Subject: [Enum] Yes ...the Meeting Minutes from ENUM WG at IETF 48 Pittsburgh

From: Richard Shockey <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 01 Oct 2000 20:54:32 -0400

Yes ..I know this is unusually late and there is no excuse for it  and my 
sincerest apologies to Jay Hilton and other who have correctly complained 
about this...however if we can review this and people will send me 
corrections or clarifications I will process them and get this off ASAP.

This will not happen again ... if Jay will volunteer to do this again in 
San Diego ..he will have document control only subject to the final 
approval of the chair(s). :-)

Telephone Number Mapping WG (ENUM)
IETF 48 Pittsburgh

Tuesday, August 1 from 0900-1130
  =============================

CHAIR:
Richard Shockey   ([email-masked])
Scott Petrak        ([email-masked])

Scribe:
Jay Hilton ( [email-masked])

AGENDA:
Meeting Agenda

1. 	Agenda Bashing - 5 min
2. 	Document Status: Chair 2 min

Core Protocol e164-DNS submitted to IESG Last Call
draft-ietf-enum-e164-dns-01.txt

Requirements on hold before submitted to IESG Last Call
draft-ietf-enum-rqmts-01.txt

3. ENUM Open Requirements issues  Greg Vaudreuil x min

3a. ENUM Operations issues... Greg Vaudreuil 20 min
draft-ietf-enum-operation-00.txt

4.   	ITU e164 workplan Andy Galant  10min
draft-gallant-enum-e164-snap-00.txt

5. 	Service Principles when Public Circuit Switched International 
Telecommunication Networks Interworking with IP-based Networks -  Steve 
Lind  15 min
  draft-lind-itut-e370-00.txt

6.  	ENUM Call Flows for VoIP Interworking .   Steve Lind 15 min
draft-lind-enum-callflows-00.txt

7.   	ENUM in Signaling Transport: 20 min John Loughney
draft-loughney-enum-sigtran-00.txt

8.	ENUM Usage in Cellular Roaming John Loughney  10 min
draft-loughney-enum-roaming-00.txt
	
Future Directions and revised milestones 10m

DELETE: FAQ  Operations vs Out of Scope issues

GENERAL DISCUSSION

##########################

Related Documents:

ITU Number Portability
draft-ietf-enum-e164s2-np-00.txt

Number Portability in the GSTN: An Overview
draft-ietf-enum-e164-gstn-np-00.txt

Dynamic Delegation Discovery System (DDDS)
draft-ietf-urn-ddds-00.txt

URI Resolution using the Dynamic Delegation Discovery System
draft-ietf-urn-uri-res-ddds-00.txt ]

###########################

1. Agenda Bashing

Richard Shockey opened meeting with request for comments for additions or 
deletions from
the agenda.  The agenda was approved.

General Opening Comments:

(1.) Richard Shockey noted there were two number portability ID for 
discussion and possible review however these were not part of the agenda 
:  ITU Number portability draft from ITU-T Study Group 2 and number 
portability in the Global Switched Telephone Network (GSTN) explaining 
applications in use in North America.  These may be proposed as 
Informational RFCs at some time in the near future.

(2.) Scott Bradner noted that he had received some flack regarding the 
specification of a particular vendors application in a document.  When 
identifying existing applications/implementations in draft documents we 
need to identify all or no vendors in the document.

(3) Richard Shockey noted that there are several other drafts that impact 
on ENUM work, in particular the new Dynamic Delegation Discovery System 
documents, draft-ietf-urn-dns-ddds-database-00.txt and 
draft-ietf-urn-uri-res-ddds-00.txt. Principals included within are a core 
part of NAPTR RR itself. It was noted in the Application Area General 
Session that these documents are fundamental to ongoing work in solving the 
problems of Service Resolution and eventually Capabilities Resolution RESCAP.

Greg Vaudreuil asked about the limitation of only using NAPTR for 
ENUM.  Scott Petrack noted that we will also use CNAME and DNAME for 
delegation purposes etc.

