ENUM -- Telephone Number Mapping B. Hoeneisen Working Group SWITCH Internet-Draft A. Mayrhofer Obsoletes: 3761 (if approved) enum.at Intended status: Standards Track J. Livingood Expires: November 20, 2008 Comcast May 19, 2008 IANA Registration of Enumservices: Guide, Template and IANA Considerations draft-ietf-enum-enumservices-guide-10 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 November 20, 2008. Abstract This document specifies a revision of the IANA registry for Enumservices, describes corresponding registration procedures, and provides a guideline for creating Enumservices and its Registration Documents. Hoeneisen, et al. Expires November 20, 2008 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft IANA Registration of Enumservices May 2008 Table of Contents 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3. Registration Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.1. Functionality Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.2. Naming Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.3. Security Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3.4. Publication Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4. Enumservice Creation Cookbook . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4.1. General Enumservice Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4.2. Classification, Type and Subtype . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 4.2.1. General Type / Subtype Considerations . . . . . . . . 9 4.2.2. Protocol-based Enumservices Class . . . . . . . . . . 9 4.2.3. Application-based Enumservice Classes . . . . . . . . 10 4.2.4. Data- / Format-based Enumservice Class . . . . . . . . 12 4.2.5. Other Enumservice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 5. Required Sections and Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 5.1. Introduction (MANDATORY) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 5.2. IANA Registration (MANDATORY) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 5.3. Examples (MANDATORY) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 5.4. Implementation Recommendations / Notes (OPTIONAL) . . . . 17 5.5. Security Considerations (MANDATORY) . . . . . . . . . . . 17 5.6. IANA Considerations (MANDATORY) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 5.7. DNS Considerations (MANDATORY) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 5.8. Other Sections (OPTIONAL) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 6. The Process of Registering New Enumservices . . . . . . . . . 19 6.1. Step 1: Read this Document in Detail . . . . . . . . . . . 20 6.2. Step 2: Write and Submit Registration Document . . . . . . 20 6.3. Step 3: Request Comments from the IETF Community . . . . . 21 6.3.1. Outcome 1: No Changes Needed . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 6.3.2. Outcome 2: Changes, but no further Comments Requested . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 6.3.3. Outcome 3: Changes and further Comments Requested . . 21 6.4. Step 4: Submit Registration Document to IANA . . . . . . . 21 6.5. Further Steps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 7. Expert Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 7.1. Expert Selection Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 7.2. Review Guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 7.3. Appeals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 8. Revision of Pre-Existing Enumservice RFCs . . . . . . . . . . 23 Hoeneisen, et al. Expires November 20, 2008 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft IANA Registration of Enumservices May 2008 9. Extension of Existing Enumservice RFCs . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 10. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 10.1. Considerations Regarding this Document . . . . . . . . . . 24 10.2. Enumservice Security Considerations Guideline . . . . . . 24 11. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 11.1. Enumservice Registrations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 11.1.1. IANA Registration Template . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 11.1.2. Location . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 11.1.3. Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 11.1.4. Registration Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 11.1.5. Change Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 11.1.6. Restrictions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 11.2. XML2RFC Template . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 12. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 13. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 13.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 13.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Appendix A. XML2RFC Template for Enumservice Registration . . . . 28 Appendix B. Changes Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Appendix C. Document Changelog . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Appendix D. Open Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 40 Hoeneisen, et al. Expires November 20, 2008 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft IANA Registration of Enumservices May 2008 1. Introduction E.164 Number Mapping (ENUM) [I-D.ietf-enum-3761bis] provides an identifier mapping mechanism to map E.164 numbers [ITU.E164.2005] to Uniform Resource Identifiers (URIs) [RFC3986]. One of the primary concepts of ENUM is the definition of "Enumservices", which allows for providing different URIs for different applications of said mapping mechanism. The IETF's ENUM Working Group has encountered an unnecessary amount of variation in the format of Enumservice Registrations 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 specifies a revision of the IANA registry for Enumservices, which was originally described in [RFC3761]. This document obsoletes Section 3 of RFC 3761. The new registration processes have been specifically designed to be decoupled from the existence of the ENUM working group. Compared to RFC 3761, the main changes are: o For an Enumservice to be inserted to the IANA registry, 'Expert Review' and 'Specification Required' according to "Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs" [I-D.narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis] are now sufficient. o The IANA registration template contains new fields, i.e. "Enumservice Class" and "Registration Document(s)". o The former field "Any other information that the author deems interesting" of the IANA registration template has been changed to "Further Information". For the purpose of this document, 'Registration Document' and 'Registration' refer to a specification that defines an Enumservice and proposes its registration 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 [RFC2119]. Hoeneisen, et al. Expires November 20, 2008 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft IANA Registration of Enumservices May 2008 3. Registration Requirements As specified in the ABNF found in [I-D.ietf-enum-3761bis], an Enumservice is made up of Types and Subtypes. For any given Type, the allowable Subtypes (if any) must be specified in the Registration. There is currently no concept of a registered Subtype outside the scope of a given Type. While the combination of each Type and all of its Subtypes constitutes the allowed values for the 'Enumservice' field, it is not sufficient to simply list the allowed values of those fields. To allow interoperability, a complete Registration MUST document the semantics of the Type and Subtype values to be registered, and MUST contain all sections listed in Section 5 of this document. Furthermore, in order for an Enumservice to be registered, the entire Registration Document requires approval by the expert(s) according to the 'Expert Review' process defined in "Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs" [I-D.narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis]. All Enumservice Registration proposals are expected to conform also to various requirements laid out in the following sections. 3.1. Functionality Requirements A registered Enumservice must be able to function as a selection mechanism when choosing one NAPTR resource record from another. That means that the Registration MUST specify what is expected when using that very NAPTR record, and the URI which is the outcome of the use of it. Specifically, a registered Enumservice MUST specify the URI Scheme(s) that may be used for the Enumservice, and, when needed, other information that will have to be transferred into the URI resolution process itself. 3.2. Naming Requirements An Enumservice MUST be unique in order to be useful as a selection criteria: o The Type MUST be unique. o The Subtype (being dependent on the Type) MUST be unique within a given Type. Types and Subtypes MUST conform to the ABNF specified in Hoeneisen, et al. Expires November 20, 2008 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft IANA Registration of Enumservices May 2008 [I-D.ietf-enum-3761bis]. The ABNF specified in [I-D.ietf-enum-3761bis] allows the "-" (dash) character for Types and Subtypes . To avoid confusion with possible future prefixes, a "-" MUST NOT be used as the first nor as the second character of a Type nor a Subtype. To avoid confusion with Enumservice fields using an obsolete syntax, any identifying tag of any Enumservice MUST NOT be set to nor start with "E2U". The Subtype for one Type MAY be the same as a Subtype for a different registered Type but it is not sufficient to simply reference another Type's Subtype. The functionality of each Subtype MUST be specified in the context of the Type being registered. Section 4 contains further naming requirements. 3.3. Security Requirements An analysis of security issues is REQUIRED for all registered Enumservices. (This is in accordance with the basic requirements for all IETF protocols.) All descriptions of security issues MUST be as accurate and extensive as feasible. In particular, a statement that there are "no security issues associated with this Enumservice" must not be confused with "the security issues associated with this Enumservice have not been assessed". There is no requirement that an Enumservice must be completely free of security risks. Nevertheless, all known security risks MUST be identified in the Registration of an Enumservice. The security considerations section of all Registrations is subject to continuing evaluation and modification. Some of the issues that SHOULD be looked at in a security analysis of an Enumservice are: 1. Complex Enumservices may include provisions for directives that institute actions on a user's resources. In many cases provision can be made to specify arbitrary actions in an unrestricted fashion which may then have devastating results. Especially if there is a risk for a new ENUM look-up, and because of that an infinite loop in the overall resolution process of the E.164 number. Hoeneisen, et al. Expires November 20, 2008 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft IANA Registration of Enumservices May 2008 2. Complex Enumservices may include provisions for directives that institute actions which, while not directly harmful, may result in disclosure of information that either facilitates a subsequent attack or else violates the users privacy in some way. 3. An Enumservice might be targeted for applications that require some sort of security assurance but do not provide the necessary security mechanisms themselves. For example, an Enumservice could be defined for storage of confidential security services information such as alarm systems or message service passcodes, which in turn require an external confidentiality service. 3.4. Publication Requirements Enumservices Registrations MUST be published according to the requirements for 'Specification Required' set in "Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs" [I-D.narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis]. RFCs fulfill these requirements. Therefore, it is strongly RECOMMENDED Registration Documents be published as RFCs. In case the Registration is not published as an RFC, sufficient information that allows to uniquely identify the Registration Document MUST be provided. 4. Enumservice Creation Cookbook 4.1. 