From enumvoipsip.cs at schiefner.de Fri Sep 1 15:16:34 2006 From: enumvoipsip.cs at schiefner.de (Carsten Schiefner) Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2006 15:16:34 +0200 Subject: [enum-wg] Next German "ENUM day" held on 26 September 2006 Message-ID: <44F832B2.7070600@schiefner.de> Dear colleagues, this is to inform you that DENIC, registry for .de and 9.4.e164.arpa, will hold its next public ENUM day on 26 September 2006 between 10:30 and approx. 17:00 in Frankfurt at the hotel "Le Meridien". The agenda is currently being finalized and will be posted shortly. For further information, please consult DENIC's website at: http://www.denic.de/de/enum/veranstaltungen/denic_enum-tage/ (German) http://www.denic.de/en/enum/veranstaltungen/denic_enum-tage/ (English) - the pages will be updated as soon as new and/or more information is available. You are invited to forward this announcement to your local ENUM communities. Thanks and best regards, Carsten From enumvoipsip.cs at schiefner.de Sun Sep 3 15:38:21 2006 From: enumvoipsip.cs at schiefner.de (Carsten Schiefner) Date: Sun, 03 Sep 2006 15:38:21 +0200 Subject: [enum-wg] Documentation of ENUM requests Message-ID: <44FADACD.2070408@schiefner.de> Dear colleagues, this is to start a discussion - if necessary - on how the RIPE NCC is supposed to document ENUM requests. As a short recap: 1.6 of the "IAB Instructions to the RIPE NCC Regarding operation of the domain e164.arpa ("ENUM")" [http://www.ripe.net/enum/instructions.html] mandates that "all communication regarding the application for a specific delegation is to be publicly archived". That used to be done from the overview page at: http://www.ripe.net/enum/request-archives/ by a link to the respective E.164 CC specific page, eg. Germany at: http://www.ripe.net/enum/request-archives/enum-request-arch+49/ An archived snapshot of the overview page is available at: http://web.archive.org/web/20030826073846/http://www.ripe.net/enum/request-archives/index.html The RIPE NCC has now proposed a way of documentation where - instead of having a separate page per E.164 CC request - the overview page links to ZIP archives that would contain all sorts of communication like emails, scanned letters and faxes etc. pp. I intend to set the deadline for this discussion to the WG session at RIPE 53 - please be invited to voice any concerns, suggenstions etc. here on the list until then. Best, Carsten Schiefner From enumvoipsip.cs at schiefner.de Mon Sep 4 13:29:13 2006 From: enumvoipsip.cs at schiefner.de (Carsten Schiefner) Date: Mon, 04 Sep 2006 13:29:13 +0200 Subject: [enum-wg] ENUM WG Agenda for RIPE 53: 2nd call for input Message-ID: <44FC0E09.7090304@schiefner.de> Dear colleagues, after a bit more than a fortnight, I'd like to renew our call for input to the RIPE 53 ENUM WG session in Amsterdam on Thursday, 5 Oct 2006. Once more: bring your ideas to our attention, either via this list or by sending an email to . Thanks and best - on behalf of Niall as well as myself, Carsten Schiefner Co-Chair, RIPE ENUM Working Group -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [enum-wg] ENUM WG Agenda for RIPE 53: call for input Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2006 16:20:57 +0100 From: Niall O'Reilly To: enum-wg at ripe.net CC: Niall O'Reilly , enum-wg-chair at ripe.net Dear ENUM-WGers, As you may already have noticed, RIPE 53 begins in just over 6 weeks. Carsten and I, your co-chairs, have already started to approach the "usual suspects" whom we count on for some of the presentations. We would very much appreciate your suggestions for material you would like to see presented (or, better yet, would be prepared to present). Please, don't be shy! If you count yourself among the "usual suspects", and haven't heard from either of us yet, do feel free to contact us before we contact you. We're looking forward to seeing as many of you as possible in Amsterdam. Best regards, on behalf of Carsten as well as myself, Niall O'Reilly Co-Chair, RIPE ENUM Working Group From Antoin.Verschuren at sidn.nl Mon Sep 4 14:26:40 2006 From: Antoin.Verschuren at sidn.nl (Antoin Verschuren) Date: Mon, 4 Sep 2006 14:26:40 +0200 Subject: [enum-wg] New Documents available: RIPE-384, RIPE-385 Message-ID: Guys, I have some sentimental issues with the new ENUM request forms as I found out when I had to use them last week. The new ENUM registrations ask to register an Organisation holding the registration. This "Organisation" template, has a "org-type:" field. RIPE tells me to fill in "NON-REGISTRY" in this field. I'm aware that we are not an RIR, LIR or NIR as in the RIR world, but I do feel the term "NON-REGISTRY" a bit degrading as we are the registry for .nl and soon hopefully for ENUM. Can we invent a new term to use for official ENUM tier-1 registries here ? Antoin Verschuren Technical Advisor Policy & Business Development SIDN Utrechtseweg 310 PO Box 5022 6802 EA Arnhem The Netherlands T +31 26 3525510 F +31 26 3525505 M +31 6 23368970 E antoin.verschuren at sidn.nl W http://www.sidn.nl/ From robert.schischka at enum.at Tue Sep 5 16:12:48 2006 From: robert.schischka at enum.at (Robert Schischka Enum) Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2006 16:12:48 +0200 Subject: [enum-wg] RE: enum-wg digest, Vol 1 #184 - 2 msgs In-Reply-To: <20060905100004.4964.35840.Mailman@postboy.ripe.net> Message-ID: <8BC845943058D844ABFC73D2220D46650594914D@nics-mail.sbg.nic.at> Hi Carsten, I will be in Amsterdam and can give a short presentation on infrastructure ENUM in +43. Cheers, -robert. ------------------------------------------------------------- Robert Schischka enum.at GmbH Karlsplatz 1/2/9 A-1010 Vienna Austria Email: Robert.Schischka at enum.at Telefon +43 (1) 505 64 16 - 15 Fax +43 (1) 505 64 16 - 19 Mobile: +43 664 913 47 78 > -----Original Message----- > From: enum-wg-admin at ripe.net [mailto:enum-wg-admin at ripe.net] > On Behalf Of enum-wg-request at ripe.net > Sent: Tuesday, September 05, 2006 12:00 PM > To: enum-wg at ripe.net > Subject: enum-wg digest, Vol 1 #184 - 2 msgs > > Send enum-wg mailing list submissions to > enum-wg at ripe.net > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > http://www.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/enum-wg > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > enum-wg-request at ripe.net > > You can reach the person managing the list at > enum-wg-admin at ripe.net > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more > specific than "Re: Contents of enum-wg digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. ENUM WG Agenda for RIPE 53: 2nd call for input (Carsten > Schiefner) > 2. New Documents available: RIPE-384, RIPE-385 (Antoin Verschuren) > > --__--__-- > > Message: 1 > Date: Mon, 04 Sep 2006 13:29:13 +0200 > From: Carsten Schiefner > To: enum-wg at ripe.net > CC: enum-wg-chair at ripe.net > Subject: [enum-wg] ENUM WG Agenda for RIPE 53: 2nd call for input > > Dear colleagues, > > after a bit more than a fortnight, I'd like to renew our call > for input to the RIPE 53 ENUM WG session in Amsterdam on > Thursday, 5 Oct 2006. > > Once more: bring your ideas to our attention, either via this > list or by sending an email to . > > Thanks and best - on behalf of Niall as well as myself, > > Carsten Schiefner > Co-Chair, RIPE ENUM Working Group > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: [enum-wg] ENUM WG Agenda for RIPE 53: call for input > Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2006 16:20:57 +0100 > From: Niall O'Reilly > To: enum-wg at ripe.net > CC: Niall O'Reilly , enum-wg-chair at ripe.net > > Dear ENUM-WGers, > > As you may already have noticed, RIPE 53 begins in just over 6 weeks. > Carsten and I, your co-chairs, have already started to > approach the "usual suspects" whom we count on for some of > the presentations. > We would very much appreciate your suggestions for material > you would like to see presented (or, better yet, would be > prepared to present). > Please, don't be shy! > > If you count yourself among the "usual suspects", and haven't > heard from either of us yet, do feel free to contact us > before we contact you. > > We're looking forward to seeing as many of you as possible in > Amsterdam. > > Best regards, on behalf of Carsten as well as myself, > > > Niall O'Reilly > Co-Chair, RIPE ENUM Working Group > > > --__--__-- > > Message: 2 > Subject: [enum-wg] New Documents available: RIPE-384, RIPE-385 > Date: Mon, 4 Sep 2006 14:26:40 +0200 > From: "Antoin Verschuren" > To: > Cc: > > Guys, > > I have some sentimental issues with the new ENUM request > forms as I found out when I had to use them last week. > > The new ENUM registrations ask to register an Organisation > holding the registration. > > This "Organisation" template, has a "org-type:" field. > RIPE tells me to fill in "NON-REGISTRY" in this field. > > I'm aware that we are not an RIR, LIR or NIR as in the RIR > world, but I do feel the term "NON-REGISTRY" a bit degrading > as we are the registry for .nl and soon hopefully for ENUM. > > Can we invent a new term to use for official ENUM tier-1 > registries here ? > > Antoin Verschuren > > Technical Advisor > Policy & Business Development > SIDN > Utrechtseweg 310 > PO Box 5022 > 6802 EA Arnhem > The Netherlands > > T +31 26 3525510 > F +31 26 3525505 > M +31 6 23368970 > E antoin.verschuren at sidn.nl > W http://www.sidn.nl/=20 > > > > > End of enum-wg Digest > > > From katie at ripe.net Wed Sep 6 16:52:17 2006 From: katie at ripe.net (Katie Petrusha) Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2006 16:52:17 +0200 Subject: [enum-wg] New Documents available: RIPE-384, RIPE-385] In-Reply-To: <44FC216B.4070703@ripe.net> References: <44FC216B.4070703@ripe.net> Message-ID: <20060906145217.GB15517@ripe.net> Dear Antoin, It is certainly possible to add a new organisation object type, like "ENUM", to be specifically used by the ENUM registries. This would involve the changes to the RIPE Database. I suggest you to contact ENUM-WG and DB-WG working group chairs to check first whether this change would require only a mailing list consensus or PDP, and then maybe put together a proposal for ENUM-WG and DB-WG and submit it to the appropriate mailing lists. -- Katie Petrusha RIPE NCC > > From: "Antoin Verschuren" > > Date: 4 September 2006 2:26:40PM GMT+02:00 > > To: > > Cc: > > Subject: [enum-wg] New Documents available: RIPE-384, RIPE-385 > > Message-Id: > > > > Guys, > > > > I have some sentimental issues with the new ENUM request forms as I > > found out when I had to use them last week. > > > > The new ENUM registrations ask to register an Organisation holding the > > registration. > > > > This "Organisation" template, has a "org-type:" field. > > RIPE tells me to fill in "NON-REGISTRY" in this field. > > > > I'm aware that we are not an RIR, LIR or NIR as in the RIR world, > > but I > > do feel the term "NON-REGISTRY" a bit degrading as we are the registry > > for .nl and soon hopefully for ENUM. > > > > Can we invent a new term to use for official ENUM tier-1 registries > > here > > ? > > > > Antoin Verschuren > > > > Technical Advisor > > Policy & Business Development > > SIDN > > Utrechtseweg 310 > > PO Box 5022 > > 6802 EA Arnhem > > The Netherlands > > > > T +31 26 3525510 > > F +31 26 3525505 > > M +31 6 23368970 > > E antoin.verschuren at sidn.nl > > W http://www.sidn.nl/ From enumvoipsip.cs at schiefner.de Wed Sep 6 20:41:12 2006 From: enumvoipsip.cs at schiefner.de (Carsten Schiefner) Date: Wed, 06 Sep 2006 20:41:12 +0200 Subject: [enum-wg] RE: enum-wg digest, Vol 1 #184 - 2 msgs In-Reply-To: <8BC845943058D844ABFC73D2220D46650594914D@nics-mail.sbg.nic.at> References: <8BC845943058D844ABFC73D2220D46650594914D@nics-mail.sbg.nic.at> Message-ID: <44FF1648.6010209@schiefner.de> Hi Robert, Robert Schischka Enum wrote: > I will be in Amsterdam and can give a short presentation on > infrastructure ENUM in +43. great - thank you. :-) Cheers, -C. From Niall.oReilly at ucd.ie Fri Sep 8 11:13:47 2006 From: Niall.oReilly at ucd.ie (Niall O'Reilly) Date: Fri, 08 Sep 2006 10:13:47 +0100 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] Re: [enum-wg] New Documents available: RIPE-384, RIPE-385] In-Reply-To: <20060906145217.GB15517@ripe.net> References: <44FC216B.4070703@ripe.net> <20060906145217.GB15517@ripe.net> Message-ID: <8AE2BBC2-A72A-4B0A-AABE-4F8AF68AD315@ucd.ie> On 6 Sep 2006, at 15:52, Katie Petrusha wrote: > It is certainly possible to add a new organisation object type, > like "ENUM", to be specifically used by the ENUM registries. > This would involve the changes to the RIPE Database. > > I suggest you to contact ENUM-WG and DB-WG working group chairs > to check first whether this change would require > only a mailing list consensus or PDP, and then maybe put together > a proposal for ENUM-WG and DB-WG and submit it to the appropriate > mailing lists. I'm leaving my wg-co-chair hat off, for now. I'm disappointed that the RIPE-NCC hasn't seen fit to make a more pro-active response in this case. In agreeing to become the ENUM Tier-0 DNS Operator, the RIPE-NCC deliberately (if perhaps implicitly) created a new service and a new category of customer. The RIPE-NCC appears to have assumed (and, if so, quite reasonably) that existing tools and procedures would be adequate to support the (formally, if subtly) different business processes involved in dealing appropriately with customers belonging to this new category. Only recently are some of these customers beginning to need to deal rather formally with the RIPE-NCC. Consequently, they are starting to drive the corresponding business processes. So far, a single trivial, but significant, example has come to light of a mismatch between what is currently possible using existing tools and procedures and what is appropriate in dealing with a customer belonging to this category. This should come as no great surprise; the unexpected will happen in any new activity. It seems to me that having appropriate processes, including appropriate language, in place for dealing with each category of customer is an operational imperative for the RIPE-NCC, and that the RIPE-NCC should take the initiative to deal with any inadequacy in this area. Consider the following parable. The first customer arrives in a new data-centre to rack some equipment, only to find that the air- conditioning plant has not yet been switched on, and brings this to the attention of the escorting data-centre employee. What should the data-centre employee do: reach for the switch, or rather ask the customer to prepare a proposal for agreement among the other interested parties which would provide a policy framework within which the switch could be moved from its existing position? I see this as an operational matter for the ENUM Tier-0 DNS Operator. It's not technical; customer relations are part of operations, too. Best regards, Niall O'Reilly University College Dublin Computing Services PGP key ID: AE995ED9 (see www.pgp.net) Fingerprint: 23DC C6DE 8874 2432 2BE0 3905 7987 E48D AE99 5ED9 From andrei at ripe.net Fri Sep 8 13:57:56 2006 From: andrei at ripe.net (Andrei Robachevsky) Date: Fri, 08 Sep 2006 13:57:56 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] Re: [enum-wg] New Documents available: RIPE-384, RIPE-385] In-Reply-To: <8AE2BBC2-A72A-4B0A-AABE-4F8AF68AD315@ucd.ie> References: <44FC216B.4070703@ripe.net> <20060906145217.GB15517@ripe.net> <8AE2BBC2-A72A-4B0A-AABE-4F8AF68AD315@ucd.ie> Message-ID: <45015AC4.9070902@ripe.net> Dear Niall, Antoin, Niall O'Reilly wrote: > > On 6 Sep 2006, at 15:52, Katie Petrusha wrote: > >> It is certainly possible to add a new organisation object type, >> like "ENUM", to be specifically used by the ENUM registries. >> This would involve the changes to the RIPE Database. >> >> I suggest you to contact ENUM-WG and DB-WG working group chairs >> to check first whether this change would require >> only a mailing list consensus or PDP, and then maybe put together >> a proposal for ENUM-WG and DB-WG and submit it to the appropriate >> mailing lists. > > I'm leaving my wg-co-chair hat off, for now. > > I'm disappointed that the RIPE-NCC hasn't seen fit to make a more > pro-active response in this case. > > In agreeing to become the ENUM Tier-0 DNS Operator, the RIPE-NCC > deliberately (if perhaps implicitly) created a new service and a > new category of customer. The RIPE-NCC appears to have assumed > (and, if so, quite reasonably) that existing tools and procedures > would be adequate to support the (formally, if subtly) different > business processes involved in dealing appropriately with customers > belonging to this new category. > > Only recently are some of these customers beginning to need to deal > rather formally with the RIPE-NCC. Consequently, they are starting > to drive the corresponding business processes. So far, a single > trivial, but significant, example has come to light of a mismatch > between what is currently possible using existing tools and procedures > and what is appropriate in dealing with a customer belonging to this > category. This should come as no great surprise; the unexpected will > happen in any new activity. > > It seems to me that having appropriate processes, including appropriate > language, in place for dealing with each category of customer is an > operational imperative for the RIPE-NCC, and that the RIPE-NCC should > take the initiative to deal with any inadequacy in this area. > Thank you very much for your feedback and the valid points you brought up. I think we simply were not sure what would be the best way to have such discussion and to better understand the requirements, which may clarify or exceed a simple request for a new org type. That's why we suggested to ask wg-chairs for advice. You are right in saying that we should have been more proactive in asking this advice or preparing