- enum-wg - mailman.ripe.net

New ETSI Drafts on ENUM submitted
by Stastny Richard 15 Oct '04

15 Oct '04

Dear all, I just submitted two ETSI drafts regarding ENUM as rapporteur for the next ETSI TISPAN#4bis meeting in Sophia Antipolis November 2-5, 2004. ETSI TS 102 172 Version 2.0.6 "Minimum requirements for interoperability of ENUM implementations" http://enum.nic.at/documents/ETSI/Drafts/04bTD022%20Draft%20ts_102172v02 0003.doc and ETSI TR 102 055v006 "Infrastructure ENUM" http://enum.nic.at/documents/ETSI/Drafts/04bTD023%20Draft%20tr_102055v00 6.doc please use the above links to retrieve the documents regards Richard Stastny

1 0

Re: Survey on ENUM
by Stastny Richard 14 Oct '04

14 Oct '04

I am wondering what is happening with all this nice data coming in, they seem to vanish into a black hole. At least there is no updates yet on http://www.centr.org/kim/enum/index.html regards Richard -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: HiroHOTTA [mailto:hotta@jprs.co.jp] Gesendet: Mi 13.10.2004 12:58 An: enum-wg(a)ripe.net Cc: Betreff: [enum-wg] Re: Survey on ENUM Hello, Here are the answers for Japan. Hiro ================= > What is the country and E.164 code? Japan, +81 > Who is the delegate for the E.164 code? None (currently) > The status of deployment (notdelegated>applied>delegated/objected>trial>hiatus>production) notdelegated trial is done under 1.8.e164.jp > ENUM Project contact details (telephone, email, web) organizations : JPNIC and JPRS E-mail : sec(a)etjp.jp > Is a trial being, or going to be, conducted? A trial is on the way It's without officially delegation but is recognized and participated in by the government > What type of numbers are being used in the trial? Special numbers led by '000' which do not look like the existing phone numbers. > Is there work or plans toward full permanent deployment? That should be the result of the trial. > What type of numbers are to be used in full deployment? That should be the result of the trial. > Who is leading the ENUM project? (government, industry working group, etc.) Trial team which mainly consists of organizations from the industry. > Who operates the ccTLD for that country at present? JPRS > What type of organisation runs the ccTLD? (state, private, academic, etc.) private > What is the ccTLD legal regulation, if any? None > Who is the current Tier 1 registry? JPRS (ccTLD for .JP) behaves as Tier 1 registry under 1.8.e164.jp > Who is, or will be, the permanent Tier 1 registry? Not yet decided. > How will the Tier 1 registry selection be made? (i.e. decision, license, concession, agreement, public procurement, etc.) Not yet decided. > How will the method of cost recovery for the Tier 1 registry's operations? A recommendation can be result of the trial. > Will there be more than one Tier 1 provider for the country? A recommendation can be result of the trial. > Will there be ENUM registrars? Most probably. > What will be the ENUM validation technique? A recommendation can be result of the trial. > Is there/will there be a special number block for ENUM and/or IP Telephony? Not yet decided... under investigation by the trial team and the government. > Is there special treatment for unlisted numbers? No. > Are there any plans for infrastructure ENUM? That should be the result of the trial. > What is your ENUM WHOIS address? We don't have currently ENUM WHOIS > Please provide the history of ENUM trials, projects etc., if any. Please see http://etjp.jp/english/index.html > What are your future plans? (and dates if available) Trial has had one year experience and it's extended by one year until Sept. 2005. Interconnection trials between communication providers including oversee communication are expected. ===

2 1

Meanwhile back in the UK
by Conroy, Lawrence (SMTP) 13 Oct '04

13 Oct '04

Hi Folks, It occurs to me that not everyone will know that the Final Report on the UK ENUM Trial phase is "out" and available for your browsing/downloading pleasure. Thus for anyone who didn't know this already... see <http://www.ukenumgroup.org/> all the best, Lawrence

