Subject: RE: [Enum] Non-Terrminal NAPTRs Considered Harmful

From: "Rosbotham, Paul" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2005 16:27:35 -0400

You know me, Richard, ever the optimist ;-)

The reason the UK couldn't agree on a jointly owned database for NP is that we didn't want to as we never accepted the need for said database....on the contrary to what you say, for the volumes of numbers currently ported and our particular network inventory, it would have been less efficient than the solution we have in place - as has been proven by independent consultants....but that's a different discussion.

I don't think an argument of "you guys will never agree so we've made the decision for you, and the choice we've made is a good one, so take it or leave it" will be particularly successful.  The response from some parties will certainly be "OK, we'll leave it then and not bother populating" - which will seriously devalue the proposition.

(BTW, my concern isn't specifically with the UK...I could reel off a list of other countries where I'd have similar issues)

Cheers

Paul

-----Original Message-----
From: Stastny Richard [mailto:Richard.Stastny at oefeg.at]
Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2005 8:44 PM
To: Rosbotham, Paul; enum at ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Enum] Non-Terrminal NAPTRs Considered Harmful

Hi Paul,
 
I see your point, but I think you are a bit overoptimistic on the capability of
the carriers to agree on an entity "jointly owned by the stakeholders" ;-)
Take UK (or Austria) as an example, where the "stakeholders" where
not able to agree on a j"ointly owned" datebase for NP, even if they
loose money with this decision.
 
On the other hand,  the current Tier 1 Registries are in most counties
selected by the Regulator as the domain name holder and also in 
most cases the ccTLDs or other companier within this business. 
These enties know how to do their jobs
and a lot of business of the telcos is dependant on their operations
anyway.
 
Richard

This e-mail has been scanned for viruses by the Cable & Wireless e-mail security system - powered by MessageLabs. For more information on a proactive managed e-mail security service,  visit http://www.cw.com/uk/emailprotection/ 
 
The information contained in this e-mail is confidential and may also be subject to legal privilege. It is intended only for the recipient(s) named above. If you are not named above as a recipient, you must not read, copy, disclose, forward or otherwise use the information contained in this email. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender (whose contact details are above) immediately by reply e-mail and delete the message and any attachments without retaining any copies.

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

---

From: Michael Haberler <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2005 17:47:42 -0400

At 22:07 22.06.2005, Rosbotham, Paul wrote:
The reason the UK couldn't agree on a jointly owned database for NP is 
that we didn't want to as we never accepted the need for said 
database....on the contrary to
[not strictly protocol related]
the NP dog clearly hunts with varying success per country, yes - BUT if 
porting rates in +43 were as they were elsewhere local telcos would just 
die to have a NP DB here next week ( can I say "porting by fax exchange" ) 
. Process design is a matter of scale -  but then asymptotically NP rates 
will be like registrar change on a TLD, assuming numbers live as long.

speaking of dogs - in business terms:
the user ENUM dog doesnt hunt adaequately (authoritative report from the 
blind)  - enlightened service provider & business acceptance is there, 
significant end user acceptance is way out - all while per-country opt in 
kills resolution rates. This is a horizontal standard rollout with the 
vertical per-country brake put on - it's like "no, we dont do HTTP over 
here in France".

IP interconnect happens, but carrier ENUM as of today might cannibalize 
itself into X different trees, each one with a little twist

a combined approach might save the day for user ENUM long run while giving 
carriers what they want now, with the upside of better resolution rates - 
and helpfully turn on the second burner under your regulator's back to 
improve footprint.

the e164.arpa carrier space could well work as an umbrella for all those 
e164.* efforts - and and eventual migration tool - while keeping the end 
user vision alive. That warrants a bit of enlightened decision making.

Still, then everybody is free to establish e164.foo.tld - this is the 
Internet. Minitel-over-IP does indeed work, too, as long as somebody pays 
for it.

-Michael
what you say, for the volumes of numbers currently ported and our 
particular network inventory, it would have been less efficient than the 
solution we have in place - as has been proven by independent 
consultants....but that's a different discussion.

I don't think an argument of "you guys will never agree so we've made the 
decision for you, and the choice we've made is a good one, so take it or 
leave it" will be particularly successful.  The response from some parties 
will certainly be "OK, we'll leave it then and not bother populating" - 
which will seriously devalue the proposition.

(BTW, my concern isn't specifically with the UK...I could reel off a list 
of other countries where I'd have similar issues)

Cheers
Paul
-----Original Message-----
From: Stastny Richard [mailto:Richard.Stastny at oefeg.at]
Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2005 8:44 PM
To: Rosbotham, Paul; enum at ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Enum] Non-Terrminal NAPTRs Considered Harmful
Hi Paul,
I see your point, but I think you are a bit overoptimistic on the 
capability of

On the other hand,  the current Tier 1 Registries are in most counties
selected by the Regulator as the domain name holder and also in
most cases the ccTLDs or other companier within this business.
These enties know how to do their jobs
and a lot of business of the telcos is dependant on their operations
anyway.
Richard
This e-mail has been scanned for viruses by the Cable & Wireless e-mail 
security system - powered by MessageLabs. For more information on a 
proactive managed e-mail security service,  visit 
http://www.cw.com/uk/emailprotection/

The information contained in this e-mail is confidential and may also be 
subject to legal privilege. It is intended only for the recipient(s) named 
above. If you are not named above as a recipient, you must not read, copy, 
disclose, forward or otherwise use the information contained in this 
email. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender 
(whose contact details are above) immediately by reply e-mail and delete 
the message and any attachments without retaining any copies.