Skip to main content

The E.164 to Uniform Resource Identifiers (URI) Dynamic Delegation Discovery System (DDDS) Application for Infrastructure ENUM
RFC 5526

Yes

(Jon Peterson)

No Objection

Lars Eggert
(Chris Newman)
(Cullen Jennings)
(Dan Romascanu)
(David Ward)
(Lisa Dusseault)
(Magnus Westerlund)
(Mark Townsley)
(Ross Callon)
(Russ Housley)
(Tim Polk)

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 07 and is now closed.

Lars Eggert
(was Discuss) No Objection
Jon Peterson Former IESG member
Yes
Yes ()

                            
Chris Newman Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection ()

                            
Cullen Jennings Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection ()

                            
Dan Romascanu Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection ()

                            
David Ward Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection ()

                            
Jari Arkko Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (2008-11-06)
This is a borderline discuss/comment, and deserves to be talked
about in the call.

Based on Christian's and Pasi's reviews and looking at the document
myself, it would be served better by makings its purpose clearer
in the title/abstract/introduction. Are we asking for the domain
allocation with this document or not? Is this a proposal for future
work or all that the IETF needs to do and then someone else is going
to take over the domain part?

Christian Vogt's review:

This document proposes the use of a new DNS domain for Infrastructure ENUM registrations.  The document does not yet define which DNS domain this will be, though, leaving it "to be determined".  If the IESG believes that this amount of content is sufficient to justify the publication of a separate RFC, then this document can go ahead in the publication process, as there are no critical issues IMO.  Alternatively, the document could be held until the new DNS domain is known, so that the new DNS domain could be defined within the document.
Lisa Dusseault Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection ()

                            
Magnus Westerlund Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection ()

                            
Mark Townsley Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection ()

                            
Pasi Eronen Former IESG member
(was Discuss) No Objection
No Objection (2008-11-06)
On first reading, I had big difficulties in understanding the document
because it doesn't seem to specify anything (that could be implemented
and used). The title certainly leads the reader to expect a technical
specification describing an alternative to RFC 3761. However, it seems 
the document mainly describes the reasoning or motivation of why an
alternative to RFC 3761 would be useful in some circumstances. The 
document title should be adjusted accordingly (perhaps "Motivation for 
Infrastructure ENUM" or something similar?).
Ross Callon Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection ()

                            
Russ Housley Former IESG member
(was Discuss) No Objection
No Objection ()

                            
Tim Polk Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection ()