Would someone please provide me with the status of the ENUM Working = Group,=20 such as: Are there any open issues and will a bakeoff be conducted?

Also, have any thoughts to how Tier I and II databases will be=20 handled. On the Tier II database, could this be the current DNS = registry=20 database with a few field modifications? Will the Tier I database = only=20 handle country code routing? Will there be a Tier III and what would = be=20 the function of that tier?

Your input and thoughts will be greatly appreciated.

Sincerely,

Kevin

--=_A6FDC84A.32532685-- _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From enum-admin@ietf.org Mon Jan 8 12:41:54 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id MAA11863 for ; Mon, 8 Jan 2001 12:41:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA01815; Mon, 8 Jan 2001 12:41:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA01786 for ; Mon, 8 Jan 2001 12:41:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from hvmta01-stg.us.psimail.psi.net (hvmta01-ext.us.psimail.psi.net [38.202.36.29]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id MAA11854 for ; Mon, 8 Jan 2001 12:40:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from dranalli ([38.136.73.86]) by hvmta01-stg.us.psimail.psi.net (InterMail v4.01.01.00 201-229-111) with SMTP id <20010108174029.OMFA20644.hvmta01-stg@dranalli>; Mon, 8 Jan 2001 12:40:29 -0500 Message-ID: <00b601c07999$3d4ae6d0$56498826@netnumber.com> Reply-To: "Douglas Ranalli" From: "Douglas Ranalli" To: "Kevin McCandless" Cc: References: Subject: Re: [Enum] Status Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2001 12:34:22 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_00B3_01C0796F.542D0060" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Enum Discussion List X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_00B3_01C0796F.542D0060 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Kevin, Here's my understanding of the status of ENUM. I'm sure Richard Shockey = (Chair) will be able to clarify if I've missed anything: Status of working group: At the last IETF meeting, the ENUM WG was = declared a "success" thanks to the acceptance of RFC 2916 as a core ENUM = standard. Given this foundation, two options were considered for the = future of the ENUM working group. Option #1 was to put the WG into a = "dormant" status and wait to see if any future need might arise that = would justify reactivating the group. Option #2 was to close down the = ENUM WG. Scott Bradner (Area Director) clarified that the IETF Area = Directors would consider the issue in early 2001 and then make a = statement regarding the status of the WG. Regardless of the outcome, = the active phase of standards definition work within the ENUM WG is = concluded. Tier 1 Implementations: The ITU is holding a meeting at the end of = January in Geneva during which discussions will continue regarding the = proposal for establishing a public administration model for ENUM = services under the "e164.arpa" infrastructure domain. In addition to = work within the IETF, various countries (IETF member states) are = beginning to look at ENUM on a local level. Discussions are expected to = begin in the US in February under a newly formed ENUM Ad Hoc group = organized under the Department of State's ITAC function. In addition to = the public "e164.arpa" discussions, there are various companies = advancing trials of private ENUM implementations under different domains = as a mechanism for gaining experience with ENUM services. NetNumber has = deployed a global private ENUM system under "e164.com". Verisign and = Telcordia have deployed a 6-month ENUM trial under "enumworld.com". = NeuStar has indicated that they will deploy a trial system. Tier-2 Implementations: Multiple vendors are currently experimenting = with ENUM implementations in their products. NetNumber is actively = engaged in working with a large number of vendors on implementing ENUM = "update and resolution" capabilities into their applications. As I = understand the situation, Verisign and Telcordia are using the ENUM = World trial as a mechanism for gaining experience with Tier-2 services. = =20 Tier-3 Services: If I understand your question, you're asking "what = happens after I use Tier-1 and Tier-2 ENUM to discover an Internet = service for an end-user?" For example, once you use ENUM to discover a = SIP address for an end-user there is additional information that will be = exchanged between two communications applications to establish a SIP = call. Any data requirements at the application level (Tier-3 level) are = considered "out of scope" for ENUM. =20 I hope this helps. =20 Doug=20 Douglas Ranalli Founder & Chief Strategy Officer NetNumber.com dranalli@netnumber.com ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Kevin McCandless=20 To: enum@ietf.org=20 Sent: Monday, January 08, 2001 11:13 AM Subject: [Enum] Status Hello: Would someone please provide me with the status of the ENUM Working = Group, such as: Are there any open issues and will a bakeoff be = conducted? Also, have any thoughts to how Tier I and II databases will be = handled. On the Tier II database, could this be the current DNS = registry database with a few field modifications? Will the Tier I = database only handle country code routing? Will there be a Tier III and = what would be the function of that tier? Your input and thoughts will be greatly appreciated. Sincerely, Kevin ------=_NextPart_000_00B3_01C0796F.542D0060 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Kevin,

