Subject: Re: Carrier ENUM Definition (was RE: [Enum] Agenda items forIETF Paris)

From: "Stastny Richard" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 08 Jul 2005 13:22:20 -0400

Rich Shockey wrote:
>as some here might postulate the exposure of the URI of the ALG may or may
>not be visible to A. all parties as in the use of .carrier.e164.arpa B.
>just visible to the club as in 3GPP.NET or e164MSO.ORG and the visibility
>of the ALG URI does not necessarily imply a formal peering agreement
>between party A and party B.

I question for clarification, especially to Patrik:

Are we talking here about requirements for carrier ENUM
-in private enterprise trees?
-in carrier trees within their network to find egress ALGs (or SBCs or GWs)?
-in shared walled garden trees such as GSMA (whatchamanameitcurrently) to find ingress ALGs?
-in (partially or wholely) public other trees such as e174.info?
-or in carrier.c.c.164.arpa or c.c.carrier.e164.arpa?

or altogether?

If it is last, I will come back in two years and look how far you are
with the requirements and I do not think I will have missed a lot

-richard

________________________________

Von: enum-bounces at ietf.org im Auftrag von Richard Shockey
Gesendet: Fr 08.07.2005 19:06
An: Patrik Fältström; Richard Shockey
Cc: enum at ietf.org
Betreff: Re: Carrier ENUM Definition (was RE: [Enum] Agenda items forIETF Paris)

At 12:48 PM 7/8/2005, Patrik Fältström wrote:

>On Jul 8, 2005, at 16:44, Richard Shockey wrote:
>
>>...there is a requirement among service providers for some form of
>>database technology that, based on a E164 number, can provide
>>information on how to route a service to a point of carrier
>>interconnection or ALG as expressed as a URI.
>
>Ok, this is for me one requirement. Sorry for maybe not being clear.
>
>>For privacy reasons this information needs to be restricted to
>>service providers and not generally available to end users.
>
>Is the requirement that this information (the mapping from E.164 to
>URI) is only to be visible for the party that need to know, or "any
>service provider being part of the same club"?

oh fine distinction can you elaborate a bit ?...what is the difference been
'party that needs to know' or 'service provider being part of the same
club' .. what is the distinction?

as some here might postulate the exposure of the URI of the ALG may or may
not be visible to A. all parties as in the use of .carrier.e164.arpa B.
just visible to the club as in 3GPP.NET or e164MSO.ORG and the visibility
of the ALG URI does not necessarily imply a formal peering agreement
between party A and party B.

What the egress ALG does once it gets in INVITE is a matter between
consenting capitalists.

Does that help?

>    paf

Richard Shockey, Director - Member of Technical Staff
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

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

---

From: Patrik Fältström <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 08 Jul 2005 15:45:02 -0400

On Jul 8, 2005, at 19:25, Stastny Richard wrote:
Rich Shockey wrote:
as some here might postulate the exposure of the URI of the ALG  
may or may
not be visible to A. all parties as in the use  
of .carrier.e164.arpa B.
just visible to the club as in 3GPP.NET or e164MSO.ORG and the  
visibility
of the ALG URI does not necessarily imply a formal peering agreement
between party A and party B.

I question for clarification, especially to Patrik:
Are we talking here about requirements for carrier ENUM
-in private enterprise trees?
-in carrier trees within their network to find egress ALGs (or SBCs  
or GWs)?
-in shared walled garden trees such as GSMA  
(whatchamanameitcurrently) to find ingress ALGs?
-in (partially or wholely) public other trees such as e174.info?
-or in carrier.c.c.164.arpa or c.c.carrier.e164.arpa?

or altogether?
If it is last, I will come back in two years and look how far you are
with the requirements and I do not think I will have missed a lot
I want at least SOME requirements. At least enough to be able to see  
the difference between the various proposals.

I know you (and myself) reject some of the proposals and thinking  
that have been passed around on this list. To be able to *REALLY*  
reject those, I want to know the requirements that are behind the  
proposals.

I.e. enough so that the requirements can be attacked instead of the  
solutions that claim to respond to all of them.

But not more.
    paf

-richard

Betreff: Re: Carrier ENUM Definition (was RE: [Enum] Agenda items  
forIETF Paris)

oh fine distinction can you elaborate a bit ?...what is the  
difference been

as some here might postulate the exposure of the URI of the ALG may  
or may
not be visible to A. all parties as in the use  
of .carrier.e164.arpa B.
just visible to the club as in 3GPP.NET or e164MSO.ORG and the  
visibility
of the ALG URI does not necessarily imply a formal peering agreement
between party A and party B.

   paf

Richard Shockey, Director - Member of Technical Staff
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>
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Attachment:
PGP.sig
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________
enum mailing list
enum at ietf.org