Re: [stir] current draft charter

[Hadriel Kaplan <[e-mail]>]

On Jun 12, 2013, at 6:01 PM, "Peterson, Jon" <[e-mail]> wrote:

> 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.

The liability you described above for ENUM is the same liability for caller-id: we need the carriers to agree to do this.  We don't need *all* of them to, at least not at the start, but we need a critical mass within at least one country, preferably more than one country.  Convincing just Enterprises to do it is neither necessary nor sufficient.


> Keying in private DNS is more viable, for example. I think
> a PKI is more viable.

In what way is DNS with DNSSEC/DANE *not* a PKI?

-hadriel