Re: [Enum] IETF, ENUM and NGN

[Mike Hammer <mhammer at cisco.com>]

At 11:21 PM 7/1/2004 -0700, Jeff Williams wrote:
> Mike and all,
>
> Mike Hammer wrote:
>
> > At 08:11 PM 6/30/2004 -0700, Jeff Williams wrote:
> > >of their personal and private
> > >data such as their name, ENUM number, address, and direct
> > >contact phone number.
> >
> > Jeff,
> >
> > While other elements might be private data, the E.164 number is not.  The
> > E.164 number MUST be visible to enable universal routing of calls to at
> > least some node that can reach the terminal assigned that E.164 number.
>
> Why?  I don't agree with your assertion here.  As a developer of many years,
> making universal routing of calls to any node need not require that data to
> be viewable.

What is viewable depends on what the software chooses to put on the 
screen.  But, by all means please enlighten me here.

How does a gateway from the PSTN attach to the Internet, receive a call 
from an E.164 number to a target E.164 number route the call, with no 
pre-assumed relationship with that target?

>   I admit freely that it is much easier to code such calls to
> data
> that is, however.
>
> >
>
> >
> >
> > The privacy issue is about what OTHER data gets associated with the E.164
> > number, that is SPECIFIC to an INDIVIDUAL.  Please get this straight in
> > your mind.
>
>  Assigned ENUM numbers IS SPECIFIC to an INDIVIDUAL, and as such
> needs to be protected for good and valid privacy reasons...

So, the PSTN gateway that received the TDM call with a given target E.164 
called party address is by nature of receiving an IAM in violation of 
privacy laws?

Please explain at what point in time the privacy violation occurred?

When the caller dialed it?

When the originating TDM switch queried a NP database indicating it was 
ported to an IP endpoint?  (Or alternatively, the SP queried an internal 
database, which indicates the number is on its IP network rather than TDM 
network.)

When it reached the PSTN GW?

When the PSTN GW queries ENUM and finds the call can be routed to a certain 
service provider?  (This too could be in internal SP database, but for sake 
of completeness, we need to consider calls that span service providers.)

When that service provider translates the anonymous E.164 URI to a 
user-specific URI?

When the INVITE arrives at the called terminal?

It's clear we think differently.  But, I am trying to understand what you 
mean, even though I disagree about the legal judgement.

Mike



> >
> >
> > Mike
>
> 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