From enum-admin@ietf.org Tue Oct 2 06:51:48 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA03019 for ; Tue, 2 Oct 2001 06:51:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id GAA07290; Tue, 2 Oct 2001 06:40:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id GAA07258 for ; Tue, 2 Oct 2001 06:40:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail2.itu.int (mail2.itu.ch [156.106.192.18]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA02829 for ; Tue, 2 Oct 2001 06:40:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail2.itu.ch with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Tue, 2 Oct 2001 12:39:31 +0200 Message-ID: From: "Shaw, Robert" To: "ENUM Mailing (E-mail)" Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2001 12:39:30 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Subject: [Enum] ITU Press Release on ENUM Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Enum Discussion List X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org at http://www.itu.int/newsroom/press/releases/2001/18.html -- Robert Shaw ITU Internet Strategy and Policy Advisor International Telecommunication Union Place des Nations, 1211 Geneva, Switzerland _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From enum-admin@ietf.org Tue Oct 2 11:16:43 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA16009 for ; Tue, 2 Oct 2001 11:16:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA14945; Tue, 2 Oct 2001 11:07:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA14917 for ; Tue, 2 Oct 2001 11:07:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from joy.songbird.com (IDENT:root@songbird.com [208.184.79.7]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA15602 for ; Tue, 2 Oct 2001 11:07:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from bbprime.dcrocker.net (c1193160-a.snvl1.sfba.home.com [65.0.152.112]) by joy.songbird.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA30381; Tue, 2 Oct 2001 07:56:49 -0700 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20011002075531.03d1d0e8@dcrocker.net> X-Sender: dhc@brandenburg.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2001 07:56:26 -0700 To: "Shaw, Robert" From: Dave Crocker Subject: Re: [Enum] ITU Press Release on ENUM Cc: "ENUM Mailing (E-mail)" In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Enum Discussion List X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org At 03:39 AM 10/2/2001, Shaw, Robert wrote: >at http://www.itu.int/newsroom/press/releases/2001/18.html Bob, The press release pretends that the top-level domain has not yet been assigned. Given that the RFC specifically cites e164.arpa, the press release invites both confusion and long-term divergence. d/ ---------- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking tel +1.408.246.8253; fax +1.408.273.6464 _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From enum-admin@ietf.org Tue Oct 2 12:51:40 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA20143 for ; Tue, 2 Oct 2001 12:51:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA18668; Tue, 2 Oct 2001 12:40:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA18639 for ; Tue, 2 Oct 2001 12:40:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail1.itu.int (mail1.itu.ch [156.106.192.17]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA19659 for ; Tue, 2 Oct 2001 12:40:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail1.itu.ch with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Tue, 2 Oct 2001 18:39:47 +0200 Message-ID: From: "Shaw, Robert" To: "'Dave Crocker'" Cc: "ENUM Mailing (E-mail)" Subject: RE: [Enum] ITU Press Release on ENUM Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2001 18:39:46 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Enum Discussion List X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org > The press release pretends that the top-level domain has not yet been > assigned. Given that the RFC specifically cites e164.arpa, the press > release invites both confusion and long-term divergence. Dave, ITU Member States are aware of what is cited in RFC 2916. The press release accurately reflects that the current state of consensus by ITU Member States on usage of this particular domain. According to a liaison statement that I believe has already been sent to ISOC/IETF, the selection of any common designated Tier 0 domain for ENUM will be subject to a series of conditions and further consensus agreements by ITU-T SG2 concerning ENUM administrative issues which will be reflected in an ITU-T Recommendation under preparation. Bob -- Robert Shaw ITU Internet Strategy and Policy Advisor International Telecommunication Union Place des Nations, 1211 Geneva, Switzerland _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From enum-admin@ietf.org Tue Oct 2 19:32:53 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA03313 for ; Tue, 2 Oct 2001 19:32:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id TAA00760; Tue, 2 Oct 2001 19:21:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id TAA00731 for ; Tue, 2 Oct 2001 19:21:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: from joy.songbird.com (IDENT:root@songbird.com [208.184.79.7]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA03036 for ; Tue, 2 Oct 2001 19:21:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: from bbprime.dcrocker.net (c1193160-a.snvl1.sfba.home.com [65.0.152.112]) by joy.songbird.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA16620; Tue, 2 Oct 2001 16:21:17 -0700 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20011002160909.01f863f0@dcrocker.net> X-Sender: dhc@brandenburg.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2001 16:16:49 -0700 To: "Shaw, Robert" From: Dave Crocker Subject: RE: [Enum] ITU Press Release on ENUM Cc: "ENUM Mailing (E-mail)" In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Enum Discussion List X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org At 09:39 AM 10/2/2001, Shaw, Robert wrote: >The press release accurately reflects that the current >state of consensus by ITU Member States on usage of this >particular domain. that's fine. saying that the ITU is reviewing the IETF entry-level standard is entirely accurate. implying that the choice of top-level domain has not been made is not. >According to a liaison statement that I believe has already >been sent to ISOC/IETF, the selection of any common designated >Tier 0 domain for ENUM will be subject to a series of conditions >and further consensus agreements by ITU-T SG2 concerning ENUM >administrative issues which will be reflected in an ITU-T >Recommendation under preparation. And while I entirely acknowledge the difficulties that have been surrounding the IAB/ITU interactions, the failure to even mention that aspect of the IETF standard is significant. d/ ps. and focusing on the choice of TLD also manages to miss the interesting issues that really DO need resolution. ---------- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking tel +1.408.246.8253; fax +1.408.273.6464 _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From enum-admin@ietf.org Wed Oct 3 04:41:09 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA03508 for ; Wed, 3 Oct 2001 04:41:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id EAA21595; Wed, 3 Oct 2001 04:28:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id EAA21509 for ; Wed, 3 Oct 2001 04:28:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from odin.ietf.org ([65.113.239.43]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id EAA03120 for ; Wed, 3 Oct 2001 04:28:14 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200110030828.EAA03120@ietf.org> From: "President of Vallke Solutions - Velius D'Unnero" Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2001 01:27:55 To: enum@ietf.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Enum] Once in a lifetime chance, please read. Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Enum Discussion List X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit WORK AT HOME USING YOUR COMPUTER!!! _________________________________________________________________ Dear Friend, You can earn $46,000 or more in next the 90 days sending e-mail. Seem impossible? Read on for details (no, there is no "catch")... _________________________________________________________________________ "AS SEEN ON NATIONAL T.V." Thank you for your time and Interest. This is the letter you've been reading about in the news lately. Due to the popularity of this letter on the internet, a major nightly news program recently devoted an entire show to the investigation of the program described below, to see if it really can make people money. The show also investigated whether or not the program was legal. Their findings proved once and for all that there are, absolutely no laws prohibiting the participation in the program. This has helped to show people that this is a simple, harmless and fun way to make some extra money at home. The results of this show has been truly remarkable. So many people are participating that those involved are doing, much better than ever before. Since everyone makes more as more people try it out, its been very exciting to be a part of lately. You will understand once you experience it. "HERE IT IS BELOW" _________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________ *** Print This Now For Future Reference *** The following income opportunity is one you may be interested in taking a look at. It can be started with VERY LITTLE investment and the income return is TREMENDOUS!!! $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ If you would like to make at least $46,000 in less than 90 days! Please read the enclosed program...THEN READ IT AGAIN!!! $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ THIS IS A LEGITIMATE, LEGAL, MONEY MAKING OPPORTUNITY. It does not require you to come into contact with people, do any hard work, and best of all, you never have to leave the house except to get the mail. If you believe that someday you'll get that big break that you've been waiting for, THIS IS IT! Simply follow the instructions, and your dreams will come true. This multi-level e-mail order marketing program works perfectly...100\% EVERY TIME. E-mail is the sales tool of the future. Take advantage of this non-commercialized method of advertising NOW!!! The longer you wait, the more people will be doing business using e-mail. Get your piece of this action!!! MULTI-LEVEL MARKETING (MLM) has finally gained respectability. It is being taught in the Harvard Business School, and both Stanford Research and the Wall Street Journal have stated that between 50\% and 65\% of all goods and services will be sold through multi-level methods by the mid to late 1990's. This is a Multi-Billion Dollar industry and of the 3,500,000 millionaires in the WORLD, 20\% ( 700,000) made their fortune in the last several years in MLM. Moreover, statistics show that over 100 people become millionaires everyday through Multi-Level Marketing. You may have heard this story before, but over the summer Donald Trump (A MULTI-BILLIONAIRE, ONE OF THE WEALTHIEST MEN IN THE WORLD) made an appearance on the David Letterman show. Dave asked him what he would do if he lost everything and had to start over from scratch. Without hesitating, Trump said he would find a good network marketing company and get to work. The audience started to hoot and boo him. He looked out at the audience and dead-panned his response "That's why I'm sitting up here and you are all sitting out there!" With network marketing you have two sources of income. Direct commissions from sales you make yourself and commissions from sales made by people you introduce to the business. Residual income is the secret of the wealthy. It means investing time or money once and getting paid again and again and again. In network marketing, it also means getting paid for the work of others. This program is currently being utilized in more than 50 different countries across the world. The enclosed INF0RMATION is something I almost let slip through my fingers. Fortunately, sometime later I re-read everything and gave some thought and study to it. My name is Johnathon Rourke. Two years ago, the corporation I worked at for the past twelve years down-sized and my position was eliminated. After unproductive job interviews, I decided to open my own business. Over the past year, I incurred many unforeseen financial problems. I owed my family, friends and creditors over $35,000. The economy was taking a toll on my business and I just couldn't seem to make ends meet. I had to refinance and borrow against my home to support my family and struggling business. AT THAT MOMENT something significant happened in my life and I am writing to share the experience in hopes that this will change your life FOREVER FINANCIALLY!!! In mid December, I received this program via e-mail. Six month's prior to receiving this program I had been sending away for INF0RMATION on various business opportunities. All of the programs I received, in my opinion, were not cost effective. They were either too difficult for me to comprehend or the initial investment was too much for me to risk to see if they would work or not. One claimed that I would make a million dollars in one year...it didn't tell me I'd have to write a book to make it! But like I was saying, in December of 1997 I received this program. I didn't send for it, or ask for it, they just got my name off a mailing list. THANK GOODNESS FOR THAT!!! After reading it several times, to make sure I was reading it correctly, I couldn't believe my eyes. Here was a MONEY MAKING PHENOMENON. I could invest as much as I wanted to start, without putting me further into debt. After I got a pencil and paper and figured it out, I would at least get my money back. But like most of you I was still a little skeptical and a little worried about the legal aspects of it all. So I checked it out with the U.S. Post Office (1-800-725-2161 24-hrs) and they confirmed that it is indeed legal! After determining the program was LEGAL and NOT A CHAIN LETTER, I decided "WHY NOT." Initially I sent out 100,000 e-mails. It cost me about $15 for my time on-line. The great thing about e-mail is that I don't need any money for printing to send out the program, and because all of my orders are fulfilled via e-mail, the only expense is my time. I am telling you like it is, I hope it doesn't turn you off, but I promised myself that I would not "rip-off" anyone, no matter how much money it cost me. In less than one week, I was starting to receive orders for REPORT #1. By January 13, I had received 26 orders for REPORT #1. Your goal is to "RECEIVE at least 20 ORDERS FOR REPORT #1 WITHIN 2 WEEKS. IF YOU DON'T, SEND OUT MORE PROGRAMS UNTIL YOU DO!" My first step in making $46,000 in 90 days was done. By January 30, I had received 196 orders for REPORT #2. Your goal is to "RECEIVE AT LEAST 100+ ORDERS FOR REPORT #2 WITHIN 2 WEEKS. IF NOT, SEND OUT MORE PROGRAMS UNTIL YOU DO. ONCE YOU HAVE 100 ORDERS, THE REST IS EASY, RELAX, YOU WILL MAKE YOUR $46,000 GOAL." Well, I had 196 orders for REPORT #2, 96 more than I needed. So I sat back and relaxed. By March 1, of my e-mailing of 100,000, I received $42,000 with more coming in every day. I paid off ALL my debts and bought a much needed new car. Please take time to read the attached program, IT WILL CHANGE YOUR LIFE FOREVER!!! Remember, it won't work if you don't try it. This program does work, but you must follow it EXACTLY! Especially the rules of not trying to place your name in a different place. It won't work, you'll lose out on a lot of money! In order for this program to work, you must meet your goal of 20+ orders for REPORT #1, and 100+ orders for REPORT #2 and you will make $46,000 or more in 90 days. I AM LIVING PROOF THAT IT WORKS!!! If you choose not to participate in this program, I am sorry. It really is a great opportunity with little cost or risk to you. If you choose to participate, follow the program and you will be on your way to financial security. If you are a fellow business owner and are if financial trouble like I was, or you want to start your own business, consider this a sign. I DID! Sincerely, Johnathon Rourke A PERSONAL NOTE FROM THE ORIGINATOR OF THIS PROGRAM: By the time you have read the enclosed program and reports, you should have concluded that such a program, and one that is legal, could not have been created by an amateur. Let me tell you a little about myself. I had a profitable business for 10 years. Then in 1979 my business began falling off. I was doing the same things that were previously successful for me, but it wasn't working. Finally, I figured it out. It wasn't me, it was the economy. Inflation and recession had replaced the stable economy that had been with us since 1945. I don't have to tell you what happened to the unemployment rate... because many of you know from first hand experience. There were more failures and bankruptcies than ever before. The middle class was vanishing. Those who knew what they were doing invested wisely and moved up. Those who did not, including those who never had anything to save or invest, were moving down into the ranks of the poor. As the saying goes, "THE RICH GET RICHER AND THE POOR GET POORER." The traditional methods of making money will never allow you to "move up" or "get rich", inflation will see to that. You have just received INF0RMATION that can give you financial freedom for the rest of your life, with "NO RISK" and "JUST A LITTLE BIT OF EFFORT." You can make more money in the next few months than you have ever imagined. I should also point out that I will not see a penny of this money, nor anyone else who has provided a testimonial for this program. I have already made over 4 MILLION DOLLARS! I have retired from the program after sending out over 1,600,000 programs. Now I have several offices that make this and several other programs here and over seas. Follow the program EXACTLY AS INSTRUCTED. Do not change it in any way. It works exceedingly well as it is now. Remember to e-mail a copy of this exciting report to everyone you can think of. One of the people you send this to may send out 100,000 or more...and your name will be on everyone of them! Remember though, the more you send out the more potential customers you will reach. So my friend, I have given you the ideas, INF0RMATION, materials and opportunity to become financially independent, IT IS UP TO YOU NOW! "THINK ABOUT IT" Before you delete this program from your mailbox, as I almost did, take a little time to read it and REALLY THINK ABOUT IT. Get a pencil and figure out what could happen when YOU participate. Figure out the worst possible response and no matter how you calculate it, you will still make lot of money! You will definitely get back what you invested. Any doubts you have will vanish when your first orders come in. IT WORKS! Jody Jacobs, Richmond, VA HERE'S HOW THIS AMAZING PROGRAM WILL MAKE YOU THOUSANDS OF DOLLAR$ INSTRUCTIONS: This method of raising capital REALLY WORKS 100% EVERY TIME. I am sure that you could use up to $46,000 or more in the next 90 days. Before you say "BULL... ", please read this program carefully. This is not a chain letter, but a perfectly legal money making opportunity. Basically, this is what you do: As with all multi-level businesses, we build our business by recruiting new partners and selling our products. Because of the global nature of the internet, you will be able to recruit new multi-level business partners from all over the world, and we offer a product for EVERY dollar sent. YOUR ORDERS COME BY MAIL AND ARE FILLED BY E-MAIL, so you are not involved in personal selling. You do it privately in your own home, store or office. This is the GREATEST Multi-Level Mail Order Marketing anywhere. This is what you MUST do: 1. Order all 5 reports shown on the list below (you can't sell them if you don't order them). a. For each report, send $5.00 CASH, the NAME & NUMBER OF THE REPORT YOU ARE ORDERING, YOUR E-MAIL ADDRESS, and YOUR NAME & RETURN ADDRESS (in case of a problem) to the person whose name appears on the list next to the report. MAKE SURE YOUR RETURN ADDRESS IS ON YOUR ENVELOPE IN CASE OF ANY MAIL PROBLEMS! b. When you place your order, make sure you order each of the five reports. You will need all five reports so that you can save them on your computer and resell them. c. Within a few days you will receive, via e-mail, each of the five reports. Save them on your computer so they will be accessible for you to send to the 1,000's of people who will order them from you. 2. IMPORTANT-- DO NOT alter the names of the people who are listed next to each report, or their sequence on the list, in any way other than is instructed below in steps "a" through "g" or you will lose out on the majority of your profits. Once you understand the way this works, you'll also see how it doesn't work if you change it. Remember, this method has been tested, and if you alter it, it will not work. a. Look below for the listing of available reports. b. After you've ordered the five reports, take this advertisement and REM0VE the name and address under REPORT #5. This person has made it through the cycle and is no doubt counting their $46,000! Also, change the name of the company, the address, and the REM0VE e-mail address on the top of this document to your own. c. Move the name and address under REPORT #4 down to REPORT #5. d. Move the name and address under REPORT #3 down to REPORT #4. e. Move the name and address under REPORT #2 down to REPORT #3. f. Move the name and address under REPORT #1 down to REPORT #2. g. Insert your name/address in the REPORT #1 position. Please make sure you copy every name and address ACCURATELY! 3. Take this entire letter, including the modified list of names, and save it to your computer. Make NO changes to the instruction portion of this letter. Your cost to participate in this is practically nothing (surely you can afford $25). You obviously already have an Internet connection and e-mail is FREE! To assist you with marketing your business on the internet, the 5 reports you purchase will provide you with invaluable marketing INF0RMATION which includes how to send bulk e-mails, where to find thousands of free classified ads and much, much more. In addition you will be provided with INF0MATION on Internet Marketing Clubs such as INTERNET MARKETING RESOURCES(IMR): This is one the premiere internet marketing clubs on the INTERNET. This club provides a forum where internet marketers from all over the world can exchange ideas and secrets on Internet Marketing. In addition, members of this club are provided free internet marketing tools and services for the Do-Yourself-Internet-Marketer. They will provide you with free bulk e-mail software and up to 1,000,000 fresh e-mail addresses each week. This club will provide you with hundreds of free resources which include: How to obtain free web sites, how to obtain top rankings in search engines for your web-site, how to send bulk e-mail into AOL and Compuserve, how to market your products on newsgroups, free classified ads, electronic malls, bulletin boards, banner ads and much more. There are two primary methods of building your downline: METHOD #1: SENDING BULK E-MAIL Let's say that you decide to start small, just to see how it goes, and we'll assume you and all those involved send out only 2,000 programs each. Let's also assume that the mailing receives a 0.3\% response. Using a good list the response could be much better. Also, many people will send out hundreds of thousands of programs instead of 2,000. But continuing with this example, you send out only 2,000 programs. With a 0.3\% response, that is only 6 orders for REPORT #1. Those 6 people respond by sending out 2,000 programs each for a total of 12,000. Out of those 0.3\%, 36 people respond and order REPORT #2. Those 36 mail out 2,000 programs each for a total of 72,000. The 0.3\% response to that is 216 orders for REPORT #3. Those 216 send out 2,000 programs each for a 432,000 total. The 0.3\% response to that is 1,296 orders for REPORT #4. Those 1,296 send out 2,000 programs each for a 2,592,000 total. The 0.3\% response to that is 7,776 orders for REPORT #5. That's 7,776 $5 bills for you, CASH!!! Your total income in this example is $30 + $180 + $1,080+ $6,480 + $38,880 for a total of $46,650!!! REMEMBER FRIEND, THIS IS ASSUMING 1,994 OUT OF THE 2,000 PEOPLE YOU MAIL TO WILL DO ABSOLUTELY NOTHING AND TRASH THIS PROGRAM! DARE TO THINK FOR A MOMENT WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF EVERYONE, OR HALF SENT OUT 100,000 PROGRAMS INSTEAD OF 2,000. Believe me, many people will do just that, and more! By the way, your cost to participate in this is practically nothing. You obviously already have an internet connection and e-mail is FREE!!! REPORT #2 and #5 will show you the best methods for bulk emailing, tell you where to obtain free bulk e-mail software and where to obtain e-mail lists and show you how to send out 1,000,000 e-mails for free. METHOD #2 - PLACING FREE ADS ON THE INTERNET 1. Advertising on the 'Net is very, very inexpensive, and there are HUNDREDS of FREE places to advertise. Let's say you decide to start small just to see how well it works. Assume your goal is to get ONLY 6 people to participate on your first level. (Placing a lot of FREE ads on the internet will EASILY get a larger response.) Also assume that everyone else in YOUR ORGANIZATION gets ONLY 6 downline members. Follow this example to achieve the STAGGERING results below. 1st level--your 6 members with $5 ($5 x 6)........................$30 2nd level--6 members from those 6 ($5 x 36)....................$180 3rd level--6 members from those 36 ($5 x 216)............ $1,080 4th level--6 members from those 216 ($5 x 1,296)....... $6,480 5th level-6 members from those 1,296 ($5 x 7,776)... $38,880 .................................................$46,650 _________________________________________________________________________ Remember friends, this assumes that the people who participate only recruit 6 people each. Think for a moment what would happen if they got 20 people to participate! Many people will get 100's of participants! THINK ABOUT IT! For every $5.00 you receive, all you must do is e-mail them the report they ordered. THAT'S IT! ALWAYS PROVIDE SAME-DAY SERVICE ON ALL ORDERS! This will guarantee that the e-mail THEY send out, with YOUR name and address on it, will be prompt because they can't advertise until they receive the report! _________________________________________________________________________ AVAILABLE REPORTS _________________________________________________________________________ *** Order Each REPORT by NUMBER and NAME *** Notes: ALWAYS SEND $5 CASH (U.S. CURRENCY) FOR EACH REPORT CHECKS NOT ACCEPTED ALWAYS SEND YOUR ORDER VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL Make sure the cash is concealed by wrapping it in at least two sheets of paper. On one of those sheets of paper, include: (a) the number & name of the report you are ordering (b) your e-mail address (So your report can come by email) (c) your name & postal address. **** Place your name in the 1st report. Move the rest of the names down causing whoever is in 5th position to go off the list.**** PLACE YOUR ORDER FOR THESE REPORTS NOW: ______________________________________________________ REPORT #1 "The Insider's Guide to Advertising for Free on the Internet" ORDER REPORT #1 FROM Ross Pawley 540 NW 2nd St. Apt7 Prineville, OR 97754 ______________________________________________________ REPORT #2 "The Insider's Guide to Sending Bulk E-mail on the Internet" ORDER REPORT #2 FROM: Spatter 2700 Waterview Pkwy. #4612 Richardson, TX 75080 __________________________________________________ REPORT #3 "The Secrets to Multilevel Marketing on the Internet" ORDER REPORT #3 FROM: Jamie Strickland P.o Box 253 Charlton Heights, WV 25040 ______________________________________________________ REPORT #4 "How to become a Millionaire utilizing the Power of Multilevel Marketing and the Internet" ORDER REPORT #4 FROM: Andrea Hataway 608 W. 8th St. Lancaster, TX 75146 ______________________________________________________ REPORT #5 "How to SEND 1,000,000 e-mails for FREE" ORDER REPORT #5 FROM: Robin Stice 690 Crespi Dr Pacifica, CA 94044 ______________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________ There currently more than 175,000,000 people online worldwide! ******* TIPS FOR SUCCESS ******* * TREAT THIS AS YOUR BUSINESS! Be prompt, professional, and follow the directions accurately. * Send for the five reports IMMEDIATELY so you will have them when the orders start coming in because: When you receive a $5 order, you MUST send out the requested product/report. * ALWAYS PROVIDE SAME-DAY SERVICE ON THE ORDERS YOU RECEIVE. * Be patient and persistent with this program. If you follow the instructions exactly, your results WILL BE SUCCESSFUL! * ABOVE ALL, HAVE FAITH IN YOURSELF AND KNOW YOU WILL SUCCEED! ******* YOUR SUCCESS GUIDELINES ******* Follow these guidelines to guarantee your success: If you don't receive 20 orders for REPORT #1 within two weeks, continue advertising or sending e-mails until you do. Then, a couple of weeks later you should receive at least 100 orders for REPORT#2. If you don't, continue advertising or sending e-mails until you do. Once you have received 100 or more orders for REPORT #2, YOU CAN RELAX, because the system is already working for you, and the cash will continue to roll in! THIS IS IMPORTANT TO REMEMBER: Every time your name is moved down on the list, you are placed in front of a DIFFERENT report. You can KEEP TRACK of your PROGRESS by watching which report people are ordering from you. If you want to generate more income, send another batch of e-mails or continue placing ads and start the whole process again! There is no limit to the income you will generate from this business! Before you make your decision as to whether or not you participate in this program. Please answer one question. DO YOU WANT TO CHANGE YOUR LIFE? If the answer is yes, please look at the following facts about this program: 1. YOU ARE SELLING A PRODUCT WHICH DOES NOT COST ANYTHING TO PRODUCE! 2. YOU ARE SELLING A PRODUCT WHICH DOES NOT COST ANYTHING TO SHIP! 3. YOU ARE SELLING A PRODUCT WHICH DOES NOT COST YOU ANYTHING TO ADVERTISE! 4. YOU ARE UTILIZING THE POWER OF THE INTERNET AND THE POWER OF MULTI-LEVEL MARKETING TO DISTRIBUTE YOUR PRODUCT ALL OVER THE WORLD! 5. YOUR ONLY EXPENSES OTHER THAN YOUR INITIAL $25 INVESTMENT IS YOUR TIME! 6. VIRTUALLY ALL OF THE INCOME YOU GENERATE FROM THIS PROGRAM IS PURE PROFIT! ******* T E S T I M O N I A L S ******* This program does work, but you must follow it EXACTLY! Especially the rule of not trying to place your name in a different position, it won't work and you'll lose a lot of potential income. I'm living proof that it works. It really is a great opportunity to make relatively easy money, with little cost to you. If you do choose to participate, follow the program exactly, and you'll be on your way to financial security. Fred Dellaca, Westport, New Zealand My name is Mitchell. My wife, Jody, and I live in Chicago, IL. I am a cost accountant with a major U.S. Corporation and I make pretty good money. When I received the program I grumbled to Jody about receiving "junk mail." I made fun of the whole thing, spouting my knowledge of the population and percentages involved. I "knew" it wouldn't work. Jody totally ignored my supposed intelligence and jumped in with both feet. I made merciless fun of her, and was ready to lay the old "I told you so" on her when the thing didn't work... well, the laugh was on me! Within two weeks she had received over 50 responses. Within 45 days she had received over $147,200 in $5 bills! I was shocked! I was sure that I had it all figured and that it wouldn't work. I AM a believer now. I have joined Jody in her "hobby." I did have seven more years until retirement, but I think of the "rat race" and it's not for me. We owe it all to MLM. Mitchell Wolf MD., Chicago, IL The main reason for this letter is to convince you that this system is honest, lawful, extremely profitable, and is a way to get a large amount of money in a short time. I was approached several times before I checked this out. I joined just to see what one could expect in return for the minimal effort and money required. To my astonishment, I received $36,470.00 in the first 14 weeks, with money still coming in. Sincerely yours, Pam Hedland Halmstad, Sweden Not being the gambling type, it took me several weeks to make up my mind to participate in this plan. But conservative that I am, I decided that the initial investment was so little that there was just no way that I wouldn't get enough orders to at least get my money back. I surprised when I found my medium-size post office box crammed with orders! For awhile, it got so overloaded that I had to start picking up my mail at the window. I'll make more money this year than any 10 years of my life before. The nice thing about this deal is that it doesn't matter where people live. There simply isn't a better investment with a faster return. Dan Sondstrom, Alberta, Canada I had received this program before. I deleted it, but later I wondered if I shouldn't have given it a try. Of course, I had no idea who to contact to get another copy, so I had to wait until I was e-mailed another program, .11 months passed then it came...I didn't delete this one!...I made more than $41,000 on the first try!! Mohamed, Cairo, Egypt This is my third time to participate in this plan. We have quit our jobs, and will soon buy a home on the beach and live off the interest on our money. The only way on earth that this plan will work for you is if you do it. For your sake, and for your family's sake don't pass up this golden opportunity. Good luck and happy spending! Sam Lee Suva, Fiji Islands ORDER YOUR REPORTS TODAY AND GET STARTED ON YOUR ROAD TO FINANCIAL FREEDOM! NOW IS THE TIME FOR YOUR TURN DECISIVE ACTION YIELDS POWERFUL RESULTS _________________________________________________________________________ PLEASE NOTE: If you need help with starting a business, registering a business name, learning how income tax is handled, etc., contact your local office of the Small Business Administration (a Federal agency) 1-(800)827-5722 for free help and answers to questions. Also, the Internal Revenue Service offers free help via telephone and free seminars about business tax requirements. Your earnings and results are highly dependant on your activities and advertising. This letter constitutes no guarantees stated nor implied. In the event that it is determined that this letter constitutes a guarantee of any kind, that guarantee is now void. Any testimonials or amounts of earnings listed in this letter may be factual or non-verifiable. If you have any question of the legality of this letter contact the Office of Associate Director for Marketing Practices Federal Trade Commission Bureau of Consumer Protection in Washington DC. ______________________________________________________________________ Under Bill s.1618 TITLE III passed by the 105th US Congress this letter cannot be considered spam as long as the sender includes contact information and a method of removal. To be Removed please reply to email with the words REMOVE in the subject area. _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From enum-admin@ietf.org Thu Oct 4 05:05:33 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA02641 for ; Thu, 4 Oct 2001 05:05:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id EAA10482; Thu, 4 Oct 2001 04:55:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id EAA10453 for ; Thu, 4 Oct 2001 04:55:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from yahoo.com (internet.soes.com [209.44.173.253]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA02186 for ; Thu, 4 Oct 2001 04:55:01 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <2807647-2200110448555155@yahoo.com> X-EM-Version: 6, 0, 0, 4 X-EM-Registration: #00F06206106618006920 X-Priority: 3 Reply-To: vwatvwat@yahoo.com From: "V Bassett" To: enum@ietf.org Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2001 04:55:05 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by optimus.ietf.org id EAA10454 Subject: [Enum] "The Letter" As seen on national TV! Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Enum Discussion List X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit This will make BIG money for you...FAST!! Several months ago, I made a conscious decision not to delete what I figured was just another "junk" e-mail. That decision has changed my life. Here you have the very same opportunity in front of you. If you take just five minutes to read through the following program you won't regret it. See for yourself! If you do this - all involved WILL PROFIT!! Dear Friends & Future Millionaires: AS SEEN ON NATIONAL TV: Make over half a million dollars every 4 to 5 months from your home for an investment of only $25 U.S. Dollars expense ONE TIME!. THANKS TO THE COMPUTER AGE AND THE INTERNET ! ================================================== BE A MILLIONAIRE LIKE OTHERS WITHIN A YEAR!!! Before you say ''Bull'', please read the following. This is the letter you have been hearing about on the news lately. Due to the popularity of this letter on the Internet, a national weekly news program recently devoted an entire show to the investigation of this program described below, to see if it really can make people money. The show also investigated whether or not the program was legal. Their findings proved once and for all that there are ''absolutely NO Laws prohibiting the participation in the program and if people can follow the simple instructions, they are bound to make some mega bucks with only $25 out of pocket cost''. DUE TO THE RECENT INCREASE OF POPULARITY & RESPECT THIS PROGRAM HAS ATTAINED, IT IS CURRENTLY WORKING BETTER THAN EVER! This is what one had to say: ''Thanks to this profitable opportunity. I was approached many times before but each time I passed on it. I am so glad finally joined just to see what one could expect in return for the minimal effort and money required. To my astonishment, I received total $610,470.00 in 21 weeks, with money still coming in." Pam Hedland, Fort Lee, New Jersey. ===== PRINT THIS NOW FOR YOUR FUTURE REFERENCE ====== If you would like to make at least $500,000 every 4 to 5 months easily and comfortably, please read the following...THEN READ IT AGAIN and AGAIN!!! FOLLOW THE SIMPLE INSTRUCTIONS BELOW AND YOUR FINANCIAL DREAMS WILL COME TRUE, GUARANTEED! INSTRUCTIONS: =====Order all 5 reports shown on the list below ===== For each report, send $5 CASH, THE NAME & NUMBER OF THE REPORT YOU ARE ORDERING and YOUR E-MAIL ADDRESS to the person whose name appears ON THAT LIST next to the report. MAKE SURE YOUR RETURN ADDRESS IS ON YOUR ENVELOPE TOP LEFT CORNER in case of any mail problems. When you place your order, make sure you order each of the 5 reports. You will need all 5 reports so that you can save them on your computer and resell them. YOUR TOTAL COST $5 X5=$25.00. Within a few days you will receive, via e-mail, each of the 5 reports from these 5 different individuals. Save them on your computer so they will be accessible for you to send to the 1,000's of people who will order them from you. Also make a floppy of these reports and keep it on your desk in case something happens to your computer. IMPORTANT - DO NOTalter the names of the people who are listed next to each report, or their sequence on the list, in any way other than what is instructed below in steps '' 1 through 6 '' or you will lose out on a majority of your profits. Once you understand the way this works, you will also see how it does not work if you change it. Remember, this method has been tested, and if you alter it, it will NOT work!!! People have tried to put their friends/relatives names on all five thinking they could get all the money. But it does not work this way. Believe us, we all have tried to be greedy and then nothing happened. So DO NOT try to change anything other than what is instructed. Because if you do, it will not work for you. Remember, honesty reaps the reward!!! 1.... After you have ordered all 5 reports, take this advertisement and REMOVE the name & address of the person in REPORT # 5. This person has made it through the cycle and is no doubt counting their fortune. 2.... Move the name & address in REPORT # 4 down TO REPORT # 5. 3.... Move the name & address in REPORT # 3 down TO REPORT # 4. 4.... Move the name & address in REPORT # 2 down TO REPORT # 3. 5.... Move the name & address in REPORT # 1 down TO REPORT # 2. 6.... Insert YOUR name & address in the REPORT # 1 Position. PLEASE MAKE SURE you copy every name & address ACCURATELY! ========================================================== **** Take this entire letter, with the modified list of names, and save it on your computer. DO NOT MAKE ANY OTHER CHANGES. Save this on a disk as well just in case if you loose any data. To assist you with marketing your business on the internet, the 5 reports you purchase will provide you with invaluable marketing information which includes how to send bulk e-mails legally, where to find thousands of free classified ads and much more. There are 2 Primary methods to get this venture going: METHOD # 1: BY SENDING BULK E-MAIL LEGALLY ========================================================== Let's say that you decide to start small, just to see how it goes, and we will assume You and those involved send out only 5,000 e-mails each. Let's also assume that the mailing receives only a 0.2% response (the response could be much better but lets just say it is only 0.2%. Also many people will send out hundreds of thousands of e-mails instead of only 5,000 each). Continuing with this example, you send out only 5,000 e-mails. With a 0.2% response, that is only 10 orders for report # 1. Those 10 people responded by sending out 5,000 e-mail each for a total of 50,000. Out of those 50,000 e-mails only 0.2% responded with orders. That's 100 people responded and ordered Report # 2. Those 100 people mail out 5,000 e-mails each for a total of 500,000 e-mails. The 0.2% response to that is 1000 orders for Report # 3. Those 1000 people send out 5,000 e-mails each for a total of 5 million e-mails sent out. The 0.2% response to that is 10,000 orders for Report # 4. Those 10,000 people send out 5,000 e-mails each for a total of 50,000,000 (50 million) e-mails. The 0.2% response to that is 100,000 orders for Report # 5. THAT'S 100,000 ORDERS TIMES $5 EACH=$500,000.00 (half a million). Your total income in this example is: 1..... $50 + 2..... $500 + 3..... $5,000 + 4.... $50,000 + 5..... $500,000 ........ Grand Total=$555,550.00! NUMBERS DO NOT LIE. GET A PENCIL & PAPER AND FIGURE OUT THE WORST POSSIBLE RESPONSE AND NO MATTER HOW YOU CALCULATE IT, YOU WILL STILL MAKE A LOT OF MONEY! ========================================================= REMEMBER FRIEND, THIS IS ASSUMING ONLY 10 PEOPLE ORDERING OUT OF 5,000 YOU MAILED TO. Dare to think for a moment what would happen if everyone or half or even one 4th of those people mailed 100,000e-mails each or more? There are over 150 million people on the Internet worldwide and counting. Believe me, many people will do just that, and more! ========================================================= METHOD # 2 : BY PLACING FREE ADS ON THE INTERNET ======================================================= Advertising on the net is very very inexpensive and there are hundreds of FREE places to advertise. Placing a lot of free ads on the Internet will easily get a larger response. We strongly suggest you start with Method # 1 and add METHOD # 2 as you go along. For every $5 you receive, all you must do is e-mail them the Report they ordered. That's it. Always provide same day service on all orders. This will guarantee that the e-mail they send out, with your name and address on it, will be prompt because they can not advertise until they receive the report. =========== AVAILABLE REPORTS ==================== ORDER EACH REPORT BY ITS NUMBER & NAME ONLY. Notes: Always send $5 cash (U.S. CURRENCY) for each Report. Checks NOT accepted. Make sure the cash is concealed by wrapping it in at least 2 sheets of paper. On one of those sheets of paper, Write the NUMBER & the NAME of the Report you are ordering, YOUR E-MAIL ADDRESS and your name and postal address. PLACE YOUR ORDER FOR THESE REPORTS NOW : =========================================== REPORT #1: "How to Send Out 0ne Million e-mails for Free" Order Report # 1 from: V. B. 15568 Timberhill Dr Flint, TX 75762 USA _______________________________________________ REPORT # 2: "The Insider's Guide to Advertising for Free on the Net" Order Report #2 from: JSH220 P.O. Box 1024 Lawrenceville, GA 30046-1024 USA __________________________________________________________ REPORT # 3: "The Insider's Guide to Sending Bulk e-mail on the Net" Order Report # 3 from: M.A. P.O. Box 8332 Tahoe City, CA. 96145 USA __________________________________________________________ REPORT # 4: "Secret to Multilevel Marketing on the Net" Order Report # 4 from : N. H. Merrill 147 Crescent St. Shrewsbury,MA 01545-2860 USA ____________________________________________________________ REPORT # 5: "How to Become a Millionaire Utilizing MLM & the Net" Order Report # 5 from: C. Henry 16211 N. 21st Street Phoenix, Arizona 85022 USA ___________________________________________________________ $$$$$$$$$ YOUR SUCCESS GUIDELINES $$$$$$$$$$$ Follow these guidelines to guarantee your success: === If you do not receive at least 10 orders for Report #1 within 2 weeks, continue sending e-mails until you do. === After you have received 10 orders, 2 to 3 weeks after that you should receive 100 orders or more for REPORT # 2. If you did not, continue advertising or sending e-mails until you do. === Once you have received 100 or more orders for Report # 2, YOU CAN RELAX, because the system is already working for you, and the cash will continue to roll in! THIS IS IMPORTANT TO REMEMBER: Every time your name is moved down on the list, you are placed in front of a Different report. You can KEEP TRACK of your PROGRESS by watching which report people are ordering from you. IF YOU WANT TO GENERATE MORE INCOME SEND ANOTHER BATCH OF E-MAILS AND START THE WHOLE PROCESS AGAIN. There is NO LIMIT to the income you can generate from this business!!! ====================================================== FOLLOWING IS A NOTE FROM THE ORIGINATOR OF THIS PROGRAM: You have just received information that can give you financial freedom for the rest of your life, with NO RISK and JUST A LITTLE BIT OF EFFORT. You can make more money in the next few weeks and months than you have ever imagined. Follow the program EXACTLY AS INSTRUCTED. Do Not change it in any way. It works exceedingly well as it is now. Remember to e-mail a copy of this exciting report after you have put your name and address in Report #1 and moved others to #2 through # 5 as instructed above. One of the people you send this to may send out 100,000 or more e-mails and your name will be on every one of them. Remember though, the more you send out the more potential customers you will reach. So, my friend, I have given you the ideas, information, materials and opportunity to become financially independent. IT IS UP TO YOU NOW! ============ MORE TESTIMONIALS ================ "My name is Mitchell. My wife, Jody and I live in Chicago. I am an accountant with a major U.S. Corporation and I make pretty good money. When I received this program I grumbled to Jody about receiving ''junk mail.'' I made fun of the whole thing, spouting my knowledge of the population and percentages involved. I ''knew'' it wouldn't work. Jody totally ignored my supposed intelligence and a few days later she jumped in with both feet. I made merciless fun of her, and was ready to lay the old ''I told you so" on her when the thing didn't work. Well, the laugh was on me! Within 3 weeks she had received 50 responses. Within the next 45 days she had received a total of $147,200.00 ........... all cash! I was shocked. I have joined Jody in her "hobby." Mitchell Wolf, Chicago, Illinois ====================================================== "Not being the gambling type, it took me several weeks to make up my mind to participate in this plan. But conservative that I am, I decided that the initial investment was so little that there was just no way that I wouldn't get enough orders to at least get my money back." "I was surprised when I found my medium sized post office box crammed with orders. I made $319,210.00 in the first 12 weeks. The nice thing about this deal is that it does not matter where people live. There simply isn't a better investment with a faster return and so big." Dan Sondstrom, Alberta, Canada ======================================================= ''I had received this program before. I deleted it, but later I wondered if I should have given it a try. Of course, I had no idea who to contact to get another copy, so I had to wait until I was e-mailed again by someone else.........11 months passed then it luckily came again...... I did not delete this one! I made more than $490,000 on my first try and all the money came within 22 weeks." Susan De Suza, New York, N.Y. ======================================================= ''It really is a great opportunity to make relatively easy money with little cost to you. I followed the simple instructions carefully and within 10 days the money started to come in. My first month I made $20,560.00 and by the end of third month my total cash count was $362,840.00. Life is beautiful, Thanx to the internet." Fred Dellaca, Westport, New Zealand ======================================================= ORDER YOUR REPORTS TODAY AND GET STARTED ON 'YOUR' ROAD TO FINANCIAL FREEDOM! ======================================================= If you have any questions of the legality of this program, contact the Office of Associate Director for Marketing Practices, Federal Trade Commission, Bureau of Consumer Protection, Washington, D.C ======================================================== Don't be skeptical - this works. Thanks, V. B. V Bassett Check this out! I'm doing it. Might as well! Get paid cash every time you receive email! Sign up FREE at: http://www.MintMail.com/?m=806789 _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From enum-admin@ietf.org Thu Oct 4 08:49:24 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA09624 for ; Thu, 4 Oct 2001 08:49:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id IAA16696; Thu, 4 Oct 2001 08:29:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id IAA16664 for ; Thu, 4 Oct 2001 08:29:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from heron.verisign.com (heron.verisign.com [216.168.233.95]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA08609 for ; Thu, 4 Oct 2001 08:29:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: from VSVAPOSTALGW1.prod.netsol.com (vsvapostalgw1.prod.netsol.com [216.168.234.201]) by heron.verisign.com (nsi_0.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id IAA06016 for ; Thu, 4 Oct 2001 08:29:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: by VSVAPOSTALGW1.prod.netsol.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Thu, 4 Oct 2001 08:28:54 -0400 Message-ID: <3CD14E451751BD42BA48AAA50B07BAD6C5FB04@vsvapostal3.prod.netsol.com> From: "Hollenbeck, Scott" To: enum@ietf.org Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2001 08:22:13 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Subject: [Enum] FW: I-D ACTION:draft-hollenbeck-epp-e164-01.txt Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Enum Discussion List X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org Forwarded for anyone who might be interested... This update incorporates comments provided by Chip Sharp and James Yu (thanks!). If you'd like to look at instance examples and a schema in a format that's readily digestible by an XML parser without copying and pasting from the draft, sample XML instance and schema files can be found here: http://www.verisign-grs.com/files/20011002/e164-01.tar.gz http://www.verisign-grs.com/files/20011002/e164-01.zip and here: ftp://ftp.verisign.com/pub/epp/20011002/e164-01.tar.gz ftp://ftp.verisign.com/pub/epp/20011002/e164-01.zip Scott -----Original Message----- From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org [mailto:Internet-Drafts@ietf.org] Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2001 7:14 AM To: IETF-Announce; @loki.ietf.org Subject: I-D ACTION:draft-hollenbeck-epp-e164-01.txt A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. Title : Extensible Provisioning Protocol E.164 Number Mapping Author(s) : S. Hollenbeck Filename : draft-hollenbeck-epp-e164-01.txt Pages : 19 Date : 02-Oct-01 This document describes an Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP) extension mapping for the provisioning and management of E.164 numbers representing domain names stored in a shared central repository. Specified in XML, this mapping extends the EPP domain name mapping to provide additional features required for the provisioning of E.164 numbers. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-hollenbeck-epp-e164-01.txt To remove yourself from the IETF Announcement list, send a message to ietf-announce-request with the word unsubscribe in the body of the message. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the username "anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in, type "cd internet-drafts" and then "get draft-hollenbeck-epp-e164-01.txt". A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail. Send a message to: mailserv@ietf.org. In the body type: "FILE /internet-drafts/draft-hollenbeck-epp-e164-01.txt". NOTE: The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility. To use this feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE" command. To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or a MIME-compliant mail reader. Different MIME-compliant mail readers exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with "multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on how to manipulate these messages. Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From enum-admin@ietf.org Tue Oct 9 21:26:02 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA16482 for ; Tue, 9 Oct 2001 21:26:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id VAA15534; Tue, 9 Oct 2001 21:12:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id VAA15503 for ; Tue, 9 Oct 2001 21:12:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: from granger.mail.mindspring.net (granger.mail.mindspring.net [207.69.200.148]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA16277 for ; Tue, 9 Oct 2001 21:12:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: from rds.ix.netcom.com (user-2ivemfu.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.89.254]) by granger.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with ESMTP id VAA29562 for ; Tue, 9 Oct 2001 21:12:36 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20011009210507.02888860@127.0.0.1> X-Sender: rshockey/popd.ix.netcom.com@127.0.0.1 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Tue, 09 Oct 2001 21:06:44 -0400 To: enum@ietf.org From: Richard Shockey Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Subject: [Enum] FYI: Papers on ENUM from TPRC 2001 Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Enum Discussion List X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org Papers from the The 29th Research Conference on Communication, Information and Internet Policy October 27-29, 2001 Alexandria, Virginia http://www.tprc.org/TPRC01/agenda01.htm#enum much interesting reading ... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard Shockey, Senior Manager, Strategic Technology Initiatives NeuStar Inc. 45980 Center Oak Plaza Bldg 8 Sterling, VA 20166 1120 Vermont Ave NW Suite 400 Washington DC 20005 Voice 571.434.5651 Cell : 314.503.0640, Fax: 815.333.1237 or <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From enum-admin@ietf.org Tue Oct 9 22:46:59 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA19132 for ; Tue, 9 Oct 2001 22:46:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id WAA19035; Tue, 9 Oct 2001 22:30:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id WAA19008 for ; Tue, 9 Oct 2001 22:30:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: from heron.verisign.com (heron.verisign.com [216.168.233.95]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA18039 for ; Tue, 9 Oct 2001 22:30:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: from VSVAPOSTALGW1.prod.netsol.com (vsvapostalgw1.prod.netsol.com [216.168.234.201]) by heron.verisign.com (nsi_0.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id WAA27754; Tue, 9 Oct 2001 22:29:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: by VSVAPOSTALGW1.prod.netsol.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <4S9H0WTL>; Tue, 9 Oct 2001 22:29:21 -0400 Message-ID: <6953F9859AF8BF45B04729A42264032501F7F923@VSVAPOSTAL1.prod.netsol.com> From: "Rutkowski, Tony" To: Richard Shockey , enum@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Enum] FYI: Papers on ENUM from TPRC 2001 Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2001 22:27:50 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Enum Discussion List X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org Hi Richard, If this list is to be used for policy discussions, the more significant paper (and notably omitted from the paper you cite) is the U.S. government's statement on ENUM policy. A copy can be found at: http://www.ngi.org/enum/geneva200109/46_ww9.doc --tony _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From enum-admin@ietf.org Tue Oct 9 23:06:08 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA19296 for ; Tue, 9 Oct 2001 23:06:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id WAA19786; Tue, 9 Oct 2001 22:54:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id WAA19757 for ; Tue, 9 Oct 2001 22:53:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from joy.songbird.com (IDENT:root@songbird.com [208.184.79.7]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA19183 for ; Tue, 9 Oct 2001 22:53:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: from bbprime.dcrocker.net (c1193160-a.snvl1.sfba.home.com [65.0.152.112]) by joy.songbird.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA11808; Tue, 9 Oct 2001 19:53:54 -0700 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20011009194846.01fbeee8@dcrocker.net> X-Sender: dhc@brandenburg.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Tue, 09 Oct 2001 19:54:42 -0700 To: "Rutkowski, Tony" From: Dave Crocker Subject: RE: [Enum] FYI: Papers on ENUM from TPRC 2001 Cc: enum@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <6953F9859AF8BF45B04729A42264032501F7F923@VSVAPOSTAL1.prod. netsol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Enum Discussion List X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org At 07:27 PM 10/9/2001, Rutkowski, Tony wrote: >If this list is to be used for policy discussions, pointing to a conference is quite common on IETF lists, Tony, as you know. it is typically not an invitation to discuss something. >the more significant paper (and notably omitted highlighting a conference does not constitute touting a particular paper, contrary to your own posting. >from the paper you cite) is the U.S. government's >statement on ENUM policy. The paper you cite says: 1. services other than the IETF standardized ENUM will exist. That's hardly an interesting observation, Tony. 2. no one should preclude the operation of those other services. Oddly, you are actually the only person who gives any public thought to those other services, never mind considering precluding their operation. thank you for playing. d/ ---------- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking tel +1.408.246.8253; fax +1.408.273.6464 _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From enum-admin@ietf.org Tue Oct 9 23:08:28 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA19344 for ; Tue, 9 Oct 2001 23:08:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id WAA19965; Tue, 9 Oct 2001 22:59:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id WAA19933 for ; Tue, 9 Oct 2001 22:59:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: from maynard.mail.mindspring.net (maynard.mail.mindspring.net [207.69.200.243]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA19216 for ; Tue, 9 Oct 2001 22:59:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: from rds.ix.netcom.com (user-2ivemfu.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.89.254]) by maynard.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with ESMTP id WAA15276; Tue, 9 Oct 2001 22:59:22 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20011009224156.02d5dec0@127.0.0.1> X-Sender: rshockey/popd.ix.netcom.com@127.0.0.1 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Tue, 09 Oct 2001 23:05:11 -0400 To: "Rutkowski, Tony" , enum@ietf.org From: Richard Shockey Subject: RE: [Enum] FYI: Papers on ENUM from TPRC 2001 In-Reply-To: <6953F9859AF8BF45B04729A42264032501F7F923@VSVAPOSTAL1.prod. netsol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Enum Discussion List X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org At 10:27 PM 10/9/2001 -0400, Rutkowski, Tony wrote: >Hi Richard, > >If this list is to be used for policy discussions, >the more significant paper (and notably omitted >from the paper you cite) is the U.S. government's >statement on ENUM policy. A copy can be found at: > >http://www.ngi.org/enum/geneva200109/46_ww9.doc Tony, Patrik and I have stated in the past we would like to generally restrict this list to technical issues involving 2916 etc and we hope to restart those issues shortly. That said .. this list has a large audience of people interested in ENUM related issues and if there is something that might be of FYI interest that can be encapsulated in a URL, that is IMHO within the definition of "acceptable use". I simply posted a URL ..nothing more. There were multiple papers listed there of diverse opinion. I offered no judgement on any of them only that they deserved reading. Others ..including various National ENUM forums that are discussing ENUM implementation issues are welcome post URL's here as well about their ongoing work and I hope they do so. That does not mean this list is appropriate for discussions of how the UK or Japan or the US chooses to implement policy surrounding 2916..it only means that this list would, from time to time like to see URL's for documents from various forums in order for us to judge for ourselves what is going on. There may be a necessity to comment on technical issues raised by various national implementations in the sprit of peer review but I'm hoping those can be contained to technical issues and not pure policy. I know that will be difficult. You are most welcome to do the same ... as you have in the past and I'm sure you will in the future. >--tony >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard Shockey, Senior Manager, Strategic Technology Initiatives NeuStar Inc. 45980 Center Oak Plaza Bldg 8 Sterling, VA 20166 1120 Vermont Ave NW Suite 400 Washington DC 20005 Voice 571.434.5651 Cell : 314.503.0640, Fax: 815.333.1237 or <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From enum-admin@ietf.org Wed Oct 10 09:24:40 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA09474 for ; Wed, 10 Oct 2001 09:24:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id JAA14206; Wed, 10 Oct 2001 09:14:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id JAA14175 for ; Wed, 10 Oct 2001 09:14:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: from spitfire.law.miami.edu (postfix@spitfire.law.miami.edu [129.171.187.10]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA09039 for ; Wed, 10 Oct 2001 09:14:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: from spitfire.law.miami.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by spitfire.law.miami.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 87CD45C3AB7; Wed, 10 Oct 2001 09:14:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: by spitfire.law.miami.edu (Postfix, from userid 1113) id 23D745C3AB7; Wed, 10 Oct 2001 09:14:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by spitfire.law.miami.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B8685D3A80; Wed, 10 Oct 2001 09:14:09 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2001 09:14:09 -0400 (EDT) From: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" To: Dave Crocker Cc: "Rutkowski, Tony" , enum@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Enum] FYI: Papers on ENUM from TPRC 2001 In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20011009194846.01fbeee8@dcrocker.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Enum Discussion List X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org This statement is false. On Tue, 9 Oct 2001, Dave Crocker wrote: > Oddly, you are actually the only person who gives any public > thought to those other services, never mind considering precluding their > operation. -- Please visit http://www.icannwatch.org A. Michael Froomkin | Professor of Law | froomkin@law.tm U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA +1 (305) 284-4285 | +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax) | http://www.law.tm -->It's very hot and humid here.<-- _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From enum-admin@ietf.org Wed Oct 10 10:46:40 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA11607 for ; Wed, 10 Oct 2001 10:46:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id KAA17372; Wed, 10 Oct 2001 10:34:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id KAA17344 for ; Wed, 10 Oct 2001 10:34:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: from joy.songbird.com (IDENT:root@songbird.com [208.184.79.7]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA11236 for ; Wed, 10 Oct 2001 10:34:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: from bbprime.dcrocker.net (c1193160-a.snvl1.sfba.home.com [65.0.152.112]) by joy.songbird.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA00526; Wed, 10 Oct 2001 07:34:17 -0700 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20011010073052.03b38798@dcrocker.net> X-Sender: dhc@brandenburg.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2001 07:32:22 -0700 To: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" From: Dave Crocker Subject: RE: [Enum] FYI: Papers on ENUM from TPRC 2001 Cc: "Rutkowski, Tony" , enum@ietf.org In-Reply-To: References: <5.1.0.14.2.20011009194846.01fbeee8@dcrocker.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Enum Discussion List X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org indeed. thank you for seeking greater care in my wording. I should have included: "in this group (and in some others)". d/ ps. and if you still disagree, feel free to document your position. Hmmm. Then again, please don't. This sort of distraction from serious work is really the only purpose behind creating these sorts of controversies. At 06:14 AM 10/10/2001, Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law wrote: >This statement is false. > >On Tue, 9 Oct 2001, Dave Crocker wrote: > > Oddly, you are actually the only person who gives any public > > thought to those other services, never mind considering precluding their > > operation. ---------- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking tel +1.408.246.8253; fax +1.408.273.6464 _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From enum-admin@ietf.org Wed Oct 10 13:31:55 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA15983 for ; Wed, 10 Oct 2001 13:31:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA24425; Wed, 10 Oct 2001 13:21:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA24395 for ; Wed, 10 Oct 2001 13:21:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: from heron.verisign.com (heron.verisign.com [216.168.233.95]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA15493 for ; Wed, 10 Oct 2001 13:21:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: from VSVAPOSTALGW1.prod.netsol.com (vsvapostalgw1.prod.netsol.com [216.168.234.201]) by heron.verisign.com (nsi_0.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA25778; Wed, 10 Oct 2001 13:20:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: by VSVAPOSTALGW1.prod.netsol.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <4S92ADC1>; Wed, 10 Oct 2001 13:20:29 -0400 Message-ID: <6953F9859AF8BF45B04729A42264032501F7F983@VSVAPOSTAL1.prod.netsol.com> From: "Rutkowski, Tony" To: Richard Shockey , enum@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Enum] FYI: Papers on ENUM from TPRC 2001 Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2001 13:18:59 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Enum Discussion List X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org Hi Richard, In light of your encouraging pointing to relevant information about implementations and related developments, the list participants will find the following recent announcements significant. It underscores the wisdom of the USGOV's decision to adopt a competitive, multiple ENUM Neutrality policy for encouraging industry driven developments in making these services a reality and facilitating their rapid evolution. NETNUMBER SELECTS VERISIGN REGISTRY FOR GLOBAL ENUM SERVICES Provides NetNumber with Immediate Worldwide Scalability and Reliable Infrastructure to Deploy First Commercial Directory for Internet Telephony http://www.netnumber.com/news/10-9-01Verisign.pdf VeriSign to Acquire Illuminet Acquisition reinforces strategy to extend digital trust services beyond the Internet to telephony and other network systems http://corporate.verisign.com/news/2001/pr_20010924.html --tony _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From enum-admin@ietf.org Wed Oct 10 20:31:14 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA23667 for ; Wed, 10 Oct 2001 20:31:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id UAA06485; Wed, 10 Oct 2001 20:20:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id UAA06449 for ; Wed, 10 Oct 2001 20:20:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from whale.cnnic.net.cn ([159.226.6.187]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA23535 for ; Wed, 10 Oct 2001 20:20:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from cnnic-wf ([159.226.7.91]) by whale.cnnic.net.cn (Netscape Messaging Server 4.15) with ESMTP id GL0MB400.48Z for ; Thu, 11 Oct 2001 08:21:04 +0800 Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2001 8:20:31 +0800 From: "wang feng" To: "enum@ietf.org" Organization: CNNIC X-mailer: FoxMail 4.0 beta 2 [cn] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="GB2312" Message-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from base64 to 8bit by optimus.ietf.org id UAA06452 Subject: [Enum] Re: enum digest, Vol 1 #277 - 6 msgs Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Enum Discussion List X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit enum-admin,ÄúºÃ£¡ ¡¡¡¡ ======= 2001-10-10 12:00:00 ÄúÔÚÀ´ÐÅÖÐдµÀ£º======= >Send enum mailing list submissions to > enum@ietf.org > >To subscribe or unsubscribe via the web, visit > http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum >or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > enum-request@ietf.org >You can reach the person managing the list at > enum-admin@ietf.org > >When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than >"Re: Contents of enum digest..." > > >Today's Topics: > > 1. FYI: Papers on ENUM from TPRC 2001 (Richard Shockey) > 2. RE: FYI: Papers on ENUM from TPRC 2001 (Rutkowski, Tony) > 3. RE: FYI: Papers on ENUM from TPRC 2001 (Dave Crocker) > 4. RE: FYI: Papers on ENUM from TPRC 2001 (Richard Shockey) > 5. RE: FYI: Papers on ENUM from TPRC 2001 (Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law) > 6. RE: FYI: Papers on ENUM from TPRC 2001 (Dave Crocker) > >--__--__-- > >Message: 1 >Date: Tue, 09 Oct 2001 21:06:44 -0400 >To: enum@ietf.org >From: Richard Shockey >Subject: [Enum] FYI: Papers on ENUM from TPRC 2001 > > >Papers from the The 29th Research Conference on Communication, Information >and Internet Policy October 27-29, 2001 Alexandria, Virginia > >http://www.tprc.org/TPRC01/agenda01.htm#enum > >much interesting reading ... > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >Richard Shockey, Senior Manager, Strategic Technology Initiatives >NeuStar Inc. >45980 Center Oak Plaza Bldg 8 Sterling, VA 20166 >1120 Vermont Ave NW Suite 400 Washington DC 20005 >Voice 571.434.5651 Cell : 314.503.0640, Fax: 815.333.1237 > or > > > ><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< > > >--__--__-- > >Message: 2 >From: "Rutkowski, Tony" >To: Richard Shockey , enum@ietf.org >Subject: RE: [Enum] FYI: Papers on ENUM from TPRC 2001 >Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2001 22:27:50 -0400 >charset="iso-8859-1" > >Hi Richard, > >If this list is to be used for policy discussions, >the more significant paper (and notably omitted >from the paper you cite) is the U.S. government's >statement on ENUM policy. A copy can be found at: > >http://www.ngi.org/enum/geneva200109/46_ww9.doc > >--tony > >--__--__-- > >Message: 3 >Date: Tue, 09 Oct 2001 19:54:42 -0700 >To: "Rutkowski, Tony" >From: Dave Crocker >Subject: RE: [Enum] FYI: Papers on ENUM from TPRC 2001 >Cc: enum@ietf.org >netsol.com> > >At 07:27 PM 10/9/2001, Rutkowski, Tony wrote: >>If this list is to be used for policy discussions, > >pointing to a conference is quite common on IETF lists, Tony, as you >know. it is typically not an invitation to discuss something. > > >>the more significant paper (and notably omitted > >highlighting a conference does not constitute touting a particular paper, >contrary to your own posting. > > >>from the paper you cite) is the U.S. government's >>statement on ENUM policy. > >The paper you cite says: > >1. services other than the IETF standardized ENUM will exist. > > That's hardly an interesting observation, Tony. > >2. no one should preclude the operation of those other services. > > Oddly, you are actually the only person who gives any public >thought to those other services, never mind considering precluding their >operation. > >thank you for playing. > >d/ > >---------- >Dave Crocker >Brandenburg InternetWorking >tel +1.408.246.8253; fax +1.408.273.6464 > > >--__--__-- > >Message: 4 >Date: Tue, 09 Oct 2001 23:05:11 -0400 >To: "Rutkowski, Tony" , enum@ietf.org >From: Richard Shockey >Subject: RE: [Enum] FYI: Papers on ENUM from TPRC 2001 >netsol.com> > >At 10:27 PM 10/9/2001 -0400, Rutkowski, Tony wrote: >>Hi Richard, >> >>If this list is to be used for policy discussions, >>the more significant paper (and notably omitted >>from the paper you cite) is the U.S. government's >>statement on ENUM policy. A copy can be found at: >> >>http://www.ngi.org/enum/geneva200109/46_ww9.doc > >Tony, Patrik and I have stated in the past we would like to generally >restrict this list to technical issues involving 2916 etc and we hope to >restart those issues shortly. > >That said .. this list has a large audience of people interested in ENUM >related issues and if there is something that might be of FYI interest that >can be encapsulated in a URL, that is IMHO within the definition of >"acceptable use". > >I simply posted a URL ..nothing more. There were multiple papers listed >there of diverse opinion. I offered no judgement on any of them only that >they deserved reading. > >Others ..including various National ENUM forums that are discussing ENUM >implementation issues are welcome post URL's here as well about their >ongoing work and I hope they do so. That does not mean this list is >appropriate for discussions of how the UK or Japan or the US chooses to >implement policy surrounding 2916..it only means that this list would, from >time to time like to see URL's for documents from various forums in order >for us to judge for ourselves what is going on. > >There may be a necessity to comment on technical issues raised by various >national implementations in the sprit of peer review but I'm hoping those >can be contained to technical issues and not pure policy. I know that will >be difficult. > >You are most welcome to do the same ... as you have in the past and I'm >sure you will in the future. > > > >>--tony > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >Richard Shockey, Senior Manager, Strategic Technology Initiatives >NeuStar Inc. >45980 Center Oak Plaza Bldg 8 Sterling, VA 20166 >1120 Vermont Ave NW Suite 400 Washington DC 20005 >Voice 571.434.5651 Cell : 314.503.0640, Fax: 815.333.1237 > or > > > ><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< > > >--__--__-- > >Message: 5 >Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2001 09:14:09 -0400 (EDT) >From: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" >To: Dave Crocker >Cc: "Rutkowski, Tony" , enum@ietf.org >Subject: RE: [Enum] FYI: Papers on ENUM from TPRC 2001 > >This statement is false. > >On Tue, 9 Oct 2001, Dave Crocker wrote: > >> Oddly, you are actually the only person who gives any public >> thought to those other services, never mind considering precluding their >> operation. > >-- > Please visit http://www.icannwatch.org >A. Michael Froomkin | Professor of Law | froomkin@law.tm >U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA >+1 (305) 284-4285 | +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax) | http://www.law.tm > -->It's very hot and humid here.