Subject: RE: later response to RE: [Enum] ITU ENUM Workshop: Issues...

From: Andy Gallant <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2000 08:55:43 -0600

Doug,

Thanks for your reply.  I've interspersed some comments.
It would be nice if there's a little time early in the 
week for some brainstorming on these points.  Hope so.
Thanks for looking at these, and see you (all?) in SD.

Regards,

-Andy

-----Original Message-----
From: Douglas Ranalli [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Thursday, December 07, 2000 12:11 PM
To: Andy Gallant
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: later response to RE: [Enum] ITU ENUM Workshop: Issues...

Andy,

Thank you for the feedback on the Roles & Responsibilities draft.  Here are
some follow-up thoughts:

Problem #1: Clarification of an "E.164 Number" versus the "ENUM name" for
it:  Good point, an E.164 Number (1.212.555.1212) is clearly different from
an ENUM name (1.2.1.2.5.5.5.2.1.2.1.e164.arpa).  Two separate terms are
required.  How about the following?

E.164 Number  (example:  1.212.555.1212)

E.164 Domain Name (example: 1.2.1.2.5.5.5.2.1.2.1.e164.arpa)

<AG> I liked it too.  But, over the past few weeks I tried
running several possible terms by a few people.  It turns out
they dumped on most of them except for "ENUM name" - clean, 
simple, and especially short - seems OK enough for now.//

Problem #2:  How wide or deep is Tier-1?  You have suggested that Tier-2 can
be defined as follows:  "Tier-2 is where the NAPTR's go".  If this is the
definition of Tier-2, then the definition of Tier-1 would appear to be:

Tier-1 maps an E.164 domain name to the address of the authoritative Tier-2
name server".

<AG> Those Tier-2 words were a shorthand way to think about a definition,
as are the words about Tier-1.  IMHO, a useful goal is that Tier-1 words 
and Tier-2 words could each be turned into specific statements about 
DNS records.  Hope there's some input from DNS gurus ...//

Problem #3:  "Grouping functions together makes it hard to separate them
later".  I agree.  As we move forward please continue to provide input
whenever you see a definition that combines multiple roles which you believe
should be separated out.  I'll continue to work the issue of "telephone
service provider" versus "telephone number provider".

<AG> OK//

Problem #4:  A common definition of roles & responsibilities requires
agreement from both the PSTN and Internet communities.  I agree.  I've been
working under the assumption that the ENUM working group is the appropriate
place to start with this discussion.  If you have a recommendation for
another forum for discussing the roles & responsibilities draft please let
me know.  Otherwise, we'll continue to move the draft forward on the list
group and will seek to bring in contributors from both worlds.

<AG> Also OK.  There's still time for contributions into the next ITU-T
SG-2 meeting (23Jan-2Feb in Geneva) for international PSTN-type stuff.
Maybe the list can suggest where (else?) to focus and where not to.//

Thanks again for the input.

<AG> Thanks for the dialog, and good luck with your next draft.//

Regards,

Doug

----- Original Message -----
From: Andy Gallant <[email-masked]>
To: 'Douglas Ranalli' <[email-masked]>; Richard Shockey
<[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Monday, December 04, 2000 6:29 PM
Subject: later response to RE: [Enum] ITU ENUM Workshop: Issues...

Doug (et al),

Sorry for the delay in writing this down ...

The discussion on the list about the roles/responsibilities draft brings up
some issues that have been around for a while but which took me (at least)
some time to identify.  Here are a couple of them, because I think these
would need to be resolved along the way in any attempt to reach a common
framework.

Problem 1:  "Names" and "numbers" are confused in many documents.  An E.164
number does not live in DNS, but the ENUM name for it might or might not.
Yes, there's a one-to-one mapping, but being specific can make descriptions
much less confusing (in a bunch of i-ds).

Problem 2:  Has Tier 1 been defined yet with anything like the agreed views
on Tier 2?  Tier 2 is where the NAPTRs go - that's OK.  But, how wide (or
deep) is Tier 1?  Is it just above Tier 2, is Tier 1 just below e164.arpa,
or both, or something else?  It would probably help if there's a way to say
it like there is for Tier 2.

Problem 3:  Grouping functions together makes it hard to separate them
later.  Look at the roles of Telco A in the RFC 2916 Scenario.  There are at
least two PSTN functions (tel svc prov and tel num prov) as well as one or
more DNS-related ones.  Some supportive responses on the list have suggested
an approach starting with clear ideas of functions and interfaces, and then
looking at different ways these could be combined.