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. Section 2 of "Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs" [I-D.narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis] provides motivation why management of a name space might be necessary. Since the name space for Enumservice registrations is among the largest namespaces that IANA manages (even when ignoring Subtypes, its 32 alphanumeric characters make it much larger than the entire IPv6 addressing space), exhaustion is not a problem. However, the following motivation for management taken from Section 2 of [I-D.narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis] applies to Enumservices: o Prevent hoarding / wasting of values: Enumservice Types are not an opaque identifier to prevent collisions in the namespace, but rather identify the use of a certain technology in the context of Hoeneisen, et al. Expires November 20, 2008 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft IANA Registration of Enumservices May 2008 ENUM. Service Types might also be displayed to end users in implementations, so meaningful Type strings having a clear relation to the protocols / applications used are strongly preferred (and RECOMMENDED). Therefore, preventing hoarding / wasting / "hijacking" of Enumservice Type names is important. o Sanity check to ensure sensible / necessary requests: This applies to Enumservices, since especially various Enumservices for the same purpose would reduce the chance of successful interoperability, and unnecessarily increase the confusion among implementers. o Delegation of namespace portions: Theoretically, the Type / Subtype structure of Enumservices would allow for delegations of Type values, and self-supporting management of Subtype values by a delegate within the Type value. Such delegates could for example be other standardization bodies. However, this would require clear policies regarding publication and use of such Subtypes. Delegation of Enumservice namespace portions is therefore currently not supported. o Interoperability: Since the benefit of an Enumservice rises with the number of supporting clients, the registration of several services for a similar or identical purpose clearly reduces interoperability. Also, space within the protocol on which ENUM is based (DNS packets) is rather scarce compared to the huge identifier space that Enumservice typing provides. Registering nearly identical services would clutter that space. Generally, before commencing work on a new Enumservice registration, the following should be considered: o Is there an existing Enumservice that 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 search the Internet-Drafts Archive on <http://tools.ietf.org/>. o Section 4.2 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 mapping services. In such a case where several options are available, Hoeneisen, et al. Expires November 20, 2008 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft IANA Registration of Enumservices May 2008 defining use cases before commencing work on the Enumservice itself might be useful before making a decision on which aspect of the Enumservice is more important. 4.2. Classification, 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 Classification of each Enumservice MUST be listed in the Enumservice Registration (see Section 5.2). If the Enumservice cannot be assigned to one of the classes outlined below, the Registration Document MUST contain a section on the difficulties encountered while trying to classify the service to help the experts in their decision. 4.2.1. General Type / Subtype Considerations 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. If Subtypes are defined, the minimum number SHOULD be two (including the empty subtype, if defined). 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. It is perfectly legal under a certain Type to mix the Enumservice without a Subtype ("empty 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. 4.2.2. 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. A good indication that an Enumservice belongs to this Class is the Hoeneisen, et al. Expires November 20, 2008 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft IANA Registration of Enumservices May 2008 fact that a client does not need to understand the actual application to make use of an instance of this Enumservice. Examples of such Enumservices include XMPP [RFC4979] and SIP [RFC3764]. 4.2.2.1. Protocol-based Enumservice "Type" Strings A protocol-based Enumservice SHOULD use the lowercased name of the protocol as its 'type' name. 4.2.2.2. 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 there are a number of different URI Schemes associated with this protocol, the Registration MAY use the empty Subtype for all URI Schemes that it specifies as mandatory to implement. For each URI Scheme that is not mandatory to implement a distinct Subtype string MUST be used. If Subtypes are defined, it is RECOMMENDED to use the URI Scheme name as the Subtype string. 4.2.3. Application-based Enumservice Classes 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 to one that has narrow use. An example of this flavor 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 Hoeneisen, et al. Expires November 20, 2008 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft IANA Registration of Enumservices May 2008 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 process, or through negotiation following the selection of the final destination address). Hoeneisen, et al. Expires November 20, 2008 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft IANA Registration of Enumservices May 2008 4.2.3.1. Application-based Enumservice "Type" Strings It is RECOMMENDED that Application-class Enumservices use the lowercased well known name of the abstract application as Type name. 4.2.3.2. Application-based Enumservice "Subtype" Strings It is RECOMMENDED to use the URI Scheme(s) which the application uses, as Subtype name(s). Subtype names SHOULD be shared only between URI Schemes that the Registration specifies as mandatory to implement for a given Subtype. If it is foreseen that there is only one URI Scheme ever to be used with the application, the empty Subtype string MAY be used. 4.2.4. Data- / Format-based 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. Examples of such Enumservices include 'vpim' [RFC4238] and 'vCard' [RFC4969]. 4.2.4.1. Data- / Format-based Enumservice "Type" Strings It is RECOMMENDED to use the lowercase well known name of the data / format as the Type name. 4.2.4.2. 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 the Registration specifies as mandatory to implement for a given Subtype. If there is only one URI Scheme foreseen to access the data / format, the empty Subtype string MAY be used. 4.2.5. Other Enumservice In case an Enumservice proposal cannot be assigned to any of the classes mentioned above, the "Classification" field in the Enumservice Registration (see Section 5.2 MUST be populated with "Other". In that case, the Registration Document MUST contain a section elaborating why the Enumservice does not fit into the classification structure. Hoeneisen, et al. Expires November 20, 2008 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft IANA Registration of Enumservices May 2008 5. Required Sections and Information In addition to the sections required for an RFC as outlined in [I-D.rfc-editor-rfc2223bis] (Instructions to RFC Authors), there are several sections that MUST appear in an Enumservice Registration Document. These sections are as follows, and SHOULD be in the given order. The following terms SHOULD begin with a capital letter, whenever they refer to the IANA Registration: o Class o Type o Subtype o URI Scheme Appendix A contains an XML2RFC template that can be used to create Internet Drafts and RFCs by means described on <http://xml.resource.org/>. This XML2RFC template contains a prototype for most of these sections. 5.1. Introduction (MANDATORY) An introductory section MUST be included. This section will explain, in plain English, the purpose of and intended use 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. 5.2. IANA Registration (MANDATORY) This section MUST be included in an Enumservice Registration. Where a given Enumservice Type has multiple Subtypes, there MUST be a separate 'IANA Registration' section for each Subtype. The following lists the fields and order of an 'IANA Registration' section. o Enumservice Class: This field contains the Class of the Enumservice as defined in Section 4.2. It's value MUST be one of (without quotes): * "Protocol-based": The Enumservice belongs to the Protocol-based class as described in Section 4.2.2. Hoeneisen, et al. Expires November 20, 2008 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft IANA Registration of Enumservices May 2008 * "Application-based, Common": The Enumservice is a "common" case of the Application-based class as described in Section 4.2.3. * "Application-based, Subset": The Enumservice belongs to the "subset" case of the Application-based class as described in Section 4.2.3. * "Application-based, Ancillary": The Enumservice is an "ancillary" case of the Application-based class, as described in Section 4.2.3. * "Data- / Format-based": The Enumservice belongs to the Data- / Format-based class as described in Section 4.2.4. * "Other": The majority of the functionality of the Enumservice does not fall into one of the classes defined. e.g. Protocol-based o Enumservice Type: The Type of the Enumservice. All Types SHOULD be listed in lower- case. The choice of Type depends on the Enumservice Class. Please find further instructions in Section 4. e.g. "foo" Note: Put the Type string between double quotes. o Enumservice Subtype: The Subtype of the Enumservice. All Subtypes SHOULD be listed in lower-case. The choice of Subtype depends on the Enumservice Class. Please find further instructions in Section 4. e.g. "bar" e.g. N/A Note: Put the Subtype string between double quotes. Note: Many Enumservices do not require a Subtype; use "N/A" in this case. Hoeneisen, et al. Expires November 20, 2008 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft IANA Registration of Enumservices May 2008 Note: As stated above, where a given Enumservice Type has multiple Subtypes, there MUST be a separate 'IANA Registration' section for each Subtype. o URI Scheme(s): The URI Schemes that are used with the Enumservice. The selection of URI Schemes often depends on the Enumservice Class, Type, and/or Subtype. Please find further instructions in Section 4. e.g. 'bar', 'sbar' Note: Do not put a colon after a URI Scheme and put each URI Scheme between single quotes. If there is more than one URI Scheme, use a comma as separator. Note: 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'. o Functional Specification: The Functional Specification describes how the Enumservice is used in connection with the URI to which it resolves. e.g. This Enumservice indicates that the remote resource identified can be addressed by the associated URI Scheme in order to foo the bar. [...] Where the terms used are non-obvious, they should be defined in the Registration Document, or a reference to an external document containing their definition should be provided. o Security Considerations: An internal reference to the 'Security Considerations' section of a given Registration Document. e.g. see Section 10 o Intended Usage: One of the following values (without quotes): Hoeneisen, et al. Expires November 20, 2008 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft IANA Registration of Enumservices May 2008 * "COMMON": Indicates that the Enumservice is intended for widespread use on the public Internet, and that it's scope is not limited to a certain environment. * "LIMITED USE": Indicates that the Enumservice is intended for use on a limited scope, for example in private ENUM-like application scenarios. The use case provided in the Registration should describe such a scenario. * "OBSOLETE": Indicates that the Enumservice has been declared obsolete (Section 11.1.5) and is not to be used in new deployments. Applications SHOULD however expect to encounter legacy instances of this Enumservice. e.g. COMMON o Registration Document(s): A *unique* reference to the Enumservice Registration Document. e.g. [RFC 9999] e.g. [RFC 7777] (Obsoleted by RFC 8888) [RFC 8888] (Updated by RFC 9999) [RFC 9999] e.g. [International Telecommunications Union, "Enumservice Registration for Foobar", ITU-F Recommendation B.193, Release 73, Mar 2008.] o Author(s): The author(s) of the Enumservice Registration. e.g. John Doe, Jane Dale Note: If there is more than one author, use a comma as separator. Note: Do not put email addresses to author(s) field of an IANA registration. Hoeneisen, et al. Expires November 20, 2008 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft IANA Registration of Enumservices May 2008 o Further Information: Any other information the author(s) deem(s) interesting. e.g. See Section 3 e.g. N/A Note: Use "N/A", if there is no content for this field. 5.3. Examples (MANDATORY) This section MUST show at least one example of the Enumservice being registered, 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 (according to [RFC3403] and [I-D.ietf-enum-3761bis]), 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 or the Functional Specification. 