Re: [e2md] Problem statement, Requirements and Use Cases

["Cartwright, Kenneth" <[e-mail]>]

Rich, fwiw, I can contribute to this effort.

Ken

-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Shockey [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2010 9:15 PM
To: 'Sumanth Channabasappa'; Cartwright, Kenneth; [e-mail]; 'PFAUTZ, PENN L (ATTCORP)'
Cc: [e-mail]; 'E.164 To MetaData BOF discussion list'; 'IETF ENUM list'
Subject: RE: [e2md] Problem statement, Requirements and Use Cases

Well .. as far as I'm concerned the discussion of what is the namespace is
charming but ultimately another discussion. What is important is the
definition of the use case and why opaque carrier identification
methodologies is important (vs edge URI identification) and I'd like to call
for volunteers to help me or someone to write this up as a ID.  There is no
possible doubt that this is important to the global telecommunications
industry and IMHO is principally utilized principally in
private-carrier-infrastructure ENUM instantiations.

Not to say that, by some for form of indirection, this could live in
e164.arpa but either way it makes sense. It's the right thing to do and the
timing is right now.

-----Original Message-----
From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of
Sumanth Channabasappa
Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2010 3:45 PM
To: Cartwright, Kenneth; [e-mail]; PFAUTZ, PENN L (ATTCORP)
Cc: [e-mail]; E.164 To MetaData BOF discussion list
Subject: Re: [e2md] Problem statement, Requirements and Use Cases

When we speak about OIDs here, we are speaking of OIDs formed via the IANA
Enterprise Numbers, correct (1.3.6.1.4...)? If so, do we need an extra
string for all enterprises (1.3...) or can we just use the enterprise
number? And if we want a hierarchy, it can always be constructed underneath
the IANA Enterprise number, no?

- S

-----Original Message-----
From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of
Cartwright, Kenneth
Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2010 12:39 PM
To: [e-mail]; PFAUTZ, PENN L (ATTCORP)
Cc: [e-mail]; E.164 To MetaData BOF discussion list
Subject: Re: [drinks] [e2md] Problem statement, Requirements and Use Cases

As Penn wisely points out, this can be discussed in detail in the
appropriate forum at the appropriate time, however, ....

The ITUs OID looks like a good option.  It seems to meet the following
requirements/advantages:

1) It already exists; no need to invent and debate a new scheme, approach,
documentation set, etc.
2) It is hierarchical; organizations can optionally create sub-OIDs (or sub
trees) under their main OID if they need to.
3) The sub-identifiers under the main identifier can be opaque; they need
not have a known, or the same known, meaning to all parties that may use/see
them
4) There is an existing urn that _might_ be useful "urn:oid"
5) If the set of existing OIDs already allocated under one of the existing
OID trees (e.g. 1.3.6.1.4) are not appropriate then it seems that an
organization (e.g. IANA) can be formally delegated the responsibility of
dolling out (similar to the way that it doles out Enterprise Numbers) the
OIDs under a new OID tree.  IOW, the OID tree it centrally managed, but the
management of sub-trees can be delegated.
6) They are cleanly parseable by a computer or a human; their form is
standardized and well structured.

A disadvantage, however, is that ITU OIDs can theoretically be fairly long
(in contrast to the 4 characters that comprise a north american OCN or SPID,
or the handful of digits that comprise the IANA Enterprise Number).  But it
is not clear to me whether in practice, given our use case, if they will
ever be as long as they can theoretically be.  The spec for our usage would
just need to address this point.

http://www.itu.int/ITU-T/asn1/uuid.html
http://www.oid-info.com/#oid

Ken

-----Original Message-----
From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Tony
Rutkowski
Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2010 11:52 AM
To: PFAUTZ, PENN L (ATTCORP)
Cc: E.164 To MetaData BOF discussion list
Subject: Re: [e2md] Problem statement, Requirements and Use Cases

On 5/19/2010 11:03 AM, PFAUTZ, PENN L (ATTCORP) wrote:
> Use RFC 3761 technology provide for the Carrier of Record for an E.164
> number (as defined in RFC 5067) to publish the mapping of that E.164
> to a globally defined identifier, specifically an IANA Enterprise
> Number as defined in RFC 2578.
>

Hi Penn,

Good choice.  However, the text needs tweaking to read:

   Use RFC 3761 technology to provide for the Carrier of
   Record for an E.164 number (as defined in RFC 5067) to
   publish the mapping of that E.164 number using an assigned
   Carrier of Record Object Identifier (OID)) such as an IANA
   Enterprise Number as defined in RFC 2578.  Ref. Rec.
   ITU-T Recs. X.660 and X.680.

The changes clarify what identifier is being specified and includes
reference to the authoritative OID standard.  It also allows for the
possibility of using other assigned OIDs for a Carrier of Record.  Although
more than 35,000 Enterprise Numbers have been registered with IANA, there
are many carriers who have OIDs that were registered with national
authorities for Carrier of Record purposes.  As long as there is a valid,
globally unique OID, some flexibility should exist.

For example, ATT has the OID 1.3.6.1.4.74 from IANA's OID block, but it also
has 0.7.7223 that it uses for some services in Argentina.

best,
tony
_______________________________________________
e2md mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/e2md

This e-mail message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s)and may
contain confidential and privileged information of Transaction Network
Services.
Any unauthorised review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If
you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply
e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.

_______________________________________________
drinks mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/drinks

_______________________________________________
e2md mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/e2md


This e-mail message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s)and may
contain confidential and privileged information of Transaction Network Services.
Any unauthorised review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you
are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.