Re: [Modern] Fwd: [new-work] WG Review: Managing, Ordering, Distributing, Exposing, & Registering telephone Numbers (modern)

["Richard Hill" <[e-mail]>]

Indeed I agree that a constructive approach would be to do this work in
cooperation between the IETF and the ITU-T, because, as you correctly say,
they typically draw different types of experts as participants.

And I do agree that it is better to present some concrete proposals and ask
whether they have policy implications, rather than to ask for abstract
requirements which may be difficult to formulate.

But I still don't understand why the people who wish to develop the proposed
protocols don't simply send their proposals to ITU-T Study Group 2 and see
how that group reacts.  

And, to begin with, why nobody seems to have thought of sending the draft
working group charter to ITU-T Study Group 2 to see what they thought of it.

Best,
Richard

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Henning Schulzrinne [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Friday, June 26, 2015 22:54
> To: Richard Hill; 'McGarry, Tom'; [e-mail]
> Subject: RE: [Modern] Fwd: [new-work] WG Review: Managing, Ordering,
> Distributing, Exposing, & Registering telephone Numbers (modern)
> 
> My sense is that national regulatory staff have started to pay more
> attention to the IETF, but they are generally not protocol engineers.
> It is not obvious that most of my colleagues, however skilled they are
> in legal, policy and economic matters, would want to debate the use of
> JSON formats and protocol timers. I don't get the sense that the NRA
> participants in the ITU-T processes are typically Internet protocol
> engineers, either...
> 
> Thus, my suggestion would be that the ITU-T could play a constructive
> role by providing requirements and vetting work ("does this fit into
> the universe of requirements out there that we know about"). However, I
> think that's best done based on concrete work since it may turn out
> that many aspects will essentially have no policy implications. (As an
> example, if a protocol designates an abstract entity as being
> authorized to do something, there's not much need to enumerate all the
> entities in the real world that may wear that hat now or in the future
> since that's an operational problem, not a protocol design issue.) This
> fits into the fashionable "agile" software development model where you
> create something and get feedback early (and are prepared to discard
> work), rather than getting stuck forever in a requirements process.
> 
> Henning
> 
> ________________________________
> From: Modern [[e-mail]] on behalf of Richard Hill
> [[e-mail]]
> Sent: Friday, June 26, 2015 11:09 AM
> To: 'McGarry, Tom'; [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [Modern] Fwd: [new-work] WG Review: Managing, Ordering,
> Distributing, Exposing, & Registering telephone Numbers (modern)
> 
> Thank you for this clarification.
> 
> Since the intent is to create tools and solutions that would be used by
> national regulators, presumably they should be involved in the
> development of the tools.
> 
> As far as I know, national regulators from most countries don't
> normally participate in the IETF, for a number of reasons, including
> the IETF's decision-making process and the fact that the IETF works in
> English. National regulators do participate in ITU-T, for a number of
> reasons, including the ITU's decision-making process and the fact that
> documents are translated into the six UN languages before they are
> formally approved (and some discussions takes place with interpretation
> in six languages).
> 
> If the intent is to develop tools that would be used only in the USA at
> first, then I would suggest that it would be more appropriate to
> develop them in a forum such as ATIS or an ad-hoc group created
> specifically for the purpose. If the US experience proved successful,
> then the tools could be proposed for adoption elsewhere, for example
> through ITU-T.
> 
> If the intent is to develop tools for use in many countries right at
> the start, then I would suggest that the appropriate forum would be
> ITU-T, not IETF, for the reasons outlined above.
> 
> Thus, I formally object to the creation of this new working group, and
> this even if the Charter is modified as suggested below.
> 
> Please see additional comments inline.
> 
> Thanks and best,
> Richard
> 
> From: Modern [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of McGarry, Tom
> Sent: vendredi, 26. juin 2015 00:31
> To: [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [Modern] Fwd: [new-work] WG Review: Managing, Ordering,
> Distributing, Exposing, & Registering telephone Numbers (modern)
> 
> 
> This effort is intended to create tools and solutions to enable
> flexibility in the process of managing numbers among national
> administrators, service and application providers, and consumers.
> Entities can choose to use these tools or not.  These tools are not for
> the ITU-T's processes or role, nor for how national administrators
> interact with the ITU-T.  But of course we want your input and
> feedback, so thanks for sending this along.  More comments in line
> below.
> 
> 
> From: Alissa Cooper <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
> Date: Thursday, June 25, 2015 7:44 AM
> To: Modern List <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
> Subject: [Modern] Fwd: [new-work] WG Review: Managing, Ordering,
> Distributing, Exposing, & Registering telephone Numbers (modern)
> 
> Would appreciate people's thoughts on whether any charter edits may be
> warranted in response to these comments, and/or whether a separate
> response may be useful for addressing some of the questions below.
> 
> Alissa
> 
> Begin forwarded message:
> 
> 
> From: "Zhang, Jie" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
> Subject: RE: [new-work] WG Review: Managing, Ordering, Distributing,
> Exposing, & Registering telephone Numbers (modern)
> Date: June 23, 2015 at 1:56:42 PM GMT-3
