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

Alex wrote:

>     "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."

Which in Austria is the RTR.

In the agreement between RIPE, ITU-T and RIPE (the interim procedures)
the
ITU-T takes care that this is only the relevant national body ...

> 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.

... in principle yes, because the rest is national matter and
also the relevant ITU-T recommendations are only what the name
says: recommendations, but no country having his senses together
would do it that way - with one exception, but here Jim may provide
you an answer ;-)

richard

> -----Original Message-----
> From: enum-wg-admin at ripe.net [mailto:enum-wg-admin at ripe.net] On Behalf
Of
> Alexander Mayrhofer
> Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2005 12:39 PM
> To: Jim Reid
> Cc: Niall O'Reilly; enum-wg at ripe.net
> Subject: Re: [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