From Richard.Stastny at oefeg.at Thu Feb 3 18:01:04 2005 From: Richard.Stastny at oefeg.at (Stastny Richard) Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2005 18:01:04 +0100 Subject: [enum-wg] WG: [Enum] Working Group Last Call on Enumservice Registration VOID Message-ID: <32755D354E6B65498C3BD9FD496C7D46FAE6@oefeg-s04.oefeg.loc> FYI Richard ________________________________ Von: enum-bounces at ietf.org im Auftrag von Richard Shockey Gesendet: Do 03.02.2005 17:33 An: enum at ietf.org Cc: paf at cisco.com; Jon Peterson; mankin at psg.org Betreff: [Enum] Working Group Last Call on Enumservice Registration VOID This draft is sufficiently easy to understand that this can proceed immediately to last call. I've noted no substantive issues with it. The intent of the last call is to solicit comments before submitting the ID to the IESG as a Proposed Standard. The purpose of a working group Last Call is in the style of "speak now or forever hold your peace" in case there are fundamental objections which have not gotten previous or adequate discussion, or minor errors which need correction. Work group last call will extend for 2 weeks or so from today Feb 3 to at least Feb 21 though we can modify that if new issues come up. Title : IANA Registration for Enumservice VOID Author(s) : R. Stastny, L. Conroy Filename : draft-ietf-enum-void-00.txt Pages : 0 Date : 2004-10-12 This document registers the Enumservice 'void' using the URI schemes 'mailto:' and 'http:' as per the IANA registration process defined in the ENUM specification, RFC3761. This Enumservice may be used to indicate that the E.164 number (or E.164 number range) tied to the domain in which the enclosing NAPTR is published is not assigned for communications service. When such an indication is provided, an ENUM client can detect calls that will fail "early". A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-enum-void-00.txt >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard Shockey, Senior Manager, Strategic Technology Initiatives NeuStar Inc. 46000 Center Oak Plaza - Sterling, VA 20166 sip:rshockey(at)iptel.org sip:57141 at fwd.pulver.com ENUM +87810-13313-31331 PSTN Office +1 571.434.5651 PSTN Mobile: +1 703.593.2683, Fax: +1 815.333.1237 or ; <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum at ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From Richard.Stastny at oefeg.at Thu Feb 3 23:59:49 2005 From: Richard.Stastny at oefeg.at (Stastny Richard) Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2005 23:59:49 +0100 Subject: [enum-wg] WG: [Iptel] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-iptel-tel-enumdi-00.txt Message-ID: <32755D354E6B65498C3BD9FD496C7D46FAE8@oefeg-s04.oefeg.loc> FYI ________________________________ Von: iptel-bounces at ietf.org im Auftrag von Internet-Drafts at ietf.org Gesendet: Do 03.02.2005 21:56 An: i-d-announce at ietf.org Cc: iptel at ietf.org Betreff: [Iptel] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-iptel-tel-enumdi-00.txt A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the IP Telephony Working Group of the IETF. Title : The ENUM Dip Indicator parameter for the "tel" URI Author(s) : R. Stastny, L. Conroy Filename : draft-ietf-iptel-tel-enumdi-00.txt Pages : 12 Date : 2005-2-3 This document defines a new parameter "enumdi" in the "tel" Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) as defined in RFC3966 to support the handling of ENUM queries in SIP proxies, H.323 gatekeepers and other VoIP network elements. The presence of the "enumdi" parameter indicates to the VoIP network element receiving an URI containing an E.164 number that an ENUM query as defined in RFC3761 has already been performed on the E.164 number indicated by the previous VoIP network element. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-iptel-tel-enumdi-00.txt To remove yourself from the I-D Announcement list, send a message to i-d-announce-request at ietf.org with the word unsubscribe in the body of the message. You can also visit https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/I-D-announce to change your subscription settings. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the username "anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in, type "cd internet-drafts" and then "get draft-ietf-iptel-tel-enumdi-00.txt". A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail. Send a message to: mailserv at ietf.org. In the body type: "FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-iptel-tel-enumdi-00.txt". NOTE: The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility. To use this feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE" command. To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or a MIME-compliant mail reader. Different MIME-compliant mail readers exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with "multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on how to manipulate these messages. Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: ATT466283.txt URL: From andrzejb at nask.pl Fri Feb 4 12:35:54 2005 From: andrzejb at nask.pl (Andrzej Bartosiewicz) Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2005 12:35:54 +0100 Subject: [enum-wg] ITU: debate over User-ENUM administration Message-ID: <200502041134.j14BYtMt007570@boromir.nask.net.pl> ITU is making progress in debate on ENUM: Group : itu-t updated : 2005-02-01 23:58:06 title : [ D 20 ] Administrative control for ENUM url : http://www.itu.int/md/meetingdoc.asp?lang=e &parent=T05-SG02-050216-D-0020&type=mitems Group : itu-t updated : 2005-02-03 23:58:05 title : [ TD 32-WP1 ] Evaluation of a new gTLD exclusively for Global ENUM implementation url : http://www.itu.int/md/meetingdoc.asp?lang=e &parent=T05-SG02-050216-TD-WP1-0032&type=mitems Documents available only for TIES (ITU) users. Andrzej. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Richard.Stastny at oefeg.at Fri Feb 4 12:39:34 2005 From: Richard.Stastny at oefeg.at (Stastny Richard) Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2005 12:39:34 +0100 Subject: [enum-wg] ITU: debate over User-ENUM administration Message-ID: <32755D354E6B65498C3BD9FD496C7D46FAEC@oefeg-s04.oefeg.loc> Progress? Richard ________________________________ Von: enum-wg-admin at ripe.net im Auftrag von Andrzej Bartosiewicz Gesendet: Fr 04.02.2005 12:35 An: enum-wg at ripe.net Betreff: [enum-wg] ITU: debate over User-ENUM administration ITU is making progress in debate on ENUM: Group : itu-t updated : 2005-02-01 23:58:06 title : [ D 20 ] Administrative control for ENUM url : http://www.itu.int/md/meetingdoc.asp?lang=e&parent=T05-SG02-050216-D-0020&type=mitems Group : itu-t updated : 2005-02-03 23:58:05 title : [ TD 32-WP1 ] Evaluation of a new gTLD exclusively for Global ENUM implementation url : http://www.itu.int/md/meetingdoc.asp?lang=e&parent=T05-SG02-050216-TD-WP1-0032&type=mitems Documents available only for TIES (ITU) users. Andrzej. From richard at shockey.us Sat Feb 5 21:25:42 2005 From: richard at shockey.us (Richard Shockey) Date: Sat, 05 Feb 2005 15:25:42 -0500 Subject: [enum-wg] ITU: debate over User-ENUM administration In-Reply-To: <5D736A9093B12C413E1B0A49@scan.jck.com> References: <200502041134.j14BYtMt007570@boromir.nask.net.pl> <6.2.0.14.2.20050205140839.04317040@sb7.songbird.com> <5D736A9093B12C413E1B0A49@scan.jck.com> Message-ID: <6.2.0.14.2.20050205151522.04303af0@sb7.songbird.com> At 02:45 PM 2/5/2005, John C Klensin wrote: >Richard, > >I agree with everything you say, with two qualifications... > >(1) I'm not sure the world revolves around North America and the >NANP. Indeed, I consider that attitude to be harmful to the >Internet and the IETF, regardless of what things look like from >the vicinity of the beltway. I don't disagree John ..far from it. However as a practical matter I have had conversations from industry representatives and interested parties in other countries something to the effect " well if the US and Canada dont care about ENUM why should we". That said I can categorically state that the Europeans and Asia-Pac nations have unquestionably taken the lead in both deployments and a variety of technical advancements and the forthcoming APRICOT in Kyoto will conclusively demonstrate that. I am concerned that if discussions in the US and Canada get thrown off the track it will not be good for advancing the state of ENUM deployments in other countries. >(2) Since said permanent delegate of Syria submits these things >to SG2 and then uses the fact that they have been put on the >agenda as motivation for arguing in other forums that this is an >area under ITU control, there is a case to be made that the SG2 >management becomes part of the problem when they put these >things on the agenda rather than ruling them out of order. I >understand at least some of the constraints under which they >operate, but you should understand why, given that and the >behavior patterns of the last several years, I don't completely >share your confidence. John ... I said "some" confidence :-) ...but laced with a very healthy dose of paranoia. Best wishes as always .. > john > > >--On Saturday, 05 February, 2005 14:28 -0500 Richard Shockey > wrote: > > > > >> > >> Hi. > >> > >> I wonder how you (or we) should define "progress"? We start > >> with an area that was originally agreed to be an IETF > >> responsibility with TSB participation on > >> authorization/validation issues. It then "evolves", at SG2 > >> insistence, to something that is assumed to involve at least > >> some topics we should discuss together. And now we have > >> attained the pinnacle of a discussion within SG2, > >> apparently-secret from the outside world, based on documents > >> that are not generally available to the IETF and the ENUM user > >> community. > >> > >> And, of course, unless ITU-T SG2 is planning to disrupt the > >> Internet by setting up an alternate root, their deciding on an > >> ENUM TLD is only slightly more likely to be relevant than > >> their passing a Recommendation that changes the speed of > >> light. > >> > >> Leslie, Scott, can these documents be obtained and released to > >> the IETF ENUM WG and interested members of the community so > >> that we can further evaluate the level of progress? > > > > Attached ... > > > > However considering the source of these documents ..the well > > known Permanant Delegate of Syria to the ITU I'm not overly > > concerned about their impact, but this requires careful > > monitoring. John I'm in total agreement the principle that > > the price of the Internet freedom is eternal vigilance . > > > > I have some ... some ..confidence in SG-2 management to "do > > the right thing" here and in any event. IMHO the most > > important task for the global ENUM community to accomplish is > > getting the delegation for 1.e164.arpa to North America ASAP > > and commence short lived trials that will lead to commercial > > deployment. > > > > Once that is done I think we would have sent a message that > > e164.apra is real and that further discussions on the matter > > of a different root are futile. > > > > That process is well underway.. discussions over how the ENUM > > LLC management entity will act are taking place almost weekly > > . I'm also very confident that there well be responsible,open > > ,and competitive bidding processes for both the US and > > Canadian portions of the NANP within the late 2005 very early > > 2006 time frame. > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > Richard Shockey, Senior Manager, Strategic Technology > > Initiatives > > NeuStar Inc. > > 46000 Center Oak Plaza - Sterling, VA 20166 > > sip:rshockey(at)iptel.org sip:57141 at fwd.pulver.com > > ENUM +87810-13313-31331 > > PSTN Office +1 571.434.5651 PSTN Mobile: +1 703.593.2683, > > Fax: +1 815.333.1237 > > or > > > > ; > > <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard Shockey, Senior Manager, Strategic Technology Initiatives NeuStar Inc. 46000 Center Oak Plaza - Sterling, VA 20166 sip:rshockey(at)iptel.org sip:57141 at fwd.pulver.com ENUM +87810-13313-31331 PSTN Office +1 571.434.5651 PSTN Mobile: +1 703.593.2683, Fax: +1 815.333.1237 or ; <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< From john-ietf at jck.com Sat Feb 5 19:14:25 2005 From: john-ietf at jck.com (John C Klensin) Date: Sat, 05 Feb 2005 13:14:25 -0500 Subject: [enum-wg] ITU: debate over User-ENUM administration In-Reply-To: <200502041134.j14BYtMt007570@boromir.nask.net.pl> References: <200502041134.j14BYtMt007570@boromir.nask.net.pl> Message-ID: Hi. I wonder how you (or we) should define "progress"? We start with an area that was originally agreed to be an IETF responsibility with TSB participation on authorization/validation issues. It then "evolves", at SG2 insistence, to something that is assumed to involve at least some topics we should discuss together. And now we have attained the pinnacle of a discussion within SG2, apparently-secret from the outside world, based on documents that are not generally available to the IETF and the ENUM user community. And, of course, unless ITU-T SG2 is planning to disrupt the Internet by setting up an alternate root, their deciding on an ENUM TLD is only slightly more likely to be relevant than their passing a Recommendation that changes the speed of light. Leslie, Scott, can these documents be obtained and released to the IETF ENUM WG and interested members of the community so that we can further evaluate the level of progress? thanks, john --On Friday, 04 February, 2005 12:35 +0100 Andrzej Bartosiewicz wrote: > ITU is making progress in debate on ENUM: > > > > Group : itu-t > > updated : 2005-02-01 23:58:06 > > title : [ D 20 ] Administrative control for ENUM > > url : http://www.itu.int/md/meetingdoc.asp?lang=e > 50216-D-0020&t ype=mitems> > &parent=T05-SG02-050216-D-0020&type=mitems > > > > Group : itu-t > > updated : 2005-02-03 23:58:05 > > title : [ TD 32-WP1 ] Evaluation of a new gTLD > exclusively for Global ENUM implementation > > url : http://www.itu.int/md/meetingdoc.asp?lang=e > 50216-TD-WP1-0 032&type=mitems> > &parent=T05-SG02-050216-TD-WP1-0032&type=mitems > > > > Documents available only for TIES (ITU) users. > > > > Andrzej. > From richard at shockey.us Sat Feb 5 20:28:35 2005 From: richard at shockey.us (Richard Shockey) Date: Sat, 05 Feb 2005 14:28:35 -0500 Subject: [enum-wg] ITU: debate over User-ENUM administration In-Reply-To: References: <200502041134.j14BYtMt007570@boromir.nask.net.pl> Message-ID: <6.2.0.14.2.20050205140839.04317040@sb7.songbird.com> > >Hi. > >I wonder how you (or we) should define "progress"? We start >with an area that was originally agreed to be an IETF >responsibility with TSB participation on >authorization/validation issues. It then "evolves", at SG2 >insistence, to something that is assumed to involve at least >some topics we should discuss together. And now we have >attained the pinnacle of a discussion within SG2, >apparently-secret from the outside world, based on documents >that are not generally available to the IETF and the ENUM user >community. > >And, of course, unless ITU-T SG2 is planning to disrupt the >Internet by setting up an alternate root, their deciding on an >ENUM TLD is only slightly more likely to be relevant than their >passing a Recommendation that changes the speed of light. > >Leslie, Scott, can these documents be obtained and released to >the IETF ENUM WG and interested members of the community so that >we can further evaluate the level of progress? Attached ... However considering the source of these documents ..the well known Permanant Delegate of Syria to the ITU I'm not overly concerned about their impact, but this requires careful monitoring. John I'm in total agreement the principle that the price of the Internet freedom is eternal vigilance . I have some ... some ..confidence in SG-2 management to "do the right thing" here and in any event. IMHO the most important task for the global ENUM community to accomplish is getting the delegation for 1.e164.arpa to North America ASAP and commence short lived trials that will lead to commercial deployment. Once that is done I think we would have sent a message that e164.apra is real and that further discussions on the matter of a different root are futile. That process is well underway.. discussions over how the ENUM LLC management entity will act are taking place almost weekly . I'm also very confident that there well be responsible,open ,and competitive bidding processes for both the US and Canadian portions of the NANP within the late 2005 very early 2006 time frame. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard Shockey, Senior Manager, Strategic Technology Initiatives NeuStar Inc. 46000 Center Oak Plaza - Sterling, VA 20166 sip:rshockey(at)iptel.org sip:57141 at fwd.pulver.com ENUM +87810-13313-31331 PSTN Office +1 571.434.5651 PSTN Mobile: +1 703.593.2683, Fax: +1 815.333.1237 or ; <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ccTLD T05-SG02-050216-D-0022!!MSW-E.doc Type: application/msword Size: 54784 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ENUM T05-SG02-050216-D-0020!!MSW-E.doc Type: application/msword Size: 68608 bytes Desc: not available URL: From john-ietf at jck.com Sat Feb 5 20:45:53 2005 From: john-ietf at jck.com (John C Klensin) Date: Sat, 05 Feb 2005 14:45:53 -0500 Subject: [enum-wg] ITU: debate over User-ENUM administration In-Reply-To: <6.2.0.14.2.20050205140839.04317040@sb7.songbird.com> References: <200502041134.j14BYtMt007570@boromir.nask.net.pl> <6.2.0.14.2.20050205140839.04317040@sb7.songbird.com> Message-ID: <5D736A9093B12C413E1B0A49@scan.jck.com> Richard, I agree with everything you say, with two qualifications... (1) I'm not sure the world revolves around North America and the NANP. Indeed, I consider that attitude to be harmful to the Internet and the IETF, regardless of what things look like from the vicinity of the beltway. (2) Since said permanent delegate of Syria submits these things to SG2 and then uses the fact that they have been put on the agenda as motivation for arguing in other forums that this is an area under ITU control, there is a case to be made that the SG2 management becomes part of the problem when they put these things on the agenda rather than ruling them out of order. I understand at least some of the constraints under which they operate, but you should understand why, given that and the behavior patterns of the last several years, I don't completely share your confidence. john --On Saturday, 05 February, 2005 14:28 -0500 Richard Shockey wrote: > >> >> Hi. >> >> I wonder how you (or we) should define "progress"? We start >> with an area that was originally agreed to be an IETF >> responsibility with TSB participation on >> authorization/validation issues. It then "evolves", at SG2 >> insistence, to something that is assumed to involve at least >> some topics we should discuss together. And now we have >> attained the pinnacle of a discussion within SG2, >> apparently-secret from the outside world, based on documents >> that are not generally available to the IETF and the ENUM user >> community. >> >> And, of course, unless ITU-T SG2 is planning to disrupt the >> Internet by setting up an alternate root, their deciding on an >> ENUM TLD is only slightly more likely to be relevant than >> their passing a Recommendation that changes the speed of >> light. >> >> Leslie, Scott, can these documents be obtained and released to >> the IETF ENUM WG and interested members of the community so >> that we can further evaluate the level of progress? > > Attached ... > > However considering the source of these documents ..the well > known Permanant Delegate of Syria to the ITU I'm not overly > concerned about their impact, but this requires careful > monitoring. John I'm in total agreement the principle that > the price of the Internet freedom is eternal vigilance . > > I have some ... some ..confidence in SG-2 management to "do > the right thing" here and in any event. IMHO the most > important task for the global ENUM community to accomplish is > getting the delegation for 1.e164.arpa to North America ASAP > and commence short lived trials that will lead to commercial > deployment. > > Once that is done I think we would have sent a message that > e164.apra is real and that further discussions on the matter > of a different root are futile. > > That process is well underway.. discussions over how the ENUM > LLC management entity will act are taking place almost weekly > . I'm also very confident that there well be responsible,open > ,and competitive bidding processes for both the US and > Canadian portions of the NANP within the late 2005 very early > 2006 time frame. > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > Richard Shockey, Senior Manager, Strategic Technology > Initiatives > NeuStar Inc. > 46000 Center Oak Plaza - Sterling, VA 20166 > sip:rshockey(at)iptel.org sip:57141 at fwd.pulver.com > ENUM +87810-13313-31331 > PSTN Office +1 571.434.5651 PSTN Mobile: +1 703.593.2683, > Fax: +1 815.333.1237 > or > > ; > <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< From andrzejb at nask.pl Mon Feb 7 11:26:58 2005 From: andrzejb at nask.pl (Andrzej Bartosiewicz) Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2005 11:26:58 +0100 Subject: [enum-wg] ITU: debate over User-ENUM administration In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200502071026.j17AQ1Tu021167@boromir.nask.net.pl> John, > I wonder how you (or we) should define "progress"? We start > with an area that was originally agreed to be an IETF > responsibility with TSB participation on > authorization/validation issues. It then "evolves", at SG2 > insistence, to something that is assumed to involve at least > some topics we should discuss together. And now we have > attained the pinnacle of a discussion within SG2, > apparently-secret from the outside world, based on documents > that are not generally available to the IETF and the ENUM user > community. ITU, as the international _treaty_ organization, is responsible for global coordination of the E.164 numbering. ENUM is the mapping E.164 numbers into the Internet domain names. I'm not surprised that ITU is interested in ENUM, as the part of E164 numbering. Nobody is objecting to the fact that E.164 numbers are coordinated (at the global level) by ITU. Delegate of Syria submitted his contributions. It's his right. Every government (Member State) or Sector Member can submit his contributions, and the discussion can go forward. > And, of course, unless ITU-T SG2 is planning to disrupt the > Internet by setting up an alternate root, their deciding on an > ENUM TLD is only slightly more likely to be relevant than their > passing a Recommendation that changes the speed of light. ENUM is one of the key issues in the ITU work program 2005-2008. My intention is to inform the enum-wg that ITU is progressing in the discussion on ENUM, as declared last year: http://www.itu.int/itunews/manager/display.asp?lang=en&year=2004&issue=10&ip age=agendaProgramme&ext=html Andrzej. From andrzejb at nask.pl Mon Feb 7 11:37:16 2005 From: andrzejb at nask.pl (Andrzej Bartosiewicz) Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2005 11:37:16 +0100 Subject: [enum-wg] ITU: debate over User-ENUM administration In-Reply-To: <6.2.0.14.2.20050205140839.04317040@sb7.songbird.com> Message-ID: <200502071036.j17AaIbe024234@boromir.nask.net.pl> Richard, > Attached ... > > However considering the source of these documents ..the well known > Permanant Delegate of Syria to the ITU I'm not overly concerned about > their > impact, but this requires careful monitoring. John I'm in total agreement > the principle that the price of the Internet freedom is eternal vigilance You have attached two documents submitted by Syria. You have forgotten to submit the document I have pointed at ("Evaluation of a new gTLD exclusively for Global ENUM implementation"). This document shows that not only Syria is interested in administration of ENUM. I will not forward this document to the list because I haven't written consent from ITU to publish this document. I suppose that you have the permission because you have already forwarded the remaining contributions, so please forward the document to the list. Best, Andrzej. From Richard.Stastny at oefeg.at Mon Feb 7 15:34:26 2005 From: Richard.Stastny at oefeg.at (Stastny Richard) Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2005 15:34:26 +0100 Subject: [enum-wg] ITU: debate over User-ENUM administration Message-ID: <32755D354E6B65498C3BD9FD496C7D46FAF8@oefeg-s04.oefeg.loc> John writes: >there is a case to be made that the SG2 >management becomes part of the problem when they put these >things on the agenda rather than ruling them out of order. I think you do not know how ITU-T works (maybe having in mind some other bodies) I can only fully agree here with Andrzej: . >Delegate of Syria submitted his contributions. It's his right. Every >government (Member State) or Sector Member can submit his contributions, and >the discussion can go forward. In addition, Mr. Kisrawi is not questioning ENUM or e164.arpa in his contribution, he is only questioning the legal status of the domain name holder of e164.arpa, namely: Internet Architecture Board (IAB) c/o IETF Secretariat Corporation for National Research Initiatives (CNRI) 1895 Preston White Drive Suite 100 Reston, Virginia 20191-5434 He is also questioning the legal status of .arpa and finally the root servers, which is IMHO a valid question. He is also fully aware of the de-facto role of the DoC and he is also proposing a feasible way forward: "The final problem is more serious. ICANN cannot, on its own, make changes in the root server system. ICANN proposes changes, which are approved by the United States Department of Commerce (DoC). Once the change is approved, DoC transmits it to Verisign, who implements the change in what is commonly called the "hidden root server" (located within the United States and under US jurisdiction). The change is then automatically propagated to all other root servers around the world. Thus, DoC could change the entity to whom "arpa" is delegated, and this could result in loss of ITU's administrative control. A possible solution could be a formal bilateral agreement between the USA, a Sovereign State, and the ITU." So Mr. Kisrawi raises a valid question in asking the ITU-T to make sound legal contracts for important infrastructure issues best regards Richard Stastny ________________________________ Von: enum-wg-admin at ripe.net im Auftrag von John C Klensin Gesendet: Sa 05.02.2005 20:45 An: Richard Shockey; Andrzej Bartosiewicz; enum-wg at ripe.net Cc: paf at cisco.com; Leslie Daigle; sob at harvard.edu; swinehart at icann.org Betreff: Re: [enum-wg] ITU: debate over User-ENUM administration Richard, I agree with everything you say, with two qualifications... (1) I'm not sure the world revolves around North America and the NANP. Indeed, I consider that attitude to be harmful to the Internet and the IETF, regardless of what things look like from the vicinity of the beltway. (2) Since said permanent delegate of Syria submits these things to SG2 and then uses the fact that they have been put on the agenda as motivation for arguing in other forums that this is an area under ITU control, there is a case to be made that the SG2 management becomes part of the problem when they put these things on the agenda rather than ruling them out of order. I understand at least some of the constraints under which they operate, but you should understand why, given that and the behavior patterns of the last several years, I don't completely share your confidence. john --On Saturday, 05 February, 2005 14:28 -0500 Richard Shockey wrote: > >> >> Hi. >> >> I wonder how you (or we) should define "progress"? We start >> with an area that was originally agreed to be an IETF >> responsibility with TSB participation on >> authorization/validation issues. It then "evolves", at SG2 >> insistence, to something that is assumed to involve at least >> some topics we should discuss together. And now we have >> attained the pinnacle of a discussion within SG2, >> apparently-secret from the outside world, based on documents >> that are not generally available to the IETF and the ENUM user >> community. >> >> And, of course, unless ITU-T SG2 is planning to disrupt the >> Internet by setting up an alternate root, their deciding on an >> ENUM TLD is only slightly more likely to be relevant than >> their passing a Recommendation that changes the speed of >> light. >> >> Leslie, Scott, can these documents be obtained and released to >> the IETF ENUM WG and interested members of the community so >> that we can further evaluate the level of progress? > > Attached ... > > However considering the source of these documents ..the well > known Permanant Delegate of Syria to the ITU I'm not overly > concerned about their impact, but this requires careful > monitoring. John I'm in total agreement the principle that > the price of the Internet freedom is eternal vigilance . > > I have some ... some ..confidence in SG-2 management to "do > the right thing" here and in any event. IMHO the most > important task for the global ENUM community to accomplish is > getting the delegation for 1.e164.arpa to North America ASAP > and commence short lived trials that will lead to commercial > deployment. > > Once that is done I think we would have sent a message that > e164.apra is real and that further discussions on the matter > of a different root are futile. > > That process is well underway.. discussions over how the ENUM > LLC management entity will act are taking place almost weekly > . I'm also very confident that there well be responsible,open > ,and competitive bidding processes for both the US and > Canadian portions of the NANP within the late 2005 very early > 2006 time frame. > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > Richard Shockey, Senior Manager, Strategic Technology > Initiatives > NeuStar Inc. > 46000 Center Oak Plaza - Sterling, VA 20166 > sip:rshockey(at)iptel.org sip:57141 at fwd.pulver.com > ENUM +87810-13313-31331 > PSTN Office +1 571.434.5651 PSTN Mobile: +1 703.593.2683, > Fax: +1 815.333.1237 > or > > ; > <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< From andrzejb at nask.pl Mon Feb 7 16:10:28 2005 From: andrzejb at nask.pl (Andrzej Bartosiewicz) Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2005 16:10:28 +0100 Subject: [enum-wg] ITU: debate over User-ENUM administration In-Reply-To: <32755D354E6B65498C3BD9FD496C7D46FAF8@oefeg-s04.oefeg.loc> Message-ID: <200502071509.j17F9VVW011815@boromir.nask.net.pl> > "The final problem is more serious. ICANN cannot, on its own, make > changes in the root server system. ICANN proposes changes, which are > approved by the United States Department of Commerce (DoC). Once the > change is approved, DoC transmits it to Verisign, who implements the > change in what is commonly called the "hidden root server" (located within > the United States and under US jurisdiction). The change is then > automatically propagated to all other root servers around the world. Unfortunately that's true that ICANN has no legal power over Root Server administrators (ICANN failed in signing the agreements with root servers administrators)... Andrzej. From jim at rfc1035.com Mon Feb 7 16:28:01 2005 From: jim at rfc1035.com (Jim Reid) Date: Mon, 07 Feb 2005 15:28:01 +0000 Subject: [enum-wg] ITU: debate over User-ENUM administration In-Reply-To: Message from "Andrzej Bartosiewicz" of "Mon, 07 Feb 2005 16:10:28 +0100." <200502071509.j17F9VVW011815@boromir.nask.net.pl> Message-ID: <5051.1107790081@gromit.rfc1035.com> >>>>> "Andrzej" == Andrzej Bartosiewicz writes: Andrzej> Unfortunately that's true that ICANN has no legal power Andrzej> over Root Server administrators (ICANN failed in signing Andrzej> the agreements with root servers administrators)... That's actually a good thing IMO. The root server operators are very careful to avoid single points of failure. That applies to procedural, contractual and financial aspects of the running root server system as well as the technical and operational ones. If all the root server operators signed the same contract with ICANN, that contract would be a single point of failure. This thread is getting off topic for this list. From cdel at firsthand.net Tue Feb 8 10:08:21 2005 From: cdel at firsthand.net (Christian de Larrinaga) Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2005 09:08:21 -0000 Subject: [enum-wg] ITU: debate over User-ENUM administration In-Reply-To: <32755D354E6B65498C3BD9FD496C7D46FAF8@oefeg-s04.oefeg.loc> Message-ID: I don't see a contract between ITU and US as resolving the issues raised as it remains debatable that IETF and IAB are US entities. I'm curious that Mr. Kisrawi appears not to have any operational concerns for management of 3.6.9.e164.arpa as things stand but of political control over .arpa and the root. His argument applies equally to the management of .sy or any other domain so his paper is really not about ENUM at all. It is the usual rehash of the so called Internet Governance debate. ITU has agreed a procedure with the IAB and RIPE over ENUM. It seems a bit late for ITU to start questioning the legal ownership of .arpa now and totally out of context to do so citing ENUM which represents a tiny amount of Internet traffic and is only one protocol to extend reachability for E.164 numbers. So maybe this group could make some representation into the ITU debate on ENUM to focus on what ENUM is and what it is not in particular in regard to regulatory issues (e.g., ENUM has nothing to do with assignment of E.164 numbers or national number plans) might be helpful to steer ENUM out of these waters. Is this something RIPE could do? Having said this these top level arguments are not going away and so the IAB as others in the Internet world need to establish its rights over .arpa and assert them but this is not an ENUM issue. Christian > -----Original Message----- > From: enum-wg-admin at ripe.net [mailto:enum-wg-admin at ripe.net]On Behalf Of > Stastny Richard > Sent: 07 February 2005 14:34 > To: John C Klensin; Richard Shockey; Andrzej Bartosiewicz; > enum-wg at ripe.net > Cc: paf at cisco.com; Leslie Daigle; sob at harvard.edu; swinehart at icann.org > Subject: Re: [enum-wg] ITU: debate over User-ENUM administration > > > John writes: > >there is a case to be made that the SG2 > >management becomes part of the problem when they put these > >things on the agenda rather than ruling them out of order. > > I think you do not know how ITU-T works (maybe having > in mind some other bodies) > > I can only fully agree here with Andrzej: > . > >Delegate of Syria submitted his contributions. It's his right. Every > >government (Member State) or Sector Member can submit his > contributions, and > >the discussion can go forward. > > In addition, Mr. Kisrawi is not questioning ENUM or e164.arpa in > his contribution, > he is only questioning the legal status of the domain name holder > of e164.arpa, > namely: > > Internet Architecture Board (IAB) > c/o IETF Secretariat > Corporation for National Research Initiatives (CNRI) > 1895 Preston White Drive > Suite 100 > Reston, Virginia 20191-5434 > > > He is also questioning the legal status of .arpa and finally the > root servers, > which is IMHO a valid question. > > He is also fully aware of the de-facto role of the DoC and he is also > proposing a feasible way forward: > > "The final problem is more serious. ICANN cannot, on its own, > make changes in the root server system. ICANN proposes changes, > which are approved by the United States Department of Commerce > (DoC). Once the change is approved, DoC transmits it to > Verisign, who implements the change in what is commonly called > the "hidden root server" (located within the United States and > under US jurisdiction). The change is then automatically > propagated to all other root servers around the world. > > Thus, DoC could change the entity to whom "arpa" is delegated, > and this could result in loss of ITU's administrative control. > > A possible solution could be a formal bilateral agreement between > the USA, a Sovereign State, and the ITU." > > > > So Mr. Kisrawi raises a valid question in asking the ITU-T to > make sound legal > contracts for important infrastructure issues > > best regards > > Richard Stastny > > > ________________________________ > > Von: enum-wg-admin at ripe.net im Auftrag von John C Klensin > Gesendet: Sa 05.02.2005 20:45 > An: Richard Shockey; Andrzej Bartosiewicz; enum-wg at ripe.net > Cc: paf at cisco.com; Leslie Daigle; sob at harvard.edu; swinehart at icann.org > Betreff: Re: [enum-wg] ITU: debate over User-ENUM administration > > > > Richard, > > I agree with everything you say, with two qualifications... > > (1) I'm not sure the world revolves around North America and the > NANP. Indeed, I consider that attitude to be harmful to the > Internet and the IETF, regardless of what things look like from > the vicinity of the beltway. > > (2) Since said permanent delegate of Syria submits these things > to SG2 and then uses the fact that they have been put on the > agenda as motivation for arguing in other forums that this is an > area under ITU control, there is a case to be made that the SG2 > management becomes part of the problem when they put these > things on the agenda rather than ruling them out of order. I > understand at least some of the constraints under which they > operate, but you should understand why, given that and the > behavior patterns of the last several years, I don't completely > share your confidence. > > john > > > --On Saturday, 05 February, 2005 14:28 -0500 Richard Shockey > wrote: > > > > >> > >> Hi. > >> > >> I wonder how you (or we) should define "progress"? We start > >> with an area that was originally agreed to be an IETF > >> responsibility with TSB participation on > >> authorization/validation issues. It then "evolves", at SG2 > >> insistence, to something that is assumed to involve at least > >> some topics we should discuss together. And now we have > >> attained the pinnacle of a discussion within SG2, > >> apparently-secret from the outside world, based on documents > >> that are not generally available to the IETF and the ENUM user > >> community. > >> > >> And, of course, unless ITU-T SG2 is planning to disrupt the > >> Internet by setting up an alternate root, their deciding on an > >> ENUM TLD is only slightly more likely to be relevant than > >> their passing a Recommendation that changes the speed of > >> light. > >> > >> Leslie, Scott, can these documents be obtained and released to > >> the IETF ENUM WG and interested members of the community so > >> that we can further evaluate the level of progress? > > > > Attached ... > > > > However considering the source of these documents ..the well > > known Permanant Delegate of Syria to the ITU I'm not overly > > concerned about their impact, but this requires careful > > monitoring. John I'm in total agreement the principle that > > the price of the Internet freedom is eternal vigilance . > > > > I have some ... some ..confidence in SG-2 management to "do > > the right thing" here and in any event. IMHO the most > > important task for the global ENUM community to accomplish is > > getting the delegation for 1.e164.arpa to North America ASAP > > and commence short lived trials that will lead to commercial > > deployment. > > > > Once that is done I think we would have sent a message that > > e164.apra is real and that further discussions on the matter > > of a different root are futile. > > > > That process is well underway.. discussions over how the ENUM > > LLC management entity will act are taking place almost weekly > > . I'm also very confident that there well be responsible,open > > ,and competitive bidding processes for both the US and > > Canadian portions of the NANP within the late 2005 very early > > 2006 time frame. > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > Richard Shockey, Senior Manager, Strategic Technology > > Initiatives > > NeuStar Inc. > > 46000 Center Oak Plaza - Sterling, VA 20166 > > sip:rshockey(at)iptel.org sip:57141 at fwd.pulver.com > > ENUM +87810-13313-31331 > > PSTN Office +1 571.434.5651 PSTN Mobile: +1 703.593.2683, > > Fax: +1 815.333.1237 > > or > > > > ; > > <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< > > > > > > > From andrzejb at nask.pl Tue Feb 8 10:10:32 2005 From: andrzejb at nask.pl (Andrzej Bartosiewicz) Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2005 10:10:32 +0100 Subject: [enum-wg] ITU: debate over User-ENUM administration In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200502080909.j1899XC9008291@boromir.nask.net.pl> > regulatory issues (e.g., ENUM has nothing to do with assignment of E.164 > numbers or national number plans) might be helpful to steer ENUM out of > these waters. Is this something RIPE could do? That's interesting... Don't you think that User-ENUM maps the national numbering plans into DNS. Andrzej. From Richard.Stastny at oefeg.at Tue Feb 8 10:16:25 2005 From: Richard.Stastny at oefeg.at (Stastny Richard) Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2005 10:16:25 +0100 Subject: [enum-wg] ITU: debate over User-ENUM administration Message-ID: <32755D354E6B65498C3BD9FD496C7D4601D7EA@oefeg-s04.oefeg.loc> Christian wrote: > (e.g., ENUM has nothing to do with assignment of E.164 > numbers or national number plans) Huh? On which planet are you living on? Richard From jim at rfc1035.com Tue Feb 8 11:22:42 2005 From: jim at rfc1035.com (Jim Reid) Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2005 10:22:42 +0000 Subject: [enum-wg] ITU: debate over User-ENUM administration In-Reply-To: Message from "Christian de Larrinaga" of "Tue, 08 Feb 2005 09:08:21 GMT." Message-ID: <6497.1107858162@gromit.rfc1035.com> >>>>> "Christian" == Christian de Larrinaga