From itu+ietf-admin@ietf.org Mon Jun 26 17:10:39 2000 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA15954; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 17:10:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id RAA13138; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 17:04:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id RAA13106 for ; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 17:04:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from cqmx.corp.comsat.com (cqmx.corp.comsat.com [134.133.184.25]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA15837; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 17:04:08 -0400 (EDT) From: Andrew.Gallant@comsat.com Received: from cqgate5.cmc.comsat.com ([134.133.162.20]) by cqmx.corp.comsat.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 17:03:14 -0400 Received: from ccMail by cqgate5.cmc.comsat.com (IMA Internet Exchange 3.13) id 00079989; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 17:06:19 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 17:00:36 -0400 Message-ID: <00079989.C22277@comsat.com> To: enum@ietf.org Cc: Richard Shockey , itu+ietf@ietf.org Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="IMA.Boundary.9753502690" Subject: [ITU+IETF] Re: [Enum] Re: 48th IETF: ENUM ... Scheduling Sender: itu+ietf-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: itu+ietf-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Joint ITU+IETF Discussion List X-BeenThere: itu+ietf@ietf.org This is a Mime message, which your current mail reader may not understand. Parts of the message will appear as text. To process the remainder, you will need to use a Mime compatible mail reader. Contact your vendor for details. --IMA.Boundary.9753502690 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Description: cc:Mail note part Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Request for some time on the ENUM agenda in Pittsburgh After some discussions with Richard Shockey and others, I would like to request 20 minutes (total) on the ENUM agenda in Pittsburgh for two presentations: 1. Overview of the Number Portability Supplement to ITU-T E.164 I plan to give an overview as requested, along with submitting an Internet Draft containing the text version. That text version may be found at: http://www.itu.int/ITU-T/ip-telecoms/nnar/nnar-number-port-supp.txt 2. A Participant's POV of Some Work in the ITU-T's Numbering Question As an individual(!), I will present some information about some recent results, future work, and upcoming meetings. If I can, I'll prepare an I-D of the material. Note: Only information from ITU-T reports and outputs will be used, and (disclaimer alert!) I will be speaking for myself and not on behalf of any particular organization, corporation, or Administration. Finally, if I finish some research related to NNAR Issue 6 (E.164, URL's and "Telephony" - see Attachment 1 of www.itu.int/ITU-T/ip-telecoms/ip-telecoms.htm) in time, I'll submit an I-D. It's not directly ENUM-related, so I'm not asking for any ENUM time in Pittsburgh. However, whenever I get it done, I'll ask for comments. -Andy Gallant Andrew Gallant Comsat Corporation T: +1-301-214-3264 F: +1-301-214-7226 E: andrew.gallant@comsat.com ______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________ Subject: [Enum] Re: 48th IETF: ENUM Working Group/BOF Scheduling Author: Richard Shockey at INTERNET-IMA Date: 6/2/00 11:28 AM At 01:32 PM 5/24/2000 -0400, you wrote: >Meeting Dates: July 30 - August 4, 2000 > >We will be taking scheduling requests for ALL Working Groups and >BOFs starting today. The cut-off for requesting a slot is Friday, >July 7 at 5:00 PM ET. The agenda for the working group is due by >Monday, July 24 at 5:00 PM ET, please submit the agenda to: > agenda@ietf.org The ENUM WG in the Transport area requests one single 2 1/2 hour session similar to the session scheduled in Australia. We would anticipate a similar audience for the group [150+] Conflicts to avoid would be: VPIM, DNSEXT, DNSOPS, SIP ( if possible), IPTEL. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Please Note New Contact Information: Richard Shockey Shockey Consulting LLC 5237 Sutherland St. Louis, MO 63109 Voice 314.503.0640 eFAX Fax to EMail 815.333.1237 (Preferred for Fax) INTERNET Mail & IFAX : rshockey@ix.netcom.com <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum --IMA.Boundary.9753502690 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; name="RFC822 message headers" Content-Description: cc:Mail note part Content-Disposition: inline; filename="RFC822 message headers" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Received: from ro.ctd.comsat.com ([134.133.40.45]) by cqgate6.cmc.comsat.com with SMTP (IMA Internet Exchange 3.13) id 0004851C; Fri, 2 Jun 2000 12:34:55 -0400 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ro.ctd.comsat.com with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #8) id 12xuGQ-0001ti-00 for andrew.gallant@comsat.com; Fri, 2 Jun 2000 12:25:38 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA17315; Fri, 2 Jun 2000 12:27:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA17292 for ; Fri, 2 Jun 2000 12:27:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: from granger.mail.mindspring.net (granger.mail.mindspring.net [207.69.200.148]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA06617; Fri, 2 Jun 2000 12:27:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: from computer.ix.netcom.com ([209.138.179.44]) by granger.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with ESMTP id MAA19364; Fri, 2 Jun 2000 12:27:52 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <4.3.1.2.20000602112141.00dff7a0@127.0.0.1> X-Sender: rshockey/popd.ix.netcom.com@127.0.0.1 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.1 Date: Fri, 02 Jun 2000 11:28:49 -0500 To: agenda@ietf.org From: Richard Shockey Cc: enum@ietf.org, Scott Bradner , mankin@east.isi.edu, Scott Petrack In-Reply-To: <200005241732.NAA09724@ietf.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Subject: [Enum] Re: 48th IETF: ENUM Working Group/BOF Scheduling Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Enum Discussion List X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org --IMA.Boundary.9753502690-- _______________________________________________ ITU+IETF mailing list ITU+IETF@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/itu+ietf From itu+ietf-admin@ietf.org Wed Jun 28 11:28:44 2000 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA25540; Wed, 28 Jun 2000 11:28:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA21665; Wed, 28 Jun 2000 11:22:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA21613 for ; Wed, 28 Jun 2000 11:22:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from blount.mail.mindspring.net (blount.mail.mindspring.net [207.69.200.226]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA25336; Wed, 28 Jun 2000 11:22:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from computer.ix.netcom.com ([209.138.176.187]) by blount.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with ESMTP id LAA15372; Wed, 28 Jun 2000 11:22:00 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <4.3.1.2.20000626202535.00bc59d0@127.0.0.1> X-Sender: rshockey/popd.ix.netcom.com@127.0.0.1 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.1 Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2000 10:22:38 -0500 To: Andrew.Gallant@comsat.com, Randy Bush From: Richard Shockey Subject: Re[4]: [ITU+IETF] Re: [Enum] Re: 48th IETF: ENUM ... Sch Cc: , enum@ietf.org, itu+ietf@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <00079E99.C22277@comsat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: itu+ietf-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: itu+ietf-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Joint ITU+IETF Discussion List X-BeenThere: itu+ietf@ietf.org At 08:23 PM 6/26/2000 -0400, Andrew.Gallant@comsat.com wrote: > No problem. I agree with you in theory and a great deal in practice. > > OTOH, re NP I was asked, and re ITU (I'm an individual!) for this info > (e.g., status of certain E.164 codes, next meetings, ...) I think face > time is important. Andy.. I'm sympathetic to Randy's concerns..to a point. There are differences in process that have to be understood...and it is the differences in process that often cause the most difficulty between IETF and ITU. In the IETF the work _should_ be done on the list since that is what they are there for. IETF meetings are crammed with lots of issues that need to be resolved in a short period of time. Meetings of WG's at IETF sessions by definition have to be very "structured" in the sense that there is no time for formal "presentations" of protocols or information. The assumption is that there has been work posted to the list and that during the meeting there is a fast recap of the salient issues and then open discussion of the issues involved in the hope that "rough consensus" can be reached, or a path to solution defined. > > It's a shared and interactive medium -- and I certainly will be brief > (if I do in fact present). The few minutes shared as proposed would > be useful and applicable to a larger audience than ENUM, but (again > IMO) not worth repeating nor worth