"Richard" == Stastny Richard <Richard.Stastny@oefeg.at> writes:
Richard> There is only one "minor" problem with the implementation Richard> in Poland: It is Carrier E**M in e164.arpa And the problem is......? IMO the only potential problem with this is that private data could be made public through the DNS.
Hi Jim, Richard, Andrzej, Carsten, Folks, Andrzej does have a production system up and running, which is a heck of a lot faster than some countries. It's a shame if an end user (you know, the person who pays for all these high quality services) can't choose their own ENUM entries. However, that's no change from the current situation, so maybe this is no big deal. Poland has also avoided the hoops over Authentication that have hypnotised other Countries. I am a little concerned that any TSP can register any number, but that's something for them to argue about amongst themselves. The only way we could have a more efficient system is to de-couple telephone number service provision from eligibility for registration entirely - say, if some named person or organisation had the delegation for a CC, and then chose their own policy on who got what. At least we would be saved from the endless discussions on industry self-regulation and policy advisory groups (plus their membership, whether or not they are representative, and the powers of the groups). At present, I can't officially register "my" ENUM in a production system. If someone else registers it (or a TSP registers it) I can't either. What's the difference (apart from years of fruitful discussion on the interpretation of the framework directives and whether they apply to a DNS system or IP addresses)? all the best, Lawrence On 12 Dec 2004, at 09:03, Jim Reid wrote:
"Richard" == Stastny Richard <Richard.Stastny@oefeg.at> writes:
Richard> There is only one "minor" problem with the implementation Richard> in Poland: It is Carrier E**M in e164.arpa
And the problem is......? IMO the only potential problem with this is that private data could be made public through the DNS.
At 04:41 AM 12/12/2004, Conroy, Lawrence (SMTP) wrote:
Hi Jim, Richard, Andrzej, Carsten, Folks,
Andrzej does have a production system up and running, which is a heck of a lot faster than some countries.
Its easy when you can start from scratch and have intelligent and sympathetic regulators.
It's a shame if an end user (you know, the person who pays for all these high quality services) can't choose their own ENUM entries. However, that's no change from the current situation, so maybe this is no big deal.
This IMHO will cause Poland a problem over time as ISP who want to sell advanced services then realize they have to go through the incumbent to get registrations processed. But this is as we all know is a national matter and seeing how Poland deals with this will be very interesting to watch.
Poland has also avoided the hoops over Authentication that have hypnotised other Countries. I am a little concerned that any TSP can register any number, but that's something for them to argue about amongst themselves.
Authentication is not hard if your country has independent databases that can confirm the number holder. North America will not have that problem.
The only way we could have a more efficient system is to de-couple telephone number service provision from eligibility for registration entirely - say, if some named person or organisation had the delegation for a CC, and then chose their own policy on who got what.
Or make all the service providers all go back to the ITU and get e164.int so they can do their own thing and not bother the rest of us. Or they could use existing LNP databases ... ( ok that sounds really self serving ) Its my intention to have some sort of ID on Infrastructure TN2URI issues available shortly but I've been completely tied up here with US service providers who have begun to wake up to the fact that the lights they see in the distance really is a freight train. [news item below] Note here 70% of US consumers who switch to Cable Based VoIP telephony actually port their primary number. IFrom: "Bourkoff, Aryeh" <aryeh.bourkoff@ubs.com> To: "Bourkoff, Aryeh" <Aryeh.Bourkoff@ubs.com> Cc: <abourkoff@bloomberg.net> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 09 Dec 2004 15:02:28.0767 (UTC) FILETIME=[19D062F0:01C4DE00] Sender: owner-ml-stm-Aryeh-Telecom-ext@sldn0846pmh.ldn.swissbank.com Precedence: bulk X-UBS-Disclaimer: Version $Revision: 1.26 $ X-IMAPbase: 1100136599 4982 Status: O X-UID: 4977 Content-Length: 80823 X-Keywords: Time Warner Cable: Takeaways - 32nd Annual UBS Global Media Week Conf * Time Warner Cable: Presentation at Media Week Today, Time Warner Cable Chairman & CEO Glenn Britt, presented at UBS' 32nd Annual Media Week Conference. * VoIP Rollout On Track, Anticipate 200K YE Subs VoIP has been launched in 30 of 31 systems & remains on track for YE04 full rollout, with est'd cap investment ~50% lower vs. circuit switched. Mgmt expects 200K YE subs, & is approaching 10K weekly adds. 75% of new phone customers are porting numbers, indicating a switch of primary lines.
At least we would be saved from the endless discussions on industry self-regulation and policy advisory groups (plus their membership, whether or not they are representative, and the powers of the groups).
At present, I can't officially register "my" ENUM in a production system. If someone else registers it (or a TSP registers it) I can't either. What's the difference (apart from years of fruitful discussion on the interpretation of the framework directives and whether they apply to a DNS system or IP addresses)?
all the best, Lawrence
On 12 Dec 2004, at 09:03, Jim Reid wrote:
>"Richard" == Stastny Richard <Richard.Stastny@oefeg.at> writes:
Richard> There is only one "minor" problem with the implementation Richard> in Poland: It is Carrier E**M in e164.arpa
And the problem is......? IMO the only potential problem with this is that private data could be made public through the DNS.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard Shockey, Senior Manager, Strategic Technology Initiatives NeuStar Inc. 46000 Center Oak Plaza - Sterling, VA 20166 sip:rshockey(at)iptel.org sip:57141@fwd.pulver.com ENUM +87810-13313-31331 PSTN Office +1 571.434.5651 PSTN Mobile: +1 703.593.2683, Fax: +1 815.333.1237 <mailto:richard(at)shockey.us> or <mailto:richard.shockey(at)neustar.biz> <http://www.neustar.biz> ; <http://www.enum.org> <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Richard,
This IMHO will cause Poland a problem over time as ISP who want to sell advanced services then realize they have to go through the incumbent to get registrations processed. But this is as we all know is a national matter and seeing how Poland deals with this will be very interesting to watch.
