Re: [Enum] Re: Update of Carrier ENUM requirements I-D

["Stastny Richard" <[e-mail]>]

 
>The definition of carrier (or infrastructure) ENUM is - the carrier of record (as defined here) is the registrant.  This is as >opposed to end user ENUM where - the end user is the registrant.  This is important because it defines "who" chooses to >register the TN in Tier 1.
 
I thought this was clear in the definition form the haberler-draft:, so I fully
agree that this is important, basically we define it via this property ;-)
 
"In User ENUM, the entity or person having the right-to-use in a
   number has the sole discretion about the content of the associated
   domain and thus the zone content.

   Within a Carrier ENUM namespace, we use the term "carrier of record"
   for the entity having that discretion. "
 
This is exactly what you say above in other words
 
Richard
 
 

________________________________

Von: [e-mail] im Auftrag von McGarry, Tom
Gesendet: Do 01.12.2005 16:24
An: [e-mail]
Betreff: RE: [Enum] Re: Update of Carrier ENUM requirements I-D



The definition of carrier (or infrastructure) ENUM is - the carrier of record (as defined here) is the registrant.  This is as opposed to end user ENUM where - the end user is the registrant.  This is important because it defines "who" chooses to register the TN in Tier 1. 

I don't believe either of the carrier ENUM documents have made this point explicitly.  Of course one of the problems is that end user ENUM has never been defined. 

The definitions of the two types of ENUM is as simple as that. 

In addition, most of the requirements listed in Section 2 of draft-lind-infrastructure-enum-reqs-01 would not be unique to carrier ENUM, e.g., privacy, high reliability and performance, choice, support for open numbering plans, etc.  Also, most of the requirements seem to be very local (country specific) in nature.  Do the existing ENUM Tier 1s provide IRIS?  If not, should they be excluded from providing carrier ENUM (if it were to come around)?  Is that really something we should be dictating to countries? 

In the case of carrier ENUM definitions and requirements, I believe less is more. 



-----Original Message-----
From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]]On Behalf Of
Stastny Richard
Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2005 8:01 AM
To: Patrik Fältström; [e-mail]
Cc: [e-mail]
Subject: RE: [Enum] Re: Update of Carrier ENUM requirements I-D


Agreed,

but the Carrier-of-Record in Infrastructure ENUM is the pendant
to the End-user in User ENUM.

I propose to leave the term Carrier-of-Record

Reading the meeting minutes, it was agreed to move the
definitions in the Haberler draft over to the requirements draft

I copy here the relevant part:

<snip>

2.  The Carrier of Record

   In User ENUM, the entity or person having the right-to-use in a
   number has the sole discretion about the content of the associated
   domain and thus the zone content.

   Within a Carrier ENUM namespace, we use the term "carrier of record"
   for the entity having that discretion.  This right typically lies
   with a service provider authorized to issue E.164 numbers for the
   provisioning of PSTN service under the authority of a National
   Regulatory Authority (NRA), but generally exhibits one or more of the
   following properties:

   o  it has been assigned one or more national number ranges by an NRA.
   o  it has been assigned a number range directly by the ITU, for
      instance a code under "International Networks" (+882) or
      "Universal Personal Telecommunications (UPT)" (+878).
   o  it can be the recipient of a number porting operation.
   o  it provides a PSTN point-of-interconnect for the number.

</snip>

Since it was also mentioned on the list that the term PSTN was
too narrow, I propose to replace the term PSTN with
Public Available Telephony Service

So the sentence will read:
   This right typically lies
   with a service provider authorized to issue E.164 numbers for the
   provisioning of a Publicly Available Telephony Service under the 
   authority of a National Regulatory Authority (NRA), ...

This sentence includes BTW also the term "service provider" ;-)

Regards
Richard


> -----Original Message-----
> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of
> Patrik Fältström
> Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2005 8:13 AM
> To: [e-mail]
> Cc: [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [Enum] Re: Update of Carrier ENUM requirements I-D
>
> Be careful...
>
> When running DNS, we have one party that is responsible for the DNS
> service that make DNS records available. We might have a different
> organization that is deciding what the records are. And then a third
> party responsible for the service the record refer to. And of course
> a fourth that is administrative responsible for the domain name itself.
>
> Example:
>
>   Organization A is the registrant for example.com.
>
>   Organization B is asked to administer the example.com zone (do the
> provisioning).
>
>   Organization C is running the DNS that holds the example.com zone.
>
>   Organization D is running the mailserver MX record for example.com
> refer to.
>
> If you are curious of difference between B and C, think of the root
> zone where ICANN decide what the content of the root zone is, and the
> root server operators as a collective is making the zone available.
>
>
> What term you use doesn't matter. The important thing is that you in
> a terminology section is extremely explicit with what you talk about.
>
>      paf
>
> On 30 nov 2005, at 22.47, Tim Dwight wrote:
>
> > I'm not sure that I agree with changing "carrier of record" to
> > "service
> > provider of record".  Depends on what the latter means I suppose.
> > If (as
> > seems intuitive) "service provider" means "the entity that the
> > customer
> > perceives as providing the service", and "carrier of record" means
> > "the
> > entity providing PSTN access for calls to or from the customer",
> > then is a
> > "service provider of record" an entity that does both?  And is that
> > the
> > appropriate semantic?
> >
> > At the risk of inviting flames I'd say that "carrier of record" is the
> > appropriate term and the Telco-bashing that seems to motivate this
> > change,
> > is juvenile.
> >
> > Tim
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On
> > Behalf Of
> > Richard Shockey
> > Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2005 3:31 PM
> > To: Pfautz, Penn L, NEO
> > Cc: [e-mail]
> > Subject: [Enum] Re: Update of Carrier ENUM requirements I-D
> >
> > Pfautz, Penn L, NEO wrote:
> >>  Having looked over the Vancouver minutes of the WG I want to ask
> >> if I
> >> should replace "carrier ENUM" with "infrastructure ENUM" before
> >> resubmitting draft-lind-infrastructure-enum-reqs-01 as
> >> draft-ietf-enum-infrastructure-enum-reqs-00.
> >
> > Yes .. it seemed to be the consensus of the WG that the word
> > carrier seems
> > to be associated with some form of disease.
> >
> >
> >> If so, I would also propose to render "carrier of record" as "service
> >> provider of record" going forward.
> >
> > excellent idea.
> >
> >>
> >> Your views?
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Penn
> >
> > --
> >
> >
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > 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: [phone]
> > <mailto:richard(at)shockey.us> or
> > <mailto:richard.shockey(at)neustar.biz>
> > <http://www.neustar.biz> ; <http://www.enum.org>
> > <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > enum mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > enum mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum
>
> _______________________________________________
> enum mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum

_______________________________________________
enum mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum

_______________________________________________
enum mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum




_______________________________________________
enum mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum