[enum-wg] Follow up on Jim Reid's presentation - CRUE and relation to IETF work

Hi Jim,
 
>BTW I don't share your optimism that standardisation of Carrier ENUM 
>can be completed this year. But let's not jump down that rat-hole.

For terminolgy: Carrier ENUM needs not to be standardized,
it is Infrastructure ENUM.

I agree that the long-term soltution cannot be standardized this year,
because the earliest (optimistic) possible date is January 2007

JWhat Michael wanted to say is that the temporary solution defined
in the Dallas treaty can be nationally implemented soon (as you will see)
and could be ready for publication request this fall, so it could be used
also internationally in a standadized way.

Another question for clarification about CRUE:

You mention that for each number a tel and an sip URI is entered.
this requires each operator to provide a ingress element to their network

How can this be done?

Richard



________________________________

Von: enum-wg-admin at ripe.net im Auftrag von Jim Reid
Gesendet: Fr 28.04.2006 10:26
An: Michael Haberler
Cc: enum-wg at ripe.net
Betreff: Re: [enum-wg] Follow up on Jim Reid's presentation - CRUE and relation to IETF work



On Apr 28, 2006, at 07:58, Michael Haberler wrote:

> I'm a bit puzzled though about your slides where you mention 
> "CRUE" (Carrier Registration in User ENUM) and its potential 
> international interoperability aspects.
>
> currently the IETF work on Infrastructure ENUM is progressing 
> nicely - I expect the long-run solution to be a separate apex (like 
> ie164.arpa for instance) and http://www.enum.at/ietf/draft-haberler-
> carrier-enum-02.html will be the backwards-compatible interim 
> solution until ITU and friends have their act together. Looks like 
> all this is done this year. This will provide a easy manageable 
> home for carrier-related information.

Michael, CRUE has no bearing whatsoever on Infrastructure ENUM. This 
will be apparent when the CRUE document is published on the new UK 
ENUM web site. [I'll make an announcement about that when it goes on-
line.] The object of CRUE is to get lots of meaningful data into the 
UK ENUM tree so that ENUM-aware applications can be encouraged 
because there's a better chance of getting a successful ENUM lookup.

The scheme is simple. Communications Service Providers register a 
block of numbers. This gets verified against the regulator's public 
database of block allocations to CSPs. The registry enters 2 NAPTRs 
for these numbers: a tel: URI and a sip: URI. The only "control" the 
CSP has here is the name of the SIP server: ie how non-PSTN calls can 
be terminated on their network. Now there's a lot of detail about 
ported numbers, allocation to end users and so forth. But that still 
doesn't make CRUE a replacement for "Infrastructure ENUM" whatever 
that happens to mean today.

BTW I don't share your optimism that standardisation of Carrier ENUM 
can be completed this year. But let's not jump down that rat-hole.

> I'm a bit concernced about diverging developments - maybe you can 
> enlighten us where you're heading and how this will interoperate  
> with the rest of us.

CRUE is not a "standard". Or a protocol. It's just a means to get 
lots of NAPTRs populating the 4.4.e164.arpa name space. So there are 
no interoperability issues.