The E.164 to Uniform Resource Identifiers (URI) Dynamic Delegation Discovery System (DDDS) Application for Infrastructure ENUM
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 07 and is now closed.
(Jon Peterson) Yes
(Jari Arkko) No Objection
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.
(Ross Callon) No Objection
(Lisa Dusseault) No Objection
(Lars Eggert) (was Discuss) No Objection
(Pasi Eronen) (was Discuss) No Objection
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?).