doing in any other/larger group. > To me the tradeoff is worth it on these MORE GENERAL areas. > > I want the day to come when your position comes to apply here. One > trap related to numbering is that it's the tip of many icebergs. When > a group can actually work on requirements and protocols, I'm on your > side. Sorry for the rambling ... > > Let's see what else comes back from the list. I posted my original request in the spirit that folks who wanted to present material at Pittsburgh get their material together NOW, much as you have started to do. Format ID's or, as you have done, create pointers to the relevant documents. I believe that your documents and your presence in Pittsburgh is very valuable. There is a amazing lack of understanding of what Number Portability is within the IETF and how it might relate to ENUM in general. I have also asked James Yu and Mark Foster of NeuStar to consider updating their previous ID on the subject as well. The work of SG2/Q1 in many ways directly impacts our work so it is vitally important that people understand what is happening in the ITU and what the future work plans are. I also firmly believe in the ongoing cooperation between the ITU and the IETF.. and I will bend over backwards, if necessary, to accommodate the wishes of the many distinguished participants in ITU work, such as yourself, who are opening channels of communication between our organizations. So. What I want is for you to submit whatever you want as ID'd by the July 15 deadline. I think we'd all prefer IETF ID's, vs ITU URL's, so the documents can be exposed to a larger audience. I'll hold a spot for you at the ENUM meeting! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Please Note New Contact Information: Richard Shockey Shockey Consulting LLC 5237 Sutherland St. Louis, MO 63109 Voice 314.503.0640 eFAX Fax to EMail 815.333.1237 (Preferred for Fax) INTERNET Mail & IFAX : rshockey@ix.netcom.com <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< _______________________________________________ ITU+IETF mailing list ITU+IETF@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/itu+ietf From itu+ietf-admin@ietf.org Wed Jun 28 11:47:31 2000 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA26126; Wed, 28 Jun 2000 11:47:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA22194; Wed, 28 Jun 2000 11:40:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA22166 for ; Wed, 28 Jun 2000 11:40:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from cqmx.corp.comsat.com (cqmx.corp.comsat.com [134.133.184.25]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA25876; Wed, 28 Jun 2000 11:40:43 -0400 (EDT) From: Andrew.Gallant@comsat.com Received: from cqgate6.cmc.comsat.com ([134.133.162.21]) by cqmx.corp.comsat.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com; Wed, 28 Jun 2000 11:39:44 -0400 Received: from ccMail by cqgate6.cmc.comsat.com (IMA Internet Exchange 3.13) id 00059FA5; Wed, 28 Jun 2000 11:46:05 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2000 11:37:21 -0400 Message-ID: <00059FA5.C22219@comsat.com> To: Randy Bush , Richard Shockey Cc: paf@swip.net, enum@ietf.org, itu+ietf@ietf.org Subject: Re[5]: [ITU+IETF] Re: [Enum] Re: 48th IETF: ENUM ... Sch Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="IMA.Boundary.5617022690" Sender: itu+ietf-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: itu+ietf-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Joint ITU+IETF Discussion List X-BeenThere: itu+ietf@ietf.org --IMA.Boundary.5617022690 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Description: cc:Mail note part Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Thanks for this. I'll submit what I can as soon as I can. Wish me luck! ______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________ Subject: Re[4]: [ITU+IETF] Re: [Enum] Re: 48th IETF: ENUM ... Sch Author: Richard Shockey at INTERNET-IMA Date: 6/28/00 10:22 AM At 08:23 PM 6/26/2000 -0400, Andrew.Gallant@comsat.com wrote: > No problem. I agree with you in theory and a great deal in practice. > > OTOH, re NP I was asked, and re ITU (I'm an individual!) for this info > (e.g., status of certain E.164 codes, next meetings, ...) I think face > time is important. Andy.. I'm sympathetic to Randy's concerns..to a point. There are differences in process that have to be understood...and it is the differences in process that often cause the most difficulty between IETF and ITU. In the IETF the work _should_ be done on the list since that is what they are there for. IETF meetings are crammed with lots of issues that need to be resolved in a short period of time. Meetings of WG's at