Re: [stir] current draft charter

["Peterson, Jon" <[e-mail]>]

It's always hard to say with any certainty why something failed. We can
point to various causes and effects, one of which in this case certainly
would be the difficulty of getting every world government to implement the
system. ENUM was also designed from the start to empower end users to
control how their numbers would be associated with Internet services, yet
because of its built-in regulatory structures it required that empowerment
to be driven by carriers with different interests.

But we don't even have to be asking ourselves about the relevance of
public ENUM to the proposed work here in STIR unless we want to try to
base everything on keying in the public DNS for telephone numbers. There
are other models for this that don't have the liabilities I described
above, anyway. Keying in private DNS is more viable, for example. I think
a PKI is more viable.

Securing the origin of calls is a different problem than providing a
global routing directory, and we'd be wise not to muddle them together.

Jon Peterson
Neustar, Inc.

On 6/12/13 2:42 PM, "Dave Crocker" <[e-mail]> wrote:

>On 6/12/2013 2:38 PM, Hadriel Kaplan wrote:
>> On Jun 12, 2013, at 4:40 PM, Dan York <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> ... I think this issue will get in the way right now.  As much as I
>>>would
>>> love to see this as a good example of where DANE can help, I still
>>>haven't
>>> been able to wrap my brain around how we could use DNS for telephone
>>> numbers without running into all the exact same issues that made public
>>> ENUM non-deployable.  :-(
>>
>> That begs the question of what issues you think made Public ENUM fail,
>>and why we won't hit the same issues in whatever model we choose.
>
>
>+1
>
>
>d/
>
>
>-- 
>Dave Crocker
>Brandenburg InternetWorking
>bbiw.net
>_______________________________________________
>stir mailing list
>[e-mail]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/stir