One document matched: draft-ietf-enum-enumservices-guide-08.txt
Differences from draft-ietf-enum-enumservices-guide-07.txt
ENUM -- Telephone Number Mapping B. Hoeneisen
Working Group SWITCH
Internet-Draft A. Mayrhofer
Obsoletes: 3761 (if approved) enum.at
Intended status: Standards Track J. Livingood
Expires: September 11, 2008 Comcast
Mar 10, 2008
IANA Registration of Enumservices: Guide, Template and IANA
Considerations
draft-ietf-enum-enumservices-guide-08
Status of this Memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on September 11, 2008.
Abstract
This document specifies a revision of the IANA registry for
Enumservices, describes corresponding registration procedures, and
provides a guideline for creating Enumservices and its Registration
Documents.
Hoeneisen, et al. Expires September 11, 2008 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft IANA Registration of Enumservices Mar 2008
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. Registration Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1. Functionality Requirement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2. Naming Requirement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.3. Security Requirement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.4. Publication Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4. Enumservice Creation Cookbook . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.1. General Enumservice Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.2. Classification, Name, Type and Subtype . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.2.1. Choosing a "name" String . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.2.2. General Type/Subtype Considerations . . . . . . . . . 9
4.2.3. Protocol-based Enumservices Class . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.2.4. Application-based Enumservices . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.2.5. Data/Format Enumservice Class . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.2.6. Other Enumservice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5. Required Sections and Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5.1. Introduction (MANDATORY) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5.2. ENUM Service Registration (MANDATORY) . . . . . . . . . . 13
5.3. Examples (MANDATORY) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
5.4. Implementation Recommendations / Notes (OPTIONAL) . . . . 17
5.5. Security Considerations (MANDATORY) . . . . . . . . . . . 17
5.6. IANA Considerations (MANDATORY) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
5.7. DNS Considerations (MANDATORY) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
5.8. Other Sections (OPTIONAL) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
6. The Process of Registering New Enumservices . . . . . . . . . 18
6.1. Step 1: Read this Document in Detail . . . . . . . . . . . 19
6.2. Step 2: Write and Submit Registration Document . . . . . . 19
6.3. Step 3: Request Comments from the IETF Community . . . . . 20
6.3.1. Outcome 1: No Changes Needed . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
6.3.2. Outcome 2: Changes, but no further Comments
Requested . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
6.3.3. Outcome 3: Changes and further Comments Requested . . 20
6.4. Step 4: Submit Registration Document to IANA . . . . . . . 20
6.5. Further Steps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
7. The Enumservice Expert Selection Process . . . . . . . . . . . 21
8. Enumservice Expert Reviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
9. Appeals against Expert Review Decisions . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Hoeneisen, et al. Expires September 11, 2008 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft IANA Registration of Enumservices Mar 2008
10. Revision of Pre-Existing Enumservice RFCs . . . . . . . . . . 22
11. Extension of Existing Enumservice RFCs . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
12. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
12.1. Considerations regarding this Document . . . . . . . . . . 23
12.2. Enumservice Security Considerations Guideline . . . . . . 23
13. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
13.1. Enumservice Registrations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
13.1.1. IANA Registration Template . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
13.1.2. Location . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
13.1.3. Registration Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
13.1.4. Change Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
13.1.5. Restrictions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
13.2. XML2RFC Template . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
14. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
15. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
15.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
15.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Appendix A. XML2RFC Template for Enumservice Registration . . . . 27
Appendix B. Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Appendix C. Open Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 37
Hoeneisen, et al. Expires September 11, 2008 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft IANA Registration of Enumservices Mar 2008
1. Introduction
E.164 Number Mapping (ENUM) [I-D.ietf-enum-3761bis] provides an
identifier mapping mechanism to map E.164 numbers [ITU.E164.2005] to
Uniform Resource Identifiers (URIs) [RFC3986]. One of the primary
concepts of ENUM is the definition of "Enumservices", which allows
for providing different URIs for different applications of said
mapping mechanism.
The IETF's ENUM Working Group has encountered an unnecessary amount
of variation in the format of Enumservice Registrations presented to
the group. The ENUM Working Group's view of what particular fields
and information are required and/or recommended has also evolved, and
capturing these best current practices is helpful in both the
creation of new Registrations, as well as the revision or refinement
of existing Registrations.
This document specifies a revision of the IANA registry for
Enumservices, which was originally described in RFC 3761 [RFC3761]).
This document obsoletes Section 3 of RFC 3761.
Note: RFC 3761 [RFC3761] is also obsoleted by RFC3761bis
[I-D.ietf-enum-3761bis].
The new registration processes have been specifically designed to be
decoupled from the existence of the ENUM working group. Compared to
the RFC 3761, the main changes are:
o For an Enumservice to be inserted to the IANA registry, 'Expert
Review' and 'Specification Required' according to "Guidelines for
Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs"
[I-D.narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis] are now sufficient.
o The IANA registration template contains new fields, i.e.
"Enumservice Class" and "Registration Document".
o The former field "Any other information that the author deems
interesting" of the IANA registration template has been changed to
"Further Information".
For the purpose of this document, 'Registration Document' and
'Registration' refer to a specification that defines an Enumservice
and proposes its registration following the procedures outlined
herein.
Hoeneisen, et al. Expires September 11, 2008 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft IANA Registration of Enumservices Mar 2008
2. Terminology
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
3. Registration Requirements
As specified in the ABNF found in RFC3761bis [I-D.ietf-enum-3761bis],
an 'Enumservice' is made up of 'types' and 'subtypes'. For any given
'type', the allowable 'subtypes' must be specified in the
Registration. (There is currently no concept of a registered
'subtype' outside the scope of a given 'type'.) Thus, the
registration process uses the 'type' as its main key within the IANA
Registry.
While the combination of each Type and all of its Subtypes
constitutes the allowed values for the 'Enumservice' field, it is not
sufficient to simply document those values. To allow
interoperability, a complete Registration includes all the sections
listed in Section 5 of this document.
Furthermore, in order for an Enumservice to be registered, the entire
Registration Document requires approval by the expert(s) according to
the 'Expert Review' process defined in "Guidelines for Writing an
IANA Considerations Section in RFCs"
[I-D.narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis].
All Enumservice Registration proposals are expected to conform also
to various requirements laid out in the following sections.
3.1. Functionality Requirement
A registered Enumservice must be able to function as a selection
mechanism when choosing one NAPTR resource record from another. That
means that the Registration MUST specify what is expected when using
that very NAPTR record, and the URI which is the outcome of the use
of it.
Specifically, a registered Enumservice MUST specify the URI scheme(s)
that may be used for the Enumservice, and, when needed, other
information which will have to be transferred into the URI resolution
process itself.
Hoeneisen, et al. Expires September 11, 2008 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft IANA Registration of Enumservices Mar 2008
3.2. Naming Requirement
An Enumservice MUST be unique in order to be useful as a selection
criteria. Since an Enumservice is made up of a Type and a type-
dependent Subtype, it is sufficient to require that the 'type' itself
be unique. The 'type' MUST be unique, conform to the ABNF specified
in RFC3761bis [I-D.ietf-enum-3761bis] and MUST NOT start with the
facet "X-" which is reserved for experimental or trial use.
The Subtype, being dependent on the Type, MUST be unique within a
given 'type'. It must conform to the ABNF specified in RFC3761bis
[I-D.ietf-enum-3761bis], and MUST NOT start with the facet "X-" which
is reserved for experimental or trial use. The Subtype for one Type
MAY be the same as a Subtype for a different registered Type but it
is not sufficient to simply reference another type's Subtype. The
functionality of each Subtype must be specified in the context of the
Type being registered.
3.3. Security Requirement
An analysis of security issues is required for all registered
Enumservices. (This is in accordance with the basic requirements for
all IETF protocols.)
All descriptions of security issues must be as accurate as possible
regardless of registration tree. In particular, a statement that
there are "no security issues associated with this Enumservice" must
not be confused with "the security issues associated with this
Enumservice have not been assessed".
There is no requirement that an Enumservice must be secure or
completely free of risks. Nevertheless, all known security risks
must be identified in the Registration of an Enumservice.
The security considerations section of all Registrations is subject
to continuing evaluation and modification.
Some of the issues that should be looked at in a security analysis of
an Enumservice are:
1. Complex Enumservices may include provisions for directives that
institute actions on a user's resources. In many cases provision
can be made to specify arbitrary actions in an unrestricted
fashion which may then have devastating results. Especially if
there is a risk for a new ENUM look-up, and because of that an
infinite loop in the overall resolution process of the E.164.
Hoeneisen, et al. Expires September 11, 2008 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft IANA Registration of Enumservices Mar 2008
2. Complex Enumservices may include provisions for directives that
institute actions which, while not directly harmful, may result
in disclosure of information that either facilitates a subsequent
attack or else violates the users privacy in some way.
3. An Enumservice might be targeted for applications that require
some sort of security assurance but do not provide the necessary
security mechanisms themselves. For example, an Enumservice
could be defined for storage of confidential security services
information such as alarm systems or message service passcodes,
which in turn require an external confidentiality service.
3.4. Publication Requirements
Enumservices Registrations MUST be published according to the
requirements set in "Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations
Section in RFCs" [I-D.narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis] for
'Specification Required'. RFCs fulfill these requirements.
Therefore, it is strongly RECOMMENDED Registration Documents be
published as RFCs.
In case no RFC is published, sufficient information to uniquely
identify the Registration Document MUST be provided.
4. Enumservice Creation Cookbook
4.1. General Enumservice Considerations
ENUM is an extremely flexible identifier mapping mechanism, using
E.164 (phone) numbers as input identifiers, and returning URIs as
output identifiers. Because of this flexibility, almost every use
case for ENUM could be implemented in several ways.
Section 2 of "Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section
in RFCs" [I-D.narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis] provides
motivation why management of a name space might be necessary. Since
the name space for Enumservice registrations is among the largest
namespaces that IANA manages (even when ignoring Subtypes, it's 32
alphanumeric characters make it already much larger than the entire
IPv6 addressing space), exhaustion is not a problem. However, the
following motivation for management taken from Section 2 of
[I-D.narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis] applies to Enumservices:
o Prevent hoarding / wasting of values: Enumservice Types are not an
opaque identifier to prevent collisions in the namespace, but
rather identify the use of a certain technology in the context of
ENUM. Service Types might also be displayed to end users in
Hoeneisen, et al. Expires September 11, 2008 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft IANA Registration of Enumservices Mar 2008
implementations, so meaningful Type strings having a clear
relation to the protocols/applications used are strongly preferred
(and RECOMMENDED). Therefore, preventing hoarding / wasting /
"hijacking" of Enumservice Type names is important.
o Sanity check to ensure sensible / necessary requests: This applies
to Enumservices, since especially various Enumservices for the
same purpose would reduce the chance of successful
interoperability, and unnecessarily increase the confusion among
implementers.
o Delegation of namespace portions: Theoretically, the "type" /
"subtype" structure of Enumservices would allow for delegations of
Type values, and self-supporting management of "subtype" values by
a delegate within the Type value. Such delegates could for
example be other standardization bodies. However, this would
require clear policies regarding publication and use of such
Subtypes. Delegation of Enumservice namespace portions is
therefore currently not supported.
o Interoperability: Since the benefit of an Enumservice rises with
the number of supporting clients, the registration of several
services for a similar or identical purpose clearly reduces
interoperability. Also, space within the protocol on which ENUM
is based (DNS packets) is rather scarce compared to the huge
identifier space that Enumservice typing provides. Registering
nearly identical services would clutter that space.
Generally, before commencing work on a new Enumservice registration,
the following should be considered:
o Is there an existing Enumservice that could fulfill the desired
functionality without overloading it? Check the IANA Enumservice
registrations on <http://www.iana.org/assignments/enum-services>.
o Is there work in progress on a similar Enumservice? Check the
<enum@ietf.org> mailing list archives on
<http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/enum/index.html>, and search
the Internet-Drafts Archive on <http://tools.ietf.org/>.
o Section 4.2 provides three general categories for Enumservice
classification. In some cases, there might be several options for
designing an Enumservice. For example, a mapping service using
HTTP could be considered a "protocol type" Enumservice (using HTTP
as the protocol), while it could also be viewed as an "application
type" Enumservice, with the application being access to mapping
services. In such a case where several options are available,
defining use cases before commencing work on the Enumservice
Hoeneisen, et al. Expires September 11, 2008 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft IANA Registration of Enumservices Mar 2008
itself might be useful before making a decision on which aspect of
the Enumservice is more important.
4.2. Classification, Name, Type and Subtype
Because of its flexibility, Enumservices can be and are used in a lot
of different ways. This section contains a classification of
Enumservices, and provides guidance for choosing suitable 'type' and
'subtype' strings for each individual Enumservice Class. The choice
of a suitable 'name' is independent of the classification.
The Classification of each Enumservice is to be listed in the ENUM
service registration (see Section 5.2). If the Enumservice cannot be
assigned to one of the classes outlined below, the Registration
Document MUST contain a section on the difficulties encountered while
trying to classify the service to help the expert in his decision.
4.2.1. Choosing a "name" String
Advice for choosing a proper 'name' string is independent of the
classification of the Enumservice.
Generally, the 'name' string used for registering an Enumservice
SHOULD give a clear indication of what the Enumservice is about. The
'name' has no technical significance in the processing of the NAPTR
(it doesn't even appear in resource record instances of the
Enumservice). However, it is likely to be used for labeling the
Enumservice to end users.
Suitable 'names' are concise, distinctive, and clearly related to the
underlying service with which a client is going to interact.
