Subject: [Modern] What are we trying to do?

From: Richard Shockey <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2014 20:17:00 -0400

Well I like OTT services just fine but I also like provider delivered
services as well.  Any reasonable survey of the real time communications
market would tell you that the carriers are still making A LOT of money
delivering voice and other stuff using E.164 numbering.  I¹m happy to pay
ATT and Verizon BTW for mobile and landline Public SIP Telephony
Networking.

OTT has certainly dented the market but here in North America OTT is
really no more than 7% of the total minutes.  That is from FCC CRTC OFCOM
data and Telegeography etc. International calling is different since there
is such a massive arbitrage play still there.

That said the Problem Statement and Requirements we are generally looking
at is how do you preserve protect and defend the service model of any to
any that is still governed by E.164 numbering and by inference that
includes emergency calling.  That is a value proposition worth defending
and worth serious thought.

That was the purpose of Hennings Workshop on Numbering at the FCC and
presumably we want to take this conversation somewhere.  We have made a
start with STIR ..eventually we may want to look at a more comprehensive
view of Calling Party Name. Something for lack of a better term ( we don¹t
have Hardriel any more) I called CNAM +.

Naming and Addressing is central to any network operation and the IETF has
certainly dealt with the protocol issues surrounding domain names. I
certainly tried to look at number provisioning in DRINKS (I wrote the
charter) but lets not go there.  It is perfectly reasonable and prudent
for the RAI area to provide tools for National Numbering Administration if
..if we can gather support from other National Numbering Adminstrations.

The logical first step is the usual Problem Statement and Requirements
that we are all familiar with. With that there are folks at the US FCC
that could be helpful.  Certainly some of us know other NRA¹s etc and
frankly this is exactly the kind of project that the Internet Society
should be involved with.

BTW I live 5 minutes from their HQ Š oh btw. If you are following the
ongoing Ebola story ISOC¹s HQ is directly across the street on Whelie here
in Reston from where the first reported case of Ebola was reported in the
United States and was the subject of the famous book Hot Zone by Richard
Preston.  

On 10/16/14, 4:43 PM, "Brian Rosen" <[email-masked]> wrote:

>Like it or not, we have OTT services using the same TN as the service
>provider¹s services, even if there is overlap.  That is, I suspect,
>exactly what Penn was getting at.
>
>Brian
>
>On Oct 16, 2014, at 3:55 PM, Henning Schulzrinne
><[email-masked]> wrote:
>
>> We have some precedence for service definitions in the caller
>>preferences work, for standards-based services. It's relatively easy, I
>>think, if the services are clearly separated ("voice only" + "text
>>only"). Given modern multimedia services, I'm not sure how common this
>>is going to be, given that every service will likely support audio,
>>video and text.
>> 
>> For proprietary services, this is probably pretty much a name
>>registration problem ("Skype", "Facebook").
>> 
>> ________________________________________
>> From: PFAUTZ, PENN L [[email-masked]]
>> Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2014 3:42 PM
>> To: Brian Rosen; Henning Schulzrinne
>> Cc: [email-masked]
>> Subject: RE: [Modern] Zombie numbering issues
>> 
>> 
>> Re number 2 below I understand the desire but remind you that then we
>>have to get into service definition - maybe there is a way to fudge that?
>
>_______________________________________________
>Modern mailing list
>[email-masked]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/modern

---

From: Brian Rosen <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2014 09:00:26 -0400

Well I like OTT and “provider” services too, and don’t see what my personal preference has to do with it.  In Voice OTT is pretty small, in text, it’s pretty big, in video, it’s overwhelming.  So?
I think the TN is a resource that historical is, and will be managed by regulators.  I think that the current management methods are not sufficient for the near and long term future of services that use a TN as an identifier.  I think the IETF is the proper venue for global TN based addressing for services delivered over an IP network, which these days is just about all services.  I think allocation (how you get a TN), “ownership” (who actually controls the TN, here meaning “the" SP, which is what we have now, or the user), mapping of the TN to services, routing to the services, and ancillary information attached to the TN (like name) are reasonable scope issues, recognizing that one size won’t fit all because we will have regulators who don’t all see things the same way.

Brian