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

CORRECTION: [enum-wg] Call for RIPE 51(!) agenda topics
by Carsten Schiefner 23 Jun '05

23 Jun '05

[Apologies...] Dear all, this is the first call for agenda items for the ENUM WG meeting at RIPE 51 in Amsterdam. Please send in suggestions and proposals. Thanks and best regards, Carsten Schiefner

1 0

Call for RIPE 50 agenda topics
by Carsten Schiefner 23 Jun '05

23 Jun '05

Dear all, this is the first call for agenda items for the ENUM WG meeting at RIPE 51 in Amsterdam. Please send in suggestions and proposals. Thanks and best regards, Carsten Schiefner

1 0

FYI: new list for ENUM +353 Interest Group
by Niall O'Reilly 21 Jun '05

21 Jun '05

Hello RIPE ENUM-WG-ers. Some of you may be interested to know that the ENUM +353 Interest Group mailing list has recently been set up. Membership of this list is entirely open, as is access to the archives. Sending of messages to the list is restricted to those who are already members. Archives are at https://listserv.heanet.ie/enum-353-ig.html. Best regards, Niall O'Reilly UCD Computing Services PGP key ID: AE995ED9 (see www.pgp.net) Fingerprint: 23DC C6DE 8874 2432 2BE0 3905 7987 E48D AE99 5ED9

2 3

Discuss: draft-hoeneisen-enum-validation-epp-01
by Bernie Hoeneisen 13 Jun '05

13 Jun '05

Hi! As some of you know, in the IETF, there is some work on-going concerning ENUM and validation of E.164 numbers. At the IETF-62 in Minneapolis. the draft referred below has been approved as a Working Group item of the IETF ENUM WG: Abstract This document describes an EPP extension framework for mapping information about the validation process that has been applied for the E.164 number (or number range), which the ENUM domain name is based on. Specified in XML, this mapping extends the EPP domain name mapping to provide an additional feature required for the provisioning of ENUM domain names. URLs * http://ietf.hoeneisen.ch/draft-hoeneisen-enum-validation-epp-01.txt * http://ietf.hoeneisen.ch/draft-hoeneisen-enum-validation-epp-01.html In Switzerland we are running an EPP Server including this extension for the ENUM Tier-1 Registry. So far we did not run into any trouble. I am about to write an update of this draft. So far I have not received any feedback. Does this mean, that everything in there is just fine or that people are not interested / have not read it at all? ;-) Besides the technical and other feedback, I'd be interested: - Who is planning to use this EPP extension for ENUM? - Who cannot use this extensions and what are the reasons? Looking forward for lots of comments! cheers, Bernie Hoeneisen, Switch, Project Manager ENUM

6 8

ENUM WG draft minutes RIPE 50 rev. 1
by Carsten Schiefner 09 Jun '05

09 Jun '05

Dear all, thanks to Oleg Muravskiy of the RIPE NCC for taking the minutes. The first draft is available at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/wg/enum/minutes/r50-minutes.html Please send in any comments and/or corrections you may have. Thanks and best regards, Carsten Schiefner

1 0

Re: [enum-wg] Discuss: draft-hoeneisen-enum-validation-epp-01
by Stastny Richard 07 Jun '05

07 Jun '05

Thanks Axel for this clarification. To clarify this issue, I would propose to change the filename of your draft slightly eg by adding -arch or token Nevertheless there seems to be some overlap. I would suggest that you and Bernie get together and make a proposal for the next IETF on the enum list:to Rich regarding the aganda 1. to make both documents WG items eventually one on standards track and one informational. 2. eventually to move some parts from one document to the other to make them consistent. This could be discussed in Paris. Any comments, Rich? best regards Richard ________________________________ Von: enum-wg-admin(a)ripe.net im Auftrag von Alexander Mayrhofer Gesendet: Di 07.06.2005 09:21 An: Andrzej Bartosiewicz Cc: Bernie Hoeneisen; enum-wg(a)ripe.net Betreff: Re: [enum-wg] Discuss: draft-hoeneisen-enum-validation-epp-01 Andrzej Bartosiewicz wrote: > Bernie, Alexander, > > I'm really interested how similar/different are Switch and ENUM.AT > (draft-mayrhofer-enum-validation-01) solutions... > > Could you guys enumerate the major differences and similarities between > your implementations (Internet-Drafts)? Hi Andrzej and all, first of all, i would like to make sure that we (SWITCH / enum.at) are not competing in terms of validation standards - we are of course talking to each other, and have been working together on the drafts as well. Our intention is to provide a validation infrastructure on which the industry can agree on - my vision is that a registrar working with a registry in at least the EU does not have to take a steep learning curve for each new registry he's talking to. The two drafts cover´quite different parts of the validation "business" (Bernie, i'd like you to correct me if there'S anything wrong with my description): - draft-hoeneisen-enum-validation-epp-01 covers how to embed validation information as an extension in EPP. Additionally, it covers a few validation related fields, which are transported in the extension. The extension itself allows extending the validation related data to additional fields (see Section 4.4) - draft-mayrhofer-enum-validation-00 covers general validation architecture (which might be out of scope for an IETF draft, please comment), and provides a so called "validation token" - an (optionally cryptographically signed) XML document which is used to transport validation related information beyond that specified in bernie's draft. Any feedback on this draft is very much appreciated since i'm going to provide an update of this document for the upcoming IETF. So, those 2 drafts don't contradict each other - they can easily be used together for eg. transporting a validation token via EPP. Once again, i'd appreciate any comments on this - we've been using the validation token in ENUM procudtion enviroments since about half a year, and didn't experience any architectural problems. We are going to adapt the data scheme a bit, eg. we're going to add a "credential" section, where the registrar can provide eg. a passwort, a client certificate fingerprint, IMSI, etc. which the subscriber can in turn use to identify himself upon revalidation. hope that helps cheers Alex Mayrhofer enum.at

2 1

RE: [enum-wg] "production status"?
by Stastny Richard 03 Jun '05

03 Jun '05

Andrzej, what is strange in Poland is > Operator A has registerd in DNS "1000" E164 number > (0.0.0.1.<cc>.e164.arpa) for his customer C. If customer C registered the "1000" number by himself, as everywhere else, the whole problem would not exist. Richard Richard Stastny OeFEG tel:+43 664 420 4100 enum:+43 780 203 211 callto://fordprefect http://voipandenum.blogspot.com > -----Original Message----- > From: enum-wg-admin(a)ripe.net [mailto:enum-wg-admin@ripe.net] On Behalf Of > Andrzej Bartosiewicz > Sent: Friday, June 03, 2005 11:16 AM > To: Adrian Georgescu > Cc: enum-wg(a)ripe.net > Subject: Re: [enum-wg] "production status"? > > Let's imaging the following situation. > > Operator A has registerd in the central database numbering block 1XXX > (1.<cc>.e164.arpa.) > > Operator A has registerd in DNS "1000" E164 number > (0.0.0.1.<cc>.e164.arpa) for his customer C. > > NP is implemented and customer C is porting his number from Operator A to > Operator B > > Finally, customer C is the B's customer for "1000" number and the same > time the (lifelong) Registrar of ENUM number "1000" is... Operator A. > > Customer C MUST always contact Operator A. > > What happens in case of A bankruptcy? > > It sounds strange. > > Andrzej. > > On Fri, 3 Jun 2005, Adrian Georgescu wrote: > > > Andrzej, > > > > I cannot imagine how ENUM registrations could be "canceled", as the > > numbers are delegated based on current administrative policies in > > place. > > Should NP be implemented, ENUM can be an enabler. With fixed numbering > > plans like in .ro delegation of each individual number is possible. > > > > Adrian > > > > On Jun 3, 2005, at 10:49 AM, Andrzej Bartosiewicz wrote: > > > > > As I understand ENUM Registry MUST canclel/terminate all the ENUM > > > registration of the numbering blocks after NP implementation in > > > Romania. > > > > > > Additionally Registry should "transfer" all the ENUM domain names from > > > the > > > Registrars (Operators) to the Registry. Am I right? > > > > > > Andrzej > > > > > > On Fri, 3 Jun 2005, Adrian Georgescu wrote: > > > > > >> Number portability is not possible at this moment, there are plans > for > > >> the near future. > > >> > > >> On Jun 3, 2005, at 10:13 AM, Andrzej Bartosiewicz wrote: > > >> > > >>> Adrian, > > >>> > > >>>> In Romania operators may apply for entering number ranges that are > > >>>> assigned by the telecom regulator under +40 also into e164.arpa. > > >>>> name > > >>>> space. The operator than assigns the numbers to its customers based > > >>>> on > > >>>> internal procedures. > > >>> > > >>> It lookas like that Number Portability can not be implemented in > > >>> Romania. > > >>> What happens if the number range is assigned to operator and after > > >>> that > > >>> some numbers are ported to anoter operator. > > >>> > > >>> Andrzej. > > >> > >

2 1

RE: [enum-wg] regulator prohibiting current practice of use of +4 9 numbers for voip, update
by Schiefner, Carsten 03 Jun '05

03 Jun '05

All, > -----Original Message----- > From: enum-wg-admin(a)ripe.net > [mailto:enum-wg-admin@ripe.net]On Behalf Of > Carsten Schiefner > Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2005 9:48 PM > To: enum-wg(a)ripe.net > Subject: Re: [enum-wg] regulator prohibiting current practice > of use of +49 numbers for voip, update > > [...] > > I'll post the link to the english press release as soon as it becomes > available. here we go: http://www.regtp.de/en/aktuelles/pm/03233/ Best, Carsten -- Carsten Schiefner | p: +49 441 234-4571 Deutsche Telekom T-Com | f: +49 431 7163-3972 TK44 - Network Information Center | Ammerlander Heerstr. 138 | mailto:Carsten.Schiefner@t-com.net D-26129 Oldenburg | http://www.t-com.net

