- enum-wg - mailman.ripe.net

Future of VoIP conference - The Hague March 15th 2007
by Michiel Leenaars 06 Feb '07

06 Feb '07

Invitation The Future of VoIP II 15 Maart 2007, Aula Koninklijke Bibliotheek The Hague/Den Haag (The Netherlands) Thomas Anglero (Nuclei Networks) * James Body (Truphone) * Michel de Boer (Twinklephone) * David Bryan (co-chair IETF P2PSIP WG, Sipeerior) * Adrian Georgescu (AG Projects) * Bert Hubert (Power DNS) * Ytsen Kooistra (YBK) * Olaf Kolkman (Internet Architecture Board) * Michiel Leenaars (Internet Society) * Dan Pascu (AG Projects) * Hendrik Rood (Stratix) * Antoin Verschuren (SIDN) The Hague/Den Haag, The Netherlands, February 6th 2007 The role of real-time communication via the internet is still increasing. Currently over tens of millions of households in the world are calling through VoIP, video telefony (both mobile and fixed) is increasingly popular and of better quality, and the increasing availability of User ENUM in the market is a clear signal that the migration towards all-IP is definitely on its way. From the user side, the vendor community and service providers expections are sky high - yet nobody knows which business models, technologies and services will be the ones to make it all the way to the end. The various market forces that are developing in this field need to position themselves on the basis of a good insight into technology and in the way users want to interact with that technology. That, in interaction with what the competition is doing will determine the business opportunities. For users (and governments) it is vital that the result is an open infrastructure where flexibility, stability, usability, security and service go hand in hand. On March 15th 2007 ISOC Netherlands organises the second edition of the Future of VoIP conference. Learn more about upcoming IETF standards around P2P SIP, ENUM, open source SIP clients, SIP on dual-mode GSM/WiFi devices, the possible role of Fiber to the home and interconnect issues between VoIP islands. Prominent (inter)nationale speakers such as Thomas Anglero (Nuclei Networks), James Body (Truphone), David Bryan (co-chair IETF P2PSIP WG, Sipeerior) and Olaf Kolkman (director NLnet Labs, member of the Internet Architecture Board) wil guide you along new insights from the different worlds behind VoIP and SIP. Join us in the discussion on the business models behind future communication patterns via internet, and determine your own strategy on the basis of a broad spectre of opinions, visions and experiences. The Future of VoIP conference is organized by ISOC.nl SIP special Interest Group on March 15th 2007. The conference will take place in the aula of the Koninklijke Bibliotheek (Prins Willem-Alexanderhof 5) in The Hague, the Netherlands. Participation in 'The Future of VoIP II costs 99 euro, ISOC members pay only 50 euro. The conference will be held in English. All information, including the whole programme and a registration form can be found both in English and in Dutch on: http://isoc.nl/activ/2007-FoV-II Kind regards, on behalf of the organisers, Michiel Leenaars, Adrian Georgescu director ISOC.nl vice-chair SIPSIG ===================================== About the speakers THOMAS F. ANGLERO, NUCLEI NETWORKS Thomas F. Anglero is the Founder and CEO of Nuclei Networks, the sole certifier of VoIP solutions for the Leeuwarden "Break the Dyke" Global Invitation. Mr. Anglero was recently a senior executive advisor with Telenor AS where he was responsible for Telenor's FMC and Web Service strategies. Prior, Mr. Anglero was also the CEO of Free World Dialup, VP of Vocaltec Communications and CEO of TrulyGlobal. JAMES BODY, TRUPHONE James Body is Director - Networks at Truphone, a UK based converged operator who provide mobile services utilizing dual mode GSM/WiFi handsets. James is responsible for all of the infrastructure between the handset SIP interface and the rest of the world. Following graduation from Queen Mary College, University of London and 20 years as a Regular Officer in the Royal Corps of Signals (UK Army), James 'retired' to focus on implementing VoIP based 'New Telephony' systems. He was responsible for SIPCall, the first UK public SIP<>PSTN system and was co-founder of Gossiptel. A founder member of the UK Internet Telephony Providers Association (ITSPA), he has been closely involved with the implementation and regulation of new internet based telephony systems for past five years. He is a fervent believer in the power of disruptive communications technology and the role of open source components in the shaping of future telecommunications architectures. MICHEL DE BOER, TWINKLEPHONE Michel de Boer is the lead developer of Twinkle. He has a degree in computer science at the Vrije Universiteit in Amsterdam. His professional background is in software development and technical support of circuit and packet switched voice networks. His area of expertise is in signalling protocols and TCP/IP. Other interests include SIP, open source and Linux. DAVID BRYAN, FOUNDER OF SIPEERIOR David Bryan is a leading expert in the area of P2P SIP. He plays an active role in IETF P2P SIP efforts, and has published numerous academic papers and trade articles on the subject. David is active in the SIP community, including heading up p2psip.org, the leading community site for P2P SIP, and is involved with SIPFoundry, the reSIProcate project, and Vovida.org. David was co-founder and CTO of Jasomi Networks, and previously worked at Cisco Systems and Vovida Networks. David holds a master's degree in Computer Science and is completing a Ph.D. at William and Mary. ADRIAN GEORGESCU, FOUNDER OF AG PROJECTS Adrian Georgescu is Founder and CEO of AG Projects. Based in the Netherlands, AG Projects is a leading European company supplying service providers with turnkey SIP infrastructure systems. Adrian is an advocate of IETF standards, member of OpenSER management board, founder and co-chair of the Dutch ISOC SIP Special Interest Group. Prior to starting of his own company, Adrian had accumulated experience with Tomrad Communications, Esprit Telecom, GTS, Ebone and KPNQwest. Adrian's expertise is the design of high-availability infrastructures, addressing and numbering systems, signaling protocols, provisioning and mediation systems, implementation of disaster recovery plans. Adrian has received in 1996 a degree in Electrical Engineering from Faculty of Electrotechnics at the Polytechnic University of Bucharest, Romania.Founder of AG Projects BERT HUBERT, POWERDNS Bert Hubert is founder of PowerDNS. PowerDNS is shipped with nearly every Linux distribution and comes standard with many wireless routers. Bert is also a long term open source contributor. Among other, he is the author of the Linux Advanced Routing & Traffic Control HOWTO. As a student he developed an application for monitoring large numbers of cable modems and their network performance (using a modified 'pathchar' algorithm), which was sold to several major cable companies. This success caused Bert to drop out of university and concentrate on his own company, PowerDNS. Netherlabs is a consulting company specialised in networking, telephony, UNIX/Linux, system development and requirement planning. YTSEN KOOISTRA, YBK Ytsen is an independant consultant. He founded Rits tele.com, one of the first VoIP providers in The Netherlands and sold the company to BBned in 2005. Now he's working for telecommunications companies and service providers in the area of regulatory affairs and (technical) business development. Ytsen studied at the TU Delft. OLAF KOLKMAN, NLNET LABS Olaf Kolkman is director of NLnet Labs and a member of the Internet Architecture Board. He was trained as an astronomer but his interest in Internet technology took hold of his career path around 1996. He joined the RIPE NCC around 1997 where he got involved in the test-traffic project. That project brought him in contact with the IETF and he attended his first meeting in Munich. After acting as operations manager for a while he became systems architect, responsible for DNSSEC deployment at the NCC, in 2000. From that time on he has been active in the DNS community for instance as co-chair of the DNSEXT working group. He joined NLnet Labs, a R&D foundation, as chief executive in 2005. He is an IAB member since March 2006. DAN PASCU, CTO AG PROJECTS Dan Pascu received a Bachelor of Science in Electronics and Telecommunications from Bucharest Polytechnic University in 1995. Dan has years of experience in design and implementation of complex systems, software development and IP networking. Dan is a well-known contributor to the Open Source community, he is co-author of WindowMaker X-Window Manager and author of MediaProxy solution for SIP Express Router. HENDRIK ROOD, STRATIX Hendrik Rood is a senior consultant at Stratix Consulting since 1995. He was also a Senior Research Fellow at Economics of Infrastructures section at Delft University of Technology from 1998 - 2006. He has regularly published on the economics of names, numbers and other identifiers on electronic networks and on interconnection issues in scientific journals and conferences. At Stratix Hendrik specialised in technical network architecture design and procurement, regulatory advisory services and business plan due dilligence for financial sector clients. He assists a broad range of clients in more informed decision making in telecommunications, Internet and media questions. Hendrik has a background in high bit-rate transmission systems engineering (land-based and submarine systems) and public switching telephony networks. Voice-over-IP and ENUM is an area where he is keen to use his IP networking and classical telecoms background and his non-technical experience in the industry to discuss development questions. ANTOIN VERSCHUREN, SIDN/SEN Antoin Verschuren works as a technical advisor for the Policy & Business Development department of Stichting Internet Domeinregistratie Nederland. SIDN governs the .nl-domain. Before that he was a member of the advisory council of SIDN for several years. Prior functions include Via Networks and Internet Access Eindhoven in several technical functions. MICHIEL LEENAARS, INTERNET SOCIETY Michiel Leenaars is director of Internet Society Netherlands since 2002. ISOC Netherlands is the largest ISOC-chapter in the world. He is a member of the Strategic Committee of Eurid, the .eu registry, of the Netherlands shadow committee of JTC 1/SC 34, the advisory committee of Burger(a)overheid.nl. He is a a boardmember of stichting Petities.nl and a founding board member of Gridforum Netherlands. He has a academic background in Physics and Arts. Additionally Michiel Leenaars works for the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO) as an advisor on e-science, e-infrastructure and grid technology. He is project leader deputy of e-IRGSP, an EU funded project delivering policy support to the e-Infrastructures Reflection Group (e-IRG) and lead editor of the e-Infrastructures Roadmap publised by e-IRG.

1 0

UK ENUM RFP launched!
by Jim Reid 31 Jan '07

31 Jan '07

I am delighted to tell you that the UK ENUM Consortium has just launched the RFP/ITT for the UK Tier 1 Registry, on schedule as promised. I will be informing the RIPE and IETF ENUM mailing lists. Mail is also being sent to those who attended the UKEC workshop on Jan 17th. Please pass on this news to anyone else who might be interested. The ITT and related documents can be downloaded from: http://www.ukenumc.org/documents/index.html. Presentations and other details from the workshop that was held on Jan 17th can be found there too. Organisations planning to respond to the ITT need to inform UKEC of that intent by Feb 7th. Responses to the ITT must be submitted before noon on Feb 28th. There may be stale DNS data in some name server caches that will prevent email being delivered to the contact email address mentioned in the ITT. This should expire in a few hours, allowing the email to flow. Please contact me directly if this continues to be problem.

1 0

RIPE 53 draft minutes
by Carsten Schiefner 29 Jan '07

29 Jan '07

Dear colleagues - once more, a warm "Thank you!" to Alex Le Heux of the RIPE NCC for taking the minutes. The first draft is now available at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/wg/enum/minutes/r53-minutes.html For your convenience you can also find it below as plain TXT. Please send in any comments and/or corrections you may have to this list directly and/or to <enum-wg-chair(a)ripe.net>. Best, Carsten (on behalf of the ENUM WG Co-Chairs) = - = - = Draft ENUM Working Group Minutes from RIPE 53 RIPE Meeting: 53 Working Group: ENUM Status: Draft Revision Number: 1 * content to enum-wg-chair(a)ripe.net * format to webmaster(a)ripe.net RIPE 53 - Hotel Krasnapolsky - St. Johns II - 2006-10-04 - 14:00-15:30 Meeting Chair: Niall O'Reilly (UCD - University College Dublin) Scribe: Alex Le Heux (RIPE NCC) Jabber: Catherine Carr (RIPE NCC) Webcast and Feedback Archives: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-53/sessions-archive.html Start: 14:00 Administrative matters The Chair welcomes everyone, the scribe and the jabberwock. There are no additional agenda points to add to the agenda although the order will be different: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-53/agendas/enum.html There were no comments on the minutes from the RIPE52 meeting, so the minutes are approved. Review of RIPE52 action items: 52.2 - Carsten Schiefner (Deutsche Telekom) There has been some discussion with the RIPE NCC. A .zip file has the advantages of making it easy to add more files and it is a single download. Separate files give a good overview, can be well structured and are the same as the old concept. A downside is that it will produce many hits while searching. Carsten Schiefner will once more put this matter to the WG Mailing List. [ ENUM-AP-52.2 remains open ] The other action items will be dealt with in other agenda items. Presentation: Operations Update - Brett Carr (RIPE NCC) http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-53/presentations/enu-bc-upd.pdf Questions: Patrick Faltstrom (Cisco): Are you doing lameness checks on DNS servers? Brett Carr (RIPE NCC): Not yet. Patrick Faltstrom (Cisco): Will the RIPE NCC take the initiative for that? Brett Carr (RIPE NCC): Yes. Peter Koch (DENIC): You had a slide about strange queries, starting with a plus. Have you considered they could be a misimplementation of the DDDS algorithm? Have you looked into from how many different sources these queries originated? Brett Carr (RIPE NCC): No, but I have all the stats. But we can. => Action item on the RIPE NCC [ ENUM-AP-53.1: RIPE NCC to examine and report on "strange queries" ] Carsten Schiefner (Deutsche Telekom): The NCC is able to get stats from all servers. Will there be a further effort to break them down by country code? Brett Carr (RIPE NCC): We tried, but not all providers have the resources to run the stats on their machines and some are very wary from a privacy point of view. Otmar Lendl (NIC.AT, via Jabber): Please get the DNS performance of the Chinese server up to speed (or provide glue for them). Resolving e164-arpa.cnnic.net.cn is quite broken. Brett Carr (RIPE NCC): Chinese are working on moving their service to a different server. We are already in contact with them. Presentation: Quality Task Force - Carsten Schiefner (Deutsche Telekom) http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-53/presentations/enu-cs-qtf.pdf Niall O'Reilly (University College Dublin): Will you follow up on the Quality Task Force and follow up on the lameness checks by the NCC as an action item? Carsten Schiefner (Deutsche Telekom): Yes. [ ENUM-AP-53.2: Carsten Schiefner to follow up on Quality TF ] Andrei Robachevsky (RIPE NCC): Why do you think it's impossible to tell an ENUM Tier-1 registry to be compliant? Jim Reid (RIPE NCC Exec Board): The answer to that is not technical, it's political. It's run by the country according to that country's rules. So it's a matter of national sovereignty, so I don't think it's the business of the NCC or anybody else to tell them how to run their name servers. Andrei Robachevsky (RIPE NCC): Can this issue be brought into the technical plane rather than the political plane? I understand that delegation to a particular entity is a political issue, but running DNS servers is probably more technical. Jim Reid (RIPE NCC Exec Board): It is a technical issue, but from a government perspective, they feel entitled to do it they way they want to. Patrik Faltstrom (Cisco): That's why I asked who took the initiative for doing the checks. There is a very, very big difference between whether a country asks the RIPE NCC directly or indirectly to do these lameness checks and notify them when something is broken and having someone tell a country that they're doing the wrong thing. Carsten Schiefner (Deutsche Telekom): The original initiative by the RIPE NCC for the lameness checks was for the reverse mapping space only. Jim Reid (RIPE NCC Exec Board): It's not an issue of DNS, it's an issue of phone numbers and telephone numbers being an item of national sovereignty. Daniel Karrenberg (RIPE NCC): I fully agree with Patrik and what Carsten said. What you want to see is a best common practice written up. That's not telling a country on how they should run their DNS. Being from the NCC I am slightly uncomfortable with the hands off approach that is suggested by Patrik and Jim. In any other constellation I can think of; the parent registry has some rules actually. I'm uneasy about this because the RIPE NCC runs at Tier-0 and any really bad quality falls back on the RIPE NCC. We were getting flak for things not working, so I think the NCC is entitled to make strong suggestions. Niall O'Reilly (University College Dublin): (taking chair hat off) There is a delicate balancing act here. If there isn't a safety net that's a bad thing, if the safety net interferes with national sovereignty, that is a bad thing too. Jim Reid (RIPE NCC Exec Board): I agree with what Daniel says. The RIPE NCC must be careful though with it's role as Tier-0 registry. The instructions to the NCC didn't mention lame delegation checking. If the NCC is perceived to exceed its authority, there could be trouble. Olaf Kolkman (NLnet Labs): About the BCP that Daniel mentioned, I think it's more important to provide a set of minimum requirements. Not "this is the bar you should reach" but "this is the bar you should step over" to at least be good. Field Reports Presentation - Ondrej Filip (NIC.CZ) http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-53/presentations/enu-of-czr.pdf Carsten Schiefner (Deutsche Telekom): I would be surprised if a premium rate number holder would actually register it. Ondrej Filip (NIC.CZ): It's an option. Carsten Schiefner (Deutsche Telekom): If you go commercial in 2007, will you clean the trial database? Ondrej Filip (NIC.CZ): No, we will continue on the same platform. Jim Reid (RIPE NCC Exec Board): What are your plans to incorporate this WG's thoughts on DNS quality and incorporate monitoring into the platform? Ondrej Filip (NIC.CZ): No plans. Sungwoo Shin (KRNIC): You will use trial user data when you move to the commercial phase. Will there be any validation of that data? Ondrej Filip (NIC.CZ): Yes, the trial phase is the same as commercial, except without payment. So there is normal validation. Sungwoo Shin (KRNIC): The trial users can use it freely and make a free call without charge? Ondrej Filip (NIC.CZ): Yes, you can use it to make a free call. Presentation - Jim Reid (UKEG) http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-53/presentations/ukeg.pdf Carsten Schiefner (Deutsche Telekom): Is external DNS monitoring part of the RFP? Jim Reid (UKEG): Yes. Otmar Lendl (NIC.AT, via Jabber): Are the SIP URIs in the CRUE records supposed to point to open SIP server, and thus reachable by any caller on the Internet? Jim Reid (UKEG): The SIP server address can point to wherever the carrier chooses, we don't care. Bernie Hoeneisen (SWITCH, via Jabber): In case a user overrides his ENUM entry as populated by the carrier: what will appear in the zone file you are directly providing/selling to the carriers? User provided NS RRs or original carrier populated NAPTR RRs? Jim Reid (UKEG): There will be two NAPTR records, if there is a delegation request, they will be replaced with NS records. Presentation - Sungwoo Shin (KRNIC) http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-53/presentations/enu-ss-kor.pdf Niall O'Reilly (University College Dublin): Will monitoring be built into the requirements for the service? Sungwoo Shin (KRNIC): I don't disagree with Jim's idea. Presentation - Antoin Verschuren (SIDN) http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-53/presentations/enu-av-nl.pdf Antoin Verschuren (SIDN): To answer Jim's question: Yes, we will be happy to do so! Jim Reid (RIPE NCC Exec Board): This is about the consultation you are doing. There are two things: One for redelegation and two, a future meeting where people can comment on the general plan. Is that only for Dutch people? Antoin Verschuren (SIDN): It's an open platform. Presentation - Robert Schischka (NIC.AT): http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-53/presentations/enu-rs-aus.pdf Wolfgang Tremmel (DE-CIX): Is it possible that different carriers querying get different views? Robert Schischka (NIC.AT): No, it's a single public tree. Some carriers might have a different view internally, but not from the outside. Jim Reid (RIPE NCC Exec Board): Are you using wildcards? Robert Schischka (NIC.AT): Yes, we have to, we have an open numbering plan. Olaf Kolkman (NLnet Labs): From a DNS client perspective, if I were to query the tree would I need to know the country number plan? Robert Schischka (NIC.AT): Yes, you need to know where the 'i' is so you need to know how long the country code is. It's a dirty solution but the only way to go now. Olaf Kolkman (NLnet Labs): There may be other alternatives. Robert Schischka (NIC.AT): Everybody agrees that in the end it needs to be a separate tree. There was a lengthy discussion in the IETF, the "Dallas treaty" was an interim solution, and will be easy to change. Peter Koch (DENIC): This kind of infrastructure stuff is kind of broken. For years we have been hearing that it would take years to convince the ITU. Has there been any effort so far to actually talk to the ITU and start this? Robert Schischka (NIC.AT): I don't think the issue has been going on for years, but I don't think anyone is talking to the ITU about this very much. Maybe we should see several countries interested in this, to give more power to the discussion. The tech community wants a neat solution, but the key is buy-in from the telcos, not how the tree is named. Peter Koch (DENIC): One of the problems is that the specification is a bit brittle. Robert Schischka (NIC.AT): No one in carrier land really cares about this. Presentation: ENUM Next Generation - Patrik Faltstrom (Cisco) http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-53/presentations/enu-pf-nge.pdf Antoin Verschuren (SIDN): How are you going to split authority if you do a delegation on for example a path for a number block: if you want to redelegate, for open number plans for instance? Patrik Faltstrom (Cisco): There are two possibilities: 1. A neutral party similar to the portability database administrator operates a database. 2. Do delegations higher up in the tree, but those parties must be neutral as well. There is no portability in DNS. Daniel Karrenberg (RIPE NCC): How are applications supposed to make use of this? Patrik Faltstrom (Cisco): Two ways: 1. Look up the NAPTR records for the phone numbers. 2. If you understand SIP, you can look up _sip._e2u.[phone number] and use that. Daniel Karrenberg (RIPE NCC): And the _h323 and _message labels are found in some lists? Patrik Faltstrom (Cisco): In the existing ENUM specification there is a IANA registry for those labels, including a registration mechanism. Issues for other working groups: Niall O'Reilly will alert the DB WG and the NCC SERVICES WG as action item 53.3 that we expect to have consensus soon on the NON-REGISTRY issue. [ ENUM-AP-53.3: Niall O'Reilly to alert other WGs re NON-REGISTRY ] AOB The graphic of the T-Shirt will be on Rosie. Meeting Ends 15:55

1 0

+420/.0.2.4.e164.arpa full commercial operation
by Pavel Tuma 23 Jan '07

23 Jan '07

Dear all, I'm glad to announce CZ.NIC has switched +420 User ENUM after about 4 month of trial into full commercial operation yesterday. No major problems occured while more than 2100 domains were registred through 9 registrars during the trial. All domains are kept in the registry for commercial operation. Few telco operators support ENUM officialy or unofficially, others announced future support and the discussion with the rest (unfortunately including all major ones) is ongoing. Press release is available at http://enum.nic.cz/en/news/33/news.html Regards, -- Pavel Tuma Project manager | CZ.NIC, z.s.p.o. | Americka 23, 120 00 Praha 2 | Czech Republic | | T +420 222 745 113 | F +420 220 121 184 | M +420 739 093 901 | www.nic.cz

2 1

UK Enum Consortium holds Enum Workshop in London on 17.1.07
by Carsten Schiefner 08 Jan '07

08 Jan '07

Dear colleagues - First of all, a happy 2007 to all of you! Secondly, I got the following invitation and forward it to the list, as asked for. Best regards, Carsten Schiefner -------- Original Message -------- Subject: UK Enum Consortium cordially invites you to attend an Enum Workshop in London on 17th January 2007 Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2007 17:32:42 -0000 From: Adrian Snell <Adrian.Snell(a)timico.co.uk> To: <adrian.snell(a)timico.net> Dear Sir / Madam I write, on behalf of the newly formed UK Enum Consortium Ltd, to provide an invitation to attend a Workshop on Enum in the UK. Where : THE HOP CELLARS Function Rooms 24 Southwark Street, London, SE1 1TY, UK Tel: 020 7403 6851 Email: hopcel(a)ballsbrothers.co.uk See : http://www.ballsbrothers.co.uk/hop/ for further info and Map. When : from 13.00 ( for 13.30 start ) on Wednesday 17th January 2007. Cost : FREE to attend This Event is intended to provide you with an update on the current status of Enum in the UK and to provide information on the upcoming UK Tier 1 Public Tender and RFP process, as well as the expected schedule of events surrounding the RFP and selection of the successful bidder as UKEC's appointed Tier 1 Enum Registry Operator. The Agenda includes: 1. Presentation on UKEC's work to date 2. Presentation on the form and process of the RFP 3. Presentation on Carrier Registrations in User Enum ( CRUE ) 4. UKEC Roadmap for 2007, and how you can get involved There will be plenty of opportunity for all attendees to ask questions and provide feedback to UKEC before the RFP launches. Who should attend: Industry followers and participants from across Europe, Potential Tier 1 Bidders, Electronic Communication Service Providers, Alternative Communication Service Providers, ISP's and infrastructure providers, potential Tier 2 Registrars, Enum Application Developers and anyone with an interest in the future of convergence in telecommunications. Please feel free to forward this mail on to any interested party, however space is limited, so if possible, please confirm you intention to attend in advance to adrian.snell(a)timico.net UKEC Ltd. For further info on this event, or for press enquiries : adrian.snell(a)timico.net Due to distribution via a number of industry mailing lists, please accept my apologies if you receive this twice. --Legal Notice-- This email and its attachments are intented for the above named only and may be confidential. If this email has come to you in error, please reply to it and highlight this to us. You must not take any action on the email, nor must you copy or show it to anyone. Although we have taken steps to ensure that this email and attachments are free from any virus, we advise that in keeping with good computing practice, the recipient should ensure that their systems are free of viruses.

1 0

UK Enum Consortium cordially invites you to attend an Enum Workshop in London on 17th January 2007
by Adrian Snell 05 Jan '07

05 Jan '07

Dear Sir / Madam I write, on behalf of the newly formed UK Enum Consortium Ltd, to provide an invitation to attend a Workshop on Enum in the UK. Where : THE HOP CELLARS Function Rooms 24 Southwark Street, London, SE1 1TY, UK Tel: 020 7403 6851 Email: hopcel(a)ballsbrothers.co.uk See : http://www.ballsbrothers.co.uk/hop/ for further info and Map. When : from 13.00 ( for 13.30 start ) on Wednesday 17th January 2007. Cost : FREE to attend This Event is intended to provide you with an update on the current status of Enum in the UK and to provide information on the upcoming UK Tier 1 Public Tender and RFP process, as well as the expected schedule of events surrounding the RFP and selection of the successful bidder as UKEC's appointed Tier 1 Enum Registry Operator. The Agenda includes: 1. Presentation on UKEC's work to date 2. Presentation on the form and process of the RFP 3. Presentation on Carrier Registrations in User Enum ( CRUE ) 4. UKEC Roadmap for 2007, and how you can get involved There will be plenty of opportunity for all attendees to ask questions and provide feedback to UKEC before the RFP launches. Who should attend: Industry followers and participants from across Europe, Potential Tier 1 Bidders, Electronic Communication Service Providers, Alternative Communication Service Providers, ISP's and infrastructure providers, potential Tier 2 Registrars, Enum Application Developers and anyone with an interest in the future of convergence in telecommunications. Please feel free to forward this mail on to any interested party, however space is limited, so if possible, please confirm you intention to attend in advance to adrian.snell(a)timico.net UKEC Ltd. For further info on this event, or for press enquiries : adrian.snell(a)timico.net Due to distribution via a number of industry mailing lists, please accept my apologies if you receive this twice. --Legal Notice-- This email and its attachments are intented for the above named only and may be confidential. If this email has come to you in error, please reply to it and highlight this to us. You must not take any action on the email, nor must you copy or show it to anyone. Although we have taken steps to ensure that this email and attachments are free from any virus, we advise that in keeping with good computing practice, the recipient should ensure that their systems are free of viruses.

1 0

Re: [db-wg] ASN32 deployment
by Niall O'Reilly 03 Jan '07

03 Jan '07

On 2 Jan 2007, at 15:51, Denis Walker wrote: > 2. The ORGANISATION object type NON-REGISTRY has been changed > to OTHER. The RIPE NCC modified all existing organisation objects > which > had the old type. There is more information about this at: > > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/maillists/archives/db-wg/2006/msg00245.html Several of us in the ENUM WG are very glad to see this. Thanks and Happy New Year to everyone involved in making it happen. Best regards, Niall O'Reilly Co-Chair, RIPE ENUM Working Group

2 1

Happy Holidays!
by Carsten Schiefner 22 Dec '06

22 Dec '06

Dear ENUM collegues, seasonal greetings - shall you have some quiet and happy days with your friends and families. And let's then see what's in 2007 for ENUM - all the best, Carsten Schiefner (on behalf of the ENUM WG Co-Chairs)

1 0

ComReg announces launch of Ireland’s first Commercial Service for ENUM
by Niall O'Reilly 19 Dec '06

19 Dec '06

ComReg and IENUM signed the +353 Tier-1 commercial-service contract yesterday afternoon. ComReg's media release is on their web site: http://www.comreg.ie/whats_new/default.asp?ctype=5&nid=102516 Best regards, Niall O'Reilly Chair, ENUM +353 Policy Advisory Board

1 0

New organisation type proposal "NON-REGISTRY" => "OTHER"
by Katie Petrusha 11 Dec '06

11 Dec '06

[Apologies for duplicate mails] Dear colleagues, This is a proposal to change the organisation type "NON-REGISTRY" to "OTHER" for ORGANISATION objects in the RIPE Database. Motivation: The RIPE ENUM Working Group needs a more general organisation type for the ORGANISATION object. Many organisations have the organisation type "NON-REGISTRY". In the context of the RIPE Database, this is correct. However, some organisations have different functions in other contexts. The RIPE ENUM Working Group proposes changing the organisation type from "NON-REGISTRY" to "OTHER". More details are available at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/maillists/archives/enum-wg/2006/msg00100.html Implementation: The proposed change involves changing the syntax of the ORGANISATION object in the RIPE Database. It does not involve any new or changed authorisation rules or changes to any other objects. Consequences for Existing Objects: Around 20,000 ORGANISATION objects in the RIPE Database have the status of "NON-REGISTRY". The RIPE NCC will modify these objects. Before making any changes, we will tell the object holders about what will happen. If you have any questions about this, send an e-mail to <ripe-dbm(a)ripe.net> Kind Regards, -- Katie Petrusha RIPE NCC

1 0

9.3.e164.arpa down
by Klaus Darilion 23 Nov '06

23 Nov '06

Hi! The Italian ENUM name servers are down/broken. This will cause lots of trouble (long call setups) for ITSPs which perform ENUM lookups. How should we handle such situations? By RIPE (deleting the delegation), by monitoring registries and skipping ENUM lookup for certain countries? AFAIR this is not the first problem with 9.3.e164.arpa regards Klaus -- Klaus Darilion nic.at

9 13

Re: [Enum] draft-ietf-enum-uri-00.txt
by Otmar Lendl 08 Nov '06

08 Nov '06

The IETF enum list seems to be broken, but as Paf explained his proposal at the RIPE meeting in A'dam this week, here is a copy of my reply: ----- Forwarded message from Otmar Lendl <lendl(a)nic.at> ----- Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2006 16:21:40 +0200 From: Otmar Lendl <lendl(a)nic.at> To: Patrik Fältström <paf(a)cisco.com> Cc: IETF ENUM WG <enum(a)ietf.org> Subject: Re: [Enum] draft-ietf-enum-uri-00.txt On 2006/09/28 11:09, Patrik Fältström <paf(a)cisco.com> wrote: > This document was requested to be published the other day, but > publication seems to take some time. Thanks for the document, here are some question: > > 1. > Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 > 2. Applicability > Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 The formatting is a bit off (not only here, but also in the rfc-editor repository), could you please submit a version without unwanted line-breaks, and with page breaks? Concerning this example: > 6.2. Different providers for services for the same E.164 > > An organisation have the E.164 +442079460148, but different > organisations handle routing of calls for the number on the Internet > (with the help of SIP) and traditional PSTN. More specifically, the > two providers want to run DNS for the record(s) that refer to the > services they provide. I think I understand the pure DNS mechanics you propose. What I can't see right now is how this proposal fits into the Tier0/Tier1/ITSP/end-user scheme of actors. Where are the zone cuts and who is operating which zone? > The ENUM provider for the +44 country code in this case not only do > delegations on the full E.164 number, but delegations on the service > parameter values, as can be seen below: > > In this example we also include the NAPTR records that with the help > of the 'D' flag refer to the URI records. We also include NAPTR > records according to RFC 3761 [RFC3761] that give backward > compatibility. > > In zone 8.4.1.0.6.4.9.7.0.2.4.4.e164.arpa.: Who do you propose should run that zone? > $ORIGIN 8.4.1.0.6.4.9.7.0.2.4.4.e164.arpa. > > ;; NAPTR records that refer to URI records > IN NAPTR 1 1 "D" "E2U:sip" ( ; service > "" ; regexp > _sip._e2u ; replacement > ) > > IN NAPTR 1 1 "D" "E2U:tel" ( ;service > "" ;regexp > _tel._e2u ;replacement > ) This record is *important* to the telco running the phone service for this number. They won't want to live with the possibility that users can mess up the telco internal routing. > > ;; NAPTR records for RFC 3761 compatibility > IN NAPTR 1 1 "U" "E2U:sip" ( ;service > "!.*!sip:+442079460148@sipprovider.net!" ; regexp > . ; replacement > ) In the current model, this record is supposed to be hosted on a user-controlled server. This puts us into a bind: > IN NAPTR 1 1 "U" "E2U:tel" ( ;service > "!.*!sip:+442079460148@sipprovider.net!" ; regexp > . ; replacement > ) > > ;; Delegations to child zones > _sip._e2u IN NS ns1.example.net. > _tel._e2u IN NS ns1.example.com. Once again, the I-ENUM records are dependent on the management of the pure ENUM zone 8.4.1.0.6.4.9.7.0.2.4.4.e164.arpa. > In zone _sip._e2u.8.4.1.0.6.4.9.7.0.2.4.4.e164.arpa: > > > $ORIGIN 8.4.1.0.6.4.9.7.0.2.4.4.e164.arpa. > _sip._e2u IN URI "sip:+442079460148@example.net" Shouldn't that be $ORIGIN _sip._e2u.8.4.1.0.6.4.9.7.0.2.4.4.e164.arpa. @ IN URI "sip:+442079460148@example.net" to indicate where the zone-cut is? ----------------------------- To summarize: If I were to start an ENUM deployment from scratch, this proposal is fine (except, see below). In this case, I'd put the IN NAPTR 1 1 "D" records in the Tier1 zone (autocreated based on *._e2u entries) and just delegate (optionally) the _sip._e2u subdomains to subscribers or ITSPs. That way, the DNS infrastructure of one application can be kept independent from the one of another application. The problem is the legacy 3761 support: For all the delegated domains out there, it is not acceptable for the carriers to go to their subscribers and asks them for a delegation of _tel._e2u. That ain't going to fly. In order to make the transition, current ENUM users need to provision their existing NAPTRs into the registry. That's going to be a headache for everybody who managed to get a 3761-based system up and running. ----------------------------- The showstopper: And then there is the issue of open numbering plans. I can't see how this scheme is supposed to work in a country where PBX operators are free to define their own variable-length dialplan behind their pilot number. Consider the example of enum.at's Vienna office: Our pilot number is +43 1 5056416. That's a normal (i.e. not shortened) Vienna number. We use 2-digit extension, e.g. -33 is my phone. A common scheme is to use prefixes for FAX to Email services. In our case -933 is supposed to deliver an incoming FAX to my mailbox. Our carrier (Telekom Austria) doesn't know or even care about these arrangements. In ENUM terms, right now we have a delegation for 6.1.4.5.0.5.1.3.4.e164.arpa and simply add new extensions to our zone file and be done with it. In I-ENUM, Telekom Austria (were they to take part in our trial) would use wildcards to direct calls to their ingress point, e.g. by 6.1.4.5.0.5.1.3.4.e164.arpa NAPTR ... "!(.*)!\\1(a)sip.telekom.at! *.6.1.4.5.0.5.1.3.4.e164.arpa NAPTR ... "!(.*)!\\1(a)sip.telekom.at! Which records should Telekom Austria provision under your scheme? /ol -- < Otmar Lendl (lendl(a)nic.at) | nic.at Systems Engineer > ----- End forwarded message ----- -- < Otmar Lendl (lendl(a)nic.at) | nic.at Systems Engineer >

3 4

Request for trial delegation of the 2.5.e164.arpa
by Carsten Schiefner 24 Oct '06

24 Oct '06

Francisco, first of all, let me express my happiness to see that also Mexico intends to join in ENUM. I have a question though, regarding your application - in the "SUPPLEMENTAL COMMENTS" section you state: === This is a trial delegation for the +52 code, for the purpose of conducting technical tests. [...] === What kind of technical tests would you think of, where do you see a need for further testing? I specifically ask that question having in mind that both, Netherlands and the Czech Republic, recently revealed plans to go into commercial operations directly, basically leaving out any trial phase as they seem to see no need for further trials. Best, Carsten -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [enum-announce] Fw: NCC#2006103092 [Request for trial delegation of the 2.5.e164.arpa] Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2006 11:19:34 +0200 From: RIPE NCC Staff <enum-request(a)ripe.net> Reply-To: RIPE NCC Staff <enum-request(a)ripe.net> To: enum-announce(a)ripe.net, richard.hill(a)itu.int ----- Begin forwarded message ----- Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2006 11:50:52 -0500 From: Francisco Arias <farias(a)nic.mx> To: enum-request(a)ripe.net Subject: NCC#2006103092 Request for trial delegation of the 2.5.e164.arpa Message-Id: <20061023165052.918B9182C2E(a)mail.nic.mx> ENUM Request Form RIPE NCC Doc-ID: ripe-384 Date: August 2006 % ENUM Request Form % You can use this form to request ENUM delegation of an E.164 country code. % Submit the completed form to <enum-request(a)ripe.net>. % Please see ripe-385 for instructions on how to complete this form. #[GENERAL INFORMATION]# % % Please do not change the value of the two fields below. request-type: enum form-version: 1.0 #[REQUESTER DETAILS]# % % Please add your contact details. name: Francisco Arias phone: +52 81 8387 5346 fax-no: +52 81 8387 5346 e-mail: farias(a)nic.mx #[ORGANISATION DETAILS]# % % Which organisation is requesting the delegation? legal-organisation-name: Network Information Center Mexico, S.C. organisation-location: Av. Eugenio Garza Sada 427 Sur. Locales 4, 5 y 6 organisation-location: Col. Altavisa, C.P. 64840 organisation-location: Monterrey, Nuevo Leon, Mexico website: http://www.nic.mx #[DATABASE TEMPLATE]# % % Please complete all of the fields below. domain: 2.5.e164.arpa descr: Network Information Center Mexico, S.C. org: ORG-NICM1-RIPE admin-c: OARG tech-c: FJAC zone-c: GLI nserver: a.ns.mx nserver: b.ns.mx nserver: c.ns.mx nserver: d.ns.mx mnt-by: NICMX-MNT changed: hostmaster(a)ripe.net source: RIPE #[SUPPLEMENTAL COMMENTS]# % % Please add more information if you think it will help us understand % this request. This is a trial delegation for the +52 code, for the purpose of conducting technical tests. This delegation is given by the CFT authority in Mexico. #[END of REQUEST]# ------------------------------------------------ Francisco J. Arias IT Director Network Information Center México Phone & Fax: +52 81 8387 5346 http://www.nic.mx .MX is the new way to say Mexico The content of this data transmission is confidential, therefore, it shall not be modified, distributed and/or disclosed through any mean without the original sender's previous authorization. Any information, offer or agreement made by the sender of this data transmission, should be consider as personal and not binding for NIC Mexico. ------ End forwarded message ------

1 0

ENUM Day Australia
by Kewin Stoeckigt 24 Oct '06

24 Oct '06

Hi all, Please find attached a flyer for the upcoming ENUM Day seminar, which will be held in Sydney on 15 November 2006. The FREE seminar will be jointly conducted by ACMA, AusRegistry International, AARNet and Instra Corporation. More detailed information and links to the ENUM Day website are contained in the flyer. See you on the 15th of November. Kewin P.S. Hope this is not considered to be Spam :-)

1 0

Proposal for new org-type
by Antoin Verschuren 19 Oct '06

19 Oct '06

Hi all, In order for ENUM registries to be correctly distinguished in the RIPE NCC database, I want to propose a new organization type to be used in the organization object. Current organization types are: IANA RIR NIR LIR NON-REGISTRY I would like this list to be extended with the term REGISTRY. I will note the issue tomorow in the ENUM WG, but need consensus to take place here, so please comment either here or tomorrow in the ENUM WG session. Antoin Verschuren Technical Advisor Policy & Business Development SIDN Utrechtseweg 310 PO Box 5022 6802 EA Arnhem The Netherlands T +31 26 3525510 F +31 26 3525505 M +31 6 23368970 E antoin.verschuren(a)sidn.nl W http://www.sidn.nl/

5 6

RE: [enum-wg] Concerning Wildcards and I-ENUM
by Antoin Verschuren 13 Oct '06

13 Oct '06

Niall O'Reilly wrote: > % dig @ns-pri.ripe.net e164.arpa axfr \ > | awk '($4 == "NS") && (/^[0-9]/) { print $1 }' \ > | sort | uniq > > Perhaps it's worth considering desirable administrative constraints > on the Tier-0 zone, in order to make some such method fornmally > (rather than accidentally) possible? This was sort of what I was thinking about, but not sure if it's a good idea. It would build further on the EBL record which was supposed to be a temporary solution. But now that we see that a demand for more ENUM space might arise, I wonder if it's the right path to do that in the countrycode's zone, or in the e164.arpa zone to allow separation of registries and their authorisation independent of the User ENUM registry, or perhaps in a complete different zone per ENUM application. The latter would require only one lookup, where the first needs 3. Cashing for countrycode discovery could be quite long, as it rarely changes, but NS records in e164.arpa could change more often. I wonder if countrycode discovery could have another benefit for applications besides branche discovery. Perhaps billing (dirty word), legal regime, specific numberplan properties, distance calculation or whatever gadget they might come up with might need countrycode awareness anyway. Antoin Verschuren Technical Advisor Policy & Business Development SIDN Utrechtseweg 310 PO Box 5022 6802 EA Arnhem The Netherlands T +31 26 3525510 F +31 26 3525505 M +31 6 23368970 E antoin.verschuren(a)sidn.nl W http://www.sidn.nl/

2 1

RE: [enum-wg] 1.3.e164.arpa consultations
by Antoin Verschuren 13 Oct '06

13 Oct '06

Carsten Schiefner wrote: > Antoin, > > in your presentation last week you mentioned the deadline of 9 Oct for > the consultation on the 1.3.e164.arpa re-delegation to Stichting ENUM > Nederland. > > Any outcome you could already share? No, not yet. Our ministry is now evaluating the responses they got. Some responses might need an official statement from the government so they need some time to prepare that. They will come with an official statement on October 25th, which will also be the approval or non-approval for the redelegation request. >From what I hear unofficially in the market from people that responded, there are no real showstoppers, just some recommendations for the legal entity, some binding rules regarding validation, and no automatic approval for infrastructure ENUM without market consultation. We are happy to discuss these recommendations. I did not hear about oppositions to our plan, but then again I don't know all the responses. We'll see in 12 days. Antoin Verschuren Technical Advisor Policy & Business Development SIDN Utrechtseweg 310 PO Box 5022 6802 EA Arnhem The Netherlands T +31 26 3525510 F +31 26 3525505 M +31 6 23368970 E antoin.verschuren(a)sidn.nl W http://www.sidn.nl/

1 0

1.3.e164.arpa consultations
by Carsten Schiefner 12 Oct '06

12 Oct '06

Antoin, in your presentation last week you mentioned the deadline of 9 Oct for the consultation on the 1.3.e164.arpa re-delegation to Stichting ENUM Nederland. Any outcome you could already share? Best, -C.

1 0

RE: [enum-wg] Concerning Wildcards and I-ENUM
by Antoin Verschuren 11 Oct '06

11 Oct '06

Otmar Lendl wrote: > draft-ietf-enum-branch-location-record-00 does solve this, as it > provides a mechanism how new ENUM application can be directed to > their own trees. But it forces the application to know all countrycodes in a static list, and do an extra lookup. If it would be a queryable dynamic list, it would need an extra lookup too, but at least the application does not need to be countrycode aware, it could just look it up. Antoin Verschuren Technical Advisor Policy & Business Development SIDN Utrechtseweg 310 PO Box 5022 6802 EA Arnhem The Netherlands T +31 26 3525510 F +31 26 3525505 M +31 6 23368970 E antoin.verschuren(a)sidn.nl W http://www.sidn.nl/

3 2

RE: [enum-wg] Proposal for new org-type
by Antoin Verschuren 09 Oct '06

09 Oct '06

Jim Reid wrote: > On Oct 3, 2006, at 09:35, Antoin Verschuren wrote: > >> I would like this list to be extended with the term REGISTRY. >> >> I will note the issue tomorow in the ENUM WG, but need consensus to >> take place here, so please comment either here or tomorrow in the >> ENUM WG session. > > I strongly support the idea of having a new organisation type to > describe ENUM "registries". I was actually going to sugest ENUM-REGISTRY as org type. But RIPE NCC told me they'd favoured the term REGISTRY, probably so they could also use it for other registries not active in the RIR world. Perhaps they have the intention to sell their database to registration organisation for car license plates or whatever. Would thy then need to introduce another org-type ? (License-plate-REGISTRY). So should I change the proposal to be ENUM-REGISTRY ? Antoin Verschuren Technical Advisor Policy & Business Development SIDN Utrechtseweg 310 PO Box 5022 6802 EA Arnhem The Netherlands T +31 26 3525510 F +31 26 3525505 M +31 6 23368970 E antoin.verschuren(a)sidn.nl W http://www.sidn.nl/

8 11

RIPE 52 draft minutes
by Carsten Schiefner 09 Oct '06

09 Oct '06

Dear colleagues - First of all, our sincerest apologies for not having posted the minutes earlier - we definitely see room for improvement here... Secondly, a warm "Thank you!" to Alex Le Heux of the RIPE NCC for taking the minutes. The first draft is available at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/wg/enum/minutes/r52-minutes.html Please send in any comments and/or corrections you may have to this list directly and/or to <enum-wg-chair(a)ripe.net>, the deadline for this is Tuesday, 3 Oct 2006, 12:00 UTC/14:00 Amsterdam local time. Further objections acceped in person at WG session, with immediate decision on dealing with them at the meeting (could need more time on list). In the absence of any objections, the minutes will be declared "final" Monday, 9 Oct 2006. Best, Carsten (on behalf of the ENUM WG Co-Chairs) === ENUM Working Group Minutes from RIPE 52 RIPE Meeting: 52 Working Group: ENUM Status: Draft Revision Number: 1 * content to enum-wg-chair(a)ripe.net * format to webmaster(a)ripe.net RIPE 52 - Ceylon Intercontinental Hotel - Bosphorus II - 20060427 - 14:00-15:30 Session Chair: Niall O’Reilly Scribe: Alex Le Heux (RIPE NCC) Jabber: Catherine Carr (RIPE NCC) Webcast and Feedback Archives: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-52/sessions-archive.html A: Chair - Start: 14:04 Administrivia: Welcome, Scribe, Jabberwok Niall O'Reilly: Welcome everyone. B: Chair - Start: 14:05 Minutes ENUM-WG at RIPE 51 Niall O'Reilly: There were no extra comments. Any objections? Silence. Minutes RIPE 51 approved. C: Chair - Start: 14:06 Review Action List Niall O'Reilly: 51.2: Carsten has let the RIPE NCC know the missing links and the RIPE NCC is following up -> Action Item 52.1 51.3: Not needed. Done. Niall O'Reilly: Please do boring stuff in between the meetings, so we can do interesting stuff at the meetings. 51.7: Thanks to everyone who helped the Austrians with testing the +43780, lots of people did. They couldn't come, but sent apologies. D: Chair - Start: 14:07 Short News (if any) Carsten Schiefner: No short news really. There is some news about IETF ENUM WG about standardisation. IETF takes infrastructure ENUM into account as well now. Two ideas: 1. Separate .arpa domain; 2. Follow the Austrian approach, branch location register in the normal e164.arpa tree. The problem is that there is only public user ENUM in e164.arpa, which isn't very helpful for infrastructure providers because in public user ENUM it is the user who decides first of all if he or she wants to be part of ENUM and register the phone number as ENUM domain, and secondly, the Infrastructure provider has no control over what the user puts there. For peering purposes there needs to be some infrastructure ENUM in place. The Dallas treaty solved this in Dallas: Short term: Follow branch location register approach. Long term: Separate 2nd level domain in .arpa. E: Leo Vegoda - Start: 14:10 RIPE NCC ENUM Report Presentation is at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-52/presentations/ripe52-enum-ncc-upd… Daniel Karrenberg: A comment: Total queries we get at the e164.arpa service is not the total ENUM queries. We should probably add a sentence saying so, before we see strange things in the media. Jim Reid: Are the statistics for the RIPE NCC's e164.arpa servers? Leo Vegoda: Yes, only the NCC's servers. Carsten Schiefner: Intention to gather other statistics from the other e164.arpa operators? Leo Vegoda: We didn't do that this time. From the minutes of RIPE 51 I thought just the RIPE NCC's statistics were enough. If there is demand, we can try to put something together. Niall O'Reilly: That's what you were asked for this meeting. It would be good maybe for RIPE 53. Action item 52.2 -> Widen the stats. Carsten Schiefner: Documentation of communications in a zip file proposal is fine for me. Is that fine with the group? Niall O'Reilly: To the list. Action item 52.3 -> Stimulate that on the list. F: Gerhard Schröder - Start: 14:22 Follow-up on the Plenary presentation: ENUM and Security Presentation is at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-52/presentations/ripe52-plenary-enum… Niall O'Reilly: Are there questions from the group? Gerhard Schröder: Introduction to his plenary presentation. Maybe the presentation was at the wrong place. When we made the transit from classic telephony to SIP+ENUM, we wanted to know what the risks were. We have a lot of experience in ISDN telephony in security and misuse. Patrik Fältström, Cisco: A comment: You talked about infrastructure ENUM. In the IETF people think infrastructure ENUM are records that are visible in the public DNS. That's not the same definition as you use. PRESENTATIONS Karen Mulberry - Start: 14:26 G1: +1 Trial Presentation is at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-52/presentations/ripe52-enum-1.pdf Carsten Schiefner on Slide 4: Does the trial have an end date set already? Karen Mulberry: the idea is to have the trial run for 6 months, we need a waiver and numbers from the FCC. After that it takes 30 days. So we don't know when it begins and when it ends. Canada is also looking at starting a trial. Niall O'Reilly: Will you come often to the RIPE Meetings? Your timing is very good! Karen Mulberry: I'd love to! Martin Felt: Carriers are interested in interconnecting in North America, that needs to be solved and how ENUM will be used. The US Government guidelines state that there won't be infrastructure ENUM. In your mind, will that prevent everyone to come together? Karen Mulberry: The value is in the infrastructure ENUM, not really in the user ENUM today. Maybe in the future, but not right now. In essence what the USG said is that we authorised a delegation and we'll take it away if you don't do what we say. There will be an industry discussion about how to proceed, but first we will proceed with the e164.arpa trial as that will educate the government organisations and satisfy them. Daniel Karrenberg: In your trial there's not a lot of info about verification. Are you trialling that as well? Karen Mulberry: Two providers that are authentication/verification agents. We have lot of different databases that drive the public network. They are looking at what process to use, but we will work through it. Daniel Karrenberg: It will be in the trial? Karen Mulberry: Yes is will. It's also the concern of the FTC. Daniel Karrenberg: Two organisations that see business in this? Karen Mulberry: Yes, two ISPs that see opportunity in this. Gerhard Schröder: Thank you Karen. One slide shows privacy/security! Thank you for this! I'd like to propose to add this security feature to the working list. Niall O'Reilly: I'm not sure what you have in mind. Gerhard Schröder: It would be worthwhile to discuss security and privacy Issues in the WG. Niall O'Reilly: This is a problem of telco and data protection regulators. But it would be interesting to hear what is developing. We won't put this on our WG action list, but we will be making a call for the agenda at RIPE 53 with some interesting people. The privacy experts are not in the room, we're all technical people. Gerhard Schröder: It's also a feature of a product. Karen Mulberry: In the US we're talking about contact info and DNSsec. We're not sure if we're going forward with that. Patrik Fältström, Cisco: When I hear people talk about privacy and ENUM, I feel that no fingerpointing is important. There are people in this room that mix up the ability of one organisation to find out what customers that a competitor has with the ability of organisation to know information about individuals. Gerhard Schröder: Will DNSsec able to solve all sec features for ENUM? With DNSsec we can't make a trusted tree, just a trusted chain. We need to deal with the security for each user. Niall O'Reilly interrupts: We are out of time, let's move this to the mailing list. We don't have time to explore these questions in any meaningful way. Thank you Karen. Jim Reid - Start: 14:56 G3: Test bed numbers Presentation is at: URL: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-52/presentations/ripe52-enum-testbed… Jim Reid: Does the WG care about a test bed, should we try to progress it? Working Group hums: <not really> Niall O'Reilly: Action Item 51.5 stays open for now. Niall O'Reilly: Would it help to have some allocations from other regulators? Jim Reid: Yes, it doesn't matter which numbers we get, just where they terminate. Niall O'Reilly: From the point of diversity? Jim Reid: I don't know. Niall O'Reilly: Let's move this to the mailing list. Jim Reid - Start: 15:01 G2: +44 Update Presentation is at: URL: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-52/presentations/ripe52-enum-44.pdf Martin Felt: Is CRUE temporary? Jim Reid: I'm not sure. Peter Koch: Are the specifications for CRUE are available? Are there wildcards? Jim Reid: No wildcards, the specifications will be available, it's not yet as the website isn't up yet. Jay Daley, Nominum: It will be available in 4 weeks. Jim Reid: If you want a copy, let me know, I'll send it. Andreas Bäß - Start: 15:07 G4: +49 Commercial Operations Presentation is at: URL: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-52/presentations/ripe52-enum-49.pdf Niall O'Reilly: 5600 domains? Are those multiblocks or all the same? Andreas Bäß: I've not checked, so there are blocks in there too. Niall O'Reilly: Validation is for a year. Coupling the timers for validation with quarantining between number holder before reassigning to customers? Andreas Bäß: No idea how the quarantining is done, so no. Daniel Karrenberg: I'm a happy +49 customer. I had several calls of people who had used ENUM to find the sip gateway. Any idea how many complaints about authentication? Andreas Bäß: So far none. Conor Daly - Start: 15:20 G5: +353 Commercial Operations Presentation is at: URL: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-52/presentations/ripe52-enum-353.pdf No questions. Interaction with other WGs Peter Koch - Start: 15:23 X1: Walking E164.ARPA Presentation is at: URL: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-52/presentations/ripe52-enum-still-c… Daniel Karrenberg: Why the short TTLs on NAPTR records? Peter Koch: Probably for follow me services. Ed Lewis: Low TTLs are a disaster. All: <agree> Daniel Karrenberg: A comment: NAPTR records for non-leaf nodes can be real and useful. Some people have shorter numbers. Niall O'Reilly: Do you want Leo to talk to Andrei about DNS quality, the availability of servers? Peter Koch: It was a customer server, not a Tier1 server. It had 5000 delegations though. Niall O'Reilly: Let's move this to the list. Carsten Schiefner - Start: 15:34 X2: DNS-WG-AP-51.5 Niall O'Reilly: This was action 51.6 in this WG, 51.5 in DNS WG Carsten Schiefner: The RIPE NCC will put e164.arpa under the reverse delegation checker regime. Still need discussion about what to do when a lame delegation is detected. Niall O'Reilly: Close action? Or keep open? Carsten Schiefner: Close it. AOB None Action Items Number Who Item 51.5 Jim Reid Stimulate discussion on testbed numbers/ranges. 52.1 RIPE NCC Follow up on the missing links reported by Carsten, pending the discussion in 52.3. 52.2 RIPE NCC Widen the e164.arpa server statistics to include other servers than just those of the RIPE NCC. 52.3 Carsten Schiefner Stimulate discussion on the list about the format of the communications documentation on the site (currently .zip). [Meeting closed.]

1 1

RE: [enum-wg] Concerning Wildcards and I-ENUM
by Antoin Verschuren 09 Oct '06

09 Oct '06

Otmar Lendl wrote: > Corrolary: The ENUM v2 scheme that Patrick and Olof came up with will > neither solve User-ENUM vs. I-ENUM branching, nor will it be suitable > for an I-ENUM deployment in a country with an open numbering plan. > > Please convince me that I'm wrong about this one. Hi Otmar, I have expressed the same worries about it, and Patrick and Olaf considder this a layer nine issue rather than something they're trying to solve. Not only for open numbering plans, but also for block allocations, ENUM v2 offers no solution for the authority over the delegation problem. I considder this the real issue, and even though ENUM v2 will solve direct querying for specific records, the increase in delegation points will not have any value for non fixed length numbers, and might even confuse people even more. But they do have a valid point when they say that any (new) type of operator might claim their own tree to control their ENUM space, and we need a solution for that. I think that differentiating should take place as close to the root as possible to make sure that implementation is the same around the world, and applications know where to query. Antoin Verschuren Technical Advisor Policy & Business Development SIDN Utrechtseweg 310 PO Box 5022 6802 EA Arnhem The Netherlands T +31 26 3525510 F +31 26 3525505 M +31 6 23368970 E antoin.verschuren(a)sidn.nl W http://www.sidn.nl/

2 1

Concerning Wildcards and I-ENUM
by Otmar Lendl 09 Oct '06

09 Oct '06

During Robert's talk on Infrastructure ENUM in Austria I heard some harrumphes on the mentioning of us using wildcard records. While I can see that wildcards are a dangerous issue, I really doubt that we can avoid them in our setting. I've explained the issue recently to the Denic ENUM list; here is an English version of the argument: The basic premise on the Denic list was that end-users should roll out their ENUM zones instead of using wildcards (especially as the new wildcard behavior as defined by RFC4592 can lead to unexpected result due to "empty non-terminals"). In order to roll out a wildcard into individual entries you need to know the number length used within that PBX or more generally, that prefix. This is certainly a non-issue in all countries which have fixed length telephone numbers. Germany and Austria use open numbering plans, though, where e.g. PBX operators are free to devise their own schemes behind their pilot number. For user-ENUM this is not a problem, as the PBX maintainer is also the DNS admin for the ENUM zone: he knows what numbering-plan he has implemented on the PBX, he thus can generate the appropriate (non-wildcard) NAPTR records in his own ENUM zone file. Infrastructure ENUM is different, though: We (as the Registry) see only the number blocks as given from the NRA to the carriers, and not a) the length of numbers assigned to subscribers b) whatever extensions the subscribers themselves add to those numbers. Right now, PBX operators do not have to tell their carriers about extension they provision on their PBXs. They don't even have to be constant length, schemes where -9XX is the FAX box of -XX are common. The same is true for direct calls to voice-mail. In other words, the carriers themselves often don't know the length of telephone numbers within their own blocks. They just know the length of the pilot number they have give out to their customers. This, too can vary quite a bit: Consider Vienna (+43 1), where the current rules say: * "normal" number length is 7 digit. (e.g. +43 1 5056416) * Carriers usually get blocks of 10000 numbers, e.g. +43 1 236* * Customers connected via ISDN PRIs can apply for shorter number, down to 5 digits, e.g. +43 1 59966) * There are two legacy 4 digit numbers, +43 1 4177 and +43 1 4000 (University and City Hall). * In all cases customer are free to define their own extension numbers up to a total number length of 14 digits (under certain circumstances, 15 is legit as well). For the default number length in Vienna, this means e.g. +43 1 5056416 ABCD. There are now two issues: 1) Is there a way for us to learn about the length of numbers in use? 2) If not, can't we just roll out the zone anyway? ad 1): For that to happen, all PBX operators (That need not be an enterprise. A simple ISDN BRI in P2P mode is enough) need to tell their carriers about their installation and the carriers need forward that information (plus all their normal assignment info (which also can vary within a block) to us so that we can generate the proper non-wildcard records. This is extremely unlikely to happen. ad 2) consider e.g. the record *.6.3.2.1.i.3.4.e164.arpa. NAPTR 10 10 "u" "E2U+sip" "!^(.*)$!sip:\\1@enum.sil.at!" . which corresponds to +43 1 236, which is a block owned by Silverserver. This one is provisioned in our I-ENUM database as one single record. Let's assume we roll that out to cover all possible assignement: there are 4 digits Silverserver can assign and 4 more that the customer can add. This means 8 digits, thus 10^8 possible records. Shorter numbers are of course also possible, so we have to add another 10^4 + 10^5 + 10^6 + 10^7 records. A full roll-out of this one single block add thus 111 million NAPTR records to our zonefile. This is not a viable option for us. -------------- Thus: For I-ENUM in Austria, we need wildcards. Corrolary: The ENUM v2 scheme that Patrick and Olof came up with will neither solve User-ENUM vs. I-ENUM branching, nor will it be suitable for an I-ENUM deployment in a country with an open numbering plan. Please convince me that I'm wrong about this one. /ol -- < Otmar Lendl (lendl(a)nic.at) | nic.at Systems Engineer >

2 1

Questions concerning CRUE
by Otmar Lendl 09 Oct '06

09 Oct '06

Jim, yesterday's session was bit tight in terms of time for questions, thus here they come on the list. There are a few points where I'm not sure I understand the CRUE proposal, so please correct me if I got this wrong: * The registry will not provision any CRUE records just by themselves. * The main difference between CRUE entries and normal delegations are: + CRUE records are requested by the carrier, and not the end-user. + CRUE records are validated by public Ofcom block allocation data, vs. whatever you do for normal user-enum + CRUE records use NAPTRs in the registry vs. normal delegations based on NS records in the Tier1 zone * From the point of the ENUM client which just cares about NAPTR records, there is no difference between Numern->URI mappings provided by CRUE records and normal user-enum NAPTR records. Some more questions: * You said that the registry makes no assumptions on the reachability of the SIP URIs contained in the CRUE record. What about the carriers interested in CRUE? Did you talk to them about their plans? One of the reasons we started the I-ENUM trial here was the fact that some of the operators refused to run open servers and wanted detailed control on whom they peer with. * What about ported numbers? From what I know about the .uk system, Ofcom doesn't hold information about those. * CRUE entries will be provisioned by the number-owning carrier: Will they have to send a CRUE request for every single number, or will there be a block-provisioning interface? If yes, will that make use of the NAPTR regexp feature to have identical NAPTR records for whole blocks? Thanks, /ol -- < Otmar Lendl (lendl(a)nic.at) | nic.at Systems Engineer >

2 1

Thank you
by Niall O'Reilly 05 Oct '06

05 Oct '06

On behalf of both co-chairs, I'ld like to say a warm "thank you" to all who made the RIPE 53 ENUM WG session so interesting by presenting material, and especially to the NCC staff who delivered support services for the meeting: minute-taking, jabber monitoring, and technical support. For myself, I'ld like to thank my co-chair, Carsten Schiefner, for all his work in preparation for the meeting. Best regards, Niall O'Reilly Co-Chair, RIPE ENUM Working Group

2 1

RE: [db-wg] Re: [enum-wg] Proposal for new org-type
by Antoin Verschuren 05 Oct '06

05 Oct '06

Per Heldal wrote: > On Wed, 2006-10-04 at 09:47 +0200, Antoin Verschuren wrote: > [snip] >> I can see a reason for the term "REGISTRY" if RIPE intends to expand >> heir services to more than IP network services, and doesn't feel to >> create a long list of different marketing terms for different >> organisations. I work for a ccTLD registry that is not an LIR, and >> even though that is a clear Internet registry function like IANA, >> RIR or LIR, RIPE currently does not supply a service for that >> function that requires an entry in the DB. >> >> Conclusion: >> I can live with ENUM-REGISTRY, REGISTRY, OTHER or no org-type at all. >> I cannot live with the org-type NON-REGISTRY. >> >> My prefference would be the ENUM-REGISTRY org-type. > > > This proposal is taking things out of context. The word REGISTRY in > RIPE-terms means an IP-address registry. Nothing more, nothing less. > That your organisation is categorised as NON-REGISTRY by RIPE doesn't > mean that RIPE does not acknowledge your role as a registry in some > other context, just that you're not an ip-addr registry. Should the > database contain exceptions for all kinds of registries which happen > to deal with something else than ip-addresses? That's why we changed the proposal to change the NON-REGISTRY into OTHER. Antoin Verschuren Technical Advisor Policy & Business Development SIDN Utrechtseweg 310 PO Box 5022 6802 EA Arnhem The Netherlands T +31 26 3525510 F +31 26 3525505 M +31 6 23368970 E antoin.verschuren(a)sidn.nl W http://www.sidn.nl/

2 1

RE: [db-wg] Re: [enum-wg] Proposal for new org-type
by Antoin Verschuren 05 Oct '06

05 Oct '06

leo vegoda wrote: > Do people find org-type values like IANA, RIR, LIR and so on useful? > If not, maybe we just need two values: REGISTRY for IANA, RIRs, LIRs, > TLDs and Tier 1 ENUM operators and NON-REGISTRY for everyone else. > However, if people really find the hierarchical distinctions in the > current org-type values useful, maybe we need some additional > granularity for the different kinds of domain registries? > > If the extra granularity is useful, perhaps we need to allow > organisations to have multiple org-type values? That's probably > preferable to having multiple objects for a single organisation. It depends on what is is supposed to be used for in the DB. If is is needed to distinguish types of organisations when making queries, the types makes sense. But if it's only there to give a label and it is never used, it doesn't. I wouldn't mind changing the "NON-REGISTRY" into "OTHER", like I now have to apply for a RIPE meeting. But on the other hand, if RIPE wants to use it as a differentiation of their customers, and this would be expressed in the RIPE DB, I think ENUM-REGISTRY would be appropriate, and I would also find it logical I can register at a RIPE meeting as "ENUM-REGISTRY". It's then just a customer type. I can see a reason for the term "REGISTRY" if RIPE intends to expand heir services to more than IP network services, and doesn't feel to create a long list of different marketing terms for different organisations. I work for a ccTLD registry that is not an LIR, and even though that is a clear Internet registry function like IANA, RIR or LIR, RIPE currently does not supply a service for that function that requires an entry in the DB. Conclusion: I can live with ENUM-REGISTRY, REGISTRY, OTHER or no org-type at all. I cannot live with the org-type NON-REGISTRY. My prefference would be the ENUM-REGISTRY org-type. Antoin Verschuren Technical Advisor Policy & Business Development SIDN Utrechtseweg 310 PO Box 5022 6802 EA Arnhem The Netherlands T +31 26 3525510 F +31 26 3525505 M +31 6 23368970 E antoin.verschuren(a)sidn.nl W http://www.sidn.nl/

4 3

RE: [enum-wg] Proposal for new org-type
by Antoin Verschuren 05 Oct '06

05 Oct '06

Marco d'Itri wrote: > On Oct 03, leo vegoda <leo(a)ripe.net> wrote: > >> Do people find org-type values like IANA, RIR, LIR and so on useful? >> No. What would be the point? As Leo pointed out: Looking back into the mail archives for 2003 and 2004 I think the original purpose was to let people know how close to the End User the registration on a block of IP addresses was. If my memory is correct, the org-type was introduced after it was felt that status attribute values like "ALLOCATED-BY-IANA" or "ALLOCATED-BY-RIR" would overburden the status attribute syntax unnecessarily. One of the possible functionality could be that you'd not like to contact certain organisations holding numberblocks when abuse comes from them since you will know these numbers are distributed in a specific fashon, and you'll probably be not reaching an end user. Don't know if such routines are used. Antoin Verschuren Technical Advisor Policy & Business Development SIDN Utrechtseweg 310 PO Box 5022 6802 EA Arnhem The Netherlands T +31 26 3525510 F +31 26 3525505 M +31 6 23368970 E antoin.verschuren(a)sidn.nl W http://www.sidn.nl/

1 0

Documentation of ENUM requests
by Carsten Schiefner 05 Oct '06

05 Oct '06

Dear colleagues, on 3 Sep I have sent the email quoted below to the list. Other than stated in the last sentence, we felt it necessary - in particular in the absence of any so far - to solicit for more input and therefore to extend the discussion period. I have just given a short, one slide presentation in the ENUM WG session which is (temporarily only?) available at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-53/presentations/uploads/Wednesday/… (PPS, no PDF yet). Please find a TXT version here: Advantages Disadvantages ZIP file containing Less hits when searching, Potentially large ZIP all documents concept of a „single file file to download for per case“, easy just a small piece maintenance: just put of information additional stuff in the ZIP file Separate files, all Good overview, well Many hits when linked on a structured filing, concept searching, per-country basis we had already potentially confusing – maybe still not all relevant documents returned Please be invited to comment at to let the WG know about your preferrences. Regards, Carsten Schiefner (for the ENUM WG Co-Chairs) -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [enum-wg] Documentation of ENUM requests Date: Sun, 03 Sep 2006 15:38:21 +0200 From: Carsten Schiefner <enumvoipsip.cs(a)schiefner.de> To: enum-wg(a)ripe.net Dear colleagues, this is to start a discussion - if necessary - on how the RIPE NCC is supposed to document ENUM requests. As a short recap: 1.6 of the "IAB Instructions to the RIPE NCC Regarding operation of the domain e164.arpa ("ENUM")" [http://www.ripe.net/enum/instructions.html] mandates that "all communication regarding the application for a specific delegation is to be publicly archived". That used to be done from the overview page at: http://www.ripe.net/enum/request-archives/ by a link to the respective E.164 CC specific page, eg. Germany at: http://www.ripe.net/enum/request-archives/enum-request-arch+49/ An archived snapshot of the overview page is available at: http://web.archive.org/web/20030826073846/http://www.ripe.net/enum/request-… The RIPE NCC has now proposed a way of documentation where - instead of having a separate page per E.164 CC request - the overview page links to ZIP archives that would contain all sorts of communication like emails, scanned letters and faxes etc. pp. I intend to set the deadline for this discussion to the WG session at RIPE 53 - please be invited to voice any concerns, suggenstions etc. here on the list until then. Best, Carsten Schiefner

2 1

RE: [enum-wg] Proposal for new org-type
by Antoin Verschuren 04 Oct '06

04 Oct '06

Niall O'Reilly wrote: > This message has two purposes. > > It is addressed to the ENUM WG with the purpose of determining > consensus in this WG on the proposal from Antoin Verschuren. To let there be no misunderstanding, the final proposal with most consensus so far is: >> In order for ENUM registries to not be misinterpreted in the RIPE >> NCC database, I want to propose to change an organization type to be >> used in the organization object. >> Current organization types are: >> >> IANA >> RIR >> NIR >> LIR >> NON-REGISTRY >> >> I would like this NON-REGISTRY to be changed to OTHER. > > I will declare consensus in the ENUM WG unless objections to Antoin's > proposal are posted on the ENUM WG mailing list before 12:00 UTC on > Thursday, 18 October 2006. Regards, Antoin Verschuren Technical Advisor Policy & Business Development SIDN Utrechtseweg 310 PO Box 5022 6802 EA Arnhem The Netherlands T +31 26 3525510 F +31 26 3525505 M +31 6 23368970 E antoin.verschuren(a)sidn.nl W http://www.sidn.nl/

1 0

.8.5.3.e164.arpa launched commercially
by Carsten Schiefner 03 Oct '06

03 Oct '06

Dear ENUM WGers, it was with great pleasure when I read Juhani's email quoted below. Congratulations to FICORA and a prospering future to all coming ENUM efforts in Finland! Best, Carsten (on behalf of the ENUM WG Co-Chairs) -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [centr-ga] .8.5.3.e164.arpa launched commercially Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2006 12:35:05 +0300 From: Juselius Juhani <juhani.juselius(a)ficora.fi> To: <ga(a)centr.org> Dear Colleagues, Ficora launched .8.5.3.e164.arpa user ENUM into public commercial operation yesterday after succesfull pilot phase that started in 2003. The database was cleared between the pilot phase and commercial operation and thus there are no delegations at the moment. Our next aim is to get as much support from telcos and registrars for ENUM as possible. Currently I'm optimistic for their support since we are having good discussions with all major Finnish telcos. Kind Regards, Juhani

1 0

ENUM WG Agenda at RIPE 53
by Niall O'Reilly 03 Oct '06

03 Oct '06

The current version of the agenda is available at https://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-53/presentations/uploads/ Wednesday/oreilly-enum_wg_agenda.pdf Best regards, Niall O'Reilly Co-Chair, RIPE ENUM Working Group

1 0

RE: [enum-wg] Next German "ENUM day" held on 26 September 2006
by Schiefner, Carsten 28 Sep '06

28 Sep '06

Dear colleagues, > -----Original Message----- > From: Carsten Schiefner [mailto:enumvoipsip.cs@schiefner.de] > Sent: Friday, September 01, 2006 3:17 PM > To: enum-wg(a)ripe.net > Subject: [enum-wg] Next German "ENUM day" held on 26 September 2006 > > > Dear colleagues, > > this is to inform you that DENIC, registry for .de and 9.4.e164.arpa, > will hold its next public ENUM day on 26 September 2006 between 10:30 > and approx. 17:00 in Frankfurt at the hotel "Le Meridien". > > The agenda is currently being finalized and will be posted shortly. > > For further information, please consult DENIC's website at: > > http://www.denic.de/de/enum/veranstaltungen/denic_enum-tage/ (German) > http://www.denic.de/en/enum/veranstaltungen/denic_enum-tage/ (English) the (preliminary) agenda is now available at: http://www.denic.de/de/enum/allgemeines/veranstaltung/ENUM-Tag.html (German) http://www.denic.de/en/enum/allgemeines/veranstaltung/ENUM-Tag.html (English) Best regards, Carsten Schiefner -- Carsten Schiefner | p: +49 441 234-4571 Deutsche Telekom AG | f: +49 431 7163-3972 T-Com Zentrale TK44 | m: +49 151 14525458 Ammerländer Heerstr. 138 | mailto:Carsten.Schiefner@t-com.net D-26129 Oldenburg | http://www.t-com.de/kundendienst

4 3

Draft ENUM WG agenda for RIPE 53
by Niall O'Reilly 25 Sep '06

25 Sep '06

Dear all, Here is the draft agenda for the ENUM-WG at RIPE 53. Figures in parentheses indicate the time allowed for each item, including questions; late adjustments may still happen. Admin (15): Chair: Confirm agenda, minutes, actions (5) Chair: I/O other WGs (5) Carsten Schiefner: Quality TF (5) Operations (15, cumulative 30): Brett Carr: RIPE NCC update (15) Field Reports (30, cumulative 60): Ondrej Filip: CZ (10) Sungwoo Shin: Korea/Pacific (10) Antoin Verschuren: NL +31 (10) Architecture (30, cumulative 90): Robert Schischka: Infra/Ops (15) Patrik Fältström: 3761bis (15) I'm looking forward to seeing you next week in Amsterdam. Best regards, Niall O'Reilly Co-Chair, RIPE ENUM Working Group

1 0

+420/.0.2.4.e164.arpa ENUM launched into trial
by Pavel Tuma 22 Sep '06

22 Sep '06

FYI: CZ.NIC has launched +420/.0.2.4.e164.arpa User ENUM into public trial operation yesterday. Trial is meant only to fine tune validation processes and solve minor legal issues as the technology is proven and Tier1 registry model and provider was already chosen before the trial. End of trial and launch into full commercial operation is planned to January 2007. Press release is available at: http://www.nic.cz/en Currently there are (as of the launch date): - 80 domains registered from pre-trial stage (covering 320 550 phone numbers) - 4 registrars registering ENUM domains during trial - 2 telco operators supporting ENUM in their networks See http://enum.nic.cz for more information about ENUM in Czech Republic. Regards, -- Pavel Tuma Project manager | CZ.NIC, z.s.p.o. | Americka 23, 120 00 Praha 2 | Czech Republic | | T +420 222 745 113 | F +420 220 121 184 | M +420 739 093 901 | www.nic.cz

3 2

New Documents available: RIPE-384, RIPE-385
by Antoin Verschuren 18 Sep '06

18 Sep '06

Guys, I have some sentimental issues with the new ENUM request forms as I found out when I had to use them last week. The new ENUM registrations ask to register an Organisation holding the registration. This "Organisation" template, has a "org-type:" field. RIPE tells me to fill in "NON-REGISTRY" in this field. I'm aware that we are not an RIR, LIR or NIR as in the RIR world, but I do feel the term "NON-REGISTRY" a bit degrading as we are the registry for .nl and soon hopefully for ENUM. Can we invent a new term to use for official ENUM tier-1 registries here ? Antoin Verschuren Technical Advisor Policy & Business Development SIDN Utrechtseweg 310 PO Box 5022 6802 EA Arnhem The Netherlands T +31 26 3525510 F +31 26 3525505 M +31 6 23368970 E antoin.verschuren(a)sidn.nl W http://www.sidn.nl/

2 1

Re: [enum-wg] New Documents available: RIPE-384, RIPE-385]
by Katie Petrusha 08 Sep '06

08 Sep '06

Dear Antoin, It is certainly possible to add a new organisation object type, like "ENUM", to be specifically used by the ENUM registries. This would involve the changes to the RIPE Database. I suggest you to contact ENUM-WG and DB-WG working group chairs to check first whether this change would require only a mailing list consensus or PDP, and then maybe put together a proposal for ENUM-WG and DB-WG and submit it to the appropriate mailing lists. -- Katie Petrusha RIPE NCC > > From: "Antoin Verschuren" <Antoin.Verschuren(a)sidn.nl> > > Date: 4 September 2006 2:26:40PM GMT+02:00 > > To: <enum-wg(a)ripe.net> > > Cc: <ncc-services-wg(a)ripe.net> > > Subject: [enum-wg] New Documents available: RIPE-384, RIPE-385 > > Message-Id: <B33086268D53A0429A3AA2774C83892CDC5850(a)KAEVS1.SIDN.local> > > > > Guys, > > > > I have some sentimental issues with the new ENUM request forms as I > > found out when I had to use them last week. > > > > The new ENUM registrations ask to register an Organisation holding the > > registration. > > > > This "Organisation" template, has a "org-type:" field. > > RIPE tells me to fill in "NON-REGISTRY" in this field. > > > > I'm aware that we are not an RIR, LIR or NIR as in the RIR world, > > but I > > do feel the term "NON-REGISTRY" a bit degrading as we are the registry > > for .nl and soon hopefully for ENUM. > > > > Can we invent a new term to use for official ENUM tier-1 registries > > here > > ? > > > > Antoin Verschuren > > > > Technical Advisor > > Policy & Business Development > > SIDN > > Utrechtseweg 310 > > PO Box 5022 > > 6802 EA Arnhem > > The Netherlands > > > > T +31 26 3525510 > > F +31 26 3525505 > > M +31 6 23368970 > > E antoin.verschuren(a)sidn.nl > > W http://www.sidn.nl/

4 3

RE: enum-wg digest, Vol 1 #184 - 2 msgs
by Robert Schischka Enum 06 Sep '06

06 Sep '06

Hi Carsten, I will be in Amsterdam and can give a short presentation on infrastructure ENUM in +43. Cheers, -robert. ------------------------------------------------------------- Robert Schischka enum.at GmbH Karlsplatz 1/2/9 A-1010 Vienna Austria Email: Robert.Schischka(a)enum.at Telefon +43 (1) 505 64 16 - 15 Fax +43 (1) 505 64 16 - 19 Mobile: +43 664 913 47 78 > -----Original Message----- > From: enum-wg-admin(a)ripe.net [mailto:enum-wg-admin@ripe.net] > On Behalf Of enum-wg-request(a)ripe.net > Sent: Tuesday, September 05, 2006 12:00 PM > To: enum-wg(a)ripe.net > Subject: enum-wg digest, Vol 1 #184 - 2 msgs > > Send enum-wg mailing list submissions to > enum-wg(a)ripe.net > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > http://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-admin(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. ENUM WG Agenda for RIPE 53: 2nd call for input (Carsten > Schiefner) > 2. New Documents available: RIPE-384, RIPE-385 (Antoin Verschuren) > > --__--__-- > > Message: 1 > Date: Mon, 04 Sep 2006 13:29:13 +0200 > From: Carsten Schiefner <enumvoipsip.cs(a)schiefner.de> > To: enum-wg(a)ripe.net > CC: enum-wg-chair(a)ripe.net > Subject: [enum-wg] ENUM WG Agenda for RIPE 53: 2nd call for input > > Dear colleagues, > > after a bit more than a fortnight, I'd like to renew our call > for input to the RIPE 53 ENUM WG session in Amsterdam on > Thursday, 5 Oct 2006. > > Once more: bring your ideas to our attention, either via this > list or by sending an email to <enum-wg-chair(a)ripe.net>. > > Thanks and best - on behalf of Niall as well as myself, > > Carsten Schiefner > Co-Chair, RIPE ENUM Working Group > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: [enum-wg] ENUM WG Agenda for RIPE 53: call for input > Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2006 16:20:57 +0100 > From: Niall O'Reilly <Niall.oReilly(a)ucd.ie> > To: enum-wg(a)ripe.net > CC: Niall O'Reilly <Niall.oReilly(a)ucd.ie>, enum-wg-chair(a)ripe.net > > Dear ENUM-WGers, > > As you may already have noticed, RIPE 53 begins in just over 6 weeks. > Carsten and I, your co-chairs, have already started to > approach the "usual suspects" whom we count on for some of > the presentations. > We would very much appreciate your suggestions for material > you would like to see presented (or, better yet, would be > prepared to present). > Please, don't be shy! > > If you count yourself among the "usual suspects", and haven't > heard from either of us yet, do feel free to contact us > before we contact you. > > We're looking forward to seeing as many of you as possible in > Amsterdam. > > Best regards, on behalf of Carsten as well as myself, > > > Niall O'Reilly > Co-Chair, RIPE ENUM Working Group > > > --__--__-- > > Message: 2 > Subject: [enum-wg] New Documents available: RIPE-384, RIPE-385 > Date: Mon, 4 Sep 2006 14:26:40 +0200 > From: "Antoin Verschuren" <Antoin.Verschuren(a)sidn.nl> > To: <enum-wg(a)ripe.net> > Cc: <ncc-services-wg(a)ripe.net> > > Guys, > > I have some sentimental issues with the new ENUM request > forms as I found out when I had to use them last week. > > The new ENUM registrations ask to register an Organisation > holding the registration. > > This "Organisation" template, has a "org-type:" field. > RIPE tells me to fill in "NON-REGISTRY" in this field. > > I'm aware that we are not an RIR, LIR or NIR as in the RIR > world, but I do feel the term "NON-REGISTRY" a bit degrading > as we are the registry for .nl and soon hopefully for ENUM. > > Can we invent a new term to use for official ENUM tier-1 > registries here ? > > Antoin Verschuren > > Technical Advisor > Policy & Business Development > SIDN > Utrechtseweg 310 > PO Box 5022 > 6802 EA Arnhem > The Netherlands > > T +31 26 3525510 > F +31 26 3525505 > M +31 6 23368970 > E antoin.verschuren(a)sidn.nl > W http://www.sidn.nl/=20 > > > > > End of enum-wg Digest > > >

