Atlanta is coming up and I'd like to see a more structured and focused discussion of the issues surrounding this draft and its relationship to the h.323 and SIP registration draft ...in addition it can be assumed that the FAX WG and VPIM WG have their own thoughts about how these issues should be treated. In the first order of business I'd like to get WG consensus that both the Levin H.323 registration draft and the SIP registration draft should be ENUM WG documents immediately. I think these are necessary for upcoming trials etc and if we have consensus now that is one item we do not need to deal with in Atlanta. Second IMHO (personal opinion here) the general concept in the enumservice compendium document seem to be the concept of descriptors or hints as to the nature, possible location and function of a particular end point. That said I'm wondering if we can separate the issue here to a more generic enumservice concept and enumservice descriptor. E2U+enumservice:enumservicedescriptor:enumservicedescriptor:etc. There are complications here since IMHO E2U+fax and E2U+tel:fax might be considered the same thing. Obviously E2U+sip and E2U+sip:voice are the same etc. Wearing my WG Chair hat ..I'm not going to say that one syntax is better that the other ..as some of you may have noted in my Security and Privacy issues draft I at least postulate that both the minimalist and maximum views of the issue have practical uses. I havent seen any comments on my draft ..so Thoughts etc? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard Shockey, Senior Manager, Strategic Technology Initiatives NeuStar Inc. 46000 Center Oak Plaza - Sterling, VA 20166 Voice +1 571.434.5651 Cell : +1 314.503.0640, Fax: +1 815.333.1237 <mailto:richard@shockey.us> or <mailto:richard.shockey@neustar.biz> <http://www.neustar.biz> ; <http://www.enum.org> <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<