Re: [Enum] E.164 communication assumptions/requirements

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

> As with ENUM, the destination of a call advertises the availability of
> an alternative way of completing the call. If it's financially beneficial
> for an originating telco to take up this offer, why should it decline to
> do so?
>
> The only open issue here is of regulatory nature. In the example from
> above: Does Vodafone have a right to receive the call to B even if B
> told T-Com that an alternative is fine with him?

ok. Lets sideline the direct issue of this personal/telco profit driver, and 
focus on the indirect infrastructure requirements that flow from such 
incentives. A ENUM convergence strategy CANNOT diminish the effectiveness of 
current regulatory practice in such areas as wiretap:

Court C orders trap and trace and a wiretap on B, for some legitimate 
reason. How do we discover all the parties (VAR, telcos, ISPs, and ENUM 
providers) who might query ENUM (for trap and trace) or actually complete 
the call (for wiretap), so we can present the order?

Not interested now in dealing with the 20% of folks who might use end-end IP 
encryption, or route-hiding based on walled-garden ENUMs, or those who hide 
secret routes in their User ENUM URLs  in the e164.arpa. Lets just focus on 
the 80% of folks who simply subscribe to PSTN-regulated or regulated VOIP 
carriers.



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