writes: Christian> I don't see a contract between ITU and US as resolving Christian> the issues raised as it remains debatable that IETF and Christian> IAB are US entities. It's more than debatable. The IAB and IETF don't exist because they have no legal personality. This gives governments and organisations like the ITU a bit of a problem. They are used to contracts and treaties: legally binding documents between recognised entities. So since there's no contract that says ITU have administrative control over e164.arpa, that makes some ITU members very anxious. The liaison statements and MoUs between ITU and RIPE NCC and IAB give effective administrative control. However these are not the watertight contracts -- which jurisdiction(s)? -- that some people in SG2 want. Christian> I'm curious that Mr. Kisrawi appears not to have any Christian> operational concerns for management of 3.6.9.e164.arpa Christian> as things stand but of political control over .arpa and Christian> the root. Syria's country code has not been delegated, so there are no operational concerns. And for all we know, the Syrians might have decided not to get it delegated until there's sufficient ITU control over e164.arpa -- for some definition of control. They could have decided that it's not in their national interest to get the delegation until the administrative safeguards they seem to want are in place. That's a perfectly reasonable position. Some countries are content with the current arrangements -- if they weren't, they would not have allowed the delegation of their country code -- others aren't. This is one reason why the ENUM discussions inside SG2 are continuing. Christian> ITU has agreed a procedure with the IAB and RIPE over Christian> ENUM. It seems a bit late for ITU to start questioning Christian> the legal ownership of .arpa now and totally out of Christian> context to do so citing ENUM which represents a tiny Christian> amount of Internet traffic and is only one protocol to Christian> extend reachability for E.164 numbers. Christian, that's beside the point quite frankly. If ITU SG2 wants to discuss ownership of .arpa or the planet Tharg, they are free to do so. Please note too that the current process for handling delegation requests by ITU is governed by interim procedures. They're temporary. A permanent solution is pretty much guaranteed to require clarification of the administrative control over e164.arpa and .arpa. ie SG2 members need to be sure that if ITU comes to an understanding over e164.arpa, IAB won't choose a different domain name or pick a new Tier-0 registry or someone takes .arpa away from IAB. And this understanding should be formalised in some sort of contract. Mr. Kaswari's contribution is the next step down that road. Christian> So maybe this group could make some representation into Christian> the ITU debate on ENUM to focus on what ENUM is and Christian> what it is not in particular in regard to regulatory Christian> issues (e.g., ENUM has nothing to do with assignment of Christian> E.164 numbers or national number plans) might be Christian> helpful to steer ENUM out of these waters. Is this Christian> something RIPE could do? So "ENUM has nothing to do with assignment of E.164 numbers or national number plans", does it? What drugs are you on and where can I get some? :-) There is a need to explain to SG2 how things like the DNS work and how the internet is governed. [I did some of that when I attended SG2.] RIPE NCC could do this if they were willing and able to commit the time and resources. However they're not Sector Members of ITU, so they can't participate in SG2 meetings. I think the same would be true for most other internet people that could take on this educational role. I believe ITU can invite external experts to attend SG2 as observers, though SG2 would probably be more comfortable having that dialogue between Sector Members rather than with an outsider. Christian> Having said this these top level arguments are not Christian> going away and so the IAB as others in the Internet Christian> world need to establish its rights over .arpa and Christian> assert them but this is not an ENUM issue. Indeed. And it's not a topic for this list. From emma at ripe.net Tue Feb 8 11:43:11 2005 From: emma at ripe.net (Emma Bretherick) Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2005 11:43:11 +0100 Subject: [enum-wg] ITU: debate over User-ENUM administration In-Reply-To: <6497.1107858162@gromit.rfc1035.com> References: Message-ID: <5.2.1.1.2.20050208113714.02f47aa0@mailhost.ripe.net> Hi there, At 10:22 AM 2/8/2005 +0000, Jim Reid wrote: >There is a need to explain to SG2 how things like the DNS work and how >the internet is governed. [I did some of that when I attended SG2.] >RIPE NCC could do this if they were willing and able to commit the >time and resources. However they're not Sector Members of ITU, so they >can't participate in SG2 meetings. I think the same would be true for >most other internet people that could take on this educational role. I >believe ITU can invite external experts to attend SG2 as observers, >though SG2 would probably be more comfortable having that dialogue >between Sector Members rather than with an outsider. Just as an FYI. The RIPE NCC is organising a Roundtable Meeting for Governments and Regulators to discuss Internet Governance and Management and we have invited all ITU Member States (ministers and regulators) from within the RIPE service region. Regards, Emma ------------------------------------ Emma Bretherick External Relations Coordinator RIPE NCC http://www.ripe.net/ From salmon at sipgate.de Tue Feb 8 11:23:47 2005 From: salmon at sipgate.de (Thilo Salmon) Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2005 11:23:47 +0100 Subject: [enum-wg] ITU: debate over User-ENUM administration In-Reply-To: <200502080909.j1899XC9008291@boromir.nask.net.pl> References: <200502080909.j1899XC9008291@boromir.nask.net.pl> Message-ID: <1107858227.16451.222.camel@gw12> > > regulatory issues (e.g., ENUM has nothing to do with assignment of E.164 > > numbers or national number plans) might be helpful to steer ENUM out of > > these waters. Is this something RIPE could do? > > That's interesting... Don't you think that User-ENUM maps the national > numbering plans into DNS. I read that as "yes, it is a mapping", but "no, it is not (necessarily) an assignment". With few exceptions E.164 numbers have already been assigned and the e164.arpa domain merely functions as a directory. IMHO this is a valid point and smart stand to take in order to steer away from politics. Thilo From jim at rfc1035.com Tue Feb 8 12:47:59 2005 From: jim at rfc1035.com (Jim Reid) Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2005 11:47:59 +0000 Subject: [enum-wg] ITU: debate over User-ENUM administration In-Reply-To: Message from Thilo Salmon of "Tue, 08 Feb 2005 11:23:47 +0100." <1107858227.16451.222.camel@gw12> Message-ID: <6601.1107863279@gromit.rfc1035.com> >>>>> "Thilo" == Thilo Salmon writes: Thilo> I read that as "yes, it is a mapping", but "no, it is not Thilo> (necessarily) an assignment". With few exceptions E.164 Thilo> numbers have already been assigned and the e164.arpa domain Thilo> merely functions as a directory. First of all Thilo, DNS is NOT a directory. Please don't confuse it with one. Secondly, an entry under e164.arpa *is* an assignment. The only way to get a number entered in the public tree is if (a) the country code has been delegated; (b) the registry for that country code delegates the number concerned. If that doesn't constitute an assignment, I don't know what does. Of course, whether that E.164 number has been assigned by the regulator or a telco is another matter. From Richard.Stastny at oefeg.at Tue Feb 8 13:31:18 2005 From: Richard.Stastny at oefeg.at (Stastny Richard) Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2005 13:31:18 +0100 Subject: [enum-wg] ITU: debate over User-ENUM administration Message-ID: <32755D354E6B65498C3BD9FD496C7D4601D7F1@oefeg-s04.oefeg.loc> I think the confusion in this discussion comes from the clash of two cultures and some misunderstandings. e164.arpa is not a "normal" domain like .com/.net. It is more like a sponsored domain. In .com the domain name holder is the owner of his domain. In E.164 there is NEVER an ownership. Nobody OWNS an E.164 number (maybe the ITU). E.164 numbers are assigned and the subscriber has the right-to-use according to certain rules he has to obey. The associated domain in e164.arpa is linked 1:1 to this right-to-use of the E.164 number. If he is loosing this right to use, he is also loosing the right-to-use of the e164.arpa domain. On the other hand, he is the ONLY ONE who has this right-to-use, e.g. there is no first- come, first serve, etc. There is another difference (which I try to formulate here as a non-laywer). A normal domain name holder in .com/.net and also the ccTLDs has a direct contract with the Registry and the whole thing has in most cases only two "tiers" (+ 1: the root) In e164.arpa this is more complicated (and this seems also be part of the current discussion) - there are more registries. 1. there is the root (ICANN and the DoC) 2. there is arpa (+ the IAB) 3. there is e164.arpa (+ RIPE and ITU-T) 3a. there is the group of countries (e.g. in CC+1) 4. there is the CC-level (the NRA and the "tier1" Registry) 5. there are the Registrars, the validation entities and the telcos 6. there is the end-user This is a legal nightmare and a land of milk and honey for lawyers ;-) BTW, I am wondering that especially people from the US are not caring so much about and wondering that somebody wants sound legal constructs? Richard > -----Original Message----- > From: enum-wg-admin at ripe.net [mailto:enum-wg-admin at ripe.net] On Behalf Of > Jim Reid > Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 2005 12:48 PM > To: Thilo Salmon > Cc: enum-wg at ripe.net > Subject: Re: [enum-wg] ITU: debate over User-ENUM administration > > >>>>> "Thilo" == Thilo Salmon writes: > > Thilo> I read that as "yes, it is a mapping", but "no, it is not > Thilo> (necessarily) an assignment". With few exceptions E.164 > Thilo> numbers have already been assigned and the e164.arpa domain > Thilo> merely functions as a directory. > > First of all Thilo, DNS is NOT a directory. Please don't confuse it > with one. Secondly, an entry under e164.arpa *is* an assignment. The > only way to get a number entered in the public tree is if (a) the > country code has been delegated; (b) the registry for that country > code delegates the number concerned. If that doesn't constitute an > assignment, I don't know what does. Of course, whether that E.164 > number has been assigned by the regulator or a telco is another > matter. From Richard.Stastny at oefeg.at Tue Feb 8 16:53:10 2005 From: Richard.Stastny at oefeg.at (Stastny Richard) Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2005 16:53:10 +0100 Subject: FW: [enum-wg] ITU: debate over User-ENUM administration Message-ID: <32755D354E6B65498C3BD9FD496C7D4601D7F6@oefeg-s04.oefeg.loc> Christian writes: > If he is referring to e164.arpa then that is one thing if he is referring > to .arpa itself then that is quite another (I think!) Not really. The legal mess in the root and .arpa is (was) not of ITU-T's concern, although they want to get in helpful to solve the problem ;-) Now with ENUM suddenly e164.arpa IS of ITU-T's concern, and it is only logical that they want to have a sound legal basis here. But since the question of the legal basis of e164.arpa leads to the question of the legal basis of .arpa and this leads finally to the question of the legal basic of the root itself. Nabil's chain of thought is only logical. Regards Richard PS: regarding your other statement: >I hope my explanation elsewhere clarifies what I mean. ... >I am simply saying that from the top down ENUM >delegation does not confer >with it authority to create and manage E.164 >number plans. >That still remains with the existing E.164 delegations e.g., >in UK Ofcom. ie., ENUM is not competing with the existing ITU E.164 number >process. Agreed From niall.oreilly at ucd.ie Tue Feb 8 19:52:49 2005 From: niall.oreilly at ucd.ie (Niall O'Reilly) Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2005 18:52:49 +0000 Subject: [enum-wg] ITU: debate over User-ENUM administration In-Reply-To: <6497.1107858162@gromit.rfc1035.com> References: <6497.1107858162@gromit.rfc1035.com> Message-ID: On 8 Feb 2005, at 10:22, Jim Reid wrote: > So "ENUM has nothing to do with assignment of E.164 numbers or > national number plans", does it? What drugs are you on and where can I > get some? :-) I'm missing something here. I'm surprised by this reaction, one of a couple I've seen, each from someone whose clue-level I respect, and each saying more or less the same thing. It seems it's time for me to have a 'booster-shot' of clue. I may not be the only one on the list who would benefit. Please do it gently! As I understood things, Christian's statement is _formally_ correct, since ENUM is for embedding _already-assigned_ E.164 numbers in the DNS. Or? Best regards, Niall O'Reilly PGP key ID: AE995ED9 (see www.pgp.net) Fingerprint: 23DC C6DE 8874 2432 2BE0 3905 7987 E48D AE99 5ED9 From christian at foxcombe.gotadsl.co.uk Tue Feb 8 14:27:30 2005 From: christian at foxcombe.gotadsl.co.uk (Christian de Larrinaga) Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2005 14:27:30 +0100 Subject: [enum-wg] ITU: debate over User-ENUM administration Message-ID: <20050208142726.F174D2C0143@smtp.nildram.co.uk> --------- Original Message -------- From: Andrzej Bartosiewicz Date: 08/02/05 10:10 > > > regulatory issues (e.g., ENUM has nothing to do with assignment of E.164 > > numbers or national number plans) might be helpful to steer ENUM out of > > these waters. Is this something RIPE could do? > > That's interesting... Don't you think that User-ENUM maps the national > numbering plans into DNS. > > Andrzej. > of course ENUM