I still do not know what should be on the agenda
of the Carrier ENUM mini-BoF.
Sofar two issues have been raised:
1. Privacy, but this is a non-issue for Carrier ENUM
(it may be discussed in the User ENUM part)
2. Usage of Carrier ENUM for transit routing
I said related to this issue
"ENUM as it is now is not providing these functions, one
should use TRIP or OSP for this.
The mini-BoF may discuss this issue and may come
to a conclusion. (reject the issue or extend ENUM)"
I have seen NO comment on this on the list.
BTW, I have seen besides the privacy issue
NO comment related to Carrier ENUM on this list sofar
so there seem to be either no interest or nobody
already implementing Carrier ENUM is coming forward.
Either way, we may skip the topic.
Richard
Richard Stastny
ÃFEG
Ãsterreichische Fernmeldetechnische Entwicklungs- und FÃrderungsgesellschaft mbH
BÃroadresse: Arsenal Objekt 24, 7. Stock, Bauteil Ost, A-1030 Wien
Postadresse: Postfach 147, A-1103 Wien
Telefon: +43 664 420 4100
Telefax: +43 1 79780 13
E-Mail: <mailto:richard.stastny at oefeg.at>
Web: <http://www.oefeg.at>
Die in dieser Mitteilung und AnhÃngen enthaltenen Informationen sind ausschlieÃlich fÃr den Adressaten bestimmt und kÃnnen geheime, vertrauliche oder vor Weitergabe geschÃtzte Informationen enthalten. Falls es sich beim Leser dieses Absatzes nicht um den beabsichtigten EmpfÃnger oder dessen Vertretung handelt, wird er hiermit in Kenntnis gesetzt, dass jegliche Weitergabe, Verteilung oder VervielfÃltigung dieser Mitteilung verboten ist. Sollte dieses Schreiben irrtÃmlich zugestellt worden sein, wird gebeten, den Absender zu benachrichtigen und die Mitteilung zu lÃschen, ohne Kopien einzubehalten. Danke.
-----Original Message-----
From: Stastny Richard
Sent: Sunday, June 20, 2004 10:29 PM
To: Richard Shockey
Cc: enum at ietf.org
Subject: AW: [Enum] Carrier ENUM mini-BoF Agenda
So given Steven questions, my "User ENUM" definitions
and Richards "Carrier TN to URI translation mechanisms" aka "Carrier ENUM",
I want to try to give an answer to question 1b first, before I address 1a
a: within User ENUM there exist privacy issues.
set-up properly these issues do not exist in "Carrier ENUM",
because either the information is not accessible or not usable
by end-users.
Note: all privacy issues with ENUM should thereore be discussed
in the first half of the meeting, not in the mini-BoF on "Carrier ENUM"
b. "User ENUM" is end-to-end and therefore opt-in
- Service providers wanting to deploy a routing of calls
between their networks avoiding the PSTN as interconnect
need a tool on the Internet to achieve this goal. (This
tool is also necessary if no PSTN exists anymore ;-)
- They may choose to use the technology as defined
in RFC3761 at al.
- To achieve this they have to include ALL E.164 numbers assigend
to them and they in turn assigned to the end-users they
are providing service for (anybody an idea of a better wording?)
so opt-in is not possible.
- confederations of service providers may choose any domain in
the DNS as root for their tree, they may even choose a "private DNS"
- If a service provider populates the tree only with E.164 numbers
assigned to him, a later merging of trees is trivial, because no overlaps
exist.
- currently also nor additional requirements on the ENUM protocol
are known. If there are, please come forward now.
Warning: the above definition is only valid if "carrier ENUM" is
only used for routing to destination service providers hosting the
numbers they hold in the tree.
So
1a: What are the issues/problems that need to be addressed?
Recently some requirements have been discussed to use
ENUM and especially "carrier ENUM" for additional
purposes,e.g. routing to transit providers if they also
provide gateways to the PSTN.
Although this is in principle possible with ENUM, this
is not recommended because it may cause conflicts in
domain ownerships and make it impossible to merge
trees later.
Since in most cases routing to the PSTN is involved,
this immediately raises the question of settlement and
alternative routes.
ENUM as it is now is not providing these functions, one
should use TRIP or OSP for this.
The mini-BoF may discuss this issue and may come
to a conclusion. (reject the issue or extend ENUM)
Richard