Subject: [Modern] Question on draft-peterson-modern-problems-00: Root

From: Eric Burger <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2015 21:15:28 -0400

I would be careful with the use of the term ‘root.’ I am not sure what this statement means:
   Government Entity:  An entity that, due to legal powers resulting
      from the root of number authority, has privileged access to
      information about number allocation.

First of all, ‘root’ has specific meaning to IETF/IANA/ICANN folks. It has a slightly more generic meaning to computer scientists. I am sure it has a much different meaning to political scientists. For example, does the above mean that if I am the root, I get legal powers?  Does it mean I need legal powers to operate the root? Given the next section says hierarchy is out, what is the root if there is no root? Does this mean “root of all evil”?

The document should nod a little bit to reality in saying that there is likely to be some semblance of geographic authority when it comes to numbering. I doubt the U.S. Government will allow just anyone to manage +1. I seriously doubt the Russian Federation will allow just anyone to manage +7.

Also, remember that country codes are one to three digits long. Is the idea that there would be an authoritative data base in the sky to manage ‘root’ delegations? If so, who would run it? Was that not one of the fatal flaws in the ENUM system? +7 is easy, RF gets it. +1 is relatively easy, the US exerts its hegemony. What about +3 or +4? Not all are EU countries. What about +8? Or, the literally big one, +2? If people could not agree on ICANN as the root, from its delegation of either e164.arpa or .tel, is there a counter-proposal?

If after the ENUM experience we do not have at least a plan for how one actually finds the data, I do not think we are working on a globally interoperable protocol. On the flip side, if governments, users, and service providers do want to ditch a DNS-based system for Private ENUM for something else, let us say so. That would dramatically reduce the requirements and make it so we can start and finish work a lot faster. It means we can focus on the the walled garden case and get it done.

---

From: "Peterson, Jon" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2015 16:13:20 +0000

I basically agree that we'd need to craft some very careful words about
the scope of the MODERN project in the existing world of international
treaties that current serve as the "root" of numbering. No one, I mean
absolutely no one, thinks the IETF is going to develop an alternative to
the E.164 plan, or somehow annex it for ourselves. I suspect that if we
had tools that seemed like they'd be useful in a post-transition
environment, some progressive regulators could probably allocate resources
that could be used to prove out some of these concepts. You don't need the
entirety of +1 or +7 for that, let alone the "root." Nothing in this
document or the proposed scope of the effort would encompass any of those.

Jon Peterson
Neustar, Inc.

On 3/24/15, 6:15 PM, "Eric Burger" <[email-masked]> wrote:

>I would be careful with the use of the term Œroot.¹ I am not sure what
>this statement means:
>First of all, Œroot¹ has specific meaning to IETF/IANA/ICANN folks. It
>has a slightly more generic meaning to computer scientists. I am sure it
>has a much different meaning to political scientists. For example, does
>the above mean that if I am the root, I get legal powers?  Does it mean I
>need legal powers to operate the root? Given the next section says
>hierarchy is out, what is the root if there is no root? Does this mean
>³root of all evil²?
>
>The document should nod a little bit to reality in saying that there is
>likely to be some semblance of geographic authority when it comes to
>numbering. I doubt the U.S. Government will allow just anyone to manage
>+1. I seriously doubt the Russian Federation will allow just anyone to
>manage +7.
>
>Also, remember that country codes are one to three digits long. Is the
>idea that there would be an authoritative data base in the sky to manage
>Œroot¹ delegations? If so, who would run it? Was that not one of the
>fatal flaws in the ENUM system? +7 is easy, RF gets it. +1 is relatively
>easy, the US exerts its hegemony. What about +3 or +4? Not all are EU
>countries. What about +8? Or, the literally big one, +2? If people could
>not agree on ICANN as the root, from its delegation of either e164.arpa
>or .tel, is there a counter-proposal?
>
>If after the ENUM experience we do not have at least a plan for how one
>actually finds the data, I do not think we are working on a globally
>interoperable protocol. On the flip side, if governments, users, and
>service providers do want to ditch a DNS-based system for Private ENUM
>for something else, let us say so. That would dramatically reduce the
>requirements and make it so we can start and finish work a lot faster. It
>means we can focus on the the walled garden case and get it done.