Re: [stir] current draft charter - ENUM and databases

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

2) NPAC-type databases, or anything already holding a bunch of E.164-based
record entries.  I don't know what the business model is for them -
obviously you would know a crapload more about that than I would.  I don't
*think* it would be disruptive to make *only* E.164 caller-id certificates
in the NPAC publicly and freely accessible for retrieval.  Maybe it would be
disruptive.  But again to be brutal: we don't even really need the NPAC-type
databases, although it would sure make things a heck of a lot easier.  But
ultimately all we need is for the carriers to want to do this, with some
model they're ok with.

[RS> ]  Amen to that.. 



> It is ingenious to turn the inability to authenticate queries to the 
> DNS into a virtue in this regard, but I'm still not sure I understand 
> how this model would really prevent middlemen from charging if they 
> wanted to, short of recreating e164.arpa as some comparable public 
> golden root.

I am indeed claiming/assuming we do create a golden root if we do this DNS
thing.  I don't care if it's cid.arpa, cid.sipforum.org, 

[RS> ]  sipforum.org   Humm I like that idea. :-)  We tried that idea in SIP
UA Config and it didn't fly too far.  


a new gTLD, or even hadriel.com. 

[RS> ]  stir.org... we need to support the Internet Society. 

I didn't say it prevented middlemen - even just purely as a practical matter
there will likely be middlemen to do the signing and verifying for mom&pop
carriers, for example.  Or the CNAM provider might do the verifying function
for their customer carriers.  They can charge their customers however they
like, including on a per-query basis (e.g., private ENUM is already used for
some CNAM providers today).

[RS> ]  I remember I wrote the ENUM CNAM draft that everyone in the IETF
hated but everyone else implemented.  That said it's not unreasonable to
discuss rational business models here since in one form another it will be
the service providers that have the ultimate say in deployment.  I don't
care if its ATT, VZ, Telefonica, Bell Canada, Telus or Rostelcom, FT DT BT
TI  or whatever. If it's not simple and implementable within the rough
protocol stack of IMS and the SBC's it's a non-starter. 


-hadriel

_______________________________________________
stir mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/stir