From enumvoipsip.cs at schiefner.de Mon Apr 7 14:41:25 2008 From: enumvoipsip.cs at schiefner.de (Carsten Schiefner) Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2008 14:41:25 +0200 Subject: [enum-wg] German ENUM day on 18 April 2008 In-Reply-To: <47850036.2080906@schiefner.de> References: <47850036.2080906@schiefner.de> Message-ID: <47FA1675.6060207@schiefner.de> Dear ENUM colleagues, the final agenda is now available at: http://www.denic.de/en/enum/allgemeines/veranstaltung/ENUM-Tag.html The venue is the Hotel Le Meridien at Wiesenh?ttenplatz 28-28 in Frankfurt, close to Frankfurt main station. The presentations won't focus on ENUM only, but also on neighbouring topics such as the IP multimedia subsystem (IMS) and converging communication infrastructures - and how ENUM could be of use in these environments. The following presentation will be held in German: Unified Communications mit ENUM (Dr. Johann-Heinrich Schinke, Siemens Enterprise Communications) Carrier ENUM - Next Generation Interconnection (Ulrike R??ger, Telekom Austria) Number Portability mit ENUM. Anwendung bei IPX (GSMA) (Rainer Baeder, Alcatel-Lucent Deutschland) and these in English: Update on ENUM implementation within the UK and what's happening on ENUM within the European Standards Arena (Tony Holmes, British Telecom) ENUM in den Niederlanden (Michiel Henneke, SIDN) The market for IMS and the consequences for ENUM (George D. Salisbury, Detecon International) Modern NGN Testbeds (Jens Fiedler, Fraunhofer FOKUS) And as always, also this ENUM day is free of charge - you only need to bear your own travel expenses etc. Hope to see you all there - best regards: Carsten Schiefner RIPE ENUM WG Co-Chair From enumvoipsip.cs at schiefner.de Wed Apr 30 22:31:16 2008 From: enumvoipsip.cs at schiefner.de (Carsten Schiefner) Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 22:31:16 +0200 Subject: [enum-wg] ENUM Tier-1 Performance/Availability In-Reply-To: <981269A8-93E5-4AB8-8698-0E767305498B@cisco.com> References: <64C80683-F323-4F99-A630-3CE43857AFDA@rfc1035.com> <687871A2-E4A2-42FB-B8B4-77D1BE12D62B@rfc1035.com> <981269A8-93E5-4AB8-8698-0E767305498B@cisco.com> Message-ID: <4818D714.50106@schiefner.de> Dear ENUM colleagues, Patrik F?ltstr?m wrote on 21 Jan 2008: > [...] > > That said, maybe we in this wg should finalize the document that > recommend a registry to "keep track of their delegation -- for example > via an opt-in mechanism that check the delegation"? > > Carsten, was this on your table, or do I remember wrong? this eventually has now happened - as per Mark Dranse's email of 17 April 2008 to the NCC Services WG list and the RIPE list: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/maillists/archives/ncc-services-wg/2008/msg00015.html the RIPE NCC has extended its DNSMON service to also any Tier-1 ENUM domain (cf. RIPE-429, attached). Any ENUM Tier-1 registry that wishes to do so can now opt-in to have their delegation monitored. The question is: shall we leave it at this stage or shall we try to take it further? I reckon the former from the tone of the majority of contributions here on this list about three months ago. OTOH, this is (also) an operational topic and thus (still) an appropriate item of discussion for this WG. That is why we (the Co-Chairs, Niall and me) slotted in 15 min for such a discussion during the upcoming WG session. Please consider this email a "Heads Up" for voicing ideas, approaches etc. onsite as well as here on the list. A way forward MIGHT be along the lines of what John wrote here: === Subject: Re: [enum-wg] Italian Nameservers for 9.3.164.arpa. dead? Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 15:29:37 -0500 From: John C Klensin To: Otmar Lendl , enum-wg at ripe.net [...] What to do here, if anything, is entirely up to this group, RIPE NCC, and the IAB although, if it involves asking ITU-T to adopt any procedures that are not now in place, I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for them to agree, nor would I predict that they would agree to whatever was asked of them without putting their stamp on it. I would give the following advice if anyone asked me: (1) It is fine to encourage RIPE NCC to make periodic checks of server configuration and accessibility. If the results of those checks are not satisfactory, the delegated party should be notified and ask to fix things. (2) If the delegated party does not respond, it would be fine for RIPE NCC to notify the entity that requested and/or signed off on the delegation and make sure they are aware of the problem and its implications to accessibility and usability of the domain they requested. We have that contact information; using it doesn't need to involve the ITU. [...] === I am hoping for fruitful discussions - and I of course also hope to see you next week in Berlin. Best, Carsten Schiefner RIPE ENUM WG Co-Chair -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: ripe-429.txt URL: