RE: [Enum] A proposal for Carrier ENUM

["Stastny Richard" <Richard.Stastny at oefeg.at>]

Hi,

I can follow your arguments, but
see inline:

> -----Original Message-----
> From: enum-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:enum-bounces at ietf.org] On Behalf
Of
> Antoin Verschuren
> Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2005 12:11 PM
> To: enum at ietf.org
> Subject: RE: [Enum] A proposal for Carrier ENUM
> 
> On Monday, October 10, 2005 4:23 PM Stastny Richard wrote:
> 
> > An entity hosting the E.164 number in question as a destination
> > network for the PSTN termination is also allowed to enter the
> > E.164 number in question into Carrier ENUM. Carrier ENUM is
> > the opt-in place for the entities SERVING E.164 numbers
> > On the PSTN (see below)
> 
> If you look at it this way, and decide that that is the purpose of
> Carrier ENUM, I agree with your model.
> However, I see problems in provisioning or validating registrations
> here.
> The contract between the number holder and entity terminating in the
> PSTN is usualy a private contract.
> The outside world or registry cannot validate this in an easy way.
> For the terminating party to prove that they are indeed entitled to
> terminate that number block into the PSTN, they have to go back to the
> number holder to generate that prove that they are indeed the
> terminating party.

This raises the question how this is "validated" now in the PSTN. How
does a carrier now "prove" to the outside world (the other carriers and
the NRA that he is serving an IN number on behalf of a number holder and
that this number has to be routed now via his network?


> What I'm simply saying is why do we make things more complex here, and
> simply aquire the prove directly from the number holder.

I am not sure that things are more complex, it seems more a chicken and
egg problem. Most number holders will be happy that the carrier selected
will do
the formalities required.

> In the private contract between the terminating party and number
holder,
> the terminating party can simply insist that the contract is only
valid
> (they can only offer the service) if the number holder enters his
> numberblock in the Carier ENUM tree, delegating it to the terminating
> party.
> The carrier ENUM tree is then simply the place where a
carrier-of-record
> is defined, as the NRA does not have this information.

Is it true that the NRA does not have this information?

> In this way, validation for a registry is much easier, since they can
> validate according to the assignment of the NRA.
> Ease in validation will get deployment faster, and let's be fair, the
> majority of assignents is directly to the real Carrier.
> A number holder not being a Carrier is an exception, with the burden
> that belongs with it. If he wants to be seen as a semi carier, he has
to
> take over some carrier tasks, one of which is entering his numberblock
> in the carrier ENUM tree.

See above

And, as Rich pointed out, the detailed procedures in this case will be
anyway national matter.

Richard
> 
> Antoin Verschuren
> 
> Technical Advisor
> Policy & Business Development
> SIDN
> Utrechtseweg 310
> PO Box 5022
> 6802 EA Arnhem
> The Netherlands
> 
> T +31 26 3525510
> F +31 26 3525505
> M +31 6 23368970
> E antoin.verschuren at sidn.nl
> W http://www.sidn.nl/
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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