Monday, April 24, 2006


At the IETF meeting in Dalles last month it was agreed in the Dallas Treaty on Carrier/Infrastructure ENUM:

1. There will be a long-term solution that does things "right" as well as an interim solution that can be used by individual countries to implement an interoperable carrier ENUM tree ASAP

2. In order to project a unified approach to the "right" long-term solution with other standards bodies and NRAs, there will be explicit statements in the affected I-Ds that make it clear that the interim solution will be deprecated upon achievement of the long-term solution.

3. There will be a new I-D documenting the carrier enum apex. This will be done in such a way that the location of the infrastructure designator shall not vary by country code; it will be the same for the entire domain and in every country code. The apex "" was suggested, but that is tentative only. Everyone felt .arpa was certainly the correct TLD. This process will begin asap.


8. Timing on new apex carrier enum I-D: create -00 asap as a WG item. Jason Livingood volunteers as document editor along with Penn Pfautz and Richard Stastny as co-authors. It should be noted that this I-D does not necessarily describe carrier enum requirements per se; it describes how to implement it in a specific domain apex.

This I-D has now been submitted as draft-ietf--enum-infrastucture-00.txt

9. Penn Pfautz's requirements I-D, already in process, should continue as-is and move to WGLC soon.

This I-D has moved already to WGLC and soon will be released as draft-ietf-enum-infrastructure-enum-reqs-02.txt soon.

Richard -- given that the separation of connectivity from service menas anyone can be a carrier, doesn't "carrier ENUM" kind of smell of a cartel that will stitch-up the public? Isn't the problem that the issuance of phone numbers to telcos who act as trustees for the users one of misaligned interests, where the users always come off worse? At least public DNS comes closer to a proper ownership model. Does my phone number really need to be managed by a single entity who happens to be providing one of my many services (voice)? Or am I missing something and being paranoid, and not reading the consumer-friendly small print?
Martin - excellent point, but this requires a extensive answer, so I will do this in a separate post. Since I am currently in transit to London and have two busy days ahead meeting with TISPAN and GSMA (both representatives of "carriers" having the best interests in mind for the users ;-), it may take some time. So stay tuned.
Post a Comment

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?