a proposal ourselves, which we can certainly do based on yours and probably upcoming feedback. > Consider the following parable. The first customer arrives in a new > data-centre to rack some equipment, only to find that the air-conditioning > plant has not yet been switched on, and brings this to the attention > of the escorting data-centre employee. What should the data-centre > employee do: reach for the switch, or rather ask the customer to prepare > a proposal for agreement among the other interested parties which would > provide a policy framework within which the switch could be moved from > its existing position? > > I see this as an operational matter for the ENUM Tier-0 DNS Operator. > It's not technical; customer relations are part of operations, too. > Yes, but in the case of the RIPE Database we'd rather err to be more formal because of high visibility of changes and dependencies. > > > > Best regards, > > Niall O'Reilly > University College Dublin Computing Services > > PGP key ID: AE995ED9 (see www.pgp.net) > Fingerprint: 23DC C6DE 8874 2432 2BE0 3905 7987 E48D AE99 5ED9 > > > Regards, Andrei Robachevsky RIPE NCC From md at Linux.IT Fri Sep 8 14:50:28 2006 From: md at Linux.IT (Marco d'Itri) Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2006 14:50:28 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] Re: [enum-wg] New Documents available: RIPE-384, RIPE-385] In-Reply-To: <45015AC4.9070902@ripe.net> References: <44FC216B.4070703@ripe.net> <20060906145217.GB15517@ripe.net> <8AE2BBC2-A72A-4B0A-AABE-4F8AF68AD315@ucd.ie> <45015AC4.9070902@ripe.net> Message-ID: <20060908125028.GA8527@wonderland.linux.it> On Sep 08, Andrei Robachevsky wrote: > Yes, but in the case of the RIPE Database we'd rather err to be more > formal because of high visibility of changes and dependencies. I agree, thank you for bringing this issue to the appropriate WG. FWIW, I really cannot see a valid reason for such a change. It should be obvious that in the context of org-type attributes the words "NON-REGISTRY" have a specific meaning, which does not need to be the same (and cannot be the same!) of the semantic of the word "registry" in every other possible context. I would appreciate if RIPE NCC would not waste resources implementing and documenting new attribute values for every tiny group that feels to not be described in a sufficiently excruciating level of detail by the available choices. But maybe it's just me, and Mr. Verschuren should explain more clearly why he believes that the status of his organization as an ENUM registry should be relevant in the context of org-type attributes, possibly without resorting to "sentimental issues". -- ciao, Marco -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From Carsten.Schiefner at t-com.net Fri Sep 15 11:23:32 2006 From: Carsten.Schiefner at t-com.net (Schiefner, Carsten) Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2006 11:23:32 +0200 Subject: [enum-wg] Next German "ENUM day" held on 26 September 2006 Message-ID: <665519695E86E64190E6B57727F609120318F0F5@S4DE9JSAAHX.nord.t-com.de> Dear colleagues, > -----Original Message----- > From: Carsten Schiefner [mailto:enumvoipsip.cs at schiefner.de] > Sent: Friday, September 01, 2006 3:17 PM > To: enum-wg at ripe.net > Subject: [enum-wg] Next German "ENUM day" held on 26 September 2006 > > > Dear colleagues, > > this is to inform you that DENIC, registry for .de and 9.4.e164.arpa, > will hold its next public ENUM day on 26 September 2006 between 10:30 > and approx. 17:00 in Frankfurt at the hotel "Le Meridien". > > The agenda is currently being finalized and will be posted shortly. > > For further information, please consult DENIC's website at: > > http://www.denic.de/de/enum/veranstaltungen/denic_enum-tage/ (German) > http://www.denic.de/en/enum/veranstaltungen/denic_enum-tage/ (English) the (preliminary) agenda is now available at: http://www.denic.de/de/enum/allgemeines/veranstaltung/ENUM-Tag.html (German) http://www.denic.de/en/enum/allgemeines/veranstaltung/ENUM-Tag.html (English) Best regards, Carsten Schiefner -- Carsten Schiefner | p: +49 441 234-4571 Deutsche Telekom AG | f: +49 431 7163-3972 T-Com Zentrale TK44 | m: +49 151 14525458 Ammerl?nder Heerstr. 138 | mailto:Carsten.Schiefner at t-com.net D-26129 Oldenburg | http://www.t-com.de/kundendienst From Niall.oReilly at ucd.ie Mon Sep 18 17:07:23 2006 From: Niall.oReilly at ucd.ie (Niall O'Reilly) Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2006 16:07:23 +0100 Subject: [enum-wg] org-type: NON-REGISTRY (was: New Documents available: RIPE-384, RIPE-385) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7ED89B36-BD97-49C7-937B-E8B1AEF2618A@ucd.ie> [ WG Co-Chair hat on ] On 4 Sep 2006, at 13:26, Antoin Verschuren wrote: > I have some sentimental issues with the new ENUM request forms as I > found out when I had to use them last week. I'm pretty sure that, in English, "sentimental" is the wrong word and is likely to lead to confusion. I think I know what you mean. > The new ENUM registrations ask to register an Organisation holding the > registration. > > This "Organisation" template, has a "org-type:" field. > RIPE tells me to fill in "NON-REGISTRY" in this field. > > I'm aware that we are not an RIR, LIR or NIR as in the RIR world, > but I > do feel the term "NON-REGISTRY" a bit degrading as we are the registry > for .nl and soon hopefully for ENUM. > > Can we invent a new term to use for official ENUM tier-1 registries > here > ? The "optics" do indeed seem non-intuitive. 8-) If some ENUM tier-1 registry would take the initiative to put a proposal on the table, and a few sister organizations gave support, we could have consensus in the ENUM-WG in time to feed into the DB-WG agenda item: Y. Input from other WGs I think we have "all the ducks lined up", as the saying goes; we just need a proposal. Best regards, Niall O'Reilly Co-Chair, RIPE ENUM Working Group From pavel.tuma at nic.cz Thu Sep 21 11:39:41 2006 From: pavel.tuma at nic.cz (Pavel Tuma) Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 11:39:41 +0200 Subject: [enum-wg] +420/.0.2.4.e164.arpa ENUM launched into trial Message-ID: <3D1E768F-9CC9-408D-B262-B9D4B94D7412@nic.cz> FYI: CZ.NIC has launched +420/.0.2.4.e164.arpa User ENUM into public trial operation yesterday. Trial is meant only to fine tune validation processes and solve minor legal issues as the technology is proven and Tier1 registry model and provider was already chosen before the trial. End of trial and launch into full commercial operation is planned to January 2007. Press release is available at: http://www.nic.cz/en Currently there are (as of the launch date): - 80 domains registered from pre-trial stage (covering 320 550 phone numbers) - 4 registrars registering ENUM domains during trial - 2 telco operators supporting ENUM in their networks See http://enum.nic.cz for more information about ENUM in Czech Republic. Regards, -- Pavel Tuma Project manager | CZ.NIC, z.s.p.o. | Americka 23, 120 00 Praha 2 | Czech Republic | | T +420 222 745 113 | F +420 220 121 184 | M +420 739 093 901 | www.nic.cz From andrzejb at nask.pl Thu Sep 21 12:14:47 2006 From: andrzejb at nask.pl (Andrzej Bartosiewicz) Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 12:14:47 +0200 Subject: [enum-wg] +420/.0.2.4.e164.arpa ENUM launched into trial In-Reply-To: <3D1E768F-9CC9-408D-B262-B9D4B94D7412@nic.cz> Message-ID: <200609211012.k8LACUT2015227@boromir.nask.net.pl> Congratulations! Andrzej -----Original Message----- From: enum-wg-admin at ripe.net [mailto:enum-wg-admin at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Pavel Tuma Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2006 11:40 AM To: enum-wg at ripe.net Subject: [enum-wg] +420/.0.2.4.e164.arpa ENUM launched into trial FYI: CZ.NIC has launched +420/.0.2.4.e164.arpa User ENUM into public trial operation yesterday. Trial is meant only to fine tune validation processes and solve minor legal issues as the technology is proven and Tier1 registry model and provider was already chosen before the trial. End of trial and launch into full commercial operation is planned to January 2007. Press release is available at: http://www.nic.cz/en Currently there are (as of the launch date): - 80 domains registered from pre-trial stage (covering 320 550 phone numbers) - 4 registrars registering ENUM domains during trial - 2 telco operators supporting ENUM in their networks See http://enum.nic.cz for more information about ENUM in Czech Republic. Regards, -- Pavel Tuma Project manager | CZ.NIC, z.s.p.o. | Americka 23, 120 00 Praha 2 | Czech Republic | | T +420 222 745 113 | F +420 220 121 184 | M +420 739 093 901 | www.nic.cz From enumvoipsip.cs at schiefner.de Fri Sep 22 11:32:44 2006 From: enumvoipsip.cs at schiefner.de (Carsten Schiefner) Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2006 11:32:44 +0200 Subject: [enum-wg] +420/.0.2.4.e164.arpa ENUM launched into trial In-Reply-To: <3D1E768F-9CC9-408D-B262-B9D4B94D7412@nic.cz> References: <3D1E768F-9CC9-408D-B262-B9D4B94D7412@nic.cz> Message-ID: <4513ADBC.1020108@schiefner.de> Pavel and NIC.CZ team, Pavel Tuma wrote: > CZ.NIC has launched +420/.0.2.4.e164.arpa User ENUM into public trial > operation yesterday. Trial is meant only to fine tune validation > processes and solve minor legal issues as the technology is proven and > Tier1 registry model and provider was already chosen before the trial. > End of trial and launch into full commercial operation is planned to > January 2007. > > [...] this is great news! A successful conduct of the trial and a smooth transition to commercial operation then. Best, Carsten (on behalf of the RIPE ENUM WG Co-Chairs) From Niall.oReilly at ucd.ie Mon Sep 25 16:46:55 2006 From: Niall.oReilly at ucd.ie (Niall O'Reilly) Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2006 15:46:55 +0100 Subject: [enum-wg] Draft ENUM WG agenda for RIPE 53 In-Reply-To: <4517D32F.70306@ripe.net> References: <4517D32F.70306@ripe.net> Message-ID: <7E7224A2-3E86-464D-8AE1-2B45F6086DFD@ucd.ie> Dear all, Here is the draft agenda for the ENUM-WG at RIPE 53. Figures in parentheses indicate the time allowed for each item, including questions; late adjustments may still happen. Admin (15): Chair: Confirm agenda, minutes, actions (5) Chair: I/O other WGs (5) Carsten Schiefner: Quality TF (5) Operations (15, cumulative 30): Brett Carr: RIPE NCC update (15) Field Reports (30, cumulative 60): Ondrej Filip: CZ (10) Sungwoo Shin: Korea/Pacific (10) Antoin Verschuren: NL +31 (10) Architecture (30, cumulative 90): Robert Schischka: Infra/Ops (15) Patrik F?ltstr?m: 3761bis (15) I'm looking forward to seeing you next week in Amsterdam. Best regards, Niall O'Reilly Co-Chair, RIPE ENUM Working Group From enumvoipsip.cs at schiefner.de Tue Sep 26 16:00:21 2006 From: enumvoipsip.cs at schiefner.de (Carsten Schiefner) Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2006 16:00:21 +0200 Subject: [enum-wg] RIPE 52 draft minutes In-Reply-To: <440EEB98.4020104@schiefner.de> References: <6F570226-3750-4C95-BFC2-C460341907A6@ucd.ie> <440EEB98.4020104@schiefner.de> Message-ID: <45193275.10906@schiefner.de> Dear colleagues - First of all, our sincerest apologies for not having posted the minutes earlier - we definitely see room for improvement here... Secondly, a warm "Thank you!" to Alex Le Heux of the RIPE NCC for taking the minutes. The first draft is available at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/wg/enum/minutes/r52-minutes.html Please send in any comments and/or corrections you may have to this list directly and/or to , the deadline for this is Tuesday, 3 Oct 2006, 12:00 UTC/14:00 Amsterdam local time. Further objections acceped in person at WG session, with immediate decision on dealing with them at the meeting (could need more time on list). In the absence of any objections, the minutes will be declared "final" Monday, 9 Oct 2006. Best, Carsten (on behalf of the ENUM WG Co-Chairs) === ENUM Working Group Minutes from RIPE 52 RIPE Meeting: 52 Working Group: ENUM Status: Draft Revision Number: 1 * content to enum-wg-chair at ripe.net * format to webmaster at ripe.net RIPE 52 - Ceylon Intercontinental Hotel - Bosphorus II - 20060427 - 14:00-15:30 Session Chair: Niall O?Reilly Scribe: Alex Le Heux (RIPE NCC) Jabber: Catherine Carr (RIPE NCC) Webcast and Feedback Archives: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-52/sessions-archive.html A: Chair - Start: 14:04 Administrivia: Welcome, Scribe, Jabberwok Niall O'Reilly: Welcome everyone. B: Chair - Start: 14:05 Minutes ENUM-WG at RIPE 51 Niall O'Reilly: There were no extra comments. Any objections? Silence. Minutes RIPE 51 approved. C: Chair - Start: 14:06 Review Action List Niall O'Reilly: 51.2: Carsten has let the RIPE NCC know the missing links and the RIPE NCC is following up -> Action Item 52.1 51.3: Not needed. Done. Niall O'Reilly: Please do boring stuff in between the meetings, so we can do interesting stuff at the meetings. 51.7: Thanks to everyone who helped the Austrians with testing the +43780, lots of people did. They couldn't come, but sent apologies. D: Chair - Start: 14:07 Short News (if any) Carsten Schiefner: No short news really. There is some news about IETF ENUM WG about standardisation. IETF takes infrastructure ENUM into account as well now. Two ideas: 1. Separate .arpa domain; 2. Follow the Austrian approach, branch location register in the normal e164.arpa tree. The problem is that there is only public user ENUM in e164.arpa, which isn't very helpful for infrastructure providers because in public user ENUM it is the user who decides first of all if he or she wants to be part of ENUM and register the phone number as ENUM domain, and secondly, the Infrastructure provider has no control over what the user puts there. For peering purposes there needs to be some infrastructure ENUM in place. The Dallas treaty solved this in Dallas: Short term: Follow branch location register approach. Long term: Separate 2nd level domain in .arpa. E: Leo Vegoda - Start: 14:10 RIPE NCC ENUM Report Presentation is at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-52/presentations/ripe52-enum-ncc-update.pdf Daniel Karrenberg: A comment: Total queries we get at the e164.arpa service is not the total ENUM queries. We should probably add a sentence saying so, before we see strange things in the media. Jim Reid: Are the statistics for the RIPE NCC's e164.arpa servers? Leo Vegoda: Yes, only the NCC's servers. Carsten Schiefner: Intention to gather other statistics from the other e164.arpa operators? Leo Vegoda: We didn't do that this time. From the minutes of RIPE 51 I thought just the RIPE NCC's statistics were enough. If there is demand, we can try to put something together. Niall O'Reilly: That's what you were asked for this meeting. It would be good maybe for RIPE 53. Action item 52.2 -> Widen the stats. Carsten Schiefner: Documentation of communications in a zip file proposal is fine for me. Is that fine with the group? Niall O'Reilly: To the list. Action item 52.3 -> Stimulate that on the list. F: Gerhard Schr?der - Start: 14:22 Follow-up on the Plenary presentation: ENUM and Security Presentation is at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-52/presentations/ripe52-plenary-enum-security.pdf Niall O'Reilly: Are there questions from the group? Gerhard Schr?der: Introduction to his plenary presentation. Maybe the presentation was at the wrong place. When we made the transit from classic telephony to SIP+ENUM, we wanted to know what the risks were. We have a lot of experience in ISDN telephony in security and misuse. Patrik F?ltstr?m, Cisco: A comment: You talked about infrastructure ENUM. In the IETF people think infrastructure ENUM are records that are visible in the public DNS. That's not the same definition as you use. PRESENTATIONS Karen Mulberry - Start: 14:26 G1: +1 Trial Presentation is at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-52/presentations/ripe52-enum-1.pdf Carsten Schiefner on Slide 4: Does the trial have an end date set already? Karen Mulberry: the idea is to have the trial run for 6 months, we need a waiver and numbers from the FCC. After that it takes 30 days. So we don't know when it begins and when it ends. Canada is also looking at starting a trial. Niall O'Reilly: Will you come often to the RIPE Meetings? Your timing is very good! Karen Mulberry: I'd love to! Martin Felt: Carriers are interested in interconnecting in North America, that needs to be solved and how ENUM will be used. The US Government guidelines state that there won't be infrastructure ENUM. In your mind, will that prevent everyone to come together? Karen Mulberry: The value is in the infrastructure ENUM, not really in the user ENUM today. Maybe in the future, but not right now. In essence what the USG said is that we authorised a delegation and we'll take it away if you don't do what we say. There will be an industry discussion about how to proceed, but first we will proceed with the e164.arpa trial as that will educate the government organisations and satisfy them. Daniel Karrenberg: In your trial there's not a lot of info about verification. Are you trialling that as well? Karen Mulberry: Two providers that are authentication/verification agents. We have lot of different databases that drive the public network. They are looking at what process to use, but we will work through it. Daniel Karrenberg: It will be in the trial? Karen Mulberry: Yes is will. It's also the concern of the FTC. Daniel Karrenberg: Two organisations that see business in this? Karen Mulberry: Yes, two ISPs that see opportunity in this. Gerhard Schr?der: Thank you Karen. One slide shows privacy/security! Thank you for this! I'd like to propose to add this security feature to the working list. Niall O'Reilly: I'm not sure what you have in mind. Gerhard Schr?der: It would be worthwhile to discuss security and privacy Issues in the WG. Niall O'Reilly: This is a problem of telco and data protection regulators. But it would be interesting to hear what is developing. We won't put this on our WG action list, but we will be making a call for the agenda at RIPE 53 with some interesting people. The privacy experts are not in the room, we're all technical people. Gerhard Schr?der: It's also a feature of a product. Karen Mulberry: In the US we're talking about contact info and DNSsec. We're not sure if we're going forward with that. Patrik F?ltstr?m, Cisco: When I hear people talk about privacy and ENUM, I feel that no fingerpointing is important. There are people in this room that mix up the ability of one organisation to find out what customers that a competitor has with the ability of organisation to know information about individuals. Gerhard Schr?der: Will DNSsec able to solve all sec features for ENUM? With DNSsec we can't make a trusted tree, just a trusted chain. We need to deal with the security for each user. Niall O'Reilly interrupts: We are out of time, let's move this to the mailing list. We don't have time to explore these questions in any meaningful way. Thank you Karen. Jim Reid - Start: 14:56 G3: Test bed numbers Presentation is at: URL: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-52/presentations/ripe52-enum-testbed.pdf Jim Reid: Does the WG care about a test bed, should we try to progress it? Working Group hums: Niall O'Reilly: Action Item 51.5 stays open for now. Niall O'Reilly: Would it help to have some allocations from other regulators? Jim Reid: Yes, it doesn't matter which numbers we get, just where they terminate. Niall O'Reilly: From the point of diversity? Jim Reid: I don't know. Niall O'Reilly: Let's move this to the mailing list. Jim Reid - Start: 15:01 G2: +44 Update Presentation is at: URL: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-52/presentations/ripe52-enum-44.pdf Martin Felt: Is CRUE temporary? Jim Reid: I'm not sure. Peter Koch: Are the specifications for CRUE are available? Are there wildcards? Jim Reid: No wildcards, the specifications will be available, it's not yet as the website isn't up yet. Jay Daley, Nominum: It will be available in 4 weeks. Jim Reid: If you want a copy, let me know, I'll send it. Andreas B?? - Start: 15:07 G4: +49 Commercial Operations Presentation is at: URL: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-52/presentations/ripe52-enum-49.pdf Niall O'Reilly: 5600 domains? Are those multiblocks or all the same? Andreas B??: I've not checked, so there are blocks in there too. Niall O'Reilly: Validation is for a year. Coupling the timers for validation with quarantining between number holder before reassigning to customers? Andreas B??: No idea how the quarantining is done, so no. Daniel Karrenberg: I'm a happy +49 customer. I had several calls of people who had used ENUM to find the sip gateway. Any idea how many complaints about authentication? Andreas B??: So far none. Conor Daly - Start: 15:20 G5: +353 Commercial Operations Presentation is at: URL: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-52/presentations/ripe52-enum-353.pdf No questions. Interaction with other WGs Peter Koch - Start: 15:23 X1: Walking E164.ARPA Presentation is at: URL: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-52/presentations/ripe52-enum-still-climbing.pdf Daniel Karrenberg: Why the short TTLs on NAPTR records? Peter Koch: Probably for follow me services. Ed Lewis: Low TTLs are a disaster. All: Daniel Karrenberg: A comment: NAPTR records for non-leaf nodes can be real and useful. Some people have shorter numbers. Niall O'Reilly: Do you want Leo to talk to Andrei about DNS quality, the availability of servers? Peter Koch: It was a customer server, not a Tier1 server. It had 5000 delegations though. Niall O'Reilly: Let's move this to the list. Carsten Schiefner - Start: 15:34 X2: DNS-WG-AP-51.5 Niall O'Reilly: This was action 51.6 in this WG, 51.5 in DNS WG Carsten Schiefner: The RIPE NCC will put e164.arpa under the reverse delegation checker regime. Still need discussion about what to do when a lame delegation is detected. Niall O'Reilly: Close action? Or keep open? Carsten Schiefner: Close it. AOB None Action Items Number Who Item 51.5 Jim Reid Stimulate discussion on testbed numbers/ranges. 52.1 RIPE NCC Follow up on the missing links reported by Carsten, pending the discussion in 52.3. 52.2 RIPE NCC Widen the e164.arpa server statistics to include other servers than just those of the RIPE NCC. 52.3 Carsten Schiefner Stimulate discussion on the list about the format of the communications documentation on the site (currently .zip). [Meeting closed.] From racr at fccn.pt Thu Sep 28 12:28:22 2006 From: racr at fccn.pt (Rui Ribeiro) Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2006 11:28:22 +0100 Subject: [enum-wg] ENUM RFC insight In-Reply-To: <665519695E86E64190E6B57727F609120318F0F5@S4DE9JSAAHX.nord.t-com.de> Message-ID: <00de01c6e2e8$d6c36ee0$082c88c1@corp.fccn.pt> Hi all, We are having some dificulties with a manufacturer of equipment in order to put ENUM queries working. The manufacturer says that the in order to comply with ENUM we must use NAPTR with "s". They have exemplified as: $ORIGIN 1.1.1.1.1.5.3.e164.arpa. 1.1.7.3 IN NAPTR 101 50 "u" "sip+E2U" "!^.*$!sip:3711 at foo.com!i" 4.1.7.3 IN NAPTR 101 50 "s" "sip+D2U" "" _sip._udp.sip.server.foo.com. IN NAPTR 101 50 "s" "sip+D2T" "" _sip._tdp.sip.server.foo.com. Although I understand how this may work, in fact the 3711 extension will not work by it self since the system don't use the SRV RR for URI dialling (SRVs are in place). They have proposed the 3714 extension solution instead. This may work to some, but for sure, not to all destinations. In RFC 3403 (Page 8) there is reference that suggests that one must add, next to the SRV records for a domain, the following. $ORIGIN foo.com. IN NAPTR 100 50 "s" "sip+D2U" "" sip.server.foo.com. IN NAPTR 100 50 "s" "sip+D2T" "" sip.server.foo.com. The "million dollar" questions. 1. In order to comply with ENUM do you MUST have any NAPTR with an "s" flag somewhere on the resolution tree? 2. It is a good pratice (or is it a MUST to) had the NAPTR "s" flag to the domain? [RFC3263] 3. What are the current (offical) way to describe services "sip+D2U" or "D2U+sip"? [RFC3263 vs RFC4415/RFC3761] Thanks for your help. Rui Ribeiro racr at fccn.pt From Richard.Stastny at oefeg.at Thu Sep 28 12:55:52 2006 From: Richard.Stastny at oefeg.at (Stastny Richard) Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2006 12:55:52 +0200 Subject: [enum-wg] ENUM RFC insight In-Reply-To: <00de01c6e2e8$d6c36ee0$082c88c1@corp.fccn.pt> Message-ID: <32755D354E6B65498C3BD9FD496C7D463C5163@oefeg-s04.oefeg.loc> > 1. In order to comply with ENUM do you MUST have any NAPTR with an "s" > flag > somewhere on the resolution tree? NO RFC3761 only allows NAPTR with "u" or "" > 2. It is a good practice (or is it a MUST to) had the NAPTR "s" flag to the > domain? [RFC3263] The "s" NAPTRs are in the domain where the ENUM URI is pointing to Richard > -----Original Message----- > From: enum-wg-admin at ripe.net [mailto:enum-wg-admin at ripe.net] On Behalf Of > Rui Ribeiro > Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2006 12:28 PM > To: enum-wg at ripe.net > Cc: wg-multimedia at fccn.pt > Subject: [enum-wg] ENUM RFC insight > > Hi all, > > We are having some dificulties with a manufacturer of equipment in order > to > put ENUM queries working. > > The manufacturer says that the in order to comply with ENUM we must use > NAPTR with "s". They have exemplified as: > > $ORIGIN 1.1.1.1.1.5.3.e164.arpa. > 1.1.7.3 IN NAPTR 101 50 "u" "sip+E2U" "!^.*$!sip:3711 at foo.com!i" > 4.1.7.3 IN NAPTR 101 50 "s" "sip+D2U" "" _sip._udp.sip.server.foo.com. > IN NAPTR 101 50 "s" "sip+D2T" "" _sip._tdp.sip.server.foo.com. > > Although I understand how this may work, in fact the 3711 extension will > not > work by it self since the system don't use the SRV RR for URI dialling > (SRVs > are in place). They have proposed the 3714 extension solution instead. > This > may work to some, but for sure, not to all destinations. > > In RFC 3403 (Page 8) there is reference that suggests that one must add, > next to the SRV records for a domain, the following. > > $ORIGIN foo.com. > IN NAPTR 100 50 "s" "sip+D2U" "" sip.server.foo.com. > IN NAPTR 100 50 "s" "sip+D2T" "" sip.server.foo.com. > > The "million dollar" questions. > > 1. In order to comply with ENUM do you MUST have any NAPTR with an "s" > flag > somewhere on the resolution tree? > 2. It is a good pratice (or is it a MUST to) had the NAPTR "s" flag to the > domain? [RFC3263] > 3. What are the current (offical) way to describe services "sip+D2U" or > "D2U+sip"? [RFC3263 vs RFC4415/RFC3761] > > Thanks for your help. > > Rui Ribeiro > racr at fccn.pt From klaus.mailinglists at pernau.at Thu Sep 28 12:56:53 2006 From: klaus.mailinglists at pernau.at (Klaus Darilion) Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2006 12:56:53 +0200 Subject: [enum-wg] ENUM RFC insight In-Reply-To: <00de01c6e2e8$d6c36ee0$082c88c1@corp.fccn.pt> References: <00de01c6e2e8$d6c36ee0$082c88c1@corp.fccn.pt> Message-ID: <451BAA75.2020205@pernau.at> Rui Ribeiro wrote: > Hi all, > > We are having some dificulties with a manufacturer of equipment in order to > put ENUM queries working. > > The manufacturer says that the in order to comply with ENUM we must use > NAPTR with "s". They have exemplified as: > > $ORIGIN 1.1.1.1.1.5.3.e164.arpa. > 1.1.7.3 IN NAPTR 101 50 "u" "sip+E2U" "!^.*$!sip:3711 at foo.com!i" > 4.1.7.3 IN NAPTR 101 50 "s" "sip+D2U" "" _sip._udp.sip.server.foo.com. > IN NAPTR 101 50 "s" "sip+D2T" "" _sip._tdp.sip.server.foo.com. Hi Rui! The above is wrong. The NAPTR records for SIP server location are independent from ENUM. ENUM records and SIP records are totally unrelated. What you usually have is: $ORIGIN 1.1.1.1.1.5.3.e164.arpa. 1.1.7.3 IN NAPTR 101 50 "u" "sip+E2U" "!^.*$!sip:3711 at foo.com!i" $ORIGIN foo.com @ IN NAPTR 50 50 "s" "SIP+D2U" "" _sip._udp.sip.server.foo.com. @ IN NAPTR 90 50 "s" "SIP+D2T" "" _sip._tdp.sip.server.foo.com. ^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^ different you still need _sip._udp.foo.com priority as NAPTR lookups inf RFC 3263 are optional > Although I understand how this may work, in fact the 3711 extension will not > work by it self since the system don't use the SRV RR for URI dialling (SRVs > are in place). They have proposed the 3714 extension solution instead. This > may work to some, but for sure, not to all destinations. > > In RFC 3403 (Page 8) there is reference that suggests that one must add, > next to the SRV records for a domain, the following. > > $ORIGIN foo.com. > IN NAPTR 100 50 "s" "sip+D2U" "" sip.server.foo.com. > IN NAPTR 100 50 "s" "sip+D2T" "" sip.server.foo.com. > > The "million dollar" questions. > > 1. In order to comply with ENUM do you MUST have any NAPTR with an "s" flag > somewhere on the resolution tree? No. ENUM itself does not care about the algorithm to find the server of the underlying service (e.g. in your case SIP, but there can be also entries for other service types like email, h323, ...). > 2. It is a good pratice (or is it a MUST to) had the NAPTR "s" flag to the > domain? [RFC3263] It is not often used yet, as the NAPTR lookup in RFC3263 is optional. Nevertheless you have to add NAPTR records if you like to announce a preferred transport protocol. > 3. What are the current (offical) way to describe services "sip+D2U" or > "D2U+sip"? [RFC3263 vs RFC4415/RFC3761] It is SIP+D2U. ENUM (3761) is a DDDS application which has defined the syntax "E2U+......" as service type whereas RFC3263 describes another DDDS application which has defined "SIP+..." as syntax for the service type. regards klaus > > Thanks for your help. > > Rui Ribeiro > racr at fccn.pt >