Are you a fortune-teller? We already have this problem! For example some of our ISP (and acting as ".pl" Registrars too) are interested in ENUM domains registration (for VoIP services) but they MUST go through TSPs. And telcos are not interested to start ENUM domains registration... (they are also slowing down the NP implementation, so nobody expects special interest in ENUM).
Authentication is not hard if your country has independent databases that can confirm the number holder. North America will not have that problem.
We do not have the independent database in Poland.
Or they could use existing LNP databases ... ( ok that sounds really self serving )
Note here 70% of US consumers who switch to Cable Based VoIP telephony actually port their primary number.
In Poland we have NP only in the Law (since July 2004), not in operation :( Andrzej.
At 04:53 AM 12/13/2004, Andrzej Bartosiewicz wrote:
Richard,
This IMHO will cause Poland a problem over time as ISP who want to sell advanced services then realize they have to go through the incumbent to get registrations processed. But this is as we all know is a national matter and seeing how Poland deals with this will be very interesting to watch.
Are you a fortune-teller? We already have this problem! For example some of our ISP (and acting as ".pl" Registrars too) are interested in ENUM domains registration (for VoIP services) but they MUST go through TSPs. And telcos are not interested to start ENUM domains registration... (they are also slowing down the NP implementation, so nobody expects special interest in ENUM).
another Capt. Louis Renault magic moment "I'm shocked shocked .. telecos do not want to enable VoIP or LNP! :-) "
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard Shockey, Senior Manager, Strategic Technology Initiatives NeuStar Inc. 46000 Center Oak Plaza - Sterling, VA 20166 sip:rshockey(at)iptel.org sip:57141@fwd.pulver.com ENUM +87810-13313-31331 PSTN Office +1 571.434.5651 PSTN Mobile: +1 703.593.2683, Fax: +1 815.333.1237 <mailto:richard(at)shockey.us> or <mailto:richard.shockey(at)neustar.biz> <http://www.neustar.biz> ; <http://www.enum.org> <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Conroy,
Poland has also avoided the hoops over Authentication that have hypnotised other Countries. I am a little concerned that any TSP can register any number, but that's something for them to argue about amongst themselves.
Yes. TSP can register ANY number in 8.4.e164.arpa. We don't need to Authenticate requests from TSP because TSP can not (theoretically) register the number which doesn't belong to this TSP (from his numbering block or ported to him from another TSP). Our Regulator has declared that if there is a problem with "false" registrations, they have the legal power (Telecommunication Act) to force TSPs to use proper numbers. Andrzej.
At 04:03 AM 12/12/2004, Jim Reid wrote:
"Richard" == Stastny Richard <Richard.Stastny@oefeg.at> writes:
Richard> There is only one "minor" problem with the implementation Richard> in Poland: It is Carrier E**M in e164.arpa
And the problem is......? IMO the only potential problem with this is that private data could be made public through the DNS.
exactly .. and BTW this is now the #1 topic of discussion within CC 1
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard Shockey, Senior Manager, Strategic Technology Initiatives NeuStar Inc. 46000 Center Oak Plaza - Sterling, VA 20166 sip:rshockey(at)iptel.org sip:57141@fwd.pulver.com ENUM +87810-13313-31331 PSTN Office +1 571.434.5651 PSTN Mobile: +1 703.593.2683, Fax: +1 815.333.1237 <mailto:richard(at)shockey.us> or <mailto:richard.shockey(at)neustar.biz> <http://www.neustar.biz> ; <http://www.enum.org> <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
The probem I see is that COCOM should be not involved in any Carrier ENUM discussion. This may create some "dangerous" confusion on the role of EC and governments on carrier ENUM marco ----- Original Message ----- From: "Richard Shockey" <richard@shockey.us> To: "Jim Reid" <jim@rfc1035.com>; "Stastny Richard" <Richard.Stastny@oefeg.at> Cc: "Andrzej Bartosiewicz" <andrzejb@nask.pl>; "Carsten Schiefner" <enumvoipsip.cs@schiefner.de>; <enum-wg@ripe.net> Sent: Sunday, December 12, 2004 5:00 PM Subject: Re: [enum-wg] COCOM & ENUM ...
At 04:03 AM 12/12/2004, Jim Reid wrote:
> "Richard" == Stastny Richard <Richard.Stastny@oefeg.at> writes:
Richard> There is only one "minor" problem with the implementation Richard> in Poland: It is Carrier E**M in e164.arpa
And the problem is......? IMO the only potential problem with this is that private data could be made public through the DNS.
exactly .. and BTW this is now the #1 topic of discussion within CC 1
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard Shockey, Senior Manager, Strategic Technology Initiatives NeuStar Inc. 46000 Center Oak Plaza - Sterling, VA 20166 sip:rshockey(at)iptel.org sip:57141@fwd.pulver.com ENUM +87810-13313-31331 PSTN Office +1 571.434.5651 PSTN Mobile: +1 703.593.2683, Fax: +1 815.333.1237 <mailto:richard(at)shockey.us> or <mailto:richard.shockey(at)neustar.biz> <http://www.neustar.biz> ; <http://www.enum.org> <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
participants (5)
-
Andrzej Bartosiewicz -
Conroy, Lawrence (SMTP) -
Jim Reid -
Marco bernardi -
Richard Shockey