[Docs] [txt|pdf] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits] [IPR]

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 RFC 6117

ENUM -- Telephone Number Mapping                            J. Livingood
Working Group                                                    Comcast
Internet-Draft                                              B. Hoeneisen
Expires: August 28, 2006                                          Switch
                                                            A. Mayrhofer
                                                                 enum.at
                                                            Feb 24, 2006


        Guide and Template for IANA Registrations of Enumervices
                 draft-ietf-enum-enumservices-guide-01

Status of this Memo

   By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
   applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
   have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
   aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups.  Note that
   other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
   Drafts.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.

   This Internet-Draft will expire on August 28, 2006.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).

Abstract

   This document provides a guide to and template for the creation of
   new IANA registration of ENUM services.  It is also to be used for
   updates of existing IANA registrations.





Livingood, et al.        Expires August 28, 2006                [Page 1]

Internet-Draft        BCP Enumservice Registrations             Feb 2006


Table of Contents

   1.  Open Issues  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3

   2.  Changes  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3

   3.  Terminology  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3

   4.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3

   5.  Enumservice Creation Cookbook  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     5.1.  Preparation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     5.2.  About Type Names . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     5.3.  About Subtypes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4

   6.  Required Sections and Information  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     6.1.  Introduction (MANDATORY) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     6.2.  Enumservice Registration for "foo" with Subtype "bar"
           (MANDATORY)  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     6.3.  Examples (MANDATORY) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
     6.4.  Implementation Recommendations / Notes (OPTIONAL)  . . . .  6
     6.5.  Security Considerations (MANDATORY)  . . . . . . . . . . .  6
     6.6.  IANA Considerations (MANDATORY)  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
     6.7.  Other Sections (OPTIONAL)  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6

   7.  Blank Enumservice Template . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7

   8.  Revision of Pre-Existing Enumservice RFCs  . . . . . . . . . .  7

   9.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
     9.1.  Considerations regarding this Document . . . . . . . . . .  7
     9.2.  Enumservice Security Considerations Guideline  . . . . . .  7

   10. IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8

   11. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8

   12. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8

   Appendix A.  XML2RFC Template for Enumservice Registration . . . .  8

   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
   Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 15








Livingood, et al.        Expires August 28, 2006                [Page 2]

Internet-Draft        BCP Enumservice Registrations             Feb 2006


1.  Open Issues

   [RFC Editor: This section should be empty before publication]
      move security considerations from xml2rfc template to draft
      itself, and refer from template to the various security sections
      of RFC3761, this doc, etc.
      talk about how to choose type/subtype/etc?


2.  Changes

   [RFC Editor: This section is to be removed before publication]

   draft-ietf-enum-enumservices-guide-01:
      alex: added Security Considerations section for the doc itself
      alex: added IANA Considerations section for the doc itself
      alex: added cookbook idea


3.  Terminology

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [1].


4.  Introduction

   [ Note: This is work in progress - the ENUM crowd is invited to
   contribute, since issues clarified in this document will save the
   group time spent on each individual Enumservice registration.  Please
   mail your opinions/ideas to the WG list!! ]

   This document provides a guide to and template for the creation of
   new IANA registrations of Enumservices.  This document aims to
   enhance section 3 of RFC 3761 [2], where the registration procedure
   for Enumservices was initially documented at a high level.  However,
   the IETF's ENUM Working Group has encountered an unnecessary amount
   of variation in the format of Enumservice drafts presented to the
   group.  The ENUM Working Group's view of what particular fields and
   information are required and/or recommended has also evolved, and
   capturing these best current practices is helpful in both the
   creation of new registrations, as well as the revision or refinement
   of existing registrations.

   For the purpose of this document, 'registration document' and
   'registration' refers to an Internet Draft proposing the IANA
   registration of an Enumservice following the procedures outlined



Livingood, et al.        Expires August 28, 2006                [Page 3]

Internet-Draft        BCP Enumservice Registrations             Feb 2006


   above.

   [-00 Note: This is an early draft version.]


5.  Enumservice Creation Cookbook

   [FIXME: this is a proposal - comments appreciated]

5.1.  Preparation

   Before commencing work on a new Enumservice registration, following
   questions should be considered:

      Is there an existing Enumservice which could fulfill the desired
      functionality without overloading it?  Check the IANA Enumservice
      registrations FIXME ref
      Is there work in progress on a similar Enumservice?  Check the
      enum@ietf.org mailing list archives, and the Internet Drafts
      Archive FIXME ref

5.2.  About Type Names

   FIXME

5.3.  About Subtypes

   An Enumservice may optionally use a "subtype" do further specify the
   service to which a ENUM record refers to.  The following
   recommendations apply to such Enumservices:
      Subtypes SHOULD NOT be used to curtail the negotiation
      capabilities of the protocol used to contact the refered URI,
      unless this limitation is specifically desired.  If that is the
      case, authors MUST describe the motivation for this, and describe
      potential problems arising from this.
      If subtypes are defined, the minimum number SHOULD be two.  The
      choice of just one possible subtype for a given type does not add
      any information when selecting a ENUM record, and hence can be
      left out completely.  However, potential future expansion of a
      type towards several subtypes MAY justify the use of subtypes,
      even in the case just one is currently defined.
      [FIXME: talk about mixing subtyped / non subtyped for a type?]


6.  Required Sections and Information

   In addition to the typical sections required for an RFC as outlined
   in RFC 2223bis [3] (Instructions to RFC Authors), there are several



Livingood, et al.        Expires August 28, 2006                [Page 4]

Internet-Draft        BCP Enumservice Registrations             Feb 2006


   sections which MUST appear in an IANA Registration for an
   Enumservice.  These sections are, as follows, and SHOULD be in the
   following order:

6.1.  Introduction (MANDATORY)

   An introductory section MUST be included.  This section will explain,
   in plain English, the purpose of and intended usage of the proposed
   Enumservice registration.

   The Introduction SHOULD start with a short sentence about ENUM,
   introduce the protocol used in the Enumservice, and discuss the
   Enumservice as it refers from the E.164 number to the protocol or
   service.

   The XML2RFC template in Appendix A contains a prototype of such an
   Introduction.

6.2.  Enumservice Registration for "foo" with Subtype "bar" (MANDATORY)

   This section MUST be included in an Enumservice registration.  In
   addition, where a given registration type has multiple subtypes,
   there MUST be a separate registration section for each subtype.  The
   following lists the sections and order of an Enumservice Registration
   section.  All types and subtypes SHOULD be listed in lower-case.

   Enumservice Name: "foo"

   Enumservice Type: "foo"

   Enumservice Subtype: "bar"

   URI Schemes: "bar:"

   Functional Specification:

      This Enumservice indicates that the remote resource identified can
      be addressed by the associated URI scheme in order to foo the bar.

   Security Considerations: See Section Section 6.5
      (a reference internal to a given registration document).

   Intended Usage: COMMON

      [-00 Note: Authors to explain the choices here in a later
      revision.]

   Authors:



Livingood, et al.        Expires August 28, 2006                [Page 5]

Internet-Draft        BCP Enumservice Registrations             Feb 2006


      Madeline Smith and Katie Jones (for author contact detail see
      Authors' Addresses section).

   Any other information the author deems interesting:

      None

6.3.  Examples (MANDATORY)

   This section MUST show one or more example(s) of the Enumservice
   registration, for illustrative purposes.  The example(s) shall in no
   way limit the various forms that a given Enumservice may take and
   this should be noted at the beginning of this section of the
   document.  The example(s) MUST show the specific formatting of the
   intended NAPTRs [4], including one or more NAPTR example(s), AND a
   brief textual description, consisting of one or more sentences
   written in plain English, explaining the various parts or attributes
   of the record.

   The example SHOULD contain a brief description how a client
   supporting this Enumservice could behave, if that description was not
   already given in eg. the Introduction.

6.4.  Implementation Recommendations / Notes (OPTIONAL)

   If at all possible, recommendations that pertain to implemention
   and/or operations SHOULD be included.  Such a section is helpful to
   someone reading a registration and trying to understand how best to
   use it to support their network or service.

6.5.  Security Considerations (MANDATORY)

   A section explaining any potential security threats that are unique
   to the given registration MUST be included.  This MUST also include
   any information about access to Personally Identifiable Information
   (PII).  However, this section should not intended as a general
   security Best Current Practices (BCP) document or include general and
   obvious security recommendations, such as securing servers with
   strong password authentication.

6.6.  IANA Considerations (MANDATORY)

   [-00 Note: Will be exapanded in an upcoming revision.]

6.7.  Other Sections (OPTIONAL)

   Other sections, beyond those required by the IETF and/or IANA, which
   are cited or otherwise referenced here, MAY be included in an



Livingood, et al.        Expires August 28, 2006                [Page 6]

Internet-Draft        BCP Enumservice Registrations             Feb 2006


   Enumservice registration.  These sections may relate to the specifics
   of the intended usage of the Enumservice registration and associated
   technical, operational, or administrative concerns.


7.  Blank Enumservice Template

   Appendix A contains a template which can be used to create Internet
   Drafts and RFC by means described on http://xml.resource.org/.


8.  Revision of Pre-Existing Enumservice RFCs

   Several Enumservice registrations, published via IETF RFCs, already
   exist at the time of the development of this document.  The authors
   recommend that these existing registration documents SHOULD be
   reviewed and, where necessary and appropriate, MAY be revised in
   accordance with the recommendations contained herein.  All future
   Enumservice registrations SHOULD follow the recommendations contained
   herein, where practical and applicable.


9.  Security Considerations

9.1.  Considerations regarding this Document

   Since this document does not introduce any technology or protocol,
   there are no security issues to be considered for this memo itself.
   However, this document provides general security considerations for
   Enumservice registrations, which are to be referred from document
   defining or updating Enumservice registrations.

9.2.  Enumservice Security Considerations Guideline

   Section 6 of RFC 3761 already outlines security considerations
   affecting ENUM as a whole.  Enumservice registration documents do not
   need and SHOULD NOT repeat considerations already listed there, but
   they SHOULD include a reference to that section.

   ENUM refers to resources using preexisting URI schemes and protocols.
   Enumservice registration documents do not need and SHOULD NOT repeat
   security considerations affecting those protocols and URI schemes
   itself.

   However, in case that the inclusion of those protocols and URI
   schemes into ENUM specifically introduces new security issues, those
   issues MUST be lined out in the 'Security Considerations' section of
   the registration document.



Livingood, et al.        Expires August 28, 2006                [Page 7]

Internet-Draft        BCP Enumservice Registrations             Feb 2006


   Section FIXME of this document contains generic security
   considerations affecting all Enumservice registrations.  Registration
   proposals SHOULD refer to that section from their 'Security
   Considerations' section.


10.  IANA Considerations

   This document itself does not define a new protocol, and therefore
   has no considerations for IANA.  However, it contains a proposal for
   the 'IANA Considerations' section of actual Enumservice registration
   documents in Appendix A.

   Note: Section 6.2 is just an example of an Enumservice registration.
   The Enumservice "foo" outlined there MUST NOT be registered by IANA
   unless this memo is to be published on April 1st.


11.  Acknowledgements

   The authors wish to thank Alexander Mayrhofer for his review and
   feedback.

12.  Normative References

   [1]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement
        Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

   [2]  Faltstrom, P. and M. Mealling, "The E.164 to Uniform Resource
        Identifiers (URI) Dynamic Delegation Discovery System (DDDS)
        Application (ENUM)", RFC 3761, April 2004.

   [3]  Reynolds, J. and R. Braden, "Instructions to Request for
        Comments (RFC) Authors", draft-rfc-editor-rfc2223bis-08 (work in
        progress), July 2004.

   [4]  Mealling, M., "Dynamic Delegation Discovery System (DDDS) Part
        Three: The Domain Name System (DNS) Database", RFC 3403,
        October 2002.


Appendix A.  XML2RFC Template for Enumservice Registration


   <?xml version='1.0' ?>
   <!DOCTYPE rfc SYSTEM 'rfc2629.dtd'>
   <rfc ipr='full3978' docName='draft-mysurname-enum-foo-service-00' >
     <?rfc toc='yes' ?>



Livingood, et al.        Expires August 28, 2006                [Page 8]

Internet-Draft        BCP Enumservice Registrations             Feb 2006


     <?rfc tocompact='no' ?>
     <?rfc compact='yes' ?>
     <?rfc subcompact='yes' ?>

     <front>

       <title abbrev='Foo Enumservice'>
         IANA Registration for Enumservice Foo
       </title>

       <author initials='MyI.' surname='MySurname'
               fullname='MyName MySurname'>
         <organization abbrev='MyOrg'>
           MyOrganization
         </organization>
         <address>
           <postal>
             <street>MyAddress</street>
             <city>MyCity</city>
             <code>MyZIP</code>
             <country>MyCountry</country>
           </postal>
           <phone>Myphonenumber</phone>
           <email>MyEmailAddress</email>
           <uri>MyWebpage</uri>
         </address>
       </author>

       <date month='ThisMonth' year='ThisYear' day='ThisDay'/>
       <area>RAI</area>
   <workgroup>ENUM -- Telephone Number Mapping Working Group</workgroup>
       <keyword>ENUM</keyword>
       <keyword>foo</keyword>
       <keyword>bar</keyword>

       <abstract>

         <t>This memo registers the Enumservice "foo" with subtype "bar"
         using the URI scheme "bar" according to the IANA Enumservice
         registration process described in RFC3671 and RFCXXXX.
         This Enumservice is to be used to refer from an ENUM domain name
         to the foobar of the entity using the corresponding E.164 number.
         </t>

         <t>Clients may use information gathered from those  ...
         </t>

       </abstract>



Livingood, et al.        Expires August 28, 2006                [Page 9]

Internet-Draft        BCP Enumservice Registrations             Feb 2006


     </front>


     <middle>

       <section anchor='terminology' title='Terminology'>
         <t>The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL",
         "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
         "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described
         in <xref target='RFC2119'>RFC 2119</xref>.
         </t>
       </section>

       <section anchor='intro' title='Introduction'>

         <t><xref target='RFC3761'>E.164 Number Mapping (ENUM)</xref> uses the
         <xref target='RFC1035'>Domain Name System (DNS)</xref> to refer
         from <xref target='refs.E164'>E.164 numbers</xref> to <xref
         target='RFC3986'>Uniform Resource Identifiers (URIs)</xref>.
         </t>

         <t>To distinguish between different services for a single E.164
         number, section 2.4.2 of RFC 3761 specifies 'Enumservices', which are
         to be registered with IANA according to section 3 of RFC 3761 and
         <xref target='RFCXXXX'>RFC XXXX</xref>.
         </t>

         <t>The 'foo' protocol is specified in ... and provides ...
         </t>

         <t>The Enumservice specified in this document refers from an E.164
         number to a foobar ... Clients use those foobars to foo the bar.
         </t>

       </section>

       <section anchor='reg' title='ENUM Service Registration - foo'>

         <t>Enumservice Name: "foo"</t>

         <t>Enumservice Type: "foo"</t>

         <t>Enumservice Subtypes: "bar"</t> <!-- Use N/A if none -->

         <t>URI Schemes: "bar"</t>

         <t>Functional Specification:
         <list style='empty'>



Livingood, et al.        Expires August 28, 2006               [Page 10]

Internet-Draft        BCP Enumservice Registrations             Feb 2006


           <t>This Enumservice indicates that the resource identified is
           a foobar ...
           </t>
         </list>
         </t>

         <t>Security Considerations: see <xref target='sec'/></t>

         <t>Intended Usage: COMMON</t>

         <t>Author(s): MyName MySurname (see "Author's Address" section
         for contact details)</t>

       </section>

       <section anchor='examples' title='Examples'>

         <t>An example ENUM record referencing to "foo" could look like:

         <list style='empty'>
           <vspace blankLines='1'/>

           <t>$ORIGIN 0.9.8.7.6.5.4.3.2.1.4.e164.arpa.
           <vspace blankLines='0'/>
           @ IN NAPTR 100 10 "u" "E2U+foo:bar" "!^.*$!bar://example.com/!" .
           </t>

           <t>...
           </t>

         </list>

         </t>
       </section>

       <section anchor='impl' title='Implementation Recommendations'>

         <t>...
         </t>

       </section>

      <section anchor='sec' title='Security Considerations'>

         <t>Since ENUM uses DNS - a publicly available database - any
         information contained in records provisioned in ENUM domains
         must be considered public as well. Even after revoking the DNS
         entry and removing the refered resource, copies of the



Livingood, et al.        Expires August 28, 2006               [Page 11]

Internet-Draft        BCP Enumservice Registrations             Feb 2006


         information could still be available.
         </t>

         <t>Information published in ENUM records could reveal
         associations between E.164 numbers and their owners -
         especially if records contain personal identifiers or domain
         names for which ownership information can easily be obtained.
         </t>

         <t>...
         </t>

       </section>

       <section anchor='iana' title='IANA Considerations'>

         <t>This memo requests registration of the "foo" Enumservice with
         the subtype "bar" according to the definitions in this
         document and <xref target='RFC3761'>RFC3761</xref>.
         </t>

         <t>...
         </t>

       </section>

     </middle>

     <back>

       <references title='Normative References'>

         <?rfc include="reference.RFC.2119" ?>
         <?rfc include="reference.RFC.3761" ?>
         <?rfc include="reference.RFC.1035" ?>

       </references>

       <references title='Non-Normative References'>

         <reference anchor='refs.E164'>
           <front>
             <title abbrev='E.164'>The international public
                    telecommunication numbering plan</title>
             <author initials='' surname='' fullname=''>
               <organization abbrev='ITU-T'>ITU-T</organization>
             </author>
             <date month='May' year='1997'/>



Livingood, et al.        Expires August 28, 2006               [Page 12]

Internet-Draft        BCP Enumservice Registrations             Feb 2006


           </front>
           <seriesInfo name='Recommendation' value='E.164'/>
         </reference>

       </references>

     </back>

   </rfc>


   Figure 1







































Livingood, et al.        Expires August 28, 2006               [Page 13]

Internet-Draft        BCP Enumservice Registrations             Feb 2006


Authors' Addresses

   Jason Livingood
   Comcast Cable Communications
   1500 Market Street
   Philadelphia, PA 19102
   USA

   Phone: +1-215-981-7813
   Email: jason_livingood@cable.comcast.com
   URI:   http://www.comcast.com/


   Bernie Hoeneisen
   Switch
   Neumuehlequai 6
   CH-8001 Zuerich
   Switzerland

   Phone: +41 44 268 1515
   Email: hoeneisen@switch.ch, b.hoeneisen@ieee.org
   URI:   http://www.switch.ch/


   Alexander Mayrhofer
   enum.at GmbH
   Karlsplatz 1/9
   Wien  A-1010
   Austria

   Phone: +43 1 5056416 34
   Email: alexander.mayrhofer@enum.at
   URI:   http://www.enum.at/


















Livingood, et al.        Expires August 28, 2006               [Page 14]

Internet-Draft        BCP Enumservice Registrations             Feb 2006


Intellectual Property Statement

   The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
   Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
   pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
   this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
   might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
   made any independent effort to identify any such rights.  Information
   on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
   found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
   assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
   attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
   such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
   specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
   http://www.ietf.org/ipr.

   The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
   copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
   rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
   this standard.  Please address the information to the IETF at
   ietf-ipr@ietf.org.


Disclaimer of Validity

   This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
   "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
   OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET
   ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
   INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE
   INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
   WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.


Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).  This document is subject
   to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and
   except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights.


Acknowledgment

   Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
   Internet Society.




Livingood, et al.        Expires August 28, 2006               [Page 15]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.109, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/