Subject: [PEPPERMINT] re draft-schwartz-peppermint-consolidated-provisioning-problem-statement-00

From: "PFAUTZ, PENN L, ATTCORP" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2008 21:46:36 -0400

I have a little trouble parsing the following in Section 3.2:
 
In complex cases, several VSPs may claim some form of responsibility
   for the same prefix.  We can use the term "last hop" VSP to describe
   the VSP closest to the end-user of a phone number.  The provider who
   was assigned a prefix by the national numbering authority is the
   "first hop" VSP.  The first hop VSP may have no way of knowing if the
   last hop VSP will include itself in the registry.
 
This wouldn't seem to make sense in a number portability environment
that uses all call query (e.g., the US) where the prefix may be
routed (I won't say owned) by one VSP but ported out numbers route
directly to the serving VSP.
 
Probably some formal indication of carrier-or-record status for a number
is needed if the registry is going to allow others entities beyond the
COR to provision records.
 
Likewise, I have concerns about the fee category construct. While this
might be uniformly defined in the PSTN space I believe this may move
toward bilateral agreements in the NGN space. 
 
Penn Pfautz
 
_______________________________________________
PEPPERMINT mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/peppermint

---

From: David Schwartz <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 14:11:41 -0400

Hi Penn

I do not want to get bogged down just yet with the "ownership" issue  
(a.k.a the e164 issue being debated elsewhere). I think its fair to  
assume that the outcome of that discussion will have consequences here.

As for the fee structure, even in the bilateral scenario you describe  
(which I agree with by the way) you may still want to differentiate  
"free" from "transit".

Thanks for the comments,

D.

On Mar 11, 2008, at 9:46 PM, PFAUTZ, PENN L, ATTCORP wrote:

> Probably some formal indication of carrier-or-record status for a  
> number is needed if the registry is going to allow others entities  
> beyond the COR to provision records.
>
> Likewise, I have concerns about the fee category construct. While  
> this might be uniformly defined in the PSTN space I believe this may  
> move toward bilateral agreements in the NGN space.
>
> Penn Pfautz
>