From hotta at jprs.co.jp Fri Jun 3 07:49:14 2005 From: hotta at jprs.co.jp (HiroHOTTA) Date: Fri, 03 Jun 2005 14:49:14 +0900 Subject: [enum-wg] "production status"? In-Reply-To: <945C26A9617CAB4CA5CB21A389B5608804ABF7A1@E9JDY.mgb01.telekom.de> References: <945C26A9617CAB4CA5CB21A389B5608804ABF7A1@E9JDY.mgb01.telekom.de> Message-ID: <20050603144028.A7B2.HOTTA@jprs.co.jp> Dear all (especially, Austria, Poland, and Romania colleagues), I have a question about the progress matrix in RIPE web page. http://www.centr.org/kim/enum/index.html There is a status called "production" where Austria, Poland, and Romania are in. What is the definition of "production status" in your case? In other words, what aspects of your ENUM services are in production status in your case? - it brings money? anybody in the public can use? production-quality system? .....? Thanks for your assistance. Regards, Hiro From andrzejb at nask.pl Fri Jun 3 08:18:59 2005 From: andrzejb at nask.pl (Andrzej Bartosiewicz) Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2005 08:18:59 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [enum-wg] "production status"? In-Reply-To: <20050603144028.A7B2.HOTTA@jprs.co.jp> References: <945C26A9617CAB4CA5CB21A389B5608804ABF7A1@E9JDY.mgb01.telekom.de> <20050603144028.A7B2.HOTTA@jprs.co.jp> Message-ID: In Poland: -the ENUM Registry system (in our case it's based on EPP) is ready and in operation -every TSP can sign the agreement with NASK and start registration (in our case only TSPs can act as Registrars) -NASK will charge TSP for registration -every registered domain name is visible in 8.4.e164.arpa -E164 numbers registered as ENUM domain names are subject to Telecommunication Law. In my opinion the "production" means that there is defined (formal) way to register ENUM domain name and such domain name after registration is visible under ..e164.arpa. Andrzej. On Fri, 3 Jun 2005, HiroHOTTA wrote: > Dear all (especially, Austria, Poland, and Romania colleagues), > > I have a question about the progress matrix in RIPE web page. > http://www.centr.org/kim/enum/index.html > There is a status called "production" where Austria, Poland, > and Romania are in. What is the definition of "production status" > in your case? In other words, what aspects of your ENUM services > are in production status in your case? - it brings money? > anybody in the public can use? production-quality system? .....? > > Thanks for your assistance. > > Regards, > Hiro > From ag at ag-projects.com Fri Jun 3 10:06:32 2005 From: ag at ag-projects.com (Adrian Georgescu) Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2005 10:06:32 +0200 Subject: [enum-wg] "production status"? In-Reply-To: <20050603144028.A7B2.HOTTA@jprs.co.jp> References: <945C26A9617CAB4CA5CB21A389B5608804ABF7A1@E9JDY.mgb01.telekom.de> <20050603144028.A7B2.HOTTA@jprs.co.jp> Message-ID: Hiro, In Romania operators may apply for entering number ranges that are assigned by the telecom regulator under +40 also into e164.arpa. name space. The operator than assigns the numbers to its customers based on internal procedures. Operational means that the numbers are reachable both from PSTN and from the Internet using SIP protocol (open garden model). Adrian +40317105169 On Jun 3, 2005, at 7:49 AM, HiroHOTTA wrote: > Dear all (especially, Austria, Poland, and Romania colleagues), > > I have a question about the progress matrix in RIPE web page. > http://www.centr.org/kim/enum/index.html > There is a status called "production" where Austria, Poland, > and Romania are in. What is the definition of "production status" > in your case? In other words, what aspects of your ENUM services > are in production status in your case? - it brings money? > anybody in the public can use? production-quality system? .....? > > Thanks for your assistance. > > Regards, > Hiro From andrzejb at nask.pl Fri Jun 3 10:13:54 2005 From: andrzejb at nask.pl (Andrzej Bartosiewicz) Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2005 10:13:54 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [enum-wg] "production status"? In-Reply-To: References: <945C26A9617CAB4CA5CB21A389B5608804ABF7A1@E9JDY.mgb01.telekom.de> <20050603144028.A7B2.HOTTA@jprs.co.jp> Message-ID: Adrian, > In Romania operators may apply for entering number ranges that are > assigned by the telecom regulator under +40 also into e164.arpa. name > space. The operator than assigns the numbers to its customers based on > internal procedures. It lookas like that Number Portability can not be implemented in Romania. What happens if the number range is assigned to operator and after that some numbers are ported to anoter operator. Andrzej. From ag at ag-projects.com Fri Jun 3 10:18:04 2005 From: ag at ag-projects.com (Adrian Georgescu) Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2005 10:18:04 +0200 Subject: [enum-wg] "production status"? In-Reply-To: References: <945C26A9617CAB4CA5CB21A389B5608804ABF7A1@E9JDY.mgb01.telekom.de> <20050603144028.A7B2.HOTTA@jprs.co.jp> Message-ID: <826880eaf60cad9a2390b6b2efa8cce6@ag-projects.com> Number portability is not possible at this moment, there are plans for the near future. On Jun 3, 2005, at 10:13 AM, Andrzej Bartosiewicz wrote: > Adrian, > >> In Romania operators may apply for entering number ranges that are >> assigned by the telecom regulator under +40 also into e164.arpa. name >> space. The operator than assigns the numbers to its customers based on >> internal procedures. > > It lookas like that Number Portability can not be implemented in > Romania. > What happens if the number range is assigned to operator and after that > some numbers are ported to anoter operator. > > Andrzej. From alexander.mayrhofer at enum.at Fri Jun 3 10:35:03 2005 From: alexander.mayrhofer at enum.at (Alexander Mayrhofer) Date: Fri, 03 Jun 2005 10:35:03 +0200 Subject: [enum-wg] "production status"? In-Reply-To: <20050603144028.A7B2.HOTTA@jprs.co.jp> References: <945C26A9617CAB4CA5CB21A389B5608804ABF7A1@E9JDY.mgb01.telekom.de> <20050603144028.A7B2.HOTTA@jprs.co.jp> Message-ID: <42A01637.4070206@enum.at> HiroHOTTA wrote: > What is the definition of "production status" > in your case? In other words, what aspects of your ENUM services > are in production status in your case? - it brings money? > anybody in the public can use? production-quality system? .....? All, here in Austria, "production status" means to us that: - we have a contract with the regulator where operations of the ENUM zone is assigned to us - a company dedicated to provide ENUM registry services. - ENUM delegations show up in 3.4.e164.arpa. - we have production quality registry and DNS systems at the same availability and performance levels as the local ccTLD system in place (actually, it's even more advanced than the ccTLD system) - we have registrars offering commercially available ENUM based products on the market - we have a "watertight" legal framework about registration, validation and registrar relationship - we have a number range created by the regulator where ENUM entries are obligatory (+43 780) - and are authoritative for routing the calls even in the PSTN. - we are charging delegation fees So that means: - Anybody owning a phone number in Austria can approach one of our registrars, and register the ENUM domain corresponding to his numbers. - Anybody can approach one of our registrars, and register a "+43 780" number - as long as the ENUM domain is available, the number is available as well (like a xTLD [no, i don't neccessarily mean .xxx ;)] - Any company which wants to provide ENUM based services to it's customers can sign up as a