Re: [dispatch] VIPR - proposed charter version 3

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



-----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-bounces@xxxxxxxx [mailto:dispatch-bounces@xxxxxxxx] 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.barnes@xxxxxxxxx] 
>> 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) 
>> <dromasca@xxxxxxxxx> 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: marc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Professional email: petithug@xxxxxxx
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@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf


[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]