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

From: "Pfautz, Penn L, NNAD" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 14:21:44 -0500

Some comments on the latest version of the operations document...

1. We need to synch up the use of  terminology associated with Tiers across
the several I-Ds. It seems that Tier 1 in the Operations document refers to
Tier 1 as including both what is Tier 1 in the draft-pfautz-yu-enum-adm-00
and the RIPE NCC (which the next draft of pfautz-yu will refer to as Tier
0). While together these two Tiers collectively do what operations document
says - direct you to the service registrar - it may useful to keep them
separate. In any case we need to get to consensus about language.

2. 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.

3. In Section 7.2, the example shows delegation from the NANP to a the
"number portability authority" .I think this is almost certain NOT to happen
in the USA where the example seems to be focused. I expect delegation will
be from the USA Tier 1 directly to the Service Registrar (whether or not the
Registrar is the telco) and such an example would be more helpful to folks
trying to understand how ENUM will roll out.

We now return you to your regularly shcedule flamefest....

Penn Pfautz
AT&T

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

---

From: "Robert H. Walter" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 11:49:51 -0500

> separate. In any case we need to get to consensus about language.

Hi Penn,

By introducting Tier 0 we risk confusing the logical tiers of ENUM with
the physical tiers or zones of DNS.  If you describe Tier 0 as "e164.arpa."
operated by NCC RIPE, do you then define Tier -1 as "arpa." operated by
NSI?  Who, What, How and When the 200+ country code zones will be
administered and operatated has yet to be defined.  I recommend we stick
to the logical ENUM tiers when describing ENUM reference models and steer
clear of the DNS physical tiers or zones.

Richard, the I-D draft-ranalli-peek-walter-enum-t1roles-01.txt was
published some weeks ago... Would you publish a link to the list?

Thanks,

Bob