Re: [RAI] Global Service Provider ID - draft-pfautz-service-provider-identifier-urn-01

No not owners. No owns phone numbers sorry but it's a subtle point. 

The proposal would treat the service provider of record for a E.164 and the
holder (customer) of the E.164 number as equal.  Each could use the G-SPID
for its own purposes.  I don't think it's a good idea to set arbitrary
limits here. That is precisely what some of us wanted to avoid with the ITU
proposal to manage this registry concept. 

This idea that the name space could ramp exponentially IMHO is a Red
Herring. There is no technical model assumption that indicates that would be
the likely result either with a fixed 8 or 10 digit length. 

From: rai-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:rai-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Michael Hammer
Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2011 11:56 AM
To: PFAUTZ, PENN L
Cc: rai@ietf.org; Dean Willis
Subject: Re: [RAI] Global Service Provider ID -
draft-pfautz-service-provider-identifier-urn-01

Penn,

If the basis of the distrution is owners of E.164 numbers, then that
implicitly limits the number of SPs possible (and thus SPIDs needed), since
other arrangements limit who may be delegated those numbers.

If there is no basis and anyone may apply, then the distribution tail could
extend to the limits of how many entities are addressable on the Internet,
aka the number of IPv6 addresses.

The question is whether there Should be some threshhold over which the owner
of some addresses would be deemed too small to be a "service provider"?
(Cut the tail off at some point.)

The derivative of that will also determine the likely number of
registrations per year and the load on IANA.

Mike Hammer

On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 9:08 AM, PFAUTZ, PENN L <pp3129@att.com> wrote:

Dean:
I see the case as being..." more of a long-tailed distribution where a few
SPIDs have
tens-of-millions of entities and it tapers off to the right" if by entities
we mean E.164 numbers or some other form of identifiers.

That is certainly how it would be the for use cases that the drinks WG, the
GSMA, and the i3 Forum are looking at.

Penn Pfautz
AT&T Access Management
+1-732-420-4962 <tel:%2B1-732-420-4962> 
-----Original Message-----
From: rai-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:rai-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Dean
Willis
Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2011 8:29 PM
To: rai@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [RAI] Global Service Provider ID -
draft-pfautz-service-provider-identifier-urn-01

On 9/28/11 3:27 PM, Richard Shockey wrote:
> Yea .. 4.3 million "possible" registrations and what is in the registry
1482
> registrations.
>
> Plus ICANN certainly has the money ..too much money if you ask me.

Nothing says they can't charge for a registration. So Adam's right; if
business booms, they'll find a way to make an industry out of it. Not
our worry. (But I do want to see the face of somebody at IANA when we
tell them we're planning for 1,000,000 registrations a year).

However, making sure they don't run out of inventory probably IS our
problem.

While I agree that 32 bits is PROBABLY enough for the forseeable future,
if we're going to do something besides ITAD then we might as well go to
64. But if we're happy with ITAD structurally, there may not be enough
justification to do more.

At 100 entities per SPID, 32 bits gives us some 430 million entities.
That's rather short of the 20 billion entities we might see in the very
near term. Even at 1000 entities per SPID, we're still a factor of 5
short in the near term.

So what sort of entities-per-SPID ratio are we willing to assume?
Remember that some entities may have more than one number (I have, at
last count, 23, including the four companies I currently control).

Is it more of a long-tailed distribution where a few SPIDs have
tens-of-millions of entities and it tapers off to the right?

--
Dean

_______________________________________________
RAI mailing list
RAI@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rai
_______________________________________________
RAI mailing list
RAI@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rai