Subject: RE: [Enum] E.164 communication assumptions/requirements

From: "Pfautz, Penn L, NEO" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2005 08:46:35 -0400

<FONT face=Arial 
color=#0000ff size=2>Ray:
<FONT face=Arial 
color=#0000ff size=2>We could argue about whether these are ENUM 
requirements.  And use of numbers within assigned E.164 country codes is 
largely a national matter. But at least within the United States the 
reachability assumption is likely to hold and use of NANP numbers for purposes 
such as you describe (pure DNS indexes) are likely to be discouraged by 
regulators. 
<FONT face=Arial 
color=#0000ff size=2> 
<FONT face=Arial 
color=#0000ff size=2>Penn Pfautz

From: enum-bounces at ietf.org 
[mailto:enum-bounces at ietf.org] On Behalf Of Ray AndersonSent: 
Saturday, July 16, 2005 12:38 PMTo: james.f.baskin at verizon.com; Lind, 
Steven D, ALABS; enum at ietf.orgSubject: Re: [Enum] E.164 communication 
assumptions/requirements
At 00:03 15/07/2005, james.f.baskin at verizon.com wrote:
- All E.164 numbers should be 
  callable from the PSTN.  Someoneusing a PSTN-connected telephone with 
  a keypad or a rotary dialshould be able to place a call to any other end 
  user who hasvoice telephone service that has been assigned an E.164 
  number.It should not matter what underlying technology is used to 
  providethe voice service to the called user -- wireline, 
  wireless,satellite, VoIP, etc.- There should be no ^islands^ of 
  E.164 numbers that areunreachable from users of other E.164 
numbers.I don't believe the above two things are ENUM 
requirements.There are applications being envisaged where the E.164 
number is purely used as a key to ENUM data "stored in DNS".  There is 
no requirement that an E.164 number has to be "callable"as far as I know, 
and if it had to be, those applications would have to create "callable 
endpoints"which might be meaningless certain applications (e.g. what is 
delivered to a voice caller when the E.164 number refers to a video stream 
or a WAP page?
Ray Anderson   CEO Bango   
ray at bango.com    <A href="http://www.bango.com/" 
eudora="autourl">www.bango.com Mobile: +44 7768 454545  Fax: +44 20 
7692 5558  Come and see Bango at Mobile 
Entertainment Summit 2005,  Hilton Universal City, Los Angeles, 
USA   27-28 July <A 
href="http://www.ihollywoodforum.com">www.ihollywoodforum.com 
 
_______________________________________________
enum mailing list
enum at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum

---

From: Ray Anderson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2005 04:53:10 -0400

At 13:45 18/07/2005, Pfautz, Penn L, NEO wrote:
Ray:
We could argue about whether these are ENUM requirements.  And use
of numbers within assigned E.164 country codes is largely a national
matter. But at least within the United States the reachability assumption
is likely to hold and use of NANP numbers for purposes such as you
describe (pure DNS indexes) are likely to be discouraged by regulators.

Penn
Pfautz
I believe that some regulators will allow "free issue" of large
blocks of ENUM "space" for non voice purposes
I also think that the ability to "change" your ENUM DNS records
is a good clue that you "own" that number, so
it is possible to use ENUM as a way of cost effectively verifying who
"owns" an E.164 number