2 1

ENUM WG Agenda for RIPE 53: 2nd call for input
by Carsten Schiefner 04 Sep '06

04 Sep '06

Dear colleagues, after a bit more than a fortnight, I'd like to renew our call for input to the RIPE 53 ENUM WG session in Amsterdam on Thursday, 5 Oct 2006. Once more: bring your ideas to our attention, either via this list or by sending an email to <enum-wg-chair(a)ripe.net>. Thanks and best - on behalf of Niall as well as myself, Carsten Schiefner Co-Chair, RIPE ENUM Working Group -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [enum-wg] ENUM WG Agenda for RIPE 53: call for input Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2006 16:20:57 +0100 From: Niall O'Reilly <Niall.oReilly(a)ucd.ie> To: enum-wg(a)ripe.net CC: Niall O'Reilly <Niall.oReilly(a)ucd.ie>, enum-wg-chair(a)ripe.net Dear ENUM-WGers, As you may already have noticed, RIPE 53 begins in just over 6 weeks. Carsten and I, your co-chairs, have already started to approach the "usual suspects" whom we count on for some of the presentations. We would very much appreciate your suggestions for material you would like to see presented (or, better yet, would be prepared to present). Please, don't be shy! If you count yourself among the "usual suspects", and haven't heard from either of us yet, do feel free to contact us before we contact you. We're looking forward to seeing as many of you as possible in Amsterdam. Best regards, on behalf of Carsten as well as myself, Niall O'Reilly Co-Chair, RIPE ENUM Working Group

1 0

Documentation of ENUM requests
by Carsten Schiefner 03 Sep '06

03 Sep '06

Dear colleagues, this is to start a discussion - if necessary - on how the RIPE NCC is supposed to document ENUM requests. As a short recap: 1.6 of the "IAB Instructions to the RIPE NCC Regarding operation of the domain e164.arpa ("ENUM")" [http://www.ripe.net/enum/instructions.html] mandates that "all communication regarding the application for a specific delegation is to be publicly archived". That used to be done from the overview page at: http://www.ripe.net/enum/request-archives/ by a link to the respective E.164 CC specific page, eg. Germany at: http://www.ripe.net/enum/request-archives/enum-request-arch+49/ An archived snapshot of the overview page is available at: http://web.archive.org/web/20030826073846/http://www.ripe.net/enum/request-… The RIPE NCC has now proposed a way of documentation where - instead of having a separate page per E.164 CC request - the overview page links to ZIP archives that would contain all sorts of communication like emails, scanned letters and faxes etc. pp. I intend to set the deadline for this discussion to the WG session at RIPE 53 - please be invited to voice any concerns, suggenstions etc. here on the list until then. Best, Carsten Schiefner

1 0

Next German "ENUM day" held on 26 September 2006
by Carsten Schiefner 01 Sep '06

01 Sep '06

Dear colleagues, this is to inform you that DENIC, registry for .de and 9.4.e164.arpa, will hold its next public ENUM day on 26 September 2006 between 10:30 and approx. 17:00 in Frankfurt at the hotel "Le Meridien". The agenda is currently being finalized and will be posted shortly. For further information, please consult DENIC's website at: http://www.denic.de/de/enum/veranstaltungen/denic_enum-tage/ (German) http://www.denic.de/en/enum/veranstaltungen/denic_enum-tage/ (English) - the pages will be updated as soon as new and/or more information is available. You are invited to forward this announcement to your local ENUM communities. Thanks and best regards, Carsten

1 0

ENUM - help needed
by Andrzej Bartosiewicz 31 Aug '06

31 Aug '06

In September we will have Numbering/VoIP debate at the Office of Electronic Communications (NRA) in Poland. I will have presentation on ENUM. I would like to add a few slides on European experience. Could you send me some up-to-date (technical/legal/business) information on the progress of your ENUM national implementations, solutions, number of users, links to the documents (English & German preferred). Andrzej Bartosiewicz phone: +48 22 380 8595 SIP: 1595(a)194.181.119.227 mobile: +48 606 24 15 70 ENUM: 0.7.5.1.4.2.6.0.6.8.4.e164.arpa

1 0

The RIPE Database and DNS management system has been updated
by Katie Petrusha 17 Aug '06

17 Aug '06

[Apologies for duplicate mails] Dear Colleagues, We have updated the RIPE Database and DNS management system to implement several new features. The change in the RIPE Database: - There is a new syntax for the "nserver:" attribute in the DOMAIN object to support IPv4 and IPv6 glue name servers. The changes in the DNS management system: - The management of DNS delegation in the e164.arpa (ENUM) zone has been brought under the same provisioning system as reverse DNS management. - The Delegation Checker has been updated to support glue name servers for IPv4 and IPv6 - The Web Zone Delegation Checker has also been updated You can find more details about the proposal for implementation at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/maillists/archives/dns-wg/2006/msg00128.html -- Katie Petrusha RIPE NCC

2 1

ENUM WG Agenda for RIPE 53: call for input
by Niall O'Reilly 16 Aug '06

16 Aug '06

Dear ENUM-WGers, As you may already have noticed, RIPE 53 begins in just over 6 weeks. Carsten and I, your co-chairs, have already started to approach the "usual suspects" whom we count on for some of the presentations. We would very much appreciate your suggestions for material you would like to see presented (or, better yet, would be prepared to present). Please, don't be shy! If you count yourself among the "usual suspects", and haven't heard from either of us yet, do feel free to contact us before we contact you. We're looking forward to seeing as many of you as possible in Amsterdam. Best regards, on behalf of Carsten as well as myself, Niall O'Reilly Co-Chair, RIPE ENUM Working Group

1 0

New Documents available: RIPE-384, RIPE-385
by RIPE NCC Document Announcement Service 16 Aug '06

16 Aug '06

New RIPE Document Announcement -------------------------------------- Two new documents are available from the RIPE document store. Ref: ripe-384 Title: ENUM Request Form Author: RIPE NCC Date: 15 August 2006 Format: PDF=98364 TXT=1255 Obsoletes: ripe-327 Ref: ripe-385 Title: Supporting Notes for the ENUM Request Form Author: RIPE NCC Date: 15 August 2006 Format: PDF=87011 TXT=5672 Obsoletes: ripe-327 Short content description ------------------------- The "ENUM Request Form" and "Supporting Notes for the ENUM Request Form" documents replace ripe-327: "Draft Request Form for Delegation of a Zone Under e164.arpa". The new documents feature: * improved language and readability, * better examples and a step-by-step guide * the use of the "organisation" object for this type of request Accessing the RIPE document store --------------------------------- You can access the RIPE documents in HTML format via our website at the following URLs: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/enum-request.html http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/enumrequest-support.html The RIPE Document Store is also available via anonymous FTP to ftp.ripe.net, in the directory ripe/docs. The URLs for the new documents on the FTP-server are: ftp://ftp.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-384.pdf PDF version ftp://ftp.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-384.txt plain text version ftp://ftp.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-385.pdf PDF version ftp://ftp.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-385.txt plain text version

1 0

Delegation of five E.164 Country Codes completed
by Carsten Schiefner 26 Jul '06

26 Jul '06

Dear colleagues, the ENUM delegation requests for: 2.6.2.e164.arpa - +262 is the E.164 CC of Reunion (French Department of) 8.0.5.e164.arpa - +508 is the E.164 CC of Saint Pierre and Miquelon (Collectivité territoriale de la République française) 0.9.5.e164.arpa - +590 is the E.164 CC of Guadeloupe (French Department of) 4.9.5.e164.arpa - +594 is the E.164 CC of French Guiana (French Department of) 6.9.5.e164.arpa - +596 is the E.164 CC of Martinique (French Department of) were confirmed by ITU-T TSB yesterday, on 25 Jul 2006. As per today, 26 Jul 2006, all of them are delegated to a.nic.fr. [192.93.0.1, 2001:660:3005:1::1:1] b.nic.fr. [192.93.0.4, 2001:660:3005:1::1:2] c.nic.fr. [192.134.0.49, 2001:660:3006:1::1:1] e.nic.fr. [194.57.253.1] They become ENUM delegations No. 38 to 42. Welcome! :-) Best, Carsten Schiefner

1 0

Assessors wanted for UK RFP
by Jim Reid 04 Jul '06

04 Jul '06

The UK ENUM Consortium, a non-profit company, is about to be formed to oversee commercial ENUM activities in the UK. Its first item of business will be to issue an RFP for the operation of the Tier-1 registry contract, probably in Q3 this year. UKEC is expected to appoint a panel of independent assessors to examine the RFP responses and make recommendations. The assessors should have the expected skill sets: technical, financial, business, legal/governance, etc. Anyone wishing to be considered as an assessor can contact me, in confidence if necessary. I will be happy to answer any questions. Though some details -- time-lines, processes -- have still to be determined by UKEC. It is also likely that the appointed assessors will be consulted about how the RFP process is done. If you know of anyone suitable for these roles -- including yourself -- please let me know. Do not cc your reply to this list.

1 0

Delegation of +84/4.8.e164.arpa completed
by Carsten Schiefner 26 Jun '06

26 Jun '06

Dear colleagues, the ENUM delegation request for 4.8.e164.arpa - +84 is Vietnam's E.164 CC - was confirmed by ITU-T TSB on 15 Jun 2006. As per 22 Jun 2006, 4.8.e164.arpa is delegated to dns-hn02.vnnic.net.vn. [203.119.10.110] dns-hcm02.vnnic.net.vn. [203.119.38.105] 4.8.e164.arpa becomes the 37th ENUM delegation. Welcome, Vietnam! :-) Best, Carsten Schiefner

1 0

Re: [enum-wg] Julian Rose
by Xiaodong Lee 23 Jun '06

23 Jun '06

So sad to hear about that, God bless Julian. -- -- Xiaodong LEE [The best answer is doing] +86-10-58813020 mailto:lee@cnnic.cn http://www.lixiaodong.cn Jim Reid wrote: > Colleagues, I have some very sad news and apologise for communicating > it in this infomal forum. > > Julian Rose died on Friday. He was 34. Many of you will remember him > from RIPE meetings and the occasional contributions to this mailing > list. Julian used to work at Atlas Internet/Timico before joining > Telnic as CTO at the end of last year. He was a founding member of the > UK ENUM Group. Julian will be missed by his many friends and always > remembered for his good humour and kindness even under the most > demanding circumstances. > > Julian's funeral will be on Tuesday afternoon at 15:15. Anyone who > knew Julian will be welcome: it's not just for immediate family. There > will no drinks afterwards. The family want to have some private time > after the cremation. > The service will be held at: > > Chiltern Crematorium > Whielden Lane > Amersham HP7 0ND > Tel : +44 1494 724 263 > > Flowers should be sent c/o the undertakers: > > FJ Wilson > Greenway > Haddenham > Alyesbuy > Bucks, HP17 8BJ > Tel: +44 1844 291 200 > > Please contact the undertakers if you need further information. > > I'd be grateful if you could forward this message to anyone else who > you think should know about this and may not have heard the sad news. >

1 0

Julian Rose
by Jim Reid 22 Jun '06

22 Jun '06

Colleagues, I have some very sad news and apologise for communicating it in this infomal forum. Julian Rose died on Friday. He was 34. Many of you will remember him from RIPE meetings and the occasional contributions to this mailing list. Julian used to work at Atlas Internet/Timico before joining Telnic as CTO at the end of last year. He was a founding member of the UK ENUM Group. Julian will be missed by his many friends and always remembered for his good humour and kindness even under the most demanding circumstances. Julian's funeral will be on Tuesday afternoon at 15:15. Anyone who knew Julian will be welcome: it's not just for immediate family. There will no drinks afterwards. The family want to have some private time after the cremation. The service will be held at: Chiltern Crematorium Whielden Lane Amersham HP7 0ND Tel : +44 1494 724 263 Flowers should be sent c/o the undertakers: FJ Wilson Greenway Haddenham Alyesbuy Bucks, HP17 8BJ Tel: +44 1844 291 200 Please contact the undertakers if you need further information. I'd be grateful if you could forward this message to anyone else who you think should know about this and may not have heard the sad news.

1 0