Problem 4:  PSTN and Internet communities both care - a lot - about how
things on their turf are described.  ENUM makes this harder.  Even harder is
the fact that a ton of different glossaries and models already exist - where
to start?.  It's hard to figure out how to get to a description of ENUM
roles and responsibilities subject to the double burden of satisfying both
sides.

Having said all that, I strongly agree that the effort to get to a common
framework is worthwhile.  Possible goals of such a core document could
include (a) each side being comfortable enough with how its own functions
are described, and (b) clear and reproducible walkthroughs of interface
functions, all of which rest on the same terms and definitions.

One problem, though, is that the January 17 workshop is only one day, right?
So the objectives (terms of reference) would have to be clear and observed
by the participants.  There's not enough time to work on definitions, or
roles, or models, but there should be enough time to reach a substantial set
of common understandings.  Good luck to the planners, contributors, and
participants.

-Andy Gallant

+1-202-533-2812
[email-masked]

Disclaimer:  opinions are my own.

-----Original Message-----
From: Douglas Ranalli [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2000 5:10 PM
To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [Enum] ITU ENUM Workshop: Issues for Regulators, Policy
Makers, and Numbering Authorities - January 17, 2001

Richard and ENUM list-group,

I'm writing to follow-up on the note from Robert Shaw regarding the upcoming
ITU workshop on ENUM implementation.  My thought is that the "Roles &
Responsibilities" draft that we've been discussing on the list group is a
core document for ENUM and the ITU discussion.  The process of gaining
agreement on the set of "actors" in the ENUM System and the "roles and
responsibilities" of those actors is a foundation for all follow-on ENUM
work.  Based on this, I'd like to propose that we consider making the "Roles
& Responsibilities" draft a standards track document so that we can all work
to gain consensus on a common framework for advancing ENUM.  Please let me
know your thoughts.

Regards,

Doug

----- Original Message -----
From: Shaw, Robert <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2000 4:09 PM
Subject: [Enum] ITU ENUM Workshop: Issues for Regulators, Policy Makers, and
Numbering Authorities - January 17, 2001

List members:

This is an initial heads-up that ITU is organizing an ENUM
Workshop: "Issues for Regulators, Policy Makers, and Numbering
Authorities" on January 17, 2001. The meeting will be in Geneva,
Switzerland at the ITU. The target audience is the latter group
and the objective is to provide better understanding of the
technical/regulatory/competition policy implications of the
ENUM protocol for those who will be involved in related
"country-code" level policy decisions at both the sub-cc
E.164 DNS and NAPTR provisioning/deprovisioning levels.

This date was chosen since an experts meeting related to an
ITU Policy Forum on IP telephony (in which ENUM is also a topic)
will be held on January 18/19 as well as a normal ITU-T Study
Group 2 for the following two weeks in Geneva.

IETF's ENUM Chair, Richard Shockey, Patrik Fältström, author of
RFC 2916, and Mirjam Kuehne from RIPE NCC have also already agreed
to participate on the 17th.

We will work with Richard on a synthesis of the discussions on
the list and from various drafts and discussions in San Diego to
provide some generic reference models for possible national or
integrated numbering plan level consideration as an input to
this meeting.

The meeting will be open, within space limitations of about 100
seats, and as soon as there is more detail and a registration form
available, I'll announce it on the list for those who may wish to
participate and also post it to www.itu.int/infocom/enum/.

Bob
--
Robert Shaw <[email-masked]>
ITU Internet Strategy and Policy Advisor
International Telecommunication Union <http://www.itu.int>
Place des Nations, 1211 Geneva, Switzerland

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

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

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

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

---

From: "A.M.Rutkowski" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2000 10:36:09 -0500

Hi Andy,

>AG> Also OK.  There's still time for contributions into the next ITU-T

Since the SG-2 WP has agreed that that provisioning is a national
matter with the caveat that synchronizing end user E164 numbers
should be maintained, isn't this sufficient?  Are not any further
matters concerning DNS provisioning out of scope for them?

best,
tony

---

From: "Clive D.W. Feather" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2000 15:51:12 +0000

> E.164 Domain Name (example: 1.2.1.2.5.5.5.2.1.2.1.e164.arpa)

I really hope these aren't meant to relate to each other !

Could I suggest that examples use a different number ? I would volunteer
the London Transport number +44 20 7222 1234, but if you really want an
NANP 555 number, use a different area code (803 or something like that that
isn't going to be confused with the trailing portion).

-- 
Clive D.W. Feather  | Work:  <[email-masked]>   | Tel:  +44 20 8371 1138
Internet Expert     | Home:  <[email-masked]>  | Fax:  +44 20 8371 1037
Demon Internet      | WWW: http://www.davros.org | DFax: +44 20 8371 4037
Thus plc            |                            | Mobile: +44 7973 377646