<<< Chronological >>> Author Index    Subject Index <<< Threads >>>

Re: ETSI on Minimum Requirements for European ENUM Trials

    Marco> My take is that DNSSEC is not a MINIMUM requirements for
    Marco> trial interoperability so it should not be recommended in
    Marco> the ETSI document (I would say it's the same for IPv6). The
    Marco> support of DNSSEC or other mechanisms to prevent spoofing
    Marco> is a national matter for each trial. The decision of
    Marco> supporting DNSSEC in the trial has also to take into
    Marco> account some practical aspects (e.g. costs, timeframe,
    Marco> extra complexity, etc...)  that are likely to be different
    Marco> from country to country. It would be interesting to have
    Marco> some trials (or portion of the same trial) with DNSSEC and
    Marco> others without and then compare the results/feedbacks

Indeed. But this means some minimal standards/requirements for those
trials that do involve DNSSEC so they can interoperate. And there
needs to be some convention for handling the interactions between
DNSSEC-aware and non-DNSSEC-aware entities. [ie If an application
expects a signed answer from the DNS and doesn't get that, what should
it do?] These are reasonable things for this ETSI document to cover:
not that I have any say on that of course since my employer is not an
ETSI member. Another topic the ETSI document could/should look at is
IPv6 interoperability: what if a name server or registry/registrar for
ENUM was IPv6 only?

Well putting on my IETF hat here ... interactions between DNSSEC and Non-DNSSEC applications would be a useful topic for a IETF ID as well as a ETSI document as is the case of IPV6 ENUM registries ..but these are general cases that span all applications not just those that may be enabled by ENUM. I'm sure in the case of SIP it might be a useful contribution for the SIPPING WG and my colleague Jon Peterson is working on draft on the use of ENUM by SIP.

Though these are all interesting topics .. the simple fact of the matter is that most of the companies and participants in the EC trials will have limited resources and the goals and objectives of the trials will have to be limited in scope to the resources available to them.

That's just reality. I've heard the telecom industry in the EC has had its share of problems recently :-) OK?

"Eyes on the Prize" Jim ... in this case it is not DNSSEC and IPV6 deployment, however wonderful those goals are.

It is validating and demonstrating how ENUM in the EC can be used to deploy an new class of telecommunications services that benefit both European consumers and European service providers.

    Marco> For the ENUM commercial phase I would say it's to early to
    Marco> take any final decision. Let's focus on the trials for the
    Marco> time being.

As far as I can tell, nobody is disagreeing with this. However ENUM
trials should look at as many aspects of a production ENUM service as
possible. DNSSEC is just one of those things. As is IPv6. And
EPP. And....
Again ... I have a suspicion that C&W, BT, DT, Telecom Austria ( as examples) , etal do not have unlimited resources for a indepth analysis of all these interesting issues .._at this time_.

Each EC national ENUM trial needs to keep things in scope...which usually means a narrowly defined set of goals and objectives defined in specific phases.

The ETSI document can be very very useful guide to national ENUM trials and regulators in helping to order and prioritize what these goals and objectives should be and in what order they need to be addressed, which is why I'm delighted there is active participation on this list.

Richard Shockey, Senior Manager, Strategic Technology Initiatives
NeuStar Inc.
46000 Center Oak Plaza - Sterling, VA 20166
Voice +1 571.434.5651 Cell : +1 314.503.0640, Fax: +1 815.333.1237
> or <
<http://www.neustar.biz> ; <http://www.enum.org>

<<< Chronological >>> Author    Subject <<< Threads >>>