[enum-wg] Questions concerning CRUE
Jim Reid jim at rfc1035.com
Mon Oct 9 12:22:42 CEST 2006
On Oct 5, 2006, at 09:58, Otmar Lendl wrote: > yesterday's session was bit tight in terms of time for questions, thus > here they come on the list. There are a few points where I'm not > sure I > understand the CRUE proposal, so please correct me if I got this > wrong: > > * The registry will not provision any CRUE records just by themselves. Correct. > > * The main difference between CRUE entries and normal delegations are: > > + CRUE records are requested by the carrier, and not the end-user. Correct. > > + CRUE records are validated by public Ofcom block allocation data, > vs. whatever you do for normal user-enum Correct. > > + CRUE records use NAPTRs in the registry vs. normal delegations > based on NS records in the Tier1 zone Correct. > > * From the point of the ENUM client which just cares about NAPTR > records, > there is no difference between Numern->URI mappings provided by > CRUE records and normal user-enum NAPTR records. Correct. > > Some more questions: > > * You said that the registry makes no assumptions on the reachability > of the SIP URIs contained in the CRUE record. What about the > carriers > interested in CRUE? Did you talk to them about their plans? Yes. Some are less keen than others to disclose their intentions. I did speak to Robert Schischka about the problems of "open" and "closed" SIP servers on Thursday. If I understood him correctly some Austrian telcos are only allowing favoured telcos to use their SIP servers. I hope this doesn't happen in the UK. But if it does, that would probably be a breach of the UK ENUM codes of conduct, competition policy and so on. > > One of the reasons we started the I-ENUM trial here was the fact > that > some of the operators refused to run open servers and wanted > detailed > control on whom they peer with. > > * What about ported numbers? From what I know about the .uk system, > Ofcom doesn't hold information about those. Correct. In simple terms ported numbers are treated like an end-user delegation. The donor telco may ask for the ported number to be removed from the block. However they don't have to and that makes no difference anyway. The receiving telco will need to prove that they provide service for the ported number: essentially that'll be the same "heavyweight" authentication process for an end-user registration. The donor telco will be told that the number has been ported and given a chance to object. That provides some protection against slamming. > > * CRUE entries will be provisioned by the number-owning carrier: Will > they have to send a CRUE request for every single number, or will > there be a block-provisioning interface? If yes, will that make use > of the NAPTR regexp feature to have identical NAPTR records for > whole blocks? A block provisioning interface will be provided. It's a minor tweak to the EPP schema. regexps can be used to populate the URIs.
[ enum-wg Archives ]