- enum-wg - mailman.ripe.net

Re: [enum-wg] Invitation to connect on LinkedIn
by Michele Neylon - Blacknight 20 Nov '13

20 Nov '13

On 13 Nov 2013, at 13:05, Carsten Schiefner <enumvoipsip.cs(a)schiefner.de> wrote: > Michele - > > On 13.11.2013 10:22, Michele Neylon - Blacknight wrote: >> So is the WG a "person" or not? > > this is an excellent question that AFAIK never got asked so far. So maybe firstly, the WG chairs collective might want to form an opinion about this? > > That beside: would it make a difference to you in making the decision if the WG should join or not? Maybe not to me personally, but if a WG becomes a person then what does that makes its members? > > ;-) > > Best, > > -C. > Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions ♞ Hosting & Domains ICANN Accredited Registrar http://www.blacknight.co http://blog.blacknight.com/ Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 US: 213-233-1612 Locall: 1850 929 929 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Facebook: http://fb.me/blacknight Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845

9 17

Invitation to connect on LinkedIn
by Peter Gradwell 14 Nov '13

14 Nov '13

LinkedIn ------------ RIPE, I'd like to add you to my professional network on LinkedIn. - Peter Peter Gradwell Trustee at Nominet Trust Bath, United Kingdom Confirm that you know Peter Gradwell: https://www.linkedin.com/e/24djgf-hnxe025v-4a/isd/17994029382/VYLE7HIo/?hs=… -- You are receiving Invitation to Connect emails. Click to unsubscribe: http://www.linkedin.com/e/24djgf-hnxe025v-4a/X-Hlf3A9WrmhZFV8rqzlROosqLx/go… (c) 2012 LinkedIn Corporation. 2029 Stierlin Ct, Mountain View, CA 94043, USA.

6 7

Re: [enum-wg] enum-wg Digest, Vol 20, Issue 3
by Alex Hardie 13 Nov '13

13 Nov '13

>From my perspective ENUM WG is a valuable resource... Now more than ever as voice moves from a network resource to an application resource. alex hardie | sales director | +1 404 229 7635 | alex.hardie(a)nominum.com | www.nominum.com > On Nov 13, 2013, at 10:43 AM, "enum-wg-request(a)ripe.net" <enum-wg-request(a)ripe.net> wrote: > > Send enum-wg mailing list submissions to > enum-wg(a)ripe.net > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://www.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/enum-wg > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > enum-wg-request(a)ripe.net > > You can reach the person managing the list at > enum-wg-owner(a)ripe.net > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of enum-wg digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: Fwd: Invitation to connect on LinkedIn (Niall O'Reilly) > 2. Re: Fwd: Invitation to connect on LinkedIn (Carsten Schiefner) > 3. Re: Invitation to connect on LinkedIn > (Michele Neylon - Blacknight) > 4. Re: Fwd: Invitation to connect on LinkedIn (Carsten Schiefner) > 5. Re: Fwd: Invitation to connect on LinkedIn > (Michele Neylon - Blacknight) > 6. Re: Multiple: Invitation to connect on LinkedIn (Rick van Rein) > 7. Re: Fwd: Invitation to connect on LinkedIn (Carsten Schiefner) > 8. insert meaningless and irrelevant Subject header (Jim Reid) > 9. Re: insert meaningless and irrelevant Subject header > (Sander Steffann) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 11:18:34 +0000 > From: "Niall O'Reilly" <niall.oreilly(a)ucd.ie> > Subject: Re: [enum-wg] Fwd: Invitation to connect on LinkedIn > To: RIPE ENUM WG <enum-wg(a)ripe.net> > Message-ID: <D82EB7CC-8D7C-4733-A68F-51020D58089A(a)ucd.ie> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > >> On 13 Nov 2013, at 08:55, Carsten Schiefner wrote: >> >> I believe we should have a brief discussion at least to see a tendency whether or not this WG should join Peter's network at LinkedIn. > > [Co-Chair hat OFF] > > Absolutely not: it would coerce non-consenting subscribers to the WG list. > Individuals who wish to join Peter's network at LinkedIn are of course > free and welcome to do so. > > Best regards, > Niall > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 14:05:12 +0100 > From: Carsten Schiefner <enumvoipsip.cs(a)schiefner.de> > Subject: Re: [enum-wg] Fwd: Invitation to connect on LinkedIn > To: Michele Neylon - Blacknight <michele(a)blacknight.com>, RIPE ENUM > WG <enum-wg(a)ripe.net> > Message-ID: <52837908.1090007(a)schiefner.de> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > Michele - > >> On 13.11.2013 10:22, Michele Neylon - Blacknight wrote: >> So is the WG a "person" or not? > > this is an excellent question that AFAIK never got asked so far. So > maybe firstly, the WG chairs collective might want to form an opinion > about this? > > That beside: would it make a difference to you in making the decision if > the WG should join or not? > > ;-) > > Best, > > -C. > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 13:19:15 +0000 > From: Michele Neylon - Blacknight <michele(a)blacknight.com> > Subject: Re: [enum-wg] Invitation to connect on LinkedIn > To: Carsten Schiefner <enumvoipsip.cs(a)schiefner.de> > Cc: RIPE ENUM WG <enum-wg(a)ripe.net> > Message-ID: > <D1AC4482BED7C04DAC43491E9A9DBEC38D1C4DED(a)bkexchmbx02.blacknight.local> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > >> On 13 Nov 2013, at 13:05, Carsten Schiefner <enumvoipsip.cs(a)schiefner.de> wrote: >> >> Michele - >> >>> On 13.11.2013 10:22, Michele Neylon - Blacknight wrote: >>> So is the WG a "person" or not? >> >> this is an excellent question that AFAIK never got asked so far. So maybe firstly, the WG chairs collective might want to form an opinion about this? >> >> That beside: would it make a difference to you in making the decision if the WG should join or not? > > Maybe not to me personally, but if a WG becomes a person then what does that makes its members? > > > >> >> ;-) >> >> Best, >> >> -C. > > Mr Michele Neylon > Blacknight Solutions ? > Hosting & Domains > ICANN Accredited Registrar > http://www.blacknight.co > http://blog.blacknight.com/ > Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 > US: 213-233-1612 > Locall: 1850 929 929 > Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 > Facebook: http://fb.me/blacknight > Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon > ------------------------------- > Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty > Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845 > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 14:30:19 +0100 > From: Carsten Schiefner <enumvoipsip.cs(a)schiefner.de> > Subject: Re: [enum-wg] Fwd: Invitation to connect on LinkedIn > To: Michele Neylon - Blacknight <michele(a)blacknight.com> > Cc: RIPE ENUM WG <enum-wg(a)ripe.net> > Message-ID: <52837EEB.40109(a)schiefner.de> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed > > Do I see the dawn for the need of a RIPE philosophy BoF? ;-) > >> On 13.11.2013 14:19, Michele Neylon - Blacknight wrote: >> Maybe not to me personally, but if a WG becomes a person then what >> does that makes its members? > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 5 > Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 13:31:41 +0000 > From: Michele Neylon - Blacknight <michele(a)blacknight.com> > Subject: Re: [enum-wg] Fwd: Invitation to connect on LinkedIn > To: Carsten Schiefner <enumvoipsip.cs(a)schiefner.de> > Cc: RIPE ENUM WG <enum-wg(a)ripe.net> > Message-ID: > <D1AC4482BED7C04DAC43491E9A9DBEC38D1C4E40(a)bkexchmbx02.blacknight.local> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > as long as there's liquid refreshment at the meetings :) > -- > Mr Michele Neylon > Blacknight Solutions > Hosting & Colocation, Domains > http://www.blacknight.co/ > http://blog.blacknight.com/ > http://www.technology.ie > Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 > Locall: 1850 929 929 > Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 > Fax. +353 (0) 1 4811 763 > Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon > ------------------------------- > Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty > Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845 > > ________________________________________ > From: Carsten Schiefner [enumvoipsip.cs(a)schiefner.de] > Sent: 13 November 2013 13:30 > To: Michele Neylon - Blacknight > Cc: RIPE ENUM WG > Subject: Re: [enum-wg] Fwd: Invitation to connect on LinkedIn > > Do I see the dawn for the need of a RIPE philosophy BoF? ;-) > >> On 13.11.2013 14:19, Michele Neylon - Blacknight wrote: >> Maybe not to me personally, but if a WG becomes a person then what >> does that makes its members? > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 6 > Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 13:27:22 +0000 > From: Rick van Rein <rick(a)openfortress.nl> > Subject: Re: [enum-wg] Multiple: Invitation to connect on LinkedIn > To: RIPE ENUM WG <enum-wg(a)ripe.net> > Message-ID: <20131113132721.GC15992(a)vanrein.org> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > Hi, > >> So is the WG a "person" or not? > > ...and does it have the (legal,ethical) right to upload contact lists to an NSA-pod without agreement from the contained address holders?!? > > -Rick > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 7 > Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 14:37:48 +0100 > From: Carsten Schiefner <enumvoipsip.cs(a)schiefner.de> > Subject: Re: [enum-wg] Fwd: Invitation to connect on LinkedIn > To: Michele Neylon - Blacknight <michele(a)blacknight.com> > Cc: RIPE ENUM WG <enum-wg(a)ripe.net> > Message-ID: <528380AC.9070100(a)schiefner.de> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > That BoF does already exist for years, Michele - as you are well aware. :-) > >> On 13.11.2013 14:31, Michele Neylon - Blacknight wrote: >> as long as there's liquid refreshment at the meetings :) > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 8 > Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 13:40:03 +0000 > From: Jim Reid <jim(a)rfc1035.com> > Subject: [enum-wg] insert meaningless and irrelevant Subject header > To: Carsten Schiefner <enumvoipsip.cs(a)schiefner.de> > Cc: RIPE ENUM WG <enum-wg(a)ripe.net>, Michele Neylon - Blacknight > <michele(a)blacknight.com> > Message-ID: <98FC113C-0CDC-41B7-9068-5626D8889DBE(a)rfc1035.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > >> On 13 Nov 2013, at 13:30, Carsten Schiefner <enumvoipsip.cs(a)schiefner.de> wrote: >> >> Do I see the dawn for the need of a RIPE philosophy BoF? ;-) > > Well its first item of business would be to decide if the ENUM WG is *really* dead or not. :-) > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 9 > Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 16:24:34 +0100 > From: Sander Steffann <sander(a)steffann.nl> > Subject: Re: [enum-wg] insert meaningless and irrelevant Subject > header > To: Jim Reid <jim(a)rfc1035.com> > Cc: RIPE ENUM WG <enum-wg(a)ripe.net>, Carsten Schiefner > <enumvoipsip.cs(a)schiefner.de> > Message-ID: <A9A7201A-9009-4CB0-8B5F-EAD795666142(a)steffann.nl> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > Hi, > >> Op 13 nov. 2013, om 14:40 heeft Jim Reid <jim(a)rfc1035.com> het volgende geschreven: >> >>> On 13 Nov 2013, at 13:30, Carsten Schiefner <enumvoipsip.cs(a)schiefner.de> wrote: >>> >>> Do I see the dawn for the need of a RIPE philosophy BoF? ;-) >> >> Well its first item of business would be to decide if the ENUM WG is *really* dead or not. :-) > > Obviously not: there is more traffic on this mailing list now than there has been in years! ;-) > > Cheers, > Sander > > > > > End of enum-wg Digest, Vol 20, Issue 3 > **************************************

