Subject: [Enum] ENUM at ITU-T SG2

From: "Stastny Richard" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 May 2006 18:11:00 +0200

Folks,
 
this week the ITU-T SG2 Meeting took place in Geneva and I would
like to report what happened related to ENUM:
 
SG2 Opening Plenary:
 
regading the Consultation on ENUM issues in Annex 3
of the TSB Collective letter 3/2
http://www.itu.int/md/meetingdoc.asp?lang=en&parent=T05-SG02-COL

the following was discussed:

13.        The Chairman noted that no contributions had been submitted concerning item 7(c) of the agenda regarding the consultation on ENUM issues contained in Annex 3 of Collective 3/2, and proposed that that item be considered closed for this meeting.  It was so agreed.

COM 2 - D 103 from the United Kingdom asks why Annex 3 to Collective-letter 3/2 was used to specifically request input on this specific subject to this meeting.  The Chairman noted that, as stated in Annex 3 of Collective-letter 3/2, "One country invited the Director of TSB to consult with relevant parties to explore solutions to the issues raised in COM 2 - D 20" and there was no opposition to that invitation.  After informal discussions with some Member States, it appeared that issuing Annex 3 was the most appropriate method to conduct the consultation.

13.1      Syria stated that, in its understanding, this action had been agreed by the study group.

13.2      Sweden noted that infrastructure ENUM might raise related issues, and refered to TD 207 (GEN), which will be discussed in Q.1.

Meeting of SG2 Q1:
 
- the ENUM interim procedures where proposed to be approved for another year at
the closing SG2 Plenary (which was done)
 
- regarding the proposed settlement agreement between IAB, ICANN
and Versign it was proposed that a liaison should be sent to the IAB 
reminding them of the desire of SG2 to be kept informed of such changes.
 
- regarding the two drafts on Infrastructure ENUM:
"During the discussion of these aforementioned two contributions it was mentioned that these documents were for information to the participants of Q1 and that no action was required.  It was also mentioned that these drafts are still under development and have not been finalized but were submitted to SG2 in order to make the Q1 participants aware of IETF activities that may have future impacts.  It was suggested that any of the Q1 participants who wants to be active in these IETF activities can participate by joining the IETF ENUM working group.  It is expected that the IETF will make a decision on Infrastructure ENUM in the Fall 2006 timeframe."

ENUM was also mentioned and discussed in the 
E.164 Supplement 2 on Number Portability Appendix 1:

"During the discussion, it was agreed to incorporate the draft text in D81 into Appendix 1 of the Number Portability supplement.  It was also agreed that the text needs to be modified and additional scenarios added therefore; the entire text will be represented in brackets to reflect the draft nature of the text.  It was pointed out that the purpose of the Supplement is to provide guidance and information on the various Number Portability scenarios in an IP and NGN environment.  It was pointed out that the focus appears to be on ENUM but there are other solutions that need to be considered. Based on the need to continue the work, a correspondence group was formed to progress the work before the next meeting of SG2.  It is the goal of the correspondence group to provide an updated version of the text by the next meeting. During the meeting D90 and D81 were combined and the baseline text is provided in TD GEN 218.  This would then be the baseline text for the correspondence group."

(Remark: although other "solutions" were mentioned none of the parties
pointing out this could come up with a concrete alternative on my request.)

for the full text of the sections regarding ENUM of the Q1 Report see below

regards
Richard

>From SG2 Q1 Report TD 107rev5 (WP1/2):

3.12      ENUM 

TD GEN 173 Add.1 and Add. 2 (TSB) provided information on .arpa management. The TSB provided information about the recent settlement with VeriSign, specifically the agreement to transition the root server management, with respect to the .arpa domain.  These documents provided the response to the comments made by the IAB, ICANN and VeriSign negotiated in January of 2006 a new version of their proposed settlement agreement and Add.2 provided the proposed settlement agreement between ICANN and VeriSign that was approved by the ICANN Board on 28 February 2006.  These documents were informational in nature and submitted by the TSB, but it was pointed out during the discussion that the source of the information was the TSB and not in the form of a liaison from the IAB.  It had been previously stated that SG2 would like to stay informed of any changes to the e164 domain.  Therefore, it was proposed that a liaison should be sent to the IAB reminding them of the desire of SG2 to be kept informed of such changes.  The liaison is contained in TD PLEN 15.

