E 212 ENUMService Type Definition E 212 Parameters

E. 212 ENUMService Type Definition E. 212 Parameters for the "tel" URI Edward Lewis Neu. Star IETF 68 ENUM WG meeting 19 March 2007 ed. lewis@neustar. biz 1

Back-to-Back Items • draft-lewis-enumservice-e 21200. txt – To register "E 2 U+E 212" as enumservice – Indicates NAPTR has ITU E. 212 infomation • draft-lewis-enum-teluri-e 212 -00. txt – To define parameters in tel: for E. 212 19 March 2007 ed. lewis@neustar. biz 2

Plans for the two • Go over comments received so far, get more while here • Edit the documents in the coming week(s) post IETF 68 • Submit again as directed (WG or not) 19 March 2007 ed. lewis@neustar. biz 3

E. 212 for IETF'ers • E. 212 is an ITU document/standard defining meta-data for a mobile-phone telephone number – MCC (Mobile Country Code) – MNC (Mobile Network Code) – MSIN (Mobile Subscriber Identification #) – IMSI (International Mobile Subscriber Identity) - the concatenation of the other 3 19 March 2007 ed. lewis@neustar. biz 4

A diagram MCC MNC MSIN IMSI MCC - 3 digits MNC - 2 or 3 digits MSIN - up to 10 digits IMSI - up to 15 digits 19 March 2007 ed. lewis@neustar. biz 5

Why IETF documents? • This is about ENUM – Wanting to store the ITU-defined parameters in ENUM – This isn't so much about E. 212, 'cept that is the "payload" 19 March 2007 ed. lewis@neustar. biz 6

draft-lewis-enumservice -e 212 -00. txt • First, it's a -00 individual, happy to make it a WG document • Fills in an ENUM service "application" • E 2 U+E 212 means the NAPTR RR has a tel: URI (with extensions in the other draft) 19 March 2007 ed. lewis@neustar. biz 7

Comments on that one • Would like a good use case . – Fair enough, the draft is minimal and am e d i l s t x Still in the process of happy to add that. e n writing it. See • Is it worth getting a non-SIP ENUM extension defined? – Suggestion to use an experimental (x-) but really want a "real" definition 19 March 2007 ed. lewis@neustar. biz 8

Use case • With number porting, can't tell the carrier by the number alone – Knowing the receiving operator of a call could impact business decisions • In Softswitch draft ". . . interconnection only with trusted carriers" – For IM knowing the MCC+MNC can determine the receiving server name 19 March 2007 ed. lewis@neustar. biz 9

More comments • What about "aux-info: e 212"? – Although workable, a few reservations • We/WG don't have other "aux-info's" in mind, I don't like to generalize from a single case • E. 212 is subjectively significant enough to stand on its own, and is reliant on an external (ITU) definition • Linking in other (unknown) types would likely slow this process 19 March 2007 ed. lewis@neustar. biz 10

First doc question to WG • Should this be adopted as WG item? – What is missing from the application and supporting document? t x t. 3 0 e d i • Sub-note: I couldn't find a reliable "how u g s e c i v r to" to follow when submitting these se m u n e m drafts, tfso n. Iu"undercut" the submission e e i t f a dr 19 March 2007 ed. lewis@neustar. biz 11

draft-lewis-enum-teluri-e 21200. txt • This document defines parameters for the tel: URI to hold the E. 212 data – In the spirit of RFC 4694, but for different data • Four parameters are defined, as per earlier slide (MCC, MNC, MSIN, IMSI) 19 March 2007 ed. lewis@neustar. biz 12

My goal • I am interested in retrieving the MCC and MNC for a telephone number via ENUM • The draft includes MSIN and IMSI parameters for completeness 19 March 2007 ed. lewis@neustar. biz 13

Comments • This draft ought to go to IPTEL – No response to that yet from me • What's E. 212? – Should this draft explain it or just refer to the ITU document (now freely available)? – When I prepared the draft, I went for not including an explanation but can be convinced otherwise 19 March 2007 ed. lewis@neustar. biz 14

More comments • Need an illustrative use case – Working on that, went for brevity in the -00 • The ABNF is wrong – A few pointed this out, you are all right, I'll fix that • The URI is wrong – Sorry - sigh, I wrote the draft on an airplane and it shows ; ) (Goes for the ABNF too. ) 19 March 2007 ed. lewis@neustar. biz 15

Yet more comments • MCC+MNC xor IMSI? – Should the syntax require either both MCC and MNC be present or the IMSI be present? – My response is - that's the probable use case, but does this have to be encoded in the syntax rules? I prefer to let the syntax be freer than the use 19 March 2007 ed. lewis@neustar. biz 16

And more comments. . . • Isn't it unwise to have the IMSI, MSIN, and maybe even the MCC and MNC in a public database? – I'd agree with that, but the drafts are just providing a means to put this in ENUM and not saying that the data would be public – Not all DNS servers are on public networks 19 March 2007 ed. lewis@neustar. biz 17

Second doc questions • Should this be an ENUM WG doc or go ask IPTEL WG to adopt this? 19 March 2007 ed. lewis@neustar. biz 18

Well, I'm out of slides • Discussion? 19 March 2007 ed. lewis@neustar. biz 19

19 March 2007 ed. lewis@neustar. biz 20