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

[Richard Shockey <[e-mail]>]

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