To: the authors of
RFC 3761bis (sob <at> harvard.edu, lconroy <at> insensate.co.uk and fujiwara <at> jprs.co.jp)
cc: mailinglist IETF
ENUM WG (enum <at> ietf.org) and mailinglist ITU-T
SG2 Q1/2 (tsg2q1 <at> ties.itu.int)
I would like to provide a comment on the draft version of
RFC3761bis (draft-ietf-enum-3761bis-02.txt) sent out 2008-02-14 via Internet-Drafts <at> ietf.org. I can not
attend the IETF meeting next week (71 st IETF in the USA) but hope that this
comment anyway can be resloved.
My concern is that the text from RFC 3761 under IANA
Consideration about delegation of domains on country level and the relationship
between IAB and ITU TSB (and indirect with the RIPE NCC) is missing. All this
text, that I think is important, is now deleted in the draft version of RFC
3761bis. Similar kind of text could not be found in the referenced document in
clause 6 [SV_GUIDE] (draft-ietf-enum-enumservices-guide-07) of RFC 3761bis.
The missing text of importance is reproduced below taken
from RFC 3761:
”5. IANA Considerations
RFC 2916 (which this document
replaces) requested IANA to delegate
the E164.ARPA domain following
instructions to be provided by the
IAB. The domain was delegated
according to those instructions.
Names within this zone are to be
delegated to parties according to
the ITU-T Recommendation E.164.
The names allocated should be
hierarchic in accordance with
ITU-T Recommendation E.164, and the
codes should be assigned in
accordance with that Recommendation.
IAB is to coordinate with ITU-T
TSB if the technical contact for the
domain e164.arpa is to change,
as ITU-T TSB has an operational
working relationship with this
technical contact which needs to be
Delegations in the zone
e164.arpa (not delegations in delegated
domains of e164.arpa) should be
done after Expert Review, and the
IESG will appoint a designated
I think it´s important to have this kind of statement in
RFC 3761bis. If not I think procedures in the IAB instructions (http://www.ripe.net/enum/instructions.html)
to RIPE NCC have to be revised and also the ITU Interim procedures (http://www.itu.int/ITU-T/inr/enum/procedures.html)
for ENUM delegations.
If this text not will be re-entered I also think that RFC
3761bis will in some part obsoletes RFC 3245 (The
History and Context of Telephone Number Mapping (ENUM) Operational Decisions:
Informational Documents Contributed to ITU-T Study Group 2 (SG2)).
Besides my more important comment above I also have some
minor comments on draft RFC 3761bis but I might provide them at a later stage.
Swedish Post and Telecom Agency, PTS
Network Security Department
Security and Addressing
Phone: +46 8 678 55 69
Mobile: +46 70 811 40 64
joakim.stralmark <at> pts.se