The E.164 to Uniform Resource Identifiers (URI) Dynamic Delegation Discovery System (DDDS) Application for Infrastructure ENUM
RFC 5526
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2017-05-16
|
07 | (System) | Changed document authors from "Jason Livingood" to "Jason Livingood, Richard Stastny, Penn Pfautz" |
2015-10-14
|
07 | (System) | Notify list changed from enum-chairs@ietf.org to (None) |
2012-08-22
|
07 | (System) | post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Lars Eggert |
2012-08-22
|
07 | (System) | post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Russ Housley |
2009-04-23
|
07 | Cindy Morgan | State Changes to RFC Published from RFC Ed Queue by Cindy Morgan |
2009-04-23
|
07 | Cindy Morgan | [Note]: 'RFC 5526' added by Cindy Morgan |
2009-04-22
|
07 | (System) | RFC published |
2009-03-19
|
07 | Amy Vezza | State Changes to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent by Amy Vezza |
2009-03-18
|
07 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to No IC from In Progress |
2009-03-18
|
07 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress |
2009-03-18
|
07 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent |
2009-03-18
|
07 | Amy Vezza | IESG has approved the document |
2009-03-18
|
07 | Amy Vezza | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2008-11-07
|
07 | (System) | Removed from agenda for telechat - 2008-11-06 |
2008-11-06
|
07 | Amy Vezza | State Changes to Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed from IESG Evaluation by Amy Vezza |
2008-11-06
|
07 | Lars Eggert | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Lars Eggert has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by Lars Eggert |
2008-11-06
|
07 | Tim Polk | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Tim Polk |
2008-11-06
|
07 | David Ward | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by David Ward |
2008-11-06
|
07 | Ross Callon | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Ross Callon |
2008-11-06
|
07 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot comment] 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 … [Ballot comment] 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. |
2008-11-06
|
07 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Jari Arkko |
2008-11-06
|
07 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot comment] 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 … [Ballot comment] 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. |
2008-11-06
|
07 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot comment] Christian Vogt's review: This document proposes the use of a new DNS domain for Infrastructure ENUM registrations. The document does not yet define … [Ballot comment] 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. |
2008-11-06
|
07 | Magnus Westerlund | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Magnus Westerlund |
2008-11-06
|
07 | Pasi Eronen | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Pasi Eronen has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by Pasi Eronen |
2008-11-06
|
07 | Pasi Eronen | [Ballot comment] On first reading, I had big difficulties in understanding the document because it doesn't seem to specify anything (that could be implemented and … [Ballot comment] 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?). |
2008-11-06
|
07 | Pasi Eronen | [Ballot comment] On first reading, I had big difficulties in understanding the document because it doesn't seem to specify anything (that could be implemented and … [Ballot comment] 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?). |
2008-11-06
|
07 | Pasi Eronen | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded by Pasi Eronen |
2008-11-06
|
07 | Chris Newman | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Chris Newman |
2008-11-05
|
07 | Lisa Dusseault | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Lisa Dusseault |
2008-11-05
|
07 | Mark Townsley | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Mark Townsley |
2008-11-05
|
07 | Russ Housley | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Russ Housley has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by Russ Housley |
2008-11-05
|
07 | Cullen Jennings | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Cullen Jennings |
2008-11-05
|
07 | Russ Housley | [Ballot discuss] The Gen-ART Review by Elwyn Davies on 19-Jun-2008 has not been addressed. Elwyn provides a couple of semi-editorial issues and the … [Ballot discuss] The Gen-ART Review by Elwyn Davies on 19-Jun-2008 has not been addressed. Elwyn provides a couple of semi-editorial issues and the IANA considerations are incomplete. Does this document require an IAB statement in line with RFC 3761 regarding the administration of the new .arpa sub-domain? The Gen-ART Review by Elwyn Davies can be found at: http://www.softarmor.com/rai/temp-gen-art/ draft-ietf-enum-infrastructure-07-davies.txt |
2008-11-05
|
07 | Russ Housley | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded by Russ Housley |
2008-11-05
|
07 | Dan Romascanu | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Dan Romascanu |
2008-11-05
|
