February 2005 - enum-wg - mailman.ripe.net

regulator prohibiting current practice of use of +49 numbers for voip, update
by Chris Heinze 24 May '05

24 May '05

hi! we had that some time ago. now it's getting more concrete: http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/51877 (german only again, sorry) short summary: regtp (the german regulator) now prohibits (voip) providers in general to give phonenumbers to users that do not live in the area of the respective prefix or have their company located there. this is effective from october 15th. btw: the non-regional prefix under +49 is still not in sight. so - of course :) - i have to mention the 'proposal for non-regional upts available to the general public' again. everyone interested in possible solutions to many voip-specific problems with e.164 numbers should really read this (can be found in the archive of this mailinglist). kind regards, Chris Heinze

2 3

RE: [enum-wg] FYI: ComReg issues proposal for VoIP numbers
by Lupton, Ronan 22 Feb '05

22 Feb '05

Carsten et al. For full text of the ComReg nomadic VoIP numbering proposal please visit this link: http://www.comreg.ie/_fileupload/publications/ComReg0512.pdf You will note treatment of ENUM service is not specifically within the scope of this consultation but dealt with in http://www.comreg.ie/_fileupload/publications/ComReg04103.pdf pages 19 and 20. We are working with the ENUM forum via ComReg and the government separately. Thanks, Ronan P.S. apologies for the HTML. Ronan Lupton Senior Regulatory Manager & EMEA Interconnect Policy MCI International Affairs MCI Lower Erne St. Dublin 2. Ireland Tel: +353-1-2474525 Fax: +353-1-2474545 GSM: +353-87-2053215 Vnet: +451-4525 ENUM: 8.8.8.9.6.0.5.1.3.5.3.e164.arpa mailto:ronan.lupton@ie.mci.com -----Original Message----- From: enum-wg-admin(a)ripe.net [mailto:enum-wg-admin@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Carsten Schiefner Sent: 22 February 2005 13:45 To: enum-wg(a)ripe.net Subject: [enum-wg] FYI: ComReg issues proposal for VoIP numbers All, Friday last week, Telecom.paper reported on a draft direction by Irish ComReg to allow access to the new '076' number range for VoIP services: http://www.telecompaper.com/index.asp?t=a&i=68293&n=730 === Ireland's Commission for Communications Regulation (ComReg) has issued draft Directions to allow access to the new '076' number range for VoIP services. Last October, ComReg made the 076 phone number range available to telecoms providers. To date, telecoms providers have not succeeded in negotiating terms that would allow 076 numbers to be connected to the wider telecoms network. ComReg is intervening to assist industry put in place, a preliminary framework for prices and settlements. Specifically, ComReg's draft directions propose two price points to facilitate telephone calls to VoIP numbers. ComReg will accept responses to the draft directions from interested parties up until the 3 March. === It wasn't possible to get that confirmed by ComReg's website, though. Best regards, Carsten Schiefner

2 1

FYI: ComReg issues proposal for VoIP numbers
by Carsten Schiefner 22 Feb '05

22 Feb '05

All, Friday last week, Telecom.paper reported on a draft direction by Irish ComReg to allow access to the new ’076’ number range for VoIP services: http://www.telecompaper.com/index.asp?t=a&i=68293&n=730 === Ireland’s Commission for Communications Regulation (ComReg) has issued draft Directions to allow access to the new ’076’ number range for VoIP services. Last October, ComReg made the 076 phone number range available to telecoms providers. To date, telecoms providers have not succeeded in negotiating terms that would allow 076 numbers to be connected to the wider telecoms network. ComReg is intervening to assist industry put in place, a preliminary framework for prices and settlements. Specifically, ComReg’s draft directions propose two price points to facilitate telephone calls to VoIP numbers. ComReg will accept responses to the draft directions from interested parties up until the 3 March. === It wasn't possible to get that confirmed by ComReg's website, though. Best regards, Carsten Schiefner

1 0

Re: [enum-wg] ITU: debate over User-ENUM administration
by Jim Reid 14 Feb '05

14 Feb '05

>>>>> "Niall" == Niall O'Reilly <niall.oreilly(a)ucd.ie> writes: >> So "ENUM has nothing to do with assignment of E.164 numbers or >> national number plans", does it? What drugs are you on and >> where can I get some? :-) Niall> It seems it's time for me to have a 'booster-shot' of clue. Niall> I may not be the only one on the list who would benefit. Niall> As I understood things, Christian's statement is _formally_ Niall> correct, since ENUM is for embedding _already-assigned_ Niall> E.164 numbers in the DNS. That's not what he said. It may have been what he meant. Christian said "ENUM has nothing to do with assignment of E.164 numbers or national number plans". True, ENUM has no bearing on how E.164 numbers are assigned. Or how national numbering plans are administered. But since entries under e164.arpa should correspond to assigned E.164 numbers according to the national numbering plan, ENUM does reflect how assignment of E.164 numbers are done. ENUM is not the expression in the DNS of some random digit strings. Christian's remarks can be read as implying ENUM has no relationship to E.164 assignments or numbering plans. Even so, ENUM does have something to do with national numbering plans. Obviously the registrations under <CC>.e164.arpa should correspond to the national numbering plan. For example in the UK context, it's not (yet) possible to register premium-rate and free phone numbers under 4.4.e164.arpa because authenticating them is too hard. These numbers live in ranges that have been set aside for those purposes in the national numbering plan. Similar problems could arise with DDI blocks, number ranges set aside for VoIP or DSL, etc etc. Thus ENUM is a representation of the national (and international) numbering plan. That's hardly "nothing to do with it".

7 8

RE: [enum-wg] ITU: debate over User-ENUM administration
by Stastny Richard 14 Feb '05

14 Feb '05

> > "Holders of E.164 numbers which want to be listed in DNS > > should contact the appropriate zone administrator according to the > > policy which is attached to the zone." BTW, "holders" is IETF speak, ITU speak should is "assignees" Andrzey wrote: > In Poland, only TSP may apply for the ENUM domain names. Ok, Poland is infrastructure/carrier ENUM in disguise of User ENUM and therefore a special case ;-) Richard > -----Original Message----- > From: enum-wg-admin(a)ripe.net [mailto:enum-wg-admin@ripe.net] On Behalf Of > Andrzej Bartosiewicz > Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2005 2:05 PM > To: 'Alexander Mayrhofer'; enum-wg(a)ripe.net > Cc: 'Niall O'Reilly'; 'Jim Reid' > Subject: RE: [enum-wg] ITU: debate over User-ENUM administration > > > "Holders of E.164 numbers which want to be listed in DNS > > should contact the appropriate zone administrator according to the > > policy which is attached to the zone." > > > > One could interpret that as "only holders may apply". > > In Poland, only TSP may apply for the ENUM domain names. > > E164 number is not the "product" or stand-alone "service", but the part of > agreement between TSP and Subscriber. > > Andrzej.

2 1

ERG to discuss VoIP
by Carsten Schiefner 13 Feb '05

13 Feb '05

All, FYI: during its upcoming meeting, the ERG - the European Regulators Group - will also discuss VoIP related issues to come to a common position eventually. Although not 100% ENUM related, this nonetheless might be of some interest to the Working Group. Best, Carsten -------- Original Message -------- Subject: ERG's eleventh plenary meeting - agenda and debriefing session Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2004 13:04:20 +0100 From: erg(a)cec.eu.int Agenda for the eleventh plenary meeting of the European Regulators Group The agenda for the eleventh plenary meeting ("ERG11") in Brussels 2 - 3 December is now available at http://www.erg.eu.int/meetings/index_en.htm. Highlights include o New action plan and timetable for intensified work with international roaming o Draft Common Position on Voice over IP o Decision on the draft 2005 Work Programme for public consultation The ERG11 debriefing will be held on Monday, 6 December in Brussels at 10 AM. If you wish to attend this, please e-mail to erg-secretariat(a)cec.eu.int <mailto:erg@cec.eu.int> no later than close of business on Wednesday, 1 December. ________________________ European Regulators Group www.erg.eu.int

1 1

Re: [enum-wg] ITU: debate over User-ENUM administration
by Jim Reid 10 Feb '05

10 Feb '05

>>>>> "Christian" == Christian de Larrinaga <cdel(a)firsthand.net> writes: Christian> The scenario suggested by the Mr. Kisrawi has the DoC Christian> striking off .arpa or replacing the IAB authority over Christian> .arpa and the existing delegations in .arpa not being Christian> inherited by any successor "owner". This is a Christian> remarkable plot. Perhaps it could happen Whether it could or couldn't happen is not the point. The problem is some governments are very uneasy that they do not have an understood legal framework for the internet -- contracts, treaties, etc -- as they do for other forms of communication like post and telephone. Without that framework, they feel their national interests are not adequately safeguarded. This hasn't been helped by seeing some countries lose control over their TLDs. The next problem is that ICANN is a US company subject to US jurisdiction, not an offshoot of an international organisation. A fundamental principle of international law is the national resources of one state cannot be under the control of another. The wrangling over e164.arpa at SG2 is a scale model of that larger concern. Please note too that SG2 is largely a forum for governments and regulators. They're used to dealing with regulations, laws and contracts. The culture of the internet -- benign anarchy, liaison statements with organisations that legally do not exist, etc -- is alien to them. And perhaps frightening for some. The point Mr. Kiswari and others is making is not that DoC could pull the plug on .arpa. It's that if this happened, what redress do governments have? Who do they complain to and what power does that body have to resolve the issue? Since there are no contracts or treaties... BTW Christian, the mail server you're using is broken. It's gratuitously mangling email addresses: "enum-wg(a)ripe.net"@smtp.nildram.co.uk <"sob(a)harvard.edu"@smtp.nildram.co.uk> Could you please get this fixed?

1 0

RE: [enum-wg] ITU: debate over User-ENUM administration
by Stastny Richard 10 Feb '05

10 Feb '05

Axel, you are right at the spot, and here is the problem: IETF is a protocol making body, so the data format/message exchange is an IETF issue. To do so, they need requirements for validation, but the requirements are NOT an IETF issue. The question is now, who can come up with the requirements and if there are some, will they be accepted by IETF. There is some possibilities to come up with (global) requirements: either from a regulators club or somebody near (ITU-T?) or from a club of Registries and Registrars dealing with ENUM in practice, bringing in and harmonizing their national requirements. Richard > -----Original Message----- > From: enum-wg-admin(a)ripe.net [mailto:enum-wg-admin@ripe.net] On Behalf Of > Alexander Mayrhofer > Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2005 10:08 AM > To: Conroy, Lawrence (SMTP) > Cc: <enum-wg(a)ripe.net>; Christian de Larrinaga > Subject: Re: [enum-wg] ITU: debate over User-ENUM administration > > Conroy, Lawrence (SMTP) wrote: > > Intiguing - Axel asked the quite reasonable question that it isn't clear > > to the 3.4.e164.arpa. Registry all of the specifics of the policy they > > were required to execute, who gets to set these, and/or whether or not > > any general policies apply to all such registries. > > Lawrence, > > it's perfectly clear to us what the requirements are on a local level - > our regulator did specify that pretty comprehensive. Integrity between > the local numering plan and ENUM is one of the fundamental requirements > in the contract signed between RTR and enum.at. So, locally, we're all > set. > > However, i'm trying to look at the validation issues on a more global > level (imho it doesn't make sense to reinvent the wheel in every country > [again], especially since policy wise i consider E.164/ENUM less > "entropy-burdened" than eg. ccTLD's). > > I asked myself what that basis for validation is, and came to the > conclusion that insuring the integrity between E.164 and ENUM is what > validation is really about. > > > In most countries, the Government or its anointed agency decides on the > > delegation policy to be applied for delegations in ->their<- zone. > > > > It's their zone because the E.164.arpa. delegation policies as executed > > by RIPE-NCC and the TSB reflect in the IAB/ITU agreements and the ITU's > > interim procedures. The interim procedures in turn reflect the E.164 > > assignment process. > > > > Does each country have a right to choose the specifics of its delegation > > policies? Of course. My chosen delegation policy for my domain is not > > reflected in RFC1034/1035. Likewise for the holder of 3.4.e164.arpa., > > which Richard points out is RTR. > > > > Now... coming back to the original thread - > > > > The reasonable legal concerns are over whether the ITU is sure that the > > interim agreement will continue to be executed, without a formal > agreement > > with the legal entity that controls the parent zone from which the ENUM > > apex was/is delegated. > > Well, i'm still an engineer, so i'm not so much concerned about legal > aspects [yet] ;). I'm just asking myself if it makes any sense to bring > up documents about ENUM Validation at the IETF if (and that's how i > interpret the previous posts) the WG has concerns about even noting that > this strict relationship between E.164 and ENUM exists. What should i > base my document on? Who would support it, when it talks about something > which the IETF doesn't care about? > > If we exclude the whole "administrative" stuff about validation from the > IETF, it essentially boils down to a data format / message exchange > standard for validation information (for which already 2 I-D's exist). > If i remember it correctly, there has not been much interest in those > two drafts, because they presented solutions to a problem of which most > of the attendees were unaware - the conclusion was the recommendation > that we should provide a "requirements" draft for validation. > > Now that i'm working on this requirements stuff, it turns out that > there's no fundamental basis for that (IETF-wise) because the IETF does > not want/ cannot make clear what the relation ENUM/E.164 is all about. > What should we do? Drop the "validation" topic in IETF completely, and > take it to a local level (wheel reinventing in every country...)? I > don't consider that a good solution... > > comments appreciated. > > cheers > > axelm

2 1

RE: [enum-wg] ITU: debate over User-ENUM administration
by Christian de Larrinaga 09 Feb '05

09 Feb '05

Richard Stastny wrote.. > Christian writes: > > If he is referring to e164.arpa then that is one thing if he is > referring > > to .arpa itself then that is quite another (I think!) > > Not really. > I disagree it is a really distinctive change because .arpa has other delegations and constituencies to consider apart from ENUM. For instance every reverse DNS entry in the world! This is why escalating up the tree from e164.arpa to .arpa has enormous implications for Internet users well beyond the very limited scope of ENUM itself. > The legal mess in the root and .arpa is (was) not of ITU-T's concern, > although they want to get in helpful to solve the problem ;-) > Well it is perhaps byzantine.:-) There may well be room for improvement :-) but there are as Jim noted plenty of voices that believe the current "structure" gives strength through diversity and it works! Some credit is due for that. The scenario suggested by the Mr. Kisrawi has the DoC striking off .arpa or replacing the IAB authority over .arpa and the existing delegations in .arpa not being inherited by any successor "owner". This is a remarkable plot. Perhaps it could happen but the whole Internet from root operators down the delegation trees would have to take up the changes and the DoC and the ITU will have to recognise that if people down the delegation trees don't like the changes they can do their own thing. Particularly if they are not US based. Also I hesitate to think of the reaction from countries around the world if the DoC behaved in such an arbitrary and overbearing way. So the scenario that is being raised by Mr. Kisrawi to justify the logic of the argument is apocalyptic. It does not seem reasonable as it is not based on experience of Internet management to date. We may internationally believe that the DoC as a national regulator for the US should step away from having final sayso over Internet resources that are considered international but the US has been a good responsible mothership for internetworking as has the role played by the IAB. > Now with ENUM suddenly e164.arpa IS of ITU-T's concern, and it is > only logical that they want to have a sound legal basis here. > Logic is not the issue! The issue is whether you cut or unravel the DNS knot and having done that how do you put it back together again in a way that does at least as good a job as we have today. Humpty dumpty sat on a wall, Humpty Dumpty had a great fall, all the kings horses and all the kings men couldn't put Humpty together again! (to quote an ancient British verse). > But since the question of the legal basis of e164.arpa leads > to the question of the legal basis of .arpa and this leads > finally to the question of the legal basic of the root itself. > > Nabil's chain of thought is only logical. but it misses the point that the higher up to the root you go the greater the number of constituencies implicated in any changes. There is significant impact in reverse engineering populated hierarchical structures. In particular when these are self governing and independent of each other organisationally. That is why it is sensible for ITU-T as the good netizen it is to clearly demarcate between operational measures to get services established today and the longer range (and genuine) governance issues concerning internationalisation and accountability over Internet resources. Christian

1 0

Re: [enum-wg] ITU: debate over User-ENUM administration
by Jim Reid 09 Feb '05

09 Feb '05

>>>>> "Alexander" == Alexander Mayrhofer <axelm(a)nic.at> writes: >> ..... But since entries under e164.arpa should correspond to >> assigned E.164 numbers according to the national numbering >> plan, ENUM does reflect how assignment of E.164 numbers are >> done. Alexander> slightly OT, but since i'm currently looking for this Alexander> in the scope of validation - Which document does Alexander> formally specify this tie between E.164 and ENUM? There isn't one as far as I know. This is a self-evident truth that shouldn't need to be documented. However there is usually a requirement from the regulator that ENUM registrations are authenticated and validated. If that applies, it follows that ENUM entries in that country have to be for assigned numbers that conform to the national numbering plan. Alexander> So, where's the place to look for (or add) this requirement? I've no idea. It shouldn't be in an update to RFC3761 IMO. That would take the IETF into the rathole of defining what "ownership" of an E.164 number meant. I'm not sure this requirement should be globally documented since it concerns a National Matter. Perhaps the regulator should issue something?

1 0