From mailman-owner@ietf.org Thu Feb 1 05:07:07 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id FAA22732 for ; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 05:07:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id FAA05109 for ; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 05:07:07 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 05:07:07 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200102011007.FAA05109@optimus.ietf.org> From: mailman-owner@ietf.org Subject: ietf.org mailing list memberships reminder To: enum-web-archive@ns.ietf.org X-No-Archive: yes Precedence: bulk X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Diffserv Discussion List This is a reminder, sent out once a month, about your ietf.org mailing list memberships. It includes your subscription info and how to use it to change it or unsubscribe from a list. You can visit the URLs to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. In addition to the URL interfaces, you can also use email to make such changes. For more info, send a message to the '-request' address of the list (for example, enum-request@ietf.org) containing just the word 'help' in the message body, and an email message will be sent to you with instructions. If you have questions, problems, comments, etc, send them to mailman-owner@ietf.org. Thanks! Passwords for enum-web-archive@www.ietf.org: List Password // URL ---- -------- enum@ietf.org i7hy http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/options/enum/enum-web-archive@www.ietf.org From enum-admin@ietf.org Thu Feb 1 10:33:43 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id KAA29303 for ; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 10:33:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id KAA26317; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 10:31:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id KAA26288 for ; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 10:31:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from hvmta03-stg.us.psimail.psi.net (hvmta03-ext.us.psimail.psi.net [38.202.36.27]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id KAA29273 for ; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 10:31:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from RWALTER ([64.6.163.33]) by hvmta03-stg.us.psimail.psi.net (InterMail v4.01.01.00 201-229-111) with SMTP id <20010201153046.ZQBM1236.hvmta03-stg@RWALTER> for ; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 10:30:47 -0500 Reply-To: From: "Robert H. Walter" To: Subject: RE: [Enum] Querying Multiple ENUM Domains (e.g. e164.arpa, e.164.com, etc.) Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 10:30:45 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <5.0.2.1.2.20010131092856.03423070@127.0.0.1> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Enum Discussion List X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit At 09:34 AM 1/31/2001 -0500, Richard Shockey wrote: > At 05:26 PM 1/30/2001 -0500, Michael Mealling wrote: > >On Tue, Jan 30, 2001 at 04:45:51PM -0500, Robert H. Walter wrote: > > > At 04:16 PM 1/22/2001 -0500, Richard Shockey wrote: > > > > I wish I could rewrite the DNS to allow for alternative resolution > > > > models..but if some one could describe how this could be done I'd be > > > > delighted to listen.. > > > > > > NetNumber faced this exact challenge when we deployed our > > > "commercial" ENUM service under the domain "e164.com" last year. > > > The vendors and customers we were contacting all liked the idea of > > > moving forward with ENUM by utilizing our commercial implementation > > > but they didn't want to be trapped into a single ENUM domain. We > > > addressed this requirement by building an ENUM resolver that can be > > > configured to simultaneously query multiple ENUM domains. > > That is all well and good but the vast majority 99.99 % of resolvers do > not have that capability and never will. To the best of my knowledge only one publically available ENUM resolver is in existance and it has the capability to simultaneously query multiple ENUM domains. It's reasonable to assume that other ENUM resolvers will be developed that will support this simple feature. > > > > > 2. ENUM requires a special DNS resolver to correctly process the > > > NAPTR records per RFC2915 and it is a simple matter to > > > incorporate the ability to simultaneously query multiple ENUM > > > domains. > > NO it is NOT. > > > It is not a special DNS resolver... the standard BIND 9 libraries can > easily process NAPTR records. My mistake... I should have said "ENUM requires a special ENUM resolver to correctly process the NAPTR records...". I'll attempt to be more precise in the future. I don't believe that BIND 9 is currently shipping a released client resolver library, however, the BIND 8 libraries can retrieve NAPTR records. It is important to note that the BIND resolver library does not process NAPTR records in support of ENUM in any way. This functionality must be built into an ENUM resolver that uses a dns resolver library that supports NAPTR. There are several other Java DNS resolver client SDK's that support NAPTR including JNDI (Javasoft) and dnsjava (www.xbill.org/dnsjava). Regards, Bob ====================================================================== Robert H. Walter - CTO, VP Development Voice: 617.828.6443 NetNumber.com, Inc. Fax: 978.454.5044 650 Suffolk Street Email: rwalter@netnumber.com Lowell, MA 01854 _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From enum-admin@ietf.org Thu Feb 1 14:28:07 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id OAA09192 for ; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 14:28:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA00569; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 14:27:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA00540 for ; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 14:27:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from dnspri.npac.com (firewall-user@dnspri.npac.com [208.143.33.66]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id OAA09157 for ; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 14:27:16 -0500 (EST) Received: by dnspri.npac.com; id NAA27911; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 13:27:15 -0600 (CST) Received: from unknown(192.168.20.162) by dnspri.npac.com via smap (V5.0) id xma027623; Thu, 1 Feb 01 13:26:47 -0600 Message-Id: <5.0.2.1.2.20010201142458.02986220@127.0.0.1> X-Sender: rshockey@127.0.0.1 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.0.2 Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2001 14:28:19 -0500 To: , From: Richard Shockey Subject: RE: [Enum] Querying Multiple ENUM Domains (e.g. e164.arpa, e.164.com, etc.) In-Reply-To: References: <5.0.2.1.2.20010131092856.03423070@127.0.0.1> 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-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Enum Discussion List X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org A > > That is all well and good but the vast majority 99.99 % of resolvers do > > not have that capability and never will. > >To the best of my knowledge only one publically available ENUM resolver >is in existance and it has the capability to simultaneously query multiple >ENUM domains. It's reasonable to assume that other ENUM resolvers will be >developed that will support this simple feature. I think it is totally unreasonable to assume such a thing in the context of Internet Standards. We're dealing here with Internet Standards ...not private implementations. _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From enum-admin@ietf.org Thu Feb 1 18:29:31 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id SAA14429 for ; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 18:29:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id SAA04233; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 18:27:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id SAA04204 for ; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 18:27:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from mtiwmhc27.worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc27.worldnet.att.net [204.127.131.52]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id SAA14338 for ; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 18:27:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from worldnet ([12.88.173.48]) by mtiwmhc27.worldnet.att.net (InterMail vM.4.01.03.10 201-229-121-110) with SMTP id <20010201232637.ZFLC485.mtiwmhc27.worldnet.att.net@worldnet>; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 23:26:37 +0000 From: "Judith Oppenheimer" To: , Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 18:21:33 -0500 Message-ID: <011f01c08ca6$109601e0$30ab580c@att.net.icbtollfree.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Enum] number control question Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Enum Discussion List X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Perhaps this is a U.S.-centric question? Under what circumstances could a Tier 1 ENUM company be envisioned to control* and pre-load mass-scale** numbering resources? A Tier 2 company ... ? tia - Judith *whether "subscriber" control as a vendor or service company, or regulatory control as an "enforcer" **like ALL of a given NXX range or more --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- Judith Oppenheimer 212 684-7210, 1 800 The Expert Publisher, http://ICBTollFreeNews.com "An important source of inside information," says InfoWorld; "superb", "invaluable", "critically intelligent", "exceedingly useful", report ICB Premium Subscribers. ENTER HERE: http://www.roibot.com/w.cgi?R1764_sig --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From enum-admin@ietf.org Fri Feb 2 11:33:39 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id LAA14427 for ; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 11:33:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA21575; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 11:32:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA21545 for ; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 11:32:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from dnspri.npac.com (firewall-user@dnspri.npac.com [208.143.33.66]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id LAA14321 for ; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 11:32:17 -0500 (EST) Received: by dnspri.npac.com; id KAA07015; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 10:32:18 -0600 (CST) Received: from unknown(192.168.20.162) by dnspri.npac.com via smap (V5.0) id xmad06938; Fri, 2 Feb 01 10:32:01 -0600 Message-Id: <5.0.2.1.2.20010202105827.0272cdf0@127.0.0.1> X-Sender: rshockey@127.0.0.1 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.0.2 Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2001 11:13:43 -0500 To: "Judith Oppenheimer" , From: Richard Shockey Subject: Re: [ENUM] Report on ITU ENUM Workshop - January 17, 2001 In-Reply-To: <006b01c08bf5$0556d900$59ac580c@att.net.icbtollfree.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-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Enum Discussion List X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org At 08:30 PM 1/31/2001 -0500, Judith Oppenheimer wrote: >Richard, what are you talking about? > >I haven't seen any alternate ENUM proposals that exclude subscriber >verification. The FCC information on number portability is interesting and >as an 800 consultant, something I'm infinitely familiar with. Well I have confidence that a company like NetNumbers would verify subscriber data ...but I have zero confidence that others will do the same....thats the problem with anarchy here. Anarchy probably cannot be avoided in this space since there is no functional way anyone can stop anyone from doing anything in a domain ..but like the broken record I must sound like some time ..if call connections are to be completed then there has to be consistency in the response to the resolver query hence the need for a single tree...and a tree that carriers and subscribers can rely on. Caveat Emptor has no place in communications. >But its a red herring to suggest that any approach outside of .arpa would >omit subscriber verification, or interfere with legitimate authorized >portability. Well if you accept the technically absurd notion that resolution can occur in _any_ domain (.com net org .uk etc) what is the constraint on these multiple trees? Legal Regulatory ...again Tony argues ..let the free market decide.. well it will decide ...to do nothing and US leadership in IP telephony could be put at risk and the vast benefits of 800 call termination on IP networks could be lost. > > guarantees that hijacking and other forms of consumer fraud would > > proliferate. > > > RFC 2916 addresses the desire of consumers to be able to use their > > telephone numbers in the consistent and reliable manner for > > ALL forms of > > communications as they do now on the PSTN with the equal > > reliability of results. > >Let's not fool ourselves. Under today's PSTN telephony in the U.S., >slamming by telephone companies is at an all-time high, and local number >portability bears little resemblance to the functional portability that >toll free number subscribers enjoy. I agree LNP and 800 are different beasts but the core principal is the same ... TN's and 800 are forms of identity for the purpose of communication. >That said, toll free number subscribers, who bear the bulk of number >theft - hijacking - due to the value of toll free's, have recourse because >regulations specify that the end user subscriber *controls* the toll free >number and service. Yes thank you ... which is why I argue that there needs to be *controls* here .. >The key to addressing hijacking, is to insure that end user subscribers >retain control over their telephone numbers and service, and insure as >well, that they initiate or sign off on number entry into any ENUM system. I'm in complete agreement with you here ... but how do you envision enforcing this? >As for consumer fraud, that's largely perpetrated by the PSTN companies >themselves. Will PSTN-controlled ENUM provide ways to further exploit >that abuse? I don't know, but I have my concerns. Well I don't believe the PSTN will control ENUM ..only to the extent that we have to validate a TN as active and delete NAPTR records when the PSTN service is disconnected. You do have legitimate concerns .and I share nearly all of them. >Judith > >--------------------------------------------------------------------------- >---------- >Judith Oppenheimer >212 684-7210, 1 800 The Expert >Publisher, http://ICBTollFreeNews.com >"An important source of inside information," says InfoWorld; >"superb", "invaluable", "critically intelligent", "exceedingly >useful", report ICB Premium Subscribers. >ENTER HERE: http://www.roibot.com/w.cgi?R1764_sig >--------------------------------------------------------------------------- >---------- > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: ENUM List for EB/CIP/MA > > [mailto:ENUM@ALMSNTSA.LMLIST.STATE.GOV]On > > Behalf Of Richard Shockey > > Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2001 10:29 AM > > To: ENUM@ALMSNTSA.LMLIST.STATE.GOV > > Subject: Re: [ENUM] Report on ITU ENUM Workshop - January 17, 2001 > > > > > > At 06:31 PM 1/29/2001 -0500, A.M.Rutkowski wrote: > > >Hi David, > > > > > >>Is in-addr.arpa subject to anti-trust protection or extensive > > >>regulation? Is .COM? > > > > > >Yes, indeed. > > > > > >>The rub is in "assures uniqueness". > > > > > >It's all relative, and different implementations have > > >different cost-benefit tradeoffs. Generally, less > > >government and more open competition have proven > > >the better direction. I'm confident the industry > > >can work this out. > > > > > >e164.arpa might as well be named regulate_me.arpa. > > > > And you accuse me of rhetoric... > > > > Why don't you attempt to produce a reasoned technical > > argument instead of > > political platitudes. > > > > The core issue now and has been that if Internet Telephony > > devices are to > > consistently and reliable connect with each other there is a > > need for a > > single clear DNS tree to retrieve NAPTR records from. > > > > In addition to that there must be clear and consistent guidelines to > > prevent people from registering telephone numbers that do not > > belong to > > them. Your non intervention proposal ( essentially anarchy as > > I see it) > > guarantees that hijacking and other forms of consumer fraud would > > proliferate..and a key form of identity on the internet would > > be rendered > > useless...and with it the potential for an entire multi-billion dollar > > industry to grow. > > > > RFC 2916 addresses the desire of consumers to be able to use their > > telephone numbers in the consistent and reliable manner for > > ALL forms of > > communications as they do now on the PSTN with the equal > > reliability of > > results. > > > > The E.164 space is regulated and controlled in order to > > produce consistency > > in results. You pick up the phone and dial and it works. the > > PSTN ..like > > the Internet cannot search multiple databases to discover reliable end > > point information. > > > > Internet Telephony is no different in that sense from PSTN Telephony. > > > > I'd like to share some insights into this problem that the > > FCC addressed in > > its First Report and Rule on Number Portability. > > > > While not specific to the problem at hand the FCC noted the > > importance of > > telephone numbers in creating competitive markets for > > telecommunications > > services. > > > > I submit that what we are dealing with here is similar in many ways. > > > > a. People will not use Internet Telephony IN A BIG WAY if > > they cannot use > > their telephone numbers. > > > > b. If the resolution of those numbers into the DNS cannot create > > technically consistent results they will be essentially useless. > > > > c. Therefore if it is the desire of Telecom Equipment > > Manufactures, ISP's, > > Government and other possible new entrants into Internet Telephony to > > create TRULY competitive markets for communications services using > > telephone numbers as names then implementation of RFC2916 is > > a necessity. > > > > And ....I might add clearly is within the spirit of the 1996 > > Telecommunications Act. > > > > ####### > > > > From the FCC Order and Report..... > > 29. We note that several studies described in the record > > demonstrate the reluctance of both business and residential > > customers to switch carriers if they must change numbers. For > > example, MCI has stated that, based on a nationwide Gallup survey, > > 83 percent of business customers and 80 percent of residential > > customers would be unlikely to change local service providers if they > > had to change their telephone numbers. Time Warner Holdings > > states that consumers are 40 percent less likely to change service > > providers if a number change is required. Citizens Utilities notes > > that approximately 85 percent of the discussions that its subsidiary, > > ELI, has with potential customers about switching providers end > > when those potential customers learn that they must change their > > telephone numbers. The study commissioned by Pacific Bell > > concludes that, without portability, new entrants would be forced to > > discount their local exchange service and other competing offerings > > by at least 12 percent below the incumbent LECs' prices in order to > > induce customers to switch carriers due to customers' resistance to > > changing numbers. > > > > 30. The ability of end users to retain their telephone numbers > > when changing service providers gives customers flexibility in the > > quality, price, and variety of telecommunications services they can > > choose to purchase. Number portability promotes competition > > between telecommunications service providers by, among other > > things, allowing customers to respond to price and service changes > > without changing their telephone numbers. The resulting > > competition will benefit all users of telecommunications services. > > Indeed, competition should foster lower local telephone prices and, > > consequently, stimulate demand for telecommunications services > > and increase economic growth. > > > > 31. Conversely, the record demonstrates that a lack of > > number portability likely would deter entry by competitive providers > > of local service because of the value customers place on retaining > > their telephone numbers. Business customers, in particular, may > > be reluctant to incur the administrative, marketing, and goodwill > > costs associated with changing telephone numbers. As indicated > > above, several studies show that customers are reluctant to switch > > carriers if they are required to change telephone numbers. To the > > extent that customers are reluctant to change service providers due > > to the absence of number portability, demand for services provided > > by new entrants will be depressed. This could well discourage entry > > by new service providers and thereby frustrate the pro-competitive > > goals of the 1996 Act. > > > > > > > > > > >--tony > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > Richard Shockey, Senior Technical Industry Liaison > > NeuStar Inc. > > 1120 Vermont Avenue N.W., Suite 550, Washington DC. 20005 > > Voice: 202.533.2811, Cell : 314.503.0640, Fax: 815.333.1237 > > or > > > > > > <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< > > >_______________________________________________ >enum mailing list >enum@ietf.org >http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard Shockey, Senior Technical Industry Liaison NeuStar Inc. 1120 Vermont Avenue N.W., Suite 550, Washington DC. 20005 Voice: 202.533.2811, Cell : 314.503.0640, Fax: 815.333.1237 or <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From enum-admin@ietf.org Fri Feb 2 12:33:32 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id MAA17264 for ; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 12:33:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA22540; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 12:32:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA22509 for ; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 12:32:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from mtiwmhc25.worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc25.worldnet.att.net [204.127.131.50]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id MAA17235 for ; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 12:32:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from worldnet ([12.88.171.71]) by mtiwmhc25.worldnet.att.net (InterMail vM.4.01.03.10 201-229-121-110) with SMTP id <20010202173207.SMX29713.mtiwmhc25.worldnet.att.net@worldnet>; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 17:32:07 +0000 From: "Judith Oppenheimer" To: , Subject: RE: [ENUM] Report on ITU ENUM Workshop - January 17, 2001 Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 12:21:42 -0500 Message-ID: <00d601c08d3d$cb947700$47ab580c@att.net.icbtollfree.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-reply-to: <5.0.2.1.2.20010202105827.0272cdf0@127.0.0.1> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Enum Discussion List X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Richard Shockey wrote: > Yes thank you ... which is why I argue that there needs to be > *controls* here .. > > >The key to addressing hijacking, is to insure that end user subscribers > >retain control over their telephone numbers and service, and insure as > >well, that they initiate or sign off on number entry into any ENUM system. > > I'm in complete agreement with you here ... but how do you envision > enforcing this? First of all, control lies in the specification that the end user subscriber control their telephone numbers and service. As North American Numbering Plan Administrator and Local Number Portability Administrator etc., NeuStar could introduce an issue at INC to include this specification into the applicable Guideline Language. As chair of ENUM, you could then use your considerable influence to suggest that non-U.S. numbering administrators do the same. Or optimally, introduce it as an ITU specification for all E.164 numbers. After which enforcement is routine. When a subscriber's rights are infringed by any entity: telephone carrier, end user competitor, enhanced services vendor, or ENUM registrar, whether due to larceny or simple negligence, the subscriber has the normal channels of recourse. ICB retrieves lost and stolen 800 numbers all the time. Its a significant portion of our consulting business. Judith --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- Judith Oppenheimer 212 684-7210, 1 800 The Expert Publisher, http://ICBTollFreeNews.com "An important source of inside information," says InfoWorld; "superb", "invaluable", "critically intelligent", "exceedingly useful", report ICB Premium Subscribers. ENTER HERE: http://www.roibot.com/w.cgi?R1764_sig --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- > > Well I have confidence that a company like NetNumbers would verify > subscriber data ...but I have zero confidence that others will do the > same....thats the problem with anarchy here. > > Anarchy probably cannot be avoided in this space since there is no > functional way anyone can stop anyone from doing anything in > a domain ..but > like the broken record I must sound like some time ..if call > connections > are to be completed then there has to be consistency in the > response to the > resolver query hence the need for a single tree...and a tree > that carriers > and subscribers can rely on. Caveat Emptor has no place in > communications. > > >But its a red herring to suggest that any approach outside > of .arpa would > >omit subscriber verification, or interfere with legitimate authorized > >portability. > > Well if you accept the technically absurd notion that > resolution can occur > in _any_ domain (.com net org .uk etc) what is the constraint > on these > multiple trees? Legal Regulatory ...again Tony argues ..let > the free market > decide.. well it will decide ...to do nothing and US leadership in IP > telephony could be put at risk and the vast benefits of 800 call > termination on IP networks could be lost. > > > > > > > guarantees that hijacking and other forms of consumer fraud would > > > proliferate. > > > > > RFC 2916 addresses the desire of consumers to be able to use their > > > telephone numbers in the consistent and reliable manner for > > > ALL forms of > > > communications as they do now on the PSTN with the equal > > > reliability of results. > > > >Let's not fool ourselves. Under today's PSTN telephony in the U.S., > >slamming by telephone companies is at an all-time high, and > local number > >portability bears little resemblance to the functional > portability that > >toll free number subscribers enjoy. > > I agree LNP and 800 are different beasts but the core > principal is the same > ... TN's and 800 are forms of identity for the purpose of > communication. > > > >That said, toll free number subscribers, who bear the bulk of number > >theft - hijacking - due to the value of toll free's, have > recourse because > >regulations specify that the end user subscriber *controls* > the toll free > >number and service. > > Yes thank you ... which is why I argue that there needs to be > *controls* > here .. > > > >The key to addressing hijacking, is to insure that end user > subscribers > >retain control over their telephone numbers and service, and > insure as > >well, that they initiate or sign off on number entry into > any ENUM system. > > I'm in complete agreement with you here ... but how do you envision > enforcing this? > > > >As for consumer fraud, that's largely perpetrated by the > PSTN companies > >themselves. Will PSTN-controlled ENUM provide ways to > further exploit > >that abuse? I don't know, but I have my concerns. > > Well I don't believe the PSTN will control ENUM ..only to the > extent that > we have to validate a TN as active and delete NAPTR records > when the PSTN > service is disconnected. > > You do have legitimate concerns .and I share nearly all of them. > > > >Judith > > > >------------------------------------------------------------- > -------------- > >---------- > >Judith Oppenheimer > >212 684-7210, 1 800 The Expert > >Publisher, http://ICBTollFreeNews.com > >"An important source of inside information," says InfoWorld; > >"superb", "invaluable", "critically intelligent", "exceedingly > >useful", report ICB Premium Subscribers. > >ENTER HERE: http://www.roibot.com/w.cgi?R1764_sig > >------------------------------------------------------------- > -------------- > >---------- > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: ENUM List for EB/CIP/MA > > > [mailto:ENUM@ALMSNTSA.LMLIST.STATE.GOV]On > > > Behalf Of Richard Shockey > > > Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2001 10:29 AM > > > To: ENUM@ALMSNTSA.LMLIST.STATE.GOV > > > Subject: Re: [ENUM] Report on ITU ENUM Workshop - January 17, 2001 > > > > > > > > > At 06:31 PM 1/29/2001 -0500, A.M.Rutkowski wrote: > > > >Hi David, > > > > > > > >>Is in-addr.arpa subject to anti-trust protection or extensive > > > >>regulation? Is .COM? > > > > > > > >Yes, indeed. > > > > > > > >>The rub is in "assures uniqueness". > > > > > > > >It's all relative, and different implementations have > > > >different cost-benefit tradeoffs. Generally, less > > > >government and more open competition have proven > > > >the better direction. I'm confident the industry > > > >can work this out. > > > > > > > >e164.arpa might as well be named regulate_me.arpa. > > > > > > And you accuse me of rhetoric... > > > > > > Why don't you attempt to produce a reasoned technical > > > argument instead of > > > political platitudes. > > > > > > The core issue now and has been that if Internet Telephony > > > devices are to > > > consistently and reliable connect with each other there is a > > > need for a > > > single clear DNS tree to retrieve NAPTR records from. > > > > > > In addition to that there must be clear and consistent > guidelines to > > > prevent people from registering telephone numbers that do not > > > belong to > > > them. Your non intervention proposal ( essentially anarchy as > > > I see it) > > > guarantees that hijacking and other forms of consumer fraud would > > > proliferate..and a key form of identity on the internet would > > > be rendered > > > useless...and with it the potential for an entire > multi-billion dollar > > > industry to grow. > > > > > > RFC 2916 addresses the desire of consumers to be able to use their > > > telephone numbers in the consistent and reliable manner for > > > ALL forms of > > > communications as they do now on the PSTN with the equal > > > reliability of > > > results. > > > > > > The E.164 space is regulated and controlled in order to > > > produce consistency > > > in results. You pick up the phone and dial and it works. the > > > PSTN ..like > > > the Internet cannot search multiple databases to discover > reliable end > > > point information. > > > > > > Internet Telephony is no different in that sense from > PSTN Telephony. > > > > > > I'd like to share some insights into this problem that the > > > FCC addressed in > > > its First Report and Rule on Number Portability. > > > > > > While not specific to the problem at hand the FCC noted the > > > importance of > > > telephone numbers in creating competitive markets for > > > telecommunications > > > services. > > > > > > I submit that what we are dealing with here is similar in > many ways. > > > > > > a. People will not use Internet Telephony IN A BIG WAY if > > > they cannot use > > > their telephone numbers. > > > > > > b. If the resolution of those numbers into the DNS cannot create > > > technically consistent results they will be essentially useless. > > > > > > c. Therefore if it is the desire of Telecom Equipment > > > Manufactures, ISP's, > > > Government and other possible new entrants into Internet > Telephony to > > > create TRULY competitive markets for communications services using > > > telephone numbers as names then implementation of RFC2916 is > > > a necessity. > > > > > > And ....I might add clearly is within the spirit of the 1996 > > > Telecommunications Act. > > > > > > ####### > > > > > > From the FCC Order and Report..... > > > 29. We note that several studies described in the record > > > demonstrate the reluctance of both business and residential > > > customers to switch carriers if they must change numbers. For > > > example, MCI has stated that, based on a nationwide Gallup survey, > > > 83 percent of business customers and 80 percent of residential > > > customers would be unlikely to change local service > providers if they > > > had to change their telephone numbers. Time Warner Holdings > > > states that consumers are 40 percent less likely to change service > > > providers if a number change is required. Citizens > Utilities notes > > > that approximately 85 percent of the discussions that its > subsidiary, > > > ELI, has with potential customers about switching providers end > > > when those potential customers learn that they must change their > > > telephone numbers. The study commissioned by Pacific Bell > > > concludes that, without portability, new entrants would > be forced to > > > discount their local exchange service and other competing > offerings > > > by at least 12 percent below the incumbent LECs' prices > in order to > > > induce customers to switch carriers due to customers' > resistance to > > > changing numbers. > > > > > > 30. The ability of end users to retain their > telephone numbers > > > when changing service providers gives customers flexibility in the > > > quality, price, and variety of telecommunications > services they can > > > choose to purchase. Number portability promotes competition > > > between telecommunications service providers by, among other > > > things, allowing customers to respond to price and service changes > > > without changing their telephone numbers. The resulting > > > competition will benefit all users of telecommunications services. > > > Indeed, competition should foster lower local telephone > prices and, > > > consequently, stimulate demand for telecommunications services > > > and increase economic growth. > > > > > > 31. Conversely, the record demonstrates that a lack of > > > number portability likely would deter entry by > competitive providers > > > of local service because of the value customers place on retaining > > > their telephone numbers. Business customers, in particular, may > > > be reluctant to incur the administrative, marketing, and goodwill > > > costs associated with changing telephone numbers. As indicated > > > above, several studies show that customers are reluctant to switch > > > carriers if they are required to change telephone numbers. To the > > > extent that customers are reluctant to change service > providers due > > > to the absence of number portability, demand for services provided > > > by new entrants will be depressed. This could well > discourage entry > > > by new service providers and thereby frustrate the pro-competitive > > > goals of the 1996 Act. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >--tony > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > Richard Shockey, Senior Technical Industry Liaison > > > NeuStar Inc. > > > 1120 Vermont Avenue N.W., Suite 550, Washington DC. 20005 > > > Voice: 202.533.2811, Cell : 314.503.0640, Fax: 815.333.1237 > > > or > > > > > > > > > <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< > > > > > >_______________________________________________ > >enum mailing list > >enum@ietf.org > >http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > Richard Shockey, Senior Technical Industry Liaison > NeuStar Inc. > 1120 Vermont Avenue N.W., Suite 550, Washington DC. 20005 > Voice: 202.533.2811, Cell : 314.503.0640, Fax: 815.333.1237 > or > > > <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< > _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From enum-admin@ietf.org Fri Feb 2 13:16:56 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id NAA19860 for ; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 13:16:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA23043; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 13:16:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA23015 for ; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 13:16:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from exchange.chaos.com (exchange.chaos.com [206.5.17.8]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id NAA19839 for ; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 13:16:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from [216.168.250.52] by exchange.netmagic.com (NTMail 5.06.0016/NT2627.00.5ef58ba0) with ESMTP id xnlkaaaa for enum@ietf.org; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 13:16:10 -0500 Message-Id: <5.0.2.1.2.20010202130052.027a6620@mail.netmagic.com> X-Sender: amr@mail.netmagic.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.0.2 Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2001 13:16:08 -0500 To: Richard Shockey , "Judith Oppenheimer" , From: "A.M. Rutkowski" Subject: Re: [ENUM] Report on ITU ENUM Workshop - January 17, 2001 In-Reply-To: <5.0.2.1.2.20010202105827.0272cdf0@127.0.0.1> References: <006b01c08bf5$0556d900$59ac580c@att.net.icbtollfree.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=====================_936919659==_.ALT" Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Enum Discussion List X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org --=====================_936919659==_.ALT Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Hi Richard, >net org .uk etc) what is the constraint on these multiple trees? Legal >Regulatory ...again Tony argues ..let the free market decide.. well it >will decide ...to do nothing and US leadership in IP telephony could be >put at risk and the vast benefits of 800 call termination on IP networks >could be lost. What I'm "arguing" is that there are better alternatives than a monolithic ENUM under an ITU-based global regulatory regime that has every Member State licensing and regulating the provisioning of ENUM services. The McLean meeting should be seminal in collaborating on viable alternatives. Somehow it seems inappropriate as well as out of scope to be discussing "US leadership in IP telephony" in an IETF Working Group. Indeed, since it's highly unlikely the USGOV would accept such a regime, it is other nations and their providers and users who would be most adversely affected. cheers, tony --=====================_936919659==_.ALT Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Hi Richard,

net org .uk etc) what is the constraint on these multiple trees? Legal Regulatory ...again Tony argues ..let the free market decide.. well it will decide ...to do nothing and US leadership in IP telephony could be put at risk and the vast benefits of 800 call termination on IP networks could be lost.

What I'm "arguing" is that there are better alternatives
than a monolithic ENUM under an ITU-based global regulatory
regime that has every Member State licensing and regulating
the provisioning of ENUM services.  The McLean meeting
should be seminal in collaborating on viable alternatives.

Somehow it seems inappropriate as well as out of scope to
be discussing "US leadership in IP telephony" in an IETF
Working Group.  Indeed, since it's highly unlikely the
USGOV would accept such a regime, it is other nations and
their providers and users who would be most adversely affected.

cheers,
tony

 --=====================_936919659==_.ALT-- _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From enum-admin@ietf.org Fri Feb 2 13:22:50 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id NAA20271 for ; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 13:22:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA23137; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 13:21:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA23110 for ; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 13:21:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from mtiwmhc25.worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc25.worldnet.att.net [204.127.131.50]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id NAA20194 for ; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 13:21:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from worldnet ([12.88.171.71]) by mtiwmhc25.worldnet.att.net (InterMail vM.4.01.03.10 201-229-121-110) with SMTP id <20010202182115.BIWO29713.mtiwmhc25.worldnet.att.net@worldnet>; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 18:21:15 +0000 From: "Judith Oppenheimer" To: , Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 13:19:07 -0500 Message-ID: <00e701c08d44$a973b940$47ab580c@att.net.icbtollfree.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Enum] Did this message get lost in the fray? Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Enum Discussion List X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Perhaps this is a U.S.-centric question? Under what circumstances could a Tier 1 ENUM company be envisioned to control* and pre-load mass-scale** numbering resources? A Tier 2 company ... ? tia - Judith *whether "subscriber" control as a vendor or service company, or regulatory control as an "enforcer" **like ALL of a given NXX range or more --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- Judith Oppenheimer 212 684-7210, 1 800 The Expert Publisher, http://ICBTollFreeNews.com "An important source of inside information," says InfoWorld; "superb", "invaluable", "critically intelligent", "exceedingly useful", report ICB Premium Subscribers. ENTER HERE: http://www.roibot.com/w.cgi?R1764_sig --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From enum-admin@ietf.org Fri Feb 2 14:08:15 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id OAA22671 for ; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 14:08:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA23846; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 14:07:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA23819 for ; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 14:07:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from dnspri.npac.com (firewall-user@dnspri.npac.com [208.143.33.66]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id OAA22642 for ; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 14:06:58 -0500 (EST) Received: by dnspri.npac.com; id NAA07826; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 13:06:56 -0600 (CST) Received: from unknown(192.168.20.162) by dnspri.npac.com via smap (V5.0) id xma006308; Fri, 2 Feb 01 13:05:54 -0600 Message-Id: <5.0.2.1.2.20010202134650.027e6cd0@127.0.0.1> X-Sender: rshockey@127.0.0.1 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.0.2 Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2001 14:03:21 -0500 To: "A.M. Rutkowski" , "Judith Oppenheimer" , From: Richard Shockey Subject: Re: [ENUM] Report on ITU ENUM Workshop - January 17, 2001 Cc: ENUM@ALMSNTSA.LMLIST.STATE.GOV In-Reply-To: <5.0.2.1.2.20010202130052.027a6620@mail.netmagic.com> References: <5.0.2.1.2.20010202105827.0272cdf0@127.0.0.1> <006b01c08bf5$0556d900$59ac580c@att.net.icbtollfree.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-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Enum Discussion List X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org At 01:16 PM 2/2/2001 -0500, A.M. Rutkowski wrote: >Hi Richard, > >>net org .uk etc) what is the constraint on these multiple trees? Legal >>Regulatory ...again Tony argues ..let the free market decide.. well it >>will decide ...to do nothing and US leadership in IP telephony could be >>put at risk and the vast benefits of 800 call termination on IP networks >>could be lost. > >What I'm "arguing" is that there are better alternatives >than a monolithic ENUM under an ITU-based global regulatory >regime that has every Member State licensing and regulating >the provisioning of ENUM services. Would you please put forward a cohesive technical proposal on what you suggest? Why did'nt you put forward an alternative technical proposal in the IETF WG? Why did'nt you not submit an alternative technical proposal to the ITU? > Well you clearly wish to obfuscate the intent of RFC 3026. The role of the ITU is only to validate the wishes of its Member States as to the delegation of its resources under e164.arpa. Nothing more. There is NO global regulatory plot here. >The McLean meeting >should be seminal in collaborating on viable alternatives. Well we should certainly discuss things on a ongoing basis but it is completely presumptuous of you to suggest that anything coming out of McLean would be "seminal". There are a variety of forums where these issues are being discussed and industry positions are only now being formed. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard Shockey, Senior Technical Industry Liaison NeuStar Inc. 1120 Vermont Avenue N.W., Suite 550, Washington DC. 20005 Voice: 202.533.2811, Cell : 314.503.0640, Fax: 815.333.1237 or <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From enum-admin@ietf.org Fri Feb 2 14:12:30 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id OAA23003 for ; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 14:12:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA23937; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 14:11:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA23908 for ; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 14:11:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from rainier.illuminet.com ([63.116.20.4]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id OAA22971 for ; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 14:11:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from olwinexsmtp01.corp.illuminet.com ([172.20.1.9]) by rainier.illuminet.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id LAA21879; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 11:11:24 -0800 (PST) Received: by olwinexsmtp01.corp.illuminet.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <1BK4L2D0>; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 11:11:20 -0800 Message-ID: <1C1EEC765F843E44996971A80682118B252448@OPWINEXCL01> From: Kevin McCandless To: "'A.M. Rutkowski'" Cc: "'enum@ietf.org'" Subject: RE: [ENUM] Report on ITU ENUM Workshop - January 17, 2001 Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 11:11:13 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C08D4B.E8C19C00" Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Enum Discussion List X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C08D4B.E8C19C00 Content-Type: text/plain Tony: What we all would like to see is better definition of the how the different tiers of the ENUM database inter-work. I agree no one wants a monolithic ENUM database. Everyone is questioning how would ENUM work in a distributed fashion with many players involved. Do you feel that there is enough definition to warrant multiple ENUM databases? If there was enough definition, then we would not be looking to regulatory bodies such as the ITU and FCC for regulating ENUM. I agree that we need to discuss alternatives. Also, if the alternatives are a distributed fashion operated by different players then we need further definition of the inter-working of the ENUM databases. Food for thought.............. Sincerely, Kevin -----Original Message----- From: A.M. Rutkowski [mailto:amr@netmagic.com] Sent: Friday, February 02, 2001 12:16 PM To: Richard Shockey; Judith Oppenheimer; enum@ietf.org Subject: Re: [ENUM] Report on ITU ENUM Workshop - January 17, 2001 Hi Richard, net org .uk etc) what is the constraint on these multiple trees? Legal Regulatory ...again Tony argues ..let the free market decide.. well it will decide ...to do nothing and US leadership in IP telephony could be put at risk and the vast benefits of 800 call termination on IP networks could be lost. What I'm "arguing" is that there are better alternatives than a monolithic ENUM under an ITU-based global regulatory regime that has every Member State licensing and regulating the provisioning of ENUM services. The McLean meeting should be seminal in collaborating on viable alternatives. Somehow it seems inappropriate as well as out of scope to be discussing "US leadership in IP telephony" in an IETF Working Group. Indeed, since it's highly unlikely the USGOV would accept such a regime, it is other nations and their providers and users who would be most adversely affected. cheers, tony ------_=_NextPart_001_01C08D4B.E8C19C00 Content-Type: text/html
Tony:
 
What we all would like to see is better definition of the how the different tiers of the ENUM database inter-work.  I agree no one wants a monolithic ENUM database.  Everyone is questioning how would ENUM work in a distributed fashion with many players involved.  Do you feel that there is enough definition to warrant multiple ENUM databases?  If there was enough definition, then we would not be looking to regulatory bodies such as the ITU and FCC for regulating ENUM. 
 
I agree that we need to discuss alternatives.  Also, if the alternatives are a distributed fashion operated by different players then we need further definition of the inter-working of the ENUM databases.
 
Food for thought..............
 
Sincerely,
 
Kevin
-----Original Message-----
From: A.M. Rutkowski [mailto:amr@netmagic.com]
Sent: Friday, February 02, 2001 12:16 PM
To: Richard Shockey; Judith Oppenheimer; enum@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [ENUM] Report on ITU ENUM Workshop - January 17, 2001

Hi Richard,

net org .uk etc) what is the constraint on these multiple trees? Legal Regulatory ...again Tony argues ..let the free market decide.. well it will decide ...to do nothing and US leadership in IP telephony could be put at risk and the vast benefits of 800 call termination on IP networks could be lost.

What I'm "arguing" is that there are better alternatives
than a monolithic ENUM under an ITU-based global regulatory
regime that has every Member State licensing and regulating
the provisioning of ENUM services.  The McLean meeting
should be seminal in collaborating on viable alternatives.

Somehow it seems inappropriate as well as out of scope to
be discussing "US leadership in IP telephony" in an IETF
Working Group.  Indeed, since it's highly unlikely the
USGOV would accept such a regime, it is other nations and
their providers and users who would be most adversely affected.

cheers,
tony

------_=_NextPart_001_01C08D4B.E8C19C00-- _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From enum-admin@ietf.org Fri Feb 2 14:45:04 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id OAA24353 for ; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 14:45:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA24318; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 14:43:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA24289 for ; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 14:43:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from exchange.chaos.com (exchange.chaos.com [206.5.17.8]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id OAA24291 for ; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 14:43:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from [216.168.250.52] by exchange.netmagic.com (NTMail 5.06.0016/NT2627.00.5ef58ba0) with ESMTP id kvlkaaaa for enum@ietf.org; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 14:43:51 -0500 Message-Id: <5.0.2.1.2.20010202143009.02792af0@mail.netmagic.com> X-Sender: amr@mail.netmagic.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.0.2 Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2001 14:43:50 -0500 To: Kevin McCandless From: "A.M. Rutkowski" Subject: RE: [ENUM] Report on ITU ENUM Workshop - January 17, 2001 Cc: "'enum@ietf.org'" In-Reply-To: <1C1EEC765F843E44996971A80682118B252448@OPWINEXCL01> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=====================_942181104==_.ALT" Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Enum Discussion List X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org --=====================_942181104==_.ALT Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Hi Kevin, >Do you feel that there is enough definition to warrant multiple ENUM >databases? If there was enough definition, then we would not be looking >to regulatory bodies such as the ITU and FCC for regulating ENUM. > >I agree that we need to discuss alternatives. Also, if the alternatives >are a distributed fashion operated by different players then we need >further definition of the inter-working of the ENUM databases. The is pretty much the purpose of the McLean meeting and I expect we'll see first steps along these lines there. A trusted, open means of authenticating the right to a number seems key. (No pun intended.) Like most matters in the Internet arena, experience suggests that the Internet community and providers working among themselves can develop the basis for implementing these services without the involvement of intergovernmental or governmental bodies. --tony --=====================_942181104==_.ALT Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Hi Kevin,

Do you feel that there is enough definition to warrant multiple ENUM databases?  If there was enough definition, then we would not be looking to regulatory bodies such as the ITU and FCC for regulating ENUM. 
 
I agree that we need to discuss alternatives.  Also, if the alternatives are a distributed fashion operated by different players then we need further definition of the inter-working of the ENUM databases.

The is pretty much the purpose of the McLean meeting
and I expect we'll see first steps along these lines
there.  A trusted, open means of authenticating the
right to a number seems key. (No pun intended.)

Like most matters in the Internet arena, experience
suggests that the Internet community and providers
working among themselves can develop the basis
for implementing these services without the
involvement of intergovernmental or governmental
bodies.

--tony
--=====================_942181104==_.ALT-- _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From enum-admin@ietf.org Fri Feb 2 15:05:28 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id PAA25439 for ; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 15:05:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id PAA24743; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 15:04:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id PAA24655 for ; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 15:04:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from exchange.chaos.com (exchange.chaos.com [206.5.17.8]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id PAA25418 for ; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 15:04:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from [216.168.250.52] by exchange.netmagic.com (NTMail 5.06.0016/NT2627.00.5ef58ba0) with ESMTP id uvlkaaaa for enum@ietf.org; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 15:04:43 -0500 Message-Id: <5.0.2.1.2.20010202145849.02798228@mail.netmagic.com> X-Sender: amr@mail.netmagic.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.0.2 Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2001 15:04:42 -0500 To: Richard Shockey , "Judith Oppenheimer" , From: "A.M. Rutkowski" Subject: Re: [ENUM] Report on ITU ENUM Workshop - January 17, 2001 Cc: ENUM@ALMSNTSA.LMLIST.STATE.GOV In-Reply-To: <5.0.2.1.2.20010202134650.027e6cd0@127.0.0.1> References: <5.0.2.1.2.20010202130052.027a6620@mail.netmagic.com> <5.0.2.1.2.20010202105827.0272cdf0@127.0.0.1> <006b01c08bf5$0556d900$59ac580c@att.net.icbtollfree.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=====================_943433335==_.ALT" Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Enum Discussion List X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org --=====================_943433335==_.ALT Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Hi Richard, >The role of the ITU is only to validate the wishes of its Member States as >to the delegation of its resources under e164.arpa. Nothing more. > >There is NO global regulatory plot here. See para. 2.24 at http://www.itu.int/wtpf/sgreport/finalreport31Jan.doc It's the ITU Secretary-General's formal summary on the matter to Member States. --tony --=====================_943433335==_.ALT Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Hi Richard,

The role of the ITU is only to validate the wishes of its Member States as to the delegation of its resources under e164.arpa. Nothing more.

There is NO global regulatory plot here.

See para. 2.24 at
http://www.itu.int/wtpf/sgreport/finalreport31Jan.doc

It's the ITU Secretary-General's formal summary on
the matter to Member States.

--tony --=====================_943433335==_.ALT-- _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From enum-admin@ietf.org Fri Feb 2 15:49:28 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id PAA27503 for ; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 15:49:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id PAA25576; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 15:48:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id PAA25547 for ; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 15:48:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from dnspri.npac.com (firewall-user@dnspri.npac.com [208.143.33.66]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id PAA27471 for ; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 15:48:24 -0500 (EST) Received: by dnspri.npac.com; id OAA01066; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 14:45:22 -0600 (CST) Received: from unknown(192.168.20.162) by dnspri.npac.com via smap (V5.0) id xma029560; Fri, 2 Feb 01 14:44:51 -0600 Message-Id: <5.0.2.1.2.20010202140415.02758220@127.0.0.1> X-Sender: rshockey@127.0.0.1 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.0.2 Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2001 14:06:49 -0500 To: "Judith Oppenheimer" , , From: Richard Shockey Subject: Re: [Enum] Did this message get lost in the fray? In-Reply-To: <00e701c08d44$a973b940$47ab580c@att.net.icbtollfree.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-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Enum Discussion List X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org At 01:19 PM 2/2/2001 -0500, Judith Oppenheimer wrote: >Perhaps this is a U.S.-centric question? Under what circumstances could a >Tier 1 ENUM company be envisioned to control* and pre-load mass-scale** >numbering resources? A Tier 2 company ... ? In the absence of subscriber authorization ...IMHO none. >tia - > >Judith > >*whether "subscriber" control as a vendor or service company, or regulatory >control as an "enforcer" This is a little unclear here. >**like ALL of a given NXX range or more What is the problem or potential problem you are trying to address. >--------------------------------------------------------------------------- >---------- >Judith Oppenheimer >212 684-7210, 1 800 The Expert >Publisher, http://ICBTollFreeNews.com >"An important source of inside information," says InfoWorld; >"superb", "invaluable", "critically intelligent", "exceedingly >useful", report ICB Premium Subscribers. >ENTER HERE: http://www.roibot.com/w.cgi?R1764_sig >--------------------------------------------------------------------------- >---------- > > >_______________________________________________ >enum mailing list >enum@ietf.org >http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum > > >_______________________________________________ >enum mailing list >enum@ietf.org >http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard Shockey, Senior Technical Industry Liaison NeuStar Inc. 1120 Vermont Avenue N.W., Suite 550, Washington DC. 20005 Voice: 202.533.2811, Cell : 314.503.0640, Fax: 815.333.1237 or <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From enum-admin@ietf.org Thu Feb 8 09:54:35 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id JAA08894 for ; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 09:54:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id JAA27808; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 09:50:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id JAA27778 for ; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 09:50:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from motgate.mot.com (motgate.mot.com [129.188.136.100]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id JAA08682 for ; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 09:50:10 -0500 (EST) Received: [from pobox3.mot.com (pobox3.mot.com [10.64.251.242]) by motgate.mot.com (motgate 2.1) with ESMTP id HAA23121 for ; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 07:50:12 -0700 (MST)] Received: [from tx14exb01.ftw.mot.com (tx14exb01.ftw.mot.com [178.3.50.15]) by pobox3.mot.com (MOT-pobox3 2.0) with ESMTP id HAA08078 for ; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 07:46:03 -0700 (MST)] Received: by tx14exb01.ftw.mot.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2651.58) id ; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 08:50:10 -0600 Message-ID: From: Burks Janus-FJB034 To: "'enum@ietf.org'" Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2001 08:50:09 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2651.58) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Subject: [Enum] LDAP Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Enum Discussion List X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org Has this working group given any thought to using an LDAP server instead of an DNS for an ENUM architecture? With LDAP you can define your own schemas and it allows for updates of the information via the LDAP protocol. Jan Burks ******************************************************* Motorola, NSS/NSG/iDEN/SAG Mail Stop: S258-2 Phone: (817) 245-2540 5401 N. Beach St. Fax : (817) 245-2513 Fort Worth, TX 76137-2794 Pager: 2452540@skytel.com or 1800-sky-tel2,pin 245-2540 ******************************************************* _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From enum-admin@ietf.org Thu Feb 8 11:09:09 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id LAA11663 for ; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 11:09:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA28827; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 11:06:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA28799 for ; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 11:06:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from heron.verisign.com ([216.168.233.95]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id LAA11545 for ; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 11:06:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from REGDOM-EX01.prod.netsol.com (rdex01-node1.prod.netsol.com [10.131.4.28]) by heron.verisign.com (nsi_0.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA10601; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 11:05:28 -0500 (EST) Received: by regdom-ex01.prod.netsol.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <1Q9F9CFZ>; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 11:00:13 -0500 Message-ID: From: "Conley, Pat" To: "'Burks Janus-FJB034'" , "'enum@ietf.org'" Subject: RE: [Enum] LDAP Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2001 11:00:13 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Enum Discussion List X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org I believe that the question of LDAP v. DNS was discussed very early... even before the WG formed, so that the actual charter was clear about a DNS focus. I was only peripherally involved at that time so I can't explain the rationale for the choice. pat -----Original Message----- From: Burks Janus-FJB034 [mailto:J.Burks@motorola.com] Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2001 9:50 AM To: 'enum@ietf.org' Subject: [Enum] LDAP Has this working group given any thought to using an LDAP server instead of an DNS for an ENUM architecture? With LDAP you can define your own schemas and it allows for updates of the information via the LDAP protocol. Jan Burks ******************************************************* Motorola, NSS/NSG/iDEN/SAG Mail Stop: S258-2 Phone: (817) 245-2540 5401 N. Beach St. Fax : (817) 245-2513 Fort Worth, TX 76137-2794 Pager: 2452540@skytel.com or 1800-sky-tel2,pin 245-2540 ******************************************************* _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From enum-admin@ietf.org Thu Feb 8 11:38:54 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id LAA12479 for ; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 11:38:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA29350; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 11:38:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA29319 for ; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 11:38:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from bailey.dscga.com (bailey.dscga.com [198.78.9.11]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id LAA12461 for ; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 11:38:13 -0500 (EST) Received: (from michael@localhost) by bailey.dscga.com (8.9.1/) id LAA15089; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 11:27:22 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2001 11:27:22 -0500 From: Michael Mealling To: "Conley, Pat" Cc: "'Burks Janus-FJB034'" , "'enum@ietf.org'" Subject: Re: [Enum] LDAP Message-ID: <20010208112722.B13331@bailey.dscga.com> Reply-To: michaelm@netsol.com References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii User-Agent: Mutt/1.1.2i In-Reply-To: ; from pconley@verisign.com on Thu, Feb 08, 2001 at 11:00:13AM -0500 Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Enum Discussion List X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org On Thu, Feb 08, 2001 at 11:00:13AM -0500, Conley, Pat wrote: > I believe that the question of LDAP v. DNS was discussed > very early... even before the WG formed, so that the actual > charter was clear about a DNS focus. I was only peripherally > involved at that time so I can't explain the rationale for > the choice. The rationale was basically protocol size/efficiency. LDAP had _way_ more features than ENUM required and call setup and tear down was much higher. The answer is essentially the same as the answer to why we didn't scrap DNS in favor of X.500..... -MM -- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Mealling | Vote Libertarian! | www.rwhois.net/michael Sr. Research Engineer | www.ga.lp.org/gwinnett | ICQ#: 14198821 Network Solutions | www.lp.org | michaelm@netsol.com _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From enum-admin@ietf.org Fri Feb 9 10:56:48 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id KAA20951 for ; Fri, 9 Feb 2001 10:56:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id KAA21380; Fri, 9 Feb 2001 10:55:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id KAA21349 for ; Fri, 9 Feb 2001 10:55:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from uswgco34.uswest.com (uswgco34.uswest.com [199.168.32.123]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id KAB20881 for ; Fri, 9 Feb 2001 10:55:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from egate-ne3.uswc.uswest.com (egate-ne3.uswc.uswest.com [151.117.64.202]) by uswgco34.uswest.com (8.10.0/8.10.0) with ESMTP id f19FtKn17489 for ; Fri, 9 Feb 2001 08:55:20 -0700 (MST) Received: from dubntex011.qwest.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by egate-ne3.uswc.uswest.com (8.10.0/8.10.0) with ESMTP id f19FtJH23238 for ; Fri, 9 Feb 2001 09:55:20 -0600 (CST) Received: by dubntex011.qwest.net with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Fri, 9 Feb 2001 10:57:59 -0500 Message-ID: <9956F8424795D411B03B0008C786E60D01C704CC@DUBNTEX005.qwest.net> From: "Schmidt, Val" To: "'enum@ietf.org'" Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2001 10:54:51 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Subject: [Enum] A polite request for some basic information Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Enum Discussion List X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org I've followed the discussion of the ENUM WG for several weeks now and am extremely interested in your progress. Unfortunately, my background in DNS, NAPTR records, ENUM implementation, and the details of the E.164 standard is very small and I have had difficulty catching up to the level of discussion here. To date, I have poured over the all the appropriate RFCs, the Bind 9.0 users manual, a white paper or two, and many notes and comments from recent meetings. I have quite a few questions that I would like to ask, but certainly do not want to burden these discussions with elementary inquiries. Any recommendations any of your can make concerning more information, white papers, etc. I would so greatly appreciate. And finally, is there anyone willing to field occasional entry level questions off line so as to not detract from the level of discussions here. Regards, Val Schmidt ______________________________________________________ Val E. Schmidt Qwest Communications International Inc. 4650 Lakehurst Ct. Dublin, OH 43017 Tel: (614) 336 5462 Fax:(614) 336 5677 val.schmidt@qwest.com _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From enum-admin@ietf.org Fri Feb 9 11:27:13 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id LAA22283 for ; Fri, 9 Feb 2001 11:27:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA21857; Fri, 9 Feb 2001 11:26:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA21832 for ; Fri, 9 Feb 2001 11:26:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from rainier.illuminet.com ([63.116.20.4]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id LAA22216 for ; Fri, 9 Feb 2001 11:26:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from olwinexsmtp01.corp.illuminet.com ([172.20.1.9]) by rainier.illuminet.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id IAA07476; Fri, 9 Feb 2001 08:25:31 -0800 (PST) Received: by olwinexsmtp01.corp.illuminet.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <1K76GLJ6>; Fri, 9 Feb 2001 08:25:31 -0800 Message-ID: <1C1EEC765F843E44996971A80682118B2524A8@OPWINEXCL01> From: Kevin McCandless To: "'Schmidt, Val'" Cc: "'enum@ietf.org'" Subject: RE: [Enum] A polite request for some basic information Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2001 08:25:29 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Enum Discussion List X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org VAL: Down load the presentations from the ITU Geneva meeting. These presentations are very helpful. I highly recommended the presentation on The Domain Name System. http://www.itu.int/infocom/enum/workshopjan01/ -----Original Message----- From: Schmidt, Val [mailto:Val.Schmidt@qwest.com] Sent: Friday, February 09, 2001 9:55 AM To: 'enum@ietf.org' Subject: [Enum] A polite request for some basic information I've followed the discussion of the ENUM WG for several weeks now and am extremely interested in your progress. Unfortunately, my background in DNS, NAPTR records, ENUM implementation, and the details of the E.164 standard is very small and I have had difficulty catching up to the level of discussion here. To date, I have poured over the all the appropriate RFCs, the Bind 9.0 users manual, a white paper or two, and many notes and comments from recent meetings. I have quite a few questions that I would like to ask, but certainly do not want to burden these discussions with elementary inquiries. Any recommendations any of your can make concerning more information, white papers, etc. I would so greatly appreciate. And finally, is there anyone willing to field occasional entry level questions off line so as to not detract from the level of discussions here. Regards, Val Schmidt ______________________________________________________ Val E. Schmidt Qwest Communications International Inc. 4650 Lakehurst Ct. Dublin, OH 43017 Tel: (614) 336 5462 Fax:(614) 336 5677 val.schmidt@qwest.com _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From enum-admin@ietf.org Sun Feb 11 11:46:43 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id LAA10793 for ; Sun, 11 Feb 2001 11:46:43 -0500 (EST) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA29434; Sun, 11 Feb 2001 11:44:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA29405 for ; Sun, 11 Feb 2001 11:44:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from johnson.mail.mindspring.net (johnson.mail.mindspring.net [207.69.200.177]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id LAA10787 for ; Sun, 11 Feb 2001 11:44:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from computer.ix.netcom.com (user-2ivelu9.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.87.201]) by johnson.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with ESMTP id LAA02251 for ; Sun, 11 Feb 2001 11:44:05 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <5.0.2.1.2.20010210001158.035a8330@127.0.0.1> X-Sender: rshockey/popd.ix.netcom.com@127.0.0.1 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.0.2 Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 11:14:27 -0500 To: enum@ietf.org From: Richard Shockey Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Subject: [Enum] Status in advance of Minneapolis IETF Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Enum Discussion List X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org As was the consensus of the last meeting that we essentially take on no new work .. there is no need for a meeting in Minneapolis. However we do have a number of documents in the hamper and I going to suggest that if we do not see further work on some of these documents ASAP Patrik and I will seek new editors in order to meet our milestones. We've seen substantial revisions on some of the work on admin models...even if there is no consensus on approaches. I'd like to see how we can push some of these to Informational in the upcoming weeks. Plus on the admin doc front I have been privately asked if we would be willing to accept other drafts on this subject perhaps drafts outlining possible administrative models from a European context ....I see no problem with this. There are obviously different ideas on how the e164.arpa space should be administered by respective ITU Member States or other code holders...and it might be useful to have these available to all interested parties. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard Shockey, Senior Technical Industry Liaison NeuStar Inc. 1120 Vermont Avenue N.W., Suite 550, Washington DC. 20005 Voice: 202.533.2811, Cell : 314.503.0640, Fax: 815.333.1237 or <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From enum-admin@ietf.org Sun Feb 11 12:42:03 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id MAA11383 for ; Sun, 11 Feb 2001 12:42:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA29996; Sun, 11 Feb 2001 12:41:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA29968 for ; Sun, 11 Feb 2001 12:41:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from exchange.chaos.com (exchange.chaos.com [206.5.17.8]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id MAA11361 for ; Sun, 11 Feb 2001 12:41:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from [206.5.17.17] by exchange.netmagic.com (NTMail 5.06.0016/NT2627.00.5ef58ba0) with ESMTP id pzpkaaaa for enum@ietf.org; Sun, 11 Feb 2001 12:41:03 -0500 Message-Id: <5.1.0.7.2.20010211122320.00a95658@mail.netmagic.com> X-Sender: amr@mail.netmagic.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1.0.7 (Beta) Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 12:41:02 -0500 To: Richard Shockey , enum@ietf.org From: "A.M.Rutkowski" Subject: Re: [Enum] Status in advance of Minneapolis IETF In-Reply-To: <5.0.2.1.2.20010210001158.035a8330@127.0.0.1> 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-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Enum Discussion List X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org At 11:14 AM 2/11/2001, Richard Shockey wrote: >There are obviously different ideas on how the e164.arpa space should be >administered by respective ITU Member States or other code holders...and >it might be useful to have these available to all interested parties. Hi Richard, Are such provisioning specifications properly within the scope of the Working Group? Within the scope of the IETF? Doesn't activity of this nature subject the IETF and participants to substantial antitrust liability? See Allied Tube & Conduit Corp. v. Indian Head, Inc., 486 U.S. 492 (1988). --tony _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From enum-admin@ietf.org Sun Feb 11 13:13:49 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id NAA11541 for ; Sun, 11 Feb 2001 13:13:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA00301; Sun, 11 Feb 2001 13:06:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA00270 for ; Sun, 11 Feb 2001 13:06:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from nic-naa.net (dt0b4n5b.maine.rr.com [24.95.12.91]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id NAA11512 for ; Sun, 11 Feb 2001 13:06:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from nic-naa.net (localhost.maine.rr.com [127.0.0.1]) by nic-naa.net (8.11.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id f1BI59C96108; Sun, 11 Feb 2001 13:05:09 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from brunner@nic-naa.net) Message-Id: <200102111805.f1BI59C96108@nic-naa.net> To: "A.M.Rutkowski" cc: Richard Shockey , enum@ietf.org, brunner@nic-naa.net Subject: Re: [Enum] Status in advance of Minneapolis IETF In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sun, 11 Feb 2001 12:41:02 EST." <5.1.0.7.2.20010211122320.00a95658@mail.netmagic.com> Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 13:05:09 -0500 From: Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Enum Discussion List X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org Tony, Your point should be raised in Poisson, not a working group. Eric _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From enum-admin@ietf.org Sun Feb 11 13:33:15 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id NAA11609 for ; Sun, 11 Feb 2001 13:33:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA00410; Sun, 11 Feb 2001 13:26:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA00381 for ; Sun, 11 Feb 2001 13:26:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from exchange.chaos.com (exchange.chaos.com [206.5.17.8]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id NAA11577 for ; Sun, 11 Feb 2001 13:26:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from [206.5.17.17] by exchange.netmagic.com (NTMail 5.06.0016/NT2627.00.5ef58ba0) with ESMTP id daqkaaaa for enum@ietf.org; Sun, 11 Feb 2001 13:26:01 -0500 Message-Id: <5.1.0.7.2.20010211130757.00ae02a0@mail.netmagic.com> X-Sender: amr@mail.netmagic.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1.0.7 (Beta) Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 13:25:59 -0500 To: Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine From: "A.M.Rutkowski" Subject: Re: [Enum] Status in advance of Minneapolis IETF Cc: Richard Shockey , enum@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <200102111805.f1BI59C96108@nic-naa.net> 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-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Enum Discussion List X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org At 01:05 PM 2/11/2001, Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine wrote: >Your point should be raised in Poisson, not a working group. Hi Eric, It's relevant in both, and we would expect that the matter would receive the cognizance of Poisson. The Working Group - its chair and participants - have responsibilities (and liabilities) for their own work and conduct. Certainly dealing with matters of scope in a working group are not new, and most norms of administrative due process require raising these matters initially in the group in which the conduct is manifested. Poisson has a broader responsibility for the IETF with respect to policy and IETF process. It is also a matter for the IETF's legal counsel to consider, as well as private counsel for those in significant decision making and participatory positions. Allied Tube was a seminal decision for standards collaborative organizations such as the IETF that inter alia, established the bounds of acceptable conduct under the rubric of standards collaboration. --tony _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From enum-admin@ietf.org Sun Feb 11 13:53:20 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id NAA11665 for ; Sun, 11 Feb 2001 13:53:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA00732; Sun, 11 Feb 2001 13:51:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA00703 for ; Sun, 11 Feb 2001 13:51:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from nic-naa.net (dt0b4n5b.maine.rr.com [24.95.12.91]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id NAA11662 for ; Sun, 11 Feb 2001 13:51:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from nic-naa.net (localhost.maine.rr.com [127.0.0.1]) by nic-naa.net (8.11.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id f1BIoTC96218; Sun, 11 Feb 2001 13:50:29 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from brunner@nic-naa.net) Message-Id: <200102111850.f1BIoTC96218@nic-naa.net> To: "A.M.Rutkowski" cc: Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine , Richard Shockey , enum@ietf.org, brunner@nic-naa.net Subject: Re: [Enum] Status in advance of Minneapolis IETF In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sun, 11 Feb 2001 13:25:59 EST." <5.1.0.7.2.20010211130757.00ae02a0@mail.netmagic.com> Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 13:50:29 -0500 From: Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Enum Discussion List X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org Tony, If there is a non-technical claim, it goes to Poisson. Please make your concerns known to the poisson list. We periodically review our standards of conduct there, and not in technical WGs. Eric _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From enum-admin@ietf.org Sun Feb 11 13:55:11 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id NAA11704 for ; Sun, 11 Feb 2001 13:55:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA00674; Sun, 11 Feb 2001 13:47:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA00645 for ; Sun, 11 Feb 2001 13:47:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from joy.songbird.com (IDENT:root@songbird.com [208.184.79.7]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id NAA11651 for ; Sun, 11 Feb 2001 13:47:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from DC-DESK.dcrocker.net (c1193160-a.snvl1.sfba.home.com [65.0.152.112]) by joy.songbird.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA31546; Sun, 11 Feb 2001 10:47:47 -0800 Message-Id: <5.1.0.7.2.20010211103728.030608e0@dcrocker.songbird.com> X-Sender: dhc@dcrocker.songbird.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1.0.7 (Beta) Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 10:45:20 -0800 To: "A.M.Rutkowski" From: Dave Crocker Subject: Re: [Enum] Status in advance of Minneapolis IETF Cc: enum@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.7.2.20010211122320.00a95658@mail.netmagic.com> References: <5.0.2.1.2.20010210001158.035a8330@127.0.0.1> 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-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Enum Discussion List X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org Tony, At 09:41 AM 2/11/2001, A.M.Rutkowski wrote: >Doesn't activity of this nature subject the IETF >and participants to substantial antitrust liability? >See Allied Tube & Conduit Corp. v. Indian Head, Inc., >486 U.S. 492 (1988). Presumably, as an attorney, you have a professional opinion about the question you raise. Presumably your professional opinion is that there IS a serious problem. You should say so. Otherwise the style you are using to raise the question might look more like a frivolous distraction than a serious question, especially since it is trivial to offer irrelevant citations and ask frightening questions, and especially since you provide no detail about the citation to substantiate its relevance. Your follow-up to Eric merely establishes that the citation has to do with scope of standards effort. You do not provide any information that would substantiate a specific concern that the specific working group discussion is likely to be legally unacceptable. d/ _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From enum-admin@ietf.org Sun Feb 11 14:20:14 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id OAA11909 for ; Sun, 11 Feb 2001 14:20:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA01015; Sun, 11 Feb 2001 14:13:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA00990 for ; Sun, 11 Feb 2001 14:13:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from exchange.chaos.com (exchange.chaos.com [206.5.17.8]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id OAA11886 for ; Sun, 11 Feb 2001 14:13:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from [206.5.17.17] by exchange.netmagic.com (NTMail 5.06.0016/NT2627.00.5ef58ba0) with ESMTP id laqkaaaa for enum@ietf.org; Sun, 11 Feb 2001 14:13:04 -0500 Message-Id: <5.1.0.7.2.20010211135155.00aea3c0@mail.netmagic.com> X-Sender: amr@mail.netmagic.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1.0.7 (Beta) Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 14:12:39 -0500 To: Dave Crocker From: "A.M.Rutkowski" Subject: Re: [Enum] Status in advance of Minneapolis IETF Cc: enum@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.7.2.20010211103728.030608e0@dcrocker.songbird.com> References: <5.1.0.7.2.20010211122320.00a95658@mail.netmagic.com> <5.0.2.1.2.20010210001158.035a8330@127.0.0.1> 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-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Enum Discussion List X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org Hi Dave, I am not offering a legal opinion or attempting to frighten here. The concern is an issue of proper scope of the working group under its charter and in the context of the IETF's scope - both of which have ancillary antitrust implications that deserve the attention of legal counsel of those involved. The latter is necessary both because of Allied Tube's holding as to individual liability, and the IETF construct as an association of individuals acting in their own capacity (and liability). The concern was directed to whether the ENUM working group should be dealing with "..."possible administrative models from a European context." The generic issue raised is whether the working the group (or the IETF) should become what amounts to a service bureau for developing "administrative models" for providing ENUM services in different jurisdictions worldwide. In addition to the potential antitrust concerns, there are legitimate issues as to whether the working group participants have the necessary legal and public policy expertise to meaningfully deal with administrative models in different jurisdictions worldwide. Is the group next to consider administrative models for other countries and regions? These seem like fair and substantial questions to raise at this juncture. best, tony _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From enum-admin@ietf.org Sun Feb 11 14:21:43 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id OAA11924 for ; Sun, 11 Feb 2001 14:21:43 -0500 (EST) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA01082; Sun, 11 Feb 2001 14:21:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA01053 for ; Sun, 11 Feb 2001 14:21:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from exchange.chaos.com (exchange.chaos.com [206.5.17.8]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id OAA11921 for ; Sun, 11 Feb 2001 14:21:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from [206.5.17.17] by exchange.netmagic.com (NTMail 5.06.0016/NT2627.00.5ef58ba0) with ESMTP id maqkaaaa for enum@ietf.org; Sun, 11 Feb 2001 14:21:08 -0500 Message-Id: <5.1.0.7.2.20010211141357.00ade108@mail.netmagic.com> X-Sender: amr@mail.netmagic.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1.0.7 (Beta) Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 14:21:07 -0500 To: Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine From: "A.M.Rutkowski" Subject: Re: [Enum] Status in advance of Minneapolis IETF Cc: enum@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <200102111850.f1BIoTC96218@nic-naa.net> 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-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Enum Discussion List X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org Hi Eric, >If there is a non-technical claim, it goes to Poisson. On what basis are these "administrative requirements" being considered? How is European technology different from that of others? When did the IETF begin dealing with developing different administrative requirements for providing services in geopolitical regions? --tony _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From enum-admin@ietf.org Sun Feb 11 14:57:14 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id OAA12101 for ; Sun, 11 Feb 2001 14:57:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA01350; Sun, 11 Feb 2001 14:56:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA01323 for ; Sun, 11 Feb 2001 14:56:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from nic-naa.net (dt0b4n5b.maine.rr.com [24.95.12.91]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id OAA12097 for ; Sun, 11 Feb 2001 14:56:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from nic-naa.net (localhost.maine.rr.com [127.0.0.1]) by nic-naa.net (8.11.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id f1BJsrC96373; Sun, 11 Feb 2001 14:54:53 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from brunner@nic-naa.net) Message-Id: <200102111954.f1BJsrC96373@nic-naa.net> To: "A.M.Rutkowski" cc: Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine , enum@ietf.org, brunner@nic-naa.net Subject: Re: [Enum] Status in advance of Minneapolis IETF In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sun, 11 Feb 2001 14:21:07 EST." <5.1.0.7.2.20010211141357.00ade108@mail.netmagic.com> Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 14:54:53 -0500 From: Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Enum Discussion List X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org Tony, All very interesting questions I'm sure, but not here. If you don't make your process-specific concerns known to the process-specific WG (the permanent poisson list), then they can't concern any technically chartered WG, this one included. I promise I'll think about your issues, when they come to me with a from-address of poised@lists.tislabs.com. Until you use the poisson list, you are just off-topic noise in enum. You didn't by any chance find a length of polyvinyl chloride conduit somewhere, or proof that we've actually managed to shoot the violators of rfc1122 and rfc1123, or other flauntors of our shiny new National Electric Code? Eric P.S. I _will_ work for heating oil, even for NSI! _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From enum-admin@ietf.org Sun Feb 11 15:20:03 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id PAA12166 for ; Sun, 11 Feb 2001 15:20:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id PAA01629; Sun, 11 Feb 2001 15:19:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id PAA01601 for ; Sun, 11 Feb 2001 15:19:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from joy.songbird.com (IDENT:root@songbird.com [208.184.79.7]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id PAA12159 for ; Sun, 11 Feb 2001 15:19:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from DC-DESK.dcrocker.net (c1193160-a.snvl1.sfba.home.com [65.0.152.112]) by joy.songbird.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA00511; Sun, 11 Feb 2001 12:19:01 -0800 Message-Id: <5.1.0.7.2.20010211120213.01d78e50@dcrocker.songbird.com> X-Sender: dhc@dcrocker.songbird.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1.0.7 (Beta) Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 12:18:45 -0800 To: "A.M.Rutkowski" From: Dave Crocker Subject: Re: [Enum] Status in advance of Minneapolis IETF Cc: enum@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.7.2.20010211135155.00aea3c0@mail.netmagic.com> References: <5.1.0.7.2.20010211103728.030608e0@dcrocker.songbird.com> <5.1.0.7.2.20010211122320.00a95658@mail.netmagic.com> <5.0.2.1.2.20010210001158.035a8330@127.0.0.1> 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-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Enum Discussion List X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org At 11:12 AM 2/11/2001, A.M.Rutkowski wrote: >I am not offering a legal opinion or attempting to frighten here. Excellent. When an attorney offers a cryptic, legal citation and highlights the potential for a legal violation, they usually are offering a professional opinion and raising an immediately salient legal concern. Thanks for clarifying that your note was in no way based on factual relevance of the specific discussion at hand. You were simply pointing out that working groups always need to pay attention to proper scope. How helpful. >The concern was directed to whether the ENUM working >group should be dealing with "..."possible administrative >models from a European context." Evidently you did not read Richard's note very carefully: >At 11:14 AM 2/11/2001, Richard Shockey wrote: >There are obviously different ideas on how the e164.arpa space should be >administered by respective ITU Member States or other code holders...and >it might be useful to have these available to all interested parties Presumably you are not suggesting that there are legal concerns with making materials "available to all interested parties"? Such a concern, Tony, almost suggests that you feel there should be suppression of free speech. >The generic issue >raised is whether the working the group (or the IETF) >should become what amounts to a service bureau for >developing "administrative models" for providing ENUM >services in different jurisdictions worldwide. Calling a group that develops specifications a "service bureau" is rather creative, but in fact IETF development of administrative models is entirely unremarkable. Administrative models for these sorts of systems entail a) attention to technical issues, and b) attention to procedures for inter-organization operation. That sounds like pretty typical IETF work, Tony. If you think otherwise, please explain. >In addition to the potential antitrust concerns, there >are legitimate issues as to whether the working group >participants have the necessary legal and public policy >expertise to meaningfully deal with administrative >models in different jurisdictions worldwide. Is the >group next to consider administrative models for other >countries and regions? You begin by questioning whether people who are experts at telephony and networking technologies -- and operation -- have the necessary expertise to specify administrative procedures for a telephony/networking activity. A strange challenge to raise, indeed. Then, somehow, you leap over to the possibility that they might next tackle administrative issues for things other than telephony and networking. Again, creative, but of dubious relevance -- or likelihood. >These seem like fair and substantial questions to raise >at this juncture. It remains extremely difficult to see how. d/ _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From enum-admin@ietf.org Sun Feb 11 15:39:58 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id PAA12238 for ; Sun, 11 Feb 2001 15:39:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id PAA01883; Sun, 11 Feb 2001 15:39:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id PAA01859 for ; Sun, 11 Feb 2001 15:39:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from rip.psg.com (exim@rip.psg.com [147.28.0.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id PAA12233 for ; Sun, 11 Feb 2001 15:39:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from randy by rip.psg.com with local (Exim 3.16 #1) id 14S3Gj-0000XO-00; Sun, 11 Feb 2001 12:38:49 -0800 From: Randy Bush MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine Cc: "A.M.Rutkowski" , enum@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Enum] Status in advance of Minneapolis IETF References: <5.1.0.7.2.20010211141357.00ade108@mail.netmagic.com> <200102111954.f1BJsrC96373@nic-naa.net> Message-Id: Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 12:38:49 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Enum Discussion List X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > Tony, did your sociopath filters break? randy _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From enum-admin@ietf.org Sun Feb 11 16:13:15 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id QAA12439 for ; Sun, 11 Feb 2001 16:13:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id QAA02310; Sun, 11 Feb 2001 16:11:43 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id QAA02285 for ; Sun, 11 Feb 2001 16:11:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from exchange.chaos.com (exchange.chaos.com [206.5.17.8]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id QAA12424 for ; Sun, 11 Feb 2001 16:11:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from [206.5.17.17] by exchange.netmagic.com (NTMail 5.06.0016/NT2627.00.5ef58ba0) with ESMTP id gbqkaaaa for enum@ietf.org; Sun, 11 Feb 2001 16:11:37 -0500 Message-Id: <5.1.0.7.2.20010211160002.00ade108@mail.netmagic.com> X-Sender: amr@mail.netmagic.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1.0.7 (Beta) Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 16:11:35 -0500 To: Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine From: "A.M.Rutkowski" Subject: Re: [Enum] Status in advance of Minneapolis IETF Cc: enum@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <200102111954.f1BJsrC96373@nic-naa.net> 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-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Enum Discussion List X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org At 02:54 PM 2/11/2001, Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine wrote: >All very interesting questions I'm sure, but not here. Hi Eric, Speaking as an electrical engineer, I am interested in what European technical characteristics you envision as being sufficiently different as to require different ENUM administrative requirements? It might also be useful to be aware that the CEC staff are reviewing and likely to shortly institute a public mechanism for dealing European administrative requirements - just as the US government has recently institute one for the U.S. These are the proper (and protected) forums for dealing with administrative requirements, not here. --tony _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From enum-admin@ietf.org Sun Feb 11 16:32:28 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id QAA12622 for ; Sun, 11 Feb 2001 16:32:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id QAA02703; Sun, 11 Feb 2001 16:32:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id QAA02674 for ; Sun, 11 Feb 2001 16:32:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from nic-naa.net (dt0b4n5b.maine.rr.com [24.95.12.91]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id QAA12608 for ; Sun, 11 Feb 2001 16:32:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from nic-naa.net (localhost.maine.rr.com [127.0.0.1]) by nic-naa.net (8.11.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id f1BLUnC96670; Sun, 11 Feb 2001 16:30:49 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from brunner@nic-naa.net) Message-Id: <200102112130.f1BLUnC96670@nic-naa.net> To: "A.M.Rutkowski" cc: Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine , enum@ietf.org, brunner@nic-naa.net Subject: Re: [Enum] Status in advance of Minneapolis IETF In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sun, 11 Feb 2001 16:11:35 EST." <5.1.0.7.2.20010211160002.00ade108@mail.netmagic.com> Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 16:30:49 -0500 From: Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Enum Discussion List X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org Tony, Somehow I'd the impression that your professional calling was the law, not EE. For the last time, please toss whatever it is over the fence to poisson, as it is just Sunday Silliness here in enum, though February is usually sort of boring, between the end of football and before March Madness (hoops). I'm sending a length of of polyvinyl chloride conduit to Rutt tomorrow, I expect even he'll see the humor in this. Allied Tube makes for very funny reading, I'm trying to imagine who to cast as the 150 clueless voting Myrmidons, and who to cast with the walkie-talkies -- just how we have always wanted to work! Cheers, Eric P.S. I _really_ _will_ _work_ _for_ _heating_ _oil_, even NSI's! _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From enum-admin@ietf.org Sun Feb 11 16:48:28 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id QAA12787 for ; Sun, 11 Feb 2001 16:48:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id QAA02859; Sun, 11 Feb 2001 16:48:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id QAA02831 for ; Sun, 11 Feb 2001 16:47:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from joy.songbird.com (IDENT:root@songbird.com [208.184.79.7]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id QAA12777 for ; Sun, 11 Feb 2001 16:47:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from DC-DESK.dcrocker.net (c1193160-a.snvl1.sfba.home.com [65.0.152.112]) by joy.songbird.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA01946; Sun, 11 Feb 2001 13:47:52 -0800 Message-Id: <5.1.0.7.2.20010211132612.0322e4d0@dcrocker.songbird.com> X-Sender: dhc@dcrocker.songbird.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1.0.7 (Beta) Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 13:47:46 -0800 To: "A.M.Rutkowski" From: Dave Crocker Subject: Re: [Enum] Status in advance of Minneapolis IETF Cc: Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine , enum@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.7.2.20010211160002.00ade108@mail.netmagic.com> References: <200102111954.f1BJsrC96373@nic-naa.net> 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-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Enum Discussion List X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org At 01:11 PM 2/11/2001, A.M.Rutkowski wrote: >Speaking as an electrical engineer, I am interested >in what European technical characteristics you envision >as being sufficiently different as to require different >ENUM administrative requirements? Oh. So now you WANT to hear the details? But you want to hear them from a working group participant -- Eric -- who is not authoring the cited document? Would it not be better, Tony, to just wait for the document? d/ _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From enum-admin@ietf.org Sun Feb 11 21:23:54 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id VAA14716 for ; Sun, 11 Feb 2001 21:23:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id VAA05201; Sun, 11 Feb 2001 21:22:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id VAA05172 for ; Sun, 11 Feb 2001 21:22:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from mclean.mail.mindspring.net (mclean.mail.mindspring.net [207.69.200.57]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id VAA14712 for ; Sun, 11 Feb 2001 21:22:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from computer.ix.netcom.com (user-2ivek0l.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.80.21]) by mclean.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with ESMTP id VAA32015; Sun, 11 Feb 2001 21:22:22 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <5.0.2.1.2.20010211212256.030022e0@127.0.0.1> X-Sender: rshockey/popd.ix.netcom.com@127.0.0.1 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.0.2 Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 21:24:56 -0500 To: "A.M.Rutkowski" , enum@ietf.org From: Richard Shockey Subject: Re: [Enum] Status in advance of Minneapolis IETF In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.7.2.20010211122320.00a95658@mail.netmagic.com> References: <5.0.2.1.2.20010210001158.035a8330@127.0.0.1> 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-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Enum Discussion List X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org At 12:41 PM 2/11/2001 -0500, A.M.Rutkowski wrote: >At 11:14 AM 2/11/2001, Richard Shockey wrote: >>There are obviously different ideas on how the e164.arpa space should be >>administered by respective ITU Member States or other code holders...and >>it might be useful to have these available to all interested parties. > >Hi Richard, > >Are such provisioning specifications properly within >the scope of the Working Group? Within the scope >of the IETF? The judgement of the WG meeting in San Diego was that administrative documents could move forward as Informational only....not Standards Track If you would have read the meeting minutes you would have understood that. _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From enum-admin@ietf.org Sun Feb 11 21:39:56 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id VAA15776 for ; Sun, 11 Feb 2001 21:39:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id VAA05449; Sun, 11 Feb 2001 21:39:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id VAA05422 for ; Sun, 11 Feb 2001 21:39:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from exchange.chaos.com (exchange.chaos.com [206.5.17.8]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id VAA15773 for ; Sun, 11 Feb 2001 21:39:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from [206.5.17.17] by exchange.netmagic.com (NTMail 5.06.0016/NT2627.00.5ef58ba0) with ESMTP id vdqkaaaa for enum@ietf.org; Sun, 11 Feb 2001 21:39:12 -0500 Message-Id: <5.1.0.7.2.20010211212625.00aff830@mail.netmagic.com> X-Sender: amr@mail.netmagic.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1.0.7 (Beta) Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 21:39:10 -0500 To: Richard Shockey , enum@ietf.org From: "A.M.Rutkowski" Subject: Re: [Enum] Status in advance of Minneapolis IETF In-Reply-To: <5.0.2.1.2.20010211212256.030022e0@127.0.0.1> References: <5.1.0.7.2.20010211122320.00a95658@mail.netmagic.com> <5.0.2.1.2.20010210001158.035a8330@127.0.0.1> 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-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Enum Discussion List X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org At 09:24 PM 2/11/2001, Richard Shockey wrote: >The judgement of the WG meeting in San Diego was that administrative >documents could move forward as Informational only....not Standards Track Hi Richard, I was there. The understanding was that *existing* administrative documents should be make informational, and that the plug would likely be pulled on the group. It was not apparent that the group was going to be hanging around forever to entertain an endless array of administrative requirements documents from whomever was so moved to generate them about whatever region or country, or for whatever purpose someone might conceive. Can the Kansas PUC submit an ENUM administrative requirements document? Somehow the idea that working groups for protocols stick around indefinitely to generate informational administrative requirements documents for all the world's geographical regions seems a bit orthogonal to the purposes and strengths of the IETF. --tony _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From enum-admin@ietf.org Mon Feb 12 00:24:29 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id AAA17869 for ; Mon, 12 Feb 2001 00:24:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id AAA06980; Mon, 12 Feb 2001 00:23:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id AAA06952 for ; Mon, 12 Feb 2001 00:23:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from joy.songbird.com (IDENT:root@songbird.com [208.184.79.7]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id AAA17855 for ; Mon, 12 Feb 2001 00:23:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from DC-DESK.dcrocker.net (c1193160-a.snvl1.sfba.home.com [65.0.152.112]) by joy.songbird.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA08359; Sun, 11 Feb 2001 21:23:46 -0800 Message-Id: <5.1.0.7.2.20010211211742.0304a930@dcrocker.songbird.com> X-Sender: dhc@dcrocker.songbird.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1.0.7 (Beta) Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 21:18:48 -0800 To: "A.M.Rutkowski" From: Dave Crocker Subject: Re: [Enum] Status in advance of Minneapolis IETF Cc: enum@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.7.2.20010211212625.00aff830@mail.netmagic.com> References: <5.0.2.1.2.20010211212256.030022e0@127.0.0.1> <5.1.0.7.2.20010211122320.00a95658@mail.netmagic.com> <5.0.2.1.2.20010210001158.035a8330@127.0.0.1> 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-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Enum Discussion List X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org At 06:39 PM 2/11/2001, A.M.Rutkowski wrote: >Somehow the idea that working groups for >protocols stick around indefinitely to... If there were a potential of that happening with this working group, Tony, your concerns might have some relevance. There isn't. So they don't. d/ _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From enum-admin@ietf.org Mon Feb 12 07:23:27 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id HAA04336 for ; Mon, 12 Feb 2001 07:23:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id HAA18010; Mon, 12 Feb 2001 07:22:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id HAA17980 for ; Mon, 12 Feb 2001 07:22:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA04231; Mon, 12 Feb 2001 07:22:14 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200102121222.HAA04231@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: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 07:22:14 -0500 Subject: [Enum] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-enum-e164-gstn-np-01.txt Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Enum Discussion List X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org --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 : Number Portability in the GSTN: An Overview Author(s) : M. Foster, T. McGarry, J. Yu Filename : draft-ietf-enum-e164-gstn-np-01.txt Pages : 26 Date : 09-Feb-01 This document provides an overview of E.164 telephone number portability (NP) in the Global Switched Telephone Network (GSTN). There are three types of number portability: service provider number portability (SPNP), location portability, and service portability. Service provider portability, the focus of the present draft, is a regulatory imperative in many countries seeking to liberalize local telephony service competition, by enabling end-users to retain pre- existing telephone numbers while changing service providers. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-enum-e164-gstn-np-01.txt 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-e164-gstn-np-01.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-e164-gstn-np-01.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: <20010209143014.I-D@ietf.org> ENCODING mime FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-enum-e164-gstn-np-01.txt --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; name="draft-ietf-enum-e164-gstn-np-01.txt"; site="ftp.ietf.org"; access-type="anon-ftp"; directory="internet-drafts" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <20010209143014.I-D@ietf.org> --OtherAccess-- --NextPart-- _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From enum-admin@ietf.org Mon Feb 12 09:44:31 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id JAA08348 for ; Mon, 12 Feb 2001 09:44:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id JAA19652; Mon, 12 Feb 2001 09:43:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id JAA19625 for ; Mon, 12 Feb 2001 09:43:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from bbnmg1.net.external.hp.com (bbnmg1.net.external.hp.com [192.6.76.73]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id JAA08295; Mon, 12 Feb 2001 09:43:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from isoit213.bbn.hp.com (isoit213.bbn.hp.com [15.136.193.32]) by bbnmg1.net.external.hp.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C1F047F; Mon, 12 Feb 2001 15:42:36 +0100 (MET) Received: from isar.bbn.hp.com (isar.bbn.hp.com [15.140.168.13]) by isoit213.bbn.hp.com (8.9.3 (PHNE_18979)/8.9.3 SMKit6.0.6 OpenMail) with SMTP id PAA12794; Mon, 12 Feb 2001 15:43:12 +0100 (MET) Received: from 15.140.168.13 by isar.bbn.hp.com (InterScan E-Mail VirusWall NT); Mon, 12 Feb 2001 15:43:10 +0100 (W. Europe Standard Time) Received: by isar.bbn.hp.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id <1VGVF4RK>; Mon, 12 Feb 2001 15:43:10 +0100 Message-ID: <07A9D2E3B03BD4119FD300D0B747AB2901038A08@mahler.bbn.hp.com> From: "TEKO,PAUL (HP-Germany,ex1)" To: "'Internet-Drafts@ietf.org'" Cc: enum@ietf.org Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 15:43:08 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Subject: [Enum] RE: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-enum-e164-gstn-np-01.txt Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Enum Discussion List X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org Please remove me from the distribution list.. Thanks Paul Teko -----Original Message----- From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org [mailto:Internet-Drafts@ietf.org] Sent: Monday, February 12, 2001 1:22 PM Cc: enum@ietf.org Subject: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-enum-e164-gstn-np-01.txt 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 : Number Portability in the GSTN: An Overview Author(s) : M. Foster, T. McGarry, J. Yu Filename : draft-ietf-enum-e164-gstn-np-01.txt Pages : 26 Date : 09-Feb-01 This document provides an overview of E.164 telephone number portability (NP) in the Global Switched Telephone Network (GSTN). There are three types of number portability: service provider number portability (SPNP), location portability, and service portability. Service provider portability, the focus of the present draft, is a regulatory imperative in many countries seeking to liberalize local telephony service competition, by enabling end-users to retain pre- existing telephone numbers while changing service providers. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-enum-e164-gstn-np-01.txt 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-e164-gstn-np-01.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-e164-gstn-np-01.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. _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From enum-admin@ietf.org Mon Feb 12 09:52:40 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id JAA08686 for ; Mon, 12 Feb 2001 09:52:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id JAA19748; Mon, 12 Feb 2001 09:51:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id JAA19721 for ; Mon, 12 Feb 2001 09:51:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from uswgco34.uswest.com (uswgco34.uswest.com [199.168.32.123]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id JAA08617 for ; Mon, 12 Feb 2001 09:51:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from egate-ne3.uswc.uswest.com (egate-ne3.uswc.uswest.com [151.117.64.202]) by uswgco34.uswest.com (8.10.0/8.10.0) with ESMTP id f1CEp9a06791 for ; Mon, 12 Feb 2001 07:51:09 -0700 (MST) Received: from dubntex011.qwest.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by egate-ne3.uswc.uswest.com (8.10.0/8.10.0) with ESMTP id f1CEp8F26618 for ; Mon, 12 Feb 2001 08:51:08 -0600 (CST) Received: by dubntex011.qwest.net with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <14Y51QG2>; Mon, 12 Feb 2001 09:53:44 -0500 Message-ID: <9956F8424795D411B03B0008C786E60D01C704D2@DUBNTEX005.qwest.net> From: "Schmidt, Val" To: "'enum@ietf.org'" Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 09:50:34 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Subject: [Enum] A Most Appreciative THANKS! Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Enum Discussion List X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org I've received no less than a dozen responses to my request for information concerning ENUM. Thank you all for such a generous reply. Val ______________________________________________________ Val E. Schmidt Qwest Communications International Inc. 4650 Lakehurst Ct. Dublin, OH 43017 Tel: (614) 336 5462 Fax:(614) 336 5677 val.schmidt@qwest.com _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From enum-admin@ietf.org Mon Feb 12 10:13:06 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id KAA09739 for ; Mon, 12 Feb 2001 10:13:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id KAA20139; Mon, 12 Feb 2001 10:11:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id KAA20112 for ; Mon, 12 Feb 2001 10:11:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from rip.psg.com (exim@rip.psg.com [147.28.0.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id KAA09546; Mon, 12 Feb 2001 10:09:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from randy by rip.psg.com with local (Exim 3.16 #1) id 14SKa2-000DpK-00; Mon, 12 Feb 2001 07:07:54 -0800 From: Randy Bush MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: "TEKO,PAUL (HP-Germany,ex1)" Cc: "'Internet-Drafts@ietf.org'" , enum@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Enum] RE: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-enum-e164-gstn-np-01.txt References: <07A9D2E3B03BD4119FD300D0B747AB2901038A08@mahler.bbn.hp.com> Message-Id: Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 07:07:54 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Enum Discussion List X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > Please remove me from the distribution list.. *NEVER* send requests to be added to or removed from a mailing list to the address used to send messages to recipients of the list. It annoys them, and they can't handle your request. If you don't remember how you subscribed to the list originally, or someone just gave you the list address, try: 1) -request Many lists provide such a mailbox for list "administrivia", as this type of request is called. If the list address is newbies@no.such.host, try sending your request to: newbies-request@no.such.host 2) Automated list manager Many lists are managed by automated list managers. If -request doesn't work, try sending the message "help" to each of the above addresses. If the list address is newbies@no.such.host, try sending to: listserv@no.such.host lserv@no.such.host majordomo@no.such.host 3) Postmaster As a last resort, you can write to the postmaster on the list system and ask how to get your request processed. If the list address is newbies@no.such.host, try sending to: postmaster@no.such.host Good luck! _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From enum-admin@ietf.org Mon Feb 12 12:24:24 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id MAA15429 for ; Mon, 12 Feb 2001 12:24:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA22234; Mon, 12 Feb 2001 12:22:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA22208 for ; Mon, 12 Feb 2001 12:22:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from nic-naa.net (dt0b4n5b.maine.rr.com [24.95.12.91]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id MAA15411 for ; Mon, 12 Feb 2001 12:22:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from nic-naa.net (localhost.maine.rr.com [127.0.0.1]) by nic-naa.net (8.11.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id f1CHD8C99284; Mon, 12 Feb 2001 12:13:08 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from brunner@nic-naa.net) Message-Id: <200102121713.f1CHD8C99284@nic-naa.net> To: "A.M.Rutkowski" cc: Richard Shockey , enum@ietf.org, brunner@nic-naa.net Subject: Re: [Enum] Status in advance of Minneapolis IETF In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sun, 11 Feb 2001 21:39:10 EST." <5.1.0.7.2.20010211212625.00aff830@mail.netmagic.com> Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 12:13:08 -0500 From: Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Enum Discussion List X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org > Can the Kansas PUC submit an ENUM administrative > requirements document? Anyone can submit an I-D, even modest residents of Kansas, on the subject of enum? Yes. These are individual I-Ds. I suspect your question addresses the issue of whether or not a WG that has reached consensus that it take on no new work must accept individual I-Ds by small dogs or other authors and rebadge them as WG work-product. There is no other way to make sense of your question otherwise. Having botched about the edges of the IETF for as long as you have, you know the answer is "Noo". draft-toto-enum-thingee-00.txt won't become (without the consensus change) draft-enum-thingee-00.txt. Please don't let this disuade you, or the hypothetical Kansas PUC weenie, from making a substantive contribution as an individual. My last I-D got tossed by a WG closure (not enum), doesn't have my name on it, and deltaed the product strategy of a mass market widget manufacturer and a WKS (well known standard). Being right can work, and it is something you can try. Cheers, Eric _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From enum-admin@ietf.org Mon Feb 12 14:49:15 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id OAA19848 for ; Mon, 12 Feb 2001 14:49:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA24189; Mon, 12 Feb 2001 14:47:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA24161 for ; Mon, 12 Feb 2001 14:47:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from mailsrv1.itu.int (mailsrv1.itu.ch [156.106.128.45]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id OAA19778 for ; Mon, 12 Feb 2001 14:47:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from mailsrv4.itu.ch ([156.106.128.46]) by mailsrv1.itu.int with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2650.21) id DMBXW4NH; Mon, 12 Feb 2001 20:46:45 +0100 Received: by mailsrv4.itu.ch with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Mon, 12 Feb 2001 20:46:45 +0100 Message-ID: From: "Shaw, Robert" To: "'enum@ietf.org'" Subject: Re: [Enum] Status in advance of Minneapolis IETF Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 20:39:30 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Enum Discussion List X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org > >At 11:14 AM 2/11/2001, Richard Shockey wrote: > >>There are obviously different ideas on how the e164.arpa > space should be administered by respective ITU Member States Just to flag it here that issues are beginning to be raised by ITU Member States in respect of the responsibility, delegation and authority for the ENUM "root zone". While discussions have been initiated on this topic at the recent ITU-T SG2 meeting they have yet to be concluded and the international resolution of these concerns could have an eventual impact on the IETF/IAB/IESG selection of e164.arpa. Bob -- Robert Shaw ITU Internet Strategy and Policy Advisor International Telecommunication Union Place des Nations, 1211 Geneva, Switzerland _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From enum-admin@ietf.org Mon Feb 12 15:56:55 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id PAA21232 for ; Mon, 12 Feb 2001 15:56:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id PAA24978; Mon, 12 Feb 2001 15:54:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id PAA24949 for ; Mon, 12 Feb 2001 15:54:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from exchange.chaos.com (exchange.chaos.com [206.5.17.8]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id PAA21204 for ; Mon, 12 Feb 2001 15:54:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from [206.241.48.46] by exchange.netmagic.com (NTMail 5.06.0016/NT2627.00.5ef58ba0) with ESMTP id wnqkaaaa for enum@ietf.org; Mon, 12 Feb 2001 15:54:41 -0500 Message-Id: <5.1.0.7.2.20010212154331.050cde18@mail.netmagic.com> X-Sender: amr@mail.netmagic.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1.0.7 (Beta) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 15:54:24 -0500 To: "Shaw, Robert" , From: "A.M.Rutkowski" Subject: Re: [Enum] Status in advance of Minneapolis IETF In-Reply-To: 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-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Enum Discussion List X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org At 02:39 PM 12-02-01, Shaw, Robert wrote: >Just to flag it here that issues are beginning to be raised >by ITU Member States in respect of the responsibility, delegation >and authority for the ENUM "root zone". While discussions have Hi Bob, Along those lines, the VeriSign-Telcordia slides on this and related subjects at today's meeting of the US government's ITAC SG-A AdHoc Industry Committee on ENUM can be found at: http://www.enumworld.com/resources/roadmap.ppt Maybe you can put a pointer up on the ITU ENUM site in the interest of a full exploration of the issues by Member States. --tony _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From enum-admin@ietf.org Mon Feb 12 16:15:18 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id QAA21702 for ; Mon, 12 Feb 2001 16:15:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id QAA25329; Mon, 12 Feb 2001 16:13:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id QAA25303 for ; Mon, 12 Feb 2001 16:13:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from mailsrv1.itu.int (mailsrv1.itu.ch [156.106.128.45]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id QAA21687 for ; Mon, 12 Feb 2001 16:13:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from mailsrv4.itu.ch ([156.106.128.46]) by mailsrv1.itu.int with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2650.21) id DMBXW48C; Mon, 12 Feb 2001 22:12:55 +0100 Received: by mailsrv4.itu.ch with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Mon, 12 Feb 2001 22:12:55 +0100 Message-ID: From: "Shaw, Robert" To: "'A.M.Rutkowski'" , enum@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Enum] Status in advance of Minneapolis IETF Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 22:12:13 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Enum Discussion List X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org Will do. The same holds for any other contributions to the meeting. Bob -- Robert Shaw ITU Internet Strategy and Policy Advisor International Telecommunication Union Place des Nations, 1211 Geneva, Switzerland > -----Original Message----- > From: A.M.Rutkowski [mailto:amr@netmagic.com] > Sent: 12 February 2001 21:54 > To: Shaw, Robert; enum@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Enum] Status in advance of Minneapolis IETF > > > At 02:39 PM 12-02-01, Shaw, Robert wrote: > >Just to flag it here that issues are beginning to be raised > >by ITU Member States in respect of the responsibility, delegation > >and authority for the ENUM "root zone". While discussions have > > Hi Bob, > > Along those lines, the VeriSign-Telcordia slides on > this and related subjects at today's meeting of the > US government's ITAC SG-A AdHoc Industry Committee > on ENUM can be found at: > http://www.enumworld.com/resources/roadmap.ppt > > Maybe you can put a pointer up on the ITU ENUM site > in the interest of a full exploration of the issues > by Member States. > > --tony > _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From enum-admin@ietf.org Mon Feb 12 16:49:36 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id QAA22270 for ; Mon, 12 Feb 2001 16:49:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id QAA25759; Mon, 12 Feb 2001 16:48:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id QAA25732 for ; Mon, 12 Feb 2001 16:48:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from mtiwmhc23.worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc23.worldnet.att.net [204.127.131.48]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id QAA22266 for ; Mon, 12 Feb 2001 16:48:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from worldnet ([12.88.174.212]) by mtiwmhc23.worldnet.att.net (InterMail vM.4.01.03.10 201-229-121-110) with SMTP id <20010212214751.JWDR19355.mtiwmhc23.worldnet.att.net@worldnet>; Mon, 12 Feb 2001 21:47:51 +0000 From: "Judith Oppenheimer" To: , Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 16:44:53 -0500 Message-ID: <004901c0953d$218ce780$c4ab580c@att.net.icbtollfree.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: <5.0.2.1.2.20010202140415.02758220@127.0.0.1> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Enum] Tier 1 or 2 companies controlling and pre-loading NXX's Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Enum Discussion List X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit This sort of service could, I suppose, be a possible example of what I referenced below: http://corporate.verisign.com/news/2001/pr_20010212.html. Does this help clarify the question? Judith --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- Judith Oppenheimer 212 684-7210, 1 800 The Expert Publisher, http://ICBTollFreeNews.com "An important source of inside information," says InfoWorld; "superb", "invaluable", "critically intelligent", "exceedingly useful", report ICB Premium Subscribers. ENTER HERE: http://www.roibot.com/w.cgi?R1764_sig --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- > -----Original Message----- > From: ENUM List for EB/CIP/MA > [mailto:ENUM@ALMSNTSA.LMLIST.STATE.GOV]On > Behalf Of Richard Shockey > Sent: Friday, February 02, 2001 2:07 PM > To: ENUM@ALMSNTSA.LMLIST.STATE.GOV > Subject: Re: [ENUM] [Enum] Did this message get lost in the fray? > > > At 01:19 PM 2/2/2001 -0500, Judith Oppenheimer wrote: > >Perhaps this is a U.S.-centric question? Under what > circumstances could a > >Tier 1 ENUM company be envisioned to control* and pre-load > mass-scale** > >numbering resources? A Tier 2 company ... ? > > In the absence of subscriber authorization ...IMHO none. > > > > >tia - > > > >Judith > > > >*whether "subscriber" control as a vendor or service > company, or regulatory > >control as an "enforcer" > > _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From enum-admin@ietf.org Mon Feb 12 17:18:28 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id RAA22778 for ; Mon, 12 Feb 2001 17:18:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id RAA26148; Mon, 12 Feb 2001 17:16:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id RAA26121 for ; Mon, 12 Feb 2001 17:16:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from p-mail1.cnet.fr (p-mail1.rd.francetelecom.fr [193.49.124.31]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id RAA22763 for ; Mon, 12 Feb 2001 17:16:04 -0500 (EST) Received: by p-biset.rd.francetelecom.fr with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <1P160DAP>; Mon, 12 Feb 2001 23:15:13 +0100 Message-ID: <98388C05D464D111B61800805F1504160233A2A2@p-ibis.rd.francetelecom.fr> From: BARNOLE Valerie FTRD/DAC/ISS To: "'A.M.Rutkowski '" , "'Shaw, Robert '" , "'enum@ietf.org '" Subject: RE: [Enum] Status in advance of Minneapolis IETF Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 23:15:11 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Enum Discussion List X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org Hi Tony, I do not understand your slide n?5. What do you refer to in your 2nd bullet ? Wich other bodies of ITU ? Where and how do you define a special status zone ? What is the role ARIN is supposed to play in this story ? If this is ENUM Yalta, with RIPE-NCC chosen (by who ?) to administer e164.arpa, what are the pieces of the cake that ARIN and APNIC are going to have ? And what about a potential newcomer the day Africa decides to have its registrar (who cares about Africa in fact as long as it is not marketable enough ?) It seems that your slides intend to be clear, but they are not enough in my opinion. Thanks for going deeper in the explanation of your vision of our brand new ENUM world. Valerie. -----Message d'origine----- De: A.M.Rutkowski A: Shaw, Robert; enum@ietf.org Date: 12/02/01 21:54 Objet: Re: [Enum] Status in advance of Minneapolis IETF At 02:39 PM 12-02-01, Shaw, Robert wrote: >Just to flag it here that issues are beginning to be raised >by ITU Member States in respect of the responsibility, delegation >and authority for the ENUM "root zone". While discussions have Hi Bob, Along those lines, the VeriSign-Telcordia slides on this and related subjects at today's meeting of the US government's ITAC SG-A AdHoc Industry Committee on ENUM can be found at: http://www.enumworld.com/resources/roadmap.ppt Maybe you can put a pointer up on the ITU ENUM site in the interest of a full exploration of the issues by Member States. --tony _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From enum-admin@ietf.org Mon Feb 12 18:29:46 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id SAA23772 for ; Mon, 12 Feb 2001 18:29:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id SAA27043; Mon, 12 Feb 2001 18:29:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id SAA27015 for ; Mon, 12 Feb 2001 18:29:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from exchange.chaos.com (exchange.chaos.com [206.5.17.8]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id SAA23769 for ; Mon, 12 Feb 2001 18:28:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from [206.5.17.17] by exchange.netmagic.com (NTMail 5.06.0016/NT2627.00.5ef58ba0) with ESMTP id bqqkaaaa for enum@ietf.org; Mon, 12 Feb 2001 18:28:57 -0500 Message-Id: <5.1.0.7.2.20010212175911.00ad2be0@mail.netmagic.com> X-Sender: amr@mail.netmagic.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1.0.7 (Beta) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 18:28:56 -0500 To: BARNOLE Valerie FTRD/DAC/ISS , "'Shaw, Robert '" , "'enum@ietf.org '" From: "A.M.Rutkowski" Subject: RE: [Enum] Status in advance of Minneapolis IETF In-Reply-To: <98388C05D464D111B61800805F1504160233A2A2@p-ibis.rd.francet elecom.fr> 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-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Enum Discussion List X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org Hi Valerie, > I do not understand your slide n?5. What do you refer to in your 2nd bullet >? Wich other bodies of ITU ? Where and how do you define a special status >zone ? The upcoming WTPF, plus Council, Secretary-General, TSB Director, Coordinating Committee - entities that are Member State bodies or elected officials who have substantive policy making roles. It's important to get beyond the "IAB-ITU" fiction. >What is the role ARIN is supposed to play in this story ? If this is >ENUM Yalta, with RIPE-NCC chosen (by who ?) to administer e164.arpa, what >are the pieces of the cake that ARIN and APNIC are going to have ? And what >about a potential newcomer the day Africa decides to have its registrar (who >cares about Africa in fact as long as it is not marketable enough ?) >It seems that your slides intend to be clear, but they are not enough in my >opinion. It's important to underscore that these slides deal just with the 1.e164 issues. We could be wrong, but it seems unlikely the US gov will deal with ENUM as anything more than private directory services - both domestically and internationally. This necessitates an industry driven solution that meets antitrust muster - which includes a forum. There aren't many forums deal with operations issues that have some form of direct or derivative antitrust immunity. ARIN is one of them. The CEC staff are considering the same issues and choice of forum questions. This situation is actually like to be commonplace, as many Administrations may chose to do nothing about ENUM; and in those instances, private ENUM services will be offered as they are now by NetNumbers. >Thanks for going deeper in the explanation of your vision of our brand new >ENUM world. Thanks, the presentation is actually the collective effort of a number of people spanning several organizations. Some of it attempts to pragmatically deal with the surrounding realities. Other things like organizational homes are simply possible ideas. best, tony _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From enum-admin@ietf.org Thu Feb 15 09:48:48 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id JAA19251 for ; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 09:48:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id JAA17518; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 09:46:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id JAA17491 for ; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 09:46:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from rainier.illuminet.com (root@[63.116.20.6]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id JAA19145 for ; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 09:46:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from olwinexsmtp01.corp.illuminet.com ([172.20.1.9]) by rainier.illuminet.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id GAA10451 for ; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 06:46:49 -0800 (PST) Received: by olwinexsmtp01.corp.illuminet.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <1YY7QNJV>; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 06:46:49 -0800 Message-ID: <1C1EEC765F843E44996971A80682118B2524B3@OPWINEXCL01> From: Kevin McCandless To: "'enum@ietf.org'" Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 06:46:47 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Subject: [Enum] meeting material from feb 12-13 Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Enum Discussion List X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org Has the meeting notes and presentations from our Feb 12-13 meeting been sent out? I am not receiving any messages from the ENUM@ALMSNTSA.LMLIST.STATE.GOV list. Kevin McCandless Senior Network Planner Illuminet 913-814-6397 kmccandles@illuminet.com _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From enum-admin@ietf.org Thu Feb 15 09:53:54 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id JAA19547 for ; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 09:53:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id JAA17663; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 09:53:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id JAA17632 for ; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 09:53:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from rainier.illuminet.com (root@[63.116.20.6]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id JAA19541 for ; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 09:53:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from olwinexsmtp01.corp.illuminet.com ([172.20.1.9]) by rainier.illuminet.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id GAA10638; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 06:53:29 -0800 (PST) Received: by olwinexsmtp01.corp.illuminet.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <1YY7QNL1>; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 06:53:29 -0800 Message-ID: <1C1EEC765F843E44996971A80682118B2524B4@OPWINEXCL01> From: Kevin McCandless To: "'Richard Shockey'" Cc: "'enum@ietf.org'" Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 06:53:26 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Subject: [Enum] Tier II roll out Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Enum Discussion List X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org Rich: Have you given any thought on how the tier II servers should be defined? By define I mean should they be divided up into sectors like area codes or by using the first number or two after the country code? Does it matter? If tier I has the NS and A record for finding the Tier two, can there be multiple Tier II providers for say 913 area code? Or would there be no division for the Tier IIs since Tier I has the NS and A record. Your input is greatly appreciated. Kevin McCandless Senior Network Planner Illuminet 913-814-6397 kmccandles@illuminet.com _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From enum-admin@ietf.org Thu Feb 15 10:08:36 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id KAA20123 for ; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 10:08:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id KAA18031; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 10:08:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id KAA18005 for ; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 10:08:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from nic-naa.net (dt0b4n5b.maine.rr.com [24.95.12.91]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id KAA20080 for ; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 10:07:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from nic-naa.net (localhost.maine.rr.com [127.0.0.1]) by nic-naa.net (8.11.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id f1FF6hC12897; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 10:06:43 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from brunner@nic-naa.net) Message-Id: <200102151506.f1FF6hC12897@nic-naa.net> To: "A.M.Rutkowski" cc: Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine , Richard Shockey , enum@ietf.org, brunner@nic-naa.net Subject: Re: [Enum] Status in advance of Minneapolis IETF In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sun, 11 Feb 2001 13:25:59 EST." <5.1.0.7.2.20010211130757.00ae02a0@mail.netmagic.com> Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 10:06:42 -0500 From: Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Enum Discussion List X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org This to enum@ietf.org, on 11 February, 2001: > The Working Group - its chair and participants - have > responsibilities (and liabilities) for their own work > and conduct. Certainly dealing with matters of scope > in a working group are not new, and most norms of > administrative due process require raising these > matters initially in the group in which the conduct > is manifested. > > Poisson has a broader responsibility for the IETF > with respect to policy and IETF process. > > It is also a matter for the IETF's legal counsel > to consider, as well as private counsel for those > in significant decision making and participatory > positions. Allied Tube was a seminal decision for > standards collaborative organizations such as the > IETF that inter alia, established the bounds of > acceptable conduct under the rubric of standards > collaboration. > > --tony And this to wg-c@dnso.org, on 6 November, 1999: > What gives this - or any other ICANN group - the right > to restrain competition in this fashion in the provision > of name resolving services? Answer - such a right does > not exist. In fact, doing so is a significant liability - > both corporate and personal. See Allied Tube. Do you think you could put together a Frequently Argued Quixotism entry so that in the future those unfamiliar with your, ahem, contributions to the development of open processes and open standards, would need less time to evaluate the substance of your remarks? Eric _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From enum-admin@ietf.org Thu Feb 15 10:24:44 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id KAA20578 for ; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 10:24:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id KAA18248; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 10:23:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id KAA18223 for ; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 10:23:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from mtiwmhc24.worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc24.worldnet.att.net [204.127.131.49]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id KAA20550 for ; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 10:23:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from hppav ([12.77.125.116]) by mtiwmhc24.worldnet.att.net (InterMail vM.4.01.03.10 201-229-121-110) with SMTP id <20010215152307.OAOA6676.mtiwmhc24.worldnet.att.net@hppav>; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 15:23:07 +0000 Reply-To: From: "Mark Harris" To: "Kevin McCandless" , Cc: Subject: RE: [Enum] meeting material from feb 12-13 Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 10:28:08 -0800 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 In-Reply-To: <1C1EEC765F843E44996971A80682118B2524B3@OPWINEXCL01> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Enum Discussion List X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Kevin: I believe that Gary is working on sending something to send out to the Ad-hoc attendees. I wasn't sure if he was also sending the presentations (or links) out to the other lists. Here is the link to our EnumNIC presentation from IITO. http://www.enumnic.net/overview/enumnic_iito_adhoc.ppt Also, as I mentioned at the meeting; the EnumNIC.net site will be live on Monday, February 19th for additional information about the project. I hope this was helpful. Mark Mark Harris Intl Internet Telephone Organization 12020 Sunrise Valley Drive, Suite 100 Reston, VA 20191 (T) 1.540.678.8557 (F) 1.540.678.4642 (E) mark.harris@iito.org -----Original Message----- From: enum-admin@ietf.org [mailto:enum-admin@ietf.org]On Behalf Of Kevin McCandless Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2001 6:47 AM To: 'enum@ietf.org' Subject: [Enum] meeting material from feb 12-13 Has the meeting notes and presentations from our Feb 12-13 meeting been sent out? I am not receiving any messages from the ENUM@ALMSNTSA.LMLIST.STATE.GOV list. Kevin McCandless Senior Network Planner Illuminet 913-814-6397 kmccandles@illuminet.com _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From enum-admin@ietf.org Thu Feb 15 10:37:44 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id KAA20851 for ; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 10:37:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id KAA18677; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 10:36:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id KAA18632 for ; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 10:35:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from exchange.chaos.com (exchange.chaos.com [206.5.17.8]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id KAA20781 for ; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 10:33:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from [206.5.17.17] by exchange.netmagic.com (NTMail 5.06.0016/NT2627.00.5ef58ba0) with ESMTP id wsrkaaaa for enum@ietf.org; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 10:33:41 -0500 Message-Id: <5.1.0.7.2.20010215102912.00af7638@mail.netmagic.com> X-Sender: amr@mail.netmagic.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1.0.7 (Beta) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 10:33:40 -0500 To: Kevin McCandless , "'Richard Shockey'" From: "A.M.Rutkowski" Subject: Re: [Enum] Tier II roll out Cc: "'enum@ietf.org'" In-Reply-To: <1C1EEC765F843E44996971A80682118B2524B4@OPWINEXCL01> 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-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Enum Discussion List X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org Hi Kevin, Since the USGOV designated forum and list for conducting these ENUM provisioning issues with antitrust protection exists, you may wish to send it to that list so we can deal with it in the appropriate forum. best, tony _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From enum-admin@ietf.org Thu Feb 15 10:44:40 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id KAA21077 for ; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 10:44:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id KAA18872; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 10:43:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id KAA18847 for ; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 10:43:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from joy.songbird.com (IDENT:root@songbird.com [208.184.79.7]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id KAA21014 for ; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 10:43:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from DC-DESK.dcrocker.net (c1193160-a.snvl1.sfba.home.com [65.0.152.112]) by joy.songbird.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA24222; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 07:43:18 -0800 Message-Id: <5.1.0.7.2.20010215074049.01c92570@dcrocker.songbird.com> X-Sender: dhc@dcrocker.songbird.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1.0.7 (Beta) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 07:43:11 -0800 To: "A.M.Rutkowski" From: Dave Crocker Subject: Re: [Enum] Tier II roll out Cc: "'enum@ietf.org'" In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.7.2.20010215102912.00af7638@mail.netmagic.com> References: <1C1EEC765F843E44996971A80682118B2524B4@OPWINEXCL01> 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-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Enum Discussion List X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org Tony, Your previous attempt to introduce the anti-trust concern established that you had no basis for specific concern about anti-trust. Why are you trying to re-introduce that bit of distraction again? d/ At 07:33 AM 2/15/2001, A.M.Rutkowski wrote: >Hi Kevin, > >Since the USGOV designated forum and list for conducting these >ENUM provisioning issues with antitrust protection exists, you >may wish to send it to that list so we can deal with it in the >appropriate forum. _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From enum-admin@ietf.org Thu Feb 15 11:12:21 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id LAA21895 for ; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 11:12:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA19366; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 11:11:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA19337 for ; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 11:11:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from exchange.chaos.com (exchange.chaos.com [206.5.17.8]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id LAA21888 for ; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 11:11:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from [206.5.17.17] by exchange.netmagic.com (NTMail 5.06.0016/NT2627.00.5ef58ba0) with ESMTP id otrkaaaa for enum@ietf.org; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 11:11:43 -0500 Message-Id: <5.1.0.7.2.20010215110328.00b1a990@mail.netmagic.com> X-Sender: amr@mail.netmagic.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1.0.7 (Beta) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 11:11:41 -0500 To: Dave Crocker From: "A.M.Rutkowski" Subject: Re: [Enum] Tier II roll out Cc: "'enum@ietf.org'" In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.7.2.20010215074049.01c92570@dcrocker.songbird.com> References: <5.1.0.7.2.20010215102912.00af7638@mail.netmagic.com> <1C1EEC765F843E44996971A80682118B2524B4@OPWINEXCL01> 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-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Enum Discussion List X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org At 10:43 AM 2/15/2001, Dave Crocker wrote: >Your previous attempt to introduce the anti-trust concern established that >you had no basis for specific concern about anti-trust. My note didn't deal with belief sets. It was intended to be informational. The US government has established a forum and list for dealing with these North American ENUM provisioning issues and which has antitrust protection. It will be the forum used by those for whom that designation matters, and not here. --tony _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From enum-admin@ietf.org Thu Feb 15 12:12:09 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id MAA23715 for ; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 12:12:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA20857; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 12:11:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA20812 for ; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 12:11:43 -0500 (EST) Received: from dnspri.npac.com (firewall-user@dnspri.npac.com [208.143.33.66]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id MAA23672 for ; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 12:11:42 -0500 (EST) Received: by dnspri.npac.com; id LAA07713; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 11:11:43 -0600 (CST) Received: from unknown(192.168.20.193) by dnspri.npac.com via smap (V5.0) id xmab07418; Thu, 15 Feb 01 11:10:53 -0600 Message-Id: <5.0.2.1.2.20010215114740.02ea1e40@127.0.0.1> X-Sender: rshockey@127.0.0.1 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.0.2 Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 11:53:52 -0500 To: "A.M.Rutkowski" From: Richard Shockey Subject: Re: [Enum] Tier II roll out Cc: "'enum@ietf.org'" In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.7.2.20010215110328.00b1a990@mail.netmagic.com> References: <5.1.0.7.2.20010215074049.01c92570@dcrocker.songbird.com> <5.1.0.7.2.20010215102912.00af7638@mail.netmagic.com> <1C1EEC765F843E44996971A80682118B2524B4@OPWINEXCL01> 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-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Enum Discussion List X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org At 11:11 AM 2/15/2001 -0500, A.M.Rutkowski wrote: >At 10:43 AM 2/15/2001, Dave Crocker wrote: >>Your previous attempt to introduce the anti-trust concern established >>that you had no basis for specific concern about anti-trust. > >My note didn't deal with belief sets. It was intended >to be informational. > >The US government has established a forum and list >for dealing with these North American ENUM provisioning >issues and which has antitrust protection. It will be the >forum used by those for whom that designation matters, >and not here. I want to make this perfectly clear Tony... this list is open to any reasonable discussion of subjects related to ENUM ...we have documents on the table that this WG has decided , may be Informational, that discuss models of ENUM administration and as such this forum as well as the USG forum are appropriate for those discussions. I am not going to tolerate and blatant or subtle forms of intimidation here by you raising red herrings about anti-trust issues etc.. >--tony > > >_______________________________________________ >enum mailing list >enum@ietf.org >http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard Shockey, Senior Technical Industry Liaison NeuStar Inc. 1120 Vermont Avenue N.W., Suite 550, Washington DC. 20005 Voice: 202.533.2811, Cell : 314.503.0640, Fax: 815.333.1237 or <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From enum-admin@ietf.org Thu Feb 15 12:12:09 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id MAA23719 for ; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 12:12:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA20829; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 12:11:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA20790 for ; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 12:11:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from dnspri.npac.com (firewall-user@dnspri.npac.com [208.143.33.66]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id MAA23668 for ; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 12:11:41 -0500 (EST) Received: by dnspri.npac.com; id LAA07703; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 11:11:42 -0600 (CST) Received: from unknown(192.168.20.193) by dnspri.npac.com via smap (V5.0) id xma007418; Thu, 15 Feb 01 11:10:50 -0600 Message-Id: <5.0.2.1.2.20010215113739.02a82080@127.0.0.1> X-Sender: rshockey@127.0.0.1 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.0.2 Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 11:43:32 -0500 To: Kevin McCandless From: Richard Shockey Subject: Re: [Enum] Tier II roll out Cc: "'enum@ietf.org'" In-Reply-To: <1C1EEC765F843E44996971A80682118B2524B4@OPWINEXCL01> 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-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Enum Discussion List X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org At 06:53 AM 2/15/2001 -0800, Kevin McCandless wrote: >Rich: > >Have you given any thought on how the tier II servers should be defined? By >define I mean should they be divided up into sectors like area codes or by >using the first number or two after the country code? Does it matter? IMHO it really doesnt matter from a technical perspective. If you look a the Pfautz/Yu drafts from a North Americian perspective it is necessary to resolve the number at T1 to the last digit because of portability concerns..then its a pointer to authoritive NS ..and those can be anywhere. >If >tier I has the NS and A record for finding the Tier two, can there be >multiple Tier II providers for say 913 area code? Of course the NS for T2 can be anywhere the delegation has been made at T1. The assumptions some of us have had for North America have those T2 holders could be service providers, enterprises, ASP, or my basement. >Or would there be no >division for the Tier IIs since Tier I has the NS and A record. > >Your input is greatly appreciated. No problem and dont let Tony's flatulent rhetoric on anti-trust bother you. These are purely technical issues that are being discussed here. >Kevin McCandless >Senior Network Planner >Illuminet >913-814-6397 >kmccandles@illuminet.com > > >_______________________________________________ >enum mailing list >enum@ietf.org >http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard Shockey, Senior Technical Industry Liaison NeuStar Inc. 1120 Vermont Avenue N.W., Suite 550, Washington DC. 20005 Voice: 202.533.2811, Cell : 314.503.0640, Fax: 815.333.1237 or <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From enum-admin@ietf.org Thu Feb 15 12:35:21 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id MAA24780 for ; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 12:35:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA21641; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 12:31:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA21616 for ; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 12:31:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from joy.songbird.com (IDENT:root@songbird.com [208.184.79.7]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id MAA24605 for ; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 12:31:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from DC-DESK.dcrocker.net (c1193160-a.snvl1.sfba.home.com [65.0.152.112]) by joy.songbird.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA26988 for ; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 09:31:18 -0800 Message-Id: <5.1.0.7.2.20010215092307.02fd8ba8@dcrocker.songbird.com> X-Sender: dhc@dcrocker.songbird.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1.0.7 (Beta) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 09:31:21 -0800 To: "'enum@ietf.org'" From: Dave Crocker Subject: Re: [Enum] Tier II roll out In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.7.2.20010215110328.00b1a990@mail.netmagic.com> References: <5.1.0.7.2.20010215074049.01c92570@dcrocker.songbird.com> <5.1.0.7.2.20010215102912.00af7638@mail.netmagic.com> <1C1EEC765F843E44996971A80682118B2524B4@OPWINEXCL01> 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-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Enum Discussion List X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org Folks, Since many of you are new to the IETF, I'd like to clarify a couple of points about legalities of IETF activities: Background: I have worked in the IETF for 12 years, including holding a variety of Area Director and Working Group Chair positions. I also wrote a substantial fraction of the original IETF formal documentation and instituted the working group chair training session. I also am NOT a lawyer... In these 12 years, Tony's occasional, recent comments have been the only time that anyone has raised anti-trust concerns in working group discussions. Also within those 12 years, the IETF has not been the subject of a single lawsuit or investigation, for anti-trust or anything else. The IETF has very much paid attention to its legal basis for operation, including obtaining legal guidance. Of course my own legal assessment of the working group's activities is worthless. However as Rich notes, the discussions taking place in this working group are entirely consistent with typical IETF work. So, let's move on. d/ At 08:11 AM 2/15/2001, A.M.Rutkowski wrote: >At 10:43 AM 2/15/2001, Dave Crocker wrote: >>Your previous attempt to introduce the anti-trust concern established >>that you had no basis for specific concern about anti-trust. > >My note didn't deal with belief sets. It was intended >to be informational. > >The US government has established a forum and list >for dealing with these North American ENUM provisioning >issues and which has antitrust protection. It will be the >forum used by those for whom that designation matters, >and not here. _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From enum-admin@ietf.org Mon Feb 19 07:45:24 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id HAA02843 for ; Mon, 19 Feb 2001 07:45:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id HAA19868; Mon, 19 Feb 2001 07:42:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id HAA19837 for ; Mon, 19 Feb 2001 07:42:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail2.itu.int (mail2.itu.ch [156.106.192.18]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id HAA02768 for ; Mon, 19 Feb 2001 07:42:06 -0500 (EST) Received: by mail2.itu.ch with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id <167G3BK2>; Mon, 19 Feb 2001 13:41:33 +0100 Message-ID: From: "Shaw, Robert" To: "'enum@ietf.org'" Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 13:41:32 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Subject: [Enum] Presentations from US SGA-Workshop February 12-13, 2001 Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Enum Discussion List X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org have been posted at www.itu.int/infocom/enum/ Bob -- Robert Shaw ITU Internet Strategy and Policy Advisor International Telecommunication Union Place des Nations, 1211 Geneva, Switzerland _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From enum-admin@ietf.org Tue Feb 20 12:16:24 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id MAA17074 for ; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 12:16:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA19487; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 12:13:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA19460 for ; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 12:13:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from DF-INET-1.dogfoodinternet.com (df-inet1.exchange.microsoft.com [131.107.8.8]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id MAA16989 for ; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 12:13:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from df-virus2.platinum.corp.microsoft.com ([172.30.236.33]) by DF-INET-1.dogfoodinternet.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.2831); Tue, 20 Feb 2001 09:13:44 -0800 Received: from 172.30.236.11 by df-virus2.platinum.corp.microsoft.com (InterScan E-Mail VirusWall NT); Tue, 20 Feb 2001 09:12:51 -0800 (Pacific Standard Time) Received: from speak.platinum.corp.microsoft.com ([172.30.236.197]) by yuri.dns.microsoft.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.2831); Tue, 20 Feb 2001 09:12:50 -0800 content-class: urn:content-classes:message Subject: RE: [Enum] Tier II roll out MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 09:12:50 -0800 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.4648.0 Message-ID: Thread-Topic: [Enum] Tier II roll out Thread-Index: AcCXd5WRruBNsLURQyeoZW/1QjyyuAD5/twg From: "Christian Huitema" To: "Dave Crocker" , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 20 Feb 2001 17:12:50.0848 (UTC) FILETIME=[5AC63A00:01C09B60] Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by optimus.ietf.org id MAA19461 Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Enum Discussion List X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit > In these 12 years, Tony's occasional, recent comments have > been the only > time that anyone has raised anti-trust concerns in working group > discussions. Also within those 12 years, the IETF has not > been the subject > of a single lawsuit or investigation, for anti-trust or anything else. Dave, The reason for the absence of concern has been the strict avoidance of any "business" decision. For example, when the IETF defines BGP, it defines how two parties that have reached a peering agreement can encode that agreement using bits in the protocol; however, the IETF never tries to define who should peer with whom. That is, define the technology, don't define the business practices. The ENUM technology, as it stands, allows operation of many mapping trees -- it is merely an issue of parametrizing the resolvers. Forcing everybody in a single tree is not and should not be the role of the IETF. You may want to document the consequences of operating one way or another, and the pitfalls of each of the operation regimes; you should not try to restrict the business practices of competing actors in the market. -- Christian Huitema _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From enum-admin@ietf.org Tue Feb 20 14:41:20 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id OAA22177 for ; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 14:41:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA21766; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 14:38:43 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA21735 for ; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 14:38:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from shell.nominum.com (shell.nominum.com [204.152.187.59]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id OAA22088 for ; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 14:38:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from drc-toshiba.nominum.com (shell.nominum.com [204.152.187.59]) by shell.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B1EB3190E; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 11:38:09 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <5.0.2.1.2.20010220113702.00aef2d8@localhost> X-Sender: drc@localhost X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.0.2 Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 11:38:09 -0800 To: "Christian Huitema" , "Dave Crocker" , From: "David R. Conrad" Subject: RE: [Enum] Tier II roll out In-Reply-To: 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-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Enum Discussion List X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org Christian, At 09:12 AM 2/20/2001 -0800, Christian Huitema wrote: >Forcing >everybody in a single tree is not and should not be the role of the >IETF. Guess we should remove references to in-addr.arpa in the RFCs then. Rgds, -drc _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From enum-admin@ietf.org Tue Feb 20 15:39:38 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id PAA24428 for ; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 15:39:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id PAA22826; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 15:36:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id PAA22797 for ; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 15:35:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from exchange.chaos.com (exchange.chaos.com [206.5.17.8]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id PAA24151 for ; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 15:35:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from [216.168.250.52] by exchange.netmagic.com (NTMail 5.06.0016/NT2627.00.5ef58ba0) with ESMTP id imukaaaa for enum@ietf.org; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 15:35:55 -0500 Message-Id: <5.1.0.7.2.20010220152756.00ae65a8@mail.netmagic.com> X-Sender: amr@mail.netmagic.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1.0.7 (Beta) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 15:35:51 -0500 To: "David R. Conrad" , "Christian Huitema" , "Dave Crocker" , From: "A.M. Rutkowski" Subject: RE: [Enum] Tier II roll out In-Reply-To: <5.0.2.1.2.20010220113702.00aef2d8@localhost> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=====================_18802897==_.ALT" Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Enum Discussion List X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org --=====================_18802897==_.ALT Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Hi David >At 09:12 AM 2/20/2001 -0800, Christian Huitema wrote: >>Forcing >>everybody in a single tree is not and should not be the role of the >>IETF. > >Guess we should remove references to in-addr.arpa in the RFCs then. in-addr.arpa was created when this was all the government's network and anticompetitive considerations were not relevant. It's continued provisioning very much enjoys antitrust protection under government contract and derivative instruments. --tony --=====================_18802897==_.ALT Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Hi David

At 09:12 AM 2/20/2001 -0800, Christian Huitema wrote:
Forcing
everybody in a single tree is not and should not be the role of the
IETF.

Guess we should remove references to in-addr.arpa in the RFCs then.

in-addr.arpa was created when this was all the government's
network and anticompetitive considerations were not relevant.
It's continued provisioning very much enjoys antitrust
protection under government contract and derivative instruments.

--tony --=====================_18802897==_.ALT-- _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From enum-admin@ietf.org Tue Feb 20 18:37:50 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id SAA29435 for ; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 18:37:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id SAA26098; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 18:35:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id SAA26069 for ; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 18:35:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from DF-INET-1.dogfoodinternet.com (df-inet1.exchange.microsoft.com [131.107.8.8]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id SAA29355 for ; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 18:35:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from df-virus2.platinum.corp.microsoft.com ([172.30.236.33]) by DF-INET-1.dogfoodinternet.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.2831); Tue, 20 Feb 2001 15:26:49 -0800 Received: from 172.30.236.11 by df-virus2.platinum.corp.microsoft.com (InterScan E-Mail VirusWall NT); Tue, 20 Feb 2001 15:25:56 -0800 (Pacific Standard Time) Received: from speak.platinum.corp.microsoft.com ([172.30.236.197]) by yuri.dns.microsoft.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.2831); Tue, 20 Feb 2001 15:25:12 -0800 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.4648.0 content-class: urn:content-classes:message Subject: RE: [Enum] Tier II roll out MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 15:04:59 -0800 Message-ID: Thread-Topic: [Enum] Tier II roll out Thread-Index: AcCbdW0y91uXHkoOSvaulvs/v9Ye7AAG0wpg From: "Christian Huitema" To: "David R. Conrad" , "Dave Crocker" , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 20 Feb 2001 23:25:12.0271 (UTC) FILETIME=[5F4CD5F0:01C09B94] Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by optimus.ietf.org id SAA26070 Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Enum Discussion List X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit David, > Christian, > > At 09:12 AM 2/20/2001 -0800, Christian Huitema wrote: > >Forcing > >everybody in a single tree is not and should not be the role of the > >IETF. > > Guess we should remove references to in-addr.arpa in the RFCs then. The delegation of in-addr.arpa directly derives from the allocation of unique IP addresses, which is needed for the safe operation of the Internet; this is not the case of phone numbers. While not entirely absent, the business problems are fairly minimal: the reverse mappings are not used for much more than logging purposes. This is not the case for the routing of faxes, or voice-mail. -- Christian Huitema _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From enum-admin@ietf.org Tue Feb 20 23:21:29 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id XAA04994 for ; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 23:21:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id XAA29464; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 23:18:43 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id XAA29437 for ; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 23:18:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from tnt.isi.edu (tnt.isi.edu [128.9.128.128]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id XAA04965 for ; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 23:18:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from zed.isi.edu (zed.isi.edu [128.9.160.57]) by tnt.isi.edu (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f1L4IGq26626; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 20:18:16 -0800 (PST) From: Bill Manning Received: (from bmanning@localhost) by zed.isi.edu (8.11.0/8.8.6) id f1L4IGT18402; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 20:18:16 -0800 Message-Id: <200102210418.f1L4IGT18402@zed.isi.edu> Subject: Re: [Enum] Tier II roll out To: amr@netmagic.com (A.M. Rutkowski) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 20:18:16 -0800 (PST) Cc: david.conrad@nominum.com (David R. Conrad), huitema@exchange.microsoft.com (Christian Huitema), dhc@dcrocker.net (Dave Crocker), enum@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.7.2.20010220152756.00ae65a8@mail.netmagic.com> from "A.M. Rutkowski" at Feb 20, 2001 03:35:51 PM X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL3] 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-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Enum Discussion List X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit % Hi David % % >At 09:12 AM 2/20/2001 -0800, Christian Huitema wrote: % >>Forcing % >>everybody in a single tree is not and should not be the role of the % >>IETF. % > % >Guess we should remove references to in-addr.arpa in the RFCs then. % % in-addr.arpa was created when this was all the government's % network and anticompetitive considerations were not relevant. % It's continued provisioning very much enjoys antitrust % protection under government contract and derivative instruments. % % --tony To say nothing of the tens of millions of copies of deployed code that depend on its persistence. --bill _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From enum-admin@ietf.org Wed Feb 21 08:20:02 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id IAA25185 for ; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 08:19:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id IAA13154; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 08:18:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id IAA13126 for ; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 08:18:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from shell.nominum.com (shell.nominum.com [204.152.187.59]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id IAA25147 for ; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 08:18:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from drc-toshiba.nominum.com (shell.nominum.com [204.152.187.59]) by shell.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 46DFD31915; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 05:17:50 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <5.0.2.1.2.20010220171737.00b0a700@localhost> X-Sender: drc@localhost X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.0.2 Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 17:30:24 -0800 To: "A.M. Rutkowski" , "Christian Huitema" , "Dave Crocker" , From: "David R. Conrad" Subject: RE: [Enum] Tier II roll out In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.7.2.20010220152756.00ae65a8@mail.netmagic.com> References: <5.0.2.1.2.20010220113702.00aef2d8@localhost> 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-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Enum Discussion List X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org Tony, At 03:35 PM 2/20/2001 -0500, A.M. Rutkowski wrote: >>Guess we should remove references to in-addr.arpa in the RFCs then. >in-addr.arpa was created when this was all the government's >network and anticompetitive considerations were not relevant. I'm sure Rick Adams and Marty Schoffstall (etc.) would have been interested to have heard this. You seem to waver between the Internet either being a private network not subject to U. S. (or any other) government regulation or one which is owned by the (U.S. goverrnment). I'll admit being confused as to what your view of the actual situation really is. However, the point I was trying to make was countering Christian's assertion that the IETF shouldn't be establishing domains. The IETF is in the business of specifying protocols of which the use of in-addr.arpa for associating names with addresses is one. If this is, as you say, protected from antitrust concerns by the USG's magic wand, then it would appear to follow that e164.arpa would be protected as well. Rgds, -drc _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From enum-admin@ietf.org Wed Feb 21 08:47:33 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id IAA26006 for ; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 08:47:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id IAA13530; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 08:46:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id IAA13501 for ; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 08:46:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from exchange.chaos.com (exchange.chaos.com [206.5.17.8]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id IAA25984 for ; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 08:46:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from [206.5.17.17] by exchange.netmagic.com (NTMail 5.06.0016/NT2627.00.5ef58ba0) with ESMTP id wtukaaaa for enum@ietf.org; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 08:46:12 -0500 Message-Id: <5.1.0.7.2.20010221082230.00adcda8@mail.netmagic.com> X-Sender: amr@mail.netmagic.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1.0.7 (Beta) Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 08:46:11 -0500 To: "David R. Conrad" , "Christian Huitema" , "Dave Crocker" , From: "A.M.Rutkowski" Subject: RE: [Enum] Tier II roll out In-Reply-To: <5.0.2.1.2.20010220171737.00b0a700@localhost> References: <5.1.0.7.2.20010220152756.00ae65a8@mail.netmagic.com> <5.0.2.1.2.20010220113702.00aef2d8@localhost> 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-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Enum Discussion List X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org Hi David, >I'm sure Rick Adams and Marty Schoffstall (etc.) would have been >interested to have heard this. >You seem to waver between the Internet either being a private network not >subject to U. S. (or any other) government regulation or one which is >owned by the (U.S. goverrnment). I'll admit being confused as to what >your view of the actual situation really is. The subject is multithreaded. Prior to Rick/Marty/Bill, it was fairly simple because it certainly was entirely the government's. After that point, bits (no pun intended) began to be divested to the private sector. Some key functions, have been retained to provide the antitrust protection and as Bob Kahn likes to say, a failsafe mechanism. The only other option that the USGOV is another government or an intergovernmental organization - neither of which are really feasible. >However, the point I was trying to make was countering Christian's >assertion that the IETF shouldn't be establishing domains. The IETF is in >the business of specifying protocols of which the use of in-addr.arpa for >associating names with addresses is one. If this is, as you say, >protected from antitrust concerns by the USG's magic wand, then it would >appear to follow that e164.arpa would be protected as well. Except that we're creating de novo, an entirely new infrastructure and marketplace, with a really substantial scale and significance that Christian points out. Existence/protection will come with a quid pro quo - namely that there will be some rules of the road that the private sector working with the government will agree on. That's what is taking place now. If nothing else, this will be done if nothing else to be sure that the wrong jurisdictions don't exercise authority and regulate it - which in part is what Computer II was all about. --tony _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From enum-admin@ietf.org Wed Feb 21 09:13:28 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id JAA27153 for ; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 09:13:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id JAA13904; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 09:04:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id JAA13873 for ; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 09:04:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from shell.nominum.com (shell.nominum.com [204.152.187.59]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id JAA26540 for ; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 09:04:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from drc-toshiba.nominum.com (shell.nominum.com [204.152.187.59]) by shell.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8547A31913; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 06:03:34 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <5.0.2.1.2.20010221060055.023a8c10@localhost> X-Sender: drc@localhost X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.0.2 Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 06:03:33 -0800 To: "Christian Huitema" , "Dave Crocker" , From: "David R. Conrad" Subject: RE: [Enum] Tier II roll out In-Reply-To: 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-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Enum Discussion List X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org Christian, At 03:04 PM 2/20/2001 -0800, Christian Huitema wrote: >The delegation of in-addr.arpa directly derives from the allocation of >unique IP addresses, which is needed for the safe operation of the >Internet; this is not the case of phone numbers. ?? Having 1-605-381-6003 not go to my office would really piss me off, regardless of whether it was dialed over the PSTN or via some VoIP magic. >While not entirely >absent, the business problems are fairly minimal: the reverse mappings >are not used for much more than logging purposes. This is not the case >for the routing of faxes, or voice-mail. Which would seem to argue more strongly for global uniqueness. Rgds, -drc _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From enum-admin@ietf.org Wed Feb 21 09:31:05 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id JAA27695 for ; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 09:31:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id JAA14400; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 09:30:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id JAA14365 for ; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 09:30:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from shell.nominum.com (shell.nominum.com [204.152.187.59]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id JAA27659 for ; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 09:30:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from drc-toshiba.nominum.com (shell.nominum.com [204.152.187.59]) by shell.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ADA7031915; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 06:29:46 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <5.0.2.1.2.20010221061927.030fd118@localhost> X-Sender: drc@localhost X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.0.2 Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 06:29:43 -0800 To: "A.M.Rutkowski" , "Christian Huitema" , "Dave Crocker" , From: "David R. Conrad" Subject: RE: [Enum] Tier II roll out In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.7.2.20010221082230.00adcda8@mail.netmagic.com> References: <5.0.2.1.2.20010220171737.00b0a700@localhost> <5.1.0.7.2.20010220152756.00ae65a8@mail.netmagic.com> <5.0.2.1.2.20010220113702.00aef2d8@localhost> 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-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Enum Discussion List X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org Tony, At 08:46 AM 2/21/2001 -0500, A.M.Rutkowski wrote: >The subject is multithreaded. Prior to Rick/Marty/Bill, it was fairly >simple because it certainly was entirely the government's. I'd suggest that the folks who were at WIDE, AARNET, Tuianet, HARNET, etc. would find it amusing to be told that their networks were entirely the (US) governments. The Internet is and always has been an interconnection of autonomous networks. You know this -- you've argued it yourself on numerous occasions. The fact that some of those networks were funded by the USG and/or some of those interconnections were sponsored as part of USG funded "cooperative agreements" would appear to be irrelevant in this context -- you might as well be arguing that by using highways, trucking companies are immune from antitrust considerations. >>However, the point I was trying to make was countering Christian's >>assertion that the IETF shouldn't be establishing domains. The IETF is >>in the business of specifying protocols of which the use of in-addr.arpa >>for associating names with addresses is one. If this is, as you say, >>protected from antitrust concerns by the USG's magic wand, then it would >>appear to follow that e164.arpa would be protected as well. >Except that we're creating de novo, an entirely >new infrastructure and marketplace, with a really >substantial scale and significance that Christian >points out. This is one view. Another view is that we are simply mapping an existing infrastructure into the DNS. Rgds, -drc _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From enum-admin@ietf.org Wed Feb 21 10:12:45 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id KAA29309 for ; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 10:12:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id KAA15081; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 10:11:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id KAA15053 for ; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 10:11:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from exchange.chaos.com (exchange.chaos.com [206.5.17.8]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id KAA29259 for ; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 10:11:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from [216.168.250.52] by exchange.netmagic.com (NTMail 5.06.0016/NT2627.00.5ef58ba0) with ESMTP id ruukaaaa for enum@ietf.org; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 10:11:41 -0500 Message-Id: <5.1.0.7.2.20010221095142.00ae70d8@mail.netmagic.com> X-Sender: amr@mail.netmagic.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1.0.7 (Beta) Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 10:11:39 -0500 To: "David R. Conrad" , "Christian Huitema" , "Dave Crocker" , From: "A.M. Rutkowski" Subject: RE: [Enum] Tier II roll out In-Reply-To: <5.0.2.1.2.20010221061927.030fd118@localhost> References: <5.1.0.7.2.20010221082230.00adcda8@mail.netmagic.com> <5.0.2.1.2.20010220171737.00b0a700@localhost> <5.1.0.7.2.20010220152756.00ae65a8@mail.netmagic.com> <5.0.2.1.2.20010220113702.00aef2d8@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=====================_85752054==_.ALT" Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Enum Discussion List X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org --=====================_85752054==_.ALT Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Hi David, >I'd suggest that the folks who were at WIDE, AARNET, Tuianet, HARNET, etc. >would find it amusing to be told that their networks were entirely the >(US) governments. > >The Internet is and always has been an interconnection of autonomous >networks. You know this -- you've argued it yourself on numerous >occasions. The fact that some of those networks were funded by the USG >and/or some of those interconnections were sponsored as I recant on the breadth of my comment. You're certainly right. However, it terms of administrative control and backbone connectivity and routing, it was certainly the U.S. government's. The DISA NIC controlled the entire administration until 31 Dec 1992, and we were still nominally getting Steve Wolff's permission for lots of things for a couple years afterwards. >This is one view. Another view is that we are simply mapping an existing >infrastructure into the DNS. The catch is that that existing infrastructure is subject to 120 some years of domestic and international regulatory regimes. If you adhere to the "simply mapping" model, then you map that 120 years of baggage with it. It's also worth noting that 1) NAPTR RRs which the most innovative piece of the protocol goes way beyond just PSTN interworking, and 2) DNS from a regulatory standpoint, exists as a private networking service (with some antitrust protection provided courtesy of the USGOV). Frankly, you'll find the mapping model a hard sell in Washington (and most other places that have moved beyond the PTT era). Try walking around the 8th floor of the FCC with a Mr. ENUM suit, carrying a sign reading "regulate me." cheers, --tony --=====================_85752054==_.ALT Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Hi David,

I'd suggest that the folks who were at WIDE, AARNET, Tuianet, HARNET, etc. would find it amusing to be told that their networks were entirely the (US) governments.

The Internet is and always has been an interconnection of autonomous networks.  You know this -- you've argued it yourself on numerous occasions.  The fact that some of those networks were funded by the USG and/or some of those interconnections were sponsored as

I recant on the breadth of my comment.  You're certainly right.

However, it terms of administrative control and backbone connectivity
and routing, it was certainly the U.S. government's.  The DISA NIC
controlled the entire administration until 31 Dec 1992, and we were
still nominally getting Steve Wolff's permission for lots of things
for a couple years afterwards.

This is one view.  Another view is that we are simply mapping an existing infrastructure into the DNS.

The catch is that that existing infrastructure is subject
to 120 some years of domestic and international regulatory
regimes.  If you adhere to the "simply mapping" model, then
you map that 120  years of baggage with it.

It's also worth noting that 1) NAPTR RRs which the most
innovative piece of the protocol goes way beyond just
PSTN interworking, and 2) DNS from a regulatory standpoint,
exists as a private networking service (with some antitrust
protection provided courtesy of the USGOV).

Frankly, you'll find the mapping model a hard sell in
Washington (and most other places that have moved beyond the
PTT era).  Try walking around the 8th floor of the FCC with
a Mr. ENUM suit, carrying a sign reading "regulate me."

cheers,

--tony --=====================_85752054==_.ALT-- _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From enum-admin@ietf.org Wed Feb 21 10:19:41 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id KAA29537 for ; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 10:19:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id KAA15188; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 10:18:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id KAA15157 for ; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 10:18:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from stl-smtpout-01.boeing.com (stl-smtpout-01.boeing.com [12.13.247.21]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id KAA29499 for ; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 10:18:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from stl-av-02.boeing.com ([192.76.190.7]) by stl-smtpout-01.boeing.com (8.9.2/8.8.5-M2) with ESMTP id JAA26825 for ; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 09:18:38 -0600 (CST) Received: from stl-hub-01.boeing.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by stl-av-02.boeing.com (8.9.3/8.9.2) with ESMTP id JAA18487 for ; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 09:18:37 -0600 (CST) Received: from xch-phlbh-01.he.boeing.com by stl-hub-01.boeing.com with ESMTP; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 07:18:35 -0800 Received: by xch-phlbh-01.he.boeing.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 10:18:34 -0500 Message-Id: <8D6509B44ACCEB43A96E032B9C3EA0C81313FB@xch-ne-02.he.boeing.com> From: "Manfredi, Albert E" To: "'David R. Conrad'" , enum@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Enum] Tier II roll out Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 10:21:04 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Enum Discussion List X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org > -----Original Message----- > From: David R. Conrad [mailto:david.conrad@nominum.com] > >>However, the point I was trying to make was countering Christian's > >>assertion that the IETF shouldn't be establishing domains. > The IETF is > >>in the business of specifying protocols of which the use of > in-addr.arpa > >>for associating names with addresses is one. If this is, > as you say, > >>protected from antitrust concerns by the USG's magic wand, > then it would > >>appear to follow that e164.arpa would be protected as well. > >Except that we're creating de novo, an entirely > >new infrastructure and marketplace, with a really > >substantial scale and significance that Christian > >points out. > > This is one view. Another view is that we are simply mapping > an existing > infrastructure into the DNS. Seems to me that this is somewhat more unique a situation than you make it to be here, though. I'm sure I don't have the jargon right, but: The DNS is typically listing domains that individual corporate entities organize, control, and maintain ... independently. This enum is very different. Here, the DNS is being made to collapse a large multinational, highly regulated database into the structure usually assigned to a single corporate entity. It doesn't surprise me that people get antsy about ensuring the integrity of this e.164 database, even when it sits in this different, somewhat unregulated and freewheeling database (let alone the possibility that it might be assigned also to domains other than .arpa!). I'm not familar with the details of what this animated discussion has been covering, but it does seem clear that enum is new ground for the DNS. Bert albert.e.manfredi@boeing.com _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From enum-admin@ietf.org Wed Feb 21 16:08:57 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id QAA10437 for ; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 16:08:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id QAA22342; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 16:07:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id QAA22305 for ; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 16:07:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from rainier.illuminet.com (root@[63.116.20.6]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id QAA10351 for ; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 16:07:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from olwinexsmtp01.corp.illuminet.com ([172.20.1.9]) by rainier.illuminet.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id NAA09173 for ; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 13:07:04 -0800 (PST) Received: by olwinexsmtp01.corp.illuminet.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <1YY7R117>; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 13:07:01 -0800 Message-ID: <1C1EEC765F843E44996971A80682118B2524EC@OPWINEXCL01> From: Kevin McCandless To: "'enum@ietf.org'" Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 13:07:03 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Subject: [Enum] Interactive Week February 12 Issue Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Enum Discussion List X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org Hello ENUM Team: After reading all the emails about government regulation and anti-trust issues related to ENUM I came across a great article on ICANN in the February 12 issue of Interactive Week. The article will help many sort the wheat from chaff on the government regulation discussions. The article made it very clear that government control of the root servers is here to stay for some time. Should be required reading before our next meeting in DC ;-) Get your copy today! Kevin McCandless Senior Network Planner Illuminet 913-814-6397 kmccandles@illuminet.com _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From enum-admin@ietf.org Wed Feb 21 17:20:05 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id RAA12411 for ; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 17:20:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id RAA23912; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 17:17:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id RAA23885 for ; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 17:17:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from exchange.chaos.com (exchange.chaos.com [206.5.17.8]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id RAA12366 for ; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 17:17:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from [216.168.250.52] by exchange.netmagic.com (NTMail 5.06.0016/NT2627.00.5ef58ba0) with ESMTP id gbvkaaaa for enum@ietf.org; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 17:17:23 -0500 Message-Id: <5.1.0.7.2.20010221165909.0290b610@mail.netmagic.com> X-Sender: amr@mail.netmagic.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1.0.7 (Beta) Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 17:17:22 -0500 To: , From: "A.M. Rutkowski" In-Reply-To: <1C1EEC765F843E44996971A80682118B2524EC@OPWINEXCL01> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=====================_111294663==_.ALT" Subject: [Enum] Interactive Week February 12 Issue Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Enum Discussion List X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org --=====================_111294663==_.ALT Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Hi Kevin, The URL to the article is http://www.zdnet.com/intweek/stories/news/0,4164,2685062,00.html The reality, however, is much more extensive and complex. You might want to reference the overiew/timeline for Internet Identifiers Administration that appeared in IEEE Internet Computing. Everyone conveniently forgets it was the NIC that managed the administration. http://www.wia.org/pub/names-management.zip Or, the overtime/timeline for current DNS "governance" events. http://www.wia.org/pub/dns_governance_Timeline.zip See also Bob Kahn's seminal and highly influential views on government role retention in the Feb 1995 issue of ACM Journal. Sorry, URL unavailable. --tony --=====================_111294663==_.ALT Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Hi Kevin,

The URL to the article is
http://www.zdnet.com/intweek/stories/news/0,4164,2685062,00.html

The reality, however, is much more extensive and complex.

You might want to reference the overiew/timeline for
Internet Identifiers Administration that appeared in
IEEE Internet Computing.  Everyone conveniently
forgets it was the NIC that managed the administration.
http://www.wia.org/pub/names-management.zip

Or, the overtime/timeline for current DNS "governance"
events.
http://www.wia.org/pub/dns_governance_Timeline.zip

See also Bob Kahn's seminal and highly influential
views on government role retention in the Feb 1995
issue of ACM Journal.  Sorry, URL unavailable.

--tony --=====================_111294663==_.ALT-- _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From enum-admin@ietf.org Wed Feb 21 20:51:26 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id UAA16118 for ; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 20:51:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id UAA28368; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 20:49:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id UAA28340 for ; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 20:49:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from shell.nominum.com (shell.nominum.com [204.152.187.59]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id UAA16063 for ; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 20:49:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from drc-toshiba.nominum.com (shell.nominum.com [204.152.187.59]) by shell.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD89A31916; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 17:48:40 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <5.0.2.1.2.20010221174537.0329b170@localhost> X-Sender: drc@localhost X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.0.2 Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 17:48:38 -0800 To: "Manfredi, Albert E" , enum@ietf.org From: "David R. Conrad" Subject: RE: [Enum] Tier II roll out In-Reply-To: <8D6509B44ACCEB43A96E032B9C3EA0C81313FB@xch-ne-02.he.boeing .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-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Enum Discussion List X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org Albert, At 10:21 AM 2/21/2001 -0500, Manfredi, Albert E wrote: >This enum is very >different. Here, the DNS is being made to collapse a large multinational, >highly regulated database into the structure usually assigned to a single >corporate entity. No it is not. Why do you think this? >I'm not familar with the details of what this animated discussion has been >covering, but it does seem clear that enum is new ground for the DNS. In as much as it has brought the IETF into direct ... um... contact with the ITU in new and interesting ways, yes it is new ground. However, the technology is not particularly new. Rgds, -drc _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From enum-admin@ietf.org Thu Feb 22 05:21:35 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id FAA06771 for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 05:21:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id FAA12200; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 05:18:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id FAA12173 for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 05:18:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from shell.nominum.com (shell.nominum.com [204.152.187.59]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id FAA06748 for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 05:18:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from drc-toshiba.nominum.com (shell.nominum.com [204.152.187.59]) by shell.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB3AE3190F; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 02:17:41 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <5.0.2.1.2.20010221193306.00af2a10@localhost> X-Sender: drc@localhost X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.0.2 Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 21:00:42 -0800 To: "A.M. Rutkowski" , "Christian Huitema" , "Dave Crocker" , From: "David R. Conrad" Subject: RE: [Enum] Tier II roll out In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.7.2.20010221095142.00ae70d8@mail.netmagic.com> References: <5.0.2.1.2.20010221061927.030fd118@localhost> <5.1.0.7.2.20010221082230.00adcda8@mail.netmagic.com> <5.0.2.1.2.20010220171737.00b0a700@localhost> <5.1.0.7.2.20010220152756.00ae65a8@mail.netmagic.com> <5.0.2.1.2.20010220113702.00aef2d8@localhost> 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-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Enum Discussion List X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org Tony, At 10:11 AM 2/21/2001 -0500, A.M. Rutkowski wrote: >The catch is that that existing infrastructure is subject >to 120 some years of domestic and international regulatory >regimes. If you adhere to the "simply mapping" model, then >you map that 120 years of baggage with it. It remains unclear to me how you'd be able to get your cake (the ability to treat e.164 numbers in the DNS as they are treated in the PSTN) and eat it too (not require at least minimal adherence to the structures that make e.164 numbers work the way they do). Nothing is stopping anyone from entering digits as domains. Nothing is stopping anyone from using NAPTR RRs in those zones. Where life gets complicated is when you try to make the exact same associations of "ownership" of the strings of digits in both the DNS and the PSTN without involving the bodies that are making the ownership associations in the PSTN. >It's also worth noting that 1) NAPTR RRs which the most >innovative piece of the protocol goes way beyond just >PSTN interworking, True, given NAPTR is a part of the DNS and it is way beyond just PSTN networking but I'm not sure what the relevance is. >and 2) DNS from a regulatory standpoint, >exists as a private networking service (with some antitrust >protection provided courtesy of the USGOV). So you assert but which I remain unconvinced of. >Frankly, you'll find the mapping model a hard sell in >Washington (and most other places that have moved beyond the >PTT era). Whether or not you or Washington wishes to view it as mapping, the reality of the situation is that if 1-650-381-6003 and 3.0.0.6.1.8.3.0.5.6.1.(whatever) NAPTR "tel:blahblahblah" terminate at the same user, you ARE mapping those identifiers together. That is reality. The question is whether those mappings are deterministic. A single tree approach insures the mapping are deterministic. A multiple tree approach insures that they aren't (unless, of course, determinism is insured at an administrative level). >Try walking around the 8th floor of the FCC with >a Mr. ENUM suit, carrying a sign reading "regulate me." You have said this before and I still find it amusing. Why do you assume the FCC or other USG body won't regulate when people subject to scams and abuse come screaming at them? Given the potential for abuse, I suspect the multiple root approach is much more likely to result in (much more) regulation than a single root approach, albeit that regulation will be reactive to abuses (new forms of slamming, cramming, etc.) instead of pro-actively establishing a model in which industry organizations can compete effectively without significant government intervention. In any event, either way, Nominum doesn't care -- regardless of model, people will still need to provide DNS services... :-) Rgds, -drc _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From enum-admin@ietf.org Thu Feb 22 07:07:34 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id HAA08117 for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 07:07:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id HAA13907; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 07:03:43 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id HAA13876 for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 07:03:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from joy.songbird.com (IDENT:root@songbird.com [208.184.79.7]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id HAA07517 for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 07:03:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from dcrocker-a280.dcrocker.net (tokyo-ppp-210-253-96-102.interq.or.jp [210.253.96.102]) by joy.songbird.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id EAA07395; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 04:03:33 -0800 Message-Id: <5.1.0.7.2.20010221220225.01c4c638@dcrocker.songbird.com> X-Sender: dhc@dcrocker.songbird.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1.0.7 (Beta) Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 22:09:21 -0800 To: "A.M. Rutkowski" From: Dave Crocker Subject: RE: [Enum] Tier II roll out Cc: enum@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.7.2.20010220152756.00ae65a8@mail.netmagic.com> References: <5.0.2.1.2.20010220113702.00aef2d8@localhost> 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-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Enum Discussion List X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org At 12:35 PM 2/20/2001, A.M. Rutkowski wrote: >>At 09:12 AM 2/20/2001 -0800, Christian Huitema wrote: >>>Forcing everybody in a single tree is not and should not be the role of the >>>IETF. >>Guess we should remove references to in-addr.arpa in the RFCs then. > >in-addr.arpa was created when this was all the government's >network and anticompetitive considerations were not relevant. >It's continued provisioning very much enjoys antitrust >protection under government contract and derivative instruments. 1. As the other David C. notes, your assertion about history is factually inaccurate. 2. Equally interesting is that you are now back to asserting the anti-trust is an issue. However you have already admitted that a) you are not offering a professional opinion about current working group activities, and b) you are not asserting that current working group activities demonstrate any specific problems. In other words, Tony, you said that you were just offering a generic concern, which clearly is of no immediate relevance. However your ploy is equally clearly proving successful at distracting some participants and wasting list bandwidth. Thanks so much. At 07:11 AM 2/21/2001, A.M. Rutkowski wrote: >Frankly, you'll find the mapping model a hard sell in >Washington (and most other places that have moved beyond the >PTT era). Oh, boy. Now THAT will certainly make the IETF quake in its boots. I seem to recall that a similar line of threat was quite effective in getting the IETF to recommend watered-down security specifications. (Not!) At 06:29 AM 2/21/2001, David R. Conrad wrote: >This is one view. Another view is that we are simply mapping an existing >infrastructure into the DNS. Especially due to the IETF's lack of any enforcement mechanism, that is not just "another view". It is simply an accurate summary of this WG's mandate and activities. d/ ps. FOLKS, the way to avoid having to climb out of ratholes is to step around them. LET'S MOVE ON! ---------- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking tel: +1.408.246.8253; fax: +1.408.273.6464 _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From enum-admin@ietf.org Thu Feb 22 08:39:36 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id IAA10600 for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 08:39:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id IAA15268; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 08:35:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id IAA15241 for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 08:35:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from joy.songbird.com (IDENT:root@songbird.com [208.184.79.7]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id IAA10483 for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 08:35:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from dcrocker-a280.dcrocker.net (tokyo-ppp-210-253-96-125.interq.or.jp [210.253.96.125]) by joy.songbird.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id FAA09050; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 05:35:12 -0800 Message-Id: <5.1.0.7.2.20010222045150.01bb8098@brandenburg.com> X-Sender: dhc@brandenburg.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1.0.7 (Beta) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 04:53:53 +0900 To: Kevin McCandless From: Dave Crocker Subject: Re: [Enum] Interactive Week February 12 Issue Cc: "'enum@ietf.org'" In-Reply-To: <1C1EEC765F843E44996971A80682118B2524EC@OPWINEXCL01> 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-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Enum Discussion List X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org At 06:07 AM 2/22/2001, Kevin McCandless wrote: >The article made >it very clear that government control of the root servers is here to stay >for some time. Without commenting on the specific article, let me note that coverage about ICANN is usually quite poor, highlighting narrow controversy and reflecting poor understanding of the operational realities. At best, the truth is that the current situation is so politicized, no public statement has any meaning except for the public relations impact. For example the de jure vs. de facto status of the roots is already rather disparate. d/ ---------- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking tel: +1.408.246.8253; fax: +1.408.273.6464 _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From enum-admin@ietf.org Thu Feb 22 08:42:15 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id IAA10677 for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 08:42:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id IAA15432; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 08:41:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id IAA15402 for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 08:41:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from exchange.chaos.com (exchange.chaos.com [206.5.17.8]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id IAA10662 for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 08:41:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from [206.5.17.17] by exchange.netmagic.com (NTMail 5.06.0016/NT2627.00.5ef58ba0) with ESMTP id ykvkaaaa for enum@ietf.org; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 08:41:07 -0500 Message-Id: <5.1.0.7.2.20010222070521.00adb910@mail.netmagic.com> X-Sender: amr@mail.netmagic.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1.0.7 (Beta) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 08:41:06 -0500 To: "David R. Conrad" , "Christian Huitema" , From: "A.M.Rutkowski" Subject: RE: [Enum] Tier II roll out In-Reply-To: <5.0.2.1.2.20010221193306.00af2a10@localhost> References: <5.1.0.7.2.20010221095142.00ae70d8@mail.netmagic.com> <5.0.2.1.2.20010221061927.030fd118@localhost> <5.1.0.7.2.20010221082230.00adcda8@mail.netmagic.com> <5.0.2.1.2.20010220171737.00b0a700@localhost> <5.1.0.7.2.20010220152756.00ae65a8@mail.netmagic.com> <5.0.2.1.2.20010220113702.00aef2d8@localhost> 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-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Enum Discussion List X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org Hi David, >It remains unclear to me how you'd be able to get your cake (the ability >to treat e.164 numbers in the DNS as they are treated in the PSTN) and eat >it too (not require at least minimal adherence to the structures that make >e.164 numbers work the way they do). Dealing with the systems integration (both technical and regulatory) here is the designated function of the USGOV's ITAC-T SG-A ENUM AdHoc group and the associated mailing list. Part of that effort involves finding a permanent sanctioned/protected forum for doing this. The task is made rather more difficult 1) because of the significant changes that have occurred in the PSTN world over the past 15 years, within which PSTN numbers have been significantly involved, and 2) because the Internet regulatory construct rests on regulatory forbearance. >using NAPTR RRs in those zones. Where life gets complicated is when you >try to make the exact same associations of "ownership" of the strings of >digits in both the DNS and the PSTN without involving the bodies that are >making the ownership associations in the PSTN. It's not apparent that anyone is suggesting not involving the relevant parties dealing with PSTN numbers. In the Competitive Zone ENUM provisioning model, the providers interact with those parties on an autonomous business relationship or contractual basis. In the Special Status Zone model, it occurs through some well-defined industry or government cooperative mechanism. These could even coexist in some fashion as suggested in the VeriSign-Telcordia ENUM AdHoc presentation. http://www.enumworld.com/resources/roadmap.ppt ENUM DNS zones are only names based on PSTN numbers. They are not the numbers themselves, and the legal and public policy distinction is fundamental. It's also worth emphasizing that even in the PSTN world, the numbers are fully under the jurisdiction of national Administrations, not intergovernmental bodies. Some of the fundamental constructs here have been misunderstood. The ITU, for example, is purely a "Union" of independently sovereign Member States. The organization itself has essentially no independent powers, enforcement or even certification authority. Only the Member States, acting through the Plenipotentiary Conference, or provisionally through the Council, can enter into "agreements;" and any Member State can opt out. See Art. 8 j) (No. 58) ITU Constitution. >True, given NAPTR is a part of the DNS and it is way beyond just PSTN >networking but I'm not sure what the relevance is. The point was that the ENUM protocol enables much more than just a mapping of a phone number to some Telephony resource. It can and is certainly expected to support a broad array of messaging, presence, and other potential services enabled by the NAPTR algorithm. A significant general purpose infrastructure in being put into place here - which invokes the interests of many parties other than just existing providers and institutions. >>and 2) DNS from a regulatory standpoint, >>exists as a private networking service (with some antitrust >>protection provided courtesy of the USGOV). > >So you assert but which I remain unconvinced of. You can 1) read the cases, or 2) contact your favorite antitrust counsel or government official. >deterministic. A multiple tree approach insures that they aren't (unless, >of course, determinism is insured at an administrative level). It's not clear that any alternative "insures" anything. Different schemes affect the levels and distributions of probability, administrative complexity, innovation, and costs. These are all well-known tradeoffs to governance policy communities. >You have said this before and I still find it amusing. Why do you assume >the FCC or other USG body won't regulate when people subject to scams and >abuse come screaming at them? Given the potential for abuse, I suspect >the multiple root approach is much more likely to result in (much more) >regulation than a single root approach, albeit that regulation will be >reactive to abuses (new forms of slamming, cramming, etc.) instead of >pro-actively establishing a model in which industry organizations can >compete effectively without significant government intervention. US regulatory policy - particularly for the Internet - is heavily grounded on forbearance. There is a significant difference between regulation and intervention. A good example recently occurred when the FTC intervened to bring actions against some DNS scam artists. >In any event, either way, Nominum doesn't care -- regardless of model, >people will still need to provide DNS services... :-) However, the choices will affect the size and dynamics of the marketplace for all of us. best, tony _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From enum-admin@ietf.org Thu Feb 22 10:20:16 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id KAA13706 for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 10:20:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id KAA17084; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 10:18:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id KAA17057 for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 10:18:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from stl-smtpout-01.boeing.com ([12.13.247.21]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id KAA13625 for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 10:18:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from stl-av-02.boeing.com ([192.76.190.7]) by stl-smtpout-01.boeing.com (8.9.2/8.8.5-M2) with ESMTP id JAA00068 for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 09:18:46 -0600 (CST) Received: from stl-hub-01.boeing.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by stl-av-02.boeing.com (8.9.3/8.9.2) with ESMTP id JAA27826 for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 09:18:43 -0600 (CST) Received: from xch-phlbh-01.he.boeing.com by stl-hub-01.boeing.com with ESMTP; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 07:18:39 -0800 Received: by xch-phlbh-01.he.boeing.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 10:18:38 -0500 Message-Id: <8D6509B44ACCEB43A96E032B9C3EA0C81313FF@xch-ne-02.he.boeing.com> From: "Manfredi, Albert E" To: "'David R. Conrad'" , enum@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Enum] Tier II roll out Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 10:21:15 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Enum Discussion List X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org > -----Original Message----- > From: David R. Conrad [mailto:david.conrad@nominum.com] > At 10:21 AM 2/21/2001 -0500, Manfredi, Albert E wrote: > >I'm not familar with the details of what this animated > discussion has been > >covering, but it does seem clear that enum is new ground for the DNS. > > In as much as it has brought the IETF into direct ... um... > contact with > the ITU in new and interesting ways, yes it is new ground. > However, the > technology is not particularly new. Agreed that the issues are not technological. Here's a way to put it. Everything in the boeing.com is maintained by Boeing. No one other than Boeing would give a hoot if someone screws around with this domain. The information in the e164.arpa database is instead controlled by multiple organizations from many countries, and contains information that is considered critical by these organizations (and by most people). It ought to be predictable that where this info will be stored, how the databases will made to remain synchronized, and who is allowed to touch the information, would be topics of great concern to many people. More people will be likely to scream about e164.arpa issues than about boeing.com, is my contention. More people would also see financial rewards in somehow using that database, providing the info in different formats, somehow selling services that are derived from the information contained in this e164.arpa database. More people want to play, and there's greater impact if the information becomes corrupted or unsynchronized. Isn't this what the discussions come down to? The concerns are valid, no? Or at least, understandable. Bert albert.a.manfredi@boeing.com _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From enum-admin@ietf.org Thu Feb 22 10:42:39 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id KAA14497 for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 10:42:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id KAA17746; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 10:41:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id KAA17718 for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 10:41:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from dnspri.npac.com (firewall-user@dnspri.npac.com [208.143.33.66]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id KAA14473 for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 10:41:11 -0500 (EST) Received: by dnspri.npac.com; id JAA12749; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 09:41:10 -0600 (CST) Received: from unknown(192.168.20.106) by dnspri.npac.com via smap (V5.0) id xma012285; Thu, 22 Feb 01 09:40:12 -0600 Message-Id: <5.0.2.1.2.20010222103451.02bc0cf0@127.0.0.1> X-Sender: rshockey/popd.ix.netcom.com@127.0.0.1 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.0.2 Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 10:38:37 -0500 To: "A.M.Rutkowski" , "David R. Conrad" , "Christian Huitema" , From: Richard Shockey Subject: RE: [Enum] Tier II roll out In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.7.2.20010222070521.00adb910@mail.netmagic.com> References: <5.0.2.1.2.20010221193306.00af2a10@localhost> <5.1.0.7.2.20010221095142.00ae70d8@mail.netmagic.com> <5.0.2.1.2.20010221061927.030fd118@localhost> <5.1.0.7.2.20010221082230.00adcda8@mail.netmagic.com> <5.0.2.1.2.20010220171737.00b0a700@localhost> <5.1.0.7.2.20010220152756.00ae65a8@mail.netmagic.com> <5.0.2.1.2.20010220113702.00aef2d8@localhost> 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-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Enum Discussion List X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org At 08:41 AM 2/22/2001 -0500, A.M.Rutkowski wrote: >Hi David, > >>It remains unclear to me how you'd be able to get your cake (the ability >>to treat e.164 numbers in the DNS as they are treated in the PSTN) and >>eat it too (not require at least minimal adherence to the structures that >>make e.164 numbers work the way they do). > >Dealing with the systems integration (both technical and regulatory) >here is the designated function of the USGOV's ITAC-T SG-A ENUM AdHoc >group and the associated mailing list. Part of that effort involves >finding a permanent sanctioned/protected forum for doing this. For once I actually agree with you Tony ... the need for a new forum for these industry discussions moving forward is very clear....but it must clearly be neutral to the existing positions out there. Its perfectly acceptable to continue using this list to talk things out ..but beyond that something more concrete has to be done since the IETF is not the forum for crafting regulatory and policy issues in the US or any other country for that matter. >_______________________________________________ >enum mailing list >enum@ietf.org >http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard Shockey, Senior Technical Industry Liaison NeuStar Inc. 1120 Vermont Avenue N.W., Suite 550, Washington DC. 20005 Voice: 202.533.2811, Cell : 314.503.0640, Fax: 815.333.1237 or <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From enum-admin@ietf.org Thu Feb 22 11:15:29 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id LAA15739 for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 11:15:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA18431; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 11:13:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA18403 for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 11:13:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from sj-msg-core-1.cisco.com (sj-msg-core-1.cisco.com [171.71.163.11]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id LAA15690 for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 11:13:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from sj-msg-av-3.cisco.com (sj-msg-av-3.cisco.com [171.69.2.19]) by sj-msg-core-1.cisco.com (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id IAA11071 for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 08:13:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from salnet-w2k.cisco.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sj-msg-av-3.cisco.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id f1MGD7u11225 for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 08:13:07 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20010222104348.0382a548@bucket.cisco.com> X-Sender: salnet@bucket.cisco.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 11:11:35 -0500 To: enum@ietf.org From: Stephane Alnet Subject: RE: [Enum] Tier II roll out In-Reply-To: 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-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Enum Discussion List X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org >The delegation of in-addr.arpa directly derives from the allocation of >unique IP addresses, which is needed for the safe operation of the >Internet; this is not the case of phone numbers. I'm not sure I understand this part: a DNS entry in the "1.e164.arpa" subtree probably denotes a North-American phone number, whether an entry within the "3.3.e164.arpa" subtree would denote a French phone number. Why would this be more complicated to administrate than current DNS national TLS (e.g. ".fr" => NIC FR) or the "in-addr.arpa" domain (e.g., ARIN delegates to the major SPs who delegate to Tier II SPs who delegate to customers); similarly "1.e164.arpa" could be delegated to NANPA, and "3.3.e164.arpa" to the French equivalent? [I understand the number of "top domain country numbers" is relatively limited.] Then, defining how to delegate inside each country/zone becomes a matter of either local policy or ITU policy (*). S. (*) For example, NANPA may decide to delegate to CLECs and carriers (not necessarily on a uniform basis), which in turn may decide to delegate to enterprise customers (for DID purposes) -- but other countries ("codes") may want to do it differently. _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From enum-admin@ietf.org Thu Feb 22 12:31:45 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id MAA19640 for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 12:31:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA20824; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 12:28:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA20794 for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 12:28:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from halcyon.rmci.net (halcyon.rmci.net [205.162.184.63]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id MAA19504 for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 12:28:03 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 3110 invoked from network); 22 Feb 2001 17:28:01 -0000 Received: from customer-208-14-165-91.rmci.net (HELO lap01) (208.14.165.91) by mx20.rmci.net with SMTP; 22 Feb 2001 17:28:01 -0000 Message-ID: <004b01c09cf5$386fde70$c8026b83@lap01> From: "Mike Macgowan" To: References: <8D6509B44ACCEB43A96E032B9C3EA0C81313FF@xch-ne-02.he.boeing.com> Subject: Re: [Enum] Tier II roll out Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 09:44:24 -0700 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: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Enum Discussion List X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit IMHO the.164 database should arise out of domain name registrations like the reverse lookup tables for IP addresses to domain names. Phone numbers are just another device that an organization (domain) controls. The enum table could serve to be a reverse lookup of the domain name registered through the current system under existing or new TLDs. I have proposed a system of multiple DNS labels that would allow phone numbers and other pertinent information that describe an organization to be combined with the name of the organization to form a better name system. Those that are interested are referred to http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-macgowan-dnsext-label-intel-manage -00.txt > > -----Original Message----- > > From: David R. Conrad [mailto:david.conrad@nominum.com] > > > At 10:21 AM 2/21/2001 -0500, Manfredi, Albert E wrote: > > > >I'm not familar with the details of what this animated > > discussion has been > > >covering, but it does seem clear that enum is new ground for the DNS. > > > > In as much as it has brought the IETF into direct ... um... > > contact with > > the ITU in new and interesting ways, yes it is new ground. > > However, the > > technology is not particularly new. > > Agreed that the issues are not technological. > > Here's a way to put it. Everything in the boeing.com is maintained by > Boeing. No one other than Boeing would give a hoot if someone screws around > with this domain. > > The information in the e164.arpa database is instead controlled by multiple > organizations from many countries, and contains information that is > considered critical by these organizations (and by most people). It ought to > be predictable that where this info will be stored, how the databases will > made to remain synchronized, and who is allowed to touch the information, > would be topics of great concern to many people. > > More people will be likely to scream about e164.arpa issues than about > boeing.com, is my contention. More people would also see financial rewards > in somehow using that database, providing the info in different formats, > somehow selling services that are derived from the information contained in > this e164.arpa database. > > More people want to play, and there's greater impact if the information > becomes corrupted or unsynchronized. Isn't this what the discussions come > down to? The concerns are valid, no? Or at least, understandable. > > Bert > albert.a.manfredi@boeing.com > > _______________________________________________ > enum mailing list > enum@ietf.org > http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From enum-admin@ietf.org Thu Feb 22 15:24:11 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id PAA25890 for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 15:24:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id PAA24393; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 15:20:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id PAA24362 for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 15:20:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from shell.nominum.com (shell.nominum.com [204.152.187.59]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id PAA25769 for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 15:20:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from drc-toshiba.nominum.com (shell.nominum.com [204.152.187.59]) by shell.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 505B531913; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 12:19:52 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <5.0.2.1.2.20010222115918.0229d900@localhost> X-Sender: drc@localhost X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.0.2 Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 12:19:51 -0800 To: "Manfredi, Albert E" , enum@ietf.org From: "David R. Conrad" Subject: RE: [Enum] Tier II roll out In-Reply-To: <8D6509B44ACCEB43A96E032B9C3EA0C81313FF@xch-ne-02.he.boeing .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-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Enum Discussion List X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org Albert, At 10:21 AM 2/22/2001 -0500, Manfredi, Albert E wrote: >No one other than Boeing would give a hoot if someone screws around >with this domain. Well, not quite true -- I imagine Lockheed Martin would be really happy if (say) special-projects.boeing.com got redirected to a LM server (which is, of course, possible with the current DNS system), but I know what you meant... :-) >The information in the e164.arpa database is instead controlled by multiple >organizations from many countries, There are a couple of proposals on how to move forward with deploying e.164 identifiers into the DNS. One proposal is to have a singly rooted tree with top level control of that tree vested in the international body that administers the e.164 identifier space (the ITU). Delegation of the sub-trees would correspond to delegations within the e.164 identifier space, e.g., 4.4.e164.arpa would be delegated in whatever way the UK body responsible for delegating the telephone country code sees fit. Another proposal is that there would be multiple e.164 identifier trees in the DNS, with the administrators of those trees competing against each other. That is, e164.org would compete against e164.mytelephonenumbersinthedns.com which would compete against telephone.af (etc). Each of these organizations would presumably be required to (somehow) insure the delegation of numbers in the telephony system matches what they are delegating in their DNS e164 trees. "ENUM clients" (that is, DNS clients that know what to do with the results of NAPTR queries) would be able to query these multiple trees and (somehow) resolve conflicts. In the first model, your assertion isn't correct. Or rather, the situation is not significantly different that is currently the case with the existing PSTN numbering scheme. In the second model, the potential exists for the situation you describe. I simply don't believe the second model will scale/work if you make the assumption that a telephone number lookup 3.0.0.6.1.8.3.0.5.6.1.e164.org should give you the same answer as a telephone number lookup in 3.0.0.6.1.8.3.0.5.6.1.telephone.af. Others feel differently. Rgds, -drc _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From enum-admin@ietf.org Thu Feb 22 15:54:43 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id PAA26985 for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 15:54:43 -0500 (EST) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id PAA24972; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 15:52:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id PAA24943 for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 15:52:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from shell.nominum.com (shell.nominum.com [204.152.187.59]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id PAA26959 for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 15:52:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from drc-toshiba.nominum.com (shell.nominum.com [204.152.187.59]) by shell.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 97B5A3190F; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 12:51:46 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <5.0.2.1.2.20010222122037.03113e90@localhost> X-Sender: drc@localhost X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.0.2 Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 12:51:46 -0800 To: "A.M.Rutkowski" , "Christian Huitema" , From: "David R. Conrad" Subject: RE: [Enum] Tier II roll out In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.7.2.20010222070521.00adb910@mail.netmagic.com> References: <5.0.2.1.2.20010221193306.00af2a10@localhost> <5.1.0.7.2.20010221095142.00ae70d8@mail.netmagic.com> <5.0.2.1.2.20010221061927.030fd118@localhost> <5.1.0.7.2.20010221082230.00adcda8@mail.netmagic.com> <5.0.2.1.2.20010220171737.00b0a700@localhost> <5.1.0.7.2.20010220152756.00ae65a8@mail.netmagic.com> <5.0.2.1.2.20010220113702.00aef2d8@localhost> 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-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Enum Discussion List X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org Tony, At 08:41 AM 2/22/2001 -0500, A.M.Rutkowski wrote: >It's not apparent that anyone is suggesting not involving the >relevant parties dealing with PSTN numbers. Realistically, I can't imagine the multiple root proposal resulting in anything but this. >In the Competitive Zone >ENUM provisioning model, the providers interact with those parties >on an autonomous business relationship or contractual basis. As I asked previously and never got a response: what if those providers, which include PTTs outside the US, have no interest in entering into contractual relationships with some random company in some random country? Particularly given the established international cooperative body of those providers has their own infrastructure that provides the exact same thing in a well understood and binding fashion? The impression I have gotten is that in those cases, the tier I registry could, if they so chose, enter into contractual relationships with the subscriber. At this point, you get into really complicated problems associated with the rights of the provider to disassociate services with a particular number. No one has yet answered my questions on how this was to be addressed in the competitive zone model. >ENUM DNS zones are only names based on PSTN numbers. >They are not the numbers themselves, and the legal >and public policy distinction is fundamental. I don't disagree. >It's also worth emphasizing that even in the PSTN world, the >numbers are fully under the jurisdiction of national >Administrations, not intergovernmental bodies. As is the case with the 2916 approach. Delegation is done to member states as delegation of the existing telephony country codes is done to member states (modulo the cases like country code "1" in which multiple member states fall under a single code). >Some of >the fundamental constructs here have been misunderstood. I don't think so. I suspect it is fully understood by the folks involved in writiing 2916 that delegations within the e164.arpa space would occur at the behest of the member-state, not the ITU itself. >The point was that the ENUM protocol enables much more >than just a mapping of a phone number to some Telephony >resource. This is a red herring. The NAPTR RR is not tied to any e.164 numbering scheme, you can put NAPTR RRs in any zone. What is being discussed is the situations in which NAPTR RRs are tied into zones with particular semantics, namely the use of particular number strings as they are used in the PSTN. If you are not interested in these semantics, then I can't imagine anyone having any issue with what you're calling the competitve zone model. The issues arise when you attempt to impose existing PSTN semantics on a system that is not required to correlate with the structures that define those semantics. Having your cake and eating it to is _hard_. >US regulatory policy - particularly for the Internet - is heavily >grounded on forbearance. There is a significant difference between >regulation and intervention. Undoubtedly so. However, the end result is the same in that in both cases you have regulation. My personal feeling is that it would be preferable to have an environment that tries to limit the need for intervention instead of encourage it. Rgds, -drc _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From enum-admin@ietf.org Thu Feb 22 17:22:05 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id RAA29018 for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 17:22:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id RAA26382; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 17:17:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id RAA26351 for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 17:17:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from exchange.chaos.com (exchange.chaos.com [206.5.17.8]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id RAA28954 for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 17:17:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from [216.168.250.52] by exchange.netmagic.com (NTMail 5.06.0016/NT2627.00.5ef58ba0) with ESMTP id awvkaaaa for enum@ietf.org; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 17:17:25 -0500 Message-Id: <5.1.0.7.2.20010222162314.0291cb30@mail.netmagic.com> X-Sender: amr@mail.netmagic.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1.0.7 (Beta) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 17:17:21 -0500 To: "David R. Conrad" , "Christian Huitema" , From: "A.M. Rutkowski" Subject: RE: [Enum] Tier II roll out Cc: ENUM@ALMSNTSA.LMLIST.STATE.GOV In-Reply-To: <5.0.2.1.2.20010222122037.03113e90@localhost> References: <5.1.0.7.2.20010222070521.00adb910@mail.netmagic.com> <5.0.2.1.2.20010221193306.00af2a10@localhost> <5.1.0.7.2.20010221095142.00ae70d8@mail.netmagic.com> <5.0.2.1.2.20010221061927.030fd118@localhost> <5.1.0.7.2.20010221082230.00adcda8@mail.netmagic.com> <5.0.2.1.2.20010220171737.00b0a700@localhost> <5.1.0.7.2.20010220152756.00ae65a8@mail.netmagic.com> <5.0.2.1.2.20010220113702.00aef2d8@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=====================_26837560==_.ALT" Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Enum Discussion List X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org --=====================_26837560==_.ALT Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Hi David, >As I asked previously and never got a response: what if those providers, >which include PTTs outside the US, have no interest in entering into >contractual relationships with some random company in some random >country? Particularly given the established international cooperative >body of those providers has their own infrastructure that provides the >exact same thing in a well understood and binding fashion? This problem is actually much aggravated under the Designated Zone model. There is no "own infrastructure that provides the exact same thing in a well understood and binding fashion." These matters are dealt with today through direct commercial relationships, not the ITU. The old CCITT Routing Plans and formal notifications via the Secretariat went out a long time ago. With the Designated Zone model, that's all a country or a provider need do to sandbag ENUM provisioning within their region is to opt out. You can expect that a great many will...and/or take a long time to move. The Competitive Zone model enables providers to devise their own schema for working around the PTT/Administration intransigence problem. >The impression I have gotten is that in those cases, the tier I registry >could, if they so chose, enter into contractual relationships with the >subscriber. At this point, you get into really complicated problems >associated with the rights of the provider to disassociate services with a >particular number. No one has yet answered my questions on how this was >to be addressed in the competitive zone model. This is a complicated legal problem that exists under both models, and where an industry cooperative forum could work out provisioning guidelines. >As is the case with the 2916 approach. Delegation is done to member >states as delegation of the existing telephony country codes is done to >member states (modulo the cases like country code "1" in which multiple >member states fall under a single code). It's the wrong model. States are sovereign. No one delegates to them. They agree among themselves what numbers they use. The significant flaw is that under the Designated Zone model, the e164.foo zonekeeper is reserving a nn.e164.foo sub-zone for the same party that controls the tel:+nn PSTN number. If that party opts out, you end up denying service to all potential users in that sub-zone. >I don't think so. I suspect it is fully understood by the folks involved >in writiing 2916 that delegations within the e164.arpa space would occur >at the behest of the member-state, not the ITU itself. That's not the way it reads. A national Administration, for example, (which is easily identified in the ITU Global Directory) could not go to the administrator to the e164.arpa zone and direct the entry of a RR in the zonefile. This is hypothetical, fortunately, because 2916 is a nullity. >This is a red herring. The NAPTR RR is not tied to any e.164 numbering >scheme, you can put NAPTR RRs in any zone. What is being discussed is the >situations in which NAPTR RRs are tied into zones with particular >semantics, namely the use of particular number strings as they are used in >the PSTN. If you are not interested in these semantics, then I can't >imagine anyone having any issue with what you're calling the competitve >zone model. The issues arise when you attempt to impose existing PSTN >semantics on a system that is not required to correlate with the >structures that define those semantics. Having your cake and eating it to >is _hard_. What did those red herring do to deserve such treatment. :-) You misunderstood my remarks - which had nothing to do with disassociation - but rather that there are diverse applications and market sectors involved here other than just telephony and telephone providers. You might just want to use your ENUM record, for example, to point to a Instant Messenger name. >Undoubtedly so. However, the end result is the same in that in both cases >you have regulation. My personal feeling is that it would be preferable >to have an environment that tries to limit the need for intervention >instead of encourage it. Intervention by a regulatory agency like the FTC in cases of demonstrated abusive consumer practices is definitely different than imposition of a regulatory regime like Common Carrier regulation. Few officials these days prefer the latter over the former, especially for new Internet based services. Try dressing up in a Mr. ENUM suit with a "Regulate Me" placard and see how many commissioner's offices you can get into over on the 8th floor of the FCC. If nothing else, you'd make the business section of the Washington Post. :-) best regards, tony --=====================_26837560==_.ALT Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Hi David,

As I asked previously and never got a response:  what if those providers, which include PTTs outside the US, have no interest in entering into contractual relationships with some random company in some random country?  Particularly given the established international cooperative body of those providers has their own infrastructure that provides the exact same thing in a well understood and binding fashion?

This problem is actually much aggravated under the Designated Zone model.
There is no "own infrastructure that provides the exact same thing in a
well understood and binding fashion."  These matters are dealt with today
through direct commercial relationships, not the ITU.  The old CCITT
Routing Plans and formal notifications via the Secretariat went out a long
time ago.

With the Designated Zone model, that's all a country or a provider need do
to sandbag ENUM provisioning within their region is to opt out.  You can
expect that a great many will...and/or take a long time to move.  The
Competitive Zone model enables providers to devise their own schema for
working around the PTT/Administration intransigence problem.


The impression I have gotten is that in those cases, the tier I registry could, if they so chose, enter into contractual relationships with the subscriber.  At this point, you get into really complicated problems associated with the rights of the provider to disassociate services with a particular number.  No one has yet answered my questions on how this was to be addressed in the competitive zone model.

This is a complicated legal problem that exists under both models,
and where an industry cooperative forum could work out provisioning
guidelines. 


As is the case with the 2916 approach.  Delegation is done to member states as delegation of the existing telephony country codes is done to member states (modulo the cases like country code "1" in which multiple member states fall under a single code).

It's the wrong model.  States are sovereign.  No one delegates to them.
They agree among themselves what numbers they use.  The significant
flaw is that under the Designated Zone model, the e164.foo zonekeeper
is reserving a nn.e164.foo sub-zone for the same party that controls
the tel:+nn PSTN number.  If that party opts out, you end up denying
service to all potential users in that sub-zone.


I don't think so.  I suspect it is fully understood by the folks involved in writiing 2916 that delegations within the e164.arpa space would occur at the behest of the member-state, not the ITU itself.

That's not the way it reads.  A national Administration, for example,
(which is easily identified in the ITU Global Directory) could not
go to the administrator to the e164.arpa zone and direct the entry
of a RR in the zonefile.

This is hypothetical, fortunately, because 2916 is a nullity.


This is a red herring.  The NAPTR RR is not tied to any e.164 numbering scheme, you can put NAPTR RRs in any zone.  What is being discussed is the situations in which NAPTR RRs are tied into zones with particular semantics, namely the use of particular number strings as they are used in the PSTN.  If you are not interested in these semantics, then I can't imagine anyone having any issue with what you're calling the competitve zone model.  The issues arise when you attempt to impose existing PSTN semantics on a system that is not required to correlate with the structures that define those semantics.  Having your cake and eating it to is _hard_.

What did those red herring do to deserve such treatment. :-)
You misunderstood my remarks - which had nothing to do with disassociation -
but rather that there are diverse applications and market sectors involved
here other than just telephony and telephone providers.  You might just
want to use your ENUM record, for example, to point to a Instant Messenger
name.

Undoubtedly so.  However, the end result is the same in that in both cases you have regulation.  My personal feeling is that it would be preferable to have an environment that tries to limit the need for intervention instead of encourage it.

Intervention by a regulatory agency like the FTC in cases
of demonstrated abusive consumer practices is definitely
different than imposition of a regulatory regime like
Common Carrier regulation. 

Few officials these days prefer the latter over the former,
especially for new Internet based services.

Try dressing up in a Mr. ENUM suit with a "Regulate Me"
placard and see how many commissioner's offices you can
get into over on the 8th floor of the FCC.  If nothing
else, you'd make the business section of the Washington
Post. :-)

best regards,
tony
--=====================_26837560==_.ALT-- _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From enum-admin@ietf.org Thu Feb 22 17:54:19 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id RAA29474 for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 17:54:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id RAA26933; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 17:53:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id RAA26908 for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 17:53:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from joy.songbird.com (IDENT:root@songbird.com [208.184.79.7]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id RAA29465 for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 17:53:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from GK-VAIO.ninebynine.org ([62.209.143.68]) by joy.songbird.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA19385; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 14:52:52 -0800 Message-Id: <5.0.2.1.2.20010222210239.035f4e90@joy.songbird.com> X-Sender: gk-lists@joy.songbird.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.0.2 Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 21:04:47 +0000 To: "A.M. Rutkowski" From: Graham Klyne Subject: Re: [Enum] Interactive Week February 12 Issue Cc: In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.7.2.20010221165909.0290b610@mail.netmagic.com> References: <1C1EEC765F843E44996971A80682118B2524EC@OPWINEXCL01> 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-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Enum Discussion List X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org At 05:17 PM 2/21/01 -0500, you wrote: >See also Bob Kahn's seminal and highly influential >views on government role retention in the Feb 1995 >issue of ACM Journal. Sorry, URL unavailable. Did you mean this?: http://www.acm.org/pubs/citations/journals/cacm/1994-37-8/p15-kahn/ Communications of the ACM Volume 37 , Issue 8 (1994) The role of government in the evolution of the Internet Pages 15-19 Robert E. Kahn ------------------------------------------------------------ Graham Klyne Baltimore Technologies Strategic Research Content Security Group ------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From enum-admin@ietf.org Thu Feb 22 18:43:53 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id SAA00590 for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 18:43:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id SAA27592; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 18:28:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id SAA27561 for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 18:28:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from exchange.chaos.com (exchange.chaos.com [206.5.17.8]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id SAA00247 for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 18:28:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from [206.5.17.17] by exchange.netmagic.com (NTMail 5.06.0016/NT2627.00.5ef58ba0) with ESMTP id twvkaaaa for enum@ietf.org; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 18:28:33 -0500 Message-Id: <5.1.0.7.2.20010222182051.00a92e30@mail.netmagic.com> X-Sender: amr@mail.netmagic.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1.0.7 (Beta) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 18:28:32 -0500 To: Graham Klyne From: "A.M.Rutkowski" Subject: Re: [Enum] Interactive Week February 12 Issue Cc: In-Reply-To: <5.0.2.1.2.20010222210239.035f4e90@joy.songbird.com> References: <5.1.0.7.2.20010221165909.0290b610@mail.netmagic.com> <1C1EEC765F843E44996971A80682118B2524EC@OPWINEXCL01> 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-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Enum Discussion List X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org Hi Graham, >Did you mean this?: >http://www.acm.org/pubs/citations/journals/cacm/1994-37-8/p15-kahn/ Yes. A more recent presentation that focuses specifically on this issue can be found at: http://www.house.gov/science/kahn_03-31.htm --tony _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From enum-admin@ietf.org Thu Feb 22 18:46:07 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id SAA00627 for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 18:46:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id SAA27995; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 18:44:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id SAA27970 for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 18:44:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from sj-msg-core-2.cisco.com (sj-msg-core-2.cisco.com [171.69.43.88]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id SAA00609 for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 18:44:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from sj-msg-av-3.cisco.com (sj-msg-av-3.cisco.com [171.69.2.19]) by sj-msg-core-2.cisco.com (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id PAA00285 for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 15:44:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from salnet-w2k.cisco.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sj-msg-av-3.cisco.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id f1MNiOt05674 for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 15:44:24 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20010222183630.00b67ad0@bucket.cisco.com> X-Sender: salnet@bucket.cisco.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 18:44:10 -0500 To: enum@ietf.org From: Stephane Alnet Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Subject: [Enum] RFC1530 (TPC.INT) Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Enum Discussion List X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org Hi, The recent discussion on Designated vs Competitive models reminded me that there's already a E.164-like hierarchy around there, tpc.int [RFC1530]: "The primary purpose of the tpc.int subdomain is to provide transparent mapping between the Internet and telephony environments". It doesn't provide provisions for ENUM itself but that doesn't seem to be a problem. Has there already been any discussions on re-using that hierarchy (which already has its own policies)? S. _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From enum-admin@ietf.org Thu Feb 22 19:18:15 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id TAA01274 for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 19:18:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id TAA28390; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 19:03:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id TAA28359 for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 19:03:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from smtp10.atl.mindspring.net (smtp10.atl.mindspring.net [207.69.200.246]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id TAA01032 for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 19:03:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from rds.ix.netcom.com (user-2ivekpe.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.83.46]) by smtp10.atl.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with ESMTP id TAA31242; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 19:02:55 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <5.0.2.1.2.20010222190237.02f08980@127.0.0.1> X-Sender: rshockey/popd.ix.netcom.com@127.0.0.1 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.0.2 Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 19:05:07 -0500 To: Stephane Alnet , enum@ietf.org From: Richard Shockey Subject: Re: [Enum] RFC1530 (TPC.INT) In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20010222183630.00b67ad0@bucket.cisco.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-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Enum Discussion List X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org At 06:44 PM 2/22/2001 -0500, Stephane Alnet wrote: >Hi, > >The recent discussion on Designated vs Competitive models reminded me that >there's already a E.164-like hierarchy around there, tpc.int [RFC1530]: >"The primary purpose of the tpc.int subdomain is to provide transparent >mapping between the Internet and telephony environments". > >It doesn't provide provisions for ENUM itself but that doesn't seem to be >a problem. Has there already been any discussions on re-using that >hierarchy (which already has its own policies)? TPC.INT is not used by many folks for numerous reasons and as such is useless model for ENUM specifically..though nearly all of its technicial principals for reverse concatenation of the numbers into a single "protected" domain derive from it. TPC.INT was a useful experiment ..nothing more. >S. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard Shockey, Senior Technical Industry Liaison NeuStar Inc. 1120 Vermont Avenue N.W., Suite 550, Washington DC. 20005 Voice: 202.533.2811, Cell : 314.503.0640, Fax: 815.333.1237 or <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From enum-admin@ietf.org Thu Feb 22 21:47:25 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id VAA04994 for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 21:47:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id VAA00788; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 21:45:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id VAA00691 for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 21:45:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from exchange.chaos.com (exchange.chaos.com [206.5.17.8]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id VAA04904 for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 21:44:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from [206.5.17.17] by exchange.netmagic.com (NTMail 5.06.0016/NT2627.00.5ef58ba0) with ESMTP id syvkaaaa for enum@ietf.org; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 21:44:55 -0500 Message-Id: <5.1.0.7.2.20010222193103.00ae1710@mail.netmagic.com> X-Sender: amr@mail.netmagic.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1.0.7 (Beta) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 21:44:54 -0500 To: Richard Shockey , Stephane Alnet , enum@ietf.org From: "A.M.Rutkowski" Subject: Re: [Enum] RFC1530 (TPC.INT) In-Reply-To: <5.0.2.1.2.20010222190237.02f08980@127.0.0.1> References: <4.3.2.7.2.20010222183630.00b67ad0@bucket.cisco.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-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Enum Discussion List X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org At 07:05 PM 2/22/2001, Richard Shockey wrote: >TPC.INT was a useful experiment ..nothing more. Stephane, An alternative view. TPC.INT was not only an incredibly innovative protocol and use of the Internet's distributed entrepreneurial properties by two of the Internet's most celebrated developers, it was a political statement if not movement heard around the world when it was first announced at Interop in 1994. Lycos hotbot currently gets nearly 10,000 hits in every corner of the globe for TPC.INT and its services are still relied upon by a great many people, albeit apparently not by Richard. The Phone Company's fax bypass and remote paging services were a statement to the ITU and it's highly structured PTO communities, that a set of autonomous entities could independently organize themselves to provide telco services. Needless to say, it caused considerable consternation in some quarters that led to a subsequent largely ITU Secretariat let effort to tuck some kind of formal ITU designated e164 zone under INT. TPC.INT's leadership also inspired a broadbased IP Telephony movement - the results of which we see today. --tony _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From enum-admin@ietf.org Thu Feb 22 21:56:12 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id VAA05337 for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 21:56:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id VAA00656; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 21:40:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id VAA00624 for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 21:40:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from shell.nominum.com (shell.nominum.com [204.152.187.59]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id VAA04858 for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 21:40:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from drc-toshiba.nominum.com (shell.nominum.com [204.152.187.59]) by shell.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 335DD3190F; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 18:40:21 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <5.0.2.1.2.20010222160723.0315ee90@localhost> X-Sender: drc@localhost X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.0.2 Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 18:40:20 -0800 To: "A.M. Rutkowski" From: "David R. Conrad" Subject: RE: [Enum] Tier II roll out Cc: ENUM@ALMSNTSA.LMLIST.STATE.GOV, In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.7.2.20010222162314.0291cb30@mail.netmagic.com> References: <5.0.2.1.2.20010222122037.03113e90@localhost> <5.1.0.7.2.20010222070521.00adb910@mail.netmagic.com> <5.0.2.1.2.20010221193306.00af2a10@localhost> <5.1.0.7.2.20010221095142.00ae70d8@mail.netmagic.com> <5.0.2.1.2.20010221061927.030fd118@localhost> <5.1.0.7.2.20010221082230.00adcda8@mail.netmagic.com> <5.0.2.1.2.20010220171737.00b0a700@localhost> <5.1.0.7.2.20010220152756.00ae65a8@mail.netmagic.com> <5.0.2.1.2.20010220113702.00aef2d8@localhost> 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-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Enum Discussion List X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org Tony, At 05:17 PM 2/22/2001 -0500, A.M. Rutkowski wrote: >The Competitive Zone model enables providers to devise their own schema for >working around the PTT/Administration intransigence problem. If you are working around the PTT/administration, it seems unlikely you would be working with them in validation, no? What you appear to be proposing is that if a member state decides, for whatever reason, not to have its country code delegated into the e164 space, that private parties should go ahead and do the delegations themselves. While an interesting way to bypass those member state's wishes, the implication is that you would not get that member state's cooperation in the validation that your model requires for consistency. >This is a complicated legal problem that exists under both models, >and where an industry cooperative forum could work out provisioning >guidelines. It is only complicated because you are proposing a Byzantine delegation structure that does not conform to the semantics of the object you are trying to delegate. I am skeptical that an industry forum could be created that can address these issues domestically, much less internationally. However, attempting to come up with such (and dealing with the inevitable issues that subsequently arise) will undoubtedly provide lawyers with more things to do. >It's the wrong model. States are sovereign. No one delegates to them. >They agree among themselves what numbers they use. Sorry for the shorthand notation. >The significant >flaw is that under the Designated Zone model, the e164.foo zonekeeper >is reserving a nn.e164.foo sub-zone for the same party that controls >the tel:+nn PSTN number. Of course. That is the authoritative party for that object. How are you going to validate the PSTN number is delegated to the appropriate body if the authoritative party doesn't participate in the validation? Guess? >If that party opts out, you end up denying >service to all potential users in that sub-zone. Ignoring, for the moment, exactly why a member state would opt out (and the implications of that action), if that party opts out, how are you going to validate the users in space that party is responsible for are justified in their request? Rgds, -drc _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From enum-admin@ietf.org Thu Feb 22 22:24:25 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id WAA05747 for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 22:24:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id WAA01158; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 22:09:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id WAA01129 for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 22:09:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from blount.mail.mindspring.net (blount.mail.mindspring.net [207.69.200.226]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id WAA05510 for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 22:08:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from rds.ix.netcom.com (user-2ivekpe.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.83.46]) by blount.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with ESMTP id WAA17556; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 22:08:34 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <5.0.2.1.2.20010222220257.02e9f6e0@127.0.0.1> X-Sender: rshockey/popd.ix.netcom.com@127.0.0.1 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.0.2 Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 22:11:18 -0500 To: "A.M.Rutkowski" , Stephane Alnet , enum@ietf.org From: Richard Shockey Subject: Re: [Enum] RFC1530 (TPC.INT) Cc: mrose@dbc.mtview.ca.us In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.7.2.20010222193103.00ae1710@mail.netmagic.com> References: <5.0.2.1.2.20010222190237.02f08980@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.2.20010222183630.00b67ad0@bucket.cisco.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-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Enum Discussion List X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org At 09:44 PM 2/22/2001 -0500, A.M.Rutkowski wrote: >At 07:05 PM 2/22/2001, Richard Shockey wrote: >>TPC.INT was a useful experiment ..nothing more. > >Stephane, > >An alternative view. > >TPC.INT was not only an incredibly innovative protocol and use >of the Internet's distributed entrepreneurial properties by >two of the Internet's most celebrated developers, it was a >political statement if not movement heard around the world >when it was first announced at Interop in 1994. Really Marshall Rose is going to love this .. YO Marshall ..were you making a political statement or were you just trying to save a buck or two. >Lycos hotbot currently gets nearly 10,000 hits in every corner >of the globe for TPC.INT and its services are still relied >upon by a great many people, albeit apparently not by Richard. HA >> I would not equate hits on Lycos to use of service..... your expansion of reality to serve your narrow political interest continues to astound and amaze me. >The Phone Company's fax bypass and remote paging services >were a statement to the ITU and it's highly structured >PTO communities, that a set of autonomous entities could >independently organize themselves to provide telco >services. Needless to say, it caused considerable >consternation in some quarters that led to a subsequent >largely ITU Secretariat let effort to tuck some kind of >formal ITU designated e164 zone under INT. Are you really serious ... some smart guys wanted to save some money and have some fun in the process. >TPC.INT's leadership also inspired a broadbased >IP Telephony movement - the results of which we see >today. Pardon me list readers I have to go put my hip waders on to deal with this BS. >--tony >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard Shockey, Senior Technical Industry Liaison NeuStar Inc. 1120 Vermont Avenue N.W., Suite 550, Washington DC. 20005 Voice: 202.533.2811, Cell : 314.503.0640, Fax: 815.333.1237 or <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From enum-admin@ietf.org Thu Feb 22 23:52:39 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id XAA08538 for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 23:52:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id XAA02235; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 23:51:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id XAA02206 for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 23:51:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from shell.nominum.com (shell.nominum.com [204.152.187.59]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id XAA08534 for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 23:51:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from drc-toshiba.nominum.com (shell.nominum.com [204.152.187.59]) by shell.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E347F3190F; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 20:50:55 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <5.0.2.1.2.20010222204629.03151150@localhost> X-Sender: drc@localhost X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.0.2 Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 20:50:55 -0800 To: Richard Shockey , "A.M.Rutkowski" , Stephane Alnet , enum@ietf.org From: "David R. Conrad" Subject: Re: [Enum] RFC1530 (TPC.INT) Cc: mrose@dbc.mtview.ca.us In-Reply-To: <5.0.2.1.2.20010222220257.02e9f6e0@127.0.0.1> References: <5.1.0.7.2.20010222193103.00ae1710@mail.netmagic.com> <5.0.2.1.2.20010222190237.02f08980@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.2.20010222183630.00b67ad0@bucket.cisco.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-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Enum Discussion List X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org Richard, At 10:11 PM 2/22/2001 -0500, Richard Shockey wrote: >>it was a >>political statement if not movement heard around the world >>when it was first announced at Interop in 1994. >Really Marshall Rose is going to love this .. YO Marshall ..were you >making a political statement or were you just trying to save a buck or two. Actually, Tony's right. Carl Malamud, the other individual involved, told me explicitly when he was setting it up that his interest was to bypass PTTs and annoy the ITU. Given the personalities involved, this should not be surprising... :-). Rgds, -drc _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From enum-admin@ietf.org Fri Feb 23 06:44:40 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id GAA27404 for ; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 06:44:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id GAA14559; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 06:43:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id GAA14531 for ; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 06:43:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail2.itu.int (mail2.itu.ch [156.106.192.18]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id GAA27067 for ; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 06:43:05 -0500 (EST) Received: by mail2.itu.ch with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id <167G3TQH>; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 12:42:36 +0100 Message-ID: From: "Shaw, Robert" To: "'A.M.Rutkowski'" Cc: enum@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Enum] RFC1530 (TPC.INT) Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 12:42:24 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Enum Discussion List X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org > The Phone Company's fax bypass and remote paging services > were a statement to the ITU and it's highly structured > PTO communities, that a set of autonomous entities could > independently organize themselves to provide telco > services. Needless to say, it caused considerable > consternation in some quarters that led to a subsequent > largely ITU Secretariat let effort to tuck some kind of > formal ITU designated e164 zone under INT. Tony, You can't be serious. Please slow down. We have an internal quota of one "colorful and zany" ITU story to be shared per week and your latest series of messages here are overloading our queue. :-) Bob _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From enum-admin@ietf.org Fri Feb 23 07:00:42 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id HAA28285 for ; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 07:00:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id GAA14633; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 06:45:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id GAA14600 for ; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 06:45:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA27615; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 06:45:34 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200102231145.GAA27615@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: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 06:45:34 -0500 Subject: [Enum] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-enum-operation-02.txt Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Enum Discussion List X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org --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 : ENUM Service Reference Model Author(s) : A. Brown, G. Vaudreuil Filename : draft-ietf-enum-operation-02.txt Pages : 15 Date : 22-Feb-01 This document outlines the principles for the operation of a telephone number directory service. This service provides for the resolution of telephone numbers into Internet domain name addresses and service specific directory discovery. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-enum-operation-02.txt 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-operation-02.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-operation-02.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: <20010222133236.I-D@ietf.org> ENCODING mime FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-enum-operation-02.txt --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; name="draft-ietf-enum-operation-02.txt"; site="ftp.ietf.org"; access-type="anon-ftp"; directory="internet-drafts" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <20010222133236.I-D@ietf.org> --OtherAccess-- --NextPart-- _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From enum-admin@ietf.org Fri Feb 23 08:41:23 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id IAA01078 for ; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 08:41:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id IAA16510; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 08:40:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id IAA16479 for ; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 08:40:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from exchange.chaos.com (exchange.chaos.com [206.5.17.8]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id IAA01036 for ; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 08:40:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from [206.5.17.17] by exchange.netmagic.com (NTMail 5.06.0016/NT2627.00.5ef58ba0) with ESMTP id bewkaaaa for enum@ietf.org; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 08:40:15 -0500 Message-Id: <5.1.0.7.2.20010223082343.00b1e3a8@mail.netmagic.com> X-Sender: amr@mail.netmagic.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1.0.7 (Beta) Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 08:40:14 -0500 To: "David R. Conrad" , Richard Shockey , Stephane Alnet , enum@ietf.org From: "A.M.Rutkowski" Subject: Re: [Enum] RFC1530 (TPC.INT) Cc: mrose@dbc.mtview.ca.us, carl@malamud.com In-Reply-To: <5.0.2.1.2.20010222204629.03151150@localhost> References: <5.0.2.1.2.20010222220257.02e9f6e0@127.0.0.1> <5.1.0.7.2.20010222193103.00ae1710@mail.netmagic.com> <5.0.2.1.2.20010222190237.02f08980@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.2.20010222183630.00b67ad0@bucket.cisco.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-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Enum Discussion List X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org Hi David, >Actually, Tony's right. Carl Malamud, the other individual involved, told >me explicitly when he was setting it up that his interest was to bypass >PTTs and annoy the ITU. Given the personalities involved, this should not >be surprising... :-). People might want to start with Carl's initial battle with the telco world chronicled in the book he did for Dan that is now graciously available on-line at http://museum.media.org/eti/ It's now almost ten years, and Bruno's standards are still not yet liberated! Carl was always far ahead of his time. --tony _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From enum-admin@ietf.org Fri Feb 23 09:54:56 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id JAA03776 for ; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 09:54:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id JAA17494; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 09:39:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id JAA17463 for ; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 09:39:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from exchange.chaos.com (exchange.chaos.com [206.5.17.8]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id JAA03198 for ; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 09:39:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from [206.5.17.17] by exchange.netmagic.com (NTMail 5.06.0016/NT2627.00.5ef58ba0) with ESMTP id mewkaaaa for enum@ietf.org; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 09:39:07 -0500 Message-Id: <5.1.0.7.2.20010223084118.00b0a100@mail.netmagic.com> X-Sender: amr@mail.netmagic.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1.0.7 (Beta) Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 09:39:06 -0500 To: Stephane Alnet , enum@ietf.org From: "A.M.Rutkowski" Subject: Re: [Enum] RFC1530 (TPC.INT) Cc: In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20010222183630.00b67ad0@bucket.cisco.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-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Enum Discussion List X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org Hi Stephane, It's not clear whether the historical context here has been lost or conveniently forgotten in the penchant for rudeness. During they heydays of searching for alternative DNS name structures in 1996, of which ITU secretariat representatives were a part, there was a recognition of TPC.INT as "the telephone number domain." I've included one of the messages below in what was an extended IAHC public dialogue about instantiating a telephone number domain schema. Around that same time, the same folks promised the INT domain to the ITU General Secretariat, although it never really happened, in part because historically, ITU Secretariats were not supposed to be in the business of network operations - public or private. Some of the remnants can be seen at http://www.itu.int/net/int/ As part of the deal, the ITU itself - which had long insisted upon using the CH domain because it was compatible with their OSI standards - created an entire INT zone of CNAME aliases to front end their CH domain name structure that remains to this day, so they could appear to be using the INT domain themselves. E164.INT was then created as a more politically correct version of TPC.INT Indeed, you can see the reference to it in the above notice on the ITU site. Last year, E164.ARPA was added to the ARPA zone while E164.INT was quietly deleted. The information is pretty much all out there on sites as a matter of record. Based on current formal ITU documents recently released, it's not inconceivable that we could end up with two or more Designated ENUM Zones in addition to the Competitive ENUM Zones - all of which suggests that we might consider some administrative diversity here. --tony >Date: Thu, 21 Nov 96 12:21 EST >From: johnl@iecc.com (John R Levine) >To: TMCGHAN@mail.bcpl.lib.md.us >Subject: Re: Long-term viability: telephone numbers as aliases >Newsgroups: local.iahc >Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg, N.Y. >Cc: iahc-discuss@iahc.org >Sender: owner-iahc-discuss@imc.org > > >> Current naming conventions probably cannot be sustained... > >> Most individuals/organizations already have unique identifiers > >> (telephone numbers) ... > > >There already is a telephone number domain called tpc.int. Phone >numbers such as: > > +1 802 555 2368 > >are represented by reversing the number and making each digit a component: > > 8.6.3.2.5.5.5.2.0.8.1.tpc.int. > >It's ugly, but it has the important property that sub-domains can be >created starting at any digit, just like the real phone system does. >This scheme was used for an e-mail to fax delivery experiment and it >wasn't all that successful, partly because of the ugly addresses and >partly because the experiment, having no budget, depended on volunteer >sites to do the actual faxing. It worked technically, each delivery >site could sign up for the part of the number space that was a local >call to them. > >In any event, if anyone wants phone number based domain addresses, >here they are. Personally, I don't want them, partly because they're >so ugly, but mainly because I greatly value the feature that my domain >addresses didn't change when I moved, even though all of my phone >numbers did (other than one old number that I have forwarded at extra >cost.) > >-- >John R. Levine, IECC, POB 640 Trumansburg NY 14886 +1 607 387 6869 >johnl@iecc.com "Space aliens are stealing American jobs." - MIT econ prof _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From enum-admin@ietf.org Fri Feb 23 09:58:32 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id JAA03904 for ; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 09:58:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id JAA17638; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 09:51:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id JAA17610 for ; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 09:51:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from dnspri.npac.com (firewall-user@dnspri.npac.com [208.143.33.66]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id JAA03702 for ; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 09:51:32 -0500 (EST) Received: by dnspri.npac.com; id IAA10199; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 08:51:31 -0600 (CST) Received: from unknown(192.168.23.4) by dnspri.npac.com via smap (V5.0) id xma010139; Fri, 23 Feb 01 08:51:14 -0600 Received: by chi02.chicago.npac.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 08:50:58 -0600 Message-ID: From: Andy Gallant To: "'enum@ietf.org'" Cc: "'ENUM@ALMSNTSA.LMLIST.STATE.GOV'" Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 08:46:34 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Subject: [Enum] uniqueness - new recap, old issues - now what? Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Enum Discussion List X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org After a very busy week at the Inbox, this is one way to sort out some of the uniqueness issues. Disclaimers apply: I'm just thinking out loud here, and terms are intended to be illustrative. Category 1: Uniqueness alternatives. - ENUM: E.164 --> e164.arpa (complete uniqueness exactly as in RFC 2916 and supported by RFC 3026); - ENUM: E.164 --> [TBD.foo] (complete uniqueness as in RFC 2916 (and RFC 3026) but into some other domain); - Multiple ENUM-like images of E.164 numbers in multiple domains in DNS; or - Multiple E.164s. Discussion threads would be easier to follow if the points being debated were clarified according to their scope. For example, there is clearly a significant difference between opposing e164.arpa and opposing a (the?) unique ENUM image of E.164 numbers in DNS. Finally, in my opinion, debating what appears to be multiple E.164s (as in recent messages mentioning going around Administrations or using TPC.INT) is out of scope for ENUM discussions. The starting points, again in my opinion, are the existing E.164 and DNS, and the objective is ENUM-enabled access to competitive services (roughly speaking). -Andy Gallant _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From enum-admin@ietf.org Fri Feb 23 11:35:13 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id LAA07994 for ; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 11:35:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA19123; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 11:19:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA19093 for ; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 11:19:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from dbc.mtview.ca.us (ppp-63-207-83-130.ded.pacbell.net [63.207.83.130]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id LAA07348 for ; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 11:19:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from FATORA (ppp-63-207-83-135.ded.pacbell.net [63.207.83.135]) by dbc.mtview.ca.us (8.11.0+3.3W/8.11.0) with SMTP id f1NG3S327703; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 08:03:28 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <024501c09db4$64530390$8753cf3f@FATORA> From: "Marshall T. Rose" To: "A.M.Rutkowski" , "Stephane Alnet" , , "Richard Shockey" Cc: "Marshall Rose" References: <5.0.2.1.2.20010222190237.02f08980@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.2.20010222183630.00b67ad0@bucket.cisco.com> <5.0.2.1.2.20010222220257.02e9f6e0@127.0.0.1> Subject: Re: [Enum] RFC1530 (TPC.INT) Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 08:19:25 -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: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Enum Discussion List X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit pardonez-moi, but unless we're having a discussion about prior art and the ability for anyone to patent enum like stuff, i don't understand the relevance of this thread to the enum mailing list. /mtr _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From enum-admin@ietf.org Fri Feb 23 11:59:09 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id LAA08774 for ; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 11:59:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA19725; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 11:43:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA19677 for ; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 11:43:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from rip.psg.com (exim@rip.psg.com [147.28.0.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id LAA08291 for ; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 11:43:43 -0500 (EST) Received: from randy by rip.psg.com with local (Exim 3.16 #1) id 14WLJd-0009p3-00; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 08:43:33 -0800 From: Randy Bush MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: "Marshall T. Rose" Cc: "A.M.Rutkowski" , "Stephane Alnet" , , "Richard Shockey" , "Marshall Rose" Subject: Re: [Enum] RFC1530 (TPC.INT) References: <5.0.2.1.2.20010222190237.02f08980@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.2.20010222183630.00b67ad0@bucket.cisco.com> <5.0.2.1.2.20010222220257.02e9f6e0@127.0.0.1> <024501c09db4$64530390$8753cf3f@FATORA> Message-Id: Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 08:43:33 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Enum Discussion List X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > pardonez-moi, but unless we're having a discussion about prior art and the > ability for anyone to patent enum like stuff, i don't understand the > relevance of this thread to the enum mailing list. it's simple. tony works for nsi. nsi would like to monopolize as much of registration in the enum space as possible because they think there is a LOT of money to be made, just as they have with com, net, and org. so any fud, sociopathology, etc. that tony can spread to disrupt the working of this wg is to his direct business benefit. make sense? randy _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From enum-admin@ietf.org Fri Feb 23 12:04:10 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id MAA09007 for ; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 12:04:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA19579; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 11:40:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA19548 for ; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 11:40:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from exchange.chaos.com (exchange.chaos.com [206.5.17.8]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id LAA08221 for ; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 11:40:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from [216.168.250.52] by exchange.netmagic.com (NTMail 5.06.0016/NT2627.00.5ef58ba0) with ESMTP id glwkaaaa for enum@ietf.org; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 11:40:25 -0500 Message-Id: <5.1.0.7.2.20010223113459.00aebcb0@mail.netmagic.com> X-Sender: amr@mail.netmagic.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1.0.7 (Beta) Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 11:40:24 -0500 To: "Marshall T. Rose" , "Stephane Alnet" , From: "A.M. Rutkowski" Subject: Re: [Enum] RFC1530 (TPC.INT) In-Reply-To: <024501c09db4$64530390$8753cf3f@FATORA> References: <5.0.2.1.2.20010222190237.02f08980@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.2.20010222183630.00b67ad0@bucket.cisco.com> <5.0.2.1.2.20010222220257.02e9f6e0@127.0.0.1> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=====================_93021087==_.ALT" Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Enum Discussion List X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org --=====================_93021087==_.ALT Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable At 11:19 AM 2/23/2001, Marshall T. Rose wrote: >pardonez-moi, but unless we're having a discussion about prior art and the >ability for anyone to patent enum like stuff, i don't understand the >relevance of this thread to the enum mailing list. Hi Marshall, Prior art, pioneering history, and why there as an initial focus on the INT domain that remains alive at the ITU and the French Autorit=E9 de r=E9gulation des t=E9l=E9communications. c'est toutes --tony --=====================_93021087==_.ALT Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable At 11:19 AM 2/23/2001, Marshall T. Rose wrote:
pardonez-moi, but unless we're having a discussion about prior art and the
ability for anyone to patent enum like stuff, i don't understand=20 the
relevance of this thread to the enum mailing list.

Hi Marshall,

Prior art, pioneering history, and why there
as an initial focus on the INT domain that
remains alive at the ITU and the French
Autorit=E9 de r=E9gulation des t=E9l=E9communications.

c'est toutes

--tony
--=====================_93021087==_.ALT-- _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From enum-admin@ietf.org Fri Feb 23 12:06:54 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id MAA09089 for ; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 12:06:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA19877; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 11:50:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA19846 for ; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 11:50:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from dbc.mtview.ca.us (ppp-63-207-83-130.ded.pacbell.net [63.207.83.130]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id LAA08468 for ; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 11:50:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from FATORA (ppp-63-207-83-135.ded.pacbell.net [63.207.83.135]) by dbc.mtview.ca.us (8.11.0+3.3W/8.11.0) with SMTP id f1NGYM327776; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 08:34:22 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <029801c09db8$b55b3290$8753cf3f@FATORA> From: "Marshall T. Rose" To: "Randy Bush" Cc: "A.M.Rutkowski" , "Stephane Alnet" , , "Richard Shockey" References: <5.0.2.1.2.20010222190237.02f08980@127.0.0.1><4.3.2.7.2.20010222183630.00b67ad0@bucket.cisco.com><5.0.2.1.2.20010222220257.02e9f6e0@127.0.0.1><024501c09db4$64530390$8753cf3f@FATORA> Subject: Re: [Enum] RFC1530 (TPC.INT) Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 08:50:20 -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: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Enum Discussion List X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > it's simple. tony works for nsi. nsi would like to monopolize as much of > registration in the enum space as possible because they think there is a LOT > of money to be made, just as they have with com, net, and org. so any fud, > sociopathology, etc. that tony can spread to disrupt the working of this wg > is to his direct business benefit. make sense? here's my context: i'm not on the enum list. looks like a fine project, but it's not on my scope. so i get this message, mid-thread, about tpc.int. and i'm like "ancient history, who cares?" so, irregardless of commercial interests, what possible impact can a discussion of tpc.int have on the enum working group, other than having people spend their time reading and writing e-mails. why not just ignore the thread and move on? /mtr _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From enum-admin@ietf.org Fri Feb 23 12:50:04 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id MAA11298 for ; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 12:50:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA21149; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 12:34:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA21118 for ; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 12:34:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail2.itu.int (mail2.itu.ch [156.106.192.18]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id MAA10567 for ; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 12:34:30 -0500 (EST) Received: by mail2.itu.ch with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id <167G3VG1>; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 18:34:01 +0100 Message-ID: From: "Shaw, Robert" To: "'A.M.Rutkowski'" , Stephane Alnet , enum@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Enum] RFC1530 (TPC.INT) Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 18:33:46 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Enum Discussion List X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org > It's not clear whether the historical context > here has been lost or conveniently forgotten > in the penchant for rudeness. Tony, I don't think the historical context is either lost or is there any attempt to be rude. Everyone once in a while (as you have learned) I have the inclination (my colleagues might call it innate silliness) to address one of your widely-spread assertions on mailing lists or in the press that the ITU did this - or is doing this - or thinks this - or plans to do this, etc. Now 99% of the time - especially since you're fairly prolific and have undeniable skill in weaving together unrelated pieces of information into a plausible story, we just ignore it. That's mostly because we have other work to do but also because it's often part and parcel of our job to take it on the chin. However, if you make wild assertions often enough, just once in a while you're going to catch me in the right mood (and enough spare time) to challenge you on them. Like this: > services. Needless to say, it caused considerable > consternation in some quarters that led to a subsequent > largely ITU Secretariat let effort to tuck some kind of > formal ITU designated e164 zone under INT. Let me just say it bluntly. The premise is false and so is the conclusion (like other ITU stories you have proffered here). However, like I said, they are very entertaining stories. :-) Bob -- Robert Shaw ITU Internet Strategy and Policy Advisor International Telecommunication Union Place des Nations, 1211 Geneva, Switzerland _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From enum-admin@ietf.org Fri Feb 23 13:03:52 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id NAA12094 for ; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 13:03:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA21248; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 12:41:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA21216 for ; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 12:41:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from cisco.com (nordic.cisco.com [144.254.116.47]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id MAA10824 for ; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 12:41:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from [171.70.85.28] (dhcp-2sjc13-85-28.cisco.com [171.70.85.28]) by cisco.com (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) with ESMTP id SAA07485; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 18:40:43 +0100 (MET) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: pfaltstr@nordic.cisco.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 08:58:45 -0800 To: Andy Gallant , "'enum@ietf.org'" From: Patrik =?iso-8859-1?Q?F=E4ltstr=F6m?= Cc: "'ENUM@ALMSNTSA.LMLIST.STATE.GOV'" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Subject: [Enum] Multiple roots for E.164 numbers in DNS Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Enum Discussion List X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org Sorry for not being active on this list, but I found out that I was for some reason unsubscribed months ago...weird. I thought it was a bit quiet :-) Now, I agree fully with Andy's request, and I have a question for people which argue for some of these alternatives: At 08.46 -0600 01-02-23, Andy Gallant wrote: >Category 1: Uniqueness alternatives. > > - Multiple E.164s. The scenario is that an enduser A, which has an E.164 number A-E goes to some entity and have that registered in DNS under some E.164 root, and let's call that root A-root. Enduser B, which has an E.164 number B-E goes to some other entity and have his number registered under B-root. C is going to call A and B in order. Questions: (a) What domainname do C use when trying to look up ENUM information for A-E and B-E? (b) How do C know that those are the domainnames to use? (c) How do we ensure that if A-E exists under A-root and also under B-root, that they are the same, or that this situation is not allowed? (d) If you need the syncronization I claim one need (depending on answer of (c)), what is the difference between this and a situation where you have only one zone, which multiple parties can enter information into? >Finally, in my opinion, debating what appears to be >multiple E.164s (as in recent messages mentioning >going around Administrations or using TPC.INT) is >out of scope for ENUM discussions. The starting >points, again in my opinion, are the existing E.164 >and DNS, and the objective is ENUM-enabled access >to competitive services (roughly speaking). (e) Given the answers to the questions above, what more precisely is it people which argue for multiple roots want to compete about? I.e. what is the competition about? Endusers should be able to choose who they talk to when asking for a number to be registered in DNS or entities which want to run services which doesn't belive that the "parent" in the DNS tree (A-root and B-root) and created, or created with the wrong policy, and they because of this belive they have to do an endrun around the process around the definition of the root? Patrik _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From enum-admin@ietf.org Fri Feb 23 13:11:34 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id NAA12569 for ; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 13:11:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA21538; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 12:56:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA21508 for ; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 12:56:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from exchange.chaos.com (exchange.chaos.com [206.5.17.8]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id MAA11638 for ; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 12:56:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from [216.168.250.52] by exchange.netmagic.com (NTMail 5.06.0016/NT2627.00.5ef58ba0) with ESMTP id qqwkaaaa for enum@ietf.org; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 12:56:20 -0500 Message-Id: <5.1.0.7.2.20010223124113.02930930@mail.netmagic.com> X-Sender: amr@mail.netmagic.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1.0.7 (Beta) Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 12:56:18 -0500 To: "Shaw, Robert" , Stephane Alnet , enum@ietf.org From: "A.M. Rutkowski" Subject: RE: [Enum] RFC1530 (TPC.INT) In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=====================_97575666==_.ALT" Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Enum Discussion List X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org --=====================_97575666==_.ALT Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Hi Bob, >Let me just say it bluntly. The premise is false and so >is the conclusion (like other ITU stories you have This is not an ad hominem debate. Most of this has long been a matter of public record on your own site and in the ITU records. People can read and develop their own opinions. http://www.itu.int/net/int/ http://www.wia.org/ITU/c99_51_long.htm http://www.itu.int/wtpf/sgreport/finalreport31Jan.htm --tony --=====================_97575666==_.ALT Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Hi Bob,

Let me just say it bluntly. The premise is false and so
is the conclusion (like other ITU stories you have

This is not an ad hominem debate.

Most of this has long been a matter of public record on
your own site and in the ITU records.  People can read
and develop their own opinions.

