Subject: [Enum] FW: UK ENUM Trial

From: Kevin McCandless <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2003 06:51:51 -0800

Per your request Rich........

-----Original Message-----
From: Carsten Schiefner [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Thursday, January 09, 2003 6:41 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: UK ENUM Trial

Dear colleagues,

this:

http://www.dti.gov.uk/cii/regulatory/enum/ukeg20021108.ppt

is IMHO an interesting reading.

Best,

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

---

From: "Peter Williams" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2003 21:19:35 -0800

Kevin McCandless forwards data about ENUM piloting activities 
within the RIPE community.

I have formulated a first draft "model practices statement",
suited to the operation of an ENUM service with TWO or more
Authentication Agencies (see the cited UK ppt cited by
Carsten Schiefner). 

Repurposing earlier work from NACHA (a respected research project 
that fully modeled how US states could collaborate to control the 
deployment of "official" trust infrastructure operated by
contractors and agents), the draft practices address what 
obligations exist, and how they assigned and passed between the 
components of a FICTIONAL ENUM infrastructure operated as a 
National authority. 

The work leverages alot of the (public-domain) know-how of VeriSign 
in trust practices architecture: it therefore  stands as a reputable 
effort  from the outset. The work consider the ENUM  issues from a 
different angle to that often used - which are usually
dominated by DNS-organization considering, focusing on
ENUM scaling, zoning, etc.

The design work relies on two approaches - based
on (1) the practices approach VeriSign used (originally) to
legally relate Issuing Authorities to online Repositories
of names, and (2) my own (phd-study) work over the last 10 
years on interactive name servers that can be trusted to speak
for MULTIPLE authorities. The former technique speaks for 
itself. The latter  technique is based on 
adopting the practices used now in the joint (Allied)
military command and control systems that administer
operational military messaging systems.

Id be happy to discuss this work with any member of the 
RIPE community who is deploying either a "semi-official" 
DNS zone distributing ENUM records, or is operating an ENUM 
mapping service that "aggregates" records referencing E.164 
addresses administered  by MULTIPLE countries. 

The issues of official legal jurisdiction and the 
IP issues of aggregation are thorny: we can predict
that these issues will hamper adoption of ENUM. This problem
(and the associated prediction) is what motivated my research,
and led to my formulating the model practice statement.

Peter.