4.2.2. General Type/Subtype Considerations
To avoid confusion, the name of an URI scheme MUST NOT be used as a
Type name for an Enumservice which is not specifically about the
respective protocol / URI scheme - for example, the Type name 'imap'
would be inadequate for use in an Enumservice about Internet mapping
services, because it corresponds to an existing URI scheme / protocol
for something different.
If subtypes are defined, the minimum number SHOULD be two. The
choice of just one possible Subtype for a given Type does not add any
information when selecting a ENUM record, and hence can be left out
completely. However, potential future expansion of a Type towards
several Subtypes MAY justify the use of Subtypes, even in the case
just one is currently defined.
Hoeneisen, et al. Expires September 11, 2008 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft IANA Registration of Enumservices Mar 2008
It is perfectly legal under a certain 'type' to mix the Enumservice
without a Subtype ("empty subtype") with Enumservices containing a
Subtype. In that case, however, the Enumservice with an empty
Subtype SHOULD be used to reflect the base service, while the other
Enumservices SHOULD be used to reflect variants.
4.2.3. Protocol-based Enumservices Class
Such an Enumservice indicates that an interaction using the named
protocol will result for use of this NAPTR. The expected behavior of
a system using this Enumservice MUST be clear from the protocol.
A good indication that an Enumservice belongs to this Class is the
fact that a client does not need to understand the actual application
to make use of an instance of this Enumservice.
Examples of such Enumservices include XMPP [RFC4979] and SIP
[RFC3764].
4.2.3.1. Protocol-based Enumservice "type" strings
A protocol-based Enumservice SHOULD use the lowercased name of the
protocol as its 'type' name.
4.2.3.2. Protocol-based Enumservice "subtype" strings
Where there is a single URI scheme associated with this protocol,
then the Enumservice SHOULD NOT use a Subtype.
Where there are a number of different URI Schemes associated with
this protocol, the Registration MAY use the empty Subtype for all URI
schemes that it specifies as mandatory to implement. For each URI
scheme that is not mandatory to implement a distinct Subtype string
MUST be used.
If Subtypes are defined, it is RECOMMENDED to use the URI Scheme name
as the Subtype string.
4.2.4. Application-based Enumservices
Application-based Enumservices are used when the kind of service
intended is not fully defined by a protocol specification. There are
three cases here:
o Common Application Enumservice:
The application reflects a kind of interaction that can be
realized by different protocols, but where the intent of the
Hoeneisen, et al. Expires September 11, 2008 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft IANA Registration of Enumservices Mar 2008
publisher is the same. From a user's perspective, there is a
common kind of interaction - how that interaction is implemented
is not important. The Enumservice Registration MUST describe the
interaction and expected behavior in enough detail that an
implementation can decide if this activity is one in which it can
engage. However, it is RECOMMENDED that the Enumservice is
defined in a way that will allow others to use it at a later date.
An Enumservice that defines a generalized application is preferred
to one that has narrow use.
An example of this flavor of Enumservice is email. Whilst this
might appear to be a "pure" protocol scheme, it is not. The URI
scheme is mailto:, and does not identify the protocol used by the
sender or the recipient to offer or retrieve emails.
Another example is sms, where the presence of such an Enumservice
indicates that the publishing entity is capable of engaging in
sending or receiving a message according to the Short Messaging
Service specifications. The underlying protocol used and the URI-
scheme for the addressable end point can differ, but the "user
visible" interaction of sending and receiving an SMS is similar.
o Subset Enumservice:
The application interaction reflects a subset of the interactions
possible by use of a protocol. Use of this Enumservice indicates
that some options available by use of the protocol will not be
accepted or are not possible in this case. Any such Enumservice
Registration MUST define the options available by use of this
NAPTR in enough detail that an implementation can decide whether
or not it can use this Enumservice. Examples of this kind of
Enumservice are voice:tel and fax:tel. In both cases the URI
holds a telephone number. However, the essential feature of these
Enumservices is that the telephone number is capable of receiving
a voice call or of receiving a Facsimile transmission,
respectively. These form subsets of the interactions capable of
using the telephone number, and so have their own Enumservices.
These allow an end point to decide if it has the appropriate
capability of engaging in the advertised user service (a voice
call or sending a fax) rather than just being capable of making a
connection to such a destination address. This is especially
important where there is no underlying mechanism within the
protocol to negotiate a different kind of user interaction.
o Ancillary Application Enumservice
Another variant on this is the Ancillary Application. This is one
in which further processing (potentially using a number of
Hoeneisen, et al. Expires September 11, 2008 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft IANA Registration of Enumservices Mar 2008
different protocols or methods) is the intended result of using
this Enumservice. An example of this kind of application is the
PSTN:tel Enumservice. This indicates that the NAPTR holds Number
Portability data. It implies that the client should engage in
number portability processing using the associated URI. Note that
this Enumservice usually does not itself define the kind of
interaction available using the associated URI. That application
is negotiated with some other "out of band" means (either through
prior negotiation, or explicitly through the number portability
process, or through negotiation following the selection of the
final destination address).
4.2.4.1. Application-based Enumservice "type" strings
It is RECOMMENDED that Application-class Enumservices use the
lowercased well known name of the abstract application as "type"
name.
4.2.4.2. Application-based Enumservice "subtype" strings
It is RECOMMENDED to use the URI scheme(s) that the application uses
as "subtype" names. Subtype names SHOULD be shared only between URI
Schemes that correspond to the "base" URI scheme of a protocol and
the secure variant of the same protocol, if implementation of both
variants is mandatory.
If it is foreseen that there is only one URI scheme ever to be used
with the application, the empty "subtype" string MAY be used.
4.2.5. Data/Format Enumservice Class
"Data Format" Enumservices typically refer to a specific data type or
format, which may be addressed using one or more URI Schemes and
protocols. It is RECOMMENDED to use a well known name of the data
type / format as the Enumservice 'type'. Examples of such
Enumservices include 'vpim' (RFC 4238) [RFC4238] and 'vCard' (RFC
4969) [RFC4969].
4.2.5.1. Data/Format-based Enumservice "type" strings
It is RECOMMENDED to use the lowercase well known name of the data/
format as the 'type' name.
4.2.5.2. Data/Format based Enumservice "subtype" strings
It is RECOMMENDED to use the URI Schemes used to access the service
as 'subtype' name. Subtype names SHOULD be shared only between URI
Schemes that correspond to the "base" URI scheme of a protocol and
Hoeneisen, et al. Expires September 11, 2008 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft IANA Registration of Enumservices Mar 2008
its secure variant, if implementation of both is mandatory.
If there is only one URI scheme foreseen to access the data/format,
the empty "subtype" string MAY be used.
4.2.6. Other Enumservice
In case an Enumservice proposal cannot be assigned to any of the
classes mentioned above, the "Classification" field in the ENUM
service registration (see Section 5.2 MUST be populated with "Other".
In that case, the Registration Document MUST contain a section
elaborating why the Enumservice does not fit into the classification
structure.
5. Required Sections and Information
In addition to the typical sections required for an RFC as outlined
in RFC 2223bis [I-D.rfc-editor-rfc2223bis] (Instructions to RFC
Authors), there are several sections which MUST appear in an IANA
Registration for an Enumservice. These sections are as follows, and
SHOULD be in the same order.
Appendix A contains an XML2RFC template which can be used to create
Internet Drafts and RFCs by means described on
<http://xml.resource.org/>. This XML2RFC template contains a
prototype for most of these sections.
5.1. Introduction (MANDATORY)
An introductory section MUST be included. This section will explain,
in plain English, the purpose of and intended usage of the proposed
Enumservice registration.
The Introduction SHOULD start with a short sentence about ENUM,
introduce the protocol used in the Enumservice, and discuss the
Enumservice as it refers from the E.164 number to the protocol or
service.
5.2. ENUM Service Registration (MANDATORY)
This section MUST be included in an Enumservice Registration. Where
a given Enumservice Type has multiple Subtypes, there MUST be a
separate 'ENUM Service Registration' section for each Subtype. The
following lists the sections and order of an 'ENUM Service
Registration' section.
Hoeneisen, et al. Expires September 11, 2008 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft IANA Registration of Enumservices Mar 2008
o Enumservice Name:
A short word or stub sentence describing this Enumservice. Often
this is equivalent to the Enumservice Type (see below), however,
capitalization may be different from it.
e.g.
"Foo"
o Enumservice Class:
This section contains the Class of the Enumservice as defined in
Section 4.2.
e.g.
Application-based Enumservice (ancillary)
o Enumservice Type:
The Type of the Enumservice. Often this is equivalent to the
Enumservice Name (see above) . All Types SHOULD be listed in
lower-case. The choice of Type depends on the Enumservice Class.
Please find further instructions in Section 4.
e.g.
"foo"
o Enumservice Subtype:
The Subtype of the Enumservice. All Subtypes SHOULD be listed in
lower-case. The choice of Subtype depends on the Enumservice
Class. Please find further instructions in Section 4.
e.g.
"bar"
e.g.
N/A
Note: Many Enumservices do not require a Subtype; it is
RECOMMENDED to use "N/A" in this case.
Note: As stated above, where a given Enumservice Type has multiple
Subtypes, there MUST be a separate 'ENUM Service Registration'
section for each Subtype.
Hoeneisen, et al. Expires September 11, 2008 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft IANA Registration of Enumservices Mar 2008
o URI Scheme(s):
The URI Schemes that are used with the Enumservice. The selection
of URI Schemes often depends on the Enumservice Class, Type,
and/or Subtype. Please find further instructions in Section 4.
e.g.
"bar:", "sbar:"
Note: A client cannot choose a specific ENUM record in a record
set based on the URI scheme - the selection is only based on
'Type' and 'Subtype'.
o Functional Specification:
The Functional Specification describes how the Enumservice is used
in connection with the URI to which it resolves.
e.g.
This Enumservice indicates that the remote resource identified
can be addressed by the associated URI scheme in order to foo
the bar. [...]
Where the terms used are non-obvious, they should be defined or
reference to their definition in an external document should be
made.
o Security Considerations:
An internal reference to the 'Security Considerations' section of
a given Registration Document.
e.g.
see Section 10
o Intended Usage:
Select the Intended Usage from the following list: "COMMON",
"LIMITED USE", or "OBSOLETE". Normally, the Intended Usage will
be "COMMON".
e.g.
COMMON
o Registration Document:
A *unique* reference to the Enumservice Registration Document.
Hoeneisen, et al. Expires September 11, 2008 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft IANA Registration of Enumservices Mar 2008
e.g.
RFC 9999
e.g.
International Telecommunications Union, "Enumservice
Registration for Foobar", ITU-F Recommendation B.193, Release
73, Mar 2008.
o Author(s):
The author(s) of the Enumservice registration.
e.g.
John Doe <john.doe@example.com>
o Further Information:
Any other information the author(s) deem(s) interesting.
e.g.
See Section 3
5.3. Examples (MANDATORY)
This section MUST show one or more example(s) of the Enumservice
registration, for illustrative purposes. The example(s) shall in no
way limit the various forms that a given Enumservice may take, and
this should be noted at the beginning of this section of the
document. The example(s) MUST show the specific formatting of the
intended NAPTRs (according to RFC 3403 [RFC3403] and RFC3761bis
[I-D.ietf-enum-3761bis]), including one or more NAPTR example(s), AND
a brief textual description, consisting of one or more sentences
written in plain English, explaining the various parts or attributes
of the record(s).
The example(s) SHOULD contain a brief description how a client
supporting this Enumservice could behave, if that description was not
already given in e.g. the Introduction or the Functional
Specification.
e.g.
$ORIGIN 9.7.8.0.9.7.8.9.0.9.4.4.e164.arpa.
@ IN NAPTR 100 10 "u" "E2U+foo:bar" "!^.*$!bar://example.com/!" .
Hoeneisen, et al. Expires September 11, 2008 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft IANA Registration of Enumservices Mar 2008
5.4. Implementation Recommendations / Notes (OPTIONAL)
If at all possible, recommendations that pertain to implementation
and/or operations SHOULD be included. Such a section is helpful to
someone reading a Registration and trying to understand how best to
use it to support their network or service.
5.5. Security Considerations (MANDATORY)
A section explaining any potential security threats that are unique
to the given registration MUST be included. This MUST also include
any information about access to Personally Identifiable Information
(PII).
However, this section is not intended as a general security Best
Current Practices (BCP) document and therefore it should not include
general and obvious security recommendations, such as securing
servers with strong password authentication.
5.6. IANA Considerations (MANDATORY)
Describe the task IANA needs to fulfill processing the Enumservice
Registration Document.
e.g.
This document requests the IANA registration of the Enumservice "Foo"
with Type "foo" and Subtype "bar" according to the definitions in
this document, RFC XXXX [Note for RFC Editor: Please replace XXXX
with the RFC number of this document before publication] and
RFC3761bis [I-D.ietf-enum-3761bis].
5.7. DNS Considerations (MANDATORY)
In case the inclusion of protocols and URI Schemes into ENUM
specifically introduces new DNS issues, those MUST be described
within this section.
Such DNS issues include, but are not limited to:
o Assumptions about the namespace below the owner of the respective
NAPTR RRSet.
o Demand to use DNS wildcards.
o Incompatibility with DNS wildcards.
Hoeneisen, et al. Expires September 11, 2008 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft IANA Registration of Enumservices Mar 2008
o Presence or absence of the respective NAPTR RRSet at particular
levels in the DNS hierarchy (e.g. only for 'full' E.164 numbers,
or number blocks only).
o Use of any RRs (especially non-NAPTR) within or beyond the
e164.arpa namespace other than those needed to resolve the domain
names that appear in the 'replacement' URI.
Rationale: some ENUM services try to exploit side effects of the DNS
that need to be explicitly discussed.
5.8. Other Sections (OPTIONAL)
Other sections, beyond those required by the IETF and/or IANA, which
are cited or otherwise referenced here, MAY be included in an
Enumservice Registration. These sections may relate to the specifics
of the intended usage of the Enumservice registration and associated
technical, operational, or administrative concerns.
6. The Process of Registering New Enumservices
This section describes the process by which a new Enumservice is
submitted for review and comment, how such proposed Enumservices are
reviewed, and how they are published.
Figure 1 describes, what (an) author/s of a Registration Document
describing an Enumservice MUST carry out, before said Registration
can be formally submitted to IANA.
Hoeneisen, et al. Expires September 11, 2008 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft IANA Registration of Enumservices Mar 2008
+----------------------------+
| Step 1: Read this document |
+----------------------------+
|
V
+-------------------------------+
| Step 2: Write R-D and submit |
+-------------------------------+
|
V
+-----------------------------------------------+
| Step 3: Announce R-D to and solicit feedback |<--+
+-----------------------------------------------+ |
| |
V |
.^. |
. . |
+------------+ . Feed- . +------------+
| Update R-D |<---------< back >------------>| Update R-D |
| and submit | non-sub- . results . substantial | and submit |
+------------+ stantial . in: . changes +------------+
| changes . . needed
| needed Y
| | no changes needed
| V
| +-----------------------------+
+-------->| Step 4: Submit R-D to IANA |
+-----------------------------+
:
:
V
R-D: Registration Document
Figure 1
6.1. Step 1: Read this Document in Detail
This document describes all of the necessary sections required and
recommended, makes suggestions on content, and provides sample XML.
6.2. Step 2: Write and Submit Registration Document
An Internet-Draft (or another specification as appropriate) MUST be
written and made publicly available (submitted). The Registration
Document MUST follow the guidelines according to Section 4 and
Section 5 of this document. It is RECOMMENDED to use the XML2RFC
template contained in Appendix A of this document.
Hoeneisen, et al. Expires September 11, 2008 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft IANA Registration of Enumservices Mar 2008
6.3. Step 3: Request Comments from the IETF Community
The author(s) MUST send an email to <enum@ietf.org>, in which
comments on the Registration Document are requested. A proper public
reference (a URL is RECOMMENDED) to the Registration Document MUST be
included to this email.
The author(s) SHOULD allow a reasonable period of time to elapse,
such as two to four weeks, in order to collect any feedback. The
author(s) then consider whether or not to take any of those comments
into account, by making changes to the Registration Document and
submitting a revision, or otherwise proceeding. The following
outcomes are open to the author(s). The choice of path is left to
the authors' judgement.
6.3.1. Outcome 1: No Changes Needed
No changes to the Registration Document are made, and the author(s)
proceed(s) to Step 4 below.
This outcome is recommended when the feedback received does not lead
to a new revision of the Registration Document.
6.3.2. Outcome 2: Changes, but no further Comments Requested
The author(s) update(s) the Registration Document and is/are
confident that all issues are resolved and do not require further
discussion. The author(s) proceed(s) to Step 4 below.
This outcome is recommended when minor objections have been raised,
or minor changes have been suggested.
6.3.3. Outcome 3: Changes and further Comments Requested
The author(s) update(s) and submit(s) the Registration Document, and
proceed(s) to Step 3 above, which involves sending another email to
<enum@ietf.org> to request additional comments for the updated
version.
This outcome is recommended when substantial objections have been
raised, or substantial changes have been suggested.
6.4. Step 4: Submit Registration Document to IANA
The author(s) submit(s) the Registration Document to IANA.
Hoeneisen, et al. Expires September 11, 2008 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft IANA Registration of Enumservices Mar 2008
6.5. Further Steps
IANA will take care about Expert Review according to
[I-D.narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis] and afterwards add the
service to the IANA Enumservice registry.
The author(s) MUST be prepared for further interaction with IANA and
the designated expert(s).
In case the Registration Document has the form of an Internet-Draft,
the author MUST submit it for publication as an RFC after successful
Expert Review. Typically it will be an individual submission.
7. The Enumservice Expert Selection Process
According to Section 3.2 of
[I-D.narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis], experts are appointed by
the IESG upon recommendation by the RAI Area Directors. The RAI area
directors are responsible for ensuring that there is always a
sufficient pool of experts available.
8. Enumservice Expert Reviews
Generally, the Expert Review process of an Enumservice MUST follow
the guidelines documented in section 3.3 of "Guidelines for Writing
an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs"
[I-D.narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis].
The expert(s) SHOULD evaluate the criteria as set out in
[I-D.narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis], as well as consider the
following:
o Verify conformance with the ENUM specification (RFC 3761).
o Verify that the requirements set in this document (Section 5) are
met. This includes check for completeness and whether all the
aspects described in Section 5 are sufficiently addressed.
o If a use case is given by the author of the proposal (which is
RECOMMENDED), the expert(s) SHOULD verify whether the proposed
Enumservice does actually fulfill the use case, and whether the
use case could be covered by an already existing Enumservice.
o Verify that the Enumservice proposed cannot be confused with
identical (or similar) other Enumservices already registered.
o If the Enumservice is classified according to Section 4.2, the
expert(s) MUST verify that the principles of the Class in question
are followed.
Hoeneisen, et al. Expires September 11, 2008 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft IANA Registration of Enumservices Mar 2008
o In case the Enumservice is not classified, the expert(s) MUST
verify whether a convincing reason for the deviation is documented
in the Registration proposal.
o Investigate whether the proposed Enumservice has any negative side
effects on existing clients and infrastructure.
o If the output of processing an Enumservice may be used for input
to more ENUM processing (especially services returning 'tel'
URIs), the expert(s) SHOULD verify that the author has adequately
addressed the issue of potential query loops.
In case of conflicts between
[I-D.narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis] and the guidelines in
this section, the former remains authoritative.
9. Appeals against Expert Review Decisions
Appeals follow the normal IETF appeal process as described in section
7 of [I-D.narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis] and section 6.5 of
RFC 2026 [RFC2026].
10. Revision of Pre-Existing Enumservice RFCs
Several Enumservice Registrations, published via IETF RFCs, already
exist at the time of the development of this document. The authors
recommend that these existing Registration Documents SHOULD be
reviewed and, where necessary and appropriate, MAY be revised in
accordance with the specifications contained herein. All future
Enumservice Registrations MUST follow the specifications contained
herein.
11. Extension of Existing Enumservice RFCs
There are cases where it is more sensible to extend an existing
Enumservice registration rather than proposing a new one. Such cases
include adding a new Subtype to an existing Type. Depending on the
nature of the extension, the original Registration Document needs to
be extended (updates) or replaced (obsoletes)
[I-D.rfc-editor-rfc2223bis]. Specifically, an update is appropriate
when a new subtype is being added without changes to the existing
repertoire. A replacement is needed if there is a change to the
default, or changes to the assumptions of URI support in clients.
Hoeneisen, et al. Expires September 11, 2008 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft IANA Registration of Enumservices Mar 2008
12. Security Considerations
12.1. Considerations regarding this Document
Since this document does not introduce any technology or protocol,
there are no security issues to be considered for this memo itself.
12.2. Enumservice Security Considerations Guideline
RFC3761bis [I-D.ietf-enum-3761bis] already outlines security
considerations affecting ENUM as a whole. Enumservice Registration
Documents do not need and SHOULD NOT repeat considerations already
listed there, but they SHOULD include a reference to that section.
ENUM refers to resources using preexisting URI Schemes and protocols.
Enumservice Registration Documents do not need and SHOULD NOT repeat
security considerations affecting those protocols and URI Schemes
itself.
However, in case that the inclusion of those protocols and URI
Schemes into ENUM specifically introduces new security issues, those
issues MUST be covered in the 'Security Considerations' section of
the Registration Document.
13. IANA Considerations
13.1. Enumservice Registrations
IANA will update the registry "Enumservice Registrations" according
to (this) Section 13.1, which will replace the old mechanism as
defined in RFC 3761 [RFC3761].
13.1.1. IANA Registration Template
The IANA registration template consists of the following fields that
are specified in Section 5.2:
o Enumservice Name:
o Enumservice Class:
o Enumservice Type:
o Enumservice Subtype:
Hoeneisen, et al. Expires September 11, 2008 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft IANA Registration of Enumservices Mar 2008
o URI Scheme(s):
o Functional Specification:
o Security Considerations:
o Intended Usage:
o Registration Document:
o Author:
o Further Information:
Note: In the case where a particular field has no value, that field
can be left completely blank, or, to state it explicitly, 'N/A' (Not
Applicable) MAY be used instead. This case especially occurs where a
given Type has no Subtypes.
13.1.2. Location
Approved Enumservice registrations are published in the IANA
repository "Enumservice Registrations", which is available at the
following URI:
< http://www.iana.org/assignments/enum-services >.
At this repository only the filled IANA Registration Template as
listed in Section 13.1.1 and specified in Section 5.2 is published.
Where the Registration Document is NOT an RFC, IANA MUST hold an
escrow copy of that Registration Document. Said escrow copy will act
as the master reference for that Enumservice Registration.
13.1.3. Registration Procedure
Whenever a proposal for a new Enumservice is submitted, IANA will
take care of the 'Expert Review' process according to "Guidelines for
Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs"
[I-D.narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis].
Provided that the Enumservice has obtained the necessary approval of
the expert(s), and the Registration Document is published, IANA will
register the Enumservice, i.e. add the Enumservice to the IANA
"Enumservice Registrations" registry (see also Section 13.1.2).
Hoeneisen, et al. Expires September 11, 2008 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft IANA Registration of Enumservices Mar 2008
13.1.4. Change Control
For Enumservices Registrations published as an RFC, change control of
Enumservices stays with the IETF via the RFC publication process.
Enumservice registrations may not be deleted. An Enumservice that is
believed no longer appropriate for use, can be declared obsolete by
publication of a new RFC changing its "Intended Usage" field to
"OBSOLETE"; such Enumservices will be clearly marked in the lists
published by IANA.
The same procedure applies to Enumservices Registrations not
published as an RFC, except that "Expert Review" and "Specification
Required" according to "rfc2434bis"
[I-D.narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis] apply to change or
obsolete an existing Enumservice registration.
13.1.5. Restrictions
To avoid confusion with Enumservice fields using an obsolete syntax,
IANA MUST NOT register an Enumservice with any of its identifying
tags set to "E2U".
Appendix A contains examples for Enumservice registrations.
Therefore, IANA SHOULD NOT register an Enumservice with Type or
Subtype set to "foo", "bar", or "sbar".
Since RFC3761bis [I-D.ietf-enum-3761bis] the ABNF for Type and
Subtype allows the "-" character. To avoid confusion with possible
future prefixes, a "-" MUST NOT be used as the first nor as the
second character of a Type or Subtype, unless specified in the ENUM
standard. Currently, the only such prefix known to be documented is
"X-".
Note: Introducting a new such prefix therefore requires an update
of RFC3761bis [I-D.ietf-enum-3761bis].
Any Enumservice registration requests covered by these restrictions
MUST be rejected by IANA, and the 'Expert Review' process SHOULD NOT
be initiated.
13.2. XML2RFC Template
Before publication of this document IANA shall make the XML2RFC
template in Appendix A publicly available so that authors of new
Enumservice Registrations can easily download it.
Note: The XML2RFC template in Appendix A contains a proposal for the
'IANA Considerations' section of actual Enumservice Registration
Hoeneisen, et al. Expires September 11, 2008 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft IANA Registration of Enumservices Mar 2008
Document.
14. Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the following people who have
provided feedback or significant contributions to the development of
this document: Lawrence Conroy, Peter Koch, Edward Lewis, and Jon
Peterson
Lawrence Conroy has provided extensive text for the Enumservice
Classification section.
Section 3 of RFC 3761 [RFC3761], which was edited by Patrik Faltstrom
and Michael Mealling, has been incorporated to this document. Please
see the Acknowledgments section in RFC 3761 for additional
acknowledgments.
15. References
15.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC2026] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision
3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, October 1996.
[RFC3761] Faltstrom, P. and M. Mealling, "The E.164 to Uniform
Resource Identifiers (URI) Dynamic Delegation Discovery
System (DDDS) Application (ENUM)", RFC 3761, April 2004.
[I-D.ietf-enum-3761bis]
Bradner, S., Conroy, L., and K. Fujiwara, "The E.164 to
Uniform Resource Identifiers (URI) Dynamic Delegation
Discovery System (DDDS) Application (ENUM)",
draft-ietf-enum-3761bis-02 (work in progress),
February 2008.
[I-D.rfc-editor-rfc2223bis]
Reynolds, J. and R. Braden, "Instructions to Request for
Comments (RFC) Authors", draft-rfc-editor-rfc2223bis-08
(work in progress), July 2004.
[RFC3403] Mealling, M., "Dynamic Delegation Discovery System (DDDS)
Part Three: The Domain Name System (DNS) Database",
RFC 3403, October 2002.
Hoeneisen, et al. Expires September 11, 2008 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft IANA Registration of Enumservices Mar 2008
[I-D.narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis]
Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
IANA Considerations Section in RFCs",
draft-narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis-08 (work in
progress), October 2007.
15.2. Informative References
[RFC3986] Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform
Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax", STD 66,
RFC 3986, January 2005.
[RFC4238] Vaudreuil, G., "Voice Message Routing Service", RFC 4238,
October 2005.
[RFC4969] Mayrhofer, A., "IANA Registration for vCard Enumservice",
RFC 4969, August 2007.
[RFC4979] Mayrhofer, A., "IANA Registration for Enumservice 'XMPP'",
RFC 4979, August 2007.
[RFC3764] Peterson, J., "enumservice registration for Session
Initiation Protocol (SIP) Addresses-of-Record", RFC 3764,
April 2004.
[ITU.E164.2005]
International Telecommunications Union, "The International
Public Telecommunication Numbering Plan", ITU-
T Recommendation E.164, Feb 2005.
Appendix A. XML2RFC Template for Enumservice Registration
The latest version of the following XML2RFC template can be
downloaded from XYZ [Note to RFC editor: Before publication, replace
XYZ with download URL assigned by IANA.]
<?xml version='1.0' ?>
<!DOCTYPE rfc SYSTEM 'rfc2629.dtd'>
<rfc ipr='full3978' docName='draft-mysurname-enum-foo-service-00' >
<?rfc toc='yes' ?>
<?rfc tocompact='no' ?>
<?rfc compact='yes' ?>
<?rfc subcompact='yes' ?>
<front>
Hoeneisen, et al. Expires September 11, 2008 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft IANA Registration of Enumservices Mar 2008
<title abbrev='Foo Enumservice'>
IANA Registration for Enumservice Foo
</title>
<author initials='MyI.' surname='MySurname'
fullname='MyName MySurname'>
<organization abbrev='MyOrg'>
MyOrganization
</organization>
<address>
<postal>
<street>MyAddress</street>
<city>MyCity</city>
<code>MyZIP</code>
<country>MyCountry</country>
</postal>
<phone>Myphonenumber</phone>
<email>MyEmailAddress</email>
<uri>MyWebpage</uri>
</address>
</author>
<date month='ThisMonth' year='ThisYear' day='ThisDay'/>
<area>RAI</area>
<workgroup>ENUM -- Telephone Number Mapping Working Group</workgroup>
<keyword>ENUM</keyword>
<keyword>foo</keyword>
<keyword>bar</keyword>
<abstract>
<t>This memo registers the Enumservice "foo" with Subtype "bar"
using the URI scheme "bar".
This Enumservice is to be used to refer from an ENUM domain
name to the foobar of the entity using the corresponding
E.164 number.
</t>
<t>A Client can use information gathered from a record using
this Enumservice to foo the bar.
</t>
</abstract>
</front>
<middle>
Hoeneisen, et al. Expires September 11, 2008 [Page 28]
Internet-Draft IANA Registration of Enumservices Mar 2008
<section anchor='intro' title='Introduction'>
<t><xref target='I-D.ietf-enum-3761bis'>RFC3761bis</xref>
uses the <xref target='RFC1035'>Domain Name System
(DNS)</xref> to refer from <xref target='ITU.E164.2005'>E.164
numbers</xref> to <xref target='RFC3986'>Uniform Resource
Identifiers (URIs)</xref>.
</t>
<t>To distinguish between different services for a single E.164
number, section 2.4.2 of RFC 3761 specifies 'Enumservices',
which are to be registered with IANA according to section 3
of RFC 3761 and <xref target='RFCXXXX'>RFC XXXX</xref>.
</t>
<t>The 'foo' protocol is specified in ... and provides ...
</t>
<t>The Enumservice specified in this document refers from an
E.164 number to a foobar ... Clients use those foobars to foo
the bar.
</t>
</section>
<section anchor='terminology' title='Terminology'>
<t>The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL",
"SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described
in <xref target='RFC2119'>RFC 2119</xref>.
</t>
</section>
<section anchor='reg' title='ENUM Service Registration - foo'>
<t>Enumservice Name: "Foo"</t>
<t>Enumservice Class: Barfoo-based Enumservice</t>
<t>Enumservice Type: "foo"</t>
<t>Enumservice Subtype: "bar"</t> <!-- Use N/A if none -->
<t>URI Scheme(s): "bar:"</t>
<t>Functional Specification:
Hoeneisen, et al. Expires September 11, 2008 [Page 29]
Internet-Draft IANA Registration of Enumservices Mar 2008
<list style='empty'>
<t>This Enumservice indicates that the resource identified is
a foobar ...
</t>
</list>
</t>
<t>Security Considerations: see <xref target='sec'/></t>
<t>Intended Usage: COMMON</t>
<t>Registration Document: RFC XXXX</t>
<t>Author(s): MyName MySurname, <myEmail></t>
<t>Further Information: see <xref target='impl'/></t>
</section>
<section anchor='examples' title='Examples'>
<t>An example ENUM record referencing to "foo" could look like:
<list style='empty'>
<vspace blankLines='1'/>
<t>$ORIGIN 9.7.8.0.9.7.8.9.0.9.4.4.e164.arpa.
<vspace blankLines='0'/>
@ IN NAPTR 50 10 "u" "E2U+foo:bar" "!^.*$!bar://example.com/!" .
</t>
<t>...
</t>
</list>
</t>
</section>
<section anchor='impl' title='Implementation Recommendations'>
Hoeneisen, et al. Expires September 11, 2008 [Page 30]
Internet-Draft IANA Registration of Enumservices Mar 2008
<t>Implementers should consider that fooing the bar...
</t>
</section>
<section anchor='sec' title='Security Considerations'>
<t>As with any Enumservice, the security considerations of ENUM
itself (Section 6 of RFC 3761) apply.
</t>
<section anchor='secrecord' title='The ENUM Record Itself'>
<t>Since ENUM uses DNS - a publicly available database - any
information contained in records provisioned in ENUM domains
must be considered public as well. Even after revoking the
DNS entry and removing the referred resource, copies of the
information could still be available.
</t>
<t>Information published in ENUM records could reveal
associations between E.164 numbers and their owners -
especially if URIs contain personal identifiers or domain
names for which ownership information can be obtained easily.
For example, the following URI makes it easy to guess the
owner of an E.164 number as well as his location and
association by just examining the result from the ENUM
look-up:
<vspace blankLines='1'/>
<list>
<t>http://sandiego.company.example.com/joe-william-user.vcf</t>
</list>
</t>
<t>However, it is important to note that the ENUM record itself
does not need to contain any personal information. It just
points to a location where access to personal information could
be granted. For example, the following URI only reveals the
service provider hosting the vCard (who probably even provides
anonymous hosting):
<vspace blankLines='1'/>
<list>
<t>http://anonhoster.example.org/file_adfa001.vcf</t>
</list>
</t>
Hoeneisen, et al. Expires September 11, 2008 [Page 31]
Internet-Draft IANA Registration of Enumservices Mar 2008
<t>ENUM records pointing to third party resources can easily be
provisioned on purpose by the ENUM domain owner - so any
assumption about the association between a number and an
entity could therefore be completely bogus unless some kind
of identity verification is in place. This verification is
out of scope for this memo.
</t>
</section>
<section anchor='secresource' title='The Resource Identified'>
<t>Users MUST therefore carefully consider information they
provide in the resource identified by the ENUM record as well
as in the record itself. Considerations could include
serving information only to entities of the user's choice
and/or limiting the comprehension of the information provided
based on the identity of the requester.
