Subject: [Enum] IETF, ENUM and NGN

From: "Stastny Richard" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2004 04:39:17 -0400

James McEachern [mailto:jmce at nortelnetworks.com] wrote:

> I also am unsure what the concept of a "long distance carrier" would mean
> in
> the context of the end-to-end model, and in a universe where Session
> Border
> Controllers, NAT's B2BUAs and other evils do not exist.
> 

[Richard>] Still having my headache from yesterdays e-mails on this
list, I think James remark is up to the point

I wasn't sure if I am really on an IETF mailing list, it
sounds more like ETSI TISPAN or 3GPP.

May I throw in some buzzwords reminding you where we are:

The Internet and it's success stands for

Keep it simple, stupid
Stupid network
End-to-end connectivity
End-user control
Vertical layering
VoIP is a SW application and a product
etc.

and NGN stands for:

Intelligent network
Walled garden
Horizontal stove pipes
Firewalls
Session Border Controller
Managed networks
VPNs?
Points of Interconnect
Termination charges
Transit networks = long distance carriers
Voice is a service
Provider control
etc.

I also want to remind everybody on the position of the FCC 
regarding VoIP:

However, all participants in the broadband value chain should embrace a set of connectivity principles which ensure that consumers:
-Can gain access to any content on the internet
-Can run the applications they choose
-Have adequate information regarding their service capabilities
-Can attach any devices to their broadband connection that do not harm the network

We should also not forget that the basic routing mechanism for connectivity
on the Internet is the DNS and URI, so for VoIP this are sip and h323 URIs

ENUM is only an add on and not basically necessary to route calls.
Since URIs are used as address-of-record and contact-address, they are
intended to be used to identify the terminating server and terminal and
are NOT intended to be used for routing via transit "networks"
Therefore ENUM should not be used for this purpose for two reasons:
1. ENUM is not designed for this and lacking the required information
2. it is contradicting the end-to-end philosophy of the Internet.

If NGN proponents are trying to set up mechanism on IP to allow
routing of E.164 numbers and also to transfer the complicated routing
regime they have between "networks" and also the IN NP databases,
they may do so, even they may use ENUM technology. And it
is perfectly valid for ETSI and 3GPP dealing with these issues

But we should be well aware of the complexity of the issue, and
Maybe we should also give them a warning or tutorial that there
Is no such thing as "networks" on the Internet.

The Internet is only one network and therefore things could (and
will be) implemented in a much simpler way.

Summary: The basic mechanism for end-to-end connectivity for
IP Communications including VoIP on the Internet is URIs.

The usage of ENUM is an optional add-on.

Important note: The model of end-user control seems to be
flawed, at least for residential customers. Same holds
true for the original idea for using ENUM as "business card"
replacement. There seems to be no market for this, at least not
at the moment. So one way forward could be to shift the
control of the domain (at least for certain number ranges)
to the entity providing the SIP service (either provider or enterprise)

Second important note: this does NOT compromise the end-to-end
connectivity model!! 
and also NOT the opt-in model, only that in this case the provider
is opting-in on behalf of his customer.

Joe Doe customers just do not want to fiddle around with ENUM-entries,
they simply do not understand ENUM. (read my lips, not only Joe Does ;-)

If the PSTN is moving to IP and therefore seeking for a routing
mechanism for E.164 numbers on IP, this may be the DNS, but maybe
be not (as Rich said). If the decide to use ENUM-technolgy, ok,
but this will be very complex (as everything on the PSTN is),
it will be not optional (it cannot be), and it will therefore
be orthogonal and independent from (User) ENUM.

This also implies that this CANNOT happen in the same tree, because
ownership, administration and delegation path are completely 
different.

Richard

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

---

From: Jim Reid <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2004 05:10:31 -0400

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

    Richard> If the PSTN is moving to IP and therefore seeking for a
    Richard> routing mechanism for E.164 numbers on IP, this may be
    Richard> the DNS, but maybe be not (as Rich said). If the decide
    Richard> to use ENUM-technolgy, ok, but this will be very complex
    Richard> (as everything on the PSTN is), it will be not optional
    Richard> (it cannot be), and it will therefore be orthogonal and
    Richard> independent from (User) ENUM.

    Richard> This also implies that this CANNOT happen in the same
    Richard> tree, because ownership, administration and delegation
    Richard> path are completely different.

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.

What matters is the operators agree on a domain name for
Infrastructure ENUM. This might as well be e164.arpa since (a) it's
vendor neutral; (b) already an agreed IETF standard; (c) not
controlled by any nation. It's hard to see how any other choice of
domain name could be better (technically or politically). And it
prevents VoIP/SIP applications from getting schizophrenia from
figuring out which domain name they should use based on what network
they're running in today.

---

From: John Curran <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2004 06:56:01 -0400

At 10:05 AM +0100 6/30/04, Jim Reid wrote:
>domain name could be better (technically or politically).

Hmm...  If some operators really and truly intend to run a data tree
which is not publicly visible, than I see no need for any standard in
this area.  The operator (or set of operators which share such a data
tree) can simply configure an appropriate domain of their choice.

I don't believe that there needs to be a distinct Infstrastructure ENUM
and User ENUM data tree.  The only strong reason given for separate
models is privacy and I'll assert that it is possible to put information in
the tree for a given E.164 number that consists of nothing more than
a record which directs one to the appropriate service provider (as noted
by Mike Hammer earlier) and that this will indeed prove sufficient to
provide connectivity without raising privacy concerns.

The operator community should be encouraged to put some nominal
information for their number blocks in the Public ENUM tree, even if this
is nothing more than a single wildcard record pointing to a default server
for that operator.  As numbers port, it should be very straightforward
to insert an appropriate specific DNS record to direct queries to the
new provider as appropriate, including the degenerate case where a
knowledgeable user (or user with knowledgeable party under contract)
arranges to have richer connectivity information put in place under their
entry.

/John

---

From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2004 21:25:36 -0400

John and all,

  Of course your right, John.  However what we are all seeing here
is a distinct difference in agenda's and philosophy regarding the need
for users should have the right to use ENUM in the public DNS
and still have an opt-out or opt-in of their personal and private
data such as their name, ENUM number, address, and direct
contact phone number.

> arranges to have richer connectivity information put in place under their

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