Subject: SV: [Enum] REMINDER ... Last call on 2916 bis ends tommrrow.

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 17:16:57 +0200

Hello

Some comments from the Swedish Administration/NRA about version 05 of RFC
2916bis.

1. In 1. Introduction and in 1.3 Application of local policy there are two
entities mentioned; "approriate zone administrator" and "zone authoority" -
for us it´s not clear if this means the same kind of entity or different
ones - please clarify. Use of word "authority" when talking about entities
might mean governmental agencies and we think it must be clear what kind of
"authority" to be used in this RFC.

2. In 1.2 Use for ... Please change "standard" to "recommendation" togheter
with ITU-T and E.164.

3. In 1.3 Application .... There is the use of the wording "intranet
specific zone" - is this the same as the concept of "private dialing plan"
in 1.2 - please clarify the difference or similarity of these topics in the
RFC.

4. In 2 The ENUM Application... In the second paragraph - it´s very unclear
what is meant by "numerous numbering plans that can change over time" - does
this mean numbering plans like X.121 and E.212 or does it mean diffrent
national numbering plans that is based on E.164 - please clarify this. 

This paragraph also gives an uncertanity about the correctnes about the
E.164-number used in ENUM when talking about "syntactically correct
E.164-number" - as we see it an E.164 number is an E.164-number and the
rules for this can be found in ITU-T Recommendation E.164 which describes
the E.164 numbering plan. It is stated there that an E.164 number identifies
a unique subscriber, service or network termination point (both fixed and
mobile) independently of the level at which the dialling takes place in
relation to the E.164 number. Furthermore, it is stated that an E.164 number
has a hierarchical structure that facilitates this particular dialling at
different levels (local, national and international), that E.164 numbers are
reachable from other countries by international dialling and that the number
length in the international format is a maximum of 15 digits. Finally, it is
stated in the ITU-T Recommendation that a numbering plan does not include
prefixes, suffixes or other additional information that is needed to
complete a call connection. These are included in what is referred to in the
ITU-T's E.164 Recommendation as the dialling plan and which states how the
numbering plan is used.

Last comment about 2 - what is the meaning of "non-E.164-number" in the RFC
- does it mean numbers from other numbering plans, e.g. X.121 or E.118 or
does it mean numbers in the national numbering plan (based on E.164) that
not strictly is E.164-numbers, e.g. number 112 used for emergency services
in some European countries - please clarify this.

5. In 2.1 Application .... The word "telephone numbers" is used that not are
part of the E.164 namespace - this is also unclear - please see our comments
above about "non-E.164-numbers" - please clarify.

6. In 3.1.1. in the bracket in last paragraph the abbreviation "DNs" is used
- does this mean "directory Numbers(s)" or not?

7. In 3.1.3 Security.... The example in indent 3. about "confidential
medical information" sounds very far-away from communications applications
and service over Internet/PSTN/PLMNs- please give an example more related to
"ENUM" mapping functions.

8. In 5. IANA Considerations - it should be "ITU-T Recommendation E.164" -
not just ITU Rec... And also change ITU-T TSB to just "ITU TSB". In general
the text under 5 looks OK for the relationship to the ITU TSB concerning
delegations for <CC>.e164.arpa. Maybe the second sentence in the first
paragraph could look as: "Names within this zone are to be delegated to
assignes that has been assigned numbering resources according to the ITU-T
Recommendation E.164."  

Sincerely
Joakim Strålmark
National Post & Telecom Agency
Sweden
Tel. +46 70 811 4064
E-mail [email-masked]

-----Ursprungligt meddelande-----
Från: Richard Shockey [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Skickat: den 22 april 2003 16:29
Till: [email-masked]
Ämne: [Enum] REMINDER ... Last call on 2916 bis ends tommrrow.

Speak now or forever hold your send button..

Richard Shockey, Senior Manager, Strategic Technology Initiatives NeuStar
Inc.
46000 Center Oak Plaza  -   Sterling, VA  20166
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>
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

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

---

From: Michael Mealling <[email-masked]>
Date: 29 Apr 2003 13:43:13 -0400

> "authority" to be used in this RFC.

