Subject: Re: [Enum] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-enum-operation-02.txt

From: "A.M.Rutkowski" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 18:24:06 -0500

Hi Penn,

>  In section 4.2  only item (1) is really number portability. I also am
>concerned with the use of "authority" and "Tier 1 ENUM service" in item 1.
>Authority seems to be used in the sense of service provider but I don't seem
>service providers as providing full Tier 1 functionality. I also disagree
>with the last sentence in section 4.2 suggesting that the delegated
>authority [service provider] and service registrar will be the same early
>on. The folks elbowing each other to get to the Service Registrar trough at
>most ENUM meetings as mostly NOT telcos.

As noted at the SG-A ENUM AdHoc meeting, it is important
to avoid denominating the competitive structure of the
marketplace for Designated ENUM Zone Models - especially
in ways that exclude or diminish the ability of Competitive
ENUM Zone providers to provide service.

You have pointed out what is one of several serious anticompetitive
flaws with features in this paper.  I'm sure we will have
a fuller discussion on the SG-A ENUM AdHoc list where this
needs to be appropriately considered on the record.

It's worth note in passing, however, how remarkably similar
this whole IETF ENUM tack now is to the old CCITT.  For generations,
the PTTs gathered to produce F-Series documents that denominated
how the protocols were to be manifested as services and service
reference models by anointed public monopolies.  Those practices
have largely disappeared from the CCITT/ITU-T - ironically only
to be now arising here.  Interesting times.

--tony

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

---

From: Patrik Fältström <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 15:42:32 -0800

At 18.24 -0500 01-02-24, A.M.Rutkowski wrote:
>especially

Competition between different zones in DNS is something which is 
declared bad in the IETF, and the need for uniqueness is described 
more in detail in RFC 2826.

Comptetition is handled in DNS by introduction of registry/registrar 
systems, so competition is introduced without having multiple zones 
for one name.

So, if you are to discuss competition on service, talk about how the 
single zone is to be set up -- or rather requirements on how it is to 
be set up for ENUM to work (i.e. given constraints in RFC 2826).

How this is done (how the requirements are resolved) in detail is a 
national matter for each CC in the world, and not an issue for the 
IETF.

So, different zones can handle different numbering plans, but for 
E.164, there can only be one, and further, for each numbering plan, 
there can only be one zone in ENUM.

    paf

---

From: Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 19:16:58 -0500

Patrick,

http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-c/Arc00/msg02392.html

Eric

---

From: "A.M.Rutkowski" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 19:22:58 -0500

Hi Patrik,

>national matter for each CC in the world, and not an issue for the IETF.

I think we're in perfect agreement here about Service
Reference Models.  The SG-A ENUM AdHoc is now considering
what that model should be for North America, as well
as what the continuing forum should be.  The CEC is
likely to proceed soon with their own.

The focus is on pragmatically developing schema for
allowing multiple service provisioning models to
effectively co-exist in the marketplace, and which
maximize competition in general - along the lines
of Penn's remarks about unnecessarily bundling
functions even for Designated Zone providers.

--tony

---

From: Patrik Fältström <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 17:09:03 -0800

>http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-c/Arc00/msg02392.html

Thanks for sharing, but _this_ wg is not the place for discussing of 
changes in IAB/IESG views on how DNS is working.

    paf

---

From: Richard Shockey <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 21:01:52 -0500

At 07:22 PM 2/24/2001 -0500, A.M.Rutkowski wrote:
>what that model should be for North America,

The United States actually .. State Dept ad-hoc SG-A has no authority over 
non US parts of the NANP.

The forum for further US discussions has yet to be determined.

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 10:21:57 +0800

At 06:24 AM 2/25/2001, A.M.Rutkowski wrote:
>flaws with features in this paper.

Tony,

You persist in raising concerns about competition, at the same time as you 
have admitted that

         a) you are not offering a professional opinion, and

         b) that this working group has not taken any action about which 
there should be specific concern.

>I'm sure we will have

You have been asked to take your bogus distraction elsewhere.  And you even 
cite an appropriate venue.

Please use it

Otherwise people might start to suspect that your only goal is to disrupt 
this group from pursuing its technical work.

>this whole IETF ENUM tack now is to the old CCITT.  For generations,

Gee, Tony, what an interesting style of ad hominem.  Let's ignore the 
actual quality of the work, but just cast aspersions on it because (in your 
opinion) it looks a bit like someone else's work.

Thanks so much.

d/

----------
Dave Crocker   <mailto:[email-masked]>
Brandenburg InternetWorking   <http://www.brandenburg.com>
tel: +1.408.246.8253;   fax: +1.408.273.6464