From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Jan 1 14:20:02 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA12792 for ; Wed, 1 Jan 2003 14:20:02 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h01JRw119966 for enum-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 1 Jan 2003 14:27:58 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h01JRsJ19959; Wed, 1 Jan 2003 14:27:54 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h01JQ5J19915 for ; Wed, 1 Jan 2003 14:26:05 -0500 Received: from granger.mail.mindspring.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA12733 for ; Wed, 1 Jan 2003 14:17:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from user-2ivepdq.dialup.mindspring.com ([165.247.101.186] helo=rshockeybox.ix.netcom.com) by granger.mail.mindspring.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 18ToQ4-0007F4-00 for enum@ietf.org; Wed, 01 Jan 2003 14:20:48 -0500 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030101113350.01c2be88@popd.ix.netcom.com> X-Sender: rshockey@popd.ix.netcom.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 Date: Wed, 01 Jan 2003 11:34:00 -0500 To: enum@ietf.org From: Richard Shockey Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Subject: [Enum] Fwd: Document Action: H.323 URL Scheme Registration with IANA to Informational Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Enum Discussion List List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , >To: IETF-Announce: ; >Cc: RFC Editor , Internet Architecture Board >From: The IESG >Subject: Document Action: H.323 URL Scheme Registration with IANA to > Informational >Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 13:06:16 -0500 >Sender: owner-ietf-announce@ietf.org > > > >The IESG has approved the Internet-Draft 'H.323 URL Scheme >Registration with IANA' as >an Informational RFC. This has been reviewed in the IETF but is not >the product of an IETF Working Group. The IESG contact persons are >Scott Bradner and Allison Mankin. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard Shockey, Senior Manager, Strategic Technology Initiatives NeuStar Inc. 46000 Center Oak Plaza - Sterling, VA 20166 Voice +1 571.434.5651 Cell : +1 314.503.0640, Fax: +1 815.333.1237 or ; <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Jan 8 22:48:04 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA18496 for ; Wed, 8 Jan 2003 22:48:04 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h093xY012903 for enum-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 8 Jan 2003 22:59:34 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h093xNJ12898; Wed, 8 Jan 2003 22:59:23 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h093vAJ12835 for ; Wed, 8 Jan 2003 22:57:10 -0500 Received: from joy.songbird.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA18452 for ; Wed, 8 Jan 2003 22:45:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from rshockeybox.shockey.us (h-69-3-5-197.MCLNVA23.covad.net [69.3.5.197]) by joy.songbird.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA30546 for ; Wed, 8 Jan 2003 19:48:08 -0800 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030108222040.02260190@popd.ix.netcom.com> X-Sender: richard@shockey.us X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 Date: Wed, 08 Jan 2003 22:45:36 -0500 To: enum@ietf.org From: Richard Shockey Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Subject: [Enum] If anyone has any relevant ENUM related URL's Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Enum Discussion List List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , It may be useful to compile a list of URL's related to ENUM trial and forum activity in various nation states and URL's to relevant documents coming out of these efforts as well as to documents coming out other standards bodies such as ETSI etc. As many of us know there is a lot of activity going on world wide. I'm personally having trouble keeping track of things... and Google is not the most authoritative source of things. I might like to periodically post to the list of URL's of relevant interest and I might add ITU has done a fine job of trying to keep a up to date list as well. In the future if anyone has relevant ENUM information of general interest please don't hesitate to send the URL to the list here I know the ITU monitors the list so they can copy things as they see fit. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard Shockey, Senior Manager, Strategic Technology Initiatives NeuStar Inc. 46000 Center Oak Plaza - Sterling, VA 20166 Voice +1 571.434.5651 Cell : +1 314.503.0640, Fax: +1 815.333.1237 or ; <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Jan 9 09:51:06 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA13095 for ; Thu, 9 Jan 2003 09:51:06 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h09F2ox28452 for enum-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 9 Jan 2003 10:02:50 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h09F2kJ28446; Thu, 9 Jan 2003 10:02:46 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h09F1YJ28396 for ; Thu, 9 Jan 2003 10:01:34 -0500 Received: from rainier.illuminet.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA13050 for ; Thu, 9 Jan 2003 09:49:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from olwinexsmtp01.corp.illuminet.com (olwinexsmtp01.corp.illuminet.com [10.55.13.9]) by rainier.illuminet.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id GAA16724 for ; Thu, 9 Jan 2003 06:52:35 -0800 (PST) Received: by olwinexsmtp01.corp.illuminet.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2656.59) id ; Thu, 9 Jan 2003 06:52:34 -0800 Message-ID: <90B62898D7B43B448D1A7297980A8C5F0C4A2A@opwinex01.corp.illuminet.com> From: Kevin McCandless To: "'enum@ietf.org'" Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2003 06:52:31 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2656.59) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by www1.ietf.org id h09F1YJ28397 Subject: [Enum] =?iso-8859-1?Q?FW=3A_RTR=B4s_General_Terms_and_Conditions_for_?= =?iso-8859-1?Q?Austrian_ENUMTrial_now_available_in_English?= Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Enum Discussion List List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit FYI -----Original Message----- From: Kurt Reichinger [mailto:Kurt.Reichinger@rtr.at] Sent: Tuesday, January 07, 2003 6:02 AM To: enum-trial@lists.nic.at; enum-trials@ripe.net Subject: RTR´s General Terms and Conditions for Austrian ENUMTrial now available in English Dear Colleagues, This is to inform you that an English version of RTR´s General Terms and Conditions for the ENUM Field Trial in Austria just has been placed on our website for download. All entities operating on ENUM tier 1 and/or ENUM tier 2 (i.e. Registry and Registrars) are bound to sign a Memorandum of Understanding before starting trial activities. This MoU commits the signatories (for the time frame of the trial) to the terms and conditions issued in the above mentioned document. Please refer to http://www.rtr.at/web.nsf/englisch/Telekommunikation~Nummerierung~ENUM?OpenD ocument and scroll down to the DOWNLOADS section. Let me also take the opportunity to wish you all the best for 2003 . . . at last this may become the year of ENUM ! Kurt Reichinger. _____________________________________ Kurt Reichinger Austrian National Regulatory Authority for Telecommunication and Broadcasting Mariahilferstraße 77-79 A-1060 Vienna; Austria Tel.: +43/(0)1/58058-306 Fax: +43/(0)1/58058-9306 email: kurt.reichinger@rtr.at Website: http://www.rtr.at _____________________________________ _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Jan 9 09:51:08 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA13110 for ; Thu, 9 Jan 2003 09:51:08 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h09F2qi28479 for enum-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 9 Jan 2003 10:02:52 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h09F2qJ28474; Thu, 9 Jan 2003 10:02:52 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h09F0vJ28351 for ; Thu, 9 Jan 2003 10:00:57 -0500 Received: from rainier.illuminet.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA12978 for ; Thu, 9 Jan 2003 09:48:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from olwinexsmtp01.corp.illuminet.com (olwinexsmtp01.corp.illuminet.com [10.55.13.9]) by rainier.illuminet.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id GAA16679 for ; Thu, 9 Jan 2003 06:51:55 -0800 (PST) Received: by olwinexsmtp01.corp.illuminet.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2656.59) id ; Thu, 9 Jan 2003 06:51:54 -0800 Message-ID: <90B62898D7B43B448D1A7297980A8C5F0C4A29@opwinex01.corp.illuminet.com> From: Kevin McCandless To: "'enum@ietf.org'" Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2003 06:51:51 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2656.59) Content-Type: text/plain Subject: [Enum] FW: UK ENUM Trial Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Enum Discussion List List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Per your request Rich........ -----Original Message----- From: Carsten Schiefner [mailto:carsten@ripe.net] Sent: Thursday, January 09, 2003 6:41 AM To: enum-trials@ripe.net Subject: UK ENUM Trial Dear colleagues, this: http://www.dti.gov.uk/cii/regulatory/enum/ukeg20021108.ppt is IMHO an interesting reading. Best, Carsten Schiefner _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Jan 10 00:18:20 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA07702 for ; Fri, 10 Jan 2003 00:18:20 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h0A5UKI22123 for enum-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 10 Jan 2003 00:30:20 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0A5U7J22109; Fri, 10 Jan 2003 00:30:07 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0A5SxJ22065 for ; Fri, 10 Jan 2003 00:28:59 -0500 Received: from hotmail.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA07676 for ; Fri, 10 Jan 2003 00:16:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Thu, 9 Jan 2003 21:19:43 -0800 X-Originating-IP: [64.146.121.93] From: "Peter Williams" To: Cc: "Kevin McCandless" References: <90B62898D7B43B448D1A7297980A8C5F0C4A29@opwinex01.corp.illuminet.com> Subject: Re: [Enum] FW: UK ENUM Trial Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2003 21:19:35 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: MSN Mail 8.00.0022.3100 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V8.00.0022.3100 Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 10 Jan 2003 05:19:43.0138 (UTC) FILETIME=[E1ED9020:01C2B867] Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Enum Discussion List List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Kevin McCandless forwards data about ENUM piloting activities within the RIPE community. I have formulated a first draft "model practices statement", suited to the operation of an ENUM service with TWO or more Authentication Agencies (see the cited UK ppt cited by Carsten Schiefner). Repurposing earlier work from NACHA (a respected research project that fully modeled how US states could collaborate to control the deployment of "official" trust infrastructure operated by contractors and agents), the draft practices address what obligations exist, and how they assigned and passed between the components of a FICTIONAL ENUM infrastructure operated as a National authority. The work leverages alot of the (public-domain) know-how of VeriSign in trust practices architecture: it therefore stands as a reputable effort from the outset. The work consider the ENUM issues from a different angle to that often used - which are usually dominated by DNS-organization considering, focusing on ENUM scaling, zoning, etc. The design work relies on two approaches - based on (1) the practices approach VeriSign used (originally) to legally relate Issuing Authorities to online Repositories of names, and (2) my own (phd-study) work over the last 10 years on interactive name servers that can be trusted to speak for MULTIPLE authorities. The former technique speaks for itself. The latter technique is based on adopting the practices used now in the joint (Allied) military command and control systems that administer operational military messaging systems. Id be happy to discuss this work with any member of the RIPE community who is deploying either a "semi-official" DNS zone distributing ENUM records, or is operating an ENUM mapping service that "aggregates" records referencing E.164 addresses administered by MULTIPLE countries. The issues of official legal jurisdiction and the IP issues of aggregation are thorny: we can predict that these issues will hamper adoption of ENUM. This problem (and the associated prediction) is what motivated my research, and led to my formulating the model practice statement. Peter. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Kevin McCandless" To: Sent: Thursday, January 09, 2003 6:51 AM Subject: [Enum] FW: UK ENUM Trial > Per your request Rich........ > > -----Original Message----- > From: Carsten Schiefner [mailto:carsten@ripe.net] > Sent: Thursday, January 09, 2003 6:41 AM > To: enum-trials@ripe.net > Subject: UK ENUM Trial > > > Dear colleagues, > > this: > > http://www.dti.gov.uk/cii/regulatory/enum/ukeg20021108.ppt > > is IMHO an interesting reading. > > Best, > > Carsten Schiefner > _______________________________________________ > enum mailing list > enum@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum > _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Jan 12 11:59:23 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA12097 for ; Sun, 12 Jan 2003 11:59:23 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h0CHCcu14254 for enum-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 12 Jan 2003 12:12:38 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0CHCFJ14237; Sun, 12 Jan 2003 12:12:15 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0CH71J13501 for ; Sun, 12 Jan 2003 12:07:01 -0500 Received: from joy.songbird.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA12011 for ; Sun, 12 Jan 2003 11:53:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from rshockeybox.shockey.us (h-69-3-5-197.MCLNVA23.covad.net [69.3.5.197]) by joy.songbird.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA03050 for ; Sun, 12 Jan 2003 08:56:18 -0800 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030112115132.01fdab78@popd.ix.netcom.com> X-Sender: richard@shockey.us X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 Date: Sun, 12 Jan 2003 11:58:29 -0500 To: enum@ietf.org From: Richard Shockey Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Subject: [Enum] A note from your co-chair Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Enum Discussion List List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , I have submitted to the IESG the revised Goals and Milestones for the WG I posted to the list late last year. I'd like to emphasize that we need to move forward on any number of our documents especially the revision of 2916bis now at 02 version. With accelerated national trial activity now going on we have a obligation to bring this document forward as the appropriate standard for that work. I'd like the list to begin to bring its comments forward for the authors to consider ASAP. It is my personal preference that we conclude work on 2916bis before IETF San Francisco and we can go to last call on or before that time. Does this sound reasonable? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard Shockey, Senior Manager, Strategic Technology Initiatives NeuStar Inc. 46000 Center Oak Plaza - Sterling, VA 20166 Voice +1 571.434.5651 Cell : +1 314.503.0640, Fax: +1 815.333.1237 or ; <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Jan 12 12:24:33 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA12406 for ; Sun, 12 Jan 2003 12:24:33 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h0CHbmt15555 for enum-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 12 Jan 2003 12:37:48 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0CHblJ15550; Sun, 12 Jan 2003 12:37:47 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0CHYaJ14839 for ; Sun, 12 Jan 2003 12:34:36 -0500 Received: from joy.songbird.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA12385 for ; Sun, 12 Jan 2003 12:20:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from rshockeybox.shockey.us (h-69-3-5-197.MCLNVA23.covad.net [69.3.5.197]) by joy.songbird.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA04013 for ; Sun, 12 Jan 2003 09:23:53 -0800 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030112122548.044f2d10@wheresmymailserver.com> X-Sender: richard@shockey.us X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 Date: Sun, 12 Jan 2003 12:26:04 -0500 To: enum@ietf.org From: Richard Shockey Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Subject: [Enum] Official ENUM Related URL's Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Enum Discussion List List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , This is the list I have of more or less "official" ENUM or ENUM trial related Web Sites etc. If anyone has others pass them along. The ENUM Forum in the United States http://www.enum-forum.org/ ENUM in Austria http://www.rtr.at/web.nsf/englisch/Telekommunikation~Nummerierung~ENUM?OpenDocument ENUM in the UK http://www.dti.gov.uk/cii/regulatory/enum/egp_report.shtml http://www.dti.gov.uk/cii/regulatory/enum/ukeg20021108.ppt ENUM in France http://www.numerobis.prd.fr/welcome.shtml ENUM in Australia http://www.aca.gov.au/committee/nsg2/enum.htm ENUM in The Netherlands http://www.enuminnederland.nl ENUM in China http://www.enum.cn/index-en.html ENUM in Germany http://www.denic.de/enum/index.html ENUM in Switzerland http://www.ofcom.ch/en/telekommunikation/nummerierung/enum/ ENUM in Korea http://www.enum.or.kr/ In addition considerable information on the current status of ENUM can be found at the ITU-T's web site http://www.itu.int/ITU-T/inr/enum/index.html and also at RIPE NCC's web site http://www.ripe.net/enum/ Some information on trials is at http://www.itu.int/ITU-T/inr/enum/trials.html This seems to be a list of current delegations in e164.arpa I cant testify to its accuracy and there is no indication of when the page was updated. http://www.enum.info/ENUM%20Matrix.htm >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard Shockey, Senior Manager, Strategic Technology Initiatives NeuStar Inc. 46000 Center Oak Plaza - Sterling, VA 20166 Voice +1 571.434.5651 Cell : +1 314.503.0640, Fax: +1 815.333.1237 or ; <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Jan 13 04:51:28 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA06083 for ; Mon, 13 Jan 2003 04:51:28 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h0DA52r10771 for enum-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 13 Jan 2003 05:05:02 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0DA4vJ10755; Mon, 13 Jan 2003 05:04:57 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0DA3dJ10689 for ; Mon, 13 Jan 2003 05:03:39 -0500 Received: from mail.oefeg.at (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id EAA06046 for ; Mon, 13 Jan 2003 04:49:34 -0500 (EST) content-class: urn:content-classes:message Subject: AW: [Enum] Official ENUM Related URL's MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2003 10:56:17 +0100 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0 Message-ID: <06CF906FE3998C4E944213062009F1620DEE8C@oefeg-s02.oefeg.loc> Thread-Topic: [Enum] Official ENUM Related URL's Thread-Index: AcK6Ybw/w/Rcw9ATTqKlY8zKHnjQ9AAh9rPk From: "Stastny Richard" To: "Richard Shockey" , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from base64 to 8bit by www1.ietf.org id h0DA3dJ10690 Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Enum Discussion List List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Correction on Austria: -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: Richard Shockey [mailto:richard@shockey.us] Gesendet: So 12.01.2003 18:26 An: enum@ietf.org Cc: Betreff: [Enum] Official ENUM Related URL's ENUM in Austria http://www.rtr.at/web.nsf/englisch/Telekommunikation~Nummerierung~ENUM?OpenDocument This is only pointing to a document, the official Austrian ENUM Website is: http://enum.nic.at regards Richard _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Jan 13 08:36:22 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA10691 for ; Mon, 13 Jan 2003 08:36:22 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h0DDo2Y25250 for enum-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 13 Jan 2003 08:50:02 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0DDnxJ25234; Mon, 13 Jan 2003 08:49:59 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0DDmFJ25165 for ; Mon, 13 Jan 2003 08:48:15 -0500 Received: from mail.oefeg.at (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id IAA10668 for ; Mon, 13 Jan 2003 08:34:04 -0500 (EST) content-class: urn:content-classes:message Subject: AW: [Enum] A note from your co-chair MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2003 14:40:48 +0100 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0 Message-ID: <06CF906FE3998C4E944213062009F1620DEE8F@oefeg-s02.oefeg.loc> Thread-Topic: [Enum] A note from your co-chair Thread-Index: AcK6Xks3P+/Sj4G9RDWs9BB1RsUktwAqp52s From: "Stastny Richard" To: "Richard Shockey" , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from base64 to 8bit by www1.ietf.org id h0DDmFJ25166 Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Enum Discussion List List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Richard Shockey wrote: >It is my personal preference that we conclude work on 2916bis before IETF >San Francisco and we can go to last call on or before that time. >Does this sound reasonable? Yes Richard Stastny _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Jan 22 06:12:51 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA21846 for ; Wed, 22 Jan 2003 06:12:51 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h0MBUon13552 for enum-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 22 Jan 2003 06:30:50 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0MBUSJ13543; Wed, 22 Jan 2003 06:30:28 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0MBSqJ13497 for ; Wed, 22 Jan 2003 06:28:52 -0500 Received: from ams-msg-core-1.cisco.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA21796; Wed, 22 Jan 2003 06:10:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from xbe-ams-313.cisco.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ams-msg-core-1.cisco.com (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id h0MBCAj8002591; Wed, 22 Jan 2003 12:12:11 +0100 (MET) Received: from xfe-ams-312.cisco.com ([144.254.228.205]) by xbe-ams-313.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.4453); Wed, 22 Jan 2003 12:13:41 +0100 Received: from cisco.com ([144.254.74.55]) by xfe-ams-312.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.4453); Wed, 22 Jan 2003 12:13:40 +0100 Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 12:13:39 +0100 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary=Apple-Mail-9-502309640 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v551) Cc: enum@ietf.org To: internet-drafts@ietf.org From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Patrik_F=E4ltstr=F6m?= Message-Id: <8EBB6E66-2DFA-11D7-A907-0003934B2128@cisco.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.551) X-OriginalArrivalTime: 22 Jan 2003 11:13:40.0750 (UTC) FILETIME=[517CFAE0:01C2C207] Subject: [Enum] draft-ietf-enum-rfc2916bis-03.txt Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Enum Discussion List List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , --Apple-Mail-9-502309640 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Please make the following draft available. paf --Apple-Mail-9-502309640 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=draft-ietf-enum-rfc2916bis-03.txt Content-Type: text/plain; x-unix-mode=0644; name="draft-ietf-enum-rfc2916bis-03.txt" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable ENUM P. Faltstrom Internet-Draft Cisco Systems Inc Obsoletes: 2916 (if approved) M. Mealling Expires: July 23, 2003 VeriSign January 22, 2003 The E.164 to URI DDDS Application (ENUM) draft-ietf-enum-rfc2916bis-03.txt Status of this Memo This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at http:// www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. This Internet-Draft will expire on July 23, 2003. Copyright Notice Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003). All Rights Reserved. Abstract This document discusses the use of the Domain Name System (DNS) for storage of E.164 numbers. More specifically, how DNS can be used for identifying available services connected to one E.164 number. It specifically obsoletes RFC 2916 to bring it in line with the Dynamic Delegation Discovery System (DDDS) Application specification found in the document series specified in RFC 3401. It is very important to note that it is impossible to read and understand this document without reading the documents discussed in RFC 3401. Faltstrom & Mealling Expires July 23, 2003 [Page 1] =0C Internet-Draft ENUM January 2003 Table of Contents 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.1 Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.2 Use for these mechanisms for private dialing plans . . . . . 3 1.3 Application of local policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. The ENUM Application Specifications . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2.1 Application Unique String . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2.2 First Well Known Rule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2.3 Expected Output . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2.4 Valid Databases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2.4.1 Flags . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2.4.2 Services Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3. Registration mechanism for Enumservices . . . . . . . . . . 7 3.1 Registration Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3.1.1 Functionality Requirement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3.1.2 Naming requirement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3.1.3 Security requirement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3.1.4 Publication Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 3.2 Registration procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 3.2.1 IANA Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 3.2.2 Registration Template . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 4. Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 4.1 Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 7. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 8. Changes since RFC 2916 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Non-normative references . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . 17 Faltstrom & Mealling Expires July 23, 2003 [Page 2] =0C Internet-Draft ENUM January 2003 1. Introduction Through transformation of E.164 [4] numbers into DNS names and the use of existing DNS services like delegation through NS records and NAPTR records, one can look up what services are available for a specific domain name in a decentralized way with distributed management of the different levels in the lookup process. The domain "e164.arpa" is being populated in order to provide the infrastructure in DNS for storage of E.164 numbers. In order to facilitate distributed operations, this domain is divided into subdomains. Holders of E.164 numbers which want to be listed in DNS should contact the appropriate zone administrator in order to be listed, by examining the SOA resource record associated with the zone, just like in normal DNS operations. Of course, as with other domains, policies for such listings will be controlled on a subdomain basis and may differ in different parts of the world. 1.1 Terminology The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119. All capitalized terms are taken from the vocabulary found in the DDDS algorithm specification found in RFC 3403 [1]. 1.2 Use for these mechanisms for private dialing plans This document specifies how "ENUM" works, that is how to handle numbers allocated according to the ITU-T standard E.164. But, a similar mechanism can be used also for other numbers, such as private dialing plans. To implement that (a) the suffix MUST be selected, MUST NOT be e164.arpa, MUST be known for all parties using the same dialing plan (b) the application unique string SHOULD be the full number as specified but without the leading '+'. 1.3 Application of local policy The preference field in the NAPTR is a request from the holder of the E.164 in what order the records are to be used. It is to be noted that the party looking up the records MAY apply a local policy for in what order the records are to be used based on a combination of the service fields and URI schemes. This overrides the MUST requirement in the DDDS algorithm. Faltstrom & Mealling Expires July 23, 2003 [Page 3] =0C Internet-Draft ENUM January 2003 2. The ENUM Application Specifications This template defines the ENUM DDDS Application according to the rules and requirements found in [1]. The DDDS database used by this Application is found in [2] which is the document that defines the NAPTR DNS Resource Record type. 2.1 Application Unique String The Application Unique String is a fully qualified E.164 number minus any non-digit characters except for the '+' character which appears at the beginning of the number. The "+" is kept to provide a well understood anchor for the AUS in order to distinguish it from other telephone numbers that are not part of the E.164 namespace. For example, the E.164 number could start out as "+1-770-923-9595". To ensure that no syntactic sugar is allowed into the AUS, all non-digits except for "+" are removed, yielding "+17709239595". 2.2 First Well Known Rule The First Well Known Rule for this Application is the identity rule. The output of this rule is the same as the input. This is because the E.164 namespace and this Applications databases are organized in such a way that it is possible to go directly from the name to the smallest granularity of the namespace directly from the name itself. Take the previous example, the AUS is "+17709239595". Applying the First Well Known Rule produces the exact same string, "+17709239595". 2.3 Expected Output The output of the last DDDS loop is a Uniform Resource Identifier in its absolute form according to the 'absoluteURI' production in the Collected ABNF found in RFC2396 [3]. 2.4 Valid Databases At present only one DDDS Database is specified for this Application. "Dynamic Delegation Discovery System (DDDS) Part Three: The DNS Database" (RFC 3403) [2] specifies a DDDS Database that uses the NAPTR DNS resource record to contain the rewrite rules. The Keys for this database are encoded as domain-names. The output of the First Well Known Rule for the ENUM Application is the E.164 number minus all non-digit characters except for the +. In order to convert this to a unique key in this Database the string is converted into a domain-name according to this algorithm: Faltstrom & Mealling Expires July 23, 2003 [Page 4] =0C Internet-Draft ENUM January 2003 1. Remove all characters with the exception of the digits. For example, the First Well Known Rule produced the Key "+4689761234". This step would simply remove the leading "+", producing "4689761234". 2. Put dots (".") between each digit. Example: 4.6.8.9.7.6.1.2.3.4 3. Reverse the order of the digits. Example: 4.3.2.1.6.7.9.8.6.4 4. Append the string ".e164.arpa" to the end. Example: 4.3.2.1.6.7.9.8.6.4.e164.arpa This domain-name is used to request NAPTR records which may contain the end result or, if the flags field is blank, produces new keys in the form of domain-names from the DNS. DNS servers MAY interpret Flag values and use that information to include appropriate resource records in the Additional Information portion of the DNS packet. Clients are encouraged to check for additional information but are not required to do so. See the Additional Information Processing section of RFC 3404 for more information on NAPTR records and the Additional Information section of a DNS response packet. The character set used to encode the substitution expression is UTF-8. The allowed input characters are all those characters that are allowed anywhere in an E.164 number. The characters allowed to be in a Key are those that are currently defined for DNS domain-names. 2.4.1 Flags This Database contains a field that contains flags that signal when the DDDS algorithm has finished. At this time only one flag, "U", is defined. This means that this Rule is the last one and that the output of the Rule is a URI [3]. See RFC 3404 [2]. If a client encounters a record with an unknown flag, it MUST ignore it and move to the next Rule. This test takes precedence over any ordering since flags can control the interpretation placed on fields. A novel flag might change the interpretation of the regexp and/or replacement fields such that it is impossible to determine if a record matched a given target. If this flag is not present then this rule is non-terminal. If a Rule is non-terminal then clients MUST use the Key produced by this Rewrite Rule as the new Key in the DDDS loop (i.e. causing the client to query for new NAPTR records at the domain-name that is the Faltstrom & Mealling Expires July 23, 2003 [Page 5] =0C Internet-Draft ENUM January 2003 result of this Rule). 2.4.2 Services Parameters Service Parameters for this Application take the following form and are found in the Service field of the NAPTR record. service_field =3D "E2U" 1*(servicespec) servicespec =3D "+" enumservice enumservice =3D type 0*(subtypespec) subtypespec =3D ":" subtype type =3D 1*32(ALPHA / DIGIT) subtype =3D 1*32(ALPHA / DIGIT) In other words, a non-optional "E2U" (used to denote ENUM only Rewrite Rules in order to mitigate record collisions) followed by 1 or more or more Enumservices which indicate what class of functionality a given end point offers. Each Enumservice is indicated by an initial '+' character. 2.4.2.1 ENUM Services Enumservice specifications contain the functional specification (i.e. what it can be used for), the valid protocols, and the URI schemes that may be returned. Note that there is no implicit mapping between the textual string "type" or "subtype" in the grammar for the Enumservice and URI schemes or protocols. The mapping, if any, have to be made explicit in the specification for the Enumservice itself. A registration of a specific Type also have to specify the Subtypes allowed. The only exception to the registration rule is for Types and Subtypes used for experimental purposes, and those are to start with the facet "X-". These elements are unregistered, experimental, and should be used only with the active agreement of the parties exchanging them. The registration mechanism is specified in Section 3. Faltstrom & Mealling Expires July 23, 2003 [Page 6] =0C Internet-Draft ENUM January 2003 3. Registration mechanism for Enumservices Registration of Enumservices requires approval by the IESG and publication of the Enumservice registration as an RFC on Standards Track or BCP. 3.1 Registration Requirements Service registration proposals are all expected to conform to various requirements laid out in the following sections. 3.1.1 Functionality Requirement An Enumservice registered must be able to function as a selection mechanism when choosing one NAPTR resource record from another. That means that the registration MUST specify what is expected when using that very NAPTR record, and the URI which is the outcome of the use of it. Specifically, a registered Enumservice MUST specify the URI scheme(s) that may be used for the Enumservice, and, when needed, other information which will have to be transfered into the URI resolution process itself (LDAP DNs, transferring of the AUS into the resulting URI, etc). 3.1.2 Naming requirement The Enumservice MUST be unique, conform to the ABNF specified in Section 2.4.2, and MUST NOT start with the facet "X-" which is reserved for experimental, private use. The type MUST be unique, conform to the ABNF specified in Section 2.4.2, and MUST NOT start with the facet "X-" which is reserved for experimental, private use. The subtype MUST be named so that the Enumservice is unique, conform to the ABNF specified in Section 2.4.2, and MUST NOT start with the facet "X-" which is reserved for experimental, private use. The subtype for one type MAY be the same as a subtype for a different registered type. 3.1.3 Security requirement An analysis of security issues is required for all Enumservices registered. (This is in accordance with the basic requirements for all IETF protocols.) All descriptions of security issues must be as accurate as possible Faltstrom & Mealling Expires July 23, 2003 [Page 7] =0C Internet-Draft ENUM January 2003 regardless of registration tree. In particular, a statement that there are "no security issues associated with this Enumservice" must not be confused with "the security issues associates with this Enumservice have not been assessed". There is no requirement that Enumservices registered must be secure or completely free from risks. Nevertheless, all known security risks must be identified in the registration of a Enumservice. The security considerations section of all registrations is subject to continuing evaluation and modification. Some of the issues that should be looked at in a security analysis of a Enumservice are: 1. Complex Enumservices may include provisions for directives that institute actions on a user's resources. In many cases provision can be made to specify arbitrary actions in an unrestricted fashion which may then have devastating results. Especially if there is a risk for a new ENUM lookup, and because of that an infinite loop in the overall resolution process of the E.164. 2. Complex Enumservices may include provisions for directives that institute actions which, while not directly harmful, may result in disclosure of information that either facilitates a subsequent attack or else violates the users privacy in some way. 3. An Enumservice might be targeted for applications that require some sort of security assurance but do not provide the necessary security mechanisms themselves. For example, a Enumservice could be defined for storage of confidential medical information which in turn requires an external confidentiality service. 3.1.4 Publication Requirements Proposals for Enumservices registered must be published as RFCs on Standards track or as BCP. IANA will retain copies of all Enumservice registration proposals and "publish" them as part of the ENUM Enumservice Registration tree itself. 3.2 Registration procedure 3.2.1 IANA Registration Provided that the Enumservice has obtained approval that is necessary, and the RFC is published, IANA will register the Enumservice and make the Enumservice registration available to the Faltstrom & Mealling Expires July 23, 2003 [Page 8] =0C Internet-Draft ENUM January 2003 community in addition to the RFC publication itself. 3.2.1.1 Location of ENUM Enumservice Registrations Enumservice registrations will be published in the IANA repository and made available via anonymous FTP at the following URI: "ftp:// ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/iana/assignments/enum-services/". 3.2.1.2 Change Control Change control of Enumservices stay with the IETF via the RFC publication process. Especially, Enumservice registrations may not be deleted; Enumservices which are no longer believed appropriate for use can be declared OBSOLETE by publication of a new RFC and a change to their "intended use" field; such Enumservice will be clearly marked in the lists published by IANA. 3.2.2 Registration Template Enumservice Name: Type(s): Subtype(s): URI Scheme(s): Functional Specification: Security considerations: Intended usage: (One of COMMON, LIMITED USE or OBSOLETE) Author: Any other information that the author deems interesting: Faltstrom & Mealling Expires July 23, 2003 [Page 9] =0C Internet-Draft ENUM January 2003 4. Examples The examples below use theoretical services which uses Enumservices which might not make sense, but they are still used for educational purposes. For example, the protocol used is in some cases exactly the the same string as the URI scheme. That was the specification in RFC 2916, but this default specification of a Enumservice is no longer allowed. All Enumservices need to be registered explicitly by the procedure specified in section Section 3N. 4.1 Example $ORIGIN 4.3.2.1.6.7.9.8.6.4.e164.arpa. IN NAPTR 10 100 "u" "E2U+sip" "!^.*$!sip:info@example.com!" = . IN NAPTR 10 101 "u" "E2U+h323:voice" "!^.*$!h323:info@example.com!" = . IN NAPTR 10 102 "u" "E2U+msg:mailto" = "!^.*$!mailto:info@example.com!" . This describes that the domain 4.3.2.1.6.7.9.8.6.4.e164.arpa is preferably contacted by SIP, secondly via H.323 for voice, and thirdly by SMTP for messaging. Note that the tokens "sip", "msg", "h323", "voice" and "mailto" are Types and Subtypes registered with IANA, and they have no implicit connection with the protocols or URI schemes with the same names. In all cases, the next step in the resolution process is to use the resolution mechanism for each of the protocols, (specified by the URI schemes sip, h323 and mailto) to know what node to contact for each. Faltstrom & Mealling Expires July 23, 2003 [Page 10] =0C Internet-Draft ENUM January 2003 5. IANA Considerations This memo requests that the IANA delegate the E164.ARPA domain following instructions to be provided by the IAB. Names within this zone are to be delegated to parties according to the ITU recommendation E.164. The names allocated should be hierarchic in accordance with ITU Recommendation E.164, and the codes should assigned in accordance with that Recommendation. IAB is to coordinate with ITU-T TSB if the technical contact for the domain e164.arpa is to change, as ITU-T TSB has an operational working relationship with this technical contact which needs to be reestablished. Delegations in the zone e164.arpa (not delegations in delegated domains of e164.arpa) should be done after Expert Review, and the IESG will appoint a designated expert. IANA is to create a registry for ENUM Enumservices as specified in Section 3. Whenever a new ENUM Enumservice is registered by the RFC process in the IETF, IANA is at the time of publication of the RFC to register the Enumservice and add a pointer to the RFC itself. Faltstrom & Mealling Expires July 23, 2003 [Page 11] =0C Internet-Draft ENUM January 2003 6. Security Considerations As this system is built on top of DNS, one can not be sure that the information one gets back from DNS is more secure than any DNS query. To solve that, the use of DNSSEC [7] for securing and verifying zones is to be recommended. The caching in DNS can make the propagation time for a change take the same amount of time as the time to live for the NAPTR records in the zone that is changed. The use of this in an environment where IP-addresses are for hire (for example, when using DHCP [8]) must therefore be done very carefully. There are a number of countries (and other numbering environments) in which there are multiple providers of call routing and number/name- translation services. In these areas, any system that permits users, or putative agents for users, to change routing or supplier information may provide incentives for changes that are actually unauthorized (and, in some cases, for denial of legitimate change requests). Such environments should be designed with adequate mechanisms for identification and authentication of those requesting changes and for authorization of those changes. A large amount of Security Issues have to do with the resolution process itself, and use of the URIs produced by the DDDS mechanism. Those have to be specified in the registration of the ENUM Enumservice used, as specified in Section 3.1.3. Faltstrom & Mealling Expires July 23, 2003 [Page 12] =0C Internet-Draft ENUM January 2003 7. Acknowledgments Support and ideas leading to RFC 2916 have come from people at Ericsson, Bjorn Larsson and the group which implemented this scheme in their lab to see that it worked. Input has also arrived from ITU-T SG2, Working Party 1/2 (Numbering, Routing, Global Mobility and Enumservice Definition), the ENUM working group in the IETF, John Klensin and Leif Sunnegardh. This update of RFC 2916 is created with specific input from: Randy Bush, David Conrad, Richard Hill, John Petersen, Jim Reid, Joakim Stralmark, Robert Walter and James Yu. Faltstrom & Mealling Expires July 23, 2003 [Page 13] =0C Internet-Draft ENUM January 2003 8. Changes since RFC 2916 Part from clarifications in the text in this document, the major changes are two: The document uses an explicit DDDS algorithm, and not only NAPTR resource records in an "ad-hoc" mode. In reality this doesn't imply any changes in deployed base of applications, as the algorithm used for ENUM resolution is exactly the same. The format of the service field has changed. The old format was of the form "example+E2U", while the new format is "E2U+example". Reason for this change have to with the added subtypes in the enumservice, the ability to support more than one enumservice per NAPTR RR, and a general agreement in the IETF that the main selector between different NAPTR with the same owner (E2U in this case) should be first. Faltstrom & Mealling Expires July 23, 2003 [Page 14] =0C Internet-Draft ENUM January 2003 Normative References [1] Mealling, M., "Dynamic Delegation Discovery System (DDDS) Part Three: The DNS Database", RFC 3403, February 2002. [2] Mealling, M., "Dynamic Delegation Discovery System (DDDS) Part Four: The URI Resolution Application", RFC 3404, February 2002. [3] Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R. and L. Masinter, "Uniform Resource Identifiers (URI): Generic Syntax", RFC 2396, August 1998. [4] ITU-T, "The International Public Telecommunication Number Plan", Recommendation E.164, May 1997. Faltstrom & Mealling Expires July 23, 2003 [Page 15] =0C Internet-Draft ENUM January 2003 Non-normative references [5] Mealling, M., "Dynamic Delegation Discovery System (DDDS) Part One: The Comprehensive DDDS Standard", RFC 3401, February 2002. [6] Mealling, M., "Dynamic Delegation Discovery System (DDDS) Part Two: The Algorithm", RFC 3402, February 2002. [7] Eastlake, D., "Domain Name System Security Extensions", RFC 2535, March 1999. [8] Droms, R., "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol", RFC 2131, March 1997. Authors' Addresses Patrik Faltstrom Cisco Systems Inc Ledasa 273 71 Lovestad Sweden EMail: paf@cisco.com URI: http://www.cisco.com Michael Mealling VeriSign 21345 Ridgetop Circle Sterling, VA 20166 US EMail: michael@neonym.net URI: http://www.verisignlabs.com Faltstrom & Mealling Expires July 23, 2003 [Page 16] =0C Internet-Draft ENUM January 2003 Intellectual Property Statement The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any intellectual property or other rights that might be claimed to pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in this document or the extent to which any license under such rights might or might not be available; neither does it represent that it has made any effort to identify any such rights. Information on the IETF's procedures with respect to rights in standards-track and standards-related documentation can be found in BCP-11. Copies of claims of rights made available for publication and any assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of such proprietary rights by implementors or users of this specification can be obtained from the IETF Secretariat. The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary rights which may cover technology that may be required to practice this standard. Please address the information to the IETF Executive Director. Full Copyright Statement Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003). All Rights Reserved. This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than English. The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assignees. This document and the information contained herein is provided on an "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION Faltstrom & Mealling Expires July 23, 2003 [Page 17] =0C Internet-Draft ENUM January 2003 HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Acknowledgement Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the Internet Society. Faltstrom & Mealling Expires July 23, 2003 [Page 18] =0C --Apple-Mail-9-502309640-- _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Jan 23 05:25:42 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA02218 for ; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 05:25:42 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h0NAiBo14236 for enum-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 05:44:11 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0NAi5J14227; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 05:44:05 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0NAg3J14157 for ; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 05:42:03 -0500 Received: from mail.oefeg.at (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id FAA02190 for ; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 05:23:03 -0500 (EST) content-class: urn:content-classes:message Subject: RE: [Enum] draft-ietf-enum-rfc2916bis-03.txt MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 11:29:59 +0100 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0 Message-ID: <06CF906FE3998C4E944213062009F1620DEEC4@oefeg-s02.oefeg.loc> Thread-Topic: [Enum] draft-ietf-enum-rfc2916bis-03.txt Thread-Index: AcLCCeyMuv4zuBX+ScShXhTlJ22oMQAuXK0A From: "Stastny Richard" To: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Patrik_F=E4ltstr=F6m?= Cc: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by www1.ietf.org id h0NAg3J14158 Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Enum Discussion List List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Hi all, two comments on the new draft version and one comment: 1. there is a minor typo in Section 2.4.2 last para: ... followed by 1 or more or more Enumservices ... delete the second "or more" 2. Section 1.3 Application of local policy last sentence: "This overrides the MUST requirement in the DDDS algorithm." There is no MUST requirement in the DDDS algorithm for the preference field (only for the order field). I suggest therefore to delete this sentence or reword it. Comment: I hope this is the last change in the document regards Richard Stastny > -----Original Message----- > From: Patrik Fältström [mailto:paf@cisco.com] > Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2003 12:14 PM > To: internet-drafts@ietf.org > Cc: enum@ietf.org > Subject: [Enum] draft-ietf-enum-rfc2916bis-03.txt > > > Please make the following draft available. > > paf > > _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Jan 23 07:51:01 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA05024 for ; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 07:51:00 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h0ND9Vt23066 for enum-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 08:09:31 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0ND9LJ23059; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 08:09:21 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0ND5xJ22165 for ; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 08:05:59 -0500 Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA04822; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 07:46:58 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200301231246.HAA04822@ietf.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; Boundary="NextPart" To: IETF-Announce: ; Cc: enum@ietf.org From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org Reply-to: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 07:46:58 -0500 Subject: [Enum] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-enum-rfc2916bis-03.txt Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Enum Discussion List List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , --NextPart A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Telephone Number Mapping Working Group of the IETF. Title : The E.164 to URI DDDS Application (ENUM) Author(s) : P. Faltstrom, M. Mealling Filename : draft-ietf-enum-rfc2916bis-03.txt Pages : 18 Date : 2003-1-22 This document discusses the use of the Domain Name System (DNS) for storage of E.164 numbers. More specifically, how DNS can be used for identifying available services connected to one E.164 number. It specifically obsoletes RFC 2916 to bring it in line with the Dynamic Delegation Discovery System (DDDS) Application specification found in the document series specified in RFC WWWW. It is very important to note that it is impossible to read and understand this document without reading the documents discussed in RFC WWWW. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-enum-rfc2916bis-03.txt To remove yourself from the IETF Announcement list, send a message to ietf-announce-request with the word unsubscribe in the body of the message. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the username "anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in, type "cd internet-drafts" and then "get draft-ietf-enum-rfc2916bis-03.txt". A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail. Send a message to: mailserv@ietf.org. In the body type: "FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-enum-rfc2916bis-03.txt". NOTE: The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility. To use this feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE" command. To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or a MIME-compliant mail reader. Different MIME-compliant mail readers exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with "multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on how to manipulate these messages. Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. --NextPart Content-Type: Multipart/Alternative; Boundary="OtherAccess" --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; access-type="mail-server"; server="mailserv@ietf.org" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2003-1-22111523.I-D@ietf.org> ENCODING mime FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-enum-rfc2916bis-03.txt --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; name="draft-ietf-enum-rfc2916bis-03.txt"; site="ftp.ietf.org"; access-type="anon-ftp"; directory="internet-drafts" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2003-1-22111523.I-D@ietf.org> --OtherAccess-- --NextPart-- _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Jan 23 12:00:00 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA13239 for ; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 12:00:00 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h0NHIZQ08806 for enum-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 12:18:35 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0NHIUJ08801; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 12:18:30 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0NH97J08106 for ; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 12:09:07 -0500 Received: from joy.songbird.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA13051 for ; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 11:50:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from rshockeybox.shockey.us (h-69-3-5-197.MCLNVA23.covad.net [69.3.5.197]) by joy.songbird.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA02169 for ; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 08:53:11 -0800 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030123115300.02581a10@popd.ix.netcom.com> X-Sender: richard@shockey.us X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 11:54:57 -0500 To: enum@ietf.org From: Richard Shockey Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Subject: [Enum] ENUM in Sweden Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Enum Discussion List List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , For those of you keeping track of these things... From PTS the National Post and Telecom Regulator in Sweden. http://www.pts.se/tele_svar.asp?avdelning=for_branschfolk&uavdelning=tele_svar&u2avdelning=enum&lang=&header=ENUM Its in Swedish BTW.. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard Shockey, Senior Manager, Strategic Technology Initiatives NeuStar Inc. 46000 Center Oak Plaza - Sterling, VA 20166 Voice +1 571.434.5651 Cell : +1 314.503.0640, Fax: +1 815.333.1237 or ; <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Jan 23 14:02:27 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA16715 for ; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 14:02:27 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h0NJL5517344 for enum-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 14:21:05 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0NJKxJ17336; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 14:20:59 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0NINqJ13245 for ; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 13:23:52 -0500 Received: from oak.neustar.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA15247 for ; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 13:04:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from rshockeybox.neustar.biz (stih650b-eth-s1p2c0.va.neustar.com [209.173.53.65]) by oak.neustar.com (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id h0NI8AZ07555 for ; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 18:08:10 GMT Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030123130650.025ea008@popd.ix.netcom.com> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 13:10:48 -0500 To: enum@ietf.org From: Richard Shockey Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Subject: [Enum] I have one question for list on the "recommendation" to use DNSSEC Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Enum Discussion List List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Is this something we want to put in the 2916bis? I do not want to give the impression to implementers or national enum administrations that this is requirement. The current state of DNSSEC deployment is "still under evaluation" and to my knowledge none of the major CC or GTLD has implemented it. Of course at some time in the future DNSSEC will be extremely important but do we want to make that kind of statement now. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard Shockey, Senior Manager, Strategic Technology Initiatives NeuStar Inc. 46000 Center Oak Plaza - Sterling, VA 20166 Voice +1 571.434.5651 Cell : +1 314.503.0640, Fax: +1 815.333.1237 or ; <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Jan 23 14:21:46 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA17401 for ; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 14:21:45 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h0NJeO918833 for enum-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 14:40:24 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0NJeNJ18828; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 14:40:23 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0NJcnJ18702 for ; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 14:38:49 -0500 Received: from boreas.isi.edu (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA17322 for ; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 14:19:39 -0500 (EST) Received: (from bmanning@localhost) by boreas.isi.edu (8.11.6/8.11.2) id h0NJMxw28622; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 11:22:59 -0800 (PST) From: Bill Manning Message-Id: <200301231922.h0NJMxw28622@boreas.isi.edu> Subject: Re: [Enum] I have one question for list on the "recommendation" to use DNSSEC In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.2.20030123130650.025ea008@popd.ix.netcom.com> from Richard Shockey at "Jan 23, 3 01:10:48 pm" To: rich.shockey@neustar.biz (Richard Shockey) Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 11:22:59 -0800 (PST) Cc: enum@ietf.org X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL39 (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Enum Discussion List List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit DNSSEC (at least SIG/KEY/NXT) is not cooked yet. If (big if) we are able to pull it together, those portions of the DNSSEC toolkit should be deployable in 2003. % % Is this something we want to put in the 2916bis? % % I do not want to give the impression to implementers or national enum % administrations that this is requirement. % % The current state of DNSSEC deployment is "still under evaluation" and to % my knowledge none of the major CC or GTLD has implemented it. % % Of course at some time in the future DNSSEC will be extremely important but % do we want to make that kind of statement now. % % % % >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> % Richard Shockey, Senior Manager, Strategic Technology Initiatives % NeuStar Inc. % 46000 Center Oak Plaza - Sterling, VA 20166 % Voice +1 571.434.5651 Cell : +1 314.503.0640, Fax: +1 815.333.1237 % or % ; % <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< % % _______________________________________________ % enum mailing list % enum@ietf.org % https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum % -- --bill Opinions expressed may not even be mine by the time you read them, and certainly don't reflect those of any other entity (legal or otherwise). _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Jan 23 14:23:27 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA17445 for ; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 14:23:27 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h0NJg6p18911 for enum-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 14:42:06 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0NJg5J18906; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 14:42:05 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0NJfXJ18876 for ; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 14:41:33 -0500 Received: from rainier.illuminet.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA17432 for ; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 14:22:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from olwinexsmtp01.corp.illuminet.com (olwinexsmtp01.corp.illuminet.com [10.55.13.9]) by rainier.illuminet.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id LAA19595; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 11:25:43 -0800 (PST) Received: by olwinexsmtp01.corp.illuminet.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2656.59) id ; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 11:25:43 -0800 Message-ID: <90B62898D7B43B448D1A7297980A8C5F6CE443@opwinex01.corp.illuminet.com> From: Kevin McCandless To: "'Richard Shockey'" , enum@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Enum] I have one question for list on the "recommendation" t o use DNSSEC Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 11:25:43 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2656.59) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Enum Discussion List List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Richard: Why not let the ENUM Forums for national deployments make this decision. The US ENUM forum made recommendations for both DNSSEC for internet (public) connections and TSIG for intranet (private) connections. Kevin........... > -----Original Message----- > From: Richard Shockey [mailto:rich.shockey@neustar.biz] > Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2003 12:11 PM > To: enum@ietf.org > Subject: [Enum] I have one question for list on the > "recommendation" to > use DNSSEC > > > > Is this something we want to put in the 2916bis? > > I do not want to give the impression to implementers or national enum > administrations that this is requirement. > > The current state of DNSSEC deployment is "still under > evaluation" and to > my knowledge none of the major CC or GTLD has implemented it. > > Of course at some time in the future DNSSEC will be extremely > important but > do we want to make that kind of statement now. > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > Richard Shockey, Senior Manager, Strategic Technology Initiatives > NeuStar Inc. > 46000 Center Oak Plaza - Sterling, VA 20166 > Voice +1 571.434.5651 Cell : +1 314.503.0640, Fax: +1 815.333.1237 > or > ; > <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< > > _______________________________________________ > enum mailing list > enum@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum > _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Jan 23 14:54:35 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA18531 for ; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 14:54:35 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h0NKDEN21350 for enum-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 15:13:14 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0NKDCJ21341; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 15:13:12 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0NKCSJ21308 for ; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 15:12:28 -0500 Received: from shell.nominum.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA18518 for ; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 14:53:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from shell.nominum.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by shell.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C6DE137F02; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 11:56:44 -0800 (PST) To: Richard Shockey Cc: enum@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Enum] I have one question for list on the "recommendation" to use DNSSEC In-Reply-To: Message from Richard Shockey of "Thu, 23 Jan 2003 13:10:48 EST." <5.2.0.9.2.20030123130650.025ea008@popd.ix.netcom.com> Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 11:56:44 -0800 Message-ID: <24842.1043351804@shell.nominum.com> From: Jim Reid Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Enum Discussion List List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , >>>>> "Richard" == Richard Shockey writes: Richard> Is this something we want to put in the 2916bis? Yes. Richard> I do not want to give the impression to implementers or Richard> national enum administrations that this is requirement. It's hard to see how the current text could be interpreted in that way. Then again, there's plenty of experience of people infering all sorts of things from standards documents... The current wording seems fine to me. It says "recommended", not "RECOMMENDED" so DNSSEC is clearly not a requirement at this time. I think it's important that implementers and national enum administrations get some indication in the draft that they should at least plan for DNSSEC. For instance, by having a play with it in national trials, as I've discussed with you before. Richard> Of course at some time in the future DNSSEC will be Richard> extremely important but do we want to make that kind of Richard> statement now. I think so. It's prudent to lay down some sort of marker that DNSSEC will almost certainly have a major role to play in ENUM. Which is what the text in the current does IMO. It would be very bad to lose this reference to DNSSEC since there's a general acceptance that it's going be critical for ENUM one day. Assuming DNSSEC does eventually get out of IETF of course as the DNS folks expect/hope. If there are concerns that the current draft could be interpreted as a requirement, how about including the text below? It is NOT RECOMMENDED at this time that DNSSEC is used as the DNSSEC standards are not yet complete. DNSSEC MAY be used to gain practical experience and understanding on how it could be deployed in future. _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Jan 23 14:57:28 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA18598 for ; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 14:57:28 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h0NKG7X21523 for enum-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 15:16:07 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0NKG6J21517; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 15:16:06 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0NKFvJ21464 for ; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 15:15:57 -0500 Received: from shell.nominum.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA18582 for ; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 14:56:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from shell.nominum.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by shell.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 37E66137F02; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 12:00:13 -0800 (PST) To: Bill Manning Cc: rich.shockey@neustar.biz (Richard Shockey), enum@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Enum] I have one question for list on the "recommendation" to use DNSSEC In-Reply-To: Message from Bill Manning of "Thu, 23 Jan 2003 11:22:59 PST." <200301231922.h0NJMxw28622@boreas.isi.edu> Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 12:00:13 -0800 Message-ID: <24961.1043352013@shell.nominum.com> From: Jim Reid Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Enum Discussion List List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , >>>>> "Bill" == Bill Manning writes: Bill> DNSSEC (at least SIG/KEY/NXT) is not cooked yet. If (big Bill> if) we are able to pull it together, those portions of the Bill> DNSSEC toolkit should be deployable in 2003. Hmm. This is now the third year in a row when folk have been saying "DNSSEC could be deployable by the end of this year". :-) :-( _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Jan 23 15:20:56 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA19168 for ; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 15:20:56 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h0NKdaZ23263 for enum-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 15:39:36 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0NKdWJ23255; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 15:39:32 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0NKcCJ23184 for ; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 15:38:12 -0500 Received: from joy.songbird.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA19119 for ; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 15:19:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from rshockeybox.shockey.us (inetgw.va.neustar.com [209.173.53.225]) by joy.songbird.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA12279; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 12:22:11 -0800 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030123151540.02220b40@popd.ix.netcom.com> X-Sender: richard@shockey.us X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 15:24:39 -0500 To: Jim Reid From: Richard Shockey Subject: Re: [Enum] I have one question for list on the "recommendation" t o use DNSSEC Cc: enum@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <24842.1043351804@shell.nominum.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Enum Discussion List List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , > >Yes. > > Richard> I do not want to give the impression to implementers or > Richard> national enum administrations that this is requirement. > >It's hard to see how the current text could be interpreted in that >way. Then again, there's plenty of experience of people infering all >sorts of things from standards documents... The current wording seems >fine to me. It says "recommended", not "RECOMMENDED" so DNSSEC is >clearly not a requirement at this time. yes I specifically asked Patrik to use lower case ... but what I do worry about that people read things into 2916bis that were not intentional. We had this problem with some of the examples in 2916 ...people see linking phone numbers to email addresses and suddenly there articles in the press and seminars by privacy advocates that we are creating the ultimate spam engine. "recommend" to some might be interpreted as MUST.. We have to be very very clear about what goes into this document. That does not mean we have to burden it with every possible case but clarity here is going to be very helpful. Which is why I want everyone to read the DDDS portions and properly comment. We ran into lots of problems before in exactly how the NAPTR record should be processed by the CU/A >I think it's important that implementers and national enum >administrations get some indication in the draft that they should at >least plan for DNSSEC. For instance, by having a play with it in >national trials, as I've discussed with you before. > > Richard> Of course at some time in the future DNSSEC will be > Richard> extremely important but do we want to make that kind of > Richard> statement now. > >I think so. It's prudent to lay down some sort of marker that DNSSEC >will almost certainly have a major role to play in ENUM. Which is what >the text in the current does IMO. It would be very bad to lose this >reference to DNSSEC since there's a general acceptance that it's going >be critical for ENUM one day. Assuming DNSSEC does eventually get out >of IETF of course as the DNS folks expect/hope. I dont disagree. >If there are concerns that the current draft could be interpreted as a >requirement, how about including the text below? > > It is NOT RECOMMENDED at this time that DNSSEC is used as the > DNSSEC standards are not yet complete. DNSSEC MAY be used to > gain practical experience and understanding on how it could be > deployed in future. I think this is excellent language and I would fully support it incorporation in 2916bis this captures very succinctly what I was trying to get at. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard Shockey, Senior Manager, Strategic Technology Initiatives NeuStar Inc. 46000 Center Oak Plaza - Sterling, VA 20166 Voice +1 571.434.5651 Cell : +1 314.503.0640, Fax: +1 815.333.1237 or ; <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Jan 23 15:20:58 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA19181 for ; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 15:20:58 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h0NKdcv23291 for enum-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 15:39:38 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0NKdcJ23286; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 15:39:38 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0NKcDJ23189 for ; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 15:38:13 -0500 Received: from boreas.isi.edu (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA19121 for ; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 15:19:02 -0500 (EST) Received: (from bmanning@localhost) by boreas.isi.edu (8.11.6/8.11.2) id h0NKMEs24816; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 12:22:14 -0800 (PST) From: Bill Manning Message-Id: <200301232022.h0NKMEs24816@boreas.isi.edu> Subject: Re: [Enum] I have one question for list on the "recommendation" to use DNSSEC In-Reply-To: <24961.1043352013@shell.nominum.com> from Jim Reid at "Jan 23, 3 12:00:13 pm" To: Jim.Reid@nominum.com (Jim Reid) Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 12:22:14 -0800 (PST) Cc: bmanning@ISI.EDU, rich.shockey@neustar.biz, enum@ietf.org X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL39 (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Enum Discussion List List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit % >>>>> "Bill" == Bill Manning writes: % % Bill> DNSSEC (at least SIG/KEY/NXT) is not cooked yet. If (big % Bill> if) we are able to pull it together, those portions of the % Bill> DNSSEC toolkit should be deployable in 2003. % % Hmm. This is now the third year in a row when folk have been saying % "DNSSEC could be deployable by the end of this year". :-) :-( from here, it looks like we are ~2.5 generations into the design cycle. 1st gen was not operationaly feasable (too much "chatter" between parent and child), 2nd gen has issues w/ the installed base (e.g. non-DNSSEC aware delegation points see signed delegations disappear) and so the trick now is to figure out how to get things deployable while not isolating unsigned delegations. its a tough nut to crack. that said, there is a persistant testbed where DNSSEC evaluations are being conducted. I'd welcome any enum-test environment to take advantage of the dnssec testbed. --bill Opinions expressed may not even be mine by the time you read them, and certainly don't reflect those of any other entity (legal or otherwise). _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Jan 23 15:36:03 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA19509 for ; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 15:36:03 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h0NKsho23892 for enum-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 15:54:43 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0NKsfJ23887; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 15:54:41 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0NKrkJ23814 for ; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 15:53:46 -0500 Received: from grok.web9.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA19457 for ; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 15:34:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from web9.com (adsl-129-44-28-9.ba-dsg.net [129.44.28.9]) by grok.web9.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 23BD410763 for ; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 15:37:58 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3E3052AB.6050206@web9.com> Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 15:38:03 -0500 From: "Keptin Komrade Dr. BobWrench III esq." User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:0.9.4.1) Gecko/20020314 Netscape6/6.2.2 X-Accept-Language: en-us MIME-Version: 1.0 To: enum Subject: [Enum] I have one question for list on the "recommendation" t o use DNSSEC] Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------020204010500050409040802" Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Enum Discussion List List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------020204010500050409040802 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Well stated Kevin. Allow each national deployment to make this a part of the deployment decision/specification. However, this does leave the tier 0 - tier 1 interface open to question. But this isn't the place to make such a policy recommendation is it? Someone else made note of stating this as a RECOMMENDATION. I'd say that is also a very good starting point. This discussion has pointed out a discrepancy in the US ENUM Forum document currently up for letter ballot. That will have to be noted before the document is forwarded to anyone, provided it does pass letter ballot. (votes which can be made with comments btw) Bob Kevin McCandless wrote: > Richard: > > Why not let the ENUM Forums for national deployments make this decision. > The US ENUM forum made recommendations for both DNSSEC for internet (public) > connections and TSIG for intranet (private) connections. > > Kevin........... > > >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Richard Shockey [mailto:rich.shockey@neustar.biz] >>Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2003 12:11 PM >>To: enum@ietf.org >>Subject: [Enum] I have one question for list on the >>"recommendation" to >>use DNSSEC >> >> >> >>Is this something we want to put in the 2916bis? >> >>I do not want to give the impression to implementers or national enum >>administrations that this is requirement. >> >>The current state of DNSSEC deployment is "still under >>evaluation" and to >>my knowledge none of the major CC or GTLD has implemented it. >> >>Of course at some time in the future DNSSEC will be extremely >>important but >>do we want to make that kind of statement now. >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>Richard Shockey, Senior Manager, Strategic Technology Initiatives >>NeuStar Inc. >>46000 Center Oak Plaza - Sterling, VA 20166 >>Voice +1 571.434.5651 Cell : +1 314.503.0640, Fax: +1 815.333.1237 >> or >> ; >><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< >> >>_______________________________________________ >>enum mailing list >>enum@ietf.org >>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum >> >> > _______________________________________________ > enum mailing list > enum@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum > --------------020204010500050409040802 Content-Type: message/rfc822; name="Re: [Enum] I have one question for list on the "recommendation" t o use DNSSEC" Content-Disposition: inline; filename="Re: [Enum] I have one question for list on the "recommendation" t o use DNSSEC" X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 Message-ID: <3E304F9B.4050108@seiri.com> Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 15:24:59 -0500 From: Bob Bownes User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:0.9.4.1) Gecko/20020314 Netscape6/6.2.2 X-Accept-Language: en-us MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Kevin McCandless CC: 'Richard Shockey' , enum@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Enum] I have one question for list on the "recommendation" t o use DNSSEC References: <90B62898D7B43B448D1A7297980A8C5F6CE443@opwinex01.corp.illuminet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Well stated Kevin. Allow each national deployment to make this a part of the deployment decision/specification. However, this does leave the tier 0 - tier 1 interface open to question. But this isn't the place to make such a policy recommendation is it? Someone else made note of stating this as a RECOMMENDATION. I'd say that is also a very good starting point. This discussion has pointed out a discrepancy in the US ENUM Forum document currently up for letter ballot. That will have to be noted before the document is forwarded to anyone, provided it does pass letter ballot. (votes which can be made with comments btw) Bob Kevin McCandless wrote: > Richard: > > Why not let the ENUM Forums for national deployments make this decision. > The US ENUM forum made recommendations for both DNSSEC for internet (public) > connections and TSIG for intranet (private) connections. > > Kevin........... > > >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Richard Shockey [mailto:rich.shockey@neustar.biz] >>Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2003 12:11 PM >>To: enum@ietf.org >>Subject: [Enum] I have one question for list on the >>"recommendation" to >>use DNSSEC >> >> >> >>Is this something we want to put in the 2916bis? >> >>I do not want to give the impression to implementers or national enum >>administrations that this is requirement. >> >>The current state of DNSSEC deployment is "still under >>evaluation" and to >>my knowledge none of the major CC or GTLD has implemented it. >> >>Of course at some time in the future DNSSEC will be extremely >>important but >>do we want to make that kind of statement now. >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>Richard Shockey, Senior Manager, Strategic Technology Initiatives >>NeuStar Inc. >>46000 Center Oak Plaza - Sterling, VA 20166 >>Voice +1 571.434.5651 Cell : +1 314.503.0640, Fax: +1 815.333.1237 >> or >> ; >><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< >> >>_______________________________________________ >>enum mailing list >>enum@ietf.org >>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum >> >> > _______________________________________________ > enum mailing list > enum@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum > --------------020204010500050409040802-- _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Jan 23 15:37:24 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA19523 for ; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 15:37:24 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h0NKu5523953 for enum-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 15:56:05 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0NKu4J23948; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 15:56:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0NKedJ23368 for ; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 15:40:39 -0500 Received: from grok.web9.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA19202 for ; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 15:21:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from seiri.com (adsl-129-44-28-9.ba-dsg.net [129.44.28.9]) by grok.web9.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B50B10763; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 15:24:54 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3E304F9B.4050108@seiri.com> Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 15:24:59 -0500 From: Bob Bownes User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:0.9.4.1) Gecko/20020314 Netscape6/6.2.2 X-Accept-Language: en-us MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Kevin McCandless Cc: "'Richard Shockey'" , enum@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Enum] I have one question for list on the "recommendation" t o use DNSSEC References: <90B62898D7B43B448D1A7297980A8C5F6CE443@opwinex01.corp.illuminet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Enum Discussion List List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Well stated Kevin. Allow each national deployment to make this a part of the deployment decision/specification. However, this does leave the tier 0 - tier 1 interface open to question. But this isn't the place to make such a policy recommendation is it? Someone else made note of stating this as a RECOMMENDATION. I'd say that is also a very good starting point. This discussion has pointed out a discrepancy in the US ENUM Forum document currently up for letter ballot. That will have to be noted before the document is forwarded to anyone, provided it does pass letter ballot. (votes which can be made with comments btw) Bob Kevin McCandless wrote: > Richard: > > Why not let the ENUM Forums for national deployments make this decision. > The US ENUM forum made recommendations for both DNSSEC for internet (public) > connections and TSIG for intranet (private) connections. > > Kevin........... > > >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Richard Shockey [mailto:rich.shockey@neustar.biz] >>Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2003 12:11 PM >>To: enum@ietf.org >>Subject: [Enum] I have one question for list on the >>"recommendation" to >>use DNSSEC >> >> >> >>Is this something we want to put in the 2916bis? >> >>I do not want to give the impression to implementers or national enum >>administrations that this is requirement. >> >>The current state of DNSSEC deployment is "still under >>evaluation" and to >>my knowledge none of the major CC or GTLD has implemented it. >> >>Of course at some time in the future DNSSEC will be extremely >>important but >>do we want to make that kind of statement now. >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>Richard Shockey, Senior Manager, Strategic Technology Initiatives >>NeuStar Inc. >>46000 Center Oak Plaza - Sterling, VA 20166 >>Voice +1 571.434.5651 Cell : +1 314.503.0640, Fax: +1 815.333.1237 >> or >> ; >><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< >> >>_______________________________________________ >>enum mailing list >>enum@ietf.org >>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum >> >> > _______________________________________________ > enum mailing list > enum@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum > _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Jan 23 20:18:08 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA26693 for ; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 20:18:08 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h0O1ass09914 for enum-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 20:36:54 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0O1agJ09907; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 20:36:42 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0O1ZKJ09824 for ; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 20:35:20 -0500 Received: from smtp6.mindspring.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA26615 for ; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 20:16:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from dialup-67.29.233.115.dial1.dallas1.level3.net ([67.29.233.115] helo=ix.netcom.com) by smtp6.mindspring.com with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 18bsV3-0005MU-00; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 20:19:18 -0500 Message-ID: <3E30B113.17780B0D@ix.netcom.com> Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 19:20:52 -0800 From: Jeff Williams Organization: INEGroup Spokesman X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.08 [en] (Win95; U; 16bit) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Richard Shockey CC: enum@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Enum] I have one question for list on the "recommendation" to use DNSSEC References: <5.2.0.9.2.20030123130650.025ea008@popd.ix.netcom.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Enum Discussion List List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit RIchard and all, Well it is a cinch that Nuestar nor ICANN have implemented DNSSEC yet or done so successfully anyway... In any event, yes DNSSEC is very important now. The Homeland Security Department is working on a draft in this regard for further recommendation to the president, along with other IT security related matters as I type this response.. Richard Shockey wrote: > Is this something we want to put in the 2916bis? > > I do not want to give the impression to implementers or national enum > administrations that this is requirement. > > The current state of DNSSEC deployment is "still under evaluation" and to > my knowledge none of the major CC or GTLD has implemented it. > > Of course at some time in the future DNSSEC will be extremely important but > do we want to make that kind of statement now. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > Richard Shockey, Senior Manager, Strategic Technology Initiatives > NeuStar Inc. > 46000 Center Oak Plaza - Sterling, VA 20166 > Voice +1 571.434.5651 Cell : +1 314.503.0640, Fax: +1 815.333.1237 > or > ; > <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< > > _______________________________________________ > enum mailing list > enum@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum Regards, -- Jeffrey A. Williams Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 129k members/stakeholders strong!) ================================================================ CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC. E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 214-244-3801 _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Jan 27 13:34:30 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA22130 for ; Mon, 27 Jan 2003 13:34:30 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h0RIt5o08723 for enum-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 27 Jan 2003 13:55:05 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0RIsWJ08699; Mon, 27 Jan 2003 13:54:32 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0RInjJ08511 for ; Mon, 27 Jan 2003 13:49:45 -0500 Received: from hotmail.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA22019 for ; Mon, 27 Jan 2003 13:28:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Mon, 27 Jan 2003 10:32:06 -0800 X-Originating-IP: [64.146.124.108] From: "Peter Williams" To: "Bill Manning" Cc: References: <200301232022.h0NKMEs24816@boreas.isi.edu> Subject: Re: [Enum] I have one question for list on the "recommendation" to use DNSSEC Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2003 10:31:53 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: MSN Mail 8.00.0022.3100 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V8.00.0022.3100 Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 27 Jan 2003 18:32:06.0750 (UTC) FILETIME=[6526C7E0:01C2C632] Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Enum Discussion List List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Bill, Don't worry about the generations or timeline: the inertia against DNSSEC look almost identical to that which plagued SSL certs et al for over 10 years (pre 1994) in the IETF. I suspect the motivations for maintaining the inertia against infrastructure change (and solving problems) are similar in both cases - an observation that suggests how to break the cycle. Concerning DNSSEC, we have to ignore the ENUM tiering work - which is a red herring (for DNSSEC purposes), like hierarchical PKI controls were (for SSL purposes). We have to remember that DNS can layer over older infrastructures: DNSSEC in the ENUM world doesn't have to *start* by fully integrating with the ICANN-regulated name registration, or the ITU member databases for locating which current provider services a phone address. The core power of ENUM is still the E.164 address mapping and the scalability of DNS reach, not the name re/re/re/registration business and jurisdiction issues that folks are concentrating on. Its far to early with ENUM to be focusing on practices that will one day allow for competitive positioning and/or dominance; like SSL before it, this is throttling the more basic technology adoption, throwing up very similar defenses justifying inaction! I can think of several ways to break the cycle benefiting both ENUM and DNSSEC. Id like to see a comment attached to the recommendation concerning DNSSEC - one that captures the WGs overall sentiment on the issue, and its expectations. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bill Manning" To: "Jim Reid" Cc: ; ; Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2003 12:22 PM Subject: Re: [Enum] I have one question for list on the "recommendation" to use DNSSEC > % >>>>> "Bill" == Bill Manning writes: > % > % Bill> DNSSEC (at least SIG/KEY/NXT) is not cooked yet. If (big > % Bill> if) we are able to pull it together, those portions of the > % Bill> DNSSEC toolkit should be deployable in 2003. > % > % Hmm. This is now the third year in a row when folk have been saying > % "DNSSEC could be deployable by the end of this year". :-) :-( > > from here, it looks like we are ~2.5 generations into > the design cycle. 1st gen was not operationaly feasable > (too much "chatter" between parent and child), 2nd gen > has issues w/ the installed base (e.g. non-DNSSEC aware > delegation points see signed delegations disappear) and > so the trick now is to figure out how to get things > deployable while not isolating unsigned delegations. > > its a tough nut to crack. that said, there is a persistant > testbed where DNSSEC evaluations are being conducted. > I'd welcome any enum-test environment to take advantage of > the dnssec testbed. > > --bill > Opinions expressed may not even be mine by the time you read them, and > certainly don't reflect those of any other entity (legal or otherwise). > _______________________________________________ > enum mailing list > enum@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum > _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Jan 28 12:14:20 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA01433 for ; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 12:14:20 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h0SHZMD04475 for enum-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 12:35:22 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0SHZGJ04470; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 12:35:16 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0SHXoJ04400 for ; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 12:33:50 -0500 Received: from joy.songbird.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA01420 for ; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 12:12:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from rshockeybox.shockey.us (inetgw.va.neustar.com [209.173.53.225]) by joy.songbird.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA09492; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 09:15:29 -0800 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030128121311.04da0b08@popd.ix.netcom.com> X-Sender: richard@shockey.us X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 12:15:15 -0500 To: "Peter Williams" , "Bill Manning" From: Richard Shockey Subject: Re: [Enum] I have one question for list on the "recommendation" to use DNSSEC Cc: In-Reply-To: References: <200301232022.h0NKMEs24816@boreas.isi.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Enum Discussion List List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , A >I can think of several ways to break the cycle >benefiting both ENUM and DNSSEC. Id like >to see a comment attached to the recommendation >concerning DNSSEC - one that captures >the WGs overall sentiment on the issue, and >its expectations. Well this was my point ...I still agree with Jim Reid's sentiment.. It is NOT RECOMMENDED at this time that DNSSEC is used as the DNSSEC standards are not yet complete. DNSSEC MAY be used to gain practical experience and understanding on how it could be deployed in future. If anyone has better language to suggest to the authors .. please do so. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard Shockey, Senior Manager, Strategic Technology Initiatives NeuStar Inc. 46000 Center Oak Plaza - Sterling, VA 20166 Voice +1 571.434.5651 Cell : +1 314.503.0640, Fax: +1 815.333.1237 or ; <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Jan 28 20:52:24 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA13817 for ; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 20:52:24 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h0T2Dbn06733 for enum-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 21:13:37 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0T2BRJ06644; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 21:11:27 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0T29EJ06569 for ; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 21:09:14 -0500 Received: from blount.mail.mindspring.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA13751 for ; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 20:47:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from dialup-67.29.237.138.dial1.dallas1.level3.net ([67.29.237.138] helo=ix.netcom.com) by blount.mail.mindspring.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 18dhNI-0004GN-00; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 20:50:49 -0500 Message-ID: <3E374FEC.4A1948D8@ix.netcom.com> Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 19:52:12 -0800 From: Jeff Williams Organization: INEGroup Spokesman X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.08 [en] (Win95; U; 16bit) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Richard Shockey CC: Peter Williams , Bill Manning , enum@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Enum] I have one question for list on the "recommendation" to use DNSSEC References: <200301232022.h0NKMEs24816@boreas.isi.edu> <5.2.0.9.2.20030128121311.04da0b08@popd.ix.netcom.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Enum Discussion List List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Richard and all, It is unfortunately true that the WG for DNSSEC of the IETF has yet to complete it's work of final standards for DNSSEC despite several years of working on it. None the less the private software industry has working "Versions" that are deployed and being deployed as well as work well. Hence this sort of IETF comment/statement of Jim Reid's, are really misleading and damaging if taken too seriously... Richard Shockey wrote: > A > > >I can think of several ways to break the cycle > >benefiting both ENUM and DNSSEC. Id like > >to see a comment attached to the recommendation > >concerning DNSSEC - one that captures > >the WGs overall sentiment on the issue, and > >its expectations. > > Well this was my point ...I still agree with Jim Reid's sentiment.. > > It is NOT RECOMMENDED at this time that DNSSEC is used as the > DNSSEC standards are not yet complete. DNSSEC MAY be used to > gain practical experience and understanding on how it could be > deployed in future. > > If anyone has better language to suggest to the authors .. please do so. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > Richard Shockey, Senior Manager, Strategic Technology Initiatives > NeuStar Inc. > 46000 Center Oak Plaza - Sterling, VA 20166 > Voice +1 571.434.5651 Cell : +1 314.503.0640, Fax: +1 815.333.1237 > or > ; > <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< > > _______________________________________________ > enum mailing list > enum@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum Regards, -- Jeffrey A. Williams Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 129k members/stakeholders strong!) ================================================================ CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC. E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 214-244-3801 _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Jan 28 21:16:58 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA14158 for ; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 21:16:58 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h0T2cCM08374 for enum-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 21:38:12 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0T2aBJ07672; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 21:36:11 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0T2ZXJ07644 for ; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 21:35:33 -0500 Received: from joy.songbird.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA14130 for ; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 21:13:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from rshockeybox.shockey.us (h-69-3-5-197.MCLNVA23.covad.net [69.3.5.197]) by joy.songbird.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA01331; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 18:16:57 -0800 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030128211203.04772e68@popd.ix.netcom.com> X-Sender: richard@shockey.us X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 21:16:41 -0500 To: Jeff Williams From: Richard Shockey Subject: Re: [Enum] I have one question for list on the "recommendation" to use DNSSEC Cc: Peter Williams , Bill Manning , enum@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <3E374FEC.4A1948D8@ix.netcom.com> References: <200301232022.h0NKMEs24816@boreas.isi.edu> <5.2.0.9.2.20030128121311.04da0b08@popd.ix.netcom.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Enum Discussion List List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , At 07:52 PM 1/28/2003 -0800, Jeff Williams wrote: >Richard and all, > > It is unfortunately true that the WG for DNSSEC of the IETF has >yet to complete it's work of final standards for DNSSEC despite >several years of working on it. None the less the private software >industry has working "Versions" that are deployed and being deployed >as well as work well. Hence this sort of IETF comment/statement >of Jim Reid's, are really misleading and damaging if taken too >seriously... I dont think so ...your statement is the one that is totally misleading . "Versions" mean only incompatibility in the IETF context. The DNSOPS community has not issued any formal report on interoperability of DNSSEC when they do so, and only when they do so, will I and I believe the general ENUM community be prepared to implement the standard. >Richard Shockey wrote: > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard Shockey, Senior Manager, Strategic Technology Initiatives NeuStar Inc. 46000 Center Oak Plaza - Sterling, VA 20166 Voice +1 571.434.5651 Cell : +1 314.503.0640, Fax: +1 815.333.1237 or ; <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Jan 28 21:40:01 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA14675 for ; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 21:40:01 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h0T31Fq09145 for enum-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 22:01:15 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0T2xEJ09065; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 21:59:14 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0T2wKJ09037 for ; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 21:58:20 -0500 Received: from smtp10.atl.mindspring.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA14657 for ; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 21:36:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from dialup-67.29.237.138.dial1.dallas1.level3.net ([67.29.237.138] helo=ix.netcom.com) by smtp10.atl.mindspring.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 18di8l-0007I7-00; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 21:39:51 -0500 Message-ID: <3E375B6A.8A04880D@ix.netcom.com> Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 20:41:15 -0800 From: Jeff Williams Organization: INEGroup Spokesman X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.08 [en] (Win95; U; 16bit) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Richard Shockey CC: Peter Williams , Bill Manning , enum@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Enum] I have one question for list on the "recommendation" to use DNSSEC References: <200301232022.h0NKMEs24816@boreas.isi.edu> <5.2.0.9.2.20030128121311.04da0b08@popd.ix.netcom.com> <5.2.0.9.2.20030128211203.04772e68@popd.ix.netcom.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Enum Discussion List List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Richard and all, Richard Shockey wrote: > At 07:52 PM 1/28/2003 -0800, Jeff Williams wrote: > >Richard and all, > > > > It is unfortunately true that the WG for DNSSEC of the IETF has > >yet to complete it's work of final standards for DNSSEC despite > >several years of working on it. None the less the private software > >industry has working "Versions" that are deployed and being deployed > >as well as work well. Hence this sort of IETF comment/statement > >of Jim Reid's, are really misleading and damaging if taken too > >seriously... > > I dont think so ...your statement is the one that is totally misleading . > "Versions" mean only incompatibility in the IETF context. Not always, but sometimes such "Versions" may be. When incompatible, such is not always a bad thing. However all those "Versions" that I am familiar with are compatible with what the DNSSEC WG has thus far completed or is considering. So a "Always" or "Never" response such as yours is obviously and terribly in and of itself detrimental and misleading. > > > The DNSOPS community has not issued any formal report on interoperability > of DNSSEC when they do so, and only when they do so, will I and I believe > the general ENUM community be prepared to implement the standard. Some of the ENUM community have already committed to do so. As among those our members and my companies as well as affiliate companies are going to meet the presidents plan despite the less than effective timetable of IETF, but will indeed share that effort with the IETF and other standards organizations such as Sans and IEEE. > > > >Richard Shockey wrote: > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > Richard Shockey, Senior Manager, Strategic Technology Initiatives > NeuStar Inc. > 46000 Center Oak Plaza - Sterling, VA 20166 > Voice +1 571.434.5651 Cell : +1 314.503.0640, Fax: +1 815.333.1237 > or > ; > <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< Regards, -- Jeffrey A. Williams Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 129k members/stakeholders strong!) ================================================================ CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC. E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 214-244-3801 _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Jan 29 03:02:43 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA12826 for ; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 03:02:43 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h0T8O4m04814 for enum-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 03:24:04 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0T8O0J04807; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 03:24:00 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0T8M7J04743 for ; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 03:22:07 -0500 Received: from eurexch1.eurocom21.co.il (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA12800 for ; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 03:00:14 -0500 (EST) Received: by eurexch1.eurocom21.co.il with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2654.89) id ; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 10:03:29 +0200 Message-ID: <0DF72FAD785A244693F2FF9AE80DA1A62C47E7@eurexch1.eurocom21.co.il> From: Sharon Rozov To: "'enum@ietf.org'" Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 10:03:28 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2654.89) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C2C76C.E855AEC0" Subject: [Enum] One Number application Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Enum Discussion List List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , 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_01C2C76C.E855AEC0 Content-Type: text/plain Hello list, I have been trying to look at the implementation of a "One Number" service using ENUM. My major concerns currently are: 1. In calls coming from the PSTN, do you expect the PSTN to generate the ENUM query or otherwise forward the call to another network capable of DNS queries? 2. What Caller Identification will be sent when an ENUM customer establishes a call? I was thinking about sending out the ENUM number and not the original number/address. Will this require a Reverse ENUM query and a replacement of the Caller ID with the replied address? Is anybody gone further with the "One Number" service? Or perhaps you think I'm ahead of time considering this service? What ENUM services one may focus on at this time? Why ENUM is focusing on VoIP to PSTN integration, when more VoIP networks are using e.164 numbers today? Thank you for taking the time to read my many questions. Sharon Rozov ------_=_NextPart_001_01C2C76C.E855AEC0 Content-Type: text/html Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hello list,

 

I have been trying to look at the implementation of a "One = Number" service using ENUM.

 

My major concerns currently are:

  1. In calls coming from the PSTN, do you = expect the PSTN to generate the ENUM query or otherwise forward the call to = another network capable of DNS queries?

 

  1. What Caller Identification will be sent = when an ENUM customer establishes a call?
    I was thinking about sending out the ENUM number and not the = original number/address.
    Will this require a Reverse ENUM query and a replacement of the = Caller ID with the replied address?

 

Is anybody gone further with the "One Number" = service?

Or perhaps you think I'm ahead of time considering this service? =

What ENUM services one may focus on at this = time?

 

Why ENUM is focusing on VoIP to PSTN = integration, when more VoIP networks are using e.164 numbers = today?

 

 

Thank you for taking the time to read my many = questions.

 

Sharon Rozov

 

------_=_NextPart_001_01C2C76C.E855AEC0-- _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Jan 29 09:38:18 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA20373 for ; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 09:38:18 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h0TExlW30617 for enum-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 09:59:47 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0TExfJ30612; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 09:59:41 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0TEw3J30559 for ; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 09:58:03 -0500 Received: from rainier.illuminet.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA20360 for ; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 09:36:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from olwinexsmtp01.corp.illuminet.com (olwinexsmtp01.corp.illuminet.com [10.55.13.9]) by rainier.illuminet.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id GAA05250; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 06:38:56 -0800 (PST) Received: by olwinexsmtp01.corp.illuminet.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2656.59) id ; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 06:38:56 -0800 Message-ID: <90B62898D7B43B448D1A7297980A8C5F6CE473@opwinex01.corp.illuminet.com> From: Kevin McCandless To: "'Jeff Williams'" , Richard Shockey Cc: Peter Williams , Bill Manning , enum@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Enum] I have one question for list on the "recommendation" t o use DNSSEC Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 06:38:55 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2656.59) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Enum Discussion List List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , I have to agree with Jeff's statements. The proposal by Richard is very limiting and there is no reason not to recommend DNSSEC. If the opt-in principal is adopted for DNSSEC, then for example a TIER 2 that is not using DNSSEC can interact with a TIER 1 that is using DNSSEC. As I mentioned before DNSSEC is the recommendation in the Unified document developed by the ENUM Forum. Why would we suggestion or go against that recommendation? Many of the people on this list have had more then enough opportunity to participate in the ENUM forum and make their recommendations. Even our chairman here has been involved in the ENUM forum and many of his colleagues. Let's move forward with the recommendation of using DNSSEC. This is an IETF supported security protocol! Kevin........... > -----Original Message----- > From: Jeff Williams [mailto:jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com] > Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2003 9:52 PM > To: Richard Shockey > Cc: Peter Williams; Bill Manning; enum@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Enum] I have one question for list on the > "recommendation" > to use DNSSEC > > > Richard and all, > > It is unfortunately true that the WG for DNSSEC of the IETF has > yet to complete it's work of final standards for DNSSEC despite > several years of working on it. None the less the private software > industry has working "Versions" that are deployed and being deployed > as well as work well. Hence this sort of IETF comment/statement > of Jim Reid's, are really misleading and damaging if taken too > seriously... > > Richard Shockey wrote: > > > A > > > > >I can think of several ways to break the cycle > > >benefiting both ENUM and DNSSEC. Id like > > >to see a comment attached to the recommendation > > >concerning DNSSEC - one that captures > > >the WGs overall sentiment on the issue, and > > >its expectations. > > > > Well this was my point ...I still agree with Jim Reid's sentiment.. > > > > It is NOT RECOMMENDED at this time that DNSSEC is used as the > > DNSSEC standards are not yet complete. DNSSEC MAY > be used to > > gain practical experience and understanding on how > it could be > > deployed in future. > > > > If anyone has better language to suggest to the authors .. > please do so. > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > Richard Shockey, Senior Manager, Strategic Technology Initiatives > > NeuStar Inc. > > 46000 Center Oak Plaza - Sterling, VA 20166 > > Voice +1 571.434.5651 Cell : +1 314.503.0640, Fax: +1 815.333.1237 > > or > > ; > > <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< > > > > _______________________________________________ > > enum mailing list > > enum@ietf.org > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum > > Regards, > -- > Jeffrey A. Williams > Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 129k members/stakeholders strong!) > ================================================================ > CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security > Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC. > E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com > Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 214-244-3801 > > > _______________________________________________ > enum mailing list > enum@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum > _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Jan 29 09:45:45 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA20554 for ; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 09:45:45 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h0TF7Eb31372 for enum-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 10:07:14 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0TF7CJ31303; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 10:07:12 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0TF6BJ31027 for ; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 10:06:11 -0500 Received: from almso2.proxy.att.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA20520 for ; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 09:44:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from attrh3i.attrh.att.com ([135.71.62.12]) by almso2.proxy.att.com (AT&T IPNS/MSO-4.0) with ESMTP id h0TEC3Jh000615 for ; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 09:47:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from occlust04evs1.ugd.att.com (135.71.164.13) by attrh3i.attrh.att.com (6.5.032) id 3DF6BD4E01B8DC36; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 09:47:29 -0500 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.5762.3 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C2C7A5.593425DA" Subject: RE: [Enum] One Number application Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 09:47:29 -0500 Message-ID: <62DA45D4963FA747BA1B253E266760F9057D74C4@OCCLUST04EVS1.ugd.att.com> Thread-Topic: [Enum] One Number application Thread-Index: AcLHbfuUugjl2aqkR6eypCthWVsIvwANDCXQ From: "Pfautz, Penn L, ALABS" To: "Sharon Rozov" , Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Enum Discussion List List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C2C7A5.593425DA Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sharon: See below. -----Original Message----- From: Sharon Rozov [mailto:Sharon.Rozov@ofeknw.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2003 3:03 AM To: 'enum@ietf.org' Subject: [Enum] One Number application Hello list, =20 I have been trying to look at the implementation of a "One Number" = service using ENUM. =20 My major concerns currently are: 1. In calls coming from the PSTN, do you expect the PSTN to generate the = ENUM query or otherwise forward the call to another network capable of = DNS queries?=20 ENUM is opt-in on both calling and called sides. So it's up to an = originating network whether to query ENUM or not. you can't count on = such a query being done. 2. What Caller Identification will be sent when an ENUM customer = establishes a call?=20 I was thinking about sending out the ENUM number and not the original = number/address.=20 Will this require a Reverse ENUM query and a replacement of the Caller = ID with the replied address?=20 [Pfautz, Penn L, NNAD] ENUM really doesn't address Called Party Number. = I expect that would be populated by normal PSTN or alternative (e.g. SIP = ) procedures=20 =20 Is anybody gone further with the "One Number" service? Or perhaps you think I'm ahead of time considering this service?=20 What ENUM services one may focus on at this time? =20 Why ENUM is focusing on VoIP to PSTN integration, when more VoIP = networks are using e.164 numbers today? =20 I think the biggest thing ENUM will do at least initially is to join = islands of VoIP. VoIP customers can have E.164 numbers today but, = by-and-large, unless the person you want to call is a customer of the = same VoIP carrier as you will be routed to them through a hop-off = gateway to the PSTN. ENUM most immediately offers the prospect of being = able to find an IP route for a phone number if one is available, = regardless of what, if any VOIP service, the called party is subscribed = to. Thank you for taking the time to read my many questions. =20 Sharon Rozov =20 ------_=_NextPart_001_01C2C7A5.593425DA Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Sharon:
See=20 below.
-----Original Message-----
From: Sharon Rozov=20 [mailto:Sharon.Rozov@ofeknw.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January = 29, 2003=20 3:03 AM
To: 'enum@ietf.org'
Subject: [Enum] One = Number=20 application

Hello=20 list,

 

I have = been trying to=20 look at the implementation of a "One Number" service using=20 ENUM.

 

My major = concerns=20 currently are:

  1. In calls=20 coming from the PSTN, do you expect the PSTN to generate the ENUM = query or=20 otherwise forward the call to another network capable of DNS=20 queries?

 ENUM is opt-in on = both calling=20 and called sides. So it's up to an originating network whether to = query ENUM=20 or not. you can't count on such a query being=20 done.

  1. What=20 Caller Identification will be sent when an ENUM customer establishes = a call?=20
    I was thinking about sending out the ENUM number and not the = original=20 number/address.
    Will this require a Reverse ENUM query and a = replacement=20 of the Caller ID with the replied address?    =20
    [Pfautz, Penn L, = NNAD] ENUM really=20 doesn't address Called Party Number. I expect that would be = populated by=20 normal PSTN or alternative (e.g. SIP )=20 procedures 

 

Is = anybody gone=20 further with the "One Number" service?

Or = perhaps you think=20 I'm ahead of time considering this service? =

What ENUM = services=20 one may focus on at this time?

 

Why ENUM = is focusing=20 on VoIP to PSTN integration, when more = VoIP networks are using e.164 numbers=20 today?

 

 I think the biggest = thing ENUM=20 will do at least initially is to join islands of VoIP. VoIP customers = can have=20 E.164 numbers today but, by-and-large, unless the person you want to = call is a=20 customer of the same VoIP carrier as you will be routed to them = through a=20 hop-off gateway to the PSTN. ENUM most immediately offers the prospect = of=20 being able to find an IP route for a phone number if one is available, = regardless of what, if any VOIP service, the called party is = subscribed=20 to.

Thank you = for taking=20 the time to read my many questions.

 

Sharon = Rozov

 

------_=_NextPart_001_01C2C7A5.593425DA-- _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Jan 29 10:32:59 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA21952 for ; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 10:32:58 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h0TFsTi02295 for enum-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 10:54:29 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0TFsQJ02288; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 10:54:26 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0TFrUJ02218 for ; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 10:53:30 -0500 Received: from mail.oefeg.at (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id KAA21829 for ; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 10:31:29 -0500 (EST) Subject: AW: [Enum] One Number application Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 16:38:31 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Message-ID: <06CF906FE3998C4E944213062009F1620DEEE0@oefeg-s02.oefeg.loc> content-class: urn:content-classes:message X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0 Thread-Topic: [Enum] One Number application Thread-Index: AcLHbfuUugjl2aqkR6eypCthWVsIvwANDCXQAAJnTLU= From: "Stastny Richard" To: "Pfautz, Penn L, ALABS" , "Sharon Rozov" , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from base64 to 8bit by www1.ietf.org id h0TFrVJ02219 Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Enum Discussion List List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Hi Penn,: You wrote: >ENUM is opt-in on both calling and called sides. So it's up to an originating network whether >to query ENUM or not. you can't count on such a query being done. As I have learned at the last IETF meeting, opt-in is not the common view in ENUM WG. Some even did not know what I was talking about. regards Richard Stastny _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Jan 29 12:21:01 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA23938 for ; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 12:21:01 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h0THgWD09734 for enum-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 12:42:32 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0THgRJ09723; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 12:42:27 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0THfjJ09685 for ; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 12:41:45 -0500 Received: from joy.songbird.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA23888 for ; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 12:19:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from rshockeybox.shockey.us (h-69-3-5-197.MCLNVA23.covad.net [69.3.5.197]) by joy.songbird.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA03408; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 09:22:53 -0800 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030129121904.04845aa8@popd.ix.netcom.com> X-Sender: richard@shockey.us X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 12:21:45 -0500 To: "Stastny Richard" From: Richard Shockey Subject: Re: AW: [Enum] One Number application Cc: enum@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <06CF906FE3998C4E944213062009F1620DEEE0@oefeg-s02.oefeg.loc > Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Enum Discussion List List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , At 04:38 PM 1/29/2003 +0100, you wrote: >Hi Penn,: > >You wrote: > >ENUM is opt-in on both calling and called sides. So it's up to an > originating network whether > >to query ENUM or not. you can't count on such a query being done. > >As I have learned at the last IETF meeting, opt-in is not the common view >in ENUM WG. huh... where did you get that impression .. I know of no one suggesting other than opt-in for public ENUM... as you correctly point out there may be uses of ENUM technology in a operator environment ..but that is outside the scope of 2916 >Some even did not know what I was talking about. > >regards >Richard Stastny > > > >_______________________________________________ >enum mailing list >enum@ietf.org >https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard Shockey, Senior Manager, Strategic Technology Initiatives NeuStar Inc. 46000 Center Oak Plaza - Sterling, VA 20166 Voice +1 571.434.5651 Cell : +1 314.503.0640, Fax: +1 815.333.1237 or ; <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Jan 29 12:45:36 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA24427 for ; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 12:45:36 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h0TI78F10959 for enum-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 13:07:08 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0TI76J10952; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 13:07:06 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0TI3rJ10659 for ; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 13:03:53 -0500 Received: from shell.nominum.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA24359 for ; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 12:41:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from shell.nominum.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by shell.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB4DA137F06; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 09:45:20 -0800 (PST) To: Kevin McCandless Cc: "'Jeff Williams'" , Richard Shockey , Peter Williams , Bill Manning , enum@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Enum] I have one question for list on the "recommendation" t o use DNSSEC In-Reply-To: Message from Kevin McCandless of "Wed, 29 Jan 2003 06:38:55 PST." <90B62898D7B43B448D1A7297980A8C5F6CE473@opwinex01.corp.illuminet.com> Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 09:45:20 -0800 Message-ID: <62496.1043862320@shell.nominum.com> From: Jim Reid Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Enum Discussion List List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , >>>>> "Kevin" == Kevin McCandless writes: Kevin> I have to agree with Jeff's statements. The proposal by Kevin> Richard is very limiting and there is no reason not to Kevin> recommend DNSSEC. I think recommend (lower case) is OK. A RECOMMEND is too strong at this time as the DNSSEC protocol is not mature enough. That does not mean DNSSEC should not be tried. I most definitely want this to figure in the UK ENUM trial. Kevin> As I mentioned before DNSSEC is the recommendation in the Kevin> Unified document developed by the ENUM Forum. Why would we Kevin> suggestion or go against that recommendation? The US ENUM Forum is not the only body who have input into the IETF's ENUM efforts. Kevin> Let's move forward with the recommendation of using DNSSEC. This worries me, even though I very much want to see DNSSEC deployed for ENUM. There isn't yet a specification for DNSSEC that's nailed down. Which one should be recommended, RFC2535 which the DNSSEC folk want to kill, or the one with Delegation Signer? Or the one with Opt-In? [That's the DNSSEC context of opt-in which means changing the semantics of the NXT record, not some privacy context of the term for end users.] AFAIK, the only public DS-aware DNSSEC implementation are snapshots of BIND9.3 which have pretty much only been used by the engineers bashing on DNSSEC. That code has not been released yet. So for now DNSSEC should be considered experimental and most definitely something to evaluate in trials: especially the nitty-gritty of key management, signing policies and processes, etc. Hopefully there will soon be production code and a complete protocol spec that would mean RFC2916bis could RECOMMEND DNSSEC (or even MUST). _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Jan 29 13:14:51 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA25157 for ; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 13:14:51 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h0TIaOQ12555 for enum-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 13:36:24 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0TIaMJ12550; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 13:36:22 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0TIZHJ12487 for ; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 13:35:17 -0500 Received: from rsys001a.roke.co.uk (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA25130 for ; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 13:13:13 -0500 (EST) Received: by rsys001a.roke.co.uk with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 18:16:44 -0000 Received: from percy.roke.co.uk ([193.118.192.111]) by rsys002a.roke.co.uk with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id CN3DAF0Y; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 18:16:40 -0000 From: "Conroy, Lawrence (SMTP)" To: Richard Shockey , Stastny Richard Cc: enum@ietf.org Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: lwc@127.0.0.1 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.2.20030129121904.04845aa8@popd.ix.netcom.com> References: <5.2.0.9.2.20030129121904.04845aa8@popd.ix.netcom.com> Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 18:16:38 +0000 Subject: Re: AW: [Enum] One Number application Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Enum Discussion List List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , At 12:21 pm -0500 29/1/03, Richard Shockey wrote: >At 04:38 PM 1/29/2003 +0100, you wrote: >>Hi Penn,: >> >>You wrote: >>>ENUM is opt-in on both calling and called sides. So it's up to an >>>originating network whether >>>to query ENUM or not. you can't count on such a query being done. >> >>As I have learned at the last IETF meeting, opt-in is not the >>common view in ENUM WG. > >huh... > >where did you get that impression .. I know of no one suggesting >other than opt-in for public ENUM... as you correctly point out >there may be uses of ENUM technology in a operator environment ..but >that is outside the scope of 2916 > >>Some even did not know what I was talking about. >> >>regards >>Richard Stastny >> Hi Rich, folks, I believe that Richard is talking about opt-in for the Originating Operator (i.e the Operator can choose whether or not to do an ENUM lookup during processing of a call from an originating [PSTN] terminal). That resulted in blank faces in the last IETF meeting - I remember Richard having to explain what he meant. Translating for North American, the outgoing SIP proxy can choose whether or not to do a lookup of the number passed from from the UAC in the To:/Rqst-URI fields; the UAC may not be able to perform the ENUM lookup itself, so the proxy acts as its agent. all the best, Lawrence -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Roke Manor Research : This information is provided "as is" and is not : intended to create any contractual or legal : relationship. _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Jan 29 14:16:22 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA26750 for ; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 14:16:22 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h0TJbt217129 for enum-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 14:37:55 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0TJZkJ16428; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 14:35:46 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0TJWnJ16284 for ; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 14:32:49 -0500 Received: from hotmail.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA26616 for ; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 14:10:43 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 11:14:14 -0800 X-Originating-IP: [64.146.125.226] From: "Peter Williams" To: "Richard Shockey" Cc: "Bill Manning" , , "Jeff Williams" References: <200301232022.h0NKMEs24816@boreas.isi.edu> <5.2.0.9.2.20030128121311.04da0b08@popd.ix.netcom.com> <5.2.0.9.2.20030128211203.04772e68@popd.ix.netcom.com> Subject: Re: [Enum] I have one question for list on the "recommendation" to use DNSSEC Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 11:13:59 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: MSN Mail 8.00.0022.3100 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V8.00.0022.3100 Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 29 Jan 2003 19:14:14.0666 (UTC) FILETIME=[9CBBA6A0:01C2C7CA] Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Enum Discussion List List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Concerning dns security and ENUM, I think there are other issues going on here, which we should air. Choice of lower case or upper case letters in a single word in a specification document is not the main issue. The current business of locating (and re-registering) E.164 primitive names is (apparently) managed using an advanced CMIP deployment, secured with high speed crypto hardware in which many dollars are invested; several large operations contracts maintain this. DNSSEC in this space competes with several sets of vested interests, many of which are cultural in nature. Tact is called for, here. Tact is rarely a feature of IETF consensus making :( In the IETF space, E.164 name management is the basis of ENUM applications, which allow for convergence of PSTN and Internet worlds. The initial applications are highly localized in their needs for Internet infrastructure: we do not need to first revise the mainline DNS to iron out the technicalities, to improve voip, say. We can work on a branch circuit. I had to go outside IETF in 1994 to make SSL certs happen: VeriSign was born as a result of that (temporary) disalignment with IETF process. The operational need for packet security was critical, and could not wait for the required sea-change in consensus in the then security and application WGs. The need for securing the DNS infrastructure is as critical now, as was the need for SSL certs for e-commerce application, then. We need the delegation controls; to get them may require similar handling as we applied to obtain the initial SSL cert deployment, if we cannot get the IETF politics untangled, here. Id like to see an ENUM application group lead the DNSSEC work in ENUM. Id like to see the general ENUM leadership here work more actively to make this latter action happen. Peter. Original Message ----- From: "Richard Shockey" To: "Jeff Williams" Cc: "Peter Williams" ; "Bill Manning" ; Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2003 6:16 PM Subject: Re: [Enum] I have one question for list on the "recommendation" to use DNSSEC > At 07:52 PM 1/28/2003 -0800, Jeff Williams wrote: > >Richard and all, > > > > It is unfortunately true that the WG for DNSSEC of the IETF has > >yet to complete it's work of final standards for DNSSEC despite > >several years of working on it. None the less the private software > >industry has working "Versions" that are deployed and being deployed > >as well as work well. Hence this sort of IETF comment/statement > >of Jim Reid's, are really misleading and damaging if taken too > >seriously... > > I dont think so ...your statement is the one that is totally misleading . > "Versions" mean only incompatibility in the IETF context. > > The DNSOPS community has not issued any formal report on interoperability > of DNSSEC when they do so, and only when they do so, will I and I believe > the general ENUM community be prepared to implement the standard. > > > > > >Richard Shockey wrote: > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > Richard Shockey, Senior Manager, Strategic Technology Initiatives > NeuStar Inc. > 46000 Center Oak Plaza - Sterling, VA 20166 > Voice +1 571.434.5651 Cell : +1 314.503.0640, Fax: +1 815.333.1237 > or > ; > <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< > _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Jan 29 14:28:43 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA27222 for ; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 14:28:43 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h0TJoG517876 for enum-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 14:50:16 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0TJoEJ17870; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 14:50:14 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0TJnvJ17832 for ; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 14:49:57 -0500 Received: from shell.nominum.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA27153 for ; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 14:27:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from nominum.com (shell.nominum.com [128.177.192.160]) by shell.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 78DF0137F02; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 11:31:23 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 11:31:20 -0800 Subject: Re: [Enum] I have one question for list on the "recommendation" to use DNSSEC Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v551) Cc: "Richard Shockey" , "Bill Manning" , To: "Peter Williams" From: David Conrad In-Reply-To: Message-Id: <3E2B82EA-33C0-11D7-BA7F-000393DB42B2@nominum.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.551) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Enum Discussion List List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi, On Wednesday, January 29, 2003, at 11:13 AM, Peter Williams wrote: > The current business of locating (and re-registering) > E.164 primitive names is (apparently) managed using > an advanced CMIP deployment, secured with high > speed crypto hardware in which many dollars > are invested; several large operations > contracts maintain this. DNSSEC in this space > competes with several sets of vested interests, > many of which are cultural in nature. Eh? I don't think so, but maybe I'm confused. DNSSEC validates that the data returned to the validating recursive server is the same data the zone administrator put into the authoritative zone. It has nothing to do with putting the data into the authoritative zone (which the CMIP goop does, if I understand correctly) -- DNSSEC is only relevant to end users requesting NAPTR records. > Tact > is called for, here. Tact is rarely a > feature of IETF consensus making :( So true. Rgds, -drc _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Jan 29 15:58:46 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA29791 for ; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 15:58:46 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h0TLKN323830 for enum-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 16:20:23 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0TLKIJ23825; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 16:20:18 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0TLIdJ23714 for ; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 16:18:39 -0500 Received: from joy.songbird.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA29725 for ; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 15:56:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from rshockeybox.shockey.us (h-69-3-5-197.MCLNVA23.covad.net [69.3.5.197]) by joy.songbird.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA16465; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 12:59:45 -0800 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030129155250.046180e8@shockey.us> X-Sender: richard@shockey.us X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 15:59:30 -0500 To: David Conrad , "Peter Williams" From: Richard Shockey Subject: Re: [Enum] I have one question for list on the "recommendation" to use DNSSEC Cc: "Bill Manning" , In-Reply-To: <3E2B82EA-33C0-11D7-BA7F-000393DB42B2@nominum.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Enum Discussion List List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , At 11:31 AM 1/29/2003 -0800, David Conrad wrote: >Hi, > >On Wednesday, January 29, 2003, at 11:13 AM, Peter Williams wrote: >>The current business of locating (and re-registering) >>E.164 primitive names is (apparently) managed using >>an advanced CMIP deployment, secured with high >>speed crypto hardware in which many dollars >>are invested; several large operations >>contracts maintain this. DNSSEC in this space >>competes with several sets of vested interests, >>many of which are cultural in nature. Peter... Not really ... the probable interface between appropriate ENUM registrar and the Tier 1 zone administrator will probably be a variant of the EPP protocol now under development in the PROVREG working group .. advanced discussions about this are now underway in various national ENUM Forums particularly the one in the US. we already have a preliminary draft on the subject here in the WG and when PROVREG completes ist work this WG will undboutly begin discussions on how to proceed..we already have the item on our charter. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard Shockey, Senior Manager, Strategic Technology Initiatives NeuStar Inc. 46000 Center Oak Plaza - Sterling, VA 20166 Voice +1 571.434.5651 Cell : +1 314.503.0640, Fax: +1 815.333.1237 or ; <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Jan 30 01:07:32 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA09737 for ; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 01:07:32 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h0U4TEN18918 for enum-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 23:29:14 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0U4TDJ18911; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 23:29:13 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0U4SZJ18860 for ; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 23:28:35 -0500 Received: from maynard.mail.mindspring.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA07721 for ; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 23:06:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from dialup-67.29.254.252.dial1.dallas1.level3.net ([67.29.254.252] helo=ix.netcom.com) by maynard.mail.mindspring.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 18e60D-00073d-00; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 23:08:37 -0500 Message-ID: <3E38C1B6.C3219644@ix.netcom.com> Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 22:09:58 -0800 From: Jeff Williams Organization: INEGroup Spokesman X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.08 [en] (Win95; U; 16bit) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: David Conrad CC: Jim Reid , Kevin McCandless , Richard Shockey , Peter Williams , Bill Manning , enum@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Enum] I have one question for list on the "recommendation" t o use DNSSEC References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Enum Discussion List List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Davie and all, David Conrad wrote: > On Wednesday, January 29, 2003, at 07:00 PM, Jeff Williams wrote: > > This is not accurate Jim. Several well publicized commercial based > > and developed public DS-aware products are well known to the > > IETF and have been for some time now and are compatible > > directly with the present position of DNSSEC. > > Please name these "well publicized commercial based and developed > public DS-aware products" known to the IETF. As you are frequently on the Name Droppers ML, I would have thought you were more "Aware" yourself. >;) I must be mistaken in that regard. Live and learn I suppose. In any event, here are a FEW links for you. http://www.microsoft.com/poland/windows2000/technic/terminology/activedirectory.asp http://developer.novell.com/support/sample/tids/nw_icons/nw_icons.htm http://josefsson.org/walker/ > > > Thanks, > -drc Regards, -- Jeffrey A. Williams Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 129k members/stakeholders strong!) ================================================================ CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC. E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 214-244-3801 _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Jan 30 01:09:03 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA09779 for ; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 01:09:03 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h0U4oMF20388 for enum-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 23:50:22 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0U4oKJ20382; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 23:50:20 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0U4nZJ20338 for ; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 23:49:35 -0500 Received: from fallback02.mail.atl.earthlink.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA07934 for ; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 23:27:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from granger.mail.mindspring.net (granger.mail.mindspring.net [207.69.200.148]) by fallback02.mail.atl.earthlink.net (8.11.6+Sun/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0U4SJe15743 for ; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 23:28:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from dialup-67.29.254.252.dial1.dallas1.level3.net ([67.29.254.252] helo=ix.netcom.com) by granger.mail.mindspring.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 18e6I4-0000Cg-00; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 23:27:04 -0500 Message-ID: <3E38C60A.E086277A@ix.netcom.com> Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 22:28:26 -0800 From: Jeff Williams Organization: INEGroup Spokesman X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.08 [en] (Win95; U; 16bit) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Pfautz, Penn L, ALABS" CC: Stastny Richard , Sharon Rozov , enum@ietf.org References: <62DA45D4963FA747BA1B253E266760F9057D7CC1@OCCLUST04EVS1.ugd.att.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Enum] Re: ENUM - opt-in Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Enum Discussion List List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Penn and all, I was only commenting on the idea of "Opt-In" as a method in general. But I agree with you, that Opt-in in the context of this WG should be and expectable view point. Let's hope it is, and remains so. Pfautz, Penn L, ALABS wrote: > Jeff, > Richard, > Perhaps you can elaborate on why you think opt-in is not the view of the enum wg; it certainly seemed to be at not too long ago. > Are we talking about the same thing? > By opt-in I mean that no number assignee has to put their number into enum unless they choose to and; likewise, no communication originator is required to make use of enum. Granted many us believe there will be tremendous benefits for doing so on both sides. That's why we're here. > > Penn > > -----Original Message----- > From: Jeff Williams [mailto:jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com] > Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2003 9:45 PM > To: Stastny Richard > Cc: Pfautz, Penn L, ALABS; Sharon Rozov; enum@ietf.org > Subject: Re: AW: [Enum] One Number application > > Stastny and all, > > Opt-in is a dirty word/phrase to many IETF folks as well as ICANN > folks. Has been for some time now... > > Stastny Richard wrote: > > > Hi Penn,: > > > > You wrote: > > >ENUM is opt-in on both calling and called sides. So it's up to an originating network whether > > >to query ENUM or not. you can't count on such a query being done. > > > > As I have learned at the last IETF meeting, opt-in is not the common view in ENUM WG. > > Some even did not know what I was talking about. > > > > regards > > Richard Stastny > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > enum mailing list > > enum@ietf.org > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum > > Regards, > > -- > Jeffrey A. Williams > Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 129k members/stakeholders strong!) > ================================================================ > CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security > Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC. > E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com > Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 214-244-3801 Regards, -- Jeffrey A. Williams Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 129k members/stakeholders strong!) ================================================================ CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC. E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 214-244-3801 _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Jan 30 01:10:04 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA09813 for ; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 01:10:03 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h0U4gPW20109 for enum-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 23:42:25 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0U4gOJ20104; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 23:42:24 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0U4fbJ20076 for ; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 23:41:37 -0500 Received: from maynard.mail.mindspring.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA07891 for ; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 23:19:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from dialup-67.29.254.252.dial1.dallas1.level3.net ([67.29.254.252] helo=ix.netcom.com) by maynard.mail.mindspring.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 18e6Dx-0001Sk-00; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 23:22:49 -0500 Message-ID: <3E38C50A.6409F442@ix.netcom.com> Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 22:24:11 -0800 From: Jeff Williams Organization: INEGroup Spokesman X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.08 [en] (Win95; U; 16bit) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jim Reid CC: Kevin McCandless , Richard Shockey , Peter Williams , Bill Manning , enum@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Enum] I have one question for list on the "recommendation" t o use DNSSEC References: <76347.1043891647@shell.nominum.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Enum Discussion List List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Jim and all, Jim Reid wrote: > >>>>> "Jeff" == Jeff Williams writes: > > >> This worries me, even though I very much want to see DNSSEC > >> deployed for ENUM. There isn't yet a specification for DNSSEC > >> that's nailed down. Which one should be recommended, RFC2535 > >> which the DNSSEC folk want to kill, or the one with Delegation > >> Signer? Or the one with Opt-In? > > Jeff> Why not both Jim? > > I mentioned 3 possibilities for DNSSEC. They are not compatible with > each other and can't interoperate. That's why DNSSEC isn't finished yet. > Please read the latest drafts of these things if you won't take my > word for it. I have again just recently Jim. Thanks for suggesting it anyway. I don't currently agree that the three possibilities as you mention them are not compatible however. I do understand fully that the IETF effort on DNSSEC isn't finished yet as I have already mentioned in this thread twice. > > > >> [That's the DNSSEC context of opt-in which means changing the > >> semantics of the NXT record, not some privacy context of the > >> term for end users.] AFAIK, the only public DS-aware DNSSEC > >> implementation are snapshots of BIND9.3 which have pretty much > >> only been used by the engineers bashing on DNSSEC. That code > >> has not been released yet. > > Jeff> This is not accurate Jim. > > It's all true. And it's also what I know is inside my head. I'm > surprised you would know more about that than I do. I don't know that I know more than you about it or not. I certainly didn't intend to intimate as much. I just technically don't agree with this evaluation. So from one technical view point indeed what you said above is all true. That doesn't make it accurate or etched in stone, Jim. Hence my brief comment in disagreement. Certain commercial technical developers concentrating on DS-aware apps for DNS and applicable for ENUM, show clearly that other work or works are underway that you may not be aware of, and I am sure several I am not aware of either. Hence a IETF centric solution is not always advantageous from a business point of view. Computability and interoprability is of course desirable, and in my view, necessary however... As we have learned recently (This week) IETF protocols are not always "Best Practice" for a number of reasons i.e. RFC2068 debacle. > > > Jeff> Several well publicized > Jeff> commercial based and developed public DS-aware products are > Jeff> well known to the IETF and have been for some time now and > Jeff> are compatible directly with the present position of DNSSEC. > > Please name them so my ignorance can be enlightened. The people who > have developed these things must have kept a very low profile > bordering on invisibility at IETF meetings, various DNSSEC mailing > lists and workshops. Which suggests implementation would have been > very hard. And interoperability testing even harder. Good testing is always difficult in my view. That is as it should be however. Reliable and stable protocols that are adequately secure are paramount in today's ever demanding environment and becoming demanded more and more by user communities. The challenge is high indeed! We must meet that demand or those demands, and we shall. Regards, -- Jeffrey A. Williams Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 129k members/stakeholders strong!) ================================================================ CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC. E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 214-244-3801 _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Jan 30 01:11:03 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA09854 for ; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 01:11:03 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h0U3uof17115 for enum-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 22:56:50 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0U3uiJ17108; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 22:56:44 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0U3tIJ17067 for ; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 22:55:18 -0500 Received: from psg.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA07386 for ; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 22:33:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from roam.psg.com ([193.0.9.124] helo=roam) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 3.36 #1) id 18e5VD-000BZ7-00 for enum@ietf.org; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 19:36:35 -0800 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=roam.psg.com ident=randy) by roam.psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 18e5Tz-0002ww-00 for enum@ietf.org; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 19:35:19 -0800 From: Randy Bush MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: enum@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Enum] I have one question for list on the "recommendation" t o use DNSSEC References: <3E389566.2E3E7F08@ix.netcom.com> <76347.1043891647@shell.nominum.com> Message-Id: Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 19:35:19 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Enum Discussion List List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > To: Jeff Williams helloooo! feeding trolls, are we? bored? not enough email because spam filters are working too well? randy _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Jan 30 01:17:03 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA09995 for ; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 01:17:03 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h0U2VK211930 for enum-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 21:31:20 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0U2VJJ11925; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 21:31:19 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0U2UgJ11877 for ; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 21:30:42 -0500 Received: from almso2.proxy.att.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA05756 for ; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 21:08:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from attrh3i.attrh.att.com ([135.71.62.12]) by almso2.proxy.att.com (AT&T IPNS/MSO-4.0) with ESMTP id h0U0MJSk014025 for ; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 21:11:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from occlust04evs1.ugd.att.com (135.71.164.13) by attrh3i.attrh.att.com (6.5.032) id 3DF6BD4E01BE8018; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 21:11:59 -0500 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.5762.3 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 21:11:59 -0500 Message-ID: <62DA45D4963FA747BA1B253E266760F9057D7CC1@OCCLUST04EVS1.ugd.att.com> Thread-Topic: AW: [Enum] One Number application Thread-Index: AcLH+KFom2jREHK0TH+T0zAsG6P8PgAC54jw From: "Pfautz, Penn L, ALABS" To: "Jeff Williams" , "Stastny Richard" Cc: "Sharon Rozov" , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by www1.ietf.org id h0U2UgJ11878 Subject: [Enum] ENUM - opt-in Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Enum Discussion List List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Jeff, Richard, Perhaps you can elaborate on why you think opt-in is not the view of the enum wg; it certainly seemed to be at not too long ago. Are we talking about the same thing? By opt-in I mean that no number assignee has to put their number into enum unless they choose to and; likewise, no communication originator is required to make use of enum. Granted many us believe there will be tremendous benefits for doing so on both sides. That's why we're here. Penn -----Original Message----- From: Jeff Williams [mailto:jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2003 9:45 PM To: Stastny Richard Cc: Pfautz, Penn L, ALABS; Sharon Rozov; enum@ietf.org Subject: Re: AW: [Enum] One Number application Stastny and all, Opt-in is a dirty word/phrase to many IETF folks as well as ICANN folks. Has been for some time now... Stastny Richard wrote: > Hi Penn,: > > You wrote: > >ENUM is opt-in on both calling and called sides. So it's up to an originating network whether > >to query ENUM or not. you can't count on such a query being done. > > As I have learned at the last IETF meeting, opt-in is not the common view in ENUM WG. > Some even did not know what I was talking about. > > regards > Richard Stastny > > > > _______________________________________________ > enum mailing list > enum@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum Regards, -- Jeffrey A. Williams Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 129k members/stakeholders strong!) ================================================================ CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC. E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 214-244-3801 _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Jan 30 01:18:33 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA10051 for ; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 01:18:33 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h0U1W9I07316 for enum-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 20:32:09 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0U1W8J07311; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 20:32:08 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0U1V5J07278 for ; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 20:31:05 -0500 Received: from shell.nominum.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA04689 for ; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 20:08:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from nominum.com (shell.nominum.com [128.177.192.160]) by shell.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 91EF0137F0D; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 17:12:24 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 17:12:21 -0800 Subject: Re: [Enum] I have one question for list on the "recommendation" t o use DNSSEC Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v551) Cc: Jim Reid , Kevin McCandless , Richard Shockey , Peter Williams , Bill Manning , enum@ietf.org To: Jeff Williams From: David Conrad In-Reply-To: <3E389566.2E3E7F08@ix.netcom.com> Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.551) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Enum Discussion List List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Wednesday, January 29, 2003, at 07:00 PM, Jeff Williams wrote: > This is not accurate Jim. Several well publicized commercial based > and developed public DS-aware products are well known to the > IETF and have been for some time now and are compatible > directly with the present position of DNSSEC. Please name these "well publicized commercial based and developed public DS-aware products" known to the IETF. Thanks, -drc _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Jan 30 01:19:04 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA10068 for ; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 01:19:04 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h0U2Dn611260 for enum-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 21:13:49 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0U2DgJ11255; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 21:13:42 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0U2CnJ11222 for ; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 21:12:49 -0500 Received: from shell.nominum.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA05489 for ; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 20:50:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from shell.nominum.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by shell.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8BF49137F0F; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 17:54:07 -0800 (PST) To: Jeff Williams Cc: Kevin McCandless , Richard Shockey , Peter Williams , Bill Manning , enum@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Enum] I have one question for list on the "recommendation" t o use DNSSEC In-Reply-To: Message from Jeff Williams of "Wed, 29 Jan 2003 19:00:54 PST." <3E389566.2E3E7F08@ix.netcom.com> Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 17:54:07 -0800 Message-ID: <76347.1043891647@shell.nominum.com> From: Jim Reid Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Enum Discussion List List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , >>>>> "Jeff" == Jeff Williams writes: >> This worries me, even though I very much want to see DNSSEC >> deployed for ENUM. There isn't yet a specification for DNSSEC >> that's nailed down. Which one should be recommended, RFC2535 >> which the DNSSEC folk want to kill, or the one with Delegation >> Signer? Or the one with Opt-In? Jeff> Why not both Jim? I mentioned 3 possibilities for DNSSEC. They are not compatible with each other and can't interoperate. That's why DNSSEC isn't finished yet. Please read the latest drafts of these things if you won't take my word for it. >> [That's the DNSSEC context of opt-in which means changing the >> semantics of the NXT record, not some privacy context of the >> term for end users.] AFAIK, the only public DS-aware DNSSEC >> implementation are snapshots of BIND9.3 which have pretty much >> only been used by the engineers bashing on DNSSEC. That code >> has not been released yet. Jeff> This is not accurate Jim. It's all true. And it's also what I know is inside my head. I'm surprised you would know more about that than I do. Jeff> Several well publicized Jeff> commercial based and developed public DS-aware products are Jeff> well known to the IETF and have been for some time now and Jeff> are compatible directly with the present position of DNSSEC. Please name them so my ignorance can be enlightened. The people who have developed these things must have kept a very low profile bordering on invisibility at IETF meetings, various DNSSEC mailing lists and workshops. Which suggests implementation would have been very hard. And interoperability testing even harder. _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Jan 30 01:25:52 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA10172 for ; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 01:25:52 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h0U137405581 for enum-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 20:03:07 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0U137J05574; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 20:03:07 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0U12JJ05538 for ; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 20:02:19 -0500 Received: from granger.mail.mindspring.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA04268 for ; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 19:40:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from dialup-64.157.112.209.dial1.dallas1.level3.net ([64.157.112.209] helo=ix.netcom.com) by granger.mail.mindspring.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 18e2nk-00028z-00; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 19:43:33 -0500 Message-ID: <3E3891A7.B0EBD158@ix.netcom.com> Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 18:44:55 -0800 From: Jeff Williams Organization: INEGroup Spokesman X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.08 [en] (Win95; U; 16bit) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Stastny Richard CC: "Pfautz, Penn L, ALABS" , Sharon Rozov , enum@ietf.org Subject: Re: AW: [Enum] One Number application References: <06CF906FE3998C4E944213062009F1620DEEE0@oefeg-s02.oefeg.loc> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Enum Discussion List List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Stastny and all, Opt-in is a dirty word/phrase to many IETF folks as well as ICANN folks. Has been for some time now... Stastny Richard wrote: > Hi Penn,: > > You wrote: > >ENUM is opt-in on both calling and called sides. So it's up to an originating network whether > >to query ENUM or not. you can't count on such a query being done. > > As I have learned at the last IETF meeting, opt-in is not the common view in ENUM WG. > Some even did not know what I was talking about. > > regards > Richard Stastny > > > > _______________________________________________ > enum mailing list > enum@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum Regards, -- Jeffrey A. Williams Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 129k members/stakeholders strong!) ================================================================ CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC. E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 214-244-3801 _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Jan 30 01:26:22 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA10189 for ; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 01:26:22 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h0U1JDH06800 for enum-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 20:19:13 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0U1JCJ06795; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 20:19:12 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0U1IJJ06760 for ; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 20:18:19 -0500 Received: from granger.mail.mindspring.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA04552 for ; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 19:56:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from dialup-64.157.112.209.dial1.dallas1.level3.net ([64.157.112.209] helo=ix.netcom.com) by granger.mail.mindspring.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 18e33E-000043-00; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 19:59:32 -0500 Message-ID: <3E389566.2E3E7F08@ix.netcom.com> Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 19:00:54 -0800 From: Jeff Williams Organization: INEGroup Spokesman X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.08 [en] (Win95; U; 16bit) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jim Reid CC: Kevin McCandless , Richard Shockey , Peter Williams , Bill Manning , enum@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Enum] I have one question for list on the "recommendation" t o use DNSSEC References: <62496.1043862320@shell.nominum.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Enum Discussion List List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Jim and all, Jim Reid wrote: > >>>>> "Kevin" == Kevin McCandless writes: > > Kevin> I have to agree with Jeff's statements. The proposal by > Kevin> Richard is very limiting and there is no reason not to > Kevin> recommend DNSSEC. > > I think recommend (lower case) is OK. A RECOMMEND is too strong at > this time as the DNSSEC protocol is not mature enough. That does not > mean DNSSEC should not be tried. I most definitely want this to figure > in the UK ENUM trial. > > Kevin> As I mentioned before DNSSEC is the recommendation in the > Kevin> Unified document developed by the ENUM Forum. Why would we > Kevin> suggestion or go against that recommendation? > > The US ENUM Forum is not the only body who have input into the IETF's > ENUM efforts. > > Kevin> Let's move forward with the recommendation of using DNSSEC. > > This worries me, even though I very much want to see DNSSEC deployed > for ENUM. There isn't yet a specification for DNSSEC that's nailed > down. Which one should be recommended, RFC2535 which the DNSSEC folk > want to kill, or the one with Delegation Signer? Or the one with > Opt-In? Why not both Jim? > [That's the DNSSEC context of opt-in which means changing the > semantics of the NXT record, not some privacy context of the term for > end users.] AFAIK, the only public DS-aware DNSSEC implementation are > snapshots of BIND9.3 which have pretty much only been used by the > engineers bashing on DNSSEC. That code has not been released yet. This is not accurate Jim. Several well publicized commercial based and developed public DS-aware products are well known to the IETF and have been for some time now and are compatible directly with the present position of DNSSEC. > > > So for now DNSSEC should be considered experimental and most > definitely something to evaluate in trials: especially the > nitty-gritty of key management, signing policies and processes, etc. > Hopefully there will soon be production code and a complete protocol > spec that would mean RFC2916bis could RECOMMEND DNSSEC (or even MUST). RFC2916bis is already well behind the development curve from a commercial point of view... Regards, -- Jeffrey A. Williams Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 129k members/stakeholders strong!) ================================================================ CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC. E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 214-244-3801 _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Jan 30 01:26:52 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA10203 for ; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 01:26:52 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h0U0nAb05053 for enum-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 19:49:10 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0U0msJ05037; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 19:48:54 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0U0kaJ04981 for ; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 19:46:36 -0500 Received: from smtp6.mindspring.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA04085 for ; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 19:24:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from dialup-64.157.112.209.dial1.dallas1.level3.net ([64.157.112.209] helo=ix.netcom.com) by smtp6.mindspring.com with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 18e2YY-00033l-00; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 19:27:50 -0500 Message-ID: <3E388DF7.71CF5400@ix.netcom.com> Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 18:29:12 -0800 From: Jeff Williams Organization: INEGroup Spokesman X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.08 [en] (Win95; U; 16bit) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Kevin McCandless CC: Richard Shockey , Peter Williams , Bill Manning , enum@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Enum] I have one question for list on the "recommendation" t o use DNSSEC References: <90B62898D7B43B448D1A7297980A8C5F6CE473@opwinex01.corp.illuminet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Enum Discussion List List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Kevin and all, Thank you for chiming in Kevin. My point is that not using what is available with industry modified "Versions" is less than what can be done as development from within the IETF and other standards or development organizations on improving DNSSEC continues makes little if any sense and leaves exposures that are unnecessary and potentially damaging. Kevin McCandless wrote: > I have to agree with Jeff's statements. The proposal by Richard is very > limiting and there is no reason not to recommend DNSSEC. If the opt-in > principal is adopted for DNSSEC, then for example a TIER 2 that is not using > DNSSEC can interact with a TIER 1 that is using DNSSEC. > > As I mentioned before DNSSEC is the recommendation in the Unified document > developed by the ENUM Forum. Why would we suggestion or go against that > recommendation? Many of the people on this list have had more then enough > opportunity to participate in the ENUM forum and make their recommendations. > Even our chairman here has been involved in the ENUM forum and many of his > colleagues. > > Let's move forward with the recommendation of using DNSSEC. This is an IETF > supported security protocol! > > Kevin........... > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Jeff Williams [mailto:jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com] > > Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2003 9:52 PM > > To: Richard Shockey > > Cc: Peter Williams; Bill Manning; enum@ietf.org > > Subject: Re: [Enum] I have one question for list on the > > "recommendation" > > to use DNSSEC > > > > > > Richard and all, > > > > It is unfortunately true that the WG for DNSSEC of the IETF has > > yet to complete it's work of final standards for DNSSEC despite > > several years of working on it. None the less the private software > > industry has working "Versions" that are deployed and being deployed > > as well as work well. Hence this sort of IETF comment/statement > > of Jim Reid's, are really misleading and damaging if taken too > > seriously... > > > > Richard Shockey wrote: > > > > > A > > > > > > >I can think of several ways to break the cycle > > > >benefiting both ENUM and DNSSEC. Id like > > > >to see a comment attached to the recommendation > > > >concerning DNSSEC - one that captures > > > >the WGs overall sentiment on the issue, and > > > >its expectations. > > > > > > Well this was my point ...I still agree with Jim Reid's sentiment.. > > > > > > It is NOT RECOMMENDED at this time that DNSSEC is used as the > > > DNSSEC standards are not yet complete. DNSSEC MAY > > be used to > > > gain practical experience and understanding on how > > it could be > > > deployed in future. > > > > > > If anyone has better language to suggest to the authors .. > > please do so. > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > Richard Shockey, Senior Manager, Strategic Technology Initiatives > > > NeuStar Inc. > > > 46000 Center Oak Plaza - Sterling, VA 20166 > > > Voice +1 571.434.5651 Cell : +1 314.503.0640, Fax: +1 815.333.1237 > > > or > > > ; > > > <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > enum mailing list > > > enum@ietf.org > > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum > > > > Regards, > > -- > > Jeffrey A. Williams > > Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 129k members/stakeholders strong!) > > ================================================================ > > CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security > > Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC. > > E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com > > Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 214-244-3801 > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > enum mailing list > > enum@ietf.org > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum > > Regards, -- Jeffrey A. Williams Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 129k members/stakeholders strong!) ================================================================ CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC. E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 214-244-3801 _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Jan 30 02:36:04 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA21528 for ; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 02:36:04 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h0U7vqa10373 for enum-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 02:57:52 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0U7vXJ10365; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 02:57:33 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0U7twJ10298 for ; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 02:55:58 -0500 Received: from shell.nominum.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA21479 for ; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 02:33:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from nominum.com (shell.nominum.com [128.177.192.160]) by shell.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D3CE1137F0B; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 23:37:08 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 23:37:05 -0800 Subject: Re: [Enum] I have one question for list on the "recommendation" t o use DNSSEC Content-Type: text/plain; delsp=yes; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v551) From: David Conrad To: Jim Reid , Kevin McCandless , Richard Shockey , Peter Williams , Bill Manning , enum@ietf.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In-Reply-To: <3E38C1B6.C3219644@ix.netcom.com> Message-Id: X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.551) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Enum Discussion List List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Randy is right. One shouldn't feed the trolls. I knew better, but still allowed myself to be slimed. Apologies, folks. For those that aren't aware of what "JeffreyA. Wiliiams" is, see http://www.gtld-mou.org/gtld-discuss/mail-archive/08030.html Sigh. On Wednesday, January 29, 2003, at 10:09 PM, Jeff Williams wrote: > http://www.microsoft.com/poland/windows2000/technic/terminology/ > activedirectory.asp > http://developer.novell.com/support/sample/tids/nw_icons/nw_icons.htm > http://josefsson.org/walker/ _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Jan 30 03:20:41 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA22061 for ; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 03:20:41 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h0U8gV813724 for enum-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 03:42:31 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0U8gQJ13716; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 03:42:26 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0U8fsJ13689 for ; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 03:41:54 -0500 Received: from mail.oefeg.at (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id DAA22045 for ; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 03:19:32 -0500 (EST) content-class: urn:content-classes:message Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 09:26:35 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Message-ID: <06CF906FE3998C4E944213062009F1620DEEE2@oefeg-s02.oefeg.loc> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0 Thread-Topic: AW: [Enum] One Number application Thread-Index: AcLH+KFom2jREHK0TH+T0zAsG6P8PgAC54jwAAx2sJc= From: "Stastny Richard" To: "Pfautz, Penn L, ALABS" , "Jeff Williams" Cc: "Sharon Rozov" , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from base64 to 8bit by www1.ietf.org id h0U8fsJ13690 Subject: [Enum] AW: ENUM - opt-in Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Enum Discussion List List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Hi Penn, You wrote: >Perhaps you can elaborate on why you think opt-in is not the view of the enum wg; it certainly seemed to >be at not too long ago. >Are we talking about the same thing? >By opt-in I mean that no number assignee has to put their number into enum unless they choose to and; >likewise, no communication originator is required to make use of enum. Granted many us believe there will >be tremendous benefits for doing so on both sides. That's why we're here. I think you (as a member of the US ENUM Forum) and I excactly mean the same: As stated in the "Report of the Department of State ITAC-T Advisory Committee SGA AdHoc on ENUM (July 6th, 2001), which was also the basis of the US ENUM Forum, it is stated clearly: 4.3 Opt-in service for called user. The assignee of a number must choose to participate in ENUM before any NAPTR records for the number can be populated. This is important since records in ENUM are publicly accessible via DNS query. The opt-in process should be designed to ensure the following: · Users can control privacy and security of their information. · The default condition is to not include NAPTR record information. · Any request for inclusion must be authenticated as being from the assignee of the E.164 number. · Inclusion of NAPTR record information must be reversible, allowing the party to remove the data from the DNS in a timely fashion. 4.4 Opt-in service for calling user and service provider. The crucial part of Opt-in for the calling user and service provider is whether or not to query ENUM and then whether or not to make use of the results. The following approach is proposed for telephony services: 1. No originating party (e.g., a calling user or a service provider) is obligated to perform an ENUM query to complete a telephone call to an E.164 number. 2. A party making an ENUM query, whether a calling user or service provider, is not obligated to use any of the services in the NAPTR records returned. 3. All E.164 numbers must have a Public Switched Telephone Network (PSTN) point of interface. (For geographic numbers this would be an end office or tandem.) For non-telephony services an ENUM query may be necessary if the initiating party that wishes to communicate with the party that has ENUM service has only that party’s E.164 number. For example, if the terminating party’s e-mail address is user@foo.com, the initiating party will only be able to derive that address from the terminating party’s E.164 number by accessing the corresponding ENUM NAPTR record. This statement was also the basis of the work in ITU-T and ETSI, and is therefore also the basis for the European ENUM trials. When we dicussed in Atlanta these issues, especially the case of the calling user opt-in in the case the calling user is calling from the PSTN, and the IP-Gateway provider is querying ENUM on behalf of the Calling User. When I mentioned that there has to be some agreement with the calling user (e.g. similar to carrier preselection or call-by-call) if ENUM is queried or not, I earned disagreement.. When I then tried to explain that there is also a calling user opt-in, not the mention the called user opt-in, I was asked wherefrom I had this funny idea. When I answered that this was not my idea, but from the US Forum, one guy even said (although not aloud): "Who cares about the US ENUM Forum". The whole discussion started around the "User ENUM" and "Infrastructure ENUM" (or Carrier ENUM as Netnumber calls it) issue. Since there is an opt-in for called users (ENUM subscribers), and operator cannot set up an ENUM for e.g. NP purposes in the same domain as e164.arpa, because there is a clash with the opt-in right of the ENUM subscriber. You cannot have two different domain name holders for the same domain. Therefore infrastucture ENUM (if global) has to be setup in a different domain. best regards Richard Stastny _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Jan 30 13:46:40 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA06529 for ; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 13:46:40 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h0UInlD21475 for enum-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 13:49:47 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0UIn3J21453; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 13:49:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0UIgbJ21231 for ; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 13:42:37 -0500 Received: from barry.mail.mindspring.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA06291 for ; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 13:38:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from dialup-64.157.125.9.dial1.dallas1.level3.net ([64.157.125.9] helo=ix.netcom.com) by barry.mail.mindspring.