<-- > > >--__--__-- > >Message: 6 >Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2001 07:32:22 -0700 >To: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" >From: Dave Crocker >Subject: RE: [Enum] FYI: Papers on ENUM from TPRC 2001 >Cc: "Rutkowski, Tony" , enum@ietf.org >mi.edu> > >indeed. thank you for seeking greater care in my wording. > >I should have included: "in this group (and in some others)". > >d/ > >ps. and if you still disagree, feel free to document your >position. Hmmm. Then again, please don't. This sort of distraction from >serious work is really the only purpose behind creating these sorts of >controversies. > > >At 06:14 AM 10/10/2001, Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law wrote: >>This statement is false. >> >>On Tue, 9 Oct 2001, Dave Crocker wrote: >> > Oddly, you are actually the only person who gives any public >> > thought to those other services, never mind considering precluding their >> > operation. > >---------- >Dave Crocker >Brandenburg InternetWorking >tel +1.408.246.8253; fax +1.408.273.6464 > > > > >--__--__-- > >_______________________________________________ >enum mailing list >enum@ietf.org >http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum > > >End of enum Digest = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Ö Àñ£¡ Wang Feng fengw@cnnic.net.cn 2001-10-11 **************************************************** China Internet Network Information Center (CNNIC) Wang Feng No.4, S.4 Street Phone: (86-10)62618501 Zhong Guan Cun Fax: (86-10)62559892 Haidian District Email: fengw@cnnic.net.cn Beijing http://www.cnnic.net.cn P.O.Box: 100080 **************************************************** Öйú»¥ÁªÍøÂçÐÅÏ¢ÖÐÐÄ Íõ ·å **************************************************** _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From enum-admin@ietf.org Sun Oct 14 08:41:30 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA28613 for ; Sun, 14 Oct 2001 08:41:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id IAA11477; Sun, 14 Oct 2001 08:27:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id IAA11446 for ; Sun, 14 Oct 2001 08:27:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mclean.mail.mindspring.net (mclean.mail.mindspring.net [207.69.200.57]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA28521 for ; Sun, 14 Oct 2001 08:27:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: from rds.ix.netcom.com (user-2ivek22.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.80.66]) by mclean.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with ESMTP id IAA04766 for ; Sun, 14 Oct 2001 08:27:43 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20011014082635.031d4e50@127.0.0.1> X-Sender: rshockey/popd.ix.netcom.com@127.0.0.1 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2001 08:33:32 -0400 To: enum@ietf.org From: Richard Shockey Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Subject: [Enum] Revised Charter and Work Plan for ENUM WG Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Enum Discussion List X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org After consultation with the area directors Patrik and myself have developed a revised charter and work plan for going forward. The WG had gone into "slumber mode" after IETF Pittsburgh. In our judgement there is left over work to complete and there is sufficient new activity in various venues to justify considering technical work related to ENUM operations & implementations. At this time since we have no active ID's on the plate so there is no need to have a meeting in Salt Lake unless there is demand for it. The revised charter is open for comments: ##################################### Telephone Number Mapping (enum) Chair(s): mailto:paf@cisco.com mailto:rshockey@ix.netcom.com Transport Area Director(s): mailto:sob@harvard.edu mailto:mankin@isi.edu Transport Area Advisor: mailto:sob@harvard.edu Mailing Lists: General Discussion:enum@ietf.org To Subscribe: enum-request@ietf.org In Body: subscribe Archive: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf-mail-archive/enum/ Description of Working Group: This working group has defined a DNS-based architecture and protocol [RFC 2916] for mapping a telephone number to a set of attributes (e.g. URI's) which can be used to contact a resource associated with that number. Background: Telephone numbers now identify many different types of end terminals, supporting many different services and protocols. Telephone numbers are used to identify ordinary phones, fax machines, pagers, data modems, email clients, text terminals for the hearing impaired, etc. A prospective caller may wish to discover which services and protocols are supported by the terminal named by a given telephone number. The caller may also require more information than just the telephone number to communicate with the terminal. From the call recipient's perspective, the owner of the telephone number or device may wish to control what URI's, calling parties may receive. The architecture must allow for different service providers, competing openly, to provision the data base of end point information required by clients to reach the desired the terminal device or service named by a telephone number. Working Group Revised Goals and Scope: 1. The working group will, from a technical viewpoint describe how the registry/registrar model used for DNS provisioning could be applied to the global ENUM based branches of the DNS hierarchy and document various aspects of ENUM administrative / operational procedures within that context as Informational 2. The working group will update RFC 2916 to reflect the ongoing revision of RFC 2915. 3. The working group will consider various aspects of privacy, security, validation, authentication and provisioning of the global ENUM branches of the DNS including RFC 2915 (and revisions) records as Informational. Such documents could be used as models for various national implementations of RFC 2916 by the appropriate authorities over those portions of the global ENUM namespace. 4. The Working Group will continue maintain contact and liaison with appropriate standards bodies and groups in order to coordinate activities and provide appropriate technical input when required, in particular ITU Study Group 2 and other national ENUM administrative forums. The Working Group, in the sprit of technical exchange, will welcome technical information, updates etc., from various national ENUM administration forums, other standards bodies, as well as documentation on practical experiences with implementations of RFC 2916. Document deliverables: 1. Revise and update RFC 2916 appropriate to revision of RFC 2915 (Standards Track) April 2002 2. Document appropriate ENUM Administrative Procedures (Informational) March 2002 3. Document appropriate ENUM Operational Procedures (Informational) May 2002 4. Document appropriate ENUM Provisioning Procedures and Data Sets (Informational) TBD No Current Internet-Drafts Request For Comments: E.164 number and DNS (RFC 2916) (18159 bytes) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard Shockey, Senior Manager, Strategic Technology Initiatives NeuStar Inc. 45980 Center Oak Plaza Bldg 8 Sterling, VA 20166 1120 Vermont Ave NW Suite 400 Washington DC 20005 Voice 571.434.5651 Cell : 314.503.0640, Fax: 815.333.1237 or <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From enum-admin@ietf.org Mon Oct 15 02:07:04 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA17654 for ; Mon, 15 Oct 2001 02:07:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id BAA10501; Mon, 15 Oct 2001 01:54:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id BAA10469 for ; Mon, 15 Oct 2001 01:54:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from cisco.com (nordic.cisco.com [64.103.48.45]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA09088 for ; Mon, 15 Oct 2001 01:54:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [192.168.1.5] (ssh-ams1.cisco.com [144.254.74.55]) by cisco.com (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) with ESMTP id HAA29874; Mon, 15 Oct 2001 07:53:30 +0200 (MET DST) Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2001 07:51:13 +0200 From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Patrik_F=E4ltstr=F6m?= To: Richard Shockey , enum@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Enum] Revised Charter and Work Plan for ENUM WG Message-ID: <2915020.1003132273@localhost> In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20011014082635.031d4e50@127.0.0.1> References: <5.1.0.14.2.20011014082635.031d4e50@127.0.0.1> X-Mailer: Mulberry/2.1.0 (Mac OS X) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Enum Discussion List X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit --On 2001-10-14 08.33 -0400 Richard Shockey wrote: > At this time since we have no active ID's on the plate so there is no > need to have a meeting in Salt Lake unless there is demand for it. The steps forward are as follows: (1) If you have comments on this proposed charter, please send comments to this mailing list. I doubt that Richard and myself managed to word everything so perfectly that you don't have any comments... ;-) (2) If you have strawman proposals for documents which fit the descriptions seen on the new charter, please forward to myself and Richard, so we can approve them as wg documents. This so discussion on the work items can be initiated. (3) If there is interest, of course we can have a meeting in SLC. paf P.S. I will not be able to come to SLC unfortunately. The first IETF I will miss. I have participated at all since Houston. But, I have a day-job which in this case is having oversight over the network for the Nobel Foundation (http://www.nobel.se) which have a 100-year anniversary that same week, and I need to be in Scandinavia in the case something happens. _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From enum-admin@ietf.org Mon Oct 15 07:24:40 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA23669 for ; Mon, 15 Oct 2001 07:24:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id HAA19410; Mon, 15 Oct 2001 07:12:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id HAA19379 for ; Mon, 15 Oct 2001 07:12:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from heron.verisign.com (heron.verisign.com [216.168.233.95]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA23460 for ; Mon, 15 Oct 2001 07:12:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from VSVAPOSTALGW1.prod.netsol.com (vsvapostalgw1.prod.netsol.com [216.168.234.201]) by heron.verisign.com (nsi_0.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id HAA15326; Mon, 15 Oct 2001 07:11:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: by VSVAPOSTALGW1.prod.netsol.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <4VQ8A317>; Mon, 15 Oct 2001 07:11:19 -0400 Message-ID: <3CD14E451751BD42BA48AAA50B07BAD6C5FB52@vsvapostal3.prod.netsol.com> From: "Hollenbeck, Scott" To: =?iso-8859-1?Q?=27Patrik_F=E4ltstr=F6m=27?= , Richard Shockey , enum@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Enum] Revised Charter and Work Plan for ENUM WG Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2001 07:04:31 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by optimus.ietf.org id HAA19380 Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Enum Discussion List X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit >-----Original Message----- >From: Patrik Fältström [mailto:paf@cisco.com] >Sent: Monday, October 15, 2001 1:51 AM >To: Richard Shockey; enum@ietf.org >Subject: Re: [Enum] Revised Charter and Work Plan for ENUM WG > > >The steps forward are as follows: > >(1) If you have comments on this proposed charter, please send comments to >this mailing list. I doubt that Richard and myself managed to word >everything so perfectly that you don't have any comments... ;-) A general question: some of the work items may be seen by some as getting close to operational, implementation, or policy areas. What kind of boundaries can be agreed upon to ensure that the WG is clearly focused on engineering issues without getting drawn into non-engineering ratholes? >(2) If you have strawman proposals for documents which fit the descriptions >seen on the new charter, please forward to myself and Richard, so we can >approve them as wg documents. This so discussion on the work items can be >initiated. I've written a draft that describes a possible provisioning mechanism: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-hollenbeck-epp-e164-01.txt Please consider this document as a contribution. Sorry you won't be able to make SLC. -Scott- _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From enum-admin@ietf.org Mon Oct 15 12:04:57 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA03718 for ; Mon, 15 Oct 2001 12:04:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA27490; Mon, 15 Oct 2001 11:54:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA27458 for ; Mon, 15 Oct 2001 11:54:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from rainier.illuminet.com ([63.116.20.100]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA03462 for ; Mon, 15 Oct 2001 11:54:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from olwinexsmtp01.corp.illuminet.com (olwinexsmtp01.corp.illuminet.com [172.20.1.9]) by rainier.illuminet.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id IAA13703; Mon, 15 Oct 2001 08:53:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: by olwinexsmtp01.corp.illuminet.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <4Q9CJ8H7>; Mon, 15 Oct 2001 08:53:27 -0700 Message-ID: <1C1EEC765F843E44996971A80682118BBB8E71@opwinex01.corp.illuminet.com> From: Kevin McCandless To: "'Richard Shockey'" , enum@ietf.org Cc: "'enumf-gen@enumf.org'" Subject: RE: [Enum] Revised Charter and Work Plan for ENUM WG Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2001 08:53:18 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Enum Discussion List X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org Rich: I am glad to hear that the ENUM will become active again under the IETF. We have reviewed the 4 main charter objectives that you provided in the announcement. The 4 main charter objectives seem to be very similar to the charter items the ENUM Forum are working on. How do we avoid duplicate efforts? It might be worth having a meeting, at the 52 IETF in Salt Lake, to address this issue. Kevin........... -----Original Message----- From: Richard Shockey [mailto:rshockey@ix.netcom.com] Sent: Sunday, October 14, 2001 7:34 AM To: enum@ietf.org Subject: [Enum] Revised Charter and Work Plan for ENUM WG After consultation with the area directors Patrik and myself have developed a revised charter and work plan for going forward. The WG had gone into "slumber mode" after IETF Pittsburgh. In our judgement there is left over work to complete and there is sufficient new activity in various venues to justify considering technical work related to ENUM operations & implementations. At this time since we have no active ID's on the plate so there is no need to have a meeting in Salt Lake unless there is demand for it. The revised charter is open for comments: ##################################### Telephone Number Mapping (enum) Chair(s): mailto:paf@cisco.com mailto:rshockey@ix.netcom.com Transport Area Director(s): mailto:sob@harvard.edu mailto:mankin@isi.edu Transport Area Advisor: mailto:sob@harvard.edu Mailing Lists: General Discussion:enum@ietf.org To Subscribe: enum-request@ietf.org In Body: subscribe Archive: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf-mail-archive/enum/ Description of Working Group: This working group has defined a DNS-based architecture and protocol [RFC 2916] for mapping a telephone number to a set of attributes (e.g. URI's) which can be used to contact a resource associated with that number. Background: Telephone numbers now identify many different types of end terminals, supporting many different services and protocols. Telephone numbers are used to identify ordinary phones, fax machines, pagers, data modems, email clients, text terminals for the hearing impaired, etc. A prospective caller may wish to discover which services and protocols are supported by the terminal named by a given telephone number. The caller may also require more information than just the telephone number to communicate with the terminal. From the call recipient's perspective, the owner of the telephone number or device may wish to control what URI's, calling parties may receive. The architecture must allow for different service providers, competing openly, to provision the data base of end point information required by clients to reach the desired the terminal device or service named by a telephone number. Working Group Revised Goals and Scope: 1. The working group will, from a technical viewpoint describe how the registry/registrar model used for DNS provisioning could be applied to the global ENUM based branches of the DNS hierarchy and document various aspects of ENUM administrative / operational procedures within that context as Informational 2. The working group will update RFC 2916 to reflect the ongoing revision of RFC 2915. 3. The working group will consider various aspects of privacy, security, validation, authentication and provisioning of the global ENUM branches of the DNS including RFC 2915 (and revisions) records as Informational. Such documents could be used as models for various national implementations of RFC 2916 by the appropriate authorities over those portions of the global ENUM namespace. 4. The Working Group will continue maintain contact and liaison with appropriate standards bodies and groups in order to coordinate activities and provide appropriate technical input when required, in particular ITU Study Group 2 and other national ENUM administrative forums. The Working Group, in the sprit of technical exchange, will welcome technical information, updates etc., from various national ENUM administration forums, other standards bodies, as well as documentation on practical experiences with implementations of RFC 2916. Document deliverables: 1. Revise and update RFC 2916 appropriate to revision of RFC 2915 (Standards Track) April 2002 2. Document appropriate ENUM Administrative Procedures (Informational) March 2002 3. Document appropriate ENUM Operational Procedures (Informational) May 2002 4. Document appropriate ENUM Provisioning Procedures and Data Sets (Informational) TBD No Current Internet-Drafts Request For Comments: E.164 number and DNS (RFC 2916) (18159 bytes) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard Shockey, Senior Manager, Strategic Technology Initiatives NeuStar Inc. 45980 Center Oak Plaza Bldg 8 Sterling, VA 20166 1120 Vermont Ave NW Suite 400 Washington DC 20005 Voice 571.434.5651 Cell : 314.503.0640, Fax: 815.333.1237 or <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From enum-admin@ietf.org Mon Oct 15 13:21:44 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA06280 for ; Mon, 15 Oct 2001 13:21:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA00048; Mon, 15 Oct 2001 13:11:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA00015 for ; Mon, 15 Oct 2001 13:11:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from cisco.com (nordic.cisco.com [64.103.48.45]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA05731 for ; Mon, 15 Oct 2001 13:11:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [192.168.1.5] (ssh-sj1.cisco.com [171.68.225.134]) by cisco.com (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) with ESMTP id TAA29379; Mon, 15 Oct 2001 19:10:46 +0200 (MET DST) Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2001 18:55:38 +0200 From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Patrik_F=E4ltstr=F6m?= To: "Hollenbeck, Scott" , Richard Shockey , enum@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Enum] Revised Charter and Work Plan for ENUM WG Message-ID: <4690309.1003172138@localhost> In-Reply-To: <3CD14E451751BD42BA48AAA50B07BAD6C5FB52@vsvapostal3.prod.netsol.com> References: <3CD14E451751BD42BA48AAA50B07BAD6C5FB52@vsvapostal3.prod.netsol. com> X-Mailer: Mulberry/2.1.0 (Mac OS X) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Enum Discussion List X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit --On 2001-10-15 07.04 -0400 "Hollenbeck, Scott" wrote: >> (1) If you have comments on this proposed charter, please send comments >> to this mailing list. I doubt that Richard and myself managed to word >> everything so perfectly that you don't have any comments... ;-) > > A general question: some of the work items may be seen by some as getting > close to operational, implementation, or policy areas. What kind of > boundaries can be agreed upon to ensure that the WG is clearly focused on > engineering issues without getting drawn into non-engineering ratholes? The more technical and less policy, the better. The more the technical suggestions allow different policy mechanisms the better. paf _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From enum-admin@ietf.org Mon Oct 15 13:21:52 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA06294 for ; Mon, 15 Oct 2001 13:21:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA00089; Mon, 15 Oct 2001 13:11:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA00056 for ; Mon, 15 Oct 2001 13:11:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: from cisco.com (nordic.cisco.com [64.103.48.45]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA05738 for ; Mon, 15 Oct 2001 13:11:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [192.168.1.5] (ssh-sj1.cisco.com [171.68.225.134]) by cisco.com (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) with ESMTP id TAA29395; Mon, 15 Oct 2001 19:10:56 +0200 (MET DST) Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2001 19:06:28 +0200 From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Patrik_F=E4ltstr=F6m?= To: Kevin McCandless , "'Richard Shockey'" , enum@ietf.org cc: "'enumf-gen@enumf.org'" Subject: RE: [Enum] Revised Charter and Work Plan for ENUM WG Message-ID: <4729264.1003172788@localhost> In-Reply-To: <1C1EEC765F843E44996971A80682118BBB8E71@opwinex01.corp.illuminet.com> References: <1C1EEC765F843E44996971A80682118BBB8E71@opwinex01.corp.illuminet .com> X-Mailer: Mulberry/2.1.0 (Mac OS X) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Enum Discussion List X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit --On 2001-10-15 08.53 -0700 Kevin McCandless wrote: > The 4 main charter objectives seem to be very similar to the > charter items the ENUM Forum are working on. How do we avoid duplicate > efforts? It might be worth having a meeting, at the 52 IETF in Salt Lake, > to address this issue. ENUM Forum is a membership organisation. The orgin is described by the ENUM Forum itself: > The July 6, 2001 report developed for the Department of State by ITAC-T, > Study Group A Ad Hoc on ENUM, recommended the formation of an open > industry forum to continue the work started in the Ad Hoc. This ENUM > Forum is the result of that recommendation. The ENUM Forum is > established to develop industry standard processes, procedures, and > requirements to implement both public and private instances of an ENUM > Domain Name structure for ITU Recommendation E.164 numbers that reside > within the U.S. and potentially other countries of the North American > Numbering Plan. The IETF works on international issues, and not NANP-Centric issues, and further, IETF does not require memberships etc for participation. That said, anyone can submit documents to the IETF for review and standardization, so also individuals which work in the ENUM Forum and similar organizations in other countries. It is very normal that topic-based organizations work in parallell with the IETF, and normally the result is that the topic-based organization come with specific input to the IETF process, help keeping the IETF process running by participating actively, and, in it's own process talk about how to implement the RFC's which are the outcome of the IETF process. I.e. IETF can not tell anyone to follow the RFC's. So, yes, the IETF might discuss documents which overlap with what ENUM Forum (and others) do, but, I am not afraid of double work. Regards, Patrik co-chair of the ENUM working group in the IETF _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From enum-admin@ietf.org Mon Oct 15 13:57:41 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA07962 for ; Mon, 15 Oct 2001 13:57:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA01360; Mon, 15 Oct 2001 13:48:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA01333 for ; Mon, 15 Oct 2001 13:48:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: from joy.songbird.com (IDENT:root@songbird.com [208.184.79.7]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA07435 for ; Mon, 15 Oct 2001 13:48:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from bbprime.dcrocker.net (c1193160-a.snvl1.sfba.home.com [65.0.152.112]) by joy.songbird.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA28896; Mon, 15 Oct 2001 10:48:10 -0700 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20011015104239.03b00900@dcrocker.net> X-Sender: dhc@brandenburg.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2001 10:48:51 -0700 To: Patrik Fältström From: Dave Crocker Subject: RE: [Enum] Revised Charter and Work Plan for ENUM WG Cc: enum@ietf.org, "'enumf-gen@enumf.org'" In-Reply-To: <4729264.1003172788@localhost> References: < <1C1EEC765F843E44996971A80682118BBB8E71@opwinex01.corp.illuminet.com> <1C1EEC765F843E44996971A80682118BBB8E71@opwinex01.corp.illuminet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Enum Discussion List X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit At 10:06 AM 10/15/2001, Patrik Fältström wrote: >The IETF works on international issues, and not NANP-Centric issues, and >further, IETF does not require memberships etc for participation. > >That said, anyone can submit documents to the IETF for review and >standardization, so also individuals which work in the ENUM Forum and >similar organizations in other countries. Patrik, et al, You have highlighted differences in "turf", and you are of course correct. However I believe there is also a difference that is compatible, namely that the ENUM Forum, like similar trade associations, is involved with pre- and post-standards efforts. Technical standards do not specify an entire service. They specify the technical aspects of a service. Quite a bit of additional work is needed to flesh things out into a viable activity that USES the standards. This nicely and necessarily augments technical standards work and, yes, also provides feedback. >So, yes, the IETF might discuss documents which overlap with what ENUM >Forum (and others) do, but, I am not afraid of double work. Sometimes a technical standards body encroaches into policy. Sometimes a trade association encroaches into the territory of technical standards creation. Double work is a legitimate concern. However it need not be a major one. (I know you know this, Patrik. I added it to make sure that readers of this thread do not miss the point, or feel the need to comment on it.) d/ ---------- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking tel +1.408.246.8253; fax +1.408.273.6464 _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From enum-admin@ietf.org Wed Oct 17 12:15:27 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA28858 for ; Wed, 17 Oct 2001 12:15:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA00806; Wed, 17 Oct 2001 12:04:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA00775 for ; Wed, 17 Oct 2001 12:04:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: from rainier.illuminet.com ([63.116.20.100]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA28495 for ; Wed, 17 Oct 2001 12:04:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: from olwinexsmtp01.corp.illuminet.com (olwinexsmtp01.corp.illuminet.com [172.20.1.9]) by rainier.illuminet.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id JAA08587; Wed, 17 Oct 2001 09:04:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: by olwinexsmtp01.corp.illuminet.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Wed, 17 Oct 2001 09:04:22 -0700 Message-ID: <1C1EEC765F843E44996971A80682118BBB8EB1@opwinex01.corp.illuminet.com> From: Kevin McCandless To: "'Richard Shockey'" , enum@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Enum] Revised Charter and Work Plan for ENUM WG Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2001 09:04:21 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Enum Discussion List X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org Possible enhancements to the new charter could be as follows: 1) Identify the valid NAPTR records and formats for all possible services and update RFC2916. 2) Identify enhancements need, protocol etc, that need to be made to allow such applications as IE to perform ENUM queries. 3) Work with other task groups to develop possible application uses for the ENUM protocol. Add these as an appendix to RFC 2916 Your items 2-4 look good. Also, would recommend a meeting at the 52 IETF. Let the flaming begin......... Kevin -----Original Message----- From: Richard Shockey [mailto:rshockey@ix.netcom.com] Sent: Sunday, October 14, 2001 7:34 AM To: enum@ietf.org Subject: [Enum] Revised Charter and Work Plan for ENUM WG After consultation with the area directors Patrik and myself have developed a revised charter and work plan for going forward. The WG had gone into "slumber mode" after IETF Pittsburgh. In our judgement there is left over work to complete and there is sufficient new activity in various venues to justify considering technical work related to ENUM operations & implementations. At this time since we have no active ID's on the plate so there is no need to have a meeting in Salt Lake unless there is demand for it. The revised charter is open for comments: ##################################### Telephone Number Mapping (enum) Chair(s): mailto:paf@cisco.com mailto:rshockey@ix.netcom.com Transport Area Director(s): mailto:sob@harvard.edu mailto:mankin@isi.edu Transport Area Advisor: mailto:sob@harvard.edu Mailing Lists: General Discussion:enum@ietf.org To Subscribe: enum-request@ietf.org In Body: subscribe Archive: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf-mail-archive/enum/ Description of Working Group: This working group has defined a DNS-based architecture and protocol [RFC 2916] for mapping a telephone number to a set of attributes (e.g. URI's) which can be used to contact a resource associated with that number. Background: Telephone numbers now identify many different types of end terminals, supporting many different services and protocols. Telephone numbers are used to identify ordinary phones, fax machines, pagers, data modems, email clients, text terminals for the hearing impaired, etc. A prospective caller may wish to discover which services and protocols are supported by the terminal named by a given telephone number. The caller may also require more information than just the telephone number to communicate with the terminal. From the call recipient's perspective, the owner of the telephone number or device may wish to control what URI's, calling parties may receive. The architecture must allow for different service providers, competing openly, to provision the data base of end point information required by clients to reach the desired the terminal device or service named by a telephone number. Working Group Revised Goals and Scope: 1. The working group will, from a technical viewpoint describe how the registry/registrar model used for DNS provisioning could be applied to the global ENUM based branches of the DNS hierarchy and document various aspects of ENUM administrative / operational procedures within that context as Informational 2. The working group will update RFC 2916 to reflect the ongoing revision of RFC 2915. 3. The working group will consider various aspects of privacy, security, validation, authentication and provisioning of the global ENUM branches of the DNS including RFC 2915 (and revisions) records as Informational. Such documents could be used as models for various national implementations of RFC 2916 by the appropriate authorities over those portions of the global ENUM namespace. 4. The Working Group will continue maintain contact and liaison with appropriate standards bodies and groups in order to coordinate activities and provide appropriate technical input when required, in particular ITU Study Group 2 and other national ENUM administrative forums. The Working Group, in the sprit of technical exchange, will welcome technical information, updates etc., from various national ENUM administration forums, other standards bodies, as well as documentation on practical experiences with implementations of RFC 2916. Document deliverables: 1. Revise and update RFC 2916 appropriate to revision of RFC 2915 (Standards Track) April 2002 2. Document appropriate ENUM Administrative Procedures (Informational) March 2002 3. Document appropriate ENUM Operational Procedures (Informational) May 2002 4. Document appropriate ENUM Provisioning Procedures and Data Sets (Informational) TBD No Current Internet-Drafts Request For Comments: E.164 number and DNS (RFC 2916) (18159 bytes) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard Shockey, Senior Manager, Strategic Technology Initiatives NeuStar Inc. 45980 Center Oak Plaza Bldg 8 Sterling, VA 20166 1120 Vermont Ave NW Suite 400 Washington DC 20005 Voice 571.434.5651 Cell : 314.503.0640, Fax: 815.333.1237 or <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From enum-admin@ietf.org Fri Oct 19 17:02:59 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA01462 for ; Fri, 19 Oct 2001 17:02:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id QAA08279; Fri, 19 Oct 2001 16:51:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id QAA08249 for ; Fri, 19 Oct 2001 16:51:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from oak.neustar.com (oak.neustar.com [209.173.53.70]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA01148 for ; Fri, 19 Oct 2001 16:51:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: from rds.neustar.com (dmz1.va.neustar.com [209.173.53.65]) by oak.neustar.com (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f9JKpLt10742; Fri, 19 Oct 2001 16:51:21 -0400 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20011019130423.02e93b30@127.0.0.1> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2001 13:11:24 -0400 To: Kevin McCandless , enum@ietf.org From: Richard Shockey Subject: RE: [Enum] Revised Charter and Work Plan for ENUM WG In-Reply-To: <1C1EEC765F843E44996971A80682118BBB8EB1@opwinex01.corp.illu minet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Enum Discussion List X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org At 09:04 AM 10/17/2001 -0700, Kevin McCandless wrote: >Possible enhancements to the new charter could be as follows: > >1) Identify the valid NAPTR records and formats for all possible services >and update RFC2916. I think this is implied but we need to make sure that the various WG's that have services take on this work of defining the NAPTR records and possible application behavior. I dont want to step on the toes of the SIP WG or VPIM etc. There will be a need for a IANA registration proceedure for NAPTR records etc but that is part of the revision of 2915 >2) Identify enhancements need, protocol etc, that need to be made to allow >such applications as IE to perform ENUM queries. I'm not sure what you mean here .. IE is just another application that could process NAPTR records. >3) Work with other task groups to develop possible application uses for the >ENUM protocol. Add these as an appendix to RFC 2916 note above >Your items 2-4 look good. > >Also, would recommend a meeting at the 52 IETF. Do you have a proposed agenda?? We dont have any documents to discuss or decisions to make or do you just feel there is value in individuals updating the ENUM community on current events etc? >Let the flaming begin......... > >Kevin > >-----Original Message----- >From: Richard Shockey [mailto:rshockey@ix.netcom.com] >Sent: Sunday, October 14, 2001 7:34 AM >To: enum@ietf.org >Subject: [Enum] Revised Charter and Work Plan for ENUM WG > > > >After consultation with the area directors Patrik and myself have developed >a revised charter and work plan for going forward. > >The WG had gone into "slumber mode" after IETF Pittsburgh. In our judgement >there is left over work to complete and there is sufficient new activity in >various venues to justify considering technical work related to ENUM >operations & implementations. > >At this time since we have no active ID's on the plate so there is no need >to have a meeting in Salt Lake unless there is demand for it. > >The revised charter is open for comments: > >##################################### > > >Telephone Number Mapping (enum) > >Chair(s): >mailto:paf@cisco.com >mailto:rshockey@ix.netcom.com > >Transport Area Director(s): >mailto:sob@harvard.edu >mailto:mankin@isi.edu > >Transport Area Advisor: >mailto:sob@harvard.edu > >Mailing Lists: >General Discussion:enum@ietf.org >To Subscribe: enum-request@ietf.org >In Body: subscribe >Archive: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf-mail-archive/enum/ > >Description of Working Group: > >This working group has defined a DNS-based architecture and protocol [RFC >2916] for mapping a telephone number to a set of attributes (e.g. URI's) >which can be used to contact a resource associated with that number. > >Background: >Telephone numbers now identify many different types of end terminals, >supporting many different services and protocols. Telephone numbers are >used to identify ordinary phones, fax machines, pagers, data modems, email >clients, text terminals for the hearing impaired, etc. >A prospective caller may wish to discover which services and protocols are >supported by the terminal named by a given telephone number. The caller may >also require more information than just the telephone number to communicate >with the terminal. > From the call recipient's perspective, the owner of the telephone number >or device may wish to control what URI's, calling parties may receive. >The architecture must allow for different service providers, competing >openly, to provision the data base of end point information required by >clients to reach the desired the terminal device or service named by a >telephone number. > >Working Group Revised Goals and Scope: >1. The working group will, from a technical viewpoint describe how the >registry/registrar model used for DNS provisioning could be applied to the >global ENUM based branches of the DNS hierarchy and document various >aspects of ENUM administrative / operational procedures within that context >as Informational >2. The working group will update RFC 2916 to reflect the ongoing >revision of RFC 2915. >3. The working group will consider various aspects of privacy, >security, validation, authentication and provisioning of the global ENUM >branches of the DNS including RFC 2915 (and revisions) records as >Informational. Such documents could be used as models for various national >implementations of RFC 2916 by the appropriate authorities over those >portions of the global ENUM namespace. >4. The Working Group will continue maintain contact and liaison with >appropriate standards bodies and groups in order to coordinate activities >and provide appropriate technical input when required, in particular ITU >Study Group 2 and other national ENUM administrative forums. The Working >Group, in the sprit of technical exchange, will welcome technical >information, updates etc., from various national ENUM administration >forums, other standards bodies, as well as documentation on practical >experiences with implementations of RFC 2916. > >Document deliverables: >1. Revise and update RFC 2916 appropriate to revision of RFC 2915 >(Standards Track) April 2002 >2. Document appropriate ENUM Administrative Procedures (Informational) >March 2002 >3. Document appropriate ENUM Operational Procedures >(Informational) May 2002 >4. Document appropriate ENUM Provisioning Procedures and Data Sets >(Informational) TBD > >No Current Internet-Drafts >Request For Comments: >E.164 number and DNS (RFC 2916) (18159 bytes) > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >Richard Shockey, Senior Manager, Strategic Technology Initiatives >NeuStar Inc. >45980 Center Oak Plaza Bldg 8 Sterling, VA 20166 >1120 Vermont Ave NW Suite 400 Washington DC 20005 >Voice 571.434.5651 Cell : 314.503.0640, Fax: 815.333.1237 > or > > > ><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< > > >_______________________________________________ >enum mailing list >enum@ietf.org >http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum > >_______________________________________________ >enum mailing list >enum@ietf.org >http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard Shockey, Senior Manager, Strategic Technology Initiatives NeuStar Inc. 45980 Center Oak Plaza Bldg 8 Sterling, VA 20166 1120 Vermont Ave NW Suite 400 Washington DC 20005 Voice 571.434.5651 Cell : 314.503.0640, Fax: 815.333.1237 or <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From enum-admin@ietf.org Fri Oct 19 17:21:02 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA02049 for ; Fri, 19 Oct 2001 17:21:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id RAA09221; Fri, 19 Oct 2001 17:11:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id RAA09183 for ; Fri, 19 Oct 2001 17:11:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: from rainier.illuminet.com ([63.116.20.100]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA01746 for ; Fri, 19 Oct 2001 17:11:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: from olwinexsmtp01.corp.illuminet.com (olwinexsmtp01.corp.illuminet.com [172.20.1.9]) by rainier.illuminet.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id OAA18220; Fri, 19 Oct 2001 14:11:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: by olwinexsmtp01.corp.illuminet.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Fri, 19 Oct 2001 14:11:01 -0700 Message-ID: <1C1EEC765F843E44996971A80682118BBB8EF1@opwinex01.corp.illuminet.com> From: Kevin McCandless To: "'Richard Shockey'" , enum@ietf.org Subject: RE: [ENUM] Revised Charter and Work Plan for ENUM WG Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2001 14:10:17 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Enum Discussion List X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org comments in line -----Original Message----- From: Richard Shockey [mailto:rich.shockey@NeuStar.com] Sent: Friday, October 19, 2001 12:11 PM To: Kevin McCandless; enum@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Enum] Revised Charter and Work Plan for ENUM WG At 09:04 AM 10/17/2001 -0700, Kevin McCandless wrote: >Possible enhancements to the new charter could be as follows: > >1) Identify the valid NAPTR records and formats for all possible services >and update RFC2916. I think this is implied but we need to make sure that the various WG's that have services take on this work of defining the NAPTR records and possible application behavior. I dont want to step on the toes of the SIP WG or VPIM etc. There will be a need for a IANA registration proceedure for NAPTR records etc but that is part of the revision of 2915 I agree that we do not want to step on anyone's toes but it would be useful to document the NAPTR records in RFC2916. I have reviewed RFC2915 and that describes a NAPTR but does not give specific ones. >2) Identify enhancements need, protocol etc, that need to be made to allow >such applications as IE to perform ENUM queries. I'm not sure what you mean here .. IE is just another application that could process NAPTR records. Maybe a little wishful thinking here. Knowing that ENUM will flower when standard applications such as IE have the ability to do ENUM look ups and bring back valid URIs. >3) Work with other task groups to develop possible application uses for the >ENUM protocol. Add these as an appendix to RFC 2916 note above Several of the work groups have worked on drafts targeting specific examples of their protocol. SIP is a good example. You have drafts such as SIP call flows and the SIN design team. This could be an appendix to RFC2916 or another a completely different draft under the ENUM working group. So, the draft or appendix would contain example applications for ENUM based on the input of the other working groups, VPIM and SIP etc. >Your items 2-4 look good. > >Also, would recommend a meeting at the 52 IETF. Do you have a proposed agenda?? We dont have any documents to discuss or decisions to make or do you just feel there is value in individuals updating the ENUM community on current events etc? Yes, we do not have any drafts to discuss. But it would be useful to allow people to voice their opinions in a face-to-face forum on the new charter for ENUM and discuss possible extensions to RFC2916 or new drafts that need developing as mentioned above. Yes, since ENUM is becoming a very hot topic it would be of value to update the community on current events and directions. The meeting does not have to last the typical 1 hour and 30 minutes. >Let the flaming begin......... > >Kevin > >-----Original Message----- >From: Richard Shockey [mailto:rshockey@ix.netcom.com] >Sent: Sunday, October 14, 2001 7:34 AM >To: enum@ietf.org >Subject: [Enum] Revised Charter and Work Plan for ENUM WG > > > >After consultation with the area directors Patrik and myself have developed >a revised charter and work plan for going forward. > >The WG had gone into "slumber mode" after IETF Pittsburgh. In our judgement >there is left over work to complete and there is sufficient new activity in >various venues to justify considering technical work related to ENUM >operations & implementations. > >At this time since we have no active ID's on the plate so there is no need >to have a meeting in Salt Lake unless there is demand for it. > >The revised charter is open for comments: > >##################################### > > >Telephone Number Mapping (enum) > >Chair(s): >mailto:paf@cisco.com >mailto:rshockey@ix.netcom.com > >Transport Area Director(s): >mailto:sob@harvard.edu >mailto:mankin@isi.edu > >Transport Area Advisor: >mailto:sob@harvard.edu > >Mailing Lists: >General Discussion:enum@ietf.org >To Subscribe: enum-request@ietf.org >In Body: subscribe >Archive: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf-mail-archive/enum/ > >Description of Working Group: > >This working group has defined a DNS-based architecture and protocol [RFC >2916] for mapping a telephone number to a set of attributes (e.g. URI's) >which can be used to contact a resource associated with that number. > >Background: >Telephone numbers now identify many different types of end terminals, >supporting many different services and protocols. Telephone numbers are >used to identify ordinary phones, fax machines, pagers, data modems, email >clients, text terminals for the hearing impaired, etc. >A prospective caller may wish to discover which services and protocols are >supported by the terminal named by a given telephone number. The caller may >also require more information than just the telephone number to communicate >with the terminal. > From the call recipient's perspective, the owner of the telephone number >or device may wish to control what URI's, calling parties may receive. >The architecture must allow for different service providers, competing >openly, to provision the data base of end point information required by >clients to reach the desired the terminal device or service named by a >telephone number. > >Working Group Revised Goals and Scope: >1. The working group will, from a technical viewpoint describe how the >registry/registrar model used for DNS provisioning could be applied to the >global ENUM based branches of the DNS hierarchy and document various >aspects of ENUM administrative / operational procedures within that context >as Informational >2. The working group will update RFC 2916 to reflect the ongoing >revision of RFC 2915. >3. The working group will consider various aspects of privacy, >security, validation, authentication and provisioning of the global ENUM >branches of the DNS including RFC 2915 (and revisions) records as >Informational. Such documents could be used as models for various national >implementations of RFC 2916 by the appropriate authorities over those >portions of the global ENUM namespace. >4. The Working Group will continue maintain contact and liaison with >appropriate standards bodies and groups in order to coordinate activities >and provide appropriate technical input when required, in particular ITU >Study Group 2 and other national ENUM administrative forums. The Working >Group, in the sprit of technical exchange, will welcome technical >information, updates etc., from various national ENUM administration >forums, other standards bodies, as well as documentation on practical >experiences with implementations of RFC 2916. > >Document deliverables: >1. Revise and update RFC 2916 appropriate to revision of RFC 2915 >(Standards Track) April 2002 >2. Document appropriate ENUM Administrative Procedures (Informational) >March 2002 >3. Document appropriate ENUM Operational Procedures >(Informational) May 2002 >4. Document appropriate ENUM Provisioning Procedures and Data Sets >(Informational) TBD > >No Current Internet-Drafts >Request For Comments: >E.164 number and DNS (RFC 2916) (18159 bytes) > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >Richard Shockey, Senior Manager, Strategic Technology Initiatives >NeuStar Inc. >45980 Center Oak Plaza Bldg 8 Sterling, VA 20166 >1120 Vermont Ave NW Suite 400 Washington DC 20005 >Voice 571.434.5651 Cell : 314.503.0640, Fax: 815.333.1237 > or > > > ><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< > > >_______________________________________________ >enum mailing list >enum@ietf.org >http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum > >_______________________________________________ >enum mailing list >enum@ietf.org >http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard Shockey, Senior Manager, Strategic Technology Initiatives NeuStar Inc. 45980 Center Oak Plaza Bldg 8 Sterling, VA 20166 1120 Vermont Ave NW Suite 400 Washington DC 20005 Voice 571.434.5651 Cell : 314.503.0640, Fax: 815.333.1237 or <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From enum-admin@ietf.org Fri Oct 19 20:22:25 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA07392 for ; Fri, 19 Oct 2001 20:22:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id UAA12952; Fri, 19 Oct 2001 20:13:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id UAA12923 for ; Fri, 19 Oct 2001 20:13:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: from cisco.com (nordic.cisco.com [64.103.48.45]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA07039 for ; Fri, 19 Oct 2001 20:13:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [192.168.1.5] (ssh-ams1.cisco.com [144.254.74.55]) by cisco.com (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) with ESMTP id CAA20757; Sat, 20 Oct 2001 02:12:40 +0200 (MET DST) Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2001 02:08:31 +0200 From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Patrik_F=E4ltstr=F6m?= To: Kevin McCandless , "'Richard Shockey'" , enum@ietf.org Subject: RE: [ENUM] Revised Charter and Work Plan for ENUM WG Message-ID: <4181753.1003543711@localhost> In-Reply-To: <1C1EEC765F843E44996971A80682118BBB8EF1@opwinex01.corp.illuminet.com> References: <1C1EEC765F843E44996971A80682118BBB8EF1@opwinex01.corp.illuminet .com> X-Mailer: Mulberry/2.1.0 (Mac OS X) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Enum Discussion List X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit --On 2001-10-19 14.10 -0700 Kevin McCandless wrote: > The meeting does not have to last the typical 1 hour and 30 > minutes. Internet-Drafts are needed, as many people, like myself, is not able to participate at face to face meeting(s). I.e. referencing an I-D is the only valuable way of moving forward in the IETF. Face to face meetings solve some problems though...and I am happy that some people will, and can meet. paf _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From enum-admin@ietf.org Sun Oct 21 11:55:22 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA14688 for ; Sun, 21 Oct 2001 11:55:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA11783; Sun, 21 Oct 2001 11:44:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA11752 for ; Sun, 21 Oct 2001 11:44:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: from granger.mail.mindspring.net (granger.mail.mindspring.net [207.69.200.148]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA14570 for ; Sun, 21 Oct 2001 11:44:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: from rds.ix.netcom.com (user-2ivelso.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.87.152]) by granger.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with ESMTP id LAA05074; Sun, 21 Oct 2001 11:44:16 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20011021114657.02d03ad0@127.0.0.1> X-Sender: rshockey/popd.ix.netcom.com@127.0.0.1 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2001 11:49:43 -0400 To: Patrik =?iso-8859-1?Q?F=E4ltstr=F6m?= , Kevin McCandless , "'Richard Shockey'" , enum@ietf.org From: Richard Shockey Subject: RE: [ENUM] Revised Charter and Work Plan for ENUM WG In-Reply-To: <4181753.1003543711@localhost> References: <1C1EEC765F843E44996971A80682118BBB8EF1@opwinex01.corp.illuminet.com> <1C1EEC765F843E44996971A80682118BBB8EF1@opwinex01.corp.illuminet .com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by optimus.ietf.org id LAA11753 Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Enum Discussion List X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit At 02:08 AM 10/20/2001 +0200, Patrik Fältström wrote: >--On 2001-10-19 14.10 -0700 Kevin McCandless >wrote: > > > The meeting does not have to last the typical 1 hour and 30 > > minutes. > >Internet-Drafts are needed, as many people, like myself, is not able to >participate at face to face meeting(s). > >I.e. referencing an I-D is the only valuable way of moving forward in the >IETF. > >Face to face meetings solve some problems though...and I am happy that some >people will, and can meet. Again .. I personally have no objections to one 1 hour meeting etc..in SLC but I'd like to get some other views here ASAP since if there is some consensus on a quick get together I'd need to request a room and consider suggestions for agenda etc.. > paf >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard Shockey, Senior Manager, Strategic Technology Initiatives NeuStar Inc. 45980 Center Oak Plaza Bldg 8 Sterling, VA 20166 1120 Vermont Ave NW Suite 400 Washington DC 20005 Voice 571.434.5651 Cell : 314.503.0640, Fax: 815.333.1237 or <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From enum-admin@ietf.org Sun Oct 21 12:17:07 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA14892 for ; Sun, 21 Oct 2001 12:17:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA12698; Sun, 21 Oct 2001 12:08:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA12670 for ; Sun, 21 Oct 2001 12:08:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pimout4-int.prodigy.net (pimout4-ext.prodigy.net [207.115.63.103]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA14801 for ; Sun, 21 Oct 2001 12:08:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pc (dialup-63.215.114.87.Dial1.Chicago1.Level3.net [63.215.114.87]) by pimout4-int.prodigy.net (8.11.0/8.11.0) with SMTP id f9LG8Em16532; Sun, 21 Oct 2001 12:08:14 -0400 Message-ID: <001401c15a4b$fb5233c0$5772d73f@pc> From: "Jim Fleming" To: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Patrik_F=E4ltstr=F6m?= , "Kevin McCandless" , "'Richard Shockey'" , , "Richard Shockey" References: <1C1EEC765F843E44996971A80682118BBB8EF1@opwinex01.corp.illuminet.com> <1C1EEC765F843E44996971A80682118BBB8EF1@opwinex01.corp.illuminet .com> <5.1.0.14.2.20011021114657.02d03ad0@127.0.0.1> Subject: Re: [ENUM] Revised Charter and Work Plan for ENUM WG Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2001 11:18:10 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Enum Discussion List X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit What is the problem you are trying to solve ? Jim Fleming Why gamble with a .BIZ Lottery? Start a real .BIZ Today ! http://www.DOT-BIZ.com 0:212 - BIZ World ----- Original Message ----- From: "Richard Shockey" To: "Patrik Fältström" ; "Kevin McCandless" ; "'Richard Shockey'" ; Sent: Sunday, October 21, 2001 10:49 AM Subject: RE: [ENUM] Revised Charter and Work Plan for ENUM WG At 02:08 AM 10/20/2001 +0200, Patrik Fältström wrote: >--On 2001-10-19 14.10 -0700 Kevin McCandless >wrote: > > > The meeting does not have to last the typical 1 hour and 30 > > minutes. > >Internet-Drafts are needed, as many people, like myself, is not able to >participate at face to face meeting(s). > >I.e. referencing an I-D is the only valuable way of moving forward in the >IETF. > >Face to face meetings solve some problems though...and I am happy that some >people will, and can meet. Again .. I personally have no objections to one 1 hour meeting etc..in SLC but I'd like to get some other views here ASAP since if there is some consensus on a quick get together I'd need to request a room and consider suggestions for agenda etc.. > paf >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard Shockey, Senior Manager, Strategic Technology Initiatives NeuStar Inc. 45980 Center Oak Plaza Bldg 8 Sterling, VA 20166 1120 Vermont Ave NW Suite 400 Washington DC 20005 Voice 571.434.5651 Cell : 314.503.0640, Fax: 815.333.1237 or <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From enum-admin@ietf.org Sun Oct 21 14:07:53 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA15840 for ; Sun, 21 Oct 2001 14:07:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA15096; Sun, 21 Oct 2001 13:59:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA15065 for ; Sun, 21 Oct 2001 13:59:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from blake.i-email.net (blake.i-email.net [203.126.116.232]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA15743 for ; Sun, 21 Oct 2001 13:59:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from maynardibm (blake.i-email.net [203.126.116.232]) by blake.i-email.net (Postfix) with SMTP id 919A4A8901 for ; Mon, 22 Oct 2001 01:58:59 +0800 (SGT) Message-ID: <003101c15a5a$096f9a70$0264a8c0@maynardibm> From: "Maynard Kang" To: Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 01:58:49 +0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Enum] Slight error in RFC 2916 section 3.1.2? Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Enum Discussion List X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi all, maybe a bit late to bring this up, but... Did anyone notice that the specification for E.164-to-URI resolution service in RFC 2916 Section 3.1.2 might have had a slight error? In the rs convention described by RFC 2483, URI is denoted by "I" and not "U". Keeping inline with this, E.164-to-URI should be thus "E2I" and not "E2U". Other rs using an E164 number as the operand can then be defined according to the same convention (e.g. E2C, E2L, E2R). regards, maynard Maynard Kang maynard@i-dns.net _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From enum-admin@ietf.org Mon Oct 22 15:56:32 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA28416 for ; Mon, 22 Oct 2001 15:56:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id PAA04182; Mon, 22 Oct 2001 15:46:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id PAA04153 for ; Mon, 22 Oct 2001 15:46:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from oak.neustar.com (oak.neustar.com [209.173.53.70]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA28169 for ; Mon, 22 Oct 2001 15:46:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: from rds.neustar.com (dmz1.va.neustar.com [209.173.53.65]) by oak.neustar.com (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f9MJjm223038 for ; Mon, 22 Oct 2001 15:46:12 -0400 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20011022154937.036d8d50@127.0.0.1> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 15:50:07 -0400 To: enum@ietf.org From: Richard Shockey Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Subject: [Enum] Fwd: BCP 52, RFC 3172 on arpa Guidelines Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Enum Discussion List X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org for those of you that do not subscribe to the IETF announce list... >To: IETF-Announce: ; >Subject: BCP 52, RFC 3172 on arpa Guidelines >Cc: rfc-ed@ISI.EDU >Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2001 15:52:15 -0700 >From: RFC Editor > > >A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries. > > > BCP 52 > RFC 3172 > > Title: Management Guidelines & Operational Requirements > for the Address and Routing Parameter Area Domain > ("arpa") > Author(s): G Huston, Editor > Status: Best Current Practice > Date: September 2001 > Mailbox: iab@iab.org > Pages: 8 > Characters: 18097 > See Also: BCP 52 > > I-D Tag: draft-iab-arpa-03.txt > > URL: ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/rfc3172.txt > > >This memo describes the management and operational requirements for >the address and routing parameter area ("arpa") domain. The "arpa" >domain is used to support a class of infrastructural identifier >spaces, providing a distributed database that translates elements of >a structured name space derived from a protocol family to service >names. The efficient and reliable operation of this DNS space is >essential to the integrity of operation of various services within >the Internet. The Internet Architecture Board (IAB) has the >responsibility, in cooperation with the Internet Corporation for >Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), to manage the "arpa" domain. >This document describes the principles used by the IAB in >undertaking this role. > >This documnet is a product of the Internet Architecture Board. > >This document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices for the >Internet Community, and requests discussion and suggestions for >improvements. Distribution of this memo is unlimited. > >This announcement is sent to the IETF list and the RFC-DIST list. >Requests to be added to or deleted from the IETF distribution list >should be sent to IETF-REQUEST@IETF.ORG. Requests to be >added to or deleted from the RFC-DIST distribution list should >be sent to RFC-DIST-REQUEST@RFC-EDITOR.ORG. > >Details on obtaining RFCs via FTP or EMAIL may be obtained by sending >an EMAIL message to rfc-info@RFC-EDITOR.ORG with the message body >help: ways_to_get_rfcs. For example: > > To: rfc-info@RFC-EDITOR.ORG > Subject: getting rfcs > > help: ways_to_get_rfcs > >Requests for special distribution should be addressed to either the >author of the RFC in question, or to RFC-Manager@RFC-EDITOR.ORG. Unless >specifically noted otherwise on the RFC itself, all RFCs are for >unlimited distribution.echo >Submissions for Requests for Comments should be sent to >RFC-EDITOR@RFC-EDITOR.ORG. Please consult RFC 2223, Instructions to RFC >Authors, for further information. > > >Joyce K. Reynolds and Sandy Ginoza >USC/Information Sciences Institute > >... > >Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant Mail Reader >implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version >of the RFCs. >Content-Type: text/plain >Content-ID: <011019155137.RFC@RFC-EDITOR.ORG> > >RETRIEVE: rfc >DOC-ID: rfc3172 > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard Shockey, Senior Manager, Strategic Technology Initiatives NeuStar Inc. 45980 Center Oak Plaza Bldg 8 Sterling, VA 20166 1120 Vermont Ave NW Suite 400 Washington DC 20005 Voice 571.434.5651 Cell : 314.503.0640, Fax: 815.333.1237 or <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From enum-admin@ietf.org Mon Oct 22 16:11:58 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA28811 for ; Mon, 22 Oct 2001 16:11:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id QAA04996; Mon, 22 Oct 2001 16:03:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id QAA04967 for ; Mon, 22 Oct 2001 16:03:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pimout4-int.prodigy.net (pimout4-ext.prodigy.net [207.115.63.103]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA28633 for ; Mon, 22 Oct 2001 16:02:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pc (dialup-63.208.67.217.Dial1.Chicago1.Level3.net [63.208.67.217]) by pimout4-int.prodigy.net (8.11.0/8.11.0) with SMTP id f9MK2rm68118; Mon, 22 Oct 2001 16:02:53 -0400 Message-ID: <048801c15b34$70454760$5772d73f@pc> From: "Jim Fleming" To: , "Richard Shockey" References: <5.1.0.14.2.20011022154937.036d8d50@127.0.0.1> Subject: Re: [Enum] Fwd: BCP 52, RFC 3172 on arpa Guidelines Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 15:02:10 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Enum Discussion List X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit .ARPA a very small Address Space.... Why would people pay for Address Space, when it is FREE ? Jim Fleming http://www.in-addr.info 3:219 INFO http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt ----- Original Message ----- From: "Richard Shockey" To: Sent: Monday, October 22, 2001 2:50 PM Subject: [Enum] Fwd: BCP 52, RFC 3172 on arpa Guidelines > > for those of you that do not subscribe to the IETF announce list... > > >To: IETF-Announce: ; > >Subject: BCP 52, RFC 3172 on arpa Guidelines > >Cc: rfc-ed@ISI.EDU > >Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2001 15:52:15 -0700 > >From: RFC Editor > > > > > >A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries. > > > > > > BCP 52 > > RFC 3172 > > > > Title: Management Guidelines & Operational Requirements > > for the Address and Routing Parameter Area Domain > > ("arpa") > > Author(s): G Huston, Editor > > Status: Best Current Practice > > Date: September 2001 > > Mailbox: iab@iab.org > > Pages: 8 > > Characters: 18097 > > See Also: BCP 52 > > > > I-D Tag: draft-iab-arpa-03.txt > > > > URL: ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/rfc3172.txt > > > > > >This memo describes the management and operational requirements for > >the address and routing parameter area ("arpa") domain. The "arpa" > >domain is used to support a class of infrastructural identifier > >spaces, providing a distributed database that translates elements of > >a structured name space derived from a protocol family to service > >names. The efficient and reliable operation of this DNS space is > >essential to the integrity of operation of various services within > >the Internet. The Internet Architecture Board (IAB) has the > >responsibility, in cooperation with the Internet Corporation for > >Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), to manage the "arpa" domain. > >This document describes the principles used by the IAB in > >undertaking this role. > > > >This documnet is a product of the Internet Architecture Board. > > > >This document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices for the > >Internet Community, and requests discussion and suggestions for > >improvements. Distribution of this memo is unlimited. > > > >This announcement is sent to the IETF list and the RFC-DIST list. > >Requests to be added to or deleted from the IETF distribution list > >should be sent to IETF-REQUEST@IETF.ORG. Requests to be > >added to or deleted from the RFC-DIST distribution list should > >be sent to RFC-DIST-REQUEST@RFC-EDITOR.ORG. > > > >Details on obtaining RFCs via FTP or EMAIL may be obtained by sending > >an EMAIL message to rfc-info@RFC-EDITOR.ORG with the message body > >help: ways_to_get_rfcs. For example: > > > > To: rfc-info@RFC-EDITOR.ORG > > Subject: getting rfcs > > > > help: ways_to_get_rfcs > > > >Requests for special distribution should be addressed to either the > >author of the RFC in question, or to RFC-Manager@RFC-EDITOR.ORG. Unless > >specifically noted otherwise on the RFC itself, all RFCs are for > >unlimited distribution.echo > >Submissions for Requests for Comments should be sent to > >RFC-EDITOR@RFC-EDITOR.ORG. Please consult RFC 2223, Instructions to RFC > >Authors, for further information. > > > > > >Joyce K. Reynolds and Sandy Ginoza > >USC/Information Sciences Institute > > > >... > > > >Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant Mail Reader > >implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version > >of the RFCs. > >Content-Type: text/plain > >Content-ID: <011019155137.RFC@RFC-EDITOR.ORG> > > > >RETRIEVE: rfc > >DOC-ID: rfc3172 > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > Richard Shockey, Senior Manager, Strategic Technology Initiatives > NeuStar Inc. > 45980 Center Oak Plaza Bldg 8 Sterling, VA 20166 > 1120 Vermont Ave NW Suite 400 Washington DC 20005 > Voice 571.434.5651 Cell : 314.503.0640, Fax: 815.333.1237 > or > > > > <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< > > > _______________________________________________ > enum mailing list > enum@ietf.org > http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From enum-admin@ietf.org Tue Oct 23 07:19:04 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA26168 for ; Tue, 23 Oct 2001 07:19:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id HAA05372; Tue, 23 Oct 2001 07:03:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id HAA05336 for ; Tue, 23 Oct 2001 07:03:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA25659; Tue, 23 Oct 2001 07:03:40 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200110231103.HAA25659@ietf.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; Boundary="NextPart" To: IETF-Announce: ; Cc: enum@ietf.org From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org Reply-to: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 07:03:39 -0400 Subject: [Enum] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-enum-e164-gstn-np-02.txt Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Enum Discussion List X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org --NextPart A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Telephone Number Mapping Working Group of the IETF. Title : Number Portability in the GSTN: An Overview Author(s) : M. Foster, T. McGarry, J. Yu Filename : draft-ietf-enum-e164-gstn-np-02.txt Pages : 26 Date : 22-Oct-01 This document provides an overview of E.164 telephone number portability (NP) in the Global Switched Telephone Network (GSTN). There are three types of number portability: service provider number portability (SPNP), location portability, and service portability. Service provider portability, the focus of the present draft, is a regulatory imperative in many countries seeking to liberalize local telephony service competition, by enabling end-users to retain pre- existing telephone numbers while changing service providers. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-enum-e164-gstn-np-02.txt To remove yourself from the IETF Announcement list, send a message to ietf-announce-request with the word unsubscribe in the body of the message. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the username "anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in, type "cd internet-drafts" and then "get draft-ietf-enum-e164-gstn-np-02.txt". A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail. Send a message to: mailserv@ietf.org. In the body type: "FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-enum-e164-gstn-np-02.txt". NOTE: The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility. To use this feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE" command. To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or a MIME-compliant mail reader. Different MIME-compliant mail readers exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with "multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on how to manipulate these messages. Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. --NextPart Content-Type: Multipart/Alternative; Boundary="OtherAccess" --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; access-type="mail-server"; server="mailserv@ietf.org" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <20011022135803.I-D@ietf.org> ENCODING mime FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-enum-e164-gstn-np-02.txt --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; name="draft-ietf-enum-e164-gstn-np-02.txt"; site="ftp.ietf.org"; access-type="anon-ftp"; directory="internet-drafts" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <20011022135803.I-D@ietf.org> --OtherAccess-- --NextPart-- _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From daemon@optimus.ietf.org Wed Oct 24 17:12:12 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA14560 for ; Wed, 24 Oct 2001 17:12:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id RAA29075 for enum-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 24 Oct 2001 17:12:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id QAA28423; Wed, 24 Oct 2001 16:59:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id QAA28392 for ; Wed, 24 Oct 2001 16:59:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from imo-d08.mx.aol.com (imo-d08.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.40]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA14305 for ; Wed, 24 Oct 2001 16:59:24 -0400 (EDT) From: HSilbiger@aol.com Received: from HSilbiger@aol.com by imo-d08.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31_r1.8.) id l.bd.15f27e59 (18559); Wed, 24 Oct 2001 16:58:56 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2001 16:58:55 EDT To: enum@ietf.org CC: hsilbiger@ieee.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_bd.15f27e59.2908858f_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10540 Subject: [Enum] (no subject) Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Enum Discussion List X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org --part1_bd.15f27e59.2908858f_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Since the proposed revised ENUM Charter was published there has been very little discussion on the proposal. This is either due to the proposed charter covering the subject perfectly or due to lack of interest. I have some suspicion that it is the latter. Intensive work is progressing at the moment on ENUM issues flowing from the original RFC and the ITU-T Study Group 2 response. In effect, the technical, protocol oriented work that was pioneered by the IETF is being followed by documenting the operational and organizational requirements by the parties that are responsible for ENUM implementations. It therefore seems to me that item 3 in the proposed revised charter should not be there. If there is indeed consensus that the ENUM WG should be revived, which I hope would be demonstrated by a greater response than has been seen to date, then the work should focus on technical issues that are not yet being covered elsewhere. I was involved in one of the earlier IETF/ITU-T collaborations on email based Internet fax which used IETF RFC for the technical aspects.. I believe that the success of that effort could be ascribed to the fact that operational and service requirements were defined by the ITU-T and the protocol issues were solved by the IETF. I believe that the same model should be followed in the ENUM work. Herman Silbiger Consultant to NetNumber.com Description of Working Group: This working group has defined a DNS-based architecture and protocol [RFC 2916] for mapping a telephone number to a set of attributes (e.g. URI's) which can be used to contact a resource associated with that number. Background: Telephone numbers now identify many different types of end terminals, supporting many different services and protocols. Telephone numbers are used to identify ordinary phones, fax machines, pagers, data modems, email clients, text terminals for the hearing impaired, etc. A prospective caller may wish to discover which services and protocols are supported by the terminal named by a given telephone number. The caller may also require more information than just the telephone number to communicate with the terminal. From the call recipient's perspective, the owner of the telephone number or device may wish to control what URI's, calling parties may receive. The architecture must allow for different service providers, competing openly, to provision the data base of end point information required by clients to reach the desired the terminal device or service named by a telephone number. Working Group Revised Goals and Scope: 1. The working group will, from a technical viewpoint describe how the registry/registrar model used for DNS provisioning could be applied to the global ENUM based branches of the DNS hierarchy and document various aspects of ENUM administrative / operational procedures within that context as Informational 2. The working group will update RFC 2916 to reflect the ongoing revision of RFC 2915. 3. The working group will consider various aspects of privacy, security, validation, authentication and provisioning of the global ENUM branches of the DNS including RFC 2915 (and revisions) records as Informational. Such documents could be used as models for various national implementations of RFC 2916 by the appropriate authorities over those portions of the global ENUM namespace. 4. The Working Group will continue maintain contact and liaison with appropriate standards bodies and groups in order to coordinate activities and provide appropriate technical input when required, in particular ITU Study Group 2 and other national ENUM administrative forums. The Working Group, in the sprit of technical exchange, will welcome technical information, updates etc., from various national ENUM administration forums, other standards bodies, as well as documentation on practical experiences with implementations of RFC 2916. Document deliverables: 1. Revise and update RFC 2916 appropriate to revision of RFC 2915 (Standards Track) April 2002 2. Document appropriate ENUM Administrative Procedures (Informational) March 2002 3. Document appropriate ENUM Operational Procedures (Informational) May 2002 4. Document appropriate ENUM Provisioning Procedures and Data Sets (Informational) TBD No Current Internet-Drafts Request For Comments: E.164 number and DNS (RFC 2916) (18159 bytes) --part1_bd.15f27e59.2908858f_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Since the proposed revised ENUM Charter was published there has been very little discussion on the proposal.  This is either due to the proposed charter covering
the subject perfectly or due to lack of interest. I have some suspicion that it is the latter.  Intensive work is progressing at the moment on ENUM issues flowing from
the original RFC and the ITU-T Study Group 2 response.  In effect, the technical, protocol oriented work that was pioneered by the IETF is being followed by
documenting the operational and organizational requirements by the parties that are responsible for ENUM implementations.

It therefore seems to me that item 3 in the proposed revised charter should not be there. If there is indeed consensus that the ENUM WG should be revived, which I
hope would be demonstrated by a greater response than has been seen to date, then the work should focus on technical issues that are not yet being covered
elsewhere.

I was involved in one of the earlier IETF/ITU-T collaborations on email based Internet fax which used IETF RFC for the technical aspects..  I believe that the
success of that effort could be ascribed to the fact that operational and service requirements were defined by the ITU-T and the protocol issues were solved by the
IETF.  I believe that the same model should be followed in the ENUM work.

Herman Silbiger
Consultant to NetNumber.com


 Description of Working Group:

 This working group has defined a DNS-based architecture and protocol [RFC
 2916] for mapping a telephone number to a set of attributes (e.g. URI's)
 which can be used to contact a resource associated with that number.

 Background:
 Telephone numbers now identify many different types of end terminals,
 supporting many different services and protocols. Telephone numbers are
 used to identify ordinary phones, fax machines, pagers, data modems, email
 clients, text terminals for the hearing impaired, etc.
 A prospective caller may wish to discover which services and protocols are
 supported by the terminal named by a given telephone number. The caller may
 also require more information than just the telephone number to communicate
 with the terminal.
  From the call recipient's perspective, the owner of the telephone number
 or device may wish to control what URI's, calling parties may receive.
 The architecture must allow for different service providers, competing
 openly, to provision the data base of end point information required by
 clients to reach the desired the terminal device or service named by a
 telephone number.

 Working Group Revised Goals and Scope:
 1.      The working group will, from a technical viewpoint describe how the
 registry/registrar model used for DNS provisioning could be applied to the
 global ENUM based branches of the DNS hierarchy and document various
 aspects of ENUM administrative / operational procedures within that context
 as Informational
 2.      The working group will update RFC 2916 to reflect the ongoing
 revision of RFC 2915.
 3.      The working group will consider various aspects of privacy,
 security, validation, authentication and provisioning of the global ENUM
 branches of the DNS including RFC 2915 (and revisions) records as
 Informational. Such documents could be used as models for various national
 implementations of RFC 2916 by the appropriate authorities over those
 portions of the global ENUM namespace.
 4.      The Working Group will continue maintain contact and liaison with
 appropriate standards bodies and groups in order to coordinate activities
 and provide appropriate technical input when required, in particular ITU
 Study Group 2 and other national ENUM administrative forums. The Working
 Group, in the sprit of technical exchange, will welcome technical
 information, updates etc.,  from various national ENUM administration
 forums, other standards bodies, as well as documentation on practical
 experiences with implementations of RFC 2916.

 Document deliverables:
 1.      Revise and update RFC 2916 appropriate to revision of RFC 2915
 (Standards Track)  April  2002
 2.      Document appropriate ENUM Administrative Procedures (Informational)
 March 2002
 3.      Document appropriate ENUM Operational Procedures
 (Informational)  May 2002
 4.      Document appropriate ENUM Provisioning Procedures and Data Sets
 (Informational) TBD

 No Current Internet-Drafts
 Request For Comments:
 E.164 number and DNS (RFC 2916) (18159 bytes)




--part1_bd.15f27e59.2908858f_boundary-- _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From daemon@optimus.ietf.org Wed Oct 24 18:04:12 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA15226 for ; Wed, 24 Oct 2001 18:04:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id SAA00506 for enum-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 24 Oct 2001 18:04:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id RAA29828; Wed, 24 Oct 2001 17:52:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id RAA29798 for ; Wed, 24 Oct 2001 17:52:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: from oak.neustar.com (oak.neustar.com [209.173.53.70]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA15074 for ; Wed, 24 Oct 2001 17:52:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: from rds.neustar.com (dmz1.va.neustar.com [209.173.53.65]) by oak.neustar.com (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f9OLoq201552; Wed, 24 Oct 2001 17:51:16 -0400 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20011024173342.03615db0@127.0.0.1> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2001 17:54:48 -0400 To: HSilbiger@aol.com, enum@ietf.org From: Richard Shockey Subject: Re: [Enum] (no subject) Cc: hsilbiger@ieee.org In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=====================_5471221==_.ALT" Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Enum Discussion List X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org --=====================_5471221==_.ALT Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed At 04:58 PM 10/24/2001 -0400, HSilbiger@aol.com wrote: >Since the proposed revised ENUM Charter was published there has been very >little discussion on the proposal. This is either due to the proposed >charter covering >the subject perfectly or due to lack of interest. I have some suspicion >that it is the latter. Intensive work is progressing at the moment on >ENUM issues flowing from >the original RFC and the ITU-T Study Group 2 response. In effect, the >technical, protocol oriented work that was pioneered by the IETF is being >followed by >documenting the operational and organizational requirements by the parties >that are responsible for ENUM implementations. > >It therefore seems to me that item 3 in the proposed revised charter >should not be there. If there is indeed consensus that the ENUM WG should >be revived, which I >hope would be demonstrated by a greater response than has been seen to >date, then the work should focus on technical issues that are not yet >being covered >elsewhere. Well Herman some of us don't know what is happening "elsewhere". I would politely beg to disagree.. technical issues surrounding the needs for "privacy, security, validation, authentication and provisioning" seem perfectly in scope. We have already seen some possible contributions on XML schemas that might be useful for provisioning by various national implementations etc. Considering that the core of these issues touches the DNS it is IMHO it is perfectly reasonable for the IETF and this WG to continue to monitor events. The hope was that proposals from any source could be considered for open peer review by the general IETF community in this WG. That said the proposed charter did state that such documents were to be made informational and not standards track. The IETF quite often publishes document developed outside normal working groups. Yes things have been quiet of late but that is because we do not have any documents in front of us to discuss. >I was involved in one of the earlier IETF/ITU-T collaborations on email >based Internet fax which used IETF RFC for the technical aspects.. I >believe that the >success of that effort could be ascribed to the fact that operational and >service requirements were defined by the ITU-T and the protocol issues >were solved by the >IETF. I believe that the same model should be followed in the ENUM work. I was there for 2305 as well Herman ..and the IETF Fax WG is _still_ alive and working hard on a variety operational and service definition issues such as timely delivery, Fax Gateways and Fax Gateway behavior. And they even have their own 'political' battles ..such as the well known "tiff over TIFF".. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard Shockey, Senior Manager, Strategic Technology Initiatives NeuStar Inc. 45980 Center Oak Plaza Bldg 8 Sterling, VA 20166 1120 Vermont Ave NW Suite 400 Washington DC 20005 Voice 571.434.5651 Cell : 314.503.0640, Fax: 815.333.1237 or <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< --=====================_5471221==_.ALT Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" At 04:58 PM 10/24/2001 -0400, HSilbiger@aol.com wrote:
Since the proposed revised ENUM Charter was published there has been very little discussion on the proposal.  This is either due to the proposed charter covering
the subject perfectly or due to lack of interest. I have some suspicion that it is the latter.  Intensive work is progressing at the moment on ENUM issues flowing from
the original RFC and the ITU-T Study Group 2 response.  In effect, the technical, protocol oriented work that was pioneered by the IETF is being followed by
documenting the operational and organizational requirements by the parties that are responsible for ENUM implementations.

It therefore seems to me that item 3 in the proposed revised charter should not be there. If there is indeed consensus that the ENUM WG should be revived, which I
hope would be demonstrated by a greater response than has been seen to date, then the work should focus on technical issues that are not yet being covered
elsewhere.


Well Herman some of us don't know what is happening "elsewhere".

I would politely beg to disagree..  technical issues surrounding the needs for "privacy, security, validation, authentication and provisioning" seem perfectly in scope. We have already seen some possible contributions on XML schemas that might be useful for provisioning by various national implementations etc.

Considering that the core of these issues touches the DNS it is IMHO it is perfectly reasonable for the IETF and this WG to continue to monitor events. The hope was that proposals from any source could be considered for open peer review by the general IETF community in this WG.

That said the proposed charter did state that such documents were to be made informational and not standards track. The IETF quite often publishes document developed outside normal working groups.

Yes things have been quiet of late but that is because we do not have any documents in front of us to discuss.



I was involved in one of the earlier IETF/ITU-T collaborations on email based Internet fax which used IETF RFC for the technical aspects..  I believe that the
success of that effort could be ascribed to the fact that operational and service requirements were defined by the ITU-T and the protocol issues were solved by the
IETF.  I believe that the same model should be followed in the ENUM work.

I was there for 2305 as well Herman ..and the IETF Fax WG is _still_ alive and working hard on a variety operational and service definition issues such as timely delivery, Fax Gateways and Fax Gateway behavior.

And they even have their own 'political' battles ..such as the well known "tiff over TIFF"..



>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Richard Shockey, Senior Manager, Strategic Technology Initiatives
NeuStar Inc.
45980 Center Oak Plaza   Bldg 8     Sterling, VA  20166
1120 Vermont Ave NW Suite 400 Washington DC 20005
Voice 571.434.5651 Cell : 314.503.0640,  Fax: 815.333.1237
<mailto: rshockey@ix.netcom.com> or
<mailto: rich.shockey@neustar.com>
<http://www.neustar.com>
<http://www.enum.org>
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
 --=====================_5471221==_.ALT-- _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From daemon@optimus.ietf.org Wed Oct 24 19:46:14 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA17262 for ; Wed, 24 Oct 2001 19:46:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id TAA03693 for enum-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 24 Oct 2001 19:46:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id TAA03431; Wed, 24 Oct 2001 19:36:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id TAA03398 for ; Wed, 24 Oct 2001 19:36:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: from heron.verisign.com (heron.verisign.com [216.168.233.95]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA17084 for ; Wed, 24 Oct 2001 19:36:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: from VSVAPOSTALGW1.prod.netsol.com (vsvapostalgw1.prod.netsol.com [216.168.234.201]) by heron.verisign.com (nsi_0.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id TAA07462; Wed, 24 Oct 2001 19:36:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: from arutkowski-lap.verisign.com (du79.netsol.com [216.168.245.79]) by VSVAPOSTALGW1.prod.netsol.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id 4VQ8GSBF; Wed, 24 Oct 2001 19:35:27 -0400 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20011024184925.00b19350@vsvapostal1.prod.netsol.com> X-Sender: trutkowski@vsvapostal1.prod.netsol.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2001 19:36:05 -0400 To: Richard Shockey , HSilbiger@aol.com, enum@ietf.org From: Tony Rutkowski Subject: Re: [Enum] (no subject) Cc: hsilbiger@ieee.org In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20011024173342.03615db0@127.0.0.1> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=====================_511561706==_.ALT" Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Enum Discussion List X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org --=====================_511561706==_.ALT Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed At 05:54 PM 24-10-01, Richard Shockey wrote: >I would politely beg to disagree.. technical issues surrounding the needs >for "privacy, security, validation, authentication and provisioning" seem >perfectly in scope. We have already seen some Let's see. NeuStar's CEO per today's Interactive Week Newsletter article ("NeuStar Wants to Administer ENUM") appears at VON "laying out a game plan for ENUM regulation," indicating "'we are working very quickly with other service providers and government agencies to get selected as a Tier 1 ENUM operator.'" A NeuStar Strategic Manager introduces and argues for an IETF based activity that just happens to support NeuStar's announced strategic business plan. Competitive ENUM services provider NetNumber's representative in the same IETF group, notes that it is rather unusual for a Working Group to be engaging in such activity, and suggests it is inappropriate under the circumstances. Who gets to decide what's appropriate, and on what basis? >Considering that the core of these issues touches the DNS it is IMHO it is >perfectly reasonable for the IETF and this WG to continue to monitor >events. The hope was that proposals from any source could be considered >for open peer review by the general IETF community in this WG. Since when did it become the IETF's business to "monitor" national regulatory events? >That said the proposed charter did state that such documents were to be >made informational and not standards track. The IETF quite often publishes >document developed outside normal working groups. Again, when did it become IETF's business to develop "informational" schema for national regulatory implementations? Is the Working Group going to participate in the potential FCC public policy proceedings over the next 2-3 years (FCC estimate) that were discussed at the VON ENUM Policy Summit last week? --tony ps. While the IETF is dealing with all this regulatory baggage, it's worth noting that real technical developments are being now being done in the ENUM Alliance. There were four great papers presented last week at VON at the Alliance session by Williams Communications, Webly, Voxeo, and Denwa. Pending building of the Alliance website, some of them are available at http://www.ngi.org/enum/alliance/index.htm --=====================_511561706==_.ALT Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" At 05:54 PM 24-10-01, Richard Shockey wrote:

I would politely beg to disagree..  technical issues surrounding the needs for "privacy, security, validation, authentication and provisioning" seem perfectly in scope. We have already seen some

Let's see.  NeuStar's CEO per today's Interactive Week
Newsletter article ("NeuStar Wants to Administer ENUM")
appears at VON "laying out a game plan for ENUM regulation,"
indicating "'we are working very quickly with other
service providers and government agencies to get selected
as a Tier 1 ENUM operator.'"

A NeuStar Strategic Manager introduces and argues for
an IETF based activity that just happens to support NeuStar's
announced strategic business plan.

Competitive ENUM services provider NetNumber's
representative in the same IETF group, notes that it
is rather unusual for a Working Group to be engaging
in such activity, and suggests it is inappropriate
under the circumstances.

Who gets to decide what's appropriate, and on what
basis?


Considering that the core of these issues touches the DNS it is IMHO it is perfectly reasonable for the IETF and this WG to continue to monitor events. The hope was that proposals from any source could be considered for open peer review by the general IETF community in this WG.

Since when did it become the IETF's business to "monitor"
national regulatory events?


That said the proposed charter did state that such documents were to be made informational and not standards track. The IETF quite often publishes document developed outside normal working groups.

Again, when did it become IETF's business to develop
"informational" schema for national regulatory implementations?
Is the Working Group going to participate in the potential
FCC public policy proceedings over the next 2-3 years (FCC
estimate) that were discussed at the VON ENUM Policy Summit
last week?

--tony

ps.  While the IETF is dealing with all this regulatory
baggage, it's worth noting that real technical developments
are being now being done in the ENUM Alliance.  There were
four great papers presented last week at VON at the Alliance
session by Williams Communications, Webly, Voxeo, and Denwa.
Pending building of the Alliance website, some of them are
available at
http://www.ngi.org/enum/alliance/index.htm

 --=====================_511561706==_.ALT-- _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From daemon@optimus.ietf.org Wed Oct 24 20:47:15 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA18128 for ; Wed, 24 Oct 2001 20:47:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id UAA05506 for enum-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 24 Oct 2001 20:47:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id UAA05169; Wed, 24 Oct 2001 20:38:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id UAA05138 for ; Wed, 24 Oct 2001 20:38:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from joy.songbird.com (IDENT:root@songbird.com [208.184.79.7]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA18029 for ; Wed, 24 Oct 2001 20:38:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from bbprime.dcrocker.net (c1193160-a.snvl1.sfba.home.com [65.0.152.112]) by joy.songbird.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA21390; Wed, 24 Oct 2001 17:38:11 -0700 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20011024173338.03f8bc90@dcrocker.net> X-Sender: dhc@brandenburg.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2001 17:38:04 -0700 To: Tony Rutkowski From: Dave Crocker Subject: Re: [Enum] (no subject) Cc: enum@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20011024184925.00b19350@vsvapostal1.prod.netsol .com> References: <5.1.0.14.2.20011024173342.03615db0@127.0.0.1> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Enum Discussion List X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org At 04:36 PM 10/24/2001, Tony Rutkowski wrote: >A NeuStar Strategic Manager introduces and argues for >an IETF based activity that just happens to support NeuStar's >announced strategic business plan. Tony, The IETF culture typically reacts poorly to efforts to slander. It also is quite comfortable with people doing things that benefit their companies. One might even suspect that YOU have done the same, once or twice. The real question in the IETF is about the merits of specific proposals. You seem unconcerned with that measure, although it is the only one that carries any weight in the IETF. If you have a specific concern about activities by the ENUM working group chair, the procedures for remedying your concerns are well documented. Public ad hominems are not in the set of established, valid procedures. Please refer to the relevant IETF documents concerning process challenges. Please, then, follow them. d/ ---------- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking tel +1.408.246.8253; fax +1.408.273.6464 _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From daemon@optimus.ietf.org Thu Oct 25 04:44:07 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA11760 for ; Thu, 25 Oct 2001 04:43:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id EAA25686 for enum-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 25 Oct 2001 04:44:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id EAA25284; Thu, 25 Oct 2001 04:30:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id EAA25255 for ; Thu, 25 Oct 2001 04:30:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: from cisco.com (nordic.cisco.com [64.103.48.45]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA11663 for ; Thu, 25 Oct 2001 04:30:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [192.168.1.5] (ssh-ams1.cisco.com [144.254.74.55]) by cisco.com (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) with ESMTP id KAA22700; Thu, 25 Oct 2001 10:30:14 +0200 (MET DST) Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2001 10:20:42 +0200 From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Patrik_F=E4ltstr=F6m?= To: HSilbiger@aol.com, enum@ietf.org cc: hsilbiger@ieee.org Subject: Re: [Enum] (no subject) Message-ID: <7834985.1004005242@localhost> In-Reply-To: References: X-Mailer: Mulberry/2.1.1 (Mac OS X) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Enum Discussion List X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit --On 01-10-24 16.58 -0400 HSilbiger@aol.com wrote: > In effect, the technical, protocol oriented work that was pioneered by > the IETF is being followed by documenting the operational and > organizational requirements by the parties that are responsible for ENUM > implementations. The proposed charter is trying to cover technical issues which either the wg chairs ourselves, the Area Directors, or individuals have found when (a) implementing RFC 2916 or (b) participating in other venues. So, I don't see we disagree here, we quibble about wording. That is of course fine, but we should know that that is what is happening. RFC 2916 have to be updated, that is clear, given the number of errors in the document. I have though _not_ thought about doing a new version before the new charter is settled, and I see whether we get interested parties to write about for example privacy and security issues from a technical perspective. Example: I hear in a number of groups about ENUM I participate in (which includes ITU-T, the ENUM Forum and others) that the lack of understanding of how to do delegations, what an authoritative nameserver is, how access to information can be secured, how DNS is to be operated...leads to great confusion. My experience is that meetings on ENUM issues tends to lead to 50% training on how DNS works, 25% confusion and 25% real work. By creating some more technical documents, the percentage real work done can be increased. That is at least my hope. But, without interested parties becoming authors, there is not much we can do. paf -- co-chair in the ENUM wg _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From daemon@optimus.ietf.org Thu Oct 25 08:12:29 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA15384 for ; Thu, 25 Oct 2001 08:12:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id IAA02659 for enum-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 25 Oct 2001 08:12:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id HAA01881; Thu, 25 Oct 2001 07:57:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id HAA01850 for ; Thu, 25 Oct 2001 07:57:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from heron.verisign.com (heron.verisign.com [216.168.233.95]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA14750 for ; Thu, 25 Oct 2001 07:57:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from VSVAPOSTALGW1.prod.netsol.com (vsvapostalgw1.prod.netsol.com [216.168.234.201]) by heron.verisign.com (nsi_0.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id HAA19078; Thu, 25 Oct 2001 07:56:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: from arutkowski-lap.verisign.com (du91.netsol.com [216.168.245.91]) by VSVAPOSTALGW1.prod.netsol.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id 4VQ8GYRP; Thu, 25 Oct 2001 07:55:35 -0400 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20011025073320.00b1fe30@vsvapostal1.prod.netsol.com> X-Sender: trutkowski@vsvapostal1.prod.netsol.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2001 07:56:18 -0400 To: Patrik =?iso-8859-1?Q?F=E4ltstr=F6m?= , HSilbiger@aol.com, enum@ietf.org From: Tony Rutkowski Subject: Re: [Enum] (no subject) Cc: hsilbiger@ieee.org In-Reply-To: <7834985.1004005242@localhost> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Enum Discussion List X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org Hi Patrik, >But, without interested parties becoming authors, there is not much we can do. Maybe the marketplace is attempting to suggest that the work is now being done there. It is the real teacher. It would be great, for example, if Cisco could share it's ENUM technical and operational experiences, innovations, and customer interactions with the others in the ENUM Alliance, as the members are already doing. --tony _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From daemon@optimus.ietf.org Thu Oct 25 09:11:27 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA18055 for ; Thu, 25 Oct 2001 09:11:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id JAA04947 for enum-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 25 Oct 2001 09:11:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id IAA03800; Thu, 25 Oct 2001 08:59:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id IAA03714 for ; Thu, 25 Oct 2001 08:59:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pimout2-int.prodigy.net (pimout2-ext.prodigy.net [207.115.63.101]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA17422; Thu, 25 Oct 2001 08:59:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pc (dialup-65.56.132.13.Dial1.Chicago1.Level3.net [65.56.132.13]) by pimout2-int.prodigy.net (8.11.0/8.11.0) with SMTP id f9PCwxP171400; Thu, 25 Oct 2001 08:59:00 -0400 Message-ID: <002301c15d56$3895da40$0d843841@pc> From: "Jim Fleming" To: "Richard Shockey" , , , "Tony Rutkowski" Cc: , "ietf@ietf. org" References: <5.1.0.14.2.20011024184925.00b19350@vsvapostal1.prod.netsol.com> Subject: Re: [Enum] (no subject) Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2001 08:09:02 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0020_01C15D2C.4E9ADA40" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Enum Discussion List X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0020_01C15D2C.4E9ADA40 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Tony, Prior to your current employment with Verisign, how many years were you paid by Network Solutions and/or Verisign to participate in the domain name debates, without people being told you were being paid ? Do you think it is ethical for people to not disclose who is paying them and what their real agenda is ? It all boils down to fairness. Which list do you think is more fair ? The "toy" IPv4 Internet Early Experimentation Allocations ? http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space The Proof-of-Concept IPv8 Allocations ? http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt Why would people pay for Address Space, when it is FREE ? Jim Fleming http://www.DOT-BIZ.com http://www.in-addr.info 3:219 INFO ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Tony Rutkowski=20 To: Richard Shockey ; HSilbiger@aol.com ; enum@ietf.org=20 Cc: hsilbiger@ieee.org=20 Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2001 6:36 PM Subject: Re: [Enum] (no subject) At 05:54 PM 24-10-01, Richard Shockey wrote: I would politely beg to disagree.. technical issues surrounding the = needs for "privacy, security, validation, authentication and = provisioning" seem perfectly in scope. We have already seen some=20 Let's see. NeuStar's CEO per today's Interactive Week Newsletter article ("NeuStar Wants to Administer ENUM") appears at VON "laying out a game plan for ENUM regulation," indicating "'we are working very quickly with other service providers and government agencies to get selected as a Tier 1 ENUM operator.'" A NeuStar Strategic Manager introduces and argues for an IETF based activity that just happens to support NeuStar's announced strategic business plan. Competitive ENUM services provider NetNumber's=20 representative in the same IETF group, notes that it=20 is rather unusual for a Working Group to be engaging=20 in such activity, and suggests it is inappropriate under the circumstances. Who gets to decide what's appropriate, and on what basis? Considering that the core of these issues touches the DNS it is IMHO = it is perfectly reasonable for the IETF and this WG to continue to = monitor events. The hope was that proposals from any source could be = considered for open peer review by the general IETF community in this = WG. Since when did it become the IETF's business to "monitor" national regulatory events? That said the proposed charter did state that such documents were to = be made informational and not standards track. The IETF quite often = publishes document developed outside normal working groups. Again, when did it become IETF's business to develop "informational" schema for national regulatory implementations? Is the Working Group going to participate in the potential FCC public policy proceedings over the next 2-3 years (FCC estimate) that were discussed at the VON ENUM Policy Summit=20 last week? --tony ps. While the IETF is dealing with all this regulatory baggage, it's worth noting that real technical developments are being now being done in the ENUM Alliance. There were four great papers presented last week at VON at the Alliance session by Williams Communications, Webly, Voxeo, and Denwa. Pending building of the Alliance website, some of them are=20 available at=20 http://www.ngi.org/enum/alliance/index.htm ------=_NextPart_000_0020_01C15D2C.4E9ADA40 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Tony,
 
Prior to your current employment with=20 Verisign,
how many years were you paid by Network = Solutions=20 and/or Verisign
to participate in the domain name = debates, without=20 people being told
you were being paid ?
 
Do you think it is ethical for people = to not=20 disclose who is paying them
and what their real agenda is = ?
 
 
It all boils down to fairness.
Which = list do you=20 think is more fair ?
The "toy" IPv4 Internet Early = Experimentation=20 Allocations ?
http://www.ia= na.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space
The=20 Proof-of-Concept IPv8 Allocations ?
= http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt
 
Why would people pay for Address Space, = when it is=20 FREE ?
 
Jim Fleming
http://www.DOT-BIZ.com
http://www.in-addr.info
3:219=20 INFO
 
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 Tony=20 Rutkowski
To: Richard Shockey ; HSilbiger@aol.com=20 ; enum@ietf.org
Sent: Wednesday, October 24, = 2001 6:36=20 PM
Subject: Re: [Enum] (no = subject)

At 05:54 PM 24-10-01, Richard Shockey wrote:
I would politely beg to=20 disagree..  technical issues surrounding the needs for = "privacy,=20 security, validation, authentication and provisioning" seem = perfectly in=20 scope. We have already seen some

Let's see.  = NeuStar's=20 CEO per today's Interactive Week
Newsletter article ("NeuStar Wants = to=20 Administer ENUM")
appears at VON "laying out a game plan for ENUM=20 regulation,"
indicating "'we are working very quickly with = other
service=20 providers and government agencies to get selected
as a Tier 1 ENUM=20 operator.'"

A NeuStar Strategic Manager introduces and argues = for
an=20 IETF based activity that just happens to support = NeuStar's
announced=20 strategic business plan.

Competitive ENUM services provider = NetNumber's=20
representative in the same IETF group, notes that it
is rather = unusual=20 for a Working Group to be engaging
in such activity, and suggests = it is=20 inappropriate
under the circumstances.

Who gets to decide = what's=20 appropriate, and on what
basis?


Considering that the core = of these=20 issues touches the DNS it is IMHO it is perfectly reasonable for the = IETF=20 and this WG to continue to monitor events. The hope was that = proposals from=20 any source could be considered for open peer review by the general = IETF=20 community in this WG.

Since when did it become the = IETF's=20 business to "monitor"
national regulatory events?


That said the proposed = charter did=20 state that such documents were to be made informational and not = standards=20 track. The IETF quite often publishes document developed outside = normal=20 working groups.

Again, when did it = become IETF's=20 business to develop
"informational" schema for national regulatory=20 implementations?
Is the Working Group going to participate in the=20 potential
FCC public policy proceedings over the next 2-3 years=20 (FCC
estimate) that were discussed at the VON ENUM Policy Summit =
last=20 week?

--tony

ps.  While the IETF is dealing with = all this=20 regulatory
baggage, it's worth noting that real technical=20 developments
are being now being done in the ENUM Alliance.  = There=20 were
four great papers presented last week at VON at the=20 Alliance
session by Williams Communications, Webly, Voxeo, and=20 Denwa.
Pending building of the Alliance website, some of them are=20
available at
http://www.ngi.org/enum/alliance/index.htm

 ------=_NextPart_000_0020_01C15D2C.4E9ADA40-- _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From daemon@optimus.ietf.org Thu Oct 25 09:15:50 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA18258 for ; Thu, 25 Oct 2001 09:15:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id JAA05277 for enum-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 25 Oct 2001 09:15:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id JAA04334; Thu, 25 Oct 2001 09:02:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id JAA04303 for ; Thu, 25 Oct 2001 09:02:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pimout2-int.prodigy.net (pimout2-ext.prodigy.net [207.115.63.101]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA17656; Thu, 25 Oct 2001 09:02:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pc (dialup-65.56.132.13.Dial1.Chicago1.Level3.net [65.56.132.13]) by pimout2-int.prodigy.net (8.11.0/8.11.0) with SMTP id f9PD2NP262296; Thu, 25 Oct 2001 09:02:23 -0400 Message-ID: <003101c15d56$b1d9dbe0$0d843841@pc> From: "Jim Fleming" To: "Tony Rutkowski" , "Dave Crocker" Cc: , "ietf@ietf. org" References: <5.1.0.14.2.20011024173342.03615db0@127.0.0.1> <5.1.0.14.2.20011024173338.03f8bc90@dcrocker.net> Subject: Re: [Enum] (no subject) Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2001 08:12:25 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Enum Discussion List X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Dave, Do you think it is ethical for people to not disclose who is paying them and what their real agenda is ? It is widely reported that you are paid by Neustar, Neulevel, ICANN, and/or MCI/Worldcom (i.e. Vinton Cerf). Will you be disclosing who has paid you all these years to participate in discussions as if you are a neutral party ? Jim Fleming Why gamble with a .BIZ Lottery? Start a real .BIZ Today ! http://www.DOT-BIZ.com 0:212 - BIZ World ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dave Crocker" To: "Tony Rutkowski" Cc: Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2001 7:38 PM Subject: Re: [Enum] (no subject) > At 04:36 PM 10/24/2001, Tony Rutkowski wrote: > >A NeuStar Strategic Manager introduces and argues for > >an IETF based activity that just happens to support NeuStar's > >announced strategic business plan. > > Tony, > > The IETF culture typically reacts poorly to efforts to slander. > > It also is quite comfortable with people doing things that benefit their > companies. One might even suspect that YOU have done the same, once or twice. > > The real question in the IETF is about the merits of specific > proposals. You seem unconcerned with that measure, although it is the only > one that carries any weight in the IETF. > > If you have a specific concern about activities by the ENUM working group > chair, the procedures for remedying your concerns are well > documented. Public ad hominems are not in the set of established, valid > procedures. > > Please refer to the relevant IETF documents concerning process challenges. > > Please, then, follow them. > > d/ > > ---------- > Dave Crocker > Brandenburg InternetWorking > tel +1.408.246.8253; fax +1.408.273.6464 > > > _______________________________________________ > enum mailing list > enum@ietf.org > http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From daemon@optimus.ietf.org Thu Oct 25 09:20:47 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA18514 for ; Thu, 25 Oct 2001 09:20:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id JAA05453 for enum-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 25 Oct 2001 09:20:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id JAA04711; Thu, 25 Oct 2001 09:08:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id JAA04680 for ; Thu, 25 Oct 2001 09:08:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: from cisco.com (nordic.cisco.com [64.103.48.45]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA17919 for ; Thu, 25 Oct 2001 09:08:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [192.168.1.5] (ssh-ams1.cisco.com [144.254.74.55]) by cisco.com (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) with ESMTP id PAA28429; Thu, 25 Oct 2001 15:08:04 +0200 (MET DST) Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2001 14:56:25 +0200 From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Patrik_F=E4ltstr=F6m?= To: Tony Rutkowski , HSilbiger@aol.com, enum@ietf.org cc: hsilbiger@ieee.org Subject: Re: [Enum] (no subject) Message-ID: <8827661.1004021785@localhost> In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20011025073320.00b1fe30@vsvapostal1.prod.netsol.com> References: <5.1.0.14.2.20011025073320.00b1fe30@vsvapostal1.prod.netsol.com> X-Mailer: Mulberry/2.1.1 (Mac OS X) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Enum Discussion List X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit --On 01-10-25 07.56 -0400 Tony Rutkowski wrote: >> But, without interested parties becoming authors, there is not much we >> can do. > > Maybe the marketplace is attempting to suggest > that the work is now being done there. It is > the real teacher. And your point is? The revised charter is trying to specify what things are within scope for discussions in this wg. Nothing else, and this has already been pointed out by other people. > It would be great, for example, if Cisco could > share it's ENUM technical and operational experiences, > innovations, and customer interactions with the > others in the ENUM Alliance, as the members are > already doing. What has what Cisco do with this wg to do? What has what organizations doing and/or not doing in other organizations to do with this wg? Complaining on what a company do or not do in other organizations is completely out of scope for the ENUM wg mailing list. This mailing list is about discussions about the charter for this wg, and for issues in the charter. paf -- co-chair of the ENUM wg _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From daemon@optimus.ietf.org Thu Oct 25 11:42:15 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA21853 for ; Thu, 25 Oct 2001 11:42:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id LAA10409 for enum-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 25 Oct 2001 11:42:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA09672; Thu, 25 Oct 2001 11:27:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA09641 for ; Thu, 25 Oct 2001 11:27:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: from heron.verisign.com (heron.verisign.com [216.168.233.95]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA21582 for ; Thu, 25 Oct 2001 11:27:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from VSVAPOSTALGW1.prod.netsol.com (vsvapostalgw1.prod.netsol.com [216.168.234.201]) by heron.verisign.com (nsi_0.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA17644; Thu, 25 Oct 2001 11:26:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: from arutkowski-pc.verisign.com (ARUTKOWSKI-PC [10.131.128.36]) by VSVAPOSTALGW1.prod.netsol.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id 4VQ8G86S; Thu, 25 Oct 2001 11:25:47 -0400 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20011025094936.027a0778@vsvapostal1.prod.netsol.com> X-Sender: trutkowski@vsvapostal1.prod.netsol.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2001 11:26:36 -0400 To: Patrik =?iso-8859-1?Q?F=E4ltstr=F6m?= , HSilbiger@aol.com, enum@ietf.org From: Tony Rutkowski Subject: Re: [Enum] (no subject) Cc: hsilbiger@ieee.org In-Reply-To: <8827661.1004021785@localhost> References: <5.1.0.14.2.20011025073320.00b1fe30@vsvapostal1.prod.netsol.com> <5.1.0.14.2.20011025073320.00b1fe30@vsvapostal1.prod.netsol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=====================_264939522==_.ALT" Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Enum Discussion List X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org --=====================_264939522==_.ALT Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Hi Patrik, >And your point is? Simply a friendly comment directed at your lament about the lack of involvement and contributions. It was an observation that like so many standards activities, a point comes where the ideas that emerge during the course of the activity become implemented in various forms in products and services in the marketplace. The better standards groups typically terminate and let things proceed in the marketplace. The older legacy bodies, tend to continue forever as playpens. My favorite was a certain working party for phototelegrams that was still around in the early 90s, long after the organization's own statistics indicated no phototelegrams were being sent anymore. >The revised charter is trying to specify what things are within scope for >discussions in this wg. Nothing else, and this has already been pointed out >by other people. Exactly. A number of people seem to be suggesting that the charter be focused narrowly on essential revisions to the protocol, and leaving the rest to the marketplace (and, as necessary, regulatory forums). >What has what Cisco do with this wg to do? What has what organizations >doing and/or not doing in other organizations to do with this wg? Cisco and other companies in the ENUM marketplace can usefully cooperate in sharing relevant implementation information through other industry forums. >Complaining on what a company do or not do in other organizations is >completely out of scope for the ENUM wg mailing list. This mailing list is We're focussed here on the ITU, not other organizations, and it's a discussion about scope, not a complaint. Protocols are the traditional forte' of IETF activity and expertise. Service provisioning architectures and regulatory schema have not generally been regarded within the scope of IETF working groups - and can lead to significant problems, liabilities and conflicts of interest - exemplified by the close mapping of contributions to announced company business plans in the marketplace. As a number of people have noted, such work - whether dubbed informational or whatever - is out of scope. --tony --=====================_264939522==_.ALT Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Hi Patrik,

And your point is?

Simply a friendly comment directed at your lament
about the lack of involvement and contributions.
It was an observation that like so many standards
activities, a point comes where the ideas that
emerge during the course of the activity become
implemented in various forms in products and services
in the marketplace.

The better standards groups typically terminate and
let things proceed in the marketplace.  The older
legacy bodies, tend to continue forever as playpens.
My favorite was a certain working party for phototelegrams
that was still around in the early 90s, long after the
organization's own statistics indicated no phototelegrams
were being sent anymore.

The revised charter is trying to specify what things are within scope for
discussions in this wg. Nothing else, and this has already been pointed out
by other people.

Exactly.  A number of people seem to be suggesting
that the charter be focused narrowly on essential
revisions to the protocol, and leaving the rest to
the marketplace (and, as necessary, regulatory
forums).


What has what Cisco do with this wg to do? What has what organizations
doing and/or not doing in other organizations to do with this wg?

Cisco and other companies in the ENUM marketplace can
usefully cooperate in sharing relevant implementation
information through other industry forums.


Complaining on what a company do or not do in other organizations is
completely out of scope for the ENUM wg mailing list. This mailing list is

We're focussed here on the ITU, not other organizations,
and it's a discussion about scope, not a complaint.

Protocols are the traditional forte' of IETF activity
and expertise.  Service provisioning architectures and
regulatory schema have not generally been regarded within
the scope of IETF working groups - and can lead to
significant problems, liabilities and conflicts of interest -
exemplified by the close mapping of contributions to
announced company business plans in the marketplace. 

As a number of people have noted, such work - whether
dubbed informational or whatever - is out of scope.

--tony --=====================_264939522==_.ALT-- _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From daemon@optimus.ietf.org Thu Oct 25 12:39:47 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA23389 for ; Thu, 25 Oct 2001 12:39:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id MAA13209 for enum-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 25 Oct 2001 12:39:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA12481; Thu, 25 Oct 2001 12:28:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA12452 for ; Thu, 25 Oct 2001 12:28:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from heron.verisign.com (heron.verisign.com [216.168.233.95]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA23037 for ; Thu, 25 Oct 2001 12:28:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from VSVAPOSTALGW1.prod.netsol.com (vsvapostalgw1.prod.netsol.com [216.168.234.201]) by heron.verisign.com (nsi_0.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA04707; Thu, 25 Oct 2001 12:27:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: from arutkowski-pc.verisign.com (ARUTKOWSKI-PC [10.131.128.36]) by VSVAPOSTALGW1.prod.netsol.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id 4VQ8HCCQ; Thu, 25 Oct 2001 12:26:37 -0400 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20011025122620.028696f0@vsvapostal1.prod.netsol.com> X-Sender: trutkowski@vsvapostal1.prod.netsol.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2001 12:27:26 -0400 To: Patrik =?iso-8859-1?Q?F=E4ltstr=F6m?= , HSilbiger@aol.com, enum@ietf.org From: Tony Rutkowski Subject: Re: [Enum] (no subject) Cc: hsilbiger@ieee.org In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20011025094936.027a0778@vsvapostal1.prod.netsol .com> References: <8827661.1004021785@localhost> <5.1.0.14.2.20011025073320.00b1fe30@vsvapostal1.prod.netsol.com> <5.1.0.14.2.20011025073320.00b1fe30@vsvapostal1.prod.netsol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=====================_268588950==_.ALT" Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Enum Discussion List X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org --=====================_268588950==_.ALT Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed >We're focussed here on the ITU, not other organizations, xxx IETF Freudian slip... :-) --=====================_268588950==_.ALT Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
We're focussed here on the ITU, not other organizations,
                            xxx IETF
Freudian slip... :-)



 --=====================_268588950==_.ALT-- _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From daemon@ns.ietf.org Thu Oct 25 23:30:20 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA07378 for ; Thu, 25 Oct 2001 23:30:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id XAA00101 for enum-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 25 Oct 2001 23:30:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id XAA29655; Thu, 25 Oct 2001 23:20:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id XAA29621 for ; Thu, 25 Oct 2001 23:20:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from johnson.mail.mindspring.net (johnson.mail.mindspring.net [207.69.200.177]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA07234 for ; Thu, 25 Oct 2001 23:20:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: from rds.ix.netcom.com (user-2ivelho.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.86.56]) by johnson.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with ESMTP id XAA14348 for ; Thu, 25 Oct 2001 23:20:30 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20011025231929.031da860@127.0.0.1> X-Sender: rshockey/popd.ix.netcom.com@127.0.0.1 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2001 23:26:23 -0400 To: enum@ietf.org From: Richard Shockey Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Subject: [Enum] Number Portability Draft Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Enum Discussion List X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org As part of our original charter we defined the following. I quote. "6. The Working Group will understand the impact of developments in the area of local number portability on the proposed system. " the following draft has been offered to describe the current Number Portability status within the GSTN. In the opinion of anyone on this list are there any factual or technical errors contained in this draft? ############# A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Telephone Number Mapping Working Group of the IETF. Title : Number Portability in the GSTN: An Overview Author(s) : M. Foster, T. McGarry, J. Yu Filename : draft-ietf-enum-e164-gstn-np-02.txt Pages : 26 Date : 22-Oct-01 This document provides an overview of E.164 telephone number portability (NP) in the Global Switched Telephone Network (GSTN). There are three types of number portability: service provider number portability (SPNP), location portability, and service portability. Service provider portability, the focus of the present draft, is a regulatory imperative in many countries seeking to liberalize local telephony service competition, by enabling end-users to retain pre- existing telephone numbers while changing service providers. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-enum-e164-gstn-np-02.txt >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard Shockey, Senior Manager, Strategic Technology Initiatives NeuStar Inc. 45980 Center Oak Plaza Bldg 8 Sterling, VA 20166 1120 Vermont Ave NW Suite 400 Washington DC 20005 Voice 571.434.5651 Cell : 314.503.0640, Fax: 815.333.1237 or <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From daemon@optimus.ietf.org Fri Oct 26 04:04:06 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA25386 for ; Fri, 26 Oct 2001 04:04:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id EAA14725 for enum-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 26 Oct 2001 04:04:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id DAA14200; Fri, 26 Oct 2001 03:54:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id DAA14168 for ; Fri, 26 Oct 2001 03:54:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from cisco.com (nordic.cisco.com [64.103.48.45]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA25240 for ; Fri, 26 Oct 2001 03:54:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [192.168.1.5] (ssh-ams1.cisco.com [144.254.74.55]) by cisco.com (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) with ESMTP id JAA05565; Fri, 26 Oct 2001 09:54:07 +0200 (MET DST) Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2001 09:43:44 +0200 From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Patrik_F=E4ltstr=F6m?= To: Richard Shockey , enum@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Enum] Number Portability Draft Message-ID: <12886070.1004089424@localhost> In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20011025231929.031da860@127.0.0.1> References: <5.1.0.14.2.20011025231929.031da860@127.0.0.1> X-Mailer: Mulberry/2.1.1 (Mac OS X) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Enum Discussion List X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit --On 01-10-25 23.26 -0400 Richard Shockey wrote: > In the opinion of anyone on this list are there any factual or technical > errors contained in this draft? (a) Several pages of text as an introduction...and a VERY long abstract. I felt I had to skip every second page to find the information which I wanted to have. This draft could have been easilly "just" the ascii-art and some text around it. People don't read long documents. (b) There is no security considerations section. I.e. no talk about security issues with the different models, and the different proposed solutions, and implications listed at the end. paf _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From daemon@optimus.ietf.org Fri Oct 26 08:36:05 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA00755 for ; Fri, 26 Oct 2001 08:36:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id IAA22106 for enum-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 26 Oct 2001 08:36:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id IAA21309; Fri, 26 Oct 2001 08:13:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id IAA21280 for ; Fri, 26 Oct 2001 08:13:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: from heron.verisign.com (heron.verisign.com [216.168.233.95]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA29578 for ; Fri, 26 Oct 2001 08:13:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: from VSVAPOSTALGW1.prod.netsol.com (vsvapostalgw1.prod.netsol.com [216.168.234.201]) by heron.verisign.com (nsi_0.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id IAA06452; Fri, 26 Oct 2001 08:13:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: from arutkowski-lap.verisign.com (du130.netsol.com [216.168.245.130]) by VSVAPOSTALGW1.prod.netsol.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id 4VQ8HVS5; Fri, 26 Oct 2001 08:12:25 -0400 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20011026075916.00b1d0c8@vsvapostal1.prod.netsol.com> X-Sender: trutkowski@vsvapostal1.prod.netsol.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2001 08:13:11 -0400 To: Richard Shockey , enum@ietf.org From: Tony Rutkowski Subject: Re: [Enum] Number Portability Draft In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20011025231929.031da860@127.0.0.1> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Enum Discussion List X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org At 11:26 PM 25-10-01, Richard Shockey wrote: >In the opinion of anyone on this list are there any factual or technical >errors contained in this draft? The authors deserve credit for compiling a set of useful, elusive material. A few questions: 1. Although this is informational, it does state "conclusions." Wouldn't it be more appropriate to describe these observations as "potential implications." 2. The conclusions section states: is a regulatory requirement on NP in some countries. The delegated authority for a given E.164 number is likely to be an entity designated by the end user that owns/controls a specific telephone number or a third-party designated by the end-user or by the industry. What is the basis for the sentence, and what does it mean for delegated authority to be "the industry?" --tony _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From daemon@optimus.ietf.org Fri Oct 26 08:51:39 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA01543 for ; Fri, 26 Oct 2001 08:51:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id IAA22694 for enum-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 26 Oct 2001 08:51:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id IAA22265; Fri, 26 Oct 2001 08:42:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id IAA22230 for ; Fri, 26 Oct 2001 08:42:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mx.cwplc.com (mx.cwplc.com [194.6.6.20]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA01109 for ; Fri, 26 Oct 2001 08:42:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: from gbcwcwarmsw2.cwcom.cwplc.com ([148.185.50.86]) by mx.cwplc.com (Switch-2.2.0/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id f9QCWND23641 for ; Fri, 26 Oct 2001 13:32:24 +0100 (BST) Received: from gbcwcbrti003.isops.cwcom.co.uk (unverified) by gbcwcwarmsw2.cwcom.cwplc.com (Content Technologies SMTPRS 4.2.1) with ESMTP id ; Fri, 26 Oct 2001 13:42:28 +0100 Received: by GBCWCBRTI003 with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Fri, 26 Oct 2001 13:41:48 +0100 Message-ID: From: "Rosbotham, Paul" To: "'Richard Shockey'" , enum@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Enum] Number Portability Draft Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2001 13:41:38 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Enum Discussion List X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org Richard To answer your particular question, I believe that the document is pretty much technically correct, largely because I assume that James has drawn upon the earlier work in ETSI Project TIPHON. I have a few relatively minor comments; Section 5.4 on Onward routing contains the text "This scheme is also called Remote Call Forwarding". I would delete this text. RCF was very much a short term expedient whereby customer facilities on GSTN switches were used to forward calls from the donor network to the customer's new network, hence giving the illusion of NP. Onward routing, on the other hand, uses particular tables which are quite often within the network side of the GSTN switch databuild. There are profound differences, because while RCF can impede the operation of some GSTN features/services, OR does not have such an impact. Section 5.5 contains the text "The OR scheme is the least efficient in terms of using the network resources". While this is the case when considering transmission capacity alone (clearly given there are two legs to any call), the situation is more complex when the network as a whole is considered. For ACQ, for example, GSTN switch resources are used to perform the NP query, whether or not the call is to a ported number. The precise impact of this varies according to the switch design, and means that for countries which do not have GSTN switches optimised around IN, querying all calls can cause a significant overhead, indeed a higher cost than the extra call leg for that minority of numbers which are ported. This means that there is a cross-over point where ACQ is more efficient than OR, driven by the %age of numbers that are ported, and this cross-over point will vary from country to country. The text about efficiency is therefore somewhat trite, and should be removed. In Section 7.2, there is a paragraph which commences "Please note that all those enhancements are for national use". I would make two points to this paragraph. Firstly, it is not a specific European issue, and deserves a section in its own right. Secondly, I think the point that needs re-inforcing in this section is that any NP parameters obtained for a ported number are only any use in the country where they reside. To clarify; if a call to a ported UK number egressed from an IP network into the GSTN in the USA containing the UK routeing prefix, the call would fail as the prefix is not internationally significant. Similarly, if a call to a ported USA number egressed from an IP network into the GSTN in the UK utilising the US-LRN for addressing, the call could similarly fail as the parameters are not designed to be sent internationally. Hope this is of assistance. Regards Paul Rosbotham Manager, Interconnect Strategy & Technology Regulation Cable & Wireless plc Tel : +44 1344 713246 Fax : +44 1344 713015 Mob : +44 7957 805573 > -----Original Message----- > From: Richard Shockey [SMTP:rshockey@ix.netcom.com] > Sent: 26 October 2001 04:26 > To: enum@ietf.org > Subject: [Enum] Number Portability Draft > > > As part of our original charter we defined the following. I quote. > > "6. The Working Group will understand the impact of developments in the > area of local number portability on the proposed system. " > > the following draft has been offered to describe the current Number > Portability status within the GSTN. > > In the opinion of anyone on this list are there any factual or technical > errors contained in this draft? > > ############# > > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts > directories. > This draft is a work item of the Telephone Number Mapping Working Group of > > the IETF. > > Title : Number Portability in the GSTN: An Overview > Author(s) : M. Foster, T. McGarry, J. Yu > Filename : draft-ietf-enum-e164-gstn-np-02.txt > Pages : 26 > Date : 22-Oct-01 > > This document provides an overview of E.164 telephone number > portability (NP) in the Global Switched Telephone Network (GSTN). > There are three types of number portability: service provider number > portability (SPNP), location portability, and service portability. > Service provider portability, the focus of the present draft, is a > regulatory imperative in many countries seeking to liberalize local > telephony service competition, by enabling end-users to retain pre- > existing telephone numbers while changing service providers. > > A URL for this Internet-Draft is: > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-enum-e164-gstn-np-02.txt > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > Richard Shockey, Senior Manager, Strategic Technology Initiatives > NeuStar Inc. > 45980 Center Oak Plaza Bldg 8 Sterling, VA 20166 > 1120 Vermont Ave NW Suite 400 Washington DC 20005 > Voice 571.434.5651 Cell : 314.503.0640, Fax: 815.333.1237 > or > > > > <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< > > > _______________________________________________ > enum mailing list > enum@ietf.org > http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum ********************************************************************** This message may contain information which is confidential or privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please advise the sender immediately by reply e-mail and delete this message and any attachments without retaining a copy. ********************************************************************** _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From daemon@ns.ietf.org Fri Oct 26 12:09:49 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA08689 for ; Fri, 26 Oct 2001 12:09:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id MAA01837 for enum-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 26 Oct 2001 12:09:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA00386; Fri, 26 Oct 2001 11:41:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA00349 for ; Fri, 26 Oct 2001 11:41:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: from yourwebsite.com (p44.as1.virginia1.eircom.net [159.134.184.44]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id LAA07525 for ; Fri, 26 Oct 2001 11:41:09 -0400 (EDT) From: superseal@eircom.net Message-Id: <200110261541.LAA07525@ietf.org> Reply-To: superseal@eircom.net To: enum@ietf.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2001 16:29:42 +0100 Subject: [Enum] Where are you based ??? Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Enum Discussion List X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org Hi, Where are you based. Yours Truly Patrick Mc Cann Ireland _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From daemon@ns.ietf.org Fri Oct 26 14:24:41 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA14226 for ; Fri, 26 Oct 2001 14:24:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id OAA06457 for enum-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 26 Oct 2001 14:24:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA05946; Fri, 26 Oct 2001 14:10:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA05915 for ; Fri, 26 Oct 2001 14:10:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from heron.verisign.com (heron.verisign.com [216.168.233.95]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA13697 for ; Fri, 26 Oct 2001 14:09:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: from VSVAPOSTALGW1.prod.netsol.com (vsvapostalgw1.prod.netsol.com [216.168.234.201]) by heron.verisign.com (nsi_0.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA03081; Fri, 26 Oct 2001 14:09:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: from arutkowski-pc.verisign.com (ARUTKOWSKI-PC [10.131.128.36]) by VSVAPOSTALGW1.prod.netsol.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id 4VQ8H9V6; Fri, 26 Oct 2001 14:08:28 -0400 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20011026134105.028267f0@vsvapostal1.prod.netsol.com> X-Sender: trutkowski@vsvapostal1.prod.netsol.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2001 14:09:19 -0400 To: Patrik =?iso-8859-1?Q?F=E4ltstr=F6m?= , enum@ietf.org From: Tony Rutkowski In-Reply-To: <4181753.1003543711@localhost> References: <1C1EEC765F843E44996971A80682118BBB8EF1@opwinex01.corp.illuminet.com> <1C1EEC765F843E44996971A80682118BBB8EF1@opwinex01.corp.illuminet .com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=====================_76956227==_.ALT" Subject: [Enum] ITU E.A-ENUM efforts Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Enum Discussion List X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org --=====================_76956227==_.ALT Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Hi Patrik, As the liaison to the ITU-T on ENUM matters, and co-chair of this working group, perhaps you could provide guidance about the ITU-T Rec. E.A-ENUM effort in dealing with scope and activities. For example, the recent French Administration contribution raises significant issues of overlap and perhaps regulatory preemption. See http://www.ngi.org/enum/pub/contrib%20E.A-ENUM-v2.zip best, tony --=====================_76956227==_.ALT Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Hi Patrik,

As the liaison to the ITU-T on ENUM matters,
and co-chair of this working group, perhaps
you could provide guidance about the ITU-T
Rec. E.A-ENUM effort in dealing with scope
and activities.  For example, the recent
French Administration contribution
raises significant issues of overlap and
perhaps regulatory preemption. See
http://www.ngi.org/enum/pub/contrib%20E.A-ENUM-v2.zip

best,
tony --=====================_76956227==_.ALT-- _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From daemon@ns.ietf.org Fri Oct 26 14:42:58 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA14913 for ; Fri, 26 Oct 2001 14:42:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id OAA07388 for enum-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 26 Oct 2001 14:42:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA06438; Fri, 26 Oct 2001 14:23:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA06407 for ; Fri, 26 Oct 2001 14:23:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: from cisco.com (nordic.cisco.com [64.103.48.45]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA14206 for ; Fri, 26 Oct 2001 14:23:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [192.168.1.5] (ssh-ams1.cisco.com [144.254.74.55]) by cisco.com (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) with ESMTP id UAA22633; Fri, 26 Oct 2001 20:23:17 +0200 (MET DST) Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2001 20:23:03 +0200 From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Patrik_F=E4ltstr=F6m?= To: Tony Rutkowski , enum@ietf.org Message-ID: <679202.1004127783@localhost> In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20011026134105.028267f0@vsvapostal1.prod.netsol.com> References: <1C1EEC765F843E44996971A80682118BBB8EF1@opwinex01.corp.illuminet. com><1C1EEC765F843E44996971A80682118BBB8EF1@opwinex01.corp.illuminet .com> <5.1.0.14.2.20011026134105.028267f0@vsvapostal1.prod.netsol.com> X-Mailer: Mulberry/2.1.1 (Mac OS X) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Enum] Re: ITU E.A-ENUM efforts Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Enum Discussion List X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit --On 2001-10-26 14.09 -0400 Tony Rutkowski wrote: > As the liaison to the ITU-T on ENUM matters, > and co-chair of this working group, perhaps > you could provide guidance about the ITU-T > Rec. E.A-ENUM effort in dealing with scope > and activities. For example, the recent > French Administration contribution > raises significant issues of overlap and > perhaps regulatory preemption. See > http://www.ngi.org/enum/pub/contrib%20E.A-ENUM-v2.zip I did on October 17 forward this document to this mailing together with a note from ITU where ITU wanted comments on the document. I take for granted that you and others on this list which have comments already have, or will, send comments according to instructions in that mail. paf _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From daemon@ns.ietf.org Fri Oct 26 16:09:55 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA18081 for ; Fri, 26 Oct 2001 16:09:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id QAA11083 for enum-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 26 Oct 2001 16:09:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id PAA10180; Fri, 26 Oct 2001 15:59:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id PAA10152 for ; Fri, 26 Oct 2001 15:59:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: from heron.verisign.com (heron.verisign.com [216.168.233.95]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA17818 for ; Fri, 26 Oct 2001 15:59:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: from VSVAPOSTALGW1.prod.netsol.com (vsvapostalgw1.prod.netsol.com [216.168.234.201]) by heron.verisign.com (nsi_0.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id PAA09562; Fri, 26 Oct 2001 15:59:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from arutkowski-pc.verisign.com (ARUTKOWSKI-PC [10.131.128.36]) by VSVAPOSTALGW1.prod.netsol.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id 4VQ82BS9; Fri, 26 Oct 2001 15:58:15 -0400 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20011026153644.0279d9f8@vsvapostal1.prod.netsol.com> X-Sender: trutkowski@vsvapostal1.prod.netsol.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2001 15:59:06 -0400 To: Patrik =?iso-8859-1?Q?F=E4ltstr=F6m?= , enum@ietf.org From: Tony Rutkowski In-Reply-To: <679202.1004127783@localhost> References: <5.1.0.14.2.20011026134105.028267f0@vsvapostal1.prod.netsol.com> <1C1EEC765F843E44996971A80682118BBB8EF1@opwinex01.corp.illuminet. com> <1C1EEC765F843E44996971A80682118BBB8EF1@opwinex01.corp.illuminet .com> <5.1.0.14.2.20011026134105.028267f0@vsvapostal1.prod.netsol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=====================_83543799==_.ALT" Subject: [Enum] Re: ITU E.A-ENUM efforts Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Enum Discussion List X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org --=====================_83543799==_.ALT Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Hi Patrik, > > As the liaison to the ITU-T on ENUM matters, > > and co-chair of this working group, perhaps > > you could provide guidance about the ITU-T > > Rec. E.A-ENUM effort in dealing with scope > > and activities. For example, the recent > > French Administration contribution > > raises significant issues of overlap and > > perhaps regulatory preemption. See > > http://www.ngi.org/enum/pub/contrib%20E.A-ENUM-v2.zip > >I did on October 17 forward this document to this mailing together with a >note from ITU where ITU wanted comments on the document. I take for granted >that you and others on this list which have comments already have, or will, >send comments according to instructions in that mail. M. Doisneau just distributed the French Administration version a few hours ago. It's not apparent that anything of this nature made it through the listserve on the 17th. Indeed, there appear to be no direct references to or copies of Rec. E.A-ENUM in the IETF ENUM WG archives, so it might be useful to resend it. It's your view then with respect to scope, that the IETF ENUM WG itself has no views with respect to ongoing developments in the ITU-T or other external ENUM related forums, nor intends to be involved in their work on a continuing basis? --tony --=====================_83543799==_.ALT Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Hi Patrik,

> As the liaison to the ITU-T on ENUM matters,
> and co-chair of this working group, perhaps
> you could provide guidance about the ITU-T
> Rec. E.A-ENUM effort in dealing with scope
> and activities.  For example, the recent
> French Administration contribution
> raises significant issues of overlap and
> perhaps regulatory preemption. See
> http://www.ngi.org/enum/pub/contrib%20E.A-ENUM-v2.zip

I did on October 17 forward this document to this mailing together with a
note from ITU where ITU wanted comments on the document. I take for granted
that you and others on this list which have comments already have, or will,
send comments according to instructions in that mail.

M. Doisneau just distributed the French Administration
version a few hours ago.

It's not apparent that anything of this nature made it
through the listserve on the 17th.  Indeed, there appear
to be no direct references to or copies of Rec. E.A-ENUM
in the IETF ENUM WG archives, so it might be useful to
resend it.

It's your view then with respect to scope, that the IETF
ENUM WG itself has no views with respect to ongoing
developments in the ITU-T or other external ENUM related
forums, nor intends to be involved in their work on a
continuing basis?

--tony

--=====================_83543799==_.ALT-- _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From daemon@optimus.ietf.org Sat Oct 27 02:00:58 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA29712 for ; Sat, 27 Oct 2001 02:00:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id CAA29561 for enum-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 27 Oct 2001 02:00:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id BAA29029; Sat, 27 Oct 2001 01:34:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id BAA29000 for ; Sat, 27 Oct 2001 01:34:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from cisco.com (nordic.cisco.com [64.103.48.45]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA26883 for ; Sat, 27 Oct 2001 01:34:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [192.168.1.5] (ssh-ams1.cisco.com [144.254.74.55]) by cisco.com (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) with ESMTP id HAA21384; Sat, 27 Oct 2001 07:32:28 +0200 (MET DST) Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2001 07:20:52 +0200 From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Patrik_F=E4ltstr=F6m?= To: Tony Rutkowski , enum@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Enum] Re: ITU E.A-ENUM efforts Message-ID: <3047288.1004167252@localhost> In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20011026153644.0279d9f8@vsvapostal1.prod.netsol.com> References: <5.1.0.14.2.20011026134105.028267f0@vsvapostal1.prod.netsol.com> <1C1EEC765F843E44996971A80682118BBB8EF1@opwinex01.corp.illuminet. com><1C1EEC765F843E44996971A80682118BBB8EF1@opwinex01.corp.illuminet .com><5.1.0.14.2.20011026134105.028267f0@vsvapostal1.prod.netsol.com> <5.1.0.14.2.20011026153644.0279d9f8@vsvapostal1.prod.netsol.com> X-Mailer: Mulberry/2.1.1 (Mac OS X) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Enum Discussion List X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit --On 2001-10-26 15.59 -0400 Tony Rutkowski wrote: > so it might be useful to resend it. Done. > It's your view then with respect to scope, that the IETF > ENUM WG itself has no views with respect to ongoing > developments in the ITU-T or other external ENUM related > forums, nor intends to be involved in their work on a > continuing basis? The role of this working group is twofold: - Create documents which the wg list as milestones in the charter, and a new version of the charer is currently discussed - Be a place where review of documents created outside of IETF can be discussed in the case one of those end up as individual submissions to the IETF The latter is a request from a couple of groups. I.e. they have asked if it is possible to use the IETF last call process to get a review on the part of the documents which (might) touch Internet Protocols, like DNS. The response from IETF is (as always) "of course". For example, in a number of groups (including ETSI, European Commission group on ENUM, European Regulators, ITU SG2 and the ENUM Forum in the US) there is agreat confusion on DNS operations. I see personally several "summaries on how DNS work" which is just completely wrong. I have given up trying to explain. My message have always been "IETF can review the documents and/or write a generic document on operations" and this have lead to the new proposed charter you saw. I get requests every second day on "can not the ENUM wg write a document on how to use, or not use CNAME, DNAME and NS records". So, I rather see that, like this ITU document, the documents get a review by the participants on this mailing list which I claim have better clue on DNS operations. paf _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From daemon@optimus.ietf.org Sat Oct 27 08:57:13 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA12585 for ; Sat, 27 Oct 2001 08:57:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id IAA06947 for enum-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 27 Oct 2001 08:57:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id HAA05810; Sat, 27 Oct 2001 07:41:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id HAA05782 for ; Sat, 27 Oct 2001 07:41:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: from heron.verisign.com (heron.verisign.com [216.168.233.95]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA12072 for ; Sat, 27 Oct 2001 07:41:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: from VSVAPOSTALGW1.prod.netsol.com (vsvapostalgw1.prod.netsol.com [216.168.234.201]) by heron.verisign.com (nsi_0.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id HAA22686; Sat, 27 Oct 2001 07:40:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: from arutkowski-lap.verisign.com (du102.netsol.com [216.168.245.102]) by VSVAPOSTALGW1.prod.netsol.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id 4VQ82KJV; Sat, 27 Oct 2001 07:39:49 -0400 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20011027073016.00b1d248@vsvapostal1.prod.netsol.com> X-Sender: trutkowski@vsvapostal1.prod.netsol.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2001 07:40:36 -0400 To: Patrik =?iso-8859-1?Q?F=E4ltstr=F6m?= , enum@ietf.org From: Tony Rutkowski Subject: Re: [Enum] Re: ITU E.A-ENUM efforts In-Reply-To: <3047288.1004167252@localhost> References: <5.1.0.14.2.20011026153644.0279d9f8@vsvapostal1.prod.netsol.com> <5.1.0.14.2.20011026134105.028267f0@vsvapostal1.prod.netsol.com> <1C1EEC765F843E44996971A80682118BBB8EF1@opwinex01.corp.illuminet. com> <1C1EEC765F843E44996971A80682118BBB8EF1@opwinex01.corp.illuminet .com> <5.1.0.14.2.20011026134105.028267f0@vsvapostal1.prod.netsol.com> <5.1.0.14.2.20011026153644.0279d9f8@vsvapostal1.prod.netsol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by optimus.ietf.org id HAA05783 Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Enum Discussion List X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit At 01:20 AM 27-10-01, Patrik Fältström wrote: >"summaries on how DNS work" which is just completely wrong. I have given up >trying to explain. My message have always been "IETF can review the >documents and/or write a generic document on operations" and this have lead >to the new proposed charter you saw. > >I get requests every second day on "can not the ENUM wg write a document on >how to use, or not use CNAME, DNAME and NS records". > >So, I rather see that, like this ITU document, the documents get a review >by the participants on this mailing list which I claim have better clue on >DNS operations. Patrik, That's altruistic of you, but what's wrong with letting the marketplace deal with these matters - like just about every other protocol? This would seem to be particularly the case where the end user interest is minimal, the market unknown, and very divergent views exist about what's viable. Typically working groups (at least in the IETF) are not kept around forever writing informational documents waxing poetic about perceived foibles in the marketplace and how some concept of world order can be maintained. --tony _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From daemon@optimus.ietf.org Sat Oct 27 11:23:52 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA14243 for ; Sat, 27 Oct 2001 11:23:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id LAA09419 for enum-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 27 Oct 2001 11:23:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id KAA08825; Sat, 27 Oct 2001 10:47:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id KAA08796 for ; Sat, 27 Oct 2001 10:47:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from joy.songbird.com (IDENT:root@songbird.com [208.184.79.7]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA14017 for ; Sat, 27 Oct 2001 10:47:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from bbprime.dcrocker.net (c1193160-a.snvl1.sfba.home.com [65.0.152.112]) by joy.songbird.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA10114; Sat, 27 Oct 2001 07:46:44 -0700 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20011027074341.03d3b808@dcrocker.net> X-Sender: dhc@brandenburg.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2001 07:46:45 -0700 To: Tony Rutkowski From: Dave Crocker Subject: Re: [Enum] Re: ITU E.A-ENUM efforts Cc: Patrik Fältström , enum@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20011027073016.00b1d248@vsvapostal1.prod.netsol .com> References: <3047288.1004167252@localhost> <5.1.0.14.2.20011026153644.0279d9f8@vsvapostal1.prod.netsol.com> <5.1.0.14.2.20011026134105.028267f0@vsvapostal1.prod.netsol.com> <1C1EEC765F843E44996971A80682118BBB8EF1@opwinex01.corp.illuminet. com> <1C1EEC765F843E44996971A80682118BBB8EF1@opwinex01.corp.illuminet .com> <5.1.0.14.2.20011026134105.028267f0@vsvapostal1.prod.netsol.com> <5.1.0.14.2.20011026153644.0279d9f8@vsvapostal1.prod.netsol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Enum Discussion List X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org At 04:40 AM 10/27/2001, Tony Rutkowski wrote: >>I get requests every second day on "can not the ENUM wg write a document on >>how to use, or not use CNAME, DNAME and NS records". >> >>So, I rather see that, like this ITU document, the documents get a review >>by the participants on this mailing list which I claim have better clue on >>DNS operations. > >That's altruistic of you, but what's wrong with >letting the marketplace deal with these matters - >like just about every other protocol? Tony, please do not distort what someone else says and please do not invent exceptions that do not exist. The path the Patrik outlined is quite common during early stages of adoption/deployment for new IETF work. Presumably with your long experience with the Internet, you already know that. Presumably, you re-directed Patrick's response for some other reason. Presumably your current line of attack has run its course. Please find a new one. d/ ---------- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking tel +1.408.246.8253; fax +1.408.273.6464 _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From daemon@optimus.ietf.org Sat Oct 27 13:31:48 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA15227 for ; Sat, 27 Oct 2001 13:31:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id NAA12181 for enum-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 27 Oct 2001 13:30:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA11304; Sat, 27 Oct 2001 12:46:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA11275 for ; Sat, 27 Oct 2001 12:46:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pimout2-int.prodigy.net (pimout2-ext.prodigy.net [207.115.63.101]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA14905 for ; Sat, 27 Oct 2001 12:46:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pc (dialup-63.208.66.171.Dial1.Chicago1.Level3.net [63.208.66.171]) by pimout2-int.prodigy.net (8.11.0/8.11.0) with SMTP id f9RGkIc250308; Sat, 27 Oct 2001 12:46:18 -0400 Message-ID: <002501c15f08$28d7e860$ab42d03f@pc> From: "Jim Fleming" To: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Patrik_F=E4ltstr=F6m?= , , "Tony Rutkowski" References: <5.1.0.14.2.20011026153644.0279d9f8@vsvapostal1.prod.netsol.com> <5.1.0.14.2.20011026134105.028267f0@vsvapostal1.prod.netsol.com> <1C1EEC765F843E44996971A80682118BBB8EF1@opwinex01.corp.illuminet. com> <1C1EEC765F843E44996971A80682118BBB8EF1@opwinex01.corp.illuminet .com> <5.1.0.14.2.20011026134105.028267f0@vsvapostal1.prod.netsol.com> <5.1.0.14.2.20011026153644.0279d9f8@vsvapostal1.prod.netsol.com> <5.1.0.14.2.20011027073016.00b1d248@vsvapostal1.prod.netsol.com> Subject: Re: [Enum] Re: ITU E.A-ENUM efforts Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2001 11:55:17 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Enum Discussion List X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tony Rutkowski" Patrik, That's altruistic of you, but what's wrong with letting the marketplace deal with these matters - ----- Some people claim the IETF is technical. Dave Crocker once said at an IETF meeting in Chicago, "It's all just marketing". OK, let's let the marketplace decide which companies should run the servers (including .COM) on the IPv6 Next Generation Internet. Jim Fleming Protect your .COM name....on the Next Generation Internet http://www.DOT-BIZ.com/COM 0:201 - COM World _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From daemon@optimus.ietf.org Sun Oct 28 03:18:27 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA11127 for ; Sun, 28 Oct 2001 03:18:23 -0500 (EST) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id DAA12423 for enum-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 28 Oct 2001 03:18:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id DAA12114; Sun, 28 Oct 2001 03:08:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id DAA12086 for ; Sun, 28 Oct 2001 03:08:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.com ([61.175.52.68]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id DAA11013 for ; Sun, 28 Oct 2001 03:08:16 -0500 (EST) From: namebook@yesky.com Message-Id: <200110280808.DAA11013@ietf.org> Reply-To: namebook@yesky.com To: enum@ietf.org Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2001 16:10:36 +0800 X-Mailer: MailXSender 1.05 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by optimus.ietf.org id DAA12087 Subject: [Enum] Dear enum , I want to say... Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Enum Discussion List X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Dear enum , I have visited your website and I feel your website is well designed. The only problem I think of your website is that there are only a few visitors visit your website. So , If you can promote your website as much as possible, you will get a much better result for your website. Maybe you think it's quite difficult to promote the website, however there is a way, which some people think it's not polite to do that. but it is a very useful method. What is the way? That is sending bulk emails. (Though I said like this, but please do not consider that I am sending spam emails to you, I have just visited your website, I am not sending you spam emails ) If you send 1,000,000 emails a day, then at least 1% of them will visit your website , right? That is to say, at least 10,000 people will visit your website, right? But for many people, it's hard to collect email address, which used to send bulk emails. I am a programmer, and I have made a software, it can collect a large number of email address direct from the mail servers. It works fast. Usually, it can collect (extract) 100,000 email address in only one hour. Using this software, I have collected 60 million email addresses. So, I introduce this software to you, I hope it will bring you much help. But I don't have a bulk email sending software, which can send lots of emails one time. At this moment, I have to send emails one by one, it's very tired. Can you introduce me such a software, I'll be much appreciated if you can help me. The software I have made for collecting (extracting) email address form the mail servers , is called Easy Email Searcher, Easy Email Searcher (EES) is a powerful email finder software for your email marketing.it can directly search email addresses from mail servers. It can verify all user names that you specified on the mail server.Using this software, you can get 100,000 email addresses in only one hour.It is a quite good software for email marketing. Easy Email Searcher is an email address searcher and bulk e-mail sender. It can verify more than 5500 email addresses per minute at only 56Kbps speed. It even allows you send email to valid email address while searching. You can save the searching progress and load it to resume work at your convenience. All you need to do is just input an email address, and press the "Search" button. Do you have any interests about this software? If you like, you can download this software from the following website: http://emailsoft.363.net/eesdown.exe Also, I hope that we can talk about something about this software, Maybe we will be good friends, do you think so? Thanks! Hoping to receive reply from you. _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From daemon@optimus.ietf.org Mon Oct 29 17:42:12 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA29696 for ; Mon, 29 Oct 2001 17:42:12 -0500 (EST) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id RAA03901 for enum-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 29 Oct 2001 17:42:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id RAA03215; Mon, 29 Oct 2001 17:24:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id RAA03184 for ; Mon, 29 Oct 2001 17:24:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from rainier.illuminet.com ([63.116.20.100]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA29301 for ; Mon, 29 Oct 2001 17:24:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from olwinexsmtp01.corp.illuminet.com (olwinexsmtp01.corp.illuminet.com [172.20.1.9]) by rainier.illuminet.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id OAA17935 for ; Mon, 29 Oct 2001 14:23:52 -0800 (PST) Received: by olwinexsmtp01.corp.illuminet.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Mon, 29 Oct 2001 14:23:51 -0800 Message-ID: <1C1EEC765F843E44996971A80682118BBB8F6E@opwinex01.corp.illuminet.com> From: Kevin McCandless To: "'enum@ietf.org'" Cc: Bob Wienski Subject: [Enum] Number Portability Draft Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2001 14:23:51 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Enum Discussion List X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org This is being posted for Bob Wienski at Illuminet to the list. Illuminet has reviewed a DRAFT copy of the Telephone Number Mapping Working Group of the IETF titled: Title : Number Portability in the GSTN: An Overview Author(s) : M. Foster, T. McGarry, J. Yu Filename : draft-ietf-enum-e164-gstn-np-02.txt Pages : 26 Date : 22-Oct-01 Illuminet has reviewed the document and finds no technical issues with the DRAFT. However, it should be noted that the LRN solution is what has been mandated by the FCC in the US. Solutions like QoR were dismissed by the FCC as they violated the FCC requirements for an NP solution. Several of the other suggested implementation alternatives, other than LRN, also violate the FCC LNP mandate in that they negatively impact the level of service quality, like QoR. Illuminet would be willing to elaborate on these observations should this be of interest. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Robert M. Wienski Vice President NextGen Services ILLUMINET, Inc. 4501 Intelco Loop SE P.O. Box 2909 Olympia, WA 98507 Phone: 360.493.6294 Cell: 360.951.5374 FAX: 360.923.3457 bwienski@illuminet.com www.illuminet.com _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From daemon@optimus.ietf.org Mon Oct 29 17:42:17 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA29695 for ; Mon, 29 Oct 2001 17:42:12 -0500 (EST) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id RAA03900 for enum-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 29 Oct 2001 17:42:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id RAA02989; Mon, 29 Oct 2001 17:15:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id RAA02958 for ; Mon, 29 Oct 2001 17:15:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from rainier.illuminet.com ([63.116.20.100]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA29150 for ; Mon, 29 Oct 2001 17:15:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from olwinexsmtp01.corp.illuminet.com (olwinexsmtp01.corp.illuminet.com [172.20.1.9]) by rainier.illuminet.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id OAA17466 for ; Mon, 29 Oct 2001 14:15:07 -0800 (PST) Received: by olwinexsmtp01.corp.illuminet.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Mon, 29 Oct 2001 14:15:06 -0800 Message-ID: <4209D8CC4CE65647BBC6FFBC5F4823C00221605B@olwinex02.corp.illuminet.com> From: Bob Wienski To: "'enum@ietf.org'" Cc: Rebecca Stillings , David Nicol , Kevin McCandless Subject: [Enum] Number Portability Draft Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2001 14:15:04 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Enum Discussion List X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org Illuminet has reviewed a DRAFT copy of the Telephone Number Mapping Working Group of the IETF titled: Title : Number Portability in the GSTN: An Overview Author(s) : M. Foster, T. McGarry, J. Yu Filename : draft-ietf-enum-e164-gstn-np-02.txt Pages : 26 Date : 22-Oct-01 Illuminet has reviewed the document and finds no technical issues with the DRAFT. However, it should be noted that the LRN solution is what has been mandated by the FCC in the US. Solutions like QoR were dismissed by the FCC as they violated the FCC requirements for an NP solution. Several of the other suggested implementation alternatives, other than LRN, also violate the FCC LNP mandate in that they negatively impact the level of service quality, like QoR. Illuminet would be willing to elaborate on these observations should this be of interest. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Robert M. Wienski Vice President NextGen Services ILLUMINET, Inc. 4501 Intelco Loop SE P.O. Box 2909 Olympia, WA 98507 Phone: 360.493.6294 Cell: 360.951.5374 FAX: 360.923.3457 bwienski@illuminet.com www.illuminet.com _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From daemon@optimus.ietf.org Tue Oct 30 02:33:52 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA22286 for ; Tue, 30 Oct 2001 02:33:51 -0500 (EST) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id CAA20728 for enum-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 30 Oct 2001 02:33:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id CAA20027; Tue, 30 Oct 2001 02:06:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id CAA19996 for ; Tue, 30 Oct 2001 02:05:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from bnmail.Westbrooke.bango.net ([62.254.208.129]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA18796 for ; Tue, 30 Oct 2001 02:05:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from RAY3480CT.bango.net (host213-120-116-62.in-addr.btopenworld.com [213.120.116.62]) by bnmail.Westbrooke.bango.net with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2650.21) id 4PYW1KSF; Tue, 30 Oct 2001 07:07:58 -0000 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20011030065534.02c2a210@mail.bango.net> X-Sender: ray@mail.bango.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 07:07:52 +0000 To: Tony Rutkowski , Patrik =?iso-8859-1?Q?F=E4ltstr=F6m?= , HSilbiger@aol.com, enum@ietf.org From: Ray Anderson Subject: Re: [Enum] ENUM "sharing" Cc: hsilbiger@ieee.org In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20011025073320.00b1fe30@vsvapostal1.prod.netsol .com> References: <7834985.1004005242@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Enum Discussion List X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org At 07:56 25/10/2001 -0400, Tony Rutkowski wrote: >It would be great, for example, if Cisco could >share it's ENUM technical and operational experiences, >innovations, and customer interactions with the >others in the ENUM Alliance, as the members are >already doing. > >--tony Why would they want to? As I understand it, the "ENUM Alliance" is a private club run by netnumber.com to establish their own product "Global ENUM" as the global address registry for server lookups based on phone numbers. Verisign, as an investor in NetNumber might prefer that to happen of course :-) === Ray Anderson CEO Bango.net Limited www.bango.net/00454545 The Mobile Internet is for everyone. It must be very easy to use. _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From daemon@optimus.ietf.org Tue Oct 30 07:23:01 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA25317 for ; Tue, 30 Oct 2001 07:22:56 -0500 (EST) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id HAA27278 for enum-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 30 Oct 2001 07:22:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id HAA27140; Tue, 30 Oct 2001 07:11:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id HAA27106 for ; Tue, 30 Oct 2001 07:10:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from heron.verisign.com (heron.verisign.com [216.168.233.95]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA24707 for ; Tue, 30 Oct 2001 07:10:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from VSVAPOSTALGW1.prod.netsol.com (vsvapostalgw1.prod.netsol.com [216.168.234.201]) by heron.verisign.com (nsi_0.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id HAA27368; Tue, 30 Oct 2001 07:10:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from arutkowski-lap.verisign.com (du147.netsol.com [216.168.245.147]) by VSVAPOSTALGW1.prod.netsol.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id 4VQ8JSJH; Tue, 30 Oct 2001 07:09:16 -0500 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20011030065730.00adddb8@vsvapostal1.prod.netsol.com> X-Sender: trutkowski@vsvapostal1.prod.netsol.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 07:10:04 -0500 To: Ray Anderson , Patrik =?iso-8859-1?Q?F=E4ltstr=F6m?= , HSilbiger@aol.com, enum@ietf.org From: Tony Rutkowski Subject: Re: [Enum] ENUM "sharing" Cc: hsilbiger@ieee.org In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20011030065534.02c2a210@mail.bango.net> References: <5.1.0.14.2.20011025073320.00b1fe30@vsvapostal1.prod.netsol .com> <7834985.1004005242@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Enum Discussion List X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org At 02:07 AM 30-10-01, Ray Anderson wrote: >Why would they want to? As I understand it, the "ENUM Alliance" is a >private club >run by netnumber.com to establish their own product "Global ENUM" as the >global >address registry for server lookups based on phone numbers. Hi Ray, It's the same technology, and they represent real users with actual customers. We're not dealing with religion here (particularly when the States are unlikely to adopt it as the official religion), but products in marketplaces. The material provided at VON is in fact useful sharing. See http://www.ngi.org/enum/alliance/index.htm --tony _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From daemon@optimus.ietf.org Tue Oct 30 08:51:46 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA29130 for ; Tue, 30 Oct 2001 08:51:45 -0500 (EST) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id IAA29818 for enum-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 30 Oct 2001 08:51:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id IAA29686; Tue, 30 Oct 2001 08:40:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id IAA29659 for ; Tue, 30 Oct 2001 08:40:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from hvmta01-stg.us.psimail.psi.net (hvmta01-ext.us.psimail.psi.net [38.202.36.29]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA28719 for ; Tue, 30 Oct 2001 08:40:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from RWALTER ([65.203.166.44]) by hvmta01-stg.us.psimail.psi.net (InterMail vM.4.01.02.17 201-229-119) with SMTP id <20011030133955.XDBH28907.hvmta01-stg.us.psimail.psi.net@RWALTER> for ; Tue, 30 Oct 2001 08:39:55 -0500 Reply-To: From: "Robert H. Walter" To: Subject: RE: [Enum] Revised Charter and Work Plan for ENUM WG Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 08:40:03 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 In-Reply-To: <1C1EEC765F843E44996971A80682118BBB8EB1@opwinex01.corp.illuminet.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Enum Discussion List X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Kevin, > Possible enhancements to the new charter could be as follows: > > 1) Identify the valid NAPTR records and formats for all possible services > and update RFC2916. > 2) Identify enhancements need, protocol etc, that need to be made to allow > such applications as IE to perform ENUM queries. > 3) Work with other task groups to develop possible application uses for the > ENUM protocol. Add these as an appendix to RFC 2916 A new enum I-D entitled "ENUM Resolution Protocols and Services" was submitted yesterday to the I-D editor and the enum wg chairs. This draft addresses #1 on your list in that it proposes the standardization of the ENUM resolution protocols and services to promote communications application interoperability and eliminate communications service ambiguity. It should appear in the Internet Draft repository soon under draft-walter-ranalli-enum-service-00.txt. Regards, Bob Walter NetNumber, Inc. _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From daemon@optimus.ietf.org Tue Oct 30 09:30:38 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA01669 for ; Tue, 30 Oct 2001 09:30:38 -0500 (EST) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id JAA02036 for enum-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 30 Oct 2001 09:30:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id JAA00844; Tue, 30 Oct 2001 09:21:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id JAA00814 for ; Tue, 30 Oct 2001 09:21:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from oak.neustar.com (oak.neustar.com [209.173.53.70]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA01067 for ; Tue, 30 Oct 2001 09:21:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from rds.neustar.com (dmz1.va.neustar.com [209.173.53.65]) by oak.neustar.com (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f9UELC217228 for ; Tue, 30 Oct 2001 09:21:36 -0500 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20011030091443.036ec1f0@127.0.0.1> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 09:14:47 -0500 To: enum@ietf.org From: Richard Shockey Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Subject: [Enum] Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-urn-uri-res-ddds-05.txt Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Enum Discussion List X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org FYI >To: IETF-Announce: ; >Cc: urn-ietf@lists.netsol.com >From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org >Reply-to: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org >Subject: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-urn-uri-res-ddds-05.txt >Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 07:13:28 -0500 >Sender: nsyracus@cnri.reston.va.us > >A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts >directories. >This draft is a work item of the Uniform Resource Names Working Group of >the IETF. > > Title : Dynamic Delegation Discovery System (DDDS) Part > Four: > The URI Resolution Application > Author(s) : M. Mealling > Filename : draft-ietf-urn-uri-res-ddds-05.txt > Pages : 25 > Date : 29-Oct-01 > >A specification for taking a URI and locating an authoritative server >for information about that URI. The method used to locate that >authoritative server is the Dynamic Delegation Discovery System. >This document is part of a series that is specified in 'Dynamic >Delegation Discovery System (DDDS) Part One: The Comprehensive DDDS >Standard' (RFC WWWW). It is very important to note that it is >impossible to read and understand any document in this series without >reading the others. > >A URL for this Internet-Draft is: >http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-urn-uri-res-ddds-05.txt > >To remove yourself from the IETF Announcement list, send a message to >ietf-announce-request with the word unsubscribe in the body of the message. > >Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the username >"anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in, >type "cd internet-drafts" and then > "get draft-ietf-urn-uri-res-ddds-05.txt". > >A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in >http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html >or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt > > >Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail. > >Send a message to: > mailserv@ietf.org. >In the body type: > "FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-urn-uri-res-ddds-05.txt". > >NOTE: The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in > MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility. To use this > feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE" > command. To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or > a MIME-compliant mail reader. Different MIME-compliant mail readers > exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with > "multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split > up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on > how to manipulate these messages. > > >Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader >implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the >Internet-Draft. >Content-Type: text/plain >Content-ID: <20011029134426.I-D@ietf.org> > >ENCODING mime >FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-urn-uri-res-ddds-05.txt > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard Shockey, Senior Manager, Strategic Technology Initiatives NeuStar Inc. 45980 Center Oak Plaza Bldg 8 Sterling, VA 20166 1120 Vermont Ave NW Suite 400 Washington DC 20005 Voice 571.434.5651 Cell : 314.503.0640, Fax: 815.333.1237 or <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From daemon@optimus.ietf.org Tue Oct 30 09:33:35 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA01871 for ; Tue, 30 Oct 2001 09:33:35 -0500 (EST) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id JAA02149 for enum-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 30 Oct 2001 09:33:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id JAA00746; Tue, 30 Oct 2001 09:21:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id JAA00715 for ; Tue, 30 Oct 2001 09:21:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from oak.neustar.com (oak.neustar.com [209.173.53.70]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA00977 for ; Tue, 30 Oct 2001 09:21:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from rds.neustar.com (dmz1.va.neustar.com [209.173.53.65]) by oak.neustar.com (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f9UEKM217202 for ; Tue, 30 Oct 2001 09:20:47 -0500 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20011030091303.036ef910@127.0.0.1> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 09:13:26 -0500 To: enum@ietf.org From: Richard Shockey Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Subject: [Enum] Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-urn-ddds-toc-00.txt Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Enum Discussion List X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org FYI the next iteration of RFC2915 >To: IETF-Announce: ; >Cc: urn-ietf@lists.netsol.com >From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org >Reply-to: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org >Subject: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-urn-ddds-toc-00.txt >Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 07:13:23 -0500 >Sender: nsyracus@cnri.reston.va.us > >A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts >directories. >This draft is a work item of the Uniform Resource Names Working Group of >the IETF. > > Title : Dynamic Delegation Discovery System (DDDS) Part > One: > The Comprehensive DDDS Standard > Author(s) : M. Mealling > Filename : draft-ietf-urn-ddds-toc-00.txt > Pages : 8 > Date : 29-Oct-01 > >This document specifies the exact documents that make up the complete >Dynamic Delegation Discovery System (DDDS) standard. The DDDS is an >abstract algorithm for applying dynamically retrieved string >transformation rules to an application-unique string. >This document along with RFC XXXX, RFC YYYY and RFC ZZZZ obsolete RFC >2168 [8] and RFC 2915 [6] as well as update RFC 2276 [5]. > >A URL for this Internet-Draft is: >http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-urn-ddds-toc-00.txt > >To remove yourself from the IETF Announcement list, send a message to >ietf-announce-request with the word unsubscribe in the body of the message. > >Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the username >"anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in, >type "cd internet-drafts" and then > "get draft-ietf-urn-ddds-toc-00.txt". > >A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in >http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html >or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt > > >Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail. > >Send a message to: > mailserv@ietf.org. >In the body type: > "FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-urn-ddds-toc-00.txt". > >NOTE: The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in > MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility. To use this > feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE" > command. To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or > a MIME-compliant mail reader. Different MIME-compliant mail readers > exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with > "multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split > up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on > how to manipulate these messages. > > >Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader >implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the >Internet-Draft. >Content-Type: text/plain >Content-ID: <20011029134407.I-D@ietf.org> > >ENCODING mime >FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-urn-ddds-toc-00.txt > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard Shockey, Senior Manager, Strategic Technology Initiatives NeuStar Inc. 45980 Center Oak Plaza Bldg 8 Sterling, VA 20166 1120 Vermont Ave NW Suite 400 Washington DC 20005 Voice 571.434.5651 Cell : 314.503.0640, Fax: 815.333.1237 or <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From daemon@optimus.ietf.org Tue Oct 30 09:33:37 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA01895 for ; Tue, 30 Oct 2001 09:33:36 -0500 (EST) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id JAA02158 for enum-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 30 Oct 2001 09:33:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id JAA00802; Tue, 30 Oct 2001 09:21:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id JAA00771 for ; Tue, 30 Oct 2001 09:21:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from oak.neustar.com (oak.neustar.com [209.173.53.70]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA01012 for ; Tue, 30 Oct 2001 09:21:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from rds.neustar.com (dmz1.va.neustar.com [209.173.53.65]) by oak.neustar.com (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f9UEKl217213 for ; Tue, 30 Oct 2001 09:21:11 -0500 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20011030091423.036ed380@127.0.0.1> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 09:14:34 -0500 To: enum@ietf.org From: Richard Shockey Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Subject: [Enum] Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-urn-ddds-05.txt Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Enum Discussion List X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org FYI >To: IETF-Announce: ; >Cc: urn-ietf@lists.netsol.com >From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org >Reply-to: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org >Subject: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-urn-ddds-05.txt >Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 07:13:18 -0500 >Sender: nsyracus@cnri.reston.va.us > >A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts >directories. >This draft is a work item of the Uniform Resource Names Working Group of >the IETF. > > Title : Dynamic Delegation Discovery System (DDDS) Part > Two: > The Algorithm > Author(s) : M. Mealling > Filename : draft-ietf-urn-ddds-05.txt > Pages : 22 > Date : 29-Oct-01 > >This document describes the Dynamic Delegation Discovery System >(DDDS) algorithm for applying dynamically retrieved string >transformation rules to an application-unique string. Well-formed >transformation rules will reflect the delegation of management of >information associated with the string. This document is also part >of a series that is completely specified in 'Dynamic Delegation >Discovery System (DDDS) Part One: The Comprehensive DDDS Standard' >(RFC WWWW). It is very important to note that it is impossible to >read and understand any document in this series without reading the >others. > >A URL for this Internet-Draft is: >http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-urn-ddds-05.txt > >To remove yourself from the IETF Announcement list, send a message to >ietf-announce-request with the word unsubscribe in the body of the message. > >Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the username >"anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in, >type "cd internet-drafts" and then > "get draft-ietf-urn-ddds-05.txt". > >A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in >http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html >or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt > > >Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail. > >Send a message to: > mailserv@ietf.org. >In the body type: > "FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-urn-ddds-05.txt". > >NOTE: The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in > MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility. To use this > feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE" > command. To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or > a MIME-compliant mail reader. Different MIME-compliant mail readers > exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with > "multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split > up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on > how to manipulate these messages. > > >Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader >implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the >Internet-Draft. >Content-Type: text/plain >Content-ID: <20011029134332.I-D@ietf.org> > >ENCODING mime >FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-urn-ddds-05.txt > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard Shockey, Senior Manager, Strategic Technology Initiatives NeuStar Inc. 45980 Center Oak Plaza Bldg 8 Sterling, VA 20166 1120 Vermont Ave NW Suite 400 Washington DC 20005 Voice 571.434.5651 Cell : 314.503.0640, Fax: 815.333.1237 or <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From daemon@optimus.ietf.org Tue Oct 30 09:33:48 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA01909 for ; Tue, 30 Oct 2001 09:33:48 -0500 (EST) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id JAA02156 for enum-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 30 Oct 2001 09:33:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id JAA00701; Tue, 30 Oct 2001 09:20:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id JAA00672 for ; Tue, 30 Oct 2001 09:20:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from oak.neustar.com (oak.neustar.com [209.173.53.70]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA00957 for ; Tue, 30 Oct 2001 09:20:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from rds.neustar.com (dmz1.va.neustar.com [209.173.53.65]) by oak.neustar.com (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f9UEJw217187 for ; Tue, 30 Oct 2001 09:20:22 -0500 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20011030091106.036e3510@127.0.0.1> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 09:12:16 -0500 To: enum@ietf.org From: Richard Shockey Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Subject: [Enum] Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-vpim-routing-02.txt Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Enum Discussion List X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org FYI for service definitions by VPIM for ENUM >To: IETF-Announce: ; >Cc: vpim@lists.neystadt.org >From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org >Reply-to: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org >Subject: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-vpim-routing-02.txt >Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 07:13:34 -0500 >Sender: nsyracus@cnri.reston.va.us > >A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts >directories. >This draft is a work item of the Voice Profile for Internet Mail Working >Group of the IETF. > > Title : Voice Message Routing Service > Author(s) : G. Vaudreuil > Filename : draft-ietf-vpim-routing-02.txt > Pages : 11 > Date : 29-Oct-01 > >Voice messaging is traditionally addressed using telephone number >addressing. This document describes two techniques for routing voice >messages based on a telephone number. The VPIM Directory service >provides a directory mechanism to lookup a VPIM email address with a >telephone number and confirm that the address is both valid and the >associated with the intended recipient. However this service will >take time become widely deployed in the nearest term. This document >also describes a more limited send-and-pray service useful simply to >route and deliver messages using only the ENUM telephone number >resolution service and the existing DNS mail routing facilies. >Please send comments on this document to the VPIM working group >mailing list > >A URL for this Internet-Draft is: >http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-vpim-routing-02.txt > >To remove yourself from the IETF Announcement list, send a message to >ietf-announce-request with the word unsubscribe in the body of the message. > >Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the username >"anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in, >type "cd internet-drafts" and then > "get draft-ietf-vpim-routing-02.txt". > >A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in >http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html >or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt > > >Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail. > >Send a message to: > mailserv@ietf.org. >In the body type: > "FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-vpim-routing-02.txt". > >NOTE: The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in > MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility. To use this > feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE" > command. To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or > a MIME-compliant mail reader. Different MIME-compliant mail readers > exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with > "multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split > up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on > how to manipulate these messages. > > >Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader >implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the >Internet-Draft. >Content-Type: text/plain >Content-ID: <20011029134444.I-D@ietf.org> > >ENCODING mime >FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-vpim-routing-02.txt > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard Shockey, Senior Manager, Strategic Technology Initiatives NeuStar Inc. 45980 Center Oak Plaza Bldg 8 Sterling, VA 20166 1120 Vermont Ave NW Suite 400 Washington DC 20005 Voice 571.434.5651 Cell : 314.503.0640, Fax: 815.333.1237 or <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From daemon@optimus.ietf.org Tue Oct 30 09:35:07 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA01969 for ; Tue, 30 Oct 2001 09:35:06 -0500 (EST) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id JAA02253 for enum-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 30 Oct 2001 09:35:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id JAA01263; Tue, 30 Oct 2001 09:26:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id JAA01232 for ; Tue, 30 Oct 2001 09:26:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from oak.neustar.com (oak.neustar.com [209.173.53.70]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA01394 for ; Tue, 30 Oct 2001 09:26:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from rds.neustar.com (dmz1.va.neustar.com [209.173.53.65]) by oak.neustar.com (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f9UEOw217321; Tue, 30 Oct 2001 09:25:38 -0500 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20011030091754.03572ec0@127.0.0.1> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 09:21:28 -0500 To: , From: Richard Shockey Subject: RE: [Enum] Revised Charter and Work Plan for ENUM WG In-Reply-To: References: <1C1EEC765F843E44996971A80682118BBB8EB1@opwinex01.corp.illuminet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Enum Discussion List X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org At 08:40 AM 10/30/2001 -0500, Robert H. Walter wrote: >Hi Kevin, > > > Possible enhancements to the new charter could be as follows: > > > > 1) Identify the valid NAPTR records and formats for all possible services > > and update RFC2916. > > 2) Identify enhancements need, protocol etc, that need to be made to allow > > such applications as IE to perform ENUM queries. > > 3) Work with other task groups to develop possible application uses > for the > > ENUM protocol. Add these as an appendix to RFC 2916 > >A new enum I-D entitled "ENUM Resolution Protocols and Services" was >submitted yesterday to the I-D editor and the enum wg chairs. This >draft addresses #1 on your list in that it proposes the standardization >of the ENUM resolution protocols and services to promote communications >application interoperability and eliminate communications service ambiguity. > >It should appear in the Internet Draft repository soon under >draft-walter-ranalli-enum-service-00.txt. I think this will be a useful document to consider ...but it is also clear that specific application WG's are taking up some of these matters independently ... clearly the VPIM work group is well advanced in its thinking (I've cross posted some of the relevant documents )and I'm reasonably confident that the new SIPPING WG may take up the issue of defining SIP parameters and usage in ENUM. >Regards, > >Bob Walter >NetNumber, Inc. > >_______________________________________________ >enum mailing list >enum@ietf.org >http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard Shockey, Senior Manager, Strategic Technology Initiatives NeuStar Inc. 45980 Center Oak Plaza Bldg 8 Sterling, VA 20166 1120 Vermont Ave NW Suite 400 Washington DC 20005 Voice 571.434.5651 Cell : 314.503.0640, Fax: 815.333.1237 or <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From daemon@optimus.ietf.org Tue Oct 30 09:35:11 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA01984 for ; Tue, 30 Oct 2001 09:35:11 -0500 (EST) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id JAA02267 for enum-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 30 Oct 2001 09:35:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id JAA01305; Tue, 30 Oct 2001 09:26:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id JAA01274 for ; Tue, 30 Oct 2001 09:26:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from oak.neustar.com (oak.neustar.com [209.173.53.70]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA01405 for ; Tue, 30 Oct 2001 09:26:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from rds.neustar.com (dmz1.va.neustar.com [209.173.53.65]) by oak.neustar.com (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f9UEPk217334 for ; Tue, 30 Oct 2001 09:26:10 -0500 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20011030091859.0370ec00@127.0.0.1> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 09:19:21 -0500 To: enum@ietf.org From: Richard Shockey Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Subject: [Enum] Fwd: [VPIM] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-vpim-address-02.txt Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Enum Discussion List X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org FYI >To: IETF-Announce: ; >Cc: vpim@lists.neystadt.org >From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org >Reply-to: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org >Subject: [VPIM] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-vpim-address-02.txt >Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2001 07:08:01 -0500 >Sender: owner-vpim@lists.neystadt.org > >A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts >directories. >This draft is a work item of the Voice Profile for Internet Mail Working >Group of the IETF. > > Title : VPIM Addressing > Author(s) : G. Parsons > Filename : draft-ietf-vpim-address-02.txt > Pages : 13 > Date : 26-Oct-01 > >This document lists the various VPIM email address formats that are >currently in common use and defines several new address formats for >special case usage. Requirements are imposed on the formats of >addresses used in VPIM submission mode. > >A URL for this Internet-Draft is: >http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-vpim-address-02.txt > >To remove yourself from the IETF Announcement list, send a message to >ietf-announce-request with the word unsubscribe in the body of the message. > >Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the username >"anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in, >type "cd internet-drafts" and then > "get draft-ietf-vpim-address-02.txt". > >A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in >http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html >or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt > > >Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail. > >Send a message to: > mailserv@ietf.org. >In the body type: > "FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-vpim-address-02.txt". > >NOTE: The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in > MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility. To use this > feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE" > command. To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or > a MIME-compliant mail reader. Different MIME-compliant mail readers > exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with > "multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split > up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on > how to manipulate these messages. > > >Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader >implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the >Internet-Draft. >Content-Type: text/plain >Content-ID: <20011026135514.I-D@ietf.org> > >ENCODING mime >FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-vpim-address-02.txt > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard Shockey, Senior Manager, Strategic Technology Initiatives NeuStar Inc. 45980 Center Oak Plaza Bldg 8 Sterling, VA 20166 1120 Vermont Ave NW Suite 400 Washington DC 20005 Voice 571.434.5651 Cell : 314.503.0640, Fax: 815.333.1237 or <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From daemon@optimus.ietf.org Tue Oct 30 09:53:10 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA02687 for ; Tue, 30 Oct 2001 09:53:10 -0500 (EST) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id JAA03321 for enum-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 30 Oct 2001 09:53:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id JAA02732; Tue, 30 Oct 2001 09:41:43 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id JAA02700 for ; Tue, 30 Oct 2001 09:41:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from sj-msg-core-2.cisco.com (sj-msg-core-2.cisco.com [171.69.24.11]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA02278 for ; Tue, 30 Oct 2001 09:41:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from sj-msg-av-2.cisco.com (sj-msg-av-2.cisco.com [171.69.24.12]) by sj-msg-core-2.cisco.com (8.11.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id f9UEf8a05201; Tue, 30 Oct 2001 06:41:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from mailman.cisco.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sj-msg-av-2.cisco.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id f9UEf8R03680; Tue, 30 Oct 2001 06:41:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from CHSHARP-W2K1.cisco.com (sjc-vpn1-115.cisco.com [10.21.96.115]) by mailman.cisco.com (8.9.3/CISCO.SERVER.1.2) with ESMTP id GAA16020; Tue, 30 Oct 2001 06:41:07 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20011030093753.024a6888@dogwood.cisco.com> X-Sender: chsharp@dogwood.cisco.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 09:40:40 -0500 To: Richard Shockey From: Chip Sharp Subject: Re: [Enum] Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-urn-ddds-toc-00.txt Cc: enum@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20011030091303.036ef910@127.0.0.1> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Enum Discussion List X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org How does an Internet Draft obsolete a (PS) RFC? Is this supposed to say that when the I-D reaches RFC along with the others referenced then they are intended to obsolete RFC2915? Thanks, Chip At 09:13 AM 10/30/2001, Richard Shockey wrote: ...snip... >>This document along with RFC XXXX, RFC YYYY and RFC ZZZZ obsolete RFC >>2168 [8] and RFC 2915 [6] as well as update RFC 2276 [5]. ...snip... _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From daemon@optimus.ietf.org Tue Oct 30 10:02:51 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA03181 for ; Tue, 30 Oct 2001 10:02:51 -0500 (EST) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id KAA04229 for enum-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 30 Oct 2001 10:02:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id JAA03459; Tue, 30 Oct 2001 09:54:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id JAA03368 for ; Tue, 30 Oct 2001 09:54:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from pimout2-int.prodigy.net (pimout2-ext.prodigy.net [207.115.63.101]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA02779 for ; Tue, 30 Oct 2001 09:54:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from pc (dialup-65.56.142.94.Dial1.Chicago1.Level3.net [65.56.142.94]) by pimout2-int.prodigy.net (8.11.0/8.11.0) with SMTP id f9UErnc157490; Tue, 30 Oct 2001 09:53:50 -0500 Message-ID: <008701c16152$998c3600$5e8e3841@pc> From: "Jim Fleming" To: "Tony Rutkowski" , =?iso-8859-1?Q?Patrik__F=E4ltstr=F6m?= , , , "Ray Anderson" Cc: References: <7834985.1004005242@localhost> <5.1.0.14.2.20011030065534.02c2a210@mail.bango.net> Subject: Re: [Enum] ENUM "sharing" Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 08:53:10 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Enum Discussion List X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ray Anderson" > > Why would they want to? As I understand it, the "ENUM Alliance" is a > private club Some people think that the entire Internet is a private club. It is a collection of private networks connected together. It does appear that some of those private networks will now be nationalized. Companies will likely be given a choice, which direction to go. Clearly, the U.S. Government is favoring the companies based in the Washington, D.C. area. They are pulling in their fences. http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/press/2001/us_102901.htm http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/press/2001/edu_102901.htm People on the outside looking in have to realize they will never be able to cross those fences. They have to think global, yet act local. They have to all work hard to expand the Internet, so it really is for everyone, not just the insiders. Jim Fleming http://www.IPv8.info http://www.in-addr.info 3:219 INFO _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From daemon@optimus.ietf.org Tue Oct 30 10:08:18 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA03306 for ; Tue, 30 Oct 2001 10:08:18 -0500 (EST) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id KAA04518 for enum-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 30 Oct 2001 10:08:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id JAA03802; Tue, 30 Oct 2001 09:59:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id JAA03771 for ; Tue, 30 Oct 2001 09:59:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from bailey.dscga.com (bailey.dscga.com [198.78.9.11]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA03022 for ; Tue, 30 Oct 2001 09:59:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from bailey.dscga.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by bailey.dscga.com (8.12.1/8.12.1) with ESMTP id f9UEtxlc016159; Tue, 30 Oct 2001 09:55:59 -0500 (EST) Received: (from michael@localhost) by bailey.dscga.com (8.12.1/8.12.1/Submit) id f9UEtwYF016158; Tue, 30 Oct 2001 09:55:58 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 09:55:58 -0500 From: Michael Mealling To: Chip Sharp Cc: Richard Shockey , enum@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Enum] Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-urn-ddds-toc-00.txt Message-ID: <20011030095558.N12559@bailey.dscga.com> Reply-To: Michael Mealling References: <5.1.0.14.2.20011030091303.036ef910@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.2.20011030093753.024a6888@dogwood.cisco.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20011030093753.024a6888@dogwood.cisco.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.22.1i Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Enum Discussion List X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org On Tue, Oct 30, 2001 at 09:40:40AM -0500, Chip Sharp wrote: > How does an Internet Draft obsolete a (PS) RFC? > > Is this supposed to say that when the I-D reaches RFC along with the others > referenced then they are intended to obsolete RFC2915? Yes. The form 'RFC XXXX' is for the RFC Editor to change to the new RFC number when its assigned. The main ones that are important for ENUM are Part 1,2 and 3. The other ones are specifically for the URI Resolution application (but I suggest you read them anyway since it does have its uses in many ENUM applications)... > At 09:13 AM 10/30/2001, Richard Shockey wrote: > ...snip... > >>This document along with RFC XXXX, RFC YYYY and RFC ZZZZ obsolete RFC > >>2168 [8] and RFC 2915 [6] as well as update RFC 2276 [5]. > ...snip... > > > > _______________________________________________ > enum mailing list > enum@ietf.org > http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum -- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Mealling | Vote Libertarian! | urn:pin:1 michael@neonym.net | | http://www.neonym.net _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From daemon@optimus.ietf.org Tue Oct 30 10:47:09 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA04608 for ; Tue, 30 Oct 2001 10:47:08 -0500 (EST) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id KAA06355 for enum-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 30 Oct 2001 10:47:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id KAA05768; Tue, 30 Oct 2001 10:34:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id KAA05739 for ; Tue, 30 Oct 2001 10:34:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from joy.songbird.com (IDENT:root@songbird.com [208.184.79.7]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA04258 for ; Tue, 30 Oct 2001 10:34:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from bbprime.dcrocker.net (c1193160-a.snvl1.sfba.home.com [65.0.152.112]) by joy.songbird.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA13943; Tue, 30 Oct 2001 07:34:30 -0800 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20011030072802.03e11170@dcrocker.net> X-Sender: dhc@brandenburg.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 07:31:15 -0800 To: Tony Rutkowski From: Dave Crocker Subject: Re: [Enum] ENUM "sharing" Cc: enum@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20011030065730.00adddb8@vsvapostal1.prod.netsol .com> References: <5.1.0.14.2.20011030065534.02c2a210@mail.bango.net> <5.1.0.14.2.20011025073320.00b1fe30@vsvapostal1.prod.netsol .com> <7834985.1004005242@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Enum Discussion List X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org At 07:10 AM 10/30/2001 -0500, Tony Rutkowski wrote: >It's the same technology, Not quite. ENUM is a technology defined by a particular document issued as a standards track RFC. If you take the time to read it, Tony, you will discover that the ENUM technology is specified as working with e164.arpa. Your employer's effort is simply a classic user group for their proprietary product. d/ ---------- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking tel +1.408.246.8253; fax +1.408.273.6464 _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From daemon@optimus.ietf.org Tue Oct 30 10:47:22 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA04619 for ; Tue, 30 Oct 2001 10:47:09 -0500 (EST) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id KAA06369 for enum-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 30 Oct 2001 10:47:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id KAA05702; Tue, 30 Oct 2001 10:33:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id KAA05615 for ; Tue, 30 Oct 2001 10:33:43 -0500 (EST) Received: from dfw7-1.relay.mail.uu.net (dfw7-1.relay.mail.uu.net [199.171.54.106]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA04219 for ; Tue, 30 Oct 2001 10:33:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from exchsrvr.ctia.org by dfw7sosrv11.alter.net with ESMTP (peer crosschecked as: [204.177.233.14]) id QQlmzm00015 for ; Tue, 30 Oct 2001 15:33:40 GMT Received: by exchsrvr.ctia.org with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Tue, 30 Oct 2001 10:29:02 -0500 Message-ID: <818921C5D171D41181DE00508B6709D902088344@exchsrvr.ctia.org> From: Lori Messing To: "'enum@ietf.org'" Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 10:28:59 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Subject: [Enum] RE: enum digest, Vol 1 #292 - 13 msgs Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Enum Discussion List X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org If Illuminet is inclined to elaborate on QOR and alternatives to LRN which would negatively impact service levels in a LNP environment, CTIA is interested. Thank you. Lori Messing Director of Numbering Issues Cellular Telecommunications & Internet Association (CTIA) 1250 Connecticut Avenue Suite #800 Washington, DC 20036 202/736/3654 lmessing@ctia.org -----Original Message----- From: enum-admin@ietf.org [mailto:enum-admin@ietf.org] Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2001 6:54 AM To: enum@ietf.org Subject: enum digest, Vol 1 #292 - 13 msgs Send enum mailing list submissions to enum@ietf.org To subscribe or unsubscribe via the web, visit http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to enum-request@ietf.org You can reach the person managing the list at enum-admin@ietf.org When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of enum digest..." Today's Topics: 1. Number Portability Draft (Bob Wienski) 2. Number Portability Draft (Kevin McCandless) 3. Re: ENUM "sharing" (Ray Anderson) 4. Re: ENUM "sharing" (Tony Rutkowski) 5. RE: Revised Charter and Work Plan for ENUM WG (Robert H. Walter) 6. Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-vpim-routing-02.txt (Richard Shockey) 7. Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-urn-ddds-toc-00.txt (Richard Shockey) 8. Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-urn-ddds-05.txt (Richard Shockey) 9. Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-urn-uri-res-ddds-05.txt (Richard Shockey) 10. RE: Revised Charter and Work Plan for ENUM WG (Richard Shockey) 11. Fwd: [VPIM] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-vpim-address-02.txt (Richard Shockey) 12. Re: Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-urn-ddds-toc-00.txt (Chip Sharp) 13. Re: ENUM "sharing" (Jim Fleming) --__--__-- Message: 1 From: Bob Wienski To: "'enum@ietf.org'" Cc: Rebecca Stillings , David Nicol , Kevin McCandless Subject: [Enum] Number Portability Draft Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2001 14:15:04 -0800 charset="iso-8859-1" Illuminet has reviewed a DRAFT copy of the Telephone Number Mapping Working Group of the IETF titled: Title : Number Portability in the GSTN: An Overview Author(s) : M. Foster, T. McGarry, J. Yu Filename : draft-ietf-enum-e164-gstn-np-02.txt Pages : 26 Date : 22-Oct-01 Illuminet has reviewed the document and finds no technical issues with the DRAFT. However, it should be noted that the LRN solution is what has been mandated by the FCC in the US. Solutions like QoR were dismissed by the FCC as they violated the FCC requirements for an NP solution. Several of the other suggested implementation alternatives, other than LRN, also violate the FCC LNP mandate in that they negatively impact the level of service quality, like QoR. Illuminet would be willing to elaborate on these observations should this be of interest. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Robert M. Wienski Vice President NextGen Services ILLUMINET, Inc. 4501 Intelco Loop SE P.O. Box 2909 Olympia, WA 98507 Phone: 360.493.6294 Cell: 360.951.5374 FAX: 360.923.3457 bwienski@illuminet.com www.illuminet.com --__--__-- Message: 2 From: Kevin McCandless To: "'enum@ietf.org'" Cc: Bob Wienski Subject: [Enum] Number Portability Draft Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2001 14:23:51 -0800 charset="iso-8859-1" This is being posted for Bob Wienski at Illuminet to the list. Illuminet has reviewed a DRAFT copy of the Telephone Number Mapping Working Group of the IETF titled: Title : Number Portability in the GSTN: An Overview Author(s) : M. Foster, T. McGarry, J. Yu Filename : draft-ietf-enum-e164-gstn-np-02.txt Pages : 26 Date : 22-Oct-01 Illuminet has reviewed the document and finds no technical issues with the DRAFT. However, it should be noted that the LRN solution is what has been mandated by the FCC in the US. Solutions like QoR were dismissed by the FCC as they violated the FCC requirements for an NP solution. Several of the other suggested implementation alternatives, other than LRN, also violate the FCC LNP mandate in that they negatively impact the level of service quality, like QoR. Illuminet would be willing to elaborate on these observations should this be of interest. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Robert M. Wienski Vice President NextGen Services ILLUMINET, Inc. 4501 Intelco Loop SE P.O. Box 2909 Olympia, WA 98507 Phone: 360.493.6294 Cell: 360.951.5374 FAX: 360.923.3457 bwienski@illuminet.com www.illuminet.com --__--__-- Message: 3 Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 07:07:52 +0000 To: Tony Rutkowski , Patrik =?iso-8859-1?Q?F=E4ltstr=F6m?= , HSilbiger@aol.com, enum@ietf.org From: Ray Anderson Subject: Re: [Enum] ENUM "sharing" Cc: hsilbiger@ieee.org .com> At 07:56 25/10/2001 -0400, Tony Rutkowski wrote: >It would be great, for example, if Cisco could >share it's ENUM technical and operational experiences, >innovations, and customer interactions with the >others in the ENUM Alliance, as the members are >already doing. > >--tony Why would they want to? As I understand it, the "ENUM Alliance" is a private club run by netnumber.com to establish their own product "Global ENUM" as the global address registry for server lookups based on phone numbers. Verisign, as an investor in NetNumber might prefer that to happen of course :-) === Ray Anderson CEO Bango.net Limited www.bango.net/00454545 The Mobile Internet is for everyone. It must be very easy to use. --__--__-- Message: 4 Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 07:10:04 -0500 To: Ray Anderson , Patrik =?iso-8859-1?Q?F=E4ltstr=F6m?