Get documents about "CSCN Minutes
Document Sample
-1-
*** DRAFT ***
February 7, 2006
CSCN Conference Call
Telephone Number Mapping (tElephone NUmber Mapping (ENUM))
Participants: Doug Birdwise – Bell Canada
Laurie Bowie – Bell Canada
Jacques Poddar – Rogers Wireless
Frank Norman – TELUS
Marcel Champagne - NeuStar
Chris Liu – Rogers Cable
Bill Mason - CRTC
Deirdre Massiah-Gomes – TELUS Mobility
Tim Denton – CIRA
Brian Smith – Bell Canada
Theirry Husson – Industry Canada
Peter Lang – Rogers Telecom
Terrence Wong – TELUS Mobility
Suresh Khare – SAIC Canada (CNA)
Glenn Pilley – SAIC Canada (CNA)
Fiona Clegg – SAIC Canada (CNA)
Conference Bridge: Gloria Edgar – SaskTel
Jean-Marc D'Aoust – Cogeco Cable
Andy Gallant - AG Design, LLC
John Lange – Canadian Association of Voice Over IP Providers
Welcome:
The Chair of the CSCN welcomed the attendees.
It was noted that no formal agenda had been distributed to the CSCN ENUM
participants' list.
Agenda:
During the January 31, 2006 TIF 53 conference call it was suggested that the agenda for
today's meeting of the CSCN on ENUM include the following items:
1. The Canadian ENUM trial framework
2. Outstanding contributions to the CSCN
a) Xit Telecom's contribution re: structure
b) Response from CIRA re: Xit Telecom's contribution
c) Union des Consommateurs contribution
3. Discussion of ENUM LLC Tier 1 A and B Requirements Documents
4. Discussion of Carrier ENUM
-2-
5. Liaison with Emergency Services Working Group and Network Working Group
re: DNS-based directories for emergency services and routing purposes (e.g.,
LNP)
Review of January 31, 2006 Action Items:
Action Items:
1) The CSCN Secretary sent the final version of the January 11, 2005 CSCN TIF 53
(ENUM) minutes to the CRTC CISC CSCN website for posting on
February 1, 2006.
2) On January 11, 2006, after the CSCN TIF 53 (ENUM) conference call,
Doug Birdwise issued the revised ENUM Framework Document for Canada and
indicated that Figure 2 could not be updated at that time. It was noted that the
diagram should be changed to show Canadian Tier 1B rather than a U.S. Tier 1B.
3) On January 31, 2006 Andy Gallant sent a working copy of the PowerPoint files that
comprise the two figures (ENUM Functional Architecture and Components of a
Platform for ENUM Trials) that appear in the ENUM Forum Working Document
"Framework Document for a US/CC1 ENUM Trials Program".
4) Contributions are requested on the following:
a. Descriptions of the consortium company approach and how it would be
operated, funded and governed.
b. Descriptions of the stakeholder-based organization approach and how it
would be operated, funded and governed.
c. Additional information required for completion of the ENUM Q&A draft.
(These areas have been highlighted in the document text.)
d. Information regarding "carrier" or "infrastructure" ENUM.
e. Information to complete the Canadian ENUM trial framework and the
terms and conditions that should be required for participants.
f. Numbering resources to be used during the trial.
g. Authentication agency role and volunteer during trial.
h. Creation and approval of a Memorandum of Understanding for trial
participants.
Points Noted:
Frank Norman volunteered to update Figure 2 (Components of a Platform for ENUM
Trials) in the ENUM Framework Document for Canada.
It was noted that no contributions have been received by the Co-chairs or the Secretary
since the past conference call.
Discussion:
The CSCN Chair suggested that the meeting participants take stock of the outstanding
activities and issues that remain to be addressed by the CSCN regarding the Canadian
ENUM discussions to date. The following items were identified:
-3-
1) The Canadian ENUM trial framework requires a review
2) Outstanding Contributions
a. The Governance of a Canadian ENUM system, submitted by Jean
Sebastien, Union des Consommateurs, on November 23, 2005.
It was noted that Jean Sebastien is not in attendance to present his contribution,
and therefore this contribution will be postponed for consideration at a future
date.
b. Xit Telecom contribution showing changes to the "Framework Document
for Canada/CC1 ENUM Trials Program" contribution (item b) above) to
allow testing of Tier1C as part of the future Canadian ENUM trial,
distributed on December 19, 2005.
c. Xit Telecom contribution dated October 13, 2005 containing a proposal to
implement a Tier1C ENUM Architecture in Canada to be ultimately tested
during the ENUM Trial.
d. CIRA contribution distributed on November 18, 2005 comprising CIRA’s
comments on Xit Telecom’s proposed implementation of a Canadian
ENUM Tier1C Registry Framework.
e. Contribution from Tim Denton and John Lange dated February 4, 2006
entitled "A Proposal for the Provisioning of Numbers in a Canadian ENUM
trial".
3) Discussion of ENUM LLC Tier 1A and B Requirements Documents
It was recommended that discussion on this item be postponed because the
CSCN believes that it is more important to address the ENUM trial framework at
this time.
4) Discussion of Carrier ENUM
It was noted that there are no contributions on this topic, so the discussion will be
postponed to another time.
5) Liaison with Emergency Services Working Group and Network Working Group
re: DNS-based directories for emergency services and routing purposes (e.g.,
LNP).
In response to a question, it was noted that there is nothing in the Emergency
Services and Network Working Groups that is related to the topic in the context
of the CSCN's discussions. It was suggested that the CSCN may need to initiate
a liaison with these two Working Groups. It was suggested that this topic be
delayed until another time.
-4-
6) Outstanding Canadian ENUM Question & Answer document re: Canadian ENUM
industry structure, architecture, etc.
It was recommended that discussion of this document be postponed until a future
meeting.
The Chair asked whether any CSCN participants attending today's meeting are
proponents of the Tier 1C concept.
Andy Gallant indicated that the Tier 1C concept has implications for the DNS that are
unclear at this point. It was suggested that the work to elaborate the implications of the
Tier 1C concept is incomplete and, therefore, it is difficult to assess the merits of this
concept.
It was suggested that the contribution from Tim Denton and John Lange dated
February 4, 2006 entitled "A Proposal for the Provisioning of Numbers in a Canadian
ENUM trial" be presented. It was noted that the contribution has not been in circulation
for 5 working days, in accordance with the requirements of the CISC Administrative
Guidelines.
Agreement was reached to complete a final review of the Canadian ENUM Trial
Framework document.
Agreement was reached to permit Tim Denton and John Lange to present their
contribution to the CSCN to facilitate discussion regarding the numbering resources to
be used during a Canadian ENUM trial.
Tim Denton presented the contribution regarding the numbering resources to be used
during a Canadian ENUM trial.
The question was raised if any consideration had been given to the impacts on the
PSTN if an underlying LEC was not participating in the trial. The question was raised
whether, in the event that there is a problem on the PSTN side, any consideration had
been given to the impact on the underlying carrier since that carrier would be involved in
troubleshooting. In response, it was noted that the trial is not for testing the PSTN.
It was noted that if a call originates from the PSTN, to the DNS (for a lookup) and is
supposed to terminate on the IP network, a caller would not know where the trouble
originates and would contact the underlying LEC for assistance. In response, it was
suggested that wireline calls to the IP network have a kind of troubleshooting process in
place today.
It was noted that the ENUM portion of the call in no way alters the routing of a call
originating from the PSTN to an IP network. It was suggested that adding the ENUM
process into the routing of a call should not create additional problems than those arising
today.
It was asked whether the numbers being used in an ENUM trial would be published. It
was suggested that if a list of numbers is available, then this could be referred to as part
of the troubleshooting process. In response, it was noted that a confidential list of
numbers would probably have to be distributed to the ENUM trial participants. The
-5-
question was asked why the list would have to be confidential. It was noted that a
confidential list would prevent nuisance calls (e.g., telemarketers). Another participant
asked how carriers not involved with the trial would be able to resolve problems
encountered by the numbers being used in an ENUM trial if they do not have access to
them.
It was noted that there is no mechanism to allow a customer participating in the ENUM
trial to grant permission to have information input in a DNS database (i.e., for the
customer to validate who he says he is, and having permission to use the number for a
trial.) It was noted that, in the U.S. trial, temporary numbers will be assigned to
customers.
The question was asked, "If non-existing numbers are used, who is going to be calling
those numbers?" It was noted that using non-existing numbers implies there would be no
practical testing during the ENUM trial. John Lange indicated that he supports the use of
real telephone numbers.
In response to a question about the use of real numbers, it was noted that participants in
the trial will be the carriers participating in the trial, not their customers.
It was noted that VoIP providers get their numbers from carriers consequently, by
extension, those carriers would be part of the trial.
It was noted that if live end-user numbers are used by customers for the duration of a
trial, they would have to sign an MOU or an agreement that they understand the
implications of being a trial participant, and what will happen at the end of the trial.
In response to a question, it was noted that VoIP providers could use an existing block of
numbers already assigned to them by a LEC, or could apply for more numbers on a
tariffed basis, then the numbers could be used in any way the VoIP provider desires.
It was noted that the major factors in the Canadian trial framework proposal are
technical. Several participants noted that the contribution from Tim Denton and
John Lange assumes "User" ENUM is being used for the trial, as opposed to
"Infrastructure" ENUM, which is being trailed in the U.S.
In response to a question, it was noted that Canadian ENUM should evolve to being a
public look-up from the internet. It was noted that if it is Public ENUM that develops in
Canada then an opt-in is crucial. It was noted that "Carrier" and "Infrastructure" ENUM
have not been contemplated in Canada.
Tim Denton volunteered to respond to some of the concerns raised during today's
meeting, in conjunction with John Lange, and will create another contribution for
discussion by the CSCN.
The CSCN began a review of the Canadian ENUM Trial Framework document.
It was noted that the "LLC's Trial Participants Advisory Committee will be held on
February 21, 2006.
It was noted that an ENUM LLC meeting has been scheduled for February 22-24, 2006.
-6-
Next Meeting:
A CSCN ENUM conference will be scheduled for Wednesday, March 1, 2006, 11:00 to
13:00 Eastern Time. Call in #: 613-787-5003. Access #: 5797174#.
Contributions for the March 1 conference call should be submitted no later than
February 22, 2006.
A conference call will also be scheduled for Thursday, March 9, 2006, 11:00 to 13:00
Eastern Time. Call in #: 613-787-5003. Access #: 5797174#.
The Chair of the CSCN thanked the attendees for their participation during today's
conference call.
Summary of Agreements Reached:
1) Agreement was reached to complete a final review of the Canadian ENUM Trial
Framework document.
2) Agreement was reached to permit Tim Denton and John Lange to present their
contribution to the CSCN to facilitate discussion regarding the numbering
resources to be used during a Canadian ENUM trial.
Summary of Action Items:
1) Frank Norman volunteered to update Figure 2 (Components of a Platform for
ENUM Trials) in the ENUM Framework Document for Canada.
2) Tim Denton volunteered to respond to some of the concerns raised during
today's meeting, in conjunction with John Lange, and will create another
contribution for discussion by the CSCN.
Post Meeting Note: Figure 2 in the Canadian Trial Framework document has been
updated.