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 18eJdj-0002ux-00; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 13:42:20 -0500 Message-ID: <3E398E7B.DBF7DC77@ix.netcom.com> Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 12:43:40 -0800 From: Jeff Williams Organization: INEGroup Spokesman X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.08 [en] (Win95; U; 16bit) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Stastny Richard CC: "Pfautz, Penn L, ALABS" , Sharon Rozov , enum@ietf.org References: <06CF906FE3998C4E944213062009F1620DEEE2@oefeg-s02.oefeg.loc> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Subject: [Enum] Re: AW: ENUM - opt-in Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Enum Discussion List List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Richard and all, Thank you Richard for expanding and more than adequately delineating the Opt-In issue for ENUM here. ( More below your specific comments ) Stastny Richard wrote: > Hi Penn, > > You wrote: > >Perhaps you can elaborate on why you think opt-in is not the view of the enum wg; it certainly seemed to >be at not too long ago. > >Are we talking about the same thing? > >By opt-in I mean that no number assignee has to put their number into enum unless they choose to and; >likewise, no communication originator is required to make use of enum. Granted many us believe there will >be tremendous benefits for doing so on both sides. That's why we're here. > > I think you (as a member of the US ENUM Forum) and I excactly mean the same: > > As stated in the "Report of the Department of State ITAC-T Advisory Committee SGA AdHoc on ENUM (July 6th, 2001), which was also the basis of the US ENUM Forum, it is stated clearly: > > 4.3 Opt-in service for called user. > > The assignee of a number must choose to participate in ENUM before any NAPTR records for the number can be populated. This is important since records in ENUM are publicly accessible via DNS query. The opt-in process should be designed to ensure the following: > > · Users can control privacy and security of their information. This is very Key here. Unlike presently with other IETF protocols user control of their own privacy and security is or should always be a design requirement. > > > · The default condition is to not include NAPTR record information. > > · Any request for inclusion must be authenticated as being from the assignee of the E.164 number. > > · Inclusion of NAPTR record information must be reversible, allowing the party to remove the data from the DNS in a timely fashion. > > > > 4.4 Opt-in service for calling user and service provider. > > The crucial part of Opt-in for the calling user and service provider is whether or not to query ENUM and then whether or not to make use of the results. > > > > The following approach is proposed for telephony services: > > 1. No originating party (e.g., a calling user or a service provider) is obligated to perform an ENUM query to complete a telephone call to an E.164 number. > > 2. A party making an ENUM query, whether a calling user or service provider, is not obligated to use any of the services in the NAPTR records returned. > > 3. All E.164 numbers must have a Public Switched Telephone Network (PSTN) point of interface. (For geographic numbers this would be an end office or tandem.) > > > > For non-telephony services an ENUM query may be necessary if the initiating party that wishes to communicate with the party that has ENUM service has only that party’s E.164 number. For example, if the terminating party’s e-mail address is user@foo.com, the initiating party will only be able to derive that address from the terminating party’s E.164 number by accessing the corresponding ENUM NAPTR record. > > This statement was also the basis of the work in ITU-T and ETSI, and is therefore also the basis for the European ENUM trials. > > When we dicussed in Atlanta these issues, especially the case of the calling user opt-in in the case the calling user is calling from the PSTN, and the IP-Gateway provider is querying ENUM on behalf of the Calling User. When I mentioned that there has to be some agreement with the calling user (e.g. similar to carrier preselection or call-by-call) if ENUM is queried or not, I earned disagreement.. Here ( Your comments above ) is where the crux of the philosophical problem begins... > When I then tried to explain that there is also a calling user opt-in, not the mention the called user opt-in, I was asked wherefrom I had this funny idea. When I answered that this was not my idea, but from the US Forum, one guy even said (although not aloud): "Who cares about the US ENUM Forum". Exactly! And again this seems tome to point up that some are more interested in disallowing users to determine their own level of privacy/security via Opt-In. > > > The whole discussion started around the "User ENUM" and "Infrastructure ENUM" (or Carrier ENUM as Netnumber calls it) issue. Since there is an opt-in for called users (ENUM subscribers), and operator cannot set up an ENUM for e.g. NP purposes in the same domain as e164.arpa, because there is a clash with the opt-in right of the ENUM subscriber. You cannot have two different domain name holders for the same domain. Therefore infrastucture ENUM (if global) has to be setup in a different domain. > > best regards > > Richard Stastny > > Regards, -- Jeffrey A. Williams Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 129k members/stakeholders strong!) ================================================================ CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC. E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 214-244-3801 _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Jan 30 15:25:22 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA09659 for ; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 15:25:22 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h0UKSWI27238 for enum-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 15:28:32 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0UKSRJ27232; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 15:28:27 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0UKQ3J27117 for ; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 15:26:03 -0500 Received: from joy.songbird.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA09616 for ; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 15:22:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from rshockeybox.shockey.us (h-69-3-5-197.MCLNVA23.covad.net [69.3.5.197]) by joy.songbird.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA06684 for ; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 12:25:38 -0800 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030130151409.03809e38@popd.ix.netcom.com> X-Sender: richard@shockey.us X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 15:24:44 -0500 To: enum@ietf.org From: Richard Shockey Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Subject: [Enum] On the question of DNSSEC and recommended Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Enum Discussion List List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , In the absence of consensus on the list ..and after consulting with various members of the DNSOPS community that are close to the matter I think we are safe in leaving as is the proposed language that DNSSEC is 'recommended' in lower case. However I would caution that those of you that are involved in various national ENUM trials and in documenting procedures for various national ENUM administrations that "recommended" does not mean REQUIRED. I sill believe that it is premature to mandate DNSSEC deployment in the ENUM context at this time. There is still much work to be done and we should all monitor progress in this area closely. Is this a fair and reasonable statement of consensus? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard Shockey, Senior Manager, Strategic Technology Initiatives NeuStar Inc. 46000 Center Oak Plaza - Sterling, VA 20166 Voice +1 571.434.5651 Cell : +1 314.503.0640, Fax: +1 815.333.1237 or ; <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Jan 30 18:56:41 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA13751 for ; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 18:56:41 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h0UNxt506453 for enum-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 18:59:55 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0UNxoJ06448; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 18:59:50 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0UNwmJ06381 for ; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 18:58:49 -0500 Received: from shell.nominum.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA13734 for ; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 18:55:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from shell.nominum.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by shell.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 45317137F04; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 15:58:36 -0800 (PST) To: Richard Shockey Cc: enum@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Enum] On the question of DNSSEC and recommended In-Reply-To: Message from Richard Shockey of "Thu, 30 Jan 2003 15:24:44 EST." <5.2.0.9.2.20030130151409.03809e38@popd.ix.netcom.com> Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 15:58:36 -0800 Message-ID: <99130.1043971116@shell.nominum.com> From: Jim Reid Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Enum Discussion List List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , >>>>> "Richard" == Richard Shockey writes: Richard> However I would caution that those of you that are Richard> involved in various national ENUM trials and in Richard> documenting procedures for various national ENUM Richard> administrations that "recommended" does not mean Richard> REQUIRED. I sill believe that it is premature to mandate Richard> DNSSEC deployment in the ENUM context at this time. Richard> There is still much work to be done and we should all Richard> monitor progress in this area closely. Richard> Is this a fair and reasonable statement of consensus? Yes. I don't believe any trials are making DNSSEC mandatory. However I know of at least one that intends to evaluate it. :-) DNSSEC will have to be tried before ENUM goes into production use, assuming that this happens after DNSSEC is completed of course. Not that I can see telcos and regulators ever deploying ENUM unless the answers from the DNS can be validated. _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Jan 30 21:00:56 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA16198 for ; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 21:00:56 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h0V24DH13834 for enum-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 21:04:13 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0V245J13829; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 21:04:05 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0V22WJ13775 for ; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 21:02:32 -0500 Received: from tisch.mail.mindspring.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA16145 for ; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 20:58:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from dialup-64.156.77.124.dial1.dallas1.level3.net ([64.156.77.124] helo=ix.netcom.com) by tisch.mail.mindspring.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 18eQVG-0004mi-00; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 21:02:02 -0500 Message-ID: <3E39F58A.EA4D4414@ix.netcom.com> Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 20:03:23 -0800 From: Jeff Williams Organization: INEGroup Spokesman X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.08 [en] (Win95; U; 16bit) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Richard Shockey CC: enum@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Enum] On the question of DNSSEC and recommended References: <5.2.0.9.2.20030130151409.03809e38@popd.ix.netcom.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Enum Discussion List List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Richard and all, Recommended, yes. Mandated/REQUIRED no. Hence I would agree that only recommended not mandated or REQUIRED. I cannot say if there is a consensus here on that however. Richard Shockey wrote: > In the absence of consensus on the list ..and after consulting with various > members of the DNSOPS community that are close to the matter I think we are > safe in leaving as is the proposed language that DNSSEC is 'recommended' in > lower case. > > However I would caution that those of you that are involved in various > national ENUM trials and in documenting procedures for various national > ENUM administrations that "recommended" does not mean REQUIRED. I sill > believe that it is premature to mandate DNSSEC deployment in the ENUM > context at this time. > > There is still much work to be done and we should all monitor progress in > this area closely. > > Is this a fair and reasonable statement of consensus? > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > Richard Shockey, Senior Manager, Strategic Technology Initiatives > NeuStar Inc. > 46000 Center Oak Plaza - Sterling, VA 20166 > Voice +1 571.434.5651 Cell : +1 314.503.0640, Fax: +1 815.333.1237 > or > ; > <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< > > _______________________________________________ > enum mailing list > enum@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum Regards, -- Jeffrey A. Williams Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 129k members/stakeholders strong!) ================================================================ CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC. E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 214-244-3801 _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Jan 31 01:22:33 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA20044 for ; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 01:22:33 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h0V6PsJ25585 for enum-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 01:25:54 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0V6PoJ25579; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 01:25:50 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0V6OpJ25549 for ; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 01:24:51 -0500 Received: from neonym.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA20030 for ; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 01:20:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from [207.120.28.115] ([::ffff:207.120.28.115]) (AUTH: PLAIN michael, ) by neonym.net with esmtp; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 12:05:32 -0500 Subject: Re: [Enum] On the question of DNSSEC and recommended From: Michael Mealling To: Richard Shockey Cc: enum@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.2.20030130151409.03809e38@popd.ix.netcom.com> References: <5.2.0.9.2.20030130151409.03809e38@popd.ix.netcom.com> Organization: Harriman Heavy Industries, Inc. Message-Id: <1043994076.12624.109.camel@blackdell.neonym.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.2.0 Date: 31 Jan 2003 01:21:17 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Enum Discussion List List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Thu, 2003-01-30 at 15:24, Richard Shockey wrote: > In the absence of consensus on the list ..and after consulting with various > members of the DNSOPS community that are close to the matter I think we are > safe in leaving as is the proposed language that DNSSEC is 'recommended' in > lower case. I would personally recommend something slightly stronger. More like this: At the time of publication of this document the DNSSEC standard had not been finished. Until that time ENUM's use of DNSSEC is merely recommended. When DNSSEC becomes a published specification, ENUM based systems SHOULD fully implement DNSSEC. > However I would caution that those of you that are involved in various > national ENUM trials and in documenting procedures for various national > ENUM administrations that "recommended" does not mean REQUIRED. I sill > believe that it is premature to mandate DNSSEC deployment in the ENUM > context at this time. > > There is still much work to be done and we should all monitor progress in > this area closely. > > Is this a fair and reasonable statement of consensus? I can live with it but I think the case needs to be made a little stronger than what it is. As it stands an implementor will read that and assume they can ignore DNSSEC which isn't the intent... -MM _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Jan 31 07:27:20 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA04552 for ; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 07:27:20 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h0VCUnY22060 for enum-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 07:30:49 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0VCUiJ22055; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 07:30:44 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0VCTAJ21999 for ; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 07:29:10 -0500 Received: from sj-msg-core-3.cisco.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA04516 for ; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 07:25:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from chsharp-w2k.cisco.com (rtp-vpn1-173.cisco.com [10.82.224.173]) by sj-msg-core-3.cisco.com (8.12.2/8.12.6) with ESMTP id h0VCSZB7012773; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 04:28:36 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20030131071047.06880240@dogwood.cisco.com> X-Sender: chsharp@dogwood.cisco.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 07:15:35 -0500 To: Michael Mealling From: Chip Sharp Subject: Re: [Enum] On the question of DNSSEC and recommended Cc: Richard Shockey , enum@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <1043994076.12624.109.camel@blackdell.neonym.net> References: <5.2.0.9.2.20030130151409.03809e38@popd.ix.netcom.com> <5.2.0.9.2.20030130151409.03809e38@popd.ix.netcom.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Enum Discussion List List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Question for clarification: I believe the current text says: "As this system is built on top of DNS, one can not be sure that the information one gets back from DNS is more secure than any DNS query. To solve that, the use of DNSSEC [7] for securing and verifying zones is to be recommended. " To which zones does this recommendation reach? Does this recommendation (or a subsequent SHOULD if Michael's proposal is accepted) apply to the Tier 2 zones, CC.e164.arpa., e164.arpa., arpa., .? Thanks, Chip At 01:21 AM 1/31/2003, Michael Mealling wrote: >On Thu, 2003-01-30 at 15:24, Richard Shockey wrote: > > In the absence of consensus on the list ..and after consulting with > various > > members of the DNSOPS community that are close to the matter I think we > are > > safe in leaving as is the proposed language that DNSSEC is > 'recommended' in > > lower case. > >I would personally recommend something slightly stronger. More like >this: > >At the time of publication of this document the DNSSEC standard had not >been finished. Until that time ENUM's use of DNSSEC is merely >recommended. When DNSSEC becomes a published specification, ENUM based >systems SHOULD fully implement DNSSEC. > > > However I would caution that those of you that are involved in various > > national ENUM trials and in documenting procedures for various national > > ENUM administrations that "recommended" does not mean REQUIRED. I sill > > believe that it is premature to mandate DNSSEC deployment in the ENUM > > context at this time. > > > > There is still much work to be done and we should all monitor progress in > > this area closely. > > > > Is this a fair and reasonable statement of consensus? > >I can live with it but I think the case needs to be made a little >stronger than what it is. As it stands an implementor will read that and >assume they can ignore DNSSEC which isn't the intent... > >-MM > >_______________________________________________ >enum mailing list >enum@ietf.org >https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Jan 31 10:46:08 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA10306 for ; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 10:46:08 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h0VFnfB01644 for enum-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 10:49:41 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0VFnbJ01635; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 10:49:37 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0VFmBJ01594 for ; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 10:48:11 -0500 Received: from joy.songbird.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA10193 for ; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 10:44:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from rshockeybox.shockey.us (inetgw.va.neustar.com [209.173.53.225]) by joy.songbird.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA14306 for ; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 07:47:22 -0800 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030131103045.04a7fb80@shockey.us> X-Sender: richard@shockey.us X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 10:31:03 -0500 To: enum@ietf.org From: Richard Shockey Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Subject: [Enum] Fwd: Internet-Draft Cutoff Dates for San Francisco, CA (March 16-21,2003) Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Enum Discussion List List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Reminder.... >To: IETF-Announce: ; >From: Internet-Drafts Administrator >Subject: Internet-Draft Cutoff Dates for San Francisco, CA (March 16-21,2003) >Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 09:51:02 -0500 >Sender: owner-ietf-announce@ietf.org > >NOTE: There are two(2) Internet-Draft Cutoff dates > >February 24th: Cutoff for Initial Submissions (new documents). > >All initial submissions (00.txt) must be submitted by Monday, February 24th, >at 09:00 ET. Initial submissions receieved after this time will NOT be >made available in the Internet-Drafts directory, and will have to be >resubmitted. > >As before, all initial submissions (00.txt) with a filename beginning >with a draft-ietf MUST be approved by the appropriate WG Chair prioir to >processing and announcing. WG Chair approval must be received by >Monday, February 24th. > > Please do NOT wait until the last minute to submit. > >Be advised: NO placeholders. Updates to initial submission received > the week of February 24th will NOT be accepted. > >March 3rd: FINAL Internet-Draft Cutoff > >All revised Internet-Draft submissions must be submitted by Monday, >March 3rd, 2003 at 09:00 ET. Internet-Drafts received after this >time will NOT be announced NOR made available in the Internet-Drafts >Directories. > >We will begin accepting Internet-Draft submissions the week of the meeting, >though announcements will NOT be sent until the IETF Meeting >is over. > >Thank you for your understanding and cooperation. Please do not hesitate >to contact us if you have any questions or concerns. > >FYI: These and other significant dates can be found at >http://www.ietf.org/meetings/cutoff_dates_56.html >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard Shockey, Senior Manager, Strategic Technology Initiatives NeuStar Inc. 46000 Center Oak Plaza - Sterling, VA 20166 Voice +1 571.434.5651 Cell : +1 314.503.0640, Fax: +1 815.333.1237 or ; <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Jan 31 11:48:16 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA11754 for ; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 11:48:16 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h0VGppc05156 for enum-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 11:51:51 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0VGpjJ05151; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 11:51:45 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0VGo9J05098 for ; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 11:50:09 -0500 Received: from joy.songbird.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA11689 for ; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 11:46:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from rshockeybox.shockey.us (inetgw.va.neustar.com [209.173.53.225]) by joy.songbird.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA16956; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 08:49:05 -0800 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030131114501.024a3718@shockey.us> X-Sender: richard@shockey.us X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 11:48:55 -0500 To: Chip Sharp , Michael Mealling From: Richard Shockey Subject: Re: [Enum] On the question of DNSSEC and recommended Cc: enum@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20030131071047.06880240@dogwood.cisco.com> References: <1043994076.12624.109.camel@blackdell.neonym.net> <5.2.0.9.2.20030130151409.03809e38@popd.ix.netcom.com> <5.2.0.9.2.20030130151409.03809e38@popd.ix.netcom.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Enum Discussion List List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , At 07:15 AM 1/31/2003 -0500, Chip Sharp wrote: >Question for clarification: > >I believe the current text says: >"As this system is built on top of DNS, one can not be sure that the >information one gets back from DNS is more secure than any DNS query. To >solve that, the use of DNSSEC [7] for securing and verifying zones is to >be recommended. " > >To which zones does this recommendation reach? Does this recommendation >(or a subsequent SHOULD if Michael's proposal is accepted) apply to the >Tier 2 zones, CC.e164.arpa., e164.arpa., arpa., .? and what is the effect of zone opt-in... Title : DNSSEC Opt-in Author(s) : R. Arends, M. Kosters, D. Blacka Filename : draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-opt-in-03.txt Pages : 21 Date : 2002-10-14 In RFC 2535, delegations to unsigned subzones are cryptographically secured. Maintaining this cryptography is not practical or necessary. This document describes an 'Opt-In' model that allows administrators to omit this cryptography and manage the cost of adopting DNSSEC with large zones. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-opt-in-03.txt >>I would personally recommend something slightly stronger. More like >>this: >> >>At the time of publication of this document the DNSSEC standard had not >>been finished. Until that time ENUM's use of DNSSEC is merely >>recommended. When DNSSEC becomes a published specification, ENUM based >>systems SHOULD fully implement DNSSEC. >> >> >> > >> > Is this a fair and reasonable statement of consensus? >> >>I can live with it but I think the case needs to be made a little >>stronger than what it is. As it stands an implementor will read that and >>assume they can ignore DNSSEC which isn't the intent... I would like to hear some other opinions here.... and any other issues we need to work through in 2916bis... as I mentioned before I would like to maintain a fast track on the discussions here so that we can consider last call on 2916bis on or before IETF SanFrancisco. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard Shockey, Senior Manager, Strategic Technology Initiatives NeuStar Inc. 46000 Center Oak Plaza - Sterling, VA 20166 Voice +1 571.434.5651 Cell : +1 314.503.0640, Fax: +1 815.333.1237 or ; <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Jan 31 13:34:31 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA14901 for ; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 13:34:31 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h0VIc7E11748 for enum-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 13:38:07 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0VIbrJ11739; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 13:37:53 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0VIaIJ11048 for ; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 13:36:18 -0500 Received: from shell.nominum.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA14858 for ; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 13:32:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from nominum.com (shell.nominum.com [128.177.192.160]) by shell.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8E357137F0E; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 10:35:42 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 10:35:38 -0800 Subject: Re: [Enum] On the question of DNSSEC and recommended Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v551) Cc: Chip Sharp , Michael Mealling , enum@ietf.org To: Richard Shockey From: David Conrad In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.2.20030131114501.024a3718@shockey.us> Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.551) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Enum Discussion List List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi, On Friday, January 31, 2003, at 08:48 AM, Richard Shockey wrote: > At 07:15 AM 1/31/2003 -0500, Chip Sharp wrote: >> Does this recommendation (or a subsequent SHOULD if Michael's >> proposal is accepted) apply to the Tier 2 zones, CC.e164.arpa., >> e164.arpa., arpa., .? Yes. DNSSEC validates by traversing up from the leaf nodes to a 'security root', that is, a zone for which you have a trusted key. The intent is that validating caching servers will ship with "."' s trusted keys. If 3.0.0.6.1.8.3.0.5.6.1.e164.arpa is signed (which would be necessary to ensure the NAPTR RRs weren't tampered with after they are fetched), then each and every parent zone of 3.0.0.6.1.8.3.0.5.6.1.e164.arpa will need to be signed as well. > and what is the effect of zone opt-in... Mass insanity and global thermonuclear war? Err... OK, so maybe my biases are showing :-). More seriously, DNSSEC opt-in (should it be accepted) does not remove the need for the tree to be signed as described above. What it would provide is the ability for individual leaf nodes to choose not to be included in the secure part of the zone. I don't see any value to this in the context of ENUM (the only value opt-in brings is if you have a _very_ large zone that makes signing the entire zone (arguably) problematic -- this wouldn't be the case with ENUM). Rgds, -drc _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Jan 31 13:39:32 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA15107 for ; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 13:39:32 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h0VIh8R11912 for enum-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 13:43:08 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0VIh8J11907; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 13:43:08 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0VIg1J11879 for ; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 13:42:01 -0500 Received: from joy.songbird.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA15024 for ; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 13:37:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from rshockeybox.shockey.us (inetgw.va.neustar.com [209.173.53.225]) by joy.songbird.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA22499 for ; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 10:41:10 -0800 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030131132633.0494c670@popd.ix.netcom.com> X-Sender: richard@shockey.us X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 13:40:59 -0500 To: enum@ietf.org From: Richard Shockey Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Subject: [Enum] TEL URL enumservice registration document Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Enum Discussion List List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , It was recently pointed out to me privately that we have no example in 2916bis of a TEL URL. The question was posed .."are we going to allow termination to non IP endpoints?" The answer to that obviously yes but I believe the authors wanted to keep the examples in 2916bis to a minimum as not to create undue confusion. It does point out, however that we will need for some one to work up a enumservice registration specifically for tel , to accompany the revision of 2806bis http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-antti-rfc2806bis-07.txt as soon as possible, to compliment the existing documents on sip, h323 and as we renew our discussions of the much anticipated, new and improved, tastes great, less filling enumservice compendium. Anyone interested in taking this on? Rudy, Richard , Larry ...you are planning on resubmitting something in advance of SF right? We have 2 hours reserved.. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard Shockey, Senior Manager, Strategic Technology Initiatives NeuStar Inc. 46000 Center Oak Plaza - Sterling, VA 20166 Voice +1 571.434.5651 Cell : +1 314.503.0640, Fax: +1 815.333.1237 or ; <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Jan 31 14:18:35 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA16059 for ; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 14:18:35 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h0VJMCa13626 for enum-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 14:22:12 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0VJLxJ13608; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 14:21:59 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0VJKGJ13571 for ; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 14:20:16 -0500 Received: from sj-msg-core-3.cisco.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA16001 for ; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 14:16:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from chsharp-w2k.cisco.com (rtp-vpn2-430.cisco.com [10.82.241.174]) by sj-msg-core-3.cisco.com (8.12.2/8.12.6) with ESMTP id h0VJJYB7028156; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 11:19:35 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20030131140856.02082da8@dogwood.cisco.com> X-Sender: chsharp@dogwood.cisco.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 14:13:01 -0500 To: David Conrad From: Chip Sharp Subject: Re: [Enum] On the question of DNSSEC and recommended Cc: Richard Shockey , Michael Mealling , enum@ietf.org In-Reply-To: References: <5.2.0.9.2.20030131114501.024a3718@shockey.us> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Enum Discussion List List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Thanks. So the effect of a statement in a national or regional ENUM deployment requirements spec that DNSSEC shall be used would be that no ENUM deployment could occur until the root-servers also support DNSSEC (or some part of it). And of course this is mostly outside the control of any regional or national ENUM-oriented group. To follow this to its absurd conclusion... making such a requirement would be tantamount to stating that such group should just disband until DNSSEC is deployed on root and arpa. ;-) Chip At 01:35 PM 1/31/2003, David Conrad wrote: >On Friday, January 31, 2003, at 08:48 AM, Richard Shockey wrote: >>At 07:15 AM 1/31/2003 -0500, Chip Sharp wrote: >>>Does this recommendation (or a subsequent SHOULD if Michael's proposal >>>is accepted) apply to the Tier 2 zones, CC.e164.arpa., e164.arpa., arpa., .? > >Yes. DNSSEC validates by traversing up from the leaf nodes to a 'security >root', that is, a zone for which you have a trusted key. The intent is >that validating caching servers will ship with "."' >s trusted keys. If 3.0.0.6.1.8.3.0.5.6.1.e164.arpa is signed (which would >be necessary to ensure the NAPTR RRs weren't tampered with after they are >fetched), then each and every parent zone of >3.0.0.6.1.8.3.0.5.6.1.e164.arpa will need to be signed as well. ...snip... _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Jan 31 14:24:30 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA16240 for ; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 14:24:29 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h0VJS7d13814 for enum-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 14:28:07 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0VJS6J13809; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 14:28:06 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0VJRiJ13783 for ; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 14:27:44 -0500 Received: from shell.nominum.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA16188 for ; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 14:23:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from nominum.com (shell.nominum.com [128.177.192.160]) by shell.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 08B40137F0E; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 11:27:08 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 11:27:04 -0800 Subject: Re: [Enum] On the question of DNSSEC and recommended Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v551) Cc: Richard Shockey , Michael Mealling , enum@ietf.org To: Chip Sharp From: David Conrad In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20030131140856.02082da8@dogwood.cisco.com> Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.551) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Enum Discussion List List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Chip, On Friday, January 31, 2003, at 11:13 AM, Chip Sharp wrote: > So the effect of a statement in a national or regional ENUM deployment > requirements spec that DNSSEC shall be used would be that no ENUM > deployment could occur until the root-servers also support DNSSEC (or > some part of it). Not necessarily. As I said, validation occurs up from a leaf node to a security root. The way you avoid having a dependency on the root or .arpa being signed is by publishing the trusted key of (say) the e164.arpa tree (or the .e164.arpa tree). The complexity here is that people who want to validate the data (that is, folks who run caching servers) will need to install that trusted key in their caching server. Rgds, -drc _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Jan 31 15:20:05 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA17644 for ; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 15:20:05 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h0VKNi817079 for enum-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 15:23:44 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0VKNeJ17074; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 15:23:40 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0VKMeJ17017 for ; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 15:22:40 -0500 Received: from joy.songbird.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA17613 for ; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 15:18:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from rshockeybox.shockey.us (inetgw.va.neustar.com [209.173.53.225]) by joy.songbird.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA27353; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 12:21:45 -0800 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030131151512.04966b90@popd.ix.netcom.com> X-Sender: richard@shockey.us X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 15:21:34 -0500 To: Michael Mealling From: Richard Shockey Subject: Re: [Enum] On the question of DNSSEC and recommended Cc: enum@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <1043994076.12624.109.camel@blackdell.neonym.net> References: <5.2.0.9.2.20030130151409.03809e38@popd.ix.netcom.com> <5.2.0.9.2.20030130151409.03809e38@popd.ix.netcom.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Enum Discussion List List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , > >I would personally recommend something slightly stronger. More like >this: > >At the time of publication of this document the DNSSEC standard had not >been finished. Until that time ENUM's use of DNSSEC is merely >recommended. When DNSSEC becomes a published specification, ENUM based >systems SHOULD fully implement DNSSEC. Michael ..by published specification are you saying Draft Standard only vs Proposed ? What level of Standard are you suggesting is acceptable before systems SHOULD fully implement DNSSEC? Folks ..this is important that 2916bis accurately reflect the consensus of the WG and as such can be implemented by various national ENUM administrations in their requirements and recommendations based on our expert opinion. Please add your responsible comments or alternative language ASAP. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard Shockey, Senior Manager, Strategic Technology Initiatives NeuStar Inc. 46000 Center Oak Plaza - Sterling, VA 20166 Voice +1 571.434.5651 Cell : +1 314.503.0640, Fax: +1 815.333.1237 or ; <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Jan 31 15:28:28 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA17916 for ; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 15:28:28 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h0VKW7p17377 for enum-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 15:32:07 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0VKW7J17372; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 15:32:07 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0VKV2J17354 for ; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 15:31:02 -0500 Received: from neonym.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA17877 for ; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 15:26:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from [207.120.28.115] ([::ffff:207.120.28.115]) (AUTH: PLAIN michael, ) by neonym.net with esmtp; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 02:11:22 -0500 Subject: Re: [Enum] On the question of DNSSEC and recommended From: Michael Mealling To: Richard Shockey Cc: enum@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.2.20030131151512.04966b90@popd.ix.netcom.com> References: <5.2.0.9.2.20030130151409.03809e38@popd.ix.netcom.com> <5.2.0.9.2.20030130151409.03809e38@popd.ix.netcom.com> <5.2.0.9.2.20030131151512.04966b90@popd.ix.netcom.com> Organization: Harriman Heavy Industries, Inc. Message-Id: <1044044841.12613.144.camel@blackdell.neonym.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.2.0 Date: 31 Jan 2003 15:27:21 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Enum Discussion List List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Fri, 2003-01-31 at 15:21, Richard Shockey wrote: > > > >I would personally recommend something slightly stronger. More like > >this: > > > >At the time of publication of this document the DNSSEC standard had not > >been finished. Until that time ENUM's use of DNSSEC is merely > >recommended. When DNSSEC becomes a published specification, ENUM based > >systems SHOULD fully implement DNSSEC. > > Michael ..by published specification are you saying Draft Standard only vs > Proposed ? What level of Standard are you suggesting is acceptable before > systems SHOULD fully implement DNSSEC? > Sorry I wasn't clear. Since ENUM is also at proposed and that's where DNSSEC would end up at, it makes sense to me to make it a SHOULD at the time that DNSSEC is published as Proposed. Here's the exact text: At the time of publication of this document the DNSSEC standard had not been finished. Until that time ENUM's use of DNSSEC is merely recommended. When DNSSEC becomes a Proposed Standard, ENUM based systems SHOULD fully implement DNSSEC. -MM _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Jan 31 16:07:41 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA18997 for ; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 16:07:41 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h0VLBLf20065 for enum-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 16:11:21 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0VLBHJ20060; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 16:11:17 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0VLAIJ20016 for ; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 16:10:18 -0500 Received: from shell.nominum.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA18939 for ; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 16:06:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from shell.nominum.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by shell.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C98B9137F0E; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 13:09:39 -0800 (PST) To: Richard Shockey Cc: Michael Mealling , enum@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Enum] On the question of DNSSEC and recommended In-Reply-To: Message from Richard Shockey of "Fri, 31 Jan 2003 15:21:34 EST." <5.2.0.9.2.20030131151512.04966b90@popd.ix.netcom.com> Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 13:09:39 -0800 Message-ID: <30794.1044047379@shell.nominum.com> From: Jim Reid Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Enum Discussion List List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , >>>>> "Richard" == Richard Shockey writes: >> At the time of publication of this document the DNSSEC standard >> had not been finished. Until that time ENUM's use of DNSSEC is >> merely recommended. When DNSSEC becomes a published >> specification, ENUM based systems SHOULD fully implement >> DNSSEC. SHOULD isn't strong enough IMO. Once DNSSEC is deployed operationally, it will be used for ENUM. Zones will (have to) be signed. So even if signing is not mandatory -- I hope it will be mandatory -- resolvers will have to be prepared to deal with SIG, KEY, NXT records or whatever in the answers they get for their lookups. Even if those resolvers don't care about DNSSEC and won't do the validation. They won't be able to control what RRs exist for the names they lookup. I think a SHOULD could be misinterpreted by regulators and implementors. They may well decide it isn't compelling enough to deploy or support DNSSEC once it's ready. Richard> Please add your responsible comments or alternative Richard> language ASAP. Putting aside my quibble over "SHOULD", how about adding after Michael's text above: Resolvers MUST be capable of handling responses containing DNSSEC-related RR types even in cases where the resolver or client application is unwilling or unable to perform DNSSEC validation. By "handling responses" I mean not barfing on DNSSEC RR types, coping with bigger DNS payloads (ie EDNS0 packets), perhaps indicating to the client that no validation was done (or the crypt RRs are there) and so on. Should that level of detail need to be provided? _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Jan 31 17:04:47 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA20224 for ; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 17:04:47 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h0VM8SF23293 for enum-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 17:08:28 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0VM8PJ23288; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 17:08:25 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0VM7eJ23262 for ; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 17:07:40 -0500 Received: from neonym.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA20205 for ; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 17:03:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from [207.120.28.115] ([::ffff:207.120.28.115]) (AUTH: PLAIN michael, ) by neonym.net with esmtp; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 03:47:57 -0500 Subject: Re: [Enum] On the question of DNSSEC and recommended From: Michael Mealling To: Jim Reid Cc: Richard Shockey , enum@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <30794.1044047379@shell.nominum.com> References: <30794.1044047379@shell.nominum.com> Organization: Harriman Heavy Industries, Inc. Message-Id: <1044050635.19891.161.camel@blackdell.neonym.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.2.0 Date: 31 Jan 2003 17:03:56 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Enum Discussion List List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Fri, 2003-01-31 at 16:09, Jim Reid wrote: > >>>>> "Richard" == Richard Shockey writes: > > >> At the time of publication of this document the DNSSEC standard > >> had not been finished. Until that time ENUM's use of DNSSEC is > >> merely recommended. When DNSSEC becomes a published > >> specification, ENUM based systems SHOULD fully implement > >> DNSSEC. > > SHOULD isn't strong enough IMO. Once DNSSEC is deployed operationally, > it will be used for ENUM. Zones will (have to) be signed. So even if > signing is not mandatory -- I hope it will be mandatory -- resolvers > will have to be prepared to deal with SIG, KEY, NXT records or > whatever in the answers they get for their lookups. Even if those > resolvers don't care about DNSSEC and won't do the validation. They > won't be able to control what RRs exist for the names they lookup. > > I think a SHOULD could be misinterpreted by regulators and > implementors. They may well decide it isn't compelling enough to > deploy or support DNSSEC once it's ready. > > Richard> Please add your responsible comments or alternative > Richard> language ASAP. > > Putting aside my quibble over "SHOULD", how about adding after > Michael's text above: > Resolvers MUST be capable of handling responses containing > DNSSEC-related RR types even in cases where the resolver or > client application is unwilling or unable to perform > DNSSEC validation. > > By "handling responses" I mean not barfing on DNSSEC RR types, coping > with bigger DNS payloads (ie EDNS0 packets), perhaps indicating to the > client that no validation was done (or the crypt RRs are there) and so > on. Should that level of detail need to be provided? While we might quibble over SHOULD vs MUST at this point for deployment reasons, I have to agree with Jim on this one. I would also support making DNSSEC mandatory when ENUM moves to Draft Standard. So I support Jim's proposed changes plus mine.... -MM _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Jan 31 17:18:31 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA20525 for ; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 17:18:31 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h0VMMCp23687 for enum-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 17:22:12 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0VMMAJ23682; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 17:22:10 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0VML6J23652 for ; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 17:21:06 -0500 Received: from joy.songbird.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA20509 for ; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 17:16:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from rshockeybox.shockey.us (inetgw.va.neustar.com [209.173.53.225]) by joy.songbird.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA00520; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 14:20:08 -0800 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030131171354.04b20e80@shockey.us> X-Sender: richard@shockey.us X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 17:19:21 -0500 To: Michael Mealling , Jim Reid From: Richard Shockey Subject: Re: [Enum] On the question of DNSSEC and recommended Cc: enum@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <1044050635.19891.161.camel@blackdell.neonym.net> References: <30794.1044047379@shell.nominum.com> <30794.1044047379@shell.nominum.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Enum Discussion List List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , > > > > > By "handling responses" I mean not barfing on DNSSEC RR types, coping > > with bigger DNS payloads (ie EDNS0 packets), perhaps indicating to the > > client that no validation was done (or the crypt RRs are there) and so > > on. Should that level of detail need to be provided? > >While we might quibble over SHOULD vs MUST at this point for deployment >reasons, I have to agree with Jim on this one. I would also support >making DNSSEC mandatory when ENUM moves to Draft Standard. > >So I support Jim's proposed changes plus mine.... text would be useful for folks to review ... but we certainly need more information and reporting from the various DNSSEC workshops if some of us are going to give informed opinions to various national ENUM adminstrations. this is all very a very useful record .. >-MM >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard Shockey, Senior Manager, Strategic Technology Initiatives NeuStar Inc. 46000 Center Oak Plaza - Sterling, VA 20166 Voice +1 571.434.5651 Cell : +1 314.503.0640, Fax: +1 815.333.1237 or ; <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Jan 31 17:57:37 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA21490 for ; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 17:57:37 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h0VN1J725489 for enum-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 18:01:19 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0VN1IJ25484; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 18:01:18 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0VN0UJ25443 for ; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 18:00:30 -0500 Received: from neonym.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA21474 for ; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 17:56:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from [207.120.28.115] ([::ffff:207.120.28.115]) (AUTH: PLAIN michael, ) by neonym.net with esmtp; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 04:40:45 -0500 Subject: Re: [Enum] On the question of DNSSEC and recommended From: Michael Mealling To: Richard Shockey Cc: Jim Reid , enum@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.2.20030131171354.04b20e80@shockey.us> References: <30794.1044047379@shell.nominum.com> <30794.1044047379@shell.nominum.com> <5.2.0.9.2.20030131171354.04b20e80@shockey.us> Organization: Harriman Heavy Industries, Inc. Message-Id: <1044053805.12613.175.camel@blackdell.neonym.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.2.0 Date: 31 Jan 2003 17:56:45 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Enum Discussion List List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Fri, 2003-01-31 at 17:19, Richard Shockey wrote: > > > > > > > > By "handling responses" I mean not barfing on DNSSEC RR types, coping > > > with bigger DNS payloads (ie EDNS0 packets), perhaps indicating to the > > > client that no validation was done (or the crypt RRs are there) and so > > > on. Should that level of detail need to be provided? > > > >While we might quibble over SHOULD vs MUST at this point for deployment > >reasons, I have to agree with Jim on this one. I would also support > >making DNSSEC mandatory when ENUM moves to Draft Standard. > > > >So I support Jim's proposed changes plus mine.... > > text would be useful for folks to review ... Well, we both suggested text but I guess it should be more explicit. I think we are recommending that the first paragraph of the Security Considerations be changed from this: As this system is built on top of DNS, one can not be sure that the information one gets back from DNS is more secure than any DNS query. To solve that, the use of DNSSEC [7] for securing and verifying zones is to be recommended. to this: As this system is built on top of DNS, one can not be sure that the information one gets back from DNS is more secure than any other DNS query. Being the only extant mechanism for securing DNS responses, DNSSEC is the obvious solution for ensuring the security of ENUM responses. However, at the time of publication of this document the DNSSEC standard has not been finished. Until that time ENUM's use of DNSSEC is merely recommended. Once DNSSEC is published as a Proposed Standard, ENUM based systems SHOULD fully implement DNSSEC. At the point at which DNSSEC becomes a Draft Standard, it MUST be implemented by ENUM compliant systems. Additionally, due to the fact that some parts of the ENUM system may be using DNSSEC before others, resolvers MUST be capable of handling responses containing DNSSEC-related RR types even in cases where the resolver or client application is unwilling or unable to perform DNSSEC validation. -MM _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Jan 31 18:39:04 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA22433 for ; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 18:39:04 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h0VNgmg27614 for enum-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 18:42:48 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0VNggJ27608; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 18:42:42 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0VNfvJ27559 for ; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 18:41:57 -0500 Received: from shell.nominum.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA22356 for ; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 18:37:43 -0500 (EST) Received: from shell.nominum.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by shell.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF378137F0E; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 15:41:16 -0800 (PST) To: Michael Mealling Cc: Richard Shockey , enum@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Enum] On the question of DNSSEC and recommended In-Reply-To: Message from Michael Mealling of "31 Jan 2003 17:56:45 EST." <1044053805.12613.175.camel@blackdell.neonym.net> Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 15:41:16 -0800 Message-ID: <33990.1044056476@shell.nominum.com> From: Jim Reid Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Enum Discussion List List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , I agree with Michael's revised text. _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Jan 31 19:15:39 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA23014 for ; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 19:15:39 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h110JNI28908 for enum-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 19:19:23 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h110JMJ28902; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 19:19:22 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h110IsJ28885 for ; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 19:18:54 -0500 Received: from tisch.mail.mindspring.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA22988 for ; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 19:14:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from dialup-64.156.78.213.dial1.dallas1.level3.net ([64.156.78.213] helo=ix.netcom.com) by tisch.mail.mindspring.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 18elM5-0000Ha-00; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 19:17:57 -0500 Message-ID: <3E3B2EA3.7C72B26D@ix.netcom.com> Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 18:19:16 -0800 From: Jeff Williams Organization: INEGroup Spokesman X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.08 [en] (Win95; U; 16bit) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Chip Sharp CC: David Conrad , Richard Shockey , Michael Mealling , enum@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Enum] On the question of DNSSEC and recommended References: <5.2.0.9.2.20030131114501.024a3718@shockey.us> <5.1.0.14.2.20030131140856.02082da8@dogwood.cisco.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Enum Discussion List List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Chip and all, Nice satirical response. Well deserved as well! >;) But seriously, with independent commercial DNSSEC development underway and expanding, despite David's disagreement to the contrary, moving forward with DNSSEC implementation for ENUM is quite viable and perhaps preferred. Waiting on the IETF to move forward in an earnest enough pace is really not being perceived adequate. Chip Sharp wrote: > Thanks. > So the effect of a statement in a national or regional ENUM deployment > requirements spec that DNSSEC shall be used would be that no ENUM > deployment could occur until the root-servers also support DNSSEC (or some > part of it). > And of course this is mostly outside the control of any regional or > national ENUM-oriented group. > To follow this to its absurd conclusion... making such a requirement would > be tantamount to stating that such group should just disband until DNSSEC > is deployed on root and arpa. ;-) > > Chip > > At 01:35 PM 1/31/2003, David Conrad wrote: > >On Friday, January 31, 2003, at 08:48 AM, Richard Shockey wrote: > >>At 07:15 AM 1/31/2003 -0500, Chip Sharp wrote: > >>>Does this recommendation (or a subsequent SHOULD if Michael's proposal > >>>is accepted) apply to the Tier 2 zones, CC.e164.arpa., e164.arpa., arpa., .? > > > >Yes. DNSSEC validates by traversing up from the leaf nodes to a 'security > >root', that is, a zone for which you have a trusted key. The intent is > >that validating caching servers will ship with "."' > >s trusted keys. If 3.0.0.6.1.8.3.0.5.6.1.e164.arpa is signed (which would > >be necessary to ensure the NAPTR RRs weren't tampered with after they are > >fetched), then each and every parent zone of > >3.0.0.6.1.8.3.0.5.6.1.e164.arpa will need to be signed as well. > ...snip... > > _______________________________________________ > enum mailing list > enum@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum Regards, -- Jeffrey A. Williams Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 129k members/stakeholders strong!) ================================================================ CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC. E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 214-244-3801 _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Jan 31 19:23:22 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA23225 for ; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 19:23:22 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h110R5t29107 for enum-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 19:27:05 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h110R4J29102; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 19:27:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h110Q8J29080 for ; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 19:26:08 -0500 Received: from rsys001a.roke.co.uk (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA23215 for ; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 19:21:54 -0500 (EST) Received: by rsys001a.roke.co.uk with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Sat, 1 Feb 2003 00:25:26 -0000 Received: from percy.roke.co.uk ([193.118.192.111]) by rsys002a.roke.co.uk with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id CN3DAJW3; Sat, 1 Feb 2003 00:25:13 -0000 From: "Conroy, Lawrence (SMTP)" To: Richard Shockey , enum@ietf.org Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: lwc@127.0.0.1 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.2.20030131132633.0494c670@popd.ix.netcom.com> References: <5.2.0.9.2.20030131132633.0494c670@popd.ix.netcom.com> Date: Sat, 1 Feb 2003 00:25:07 +0000 Subject: Re: [Enum] TEL URL enumservice registration document Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Enum Discussion List List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , At 1:40 pm -0500 31/1/03, Richard Shockey wrote: >It was recently pointed out to me privately that we have no example >in 2916bis of a TEL URL. The question was posed .."are we going to >allow termination to non IP endpoints?" > >The answer to that obviously yes but I believe the authors wanted to >keep the examples in 2916bis to a minimum as not to create undue >confusion. > >It does point out, however that we will need for some one to work up >a enumservice registration specifically for tel , to accompany the >revision of 2806bis > >http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-antti-rfc2806bis-07.txt > > as soon as possible, to compliment the existing documents on sip, >h323 and as we renew our discussions of the much anticipated, new >and improved, tastes great, less filling enumservice compendium. > >Anyone interested in taking this on? > >Rudy, Richard , Larry ...you are planning on resubmitting something >in advance of SF right? > >We have 2 hours reserved.. > Hi Rich, from prior experience, it might take less :) Short answer - yes. Slightly longer answer - we learnt that less is more, so it/they will be shorter and (hopefully) simpler. BTW, our goal is NOT to produce an enumservice registration specifically for TEL URI scheme (that would be too long, and would almost by definition be wrong/incomplete/ exclude any other uses of the phone network/confuse folk/be rejected/...) but instead to use it in some specific enumservices - I suspect you can guess/read what we're doing this side of the pond. all the best, Lawrence -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Roke Manor Research : This information is provided "as is" and is not : intended to create any contractual or legal : relationship. _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Jan 31 19:35:24 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA23392 for ; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 19:35:24 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h110d7m30018 for enum-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 19:39:07 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h110d7J30013; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 19:39:07 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h110abJ29315 for ; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 19:36:37 -0500 Received: from rsys001a.roke.co.uk (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA23337 for ; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 19:32:23 -0500 (EST) Received: by rsys001a.roke.co.uk with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Sat, 1 Feb 2003 00:35:56 -0000 Received: from percy.roke.co.uk ([193.118.192.111]) by rsys002a.roke.co.uk with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id CN3DAJWR; Sat, 1 Feb 2003 00:35:48 -0000 From: "Conroy, Lawrence (SMTP)" To: Jim Reid , Michael Mealling Cc: Richard Shockey , enum@ietf.org Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: lwc@127.0.0.1 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <33990.1044056476@shell.nominum.com> References: <33990.1044056476@shell.nominum.com> Date: Sat, 1 Feb 2003 00:35:41 +0000 Subject: Re: [Enum] On the question of DNSSEC and recommended Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Enum Discussion List List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , At 3:41 pm -0800 31/1/03, Jim Reid wrote: >I agree with Michael's revised text. Hi Folks, So...If I understand the comments so far, the aim is to require all resolvers (and I assume thus *all* ENUM Clients) to handle Truncated messages they'll get from their ENUM queries in a DNSSEC-ured system and be forced to send EDNS extended length queries to get the RRs from an ENUM zone, regardless of whether or not they validate. Is this correct? If so, this is required for *ALL* ENUM Clients, or am I missing something? all the best, Lawrence -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Roke Manor Research : This information is provided "as is" and is not : intended to create any contractual or legal : relationship. _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum