Re: Need for working ENUM [was Re: Welcome! ]

[Paul Vixie <paul@vix.com>]

> On the single number applications, I believe e164.org use a 'callback'
> authentication system, i.e. if you can be reached on that number then you
> are assumed to be the owner.

that way lies madness.

> Just to reaffirm my comments above, I think that control /
> identification / authentication is so important, ...  in reality a
> telephone number 'locator' service is only useful if the level of
> trust in the database is high enough. Certainly as a telco, we would
> not want to route calls via any system if we had any doubt that the
> calls might go to the right subscriber.

i suspect that seeing "system is down for maintainance, try again later"
might shake your confidence (which is what www.e164.org is telling me.)

just to reaffirm isc's capabilities in this area, it's my strong belief
that an isc-branded "e164 root" would have high perceived trust... which
is one of the reasons it's important that we only launch it if doing so
is a non-controversial act.

> ... what I was getting at was that for 'block' rules there should be
> no fixed size, anyone, whether telco or subscriber should be able to
> obtain control for any number block *if they can prove* that they have
> a right to it.

agreed.  in my case i have a phone bill that shows me paying for a 100-wide
DID block, and i'd expect a copy of this to be sufficient proof to get a
couple of NS RRs added.  (not that i expect the awardee of "+1" to enter
any NS RRs into that zone for me, at any price.)

--
To unsubscribe send a message to voip-peering-request@psg.com with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
An archive is at <http://psg.com/lists/voip-peering/>.