The charter identifies that ENUM will provide a resource in the Internet, 
e.g., a URL.  Therefore, the result of an ENUM query is a URL.  Christian 
Huitema noted that ENUM results in two queries, one to find the URL, the 
second is to resolve the URL.  Add note was agreed from the ENUM Charter, 
as quoted from Scott.  "The system must enable resolving input telephone 
numbers into a set of URLs which represent different ways to start 
communication with a device associated to the input phone number."  Scott 
noted simply "Telephone Number IN ..URL OUT"

The chair requested that discussion of the limitation on use of the NAPTR 
record only be deferred until the General Discussion since it had been 
clear from the discussion on the list that this was the most contentious 
issue in the Falstrom e164-dns-01 drafts.

2. Document Status: Chair began a discussion of current Document Status.

2.1 Core ENUM Protocol Document - e164-DNS submitted to IESG Last Call

A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-enum-e164-dns-01.txt

This is the ENUM protocol document.  It has been submitted for IESG LAST 
CALL.  Some
minor comments received (editorial and suggestions for adding another 
example which clarify differences between delegation of name servers in DNS 
and then further explanations of telephony applications).  These will be 
incorporated in the document.

2.2 Requirements submitted to IESG Last Call

A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-enum-rqmts-01.txt

Richard did not submit the document for last call due to the number of 
comments received
over the email list.  The plan is to resolve the outstanding issues in the 
very near future and then go to last call.  The meeting discussed several 
open issues with the document.  Greg Vaudreuil presented these issues for 
the author, Anne Brown, since she was not able to attend this meeting:

Issues with the Requirements Document Resolved at the meeting:

As part of the discussion of Requirements issues Greg Vaudreuil presented a 
series of slides.

Response Timeout:  Draft indicated there must be a mechanism.  Need more 
detail as to what should be provided, how long should a client wait before 
timeout?  Is it a requirement?  Christian Huitema proposed that no value be 
provided, therefore the application can set its own value.
CONCLUSION: It was agreed by the meeting that Response Timeout is NOT a 
requirement for ENUM.

DNS Security: Should authorization be a part of ENUM?  Integrity? Privacy? 
CONCLUSION: This was agreed to be dropped as a requirement for ENUM.

Availability and reliability:  GSTN Reliability is desired.  CONCLUSION: 
This is an operational requirement, not a protocol requirement and 
therefore the meeting agreed that this is NOT an ENUM requirement.

  Response Time:  95% within 2 secs.  Is that achievable?  Question 
regarding what is the DNS packet loss and will this work with the 
proposal?  There is a 20% or greater chance of exceeding this 
requirement.  Christian noting that we would exceed this requirement very 
often.  Should this be an operations requirement?  Scott Bradner suggesting 
that we include the PSTN requirement as a piece of information. Much of 
that information is contained in a variety of SIGTRAN documents. No 
specific ID were mentioned.  Proposal to add notes regarding what the PSTN 
requirements are for both reliability and response time.  CONCLUSION: It 
was agreed that this is NOT a hard and fast ENUM requirement.

Corporate Dialing Plans:  Use of ENUM for private dialing plans may be 
outside of the scope of this work.  These are not e.164 numbers, which is 
the scope of ENUM.  CONCLUSION: It was agreed that this is NOT an ENUM 
requirement. However Richard Shockey noted that there was nothing 
precluding the use ENUM by private dialing plans.

Capabilities Discovery:  ENUM identifies services and a service is 
something that can be identified by a URL.  ENUM will not negotiate 
services.  RESCAP will identify the capability.  CONCLUSION: The meeting 
agreed that this is NOT an ENUM requirement.  More discussion in the 
general discussions below.

3. ENUM Operations issues... Greg Vaudreuil

A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-enum-operation-00.txt

Issues:
Recommended TTL:  Need clarification between services needing slow updates 
(15 minutes)  and those needing fast updates (out of scope for 
ENUM)  CONCLUSION: Do NOT add text on how to change TTLs.

Number portability: How repointed DNAME, CNAME, etc, or changing the 
provider of a particular service via NAPTR, should be reflected.  Proposal 
to identify in some internationally generic manner.  Need to continue this 
discussion on the mailing list.  Good idea to distinguish these 2 cases in 
the document.  There is an issue of control as well as portability in this 
discussion.

Change Propagation Rate:  Is 15 minutes a worldwide time frame?  No 
complaints.CONCLUSION: Leave as is.

4. Service Principles when Public Circuit Switched International
Telecommunication Networks Interwork with IP-based Networks.

  A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-lind-itut-e370-00.txt

Steve Lind is the rapporteur for Question 10 in ITU-T Study Group2.  This 
was developed by
Q10/2 and is planned for approval at the January 2001 meeting of 
SG2.  Proposal is to further the collaborative effort between SG2 and IETF.

 From the draft document:  This document describes the current thinking of the
collaborators of ITU-T Question 10/2, "Management and development of PSTN-based
telecommunication services," about service principles when public circuit
switched international telecommunication networks interwork with IP-based
networks. This document contains most of the text (there has been some
rearrangement of the text) from draft new Recommendation E.370 [1], starting
from section 3 of this Internet Draft, which was determined to be stable at the
March 2000 meeting of Study Group 2. It may be approved by the members of the
ITU, subject to written comments received from those members, at a meeting of
the Study Group (or its successor) in early 2001 (provisionally 23-26 January
2001). It is hoped that this document will further the collaborative efforts
between Study Group 2 and the various working groups of the IETF.

Discussed possible service scenarios that utilize IP networks.  Looking for
input from IETF WGs.  Post comments to the [email-masked] mailing list.

5. ENUM Call Flows for VoIP Interworking .   Steve Lind

Reference:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-lind-enum-callflows-00.txt

Genesis of this document was the IP Telecoms workshop held in January 2000, 
in Geneva,
Switzerland.

The issues identified within this document include:

    - identification of freephone service providers within DNS,

    - identification of Gateways using location routing numbers (or 
potentially by other means),

    - source of local number portability information for queries from 
IP-based infrastructure,

    - mechanisms for transport of LNP information to the final switching 
destination,

    - provision and maintenance of information in DNS.

The document proposed that while some of these issues may be outside the scope
of ENUM, they nevertheless have to be addressed if IP-based communication will
be viable.  Between the IETF and the ITU, core competencies exist to address
these issues; continued cooperation will be beneficial.  It has been 
proposed to
submit the results of the collaborative effort as an ENUM WG RFC.

6. ENUM in Signaling Transport: John Loughney

A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-loughney-enum-sigtran-01.txt

This document describes the use of ENUM Services by SIGTRAN Protocols.  A 
question
was raised regarding how do we handle address resolution issues?

Christian Huitema arguing against the proposal in the document.  Suggesting 
that Gateway discovery protocol developed by IPTel would be more 
appropriate than the ENUM proposal.

7. ENUM Usage in Cellular Roaming John Loughney

A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-loughney-enum-roaming-00.txt
  This document is a first draft that proposes a new service, called 'roam' 
to enable roaming in cellular systems (2G, 3G), supported by using the ENUM 
solution for DNS resolution of E.164 numbers.  By querying DNS for the 
roaming service entity for the particular E.164 number, DNS can return the 
location of the network element that supports the cellular roaming services 
(i.e. - HLR, VLR, AAA server).

Scott Petrack noted that the application of ENUM as a solution should 
result in a URL.  No decision by the group.

8. ITU Number Portability  Andy Gallant

A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-enum-e164s2-np-00.txt

  This document contains a text version of the Number Portability 
Supplement (11/98) to ITU-T Recommendation E.164 (The international public 
telecommunication numbering plan, 05/97) [2].  That Supplement [3] defined 
terminology for number portability within an E.164 numbering scheme; 
identified formats, call flows, architectures, and routing approaches for 
some methods; and gave examples of some processes needed to implement 
number portability.  This document was
presented for information to the ENUM WG.

9. ITU e164 work plan Andy Gallant

A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-gallant-enum-e164-snap-00.txt

  The presentation of this material was made by Andy Gallant.  This is an 
unofficial snapshot of some of the E.164 work.  It includes some 
information on E.164-series ITU-T Recommendations, "country code" 
assignments, and future pending decisions, meetings, and work.  There was a 
question regarding the use of subaddressing numbers in ISDN numbering that 
may come into play with VoiceMail services.  The answer was not clear and 
interested parties need to follow-up on this question after the 
meeting.  The  presentation provided a valuable insight into the definition 
and operation of the Numbering work within the ITU-T.  Andy also provided 
an identification of the ITU documents of interest to the ENUM 
group.  Scott Bradner noted that the ITU and the Internet
Society are members of each other's organization and can send reps to each 
other's meetings.

Question from the floor:  Is there a relationship between the hierarchical 
nature of E.164 and DNS?  Yes, at the highest level they are administered 
by a central body with the lower level  being administered locally.

10. Future Directions and revised milestones

  -Sept 2000 ENUM Requirements to proposed standard? Consensus ..yes.

-Nov 2000 ENUM Operations to proposed standard?  Scott noted that operations
documents are not normally an IETF STD.  Therefore, will propose as a BCP.

Development Questions - Chicken / Egg discussion related to requirements,
protocol and operations documents.

-Re charter or go dormant??  CONSENSUS : This is a question the WG will 
have to address once
it has delivered its initial products.

Also, a need was expressed for some type of transition scheme from Non ENUM to
ENUM usage.

11. Richard Shockey noted that he had posted a ENUM  FAQ - At the request 
of the AD's this document will eventually be segmented into Protocol 
questions ..which could move forward to Informational RRC as a WG product 
vs Operations and Administrative issues which would be a personal ID.

12. General discussion...

Chairs reopen the question of NAPTR use.

Are we making a requirement that ENUM use NAPTR record types only?  The 
chairs state categorically that ...Yes, that is what is in the e.164 dns 
draft that is in IESG last call status.  There are other ways to use 
different schemes than NAPTR and they could be identified in an 
Informational RFC but ENUM is about the use of NAPTR records.

Question ..does NAPTR Queries return all records?  Answer : Yes there is no 
selective query.  Discussion follows that it MAY require the opening of a 
TCP connection if there are too many RR's.  It is noted that NAPTR is new 
and untested but offers considerable power.

Greg Vaudreuil notes that there is still objection to this requirement.

Chairs call for a show of hands... Question... Shall ENUM use NAPTR record 
types only?
CONSENSUS BY SHOW OF HANDS: Yes.

- Chicken / Egg Problem :  How to get end users to use ENUM.  Need service 
providers and some work to get this setup in numbering schemes.  May want 
to have a BoF at the next IETF to discuss the deployment issues.

- Movement of the .int to the .arpa domain discussion.  Scott Bradner 
explained why this move was made.   .arpa was selected by the IAB for 
Internet Infrastructure issues. It is controlled by IANA which is a part of 
ICANN but under the direction of the IAB. The IAB has made a formal 
statement about .arpa and its uses.

- When a client gets a list of URLs for a service (ordered list).  Records 
will be fetched in the same order, which may not be proper for competitive 
situations.  Suggestion to add a RESCAP URL to allow for additional 
information to be retrieved related to that original record.  Will a NAPTR 
resource field contain a RESCAP to define what is in the location that was 
identified?  Will take this to the ENUM mail list for further discussion.

- for section 4 of the protocol document discusses IANA 
Considerations.  Was an Expert chosen?  The expert has NOT been chosen yet 
to deal with the delegation of names in the e164.arpa zone.

- Use of ENUM in the Cellular community.  E164 #s are dynamically 
changing.  Do not know immediately that a number is a cellular #, by the 
number itself.  Scott Petrak ENUM is not an answer to cellular roaming issues.

- QoS issues in ENUM need to be addressed.  May be a topic for a potential 
BoF at the next meeting.

- Applications issues and basic guidelines for enum will be of substantial 
value.  Scott Petrak noted once again that the ENUM process is Telephone 
Number IN ...URL / URI out.

- Richard Shockey requested a show of hands of how many individuals in the 
meeting were planing products and/or services based on 
ENUM.  Substantial  50+ hands raised.

Meeting Concluded.

_______________________________________________
enum mailing list
[email-masked]
http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum