Re: [Enum] Carrier ENUM mini-BoF Agenda

["Peter Williams" <home_pw at msn.com>]

> 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.


Lets be more careful, and perhaps more informative and precise.

Can you cite the IS<->ITU-T agreement pertaining to this specific issue, 
please. For example, are you saying that all carrier ENUM 
registrations/listings performed out for all US telco carriers (PSTSN and 
regulated VoIP) must be handled by ***** company? Becuase they happen to 
have won an ICANN bid for registering _host_ domain names, beneath .us?

Is ICANN secretly regulating infrastructure ENUM now?

There are various formal arrangements between IETF/IS and ITU, most of them 
being informal arrangements concerning shared committee work, overlap, and 
enabling ITU to reference certain grades of IETF documents when issuing 
international standards under the authority of the UN. If the ENUM WG's 
engineering deliberations are subject to specific rules both for standards 
making, and for any and all operations, and it is not mentioned or 
referenced in the RFC being cited and sicussed as the source of the 
undersatnding about public ENUM, we HAVE to fix this. This is VERY serious 
omission. BIG RED FLAG.

On the issue itself, versus WG procedure and quality of standards:

we must remember that DNS is but one place where users/carriers may list the 
already registered E.164 numeric descriptor name form, as a new name - one 
formulated using the IETF standardized name form for domain names. Integrity 
and listing rules for this name form pertain to DNS adminsitration, not 
ITU-T: period. Who issues E.164 names per se is not relevant to IETF, 
particularly.

In certain special zones, e.g. .arpa, DARPA program managers in IETF WGs 
have the authority to use US government authority for research purposes, and 
possibly purposes advancing matters handled normally by the US State Dept - 
e.g. interaction with an international organization such as ITU, under 
international (not US) law. I suspect most of us would be happy that we get 
a government agency used to negotiating engineering issues in ISO/ITU on our 
side, once such issues start to impact or constrain the engineering 
activities.


> > > 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



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