeneisen-rfc5333bis-00.txt (fwd) FYI: Yesterday I have submitted an I-D for a revision of RFC 5333 to include the Calendaring Enumservices related to draft-desruisseaux-caldav-sched. Those had to be stripped from RFC 5333 at a very late stage, to get rid of the dependency on draft-desruisseaux-caldav-sched, which was not ready for publication back then. Looking forward to your feedback, in particular whether there is a need for an Enumservice "ical-sched:http" (besides "ical-sched:https"). cheers, Bernie -- http://ucom.ch/ Tech Consulting for Internet Standardization ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Sun, 6 Mar 2011 15:45:01 From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org Subject: I-D Action:draft-hoeneisen-rfc5333bis-00.txt A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. Title : IANA Registration of Enumservices for Internet Calendaring Author(s) : B. Hoeneisen Filename : draft-hoeneisen-rfc5333bis-00.txt Pages : 13 Date : 2011-03-06 This document registers and updates Enumservices for Internet calendaring. Specifically, this document focuses on Enumservices for scheduling with iMIP (iCalendar Message-Based Interoperability Protocol) and for accessing Internet calendaring information with CalDAV (Calendaring Extensions to WebDAV). A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-hoeneisen-rfc5333bis-00.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 jason_livingood@cable.comcast.com Thu Mar 24 13:29:26 2011 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 66E4728C114 for ; Thu, 24 Mar 2011 13:29:26 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.231 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.231 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.496, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311, 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 aQZPmsaMpN4k for ; Thu, 24 Mar 2011 13:29:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cable.comcast.com (copdcimo01.potomac.co.ndcwest.comcast.net [76.96.32.251]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B434428C0FB for ; Thu, 24 Mar 2011 13:29:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ([24.40.55.40]) by copdcimo01.cable.comcast.com with ESMTP with TLS id 5503630.30872641; Thu, 24 Mar 2011 14:33:13 -0600 Received: from PACDCEXMB06.cable.comcast.com ([fe80::6134:ea50:286a:c0]) by pacdcexhub03.cable.comcast.com ([fe80::d1dd:b302:b617:3755%12]) with mapi id 14.01.0270.001; Thu, 24 Mar 2011 16:30:40 -0400 From: "Livingood, Jason" To: Bernie Hoeneisen , Klaus Darilion Thread-Topic: Expert Review of: draft-ietf-enum-iax-09 Thread-Index: AQHL6iM6Jft64T65h02TvosqZLt4hpQ80uWAgAAdgAA= Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2011 20:30:40 +0000 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.2.0.101115 x-originating-ip: [147.191.227.141] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <71BB5D9C460E5042A10B422B0164F6D5@cable.comcast.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: 'IETF ENUM list' , Gonzalo Camarillo Subject: Re: [Enum] Expert Review of: draft-ietf-enum-iax-09 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, 24 Mar 2011 20:29:26 -0000 These changes all seem minor and sensible to me. Please also note my one review comment: A requestor is defined, though for whatever reason only one of the two document authors are listed (Klaus Darilion has been omitted). Jason On 3/24/11 10:45 AM, "Bernie Hoeneisen" wrote: >Hi, > >Please find the output of the expert review below. > > >In addition, I do have some editorial feedback: > >@Jason: Please shout, in case you believe these changes are more than >just=20 >editorial. > >* Abstract: > > Replace XXXX by 6117 > Delete the Note for RFC Editor in the beginning > > >* IANA Registration section, : > > In the elements, there is a reference to > "general considerations" of Section 4 mentioned. However, there is no > "general considerations" mentioned in Section 4 (anymore?). > > You might want to simplify this by: > > See , Section 4. > > > >* IANA Registration section, > > You might want to consider adding yourself as a requester. > (It's up to you, of course.) > > >* Security Considerations section > > RFC 6117 has the following requirement: > > "Enumservice Specifications do not need to and SHOULD NOT repeat > considerations already listed in that document. However, Enumservice > Specifications SHOULD include a reference to that section." > > Please add a reference to RFC 6116, Section 7 (at the end of > the Security Consideration section) such as: > > "For Security considerations that apply to all Enumservices, > please refer to RFC 6116, Section 7" > > (or alike). > > >* Replace any instance of I-D.ietf-enum-3761bis by RFC6116 > > >* Replace any instance of draft-ietf-enum-enumservices-guide > by RFC 6117 > > > >Can you do the revision during this week, so that I can request >publication? > > >cheers, > Bernie > >-- > >http://ucom.ch/ >Tech Consulting for Internet Standardization > > >On Thu, 24 Mar 2011, Livingood, Jason wrote: > >> //Start of Expert Review Document// >>=20 >> Expert Review of: IANA Registration for Enumservice 'iax' >> Document Name: draft-ietf-enum-iax-09 >> Document Location: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-enum-iax-09 >>=20 >> Date Review Requested: 22 March 2011 >> Date Review Completed: 24 March 2011 >>=20 >> Review Conducted By: Jason Livingood >>=20 >> -------------------------------------------- >> Expert's Note: This review was conducted in accordance with RFC 6117. >>Specific >> guidance on the Expert Review process for Enumservices in RFC 6117 is in >> Sections 6.5, and 7. >>=20 >> +--------------------------------------+ >> | Expert's Finding: APPROVED | >> +--------------------------------------+ >>=20 >> Expert's Comments: After conducing my review, it is my expert opinion >>that the >> publication of this registration document for an Enumservice 'iax' is >>approved. >>=20 >> -------------------------------------------- >> Expert's Detailed Review: >> I was appointed by the IESG to perform an expert review of this >>document in >> accordance with the Expert Review process described in RFC 6117. >>=20 >> -------------------------------------------- >> Review Step 1: Verify conformance with the ENUM specification RFC 6116. >>=20 >> Review Finding: Complies. >>=20 >> -------------------------------------------- >> Review Step 2: Verify that the requirements set out in this document >>(Sections 3 >> and 5 of RFC 6117) are met. This includes checking for completeness >>and whether >> all the aspects described in Sections 3 and 5 are sufficiently >>addressed. >>=20 >> Review Finding: Complies with sections 3 and 5 of RFC 6117. This >>Enumservice's >> class is properly defined as protocol-based, on the basis of RFC 5456 >>which >> documents the IAX protocol. It also properly defines the type, >>correctly omits >> the subtype since this is not used, and properly defines the URI scheme, >> functional specification, security considerations, intended usage, and >> Enumservice specification document. A requestor is defined, though for >>whatever >> reason only one of the two document authors are listed (Klaus Darilion >>has been >> omitted).=20 >>=20 >> -------------------------------------------- >> Review Step 3: If a use case is provided, the experts should verify >>whether the >> proposed Enumservice does actually match the use case. The experts >>should also >> determine whether the use case could be covered by an existing >>Enumservice.=20 >>=20 >> Review Finding: Complies, with use cases documented in section 3 of the >> registration document. >>=20 >> -------------------------------------------- >> Review Step 4: Verify that the Enumservice proposed cannot be confused >>with >> identical (or similar) other Enumservices already registered. >>=20 >> Review Finding: Complies. >>=20 >> -------------------------------------------- >> Review Step 5: If the Enumservice is classified according to Section >>4.2 of RFC >> 6117, the experts must verify that the principles of the Class in >>question are >> followed. >>=20 >> Review Finding: Complies. The registration qualifies as protocol-based, >>based on >> RFC 5456 which documents the IAX protocol. >>=20 >> -------------------------------------------- >> Review Step 6: In case the Enumservice is not classified, the experts >>must >> verify whether a convincing reason for the deviation is provided in the >> Registration Document. >>=20 >> Review Finding: Not applicable (see Review Step 5 above). >>=20 >> -------------------------------------------- >> Review Step 7: Investigate whether the proposed Enumservice has any >>negative >> side effects on existing clients and infrastructure, particularly the >>DNS. >>=20 >> Review Finding: Complies. No negative side effects on clients or >>infrastructure >> can be envisioned by the expert at this time and no one has raised any >>such >> concerns on the ENUM working group mailing list or other relevant IETF >>mailing >> lists of which the expert is aware. >>=20 >> -------------------------------------------- >> Review Step 8: If the output of processing an Enumservice might be used >>for >> input to more ENUM processing (especially services returning 'tel' >>URIs), the >> experts should verify that the authors have adequately addressed the >>issue of >> potential query loops. >>=20 >> Review Finding: Complies. The document does raise the seemingly small >>potential >> for such loops in section 6 of the registration document, which should >>be >> sufficient warning for implementers to ensure that they properly >>implement this >> Enumservice. Based on the registration document's examples and a review >>of the >> entire document, no great risk of query loops can be envisioned at this >>time. >> However, the expert reviewer, while an ENUM expert, is not an IAX >>protocol >> expert and is therefore not well versed in all of the possible >>configurations >> and common configuration errors of IAX-based services. >>=20 >> -------------------------------------------- >> Additional Expert's Comments: Section 2 of this document correctly >>provides the >> XML that IANA needs for updating their registry. However, while section >>5.2 of >> RFC 6117 clearly instructs authors of a registration document to >>provide the >> registration in XML, this does not preclude authors from describing the >> registration in plain text in order to enhance the readability of their >> document. Examples of this can be found in section 2 of RFC 3762, >>section 2 of >> RFC 3764, section 3 of RFC 4002, section 3 of RFC 4355, section 3 of >>RFC 4415, >> section 3 of RFC 4769, section 3 of RFC 4969, section 3 of RFC 4979, >>section 2 >> of RFC 5028, section 4 of RFC 5278, and section 2 of RFC 5333. This is >>a minor >> point and no update of the registration document is necessary. >>=20 >> -------------------------------------------- >> Appeals of the Expert Review Process: Appeals of Expert Review >>decisions follow >> the process described in Section 7 of RFC 5226 and Section 6.5 of RFC >>2026. >>=20 >> //End of Expert Review Document// >>=20 >>=20 From bernie@ietf.hoeneisen.ch Fri Mar 25 01:52:21 2011 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 9345A3A6989 for ; Fri, 25 Mar 2011 01:52:21 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.095 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.095 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.504, 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 7vm1OxCWwE4b for ; Fri, 25 Mar 2011 01:52:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from softronics.hoeneisen.ch (softronics.hoeneisen.ch [62.2.86.178]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B5CE3A6984 for ; Fri, 25 Mar 2011 01:52:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]) by softronics.hoeneisen.ch with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Q32mH-0008QQ-8O; Fri, 25 Mar 2011 09:53:53 +0100 Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2011 09:53:53 +0100 (CET) From: Bernie Hoeneisen X-X-Sender: bhoeneis@softronics.hoeneisen.ch To: Klaus Darilion In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: 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 Cc: IETF ENUM list , "Livingood, Jason" , Gonzalo Camarillo Subject: Re: [Enum] Expert Review of: draft-ietf-enum-iax-09 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, 25 Mar 2011 08:52:21 -0000 Hi Klaus On Thu, 24 Mar 2011, Klaus Darilion wrote: > Done. XML and txt is attached (I named it version -10). What next? Thanks a lot for updating this so fast! From my point of view (as a document shepherd) this document is ready for publication, unless Jason (as the designated expert for the IAX Eumservice) objects to the changes you just made. Please submit -10 as soon as possible. Unfortunately, we'll have to wait until Monday, when I-D submissions are possible again (block-out period). Please also submit the .xml version with the I-D submission tool, so that the RFC Editor can fetch it directly from the tools. I will request publication as soon as -10 is online. cheers, Bernie PS: Looks like the ENUM WG will be dissolved next Monday, timely with the "beer&dinner" when we are celebrating it. -- http://ucom.ch/ Tech Consulting for Internet Standardization From Internet-Drafts@ietf.org Mon Mar 28 01:15:02 2011 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 A8C073A68BC; Mon, 28 Mar 2011 01:15:02 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.542 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.542 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.057, 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 dT-DuhnJdXXM; Mon, 28 Mar 2011 01:15:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E31853A68A2; Mon, 28 Mar 2011 01:15:01 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; Boundary="NextPart" From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 3.13 Message-ID: <20110328081501.5600.77485.idtracker@localhost> Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2011 01:15:01 -0700 Cc: enum@ietf.org Subject: [Enum] I-D Action:draft-ietf-enum-iax-10.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, 28 Mar 2011 08:15:02 -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 for Enumservice 'iax' Author(s) : E. Guy, K. Darilion Filename : draft-ietf-enum-iax-10.txt Pages : 7 Date : 2011-03-28 This document registers an Enumservice for the IAX protocol according to the guidelines given in RFC 6117. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-enum-iax-10.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-iax-10.txt"; site="ftp.ietf.org"; access-type="anon-ftp"; directory="internet-drafts" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2011-03-28010212.I-D@ietf.org> --NextPart-- From bernie@ietf.hoeneisen.ch Mon Mar 28 01:50:52 2011 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 3AF703A68EE for ; Mon, 28 Mar 2011 01:50:52 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.233 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.233 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.366, 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 zoJ3XwtocZKD for ; Mon, 28 Mar 2011 01:50:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from softronics.hoeneisen.ch (softronics.hoeneisen.ch [62.2.86.178]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1191C3A690B for ; Mon, 28 Mar 2011 01:50:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]) by softronics.hoeneisen.ch with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Q48BZ-0007bk-A3 for enum@ietf.org; Mon, 28 Mar 2011 10:52:29 +0200 Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2011 10:52:29 +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] Publication requested for draft-ietf-enum-iax 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, 28 Mar 2011 08:50:52 -0000 Dear ENUM WG I have just requested publication of draft-ietf-enum-iax. This means the ENUM Working Group will be concluded shortly, i.e. by today. Thanks Klaus for stepping in as a co-author and Jason as an expert reviewer for draft-ietf-enum-iax. cheers, Bernie, co-chair of the ENUM WG -- http://ucom.ch/ Tech Consulting for Internet Standardization From gonzalo.camarillo@ericsson.com Mon Mar 28 01:59:21 2011 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 29A133A6917 for ; Mon, 28 Mar 2011 01:59:21 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.601 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.002, 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 3hd5TlSqdUex for ; Mon, 28 Mar 2011 01:59:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailgw9.se.ericsson.net (mailgw9.se.ericsson.net [193.180.251.57]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A2393A68EF for ; Mon, 28 Mar 2011 01:59:19 -0700 (PDT) X-AuditID: c1b4fb39-b7c6dae0000023f2-92-4d904e48f44b Received: from esessmw0237.eemea.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.253.125]) by mailgw9.se.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id EC.0D.09202.84E409D4; Mon, 28 Mar 2011 11:00:56 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mail.lmf.ericsson.se (153.88.115.8) by esessmw0237.eemea.ericsson.se (153.88.115.91) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 8.3.137.0; Mon, 28 Mar 2011 11:00:56 +0200 Received: from [131.160.126.174] (rvi2-126-174.lmf.ericsson.se [131.160.126.174]) by mail.lmf.ericsson.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0EC95253A for ; Mon, 28 Mar 2011 12:00:56 +0300 (EEST) Message-ID: <4D904E47.4010309@ericsson.com> Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2011 10:00:55 +0100 From: Gonzalo Camarillo User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-US; rv:1.9.2.8) Gecko/20100802 Thunderbird/3.1.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: enum@ietf.org X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== Subject: [Enum] Closing ENUM 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, 28 Mar 2011 08:59:21 -0000 Hi, I have just requested the closure of the ENUM WG. I would like to thank all of you for all your efforts since I became this group's AD. The group has now reached all the goals we set at that point and, thus, we can declare victory and finally close the group ;o) Cheers, Gonzalo From patrik@frobbit.se Mon Mar 28 02:01:05 2011 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 188D93A6974 for ; Mon, 28 Mar 2011 02:01:05 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.299 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, 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 Of+nI+Ju+Rz4 for ; Mon, 28 Mar 2011 02:01:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from srv01.frobbit.se (srv01.frobbit.se [IPv6:2a02:80:3ffe::39]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C55C3A696B for ; Mon, 28 Mar 2011 02:01:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by srv01.frobbit.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9F743102A5EAE; Mon, 28 Mar 2011 11:02:40 +0200 (CEST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at frobbit.se Received: from srv01.frobbit.se ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (srv01.frobbit.se [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id sA4qCYexcklp; Mon, 28 Mar 2011 11:02:40 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [IPv6:2a02:80:3ffc::14] (unknown [IPv6:2a02:80:3ffc::14]) (Authenticated sender: paf01) by srv01.frobbit.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B0F1102A5EA7; Mon, 28 Mar 2011 11:02:40 +0200 (CEST) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Patrik_F=E4ltstr=F6m?= In-Reply-To: <4D904E47.4010309@ericsson.com> Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2011 11:02:40 +0200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <4463EF27-DB9A-4A90-BE8B-9F1638766A0A@frobbit.se> References: <4D904E47.4010309@ericsson.com> To: Gonzalo Camarillo X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) Cc: enum@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Enum] Closing ENUM 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, 28 Mar 2011 09:01:05 -0000 On 28 mar 2011, at 11.00, Gonzalo Camarillo wrote: > I have just requested the closure of the ENUM WG. I would like to thank > all of you for all your efforts since I became this group's AD. The > group has now reached all the goals we set at that point and, thus, we > can declare victory and finally close the group ;o) At last! :-) Thanks everyone! Well done! Patrik From jason_livingood@cable.comcast.com Mon Mar 28 03:41:13 2011 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 AE37F3A6910 for ; Mon, 28 Mar 2011 03:41:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.179 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.179 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.445, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 E3SD7ZkRCRol for ; Mon, 28 Mar 2011 03:41:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cable.comcast.com (copdcimo01.potomac.co.ndcwest.comcast.net [76.96.32.251]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F05E3A68B0 for ; Mon, 28 Mar 2011 03:41:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ([24.40.55.40]) by copdcimo01.cable.comcast.com with ESMTP with TLS id 5503630.31203598; Mon, 28 Mar 2011 04:45:09 -0600 Received: from PACDCEXMB06.cable.comcast.com ([fe80::6134:ea50:286a:c0]) by pacdcexhub03.cable.comcast.com ([fe80::d1dd:b302:b617:3755%12]) with mapi id 14.01.0270.001; Mon, 28 Mar 2011 06:42:28 -0400 From: "Livingood, Jason" To: Gonzalo Camarillo , Bernie Hoeneisen , 'IETF ENUM list' Thread-Topic: Expert Review of: draft-ietf-enum-iax-10 Thread-Index: AQHL7TTUpd9kIg6gDEOpGCjCEPV9kQ== Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2011 10:42:27 +0000 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.2.0.101115 x-originating-ip: [147.191.125.12] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_C9B632271FF6Ejasonlivingoodcablecomcastcom_" MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: [Enum] Expert Review of: draft-ietf-enum-iax-10 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, 28 Mar 2011 10:41:13 -0000 --_000_C9B632271FF6Ejasonlivingoodcablecomcastcom_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable While not required, since the draft was updated I have updated my expert re= view. There were no substantive changes and so this document is still fine,= from my standpoint. - Jason //Start of Expert Review Document// Expert Review of: IANA Registration for Enumservice 'iax' Document Name: draft-ietf-enum-iax-10 Document Location: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-enum-iax-10 Date Review Requested: 28 March 2011 Date Review Completed: 28 March 2011 Review Conducted By: Jason Livingood -------------------------------------------- Expert's Note: This review was conducted in accordance with RFC 6117. Speci= fic guidance on the Expert Review process for Enumservices in RFC 6117 is i= n Sections 6.5, and 7. +----------------------------+ | Expert's Finding: APPROVED | +----------------------------+ Expert's Comments: After conducing my review, it is my expert opinion that = the publication of this registration document for an Enumservice 'iax' is a= pproved. -------------------------------------------- Expert's Detailed Review: I was appointed by the IESG to perform an expert review of this document in= accordance with the Expert Review process described in RFC 6117. -------------------------------------------- Review Step 1: Verify conformance with the ENUM specification RFC 6116. Review Finding: Complies. -------------------------------------------- Review Step 2: Verify that the requirements set out in this document (Secti= ons 3 and 5 of RFC 6117) are met. This includes checking for completeness = and whether all the aspects described in Sections 3 and 5 are sufficiently = addressed. Review Finding: Complies with sections 3 and 5 of RFC 6117. This Enumservic= e's class is properly defined as protocol-based, on the basis of RFC 5456 w= hich documents the IAX protocol. It also properly defines the type, correct= ly omits the subtype since this is not used, and properly defines the URI s= cheme, functional specification, security considerations, intended usage, E= numservice specification document, and requestors. -------------------------------------------- Review Step 3: If a use case is provided, the experts should verify whether= the proposed Enumservice does actually match the use case. The experts sh= ould also determine whether the use case could be covered by an existing En= umservice. Review Finding: Complies, with use cases documented in section 3 of the reg= istration document. -------------------------------------------- Review Step 4: Verify that the Enumservice proposed cannot be confused with= identical (or similar) other Enumservices already registered. Review Finding: Complies. -------------------------------------------- Review Step 5: If the Enumservice is classified according to Section 4.2 of= RFC 6117, the experts must verify that the principles of the Class in ques= tion are followed. Review Finding: Complies. The registration qualifies as protocol-based, bas= ed on RFC 5456 which documents the IAX protocol. -------------------------------------------- Review Step 6: In case the Enumservice is not classified, the experts must = verify whether a convincing reason for the deviation is provided in the Reg= istration Document. Review Finding: Not applicable (see Review Step 5 above). -------------------------------------------- Review Step 7: Investigate whether the proposed Enumservice has any negativ= e side effects on existing clients and infrastructure, particularly the DNS= . Review Finding: Complies. No negative side effects on clients or infrastruc= ture can be envisioned by the expert at this time and no one has raised any= such concerns on the ENUM working group mailing list or other relevant IET= F mailing lists of which the expert is aware. -------------------------------------------- Review Step 8: If the output of processing an Enumservice might be used for= input to more ENUM processing (especially services returning 'tel' URIs), = the experts should verify that the authors have adequately addressed the is= sue of potential query loops. Review Finding: Complies. The document does raise the seemingly small pote= ntial for such loops in section 6 of the registration document, which shoul= d be sufficient warning for implementers to ensure that they properly imple= ment this Enumservice. Based on the registration document's examples and a = review of the entire document, no great risk of query loops can be envision= ed at this time. However, the expert reviewer, while an ENUM expert, is not= an IAX protocol expert and is therefore not well versed in all of the poss= ible configurations and common configuration errors of IAX-based services. -------------------------------------------- Additional Expert's Comments: Section 2 of this document correctly provides= the XML that IANA needs for updating their registry. However, while sectio= n 5.2 of RFC 6117 clearly instructs authors of a registration document to p= rovide the registration in XML, this does not preclude authors from describ= ing the registration in plain text in order to enhance the readability of t= heir document. Examples of this can be found in section 2 of RFC 3762, sec= tion 2 of RFC 3764, section 3 of RFC 4002, section 3 of RFC 4355, section 3= of RFC 4415, section 3 of RFC 4769, section 3 of RFC 4969, section 3 of RF= C 4979, section 2 of RFC 5028, section 4 of RFC 5278, and section 2 of RFC = 5333. This is a minor point and no update of the registration document is n= ecessary. -------------------------------------------- Appeals of the Expert Review Process: Appeals of Expert Review decisions fo= llow the process described in Section 7 of RFC 5226 and Section 6.5 of RFC = 2026. //End of Expert Review Document// On 3/24/11 8:58 AM, "Livingood, Jason" > wrote: //Start of Expert Review Document// Expert Review of: IANA Registration for Enumservice 'iax' Document Name: draft-ietf-enum-iax-09 Document Location: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-enum-iax-09 Date Review Requested: 22 March 2011 Date Review Completed: 24 March 2011 Review Conducted By: Jason Livingood > -------------------------------------------- Expert's Note: This review was conducted in accordance with RFC 6117. Speci= fic guidance on the Expert Review process for Enumservices in RFC 6117 is i= n Sections 6.5, and 7. +--------------------------------------+ | Expert's Finding: APPROVED | +--------------------------------------+ Expert's Comments: After conducing my review, it is my expert opinion that = the publication of this registration document for an Enumservice 'iax' is a= pproved. -------------------------------------------- Expert's Detailed Review: I was appointed by the IESG to perform an expert review of this document in= accordance with the Expert Review process described in RFC 6117. -------------------------------------------- Review Step 1: Verify conformance with the ENUM specification RFC 6116. Review Finding: Complies. -------------------------------------------- Review Step 2: Verify that the requirements set out in this document (Secti= ons 3 and 5 of RFC 6117) are met. This includes checking for completeness = and whether all the aspects described in Sections 3 and 5 are sufficiently = addressed. Review Finding: Complies with sections 3 and 5 of RFC 6117. This Enumservic= e's class is properly defined as protocol-based, on the basis of RFC 5456 w= hich documents the IAX protocol. It also properly defines the type, correct= ly omits the subtype since this is not used, and properly defines the URI s= cheme, functional specification, security considerations, intended usage, a= nd Enumservice specification document. A requestor is defined, though for w= hatever reason only one of the two document authors are listed (Klaus Daril= ion has been omitted). -------------------------------------------- Review Step 3: If a use case is provided, the experts should verify whether= the proposed Enumservice does actually match the use case. The experts sh= ould also determine whether the use case could be covered by an existing En= umservice. Review Finding: Complies, with use cases documented in section 3 of the reg= istration document. -------------------------------------------- Review Step 4: Verify that the Enumservice proposed cannot be confused with= identical (or similar) other Enumservices already registered. Review Finding: Complies. -------------------------------------------- Review Step 5: If the Enumservice is classified according to Section 4.2 of= RFC 6117, the experts must verify that the principles of the Class in ques= tion are followed. Review Finding: Complies. The registration qualifies as protocol-based, bas= ed on RFC 5456 which documents the IAX protocol. -------------------------------------------- Review Step 6: In case the Enumservice is not classified, the experts must = verify whether a convincing reason for the deviation is provided in the Reg= istration Document. Review Finding: Not applicable (see Review Step 5 above). -------------------------------------------- Review Step 7: Investigate whether the proposed Enumservice has any negativ= e side effects on existing clients and infrastructure, particularly the DNS= . Review Finding: Complies. No negative side effects on clients or infrastruc= ture can be envisioned by the expert at this time and no one has raised any= such concerns on the ENUM working group mailing list or other relevant IET= F mailing lists of which the expert is aware. -------------------------------------------- Review Step 8: If the output of processing an Enumservice might be used for= input to more ENUM processing (especially services returning 'tel' URIs), = the experts should verify that the authors have adequately addressed the is= sue of potential query loops. Review Finding: Complies. The document does raise the seemingly small pote= ntial for such loops in section 6 of the registration document, which shoul= d be sufficient warning for implementers to ensure that they properly imple= ment this Enumservice. Based on the registration document's examples and a = review of the entire document, no great risk of query loops can be envision= ed at this time. However, the expert reviewer, while an ENUM expert, is not= an IAX protocol expert and is therefore not well versed in all of the poss= ible configurations and common configuration errors of IAX-based services. -------------------------------------------- Additional Expert's Comments: Section 2 of this document correctly provides= the XML that IANA needs for updating their registry. However, while sectio= n 5.2 of RFC 6117 clearly instructs authors of a registration document to p= rovide the registration in XML, this does not preclude authors from describ= ing the registration in plain text in order to enhance the readability of t= heir document. Examples of this can be found in section 2 of RFC 3762, sec= tion 2 of RFC 3764, section 3 of RFC 4002, section 3 of RFC 4355, section 3= of RFC 4415, section 3 of RFC 4769, section 3 of RFC 4969, section 3 of RF= C 4979, section 2 of RFC 5028, section 4 of RFC 5278, and section 2 of RFC = 5333. This is a minor point and no update of the registration document is n= ecessary. -------------------------------------------- Appeals of the Expert Review Process: Appeals of Expert Review decisions fo= llow the process described in Section 7 of RFC 5226 and Section 6.5 of RFC = 2026. //End of Expert Review Document// _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf= .org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum --_000_C9B632271FF6Ejasonlivingoodcablecomcastcom_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <03EF6781D5DE1545B96E5F9260EA1249@cable.comcast.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
While not required, since the draft was updated I have updated my expe= rt review. There were no substantive changes and so this document is still = fine, from my standpoint.

- Jason

//Start of Expert Review Document//

Expert Review of: IANA Registration for Enumservice 'iax'
Document Name: draft-ietf-enum-iax-10
Document Location: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-enum-iax-10

Date Review Requested: 28 March 2011
Date Review Completed: 28 March 2011

Review Conducted By: Jason Livingood <jason_livingood@cable.comcast= .com>

--------------------------------------------
Expert's Note: This review was conducted in accordance with RFC 6117. = Specific guidance on the Expert Review process for Enumservices in RFC 6117= is in Sections 6.5, and 7.

+----------------------------+
| Expert's Finding: APPROVED |
+----------------------------+

Expert's Comments: After conducing my review, it is my expert opinion = that the publication of this registration document for an Enumservice 'iax'= is approved.

--------------------------------------------
Expert's Detailed Review:
I was appointed by the IESG to perform an expert review of this docume= nt in accordance with the Expert Review process described in RFC 6117. = ;

--------------------------------------------
Review Step 1: Verify conformance with the ENUM specification RFC 6116= .

Review Finding: Complies.

--------------------------------------------
Review Step 2: Verify that the requirements set out in this document (= Sections 3 and 5 of RFC 6117) are met.  This includes checking for com= pleteness and whether all the aspects described in Sections 3 and 5 are suf= ficiently addressed.

Review Finding: Complies with sections 3 and 5 of RFC 6117. This Enums= ervice's class is properly defined as protocol-based, on the basis of RFC 5= 456 which documents the IAX protocol. It also properly defines the type, co= rrectly omits the subtype since this is not used, and properly defines the URI scheme, functional specific= ation, security considerations, intended usage, Enumservice specification d= ocument, and requestors.

--------------------------------------------
Review Step 3: If a use case is provided, the experts should verify wh= ether the proposed Enumservice does actually match the use case.  The = experts should also determine whether the use case could be covered by an e= xisting Enumservice. 

Review Finding: Complies, with use cases documented in section 3 of th= e registration document.

--------------------------------------------
Review Step 4: Verify that the Enumservice proposed cannot be confused= with identical (or similar) other Enumservices already registered.

Review Finding: Complies.

--------------------------------------------
Review Step 5: If the Enumservice is classified according to Section 4= .2 of RFC 6117, the experts must verify that the principles of the Class in= question are followed.

Review Finding: Complies. The registration qualifies as protocol-based= , based on RFC 5456 which documents the IAX protocol.

--------------------------------------------
Review Step 6: In case the Enumservice is not classified, the experts = must verify whether a convincing reason for the deviation is provided in th= e Registration Document.

Review Finding: Not applicable (see Review Step 5 above).

