Subject: RE: [Enum] A proposal for Carrier ENUM

From: "Nieminen Klaus" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 16:38:27 +0300

Penn, Michael and all, 

My message was that in most cases we do have the required information
available and I think that we should not focus on the implementation
details in this question. As Penn mentioned, I believe that these issues
can be solved.

However, there are cases that may cause problems and my question is:
Should we take also these cases into account in our work or do you think
that this is should more likely to be solved nationally?

- Klaus -

-----Original Message-----
From: Pfautz, Penn L, NEO [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: 11. lokakuuta 2005 16:26
To: Nieminen Klaus; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [Enum] A proposal for Carrier ENUM

Klaus:
Unfortunately not all portability implementations use network databases
(I assume it's network databases rather Rather than admin ones to which
you refer) Maybe some of those whose countries use "onward routing" etc.
can confirm whether there is any centralized database outside of the
network detailing those arrangements. 

Nonetheless, I do think that for the most part it will be possible to
determine who the carrier providing the PSTN point of interface for an
E.164 number is and thus the carrier-of-record for carrier ENUM. If this
information were not generally available the E.164 number would not be
of much use anyway. I could think of workarounds even in the
non-centralized LNP situations and, frankly, if those cause some pain,
if should be thought of in terms of penance for making an erroneous
choice with respect to the implementation of number portability. (:-)

The day may/should/will come when interconnection is all IP-based and
some form of ENUM Registry IS the database of record for number
assignment and then we can have a debate about what it means to be
carrier of record again, but for now the approach of using the entity
that provides the number assignment/PSTN PoI is, I think, quite
workable.

Penn Pfautz

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
Nieminen Klaus
Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2005 9:00 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [Enum] A proposal for Carrier ENUM

Hello, 

One clarification:

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf
Of Stastny Richard
> Sent: 11. lokakuuta 2005 14:28
> To: Antoin Verschuren; [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: [Enum] A proposal for Carrier ENUM
> 
>> In the private contract between the terminating party and number 
>> holder, the terminating party can simply insist that the contract is
only
>> valid (they can only offer the service) if the number holder enters
his 
>> numberblock in the Carier ENUM tree, delegating it to the terminating

>> party. The carrier ENUM tree is then simply the place where a 
>> carrier-of-record is defined, as the NRA does not have this
information.
>
> Is it true that the NRA does not have this information?

At least in some cases NRAs do not have information about the network
that serves the numbers directly assigned to the users. I do not know,
if the same problem exists also for number ranges assigned to telcos,
but I assume that this may be tha case at least for numbers that are
further delegated to other service providers (e.g. Skype) by a contract.

For ported numbers I believe that all implementations involve the use of
databases that contain information on the network with which ported
numbers are associated. Therefore this should not be a problem.

regards,

- Klaus -
___________________________________________
KLAUS NIEMINEN
Senior Adviser
Finnish Communications Regulatory Authority Internet and Information
Security P.O. Box 313
FIN-00181 HELSINKI
FINLAND
tel.: +358 9 6966 634
fax: +358 9 6966 873
e-mail: [email-masked]
www: http://www.ficora.fi

_______________________________________________
enum mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum

_______________________________________________
enum mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum

---

From: Richard Shockey <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 10:19:59 -0400

Nieminen Klaus wrote:

Penn, Michael and all,

Clearly these are national issues but this brings up the subject of how
much information any ENUM registry should keep, carrier or public.

This a well known issue in classic domain registry operations ..the
Thick vs Thin model of Registry. Time and Time again its has been
conclusively shown that the maintance of a Thick Registry is in the
long term best interests of all parties.

One of the things this WG has done is move forward IRIS EREG as a
potential repository for information associated with a TN that might be
useful to NRA -  LEA etc.

In the US ENUM TAC LLC requirements document we specified the use of
IRIS for "Contact-Info"

http://enumllc.com/tac/docs/t1b/V7-052605_TAC_Tier1B-Reqs.doc

Penn is right .. the situation in Europe is complicated by the lack of
independent registry data associated with a TN. Way too often the
incumbent i is permitted to hold such data which complicates the
process of NP.

It is clear that many European countries now realize the disadvantages
of centeralized databases and are reconsidering their options. IMHO the
Thick ENUM registry is the only way to go ..its only then a question of
what data is necessary to keep centrally and how that data is protected
by various privacy regulations etc.

NRA's looking at Carrier ENUM should consider carefully what
requirements are necessary to maintain ligitimate centralzed ancillary
data on a TN that might be useful in the future.

- Klaus -

-----Original Message-----
From: Pfautz, Penn L, NEO [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: 11. lokakuuta 2005 16:26
To: Nieminen Klaus; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [Enum] A proposal for Carrier ENUM

Klaus:

Penn Pfautz

-----Original Message-----

Hello,

One clarification:

-----Original Message-----

Of Stastny Richard

only

his

information.

regards,

- Klaus -

--

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>
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

---

From: Richard Shockey <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 10:55:13 -0400

> of centeralized databases and are reconsidering their options. IMHO 
> the Thick ENUM registry is the only way to go ..its only then a 
> question of what data is necessary to keep centrally and how that data 
> is protected by various privacy regulations etc.

Oops ..I meant many countries ( and incumbents ) now realize the 
_advantages_ of centralized databases for Number Portability and NRA's 
are reconsidering their options.

The fact is that call forwarding aka "onward routing" eventually places 
an unacceptable burden on the incumbents infrastructure. The PSTN is 
beginning to learn what the Internet knew from the beginning is that you 
need a formal abstraction between naming ( the TN ) and network 
addressing ( the routing number) and that the PSTN needs to evolve to a 
"all call query" model.

--

---

From: Michael Haberler <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2005 15:38:10 +0200

At 16:55 11.10.2005, Richard Shockey wrote:

>The fact is that call forwarding aka "onward routing" eventually 
>places an unacceptable burden on the incumbents infrastructure. The 
>PSTN is beginning to learn what the Internet knew from the beginning 
>is that you need a formal abstraction between naming ( the TN ) and 
>network addressing ( the routing number) and that the PSTN needs to 
>evolve to a "all call query" model.

Ok, it's out - Austria has no such NP database.

So I had the idea to - in the context of emergency call support - 
collate that database, by starting with the blocks allocated DB from 
the NRA, tap into the porting data flow, and add that to the DB 
incrementally. Over time that would become a pretty good picture. 
And, in exchange for better support of emergency service operators, , 
tapping into the data flow should be socially acceptable, right?

Right - BUT it turned out that this kind of data flow is largely a 
paper flow - by fax (except for MNP, where the operators *FTP diff 
files* around..)

-Michael