The IESG has approved the following document: - 'IANA Registration of Enumservices: Guide, Template and IANA Considerations ' <draft-ietf-enum-enumservices-guide-22.txt> as a Proposed Standard This document is the product of the Telephone Number Mapping Working Group. The IESG contact persons are Gonzalo Camarillo and Robert Sparks. A URL of this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-enum-enumservices-guide-22.txt 1 - Technical Summary E.164 Number Mapping (ENUM) provides an identifier mapping mechanism to map E.164 numbers to Uniform Resource Identifiers. This document updates RFC 3761 as part of a suite of including rfc3761bis and a transition mechanism for the existing IANA registry. One of the primary concepts of ENUM is the definition of "Enumservices", which allows for providing different URIs for different applications of said mapping mechanism. This document specifies a revision of the IANA Registry for Enumservices, which was originally described in [RFC 3761]. The new registration processes have been specifically designed to be decoupled from the existence of the ENUM working group. 2 - Working Group Summary Was there anything in the discussion in the interested community that is worth noting? For example, was there controversy about particular points or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly rough? Was the document considered in any WG, and if so, why was it not adopted as a work item there? There was extensive discussion on the alternatives for various processes involved in the Enumservices registration including what would constitute Expert Review in this context. The goal was to have a formal process in place to enable the closure of the ENUM WG. 3 - Document Quality Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a significant number of vendors indicated their plan to implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that merit special mention as having done a thorough review, e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review, what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type review, on what date was the request posted? Rfc 3761 is globally deployed in multiple contexts and the existing Enumservice registry has received extensive use. This new procedure should simplify the process considerably. 4 ? Personnel Document Shepherd: Richard Shockey Responsible AD: Gonzalo Camarillo
_______________________________________________ IETF-Announce mailing list IETF-Announce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce
