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

Hi Axel, Richard, folks,
  Short answer is Yes, No.
If you're talking about a set of policies to be applied by Registries 
and Registrars,
then Registries and Registrars SHOULD to be involved, so that the 
policies specified
are feasible. Regulators do have "off days", so it's useful for 
Registries/Registrars
to point out that a policy that "potential registrants must come to 
Poitiers in person
to register, but only on the first Wednesday of each month" isn't a 
good idea.
Likewise, in effect requiring TSP validation whilst not requiring TSPs 
to set up such
a validation system has a few problems.

However, the Regulator's club are the guys who decide on any policy 
framework that they
are going to specify, so they have to be "in charge".

The IETF is the *wrong* place for any such work, unless you intend to 
develop a protocol
to be used. We have all sorts of protocols already for this, so unless 
it's an XML schema
that is used as a medium of exchange to embody a policy, they're not 
it. They're just bit
pushers, and as Harald pointed out in his recent presentation in 
Vienna, a key feature of
getting an RFC is waiting.

So... find me a Regulator's club!

all the best,
   Lawrence

On 10 Feb 2005, at 09:22, Stastny Richard wrote:
> Axel,
>
> you are right at the spot, and here is the problem:
>
> IETF is a protocol making body, so the data format/message exchange
> is an IETF issue. To do so, they need requirements for validation,
> but the requirements are NOT an IETF issue.
>
> The question is now, who can come up with the requirements and if
> there are some, will they be accepted by IETF.
>
> There is some possibilities to come up with (global) requirements:
> either
> from a regulators club or somebody near (ITU-T?) or from a club
> of Registries and Registrars dealing with ENUM in practice, bringing
> in and harmonizing their national requirements.
>
<snip - Axel said>
>> 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