6 13

RE: [enum-wg] "production status"?
by Stastny Richard 03 Jun '05

03 Jun '05

> Can "legal" also mean "self regulation" or a legal framework via a > "contract"? Hmm, I do not think that "self regulation" can work, because somebody (in most cases the regulator is assigned the Tier 1 CC-domain) so he is the domain name holder. A c.c.e164.arpa is some kind of a "sponsored" domain in ICANN speak, so the domain name holder needs at least a contract with the registry (it is his task to choose one if he does not want to do the job by himself, which is not a good idea). In this contract he would write anything you normally write in an outsourcing contract and also the obligations you want to have fulfilled by the subcontracts (e.g registry - registars, etc) and also the number ranges available and how to treat them. Regards Richard Richard Stastny OeFEG tel:+43 664 420 4100 enum:+43 780 203 211 callto://fordprefect http://voipandenum.blogspot.com > -----Original Message----- > From: Joakim.Stralmark(a)pts.se [mailto:Joakim.Stralmark@pts.se] > Sent: Friday, June 03, 2005 10:56 AM > To: Stastny Richard; hotta(a)jprs.co.jp; enum-wg(a)ripe.net > Subject: SV: [enum-wg] "production status"? > > Can "legal" also mean "self regulation" or a ledal framework via a > "contract"? > > Joakim Strålmark > Swedish NRA > > -----Ursprungligt meddelande----- > Från: enum-wg-admin(a)ripe.net [mailto:enum-wg-admin@ripe.net] För Stastny > Richard > Skickat: den 3 juni 2005 10:49 > Till: hotta(a)jprs.co.jp; enum-wg(a)ripe.net > Ämne: Re: [enum-wg] "production status"? > > Hi Hiro, > > none of your points. > > "production" status exists if end-users may subscribe for domains and a > legal framework exists that this subscription is persistent. > > In a trial normally the a subscription is only for the time of the trial > and the user has not right to insist on the service after the trial end > > A legal framework is necessary for "production" because all involved > enties (registry, registars, service providers and customers) want to have > a confirmation that they can build a business on it. > > Especially the point > < it brings money? > is nice. So Amazon is not in production? > > best regards > > Richard > > ________________________________ > > Von: enum-wg-admin(a)ripe.net im Auftrag von HiroHOTTA > Gesendet: Fr 03.06.2005 07:49 > An: enum-wg(a)ripe.net > Betreff: [enum-wg] "production status"? > > > > Dear all (especially, Austria, Poland, and Romania colleagues), > > I have a question about the progress matrix in RIPE web page. > http://www.centr.org/kim/enum/index.html > There is a status called "production" where Austria, Poland, and Romania > are in. What is the definition of "production status" > in your case? In other words, what aspects of your ENUM services are in > production status in your case? - it brings money? > anybody in the public can use? production-quality system? .....? > > Thanks for your assistance. > > Regards, > Hiro > >

1 0

SV: [enum-wg] "production status"?
by Joakim.Stralmark＠pts.se 03 Jun '05

03 Jun '05

Can "legal" also mean "self regulation" or a ledal framework via a "contract"? Joakim Strålmark Swedish NRA -----Ursprungligt meddelande----- Från: enum-wg-admin(a)ripe.net [mailto:enum-wg-admin@ripe.net] För Stastny Richard Skickat: den 3 juni 2005 10:49 Till: hotta(a)jprs.co.jp; enum-wg(a)ripe.net Ämne: Re: [enum-wg] "production status"? Hi Hiro, none of your points. "production" status exists if end-users may subscribe for domains and a legal framework exists that this subscription is persistent. In a trial normally the a subscription is only for the time of the trial and the user has not right to insist on the service after the trial end A legal framework is necessary for "production" because all involved enties (registry, registars, service providers and customers) want to have a confirmation that they can build a business on it. Especially the point < it brings money? is nice. So Amazon is not in production? best regards Richard ________________________________ Von: enum-wg-admin(a)ripe.net im Auftrag von HiroHOTTA Gesendet: Fr 03.06.2005 07:49 An: enum-wg(a)ripe.net Betreff: [enum-wg] "production status"? Dear all (especially, Austria, Poland, and Romania colleagues), I have a question about the progress matrix in RIPE web page. http://www.centr.org/kim/enum/index.html There is a status called "production" where Austria, Poland, and Romania are in. What is the definition of "production status" in your case? In other words, what aspects of your ENUM services are in production status in your case? - it brings money? anybody in the public can use? production-quality system? .....? Thanks for your assistance. Regards, Hiro

1 0