= , HSilbiger@aol.com, enum@ietf.org From: Tony Rutkowski Subject: Re: [Enum] ENUM "sharing" Cc: hsilbiger@ieee.org <7834985.1004005242@localhost> At 02:07 AM 30-10-01, Ray Anderson wrote: >Why would they want to? As I understand it, the "ENUM Alliance" is a >private club >run by netnumber.com to establish their own product "Global ENUM" as the >global >address registry for server lookups based on phone numbers. Hi Ray, It's the same technology, and they represent real users with actual customers. We're not dealing with religion here (particularly when the States are unlikely to adopt it as the official religion), but products in marketplaces. The material provided at VON is in fact useful sharing. See http://www.ngi.org/enum/alliance/index.htm --tony --__--__-- Message: 5 Reply-To: From: "Robert H. Walter" To: Subject: RE: [Enum] Revised Charter and Work Plan for ENUM WG Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 08:40:03 -0500 charset="iso-8859-1" Hi Kevin, > Possible enhancements to the new charter could be as follows: > > 1) Identify the valid NAPTR records and formats for all possible services > and update RFC2916. > 2) Identify enhancements need, protocol etc, that need to be made to allow > such applications as IE to perform ENUM queries. > 3) Work with other task groups to develop possible application uses for the > ENUM protocol. Add these as an appendix to RFC 2916 A new enum I-D entitled "ENUM Resolution Protocols and Services" was submitted yesterday to the I-D editor and the enum wg chairs. This draft addresses #1 on your list in that it proposes the standardization of the ENUM resolution protocols and services to promote communications application interoperability and eliminate communications service ambiguity. It should appear in the Internet Draft repository soon under draft-walter-ranalli-enum-service-00.txt. Regards, Bob Walter NetNumber, Inc. --__--__-- Message: 6 Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 09:12:16 -0500 To: enum@ietf.org From: Richard Shockey Subject: [Enum] Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-vpim-routing-02.txt FYI for service definitions by VPIM for ENUM >To: IETF-Announce: ; >Cc: vpim@lists.neystadt.org >From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org >Reply-to: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org >Subject: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-vpim-routing-02.txt >Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 07:13:34 -0500 >Sender: nsyracus@cnri.reston.va.us > >A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts >directories. >This draft is a work item of the Voice Profile for Internet Mail Working >Group of the IETF. > > Title : Voice Message Routing Service > Author(s) : G. Vaudreuil > Filename : draft-ietf-vpim-routing-02.txt > Pages : 11 > Date : 29-Oct-01 > >Voice messaging is traditionally addressed using telephone number >addressing. This document describes two techniques for routing voice >messages based on a telephone number. The VPIM Directory service >provides a directory mechanism to lookup a VPIM email address with a >telephone number and confirm that the address is both valid and the >associated with the intended recipient. However this service will >take time become widely deployed in the nearest term. This document >also describes a more limited send-and-pray service useful simply to >route and deliver messages using only the ENUM telephone number >resolution service and the existing DNS mail routing facilies. >Please send comments on this document to the VPIM working group >mailing list > >A URL for this Internet-Draft is: >http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-vpim-routing-02.txt > >To remove yourself from the IETF Announcement list, send a message to >ietf-announce-request with the word unsubscribe in the body of the message. > >Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the username >"anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in, >type "cd internet-drafts" and then > "get draft-ietf-vpim-routing-02.txt". > >A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in >http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html >or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt > > >Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail. > >Send a message to: > mailserv@ietf.org. >In the body type: > "FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-vpim-routing-02.txt". > >NOTE: The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in > MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility. To use this > feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE" > command. To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or > a MIME-compliant mail reader. Different MIME-compliant mail readers > exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with > "multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split > up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on > how to manipulate these messages. > > >Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader >implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the >Internet-Draft. >Content-Type: text/plain >Content-ID: <20011029134444.I-D@ietf.org> > >ENCODING mime >FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-vpim-routing-02.txt > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard Shockey, Senior Manager, Strategic Technology Initiatives NeuStar Inc. 45980 Center Oak Plaza Bldg 8 Sterling, VA 20166 1120 Vermont Ave NW Suite 400 Washington DC 20005 Voice 571.434.5651 Cell : 314.503.0640, Fax: 815.333.1237 or <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< --__--__-- Message: 7 Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 09:13:26 -0500 To: enum@ietf.org From: Richard Shockey Subject: [Enum] Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-urn-ddds-toc-00.txt FYI the next iteration of RFC2915 >To: IETF-Announce: ; >Cc: urn-ietf@lists.netsol.com >From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org >Reply-to: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org >Subject: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-urn-ddds-toc-00.txt >Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 07:13:23 -0500 >Sender: nsyracus@cnri.reston.va.us > >A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts >directories. >This draft is a work item of the Uniform Resource Names Working Group of >the IETF. > > Title : Dynamic Delegation Discovery System (DDDS) Part > One: > The Comprehensive DDDS Standard > Author(s) : M. Mealling > Filename : draft-ietf-urn-ddds-toc-00.txt > Pages : 8 > Date : 29-Oct-01 > >This document specifies the exact documents that make up the complete >Dynamic Delegation Discovery System (DDDS) standard. The DDDS is an >abstract algorithm for applying dynamically retrieved string >transformation rules to an application-unique string. >This document along with RFC XXXX, RFC YYYY and RFC ZZZZ obsolete RFC >2168 [8] and RFC 2915 [6] as well as update RFC 2276 [5]. > >A URL for this Internet-Draft is: >http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-urn-ddds-toc-00.txt > >To remove yourself from the IETF Announcement list, send a message to >ietf-announce-request with the word unsubscribe in the body of the message. > >Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the username >"anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in, >type "cd internet-drafts" and then > "get draft-ietf-urn-ddds-toc-00.txt". > >A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in >http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html >or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt > > >Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail. > >Send a message to: > mailserv@ietf.org. >In the body type: > "FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-urn-ddds-toc-00.txt". > >NOTE: The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in > MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility. To use this > feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE" > command. To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or > a MIME-compliant mail reader. Different MIME-compliant mail readers > exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with > "multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split > up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on > how to manipulate these messages. > > >Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader >implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the >Internet-Draft. >Content-Type: text/plain >Content-ID: <20011029134407.I-D@ietf.org> > >ENCODING mime >FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-urn-ddds-toc-00.txt > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard Shockey, Senior Manager, Strategic Technology Initiatives NeuStar Inc. 45980 Center Oak Plaza Bldg 8 Sterling, VA 20166 1120 Vermont Ave NW Suite 400 Washington DC 20005 Voice 571.434.5651 Cell : 314.503.0640, Fax: 815.333.1237 or <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< --__--__-- Message: 8 Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 09:14:34 -0500 To: enum@ietf.org From: Richard Shockey Subject: [Enum] Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-urn-ddds-05.txt FYI >To: IETF-Announce: ; >Cc: urn-ietf@lists.netsol.com >From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org >Reply-to: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org >Subject: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-urn-ddds-05.txt >Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 07:13:18 -0500 >Sender: nsyracus@cnri.reston.va.us > >A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts >directories. >This draft is a work item of the Uniform Resource Names Working Group of >the IETF. > > Title : Dynamic Delegation Discovery System (DDDS) Part > Two: > The Algorithm > Author(s) : M. Mealling > Filename : draft-ietf-urn-ddds-05.txt > Pages : 22 > Date : 29-Oct-01 > >This document describes the Dynamic Delegation Discovery System >(DDDS) algorithm for applying dynamically retrieved string >transformation rules to an application-unique string. Well-formed >transformation rules will reflect the delegation of management of >information associated with the string. This document is also part >of a series that is completely specified in 'Dynamic Delegation >Discovery System (DDDS) Part One: The Comprehensive DDDS Standard' >(RFC WWWW). It is very important to note that it is impossible to >read and understand any document in this series without reading the >others. > >A URL for this Internet-Draft is: >http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-urn-ddds-05.txt > >To remove yourself from the IETF Announcement list, send a message to >ietf-announce-request with the word unsubscribe in the body of the message. > >Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the username >"anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in, >type "cd internet-drafts" and then > "get draft-ietf-urn-ddds-05.txt". > >A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in >http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html >or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt > > >Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail. > >Send a message to: > mailserv@ietf.org. >In the body type: > "FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-urn-ddds-05.txt". > >NOTE: The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in > MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility. To use this > feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE" > command. To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or > a MIME-compliant mail reader. Different MIME-compliant mail readers > exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with > "multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split > up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on > how to manipulate these messages. > > >Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader >implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the >Internet-Draft. >Content-Type: text/plain >Content-ID: <20011029134332.I-D@ietf.org> > >ENCODING mime >FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-urn-ddds-05.txt > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard Shockey, Senior Manager, Strategic Technology Initiatives NeuStar Inc. 45980 Center Oak Plaza Bldg 8 Sterling, VA 20166 1120 Vermont Ave NW Suite 400 Washington DC 20005 Voice 571.434.5651 Cell : 314.503.0640, Fax: 815.333.1237 or <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< --__--__-- Message: 9 Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 09:14:47 -0500 To: enum@ietf.org From: Richard Shockey Subject: [Enum] Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-urn-uri-res-ddds-05.txt FYI >To: IETF-Announce: ; >Cc: urn-ietf@lists.netsol.com >From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org >Reply-to: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org >Subject: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-urn-uri-res-ddds-05.txt >Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 07:13:28 -0500 >Sender: nsyracus@cnri.reston.va.us > >A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts >directories. >This draft is a work item of the Uniform Resource Names Working Group of >the IETF. > > Title : Dynamic Delegation Discovery System (DDDS) Part > Four: > The URI Resolution Application > Author(s) : M. Mealling > Filename : draft-ietf-urn-uri-res-ddds-05.txt > Pages : 25 > Date : 29-Oct-01 > >A specification for taking a URI and locating an authoritative server >for information about that URI. The method used to locate that >authoritative server is the Dynamic Delegation Discovery System. >This document is part of a series that is specified in 'Dynamic >Delegation Discovery System (DDDS) Part One: The Comprehensive DDDS >Standard' (RFC WWWW). It is very important to note that it is >impossible to read and understand any document in this series without >reading the others. > >A URL for this Internet-Draft is: >http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-urn-uri-res-ddds-05.txt > >To remove yourself from the IETF Announcement list, send a message to >ietf-announce-request with the word unsubscribe in the body of the message. > >Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the username >"anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in, >type "cd internet-drafts" and then > "get draft-ietf-urn-uri-res-ddds-05.txt". > >A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in >http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html >or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt > > >Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail. > >Send a message to: > mailserv@ietf.org. >In the body type: > "FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-urn-uri-res-ddds-05.txt". > >NOTE: The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in > MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility. To use this > feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE" > command. To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or > a MIME-compliant mail reader. Different MIME-compliant mail readers > exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with > "multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split > up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on > how to manipulate these messages. > > >Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader >implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the >Internet-Draft. >Content-Type: text/plain >Content-ID: <20011029134426.I-D@ietf.org> > >ENCODING mime >FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-urn-uri-res-ddds-05.txt > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard Shockey, Senior Manager, Strategic Technology Initiatives NeuStar Inc. 45980 Center Oak Plaza Bldg 8 Sterling, VA 20166 1120 Vermont Ave NW Suite 400 Washington DC 20005 Voice 571.434.5651 Cell : 314.503.0640, Fax: 815.333.1237 or <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< --__--__-- Message: 10 Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 09:21:28 -0500 To: , From: Richard Shockey Subject: RE: [Enum] Revised Charter and Work Plan for ENUM WG At 08:40 AM 10/30/2001 -0500, Robert H. Walter wrote: >Hi Kevin, > > > Possible enhancements to the new charter could be as follows: > > > > 1) Identify the valid NAPTR records and formats for all possible services > > and update RFC2916. > > 2) Identify enhancements need, protocol etc, that need to be made to allow > > such applications as IE to perform ENUM queries. > > 3) Work with other task groups to develop possible application uses > for the > > ENUM protocol. Add these as an appendix to RFC 2916 > >A new enum I-D entitled "ENUM Resolution Protocols and Services" was >submitted yesterday to the I-D editor and the enum wg chairs. This >draft addresses #1 on your list in that it proposes the standardization >of the ENUM resolution protocols and services to promote communications >application interoperability and eliminate communications service ambiguity. > >It should appear in the Internet Draft repository soon under >draft-walter-ranalli-enum-service-00.txt. I think this will be a useful document to consider ...but it is also clear that specific application WG's are taking up some of these matters independently ... clearly the VPIM work group is well advanced in its thinking (I've cross posted some of the relevant documents )and I'm reasonably confident that the new SIPPING WG may take up the issue of defining SIP parameters and usage in ENUM. >Regards, > >Bob Walter >NetNumber, Inc. > >_______________________________________________ >enum mailing list >enum@ietf.org >http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard Shockey, Senior Manager, Strategic Technology Initiatives NeuStar Inc. 45980 Center Oak Plaza Bldg 8 Sterling, VA 20166 1120 Vermont Ave NW Suite 400 Washington DC 20005 Voice 571.434.5651 Cell : 314.503.0640, Fax: 815.333.1237 or <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< --__--__-- Message: 11 Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 09:19:21 -0500 To: enum@ietf.org From: Richard Shockey Subject: [Enum] Fwd: [VPIM] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-vpim-address-02.txt FYI >To: IETF-Announce: ; >Cc: vpim@lists.neystadt.org >From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org >Reply-to: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org >Subject: [VPIM] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-vpim-address-02.txt >Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2001 07:08:01 -0500 >Sender: owner-vpim@lists.neystadt.org > >A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts >directories. >This draft is a work item of the Voice Profile for Internet Mail Working >Group of the IETF. > > Title : VPIM Addressing > Author(s) : G. Parsons > Filename : draft-ietf-vpim-address-02.txt > Pages : 13 > Date : 26-Oct-01 > >This document lists the various VPIM email address formats that are >currently in common use and defines several new address formats for >special case usage. Requirements are imposed on the formats of >addresses used in VPIM submission mode. > >A URL for this Internet-Draft is: >http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-vpim-address-02.txt > >To remove yourself from the IETF Announcement list, send a message to >ietf-announce-request with the word unsubscribe in the body of the message. > >Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the username >"anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in, >type "cd internet-drafts" and then > "get draft-ietf-vpim-address-02.txt". > >A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in >http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html >or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt > > >Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail. > >Send a message to: > mailserv@ietf.org. >In the body type: > "FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-vpim-address-02.txt". > >NOTE: The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in > MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility. To use this > feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE" > command. To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or > a MIME-compliant mail reader. Different MIME-compliant mail readers > exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with > "multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split > up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on > how to manipulate these messages. > > >Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader >implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the >Internet-Draft. >Content-Type: text/plain >Content-ID: <20011026135514.I-D@ietf.org> > >ENCODING mime >FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-vpim-address-02.txt > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard Shockey, Senior Manager, Strategic Technology Initiatives NeuStar Inc. 45980 Center Oak Plaza Bldg 8 Sterling, VA 20166 1120 Vermont Ave NW Suite 400 Washington DC 20005 Voice 571.434.5651 Cell : 314.503.0640, Fax: 815.333.1237 or <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< --__--__-- Message: 12 Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 09:40:40 -0500 To: Richard Shockey From: Chip Sharp Subject: Re: [Enum] Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-urn-ddds-toc-00.txt Cc: enum@ietf.org How does an Internet Draft obsolete a (PS) RFC? Is this supposed to say that when the I-D reaches RFC along with the others referenced then they are intended to obsolete RFC2915? Thanks, Chip At 09:13 AM 10/30/2001, Richard Shockey wrote: ...snip... >>This document along with RFC XXXX, RFC YYYY and RFC ZZZZ obsolete RFC >>2168 [8] and RFC 2915 [6] as well as update RFC 2276 [5]. ...snip... --__--__-- Message: 13 From: "Jim Fleming" To: "Tony Rutkowski" , =?iso-8859-1?Q?Patrik__F=E4ltstr=F6m?= , , , "Ray Anderson" Cc: Subject: Re: [Enum] ENUM "sharing" Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 08:53:10 -0600 charset="iso-8859-1" ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ray Anderson" > > Why would they want to? As I understand it, the "ENUM Alliance" is a > private club Some people think that the entire Internet is a private club. It is a collection of private networks connected together. It does appear that some of those private networks will now be nationalized. Companies will likely be given a choice, which direction to go. Clearly, the U.S. Government is favoring the companies based in the Washington, D.C. area. They are pulling in their fences. http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/press/2001/us_102901.htm http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/press/2001/edu_102901.htm People on the outside looking in have to realize they will never be able to cross those fences. They have to think global, yet act local. They have to all work hard to expand the Internet, so it really is for everyone, not just the insiders. Jim Fleming http://www.IPv8.info http://www.in-addr.info 3:219 INFO --__--__-- _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum End of enum Digest _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From daemon@optimus.ietf.org Tue Oct 30 10:56:35 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA04905 for ; Tue, 30 Oct 2001 10:56:35 -0500 (EST) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id KAA06853 for enum-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 30 Oct 2001 10:56:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id KAA06412; Tue, 30 Oct 2001 10:47:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id KAA06381 for ; Tue, 30 Oct 2001 10:47:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from mtiwmhc24.worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc24.worldnet.att.net [204.127.131.49]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA04624 for ; Tue, 30 Oct 2001 10:47:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from worldnet ([12.88.171.12]) by mtiwmhc24.worldnet.att.net (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with SMTP id <20011030154643.CAXB19017.mtiwmhc24.worldnet.att.net@worldnet>; Tue, 30 Oct 2001 15:46:43 +0000 From: "Judith Oppenheimer" To: "'Dave Crocker'" , "'Tony Rutkowski'" Cc: Subject: RE: [Enum] ENUM "sharing" Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 10:45:59 -0500 Message-ID: <002b01c1615a$0261cf80$0cab580c@att.net.icbtollfree.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20011030072802.03e11170@dcrocker.net> Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Enum Discussion List X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Dave, as senior advisor on NeuStar's .US team, maybe you can explain why NeuStar is reserving for its own use, 5+ numeric digits and 5 digit-4 digit combinations, in the .US domain, awarded to NeuStar yesterday by the NTIA. Judith --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- Judith Oppenheimer http://JudithOppenheimer.com http://ICBTollFreeNews.com 212 684-7210, 1 800 The Expert --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- > -----Original Message----- > From: enum-admin@ietf.org [mailto:enum-admin@ietf.org]On > Behalf Of Dave > Crocker > Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2001 10:31 AM > To: Tony Rutkowski > Cc: enum@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Enum] ENUM "sharing" > > > At 07:10 AM 10/30/2001 -0500, Tony Rutkowski wrote: > >It's the same technology, > > Not quite. > > ENUM is a technology defined by a particular document issued > as a standards > track RFC. If you take the time to read it, Tony, you will > discover that > the ENUM technology is specified as working with e164.arpa. > > Your employer's effort is simply a classic user group for > their proprietary > product. > > d/ > > ---------- > Dave Crocker > Brandenburg InternetWorking > tel +1.408.246.8253; fax +1.408.273.6464 > > > _______________________________________________ > enum mailing list > enum@ietf.org > http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum > _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From daemon@optimus.ietf.org Tue Oct 30 11:17:38 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA05582 for ; Tue, 30 Oct 2001 11:17:38 -0500 (EST) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id LAA08099 for enum-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 30 Oct 2001 11:17:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA07549; Tue, 30 Oct 2001 11:04:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA07458 for ; Tue, 30 Oct 2001 11:04:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from almso1.proxy.att.com (almso1.att.com [192.128.167.69]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA05179 for ; Tue, 30 Oct 2001 11:04:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from njb140r1.ems.att.com ([135.65.202.58]) by almso1.proxy.att.com (AT&T IPNS/MSO-3.0) with ESMTP id f9UG3NC12678; Tue, 30 Oct 2001 11:03:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from njb140bh2.ems.att.com by njb140r1.ems.att.com (8.8.8+Sun/ATTEMS-1.4.1 sol2) id LAA03544; Tue, 30 Oct 2001 11:02:02 -0500 (EST) Received: by NJB140BH2 with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Tue, 30 Oct 2001 11:03:22 -0500 Message-ID: <62DA45D4963FA747BA1B253E266760F91845CF@OCCLUST04EVS1.ugd.att.com> From: "Pfautz, Penn L, NNAD" To: Lori Messing , "'enum@ietf.org'" Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 10:56:25 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Subject: [Enum] re ENUM and number portability Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Enum Discussion List X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org My assumption was that non-LRN methods were discussed in the NP I-D because the IETF is international and other methods are or may be used in other countries. As pointed out, the US chose LRN and and some of the alternatives would be unacceptable under the FCC order. The major consequence of NP for ENUM implementation is that delegation of ENUM names corresponding to E.164 numbers cannot simply follow the delegation of number blocks (e.g. central office codes) to telephone service providers. But I doubt this was really feasible anyway unless telcos were to "own" ENUM, something I dobt the IETF would have ever found acceptable. Penn Pfautz AT&T -----Original Message----- From: Lori Messing [mailto:LMessing@ctia.org] Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2001 10:29 AM To: 'enum@ietf.org' Subject: [Enum] RE: enum digest, Vol 1 #292 - 13 msgs If Illuminet is inclined to elaborate on QOR and alternatives to LRN which would negatively impact service levels in a LNP environment, CTIA is interested. Thank you. Lori Messing Director of Numbering Issues Cellular Telecommunications & Internet Association (CTIA) 1250 Connecticut Avenue Suite #800 Washington, DC 20036 202/736/3654 lmessing@ctia.org -----Original Message----- From: enum-admin@ietf.org [mailto:enum-admin@ietf.org] Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2001 6:54 AM To: enum@ietf.org Subject: enum digest, Vol 1 #292 - 13 msgs Send enum mailing list submissions to enum@ietf.org To subscribe or unsubscribe via the web, visit http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to enum-request@ietf.org You can reach the person managing the list at enum-admin@ietf.org When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of enum digest..." Today's Topics: 1. Number Portability Draft (Bob Wienski) 2. Number Portability Draft (Kevin McCandless) 3. Re: ENUM "sharing" (Ray Anderson) 4. Re: ENUM "sharing" (Tony Rutkowski) 5. RE: Revised Charter and Work Plan for ENUM WG (Robert H. Walter) 6. Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-vpim-routing-02.txt (Richard Shockey) 7. Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-urn-ddds-toc-00.txt (Richard Shockey) 8. Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-urn-ddds-05.txt (Richard Shockey) 9. Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-urn-uri-res-ddds-05.txt (Richard Shockey) 10. RE: Revised Charter and Work Plan for ENUM WG (Richard Shockey) 11. Fwd: [VPIM] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-vpim-address-02.txt (Richard Shockey) 12. Re: Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-urn-ddds-toc-00.txt (Chip Sharp) 13. Re: ENUM "sharing" (Jim Fleming) --__--__-- Message: 1 From: Bob Wienski To: "'enum@ietf.org'" Cc: Rebecca Stillings , David Nicol , Kevin McCandless Subject: [Enum] Number Portability Draft Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2001 14:15:04 -0800 charset="iso-8859-1" Illuminet has reviewed a DRAFT copy of the Telephone Number Mapping Working Group of the IETF titled: Title : Number Portability in the GSTN: An Overview Author(s) : M. Foster, T. McGarry, J. Yu Filename : draft-ietf-enum-e164-gstn-np-02.txt Pages : 26 Date : 22-Oct-01 Illuminet has reviewed the document and finds no technical issues with the DRAFT. However, it should be noted that the LRN solution is what has been mandated by the FCC in the US. Solutions like QoR were dismissed by the FCC as they violated the FCC requirements for an NP solution. Several of the other suggested implementation alternatives, other than LRN, also violate the FCC LNP mandate in that they negatively impact the level of service quality, like QoR. Illuminet would be willing to elaborate on these observations should this be of interest. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Robert M. Wienski Vice President NextGen Services ILLUMINET, Inc. 4501 Intelco Loop SE P.O. Box 2909 Olympia, WA 98507 Phone: 360.493.6294 Cell: 360.951.5374 FAX: 360.923.3457 bwienski@illuminet.com www.illuminet.com --__--__-- Message: 2 From: Kevin McCandless To: "'enum@ietf.org'" Cc: Bob Wienski Subject: [Enum] Number Portability Draft Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2001 14:23:51 -0800 charset="iso-8859-1" This is being posted for Bob Wienski at Illuminet to the list. Illuminet has reviewed a DRAFT copy of the Telephone Number Mapping Working Group of the IETF titled: Title : Number Portability in the GSTN: An Overview Author(s) : M. Foster, T. McGarry, J. Yu Filename : draft-ietf-enum-e164-gstn-np-02.txt Pages : 26 Date : 22-Oct-01 Illuminet has reviewed the document and finds no technical issues with the DRAFT. However, it should be noted that the LRN solution is what has been mandated by the FCC in the US. Solutions like QoR were dismissed by the FCC as they violated the FCC requirements for an NP solution. Several of the other suggested implementation alternatives, other than LRN, also violate the FCC LNP mandate in that they negatively impact the level of service quality, like QoR. Illuminet would be willing to elaborate on these observations should this be of interest. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Robert M. Wienski Vice President NextGen Services ILLUMINET, Inc. 4501 Intelco Loop SE P.O. Box 2909 Olympia, WA 98507 Phone: 360.493.6294 Cell: 360.951.5374 FAX: 360.923.3457 bwienski@illuminet.com www.illuminet.com --__--__-- Message: 3 Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 07:07:52 +0000 To: Tony Rutkowski , Patrik =?iso-8859-1?Q?F=E4ltstr=F6m?= , HSilbiger@aol.com, enum@ietf.org From: Ray Anderson Subject: Re: [Enum] ENUM "sharing" Cc: hsilbiger@ieee.org .com> At 07:56 25/10/2001 -0400, Tony Rutkowski wrote: >It would be great, for example, if Cisco could >share it's ENUM technical and operational experiences, >innovations, and customer interactions with the >others in the ENUM Alliance, as the members are >already doing. > >--tony Why would they want to? As I understand it, the "ENUM Alliance" is a private club run by netnumber.com to establish their own product "Global ENUM" as the global address registry for server lookups based on phone numbers. Verisign, as an investor in NetNumber might prefer that to happen of course :-) === Ray Anderson CEO Bango.net Limited www.bango.net/00454545 The Mobile Internet is for everyone. It must be very easy to use. --__--__-- Message: 4 Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 07:10:04 -0500 To: Ray Anderson , Patrik =?iso-8859-1?Q?F=E4ltstr=F6m?= , HSilbiger@aol.com, enum@ietf.org From: Tony Rutkowski Subject: Re: [Enum] ENUM "sharing" Cc: hsilbiger@ieee.org <7834985.1004005242@localhost> At 02:07 AM 30-10-01, Ray Anderson wrote: >Why would they want to? As I understand it, the "ENUM Alliance" is a >private club >run by netnumber.com to establish their own product "Global ENUM" as the >global >address registry for server lookups based on phone numbers. Hi Ray, It's the same technology, and they represent real users with actual customers. We're not dealing with religion here (particularly when the States are unlikely to adopt it as the official religion), but products in marketplaces. The material provided at VON is in fact useful sharing. See http://www.ngi.org/enum/alliance/index.htm --tony --__--__-- Message: 5 Reply-To: From: "Robert H. Walter" To: Subject: RE: [Enum] Revised Charter and Work Plan for ENUM WG Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 08:40:03 -0500 charset="iso-8859-1" Hi Kevin, > Possible enhancements to the new charter could be as follows: > > 1) Identify the valid NAPTR records and formats for all possible services > and update RFC2916. > 2) Identify enhancements need, protocol etc, that need to be made to allow > such applications as IE to perform ENUM queries. > 3) Work with other task groups to develop possible application uses for the > ENUM protocol. Add these as an appendix to RFC 2916 A new enum I-D entitled "ENUM Resolution Protocols and Services" was submitted yesterday to the I-D editor and the enum wg chairs. This draft addresses #1 on your list in that it proposes the standardization of the ENUM resolution protocols and services to promote communications application interoperability and eliminate communications service ambiguity. It should appear in the Internet Draft repository soon under draft-walter-ranalli-enum-service-00.txt. Regards, Bob Walter NetNumber, Inc. --__--__-- Message: 6 Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 09:12:16 -0500 To: enum@ietf.org From: Richard Shockey Subject: [Enum] Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-vpim-routing-02.txt FYI for service definitions by VPIM for ENUM >To: IETF-Announce: ; >Cc: vpim@lists.neystadt.org >From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org >Reply-to: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org >Subject: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-vpim-routing-02.txt >Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 07:13:34 -0500 >Sender: nsyracus@cnri.reston.va.us > >A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts >directories. >This draft is a work item of the Voice Profile for Internet Mail Working >Group of the IETF. > > Title : Voice Message Routing Service > Author(s) : G. Vaudreuil > Filename : draft-ietf-vpim-routing-02.txt > Pages : 11 > Date : 29-Oct-01 > >Voice messaging is traditionally addressed using telephone number >addressing. This document describes two techniques for routing voice >messages based on a telephone number. The VPIM Directory service >provides a directory mechanism to lookup a VPIM email address with a >telephone number and confirm that the address is both valid and the >associated with the intended recipient. However this service will >take time become widely deployed in the nearest term. This document >also describes a more limited send-and-pray service useful simply to >route and deliver messages using only the ENUM telephone number >resolution service and the existing DNS mail routing facilies. >Please send comments on this document to the VPIM working group >mailing list > >A URL for this Internet-Draft is: >http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-vpim-routing-02.txt > >To remove yourself from the IETF Announcement list, send a message to >ietf-announce-request with the word unsubscribe in the body of the message. > >Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the username >"anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in, >type "cd internet-drafts" and then > "get draft-ietf-vpim-routing-02.txt". > >A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in >http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html >or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt > > >Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail. > >Send a message to: > mailserv@ietf.org. >In the body type: > "FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-vpim-routing-02.txt". > >NOTE: The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in > MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility. To use this > feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE" > command. To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or > a MIME-compliant mail reader. Different MIME-compliant mail readers > exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with > "multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split > up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on > how to manipulate these messages. > > >Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader >implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the >Internet-Draft. >Content-Type: text/plain >Content-ID: <20011029134444.I-D@ietf.org> > >ENCODING mime >FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-vpim-routing-02.txt > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard Shockey, Senior Manager, Strategic Technology Initiatives NeuStar Inc. 45980 Center Oak Plaza Bldg 8 Sterling, VA 20166 1120 Vermont Ave NW Suite 400 Washington DC 20005 Voice 571.434.5651 Cell : 314.503.0640, Fax: 815.333.1237 or <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< --__--__-- Message: 7 Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 09:13:26 -0500 To: enum@ietf.org From: Richard Shockey Subject: [Enum] Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-urn-ddds-toc-00.txt FYI the next iteration of RFC2915 >To: IETF-Announce: ; >Cc: urn-ietf@lists.netsol.com >From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org >Reply-to: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org >Subject: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-urn-ddds-toc-00.txt >Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 07:13:23 -0500 >Sender: nsyracus@cnri.reston.va.us > >A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts >directories. >This draft is a work item of the Uniform Resource Names Working Group of >the IETF. > > Title : Dynamic Delegation Discovery System (DDDS) Part > One: > The Comprehensive DDDS Standard > Author(s) : M. Mealling > Filename : draft-ietf-urn-ddds-toc-00.txt > Pages : 8 > Date : 29-Oct-01 > >This document specifies the exact documents that make up the complete >Dynamic Delegation Discovery System (DDDS) standard. The DDDS is an >abstract algorithm for applying dynamically retrieved string >transformation rules to an application-unique string. >This document along with RFC XXXX, RFC YYYY and RFC ZZZZ obsolete RFC >2168 [8] and RFC 2915 [6] as well as update RFC 2276 [5]. > >A URL for this Internet-Draft is: >http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-urn-ddds-toc-00.txt > >To remove yourself from the IETF Announcement list, send a message to >ietf-announce-request with the word unsubscribe in the body of the message. > >Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the username >"anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in, >type "cd internet-drafts" and then > "get draft-ietf-urn-ddds-toc-00.txt". > >A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in >http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html >or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt > > >Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail. > >Send a message to: > mailserv@ietf.org. >In the body type: > "FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-urn-ddds-toc-00.txt". > >NOTE: The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in > MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility. To use this > feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE" > command. To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or > a MIME-compliant mail reader. Different MIME-compliant mail readers > exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with > "multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split > up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on > how to manipulate these messages. > > >Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader >implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the >Internet-Draft. >Content-Type: text/plain >Content-ID: <20011029134407.I-D@ietf.org> > >ENCODING mime >FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-urn-ddds-toc-00.txt > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard Shockey, Senior Manager, Strategic Technology Initiatives NeuStar Inc. 45980 Center Oak Plaza Bldg 8 Sterling, VA 20166 1120 Vermont Ave NW Suite 400 Washington DC 20005 Voice 571.434.5651 Cell : 314.503.0640, Fax: 815.333.1237 or <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< --__--__-- Message: 8 Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 09:14:34 -0500 To: enum@ietf.org From: Richard Shockey Subject: [Enum] Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-urn-ddds-05.txt FYI >To: IETF-Announce: ; >Cc: urn-ietf@lists.netsol.com >From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org >Reply-to: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org >Subject: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-urn-ddds-05.txt >Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 07:13:18 -0500 >Sender: nsyracus@cnri.reston.va.us > >A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts >directories. >This draft is a work item of the Uniform Resource Names Working Group of >the IETF. > > Title : Dynamic Delegation Discovery System (DDDS) Part > Two: > The Algorithm > Author(s) : M. Mealling > Filename : draft-ietf-urn-ddds-05.txt > Pages : 22 > Date : 29-Oct-01 > >This document describes the Dynamic Delegation Discovery System >(DDDS) algorithm for applying dynamically retrieved string >transformation rules to an application-unique string. Well-formed >transformation rules will reflect the delegation of management of >information associated with the string. This document is also part >of a series that is completely specified in 'Dynamic Delegation >Discovery System (DDDS) Part One: The Comprehensive DDDS Standard' >(RFC WWWW). It is very important to note that it is impossible to >read and understand any document in this series without reading the >others. > >A URL for this Internet-Draft is: >http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-urn-ddds-05.txt > >To remove yourself from the IETF Announcement list, send a message to >ietf-announce-request with the word unsubscribe in the body of the message. > >Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the username >"anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in, >type "cd internet-drafts" and then > "get draft-ietf-urn-ddds-05.txt". > >A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in >http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html >or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt > > >Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail. > >Send a message to: > mailserv@ietf.org. >In the body type: > "FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-urn-ddds-05.txt". > >NOTE: The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in > MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility. To use this > feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE" > command. To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or > a MIME-compliant mail reader. Different MIME-compliant mail readers > exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with > "multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split > up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on > how to manipulate these messages. > > >Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader >implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the >Internet-Draft. >Content-Type: text/plain >Content-ID: <20011029134332.I-D@ietf.org> > >ENCODING mime >FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-urn-ddds-05.txt > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard Shockey, Senior Manager, Strategic Technology Initiatives NeuStar Inc. 45980 Center Oak Plaza Bldg 8 Sterling, VA 20166 1120 Vermont Ave NW Suite 400 Washington DC 20005 Voice 571.434.5651 Cell : 314.503.0640, Fax: 815.333.1237 or <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< --__--__-- Message: 9 Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 09:14:47 -0500 To: enum@ietf.org From: Richard Shockey Subject: [Enum] Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-urn-uri-res-ddds-05.txt FYI >To: IETF-Announce: ; >Cc: urn-ietf@lists.netsol.com >From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org >Reply-to: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org >Subject: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-urn-uri-res-ddds-05.txt >Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 07:13:28 -0500 >Sender: nsyracus@cnri.reston.va.us > >A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts >directories. >This draft is a work item of the Uniform Resource Names Working Group of >the IETF. > > Title : Dynamic Delegation Discovery System (DDDS) Part > Four: > The URI Resolution Application > Author(s) : M. Mealling > Filename : draft-ietf-urn-uri-res-ddds-05.txt > Pages : 25 > Date : 29-Oct-01 > >A specification for taking a URI and locating an authoritative server >for information about that URI. The method used to locate that >authoritative server is the Dynamic Delegation Discovery System. >This document is part of a series that is specified in 'Dynamic >Delegation Discovery System (DDDS) Part One: The Comprehensive DDDS >Standard' (RFC WWWW). It is very important to note that it is >impossible to read and understand any document in this series without >reading the others. > >A URL for this Internet-Draft is: >http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-urn-uri-res-ddds-05.txt > >To remove yourself from the IETF Announcement list, send a message to >ietf-announce-request with the word unsubscribe in the body of the message. > >Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the username >"anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in, >type "cd internet-drafts" and then > "get draft-ietf-urn-uri-res-ddds-05.txt". > >A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in >http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html >or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt > > >Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail. > >Send a message to: > mailserv@ietf.org. >In the body type: > "FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-urn-uri-res-ddds-05.txt". > >NOTE: The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in > MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility. To use this > feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE" > command. To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or > a MIME-compliant mail reader. Different MIME-compliant mail readers > exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with > "multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split > up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on > how to manipulate these messages. > > >Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader >implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the >Internet-Draft. >Content-Type: text/plain >Content-ID: <20011029134426.I-D@ietf.org> > >ENCODING mime >FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-urn-uri-res-ddds-05.txt > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard Shockey, Senior Manager, Strategic Technology Initiatives NeuStar Inc. 45980 Center Oak Plaza Bldg 8 Sterling, VA 20166 1120 Vermont Ave NW Suite 400 Washington DC 20005 Voice 571.434.5651 Cell : 314.503.0640, Fax: 815.333.1237 or <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< --__--__-- Message: 10 Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 09:21:28 -0500 To: , From: Richard Shockey Subject: RE: [Enum] Revised Charter and Work Plan for ENUM WG At 08:40 AM 10/30/2001 -0500, Robert H. Walter wrote: >Hi Kevin, > > > Possible enhancements to the new charter could be as follows: > > > > 1) Identify the valid NAPTR records and formats for all possible services > > and update RFC2916. > > 2) Identify enhancements need, protocol etc, that need to be made to allow > > such applications as IE to perform ENUM queries. > > 3) Work with other task groups to develop possible application uses > for the > > ENUM protocol. Add these as an appendix to RFC 2916 > >A new enum I-D entitled "ENUM Resolution Protocols and Services" was >submitted yesterday to the I-D editor and the enum wg chairs. This >draft addresses #1 on your list in that it proposes the standardization >of the ENUM resolution protocols and services to promote communications >application interoperability and eliminate communications service ambiguity. > >It should appear in the Internet Draft repository soon under >draft-walter-ranalli-enum-service-00.txt. I think this will be a useful document to consider ...but it is also clear that specific application WG's are taking up some of these matters independently ... clearly the VPIM work group is well advanced in its thinking (I've cross posted some of the relevant documents )and I'm reasonably confident that the new SIPPING WG may take up the issue of defining SIP parameters and usage in ENUM. >Regards, > >Bob Walter >NetNumber, Inc. > >_______________________________________________ >enum mailing list >enum@ietf.org >http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard Shockey, Senior Manager, Strategic Technology Initiatives NeuStar Inc. 45980 Center Oak Plaza Bldg 8 Sterling, VA 20166 1120 Vermont Ave NW Suite 400 Washington DC 20005 Voice 571.434.5651 Cell : 314.503.0640, Fax: 815.333.1237 or <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< --__--__-- Message: 11 Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 09:19:21 -0500 To: enum@ietf.org From: Richard Shockey Subject: [Enum] Fwd: [VPIM] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-vpim-address-02.txt FYI >To: IETF-Announce: ; >Cc: vpim@lists.neystadt.org >From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org >Reply-to: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org >Subject: [VPIM] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-vpim-address-02.txt >Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2001 07:08:01 -0500 >Sender: owner-vpim@lists.neystadt.org > >A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts >directories. >This draft is a work item of the Voice Profile for Internet Mail Working >Group of the IETF. > > Title : VPIM Addressing > Author(s) : G. Parsons > Filename : draft-ietf-vpim-address-02.txt > Pages : 13 > Date : 26-Oct-01 > >This document lists the various VPIM email address formats that are >currently in common use and defines several new address formats for >special case usage. Requirements are imposed on the formats of >addresses used in VPIM submission mode. > >A URL for this Internet-Draft is: >http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-vpim-address-02.txt > >To remove yourself from the IETF Announcement list, send a message to >ietf-announce-request with the word unsubscribe in the body of the message. > >Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the username >"anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in, >type "cd internet-drafts" and then > "get draft-ietf-vpim-address-02.txt". > >A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in >http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html >or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt > > >Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail. > >Send a message to: > mailserv@ietf.org. >In the body type: > "FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-vpim-address-02.txt". > >NOTE: The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in > MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility. To use this > feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE" > command. To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or > a MIME-compliant mail reader. Different MIME-compliant mail readers > exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with > "multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split > up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on > how to manipulate these messages. > > >Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader >implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the >Internet-Draft. >Content-Type: text/plain >Content-ID: <20011026135514.I-D@ietf.org> > >ENCODING mime >FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-vpim-address-02.txt > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard Shockey, Senior Manager, Strategic Technology Initiatives NeuStar Inc. 45980 Center Oak Plaza Bldg 8 Sterling, VA 20166 1120 Vermont Ave NW Suite 400 Washington DC 20005 Voice 571.434.5651 Cell : 314.503.0640, Fax: 815.333.1237 or <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< --__--__-- Message: 12 Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 09:40:40 -0500 To: Richard Shockey From: Chip Sharp Subject: Re: [Enum] Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-urn-ddds-toc-00.txt Cc: enum@ietf.org How does an Internet Draft obsolete a (PS) RFC? Is this supposed to say that when the I-D reaches RFC along with the others referenced then they are intended to obsolete RFC2915? Thanks, Chip At 09:13 AM 10/30/2001, Richard Shockey wrote: ...snip... >>This document along with RFC XXXX, RFC YYYY and RFC ZZZZ obsolete RFC >>2168 [8] and RFC 2915 [6] as well as update RFC 2276 [5]. ...snip... --__--__-- Message: 13 From: "Jim Fleming" To: "Tony Rutkowski" , =?iso-8859-1?Q?Patrik__F=E4ltstr=F6m?= , , , "Ray Anderson" Cc: Subject: Re: [Enum] ENUM "sharing" Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 08:53:10 -0600 charset="iso-8859-1" ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ray Anderson" > > Why would they want to? As I understand it, the "ENUM Alliance" is a > private club Some people think that the entire Internet is a private club. It is a collection of private networks connected together. It does appear that some of those private networks will now be nationalized. Companies will likely be given a choice, which direction to go. Clearly, the U.S. Government is favoring the companies based in the Washington, D.C. area. They are pulling in their fences. http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/press/2001/us_102901.htm http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/press/2001/edu_102901.htm People on the outside looking in have to realize they will never be able to cross those fences. They have to think global, yet act local. They have to all work hard to expand the Internet, so it really is for everyone, not just the insiders. Jim Fleming http://www.IPv8.info http://www.in-addr.info 3:219 INFO --__--__-- _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum End of enum Digest _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From daemon@optimus.ietf.org Tue Oct 30 11:20:16 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA05712 for ; Tue, 30 Oct 2001 11:20:16 -0500 (EST) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id LAA08249 for enum-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 30 Oct 2001 11:20:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA07861; Tue, 30 Oct 2001 11:11:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA07830 for ; Tue, 30 Oct 2001 11:11:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from joy.songbird.com (IDENT:root@songbird.com [208.184.79.7]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA05480 for ; Tue, 30 Oct 2001 11:11:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from bbprime.dcrocker.net (c1193160-a.snvl1.sfba.home.com [65.0.152.112]) by joy.songbird.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA15274; Tue, 30 Oct 2001 08:11:08 -0800 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20011030080855.03c2b988@dcrocker.net> X-Sender: dhc@brandenburg.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 08:11:07 -0800 To: "Judith Oppenheimer" From: Dave Crocker Subject: RE: [Enum] ENUM "sharing" Cc: "'Tony Rutkowski'" , In-Reply-To: <002b01c1615a$0261cf80$0cab580c@att.net.icbtollfree.com> References: <5.1.0.14.2.20011030072802.03e11170@dcrocker.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Enum Discussion List X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org At 10:45 AM 10/30/2001 -0500, Judith Oppenheimer wrote: >Dave, as senior advisor on NeuStar's .US team, maybe you can explain why >NeuStar is reserving for its own use, 5+ numeric digits and 5 digit-4 >digit combinations, in the .US domain, awarded to NeuStar yesterday by the >NTIA. Judith, perhaps you have not noticed that this list is for discussing engineering by an IETF working group. Perhaps you would like to collaborate with Tony's efforts at disruption and distraction, on a more appropriate list. d/ ---------- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking tel +1.408.246.8253; fax +1.408.273.6464 _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From daemon@optimus.ietf.org Tue Oct 30 12:08:42 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA07367 for ; Tue, 30 Oct 2001 12:08:42 -0500 (EST) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id MAA11048 for enum-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 30 Oct 2001 12:08:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA10052; Tue, 30 Oct 2001 11:57:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA10022 for ; Tue, 30 Oct 2001 11:57:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from mtiwmhc23.worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc23.worldnet.att.net [204.127.131.48]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA07020 for ; Tue, 30 Oct 2001 11:57:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from worldnet ([12.88.172.36]) by mtiwmhc23.worldnet.att.net (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with SMTP id <20011030165701.WEPP5495.mtiwmhc23.worldnet.att.net@worldnet>; Tue, 30 Oct 2001 16:57:01 +0000 From: "Judith Oppenheimer" To: "'Dave Crocker'" Cc: "'Tony Rutkowski'" , Subject: RE: [Enum] ENUM "sharing" Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 11:54:42 -0500 Message-ID: <004001c16163$d5fbf380$0cab580c@att.net.icbtollfree.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20011030080855.03c2b988@dcrocker.net> Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Enum Discussion List X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Dave, Even Tony can't hold a candle to your mastery at distraction. So, from an engineering standpoint, why the numeric .US domains reserved "for future NeuStar services"? J p.s. I do admire your ability to earn your keep. Congrats on the .US deal. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- Judith Oppenheimer http://JudithOppenheimer.com http://ICBTollFreeNews.com 212 684-7210, 1 800 The Expert --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- > -----Original Message----- > From: Dave Crocker [mailto:dhc@dcrocker.net] > Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2001 11:11 AM > To: Judith Oppenheimer > Cc: 'Tony Rutkowski'; enum@ietf.org > Subject: RE: [Enum] ENUM "sharing" > > > At 10:45 AM 10/30/2001 -0500, Judith Oppenheimer wrote: > >Dave, as senior advisor on NeuStar's .US team, maybe you can > explain why > >NeuStar is reserving for its own use, 5+ numeric digits and > 5 digit-4 > >digit combinations, in the .US domain, awarded to NeuStar > yesterday by the > >NTIA. > > Judith, perhaps you have not noticed that this list is for discussing > engineering by an IETF working group. > > Perhaps you would like to collaborate with Tony's efforts at > disruption and > distraction, on a more appropriate list. > > d/ > > ---------- > Dave Crocker > Brandenburg InternetWorking > tel +1.408.246.8253; fax +1.408.273.6464 > > _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From daemon@optimus.ietf.org Tue Oct 30 12:28:39 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA08081 for ; Tue, 30 Oct 2001 12:28:38 -0500 (EST) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id MAA11391 for enum-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 30 Oct 2001 12:28:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA11190; Tue, 30 Oct 2001 12:16:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA11159 for ; Tue, 30 Oct 2001 12:16:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from oak.neustar.com (oak.neustar.com [209.173.53.70]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA07665 for ; Tue, 30 Oct 2001 12:16:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from rds.neustar.com (dmz1.va.neustar.com [209.173.53.65]) by oak.neustar.com (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f9UHFZ221294 for ; Tue, 30 Oct 2001 12:15:59 -0500 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20011030120529.02d162c0@127.0.0.1> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 12:05:54 -0500 To: enum@ietf.org From: Richard Shockey Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Subject: [Enum] Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-urn-dns-ddds-database-07.txt Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Enum Discussion List X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org the last of the DDDS documents >To: IETF-Announce: ; >Cc: urn-ietf@lists.netsol.com >From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org >Reply-to: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org >Subject: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-urn-dns-ddds-database-07.txt >Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 07:14:30 -0500 >Sender: nsyracus@cnri.reston.va.us > >A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts >directories. >This draft is a work item of the Uniform Resource Names Working Group of >the IETF. > > Title : Dynamic Delegation Discovery System (DDDS) Part > Three: > The DNS Database > Author(s) : M. Mealling > Filename : draft-ietf-urn-dns-ddds-database-07.txt > Pages : 20 > Date : 29-Oct-01 > >This document describes a Dynamic Delegation Discovery System >Database using the Domain Name System as a distributed database of >Rules. The Keys are domain-names and the Rules are encoded using the >NAPTR Resource Record. > >A URL for this Internet-Draft is: >http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-urn-dns-ddds-database-07.txt > >To remove yourself from the IETF Announcement list, send a message to >ietf-announce-request with the word unsubscribe in the body of the message. > >Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the username >"anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in, >type "cd internet-drafts" and then > "get draft-ietf-urn-dns-ddds-database-07.txt". > >A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in >http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html >or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt > > >Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail. > >Send a message to: > mailserv@ietf.org. >In the body type: > "FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-urn-dns-ddds-database-07.txt". > >NOTE: The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in > MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility. To use this > feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE" > command. To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or > a MIME-compliant mail reader. Different MIME-compliant mail readers > exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with > "multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split > up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on > how to manipulate these messages. > > >Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader >implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the >Internet-Draft. >Content-Type: text/plain >Content-ID: <20011029134308.I-D@ietf.org> > >ENCODING mime >FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-urn-dns-ddds-database-07.txt > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard Shockey, Senior Manager, Strategic Technology Initiatives NeuStar Inc. 45980 Center Oak Plaza Bldg 8 Sterling, VA 20166 1120 Vermont Ave NW Suite 400 Washington DC 20005 Voice 571.434.5651 Cell : 314.503.0640, Fax: 815.333.1237 or <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From daemon@optimus.ietf.org Tue Oct 30 14:34:28 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA12521 for ; Tue, 30 Oct 2001 14:34:24 -0500 (EST) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id OAA16601 for enum-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 30 Oct 2001 14:34:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA15967; Tue, 30 Oct 2001 14:19:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA15936 for ; Tue, 30 Oct 2001 14:19:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from pine.il.neustar.com (pine.neustar.com [209.173.57.70]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA12065 for ; Tue, 30 Oct 2001 14:19:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from chi02.npac.com (dmz1.il.neustar.com [209.173.57.65]) by pine.il.neustar.com (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f9UJHmj09456; Tue, 30 Oct 2001 13:17:48 -0600 Received: by chi02.chicago.npac.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Tue, 30 Oct 2001 13:17:10 -0600 Message-ID: <23309E398D84D5119D0F00306E07513917032D@dc02.npac.com> From: "Yu, James" To: "'Paul.Rosbotham@cwcom.cwplc.com'" , "'trutkowski@verisign.com'" , "'paf@cisco.com'" Cc: "'enum@ietf.org'" Subject: RE: [Enum] Number Portability Draft Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 13:16:40 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Enum Discussion List X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org This is to respond to the comments (marked by [YU] below) from Patrik, Tony and Paul. Thanks for the comments. James ------------Patrik's comments----------------------- (b) There is no security considerations section. I.e. no talk about security issues with the different models, and the different proposed solutions, and implications listed at the end. [YU] Will add a security section (no security implications) and follow RFC publication guidelines. ------------Tony's comments----------------------- 1. Although this is informational, it does state "conclusions." Wouldn't it be more appropriate to describe these observations as "potential implications." [YU] Will change to "potential implications" and also add discussion about NP impacts on ENUM if the carriers use ENUM for network services under e164.arpa. 2. The conclusions section states: is a regulatory requirement on NP in some countries. The delegated authority for a given E.164 number is likely to be an entity designated by the end user that owns/controls a specific telephone number or a third-party designated by the end-user or by the industry. What is the basis for the sentence, and what does it mean for delegated authority to be "the industry?" [YU] Will change the sentence to "The delegated authority for a given E.164 number is likely to be an entity designated by the end user that owns/controls a specific telephone number or one that is designated by the service registrar." [YU] Initially, we thought that there was a Tier 2 Entity that would support both ENUM Registrar and Tier 2 Nameserver functions. This delegated authority that hosts the ENUM Registrant's NAPTR RRs is the Tier 2 Nameserver. No matter what, "the industry" should not be appear. Thanks for catching the error. ------------Paul's comments----------------------- Section 5.4 on Onward routing contains the text "This scheme is also called Remote Call Forwarding". I would delete this text. RCF was very much a short term expedient whereby customer facilities on GSTN switches were used to forward calls from the donor network to the customer's new network, hence giving the illusion of NP. Onward routing, on the other hand, uses particular tables which are quite often within the network side of the GSTN switch databuild. There are profound differences, because while RCF can impede the operation of some GSTN features/services, OR does not have such an impact. [YU] Will remove the sentence "This scheme is also called Remote Call Forwarding." Section 5.5 contains the text "The OR scheme is the least efficient in terms of using the network resources". While this is the case when considering transmission capacity alone (clearly given there are two legs to any call), the situation is more complex when the network as a whole is considered. For ACQ, for example, GSTN switch resources are used to perform the NP query, whether or not the call is to a ported number. The precise impact of this varies according to the switch design, and means that for countries which do not have GSTN switches optimised around IN, querying all calls can cause a significant overhead, indeed a higher cost than the extra call leg for that minority of numbers which are ported. This means that there is a cross-over point where ACQ is more efficient than OR, driven by the %age of numbers that are ported, and this cross-over point will vary from country to country. The text about efficiency is therefore somewhat trite, and should be removed. [YU] Will change to "The OR scheme is the least efficient in terms of using the network transmission facilities." [YU] Will also discuss ACQ scheme where only calls in the portable NPA+NXX ranges (in the U.S.) require NPDB dips. In Section 7.2, there is a paragraph which commences "Please note that all those enhancements are for national use". I would make two points to this paragraph. Firstly, it is not a specific European issue, and deserves a section in its own right. Secondly, I think the point that needs re-inforcing in this section is that any NP parameters obtained for a ported number are only any use in the country where they reside. To clarify; if a call to a ported UK number egressed from an IP network into the GSTN in the USA containing the UK routeing prefix, the call would fail as the prefix is not internationally significant. Similarly, if a call to a ported USA number egressed from an IP network into the GSTN in the UK utilising the US-LRN for addressing, the call could similarly fail as the parameters are not designed to be sent internationally. [YU] Will add clarifications to the section. _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From daemon@optimus.ietf.org Tue Oct 30 14:46:13 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA12810 for ; Tue, 30 Oct 2001 14:46:08 -0500 (EST) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id OAA17237 for enum-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 30 Oct 2001 14:46:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA16762; Tue, 30 Oct 2001 14:37:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA16733 for ; Tue, 30 Oct 2001 14:37:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from pimout1-int.prodigy.net (pimout1-ext.prodigy.net [207.115.63.77]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA12606 for ; Tue, 30 Oct 2001 14:37:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from pc (dialup-166.90.67.163.Dial1.Chicago1.Level3.net [166.90.67.163]) by pimout1-int.prodigy.net (8.11.0/8.11.0) with SMTP id f9UJak5227472; Tue, 30 Oct 2001 14:36:47 -0500 Message-ID: <004201c1617a$d65fee00$a3435aa6@pc> From: "Jim Fleming" To: "Judith Oppenheimer" , "'Dave Crocker'" , "'Tony Rutkowski'" Cc: References: <002b01c1615a$0261cf80$0cab580c@att.net.icbtollfree.com> Subject: Re: [Enum] ENUM "sharing" Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 13:41:13 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Enum Discussion List X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit There does not appear to be an IN-ADDR.US zone in the IPv4 DNS. It appears that .US is in the "Early Experimentation Phase". http://www.dot-biz.com/Registry/Proof-Of-Concept/index.html It is not clear what phase ENUM or 800 are in. Neither TLD appears in the "exclusive root". http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt Jim Fleming http://www.IN-ADDR.info ----- Original Message ----- From: "Judith Oppenheimer" To: "'Dave Crocker'" ; "'Tony Rutkowski'" Cc: Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2001 9:45 AM Subject: RE: [Enum] ENUM "sharing" > Dave, as senior advisor on NeuStar's .US team, maybe you can explain why > NeuStar is reserving for its own use, 5+ numeric digits and 5 digit-4 digit > combinations, in the .US domain, awarded to NeuStar yesterday by the NTIA. > > Judith > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- - > ---------- > Judith Oppenheimer > http://JudithOppenheimer.com > http://ICBTollFreeNews.com > 212 684-7210, 1 800 The Expert > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- - > ---------- > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: enum-admin@ietf.org [mailto:enum-admin@ietf.org]On > > Behalf Of Dave > > Crocker > > Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2001 10:31 AM > > To: Tony Rutkowski > > Cc: enum@ietf.org > > Subject: Re: [Enum] ENUM "sharing" > > > > > > At 07:10 AM 10/30/2001 -0500, Tony Rutkowski wrote: > > >It's the same technology, > > > > Not quite. > > > > ENUM is a technology defined by a particular document issued > > as a standards > > track RFC. If you take the time to read it, Tony, you will > > discover that > > the ENUM technology is specified as working with e164.arpa. > > > > Your employer's effort is simply a classic user group for > > their proprietary > > product. > > > > d/ > > > > ---------- > > Dave Crocker > > Brandenburg InternetWorking > > tel +1.408.246.8253; fax +1.408.273.6464 > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > enum mailing list > > enum@ietf.org > > http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum > > > > > _______________________________________________ > enum mailing list > enum@ietf.org > http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From daemon@optimus.ietf.org Tue Oct 30 14:50:35 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA12954 for ; Tue, 30 Oct 2001 14:50:34 -0500 (EST) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id OAA17487 for enum-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 30 Oct 2001 14:50:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA17047; Tue, 30 Oct 2001 14:41:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA17018 for ; Tue, 30 Oct 2001 14:41:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from pimout1-int.prodigy.net (pimout1-ext.prodigy.net [207.115.63.77]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA12726 for ; Tue, 30 Oct 2001 14:41:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from pc (dialup-166.90.67.163.Dial1.Chicago1.Level3.net [166.90.67.163]) by pimout1-int.prodigy.net (8.11.0/8.11.0) with SMTP id f9UJfR5256464; Tue, 30 Oct 2001 14:41:27 -0500 Message-ID: <004e01c1617b$7db26700$a3435aa6@pc> From: "Jim Fleming" To: "Yu, James" , , , Cc: References: <23309E398D84D5119D0F00306E07513917032D@dc02.npac.com> Subject: Re: [Enum] Number Portability Draft Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 13:45:53 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Enum Discussion List X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit ----- Original Message ----- From: "Yu, James" > > [YU] Will change to "potential implications" and also add discussion about > NP impacts on ENUM if the carriers use ENUM for network services under > e164.arpa. > The IN-ADDR.[TLD] zones are taking shape. http://www.in-addr.info 3:219 INFO What is the status of the E164.[TLD] zones ? Where [TLD] is taken from here... http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt Jim Fleming http://www.IPv8.info _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From daemon@optimus.ietf.org Wed Oct 31 06:36:08 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA10273 for ; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 06:36:08 -0500 (EST) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id GAA13803 for enum-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 06:36:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id GAA13231; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 06:26:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id GAA13204 for ; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 06:26:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from imo-r04.mx.aol.com (imo-r04.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.100]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA10128 for ; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 06:26:40 -0500 (EST) From: HSilbiger@aol.com Received: from HSilbiger@aol.com by imo-r04.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31_r1.8.) id l.98.1c81fe1f (4442) for ; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 06:26:35 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <98.1c81fe1f.291139eb@aol.com> Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 06:26:35 EST To: enum@ietf.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_98.1c81fe1f.291139eb_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10540 Subject: [Enum] (no subject) Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Enum Discussion List X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org --part1_98.1c81fe1f.291139eb_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit You mean that, just for the sake of argument, some domain other than e164.arpa were to be used the ENUM technology would absolutely not work? I think you are overreaching there. You are cfonfusing technical issues with policy. Herman Silbiger hsilbiger@ieee.org -------------------------------------------- >It's the same technology, Not quite. ENUM is a technology defined by a particular document issued as a standards track RFC. If you take the time to read it, Tony, you will discover that the ENUM technology is specified as working with e164.arpa. d/ ---------- Dave Crocker --part1_98.1c81fe1f.291139eb_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit You mean that, just for the sake of argument, some domain other than e164.arpa were to be used the ENUM technology would absolutely not work?  I think you are overreaching there. You are cfonfusing technical issues with policy.

Herman Silbiger
hsilbiger@ieee.org
--------------------------------------------
>It's the same technology,

Not quite.

ENUM is a technology defined by a particular document issued as a standards
track RFC.  If you take the time to read it, Tony, you will discover that
the ENUM technology is specified as working with e164.arpa.

d/

----------
Dave Crocker  <mailto:dcrocker@brandenburg.com> --part1_98.1c81fe1f.291139eb_boundary-- _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From daemon@optimus.ietf.org Wed Oct 31 07:49:58 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA12181 for ; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 07:49:58 -0500 (EST) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id HAA15204 for enum-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 07:49:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id HAA14943; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 07:38:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id HAA14912 for ; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 07:38:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from shell.nominum.com (shell.nominum.com [128.177.192.160]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA11801 for ; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 07:38:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from shell.nominum.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by shell.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 314113190C; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 04:38:06 -0800 (PST) To: HSilbiger@aol.com Cc: enum@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Enum] e164.arpa: a technical or policy issue? In-Reply-To: Message from HSilbiger@aol.com of "Wed, 31 Oct 2001 06:26:35 EST." <98.1c81fe1f.291139eb@aol.com> Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 04:38:06 -0800 Message-ID: <35891.1004531886@shell.nominum.com> From: Jim Reid Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Enum Discussion List X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org >>>>> "Herman" == HSilbiger writes: Herman> You mean that, just for the sake of argument, some domain Herman> other than e164.arpa were to be used the ENUM technology Herman> would absolutely not work? I think you are overreaching Herman> there. You are cfonfusing technical issues with policy. Actually, I think it's you that's confusing or obfuscating the two. For ENUM to work, there has to be a single coherent name space under exactly one domain that expresses E.164 numbers in the DNS: the Golden Tree. You are right to say that there are no technical reasons -- at least in DNS terms -- that affect where that Golden Tree is anchored. However RFC2916 makes it perfectly clear where those numbers have to be stored. Any other domain that might be used for that purpose not ENUM. Period. Even if those other domains are positioning themselves as offering ENUM-type services. The cheerleaders for those alternate ENUM-like domains are IMO barely different from the advocates of alternative -- sorry "complementary" -- roots in the DNS. If there was a Golden Tree under enum-charlatans.bogus-tld and everyone one the world used it, that would *still* not be ENUM as long as RFC2916 says that the domain shall be e164.arpa and that RFC hasn't been updated. _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From daemon@optimus.ietf.org Wed Oct 31 08:09:16 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA14617 for ; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 08:09:16 -0500 (EST) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id IAA16054 for enum-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 08:09:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id IAA15623; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 08:00:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id IAA15578 for ; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 08:00:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from heron.verisign.com (heron.verisign.com [216.168.233.95]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA12581 for ; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 08:00:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from VSVAPOSTALGW1.prod.netsol.com (vsvapostalgw1.prod.netsol.com [216.168.234.201]) by heron.verisign.com (nsi_0.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id HAA06880; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 07:59:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from arutkowski-lap.verisign.com (du76.netsol.com [216.168.245.76]) by VSVAPOSTALGW1.prod.netsol.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id 4VQ8KNS7; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 07:58:48 -0500 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20011031074250.03ffb7f8@vsvapostal1.prod.netsol.com> X-Sender: trutkowski@vsvapostal1.prod.netsol.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 07:59:44 -0500 To: Jim Reid , HSilbiger@aol.com From: Tony Rutkowski Subject: Re: [Enum] e164.arpa: a technical or policy issue? Cc: enum@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <35891.1004531886@shell.nominum.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Enum Discussion List X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org At 07:38 AM 31-10-01, Jim Reid wrote: >If there was a Golden Tree under enum-charlatans.bogus-tld and >everyone one the world used it, that would *still* not be ENUM as long >as RFC2916 says that the domain shall be e164.arpa and that RFC hasn't >been updated. This is nothing more than an orthodox religious assertion - reminiscent of what was handed down by de jure standards body adherents a decade ago. Plainly the technology works irrespective of the religion. There are numerous real companies with significant numbers of customers resolving against e164.com. The USGOV has indicated explicitly and repeatedly that there will be multiple ENUM domains as determined by the marketplace. Even the ITU for which you've been working cannot decree a single ENUM. It will simply add another ENUM namespace that will sink or swim in the market. Let's focus on the technology rather than the religion. --tony _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From daemon@optimus.ietf.org Wed Oct 31 08:55:18 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA18370 for ; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 08:55:13 -0500 (EST) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id IAA17210 for enum-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 08:55:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id IAA16999; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 08:46:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id IAA16968 for ; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 08:46:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from bailey.dscga.com (bailey.dscga.com [198.78.9.11]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA17992 for ; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 08:46:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from bailey.dscga.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by bailey.dscga.com (8.12.1/8.12.1) with ESMTP id f9VDgdlc018723 for ; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 08:42:39 -0500 (EST) Received: (from michael@localhost) by bailey.dscga.com (8.12.1/8.12.1/Submit) id f9VDgdTh018722 for enum@ietf.org; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 08:42:39 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 08:42:38 -0500 From: Michael Mealling To: enum@ietf.org Message-ID: <20011031084238.T12559@bailey.dscga.com> Reply-To: Michael Mealling Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.22.1i Subject: [Enum] Robert and Douglas' Protocols and Services draft... Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Enum Discussion List X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org Hi, Being one of the people who pointed out the need for something like this I think this is the exact right way of solving this problem. Good job guys! I would make two small additions to the document: 1) Define an IANA registry for both the protocols and the services. You've got the start of a template there, just add a field for the documents that define the service and/or protocol and then add an IANA Considerations section. 2) I think you should specify the protocols in terms of ENUM usage and not leave them 'nakedly' defined. In the URI Resolution application it wasn't possible to say "just use the http protocol" because there were so many different ways of doing the URI resolution services. So we created 'profiles' of different protocols that narrowed the protocol down enough to make it interoperable for the specific Service you were attempting to do. I think you're going to have to do that here simply because there's probably about a 100 different ways to do IM like functions with SIP. For example: in the case of IM and SIP the actual protocol used would be SIMPLE and not SIP itself, right? Does that make sense? -MM -- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Mealling | Vote Libertarian! | urn:pin:1 michael@neonym.net | | http://www.neonym.net _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From daemon@optimus.ietf.org Wed Oct 31 09:07:36 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA18887 for ; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 09:07:36 -0500 (EST) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id JAA18157 for enum-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 09:07:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id IAA17369; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 08:58:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id IAA17339 for ; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 08:58:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from shell.nominum.com (shell.nominum.com [128.177.192.160]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA18617 for ; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 08:58:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from shell.nominum.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by shell.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 913613190C; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 05:58:26 -0800 (PST) To: Tony Rutkowski Cc: HSilbiger@aol.com, enum@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Enum] e164.arpa: a technical or policy issue? In-Reply-To: Message from Tony Rutkowski of "Wed, 31 Oct 2001 07:59:44 EST." <5.1.0.14.2.20011031074250.03ffb7f8@vsvapostal1.prod.netsol.com> Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 05:58:26 -0800 Message-ID: <37056.1004536706@shell.nominum.com> From: Jim Reid Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Enum Discussion List X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org Tony, I am not going to rise to your bait. However I will point out that it's always been Nominum that has paid my salary, not ITU. And anyway my paymasters are totally irrelevant to this discussion (and to IETF activities in general). There may be "ENUM-like" services at enum.com and elsewhere. These might smell and look and feel like ENUM. But they're not ENUM because RFC2916 says so. That's an undisputed fact no matter how you try to spin or obscure it. _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From daemon@optimus.ietf.org Wed Oct 31 09:22:08 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA19446 for ; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 09:22:03 -0500 (EST) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id JAA18611 for enum-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 09:22:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id JAA18357; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 09:13:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id JAA18326 for ; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 09:13:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from heron.verisign.com (heron.verisign.com [216.168.233.95]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA19073 for ; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 09:13:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from VSVAPOSTALGW1.prod.netsol.com (vsvapostalgw1.prod.netsol.com [216.168.234.201]) by heron.verisign.com (nsi_0.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id JAA09090; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 09:12:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from arutkowski-lap.verisign.com (du117.netsol.com [216.168.245.117]) by VSVAPOSTALGW1.prod.netsol.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id 4VQ8KP1G; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 09:11:43 -0500 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20011031090110.031ee5b8@vsvapostal1.prod.netsol.com> X-Sender: trutkowski@vsvapostal1.prod.netsol.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 09:12:35 -0500 To: Jim Reid From: Tony Rutkowski Subject: Re: [Enum] e164.arpa: a technical or policy issue? Cc: HSilbiger@aol.com, enum@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <37056.1004536706@shell.nominum.com> References: <5.1.0.14.2.20011031074250.03ffb7f8@vsvapostal1.prod.netsol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Enum Discussion List X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org Hi Jim, >IETF activities in general). There may be "ENUM-like" services at >enum.com and elsewhere. These might smell and look and feel like >ENUM. But they're not ENUM because RFC2916 says so. That's an >undisputed fact no matter how you try to spin or obscure it. The ITU reference was not intended as a disparagement. At some level, the ITU may help promulgate ENUMs - but it will almost certainly be in it's own controlled tree. Because some ITU members may choose to do that in e164.int run by the ITU, doesn't make it any less an ENUM implementation, even if it doesn't meet some orthodox reading of the RFC and vicarious denominations of namespaces and protocols. The real world will see multiple and constantly evolving ENUMs. It's time to focus on tools for a real world of multiple ENUMs, such as DNAME, common registrar interfaces, and the use of existing verification systems, e.g., LIDB lookups. --tony _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From daemon@optimus.ietf.org Wed Oct 31 10:06:21 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA21026 for ; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 10:06:16 -0500 (EST) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id KAA20202 for enum-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 10:06:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id JAA19621; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 09:56:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id JAA19590 for ; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 09:56:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from fallback.nextra.at (qsm1.nextra.at [195.170.70.44]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA20675 for ; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 09:56:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from oefeg-mail.oefeg.at (mail.oefeg.at [194.118.12.224]) by fallback.nextra.at (8.9.3/8.9.3/nextra-qsm1) with ESMTP id PAA21104; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 15:53:48 +0100 (MET) Received: by OEFEG-MAIL with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 15:39:34 +0100 Message-ID: From: "Stastny, Richard" To: "'Jim Reid'" Cc: enum@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Enum] e164.arpa: a technical or policy issue? Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 15:39:25 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Enum Discussion List X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org I hoped, that your answer would finally end this discussion. Because it said all, what is to be said to this issue, and clearly. But I was wrong ;-) best regards Richard STASTNY OeFEG Arsenal Objekt 24 P.O. Box 147 A-1103 Vienna, Austria Tel: +43 664 420 4100 Fax: +43 1 79780 13 richard.stastny@oefeg.at richard@stastny.com > -----Original Message----- > From: Jim Reid [mailto:Jim.Reid@nominum.com] > Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2001 1:38 PM > To: HSilbiger@aol.com > Cc: enum@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Enum] e164.arpa: a technical or policy issue? > > > >>>>> "Herman" == HSilbiger writes: > > Herman> You mean that, just for the sake of argument, some domain > Herman> other than e164.arpa were to be used the ENUM technology > Herman> would absolutely not work? I think you are overreaching > Herman> there. You are cfonfusing technical issues with policy. > > Actually, I think it's you that's confusing or obfuscating the > two. For ENUM to work, there has to be a single coherent name space > under exactly one domain that expresses E.164 numbers in the DNS: the > Golden Tree. You are right to say that there are no technical reasons > -- at least in DNS terms -- that affect where that Golden Tree is > anchored. However RFC2916 makes it perfectly clear where those numbers > have to be stored. Any other domain that might be used for that > purpose not ENUM. Period. Even if those other domains are positioning > themselves as offering ENUM-type services. The cheerleaders for those > alternate ENUM-like domains are IMO barely different from the > advocates of alternative -- sorry "complementary" -- roots in the DNS. > > If there was a Golden Tree under enum-charlatans.bogus-tld and > everyone one the world used it, that would *still* not be ENUM as long > as RFC2916 says that the domain shall be e164.arpa and that RFC hasn't > been updated. > > _______________________________________________ > enum mailing list > enum@ietf.org > http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum > _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From daemon@optimus.ietf.org Wed Oct 31 10:30:35 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA21774 for ; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 10:30:35 -0500 (EST) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id KAA21508 for enum-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 10:30:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id KAA20829; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 10:21:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id KAA20798 for ; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 10:21:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from mtiwmhc24.worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc24.worldnet.att.net [204.127.131.49]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA21471 for ; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 10:21:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from z000679 ([12.77.125.84]) by mtiwmhc24.worldnet.att.net (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with SMTP id <20011031152117.SZQN19017.mtiwmhc24.worldnet.att.net@z000679>; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 15:21:17 +0000 Reply-To: From: "Mark Harris" To: "Jim Reid" , "Tony Rutkowski" Cc: , Subject: RE: [Enum] e164.arpa: a technical or policy issue? Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 10:43:39 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 In-reply-to: <37056.1004536706@shell.nominum.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Enum Discussion List X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello Jim: >These might smell and look and feel like >ENUM. But they're not ENUM because RFC2916 says so. That's an >undisputed fact no matter how you try to spin or obscure it. Undisputed Fact. Hmmm. So that we can have a meaningful discussion, could you define "Undisputed"? >If there was a Golden Tree...(in another tld) >and everyone one in the world used it, >that would *still* not be ENUM as long as RFC2916 says that the >domain shall be e164.arpa and that RFC hasn't been updated. Are you saying that one of Nominum's customers, Neustar, which operates Enum.org and an Enum Trial, is not really using Enum at all? Regards, Mark -----Original Message----- From: enum-admin@ietf.org [mailto:enum-admin@ietf.org]On Behalf Of Jim Reid Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2001 8:58 AM To: Tony Rutkowski Cc: HSilbiger@aol.com; enum@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Enum] e164.arpa: a technical or policy issue? Tony, I am not going to rise to your bait. However I will point out that it's always been Nominum that has paid my salary, not ITU. And anyway my paymasters are totally irrelevant to this discussion (and to IETF activities in general). There may be "ENUM-like" services at enum.com and elsewhere. These might smell and look and feel like ENUM. But they're not ENUM because RFC2916 says so. That's an undisputed fact no matter how you try to spin or obscure it. _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum -----Original Message----- From: enum-admin@ietf.org [mailto:enum-admin@ietf.org]On Behalf Of Jim Reid Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2001 7:38 AM To: HSilbiger@aol.com Cc: enum@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Enum] e164.arpa: a technical or policy issue? >>>>> "Herman" == HSilbiger writes: Herman> You mean that, just for the sake of argument, some domain Herman> other than e164.arpa were to be used the ENUM technology Herman> would absolutely not work? I think you are overreaching Herman> there. You are cfonfusing technical issues with policy. Actually, I think it's you that's confusing or obfuscating the two. For ENUM to work, there has to be a single coherent name space under exactly one domain that expresses E.164 numbers in the DNS: the Golden Tree. You are right to say that there are no technical reasons -- at least in DNS terms -- that affect where that Golden Tree is anchored. However RFC2916 makes it perfectly clear where those numbers have to be stored. Any other domain that might be used for that purpose not ENUM. Period. Even if those other domains are positioning themselves as offering ENUM-type services. The cheerleaders for those alternate ENUM-like domains are IMO barely different from the advocates of alternative -- sorry "complementary" -- roots in the DNS. If there was a Golden Tree under enum-charlatans.bogus-tld and everyone one the world used it, that would *still* not be ENUM as long as RFC2916 says that the domain shall be e164.arpa and that RFC hasn't been updated. _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From daemon@optimus.ietf.org Wed Oct 31 10:40:18 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA22026 for ; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 10:40:18 -0500 (EST) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id KAA22040 for enum-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 10:40:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id KAA21749; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 10:31:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id KAA21670 for ; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 10:31:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from rainier.illuminet.com ([63.116.20.100]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA21805 for ; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 10:31:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from olwinexsmtp01.corp.illuminet.com (olwinexsmtp01.corp.illuminet.com [172.20.1.9]) by rainier.illuminet.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id HAA27783; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 07:30:54 -0800 (PST) Received: by olwinexsmtp01.corp.illuminet.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 07:30:53 -0800 Message-ID: <1C1EEC765F843E44996971A80682118BBB8F9E@opwinex01.corp.illuminet.com> From: Kevin McCandless To: "'enum@ietf.org'" Cc: "'lprabhala@verisign.com'" , Bob Wienski Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 07:30:43 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C16221.00DC1270" Subject: [Enum] ENUM interworking Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Enum Discussion List X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C16221.00DC1270 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" After having my ENUM in box full of religious debate I began to wonder if this is the technical department? Enum by RFC 2916 is rooted in .arpa. Enum is also a way to resolve a E.164 numbers, in DNS, to a given set of NAPTR records. Therefore, resolving E.164 numbers to a set of NAPTR records could exist in any top level domain. The important point is how could these different systems interoperate. Now that is a good technical question to focus on. The ENUM Forum that just recently met in Kansas discussed this issue. We first discussed the use of CNAME records at Tier 1 under RFC2916. Representatives from both VeriSign and Registrar.com said that this is very burdensome on a database because it would require a double look up every time. The easiest approach would be to have a resolver for the client. This resolver would be capable of searching multiple domains for the E.164 number. If one is merely trying to obtain NAPTR records for anything but call setup the resolver approach should work fine. An issue we should be aware of is if ENUM is used for call setup and the resolution of multiple domains takes a large amount of time then this would not be an acceptable delay for the call completion. Circuit switched calls are considered toll grade if they are set up under 250ms. That is a target we should keep in mind if we expect ENUM to be an enabler of call setup and be rooted in multiple domains. Sincerely, Kevin McCandless Senior Network Planner Illuminet 913-814-6397 kmccandless@illuminet.com ------_=_NextPart_001_01C16221.00DC1270 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1"
After having my ENUM in box full of religious debate I began to wonder if this is the technical department?
 
Enum by RFC 2916 is rooted in .arpa.
 
Enum is also a way to resolve a E.164 numbers, in DNS, to a given set of NAPTR records.  Therefore, resolving E.164 numbers to a set of NAPTR records could exist in any top level domain.  The important point is how could these different systems interoperate.  Now that is a good technical question to focus on.  The ENUM Forum that just recently met in Kansas discussed this issue.  We first discussed the use of CNAME records at Tier 1 under RFC2916.  Representatives from both VeriSign and Registrar.com said that this is very burdensome on a database because it would require a double look up every time.  The easiest approach would be to have a resolver for the client.  This resolver would be capable of searching multiple domains for the E.164 number.  If one is merely trying to obtain NAPTR records for anything but call setup the resolver approach should work fine.  An issue we should be aware of is if ENUM is used for call setup and the resolution of multiple domains takes a large amount of time then this would not be an acceptable delay for the call completion.  Circuit switched calls are considered toll grade if they are set up under 250ms.  That is a target we should keep in mind if we expect ENUM to be an enabler of call setup and be rooted in multiple domains.
 
Sincerely,
 
 
Kevin McCandless
Senior Network Planner
Illuminet
913-814-6397
kmccandless@illuminet.com
 
------_=_NextPart_001_01C16221.00DC1270-- _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From daemon@optimus.ietf.org Wed Oct 31 11:01:04 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA22594 for ; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 11:01:03 -0500 (EST) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id LAA22983 for enum-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 11:01:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id KAA22371; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 10:52:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id KAA22326 for ; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 10:52:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from shell.nominum.com (shell.nominum.com [128.177.192.160]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA22360 for ; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 10:52:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from drc-toshiba.nominum.com (shell.nominum.com [128.177.192.160]) by shell.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F10D53190C; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 07:51:31 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <5.0.2.1.2.20011031072701.030a46a8@localhost> X-Sender: drc@localhost X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.0.2 Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 07:51:30 -0800 To: , "Jim Reid" , "Tony Rutkowski" From: "David R. Conrad" Subject: RE: [Enum] e164.arpa: a technical or policy issue? Cc: , In-Reply-To: References: <37056.1004536706@shell.nominum.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Enum Discussion List X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org Mark, At 10:43 AM 10/31/2001 -0500, Mark Harris wrote: >Undisputed Fact. Hmmm. So that we can have a meaningful discussion, could >you define "Undisputed"? http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=undisputed >Are you saying that one of Nominum's customers, Neustar, which operates >Enum.org and an Enum Trial, is not really using Enum at all? Not that it matters, but Neustar is not a customer of Nominum. This entire thread is among the silliest and most pointless I have seen in recent days. RFC 2916 is quite explicit about how E.164 identifiers are mapped into the DNS (see the first sentence of section 2 of RFC 2916) for good technical reasons. This is a simple fact. This is not religion, despite Tony's assertions to the contrary. The fact that the E.164 identifiers are being mapped in other DNS zones than e164.arpa does nothing to alter the text of RFC 2916. Can we move on now? Rgds, -drc _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From daemon@optimus.ietf.org Wed Oct 31 11:05:37 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA22851 for ; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 11:05:37 -0500 (EST) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id LAA23121 for enum-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 11:05:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id KAA22535; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 10:56:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id KAA22503 for ; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 10:56:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from joy.songbird.com (IDENT:root@songbird.com [208.184.79.7]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA22462 for ; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 10:56:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from bbprime.dcrocker.net (c1193160-a.snvl1.sfba.home.com [65.0.152.112]) by joy.songbird.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA30031 for ; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 07:56:53 -0800 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20011031073352.03e12640@dcrocker.net> X-Sender: dhc@brandenburg.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 07:36:13 -0800 To: enum@ietf.org From: Dave Crocker Subject: Re: [Enum] e164.arpa: a technical or policy issue? In-Reply-To: <98.1c81fe1f.291139eb@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Enum Discussion List X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org At 06:26 AM 10/31/2001 -0500, HSilbiger@aol.com wrote:
You mean that, just for the sake of argument, some domain other than e164.arpa were to be used the ENUM technology would absolutely not work?  I think you are overreaching there. You are cfonfusing technical issues with policy.

The idea that one can pick and choose pieces of a specification, but still claim to be following the specification, is unusual and problematic.  It is particularly surprising coming from someone with such a long ITU background, given that the ITU is far pickier about statements of conformance than is the IETF.

Once again:

        e164.arpa is specified in the IETF ENUM
        standards-track specification.

        Follow the specification and you are doing ENUM. 
        Deviate from it and you are not.

There is nothing complicated here, Herman.

(Let's apply Herman's logic to a specification for a chair, and assume that it says that a chair has 3 or more legs.  Then let's say Herman decided to build something that has two legs and wants to call it a chair.  Doesn't work, does it?)


At 09:12 AM 10/31/2001 -0500, Tony Rutkowski wrote:
It's time to focus on tools for a real world of multiple
ENUMs, such as DNAME, common registrar interfaces, and
the use of existing verification systems, e.g., LIDB
lookups.

It is time to start ignoring these distractions and get back to focusing on living with the real world of computer science.  In this case, that means working with a unique ENUM root. 

For the few people in the world who do not comprehend this requirement, please read:

        RFC 2826, and
        draft-crocker-unique-assign-00.txt

When someone puts forward a technical specification for parallel roots, and when that specification gains community acceptance, THEN we will have something meaningful to talk about. 

Until then, efforts to pursue this topic are seriously no more than political distraction.

d/

----------
Dave Crocker  <mailto:dcrocker@brandenburg.com>
Brandenburg InternetWorking  <http://www.brandenburg.com>
tel +1.408.246.8253;  fax +1.408.273.6464 _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From daemon@optimus.ietf.org Wed Oct 31 11:17:30 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA23226 for ; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 11:17:30 -0500 (EST) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id LAA23782 for enum-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 11:17:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA23207; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 11:08:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA23176 for ; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 11:08:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from pmesmtp01.wcom.com (pmesmtp01.wcom.com [199.249.20.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA22933 for ; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 11:08:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from pmismtp02.wcomnet.com ([166.38.62.37]) by firewall.wcom.com (PMDF V5.2-33 #47837) with ESMTP id <0GM200N4DVG64X@firewall.wcom.com> for enum@ietf.org; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 16:07:18 +0000 (GMT) Received: from pmismtp02.wcomnet.com by pmismtp02.wcomnet.com (PMDF V5.2-33 #42259) with SMTP id <0GM200901VFWGY@pmismtp02.wcomnet.com>; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 16:07:17 +0000 (GMT) Received: from rfreilich1 ([166.35.147.76]) by pmismtp02.wcomnet.com (PMDF V5.2-33 #42259) with SMTP id <0GM2006HYVFQSC@pmismtp02.wcomnet.com>; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 16:07:03 +0000 (GMT) Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 09:55:13 -0600 From: Rob Freilich Subject: RE: [Enum] ENUM interworking In-reply-to: <1C1EEC765F843E44996971A80682118BBB8F9E@opwinex01.corp.illuminet.com> To: "'Kevin McCandless'" , enum@ietf.org Cc: lprabhala@verisign.com, "'Bob Wienski'" Reply-to: robert.freilich@wcom.com Message-id: <001601c16224$6e1996c0$4c9323a6@wcomnet.com> MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Boundary_(ID_7PV4kUCPsHo5QYg4Jk6aNg)" Importance: Normal X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-priority: Normal Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Enum Discussion List X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --Boundary_(ID_7PV4kUCPsHo5QYg4Jk6aNg) Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE All, I have to agree with Kevin, the religious debates are really just a w= aste of time. There is nothing stopping any company from using the ENUM =93technologies and methodologies=94 and anchoring their =93private= =94 tree in some other area of the DNS. I believe only ICANN could stop a company fro= m doing that, but more than likely will not. Regardless, the ENUM Forum reco= gnizes that these independent trees, not routed in e164.arpa, are possible a= nd has provided a medium (a specific Task Group) to debate the technical mea= ns to interoperate with the Golden Tree. So far there have been 3 ways speculated to interoperate with the Pub= lic Golden Tree but no one has come forth with a concrete technical propo= sal on how it should be done. Summary of the 3 proposals: 1.=09Interconnected Registries with a new URI (If I remember correctl= y) that =93refers:=94 to the correct registry the ENUM is listed. 2.=09Use of existing DNS constructions to jump to other areas =96 suc= h as CNAME records in the e164.arpa domain to correct domain 3.=09Provisioning the ENUM Resolver to look in multiple domains. =46rom a carrier=92s perspective we would like to minimize the time f= or call set up as Kevin mentioned. But it should be noted that the 250ms. Kevin = quoted that ENUM is but a portion of that. There are a number of other = =93typical=94 elements that contribute to the call delay. ENUM must be accounted = as part of the Call Set=96Up Time Budget. Also remember that ENUM actually w= ill lead to atleast 2 DNS dips, regardless on interworking, one for the NAPTR = RR (URI) and then another to resolve the URI into and IP Address. All t= hese need to be factored into that Call-Setup Budget and determine its imp= acts, if any. Just my 2 cents=85 Rob Freilich WorldCom 972-729-5139 robert.freilich@wcom.com -----Original Message----- =46rom: enum-admin@ietf.org [mailto:enum-admin@ietf.org]On Behalf Of = Kevin McCandless Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2001 9:31 AM To: 'enum@ietf.org' Cc: 'lprabhala@verisign.com'; Bob Wienski Subject: [Enum] ENUM interworking After having my ENUM in box full of religious debate I began to wonde= r if this is the technical department? Enum by RFC 2916 is rooted in .arpa. Enum is also a way to resolve a E.164 numbers, in DNS, to a given set= of NAPTR records. Therefore, resolving E.164 numbers to a set of NAPTR = records could exist in any top level domain. The important point is how coul= d these different systems interoperate. Now that is a good technical questio= n to focus on. The ENUM Forum that just recently met in Kansas discussed = this issue. We first discussed the use of CNAME records at Tier 1 under R= FC2916. Representatives from both VeriSign and Registrar.com said that this i= s very burdensome on a database because it would require a double look up ev= ery time. The easiest approach would be to have a resolver for the clien= t. This resolver would be capable of searching multiple domains for the = E.164 number. If one is merely trying to obtain NAPTR records for anything= but call setup the resolver approach should work fine. An issue we shoul= d be aware of is if ENUM is used for call setup and the resolution of mult= iple domains takes a large amount of time then this would not be an accept= able delay for the call completion. Circuit switched calls are considered= toll grade if they are set up under 250ms. That is a target we should kee= p in mind if we expect ENUM to be an enabler of call setup and be rooted i= n multiple domains. Sincerely, Kevin McCandless Senior Network Planner Illuminet 913-814-6397 kmccandless@illuminet.com --Boundary_(ID_7PV4kUCPsHo5QYg4Jk6aNg) Content-type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE

All,

 =

I have to agree with Kevin, the religious debates are really just a waste of ti= me.  There is nothing stopping a= ny company =66rom using the ENUM “technologies and methodologies” an= d anchoring their “private” tree in some other area of the DNS.=   I believe only ICANN could stop a company from doing that, but= more than likely will not.  Regar= dless, the ENUM Forum recognizes that these independent trees, not routed in e16= 4.arpa, are possible and has provided a medium (a specific Task Group) to deb= ate the technical means to interoperate with the Golden Tree.     

 =

So far there have been 3 ways speculated to interoperate with the Public Gol= den Tree but no one has come forth with a concrete technical proposal on how i= t should be done.

 =

Summary of the 3 proposals:

 =

  1. Interconnected Registries with a new URI (If I remember correctly) that “= refers:” to the correct registry the ENUM is listed.
  2. Use of existing DNS constructions to jump to other areas – suc= h as CNAME records in the e164.arpa domain to correct domain
  3. Provisioning the ENUM Resolver to look in multiple domains. 

 =

From a carrier’s perspective we would like to minimize the time for ca= ll set up as Kevin mentioned.  But i= t should be noted that the 250ms. Kevin quoted that ENUM is but a portion of that= .  There are a number of other= “typical” elements that contribute to the call delay.   ENU= M must be accounted as part of the Call Set–Up Time Budget.  Also remember that ENUM actually will lead to atle= ast 2 DNS dips, regardless on interworking, one for the NAPTR RR (URI) and then= another to resolve the URI into and IP Address.  All these need to be factored into that Call-Setup Budget and = determine its impacts, if any.  <= o:p>

 =

Just my 2 cents…

 =

Rob Freilich

WorldCom

972-729-5139

robert.freilich@wcom.com

 =

 =

-----Original Message-----
From: enum-admin@ietf.= org [mailto:enum-admin@ietf.org]On Be= half Of Kevin McCandless
Sent: Wednesday, Octob= er 31, 2001 9:31 AM
To: 'enum@ietf.org' Cc: 'lprabhala@verisig= n.com'; Bob Wienski
Subject: [Enum] ENUM i= nterworking

 =

After having my ENUM in box full of religious debate I began to wonder if t= his is the technical department?

 

Enum by RFC 2916 is rooted in .arpa.

 

Enum is also a way to resolve a E.164 numbers, in DNS, to a given s= et of NAPTR records.  Therefore, resolving E.164 numbers to a set= of NAPTR records could exist in any top level domain.  The important poin= t is how could these different systems interoperate.  Now that is a good = technical question to focus on.  The ENUM Forum that just recently met in = Kansas discussed this issue.  We first discussed the use of CNAME recor= ds at Tier 1 under RFC2916.  Representatives from both VeriSign and Registr= ar.com said that this is very burdensome on a database because it would requ= ire a double look up every time.  The easiest approach would be to hav= e a resolver for the client.  This resolver would be capable of sear= ching multiple domains for the E.164 number.  If one is merely trying = to obtain NAPTR records for anything but call setup the resolver approach shoul= d work fine.  An issue we should be aware of is if ENUM is used fo= r call setup and the resolution of multiple domains takes a large amount of = time then this would not be an acceptable delay for the call completion.  = Circuit switched calls are considered toll grade if they are set up under 250= ms.  That is a target we should keep in mind if we expect ENUM to be an en= abler of call setup and be rooted in multiple domains.

 

Sincerely,

 

 

Kevin McCandless
Senior Network Planner
Illuminet
913-814-6397
kmccandless@illuminet.com

 

--Boundary_(ID_7PV4kUCPsHo5QYg4Jk6aNg)-- _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From daemon@optimus.ietf.org Wed Oct 31 11:20:37 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA23310 for ; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 11:20:32 -0500 (EST) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id LAA23910 for enum-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 11:20:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA23405; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 11:11:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA23366 for ; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 11:11:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from shell.nominum.com (shell.nominum.com [128.177.192.160]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA23012 for ; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 11:11:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from drc-toshiba.nominum.com (shell.nominum.com [128.177.192.160]) by shell.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7CA5C3190C; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 08:11:09 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <5.0.2.1.2.20011031075151.03089c98@localhost> X-Sender: drc@localhost X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.0.2 Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 08:11:08 -0800 To: Kevin McCandless , "'enum@ietf.org'" From: "David R. Conrad" Subject: Re: [Enum] ENUM interworking Cc: "'lprabhala@verisign.com'" , Bob Wienski In-Reply-To: <1C1EEC765F843E44996971A80682118BBB8F9E@opwinex01.corp.illu minet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Enum Discussion List X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org Kevin, At 07:30 AM 10/31/2001 -0800, Kevin McCandless wrote: >After having my ENUM in box full of religious debate I began to wonder if >this is the technical department? Clearly not, but we can try... >The ENUM Forum that just recently met in Kansas discussed this issue. We >first discussed the use of CNAME records at Tier 1 under >RFC2916. Representatives from both VeriSign and Registrar.com said that >this is very burdensome on a database because it would require a double >look up every time. I'm not clear on how CNAME records would be used in this context. Can you explain in more detail? I'd agree, however, that the use of CNAME could result in double lookups (when there are cache misses of course). >The easiest approach would be to have a resolver for the client. This >resolver would be capable of searching multiple domains for the E.164 >number. If one is merely trying to obtain NAPTR records for anything but >call setup the resolver approach should work fine. Unless the same E.164 number is registered in multiple domains in which case the resolver will need some heuristics to try to guess which response is correct. >An issue we should be aware of is if ENUM is used for call setup and the >resolution of multiple domains takes a large amount of time then this >would not be an acceptable delay for the call completion. This makes the assumption that it is only call setup that is time constrained which I'm not sure is a safe assumption. There are two ways to handle the multiple domain queries, either serially or in parallel. If you make the assumption that the first (positive) answer you get back is acceptable, then the parallel approach will not differ significantly in time than the lookup in a single domain. >Circuit switched calls are considered toll grade if they are set up under >250ms. That is a target we should keep in mind if we expect ENUM to be an >enabler of call setup and be rooted in multiple domains. Or in single domains... Rgds, -drc _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From daemon@optimus.ietf.org Wed Oct 31 11:34:18 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA23647 for ; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 11:34:14 -0500 (EST) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id LAA24855 for enum-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 11:34:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA24137; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 11:25:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA24048 for ; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 11:25:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from oak.neustar.com (oak.neustar.com [209.173.53.70]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA23445 for ; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 11:25:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from rds.neustar.com (dmz1.va.neustar.com [209.173.53.65]) by oak.neustar.com (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f9VGOh207724 for ; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 11:25:08 -0500 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20011031110500.02eb2410@127.0.0.1> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 11:05:08 -0500 To: enum@ietf.org From: Richard Shockey Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Subject: [Enum] Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-walter-ranalli-enum-service-00.txt Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Enum Discussion List X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org >To: IETF-Announce: ; >From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org >Reply-to: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org >Subject: I-D ACTION:draft-walter-ranalli-enum-service-00.txt >Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 07:11:37 -0500 >Sender: nsyracus@cnri.reston.va.us > >A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts >directories. > > > Title : ENUM Resolution Protocols and Services > Author(s) : R. Walter, D. Ranalli > Filename : draft-walter-ranalli-enum-service-00.txt > Pages : 6 > Date : 30-Oct-01 > >This document describes a set of ENUM resolution protocols and >services that enable communication applications to unambiguously >differentiate between multiple communication services associated >with a single E.164 telephone number. > >A URL for this Internet-Draft is: >http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-walter-ranalli-enum-service-00.txt > >To remove yourself from the IETF Announcement list, send a message to >ietf-announce-request with the word unsubscribe in the body of the message. > >Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the username >"anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in, >type "cd internet-drafts" and then > "get draft-walter-ranalli-enum-service-00.txt". > >A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in >http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html >or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt > > >Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail. > >Send a message to: > mailserv@ietf.org. >In the body type: > "FILE /internet-drafts/draft-walter-ranalli-enum-service-00.txt". > >NOTE: The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in > MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility. To use this > feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE" > command. To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or > a MIME-compliant mail reader. Different MIME-compliant mail readers > exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with > "multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split > up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on > how to manipulate these messages. > > >Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader >implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the >Internet-Draft. >Content-Type: text/plain >Content-ID: <20011030133650.I-D@ietf.org> > >ENCODING mime >FILE /internet-drafts/draft-walter-ranalli-enum-service-00.txt > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard Shockey, Senior Manager, Strategic Technology Initiatives NeuStar Inc. 45980 Center Oak Plaza Bldg 8 Sterling, VA 20166 1120 Vermont Ave NW Suite 400 Washington DC 20005 Voice 571.434.5651 Cell : 314.503.0640, Fax: 815.333.1237 or <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From daemon@optimus.ietf.org Wed Oct 31 11:38:35 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA23764 for ; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 11:38:35 -0500 (EST) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id LAA24938 for enum-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 11:38:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA24343; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 11:29:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA24314 for ; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 11:29:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from ckmso1.proxy.att.com (ckmso1.att.com [12.20.58.69]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA23518 for ; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 11:29:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from njb140r1.ems.att.com ([135.65.202.58]) by ckmso1.proxy.att.com (AT&T IPNS/MSO-3.0) with ESMTP id f9VGSc412086; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 11:28:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from njb140bh1.ems.att.com by njb140r1.ems.att.com (8.8.8+Sun/ATTEMS-1.4.1 sol2) id LAA27921; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 11:27:17 -0500 (EST) Received: by njb140bh1.ems.att.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 11:28:35 -0500 Message-ID: <62DA45D4963FA747BA1B253E266760F91F9F44@OCCLUST04EVS1.ugd.att.com> From: "Pfautz, Penn L, NNAD" To: "David R. Conrad" , Kevin McCandless , "'enum@ietf.org'" Cc: "'lprabhala@verisign.com'" , Bob Wienski Subject: RE: [Enum] ENUM interworking Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 11:27:38 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Enum Discussion List X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org See PLP: below Penn Pfautz -----Original Message----- From: David R. Conrad [mailto:david.conrad@nominum.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2001 11:11 AM To: Kevin McCandless; 'enum@ietf.org' Cc: 'lprabhala@verisign.com'; Bob Wienski Subject: Re: [Enum] ENUM interworking Kevin, At 07:30 AM 10/31/2001 -0800, Kevin McCandless wrote: >After having my ENUM in box full of religious debate I began to wonder if >this is the technical department? Clearly not, but we can try... >The ENUM Forum that just recently met in Kansas discussed this issue. We >first discussed the use of CNAME records at Tier 1 under >RFC2916. Representatives from both VeriSign and Registrar.com said that >this is very burdensome on a database because it would require a double >look up every time. I'm not clear on how CNAME records would be used in this context. Can you explain in more detail? I'd agree, however, that the use of CNAME could result in double lookups (when there are cache misses of course). PLP: The idea seemed to be that the e164.arpa Tier 1 would have a standard NS record pointing to the alternate registry. This would cause the query to be made to that registry with an e164.arpa domain, i.e. .e164.arpa. Since the presumption is that the alternate registry stores its NAPTR under a proprietary domain, e.g. joesenum.com, there would be a CNAME record in the alternate registry that would cause a new query to be done on .joesenum.com. >The easiest approach would be to have a resolver for the client. This >resolver would be capable of searching multiple domains for the E.164 >number. If one is merely trying to obtain NAPTR records for anything but >call setup the resolver approach should work fine. Unless the same E.164 number is registered in multiple domains in which case the resolver will need some heuristics to try to guess which response is correct. >An issue we should be aware of is if ENUM is used for call setup and the >resolution of multiple domains takes a large amount of time then this >would not be an acceptable delay for the call completion. This makes the assumption that it is only call setup that is time constrained which I'm not sure is a safe assumption. There are two ways to handle the multiple domain queries, either serially or in parallel. If you make the assumption that the first (positive) answer you get back is acceptable, then the parallel approach will not differ significantly in time than the lookup in a single domain. >Circuit switched calls are considered toll grade if they are set up under >250ms. That is a target we should keep in mind if we expect ENUM to be an >enabler of call setup and be rooted in multiple domains. Or in single domains... Rgds, -drc _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From daemon@optimus.ietf.org Wed Oct 31 11:51:33 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA24106 for ; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 11:51:33 -0500 (EST) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id LAA25478 for enum-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 11:51:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA25182; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 11:42:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA25148 for ; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 11:42:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from heron.verisign.com (heron.verisign.com [216.168.233.95]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA23896 for ; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 11:42:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from VSVAPOSTALGW1.prod.netsol.com (vsvapostalgw1.prod.netsol.com [216.168.234.201]) by heron.verisign.com (nsi_0.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA18476; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 11:41:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from arutkowski-pc.verisign.com (ARUTKOWSKI-PC [10.131.128.36]) by VSVAPOSTALGW1.prod.netsol.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id 4VQ8KVC3; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 11:40:46 -0500 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20011031112924.02798540@vsvapostal1.prod.netsol.com> X-Sender: trutkowski@vsvapostal1.prod.netsol.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 11:41:45 -0500 To: "David R. Conrad" , Kevin McCandless , "'enum@ietf.org'" From: Tony Rutkowski Subject: Re: [Enum] ENUM interworking Cc: "'lprabhala@verisign.com'" , Bob Wienski In-Reply-To: <5.0.2.1.2.20011031075151.03089c98@localhost> References: <1C1EEC765F843E44996971A80682118BBB8F9E@opwinex01.corp.illu minet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=====================_503710156==_.ALT" Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Enum Discussion List X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org --=====================_503710156==_.ALT Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Hi David, >>An issue we should be aware of is if ENUM is used for call setup and the >>resolution of multiple domains takes a large amount of time then this >>would not be an acceptable delay for the call completion. What is your view about the use of DNAME? If delay for call completion is the most significant metric, wouldn't it better to use the namespace for just call resolution purposes and use other RR types and architectures? Particularly when the likelihood of a unitary domain public UCI purposes seems highly unlikely? Aren't robustness and diminished vulnerability (especially post 9-11) at least as important attributes as call completion delay? Note this subject was ruled out of scope when raised in the WG last year. What ENUM architectures and attributes increase or diminish "signalling" vulnerabilities? There's intense interest in this subject these days in Washington and the industry. >There are two ways to handle the multiple domain queries, either serially >or in parallel. If you make the assumption that the first (positive) >answer you get back is acceptable, then the parallel approach will not >differ significantly in time than the lookup in a single domain. > >>Circuit switched calls are considered toll grade if they are set up under >>250ms. That is a target we should keep in mind if we expect ENUM to be >>an enabler of call setup and be rooted in multiple domains. Great to see the consideration of alternative architectures here. --tony --=====================_503710156==_.ALT Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Hi David,

An issue we should be aware of is if ENUM is used for call setup and the resolution of multiple domains takes a large amount of time then this would not be an acceptable delay for the call completion.

What is your view about the use of DNAME?

If delay for call completion is the most significant metric,
wouldn't it better to use the namespace for just call resolution
purposes and use other RR types and architectures? Particularly
when the likelihood of a unitary domain public UCI purposes
seems highly unlikely?

Aren't robustness and diminished vulnerability (especially
post 9-11) at least as important attributes as call completion
delay?  Note this subject was ruled out of scope when raised
in the WG last year.  What ENUM architectures and attributes
increase or diminish "signalling" vulnerabilities?  There's
intense interest in this subject these days in Washington
and the industry.


There are two ways to handle the multiple domain queries, either serially or in parallel.  If you make the assumption that the first (positive) answer you get back is acceptable, then the parallel approach will not differ significantly in time than the lookup in a single domain.

Circuit switched calls are considered toll grade if they are set up under 250ms.  That is a target we should keep in mind if we expect ENUM to be an enabler of call setup and be rooted in multiple domains.

Great to see the consideration of alternative architectures
here.

--tony --=====================_503710156==_.ALT-- _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From daemon@optimus.ietf.org Wed Oct 31 12:10:10 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA24652 for ; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 12:10:05 -0500 (EST) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id MAA27031 for enum-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 12:10:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA26263; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 12:00:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA26093 for ; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 12:00:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from oak.neustar.com (oak.neustar.com [209.173.53.70]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA24363 for ; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 12:00:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from rds.neustar.com (dmz1.va.neustar.com [209.173.53.65]) by oak.neustar.com (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f9VGxZ208564 for ; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 11:59:59 -0500 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20011031115421.02e8bab0@127.0.0.1> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 11:57:03 -0500 To: enum@ietf.org From: Richard Shockey Subject: Re: [Enum] e164.arpa: a technical or policy issue? In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20011031090110.031ee5b8@vsvapostal1.prod.netsol .com> References: <37056.1004536706@shell.nominum.com> <5.1.0.14.2.20011031074250.03ffb7f8@vsvapostal1.prod.netsol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Enum Discussion List X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org At 09:12 AM 10/31/2001 -0500, Tony Rutkowski wrote: >Hi Jim, > >>IETF activities in general). There may be "ENUM-like" services at >>enum.com and elsewhere. These might smell and look and feel like >>ENUM. But they're not ENUM because RFC2916 says so. That's an >>undisputed fact no matter how you try to spin or obscure it. > >The ITU reference was not intended as a disparagement. >At some level, the ITU may help promulgate ENUMs - but >it will almost certainly be in it's own controlled tree. > >Because some ITU members may choose to do that in e164.int >run by the ITU, doesn't make it any less an ENUM implementation, >even if it doesn't meet some orthodox reading of the RFC and >vicarious denominations of namespaces and protocols. The >real world will see multiple and constantly evolving ENUMs. the ITU has not made any determination yet and I do not want the technical work of this group disrupted by your political observations >It's time to focus on tools for a real world of multiple >ENUMs, such as DNAME, common registrar interfaces, and >the use of existing verification systems, e.g., LIDB >lookups. Well in Pittsburg ..the concept of using DNAME here was strongly opposed and in a hum was rejected by the WG. >--tony > > >_______________________________________________ >enum mailing list >enum@ietf.org >http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard Shockey, Senior Manager, Strategic Technology Initiatives NeuStar Inc. 45980 Center Oak Plaza Bldg 8 Sterling, VA 20166 1120 Vermont Ave NW Suite 400 Washington DC 20005 Voice 571.434.5651 Cell : 314.503.0640, Fax: 815.333.1237 or <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From daemon@optimus.ietf.org Wed Oct 31 12:56:17 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA25831 for ; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 12:56:17 -0500 (EST) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id MAA28324 for enum-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 12:56:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA27998; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 12:46:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA27963 for ; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 12:46:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from heron.verisign.com (heron.verisign.com [216.168.233.95]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA25521 for ; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 12:46:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from VSVAPOSTALGW1.prod.netsol.com (vsvapostalgw1.prod.netsol.com [216.168.234.201]) by heron.verisign.com (nsi_0.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA21643; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 12:46:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from arutkowski-pc.verisign.com (ARUTKOWSKI-PC [10.131.128.36]) by VSVAPOSTALGW1.prod.netsol.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id 4VQ8K58T; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 12:45:22 -0500 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20011031122532.0282dea8@vsvapostal1.prod.netsol.com> X-Sender: trutkowski@vsvapostal1.prod.netsol.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 12:46:21 -0500 To: Richard Shockey , enum@ietf.org From: Tony Rutkowski Subject: Re: [Enum] e164.arpa: a technical or policy issue? In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20011031115421.02e8bab0@127.0.0.1> References: <5.1.0.14.2.20011031090110.031ee5b8@vsvapostal1.prod.netsol .com> <37056.1004536706@shell.nominum.com> <5.1.0.14.2.20011031074250.03ffb7f8@vsvapostal1.prod.netsol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=====================_507586510==_.ALT" Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Enum Discussion List X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org --=====================_507586510==_.ALT Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed At 11:57 AM 10/31/2001, Richard Shockey wrote: >Well in Pittsburg ..the concept of using DNAME here was strongly opposed >and in a hum was rejected by the WG. Hi Richard, It was originally raised by Christian Huitema, Penn Pfautz, Greg Vaudreuil, and David Peek. See list archives, 21 Jan 2000, 26 Jun 2000, 26 Jun 2000, 28 Jun 2000. Notwithstanding your apparently acceptable engineering analysis undertaken at Pittsburg, many developments have occurred in the meantime that suggest a more thorough consideration now than just humming. (Guess I missed the humming 101 class in engineering school.) --tony ps. Even hotter than the list is the chili cookoff across the street here at Lakeside II. You should drop over. Next time we can do one between NeuStar and VeriSign. :-) --=====================_507586510==_.ALT Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" At 11:57 AM 10/31/2001, Richard Shockey wrote:

Well in Pittsburg ..the concept of using DNAME here was strongly opposed and in a hum was rejected by the WG.

Hi Richard,

It was originally raised by Christian Huitema,
Penn Pfautz, Greg Vaudreuil, and David Peek. 
See list archives, 21 Jan 2000, 26 Jun 2000,
26 Jun 2000, 28 Jun 2000.

Notwithstanding your apparently acceptable
engineering analysis undertaken at Pittsburg,
many developments have occurred in the meantime
that suggest a more thorough consideration now
than just humming. 

(Guess I missed the humming 101 class in engineering
school.)

--tony

ps.  Even hotter than the list is the chili cookoff
across the street here at Lakeside II.  You should
drop over.  Next time we can do one between NeuStar
and VeriSign. :-) --=====================_507586510==_.ALT-- _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From daemon@optimus.ietf.org Wed Oct 31 12:56:23 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA25846 for ; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 12:56:18 -0500 (EST) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id MAA28339 for enum-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 12:56:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA27950; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 12:46:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA27919 for ; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 12:46:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from hvmta01-stg.us.psimail.psi.net (hvmta01-ext.us.psimail.psi.net [38.202.36.29]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA25508 for ; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 12:46:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from RWALTER ([65.203.166.44]) by hvmta01-stg.us.psimail.psi.net (InterMail vM.4.01.02.17 201-229-119) with SMTP id <20011031174541.XUDD28907.hvmta01-stg.us.psimail.psi.net@RWALTER>; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 12:45:41 -0500 Reply-To: From: "Robert H. Walter" To: Cc: "Michael Mealling" Subject: QRE: [Enum] Robert and Douglas' Protocols and Services draft... Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 12:45:50 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) In-Reply-To: <20011031084238.T12559@bailey.dscga.com> Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Enum Discussion List X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Michael, Thank you for the feedback... Your suggestion of defining an IANA registry for both the protocols and services is excellent and we will incorporate this into the next revision of the draft. You raise an interesting point regarding the use of SIP with IM. Will the SIP extension(s) proposed in the SIMPLE working group I-D "SIP Extensions for Instant Messaging" (draft-ietf-simple-im-01.txt) be absorbed into SIP or will a new extended SIP protocol (e.g. simple) be born? If the latter is the case, I agree that it makes sense to specify SIMPLE as a resolution protocol. Regards, Bob > -----Original Message----- > From: enum-admin@ietf.org [mailto:enum-admin@ietf.org]On Behalf Of > Michael Mealling > Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2001 8:43 AM > To: enum@ietf.org > Subject: [Enum] Robert and Douglas' Protocols and Services draft... > > > Hi, > Being one of the people who pointed out the need for something like this > I think this is the exact right way of solving this problem. Good job > guys! I would make two small additions to the document: > > 1) Define an IANA registry for both the protocols and the services. You've > got the start of a template there, just add a field for the documents that > define the service and/or protocol and then add an IANA Considerations > section. > > 2) I think you should specify the protocols in terms of ENUM usage and not > leave them 'nakedly' defined. In the URI Resolution application it wasn't > possible to say "just use the http protocol" because there were so many > different ways of doing the URI resolution services. So we created > 'profiles' of different protocols that narrowed the protocol down enough > to make it interoperable for the specific Service you were attempting to do. > I think you're going to have to do that here simply because there's > probably about a 100 different ways to do IM like functions with SIP. > For example: in the case of IM and SIP the actual protocol used would be > SIMPLE and not SIP itself, right? Does that make sense? > > -MM > > -- > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Michael Mealling | Vote Libertarian! | urn:pin:1 > michael@neonym.net | | http://www.neonym.net > > _______________________________________________ > enum mailing list > enum@ietf.org > http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From daemon@optimus.ietf.org Wed Oct 31 13:06:50 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA26361 for ; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 13:06:50 -0500 (EST) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id NAA29240 for enum-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 13:06:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA28452; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 12:57:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA28419 for ; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 12:57:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from cisco.com (nordic.cisco.com [64.103.48.45]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA25903 for ; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 12:57:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from [10.0.1.2] (ssh-ams1.cisco.com [144.254.74.55]) by cisco.com (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) with ESMTP id SAA25663; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 18:56:53 +0100 (MET) Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 18:55:09 +0100 From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Patrik_F=E4ltstr=F6m?= To: Tony Rutkowski , "David R. Conrad" , Kevin McCandless , "'enum@ietf.org'" cc: "'lprabhala@verisign.com'" , Bob Wienski Subject: Re: [Enum] ENUM interworking Message-ID: <7543717.1004554509@localhost> In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20011031112924.02798540@vsvapostal1.prod.netsol.com> References: <1C1EEC765F843E44996971A80682118BBB8F9E@opwinex01.corp.illu minet.com> <5.1.0.14.2.20011031112924.02798540@vsvapostal1.prod.netsol.com> X-Mailer: Mulberry/2.1.1 (Mac OS X) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Enum Discussion List X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit --On 01-10-31 11.41 -0500 Tony Rutkowski wrote: > What is your view about the use of DNAME? DNAME only differ from NS records (and the proposed use of CNAME) when you do a change of the zone name itself. I.e. if you have two domains: a.b.c.d. And, c.d. change it's domain name to x.y. That change also implicitly changes the names of the domains a and b are running from a.b.c.d to a.b.x.y and from b.c.d to b.x.y respectively. DNAME was invented just because it was stated that "rapid renumbering" in DNS was something that would happen all over the time, and because of this, DNAME was needed for the "reverse tree" for IPv6 addresses. This to ease the administration of DNS. Nothing else. In later discussions, it is clear that the administrator can make much more damage with the use of DNAME than "normal administration" and because of that, it is currently viewed that DNAME should _NOT_ be used is possible. In the case of the e164.arpa tree, what we talk about are normal delegations, and DNAME is not needed, and neither is CNAME. CNAME would only work if/when you have a CNAME for the full domain name, while DNAME can operate at a partial domain name. So, if you think about how to deploy Enum, use existing mechanisms for DNS, which include NS records. Regarding the question about one golden tree or more than one, as David and Dave have already said, this is _NOT_ an ENUM issue. It is a question on how DNS works. Reason for one root in DNS, and e164.arpa for E.164 numbers, is that the party which is to query for a domain name need to know where to look for the name. Some people have said that "he should be able to choose" (doesn't work, because he need to choose exactly the same root as the holder of the E.164 has chosen). Some people have said "do a search in multiple domains" (doesn't scale, because how to limit the number of such domains?). As Dave said, the day someone have come up with a working proposal for how to handle multiple roots in the DNS, then we can talk again. And, no, nothing of what is existing is working. Point is that that discission is NOT to be held on this mailing list. On the other hand, it is perfectly ok for a company to have a private "numbering plan" using NAPTR records in DNS and storing those numbers wherever they want. That is though not ENUM. For enum to work, the holder of the phone number and the party querying for the information need to use the same space in the tree. This because one have no more information than the E.164 when looking for information. paf _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From daemon@optimus.ietf.org Wed Oct 31 13:17:37 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA26903 for ; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 13:17:37 -0500 (EST) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id NAA00125 for enum-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 13:17:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA29375; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 13:07:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA29287 for ; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 13:07:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from pine.il.neustar.com (pine.neustar.com [209.173.57.70]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA26428 for ; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 13:07:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from chiimc01.il.neustar.com (dmz1.il.neustar.com [209.173.57.65]) by pine.il.neustar.com (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f9VI78j13451; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 12:07:08 -0600 Received: by chiimc01.il.neustar.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 12:05:50 -0600 Message-ID: <23309E398D84D5119D0F00306E075139170334@dc02.npac.com> From: "Yu, James" To: "'Lori Messing'" Cc: "'enum@ietf.org'" Subject: RE: [Enum] RE: enum digest, Vol 1 #292 - 13 msgs Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 12:05:56 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Enum Discussion List X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org Lori, QOR requires a call setup to the donor network/switch. If the TN (telephone number) is not ported, the call terminates there. But if the TN is ported, the call needs to be released back to the orig. switch (technically it can be done by an intermediate switch) where a NP DB dip is done. For ported numbers, the donor network is involved in call signaling processing. It also requires end-to-end ISUP connectivity to pass the "number ported" indication is the ISUP Release message. Dropback scheme is similar to QOR except that the donor network/switch needs to return the routing number is the ISUP Release message. Again it requires end-to-end ISUP connectivity to pass back the routing number. Section 5.5 provides some comparisons among the four schemes. James > -----Original Message----- > From: Lori Messing [mailto:LMessing@ctia.org] > Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2001 10:29 AM > To: 'enum@ietf.org' > Subject: [Enum] RE: enum digest, Vol 1 #292 - 13 msgs > > > If Illuminet is inclined to elaborate on QOR and alternatives > to LRN which > would negatively impact service levels in a LNP environment, CTIA is > interested. > > Thank you. > > Lori Messing > Director of Numbering Issues > Cellular Telecommunications & Internet Association (CTIA) > 1250 Connecticut Avenue > Suite #800 > Washington, DC 20036 > 202/736/3654 > lmessing@ctia.org > > > -----Original Message----- > From: enum-admin@ietf.org [mailto:enum-admin@ietf.org] > Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2001 6:54 AM > To: enum@ietf.org > Subject: enum digest, Vol 1 #292 - 13 msgs > > > > Send enum mailing list submissions to > enum@ietf.org > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the web, visit > http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > enum-request@ietf.org > You can reach the person managing the list at > enum-admin@ietf.org > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more > specific than > "Re: Contents of enum digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Number Portability Draft (Bob Wienski) > 2. Number Portability Draft (Kevin McCandless) > 3. Re: ENUM "sharing" (Ray Anderson) > 4. Re: ENUM "sharing" (Tony Rutkowski) > 5. RE: Revised Charter and Work Plan for ENUM WG (Robert H. Walter) > 6. Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-vpim-routing-02.txt (Richard Shockey) > 7. Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-urn-ddds-toc-00.txt (Richard Shockey) > 8. Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-urn-ddds-05.txt (Richard Shockey) > 9. Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-urn-uri-res-ddds-05.txt > (Richard Shockey) > 10. RE: Revised Charter and Work Plan for ENUM WG (Richard Shockey) > 11. Fwd: [VPIM] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-vpim-address-02.txt (Richard > Shockey) > 12. Re: Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-urn-ddds-toc-00.txt (Chip Sharp) > 13. Re: ENUM "sharing" (Jim Fleming) > > --__--__-- > > Message: 1 > From: Bob Wienski > To: "'enum@ietf.org'" > Cc: Rebecca Stillings , > David Nicol > , > Kevin McCandless > Subject: [Enum] Number Portability Draft > Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2001 14:15:04 -0800 > charset="iso-8859-1" > > Illuminet has reviewed a DRAFT copy of the Telephone Number > Mapping Working > Group of > the IETF titled: > > Title : Number Portability in the GSTN: An Overview > Author(s) : M. Foster, T. McGarry, J. Yu > Filename : draft-ietf-enum-e164-gstn-np-02.txt > Pages : 26 > Date : 22-Oct-01 > > Illuminet has reviewed the document and finds no technical > issues with the > DRAFT. However, it should be noted that the LRN solution is > what has been > mandated by the FCC in the US. Solutions like QoR were > dismissed by the FCC > as they violated the FCC requirements for an NP solution. > Several of the > other suggested implementation alternatives, other than LRN, > also violate > the FCC LNP mandate in that they negatively impact the level > of service > quality, like QoR. > > Illuminet would be willing to elaborate on these observations > should this be > of interest. > > Thank you for the opportunity to comment. > > > Robert M. Wienski > Vice President > NextGen Services > > ILLUMINET, Inc. > 4501 Intelco Loop SE > P.O. Box 2909 > Olympia, WA 98507 > Phone: 360.493.6294 > Cell: 360.951.5374 > FAX: 360.923.3457 > bwienski@illuminet.com > www.illuminet.com > > > > --__--__-- > > Message: 2 > From: Kevin McCandless > To: "'enum@ietf.org'" > Cc: Bob Wienski > Subject: [Enum] Number Portability Draft > Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2001 14:23:51 -0800 > charset="iso-8859-1" > > This is being posted for Bob Wienski at Illuminet to the list. > > Illuminet has reviewed a DRAFT copy of the Telephone Number > Mapping Working > Group of the IETF titled: > > Title : Number Portability in the GSTN: An Overview > Author(s) : M. Foster, T. McGarry, J. Yu > Filename : draft-ietf-enum-e164-gstn-np-02.txt > Pages : 26 > Date : 22-Oct-01 > > Illuminet has reviewed the document and finds no technical > issues with the > DRAFT. However, it should be noted that the LRN solution is > what has been > mandated by the FCC in the US. Solutions like QoR were > dismissed by the FCC > as they violated the FCC requirements for an NP solution. > Several of the > other suggested implementation alternatives, other than LRN, > also violate > the FCC LNP mandate in that they negatively impact the level > of service > quality, like QoR. > Illuminet would be willing to elaborate on these observations > should this be > of interest. > Thank you for the opportunity to comment. > > Robert M. Wienski > Vice President > NextGen Services > ILLUMINET, Inc. > 4501 Intelco Loop SE > P.O. Box 2909 > Olympia, WA 98507 > Phone: 360.493.6294 > Cell: 360.951.5374 > FAX: 360.923.3457 > bwienski@illuminet.com > www.illuminet.com > > --__--__-- > > Message: 3 > Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 07:07:52 +0000 > To: Tony Rutkowski , > Patrik > =?iso-8859-1?Q?F=E4ltstr=F6m?= , > HSilbiger@aol.com, enum@ietf.org > From: Ray Anderson > Subject: Re: [Enum] ENUM "sharing" > Cc: hsilbiger@ieee.org > .com> > > > > At 07:56 25/10/2001 -0400, Tony Rutkowski wrote: > > >It would be great, for example, if Cisco could > >share it's ENUM technical and operational experiences, > >innovations, and customer interactions with the > >others in the ENUM Alliance, as the members are > >already doing. > > > >--tony > > Why would they want to? As I understand it, the "ENUM Alliance" is a > private club > run by netnumber.com to establish their own product "Global > ENUM" as the > global > address registry for server lookups based on phone numbers. > > Verisign, as an investor in NetNumber might prefer that to > happen of course > :-) > > > > === > Ray Anderson CEO Bango.net Limited www.bango.net/00454545 > The Mobile Internet is for everyone. It must be very easy to use. > > > --__--__-- > > Message: 4 > Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 07:10:04 -0500 > To: Ray Anderson , > Patrik =?iso-8859-1?Q?F=E4ltstr=F6m?= > , > HSilbiger@aol.com, enum@ietf.org > From: Tony Rutkowski > Subject: Re: [Enum] ENUM "sharing" > Cc: hsilbiger@ieee.org > <7834985.1004005242@localhost> > > > > At 02:07 AM 30-10-01, Ray Anderson wrote: > >Why would they want to? As I understand it, the "ENUM > Alliance" is a > >private club > >run by netnumber.com to establish their own product "Global > ENUM" as the > >global > >address registry for server lookups based on phone numbers. > > Hi Ray, > > It's the same technology, and they represent real > users with actual customers. We're not dealing with > religion here (particularly when the States are > unlikely to adopt it as the official religion), > but products in marketplaces. > > The material provided at VON is in fact useful sharing. > See http://www.ngi.org/enum/alliance/index.htm > > --tony > > > --__--__-- > > Message: 5 > Reply-To: > From: "Robert H. Walter" > To: > Subject: RE: [Enum] Revised Charter and Work Plan for ENUM WG > Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 08:40:03 -0500 > charset="iso-8859-1" > > Hi Kevin, > > > Possible enhancements to the new charter could be as follows: > > > > 1) Identify the valid NAPTR records and formats for all > possible services > > and update RFC2916. > > 2) Identify enhancements need, protocol etc, that need to > be made to > allow > > such applications as IE to perform ENUM queries. > > 3) Work with other task groups to develop possible > application uses for > the > > ENUM protocol. Add these as an appendix to RFC 2916 > > A new enum I-D entitled "ENUM Resolution Protocols and Services" was > submitted yesterday to the I-D editor and the enum wg chairs. This > draft addresses #1 on your list in that it proposes the > standardization > of the ENUM resolution protocols and services to promote > communications > application interoperability and eliminate communications > service ambiguity. > > It should appear in the Internet Draft repository soon under > draft-walter-ranalli-enum-service-00.txt. > > Regards, > > Bob Walter > NetNumber, Inc. > > --__--__-- > > Message: 6 > Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 09:12:16 -0500 > To: enum@ietf.org > From: Richard Shockey > Subject: [Enum] Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-vpim-routing-02.txt > > > FYI for service definitions by VPIM for ENUM > > >To: IETF-Announce: ; > >Cc: vpim@lists.neystadt.org > >From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org > >Reply-to: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org > >Subject: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-vpim-routing-02.txt > >Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 07:13:34 -0500 > >Sender: nsyracus@cnri.reston.va.us > > > >A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts > >directories. > >This draft is a work item of the Voice Profile for Internet > Mail Working > >Group of the IETF. > > > > Title : Voice Message Routing Service > > Author(s) : G. Vaudreuil > > Filename : draft-ietf-vpim-routing-02.txt > > Pages : 11 > > Date : 29-Oct-01 > > > >Voice messaging is traditionally addressed using telephone number > >addressing. This document describes two techniques for routing voice > >messages based on a telephone number. The VPIM Directory service > >provides a directory mechanism to lookup a VPIM email address with a > >telephone number and confirm that the address is both valid and the > >associated with the intended recipient. However this service will > >take time become widely deployed in the nearest term. This document > >also describes a more limited send-and-pray service useful simply to > >route and deliver messages using only the ENUM telephone number > >resolution service and the existing DNS mail routing facilies. > >Please send comments on this document to the VPIM working group > >mailing list > > > >A URL for this Internet-Draft is: > >http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-vpim-routing-02.txt > > > >To remove yourself from the IETF Announcement list, send a message to > >ietf-announce-request with the word unsubscribe in the body > of the message. > > > >Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the > username > >"anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in, > >type "cd internet-drafts" and then > > "get draft-ietf-vpim-routing-02.txt". > > > >A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in > >http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html > >or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt > > > > > >Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail. > > > >Send a message to: > > mailserv@ietf.org. > >In the body type: > > "FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-vpim-routing-02.txt". > > > >NOTE: The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in > > MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility. To use this > > feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before > the "FILE" > > command. To decode the response(s), you will need > "munpack" or > > a MIME-compliant mail reader. Different MIME-compliant mail > readers > > exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with > > "multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which > have been split > > up into multiple messages), so check your local > documentation on > > how to manipulate these messages. > > > > > >Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader > >implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the > >Internet-Draft. > >Content-Type: text/plain > >Content-ID: <20011029134444.I-D@ietf.org> > > > >ENCODING mime > >FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-vpim-routing-02.txt > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > Richard Shockey, Senior Manager, Strategic Technology Initiatives > NeuStar Inc. > 45980 Center Oak Plaza Bldg 8 Sterling, VA 20166 > 1120 Vermont Ave NW Suite 400 Washington DC 20005 > Voice 571.434.5651 Cell : 314.503.0640, Fax: 815.333.1237 > or > > > > <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< > > > --__--__-- > > Message: 7 > Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 09:13:26 -0500 > To: enum@ietf.org > From: Richard Shockey > Subject: [Enum] Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-urn-ddds-toc-00.txt > > > FYI the next iteration of RFC2915 > > >To: IETF-Announce: ; > >Cc: urn-ietf@lists.netsol.com > >From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org > >Reply-to: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org > >Subject: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-urn-ddds-toc-00.txt > >Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 07:13:23 -0500 > >Sender: nsyracus@cnri.reston.va.us > > > >A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts > >directories. > >This draft is a work item of the Uniform Resource Names > Working Group of > >the IETF. > > > > Title : Dynamic Delegation Discovery > System (DDDS) Part > > One: > > The Comprehensive DDDS Standard > > Author(s) : M. Mealling > > Filename : draft-ietf-urn-ddds-toc-00.txt > > Pages : 8 > > Date : 29-Oct-01 > > > >This document specifies the exact documents that make up the complete > >Dynamic Delegation Discovery System (DDDS) standard. The DDDS is an > >abstract algorithm for applying dynamically retrieved string > >transformation rules to an application-unique string. > >This document along with RFC XXXX, RFC YYYY and RFC ZZZZ obsolete RFC > >2168 [8] and RFC 2915 [6] as well as update RFC 2276 [5]. > > > >A URL for this Internet-Draft is: > >http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-urn-ddds-toc-00.txt > > > >To remove yourself from the IETF Announcement list, send a message to > >ietf-announce-request with the word unsubscribe in the body > of the message. > > > >Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the > username > >"anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in, > >type "cd internet-drafts" and then > > "get draft-ietf-urn-ddds-toc-00.txt". > > > >A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in > >http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html > >or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt > > > > > >Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail. > > > >Send a message to: > > mailserv@ietf.org. > >In the body type: > > "FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-urn-ddds-toc-00.txt". > > > >NOTE: The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in > > MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility. To use this > > feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before > the "FILE" > > command. To decode the response(s), you will need > "munpack" or > > a MIME-compliant mail reader. Different MIME-compliant mail > readers > > exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with > > "multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which > have been split > > up into multiple messages), so check your local > documentation on > > how to manipulate these messages. > > > > > >Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader > >implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the > >Internet-Draft. > >Content-Type: text/plain > >Content-ID: <20011029134407.I-D@ietf.org> > > > >ENCODING mime > >FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-urn-ddds-toc-00.txt > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > Richard Shockey, Senior Manager, Strategic Technology Initiatives > NeuStar Inc. > 45980 Center Oak Plaza Bldg 8 Sterling, VA 20166 > 1120 Vermont Ave NW Suite 400 Washington DC 20005 > Voice 571.434.5651 Cell : 314.503.0640, Fax: 815.333.1237 > or > > > > <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< > > > --__--__-- > > Message: 8 > Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 09:14:34 -0500 > To: enum@ietf.org > From: Richard Shockey > Subject: [Enum] Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-urn-ddds-05.txt > > FYI > > >To: IETF-Announce: ; > >Cc: urn-ietf@lists.netsol.com > >From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org > >Reply-to: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org > >Subject: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-urn-ddds-05.txt > >Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 07:13:18 -0500 > >Sender: nsyracus@cnri.reston.va.us > > > >A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts > >directories. > >This draft is a work item of the Uniform Resource Names > Working Group of > >the IETF. > > > > Title : Dynamic Delegation Discovery > System (DDDS) Part > > Two: > > The Algorithm > > Author(s) : M. Mealling > > Filename : draft-ietf-urn-ddds-05.txt > > Pages : 22 > > Date : 29-Oct-01 > > > >This document describes the Dynamic Delegation Discovery System > >(DDDS) algorithm for applying dynamically retrieved string > >transformation rules to an application-unique string. Well-formed > >transformation rules will reflect the delegation of management of > >information associated with the string. This document is also part > >of a series that is completely specified in 'Dynamic Delegation > >Discovery System (DDDS) Part One: The Comprehensive DDDS Standard' > >(RFC WWWW). It is very important to note that it is impossible to > >read and understand any document in this series without reading the > >others. > > > >A URL for this Internet-Draft is: > >http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-urn-ddds-05.txt > > > >To remove yourself from the IETF Announcement list, send a message to > >ietf-announce-request with the word unsubscribe in the body > of the message. > > > >Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the > username > >"anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in, > >type "cd internet-drafts" and then > > "get draft-ietf-urn-ddds-05.txt". > > > >A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in > >http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html > >or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt > > > > > >Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail. > > > >Send a message to: > > mailserv@ietf.org. > >In the body type: > > "FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-urn-ddds-05.txt". > > > >NOTE: The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in > > MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility. To use this > > feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before > the "FILE" > > command. To decode the response(s), you will need > "munpack" or > > a MIME-compliant mail reader. Different MIME-compliant mail > readers > > exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with > > "multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which > have been split > > up into multiple messages), so check your local > documentation on > > how to manipulate these messages. > > > > > >Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader > >implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the > >Internet-Draft. > >Content-Type: text/plain > >Content-ID: <20011029134332.I-D@ietf.org> > > > >ENCODING mime > >FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-urn-ddds-05.txt > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > Richard Shockey, Senior Manager, Strategic Technology Initiatives > NeuStar Inc. > 45980 Center Oak Plaza Bldg 8 Sterling, VA 20166 > 1120 Vermont Ave NW Suite 400 Washington DC 20005 > Voice 571.434.5651 Cell : 314.503.0640, Fax: 815.333.1237 > or > > > > <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< > > > --__--__-- > > Message: 9 > Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 09:14:47 -0500 > To: enum@ietf.org > From: Richard Shockey > Subject: [Enum] Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-urn-uri-res-ddds-05.txt > > FYI > > >To: IETF-Announce: ; > >Cc: urn-ietf@lists.netsol.com > >From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org > >Reply-to: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org > >Subject: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-urn-uri-res-ddds-05.txt > >Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 07:13:28 -0500 > >Sender: nsyracus@cnri.reston.va.us > > > >A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts > >directories. > >This draft is a work item of the Uniform Resource Names > Working Group of > >the IETF. > > > > Title : Dynamic Delegation Discovery > System (DDDS) Part > > Four: > > The URI Resolution Application > > Author(s) : M. Mealling > > Filename : draft-ietf-urn-uri-res-ddds-05.txt > > Pages : 25 > > Date : 29-Oct-01 > > > >A specification for taking a URI and locating an authoritative server > >for information about that URI. The method used to locate that > >authoritative server is the Dynamic Delegation Discovery System. > >This document is part of a series that is specified in 'Dynamic > >Delegation Discovery System (DDDS) Part One: The Comprehensive DDDS > >Standard' (RFC WWWW). It is very important to note that it is > >impossible to read and understand any document in this series without > >reading the others. > > > >A URL for this Internet-Draft is: > >http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-urn-uri-res-dd > ds-05.txt > > > >To remove yourself from the IETF Announcement list, send a message to > >ietf-announce-request with the word unsubscribe in the body > of the message. > > > >Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the > username > >"anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in, > >type "cd internet-drafts" and then > > "get draft-ietf-urn-uri-res-ddds-05.txt". > > > >A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in > >http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html > >or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt > > > > > >Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail. > > > >Send a message to: > > mailserv@ietf.org. > >In the body type: > > "FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-urn-uri-res-ddds-05.txt". > > > >NOTE: The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in > > MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility. To use this > > feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before > the "FILE" > > command. To decode the response(s), you will need > "munpack" or > > a MIME-compliant mail reader. Different MIME-compliant mail > readers > > exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with > > "multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which > have been split > > up into multiple messages), so check your local > documentation on > > how to manipulate these messages. > > > > > >Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader > >implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the > >Internet-Draft. > >Content-Type: text/plain > >Content-ID: <20011029134426.I-D@ietf.org> > > > >ENCODING mime > >FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-urn-uri-res-ddds-05.txt > > > > ds-05.txt> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > Richard Shockey, Senior Manager, Strategic Technology Initiatives > NeuStar Inc. > 45980 Center Oak Plaza Bldg 8 Sterling, VA 20166 > 1120 Vermont Ave NW Suite 400 Washington DC 20005 > Voice 571.434.5651 Cell : 314.503.0640, Fax: 815.333.1237 > or > > > > <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< > > > --__--__-- > > Message: 10 > Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 09:21:28 -0500 > To: , > From: Richard Shockey > Subject: RE: [Enum] Revised Charter and Work Plan for ENUM WG > > At 08:40 AM 10/30/2001 -0500, Robert H. Walter wrote: > >Hi Kevin, > > > > > Possible enhancements to the new charter could be as follows: > > > > > > 1) Identify the valid NAPTR records and formats for all possible > services > > > and update RFC2916. > > > 2) Identify enhancements need, protocol etc, that need > to be made to > allow > > > such applications as IE to perform ENUM queries. > > > 3) Work with other task groups to develop possible > application uses > > for the > > > ENUM protocol. Add these as an appendix to RFC 2916 > > > >A new enum I-D entitled "ENUM Resolution Protocols and Services" was > >submitted yesterday to the I-D editor and the enum wg chairs. This > >draft addresses #1 on your list in that it proposes the > standardization > >of the ENUM resolution protocols and services to promote > communications > >application interoperability and eliminate communications service > ambiguity. > > > >It should appear in the Internet Draft repository soon under > >draft-walter-ranalli-enum-service-00.txt. > > I think this will be a useful document to consider ...but it > is also clear > that specific application WG's are taking up some of these matters > independently ... clearly the VPIM work group is well advanced in its > thinking (I've cross posted some of the relevant documents )and I'm > reasonably confident that the new SIPPING WG may take up the issue of > defining SIP parameters and usage in ENUM. > > > > > >Regards, > > > >Bob Walter > >NetNumber, Inc. > > > >_______________________________________________ > >enum mailing list > >enum@ietf.org > >http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > Richard Shockey, Senior Manager, Strategic Technology Initiatives > NeuStar Inc. > 45980 Center Oak Plaza Bldg 8 Sterling, VA 20166 > 1120 Vermont Ave NW Suite 400 Washington DC 20005 > Voice 571.434.5651 Cell : 314.503.0640, Fax: 815.333.1237 > or > > > > <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< > > > --__--__-- > > Message: 11 > Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 09:19:21 -0500 > To: enum@ietf.org > From: Richard Shockey > Subject: [Enum] Fwd: [VPIM] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-vpim-address-02.txt > > FYI > > >To: IETF-Announce: ; > >Cc: vpim@lists.neystadt.org > >From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org > >Reply-to: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org > >Subject: [VPIM] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-vpim-address-02.txt > >Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2001 07:08:01 -0500 > >Sender: owner-vpim@lists.neystadt.org > > > >A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts > >directories. > >This draft is a work item of the Voice Profile for Internet > Mail Working > >Group of the IETF. > > > > Title : VPIM Addressing > > Author(s) : G. Parsons > > Filename : draft-ietf-vpim-address-02.txt > > Pages : 13 > > Date : 26-Oct-01 > > > >This document lists the various VPIM email address formats that are > >currently in common use and defines several new address formats for > >special case usage. Requirements are imposed on the formats of > >addresses used in VPIM submission mode. > > > >A URL for this Internet-Draft is: > >http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-vpim-address-02.txt > > > >To remove yourself from the IETF Announcement list, send a message to > >ietf-announce-request with the word unsubscribe in the body > of the message. > > > >Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the > username > >"anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in, > >type "cd internet-drafts" and then > > "get draft-ietf-vpim-address-02.txt". > > > >A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in > >http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html > >or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt > > > > > >Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail. > > > >Send a message to: > > mailserv@ietf.org. > >In the body type: > > "FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-vpim-address-02.txt". > > > >NOTE: The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in > > MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility. To use this > > feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before > the "FILE" > > command. To decode the response(s), you will need > "munpack" or > > a MIME-compliant mail reader. Different MIME-compliant mail > readers > > exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with > > "multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which > have been split > > up into multiple messages), so check your local > documentation on > > how to manipulate these messages. > > > > > >Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader > >implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the > >Internet-Draft. > >Content-Type: text/plain > >Content-ID: <20011026135514.I-D@ietf.org> > > > >ENCODING mime > >FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-vpim-address-02.txt > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > Richard Shockey, Senior Manager, Strategic Technology Initiatives > NeuStar Inc. > 45980 Center Oak Plaza Bldg 8 Sterling, VA 20166 > 1120 Vermont Ave NW Suite 400 Washington DC 20005 > Voice 571.434.5651 Cell : 314.503.0640, Fax: 815.333.1237 > or > > > > <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< > > > --__--__-- > > Message: 12 > Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 09:40:40 -0500 > To: Richard Shockey > From: Chip Sharp > Subject: Re: [Enum] Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-urn-ddds-toc-00.txt > Cc: enum@ietf.org > > How does an Internet Draft obsolete a (PS) RFC? > > Is this supposed to say that when the I-D reaches RFC along > with the others > referenced then they are intended to obsolete RFC2915? > > Thanks, > Chip > > At 09:13 AM 10/30/2001, Richard Shockey wrote: > ...snip... > >>This document along with RFC XXXX, RFC YYYY and RFC ZZZZ > obsolete RFC > >>2168 [8] and RFC 2915 [6] as well as update RFC 2276 [5]. > ...snip... > > > > --__--__-- > > Message: 13 > From: "Jim Fleming" > To: "Tony Rutkowski" , > =?iso-8859-1?Q?Patrik__F=E4ltstr=F6m?= , > , , "Ray Anderson" > Cc: > Subject: Re: [Enum] ENUM "sharing" > Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 08:53:10 -0600 > charset="iso-8859-1" > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Ray Anderson" > > > > Why would they want to? As I understand it, the "ENUM > Alliance" is a > > private club > > Some people think that the entire Internet is a private club. It is a > collection > of private networks connected together. It does appear that > some of those > private networks will now be nationalized. Companies will > likely be given a > choice, which direction to go. Clearly, the U.S. Government > is favoring the > companies based in the Washington, D.C. area. They are > pulling in their > fences. > > http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/press/2001/us_102901.htm > http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/press/2001/edu_102901.htm > > People on the outside looking in have to realize they will > never be able to > cross those fences. They have to think global, yet act local. > They have to > all work hard to expand the Internet, so it really is for > everyone, not just > the insiders. > > Jim Fleming > http://www.IPv8.info > http://www.in-addr.info > 3:219 INFO > > > > > --__--__-- > > _______________________________________________ > enum mailing list > enum@ietf.org > http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum > > > End of enum Digest > > _______________________________________________ > enum mailing list > enum@ietf.org > http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum > _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From daemon@optimus.ietf.org Wed Oct 31 13:21:46 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA27077 for ; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 13:21:46 -0500 (EST) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id NAA00405 for enum-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 13:21:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA29658; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 13:11:43 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA29627 for ; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 13:11:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from joy.songbird.com (IDENT:root@songbird.com [208.184.79.7]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA26635 for ; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 13:11:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from bbprime.dcrocker.net (c1193160-a.snvl1.sfba.home.com [65.0.152.112]) by joy.songbird.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA02383; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 10:11:42 -0800 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20011031100810.03cf8d80@dcrocker.net> X-Sender: dhc@brandenburg.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 10:11:36 -0800 To: Tony Rutkowski From: Dave Crocker Subject: Re: [Enum] e164.arpa: a technical or policy issue? Cc: enum@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20011031122532.0282dea8@vsvapostal1.prod.netsol .com> References: <5.1.0.14.2.20011031115421.02e8bab0@127.0.0.1> <5.1.0.14.2.20011031090110.031ee5b8@vsvapostal1.prod.netsol .com> <37056.1004536706@shell.nominum.com> <5.1.0.14.2.20011031074250.03ffb7f8@vsvapostal1.prod.netsol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Enum Discussion List X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org At 12:46 PM 10/31/2001 -0500, Tony Rutkowski wrote: >At 11:57 AM 10/31/2001, Richard Shockey wrote: >>Well in Pittsburg ..the concept of using DNAME here was strongly opposed >>and in a hum was rejected by the WG. > >It was originally raised by Who it was raised by, and when, is irrelevant, Tony. It was rejected by the working group. You have been apprised of this key fact repeatedly. Move on. >many developments have occurred in the meantime Apparently you fail to understand the engineering work interested in making real progress and being used by real people requires making decisions, and not constantly revisiting them. Move on. >that suggest a more thorough consideration now than just humming. It is always delightful to see your complete failure to understand IETF process, Tony. Move on. d/ ---------- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking tel +1.408.246.8253; fax +1.408.273.6464 _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From daemon@optimus.ietf.org Wed Oct 31 13:24:21 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA27152 for ; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 13:24:21 -0500 (EST) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id NAA00457 for enum-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 13:24:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA29936; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 13:15:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA29905 for ; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 13:15:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail1.dynamicsoft.com ([63.113.40.10]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA26806 for ; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 13:15:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from DYN-EXCH-001.dynamicsoft.com (dyn-exch-001 [63.113.44.7]) by mail1.dynamicsoft.com (8.12.0.Beta7/8.12.0.Beta7) with ESMTP id f9VIDIb7018631; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 13:13:18 -0500 (EST) Received: by DYN-EXCH-001.dynamicsoft.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 13:14:34 -0500 Message-ID: From: Jonathan Rosenberg To: rwalter@netnumber.com, enum@ietf.org Cc: Michael Mealling Subject: RE: [Enum] Robert and Douglas' Protocols and Services draft... Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 13:14:33 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Enum Discussion List X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org > -----Original Message----- > From: Robert H. Walter [mailto:rwalter@netnumber.com] > Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2001 12:46 PM > To: enum@ietf.org > Cc: Michael Mealling > Subject: QRE: [Enum] Robert and Douglas' Protocols and > Services draft... > > > Hi Michael, > > Thank you for the feedback... Your suggestion of defining an IANA > registry for both the protocols and services is excellent and we > will incorporate this into the next revision of the draft. > > You raise an interesting point regarding the use of SIP with IM. > Will the SIP extension(s) proposed in the SIMPLE working group I-D > "SIP Extensions for Instant Messaging" (draft-ietf-simple-im-01.txt) > be absorbed into SIP or will a new extended SIP protocol (e.g. simple) > be born? If the latter is the case, I agree that it makes sense to > specify SIMPLE as a resolution protocol. First, let me answer the basic sip questions. The cited IM draft will not be "absorbed" into SIP in the sense that it is part of the new baseline specification, currently documented in draft-ietf-sip-rfc2543bis-05.txt. It is an extension. However, just because something is an extension to SIP doesn't mean that its a new service, per se, in the enum sense of service. For example, the SIP extension for caller preferences (draft-ietf-sip-caller-prefs) is an extension but surely not a separate service as far as enum is concerned. Note that there is a slippery slope here, as to what constitutes a new service, and what does not. IM is a tricky thing. The SIMPLE group is debating a session model, which would treat IM as a "media stream" alongside voice and video. The draft you cite above describes the "paging" model, where you simple send an IM out of the blue. The session model is very interesting for ENUM. If I want to talk to someone, and I use a SIP INVITE to set up that call, should there be a separate ENUM service tag for each different type of media I want to use to communicate with? That is, do we have E2VOICE and E2VIDEO in addition to E2IM? Interestinly, a call can start with voice, and later add video. The ENUM resolution would only occur when the call is initially setup with voice, and not when the video stream is added. The same kind of things can happen for IM. If I set up a call with SIP, using INVITE, and indicate an IM stream, does that mean that E2IM gets used? What if the initial call setup has BOTH IM and voice streams? Which service tag is used? If we don't look at the media streams to determine the service, and always use E2TEL, say, that means that a page IM could go somewhere different from a call that has an IM media stream. Is that what we want? -Jonathan R. --- Jonathan D. Rosenberg, Ph.D. 72 Eagle Rock Ave. Chief Scientist First Floor dynamicsoft East Hanover, NJ 07936 jdrosen@dynamicsoft.com FAX: (973) 952-5050 http://www.jdrosen.net PHONE: (973) 952-5000 http://www.dynamicsoft.com _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From daemon@optimus.ietf.org Wed Oct 31 13:35:51 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA27383 for ; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 13:35:51 -0500 (EST) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id NAA01432 for enum-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 13:35:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA00564; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 13:27:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA00527 for ; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 13:26:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from mtiwmhc21.worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc21.worldnet.att.net [204.127.131.46]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA27195 for ; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 13:26:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from worldnet ([12.88.173.211]) by mtiwmhc21.worldnet.att.net (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with SMTP id <20011031182627.CBAE29594.mtiwmhc21.worldnet.att.net@worldnet>; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 18:26:27 +0000 From: "Judith Oppenheimer" To: , Cc: "'Michael Mealling'" Subject: RE: [Enum] Robert and Douglas' Protocols and Services draft... Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 13:24:13 -0500 Message-ID: <005301c16239$7d6f7940$1bad580c@att.net.icbtollfree.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Enum Discussion List X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit What exactly is meant by "an IANA registry for both the protocols and services"? --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- Judith Oppenheimer http://JudithOppenheimer.com http://ICBTollFreeNews.com 212 684-7210, 1 800 The Expert --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- > -----Original Message----- > From: enum-admin@ietf.org [mailto:enum-admin@ietf.org]On Behalf Of > Robert H. Walter > Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2001 12:46 PM > To: enum@ietf.org > Cc: Michael Mealling > Subject: QRE: [Enum] Robert and Douglas' Protocols and > Services draft... > > > Hi Michael, > > Thank you for the feedback... Your suggestion of defining an IANA > registry for both the protocols and services is excellent and we > will incorporate this into the next revision of the draft. > > You raise an interesting point regarding the use of SIP with IM. > Will the SIP extension(s) proposed in the SIMPLE working group I-D > "SIP Extensions for Instant Messaging" (draft-ietf-simple-im-01.txt) > be absorbed into SIP or will a new extended SIP protocol (e.g. simple) > be born? If the latter is the case, I agree that it makes sense to > specify SIMPLE as a resolution protocol. > > Regards, > > Bob > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: enum-admin@ietf.org [mailto:enum-admin@ietf.org]On Behalf Of > > Michael Mealling > > Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2001 8:43 AM > > To: enum@ietf.org > > Subject: [Enum] Robert and Douglas' Protocols and Services draft... > > > > > > Hi, > > Being one of the people who pointed out the need for > something like this > > I think this is the exact right way of solving this > problem. Good job > > guys! I would make two small additions to the document: > > > > 1) Define an IANA registry for both the protocols and the > services. You've > > got the start of a template there, just add a field for > the documents that > > define the service and/or protocol and then add an IANA > Considerations > > section. > > > > 2) I think you should specify the protocols in terms of > ENUM usage and not > > leave them 'nakedly' defined. In the URI Resolution > application it wasn't > > possible to say "just use the http protocol" because > there were so many > > different ways of doing the URI resolution services. So > we created > > 'profiles' of different protocols that narrowed the > protocol down enough > > to make it interoperable for the specific Service you > were attempting to do. > > I think you're going to have to do that here simply > because there's > > probably about a 100 different ways to do IM like > functions with SIP. > > For example: in the case of IM and SIP the actual > protocol used would be > > SIMPLE and not SIP itself, right? Does that make sense? > > > > -MM > > > > -- > > > -------------------------------------------------------------- > ------------------ > > Michael Mealling | Vote Libertarian! | urn:pin:1 > > michael@neonym.net | | http://www.neonym.net > > _______________________________________________ > enum mailing list > enum@ietf.org > http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From daemon@optimus.ietf.org Wed Oct 31 13:36:32 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA27403 for ; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 13:36:27 -0500 (EST) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id NAA01468 for enum-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 13:36:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA00661; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 13:27:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA00630 for ; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 13:27:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from pimout1-int.prodigy.net (pimout1-ext.prodigy.net [207.115.63.77]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA27209 for ; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 13:27:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from pc (dialup-63.208.68.103.Dial1.Chicago1.Level3.net [63.208.68.103]) by pimout1-int.prodigy.net (8.11.0/8.11.0) with SMTP id f9VIRa5145988; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 13:27:36 -0500 Message-ID: <002401c1623a$5717fe60$6744d03f@pc> From: "Jim Fleming" To: , "Dave Crocker" References: <5.1.0.14.2.20011031073352.03e12640@dcrocker.net> Subject: Re: [Enum] e164.arpa: a technical or policy issue? Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 12:32:03 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0021_01C16208.0B4F6EA0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Enum Discussion List X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0021_01C16208.0B4F6EA0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable One has to assume that all of these comments only apply to the "toy" IPv4 Internet, which is a handy place to do Proof-of-Concept testing, prior to moving to the real Internet, where production-grade, Full Deployment occurs. http://www.dot-biz.com/Registry/Proof-Of-Concept/index.html Things seem to be progressing nicely, with the three stages: Early Experimental Proof-of-Concept and Full Deployment This is similar to what is happening with the .BIZ TLD, which is slowly moving from the Early Experimental Phase (where it was for 7 years) to the Proof-of-Concept Phase. With the recent introduction of Windows XP, with a Early Experimental version of IPv6 builtin, more people may be able to help evolve the Internet users to the real Internet, which will be waiting for their arrival. Don't be = surprised if the real Internet turns out a little different than your toy IPv4 = tests, one can not expect that people will devote too much time and effort to the aging IPv4 Internet, with all of the new opportunities now open to them. Jim Fleming http://www.DOT-BIZ.com http://www.in-addr.info 3:219 INFO ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Dave Crocker=20 To: enum@ietf.org=20 Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2001 9:36 AM Subject: Re: [Enum] e164.arpa: a technical or policy issue? At 06:26 AM 10/31/2001 -0500, HSilbiger@aol.com wrote: You mean that, just for the sake of argument, some domain other than = e164.arpa were to be used the ENUM technology would absolutely not work? = I think you are overreaching there. You are cfonfusing technical issues = with policy.=20 The idea that one can pick and choose pieces of a specification, but = still claim to be following the specification, is unusual and = problematic. It is particularly surprising coming from someone with = such a long ITU background, given that the ITU is far pickier about = statements of conformance than is the IETF. Once again: e164.arpa is specified in the IETF ENUM=20 standards-track specification. Follow the specification and you are doing ENUM. =20 Deviate from it and you are not. There is nothing complicated here, Herman. (Let's apply Herman's logic to a specification for a chair, and assume = that it says that a chair has 3 or more legs. Then let's say Herman = decided to build something that has two legs and wants to call it a = chair. Doesn't work, does it?) At 09:12 AM 10/31/2001 -0500, Tony Rutkowski wrote: It's time to focus on tools for a real world of multiple ENUMs, such as DNAME, common registrar interfaces, and the use of existing verification systems, e.g., LIDB lookups. It is time to start ignoring these distractions and get back to = focusing on living with the real world of computer science. In this = case, that means working with a unique ENUM root. =20 For the few people in the world who do not comprehend this = requirement, please read: RFC 2826, and draft-crocker-unique-assign-00.txt When someone puts forward a technical specification for parallel = roots, and when that specification gains community acceptance, THEN we = will have something meaningful to talk about. =20 Until then, efforts to pursue this topic are seriously no more than = political distraction. d/ ---------- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking tel +1.408.246.8253; fax +1.408.273.6464 = _______________________________________________ enum mailing list = enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum ------=_NextPart_000_0021_01C16208.0B4F6EA0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
One has to assume that all of these = comments only=20 apply to the
"toy" IPv4 Internet, which is a handy = place to do=20 Proof-of-Concept
testing, prior to moving to the real = Internet,=20 where production-grade,
Full Deployment occurs.
http= ://www.dot-biz.com/Registry/Proof-Of-Concept/index.html
 
Things seem to be progressing nicely, = with the three stages:
Early=20 Experimental
Proof-of-Concept=20 and
Full Deployment
 
This is similar to what is happening = with the .BIZ=20 TLD, which is
slowly moving from the Early Experimental Phase (where it was = for
7 years) to the Proof-of-Concept Phase. With the recent = introduction
of Windows XP, with a Early Experimental version of IPv6 = builtin,
more people may be able to help evolve the Internet users to = the
real Internet, which will be waiting for their arrival. Don't be=20 surprised
if the real Internet turns out a little different than your toy = IPv4=20 tests,
one can not expect that people will devote too much time and = effort
to the aging IPv4 Internet, with all of the new opportunities now=20 open
to them.
 
Jim Fleming
http://www.DOT-BIZ.com
http://www.in-addr.info
3:219=20 INFO
 
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 Dave = Crocker=20
Sent: Wednesday, October 31, = 2001 9:36=20 AM
Subject: Re: [Enum] e164.arpa: = a=20 technical or policy issue?

At 06:26 AM 10/31/2001 -0500, HSilbiger@aol.com wrote:
You mean=20 that, just for the sake of argument, some domain other than = e164.arpa were=20 to be used the ENUM technology would absolutely not work?  I = think you=20 are overreaching there. You are cfonfusing technical issues with = policy.=20

The idea that one can pick and choose pieces = of a=20 specification, but still claim to be following the specification, is = unusual=20 and problematic.  It is particularly surprising coming from = someone with=20 such a long ITU background, given that the ITU is far pickier about = statements=20 of conformance than is the IETF.

Once=20 = again:

        e164.arpa=20 is specified in the IETF ENUM=20 =
        standa= rds-track=20 = specification.

       &n= bsp;Follow=20 the specification and you are doing ENUM. =20 =
        Deviat= e=20 from it and you are not.

There is nothing complicated here,=20 Herman.

(Let's apply Herman's logic to a specification for a = chair, and=20 assume that it says that a chair has 3 or more legs.  Then let's = say=20 Herman decided to build something that has two legs and wants to call = it a=20 chair.  Doesn't work, does it?)


At 09:12 AM 10/31/2001 = -0500,=20 Tony Rutkowski wrote:
It's time to focus on = tools for a=20 real world of multiple
ENUMs, such as DNAME, common registrar = interfaces,=20 and
the use of existing verification systems, e.g.,=20 LIDB
lookups.

It is time to start ignoring these=20 distractions and get back to focusing on living with the real world of = computer science.  In this case, that means working with a unique = ENUM=20 root. 

For the few people in the world who do not = comprehend this=20 requirement, please=20 = read:

        RFC=20 2826,=20 = and
        dra= ft-crocker-unique-assign-00.txt

When=20 someone puts forward a technical specification for parallel roots, and = when=20 that specification gains community acceptance, THEN we will have = something=20 meaningful to talk about. 

Until then, efforts to pursue = this=20 topic are seriously no more than political=20 distraction.

d/

----------
Dave = Crocker  <mailto:dcrocker@brandenburg.com>
Brandenburg= =20 InternetWorking  <http://www.brandenburg.com>
tel=20 +1.408.246.8253;  fax +1.408.273.6464=20 _______________________________________________ enum mailing list=20 enum@ietf.org=20 http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum

= ------=_NextPart_000_0021_01C16208.0B4F6EA0-- _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From daemon@optimus.ietf.org Wed Oct 31 13:48:48 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA27689 for ; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 13:48:47 -0500 (EST) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id NAA02077 for enum-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 13:48:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA01576; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 13:39:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA01544 for ; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 13:39:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from pimout1-int.prodigy.net (pimout1-ext.prodigy.net [207.115.63.77]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA27455 for ; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 13:39:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from pc (dialup-63.208.68.103.Dial1.Chicago1.Level3.net [63.208.68.103]) by pimout1-int.prodigy.net (8.11.0/8.11.0) with SMTP id f9VIdo546018; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 13:39:51 -0500 Message-ID: <004b01c1623c$0cd61100$6744d03f@pc> From: "Jim Fleming" To: "Tony Rutkowski" , "Dave Crocker" Cc: References: <5.1.0.14.2.20011031115421.02e8bab0@127.0.0.1> <5.1.0.14.2.20011031090110.031ee5b8@vsvapostal1.prod.netsol .com> <37056.1004536706@shell.nominum.com> <5.1.0.14.2.20011031074250.03ffb7f8@vsvapostal1.prod.netsol.com> <5.1.0.14.2.20011031100810.03cf8d80@dcrocker.net> Subject: Re: [Enum] e164.arpa: a technical or policy issue? Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 12:44:17 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Enum Discussion List X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dave Crocker" > > It is always delightful to see your complete failure to understand IETF > process, Tony. > The IETF appears to be focused on the aging, legacy, IPv4 Internet. The IETF still uses one-dimensional ASCII as its base means of communication. Some people in the world have moved to 2D (HTML) and now 3D. It is hard for people to work in these one-dimensional worlds. People may want to read FlatLand by Edwin Abbott (1884), to gain some insight into what it is like to move from 3D to 2D and 1D and back again. http://www.geom.umn.edu/~banchoff/Flatland/ To The Inhabitants of SPACE IN GENERAL And H. C. IN PARTICULAR This Work is Dedicated By a Humble Native of Flatland In the Hope that Even as he was Initiated into the Mysteries Of THREE Dimensions Having been previously conversant With ONLY TWO So the Citizens of that Celestial Region May aspire yet higher and higher To the Secrets of FOUR FIVE OR EVEN SIX Dimensions Thereby contributing To the Enlargement of THE IMAGINATION And the possible Development Of that most rare and excellent Gift of MODESTY Among the Superior Races Of SOLID HUMANITY ---- Moving forward, the infiniBAND trade association may be the more likely body where people can find serious work being done on protocols with a focus on production grade, full deployment. http://www.infinibandta.org The "toy" IPv4 Internet is a sewer. IPv8 is designed to be a swamp to cover the sewer. IPv16 is the "high-ground".... ...here are some links... Jim Fleming http://www.unir.com Mars 128n 128e http://www.unir.com/images/architech.gif http://www.unir.com/images/address.gif http://www.unir.com/images/headers.gif http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt http://msdn.microsoft.com/downloads/sdks/platform/tpipv6/start.asp http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/ietf/Current/msg12213.html http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/ietf/Current/msg12223.html _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From daemon@optimus.ietf.org Wed Oct 31 14:09:09 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA28161 for ; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 14:09:09 -0500 (EST) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id OAA03091 for enum-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 14:09:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA02430; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 14:00:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA02383 for ; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 13:59:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from heron.verisign.com (heron.verisign.com [216.168.233.95]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA27904 for ; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 13:59:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from VSVAPOSTALGW1.prod.netsol.com (vsvapostalgw1.prod.netsol.com [216.168.234.201]) by heron.verisign.com (nsi_0.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA26088; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 13:59:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from arutkowski-pc.verisign.com (ARUTKOWSKI-PC [10.131.128.36]) by VSVAPOSTALGW1.prod.netsol.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id 4VQ8K991; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 13:58:14 -0500 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20011031134430.02842930@vsvapostal1.prod.netsol.com> X-Sender: trutkowski@vsvapostal1.prod.netsol.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 13:59:13 -0500 To: Patrik =?iso-8859-1?Q?F=E4ltstr=F6m?= , "David R. Conrad" , Kevin McCandless , "'enum@ietf.org'" From: Tony Rutkowski Subject: Re: [Enum] ENUM interworking Cc: "'lprabhala@verisign.com'" , Bob Wienski In-Reply-To: <7543717.1004554509@localhost> References: <5.1.0.14.2.20011031112924.02798540@vsvapostal1.prod.netsol.com> <1C1EEC765F843E44996971A80682118BBB8F9E@opwinex01.corp.illu minet.com> <5.1.0.14.2.20011031112924.02798540@vsvapostal1.prod.netsol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=====================_511958727==_.ALT" Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Enum Discussion List X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org --=====================_511958727==_.ALT Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Hi Patrik, >In later discussions, it is clear that the administrator can make much more >damage with the use of DNAME than "normal administration" and because of >that, it is currently viewed that DNAME should _NOT_ be used is possible. So the bottom line is that you are concerned about administrative misconfiguration and lack of conformance with an ideal namespace construct? >holder of the E.164 has chosen). Some people have said "do a search in >multiple domains" (doesn't scale, because how to limit the number of such >domains?). So....how about two to provide for competition and redundancy? While the beauty and efficiency of a unitary namespace is appreciated, the reality is that absent a rigidly enforced global regulatory regime (which we know will not occur), there will almost certainly be some small number of namespaces that the marketplace will determine. It the US, that is a requirement. So let's proceed to engineer for what is most likely to occur. --tony --=====================_511958727==_.ALT Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Hi Patrik,

In later discussions, it is clear that the administrator can make much more
damage with the use of DNAME than "normal administration" and because of
that, it is currently viewed that DNAME should _NOT_ be used is possible.

So the bottom line is that you are concerned about
administrative misconfiguration and lack of conformance
with an ideal namespace construct?


holder of the E.164 has chosen). Some people have said "do a search in
multiple domains" (doesn't scale, because how to limit the number of such
domains?).

So....how about two to provide for competition and
redundancy?  While the beauty and efficiency of a
unitary namespace is appreciated, the reality is
that absent a rigidly enforced global regulatory
regime (which we know will not occur), there will
almost certainly be some small number of
namespaces that the marketplace will determine.
It the US, that is a requirement.

So let's proceed to engineer for what is most
likely to occur.

--tony --=====================_511958727==_.ALT-- _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From daemon@optimus.ietf.org Wed Oct 31 14:29:39 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA28738 for ; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 14:29:39 -0500 (EST) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id OAA03724 for enum-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 14:29:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA03324; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 14:20:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA03300 for ; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 14:20:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from joy.songbird.com (IDENT:root@songbird.com [208.184.79.7]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA28552 for ; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 14:20:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from bbprime.dcrocker.net (c1193160-a.snvl1.sfba.home.com [65.0.152.112]) by joy.songbird.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA05047; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 11:20:50 -0800 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20011031111756.03f54c10@dcrocker.net> X-Sender: dhc@brandenburg.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 11:19:37 -0800 To: Tony Rutkowski From: Dave Crocker Subject: Re: [Enum] ENUM interworking Cc: Patrik =?iso-8859-1?Q?F=E4ltstr=F6m?= , "David R. Conrad" , Kevin McCandless , "'enum@ietf.org'" , "'lprabhala@verisign.com'" , Bob Wienski In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20011031134430.02842930@vsvapostal1.prod.netsol .com> References: <7543717.1004554509@localhost> <5.1.0.14.2.20011031112924.02798540@vsvapostal1.prod.netsol.com> <1C1EEC765F843E44996971A80682118BBB8F9E@opwinex01.corp.illu minet.com> <5.1.0.14.2.20011031112924.02798540@vsvapostal1.prod.netsol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Enum Discussion List X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org At 01:59 PM 10/31/2001 -0500, Tony Rutkowski wrote: >So....how about two to provide for competition and redundancy? While the >beauty and efficiency of a unitary namespace is appreciated, Glad you appreciate beauty and efficiency. Evidently you do NOT appreciate technical constraints. Move on, Tony. The horse you are beating does not even exist, never mind being dead. d/ ps. thank you for making clear that you are not really interested in a technical discussion but are, instead, only looking for every opportunity to keep alive your crusade for a multiple-root system scheme. ---------- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking tel +1.408.246.8253; fax +1.408.273.6464 _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From daemon@optimus.ietf.org Wed Oct 31 14:37:25 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA28884 for ; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 14:37:24 -0500 (EST) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id OAA04298 for enum-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 14:37:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA03674; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 14:28:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA03584 for ; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 14:28:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from rainier.illuminet.com ([63.116.20.100]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA28701 for ; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 14:28:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from olwinexsmtp01.corp.illuminet.com (olwinexsmtp01.corp.illuminet.com [172.20.1.9]) by rainier.illuminet.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id LAA10262; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 11:27:35 -0800 (PST) Received: by olwinexsmtp01.corp.illuminet.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 11:27:35 -0800 Message-ID: <1C1EEC765F843E44996971A80682118BBB8FA6@opwinex01.corp.illuminet.com> From: Kevin McCandless To: "'Jonathan Rosenberg'" Cc: Michael Mealling , rwalter@netnumber.com, enum@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Enum] Robert and Douglas' Protocols and Services draft... Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 11:27:03 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Enum Discussion List X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org Jonathan: Help me here. I thought that SDP was to be used for the multimedia session and that the core part of SIP was making the initial Invite and setting up the three way handshake. Therefore, would I only need one SIP address ie how to get a hold of me and then use SDP for the fun stuff ie IM? Kevin -----Original Message----- From: Jonathan Rosenberg [mailto:jdrosen@dynamicsoft.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2001 12:15 PM To: rwalter@netnumber.com; enum@ietf.org Cc: Michael Mealling Subject: RE: [Enum] Robert and Douglas' Protocols and Services draft... > -----Original Message----- > From: Robert H. Walter [mailto:rwalter@netnumber.com] > Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2001 12:46 PM > To: enum@ietf.org > Cc: Michael Mealling > Subject: QRE: [Enum] Robert and Douglas' Protocols and > Services draft... > > > Hi Michael, > > Thank you for the feedback... Your suggestion of defining an IANA > registry for both the protocols and services is excellent and we > will incorporate this into the next revision of the draft. > > You raise an interesting point regarding the use of SIP with IM. > Will the SIP extension(s) proposed in the SIMPLE working group I-D > "SIP Extensions for Instant Messaging" (draft-ietf-simple-im-01.txt) > be absorbed into SIP or will a new extended SIP protocol (e.g. simple) > be born? If the latter is the case, I agree that it makes sense to > specify SIMPLE as a resolution protocol. First, let me answer the basic sip questions. The cited IM draft will not be "absorbed" into SIP in the sense that it is part of the new baseline specification, currently documented in draft-ietf-sip-rfc2543bis-05.txt. It is an extension. However, just because something is an extension to SIP doesn't mean that its a new service, per se, in the enum sense of service. For example, the SIP extension for caller preferences (draft-ietf-sip-caller-prefs) is an extension but surely not a separate service as far as enum is concerned. Note that there is a slippery slope here, as to what constitutes a new service, and what does not. IM is a tricky thing. The SIMPLE group is debating a session model, which would treat IM as a "media stream" alongside voice and video. The draft you cite above describes the "paging" model, where you simple send an IM out of the blue. The session model is very interesting for ENUM. If I want to talk to someone, and I use a SIP INVITE to set up that call, should there be a separate ENUM service tag for each different type of media I want to use to communicate with? That is, do we have E2VOICE and E2VIDEO in addition to E2IM? Interestinly, a call can start with voice, and later add video. The ENUM resolution would only occur when the call is initially setup with voice, and not when the video stream is added. The same kind of things can happen for IM. If I set up a call with SIP, using INVITE, and indicate an IM stream, does that mean that E2IM gets used? What if the initial call setup has BOTH IM and voice streams? Which service tag is used? If we don't look at the media streams to determine the service, and always use E2TEL, say, that means that a page IM could go somewhere different from a call that has an IM media stream. Is that what we want? -Jonathan R. --- Jonathan D. Rosenberg, Ph.D. 72 Eagle Rock Ave. Chief Scientist First Floor dynamicsoft East Hanover, NJ 07936 jdrosen@dynamicsoft.com FAX: (973) 952-5050 http://www.jdrosen.net PHONE: (973) 952-5000 http://www.dynamicsoft.com _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From daemon@optimus.ietf.org Wed Oct 31 15:11:41 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA29563 for ; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 15:11:41 -0500 (EST) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id PAA05253 for enum-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 15:11:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id PAA05039; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 15:01:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id PAA05008 for ; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 15:01:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from pimout2-int.prodigy.net (pimout2-ext.prodigy.net [207.115.63.101]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA29363 for ; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 15:01:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from pc (dialup-63.208.66.31.Dial1.Chicago1.Level3.net [63.208.66.31]) by pimout2-int.prodigy.net (8.11.0/8.11.0) with SMTP id f9VK14q143040; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 15:01:04 -0500 Message-ID: <002801c16247$6689ee00$1f42d03f@pc> From: "Jim Fleming" To: "Tony Rutkowski" , "Dave Crocker" Cc: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Patrik_F=E4ltstr=F6m?= , "David R. Conrad" , "Kevin McCandless" , , , "Bob Wienski" References: <7543717.1004554509@localhost> <5.1.0.14.2.20011031112924.02798540@vsvapostal1.prod.netsol.com> <1C1EEC765F843E44996971A80682118BBB8F9E@opwinex01.corp.illu minet.com> <5.1.0.14.2.20011031112924.02798540@vsvapostal1.prod.netsol.com> <5.1.0.14.2.20011031111756.03f54c10@dcrocker.net> Subject: Re: [Enum] ENUM interworking Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 14:05:31 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Enum Discussion List X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dave Crocker" > At 01:59 PM 10/31/2001 -0500, Tony Rutkowski wrote: > >So....how about two to provide for competition and redundancy? While the > >beauty and efficiency of a unitary namespace is appreciated, > > > Glad you appreciate beauty and efficiency. Evidently you do NOT appreciate > technical constraints. Technical constraints are, in my opinion, best left to people with the technical training and experience to deal with those constraints. The technical reality is that the 0:0 .ARPA legacy address space is a very small place, largely inhabited by one-dimensional people. That is a technical constraint, because one does not have the latitude to use length, width, and height to measure things. http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt 0:0 .ARPA It is common knowledge that when one shines a light on objects in dimension N they get objects in dimension N-1. A shadow is a 2D object (length and width) obtained from shining light on a 3D object. When one shines a light on objects of dimension 1, they do not get anything. It should not be surprising to enlightened people, if they feel they are not getting anything from these IETF processses. It is a technical constraint. Each individual person has decide whether they want to constrain themselves in this manner. The vast majority of humans on planet Earth choose not to constrain themselves, and they seem to live much happier and healthier lives. The one-dimensional worlds and people will not go away. In many respects people in 2D and 3D need them. Look at .BIZ as an example, there will be a huge amount of marketing awareness generated and some percentage of the .BIZ community will progress out of these one-dimensional worlds. They move on, and other enlightened people will be waiting for them when they arrive. The same can be said for ENUM, all of these efforts by people will eventually help to shape the markets in 2D and 3D worlds. Keep up the good work. Keep sending the people, by telling them to "move on". Jim Fleming http://www.DOT-BIZ.com http://www.in-addr.info 3:219 INFO _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From daemon@optimus.ietf.org Wed Oct 31 15:26:18 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA29893 for ; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 15:26:18 -0500 (EST) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id PAA05781 for enum-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 15:26:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id PAA05355; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 15:17:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id PAA05324 for ; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 15:17:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from bailey.dscga.com (bailey.dscga.com [198.78.9.11]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA29704 for ; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 15:17:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from bailey.dscga.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by bailey.dscga.com (8.12.1/8.12.1) with ESMTP id f9VKDmlc020029; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 15:13:48 -0500 (EST) Received: (from michael@localhost) by bailey.dscga.com (8.12.1/8.12.1/Submit) id f9VKDlND020028; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 15:13:47 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 15:13:47 -0500 From: Michael Mealling To: "Robert H. Walter" Cc: enum@ietf.org, Michael Mealling Subject: Re: QRE: [Enum] Robert and Douglas' Protocols and Services draft... Message-ID: <20011031151347.D12559@bailey.dscga.com> Reply-To: Michael Mealling References: <20011031084238.T12559@bailey.dscga.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.22.1i Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Enum Discussion List X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org On Wed, Oct 31, 2001 at 12:45:50PM -0500, Robert H. Walter wrote: > Thank you for the feedback... Your suggestion of defining an IANA > registry for both the protocols and services is excellent and we > will incorporate this into the next revision of the draft. Cool... > You raise an interesting point regarding the use of SIP with IM. > Will the SIP extension(s) proposed in the SIMPLE working group I-D > "SIP Extensions for Instant Messaging" (draft-ietf-simple-im-01.txt) > be absorbed into SIP or will a new extended SIP protocol (e.g. simple) > be born? If the latter is the case, I agree that it makes sense to > specify SIMPLE as a resolution protocol. You're going to have this similar problem with every ENUM Service/protocol combination so its probably something that should be discussed in the document. -MM >> -----Original Message----- >> From: enum-admin@ietf.org [mailto:enum-admin@ietf.org]On Behalf Of >> Michael Mealling >> Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2001 8:43 AM >> To: enum@ietf.org >> Subject: [Enum] Robert and Douglas' Protocols and Services draft... >> >> >> Hi, >> Being one of the people who pointed out the need for something like this >> I think this is the exact right way of solving this problem. Good job >> guys! I would make two small additions to the document: >> >> 1) Define an IANA registry for both the protocols and the services. You've >> got the start of a template there, just add a field for the documents that >> define the service and/or protocol and then add an IANA Considerations >> section. >> >> 2) I think you should specify the protocols in terms of ENUM usage and not >> leave them 'nakedly' defined. In the URI Resolution application it wasn't >> possible to say "just use the http protocol" because there were so many >> different ways of doing the URI resolution services. So we created >> 'profiles' of different protocols that narrowed the protocol down enough >> to make it interoperable for the specific Service you were attempting to do. >> I think you're going to have to do that here simply because there's >> probably about a 100 different ways to do IM like functions with SIP. >> For example: in the case of IM and SIP the actual protocol used would be >> SIMPLE and not SIP itself, right? Does that make sense? >> -- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Mealling | Vote Libertarian! | urn:pin:1 michael@neonym.net | | http://www.neonym.net _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From daemon@optimus.ietf.org Wed Oct 31 15:32:37 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA00278 for ; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 15:32:32 -0500 (EST) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id PAA06345 for enum-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 15:32:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id PAA05698; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 15:23:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id PAA05670 for ; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 15:23:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from bailey.dscga.com (bailey.dscga.com [198.78.9.11]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA29857 for ; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 15:23:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from bailey.dscga.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by bailey.dscga.com (8.12.1/8.12.1) with ESMTP id f9VKK1lc020059; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 15:20:01 -0500 (EST) Received: (from michael@localhost) by bailey.dscga.com (8.12.1/8.12.1/Submit) id f9VKK04N020058; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 15:20:00 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 15:20:00 -0500 From: Michael Mealling To: Judith Oppenheimer Cc: rwalter@netnumber.com, enum@ietf.org, "'Michael Mealling'" Subject: Re: [Enum] Robert and Douglas' Protocols and Services draft... Message-ID: <20011031152000.E12559@bailey.dscga.com> Reply-To: Michael Mealling References: <005301c16239$7d6f7940$1bad580c@att.net.icbtollfree.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <005301c16239$7d6f7940$1bad580c@att.net.icbtollfree.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.22.1i Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Enum Discussion List X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org On Wed, Oct 31, 2001 at 01:24:13PM -0500, Judith Oppenheimer wrote: > What exactly is meant by "an IANA registry for both the protocols and > services"? A list of the protocols and services that are used as part of the ENUM application to ensure that there is a) clear documentation for a particular service or protocol and b) to ensure that collisions don't occur between independent implementations. See http://www.iana.org/numbers.html for some examples... -MM > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: enum-admin@ietf.org [mailto:enum-admin@ietf.org]On Behalf Of > > Robert H. Walter > > Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2001 12:46 PM > > To: enum@ietf.org > > Cc: Michael Mealling > > Subject: QRE: [Enum] Robert and Douglas' Protocols and > > Services draft... > > > > > > Hi Michael, > > > > Thank you for the feedback... Your suggestion of defining an IANA > > registry for both the protocols and services is excellent and we > > will incorporate this into the next revision of the draft. > > > > You raise an interesting point regarding the use of SIP with IM. > > Will the SIP extension(s) proposed in the SIMPLE working group I-D > > "SIP Extensions for Instant Messaging" (draft-ietf-simple-im-01.txt) > > be absorbed into SIP or will a new extended SIP protocol (e.g. simple) > > be born? If the latter is the case, I agree that it makes sense to > > specify SIMPLE as a resolution protocol. > > > > Regards, > > > > Bob > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: enum-admin@ietf.org [mailto:enum-admin@ietf.org]On Behalf Of > > > Michael Mealling > > > Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2001 8:43 AM > > > To: enum@ietf.org > > > Subject: [Enum] Robert and Douglas' Protocols and Services draft... > > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > Being one of the people who pointed out the need for > > something like this > > > I think this is the exact right way of solving this > > problem. Good job > > > guys! I would make two small additions to the document: > > > > > > 1) Define an IANA registry for both the protocols and the > > services. You've > > > got the start of a template there, just add a field for > > the documents that > > > define the service and/or protocol and then add an IANA > > Considerations > > > section. > > > > > > 2) I think you should specify the protocols in terms of > > ENUM usage and not > > > leave them 'nakedly' defined. In the URI Resolution > > application it wasn't > > > possible to say "just use the http protocol" because > > there were so many > > > different ways of doing the URI resolution services. So > > we created > > > 'profiles' of different protocols that narrowed the > > protocol down enough > > > to make it interoperable for the specific Service you > > were attempting to do. > > > I think you're going to have to do that here simply > > because there's > > > probably about a 100 different ways to do IM like > > functions with SIP. > > > For example: in the case of IM and SIP the actual > > protocol used would be > > > SIMPLE and not SIP itself, right? Does that make sense? > > > > > > -MM > > > > > > -- > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------- > > ------------------ > > > Michael Mealling | Vote Libertarian! | urn:pin:1 > > > michael@neonym.net | | > http://www.neonym.net > > > > _______________________________________________ > > enum mailing list > > enum@ietf.org > > http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum > > _______________________________________________ > enum mailing list > enum@ietf.org > http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum -- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Mealling | Vote Libertarian! | urn:pin:1 michael@neonym.net | | http://www.neonym.net _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From daemon@optimus.ietf.org Wed Oct 31 15:45:56 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA00964 for ; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 15:45:55 -0500 (EST) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id PAA06854 for enum-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 15:45:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id PAA06468; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 15:37:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id PAA06437 for ; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 15:36:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from tnt.isi.edu (tnt.isi.edu [128.9.128.128]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA00697 for ; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 15:36:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from zed.isi.edu (zed.isi.edu [128.9.160.57]) by tnt.isi.edu (8.11.6/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f9VKatg26871; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 12:36:55 -0800 (PST) From: Bill Manning Received: (from bmanning@localhost) by zed.isi.edu (8.11.0/8.8.6) id f9VKatr24261; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 12:36:55 -0800 Message-Id: <200110312036.f9VKatr24261@zed.isi.edu> Subject: Re: [Enum] ENUM interworking To: trutkowski@verisign.com (Tony Rutkowski) Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 12:36:55 -0800 (PST) Cc: paf@cisco.com (Patrik =?iso-8859-1?Q?F=E4ltstr=F6m?=), david.conrad@nominum.com (David R. Conrad), KMcCandless@illuminet.com (Kevin McCandless), enum@ietf.org ('enum@ietf.org'), lprabhala@verisign.com ('lprabhala@verisign.com'), bwienski@illuminet.com (Bob Wienski) In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20011031134430.02842930@vsvapostal1.prod.netsol.com> from "Tony Rutkowski" at Oct 31, 2001 01:59:13 PM X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL3] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Enum Discussion List X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit % So the bottom line is that you are concerned about % administrative misconfiguration and lack of conformance % with an ideal namespace construct? ... ideal? Please elaborate on what would be an ideal namespace construct? I think of a number of constraints but apparently am missing something. Something that is resistant to administrative misconfiguration and is conformant (but to what? :) are closer to my idea of ideal than things which are not. I get the impression that you might feel that an ideal construct would allow for arbitrary fragmentation into administrative boundaries while retaining the "external" appearance of a single construct. Is this correct? --bill _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From daemon@optimus.ietf.org Wed Oct 31 15:56:00 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA01307 for ; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 15:55:58 -0500 (EST) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id PAA07352 for enum-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 15:55:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id PAA06934; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 15:47:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id PAA06907 for ; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 15:47:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from mtiwmhc25.worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc25.worldnet.att.net [204.127.131.50]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA00996 for ; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 15:47:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from worldnet ([12.88.173.211]) by mtiwmhc25.worldnet.att.net (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with SMTP id <20011031204642.FQCQ11294.mtiwmhc25.worldnet.att.net@worldnet>; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 20:46:42 +0000 From: "Judith Oppenheimer" To: "'Michael Mealling'" Cc: , Subject: RE: [Enum] Robert and Douglas' Protocols and Services draft... Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 15:45:30 -0500 Message-ID: <007801c1624d$146ee3e0$1bad580c@att.net.icbtollfree.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: <20011031152000.E12559@bailey.dscga.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Enum Discussion List X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Got it ... just a quick reminder, IANA no longer exists. Particularly for those of you who have insisted that ICANN will have nothing to do wth ENUM, what was IANA, is now solely, wholly, ICANN. ICANN staff, ICANN payroll, ICANN politics, ICANN decisions, ICANN policy. ICANN implications and ICANN ramifications. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- Judith Oppenheimer http://JudithOppenheimer.com http://ICBTollFreeNews.com 212 684-7210, 1 800 The Expert --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- > -----Original Message----- > From: Michael Mealling [mailto:michael@neonym.net] > Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2001 3:20 PM > To: Judith Oppenheimer > Cc: rwalter@netnumber.com; enum@ietf.org; 'Michael Mealling' > Subject: Re: [Enum] Robert and Douglas' Protocols and > Services draft... > > > On Wed, Oct 31, 2001 at 01:24:13PM -0500, Judith Oppenheimer wrote: > > What exactly is meant by "an IANA registry for both the > protocols and > > services"? > > A list of the protocols and services that are used as part of the ENUM > application to ensure that there is a) clear documentation > for a particular > service or protocol and b) to ensure that collisions don't > occur between > independent implementations. > > See http://www.iana.org/numbers.html for some examples... > > -MM > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: enum-admin@ietf.org [mailto:enum-admin@ietf.org]On Behalf Of > > > Robert H. Walter > > > Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2001 12:46 PM > > > To: enum@ietf.org > > > Cc: Michael Mealling > > > Subject: QRE: [Enum] Robert and Douglas' Protocols and > > > Services draft... > > > > > > > > > Hi Michael, > > > > > > Thank you for the feedback... Your suggestion of defining an IANA > > > registry for both the protocols and services is excellent and we > > > will incorporate this into the next revision of the draft. > > > > > > You raise an interesting point regarding the use of SIP with IM. > > > Will the SIP extension(s) proposed in the SIMPLE working group I-D > > > "SIP Extensions for Instant Messaging" > (draft-ietf-simple-im-01.txt) > > > be absorbed into SIP or will a new extended SIP protocol > (e.g. simple) > > > be born? If the latter is the case, I agree that it > makes sense to > > > specify SIMPLE as a resolution protocol. > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > Bob > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: enum-admin@ietf.org > [mailto:enum-admin@ietf.org]On Behalf Of > > > > Michael Mealling > > > > Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2001 8:43 AM > > > > To: enum@ietf.org > > > > Subject: [Enum] Robert and Douglas' Protocols and > Services draft... > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > Being one of the people who pointed out the need for > > > something like this > > > > I think this is the exact right way of solving this > > > problem. Good job > > > > guys! I would make two small additions to the document: > > > > > > > > 1) Define an IANA registry for both the protocols and the > > > services. You've > > > > got the start of a template there, just add a field for > > > the documents that > > > > define the service and/or protocol and then add an IANA > > > Considerations > > > > section. > > > > > > > > 2) I think you should specify the protocols in terms of > > > ENUM usage and not > > > > leave them 'nakedly' defined. In the URI Resolution > > > application it wasn't > > > > possible to say "just use the http protocol" because > > > there were so many > > > > different ways of doing the URI resolution services. So > > > we created > > > > 'profiles' of different protocols that narrowed the > > > protocol down enough > > > > to make it interoperable for the specific Service you > > > were attempting to do. > > > > I think you're going to have to do that here simply > > > because there's > > > > probably about a 100 different ways to do IM like > > > functions with SIP. > > > > For example: in the case of IM and SIP the actual > > > protocol used would be > > > > SIMPLE and not SIP itself, right? Does that make sense? > > > > > > > > -MM > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------- > > > ------------------ > > > > Michael Mealling | Vote Libertarian! > | urn:pin:1 > > > > michael@neonym.net | | > > http://www.neonym.net > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > enum mailing list > > > enum@ietf.org > > > http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum > > > > _______________________________________________ > > enum mailing list > > enum@ietf.org > > http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum > > -- > -------------------------------------------------------------- > ------------------ > Michael Mealling | Vote Libertarian! | urn:pin:1 > michael@neonym.net | | http://www.neonym.net _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From daemon@optimus.ietf.org Wed Oct 31 16:02:15 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA01621 for ; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 16:02:14 -0500 (EST) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id QAA08013 for enum-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 16:02:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id PAA07201; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 15:53:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id PAA07170 for ; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 15:53:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from oak.neustar.com (oak.neustar.com [209.173.53.70]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA01153 for ; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 15:53:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from rds.neustar.com (dmz1.va.neustar.com [209.173.53.65]) by oak.neustar.com (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f9VKpe213178; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 15:52:20 -0500 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20011031130855.02e1bca0@127.0.0.1> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 15:35:01 -0500 To: , From: Richard Shockey Subject: Re: QRE: [Enum] Robert and Douglas' Protocols and Services draft... Cc: "Michael Mealling" In-Reply-To: References: <20011031084238.T12559@bailey.dscga.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Enum Discussion List X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org At 12:45 PM 10/31/2001 -0500, Robert H. Walter wrote: >Hi Michael, > >Thank you for the feedback... Your suggestion of defining an IANA >registry for both the protocols and services is excellent and we >will incorporate this into the next revision of the draft. Yes this is needed ... but again I would recommend that the model for the IANA registry be coordinated w/ other groups with similar needs ..VPIM SIPPING etc. >You raise an interesting point regarding the use of SIP with IM. >Will the SIP extension(s) proposed in the SIMPLE working group I-D >"SIP Extensions for Instant Messaging" (draft-ietf-simple-im-01.txt) >be absorbed into SIP or will a new extended SIP protocol (e.g. simple) >be born? If the latter is the case, I agree that it makes sense to >specify SIMPLE as a resolution protocol. Its all SIP ... and IMHO there should be only one definition for SIP. the session is either >Regards, > >Bob > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: enum-admin@ietf.org [mailto:enum-admin@ietf.org]On Behalf Of > > Michael Mealling > > Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2001 8:43 AM > > To: enum@ietf.org > > Subject: [Enum] Robert and Douglas' Protocols and Services draft... > > > > > > Hi, > > Being one of the people who pointed out the need for something like this > > I think this is the exact right way of solving this problem. Good job > > guys! I would make two small additions to the document: > > > > 1) Define an IANA registry for both the protocols and the services. You've > > got the start of a template there, just add a field for the > documents that > > define the service and/or protocol and then add an IANA Considerations > > section. > > > > 2) I think you should specify the protocols in terms of ENUM usage and not > > leave them 'nakedly' defined. In the URI Resolution application it > wasn't > > possible to say "just use the http protocol" because there were so many > > different ways of doing the URI resolution services. So we created > > 'profiles' of different protocols that narrowed the protocol down enough > > to make it interoperable for the specific Service you were > attempting to do. > > I think you're going to have to do that here simply because there's > > probably about a 100 different ways to do IM like functions with SIP. > > For example: in the case of IM and SIP the actual protocol used > would be > > SIMPLE and not SIP itself, right? Does that make sense? > > > > -MM > > > > -- > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Michael Mealling | Vote Libertarian! | urn:pin:1 > > michael@neonym.net | | > http://www.neonym.net > > > > _______________________________________________ > > enum mailing list > > enum@ietf.org > > http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum > >_______________________________________________ >enum mailing list >enum@ietf.org >http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard Shockey, Senior Manager, Strategic Technology Initiatives NeuStar Inc. 45980 Center Oak Plaza Bldg 8 Sterling, VA 20166 1120 Vermont Ave NW Suite 400 Washington DC 20005 Voice 571.434.5651 Cell : 314.503.0640, Fax: 815.333.1237 or <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From daemon@optimus.ietf.org Wed Oct 31 16:09:55 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA01956 for ; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 16:09:45 -0500 (EST) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id QAA08438 for enum-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 16:09:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id QAA07818; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 16:00:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id QAA07771 for ; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 16:00:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from heron.verisign.com (heron.verisign.com [216.168.233.95]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA01573 for ; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 16:00:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from VSVAPOSTALGW1.prod.netsol.com (vsvapostalgw1.prod.netsol.com [216.168.234.201]) by heron.verisign.com (nsi_0.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id PAA03808; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 15:59:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from arutkowski-pc.verisign.com (ARUTKOWSKI-PC [10.131.128.36]) by VSVAPOSTALGW1.prod.netsol.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id 4VQ8L1BA; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 15:58:40 -0500 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20011031154735.02851e90@vsvapostal1.prod.netsol.com> X-Sender: trutkowski@vsvapostal1.prod.netsol.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 15:59:39 -0500 To: Bill Manning From: Tony Rutkowski Subject: Re: [Enum] ENUM interworking Cc: paf@cisco.com (Patrik =?iso-8859-1?Q?F=E4ltstr=F6m?= ), david.conrad@nominum.com (David R. Conrad), KMcCandless@illuminet.com (Kevin McCandless), enum@ietf.org ('enum@ietf.org'), lprabhala@verisign.com ('lprabhala@verisign.com'), bwienski@illuminet.com (Bob Wienski) In-Reply-To: <200110312036.f9VKatr24261@zed.isi.edu> References: <5.1.0.14.2.20011031134430.02842930@vsvapostal1.prod.netsol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=====================_519184918==_.ALT" Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Enum Discussion List X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org --=====================_519184918==_.ALT Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed At 03:36 PM 10/31/2001, Bill Manning wrote: > ideal than things which are not. I get the impression that > you might feel that an ideal construct would allow for > arbitrary fragmentation into administrative boundaries while > retaining the "external" appearance of a single construct. > Is this correct? Hi Bill, Rather than assuming the worse case situation of arbitrary fragmentation, why not consider coordinated, non-conflicting namespaces to allow for competition and provide for recovery in case of outages. If anything remotely like ENUM is going to have any marketplace acceptance, it will need to be at least as robust and secure as today's SS7 infrastructure. --tony --=====================_519184918==_.ALT Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" At 03:36 PM 10/31/2001, Bill Manning wrote:
        ideal than things which are not. I get the impression that
        you might feel that an ideal construct would allow for
        arbitrary fragmentation into administrative boundaries while
        retaining the "external" appearance of a single construct.
        Is this correct?

Hi Bill,

Rather than assuming the worse case situation of
arbitrary fragmentation, why not consider coordinated,
non-conflicting namespaces to allow for competition
and provide for recovery in case of outages.

If anything remotely like ENUM is going to have
any marketplace acceptance, it will need to be
at least as robust and secure as today's SS7
infrastructure.

--tony --=====================_519184918==_.ALT-- _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From daemon@optimus.ietf.org Wed Oct 31 16:17:30 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA02236 for ; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 16:17:30 -0500 (EST) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id QAA09117 for enum-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 16:17:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id QAA08315; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 16:08:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id QAA08284 for ; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 16:08:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from tnt.isi.edu (tnt.isi.edu [128.9.128.128]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA01930 for ; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 16:08:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from zed.isi.edu (zed.isi.edu [128.9.160.57]) by tnt.isi.edu (8.11.6/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f9VL7wg15557; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 13:07:58 -0800 (PST) From: Bill Manning Received: (from bmanning@localhost) by zed.isi.edu (8.11.0/8.8.6) id f9VL7wj24352; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 13:07:58 -0800 Message-Id: <200110312107.f9VL7wj24352@zed.isi.edu> Subject: Re: [Enum] ENUM interworking To: trutkowski@verisign.com (Tony Rutkowski) Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 13:07:57 -0800 (PST) Cc: bmanning@ISI.EDU (Bill Manning), paf@cisco.com (Patrik =?iso-8859-1?Q?F=E4ltstr=F6m?= ), david.conrad@nominum.com (David R. Conrad), KMcCandless@illuminet.com (Kevin McCandless), enum@ietf.org ('enum@ietf.org'), lprabhala@verisign.com ('lprabhala@verisign.com'), bwienski@illuminet.com (Bob Wienski) In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20011031154735.02851e90@vsvapostal1.prod.netsol.com> from "Tony Rutkowski" at Oct 31, 2001 03:59:39 PM X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL3] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Enum Discussion List X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit % > ideal than things which are not. I get the impression that % > you might feel that an ideal construct would allow for % > arbitrary fragmentation into administrative boundaries while % > retaining the "external" appearance of a single construct. % > Is this correct? % % Hi Bill, % % Rather than assuming the worse case situation of % arbitrary fragmentation, why not consider coordinated, % non-conflicting namespaces to allow for competition % and provide for recovery in case of outages. Hum... again, chasing the ideal, It would seem to me to be desirable to get the coordination and non-conflicting agreements done at the outset and then allow the relevent parties to freely operate within the constructs that define the namespace. Reducing the need to constantly revisit coordination and to ensure that non-conflicting events are the norm would lead to faster customer response, which state, IMHO, is a characteristic of an ideal. _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From daemon@optimus.ietf.org Wed Oct 31 16:18:28 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA02270 for ; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 16:18:28 -0500 (EST) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id QAA09195 for enum-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 16:18:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id QAA08427; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 16:09:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id QAA08369 for ; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 16:09:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from heron.verisign.com (heron.verisign.com [216.168.233.95]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA01941 for ; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 16:09:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from VSVAPOSTALGW1.prod.netsol.com (vsvapostalgw1.prod.netsol.com [216.168.234.201]) by heron.verisign.com (nsi_0.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id QAA04461; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 16:08:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from arutkowski-pc.verisign.com (ARUTKOWSKI-PC [10.131.128.36]) by VSVAPOSTALGW1.prod.netsol.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id 4VQ8L1LT; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 16:07:08 -0500 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20011031160023.0282f958@vsvapostal1.prod.netsol.com> X-Sender: trutkowski@vsvapostal1.prod.netsol.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 16:08:07 -0500 To: "Judith Oppenheimer" From: Tony Rutkowski Subject: RE: [Enum] Robert and Douglas' Protocols and Services draft... Cc: In-Reply-To: <007801c1624d$146ee3e0$1bad580c@att.net.icbtollfree.com> References: <20011031152000.E12559@bailey.dscga.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=====================_519693179==_.ALT" Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Enum Discussion List X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org --=====================_519693179==_.ALT Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed At 03:45 PM 10/31/2001, Judith Oppenheimer wrote: >Particularly for those of you who have insisted that ICANN will have >nothing to do wth ENUM, what was IANA, is now solely, wholly, ICANN. Hi Judith, Actually, IANA is an Order for Supplies from NIST. http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/iana/SB1335-01-W-0650.doc It seems doubtful, especially post 9-11, that IANA will cease to be a USGOV contracted function. Indeed, the last event of a similar nature ten years ago is what kept it cemented to DOD rather than transferred to the private sector. --tony --=====================_519693179==_.ALT Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" At 03:45 PM 10/31/2001, Judith Oppenheimer wrote:
Particularly for those of you who have insisted that ICANN will have
nothing to do wth ENUM, what was IANA, is now solely, wholly, ICANN.

Hi Judith,

Actually, IANA is an Order for Supplies from NIST.
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/iana/SB1335-01-W-0650.doc

It seems doubtful, especially post 9-11, that IANA
will cease to be a USGOV contracted function.  Indeed,
the last event of a similar nature ten years ago is
what kept it cemented to DOD rather than transferred
to the private sector.

--tony

 --=====================_519693179==_.ALT-- _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From daemon@optimus.ietf.org Wed Oct 31 16:20:54 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA02338 for ; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 16:20:54 -0500 (EST) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id QAA09307 for enum-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 16:20:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id QAA08682; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 16:12:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id QAA08655 for ; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 16:12:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from joy.songbird.com (IDENT:root@songbird.com [208.184.79.7]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA02058 for ; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 16:12:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from bbprime.dcrocker.net (c1193160-a.snvl1.sfba.home.com [65.0.152.112]) by joy.songbird.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA08949; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 13:12:13 -0800 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20011031130712.03d0e130@dcrocker.net> X-Sender: dhc@brandenburg.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 13:07:34 -0800 To: "Judith Oppenheimer" From: Dave Crocker Subject: RE: [Enum] Robert and Douglas' Protocols and Services draft... Cc: In-Reply-To: <007801c1624d$146ee3e0$1bad580c@att.net.icbtollfree.com> References: <20011031152000.E12559@bailey.dscga.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Enum Discussion List X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org At 03:45 PM 10/31/2001 -0500, Judith Oppenheimer wrote: >Got it ... just a quick reminder, IANA no longer exists. that news will come as a large surprise to the folks running . d/ ---------- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking tel +1.408.246.8253; fax +1.408.273.6464 _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From daemon@optimus.ietf.org Wed Oct 31 16:24:28 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA02709 for ; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 16:24:28 -0500 (EST) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id QAA09956 for enum-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 16:24:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id QAA09024; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 16:15:43 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id QAA08934 for ; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 16:15:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from hvmta03-stg.us.psimail.psi.net (hvmta03-ext.us.psimail.psi.net [38.202.36.27]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA02172 for ; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 16:15:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from RWALTER ([65.203.166.44]) by hvmta03-stg.us.psimail.psi.net (InterMail vM.4.01.02.17 201-229-119) with SMTP id <20011031211510.SMCS21742.hvmta03-stg.us.psimail.psi.net@RWALTER>; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 16:15:10 -0500 Reply-To: From: "Robert H. Walter" To: "Jonathan Rosenberg" , Subject: RE: [Enum] Robert and Douglas' Protocols and Services draft... Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 16:15:19 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 In-Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Enum Discussion List X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Jonathan, Thanks for the clarification... > The same kind of things can happen for IM. If I set up a call with SIP, > using INVITE, and indicate an IM stream, does that mean that E2IM gets used? > What if the initial call setup has BOTH IM and voice streams? Which service > tag is used? If we don't look at the media streams to determine the service, > and always use E2TEL, say, that means that a page IM could go somewhere > different from a call that has an IM media stream. Is that what we want? The proposed solution should be flexible enough to allow multiple services to be associated with a single SIP address, as well as, multiple services to be associated with multiple SIP addresses. Consider the following examples: 1. A integrated SIP-based IM and voice system on a PC would be specified via a single address: sip+E2IM+E2TEL --> sip:user@company.com 2. An IM service is associated with a desktop PC and the voice service is associated with an IP-Phone that is managed by a service provider. sip+E2IM --> sip:user@company.com sip+E2TEL --> sip:user@serviceprovider.com How else could the service discovery be accomplished? Bob ====================================================================== Robert H. Walter - CTO, VP Engineering tel:+19788482831 NetNumber, Inc. fax:+19784545044 650 Suffolk Street mailto:rwalter@netnumber.com Lowell, MA 01854 _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From daemon@optimus.ietf.org Wed Oct 31 16:30:27 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA03166 for ; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 16:30:26 -0500 (EST) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id QAA10619 for enum-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 16:30:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id QAA09350; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 16:21:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id QAA09319 for ; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 16:21:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from oak.neustar.com (oak.neustar.com [209.173.53.70]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA02358 for ; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 16:21:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from rds.neustar.com (dmz1.va.neustar.com [209.173.53.65]) by oak.neustar.com (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f9VLK6213779; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 16:20:30 -0500 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20011031160832.031dc870@127.0.0.1> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 16:18:34 -0500 To: "Judith Oppenheimer" From: Richard Shockey Subject: RE: [Enum] Robert and Douglas' Protocols and Services draft... Cc: In-Reply-To: <007801c1624d$146ee3e0$1bad580c@att.net.icbtollfree.com> References: <20011031152000.E12559@bailey.dscga.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Enum Discussion List X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org At 03:45 PM 10/31/2001 -0500, Judith Oppenheimer wrote: >Got it ... just a quick reminder, IANA no longer exists. Judith ..please ... this is getting quite tiresome ... the IANA functions are contracted to ICANN and as such it exists as a functional entity. >Particularly for those of you who have insisted that ICANN will have >nothing to do wth ENUM, what was IANA, is now solely, wholly, ICANN. > >ICANN staff, ICANN payroll, ICANN politics, ICANN decisions, ICANN policy. >ICANN implications and ICANN ramifications. This is a warning .. the co-chairs patience for this kind of "Jim Fleming" ranting is wearing very thin and as I have stated in the past, we will use our administrative control of the mail list manager if we are pressed. >-------------------------------------------------- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard Shockey, Senior Manager, Strategic Technology Initiatives NeuStar Inc. 45980 Center Oak Plaza Bldg 8 Sterling, VA 20166 1120 Vermont Ave NW Suite 400 Washington DC 20005 Voice 571.434.5651 Cell : 314.503.0640, Fax: 815.333.1237 or <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From daemon@optimus.ietf.org Wed Oct 31 16:30:32 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA03187 for ; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 16:30:32 -0500 (EST) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id QAA10663 for enum-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 16:30:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id QAA09476; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 16:21:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id QAA09445 for ; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 16:21:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from mtiwmhc26.worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc26.worldnet.att.net [204.127.131.51]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA02490 for ; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 16:21:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from worldnet ([12.88.173.211]) by mtiwmhc26.worldnet.att.net (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with SMTP id <20011031212115.UTUJ4964.mtiwmhc26.worldnet.att.net@worldnet>; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 21:21:15 +0000 From: "Judith Oppenheimer" To: "'Dave Crocker'" Cc: Subject: RE: [Enum] Robert and Douglas' Protocols and Services draft... Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 16:20:28 -0500 Message-ID: <008d01c16251$e83a6a60$1bad580c@att.net.icbtollfree.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20011031130712.03d0e130@dcrocker.net> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Enum Discussion List X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Uh huh. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- Judith Oppenheimer http://JudithOppenheimer.com http://ICBTollFreeNews.com 212 684-7210, 1 800 The Expert --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- > -----Original Message----- > From: Dave Crocker [mailto:dhc@dcrocker.net] > Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2001 4:08 PM > To: Judith Oppenheimer > Cc: enum@ietf.org > Subject: RE: [Enum] Robert and Douglas' Protocols and > Services draft... > > > At 03:45 PM 10/31/2001 -0500, Judith Oppenheimer wrote: > >Got it ... just a quick reminder, IANA no longer exists. > > that news will come as a large surprise to the folks running > . > > d/ > > > ---------- > Dave Crocker > Brandenburg InternetWorking > tel +1.408.246.8253; fax +1.408.273.6464 > > _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From daemon@optimus.ietf.org Wed Oct 31 16:30:35 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA03179 for ; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 16:30:30 -0500 (EST) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id QAA10649 for enum-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 16:30:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id QAA09397; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 16:21:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id QAA09361 for ; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 16:21:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from mtiwmhc24.worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc24.worldnet.att.net [204.127.131.49]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA02482 for ; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 16:21:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from worldnet ([12.88.173.211]) by mtiwmhc24.worldnet.att.net (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with SMTP id <20011031212104.YRME19017.mtiwmhc24.worldnet.att.net@worldnet>; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 21:21:04 +0000 From: "Judith Oppenheimer" To: "'Tony Rutkowski'" Cc: Subject: RE: [Enum] Robert and Douglas' Protocols and Services draft... Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 16:18:54 -0500 Message-ID: <008801c16251$e1a5d860$1bad580c@att.net.icbtollfree.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0089_01C16227.F8CFD060" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20011031160023.0282f958@vsvapostal1.prod.netsol.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Importance: Normal Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Enum Discussion List X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0089_01C16227.F8CFD060 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Uh huh. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- Judith Oppenheimer http://JudithOppenheimer.com http://ICBTollFreeNews.com 212 684-7210, 1 800 The Expert --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- -----Original Message----- From: Tony Rutkowski [mailto:trutkowski@verisign.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2001 4:08 PM To: Judith Oppenheimer Cc: enum@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Enum] Robert and Douglas' Protocols and Services draft... At 03:45 PM 10/31/2001, Judith Oppenheimer wrote: Particularly for those of you who have insisted that ICANN will have nothing to do wth ENUM, what was IANA, is now solely, wholly, ICANN. Hi Judith, Actually, IANA is an Order for Supplies from NIST. http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/iana/SB1335-01-W-0650.doc It seems doubtful, especially post 9-11, that IANA will cease to be a USGOV contracted function. Indeed, the last event of a similar nature ten years ago is what kept it cemented to DOD rather than transferred to the private sector. --tony ------=_NextPart_000_0089_01C16227.F8CFD060 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Uh = huh. =20

----------------------------------------------------------------= ---------------------
Judith=20 Oppenheimer
http://JudithOppenheimer.com
http://ICBTollFreeNews.com
212 684-7210, 1 800 = The=20 Expert
---------------------------------------------------------------= ----------------------=20

-----Original Message-----
From: Tony Rutkowski=20 [mailto:trutkowski@verisign.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October = 31, 2001=20 4:08 PM
To: Judith Oppenheimer
Cc:=20 enum@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [Enum] Robert and Douglas' = Protocols and=20 Services draft...

At 03:45 PM = 10/31/2001,=20 Judith Oppenheimer wrote:
Particularly for those of = you who=20 have insisted that ICANN will have
nothing to do wth ENUM, what = was IANA,=20 is now solely, wholly, ICANN.

Hi = Judith,

Actually, IANA=20 is an Order for Supplies from NIST.
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/iana/SB133= 5-01-W-0650.doc

It=20 seems doubtful, especially post 9-11, that IANA
will cease to be a = USGOV=20 contracted function.  Indeed,
the last event of a similar = nature ten=20 years ago is
what kept it cemented to DOD rather than = transferred
to the=20 private = sector.

--tony

 ------=_NextPart_000_0089_01C16227.F8CFD060-- _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From daemon@optimus.ietf.org Wed Oct 31 16:30:36 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA03211 for ; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 16:30:35 -0500 (EST) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id QAA10678 for enum-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 16:30:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id QAA09434; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 16:21:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id QAA09388 for ; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 16:21:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from bailey.dscga.com (bailey.dscga.com [198.78.9.11]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA02485 for ; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 16:21:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from bailey.dscga.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by bailey.dscga.com (8.12.1/8.12.1) with ESMTP id f9VLI6lc020214; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 16:18:06 -0500 (EST) Received: (from michael@localhost) by bailey.dscga.com (8.12.1/8.12.1/Submit) id f9VLI66u020213; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 16:18:06 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 16:18:05 -0500 From: Michael Mealling To: Judith Oppenheimer Cc: "'Michael Mealling'" , rwalter@netnumber.com, enum@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Enum] Robert and Douglas' Protocols and Services draft... Message-ID: <20011031161805.H12559@bailey.dscga.com> Reply-To: Michael Mealling References: <20011031152000.E12559@bailey.dscga.com> <007801c1624d$146ee3e0$1bad580c@att.net.icbtollfree.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <007801c1624d$146ee3e0$1bad580c@att.net.icbtollfree.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.22.1i Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Enum Discussion List X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org On Wed, Oct 31, 2001 at 03:45:30PM -0500, Judith Oppenheimer wrote: > Got it ... just a quick reminder, IANA no longer exists. hmm... [bailey:]/home/michael(1): ping www.iana.org www.iana.org is alive > Particularly for those of you who have insisted that ICANN will have > nothing to do wth ENUM, what was IANA, is now solely, wholly, ICANN. > > ICANN staff, ICANN payroll, ICANN politics, ICANN decisions, ICANN policy. > ICANN implications and ICANN ramifications. http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2860.txt -MM P.S. If I claim that the IRS doesn't exist does that mean I don't have to pay taxes? -- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Mealling | Vote Libertarian! | urn:pin:1 michael@neonym.net | | http://www.neonym.net _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From daemon@optimus.ietf.org Wed Oct 31 16:32:35 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA03458 for ; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 16:32:35 -0500 (EST) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id QAA10955 for enum-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 16:32:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id QAA09876; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 16:23:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id QAA09847 for ; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 16:23:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from cisco.com (nordic.cisco.com [64.103.48.45]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA02689 for ; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 16:23:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from [10.0.1.2] (ssh-ams1.cisco.com [144.254.74.55]) by cisco.com (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) with ESMTP id WAA24556; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 22:22:34 +0100 (MET) Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 22:21:51 +0100 From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Patrik_F=E4ltstr=F6m?= To: Judith Oppenheimer , "'Michael Mealling'" cc: rwalter@netnumber.com, enum@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Enum] Robert and Douglas' Protocols and Services draft... Message-ID: <8287796.1004566911@localhost> In-Reply-To: <007801c1624d$146ee3e0$1bad580c@att.net.icbtollfree.com> References: <007801c1624d$146ee3e0$1bad580c@att.net.icbtollfree.com> X-Mailer: Mulberry/2.1.1 (Mac OS X) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Enum Discussion List X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit --On 01-10-31 15.45 -0500 Judith Oppenheimer wrote: > Got it ... just a quick reminder, IANA no longer exists. > > Particularly for those of you who have insisted that ICANN will have > nothing to do wth ENUM, what was IANA, is now solely, wholly, ICANN. Wrong, see RFC 2860 for the real story. paf _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From daemon@optimus.ietf.org Wed Oct 31 16:49:16 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA03851 for ; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 16:49:16 -0500 (EST) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id QAA11558 for enum-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 16:49:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id QAA11153; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 16:40:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id QAA11121 for ; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 16:40:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from mtiwmhc26.worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc26.worldnet.att.net [204.127.131.51]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA03620 for ; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 16:40:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from worldnet ([12.88.173.211]) by mtiwmhc26.worldnet.att.net (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with SMTP id <20011031213959.VCAL4964.mtiwmhc26.worldnet.att.net@worldnet>; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 21:39:59 +0000 From: "Judith Oppenheimer" To: "'Richard Shockey'" Cc: Subject: RE: [Enum] Robert and Douglas' Protocols and Services draft... Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 16:38:44 -0500 Message-ID: <009001c16254$86260ca0$1bad580c@att.net.icbtollfree.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20011031160832.031dc870@127.0.0.1> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Enum Discussion List X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > ... the > IANA functions > are contracted to ICANN and as such it exists as a functional entity. Functionally, you and I are saying exactly the same thing. Its no rant to suggest that list members perhaps less familiar with ICANN issues, are entitled to know what "IANA" means. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- Judith Oppenheimer http://JudithOppenheimer.com http://ICBTollFreeNews.com 212 684-7210, 1 800 The Expert --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- > -----Original Message----- > From: Richard Shockey [mailto:rich.shockey@NeuStar.com] > Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2001 4:19 PM > To: Judith Oppenheimer > Cc: enum@ietf.org > Subject: RE: [Enum] Robert and Douglas' Protocols and > Services draft... > > > At 03:45 PM 10/31/2001 -0500, Judith Oppenheimer wrote: > >Got it ... just a quick reminder, IANA no longer exists. > > Judith ..please ... this is getting quite tiresome ... the > IANA functions > are contracted to ICANN and as such it exists as a functional entity. > > >Particularly for those of you who have insisted that ICANN will have > >nothing to do wth ENUM, what was IANA, is now solely, wholly, ICANN. > > > >ICANN staff, ICANN payroll, ICANN politics, ICANN decisions, > ICANN policy. > >ICANN implications and ICANN ramifications. > > This is a warning .. the co-chairs patience for this kind of > "Jim Fleming" > ranting is wearing very thin and as I have stated in the > past, we will use > our administrative control of the mail list manager if we > are pressed. > > > > >-------------------------------------------------- > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > Richard Shockey, Senior Manager, Strategic Technology Initiatives > NeuStar Inc. > 45980 Center Oak Plaza Bldg 8 Sterling, VA 20166 > 1120 Vermont Ave NW Suite 400 Washington DC 20005 > Voice 571.434.5651 Cell : 314.503.0640, Fax: 815.333.1237 > or > > > > <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< > > _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From daemon@optimus.ietf.org Wed Oct 31 17:00:45 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA04210 for ; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 17:00:45 -0500 (EST) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id RAA12431 for enum-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 17:00:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id QAA11624; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 16:50:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id QAA11594 for ; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 16:50:43 -0500 (EST) Received: from mtiwmhc22.worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc22.worldnet.att.net [204.127.131.47]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA03904 for ; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 16:50:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from worldnet ([12.88.173.211]) by mtiwmhc22.worldnet.att.net (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with SMTP id <20011031215015.HGYO4554.mtiwmhc22.worldnet.att.net@worldnet>; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 21:50:15 +0000 From: "Judith Oppenheimer" To: "'Michael Mealling'" Cc: , Subject: RE: [Enum] Robert and Douglas' Protocols and Services draft... Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 16:49:28 -0500 Message-ID: <009101c16255$f591cd80$1bad580c@att.net.icbtollfree.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: <20011031161805.H12559@bailey.dscga.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Enum Discussion List X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Me thinks thou dost protest too much. (And rather poorly at that.) What ever happened to "don't shoot the messenger"? (I really only expected the predictable reaction from you know who. Can we end this thread now?) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- Judith Oppenheimer http://JudithOppenheimer.com http://ICBTollFreeNews.com 212 684-7210, 1 800 The Expert --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- > -----Original Message----- > From: Michael Mealling [mailto:michael@neonym.net] > Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2001 4:18 PM > To: Judith Oppenheimer > Cc: 'Michael Mealling'; rwalter@netnumber.com; enum@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Enum] Robert and Douglas' Protocols and > Services draft... > > > On Wed, Oct 31, 2001 at 03:45:30PM -0500, Judith Oppenheimer wrote: > > Got it ... just a quick reminder, IANA no longer exists. > > hmm... > > [bailey:]/home/michael(1): ping www.iana.org > www.iana.org is alive > > > Particularly for those of you who have insisted that ICANN will have > > nothing to do wth ENUM, what was IANA, is now solely, wholly, ICANN. > > > > ICANN staff, ICANN payroll, ICANN politics, ICANN > decisions, ICANN policy. > > ICANN implications and ICANN ramifications. > > http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2860.txt > > -MM > > P.S. If I claim that the IRS doesn't exist does that mean I don't have > to pay taxes? > > -- > -------------------------------------------------------------- > ------------------ > Michael Mealling | Vote Libertarian! | urn:pin:1 > michael@neonym.net | | http://www.neonym.net _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From daemon@optimus.ietf.org Wed Oct 31 17:06:39 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA04471 for ; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 17:06:34 -0500 (EST) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id RAA12671 for enum-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 17:06:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id QAA11778; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 16:56:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id QAA11747 for ; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 16:56:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from shell.nominum.com (shell.nominum.com [128.177.192.160]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA03993 for ; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 16:56:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from shell.nominum.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by shell.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 879F43191F; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 13:56:14 -0800 (PST) To: Tony Rutkowski Cc: Bill Manning , paf@cisco.com (Patrik =?iso-8859-1?Q?F=E4ltstr=F6m?= ), david.conrad@nominum.com (David R. Conrad), KMcCandless@illuminet.com (Kevin McCandless), enum@ietf.org ('enum@ietf.org'), lprabhala@verisign.com ('lprabhala@verisign.com'), bwienski@illuminet.com (Bob Wienski) Subject: Re: [Enum] ENUM interworking In-Reply-To: Message from Tony Rutkowski of "Wed, 31 Oct 2001 15:59:39 EST." <5.1.0.14.2.20011031154735.02851e90@vsvapostal1.prod.netsol.com> Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 13:56:14 -0800 Message-ID: <47651.1004565374@shell.nominum.com> From: Jim Reid Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Enum Discussion List X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org >>>>> "Tony" == Tony Rutkowski writes: Tony> Rather than assuming the worse case situation of arbitrary Tony> fragmentation, why not consider coordinated, non-conflicting Tony> namespaces to allow for competition and provide for recovery Tony> in case of outages. Isn't this the same sort of stance that the alternate root folks take to justify their position? Instead of banging on about "non-conflicting namespaces" could you come up with an algorithm for a DNS resolver to figure out which one of your hypothetical non-conflicting name spaces it would use to lookup an arbirary E.164 number? Oh and for extra points please explain how you'd absolutely guarantee that there are no overlaps or inconsistencies between these non-conflicting name spaces. _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From daemon@optimus.ietf.org Wed Oct 31 17:27:42 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA04897 for ; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 17:27:37 -0500 (EST) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id RAA13121 for enum-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 17:27:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id RAA12867; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 17:18:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id RAA12836 for ; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 17:18:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail1.microsoft.com (mail1.microsoft.com [131.107.3.125]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA04735 for ; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 17:18:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from inet-vrs-01.redmond.corp.microsoft.com ([157.54.8.27]) by mail1.microsoft.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.2966); Wed, 31 Oct 2001 14:18:07 -0800 Received: from 157.54.8.23 by inet-vrs-01.redmond.corp.microsoft.com (InterScan E-Mail VirusWall NT); Wed, 31 Oct 2001 14:18:07 -0800 Received: from red-imc-01.redmond.corp.microsoft.com ([157.54.9.102]) by inet-hub-01.redmond.corp.microsoft.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.2966); Wed, 31 Oct 2001 14:17:44 -0800 Received: from win-imc-01.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com ([157.54.0.39]) by red-imc-01.redmond.corp.microsoft.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.2966); Wed, 31 Oct 2001 14:05:36 -0800 Received: from win-msg-02.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com ([157.54.0.134]) by win-imc-01.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3541.1); Wed, 31 Oct 2001 14:04:50 -0800 Content-Class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Subject: RE: [Enum] Robert and Douglas' Protocols and Services draft... X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6063.0 Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 14:04:51 -0800 Message-ID: Thread-Topic: [Enum] Robert and Douglas' Protocols and Services draft... thread-index: AcFiTMUp0im/bOqMR8mEjSK2rJnagAACxAvg From: "Christian Huitema" To: "Jonathan Rosenberg" , , Cc: "Michael Mealling" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 31 Oct 2001 22:04:50.0753 (UTC) FILETIME=[0FF65310:01C16258] Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by optimus.ietf.org id RAA12837 Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Enum Discussion List X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Jonathan, If you think about it, the main case for using enum is an IP based long distance providers that receives a phone call because it is the "selected provider" of the caller, and then looks for the appropriate destination on the Internet. We are unlikely to get anything else than a voice call in these situations. -- Christian Huitema > -----Original Message----- > From: Jonathan Rosenberg [mailto:jdrosen@dynamicsoft.com] > Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2001 10:15 AM > To: rwalter@netnumber.com; enum@ietf.org > Cc: Michael Mealling > Subject: RE: [Enum] Robert and Douglas' Protocols and Services > draft... > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Robert H. Walter [mailto:rwalter@netnumber.com] > > Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2001 12:46 PM > > To: enum@ietf.org > > Cc: Michael Mealling > > Subject: QRE: [Enum] Robert and Douglas' Protocols and > > Services draft... > > > > > > Hi Michael, > > > > Thank you for the feedback... Your suggestion of defining an IANA > > registry for both the protocols and services is excellent and we > > will incorporate this into the next revision of the draft. > > > > You raise an interesting point regarding the use of SIP with IM. > > Will the SIP extension(s) proposed in the SIMPLE working group I-D > > "SIP Extensions for Instant Messaging" (draft-ietf-simple-im-01.txt) > > be absorbed into SIP or will a new extended SIP protocol (e.g. > simple) > > be born? If the latter is the case, I agree that it makes sense to > > specify SIMPLE as a resolution protocol. > > First, let me answer the basic sip questions. > > The cited IM draft will not be "absorbed" into SIP in the sense that > it is > part of the new baseline specification, currently documented in > draft-ietf-sip-rfc2543bis-05.txt. It is an extension. However, just > because > something is an extension to SIP doesn't mean that its a new service, > per > se, in the enum sense of service. For example, the SIP extension for > caller > preferences (draft-ietf-sip-caller-prefs) is an extension but surely > not a > separate service as far as enum is concerned. > > Note that there is a slippery slope here, as to what constitutes a new > service, and what does not. IM is a tricky thing. The SIMPLE group is > debating a session model, which would treat IM as a "media stream" > alongside > voice and video. The draft you cite above describes the "paging" > model, > where you simple send an IM out of the blue. The session model is very > interesting for ENUM. If I want to talk to someone, and I use a SIP > INVITE > to set up that call, should there be a separate ENUM service tag for > each > different type of media I want to use to communicate with? That is, do > we > have E2VOICE and E2VIDEO in addition to E2IM? Interestinly, a call can > start > with voice, and later add video. The ENUM resolution would only occur > when > the call is initially setup with voice, and not when the video stream > is > added. > > The same kind of things can happen for IM. If I set up a call with > SIP, > using INVITE, and indicate an IM stream, does that mean that E2IM gets > used? > What if the initial call setup has BOTH IM and voice streams? Which > service > tag is used? If we don't look at the media streams to determine the > service, > and always use E2TEL, say, that means that a page IM could go > somewhere > different from a call that has an IM media stream. Is that what we > want? > > -Jonathan R. > > --- > Jonathan D. Rosenberg, Ph.D. 72 Eagle Rock Ave. > Chief Scientist First Floor > dynamicsoft East Hanover, NJ 07936 > jdrosen@dynamicsoft.com FAX: (973) 952-5050 > http://www.jdrosen.net PHONE: (973) 952-5000 > http://www.dynamicsoft.com > > > _______________________________________________ > enum mailing list > enum@ietf.org > http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From daemon@optimus.ietf.org Wed Oct 31 17:41:17 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA05139 for ; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 17:41:16 -0500 (EST) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id RAA13849 for enum-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 17:41:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id RAA13517; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 17:32:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id RAA13486 for ; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 17:32:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from oak.neustar.com (oak.neustar.com [209.173.53.70]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA04986 for ; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 17:32:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from rds.neustar.com (dmz1.va.neustar.com [209.173.53.65]) by oak.neustar.com (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f9VMUF215042; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 17:30:39 -0500 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20011031162654.02b1a170@127.0.0.1> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 17:29:50 -0500 To: Michael Mealling , "Robert H. Walter" From: Richard Shockey Cc: enum@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <20011031151347.D12559@bailey.dscga.com> References: <20011031084238.T12559@bailey.dscga.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Subject: [Enum] What are we trying to do here .. Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Enum Discussion List X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org At 03:13 PM 10/31/2001 -0500, Michael Mealling wrote: >On Wed, Oct 31, 2001 at 12:45:50PM -0500, Robert H. Walter wrote: > > Thank you for the feedback... Your suggestion of defining an IANA > > registry for both the protocols and services is excellent and we > > will incorporate this into the next revision of the draft. > >Cool... Ah ... wait a minute ...Mike ... Let me take a moment and try and see if there is some organization we can bring into this process. We are on the right track here and this is necessary work but I'm wondering if we can get some consensus on who might be doing what and why. First ..the problem statement .. it was clear for a long time that there has to be some form of IANA registry for protocol service fields in the DDDS context. Now the question is how ( and by whom) is this to be documented since I am going to make a supposition that there may be more than one application (SIP-VPIM) etc that need to define behaviors here and more than one protocol (ENUM) that wishes to use the service. I'm seeing a possible fragamation of what is necessary here ... IMHO .. 1. There needs to be a ID standards track that defines the need and requirements for a IANA Registry. Mike do you want us to do that here? 2. Perhaps we need some clarification on the actual usage of those fields by 2916. 3. Specific applications need to have specific documents defining the protocol service fields and behaviors appropriate to those applications. (SIP - VPIM) and make the specific request to the IANA for inclusion. I have wanted to avoid this WG take on those tasks since it clearly more appropriate for SIPPING or other WG's define those documents. 4. That said the Walter/Ranalli drafts point out there are ambiguities in the role of various protocols such SMTP for voice mail vs SMTP for email that may need to be clarified and documented separately. but .....but I'd like to understand more about the problem statement that requires such a proliferation of service definitions in Walter/Ranalli since inherent in draft is desire to finely granulate the capabilities of end points in ways that I'm not sure NAPTR records were meant for. This begins to look a lot like RESCAP or some protocol to resolve capabilities of endpoints and that has been a problem in the IETF for a LONG LONG time and I'm not sure we want to go there. I just want to make sure we handle the process correctly and I'm open to suggestions on what is the best work plan. > > You raise an interesting point regarding the use of SIP with IM. > > Will the SIP extension(s) proposed in the SIMPLE working group I-D > > "SIP Extensions for Instant Messaging" (draft-ietf-simple-im-01.txt) > > be absorbed into SIP or will a new extended SIP protocol (e.g. simple) > > be born? If the latter is the case, I agree that it makes sense to > > specify SIMPLE as a resolution protocol. > >You're going to have this similar problem with every ENUM Service/protocol >combination so its probably something that should be discussed in the >document. > >-MM > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: enum-admin@ietf.org [mailto:enum-admin@ietf.org]On Behalf Of > >> Michael Mealling > >> Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2001 8:43 AM > >> To: enum@ietf.org > >> Subject: [Enum] Robert and Douglas' Protocols and Services draft... > >> > >> > >> Hi, > >> Being one of the people who pointed out the need for something like this > >> I think this is the exact right way of solving this problem. Good job > >> guys! I would make two small additions to the document: > >> > >> 1) Define an IANA registry for both the protocols and the services. You've > >> got the start of a template there, just add a field for the > documents that > >> define the service and/or protocol and then add an IANA Considerations > >> section. > >> > >> 2) I think you should specify the protocols in terms of ENUM usage and not > >> leave them 'nakedly' defined. In the URI Resolution application it > wasn't > >> possible to say "just use the http protocol" because there were so many > >> different ways of doing the URI resolution services. So we created > >> 'profiles' of different protocols that narrowed the protocol down > enough > >> to make it interoperable for the specific Service you were > attempting to do. > >> I think you're going to have to do that here simply because there's > >> probably about a 100 different ways to do IM like functions with SIP. > >> For example: in the case of IM and SIP the actual protocol used > would be > >> SIMPLE and not SIP itself, right? Does that make sense? > >> > >-- >-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >Michael Mealling | Vote Libertarian! | urn:pin:1 >michael@neonym.net | | http://www.neonym.net > >_______________________________________________ >enum mailing list >enum@ietf.org >http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard Shockey, Senior Manager, Strategic Technology Initiatives NeuStar Inc. 45980 Center Oak Plaza Bldg 8 Sterling, VA 20166 1120 Vermont Ave NW Suite 400 Washington DC 20005 Voice 571.434.5651 Cell : 314.503.0640, Fax: 815.333.1237 or <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From daemon@optimus.ietf.org Wed Oct 31 18:05:56 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA05368 for ; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 18:05:55 -0500 (EST) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id SAA14748 for enum-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 18:05:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id RAA14134; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 17:57:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id RAA14043 for ; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 17:57:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from bailey.dscga.com (bailey.dscga.com [198.78.9.11]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA05283 for ; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 17:56:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from bailey.dscga.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by bailey.dscga.com (8.12.1/8.12.1) with ESMTP id f9VMrYlc020482; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 17:53:34 -0500 (EST) Received: (from michael@localhost) by bailey.dscga.com (8.12.1/8.12.1/Submit) id f9VMrXEt020481; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 17:53:33 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 17:53:33 -0500 From: Michael Mealling To: Richard Shockey Cc: Michael Mealling , "Robert H. Walter" , enum@ietf.org Message-ID: <20011031175333.L12559@bailey.dscga.com> Reply-To: Michael Mealling References: <20011031084238.T12559@bailey.dscga.com> <5.1.0.14.2.20011031162654.02b1a170@127.0.0.1> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20011031162654.02b1a170@127.0.0.1> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.22.1i Subject: [Enum] Re: What are we trying to do here .. Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Enum Discussion List X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org On Wed, Oct 31, 2001 at 05:29:50PM -0500, Richard Shockey wrote: > At 03:13 PM 10/31/2001 -0500, Michael Mealling wrote: > >On Wed, Oct 31, 2001 at 12:45:50PM -0500, Robert H. Walter wrote: > >> Thank you for the feedback... Your suggestion of defining an IANA > >> registry for both the protocols and services is excellent and we > >> will incorporate this into the next revision of the draft. > >Cool... > > Ah ... wait a minute ...Mike ... > > I'm seeing a possible fragamation of what is necessary here ... > > IMHO .. > > 1. There needs to be a ID standards track that defines the need and > requirements for a IANA Registry. Mike do you want us to do that here? This would be the place to define that, yes. > 2. Perhaps we need some clarification on the actual usage of those fields > by 2916. Yes. Since 2916 says there's only one service this would update 2916. But, since 2916 needs to be updated to bring it in line with the DDDS documents it might as well be in there. Yes. Sorry. They should probably all go in one document. > 3. Specific applications need to have specific documents defining the > protocol service fields and behaviors appropriate to those applications. > (SIP - VPIM) and make the specific request to the IANA for inclusion. I > have wanted to avoid this WG take on those tasks since it clearly more > appropriate for SIPPING or other WG's define those documents. Right. This group just creates the registry and then specifies what an item going into that registry has to specify in order to 'qualify'. (See the IANA Considerations document on what kind of policies to implement here: First Come First Served, IETF Concensus, etc). > 4. That said the Walter/Ranalli drafts point out there are ambiguities in > the role of various protocols such SMTP for voice mail vs SMTP for email > that may need to be clarified and documented separately. but .....but > > I'd like to understand more about the problem statement that requires such > a proliferation of service definitions in Walter/Ranalli since inherent in > draft is desire to finely granulate the capabilities of end points in ways > that I'm not sure NAPTR records were meant for. This begins to look a lot > like RESCAP or some protocol to resolve capabilities of endpoints and that > has been a problem in the IETF for a LONG LONG time and I'm not sure we > want to go there. > > I just want to make sure we handle the process correctly and I'm open to > suggestions on what is the best work plan. The solution set in the URI Resolution was essentially to define the 'protocol' part as not really a 'on the wire' protocol but instead a profile of another for a specific purpose. Each 'profile' would have to specify which Services it did and how. In ENUM's case there could very well be two ways of doing SIP+VPIM. If two people decided that both had good ways of doing it they would both write up a spec and then register with the IANA. They both have to write up how they handle each given Service. But at that point its a market decision about which 'profile' gets used... -MM -- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Mealling | Vote Libertarian! | urn:pin:1 michael@neonym.net | | http://www.neonym.net _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From daemon@optimus.ietf.org Wed Oct 31 20:00:02 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA06477 for ; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 20:00:02 -0500 (EST) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id UAA17371 for enum-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 20:00:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id TAA16841; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 19:51:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id TAA16806 for ; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 19:51:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail1.dynamicsoft.com ([63.113.40.10]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA06263 for ; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 19:51:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from DYN-EXCH-001.dynamicsoft.com (dyn-exch-001 [63.113.44.7]) by mail1.dynamicsoft.com (8.12.0.Beta7/8.12.0.Beta7) with ESMTP id fA10nMb8021839; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 19:49:22 -0500 (EST) Received: by DYN-EXCH-001.dynamicsoft.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 19:50:36 -0500 Message-ID: From: Jonathan Rosenberg To: Christian Huitema , Jonathan Rosenberg , rwalter@netnumber.com, enum@ietf.org Cc: Michael Mealling Subject: RE: [Enum] Robert and Douglas' Protocols and Services draft... Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 19:50:34 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Enum Discussion List X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org > -----Original Message----- > From: Christian Huitema [mailto:huitema@windows.microsoft.com] > Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2001 5:05 PM > To: Jonathan Rosenberg; rwalter@netnumber.com; enum@ietf.org > Cc: Michael Mealling > Subject: RE: [Enum] Robert and Douglas' Protocols and > Services draft... > > > Jonathan, > > If you think about it, the main case for using enum is an IP > based long > distance providers that receives a phone call because it is the > "selected provider" of the caller, and then looks for the appropriate > destination on the Internet. We are unlikely to get anything > else than a > voice call in these situations. I agree this is the primary benefit of enum for voip. But, people appear to want to use enum for other things. I just want to be sure that the lookup procedure is well defined, deterministic, and repeatable. This means that I need to have a clear and concise way of knowing which service tag to use, and that is far from clear to me at this point. -Jonathan R. --- Jonathan D. Rosenberg, Ph.D. 72 Eagle Rock Ave. Chief Scientist First Floor dynamicsoft East Hanover, NJ 07936 jdrosen@dynamicsoft.com FAX: (973) 952-5050 http://www.jdrosen.net PHONE: (973) 952-5000 http://www.dynamicsoft.com _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From daemon@optimus.ietf.org Wed Oct 31 20:00:04 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA06463 for ; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 19:59:59 -0500 (EST) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id TAA17335 for enum-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 19:59:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id TAA16798; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 19:51:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id TAA16769 for ; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 19:51:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail1.dynamicsoft.com ([63.113.40.10]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA06261 for ; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 19:51:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from DYN-EXCH-001.dynamicsoft.com (dyn-exch-001 [63.113.44.7]) by mail1.dynamicsoft.com (8.12.0.Beta7/8.12.0.Beta7) with ESMTP id fA10nMb7021841; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 19:49:22 -0500 (EST) Received: by DYN-EXCH-001.dynamicsoft.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 19:50:36 -0500 Message-ID: From: Jonathan Rosenberg To: rwalter@netnumber.com, Jonathan Rosenberg , enum@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Enum] Robert and Douglas' Protocols and Services draft... Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 19:50:34 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Enum Discussion List X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org > -----Original Message----- > From: Robert H. Walter [mailto:rwalter@netnumber.com] > Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2001 4:15 PM > To: Jonathan Rosenberg; enum@ietf.org > Subject: RE: [Enum] Robert and Douglas' Protocols and > Services draft... > > The proposed solution should be flexible enough to allow > multiple services > to be associated with a single SIP address, as well as, > multiple services > to be associated with multiple SIP addresses. Consider the following > examples: > > 1. A integrated SIP-based IM and voice system on a PC would > be specified > via a single address: > > sip+E2IM+E2TEL --> sip:user@company.com > > 2. An IM service is associated with a desktop PC and the > voice service > is associated with an IP-Phone that is managed by a > service provider. > > sip+E2IM --> sip:user@company.com > sip+E2TEL --> sip:user@serviceprovider.com > > How else could the service discovery be accomplished? Bob, my point is that it is far from clear how an automata would determine which service tag its looking for. That needs to be clearly specified, and its not obvious to me that IM and presence, for example, should have a separate service tag from "regular SIP". -Jonathan R. --- Jonathan D. Rosenberg, Ph.D. 72 Eagle Rock Ave. Chief Scientist First Floor dynamicsoft East Hanover, NJ 07936 jdrosen@dynamicsoft.com FAX: (973) 952-5050 http://www.jdrosen.net PHONE: (973) 952-5000 http://www.dynamicsoft.com _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From daemon@optimus.ietf.org Wed Oct 31 20:00:06 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA06527 for ; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 20:00:06 -0500 (EST) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id UAA17432 for enum-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 20:00:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id TAA16880; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 19:51:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id TAA16851 for ; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 19:51:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail1.dynamicsoft.com ([63.113.40.10]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA06265 for ; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 19:51:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from DYN-EXCH-001.dynamicsoft.com (dyn-exch-001 [63.113.44.7]) by mail1.dynamicsoft.com (8.12.0.Beta7/8.12.0.Beta7) with ESMTP id fA10nOb7021851; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 19:49:24 -0500 (EST) Received: by DYN-EXCH-001.dynamicsoft.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 19:50:38 -0500 Message-ID: From: Jonathan Rosenberg To: Kevin McCandless , "'Jonathan Rosenberg'" Cc: Michael Mealling , rwalter@netnumber.com, enum@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Enum] Robert and Douglas' Protocols and Services draft... Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 19:50:35 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Enum Discussion List X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org > -----Original Message----- > From: Kevin McCandless [mailto:KMcCandless@Illuminet.com] > Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2001 2:27 PM > To: 'Jonathan Rosenberg' > Cc: Michael Mealling; rwalter@netnumber.com; enum@ietf.org > Subject: RE: [Enum] Robert and Douglas' Protocols and > Services draft... > > > Jonathan: > > Help me here. I thought that SDP was to be used for the > multimedia session > and that the core part of SIP was making the initial Invite > and setting up > the three way handshake. Therefore, would I only need one > SIP address ie > how to get a hold of me and then use SDP for the fun stuff ie IM? This is the session model, yes. My point is that Robert has defined a E2IM URI, and I was arguing that if IM is a stream, described by SDP, then its not clear whether or not I would use this resolution service tag or the E2TEL tag. -Jonathan R. --- Jonathan D. Rosenberg, Ph.D. 72 Eagle Rock Ave. Chief Scientist First Floor dynamicsoft East Hanover, NJ 07936 jdrosen@dynamicsoft.com FAX: (973) 952-5050 http://www.jdrosen.net PHONE: (973) 952-5000 http://www.dynamicsoft.com > > Kevin > > -----Original Message----- > From: Jonathan Rosenberg [mailto:jdrosen@dynamicsoft.com] > Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2001 12:15 PM > To: rwalter@netnumber.com; enum@ietf.org > Cc: Michael Mealling > Subject: RE: [Enum] Robert and Douglas' Protocols and > Services draft... > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Robert H. Walter [mailto:rwalter@netnumber.com] > > Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2001 12:46 PM > > To: enum@ietf.org > > Cc: Michael Mealling > > Subject: QRE: [Enum] Robert and Douglas' Protocols and > > Services draft... > > > > > > Hi Michael, > > > > Thank you for the feedback... Your suggestion of defining an IANA > > registry for both the protocols and services is excellent and we > > will incorporate this into the next revision of the draft. > > > > You raise an interesting point regarding the use of SIP with IM. > > Will the SIP extension(s) proposed in the SIMPLE working group I-D > > "SIP Extensions for Instant Messaging" (draft-ietf-simple-im-01.txt) > > be absorbed into SIP or will a new extended SIP protocol > (e.g. simple) > > be born? If the latter is the case, I agree that it makes sense to > > specify SIMPLE as a resolution protocol. > > First, let me answer the basic sip questions. > > The cited IM draft will not be "absorbed" into SIP in the > sense that it is > part of the new baseline specification, currently documented in > draft-ietf-sip-rfc2543bis-05.txt. It is an extension. > However, just because > something is an extension to SIP doesn't mean that its a new > service, per > se, in the enum sense of service. For example, the SIP > extension for caller > preferences (draft-ietf-sip-caller-prefs) is an extension but > surely not a > separate service as far as enum is concerned. > > Note that there is a slippery slope here, as to what constitutes a new > service, and what does not. IM is a tricky thing. The SIMPLE group is > debating a session model, which would treat IM as a "media > stream" alongside > voice and video. The draft you cite above describes the > "paging" model, > where you simple send an IM out of the blue. The session model is very > interesting for ENUM. If I want to talk to someone, and I use > a SIP INVITE > to set up that call, should there be a separate ENUM service > tag for each > different type of media I want to use to communicate with? > That is, do we > have E2VOICE and E2VIDEO in addition to E2IM? Interestinly, a > call can start > with voice, and later add video. The ENUM resolution would > only occur when > the call is initially setup with voice, and not when the > video stream is > added. > > The same kind of things can happen for IM. If I set up a call > with SIP, > using INVITE, and indicate an IM stream, does that mean that > E2IM gets used? > What if the initial call setup has BOTH IM and voice streams? > Which service > tag is used? If we don't look at the media streams to > determine the service, > and always use E2TEL, say, that means that a page IM could go > somewhere > different from a call that has an IM media stream. Is that > what we want? > > -Jonathan R. > > --- > Jonathan D. Rosenberg, Ph.D. 72 Eagle Rock Ave. > Chief Scientist First Floor > dynamicsoft East Hanover, NJ 07936 > jdrosen@dynamicsoft.com FAX: (973) 952-5050 > http://www.jdrosen.net PHONE: (973) 952-5000 > http://www.dynamicsoft.com > > > _______________________________________________ > enum mailing list > enum@ietf.org > http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum > _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From daemon@optimus.ietf.org Wed Oct 31 20:56:24 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA07284 for ; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 20:56:24 -0500 (EST) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id UAA18835 for enum-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 20:56:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id UAA18640; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 20:47:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id UAA18611 for ; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 20:47:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from exchange.cbeyond.net (mail.cbeyond.net [63.104.33.251]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA07187 for ; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 20:47:30 -0500 (EST) Received: by exchange.cbeyond.net with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 20:45:20 -0500 Message-ID: <26C1741C1863524B8F6DECC019A1C905096ABD@exchange.cbeyond.net> From: Nathan Nelson To: "'Jonathan Rosenberg'" , Christian Huitema , rwalter@netnumber.com, enum@ietf.org Cc: Michael Mealling Subject: RE: [Enum] Robert and Douglas' Protocols and Services draft... Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 20:45:19 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Enum Discussion List X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org The primary application for ENUM should be to allow carriers providing voice services for small business and residential users to interact with medium to large corporations. ENUM should translate 800 or other customer service or main corporate access numbers into ENUM addresses then transport call setup and voice over ip. This allows the corporations to save money and the carriers to save money therefore passing saving on to the end consumer. Long Distance should and most likely will go away, i.e. wireless LD. ENUM should not be looked upon to translate numbers to intermediary carriers like LD companies. ENUM should allow consumers to speak directly with providers with as few middle men as possible. This should be the goal. Translate a number to and IP addressable destination and allow the call to complete. Thx, Nate Nelson Senior Architect Cbeyond Communications -----Original Message----- From: Jonathan Rosenberg [mailto:jdrosen@dynamicsoft.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2001 7:51 PM To: Christian Huitema; Jonathan Rosenberg; rwalter@netnumber.com; enum@ietf.org Cc: Michael Mealling Subject: RE: [Enum] Robert and Douglas' Protocols and Services draft... > -----Original Message----- > From: Christian Huitema [mailto:huitema@windows.microsoft.com] > Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2001 5:05 PM > To: Jonathan Rosenberg; rwalter@netnumber.com; enum@ietf.org > Cc: Michael Mealling > Subject: RE: [Enum] Robert and Douglas' Protocols and > Services draft... > > > Jonathan, > > If you think about it, the main case for using enum is an IP > based long > distance providers that receives a phone call because it is the > "selected provider" of the caller, and then looks for the appropriate > destination on the Internet. We are unlikely to get anything > else than a > voice call in these situations. I agree this is the primary benefit of enum for voip. But, people appear to want to use enum for other things. I just want to be sure that the lookup procedure is well defined, deterministic, and repeatable. This means that I need to have a clear and concise way of knowing which service tag to use, and that is far from clear to me at this point. -Jonathan R. --- Jonathan D. Rosenberg, Ph.D. 72 Eagle Rock Ave. Chief Scientist First Floor dynamicsoft East Hanover, NJ 07936 jdrosen@dynamicsoft.com FAX: (973) 952-5050 http://www.jdrosen.net PHONE: (973) 952-5000 http://www.dynamicsoft.com _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From daemon@optimus.ietf.org Wed Oct 31 21:08:56 2001 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA07429 for ; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 21:08:56 -0500 (EST) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id VAA19530 for enum-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 21:08:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id UAA18887; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 20:59:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id UAA18858 for ; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 20:59:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from twnic.net.tw ([211.72.210.250]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA07318 for ; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 20:59:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from abel (pc072.twnic.net.tw [211.72.211.72]) by twnic.net.tw (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id JAA01829 for ; Thu, 1 Nov 2001 09:58:35 +0800 Message-ID: <00fc01c16279$89714030$48d348d3@abel> From: "abel" To: Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2001 10:04:27 +0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_00F9_01C162BC.978B5870" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Subject: [Enum] Enum resolver problem Sender: enum-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: enum-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Enum Discussion List X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_00F9_01C162BC.978B5870 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="big5" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable HI: I am trying Enum query by Daemon process. A Windows Client = connect to this daemon. It's a testing.=20 And my question is: 1. there are 3 RR for 0.0.3.3 , For the Daemon process , = Should I return 3 RR to Windows Client or 1 RR per answer ? 2. The TEL+ will Recursive , and the nexr RR includes many = answer, Is it possible stack RR up too much.=20 3. RegExp field, How can I detect Client TN or IP from Daemon = ?=20 When I GET 886223413300 , The second answer is a TEL record, And = Resolv it again.=20 $ORIGIN 1.4.3.2.2.6.8.8.e164.arpa. 0.0.3.3 IN NAPTR 100 48 "u" "SIP+E2U" = "!^.*$!sip:abelyang@twnic.net.tw!" . 0.0.3.3 IN NAPTR 100 50 "u" "SMTP+E2U" = "!^.*$!mailto:abelyang01@twnic.net.tw!" . 0.0.3.3 IN NAPTR 100 49 "u" "TEL+E2U" = "!^.*$!tel:+886223411313!" . 3.1.3.1 IN NAPTR 100 48 "u" "SMTP+E2U" = "!^.*$!mailto:abelyang@twnic.net.tw!" . 3.1.3.1 IN NAPTR 100 49 "u" "TEL+E2U" = "!^.*$!tel:+886223412244!" . 3.1.3.1 IN NAPTR 100 50 "u" "SMTP+E2U" = "!^.*$!mailto:abelyang@twnic.net.tw!" . * IN NAPTR 100 50 "u" "TEL+E2U" = "!^.*$!tel:+886223411313!" . =20 Thanks for your and your answer. Regrad. Abel ------=_NextPart_000_00F9_01C162BC.978B5870 Content-Type: text/html; charset="big5" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
HI:
        I am trying = Enum query=20 by Daemon process. A Windows Client connect to this daemon.       It's a testing. =
        And my = question=20 is:
       =20 1.    there are 3 RR for 0.0.3.3 , For the Daemon process = ,=20 Should I return 3 RR to Windows Client or 1 RR per answer ?
        = 2.    The=20 TEL+ will Recursive , and the nexr RR includes many answer,  Is it = possible=20 stack RR up too much.
       =20 3.    RegExp field, How can I detect Client TN or IP from = Daemon=20 ?
        When I GET = 886223413300=20 , The second answer is a TEL record, And Resolv it again.
 
$ORIGIN 1.4.3.2.2.6.8.8.e164.arpa.
0.0.3.3=20 IN      NAPTR   = 100    =20 48      "u"    =20 "SIP+E2U"       "!^.*$!sip:abelyang@twnic.net.tw!"   =   =20 .
0.0.3.3 IN      NAPTR  =20 100     50     =20 "u"     "SMTP+E2U"      = "!^.*$!mailto:abelyang01@twnic.net.tw!" = .
0.0.3.3=20 IN      NAPTR  =20 100     49     =20 "u"     = "TEL+E2U"      =20 "!^.*$!tel:+886223411313!"      .
3.1.3.1=20 IN      NAPTR   = 100    =20 48      "u"    =20 "SMTP+E2U"      "!^.*$!mailto:abelyang@twnic.net.tw!"  = =20 .
3.1.3.1 IN      = NAPTR  =20 100     49     =20 "u"     "TEL+E2U"     =20 "!^.*$!tel:+886223412244!"   .
3.1.3.1=20 IN      NAPTR  =20 100     50     =20 "u"     "SMTP+E2U"      = "!^.*$!mailto:abelyang@twnic.net.tw!"  = =20 .

*       = IN     =20 NAPTR   100     = 50     =20 "u"     = "TEL+E2U"      =20 "!^.*$!tel:+886223411313!"      = .   =20        
 
 
Thanks for your and your answer.
Regrad.
 
    Abel
------=_NextPart_000_00F9_01C162BC.978B5870-- _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum