Re: ENUM Privacy (was RE: [Enum] User ENUM vs Operator ENUM)

[Jim Reid <jim at rfc1035.com>]

>>>>> "Richard" == Stastny Richard <Richard.Stastny at oefeg.at> writes:

    >> Your so-called silver tree could only work ...
    Richard> This is not my silver tree (ask ITSPA).

Well you're the first person to mention this term to me. :-)

    >> On top of that I can't see how VoIP provider A would be
    >> comfortable exposing their customer's "phone numbers" in some
    >> private, shared tree to VoIP provider B.

    Richard> Fine. Then there will never be an OCI
    Richard> (operator, carrier, infrastructure) tree.

    Richard> But they trust the IAB?:

This trust issue has got nothing to do with the IAB. Or IETF. Or what
the domain name is.

    >>  Wrong. Operators can (and probably should) use a private
    >> version of e164.arpa today. This doesn't need any involvement
    >> in the Tier-0 and Tier-1 stuff or ITU's interim
    >> procedures. e164.arpa is the IETF/IAB agreed domain name for
    >> ENUM. It's neutral and not controlled by any commercial
    >> interest or nation. So it's the obvious choice for the unique
    >> and consistent naming scheme that Infrastructure ENUM needs.

    Richard> I do not see any difference to any other tree
    Richard> the operators agree upon. And the first thing is they
    Richard> have to agree on e164.arpa and this has to happen very
    Richard> quickly.

Yes, agreement should be reached quickly. And if some other name is
chosen for that tree, it is likely to be tainted in some way because
it probably won't have come from a neutral source. I can't see Verizon
(say) signing up for an Operator ENUM tree that's owned by say
AT&T. Maybe IETF or ETSI could suggest a suitable domain name? IETF
already have IMO.

Even once the domain name is chosen, someone needs to document the DNS
configuration and management processes.

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