You are here: Home > Participate > Join a Discussion > Mailman Archives
<<< Chronological >>> Author Index    Subject Index <<< Threads >>>

New number ranges for E.164

  • To: "Stastny Richard" < >
  • From: Adrian Georgescu < >
  • Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2004 12:09:17 +0100

The end goal as far as I can see it is the convergence of PSTN and=20
INTERNET into Next Generation Networks. Regardless of how we will call=20=

the end-result of this integration, it means that all sides must adjust=20=

to the changes. Changes are reflected in addressing schemes, billing=20
mechanisms, regulatory  and many other issues.

Speaking about ENUM, it is obvious from the results presented at ETSI=20
ENUM workshop that ENUM acts already today like glue between different=20=

technologies.  Examples about how carriers now use ENUM to route=20
messages between different technologies like GSM/CDMA in the US are a=20
clear proof of the usefulness of ENUM in the convergence.

Looking at the user side however, we hit more obstacles non-technically=20=

related, which are hard to overcome by technology itself. If in some=20
countries ENUM is approached from a legal perspective and in others=20
from a technical perspective we understand why the time to market in=20
these two scenarios will never meet at the right time on a global=20

One of the ideas presented at the Workshop was the use of a dedicated=20
number range for Voice over IP. One might object to this by saying that=20=

the current numbering plans do not allow creation of so many new=20
numbers. But again the main purpose of ENUM is to help the convergence.=20=

The telephone numbers as we know them today will disappear on the long=20=

term and will be replaced by friendly names (email addresses, buddy=20
names, aliases easy to remember and such).

It could very well be that there is no need to plan a scheme where=20
everyone will use an ENUM number. ENUM is a moving train and it should=20=

carry with it only what is necessary to the next station. If ENUM will=20=

stay because it brings more advantages than initially thought, it will=20=

survive and expand accordingly to the market forces.

Should regulators in each country consider assigning a dedicated number=20=

range (see Japan example), there will be no need to=20
authenticate/validate new requests. ENUM numbers will be assigned on=20
the basis of first asked/first served the same way like Internet Domain=20=

Names. Using established procedures existing already in each country=20
for the Domain Names could do the transfers or canceling of numbers. We=20=

aim for maintaining the  E164 space consistent as Richard mentioned and=20=

other achievable goals that will appear in our sight.

This would not solve all issues but is clearly a non-blocking start for=20=

everyone to jump in the ENUM train.


On 28 Feb 2004, at 11:20, Stastny Richard wrote:

I fully agree with Olivier:

We have here two complete separate problems:

1. Identification required to get an E.164 number.
This is a problem that has nothing to do with ENUM and should be kept
completely separate. That prepaid cards are given out in some (most)=20=

without proper id is NOT an ENUM problem.

If some legal entity wants to get the identification of a person or=20
entity assigned
an E.164 number, it should use the existing infrastructure. This is=20
also holds if they
want to know the identity holding an domain related to this=20=

number if
no contact information is available.

ENUM is not here to solve OPPs (Other People Problems)

2. The only thing that ENUM needs to provide is consistency in the
E.164 name space, that is: a domain shall only be delegated=20=

and only for the period of time the associated E.164 number is=20
assigned to
a person or entity and it shall be delegated to the SAME person or=20

As Olivier shows this does not necessarily require to reveal the=20
entity of the person,
especially not on mobile phone if you use the access to the=20
identification token
(e.g a SIM-card), but there ara also possibilities for fixed lines.

For regulators, they should only state the requirement and not the=20
how to do this, because you can do this in many different ways. They=20=

will of course
have the right to check a given procedure if it complies to the=20
requirement given.

3. In case of ENUM-only numbers the validation problem is not=20
existent, because
the domain in IS the E.164 number, so there is consistency=20=

in the
name space per default. The identification problem remains,
but has to be solved at least nationally equivalent to other number=20
ranges, especially mobiles.
If it is allowed to have anonymous number usage there, it must also be=20=

allowed to have
it here. So this is a national problem. Because it cannot be quod=20
licet Jovi, not licet bovi ;-)

Last note: this does not hinder anybody wanting to give his identity=20=

to either an
ENUM contact info or a phone directory. In case of ENUM-only numbers=20=

normal procedure like with all other numebrs could apply (e.g entry in=20=

phone book
and possibility to opt-out)


	-----Urspr=FCngliche Nachricht-----
	Von: Olivier.Girard@localhost
] Gesendet: Sa 28.02.2004 10:24 An: jim@localhost Olivier.Girard@localhost Cc: ag@localhost jseng@localhost enum-l@localhost=20 enum-trials@localhost enum-trial@localhost Betreff: RE : RE : data point - anonymous E.164 number usage =09 =09 >> As you say, it's proving that this entity has the right to =
use a=20
	E.164 number
	>> is what matters. Unfortunately that usually means identifying =
	entity... :-)
	Not sure Jim...
	If the allocation of an E.164 number to XYZ is accompanied with =
	piece (password, certificate, digsig key or whatever it is...) =
	invalid as soon as XYZ is not anymore owner of the number and =
	piece is checked every time XYZ want to use her/his number in=20
relation to a
	service (not only ENUM but every service which require the use =
of an=20
	number), then you do not need to identify the person. In that =
you have
	only to check if the validation piece is valid.
	This, of course, needs a review of the E.164 number allocation =
	is national matter...
	In my opinion, we should focus on a generic solution (not only=20=

related to
	Today, I can use my mobile number to register for a web based =
	which offers me to send SMS from the web keeping my mobile =
number (it=20
	also with anonymous prepaid!). The registration check is made =
via SMS=20
	get a "validation" password via SMS). The problem is: when I =
cease the
	contract with my mobile operator I can continue to send SMS =
using my=20
	mobile number. Of course I can not get any reply to the SMS I =
	because the number is not allocated anymore (unless the =
	Domain & NAPTR remain active after the E.164 number has been=20
	;o) )
	In my opinion, there are two critical things:
	1 - the point where an E.164 number is registered for a service =
can be
	ENUM, SMS, etc... but also telephony)
	2 - the point where an E.164 number is not used anymore by the =
	given back to the "allocator" (at this time, all registrations =
	this number must be cancelled. For this, it is necessary that =
	providers who have a relationship with the number be informed=20
accordingly or
	that all those service providers make a periodic check of the=20
	Is it a way to work on ?
	-----Message d'origine-----
	De : Jim Reid [
] Envoy=E9 : vendredi, 27. f=E9vrier 2004 23:43 =C0 : Olivier.Girard@localhost Cc : ag@localhost jseng@localhost enum-l@localhost enum-trials@localhost enum-trial@localhost Objet : Re: RE : data point - anonymous E.164 number usage =09 =09 >>>>> "Olivier" =3D=3D Olivier Girard =
	>>>>> writes:
	    Olivier> Dear All, I think we should make a difference here. =
In my
	    Olivier> opinion, the interest of validation in ENUM is not =
	    Olivier> know WHO is owner of an E.164 number or WHO has the =
	    Olivier> to use an ENUM domain name. The role of ENUM =
	    Olivier> is primarily the ensure that only the one who has =
	    Olivier> right to use an E.164 number can use the associated =
	    Olivier> domain name. Nothing more.
	Absolutely! There is a very subtle but important difference here =
	right to underline it.
	I think we're all guilty of being too loose with our terminology =
	confusing identity with authentication and/or validation. The=20
identity of
	whatever it is that registers an E.164 number shouldn't matter. =
you say,
	it's proving that this entity has the right to use a given E.164=20=

number is
	what matters. Unfortunately that usually means identifying this=20=


  • Post To The List:
<<< Chronological >>> Author    Subject <<< Threads >>>