Subject: Re: [Enum] RE: ENUM Working Group Last call on InfrastructureENUM Requirements

From: "Stastny Richard" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2006 21:14:01 +0200

Tony,
 
if you post such cryptic numbers and letters (47 CFR Part 52) on this list, coild
you please be more specific
 
You should also consider that the IETF is a global standards body and
that there are some 200+ other countries out there
 
Richard

________________________________

Von: Tony Rutkowski [mailto:[email-masked]]
Gesendet: Mo 24.04.2006 20:46
An: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Betreff: Re: [Enum] RE: ENUM Working Group Last call on InfrastructureENUM Requirements

Hi Penn

Interesting document.  Are you filing a petition
for rulemaking for change to the 47 CFR Part 52 to
implement it?

--tony

_______________________________________________
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: Tony Rutkowski <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2006 10:55:27 +0100

Hi Richard,

>that there are some 200+ other countries out there

Apologies for the U.S.-centric reference.  Part 52 of
the FCC's regulations establish the basis for exclusive
authority, administrative mechanisms, and substantive
requirements for the use of E.164 numbers in the U.S.
http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_05/47cfr52_05.html

The remark was intended to raise the challenge of devising
any "Infrastructure ENUM Requirements" in an IETF document,
including definitions, when the actual authority to articulate
just about everything in the document resides with national
regulatory authorities.  Typically, to produce what is contained
in the document, must be undertaken through a public rule
making or consultative process.  Few, if any, have done so.

While writing an IETF draft document on infrastructure ENUM
may have some useful benefit among the participants, the
actual implementation of the desired E.164 resolver capabilities
as part of national infrastructures will require the national
authority to undertake a proceeding to accomplish this task.

--tony

---

From: "Brian Rosen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2006 09:08:11 -0400

It would seem you are confusing implementation of any type of enum with IETF
practice on how a single global standard for enum is produced.  I do not
recall any prior restraint of international standards work for national
regulatory action.  I fail to see any difference between infrastructure enum
and user enum from a regulatory point of view.  I don't recall the FCC
requiring actual rule making to allow user enum, which certainly affects the
use of e.164 numbers in the U.S., and I don't expect any regulatory action
affecting infrastructure enum.  Actually, since infrastructure enum more
closely represents current carrier practice than user enum does, I would
have expected any regulatory action on that before we would see any on
infrastructure enum.  However, the FCC seems content to allow the current
process to continue without action.  I'd expect the same of infrastructure
enum.

Of course, predicting what any government agency will do is, ah,
challenging, IANAL and thus YMMV.

Brian

-----Original Message-----
From: Tony Rutkowski [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2006 5:55 AM
To: Stastny Richard; [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [Enum] RE: ENUM Working Group Last call onInfrastructureENUM
Requirements

Hi Richard,

--tony

---

From: Andrew Newton <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2006 12:32:38 -0400

> making or consultative process.  Few, if any, have done so.

Really!?  Can the FCC dictate how E.164 numbers are used in vCard?  Can 
the FCC dictate how E.164 numbers are used on web sites?  Can the FCC 
dictate how E.164 numbers are written on napkins and post-it notes?

Somehow I doubt their power is that far reaching.  But if it is, I 
propose we let the rest of the world get on with the business of 
developing an infrastructure ENUM protocol while the U.S. govt wallows 
in its own bureaucratic pig sty.

-andy