Telephone Number Mapping WG (enum)


IETF 59 Soeul, Korea


Wednesday, March 3, 2004


0900-1130 AM
===============================


CHAIRS: Patrik Faltstrom <paf@cisco.com>
              Richard Shockey 
<rich.shockey@neustar.biz>


SCRIBE: Spencer Dawkins <mcsr-labs.org>



AGENDA:


AGENDA BASHING (5 min)  ( appointment of scribe etc)


Status of 2916bis ... Allison Mankin Transport AD


- problem with IANA - and our relationship is not formal, no contract with 
us, just handshake agreements
- they have a very significant staffing problem with a huge backlog.
- IESG made a list - high delay, extremely high backlog, high priority was so 
backlogged that they had a hard time prioritizing
- 2916bis is part of the backlog
- no tracker in place today (as we have with I-D trackers)
- we started this action before the document was approved, but had no way to 
know there was a problem
- if registries are being blocked, please let us know so we can 
prioritize
- all the registration documents are blocked - iFax, VPIM, at least six 
documents
- today's presentations are about services that are rolling out now - what 
else do we need to say?
- registries acting in faith that I-Ds will not change before RFC 
publication
-
ACTION ITEM_
- chairs to send a formal letter to IESG - please provide inputs to this 
letter
- revs of other services - get them in sooner, rather than later, OK?


IFAX Registration - Richard Shockey- Claudio Allocchio Fax WG co-chair


- this document also in the IANA queue
- any difficulties with this document?
- Claudio - security and privacy sections very skinny - should we expand 
this stuff or leave it and point elsewhere?
- web and FT documents contained all considerations
- IFAX should match these documents - is this a simple revision, or 
harder?


CONSENSUS
any objections to this document? none in the room


- chair preference is to add this text and send it to the IESG
- editors say no problem adding this text
- no last call required


- Allison - document user interested in fax, not other services, not going to 
look at an H.323 document for these sections
- bits are free


A. Discussion of  Jon Peterson's presence document ... (10 m)



http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draf
t-ietf-enum-pres-00.txt


- not a lot of feedback received so far - want more
- adds a pres: URI scheme, resolves to XMPP, SIMPLE, etc. - presence 
protocol-independent
- PSTN telephones still need work (states, location attributions) - 
especially for wireless
- not a lot of changes since initial draft (name change plus 
references update
- James - what is XMPP status now? RFC? still an I-D, but have been 
approved by IESG
- what about press: schema? Also passed IESG, some time back
- move forward to WGLC? any objection? Is this urgently needed? it is 
implemented, will move forward.


CONSENSUS - GO TO LAST CALL


B. A report on the results of the ETSI ENUM Plugtest Workshop (R. 
Stastny  15 M)


- last week, hosted by ETSI, 55 attendees (lower because of 3GPP 
conflicts, etc.)
- presentations available at ETSI website
- spent time on both user ENUM and carrier ENUM
- 14 presentations on user ENUM
- privacy and data security viewed as more critical than regulatory 
issues for ENUM rollout
- no "killer application", but strong focus for VoIP
- 4 presentations on carrier ENUM
- huge number of possible implementations, including MMSC, SMSC, SMPP 
gateway, MSSP, HLR/HSS, ...)
- Verisign presentation focused on registries and registry 
interworking.
- applications/implementations vary more widely than user ENUM
- two Plugfests upcoming, in October and late November/early December
- Plugfests and related workshops are open to anyone, not just ETSI 
members
- www.etsi.org/plugtests for details


C. A report on APRICOT ENUM BoF  (J Seng 10M)


- ENUM/SIP BoF last week
- James focused on TWNIC trials (other participants presenting 
separately)
- regulators have allocated 0944 for trials, but production SIP/ENUM using 
unofficial block(?) of 070
- 802.11b SIP phones for 50 dollars, also being distributed with 
two-year contract commitments to carriers
- 64111 allocated (10,000 numbers), with no telco involvement
- all countries eager to do trials, but ENUMs mean different things to 
different people
- have issues getting e164-arpa to work under delegation - operating under 
ccTLD for now
- forming Asia Pacific ENUM Technical Forum, details by July timeframe
- what are regulator difficulties? vary by country. Helps if you work in the 
same building as regulators. Ongoing discussions with regulators in China 
and Japan.
- Taiwan is a special case (86 not in ITU tables at all)


D. CN-NIC focussing their ENUM trials in China  (15M Sheldon Lee)


- 80M Internet users in China, 260M mobile phones, 255M fixed phones at 
yearend 2003
- trials started in July 2001, 6.8.e164.arpa delegation in September 2002, 
opened for public testing in December 2003, performance testing in 
September 2003
- 3-tier ENUM resolution in China, registration plan studied but not 
completed
- 7741 queries in February 2004 (after spring festival in January)
- 260 users and 520 ENUMs registrations
- ENUM trial platform includes SIP UAs, IP/GSTN gateway, 
ENUM-enabled SIP proxy, only ENUM users can register SIP account
- ENUM server pressure is how to support large number of queries with 
dynamic update
- 94% query responses with 2-second latency when not using caching
- participating in both ITU-T and IETF ENUM, and in several workshops
- promotion of ENUM/SIP in China is big challenge - no Internet phone 
license issued for end users in China
- what service is most beneficial in China? SIP registration, exchange ENUM 
in browser address bar
- finished with SIP call to person in the second row of audience, and to 
China ("hello to IETF")