does. But only once E.164 numbers have been assigned. And they are assigned through the ITU to national regulatory processes. ENUM does not change any of the delegation issues for E.164 itself. ENUM is a protocol to support applications that use E.164 numbers (largely) it applies E.164 after the effect. Christian ________________________________________________ Message sent using UebiMiau 2.7.2 From christian at foxcombe.gotadsl.co.uk Tue Feb 8 15:24:36 2005 From: christian at foxcombe.gotadsl.co.uk (Christian de Larrinaga) Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2005 15:24:36 +0100 Subject: [enum-wg] ITU: debate over User-ENUM administration Message-ID: <20050208152433.79E742C110A@smtp.nildram.co.uk> --------- Original Message -------- From: Jim Reid > >>>>> "Christian" == Christian de Larrinaga <cdel at firsthand.net> writes: > > Christian> I don't see a contract between ITU and US as resolving > Christian> the issues raised as it remains debatable that IETF and > Christian> IAB are US entities. > > It's more than debatable. The IAB and IETF don't exist because they > have no legal personality. This gives governments and organisations > like the ITU a bit of a problem. The point I was trying to make is that the arguments given in the Syrian document are less about ENUM as about the entire ediface. I think it is important to keep clean air on this. ENUM is not about changing what ITU and national number authorities for E.164 do. ENUM is ancillary to this. >The liaison > statements and MoUs between ITU and RIPE NCC and IAB give effective > administrative control. However these are not the watertight contracts > -- which jurisdiction(s)? -- that some people in SG2 want. > indeed. But this issue is far broader than a protocol called ENUM. > Christian> I'm curious that Mr. Kisrawi appears not to have any > Christian> operational concerns for management of 3.6.9.e164.arpa > Christian> as things stand but of political control over .arpa and > Christian> the root. > > Syria's country code has not been delegated, so there are no > operational concerns. And for all we know, the Syrians might have > decided not to get it delegated until there's sufficient ITU control > over e164.arpa -- for some definition of control. ok but my point is that this is no different for a national enum delegation .sy or any domain. The delegation tree is shorter for a .com zone (normally) but you still come up with the same basic issues of internet structures that Mr. Kisrawi mentions. These are very old and wel known and debated issues that he raises. If he is referring to e164.arpa then that is one thing if he is referring to .arpa itself then that is quite another (I think!) snip > > Christian> So maybe this group could make some representation into > Christian> the ITU debate on ENUM to focus on what ENUM is and > Christian> what it is not in particular in regard to regulatory > Christian> issues (e.g., ENUM has nothing to do with assignment of > Christian> E.164 numbers or national number plans) might be > Christian> helpful to steer ENUM out of these waters. Is this > Christian> something RIPE could do? > > So "ENUM has nothing to do with assignment of E.164 numbers or > national number plans", does it? What drugs are you on and where can I > get some? :-) OK how does an ENUM delegation (as currently defined) provide authority to create a number plan, delegate that number plan to operators to create further numbers within their number blocks? This is what I mean by authority and delegation. I don't mean a protocol that some script kiddie uses to create his own hack telphone service. I am talking about the official line of authority. ENUM maps E.164 into DNS but only once E.164 numbers are allocated (through the ITU process) and only then into the official ENUM tree through a procedure that involves the ITU E.164 delegation tree. As we know from uk group the process is far from perfect and there is plenty of room for improving clarity and as you quite rightly point out moving from interim status. > > There is a need to explain to SG2 how things like the DNS work and how > the internet is governed. [I did some of that when I attended SG2.] > RIPE NCC could do this if they were willing and able to commit the > time and resources. However they're not Sector Members of ITU, so they > can't participate in SG2 meetings. I think the same would be true for > most other internet people that could take on this educational role. I > believe ITU can invite external experts to attend SG2 as observers, > though SG2 would probably be more comfortable having that dialogue > between Sector Members rather than with an outsider. we need to get away from them and us, > > Christian> Having said this these top level arguments are not > Christian> going away and so the IAB as others in the Internet > Christian> world need to establish its rights over .arpa and > Christian> assert them but this is not an ENUM issue. > > Indeed. And it's not a topic for this list. > my point exactly. It is not about ENUM per se. Christian ________________________________________________ Message sent using UebiMiau 2.7.2 From jim at rfc1035.com Wed Feb 9 11:54:23 2005 From: jim at rfc1035.com (Jim Reid) Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2005 10:54:23 +0000 Subject: [enum-wg] ITU: debate over User-ENUM administration In-Reply-To: Message from "Niall O'Reilly" of "Tue, 08 Feb 2005 18:52:49 GMT." Message-ID: <8493.1107946463@gromit.rfc1035.com> >>>>> "Niall" == Niall O'Reilly writes: >> So "ENUM has nothing to do with assignment of E.164 numbers or >> national number plans", does it? What drugs are you on and >> where can I get some? :-) Niall> It seems it's time for me to have a 'booster-shot' of clue. Niall> I may not be the only one on the list who would benefit. Niall> As I understood things, Christian's statement is _formally_ Niall> correct, since ENUM is for embedding _already-assigned_ Niall> E.164 numbers in the DNS. That's not what he said. It may have been what he meant. Christian said "ENUM has nothing to do with assignment of E.164 numbers or national number plans". True, ENUM has no bearing on how E.164 numbers are assigned. Or how national numbering plans are administered. But since entries under e164.arpa should correspond to assigned E.164 numbers according to the national numbering plan, ENUM does reflect how assignment of E.164 numbers are done. ENUM is not the expression in the DNS of some random digit strings. Christian's remarks can be read as implying ENUM has no relationship to E.164 assignments or numbering plans. Even so, ENUM does have something to do with national numbering plans. Obviously the registrations under .e164.arpa should correspond to the national numbering plan. For example in the UK context, it's not (yet) possible to register premium-rate and free phone numbers under 4.4.e164.arpa because authenticating them is too hard. These numbers live in ranges that have been set aside for those purposes in the national numbering plan. Similar problems could arise with DDI blocks, number ranges set aside for VoIP or DSL, etc etc. Thus ENUM is a representation of the national (and international) numbering plan. That's hardly "nothing to do with it". From Richard.Stastny at oefeg.at Wed Feb 9 12:39:55 2005 From: Richard.Stastny at oefeg.at (Stastny Richard) Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2005 12:39:55 +0100 Subject: [enum-wg] ITU: debate over User-ENUM administration Message-ID: <32755D354E6B65498C3BD9FD496C7D4601D7F8@oefeg-s04.oefeg.loc> Jim wrote: > For example in the UK > context, it's not (yet) possible to register premium-rate and free > phone numbers under 4.4.e164.arpa because authenticating them is too > hard. Authenticating free-phone and premium rate numbers is not harder then authenticating any other number. Freephone numbers in ENUM are not a problem at all, beside the fact Telcos do not like the idea. It is ideal for the customers = call centers migrating to VoIP anyway. In Austria freephone numbers are allowed in ENUM and the US enum-forum is also going this way. Another issue is premium rate numbers: since a customer must be crazy providing an ENUM entry with no termination charge there is no need and business case. Regards Richard From axelm at nic.at Wed Feb 9 12:39:15 2005 From: axelm at nic.at (Alexander Mayrhofer) Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2005 12:39:15 +0100 Subject: [enum-wg] ITU: debate over User-ENUM administration In-Reply-To: <8493.1107946463@gromit.rfc1035.com> References: <8493.1107946463@gromit.rfc1035.com> Message-ID: <4209F663.9030808@nic.at> Jim Reid wrote: > ..... But > since entries under e164.arpa should correspond to assigned E.164 > numbers according to the national numbering plan, ENUM does reflect > how assignment of E.164 numbers are done. slightly OT, but since i'm currently looking for this in the scope of validation - Which document does formally specify this tie between E.164 and ENUM? Don't misunderstand me, i'm fully convinced (as probably the majority of the fellow list members) that this is a requirement for ENUM, but i'm still searching where this is specified, because this requirement is where all validation related work boils down to. What i've found out so far is that RFC3671 says: "Holders of E.164 numbers which want to be listed in DNS should contact the appropriate zone administrator according to the policy which is attached to the zone." One could interpret that as "only holders may apply". Well, it becomes more complicated with number ranges where the ENUM domain is a prerequisite for the assignment of the corresponding E.164 number (eg. +43 780), so YMMV. However, this is the only place in the RFC which talks about the formal relation between E.164 and ENUM (I'm not talking about the technical relations, the whole string conversion etc.) Currently, a country deciding to _not_ have any strict ties between E.164 and ENUM (assigning the ENUM to another party than the E.164) would imho pretty much satisfy RFC3761 - which i consider dangerous. So, where's the place to look for (or add) this requirement? cheers -- Alex Mayrhofer nic.at/enum.at From jim at rfc1035.com Wed Feb 9 12:50:47 2005 From: jim at rfc1035.com (Jim Reid) Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2005 11:50:47 +0000 Subject: [enum-wg] ITU: debate over User-ENUM administration In-Reply-To: Message from "Stastny Richard" of "Wed, 09 Feb 2005 12:39:55 +0100." <32755D354E6B65498C3BD9FD496C7D4601D7F8@oefeg-s04.oefeg.loc> Message-ID: <8577.1107949847@gromit.rfc1035.com> >>>>> "Richard" == Stastny Richard writes: Richard> Authenticating free-phone and premium rate numbers is not Richard> harder then authenticating any other number. That might be true in Austria. It isn't in the UK. From Richard.Stastny at oefeg.at Wed Feb 9 12:58:18 2005 From: Richard.Stastny at oefeg.at (Stastny Richard) Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2005 12:58:18 +0100 Subject: [enum-wg] ITU: debate over User-ENUM administration Message-ID: <32755D354E6B65498C3BD9FD496C7D4601D7F9@oefeg-s04.oefeg.loc> Alex wrote: > "Holders of E.164 numbers which want to be listed in DNS > should contact the appropriate zone administrator according to the > policy which is attached to the zone." Which in Austria is the RTR. In the agreement between RIPE, ITU-T and RIPE (the interim procedures) the ITU-T takes care that this is only the relevant national body ... > Currently, a country deciding to _not_ have any strict ties between > E.164 and ENUM (assigning the ENUM to another party than the E.164) > would imho pretty much satisfy RFC3761 - which i consider dangerous. ... in principle yes, because the rest is national matter and also the relevant ITU-T recommendations are only what the name says: recommendations, but no country having his senses together would do it that way - with one exception, but here Jim may provide you an answer ;-) richard > -----Original Message----- > From: enum-wg-admin at ripe.net [mailto:enum-wg-admin at ripe.net] On Behalf Of > Alexander Mayrhofer > Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2005 12:39 PM > To: Jim Reid > Cc: Niall O'Reilly; enum-wg at ripe.net > Subject: Re: [enum-wg] ITU: debate over User-ENUM administration > > Jim Reid wrote: > > ..... But > > since entries under e164.arpa should correspond to assigned E.164 > > numbers according to the national numbering plan, ENUM does reflect > > how assignment of E.164 numbers are done. > > slightly OT, but since i'm currently looking for this in the scope of > validation - Which document does formally specify this tie between E.164 > and ENUM? > > Don't misunderstand me, i'm fully convinced (as probably the majority of > the fellow list members) that this is a requirement for ENUM, but i'm > still searching where this is specified, because this requirement is > where all validation related work boils down to. > > What i've found out so far is that RFC3671 says: > > "Holders of E.164 numbers which want to be listed in DNS > should contact the appropriate zone administrator according to the > policy which is attached to the zone." > > One could interpret that as "only holders may apply". Well, it becomes > more complicated with number ranges where the ENUM domain is a > prerequisite for the assignment of the corresponding E.164 number (eg. > +43 780), so YMMV. However, this is the only place in the RFC which > talks about the formal relation between E.164 and ENUM (I'm not talking > about the technical relations, the whole string conversion etc.) > > Currently, a country deciding to _not_ have any strict ties between > E.164 and ENUM (assigning the ENUM to another party than the E.164) > would imho pretty much satisfy RFC3761 - which i consider dangerous. > > So, where's the place to look for (or add) this requirement? > > cheers > > -- > Alex Mayrhofer > nic.at/enum.at From jim at rfc1035.com Wed Feb 9 13:01:34 2005 From: jim at rfc1035.com (Jim