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

Re: ENUM domain hijack an already unlawful wiretap?, enum-l@localhost, enum-trial@localhost

  • To: James Seng < >
  • From: Michael Haberler < >
  • Date: Sun, 29 Feb 2004 13:51:07 +0100

At 12:47 29.02.2004, James Seng wrote:

are there problems/issues with enum/sip? yes.
..
do we want to fix them by imposing regulation? i rather not.
James, we're coming from the same angle.

I'd happily run an ENUM registry which just hands out new numbers+ENUM domains and contractually follows the existing domain name model - (not because we'd just love to be a telco/number range holder, but because the existing service number allocation system doesnt scale and it doesnt make sense to separate the processes). In terms of regulation all that needs to be done is a little knob-twisting on the service number allocation process - done.

The tough (=cost driving) part is existing numbers with their fuzzy ownership model. Once you near production service, you need to adress the loopholes, and there are different approaches - new regulation predicated on the users divine right to stupidity ;) or - and that was my point - maybe the issue can be mitigated by clarification wrt existing law. There is clearly a tradeoff between the onus you put on a subscriber and the onus put on the ENUM validation system - very similar to the direct and indirect methods of number allocation.

The cleanest solution would be to adopt the domain model altogether and separate number management & ownership registration completely from network service and drive phone book (aka "E.164 whois"), PSTN service, number portability and ENUM from such a converged number database. Very light on validation regulation, great for customers, but not all market participants would share the visison without some serious prodding..

-Michael


  • Post To The List:
<<< Chronological >>> Author    Subject <<< Threads >>>