One document matched: draft-ietf-enum-enumservices-guide-14.txt
Differences from draft-ietf-enum-enumservices-guide-13.txt
ENUM -- Telephone Number Mapping B. Hoeneisen
Working Group Swisscom
Internet-Draft A. Mayrhofer
Obsoletes: 3761 (if approved) enum.at
Intended status: Best Current J. Livingood
Practice Comcast
Expires: May 25, 2009 November 21, 2008
IANA Registration of Enumservices: Guide, Template and IANA
Considerations
draft-ietf-enum-enumservices-guide-14
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 May 25, 2009.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008).
Abstract
This document specifies a revision of the IANA Registration
Guidelines for Enumservices, describes corresponding registration
procedures, and provides a guideline for creating Enumservice
Specifications.
Hoeneisen, et al. Expires May 25, 2009 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft IANA Registration of Enumservices November 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 . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.2.3. Application-Based Enumservice Classes . . . . . . . . 10
4.2.4. Data Type-Based Enumservice Class . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.2.5. Other Enumservice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5. Required Sections and Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5.1. Introduction (MANDATORY) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5.2. IANA Registration (MANDATORY) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5.3. Examples (MANDATORY) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
5.4. Implementation Recommendations / Notes (OPTIONAL) . . . . 18
5.5. Security Considerations (MANDATORY) . . . . . . . . . . . 18
5.6. IANA Considerations (MANDATORY) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
5.7. DNS Considerations (MANDATORY) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
5.8. Other Sections (OPTIONAL) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
6. The Process of Registering New Enumservices . . . . . . . . . 20
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 . . . . . 22
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 . . . . . . . . . . . 23
6.5. Step 5: Expert Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
6.5.1. Outcome 1: Experts Approve the Registration
Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
6.5.2. Outcome 2: Changes Required . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
6.5.3. Outcome 3: Experts Reject the Registration Document . 24
6.6. Step 6: Publication of the Registration Document . . . . . 24
6.7. Step 7: Adding Enumservice to IANA Registry . . . . . . . 24
Hoeneisen, et al. Expires May 25, 2009 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft IANA Registration of Enumservices November 2008
7. Expert Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
7.1. Expert Selection Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
7.2. Review Guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
7.3. Appeals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
8. Revision of Pre-Existing Enumservice Specifications . . . . . 26
9. Extension of Existing Enumservice Specifications . . . . . . . 26
10. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
10.1. Considerations Regarding This Document . . . . . . . . . . 26
10.2. Enumservice Security Considerations Guideline . . . . . . 27
11. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
11.1. Enumservice Registrations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
11.1.1. IANA Registration Template . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
11.1.2. Location . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
11.1.3. Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
11.1.4. Registration Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
11.1.5. Change Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
11.1.6. Restrictions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
12. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
13. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
13.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
13.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Appendix A. IANA XML Template and Examples . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Appendix B. Changes Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Appendix C. Document Changelog . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Appendix D. Open Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 44
Hoeneisen, et al. Expires May 25, 2009 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft IANA Registration of Enumservices November 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 Specifications. 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
Enumservice Specifications, as well as the revision or refinement of
existing Enumservice Specifications.
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 "Enumservice Specifications(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:
o 'Registration Document' refers to a draft specification that
defines an Enumservice and proposes its registration following the
procedures outlined herein.
Hoeneisen, et al. Expires May 25, 2009 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft IANA Registration of Enumservices November 2008
o 'Enumservice Specification' refers to a Registration Document that
has been approved by the Experts and published according to
'Specification Required' as defined in [RFC3552].
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 defined in the Enumservice
Specification. 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 Enumservice Specification 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 Specifications 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 [RFC3403] from
another. That means that the Enumservice Specification 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
criterion:
Hoeneisen, et al. Expires May 25, 2009 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft IANA Registration of Enumservices November 2008
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].
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. Furthermore, a "-" MUST
NOT be used as the last character of a Type nor a Subtype. In
addition, Types and Subtypes are case insensitive and MUST be
specified in small letters.
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 have the same identifier 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 recommendations.
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 an Enumservice Specification.
The security considerations section of Enumservice Specifications is
subject to continuing evaluation and modification, in accordance with
Section 11.1.5.
Some of the issues to be looked at in a security analysis of an
Hoeneisen, et al. Expires May 25, 2009 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft IANA Registration of Enumservices November 2008
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).
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 Specifications 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
Enumservice Specifications be published as RFCs.
In case the Enumservice Specification is not published as an RFC,
sufficient information that allows to uniquely identify the
Enumservice Specification 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. Even though the namespace for Enumservices is
rather large (up to 32 alphanumeric characters), there are reasons to
Hoeneisen, et al. Expires May 25, 2009 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft IANA Registration of Enumservices November 2008
manage this in accordance with Section 2 of [RFC5226]. The following
is a list of motivations applying to Enumservices:
o Prevent hoarding or 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 and applications used are strongly
RECOMMENDED. Therefore, preventing hoarding, wasting, or
"hijacking" of Enumservice Type names is important.
o Sanity check to ensure sensible or 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 and/or
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 and use of
several services for a similar or identical purpose clearly
reduces interoperability. Operational circumstances suggest to
keep the space occupied by all services published in the NAPTR
RRSet at any owner in the e164.arpa domain bounded. Registration
of nearly identical services and subsequent competing or parallel
use could easily increase the DNS operational complexity.
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
Hoeneisen, et al. Expires May 25, 2009 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft IANA Registration of Enumservices November 2008
Internet-Drafts Archive, it may be useful 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
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 Specification (see Section 5.2). If the Enumservice
cannot be assigned to one of the classes outlined below, the
Enumservice Specification 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 a URI Scheme MUST NOT be used as a
Type name for an Enumservice which is not specifically about the
respective protocol or 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
or 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, as noted in Section 9.
It is perfectly legal under a certain Type to mix the Enumservice
Hoeneisen, et al. Expires May 25, 2009 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft IANA Registration of Enumservices November 2008
without a Subtype ("empty Subtype") with Enumservices containing a
Subtype. In that case, however, the Enumservice with an empty
Subtype SHOULD be specified to reflect the base service, while the
other Enumservices SHOULD be specified 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
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 lowercase 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, a
Subtype SHOULD NOT be specified for the Enumservice.
Where there are a number of different URI Schemes associated with
this protocol, the Enumservice Specification 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
Hoeneisen, et al. Expires May 25, 2009 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft IANA Registration of Enumservices November 2008
common kind of interaction - how that interaction is implemented
is not important. The Enumservice Specification MUST describe the
interaction and expected behavior in enough detail that an
implementation can decide if this activity is one in which it can
engage. However, it is RECOMMENDED that the Enumservice is
defined in a way that will allow others to use it at a later date.
An Enumservice that defines a generalized application is preferred
to one that has narrow use.
An example of this flavor of Enumservice is email. Whilst this
might appear to be a "pure" protocol scheme, it is not. The URI
Scheme is 'mailto', and does not identify the protocol used by the
sender or the recipient to offer or retrieve emails.
Another example is SMS, where the existence 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
Specification 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
Hoeneisen, et al. Expires May 25, 2009 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft IANA Registration of Enumservices November 2008
this Enumservice. An example of this kind of application is the
PSTN:tel Enumservice. This indicates that the NAPTR holds Number
Portability data. It implies that the client should engage in
number portability processing using the associated URI. Note that
this Enumservice usually does not itself define the kind of
interaction available using the associated URI. That application
is negotiated with some other "out of band" means (either through
prior negotiation, or explicitly through the number portability
process, or through negotiation following the selection of the
final destination address).
4.2.3.1. Application-Based Enumservice "Type" Strings
It is RECOMMENDED that Application-class Enumservices use the
lowercase 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 MAY be shared between URI
Schemes, if all the URI Schemes within the same Subtype are mandatory
to implement.
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 Type-Based Enumservice Class
"Data Type" 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 or format as the Enumservice Type. Examples of such
Enumservices include 'vpim' [RFC4238] and 'vCard' [RFC4969].
4.2.4.1. Data Type-Based Enumservice "Type" Strings
It is RECOMMENDED to use the lowercase well known name of the data or
format as the Type name.
4.2.4.2. Data Type-Based Enumservice "Subtype" Strings
It is RECOMMENDED to use the URI Schemes used to access the service
as Subtype name. Subtype names MAY be shared between URI Schemes, if
all the URI Schemes within the same Subtype are mandatory to
implement.
If there is only one URI Scheme foreseen to access the data or
format, the empty Subtype string MAY be used.
Hoeneisen, et al. Expires May 25, 2009 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft IANA Registration of Enumservices November 2008
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 IANA
Registration Template (see Section 5.2 MUST be populated with
"Other". In that case, the Enumservice Specification MUST contain a
section elaborating why the Enumservice does not fit into the
classification structure.
5. Required Sections and Information
There are several sections that MUST appear in an Enumservice
Specification. 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
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 Specification. Where
a given Enumservice Type has multiple Subtypes, there MUST be a
separate 'IANA Registration' section for each Subtype. The following
lists the fields that are to be used in the XML template 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):
Hoeneisen, et al. Expires May 25, 2009 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft IANA Registration of Enumservices November 2008
* "Protocol-Based": The Enumservice belongs to the Protocol-based
class as described in Section 4.2.2.
* "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 Type-Based": The Enumservice belongs to the Data Type-
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.
<class>Protocol-Based</class>
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.
<type>foo</type>
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. Should the Enumservice not require a Subtype, then the
'subtype' element must not be used in the registration XML chunk.
If a given Enumservice Type has multiple Subtypes, then there MUST
be a separate 'IANA Registration' XML chunk for each Subtype.
Please find further instructions in Section 4.
e.g.
<subtype>bar</subtype>
o URI Scheme(s):
The URI Schemes that are used with the Enumservice. The selection
Hoeneisen, et al. Expires May 25, 2009 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft IANA Registration of Enumservices November 2008
of URI Schemes often depends on the Enumservice Class, Type,
and/or Subtype. A colon MUST NOT be placed after the URI Scheme
name. If there is more that one URI Scheme, then one 'urischeme'
element per URI scheme must be used in the XML chunk. Please find
further instructions in Section 4.
e.g.
<urischeme>bar</urischeme>
<urischeme>sbar</urischeme>
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, in accordance with [RFC3402]
o Functional Specification:
The Functional Specification describes how the Enumservice is used
in connection with the URI to which it resolves.
e.g.
<functionalspec>
<paragraph>
This Enumservice indicates
that the resource identified can be addressed
by the associated URI in order to foo the
bar.
</paragraph>
<paragraph>
[...]
</paragraph>
</functionalspec>
Where the terms used are non-obvious, they should be defined in
the Enumservice Specification, or a reference to an external
document containing their definition should be provided.
o Security Considerations:
A reference to the 'Security Considerations' section of a given
Enumservice Specification.
e.g.
<security>
Hoeneisen, et al. Expires May 25, 2009 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft IANA Registration of Enumservices November 2008
See <xref type="rfc" data="rfc4979"/>, Section 6.
</security>
o Intended Usage:
One of the following values (without quotes):
* "COMMON": Indicates that the Enumservice is intended for
widespread use on the public Internet, and that its 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
Enumservice Specification 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.
<usage>COMMON</usage>
o Enumservice Registration Document(s):
Reference(s) to the Document(s) containing the Enumservice
Specification.
e.g.
<registrationdocs> <xref type="rfc" data="rfc4979"/>
</registrationdocs>
<registrationdocs>
<xref type="rfc" data="rfc8888"/> (obsoleted by
RFC 9999)
<xref type="rfc" data="rfc9999"/>
</registrationdocs>
e.g.
Hoeneisen, et al. Expires May 25, 2009 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft IANA Registration of Enumservices November 2008
<registrationdocs>
[International
Telecommunications Union, "Enumservice Specification
for Foobar", ITU-F Recommendation B.193, Release 73,
Mar 2008.]
</registrationdocs>
o Requester:
The persons requesting the registration of the Enumservice.
e.g.
<requester>
<xref type="person" data="John_Doe"/>
</requester>
...
<people>
<person id="John_Doe">
<name>John Doe</name>
<org>ACME Research and Development Inc.</org>
<uri>mailto:jd@acme.example.com</uri>
<updated>2008-11-20</updated>
</person>
</people>
Note: If there is more than one requester, there must be one
'xref' element per requester in the 'requester' element, and one
'person' chunk per 'requester' in the 'people' element.
o Further Information:
Any other information the requester deem interesting.
e.g.
<additionalinfo>
<paragraph>more info goes here</paragraph>
</additionalinfo>
Hoeneisen, et al. Expires May 25, 2009 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft IANA Registration of Enumservices November 2008
Note: If there is no such additional information, then the
'additionalinfo' part of the XML chunk is to be left out.
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.
The example(s) SHOULD follow any relevant IETF guidelines on the use
of domain names, phone numbers, and other resource identifier
examples, such as [RFC2606].
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 an Enumservice Specification 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).
An Enumservice Specification 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
Hoeneisen, et al. Expires May 25, 2009 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft IANA Registration of Enumservices November 2008
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 "Enumservice
Specification(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 "Enumservice Specification(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:
o Assumptions about ownership or administrative control of the
namespace.
o Requirement or need to use DNS wildcards.
o Incompatibility with DNS wildcards.
Hoeneisen, et al. Expires May 25, 2009 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft IANA Registration of Enumservices November 2008
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 above MAY be included in an
Enumservice Specification. 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 is an illustration of the process by which a new
Enumservice Registration Document 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 Document can be
formally submitted to IANA for Expert Review. Figure 2 shows the
process from Expert Review onwards.
Hoeneisen, et al. Expires May 25, 2009 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft IANA Registration of Enumservices November 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 |
+----------------------+
:
:
V
R-D: Registration Document
Figure 1
6.1. Step 1: Read this Document in Detail
This document describes all of the necessary sections required and
recommended, and makes suggestions on content.
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.
Hoeneisen, et al. Expires May 25, 2009 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft IANA Registration of Enumservices November 2008
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
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.
Note: Whatever that outcome is, the Experts are not bound to any
decision during this phase.
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.
Hoeneisen, et al. Expires May 25, 2009 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft IANA Registration of Enumservices November 2008
6.4. Step 4: Submit Registration Document
If the Registration Document is to be published as RFC, the normal
IETF publication process applies (see [instructions2authors]), i.e.
the Registration Document is submitted to the RFC Editor in the form
of an Internet Draft. For Independent Submission the guidelines in
Independent Submissions to the RFC Editor [RFC4846] apply.
For publications as RFC Steps 6 below does not apply.
If the Registration Document is not published as RFC, the authors
submit the Registration Document to IANA for Expert Review via the
http://iana.org/ website.
The Step 6 below does only apply in case the Registration Document is
to be published in a specification other than RFC.
:
:
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 |
| (only relevant if R-D not |
| to be published as RFC) |
+-----------------------------------+
|
V
+---------------------------------------------+
| Step 7: Adding Enumservice to IANA Registry |
+---------------------------------------------+
R-D: Registration Document
Hoeneisen, et al. Expires May 25, 2009 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft IANA Registration of Enumservices November 2008
Figure 2
6.5. Step 5: Expert Review
After the Registration Document arrives at IANA, they will conduct an
Expert Review according to [RFC5226]. The authors MUST be prepared
for further interaction with IANA and the experts.
6.5.1. Outcome 1: Experts Approve the Registration Document
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
Registration Document. 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 Registration Document
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
This Step 5 only applies in case the Registration Document is to be
published in a specification other than RFC. (In the RFC case the
RFC publication process ensures that the Enumservice Specification is
published.)
The authors are responsible that the Registration Document is
published according to 'Specification Required' as defined in
[RFC5226].
6.7. Step 7: Adding Enumservice to IANA Registry
In case the Registration Document is to be published as an RFC, the
RFC publication process ensures that IANA will add the Enumservice to
the Registry.
In case the Registration Document is to be published in a
specification other than RFC, the authors MUST inform IANA, as soon
as the Enumservice Specification has been published according to
'Specification Required' as defined in [RFC5226]. The 'Enumservice
Specification(s)' field in the IANA Template MUST contain a
unambiguous reference to the Enumservice Specification (see also
Hoeneisen, et al. Expires May 25, 2009 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft IANA Registration of Enumservices November 2008
Section 5.2). In addition, the authors MUST provide IANA with a
stable URL to the Enumservice Specification, in order that IANA may
obtain the information included in the Enumservice Specification.