Reid) Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2005 12:01:34 +0000 Subject: [enum-wg] ITU: debate over User-ENUM administration In-Reply-To: Message from Alexander Mayrhofer of "Wed, 09 Feb 2005 12:39:15 +0100." <4209F663.9030808@nic.at> Message-ID: <8602.1107950494@gromit.rfc1035.com> >>>>> "Alexander" == Alexander Mayrhofer writes: >> ..... But since entries under e164.arpa should correspond to >> assigned E.164 numbers according to the national numbering >> plan, ENUM does reflect how assignment of E.164 numbers are >> done. Alexander> slightly OT, but since i'm currently looking for this Alexander> in the scope of validation - Which document does Alexander> formally specify this tie between E.164 and ENUM? There isn't one as far as I know. This is a self-evident truth that shouldn't need to be documented. However there is usually a requirement from the regulator that ENUM registrations are authenticated and validated. If that applies, it follows that ENUM entries in that country have to be for assigned numbers that conform to the national numbering plan. Alexander> So, where's the place to look for (or add) this requirement? I've no idea. It shouldn't be in an update to RFC3761 IMO. That would take the IETF into the rathole of defining what "ownership" of an E.164 number meant. I'm not sure this requirement should be globally documented since it concerns a National Matter. Perhaps the regulator should issue something? From andrzejb at nask.pl Wed Feb 9 14:04:31 2005 From: andrzejb at nask.pl (Andrzej Bartosiewicz) Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2005 14:04:31 +0100 Subject: [enum-wg] ITU: debate over User-ENUM administration In-Reply-To: <4209F663.9030808@nic.at> Message-ID: <200502091303.j19D3XOR024648@boromir.nask.net.pl> > "Holders of E.164 numbers which want to be listed in DNS > should contact the appropriate zone administrator according to the > policy which is attached to the zone." > > One could interpret that as "only holders may apply". In Poland, only TSP may apply for the ENUM domain names. E164 number is not the "product" or stand-alone "service", but the part of agreement between TSP and Subscriber. Andrzej. From Richard.Stastny at oefeg.at Wed Feb 9 15:12:26 2005 From: Richard.Stastny at oefeg.at (Stastny Richard) Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2005 15:12:26 +0100 Subject: [enum-wg] ITU: debate over User-ENUM administration Message-ID: <32755D354E6B65498C3BD9FD496C7D4601D7FB@oefeg-s04.oefeg.loc> > > "Holders of E.164 numbers which want to be listed in DNS > > should contact the appropriate zone administrator according to the > > policy which is attached to the zone." BTW, "holders" is IETF speak, ITU speak should is "assignees" Andrzey wrote: > In Poland, only TSP may apply for the ENUM domain names. Ok, Poland is infrastructure/carrier ENUM in disguise of User ENUM and therefore a special case ;-) Richard > -----Original Message----- > From: enum-wg-admin at ripe.net [mailto:enum-wg-admin at ripe.net] On Behalf Of > Andrzej Bartosiewicz > Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2005 2:05 PM > To: 'Alexander Mayrhofer'; enum-wg at ripe.net > Cc: 'Niall O'Reilly'; 'Jim Reid' > Subject: RE: [enum-wg] ITU: debate over User-ENUM administration > > > "Holders of E.164 numbers which want to be listed in DNS > > should contact the appropriate zone administrator according to the > > policy which is attached to the zone." > > > > One could interpret that as "only holders may apply". > > In Poland, only TSP may apply for the ENUM domain names. > > E164 number is not the "product" or stand-alone "service", but the part of > agreement between TSP and Subscriber. > > Andrzej. From cdel at firsthand.net Wed Feb 9 21:21:45 2005 From: cdel at firsthand.net (Christian de Larrinaga) Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2005 20:21:45 -0000 Subject: [enum-wg] ITU: debate over User-ENUM administration In-Reply-To: <8493.1107946463@gromit.rfc1035.com> Message-ID: > -----Original Message----- > From: enum-wg-admin at ripe.net [mailto:enum-wg-admin at ripe.net]On Behalf Of > Jim Reid > Sent: 09 February 2005 10:54 > To: Niall O'Reilly > Cc: enum-wg at ripe.net > Subject: Re: [enum-wg] ITU: debate over User-ENUM administration > > > >>>>> "Niall" == Niall O'Reilly writes: > > >> So "ENUM has nothing to do with assignment of E.164 numbers or > >> national number plans", does it? What drugs are you on and > >> where can I get some? :-) > > Niall> It seems it's time for me to have a 'booster-shot' of clue. > Niall> I may not be the only one on the list who would benefit. > > Niall> As I understood things, Christian's statement is _formally_ > Niall> correct, since ENUM is for embedding _already-assigned_ > Niall> E.164 numbers in the DNS. > > That's not what he said. It may have been what he meant. Christian > said "ENUM has nothing to do with assignment of E.164 numbers or > national number plans". True, ENUM has no bearing on how E.164 numbers > are assigned. Or how national numbering plans are administered. That is what I wrote (with or without drugs. :-)) But > since entries under e164.arpa should correspond to assigned E.164 > numbers according to the national numbering plan, ENUM does reflect > how assignment of E.164 numbers are done. No it doesn't. ENUM simply records E.164 numbers once assigned. it does not reflect the process of assignment. ENUM is not the expression > in the DNS of some random digit strings. Christian's remarks can be > read as implying ENUM has no relationship to E.164 assignments or > numbering plans. I am talking very specifically about the authority behind assignment of E.164 and that is not through the ENUM tree but the E.164 national delegations. > > Even so, ENUM does have something to do with national numbering > plans. Obviously the registrations under .e164.arpa should > correspond to the national numbering plan. For example in the UK > context, it's not (yet) possible to register premium-rate and free > phone numbers under 4.4.e164.arpa because authenticating them is too > hard. These numbers live in ranges that have been set aside for those > purposes in the national numbering plan. Similar problems could arise > with DDI blocks, number ranges set aside for VoIP or DSL, etc etc. > Thus ENUM is a representation of the national (and international) > numbering plan. That's hardly "nothing to do with it". > see above. Christian From lwc at roke.co.uk Wed Feb 9 23:11:51 2005 From: lwc at roke.co.uk (Conroy, Lawrence (SMTP)) Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2005 22:11:51 +0000 Subject: [enum-wg] ITU: debate over User-ENUM administration In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <038f717342a788294108e48f0b6d1272@roke.co.uk> Hi Christian, folks, Intiguing - Axel asked the quite reasonable question that it isn't clear to the 3.4.e164.arpa. Registry all of the specifics of the policy they were required to execute, who gets to set these, and/or whether or not any general policies apply to all such registries. What followed seems to be a discussion in Medieval Philosophy. "ENUM - What's in a word?" In most countries, the Government or its anointed agency decides on the delegation policy to be applied for delegations in ->their<- zone. It's their zone because the E.164.arpa. delegation policies as executed by RIPE-NCC and the TSB reflect in the IAB/ITU agreements and the ITU's interim procedures. The interim procedures in turn reflect the E.164 assignment process. Does each country have a right to choose the specifics of its delegation policies? Of course. My chosen delegation policy for my domain is not reflected in RFC1034/1035. Likewise for the holder of 3.4.e164.arpa., which Richard points out is RTR. Now... coming back to the original thread - The reasonable legal concerns are over whether the ITU is sure that the interim agreement will continue to be executed, without a formal agreement with the legal entity that controls the parent zone from which the ENUM apex was/is delegated. ---------------------------------- As an aside... Some people** who had assumed that they had a valid domain registration in a certain gTLD were surprised to find that this situation had changed, someone else was the registrant, and they were being asked for money to transfer it back again. It happens - often with the Registrar denying any knowledge of the original registrant, up to an including receiving a copy of their own invoice and the payment taken for the service which included renewal, with dates. Are you surprised that any Country's representatives at the ITU are concerned, with such antics going on under what might appear to be ICANN's purview? **[I point out here - not to me, but to a colleague in the same office who registered a DotCom domain, or rather registered it for a while :] ---------------------------------- all the best, Lawrence On 9 Feb 2005, at 20:21, Christian de Larrinaga wrote: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: enum-wg-admin at ripe.net [mailto:enum-wg-admin at ripe.net]On Behalf >> Of >> Jim Reid >> Sent: 09 February 2005 10:54 >> To: Niall O'Reilly >> Cc: enum-wg at ripe.net >> Subject: Re: [enum-wg] ITU: debate over User-ENUM administration >>>>>>> Niall writes in response to jim's request for a dealer: >>>> So "ENUM has nothing to do with assignment of E.164 numbers or >>>> national number plans", does it? What drugs are you on and >>>> where can I get some? :-) >> >> Niall> It seems it's time for me to have a 'booster-shot' of clue. >> Niall> I may not be the only one on the list who would benefit. >> >> Niall> As I understood things, Christian's statement is _formally_ >> Niall> correct, since ENUM is for embedding _already-assigned_ >> Niall> E.164 numbers in the DNS. >> To which jim in turn ripostes: >> That's not what he said. It may have been what he meant. Christian >> said "ENUM has nothing to do with assignment of E.164 numbers or >> national number plans". True, ENUM has no bearing on how E.164 numbers >> are assigned. Or how national numbering plans are administered. > > That is what I wrote (with or without drugs. :-)) > > But >> since entries under e164.arpa should correspond to assigned E.164 >> numbers according to the national numbering plan, ENUM does reflect >> how assignment of E.164 numbers are done. > > No it doesn't. ENUM simply records E.164 numbers once assigned. it > does not > reflect the process of assignment. > > ENUM is not the expression >> in the DNS of some random digit strings. Christian's remarks can be >> read as implying ENUM has no relationship to E.164 assignments or >> numbering plans. > I am talking very specifically about the authority behind assignment of > E.164 and that is not through the ENUM tree but the E.164 national > delegations. > >> >> Even so, ENUM does have something to do with national numbering >> plans. Obviously the registrations under .e164.arpa should >> correspond to the national numbering plan. For example in the UK >> context, it's not (yet) possible to register premium-rate and free >> phone numbers under 4.4.e164.arpa because authenticating them is too >> hard. These numbers live in ranges that have been set aside for those >> purposes in the national numbering plan. Similar problems could arise >> with DDI blocks, number ranges set aside for VoIP or DSL, etc etc. >> Thus ENUM is a representation of the national (and international) >> numbering plan. That's hardly "nothing to do with it". >> > > see above. > > Christian > From axelm at nic.at Thu Feb 10 10:07:50 2005 From: axelm at nic.at (Alexander Mayrhofer) Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2005 10:07:50 +0100 Subject: [enum-wg] ITU: debate over User-ENUM administration In-Reply-To: <038f717342a788294108e48f0b6d1272@roke.co.uk> References: <038f717342a788294108e48f0b6d1272@roke.co.uk> Message-ID: <420B2466.8010507@nic.at> Conroy, Lawrence (SMTP) wrote: > Intiguing - Axel asked the quite reasonable question that it isn't clear > to the 3.4.e164.arpa. Registry all of the specifics of the policy they > were required to execute, who gets to set these, and/or whether or not > any general policies apply to all such registries. Lawrence, it's perfectly clear to us what the requirements are on a local level - our regulator did specify that pretty comprehensive. Integrity between the local numering plan and ENUM is one of the fundamental requirements in the contract signed between RTR and enum.at. So, locally, we're all set. However, i'm trying to look at the validation issues on a more global level (imho it doesn't make sense to reinvent the wheel in every country [again], especially since policy wise i consider E.164/ENUM less "entropy-burdened" than eg. ccTLD's). I asked myself what that basis for validation is, and came to the conclusion that insuring the integrity between E.164 and ENUM is what validation is really about. > In most countries, the Government or its anointed agency decides on the > delegation policy to be applied for delegations in ->their<- zone. > > It's their zone because the E.164.arpa. delegation policies as executed > by RIPE-NCC and the TSB reflect in the IAB/ITU agreements and the ITU's > interim procedures. The interim procedures in turn reflect the E.164 > assignment process. > > Does each country have a right to choose the specifics of its delegation > policies? Of course. My chosen delegation policy for my domain is not > reflected in RFC1034/1035. Likewise for the holder of 3.4.e164.arpa., > which Richard points out is RTR. > > Now... coming back to the original thread - > > The reasonable legal concerns are over whether the ITU is sure that the > interim agreement will continue to be executed, without a formal agreement > with the legal entity that controls the parent zone from which the ENUM > apex was/is delegated. Well, i'm still an engineer, so i'm not so much concerned about legal aspects [yet] ;). I'm just asking myself if it makes any sense to bring up documents about ENUM Validation at the IETF if (and that's how i interpret the previous posts) the WG has concerns about even noting that this strict relationship between E.164 and ENUM exists. What should i base my document on? Who would support it, when it talks about something which the IETF doesn't care about? If we exclude the whole "administrative" stuff about validation from the IETF, it essentially boils down to a data format / message exchange standard for validation information (for which already 2 I-D's exist). If i remember it correctly, there has not been much interest in those two drafts, because they presented solutions to a problem of which most of the attendees were unaware - the conclusion was the recommendation that we should provide a "requirements" draft for validation. Now that i'm working on this requirements stuff, it turns out that there's no fundamental basis for that (IETF-wise) because the IETF does not want/ cannot make clear what the relation ENUM/E.164 is all about. What should we do? Drop the "validation" topic in IETF completely, and take it to a local level (wheel reinventing in every country...)