--------------------------------------------
Review Step 7: Investigate whether the proposed Enumservice has any ne= gative side effects on existing clients and infrastructure, particularly th= e DNS.

Review Finding: Complies. No negative side effects on clients or infra= structure can be envisioned by the expert at this time and no one has raise= d any such concerns on the ENUM working group mailing list or other relevan= t IETF mailing lists of which the expert is aware.

--------------------------------------------
Review Step 8: If the output of processing an Enumservice might be use= d for input to more ENUM processing (especially services returning 'tel' UR= Is), the experts should verify that the authors have adequately addressed t= he issue of potential query loops.

Review Finding:  Complies. The document does raise the seemingly = small potential for such loops in section 6 of the registration document, w= hich should be sufficient warning for implementers to ensure that they prop= erly implement this Enumservice. Based on the registration document's examples and a review of the entire documen= t, no great risk of query loops can be envisioned at this time. However, th= e expert reviewer, while an ENUM expert, is not an IAX protocol expert and = is therefore not well versed in all of the possible configurations and common configuration errors of IAX-= based services. 

--------------------------------------------
Additional Expert's Comments: Section 2 of this document correctly pro= vides the XML that IANA needs for updating their registry. However, while s= ection 5.2 of RFC 6117 clearly instructs authors of a registration document= to provide the registration in XML, this does not preclude authors from describing the registration in pl= ain text in order to enhance the readability of their document. Examples of= this can be found in  section 2 of RFC 3762, section 2 of RFC 3764, s= ection 3 of RFC 4002, section 3 of RFC 4355, section 3 of RFC 4415, section 3 of RFC 4769, section 3 of RFC 4969,= section 3 of RFC 4979, section 2 of RFC 5028, section 4 of RFC 5278, and s= ection 2 of RFC 5333. This is a minor point and no update of the registrati= on document is necessary.

--------------------------------------------
Appeals of the Expert Review Process: Appeals of Expert Review decisio= ns follow the process described in Section 7 of RFC 5226 and Section 6.5 of= RFC 2026.

//End of Expert Review Document//



On 3/24/11 8:58 AM, "Livingood, Jason" <Jason_Livingood@cable.comcast.com&g= t; wrote:

//Start of Expert Review Document//

Expert Review of: IANA Registration for Enumservice 'iax'
Document Name: draft-ietf-enum-iax-09

Date Review Requested: 22 March 2011
Date Review Completed: 24 March 2011

Review Conducted By: Jason Livingood <jason_livingood@cable.comcast.com>

--------------------------------------------
Expert's Note: This review was conducted in accordance with RFC 6117. = Specific guidance on the Expert Review process for Enumservices in RFC 6117= is in Sections 6.5, and 7.

+--------------------------------------+
| Expert's Finding: APPROVED |
+--------------------------------------+

Expert's Comments: After conducing my review, it is my expert opinion = that the publication of this registration document for an Enumservice 'iax'= is approved.

--------------------------------------------
Expert's Detailed Review:
I was appointed by the IESG to perform an expert review of this docume= nt in accordance with the Expert Review process described in RFC 6117. = ;

--------------------------------------------
Review Step 1: Verify conformance with the ENUM specification RFC 6116= .

Review Finding: Complies.

--------------------------------------------
Review Step 2: Verify that the requirements set out in this document (= Sections 3 and 5 of RFC 6117) are met.  This includes checking for com= pleteness and whether all the aspects described in Sections 3 and 5 are suf= ficiently addressed.

Review Finding: Complies with sections 3 and 5 of RFC 6117. This Enums= ervice's class is properly defined as protocol-based, on the basis of RFC 5= 456 which documents the IAX protocol. It also properly defines the type, co= rrectly omits the subtype since this is not used, and properly defines the URI scheme, functional specific= ation, security considerations, intended usage, and Enumservice specificati= on document. A requestor is defined, though for whatever reason only one of= the two document authors are listed (Klaus Darilion has been omitted). 

--------------------------------------------
Review Step 3: If a use case is provided, the experts should verify wh= ether the proposed Enumservice does actually match the use case.  The = experts should also determine whether the use case could be covered by an e= xisting Enumservice. 

Review Finding: Complies, with use cases documented in section 3 of th= e registration document.

--------------------------------------------
Review Step 4: Verify that the Enumservice proposed cannot be confused= with identical (or similar) other Enumservices already registered.

Review Finding: Complies.

--------------------------------------------
Review Step 5: If the Enumservice is classified according to Section 4= .2 of RFC 6117, the experts must verify that the principles of the Class in= question are followed.

Review Finding: Complies. The registration qualifies as protocol-based= , based on RFC 5456 which documents the IAX protocol.

--------------------------------------------
Review Step 6: In case the Enumservice is not classified, the experts = must verify whether a convincing reason for the deviation is provided in th= e Registration Document.

Review Finding: Not applicable (see Review Step 5 above).

--------------------------------------------
Review Step 7: Investigate whether the proposed Enumservice has any ne= gative side effects on existing clients and infrastructure, particularly th= e DNS.

Review Finding: Complies. No negative side effects on clients or infra= structure can be envisioned by the expert at this time and no one has raise= d any such concerns on the ENUM working group mailing list or other relevan= t IETF mailing lists of which the expert is aware.

