Subject: [Enum] Number Portability Draft

From: Richard Shockey <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2001 23:26:23 -0400

As part of our original charter we defined the following. I quote.

"6. The Working Group will understand the impact of developments in the 
area of local number portability on the proposed system. "

the following draft has been offered to describe the current Number 
Portability status within the GSTN.

In the opinion of anyone on this list are there any factual or technical 
errors contained in this draft?

#############

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Telephone Number Mapping Working Group of 
the IETF.

         Title           : Number Portability in the GSTN: An Overview
         Author(s)       : M. Foster, T. McGarry, J. Yu
         Filename        : draft-ietf-enum-e164-gstn-np-02.txt
         Pages           : 26
         Date            : 22-Oct-01

This document provides an overview of E.164 telephone number
portability (NP) in the Global Switched Telephone Network (GSTN).
There are three types of number portability: service provider number
portability (SPNP), location portability, and service portability.
Service provider portability, the focus of the present draft, is a
regulatory imperative in many countries seeking to liberalize local
telephony service competition, by enabling end-users to retain pre-
existing telephone numbers while changing service providers.

A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-enum-e164-gstn-np-02.txt

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: Patrik Fältström <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2001 09:43:44 +0200

> errors contained in this draft?

(a) Several pages of text as an introduction...and a VERY long abstract. I
felt I had to skip every second page to find the information which I wanted
to have. This draft could have been easilly "just" the ascii-art and some
text around it. People don't read long documents.

(b) There is no security considerations section. I.e. no talk about
security issues with the different models, and the different proposed
solutions, and implications listed at the end.

    paf

---

From: Tony Rutkowski <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2001 08:13:11 -0400

>errors contained in this draft?

The authors deserve credit for compiling a set of useful,
elusive material.  A few questions:

1. Although this is informational, it does state "conclusions."
Wouldn't it be more appropriate to describe these observations
as "potential implications."

2. The conclusions section states:

    is a regulatory requirement on NP in some countries.  The delegated
    authority for a given E.164 number is likely to be an entity
    designated by the end user that owns/controls a specific telephone
    number or a third-party designated by the end-user or by the
    industry.

What is the basis for the sentence, and what does it mean for
delegated authority to be "the industry?"

--tony