Last Modified: 2004-01-22
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|
Telephone Number Mapping WG (enum) IETF 59 Soeul, Korea Wednesday, March 3, 2004 0900-1130 AM =============================== CHAIRS: Patrik Faltstrom <firstname.lastname@example.org> Richard Shockey <email@example.com> SCRIBE: Spencer Dawkins <mcsr-labs.org> AGENDA: AGENDA BASHING (5 min) ( appointment of scribe etc) Status of 2916bis ... Allison Mankin Transport AD - problem with IANA - and our relationship is not formal, no contract with us, just handshake agreements - they have a very significant staffing problem with a huge backlog. - IESG made a list - high delay, extremely high backlog, high priority was so backlogged that they had a hard time prioritizing - 2916bis is part of the backlog - no tracker in place today (as we have with I-D trackers) - we started this action before the document was approved, but had no way to know there was a problem - if registries are being blocked, please let us know so we can prioritize - all the registration documents are blocked - iFax, VPIM, at least six documents - today's presentations are about services that are rolling out now - what else do we need to say? - registries acting in faith that I-Ds will not change before RFC publication - ACTION ITEM_ - chairs to send a formal letter to IESG - please provide inputs to this letter - revs of other services - get them in sooner, rather than later, OK? IFAX Registration - Richard Shockey- Claudio Allocchio Fax WG co-chair - this document also in the IANA queue - any difficulties with this document? - Claudio - security and privacy sections very skinny - should we expand this stuff or leave it and point elsewhere? - web and FT documents contained all considerations - IFAX should match these documents - is this a simple revision, or harder? CONSENSUS any objections to this document? none in the room - chair preference is to add this text and send it to the IESG - editors say no problem adding this text - no last call required - Allison - document user interested in fax, not other services, not going to look at an H.323 document for these sections - bits are free A. Discussion of Jon Peterson's presence document ... (10 m) http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draf t-ietf-enum-pres-00.txt - not a lot of feedback received so far - want more - adds a pres: URI scheme, resolves to XMPP, SIMPLE, etc. - presence protocol-independent - PSTN telephones still need work (states, location attributions) - especially for wireless - not a lot of changes since initial draft (name change plus references update - James - what is XMPP status now? RFC? still an I-D, but have been approved by IESG - what about press: schema? Also passed IESG, some time back - move forward to WGLC? any objection? Is this urgently needed? it is implemented, will move forward. CONSENSUS - GO TO LAST CALL B. A report on the results of the ETSI ENUM Plugtest Workshop (R. Stastny 15 M) - last week, hosted by ETSI, 55 attendees (lower because of 3GPP conflicts, etc.) - presentations available at ETSI website - spent time on both user ENUM and carrier ENUM - 14 presentations on user ENUM - privacy and data security viewed as more critical than regulatory issues for ENUM rollout - no "killer application", but strong focus for VoIP - 4 presentations on carrier ENUM - huge number of possible implementations, including MMSC, SMSC, SMPP gateway, MSSP, HLR/HSS, ...) - Verisign presentation focused on registries and registry interworking. - applications/implementations vary more widely than user ENUM - two Plugfests upcoming, in October and late November/early December - Plugfests and related workshops are open to anyone, not just ETSI members - www.etsi.org/plugtests for details C. A report on APRICOT ENUM BoF (J Seng 10M) - ENUM/SIP BoF last week - James focused on TWNIC trials (other participants presenting separately) - regulators have allocated 0944 for trials, but production SIP/ENUM using unofficial block(?) of 070 - 802.11b SIP phones for 50 dollars, also being distributed with two-year contract commitments to carriers - 64111 allocated (10,000 numbers), with no telco involvement - all countries eager to do trials, but ENUMs mean different things to different people - have issues getting e164-arpa to work under delegation - operating under ccTLD for now - forming Asia Pacific ENUM Technical Forum, details by July timeframe - what are regulator difficulties? vary by country. Helps if you work in the same building as regulators. Ongoing discussions with regulators in China and Japan. - Taiwan is a special case (86 not in ITU tables at all) D. CN-NIC focussing their ENUM trials in China (15M Sheldon Lee) - 80M Internet users in China, 260M mobile phones, 255M fixed phones at yearend 2003 - trials started in July 2001, 6.8.e164.arpa delegation in September 2002, opened for public testing in December 2003, performance testing in September 2003 - 3-tier ENUM resolution in China, registration plan studied but not completed - 7741 queries in February 2004 (after spring festival in January) - 260 users and 520 ENUMs registrations - ENUM trial platform includes SIP UAs, IP/GSTN gateway, ENUM-enabled SIP proxy, only ENUM users can register SIP account - ENUM server pressure is how to support large number of queries with dynamic update - 94% query responses with 2-second latency when not using caching - participating in both ITU-T and IETF ENUM, and in several workshops - promotion of ENUM/SIP in China is big challenge - no Internet phone license issued for end users in China - what service is most beneficial in China? SIP registration, exchange ENUM in browser address bar - finished with SIP call to person in the second row of audience, and to China ("hello to IETF") E. JP-NIC discussing ENUM in Japan ETJP(Enum Trial Japan) web page is http://etjp.jp/english/ (15M Kazunori Fujiwara) - 1-year trial activity, started in September 2003 - verify communication and applications technologies, and clarify relevant issues - working groups - Privacy and Security, and DNS - using +81 numbers - includes SIP server, SOHO router, DNS, applications Implementation Experience R. Stastny for Larry Conroy - 2916bis and DDDS ambiguous - example from NAPTR RR regulart expression interpretation, and room was not sure what right answer was - multiple field delimiter characters are proving troublesome - limit to one character? - Patrik - we have inherited regular expression, and we can't fix it ourselves - must fix NAPTR itself - Patrik has action to close this loop - processing order - SERVICE before ORDER? RFC 3405 seems contradictory - answer, process SERVICE before ORDER? but this answer is too easy, if we need to choose between services based on preferences - but this seems to require FQDN? but that's what we have in ENUM anyway - what about privacy aspects of including this stuff in DNS instead of SIP? may have overriding preferences - put that in DNS - maybe we shouldn't touch the ORDER field - but this is a negotiation between the endpoints and shouldn't be prescribed - does ENUM always return a single rule? multiple contact points, which may not all be SIP contact points? e-mail, etc. - MUST process non-terminal NAPTR? we don't - is summary 2916bis-compliant? - Richard - suggests that people who have implementation issues collaborate with Larry Conroy on his draft - we have issues with these RFCs, and fixing them will take time. How to move forward? "BCP" for an I-D? - Patrik would also like to maintain the Conroy draft as experience grows - need to document workarounds - this should become a BCP document CONSENSUS Combine JPRS work with existing implementation document make this draft a working group document F. Our Korean Hosts KR-NIC will update us on their ENUM trial status... <Sungwoo Shin> - launched public trial October 2003-January 2004, national workshop last December, national standards requivalent to RFCs and New Standard Development - see lots of possibilities in Asia-Pacific region (not just Korea) - ENUM APIs, telephony, DNS, registration - 60-percent of telephone numbers are mobile - don't distinguish between PSTN and mobile numbers - still developing APIs - ENUM FAX, ENUM H.323, telephony on a website - service council moving to profit model setup, commercial services - Korea still waiting for country to sign with ITU - registry problem - have been negotiating with goverment for two years - Tier 1 registry selection is quite important - not sure why other countries are working on ENUM? effect of ENUM on Telecommunication Policy? charm of ENUM, compared to domain names? - mobile environment important to ENUM deployment - expect regulations, AAA, business model in 2004, commercial service in 2005 - Japan shipping H.323 now, with numbering plan assigned to commercial service - Japan using special numbers for VoIP calls, and Korea expects to do the same thing - is priority in your service the number to connect? - want to keep up with ENUM in real world. Telcos think people would prefer mobile device numbers to other device numbers - all this is a hard decision for us - does Korean government assign special numbers? yes - what is official VoIP protocol? H.323, but SIP is good... G. Plans to close the trial and go commercial in Austria with ENUM and the ENUM-only number range (+43780) (R. Stastny 10-15) - Austria has proved concept with ENUM trial - ENUM ready for deployment, so trial is ending - need legal framework, need official platform (AK-TK) - ENUM will be a working group within AK-TK regulatory body - basic issues are solved, but opt-in for residential numbers has problems - see Metcalf's law - how do we get users into ENUM? - ENUM for IP-PBX with direct dial-in - ENUM-only ranges for IP Communications - mobile numbers validated via SIM card - IP communication bigger than VoIP, and other services growing in importance. - no definition of how routing will be done - punt PSTN-only numbers to PSTN gateways - pre-paid cards add validation/identification considerations - adding mms:mailto and mms:sip - one company in Gernany giving out ENUM numbers commercially now - interesting "primary goals" slide... H. ENUM Implementation Redux - Willheim Wimmhitter http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draf t-conroy-enum-experiences-01.txt - case sensitivity (we only use numbers in ENUM, but we still manage to break some clients that assume last character is a regexp delimiter) - don't use this flag if you can avoid it - order traversal (as previously described) I. ENUM WG issues - could we hibernate? still some implementation experience to capture - can we get a link to these presentations? Richard will provide this - no discussion of provisioning issues - OK for trials, but probably not for commercial offerings 1. Status of Privacy-Security and other drafts still in the pipeline