07 | Lars Eggert | [Ballot discuss] Disregard my earlier DISCUSS - I was reviewing it based on the status in the document itself, which says "Intended Status: Proposed Standard". … [Ballot discuss] Disregard my earlier DISCUSS - I was reviewing it based on the status in the document itself, which says "Intended Status: Proposed Standard". The ballot and writeup make it clear that the intent is to go Informational, which makes a lot more sense. Please add an RFC Editor Note that corrects the Intended Status" in the document. |
2008-11-05
|
07 | Lars Eggert | [Ballot discuss] Why is this document going for PS? It "defines the use case for Infrastructure ENUM and proposes its implementation as a parallel namespace … [Ballot discuss] Why is this document going for PS? It "defines the use case for Infrastructure ENUM and proposes its implementation as a parallel namespace to "e164.arpa" as defined in RFC3761". That's true, but it doesn't define how Infrastructure ENUM would operate in detail, and it doesn't even request IANA to allocate the parallel namespace. I think Informational is much more appropriate. ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational draft: draft-ietf-enum-infrastructure-enum-reqs (ref. '4') Wasn't last-called, as far as I can tell. (And is no RFC 5067). |
2008-11-05
|
07 | Lars Eggert | [Ballot discuss] ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational draft: draft-ietf-enum-infrastructure-enum-reqs (ref. '4') Wasn't last-called, as far as I can tell. (And is … [Ballot discuss] ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational draft: draft-ietf-enum-infrastructure-enum-reqs (ref. '4') Wasn't last-called, as far as I can tell. (And is no RFC 5067). |
2008-11-05
|
07 | Lars Eggert | [Ballot discuss] ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational draft: draft-ietf-enum-infrastructure-enum-reqs (ref. '4') Wasn't last-called, as far as I can tell. |
2008-11-05
|
07 | Lars Eggert | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded by Lars Eggert |
2008-11-05
|
(System) | Posted related IPR disclosure: Comcast IP Holdings I, LLC's Statement about IPR related to RFC 3953, RFC 4415, RFC 4759, RFC 4769 … |
|
2008-11-01
|
07 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Telechat review by SECDIR is assigned to Donald Eastlake |
2008-11-01
|
07 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Telechat review by SECDIR is assigned to Donald Eastlake |
2008-10-30
|
07 | Jon Peterson | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2008-11-06 by Jon Peterson |
2008-10-30
|
07 | Jon Peterson | State Changes to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead::Point Raised - writeup needed by Jon Peterson |
2008-10-30
|
07 | Jon Peterson | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Jon Peterson |
2008-10-30
|
07 | Jon Peterson | Ballot has been issued by Jon Peterson |
2008-10-30
|
07 | Jon Peterson | Created "Approve" ballot |
2008-09-18
|
07 | Jon Peterson | State Changes to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead::Point Raised - writeup needed from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead by Jon Peterson |
2008-06-25
|
07 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed. Reviewer: Donald Eastlake. |
2008-06-16
|
07 | (System) | State has been changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call by system |
2008-06-10
|
07 | Amanda Baber | IANA Last Call comments: As described in the IANA Considerations section, we understand this document to have NO IANA Actions. |
2008-06-06
|
07 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Donald Eastlake |
2008-06-06
|
07 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Donald Eastlake |
2008-06-02
|
07 | Amy Vezza | Last call sent |
2008-06-02
|
07 | Amy Vezza | State Changes to In Last Call from Last Call Requested by Amy Vezza |
2008-06-02
|
07 | Jon Peterson | Last Call was requested by Jon Peterson |
2008-06-02
|
07 | Jon Peterson | State Changes to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation::AD Followup by Jon Peterson |
2008-06-02
|
07 | (System) | Ballot writeup text was added |
2008-06-02
|
07 | (System) | Last call text was added |
2008-06-02
|
07 | (System) | Ballot approval text was added |
2007-12-03
|
07 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-enum-infrastructure-07.txt |
2007-07-31
|
07 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Follow up from New Id Needed |
2007-07-31
|
06 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-enum-infrastructure-06.txt |
2007-06-14
|
07 | Jon Peterson | State Changes to AD Evaluation::Revised ID Needed from AD Evaluation by Jon Peterson |
2007-04-27
|
07 | Jon Peterson | Merged with draft-ietf-enum-branch-location-record by Jon Peterson |
2007-04-24
|
07 | Jon Peterson | State Changes to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested by Jon Peterson |
2007-01-24
|
05 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-enum-infrastructure-05.txt |
2007-01-22
|
07 | Dinara Suleymanova | Draft Added by Dinara Suleymanova in state Publication Requested |
2007-01-02
|
04 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-enum-infrastructure-04.txt |
2006-11-15
|
03 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-enum-infrastructure-03.txt |
2006-11-10
|
02 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-enum-infrastructure-02.txt |
2006-11-06
|
01 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-enum-infrastructure-01.txt |
2006-04-24
|
00 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-enum-infrastructure-00.txt |