[enum-wg] ITU: debate over User-ENUM administration

>>>>> "Niall" == Niall O'Reilly <niall.oreilly at ucd.ie> writes:

    >> So "ENUM has nothing to do with assignment of E.164 numbers or
    >> national number plans", does it? What drugs are you on and
    >> where can I get some? :-)

    Niall> It seems it's time for me to have a 'booster-shot' of clue.
    Niall> I may not be the only one on the list who would benefit.

    Niall> As I understood things, Christian's statement is _formally_
    Niall> correct, since ENUM is for embedding _already-assigned_
    Niall> E.164 numbers in the DNS.

That's not what he said. It may have been what he meant. Christian
said "ENUM has nothing to do with assignment of E.164 numbers or
national number plans". True, ENUM has no bearing on how E.164 numbers
are assigned. Or how national numbering plans are administered. But
since entries under e164.arpa should correspond to assigned E.164
numbers according to the national numbering plan, ENUM does reflect
how assignment of E.164 numbers are done. ENUM is not the expression
in the DNS of some random digit strings. Christian's remarks can be
read as implying ENUM has no relationship to E.164 assignments or
numbering plans.

Even so, ENUM does have something to do with national numbering
plans. Obviously the registrations under <CC>.e164.arpa should
correspond to the national numbering plan. For example in the UK
context, it's not (yet) possible to register premium-rate and free
phone numbers under 4.4.e164.arpa because authenticating them is too
hard. These numbers live in ranges that have been set aside for those
purposes in the national numbering plan. Similar problems could arise
with DDI blocks, number ranges set aside for VoIP or DSL, etc etc.
Thus ENUM is a representation of the national (and international)
numbering plan. That's hardly "nothing to do with it".