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

Conroy, Lawrence (SMTP) wrote:
> Intiguing - Axel asked the quite reasonable question that it isn't clear
> to the 3.4.e164.arpa. Registry all of the specifics of the policy they
> were required to execute, who gets to set these, and/or whether or not
> any general policies apply to all such registries.

Lawrence,

it's perfectly clear to us what the requirements are on a local level - 
our regulator did specify that pretty comprehensive. Integrity between 
the local numering plan and ENUM is one of the fundamental requirements 
in the contract signed between RTR and enum.at. So, locally, we're all set.

However, i'm trying to look at the validation issues on a more global 
level (imho it doesn't make sense to reinvent the wheel in every country 
[again], especially since policy wise i consider E.164/ENUM less 
"entropy-burdened" than eg. ccTLD's).

I asked myself what that basis for validation is, and came to the 
conclusion that insuring the integrity between E.164 and ENUM is what 
validation is really about.

> In most countries, the Government or its anointed agency decides on the
> delegation policy to be applied for delegations in ->their<- zone.
> 
> It's their zone because the E.164.arpa. delegation policies as executed
> by RIPE-NCC and the TSB reflect in the IAB/ITU agreements and the ITU's
> interim procedures. The interim procedures in turn reflect the E.164
> assignment process.
> 
> Does each country have a right to choose the specifics of its delegation
> policies? Of course. My chosen delegation policy for my domain is not
> reflected in RFC1034/1035. Likewise for the holder of 3.4.e164.arpa.,
> which Richard points out is RTR.
> 
> Now... coming back to the original thread -
> 
> The reasonable legal concerns are over whether the ITU is sure that the
> interim agreement will continue to be executed, without a formal agreement
> with the legal entity that controls the parent zone from which the ENUM
> apex was/is delegated.

Well, i'm still an engineer, so i'm not so much concerned about legal 
aspects [yet] ;). I'm just asking myself if it makes any sense to bring 
up documents about ENUM Validation at the IETF if (and that's how i 
interpret the previous posts) the WG has concerns about even noting that 
this strict relationship between E.164 and ENUM exists. What should i 
base my document on? Who would support it, when it talks about something 
which the IETF doesn't care about?

If we exclude the whole "administrative" stuff about validation from the 
IETF, it essentially boils down to a data format / message exchange 
standard for validation information (for which already 2 I-D's exist). 
If i remember it correctly, there has not been much interest in those 
two drafts, because they presented solutions to a problem of which most 
of the attendees were unaware - the conclusion was the recommendation 
that we should provide a "requirements" draft for validation.

Now that i'm working on this requirements stuff, it turns out that 
there's no fundamental basis for that (IETF-wise) because the IETF does 
not want/ cannot make clear what the relation ENUM/E.164 is all about. 
What should we do? Drop the "validation" topic in IETF completely, and 
take it to a local level (wheel reinventing in every country...)? I 
don't consider that a good solution...

comments appreciated.

cheers

axelm