Subject: RE: [Enum] User ENUM vs Operator ENUM

From: "Stastny Richard" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2004 07:49:08 -0400

Considering the latest discussions and also looking at what
ENUM currently is used for, the original idea of having
all communications via one number does not seem to hold anymore.

1. ENUM is mainly used for voice calls or telephony
related services (e.g. SMS/MMS)

2. the one number idea for all types of communications
does not even hold for VoIP, because currently folks are
collecting phone numbers like stamps.

2a. The idea of a personal numbers also does not seem to
fly because everybody wants a geographic number, either
where he lives or friends/family live. The whole business
will of course be obsolete when distance will go away on
the PSTN or the PSTN will go away. Then one number will
be enough.

So ENUM is currently reduced to an IN service giving
you a "routing number" to the sip proxy - in Internet
terminology only the domain part of the sip URI is relevant.

The user part is then only for internal use and either may
be anonymized or even better just be the E.164 number itself.

So if an ENUM entry for number +431797284032 is only
pointing to sip:+431797284032 at asterisk.iphone.at the
only information disclosed is my provider and that
the number exists. Even this could be hidden with a wildcard
and a regexp. On the other hand, spammers on the PSTN just
dial one number after the other.

Additional services then need to be negotiated, either
within sip or more comfortable between Personal User Agents
as proposed with UCI. Even the negotiation protocol used could
be negotiated.

The only enumservice needed for this is the already proposed
'srs' service resolution service with a sip (or h323 URI).

In this case also the distinction between user and carrier ENUM
is not necessary anymore, because then ENUM is linked to the
SRS provider and ENUM would not be opt-in anymore (at least for 
E.164 numbers existing only on the Internet). The user still may
point from his SRS service to different sip, mail, etc providers.

I propose this issue to be discussed either in the ENUM WG
or the proposed iENUM BoF. Note: iENUM IMHO can only work
generalized for all services if this is implemented.

Richard

-----Original Message-----
From: Fullbrook Kim (UK) [mailto:Kim.Fullbrook at O2.COM] 
Sent: Thursday, June 17, 2004 12:20 PM
To: 'enum at ietf.org'
Subject: RE: [Enum] User ENUM vs Operator ENUM 

I would support the assertion below.  Saying the same thing in another way, there are basic privacy concerns about putting "personal" information such as SIP URIs and telephone numbers in the public DNS and for those of us in the European Union this has to be "opt in".  On the other hand certain telephony services might rely on everyone having their ENUM information available in the DNS.  If someone opts out because of privacy concerns the service breaks for that customer.  The implication is that only Carrier ENUM - where this personal information is not publicly available - is going to be viable. Even then there are questions over how someone could do a V-o-IP call from their PC on the Internet at home and make a successful call without running into these privacy concerns if the called party has not "opted in".
Sorry if this is going over any old ground but I'm fairly new to ENUM. 
Kim. 
-----Original Message----- 
From: Jim Reid [mailto:jim at rfc1035.com] 
Sent: 17 June 2004 10:53 
To: james.f.baskin at verizon.com 
Cc: enum at ietf.org 
Subject: Re: [Enum] Re: User ENUM vs Operator ENUM 
(Edited) 
Another concern is user ENUM is going to have to be opt-in. The number 
doesn't go in the tree unless the "owner" consents. Operator or 
infrastructure ENUM has to work for every active number, including 
those people with unlisted numbers, test codes, preminum rate and free 
numbers, etc, etc. That means there can be no opt-in principle at work 
there. I fail to see how these mutually exclusive principles can be 
satisfied by having a single, public tree for both. 

========================================================
This electronic message contains information from the mmO2 plc Group 
which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to
be for the use of the individual(s) or entity named above. If you are not
the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying
distribution or use of the contents of this information is prohibited. If you
have received this electronic message in error, please notify us
by telephone or email (to the numbers or address above) immediately.
========================================================

_______________________________________________
enum mailing list
enum at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum

---

From: Jim Reid <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2004 09:15:31 -0400

>>>>> "Richard" == Stastny Richard <Richard.Stastny at oefeg.at> writes:

    Richard> Considering the latest discussions and also looking at
    Richard> what ENUM currently is used for, the original idea of
    Richard> having all communications via one number does not seem to
    Richard> hold anymore.

    Richard> 1. ENUM is mainly used for voice calls or telephony
    Richard> related services (e.g. SMS/MMS)

This may be true today, but I feel it misses the bigger picture. The
real power of ENUM comes from the flexibility of NAPTR records and
what they can represent. ENUM is just a way of transforming someone's
phone number into a bunch of NAPTRs that can do just about anything.
So a phone number effectively becomes an access mechanism for anything
that can be expressed as an URI: ie pretty much anything.

IMO it's unwise to get into a mindset that ENUM is just about voice or
VoIP or telephony services. ENUM shouldn't be constrained to only these
things. [Just like how IP datagrams weren't restricted to only getting
carried over the ARPAnet or even ethernets.] The real innovation in
ENUM will be when people come up with new services and applications
that use NAPTRs in ways we've not yet imagined.

    Richard> 2. the one number idea for all types of communications
    Richard> does not even hold for VoIP, because currently folks are
    Richard> collecting phone numbers like stamps.

This may be true, but so what? People collect email addresses like
stamps too. This doesn't the diminish the need for a consistent way of
reaching someone by email. If anything, it brings that need into sharp
focus.