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

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

> From: "Christian de Larrinaga" <cdel at firsthand.net>
> Reply-To: cdel at firsthand.net
> To: "Peter Williams" <home_pw at msn.com>, <jim at rfc1035.com>
> CC: enum at ietf.org
> Subject: RE: ENUM Privacy (was RE: [Enum] User ENUM vs Operator ENUM)
> Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 18:49:56 +0100
> > christian :--> Thanks for the clear presentation of this idea.
>
> But does it matter if it is SSL or IPSEC with or without BGP4 policy? i.e.,
> would it be better to allow user to define network architecture rather than
> imposing SSL only for ENUM use as a one size fits all? Or have I
> misunderstood you?


It does not matter. I would agree that we need to let IP networks be 
designed according to the way the edges actually require services to ve 
delivered.

I was thinking ahead by focussing on SSL VPNs, so we address the privacy 
issues created by E2U wholly within the IP stack.

Im not sure Jim's proposal requires any IETF standards action. Its a purely 
operational matter. As the IAB mandates are only Informational RFCs (and 
mainly a statement of intent about the purposes of the .arpa zones), there 
is nothing binding in them on any operator. There is no lack of compliance 
in using private DNS sources for E2U discovery.




> Christian
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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