Last Modified: 2003-09-10
The Working Group proposes to advance RFC 2916 from Proposed Standard to Draft Standard.
E.164 numbers are globally unique, language independent identifiers for resources on Public Telecommunication Networks that can support many different services and protocols. E.164 numbers are used to identify ordinary phones, fax machines, pagers, data modems, email clients, text terminals for the hearing impaired, etc.
A prospective caller may wish to discover which services and protocols are supported by the terminal named by a given telephone number. The caller may also require more information than just the telephone number to communicate with the terminal.
The holder of an E.164 number or device may wish to control what URI's, are associated with that number.
Working Group Revised Goals and Scope:
1. The working group will update RFC 2916 to reference the DDDS system (revision of RFC 2915) and advance RFC 2916 to Draft Standard.
2. The working group will examine and document various aspects of ENUM administrative and/or operational procedures as Informational. Issues to be considered include privacy and security considerations in storing ENUM related data as well as validation and authentication of data, including DDDS NAPTR records in the DNS. The working group will coordinate activities in these areas with the DNSEXT WG and PROVREG WG when appropriate.
3. The Working Group will continue to maintain appropriate contact and liaison with standards bodies and groups, specifically ITU-T SG2, in order to provide technical or educational information as needed, such as the appropriate use of DNS. The Working Group will encourage the exchange of technical information within the emerging global ENUM community as well as documentation on practical experiences with implementations or administration of RFC 2916.
|Done||Initial draft of Service ENUM Requirements|
|Done||Initial draft of ENUM Protocol|
|Done||Revised draft of ENUM Protocol|
|Done||Submit ENUM Protocol document to IESG for publication as Proposed|
|Done||Revise and update RFC 2916 appropriate to DDDS (revision of 2915)|
|Done||ENUM service registrations for SIP and H.323|
|Aug 03||Document appropriate ENUM Security and Privacy Issues (Informational)|
|Nov 03||Document appropriate ENUM Registration and Provisioning Procedures (Informational)|
|RFC2916||PS||E.164 number and DNS|
|RFC3482||I||Number Portability in the Global Switched Telephone Network (GSTN): An Overview|
ScribeIETF 58 Minneapolis Telephone Number Mapping (ENUM) WG Meeting TUESDAY, November 11, 2003 Break 1300-1400 Afternoon Sessions I TSV enum Telephone Number Mapping WG Chair(s): Patrik Faltstrom <firstname.lastname@example.org> Richard Shockey <email@example.com> Transport Area Advisor: Allison Mankin <firstname.lastname@example.org> Mailing Lists: General Discussion:email@example.com To Subscribe: firstname.lastname@example.org In Body: subscribe Archive: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf-mail-archive/enum/ Minutes taken by Scott Hollenbeck [email@example.com] - Agenda description by Rich Shockey Status of 2916bis (Michael Mealling): comments about typos and clarifications not yet in, will send in as soon as possible after the embargo is over. Nothing substantive in the IESG comments. 1. Applicability Statement of CRISP work to ENUM - 15 Min Title : IRIS - An ENUM Registry (ereg) Type for the Internet Registry Information Service Author(s) : A. Newton Filename : draft-newton-iris-ereg-01.txt Pages : 33 Date : 2003-10-24 This document describes an IRIS (draft-ietf-crisp-iris-core-02.txt) registry schema for ENUM administrative information. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draf t-newton-iris-ereg-01.txt IRIS for ENUM presentation (Andrew Newton) CRISP WG update provided; moving forward with IRIS Applicability (why, who, what): look at use cases Why: Is a whois service needed for ENUM? Who: Who will resolve ENUM problems? Who do you contact? What: What can go wrong? What will be done about abuse? Andy's proposal: specifies a vector for coordination. Is one part of a possible answer. Attempts to be policy neutral. Applicability: public facing, features for privacy, structured. Questions/comments: Lawrence Conroy: Need DNS provider or something else. May be a tie to the provisioning system. Andy: not intended to be tightly coupled. Publish zone authority information? Rich Shockey: just as applicable for ENUM as DNS. Is there a right to find zone authority information: Rich: how implemented is a national matter. Willy Wertmueller: Why can't we align both ENUM and DNS? Andy: that's a policy decision. Suggestion: spell it out in the draft. 2. Potential Informational Document 15 min Title : Numbering for VoIP and other IP Communications Author(s) : R. Stastny Filename : draft-stastny-enum-numbering-voip-00.txt Pages : 43 Date : 2003-10-20 This document gives advice in setting up E.164 compatible numbering and dialing plans in administrative domains set up for IP Communications in general and VoIP applications in detail. After explaining numbering and dialing plans in principle, it discusses which types of E.164 numbers should be used for IP based terminals, to achieve proper routing of calls and other communications on the PSTN/ISDN and also on the Internet, using ENUM technology. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draf t-stastny-enum-numbering-voip-00.txt Description of draft... SIP-based communications use their own naming and addressing schemes. Different communities started to use numeric user IDs. Problem: how to dial other communities or the PSTN. Quick and dirty solutions are possible, but not feasible. Other solutions have been proposed, including standard prefixes, new numbering and dialing plan for IP, use existing E.164 resource. The E.164 proposal is the one described. ENUM Trial lessons learned: basic issues solved, original business model has problems. Metcalfe's Law applies. New approaches needed (some described). Questions/comments: Jon Peterson: Is this an IETF draft? Richard Shockey: maybe informational eventually. Jon: security requirements? Richard: not really, but open to input from others. ENUM Implementation Issues (Lawrence Conroy) Problem Statement : "This summarizes our experiences of what's "out there" in ENUM, and some implementation choices that need to be made. It is intended as a guide to what we found when querying different ENUM domains (and what we misunderstood at first reading of the standards). Note that this covers implementation issues only, NOT protocol issues. However, if different implementations share common choices, then behavior can be better predicted". NOT PROTOCOL ISSUES, but no document is completely unambiguous. Described things seen in practice. You will hit these, and you will find some strange things. Proposal: keep a "living" document to capture issues and sensible ways of dealing with them. Described issues: case sensitivity, E2U at which end? Jon Peterson: should shame people using old 2916 ENUM records! Michael Mealling: being liberal in what you accept doesn't mean accept broken stuff. More issues: non-finals with or without empty service field? Michael: Not very many cases in ENUM. Does Order "count" across domains? Non-final loop treatment Michael: can detect loop. Lawrence: yes, but there are choices. Non-final loop detection Treatment of NAPTRs with identical preferences L2R or R2L processing of service field Richard Shockey: are you planning on writing these up as a draft? Lawrence: yes. ENUM Trial updates: Poland (Andrzej Bartosiewicz) NASK is the admin and tech contact for 8.4.e164.arpa. Follows national regulator's guidelines and expectations. This is first trial attempt. Present registration policy is based on administrative decisions. Operators not involved on the technical side -- not interested? Some operators involved in defining administrative stuff. Internet-Draft available Poland - Use of EPP in provisioning. 10+ http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draf t-bartosiewicz-enum-48tld-00.txt No direct registrations -- only via telecom operators. Registrar (operator) MUST NOT register numbers administered by other operators. Some EPP modifications are used. Questions: Lawrence Conroy: do you have any delegations published? Can I look at NAPTRs? Andrzej: yes. Lawrence: can I see some? Andrzej: info is on the RIPE web site. Korean ENUM Trial Update (Jeonghyun Lee) ENUM Service Council exists (MIC, Telcos, KRNIC); sets goals Launched 13 October 2003, API available, www.enum.or.kr Status: about 2,000 registrations as of 5 November 2003 Both land-line and mobile numbers can be registered Next steps: trials through end of 2004; commercial in 2005. Planning to submit I-Ds to IETF. Questions: (none) Rich Shockey: out of time, but we need to discuss next steps. Allison Mankin: need to talk about planned documents. Rich: also security and privacy. Allison: OK for WG to exist as mailing list only. Rich: is this OK with the group? Patrik: is it OK to request short slots like this one? Rich There are also issues involving ongoing Liaison with ITU SG2 that may require the WG to stay open but dormant. Allison: it's reasonable to do this. The more we hear about issues the better. Patrik/Richard: Any final issues? (None raised). End of meeting.