? I don't consider that a good solution... comments appreciated. cheers axelm From rich.shockey at neustar.biz Wed Feb 9 14:31:12 2005 From: rich.shockey at neustar.biz (Richard Shockey) Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2005 08:31:12 -0500 Subject: [enum-wg] ITU: debate over User-ENUM administration In-Reply-To: <200502091303.j19D3XOR024648@boromir.nask.net.pl> References: <4209F663.9030808@nic.at> <200502091303.j19D3XOR024648@boromir.nask.net.pl> Message-ID: <6.2.0.14.2.20050209082957.0501e700@sb7.songbird.com> At 08:04 AM 2/9/2005, Andrzej Bartosiewicz wrote: > > "Holders of E.164 numbers which want to be listed in DNS > > should contact the appropriate zone administrator according to the > > policy which is attached to the zone." > > > > One could interpret that as "only holders may apply". > >In Poland, only TSP may apply for the ENUM domain names. does simplify the validation problem :-) >E164 number is not the "product" or stand-alone "service", but the part of >agreement between TSP and Subscriber. > >Andrzej. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard Shockey, Senior Manager, Strategic Technology Initiatives NeuStar Inc. 46000 Center Oak Plaza - Sterling, VA 20166 sip:rshockey(at)iptel.org sip:57141 at fwd.pulver.com ENUM +87810-13313-31331 PSTN Office +1 571.434.5651 PSTN Mobile: +1 703.593.2683, Fax: +1 815.333.1237 or ; <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< From cdel at firsthand.net Wed Feb 9 22:08:11 2005 From: cdel at firsthand.net (Christian de Larrinaga) Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2005 21:08:11 -0000 Subject: [enum-wg] ITU: debate over User-ENUM administration In-Reply-To: <32755D354E6B65498C3BD9FD496C7D4601D7F5@oefeg-s04.oefeg.loc> Message-ID: Richard Stastny wrote.. > Christian writes: > > If he is referring to e164.arpa then that is one thing if he is > referring > > to .arpa itself then that is quite another (I think!) > > Not really. > I disagree it is a really distinctive change because .arpa has other delegations and constituencies to consider apart from ENUM. For instance every reverse DNS entry in the world! This is why escalating up the tree from e164.arpa to .arpa has enormous implications for Internet users well beyond the very limited scope of ENUM itself. > The legal mess in the root and .arpa is (was) not of ITU-T's concern, > although they want to get in helpful to solve the problem ;-) > Well it is perhaps byzantine.:-) There may well be room for improvement :-) but there are as Jim noted plenty of voices that believe the current "structure" gives strength through diversity and it works! Some credit is due for that. The scenario suggested by the Mr. Kisrawi has the DoC striking off .arpa or replacing the IAB authority over .arpa and the existing delegations in .arpa not being inherited by any successor "owner". This is a remarkable plot. Perhaps it could happen but the whole Internet from root operators down the delegation trees would have to take up the changes and the DoC and the ITU will have to recognise that if people down the delegation trees don't like the changes they can do their own thing. Particularly if they are not US based. Also I hesitate to think of the reaction from countries around the world if the DoC behaved in such an arbitrary and overbearing way. So the scenario that is being raised by Mr. Kisrawi to justify the logic of the argument is apocalyptic. It does not seem reasonable as it is not based on experience of Internet management to date. We may internationally believe that the DoC as a national regulator for the US should step away from having final sayso over Internet resources that are considered international but the US has been a good responsible mothership for internetworking as has the role played by the IAB. > Now with ENUM suddenly e164.arpa IS of ITU-T's concern, and it is > only logical that they want to have a sound legal basis here. > Logic is not the issue! The issue is whether you cut or unravel the DNS knot and having done that how do you put it back together again in a way that does at least as good a job as we have today. Humpty dumpty sat on a wall, Humpty Dumpty had a great fall, all the kings horses and all the kings men couldn't put Humpty together again! (to quote an ancient British verse). > But since the question of the legal basis of e164.arpa leads > to the question of the legal basis of .arpa and this leads > finally to the question of the legal basic of the root itself. > > Nabil's chain of thought is only logical. but it misses the point that the higher up to the root you go the greater the number of constituencies implicated in any changes. There is significant impact in reverse engineering populated hierarchical structures. In particular when these are self governing and independent of each other organisationally. That is why it is sensible for ITU-T as the good netizen it is to clearly demarcate between operational measures to get services established today and the longer range (and genuine) governance issues concerning internationalisation and accountability over Internet resources. Christian From Richard.Stastny at oefeg.at Thu Feb 10 10:22:53 2005 From: Richard.Stastny at oefeg.at (Stastny Richard) Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2005 10:22:53 +0100 Subject: [enum-wg] ITU: debate over User-ENUM administration Message-ID: <32755D354E6B65498C3BD9FD496C7D4601D800@oefeg-s04.oefeg.loc> Axel, you are right at the spot, and here is the problem: IETF is a protocol making body, so the data format/message exchange is an IETF issue. To do so, they need requirements for validation, but the requirements are NOT an IETF issue. The question is now, who can come up with the requirements and if there are some, will they be accepted by IETF. There is some possibilities to come up with (global) requirements: either from a regulators club or somebody near (ITU-T?) or from a club of Registries and Registrars dealing with ENUM in practice, bringing in and harmonizing their national requirements. Richard > -----Original Message----- > From: enum-wg-admin at ripe.net [mailto:enum-wg-admin at ripe.net] On Behalf Of > Alexander Mayrhofer > Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2005 10:08 AM > To: Conroy, Lawrence (SMTP) > Cc: ; Christian de Larrinaga > Subject: Re: [enum-wg] ITU: debate over User-ENUM administration > > Conroy, Lawrence (SMTP) wrote: > > Intiguing - Axel asked the quite reasonable question that it isn't clear > > to the 3.4.e164.arpa. Registry all of the specifics of the policy they > > were required to execute, who gets to set these, and/or whether or not > > any general policies apply to all such registries. > > Lawrence, > > it's perfectly clear to us what the requirements are on a local level - > our regulator did specify that pretty comprehensive. Integrity between > the local numering plan and ENUM is one of the fundamental requirements > in the contract signed between RTR and enum.at. So, locally, we're all > set. > > However, i'm trying to look at the validation issues on a more global > level (imho it doesn't make sense to reinvent the wheel in every country > [again], especially since policy wise i consider E.164/ENUM less > "entropy-burdened" than eg. ccTLD's). > > I asked myself what that basis for validation is, and came to the > conclusion that insuring the integrity between E.164 and ENUM is what > validation is really about. > > > In most countries, the Government or its anointed agency decides on the > > delegation policy to be applied for delegations in ->their<- zone. > > > > It's their zone because the E.164.arpa. delegation policies as executed > > by RIPE-NCC and the TSB reflect in the IAB/ITU agreements and the ITU's > > interim procedures. The interim procedures in turn reflect the E.164 > > assignment process. > > > > Does each country have a right to choose the specifics of its delegation > > policies? Of course. My chosen delegation policy for my domain is not > > reflected in RFC1034/1035. Likewise for the holder of 3.4.e164.arpa., > > which Richard points out is RTR. > > > > Now... coming back to the original thread - > > > > The reasonable legal concerns are over whether the ITU is sure that the > > interim agreement will continue to be executed, without a formal > agreement > > with the legal entity that controls the parent zone from which the ENUM > > apex was/is delegated. > > Well, i'm still an engineer, so i'm not so much concerned about legal > aspects [yet] ;). I'm just asking myself if it makes any sense to bring > up documents about ENUM Validation at the IETF if (and that's how i > interpret the previous posts) the WG has concerns about even noting that > this strict relationship between E.164 and ENUM exists. What should i > base my document on? Who would support it, when it talks about something > which the IETF doesn't care about? > > If we exclude the whole "administrative" stuff about validation from the > IETF, it essentially boils down to a data format / message exchange > standard for validation information (for which already 2 I-D's exist). > If i remember it correctly, there has not been much interest in those > two drafts, because they presented solutions to a problem of which most > of the attendees were unaware - the conclusion was the recommendation > that we should provide a "requirements" draft for validation. > > Now that i'm working on this requirements stuff, it turns out that > there's no fundamental basis for that (IETF-wise) because the IETF does > not want/ cannot make clear what the relation ENUM/E.164 is all about. > What should we do? Drop the "validation" topic in IETF completely, and > take it to a local level (wheel reinventing in every country...)? I > don't consider that a good solution... > > comments appreciated. > > cheers > > axelm From cdel at firsthand.net Thu Feb 10 10:45:23 2005 From: cdel at firsthand.net (Christian de Larrinaga) Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2005 09:45:23 -0000 Subject: [enum-wg] ITU: debate over User-ENUM administration In-Reply-To: <420B2466.8010507@nic.at> Message-ID: I don't believe there is any issue of whether there is linkage between ENUM and E.164. The issue (if one exists at all) is to keep the flow clear so that you first get E.164 and only then might you delegate this into an ENUM tree (at a national level). An RFC that offers workable validatation frameworks for national ENUM trees to reflect their E.164 numbering plan should be welcomed. But as a BCP perhaps at this point rather than a Standard, as I agree with Richard here that there are other interested parties who need to dip into this and we have to accept that NRA's can take different views. Christian > -----Original Message----- > From: enum-wg-admin at ripe.net [mailto:enum-wg-admin at ripe.net]On Behalf Of > Alexander Mayrhofer > Sent: 10 February 2005 09:08 > To: Conroy, Lawrence (SMTP) > Cc: ; Christian de Larrinaga > Subject: Re: [enum-wg] ITU: debate over User-ENUM administration > > > Conroy, Lawrence (SMTP) wrote: > > Intiguing - Axel asked the quite reasonable question that it isn't clear > > to the 3.4.e164.arpa. Registry all of the specifics of the policy they > > were required to execute, who gets to set these, and/or whether or not > > any general policies apply to all such registries. > > Lawrence, > > it's perfectly clear to us what the requirements are on a local level - > our regulator did specify that pretty comprehensive. Integrity between > the local numering plan and ENUM is one of the fundamental requirements > in the contract signed between RTR and enum.at. So, locally, > we're all set. > > However, i'm trying to look at the validation issues on a more global > level (imho it doesn't make sense to reinvent the wheel in every country > [again], especially since policy wise i consider E.164/ENUM less > "entropy-burdened" than eg. ccTLD's). > snip > I asked myself what that basis for validation is, and came to the > conclusion that insuring the integrity between E.164 and ENUM is what > validation is really about. snip > Now that i'm working on this requirements stuff, it turns out that > there's no fundamental basis for that (IETF-wise) because the IETF does > not want/ cannot make clear what the relation ENUM/E.164 is all about. > What should we do? Drop the "validation" topic in IETF completely, and > take it to a local level (wheel reinventing in every country...)