Subject: RE: [Enum] DDDS, DNS clarification needed?

From: "Shaw, Robert" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002 18:00:35 +0100

> the idea of different e164.foos is great.  it should be used 
> to map the different global numbering plans, you know, the ones where 
> north america is +42, +666, etc.  for the nonce, we will use e164.arpa 
> to map the current prosaic global numbering plan, where north america 
> is +1.
> 
> btw, when will the itu be publishing these alternate numbering plans?
> 

Huh? Interesting leap of logic...

Randy, the real world has this habit of defying one's 
instinctive or even one's strongly held engineering 
beliefs.

A coordinated hierarchical symbol set (to use 2826 
terminology) does not a priori require a single 
technical root. In the PSTN world, that's a simple
fact and proof that one can have a coordinated 
hierarchical addressing system that is not dependent 
upon a single technical root.

A disadvantage of this model is that it requires a
much more complex level of coordination among various 
systems; made more difficult with telecoms 
liberalization and the growth in facilities-based 
carriers.  

I know that it's a difficult transition for some but 
the issues are deeper and go beyond technical 
elegance of pulling a symbol set from one central 
computer or switch somewhere. There are other factors such 
as real world geopolitics, national sovereignty over critical 
infrastructure, CI security issues, intercept, etc. 

If you make the mental leap that discussing where ENUM is 
rooted a priori implies a non-coordinated country code symbol 
space, then I'd have to say that I'd disagree with your 
assumption.

Bob

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

---

From: Michael Mealling <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002 12:18:47 -0500

> space, then I'd have to say that I'd disagree with your 

I think Randy's point is that if ENUM is rooted in multiple locations
what is to keep one of those locations from ignoring the
coordinated country code symbol space? In the telephony world setting
up infrastructure to advertise that fact costs hundreds of millions of
dollars and in many cases a blessing from the King. In the Internet
it just takes one computer and an Internet connection...

How do you keep that symbol space coordinated when the guy running
one of those ENUM locations is a 12 year old kid who really doesn't
care about helping that space stay coordinated?

-MM

-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Mealling	|      Vote Libertarian!       | urn:pin:1
[email-masked]      |                              | http://www.neonym.net

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002 12:22:20 -0800

>upon a single technical root.

Folks,

Discussions involving DNS and the concept of "root" have a regular tendency 
to confuse administrative control with instantiation of databases and 
machines.  Each has a technical component, but involve very different 
issus.  There is some chance that that confusion is happening in this 
thread, too.

A hierarchy like the telephone numbering system does require a single point 
of control.  That is a technical imperitive.  Whether that point is a 
single person, a single organization, a contract jointly signed by folks 
running the next level down in the tree, a piece of software that 
instantiates some particular policy, or some other coherent mechanism, it 
is a single point of logical control.  In other words, there are many ways 
to instantiate a single, logical control mechanism, and the choice involves 
an interesting range of trade-offs that are technical, political, etc.

Operational optimizations that delegate and distribute logical subsets of 
the database, or permit synchronized replications of portions of the 
database, are entirely irrelevant to matters of administrative and logical 
control.  These operational matters do not involve control.

The debate that is being raised here involves two different control matters:

1.  Venue for administrative control

2.  Form of administrative control

The enum mailing list is an IETF technical working group.  It does not 
specify venue for control and, therefore, that question is entirely out of 
scope for this group.

On the matter of form, the technical question is whether there are 
technical components to DNS sub-tree administration that would need changes 
to support a particular operational model.

To date, there have been no proposals for such changes, and no indication 
that this kind of discussion will lead to such a proposal.  In fact, these 
discussions tend to eschew technical content.  Hence, this debate is a 
matter of philosophy rather than specification.  Such a debate is notably 
unproductive.

So we should all move the venue of the discussion to a bar BOF and leave 
the enum working to continue worrying about enum technical specifications.

d/

ps.  For this topic, there might be one activity that would be productive, 
and that is to produce a lexicon of terminology that bridges DNS and PSTN 
language, to permit consistent reference to these different issues.  Ain't 
cultural diversity fun?

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