Skip to main content

You're viewing an archived page. It is no longer being updated.


RIPE Meeting:


Working Group:




Revision Number:


RIPE 54 ENUM WG Minutes
10 March 2007 - Tallinn
Chair: Carsten Schiefner
Scribe: Alex Le Heux

Webcast and Feedback Archives:

A. Admin Matters

14:00 - start

Scribe, Jabber
Alex Le Heux, RIPE NCC
Jos Bouwmans RIPE NCC

Finalise Agenda
No extra items

Approve RIPE 53 minutes

  • Niall O'Reilly, ENUM WG co-Chair mentioned off-list comments about affiliations. These have been removed very recently.
  • There were no other comments.
  • The minutes were approved.

B. Action Points

ENUM-AP-52.2 [carsten]: NCC correspondence archive -> wg list

  • Carsten Schiefner (Chair) explained that this is about the RIPE NCC correspondence archive of ENUM requests. It is no longer published on the re-done website. The RIPE NCC came up with a solution to publish the e-mails in a zip file. The other option is separate files per e-mail. We tried to start discussion but it didn't really happen. We had some private comments and some people were against a zip file. So can the RIPE NCC please come up with another idea? Does anyone want this archive anyway? There was no comment from the room.
  • Niall O'Reilly (co-Chair) suggested that this point is put on the mailing list.

ENUM-AP-53.1 [ncc]: RIPE NCC to examine and report on "strange queries"

  • Andrei Robachevsky (RIPE NCC) asked that this is left open and that the RIPE NCC will report in the coming two months on the mailing list.

ENUM-AP-53.2 [carsten]: Carsten Schiefner to follow up on Quality Task Force

  • Carsten was writing a paper and get people to take part in the Task Force. Since RIPE 53 the Task Force has been dormant. Current discussion on DNS monitoring on the ENUM list adds another flavour. So this is still open.
  • Niall added that all interested parties were very busy. There was some background work over last few days. He'd like to see from this meeting an engagement from all interesting parties to make the discussion converge on the mailing list. There are four or five axes along which this discussion can take place: what the RIPE NCC can offer; who can monitor; requirements for ENUM Tier-1 registries; how is it appropriate to bring forward a document because layer 9 must stay in focus, because the ENUM tier-0 agreement happens under a temporary agreement between the IAB and the ITU-T.
  • Keith Mitchell (OARC) commented that he has been distracted but wants to help. He volunteered to be in the Task Force.
  • Carsten asked if some of the actual Tier-1 ENUM registry operators could comment on that as well? Do they think that some DNS monitoring for them would make sense or are they actually doing it? And what are their requirements?
  • Otmar Lendl ( commented that they are aware the RIPE NCC is monitoring them and it is a very valuable service for us and we would like this continue as official service.
  • Peter Koch (+49) agreed with Otmar.
  • Nominet (+44) agreed.
  • Jim Reid (+44 not Nominet) added that he was also looking at this.
  • Antoine Verschuren (+31) also agreed.
  • Michael Haberler (Internet Foundation Austria) commented that they run the Austrian ENUM. Not only is this a great service to have, it also helps in discussions about whether there is good service or not. On a different angle, he suggested that the problems are not live delegations, but also those in semi-delegated state. For example, what we see in Italy is that it is delegated to some ministerial box, but look-ups get timeouts during call setup. So also have a closer look at not live but also just delegated registries. It might make sense to not delegate until there is a live service, because it does affect others until it is properly done.
  • Ondrej Sury (CZ NIC) commented that he had just opened a discussion about DNS Monitoring (DNSMON), so would like to have it for sure.
  • Peter Koch mentioned that he was confused about the focus of this action item. DNSMON is a contracted service which was not in the focus when this action item came up. The quality aspect there was just lame delegations and weird protocol issues. Can you clarify a shift or make up another action item?
  • Carsten said that he intended to restart the action item anyway and maybe change the focus. So this will be closed. This is a new action item:

ACTION 54.1: Think about the task and scope of quality checks and form a new Quality TF. Take this to the mailing list.

  • Peter Koch prefers to hold discussions on the mailing list.
  • Andrei Robachevsky (RIPE NCC) added that there was a round of discussion previously and it was not clear what the RIPE NCC should take from this round. In particular DNSMON was mentioned. Strictly speaking, ENUM delegations are out of scope for DNSMON. There is one delegation that we monitor, but that is inherited from the prototype phase. What do people think about that?
  • Otmar Lendl said he would like to have their monitoring as an official RIPE NCC service and not as a test.
  • Niall added that this would be picked up on under item X on the agenda: cross communication with other Working Groups, in this case the NCC Services WG. He thinks it would be helpful for Carsten or him to summarise the four or five different sub issues under this quality issue to the list. One is certainly to have included in the scope of the DNSMON service.
  • Carsten said that it will be taken to the mailing list and this action item will be left open for the time being.

ENUM-AP-53.3 [niall]: Niall O'Reilly to alert other WGs re NON-REGISTRY

  • Niall declared this action CLOSED and thanked the DB WG and the RIPE NCC.

C. Short News

Status Page

  • Carsten explained that this was set up by Kim Davis (now at ICANN) at CENTR The purpose is to give an overview of the different ENUM statuses: live, trial, etc. If you run a registry or are in contact with one, please check the site and update the info.

UK Update

  • Jim Reid -
  • There were no questions.

CZ Update

  • Ondrej Filip (added agenda item) -
  • There were no questions.