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
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 MUST evaluate the criterion 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 3,
Section 5) are met. This includes check for completeness and
whether all the aspects described in Section 3 and 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 provided in the
Registration Document.
Hoeneisen, et al. Expires May 25, 2009 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft IANA Registration of Enumservices November 2008
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.
7.3. Appeals
Appeals of Expert Review decisions follow the process described in
section 7 of [RFC5226] and section 6.5 of [RFC2026].
8. Revision of Pre-Existing Enumservice Specifications
Many Enumservice Registrations, published via IETF RFCs, already
exist at the time of the development of this document. These
existing Enumservice Specifications MAY be revised to comply with the
specifications contained herein. All revisions of Enumservice
Specifications MUST follow the specifications contained herein.
9. Extension of Existing Enumservice Specifications
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 Enumservice Specification 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 Specification, there are no specific security issues
to be considered for this document. However, as this is a guide to
authors of new Enumservice Specifications, the next section should be
Hoeneisen, et al. Expires May 25, 2009 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft IANA Registration of Enumservices November 2008
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 Specifications do not need to
and SHOULD NOT repeat considerations already listed in that document.
However, Enumservice Specifications SHOULD include a reference to
that section.
ENUM refers to resources using existing URI Schemes and protocols.
Enumservice Specifications 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 Specification.
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:
Hoeneisen, et al. Expires May 25, 2009 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft IANA Registration of Enumservices November 2008
o Enumservice Subtype:
o URI Schemes:
o Functional Specification:
o Security Considerations:
o Intended Usage:
o Registration Documents:
o Registrants
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 Enumservice Specification is NOT an RFC, IANA MUST hold an
escrow copy of that Enumservice Specification. 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.
Hoeneisen, et al. Expires May 25, 2009 [Page 28]
Internet-Draft IANA Registration of Enumservices November 2008
11.1.4. Registration Procedure
There is a difference in process depending on whether or not the
Enumservice Specification will be published as RFC. In case of RFC,
the normal IETF procures (according to [RFC5226]) apply. In case of
a specification other than RFC, there is a slight difference to
[RFC5226] (see below). The reason for this lies in the complexity of
Enumservice Specifications. Registration Documents will most likely
undergo changes during Expert Review, so that in most cases it will
not be published by the time the Expert Review is carried out.
11.1.4.1. Published as RFC
As soon as IANA receives the Registration Document from the RFC
Editor, IANA will take care of the 'Expert Review Process' according
to "Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs"
[RFC5226].
After successful Expert Review IANA will register the Enumservice,
i.e. add the Enumservice to the IANA "Enumservice Registrations"
Registry (see also Section 11.1.2).
The RFC Editor will now take care of the publication of the RFC.
11.1.4.2. Published as generic Specification
Whenever a Registration Document is submitted via the IANA website,
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 its Enumservice Specification
is published according to 'Specification Required' as defined in
[RFC5226] (see also Section 6.7). The Registration process will now
be on hold until the authors inform IANA about the publication of the
Enumservice Specification (see also Section 6.7).
Once the authors have informed IANA about the publication, IANA MUST
ensure that the requirements to "Specification Required" as defined
in [RFC5226] are met, the reference to the specification is
unambiguous, and the content of the Enumservice Specification is
identical to the Registration Document as approved by the Experts.
IANA will then register the Enumservice, i.e. add the Enumservice to
the IANA "Enumservice Registrations" Registry (see also
Hoeneisen, et al. Expires May 25, 2009 [Page 29]
Internet-Draft IANA Registration of Enumservices November 2008
Section 11.1.2).
11.1.5. Change Control
Change control of any Enumservice Registrations is done by "Expert
Review" and "Specification Required" according to [RFC5226]. Updates
of Enumservice Specifications 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 Enumservice Specification changing its
"Intended Usage" field to "OBSOLETE"; such Enumservices will be
clearly marked in the lists published by IANA. As obsoletions are
updates, they are also handled the same way as initial Enumservice
Registrations.
11.1.6. Restrictions
As stated in Section 3.2, a "-" (dash) MUST NOT be used as the first
nor as the second nor as the last 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.
Section 5.2 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.
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
Hoeneisen, et al. Expires May 25, 2009 [Page 30]
Internet-Draft IANA Registration of Enumservices November 2008
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.
[RFC3402] Mealling, M., "Dynamic Delegation Discovery System (DDDS)
Part Two: The Algorithm", RFC 3402, October 2002.
[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.
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.
Hoeneisen, et al. Expires May 25, 2009 [Page 31]
Internet-Draft IANA Registration of Enumservices November 2008
[RFC4979] Mayrhofer, A., "IANA Registration for Enumservice 'XMPP'",
RFC 4979, August 2007.
[RFC4846] Klensin, J. and D. Thaler, "Independent Submissions to the
RFC Editor", RFC 4846, July 2007.
[RFC4355] Brandner, R., Conroy, L., and R. Stastny, "IANA
Registration for Enumservices email, fax, mms, ems, and
sms", RFC 4355, January 2006.
[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.
[RFC2606] Eastlake, D. and A. Panitz, "Reserved Top Level DNS
Names", BCP 32, RFC 2606, June 1999.
[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. IANA XML Template and Examples
This section includes the IANA XML template, as well as two examples,
for informative purposes.
<!-- NOTE: Fields having "N/A" as value should instead simply be omitted in XML. -->
Hoeneisen, et al. Expires May 25, 2009 [Page 32]
Internet-Draft IANA Registration of Enumservices November 2008
<record>
<class>Protocol-based</class>
<type>foo</type>
<subtype>bar</subtype>
<urischeme>bar</urischeme>
<urischeme>bars</urischeme>
<functionalspec>
<paragraph>
This Enumservice indicates that the
resource identified can be addressed by the
associated URI in order to foo the bar.
</paragraph>
</functionalspec>
<security>
See <xref type="rfc" data="rfc9999"/>, Section 7.
</security>
<usage>COMMON</usage>
<registrationdocs>
<xref type="rfc" data="rfc9999"/>
</registrationdocs>
<requesters>
<xref type="person" data="John_Doe"/>
<xref type="person" data="Jane_Dale"/>
</requesters>
<additionalinfo>
<paragraph>
Further information free text. There can be
several paragraph and artwork sections.
</paragraph>
<artwork>
:-)
</artwork>
</additionalinfo>
</record>
<people>
<person id="John_Doe">
<name>John Doe</name>
<org>ACME Corp.</org>
<uri>mailto:jdoe@example.com</uri>
<updated>2008-10-10</updated>
</person>
<person id="Jane_Dale">
<name>Jane Dale</name>
<org>ACME Corp.</org>
<uri>mailto:jdale@example.com</uri>
<updated>2008-10-10</updated>
</person>
Hoeneisen, et al. Expires May 25, 2009 [Page 33]
Internet-Draft IANA Registration of Enumservices November 2008
</people>
This is the first example.
<record>
<class>Protocol-based</class>
<type>email</type>
<subtype>mailto</subtype>
<urischeme>mailto:</urischeme>
<functionalspec>
<paragraph>
This Enumservice indicates that the remote
resource can be addressed by the associated
URI scheme in order to send an email.
</paragraph>
</functionalspec>
<security>
See <xref type="rfc" data="rfc4355"/>, Section 6.
</security>
<usage>COMMON</usage>
<registrationdocs>
<xref type="rfc" data="rfc4355"/>
</registrationdocs>
<requesters>
<xref type="person" data="Lawrence_Conroy"/>
</requesters>
</record>
<people>
<person id="Lawrence_Conroy">
<name>Lawrence Conroy</name>
<org>Siemens Roke Manor Research</org>
<uri>mailto:lwc@roke.co.uk</uri>
<updated>2008-11-20</updated>
</person>
</people>
This is the second example.
Hoeneisen, et al. Expires May 25, 2009 [Page 34]
Internet-Draft IANA Registration of Enumservices November 2008
<record>
<class>Protocol-based</class>
<type>xmpp</type>
<urischeme>xmpp</urischeme>
<functionalspec>
<paragraph>This Enumservice indicates that the
resource identified is an XMPP entity.</paragraph>
</functionalspec>
<security>See <xref type="rfc" data="rfc4979"/>,
Section 6.</security>
<usage>COMMON</usage>
<registrationdocs>
<xref type="rfc" data="rfc4979"/>
</registrationdocs>
<requesters>
<xref type="person" data="Alexander_Mayrhofer"/>
</requesters>
</record>
<people>
<person id="Alexander_Mayrhofer">
<name>Alexander Mayrhofer</name>
<org>enum.at GmbH</org>
<uri>mailto:alexander.mayrhofer@enum.at</uri>
<updated>2008-10-10</updated>
</person>
</people>
This is the third example.
<record>
<class>Application-based</class>
<type>voicemsg</type>
<subtype>sip</subtype>
<urischeme>sip</urischeme>
<subtype>sips</subtype>
<urischeme>sips</urischeme>
<subtype>tel</subtype>
<urischeme>tel</urischeme>
<subtype>http</subtype>
<urischeme>http</urischeme>
<subtype>https</subtype>
<urischeme>https</urischeme>
<functionalspec>
<paragraph>This Enumservice indicates that the remote
Hoeneisen, et al. Expires May 25, 2009 [Page 35]
Internet-Draft IANA Registration of Enumservices November 2008
resource identified can be addressed by the associated
URI scheme in order to initiate a voice communication
session to a voice messaging system.</paragraph>
</functionalspec>
<security>See <xref type="rfc" data="rfc4279"/>,
Section 3.</security>
<usage>COMMON</usage>
<registrationdocs>
<xref type="rfc" data="rfc4279"/>
</registrationdocs>
<requesters>
<xref type="person" data="Jason_Livingood"/>
<xref type="person" data="Donald_Troshynski">
</requesters>
<additionalinfo>
<paragraph>Implementers should review a
non-exclusive list of examples in
<xref type="rfc" data="rfc4279"/>,
Section 7.</paragraph>
</additionalinfo>
</record>
<people>
<person id="Jason_Livingood">
<name>Jason Livingood</name>
<org>Comcast Cable Communications</org>
<uri>mailto:jason_livingood@cable.comcast.com</uri>
<updated>2008-11-20</updated>
</person>
<person id="Donald_Troshynski">
<name>Donald Troshynski</name>
<org>Acme Packet</org>
<uri>mailto:dtroshynski@acmepacket.com</uri>
<updated>2008-11-20</updated>
</person>
</people>
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".
Hoeneisen, et al. Expires May 25, 2009 [Page 36]
Internet-Draft IANA Registration of Enumservices November 2008
o This document defines the classification of Enumservices. The
IANA Registration Template has been complemented to contain a
"Classification" field.
o A new field "Enumservice Registration(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.
o The Registration Template is now a chunk of XML data, reflecting
IANA's recent work to convert registries to XML.
Appendix C. Document Changelog
[RFC Editor: This section is to be removed before publication]
draft-ietf-enum-enumservices-guide-14:
o alex: changed template information in description of fields to XML
chunk information
o alex: added references to person information in examples
o alex: replaced "registrant" with "requester"
o bernie: minor editorial corrections and nits
o jason: added the IANA XML chunk, as well as some examples
draft-ietf-enum-enumservices-guide-13:
o alex: Some minor changes - the only real open issue is whether or
not we should go to an XML template instead of the plain text one.
IANA provided a "chunk", but gave no feedback about schema,
namespace, etc. so it is deemed not "normative" enough yet.
o bernie: Implemented IANA Feedback: made difference between RFC and
no-RFC specs more clear; now the both variants slightly differ in
process.
o bernie: Implemented more feedback of Peter Koch:
* Terminology updated throughout the document: Enumservice
Specification / Registration Document
* Changed IANA Template field 'Registration Document(s) to
'Enumservice specification(s)'
* Disallow dash '-' as last char of Type or Subtype
* Removed XML2RFC template and referencing sections
o bernie: changed "Subtype names MAY be shared between URI Schemes
that the Registration specifies as mandatory to implement for a
given Subtype." to "Subtype names MAY be shared between URI
Schemes, if all the URI Schemes within the same Subtype are
Hoeneisen, et al. Expires May 25, 2009 [Page 37]
Internet-Draft IANA Registration of Enumservices November 2008
mandatory to implement."
o bernie: Cleared out independent submission and added reference to
RFC 4846
o jason: Per the co-chair and Peter Koch, doc changed to BCP. Doc
doesn't specify a protocol but a process. Both RFC 2026, section
5, and section 4.3 of RFC 5226 suggest that process documents, and
IANA Guidelines in particular, usually are published as BCP RFCs.
Also, there's little to implement independently in this draft that
could help advance it on the Standards Track.
o jason: various nits clean-up suggested by Peter Koch.
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):
* 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
Hoeneisen, et al. Expires May 25, 2009 [Page 38]
Internet-Draft IANA Registration of Enumservices November 2008
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.
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)
Hoeneisen, et al. Expires May 25, 2009 [Page 39]
Internet-Draft IANA Registration of Enumservices November 2008
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"
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
Hoeneisen, et al. Expires May 25, 2009 [Page 40]
Internet-Draft IANA Registration of Enumservices November 2008
o bernie: Complete rewrite of IANA considerations
o bernie: XML2RFC template will be downloadable at IANA
o bernie: Complete re-write of process
o alex: Adjusted Cook-book / classification
o bernie: Take over chapter "Registration mechanism for
Enumservices" from RFC 3761bis
o bernie: Changed title to adjust to new purpose
o bernie: Intended status changed to Standards Track (was bcp)
o bernie: Obsoletes (partly) RFC 3761
o bernie: Adjusted section "Registration mechanism for Enumservices"
o bernie: Updated most RFC 3761 references to either RFC3761bis or
new (internal) section
o bernie: Acknowledgment for RFC3761 contributors
o bernie: Shortened bullet point in IANA Registration Template:
"Any other information that the author deems interesting"
==> "Further Information"
o alex: Rewritten Abstract, Introduction to be consistent with with
new goal (IANA Registry description)
o alex: Add obsoletes section 3 of RFC 3761 to Introduction
o alex: Changed section 3 to "registration requirements", Simplified
structure
o alex: Added examples for protocol Enumservice classification
o alex: Added text about "other" classification
draft-ietf-enum-enumservices-guide-06:
o alex: updated Class Schemes.
o alex: updated expert's tasks
o alex: added experts review considerations
o bernie: Moved Terminology section in XML2RFC template (now after
Introduction)
o bernie: Class is now part of the Enumservice registration in the
IANA template
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
Hoeneisen, et al. Expires May 25, 2009 [Page 41]
Internet-Draft IANA Registration of Enumservices November 2008
o bernie: added category (bcp)
o bernie: clean up in Security Considerations
o bernie: editorial stuff (mainly XML issues)
draft-ietf-enum-enumservices-guide-03:
o alex: moved terminology section
o alex: removed note asking for feedback
o bernie: added DNS consideration section
o bernie: added Acknowledgments section
o bernie: editorial stuff (nicer formating, fixing too long lines)
o alex: added security considerations from vcard draft.
draft-ietf-enum-enumservices-guide-02:
o bernie: replaced numbers in examples by "Drama Numbers"
o bernie: moved Change and Open Issues to Appendix.
o bernie: major rewrite of section "6. Required Sections and
Information" incl. separating explanations and examples.
o bernie: removed section 7 (was just a repetition of referencing to
XML2RFC template)
o bernie: extended Appendix with Open Issues.
draft-ietf-enum-enumservices-guide-01:
o alex: added Security Considerations section for the doc itself
o alex: added IANA Considerations section for the doc itself
o alex: added cookbook idea
Appendix D. Open Issues
[RFC Editor: This section should be empty before publication]
o Decision on whether to go on with XML-Registry at IANA
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/
Hoeneisen, et al. Expires May 25, 2009 [Page 42]
Internet-Draft IANA Registration of Enumservices November 2008
Alexander Mayrhofer
enum.at GmbH
Karlsplatz 1/9
Wien A-1010
Austria
Phone: +43 1 5056416 34
Email: alexander.mayrhofer@enum.at
URI: http://www.enum.at/
Jason Livingood
Comcast Cable Communications
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 May 25, 2009 [Page 43]
Internet-Draft IANA Registration of Enumservices November 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.
Acknowledgment
Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF
Administrative Support Activity (IASA).
Hoeneisen, et al. Expires May 25, 2009 [Page 44]
| PAFTECH AB 2003-2026 | 2026-04-24 04:04:59 |