RE: [Enum] a suggestion re: using flags to distinguish post-ENUM signaling f lows

"Stafford, Matthew" <matthew.stafford@cingular.com> Tue, 07 February 2006 18:20 UTC

Received: from localhost.cnri.reston.va.us ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1F6XSN-0003aX-WB; Tue, 07 Feb 2006 13:20:52 -0500
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1F6XSK-0003Yt-Hg; Tue, 07 Feb 2006 13:20:50 -0500
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA17836; Tue, 7 Feb 2006 13:18:57 -0500 (EST)
Received: from extmail09.cingular.com ([170.35.225.24] helo=cingular.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1F6Xeb-0001at-Aj; Tue, 07 Feb 2006 13:33:30 -0500
Received: from ([10.3.188.52]) by extmail09.cingular.com with ESMTP id KP-VYGZ6.56947271; Tue, 07 Feb 2006 13:20:13 -0500
Received: by s75202e004001.tdc.cingular.net with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72) id <1FCBYTQ2>; Tue, 7 Feb 2006 12:23:48 -0600
Message-ID: <DE175C3426C51144B22109E3346CFFA42177409C@S75202E004049.sbms.sbc.com>
To: Tony Rutkowski <trutkowski@verisign.com>
Subject: RE: [Enum] a suggestion re: using flags to distinguish post-ENUM signaling f lows
Date: Tue, 07 Feb 2006 12:20:58 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72)
From: "Stafford, Matthew" <matthew.stafford@cingular.com>
X-Spam-Score: 1.6 (+)
X-Scan-Signature: 6a45e05c1e4343200aa6b327df2c43fc
Cc: enum@ietf.org, speermint@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Enum Discussion List <enum.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum>, <mailto:enum-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:enum@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:enum-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum>, <mailto:enum-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0385326954=="
Sender: enum-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: enum-bounces@ietf.org

Tony- The E.164 space is a many-encumbered thing. No argument there.

All the same, I see two benefits of E.164 numbers: although *some* mobile
devices have QWERTY keyboards, many of them still don't. IMO a telephone
number is far and away the easiest thing to punch into a cellphone keypad.
That's the first one. The second one is (essentially) number portability. My
SIP URI can change from sip:mstafford@provider-A.net to
sip:mstafford@provider-B.biz. As long as my phone number stays the same, it
can be used to obtain my current SIP URI.

Best,
Matt

-----Original Message-----
From: Tony Rutkowski [mailto:trutkowski@verisign.com] 
Sent: Sunday, February 05, 2006 10:42 AM
To: lconroy; Stafford, Matthew; Otmar Lendl
Cc: enum@ietf.org; speermint@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Enum] a suggestion re: using flags to distinguish post-ENUM
signaling f lows

Hi Lawrence,

>The first is the process issue - what group (if any) coordinates
>between the different DDDS applications and their uses; this topic
...
>3761bis. It seems that your proposal is purely for Carrier/ Infrastructure/
>Private ENUM; in this case, changing 3761 has unintended consequences
>for Public/User ENUM applications.

These are great understatements.  The use of
E.164 identifiers, internationally and
domestically, is subject to more statutory,
regulatory, national security, and industry
practice requirements than any identifier
space in existence - not to mention well
established institutional jurisdiction.

The following list is a current tabulation
of E.164 resolver-directory capability
requirements, parsed into three categories,
currently in play in various industry NGN
forums.  The recently enacted EC Data
Retention Directive, and the U.S. Prevent
Cyberstalking law, add further complexity
to the mix. ;-)

best,
--tony

>basic resolver capability
>
>supplementary capability
>         Number Portability
>         Priority Access
>         Roaming
>         Quality of Service
>         Directory Assistance
>         CallerID
>         Disability Assistance
>         Language preference
>         Personal emergency (E112/911)
>         Public emergency alerts
>         Law enforcement assistance
>         DoNotCall
>         Payment Methods
>         Intercarrier Compensation
>         Profile Management
>         Presence
>         Availability
>         Location
>         Push Management
>         Digital Rights Management
>         Device Management
>         Authentication Credentials
>         Information verification level
>
>protocol feature
>         Authentication
>         Auditing
>         Multiple Syntax Support
>         Mutiple Language Support
>         Extensibility and Localisation Mechanisms
_______________________________________________
enum mailing list
enum@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum