ENUM -- Telephone Number Mapping B. Hoeneisen
Working Group SWITCH
Internet-Draft A. Mayrhofer
Intended status: Best Current enum.at
Practice J. Livingood
Expires: May 17, 2008 Comcast
Nov 14, 2007
Guide and Template for IANA Registrations of Enumservices
draft-ietf-enum-enumservices-guide-06
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 17, 2008.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).
Abstract
This document provides a guide to and template for the creation of
new IANA registrations of ENUM (E.164 Number Mapping) services. It
is also to be used for updates of existing IANA registrations.
Hoeneisen, et al. Expires May 17, 2008 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft BCP Enumservice Registrations Nov 2007
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Enumservice Creation Cookbook . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1. General Enumservice Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.2. Classification, Name, Type and Subtype . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2.1. Choosing a "name" string . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2.2. Protocol-based Enumservices Class . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2.3. Application-based Enumservices . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.2.4. Data/Format Enumservice class . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4. Required Sections and Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.1. Introduction (MANDATORY) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.2. ENUM Service Registration (MANDATORY) . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.3. Examples (MANDATORY) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.4. Implementation Recommendations / Notes (OPTIONAL) . . . . 11
4.5. Security Considerations (MANDATORY) . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.6. IANA Considerations (MANDATORY) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.7. DNS Considerations (OPTIONAL) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.8. Other Sections (OPTIONAL) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5. The Process of Registering New Enumservices . . . . . . . . . 12
5.1. Step 1: Read This Document In Detail . . . . . . . . . . . 15
5.2. Step 2: Submit An Internet-Draft . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
5.3. Step 3: Request Comments from the IETF Community . . . . . 15
5.3.1. Outcome 1: No Changes Needed . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
5.3.2. Outcome 2: Changes, but no Further Comments
Requested . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
5.3.3. Outcome 3: Changes and Further Comments Requested . . 16
5.4. Step 4: Request Expert Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
5.4.1. Outcome 1: Experts Approve Enumservice . . . . . . . . 16
5.4.2. Outcome 2: Experts Raise Issues, Changes Required . . 16
5.4.3. Outcome 3: Experts Reject Enumservice . . . . . . . . 16
5.5. Step 5: Submit for Publication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
6. The Enumservice Expert Selection Process . . . . . . . . . . . 17
7. Enumservice Expert Reviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
8. Appeals against Expert Review Decisions . . . . . . . . . . . 18
9. Revision of Pre-Existing Enumservice RFCs . . . . . . . . . . 18
10. Extension of Existing Enumservice RFCs . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Hoeneisen, et al. Expires May 17, 2008 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft BCP Enumservice Registrations Nov 2007
11. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
11.1. Considerations regarding this Document . . . . . . . . . . 18
11.2. Enumservice Security Considerations Guideline . . . . . . 18
12. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
13. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
14. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
14.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
14.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Appendix A. XML2RFC Template for Enumservice Registration . . . . 20
Appendix B. Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Appendix C. Open Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 29
Hoeneisen, et al. Expires May 17, 2008 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft BCP Enumservice Registrations Nov 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 [3], 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.
This document also aims at providing a registration process which is
more detached from the existance of the ENUM working group.
For the purpose of this document, 'registration document' and
'registration' refer to an Internet-Draft proposing the IANA
registration of an Enumservice following the procedures outlined
herein.
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. 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. Because of the
huge size of the Enumservice identifier namespace (up to 32
alphanumeric characters for type and subtype field each), it is very
tempting to register a new Enumservice for each new use case.
However, this would obviously reduce interopability, and increase
confusion among implementors. Also, the space in the protocol on
which ENUM is based on (namely DNS packets) is rather scarce compared
to the huge identifier space that Enumservice typing provides.
Generally, before commencing work on a new Enumservice registration,
the following should be considered:
Hoeneisen, et al. Expires May 17, 2008 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft BCP Enumservice Registrations Nov 2007
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/>.
o Section 3.2 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 maps. 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 whether the "protocol" or the
"application" aspect of the Enumservice is more important.
3.2. Classification, Name, 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 choice
of a suitable 'name' is independent of the classification.
3.2.1. Choosing a "name" string
Advice for choosing a proper 'name' string is indepent of the
classificaton of the Enumservice.
Generally, the 'name' string used for registering an Enumservice
SHOULD give a clear indication of what the Enumservice is about. The
'name' has no technical significance in the processing of the NAPTR
(it doesn't even appear in resource record instances of the
Enumservice). However, it is likely to be used for labeling the
Enumservice to end users.
Suitable 'names' are concise, distinctive, and clearly related to the
underlying service that a client is going to interact with.
3.2.2. 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.
Hoeneisen, et al. Expires May 17, 2008 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft BCP Enumservice Registrations Nov 2007
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.
3.2.2.1. Protocol-based Enumservice "type" strings
A protocol-based Enumservice SHOULD use the name of the protocol (or
the "base" URI scheme, where there are also secure variants) as its
'type' name.
3.2.2.2. Protocol-based Enumservice "subtype" strings
Where there is a single URI scheme associated with this protocol,
then the Enumservice SHOULD NOT use a subtype.
Where a protocol is associated with a number of different URI
schemes, the registration SHOULD define which of these is the default
("base") URI scheme, and register the empty subtype for use with this
default scheme only. The only exception to this is the case where a
secure variant of the "base" URI scheme exists. Such an URI scheme
MAY also be used with the empty subtype string.
The Enumservice registration SHOULD define subtypes for each of the
non-default URI schemes with which it can be associated. The use of
the URI schema name as subtype string is RECOMMENDED.
Where a NAPTR includes the default URI scheme, the Enumservice
without a subtype SHOULD be used. Where a non-default scheme is
used, the Enumservice variant with type and respective sub-type
SHOULD be used.
3.2.3. Application-based Enumservices
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
common kind of interaction - how that interaction is implemented
is not important. The Enumservice registration 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
Hoeneisen, et al. Expires May 17, 2008 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft BCP Enumservice Registrations Nov 2007
to one that has narrow use.
An example of this flavors 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 presence 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
registration 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
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
Hoeneisen, et al. Expires May 17, 2008 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft BCP Enumservice Registrations Nov 2007
process, or through negotiation following the selection of the
final destination address).
3.2.3.1. Application-based Enumservice "type" strings
It is RECOMMENDED that Application-class Enumservices use the well
known name of the abstract application as "type" name.
3.2.3.2. Application-based Enumservice "subtype" strings
It is RECOMMENDED to use the URI scheme(s) that the application uses
as "subtype" names. Subtype names SHOULD be shared only between URI
schemes that correspond to the "base" URI scheme of a protocol and
the secure variant of the same protocol.
If there is only one URI scheme used for the application, the empty
"subtype" string MAY be used.
3.2.4. Data/Format Enumservice class
"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' (RFC 4969) [8] (work
in progress).
3.2.4.1. Data/Format-based Enumservice "type" strings
It is RECOMMENDED to use the well known name of the data/format as
the 'type' name.
3.2.4.2. Data/Format based Enumservice "subtype" strings
It is RECOMMENDED to use the URI schemes used to access the service
as 'subtype' name. Subtype names SHOULD be shared only between URI
schemes that correspond to the "base" URI scheme of a protocol and
its secure variant.
If there is only one URI scheme foreseen to access the data/format,
the empty "subtype" string MAY be used.
4. Required Sections and Information
In addition to the typical sections required for an RFC as outlined
in RFC 2223bis [4] (Instructions to RFC Authors), there are several
sections which MUST appear in an IANA Registration for an
Hoeneisen, et al. Expires May 17, 2008 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft BCP Enumservice Registrations Nov 2007
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 (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 Class:
This section contains the class of the Enumservice as defined in
Section 3.2.
e.g. "Application-based Enumservice"
Enumservice Name:
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).
Hoeneisen, et al. Expires May 17, 2008 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft BCP Enumservice Registrations Nov 2007
e.g. "foo"
Enumservice Subtype:
The Subtype of the Enumservice.
e.g. "bar"
Many Enumservices do not require a subtype; use "N/A" in this
case.
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.
e.g. "see Section 10"
Intended Usage:
One of "COMMON", "LIMITED USE" or "OBSOLETE", as defined in RFC
3761 [3]
e.g. "COMMON"
Author(s):
Hoeneisen, et al. Expires May 17, 2008 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft BCP Enumservice Registrations Nov 2007
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 [5], 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.
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.
Hoeneisen, et al. Expires May 17, 2008 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft BCP Enumservice Registrations Nov 2007
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
RFC 3761 [3].
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.
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. The Process of Registering New Enumservices
This section describes the process by which someone shall submit a
new Enumservice for review and comment, how such proposed
Hoeneisen, et al. Expires May 17, 2008 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft BCP Enumservice Registrations Nov 2007
Enumservices shall be reviewed, and how they shall be published.
The following Figure 1 depicts an overview on the ENUM service
registration process:
Hoeneisen, et al. Expires May 17, 2008 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft BCP Enumservice Registrations Nov 2007
+--------------------+
| Step 1: |
| Read this document |
+--------------------+
V
+----------------------+
| Step 2: |
| Write I-D and submit |
+----------------------+
V
+--------------------------------------+
| Step 3: |<------+- - - -+
| Announce I-D to and solicit feedback | | |
+--------------------------------------+ |
| | |
V |
.^. | |
. . |
+------------+ . Feed- . +------------+ |
| Update I-D |<---------< back >------------>| Update I-D |
| and submit | non-sub- . results . substantial | and submit | |
+------------+ stantial . in: . changes +------------+
| changes . . needed |
| needed Y
| | no changes needed |
| V
| +-----------------------+ |
+------------>| Step 4: |<-------------+
| Request Expert Review | | |
+-----------------------+ |
| | |
V |
.^. | |
. . |
+---------+ . Expert . +------------+ |
| Appeal- |<-----------< review >------------>| Update I-D |-+
| process | rejection . results . issues | and submit |
+---------+ by expert(s) . in: . raised by +------------+
. . expert(s)
Y
| approval by expert(s)
V
+-----------------------------+
| Step 5: |
| Submit I-D for publication |
+-----------------------------+
Figure 1
Hoeneisen, et al. Expires May 17, 2008 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft BCP Enumservice Registrations Nov 2007
5.1. Step 1: Read This Document In Detail
This document describes all of the necessary sections required and
recommended, makes suggestions on content, and provides sample XML.
5.2. Step 2: Submit An Internet-Draft
An Internet-Draft shall be submitted in accordance with RFC 2026 [2]
and RFC 2223bis [4], as well as RFC 3761 [3], and any other documents
applicable to the Internet-Draft process. This Internet-Draft may be
submitted as an "Individual Submission".
5.3. Step 3: Request Comments from the IETF Community
After the Internet-Draft has been published, the author(s) shall send
an email to <enum@ietf.org>, in which comments on the Internet-Draft
are requested.
Suggested Format of Announcement:
To: enum@ietf.org
Subject: Comments on <I-D Name Here>
The author is requesting comments and feedback from the ENUM and
IETF communities on the I-D listed below.
The I-D is available at: <INSERT URL to I-D ON IETF WEB SITE HERE>
Abstract of the I-D:
<INSERT I-D ABSTRACT HERE>
The author(s) should allow a reasonable period of time to elapse,
such as two to four weeks, in order to collect any feedback. The
author(s) shall then consider whether or not to take any of those
comments into account, by making changes to the Internet-Draft and
submitting a revision to the I-D editor, or otherwise proceeding.
The following outcomes are the ways the author(s) shall proceed, and
it is up to the authors' judgement as to which one to choose.
5.3.1. Outcome 1: No Changes Needed
No changes to the draft are made, and the author(s) proceed(s) to
Step 4 below.
This outcome is recommended when the feedback received does not lead
to a new revision of the Internet-Draft.
Hoeneisen, et al. Expires May 17, 2008 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft BCP Enumservice Registrations Nov 2007
5.3.2. Outcome 2: Changes, but no Further Comments Requested
The author(s) update(s) the Internet-Draft and is/are confident that
all issues are resolved and do not require further discussion. The
author(s) proceed(s) to Step 4 below.
This outcome is recommended when minor objections have been raised,
or minor changes have been suggested.
5.3.3. Outcome 3: Changes and Further Comments Requested
The author(s) update(s) the Internet-Draft, and proceed(s) 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.
5.4. Step 4: Request Expert Review
In this step, the author(s) send(s) an email to the ENUM expert
review panel at <enumservice-expert-review@ietf.org>. The
Enumservice Expert Review Process shall then be followed to
conclusion. A later section of this document describes how expert
reviewers are selected (Section 6) and how the process of expert
reviews takes place Section 7.
5.4.1. Outcome 1: Experts Approve Enumservice
In this case, the proposed Enumservice has been endorsed and approved
by the experts, and the Internet-Draft proceeds to Step 5 below.
5.4.2. Outcome 2: Experts Raise Issues, Changes Required
The experts raise issues that prevent approval of the proposed
Enumservice. If they believe that, with changes, the proposed
Enumservice will be approved, then they may recommend that the
author(s) make changes and submit the draft again. Depending on the
nature of the changes the Internet-Draft proceeds either to Step 4 or
to Step 3 above, which both involve update of the Internet-Draft and
request additional review and/or comments for the updated version.
5.4.3. Outcome 3: Experts Reject Enumservice
The experts raise issues that result in rejection of the proposed
Enumservice. If they believe that, even with changes, the proposed
Enumservice will not be approved, the process normally terminates.
However, if the author(s) disagrees(s) with this judgement, he has
Hoeneisen, et al. Expires May 17, 2008 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft BCP Enumservice Registrations Nov 2007
the possibility to to appeal. In that case, the appeal process is
initiated according to Section 8.
5.5. Step 5: Submit for Publication
The Internet-Draft is submitted to be published as an RFC. The IETF
publication process includes IANA actions such as adding the service
to the IANA Enumservice registry. According to RFC 3761 [3] an
Enumservice description can be published as either a Standards Track,
Best Current Practice (BCP), or Experimental RFC.
6. The Enumservice Expert Selection Process
According to Section 3.2 of [6], experts are appointed by the IESG
upon recommendation by the RAI Area Directors. The RAI area
directors are responsible that there is always a sufficient amount of
experts available.
7. Enumservice Expert Reviews
Generally, the expert review process of an Enumservice MUST follow
the guidelines documented in section 3.3 of [6].
The expert SHOULD evaluate the criteria as set out in the draft
mentioned above, as well as consider the following:
o Verify conformance with the ENUM specification (RFC 3761).
o Verify that the requirements set in this document (Section 4) are
met. This includes check for completeness and whether all the
aspects described in Section 4 are sufficiently addressed.
o If a use case is given by the author of the proposal (which is
RECOMMENDED), the expert SHOULD verify whether the proposed
Enumservice does actually fulfill the use case, and whether the
use case could be covered by an already 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 3.2, the
expert MUST verify that the principles of the class in question
are followed.
o In case the Enumservice is not classified, the expert MUST verify
whether a convincing reason for the deviation is documented in the
registration proposal.
o Investigate whether the proposed Enumservice has any negative side
effects on existing clients and infrastructure.
o If the output of processing an Enumservice may be used for input
to more ENUM processing (especially services returning 'tel'
URIs), the expert SHOULD verify that the author has adequately
Hoeneisen, et al. Expires May 17, 2008 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft BCP Enumservice Registrations Nov 2007
addressed the issue of potential query loops.
8. Appeals against Expert Review Decisions
Appeals follow the normal IETF appeal process as described in section
7 of [6] and section 6.5 of RFC 2026 [2]
9. 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.
10. Extension of Existing Enumservice RFCs
There are cases, where it is more sensible to extend an existing
Enumservice registrations 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 registration document needs
to be extended (updates) or replaced (obsoletes) [4].
11. Security Considerations
11.1. 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.
11.2. 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.
Hoeneisen, et al. Expires May 17, 2008 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft BCP Enumservice Registrations Nov 2007
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.
12. 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.
13. Acknowledgements
Lawrence Conroy provided extensive text for the Enumservice
Classification section. The authors also wish to thank Peter Koch
for his contribution to this document.
14. References
14.1. Normative References
[1] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement
Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[2] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 3",
BCP 9, RFC 2026, October 1996.
[3] Faltstrom, P. and M. Mealling, "The E.164 to Uniform Resource
Identifiers (URI) Dynamic Delegation Discovery System (DDDS)
Application (ENUM)", RFC 3761, April 2004.
[4] Reynolds, J. and R. Braden, "Instructions to Request for
Comments (RFC) Authors", draft-rfc-editor-rfc2223bis-08 (work in
progress), July 2004.
[5] Mealling, M., "Dynamic Delegation Discovery System (DDDS) Part
Three: The Domain Name System (DNS) Database", RFC 3403,
October 2002.
[6] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an IANA
Hoeneisen, et al. Expires May 17, 2008 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft BCP Enumservice Registrations Nov 2007
Considerations Section in RFCs",
draft-narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis-08 (work in
progress), October 2007.
14.2. Informative References
[7] Vaudreuil, G., "Voice Message Routing Service", RFC 4238,
October 2005.
[8] Mayrhofer, A., "IANA Registration for vCard Enumservice",
RFC 4969, August 2007.
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>
Hoeneisen, et al. Expires May 17, 2008 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft BCP Enumservice Registrations Nov 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='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.
Hoeneisen, et al. Expires May 17, 2008 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft BCP Enumservice Registrations Nov 2007
</t>
</section>
<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='reg' title='ENUM Service Registration - foo'>
<t>Enumservice Class: "Barfoo-based Enumservice"</t>
<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>
Hoeneisen, et al. Expires May 17, 2008 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft BCP Enumservice Registrations Nov 2007
</section>
<section anchor='examples' title='Examples'>
<t>An example ENUM record referencing to "foo" could look like:
<list style='empty'>
<vspace blankLines='1'/>
<t>$ORIGIN 9.7.8.0.9.7.8.9.0.9.4.4.e164.arpa.
<vspace blankLines='0'/>
@ IN NAPTR 50 10 "u" "E2U+foo:bar" "!^.*$!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.
Hoeneisen, et al. Expires May 17, 2008 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft BCP Enumservice Registrations Nov 2007
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'/>
<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'>RFC 3761</xref>.
</t>
Hoeneisen, et al. Expires May 17, 2008 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft BCP Enumservice Registrations Nov 2007
<t>...
</t>
</section>
<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>
Hoeneisen, et al. Expires May 17, 2008 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft BCP Enumservice Registrations Nov 2007
Figure 2
Appendix B. Changes
[RFC Editor: This section is to be removed before publication]
draft-ietf-enum-enumservices-guide-06:
o bernie: Moved Terminology section in Template (now after
Introduction)
o bernie: Class is now part of the Enumservice registration and
template
o bernie: Individual Submission realaxed (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
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
template)
o bernie: extended Appendix with Open Issues.
draft-ietf-enum-enumservices-guide-01:
Hoeneisen, et al. Expires May 17, 2008 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft BCP Enumservice Registrations Nov 2007
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 the role of the expert(s) and the requirements that apply
for reviewing Enumservice registrations
o Clarify what Process applies after Expert Review (before
publication)
o Check whether alignment with RFC3761bis is needed (e.g.
Enumservice class)
o Clarify IANA impact of this document.
o URL for template, so that it can be fetched without header-/
footer-lines of RFC.
Authors' Addresses
Bernie Hoeneisen
SWITCH
Werdstrasse 2
CH-8004 Zuerich
Switzerland
Phone: +41 44 268 1515
Email: bernhard.hoeneisen@switch.ch, bernie@ietf.hoeneisen.ch
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/
Hoeneisen, et al. Expires May 17, 2008 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft BCP Enumservice Registrations Nov 2007
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/
Hoeneisen, et al. Expires May 17, 2008 [Page 28]
Internet-Draft BCP Enumservice Registrations Nov 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).
Hoeneisen, et al. Expires May 17, 2008 [Page 29]