</t>
<t>(modify as appropriate - more about the specific
resource here)
</t>
</section>
</section>
<section anchor='iana' title='IANA Considerations'>
<t>This document requests the IANA registration of the Enumservice
"Foo" with Type "foo" and Subtype "bar" according to the
definitions in this document, RFC XXXX [Note for RFC Editor:
Please replace XXXX with the RFC number of this document
(draft-ietf-enum-enumservices-guide) before publication]
and <xref target='I-D.ietf-enum-3761bis'>RFC3761bis</xref>.
</t>
<t>...
</t>
</section>
<section anchor='dns' title='DNS Considerations'>
<t>This Enumservices does not introduce any
new considerations for the DNS.
</t>
Hoeneisen, et al. Expires September 11, 2008 [Page 32]
Internet-Draft IANA Registration of Enumservices Mar 2008
<t>...
</t>
</section>
</middle>
<back>
<references title='Normative References'>
<?rfc include="reference.RFC.2119" ?>
<?rfc include="reference.RFC.3761" ?>
<?rfc include="reference.RFC.1035" ?>
</references>
<references title='Informative References'>
<reference anchor="ITU.E164.2005">
<front>
<title>The International Public Telecommunication Numbering
Plan</title>
<author>
<organization>International Telecommunications
Union</organization>
</author>
<date month="Feb" year="2005" />
</front>
<seriesInfo name="ITU-T" value="Recommendation E.164" />
</reference>
</references>
</back>
</rfc>
Figure 2
Appendix B. Changes
[RFC Editor: This section is to be removed before publication]
Hoeneisen, et al. Expires September 11, 2008 [Page 33]
Internet-Draft IANA Registration of Enumservices Mar 2008
draft-ietf-enum-enumservices-guide-08:
o alex: new text for subtypes of protocol class enumservices
("mandatory to implement" stuff)
o alex: added "to be foreseen" to the application type subtype
recommendation
o alex: added "lowercase" recommendation to the type names
o bernie: Corrected various typos, clarifications, and other
editorial stuff (feedback from Lawrence Conroy)
o bernie: IANA Registry ftp -> http (feedback from Lawrence Conroy)
o bernie: Made steps prior to IANA submission mandatory (feedback
from Lawrence Conroy)
o bernie: Shortened abstract
draft-ietf-enum-enumservices-guide-07:
o bernie: Section DNS considerations made mandatory
o bernie: Complete rewrite of IANA considerations
o bernie: XML2RFC template will be downloadable at IANA
o bernie: Complete re-write of process
o alex: Adjusted Cook-book / classification
o bernie: Take over chapter "Registration mechanism for
Enumservices" from RFC 3761bis
o bernie: Changed title to adjust to new purpose
o bernie: Intended status changed to Standards Track (was bcp)
o bernie: Obsoletes (partly) RFC 3761
o bernie: Adjusted section "Registration mechanism for Enumservices"
o bernie: Updated most RFC 3761 references to either RFC3761bis or
new (internal) section
o bernie: Acknowledgment for RFC3761 contributors
o bernie: Shortened bullet point in IANA Registration Template:
"Any other information that the author deems interesting"
==> "Further Information"
o alex: Rewritten Abstract, Introduction to be consistent with with
new goal (IANA Registry description)
o alex: Add obsoletes section 3 of RFC 3761 to Introduction
o alex: Changed section 3 to "registration requirements", Simplified
structure
o alex: Added examples for protocol Enumservice classification
o alex: Added text about "other" classification
draft-ietf-enum-enumservices-guide-06:
o alex: updated Class Schemes.
o alex: updated expert's tasks
o alex: added experts review considerations
o bernie: Moved Terminology section in XML2RFC template (now after
Introduction)
o bernie: Class is now part of the Enumservice registration in the
IANA template
Hoeneisen, et al. Expires September 11, 2008 [Page 34]
Internet-Draft IANA Registration of Enumservices Mar 2008
o bernie: Individual Submission relaxed (comment Peter Koch)
o bernie: updated vcard Ref (now RFC)
draft-ietf-enum-enumservices-guide-05:
o bernie/alex: added text for sections 'The Enumservice Expert
Selection Process' and 'The Process for Appealing Expert Review
Decisions'
o bernie: added ASCII-art figure for registration process
o bernie: adjusted registration process
o jason: proposed registration process
draft-ietf-enum-enumservices-guide-04:
o bernie: added section about Extension of existing Enumservice RFCs
o bernie: added open issue about future registration process
o bernie: added category (bcp)
o bernie: clean up in Security Considerations
o bernie: editorial stuff (mainly XML issues)
draft-ietf-enum-enumservices-guide-03:
o alex: moved terminology section
o alex: removed note asking for feedback
o bernie: added DNS consideration section
o bernie: added Acknowledgments section
o bernie: editorial stuff (nicer formating, fixing too long lines)
o alex: added security considerations from vcard draft.
draft-ietf-enum-enumservices-guide-02:
o bernie: replaced numbers in examples by "Drama Numbers"
o bernie: moved Change and Open Issues to Appendix.
o bernie: major rewrite of section "6. Required Sections and
Information" incl. separating explanations and examples.
o bernie: removed section 7 (was just a repetition of referencing to
XML2RFC template)
o bernie: extended Appendix with Open Issues.
draft-ietf-enum-enumservices-guide-01:
o alex: added Security Considerations section for the doc itself
o alex: added IANA Considerations section for the doc itself
o alex: added cookbook idea
Appendix C. Open Issues
[RFC Editor: This section should be empty before publication]
o Ensure consistency (with new aim and section) throughout the whole
document (jason?)
Hoeneisen, et al. Expires September 11, 2008 [Page 35]
Internet-Draft IANA Registration of Enumservices Mar 2008
o Transition Regime for changed IANA registration process and
template
o Re-Check references to RFC3761 / rfc3761bis
o Intended Usage: Do we need to add there "EXPERIMENTAL" and
"TRIAL"?
Authors' Addresses
Bernie Hoeneisen
SWITCH
Werdstrasse 2
CH-8004 Zuerich
Switzerland
Phone: +41 44 268 1515
Email: bernhard.hoeneisen@switch.ch, bernie@ietf.hoeneisen.ch
URI: http://www.switch.ch/
Alexander Mayrhofer
enum.at GmbH
Karlsplatz 1/9
Wien A-1010
Austria
Phone: +43 1 5056416 34
Email: alexander.mayrhofer@enum.at
URI: http://www.enum.at/
Jason Livingood
Comcast Cable Communications
1500 Market Street
Philadelphia, PA 19102
USA
Phone: +1-215-981-7813
Email: jason_livingood@cable.comcast.com
URI: http://www.comcast.com/
Hoeneisen, et al. Expires September 11, 2008 [Page 36]
Internet-Draft IANA Registration of Enumservices Mar 2008
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008).
This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
retain all their rights.
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND
THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS
OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF
THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Intellectual Property
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at
ietf-ipr@ietf.org.
Hoeneisen, et al. Expires September 11, 2008 [Page 37]
| PAFTECH AB 2003-2026 | 2026-04-24 02:37:20 |