Skip to main content

You're viewing an archived page. It is no longer being updated.


RIPE Meeting:


Working Group:




Revision Number:


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:

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 tree. The problem is that there is
only public user ENUM in, 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

Presentation is at:

Daniel Karrenberg: A comment: Total queries we get at the
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 servers?

Leo Vegoda: Yes, only the NCC's servers.

Carsten Schiefner: Intention to gather other
statistics from the other 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 Schröder - Start: 14:22
Follow-up on the Plenary presentation: ENUM and Security

Presentation is at:

Niall O'Reilly: Are there questions from the group?

Gerhard Schröder: 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 Fältström, 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.


Karen Mulberry - Start: 14:26
G1: +1 Trial

Presentation is at:

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 FTC. 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 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 Schröder: 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 Schröder: 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 Schröder: 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 Fältström, 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 Schröder: 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:

Jim Reid: Does the WG care about a test bed, should we try to progress it?
Working Group hums: <not really>

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:

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 Bäß - Start: 15:07
G4: +49 Commercial Operations

Presentation is at:

Niall O'Reilly: 5600 domains? Are those multiblocks or all the same?

Andreas Bäß: 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 Bäß: 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 Bäß: So far none.

Conor Daly - Start: 15:20
G5: +353 Commercial Operations

Presentation is at:

No questions.

Interaction with other WGs

Peter Koch - Start: 15:23
X1: Walking E164.ARPA

Presentation is at:

Daniel Karrenberg: Why the short TTLs on NAPTR records?

Peter Koch: Probably for follow me services.

Ed Lewis: Low TTLs are a disaster.

All: <agree>

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 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.


Action Items





Jim Reid

Stimulate discussion on testbed numbers/ranges.



Follow up on the missing links reported by Carsten, pending the discussion in 52.3.



Widen the server statistics to include other servers than just those of the RIPE NCC.


Carsten Schiefner

Stimulate discussion on the list about the format of the communications documentation on the site (currently .zip).

[Meeting closed.]