[enum-wg] Follow up on Jim Reid's presentation - CRUE and relation to IETF work

> we're all very very eager to hear and discuss your most helpful
> contributions.
>
> Help make the world a better place and stamp out such badly flawed  
> drafts.
>
> To do so, please:
>
> a) detail your concerns on the IETF ENUM WG list (that's where this  
> stuff
> is being discussed)
> b) in time (that is, like half a year ago, but late adopters welcome)
> c) including facts, so you actually convince people
> d) [optional] make a better proposal (those which yield a really  
> loud hum).

I have done a, b, and c already on the IETF mailing list and will be  
happy to do so again.

> I'll support you on your superior superior proposal.

You'll have a very long wait because it's not clear to me what the  
actual problem is or what its requirements are. And yes, I know you  
have a list of requirements in the draft. But they don't define what  
problem space(s) fit them. That said, it is clear that your draft  
can't be the answer because it combines two mutually exclusive  
concepts -- User ENUM and Infrastructure ENUM -- on the same  
infrastructure.