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

I don't believe there is any issue of whether there is linkage between ENUM
and E.164. The issue (if one exists at all) is to keep the flow clear so
that you first get E.164 and only then might you delegate this into an ENUM
tree (at a national level).

An RFC that offers workable validatation frameworks for national ENUM trees
to reflect their E.164 numbering plan should be welcomed. But as a BCP
perhaps at this point rather than a Standard, as I agree with Richard here
that there are other interested parties who need to dip into this and we
have to accept that NRA's can take different views.

Christian



> -----Original Message-----
> From: enum-wg-admin at ripe.net [mailto:enum-wg-admin at ripe.net]On Behalf Of
> Alexander Mayrhofer
> Sent: 10 February 2005 09:08
> To: Conroy, Lawrence (SMTP)
> Cc: <enum-wg at ripe.net>; Christian de Larrinaga
> Subject: Re: [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).
>
snip
> 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.
snip
> 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


Christian