February 8th, 2002 ITU ENUM Tutorial

1
February 8th, 2002ITU ENUM Tutorial

Cooperative work in France on ENUM implementation
Stanislas Bourgain Autorité de régulation des
télécommunications Unité Internet Service
Interconnexion et Nouvelles technologies
2
Cooperative work in France on ENUM

• A public consultation was performed in June 2001
• to inform actors, to identify main issues, to
  draw up possible answers, how could France
  participate?
• contributions from a great diversity of actors
  telephone service providers, ISPs, Internet
  registries and registrars, equipment
  manufacturers, associations, research bodies,
  consulting firms
• a strong consensus on several requirements for
  implementation
• An adhoc working group is pursuing cooperative
  work on ENUM implementation
• potential applications and uses of ENUM services
• work on various implementation models at Tier 2
• test bed, trial
• The adhoc group has a consultative role for the
  contributions of France to ITU SG2 or ETSI SPAN
  11

3
General considerations

• An ENUM domain name is strongly linked to a E.164
  telephone number as
• an ENUM domain name is built on a resource
  already assigned, used to provide services and
  strictly regulated for years
• an ENUM domain name is just another way of
  representing a E.164 number to be used as a key
  identifier in an IP network
• more entities are going to be involved in the
  management of an ENUM domain name than in the
  management of names in  .com ,  .fr ,...
• Numbering questions are crucial for the
  competitive situation towards end users and for
  consumer protection thats why numbering is
  managed by neutral organizations with objective
  and non discriminatory rules for assignment

4
Recommendations

• E.164 numbering plan integrity should be
  maintained
• The ENUM subscriber must be the assignee of an
  E164 number
• Delegation of ENUM domains should strictly follow
  at each level procedures for assignment of E.164
  numbers
• ITU-T should be designated in a written document,
  agreed with Internet governance bodies, as the
  administrative responsible organisation of the
  Tier 0 domain
• Implementation procedures must take due account
  of different format,method of management of E164
  numbering plans, obligations imposed to operators
  by regulation on numbering
• The same confidence in ENUM domain names should
  be assured as the confidence in E.164 numbers

5
Recommendations

• Insertion of E.164 numbers within the ENUM DNS
  tree should be the result of an Opt-in scheme
  at each level
• Insertion of numbers in ENUM should occur in
  manner that is in full compliance with all
  relevant national regulatory requirements
• Procedures for delegation at Tier 0 should be
  rapidly completed in a recognized written
  document
• The choice of the TLD is not the main debate
  e164.arpa is fine provided ITU-T has the
  responsibility of its management
• Tier 0 Registry should be chosen on an open
  procedure by ITU
• ? No agreement on e164.arpa if ITU-T is not
  recognized as the domain manager

6
Recommendations

• A competitive situation between ENUM-based ASP
  should be maintained and depends on the Tier 2
  implementation model
• as links between a Tier 2 entity and an ASP will
  occur, the risk has been identified that the
  first ASP would be the only one able to provide
  ENUM-based services
• This question occurs whatever the Tier 2 will be
• Tier 2 implementation need careful study

7
Implementation at Tier 1 et Tier 2

• Implementation at Tier 1 and Tier 2 are national
  matter
• Efforts to create an harmonised framework for
  implementation are welcomed and encouraged
• Basic requirements should be agreed upon
• But no implementation model should preclude the
  choice for a Member State to determine the rules
  for administration issues at Tier 1 and Tier 2,
  between several proposed options
• No final decision in France, with regard to the
  concerns above
• Testbed may be useful to validate models France
  has called for trial projects

8
Tier 2 implementation

• Two main concerns should be kept in mind
• coherence with the numbering plan and its
  management rules
• competitive situation between ASPs and prevention
  of customer lock-in
• To promote competition between Tier 2 registrars
  doesnt address enough these concerns
• a proper validation mechanism involving the TSP
  is needed
• how to deal with Tier 2 registrars based outside
  the scope of national/european regulation ?
• more urgently, the way to ensure a competitive
  environment between ASPs should be found
• the end user should be able to choose its ASPs
  independently of its Tier 2 registrar
• The risk has been identified that the first
  chosen ASP will be the only one able to provide
  ENUM services and that the end used will be
  locked-in in the first Tier 2 registrar

9
Conclusion

• A lot of issues have still no answer or should be
  precisely defined
• Understand the status of RFC 2916 document
• Reach a written agreement about domain
  responsibilities and procedures at the
  international level
• Study carefully Tier 2 implementation models and
  the need for their regulation