Subject: Re: [e2md] Alternative to source URI

From: "Cartwright, Kenneth" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2010 10:01:06 -0400

I think the disconnect in our common understandings is this statement you you've made:

"That is achieved by deciding to whom to give what private data."

I think the statement presumes that we are *pushing* a private data set *down/out* to the organization that wants/isAllowedTo to see that private dataset.  The solution cannot be predicated on that operational model.  With respect to the location of the "private" data as you call it, there are two models:

1) Shared/Central Resolution Server Model:  The private data sets are not pushed down to the organization that has visibility to that private data, but instead sits in a common location where access and visibility into the data is controlled.  Under many circumstances it is not permissible from a business model, and/or privacy, and/or scalability perspective to push the "private" data down to each individual organization that wants to query it.
2) Private/Local Resolution Server Model:  The private views into the larger data set are created, updated, and pushed down to local resolution servers owned/operated/hosted by the organization that has visibility into that view.

The solution needs to support both of these models.

Ken

-----Original Message-----
From: Jay Daley [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2010 4:33 PM
To: Cartwright, Kenneth
Cc: Hadriel Kaplan; E.164 To MetaData BOF discussion list
Subject: Re: [e2md] Alternative to source URI

On 1/04/2010, at 4:54 AM, Cartwright, Kenneth wrote:

> Source based responses can be selected at three levels of granularity (depending on the policy driven need of the given use case):

thanks, this is very helpful.

> 1) Source Organization (done today through non-standard means such as a different root domain to the same DNS server)

That is achieved by deciding to whom to give what private data.

> 2) Source Node/IP (done today through non-standardized means such as source IP address of the DNS query)

This is presumably an indirect mechanism for a different form of source based filtering - in other words it is not the IP that actually matters but who is using that IP?

If is actually the IP then that is achieved by the contents of the private data.

> 3) Source Person/Identity (done today via non-standardized means such as the callers SIP URI)

That is achieved by the contents of the private data.

> Does what you propose directly support all three, directly support a subset of the three, get in the way of any of the three, ignore any of the three, etc?  Granted I've not had the time to follow all of these emails, but it's not clear to me that it supports 2 and 3.  Sorry if I missed something in a previous email.  If so please just point me at that email and I will read/reread it.

I think it does support all three but I need to understand the purpose of 2 a bit better to be sure, assuming you think I have explained 1 and 3 well enough.  Can you provide more detail?

thanks
Jay

>
> Ken
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Jay Daley
> Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2010 12:02 AM
> To: Hadriel Kaplan
> Cc: E.164 To MetaData BOF discussion list
> Subject: Re: [e2md] Alternative to source URI
>
>
> On 31/03/2010, at 5:15 AM, Hadriel Kaplan wrote:
>
>>> Assuming the proxy is "allowed" to know this then they either have two
>>> sets of private data, one for the source carrier that services 67890 and
>>> one for the source carrier that services 88888.  Or if the originating
>>> carrier is the same then just one set of private data that identifies the
>>> source within it:
>>>
>>>     meta-endpoint -> source -> actual-endpoint
>>
>> It is the same source carrier for both calls originating from 77777 and 88888, hence the rub - even if the destination carrier says "meta-endpoint", the source carrier needs to do a lookup (somewhere) that takes the source number into account.  In other words *someone* has to do a source-based lookup, and that someone could/would use source-uri.
>
> I might be being thick here but I don't get why you think the only solution is source-uri.  What effect is achieved by source-uri that is not achieved by the scheme I'm suggesting?  As far as I can tell they achieve exactly the same thing.
>
> cheers
> Jay
>
>
>>
>> -hadriel
>
>
> --
> Jay Daley
> Chief Executive
> .nz Registry Services (New Zealand Domain Name Registry Limited)
> desk: +64 4 931 6977
> mobile: +64 21 678840
>
> _______________________________________________
> e2md mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/e2md
>
> This e-mail message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s)and may
> contain confidential and privileged information of Transaction Network Services.
> Any unauthorised review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you
> are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.
>

--
Jay Daley
Chief Executive
.nz Registry Services (New Zealand Domain Name Registry Limited)
desk: +64 4 931 6977
mobile: +64 21 678840

This e-mail message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s)and may
contain confidential and privileged information of Transaction Network Services.
Any unauthorised review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you
are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.