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

If I had 5 dollars for every time I've heard “phone numbers are stupid”  “We need to use SIP URI’s". I would not be on this list but enjoying the sun at my retirement home on St. Barts or some other charming estate with my own private distillery making craft gin or calvados. I have yet to see a SIP URI on any Pizza Delivery vehicle.

http://time.com/4170936/facebook-messenger-2016/

>>
>> Wireless and cable carriers are moving inexhorably towards the IP Multimedia Subsystem (IMS) developed by 3GPP (and enhanced/modified by ETSI, Cable Labs, et al).  The 3GPP IMS specs embrace the idea of both public and private identities.  The ETSI enhancements have been particularly focused on wireline convergence on an IMS signaling and media architecture.
>>
>> It seems reasonable that an IMS public user identity might be paul-kyzivat.name and which could be used as a user@host format in a SIP URI either as paul-kyzivat.name@paul-kyzivat.name (where Paul Kyzivat has presumably created his own individual private "carrier" so to speak) or as paul-kyzivat.name@carrier-name.com where the paul-kyzivat.name user name is associated with a hosted SIP service through carrier-name.com.
>
>All you need to do is look to the design of sip, which fits much better 
>with email-style URLs than phone numbers, to see that this was a vision 
>from way back. It hasn't happened yet. It may yet happen. But your 
>specific suggestion works a lot better for paul-kyzivat than it does for 
>john-smith. :-) At the end of the day friendly names are also a scarce 
>resource. So *somebody* still needs to ration them in some way. But 
>frankly I would rather it not be my carrier who does it.
>
>Why can't I attach any sip URL I "own" (my preference being 
>sip:pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu) to my phone number and have calls to it 
>routed through the carriers to my phone?
>
>> I won't try to write much more beyond this other than to say that if the core of the MODERN "problem statement" is individual assignment, then there may be solutions or solution frameworks which are superior to the MODERN solution framework variations so far advanced.
>>
>> Make sense?
>>
>> Pierce
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Modern [mailto:modern-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Paul Kyzivat
>> Sent: February 25, 2016 5:01 PM
>> To: modern@ietf.org
>> Subject: Re: [Modern] Nationwide Number Portability MODERN Use Case Draft
>>
>> On 2/25/16 1:01 PM, Gorman, Pierce A [CTO] wrote:
>>
>>> Telephone numbers are owned and assigned first and foremost by
>>> national numbering authorities.
>>>
>>> The number authorities delegate number blocks to licensed regulated
>>> entities which both make individual assignments and further delegate
>>> block assignments.  (Very much like RIRs not surprisingly.)
>>
>> [Disclaimer: I am just a kibitzer here. I have no skin in the game.]
>>
>> Certainly what you say is the reality. And I am sure that the licensed and regulated entities do regard these numbers as *theirs*.
>>
>> But us end users regard the numbers as *ours*. The fact that we must go, hat in hand, to our carrier and beg for any sort of administration of that number is a *problem*, not a feature. Anything that will give us more control over *our* numbers is a *good* thing!
>>
>> I have no illusions that the carriers share this opinion. I do hope that the FCC does.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Paul
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Modern mailing list
>> Modern@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/modern
>>
>> ________________________________
>>
>> This e-mail may contain Sprint proprietary information intended for the sole use of the recipient(s). Any use by others is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies of the message.
>>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Modern mailing list
>Modern@ietf.org
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/modern