Subject: [Enum] FINAL: ENUM WG Minutes IETF 58 Minneapolis

From: Richard Shockey <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2003 13:53:06 -0500

IETF 58 Minneapolis Telephone Number Mapping (ENUM) WG  Meeting

TUESDAY, November 11, 2003

Break 1300-1400 Afternoon Sessions I

TSV enum Telephone Number Mapping WG

Chair(s):
Patrik Faltstrom <[email-masked]>
Richard Shockey <[email-masked]>

Transport Area Advisor:
Allison Mankin  <[email-masked]>

Mailing Lists:
General Discussion:[email-masked]
To Subscribe: [email-masked]
In Body: subscribe
Archive: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf-mail-archive/enum/

Minutes taken by Scott Hollenbeck [[email-masked]]

-
Agenda description by Rich Shockey

Status of 2916bis (Michael Mealling): comments about typos and
clarifications not yet in, will send in as soon as possible after the 
embargo is over.
Nothing substantive in the IESG comments.

1.  Applicability Statement of CRISP work to ENUM - 15 Min

  Title           : IRIS - An ENUM Registry (ereg) Type for the Internet 
Registry Information Service
         Author(s)       : A. Newton
         Filename        : draft-newton-iris-ereg-01.txt
         Pages           : 33
         Date            : 2003-10-24

This document describes an IRIS (draft-ietf-crisp-iris-core-02.txt )
registry schema for ENUM administrative information.

A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-newton-iris-ereg-01.txt

IRIS for ENUM presentation (Andrew Newton)

CRISP WG update provided; moving forward with IRIS

Applicability (why, who, what): look at use cases

Why: Is a whois service needed for ENUM?

Who: Who will resolve ENUM problems?  Who do you contact?

What: What can go wrong?  What will be done about abuse?

Andy's proposal: specifies a vector for coordination.  Is one part
of a possible answer.  Attempts to be policy neutral.

Applicability: public facing, features for privacy, structured.

Questions/comments:

Lawrence Conroy: Need DNS provider or something else.  May be a tie to the
provisioning system.  Andy: not intended to be tightly coupled.
Publish zone authority information?

Rich Shockey: just as applicable for ENUM as DNS.  Is there a right to find 
zone
authority information: Rich: how implemented is a national
matter.

Willy Wertmueller: Why can't we align both ENUM and DNS?  Andy: that's a
policy decision.  Suggestion: spell it out in the draft.

2.  Potential Informational Document  15 min

Title           : Numbering for VoIP and other IP Communications
>         Author(s)       : R. Stastny
>         Filename        : draft-stastny-enum-numbering-voip-00.txt
>         Pages           : 43
>         Date            : 2003-10-20
>
>This document gives advice in setting up E.164 compatible numbering
>and dialing plans in administrative domains set up for IP
>Communications in general and VoIP applications in detail. After
>explaining numbering and dialing plans in principle, it discusses
>which types of E.164 numbers should be used for IP based terminals,
>to achieve proper routing of calls and other communications on the
>PSTN/ISDN and also on the Internet, using ENUM technology.
>
>A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
>http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-stastny-enum-numbering-voip-00.txt

Description of draft...

SIP-based communications use their own naming and addressing schemes.
Different communities started to use numeric user IDs.

Problem: how to dial other communities or the PSTN.  Quick and dirty
solutions are possible, but not feasible.

Other solutions have been proposed, including standard prefixes,
new numbering and dialing plan for IP, use existing E.164 resource.
The E.164 proposal is the one described.

ENUM Trial lessons learned: basic issues solved, original business
model has problems.  Metcalfe's Law applies.  New approaches needed
(some described).

Questions/comments:

Jon Peterson: Is this an IETF draft?

Richard Shockey: maybe informational
eventually.  Jon: security requirements? Richard: not really, but open to 
input from others.

ENUM Implementation Issues (Lawrence Conroy)

Problem Statement : "This summarizes our experiences of what's "out there" 
in ENUM, and some implementation choices that need to be made. It is 
intended as a guide to what we found when querying different ENUM domains 
(and what we misunderstood at first reading of the standards). Note that 
this covers implementation issues only, NOT protocol issues. However, if 
different implementations share common choices, then behavior can be better 
predicted".

NOT PROTOCOL ISSUES, but no document is completely unambiguous.
Described things seen in practice.  You will hit these, and you will
find some strange things.  Proposal: keep a "living" document to
capture issues and sensible ways of dealing with them.

Described issues: case sensitivity, E2U at which end?

Jon Peterson: should shame people using old 2916 ENUM records!

Michael Mealling: being liberal in what you accept doesn't mean
accept broken stuff.

More issues: non-finals with or without empty service field?

Michael: Not very many cases in ENUM.

Does Order "count" across domains?

Non-final loop treatment
Michael: can detect loop.

Lawrence: yes, but there are choices.

Non-final loop detection

Treatment of NAPTRs with identical preferences

L2R or R2L processing of service field

Richard Shockey: are you planning on writing these up as a draft?
Lawrence: yes.

ENUM Trial updates: Poland (Andrzej Bartosiewicz)
NASK is the admin and tech contact for 8.4.e164.arpa.  Follows national
regulator's guidelines and expectations.

This is first trial attempt.  Present registration policy is based
on administrative decisions.

Operators not involved on the technical side -- not interested?
Some operators involved in defining administrative stuff.

Internet-Draft available

Poland - Use of EPP in provisioning. 10+

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-bartosiewicz-enum-48tld-00.txt

No direct registrations -- only via telecom operators.
Registrar (operator) MUST NOT register numbers administered by
other operators.

Some EPP modifications are used.

Questions:

Lawrence Conroy: do you have any delegations published?  Can I look
at NAPTRs?

Andrzej: yes.  Lawrence: can I see some?  Andrzej: info
is on the RIPE web site.

Korean ENUM Trial Update (Jeonghyun Lee)
ENUM Service Council exists (MIC, Telcos, KRNIC); sets goals

Launched 13 October 2003, API available, www.enum.or.kr

Status: about 2,000 registrations as of 5 November 2003

Both land-line and mobile numbers can be registered

Next steps: trials through end of 2004; commercial in 2005.
Planning to submit I-Ds to IETF.

Questions: (none)

Rich Shockey: out of time, but we need to discuss next steps.

Allison Mankin: need to talk about planned documents.

Rich: also security and privacy.  Allison: OK for WG to exist as mailing
list only.

Rich: is this OK with the group?  Patrik: is it OK to request short slots 
like this one?  Rich  There are also issues involving ongoing Liaison with 
ITU SG2 that may require the WG to stay open but dormant.

Allison: it's reasonable to do this.  The more we hear about issues the better.

Patrik/Richard: Any final issues?  (None raised).

End of meeting.

Richard Shockey, Senior Manager, Strategic Technology Initiatives
NeuStar Inc.
46000 Center Oak Plaza  -   Sterling, VA  20166
sip:rshockey(at)iptel.org   ENUM +87810-13313-31331
PSTN Office +1 571.434.5651 PSTN Mobile: +1 703.593.2683,  Fax: +1 815.333.1237
<mailto:richard(at)shockey.us> or <mailto:richard.shockey(at)neustar.biz>
<http://www.neustar.biz> ; <http://www.enum.org>
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

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

---

From: "Lind, Steven D, ALABS" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 12:25:11 -0600

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Richard Shockey [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Monday, December 15, 2003 1:53 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: [Enum] FINAL: ENUM WG Minutes IETF 58 Minneapolis
[snip]
> 
> ENUM Trial updates: [snip]
> 

Just curious: I don't find a delegation for Korea listed on the ITU's
list of approved delegations. Is the Korean trial using a private tree?

Steve Lind

[snip]

---

From: "Sungwoo Shin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 09:36:30 +0900

Dear Mr. Lind et al

There's no private tree and no plan to use anything other than e164.arpa.
In the Korean ENUM trial, like your pointing out, e164.arpa is not being
 used at this moment , as we are still in the delegation process internally.

Several types of ENUM User API had been developed for the trial 
and current set-up makes queries to be bound for Korean ENUM DNS.
If ENUM national code is delegated, there's no wonder that we will 
change APIs setting and make connection to ENUM root domain.  

I hope this will help you to understand.  

Sungwoo Shin  
JH Lee

> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Lind, Steven D, ALABS" <[email-masked]>
> To: "Richard Shockey" <[email-masked]>
> Cc: <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2003 3:25 AM
> Subject: RE: [Enum] FINAL: ENUM WG Minutes IETF 58 Minneapolis
> 
> 
> > 
> > 
z{�����x%��^��z��m��?�0�'�~���f��f��X��)ߣ���