Subject: [Enum] (no subject)

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2001 16:58:55 EDT

Since the proposed revised ENUM Charter was published there has been very 
little discussion on the proposal.  This is either due to the proposed 
charter covering 
the subject perfectly or due to lack of interest. I have some suspicion that 
it is the latter.  Intensive work is progressing at the moment on ENUM issues 
flowing from 
the original RFC and the ITU-T Study Group 2 response.  In effect, the 
technical, protocol oriented work that was pioneered by the IETF is being 
followed by 
documenting the operational and organizational requirements by the parties 
that are responsible for ENUM implementations.

It therefore seems to me that item 3 in the proposed revised charter should 
not be there. If there is indeed consensus that the ENUM WG should be 
revived, which I 
hope would be demonstrated by a greater response than has been seen to date, 
then the work should focus on technical issues that are not yet being covered 
elsewhere.

I was involved in one of the earlier IETF/ITU-T collaborations on email based 
Internet fax which used IETF RFC for the technical aspects..  I believe that 
the 
success of that effort could be ascribed to the fact that operational and 
service requirements were defined by the ITU-T and the protocol issues were 
solved by the 
IETF.  I believe that the same model should be followed in the ENUM work.

Herman Silbiger
Consultant to NetNumber.com

  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)

---

From: Richard Shockey <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2001 17:54:48 -0400

At 04:58 PM 10/24/2001 -0400, [email-masked] wrote:
>the subject perfectly or due to lack of interest. I have some suspicion 
>that it is the latter.  Intensive work is progressing at the moment on 
>ENUM issues flowing from
>It therefore seems to me that item 3 in the proposed revised charter 
>should not be there. If there is indeed consensus that the ENUM WG should 
>be revived, which I
>hope would be demonstrated by a greater response than has been seen to 
>date, then the work should focus on technical issues that are not yet 
>being covered
>elsewhere.

Well Herman some of us don't know what is happening "elsewhere".

I would politely beg to disagree..  technical issues surrounding the needs 
for "privacy, security, validation, authentication and provisioning" seem 
perfectly in scope. We have already seen some possible contributions on XML 
schemas that might be useful for provisioning by various national 
implementations etc.

Considering that the core of these issues touches the DNS it is IMHO it is 
perfectly reasonable for the IETF and this WG to continue to monitor 
events. The hope was that proposals from any source could be considered for 
open peer review by the general IETF community in this WG.

That said the proposed charter did state that such documents were to be 
made informational and not standards track. The IETF quite often publishes 
document developed outside normal working groups.

Yes things have been quiet of late but that is because we do not have any 
documents in front of us to discuss.

>I was involved in one of the earlier IETF/ITU-T collaborations on email 
>based Internet fax which used IETF RFC for the technical aspects..  I 
>believe that the
>service requirements were defined by the ITU-T and the protocol issues 
>were solved by the

I was there for 2305 as well Herman ..and the IETF Fax WG is _still_ alive 
and working hard on a variety operational and service definition issues 
such as timely delivery, Fax Gateways and Fax Gateway behavior.

And they even have their own 'political' battles ..such as the well known 
"tiff over TIFF"..

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>
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

---

From: Tony Rutkowski <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2001 19:36:05 -0400

At 05:54 PM 24-10-01, Richard Shockey wrote:
>perfectly in scope. We have already seen some

Let's see.  NeuStar's CEO per today's Interactive Week
Newsletter article ("NeuStar Wants to Administer ENUM")
appears at VON "laying out a game plan for ENUM regulation,"
indicating "'we are working very quickly with other
service providers and government agencies to get selected
as a Tier 1 ENUM operator.'"

A NeuStar Strategic Manager introduces and argues for
an IETF based activity that just happens to support NeuStar's
announced strategic business plan.

Competitive ENUM services provider NetNumber's
representative in the same IETF group, notes that it
is rather unusual for a Working Group to be engaging
in such activity, and suggests it is inappropriate
under the circumstances.

Who gets to decide what's appropriate, and on what
basis?

>events. The hope was that proposals from any source could be considered 
>for open peer review by the general IETF community in this WG.

Since when did it become the IETF's business to "monitor"
national regulatory events?

>document developed outside normal working groups.

Again, when did it become IETF's business to develop
"informational" schema for national regulatory implementations?
Is the Working Group going to participate in the potential
FCC public policy proceedings over the next 2-3 years (FCC
estimate) that were discussed at the VON ENUM Policy Summit
last week?

--tony

ps.  While the IETF is dealing with all this regulatory
baggage, it's worth noting that real technical developments
are being now being done in the ENUM Alliance.  There were
four great papers presented last week at VON at the Alliance
session by Williams Communications, Webly, Voxeo, and Denwa.
Pending building of the Alliance website, some of them are
available at
http://www.ngi.org/enum/alliance/index.htm

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2001 17:38:04 -0700

>announced strategic business plan.

Tony,

The IETF culture typically reacts poorly to efforts to slander.

It also is quite comfortable with people doing things that benefit their 
companies.  One might even suspect that YOU have done the same, once or twice.

The real question in the IETF is about the merits of specific 
proposals.  You seem unconcerned with that measure, although it is the only 
one that carries any weight in the IETF.

If you have a specific concern about activities by the ENUM working group 
chair, the procedures for remedying your concerns are well 
documented.  Public ad hominems are not in the set of established, valid 
procedures.

Please refer to the relevant IETF documents concerning process challenges.

Please, then, follow them.

d/

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

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

---

From: Patrik Fältström <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2001 10:20:42 +0200

--On 01-10-24 16.58 -0400 [email-masked] wrote:

> In effect, the technical, protocol oriented work that was pioneered by
> the IETF is being followed by  documenting the operational and
> organizational requirements by the parties that are responsible for ENUM
> implementations. 

The proposed charter is trying to cover technical issues which either the
wg chairs ourselves, the Area Directors, or individuals have found when (a)
implementing RFC 2916 or (b) participating in other venues.

So, I don't see we disagree here, we quibble about wording. That is of
course fine, but we should know that that is what is happening.

RFC 2916 have to be updated, that is clear, given the number of errors in
the document. I have though _not_ thought about doing a new version before
the new charter is settled, and I see whether we get interested parties to
write about for example privacy and security issues from a technical
perspective.

Example: I hear in a number of groups about ENUM I participate in (which
includes ITU-T, the ENUM Forum and others) that the lack of understanding
of how to do delegations, what an authoritative nameserver is, how access
to information can be secured, how DNS is to be operated...leads to great
confusion. My experience is that meetings on ENUM issues tends to lead to
50% training on how DNS works, 25% confusion and 25% real work.

By creating some more technical documents, the percentage real work done
can be increased. That is at least my hope.

But, without interested parties becoming authors, there is not much we can
do.

   paf -- co-chair in the ENUM wg

---

From: Tony Rutkowski <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2001 07:56:18 -0400

Hi Patrik,

>But, without interested parties becoming authors, there is not much we can do.

Maybe the marketplace is attempting to suggest
that the work is now being done there.  It is
the real teacher.

It would be great, for example, if Cisco could
share it's ENUM technical and operational experiences,
innovations, and customer interactions with the
others in the ENUM Alliance, as the members are
already doing.

--tony

---

From: "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2001 08:09:02 -0500

Tony,

Prior to your current employment with Verisign,
how many years were you paid by Network Solutions and/or Verisign
to participate in the domain name debates, without people being told
you were being paid ?

Do you think it is ethical for people to not disclose who is paying them
and what their real agenda is ?

It all boils down to fairness.
Which list do you think is more fair ?
The "toy" IPv4 Internet Early Experimentation Allocations ?
http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space
The Proof-of-Concept IPv8 Allocations ?
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt

Why would people pay for Address Space, when it is FREE ?

Jim Fleming
http://www.DOT-BIZ.com
http://www.in-addr.info
3:219 INFO

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Tony Rutkowski 
  To: Richard Shockey ; [email-masked] ; [email-masked] 
  Cc: [email-masked] 
  Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2001 6:36 PM
  Subject: Re: [Enum] (no subject)

    I would politely beg to disagree..  technical issues surrounding the needs for "privacy, security, validation, authentication and provisioning" seem perfectly in scope. We have already seen some 

    Considering that the core of these issues touches the DNS it is IMHO it is perfectly reasonable for the IETF and this WG to continue to monitor events. The hope was that proposals from any source could be considered for open peer review by the general IETF community in this WG.

    That said the proposed charter did state that such documents were to be made informational and not standards track. The IETF quite often publishes document developed outside normal working groups.

  --tony

---

From: "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2001 08:12:25 -0500

Dave,

It is widely reported that you are paid by Neustar, Neulevel, ICANN,
and/or MCI/Worldcom (i.e. Vinton Cerf).

Will you be disclosing who has paid you all these years to participate
in discussions as if you are a neutral party ?

Jim Fleming
Why gamble with a .BIZ Lottery? Start a real .BIZ Today !
http://www.DOT-BIZ.com
0:212 - BIZ World

---

From: Patrik Fältström <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2001 14:56:25 +0200

> that the work is now being done there.  It is

And your point is?

The revised charter is trying to specify what things are within scope for
discussions in this wg. Nothing else, and this has already been pointed out
by other people.

> others in the ENUM Alliance, as the members are

What has what Cisco do with this wg to do? What has what organizations
doing and/or not doing in other organizations to do with this wg?

Complaining on what a company do or not do in other organizations is
completely out of scope for the ENUM wg mailing list. This mailing list is
about discussions about the charter for this wg, and for issues in the
charter.

   paf -- co-chair of the ENUM wg

---

From: Tony Rutkowski <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2001 11:26:36 -0400

Hi Patrik,

>And your point is?

Simply a friendly comment directed at your lament
about the lack of involvement and contributions.
It was an observation that like so many standards
activities, a point comes where the ideas that
emerge during the course of the activity become
implemented in various forms in products and services
in the marketplace.

The better standards groups typically terminate and
let things proceed in the marketplace.  The older
legacy bodies, tend to continue forever as playpens.
My favorite was a certain working party for phototelegrams
that was still around in the early 90s, long after the
organization's own statistics indicated no phototelegrams
were being sent anymore.

>discussions in this wg. Nothing else, and this has already been pointed out

Exactly.  A number of people seem to be suggesting
that the charter be focused narrowly on essential
revisions to the protocol, and leaving the rest to
the marketplace (and, as necessary, regulatory
forums).

>doing and/or not doing in other organizations to do with this wg?

Cisco and other companies in the ENUM marketplace can
usefully cooperate in sharing relevant implementation
information through other industry forums.

>completely out of scope for the ENUM wg mailing list. This mailing list is

We're focussed here on the ITU, not other organizations,
and it's a discussion about scope, not a complaint.

Protocols are the traditional forte' of IETF activity
and expertise.  Service provisioning architectures and
regulatory schema have not generally been regarded within
the scope of IETF working groups - and can lead to
significant problems, liabilities and conflicts of interest -
exemplified by the close mapping of contributions to
announced company business plans in the marketplace.

As a number of people have noted, such work - whether
dubbed informational or whatever - is out of scope.

--tony

---

From: Tony Rutkowski <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2001 12:27:26 -0400

>We're focussed here on the ITU, not other organizations,
                             xxx IETF
Freudian slip... :-)

---

From: Ray Anderson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 07:07:52 +0000

>others in the ENUM Alliance, as the members are

Why would they want to?  As I understand it, the "ENUM Alliance" is a 
private club
run by netnumber.com to establish their own product "Global ENUM" as the 
global
address registry for server lookups based on phone numbers.

Verisign, as an investor in NetNumber might prefer that to happen of course :-)

===
Ray Anderson    CEO   Bango.net Limited  www.bango.net/00454545
The Mobile Internet is for everyone. It must be very easy to use.

---

From: Tony Rutkowski <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 07:10:04 -0500

>address registry for server lookups based on phone numbers.

Hi Ray,

It's the same technology, and they represent real
users with actual customers.  We're not dealing with
religion here (particularly when the States are
unlikely to adopt it as the official religion),
but products in marketplaces.

The material provided at VON is in fact useful sharing.
See http://www.ngi.org/enum/alliance/index.htm

--tony

---

From: "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 08:53:10 -0600

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ray Anderson" <[email-masked]>
> Why would they want to?  As I understand it, the "ENUM Alliance" is a

Some people think that the entire Internet is a private club. It is a
collection
of private networks connected together. It does appear that some of those
private networks will now be nationalized. Companies will likely be given a
choice, which direction to go. Clearly, the U.S. Government is favoring the
companies based in the Washington, D.C. area. They are pulling in their
fences.

http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/press/2001/us_102901.htm
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/press/2001/edu_102901.htm

People on the outside looking in have to realize they will never be able to
cross those fences. They have to think global, yet act local. They have to
all work hard to expand the Internet, so it really is for everyone, not just
the insiders.

Jim Fleming
http://www.IPv8.info
http://www.in-addr.info
3:219 INFO

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 07:31:15 -0800

At 07:10 AM 10/30/2001 -0500, Tony Rutkowski wrote:
>It's the same technology,

Not quite.

ENUM is a technology defined by a particular document issued as a standards 
track RFC.  If you take the time to read it, Tony, you will discover that 
the ENUM technology is specified as working with e164.arpa.

Your employer's effort is simply a classic user group for their proprietary 
product.

d/

----------

---

From: "Judith Oppenheimer" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 10:45:59 -0500

Dave, as senior advisor on NeuStar's .US team, maybe you can explain why
NeuStar is reserving for its own use, 5+ numeric digits and 5 digit-4 digit
combinations, in the .US domain, awarded to NeuStar yesterday by the NTIA.

Judith

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------
Judith Oppenheimer
http://JudithOppenheimer.com
http://ICBTollFreeNews.com
212 684-7210, 1 800 The Expert
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On
> Behalf Of Dave
> Crocker
> Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2001 10:31 AM
> To: Tony Rutkowski
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [Enum] ENUM "sharing"
>
>

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 08:11:07 -0800

At 10:45 AM 10/30/2001 -0500, Judith Oppenheimer wrote:
>NeuStar is reserving for its own use, 5+ numeric digits and 5 digit-4 
>digit combinations, in the .US domain, awarded to NeuStar yesterday by the 
>NTIA.

Judith, perhaps you have not noticed that this list is for discussing 
engineering by an IETF working group.

Perhaps you would like to collaborate with Tony's efforts at disruption and 
distraction, on a more appropriate list.

d/

----------

---

From: "Judith Oppenheimer" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 11:54:42 -0500

Dave,

Even Tony can't hold a candle to your mastery at distraction.  So, from an
engineering standpoint, why the numeric .US domains reserved "for future
NeuStar services"?

J

p.s.  I do admire your ability to earn your keep.  Congrats on the .US
deal.

> From: Dave Crocker [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2001 11:11 AM
> To: Judith Oppenheimer
> Cc: 'Tony Rutkowski'; [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: [Enum] ENUM "sharing"
>
>

---

From: "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 13:41:13 -0600

There does not appear to be an IN-ADDR.US zone in the IPv4 DNS.
It appears that .US is in the "Early Experimentation Phase".
http://www.dot-biz.com/Registry/Proof-Of-Concept/index.html

It is not clear what phase ENUM or 800 are in. Neither TLD appears
in the "exclusive root".
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt

Jim Fleming
http://www.IN-ADDR.info

----- Original Message -----
From: "Judith Oppenheimer" <[email-masked]>
To: "'Dave Crocker'" <[email-masked]>; "'Tony Rutkowski'"
<[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2001 9:45 AM
Subject: RE: [Enum] ENUM "sharing"

> NeuStar is reserving for its own use, 5+ numeric digits and 5 digit-4
digit