Subject: Re: [Modern] All-IP telecommunications network or TN identifiers

From: "Peterson, Jon" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 1 May 2015 18:06:23 +0000

Casting the proposed work as "dictating the numbering allocation model to
the world" makes it sounds very presumptuous and misguided, and certainly
if you (and others) succeed in convincing people that's the purpose of
MODERN, then I imagine it won't proceed.

But of course that's never been the case - and if it were, I'd be adding
my voice to the doubters. MODERN is about the use cases that we reviewed
in the BoF: cases like a Cisco enterprise phone getting a number from a
Call Manager; cases like a carrier delegating a block of numbers to a VoIP
provider; and ultimately, cases based on larger scale deployments  in a
post-PSTN-transition environment. These are real problems, there need to
be tools that support these cases, and MODERN proposes to begin work on
such tools so we can get some implementation experience before the lack of
such tools precipitates a crisis. That was indeed what the FCC workshop
was about.

So what's the motivation for casting MODERN as annexing the
responsibilities of SG-2? Clearly, as was discussed at the BoF, there are
some stakeholders who feel that any change to the number allocation model
is harmful to their business interests. Got it. But the IETF could never
have the power to change the number allocation model. Obstructing the
proposed MODERN work will not make the industry pressures that inspired
the FCC workshop go away. All it will do is make us unprepared for the
changes when they inevitably come.

The purpose of this proposed exercise is to create tools, not policies.
Tools that will work in a variety of potential policy environments, for a
variety of use cases. I don't think it would be worth chartering MODERN to
create a "problem statement" and that's it. We need to get to work.

Jon Peterson
Neustar, Inc.

On 4/30/15, 2:53 PM, "Eric Burger" <[email-masked]> wrote:

>
>> On Apr 30, 2015, at 5:41 PM, Peter Koch <[email-masked]> wrote:
>> 
>> On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 05:01:55PM -0400, Eric Burger wrote:
>> 
>>> My vote is a strong No. We do not have a need to reinvent number
>>>allocation. From a business perspective, carriers already get numbers
>>>from numbering authorities. The code is written, debugged, and works.
>>>In fact, it mostly works over IP, if you want to get into the
>>>particulars and feel that because something runs over IP it is
>>>???better.' Until it is time for the carriers to replace their
>>>provisioning systems, there is little need for a ???new??? method to
>>>get what they get today.
>> 
>> my understanding is - and please take this as an attempt to rephrase
>>the question
>> rather than an explanation, that - in IP address parlance - "allocation"
>> would be superseded by "assignment", getting rid of number blocks and
>>the
>> necessity for porting, as well as, at the risk of crossing the policy
>> boundary, support for a thick registry (of TN holders) rather than a
>>thin
>> registry (of block custodians).  I'm likely wrong, but I'd like to know
>>where.
>> 
>> -Peter
>
>I do not know that you are wrong, but where is the requirement?
>
>Is the requirement to eliminate service providers managing TNs?
>Is the requirement to eliminate the two-tier model we have today, where
>national numbering authorities allocate TNs to service providers who
>allocate them to users? And related, where Œusers¹ are sometimes
>enterprises or service bureaux who then allocate their numbers to users?
>Is the requirement to eliminate the distributed model we have today in
>most of the world where the national numbering authority allocates TNs in
>blocks to service providers and replace it with a centralized model where
>all TNs live in a single data base?
>Is the requirement to eliminate the quasi-distributed model we have today
>in countries such as the U.S., Canada, Argentina, India, etc. where the
>national numbering authority allocates TNs in blocks to services
>providers with a centralized data base for ported numbers?
>Is there another requirement?
>
>And, if we are going to dictate the numbering allocation model to the
>world, will the world accept it?
>

---

From: "Holmes, David W [CTO]" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 1 May 2015 18:23:56 +0000

So, Jon, you don't think it worthwhile to generate a problem statement, but you say of the use cases discussed that "these are real problems".

So charter the group initially to list out those use cases, then if it is obvious that it can also do useful work in creating tools that can be used for number administration in support of those use cases, proceed in that direction?  But noting that the tools would be available for use by administrators, without implication that anyone was "requiring" their adoption.

BR/David/Sprint

-----Original Message-----
From: Modern [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Peterson, Jon
Sent: Friday, May 01, 2015 11:06 AM
To: Eric Burger; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [Modern] All-IP telecommunications network or TN identifiers

Casting the proposed work as "dictating the numbering allocation model to the world" makes it sounds very presumptuous and misguided, and certainly if you (and others) succeed in convincing people that's the purpose of MODERN, then I imagine it won't proceed.

But of course that's never been the case - and if it were, I'd be adding my voice to the doubters. MODERN is about the use cases that we reviewed in the BoF: cases like a Cisco enterprise phone getting a number from a Call Manager; cases like a carrier delegating a block of numbers to a VoIP provider; and ultimately, cases based on larger scale deployments  in a post-PSTN-transition environment. These are real problems, there need to be tools that support these cases, and MODERN proposes to begin work on such tools so we can get some implementation experience before the lack of such tools precipitates a crisis. That was indeed what the FCC workshop was about.

So what's the motivation for casting MODERN as annexing the responsibilities of SG-2? Clearly, as was discussed at the BoF, there are some stakeholders who feel that any change to the number allocation model is harmful to their business interests. Got it. But the IETF could never have the power to change the number allocation model. Obstructing the proposed MODERN work will not make the industry pressures that inspired the FCC workshop go away. All it will do is make us unprepared for the changes when they inevitably come.

The purpose of this proposed exercise is to create tools, not policies.
Tools that will work in a variety of potential policy environments, for a variety of use cases. I don't think it would be worth chartering MODERN to create a "problem statement" and that's it. We need to get to work.

Jon Peterson
Neustar, Inc.

On 4/30/15, 2:53 PM, "Eric Burger" <[email-masked]> wrote:

>>the question  rather than an explanation, that - in IP address
>>parlance - "allocation"
>>the  necessity for porting, as well as, at the risk of crossing the
>>policy  boundary, support for a thick registry (of TN holders) rather
>>than a thin  registry (of block custodians).  I'm likely wrong, but
>>I'd like to know where.
>>
>> -Peter
>
>most of the world where the national numbering authority allocates TNs
>in blocks to service providers and replace it with a centralized model
>where all TNs live in a single data base?
>Is the requirement to eliminate the quasi-distributed model we have
>today in countries such as the U.S., Canada, Argentina, India, etc.
>where the national numbering authority allocates TNs in blocks to
>services providers with a centralized data base for ported numbers?

_______________________________________________
Modern mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/modern

________________________________

This e-mail may contain Sprint proprietary information intended for the sole use of the recipient(s). Any use by others is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies of the message.

---

From: "Peterson, Jon" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 1 May 2015 18:38:30 +0000

Sorry, I didn't say a problem statement was useless - actually, I seem to
recall submitting a problem statement, draft-peterson-modern-problems. I
did say I didn't think chartering the group to do -only- a problem
statement would be adequate. So yes, roughly what you describe in your
second paragraph is what I had in mind, but without the gating. More or
less as the current draft charter reads.

Jon Peterson
Neustar, Inc.

On 5/1/15, 11:23 AM, "Holmes, David W [CTO]" <[email-masked]>
wrote:

>So, Jon, you don't think it worthwhile to generate a problem statement,
>but you say of the use cases discussed that "these are real problems".
>
>So charter the group initially to list out those use cases, then if it is
>obvious that it can also do useful work in creating tools that can be
>used for number administration in support of those use cases, proceed in
>that direction?  But noting that the tools would be available for use by
>administrators, without implication that anyone was "requiring" their
>adoption.
>
>BR/David/Sprint
>
>Call Manager; cases like a carrier delegating a block of numbers to a
>VoIP provider; and ultimately, cases based on larger scale deployments
>in a post-PSTN-transition environment. These are real problems, there
>need to be tools that support these cases, and MODERN proposes to begin
>work on such tools so we can get some implementation experience before
>the lack of such tools precipitates a crisis. That was indeed what the
>FCC workshop was about.
>
>variety of use cases. I don't think it would be worth chartering MODERN
>to create a "problem statement" and that's it. We need to get to work.
>
>Jon Peterson
>Neustar, Inc.
>
>This e-mail may contain Sprint proprietary information intended for the
>sole use of the recipient(s). Any use by others is prohibited. If you are
>not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all
>copies of the message.

---

From: Henning Schulzrinne <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 1 May 2015 19:08:42 +0000

For what it's worth, ATIS has already produced a uses cases document, and even a very rough protocol specification, with many of the same organizations listed that are participating in this discussion (but possibly and probably different individuals). See ATIS-I-0000047.

________________________________________
From: Modern [[email-masked]] on behalf of Holmes, David W [CTO] [[email-masked]]
Sent: Friday, May 01, 2015 2:23 PM
To: Peterson, Jon; Eric Burger; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [Modern] All-IP telecommunications network or TN identifiers

BR/David/Sprint

-----Original Message-----
From: Modern [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Peterson, Jon
Sent: Friday, May 01, 2015 11:06 AM
To: Eric Burger; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [Modern] All-IP telecommunications network or TN identifiers

Jon Peterson
Neustar, Inc.

---

From: Eric Burger <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 1 May 2015 15:20:49 -0400

So folks on the list have it, the document is at
https://access.atis.org/apps/group_public/download.php/21727/Testbesds_Landscape_Team.pdf

All of the use cases are for legacy carriers doing legacy number routing. The use cases are around how to do ENUM and whether to use NS records, URIs, centralized vs. distributed NPAC, and how to route 800# (free phone) calls.

What are the problems being solved?

> On May 1, 2015, at 3:08 PM, Henning Schulzrinne <[email-masked]> wrote:
>