ENUM -- Telephone Number Mapping J. Livingood
Working Group Comcast
Internet-Draft B. Hoeneisen
Expires: August 28, 2006 Switch
A. Mayrhofer
enum.at
Feb 24, 2006
Guide and Template for IANA Registrations of Enumervices
draft-ietf-enum-enumservices-guide-01
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 28, 2006.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).
Abstract
This document provides a guide to and template for the creation of
new IANA registration of ENUM services. It is also to be used for
updates of existing IANA registrations.
Livingood, et al. Expires August 28, 2006 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft BCP Enumservice Registrations Feb 2006
Table of Contents
1. Open Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
5. Enumservice Creation Cookbook . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5.1. Preparation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5.2. About Type Names . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5.3. About Subtypes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
6. Required Sections and Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
6.1. Introduction (MANDATORY) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6.2. Enumservice Registration for "foo" with Subtype "bar"
(MANDATORY) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6.3. Examples (MANDATORY) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6.4. Implementation Recommendations / Notes (OPTIONAL) . . . . 6
6.5. Security Considerations (MANDATORY) . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6.6. IANA Considerations (MANDATORY) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6.7. Other Sections (OPTIONAL) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
7. Blank Enumservice Template . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
8. Revision of Pre-Existing Enumservice RFCs . . . . . . . . . . 7
9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
9.1. Considerations regarding this Document . . . . . . . . . . 7
9.2. Enumservice Security Considerations Guideline . . . . . . 7
10. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
11. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
12. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Appendix A. XML2RFC Template for Enumservice Registration . . . . 8
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 15
Livingood, et al. Expires August 28, 2006 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft BCP Enumservice Registrations Feb 2006
1. Open Issues
[RFC Editor: This section should be empty before publication]
move security considerations from xml2rfc template to draft
itself, and refer from template to the various security sections
of RFC3761, this doc, etc.
talk about how to choose type/subtype/etc?
2. Changes
[RFC Editor: This section is to be removed before publication]
draft-ietf-enum-enumservices-guide-01:
alex: added Security Considerations section for the doc itself
alex: added IANA Considerations section for the doc itself
alex: added cookbook idea
3. 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 [1].
4. Introduction
[ Note: This is work in progress - the ENUM crowd is invited to
contribute, since issues clarified in this document will save the
group time spent on each individual Enumservice registration. Please
mail your opinions/ideas to the WG list!! ]
This document provides a guide to and template for the creation of
new IANA registrations of Enumservices. This document aims to
enhance section 3 of RFC 3761 [2], where the registration procedure
for Enumservices was initially documented at a high level. However,
the IETF's ENUM Working Group has encountered an unnecessary amount
of variation in the format of Enumservice drafts presented to the
group. The ENUM Working Group's view of what particular fields and
information are required and/or recommended has also evolved, and
capturing these best current practices is helpful in both the
creation of new registrations, as well as the revision or refinement
of existing registrations.
For the purpose of this document, 'registration document' and
'registration' refers to an Internet Draft proposing the IANA
registration of an Enumservice following the procedures outlined
Livingood, et al. Expires August 28, 2006 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft BCP Enumservice Registrations Feb 2006
above.
[-00 Note: This is an early draft version.]
5. Enumservice Creation Cookbook
[FIXME: this is a proposal - comments appreciated]
5.1. Preparation
Before commencing work on a new Enumservice registration, following
questions should be considered:
Is there an existing Enumservice which could fulfill the desired
functionality without overloading it? Check the IANA Enumservice
registrations FIXME ref
Is there work in progress on a similar Enumservice? Check the
enum@ietf.org mailing list archives, and the Internet Drafts
Archive FIXME ref
5.2. About Type Names
FIXME
5.3. About Subtypes
An Enumservice may optionally use a "subtype" do further specify the
service to which a ENUM record refers to. The following
recommendations apply to such Enumservices:
Subtypes SHOULD NOT be used to curtail the negotiation
capabilities of the protocol used to contact the refered URI,
unless this limitation is specifically desired. If that is the
case, authors MUST describe the motivation for this, and describe
potential problems arising from this.
If subtypes are defined, the minimum number SHOULD be two. 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.
[FIXME: talk about mixing subtyped / non subtyped for a type?]
6. Required Sections and Information
In addition to the typical sections required for an RFC as outlined
in RFC 2223bis [3] (Instructions to RFC Authors), there are several
Livingood, et al. Expires August 28, 2006 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft BCP Enumservice Registrations Feb 2006
sections which MUST appear in an IANA Registration for an
Enumservice. These sections are, as follows, and SHOULD be in the
following order:
6.1. Introduction (MANDATORY)
An introductory section MUST be included. This section will explain,
in plain English, the purpose of and intended usage 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.
The XML2RFC template in Appendix A contains a prototype of such an
Introduction.
6.2. Enumservice Registration for "foo" with Subtype "bar" (MANDATORY)
This section MUST be included in an Enumservice registration. In
addition, where a given registration type has multiple subtypes,
there MUST be a separate registration section for each subtype. The
following lists the sections and order of an Enumservice Registration
section. All types and subtypes SHOULD be listed in lower-case.
Enumservice Name: "foo"
Enumservice Type: "foo"
Enumservice Subtype: "bar"
URI Schemes: "bar:"
Functional Specification:
This Enumservice indicates that the remote resource identified can
be addressed by the associated URI scheme in order to foo the bar.
Security Considerations: See Section Section 6.5
(a reference internal to a given registration document).
Intended Usage: COMMON
[-00 Note: Authors to explain the choices here in a later
revision.]
Authors:
Livingood, et al. Expires August 28, 2006 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft BCP Enumservice Registrations Feb 2006
Madeline Smith and Katie Jones (for author contact detail see
Authors' Addresses section).
Any other information the author deems interesting:
None
6.3. Examples (MANDATORY)
This section MUST show one or more example(s) of the Enumservice
registration, 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 [4], 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.
The example SHOULD contain a brief description how a client
supporting this Enumservice could behave, if that description was not
already given in eg. the Introduction.
6.4. Implementation Recommendations / Notes (OPTIONAL)
If at all possible, recommendations that pertain to implemention
and/or operations SHOULD be included. Such a section is helpful to
someone reading a registration and trying to understand how best to
use it to support their network or service.
6.5. Security Considerations (MANDATORY)
A section explaining any potential security threats that are unique
to the given registration MUST be included. This MUST also include
any information about access to Personally Identifiable Information
(PII). However, this section should not intended as a general
security Best Current Practices (BCP) document or include general and
obvious security recommendations, such as securing servers with
strong password authentication.
6.6. IANA Considerations (MANDATORY)
[-00 Note: Will be exapanded in an upcoming revision.]
6.7. Other Sections (OPTIONAL)
Other sections, beyond those required by the IETF and/or IANA, which
are cited or otherwise referenced here, MAY be included in an
Livingood, et al. Expires August 28, 2006 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft BCP Enumservice Registrations Feb 2006
Enumservice registration. These sections may relate to the specifics
of the intended usage of the Enumservice registration and associated
technical, operational, or administrative concerns.
7. Blank Enumservice Template
Appendix A contains a template which can be used to create Internet
Drafts and RFC by means described on http://xml.resource.org/.
8. Revision of Pre-Existing Enumservice RFCs
Several Enumservice registrations, published via IETF RFCs, already
exist at the time of the development of this document. The authors
recommend that these existing registration documents SHOULD be
reviewed and, where necessary and appropriate, MAY be revised in
accordance with the recommendations contained herein. All future
Enumservice registrations SHOULD follow the recommendations contained
herein, where practical and applicable.
9. Security Considerations
9.1. Considerations regarding this Document
Since this document does not introduce any technology or protocol,
there are no security issues to be considered for this memo itself.
However, this document provides general security considerations for
Enumservice registrations, which are to be referred from document
defining or updating Enumservice registrations.
9.2. Enumservice Security Considerations Guideline
Section 6 of RFC 3761 already outlines security considerations
affecting ENUM as a whole. Enumservice registration documents do not
need and SHOULD NOT repeat considerations already listed there, but
they SHOULD include a reference to that section.
ENUM refers to resources using preexisting URI schemes and protocols.
Enumservice registration documents do not need and SHOULD NOT repeat
security considerations affecting those protocols and URI schemes
itself.
However, in case that the inclusion of those protocols and URI
schemes into ENUM specifically introduces new security issues, those
issues MUST be lined out in the 'Security Considerations' section of
the registration document.
Livingood, et al. Expires August 28, 2006 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft BCP Enumservice Registrations Feb 2006
Section FIXME of this document contains generic security
considerations affecting all Enumservice registrations. Registration
proposals SHOULD refer to that section from their 'Security
Considerations' section.
10. IANA Considerations
This document itself does not define a new protocol, and therefore
has no considerations for IANA. However, it contains a proposal for
the 'IANA Considerations' section of actual Enumservice registration
documents in Appendix A.
Note: Section 6.2 is just an example of an Enumservice registration.
The Enumservice "foo" outlined there MUST NOT be registered by IANA
unless this memo is to be published on April 1st.
11. Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank Alexander Mayrhofer for his review and
feedback.
12. 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] Reynolds, J. and R. Braden, "Instructions to Request for
Comments (RFC) Authors", draft-rfc-editor-rfc2223bis-08 (work in
progress), July 2004.
[4] Mealling, M., "Dynamic Delegation Discovery System (DDDS) Part
Three: The Domain Name System (DNS) Database", RFC 3403,
October 2002.
Appendix A. XML2RFC Template for Enumservice Registration
<?xml version='1.0' ?>
<!DOCTYPE rfc SYSTEM 'rfc2629.dtd'>
<rfc ipr='full3978' docName='draft-mysurname-enum-foo-service-00' >
<?rfc toc='yes' ?>
Livingood, et al. Expires August 28, 2006 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft BCP Enumservice Registrations Feb 2006
<?rfc tocompact='no' ?>
<?rfc compact='yes' ?>
<?rfc subcompact='yes' ?>
<front>
<title abbrev='Foo Enumservice'>
IANA Registration for Enumservice Foo
</title>
<author initials='MyI.' surname='MySurname'
fullname='MyName MySurname'>
<organization abbrev='MyOrg'>
MyOrganization
</organization>
<address>
<postal>
<street>MyAddress</street>
<city>MyCity</city>
<code>MyZIP</code>
<country>MyCountry</country>
</postal>
<phone>Myphonenumber</phone>
<email>MyEmailAddress</email>
<uri>MyWebpage</uri>
</address>
</author>
<date month='ThisMonth' year='ThisYear' day='ThisDay'/>
<area>RAI</area>
<workgroup>ENUM -- Telephone Number Mapping Working Group</workgroup>
<keyword>ENUM</keyword>
<keyword>foo</keyword>
<keyword>bar</keyword>
<abstract>
<t>This memo registers the Enumservice "foo" with subtype "bar"
using the URI scheme "bar" according to the IANA Enumservice
registration process described in RFC3671 and RFCXXXX.
This Enumservice is to be used to refer from an ENUM domain name
to the foobar of the entity using the corresponding E.164 number.
</t>
<t>Clients may use information gathered from those ...
</t>
</abstract>
Livingood, et al. Expires August 28, 2006 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft BCP Enumservice Registrations Feb 2006
</front>
<middle>
<section anchor='terminology' title='Terminology'>
<t>The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL",
"SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described
in <xref target='RFC2119'>RFC 2119</xref>.
</t>
</section>
<section anchor='intro' title='Introduction'>
<t><xref target='RFC3761'>E.164 Number Mapping (ENUM)</xref> uses the
<xref target='RFC1035'>Domain Name System (DNS)</xref> to refer
from <xref target='refs.E164'>E.164 numbers</xref> to <xref
target='RFC3986'>Uniform Resource Identifiers (URIs)</xref>.
</t>
<t>To distinguish between different services for a single E.164
number, section 2.4.2 of RFC 3761 specifies 'Enumservices', which are
to be registered with IANA according to section 3 of RFC 3761 and
<xref target='RFCXXXX'>RFC XXXX</xref>.
</t>
<t>The 'foo' protocol is specified in ... and provides ...
</t>
<t>The Enumservice specified in this document refers from an E.164
number to a foobar ... Clients use those foobars to foo the bar.
</t>
</section>
<section anchor='reg' title='ENUM Service Registration - foo'>
<t>Enumservice Name: "foo"</t>
<t>Enumservice Type: "foo"</t>
<t>Enumservice Subtypes: "bar"</t> <!-- Use N/A if none -->
<t>URI Schemes: "bar"</t>
<t>Functional Specification:
<list style='empty'>
Livingood, et al. Expires August 28, 2006 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft BCP Enumservice Registrations Feb 2006
<t>This Enumservice indicates that the resource identified is
a foobar ...
</t>
</list>
</t>
<t>Security Considerations: see <xref target='sec'/></t>
<t>Intended Usage: COMMON</t>
<t>Author(s): MyName MySurname (see "Author's Address" section
for contact details)</t>
</section>
<section anchor='examples' title='Examples'>
<t>An example ENUM record referencing to "foo" could look like:
<list style='empty'>
<vspace blankLines='1'/>
<t>$ORIGIN 0.9.8.7.6.5.4.3.2.1.4.e164.arpa.
<vspace blankLines='0'/>
@ IN NAPTR 100 10 "u" "E2U+foo:bar" "!^.*$!bar://example.com/!" .
</t>
<t>...
</t>
</list>
</t>
</section>
<section anchor='impl' title='Implementation Recommendations'>
<t>...
</t>
</section>
<section anchor='sec' title='Security Considerations'>
<t>Since ENUM uses DNS - a publicly available database - any
information contained in records provisioned in ENUM domains
must be considered public as well. Even after revoking the DNS
entry and removing the refered resource, copies of the
Livingood, et al. Expires August 28, 2006 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft BCP Enumservice Registrations Feb 2006
information could still be available.
</t>
<t>Information published in ENUM records could reveal
associations between E.164 numbers and their owners -
especially if records contain personal identifiers or domain
names for which ownership information can easily be obtained.
</t>
<t>...
</t>
</section>
<section anchor='iana' title='IANA Considerations'>
<t>This memo requests registration of the "foo" Enumservice with
the subtype "bar" according to the definitions in this
document and <xref target='RFC3761'>RFC3761</xref>.
</t>
<t>...
</t>
</section>
</middle>
<back>
<references title='Normative References'>
<?rfc include="reference.RFC.2119" ?>
<?rfc include="reference.RFC.3761" ?>
<?rfc include="reference.RFC.1035" ?>
</references>
<references title='Non-Normative References'>
<reference anchor='refs.E164'>
<front>
<title abbrev='E.164'>The international public
telecommunication numbering plan</title>
<author initials='' surname='' fullname=''>
<organization abbrev='ITU-T'>ITU-T</organization>
</author>
<date month='May' year='1997'/>
Livingood, et al. Expires August 28, 2006 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft BCP Enumservice Registrations Feb 2006
</front>
<seriesInfo name='Recommendation' value='E.164'/>
</reference>
</references>
</back>
</rfc>
Figure 1
Livingood, et al. Expires August 28, 2006 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft BCP Enumservice Registrations Feb 2006
Authors' Addresses
Jason Livingood
Comcast Cable Communications
1500 Market Street
Philadelphia, PA 19102
USA
Phone: +1-215-981-7813
Email: jason_livingood@cable.comcast.com
URI: http://www.comcast.com/
Bernie Hoeneisen
Switch
Neumuehlequai 6
CH-8001 Zuerich
Switzerland
Phone: +41 44 268 1515
Email: hoeneisen@switch.ch, b.hoeneisen@ieee.org
URI: http://www.switch.ch/
Alexander Mayrhofer
enum.at GmbH
Karlsplatz 1/9
Wien A-1010
Austria
Phone: +43 1 5056416 34
Email: alexander.mayrhofer@enum.at
URI: http://www.enum.at/
Livingood, et al. Expires August 28, 2006 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft BCP Enumservice Registrations Feb 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.
Livingood, et al. Expires August 28, 2006 [Page 15]
