Alex wrote:

"Holders of E.164 numbers which want to be listed in DNS should contact the appropriate zone administrator according to the policy which is attached to the zone."

Which in Austria is the RTR. In the agreement between RIPE, ITU-T and RIPE (the interim procedures) the ITU-T takes care that this is only the relevant national body ...

Currently, a country deciding to _not_ have any strict ties between E.164 and ENUM (assigning the ENUM to another party than the E.164) would imho pretty much satisfy RFC3761 - which i consider dangerous.

... in principle yes, because the rest is national matter and also the relevant ITU-T recommendations are only what the name says: recommendations, but no country having his senses together would do it that way - with one exception, but here Jim may provide you an answer ;-) richard

-----Original Message----- From: enum-wg-admin@ripe.net [mailto:enum-wg-admin@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Alexander Mayrhofer Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2005 12:39 PM To: Jim Reid Cc: Niall O'Reilly; enum-wg@ripe.net Subject: Re: [enum-wg] ITU: debate over User-ENUM administration

Jim Reid wrote:

...

..... But since entries under e164.arpa should correspond to assigned E.164 numbers according to the national numbering plan, ENUM does reflect how assignment of E.164 numbers are done.

slightly OT, but since i'm currently looking for this in the scope of validation - Which document does formally specify this tie between E.164 and ENUM?

Don't misunderstand me, i'm fully convinced (as probably the majority of the fellow list members) that this is a requirement for ENUM, but i'm still searching where this is specified, because this requirement is where all validation related work boils down to.

What i've found out so far is that RFC3671 says:

"Holders of E.164 numbers which want to be listed in DNS should contact the appropriate zone administrator according to the policy which is attached to the zone."

One could interpret that as "only holders may apply". Well, it becomes more complicated with number ranges where the ENUM domain is a prerequisite for the assignment of the corresponding E.164 number (eg. +43 780), so YMMV. However, this is the only place in the RFC which talks about the formal relation between E.164 and ENUM (I'm not talking about the technical relations, the whole string conversion etc.)

Currently, a country deciding to _not_ have any strict ties between E.164 and ENUM (assigning the ENUM to another party than the E.164) would imho pretty much satisfy RFC3761 - which i consider dangerous.

So, where's the place to look for (or add) this requirement?

cheers

-- Alex Mayrhofer nic.at/enum.at