ENUM -- Telephone Number Mapping J. Livingood
Working Group Comcast
Internet-Draft B. Hoeneisen
Expires: September 6, 2007 Switch
A. Mayrhofer
enum.at
Mar 05, 2007
Guide and Template for IANA Registrations of Enumservices
draft-ietf-enum-enumservices-guide-03
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 September 6, 2007.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).
Abstract
This document provides a guide to and template for the creation of
new IANA registration of ENUM (E.164 Number Mapping) services. i It
is also to be used for updates of existing IANA registrations.
Livingood, et al. Expires September 6, 2007 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft BCP Enumservice Registrations Mar 2007
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Enumservice Creation Cookbook . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.1. Preparation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.2. About Type Names . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.3. About Subtypes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. Required Sections and Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.1. Introduction (MANDATORY) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.2. ENUM Service Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.3. Examples (MANDATORY) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.4. Implementation Recommendations / Notes (OPTIONAL) . . . . 7
4.5. Security Considerations (MANDATORY) . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.6. IANA Considerations (MANDATORY) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.7. DNS Considerations (OPTIONAL) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.8. Other Sections (OPTIONAL) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5. Revision of Pre-Existing Enumservice RFCs . . . . . . . . . . 9
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6.1. Considerations regarding this Document . . . . . . . . . . 9
6.2. Enumservice Security Considerations Guideline . . . . . . 9
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Appendix A. XML2RFC Template for Enumservice Registration . . . . 11
Appendix B. Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Appendix C. Open Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 19
Livingood, et al. Expires September 6, 2007 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft BCP Enumservice Registrations Mar 2007
1. Introduction
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
above.
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 [1].
3. Enumservice Creation Cookbook
3.1. Preparation
Before commencing work on a new Enumservice registration, the
following should be considered:
o Is there an existing Enumservice which could fulfill the desired
functionality without overloading it? Check the IANA Enumservice
registrations on <http://www.iana.org/assignments/enum-services>.
o Is there work in progress on a similar Enumservice? Check the
<enum@ietf.org> mailing list archives on
<http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/enum/index.html>, and the
Internet Drafts Archive on <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/enum/>.
3.2. About Type Names
Generally, the 'type' name of an Enumservice is REQUIRED to give a
clear indication of what the Enumservice is about. Usually, an
Enumservice falls under one of the following categories:
Livingood, et al. Expires September 6, 2007 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft BCP Enumservice Registrations Mar 2007
o "Protocol" Enumservices are exclusively tied to a specific
protocol. Such Enumservices typically use that single protocol
and it's respective Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) [5] scheme
(sometimes including a secure variant), and SHOULD use the
protocol name / URI scheme name as the 'type'. In case the secure
variant has a different URI scheme / protocol name, the URI scheme
name of the base protocol SHOULD be preferred. Examples of such
Enumservices include 'sip' (RFC 3764) [6] and 'ldap' (RFC 4328)
[7].
o "Application" Enumservices usually use the abstract application
name as the Enumservice 'type'. The name of the actual protocol
and URI scheme may differ from the 'type', but may also be
identical (especially when application service location [8] is
used). If application name and URI scheme name are identical, it
is RECOMMENDED to use that name also as the Enumservice 'type'.
In case the actual protocol / URI scheme differs from the
application name, it is RECOMMENDED to use that application name
as Enumservice 'type'. Examples of such Enumservices are 'web'
and 'ft' (RFC 4002) [9] and 'pres' (RFC3953) [10].
o "Data Format" Enumservices typically refer to a specific data type
or format, which may be addressed using one or more URI schemes
and protocols. It is RECOMMENDED to use a well known name of the
data type / format as the Enumservice 'type'. An example of such
an Enumservice is 'vpim' (RFC 4238) [7] and 'vCard' [11] (work in
progress).
To avoid confusion, the name of an URI scheme MUST NOT be used as a
type name for an Enumservice which is not specifically about the
respective protocol / URI scheme - for example, the type name 'imap'
would be inadequate for use in an Enumservice about Internet mapping
services, because it corresponds to an existing URI scheme / protocol
for something different.
3.3. About Subtypes
An Enumservice may optionally use a "subtype" to further specify the
service to which a ENUM record refers to. The following
recommendations apply to such Enumservices:
o Subtypes SHOULD NOT be used to curtail the negotiation
capabilities of the protocol used to contact the referred URI,
unless this limitation is specifically desired. If that is the
case, authors MUST describe the limitation, the motivation for
this, and discuss potential problems arising from this.
Livingood, et al. Expires September 6, 2007 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft BCP Enumservice Registrations Mar 2007
o 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.
o It is perfectly legal under a certain 'type' to mix the
Enumservice without a subtype with Enumservices containing a
subtype. In that case, however, the Enumservice with an empty
subtype SHOULD be used to reflect the base service, while the
other Enumservices SHOULD be used to reflect variants.
4. 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
sections which MUST appear in an IANA Registration for an
Enumservice. These sections are, as follows, and SHOULD be in the
same order.
Appendix A contains a template which can be used to create Internet
Drafts and RFC by means described on <http://xml.resource.org/>.
This template contains a prototype for most of these sections.
4.1. 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.
4.2. ENUM Service Registration
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:
Livingood, et al. Expires September 6, 2007 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft BCP Enumservice Registrations Mar 2007
A short word or stub sentence describing this Enumservice. Often
this is equivalent to the Enumservice Type (see below), however,
capitalization may be different from it.
e.g. "Foo"
Enumservice Type:
The type of the Enumservice. Often this is equivalent to the
Enumservice Name (see above).
e.g. "foo"
For choosing a suitable type, see also Section 3.2.
Enumservice Subtype:
The Subtype of the Enumservice.
e.g. "bar"
Many Enumservices do not require a subtype; use "N/A" in this
case. For choosing a suitable subtype, see also Section 3.3.
URI Schemes:
The URI Schemes, which are used with the Enumservice.
e.g. "bar:", "sbar:"
A URI scheme often matches the subtype (see above). Multiple URI
schemes can be listed here if they are used for the same subtype,
and provide almost identical functionality.
Note well that 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'.
Functional Specification:
e.g. This Enumservice indicates that the remote resource
identified can be addressed by the associated URI scheme in order
to foo the bar.
Security Considerations:
An internal reference to the 'Security Considerations' section of
a given registration document.
Livingood, et al. Expires September 6, 2007 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft BCP Enumservice Registrations Mar 2007
e.g. "see Section 10"
Intended Usage:
One of "COMMON", "LIMITED USE" or "OBSOLETE", as defined in RFC
3761 [2]
e.g. "COMMON"
Author(s):
The author(s) of the Enumservice registration.
e.g. John Doe <john.doe@example.com>
Any other information the author(s) deem(s) interesting:
e.g. None
4.3. 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 RFC 3403 [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(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.
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/!" .
4.4. Implementation Recommendations / Notes (OPTIONAL)
If at all possible, recommendations that pertain to implementation
and/or operations SHOULD be included. Such a section is helpful to
someone reading a registration and trying to understand how best to
use it to support their network or service.
Livingood, et al. Expires September 6, 2007 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft BCP Enumservice Registrations Mar 2007
4.5. Security Considerations (MANDATORY)
A section explaining any potential security threats that are unique
to the given registration MUST be included. This MUST also include
any information about access to Personally Identifiable Information
(PII).
However, this section is not intended as a general security Best
Current Practices (BCP) document and therefore it should not include
general and obvious security recommendations, such as securing
servers with strong password authentication.
4.6. IANA Considerations (MANDATORY)
Describe the task IANA needs to fulfill processing the Enumservice
registration document.
e.g. This memo requests registration of the "foo" Enumservice with
the subtype "bar" according to the definitions in this document and
RFC3761 [2].
4.7. DNS Considerations (OPTIONAL)
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 the namespace below the owner of the respective
NAPTR RRSet.
o Demand to use DNS wildcards.
o Incompatibility with DNS wildcards.
o presence or absence of the respective NAPTR RRSet at particular
levels in the DNS hierarchy (e.g. only for 'full' E.164 numbers,
or number blocks only).
o use of any RRs (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 ENUM services try to exploit side effects of the DNS
that need to be explicitly discussed.
Livingood, et al. Expires September 6, 2007 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft BCP Enumservice Registrations Mar 2007
4.8. 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
Enumservice registration. These sections may relate to the specifics
of the intended usage of the Enumservice registration and associated
technical, operational, or administrative concerns.
5. 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.
6. Security Considerations
6.1. 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 referenced from document
defining or updating Enumservice registrations.
6.2. 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 September 6, 2007 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft BCP Enumservice Registrations Mar 2007
7. 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 4.2 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.
8. Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank Peter Koch for his contribution to this
document.
9. References
9.1. 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.
9.2. Informative References
[5] Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform
Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax", STD 66, RFC 3986,
January 2005.
[6] Peterson, J., "enumservice registration for Session Initiation
Protocol (SIP) Addresses-of-Record", RFC 3764, April 2004.
[7] Vaudreuil, G., "Voice Message Routing Service", RFC 4238,
October 2005.
Livingood, et al. Expires September 6, 2007 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft BCP Enumservice Registrations Mar 2007
[8] Daigle, L. and A. Newton, "Domain-Based Application Service
Location Using SRV RRs and the Dynamic Delegation Discovery
Service (DDDS)", RFC 3958, January 2005.
[9] Brandner, R., Conroy, L., and R. Stastny, "IANA Registration
for Enumservice 'web' and 'ft'", RFC 4002, February 2005.
[10] Peterson, J., "Telephone Number Mapping (ENUM) Service
Registration for Presence Services", RFC 3953, January 2005.
[11] Mayrhofer, A., "IANA Registration for vCard Enumservice",
draft-ietf-enum-vcard-05 (work in progress), November 2006.
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' ?>
<?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>
Livingood, et al. Expires September 6, 2007 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft BCP Enumservice Registrations Mar 2007
<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".
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>A Client can use information gathered from a record using
this Enumservice to foo the bar.
</t>
</abstract>
</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
Livingood, et al. Expires September 6, 2007 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft BCP Enumservice Registrations Mar 2007
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'>
<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, <myEmail></t>
<t>Any other information the author(s) deem(s) interesting:
None
</t>
</section>
<section anchor='examples' title='Examples'>
Livingood, et al. Expires September 6, 2007 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft BCP Enumservice Registrations Mar 2007
<t>An example ENUM record referencing to "foo" could look like:
<list style='empty'>
<vspace blankLines='1'/>
<t>$ORIGIN 9.7.8.0.9.7.8.9.0.9.4.4.e164.arpa.
<vspace blankLines='0'/>
@ IN NAPTR 50 10 "u" "E2U+foo:bar" "!^.*$!bar://example.com/!" .
</t>
<t>...
</t>
</list>
</t>
</section>
<section anchor='impl' title='Implementation Recommendations'>
<t>Implementers should consider that fooing the bar...
</t>
</section>
<section anchor='sec' title='Security Considerations'>
<t>As with any Enumservice, the security considerations of ENUM
itself (Section 6 of RFC 3761) apply.
</t>
<section anchor='secrecord' title='The ENUM Record Itself'>
<t>Since ENUM uses DNS - a publicly available database -
any information contained in records provisioned in ENUM
domains must be considered public as well. Even after revoking
the DNS entry and removing the referred resource, copies of the
information could still be available. </t>
<t>
Information published in ENUM records could reveal associations
between E.164 numbers and their owners - especially if URIs
contain personal identifiers or domain names for which
ownership information can be obtained easily.
For example, the following URI makes it easy to guess
the owner of an E.164 number as well as his location and
association by just examining the result from the ENUM lookup:
<vspace blankLines='1'/>
Livingood, et al. Expires September 6, 2007 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft BCP Enumservice Registrations Mar 2007
<list>
<t>http://sandiego.company.example.com/joe-william-user.vcf</t>
</list>
</t>
<t>However, it is important to note that the ENUM record itself
does not need to contain any personal information. It just
points to a location where access to personal information could
be granted. For example, the following URI only reveals the
service provider hosting the vCard (who probably even provides
anonymous hosting):
<vspace blankLines='1'/>
<list>
<t>http://anonhoster.example.org/file_adfa001.vcf</t>
</list>
</t>
<t>ENUM records pointing
to third party resources can easily be provisioned on purpose
by the ENUM domain owner - so any assumption
about the association between a number and an entity could
therefore be completely bogus unless some kind of identity
verification is in place. This verification is out of scope for
this memo.</t>
</section>
<section anchor='secresource' title='The Resource Identified'>
<t>
Users MUST therefore carefully consider information they
provide in the resource identified by the
ENUM record as well as in the record itself.
Considerations could include serving information only to
entities of the user's choice and/or limiting the comprehension
of the information provided based on the identity of the
requester.</t>
<t>(modify as appropriate - more about the specific
resource here)</t>
</section>
<section anchor='iana' title='IANA Considerations'>
<t>This memo requests registration of the "foo" Enumservice
with the subtype "bar" according to the template in
<xref section='reg'> of this
document and <xref target='RFC3761'>RFC3761</xref>.
</t>
<t>...
</t>
</section>
Livingood, et al. Expires September 6, 2007 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft BCP Enumservice Registrations Mar 2007
<section anchor='dns' title='DNS Considerations'>
<t>This Enumservices does not introduce any
new considerations for the DNS.
</t>
<t>...
</t>
</section>
</middle>
<back>
<references title='Normative References'>
<?rfc include="reference.RFC.2119" ?>
<?rfc include="reference.RFC.3761" ?>
<?rfc include="reference.RFC.1035" ?>
</references>
<references title='Informative References'>
<reference anchor='refs.E164'>
<front>
<title abbrev='E.164 (02/05)'>The international public
telecommunication numbering plan</title>
<author initials='' surname='' fullname=''>
<organization abbrev='ITU-T'>ITU-T</organization>
</author>
<date month='Feb' year='2005'/>
</front>
<seriesInfo name='Recommendation' value='E.164 (02/05)'/>
</reference>
</references>
</back>
</rfc>
Figure 1
Livingood, et al. Expires September 6, 2007 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft BCP Enumservice Registrations Mar 2007
Appendix B. Changes
[RFC Editor: This section is to be removed before publication]
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 Acknowledgements 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
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 C. Open Issues
[RFC Editor: This section should be empty before publication]
o Clarify Status of document. Is BCP adequate?
o Clarify dependencies and collisions with RFC 3761. Should this
document update RFC 3761?
o Write something in the introduction about what the document does
not intend (no guarantee for surviving in the ENUM WG, no change
of the process itself).
o Clarify IANA impact of this document.
o Clarify whether experimental Enumservices should be described
herein.
o URL for template, so that it can be fetched without header-/
footer-lines of RFC.
Livingood, et al. Expires September 6, 2007 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft BCP Enumservice Registrations Mar 2007
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 September 6, 2007 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft BCP Enumservice Registrations Mar 2007
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).
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).
Livingood, et al. Expires September 6, 2007 [Page 19]