1 0

Re: [enum-wg] Fwd: Invitation to connect on LinkedIn
by Michele Neylon - Blacknight 13 Nov '13

13 Nov '13

as long as there's liquid refreshment at the meetings :) -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting & Colocation, Domains http://www.blacknight.co/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://www.technology.ie Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Locall: 1850 929 929 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Fax. +353 (0) 1 4811 763 Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845 ________________________________________ From: Carsten Schiefner [enumvoipsip.cs(a)schiefner.de] Sent: 13 November 2013 13:30 To: Michele Neylon - Blacknight Cc: RIPE ENUM WG Subject: Re: [enum-wg] Fwd: Invitation to connect on LinkedIn Do I see the dawn for the need of a RIPE philosophy BoF? ;-) On 13.11.2013 14:19, Michele Neylon - Blacknight wrote: > Maybe not to me personally, but if a WG becomes a person then what > does that makes its members?

2 1

Re: [enum-wg] Fwd: Invitation to connect on LinkedIn
by Michele Neylon - Blacknight 13 Nov '13

13 Nov '13

Carsten So is the WG a "person" or not? Regards Michele -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting & Colocation, Domains http://www.blacknight.co/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://www.technology.ie Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Locall: 1850 929 929 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Fax. +353 (0) 1 4811 763 Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845 ________________________________________ From: enum-wg-bounces(a)ripe.net [enum-wg-bounces(a)ripe.net] on behalf of Carsten Schiefner [enumvoipsip.cs(a)schiefner.de] Sent: 13 November 2013 08:55 To: RIPE ENUM WG Subject: [enum-wg] Fwd: Invitation to connect on LinkedIn All - I believe we should have a brief discussion at least to see a tendency whether or not this WG should join Peter's network at LinkedIn. So could I solicit comments, please? ;-) Best, Carsten Schiefner Co-Chair of the (dormant) RIPE ENUM WG

4 3

DRAFT minutes of ENUM WG session at RIPE 65 now available
by Niall O'Reilly 11 Oct '13

11 Oct '13

Dear ENUM colleagues, Please find the draft minutes for the ENUM WG session at RIPE 65 at https://www.ripe.net/ripe/groups/wg/enum/minutes/ripe-65 It will be helpful if you will read them, and point out any errors or omissions which need correcting. Thanks in advance and best regards, Niall O'Reilly

2 1

Re: [enum-wg] [discussion] Re: Global Virtual Numbering
by Simon Fenton-Jones 04 Jun '13

04 Jun '13

James, That would be good idea thanks. Is there somewhere we could have an open elist or forum with an archive as well. RIPE? At least they're reaching out. https://www.ripe.net/ripe/raci There are quite a few other similar and related groups I'd like to both invite and point at the discussions. E.g. Video as a Service (VaaS) LinkedIn group. Google's Hangout guys. OCLC research. Seems like these discussions have been coming and going in some remote cyberplaces, forever, and no one can point at their records. I hope we are starting to see the need for domains, and associated RTC, whose numbers are issued by librarians. Anyway, we can talk about "markets" before we talk about the technical issues? Cart before the horse and all that. BTW, what number will you be using for the combined group's video conferences:) (and stream?) Regards, si. P.s. I quite like this one from Rui. 00{INP}{NP}{NUMBER} INP = Internet Number Prefix CC (as "883", or something similar...) NP = Network Prefix to be assigned by the global registry. It could be from 1 digit to 5 digits (?). Where NP that are equal to E.164 CC could be reserved to NRENs or regulators of those countries. NUMBER = extension number within the network addressed by {NP}. The total number should not be longer than 14(?) digits. Something like this would be possible: 00 ### @ %%%%%%%% 00 ### @@ %%%%%%% 00 ### @@@ %%%%%% 00 ### @@@@ %%%%% 00 ### @@@@@ %%%% Can't figure out why we'd need a network number though. -----Original Message----- From: James Sankar [mailto:James.Sankar@aarnet.edu.au] Sent: Tuesday, 28 May 2013 8:47 PM To: Rui Ribeiro; 'Alex Galhano Robertson' Cc: discussion(a)nrenum.net; tf-media-prep1(a)terena.org; 'Victor Reijs (work)'; 'Simon Fenton-Jones'; 'Peter Szegedi' Subject: Re: [discussion] Re: Global Virtual Numbering Dear All I know that this issue is a common one in the commercial world and has the added complexity of providing revenues to justify investment. The Open Visual Communications Consortium (OVCC) are working with carriers, managed service providers, video vendors and supporting service providers to do just that. Given we seem to be redefining the objectives and goal it may make sense to gain an insight into the issues and challenges that the OVCC face so that we can take that effort and any learnings into account. If this would be of value I can organise OVCC leaders in the technical WG to meet via video. Best wishes James Sankar On 28/05/13 8:27 PM, "Rui Ribeiro" <rui.ribeiro(a)fccn.pt> wrote: >Hi Alex, > >{{ >I insist, we need to clearly define our objectives with this global >numbering plan. >}} > >IMHO, we need a way to allow addressing of IP voice and video terminals >within the global numbering plan that is widely used, without the >restrictions of the current numbering plan. > >Restrictions = number associated with phone service. > >{{ >- We want to integrate videoconference and telephony services. >}} > >True. > >{{ >- We want a number-only global addressing scheme. No alfabetic characters. >}} > >"In the future", URI dialing will be the way. I think that we all >acknowledge that. But, for the moment, numbers are needed and the >correct approach to "route" numbers into URIs is using ENUM. Yes, I >would look for a "number-only global addressing scheme". > >{{ >- We want it to be "E.164 compilant", so we could call from any >videophone or even any standard phone. >}} > >There is a subtle thing that is mixed on this sentence. First, yes, we >should be E.164 compliant, as this would promote integration with the >current PSTN network and ease future integration. The other thing is to >make a call... I would like, but it isn't a MUST today, to be able to >dial from a >(pstn) phone to these "number-only global addressing scheme". "In the >future", if we are an extension of e.164, then it would be easy for >operators to route calls from their terminals/phones. > >{{ >- The translation to URI will be done by NRENum.net. >}} > >Yes. > >{{ >0- Do we really need virtual numbers? >IMHO, we dont need it. At least, the majoroty of our NRENs does not >need it. >But we want it because some countries (its universities and even NRENs) >have dificulties to obtain real telephone numbers and make this real >numbers the addres of its videoconference rooms. >}} > >True. Look at the wider picture and think of other service providers >that, already promote V&V services within their own numbering plan. >What if there was an global service that would accommodate these >numbers/networks? > >{{ >As the answer is "we want it", let´s go on with other questions... >}} > >Ok. ;-) > >{{ >1- What we should address? >A- people: our office deskphone or our personal videoconference >software >B- groups: group of deskphones >C- video resources: MCU rooms, physical room "CODECs", Webconf rooms >(if we can make it interoperate, etc) >D- all above > >I think letter C is the correct one, because we already have one >telephone number on our business cards. And it is easy to map those >addresses on NRENum.net. It is already done for most of us, I think. >}} > >Option "E" - All of the above and whatever comes up next! Numbers are >just numbers... they will then be used for whatever purpose people >wants to use them. We should not block their usage upfront by saying >"only to be used by physical terminals". There should be rules about >the quality of the records, but other than that, we should promote >innovation of services. > >{{ >3- How should the scheme be? >A- Hierarchical and country code dependent? >B- Flat, non-hierarchical, independent on any existing coutry code > >I think this is the key question to be answered! >It would be much easier if we choose leter A. It is already done for >most of us. >But some people prefer the first choice: flat and CC independent. >}} > >If A is chosen, there will be three problems: >1. (must!) exist country organization to take care of the service with >all the problems associated with it: uptake, different rules, business >case, politics, ... >2. bigger numbers (at least more 3 digits...) 3. doesn't solve supra >national entities/networks. > >I'm in favor of B, but based on the concept of networks. There should >be a "world wide registry" for these networks and then there will be >registrys to take part of those numbers. Of course NRENs could apply to >take care of the CC code, if they want to, but this would open up the >management outside country boundaries. For instance, on eduCONF, the >numbering that we aim is supra national, where should it be placed on a >CC code hierarchy. Where should, for instance, >Polycom/Cisco/Microsoft/Google register costumers? > >(please don't flame me on these reference to companies (PCMG). They are >a big part of the videoconference ecosystem, preparing the model to >allow them to enter is, IMHO, a wise decision) > >{{ >If we decide for option B, I would like to make some other questions >about that IPv4 aproach I proposed a few days ago. >}} > >We could use a "network" prefix to that kind of numbering... just like >any other network (educonf, country's nren, PCMG, ...) it would be >interesting because it could be registration free and hassle free. In >fact most of it would be able to be automatically assigned. But it isn't a "silver bullet" >to solve the issue because many terminals are behind nat and you can't >address all the terminals these way. > >Again... the wide/open the model, the more distinct and innovative the >options will be. > >{{ >1- How many NRENs or Universities are using NATed IP addresses in its >MCUs? >As H.323 and SIP is not so good with NAT, I dare say no NAT and no >private IP addresses (10/8, 172.16/12 or 192.168/16) are been used for >these video resources. >}} > >Many... most (if not all!) of our VoIP network is behind an SBC that is >the only "public" IP address known on the open network. H.323 is even >less good transversing NAT, nevertheless there are many using that >architecture. > >{{ >2- How many of these video resources are using IPv6? >Who has today an MCU using just IPv6? >When do you plan to remove IPv4 from these devices? >}} > >There are IPv6 resources available, all Cisco (Cisco, Tandberg, Codian) >products are IPv6 enabled. Others like Radvision, Lifesize and Polycom >are taking major steps. There are some NRENs that are providing the >service in IPv6. > >Of course there isn't a date to remove IPv4. The question, is when will >it be impossible to add terminals to the IPv4 network. When it happens, >we need to be prepared. > > >As final comment: > >The structure that I propose is something like: > >00{INP}{NP}{NUMBER} > >INP = Internet Number Prefix CC (as "883", or something similar...) NP >= Network Prefix to be assigned by the global registry. It could be >from >1 digit to 5 digits (?). Where NP that are equal to E.164 CC could be >reserved to NRENs or regulators of those countries. >NUMBER = extension number within the network addressed by {NP}. The >total number should not be longer than 14(?) digits. > >Something like this would be possible: > >00 ### @ %%%%%%%% >00 ### @@ %%%%%%% >00 ### @@@ %%%%%% >00 ### @@@@ %%%%% >00 ### @@@@@ %%%% > >Eventually the INP should be just 1 digit, but that would send us to >another "numbering war". ;-) > >This structure would allow us to delegate about 40k networks... > >Rui > >Rui Ribeiro >Gestor Serviço Técnico de Vídeo >GEANT3 - SA3 - T4, eduCONF Leader >FCCN > >Aviso de Confidencialidade/Disclaimer >Esta mensagem é exclusivamente destinada ao seu destinatário, podendo >conter informação CONFIDENCIAL, cuja divulgação está expressamente >vedada nos termos da lei. Caso tenha recepcionado indevidamente esta >mensagem, solicitamos-lhe que nos comunique esse mesmo facto por esta >via ou para o telefone +351 218440100 devendo apagar o seu conteúdo de >imediato. >This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. It may contain >CONFIDENTIAL information protected by law. If this message has been >received by error, please notify us via e-mail or by telephone +351 >218440100 and delete it immediately > > > >

3 4

Call for agenda items, RIPE 66
by Niall O'Reilly 08 Apr '13

08 Apr '13

ENUM-WG Colleagues, With just 11 weeks to go until RIPE 66 in Dublin, Carsten and I need your input for the agenda of the ENUM Working Group session. According to the current meeting plan (https://ripe66.ripe.net/programme/meeting-plan/) this session is due to be in the last slot on Thursday afternoon, 16 May. Please let us know if you'ld like to make a presentation. Best regards, Niall O'Reilly Co-Chair, RIPE ENUM WG

2 2

ENUM contact info should show up in LDAP
by Rick van Rein (OpenFortress) 19 Mar '13

19 Mar '13

Hello, Has any of you ENUM adepts considered the possibility of unleashing ENUM data through LDAP? The thinking here is that ENUM is very suitable as a publishing contact information centrally, and LDAP is an excellent mechanism for retrieving contact information. I have not found it, but an enum2ldap gateway sounds like a useful facility to me. It would support integration with our desktops and mobile devices, and save us entering changed contact information because the original publishing source already did this. There would be a need for DNSSEC to make this sort of publication reliable, which is true for ENUM in general, of course. What is the opinion about such a translator on this list? Cheers, -Rick

5 6

Re: [enum-wg] ENUM contact info should show up in LDAP
by Michele Neylon :: Blacknight 18 Mar '13

18 Mar '13

+1 On 18 Mar 2013, at 16:31, Jim Reid <jim(a)rfc1035.com> wrote: > On 18 Mar 2013, at 15:47, "Rick van Rein (OpenFortress)" <rick(a)openfortress.nl> wrote: > >> What is the opinion about such a translator on this list? > > I think it's a waste of time. User ENUM is dead. Sorry. Some sort of LDAP-DNS shim might be interesting as an academic exercise but its real-world utility seems doubtful at best. > > I don't understand how or why LDAP could be better than DNS for publishing or updating contact data. Sure, you could get better authentication with LDAP, but is that scalable and worth the effort? It's not clear to me why someone would choose to use a heavyweight LDAP transaction instead of a lightweight DNS lookup or dynamic update. There could be a role for LDAP in Carrier ENUM (handwave!), though how that would intersect stuff running on desktops or mobile devices is a bit of a challenge. > > User ENUM-based applications and services using DNS have pretty much flopped. How would new stuff based on LDAP change that? > > -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting & Colocation, Brand Protection http://www.blacknight.com/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://mneylon.tel/ Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Locall: 1850 929 929 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Fax. +353 (0) 1 4811 763 Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845

1 0