Re: [drinks] Comment on today's drinks discussion

["Guyton, Deborah A" <dguyton at telcordia.com>]

Hi Penn,
Hopefully I can clear up one item quickly. The idea of "Registrant" is the notion that a "Registrar" who is the "holder" of the data or carrier of record, for example, might outsource the administration of that data to a "Registrant".   An analogy in today's world is that some companies do not  manage their own data in LERG but outsource to a third party.  It may be necessary to allow for an individual administrator "Joe Administrator" to be the responsible individual for administering that data - hence having a login and password (particularly for a GUI) but could be a login and password for a service provisioning interface. For data issues, you might need to resolve with a person.
If administration is done as it is today, perhaps for AT&T, Registrar = AT&T and Registrant = AT&T.
Hope that helps.
Debbie

-----Original Message-----
From: drinks-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:drinks-bounces at ietf.org] On Behalf Of PFAUTZ, PENN L, ATTCORP
Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2009 4:39 PM
To: Alexander Mayrhofer; drinks at ietf.org
Subject: Re: [drinks] Comment on today's drinks discussion

Alex:
My concerns are not entirely with respect to the current draft but some
of the directions that the discussion during the WG session suggested
the work might be taking.

I've had a lingering concern about the disconnect between what Speermint
has proposed (LUF/LRF)and the route that drinks has taken. Since the
will of the design team seemed to be to get on with a simple protocol
directed toward provisioning DNS RRs I let that ride. Monday's session,
however brought up things like more abstraction of routing elements
which suggests to me assumptions about the nature of interconnections
and my issues with the original ESPP I-D.

Brian Rosen's comment about number "ownership" relations also seemed to
suggest another complexity that the protocol would try to incorporate.

I get concerned about a protocol that either makes a lot of specific
assumptions about the nature of the registry and the interconnection
framework and/or becomes bloated by trying to incorporate the panoply of
possible cases.

A more specific issue - the definition of Registrant as an "end user" -
this is at least confusing in the context of Infrastructure vs. End User
ENUM.

I'll keep watching how things evolve. It may be that others conclude
they need the added complexity but I wanted to be forthright about my
position.
Thanks for listening.


Penn Pfautz
AT&T Access Management
+1-732-420-4962

-----Original Message-----
From: Alexander Mayrhofer [mailto:alexander.mayrhofer at nic.at]
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2009 12:56 PM
To: PFAUTZ, PENN L, ATTCORP; drinks at ietf.org
Subject: RE: [drinks] Comment on today's drinks discussion

> I for one have concerns about how useful the resulting
> protocol is likely to be, at least for my company's likely
> applications.

Penn,

Thanks for that "wakeup call" - as we said we want definitely a
deployable protocol, so i'm concerned about your statement - could you
elaborate of what properties of the current draft would make it less
useful for your company's applications, and what could be done to make
it fit better?

Thanks

Alex
_______________________________________________
drinks mailing list
drinks at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/drinks