Subject: RE: [Enum] Subject: I-DACTION:draft-ranalli-peek-walter-enum-t1ro les-00.txt

From: "Rosbotham, Paul" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 09:26:16 -0000

It seems to me that this matter needs a great deal of thought.  At an IETF
level, I think we're probably best taking a "functional entity" approach,
and abstracting things to such a level that national arrangements can be
made to map onto the overall international framework.  To a degree, this is
what has happened at ITU with the terms that Valerie Barnole highlighted.

I like Tony Rutkowski's idea of replacing TNP/TSP with the functional entity
"Authenticator".  How this is enacted physically in each national
environment will vary;

- In the "simple" geographic number case with no resellers involved, then
the Authenticator will be the Telephone Service Provider.

- Where resellers are involved, matters would be more complex.  I can't
remember the precise solution and my guru isn't in the office this morning,
but I think the UK tied itself in knots over authentication for number
portability where you have a reseller involved in the value chain.  I think
we ended up with a process involving verification of the customer's number
ownership from the reseller, but in turn the reseller having to show
documentation to prove assignment from the network provider (ie secondary
documentation to prove their qualification to validate).  Suffice to say
that for our purposes, the national implementation would be a two stage
authentication with the "Authenticator" having to first prove their
credentials to provide this role and then subsequently validating the
requst.  (In reality, if you say that the reseller is the Telecoms Service
Provider, then this is actually the same as the simple case, with the only
difference being that the database to map the number to a given TSP is a two
phase lookup, being from the National Numbering Plan Administrator via a
network operator rather than direct from the NPPA as in the simple case).

- In the US 800 system, the Authenticator function would involve the
RespOrg.  Without knowing the details of the process, I don't know for sure
whether the RespOrg would be the Authenticator, or whether the functions
would be split across the RespOrg and one or more TSPs.

- In the ITU-T Universal International Freephone Service (country code 800),
the Authenticator may have to be the ITU themselves, as only they have
visibility of which customer a number is assigned to.  For information, it
is quite plausible for UIFS for a given number to be served my multiple
TSPs, say on a continent by continent basis.  This means that for the
secondary function of the Authenticator relating to Termination, a single
network operator could possibly not (at least under the existing processes -
the situation will change under forthcoming revisions) have visibility of
whether a customer has ceased service with them alone, or with all providers
hence returned the number - only the ITU would know this.

Unfortunately, I'm only in the office for half an hour today and then out
for a few days, so I haven't had chance to see if the proposed changes would
flow correctly through the I-D.  However, I was conscious that a couple of
people had asked for input from me and didn't want to hold up the debate via
my schedule! 

Regards

Paul
> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Richard Shockey [SMTP:[email-masked]]
> Sent:	Wednesday, November 29, 2000 4:28 AM
> To:	Pfautz, Penn L, NNAD; David P. Peek; Douglas Ranalli; Rosbotham,
> Paul
> Cc:	[email-masked]
> Subject:	RE: [Enum] Subject:
> I-DACTION:draft-ranalli-peek-walter-enum-t1ro les-00.txt
> 
> At 12:24 PM 11/28/2000 -0500, Pfautz, Penn L, NNAD wrote:
> >I've no objection to this terminology but want to point out some issues
> that
> >remain:
> >
> >-For authentication purposes, the TNP needs to be the entity that knows
> who
> >the end user is - i.e. has the customer account.  This could, as Paul
> >Rosbotham points out, be a reseller. In some nations this will raise
> >additional questions of authentication if number administration
> structures
> >do not directly interface with resellers: The TNP (reseller) can tell me
> >what customer the number is assigned to. Do I need to verify that the
> >reseller has been delegated the number set from the underlying carrier to
> >which number was originally delegated or ported?
> >
> >Paul- can you comment from a UK perspective?
> 
> 
> Please do. ... It seems we have a classic clash of NetHeads vs BellHeads 
> here and if we are ever going to try and explain all of this to our poor 
> over worked, underpaid and under appreciated national regulators we really
> 
> should agree on common definitions.
> 
> AKA ..TNP  "Telephone Number Provider"
> 
> TNP  "Telephone Number Holder" etc.
> 
> I've had one comment to me privately that "EU" in the Pfautz-Yu draft
> looks 
> like " European Union" .. so maybe that may not be the best term.
> 
> We need to explain ourselves to a new and rather diverse group of people 
> ..of which Judith is a good example.
> 
> Common ground means common definitions ..so any attempt at defining terms 
> here is most welcome.
> 
> The Liaison Statement from ITU-SG2-Q1 is quite clear.  Delegation of 
> authority for the e164.arpa space for geographic codes is the prerogative 
> of nation-states and they will, presumably, be looking to this group and 
> this list for answers to their questions.
> 
> I have taken the position that administrative drafts should be discussed 
> here at length, but within the context of technical issues.  If you all 
> read the WG charter ...we are bending the rules to a considerable extent 
> but under the unique and frankly historical circumstances that RFC 2916 
> poses, this course of action seems reasonable.
> 
> This begs the question of how far should this work go..and that poses the 
> question of the direction the WG should take.
> 
> What therefore, are the next steps?
> 
> 
> Your Chair...
> 
> 
> >Penn
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: David P. Peek [mailto:[email-masked]]
> >Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2000 12:01 PM
> >To: Douglas Ranalli; Pfautz, Penn L, NNAD
> >Cc: [email-masked]
> >Subject: RE: [Enum] Subject:
> >I-DACTION:draft-ranalli-peek-walter-enum-t1roles-00.txt
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > >Can you recommend alternative names for the ENUM entity described in
> >Section 4.2?
> >
> >
> >In an effort to avoid names that have preconceived meanings and one that
> >describes what we are trying to achieve in Section 4.2 I propose to use a
> >new term.  Are there any objections to:
> >
> >         "Telephone Number Provider"   (TNP)
> >
> >This would be an inclusive term for entities that provide E.164 numbers.
> A
> >TNP may take on multiple roles that not only provides E.164 numbers but
> may
> >also be a subscriber as in Judith's example.
> >
> >Dave.

**********************************************************************
This message may contain information which is confidential or privileged.
If you are not the intended recipient, please advise the sender immediately
by reply e-mail and delete this message and any attachments
without retaining a copy.  

**********************************************************************

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

---

From: "Judith Oppenheimer" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 12:08:39 -0500

> Suffice to say
> requst.

Only the RespOrg can verify toll free number assignment and would therefore
be the Authenticator, but would have to show two sets of credentials as
well:

1.  an LOA - Letter of Assignment - signed by the subscriber of the toll
free number.  Note that it is the subscriber of the toll free number, not a
TSP, who authorizes the RespOrg to function in this capacity.

2.  AND verification from the 800 SMS reflecting matching RespOrg ID status
for that number in the 800 SMS database.

While slamming receives all the press, 800 number "loss" and theft by
RespOrgs, TSP's and subscribers large and small, is not an uncommon
occurrence in the U.S.

(Overzealous account execs like to use vanity 800 numbers to keep existing
corporate clients, and as incentives to sign new ones.  Forged LOA's and
"manipulated" invoices are just two of the many ways this is done.  I
actually have a letter on file from a Sprint regulatory attorney explaining
why (he thought) it was within Sprint's rights to take an 800 number newly
ported into the company from a small customer, and give it to a larger
(existing Sprint customer) competitor of that new customer.  He didn't even
recognize it as theft.  The CEO's office did:  eight months after the
theft, the number was returned to the rightful subscriber.)

That said, it should be noted that RespOrgs which are also carriers, like
to use phone bills as proof of subscribership.  This is useful *if* the
subscriber is the billing party, BUT it is a limited verification method
since the subscriber is not always the billing party, and visa versa.

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
> Rosbotham, Paul
> Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2000 4:26 AM
> To: [email-masked]