-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 07/03/2010 11:33 AM, Richard Shockey wrote: > A we already have centralized solutions for interdomain routing based on > E.164. its called ENUM in both its private and public instantiations. It > works pretty well BTW and globally deployed.
$ host -t NAPTR 7.8.2.4.9.2.3.8.0.4.1.e164.arpa. Host 7.8.2.4.9.2.3.8.0.4.1.e164.arpa. not found: 3(NXDOMAIN) Until this request succeeds, I am supporting the creation of the ViPR WG. > > IMHO this charter is a non starter and should not be approved on the basis > of this statement alone. > > "finding domains that claim to be responsible for a given phone number" > > This IMHO is flat out impossible. Validating or authenticating an entity > that is "responsible for a phone number" is as bad as " who is the carrier > of record" , is a massive rathole. Cullen and Johathan should know better. > Certs? LNP ? > > We have this problem of E.164 validation all the time in SIP and its not > going to be solved in the IETF. > > -----Original Message----- > From: dispatch-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:dispatch-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf > Of Romascanu, Dan (Dan) > Sent: Wednesday, June 30, 2010 11:33 AM > To: Mary Barnes > Cc: DISPATCH; IETF-Discussion list > Subject: Re: [dispatch] VIPR - proposed charter version 3 > > It looks to me that one can imagine 'centralized' solutions which are > also based on reusing SIP related functionality developed in RAI. I > would rather not close such an option and allow the WG a window of > opportunity in which alternate solutions that could meet the same goals > can be presented. > > Dan > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Mary Barnes [mailto:mary.ietf.bar...@gmail.com] >> Sent: Wednesday, June 30, 2010 6:24 PM >> To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan) >> Cc: DISPATCH; IETF-Discussion list >> Subject: Re: [dispatch] VIPR - proposed charter version 3 >> >> Hi Dan, >> >> The term peer to peer is intended to exclude mechanisms that >> would use a central repository for the information: This was >> discussed in an earlier thread: >> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dispatch/current/msg02027.html >> >> In one sense it is a solution, however, in another sense it >> is reusing SIP related functionality defined in RAI and thus >> is in a similar vein as specifying the use of SIP in a charter. >> >> Thanks, >> Mary. >> >> On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 5:42 AM, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) >> <droma...@avaya.com> wrote: >>>> The VIPR WG will address this problem by developing a peer to peer >>>> based approach to finding domains that claim to be >> responsible for a >>>> given phone number and validation protocols to ensure a reasonable >>>> likelihood that a given domain actually is responsible for >> the phone >>>> number. >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> Clarification question. What exactly means 'peer to peer >> based approach' >>> and what kind of approaches are excluded by having this in >> the charter. >>> Does 'approach' mean solution? If so why does a specific type of >>> solution need to be agreed in the charter, while all we >> have at hand >>> at this point are individual contribution I-Ds that describe the >>> 'problem statement and some possible starting points for solutions'? >>> >>> Thanks and Regards, >>> >>> Dan >>> - -- Marc Petit-Huguenin Personal email: m...@petit-huguenin.org Professional email: petit...@acm.org Blog: http://blog.marc.petit-huguenin.org -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAkwvn94ACgkQ9RoMZyVa61dAtwCgj2cDYsio0KOLKt7ZNj8Y7UA4 2Y4AnA1IQwRvzhbuePxXU2XYh9v8DSyh =cUj9 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
