IANA Registration of Enumservices: Guide, Template, and IANA Considerations
RFC 6117

Approval announcement
Draft of message to be sent after approval:

From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org>
Cc: Internet Architecture Board <iab@iab.org>,
    RFC Editor <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>, 
    enum mailing list <enum@ietf.org>, 
    enum chair <enum-chairs@tools.ietf.org>
Subject: Protocol Action: 'IANA Registration of Enumservices: Guide, Template and IANA Considerations' to Proposed Standard

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