Subject: [Enum] Subject: I-D ACTION:draft-ranalli-peek-walter-enum-t1roles-00.txt

From: Richard Shockey <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 13:53:22 -0500

This draft made the Announce list but was not cross posted...

To: IETF-Announce: ;
From: [email-masked]
Reply-to: [email-masked]
Subject: I-D ACTION:draft-ranalli-peek-walter-enum-t1roles-00.txt
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2000 06:13:04 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.

         Title           : Tier-1 ENUM System Roles and Responsibilities
         Author(s)       : D. Ranalli, D. Peek, R. Walters
         Filename        : draft-ranalli-peek-walter-enum-t1roles-00.txt
         Pages           : 9
         Date            : 21-Nov-00

This document describes the actors in a global Tier-1 ENUM System
and the roles and responsibilities that each of the actors fulfills.
In this context, a 'Tier-1 ENUM System' refers to a holistic system
for registering E.164 telephone numbers in a DNS top-level domain.
The population of NAPTR records with URI's in a Tier-2 ENUM System
as described in RFC 2916 [4] is not discussed in this draft.

A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ranalli-peek-walter-enum-t1roles-00.txt

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: "Judith Oppenheimer" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2000 17:18:30 -0500

Is this system meant to accomodate U.S. toll free numbers?

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

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of
> Richard Shockey
> Sent: Sunday, November 26, 2000 1:53 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: [Enum] Subject:
> I-DACTION:draft-ranalli-peek-walter-enum-t1roles-00.txt
> 
> 
> 
>          Filename        : 
> draft-ranalli-peek-walter-enum-t1roles-00.txt
>          Pages           : 9
>          Date            : 21-Nov-00
> 

Richard Shockey

---

From: Richard Shockey <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2000 17:51:30 -0500

>Is this system meant to accomodate U.S. toll free numbers?

Any national ENUM system has to accommodate toll free numbers. 800 - 877 
etc, numbers in the US are E.164 numbers. Its just that the authority for 
authorization ( record holder ) is different.

---

From: "Judith Oppenheimer" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2000 17:56:54 -0500

I do not see where this draft anticipates that the "service provider" for a
toll free number may not be a TSP, but rather a so-called "RespOrg" (stands
for Responsible Organization.)  For that matter, the calls may not resolve
to the end user subscriber either.

One or more TSPs (programmed to be used at varying times of day for
cheapest rates, for example) can simply be used as a provisioning tool,
sending calls to one or multiple locations, none of which are the
controlling party of the toll free number.

Judith

> From: Richard Shockey [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Monday, November 27, 2000 5:52 PM
> To: Judith Oppenheimer
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: [Enum] Subject:

---

From: Richard Shockey <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2000 21:43:35 -0500

>controlling party of the toll free number.

Hello Judith..

Let me try and clear up a few things here. You are right that many of the 
drafts discussed here do not adequately or address the specific 
requirements and functions of the Toll Free System but I can assure you 
that those needs are are understood and being met.

The "controlling party" of the Toll Free number is just as important .. as 
any telephone number.

If there is a problem it is one of semantics and understanding the new 
service logic of Internet Telephony.

Assume the case of 1 800 DOG-BONES that wishes to provision ENUM services 
to accept calls using SIP.

That number has been delegated to that "subscriber" under the normal terms 
and conditions of 800 service ..so the "controlling party" is known to the 
800 SMS and can be verified.  The key to ENUM authority is that this 
verification can be successfully accomplished and that proper authorization 
can be delegated from the T1 to the T2 entity that actually holds the 
Resource Records that provision real service.

Once this is accomplished we can assume that 1 800 DOG-BONES resolves to a 
SIP URL either under the direct control of the "controlling party", to use 
your terms, or to a T2 ENUM service provider that maintains these records 
under contract for this service under various SLA's etc.

The SIP proxy that ENUM resolves to will maintain the real service logic of 
call routing necessary to complete the call based on the numbers 
"controlling party" requirements.[ time of day etc]  And the syntax of that 
service logic is defined by the IPTEL WG as Call Progress Language.

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-iptel-cpl-04.txt

The CPL is the real provisioning tool for Call Progress and routing as you 
outline. And the promise of this whole exercise in standards development is 
that  service logic now resides within the complete control of the 1 800 
number holder ..and not the carrier from whom service was delivered.

ENUM is very simple in its abstraction. Number In ..URL Out. Its the URL 
that really controls the call and what that URL is. It is the URL that must 
be controlled by the number holder.

Is this a touch clearer?

Richard Shockey

---

From: "Judith Oppenheimer" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2000 22:45:58 -0500

> Resource Records that provision real service.

The subscriber -- the "controlling party" -- is *not* known to the SMS800.

In most instances this information is considered to be proprietary to the
RespOrg or RespOrg/TSP and not housed in any external data base.

> The key to ENUM authority is that this
> can be delegated

Most RespOrg/carriers (versus RespOrgs that aren't TSP's) simply don’t know
who a fair portion of their subscribers are. With operational origins in
pre-portability provisioning, RespOrg/carrier records are maintained based
on who pays the bill -- not who the authorized subscriber is.

For example, subscriber identity is not included in RespOrg/carrier
reseller-sold records, because RespOrg/carriers consider the reseller to be
the customer, even though FCC regulations stipulate that the end user is
the legally-recognized subscriber of record.

In April '98 the FCC order the RespOrgs to identify and notify the toll
free customers affected by the right-of-first-refusal process for 888
replications -- ** a simple verification process. **   Only 370,000 toll
free numbers were involved.

In December '98 the FCC published that only 34 of 179 RespOrgs complied
fully, and 52 did not comply at all.

(AT&T had a 36.1% compliance rate; MCI, 40%, and Sprint, 35.1%.)

The FCC charged the carriers were "warehousing set-aside 888 numbers or the
corresponding 800 numbers, or ... falsely indicating ... identified
subscribers for those numbers."  These suspicions had some legitimacy, but
I can tell you firsthand that at SNAC meetings throughout that period, all
I heard from harried carrier execs, especially from the largest carriers,
was "we just don't know who the subscribers are."

They begged the FCC for more time to find their subscribers - and were
turned down, resulting in a full two thirds of the original 370,000
set-aside 888 numbers, ultimately going unclaimed.  (see p.s. below)

So the "key to ENUM authority" may not so easily fit the U.S. 800 master
locks.

J

P.S.  On April 5, 1999 the unclaimed set-aside 888 toll free numbers were
released to spare (available) status, by order of the FCC.  In its March 23
press statement announcing the release, the FCC advised the public that
there would be 140,000 vanity 888 numbers made available to the public, on
a first come first serve basis. Anna Gomez of the FCC's Common Carrier
Bureau, advised that the 140,000 figure was supplied to the agency by
Database Services Management Inc. (DSMI.)

But the actual amount of 888 numbers released on April 5 was over twice the
published figure: 289,943, per the April 12, 1999 SMS/800 weekly report,
which is printed by DSMI. A DSMI executive also confirmed that the 289,943
figure was accurate, noting that a full two thirds of the original 370,000
set-aside 888 numbers, ultimately went unclaimed and were released on April
5.

Asked by a different reporter to explain the discrepancy between the two
figures, another DSMI representative maintained that there was none, and
that only 140,000 numbers were released.

> Sent: Monday, November 27, 2000 9:44 PM
> To: Judith Oppenheimer
> Cc: [email-masked]