One document matched: draft-ietf-iptel-tel-reg-06.xml

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
<!DOCTYPE rfc SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/authoring/rfc2629.dtd" [
<!ENTITY rfc3261 SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.3261.xml">
<!ENTITY rfc2119 SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.2119.xml">
<!ENTITY rfc3966 SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.3966.xml">
<!ENTITY rfc3427 SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.3427.xml">
<!ENTITY rfc3969 SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.3969.xml">
<!ENTITY rfc5226 SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.5226.xml">
]>

<?xml-stylesheet type='text/xsl' href='rfc2629.xslt' ?>

<?rfc toc="yes" ?>
<?rfc symrefs="no" ?>
<?rfc iprnotified="no" ?>
<?rfc strict="yes" ?>
<?rfc compact="yes" ?>
<?rfc subcompact="no" ?>
<?rfc sortrefs="no" ?>
<?rfc colonspace='yes' ?>
<?rfc comments='yes' ?>
<?rfc inline='no' ?>

<rfc docName="DOCNAME"
   category="bcp" ipr="full3978" updates="3966">
<front>
<title abbrev= "IANA Registry for TEL URI Parameters">
The Internet Assigned Number Authority (IANA) tel Uniform Resource
          Identifier (URI) Parameter Registry
    </title >

<author 
            initials="C." 
            surname="Jennings" 
            fullname="Cullen Jennings">
<organization>Cisco Systems</organization>
<address>
<postal>
<street>170 West Tasman Drive</street>
<street>Mailstop SJC-21/2</street>
<city>San Jose</city>
<region>CA</region>
<code>95134</code>
<country>USA</country>
</postal>
<phone>+1 408 902-3341</phone>
<email>fluffy@cisco.com </email>
</address>
</author>

<author initials="V.K." surname="Gurbani" fullname="Vijay K. Gurbani">
 <organization>Bell Laboratories, Alcatel-Lucent</organization>
 <address>
  <postal>
   <street>2701 Lucent Lane</street>
   <street>Room 9F-546</street>
   <city>Lisle</city>
   <region>IL</region>
   <code>60532</code>
   <country>USA</country>
  </postal>
  <phone>+1 630 224-0216</phone>
  <email>vkg@alcatel-lucent.com</email>
 </address>
</author>

<date year="2008"/>
<area>Transport</area>
<workgroup>IPTEL WG</workgroup>
<keyword>I-D</keyword>
<keyword>Internet-Draft</keyword>
<abstract>

<t>This document creates an Internet Assigned Number Authority (IANA) registry 
for tel Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) parameters and their values.  It 
populates the registry with the parameters defined in the tel URI specification,
along with the parameters in tel URI extensions defined for number portability
and trunk groups.</t>

</abstract> </front>
<middle>
<section title="Introduction">

<t>The tel URI (RFC3966 <xref target="RFC3966"/>), defines a URI that can 
be used to represent resources identified by telephone numbers.  The tel URI, 
like many other URIs, provides extensibility through the definition of new 
URI parameters and new values for existing parameters.  However, RFC3966 
did not specify an IANA registry where such parameters and values can be 
listed and standardized.  This specification creates such a registry.</t>

</section>

<section title="Terminology" >

<t>
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD",
"SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be
interpreted as described in <xref target="RFC2119"/>. </t>

</section>

<section title="Use of the Registry" >

<t>The tel URI parameters and values for these parameters MUST be documented in
a RFC or other permanent and readily available public specification in order to
be registered by IANA.  This documentation MUST fully explain the syntax,
intended usage, and semantics of the parameter.  The intent of this requirement
is to assure interoperability between independent implementations, and to
prevent accidental namespace collisions between implementations of dissimilar
features.</t>

<t>Documents defining tel URI parameters or parameter values MUST 
register them with IANA as described in <xref target="iana"/>.
The IANA registration policy for such parameters is "Specification
Required, Designated Expert," and is further discussed in 
<xref target="reg-policy"/>.
</t>

<t>Some tel URI parameters only accept a set of predefined parameter values
while others can take any value. There are also parameters that do not 
have any value; they are used as flags.</t>

<t>Those URI parameters that take on predefined values typically take on
a large number of values.  Registering each of those values, or creating a
sub-registry for each such parameter is not appropriate.  Instead, we 
have chosen to register URI parameter values by reference.  That is, the 
entry in the URI parameter registry for a given URI parameter contains 
references to the RFCs defining new values of that parameter. </t>

<t>Accordingly, the tel URI parameter registry contains a column that
indicates whether or not each parameter accepts a value.  The
column may contain "No value" or "Constrained".  A "Constrained"
in the column implies that certain predefined values exist for
this parameter and the accompanying RFC or other permanent and
readily available public specification should be consulted to find
out the accepted set of values.  A "No Value" in the column
implies that the parameter is used either as a flag, or does not have
a set of predefined values.  The accompanying RFC or other permanent
and readily available public specification should provide more
information on the semantics of the parameter.</t>

</section>

<section title="IANA Considerations" anchor="iana">
<t>The specification creates a new IANA registry named "tel URI Parameters".</t>

<section title="tel URI Parameters Registry" >

<t>New tel URI parameters and new values for existing tel URI parameters 
MUST be registered with IANA.</t>

<t>When registering a new tel URI parameter the following information MUST be 
provided:</t>

<t><list style="symbols" >
<t> Name of the parameter. </t>

<t> Whether the parameter only accepts a set of predefined values.</t>

<t> Reference to the RFC or other permanent and readily available public 
specification defining the parameter and new values.</t>

</list></t>

<t>When registering a new value for an existing tel URI parameter the
following information MUST be provided:</t>

<t><list style="symbols">

<t> Name of the parameter. </t>
<t> Reference to the RFC or other permanent and readily available public 
specification providing the new value. </t>
</list></t>

<t>Note to IANA editor: When a new value for an existing tel URI parameter is
standardized, the Reference column of Table 1 (below) corresponding to the
parameter name must be updated to include the new RFC number.</t>

<t>
Table 1 contains the initial values for this registry. </t>

<t><figure><artwork><![CDATA[

Parameter Name     Predefined Values     Reference
--------------     -----------------     ---------
isub               Constrained           [RFC 3966]
isub-encoding      Constrained           [RFC 4715]
ext                Constrained           [RFC 3966]
phone-context      Constrained           [RFC 3966]
enumdi             No value              [RFC 4759]
npdi               No value              [RFC 4694]
rn                 Constrained           [RFC 4694]
rn-context         Constrained           [RFC 4694]
cic                Constrained           [RFC 4694]
cic-context        Constrained           [RFC 4694]
tgrp               Constrained           [RFC 4904]
trunk-context      Constrained           [RFC 4904]
 
Table 1: IANA tel URI parameter registry
]]></artwork></figure></t>

</section>

<section title="Registration Policy for tel URI Parameters" 
 anchor="reg-policy">

<t> As per the terminology in <xref target="RFC5226"/> and actions 
accorded to such a role, the registration policy for tel 
URI parameters shall be "Specification Required, Designated Expert"
(the former implicitly implies the latter.)</t>

<t>The Designated Expert when deliberating on whether to include a new 
parameter in the tel URI registry may use the criteria provided below
to reach a decision (this is not an exhaustive list but representative
of the issues to consider when rendering an equitable decision):

 <list style="symbols">
  <t>If the tel URI -- with the parameter under consideration -- will be 
   converted to a URI used by other signaling protocols such as the
   Session Initiation Protocol (SIP <xref target="RFC3261"/>) or 
   H.323 <xref target="h323"/>, then the expert must consider whether 
   this parameter merely encapsulates signaling information that is not 
   meaningful to the processing of requests in the domain of the 
   converted URI.  For example, certain Integrated Services Digital Network 
   (ISDN) User Part (ISUP, <xref target="isup"/>) parameters have no 
   equivalent corollary in SIP; thus their presence or absence in 
   a SIP URI will not hinder the normal rules for processing that URI.  
   Other parameters may affect the normal processing rules associated 
   with the URI; in such cases, the expert must consider carefully 
   the ramifications, if any, of the presence of such parameters.</t>
  <t>Certain parameters of a tel URI can be optional.  These parameters act as
   metadata about the identifier in the tel URI.  Optional parameters should
   provide additional information to a service for which they apply instead of
   acting as enablers of that service in the first place.  The service must
   continue to be invoked and operate normally even in the absence of these
   parameters.</t>
 </list>
</t>

</section>
</section>

<section title="Security Considerations">

<t>The registry in this document does not in itself have security 
considerations.  However, as mentioned in <xref target="RFC3427"/>, an 
important reason for the IETF to manage the extensions of SIP is to 
ensure that all extensions and parameters are able to provide secure 
usage.  The supporting RFC publications for parameter registrations 
described in this specification MUST provide detailed security 
considerations for them.</t>

</section>

<section title="Acknowledgments">

<t>The structure of this document comes from <xref target="RFC3969"/>,
which is the equivalent work done in the SIP domain to establish a
registry.  Ted Hardie,  Alfred Hoenes, Jon Peterson and Jonathan Rosenberg 
provided substantive comments that have improved this document.</t>
<t>Brian Carpenter, Lars Eggert, Pasi Eronen, Chris Newman, 
and Glen Zorn provided feedback during IESG review and Gen-ART review.</t>

</section>

</middle>
<back>

<references title="Normative References">

  &rfc3966;
  &rfc2119;
  &rfc5226;

</references>

<references title="Informative References">

  &rfc3427;
  &rfc3261; 
  &rfc3969;

  <reference anchor="h323">
   <front>
    <title>H.323: Packet-based multimedia communications systems</title>
    <author>
     <organization>ITU-T H.323</organization>
    </author> 
   <date month="June" year="2006"/>
   </front>
  </reference>

  <reference anchor="isup">
   <front>
    <title>Signaling System No. 7: ISDN User Part Signaling Procedures</title>
    <author>
     <organization>ITU-T Q.764</organization>
    </author> 
   <date month="December" year="1999"/>
   </front>
  </reference>


</references>

</back>
</rfc>