From cdel at firsthand.net Mon Dec 21 12:29:31 2009 From: cdel at firsthand.net (Christian de Larrinaga) Date: Mon, 21 Dec 2009 11:29:31 +0000 Subject: [enum-wg] 4.4.e164.arpa Message-ID: <41AEA3C6-A1A7-4763-81EA-402EDE1A2C93@firsthand.net> In http://www.itu.int/dms_pub/itu-t/oth/02/08/T02080000010005PDFE.pdf dated June 2009 It shows 44 UK as delegated to DTI/Nominum as of 16/05/02 Is this the correct official status of this zone? Christian Christian de Larrinaga From racribeiro at gmail.com Mon Dec 21 13:30:25 2009 From: racribeiro at gmail.com (Rui Ribeiro) Date: Mon, 21 Dec 2009 12:30:25 +0000 Subject: [enum-wg] ENUM: Some conclusions Message-ID: <943c86c90912210430x24ceab82m52ceba0653d7e118@mail.gmail.com> Hi all, As you know, I'm writing a thisis on ENUM adoption in Portugal. Most of the conclusions can be extended worldwide, since the problems are a bit the same everywhere. I would like to get some answers/ideas from you about some of the conclusions I'm getting at: * lack of interest from operators (lots of things were writen already) * no very good business model (it is sustainable, but won't get you rich) * externality (the guy that receives the call has to pay for the registration, the benifit goes to the caller) * ... (many more were discribed on my presentation on RIPE-59) A couple of new ones: * the political mistake (user enum was designed to be delegate to each country. Although that makes somes sense it rises a lot of problems. If you realize that User ENUM is a service for User VoIP and that User VoIP runs over User IP (common known as Internet), than you understand that User ENUM should be managed somehow like User IP. I think that User ENUM should had got, in the early days, a all new prefix that should be delegated to the LIR's (just like the IP address space). That would solve a lot of issues...) [if anyone has some kind of documentation from the early days explaining why the country delegation, I would very, very appreciate] * lack of trust of the information on the tree (we all work on the internet, most of it is "benign", but "cheat happens"! For most of us this is bearable, and it's fine. But what about your grandma? What from the operator point of view? What about the "universal telephone service? I think that the concept of having information on the tree that isn't (for sure) reliable is the main drawback for operators to embrace user enum. The other issue is how do you charge a call... it is alot more dificult than you may think. What if the user enum record points to a international number using "tel:" prefix? what should the operator do? An IVR advising the user about the call? make the call and charge it quietly? What if it is a "value added number"? ...) I'm thinking on writing the thesis in English, opposing to Portuguese. What do you think? Will it worthwhile my extra effort? Do you think this kind of information would be usefull to you? Thanks for you time and Merry Christmas! Rui Ribeiro racribeiro at gmail.com From jim at rfc1035.com Mon Dec 21 13:36:18 2009 From: jim at rfc1035.com (Jim Reid) Date: Mon, 21 Dec 2009 12:36:18 +0000 Subject: [enum-wg] 4.4.e164.arpa In-Reply-To: <41AEA3C6-A1A7-4763-81EA-402EDE1A2C93@firsthand.net> References: <41AEA3C6-A1A7-4763-81EA-402EDE1A2C93@firsthand.net> Message-ID: <641D9126-94C5-454A-8365-8EB7F3AC31C2@rfc1035.com> On 21 Dec 2009, at 11:29, Christian de Larrinaga wrote: > It shows 44 UK as delegated to DTI/Nominum as of 16/05/02 > > Is this the correct official status of this zone? The definitive status of this zone should be what's in the Tier-0 registry. But the information in the RIPE NCC's database is defective too. [A whois query returns incorrect info for the admin contact and claims I'm the technical and zone contact. Which I'm not...] I believe this was updated when things were transitioned to UKEC. So it's strange that some sort of time warp has