Subject: RE: AW: [Enum] Please start thinking about agenda items for IETF San Diego etc

From: "Hollenbeck, Scott" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2004 13:51:02 -0400

> as a matter of curiousity, anyone interested to implement epp-e164? 
> please rise your hand if you are.

It's a distinct possibility that my employer will be interested in
implementing and deploying the extension.

-Scott-

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

---

From: Richard Shockey <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2004 14:23:52 -0400

It's a distinct possibility that my employer will be interested in
implementing and deploying the extension.
fancy that :-)
Make that 2. Though for several reasons the possibility of a SOAP binding 
could be explored.

Richard Shockey, Senior Manager, Strategic Technology Initiatives
NeuStar Inc.
46000 Center Oak Plaza  -   Sterling, VA  20166
sip:rshockey(at)iptel.org   sip:57141 at fwd.pulver.com
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
enum at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum

---

From: Michael Haberler <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2004 17:01:57 -0400

Scott,
reading your latest draft -
do I understand this correctly that you plan to run service which combines 
delegation and NAPTR hosting (= Tier1 and Tier2)?

I've been working on the "thin Tier1" (NS delegations only) assumption so far.
What has changed - do other people think collapsing these roles should be 
done as well?

-Michael

---

From: Adrian Georgescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2004 17:53:10 -0400

As an ENUM product exhibitor at VON I can describe the interest showed 
about ENUM this week in London as seen from a Tier 2 provider.

- Vendors showed genuine interest in integrating ENUM into their 
soft-switch solutions. Alcatel, Mitel, Siemens and other "small" 
players kept on returning for more information at the stand
- VoIP providers asked for a tool to bypass PSTN when interconnecting 
1234 at domainA.com with 1234 at domainB.com
- BT and CW asked plenty of good questions, the subject is surely on 
their agenda
- Leaflets about the first ENUM Plug-test taking place this November at 
ETSI ran quickly of the shelf  (about 150 leaflets)

A question which popped up often was whether I could also provide the 
numbers. So a combination of both Tier1 - Tier2 would surely have 
success in having ENUM deployed at a faster pace.

Adrian
On Jun 11, 2004, at 10:39 PM, Michael Haberler wrote:
Scott,
reading your latest draft -
do I understand this correctly that you plan to run service which 
combines delegation and NAPTR hosting (= Tier1 and Tier2)?

I've been working on the "thin Tier1" (NS delegations only) assumption 
so far.

What has changed - do other people think collapsing these roles should 
be done as well?

-Michael

---

From: Patrik Fältström <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2004 03:34:16 -0400

On Jun 11, 2004, at 22:39, Michael Haberler wrote:
do I understand this correctly that you plan to run service which 
combines delegation and NAPTR hosting (= Tier1 and Tier2)?
Can we please have discussions like these without using the terms 
"tier" as it is not well defined.  Talk explicitly about the functions 
provided instead.

(No, the ETSI documents are not good enough.)
   paf
_______________________________________________
enum mailing list
enum at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum

---

From: Adrian Georgescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2004 04:21:47 -0400

Tier 1 does delegations of domains (E164 prefixes) to Tier2 providers 
(aka Registry function)

Tier2 provider does the management of the records inside delegated 
zones (aka Registrar function)

Adrian
On Jun 14, 2004, at 9:24 AM, Patrik Fältström wrote:

---

From: Patrik Fältström <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2004 05:00:23 -0400

On Jun 14, 2004, at 10:12, Adrian Georgescu wrote:
Tier 1 does delegations of domains (E164 prefixes) to Tier2 providers 
(aka Registry function)
Is it the one managing the DNS zone (do the technical delegation), the 
one which approve the delegation, the one which talk with the end-user 
(registrar), or...

Tier2 provider does the management of the records inside delegated 
zones (aka Registrar function)
A registrar in the DNS sense is not managing records inside delegated 
zone, but is only a front-end for the registry. I.e. a registry and 
registrar in the DNS sense is working with the same level of the DNS 
hierarchy and there is _no_ delegation between them.

     paf
Adrian
On Jun 14, 2004, at 9:24 AM, Patrik Fältström wrote:
On Jun 11, 2004, at 22:39, Michael Haberler wrote:
do I understand this correctly that you plan to run service which 
combines delegation and NAPTR hosting (= Tier1 and Tier2)?
Can we please have discussions like these without using the terms 
"tier" as it is not well defined.  Talk explicitly about the 
functions provided instead.

