[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Enum] Carrier ENUM mini-BoF Agenda
> >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."
Yes and this indicates that the zone management will be making
this decision, with or without the consent of the users or any single
user. Therefore this is insufficient, which I have been trying to
get across here... Oh, and BTW, a "Consensus" is also not
appropriate for which the zone management to declare without
being able to demonstrate that a "Consensus" is accompanied
by a vote of the participating zone users...
Zone administration in the context of 3761 is the nation-state national
regulatory authority period ..end of story. That is the way it is in order
to preserve and protect the integrity of the ITU E.164 numbering plan. It
will not change, ergo further discussion of this matter is a waste of
electrons.
> 1. NAPTRs in "Public" DNS shall be accessible, retrievable and
> interpretable by anybody without restriction.
This needs to be changed for obvious privacy reasons.
You are obviously not familiar with Internet 101. <sigh> the DNS is the
DNS. All DNS data is available to all DNS users at all times regardless and
without restriction. There are is NO AA in the DNS. Policy in the context
SIP is controlled by the edge proxy's not the DNS.
>
> 2 currently most zone policies define the holder of the E.164
> number as the end-user,
Most, but not all. And all is what is needed..
again this is a nation-state issue in the context of 3761 you really need
to read the documents
> 3. therefore it is the end-users decision to be listed in ENUM (opt-in);
> or at least his approval is required.
No that is not what is said or even inferred...
certainly not in 3761 but if you would _read_ the various administration
and policy documents coming out of various national ENUM Forums this would
be self evident.
I think Mr Stastny initial definition of Public ENUM is quite good and in
the usual manner I'll probably steal most of it for various PPT slides. :-)
As for Carrier ENUM. (maybe we should stop calling it ENUM) Personally I
would prefer Carrier TN to URI translation mechanisms.
One can begin by defining what we think Carrier "ENUM" is.
Problem Statement: As the Internet becomes the predominant transport and
routing mechanism for various forms of communications there needs to be a
consistent, authoritative and reliable mechanism by which service providers
can privately and reliably exchange Telephone Number to URI translations
for all Telephone Numbers for which they have service control.
Classic Telephone Number to PSTN routing mechanisms are well understood and
the exchange of such inter-carrier data is well defined in the various SS7
and Number Portability mechanisms. Were service providers not able to
exchange routing information no service would ever connect to another.
The requirements of a Carrier TN to URI translation mechanism requires that
the data be completely authenticated by the SP for ALL endpoints under its
service control so that the aggregate inter-carrier database of all TN to
URI translations is considered authoritative and reliable.
Since the data is designed to permit optimized inter-carrier routing and
nothing else, there is no requirement that the data be globally accessible
or visible. In fact for security and privacy reasons reasons the exact
opposite is true.
What seems to be clear that in the absence of authoritative,
authenticated and reliable inter-carrier TN to URI database for voice
communications services the default routing mechanism is the PSTN and for
any number of reasons that is not a good idea in the long run.
ENUM RFC 3761 defined one mechanism by which TN to URI translations could
be accomplished for the General Case of Internet users using the DNS as the
query-response mechanism. National Regulatory Authorities have generally
defined the administrative policies and procedures surrounding 3761 as
being OPT-IN for consumers, therefore the e164.arpa database may not be
complete. And as a side bar, there are still significant problems in
delegating various portions of the e164.arpa tree as of this date.
The Carrier TN 2 URI service is clearly another case for a different set of
users that has a different set of requirements which _may _require a
different technical query-response solution. This problem is much more
roughly analogous to the problem of route announcements in BGP than the DNS
(probably bad analogy) .
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
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