Subject: RE: Carrier ENUM Definition (was RE: [Enum] Agenda items forIETFParis)

From: "James McEachern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2005 23:46:13 -0400

Michael Hammer wrote:

>You've turned the problem around.  Please stick with the given scenario.
>My mother, party B, ie the called party IS a carrier customer.  And I as
>the caller am both User ENUM and Carrier ENUM aware.  So, why wouldn't
>the carrier deliver the service to my mother that she is paying for?

The question is, exactly what is your mother paying for?  You imply that she is paying to receive all calls targeted to her phone number, without any restrictions.  But this is not the case.  If you phone your mother from a pay phone (they still do exist) without depositing the required change, the call will not be completed - though your mother may be given the option of paying on your behalf.  How is your scenario different?

Jim

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

---

From: "Pfautz, Penn L, NEO" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2005 07:55:22 -0400

Carriers have been know to want to bypass each other when the
compensation rules of the PSTN make it advantageous... 

-----Original Message-----
From: enum-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:enum-bounces at ietf.org] On Behalf Of
James McEachern
Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2005 12:58 AM
To: Michael Haberler
Cc: enum at ietf.org
Subject: RE: Carrier ENUM Definition (was RE: [Enum] Agenda items
forIETFParis)

Michael Haberler wrote:

>Enlightened telcos might consult User ENUM too...   

I'm curious about your rationale for this statement, given that the
purpose of User ENUM is to allow end users to directly contact other end
users, bypassing the carrier completely.  

Jim

---

From: "Rosbotham, Paul" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2005 11:18:58 -0400

>You have made some assumptions about what my mother's contract says and
>about what business relationship I might have with the terminating telco
>my mother uses.  Let's say for arguments sake, that I do have a business
>relationship with them, or that my mother's contract says that they will
>terminate calls from the wild wild Internet.  Let's say that the
>terminating carrier has a nice IVR system that will take credit or debit
>card input to complete the call.  Could they not sell calling cards at
>the local convenience store to recent immigrants with no credit history,
>that can use them on an IP pay-phone connected only to the local ISP to
>provide Internet access?

In the UK, several carriers are considering such an approach, but such functionality would reside in *user* ENUM, not carrier.  

If that proposal does go ahead - and it's still in the early stages of debate at present - the concept would be that if the user hadn't made a user-ENUM entry, then the carrier (of record) could put an entry in advertising the gateway to terminate the call onto their network.  Of course, if the user wished to put an entry into user-ENUM, this would over-ride the carrier entry which would be removed.

>Do you still feel it necessary to prohibit a carrier from including
>public interconnect points in Carrier ENUM and allowing public access to
>Carrier ENUM?

Carrier-ENUM, at least as I envisage it, is about advertising NNIs for the usage of carriers.  It's not about advertising UNIs for customers to break-in from the internet.  Given the scope of carrier-ENUM hasn't yet been buttoned down, others may have differing views.

>I don't think it right to shut down possibilities, just because it
>doesn't match a particular business model you have in mind.  So, please
>keep the call control and business aspects orthogonal to the ENUM
>capabilities.

I wouldn't like to be perceived as arbitarily trying to close options down, but as a stake in the ground, if anyone that I don't have a contractual relationship with tries to route a call to an NNI into my network, the call will be failed.  No termination fee, no call routed.
 
Regards

Paul

-----Original Message-----
From: enum-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:enum-bounces at ietf.org]On Behalf Of
Michael Hammer (mhammer)
Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2005 3:52 PM
To: Clive D.W. Feather
Cc: enum at ietf.org
Subject: RE: Carrier ENUM Definition (was RE: [Enum] Agenda items
forIETFParis)

Clive,

You have made some assumptions about what my mother's contract says and
about what business relationship I might have with the terminating telco
my mother uses.  Let's say for arguments sake, that I do have a business
relationship with them, or that my mother's contract says that they will
terminate calls from the wild wild Internet.  Let's say that the
terminating carrier has a nice IVR system that will take credit or debit
card input to complete the call.  Could they not sell calling cards at
the local convenience store to recent immigrants with no credit history,
that can use them on an IP pay-phone connected only to the local ISP to
provide Internet access?

Do you still feel it necessary to prohibit a carrier from including
public interconnect points in Carrier ENUM and allowing public access to
Carrier ENUM?

I don't think it right to shut down possibilities, just because it
doesn't match a particular business model you have in mind.  So, please
keep the call control and business aspects orthogonal to the ENUM
capabilities.

Mike

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.

---

From: "Michael Hammer \(mhammer\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2005 12:16:43 -0400

Agreed.  I'm not advocating a requirement to do so.  Just trying to keep
options open until this is better understood by all.

Mike

> From: enum-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:enum-bounces at ietf.org] On 
> Behalf Of Otmar Lendl
> Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2005 11:59 AM
> To: enum at ietf.org
> Subject: Re: Carrier ENUM Definition (was RE: [Enum] Agenda 
> items forIETFParis)
> 
> On 2005/07/26 16:07, "Michael Hammer (mhammer)" 
> <mhammer at cisco.com> wrote:
> > 
> > public interconnect points in Carrier ENUM and allowing 
> public access 
> > to Carrier ENUM?
> > 
> 
> I wouldn't prohibit carriers from having public interconnect 
> points and listing them in Carrier ENUM. I can't recall 
> anybody here advocating such a prohibition.
> 
> But I wouldn't require them to do so, either. The current 
> assumptions in User ENUM basically mandate this which is one 
> reason why carriers don't adopt ENUM. (The other one is the 
> end-user opt-in requirement.)
> 
> /ol
> --
> < Otmar Lendl (lendl at nic.at) | nic.at Systems Engineer >
>