Re: [Enum] 5 years since last message

Richard Shockey <richard@shockey.us> Tue, 02 July 2019 17:43 UTC

Return-Path: <richard@shockey.us>
X-Original-To: enum@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: enum@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 98ADE1206AF for <enum@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 2 Jul 2019 10:43:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (768-bit key) header.d=shockey.us
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mwEIt3zpS2TZ for <enum@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 2 Jul 2019 10:43:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gproxy8-pub.mail.unifiedlayer.com (gproxy8-pub.mail.unifiedlayer.com [67.222.33.93]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1B82B1206B3 for <enum@ietf.org>; Tue, 2 Jul 2019 10:43:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from cmgw15.unifiedlayer.com (unknown [10.9.0.15]) by gproxy8.mail.unifiedlayer.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0362F1AB4BF for <enum@ietf.org>; Tue, 2 Jul 2019 11:12:48 -0600 (MDT)
Received: from box462.bluehost.com ([74.220.219.62]) by cmsmtp with ESMTP id iMKlhPvFCszDUiMKlhPjEh; Tue, 02 Jul 2019 11:12:47 -0600
X-Authority-Reason: nr=8
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=shockey.us; s=default; h=Content-transfer-encoding:Content-type:Mime-version:In-Reply-To :References:Message-ID:CC:To:From:Subject:Date:Sender:Reply-To:Content-ID: Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc :Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe: List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=oqFqWLdPLgDEfy5LnpOkbS+8Fh24pr4cRsA61tTSHR0=; b=eY9qb1gvWn4lcPXHECk/zj8SBO qhgfTOJkr1NTdC4Bwg2LTUxInMkJvVz7j7MCKBi9OlkZY8lFuA1sWBqoLbT7+xUz8xH+H7NJYhK1G n/dasYM60zUajrRKNWgbYsS9z;
Received: from pool-100-36-47-17.washdc.fios.verizon.net ([100.36.47.17]:50776 helo=[192.168.1.156]) by box462.bluehost.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <richard@shockey.us>) id 1hiMKl-002PaV-F2; Tue, 02 Jul 2019 11:12:47 -0600
User-Agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/10.1a.0.190609
Date: Tue, 02 Jul 2019 13:12:45 -0400
From: Richard Shockey <richard@shockey.us>
To: Patrik =?UTF-8?B?RsOkbHRzdHLDtm0=?= <paf=40frobbit.se@dmarc.ietf.org>, "Livingood, Jason" <Jason_Livingood@comcast.com>
CC: IETF ENUM list <enum@ietf.org>, Olivier Guillard / AFNIC <Olivier.Guillard@nic.fr>, Bernie Hoeneisen <bernie@ietf.hoeneisen.ch>
Message-ID: <B4DC2512-1F14-454B-A13A-A29BBA185219@shockey.us>
Thread-Topic: [Enum] 5 years since last message
References: <201901141410.x0EEAegF082526@bela.nlnetlabs.nl> <alpine.DEB.2.20.1901141529160.28417@softronics.hoeneisen.ch> <201901151217.x0FCHoCj066558@bela.nlnetlabs.nl> <20190627134744.GA18924@civette.prive.nic.fr> <B85F0E22-A837-43A4-A8B7-B271223F88DD@cable.comcast.com> <2249F1CB-D46E-40DE-88DC-4817D667A447@frobbit.se>
In-Reply-To: <2249F1CB-D46E-40DE-88DC-4817D667A447@frobbit.se>
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - box462.bluehost.com
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - shockey.us
X-BWhitelist: no
X-Source-IP: 100.36.47.17
X-Source-L: No
X-Exim-ID: 1hiMKl-002PaV-F2
X-Source:
X-Source-Args:
X-Source-Dir:
X-Source-Sender: pool-100-36-47-17.washdc.fios.verizon.net ([192.168.1.156]) [100.36.47.17]:50776
X-Source-Auth: richard+shockey.us
X-Email-Count: 3
X-Source-Cap: c2hvY2tleXU7c2hvY2tleXU7Ym94NDYyLmJsdWVob3N0LmNvbQ==
X-Local-Domain: yes
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/enum/Y21vhcDPpyj27psjxNedZjaFbyQ>
Subject: Re: [Enum] 5 years since last message
X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Enum Discussion List <enum.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/enum>, <mailto:enum-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/enum/>
List-Post: <mailto:enum@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:enum-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum>, <mailto:enum-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 02 Jul 2019 17:43:57 -0000

Well its still a big deal to the US Government. Its central to the FCC's system for providing telecommunications services for the hearing impaired.  The iTRS database still run by NeuStar BTW.  It's also used in modern SIP/IMS  internal IP Interconnection schemes at multiple carriers in place of old TDM SCP's  .  The FCC North American Numbering Council ( on which I sit)  is thinking about revisiting the issue to enhance and deploy Video Calling <sigh>. 

https://www.fcc.gov/document/itrs-numbering-report-and-order

https://www.fcc.gov/fcc-acts-improve-video-relay-service-and-direct-video-calling

We took a stab at revisiting Public ENUM in the US about 5 years ago to no consensus. 

https://www.sipforum.org/2015/07/atis-and-sip-forum-complete-new-ip-based-network-to-network-interface-nni-technical-specification/

It still pops up from time to time. Recently in relation to all IP Interconnection driven by STIR/SHAKEN mandates in the US to combat robocalls and caller ID spoofing.   I had a nightmare one night a couple of months ago that someone wanted me to restart the ENUM WG to enable 6116 over HTTPS.   Now if you think that would be a nightmare ..well the British are actively considering Distributed Ledger Technology aka Hyperledger to accomplish the ENUM like functions.

https://www.ofcom.org.uk/about-ofcom/latest/features-and-news/blockchain-technology-uk-telephone-numbers


— 
Richard Shockey

Shockey Consulting LLC

Chairman of the Board SIP Forum

www.shockey.us

www.sipforum.org

richard<at>shockey.us

Skype-Linkedin-Facebook –Twitter  rshockey101

PSTN +1 703-593-2683

 

On 7/2/19, 1:43 AM, "enum on behalf of Patrik Fältström" <enum-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of paf=40frobbit.se@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:

    Well, the standard is in use -- sort of -- with various modifications locally (like use of a different prefix than what is assigned here in IETF). I heard last time last week people "just saying" this is what is and should be used for routing of communication with E.164 numbers as destination in time of emergency/stress where centralized IN systems can not be reached (but locally cached DNS can).
    
    So the list is silent, but there is some kind of usage. Does this "some kind of usage" imply something should be done?
    
    I do not know.
    
    I personally did conclude after the first couple of years of discussions that NAPTR is incredibly stupid. Designing things to have so large RRSets is not very optimal, so other DNS types would be better. I suggested the simple URI. But it itself got stuck in the IETF process of creation of new RRTypes, and when it finally was approved, the interest in deployment was sort of gone :-(
    
    And people seems to have implemented NAPTR...
    
       Patrik
    
    On 2 Jul 2019, at 2:41, Livingood, Jason wrote:
    
    > So what needs to happen here? Seems indisputable that there's not much happening on the ENUM front...
    >
    > On 6/27/19, 9:48 AM, "enum on behalf of Olivier Guillard / AFNIC" <enum-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of Olivier.Guillard@nic.fr> wrote:
    >
    >     pong :-)
    >
    >     le Tuesday 15 January à 13 H 17 , Jaap Akkerhuis a écrit :
    >     >  Bernie Hoeneisen writes:
    >     >
    >     >  > Hi Jaap
    >     >  >
    >     >  > Well, there is a dependency on this list in RFC 6117...
    >     >  >
    >     >  > On the other hand, registering new ENUM services has not been that popular
    >     >  > either for several years...
    >     >  >
    >     >  > cheers
    >     >  >   Bernie (Designated Expert of the IESG and other list maintainer)
    >     >
    >     > In that case, it would make sense that you take over the maintaining
    >     > of this list as well. Would you? If so, let's arrange that off-list.
    >     >
    >     > 	jaap
    >     >
    >     > _______________________________________________
    >     > enum mailing list
    >     > enum@ietf.org
    >     > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum
    >
    >     --
    >     Olivier
    >
    >     _______________________________________________
    >     enum mailing list
    >     enum@ietf.org
    >     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum
    >
    >
    > _______________________________________________
    > enum mailing list
    > enum@ietf.org
    > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum
    _______________________________________________
    enum mailing list
    enum@ietf.org
    https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum