- enum-wg - mailman.ripe.net

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

RE: [enum-wg] ITU: debate over User-ENUM administration
by Stastny Richard 09 Feb '05

09 Feb '05

Alex wrote: > "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." Which in Austria is the RTR. In the agreement between RIPE, ITU-T and RIPE (the interim procedures) the ITU-T takes care that this is only the relevant national body ... > Currently, a country deciding to _not_ have any strict ties between > E.164 and ENUM (assigning the ENUM to another party than the E.164) > would imho pretty much satisfy RFC3761 - which i consider dangerous. ... in principle yes, because the rest is national matter and also the relevant ITU-T recommendations are only what the name says: recommendations, but no country having his senses together would do it that way - with one exception, but here Jim may provide you an answer ;-) richard > -----Original Message----- > From: enum-wg-admin(a)ripe.net [mailto:enum-wg-admin@ripe.net] On Behalf Of > Alexander Mayrhofer > Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2005 12:39 PM > To: Jim Reid > Cc: Niall O'Reilly; enum-wg(a)ripe.net > Subject: Re: [enum-wg] ITU: debate over User-ENUM administration > > Jim Reid wrote: > > ..... 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. > > slightly OT, but since i'm currently looking for this in the scope of > validation - Which document does formally specify this tie between E.164 > and ENUM? > > Don't misunderstand me, i'm fully convinced (as probably the majority of > the fellow list members) that this is a requirement for ENUM, but i'm > still searching where this is specified, because this requirement is > where all validation related work boils down to. > > What i've found out so far is that RFC3671 says: > > "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". Well, it becomes > more complicated with number ranges where the ENUM domain is a > prerequisite for the assignment of the corresponding E.164 number (eg. > +43 780), so YMMV. However, this is the only place in the RFC which > talks about the formal relation between E.164 and ENUM (I'm not talking > about the technical relations, the whole string conversion etc.) > > Currently, a country deciding to _not_ have any strict ties between > E.164 and ENUM (assigning the ENUM to another party than the E.164) > would imho pretty much satisfy RFC3761 - which i consider dangerous. > > So, where's the place to look for (or add) this requirement? > > cheers > > -- > Alex Mayrhofer > nic.at/enum.at

1 0

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

09 Feb '05

>>>>> "Richard" == Stastny Richard <Richard.Stastny(a)oefeg.at> writes: Richard> Authenticating free-phone and premium rate numbers is not Richard> harder then authenticating any other number. That might be true in Austria. It isn't in the UK.

1 0

RE: [enum-wg] ITU: debate over User-ENUM administration
by Stastny Richard 09 Feb '05

09 Feb '05

Jim wrote: > 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. Authenticating free-phone and premium rate numbers is not harder then authenticating any other number. Freephone numbers in ENUM are not a problem at all, beside the fact Telcos do not like the idea. It is ideal for the customers = call centers migrating to VoIP anyway. In Austria freephone numbers are allowed in ENUM and the US enum-forum is also going this way. Another issue is premium rate numbers: since a customer must be crazy providing an ENUM entry with no termination charge there is no need and business case. Regards Richard

1 0

Re: [enum-wg] ITU: debate over User-ENUM administration
by Jim Reid 08 Feb '05

08 Feb '05

>>>>> "Christian" == Christian de Larrinaga <cdel(a)firsthand.net> writes: Christian> I don't see a contract between ITU and US as resolving Christian> the issues raised as it remains debatable that IETF and Christian> IAB are US entities. It's more than debatable. The IAB and IETF don't exist because they have no legal personality. This gives governments and organisations like the ITU a bit of a problem. They are used to contracts and treaties: legally binding documents between recognised entities. So since there's no contract that says ITU have administrative control over e164.arpa, that makes some ITU members very anxious. The liaison statements and MoUs between ITU and RIPE NCC and IAB give effective administrative control. However these are not the watertight contracts -- which jurisdiction(s)? -- that some people in SG2 want. Christian> I'm curious that Mr. Kisrawi appears not to have any Christian> operational concerns for management of 3.6.9.e164.arpa Christian> as things stand but of political control over .arpa and Christian> the root. Syria's country code has not been delegated, so there are no operational concerns. And for all we know, the Syrians might have decided not to get it delegated until there's sufficient ITU control over e164.arpa -- for some definition of control. They could have decided that it's not in their national interest to get the delegation until the administrative safeguards they seem to want are in place. That's a perfectly reasonable position. Some countries are content with the current arrangements -- if they weren't, they would not have allowed the delegation of their country code -- others aren't. This is one reason why the ENUM discussions inside SG2 are continuing. Christian> ITU has agreed a procedure with the IAB and RIPE over Christian> ENUM. It seems a bit late for ITU to start questioning Christian> the legal ownership of .arpa now and totally out of Christian> context to do so citing ENUM which represents a tiny Christian> amount of Internet traffic and is only one protocol to Christian> extend reachability for E.164 numbers. Christian, that's beside the point quite frankly. If ITU SG2 wants to discuss ownership of .arpa or the planet Tharg, they are free to do so. Please note too that the current process for handling delegation requests by ITU is governed by interim procedures. They're temporary. A permanent solution is pretty much guaranteed to require clarification of the administrative control over e164.arpa and .arpa. ie SG2 members need to be sure that if ITU comes to an understanding over e164.arpa, IAB won't choose a different domain name or pick a new Tier-0 registry or someone takes .arpa away from IAB. And this understanding should be formalised in some sort of contract. Mr. Kaswari's contribution is the next step down that road. Christian> So maybe this group could make some representation into Christian> the ITU debate on ENUM to focus on what ENUM is and Christian> what it is not in particular in regard to regulatory Christian> issues (e.g., ENUM has nothing to do with assignment of Christian> E.164 numbers or national number plans) might be Christian> helpful to steer ENUM out of these waters. Is this Christian> something RIPE could do? 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? :-) There is a need to explain to SG2 how things like the DNS work and how the internet is governed. [I did some of that when I attended SG2.] RIPE NCC could do this if they were willing and able to commit the time and resources. However they're not Sector Members of ITU, so they can't participate in SG2 meetings. I think the same would be true for most other internet people that could take on this educational role. I believe ITU can invite external experts to attend SG2 as observers, though SG2 would probably be more comfortable having that dialogue between Sector Members rather than with an outsider. Christian> Having said this these top level arguments are not Christian> going away and so the IAB as others in the Internet Christian> world need to establish its rights over .arpa and Christian> assert them but this is not an ENUM issue. Indeed. And it's not a topic for this list.

3 2

FW: [enum-wg] ITU: debate over User-ENUM administration
by Stastny Richard 08 Feb '05

08 Feb '05

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. 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 ;-) 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. 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. Regards Richard PS: regarding your other statement: >I hope my explanation elsewhere clarifies what I mean. ... >I am simply saying that from the top down ENUM >delegation does not confer >with it authority to create and manage E.164 >number plans. >That still remains with the existing E.164 delegations e.g., >in UK Ofcom. ie., ENUM is not competing with the existing ITU E.164 number >process. Agreed

1 0

Re: [enum-wg] ITU: debate over User-ENUM administration
by Christian de Larrinaga 08 Feb '05

08 Feb '05

--------- Original Message -------- From: Jim Reid <jim(a)rfc1035.com> > >>>>> "Christian" == Christian de Larrinaga <cdel(a)firsthand.net> writes: > > Christian> I don't see a contract between ITU and US as resolving > Christian> the issues raised as it remains debatable that IETF and > Christian> IAB are US entities. > > It's more than debatable. The IAB and IETF don't exist because they > have no legal personality. This gives governments and organisations > like the ITU a bit of a problem. The point I was trying to make is that the arguments given in the Syrian document are less about ENUM as about the entire ediface. I think it is important to keep clean air on this. ENUM is not about changing what ITU and national number authorities for E.164 do. ENUM is ancillary to this. >The liaison > statements and MoUs between ITU and RIPE NCC and IAB give effective > administrative control. However these are not the watertight contracts > -- which jurisdiction(s)? -- that some people in SG2 want. > indeed. But this issue is far broader than a protocol called ENUM. > Christian> I'm curious that Mr. Kisrawi appears not to have any > Christian> operational concerns for management of 3.6.9.e164.arpa > Christian> as things stand but of political control over .arpa and > Christian> the root. > > Syria's country code has not been delegated, so there are no > operational concerns. And for all we know, the Syrians might have > decided not to get it delegated until there's sufficient ITU control > over e164.arpa -- for some definition of control. ok but my point is that this is no different for a national enum delegation .sy or any domain. The delegation tree is shorter for a .com zone (normally) but you still come up with the same basic issues of internet structures that Mr. Kisrawi mentions. These are very old and wel known and debated issues that he raises. 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!) snip > > Christian> So maybe this group could make some representation into > Christian> the ITU debate on ENUM to focus on what ENUM is and > Christian> what it is not in particular in regard to regulatory > Christian> issues (e.g., ENUM has nothing to do with assignment of > Christian> E.164 numbers or national number plans) might be > Christian> helpful to steer ENUM out of these waters. Is this > Christian> something RIPE could do? > > 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? :-) OK how does an ENUM delegation (as currently defined) provide authority to create a number plan, delegate that number plan to operators to create further numbers within their number blocks? This is what I mean by authority and delegation. I don't mean a protocol that some script kiddie uses to create his own hack telphone service. I am talking about the official line of authority. ENUM maps E.164 into DNS but only once E.164 numbers are allocated (through the ITU process) and only then into the official ENUM tree through a procedure that involves the ITU E.164 delegation tree. As we know from uk group the process is far from perfect and there is plenty of room for improving clarity and as you quite rightly point out moving from interim status. > > There is a need to explain to SG2 how things like the DNS work and how > the internet is governed. [I did some of that when I attended SG2.] > RIPE NCC could do this if they were willing and able to commit the > time and resources. However they're not Sector Members of ITU, so they > can't participate in SG2 meetings. I think the same would be true for > most other internet people that could take on this educational role. I > believe ITU can invite external experts to attend SG2 as observers, > though SG2 would probably be more comfortable having that dialogue > between Sector Members rather than with an outsider. we need to get away from them and us, > > Christian> Having said this these top level arguments are not > Christian> going away and so the IAB as others in the Internet > Christian> world need to establish its rights over .arpa and > Christian> assert them but this is not an ENUM issue. > > Indeed. And it's not a topic for this list. > my point exactly. It is not about ENUM per se. Christian ________________________________________________ Message sent using UebiMiau 2.7.2

1 0

RE: [enum-wg] ITU: debate over User-ENUM administration
by Christian de Larrinaga 08 Feb '05

08 Feb '05

--------- Original Message -------- From: Andrzej Bartosiewicz <andrzejb(a)nask.pl> Date: 08/02/05 10:10 > > > regulatory issues (e.g., ENUM has nothing to do with assignment of E.164 > > numbers or national number plans) might be helpful to steer ENUM out of > > these waters. Is this something RIPE could do? > > That's interesting... Don't you think that User-ENUM maps the national > numbering plans into DNS. > > Andrzej. > of course ENUM does. But only once E.164 numbers have been assigned. And they are assigned through the ITU to national regulatory processes. ENUM does not change any of the delegation issues for E.164 itself. ENUM is a protocol to support applications that use E.164 numbers (largely) it applies E.164 after the effect. Christian ________________________________________________ Message sent using UebiMiau 2.7.2

1 0

RE: [enum-wg] ITU: debate over User-ENUM administration
by Stastny Richard 08 Feb '05

08 Feb '05

I think the confusion in this discussion comes from the clash of two cultures and some misunderstandings. e164.arpa is not a "normal" domain like .com/.net. It is more like a sponsored domain. In .com the domain name holder is the owner of his domain. In E.164 there is NEVER an ownership. Nobody OWNS an E.164 number (maybe the ITU). E.164 numbers are assigned and the subscriber has the right-to-use according to certain rules he has to obey. The associated domain in e164.arpa is linked 1:1 to this right-to-use of the E.164 number. If he is loosing this right to use, he is also loosing the right-to-use of the e164.arpa domain. On the other hand, he is the ONLY ONE who has this right-to-use, e.g. there is no first- come, first serve, etc. There is another difference (which I try to formulate here as a non-laywer). A normal domain name holder in .com/.net and also the ccTLDs has a direct contract with the Registry and the whole thing has in most cases only two "tiers" (+ 1: the root) In e164.arpa this is more complicated (and this seems also be part of the current discussion) - there are more registries. 1. there is the root (ICANN and the DoC) 2. there is arpa (+ the IAB) 3. there is e164.arpa (+ RIPE and ITU-T) 3a. there is the group of countries (e.g. in CC+1) 4. there is the CC-level (the NRA and the "tier1" Registry) 5. there are the Registrars, the validation entities and the telcos 6. there is the end-user This is a legal nightmare and a land of milk and honey for lawyers ;-) BTW, I am wondering that especially people from the US are not caring so much about and wondering that somebody wants sound legal constructs? Richard > -----Original Message----- > From: enum-wg-admin(a)ripe.net [mailto:enum-wg-admin@ripe.net] On Behalf Of > Jim Reid > Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 2005 12:48 PM > To: Thilo Salmon > Cc: enum-wg(a)ripe.net > Subject: Re: [enum-wg] ITU: debate over User-ENUM administration > > >>>>> "Thilo" == Thilo Salmon <salmon(a)sipgate.de> writes: > > Thilo> I read that as "yes, it is a mapping", but "no, it is not > Thilo> (necessarily) an assignment". With few exceptions E.164 > Thilo> numbers have already been assigned and the e164.arpa domain > Thilo> merely functions as a directory. > > First of all Thilo, DNS is NOT a directory. Please don't confuse it > with one. Secondly, an entry under e164.arpa *is* an assignment. The > only way to get a number entered in the public tree is if (a) the > country code has been delegated; (b) the registry for that country > code delegates the number concerned. If that doesn't constitute an > assignment, I don't know what does. Of course, whether that E.164 > number has been assigned by the regulator or a telco is another > matter.

1 0

Re: [enum-wg] ITU: debate over User-ENUM administration
by Jim Reid 08 Feb '05

08 Feb '05

>>>>> "Thilo" == Thilo Salmon <salmon(a)sipgate.de> writes: Thilo> I read that as "yes, it is a mapping", but "no, it is not Thilo> (necessarily) an assignment". With few exceptions E.164 Thilo> numbers have already been assigned and the e164.arpa domain Thilo> merely functions as a directory. First of all Thilo, DNS is NOT a directory. Please don't confuse it with one. Secondly, an entry under e164.arpa *is* an assignment. The only way to get a number entered in the public tree is if (a) the country code has been delegated; (b) the registry for that country code delegates the number concerned. If that doesn't constitute an assignment, I don't know what does. Of course, whether that E.164 number has been assigned by the regulator or a telco is another matter.

1 0