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

Jim Reid wrote:
>                                                       ..... 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. 

slightly OT, but since i'm currently looking for this in the scope of 
validation - Which document does formally specify this tie between E.164 
and ENUM?

Don't misunderstand me, i'm fully convinced (as probably the majority of 
the fellow list members) that this is a requirement for ENUM, but i'm 
still searching where this is specified, because this requirement is 
where all validation related work boils down to.

What i've found out so far is that RFC3671 says:

    "Holders of E.164 numbers which want to be listed in DNS
    should contact the appropriate zone administrator according to the
    policy which is attached to the zone."

One could interpret that as "only holders may apply". Well, it becomes 
more complicated with number ranges where the ENUM domain is a 
prerequisite for the assignment of the corresponding E.164 number (eg. 
+43 780), so YMMV. However, this is the only place in the RFC which 
talks about the formal relation between E.164 and ENUM (I'm not talking 
about the technical relations, the whole string conversion etc.)

Currently, a country deciding to _not_ have any strict ties between 
E.164 and ENUM (assigning the ENUM to another party than the E.164) 
would imho pretty much satisfy RFC3761 - which i consider dangerous.

So, where's the place to look for (or add) this requirement?

cheers

--
Alex Mayrhofer
nic.at/enum.at