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

From: Mike Hammer <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2004 10:35:30 -0400

I agree with the concept that making a phone number available, in and of 
itself, is not a privacy violation.  What this thread seems to indicate is 
that other information can further be mapped from that through information 
technology (IT) means.

I find the fact that people compile data on you to define a picture of who 
you are before they are willing to do business with you a fact of life, 
that like it or not, has always been, even before IT existed.  It may be 
data that the operator needs to deliver your service.  If you don't like 
that, find another operator.

The issue seems to be that IT makes compiling this information so much 
easier by entities that 1) you don't know and don't want to know, and 2) 
without one's permission.  This begs the question:

Should the process at some point in the search require the searcher to 
submit a request, get an immediate "your request has been received" and 
maybe later get an affirmative response with details once the user whose 
record is attempting to be accessed has had a chance to approve release of 
further data?

Without going into further detail, the answer may be simply to have the 
ENUM record point to the subscription address of the user, who then uses 
these presence-based mechanisms to decide what to release to the requester.

So, I guess the question I am raising is whether this is a cross-WG 
issue?  That is, if privacy becomes an issue, should ENUM not attempt to 
re-invent the same mechanisms that SIMPLE is defining?

Mike
At 02:00 PM 6/18/2004 +0100, Jim Reid wrote:
>>>>> "Richard" == Stastny Richard <Richard.Stastny at oefeg.at> writes:
    Richard> So if somebody puts an entry in ENUM, he wants to
    Richard> communicate.  If he does not want to communicate, he
    Richard> should not put the information in. If he only puts a URI
    Richard> with the same or any number in, he is only disclosing
    Richard> that the number exists. This also can be found out by an
    Richard> automatic dialler, so what?
You and I know that. Someone like my mother won't. I think the WG
can't simply ignore the privacy concerns that ENUM creates. This
doesn't mean all of these concerns have to be solved: that's probably
impossible. I do think the WG should produce some sort of document on
the privacy issues, even if it's just to say "if you stick NAPTRs into
your zone, this might release more information than you realise and
that might result in unexpected, possibly unpleasant consequences".
_______________________________________________
enum mailing list
enum at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum

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

---

From: Marian Durkovic <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2004 06:41:08 -0400

> AFAICT nobody is suggesting Infrastructure and User ENUM would use the
> same tree. The constraints and data models for these things are
> completely different. However some people seem to think that if these
> two flavours of ENUM use the same domain name, this means they both
> have to use the same tree with one model for ownership, administration
> and delegation. That doesn't necessarily follow. What some operator
> does with its private, internal-use-only version of e164.arpa and how
> they populate and manage that is nobody else's concern, apart from the
> usual regulatory issues like universal service obligations, fair
> competition and so on.

Yes it is - as soon, as you start getting complaints from cutomers of
this operator like "why did you put into the e164.arpa. records
which routed me to such expensive path?"

I'd be quite interested what will be your reaction, if someone makes
a "private" tree overlaying the .UK TLD with any sort of (possibly invalid)
data.

Generally, using the same domain name for completely different purposes is
IMHO _very_ bad idea. There's absolutely no problem to avoid this by
agreeing on different domain name - and for completely private purposes
even non-existent TLD like  e164.nxd. could be used which definitely can't
be reached from the public internet.

	With kind regards,

		M.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
----                                                                  ----
----   Marian Durkovic                       network  manager         ----
----                                                                  ----
----   Slovak Technical University           Tel: +421 2 524 51 301   ----
----   Computer Centre, Nam. Slobody 17      Fax: +421 2 524 94 351   ----
----   812 43 Bratislava, Slovak Republic    E-mail/sip: md at bts.sk    ----
----                                                                  ----
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Jim Reid <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2004 08:30:54 -0400

>>>>> "Marian" == Marian Durkovic <md at bts.sk> writes:

    >> AFAICT nobody is suggesting Infrastructure and User ENUM would
    >> use the same tree. The constraints and data models for these
    >> things are completely different. However some people seem to
    >> think that if these two flavours of ENUM use the same domain
    >> name, this means they both have to use the same tree with one
    >> model for ownership, administration and delegation. That
    >> doesn't necessarily follow. What some operator does with its
    >> private, internal-use-only version of e164.arpa and how they
    >> populate and manage that is nobody else's concern, apart from
    >> the usual regulatory issues like universal service obligations,
    >> fair competition and so on.

    Marian> Yes it is - as soon, as you start getting complaints from
    Marian> cutomers of this operator like "why did you put into the
    Marian> e164.arpa. records which routed me to such expensive
    Marian> path?"

I think you've missed the point. If an operator has a private tree
which they use for the operation of their network, it won't ever be
visible to their end customers. No matter what that domain name is. And
if we take the way the phone system works today, nobody apart from
some telco network engineers know how calls get routed. Presumably
this is done to minimise the telco's costs and maximise its revenues.
But who can tell? You and I have no idea if our calls from Europe to
America go by satellite or under the sea or even if they're carried
over VoIP. That isn't going to change once our telcos deploy their own
DNS trees for Infrastructure ENUM.

    Marian> I'd be quite interested what will be your reaction, if
    Marian> someone makes a "private" tree overlaying the .UK TLD with
    Marian> any sort of (possibly invalid) data.

People do this already. Some people even do this on the internet for
the root zone. Provided these silly things don't interfere with the
operation of real internet, who cares what these people get up to in
their private little clubs? DNSSEC will eventually take care of those
who impersonate a domain and try to propagate bogus data.

    Marian> Generally, using the same domain name for completely
    Marian> different purposes is IMHO _very_ bad idea. There's
    Marian> absolutely no problem to avoid this by agreeing on
    Marian> different domain name - and for completely private
    Marian> purposes even non-existent TLD like e164.nxd. could be
    Marian> used which definitely can't be reached from the public
    Marian> internet.

Choosing a non-existent TLD is very unwise. What happens when ICANN in
its infinite wisdom decides to one day create the .nxd TLD?  Domain
names should never just be plucked out of the air. Especially for
infrastructure things. And yes, I am aware of the bogus .gprs TLD that
mobile telcos are using on the internet today.

---

From: Marian Durkovic <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2004 10:53:00 -0400

> visible to their end customers. No matter what that domain name is.

Jim,

  even if the overlay is running on some secret server used just for the
internal telco operations, there's at least one big problem left - 
the private tree overlays the public ENUM tree making it inaccessible
and unusable. However, if the intrastructure ENUM is sitting in
some other domain, both are accessible and it's a matter of local policy
in which order they get consulted. 

> operation of real internet...

Well, but The question is whether IETF should recommend/advice/support
such silly implementations.

	With kind regards,

		M.

----   Marian Durkovic                       network  manager         ----
----                                                                  ----

---

From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2004 21:25:33 -0400

Marian and all,

Marian Durkovic wrote:

> IMHO _very_ bad idea.

 Agreed. However it doesn't matter which or how many domains are used
in the public internet/DNS, exposing any user specific private data is
not necessary for operation, and endangers the user or users.

> There's absolutely no problem to avoid this by

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 134k members/stakeholders strong!)
"Be precise in the use of words and expect precision from others" -
    Pierre Abelard

"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B;
liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by
P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."
United States v. Carroll Towing  (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947]
===============================================================
Updated 1/26/04
CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security
IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng.  INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com
 Registered Email addr with the USPS
Contact Number: 214-244-4827