RE: [Enum] Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-livingood-shockey-enum-npd-00.txt

["Michael Hammer \(mhammer\)" <[e-mail]>]

Richard,

I did not write the draft, nor the email that started this, so as my
later comment noted, it was not clear what ENUM the original email
referred to.

Inline. 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stastny Richard [mailto:Richard.Stastny at oefeg.at] 
> Sent: Monday, July 25, 2005 11:11 AM
> To: Michael Hammer (mhammer); Richard Shockey
> Cc: enum at ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Enum] Fwd: I-D 
> ACTION:draft-livingood-shockey-enum-npd-00.txt
> 
> Mike wrote:
> 
> >All E.164 numbers in ENUM are effectively ported, so I don't 
> understand 
> >why the npd needs to be an ENUM service rather than just an 
> attribute 
> >of the tel ENUM service.  This is not to say that the result 
> returned 
> >does not have the npdi, rn, cic or other tel parameters provided.
>  
> Since e talk here about USER ENUM and Carrier ENUM, could you 
> PLEASE state what ENUM you are talking about.
> In User ENUM it is meaningless if a number is ported or not, 
> because the holder of the domain is the end-user having the 
> right to use the number and this user does not change if the 
> number is ported

This begs the question.  If I have the right to use an E.164 number and
therefore can register it in User ENUM, can I not register it even when
I have a PSTN phone along with other IP-based services?  This would
suggest that I could put in a tel URI in the NAPTR, no?


> In Carrier ENUM the holder of the domain has to change if the 
> number is ported.

Call it porting if you like, but do you use the ENUM registration
process or the Number Portability process to make the change in the
Carrier ENUM registry?

 
> What is the tel ENUM services? There is none currently defined.

I have heard discussion of putting tel URIs in NAPTR records (maybe that
was on IPTEL list).  Perhaps, I am using wrong terminology.  What do you
call such NAPTRs?  Perhaps, also defining such is still work in
progress.  I found all the SIP+E2U versus E2U+SIP IANA registration
mixup confusing.


> >Second, IP-based softswitches can do routing based on such 
> information 
> >in the IP domain, so such information is not only of use to 
> PSTN-based 
> >switches (during the migration from PSTN to IP-based).
>  
> No, routing numbers are only meaningfull on the PSTN and also 
> here only in a national context.

Given the +CCxxxxx digits the national context can be known.  While it
is meanful to determine which switch or gateway the rn= digits are homed
to, that does not mean that one needs to route to the nearest PSTN GW to
get the call to that switch.  If an SP has many PSTN GWs, it may be
cost-effective to route to that rn= value through one PSTN GW versus
another.  Are there any assumptions being made here?


> On IP you need an additional information, e.g. instead of a 
> tel URI with a rn also a sip URI with a domain name.

Some have suggested that having tel instead of sip URI leaves the
IP-domain more flexibility in how to route.


> >Third, since number portability is essentially performed by service 
> >providers, is the scope of this limited only to Carrier ENUM?
>  
> YES. I said it many times already that a user cannot access 
> routing numbers, so putting rn in User ENUM is not useful.

The original email did not specify Carrier ENUM.

Mike
 
> >Number portability is a PSTN routing database mechanism.  If ENUM is 
> >done right, then when the TDM PSTN as we know it disappears, 
> so should 
> >number portability.  Porting a number in the IP domain ought to be 
> >simply an ENUM re-registration.  A single ENUM dip should be needed, 
> >not an ENUM and an NP dip.  Some of the crufty PSTN mechanisms will 
> >fade away, no?
>  
> Maybe, maybe not
> 
> >Mike
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: enum-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:enum-bounces at ietf.org] 
> On Behalf 
> > Of Stastny Richard
> > Sent: Monday, July 25, 2005 6:23 AM
> > To: Richard Shockey
> > Cc: enum at ietf.org
> > Subject: Re: [Enum] Fwd: I-D
> > ACTION:draft-livingood-shockey-enum-npd-00.txt
> >
> > Rich,
> > 
> > One comment first
> > I basically like the idea of a generic tel Enumservice, 
> whatever it is 
> > called. but I do not have thought through all implications Maybe we 
> > can discuss this in Paris (we have a whole week ;-)
> > 
> > To your remarks:
> > 
> > >That is not true. The ENUM serive npd indicated number
> > portability data
> > >that may be associated with any telephone number.
> >
> > >The examples in the textare quite clear that the information
> > relates to
> > >both Ported and NonPorted numbers.
> >
> > Thats what I said:
> >
> > Still, the sentence:
> >
> > "The purpose of this Enumservice is
> > to describe information about telephone numbers which 
> cannot be used 
> > on the public Internet or a private/peered Internet Protocol (IP) 
> > network.  "
> >
> > is unclear (or wrong, because you can use proted numbers on 
> the Public 
> > Internet (I do)
> >
> > >The modification is to define a new enumservice field.
> > >E2U+npd:sip
> > >with the URI defined something like this.
> >
> > >NAPTR 10 10 "u" "E2U+npd:sip"
> > >"!^.*$!sip:[phone] at mg4.mso.net;rn=[phone];npdi!"
> >
> > >the rationale for this is that many gateways dont know what
> > tel URI's are.
> > 
> > Now I am completely lost. I tought the "npd" was a generic 
> Enumservice 
> > giving the "rn" to be used (in the national network), but 
> the gateway 
> > to user is your choice. One may even query this information 
> from the 
> > PSTN via a IN-mediation device. Now you introduce a 
> specific "transit" 
> > gateway.
> > 
> > BTW: your example URI should be:
> > sip:[phone];rn=[phone];npdi at mg4.mso.net
> > 
> >
> > >For what purpose?
> > 
> > For this:
> >
> > >
> > >One example is the usage of ENUM-only numbers existing 
> only in User 
> > >ENUM (e.g. +43780 and +87810). Here a pointer in Carrier 
> ENUM may be 
> > >useful to point from Carrier ENUM to User ENUM. Such a
> > number may have
> > >a routing number , but this routing numbers are only of national 
> > >significance and cannot be used in a global system.
> > >
> > >There is also missing a note that with this Enumservice 
> the tel URI 
> > >MUST always contain the same number then the AUS.
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> >
> > Von: Richard Shockey [mailto:Rich.Shockey at neustar.biz]
> > Gesendet: Fr 22.07.2005 20:46
> > An: Stastny Richard
> > Cc: Richard Shockey; enum at ietf.org
> > Betreff: Re: [Enum] Fwd: I-D
> > ACTION:draft-livingood-shockey-enum-npd-00.txt
> >
> >
> >
> > Stastny Richard wrote:
> >
> > >Dear all,
> > >
> > >although I did not receive (yet) any response to my e-mail 
> below, I 
> > >want to comment on the mentioned draft:
> > >
> > >I have a question to the following paragraph:
> > >
> > >"The following Enumservice is registered with this 
> document: "npd" to
> > >   indicate number portability data.  The purpose of this
> > Enumservice is
> > >   to describe information about telephone numbers which
> > cannot be used
> > >   on the public Internet or a private/peered Internet 
> Protocol (IP)
> > >   network.  Thus, these are numbers which are only 
> reachable via the
> > >   traditional Public Switched Telephone Network (PSTN)."
> > >
> > >The second sentence seems to imply that ONLY ported 
> numbers will be 
> > >used with the Enumservice "npd". The example 4.2 indicates 
> that also 
> > >non-ported numbers may be used.
> > >
> > >
> > That is not true. The ENUM serive npd indicated number portability 
> > data that may be associated with any telephone number.
> >
> > The examples in the textare quite clear that the 
> information relates 
> > to both Ported and NonPorted numbers.
> >
> > 4.1 Example of a Ported Telephone Number
> >
> > $ORIGIN 3.1.8.7.1.8.9.5.1.2.1.e164.arpa.
> >
> > NAPTR 10 100 "u" "E2U+npd:tel"
> >
> > "!^.*$!tel:[phone];rn=[phone];npdi!"
> >
> >
> > In this example, a Routing Number (rn) and a Number Portability Dip
> >
> > Indicator (npdi) are used as shown in draft-ietf-iptel-tel-np-06.txt
> >
> > [10] (Internet-Draft New Parameters for the "tel" URI to Support
> >
> > Number Portability, draft-ietf-iptel-tel-np-06.txt [10]). The 'npdi'
> >
> > field is included in order to prevent subsequent lookups in legacy-
> >
> > style PSTN databases.
> >
> > 4.2 Example of a Non-Ported Telephone Number
> >
> > $ORIGIN 3.1.8.7.1.8.9.5.1.2.1.e164.arpa.
> >
> > NAPTR 10 100 "u" "E2U+npd:tel"
> >
> > "!^.*$!tel:[phone];npdi!"
> >
> > I have had a private request to consider an alternative 
> formation of 
> > th e URI.
> >
> > as in
> >
> > The modification is to define a new enumservice field.
> >
> > E2U+npd:sip
> >
> > with the URI defined something like this.
> >
> > NAPTR 10 10 "u" "E2U+npd:sip"
> > "!^.*$!sip:[phone] at mg4.mso.net;rn=[phone];npdi!"
> >
> > the rationale for this is that many gateways dont know what 
> tel URI's 
> > are.
> >
> > >
> > >The third sentence is simply not true: I myself have 
> ported numbers 
> > >that can be reached on the public Internet via SIP URIs.
> > >
> > >
> > A fair criticism a better wording might have been.
> >
> > "Thus, this information is only useful in a national 
> specific context 
> > within the traditional Public Switched Telephone Network (PSTN)."
> >
> >
> > >
> > >IMHO there is a more in-depth analysis required how this
> > Enumservice is
> > >used, what it implies and with which other Enumservices it
> > can be used
> > >togother
> > >
> > >There is also a need to consolidate the different 
> Enumservices using 
> > >the tel URI and their use in User and Carrier ENUM.
> > >Also the usage of crosspointers (entries in User ENUM pointing to 
> > >Carrier ENUM and vice versa) with tel URIs is necessary.
> > >
> > >
> > For what purpose?
> >
> > >
> > >One example is the usage of ENUM-only numbers existing 
> only in User 
> > >ENUM (e.g. +43780 and +87810). Here a pointer in Carrier 
> ENUM may be 
> > >useful to point from Carrier ENUM to User ENUM. Such a
> > number may have
> > >a routing number , but this routing numbers are only of national 
> > >significance and cannot be used in a global system.
> > >
> > >There is also missing a note that with this Enumservice 
> the tel URI 
> > >MUST always contain the same number then the AUS.
> > >
> > >regards
> > >
> > >-richard
> > >
> > >________________________________
> > >
> > >Von: enum-bounces at ietf.org im Auftrag von Stastny Richard
> > >Gesendet: So 10.07.2005 14:51
> > >An: Richard Shockey; enum at ietf.org
> > >Betreff: Re: [Enum] Fwd: I-D
> > >ACTION:draft-livingood-shockey-enum-npd-00.txt
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >Dear all, especially Allison Mankin,
> > >
> > >I consider this I-D very interesting, because I also 
> proposed in the 
> > >past to use the parameters defined in 
> draft-ietf-iptel-tel-np-06.txt 
> > >e.g. ";rn=" within ENUM, but did not bring this forward
> > because of reason stated below.
> > >
> > >Before I comment on this draft and raise some questions, I
> > would like
> > >to get some principle statements from our esteemed AD
> > Allison if this
> > >draft is within the scope of IETF and ENUM WG.
> > >
> > >The rationale for this question is the following:
> > >
> > >The intended use of the Enumservice "npd:tel" is primarily for 
> > >carriers, because only carriers my interpret and use the
> > "rn= parameter.
> > >
> > >Routing numbers MUST NEVER be used by end-users.
> > >
> > >During the discussion Lawrence Conroy and I had with Ted 
> Hardie and 
> > >Allison Mankin in Geneva in May regarding the I-D 
> > >draft-ietf-enum-msg-04.txt, especially about Enumservice
> > "mms:mailto",
> > >I mentioned the fact that this Enumservice MAY also be used
> > by carriers.
> > >
> > >Allison did not like this statement at all and said ENUM and 
> > >Enumservices to-be-defined are ONLY for end-user usage. I
> > only got over
> > >this hurdle by confirming that "mms:mailto" is ALSO useful for 
> > >end-users.
> > >
> > >Therefore I want to have a clear statement from the
> > responsible AD if
> > >an Enumservice for carrier use ONLY is within the scope of 
> ENUM WG, 
> > >before I waste my time in discussing this I-D on the list.
> > >
> > >Richard Stastny
> > >
> >
> > --
> >
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > Richard Shockey, Director - Member of Technical Staff NeuStar Inc.
> > 46000 Center Oak Plaza  -   Sterling, VA  20166
> > sip:rshockey(at)iptel.org   sip:57141 at fwd.pulver.com
> > ENUM [phone]
> > PSTN Office +1 571.434.5651 PSTN Mobile: [phone],  Fax: +1
> > 815.333.1237
> > <mailto:richard(at)shockey.us> or
> > <mailto:richard.shockey(at)neustar.biz>
> > <http://www.neustar.biz> ; <http://www.enum.org> 
> > <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > enum mailing list
> > enum at ietf.org
> > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum
> >
> 

_______________________________________________
enum mailing list
enum at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum