[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

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

At 07:36 PM 6/29/2004 +0100, Jim Reid wrote: 
>>>>> "Mike" == Mike Hammer <mhammer at cisco.com> writes:

    Mike> Rather than relying on "joint ventures" to "share or link
    Mike> their private trees" (at which point privacy issues may
    Mike> arise) wouldn't it be better for the public ENUM to provide
    Mike> that linkage?

In an ideal world it would be better, yes. But in the real world, the
answer has to be no. Because a linkage through some public tree
creates even bigger privacy issues. Like publishing on the internet
how to reach an unlisted phone number. Which might also violate the
opt-in principle that most regulators are insisting on for any public
"ENUM-like" tree.


Jim,

I think that limiting the linkage through the public tree solely to an indication that an E.164 number can be reached through a particular service provider to be a sufficient mitigation of the privacy question, since that SP can enforce privacy service for that number.

What I have yet to see on this list is any valid argument my assertion that the E.164 number tree is a publicly shared resource that is damaged if E.164 number assignment can be made to IP endpoints such that they are not universally reachable from the PSTN TDM domain.

I understand the privacy concerns related to "opt-in", but feel that the meaning of "opt-in" should be geared toward what information is linked to the E.164 number. I think that having large quantities of E.164 numbers turn up missing from the routing infrastructure would effectively mean that large incumbent carriers can effectively take ownership of those E.164 number ranges and force smaller competitors to go through the monopoly, conglomeration, confederation, or whatever you want to call it to route calls. That would put them at a distinct competitive disadvantage.

I guess I would sum up my thoughts this way:
   No one should be able to hoard E.164 numbers.
   The use of E.164 numbers should be publicly accountable.
   E.164 numbers should be routable/reachable, even if they are "unlisted".
   E.164 numbers may be reachable only through SPs providing privacy service.

To maintain parallel choices available in the PSTN, it would be good if the call originator (who might be conceivable paying for the QoS) could choose the long distance "carrier" used to reach the terminating service provider network. But, I am not entirely sure what that would mean in the context of ITSPs, ISPs, and current non-regulatory frameworks. I am absolutely sure that making that choice possible so as to avoid the need for any regulation would definitely be good. I'm just hoping that those seeking business advantage don't invite unintended consequences.

Mike


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