Re: Last Call: draft-ietf-enum-infrastructure (The E.164 to Uniform Resource Identifiers (URI) Dynamic Delegation Discovery System (DDDS) Application for Infrastructure ENUM) to Informational RFC

[Olaf Kolkman <[e-mail]>]

On Jun 2, 2008, at 8:37 PM, The IESG wrote:

> The IESG has received a request from the Telephone Number Mapping WG
> (enum) to consider the following document:
>
> - 'The E.164 to Uniform Resource Identifiers (URI) Dynamic Delegation
>   Discovery System (DDDS) Application for Infrastructure ENUM '
>   <draft-ietf-enum-infrastructure-07.txt> as an Informational RFC




To the IESG and the ENUM WG,

The ENUM WG and its chairs, together with the RAI Area Directors have  
asked the IAB for a review on Infrastructure ENUM documents based on  
the current state of the Internet Drafts in the ENUM working group.

IAB has collected information about Infrastructure ENUM, its  
rationale, use cases and reviewed the ENUM WG discussion surrounding  
its deployment challenges. IAB has drawn the conclusion that the  
current Internet Drafts regarding Infrastructure ENUM are reusing ENUM  
technology but potentially use it with an alternative anchor other  
than the e164.arpa domain, as defined in RFC 3761, that was agreed to  
between IAB and ITU-T.

It is well known that ENUM technology is used today with multiple  
anchors in both public and private schemes outside of e164.arpa. That  
said, IAB is generally concerned with the referential integrity of  
lookup mechanisms that may be used by multiple entities for  
fundamentally different purposes.  Such usage requires that the  
resolution algorithm produce different responses depending on the  
context. One such context, when discussing ENUM, is what anchor is in  
use.  This issue is similar to that of the namespace context in the  
DNS and the uniqueness of the root, which are discussed in RFC 2826.  
For alternative ENUM anchors to work, agreements are needed on what  
anchor to use, how the selection of anchors should be controlled, and  
who should be the registry.

The ENUM working group has created a series of documents regarding  
Infrastructure ENUM. The IAB understands there is (working group)  
consensus to publish these documents as RFCs. Based on the reasons  
laid out above, the IAB suggests the documents be published as  
Informational RFCs only, as is currently proposed.

The IAB believes that the IETF should not make any unilateral  
decisions regarding issues about mapping e.164 numbers into the DNS.   
The possible use of another domain is considered outside the existing  
agreements surrounding e164.arpa between IAB and ITU-T. Such issues  
fall within the scope of the ongoing and successful cooperation  
between the ITU-T and the IETF.  Consequently, the IAB plans to send a  
liaison letter to the ITU-T, and based on the response, the IAB will  
suggest further steps for the ENUM WG in the IETF.


For the IAB,

--Olaf Kolkman

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