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/!" . 5.4. 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. 5.5. 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 Hoeneisen, et al. Expires November 20, 2008 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft IANA Registration of Enumservices May 2008 Current Practices (BCP) document and therefore it should not include general and obvious security recommendations, such as securing servers with strong password authentication. 5.6. IANA Considerations (MANDATORY) Describe the task IANA needs to fulfill processing the Enumservice Registration Document. e.g. This document requests the IANA registration of the Enumservice "Foo" with Type "foo" and Subtype "bar" according to the definitions in this document, RFC XXXX [Note for RFC Editor: Please replace XXXX with the RFC number of this document before publication] and [I-D.ietf-enum-3761bis]. e.g. This document requests an update of the IANA registration of the Enumservice with Type "foo" and Subtype "bar", according to the definitions in this document, RFC XXXX [Note for RFC Editor: Please replace XXXX with the RFC number of this document before publication] and [I-D.ietf-enum-3761bis]. Therefore, in the existing IANA registration for this Enumservice, the field "Registration Document(s)" is enhanced by adding a supplementary reference that points to this document. e.g. This document requests an update of the IANA registration of the Enumservice with Type "foo" and all its Subtypes, in order to declare it obsolete. Therefore, in the existing IANA registration for this Enumservice, the field "Intended Usage" is changed to "OBSOLETE", and the field "Registration Document(s)" is enhanced by adding a supplementary reference that points to this document. 5.7. DNS Considerations (MANDATORY) 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. Hoeneisen, et al. Expires November 20, 2008 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft IANA Registration of Enumservices May 2008 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 Enumservices try to exploit side effects of the DNS that need to be explicitly discussed. 5.8. 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 use of the Enumservice registration and associated technical, operational, or administrative concerns. 6. The Process of Registering New Enumservices This section describes the process by which a new Enumservice is submitted for review and comment, how such proposed Enumservices are reviewed, and how they are published. Figure 1 describes, what (an) author/s of a Registration Document describing an Enumservice MUST carry out, before said Registration can be formally submitted to IANA. Hoeneisen, et al. Expires November 20, 2008 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft IANA Registration of Enumservices May 2008 +----------------------------+ | Step 1: Read this document | +----------------------------+ | V +-------------------------------+ | Step 2: Write R-D and submit | +-------------------------------+ | V +--------------------------------------------+ | Step 3: Announce R-D and solicit feedback |<--+ +--------------------------------------------+ | | | V | .^. | . . | +------------+ . Feed- . +------------+ | Update R-D |<---------< back >------------>| Update R-D | | and submit | non-sub- . results . substantial | and submit | +------------+ stantial . in: . changes +------------+ | changes . . needed | needed Y | | no changes needed | V | +-----------------------------+ +-------->| Step 4: Submit R-D to IANA | +-----------------------------+ : : V R-D: Registration Document Figure 1 6.1. 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. 6.2. Step 2: Write and Submit Registration Document An Internet-Draft (or another specification as appropriate) MUST be written and made publicly available (submitted). The Registration Document MUST follow the guidelines according to Section 4 and Section 5 of this document. It is RECOMMENDED to use the XML2RFC template contained in Appendix A of this document. Hoeneisen, et al. Expires November 20, 2008 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft IANA Registration of Enumservices May 2008 6.3. Step 3: Request Comments from the IETF Community The author(s) MUST send an email to <enum@ietf.org>, in which comments on the Registration Document are requested. A proper public reference (a URL is RECOMMENDED) to the Registration Document MUST be included in this email. 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) then consider whether or not to take any of those comments into account, by making changes to the Registration Document and submitting a revision, or otherwise proceeding. The following outcomes are open to the author(s). The choice of path is left to the authors' judgement. 6.3.1. Outcome 1: No Changes Needed No changes to the Registration Document 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 Registration Document. 6.3.2. Outcome 2: Changes, but no further Comments Requested The author(s) update(s) the Registration Document 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. 6.3.3. Outcome 3: Changes and further Comments Requested The author(s) update(s) and submit(s) the Registration Document, 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. 6.4. Step 4: Submit Registration Document to IANA The author(s) submit(s) the Registration Document to IANA. Hoeneisen, et al. Expires November 20, 2008 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft IANA Registration of Enumservices May 2008 6.5. Further Steps IANA will take care about Expert Review according to [I-D.narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis] and add the service to the IANA Enumservice registry, given the Registration is approved by the experts. The author(s) MUST be prepared for further interaction with IANA and the designated expert(s). In case the Registration Document has the form of an Internet-Draft, the author MUST submit it for publication as an RFC after successful Expert Review. Typically it will be an individual submission. 7. Expert Review 7.1. Expert Selection Process According to Section 3.2 of [I-D.narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis], experts are appointed by the IESG upon recommendation by the RAI Area Directors. The RAI area directors are responsible for ensuring that there is always a sufficient pool of experts available. 7.2. Review Guidelines Generally, the Expert Review process of an Enumservice MUST follow the guidelines documented in section 3.3 of "Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs" [I-D.narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis]. The expert(s) SHOULD evaluate the criteria as set out in [I-D.narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis], as well as consider the following: o Verify conformance with the ENUM specification [I-D.ietf-enum-3761bis]. o Verify that the requirements set in this document (Section 5) are met. This includes check for completeness and whether all the aspects described in Section 5 are sufficiently addressed. o If a use case is given by the author of the proposal (which is RECOMMENDED), the expert(s) 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. Hoeneisen, et al. Expires November 20, 2008 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft IANA Registration of Enumservices May 2008 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 4.2, the expert(s) MUST verify that the principles of the Class in question are followed. o In case the Enumservice is not classified, the expert(s) 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, particularly the DNS. o If the output of processing an Enumservice may be used for input to more ENUM processing (especially services returning 'tel' URIs), the expert(s) SHOULD verify that the author has adequately addressed the issue of potential query loops. In case of conflicts between [I-D.narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis] and the guidelines in this section, the former remains authoritative. 7.3. Appeals Appeals against Expert Review decisions follow the normal IETF appeal process as described in section 7 of [I-D.narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis] and section 6.5 of [RFC2026]. 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 specifications contained herein. All future Enumservice Registrations MUST follow the specifications contained herein. 9. Extension of Existing Enumservice RFCs There are cases where it is more sensible to extend an existing Enumservice registration rather than proposing a new one. Such cases include adding a new Subtype to an existing Type. Depending on the Hoeneisen, et al. Expires November 20, 2008 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft IANA Registration of Enumservices May 2008 nature of the extension, the original Registration Document needs to be extended (Updates) or replaced (Obsoletes) [I-D.rfc-editor-rfc2223bis]. Specifically, an update is appropriate when a new subtype is being added without changes to the existing repertoire. A replacement is needed if there is a change to the default, or changes to the assumptions of URI support in clients. 10. Security Considerations 10.1. 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. 10.2. Enumservice Security Considerations Guideline [I-D.ietf-enum-3761bis] 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 covered in the 'Security Considerations' section of the Registration Document. 11. IANA Considerations 11.1. Enumservice Registrations IANA will update the registry "Enumservice Registrations" according to (this) Section 11.1, which will replace the old mechanism as defined in RFC 3761 [RFC3761]. It is noted that the process described herein applies only to ordinary Enumservice registrations (i.e. the registration process of 'X-' Enumservices is beyond the scope of this document). Hoeneisen, et al. Expires November 20, 2008 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft IANA Registration of Enumservices May 2008 11.1.1. IANA Registration Template The IANA registration template consists of the following fields that are specified in Section 5.2: o Enumservice Class: o Enumservice Type: o Enumservice Subtype: o URI Scheme(s): o Functional Specification: o Security Considerations: o Intended Usage: o Registration Document(s): o Author(s): o Further Information: Note: In the case where a particular field has no value, 'N/A' (Not Applicable) MUST be used. This case especially may occur where a given Type has no Subtypes, or if there is no "Further Information". 11.1.2. Location Approved Enumservice registrations are published in the IANA repository "Enumservice Registrations", which is available at the following URI: < http://www.iana.org/assignments/enum-services >. At this repository only the filled IANA Registration Template as listed in Section 11.1.1 and specified in Section 5.2 is published. Where the Registration Document is NOT an RFC, IANA MUST hold an escrow copy of that Registration Document. Said escrow copy will act as the master reference for that Enumservice Registration. 11.1.3. Structure IANA maintains the Enumservice repository sorted in alphabetical order. The first sort field is Type, the second is Subtype. Hoeneisen, et al. Expires November 20, 2008 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft IANA Registration of Enumservices May 2008 Each Enumservice starts with a caption, which is composed of Type and Subtype, separated by a colon; e.g. if the Type is "foo" and the Subtype "bar", the resulting caption is "foo:bar". 11.1.4. Registration Procedure Whenever a proposal for a new Enumservice is submitted, IANA will take care of the 'Expert Review' process according to "Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs" [I-D.narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis]. Provided that the Enumservice has obtained the necessary approval of the expert(s), and the Registration Document is published, IANA will register the Enumservice, i.e. add the Enumservice to the IANA "Enumservice Registrations" registry (see also Section 11.1.2). 11.1.5. Change Control For Enumservices Registrations published as an RFC, change control stays with the IETF via the RFC publication process. Change control of Enumservices Registrations not published as an RFC (i.e. according the process described herein) is done by "Expert Review" and "Specification Required" according to [I-D.narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis]. Enumservice registrations MUST NOT be deleted. An Enumservice that is believed no longer appropriate for use, can be declared obsolete by publication of a new Enumservices Registrations document changing its "Intended Usage" field to "OBSOLETE"; such Enumservices will be clearly marked in the lists published by IANA. Updates of any Enumservice Registrations MUST follow the guidelines described in this document. 11.1.6. Restrictions As stated in Section 3.2, a "-" (dash) MUST NOT be used as the first nor as the second character of a Type nor a Subtype. Furthermore, any identifying tag of any Enumservice MUST NOT be set to nor start with "E2U". Any Enumservice registration requests covered by these restrictions MUST be rejected by IANA, and the 'Expert Review' process SHOULD NOT be initiated. Appendix A contains examples for Enumservice registrations. Therefore, IANA MUST NOT register an Enumservice with Type or Subtype set to "foo", "bar", or "sbar", unless the Expert(s) explicitly confirm an exception. Hoeneisen, et al. Expires November 20, 2008 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft IANA Registration of Enumservices May 2008 11.2. XML2RFC Template Before publication of this document IANA shall make the XML2RFC template in Appendix A publicly available so that authors of new Enumservice Registrations can easily download it. Note: The XML2RFC template in Appendix A contains a proposal for the 'IANA Considerations' section of actual Enumservice Registration Document. 12. Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank the following people who have provided feedback or significant contributions to the development of this document: Lawrence Conroy, Alfred Hoenes, Peter Koch, Edward Lewis, and Jon Peterson Lawrence Conroy has provided extensive text for the Enumservice Classification section. Section 3 of RFC 3761 [RFC3761], which was edited by Patrik Faltstrom and Michael Mealling, has been incorporated to this document. Please see the Acknowledgments section in RFC 3761 for additional acknowledgments. 13. References 13.1. Normative References [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. [RFC2026] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, October 1996. [RFC3761] Faltstrom, P. and M. Mealling, "The E.164 to Uniform Resource Identifiers (URI) Dynamic Delegation Discovery System (DDDS) Application (ENUM)", RFC 3761, April 2004. [I-D.ietf-enum-3761bis] Bradner, S., Conroy, L., and K. Fujiwara, "The E.164 to Uniform Resource Identifiers (URI) Dynamic Delegation Discovery System (DDDS) Application (ENUM)", draft-ietf-enum-3761bis-03 (work in progress), March 2008. [I-D.rfc-editor-rfc2223bis] Hoeneisen, et al. Expires November 20, 2008 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft IANA Registration of Enumservices May 2008 Reynolds, J. and R. Braden, "Instructions to Request for Comments (RFC) Authors", draft-rfc-editor-rfc2223bis-08 (work in progress), July 2004. [RFC3403] Mealling, M., "Dynamic Delegation Discovery System (DDDS) Part Three: The Domain Name System (DNS) Database", RFC 3403, October 2002. [I-D.narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", draft-narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis-09 (work in progress), March 2008. 13.2. Informative References [RFC3986] Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax", STD 66, RFC 3986, January 2005. [RFC4238] Vaudreuil, G., "Voice Message Routing Service", RFC 4238, October 2005. [RFC4969] Mayrhofer, A., "IANA Registration for vCard Enumservice", RFC 4969, August 2007. [RFC4979] Mayrhofer, A., "IANA Registration for Enumservice 'XMPP'", RFC 4979, August 2007. [RFC3764] Peterson, J., "enumservice registration for Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Addresses-of-Record", RFC 3764, April 2004. [ITU.E164.2005] International Telecommunications Union, "The International Public Telecommunication Numbering Plan", ITU- T Recommendation E.164, Feb 2005. Appendix A. XML2RFC Template for Enumservice Registration The latest version of the following XML2RFC template can be downloaded from XYZ [Note to RFC editor: Before publication, replace XYZ with download URL assigned by IANA.] <?xml version='1.0' ?> <!DOCTYPE rfc SYSTEM 'rfc2629.dtd'> Hoeneisen, et al. Expires November 20, 2008 [Page 28]
Internet-Draft IANA Registration of Enumservices May 2008 <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> <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. Hoeneisen, et al. Expires November 20, 2008 [Page 29]
Internet-Draft IANA Registration of Enumservices May 2008 </t> </abstract> </front> <middle> <section anchor='intro' title='Introduction'> <t><xref target='I-D.ietf-enum-3761bis'>RFC3761bis</xref> uses the <xref target='RFC1035'>Domain Name System (DNS)</xref> to refer from <xref target='ITU.E164.2005'>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='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='IANA Registration - foo'> <vspace blankLines='1'/> <t>foo:bar<vspace blankLines='1'/> Hoeneisen, et al. Expires November 20, 2008 [Page 30]
Internet-Draft IANA Registration of Enumservices May 2008 <list style='symbols'> <t>Enumservice Class: Application-based, Subset</t> <t>Enumservice Type: "foo"</t> <t>Enumservice Subtype: "bar"</t> <!-- Use N/A if none --> <t>URI Scheme(s): 'bar', 'sbar'</t> <t>Functional Specification: <list style='symbols'> <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>Registration Document(s): RFCXXXX</t> <t>Author(s): MyFirstname MySurname</t> <t>Further Information: See <xref target='impl'/></t> <!-- Use N/A if none --> </list> </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>$ORIGIN 9.7.8.0.9.7.8.9.0.9.4.4.e164.arpa. Hoeneisen, et al. Expires November 20, 2008 [Page 31]
Internet-Draft IANA Registration of Enumservices May 2008 <vspace blankLines='0'/> @ IN NAPTR 50 10 "u" "E2U+foo:bar" "!^.*$!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 look-up: <vspace blankLines='1'/> <list> <t>http://sandiego.company.example.com/joe-william-user.vcf</t> </list> Hoeneisen, et al. Expires November 20, 2008 [Page 32]
Internet-Draft IANA Registration of Enumservices May 2008 </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> <section anchor='iana' title='IANA Considerations'> <t>This document requests the IANA registration of the Enumservice "Foo" with Type "foo" and Subtype "bar" according to the Hoeneisen, et al. Expires November 20, 2008 [Page 33]
Internet-Draft IANA Registration of Enumservices May 2008 definitions in this document, RFC XXXX [Note for RFC Editor: Please replace XXXX with the RFC number of this document (draft-ietf-enum-enumservices-guide) before publication] and <xref target='I-D.ietf-enum-3761bis'>RFC3761bis</xref>. </t> <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="ITU.E164.2005"> <front> <title>The International Public Telecommunication Numbering Plan</title> <author> <organization>International Telecommunications Union</organization> </author> <date month="Feb" year="2005" /> </front> <seriesInfo name="ITU-T" value="Recommendation E.164" /> Hoeneisen, et al. Expires November 20, 2008 [Page 34]
Internet-Draft IANA Registration of Enumservices May 2008 </reference> </references> </back> </rfc> Figure 2 Appendix B. Changes Overview This section lists the changes applied to the Enumservice registration process and the IANA registry definition, compared to RFC 3761. o While RFC 3761 required "Standards track or Experimental" RFCs for a Enumservice to be registered, this document mandates "Expert Review" and "Documentation Required". o This document adds a classification of Enumservices, which is to be specified in the registration data, and is stored in the IANA registry. o The Enumservice "Name" field is removed from the registration template and the IANA registry. Appendix C. Document Changelog [RFC Editor: This section is to be removed before publication] draft-ietf-enum-enumservices-guide-10: o bernie: No longer empty field for IANA Registration ('N/A' must be used in this case) o bernie: Adjusted IANA Registration Template: * Registration Document -> Registration Document(s) * Author -> Author(s) o bernie: IANA repository in alphabetical order by Type and Subtype o bernie: Class, Type, Subtype and URI Schema to begin with capital o bernie: Caption for each Enumservice o bernie: Consistent use of "field" for fields within IANA registration template (no longer used are "item" or "section") o bernie: URI Schemes without colons and between single quotes, no longer email address in author(s) field Hoeneisen, et al. Expires November 20, 2008 [Page 35]
Internet-Draft IANA Registration of Enumservices May 2008 o bernie: Adjusted IANA Registration Section of XML2RFC template o alex: Added List of Classes to choose from [RFC Editor: This section is to be removed before publication] draft-ietf-enum-enumservices-guide-09: o alex: Removed Enumservice "Name" as decided at IETF 71 o alex: Reworded registration requirements o alex: Explained possible values for "Intended Usage" o bernie: Rewrite of section 'Change Control' o bernie: Cleared out scope of this document (only ordinary, but no 'X-' registrations) o bernie: Cleared out naming restrictions in IANA section o bernie: Changed section name from 'ENUM Service Registration' to 'IANA Registration' o bernie: Combined Expert Review related sections o bernie: Partly implemented feedback Alfred Hoenes and added him to Acknowledgments o bernie: Enhanced examples for "Registration Document" o bernie: Enhanced examples for "IANA Considerations" (feedback from Alfred Hoenes) o bernie: Removed Note about RFC3761bis obsoleting RFC3761 (does not belong to this doc) o bernie: Rewrote Naming Requirements section (impact to IANA Considerations - Restrictions) draft-ietf-enum-enumservices-guide-08: o alex: new text for Subtypes of protocol class enumservices ("mandatory to implement" stuff) o alex: added "to be foreseen" to the application Type Subtype recommendation o alex: added "lowercase" recommendation to the Type names o bernie: Corrected various typos, clarifications, and other editorial stuff (feedback from Lawrence Conroy) o bernie: IANA Registry ftp -> http (feedback from Lawrence Conroy) o bernie: Made steps prior to IANA submission mandatory (feedback from Lawrence Conroy) o bernie: Shortened abstract draft-ietf-enum-enumservices-guide-07: o bernie: Section DNS considerations made mandatory o bernie: Complete rewrite of IANA considerations o bernie: XML2RFC template will be downloadable at IANA o bernie: Complete re-write of process o alex: Adjusted Cook-book / classification o bernie: Take over chapter "Registration mechanism for Enumservices" from RFC 3761bis Hoeneisen, et al. Expires November 20, 2008 [Page 36]
Internet-Draft IANA Registration of Enumservices May 2008 o bernie: Changed title to adjust to new purpose o bernie: Intended status changed to Standards Track (was bcp) o bernie: Obsoletes (partly) RFC 3761 o bernie: Adjusted section "Registration mechanism for Enumservices" o bernie: Updated most RFC 3761 references to either RFC3761bis or new (internal) section o bernie: Acknowledgment for RFC3761 contributors o bernie: Shortened bullet point in IANA Registration Template: "Any other information that the author deems interesting" ==;gt; "Further Information" o alex: Rewritten Abstract, Introduction to be consistent with with new goal (IANA Registry description) o alex: Add obsoletes section 3 of RFC 3761 to Introduction o alex: Changed section 3 to "registration requirements", Simplified structure o alex: Added examples for protocol Enumservice classification o alex: Added text about "other" classification draft-ietf-enum-enumservices-guide-06: o alex: updated Class Schemes. o alex: updated expert's tasks o alex: added experts review considerations o bernie: Moved Terminology section in XML2RFC template (now after Introduction) o bernie: Class is now part of the Enumservice registration in the IANA template o bernie: Individual Submission relaxed (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 Hoeneisen, et al. Expires November 20, 2008 [Page 37]
Internet-Draft IANA Registration of Enumservices May 2008 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 XML2RFC 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 D. Open Issues [RFC Editor: This section should be empty before publication] o Review by IANA o Review XML2RFC template o Ensure consistency (with new aim and section) throughout the whole document (jason?) o Transition Regime for changed IANA registration process and template needed? 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/ Hoeneisen, et al. Expires November 20, 2008 [Page 38]
Internet-Draft IANA Registration of Enumservices May 2008 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/ 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 November 20, 2008 [Page 39]
Internet-Draft IANA Registration of Enumservices May 2008 Full Copyright Statement Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008). 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. Hoeneisen, et al. Expires November 20, 2008 [Page 40]