IETF sessions by definition have to be very "structured" in the sense that there is no time for formal "presentations" of protocols or information. The assumption is that there has been work posted to the list and that during the meeting there is a fast recap of the salient issues and then open discussion of the issues involved in the hope that "rough consensus" can be reached, or a path to solution defined. > > It's a shared and interactive medium -- and I certainly will be brief > (if I do in fact present). The few minutes shared as proposed would > be useful and applicable to a larger audience than ENUM, but (again > IMO) not worth repeating nor worth doing in any other/larger group. > To me the tradeoff is worth it on these MORE GENERAL areas. > > I want the day to come when your position comes to apply here. One > trap related to numbering is that it's the tip of many icebergs. When > a group can actually work on requirements and protocols, I'm on your > side. Sorry for the rambling ... > > Let's see what else comes back from the list. I posted my original request in the spirit that folks who wanted to present material at Pittsburgh get their material together NOW, much as you have started to do. Format ID's or, as you have done, create pointers to the relevant documents. I believe that your documents and your presence in Pittsburgh is very valuable. There is a amazing lack of understanding of what Number Portability is within the IETF and how it might relate to ENUM in general. I have also asked James Yu and Mark Foster of NeuStar to consider updating their previous ID on the subject as well. The work of SG2/Q1 in many ways directly impacts our work so it is vitally important that people understand what is happening in the ITU and what the future work plans are. I also firmly believe in the ongoing cooperation between the ITU and the IETF.. and I will bend over backwards, if necessary, to accommodate the wishes of the many distinguished participants in ITU work, such as yourself, who are opening channels of communication between our organizations. So. What I want is for you to submit whatever you want as ID'd by the July 15 deadline. I think we'd all prefer IETF ID's, vs ITU URL's, so the documents can be exposed to a larger audience. I'll hold a spot for you at the ENUM meeting! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Please Note New Contact Information: Richard Shockey Shockey Consulting LLC 5237 Sutherland St. Louis, MO 63109 Voice 314.503.0640 eFAX Fax to EMail 815.333.1237 (Preferred for Fax) INTERNET Mail & IFAX : rshockey@ix.netcom.com <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum --IMA.Boundary.5617022690 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; name="RFC822 message headers" Content-Description: cc:Mail note part Content-Disposition: inline; filename="RFC822 message headers" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Received: from ro.ctd.comsat.com ([134.133.40.45]) by cqgate5.cmc.comsat.com with SMTP (IMA Internet Exchange 3.13) id 0007BCFD; Wed, 28 Jun 2000 11:25:27 -0400 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ro.ctd.comsat.com with smtp (Exim 2.12 #8) id 137JfT-000609-00 for andrew.gallant@comsat.com; Wed, 28 Jun 2000 11:22:23 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA21678; Wed, 28 Jun 2000 11:22:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA21615 for ; Wed, 28 Jun 2000 11:22:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from blount.mail.mindspring.net (blount.mail.mindspring.net [207.69.200.226]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA25336; Wed, 28 Jun 2000 11:22:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from computer.ix.netcom.com ([209.138.176.187]) by blount.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with ESMTP id LAA15372; Wed, 28 Jun 2000 11:22:00 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <4.3.1.2.20000626202535.00bc59d0@127.0.0.1> X-Sender: rshockey/popd.ix.netcom.com@127.0.0.1 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.1 Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2000 10:22:38 -0500 To: Andrew.Gallant@comsat.com, Randy Bush From: Richard Shockey Subject: Re[4]: [ITU+IETF] Re: [Enum] Re: 48th IETF: ENUM ... Sch Cc: , enum@ietf.org, itu+ietf@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <00079E99.C22277@comsat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Enum Discussion List X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org --IMA.Boundary.5617022690-- _______________________________________________ ITU+IETF mailing list ITU+IETF@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/itu+ietf