? I > don't consider that a good solution... > > comments appreciated. > > cheers > > axelm Christian From lwc at roke.co.uk Thu Feb 10 10:47:51 2005 From: lwc at roke.co.uk (Conroy, Lawrence (SMTP)) Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2005 09:47:51 +0000 Subject: [enum-wg] ITU: debate over User-ENUM administration In-Reply-To: <32755D354E6B65498C3BD9FD496C7D4601D800@oefeg-s04.oefeg.loc> References: <32755D354E6B65498C3BD9FD496C7D4601D800@oefeg-s04.oefeg.loc> Message-ID: Hi Axel, Richard, folks, Short answer is Yes, No. If you're talking about a set of policies to be applied by Registries and Registrars, then Registries and Registrars SHOULD to be involved, so that the policies specified are feasible. Regulators do have "off days", so it's useful for Registries/Registrars to point out that a policy that "potential registrants must come to Poitiers in person to register, but only on the first Wednesday of each month" isn't a good idea. Likewise, in effect requiring TSP validation whilst not requiring TSPs to set up such a validation system has a few problems. However, the Regulator's club are the guys who decide on any policy framework that they are going to specify, so they have to be "in charge". The IETF is the *wrong* place for any such work, unless you intend to develop a protocol to be used. We have all sorts of protocols already for this, so unless it's an XML schema that is used as a medium of exchange to embody a policy, they're not it. They're just bit pushers, and as Harald pointed out in his recent presentation in Vienna, a key feature of getting an RFC is waiting. So... find me a Regulator's club! all the best, Lawrence On 10 Feb 2005, at 09:22, Stastny Richard wrote: > Axel, > > you are right at the spot, and here is the problem: > > IETF is a protocol making body, so the data format/message exchange > is an IETF issue. To do so, they need requirements for validation, > but the requirements are NOT an IETF issue. > > The question is now, who can come up with the requirements and if > there are some, will they be accepted by IETF. > > There is some possibilities to come up with (global) requirements: > either > from a regulators club or somebody near (ITU-T?) or from a club > of Registries and Registrars dealing with ENUM in practice, bringing > in and harmonizing their national requirements. > >> Now that i'm working on this requirements stuff, it turns out that >> there's no fundamental basis for that (IETF-wise) because the IETF >> does >> not want/ cannot make clear what the relation ENUM/E.164 is all about. >> What should we do? Drop the "validation" topic in IETF completely, and >> take it to a local level (wheel reinventing in every country...)? I >> don't consider that a good solution... >> >> comments appreciated. >> >> cheers From jim at rfc1035.com Thu Feb 10 12:39:39 2005 From: jim at rfc1035.com (Jim Reid) Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2005 11:39:39 +0000 Subject: [enum-wg] ITU: debate over User-ENUM administration In-Reply-To: Message from "Christian de Larrinaga" of "Wed, 09 Feb 2005 21:08:11 GMT." Message-ID: <10593.1108035579@gromit.rfc1035.com> >>>>> "Christian" == Christian de Larrinaga writes: Christian> The scenario suggested by the Mr. Kisrawi has the DoC Christian> striking off .arpa or replacing the IAB authority over Christian> .arpa and the existing delegations in .arpa not being Christian> inherited by any successor "owner". This is a Christian> remarkable plot. Perhaps it could happen Whether it could or couldn't happen is not the point. The problem is some governments are very uneasy that they do not have an understood legal framework for the internet -- contracts, treaties, etc -- as they do for other forms of communication like post and telephone. Without that framework, they feel their national interests are not adequately safeguarded. This hasn't been helped by seeing some countries lose control over their TLDs. The next problem is that ICANN is a US company subject to US jurisdiction, not an offshoot of an international organisation. A fundamental principle of international law is the national resources of one state cannot be under the control of another. The wrangling over e164.arpa at SG2 is a scale model of that larger concern. Please note too that SG2 is largely a forum for governments and regulators. They're used to dealing with regulations, laws and contracts. The culture of the internet -- benign anarchy, liaison statements with organisations that legally do not exist, etc -- is alien to them. And perhaps frightening for some. The point Mr. Kiswari and others is making is not that DoC could pull the plug on .arpa. It's that if this happened, what redress do governments have? Who do they complain to and what power does that body have to resolve the issue? Since there are no contracts or treaties... BTW Christian, the mail server you're using is broken. It's gratuitously mangling email addresses: "enum-wg at ripe.net"@smtp.nildram.co.uk <"sob at harvard.edu"@smtp.nildram.co.uk> Could you please get this fixed? From enumvoipsip.cs at schiefner.de Sun Feb 13 01:34:59 2005 From: enumvoipsip.cs at schiefner.de (Carsten Schiefner) Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2005 01:34:59 +0100 Subject: [enum-wg] ERG to discuss VoIP In-Reply-To: <41A73E0A.8010401@schiefner.de> References: <41A73E0A.8010401@schiefner.de> Message-ID: <420EA0B3.1080205@schiefner.de> All, in the meantime the ERG held its 12th plenary on Thu and Fri last week. And again, this may not be 100% ENUM related, but nonetheless of some interest. In particular as the ERG published a Common Statement on VoIP and its regulation this time. Plenary's agenda: http://www.erg.eu.int/doc/meeting/erg0501_erg12_agenda.pdf Common Statement on VoIP: http://www.erg.eu.int/doc/publications/erg05_12_voip_common_statement.doc This also got some coverage in the press: http://www.thestandard.com/internetnews/000963.php http://www.telecom.paper.nl/index.asp?location=site%2Fnews%5FTA%2Easp%3Ftype%3Dabstract%26id%3D67273%26NR%3D350 Related to that, the ICC - International Chamber of Commerce - already in December last year went into the same direction and called for a light-handed approach to regulating VoIP etc.: http://www.iccwbo.org/home/news_archives/2004/voip.asp Best, Carsten Carsten Schiefner wrote: > All, > > FYI: during its upcoming meeting, the ERG - the European Regulators > Group - will also discuss VoIP related issues to come to a common > position eventually. > > Although not 100% ENUM related, this nonetheless might be of some > interest to the Working Group. > > Best, > > Carsten > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: ERG's eleventh plenary meeting - agenda and debriefing session > Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2004 13:04:20 +0100 > From: erg at cec.eu.int > > > > Agenda for the eleventh plenary meeting of the European Regulators Group > > The agenda for the eleventh plenary meeting ("ERG11") in Brussels 2 - 3 > December is now available at http://www.erg.eu.int/meetings/index_en.htm. > > Highlights include > > o New action plan and timetable for intensified work with > international roaming > o Draft Common Position on Voice over IP > o Decision on the draft 2005 Work Programme for public > consultation > > The ERG11 debriefing will be held on Monday, 6 December in Brussels at > 10 AM. If you wish to attend this, please e-mail to > erg-secretariat at cec.eu.int no later than close > of business on Wednesday, 1 December. > > ________________________ > European Regulators Group > www.erg.eu.int From andrzejb at nask.pl Mon Feb 14 12:28:12 2005 From: andrzejb at nask.pl (Andrzej Bartosiewicz) Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2005 12:28:12 +0100 Subject: [enum-wg] ITU: debate over User-ENUM administration In-Reply-To: <32755D354E6B65498C3BD9FD496C7D4601D7FB@oefeg-s04.oefeg.loc> Message-ID: <200502141127.j1EBRFkr027453@boromir.nask.net.pl> Richard, Our Telecommunication Law enumerate the Subscriber rights connected with E.164 numbers. There is nothing about _additional_ rights for Subscribers, for example right for binding the E.164 number assigned by TSP with other identifiers (numbers assigned by another TSP). http://www.mi.gov.pl/prezentacje/jednostki/1/dokumenty/ustawa_ang.pdf Our Law is also compatible with EU Directives. I'm sure that at least EU national Telecommunication Acts are similar to Polish and there is nothing about "broaden" Subscriber rights to the E164 numbers(including full "management" of the Number). Subscriber's Number is not "owned" by the Subscriber, but is the part of the agreement between TSP and Subscriber. Subscriber has no right for using the number in the contradiction to the Telco Law and the agreement between TSP and Subscriber. Our implementation of ENUM is in harmony with Polish Telco' Law. Andrzej. > Andrzey wrote: > > In Poland, only TSP may apply for the ENUM domain names. > > Ok, Poland is infrastructure/carrier ENUM in disguise of User ENUM > and therefore a special case ;-) > > Richard From enumvoipsip.cs at schiefner.de Mon Feb 14 13:22:22 2005 From: enumvoipsip.cs at schiefner.de (Carsten Schiefner) Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2005 13:22:22 +0100 Subject: [enum-wg] ITU: debate over User-ENUM administration In-Reply-To: <4209F663.9030808@nic.at> References: <8493.1107946463@gromit.rfc1035.com> <4209F663.9030808@nic.at> Message-ID: <421097FE.4040009@schiefner.de> Alex, Alexander Mayrhofer wrote: > slightly OT, but since i'm currently looking for this in the scope of > validation - Which document does formally specify this tie between E.164 > and ENUM? from what I recall, ETSI TS 102 051 V1.1.1 (2002-07) "ENUM Administration in Europe" covers that a bit - although not formally binding. The extent of tying E.164 and ENUM together after all is essentially a local matter, then again. Best, -C. From enumvoipsip.cs at schiefner.de Tue Feb 22 14:45:05 2005 From: enumvoipsip.cs at schiefner.de (Carsten Schiefner) Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2005 14:45:05 +0100 Subject: [enum-wg] FYI: ComReg issues proposal for VoIP numbers Message-ID: <421B3761.6010206@schiefner.de> All, Friday last week, Telecom.paper reported on a draft direction by Irish ComReg to allow access to the new ?076? number range for VoIP services: http://www.telecompaper.com/index.asp?t=a&i=68293&n=730 === Ireland?s Commission for Communications Regulation (ComReg) has issued draft Directions to allow access to the new ?076? number range for VoIP services. Last October, ComReg made the 076 phone number range available to telecoms providers. To date, telecoms providers have not succeeded in negotiating terms that would allow 076 numbers to be connected to the wider telecoms network. ComReg is intervening to assist industry put in place, a preliminary framework for prices and settlements. Specifically, ComReg?s draft directions propose two price points to facilitate telephone calls to VoIP numbers. ComReg will accept responses to the draft directions from interested parties up until the 3 March. === It wasn't possible to get that confirmed by ComReg's website, though. Best regards, Carsten Schiefner From ronan.lupton at ie.mci.com Tue Feb 22 14:51:26 2005 From: ronan.lupton at ie.mci.com (Lupton, Ronan) Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2005 13:51:26 -0000 Subject: [enum-wg] FYI: ComReg issues proposal for VoIP numbers Message-ID: Carsten et al. For full text of the ComReg nomadic VoIP numbering proposal please visit this link: http://www.comreg.ie/_fileupload/publications/ComReg0512.pdf You will note treatment of ENUM service is not specifically within the scope of this consultation but dealt with in http://www.comreg.ie/_fileupload/publications/ComReg04103.pdf pages 19 and 20. We are working with the ENUM forum via ComReg and the government separately. Thanks, Ronan P.S. apologies for the HTML. Ronan Lupton Senior Regulatory Manager & EMEA Interconnect Policy MCI International Affairs MCI Lower Erne St. Dublin 2. Ireland Tel: +353-1-2474525 Fax: +353-1-2474545 GSM: +353-87-2053215 Vnet: +451-4525 ENUM: 8.8.8.9.6.0.5.1.3.5.3.e164.arpa mailto:ronan.lupton at ie.mci.com -----Original Message----- From: enum-wg-admin at ripe.net [mailto:enum-wg-admin at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Carsten Schiefner Sent: 22 February 2005 13:45 To: enum-wg at ripe.net Subject: [enum-wg] FYI: ComReg issues proposal for VoIP numbers All, Friday last week, Telecom.paper reported on a draft direction by Irish ComReg to allow access to the new '076' number range for VoIP services: http://www.telecompaper.com/index.asp?t=a&i=68293&n=730 === Ireland's Commission for Communications Regulation (ComReg) has issued draft Directions to allow access to the new '076' number range for VoIP services. Last October, ComReg made the 076 phone number range available to telecoms providers. To date, telecoms providers have not succeeded in negotiating terms that would allow 076 numbers to be connected to the wider telecoms network. ComReg is intervening to assist industry put in place, a preliminary framework for prices and settlements. Specifically, ComReg's draft directions propose two price points to facilitate telephone calls to VoIP numbers. ComReg will accept responses to the draft directions from interested parties up until the 3 March. === It wasn't possible to get that confirmed by ComReg's website, though. Best regards, Carsten Schiefner -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From enumvoipsip.cs at schiefner.de Tue Feb 22 15:05:18 2005 From: enumvoipsip.cs at schiefner.de (Carsten Schiefner) Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2005 15:05:18 +0100 Subject: [enum-wg] FYI: ComReg issues proposal for VoIP numbers In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <421B3C1E.2000000@schiefner.de> Ronan, Lupton, Ronan wrote: > For full text of the ComReg nomadic VoIP numbering proposal please visit > this link: http://www.comreg.ie/_fileupload/publications/ComReg0512.pdf > > You will note treatment of ENUM service is not specifically within the > scope of this consultation but dealt with in > http://www.comreg.ie/_fileupload/publications/ComReg04103.pdf pages 19 > and 20. > > We are working with the ENUM forum via ComReg and the government > separately. thanks for the pointers - apperas that I failed to find them... Best, -C.