---

From: Adrian Georgescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2004 05:33:01 -0400

On Jun 14, 2004, at 10:53 AM, Patrik Fältström wrote:
On Jun 14, 2004, at 10:12, Adrian Georgescu wrote:
Tier 1 does delegations of domains (E164 prefixes) to Tier2 providers 
(aka Registry function)
Is it the one managing the DNS zone (do the technical delegation),
Yes it adds NS records, populating Whois etc..
the one which approve the delegation,
Yes
the one which talk with the end-user (registrar), or...
Tier2 provider does the management of the records inside delegated 
zones (aka Registrar function)
A registrar in the DNS sense is not managing records inside delegated 
zone, but is only a front-end for the registry. I.e. a registry and 
registrar in the DNS sense is working with the same level of the DNS 
hierarchy and there is _no_ delegation between them.
Generally the Registrars are the ones hosting the zones with the 
records. Technically is not mandatory of course you could outsource the 
DNS management to a third-party but there is never enough money in the 
chain to outsource such activity.

     paf
Adrian

---

From: Patrik Fältström <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2004 05:46:17 -0400

On Jun 14, 2004, at 11:23, Adrian Georgescu wrote:
On Jun 14, 2004, at 10:53 AM, Patrik Fältström wrote:
On Jun 14, 2004, at 10:12, Adrian Georgescu wrote:
Tier 1 does delegations of domains (E164 prefixes) to Tier2 
providers (aka Registry function)
Is it the one managing the DNS zone (do the technical delegation),
Yes it adds NS records, populating Whois etc..
the one which approve the delegation,
Yes
It many cases the one which add NS records is not the same as the one 
which approve the delegation. And these are in turn not the same as the 
one which run the DNS server or the one which "owns" the domain itself.

Which one of these things do a Tier-1 do?
the one which talk with the end-user (registrar), or...
Tier2 provider does the management of the records inside delegated 
zones (aka Registrar function)
A registrar in the DNS sense is not managing records inside delegated 
zone, but is only a front-end for the registry. I.e. a registry and 
registrar in the DNS sense is working with the same level of the DNS 
hierarchy and there is _no_ delegation between them.
Generally the Registrars are the ones hosting the zones with the 
records. Technically is not mandatory of course you could outsource 
the DNS management to a third-party but there is never enough money in 
the chain to outsource such activity.
You didn't understand what I wrote. A registry is in the DNS world only 
front-ends to a registry. A registry do not delegate to a registrar, so 
you can not use this word for a definition for what a Tier-1 is.

As I said, do _NOT_ use these terms, the definition of them is not 
clear.

(We had this discussion on this list some months ago, when I passed a 
ppt slide (only one picture) with the roles I see. Then someone else 
sent a list in text with a good list of roles. In neither case the term 
"tier" was used for reasons which should be clear by now, i.e. that 
noone know what Tier-N is doing.)

   paf

     paf
Adrian

---

From: "Conroy, Lawrence (SMTP)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2004 07:24:07 -0400

Hi Patrik, folks,
OK, I'll bite - we always use these terms, they're quite useful, and so 
far it's
obvious that folk mix them up. The conflation seems to be reflected in 
EPP-E164,
and maybe in Adrian's comment.

Looking in particular at the Registrar role and the wildly different 
role of
provider of authoritative DNS service for the delegated domain; these 
roles
MAY be combined, but they may be quite distinct. I had a retail 
registration
relationship with a reseller who in turn had a relationship with a 
Registrar.
For one of the domains I registered, the reseller also provides an 
authoritative
DNS service. For others, my company provides it, or I provide it.
In none of these does the Registrar provide authoritative DNS service 
to me.

Thus I'm very uncomfortable with folk using the term Registrar and 
assuming
that this includes the authoritative DNS servers for a delegated 
domain. Please
don't do this.

The Tier-N relationships come about because a Registry holds a 
franchise from
some authority; this is NOT a Protocol issue but is an Administration 
issue.
Running the DNS registry (i.e. the boxes that are tied into the DNS 
hierarchy
up/down from the root) may be outsourced to another company, but the 
franchise
holder has the responsibility to the franchising authority to deliver 
service
that doesn't break the DNS. If the DNS registry is broken, it's the 
franchisee's
fault.
The franchise, in the ENUM case, is a matter for the ITU and the IAB - 
not for
us, as it's not a protocol issue (well... it is for you, Patrik, you 
poor sod,
but not for me :).

The problem with the Tier-N roles is that they mix the administration 
and authority
that is tied into the franchise model (e.g. Registry, Registrar, 
Registrant) with
the technical issues of the DNS delegation and DNS "publishing" model 
(e.g. registry,
authoritative DNS servers for delegated domain). These are NOT the 
same, even though
they use similar terms

As a final point, for ENUM, it's tempting to add a statement that, for 
a given
administration, the DNS registry NEVER holds zone content for the 
domains "under"
its franchise. In practice, that is the role of the Tier-(N+1) 
Authoritative DNS
server that acts for the Registrant and their delegated domain.
However, we have had a recent list discussion on special entries (e.g. 
NULL NAPTRs)
that are not "leaf nodes", so even this statement may be too 
restrictive.

all the best,
  Lawrence
On 14 Jun 2004, at 10:32, Patrik Fältström wrote:
On Jun 14, 2004, at 11:23, Adrian Georgescu wrote:
On Jun 14, 2004, at 10:53 AM, Patrik Fältström wrote:
On Jun 14, 2004, at 10:12, Adrian Georgescu wrote:
Tier 1 does delegations of domains (E164 prefixes) to Tier2 
providers (aka Registry function)
Is it the one managing the DNS zone (do the technical delegation),
Yes it adds NS records, populating Whois etc..
the one which approve the delegation,
Yes
It many cases the one which add NS records is not the same as the one 
which approve the delegation. And these are in turn not the same as 
the one which run the DNS server or the one which "owns" the domain 
itself.

Which one of these things do a Tier-1 do?
the one which talk with the end-user (registrar), or...
Tier2 provider does the management of the records inside delegated 
zones (aka Registrar function)
A registrar in the DNS sense is not managing records inside 
delegated zone, but is only a front-end for the registry. I.e. a 
registry and registrar in the DNS sense is working with the same 
level of the DNS hierarchy and there is _no_ delegation between 
them.
Generally the Registrars are the ones hosting the zones with the
records. Technically is not mandatory of course you could outsource 
the DNS management to a third-party but there is never enough money 
in the chain to outsource such activity.
You didn't understand what I wrote. A registry is in the DNS world 
only front-ends to a registry. A registry do not delegate to a 
registrar, so you can not use this word for a definition for what a 
Tier-1 is.

(We had this discussion on this list some months ago, when I passed a 
ppt slide (only one picture) with the roles I see. Then someone else 
sent a list in text with a good list of roles. In neither case the 
term "tier" was used for reasons which should be clear by now, i.e. 
that noone know what Tier-N is doing.)

   paf

     paf
Adrian

---

From: Patrik Fältström <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2004 08:02:19 -0400

On Jun 14, 2004, at 13:15, Conroy, Lawrence (SMTP) wrote:
The problem with the Tier-N roles is that they mix the administration 
and authority
that is tied into the franchise model (e.g. Registry, Registrar, 
Registrant) with
the technical issues of the DNS delegation and DNS "publishing" model 
(e.g. registry,
authoritative DNS servers for delegated domain). These are NOT the 
same, even though
they use similar terms
Bingo!
In reality in ENUM, I claim we _do_ have "Tiers". But, there is not one 
function within one "Tier" and extremely seldom (I have never seen it, 
except in some cases for very high values of "N" in "Tier N") one 
organisation can be said "THE Tier N". In fact, many organisations 
normally share the responsibilities inside one layer in the ENUM 
delegation hierarchy.

In one layer, we first of all have someone which by the parent layer 
can request a delegation (A). This is for me the domain name holder, or 
the overall administrative body for the domain.

We also have someone (B) which can request delegation from the parent 
domain. In many cases, this is the same as (A), but not always.

When the delegation is approved, we have someone running DNS (C) which 
have to make sure the technical delegation is made, i.e. that the 
correct NS records are set up in the parent zone etc.

A fourth party (D), is acting on delegation requests from children. 
These requests come directly or indirectly via (F). This is in the DNS 
sense the "registry". They also create the DNS zone file (or 
equivalent).

A fifth party (E) run the DNS servers. The roles C+D+E can be the same 
entity, but I have seen both (C+E) as well as (C+D) and the third role 
separated.

A sixth party (F) is receiving the delegation requests from the 
children. This is from a DNS sense a registrar.

A seventh party (G) is authorising the delegation requests from 
children. Sometimes this is done by (F), in other cases by (D) but in 
some cases it is a separate entity which is to be contacted either by 
(F) or (D).

An eighth special case is the one which run services which NAPTR refer 
to. This is a special role which only exist for the lowest layer in the 
stack, regardless of if it is within the 3rd, 2nd or fourth layer.

I think this is about everything I can think of now from the top of my 
head. And, note, I am only talking about the roles inside one (what I 
call) layer in the hierarchy. One layer such as "The layer which 
contains e164.arpa" or "the layer which is the cc delegated from 
E164.arpa" etc.

      paf