Re: [drinks] Comment on today's drinks discussion

I got into this with some real world issues where numbers are resold, and
SOME provisioning responsibility goes with the resale.  There are also cases
where there is a chain of resellers, and the services each can provision may
be different.  

Brian

> -----Original Message-----
> From: drinks-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:drinks-bounces@ietf.org] On
> Behalf Of Guyton, Deborah A
> Sent: Thursday, July 30, 2009 2:42 AM
> To: 'PFAUTZ, PENN L, ATTCORP'; Alexander Mayrhofer; drinks@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [drinks] Comment on today's drinks discussion
> 
> Hi Penn,
> Hopefully I can clear up one item quickly. The idea of "Registrant" is
> the notion that a "Registrar" who is the "holder" of the data or
> carrier of record, for example, might outsource the administration of
> that data to a "Registrant".   An analogy in today's world is that some
> companies do not  manage their own data in LERG but outsource to a
> third party.  It may be necessary to allow for an individual
> administrator "Joe Administrator" to be the responsible individual for
> administering that data - hence having a login and password
> (particularly for a GUI) but could be a login and password for a
> service provisioning interface. For data issues, you might need to
> resolve with a person.
> If administration is done as it is today, perhaps for AT&T, Registrar =
> AT&T and Registrant = AT&T.
> Hope that helps.
> Debbie
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: drinks-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:drinks-bounces@ietf.org] On
> Behalf Of PFAUTZ, PENN L, ATTCORP
> Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2009 4:39 PM
> To: Alexander Mayrhofer; drinks@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [drinks] Comment on today's drinks discussion
> 
> Alex:
> My concerns are not entirely with respect to the current draft but some
> of the directions that the discussion during the WG session suggested
> the work might be taking.
> 
> I've had a lingering concern about the disconnect between what
> Speermint
> has proposed (LUF/LRF)and the route that drinks has taken. Since the
> will of the design team seemed to be to get on with a simple protocol
> directed toward provisioning DNS RRs I let that ride. Monday's session,
> however brought up things like more abstraction of routing elements
> which suggests to me assumptions about the nature of interconnections
> and my issues with the original ESPP I-D.
> 
> Brian Rosen's comment about number "ownership" relations also seemed to
> suggest another complexity that the protocol would try to incorporate.
> 
> I get concerned about a protocol that either makes a lot of specific
> assumptions about the nature of the registry and the interconnection
> framework and/or becomes bloated by trying to incorporate the panoply
> of
> possible cases.
> 
> A more specific issue - the definition of Registrant as an "end user" -
> this is at least confusing in the context of Infrastructure vs. End
> User
> ENUM.
> 
> I'll keep watching how things evolve. It may be that others conclude
> they need the added complexity but I wanted to be forthright about my
> position.
> Thanks for listening.
> 
> 
> Penn Pfautz
> AT&T Access Management
> +1-732-420-4962
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alexander Mayrhofer [mailto:alexander.mayrhofer@nic.at]
> Sent: Monday, July 27, 2009 12:56 PM
> To: PFAUTZ, PENN L, ATTCORP; drinks@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: [drinks] Comment on today's drinks discussion
> 
> > I for one have concerns about how useful the resulting
> > protocol is likely to be, at least for my company's likely
> > applications.
> 
> Penn,
> 
> Thanks for that "wakeup call" - as we said we want definitely a
> deployable protocol, so i'm concerned about your statement - could you
> elaborate of what properties of the current draft would make it less
> useful for your company's applications, and what could be done to make
> it fit better?
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Alex
> _______________________________________________
> drinks mailing list
> drinks@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/drinks
> _______________________________________________
> drinks mailing list
> drinks@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/drinks