registrar with enum.at If anything is still unclear, don't hesitate to contact me. cheers Alex Mayrhofer enum.at From Richard.Stastny at oefeg.at Fri Jun 3 10:49:19 2005 From: Richard.Stastny at oefeg.at (Stastny Richard) Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2005 10:49:19 +0200 Subject: [enum-wg] "production status"? Message-ID: <32755D354E6B65498C3BD9FD496C7D4613BF08@oefeg-s04.oefeg.loc> Hi Hiro, none of your points. "production" status exists if end-users may subscribe for domains and a legal framework exists that this subscription is persistent. In a trial normally the a subscription is only for the time of the trial and the user has not right to insist on the service after the trial end A legal framework is necessary for "production" because all involved enties (registry, registars, service providers and customers) want to have a confirmation that they can build a business on it. Especially the point < it brings money? is nice. So Amazon is not in production? best regards Richard ________________________________ Von: enum-wg-admin at ripe.net im Auftrag von HiroHOTTA Gesendet: Fr 03.06.2005 07:49 An: enum-wg at ripe.net Betreff: [enum-wg] "production status"? Dear all (especially, Austria, Poland, and Romania colleagues), I have a question about the progress matrix in RIPE web page. http://www.centr.org/kim/enum/index.html There is a status called "production" where Austria, Poland, and Romania are in. What is the definition of "production status" in your case? In other words, what aspects of your ENUM services are in production status in your case? - it brings money? anybody in the public can use? production-quality system? .....? Thanks for your assistance. Regards, Hiro From andrzejb at nask.pl Fri Jun 3 10:49:16 2005 From: andrzejb at nask.pl (Andrzej Bartosiewicz) Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2005 10:49:16 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [enum-wg] "production status"? In-Reply-To: <826880eaf60cad9a2390b6b2efa8cce6@ag-projects.com> References: <945C26A9617CAB4CA5CB21A389B5608804ABF7A1@E9JDY.mgb01.telekom.de> <20050603144028.A7B2.HOTTA@jprs.co.jp> <826880eaf60cad9a2390b6b2efa8cce6@ag-projects.com> Message-ID: As I understand ENUM Registry MUST canclel/terminate all the ENUM registration of the numbering blocks after NP implementation in Romania. Additionally Registry should "transfer" all the ENUM domain names from the Registrars (Operators) to the Registry. Am I right? Andrzej On Fri, 3 Jun 2005, Adrian Georgescu wrote: > Number portability is not possible at this moment, there are plans for > the near future. > > On Jun 3, 2005, at 10:13 AM, Andrzej Bartosiewicz wrote: > > > Adrian, > > > >> In Romania operators may apply for entering number ranges that are > >> assigned by the telecom regulator under +40 also into e164.arpa. name > >> space. The operator than assigns the numbers to its customers based on > >> internal procedures. > > > > It lookas like that Number Portability can not be implemented in > > Romania. > > What happens if the number range is assigned to operator and after that > > some numbers are ported to anoter operator. > > > > Andrzej. > From Joakim.Stralmark at pts.se Fri Jun 3 10:56:08 2005 From: Joakim.Stralmark at pts.se (Joakim.Stralmark at pts.se) Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2005 10:56:08 +0200 Subject: SV: [enum-wg] "production status"? Message-ID: <1050E7CDAF4ED042BA2096CC187A79A701234429@safir.pts.ad> Can "legal" also mean "self regulation" or a ledal framework via a "contract"? Joakim Str?lmark Swedish NRA -----Ursprungligt meddelande----- Fr?n: enum-wg-admin at ripe.net [mailto:enum-wg-admin at ripe.net] F?r Stastny Richard Skickat: den 3 juni 2005 10:49 Till: hotta at jprs.co.jp; enum-wg at ripe.net ?mne: Re: [enum-wg] "production status"? Hi Hiro, none of your points. "production" status exists if end-users may subscribe for domains and a legal framework exists that this subscription is persistent. In a trial normally the a subscription is only for the time of the trial and the user has not right to insist on the service after the trial end A legal framework is necessary for "production" because all involved enties (registry, registars, service providers and customers) want to have a confirmation that they can build a business on it. Especially the point < it brings money? is nice. So Amazon is not in production? best regards Richard ________________________________ Von: enum-wg-admin at ripe.net im Auftrag von HiroHOTTA Gesendet: Fr 03.06.2005 07:49 An: enum-wg at ripe.net Betreff: [enum-wg] "production status"? Dear all (especially, Austria, Poland, and Romania colleagues), I have a question about the progress matrix in RIPE web page. http://www.centr.org/kim/enum/index.html There is a status called "production" where Austria, Poland, and Romania are in. What is the definition of "production status" in your case? In other words, what aspects of your ENUM services are in production status in your case? - it brings money? anybody in the public can use? production-quality system? .....? Thanks for your assistance. Regards, Hiro From hotta at jprs.co.jp Fri Jun 3 10:56:15 2005 From: hotta at jprs.co.jp (HiroHOTTA) Date: Fri, 03 Jun 2005 17:56:15 +0900 Subject: [enum-wg] "production status"? In-Reply-To: References: <20050603144028.A7B2.HOTTA@jprs.co.jp> Message-ID: <20050603174610.8386.HOTTA@jprs.co.jp> Andrzej, Alex, Adrian, Richard, Thanks all for your quick responses. Your responses help me understand the situation and investigate what JP should consider. Hiro On Fri, 3 Jun 2005 08:18:59 +0200 (CEST) Andrzej Bartosiewicz wrote: > In Poland: > -the ENUM Registry system (in our case it's based on EPP) is ready and in > operation > -every TSP can sign the agreement with NASK and start registration (in > our case only TSPs can act as Registrars) > -NASK will charge TSP for registration > -every registered domain name is visible in 8.4.e164.arpa > -E164 numbers registered as ENUM domain names are subject to > Telecommunication Law. > > In my opinion the "production" means that there is defined (formal) way to > register ENUM domain name and such domain name after registration is > visible under ..e164.arpa. > > Andrzej. > > > > > On Fri, 3 Jun 2005, HiroHOTTA wrote: > > > Dear all (especially, Austria, Poland, and Romania colleagues), > > > > I have a question about the progress matrix in RIPE web page. > > http://www.centr.org/kim/enum/index.html > > There is a status called "production" where Austria, Poland, > > and Romania are in. What is the definition of "production status" > > in your case? In other words, what aspects of your ENUM services > > are in production status in your case? - it brings money? > > anybody in the public can use? production-quality system? .....? > > > > Thanks for your assistance. > > > > Regards, > > Hiro > > From ag at ag-projects.com Fri Jun 3 11:05:37 2005 From: ag at ag-projects.com (Adrian Georgescu) Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2005 11:05:37 +0200 Subject: [enum-wg] "production status"? In-Reply-To: References: <945C26A9617CAB4CA5CB21A389B5608804ABF7A1@E9JDY.mgb01.telekom.de> <20050603144028.A7B2.HOTTA@jprs.co.jp> <826880eaf60cad9a2390b6b2efa8cce6@ag-projects.com> Message-ID: Andrzej, I cannot imagine how ENUM registrations could be "canceled", as the numbers are delegated based on current administrative policies in place. Should NP be implemented, ENUM can be an enabler. With fixed numbering plans like in .ro delegation of each individual number is possible. Adrian On Jun 3, 2005, at 10:49 AM, Andrzej Bartosiewicz wrote: > As I understand ENUM Registry MUST canclel/terminate all the ENUM > registration of the numbering blocks after NP implementation in > Romania. > > Additionally Registry should "transfer" all the ENUM domain names from > the > Registrars (Operators) to the Registry. Am I right? > > Andrzej > > On Fri, 3 Jun 2005, Adrian Georgescu wrote: > >> Number portability is not possible at this moment, there are plans for >> the near future. >> >> On Jun 3, 2005, at 10:13 AM, Andrzej Bartosiewicz wrote: >> >>> Adrian, >>> >>>> In Romania operators may apply for entering number ranges that are >>>> assigned by the telecom regulator under +40 also into e164.arpa. >>>> name >>>> space. The operator than assigns the numbers to its customers based >>>> on >>>> internal procedures. >>> >>> It lookas like that Number Portability can not be implemented in >>> Romania. >>> What happens if the number range is assigned to operator and after >>> that >>> some numbers are ported to anoter operator. >>> >>> Andrzej. >> From Richard.Stastny at oefeg.at Fri Jun 3 11:15:13 2005 From: Richard.Stastny at oefeg.at (Stastny Richard) Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2005 11:15:13 +0200 Subject: [enum-wg] "production status"? Message-ID: <32755D354E6B65498C3BD9FD496C7D461B1FD6@oefeg-s04.oefeg.loc> > Can "legal" also mean "self regulation" or a legal framework via a > "contract"? Hmm, I do not think that "self regulation" can work, because somebody (in most cases the regulator is assigned the Tier 1 CC-domain) so he is the domain name holder. A c.c.e164.arpa is some kind of a "sponsored" domain in ICANN speak, so the domain name holder needs at least a contract with the registry (it is his task to choose one if he does not want to do the job by himself, which is not a good idea). In this contract he would write anything you normally write in an outsourcing contract and also the obligations you want to have fulfilled by the subcontracts (e.g registry - registars, etc) and also the number ranges available and how to treat them. Regards Richard Richard Stastny OeFEG tel:+43 664 420 4100 enum:+43 780 203 211 callto://fordprefect http://voipandenum.blogspot.com > -----Original Message----- > From: Joakim.Stralmark at pts.se [mailto:Joakim.Stralmark at pts.se] > Sent: Friday, June 03, 2005 10:56 AM > To: Stastny Richard; hotta at jprs.co.jp; enum-wg at ripe.net > Subject: SV: [enum-wg] "production status"? > > Can "legal" also mean "self regulation" or a ledal framework via a > "contract"? > > Joakim Str?lmark > Swedish NRA > > -----Ursprungligt meddelande----- > Fr?n: enum-wg-admin at ripe.net [mailto:enum-wg-admin at ripe.net] F?r Stastny > Richard > Skickat: den 3 juni 2005 10:49 > Till: hotta at jprs.co.jp; enum-wg at ripe.net > ?mne: Re: [enum-wg] "production status"? > > Hi Hiro, > > none of your points. > > "production" status exists if end-users may subscribe for domains and a > legal framework exists that this subscription is persistent. > > In a trial normally the a subscription is only for the time of the trial > and the user has not right to insist on the service after the trial end > > A legal framework is necessary for "production" because all involved > enties (registry, registars, service providers and customers) want to have > a confirmation that they can build a business on it. > > Especially the point > < it brings money? > is nice. So Amazon is not in production? > > best regards > > Richard > > ________________________________ > > Von: enum-wg-admin at ripe.net im Auftrag von HiroHOTTA > Gesendet: Fr 03.06.2005 07:49 > An: enum-wg at ripe.net > Betreff: [enum-wg] "production status"? > > > > Dear all (especially, Austria, Poland, and Romania colleagues), > > I have a question about the progress matrix in RIPE web page. > http://www.centr.org/kim/enum/index.html > There is a status called "production" where Austria, Poland, and Romania > are in. What is the definition of "production status" > in your case? In other words, what aspects of your ENUM services are in > production status in your case? - it brings money? > anybody in the public can use? production-quality system? .....? > > Thanks for your assistance. > > Regards, > Hiro > > From andrzejb at nask.pl Fri Jun 3 11:16:28 2005 From: andrzejb at nask.pl (Andrzej Bartosiewicz) Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2005 11:16:28 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [enum-wg] "production status"? In-Reply-To: References: <945C26A9617CAB4CA5CB21A389B5608804ABF7A1@E9JDY.mgb01.telekom.de> <20050603144028.A7B2.HOTTA@jprs.co.jp> <826880eaf60cad9a2390b6b2efa8cce6@ag-projects.com> Message-ID: Let's imaging the following situation. Operator A has registerd in the central database numbering block 1XXX (1..e164.arpa.) Operator A has registerd in DNS "1000" E164 number (0.0.0.1..e164.arpa) for his customer C. NP is implemented and customer C is porting his number from Operator A to Operator B Finally, customer C is the B's customer for "1000" number and the same time the (lifelong) Registrar of ENUM number "1000" is... Operator A. Customer C MUST always contact Operator A. What happens in case of A bankruptcy? It sounds strange. Andrzej. On Fri, 3 Jun 2005, Adrian Georgescu wrote: > Andrzej, > > I cannot imagine how ENUM registrations could be "canceled", as the > numbers are delegated based on current administrative policies in > place. > Should NP be implemented, ENUM can be an enabler. With fixed numbering > plans like in .ro delegation of each individual number is possible. > > Adrian > > On Jun 3, 2005, at 10:49 AM, Andrzej Bartosiewicz wrote: > > > As I understand ENUM Registry MUST canclel/terminate all the ENUM > > registration of the numbering blocks after NP implementation in > > Romania. > > > > Additionally Registry should "transfer" all the ENUM domain names from > > the > > Registrars (Operators) to the Registry. Am I right? > > > > Andrzej > > > > On Fri, 3 Jun 2005, Adrian Georgescu wrote: > > > >> Number portability is not possible at this moment, there are plans for > >> the near future. > >> > >> On Jun 3, 2005, at 10:13 AM, Andrzej Bartosiewicz wrote: > >> > >>> Adrian, > >>> > >>>> In Romania operators may apply for entering number ranges that are > >>>> assigned by the telecom regulator under +40 also into e164.arpa. > >>>> name > >>>> space. The operator than assigns the numbers to its customers based > >>>> on > >>>> internal procedures. > >>> > >>> It lookas like that Number Portability can not be implemented in > >>> Romania. > >>> What happens if the number range is assigned to operator and after > >>> that > >>> some numbers are ported to anoter operator. > >>> > >>> Andrzej. > >> > From Richard.Stastny at oefeg.at Fri Jun 3 11:21:46 2005 From: Richard.Stastny at oefeg.at (Stastny Richard) Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2005 11:21:46 +0200 Subject: [enum-wg] "production status"? Message-ID: <32755D354E6B65498C3BD9FD496C7D461B1FD7@oefeg-s04.oefeg.loc> Andrzej, what is strange in Poland is > Operator A has registerd in DNS "1000" E164 number > (0.0.0.1..e164.arpa) for his customer C. If customer C registered the "1000" number by himself, as everywhere else, the whole problem would not exist. Richard Richard Stastny OeFEG tel:+43 664 420 4100 enum:+43 780 203 211 callto://fordprefect http://voipandenum.blogspot.com > -----Original Message----- > From: enum-wg-admin at ripe.net [mailto:enum-wg-admin at ripe.net] On Behalf Of > Andrzej Bartosiewicz > Sent: Friday, June 03, 2005 11:16 AM > To: Adrian Georgescu > Cc: enum-wg at ripe.net > Subject: Re: [enum-wg] "production status"? > > Let's