Re: [Modern] Nationwide Number Portability MODERN Use Case Draft

Henning,

Where I agree we need to automate the process so that numbers flow down the chain easily particularly for IoT, I also believe that the FCC will only directly assign numbers to entities that the FCC can PUNISH.

Regards,

Martin

From: Henning Schulzrinne [mailto:Henning.Schulzrinne@fcc.gov]
Sent: Monday, February 29, 2016 6:54 PM
To: DOLLY, MARTIN C <md3135@att.com>
Cc: Richard Hill <rhill@hill-a.ch>ch>; McGarry, Tom <Tom.McGarry@neustar.biz>iz>; Modern List <modern@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Modern] Nationwide Number Portability MODERN Use Case Draft

NRA delegates to registry (LNP, NANPA, etc.); registry delegates to carrier; carrier loans/assigns/delegates (whatever the legal arrangement is; substitute your favorite term) to some value-added service provider; VASP assigns to GM and GM assigns number to car. This is the IOT case.

Or GM  assigns numbers from its "supply" to factory in Kokomo, IN; Delco plant assigns to PBX extensions.

All of this should happen without having to employ a number manager to log into a web site, submit a file via ftp or send a fax.

Does that make sense?

Henning
________________________________
From: DOLLY, MARTIN C <md3135@att.com<mailto:md3135@att.com>>
Sent: Monday, February 29, 2016 6:38 PM
To: Henning Schulzrinne
Cc: Richard Hill; McGarry, Tom; Modern List
Subject: Re: [Modern] Nationwide Number Portability MODERN Use Case Draft

Henning

Please expand on (3)

Thank you

Martin C Dolly
Lead Member of Technical Staff
Core & Government/Regulatory Standards
AT&T
Cell: 609-903-3360
Email: md3135@att.com<mailto:md3135@att.com>

On Feb 29, 2016, at 6:30 PM, Henning Schulzrinne <Henning.Schulzrinne@fcc.gov<mailto:Henning.Schulzrinne@fcc.gov>> wrote:

My understanding (and the use cases draft may need clarity on that) is that the two facets are largely independent. In other words, you should be able to run a TDM network with step switches and allocate numbers via an IP-based process, even if you may have to use a dial-up modem to get your IP packets. (As far as I know, the current US-specific number management and porting process is based, in part, on Internet protocols, just a bit on the dated side.)

I think suggestions on removing US-specific language are useful. As discussed in this thread, I do see six broad challenges that apply, in combinations in many jurisdictions:

(1) IP transition

(2) porting (either newly-introduced or with new capabilities, e.g., between different modes or geographies), possibly with mechanisms other than voice-based validation of porting intent

(3) automation for multiple levels of delegation, whether for PBX or some IOT applications

(4) accountability of both holdership and "meta" data (CNAM)

(5) improved number utilization, with more "just-in-time" processes

(6) more flexibility in the number and structure of registrars/registries (including, for small countries, outsourcing to third parties rather than creating technology specific to Liechtenstein)

My sense is that the US is facing more of these challenges than many countries at this point, but they don't seem US-specific. This is not new - TV whitespaces and emergency caller location for wireless were initially largely US problems, too.

Henning
________________________________
From: Modern <modern-bounces@ietf.org<mailto:modern-bounces@ietf.org>> on behalf of Richard Hill <rhill@hill-a.ch<mailto:rhill@hill-a.ch>>
Sent: Thursday, February 25, 2016 9:44 AM
To: 'McGarry, Tom'; 'Modern List'
Subject: Re: [Modern] Nationwide Number Portability MODERN Use Case Draft

Yes, but such a green field space can, and has been, implemented on the PSTN, so the use of an all IP solution is  not a requirement.  Whereas your draft implies that it is, unless I misunderstood something.

Best,

Richard

_______________________________________________
Modern mailing list
Modern@ietf.org<mailto:Modern@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/modern