One document matched: draft-ietf-enum-infrastructure-enum-reqs-00.txt

ENUM                                                             S. Lind
Internet-Draft                                                 AT&T Labs
Expires: August 26, 2006                                       P. Pfautz
                                                                    AT&T
                                                       February 22, 2006


                    Infrastrucure ENUM Requirements
              draft-ietf-enum-infrastructure-enum-reqs-00

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 August 26, 2006.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).

Abstract

   This document provides requirements for "infrastructure" or "carrier"
   ENUM, defined as the use of RFC 3761 technology to facilitate
   interconnection of networks for E.164 number addressed services, in
   particular but not restricted to VoIP.

Conventions used in this document




Lind & Pfautz            Expires August 26, 2006                [Page 1]

Internet-Draft      Infrastructure ENUM Requirements       February 2006


   RFC2119 [1] provides the interpretations for the key words "MUST",
   "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT",
   "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" found in this document.


1.  Infrastructure ENUM

1.1.  Definition

   Infrastructure ENUM is defined as the use of the technology in
   RFC3761 [2] by the carrier-of-record for a specific E.164 number [3]
   to map a telephone number into a URI that identifies a specific point
   of interconnection to that service provider's network that could
   enable the originating party to establish communication with the
   associated terminating party.  It is separate from any URIs that the
   end-user, who registers their E.164 number, may wish to associate
   with that E.164 number.

   In User ENUM, the entity or person having the right-to-use in a
   number has the sole discretion about the content of the associated
   domain and thus the zone content.  From a domain registration
   perspective, the end user number assignee is thus the registrant.
   Within the infrastructure ENUM namespace, we use the term "carrier of
   record" for the entity having discretion over the domain and zone
   content and acting as the registrant.  The "carrier of record" will
   typically be a service provider authorized to issue E.164 numbers for
   the provisioning of PSTN service under the authority of a National
   Regulatory Authority (NRA), but generally exhibits one or more of the
   following properties:

   o it has been assigned one or more national number ranges by an NRA.

   o it has been assigned a number range directly by the ITU, for
   instance a code under "International Networks" (+882) or "Universal
   Personal Telecommunications (UPT)" (+878).

   o it can be the recipient of a number porting operation.

   o it provides a PSTN point-of-interconnect for the number.

   It is understood that definition of carrier or record is ultimately a
   matter for national authorities to determine.

1.2.  Background

   Voice service providers use E.164 numbers currently as their main
   naming and routing vehicle. infrastructure ENUM in e164.arpa or
   another publicly available tree allows service providers to link



Lind & Pfautz            Expires August 26, 2006                [Page 2]

Internet-Draft      Infrastructure ENUM Requirements       February 2006


   Internet based resources such as URIs to E.164 numbers (Note: this is
   the other way round then User ENUM).  This allows service providers
   in addition to interconnecting via the PSTN (or exclusively) to peer
   via IP-based protocols.  Service providers may announce all E.164
   numbers or number ranges they host, regardless of whether the final
   end-user device is on the Internet, on IP-based closed NGNs or on the
   PSTN, provided an access (e.g.  SBC or gateway) to the destination
   service provider's network is available on the Internet.  There is
   also no guarantee that the originating service provider querying
   infrastructure ENUM is able to access the ingress network element of
   the destination provider's network.  Additional peering and
   accounting agreements requiring authentication may be necessary.  The
   access provided may also be to a shared network of a group of
   providers, resolving the final destination network within the shared
   network.


2.  Requirements for Infrastructure ENUM

2.1.

   Infrastructure ENUM SHALL provide a means for a provider to populate
   DNS RRs in a common publicly accessible namespace for the E.164
   numbering resources for which it is the carrier-of-record.

2.2.

   Queries of infrastructure ENUM FQDNs MUST return a result, even if
   the result is NXDOMAIN.  Queries must not be rejected, e.g. based on
   ACLs.

2.3.

   Infrastructure ENUM SHALL support RRs providing a URI that can
   identify a point of interconnection for delivery of communications
   addressed to the E.164 number.

2.4.

   Infrastructure ENUM SHALL support an IRIS capability that allows
   qualified parties to obtain information regarding the E.164 numbering
   resources and the corresponding carrier-of-record.

2.5.

   Implementation of Infrastructure ENUM MUST NOT restrict the ability
   of an end-user, in a competitive environment, to choose a Registrar
   and/or Tier 2 name server provider for end-user ENUM registrations.



Lind & Pfautz            Expires August 26, 2006                [Page 3]

Internet-Draft      Infrastructure ENUM Requirements       February 2006


2.6.

   Infrastructure ENUM SHALL be implemented under a TLD that can support
   reliability and performance suitable for PSTN applications.

2.7.

   Infrastructure ENUM MUST meet all reasonable privacy concerns about
   visibility of information an end user has no control over, for
   example discovery of unlisted numbers, or inadvertent disclosure of
   user identity.

2.8.

   Proposed implementations of Infrastructure ENUM SHOULD

   a.  Minimize changes required to existing requirements that are part
   of RFC 3761

   b.  Work with open numbering plans

   c.  Restrict additional functionality to service provider resolvers.

   d.  Minimize the number of lookups required to obtain as many NAPTR
   records (end-user and infrastructure) as possible.

   e.  Minimize the client knowledge of the numbering plan required.

   f.  Maximize synergies with end-user ENUM

   g.  Support interworking with private ENUM trees.


3.  Security Considerations

   Existing security considerations for ENUM detailed in [2] still
   apply.  Note that some registration validation issues concerning end
   user ENUM may not apply to infrastructure ENUM.  Where the Tier 1
   registry is able to identify the provider serving a number e.g.,
   based on industry data for number block assignments and number
   portability, registration might be more easily automated and a
   separate registrar not required.

   Some parties have expressed concern that an infrastructure ENUM could
   compromise end user privacy by making it possible for others to
   identify unlisted or unpublished numbers based on their registration
   in ENUM.  This can be avoided if providers register all of the their
   allocated (as opposed to assigned) numbers.  Unassigned numbers



Lind & Pfautz            Expires August 26, 2006                [Page 4]

Internet-Draft      Infrastructure ENUM Requirements       February 2006


   should be provisioned to route to the provider's network in the same
   fashion as assigned numbers and only then provide an indication that
   they are unassigned.  In that way, provider registration of a number
   in ENUM provides no more information about status of a number than
   could be obtained by dialing it.


4.  IANA Considerations

   IANA considerations will depend on the architecture ultimately chosen
   to meet the requirements.

5.  Normative References

   [1]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement
        Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

   [2]  Faltstrom, P. and M. Mealling, "The E.164 to Uniform Resource
        Identifiers (URI) Dynamic Delegation Discovery System (DDDS)
        Application (ENUM)", RFC 3761, April 2004.

   [3]  International Telecommunications Union-T, "The International
        Public Telecommunication Number Plan", Recommendation E.164",
        May 1997.



























Lind & Pfautz            Expires August 26, 2006                [Page 5]

Internet-Draft      Infrastructure ENUM Requirements       February 2006


Authors' Addresses

   Steven Lind
   AT&T Labs
   180 Park Ave
   Florham Park, NJ  07932-0971
   USA

   Email: slind@att.com


   Penn Pfautz
   AT&T
   200 S. Laurel Ave
   Middletown, NJ  07748
   USA

   Email: ppfautz@att.com

































Lind & Pfautz            Expires August 26, 2006                [Page 6]

Internet-Draft      Infrastructure ENUM Requirements       February 2006


Intellectual Property Statement

   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.


Disclaimer of Validity

   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 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.


Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).  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.


Acknowledgment

   Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
   Internet Society.




Lind & Pfautz            Expires August 26, 2006                [Page 7]