http://www.itu.int/net/int/

http://www.wia.org/ITU/c99_51_long.htm

http://www.itu.int/wtpf/sgreport/finalreport31Jan.htm


--tony --=====================_97575666==_.ALT-- _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From enum-admin@ietf.org Fri Feb 23 13:20:04 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id NAA12999 for ; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 13:20:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA21878; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 13:03:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA21843 for ; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 13:03:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from tnt.isi.edu (tnt.isi.edu [128.9.128.128]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id NAA12088 for ; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 13:03:43 -0500 (EST) Received: from zed.isi.edu (zed.isi.edu [128.9.160.57]) by tnt.isi.edu (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f1NI3eq20443; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 10:03:40 -0800 (PST) From: Bill Manning Received: (from bmanning@localhost) by zed.isi.edu (8.11.0/8.8.6) id f1NI3eU23025; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 10:03:40 -0800 Message-Id: <200102231803.f1NI3eU23025@zed.isi.edu> Subject: Re: [Enum] RFC1530 (TPC.INT) To: amr@netmagic.com (A.M.Rutkowski) Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 10:03:40 -0800 (PST) Cc: salnet@cisco.com (Stephane Alnet), enum@ietf.org, ENUM@ALMSNTSA.LMLIST.STATE.GOV In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.7.2.20010223084118.00b0a100@mail.netmagic.com> from "A.M.Rutkowski" at Feb 23, 2001 09:39:06 AM X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL3] 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-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Enum Discussion List X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit % Last year, E164.ARPA was added to the ARPA zone % while E164.INT was quietly deleted. e164.arpa was added roughly during the timeframe of the RIPE mtg in Amsterdam. e164.int had a ~6month lifetime. ; ; E164.INT 09july1997 per Jon Postel ; pulled jan98 - (duplicate of TPC.INT?) - per postel ; ;e164.int. in ns dot.ep.net. % --tony --bill _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From enum-admin@ietf.org Fri Feb 23 13:29:35 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id NAA13596 for ; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 13:29:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA22021; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 13:14:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA21993 for ; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 13:14:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from p-mail2.cnet.fr (p-mail2.rd.francetelecom.fr [193.49.124.32]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id NAA12720 for ; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 13:14:17 -0500 (EST) Received: by p-voyageur.rd.francetelecom.fr with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <1PGF02WR>; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 19:13:19 +0100 Message-ID: <98388C05D464D111B61800805F1504160233A313@p-ibis.rd.francetelecom.fr> From: BARNOLE Valerie FTRD/DAC/ISS To: "'Bill Manning'" , amr@netmagic.com Cc: salnet@cisco.com, enum@ietf.org, ENUM@ALMSNTSA.LMLIST.STATE.GOV Subject: RE: [Enum] RFC1530 (TPC.INT) Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 19:13:19 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by optimus.ietf.org id NAA21994 Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Enum Discussion List X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by optimus.ietf.org id NAA22021 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by ietf.org id NAA13596 Thank you Bill for this very interesting information. end of message _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Valérie Barnole FTR&D/DAC/ACE tel. : + 33 1 45 29 58 39 fax : + 33 1 46 29 31 42 mail to : valerie.barnole@francetelecom.fr -----Message d'origine----- De : Bill Manning [mailto:bmanning@isi.edu] Envoyé : vendredi 23 février 2001 19:04 Ā : amr@netmagic.com Cc : salnet@cisco.com; enum@ietf.org; ENUM@ALMSNTSA.LMLIST.STATE.GOV Objet : Re: [Enum] RFC1530 (TPC.INT) % Last year, E164.ARPA was added to the ARPA zone % while E164.INT was quietly deleted. e164.arpa was added roughly during the timeframe of the RIPE mtg in Amsterdam. e164.int had a ~6month lifetime. ; ; E164.INT 09july1997 per Jon Postel ; pulled jan98 - (duplicate of TPC.INT?) - per postel ; ;e164.int. in ns dot.ep.net. % --tony --bill _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From enum-admin@ietf.org Fri Feb 23 13:32:10 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id NAA13813 for ; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 13:32:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA22092; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 13:16:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA22061 for ; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 13:16:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from cisco.com (nordic.cisco.com [144.254.116.47]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id NAA12826 for ; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 13:16:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from [171.70.85.28] (dhcp-2sjc13-85-28.cisco.com [171.70.85.28]) by cisco.com (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) with ESMTP id TAA12055; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 19:15:03 +0100 (MET) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: pfaltstr@nordic.cisco.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <029801c09db8$b55b3290$8753cf3f@FATORA> References: <5.0.2.1.2.20010222190237.02f08980@127.0.0.1><4.3.2.7.2.20010222183630.00b 67ad0@bucket.cisco.com><5.0.2.1.2.20010222220257.02e9f6e0@127.0.0.1><02450 1c09db4$64530390$8753cf3f@FATORA> <029801c09db8$b55b3290$8753cf3f@FATORA> Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 10:09:01 -0800 To: "Marshall T. Rose" , "Randy Bush" From: Patrik =?iso-8859-1?Q?F=E4ltstr=F6m?= Subject: Re: [Enum] RFC1530 (TPC.INT) Cc: "A.M.Rutkowski" , "Stephane Alnet" , , "Richard Shockey" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" ; format="flowed" X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by cisco.com id TAA12055 X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by optimus.ietf.org id NAA22062 Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Enum Discussion List X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by optimus.ietf.org id NAA22092 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by ietf.org id NAA13813 At 08.50 -0800 01-02-23, Marshall T. Rose wrote: >so, irregardless of commercial interests, what possible impact can a >discussion of tpc.int have on the enum working group, other than having >people spend their time reading and writing e-mails. why not just ignore the >thread and move on? What Marshall wrote. As wg chair, I declare discussion of tpc.int clearly being out of scope of the discussions of this mailing list, and I will use tools available if needed to see that this descision is enforced. Patrik Fältström co-Chair of the ENUM wg -- Patrik Fältström Cisco Systems Consulting Engineer Office of the CSO Phone: (Stockholm) +46-8-4494212 (San Jose) +1-408-525-8509 PGP: 2DFC AAF6 16F0 F276 7843 2DC1 BC79 51D9 7D25 B8DC _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From enum-admin@ietf.org Fri Feb 23 17:53:06 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id RAA25968 for ; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 17:53:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id RAA27007; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 17:48:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id RAA26968 for ; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 17:47:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from nic-naa.net (dt0b4n5b.maine.rr.com [24.95.12.91]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id RAA25819 for ; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 17:47:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from nic-naa.net (localhost.maine.rr.com [127.0.0.1]) by nic-naa.net (8.11.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id f1NMlJC71342; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 17:47:19 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from brunner@nic-naa.net) Message-Id: <200102232247.f1NMlJC71342@nic-naa.net> To: Randy Bush cc: "Marshall T. Rose" , "A.M.Rutkowski" , "Stephane Alnet" , enum@ietf.org, "Richard Shockey" , "Marshall Rose" , brunner@nic-naa.net Subject: Re: [Enum] RFC1530 (TPC.INT) In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 23 Feb 2001 08:43:33 PST." Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 17:47:19 -0500 From: Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Enum Discussion List X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org [obvious subtext, tony, nsi, fear, loathing, and diddling the feds, removed, in the assumption that we're all adults] On the up-side, "Allied Pipe" will be hosting happy hour at the bar Tuesday. A length of pvc conduit gets the Enum'ed a brewski. Eric _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From enum-admin@ietf.org Fri Feb 23 20:20:23 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id UAA28247 for ; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 20:20:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id UAA28374; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 20:02:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id UAA28343 for ; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 20:02:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from DF-INET-1.dogfoodinternet.com (df-inet1.exchange.microsoft.com [131.107.8.8]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id UAA27998 for ; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 20:02:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from df-virus2.platinum.corp.microsoft.com ([172.30.236.33]) by DF-INET-1.dogfoodinternet.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.2831); Fri, 23 Feb 2001 17:02:37 -0800 Received: from 172.30.236.11 by df-virus2.platinum.corp.microsoft.com (InterScan E-Mail VirusWall NT); Fri, 23 Feb 2001 17:01:44 -0800 (Pacific Standard Time) Received: from speak.platinum.corp.microsoft.com ([172.30.236.197]) by yuri.dns.microsoft.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.2831); Fri, 23 Feb 2001 17:01:40 -0800 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.4653.0 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: RE: [Enum] Multiple roots for E.164 numbers in DNS Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 16:59:21 -0800 Message-ID: Thread-Topic: [Enum] Multiple roots for E.164 numbers in DNS Thread-Index: AcCdwyoyE+8FhEOpRZWSTQTPi4kJfQAORhMw From: "Christian Huitema" To: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Patrik_F=E4ltstr=F6m?= , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 24 Feb 2001 01:01:40.0368 (UTC) FILETIME=[58839900:01C09DFD] Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by optimus.ietf.org id UAA28344 Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Enum Discussion List X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit > (e) Given the answers to the questions above, what more precisely is > it people which argue for multiple roots want to compete about? I.e. > what is the competition about? There are basically two ends to the enum business: who you put in charge of maintaining the mappings for your numbers, and who you ask to find out the mapping for a specified number. The competition is about how good a job you can do of making sure that an enum transaction for a given phone number actually returns the mapping selected by the owner of that phone number. I believe it is entirely possible that some systems can make a better job of that than others. -- Christian Huitema _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From enum-admin@ietf.org Sat Feb 24 14:23:31 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id OAA21638 for ; Sat, 24 Feb 2001 14:23:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA15418; Sat, 24 Feb 2001 14:22:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA15389 for ; Sat, 24 Feb 2001 14:22:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from almso1.proxy.att.com (almso1.att.com [192.128.167.69]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id OAA21624 for ; Sat, 24 Feb 2001 14:22:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from njb140r1.ems.att.com ([135.65.202.58]) by almso1.proxy.att.com (AT&T IPNS/MSO-3.0) with ESMTP id f1OJLkO21598 for ; Sat, 24 Feb 2001 14:21:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from njb140bh1.ems.att.com by njb140r1.ems.att.com (8.8.8+Sun/ATTEMS-1.4.1 sol2) id OAA03003; Sat, 24 Feb 2001 14:20:39 -0500 (EST) Received: by njb140bh1.ems.att.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Sat, 24 Feb 2001 14:21:46 -0500 Message-ID: <1B08859602C8D211B66F0000C0769CFA0583B32F@njc240po03.mt.att.com> From: "Pfautz, Penn L, NNAD" To: enum@ietf.org Subject: [Enum] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-enum-operation-02.txt Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 14:21:44 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Enum Discussion List X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org Some comments on the latest version of the operations document... 1. We need to synch up the use of terminology associated with Tiers across the several I-Ds. It seems that Tier 1 in the Operations document refers to Tier 1 as including both what is Tier 1 in the draft-pfautz-yu-enum-adm-00 and the RIPE NCC (which the next draft of pfautz-yu will refer to as Tier 0). While together these two Tiers collectively do what operations document says - direct you to the service registrar - it may useful to keep them separate. In any case we need to get to consensus about language. 2. In section 4.2 only item (1) is really number portability. I also am concerned with the use of "authority" and "Tier 1 ENUM service" in item 1. Authority seems to be used in the sense of service provider but I don't seem service providers as providing full Tier 1 functionality. I also disagree with the last sentence in section 4.2 suggesting that the delegated authority [service provider] and service registrar will be the same early on. The folks elbowing each other to get to the Service Registrar trough at most ENUM meetings as mostly NOT telcos. 3. In Section 7.2, the example shows delegation from the NANP to a the "number portability authority" .I think this is almost certain NOT to happen in the USA where the example seems to be focused. I expect delegation will be from the USA Tier 1 directly to the Service Registrar (whether or not the Registrar is the telco) and such an example would be more helpful to folks trying to understand how ENUM will roll out. We now return you to your regularly shcedule flamefest.... Penn Pfautz AT&T _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From enum-admin@ietf.org Sat Feb 24 18:35:38 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id SAA23439 for ; Sat, 24 Feb 2001 18:35:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id SAA17767; Sat, 24 Feb 2001 18:31:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id SAA17738 for ; Sat, 24 Feb 2001 18:31:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from exchange.chaos.com (exchange.chaos.com [206.5.17.8]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id SAA23400 for ; Sat, 24 Feb 2001 18:31:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from [206.5.17.17] by exchange.netmagic.com (NTMail 5.06.0016/NT2627.00.5ef58ba0) with ESMTP id baxkaaaa for enum@ietf.org; Sat, 24 Feb 2001 18:31:53 -0500 Message-Id: <5.1.0.10.2.20010224182747.00ade878@mail.netmagic.com> X-Sender: amr@mail.netmagic.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1.0.10 (Beta) Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 18:31:53 -0500 To: enum@ietf.org From: "A.M.Rutkowski" In-Reply-To: <1B08859602C8D211B66F0000C0769CFA0583B32F@njc240po03.mt.att .com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Subject: [Enum] Current ENUM IDs Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Enum Discussion List X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org Many seem missing at: http://www.ietf.org/ids.by.wg/enum.html _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From enum-admin@ietf.org Sat Feb 24 18:40:57 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id SAA23479 for ; Sat, 24 Feb 2001 18:40:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id SAA17466; Sat, 24 Feb 2001 18:24:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id SAA17441 for ; Sat, 24 Feb 2001 18:24:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from exchange.chaos.com (exchange.chaos.com [206.5.17.8]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id SAA23323 for ; Sat, 24 Feb 2001 18:24:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from [206.5.17.17] by exchange.netmagic.com (NTMail 5.06.0016/NT2627.00.5ef58ba0) with ESMTP id aaxkaaaa for enum@ietf.org; Sat, 24 Feb 2001 18:24:06 -0500 Message-Id: <5.1.0.10.2.20010224172319.00b09d78@mail.netmagic.com> X-Sender: amr@mail.netmagic.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1.0.10 (Beta) Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 18:24:06 -0500 To: "Pfautz, Penn L, NNAD" , enum@ietf.org From: "A.M.Rutkowski" Subject: Re: [Enum] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-enum-operation-02.txt In-Reply-To: <1B08859602C8D211B66F0000C0769CFA0583B32F@njc240po03.mt.att .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-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Enum Discussion List X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org Hi Penn, > In section 4.2 only item (1) is really number portability. I also am >concerned with the use of "authority" and "Tier 1 ENUM service" in item 1. >Authority seems to be used in the sense of service provider but I don't seem >service providers as providing full Tier 1 functionality. I also disagree >with the last sentence in section 4.2 suggesting that the delegated >authority [service provider] and service registrar will be the same early >on. The folks elbowing each other to get to the Service Registrar trough at >most ENUM meetings as mostly NOT telcos. As noted at the SG-A ENUM AdHoc meeting, it is important to avoid denominating the competitive structure of the marketplace for Designated ENUM Zone Models - especially in ways that exclude or diminish the ability of Competitive ENUM Zone providers to provide service. You have pointed out what is one of several serious anticompetitive flaws with features in this paper. I'm sure we will have a fuller discussion on the SG-A ENUM AdHoc list where this needs to be appropriately considered on the record. It's worth note in passing, however, how remarkably similar this whole IETF ENUM tack now is to the old CCITT. For generations, the PTTs gathered to produce F-Series documents that denominated how the protocols were to be manifested as services and service reference models by anointed public monopolies. Those practices have largely disappeared from the CCITT/ITU-T - ironically only to be now arising here. Interesting times. --tony _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From enum-admin@ietf.org Sat Feb 24 18:59:47 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id SAA23613 for ; Sat, 24 Feb 2001 18:59:43 -0500 (EST) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id SAA17876; Sat, 24 Feb 2001 18:44:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id SAA17849 for ; Sat, 24 Feb 2001 18:44:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from cisco.com (nordic.cisco.com [144.254.116.47]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id SAA23497 for ; Sat, 24 Feb 2001 18:44:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from [10.21.51.77] (herbst-isdn4.cisco.com [10.21.51.77]) by cisco.com (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) with ESMTP id AAA03660; Sun, 25 Feb 2001 00:43:49 +0100 (MET) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: pfaltstr@nordic.cisco.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.10.2.20010224172319.00b09d78@mail.netmagic.com> References: <5.1.0.10.2.20010224172319.00b09d78@mail.netmagic.com> Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 15:42:32 -0800 To: "A.M.Rutkowski" , "Pfautz, Penn L, NNAD" , enum@ietf.org From: Patrik =?iso-8859-1?Q?F=E4ltstr=F6m?= Subject: Re: [Enum] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-enum-operation-02.txt Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Enum Discussion List X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org At 18.24 -0500 01-02-24, A.M.Rutkowski wrote: >especially >in ways that exclude or diminish the ability of Competitive >ENUM Zone providers to provide service. Competition between different zones in DNS is something which is declared bad in the IETF, and the need for uniqueness is described more in detail in RFC 2826. Comptetition is handled in DNS by introduction of registry/registrar systems, so competition is introduced without having multiple zones for one name. So, if you are to discuss competition on service, talk about how the single zone is to be set up -- or rather requirements on how it is to be set up for ENUM to work (i.e. given constraints in RFC 2826). How this is done (how the requirements are resolved) in detail is a national matter for each CC in the world, and not an issue for the IETF. So, different zones can handle different numbering plans, but for E.164, there can only be one, and further, for each numbering plan, there can only be one zone in ENUM. paf _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From enum-admin@ietf.org Sat Feb 24 19:17:54 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id TAA23749 for ; Sat, 24 Feb 2001 19:17:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id TAA18197; Sat, 24 Feb 2001 19:17:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id TAA18168 for ; Sat, 24 Feb 2001 19:17:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from nic-naa.net (dt0b4n5b.maine.rr.com [24.95.12.91]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id TAA23746 for ; Sat, 24 Feb 2001 19:17:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from nic-naa.net (localhost.maine.rr.com [127.0.0.1]) by nic-naa.net (8.11.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id f1P0GwC76925; Sat, 24 Feb 2001 19:16:58 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from brunner@nic-naa.net) Message-Id: <200102250016.f1P0GwC76925@nic-naa.net> To: Patrik =?iso-8859-1?Q?F=E4ltstr=F6m?= cc: "A.M.Rutkowski" , "Pfautz, Penn L, NNAD" , enum@ietf.org, brunner@nic-naa.net Subject: Re: [Enum] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-enum-operation-02.txt In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sat, 24 Feb 2001 15:42:32 PST." Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 19:16:58 -0500 From: Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Enum Discussion List X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org Patrick, http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-c/Arc00/msg02392.html Eric _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From enum-admin@ietf.org Sat Feb 24 19:38:28 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id TAA23830 for ; Sat, 24 Feb 2001 19:38:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id TAA18267; Sat, 24 Feb 2001 19:23:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id TAA18236 for ; Sat, 24 Feb 2001 19:23:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from exchange.chaos.com (exchange.chaos.com [206.5.17.8]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id TAA23775 for ; Sat, 24 Feb 2001 19:23:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from [206.5.17.17] by exchange.netmagic.com (NTMail 5.06.0016/NT2627.00.5ef58ba0) with ESMTP id naxkaaaa for enum@ietf.org; Sat, 24 Feb 2001 19:22:58 -0500 Message-Id: <5.1.0.10.2.20010224185422.084d9e88@mail.netmagic.com> X-Sender: amr@mail.netmagic.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1.0.10 (Beta) Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 19:22:58 -0500 To: Patrik =?iso-8859-1?Q?F=E4ltstr=F6m?= , "Pfautz, Penn L, NNAD" , enum@ietf.org From: "A.M.Rutkowski" Subject: Re: [Enum] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-enum-operation-02.txt In-Reply-To: References: <5.1.0.10.2.20010224172319.00b09d78@mail.netmagic.com> <5.1.0.10.2.20010224172319.00b09d78@mail.netmagic.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-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Enum Discussion List X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org Hi Patrik, >How this is done (how the requirements are resolved) in detail is a >national matter for each CC in the world, and not an issue for the IETF. I think we're in perfect agreement here about Service Reference Models. The SG-A ENUM AdHoc is now considering what that model should be for North America, as well as what the continuing forum should be. The CEC is likely to proceed soon with their own. The focus is on pragmatically developing schema for allowing multiple service provisioning models to effectively co-exist in the marketplace, and which maximize competition in general - along the lines of Penn's remarks about unnecessarily bundling functions even for Designated Zone providers. --tony _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From enum-admin@ietf.org Sat Feb 24 20:18:25 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id UAA24112 for ; Sat, 24 Feb 2001 20:18:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id UAA18817; Sat, 24 Feb 2001 20:14:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id UAA18786 for ; Sat, 24 Feb 2001 20:14:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from cisco.com (nordic.cisco.com [144.254.116.47]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id UAA24077 for ; Sat, 24 Feb 2001 20:14:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from [10.21.51.77] (herbst-isdn4.cisco.com [10.21.51.77]) by cisco.com (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) with ESMTP id CAA08661; Sun, 25 Feb 2001 02:13:38 +0100 (MET) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: pfaltstr@nordic.cisco.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <200102250016.f1P0GwC76925@nic-naa.net> References: <200102250016.f1P0GwC76925@nic-naa.net> Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 17:09:03 -0800 To: Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine From: Patrik =?iso-8859-1?Q?F=E4ltstr=F6m?= Subject: Re: [Enum] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-enum-operation-02.txt Cc: "A.M.Rutkowski" , "Pfautz, Penn L, NNAD" , enum@ietf.org, brunner@nic-naa.net Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Enum Discussion List X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org At 19.16 -0500 01-02-24, Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine wrote: > >http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-c/Arc00/msg02392.html > Thanks for sharing, but _this_ wg is not the place for discussing of changes in IAB/IESG views on how DNS is working. paf _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From enum-admin@ietf.org Sun Feb 25 21:20:47 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id VAA14498 for ; Sun, 25 Feb 2001 21:20:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id UAA09073; Sun, 25 Feb 2001 20:59:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id UAA09042 for ; Sun, 25 Feb 2001 20:59:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from johnson.mail.mindspring.net (johnson.mail.mindspring.net [207.69.200.177]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id UAA14442 for ; Sun, 25 Feb 2001 20:59:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from rds.ix.netcom.com (user-2ivelr7.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.87.103]) by johnson.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with ESMTP id UAA29936; Sun, 25 Feb 2001 20:59:10 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <5.0.2.1.2.20010225205852.02b0a080@127.0.0.1> X-Sender: rshockey/popd.ix.netcom.com@127.0.0.1 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.0.2 Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 21:01:52 -0500 To: "A.M.Rutkowski" , Patrik =?iso-8859-1?Q?F=E4ltstr=F6m?= , "Pfautz, Penn L, NNAD" , enum@ietf.org From: Richard Shockey Subject: Re: [Enum] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-enum-operation-02.txt In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.10.2.20010224185422.084d9e88@mail.netmagic.com> References: <5.1.0.10.2.20010224172319.00b09d78@mail.netmagic.com> <5.1.0.10.2.20010224172319.00b09d78@mail.netmagic.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-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Enum Discussion List X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org At 07:22 PM 2/24/2001 -0500, A.M.Rutkowski wrote: >Hi Patrik, > >>How this is done (how the requirements are resolved) in detail is a >>national matter for each CC in the world, and not an issue for the IETF. > >I think we're in perfect agreement here about Service >Reference Models. The SG-A ENUM AdHoc is now considering >what that model should be for North America, The United States actually .. State Dept ad-hoc SG-A has no authority over non US parts of the NANP. The forum for further US discussions has yet to be determined. _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From enum-admin@ietf.org Sun Feb 25 21:45:02 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id VAA15548 for ; Sun, 25 Feb 2001 21:44:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id VAA09538; Sun, 25 Feb 2001 21:28:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id VAA09506 for ; Sun, 25 Feb 2001 21:28:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from joy.songbird.com (IDENT:root@songbird.com [208.184.79.7]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id VAA14526 for ; Sun, 25 Feb 2001 21:28:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from dcrocker-a280.dcrocker.net (pc113.pwtc.jaring.my [202.186.141.113]) by joy.songbird.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA15943; Sun, 25 Feb 2001 18:28:31 -0800 Message-Id: <5.1.0.10.2.20010226101904.02c97078@brandenburg.com> X-Sender: dhc@brandenburg.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1.0.10 (Beta) Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 10:21:57 +0800 To: "A.M.Rutkowski" From: Dave Crocker Subject: Re: [Enum] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-enum-operation-02.txt Cc: enum@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.10.2.20010224172319.00b09d78@mail.netmagic.com> References: <1B08859602C8D211B66F0000C0769CFA0583B32F@njc240po03.mt.att .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-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Enum Discussion List X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org At 06:24 AM 2/25/2001, A.M.Rutkowski wrote: >You have pointed out what is one of several serious anticompetitive >flaws with features in this paper. Tony, You persist in raising concerns about competition, at the same time as you have admitted that a) you are not offering a professional opinion, and b) that this working group has not taken any action about which there should be specific concern. >I'm sure we will have >a fuller discussion on the SG-A ENUM AdHoc list where this >needs to be appropriately considered on the record. You have been asked to take your bogus distraction elsewhere. And you even cite an appropriate venue. Please use it Otherwise people might start to suspect that your only goal is to disrupt this group from pursuing its technical work. >It's worth note in passing, however, how remarkably similar >this whole IETF ENUM tack now is to the old CCITT. For generations, Gee, Tony, what an interesting style of ad hominem. Let's ignore the actual quality of the work, but just cast aspersions on it because (in your opinion) it looks a bit like someone else's work. Thanks so much. d/ ---------- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking tel: +1.408.246.8253; fax: +1.408.273.6464 _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From enum-admin@ietf.org Mon Feb 26 12:10:04 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id MAA16776 for ; Mon, 26 Feb 2001 12:10:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA28366; Mon, 26 Feb 2001 11:54:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA28335 for ; Mon, 26 Feb 2001 11:54:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from hvmta01-stg.us.psimail.psi.net (hvmta01-ext.us.psimail.psi.net [38.202.36.29]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id LAA16144 for ; Mon, 26 Feb 2001 11:54:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from RWALTER ([38.136.73.75]) by hvmta01-stg.us.psimail.psi.net (InterMail v4.01.01.00 201-229-111) with SMTP id <20010226165403.DQLU23510.hvmta01-stg@RWALTER>; Mon, 26 Feb 2001 11:54:04 -0500 Reply-To: From: "Robert H. Walter" To: "Pfautz, Penn L, NNAD" , Cc: Subject: RE: [Enum] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-enum-operation-02.txt Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 11:49:51 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 In-Reply-To: <1B08859602C8D211B66F0000C0769CFA0583B32F@njc240po03.mt.att.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Enum Discussion List X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > 1. We need to synch up the use of terminology associated with Tiers across > the several I-Ds. It seems that Tier 1 in the Operations document refers to > Tier 1 as including both what is Tier 1 in the draft-pfautz-yu-enum-adm-00 > and the RIPE NCC (which the next draft of pfautz-yu will refer to as Tier > 0). While together these two Tiers collectively do what operations document > says - direct you to the service registrar - it may useful to keep them > separate. In any case we need to get to consensus about language. Hi Penn, By introducting Tier 0 we risk confusing the logical tiers of ENUM with the physical tiers or zones of DNS. If you describe Tier 0 as "e164.arpa." operated by NCC RIPE, do you then define Tier -1 as "arpa." operated by NSI? Who, What, How and When the 200+ country code zones will be administered and operatated has yet to be defined. I recommend we stick to the logical ENUM tiers when describing ENUM reference models and steer clear of the DNS physical tiers or zones. Richard, the I-D draft-ranalli-peek-walter-enum-t1roles-01.txt was published some weeks ago... Would you publish a link to the list? Thanks, Bob _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From enum-admin@ietf.org Mon Feb 26 14:38:45 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id OAA23510 for ; Mon, 26 Feb 2001 14:38:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA01069; Mon, 26 Feb 2001 14:21:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA01038 for ; Mon, 26 Feb 2001 14:21:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from ckmso1.proxy.att.com (ckmso1.att.com [12.20.58.69]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id OAA22469 for ; Mon, 26 Feb 2001 14:21:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from njb140r1.ems.att.com ([135.65.202.58]) by ckmso1.proxy.att.com (AT&T IPNS/MSO-3.0) with ESMTP id f1QJKN128505; Mon, 26 Feb 2001 14:20:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from njb140bh2.ems.att.com by njb140r1.ems.att.com (8.8.8+Sun/ATTEMS-1.4.1 sol2) id OAA03417; Mon, 26 Feb 2001 14:19:16 -0500 (EST) Received: by njb140bh2.ems.att.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Mon, 26 Feb 2001 14:20:22 -0500 Message-ID: <1B08859602C8D211B66F0000C0769CFA058AC8F3@njc240po03.mt.att.com> From: "Pfautz, Penn L, NNAD" To: rwalter@netnumber.com, rich.shockey@neustar.com Cc: enum@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Enum] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-enum-operation-02.txt Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 14:06:08 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Enum Discussion List X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org Bob: While I see your point re *logical tiers*, I'm concerned about shifting terminology now that lots of discussion has taken place using Tier 1 as the Registry and Tier 2 as the Service Registrar in various forums. I'm not worried about .arpa - since it has essentially no ENUM specific info, only a pointer to where e164.arpa lives, we don't need to treat it as a Tier. Penn -----Original Message----- From: Robert H. Walter [mailto:rwalter@netnumber.com] Sent: Monday, February 26, 2001 11:50 AM To: Pfautz, Penn L, NNAD; rich.shockey@neustar.com Cc: enum@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Enum] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-enum-operation-02.txt > 1. We need to synch up the use of terminology associated with Tiers across > the several I-Ds. It seems that Tier 1 in the Operations document refers to > Tier 1 as including both what is Tier 1 in the draft-pfautz-yu-enum-adm-00 > and the RIPE NCC (which the next draft of pfautz-yu will refer to as Tier > 0). While together these two Tiers collectively do what operations document > says - direct you to the service registrar - it may useful to keep them > separate. In any case we need to get to consensus about language. Hi Penn, By introducting Tier 0 we risk confusing the logical tiers of ENUM with the physical tiers or zones of DNS. If you describe Tier 0 as "e164.arpa." operated by NCC RIPE, do you then define Tier -1 as "arpa." operated by NSI? Who, What, How and When the 200+ country code zones will be administered and operatated has yet to be defined. I recommend we stick to the logical ENUM tiers when describing ENUM reference models and steer clear of the DNS physical tiers or zones. Richard, the I-D draft-ranalli-peek-walter-enum-t1roles-01.txt was published some weeks ago... Would you publish a link to the list? Thanks, Bob _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From enum-admin@ietf.org Mon Feb 26 16:07:49 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id QAA27557 for ; Mon, 26 Feb 2001 16:07:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id PAA02607; Mon, 26 Feb 2001 15:51:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id PAA02578 for ; Mon, 26 Feb 2001 15:51:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from hvmta02-stg.us.psimail.psi.net (hvmta02-ext.us.psimail.psi.net [38.202.36.30]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id PAA26997 for ; Mon, 26 Feb 2001 15:51:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from RWALTER ([38.136.73.75]) by hvmta02-stg.us.psimail.psi.net (InterMail v4.01.01.00 201-229-111) with SMTP id <20010226205122.HMDA24431.hvmta02-stg@RWALTER>; Mon, 26 Feb 2001 15:51:22 -0500 Reply-To: From: "Robert H. Walter" To: "Pfautz, Penn L, NNAD" Cc: Subject: RE: [Enum] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-enum-operation-02.txt Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 15:47:09 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 In-Reply-To: <1B08859602C8D211B66F0000C0769CFA058AC8F3@njc240po03.mt.att.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Enum Discussion List X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > While I see your point re *logical tiers*, I'm concerned about shifting > terminology now that lots of discussion has taken place using Tier 1 as the > Registry and Tier 2 as the Service Registrar in various forums. I'm not > worried about .arpa - since it has essentially no ENUM specific info, only a > pointer to where e164.arpa lives, we don't need to treat it as a Tier. Penn, Thanks for responding, though I'm not sure I understand your position. I agree that ENUM consists of both the Registry (Tier 1) and the Service Registrar (Tier 2), but see no shift in terminology. I'm trying to make a point that the Tier 1 Registry is an abstraction of the physical implementation and includes all of the DNS zones that delegate to, but do not include the Tier 2 Service Registrar (zones that contain NAPTR resource records). The Tier 2 Service Registrar DNS may be generally defined as one or more DNS zones that contain NAPTR resource records with fully specified E.164 names that conform to the naming structure defined in RFC 2916. The Tier 1 Registry DNS may be generally defined as one or more DNS zones that contain NS and A resource records that eventually delegate a fully specified E.164 name to a name server(s) operated by a Tier 2 Service Registrar. Regards, Bob _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From enum-admin@ietf.org Tue Feb 27 10:37:37 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id KAA12920 for ; Tue, 27 Feb 2001 10:37:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id KAA25617; Tue, 27 Feb 2001 10:16:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id KAA25588 for ; Tue, 27 Feb 2001 10:16:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from dnspri.npac.com (firewall-user@dnspri.npac.com [208.143.33.66]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id KAA11806 for ; Tue, 27 Feb 2001 10:16:34 -0500 (EST) Received: by dnspri.npac.com; id JAA05041; Tue, 27 Feb 2001 09:16:34 -0600 (CST) Received: from unknown(192.168.20.106) by dnspri.npac.com via smap (V5.0) id xmab03975; Tue, 27 Feb 01 09:15:39 -0600 Message-Id: <5.0.2.1.2.20010227101434.02bb2c90@127.0.0.1> X-Sender: rshockey@127.0.0.1 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.0.2 Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 10:14:44 -0500 To: enum@ietf.org From: Richard Shockey Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Subject: [Enum] Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-ranalli-peek-walter-enum-t1roles-01.txt Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Enum Discussion List X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org >To: IETF-Announce: ; >From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org >Reply-to: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org >Subject: I-D ACTION:draft-ranalli-peek-walter-enum-t1roles-01.txt >Date: Tue, 06 Feb 2001 08:16:50 -0500 >Sender: scoya@cnri.reston.va.us > >A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts >directories. > > > Title : Tier-1 ENUM System Roles and Responsibilities > Author(s) : D. Ranalli, D. Peek, R. Walters > Filename : draft-ranalli-peek-walter-enum-t1roles-01.txt > Pages : 9 > Date : 05-Feb-01 > >This document describes the actors in a global Tier-1 ENUM System >and the roles and responsibilities that each of the actors fulfills. >In this context, a 'Tier-1 ENUM System' refers to a holistic system >for registering E.164 telephone numbers in a DNS top-level domain. >The population of NAPTR records with URI's in a Tier-2 ENUM System >as described in RFC 2916 [4] is not discussed in this draft. > >A URL for this Internet-Draft is: >http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ranalli-peek-walter-enum-t1roles-01.txt > >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-ranalli-peek-walter-enum-t1roles-01.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-ranalli-peek-walter-enum-t1roles-01.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. >Content-Type: text/plain >Content-ID: <20010205134831.I-D@ietf.org> > >ENCODING mime >FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ranalli-peek-walter-enum-t1roles-01.txt > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard Shockey, Senior Technical Industry Liaison NeuStar Inc. 1120 Vermont Avenue N.W., Suite 550, Washington DC. 20005 Voice: 202.533.2811, Cell : 314.503.0640, Fax: 815.333.1237 or <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From enum-admin@ietf.org Wed Feb 28 14:49:00 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id OAA20945 for ; Wed, 28 Feb 2001 14:49:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA28983; Wed, 28 Feb 2001 14:33:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA28954 for ; Wed, 28 Feb 2001 14:33:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from rainier.illuminet.com (root@[63.116.20.6]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id OAA20334 for ; Wed, 28 Feb 2001 14:33:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from olwinexsmtp01.corp.illuminet.com ([172.20.1.9]) by rainier.illuminet.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id LAA02597 for ; Wed, 28 Feb 2001 11:33:15 -0800 (PST) Received: by olwinexsmtp01.corp.illuminet.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <1YY7S1XD>; Wed, 28 Feb 2001 11:33:15 -0800 Message-ID: <1C1EEC765F843E44996971A80682118B252515@OPWINEXCL01> From: Kevin McCandless To: "'enum@ietf.org'" Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 11:33:14 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C0A1BD.4AD75210" Subject: [Enum] 50th IETF meeting in Minneapolis. Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Enum Discussion List X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C0A1BD.4AD75210 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" ENUM Team: I am sure many of you will be at the 50th IETF meeting in Minneapolis. I noticed from the agenda that there is no enum meeting. Would some of you be will to have a meeting to work on a joint solution for our next Study Group A meeting? If yes, we could pick two or three issues to tackle and provide our input at the Washington DC meeting. We could even do some preliminary work before the face to face. Please let me know your thoughts. Kevin McCandless Senior Network Planner Illuminet 913-814-6397 kmccandless@illuminet.com ------_=_NextPart_001_01C0A1BD.4AD75210 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1"
ENUM Team:
 
I am sure many of you will be at the 50th IETF meeting in Minneapolis.  I noticed from the agenda that there is no enum meeting.  Would some of you be will to have a meeting to work on a joint solution for our next Study Group A meeting?  If yes, we could pick  two or three issues to tackle and provide our input at the Washington DC meeting.  We could even do some preliminary work before the face to face.
 
Please let me know your thoughts.

Kevin McCandless
Senior Network Planner
Illuminet
913-814-6397
kmccandless@illuminet.com

 
------_=_NextPart_001_01C0A1BD.4AD75210-- _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From enum-admin@ietf.org Wed Feb 28 15:37:23 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id PAA23508 for ; Wed, 28 Feb 2001 15:37:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id PAA29669; Wed, 28 Feb 2001 15:22:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id PAA29636 for ; Wed, 28 Feb 2001 15:21:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from dnspri.npac.com (firewall-user@dnspri.npac.com [208.143.33.66]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id PAA22640 for ; Wed, 28 Feb 2001 15:21:56 -0500 (EST) Received: by dnspri.npac.com; id OAA00283; Wed, 28 Feb 2001 14:21:53 -0600 (CST) Received: from unknown(192.168.20.106) by dnspri.npac.com via smap (V5.0) id xma000159; Wed, 28 Feb 01 14:21:25 -0600 Message-Id: <5.0.2.1.2.20010228152154.0293eec0@127.0.0.1> X-Sender: rshockey@127.0.0.1 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.0.2 Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 15:22:16 -0500 To: Kevin McCandless , "'enum@ietf.org'" From: Richard Shockey Subject: Re: [Enum] 50th IETF meeting in Minneapolis. In-Reply-To: <1C1EEC765F843E44996971A80682118B252515@OPWINEXCL01> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=====================_21125870==_.ALT" Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Enum Discussion List X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org --=====================_21125870==_.ALT Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed At 11:33 AM 2/28/2001 -0800, Kevin McCandless wrote: >ENUM Team: > >I am sure many of you will be at the 50th IETF meeting in Minneapolis. I >noticed from the agenda that there is no enum meeting. Would some of you >be will to have a meeting to work on a joint solution for our next Study >Group A meeting? If yes, we could pick two or three issues to tackle and >provide our input at the Washington DC meeting. We could even do some >preliminary work before the face to face. I'm certainly in favor of a BAR BOF.... > >Please let me know your thoughts. > >Kevin McCandless >Senior Network Planner >Illuminet >913-814-6397 >kmccandless@illuminet.com > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard Shockey, Senior Technical Industry Liaison NeuStar Inc. 1120 Vermont Avenue N.W., Suite 550, Washington DC. 20005 Voice: 202.533.2811, Cell : 314.503.0640, Fax: 815.333.1237 or <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< --=====================_21125870==_.ALT Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" At 11:33 AM 2/28/2001 -0800, Kevin McCandless wrote:
ENUM Team:
 
I am sure many of you will be at the 50th IETF meeting in Minneapolis.  I noticed from the agenda that there is no enum meeting.  Would some of you be will to have a meeting to work on a joint solution for our next Study Group A meeting?  If yes, we could pick  two or three issues to tackle and provide our input at the Washington DC meeting.  We could even do some preliminary work before the face to face.

I'm certainly in favor of a BAR BOF....

 
Please let me know your thoughts.

Kevin McCandless
Senior Network Planner
Illuminet
913-814-6397
kmccandless@illuminet.com
 


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Richard Shockey, Senior Technical Industry Liaison
NeuStar Inc.
1120 Vermont Avenue N.W., Suite 550, Washington DC. 20005
Voice: 202.533.2811,  Cell : 314.503.0640,  Fax: 815.333.1237
<mailto: rshockey@ix.netcom.com> or
<mailto: rich.shockey@neustar.com>
<http://www.neustar.com>
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
--=====================_21125870==_.ALT-- _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum