One document matched: draft-ietf-enum-enumservices-guide-11.xml
<?xml version='1.0' ?>
<!DOCTYPE rfc SYSTEM 'rfc2629.dtd'[
<!ENTITY rfc2119 PUBLIC '' 'http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.2119.xml'>
<!ENTITY rfc2026 PUBLIC '' 'http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.2026.xml'>
<!ENTITY rfc3761 PUBLIC '' 'http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.3761.xml'>
<!ENTITY I-D.rfc3761bis PUBLIC '' 'http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml3/reference.I-D.ietf-enum-3761bis.xml'>
<!ENTITY rfc2223 PUBLIC '' 'http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.2223.xml'>
<!ENTITY rfc3403 PUBLIC '' 'http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.3403.xml'>
<!ENTITY rfc5226 PUBLIC '' 'http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.5226.xml'>
<!ENTITY rfc3986 PUBLIC '' 'http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.3986.xml'>
<!ENTITY rfc4238 PUBLIC '' 'http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.4238.xml'>
<!ENTITY rfc4969 PUBLIC '' 'http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.4969.xml'>
<!ENTITY rfc4979 PUBLIC '' 'http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.4979.xml'>
<!ENTITY rfc3764 PUBLIC '' 'http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.3764.xml'>
<!ENTITY rfc5226 PUBLIC '' 'http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.5226.xml'>
<!ENTITY I-D.enum-svc-trans PUBLIC '' 'http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml3/reference.I-D.hoeneisen-enum-enumservices-transition.xml'>
]>
<rfc category='std' ipr='full3978' obsoletes='3761' docName='draft-ietf-enum-enumservices-guide-11' >
<?rfc toc='yes' ?>
<?rfc tocompact='no' ?>
<?rfc compact='yes' ?>
<?rfc subcompact='yes' ?>
<?rfc symrefs='yes' ?>
<?rfc strict='no' ?>
<front>
<date month='August' year='2008' day='11'/>
<title abbrev='IANA Registration of Enumservices'>
IANA Registration of Enumservices: Guide, Template and IANA Considerations
</title>
<author initials='B.' surname='Hoeneisen' fullname='Bernie Hoeneisen'>
<organization abbrev='SWITCH'>
SWITCH
</organization>
<address>
<postal>
<street>Werdstrasse 2</street>
<city>CH-8004 Zuerich</city>
<country>Switzerland</country>
</postal>
<phone>+41 44 268 1515</phone>
<email>bernhard.hoeneisen@switch.ch, bernie@ietf.hoeneisen.ch</email>
<uri>http://www.switch.ch/</uri>
</address>
</author>
<author initials='A.' surname='Mayrhofer' fullname='Alexander Mayrhofer'>
<organization abbrev='enum.at'>
enum.at GmbH
</organization>
<address>
<postal>
<street>Karlsplatz 1/9</street>
<city>Wien</city>
<code>A-1010</code>
<country>Austria</country>
</postal>
<phone>+43 1 5056416 34</phone>
<email>alexander.mayrhofer@enum.at</email>
<uri>http://www.enum.at/</uri>
</address>
</author>
<author initials='J.' surname='Livingood' fullname='Jason Livingood'>
<organization abbrev='Comcast'>
Comcast Cable Communications
</organization>
<address>
<postal>
<street>One Comcast Center</street>
<street>1701 John F. Kennedy Boulevard</street>
<city>Philadelphia, PA 19103</city>
<country>USA</country>
</postal>
<phone>+1-215-286-7813</phone>
<email>jason_livingood@cable.comcast.com</email>
<uri>http://www.comcast.com/</uri>
</address>
</author>
<area>RAI</area>
<workgroup>ENUM -- Telephone Number Mapping Working Group</workgroup>
<keyword>ENUM</keyword>
<abstract>
<t>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.
</t>
<!--
<t>Registration of Enumservices is now handled using the
"Expert Review" process. A Registration Document containing
the specification of the Enumservice is required. However,
contrary to earlier registration procedures, said Registration
Document does not necessarily need to be promoted to RFC status.
</t>
-->
<!--
<t>This document provides a guide to and template for the creation
of new IANA registrations of ENUM (E.164 Number Mapping) services.
It is also to be used for updates of existing Enumservice registrations.
</t>
-->
</abstract>
</front>
<middle>
<section title='Introduction'>
<!-- <t>[ Note: This is work in progress - the ENUM crowd is invited
to contribute, since issues clarified in this document will save
the group time spent on each individual Enumservice registration.
Please mail your opinions/ideas to the WG list!! ]
</t>
-->
<t>E.164 Number Mapping (ENUM) <xref target='I-D.ietf-enum-3761bis'/>
provides an identifier mapping
mechanism to map <xref target='ITU.E164.2005'>E.164 numbers</xref> to
<xref target='RFC3986'>Uniform Resource Identifiers (URIs)</xref>.
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.
</t>
<t>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.
</t>
<t>This document specifies a revision of the IANA Registry for
Enumservices, which was originally described
in <xref target='RFC3761'/>. This document
obsoletes Section 3 of RFC 3761.
<!--
<vspace blankLines='1'/>
<list style="empty">
<t>Note: <xref target='RFC3761'>RFC 3761</xref> is also
obsoleted
by <xref target='I-D.ietf-enum-3761bis'>RFC3761bis</xref>.
</t>
</list>
-->
</t>
<t>
The new registration processes have been specifically designed
to be decoupled from the existence of
the ENUM working group. Compared to RFC 3761, the main
changes are:
</t>
<vspace blankLines='1'/>
<list style='symbols'>
<t>For an Enumservice to be inserted to the IANA Registry,
'Expert Review' and 'Specification Required' according
to <xref target='RFC5226'>"Guidelines
for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs"</xref>
are now sufficient.
</t>
<vspace blankLines='1'/>
<t>The IANA Registration Template contains new fields, i.e.
"Enumservice Class" and "Registration Document(s)".
</t>
<vspace blankLines='1'/>
<t>The former field "Any other information that the author
deems interesting" of the IANA Registration Template has
been changed to "Further Information".
</t>
</list>
</section>
<section 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>
<t>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.
</t>
</section>
<!--
<section title='History and Usage of Enumservice Registrations'>
<t>As mentioned above, <xref target='RFC3761'> RFC 3761
</xref> describes the ... DO WE REALLY NEED THIS?
</t>
</section>
-->
<section anchor='requirements' title='Registration Requirements'>
<t>As specified in the ABNF found in
<xref target='I-D.ietf-enum-3761bis'/>, an Enumservice is made
up of Types and Subtypes. For any given Type, the allowable
Subtypes (if any) must be specified in the Registration.
There is currently no concept of a registered Subtype outside
the scope of a given Type.
</t>
<!-- Thus, the registration process uses the 'type' as its main key
within the IANA Registry.</t> -->
<t>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 list the allowed values of
those fields. To allow interoperability, a complete
Registration MUST document the semantics of the Type and
Subtype values to be registered, and MUST contain all
sections listed in <xref target='requiredSections'/> of this
document.</t>
<t>Furthermore, in order for an Enumservice to be registered,
the entire Registration Document requires approval by the
experts according to the 'Expert Review' process defined
in <xref target='RFC5226'>"Guidelines
for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs"</xref>.
</t>
<t>All Enumservice Registration proposals are expected to
conform also to various requirements laid out in the following
sections.
</t>
<section anchor='FunctReq' title='Functionality Requirements'>
<t>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.
</t>
<t>Specifically, a registered Enumservice MUST specify the
URI Scheme(s) that may be used for the Enumservice, and,
when needed, other information that will have to be
transferred into the URI resolution process itself.
</t>
</section>
<section anchor='NamingReq' title='Naming Requirements'>
<t>An Enumservice MUST be unique in order to be useful as a
selection criteria:
<vspace blankLines='1'/>
<list style='symbols'>
<t>The Type MUST be unique.
</t>
<vspace blankLines='1'/>
<t>The Subtype (being dependent on the Type) MUST be
unique within a given Type.
</t>
</list>
</t>
<t>Types and Subtypes MUST conform to the ABNF specified in
<xref target='I-D.ietf-enum-3761bis'/>.
</t>
<t>The ABNF specified in
<xref target='I-D.ietf-enum-3761bis'/> allows the "-" (dash)
character for Types and Subtypes . To avoid confusion with
possible future prefixes, a "-" MUST NOT be used as the
first nor as the second character of a Type nor a Subtype.
</t>
<t>To avoid confusion with Enumservice fields using an
obsolete syntax, any identifying tag of any Enumservice MUST
NOT be set to nor start with "E2U".
</t>
<t>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.
</t>
<t><xref target='cookbook'/> contains further naming
requirements.
</t>
</section>
<section anchor='SecReq' title='Security Requirements'>
<t>An analysis of security issues is REQUIRED for all
registered Enumservices. (This is in accordance with the
basic requirements for all IETF protocols.)
</t>
<t>All descriptions of security issues MUST be as accurate
and extensive as feasible. 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".
</t>
<t>There is no requirement that an Enumservice must be
completely free of security risks. Nevertheless, all
known security risks MUST be identified in the Registration
of an Enumservice.
</t>
<t>The security considerations section of all Registrations
is subject to continuing evaluation and modification.
</t>
<t>Some of the issues that SHOULD be looked at in a security
analysis of an Enumservice are:
<vspace blankLines='1'/>
<list style='numbers'>
<t>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 number.
</t>
<vspace blankLines='1'/>
<t>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.
</t>
<vspace blankLines='1'/>
<t>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.
</t>
</list>
</t>
</section>
<section anchor='PubReq' title='Publication Requirements'>
<t>Enumservices Registrations MUST be published according to
the requirements for 'Specification Required' set
in <xref target='RFC5226'>"Guidelines
for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs"</xref>.
RFCs fulfill these
requirements. Therefore, it is strongly RECOMMENDED
Registration Documents be published as RFCs.
</t>
<t>In case the Registration is not published as an RFC, sufficient
information that allows to
uniquely identify the Registration Document MUST be
provided.
</t>
</section>
</section>
<section anchor='cookbook' title='Enumservice Creation Cookbook'>
<section title='General Enumservice Considerations'>
<t>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.
</t>
<t>
Section 2
of <xref target='RFC5226'>"Guidelines
for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs"</xref>
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, its 32 alphanumeric characters make it
much larger than the entire IPv6 addressing space),
exhaustion is not a problem. However, the following motivation
for management taken from Section 2
of <xref target='RFC5226'/>
applies to Enumservices:
<vspace blankLines='1'/>
<list style='symbols'>
<t>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 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.
</t>
<vspace blankLines='1'/>
<t>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.
</t>
<vspace blankLines='1'/>
<t>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.
</t>
<vspace blankLines='1'/>
<t>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.
</t>
</list>
</t>
<t>Generally, before commencing work on a new Enumservice
registration, the following should be considered:
<vspace blankLines='1'/>
<list style='symbols'>
<t>Is there an existing Enumservice that could fulfill the
desired functionality without overloading it? Check the IANA
Enumservice Registry at
<http://www.iana.org/assignments/enum-services>.
</t>
<vspace blankLines='1'/>
<t>Is there work in progress, or previous work, on a similar
Enumservice? Check the <enum@ietf.org> mailing list archives
at <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/enum/index.html>,
and search the Internet-Drafts Archive at
<http://tools.ietf.org/>. As some Internet-Drafts may have
expired and no longer be available in the Internet-Drafts Archive,
it is important to search the <enum@ietf.org> mailing list
archives and to perform a web search.
</t>
<vspace blankLines='1'/>
<t><xref target='classification'/> 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 itself might be useful before making a
decision on which
aspect of the Enumservice is more important.
</t>
</list>
</t>
</section>
<section anchor='classification' title='Classification, Type and Subtype'>
<t>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. -->
</t>
<t>The Classification of each Enumservice MUST be listed in
the Enumservice Registration (see
<xref target='enumServiceReg'/>). 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 experts in their decision.
</t>
<!-- alex: no 'name' anymore
<section anchor='choosename' title='Choosing a "name" String'>
<t>Advice for choosing a proper 'name' string is independent of
the classification of the Enumservice.</t>
<t>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.
</t>
<t>Suitable 'names' are concise, distinctive, and clearly related
to the underlying service with which a client is going to interact.
</t>
</section>
-->
<section anchor='generalcons' title='General Type / Subtype Considerations'>
<t>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.
</t>
<t>If Subtypes are defined, the minimum number SHOULD be
two (including the empty subtype, if defined).
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.
</t>
<t>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.
</t>
</section>
<section anchor='protocolclass' title='Protocol-based Enumservices Class'>
<t>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.</t>
<t>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.
</t>
<t>Examples of such Enumservices include <xref target='RFC4979'>
XMPP</xref> and <xref target='RFC3764'>SIP</xref>.
</t>
<section anchor='protobtype' title='Protocol-based Enumservice "Type" Strings'>
<t>
A protocol-based Enumservice SHOULD use the lowercased name of
the protocol
<!-- (or the "base" URI Scheme, where there are also secure variants) -->
as its 'type' name.
</t>
</section>
<section anchor='protobsubtype' title='Protocol-based Enumservice "Subtype" Strings'>
<t>
Where there is a single URI Scheme associated with this protocol,
then the Enumservice SHOULD NOT use a Subtype.
</t>
<t>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.
</t>
<t>If Subtypes are defined, it is RECOMMENDED to use the URI
Scheme name as the Subtype string.
</t>
</section>
</section>
<section anchor='applicationclass' title='Application-based Enumservice Classes'>
<t>Application-based Enumservices are used when the kind of
service intended is not fully defined by a protocol specification.
There are three cases here:
<vspace blankLines='1'/>
<list style='symbols'>
<t>Common Application Enumservice:
<vspace blankLines='1'/>
The application reflects a kind of interaction that can be realized
by different protocols, but where the intent of the 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.
<vspace blankLines='1'/>
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.
<vspace blankLines='1'/>
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.
</t>
<vspace blankLines='1'/>
<t>Subset Enumservice:
<vspace blankLines='1'/>
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.
</t>
<vspace blankLines='1'/>
<t>Ancillary Application Enumservice
<vspace blankLines='1'/>
Another variant on this is the Ancillary Application. This is one in
which further processing (potentially using a number of 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).
</t>
</list>
</t>
<section anchor='apptype' title='Application-based Enumservice "Type" Strings'>
<t>It is RECOMMENDED that Application-class Enumservices use the
lowercased well known name of the abstract application
as Type name.
</t>
</section>
<section anchor='appsubtype' title='Application-based Enumservice "Subtype" Strings'>
<t>It is
RECOMMENDED to use the URI Scheme(s) which the application uses, as
Subtype name(s). Subtype names SHOULD be shared only between
URI Schemes that the Registration specifies as mandatory
to implement for a given Subtype.
</t>
<t>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.
