Subject: [Iptel] Revised version of draft-jennings-iptel-tel-reg submitted

From: "Vijay K. Gurbani" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 05 Dec 2005 12:56:15 -0600

Folks:

I have submitted the latest version of draft-jennings-iptel-tel-reg.

I will like to request the chairs to determine whether the WG
will adopt this work as an agenda item.  Three I-Ds in IPTEL depend
on the establishment of a tel URI IANA registry -- draft-ietf-
iptel-tel-enumdi, draft-ietf-iptel-tel-np and draft-ietf-iptel-
trunk-group.  Consequently, there may be a normative(?) dependency
of these I-Ds as they go forward on this work.

Until the draft becomes available in the archives, you can view
it at:

http://www.iit.edu/~gurbvij/I-D/draft-jennings-iptel-tel-reg-01.txt
http://www.iit.edu/~gurbvij/I-D/draft-jennings-iptel-tel-reg-01.html

Thanks,

- vijay
-- 
Vijay K. Gurbani, Ph.D.  vkg@{lucent.com,research.bell-labs.com,acm.org}
Lucent Technologies/Bell Laboratories, 2000 Lucent Lane, Rm 6G-440
Naperville, Illinois 60566     Voice: +1 630 224 0216
_______________________________________________
Iptel mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iptel

---

From: Richard Shockey <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 05 Dec 2005 16:32:14 -0500

Vijay K. Gurbani wrote:
> will adopt this work as an agenda item. 

well lets take a straw poll

all in favor ..

all opposed

the in 'favor' have it ..

First lets assume this is a WG item now.

Given the level of dependencies here I think we can despense with too 
much debate and simply A. submit this to the AD's now B or go to WGLC.

  Three I-Ds in IPTEL depend
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 

-- 

Richard Shockey, Director - Member of Technical Staff
NeuStar Inc.
46000 Center Oak Plaza  -   Sterling, VA  20166
sip:rshockey(at)iptel.org   sip:57141(at)fwd.pulver.com
ENUM +87810-13313-31331
PSTN Office +1 571.434.5651 PSTN Mobile +1 703.593.2683
Fax: +1 815.333.1237
<mailto:richard(at)shockey.us> or
<mailto:richard.shockey(at)neustar.biz>
<http://www.neustar.biz> ; <http://www.enum.org>
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

---

From: "Vijay K. Gurbani" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 05 Dec 2005 15:49:27 -0600

> First lets assume this is a WG item now.

Wow!  This is the fastest road to a WG agenda item I've ever had
the pleasure of being a part of ;-)

> much debate and simply A. submit this to the AD's now B or go to WGLC.

Any is fine with me ... if (A), it can proceed as a independent
submission shepherded by the ADs, or if (B), I can re-submit as
draft-ietfp-iptel-tel-reg-00.

I will note that the draft has normative language, and I am
not too sure whether independent submissions can become Proposed
standards, or whether a WG needs to officially forward it to
IESG for submission as a Proposed standard.

Just let me know what to do and I can expeditiously do it...

Thanks,

- vijay

---

From: Richard Shockey <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 05 Dec 2005 17:12:19 -0500

> draft-ietfp-iptel-tel-reg-00.

Frankly I dont care which procedure to use but the need for a registry 
is clear and this document neatly solves the problem.

Plus it would be very very helpful to move those other documents along 
into WGLC at the same time.

> Just let me know what to do and I can expeditiously do it...

Well the WG chairs need to express some preference as to which tactics 
the prefer to use here but the desire to "get er done" is rather strong.

> Thanks,

No ..thank you :-)

--

---

From: Cullen Jennings <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 05 Dec 2005 20:38:18 -0800

There has been no comments that said we did not need this draft or comments
that we had it all wrong. It is largely a procedural draft to register work
we already have in progress. I think I am with Richard here. Let's move this
forward as WG draft under the existing milestones. Please resubmit as a WG
draft and I will request publication along with the other draft(s).

On a side note, it is not clear to me that the other drafts have to
normatively depend on this this draft. They could just have no IANA
considerations and we make this draft depend on all of them (like it does
right now).

---

From: lconroy <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2005 10:30:06 +0000

Hi Folks,
  me too :)

Can I ASSUME that there will be a draft-iptel-tel-reg-00.txt out  
there RSN?

Also, can I ASSUME that it will be as -jennings-tel-reg (i.e. include  
the
IANA Registrations in itself)? Personally, I'd like that.

I think that means we can include a 1 line IANA Considerations section
with an informative ref. to this putative WG draft inside the -02 of
enumdi - will this work?

all the best,
   Lawrence

---

From: lconroy <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2005 10:35:08 +0000

Hi again folks,
   I of course was asking for a draft-ietf-iptel-tel-reg-00.txt.

On 6 Dec 2005, at 10:30, lconroy wrote:
> <snip>
<snip>

---

From: "Vijay K. Gurbani" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 06 Dec 2005 09:16:35 -0600

Cullen Jennings wrote:
> There has been no comments that said we did not need this draft or
> comments that we had it all wrong. It is largely a procedural draft
> to register work we already have in progress. I think I am with
> Richard here. Let's move this forward as WG draft under the existing
> milestones. Please resubmit as a WG draft and I will request
> publication along with the other draft(s).

OK, will do.

> considerations and we make this draft depend on all of them (like it
> does right now).

OK (see previous email on trunk-group thread).

Thanks,

- vijay

---

From: Richard Shockey <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 06 Dec 2005 10:54:45 -0500

lconroy wrote:
> Hi Folks,
>  me too :)
> 
> Can I ASSUME that there will be a draft-iptel-tel-reg-00.txt out  there 
> RSN?

Yes .. and everyting can go to WGLC

> 
> Also, can I ASSUME that it will be as -jennings-tel-reg (i.e. include  the

Yes .. and resubmit ASAP

--