--------------------------------------------
Review Step 8: If the output of processing an Enumservice might be use= d for input to more ENUM processing (especially services returning 'tel' UR= Is), the experts should verify that the authors have adequately addressed t= he issue of potential query loops.

Review Finding:  Complies. The document does raise the seemingly = small potential for such loops in section 6 of the registration document, w= hich should be sufficient warning for implementers to ensure that they prop= erly implement this Enumservice. Based on the registration document's examples and a review of the entire documen= t, no great risk of query loops can be envisioned at this time. However, th= e expert reviewer, while an ENUM expert, is not an IAX protocol expert and = is therefore not well versed in all of the possible configurations and common configuration errors of IAX-= based services. 

--------------------------------------------
Additional Expert's Comments: Section 2 of this document correctly pro= vides the XML that IANA needs for updating their registry. However, while s= ection 5.2 of RFC 6117 clearly instructs authors of a registration document= to provide the registration in XML, this does not preclude authors from describing the registration in pl= ain text in order to enhance the readability of their document. Examples of= this can be found in  section 2 of RFC 3762, section 2 of RFC 3764, s= ection 3 of RFC 4002, section 3 of RFC 4355, section 3 of RFC 4415, section 3 of RFC 4769, section 3 of RFC 4969,= section 3 of RFC 4979, section 2 of RFC 5028, section 4 of RFC 5278, and s= ection 2 of RFC 5333. This is a minor point and no update of the registrati= on document is necessary.

--------------------------------------------
Appeals of the Expert Review Process: Appeals of Expert Review decisio= ns follow the process described in Section 7 of RFC 5226 and Section 6.5 of= RFC 2026.

//End of Expert Review Document//

_______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org ht= tps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum
--_000_C9B632271FF6Ejasonlivingoodcablecomcastcom_-- From xiaodong.lee@gmail.com Mon Mar 28 08:44:05 2011 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 AA9D83A6873 for ; Mon, 28 Mar 2011 08:44:05 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.598 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] 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 5l+XBD7LTMFz for ; Mon, 28 Mar 2011 08:44:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-bw0-f44.google.com (mail-bw0-f44.google.com [209.85.214.44]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6EEE13A686E for ; Mon, 28 Mar 2011 08:44:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: by bwz13 with SMTP id 13so2733849bwz.31 for ; Mon, 28 Mar 2011 08:45:41 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=mMh6mS6fKWWr30S/StFO1n0IE9i6SSfmPsLn6Zn7yFQ=; b=YpWEAZ2DGY6Rbwtl2qEMptJrnEt8pJ1ihty9bLqS/GEAnQ4KI3fZ1UEP1ZRk/J8bAP vo+f8nDSfUinnwtZJQIRVoqjeO6TGgrIsuu8Jpy5gBgyiJbg9hLLoHb8FE+WWqik/9yU fXURMZXYGJJdO8IEUSkUSgQo66SIqKdWejK4Q= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; b=QvnjkkfC+6/XtCLzM/NUgzUtnBY4he2/ZJ02b/zuG7LfGMnS16gCyCzna+k60Mje2h Yy22XxF6OjutQBX+JED53CcRIw00CsY70B8Kqw7b8tFjMebHthHQlFMI1TnX7asOi6+H PPGVBIMZH8kFm9ner9++ItDKYFNs06kyM46jU= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.204.32.9 with SMTP id a9mr3764691bkd.182.1301327139657; Mon, 28 Mar 2011 08:45:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.204.9.199 with HTTP; Mon, 28 Mar 2011 08:45:39 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <4D904E47.4010309@ericsson.com> References: <4D904E47.4010309@ericsson.com> Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2011 23:45:39 +0800 Message-ID: From: Xiaodong Lee To: Gonzalo Camarillo Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=000325556532e55765049f8cd5c9 Cc: enum@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Enum] Closing ENUM 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, 28 Mar 2011 15:44:05 -0000 --000325556532e55765049f8cd5c9 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Great work and good efforts, thanks. Regards, Xiaodong Lee, CNNIC 2011/3/28 Gonzalo Camarillo > Hi, > > I have just requested the closure of the ENUM WG. I would like to thank > all of you for all your efforts since I became this group's AD. The > group has now reached all the goals we set at that point and, thus, we > can declare victory and finally close the group ;o) > > Cheers, > > Gonzalo > _______________________________________________ > enum mailing list > enum@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum > -- --Xiaodong(Sheldon) Lee The best answer is doing! +86-10-58813020 http://www.asrc.cn/~lee --000325556532e55765049f8cd5c9 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Great work and good efforts, thanks.
=A0
Regards,
Xiaodong Lee, CNNIC

2011/3/28 Gonzalo Camarillo &l= t;Gonzalo.Camarillo@erics= son.com>
Hi,

I have just requested= the closure of the ENUM WG. I would like to thank
all of you for all yo= ur efforts since I became this group's AD. The
group has now reached all the goals we set at that point and, thus, we
c= an declare victory and finally close the group ;o)

Cheers,

Go= nzalo
_______________________________________________
enum mailing li= st
enum@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/ma= ilman/listinfo/enum



-- =
--Xiaodong(Sheldon) Lee
=A0 The best answer is doing!
=A0 +86-10-5881= 3020
=A0 http://www.asrc.cn/~lee=
--000325556532e55765049f8cd5c9--