[enum-wg] ITU: debate over User-ENUM administration

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: <enum-wg at ripe.net>; 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