One document matched: draft-ietf-enum-enumservices-guide-12.txt
Differences from draft-ietf-enum-enumservices-guide-11.txt
ENUM -- Telephone Number Mapping B. Hoeneisen
Working Group Swisscom
Internet-Draft A. Mayrhofer
Obsoletes: 3761 (if approved) enum.at
Intended status: Standards Track J. Livingood
Expires: March 5, 2009 Comcast
September 01, 2008
IANA Registration of Enumservices: Guide, Template and IANA
Considerations
draft-ietf-enum-enumservices-guide-12
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 March 5, 2009.
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 March 5, 2009 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft IANA Registration of Enumservices September 2008
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Registration Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1. Functionality Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2. Naming Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.3. Security Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.4. Publication Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4. Enumservice Creation Cookbook . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.1. General Enumservice Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.2. Classification, Type and Subtype . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.2.1. General Type / Subtype Considerations . . . . . . . . 9
4.2.2. Protocol-based Enumservices Class . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.2.3. Application-based Enumservice Classes . . . . . . . . 10
4.2.4. Data- / Format-based Enumservice Class . . . . . . . . 12
4.2.5. Other Enumservice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5. Required Sections and Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5.1. Introduction (MANDATORY) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5.2. IANA Registration (MANDATORY) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5.3. Examples (MANDATORY) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
5.4. Implementation Recommendations / Notes (OPTIONAL) . . . . 17
5.5. Security Considerations (MANDATORY) . . . . . . . . . . . 17
5.6. IANA Considerations (MANDATORY) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
5.7. DNS Considerations (MANDATORY) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
5.8. Other Sections (OPTIONAL) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
6. The Process of Registering New Enumservices . . . . . . . . . 19
6.1. Step 1: Read this Document in Detail . . . . . . . . . . . 21
6.2. Step 2: Write and Submit Registration Document . . . . . . 21
6.3. Step 3: Request Comments from the IETF Community . . . . . 21
6.3.1. Outcome 1: No Changes Needed . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
6.3.2. Outcome 2: Changes, but no further Comments
Requested . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
6.3.3. Outcome 3: Changes and further Comments Requested . . 22
6.4. Step 4: Submit Registration Document to IANA . . . . . . . 22
6.5. Step 5: Expert Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
6.5.1. Outcome 1: Experts Approve the Registation . . . . . . 23
6.5.2. Outcome 2: Changes Required . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
6.5.3. Outcome 3: Experts Reject the Registation . . . . . . 23
6.6. Step 6: Publication of the Registration Document . . . . . 23
6.7. Step 7: Adding Enumservice to IANA Registry . . . . . . . 23
7. Expert Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Hoeneisen, et al. Expires March 5, 2009 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft IANA Registration of Enumservices September 2008
7.1. Expert Selection Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
7.2. Review Guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
7.3. Appeals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
8. Revision of Pre-Existing Enumservice RFCs . . . . . . . . . . 25
9. Extension of Existing Enumservice Registrations . . . . . . . 25
10. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
10.1. Considerations Regarding This Document . . . . . . . . . . 25
10.2. Enumservice Security Considerations Guideline . . . . . . 25
11. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
11.1. Enumservice Registrations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
11.1.1. IANA Registration Template . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
11.1.2. Location . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
11.1.3. Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
11.1.4. Registration Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
11.1.5. Change Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
11.1.6. Restrictions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
11.2. XML2RFC Template . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
12. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
13. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
13.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
13.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Appendix A. XML2RFC Template for Enumservice Registration . . . . 30
Appendix B. Changes Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Appendix C. Document Changelog . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Appendix D. Open Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 44
Hoeneisen, et al. Expires March 5, 2009 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft IANA Registration of Enumservices September 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 [RFC3761]. This
document obsoletes Section 3 of RFC 3761.
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:
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" [RFC5226] are now
sufficient.
o The IANA Registration Template contains new fields, i.e.
"Enumservice Class" and "Registration Document(s)".
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].
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 March 5, 2009 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft IANA Registration of Enumservices September 2008
3. Registration Requirements
As specified in the ABNF found in [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.
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 Section 5 of this document.
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 "Guidelines for Writing an
IANA Considerations Section in RFCs" [RFC5226].
All Enumservice Registration proposals are expected to conform also
to various requirements laid out in the following sections.
3.1. Functionality Requirements
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 that will have to be transferred into the URI resolution
process itself.
3.2. Naming Requirements
An Enumservice MUST be unique in order to be useful as a selection
criteria:
o The Type MUST be unique.
o The Subtype (being dependent on the Type) MUST be unique within a
given Type.
Types and Subtypes MUST conform to the ABNF specified in
[I-D.ietf-enum-3761bis].
Hoeneisen, et al. Expires March 5, 2009 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft IANA Registration of Enumservices September 2008
The ABNF specified in [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.
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".
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.
Section 4 contains further naming requirements.
3.3. Security Requirements
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 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".
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.
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
number).
Hoeneisen, et al. Expires March 5, 2009 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft IANA Registration of Enumservices September 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 for 'Specification Required' set in "Guidelines for
Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs" [RFC5226]. RFCs
fulfill these requirements. Therefore, it is strongly RECOMMENDED
Registration Documents be published as RFCs.
In case the Registration is not published as an RFC, sufficient
information that allows 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" [RFC5226] 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 [RFC5226] 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
implementations, so meaningful Type strings having a clear
Hoeneisen, et al. Expires March 5, 2009 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft IANA Registration of Enumservices September 2008
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
Registry at <http://www.iana.org/assignments/enum-services>.
o 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.
Furthermore, bear in mind that some work on Enumservices may have
been considered outside the IETF.
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
Hoeneisen, et al. Expires March 5, 2009 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft IANA Registration of Enumservices September 2008
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.
4.2. Classification, 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 Classification of each Enumservice MUST be listed in the
Enumservice 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 experts
in their decision.
4.2.1. 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 (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.
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.
4.2.2. 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
Hoeneisen, et al. Expires March 5, 2009 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft IANA Registration of Enumservices September 2008
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].
4.2.2.1. Protocol-based Enumservice "Type" Strings
A protocol-based Enumservice SHOULD use the lowercased name of the
protocol as its Type name.
4.2.2.2. 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.
4.2.3. Application-based Enumservice Classes
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
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.
Hoeneisen, et al. Expires March 5, 2009 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft IANA Registration of Enumservices September 2008
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
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
Hoeneisen, et al. Expires March 5, 2009 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft IANA Registration of Enumservices September 2008
final destination address).
4.2.3.1. 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.
4.2.3.2. Application-based Enumservice "Subtype" Strings
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.
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.
4.2.4. Data- / Format-based 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' [RFC4238] and 'vCard' [RFC4969].
4.2.4.1. Data- / Format-based Enumservice "Type" Strings
It is RECOMMENDED to use the lowercase well known name of the data /
format as the Type name.
4.2.4.2. 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 the Registration specifies as mandatory to implement for a
given Subtype.
If there is only one URI Scheme foreseen to access the data / format,
the empty Subtype string MAY be used.
4.2.5. Other Enumservice
In case an Enumservice proposal cannot be assigned to any of the
classes mentioned above, the "Classification" field in the
Enumservice 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.
Hoeneisen, et al. Expires March 5, 2009 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft IANA Registration of Enumservices September 2008
5. Required Sections and Information
In addition to the sections required for an RFC as outlined in
[RFC2223] and [instructions2authors] "Instructions to RFC Authors",
there are several sections that MUST appear in an Enumservice
Registration Document. These sections are as follows, and SHOULD be
in the given order.
The following terms SHOULD begin with a capital letter, whenever they
refer to the IANA Registration:
o Class
o Type
o Subtype
o URI Scheme
Appendix A 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.
5.1. Introduction (MANDATORY)
An introductory section MUST be included. This section will explain,
in plain English, the purpose of and intended use 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. IANA Registration (MANDATORY)
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.
o Enumservice Class:
This field contains the Class of the Enumservice as defined in
Section 4.2. It's value MUST be one of (without quotes):
* "Protocol-based": The Enumservice belongs to the Protocol-based
class as described in Section 4.2.2.
Hoeneisen, et al. Expires March 5, 2009 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft IANA Registration of Enumservices September 2008
* "Application-based, Common": The Enumservice is a "common" case
of the Application-based class as described in Section 4.2.3.
* "Application-based, Subset": The Enumservice belongs to the
"subset" case of the Application-based class as described in
Section 4.2.3.
* "Application-based, Ancillary": The Enumservice is an
"ancillary" case of the Application-based class, as described
in Section 4.2.3.
* "Data- / Format-based": The Enumservice belongs to the Data- /
Format-based class as described in Section 4.2.4.
* "Other": The majority of the functionality of the Enumservice
does not fall into one of the classes defined.
e.g.
Protocol-based
o Enumservice Type:
The Type of the Enumservice. 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"
Note: Put the Type string between double quotes.
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: Put the Subtype string between double quotes.
Note: Many Enumservices do not require a Subtype; use "N/A" in
this case.
Hoeneisen, et al. Expires March 5, 2009 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft IANA Registration of Enumservices September 2008
Note: As stated above, where a given Enumservice Type has multiple
Subtypes, there MUST be a separate 'IANA Registration' section for
each Subtype.
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: 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.
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 resource identified can be
addressed by the associated URI in order to foo the bar. [...]
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.
o Security Considerations:
An internal reference to the 'Security Considerations' section of
a given Registration Document.
e.g.
See Section 10
o Intended Usage:
One of the following values (without quotes):
Hoeneisen, et al. Expires March 5, 2009 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft IANA Registration of Enumservices September 2008
* "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.
* "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.
* "OBSOLETE": Indicates that the Enumservice has been declared
obsolete (Section 11.1.5) and is not to be used in new
deployments. Applications SHOULD however expect to encounter
legacy instances of this Enumservice.
e.g.
COMMON
o Registration Document(s):
A *unique* reference to the Enumservice Registration Document.
e.g.
[RFC 9999]
e.g.
[RFC 7777] (Obsoleted by RFC 8888)
[RFC 8888] (Updated by RFC 9999)
[RFC 9999]
e.g.
[International Telecommunications Union, "Enumservice
Registration for Foobar", ITU-F Recommendation B.193, Release
73, Mar 2008.]
o Authors:
The authors of the Enumservice Registration.
e.g.
John Doe, Jane Dale
Note: If there is more than one author, use a comma as separator.
Note: You MUST NOT put email addresses in the authors field of an
IANA Registration.
Hoeneisen, et al. Expires March 5, 2009 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft IANA Registration of Enumservices September 2008
o Further Information:
Any other information the authors deem interesting.
e.g.
See Section 3
e.g.
N/A
Note: Use "N/A", if there is no content for this field.
5.3. Examples (MANDATORY)
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 [RFC3403] and [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/!" .
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
Hoeneisen, et al. Expires March 5, 2009 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft IANA Registration of Enumservices September 2008
Current Practices (BCP) document and therefore it should not include
general and obvious security recommendations, such as securing
servers with strong password authentication.
[RFC3552] provides guidance to write a good Security Considerations
section, Section 10.2 of this document contains guidance specific to
Enumservice registration.
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
[I-D.ietf-enum-3761bis].
e.g.
This document requests an update of the IANA registration of the
Enumservice Type "foo" with 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 [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.
e.g.
This document requests an update of the IANA registration of the
Enumservice Type "foo" with 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.
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:
Hoeneisen, et al. Expires March 5, 2009 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft IANA Registration of Enumservices September 2008
o Assumptions about ownership or administrative control of the
namespace.
o Requirement or need to use DNS wildcards.
o Incompatibility with DNS wildcards.
o Presence or absence of respective NAPTR Resource Records at
particular levels in the DNS hierarchy (e.g. only for 'full' E.164
numbers, or wildcards only).
o 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.
Rationale: some Enumservices 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 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.
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
(intended use of the Enumservice). 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.
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 shows, what authors of a Registration Document describing an
Enumservice MUST carry out, before said Registration can be formally
submitted to IANA for Expert Review. Figure 2 shows the process from
Expert Review onwards.
Hoeneisen, et al. Expires March 5, 2009 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft IANA Registration of Enumservices September 2008
+----------------------------+
| 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
Figure 1
Hoeneisen, et al. Expires March 5, 2009 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft IANA Registration of Enumservices September 2008
:
:
V
+-----------------------+
| Step 5: Expert Review |<-------------+
+-----------------------+ |
| |
V |
.^. |
. . |
.---------. . Expert . +------------+
( Bad luck! )<-------- < Review >------------>| Update R-D |
`---------' experts . results . changes | and submit |
reject . in: . required +------------+
. .
Y
| experts approve
V
+----------------------------+
| Step 6: Publication of R-D |
+----------------------------+
|
V
+---------------------------------------------+
| Step 7: Adding Enumservice to IANA Registry |
+---------------------------------------------+
R-D: Registration Document
Figure 2
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.
6.3. Step 3: Request Comments from the IETF Community
The authors MUST send an email to <enum@ietf.org>, in which comments
on the Registration Document are requested. A proper public
Hoeneisen, et al. Expires March 5, 2009 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft IANA Registration of Enumservices September 2008
reference (a URL is RECOMMENDED) to the Registration Document MUST be
included in this email.
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.
6.3.1. Outcome 1: No Changes Needed
No changes to the Registration Document are made, and the authors
proceed 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 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.
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 authors update and submit the Registration Document, and proceed
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 authors submit the Registration Document to IANA for Expert
Review via the http://iana.org/ website.
6.5. Step 5: Expert Review
IANA will conduct an Expert Review according to [RFC5226]. The
authors MUST be prepared for further interaction with IANA and the
experts.
Hoeneisen, et al. Expires March 5, 2009 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft IANA Registration of Enumservices September 2008
6.5.1. Outcome 1: Experts Approve the Registation
No (more) changes to the Registration Document are made. IANA will
inform the authors, who then will proceed to Step 6 below.
6.5.2. Outcome 2: Changes Required
The experts might require changes before they can approve the
Enumservice Registration. The authors update and submit the
Registration Document. The authors inform the experts about the
available update, who then continue the Expert Review Process.
6.5.3. Outcome 3: Experts Reject the Registation
The expert might reject the Registration, which means the Expert
Review Process is discontinued. For appeals, see Section 7.3.
6.6. Step 6: Publication of the Registration Document
The authors are responsible that the Registration Document is
published according to 'Specification Required' as defined in
[RFC5226].
Typically Enumservice Registrations will be published as
Informational RFC via the Independent Submission process (see also
[instructions2authors]).
6.7. Step 7: Adding Enumservice to IANA Registry
In case the specification is published as an RFC, the RFC publication
process ensures that IANA will add the Enumservice to the Registry.
If the specification will not be published as an RFC, the authors
MUST inform IANA, as soon as the Registration Document has been
published according to 'Specification Required' as defined in
[RFC5226]. The 'Registration Document(s)' field in the IANA Template
MUST contain a unambiguous reference to the Registration Document
(see also Section 5.2). In addition, the authors SHOULD provide IANA
with a stable URL to the Registration Document. IANA will then add
the Enumservice to the Registry.
7. Expert Review
7.1. Expert Selection Process
According to Section 3.2 of [RFC5226], experts are appointed by the
IESG upon recommendation by the RAI Area Directors. The RAI area
Hoeneisen, et al. Expires March 5, 2009 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft IANA Registration of Enumservices September 2008
directors are responsible for ensuring that there is always a
sufficient pool of experts available.
7.2. Review Guidelines
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" [RFC5226].
The experts SHOULD evaluate the criteria as set out in [RFC5226], as
well as consider the following:
o Verify conformance with the ENUM specification
[I-D.ietf-enum-3761bis].
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 provided, 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.
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
experts MUST verify that the principles of the Class in question
are followed.
o In case the Enumservice is not classified, the experts 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, particularly the
DNS.
o 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.
In case of conflicts between [RFC5226] and the guidelines in this
section, the former remains authoritative.
Hoeneisen, et al. Expires March 5, 2009 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft IANA Registration of Enumservices September 2008
7.3. Appeals
Appeals against Expert Review decisions follow the normal IETF appeal
process as described in section 7 of [RFC5226] and section 6.5 of
[RFC2026].
8. Revision of Pre-Existing Enumservice RFCs
Many Enumservice Registrations, published via IETF RFCs, already
exist at the time of the development of this document. These
existing Registration Documents MAY be revised to comply with the
specifications contained herein. All revisions of Enumservice
Registrations MUST follow the specifications contained herein.
9. Extension of Existing Enumservice Registrations
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) [RFC2223].
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.
10. Security Considerations
10.1. Considerations Regarding This Document
Since this document does not introduce any new technology, protocol,
or Enumservice Registration, there are no specific security issues to
be considered for this document. However, as this is a guide to
authors of new Enumservice Registration Documents, the next section
should be considered closely by authors and experts.
10.2. Enumservice Security Considerations Guideline
[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.
ENUM refers to resources using existing URI Schemes and protocols.
Hoeneisen, et al. Expires March 5, 2009 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft IANA Registration of Enumservices September 2008
Enumservice Registration Documents do not need to and SHOULD NOT
repeat security considerations affecting those protocols and URI
Schemes themselves.
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).
11. IANA Considerations
11.1. Enumservice Registrations
IANA will update the registry "Enumservice Registrations" according
to (this) Section 11.1, which will replace the old mechanism as
defined in RFC 3761 [RFC3761].
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).
11.1.1. IANA Registration Template
The IANA Registration Template consists of the following fields that
are specified in Section 5.2:
o Enumservice Class:
o Enumservice Type:
o Enumservice Subtype:
o URI Scheme(s):
o Functional Specification:
o Security Considerations:
o Intended Usage:
Hoeneisen, et al. Expires March 5, 2009 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft IANA Registration of Enumservices September 2008
o Registration Document(s):
o Authors:
o Further Information:
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".
11.1.2. Location
Approved Enumservice registrations are published in the IANA Registry
named "Enumservice Registrations", which is available at the
following URI:
< http://www.iana.org/assignments/enum-services >.
In this Registry, only the filled IANA Registration Template as
listed in Section 11.1.1 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.
11.1.3. Structure
IANA maintains the Enumservice Registry sorted in alphabetical order.
The first sort field is Type, the second is Subtype.
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".
[I-D.hoeneisen-enum-enumservices-transition] updates the existing
Enumservices into the new IANA Registration Template.
11.1.4. 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" [RFC5226].
Once the experts have approved the Enumservice, IANA will inform the
authors. This information SHOULD also include a reminder, that the
authors are now responsible for publication of the Registration
Document (see also Section 6.6) and that the Enumservice will be
added to the IANA Registry only after the Registration Document is
published according to 'Specification Required' as defined in
Hoeneisen, et al. Expires March 5, 2009 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft IANA Registration of Enumservices September 2008
[RFC5226] (see also Section 6.7).
As soon as the Registration Document (as approved by the experts) is
published according to 'Specification Required' as defined in
[RFC5226] (see also Section 6.7), IANA will register the Enumservice,
i.e. add the Enumservice to the IANA "Enumservice Registrations"
Registry (see also Section 11.1.2).
11.1.5. Change Control
Change control of any Enumservices Registrations is done by "Expert
Review" and "Specification Required" according to [RFC5226]. Updates
of Enumservices Registrations MUST comply with the guidelines
described in this document. Updates are handled the same way as
initial Enumservice Registrations.
Authorized Change Controllers are the experts and the IESG.
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.
11.1.6. Restrictions
As stated in Section 3.2, 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.
Appendix A 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.
11.2. 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
Documents.
Hoeneisen, et al. Expires March 5, 2009 [Page 28]
Internet-Draft IANA Registration of Enumservices September 2008
12. 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, Alfred Hoenes, 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.
13. References
13.1. 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-03 (work in progress), March 2008.
[RFC2223] Postel, J. and J. Reynolds, "Instructions to RFC Authors",
RFC 2223, October 1997.
[RFC3403] Mealling, M., "Dynamic Delegation Discovery System (DDDS)
Part Three: The Domain Name System (DNS) Database",
RFC 3403, October 2002.
[RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226,
May 2008.
Hoeneisen, et al. Expires March 5, 2009 [Page 29]
Internet-Draft IANA Registration of Enumservices September 2008
13.2. 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.
[RFC3552] Rescorla, E. and B. Korver, "Guidelines for Writing RFC
Text on Security Considerations", BCP 72, RFC 3552,
July 2003.
[I-D.hoeneisen-enum-enumservices-transition]
Hoeneisen, B. and A. Mayrhofer, "Update of legacy IANA
Registrations of Enumservices",
draft-hoeneisen-enum-enumservices-transition-01 (work in
progress), May 2008.
[instructions2authors]
Reynolds, J. and R. Braden, "Instructions to Request for
Comments (RFC) Authors", RFC Editor http://
www.rfc-editor.org/rfc-editor/instructions2authors.txt,
August 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.]
Hoeneisen, et al. Expires March 5, 2009 [Page 30]
Internet-Draft IANA Registration of Enumservices September 2008
<?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 Type "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>
Hoeneisen, et al. Expires March 5, 2009 [Page 31]
Internet-Draft IANA Registration of Enumservices September 2008
<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'>
Hoeneisen, et al. Expires March 5, 2009 [Page 32]
Internet-Draft IANA Registration of Enumservices September 2008
<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>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'/>
Hoeneisen, et al. Expires March 5, 2009 [Page 33]
Internet-Draft IANA Registration of Enumservices September 2008
<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>
Hoeneisen, et al. Expires March 5, 2009 [Page 34]
Internet-Draft IANA Registration of Enumservices September 2008
<t>http://paris.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'>
Hoeneisen, et al. Expires March 5, 2009 [Page 35]
Internet-Draft IANA Registration of Enumservices September 2008
<t>This document requests the IANA registration of the
Enumservice Type "foo" with 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>
Hoeneisen, et al. Expires March 5, 2009 [Page 36]
Internet-Draft IANA Registration of Enumservices September 2008
<seriesInfo name="ITU-T" value="Recommendation E.164" />
</reference>
</references>
</back>
</rfc>
Figure 3
Appendix B. Changes Overview
This section lists the changes applied to the Enumservice
registration process and the IANA registry definition, compared to
RFC 3761.
o While RFC 3761 required "Standards track or Experimental" RFCs for
an Enumservice to be registered, this document mandates "Expert
Review" and "Specification Required".
o This document defines the classification of Enumservices. The
IANA Registration Template has been complemented to contain a
"Classification" field.
o A new field "Registration Document(s)" has been added to the IANA
Registration Template.
o The former field "Any other information that the author deems
interesting" of the IANA Registration Template has been shortened
to "Further Information".
o The Enumservice "Name" field has been removed from the IANA
Registration Template.
Appendix C. Document Changelog
[RFC Editor: This section is to be removed before publication]
draft-ietf-enum-enumservices-guide-12:
o bernie: Refined process, i.e. separation of Expert Review and
addition to IANA Registry (only after publication of spec):
Hoeneisen, et al. Expires March 5, 2009 [Page 37]
Internet-Draft IANA Registration of Enumservices September 2008
* Split up "Further Steps" into three new sections
* Extended ASCII Art
* Adjusted IANA considerations
o bernie: Updated Open Issues
o alex: Added reference to RFC3552 (security considerations
guidance)
o alex: Added instructions2author as informative reference - i don't
see another way (revision 439, closing ticket 25)
o alex: Moved text about use cases from Review Guidelines up to
"other sections", slightly reworded it (revision 438, closing
ticket 66)
o bernie: Updated own contact details
o bernie: Implemented editorial feedback from Alfred Hoenes
o bernie: Added some clarifications to IANA consideration as
proposed by Michelle Cotton (IANA)
o bernie: Edited appendix "Changes Overview", moved stuff from
"Introduction" to "Changes Overview"
o bernie: Updated IANA section "Change Control":
* Authorized Change controllers are experts and IESG
* Removed field "Authorized Change Controller" (was introduced in
-11)
o bernie: Replaced "number blocks" by "wildcards" (DNS
Considerations) to avoid conflict with RFC3761
o bernie: Extended recommendations about search for previous work
o bernie: Adjusted sections "Revision of Pre-Existing Enumservice
RFCs" and "Submit Registration Document to IANA"
draft-ietf-enum-enumservices-guide-11:
o bernie: Replaced reference rfc2434bis with rfc5226
o bernie: Moved terminology related paragraph from Introduction to
Terminology Section
o bernie: Added reference to transition document
o jason: Updated my author address
o jason: Closed out active tickets at
http://ietf.enum.at/cgi-bin/trac.cgi/report/1
o jason: Section 8, review of pre-existing enumservices, updated
with IETF 72 feedback that this must take place
o 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
o 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
o jason: Ticket 55: Replaced 'repository' with 'registry' throughout
the document to normalize this text and make it uniform.
Hoeneisen, et al. Expires March 5, 2009 [Page 38]
Internet-Draft IANA Registration of Enumservices September 2008
o 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.
o jason: Ticket 25: Removed reference to rfc2223bis-08 as this I-D
is now listed as dead.
o 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.
o jason: Ticket 28: Minor changes to Section 10.1 and 10.2, Security
Considerations
o 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
o jason: Ticket 42: Cleaned up section 5.7, DNS considerations, per
comments from Lawrence.
o jason: Updated definitions to reflect IANA Designated Experts per
RFC 5226, and clean up of IANA-related terms (Registry, Template,
etc.)
o jason: Ticket 51: added section to describe the need to have a
contact listed for updating a registration, per RFC 5226, section
5.2.
draft-ietf-enum-enumservices-guide-10:
o bernie: No longer empty field for IANA Registration ('N/A' must be
used in this case)
o bernie: Adjusted IANA Registration Template:
* Registration Document -> Registration Document(s)
* Author -> Author(s)
o bernie: IANA repository in alphabetical order by Type and Subtype
o bernie: Class, Type, Subtype and URI Schema to begin with capital
o bernie: Caption for each Enumservice
o bernie: Consistent use of "field" for fields within IANA
registration template (no longer used are "item" or "section")
o bernie: URI Schemes without colons and between single quotes, no
longer email address in author(s) field
o bernie: Adjusted IANA Registration Section of XML2RFC template
o alex: Added List of Classes to choose from
draft-ietf-enum-enumservices-guide-09:
o alex: Removed Enumservice "Name" as decided at IETF 71
o alex: Reworded registration requirements
o alex: Explained possible values for "Intended Usage"
Hoeneisen, et al. Expires March 5, 2009 [Page 39]
Internet-Draft IANA Registration of Enumservices September 2008
o bernie: Rewrite of section 'Change Control'
o bernie: Cleared out scope of this document (only ordinary, but no
'X-' registrations)
o bernie: Cleared out naming restrictions in IANA section
o bernie: Changed section name from 'ENUM Service Registration' to
'IANA Registration'
o bernie: Combined Expert Review related sections
o bernie: Partly implemented feedback Alfred Hoenes and added him to
Acknowledgments
o bernie: Enhanced examples for "Registration Document"
o bernie: Enhanced examples for "IANA Considerations" (feedback from
Alfred Hoenes)
o bernie: Removed Note about RFC3761bis obsoleting RFC3761 (does not
belong to this doc)
o bernie: Rewrote Naming Requirements section (impact to IANA
Considerations - Restrictions)
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:
Hoeneisen, et al. Expires March 5, 2009 [Page 40]
Internet-Draft IANA Registration of Enumservices September 2008
"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
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"
Hoeneisen, et al. Expires March 5, 2009 [Page 41]
Internet-Draft IANA Registration of Enumservices September 2008
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 D. Open Issues
[RFC Editor: This section should be empty before publication]
o Decision on whether to go on with XML-Registry at IANA
o Review XML2RFC template
Authors' Addresses
Bernie Hoeneisen
Swisscom
Hardturmstrasse 3
CH-8005 Zuerich
Switzerland
Phone: +41 44 2747111
Email: bernie@ietf.hoeneisen.ch (bernhard.hoeneisen AT swisscom.com)
URI: http://www.swisscom.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/
Hoeneisen, et al. Expires March 5, 2009 [Page 42]
Internet-Draft IANA Registration of Enumservices September 2008
Jason Livingood
Comcast Cable Communications
One Comcast Center
1701 John F. Kennedy Boulevard
Philadelphia, PA 19103
USA
Phone: +1-215-286-7813
Email: jason_livingood@cable.comcast.com
URI: http://www.comcast.com/
Hoeneisen, et al. Expires March 5, 2009 [Page 43]
Internet-Draft IANA Registration of Enumservices September 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 March 5, 2009 [Page 44]
| PAFTECH AB 2003-2026 | 2026-04-24 02:38:03 |