Re: [Enum] IETF, ENUM and NGN

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com>]

John and all,

  Of course your right, John.  However what we are all seeing here
is a distinct difference in agenda's and philosophy regarding the need
for users should have the right to use ENUM in the public DNS
and still have an opt-out or opt-in of their personal and private
data such as their name, ENUM number, address, and direct
contact phone number.

John Curran wrote:

> At 10:05 AM +0100 6/30/04, Jim Reid wrote:
> >AFAICT nobody is suggesting Infrastructure and User ENUM would use the
> >same tree. The constraints and data models for these things are
> >completely different. However some people seem to think that if these
> >two flavours of ENUM use the same domain name, this means they both
> >have to use the same tree with one model for ownership, administration
> >and delegation. That doesn't necessarily follow. What some operator
> >does with its private, internal-use-only version of e164.arpa and how
> >they populate and manage that is nobody else's concern, apart from the
> >usual regulatory issues like universal service obligations, fair
> >competition and so on.
> >
> >What matters is the operators agree on a domain name for
> >Infrastructure ENUM. This might as well be e164.arpa since (a) it's
> >vendor neutral; (b) already an agreed IETF standard; (c) not
> >controlled by any nation. It's hard to see how any other choice of
> >domain name could be better (technically or politically).
>
> Hmm...  If some operators really and truly intend to run a data tree
> which is not publicly visible, than I see no need for any standard in
> this area.  The operator (or set of operators which share such a data
> tree) can simply configure an appropriate domain of their choice.
>
> I don't believe that there needs to be a distinct Infstrastructure ENUM
> and User ENUM data tree.  The only strong reason given for separate
> models is privacy and I'll assert that it is possible to put information in
> the tree for a given E.164 number that consists of nothing more than
> a record which directs one to the appropriate service provider (as noted
> by Mike Hammer earlier) and that this will indeed prove sufficient to
> provide connectivity without raising privacy concerns.
>
> The operator community should be encouraged to put some nominal
> information for their number blocks in the Public ENUM tree, even if this
> is nothing more than a single wildcard record pointing to a default server
> for that operator.  As numbers port, it should be very straightforward
> to insert an appropriate specific DNS record to direct queries to the
> new provider as appropriate, including the degenerate case where a
> knowledgeable user (or user with knowledgeable party under contract)
> arranges to have richer connectivity information put in place under their
> entry.
>
> /John
>
> _______________________________________________
> enum mailing list
> enum at ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 134k members/stakeholders strong!)
"Be precise in the use of words and expect precision from others" -
    Pierre Abelard

"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B;
liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by
P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."
United States v. Carroll Towing  (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947]
===============================================================
Updated 1/26/04
CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security
IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng.  INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com
 Registered Email addr with the USPS
Contact Number: 214-244-4827



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