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

"Richard Hill" <rhill@hill-a.ch> Tue, 01 March 2016 08:16 UTC

Return-Path: <rhill@hill-a.ch>
X-Original-To: modern@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: modern@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3CEEA1B2D0F for <modern@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 1 Mar 2016 00:16:24 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 3J72jbrdQFfH for <modern@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 1 Mar 2016 00:16:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp-sh2.infomaniak.ch (smtp-sh2.infomaniak.ch [128.65.195.6]) (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 89CC51B2D0B for <modern@ietf.org>; Tue, 1 Mar 2016 00:16:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp3.infomaniak.ch (smtp3.infomaniak.ch [84.16.68.91]) by smtp-sh.infomaniak.ch (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u218GGDf007522 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL); Tue, 1 Mar 2016 09:16:16 +0100
Received: from RHillNew (adsl-178-39-181-33.adslplus.ch [178.39.181.33]) (authenticated bits=0) by smtp3.infomaniak.ch (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u218GFnv028443; Tue, 1 Mar 2016 09:16:16 +0100
From: "Richard Hill" <rhill@hill-a.ch>
To: "'Henning Schulzrinne'" <Henning.Schulzrinne@fcc.gov>, "'McGarry, Tom'" <Tom.McGarry@neustar.biz>, "'Modern List'" <modern@ietf.org>
References: <00ce01d16fae$7b74f470$725edd50$@ch> <D2F47C46.3506E%tom.mcgarry@neustar.biz>, <00cd01d16fdb$1a128f80$4e37ae80$@ch> <CY1PR09MB06341FF4640159D4889C7C7CEABA0@CY1PR09MB0634.namprd09.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <CY1PR09MB06341FF4640159D4889C7C7CEABA0@CY1PR09MB0634.namprd09.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2016 09:16:15 +0100
Message-ID: <003601d17392$a09fc620$e1df5260$@ch>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0037_01D1739B.02642E20"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0
Thread-Index: AQHRb2pm7PDoPWgGMEWIEhdbfE2ttZ88e5hwgABbCQCAAAB2AIAG2N/NgACWTpA=
Content-Language: en-us
X-Antivirus: Dr.Web (R) for Unix mail servers drweb plugin ver.6.0.2.8
X-Antivirus-Code: 0x100000
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/modern/Zak7Sb2GKtyzUjhSNcWtcIW-CbI>
Subject: Re: [Modern] Nationwide Number Portability MODERN Use Case Draft
X-BeenThere: modern@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Managing, Ordering, Distributing, Exposing, & Registering telephone Numbers non-WG discussion list" <modern.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/modern>, <mailto:modern-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/modern/>
List-Post: <mailto:modern@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:modern-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/modern>, <mailto:modern-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 01 Mar 2016 08:16:24 -0000

What Henning says below makes sense to me.

Best,

Richard

 

From: Henning Schulzrinne [mailto:Henning.Schulzrinne@fcc.gov] 
Sent: Tuesday, March 1, 2016 00:31
To: Richard Hill; 'McGarry, Tom'; 'Modern List'
Subject: Re: [Modern] Nationwide Number Portability MODERN Use Case Draft

 

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> on behalf of Richard Hill
<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