TD 92 (Chair, Internet Architecture Board) contained a Liaison to SG2 regarding update to contact information for e164.arpa.  This document informed the SG2 on the IAB updating the contact information in WHOIS entry, including e164.arpa.  It was noted that this is not a substantive change, but merely a change of address as the IETF (and hence the IAB) have changed support organization structures recently. This document was for information and no further action was required.

TD GEN 207 (TSB) contained the Internet Draft on the e.164 to Uniform Resource Identifiers (URI) Dynamic Delegation Discovery System (DDS) Application for Infrastructure ENUM. ENUM as originally defined, was based on the end-user opt-in principle. While it is possible that service providers could mandate that their users opt-in into e164.arpa through end-user contract terms and conditions, there are substantial downsides to such an approach.  Thus, for all these reasons and many others, ENUM for end-user provisioning is ill-suited for use by service providers for the interconnection of VoIP domains.  As VoIP evolves and becomes pervasive, E.164-addressed telephone calls need not necessarily traverse the Public Switched Telephone Network (PSTN).  Therefore, VoIP service providers have an interest in using ENUM, on a so-called "Infrastructure" basis, to keep VoIP traffic on IP networks on an end-to-end basis, both within and between service provider domains.

TD GEN 195 Rev1 (TSB) contained a Internet draft on Infrastructure ENUM requirements.    This document provides requirements for "infrastructure" or "carrier" ENUM to facilitate interconnection of networks for E.164 number addressed services, in particular but not restricted to VoIP.

During the discussion of these aforementioned two contributions it was mentioned that these documents were for information to the participants of Q1 and that no action was required.  It was also mentioned that these drafts are still under development and have not been finalized but were submitted to SG2 in order to make the Q1 participants aware of IETF activities that may have future impacts.  It was suggested that any of the Q1 participants who wants to be active in these IETF activities can participate by joining the IETF ENUM working group.  It is expected that the IETF will make a decision on Infrastructure ENUM in the Fall 2006 timeframe.

D108 (Korea) withdrew the contribution to this meeting due to the inability of the contributor to introduce the document to this meeting due to urgent business matter.  It was stated that this contribution will be carried forward to the next meeting of SG2.

TD PLEN 12 (TSB) contained the two ENUM Interim Procedures; ENUM Administration and Interim plus Interim Procedures for the delegation of E.164 Shared Country Codes for Networks and Groups of Countries.  At a previous meeting of SG2, it was agreed that the participants should review and approve these guidelines at least once in a calendar year.  Since this is the only meeting of SG2 in 2006, the Q1 participants reviewed both interim procedures, made no modifications, and are advising that these be approved at the closing plenary of SG2.

3.9        Number Portability Supplement 

D 90 (Editor, Number Portability Supplement) contains the version of E.164 Supplement 2 on Number Portability as discussed at the December meeting of SG2 and includes all changes proposed in a previous Anatel contribution.

D81 (Telekom Austria) proposed text to be included in the Number Portability Supplement Appendix 1.

During the discussion, it was agreed to incorporate the draft text in D81 into Appendix 1 of the Number Portability supplement.  It was also agreed that the text needs to be modified and additional scenarios added therefore; the entire text will be represented in brackets to reflect the draft nature of the text.  It was pointed out that the purpose of the Supplement is to provide guidance and information on the various Number Portability scenarios in an IP and NGN environment.  It was pointed out that the focus appears to be on ENUM but there are other solutions that need to be considered. Based on the need to continue the work, a correspondence group was formed to progress the work before the next meeting of SG2.  It is the goal of the correspondence group to provide an updated version of the text by the next meeting. During the meeting D90 and D81 were combined and the baseline text is provided in TD GEN 218.  This would then be the baseline text for the correspondence group.

Additionally, it was proposed that the ITU website be updated to provide the status of number portability implementation in each country.  To address this proposal, the participants agreed to form an Ad-Hoc group to develop a draft Circular to determine the format and type of number portability information required.  The draft Circular is contained in TD PLEN 30.  

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