Here's my understanding of the status = of=20 ENUM. I'm sure Richard Shockey (Chair) will be able to clarify if = I've=20 missed anything:

Status of working group: At the = last IETF=20 meeting, the ENUM WG was declared a "success" thanks to the acceptance = of RFC=20 2916 as a core ENUM standard. Given this foundation, two options = were=20 considered for the future of the ENUM working group. Option #1 was = to put=20 the WG into a "dormant" status and wait to see if any future need = might=20 arise that would justify reactivating the group. Option = #2 was=20 to close down the ENUM WG. Scott Bradner (Area Director) clarified = that=20 the IETF Area Directors would consider the issue in early 2001 and then = make a=20 statement regarding the status of the WG. Regardless of the = outcome, the=20 active phase of standards definition work within the ENUM WG is=20 concluded.

Tier 1 Implementations: The ITU = is holding a=20 meeting at the end of January in Geneva during which discussions will = continue=20 regarding the proposal for establishing a public administration model = for ENUM=20 services under the "e164.arpa" infrastructure domain. In = addition to=20 work within the IETF, various countries (IETF member states) are = beginning to=20 look at ENUM on a local level. Discussions are expected to begin = in the US=20 in February under a newly formed ENUM Ad Hoc group organized under the=20 Department of State's ITAC function. In addition to the public = "e164.arpa"=20 discussions, there are various companies advancing trials of private = ENUM=20 implementations under different domains as a mechanism for gaining = experience=20 with ENUM services. NetNumber has deployed a global private ENUM = system=20 under "e164.com". Verisign and Telcordia have deployed a 6-month = ENUM=20 trial under "enumworld.com". NeuStar has indicated that they = will=20 deploy a trial system.

Tier-2 = Implementations: Multiple vendors=20 are currently experimenting with ENUM implementations in their = products. =20 NetNumber is actively engaged in working with a large number of = vendors=20 on implementing ENUM "update and resolution" capabilities into = their=20 applications. As I understand the situation, Verisign = and=20 Telcordia are using the ENUM World trial as a mechanism for gaining = experience with Tier-2 services.

Tier-3 Services: If I understand = your=20 question, you're asking "what happens after I use Tier-1 and Tier-2 ENUM = to=20 discover an Internet service for an end-user?" For example, once = you use=20 ENUM to discover a SIP address for an end-user there is additional = information=20 that will be exchanged between two communications applications to = establish a=20 SIP call. Any data requirements at the application level = (Tier-3=20 level) are considered "out of scope" for ENUM.

I hope this helps.

Doug

Douglas Ranalli

Founder & Chief Strategy = Officer

NetNumber.com

dranalli@netnumber.com<= /DIV>

----- Original Message -----

From:=20 Kevin McCandless

To: enum@ietf.org

Sent: Monday, January 08, 2001 = 11:13=20 AM

Subject: [Enum] Status

Hello:

Would someone please provide me with the status of the ENUM = Working=20 Group, such as: Are there any open issues and will a bakeoff be=20 conducted?

Also, have any thoughts to how Tier I and II databases will be=20 handled. On the Tier II database, could this be the current DNS = registry=20 database with a few field modifications? Will the Tier I = database only=20 handle country code routing? Will there be a Tier III and what = would be=20 the function of that tier?

Your input and thoughts will be greatly appreciated.

Sincerely,

Kevin

------=_NextPart_000_00B3_01C0796F.542D0060-- _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From enum-admin@ietf.org Mon Jan 8 13:10:45 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id NAA12634 for ; Mon, 8 Jan 2001 13:10:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA02177; Mon, 8 Jan 2001 13:10:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA02147 for ; Mon, 8 Jan 2001 13:10:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from exchange.chaos.com ([206.5.17.8]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id NAA12627 for ; Mon, 8 Jan 2001 13:10:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from [216.168.250.52] by exchange.netmagic.com (NTMail 5.06.0016/NT2627.00.5ef58ba0) with ESMTP id beyjaaaa for enum@ietf.org; Mon, 8 Jan 2001 13:10:07 -0500 Message-Id: <5.0.2.1.2.20010108130231.0278bab0@mail.netmagic.com> X-Sender: amr@mail.netmagic.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.0.2 Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2001 13:10:05 -0500 To: "Douglas Ranalli" , "Kevin McCandless" From: "A.M. Rutkowski" Subject: Re: [Enum] Status Cc: In-Reply-To: <00b601c07999$3d4ae6d0$56498826@netnumber.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=====================_8876874==_.ALT" Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Enum Discussion List X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org --=====================_8876874==_.ALT Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed At 12:34 PM 1/8/2001, Douglas Ranalli wrote: >Tier 1 Implementations: The ITU is holding a meeting at the end of >January in Geneva during which discussions will continue regarding the >proposal for establishing a public administration model for ENUM services >under the "e164.arpa" infrastructure domain. In addition to work within >the IETF, various countries (IETF member states) are beginning to look at >ENUM on a local level. Discussions are expected to begin in the US Hi Doug, Good summary. It was the understanding, however, following the Dept of State's industry advisory group meeting last week related to this subject, that the ITU organizers of the 17 Jan ENUM workshop would be asked to open up the 17 Jan meeting to more flexible, market-driven approaches such as you have been advocating, including presentation of your ID...as opposed to only the government regulated "public administration" models currently on the agenda. best, tony --=====================_8876874==_.ALT Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" At 12:34 PM 1/8/2001, Douglas Ranalli wrote:

Tier 1 Implementations: The ITU is holding a meeting at the end of January in Geneva during which discussions will continue regarding the proposal for establishing a public administration model for ENUM services under the "e164.arpa" infrastructure domain. In addition to work within the IETF, various countries (IETF member states) are beginning to look at ENUM on a local level. Discussions are expected to begin in the US

Hi Doug,

Good summary.

It was the understanding, however, following the Dept of State's
industry advisory group meeting last week related to this subject,
that the ITU organizers of the 17 Jan ENUM workshop would be asked
to open up the 17 Jan meeting to more flexible, market-driven
approaches such as you have been advocating, including presentation
of your ID...as opposed to only the government regulated "public
administration" models currently on the agenda.

best,
tony

--=====================_8876874==_.ALT-- _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From enum-admin@ietf.org Mon Jan 8 13:24:05 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id NAA12998 for ; Mon, 8 Jan 2001 13:24:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA02308; Mon, 8 Jan 2001 13:23:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA02276 for ; Mon, 8 Jan 2001 13:23:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from heron.verisign.com ([216.168.233.95]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id NAA12987 for ; Mon, 8 Jan 2001 13:23:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from REGDOM-EX01.prod.netsol.com (rdex01-node1.prod.netsol.com [10.131.4.28]) by heron.verisign.com (nsi_0.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA07778; Mon, 8 Jan 2001 13:12:02 -0500 (EST) Received: by regdom-ex01.prod.netsol.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Mon, 8 Jan 2001 13:17:47 -0500 Message-ID: From: "Conley, Pat" To: "'Douglas Ranalli'" , Kevin McCandless Cc: enum@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Enum] Status Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2001 13:17:47 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C0799F.4D61F440" Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Enum Discussion List X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C0799F.4D61F440 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Doug, One of the clear activities that was discussed at the last IETF meeting in San Diego was the consolidation of several IDs into one that would bring together terminology and various contributors ideas on possible structures that the industry might take. Has any work started on that process? If so, I would like to participate as we have some serious concerns about the existing drafts and want to contribute to a "best thinking" version. Pat Patrick J. Conley VeriSign Global Registry Services pconley@verisign.com ------_=_NextPart_001_01C0799F.4D61F440 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1"

Doug,

One of the clear activities that was discussed at the last IETF meeting in

San Diego was the consolidation of several IDs into one that would bring

together terminology and various contributors ideas on possible structures

that the industry might take.

Has any work started on that process? If so, I would like to participate as

we have some serious concerns about the existing drafts and want to

contribute to a "best thinking" version.

Pat

Patrick J. Conley
VeriSign Global Registry Services
pconley@verisign.com

------_=_NextPart_001_01C0799F.4D61F440-- _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From enum-admin@ietf.org Mon Jan 8 17:33:57 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id RAA17869 for ; Mon, 8 Jan 2001 17:33:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id RAA06313; Mon, 8 Jan 2001 17:33:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id RAA06284 for ; Mon, 8 Jan 2001 17:32:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from hvmta01-stg.us.psimail.psi.net (hvmta01-ext.us.psimail.psi.net [38.202.36.29]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id RAA17847 for ; Mon, 8 Jan 2001 17:32:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from dranalli ([38.136.73.86]) by hvmta01-stg.us.psimail.psi.net (InterMail v4.01.01.00 201-229-111) with SMTP id <20010108223228.RJSA20644.hvmta01-stg@dranalli>; Mon, 8 Jan 2001 17:32:28 -0500 Message-ID: <007701c079c2$075f0d20$56498826@netnumber.com> Reply-To: "Douglas Ranalli" From: "Douglas Ranalli" To: "Conley, Pat" Cc: References: Subject: Re: [Enum] Status Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2001 17:26:20 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0074_01C07998.1D9926E0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Enum Discussion List X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0074_01C07998.1D9926E0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Pat, Thank you for prompting me regarding the follow-up from the IETF ENUM = meeting. I will contact Penn Pfaltz at AT&T and James Yu and NeuStar to = begin coordinating on a consolidated ID. I'll make sure to include you = in all correspondence on this effort so that we can get your input into = the combined effort. Doug ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Conley, Pat=20 To: 'Douglas Ranalli' ; Kevin McCandless=20 Cc: enum@ietf.org=20 Sent: Monday, January 08, 2001 1:17 PM Subject: RE: [Enum] Status Doug,=20 =20 One of the clear activities that was discussed at the last IETF = meeting in San Diego was the consolidation of several IDs into one that would = bring together terminology and various contributors ideas on possible = structures that the industry might take. =20 Has any work started on that process? If so, I would like to = participate as we have some serious concerns about the existing drafts and want to=20 contribute to a "best thinking" version. =20 Pat =20 Patrick J. Conley=20 VeriSign Global Registry Services=20 pconley@verisign.com=20 ------=_NextPart_000_0074_01C07998.1D9926E0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Pat,

Thank you for prompting me regarding = the follow-up=20 from the IETF ENUM meeting. I will contact Penn Pfaltz at AT&T = and=20 James Yu and NeuStar to begin coordinating on a consolidated ID. = I'll make=20 sure to include you in all correspondence on this effort so that we can = get your=20 input into the combined effort.

Doug

----- Original Message -----

From:=20 Conley,=20 Pat