imaging the following situation. > > Operator A has registerd in the central database numbering block 1XXX > (1..e164.arpa.) > > Operator A has registerd in DNS "1000" E164 number > (0.0.0.1..e164.arpa) for his customer C. > > NP is implemented and customer C is porting his number from Operator A to > Operator B > > Finally, customer C is the B's customer for "1000" number and the same > time the (lifelong) Registrar of ENUM number "1000" is... Operator A. > > Customer C MUST always contact Operator A. > > What happens in case of A bankruptcy? > > It sounds strange. > > Andrzej. > > On Fri, 3 Jun 2005, Adrian Georgescu wrote: > > > Andrzej, > > > > I cannot imagine how ENUM registrations could be "canceled", as the > > numbers are delegated based on current administrative policies in > > place. > > Should NP be implemented, ENUM can be an enabler. With fixed numbering > > plans like in .ro delegation of each individual number is possible. > > > > Adrian > > > > On Jun 3, 2005, at 10:49 AM, Andrzej Bartosiewicz wrote: > > > > > As I understand ENUM Registry MUST canclel/terminate all the ENUM > > > registration of the numbering blocks after NP implementation in > > > Romania. > > > > > > Additionally Registry should "transfer" all the ENUM domain names from > > > the > > > Registrars (Operators) to the Registry. Am I right? > > > > > > Andrzej > > > > > > On Fri, 3 Jun 2005, Adrian Georgescu wrote: > > > > > >> Number portability is not possible at this moment, there are plans > for > > >> the near future. > > >> > > >> On Jun 3, 2005, at 10:13 AM, Andrzej Bartosiewicz wrote: > > >> > > >>> Adrian, > > >>> > > >>>> In Romania operators may apply for entering number ranges that are > > >>>> assigned by the telecom regulator under +40 also into e164.arpa. > > >>>> name > > >>>> space. The operator than assigns the numbers to its customers based > > >>>> on > > >>>> internal procedures. > > >>> > > >>> It lookas like that Number Portability can not be implemented in > > >>> Romania. > > >>> What happens if the number range is assigned to operator and after > > >>> that > > >>> some numbers are ported to anoter operator. > > >>> > > >>> Andrzej. > > >> > > From andrzejb at nask.pl Fri Jun 3 11:40:08 2005 From: andrzejb at nask.pl (Andrzej Bartosiewicz) Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2005 11:40:08 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [enum-wg] "production status"? In-Reply-To: <32755D354E6B65498C3BD9FD496C7D461B1FD7@oefeg-s04.oefeg.loc> References: <32755D354E6B65498C3BD9FD496C7D461B1FD7@oefeg-s04.oefeg.loc> Message-ID: Richard, I understand your concerns. I agree with you but: According to our Telecommuniaction Law numbers are assigned to Operators by Regulator and Subscriber (end-user) rights are explicity enumerated including the right for changing the number and geographical and service provider portability). Subscriber has no other "general" rights like "Self management of ENUM domain name corresponding to the E164 number from within the national plan". Neither Registry (NASK) nor the Regulator have legal power to allow direct registration of ENUM domain names by the Subscribers (end-users). Coming back to NP problem: > what is strange in Poland is > > Operator A has registerd in DNS "1000" E164 number > > (0.0.0.1..e164.arpa) for his customer C. > > If customer C registered the "1000" number by himself, > as everywhere else, > the whole problem would not exist. If the full E164 numbers (*not the number blocks*) are subject of registration there is no problem with NP. In our case where subscriber can not register directly, there is no problem with NP. Andrzej. From bhoeneis at switch.ch Mon Jun 6 16:54:25 2005 From: bhoeneis at switch.ch (Bernie Hoeneisen) Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2005 16:54:25 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [enum-wg] Discuss: draft-hoeneisen-enum-validation-epp-01 Message-ID: Hi! As some of you know, in the IETF, there is some work on-going concerning ENUM and validation of E.164 numbers. At the IETF-62 in Minneapolis. the draft referred below has been approved as a Working Group item of the IETF ENUM WG: Abstract This document describes an EPP extension framework for mapping information about the validation process that has been applied for the E.164 number (or number range), which the ENUM domain name is based on. Specified in XML, this mapping extends the EPP domain name mapping to provide an additional feature required for the provisioning of ENUM domain names. URLs * http://ietf.hoeneisen.ch/draft-hoeneisen-enum-validation-epp-01.txt * http://ietf.hoeneisen.ch/draft-hoeneisen-enum-validation-epp-01.html In Switzerland we are running an EPP Server including this extension for the ENUM Tier-1 Registry. So far we did not run into any trouble. I am about to write an update of this draft. So far I have not received any feedback. Does this mean, that everything in there is just fine or that people are not interested / have not read it at all? ;-) Besides the technical and other feedback, I'd be interested: - Who is planning to use this EPP extension for ENUM? - Who cannot use this extensions and what are the reasons? Looking forward for lots of comments! cheers, Bernie Hoeneisen, Switch, Project Manager ENUM From ag at ag-projects.com Mon Jun 6 17:07:09 2005 From: ag at ag-projects.com (Adrian Georgescu) Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2005 17:07:09 +0200 Subject: [enum-wg] Discuss: draft-hoeneisen-enum-validation-epp-01 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hello Bernie, 1. There is interest in EPP provisioning from Tier 2 to Tier1. So far there are at least 3 implementations I know of (AU, PL and CH) and standardizing such interfaces is a very good thing 2. It would have been very useful if you would have come to the ENUM Plugtest held by ETSI last week I will look at your implementation and hopeful we can build a client to test with your implementation. The lack of feedback is caused mostly by the slow speed of ENUM adoption in the regulatory area. Your work is definitely not in vain, you are yet another early bird with a wonderful ENUM system that WORKS ! Adrian On Jun 6, 2005, at 4:54 PM, Bernie Hoeneisen wrote: > Hi! > > As some of you know, in the IETF, there is some work on-going > concerning ENUM and validation of E.164 numbers. At the IETF-62 in > Minneapolis. > the draft referred below has been approved as a Working Group item of > the IETF ENUM WG: > > Abstract > > This document describes an EPP extension framework for mapping > information about the validation process that has been applied for > the E.164 number (or number range), which the ENUM domain name is > based on. Specified in XML, this mapping extends the EPP domain > name > mapping to provide an additional feature required for the > provisioning of ENUM domain names. > > > URLs > > * http://ietf.hoeneisen.ch/draft-hoeneisen-enum-validation-epp-01.txt > * > http://ietf.hoeneisen.ch/draft-hoeneisen-enum-validation-epp-01.html > > > In Switzerland we are running an EPP Server including this extension > for the ENUM Tier-1 Registry. So far we did not run into any trouble. > > I am about to write an update of this draft. So far I have not > received any feedback. Does this mean, that everything in there is > just fine or that people are not interested / have not read it at all? > ;-) > > Besides the technical and other feedback, I'd be interested: > - Who is planning to use this EPP extension for ENUM? > - Who cannot use this extensions and what are the reasons? > > Looking forward for lots of comments! > > > cheers, > Bernie Hoeneisen, Switch, Project Manager ENUM From robert.schafer at mci.com Mon Jun 6 20:04:50 2005 From: robert.schafer at mci.com (Robert Schafer) Date: Mon, 06 Jun 2005 13:04:50 -0500 Subject: [enum-wg] Discuss: draft-hoeneisen-enum-validation-epp-01 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <42A49042.4070403@mci.com> I support the desire to standardize ENUM provisioning interfaces between Tier 2 to Tier 1, and would like specifications around this to share with the CC1 ENUM LLC. The RFP that they will be developing for the Tier 1 registry should be based on a common interface to the extent possible. Some of this is documented in the US ENUM Forum requirements, but identifying a wider standardization than US/North America in preferred. _ _ Robert W Schafer, MCI Network Architecture & Standards 2400 N Glenville Dr,Richardson,TX 75082/Ofc +1972 7296125 This message is privileged, confidential and not for public use. If received in error, please delete it. _ _ Adrian Georgescu wrote: > Hello Bernie, > > 1. There is interest in EPP provisioning from Tier 2 to Tier1. So far > there are at least 3 implementations I know of (AU, PL and CH) and > standardizing such interfaces is a very good thing > > 2. It would have been very useful if you would have come to the ENUM > Plugtest held by ETSI last week > > I will look at your implementation and hopeful we can build a client to > test with your implementation. The lack of feedback is caused mostly by > the slow speed of ENUM adoption in the regulatory area. Your work is > definitely not in vain, you are yet another early bird with a wonderful > ENUM system that WORKS ! > > Adrian > > On Jun 6, 2005, at 4:54 PM, Bernie Hoeneisen wrote: > >> Hi! >> >> As some of you know, in the IETF, there is some work on-going >> concerning ENUM and validation of E.164 numbers. At the IETF-62 in >> Minneapolis. >> the draft referred below has been approved as a Working Group item of >> the IETF ENUM WG: >> >> Abstract >> >> This document describes an EPP extension framework for mapping >> information about the validation process that has been applied for >> the E.164 number (or number range), which the ENUM domain name is >> based on. Specified in XML, this mapping extends the EPP domain name >> mapping to provide an additional feature required for the >> provisioning of ENUM domain names. >> >> URLs >> >> * http://ietf.hoeneisen.ch/draft-hoeneisen-enum-validation-epp-01.txt >> * http://ietf.hoeneisen.ch/draft-hoeneisen-enum-validation-epp-01.html >> >> In Switzerland we are running an EPP Server including this extension >> for the ENUM Tier-1 Registry. So far we did not run into any trouble. >> >> I am about to write an update of this draft. So far I have not >> received any feedback. Does this mean, that everything in there is >> just fine or that people are not interested / have not read it at all? >> ;-) >> >> Besides the technical and other feedback, I'd be interested: >> - Who is planning to use this EPP extension for ENUM? >> - Who cannot use this extensions and what are the reasons? >> >> Looking forward for lots of comments! >> >> cheers, >> Bernie Hoeneisen, Switch, Project Manager ENUM From Ed.Lewis at neustar.biz Mon Jun 6 21:07:27 2005 From: Ed.Lewis at neustar.biz (Edward Lewis) Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2005 15:07:27 -0400 Subject: [enum-wg] Discuss: draft-hoeneisen-enum-validation-epp-01 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: At 16:54 +0200 6/6/05, Bernie Hoeneisen wrote: > * http://ietf.hoeneisen.ch/draft-hoeneisen-enum-validation-epp-01.txt >I am about to write an update of this draft. So far I have not received any >feedback. Does this mean, that everything in there is just fine or that people >are not interested / have not read it at all? ;-) 1) In 4.5.1 and 4.5.2, you refer to "The Registry". By this I assume you mean the server-side organization of the EPP connection and not IANA. 2) s/The validation process shall ensure,/The validation process shall ensure/ (The "dreaded extraneous comma.") I don't have any answers for your in-email poll questions. -- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Edward Lewis +1-571-434-5468 NeuStar If you knew what I was thinking, you'd understand what I was saying. From andrzejb at nask.pl Tue Jun 7 08:32:06 2005 From: andrzejb at nask.pl (Andrzej Bartosiewicz) Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2005 08:32:06 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [enum-wg] Discuss: draft-hoeneisen-enum-validation-epp-01 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Bernie, Alexander, I'm really interested how similar/different are Switch and ENUM.AT (draft-mayrhofer-enum-validation-01) solutions... Could you guys enumerate the major differences and similarities between your implementations (Internet-Drafts)? Andrzej On Mon, 6 Jun 2005, Bernie Hoeneisen wrote: > Hi! > > As some of you know, in the IETF, there is some work on-going concerning > ENUM and validation of E.164 numbers. At the IETF-62 in Minneapolis. > the draft referred below has been approved as a Working Group item of the > IETF ENUM WG: > > Abstract > > This document describes an EPP extension framework for mapping > information about the validation process that has been applied for > the E.164 number (or number range), which the ENUM domain name is > based on. Specified in XML, this mapping extends the EPP domain name > mapping to provide an additional feature required for the > provisioning of ENUM domain names. > > > URLs > > * http://ietf.hoeneisen.ch/draft-hoeneisen-enum-validation-epp-01.txt > * http://ietf.hoeneisen.ch/draft-hoeneisen-enum-validation-epp-01.html > > > In Switzerland we are running an EPP Server including this extension for > the ENUM Tier-1 Registry. So far we did not run into any trouble. > > I am about to write an update of this draft. So far I have not received > any feedback. Does this mean, that everything in there is just fine or > that people are not interested / have not read it at all? ;-) > > Besides the technical and other feedback, I'd be interested: > - Who is planning to use this EPP extension for ENUM? > - Who cannot use this extensions and what are the reasons? > > Looking forward for lots of comments! > > > cheers, > Bernie Hoeneisen, Switch, Project Manager ENUM > From alexander.mayrhofer at enum.at Tue Jun 7 09:21:49 2005 From: alexander.mayrhofer at enum.at (Alexander Mayrhofer) Date: Tue, 07 Jun 2005 09:21:49 +0200 Subject: [enum-wg] Discuss: draft-hoeneisen-enum-validation-epp-01 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <42A54B0D.5080502@enum.at> Andrzej Bartosiewicz wrote: > Bernie, Alexander, > > I'm really interested how similar/different are Switch and ENUM.AT > (draft-mayrhofer-enum-validation-01) solutions... > > Could you guys enumerate the major differences and similarities between > your implementations (Internet-Drafts)? Hi Andrzej and all, first of all, i would like to make sure that we (SWITCH / enum.at) are not competing in terms of validation standards - we are of course talking to each other, and have been working together on the drafts as well. Our intention is to provide a validation infrastructure on which the industry can agree on - my vision is that a registrar working with a registry in at least the EU does not have to take a steep learning curve for each new registry he's talking to. The two drafts cover?quite different parts of the validation "business" (Bernie, i'd like you to correct me if there'S anything wrong with my description): - draft-hoeneisen-enum-validation-epp-01 covers how to embed validation information as an extension in EPP. Additionally, it covers a few validation related fields, which are transported in the extension. The extension itself allows extending the validation related data to additional fields (see Section 4.4) - draft-mayrhofer-enum-validation-00 covers general validation architecture (which might be out of scope for an IETF draft, please comment), and provides a so called "validation token" - an (optionally cryptographically signed) XML document which is used to transport validation related information beyond that specified in bernie's draft. Any feedback on this draft is very much appreciated since i'm going to provide an update of this document for the upcoming IETF. So, those 2 drafts don't contradict each other - they can easily be used together for eg. transporting a validation token via EPP. Once again, i'd appreciate any comments on this - we've been using the validation token in ENUM procudtion enviroments since about half a year, and didn't experience any architectural problems. We are going to adapt the data scheme a bit, eg. we're going to add a "credential" section, where the registrar can provide eg. a passwort, a client certificate fingerprint, IMSI, etc. which the subscriber can in turn use to identify himself upon revalidation. hope that helps cheers Alex Mayrhofer enum.at From bhoeneis at switch.ch Tue Jun 7 09:21:34 2005 From: bhoeneis at switch.ch (Bernie Hoeneisen) Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2005 09:21:34 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [enum-wg] Discuss: draft-hoeneisen-enum-validation-epp-01 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Andrzej, Concerning your question, there has been a presentation at the IETF-62: http://ietf.hoeneisen.ch/ietf62-enum-validation_v02.pdf On Page 6 of this presentation, I have depicted the framework on high level. The Switch I/D proposes a framework including one simple example for the policy dependent part, enum.at proposes a more advanced solution for the policy dependent part. cheers, Bernie On Tue, 7 Jun 2005, Andrzej Bartosiewicz wrote: > Bernie, Alexander, > > I'm really interested how similar/different are Switch and ENUM.AT > (draft-mayrhofer-enum-validation-01) solutions... > > Could you guys enumerate the major differences and similarities between > your implementations (Internet-Drafts)? > > Andrzej > > On Mon, 6 Jun 2005, Bernie Hoeneisen wrote: > >> Hi! >> >> As some of you know, in the IETF, there is some work on-going concerning >> ENUM and validation of E.164 numbers. At the IETF-62 in Minneapolis. >> the draft referred below has been approved as a Working Group item of the >> IETF ENUM WG: >> >> Abstract >> >> This document describes an EPP extension framework for mapping >> information about the validation process that has been applied for >> the E.164 number (or number range), which the ENUM domain name is >> based on. Specified in XML, this mapping extends the EPP domain name >> mapping to provide an additional feature required for the >> provisioning of ENUM domain names. >> >> >> URLs >> >> * http://ietf.hoeneisen.ch/draft-hoeneisen-enum-validation-epp-01.txt >> * http://ietf.hoeneisen.ch/draft-hoeneisen-enum-validation-epp-01.html >> >> >> In Switzerland we are running an EPP Server including this extension for >> the ENUM Tier-1 Registry. So far we did not run into any trouble. >> >> I am about to write an update of this draft. So far I have not received >> any feedback. Does this mean, that everything in there is just fine or >> that people are not interested / have not read it at all? ;-) >> >> Besides the technical and other feedback, I'd be interested: >> - Who is planning to use this EPP extension for ENUM? >> - Who cannot use this extensions and what are the reasons? >> >> Looking forward for lots of comments! >> >> >> cheers, >> Bernie Hoeneisen, Switch, Project Manager ENUM >> > From andrzejb at nask.pl Tue Jun 7 09:47:29 2005 From: andrzejb at nask.pl (Andrzej Bartosiewicz) Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2005 09:47:29 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [enum-wg] Discuss: draft-hoeneisen-enum-validation-epp-01 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks Bernie! Thanks Alexander! I need some time to analyze youe solutions. Generally we shoud test some more flexible "validation" solutions for 8.4.e164.arpa just in case we change our TSP based registration policy in the future. Andrzej. On Tue, 7 Jun 2005, Bernie Hoeneisen wrote: > Hi Andrzej, > > Concerning your question, there has been a presentation at the IETF-62: > > http://ietf.hoeneisen.ch/ietf62-enum-validation_v02.pdf > > On Page 6 of this presentation, I have depicted the framework on high > level. The Switch I/D proposes a framework including one simple example > for the policy dependent part, enum.at proposes a more advanced solution > for the policy dependent part. > > cheers, > Bernie > > > On Tue, 7 Jun 2005, Andrzej Bartosiewicz wrote: > > > Bernie, Alexander, > > > > I'm really interested how similar/different are Switch and ENUM.AT > > (draft-mayrhofer-enum-validation-01) solutions... > > > > Could you guys enumerate the major differences and similarities between > > your implementations (Internet-Drafts)? > > > > Andrzej > > > > On Mon, 6 Jun 2005, Bernie Hoeneisen wrote: > > > >> Hi! > >> > >> As some of you know, in the IETF, there is some work on-going concerning > >> ENUM and validation of E.164 numbers. At the IETF-62 in Minneapolis. > >> the draft referred below has been approved as a Working Group item of the > >> IETF ENUM WG: > >> > >> Abstract > >> > >> This document describes an EPP extension framework for mapping > >> information about the validation process that has been applied for > >> the E.164 number (or number range), which the ENUM domain name is > >> based on. Specified in XML, this mapping extends the EPP domain name > >> mapping to provide an additional feature required for the > >> provisioning of ENUM domain names. > >> > >> > >> URLs > >> > >> * http://ietf.hoeneisen.ch/draft-hoeneisen-enum-validation-epp-01.txt > >> * http://ietf.hoeneisen.ch/draft-hoeneisen-enum-validation-epp-01.html > >> > >> > >> In Switzerland we are running an EPP Server including this extension for > >> the ENUM Tier-1 Registry. So far we did not run into any trouble. > >> > >> I am about to write an update of this draft. So far I have not received > >> any feedback. Does this mean, that everything in there is just fine or > >> that people are not interested / have not read it at all? ;-) > >> > >> Besides the technical and other feedback, I'd be interested: > >> - Who is planning to use this EPP extension for ENUM? > >> - Who cannot use this extensions and what are the reasons? > >> > >> Looking forward for lots of comments! > >> > >> > >> cheers, > >> Bernie Hoeneisen, Switch, Project Manager ENUM > >> > > > From Richard.Stastny at oefeg.at Tue Jun 7 10:21:39 2005 From: Richard.Stastny at oefeg.at (Stastny Richard) Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2005 10:21:39 +0200 Subject: [enum-wg] Discuss: draft-hoeneisen-enum-validation-epp-01 Message-ID: <32755D354E6B65498C3BD9FD496C7D4613BF27@oefeg-s04.oefeg.loc> Thanks Axel for this clarification. To clarify this issue, I would propose to change the filename of your draft slightly eg by adding -arch or token Nevertheless there seems to be some overlap. I would suggest that you and Bernie get together and make a proposal for the next IETF on the enum list:to Rich regarding the aganda 1. to make both documents WG items eventually one on standards track and one informational. 2. eventually to move some parts from one document to the other to make them consistent. This could be discussed in Paris. Any comments, Rich? best regards Richard ________________________________ Von: enum-wg-admin at ripe.net im Auftrag von Alexander Mayrhofer Gesendet: Di 07.06.2005 09:21 An: Andrzej Bartosiewicz Cc: Bernie Hoeneisen; enum-wg at ripe.net Betreff: Re: [enum-wg] Discuss: draft-hoeneisen-enum-validation-epp-01 Andrzej Bartosiewicz wrote: > Bernie, Alexander, > > I'm really interested how similar/different are Switch and ENUM.AT > (draft-mayrhofer-enum-validation-01) solutions... > > Could you guys enumerate the major differences and similarities between > your implementations (Internet-Drafts)? Hi Andrzej and all, first of all, i would like to make sure that we (SWITCH / enum.at) are not competing in terms of validation standards - we are of course talking to each other, and have been working together on the drafts as well. Our intention is to provide a validation infrastructure on which the industry can agree on - my vision is that a registrar working with a registry in at least the EU does not have to take a steep learning curve for each new registry he's talking to. The two drafts cover?quite different parts of the validation "business" (Bernie, i'd like you to correct me if there'S anything wrong with my description): - draft-hoeneisen-enum-validation-epp-01 covers how to embed validation information as an extension in EPP. Additionally, it covers a few validation related fields, which are transported in the extension. The extension itself allows extending the validation related data to additional fields (see Section 4.4) - draft-mayrhofer-enum-validation-00 covers general validation architecture (which might be out of scope for an IETF draft, please comment), and provides a so called "validation token" - an (optionally cryptographically signed) XML document which is used to transport validation related information beyond that specified in bernie's draft. Any feedback on this draft is very much appreciated since i'm going to provide an update of this document for the upcoming IETF. So, those 2 drafts don't contradict each other - they can easily be used together for eg. transporting a validation token via EPP. Once again, i'd appreciate any comments on this - we've been using the validation token in ENUM procudtion enviroments since about half a year, and didn't experience any architectural problems. We are going to adapt the data scheme a bit, eg. we're going to add a "credential" section, where the registrar can provide eg. a passwort, a client certificate fingerprint, IMSI, etc. which the subscriber can in turn use to identify himself upon revalidation. hope that helps cheers Alex Mayrhofer enum.at From bhoeneis at switch.ch Tue Jun 7 11:08:17 2005 From: bhoeneis at switch.ch (Bernie Hoeneisen) Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2005 11:08:17 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [enum-wg] Discuss: draft-hoeneisen-enum-validation-epp-01 In-Reply-To: <32755D354E6B65498C3BD9FD496C7D4613BF27@oefeg-s04.oefeg.loc> References: <32755D354E6B65498C3BD9FD496C7D4613BF27@oefeg-s04.oefeg.loc> Message-ID: Hi Richard,Axel, et al., On Tue, 7 Jun 2005, Stastny Richard wrote: > Nevertheless there seems to be some overlap. So far I have been in the strong believe that since -01 verison of draft-hoeneisen-enum-validation-epp there is no longer overlap between the two drafts. I have split it up into two schemas, one for extending EPP by validation information elements and the other for the validation information itself (which is usually policy dependent). The latter is just a simple example in draft-hoeneisen-enum-validation-epp, whereas the solution in draft-mayrhofer-enum-validation is more advanced, and can use the former schema for transport with EPP. However, I might have overseen something. May I ask you which parts you think are still overlapping? > I would suggest > that you and Bernie get together and make a proposal for > the next IETF on the enum list:to Rich regarding the aganda > 1. to make both documents WG items eventually one on standards track and one > informational. > 2. eventually to move some parts from one document to the other > to make them consistent. This could be discussed in Paris. I'd suggest to split up draft-mayrhofer-enum-validation into two drafts: - One describing the general stuff about validation such as roles, duties, interfaces of the involved parties in the validation process. - The other draft would specify the validation token solution of enum.at The scope of draft-hoeneisen-enum-validation-epp would be kept limited to an EPP extension for adding ENUM Validation information elements / tokens. What do you think about this, Axel? cheers, Bernie > > Any comments, Rich? > > best regards > Richard > > ________________________________ > > Von: enum-wg-admin at ripe.net im Auftrag von Alexander Mayrhofer > Gesendet: Di 07.06.2005 09:21 > An: Andrzej Bartosiewicz > Cc: Bernie Hoeneisen; enum-wg at ripe.net > Betreff: Re: [enum-wg] Discuss: draft-hoeneisen-enum-validation-epp-01 > > > > Andrzej Bartosiewicz wrote: >> Bernie, Alexander, >> >> I'm really interested how similar/different are Switch and ENUM.AT >> (draft-mayrhofer-enum-validation-01) solutions... >> >> Could you guys enumerate the major differences and similarities between >> your implementations (Internet-Drafts)? > > Hi Andrzej and all, > > first of all, i would like to make sure that we (SWITCH / enum.at) are > not competing in terms of validation standards - we are of course > talking to each other, and have been working together on the drafts as > well. Our intention is to provide a validation infrastructure on which > the industry can agree on - my vision is that a registrar working with a > registry in at least the EU does not have to take a steep learning curve > for each new registry he's talking to. > > The two drafts cover?quite different parts of the validation "business" > (Bernie, i'd like you to correct me if there'S anything wrong with my > description): > > - draft-hoeneisen-enum-validation-epp-01 covers how to embed validation > information as an extension in EPP. Additionally, it covers a few > validation related fields, which are transported in the extension. The > extension itself allows extending the validation related data to > additional fields (see Section 4.4) > > - draft-mayrhofer-enum-validation-00 covers general validation > architecture (which might be out of scope for an IETF draft, please > comment), and provides a so called "validation token" - an (optionally > cryptographically signed) XML document which is used to transport > validation related information beyond that specified in bernie's draft. > Any feedback on this draft is very much appreciated since i'm going to > provide an update of this document for the upcoming IETF. > > So, those 2 drafts don't contradict each other - they can easily be used > together for eg. transporting a validation token via EPP. > > Once again, i'd appreciate any comments on this - we've been using the > validation token in ENUM procudtion enviroments since about half a year, > and didn't experience any architectural problems. We are going to adapt > the data scheme a bit, eg. we're going to add a "credential" section, > where the registrar can provide eg. a passwort, a client certificate > fingerprint, IMSI, etc. which the subscriber can in turn use to identify > himself upon revalidation. > > hope that helps > > cheers > > Alex Mayrhofer > enum.at > > > > From enumvoipsip.cs at schiefner.de Thu Jun 9 22:28:24 2005 From: enumvoipsip.cs at schiefner.de (Carsten Schiefner) Date: Thu, 09 Jun 2005 22:28:24 +0200 Subject: [enum-wg] ENUM WG draft minutes RIPE 50 rev. 1 Message-ID: <42A8A668.5050006@schiefner.de> Dear all, thanks to Oleg Muravskiy of the RIPE NCC for taking the minutes. The first draft is available at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/wg/enum/minutes/r50-minutes.html Please send in any comments and/or corrections you may have. Thanks and best regards, Carsten Schiefner From bhoeneis at switch.ch Mon Jun 13 16:10:24 2005 From: bhoeneis at switch.ch (Bernie Hoeneisen) Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2005 16:10:24 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [enum-wg] Discuss: draft-hoeneisen-enum-validation-epp-01 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Edward! On Mon, 6 Jun 2005, Edward Lewis wrote: >> * http://ietf.hoeneisen.ch/draft-hoeneisen-enum-validation-epp-01.txt > > 1) In 4.5.1 and 4.5.2, you refer to "The Registry". By this I assume you > mean the server-side organization of the EPP connection and not IANA. Yes, with Registry I always mean the EPP Server side and not IANA. Maybe I should think about an additional definitions section or refer the the definitions in the enum.at draft. > 2) s/The validation process shall ensure,/The validation process shall > ensure/ (The "dreaded extraneous comma.") Yep! Will be corrected in the next version. Thanks for your feedback! cheers, Bernie From Niall.oReilly at ucd.ie Tue Jun 21 00:22:56 2005 From: Niall.oReilly at ucd.ie (Niall O'Reilly) Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2005 23:22:56 +0100 Subject: [enum-wg] FYI: new list for ENUM +353 Interest Group Message-ID: Hello RIPE ENUM-WG-ers. Some of you may be interested to know that the ENUM +353 Interest Group mailing list has recently been set up. Membership of this list is entirely open, as is access to the archives. Sending of messages to the list is restricted to those who are already members. Archives are at https://listserv.heanet.ie/enum-353-ig.html. Best regards, Niall O'Reilly UCD Computing Services PGP key ID: AE995ED9 (see www.pgp.net) Fingerprint: 23DC C6DE 8874 2432 2BE0 3905 7987 E48D AE99 5ED9 From jim at rfc1035.com Tue Jun 21 16:51:56 2005 From: jim at rfc1035.com (Jim Reid) Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2005 15:51:56 +0100 Subject: [enum-wg] FYI: new list for ENUM +353 Interest Group In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <870cc4c79578fedfa2a741af4081c1e5@rfc1035.com> On Jun 20, 2005, at 23:22, Niall O'Reilly wrote: > Hello RIPE ENUM-WG-ers. > > Some of you may be interested to know that the ENUM +353 Interest Group > mailing list has recently been set up. Niall, could you please expand on this a little? Is this list open to anyone interested in Irish ENUM developments or is it just for those who took part in the Irish trial? Does this new list have any impact on future ENUM stuff in Ireland such as migation to a production service, progresing unresolved issues from the trial, etc, etc? I'd like to know more about the list's purpose before deciding to join or not. From Niall.oReilly at ucd.ie Tue Jun 21 19:17:02 2005 From: Niall.oReilly at ucd.ie (Niall O'Reilly) Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2005 18:17:02 +0100 Subject: [enum-wg] FYI: new list for ENUM +353 Interest Group In-Reply-To: <870cc4c79578fedfa2a741af4081c1e5@rfc1035.com> References: <870cc4c79578fedfa2a741af4081c1e5@rfc1035.com> Message-ID: <5e71e7bf95f61e8b558d37cb6231aff9@ucd.ie> Jim, Thanks for asking. I'll give terse answers to your questions in context, then a fuller explanation. On 21 Jun 2005, at 15:51, Jim Reid wrote: > On Jun 20, 2005, at 23:22, Niall O'Reilly wrote: > >> Hello RIPE ENUM-WG-ers. >> >> Some of you may be interested to know that the ENUM +353 Interest >> Group >> mailing list has recently been set up. > > Niall, could you please expand on this a little? Is this list open to > anyone interested in Irish ENUM developments Yes. > or is it just for those who took part in the Irish trial? Not just those. > Does this new list have any impact on future ENUM stuff in Ireland > such as migation to a production service, progresing unresolved issues > from the trial, etc, etc? Not directly, but see below. > I'd like to know more about the list's purpose before deciding to join > or not. Indeed. As you probably know, the Irish ENUM Trial formally ended at the end of March. The Final Report of the Irish ENUM Forum is in preparation and will appear soon. ComReg set a deadline of 15 June for expressions of interest in moving towards commercialization. A number of such expressions were received, and ComReg declared "game on". The alternative, in default of any expression of interest, was to stall for 18 months. We are setting up a Policy Advisory Board (PAB), whose job will be to address issues either raised in the Final Report or otherwise recognized as we prepare for commercialization. The PAB will meet from time to time as necessary, and will use a private mailing list for advancing its work outside of meetings. The Interest Group mailing list will be used for a number of purposes: - nomination of PAB members; - input to the PAB from the wider community of interest; - announcements from time to time by the PAB; - suggestions from and discussion by the membership. A third list is also in place, where strictly operational issues can be dealt with separately. So far, the PAB has a Chair (myself) and representatives of ComReg and MCI. Further nominations are welcome from those who can show themselves to be stakeholders rather than interested onlookers. For transparency, nominations should be sent to the Interest Group list, ENUM-353-IG at listserv.heanet.ie. Thus _nominations_ to the PAB are made in public. I shall exercise discretion in accepting nominations, and may insist on being convinced of the case for any nominee. In case of doubt, contact me first. Or, to put it another way: ENUM-353-IG: shop window; ENUM-353-PAB: cognac and cigars; ENUM-353-OPS: plant room. I hope this answers your questions, Jim. /Niall From jim at rfc1035.com Tue Jun 21 20:54:53 2005 From: jim at rfc1035.com (Jim Reid) Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2005 19:54:53 +0100 Subject: [enum-wg] FYI: new list for ENUM +353 Interest Group In-Reply-To: <5e71e7bf95f61e8b558d37cb6231aff9@ucd.ie> References: <870cc4c79578fedfa2a741af4081c1e5@rfc1035.com> <5e71e7bf95f61e8b558d37cb6231aff9@ucd.ie> Message-ID: <83750abec56bb9ec465e85c6336d18a7@rfc1035.com> Thanks for the detailed clarification Niall. From enumvoipsip.cs at schiefner.de Thu Jun 23 19:32:32 2005 From: enumvoipsip.cs at schiefner.de (Carsten Schiefner) Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2005 19:32:32 +0200 Subject: [enum-wg] Call for RIPE 50 agenda topics Message-ID: <42BAF230.70609@schiefner.de> Dear all, this is the first call for agenda items for the ENUM WG meeting at RIPE 51 in Amsterdam. Please send in suggestions and proposals. Thanks and best regards, Carsten Schiefner From enumvoipsip.cs at schiefner.de Thu Jun 23 21:14:43 2005 From: enumvoipsip.cs at schiefner.de (Carsten Schiefner) Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2005 21:14:43 +0200 Subject: CORRECTION: [enum-wg] Call for RIPE 51(!) agenda topics Message-ID: <42BB0A23.3020806@schiefner.de> [Apologies...] Dear all, this is the first call for agenda items for the ENUM WG meeting at RIPE 51 in Amsterdam. Please send in suggestions and proposals. Thanks and best regards, Carsten Schiefner