> To: "[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>"
> <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
> Cc: "Jamoussi, Bilel"
> <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
> Dear Sir/Madam,
> 
> Below please find comments from the ITU Telecommunication
> Standardization Bureau on the proposed IETF working group MODERN.
> 
> 1. Potential impacts on Recommendation ITU-T E.164 and E.164.1 It is
> stated at the beginning of the Charter that the MODERN working group
> will define a set of Internet-based mechanisms for the purposes of
> managing and resolving telephone numbers (TNs) in an IP environment.
> And it is mentioned that TNs are defined in RFC 3966 "The tel URI for
> Telephone Numbers". Does that mean the mechanism being referred to here
> only deals with Tel URI? Would there be any impact on Recommendation
> ITU-E E.164 and E.164.1 which are core recommendations on Telephone
> Numbers?
> There will be no impacts on E.164 and E.164.1.
> 
> >RH: Given the scope of the work, I think that it is too early to say
> whether there would be an impact. Those Recommendations are regularly
> updated, in particular E.164.1, so there is nothing wrong with
> envisaging changes, with the recognition of course that the changes
> would have to be proposed to ITI-T Study Group 2 and agreed by that
> group.
> 
> 2. Entities participating in the defined mechanisms The Charter states
> that the protocol mechanism for resolving TNs will allow entities such
> as service providers, devices, and applications to access data related
> to TNs. But it is not clear what kind of entities can participate in
> the mechanisms defined by this MODERN working group. Would it be
> restricted to the entities who have been assigned a TN or a block of
> TNS?
> Who participates in numbering processes within countries is subject to
> regulation.  The WG cannot make any decisions with regard to this.  I
> expect the WG to define "roles" within the number management processes;
> e.g., administrator, telecom carrier, application provider, consumer,
> etc.; and how those roles could interact with each other.  This will be
> a baseline for what tools and solutions would be useful to facilitate
> those interactions.
> 
> >RH: Even that might be subject to, or affect, national regulations.
> That is, the definition of a "role" may well depend on national
> regulations.
> 
> 3. Status of Telephone numbers in the defined mechanisms Several
> operations related to TNs are mentioned in the Charter, including
> requesting, acquiring, resolving and associating. It is also stated
> that the protocol mechanism for acquiring TNs will provide an
> enrollment process for the entities that use and manage TNs. Does that
> mean Telephone numbers with various status, such as assigned, spare and
> reclaimed numbers will all be managed in the mechanisms defined by the
> MODERN working group?
> I would expect proposed solutions to be able to address the status of a
> telephone number.
> 
> >RH: Since the terms "assigned", "spare" and "reclaimed" are defined in
> ITU-T Recommendations (albeit sometimes implicitly), addressing the
> status of a telephone number might well impact E.164 or E.164.1.
> 
> 4. Regulatory issues
> The Charter states that Solutions and mechanisms created by the working
> group will be flexible enough to accommodate different policies for TN
> assignment and management, for example those established by different
> regulatory agencies. We would like to bring your attention to the fact
> that the E.164 international public telecommunication numbering plan is
> a politically significant numbering resource with direct implications
> on national sovereignty. ITU Plenipotentiary Conference Resolution 133
> (Rev. BUSAN, 2014) recognized "the existing role and sovereignty of ITU
> Member States with respect to allocation and management of their
> country code numbering resources as enshrined in Recommendation ITU-T
> E.164", and further instructed the ITU Secretary-General and the
> Directors of three Bureaux (Telecommunication Standardization,
> Development, and Radiocommunication) to "take any necessary action to
> ensure the sovereignty of ITU Member States with regard to
> Recommendation ITU-T E.164 numbering plans whatever the application in
> which they are used".
> We are aware of Resolution 133 and will certainly respect it.  I would
> propose adding the following text after the first sentence in the last
> full paragraph - "The group acknowledges ITU Plenipotentiary Conference
> Resolution 133 which recognizes the existing role and sovereignty of
> ITU Member States with respect to allocation and management of their
> country code numbering resources as enshrined in Recommendation ITU-T
> E.164."
> 
> >RH: That certainly would be a helpful addition. In addition to the
> above, I would suggest adding "The group's outputs would be consistent
> with the provisions of relevant ITU-T Recommendations, in particular
> E.164, E.164.1, E.190 and the Recommendations referenced therein."
> 
> >RH: For the sake of clarity I reiterate that I oppose the creation of
> this group even if the Charter is modified to include the text above.
> 
> 
> 5. Relationship with .Tel
> DNS-based use of international numbering resources has been discussed
> in ITU-T Study Group 2 (SG2) since its meeting of 17-26 September 2013.
> TSB Director has also exchanged letters with ICANN on issues related to
> registering digit strings in the .TEL domain. A representative from
> ICANN participated in the ITU-T SG2 meeting (28 May - June 2014) and
> provided some background on the TELNIC application. A correspondence
> group under ITU-T SG2 was also set up in this regard. We would like to
> know how the work of this new WG would relate to issues related to
> registering digit strings in the .TEL domain and other DNS-based use of
> telephone numbers.
> The WG will not create any new namespace that would require regulatory
> oversight, e.g., a new TLD, SLD, etc.  I wouldn't rule out the WG
> leveraging existing namespaces as part of proposed solutions.  But it's
> too early to say anything specific about that.  There is nothing in the
> charter that references .tel.
> 
> 6. Relationship with related existing or concluded WGs It is stated in
> the Charter that the working group will take into consideration
> existing IETF work including STIR, ENUM, SPEERMINT, DRINKS and SCIM.
> Detailed description of the relationship between this new WG and the
> above mentioned other existing or concluded WGs would be appreciated.
> I agree.  I would modify that sentence to add the following at the end
> - "as well as other relevant industry and standards organizations."
> 
> 7. The name of this new WG
> The name of this new WG is "Managing, Ordering, Distributing, Exposing,
> & Registering telephone Numbers (modern)". But in the Charter,
> ordering, exposing and registering TNs are not mentioned, which seems
> to be a little bit inconsistent.
> The IETF often has fun with creating WG names.  : )  But the charter is
> where to look for the scope of work.  The charter uses the following
> phrases "distribution, acquisition and management of TNs", "functions
> involved in associating information . with TNs", "associating,
> acquiring and resolving TNs", "access data related to TNs", and
> "mechanisms for resolving information related to TNs".  The functions
> you believe were left out of the charter will be part of one or more of
> these processes.
> 
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Jie Zhang
> Advisor, ITU-T SG2
> International Telecommunication Union
> Place des Nations
> CH-1211 Geneva , Switzerland
> Tel :[phone]
> [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
> www.itu.int<http://www.itu.int>
> www.itu150.org<http://www.itu150.org>
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: new-work [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of The IESG
> Sent: Friday, June 12, 2015 8:47 PM
> To: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
> Subject: [new-work] WG Review: Managing, Ordering, Distributing,
> Exposing, & Registering telephone Numbers (modern)
> 
> A new IETF working group has been proposed in the Applications and
> Real-Time Area. The IESG has not made any determination yet. The
> following draft charter was submitted, and is provided for
> informational purposes only. Please send your comments to the IESG
> mailing list (iesg at ietf.org) by 2015-06-22.
> 
> Managing, Ordering, Distributing, Exposing, & Registering telephone
> Numbers (modern)
> ------------------------------------------------
> Current Status: Proposed WG
> 
> Chairs:
>  Tom McGarry <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
>  Steve Donovan
> <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
> 
> Assigned Area Director:
>  Alissa Cooper <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
> 
> Mailing list
>  Address: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
>  To Subscribe: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/modern
>  Archive: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/modern/
> 
> Charter:
> 
> The MODERN working group will define a set of Internet-based mechanisms
> for the purposes of managing and resolving telephone numbers (TNs) in
> an IP environment. Devices, applications, and network tools
> increasingly need to manage TNs, including requesting and acquiring TN
> delegations from authorities. The output of the working group should
> make distribution, acquisition, and management of TNs simpler for all
> entities involved.
> 
> The working group will define an information management framework for
> the roles and functions involved in associating information with one or
> more TNs in an IP environment.  The working group will also identify
> protocol mechanisms to support the interactions between the functions
> defined by the framework. This includes either recommending or defining
> protocol mechanisms for acquiring, associating and resolving TNs, with
> a preference for use of existing protocol mechanisms. TNs may either be
> managed in a hierarchical tree, or in a distributed registry. The
> protocol mechanism for acquiring TNs will provide an enrollment process
> for the entities that use and manage TNs.
> 
> The protocol mechanism for resolving TNs will allow entities such as
> service providers, devices, and applications to access data related to
> TNs. Maintaining reliability, real-time application performance, and
> security and privacy for both the data and the protocol interactions
> are primary considerations. The working group will take into
> consideration existing IETF work including STIR, ENUM, SPEERMINT,
> DRINKS and SCIM.
> 
> The work of this group will focus on TNs, as defined in RFC3966, and
> blocks of TNs, that are used to initiate communication with another
> user of a service. There is an expectation that aspects of the
> architecture and protocols defined by the working group will be
> reusable for other user-focused identifiers. Any such extensions or
> reuse of MODERN mechanisms are out of scope for the MODERN working
> group. Solutions and mechanisms created by the working group will be
> flexible enough to accommodate different policies for TN assignment and
> management, for example those established by different regulatory
> agencies.
> 
> The working group will deliver the following:
> 
> - An architecture overview, including high level requirements and
> security/privacy considerations
> 
> - A description of the enrollment processes for existing and new TNs
> including any modifications to metadata related to those TNs
> 
> - A description of protocol mechanisms for accessing contact
> information associated with enrollments
> 
> - A description of mechanisms for resolving information related to TNs
> 
> Milestones:
> 
> TBD
> 
> _______________________________________________
> new-work mailing list
> [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/new-work
> 
>