Subject: [Enum] Reminder that the 17th is coming up for drafts

From: Richard Shockey <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 20:32:13 -0500

If you plan on submissions the first cut is the 17th and the last is the 24.

We should be using these submissions as the basis for the agenda etc.

Please plan accordingly.

Richard Shockey
Senior Technical Industry Liaison
NeuStar Inc.
1120 Vermont Avenue N.W.
Suite 550
Washington DC. 20005
Voice 202.533.2811
Fax to EMail 815.333.1237 (Preferred for Fax)
Cell : 314.503.0640
INTERNET Mail & IFAX : [email-masked]
or   [email-masked]
http://www.neustar.com

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

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

---

From: "A.M.Rutkowski" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2000 10:03:26 -0500

The mew Foster/McGarry/Yu NeuStar informational ID states as a
conclusion that:

   NP certainly must be considered at the first level
   because the telephony service providers do not "own"
   or control the telephone numbers under the NP environment;
   therefore, they may not be the proper entities to have the
   authority for a given E.164 number. Not only that, the
   donor network should not be relied on to reach the delegated
   authority during the DNS process because there is a regulatory
   requirement on NP in some countries.

RFC2916 provides for the "transformation of E.164 numbers into
DNS names" by "holders" of those numbers.  It is a good, limited
construct.

This new ID speaks of "ownership" and "authority for a given
E.164 number" in terms that imply some fundamental constraints
on who can or cannot provide Level 1 DNS services - at least
in the e164.arpa domain.  This would derivatively make the
e164.arpa domain subject to the jurisdiction of telecom
regulatory authorities and raises significant antitrust
concerns.

Compare this to the unfettered use of E.164 numbers for
more than 8 years under the tpc.int domain pursuant to
RFCs 1528-1530

Might not it be better to return to the RFC2916 construct and
simply deal with the problem of an open interface for
authenticating "holders" - rather than notions of ownership
that are bound to authority.

-amr

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2000 08:26:05 -0800

>more than 8 years under the tpc.int domain pursuant to

Let's be very clear about the nature of tpc.int experience:

         It has never been more than a minuscule activity, excellent as an 
experiment to show proof of concept for a basic mapping mechanism.

         It offers NO insight into Internet-scale administration and 
operation, particularly with regard to maintaining synchronization between 
"telephone" assignment of numbers and e.164.arpa assignment.

         It also offers no insight into the more general e164.arpa goal of 
supporting a range of different services, through multiple DNS RR records 
under a given 3164.arpa number.

 From the ICANN wg-c mailing list:

At 02:44 PM 11/25/00 +0100, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
>I believe that letting customers claim rights to a number in e164.com when 
>they have lost all rights to the same number in the real telephone number 
>space will lead to much confusion and no gain.
>The telephone number space is the reality, and all spaces that mirror it, 
>whether e164.com or e164.arpa, are its shadows (to misuse Platon's imagery).
>Having shadows that linger when the reality is gone benefits nobody.

Internet-scale administration and operation must deal with transitions, 
such as reassignment of a telephone number and, therefore, either 
re-assignment or resulting conflict of the corresponding e164.arpa number.

This requirement means that the company assigning telephone numbers may 
well have different interests from the USER (assignee) of the 
number.  Indeed the assignee might have entries in their e164.arpa for 
services that compete with the company assignign the telephone number.

An independent third-party administrator suffers no such potential conflict.

d/

=-=-=-=-=
Dave Crocker  <[email-masked]>
Brandenburg Consulting  <www.brandenburg.com>
Tel: +1.408.246.8253,  Fax: +1.408.273.6464

---

From: "A.M.Rutkowski" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2000 11:50:44 -0500

>services that compete with the company assignign the telephone number.

However, the problem of authenticating the a user's use to an
E.164 number in 1.e164.arpa, 1.e164.com, etc, is separable (and
should be separate) from the matter of who administers the zone.

-amr

---

From: Richard Shockey <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2000 16:24:50 -0500

>>services that compete with the company assignign the telephone number.

Exactly ..thank you Dave.

>should be separate) from the matter of who administers the zone.

But remember that the account data necessary to authenticate the users 
right to use the E.164 number is currently held ( in the US ) by the 
carrier that issued the number as part of PSTN service or to the carrier 
that the number has been ported to. This does _not_ imply carrier control.

The purpose of the e164.arpa namespace is to be "athoritive" as opposed to 
any other domain. There is certainly nothing stopping anyone from putting 
number strings in FOO.NET or whatever for the purpose of defining some 
private service or services.  Consequently the administrative model for 
determining correct holder of a E.164 number within e164.arpa must by 
definition follow the appropriate national numbering plan. That is what 
RFC2916 states and that is what the ITU has agreed to as well.

The purpose of a proper administrative model for e16.arpa is to insure that 
a consumers or businesses does not have their number hijacked, slammed, 
crammed or whatever by malicious 3rd parties.

We certainly do not want to recreate the problems in either the current TLD 
or PSTN environment.

Richard Shockey

---

From: "A.M.Rutkowski" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2000 16:56:23 -0500

Hi Richard,

>RFC2916 states and that is what the ITU has agreed to as well.

Thanks for the clarification.

Where in RFC2916 is there a specification that
"the e164.arpa namespace is to be 'authoritive'
as opposed to any other domain?"

What ITU-T Study Group 2 agreed was that this subject
was a national matter.  Is there anything to prevent
each of these national authorities from establishing
a neutral authentication interface and maintaining a
level playing field among competitive providers?

Do you expect the FCC to begin a proceeding concerning
their portion of 1.164.arpa.?   Could they decide they
don't want a regulated zone or that this is anticompetitive,
and leave it to e164.com and others via an authoritative
authentication mechanism?

--amr

---

From: Richard Shockey <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2000 20:14:52 -0500

At 04:56 PM 11/25/2000 -0500, A.M.Rutkowski wrote:
>Hi Richard,
>
>>The purpose of the e164.arpa namespace is to be "athoritive" as opposed 
>>to any other domain. There is certainly nothing stopping anyone from 
>>putting number strings in FOO.NET or whatever for the purpose of defining 
>>some private service or services.  Consequently the administrative model 
>>for determining correct holder of a E.164 number within e164.arpa must by 

<sigh> read the specification in RFC 2916.....

2. E.164 numbers and DNS The domain "e164.arpa" is being populated in order 
to provide the infrastructure in DNS for storage of E.164 numbers. In order 
to facilitate distributed operations, this domain is divided into 
subdomains. Holders of E.164 numbers which want to be listed in DNS should 
contact the appropriate zone administrator in order to be listed, by 
examining the SOA resource record associated with the zone, just like in 
normal DNS operations.

What do'nt you understand?

>level playing field among competitive providers?

You have read the liaison statement it seems quite clear on what rights and 
responsibilities are here.

A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-itu-sg2-liaison-enum-00.txt

>authentication mechanism?

I do not presume, nor would I dare to speak for the United States 
Government, the British, the French, the Swedish or South African 
government or any other sovereign nation state. I'm a poor simple IETF Work 
Group chair.

Richard Shockey

---

From: "A.M.Rutkowski" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2000 20:34:18 -0500

At 08:14 PM 11/25/2000, Richard Shockey wrote:
>2. E.164 numbers and DNS The domain "e164.arpa" is being populated in 
>order to provide the infrastructure in DNS for storage of E.164 numbers. 
>In order to facilitate distributed operations, this domain is divided into 

Hi Richard,

Can end users or their level 2 providers choose to store their E.164
numbers exclusively in a zone other than e164.arpa on fair and equal
basis, and can that zone be regarded as authoritative for the number?

It's called competition.

--amr

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2000 23:26:49 -0800

At 11:50 AM 11/25/00 -0500, A.M.Rutkowski wrote:
However, the problem of authenticating the a user's use to an
>should be separate) from the matter of who administers the zone.

         Exactly my point.  The agency doing the initial assignment -- eg, 
a local phone company -- is typically not going to be appropriate for 
maintaining the assigned record, since the record is likely to contain 
information pertaining to the local phone company's competitors.

         That's why a neutral third-party is appropriate for the 
maintenance function, distinct from the initial assignment function.

>basis, and can that zone be regarded as authoritative for the number?

         Of course they can, just as they can register domain names 
independent of the ICANN/IANA root.

         The benefit of such independence is dubious, at best, but Internet 
standards are for fostering interoperability, not preventing silliness.

>It's called competition.

         That's fine.  If you wish to invent and administer an independent 
numbering plan for telephony you are free to do so.  Best of luck.

d/

ps.     Perhaps you have something different in mind?  If so, please clarify.

         Your original note protested statements of ownership that were not 
made and protested 'authority' over number assignments, as if multiple 
assignments of the same number would be viable.

         No doubt you meant something insightful and the confusion was just 
in your choice of words.

=-=-=-=-=

---

From: "A.M.Rutkowski" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 08:39:53 -0500

> information pertaining to the local phone company's competitors.

If I'm not mistaken, unless the number has been ported, the
phone company is going to be the only entity that has
the assignment record.  It's relatively simple for them to
provide an authentication service - they already do it
pursuant to the 1986 Computer III requirements.

>That's why a neutral third-party is appropriate for the maintenance
>function, distinct from the initial assignment function.

A single monolithic North American monopoly ENUM Level 1 maintainer
doesn't seem appropriate, IMHO.

--amr

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 07:18:17 -0800

>doesn't seem appropriate, IMHO.

Absolutely correct.

We should have a different maintainer for each digit.

d/

=-=-=-=-=

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 08:41:20 -0800

you may want to review the archive of this mailing list

randy

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 08:47:50 -0800

> We should have a different maintainer for each digit.

you folk may want to look into dns delegation and the difference between
admin and tech poc.

as each itu e.164 delegatee will determine the policies for their numbering
system, you may want to take the conversation of the politics of power/greed
games in the +1 space to the wherever the na numbering plan folk congregate,
and that ain't here.

randy

---

From: "Robert H. Walter - CTO, VP Development and Operations" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 13:14:45 -0500

>We should have a different maintainer for each digit.

With all due respect, partitioning and delegating the E.164 name
space across different maintainers at each digit raises a serious
absurdity flag. It is one thing to speak of political and
bureaucratic theory, it is another to actually operate a
realistic, reliable, secure and scalable tier-1 ENUM registry
service.

Ignoring the more complex aspects of running a tier-1 ENUM
registry (registration, conflict resolution and whois services)
let us assume there ARE different maintainers for each digit in
the E.164 name space.  An initial query will require approximately
12+ DNS delegations to be processed.  This means 12+ round-trip
hops across various Internet segments.  Need I say more?

Sincerely,

Bob

---

From: "Robert H. Walter - CTO, VP Development and Operations" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 14:56:46 -0500

>>Having shadows that linger when the reality is gone benefits nobody.

The premise of Harald Alvestrands statement is incorrect... A customer that
loses all rights to a number in the "real telephone number space" implicitly
loses all rights to the associated E.164 domain name registered in e164.com.
This is a fundamental administrative principle for tier-1 ENUM registry
operated under e164.com.  As Harald accurately points out, "The telephone
number space is the reality".

Bob

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Dave
Crocker
Sent: Saturday, November 25, 2000 11:26 AM
To: A.M.Rutkowski
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [Enum] draft-ietf-enum-e164-gstn-np-00.txt

d/

=-=-=-=-=

---

From: "Judith Oppenheimer" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 15:13:11 -0500

Not so, at least in the case of toll free numbers; not all carriers are
RespOrgs, and not all RespOrgs are carriers.

Judith

Judith Oppenheimer, 212 684-7210, 1 800 The Expert
Publisher, http://www.ICBTollFreeNews.com
President, http://www.1800TheExpert.com
FREE 800/Domain Classifieds, http://ICBclassifieds.com
Domain Name & 800 News, Intelligence, Analysis

> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of
> A.M.Rutkowski
> Sent: Sunday, November 26, 2000 8:40 AM
> To: Dave Crocker
> Cc: [email-masked]

---

From: Richard Shockey <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 19:18:15 -0500

>doesn't seem appropriate, IMHO.

Can we get off this class of subject please.

This is degenerating into a purely political debate that is a bit out of 
scope here. Discussions of what is or is not appropriate in the United 
States are best left to other forums...what is appropriate are discussions 
of the general technical requirements of Tier 1 Tier 2 entities as it might 
apply in the general case.

Lets not forget that the real issue is the not who is or is not a Tier 1 
entity ..that is a discussion for nation-states to decide within the 
geographic E.164 plan. It is who is or is not the holder of NAPTR resource 
records for a e164 telephone number in e164.arpa.

 From time to time I've asked the list to consider some of these technical 
questions as it might relate to the delegation issue within DNS itself 
CNAME ..PTR etc. But I've not seen sufficient discussion to suggest that 
consensus exists.

Plus we can assume that there needs to be some validation testing of 
RFC2916 as part of the IETF standards process here and it might be useful 
to define some operational metrics to look at etc.

Ongoing technical discussions are always welcome.

##################################
Richard Shockey

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 16:36:52 -0800

At 01:14 PM 11/26/00 -0500, Robert H. Walter - CTO, VP Development and 
Operations wrote:
>absurdity flag.

That was the goal.

Please forgive my excessive subtlety.  I was trying to respond to a line of 
query in a manner that took it to its logical conclusion.

d/

ps.  And, yes, now we should return to our regularly scheduled technical 
programming.

=-=-=-=-=

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 18:11:08 -0800

> Please forgive my excessive subtlety.  I was trying to respond to a line
> of query in a manner that took it to its logical conclusion.

and please excuse my resposes being to: you.  your mail filter seems to let
crazies and sickos through which mine does not.

randy