Subject: RE: [Enum] please post issues from yesterdays session

From: "Livingood, Jason" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 09:07:09 -0500

> apologies for jumping in, I did not completely follow this 
> thread being busy otherwise, but could anybody please explain 
> to me how this is intended to be implemented technically?
> 
> > (b) openly available, but possibly on a national basis and 
> subject to 
> > or in accordance with national
> regulatory
> > policy,
> 
> How is data in the DNS openly available, but only on a national basis?

Below is the full text of section 3, as it stands right now, for your
review.

To answer your question, we see three ways this could be distributed:
1.  ("a" in the list below) Privately.  For example, by agreement
between a data provider (Verisign, Telcordia, Neustar, etc.) and a
service provider.

2.  ("c" in the list below) Distributed by the NRA or other industry
organization.  For example, in Austria, you may decide to create an
industry group to enable LNP and then have that entity distribute the
data via these NAPTRs to member companies or other relevant users inside
and outside of Austria in accordance with whatever policy is put in
place by the group or NRA.  

3.  ("b" in the list below -- this is the one you are questioning)
Openly available.  For example, in Austria, you create NAPTRs for LNP
and make it available to anyone who wishes to use it but in accordance
with rules of the NRA.

These items have evolved quickly over the past few days.  I think what
you have done is pointed out a flaw in the logic that has developed
between options "c" and "b."  

Perhaps it is best to simply leave "b" as "openly available" and make
"c" read as such: (c) distributed by the relevant number portability
organization or other industry organization, <ADDED TEXT> but possibly
on a national basis and subject to or in accordance with national
regulatory policy </ADDED TEXT>.

Thoughts on this?

===============================
3. Distribution of Data

The distribution of number portability data is often highly restricted
either by contract or regulation of a National Regulatory Authority
(NRA), therefore NAPTR records specified herein may or may not be part
of the e164.arpa DNS tree.

The NAPTR records described herein probably would not be part of the
e164.arpa DNS tree.  Distribution of this NAPTR data would be either (a)
on a private basis (within a service provider's internal network, or on
a private basis between one or more parties using a variety of security
mechanisms to prohibit general public access), (b) openly available, but
possibly on a national basis and subject to or in accordance with
national regulatory policy, or (c) distributed by the relevant number
portability organization or other industry organization.

The authors believe that it is more likely that these records will be
distributed on a purely private basis.  If such data was distributed
nationally, the national telephone numbering authority, or some other
regulatory body or numbering organization, may have jurisdiction.  Such
a body may choose to restrict distribution of the data in such a way
that it may not pass over that country's national borders.  How number
portability data is collected and distributed is out of scope of this
document.

Jason

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

---

From: Richard Shockey <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 09:58:48 -0500

> between a data provider (Verisign, Telcordia, Neustar, etc.) and a

Exactly ... this BTW is how LNP data is distrubuted now in the US via a 
private d/l ( known as a LSMS interface) into a network service 
providers signalling infrastructure. There it is merged with other 
internal signalling data to create a comprehensive routing table.

In PSTN terms this is known as a Service Control Point or SCP.

> and make it available to anyone who wishes to use it but in accordance

Just because we do it this way in the US does not mean that it has to be 
that way in other jurisdictions. Policy over LNP data is presumed to be 
a national matter.

> between options "c" and "b."  

What seems to confuse everyone looking at this is the difference between 
the DNS as the global distributed directory for domain names and the use 
of DNS "technology" as a query response mechanism to a database.

The use case here is for the query response to a highly cached local 
database of routing data to be DNS. Of course it could be SIP redirect 
but the DNS is prefered for several reasons, principally speed and the 
ability to look at multiple trees internally cached or externally 
visable for a SIP proxy or other network element to delier the data 
necessary for a routing decision.

The use case justification is that major service providers want the 
query to be executed as close to the network elements as possible for 
speed redundancy and optimization.

This then puts a burden on T1 like registries to be able to PUSH data 
into private network configurations.

-- 

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