Subject: Re: [Enum] FW: I-D ACTION:draft-hollenbeck-epp-e164-00.txt

From: Richard Shockey <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2001 11:08:01 -0400

At 02:22 PM 8/20/2001 -0400, Hollenbeck, Scott wrote:
>In the spirit of the note Patrik sent earlier today, I've written the
>individual submission I-D described below.  It's intended to be a "stake in
>the ground" for discussion using example data derived from RFC 2916.
>
><Scott/>

And on behalf of my co-chair ..I'd like to thank you for the submission. 
This is indeed a useful contribution to thoughtful technical discussion of 
ENUM related issues.  However I would want to point out that the problem 
statement that this document addresses is a potential tool for ENUM 
provisioning between various entities that is specifically under the 
authority of national administrations of E.164 resources as outlined in 
RFC2916 in RFC 3026.

Though, of course, it could be used in private implementations of ENUM 
technology where applicable.

A note to list readers: Concepts outlined in this draft have been developed 
in the IETF provreg working group that is developing protocols for Domain 
Name registration.

http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/provreg-charter.html

>A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
>directories.
>
>
>         Title           : Extensible Provisioning Protocol E.164 Number
>Mapping
>         Author(s)       : S. Hollenbeck
>         Filename        : draft-hollenbeck-epp-e164-00.txt
>         Pages           : 39
>         Date            : 17-Aug-01
>
>This document describes an Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP)
>mapping for the provisioning and management of E.164 numbers stored in
>a shared central repository.  Specified in XML, the mapping defines
>EPP command syntax and semantics as applied to E.164 numbers.
>
>A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
>http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-hollenbeck-epp-e164-00.txt
>
>Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the username
>"anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in,
>type "cd internet-drafts" and then
>         "get draft-hollenbeck-epp-e164-00.txt".
>
>A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in
>http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
>or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt
>
>
>Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail.
>
>Send a message to:
>         [email-masked].
>In the body type:
>         "FILE /internet-drafts/draft-hollenbeck-epp-e164-00.txt".
>
>NOTE:   The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in
>         MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility.  To use this
>         feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE"
>         command.  To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or
>         a MIME-compliant mail reader.  Different MIME-compliant mail readers
>         exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with
>         "multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split
>         up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on
>         how to manipulate these messages.
>
>
>Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader
>implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the
>Internet-Draft.
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>enum mailing list
>[email-masked]
>http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum

Richard Shockey, Senior Manager, Strategic Technology Initiatives
NeuStar Inc.
45980 Center Oak Plaza   Bldg 8     Sterling, VA  20166
1120 Vermont Ave NW Suite 400 Washington DC 20005
Voice 571.434.5651 Cell : 314.503.0640,  Fax: 815.333.1237
<mailto: [email-masked]> or
<mailto: [email-masked]>
<http://www.neustar.com>
<http://www.enum.org>
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

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

---

From: Chip Sharp <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2001 11:51:13 -0400

>authority of national administrations of E.164 resources as outlined in 

I don't understand the last sentence.  Could you please clarify?  Aren't we 
talking about DNS provisioning?

I have suggested in a private email to Scott that he consider just defining 
a <domain:naptr> and/or <host:naptr> object for EPP.  That would take care 
of the provisioning requirements for DNS to support NAPTR records (and thus 
RFC2916).  The current provreg epp drafts (e.g., host, contact, domain) 
should cover the rest.

Chip

>A note to list readers: Concepts outlined in this draft have been 
>developed in the IETF provreg working group that is developing protocols 
>for Domain Name registration.
>

---

From: Richard Shockey <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2001 14:32:00 -0400

At 11:51 AM 8/21/2001 -0400, Chip Sharp wrote:
>>This is indeed a useful contribution to thoughtful technical discussion 
>>of ENUM related issues.  However I would want to point out that the 
>>problem statement that this document addresses is a potential tool for 
>>ENUM provisioning between various entities that is specifically under the 
>I don't understand the last sentence.  Could you please clarify?  Aren't 
>we talking about DNS provisioning?

Yes ..but the rules and tools by which a particular E.164 resource is 
provisioned under e164.arpa will come under the jurisdiction of the 
appropriate E.164 resource holder. That is what the liaison statement in 
3026 describes based on 2916. That means, for instance,  that the 
Government of the United Kingdom is ultimately responsible for how its 
portion of the E.164 plan [4.4.e164.arpa] is to be administered and 
provisioned.  We can only make useful recommendations and offer hints to 
proper tools but we IMHO cannot be prescriptive as to what solutions are 
appropriate.

Its very clear to me that business rules and policy considerations for ENUM 
provisioning in Europe will be very different that in North America. That 
should not be suprising to anyone since the administration of numbering 
plans in Europe are different for each country. There is much fine work 
going on the Administration of ENUM in Europe by ETSI and I'm aware that 
they are making substantive progress.

Again, Scott's draft is a useful and thoughtful first step in helping 
potential E.164 resource administrators understand what kinds of options 
may be available to them for provisioning such records and considering the 
advanced state of discussions in several countries about ENUM deployment.

France, for instance determine that SOAP or something else is more 
appropriate protocol for provisioning these records.

>I have suggested in a private email to Scott that he consider just 
>defining a <domain:naptr> and/or <host:naptr> object for EPP.  That would 
>take care of the provisioning requirements for DNS to support NAPTR 
>records (and thus RFC2916).  The current provreg epp drafts (e.g., host, 
>contact, domain) should cover the rest.

Well I can certainly think of a lot more requirements here but again they 
need to be defined in the context of national administrative policy. I've 
been tracking the work in provreg since its inception.

---

From: Patrik Fältström <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2001 08:32:17 +0200

--On 01-08-21 14.32 -0400 Richard Shockey <[email-masked]> wrote:

> That means, for instance,  that the 
> provisioned.

If we translate into DNS terms, I think you say that it is the Government
of the United Kingdom which decides what policy is to be applied to domain
name provisioning for subdomains of 4.4.e164.arpa?

I.e. in the .com domain, the policy is quite simple, first come first
serve, but in some other domains already today (like .se) the policy is
more detailed regarding who can request delegation of what domainname.

What you say seems to be "only" state that when provisioning E.164 numbers,
we already know who is to decide what the policy is to be in the
domainnames which represents the CC's existing in E.164 space?

   paf

---

From: "Pat Conley" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2001 07:39:02 -0400

But it is very interesting how difficult it is to separate the
politics and technology... the layers just go on and on.  For
example, the simple statement 

	it is the Government of the United Kingdom which decides 
	what policy is to be applied to domain ... arpa 

is itself a policy/political decision, not a technical one.

pat

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of
Patrik Faltstrom
Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2001 2:32 AM
To: Richard Shockey; Chip Sharp
Cc: Hollenbeck, Scott; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [Enum] FW: I-D ACTION:draft-hollenbeck-epp-e164-00.txt

   paf

---

From: Patrik Fältström <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2001 14:06:07 +0200

> is itself a policy/political decision, not a technical one.

You missed the point I tried to make. Just because the DNS work the way it
does (technical implication) there is one and only one entity at every zone
cut which is to make the decision on policy etc below that point.

So, as the government of united kingdom already have the CC 44 according to
international agreements, if RFC 2916 is followed (which uses DNS) it is
the government of the united kingdom which decides what happens below the
point 4.4.e164.arpa.

What you seem to imply is that I talked about what the policy should be
inside 4.4.e164.arpa and what the process should be for assignment of
things in that domain, but I didn't. I just pointed out where the process
belongs.

Given such a monopolistic situation at every zone cut, what should be done
to ensure competition? Well, we already have that situation in the DNS, and
there the idea "we" have today for ".com" ICANN as the party deciding about
new TLD's, a registry (Verisign Global Registry System) and a number of
registrars. The registrars are multiple and that is how "we" belive
competition is ensured.

Exactly the same model can be used at any place where a zonecut is made in
DNS, including at 4.4.164.arpa.

Other models might exist than this "oversight"+"registry"+"registar", but I
have not seen any. I have also not heard any generic complaints on it more
than discussions on how to move responsibilities between these three
parties. For example, in Sweden the registry sends out the invoice while
for .com the registrars do it. That doesn't change the general model though.

If you have a different model which you are thinking of, please let us know.

    paf

> What you say seems to be "only" state that when provisioning E.164
> numbers, we already know who is to decide what the policy is to be in the

Patrik Fältström <[email-masked]>                         Cisco Systems
Consulting Engineer                                  Office of the CSO
Phone: (Stockholm) +46-8-6859131            (San Jose) +1-408-525-8509
        PGP: 2DFC AAF6 16F0 F276 7843  2DC1 BC79 51D9 7D25 B8DC

---

From: "Judith Oppenheimer" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2001 09:03:00 -0400

Bad example.

ICANN is itself a gTLD monopoly, imposing on the domain name industry the
same prescriptive and anti-competitive limitations we saw rejected
yesterday by the U.S., within which, there is also no real competition.

VeriSign Registry maintains a .com monopoly.  The new ICANN-created
registrars are merely resellers for the VeriSign Registry, the same
function performed pre-ICANN by NSI domain name resellers (ISP's, etc.),
who are now resellers for the new registrars.

Registrar accreditation created no competition, but simply bumped the
reseller function up the food chain, as ICANN placed itself on top of the
food (and money) chain above NSI/VeriSign.

The so-called competition imposed by ICANN is really just multi-level
marketing.   Is multi-level marketing the "competitive" model sought for
ENUM?

Judith

> Patrik Fältström
> Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2001 8:06 AM
> To: Pat Conley; Richard Shockey; Chip Sharp
> Subject: RE: [Enum] FW: I-D ACTION:draft-hollenbeck-epp-e164-00.txt
>
>

---

From: Patrik Fältström <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2001 15:39:16 +0200

> yesterday by the U.S., within which, there is also no real competition.

Wrong.

ICANN is the holder of the root zone, and as such defines what domains
should go in that zone.

> VeriSign Registry maintains a .com monopoly.

Of course they are. Just like ICB Toll Free Consultancy is a monopoly
holding the icbtollfree.com domain.

Each domain _is_ by definition a monopoly. It's a technical limitation.

As I said in my previous mail, you completely missed my point.

> The new ICANN-created
> registrars are merely resellers for the VeriSign Registry,

Of course they are.

> the same

Wrong. Please review what things the registrars and the ISP's etc do, and
see that what they do are different things.

> food (and money) chain above NSI/VeriSign.

Nope.

> marketing.   Is multi-level marketing the "competitive" model sought for

As I said in my email, if you have a different model than the
three-legged-chair I described which we use today, please let us know.

I have still not seen any other model given the _technical_ limitation that
you at every zone-cut in DNS have a monopoly.

It doesn't matter how much you ask for competition.

It's like asking for competition on telephone numbers, that anyone should
be able to get whatever telephone number he wants.

You are looking for a naming mechanism which doesn't have the _technical_
limitations DNS and other strict hierarchal naming mechanisms (like E.164
numbers, domainnames, DN's for certificates, ISBN, postal addresses etc).

Many other people look for such naming mechanisms, including groups in the
IETF.

You have to first make up your mind what you are looking for, and working
with, and then work within the limitations of that system. If you choose to
work with hierarchal naming systems and DNS especially, you have some
limitatations.

It doesn't matter how much you ask for this to change.

It will not.

To solve your problems, you have to use a different system than DNS. This
mailing list is about use of DNS. So please be more constructive.

   paf

---

From: "Judith Oppenheimer" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2001 10:39:03 -0400

Semantics, blatant inaccuracy, and FUD (where registrars and ISPs both sell
domain names, they in that activity do the same thing.)

I simply responded to your suggestion that ICANN presented a model for
competition, which I believe for those who want a legitimate model, was
constructive information.

Judith

> Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2001 9:39 AM
> To: Judith Oppenheimer; 'Pat Conley'; 'Richard Shockey'; 'Chip Sharp'
> Cc: 'Hollenbeck, Scott'; [email-masked]

---

From: Jim Reid <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2001 07:45:28 -0700

>>>>> "Judith" == Judith Oppenheimer <[email-masked]> writes:

    Judith> Bad example.  ICANN is itself a gTLD monopoly, imposing on
    Judith> the domain name industry the same prescriptive and
    Judith> anti-competitive limitations we saw rejected yesterday by
    Judith> the U.S., within which, there is also no real competition.

This, like the rest of your posting, is wrong and completely misses
the point. Whenever a name space contains unique identifiers -- domain
names, telephone numbers, car licence plates, whatever -- there can be
only one authority that issues them. That's the nature of unique
names: by definition there's only one place to get them from. The
logical conclusion of your argument is that things like passport
numbers or social security numbers are monopolistic and anti
competitive. This is absurd.

The model Patrik is proposing for ENUM is not just sensible, it's the
only one that will work in the real world. Governments will decide
what they will do with their Tier-1 ENUM resource, presumably in
consultation with interested parties like telco operators, regulators,
industry associations, consumer groups and the country's ccTLD
registry. How a government decides to define the framework for
operating that resource will be up to them. This may or may not
include competing registrars and telcos feeding ENUM records into the
DNS via the nation's (non-profit?) ENUM registry. That decision has to
be a matter of national -- in some cases international -- policy.

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2001 07:59:20 -0700

At 07:39 AM 8/22/2001, Judith Oppenheimer wrote:
>Semantics, blatant inaccuracy, and FUD

You are correct, Judith, and we should all applaud your 
self-disclosure.  But having you acknowledge your own behavior does not 
respond to the key point/question that Patrik made:

Every node in the DNS requires a single registry. Calling that registry a 
monopoly is nicely emotional, but it ignores the technical constraint that 
dictates having only one authority for each node.

Rather than pursue emotional excitement, please respond substatively to 
Patrik's point about the issue of technical limitations imposed by the 
nature of the DNS.

Again, as Patrik said, if you want a different technical model, then offer 
a specification and get it reviewed and accepted by the technical community.

Remember.  This mailing list is for IETF *technical* discussions about 
implementation of ENUM.  That is, telephone numbers as DNS names.

d/

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

---

From: "Judith Oppenheimer" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2001 11:02:27 -0400

Without beating this horse to death, I didn't say it wasn't a national
issue.  From a telephone numbering standpoint I agree with you that it is.
(I think I've made that clear on the other ENUM list.  My concern is that
the FCC rep doesn't seem to agree.)

I simply said ICANN wasn't a legitimate model.  For competition or for
anything else.

J

p.s.  Patrik:  Its the U.S. Dept of Commerce that controls the root zone
via contract with ICANN.

> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Jim
> Reid
> Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2001 10:45 AM
> To: Judith Oppenheimer
> Cc: 'Patrik Fältström'; 'Pat Conley'; 'Richard Shockey'; 'Chip Sharp';
> 'Hollenbeck, Scott'; [email-masked]

---

From: Patrik Fältström <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2001 17:19:17 +0200

> I simply said ICANN wasn't a legitimate model.  For competition or for

First: Are you complaining about ICANN or the model? You say you complain
about the model, which uses one admin, one registrar and many registrants.
But, then you talk explicitly about ICANN.

Given that this is a place for technical discussions, I, Jim and now also
Dave have asked you to present a different model than the one the
"admin"+"registry"+"registrars" which still acknowledges the technical
constraints of DNS.

Until you send such a description, please keep your comments for yourself.

Just saying something is bad without coming with alternatives is not really
something which I appreciate in discussions. And I am pretty sure I am not
the only one.

If  you don't have a different model, then you are complaining about ICANN
and not the model. Those complaints you have to take somewhere else.

> p.s.  Patrik:  Its the U.S. Dept of Commerce that controls the root zone

It all depends on how you read the contract between DoC and ICANN, and what
value you put on the words. You have to define the word "control" before
you can issue a statement like the one above.

   paf

---

From: "Pat Conley" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2001 11:29:56 -0400

With this technical point made earlier...

	Whenever a name space contains unique identifiers -- domain
	names, telephone numbers, car licence plates, whatever -- there
	can be only one authority that issues them.

I respectfully disagree if by "one authority" you mean "one system".
There are 2 very common models in the database world.  One... like
ENUM... relies on a central authority to enforce the desired uniquenss.
Another... like UDDI... allows for multi masters of the information.
Of course, there are mechanisms to resolve the conflicts when the same
name/key/identifier is allocated by two masters at the same time.  The
"mastery" is a shared responsibility across systems (and companies).
Each mechanism has its advantages and disadvantages which make it
appropriate for different problems.

I am not suggesting that ENUM is using the wrong solution by any means,
only that there are other technical models.

pat

---

From: Patrik Fältström <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2001 17:43:37 +0200

> only that there are other technical models.

You are absolutely correct in this, but, let me clearify why I see this
still be within the same model myself and Jim talked about.

A database where one have true multi-master capabilities is extremely hard
to realise, even only from a theoretical database model point of view. It
is  much easier to have "shared responsibilities" via a shared media where
one can make a "lock" on shared resources, or allocate the very identifier
which needs to be unique. The lock on those identifiers can be rolled back
if later the transaction in the client fails for some (other) reasons.

In my view, this central mechanism is a registry. Much more thin than what
Verisign is for .com and much thinner than many other registries like the
one in Sweden.

Actually, when I was in iPOC and later POC we did suggest such a system
where the registrars themselves together create the registry.

But, I still see the need for some (shared) place where locking of shared
resources, creation of the zone file etc, happens, and I call that the
registry, and what we now discuss is what things the registrars do, and
what things the registry do.

Because of this, I don't see your and my view being so different.

Your mileage may vary.

   paf

---

From: "A.M. Rutkowski" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2001 11:52:44 -0400

Hi Jim,

>be a matter of national -- in some cases international -- policy.

A number of parties in this Working Group have over the past
18 months proffered administrative implementation models and
bicycled them into diverse regulatory forums at international
and domestic levels.  Turn out an I-D here, submit it as
a contribution there.  The term Tier-1 itself was manufactured
out of some "individuals'" Internet Draft.  Call it technical
and in-scope for schema you favor one place; call it policy and
out-of-scope for what don't like in another place.

The discussion of registry-registrar options and protocols is
no more out-of-scope or inappropriate than is the use of "tiers"
and the dozens of pages of baggage now getting carted around under
the rubric of "technical" discussions.

Most of this should have been left to the marketplace where the
Rose-Malamud plus Mealling-Daniel schema sank or swam, and
this Group should have been terminated last Autumn.  Instead
it has emulated the CCITT and become a home for regulatory-loving
players to turn out F-series "recommendations."

I believe the USGOV regulatory agencies have recently expressed
some definitive and strong concerns about what's been occurring.

--tony

---

From: "A.M. Rutkowski" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2001 12:08:03 -0400

Hi Patrik,

>you can issue a statement like the one above.

The contracts involve more than just DOC and ICANN.
I can assure, the parties to the contracts put value on
the words. :-)  It is  directive letters of the Dept of
Commerce that ultimately cause actions to occur.
To coin Harry Truman's favorite phrase, "the buck stops"
at the Dept of Commerce.

--tony

---

From: "Pat Conley" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2001 12:30:15 -0400

I agree.  I have designed and developed several multi-master systems
and they are often the WRONG solution.  The advantages of the central
system are simpicity (and surprisingly) reliability... though the two
go hand-in-hand.

pat

Patrick J. Conley
CTO and VP of Development
iDashes.net
716 387-0770 x111
[email-masked] 

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of
Patrik Faltstrom
Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2001 11:44 AM
To: Pat Conley; Jim Reid; Judith Oppenheimer
Cc: 'Richard Shockey'; 'Chip Sharp'; 'Hollenbeck, Scott'; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [Enum] FW: I-D ACTION:draft-hollenbeck-epp-e164-00.txt 

Your mileage may vary.

   paf

---

From: "John D. Goodspeed" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2001 13:24:48 -0400

Patrik,

You stated that...
----- Original Message -----
From: "Patrik Fältström" <[email-masked]>
> the government of the united kingdom which decides what happens below the

The question is whether or not it is healthy to have ITU or ICANN or the
United Kingdom regulate what its citizens can and cannot do with their owned
/ leased telephone numbers on the Internet? Perhaps the UK would be benign
to its citizens, perhaps not. Many countries will restrict freedom of
information flow, monitor access, and engage in other consumer unfriendly
activities under their slice of the the proposed x.x.x.e164.arpa pie.

> registrars. The registrars are multiple and that is how "we" belive
We currently do not have proper competition under ICANN and although you say
that meaningful competition is not viable under ENUM I wonder if this has
been thouroughly explored yet. Following the ICANN / DNS delegation model
for telephone number assignment and control may put too much power in the
wrong hands.

Absolute control of ENUM Internet telephone numbers will be worse on a world
wide basis than relative competitive anarchy of Internet telephone numbers.
Many governments worldwide already have very restrictive Internet policies,
please don't extend their tools of repression.

> DNS, including at 4.4.164.arpa.

However, the goal should not be international or national zonecut control of
Internet phone numbers. The desired goal should be to give each and every
telephone number owner / subscriber / leasee complete control over her or
his (or its) telephone number.

Niether the ITU nor ICANN nor the U.K. (over +44) nor the U.S. (over +1)
should have any say over how we, the public, use our private Internet
telephone numbers on the Internet. We have an excellent opportunity NOT to
build barriers and NOT to establish gatekeepers. Please work toward keeping
the private individual in control of their own private Internet phone
number.

John D. Goodspeed

---

From: Patrik Fältström <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2001 19:45:05 +0200

--On 01-08-22 13.24 -0400 "John D. Goodspeed" <[email-masked]> wrote:

> United Kingdom regulate what its citizens can and cannot do with their
> owned / leased telephone numbers on the Internet? Perhaps the UK would be
> benign to its citizens, perhaps not. Many countries will restrict freedom
> of information flow, monitor access, and engage in other consumer
> unfriendly activities under their slice of the the proposed
> x.x.x.e164.arpa pie.

In that case what you ask for is a different identifier than E.164 which
today the countries governments control.

It is extremely hard, and I would say stupid, to inherit something without
inheriting the whole thing. Bad things aswell as good things.

ENUM can the way I see it only work if the handling of E.164 is in
accordance with how the numbers really are used. Regardless of transport
mechanism. If in some countries the users of the numbers feel they are too
limited in what they can do, choose a different identifier which gives more
freedom.

   paf

---

From: "A.M. Rutkowski" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2001 14:09:13 -0400

Patrik,

>mechanism. If in some countries the users of the numbers feel they are too

The regulatory policy you describe is fundamentally
contrary to that maintained by the U.S. in international
forums over the past several years - which was re-emphasized
several hours ago by an FCC official.

The USGOV is not "stupid."  It doesn't want to port 150 years
of telecoms regulatory baggage to the Internet simply because
someone wants to build a DNS namespace using telephone numbers.

--tony

---

From: Richard Shockey <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2001 14:46:08 -0400

At 07:45 PM 8/22/2001 +0200, Patrik Fältström wrote:
> > owned / leased telephone numbers on the Internet?

Do not make the assumption that citizens 'own' telephone numbers ... rights 
to use numbers and the policies surrounding them are matter of strictly 
left up to the E.164 resource holder.

If I'm correct in the ITU context telephone numbers are not "owned" as such 
they are considered a "shared global resource" Though their may be 
substantial "rights to use" as in the case of 800 numbers etc. However 
those rights would terminate once service was terminated as well.

>  Perhaps the UK would be

Thank you Patrik ... if this gentlemen wants another form of identifier we 
certainly have URI's.

---

From: Jaap Akkerhuis <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2001 20:44:39 +0200

I just checked the charter of the IETF WG for enum. Non of your
remarks borders on issues this WG and mailinglist is set up for.
Whether the USGOV, the FCC etc. is stupid or not should somewhere
else to be discussed/decided. Maybe it is time to start a
``enum-policy'' mailing list or something like that.

	jaap

---

From: Patrik Fältström <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2001 20:36:28 +0200

> someone wants to build a DNS namespace using telephone numbers. 

It was not my intention to say that we should inherit things just because.

My point was that we should use E.164 numbers the same way regardless of
transport. If ENUM becomes a tool to change the way we look at and use
E.164 numbers, fine.

There is though a difference between 

(a) having a system for E.164 numbers which is broken and then something
which inherits it (ENUM) in a completely incompatible way

(b) fixing the way we look at E.164 numbers, and inheriting the fixed
system so we have a similar view at the numbers regardless of transport

Just like the use and handling of E.164 numbers changed when competition
was introduced on the local loop, when we got cellphones, sms messaging and
god knows what -- we will see a change of E.164 number handling when ENUM
is introduced.

Actually, the issues with E.164 numbers and Internet is more a generic
problem regarding the interest of getting E.164 numbers to customers which
should be treated like local loop even though the "telco" is not connected
to the SS7 network at all. It has not much to do with ENUM. It is a
question on what kind of endpoint can get an E.164 number, when, from whom
etc etc. Directory services, secret numbers, priority calls, wiretapping of
phonecalls not made on the SS7 network etc.

ENUM is just an addressing mechanism. Regardless of how ENUM is implemented
in the end in a country, one have to work on all the issues above anyways.

Like the issues which are discussed in the US at the moment with how to
handle the local loop over cable TV networks, and not the copper which I
think you refer to? A discussion where baby bells and others have
completely different views (for obvious reasons).

   paf

---

From: "A.M. Rutkowski" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2001 14:56:46 -0400

Hi Jaap,

>``enum-policy'' mailing list or something like that.

It's worth noting that it was the co-chair that make
these remarks.

There are lots of ENUM policy lists.  By the
IESG failing to close down this Working Group,
it has effectively ceded it to policy discussions,
unless someone wants to purse an ENUM Lite
work effort.

--tony

---

From: Jaap Akkerhuis <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2001 21:10:43 +0200

Tony,
    
    Hi Jaap,

For the record, I was quoting your mail as it arrived via the list (See
citation below).
    
    There are lots of ENUM policy lists.

It would be interesting to know on which lists and how to contribute.

    By the IESG failing to close down this Working Group, it has
    effectively ceded it to policy discussions, unless someone
    wants to purse an ENUM Lite work effort.

This is quite a silly argument. That way you can also argue that
the IESG ceded this list to discussions over hersey bars, viagra
or worldpeace.

	jaap

  Return-Path: [email-masked]
  Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19])
  	by bureau.sidn.nl (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id f7MIFgl13054
  	for <[email-masked]>; Wed, 22 Aug 2001 20:15:42 +0200 (CEST)
  	(envelope-from [email-masked])
  Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
  	by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA23841;
  	Wed, 22 Aug 2001 14:09:23 -0400 (EDT)
  Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176])
  	by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA23812
  	for <[email-masked]>; Wed, 22 Aug 2001 14:09:21 -0400 (EDT)
  Received: from exchange.netmagic.com ([63.221.166.162])
  	by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA18822
  	for <[email-masked]>; Wed, 22 Aug 2001 14:08:01 -0400 (EDT)
  Received: from [216.168.224.9] by exchange.netmagic.com (NTMail 5.06.0016/NT2627.00.5ef58ba0) with ESMTP id pkqnaaaa for [email-masked]; Wed, 22 Aug 2001 14:09:42 -0400
  Message-Id: <[email-masked]>
  X-Sender: [email-masked]
  X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1
  Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2001 14:09:13 -0400
  To: Patrik =?iso-8859-1?Q?F=E4ltstr=F6m?= <[email-masked]>,
     "John D. Goodspeed" <[email-masked]>, [email-masked],
     [email-masked]
  From: "A.M. Rutkowski" <[email-masked]>
  Subject: Re: [Enum] FW: I-D ACTION:draft-hollenbeck-epp-e164-00.txt
  In-Reply-To: <2633352.998509505@localhost>
  References: <[email-masked]>
   <[email-masked]>
   <1413042.998489167@localhost>
   <[email-masked]>
  Mime-Version: 1.0
  Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
  	boundary="=====================_100249731==_.ALT"
  Sender: [email-masked]
  Errors-To: [email-masked]
  X-Mailman-Version: 1.0
  Precedence: bulk
  List-Id: Enum Discussion List <enum.ietf.org>
  X-BeenThere: [email-masked]
  X-UIDL: 8117de02fd548b803aa2c42649e6b4ba
  
  --=====================_100249731==_.ALT
  Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
  
  Patrik,

  
  
  --tony
  --=====================_100249731==_.ALT
  Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
  
  <html>
  <font size=3>Patrik,<br><br>
  <blockquote type=cite class=cite cite>It is extremely hard, and I would
  say stupid, to inherit something without<br>
  inheriting the whole thing. Bad things aswell as good things.<br>
  </font><br>
  <font size=3>ENUM can the way I see it only work if the handling of E.164
  is in<br>
  accordance with how the numbers really are used. Regardless of
  transport<br>
  mechanism. If in some countries the users of the numbers feel they are
  too</blockquote><br>
  The regulatory policy you describe is fundamentally<br>
  contrary to that maintained by the U.S. in international<br>
  forums over the past several years - which was re-emphasized<br>
  several hours ago by an FCC official.<br><br>
  The USGOV is not &quot;stupid.&quot;&nbsp; It doesn't want to port 150
  years <br>
  of telecoms regulatory baggage to the Internet simply because<br>
  someone wants to build a DNS namespace using telephone numbers. 
  <br><br>
  --tony</font></html>
  
  --=====================_100249731==_.ALT--

---

From: "A.M. Rutkowski" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2001 15:15:31 -0400

Richard,

>If I'm correct in the ITU context telephone numbers are not "owned" as 
>such they are considered a "shared global resource" Though their may be 

Fortunately, this is not accurate.  They are treated as
national PSTN identifiers and dealt with in each jurisdiction
pursuant to domestic law.

The 55 year history with source citations is available at
http://search.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-rutkowski-enum-basis-00.txt

--tony

---

From: Patrik Fältström <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2001 21:22:26 +0200

> pursuant to domestic law.

...and because of this I think each country is to treat these identifiers
according to their law -- also when they are stored in DNS...and because of
this it is the government of united kingdom which handles 44 and
4.4.e164.arpa.

   paf

---

From: Richard Shockey <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2001 15:37:09 -0400

>There are lots of ENUM policy lists.

So please take your opinions of US Government policy there.

>  By the

Ahh... I don't think so.

The chairs of this WG (Patrik and myself) maintain control of this list and 
as such establish the guidelines for discussion in accordance with IETF 
procedures.

The working group and this discussion list was kept open specifically to 
maintain lines of communication between the IETF ENUM working group members 
that developed 2916 and other technical communities that are developing 
implementations of 2916 or need technical clarifications on issues related 
to DNS etc.

In fact this WG still has technical issues on the table which we may 
shortly take up in support of those other groups.

The co-chairs have been in discussions with the Area Directors on what 
should be our scope of work moving forward and Patrik and I will have 
something to say about that in the near future.