Subject: [Enum] CRISP

From: Patrik Fältström <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2003 10:17:00 +0200

There has been some side-discussions about what I as chair saw 
happening with regards to the CRISP/ENUM draft which was presented at 
the meeting.

My conclusion, after asking Andy and Michael, is that:

  - The CRISP wg is working on the CRISP architecture, and
    the ENUM wg is happy "someone else is solving this problem"
  - The document editors want the ENUM wg to evaluate the
    data model in the CRISP/ENUM document
  - There was not consensus whether the document should be
    added to the charter of the ENUM wg

First of all, if people don't agree with my view, send a message to the 
list.

Secondly, I see absolutely no problem with using the ENUM mailing list 
for discussions about this ENUM/CRISP draft.

Richard and myself will check with our AD's what they think about 
adding this and other documents to the charter. I.e. the overall 
question for us chairs is what this wg is to do next.

Conclusion: This document must be reviewed. The ENUM experts are on the 
ENUM mailing list. Whether the document is on the charter or not should 
not make any difference for the existence of the discussion.

     paf

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

---

From: James Seng <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2003 17:00:21 +0800

Personal opinion:

I am trying to stay away from CRISP and if I need to deal with it, only 
with a ten foot pole. The discussion of whois-like information is 
red-herring, with a presumption business model, that may or may not 
makes sense for ENUM.

In fact, it is not clear to me that it is even applicable to ENUM 
deployment. (Do you really need to provide "registrant" information of a 
ENUM phone number in public?)

-James Seng

Patrik Fältström wrote:
> There has been some side-discussions about what I as chair saw happening 
> with regards to the CRISP/ENUM draft which was presented at the meeting.
> 
> Richard and myself will check with our AD's what they think about adding 
> this and other documents to the charter. I.e. the overall question for 
> us chairs is what this wg is to do next.
>

---

From: Patrik Fältström <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2003 11:22:58 +0200

On fredag, jul 18, 2003, at 11:00 Europe/Stockholm, James Seng wrote:

> deployment. (Do you really need to provide "registrant" information of 
> a ENUM phone number in public?)

No, but possibly information about the technical (etc) contact of the 
ENUM Service provider, i.e. the one running the DNS server for the 
NAPTR RR's for a specific E.164 (and NS records above these records in 
the DNS hierarchy).

   paf

---

From: Andrew Newton <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2003 05:34:07 -0400

I'm not sure about the comment regarding a business model.  Certainly 
none has surfaced in any of the conversations I have heard nor any of 
the documents I have seen.

We should take note of the historical context we have today, and 
understand that there are things such as multiple roles (e.g. NOC vs. 
abuse) and multiple types of contact (e.g. email vs. civil address), and 
that with these come the responsibilities that should have been 
undertaken on port 43 but never materialized.

The reason we have CRISP today is that the Internet community 
historically did not give port 43 the necessary long view and suddenly 
found itself looking back upon a series of wrong turns.  Simply ignoring 
the problem or doing the bare minimum is how it all started. Let us not 
repeat the mistakes of the past so clearly visible today.

With regard to Patrik's note:  I agree.  The intent of the draft is not 
to entangle the ENUM group into the finer details of CRISP.  It is 
simply asking for review by the ENUM working group of a data model to be 
used by those operators who do have a need for this.  And there is no 
intent to mandate its use nor to define a single, authoritative model.

-andy

James Seng wrote:
>> First of all, if people don't agree with my view, send a message to 
>> the list.
>>
>> Conclusion: This document must be reviewed. The ENUM experts are on 
>> the ENUM mailing list. Whether the document is on the charter or not 
>> should not make any difference for the existence of the discussion.
>>
>>     paf
>>
>>

---

From: James Seng <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2003 18:28:15 +0800

The assumption that people actually wants to put their private 
information available in some database to access does not makes sense to 
me.

CRISP serves a small group of "users" and does not benefit the rest of 
Internet users at large. (how would it helps my Mom to use ENUM from 
this ENUM-CRISP work?)

This is not to say all information is useless. I certainly cant disagree 
with Patrik to put ENUM service provider information available because 
it helps in operation.

The other reasons I am against the work is because we have very little 
operational experiences (on the whole) to actually know what info we 
want to put in public and whats not.

Are you sure we have the capability to review the "data model"? The use 
case of ENUM is not even well-defined yet!

-James Seng

Andrew Newton wrote:
>> I am trying to stay away from CRISP and if I need to deal with it, 
>> only with a ten foot pole. The discussion of whois-like information is 
>>> Secondly, I see absolutely no problem with using the ENUM mailing 
>>> list for discussions about this ENUM/CRISP draft.
>>>

---

From: Patrik Fältström <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2003 12:32:24 +0200

On fredag, jul 18, 2003, at 12:28 Europe/Stockholm, James Seng wrote:

> Are you sure we have the capability to review the "data model"? The 
> use case of ENUM is not even well-defined yet!

People which do have testbeds can, I think, most certainly compare the 
data model in this document with the needs which have been identified 
in their respective projects.

    paf

---

From: James Seng <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2003 18:46:33 +0800

Next question: Why IRIS and not FIRS?  (Sorry, obviously I dont follow 
CRISP enough to know whats the sense there)

-James Seng

Patrik Fältström wrote:

> data model in this document with the needs which have been identified in 
> their respective projects.
> 
>    paf
> 
> 
>

---

From: Andrew Newton <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 20 Jul 2003 12:19:18 -0400

> with Patrik to put ENUM service provider information available because 

Then I am not sure how this is a disagreement.

-andy

---

From: "Clive D.W. Feather" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2003 10:33:16 +0100

> information available in some database to access does not makes sense to 
[...]
> want to put in public and whats not.

Many of us are in the EU. This whois information is a reverse telephone
directory to which Directive 2002/58/EC applies. Article 12 reads in part:

    2. Member States shall ensure that subscribers are given the
    opportunity to determine whether their personal data are
    included in a public directory, and if so, which, to the extent
    that such data are relevant for the purpose of the directory as
    determined by the provider of the directory, and to verify,
    correct or withdraw such data. Not being included in a public
    subscriber directory, verifying, correcting or withdrawing
    personal data from it shall be free of charge.

    3. Member States may require that for any purpose of a
    public directory other than the search of contact details of
    persons on the basis of their name and, where necessary, a
    minimum of other identifiers, additional consent be asked of
    the subscribers.

    4. Paragraphs 1 and 2 shall apply to subscribers who are natural
    persons. Member States shall also ensure, in the framework of
    Community law and applicable national legislation, that the
    legitimate interests of subscribers other than natural persons
    with regard to their entry in public directories are sufficiently
    protected.

-- 
Clive D.W. Feather  | Work:  <[email-masked]>   | Tel:    +44 20 8495 6138
Internet Expert     | Home:  <[email-masked]>  | *** NOTE CHANGE ***
Demon Internet      | WWW: http://www.davros.org | Fax:    +44 870 051 9937
Thus plc            |                            | Mobile: +44 7973 377646