E. JP-NIC discussing ENUM in Japan
   ETJP(Enum Trial Japan) web page is 
http://etjp.jp/english/ (15M Kazunori Fujiwara)


- 1-year trial activity, started in September 2003
- verify communication and applications technologies, and clarify 
relevant issues
- working groups - Privacy and Security, and DNS
- using +81 numbers
- includes SIP server, SOHO router, DNS, applications


Implementation Experience R. Stastny for Larry Conroy


- 2916bis and DDDS ambiguous - example from NAPTR RR regulart 
expression interpretation, and room was not sure what right answer was
- multiple field delimiter characters are proving troublesome - limit to one 
character?
- Patrik - we have inherited regular expression, and we can't fix it 
ourselves - must fix NAPTR itself - Patrik has action to close this loop
- processing order - SERVICE before ORDER? RFC 3405 seems 
contradictory - answer, process SERVICE before ORDER? but this answer is too 
easy, if we need to choose between services based on preferences - but this 
seems to require FQDN? but that's what we have in ENUM anyway - what about 
privacy aspects of including this stuff in DNS instead of SIP? may have 
overriding preferences - put that in DNS - maybe we shouldn't touch the 
ORDER field - but this is a negotiation between the endpoints and 
shouldn't be prescribed
- does ENUM always return a single rule? multiple contact points, which may 
not all be SIP contact points? e-mail, etc.
- MUST process non-terminal NAPTR? we don't
- is summary 2916bis-compliant?


- Richard - suggests that people who have implementation issues 
collaborate with Larry Conroy on his draft
- we have issues with these RFCs, and fixing them will take time. How to 
move forward? "BCP" for an I-D?
- Patrik would also like to maintain the Conroy draft as experience grows - 
need to document workarounds - this should become a BCP document


CONSENSUS
Combine JPRS work with existing implementation document make this draft a 
working group document


F. Our Korean Hosts KR-NIC will update us on their ENUM trial 
status... <Sungwoo Shin>


- launched public trial October 2003-January 2004, national workshop last 
December, national standards requivalent to RFCs and New Standard 
Development
- see lots of possibilities in Asia-Pacific region (not just Korea)
- ENUM APIs, telephony, DNS, registration
- 60-percent of telephone numbers are mobile - don't distinguish between 
PSTN and mobile numbers
- still developing APIs - ENUM FAX, ENUM H.323, telephony on a website
- service council moving to profit model setup, commercial services
- Korea still waiting for country to sign with ITU - registry problem - 
have been negotiating with goverment for two years
- Tier 1 registry selection is quite important
- not sure why other countries are working on ENUM? effect of ENUM on 
Telecommunication Policy? charm of ENUM, compared to domain names?
- mobile environment important to ENUM deployment
- expect regulations, AAA, business model in 2004, commercial service in 
2005
- Japan shipping H.323 now, with numbering plan assigned to 
commercial service - Japan using special numbers for VoIP calls, and Korea 
expects to do the same thing
- is priority in your service the number to connect? - want to keep up with 
ENUM in real world. Telcos think people would prefer mobile device 
numbers to other device numbers - all this is a hard decision for us
- does Korean government assign special numbers? yes - what is official 
VoIP protocol? H.323, but SIP is good...


G. Plans to close the trial and go commercial in Austria with ENUM and the 
ENUM-only number range (+43780)  (R. Stastny 10-15)


- Austria has proved concept with ENUM trial
- ENUM ready for deployment, so trial is ending
- need legal framework, need official platform (AK-TK)
- ENUM will be a working group within AK-TK regulatory body
- basic issues are solved, but opt-in for residential numbers has 
problems - see Metcalf's law - how do we get users into ENUM?
- ENUM for IP-PBX with direct dial-in
- ENUM-only ranges for IP Communications
- mobile numbers validated via SIM card
- IP communication bigger than VoIP, and other services growing in 
importance.
- no definition of how routing will be done
- punt PSTN-only numbers to PSTN gateways
- pre-paid cards add validation/identification considerations
- adding mms:mailto and mms:sip
- one company in Gernany giving out ENUM numbers commercially now
- interesting "primary goals" slide...


H. ENUM Implementation Redux - Willheim Wimmhitter



http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draf
t-conroy-enum-experiences-01.txt


- case sensitivity (we only use numbers in ENUM, but we still manage to 
break some clients that assume last character is a regexp delimiter) - 
don't use this flag if you can avoid it
- order traversal (as previously described)


I. ENUM WG issues


- could we hibernate? still some implementation experience to capture
- can we get a link to these presentations? Richard will provide this
- no discussion of provisioning issues - OK for trials, but probably not for 
commercial offerings


   1. Status of Privacy-Security and other drafts still in the pipeline