RE: [Enum] Carrier ENUM mini-BoF Agenda

["Stastny Richard" <Richard.Stastny at oefeg.at>]

>1a: What are the issues/problems that need to be addressed?
>1b: What are the reasons that "Public" ENUM can't solve them?

Regarding "Public" ENUM, I would like to ask that the list agrees 
on the following common understanding of "Public" ENUM:

Based on the following already mentioned statement in RFC3761

"Holders of E.164 numbers which want to be listed in DNS
should contact the appropriate zone administrator according 
to the policy which is attached to the zone."


1. NAPTRs in "Public" DNS shall be accessible, retrievable and
interpretable by anybody without restriction.
2  currently most zone policies define the holder of the E.164
number as the end-user, 
3. therefore it is the end-users decision to be listed in ENUM (opt-in);
or at least his approval is required.
4. the end-user has either direct or indirect influence on
the content of  the NAPTRs

If there is a requirement to implement ENUM in a different way
by any entity or confederation of entities, especially with a
different policy incompatible with the policy of the appropriate
zone administrator (in e164.arpa in most cases the ITU-T and the 
NRAs), this may be done in any kind of different tree and is
called operator, carrier or infrastructure ENUM (it would
also be nice to agree on one name)

I could offer to present the current European (ETSI) position
if  I am given a 10 min slot.

>2. Requirements for a solution without a specific recommendation on what
>that technology may or may not be appropriate.

I cannot completely parse this sentence, could anybody
elaborate please:

Richard

	-----UrsprÃngliche Nachricht----- 
	Von: Richard Shockey [mailto:richard at shockey.us] 
	Gesendet: Sa 19.06.2004 22:15 
	An: enum at ietf.org 
	Cc: James Seng; Stastny Richard; paf at cisco.com 
	Betreff: Re: [Enum] A note from your chairs on the Agenda for IETF 60 including this discussion on Carrier ENUM - Addendum
	
	

	At
	
	>The second hour will then shift to a discussion of Carrier -
	>Infrastructure ENUM ( what ever you want to call it ) That discussion will
	>be led by James Seng and Richard Stastny with myself providing continuity
	>and context to the existing work.
	>
	>Individuals wishing to make formal ID contributions and or requesting time
	>to speak on Carrier ENUM discussions are requested to get your ID
	>documentation in a soon a possible and request time from the mini-BOF chairs.
	>
	
	
	I should have added to this note that the Carrier ENUM mini-BOF should be
	limited to a discussion of :
	
	1. The problem statement. To this end I'm reminded of Steve Lind's succinct
	proposal
	
	1a: What are the issues/problems that need to be addressed?
	1b: What are the reasons that "Public" ENUM can't solve them?
	
	2. Requirements for a solution without a specific recommendation on what
	that technology may or may not be appropriate.
	
	
	
	
	 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
	Richard Shockey, Senior Manager, Strategic Technology Initiatives
	NeuStar Inc.
	46000 Center Oak Plaza  -   Sterling, VA  20166
	sip:rshockey(at)iptel.org   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>
	<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
	
	

_______________________________________________
enum mailing list
enum at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum