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

From: BARNOLE Valerie FTRD/DAC/ISS <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 17:53:22 +0100

Douglas and all, 
from my european point of view, "Telephone number provider" has a strong
flavor of administration system, which is not the purpose of the draft
because both types of entities are clearly separated within it. This term
sounds connected to Number Pooling, that you already have in the States due
to your implementation of Number portability but that studies showed
inadequate to most of Europe countries for the time being. 
So, on this basis, I would prefer the former term TSP. I can offer another
proposal, which is SAP (Service access Provider) and comes from an ITU
Recommendation, in order to provide a kind of universal understanding if it
is possible :-).
In the ITU E.152 (International Freephone Service) definition, the SAP is
responsible to ensure the establishment of access to the international
freephone number in the country of origin of the call. It is also what was
called ROA A (or service provider A, which is close to the TSP term) and
renamed SAP. ROA A has the responsability of processing all applications
received on behalf of their IFS customer. So it will obtain from the ITU the
numbers requested by the customer and notifies him the "rules of the game"
(no trading nor licensing of the numbers). 
Important note : this is not what "bellheads" call assignment of numbers,
because the ITU_does_the assignment. It is an indirect allocation from the
ITU to the subscriber via the SAP (not even a suballocation from the SAP to
the subscriber). 
ROA A (SAP) is the interface with the customer and has overall control
responsabilities to ensure the completion of the service order for
initiation, change, suspension and disconnection of service. 
Of course, the E.152 exemple looks simplistic compared to the definitions of
the draft : in E.152, the SAP act simultaneously as a TSP, an Agent and a
registrant. 
A second point in §4.2, as a "bellhead", I think that the first quoted role
of the TSP is misworded (see my important note above). So I would reword it
E.164 indirect allocation (fit for services numbers like freephone) or E.164
suballocation (fit for geogaphical numbers) and describe it as "suballocates
E.164 numbers received from the administration system to subscribers".
A third point I just saw : in the 2nd role of TSP, the words "to terminate"
and "termination" might be misunderstood as "to accomplish a call" and
"completion". I suggest to use "to disconnect" and "disconnection", if I am
not the only one to think this misunderstanding is possible. 
To sum up :
- I agree on TSP or SAP, mentionning in the first role  "E.164 Suballocation
: suballocates E.164 numbers received from the administration system to
subscribers" instead of "E.164 Assignment : Assigns E.164 numbers to
Subscribers".
- According to the forementionned reasons, I tend to disagree with
"Telephone Number Provider".
- I suggest to use "to disconnect" and "disconnection"instead of  "to
terminate" and "termination"  

Valerie.

end of message
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 

Valérie Barnole

FTR&D/DAC/ACE

tel. : + 33 1 45 29 58 39
fax : + 33 1 46 29 31 42

mail to : [email-masked]

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

---

From: "Douglas Ranalli" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 12:14:43 -0500

Valerie,

Thank you for posting this note.  The primary reason that we published this
draft was to help the group gain agreement on a common framework of "actors"
in the ENUM system for use by future contributors.  Clarifying appropriate
names for the actors is an important part of the process.  Let's see how the
group responds to SAP as an alternative to TNP.

Douglas

----- Original Message -----
From: BARNOLE Valerie FTRD/DAC/ISS <[email-masked]>
To: 'Douglas Ranalli' <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2000 11:53 AM
Subject: RE: [Enum] I-DACTION:draft-ranalli-peek-walter-enum-t1ro les-00.txt

Douglas and all,

Valerie.

end of message

Valérie Barnole

FTR&D/DAC/ACE

---

From: "Judith Oppenheimer" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 12:59:10 -0500

> not the only one to think this misunderstanding is possible.

I agree.

> ITU to the subscriber via the SAP (not even a suballocation

This description parallels that of the RespOrg and its relationship to the
800 SMS and the subscriber, except that the RespOrg maintains the
subscriber ID records, not the 800 SMS.  (Because FCC regs and the tariff
stipulate that a RespOrg must have a customer for every number it reserves,
I don't think it would be considered a suballocation either.)

> So I
> would reword it

This makes sense.  Re acronyms, it depends if you consider the verification
process telephone number-centric or subscriber-centric.

In the first case TNA for Telephone Number Allocator or TNV for Telephone
Number Verifier would make sense.  If the latter, SA, for Subscriber Agent,
since that is the function of an SAP or RespOrg:  an agency function on
behalf of the subscriber solely for management of the number.

On another general point, the North American Numbering Council's It should
be noted that the toll free system is far larger and more complex than the
LNP system.  This is due to the fact that the LNP system provides the
ability only to identify the service provider to complete a call to a
telephone number; while the toll free system provides capabilities (e.g.,
time-of-day routing, routing based on the point of origination, routing
based on pre-established call loads, etc.) far greater than anything
contemplated for LNP.

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
> BARNOLE Valerie FTRD/DAC/ISS
> To: 'Douglas Ranalli'
> Cc: [email-masked]'

---

From: "Judith Oppenheimer" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 13:05:29 -0500

My last post went out incomplete (my keyboard sometimes has a mind of its
own <grin>) ...

I agree.

On another general point, the North American Numbering Council's Chair John
R. Hoffman points out this week to the FCC, "It should be noted that the
toll free system is far larger and more complex than the LNP system.  This
is due to the fact that the LNP system provides the ability only to
identify the service provider to complete a call to a telephone number;
while the toll free system provides capabilities (e.g., time-of-day
routing, routing based on the point of origination, routing based on
pre-established call loads, etc.) far greater than anything contemplated
for LNP."

I point out this distinction to help clarify the difference between local
number portability, and toll free portability, which has much more complex
provisioning and contact variables attached to it.

Judith