Telephone Number Mapping (enum)

headers Eric Stone | 3 Apr 2012 06:56

_______________________________________________
enum mailing list
enum <at> ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum

_______________________________________________
enum mailing list
enum <at> ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum

Hi Duane, Eric, folks,

 Hi Duane ... You too :).

----
All I'll say on this (apart from the exclusively personal "good luck") is -- There are many ways of doing
this, and in many places in DNS.

Do you think Telnic might have thought of the kinds of info that people could want to publish **before** we
went for the .tel CCTLD in 2004?
(and yes, there was an attempt in the earlier 2000 round, but that time the ITU stamped on all things vaguely
related to telephony).
LJ was the coming star at that point -- how times change.

For some more RW examples ..
See <http://social.henri.tel> or dig social.henri.tel for NAPTR
(henri.tel is not a web site, it points at a proxy that digs and presents the content in a web response)

or dig instant-messaging.henri.tel for NAPTR, or ...

[Re. avoiding the standard process -- I feel your pain.
When we finally got around to registering IM, the blatantly obvious way to do this was overtaken by the
cultish pres and im Enumservices, which sure convinced me that just doing it was easier than arguing. The
real world intruded we have ugly NAPTRs in .tel; sigh]

BTW, speaking of different ways of doing this, see the ENUM FOAF stuff from 2006 for example.

SN records can be taken much further, but the privacy concerns are ridiculous, so it only works (with sane
privacy) with proper encryption.
That's hard in DNS (unless one uses something like
<http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-timms-encrypt-naptr-01>, and publishes data for one's friends
only, of course).
----

all the best,
  Lawrence

On 3 Apr 2012, at 06:39, Duane wrote:
> On 04/03/12 14:56, Eric Stone wrote:
>> Dear ENUM Group,
>> 
>> In reference to draft-goix-appsawg-enum-sn-service-00.txt I have to raise my hand and ask to slow
down.  My apologies first in case this rubs people the wrong way, I do not want to be a party pooper, but I do
feel that this is my party.  Our intellectual property re: Social ENUM date to 2008 and we specifically did
not publish to the IETF and have done the traditional patent protection around this tech.  Interestingly
the latest draft is spot on --  which really begs the question as from what I understood, you can't protect an
open standard and therefore we did not do so.  I don't mind sharing but the specific mechanisms described in
the draft are in direct conflict with our IP.   We even built the server and have it in operation and are moving
into trial with a major operator.    Speci
 fically the use of any type of "sn" style records in ENUM / E164 and other lookup type db's would be in direct
violation of our IP.
> 
> e164.org was publishing IM and other social network information via DNS at least as far back as December
2006, I'd have to check the mailing list archive for specific dates.
> 
> And before it gets pointed out, no we didn't use SN, but that seems an incremental and/or novel change over
what we are doing.

The original ENUM usage btw was in 1993 in RFC 1530. 

If someone has a intellectual property claim then it has to be posted in the
usual manner outlined in RFC 3979.

-----Original Message-----
From: enum-bounces <at> ietf.org [mailto:enum-bounces <at> ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Lawrence Conroy
Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2012 4:01 AM
To: Duane
Cc: enum <at> ietf.org; eric <at> telesocial.com
Subject: Re: [Enum] Social ENUM / Patents and Intellectual Property

Hi Duane, Eric, folks,

 Hi Duane ... You too :).

----
All I'll say on this (apart from the exclusively personal "good luck") is --
There are many ways of doing this, and in many places in DNS.

Do you think Telnic might have thought of the kinds of info that people
could want to publish **before** we went for the .tel CCTLD in 2004?
(and yes, there was an attempt in the earlier 2000 round, but that time the
ITU stamped on all things vaguely related to telephony).
LJ was the coming star at that point -- how times change.

For some more RW examples ..
See <http://social.henri.tel> or dig social.henri.tel for NAPTR (henri.tel
is not a web site, it points at a proxy that digs and presents the content
in a web response)

or dig instant-messaging.henri.tel for NAPTR, or ...

[Re. avoiding the standard process -- I feel your pain.
When we finally got around to registering IM, the blatantly obvious way to
do this was overtaken by the cultish pres and im Enumservices, which sure
convinced me that just doing it was easier than arguing. The real world
intruded we have ugly NAPTRs in .tel; sigh]

BTW, speaking of different ways of doing this, see the ENUM FOAF stuff from
2006 for example.

SN records can be taken much further, but the privacy concerns are
ridiculous, so it only works (with sane privacy) with proper encryption.
That's hard in DNS (unless one uses something like
<http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-timms-encrypt-naptr-01>, and publishes
data for one's friends only, of course).
----

all the best,
  Lawrence

On 3 Apr 2012, at 06:39, Duane wrote:
> On 04/03/12 14:56, Eric Stone wrote:
>> Dear ENUM Group,
>> 
>> In reference to draft-goix-appsawg-enum-sn-service-00.txt I have to raise
my hand and ask to slow down.  My apologies first in case this rubs people
the wrong way, I do not want to be a party pooper, but I do feel that this
is my party.  Our intellectual property re: Social ENUM date to 2008 and we
specifically did not publish to the IETF and have done the traditional
patent protection around this tech.  Interestingly the latest draft is spot
on --  which really begs the question as from what I understood, you can't
protect an open standard and therefore we did not do so.  I don't mind
sharing but the specific mechanisms described in the draft are in direct
conflict with our IP.   We even built the server and have it in operation
and are moving into trial with a major operator.    Specifically the use of
any type of "sn" style records in ENUM / E164 and other lookup type db's
would be in direct violation of our IP.
> 
> e164.org was publishing IM and other social network information via DNS at
least as far back as December 2006, I'd have to check the mailing list
archive for specific dates.
> 
> And before it gets pointed out, no we didn't use SN, but that seems an
incremental and/or novel change over what we are doing.

_______________________________________________
enum mailing list
enum <at> ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum

> From: Eric Stone [eric <at> telesocial.com]
> 
> In reference to draft-goix-appsawg-enum-sn-service-00.txt
> [...]
> Our intellectual property re: Social ENUM date to 2008 and we
> specifically did not publish to the IETF and have done the traditional
> patent protection around this tech.
> [...]
> I don't mind sharing but the specific mechanisms described in the
> draft are in direct conflict with our IP.

Care to tell us the patent or patent application numbers?

It would also be seen as a sign of good faith if you filed IPR
disclosures (https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/new-specific/)
referencing your patents and draft-goix-appsawg-enum-sn-service-00.

Dale

Social ENUM / Patents and Intellectual Property

Re: Social ENUM / Patents and Intellectual Property

Re: Social ENUM / Patents and Intellectual Property

Re: Social ENUM / Patents and Intellectual Property

Re: Social ENUM / Patents and Intellectual Property