I think they can be separate entities. An administrator takes direction
from an authority. How does this sound:

Holders of E.164 numbers which want to be listed in DNS
should contact the administrator or authority for the zone (authority
meaning simply the entity that has change control over that zone,
nothing more) in order to be listed. This information can be found by
examining the SOA resource record associated with the zone, just like in
normal DNS operations.

> 2. In 1.2 Use for ... Please change "standard" to "recommendation" togheter

Done.

> in 1.2 - please clarify the difference or similarity of these topics in the

I simply changed 'intranet' to 'private-dialing-plan' since for that
example there is no real pedagogical difference.

> national numbering plans that is based on E.164 - please clarify this. 

I qualified 'numbering plan' by putting 'national' in front of it. It
now reads like this:
Since there are numerous national numbering plans which can change over
time , it is probably impossible for a client application to have
perfect knowledge about every E.164 numbering plan.

> ITU-T's E.164 Recommendation as the dialling plan and which states how the

The problem here seems to be in picking the correct terminology. The
other problem is that there probably isn't an agreed upon term to use.
The issue is that I can create a number that is an E.164 number that is
actually invalid according to a nations specific numbering plan. For
example, +46-770-923-9695 is probably correct according to E.164 but not
according to the numbering plan for Sweden. Since a) nations can change
their numbering plans and b) it is prohibitive to include the numbering
plan of every country code within my cell phone, I run the probably
chance of asking ENUM for that number. What do you call that number?
Invalid? Incorrect? syntactically correct but numbering-plan-invalid?

> in some European countries - please clarify this.

Any number that isn't compatible with E.164. Are X.121 and E.118 based
on E.164? Numbering plans are 'based on' E.164 so they're an E.164
number. '112' isn't so it isn't.....

Again, its terminology, my cell phone's number is +1-404-579-8900. What
do you call that number? Is it "a number that is _based_ on E.164" or is
"it an E.164 number" or "an number that is in compliance with ITU
Recommendation E.164"? 

> above about "non-E.164-numbers" - please clarify.

Why is it unclear? There are numbers I can dial on a telephone that are
not E.164 numbers? Correct? Either a number is or is not an E.164
number? Or am I missing something fundamental?

> - does this mean "directory Numbers(s)" or not?

Within LDAP the term 'DN' means 'Distinguished Name'. I've expanded that
acronym...

> "ENUM" mapping functions.

I've changed it to phone system activated alarm systems and message
centers. Still, health systems seems appropriate. My uncle's pacemaker
calls in to the doctor's system every few days and is reprogrammed over
the phone to a new cardiac rhythm. I'd surely want that number secure!
;-)

> assignes that has been assigned numbering resources according to the ITU-T

Since I didn't write this section I'm going to differ to Patrik on these
wording changes. Patrik?

-MM

---

From: Patrik Fältström <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2003 06:29:18 +0200

On tisdag, apr 29, 2003, at 19:43 Europe/Stockholm, Michael Mealling 

> examining the SOA resource record associated with the zone, just like 

There might be more than two entities. From my point of view, there is 
"one authority" for a DNS zone. Who the registrant is to contact is up 
to the policy which is attached to the zone. For example one of the 
registrars.

So, I would prefer something like the following:

   Holders of E.164 numbers which want to be listed in DNS
   should contact the appropriate zone administrator according
   to the policy which is attached to the zone. One should start
   looking for this information by examining the SOA resource
   record associated with the zone, just like in normal DNS
   operations.

> number? Or am I missing something fundamental?

I think Joakim might want the term "dialing plan" here somewhere. We 
once again is caught by the dialing plan / number plan issues.

I feel we have several things here (without proper names):

   - Dialed number (what the usre dials on the phone)
   - Syntactically correct E.164 number (max 15 digits etc)
   - E.164 number correct according to E.164 and local national
     number plans
   - E.164 number allocated to an end user
   - Numbers which looks like E.164, but, is only valid
     on national level (various 800-version for example)
   - Numbers which are just part of the national dialing
     plan (112/911 etc)

...and of course the negations of the above.

> Since I didn't write this section I'm going to differ to Patrik on 

The paragraph has been agreed upon between IAB and ITU-T and TSB and 
RIPE NCC. I need to take this proposed change back. Interesting that 
noone else "complained".

     paf