put the clock back to an earlier era. Since UKEC control the domain's maintainer object, corrections to the NCC database will be for UKEC to resolve. They're the official body overseeing ENUM in the UK and your questions should be directed to them, not this list. From cdel at firsthand.net Mon Dec 21 15:03:29 2009 From: cdel at firsthand.net (Christian de Larrinaga) Date: Mon, 21 Dec 2009 14:03:29 +0000 Subject: [enum-wg] 4.4.e164.arpa In-Reply-To: <641D9126-94C5-454A-8365-8EB7F3AC31C2@rfc1035.com> References: <41AEA3C6-A1A7-4763-81EA-402EDE1A2C93@firsthand.net> <641D9126-94C5-454A-8365-8EB7F3AC31C2@rfc1035.com> Message-ID: <03FB9AB0-7CE1-41CD-A034-234B37C065B7@firsthand.net> Jim thanks. I wanted to ask here (RIPE WG) before UKEC for obvious reasons. Merry Christmas! Christian On 21 Dec 2009, at 12:36, Jim Reid wrote: > On 21 Dec 2009, at 11:29, Christian de Larrinaga wrote: > >> It shows 44 UK as delegated to DTI/Nominum as of 16/05/02 >> >> Is this the correct official status of this zone? > > The definitive status of this zone should be what's in the Tier-0 registry. But the information in the RIPE NCC's database is defective too. [A whois query returns incorrect info for the admin contact and claims I'm the technical and zone contact. Which I'm not...] I believe this was updated when things were transitioned to UKEC. So it's strange that some sort of time warp has put the clock back to an earlier era. > > Since UKEC control the domain's maintainer object, corrections to the NCC database will be for UKEC to resolve. They're the official body overseeing ENUM in the UK and your questions should be directed to them, not this list. From db-ripe at aexiomus.net Mon Dec 21 15:59:10 2009 From: db-ripe at aexiomus.net (Denesh Bhabuta) Date: Mon, 21 Dec 2009 14:59:10 +0000 Subject: [enum-wg] 4.4.e164.arpa In-Reply-To: <03FB9AB0-7CE1-41CD-A034-234B37C065B7@firsthand.net> References: <41AEA3C6-A1A7-4763-81EA-402EDE1A2C93@firsthand.net> <641D9126-94C5-454A-8365-8EB7F3AC31C2@rfc1035.com> <03FB9AB0-7CE1-41CD-A034-234B37C065B7@firsthand.net> Message-ID: <728f35a80912210659w1c6526ao93cdf5c62c5d25e6@mail.gmail.com> Hi Christian What's the obvious reason? :-) Saw this on list and one of the Directors brought it up in our board meeting earlier today too... And I had the esteemed chair of this WG email me directly too. Nice to see there are people out there who care about us.. and thanks for bringing it to pur attention. I am pretty certain this was sorted out quite a while ago.. in any case, our secretariat are on the case and it will be resolved in the new year.. FWIW, the delegation of the responsibility for ENUM in the UK is with BIS/UKEC, and in turn, UKEC tendered a contract to Nominet to provide the registry services. Regards Denesh UKEC Director 2009/12/21 Christian de Larrinaga > Jim thanks. I wanted to ask here (RIPE WG) before UKEC for obvious reasons. > > Merry Christmas! > > Christian > > On 21 Dec 2009, at 12:36, Jim Reid wrote: > > > On 21 Dec 2009, at 11:29, Christian de Larrinaga wrote: > > > >> It shows 44 UK as delegated to DTI/Nominum as of 16/05/02 > >> > >> Is this the correct official status of this zone? > > > > The definitive status of this zone should be what's in the Tier-0 > registry. But the information in the RIPE NCC's database is defective too. > [A whois query returns incorrect info for the admin contact and claims I'm > the technical and zone contact. Which I'm not...] I believe this was updated > when things were transitioned to UKEC. So it's strange that some sort of > time warp has put the clock back to an earlier era. > > > > Since UKEC control the domain's maintainer object, corrections to the NCC > database will be for UKEC to resolve. They're the official body overseeing > ENUM in the UK and your questions should be directed to them, not this list. > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: