Subject: RE: [Enum] Revised Charter and Work Plan for ENUM WG

From: Kevin McCandless <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2001 08:53:18 -0700

Rich:

I am glad to hear that the ENUM will become active again under the IETF.  We
have reviewed the 4 main charter objectives that you provided in the
announcement.  The 4 main charter objectives seem to be very similar to the
charter items the ENUM Forum are working on.  How do we avoid duplicate
efforts?  It might be worth having a meeting, at the 52 IETF in Salt Lake,
to address this issue.

Kevin...........

-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Shockey [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Sunday, October 14, 2001 7:34 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [Enum] Revised Charter and Work Plan for ENUM WG

After consultation with the area directors Patrik and myself have developed 
a revised charter and work plan for going forward.

The WG had gone into "slumber mode" after IETF Pittsburgh. In our judgement 
there is left over work to complete and there is sufficient new activity in 
various venues to justify considering technical work related to ENUM 
operations & implementations.

At this time since we have no active ID's on the plate so there is no need 
to have a meeting in Salt Lake unless there is demand for it.

The revised charter is open for comments:

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

Telephone Number Mapping (enum)

Chair(s):
mailto:[email-masked]
mailto:[email-masked]

Transport Area Director(s):
mailto:[email-masked]
mailto:[email-masked]

Transport Area Advisor:
mailto:[email-masked]

Mailing Lists:
General Discussion:[email-masked]
To Subscribe: [email-masked]
In Body: subscribe
Archive: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf-mail-archive/enum/

Description of Working Group:

This working group has defined a DNS-based architecture and protocol [RFC 
2916] for mapping a telephone number to a set of attributes (e.g. URI's) 
which can be used to contact a resource associated with that number.

Background:
Telephone numbers now identify many different types of end terminals, 
supporting many different services and protocols. Telephone numbers are 
used to identify ordinary phones, fax machines, pagers, data modems, email 
clients, text terminals for the hearing impaired, etc.
A prospective caller may wish to discover which services and protocols are 
supported by the terminal named by a given telephone number. The caller may 
also require more information than just the telephone number to communicate 
with the terminal.
 From the call recipient's perspective, the owner of the telephone number 
or device may wish to control what URI's, calling parties may receive.
The architecture must allow for different service providers, competing 
openly, to provision the data base of end point information required by 
clients to reach the desired the terminal device or service named by a 
telephone number.

Working Group Revised Goals and Scope:
1.      The working group will, from a technical viewpoint describe how the 
registry/registrar model used for DNS provisioning could be applied to the 
global ENUM based branches of the DNS hierarchy and document various 
aspects of ENUM administrative / operational procedures within that context 
as Informational
2.      The working group will update RFC 2916 to reflect the ongoing 
revision of RFC 2915.
3.      The working group will consider various aspects of privacy, 
security, validation, authentication and provisioning of the global ENUM 
branches of the DNS including RFC 2915 (and revisions) records as 
Informational. Such documents could be used as models for various national 
implementations of RFC 2916 by the appropriate authorities over those 
portions of the global ENUM namespace.
4.      The Working Group will continue maintain contact and liaison with 
appropriate standards bodies and groups in order to coordinate activities 
and provide appropriate technical input when required, in particular ITU 
Study Group 2 and other national ENUM administrative forums. The Working 
Group, in the sprit of technical exchange, will welcome technical 
information, updates etc.,  from various national ENUM administration 
forums, other standards bodies, as well as documentation on practical 
experiences with implementations of RFC 2916.

Document deliverables:
1.      Revise and update RFC 2916 appropriate to revision of RFC 2915 
(Standards Track)  April  2002
2.      Document appropriate ENUM Administrative Procedures (Informational) 
March 2002
3.      Document appropriate ENUM Operational Procedures 
(Informational)  May 2002
4.      Document appropriate ENUM Provisioning Procedures and Data Sets 
(Informational) TBD

No Current Internet-Drafts
Request For Comments:
E.164 number and DNS (RFC 2916) (18159 bytes)

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

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

---

From: Patrik Fältström <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2001 19:06:28 +0200

--On 2001-10-15 08.53 -0700 Kevin McCandless <[email-masked]>
wrote:

> The 4 main charter objectives seem to be very similar to the

ENUM Forum is a membership organisation. The orgin is described by the ENUM
Forum itself:

> The July 6, 2001 report developed for the Department of State by ITAC-T,
> Study Group A Ad Hoc on ENUM, recommended the formation of an open
> industry forum to continue the work started in the Ad Hoc.  This ENUM
> Forum is the result of that recommendation.  The ENUM Forum is
> established to develop industry standard processes, procedures, and
> requirements to implement both public and private instances of an ENUM
> Domain Name structure for ITU Recommendation E.164 numbers that reside
> within the U.S. and potentially other countries of the North American
> Numbering Plan. 

The IETF works on international issues, and not NANP-Centric issues, and
further, IETF does not require memberships etc for participation.

That said, anyone can submit documents to the IETF for review and
standardization, so also individuals which work in the ENUM Forum and
similar organizations in other countries.

It is very normal that topic-based organizations work in parallell with the
IETF, and normally the result is that the topic-based organization come
with specific input to the IETF process, help keeping the IETF process
running by participating actively, and, in it's own process talk about how
to implement the RFC's which are the outcome of the IETF process.

I.e. IETF can not tell anyone to follow the RFC's.

So, yes, the IETF might discuss documents which overlap with what ENUM
Forum (and others) do, but, I am not afraid of double work.

   Regards, Patrik
   co-chair of the ENUM working group in the IETF

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2001 10:48:51 -0700

>similar organizations in other countries.

Patrik, et al,

You have highlighted differences in "turf", and you are of course correct.

However I believe there is also a difference that is compatible, namely 
that the ENUM Forum, like similar trade associations, is involved with pre- 
and post-standards efforts.  Technical standards do not specify an entire 
service.  They specify the technical aspects of a service.  Quite a bit of 
additional work is needed to flesh things out into a viable activity that 
USES the standards.

This nicely and necessarily augments technical standards work and, yes, 
also provides feedback.

>Forum (and others) do, but, I am not afraid of double work.

Sometimes a technical standards body encroaches into policy.  Sometimes a 
trade association encroaches into the territory of technical standards 
creation.  Double work is a legitimate concern.  However it need not be a 
major one.

(I know you know this, Patrik.  I added it to make sure that readers of 
this thread do not miss the point, or feel the need to comment on it.)

d/

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