Skip to main content

You're viewing an archived page. It is no longer being updated.


RIPE Meeting:






Revision Number:


Jim Reid started the session with the administrative matters that need to be carried out to propose that the BoF be converted to a Working Group.

A charter was approved

Kim Davies and Patrik Fältström were approved as chair and co-chair

This will now be taken to the Plenary, where the transition must be endorsed.

Carsten Schiefner
RIPE NCC is running the Tier 0 Registry, the ENUM "root" zone There are six name servers, the primary located in Amsterdam.

There have been requests for 41 country codes, 4 non-geographical codes and one unspecified code. 25 have been approved, 20 rejected, 1 pending - awaiting ITU response. Since the last meeting there has been only one request for non-geographical code for a mobile operator in Antarctica.

Interaction with the ITU is stable, previous issues having been resolved.

The ENUM RFC has been recently updated and published. The new RFC is 3761. The webpages will reflect that shortly.

Axel Pawlik has already announced at the NCC Services WG that RIPE NCC plans to employ DNSMON for TLDs and to extend this service for the Tier-1 ENUM zones. We will publish more details as they follow.

Finally we have found some confusion regarding what is a country code and what is not, this issue has been picked up and will be addressed.

Quinn Collier of BT asked whether RIPE NCC has numbers for how many queries per second we are receiving? Carsten did not have this, but would endeavour to supply this for the next session.

Patrik Fältström.

RFC 3761 has been published. It was approved in December but was not published until last Friday. The WG is now working on a couple of documents, some are already published and some are close to last call. We are also working on the RFC 3761 which is a how to use ENUM document, as we have already found some problems which need to be ironed out. We will write a HOWTO doc and then integrate it into the RFC.

Update from ETSI Plugtest
Patrick Guillemin from ETSI

Jim Reid asked whether the outcome of the workshop, would be openly published as an ETSI Document. Patrick said that it would be made available to all the participants and any other interested parties. For privacy reasons, parts of the report may need to be re-written to preserve anonymity.

Cost optimisation for Enterprise ENUM
Andrzej Bartosiewicz

Carsten Schiefner asked how often the optimisation DB is updated. Andrzej said that he felt it was currently about once a month. His colleague is working on the algorithm for the optimisation so currently it isn't completely clear how often this should happen in the future. Jim Reid suggested that we could use this as a first work item for the new ENUM WG and could help with developing this. (Action on working group).

Update from USA
Scott Markus - US FCC - not speaking in an official capacity

In US Law we have no specific act that relates to ENUM. It depends on what aspect of ENUM you are looking at to find a related Law. The FCC is very pleased with the work RIPE and NCC have done for this.

Country code +1 is not a single country, it is 23 entities. The numbering plan is the responsibility of the FCC, who has been trying to develop a consensus between the code +1 participants. Trying to get a delegation for the code +1 requires the agreement of all countries.

Daniel Karrenberg asked which countries were involved. Scott said it included many different nations such as the US, Canada, Guam, Puerto Rica, Jamaica, and other Caribbean countries.

Some of these entities don't have a numbering authority of their own and pool resources. It is not so much a problem of consensus but getting all the entities on the same page is hard. One possibility considered is to delegate the portions of the country code +1 if a consensus cannot be reached.

The FCC established an ENUM Forum to work on standards and deployment factors for the US. A letter has been signed by all the appropriate parties supporting the notion of involving a private corporation that would do all the work. A Canadian entity has offered to operate the code +1. As long as it is someone who can do this on a fair and impartial basis and is technically competent those involved would be happy.

Jim Reid asked about DNSSec and the issue of signing. Assuming DNSSec is deployed in ENUM what would happen with the key for code +1? Scott announced that his talk in the Plenary would address some of this, as right now the effects are hard to pre-judge.

Mark McFadden enquired about the trials that have been carried out in the US and whether there was government support. Scott indicated that there was, though the time-consuming challenge is sorting out the various administrative and legal affairs that need to be completed when involving government agencies.

Tony Holmes BT

Patrik Fältström asked what interim measures would be put in place, he said that he is getting complaints and is unsure how to answer them. In Sweden it was decided to be able to immediately give out numbers. Tony answered that he felt the UK government would not allow this.

Patrik pointed out that in Sweden there is effective number portability, allowing users to switch to telephone companies that do support ENUM. Tony answered that in the UK there is a different way of dealing with number portability. As for how this would work with ENUM, Tony answered that it has been accepted that there cannot be barriers put up by telephone companies to stop use of ENUM. This problem has been a key focus. Several methods of authentication have been tried, some are secure, come are not.

Patrik said that in Sweden, it has been stated that you must be a Telco to register a number in ENUM. If the Telco does not participate the user has to use number portability. Tony emphasised that there are different methods of authentication. ETSI had a workshop looking at this to point out pros and cons of each. Maybe this is something that we could have collaboration between this WG and ETSI and that could help.

Scott Markus commented that to him it seemed that getting a telephone number registered in a third party registry does not necessarily require portability. Tony said that some of the thinking that went into the work in the UK was regarding authentication. It would not be acceptable to allow a roadblock whereby a user who wants to use ENUM cannot.

Carsten Schiefner asked whether other trials have been examined to see how they have dealt with authentication. Tony replied that this was the reason why the ETSI Workshop was of interest as there are so many options it is difficult to sort out the good and the bad.

Commercialising ENUM & VoIP
Paul Kane Inone