1 0

Survey on ENUM
by Andrzej Bartosiewicz 13 Oct '04

13 Oct '04

1. What is the country and E.164 code? PL 48 2. Who is the delegate for the E.164 code? With the consent of the Ministry of Infrastructure, NASK is the domain name holder for 8.4.e164.arpa. 3. The status of deployment TRIAL 4. ENUM Project contact details (telephone, email, web) NASK Andrzej Bartosiewicz, Research and Academic Computer Network 18 Wawozowa Str 02-796 Warsaw www.DNS.pl +48.225231204, andrzejb(a)nask.pl 5. Is a trial being, or going to be, conducted? Conducted since July 2002. 6. Is there work or plans toward full permanent deployment? Yes. ENUM Registry, protocol (based on EPP), administrative procedures are ready. From technical and administrative point of view Tier-1 registry is already deployed. 7. Who is leading the ENUM project? (government, industry working group, etc.) NASK + Office of Telecommunications and Post Regulation (URTiP, www.URTIP.gov.pl) 8. Who operates the ccTLD for that country at present? NASK Research and Academic Computer Network 18 Wawozowa Str 02-796 Warsaw www.DNS.pl +48.225231204 9. What type of organisation runs the ccTLD? (state, private, academic, etc.) State, R&D status http://www.nask.pl/run/n/Who_we_are 10. What is the ccTLD legal regulation, if any? see: http://www.nask.pl/run/n/Who_we_are 11. Who is the current Tier 1 registry? NASK Research and Academic Computer Network 18 Wawozowa Str 02-796 Warsaw www.DNS.pl +48.225231204NASK 12. Who is, or will be, the permanent Tier 1 registry? NASK Research and Academic Computer Network 18 Wawozowa Str 02-796 Warsaw www.DNS.pl +48.225231204 13. How will the Tier 1 registry selection be made? (i.e. decision, license, concession, agreement, public procurement, etc.) DECISION 14. How will the method of cost recovery for the Tier 1 registry's operations? Annual fee per registered number / year (ca. 2 - 5 EUR) 15. Will there be more than one Tier 1 provider for the country? NO 16. Will there be ENUM registrars? YES, REGISTRAR = TSP 17. What will be the ENUM validation technique? NASK accepts all "create" requests from TSPs without validation. "Update" can be done if the correct "authInfo" is provided by the new TSP. "Transfer" can be done if the correct "authInfo" is provided by the new TSP. Generally: If TSP provides the false data, TSP is subject to prosecution (TSP must comply with Telecommunication Act) 18. Is there/will there be a special number block for ENUM and/or IP Telephony? NO 19. Is there special treatment for unlisted numbers? Only valid E164 numbers assigned by Office of Telecommunications and Post Regulation (URTiP) can be registered. 20. Are there any plans for infrastructure ENUM? a.Infrastructure ENUM is one of the possibilities for Number Portability Administration Center (NASK's project) b. Infrastructure ENUM is platform for cost optimization solutions (NASK + Warsaw University of Technology) 21. What is your ENUM WHOIS address? http://www.dns.pl/cgi-bin/enum_lookup.pl 22. Please provide the history of ENUM trials, projects etc., if any. History: July 18, 2002 delegation, 2002 - 2004: trial May 19, 2004: Registry software ready, protocol defined 23. What are your future plans? (and dates if available) TBD 24. What is your date estimate on a production ENUM registry launch? May 19, 2004

2 1

AW: AW: AW: AW: [enum-wg] Kapsch CarrierCom first company to be reached with ENUM (questionable)
by Christoph Künkel 08 Oct '04

08 Oct '04

Lawrence, you still manage to ignore my 2 points ;-) I was not going to debate if Torys do speak H323 or not. I am not going to debate if any VoIP protocol is "better" or "less nostalgic" than another (we may well debate if one protocol is more suited for a partical purpose than another). I happen to work for a company that make PBX products which support both H.323 and SIP. But I am polite enough not to assume that the bunch of customers we have using H.323 are somewhat odd or as out-dated as your p166. Anyway, I was trying to say that neither VoIP nor ENUM require a SIP-URI. And that Kapsch wasn't the first company reachable via enum. Think we have consumed enough bandwidth for that though... :-) Christoph -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: Conroy, Lawrence (SMTP) [mailto:lwc@roke.co.uk] Gesendet: Freitag, 8. Oktober 2004 15:00 An: Christoph Künkel Cc: enum-wg(a)ripe.net Betreff: Re: AW: AW: AW: [enum-wg] Kapsch CarrierCom first company to be reached with ENUM (questionable) Hi Christoph, folks, Re. two points - I have a certain nostalgia for the old days when folk thought that H.323 was the answer to a maiden's prayer and people still voted Tory in the UK. I still have an old Pentium 166 in our lab that must be about the same era, so I DO understand the concept of using whatever old kit is hanging around. Re. 3761/3762 forbidding anything - yup. Strictly, it's RFC3762 that forbids this, as that slim document is what registers the h323 Enumservice. 3762 does not mention any sub-sub-type, so the :voice bit is invalid. Talk to Orit if you think it should be changed. AFAIK, Asterisk is one of the two widest used ENUM-enabled systems, the other being SER. Hence whilst the * enum.c does meet RFCs 3761, 3762, 3764 (and also supports the ETSI 102172 spec), as well as the earlier RFC2915 and RFC2916, (i.e. it's pretty flexible), it breaks with the syntax chosen by your ?hoster?. So it goes. all the best, Lawrence On 8 Oct 2004, at 13:25, Christoph Künkel wrote: > Lawrence, > > You still manage to ignore my 2 points ;-) > > Nevertheless, regarding the service spec. This is done by our trial > enum NAPTR hoster. See > http://www.enum-trial.de/newsletter/newsletter02.htm (at the end) for > details [ sorry, I am not aware of an English translation ]. > > Do you think either RFC 3761 or 3762 forbids this? > or is enum.c the normative reference? > > :-) Christoph > > > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > Von: Conroy, Lawrence (SMTP) [mailto:lwc@roke.co.uk] > [ ... ] > > I haven't seen before: E2U+h323:voice > > > Looking at the code, I suspect that this will successfully break > > Asterisk's > > enum.c processing. > -- Visit our website at www.roke.co.uk Roke Manor Research Ltd, Roke Manor, Romsey, Hampshire SO51 0ZN, UK. The information contained in this e-mail and any attachments is confidential to Roke Manor Research Ltd and must not be passed to any third party without permission. This communication is for information only and shall not create or change any contractual relationship.

1 0

AW: AW: AW: [enum-wg] Kapsch CarrierCom first company to be reached with ENUM (questionable)
by Christoph Künkel 08 Oct '04

08 Oct '04

Lawrence, You still manage to ignore my 2 points ;-) Nevertheless, regarding the service spec. This is done by our trial enum NAPTR hoster. See http://www.enum-trial.de/newsletter/newsletter02.htm (at the end) for details [ sorry, I am not aware of an English translation ]. Do you think either RFC 3761 or 3762 forbids this? or is enum.c the normative reference? :-) Christoph -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: Conroy, Lawrence (SMTP) [mailto:lwc@roke.co.uk] [ ... ] I haven't seen before: E2U+h323:voice Looking at the code, I suspect that this will successfully break Asterisk's enum.c processing.

