Subject: Re: [Enum] Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-zmolek-enum-pointer-00.txt

From: Lawrence Conroy <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 19:40:52 +0000

Hi Richard Sh, Folks,

Following on from Rudi's comments...
RS said: speed of DNS is OK
RB said: Yup. Others have said this, though
LwC sez: I think we're wildly agreeing. However, check out the earlier thread
          that drifted off into a rathole; notably Christian's 
(technical!) comments.

RS said: I do respectfully disagree.
RB said: I do respectfully disagree with your disagreement.
LwC sez: The point Rudi was making was that the SRS redirection doesn't
          help with latency. I don't see how this is wrong. You (and I)
          may well trade off call setup time (strictly, post-dial delay)
          against privacy. Fine. However, SRS doesn't ->help<- latency,
          particularly if it involves authentication and/or encryption.

RS said: (on the the 'tel' enumservice draft) You propose a call
          forwarding service using "tel:" URLs - but why?
          Why would I (an end user) want to expose this info in the DNS
          rather than use a SIP or PSTN service where my prefs are hidden
          and the service is more suited to real-time dynamic updates?
RB said: I pass the buck :)
LwC sez: Why?.....Well..Here goes::

'tel' redirection is there if you want it, for whatever reason you 
choose. First, the end user CAN use tel: redirects. They are unlikely 
to be able to use CNAME redirects, as this will require admin access 
to the parent zone; I suspect that the registry owner (and/or the 
Operator with the 10K number block allocation) will be unhappy with 
Joe Public diddling with this. I expect use for Operator admin 
purposes, BY Operator admin people (for example by O&M to insert a 
long term patch from one number to another).

However, "tel:" redirects I (as joe public) CAN use. Sure, I could 
just as easily use my PSTN service provider's offering (assuming that 
it's someone else's money - YMMV but in the U.K. this has a 
non-trivial cost). Equally, I can use the new SIP service from your 
friendly Sunshine ISP/Telco. BUT...

What if I'm actually calling from a hybrid phone (not an all singing 
all dancing IP phone, or even a Pingtel one :)? Maybe it's a GSM/GPRS 
handy where I may be able to get a 28.8 Kbps link, but that's not 
really enough for the SIP provider, as they don't handle EFR or AMR 
codecs, at least not when I'm trying to break out to the PSTN in the 
U.S. of A.; thus this is, in effect, a hybrid too - I can look up 
numbers over the IP connection, but then I'll drop back and use the 
PLMN to call out as I can't get the bandwidth for the required G.711 
codec.

In summary, with a "tel:" it's possible that I can go from what is, 
in effect, the GSTN to a termination that is also in the GSTN without 
(i) going through the PSTN Operator's idea of a reasonable cost 
service or (ii) going into a SIP/RTP provider and than back out again.

Now, for the inappropriateness of DNS due to cache latencies.
I want a system that can provide near real time updates. That's not 
what the majority of the users are going to get (or pressure on 
calling plan costs is merely a figment of my over-active 
imagination). It's a premium service, and there may well be a cost 
associated with it. I believe that there is more than one market, 
with more than one set of requirements - it's not even just a case of 
cheap versus flexible, but some points in between. What you're 
focusing on is one mechanism that can provide a super service, but 
what I'm looking at is another (basic) mechanism that is NOT going to 
be hard to implement but that is going to provide some useful 
features. We should have both.

Yes, listing using DNS does expose information to anyone who wants it 
- even if you don't want them to know this. I contend that, for many 
folk, this is not too tragic. The percentage of people who bother to 
fire up CLIR is not too high; that's a originating case, but I guess 
the terminating case is not too different.

There are times where having this information may actually save me a 
call (if I'm intending to originate). For example, at work, as soon 
as my phone shows that the call has been bounced off to Voice Mail, I 
usually clear (Sorry, I'm a Luddite). The ENUM equivalent is to find 
this from DNS before I hit the "go" button. Call Saver, anyone?

If I want to give information ONLY for people on my ACL, then I can 
use SIP (or a web site, using HTTPS, or whatever). That's fine. 
However, I can only hide the actual destination number if I go via 
the PSTN, *or* I use the 3GPP whacko-extensions to SIP. Using a SRS 
only supports the ACL-checking, not normally a full 
destination-hiding scenario.

Frankly, the concept of privacy would be nice if I could use it but I 
just don't have enough money (and/or the speech latency) for it; I'm 
sure that if someone else were to pay for my calls I'd be happy, but 
for now I'll settle for cheap. This does not exclude the whizzy 
secure service that can be provided otherwise - I *want* there to be 
such a
service, I just don't want everyone to have to pay for it.

Best Regards,
     Lawrence

-- 
[email-masked]: +44 1794 833666::<my opinions>:

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

---

From: Richard Shockey <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 15:23:16 -0500

At 07:40 PM 2/28/2002 +0000, Lawrence Conroy wrote:
>Hi Richard Sh, Folks,
>
>Yes, listing using DNS does expose information to anyone who wants it - 
>even if you don't want them to know this. I contend that, for many folk, 
>this is not too tragic. The percentage of people who bother to fire up 
>CLIR is not too high; that's a originating case, but I guess the 
>terminating case is not too different.
>
>There are times where having this information may actually save me a call 
>(if I'm intending to originate). For example, at work, as soon as my phone 
>shows that the call has been bounced off to Voice Mail, I usually clear 
>(Sorry, I'm a Luddite). The ENUM equivalent is to find this from DNS 
>before I hit the "go" button. Call Saver, anyone?
>
>If I want to give information ONLY for people on my ACL, then I can use 
>SIP (or a web site, using HTTPS, or whatever). That's fine. However, I can 
>only hide the actual destination number if I go via the PSTN, *or* I use 
>the 3GPP whacko-extensions to SIP. Using a SRS only supports the 
>ACL-checking, not normally a full destination-hiding scenario.
>
>Frankly, the concept of privacy would be nice if I could use it but I just 
>don't have enough money (and/or the speech latency) for it; I'm sure that 
>if someone else were to pay for my calls I'd be happy, but for now I'll 
>settle for cheap. This does not exclude the whizzy secure service that can 
>be provided otherwise - I *want* there to be such a

Ok ... correct me if I'm wrong. I'm trying to simplify the argument here 
..so the basic technical and business case for a TEL URL based redirection 
service is that you can screw some poor unsuspecting incumbent Telco out of 
a fat margin C7 based Call Forwarding product.  Right ?  OK ... I'm sold. 
I'll buy that.  Why did'nt you say so in the first place? :-)

Privacy issue is a non issue since this is Opt-In for the perceived benefit(s).

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 +1 571.434.5651 Cell : +1 314.503.0640,  Fax: +1 815.333.1237
<mailto: [email-masked]> or
<mailto: [email-masked]>
<http://www.neustar.biz>
<http://www.enum.org>
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<