> >> whether there is *one* system for tying to ownership, or two. > > > > Well just as a small side bar here ... by International Treaty > ...yes our > > friends in Geneva, no one "owns" phone numbers. The governance of > E.164 > > phone numbers are strictly nation state matters. So anything that > touches > > the namespace gets to be vetted by each and every country. See the > IAB-ITU > > agreements on e164.arpa for instance. > > > > You are starting from a fallacy aka "ownership" already and fast > going > > downhill. "Right to usage" is even more a slippery slope...been > there done > > that. :-) > > I haven't been involved in the space like you have. I realize that > "ownership" iss probably too strong a word. Pick whatever word you > like. > Some entity is entitled to have a phone associated with a particular > number, and other entities are not entitled to have phones associated > with that same number. Whatever you want to call that is ok with me.
That is the problem .. first you have the service provider of record that actually issued the number under the authority of a nation state then the entity that actually uses that number (consumer or enterprise) all of this is complicated by the issue of Local Number Portability, of course and lastly the fact that the number could be used by multiple applications, delivered by different application service providers etc. > > When the feds show up with the warrant, what does the SP tell them? > That is what defines it. Ah if it were only that simple :-) Well that's when you get into the real fun of the fact that numbers could be issued by a wholesale service provider to a downstream application provider so the carrier of record in many nation states is not the entity providing the service ..aka Vonage and Level3 for instance. This is a problem that is vexing our friends in the LEA's even as we speak. The numbering databases do not completely reflect the reality of service deployments. > > In those places where public enum is supported, some entity is > entitled > to give instructions on how it shall be populated for a given number. > What do you call that entity? > > Thanks, > Paul > > >> In this case it doesn't require that dns entries in the e164.ansi > tree > >> be populated. Rather it requires that some CAs support the legal > >> framework for assigning certs, based on the same definitions of > >> ownership. > >> > >> It isn't essential that the certs be distributed to the end users > >> owning the numbers. A SP could act as an agent for the user in > managing > > the > >> cert and doing the signing. (But an end user who wants to sign his > own > >> requests should be able to get the cert.) > > > > > > _______________________________________________ Sip mailing list http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol Use [EMAIL PROTECTED] for questions on current sip Use [EMAIL PROTECTED] for new developments on the application of sip
