420 likes | 574 Views
U.S. ENUM Implementation. ENUM Forum. Scope. Specifications Document Tier 1 Contracting Entity Options Tier 1 Structure Alternatives. ENUM Forum Specifications. Reference Architecture Tier 1 Registry Operations, Security, & Admin Tier 1 Performance Specifications Privacy Considerations
E N D
U.S. ENUM Implementation ENUM Forum
Scope • Specifications Document • Tier 1 Contracting Entity Options • Tier 1 Structure Alternatives
ENUM Forum Specifications • Reference Architecture • Tier 1 Registry Operations, Security, & Admin • Tier 1 Performance Specifications • Privacy Considerations • Provisioning • Registrar Requirements • Authentication & Authorization • Tier 2 Guidelines • Conflict Resolution • Issues Out of Scope
Reference Architecture Root Tier 0 Tier 1 Registry Registrant Registrar Tier 2 Provider
Reference Architecture • Registrar • Registrant • Registry • Tier 1 Registry • Tier 2 Service Provider • Interfaces • Tier 2 contains the NAPTR records or delegations • Does not address non geographic numbers • Issue: • One or More Tier 1 Providers • Delegation at Tier 0 by NPA
Tier 1 Operations • Shared Registration System (SRS) • Registry Database • Zone Information (aka zone files) • ContactInfo (aka WhoIs) • Reporting, backup, escrow & performance requirements • Security
Tier 1 Security • DNS • TSIG, DNSSec • Protocol • Physical • Network • Backup • Auditing and Reporting
Tier 1 Administrative Aspects • Registry • Contracting Entity • Registrar • Tier 0 Interaction • US Government • Dispute Resolution • Data Collection and Privacy
Tier 1 Performance Aspects • DNS Performance • Availability • Update • Performance • EPP Interfaces
Privacy Considerations • Registrant Choice • Privacy Analysis • Open Disclosure of Registrant Information in DNS • Information Handling During Registration and Provisioning • ContactInfo • Fair Information Practices
Provisioning Authentication & Validation Entities Tier 1 Registry Registrant Registrar Tier 2 Nameserver Application Service Provider
Registrar Requirements • Registrant Validation & Authentication • Dispute Resolution • Registrar Infrastructure Requirements • Interactions of the parties • Parties Requiring A & A • Recommended Practices & Requirements • Information Flows Requiring A&A • Various Scenarios
Authorization and Authentication • Parties Requiring A & A • Recommended Practices & Requirements • Information Flows Requiring A&A • Various Scenarios
Tier 2 • Guidelines – NOT Requirements • Tier 2 may be self provided or from a commercial 3rd party • Interfaces & Interactions • Performance Recommendations
Conflict Resolution Process • General Principals • Process • Initiation • Identification • Timeframe • Transfers • Remedies • Fees
Timeline • Feb 2003 – Baseline Specification released • Meetings through 2003 • Dec 2003 – Release of ‘Tier 1 Contracting Entity and Architectural Alternatives’ a.k.a. 6001_1
Tier 1 Contracting Entity • Desired Attributes: • Short implementation timeframe • Light Government Oversight • Encourage Competition • Open Standards • Intellectual Property is owned by the contracting entity • Minimize procurement and operation cost
Tier 1 Contracting Entity • Concerns: • Preserve National Sovereignty • Support Competition • Promote Innovation • Protect User’s Security and Privacy • Minimize Regulation • Preserve Opportunity for Alternative Deployments • Allow Interoperability • Preserve Stability and Security
Tier 1 Contracting Entity • Contracting Considerations: • US Government interaction with Tier 0 • Actual procurement process • Ownership of the intellectual property • Compliance oversight • Operational integrity • Policy development for procurement and ongoing operations
Tier 1 Contracting Entity – Alternatives Considered • Government Procurement • Industry Limited Liability Company
Option 1 – Government Procurement • Government Procurement through Simplified FAR • Accepted and understood • Precedent - .us • Can it provide the desired attributes? • Short timeframe - Unclear • Light government oversight - Unclear • Low cost - Unclear, but at least similar to .us • Competition encouraged - Yes • Intellectual property - Easily retained by USG • Open standards & best practices - Yes
Option 1 – Government Procurement - Advantages • Little or no industry cost • Anti-trust protection • Contract liability protection • Well defined and understood process
Option 1 – Government Procurement – Disadvantages • Unclear Statutory Authority • Agency Lead Unclear • Not Currently Funded • High Complexity and / or cost • Difficult to Coordinate with Industry • USG Prefers light touch with new / emerging technologies • Multinational coordination with other NANP countries is required if single or skinny Tier 1 selected
Option 2 – Industry LLC • Industry LLC • Separate and distinct legal entity • Responsible for • RFP creation, issuance, and evaluation • Contract negotiation & execution • Vendor oversight and change management • Systems and data changes • Emerging issues management
Option 2 – Industry LLC • Industry LLC • Attributes • Liability protection for members • Designated and recognized contracting entity • Level forum for joint venture for competitors • Unregulated yet authorized to conform to regulatory directives • Easy Access for new entrants • Not For Profit • Government may choose oversight role • Active • Tacit • Allows involvement of other NANP countries
Option 2 – Industry LLC • Advantages • Expect good reception from USG • Quick implementation possible • Limits industry liability • Good precedent (LNP) • Ability to insure fairness and unbiased oversight • Contractual authority with all qualified vendors • Can issue RFP, award a contract • Can designate equal terms for participants who use services from selected vendor • Operates in an open environment • Non Aligned with any market segment • May represent any of the NANP countries • Government coordination may be through the LLC or industry consortium
Option 2 – Industry LLC • Disadvantages • Members responsible for initial funding and operational costs • Fewer members, larger individual burden • Requires independent legal assistance • Initial membership operating agreements • Ongoing advice • May have issues establishing industry payment / cost recovery mechanisms
Option 2 – Industry LLC • Can an industry LLC provide the desired attributes? • Short Timeframe - Yes • Light Government Oversight - Yes • Low Cost - Yes • Competition Encouraged - Yes • Intellectual Property - Yes • Open Standards & Best Practices - Yes
Tier 1 Architecture • Two issues • Scope of Tier 1 • Tier 0 Delegation Alternatives
Tier 1 Architecture • Scope of Tier 1 • US Numbers registered in single Tier 1 for all of NANP • US numbers registered in single Tier 1 for US • US numbers registered in multiple Tier 1s for sets of NPAs • Tier 0 Delegation Alternatives • Delegation of 1+NPA • Delegation of all of country code 1
Tier 1 Architecture • Five Possible Solutions: • Single Tier 1 for all NANP countries • Single Tier 1 in US • With delegation from Tier 0 by 1+NPA • With delegation from Skinny Tier 1 • Multiple Tier 1 operators in US • With delegation from Tier 0 by 1+NPA • With delegation from Skinny Tier 1
Single Tier 1 for NANP Countries • Assumes: • All of country code 1 is delegated to a single Tier 1 • All participating NANP countries can/will form a single contracting entity Tier 0 NANP Tier 1 Tier 2
Single Tier 1 for NANP Countries • Advantages • Only country code 1 need be added to Tier 0 • Only one representative for NANP countries needs to deal with tier 0 • Registrars that do business in more than one NANP country only need to be certified once • Registrar interfaces with single Tier 1 for many NANP countries • May simplify non geographic number inclusion • Disadvantages • All 19 NANP countries need to agree/acquiesce on Tier 1 entity operation • All NANP countries must agree/acquiesce to selection of Tier 1 entity • Restricts business opportunity to single entity at tier 1 level • Creates risk of relying on single business entity Tier 0 Country Code 1 Tier 1 Tier 2
Tier 0 Delegation by 1+NPA US Tier 1 Tier 2 Single Tier 1 for US • Requires either delegation from Tier 0 by 1+NPA or Skinny Tier 1 Tier 0 Delegation of country code 1 Skinny Tier 1 Delegation by NPA US Tier 1 Tier 2
Single Tier 1 for US – Delegation of US 1+NPAs from Tier 0 • Advantages • No distribution of US NPAs required between multiple US Tier 1 entities • US can participate in global ENUM without agreement or coordination of other NANP countries • No negotiation required on loading US NPAs into Tier 0 • Disadvantages • All NPAs from the US must be entered into tier 0 • Restricts business opportunity to single entity at tier 1 level • Does not resolve non geographic number inclusion • Creates risk of relying on single business entity Tier 0 Delegation by 1+NPA US Tier 1 Tier 2
Single Tier 1 for US – Delegation from within a skinny tier 1 • Advantages • No distribution of US NPAs required between multiple US Tier 1 entities • Only Country code 1 must be loaded into Tier 0 • Only one representative for NANP countries needs to deal with tier 0 • Individual NANP countries deal with a single tier 1 provider • MAY simplify inclusion of non geographic numbers by placing them directly in skinny tier 1 • Disadvantages • Restricts business opportunity to single entity at skinny tier 1 level and at the US tier 1 level • Creates risk of relying on single business entity at skinny tier 1 and US Tier 1 levels • Does not resolve non geographic number inclusion in ENUM • All NANP countries must agree/acquiesce on using a skinny tier 1 operator • All NANP countries must agree/acquiesce on selection of skinny tier1 entity Tier 0 Skinny Tier 1 Delegation by NPA US Tier 1 Tier 2
Multiple Tier 1 Operators in the US • Assumes: • US 1+NPAs are delegated to multiple tier 1 entities from Tier 0 • OR • All of country code 1 is delegated to a single skinny Tier 1 Tier 0 Tier 0 Delegation of country code 1 Skinny Tier 1 Delegation by 1+NPA Delegation by NPA US Tier 1s US Tier 1s Tier 2 Tier 2
Multiple Tier-1 Operators in the US Direct delegation from Tier 0 • Advantages • Promotes multiple business opportunities in the tier 1 registry • US can participate in global ENUM without agreement from other NANP countries • No negotiation needed to load US 1+NPAs into Tier 0. • Only one representative for NANP countries needs to deal with tier 0 • Reduces risk of relying on single business entity for Tier 1 • Disadvantages • 1+NPAs need to be distributed among Tier 1 providers • 1+NPAs for US would need to be entered into Tier 0 • Introduces additional operational and administrative interfaces for Registrars and Tier 2 operators • Does not resolve non geographic number inclusion in ENUM Tier 0 Delegation by 1+NPA US Tier 1s Tier 2
Multiple Tier-1 Operators in the US Direct delegation from skinny Tier 1 • Advantages • Only Country code 1 must be loaded into Tier 0 • Only one representative from NANP countries needs to deal with Tier 0 • Individual NANP countries deal with a single skinny Tier 1 provider • MAY simplify inclusion of non geographic numbers by placing them directly in skinny tier 1 • Promotes multiple business opportunities in Tier 1 Registry • Disadvantages • NPAs need to be distributed among Tier 1 providers • Restricts business opportunity to single entity at skinny tier 1 level • Creates risk of relying on single business entity at skinny tier 1 • Does not resolve issues regarding non geographic number inclusion in ENUM • All NANP countries must agree/acquiesce on using a skinny tier 1 operator • All NANP countries must agree/acquiesce on selection of skinny tier1 entity • Introduces additional operational and administrative interfaces for Registrars and Tier 2 operators
Summary • Endorsement of support for LLC • No consensus on architectural alternatives • Any solution which involves the delegation of country code 1 from Tier 0 will require agreement from all 19 NANP countries • Delegation of US NPAs from Tier 0 may require negotiation with Tier 0 • How many registries should operate for those 1+NPAs in the US?
Status • The ENUM Forum met with NTIA and the FCC on Jan 21 • Supports the development of and industry LLC • Did not express a preference for either a single or multiple Tier 1 approach • Believes that decisions are best left to industry as long as the conditions and principals stated in the February 2003 letter are upheld • US Government in the process of contacting other countries in the NANP to determine if a consensus opinion can be reached • US Industry is in the process of establishing an LLC to initiative the Tier 1 procurement process
Contacts • ENUM Forum Chair Gary Richenaker Telcordia Technologies Tel: 732 699 3264 grichena@telcordia.com • ENUM Forum Vice Chair Steve Lind AT&T Tel: 973-236-6787 sdlind@att.com • ENUM External Communications Group Chair Bob Bownes Seiri Tel: 518-727-6532 bownes@seiri.com