Re: AW: [Enum] Revised #2 IETF 53 Agenda

[Richard Shockey <[e-mail]>]

At 08:00 PM 3/13/2002 +0100, Brandner Rudolf wrote:
>Great.

Excellent set of questions BTW ..let me offer up some personal views but 
you are correct..by general consensus the discussion of NAPTR service field 
will be the #1 topic of discussion in Minneapolis and I'd like the 4 
presenters to consider presentations of outstanding issues of no more that 
10-minutes each so we can start a general discussion of the common problems 
etc and come to consensus on next steps.


>Besides other discussion topics, I have compiled a list of issues. Some of 
>them might fit into Jon's presentation. At least I would like to have them 
>discussed at MSP.
>
>* What to do with service field, i.e. E2U+SIP2VIDEO and that like
>      - implications on # of entries
>      - implications on protocols

agreed ... the issue of level of granularity has plagued me for quite some 
time ..I do favor a minimalist approach in that authors of service 
registration documents should be very careful to write a detailed 
applibility statement ... so in the case you describe ... the ID should 
justify in detail why there should be E2U+SIP2VIDEO vs just E2U+SIP

>* What to do with NXDOMAIN? DNSSEC stuff

yes ..any one that would like to do a ID on"Implications of DNSSEC for RFC 
2916" would have a welcome audience ..especially among our colleagues in 
the ITU who have asked similar questions.

>* What to do with NAPTR priority and preferences, what's the default 
>behaviour?

I think Patrik and Michael have been looking into that

>* Service Resolution Service, implications like
>      - new protocol or HTTP(s) with something on top (SOAP)? New WG?
>      I see ENUM as a basic service, pres: might be an additional service 
> with additional cost

Could you elaborate here . what are you suggesting .. I'm hoping Andy can 
clarify the direction he wants to take with his draft ... but yes ENUM is 
the basic service etc.

>* tel: enumservice should be part of this working group
>      - is useful for LNP
>      - should be registered to make it single specific service, 
> regardless of operator or 'public'

The WG will need to come to consensus on making this a WG document ..but I 
certainly support it.  Yes it is useful for LNP ..but there is question of 
how this would work ..is this informaiton revealed in a query to e164.apra 
or is this more appropriate to some private service provider system.

>ENUM
>      - blongs to WG as ENUM resolves to telephone network, too
>* Privacy issues regarding users and telephone service provider (tsp)

What privacy issues do you mean ... those involving 2916 itself or those 
involving specific services such as SIP?   Again I believe each service 
registration document needs a strong privacy considerations document ..but 
on the issue of privacy in e164.arpa ..there is no privacy since it is a 
global service and totally open to anyone or any network element on the 
internet.



>Regarding documents, I'd like to ask, whether there should be more 
>focussed documents on
>
>* ENUMservice registration document (how, why, register sip: tel: pres: etc.)

These questions should be answered in the core 2916bis.. how to register a 
service and what requirements or tests should be applied to those 
registration documents.

>* TEL: enumservice registration
>* TEL: enumservice usage (only tel: URI with parameters, scenarios, usage)
>        this might include usage of non E.164 numbers in tel:, looping, 
> tsp parameter, CPC parameters,
>        phone context (out of area, locality to call centers (Automatic 
> Call Distribution)), etc.

These questions are better discussed in the eventual TEL registration document.

>* ENUM scenarios as public/operator/(private) service
>* Common features and pitfalls elaborating on RegExp, CNAME, exhaustive 
>lookups (detection, reaction),
>        priority and preferences
>* Document on all current parameters of SIP, PINT, TEL URI's

Here ... Richard mentioned this as well what are the core services that 
need IANA registration? I certainly think we need to come to consensus on 
what those are..

SIP? H323? (hint) TEL ...   but what about FAX? and VPIM?... I will 
personally be visiting both of those WG's next week to alert them to our 
activity and listen to their opinions and possible directions in this area.


>That's it so far. If there had already been consensus on a topic above on 
>the list and I'm out of sync, so pardon me. Please let me know anyway.
>
>Rudi


 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Richard Shockey, Senior Manager, Strategic Technology Initiatives
NeuStar Inc.
45980 Center Oak Plaza   Bldg 8     Sterling, VA  20166
1120 Vermont Ave NW Suite 400 Washington DC 20005
Voice +1 571.434.5651 Cell : +1 314.503.0640,  Fax: [phone]
<mailto: [e-mail]> or
<mailto: [e-mail]>
<http://www.neustar.biz>
<http://www.enum.org>
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<



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