Re: ETSI on Minimum Requirements for European ENUM Trials

[Richard Shockey <]

>     Marco> My take is that DNSSEC is not a MINIMUM requirements for
>     Marco> trial interoperability so it should not be recommended in
>     Marco> the ETSI document (I would say it's the same for IPv6). The
>     Marco> support of DNSSEC or other mechanisms to prevent spoofing
>     Marco> is a national matter for each trial. The decision of
>     Marco> supporting DNSSEC in the trial has also to take into
>     Marco> account some practical aspects (e.g. costs, timeframe,
>     Marco> extra complexity, etc...)  that are likely to be different
>     Marco> from country to country. It would be interesting to have
>     Marco> some trials (or portion of the same trial) with DNSSEC and
>     Marco> others without and then compare the results/feedbacks
>
> Indeed. But this means some minimal standards/requirements for those
> trials that do involve DNSSEC so they can interoperate. And there
> needs to be some convention for handling the interactions between
> DNSSEC-aware and non-DNSSEC-aware entities. [ie If an application
> expects a signed answer from the DNS and doesn't get that, what should
> it do?] These are reasonable things for this ETSI document to cover:
> not that I have any say on that of course since my employer is not an
> ETSI member. Another topic the ETSI document could/should look at is
> IPv6 interoperability: what if a name server or registry/registrar for
> ENUM was IPv6 only?

Well putting on my IETF hat here ... interactions between DNSSEC and 
Non-DNSSEC applications would be  a useful topic for a IETF ID as well as a 
ETSI document as is the case of IPV6 ENUM registries ..but these are 
general cases that span all applications not just those that may be enabled 
by ENUM. I'm sure in the case of SIP it might be a useful contribution for 
the SIPPING WG and my colleague Jon Peterson is working on draft on the use 
of ENUM by SIP.

Though these are all interesting topics .. the simple fact of the matter is 
that most of the companies and participants in the EC trials will have 
limited resources and the goals and objectives of the trials will have to 
be limited in scope to the resources available to them.

That's just reality.  I've heard the telecom industry in the EC has had its 
share of problems recently :-) OK?

"Eyes on the Prize" Jim ...  in this case it is not DNSSEC and IPV6 
deployment, however wonderful those goals are.

It is validating and demonstrating how ENUM in the EC can be used to deploy 
an new class of telecommunications services that benefit both European 
consumers and European service providers.


>     Marco> For the ENUM commercial phase I would say it's to early to
>     Marco> take any final decision. Let's focus on the trials for the
>     Marco> time being.
>
> As far as I can tell, nobody is disagreeing with this. However ENUM
> trials should look at as many aspects of a production ENUM service as
> possible. DNSSEC is just one of those things. As is IPv6. And
> EPP. And....
Again ... I have a suspicion that C&W, BT, DT, Telecom Austria ( as 
examples) , etal do not have unlimited resources for a indepth analysis of 
all these interesting issues .._at this time_.

Each EC national ENUM trial needs to keep things in scope...which usually 
means a narrowly defined set of goals and objectives defined in specific 
phases.

The ETSI document can be very very useful guide to national ENUM trials and 
regulators in helping to order and prioritize what these goals and 
objectives should be and in what order they need to be addressed, which is 
why I'm delighted there is active participation on this list.





>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Richard Shockey, Senior Manager, Strategic Technology Initiatives
NeuStar Inc.
46000 Center Oak Plaza  -   Sterling, VA  20166
Voice +1 571.434.5651 Cell : +1 314.503.0640,  Fax: +1 815.333.1237
<

> or <

>
 <http://www.neustar.biz> ; <http://www.enum.org>
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<