1. 19 March 2007ed.lewis@neustar.biz1 E.212 ENUMService Type Definition E.212 Parameters for the "tel" URI Edward Lewis NeuStar IETF 68 ENUM WG meeting

2. 19 March 2007ed.lewis@neustar.biz2 Back-to-Back Items draft-lewis-enum-enumservice-e212- 00.txt –To register "E2U+E212" as enumservice –Indicates NAPTR has ITU E.212 infomation draft-lewis-enum-teluri-e212-00.txt –To define parameters in tel: for E.212

3. 19 March 2007ed.lewis@neustar.biz3 Plans for the two Go over comments received so far, get more while here Edit the documents in the coming week(s) post IETF68 Submit again as directed (WG or not)

4. 19 March 2007ed.lewis@neustar.biz4 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

5. 19 March 2007ed.lewis@neustar.biz5 A diagram MCCMNCMSIN IMSI MCC - 3 digits MNC - 2 or 3 digits MSIN - up to 10 digits IMSI - up to 15 digits

6. 19 March 2007ed.lewis@neustar.biz6 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 that is the "payload"

7. 19 March 2007ed.lewis@neustar.biz7 draft-lewis-enum- enumservice-e212-00.txt First, it's a -00 individual, happy to make it a WG document Fills in an ENUM service "application" E2U+E212 means the NAPTR RR has a tel: URI (with extensions in the other draft)

8. 19 March 2007ed.lewis@neustar.biz8 Comments on that one Would like a good use case –Fair enough, the draft is minimal and am happy to add that. Still in the process of writing it. Is it worth getting a non-SIP ENUM extension defined? –Suggestion to use an experimental (x-) but really want a "real" definition See next slide.

9. 19 March 2007ed.lewis@neustar.biz9 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

10. 19 March 2007ed.lewis@neustar.biz10 More comments What about "aux-info:e212"? –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

11. 19 March 2007ed.lewis@neustar.biz11 First doc question to WG Should this be adopted as WG item? –What is missing from the application and supporting document? Sub-note: I couldn't find a reliable "how to" to follow when submitting these drafts, so I "undercut" the submission draft-ietf-enum-enumservices-guide-03.txt

12. 19 March 2007ed.lewis@neustar.biz12 draft-lewis-enum-teluri-e212- 00.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)

13. 19 March 2007ed.lewis@neustar.biz13 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

14. 19 March 2007ed.lewis@neustar.biz14 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

15. 19 March 2007ed.lewis@neustar.biz15 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.)

16. 19 March 2007ed.lewis@neustar.biz16 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

17. 19 March 2007ed.lewis@neustar.biz17 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

18. 19 March 2007ed.lewis@neustar.biz18 Second doc questions Should this be an ENUM WG doc or go ask IPTEL WG to adopt this?

19. 19 March 2007ed.lewis@neustar.biz19 Well, I'm out of slides Discussion?

20. 19 March 2007ed.lewis@neustar.biz20