ENUM RFC & ID watch

  • Carsten Schiefner -
  • Carsten asked if iax2 is ready for last call.
  • Patrick Faltstrom (co-chair IETF ENUM WG) answered that the URI scheme is not registered so we cannot move forward with the draft. There is a lot of discussion also with the people doing the URI scheme registration. I wanted to check the status, but didn't have the time. The draft is ok, but has stalled about the URI scheme.
  • Carsten asked him to include it in his presentation.
  • Jim Reid commented that he had a hand in this draft. It is there also to prevent loops, for draft-ietf0enum-unused-02.txt. If there is an ENUM-only number range which has not been allocated, and you do a lookup for it and get an NX domain. The default behaviour would be to dump it on the PSTN and the Asterisk service will then do an ENUM looking, gets an NX domain and dumps it in the PSTN. We try to terminate that as well.

D. IETF Update

  • Patrik Faltstrom -
  • Patrik Faltstrom commented on the status of URI scheme: The new version URI scheme definition was posted on 18 April, there has been no discussion on the URI scheme review mailing list, so it is not clear to me why it was posted. The URI scheme definition draft has a boilerplate that prevents the creation of a derivative work. that might have stopped the work. so I sent an e-mail to the URI scheme review list asking what's up. I'll post the reply.
  • Jim Reid said that there is a very limited real estate on that slide. But there are a couple of other flavours of ENUM that could be mentioned there, like things to do with number portability. In the UK, the NICC, which is the group of operators looking for a centralised solution for number portability for the UK. There are seven proposals now, and out of the seven, five are some flavour of ENUM. In addition, I recently had a discussion with the regulator, OFCOM. And they're looking at something looking very much like ENUM for number allocation and assignment.
  • Patrik Faltstrom added that people in ITU standard group 2 didn't think about number portability very much. He thought about portability as part of the routing within the PSTN and will make an addition to the slide. I personally would like clear communication between the IETF and the ITU about the need for collaboration about what to do with ENUM.
  • Shin Yamasaki (JPNIC) (via jabber) asked could you explain more the "Ingress point VoIP" in Infrastructure ENUM - Internet space. What's the difference to User ENUM?
  • Patrik Faltstrom responded that the reason why he explicitly wrote ingress point VoIP, is because many voice providers don't want to disclose what the actual CPRI is if it's for an end-user, but they are sort of happy announcing where people should route the call.
  • Otmar Lendl added that there are some proposals in the IETF Spearmint WG which decouple ENUM lookup URI from the ingress point on the open Internet. We need another mapping step from URI to ingress point, which is not the way SIP works currently.

E. Contrarian View of ENUM

  • Geoff Huston (APNIC)-
  • Otmar Lendl: Regarding your last slides, bilateral private ENUM, what will you do when PSTN just goes away? Will all VoIP operators go into private ENUMs interconnection? Won't there be a need for transit?
  • Geoff Huston replied that he could construct a global infrastructure over six billion people using cable based infrastructure based on carrier bilats. I've just described the PSTN by the way, we've built it once, we can do it again. Transit was never actually an attribute of PSTN. You ask them would you do it again? The answer is "Yes! We can do it again!". If you didn't have a PSTN, you can build it again.
  • Otmar Lendl asked what he is proposing? Do we scrap and replace BGP for telephone numbers by announcements of DNS?
  • Geoff Huston responded that he was not offering anything, the problem was solved with private bilats.
  • Patrik Faltstrom added that he thought that it was a great presentation, but you're simplifying the picture quite a lot. One nice picture: users and carriers. You should have enterprises in there as well, as more and more enterprises are running their own VOIP. They're different. Secondly, I don't really remember entering an ENUM from my phone, it just worked from the address book. We've been using other identifiers like x400, etc. that we Internet people found very messy. But we stopped using them. ENUM is something needed as transition mechanism until phone numbers go away.
  • Jim Reid added that there was a BBC program "In Business" on BBC radio talking about telephone and internet convergence. He recommended that program to anyone in the room. A phone company guys told him that the cost of the cost settlement is eating into the revenues too much, so this stuff needs to change as well.
  • Carsten asked Jim to send the URL of the program to the mailing list.
  • [Added by scribe: Radio program URL is]

X. Intercommunication with Other Working Groups

  • Carsten said he would ask the NCC Services WG to think if DNSMON should be applied to ENUM.

ACTION 54.2: Carsten Schiefner to liaise with the NCC Services WG

Y. A.O.B.

  • Niall explained that there is pressure to provide more space for the Address Policy WG, and the suggestion was made that there are some WGs whose communities are not be very interested in AP. Are there people here who wouldn't mind this session being parallel to AP.
  • Carsten asked if Niall could send this to the list.

ACTION 54.3: Niall O'Reilly to ask mailing list about having the ENUM WG session in parallel with the AP WG session at future RIPE Meetings.

Z. Close

  • Summarise (new, ongoing) Action Points
  • Look forward to RIPE 55 in Amsterdam

Action Points:

ENUM-AP-52.2 [Carsten Schiefner]: NCC correspondence archive -> Working Group list.

ENUM-AP-53.1 [RIPE NCC]: RIPE NCC to examine and report on "strange queries".
ENUM-AP-53.2 [Carsten Schiefner]: Carsten Schiefner to follow up on Quality TF.
ENUM-AP-53.3 [Niall O'Reilly]: "NON-REGISTRY issue".

ENUM-AP-54.1 [Carsten Schiefner] Think about the task and scope of quality checks and form a new Quality TF. Take this to the list.
ENUM-AP-54.2 [Carsten Schiefner]: liaise with ncc-services re DNSMON being also applied to ENUM Tier-1 zones.
ENUM-AP-54.3 [Niall O'Reilly]: Ask mailing list about having the ENUM WG session in parallel with the AP WG Session at future RIPE Meetings.