Subject: Re: [VIPR] Creating an alt-root for E.164

From: "Worley, Dale R (Dale)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 17 Apr 2011 18:23:34 -0400

Trying to send this again:
____________________________________________
From: Hadriel Kaplan <HKaplan at acmepacket.com>

I have a question about why we're ok with creating an alt-root for ITU's ownership of E.164 in an IETF protocol.  By that I mean that for however long the vipr client is willing to believe the vipr-resolved URI represents the E.164, it is not querying the authoritative database (ie, the PSTN).  The truth of the matter is your phone does not own and is not authoritative for the E.164 phone number - afaik only the ITU is truly authoritative for it (but yes assigns them out downhill).
____________________________________________

There are actually two different issues here.  One is that the ViPR client (caller) caches the ViPR resolutions.  That is purely for practical purposes, although of course, it raises the error rate.  In practice, we assume that the error rate will be small, and that people ultimately authenticate a phone call by the sound of the voice of the person they contact.

The other issue is that we really are "creating an alternative root for E.164".  We do this because the creation of the "primary" E.164 database is not progressing well, and we expect the carriers (who are the first- or second-level delegates of the ITU) to obstruct the creation of the database.  So we are reduced to creating an alternative database.

Dale