Working Group: ENUM
WG Chairs: Carsten Schiefner, Niall O'Reilly
Scribe: Nathalie Trenaman
Jabber: Henk Steenman
Date: 07 May 2010
Time: 09:00 - 10:30
A. Administrative Matters
Niall took the chair, welcomed the participants, introduced the support team and gave the usual practical reminders. Niall also explained that the agenda was re-ordered a bit for a convenient flow of the meeting.
Carsten explained that his presentation was found to be premature and will be postponed until RIPE 61 in Rome.
B. Minutes of RIPE 59
The chair reminded participants that comments on the minutes have a closing date of 21 May 2010 at 12:00 UTC.
C: Review Action List
There were no open action items.
F1. enumdata.org Update
Global ENUM Status-Niall O'Reilly
Niall asked for input and updates from ENUM zones for ENUMDATA.ORG
There were no questions.
E. RIPE NCC ENUM Update
Tier-0 Report - Anand Buddhev
Peter Koch (DENIC) asked if the grey part in the chart showed particular resolvers or strange things.
Anand explained that the grey area consists of a wide variety of responses and nothing particular stands out.
Peter asked if Anand could make a distinction between different country codes and garbage in the grey section of his next presentation. Anand agreed.
Carsten commented that Voxbone delegation 8835100 did not have the time yet to set up their delegation but are working on this and they will do a presentation in Rome.
D3. 0.6.e164.arpa - An Update on Malaysian ENUM- Syarul Emy Abu Samah
Bernie Hoeneisen (Chair of IETF ENUM WG) commented that some services mentioned on slide 12 are not ENUM services and that they are not standardised.
Niall suggested that Bernie sends Syarul an email about this.
Carsten said that they have a lot of Telco's participating (16) and asked if this is voluntarily participation.
Syarul said that they have full support from their regulator.
Carsten asked with regards to ENUM linking to multi-services (slide 6) if Syarul can explain what kind of additional services they have in mind?
Syarul said that they are focusing on these 5 services first.
Bernie Hoeneisen asked if they thought about validation.
Syarul explained that this was not yet decided.
D2. E2MD - Another DDDS- Bernie Hoeneisen
Carsten asked about the wording on Bernie's slide and whether or not the use of the word 'may' in the sentence "'ENUM and E2MD may share the same tree, for example, E164.arpa,'" was the IETF's wording or Bernie's. Bernie explained that it is a small "may" because it is an operational and deployment issue.
Behrouz Abbaszadeh (ITC) asked if Bernie could explain private ENUM again.
Bernie explained that this goes into the two dimensions of ENUM. On one side there is private and public ENUM and on the other side there is user end infrastructure ENUM. E164.arpa is public user ENUM, but many telecommunication providers do not want to get information to the public, so they are making a closed DNS deployment and put their ENUM entries that can only be read by trusted parties. This is called private ENUM.
Behrouz asked if Bernie could explain how end-to-end scenarios on ENUM work with MPLS.
Bernie said that ENUM doesn't work over MPLS but over IP and asked Behrouz to send him an email if he wanted more detailed information.
Bill Manning commented that he has some concerns about adding large objects in the DNS. Bill asked how Bernie would deal with the large DNS messages and the potential for extended look-ups before he gets the answer back.
Bernie said that answers should not be large in E2MD look-ups but if it is large it should be a URI that has more information. He added that .tel don't have problems handling large answers in a DNS but he wasn't sure if there would be a problem with large items used in public.
Bill asked what is considered large.
Bernie said that anything that's a K is large in DNS but that Jim Reid might have an opinion on this.
Jim Reid explained that one of the potential issues for E2MD is that it is still unclear what kind of meta-data is expected to be returned. Because of this it is still unknown what the scaling issues around the size of the data that's either going to be managed or returned in the response would be.
Peter Koch said that this proposal had a hard time for a reason and explains why he thinks that E2MD would make the architecture more complex.
Ricardus Pocius (Lithuanian Tier-1 registry), over Jabber, asked which use cases are seen as needed in public tree.
Bernie didn't have a general answer to this.
There was a discussion about the evaluation of NAPTRs and sendN. Carsten concluded the discussion.
G: Discussion on Plenary Presentations
X: Interaction with Other Working Groups
Denesh Bhabuta commented that the Malaysian presentation was really appreciated. He noticed that there didn't seem to be much cooperation between countries and there wasn't much use yet for ENUM. He suggested having a panel of people from the different ENUM countries within Europe gather to have an open and frank discussion about where they are going.
Niall commented that this could be an agenda item for Rome.
Niall closes the meeting at 10.20