Thursday, March 23, 2006
The Dallas Treaty on Infrastructure ENUM
Carrier/Infrastructure ENUM Points of Agreement - 22 March 2006
1. There will be a long-term solution that does things "right" as well as an interim solution that can be used by individual countries to implement an interoperable carrier ENUM tree ASAP
2. In order to project a unified approach to the "right" long-term solution with other standards bodies and NRAs, there will be explicit statements in the affected I-Ds that make it clear that the interim solution will be deprecated upon achievement of the long-term solution.
3. There will be a new I-D documenting the carrier enum apex. This will be done in such a way that the location of the infrastructure designator shall not vary by country code; it will be the same for the entire domain and in every country code. The apex "e164i.arpa" was suggested, but that is tentative only. Everyone felt .arpa was certainly the correct TLD. This process will begin asap.
4. There will be an interim solution that will move ahead as an ENUM working group item ASAP, following the BLR logic and wording of the Michael Haberler's current I-D on this subject. However, some of the content which relates to DNS RRs in that draft will be split out into a different, new draft.
5. This interim solution will state prominently in the I-D, that this is in fact an interim solution that will be deprecated upon approval (loosely timed) of the "right" long-term solution. This will be at or near the beginning of such an I-D in a special section so that it can easily be located and will be noticed by readers.
6. This interim solution will not use a TXT RR, but a new RR type that will be moved ahead in the ENUM WG, with review and consultation from the appropriate DNS WG.
7. In summary, three I-Ds, all in the ENUM WG: document the long-term solution in a carrier-enum I-D in the ENUM WG with specifics around the new apex and solution, interim solution I-D in ENUM WG, other BLR/RR-related I-D in the ENUM WG.
8. Timing on new apex carrier enum I-D: create -00 asap as a WG item. Jason Livingood volunteers as document editor along with Penn Pfautz and Richard Stastny as co-authors. It should be noted that this I-D does not necessarily describe carrier enum requirements per se; it describes how to implement it in a specific domain apex.
9. Penn Pfautz's requirements I-D, already in process, should continue as-is and move to WGLC soon.
10. Timing on interim-solution I-D: add changes in updated haberler-03 I-D, then adopt as WG item and restart as -00. Move to WGLC at or before IETF 67.
11. Timing on BLR/RR-related I-D and new apex I-D: create new I-D asap. Move to WGLC at or before IETF 67.
12. All parties to this agreement will support this in good faith, in its entirety.
Signed and Agreed,
Signed by: Richard Shockey, Alexander Mayrhofer, Jason Livingood, Penn Pfautz, Lawrence Conroy, Michael Haberler, Richard Stastny
Special thanks to Jason Livingood for putting together this agreement.
1. There will be a long-term solution that does things "right" as well as an interim solution that can be used by individual countries to implement an interoperable carrier ENUM tree ASAP
2. In order to project a unified approach to the "right" long-term solution with other standards bodies and NRAs, there will be explicit statements in the affected I-Ds that make it clear that the interim solution will be deprecated upon achievement of the long-term solution.
3. There will be a new I-D documenting the carrier enum apex. This will be done in such a way that the location of the infrastructure designator shall not vary by country code; it will be the same for the entire domain and in every country code. The apex "e164i.arpa" was suggested, but that is tentative only. Everyone felt .arpa was certainly the correct TLD. This process will begin asap.
4. There will be an interim solution that will move ahead as an ENUM working group item ASAP, following the BLR logic and wording of the Michael Haberler's current I-D on this subject. However, some of the content which relates to DNS RRs in that draft will be split out into a different, new draft.
5. This interim solution will state prominently in the I-D, that this is in fact an interim solution that will be deprecated upon approval (loosely timed) of the "right" long-term solution. This will be at or near the beginning of such an I-D in a special section so that it can easily be located and will be noticed by readers.
6. This interim solution will not use a TXT RR, but a new RR type that will be moved ahead in the ENUM WG, with review and consultation from the appropriate DNS WG.
7. In summary, three I-Ds, all in the ENUM WG: document the long-term solution in a carrier-enum I-D in the ENUM WG with specifics around the new apex and solution, interim solution I-D in ENUM WG, other BLR/RR-related I-D in the ENUM WG.
8. Timing on new apex carrier enum I-D: create -00 asap as a WG item. Jason Livingood volunteers as document editor along with Penn Pfautz and Richard Stastny as co-authors. It should be noted that this I-D does not necessarily describe carrier enum requirements per se; it describes how to implement it in a specific domain apex.
9. Penn Pfautz's requirements I-D, already in process, should continue as-is and move to WGLC soon.
10. Timing on interim-solution I-D: add changes in updated haberler-03 I-D, then adopt as WG item and restart as -00. Move to WGLC at or before IETF 67.
11. Timing on BLR/RR-related I-D and new apex I-D: create new I-D asap. Move to WGLC at or before IETF 67.
12. All parties to this agreement will support this in good faith, in its entirety.
Signed and Agreed,
Signed by: Richard Shockey, Alexander Mayrhofer, Jason Livingood, Penn Pfautz, Lawrence Conroy, Michael Haberler, Richard Stastny
Special thanks to Jason Livingood for putting together this agreement.
Comments:
Post a Comment