2 1

AW: [enum-wg] Kapsch CarrierCom first company to be reached with ENUM (questionable)
by Christoph Künkel 08 Oct '04

08 Oct '04

strange. I had a quick look at http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3261.txt and it reads: Network Working Group J. Rosenberg Request for Comments: 3261 dynamicsoft Obsoletes: 2543 H. Schulzrinne Category: Standards Track ... June 2002 SIP: Session Initiation Protocol no mention of ENUM. also, I work in a company that has ENUM enabled. You can call me (+49 7031 73009) via ENUM from the internet and I certainly have no SIP URI. Same goes true for a number of our customers I know of, which are using ENUM in their telephony production environment. Do I miss something or is this thread falsely mixing up only loosely coupled issues? Regards, Christoph -----Original Message----- From: Conroy, Lawrence (SMTP) [mailto:lwc@roke.co.uk] Sent: Wednesday, October 06, 2004 7:53 PM To: Adrian Georgescu Cc: Stastny Richard; Carsten Schiefner; Henry Sinnreich; <enum-wg(a)ripe.net> Subject: Re: [enum-wg] Kapsch CarrierCom first company to be reached with ENUM Hi Guys, quick point here - ENUM is according to RFC3261. It's AKA "public" ENUM. It *is* available on the Internet. Anything else is "ENUM-like". >> So Henry says (and I agree), if you do not have a SIP URI, you do not >> have VoIP.

4 3

Re: [enum-wg] Kapsch CarrierCom first company to be reached with ENUM (questionable)
by Stastny Richard 08 Oct '04

08 Oct '04

>>ENUM is 3761 - so just one digit mixed up; and they even look almost the > same. :-) >Happens to me all the time, too... ;-) >> also, I work in a company that has ENUM enabled. You can call me (+49 >> 7031 73009) via ENUM from the internet and I certainly have no SIP URI. >So what kind of URI you are using then - "h323:"? Or "tel:", so that it >is about Internet->PSTN termination? If you look up this domain, you do not find any NAPTR, (only TXT records) so how can I call you? Richard

3 2

AW: AW: [enum-wg] Kapsch CarrierCom first company to be reached with ENUM (questionable)
by Christoph Künkel 08 Oct '04

08 Oct '04

Lawrence, add just any extension to the trunk base number, e.g. 0.9.0.0.3.7.1.3.0.7.9.4.e164.arpa. See the NAPTR. However, I think you missed my point(s). I was not going to debate wether I have a NAPTR or not. I was just trying to make the point that the original thread implied a tight coupling between ENUM and SIP, where there is none. And that Kapsch certainly is not the first company to be reached with ENUM. :-) Christoph -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: Conroy, Lawrence (SMTP) [mailto:lwc@roke.co.uk] > Do I miss something or is this thread falsely mixing up only loosely > coupled issues? > Yes, you do miss something.

2 1

AW: [enum-wg] Kapsch CarrierCom first company to be reached with ENUM (questionable)
by Christoph Künkel 08 Oct '04

08 Oct '04

Hi Carsten, kind of "Freud'sche Fehlleistung", isnt it ;-) [ does someone volunteer to translate that therm to english? ] Yes, I am using a h323: URI. We do that for more than 6 months now and some of our customers too, using comercially available equipment. My point is that ENUM and SIP are only loosely related. And VoIP is not SIP, as well as H323 is not VoIP. ENUM is neither about H323 nor SIP nor PSTN. It is about associating e164 numbers to various kinds of services (internet related or not, doesnt matter). :-) Christoph -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: Carsten Schiefner [mailto:enumvoipsip.cs@schiefner.de] > no mention of ENUM. ENUM is 3761 - so just one digit mixed up; and they even look almost the same. :-) Happens to me all the time, too... > also, I work in a company that has ENUM enabled. You can call me (+49 > 7031 73009) via ENUM from the internet and I certainly have no SIP URI. So what kind of URI you are using then - "h323:"? Or "tel:", so that it is about Internet->PSTN termination? > Same goes true for a number of our customers I know of, which are using > ENUM in their telephony production environment. > > Do I miss something or is this thread falsely mixing up only loosely > coupled issues? What _exactly!_ is only loosely coupled here from you PoV? Best, Carsten

1 0