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

["Christian de Larrinaga" <cdel at firsthand.net>]

From: Jim Reid
Sent: 29 June 2004 19:22

    Christian> This suggests to me that you might get different
    Christian> answers to an ENUM (e164.arpa) look up depending on
    Christian> where you are?

Yes.

Christian-> So much for DNS being the universal name space!

    Christian> How do you ensure that public e164.arpa has first
    Christian> priority so that users public ENUM NAPTR records take
    Christian> precedence over operator (private ENUM)?

You don't: that's a policy decision and implementation detail. And
anyway who's to say whether the public or private tree takes
precedence? Or even if precedence is appropriate? If my application is
in some operator's net, it looks up <number>.e164.arpa in their
private tree and the answer determines what the application
does. Likewise if it's on the internet, the application will query the
public e164.arpa tree and uses that answer. ie Where the application
lives determines what name space it gets to see and what answer the
application gets *for the same query*.

This is no different from how most big organisations do DNS today. If
something's on the corporate intranet, they see the internal name
space for example.com, complete with internal-only reachable web
sites, mail servers and so on. When something's on the internet, they
see the public face of example.com. That may or may not be very
different from the internal name space.


Christian -> Leaving aside for the moment whether it is a good thing to
encourage large corporates' to believe their view of the outside world is
just an expression of their own world view and should be shaped to fit!

The example you use of example.com has problems as of course example.com (in
your example) owns the lease to the domain example.com and so has every
godlike right to amend the world order for those living in its realm
(irritatingly!) - but I would argue not outside it - thank goodness!

Bearing that point in mind e164.arpa has absolutely nothing to do with
example.com or carrier.foo for that matter.

Now if you setup a domain such as ibm.com, that is recognised as a genuine
registered existant domain with unique qualities on the Internet, within
your own DNS and you serve information from this domain to members of the
public as if you are that entity then you are I think placing yourself in a
position of representing yourself as that domain.  That has serious legal
consequences.

But also looking at this from a practical perspective. As a travelled user
when I want to reach my family from my SIP phone using a hotel room's
Internet access (just think wistfully ahead!) I will expect having spent my
Sunday programming in their 25 various devices and lifestyle options to
match, to be able to reach them through whatever device is on duty at that
time as set up in the relevant ENUM NAPTR record that I worked so hard
getting right.

So I will be mighty slaked off to find some spotty Hotel network VoIP
operator claims no knowledge of what's happened to the NS records for the
appropriate domain in e164.arpa because of course his e164.arpa is the
doublethink reality version.

As Peter suggested using Application layer tunnelling to captivate user
applications within these goldfish bowl domains I don't see why I shouldn't
use similar to get through and around them should they become a reality!



Christian


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