</t>
</section>
</section>
<section anchor='dataclass' title='Data- / Format-based Enumservice Class'>
<t>"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
<xref target='RFC4238'>'vpim'</xref> and
<xref target='RFC4969'>'vCard'</xref>.
</t>
<section anchor='datatype' title='Data- / Format-based Enumservice "Type" Strings'>
<t>It is RECOMMENDED to use the lowercase well known name
of the data / format as the Type name.</t>
</section>
<section anchor='datasubtype' title='Data- / Format-based Enumservice "Subtype" Strings'>
<t>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 the Registration specifies as mandatory to
implement for a given Subtype.
</t>
<t>If there is only one URI Scheme foreseen to access the data / format,
the empty Subtype string MAY be used.
</t>
</section>
</section>
<section anchor='otherService' title='Other Enumservice'>
<t>In case an Enumservice proposal cannot be assigned to any
of the classes mentioned above, the "Classification" field in
the Enumservice Registration (see
<xref target='enumServiceReg'/> 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.
</t>
</section>
</section>
<!-- <section anchor='CookbookType' title='About Type Names'>
<t>Generally, the Type name of an Enumservice is REQUIRED to
give a clear indication of what the Enumservice is about.
Usually, an Enumservice falls under one of the following
categories:
<vspace blankLines='1'/>
<list style='symbols'>
<t>"Protocol" Enumservices are exclusively tied to a
specific protocol. Such Enumservices typically use that
single protocol and its respective <xref
target='RFC3986'>Uniform Resource
Identifier (URI)</xref> Scheme (sometimes
including a secure variant), and SHOULD use the protocol
name / URI Scheme name as the Type. In case the secure
variant has a different URI Scheme / protocol name, the
URI Scheme name of the base protocol SHOULD be preferred.
Examples of such Enumservices include <xref
target='RFC3764'> 'SIP'</xref>, <xref
target='RFC3762'>'H323'</xref> and
<xref target='I-D.ietf-enum-xmpp'>'XMPP'
[draft-ietf-enum-xmpp]</xref>.
<vspace blankLines='1'/></t>
<t>"Application" Enumservices usually use the abstract
application name as the Enumservice Type. The name of
the actual protocol and URI Scheme may differ from the
Type, but may also be identical (especially when <xref
target='RFC3958'>application service location</xref> is
used). If application name and URI Scheme name are
identical, it is RECOMMENDED to use that name also as the
Enumservice Type. In case the actual protocol / URI
Scheme differs from the application name, it is
RECOMMENDED to use that application name as Enumservice
Type. Examples of such Enumservices are <xref
target='RFC4002'>'web' and 'ft'</xref> and
<xref target='RFC3953'>'pres'</xref>.
<vspace blankLines='1'/></t>
<t>"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. An example of such an Enumservice is
<xref target='RFC4238'>'vpim'</xref> and
<xref target='RFC4969'>'vCard'</xref>
(work in progress).
</t>
</list>
</t>
</section>
<section anchor='CookbookSubtype' title='About Subtypes'>
<t>An Enumservice may optionally use a Subtype to further
specify the service to which a ENUM record refers to. The
following recommendations apply to such Enumservices:
<vspace blankLines='1'/>
<list style='symbols'>
<t>Subtypes SHOULD NOT be used to curtail the negotiation
capabilities of the protocol used to contact the referred URI,
unless this limitation is specifically desired. If that is
the case, authors MUST describe the limitation, the
motivation for this, and
discuss potential problems arising from this.
<vspace blankLines='1'/></t>
</list>
</t>
</section> -->
</section>
<section anchor='requiredSections' title='Required Sections and Information'>
<t>In addition to the sections required for an RFC as outlined
in <xref target='RFC2223'>"Instructions to RFC
Authors"</xref> , there are several sections that MUST appear in
an Enumservice Registration Document. These sections are as
follows, and SHOULD be in the given order.
</t>
<t>The following terms SHOULD begin with a capital letter,
whenever they refer to the IANA Registration:
<list style='symbols'>
<t>Class</t>
<t>Type</t>
<t>Subtype</t>
<t>URI Scheme</t>
</list>
</t>
<t><xref target='XML2RFCtempl'/> contains an XML2RFC template that 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.
</t>
<section title='Introduction (MANDATORY)'>
<t>An introductory section MUST be included. This section will
explain, in plain English, the purpose of and intended use of the
proposed Enumservice registration.
</t>
<t>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.
</t>
</section>
<section anchor='enumServiceReg' title='IANA Registration (MANDATORY)'>
<t>This section MUST be included in an Enumservice
Registration. Where a given Enumservice Type has multiple
Subtypes, there MUST be a separate 'IANA Registration'
section for each Subtype. The following lists the fields
and order of an 'IANA Registration' section.
</t>
<t>
<list style='symbols'>
<vspace blankLines='1'/>
<!-- no "names" anymore
<t>Enumservice Name:
<vspace blankLines='1'/>
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.
<list style="empty">
<t>
<vspace blankLines='0'/>e.g.
<vspace blankLines='0'/>"Foo"
</t>
</list>
</t>
-->
<vspace blankLines='1'/>
<t>Enumservice Class:
<vspace blankLines='1'/>
This field contains the Class of the Enumservice as
defined in <xref target='classification'/>. It's value
MUST be one of (without quotes):
<vspace blankLines='1'/>
<list style='symbols'>
<t>"Protocol-based": The Enumservice
belongs to the Protocol-based class as described in
<xref target='protocolclass'/>.
</t>
<vspace blankLines='1'/>
<t>"Application-based, Common": The Enumservice
is a "common" case of the Application-based
class as described in <xref target='applicationclass'/>.
</t>
<vspace blankLines='1'/>
<t>"Application-based, Subset": The Enumservice
belongs to the "subset" case of the Application-based
class as described in <xref target='applicationclass'/>.
</t>
<vspace blankLines='1'/>
<t>"Application-based, Ancillary": The Enumservice
is an "ancillary" case of the Application-based class,
as described in <xref target='applicationclass'/>.
</t>
<vspace blankLines='1'/>
<t>"Data- / Format-based": The Enumservice
belongs to the Data- / Format-based class as described in
<xref target='dataclass'/>.
</t>
<vspace blankLines='1'/>
<t>"Other": The majority of the functionality of the
Enumservice does not fall into one of the classes defined.
</t>
</list>
<list style="empty">
<t>
<vspace blankLines='0'/>e.g.
<vspace blankLines='0'/>Protocol-based
</t>
</list>
</t>
<vspace blankLines='1'/>
<t>Enumservice Type:
<vspace blankLines='1'/>
The Type of the Enumservice. <!-- Often this is equivalent to
the Enumservice Name (see above) --> <!--LC:, but MUST meet the ABNF
requirements of RFC3761bis. --> All Types SHOULD be
listed in lower-case. The choice of Type depends on the
Enumservice Class. Please find further instructions in
<xref target='cookbook'/>.
<list style="empty">
<t>
<vspace blankLines='0'/>e.g.
<vspace blankLines='0'/>"foo"
</t>
</list>
<vspace blankLines='1'/>
Note: Put the Type string between double quotes.
</t>
<vspace blankLines='1'/>
<t>Enumservice Subtype:
<vspace blankLines='1'/>
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 <xref target='cookbook'/>.
<list style="empty">
<t>
<vspace blankLines='0'/>e.g.
<vspace blankLines='0'/>"bar"
</t>
<t>
<vspace blankLines='0'/>e.g.
<vspace blankLines='0'/>N/A
</t>
</list>
<vspace blankLines='1'/>
Note: Put the Subtype string between double quotes.
<vspace blankLines='1'/>
Note: Many Enumservices do not require a Subtype; use
"N/A" in this case.
<vspace blankLines='1'/>
Note: As stated above, where a given Enumservice Type
has multiple Subtypes, there MUST be a separate
'IANA Registration' section for each Subtype.
</t>
<vspace blankLines='1'/>
<t>URI Scheme(s):
<vspace blankLines='1'/>
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 <xref target='cookbook'/>.
<list style="empty">
<t>
<vspace blankLines='0'/>e.g.
<vspace blankLines='0'/>'bar', 'sbar'
</t>
</list>
<vspace blankLines='1'/>
Note: Do not put a colon after a URI Scheme and put
each URI Scheme between single quotes. If there is more
than one URI Scheme, use a comma as separator.
<vspace blankLines='1'/>
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'.
</t>
<vspace blankLines='1'/>
<t>Functional Specification:
<vspace blankLines='1'/>
The Functional Specification describes how the
Enumservice is used in connection with the URI to which it
resolves.
<list style="empty">
<t>
<vspace blankLines='0'/>e.g.
<vspace blankLines='0'/>This Enumservice indicates
that the resource identified can be addressed
by the associated URI in order to foo the
bar. [...]
</t>
</list>
<vspace blankLines='1' />
Where the terms used are non-obvious, they should be
defined in the Registration Document, or a reference to
an external document containing their definition should
be provided.
</t>
<vspace blankLines='1'/>
<t>Security Considerations:
<vspace blankLines='1'/>
An internal reference to the 'Security
Considerations' section of a given Registration
Document.
<list style="empty">
<t>
<vspace blankLines='0'/>e.g.
<vspace blankLines='0'/>See Section 10
</t>
</list>
</t>
<vspace blankLines='1'/>
<t>Intended Usage:
<vspace blankLines='1'/>
One of the following values (without quotes):
<vspace blankLines='1'/>
<list style='symbols'>
<t>"COMMON": Indicates that the Enumservice is
intended for widespread use on the public Internet, and
that it's scope is not limited to a certain environment.
</t>
<vspace blankLines='1'/>
<t>"LIMITED USE": Indicates that the Enumservice is
intended for use on a limited scope, for example in
private ENUM-like application scenarios. The use case
provided in the Registration should describe such a
scenario.
</t>
<vspace blankLines='1'/>
<t>"OBSOLETE": Indicates that the Enumservice has
been declared obsolete (<xref target='ChangeControl'/>)
and is not to be used in new deployments. Applications
SHOULD however expect to encounter legacy instances of this
Enumservice.
</t>
</list>
<list style="empty">
<t>
<vspace blankLines='0'/>e.g.
<vspace blankLines='0'/>COMMON
</t>
</list>
</t>
<vspace blankLines='1'/>
<t>Registration Document(s):
<vspace blankLines='1'/>
A *unique* reference to the Enumservice Registration
Document.
<list style="empty">
<t>
<vspace blankLines='0'/>e.g.
<vspace blankLines='0'/>[RFC 9999]
</t>
<t>
<vspace blankLines='0'/>e.g.
<vspace blankLines='0'/>[RFC 7777] (Obsoleted by RFC 8888)
<vspace blankLines='0'/>[RFC 8888] (Updated by RFC 9999)
<vspace blankLines='0'/>[RFC 9999]
</t>
<t>
<vspace blankLines='0'/>e.g.
<vspace blankLines='0'/>[International
Telecommunications Union, "Enumservice Registration
for Foobar", ITU-F Recommendation B.193, Release 73,
Mar 2008.]
</t>
</list>
</t>
<vspace blankLines='1'/>
<t>Authors:
<vspace blankLines='1'/>
The authors of the Enumservice Registration.
<list style="empty">
<t>
<vspace blankLines='0'/>e.g.
<vspace blankLines='0'/>John Doe, Jane Dale
</t>
</list>
<vspace blankLines='1'/>
Note: If there is more than one author, use a comma as
separator.
<vspace blankLines='1'/>
Note: You MUST NOT put email addresses in the authors field of
an IANA Registration.
</t>
<vspace blankLines='1'/>
<t>Authorized Change Controllers:
<vspace blankLines='1'/>
The people who are designated and authorized by the authors to
submit changes to the IANA Registry, per section 5.2 of [RFC 5226]
.
<list style="empty">
<t>
<vspace blankLines='0'/>e.g.
<vspace blankLines='0'/>John Doe, Jane Dale
</t>
</list>
<vspace blankLines='1'/>
Note: If there is more than one authorized change controller, use
a comma as separator.
<vspace blankLines='1'/>
Note: You MUST NOT put email addresses in this field of
an IANA Registration.
</t>
<vspace blankLines='1'/>
<t>Further Information:
<vspace blankLines='1'/>
Any other information the authors deem interesting.
<list style="empty">
<t>
<vspace blankLines='0'/>e.g.
<vspace blankLines='0'/>See Section 3
</t>
<t>
<vspace blankLines='0'/>e.g.
<vspace blankLines='0'/>N/A
</t>
</list>
<vspace blankLines='1'/>
Note: Use "N/A", if there is no content for this field.
</t>
</list>
</t>
</section>
<section title='Examples (MANDATORY)'>
<t>This section MUST show at least one example of the Enumservice being
registered, 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 <xref target='RFC3403'/>
and <xref target='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).
</t>
<t>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.
</t>
<t>e.g.<vspace blankLines='0'/>
$ORIGIN 9.7.8.0.9.7.8.9.0.9.4.4.e164.arpa.
<vspace blankLines='0'/>
@ IN NAPTR 100 10 "u" "E2U+foo:bar" "!^.*$!bar://example.com/!" .
</t>
</section>
<section title='Implementation Recommendations / Notes (OPTIONAL)'>
<t>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.
</t>
</section>
<section anchor='sec' title='Security Considerations (MANDATORY)'>
<t>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).
</t>
<t>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.
</t>
</section>
<section title='IANA Considerations (MANDATORY)'>
<t>Describe the task IANA needs to fulfill processing the
Enumservice Registration Document.
</t>
<t>e.g.<vspace blankLines='0'/>
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 <xref target='I-D.ietf-enum-3761bis'/>.
</t>
<t>
<vspace blankLines='0'/>e.g.
<vspace blankLines='0'/>This document requests an update of
the IANA registration of the Enumservice 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 <xref target='I-D.ietf-enum-3761bis'/>.
Therefore, in the existing IANA registration for this
Enumservice, the field "Registration Document(s)" is enhanced
by adding a supplementary reference that points to this
document.
</t>
<t>
<vspace blankLines='0'/>e.g.
<vspace blankLines='0'/>This document requests an update of
the IANA registration of the Enumservice with Type "foo" and
all its Subtypes, in order to declare it obsolete.
Therefore, in the existing IANA registration for this
Enumservice, the field "Intended Usage" is changed to "OBSOLETE",
and the field "Registration Document(s)" is enhanced by adding a
supplementary reference that points to this document.
</t>
</section>
<section title='DNS Considerations (MANDATORY)'>
<t>In case the inclusion of protocols and URI Schemes into
ENUM specifically introduces new DNS issues, those MUST be
described within this section.
</t>
<t>Such DNS issues include, but are not limited to:
<vspace blankLines='1'/>
<list style='symbols'>
<t>Assumptions about ownership or administrative control of the
namespace.
<vspace blankLines='1'/></t>
<t>Requirement or need to use DNS wildcards.
<vspace blankLines='1'/></t>
<t>Incompatibility with DNS wildcards.
<vspace blankLines='1'/></t>
<t>Presence or absence of the respective NAPTR Resource Record at
particular levels in the DNS hierarchy (e.g. only for 'full'
E.164 numbers, or number blocks only).
<vspace blankLines='1'/></t>
<t>Use of any Resource Records (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.
</t>
</list>
</t>
<t>Rationale: some Enumservices try to exploit side effects
of the DNS that need to be explicitly discussed.
</t>
</section>
<section title='Other Sections (OPTIONAL)'>
<t>Other sections, beyond those required by the IETF and/or IANA, which
are cited or otherwise referenced herein, MAY be included in an
Enumservice Registration. These sections may relate to the specifics
of the intended use of the Enumservice registration, as well as to any
associated technical, operational, administrative, or other concerns.
</t>
<t>It is highly recommended that a section describing the intended use
be included, as this will serve to inform Expert Reviewers as well as
assist potential implementers.
</t>
</section>
</section>
<section anchor='processReg' title='The Process of Registering New Enumservices'>
<t>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.</t>
<t><xref target='enumservice-reg-proc-author'/> describes, what
authors of a Registration Document describing an Enumservice
MUST carry out, before said Registration can be formally submitted to IANA.
</t>
<figure anchor='enumservice-reg-proc-author'>
<!-- <preamble>X-Enumservice Registration Process</preamble>-->
<artwork><![CDATA[
+----------------------------+
| Step 1: Read this document |
+----------------------------+
|
V
+-------------------------------+
| Step 2: Write R-D and submit |
+-------------------------------+
|
V
+--------------------------------------------+
| Step 3: Announce R-D 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
]]></artwork>
</figure>
<section title='Step 1: Read this Document in Detail'>
<t>This document describes all of the necessary sections
required and recommended, makes suggestions on content, and
provides sample XML.
</t>
</section>
<section title='Step 2: Write and Submit Registration Document'>
<t>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 <xref target='cookbook'/> and
<xref target='requiredSections'/> of this document. It is
RECOMMENDED to use the XML2RFC template contained in
<xref target='XML2RFCtempl'/> of this document.
</t>
</section>
<section title='Step 3: Request Comments from the IETF Community'>
<t>The authors 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 in this email.
</t>
<t>The authors SHOULD allow a reasonable period of time to
elapse, such as two to four weeks, in order to collect any
feedback. The authors 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 authors.
The choice of path is left to the authors' judgement.
</t>
<section title='Outcome 1: No Changes Needed'>
<t>No changes to the Registration Document are made, and the
authors proceed to Step 4 below.</t>
<t>This outcome is recommended when the feedback received
does not lead to a new revision of the Registration Document.
</t>
</section>
<section title='Outcome 2: Changes, but no further Comments Requested'>
<t>The authors update the Registration Document and is/are
confident that all issues are resolved and do not require
further discussion. The authors proceed to Step 4
below.
</t>
<t>This outcome is recommended when minor objections have
been raised, or minor changes have been suggested.
</t>
</section>
<section title='Outcome 3: Changes and further Comments Requested'>
<t>The authors update and submit 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.
</t>
<t>This outcome is recommended when substantial objections
have been raised, or substantial changes have been
suggested.
</t>
</section>
</section>
<section title='Step 4: Submit Registration Document to IANA'>
<t>The authors submit the Registration Document to IANA. This
registration MUST be submitted in XML format, in order to be compatible
with the new XML-based IANA Registry.
</t>
</section>
<section title='Further Steps'>
<t>IANA will complete an Designated Expert Review according
to <xref target='RFC5226'></xref> and add the service to the IANA
Enumservice Registry, given that the Enumservice Registration has been
approved following a successful Expert Review process, and that an
IETF RFC number has been issued.
</t>
<t>The authors MUST be prepared for further interaction
with IANA and the IANA Designated Expert Reviewers.</t>
</section>
</section>
<section anchor='ExpRev' title='Expert Review'>
<section anchor='ExpRevSel' title='Expert Selection Process'>
<t>According to Section 3.2
of <xref target='RFC5226'></xref>,
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.
<!-- The IESG may refine or change this ENUM experts' nomination process
at any time.-->
</t>
</section>
<section anchor='ExpRevGuidelines' title='Review Guidelines'>
<t>Generally, the Expert Review Process of an Enumservice MUST
follow the guidelines documented in Section 3.3
of <xref target='RFC5226'>"Guidelines
for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs"</xref>.
</t>
<t>The experts SHOULD evaluate the criteria as set out
in <xref target='RFC5226'/>,
as well as consider the following:
<vspace blankLines='1'/>
<list style='symbols'>
<t>Verify conformance with the
<xref target='I-D.ietf-enum-3761bis'>ENUM specification</xref>.
</t>
<vspace blankLines='1'/>
<t>Verify that the requirements set in this document
(<xref target='requiredSections'/>) are met. This includes
check for completeness and whether all the aspects
described in <xref target='requiredSections'/> are
sufficiently addressed.
</t>
<vspace blankLines='1'/>
<t>A use case SHOULD be included by the authors of the proposal, so
that experts can better understand the problem the proposal seeks
to solve. The authors should consider that the inclusion of such a
use case will both accelerate the Expert Review Process, as well as
make any eventual registration easier to understand and implement
by other parties.</t>
<t>The experts SHOULD verify whether the proposed
Enumservice does actually match the use case. The experts SHOULD
also determine whether the use case could be covered by an existing
Enumservice.
</t>
<vspace blankLines='1'/>
<t>Verify that the Enumservice proposed cannot be confused
with identical (or similar) other Enumservices already
registered.
</t>
<vspace blankLines='1'/>
<t>If the Enumservice is classified according to
<xref target='classification'/>, the experts MUST verify
that the principles of the Class in question are followed.
</t>
<vspace blankLines='1'/>
<t>In case the Enumservice is not classified, the
experts MUST verify whether a convincing reason for the
deviation is documented in the Registration proposal.
</t>
<vspace blankLines='1'/>
<t>Investigate whether the proposed Enumservice has any
negative side effects on existing clients and
infrastructure, particularly the DNS.
</t>
<vspace blankLines='1'/>
<t>If the output of processing an Enumservice may be used
for input to more ENUM processing (especially services
returning 'tel' URIs), the experts SHOULD verify that
the authors have adequately addressed the issue of potential
query loops.
</t>
</list>
</t>
<t>In case of conflicts between
<xref target='RFC5226'/> and
the guidelines in this section, the former remains
authoritative.
</t>
</section>
<section anchor='ExpRevAppeals' title='Appeals'>
<t>Appeals against Expert Review decisions follow the normal
IETF appeal process as described in section 7
of <xref target='RFC5226'/>
and section 6.5 of <xref target='RFC2026'/>.
<!--The RAI area directors are responsible for handling appeals
against decisions of the Expert Reviews. They can either assign
(a) new expert(s) or reject the appeal. The IESG may refine or
change this process regarding appeals at any time.-->
</t>
</section>
</section>
<section title='Revision of Pre-Existing Enumservice RFCs'>
<t>Many Enumservice Registrations, published via IETF RFCs,
already exist at the time of the development of this document.
These existing Registration Documents MUST 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.
</t>
</section>
<section title='Extension of Existing Enumservice Registrations'>
<t>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) <xref target='RFC2223'></xref>.
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.
</t>
</section>
<section title='Security Considerations'>
<section title='Considerations Regarding This Document'>
<t>Since this document does not introduce any new technology, protocol,
or Enumserevice Registration, there are no specific security issues to
be considered for this document. However, as this is a guide to authors
of new Enumservice Resgistration Documents, the next section should be
considered closely by authors and Expert Reviewers.
</t>
</section>
<section title='Enumservice Security Considerations Guideline'>
<t><xref target='I-D.ietf-enum-3761bis'/>
already outlines security considerations affecting ENUM as a whole.
Enumservice Registration Documents do not need to and SHOULD NOT repeat
considerations already listed in that document. However, Enumservice
Registration Documents SHOULD include a reference to that section.
</t>
<t>
ENUM refers to resources using existing URI Schemes and protocols.
Enumservice Registration Documents do not need to and SHOULD NOT repeat
security considerations affecting those protocols and URI Schemes
themselves.
</t>
<t>However, in some cases, the inclusion of those protocols and URI
Schemes into ENUM specifically could introduce new security issues. In
these cases, those issues or risks MUST be covered in the 'Security
Considerations' section of the Enumservice Registration Document.
Authors should pay particular attention to any indirect risks that are
associated with a proposed Enumservice, including cases where the
proposed Enumservice could lead to the discovery or disclosure of
Personally Identifiable Information (PII).
</t>
</section>
</section>
<section title='IANA Considerations'>
<section anchor='EnumserviceRegistrations' title='Enumservice Registrations'>
<t>IANA will update the registry "Enumservice Registrations"
according to (this) <xref target='EnumserviceRegistrations'/>,
which will replace the old mechanism as defined
in <xref target='RFC3761'>RFC 3761</xref>.
</t>
<t>It is noted that the process described herein applies only
to ordinary Enumservice registrations (i.e. the registration
process of 'X-' Enumservices is beyond the scope of this
document).
</t>
<section anchor='RegistrationTemplate' title='IANA Registration Template'>
<t>The IANA Registration Template consists of the following
fields that are specified in
<xref target='enumServiceReg'/>:
<t>
<list style='symbols'>
<!-- <vspace blankLines='1'/><t>Enumservice Name:</t> -->
<vspace blankLines='1'/><t>Enumservice Class:</t>
<vspace blankLines='1'/><t>Enumservice Type:</t>
<vspace blankLines='1'/><t>Enumservice Subtype:</t>
<vspace blankLines='1'/><t>URI Scheme(s):</t>
<vspace blankLines='1'/><t>Functional Specification:</t>
<vspace blankLines='1'/><t>Security Considerations:</t>
<vspace blankLines='1'/><t>Intended Usage:</t>
<vspace blankLines='1'/><t>Registration Document(s):</t>
<vspace blankLines='1'/><t>Authors:</t>
<vspace blankLines='1'/><t>Further Information:</t>
</list>
</t>
</t>
<t>Note: In the case where a particular field has no value,
'N/A' (Not Applicable) MUST be used. This case especially
may occur where a given Type has no Subtypes, or if there
is no "Further Information".
</t>
</section>
<section anchor='Location' title='Location'>
<t>Approved Enumservice registrations are published in the
IANA Registry named "Enumservice Registrations", which is
available at the following URI:
<vspace blankLines='0' />
< http://www.iana.org/assignments/enum-services >.
</t>
<t>In this registry, only the filled IANA Registration
Template as listed in <xref target='RegistrationTemplate'/>
and specified in <xref target='enumServiceReg'/> is
published.
</t>
<t>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.
</t>
<!-- LC:
<t>Where the Registration Document is NOT an RFC, IANA MUST hold and
publish a copy of that Registration Document. The copy published by IANA
will act as the master reference for this Enumservice.
</t>
-->
</section>
<section anchor='Structure' title='Structure'>
<t>IANA maintains the Enumservice Registry sorted in
alphabetical order. The first sort field is Type, the
second is Subtype.</t>
<t>Each Enumservice starts with a caption, which is composed
of Type and Subtype, separated by a colon; e.g. if the Type
is "foo" and the Subtype "bar", the resulting caption is
"foo:bar".
</t>
<t><xref target='I-D.hoeneisen-enum-enumservices-transition'/>
updates the existing Enumservices into the new IANA
Regustration Template.
</t>
</section>
<section anchor='RegistrationProcedure' title='Registration Procedure'>
<t>Whenever a proposal for a new Enumservice is submitted,
IANA will take care of the 'Expert Review Process' according
to <xref target='RFC5226'>"Guidelines
for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs"</xref>.
</t>
<t>Provided that the Enumservice has obtained the necessary
approval of the experts, and the Registration Document is
published, IANA will register the Enumservice, i.e. add
the Enumservice to the IANA "Enumservice Registrations"
registry (see also <xref target='Location'></xref>).
</t>
</section>
<section anchor='ChangeControl' title='Change Control'>
<t>For Enumservices Registrations published as an RFC,
change control stays with the IETF via the RFC publication
process.
</t>
<t>Change control of Enumservices Registrations not
published as an RFC (i.e. according the process described
herein) is done by "Expert Review" and "Specification
Required" according
to <xref target='RFC5226'/>.
</t>
<t>Enumservice registrations MUST NOT be deleted. An
Enumservice that is believed no longer appropriate for use,
can be declared obsolete by publication of a new
Enumservices Registrations document changing its "Intended
Usage" field to "OBSOLETE"; such Enumservices will be
clearly marked in the lists published by IANA.
</t>
<t>Updates of any Enumservice Registrations MUST follow the
guidelines described in this document.
</t>
</section>
<section anchor='Restrictions' title='Restrictions'>
<t>As stated in <xref target='NamingReq'/>, a "-" (dash)
MUST NOT be used as the first nor as the second character of
a Type nor a Subtype. Furthermore, any identifying tag of
any Enumservice MUST NOT be set to nor start with "E2U".
Any Enumservice
registration requests covered by these restrictions MUST be
rejected by IANA, and the 'Expert Review Process' SHOULD NOT
be initiated.
</t>
<t><xref target='XML2RFCtempl'/> contains examples for
Enumservice registrations. Therefore, IANA MUST NOT register
an Enumservice with Type or Subtype set to "foo", "bar", or
"sbar", unless the Experts explicitly confirm an exception.
</t>
</section>
</section>
<section anchor='XML2RFCTemplate' title='XML2RFC Template'>
<t>Before publication of this document IANA shall make the
XML2RFC template in <xref target='XML2RFCtempl'/> publicly
available so that authors of new Enumservice Registrations can
easily download it.</t>
<t>Note: The XML2RFC template in <xref target='XML2RFCtempl'/>
contains a proposal for the 'IANA Considerations' section of
actual Enumservice Registration Document.
</t>
</section>
</section>
<section title='Acknowledgements'>
<t>The authors would like to thank the following people who have
provided feedback or significant contributions to the
development of this document: Lawrence Conroy, Alfred Hoenes,
Peter Koch, Edward Lewis, and Jon Peterson</t>
<t>Lawrence Conroy has provided extensive text for the
Enumservice Classification section.
</t>
<t>Section 3 of <xref target='RFC3761'>RFC 3761</xref>, 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.
</t>
</section>
</middle>
<back>
<references title='Normative References'>
<!-- <?rfc include="reference.RFC.2119" ?> -->
&rfc2119;
<!-- <?rfc include="reference.RFC.2026" ?> -->
&rfc2026;
<!-- <?rfc include="reference.RFC.2916" ?> -->
<!-- <?rfc include="reference.RFC.3761" ?> -->
&rfc3761;
<!-- <?rfc include="reference.I-D.ietf-enum-3761bis" ?> -->
&I-D.rfc3761bis;
<!-- <?rfc include="reference.RFC.2223" ?> -->
&rfc2223;
<!-- <?rfc include="reference.RFC.3403" ?> -->
&rfc3403;
<!-- <?rfc include="reference.RFC.5226" ?> -->
&rfc5226;
</references>
<references title='Informative References'>
<!-- <?rfc include="reference.RFC.3986" ?> -->
&rfc3986;
<!-- <?rfc include="reference.RFC.3764" ?> -->
<!-- <?rfc include="reference.I-D.ietf-enum-xmpp" ?> -->
<!-- <?rfc include="reference.RFC.3762" ?> -->
<!-- <?rfc include="reference.RFC.4238" ?> -->
&rfc4238;
<!-- <?rfc include="reference.RFC.3958" ?> -->
<!-- <?rfc include="reference.RFC.4002" ?> -->
<!-- <?rfc include="reference.RFC.3953" ?> -->
<!-- <?rfc include="reference.RFC.4969" ?> -->
&rfc4969;
&rfc4979;
&rfc3764;
&I-D.enum-svc-trans;
<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>
<section anchor='XML2RFCtempl' title='XML2RFC Template for Enumservice Registration'>
<t>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.]
</t>
<figure anchor='xml2rfc'>
<!-- <preamble>Template for XML2RFC</preamble>
<artwork src='layers.png'
alt='[picture of layers only]'>
-->
<artwork><![CDATA[
<?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>
<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 document 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>
<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='IANA Registration - foo'>
<vspace blankLines='1'/>
<t>foo:bar<vspace blankLines='1'/>
<list style='symbols'>
<t>Enumservice Class: Application-based, Subset</t>
<t>Enumservice Type: "foo"</t>
<t>Enumservice Subtype: "bar"</t>
<!-- Use N/A if none -->
<t>URI Scheme(s): 'bar', 'sbar'</t>
<t>Functional Specification:
<list style='symbols'>
<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(s): RFCXXXX</t>
<t>Authors: MyFirstname MySurname</t>
<t>Authorized Change Controllers: Firstname Surname</t>
<t>Further Information: See <xref target='impl'/></t>
<!-- Use N/A if none -->
</list>
</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'>
<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>
<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 document.
</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>
<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>
]]></artwork>
<!-- <postamble>End of Template for XML2RFC</postamble> -->
</figure>
</section>
<section title='Changes Overview'>
<t>This section lists the changes applied to the Enumservice
registration process and the IANA registry definition, compared to
RFC 3761.
</t>
<list style='symbols'>
<t>While RFC 3761 required "Standards track or Experimental" RFCs
for a Enumservice to be registered, this document mandates
"Expert Review" and "Documentation Required".</t>
<vspace blankLines='1'/>
<t>This document adds a classification of Enumservices, which
is to be specified in the registration data, and is stored in
the IANA Registry.</t>
<vspace blankLines='1'/>
<t>The Enumservice "Name" field is removed from the registration
template and the IANA Registry.
</t>
</list>
</section> <!-- end of 'Changes Overview' section -->
<section title='Document Changelog'>
<t>[RFC Editor: This section is to be removed before publication]</t>
<t>draft-ietf-enum-enumservices-guide-11:
<list style='symbols'>
<t>bernie: Replaced reference rfc2434bis with rfc5226</t>
<t>bernie: Moved terminology related paragraph from
Introduction to Terminology Section</t>
<t>bernie: Added reference to transition document</t>
<t>jason: Updated my author address</t>
<t>jason: Closed out active tickets at
http://ietf.enum.at/cgi-bin/trac.cgi/report/1</t>
<t>jason: Section 8, review of pre-existing enumservices, updated with
IETF 72 feedback that this must take place</t>
<t>jason: Ticket 39: Added text to section 4.1, general enumservice
considerations, section 2, bullet 2 to address comment by Lawrence
Conroy about expired I-Ds </t>
<t>jason: Ticket 45: Added text to section 7.1, expert review / review
guidelines, bullet 3, to indicate that a use case SHOULD be included.
Also added related text to section 5.8, other sections, to address
this. This resolves comments by Lawrence Conroy</t>
<t>jason: Ticket 55: Replaced 'repository' with 'registry' throughout
the document to normalize this text and make it uniform.</t>
<t>jason: Ticket 52: Checked references to ensure rfc5226 is cited
instead of rfc2434bis, which Bernie seems to have mainly covered. I
also added a reference in the header for rfc5226, since it is a
normative reference.</t>
<t>jason: Ticket 25: Removed reference to rfc2223bis-08 as this I-D is
now listed as dead.</t>
<t>jason: Ticket 49: Have updated section 5.2, IANA registration, bullet
on authors addresses, to say that email addresses MUST NOT be
included in the IANA Registry. I opened a related ticket. Seems
there are some email addresses in the registry. Also simplified
author(s) and expert(s) to authors and experts throughout.</t>
<t>jason: Ticket 28: Minor changes to Section 10.1 and 10.2, Security
Considerations</t>
<t>jason: Ticket 30: Updated section 6.4, 6.5, on IANA registration to
include that submission must be in XML format for IANA and that the
Enumservice must have an RFC number, per discussion at IETF 72</t>
<t>jason: Ticket 42: Cleaned up section 5.7, DNS considerations, per
comments from Lawrence.</t>
<t>jason: Updated definitions to reflect IANA Designated Experts per
RFC 5226, and clean up of IANA-related terms (Registry, Template,
etc.)</t>
<t>jason: Ticket 51: added setion to describe the need to have a contact
listed for updating a registration, per RFC 5226, section 5.2.</t>
</list>
</t>
<t>draft-ietf-enum-enumservices-guide-10:
<list style='symbols'>
<t>bernie: No longer empty field for IANA Registration
('N/A' must be used in this case)</t>
<t>bernie: Adjusted IANA Registration Template:
<list style='symbols'>
<t>Registration Document -> Registration Document(s)</t>
<t>Author -> Author(s)</t>
</list>
</t>
<t>bernie: IANA repository in alphabetical order by Type and Subtype</t>
<t>bernie: Class, Type, Subtype and URI Schema to begin with capital</t>
<t>bernie: Caption for each Enumservice</t>
<t>bernie: Consistent use of "field" for fields within IANA registration
template (no longer used are "item" or "section")</t>
<t>bernie: URI Schemes without colons and between single quotes,
no longer email address in author(s) field</t>
<t>bernie: Adjusted IANA Registration Section of XML2RFC template</t>
<t>alex: Added List of Classes to choose from</t>
</list>
</t>
<t>[RFC Editor: This section is to be removed before publication]</t>
<t>draft-ietf-enum-enumservices-guide-09:
<list style='symbols'>
<t>alex: Removed Enumservice "Name" as decided at IETF 71</t>
<t>alex: Reworded registration requirements</t>
<t>alex: Explained possible values for "Intended Usage"</t>
<t>bernie: Rewrite of section 'Change Control'</t>
<t>bernie: Cleared out scope of this document (only
ordinary, but no 'X-' registrations)</t>
<t>bernie: Cleared out naming restrictions in IANA section</t>
<t>bernie: Changed section name from 'ENUM Service Registration'
to 'IANA Registration'</t>
<t>bernie: Combined Expert Review related sections</t>
<t>bernie: Partly implemented feedback Alfred Hoenes
and added him to Acknowledgments</t>
<t>bernie: Enhanced examples for "Registration Document"</t>
<t>bernie: Enhanced examples for "IANA Considerations" (feedback from Alfred Hoenes)</t>
<t>bernie: Removed Note about RFC3761bis obsoleting RFC3761 (does not belong to this doc)</t>
<t>bernie: Rewrote Naming Requirements section (impact to IANA Considerations - Restrictions)</t>
</list>
</t>
<t>draft-ietf-enum-enumservices-guide-08:
<list style='symbols'>
<t>alex: new text for Subtypes of protocol class enumservices ("mandatory to implement" stuff)</t>
<t>alex: added "to be foreseen" to the application Type Subtype recommendation</t>
<t>alex: added "lowercase" recommendation to the Type names</t>
<t>bernie: Corrected various typos, clarifications,
and other editorial stuff (feedback from Lawrence Conroy)</t>
<t>bernie: IANA Registry ftp -> http (feedback from Lawrence Conroy)</t>
<t>bernie: Made steps prior to IANA submission mandatory (feedback from Lawrence Conroy)</t>
<t>bernie: Shortened abstract</t>
</list>
</t>
<t>draft-ietf-enum-enumservices-guide-07:
<list style='symbols'>
<t>bernie: Section DNS considerations made mandatory</t>
<t>bernie: Complete rewrite of IANA considerations</t>
<t>bernie: XML2RFC template will be downloadable at IANA</t>
<t>bernie: Complete re-write of process</t>
<t>alex: Adjusted Cook-book / classification</t>
<t>bernie: Take over chapter "Registration mechanism
for Enumservices" from RFC 3761bis</t>
<t>bernie: Changed title to adjust to new purpose</t>
<t>bernie: Intended status changed to Standards Track (was bcp)</t>
<t>bernie: Obsoletes (partly) RFC 3761</t>
<t>bernie: Adjusted section "Registration mechanism for Enumservices"</t>
<t>bernie: Updated most RFC 3761 references to either RFC3761bis or new (internal) section</t>
<t>bernie: Acknowledgment for RFC3761 contributors</t>
<t>bernie: Shortened bullet point in IANA Registration Template:
<list style='empty'>
<t>"Any other information that the author deems interesting"</t>
<t>==;gt; "Further Information"</t>
</list>
</t>
<t>alex: Rewritten Abstract, Introduction to be consistent with
with new goal (IANA Registry description)</t>
<t>alex: Add obsoletes section 3 of RFC 3761 to Introduction</t>
<t>alex: Changed section 3 to "registration requirements",
Simplified structure</t>
<t>alex: Added examples for protocol Enumservice classification</t>
<t>alex: Added text about "other" classification</t>
</list>
</t>
<t>draft-ietf-enum-enumservices-guide-06:
<list style='symbols'>
<t>alex: updated Class Schemes.</t>
<t>alex: updated expert's tasks</t>
<t>alex: added experts review considerations</t>
<t>bernie: Moved Terminology section in XML2RFC template (now after Introduction)</t>
<t>bernie: Class is now part of the Enumservice registration in the IANA template</t>
<t>bernie: Individual Submission relaxed (comment Peter Koch)</t>
<t>bernie: updated vcard Ref (now RFC)</t>
</list>
</t>
<t>draft-ietf-enum-enumservices-guide-05:
<list style='symbols'>
<t>bernie/alex: added text for sections 'The Enumservice
Expert Selection Process' and 'The Process for Appealing
Expert Review Decisions'</t>
<t>bernie: added ASCII-art figure for registration process</t>
<t>bernie: adjusted registration process</t>
<t>jason: proposed registration process</t>
</list>
</t>
<t>draft-ietf-enum-enumservices-guide-04:
<list style='symbols'>
<t>bernie: added section about Extension of existing Enumservice RFCs</t>
<t>bernie: added open issue about future registration process</t>
<t>bernie: added category (bcp)</t>
<t>bernie: clean up in Security Considerations</t>
<t>bernie: editorial stuff (mainly XML issues)</t>
</list>
</t>
<t>draft-ietf-enum-enumservices-guide-03:
<list style='symbols'>
<t>alex: moved terminology section</t>
<t>alex: removed note asking for feedback</t>
<t>bernie: added DNS consideration section</t>
<t>bernie: added Acknowledgments section</t>
<t>bernie: editorial stuff (nicer formating, fixing too long lines)</t>
<t>alex: added security considerations from vcard draft.</t>
</list>
</t>
<t>draft-ietf-enum-enumservices-guide-02:
<list style='symbols'>
<t>bernie: replaced numbers in examples by "Drama Numbers"</t>
<t>bernie: moved Change and Open Issues to Appendix.</t>
<t>bernie: major rewrite of section "6. Required Sections and
Information" incl. separating explanations and examples.</t>
<t>bernie: removed section 7 (was just a repetition of referencing to XML2RFC template)</t>
<t>bernie: extended Appendix with Open Issues.</t>
</list>
</t>
<t>draft-ietf-enum-enumservices-guide-01:
<list style='symbols'>
<t>alex: added Security Considerations section for the doc itself</t>
<t>alex: added IANA Considerations section for the doc itself</t>
<t>alex: added cookbook idea</t>
</list>
</t>
</section>
<section title='Open Issues'>
<t>[RFC Editor: This section should be empty before publication]
<list style='symbols'>
<!--
<t>Clarify the role of the expert(s) and the requirements
that apply for reviewing Enumservice registrations</t>
<t>Clarify what Process applies after Expert Review (before
publication)</t>
<t>Alignment with RFC3761bis (e.g. Enumservice Class,
overlap/relationship/purpose of the both)</t>
<t>Clarify, whether process for future Enumservice
registrations (after ENUM WG has been closed) belongs herein.</t>
<t>Clarify Status of document. Is BCP adequate?</t>
<t>Clarify dependencies and collisions with RFC 3761.
Should this document update RFC 3761?</t>
<t>Write something in the introduction about what the document
does not intend (no guarantee for surviving in the ENUM WG,
no change of the process itself).</t>
<t>Extension of an existing Enumservice (e.g. add new Subtype
to existing Type).</t>
<t>Write more about how to choose Type/Subtype/etc.</t>
<t>More about Subtype applicability.</t>
<t>Clarify Relation between Subtypes and URI Schemes</t>
<t>Clarify mixing subtyped / non subtyped for a Type</t>
<t>Explain Enumservice Name better</t>
<t>Clarify IANA impact of this document.</t>
<t>Clarify whether experimental Enumservices should be
described herein.</t>
<t>URL for template, so that it can be fetched without
header-/footer-lines of RFC.</t>
<t>Acknowledgment for RFC3761 contributors</t>
<t>Intended Usage: Do we need to add there "EXPERIMENTAL" and "TRIAL"?</t>
<t>Re-Check references to RFC3761 / rfc3761bis</t>
-->
<t>Review by IANA</t>
<t>Review XML2RFC template</t>
<t>Ensure consistency (with new aim and section) throughout
the whole document (jason?)</t>
<t>Transition Regime for changed IANA registration process
and template needed?</t>
</list>
</t>
</section>
</back>
</rfc>
<!-- LocalWords: mailto sms PSTN vpim vCard XMPP xmpp imap sbar NAPTRs PII gt
-->
<!-- LocalWords: namespace RRSet wildcards RRs arpa stantial pstn MyAddress
-->
<!-- LocalWords: MyOrganization MyCity MyCountry Myphonenumber MyEmailAddress
-->
<!-- LocalWords: MyWebpage URIs XXXX MyName MySurname myEmail fooing ITU XYZ
-->
<!-- LocalWords: enumservices vcard formating subtyped Barfoo passcodes IPv
-->
<!-- LocalWords: rfc Patrik Faltstrom Mealling Hoenes downloadable namespaces
-->
<!-- LocalWords: incl RFCXXXX MyFirstname
-->
| PAFTECH AB 2003-2026 | 2026-04-24 04:05:03 |