Subject: [Speermint] Comments on draft-newton-peppermint-problem-statement-00 and draft-schwartz-peppermint-e164-provisioning-data-set-00

From: Cullen Jennings <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2007 20:19:46 -0700

Many of my questions about the newton doc where answered by the  
schwartz doc and visa versa - they are nicely synchronized. I hope  
there is some thought to just combining these.

Stuff that was unclear to me revolved around who the different actors  
are and who is allowed to provision what - I trying to get at what  
the trust model is and who trusts what from who and why.

The whole ownership concept seem to be imply a someone different  
model that I have seen in existing IETF work  - similarly with the  
view/profile stuff. The document has some stuff about the bits needed  
and that is very helpful to understand, but would be nice to also  
have more on who the actors are and what information they can provide  
and receive in different views.

Trivial note on time-zones - if you can avoid them and make all times  
in UTC or something like that, things will be easier.

Cullen <with my individual hat on>

_______________________________________________
Speermint mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/speermint

---

From: "PFAUTZ, PENN L, ATTCORP" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 09:23:02 -0400

One problem with the Lewis draft and these other drafts is that they
elide some of the larger context of work on ENUM.
They clearly aren't speaking to user ENUM (RFC 3761). References to
ownership of numbers suggests an Infrastructure ENUM focus, but it seems
to be a private ENUM rather than a public one. It includes the
suggestion of differential response but with the assumption that that
will be handled in the Registry rather than somewhere else in the
resolution chain.
These issues and the choices about how to resolve them (no pun intended
:-) are important but I would like to see them more clearly stated so as
to encourage a real debate about the architecture model as opposed to a
rush to picking an implementation.

Penn Pfautz
AT&T Global Access Management
+1-732-420-4962

-----Original Message-----
From: Cullen Jennings [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2007 11:20 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [Speermint] Comments
ondraft-newton-peppermint-problem-statement-00
anddraft-schwartz-peppermint-e164-provisioning-data-set-00

---

From: "David Schwartz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 16:03:01 +0200

Hi Penn.

I reread the draft I wrote and found no mention of either private or
infrastructure ENUM. The closest match was the following snippet...

QueryType

       There are many protocols that can be used to perform
       the query.  While ENUM is one of the more popular
       protocols there is no reason other protocols (e.g.
       SIP 302) cannot be used as well.  Thus the Type of
       Query field indicates which protocol will be used for
       this profile.

I am not even sure that ENUM can provide the flexibility required in
practice (e.g. the differential response you allude to). The document I
wrote is informational in nature and its purpose is merely to highlight
some of the information that may need to be captured in a provisioning
process. Included in that information is "ownership" as in some
implementations (such as I-ENUM) this has value. The document does not
get involved in the private Vs. Infrastructure Vs Public ENUM debate.

Cheers,

D.

-----Original Message-----
From: PFAUTZ, PENN L, ATTCORP [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Monday, March 12, 2007 3:23 PM
To: Cullen Jennings; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [Speermint]
Commentsondraft-newton-peppermint-problem-statement-00anddraft-schwartz-
peppermint-e164-provisioning-data-set-00

Penn Pfautz

---

From: Andrew Newton <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 12:36:12 -0400

> rush to picking an implementation.

Penn,

Is your objection that the draft(s) are not clear about the use of  
user ENUM vs infrastructure ENUM vs private ENUM?  Or are you  
objecting to the work being usable and/or targeted against private  
ENUM trees?

-andy

---

From: "PFAUTZ, PENN L, ATTCORP" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 12:48:08 -0400

Andy:
Really just looking for a fuller definition of context and intended use.
I have no desire to prohibit anything.
I would like to see a discussion of merits and demerits of doing policy
in the Registry, for example, versus through subsequent resolution of
what is obtained from the Registry as this is an important technical
issue that most of us will have to make a decision about. 

Penn

Penn Pfautz

-----Original Message-----
From: Andrew Newton [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Monday, March 12, 2007 12:36 PM
To: PFAUTZ, PENN L, ATTCORP
Cc: Cullen Jennings; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [Speermint] Comments

Penn,

-andy

---

From: Andrew Newton <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 13:13:20 -0400

Penn,

To answer your question with regard to how it works today, it works  
both ways in many cases.  The registries apply policy on their side,  
and those querying the registry apply policy post-dip.  However,  
neither change the actual query.  With the policies that are applied  
on both sides for which I am aware, non change the query protocol.

What technical issues are you concerned about?

-andy

---

From: "Richard Shockey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 13:23:18 -0400

Which I hope I can take as your support for forming a PEPPERMINT BOF in
Chicago? :-) 

> Sent: Monday, March 12, 2007 12:48 PM
> To: Andrew Newton
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: [Speermint] Commentsondraft-newton-peppermint-problem-
> statement-00anddraft-schwartz-peppermint-e164-provisioning-data-set-00
> 
> Andy: