[Docs] [txt|pdf|xml|html] [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                            B. Hoeneisen
Working Group                                                     SWITCH
Internet-Draft                                              A. Mayrhofer
Intended status: Best Current                                    enum.at
Practice                                                    J. Livingood
Expires: May 17, 2008                                            Comcast
                                                            Nov 14, 2007


       Guide and Template for IANA Registrations of Enumservices
                 draft-ietf-enum-enumservices-guide-06

Status of this Memo

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

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

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

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

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

   This Internet-Draft will expire on May 17, 2008.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).

Abstract

   This document provides a guide to and template for the creation of
   new IANA registrations of ENUM (E.164 Number Mapping) services.  It
   is also to be used for updates of existing IANA registrations.





Hoeneisen, et al.         Expires May 17, 2008                  [Page 1]

Internet-Draft        BCP Enumservice Registrations             Nov 2007


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4

   2.  Terminology  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4

   3.  Enumservice Creation Cookbook  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     3.1.  General Enumservice Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     3.2.  Classification, Name, Type and Subtype . . . . . . . . . .  5
       3.2.1.  Choosing a "name" string . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
       3.2.2.  Protocol-based Enumservices Class  . . . . . . . . . .  5
       3.2.3.  Application-based Enumservices . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
       3.2.4.  Data/Format Enumservice class  . . . . . . . . . . . .  8

   4.  Required Sections and Information  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
     4.1.  Introduction (MANDATORY) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
     4.2.  ENUM Service Registration (MANDATORY)  . . . . . . . . . .  9
     4.3.  Examples (MANDATORY) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
     4.4.  Implementation Recommendations / Notes (OPTIONAL)  . . . . 11
     4.5.  Security Considerations (MANDATORY)  . . . . . . . . . . . 11
     4.6.  IANA Considerations (MANDATORY)  . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
     4.7.  DNS Considerations (OPTIONAL)  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
     4.8.  Other Sections (OPTIONAL)  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

   5.  The Process of Registering New Enumservices  . . . . . . . . . 12
     5.1.  Step 1: Read This Document In Detail . . . . . . . . . . . 15
     5.2.  Step 2: Submit An Internet-Draft . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
     5.3.  Step 3: Request Comments from the IETF Community . . . . . 15
       5.3.1.  Outcome 1: No Changes Needed . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
       5.3.2.  Outcome 2: Changes, but no Further Comments
               Requested  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
       5.3.3.  Outcome 3: Changes and Further Comments Requested  . . 16
     5.4.  Step 4: Request Expert Review  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
       5.4.1.  Outcome 1: Experts Approve Enumservice . . . . . . . . 16
       5.4.2.  Outcome 2: Experts Raise Issues, Changes Required  . . 16
       5.4.3.  Outcome 3: Experts Reject Enumservice  . . . . . . . . 16
     5.5.  Step 5: Submit for Publication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

   6.  The Enumservice Expert Selection Process . . . . . . . . . . . 17

   7.  Enumservice Expert Reviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

   8.  Appeals against Expert Review Decisions  . . . . . . . . . . . 18

   9.  Revision of Pre-Existing Enumservice RFCs  . . . . . . . . . . 18

   10. Extension of Existing Enumservice RFCs . . . . . . . . . . . . 18




Hoeneisen, et al.         Expires May 17, 2008                  [Page 2]

Internet-Draft        BCP Enumservice Registrations             Nov 2007


   11. Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
     11.1. Considerations regarding this Document . . . . . . . . . . 18
     11.2. Enumservice Security Considerations Guideline  . . . . . . 18

   12. IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

   13. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

   14. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
     14.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
     14.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

   Appendix A.  XML2RFC Template for Enumservice Registration . . . . 20

   Appendix B.  Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

   Appendix C.  Open Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
   Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 29































Hoeneisen, et al.         Expires May 17, 2008                  [Page 3]

Internet-Draft        BCP Enumservice Registrations             Nov 2007


1.  Introduction

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

   This document also aims at providing a registration process which is
   more detached from the existance of the ENUM working group.

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


2.  Terminology

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


3.  Enumservice Creation Cookbook

3.1.  General Enumservice Considerations

   ENUM is an extremely flexible identifier mapping mechanism, using
   E.164 (phone) numbers as input identifiers, and returning URIs as
   output identifiers.  Because of this flexibility, almost every use
   case for ENUM could be implemented in several ways.  Because of the
   huge size of the Enumservice identifier namespace (up to 32
   alphanumeric characters for type and subtype field each), it is very
   tempting to register a new Enumservice for each new use case.
   However, this would obviously reduce interopability, and increase
   confusion among implementors.  Also, the space in the protocol on
   which ENUM is based on (namely DNS packets) is rather scarce compared
   to the huge identifier space that Enumservice typing provides.

   Generally, before commencing work on a new Enumservice registration,
   the following should be considered:



Hoeneisen, et al.         Expires May 17, 2008                  [Page 4]

Internet-Draft        BCP Enumservice Registrations             Nov 2007


   o  Is there an existing Enumservice which could fulfill the desired
      functionality without overloading it?  Check the IANA Enumservice
      registrations on <http://www.iana.org/assignments/enum-services>.

   o  Is there work in progress on a similar Enumservice?  Check the
      <enum@ietf.org> mailing list archives on
      <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/enum/index.html>, and the
      Internet-Drafts Archive on <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/enum/>.
   o  Section 3.2 provides three general categories for Enumservice
      classification.  In some cases, there might be several options for
      designing an Enumservice.  For example, a mapping service using
      HTTP could be considered a "protocol type" Enumservice (using HTTP
      as the protocol), while it could also be viewed as an "application
      type" Enumservice, with the application being access to maps.  In
      such a case where several options are available, defining use
      cases before commencing work on the Enumservice itself might be
      useful before making a decision on whether the "protocol" or the
      "application" aspect of the Enumservice is more important.

3.2.  Classification, Name, Type and Subtype

   Because of its flexibility, Enumservices can be and are used in a lot
   of different ways.  This section contains a classification of
   Enumservices, and provides guidance for choosing suitable 'type' and
   'subtype' strings for each individual Enumservice class.  The choice
   of a suitable 'name' is independent of the classification.

3.2.1.  Choosing a "name" string

   Advice for choosing a proper 'name' string is indepent of the
   classificaton of the Enumservice.

   Generally, the 'name' string used for registering an Enumservice
   SHOULD give a clear indication of what the Enumservice is about.  The
   'name' has no technical significance in the processing of the NAPTR
   (it doesn't even appear in resource record instances of the
   Enumservice).  However, it is likely to be used for labeling the
   Enumservice to end users.

   Suitable 'names' are concise, distinctive, and clearly related to the
   underlying service that a client is going to interact with.

3.2.2.  Protocol-based Enumservices Class

   Such an Enumservice indicates that an interaction using the named
   protocol will result for use of this NAPTR.  The expected behavior of
   a system using this Enumservice MUST be clear from the protocol.




Hoeneisen, et al.         Expires May 17, 2008                  [Page 5]

Internet-Draft        BCP Enumservice Registrations             Nov 2007


   A good indication that an Enumservice belongs to this class is the
   fact that a client does not need to understand the actual application
   to make use of an instance of this Enumservice.

3.2.2.1.  Protocol-based Enumservice "type" strings

   A protocol-based Enumservice SHOULD use the name of the protocol (or
   the "base" URI scheme, where there are also secure variants) as its
   'type' name.

3.2.2.2.  Protocol-based Enumservice "subtype" strings

   Where there is a single URI scheme associated with this protocol,
   then the Enumservice SHOULD NOT use a subtype.

   Where a protocol is associated with a number of different URI
   schemes, the registration SHOULD define which of these is the default
   ("base") URI scheme, and register the empty subtype for use with this
   default scheme only.  The only exception to this is the case where a
   secure variant of the "base" URI scheme exists.  Such an URI scheme
   MAY also be used with the empty subtype string.

   The Enumservice registration SHOULD define subtypes for each of the
   non-default URI schemes with which it can be associated.  The use of
   the URI schema name as subtype string is RECOMMENDED.

   Where a NAPTR includes the default URI scheme, the Enumservice
   without a subtype SHOULD be used.  Where a non-default scheme is
   used, the Enumservice variant with type and respective sub-type
   SHOULD be used.

3.2.3.  Application-based Enumservices

   Application-based Enumservices are used when the kind of service
   intended is not fully defined by a protocol specification.  There are
   three cases here:
   o  Common Application Enumservice:

      The application reflects a kind of interaction that can be
      realized by different protocols, but where the intent of the
      publisher is the same.  From a user's perspective, there is a
      common kind of interaction - how that interaction is implemented
      is not important.  The Enumservice registration MUST describe the
      interaction and expected behavior in enough detail that an
      implementation can decide if this activity is one in which it can
      engage.  However, it is RECOMMENDED that the Enumservice is
      defined in a way that will allow others to use it at a later date.
      An Enumservice that defines a generalized application is preferred



Hoeneisen, et al.         Expires May 17, 2008                  [Page 6]

Internet-Draft        BCP Enumservice Registrations             Nov 2007


      to one that has narrow use.

      An example of this flavors of Enumservice is email.  Whilst this
      might appear to be a "pure" protocol scheme, it is not.  The URI
      scheme is mailto:, and does not identify the protocol used by the
      sender or the recipient to offer or retrieve emails.

      Another example is sms, where the presence of such an Enumservice
      indicates that the publishing entity is capable of engaging in
      sending or receiving a message according to the Short Messaging
      Service specifications.  The underlying protocol used and the URI-
      scheme for the addressable end point can differ, but the "user
      visible" interaction of sending and receiving an SMS is similar.

   o  Subset Enumservice:

      The application interaction reflects a subset of the interactions
      possible by use of a protocol.  Use of this Enumservice indicates
      that some options available by use of the protocol will not be
      accepted or are not possible in this case.  Any such Enumservice
      registration MUST define the options available by use of this
      NAPTR in enough detail that an implementation can decide whether
      or not it can use this Enumservice.  Examples of this kind of
      Enumservice are voice:tel and fax:tel.  In both cases the URI
      holds a telephone number.  However, the essential feature of these
      Enumservices is that the telephone number is capable of receiving
      a voice call or of receiving a Facsimile transmission,
      respectively.  These form subsets of the interactions capable of
      using the telephone number, and so have their own Enumservices.
      These allow an end point to decide if it has the appropriate
      capability of engaging in the advertised user service (a voice
      call or sending a fax) rather than just being capable of making a
      connection to such a destination address.  This is especially
      important where there is no underlying mechanism within the
      protocol to negotiate a different kind of user interaction.
   o  Ancillary Application Enumservice

      Another variant on this is the Ancillary Application.  This is one
      in which further processing (potentially using a number of
      different protocols or methods) is the intended result of using
      this Enumservice.  An example of this kind of application is the
      PSTN:tel Enumservice.  This indicates that the NAPTR holds Number
      Portability data.  It implies that the client should engage in
      number portability processing using the associated URI.  Note that
      this Enumservice usually does not itself define the kind of
      interaction available using the associated URI.  That application
      is negotiated with some other "out of band" means (either through
      prior negotiation, or explicitly through the number portability



Hoeneisen, et al.         Expires May 17, 2008                  [Page 7]

Internet-Draft        BCP Enumservice Registrations             Nov 2007


      process, or through negotiation following the selection of the
      final destination address).

3.2.3.1.  Application-based Enumservice "type" strings

   It is RECOMMENDED that Application-class Enumservices use the well
   known name of the abstract application as "type" name.

3.2.3.2.  Application-based Enumservice "subtype" strings

   It is RECOMMENDED to use the URI scheme(s) that the application uses
   as "subtype" names.  Subtype names SHOULD be shared only between URI
   schemes that correspond to the "base" URI scheme of a protocol and
   the secure variant of the same protocol.

   If there is only one URI scheme used for the application, the empty
   "subtype" string MAY be used.

3.2.4.  Data/Format Enumservice class

   "Data Format" Enumservices typically refer to a specific data type or
   format, which may be addressed using one or more URI schemes and
   protocols.  It is RECOMMENDED to use a well known name of the data
   type / format as the Enumservice 'type'.  An example of such an
   Enumservice is 'vpim' (RFC 4238) [7] and 'vCard' (RFC 4969) [8] (work
   in progress).

3.2.4.1.  Data/Format-based Enumservice "type" strings

   It is RECOMMENDED to use the well known name of the data/format as
   the 'type' name.

3.2.4.2.  Data/Format based Enumservice "subtype" strings

   It is RECOMMENDED to use the URI schemes used to access the service
   as 'subtype' name.  Subtype names SHOULD be shared only between URI
   schemes that correspond to the "base" URI scheme of a protocol and
   its secure variant.

   If there is only one URI scheme foreseen to access the data/format,
   the empty "subtype" string MAY be used.


4.  Required Sections and Information

   In addition to the typical sections required for an RFC as outlined
   in RFC 2223bis [4] (Instructions to RFC Authors), there are several
   sections which MUST appear in an IANA Registration for an



Hoeneisen, et al.         Expires May 17, 2008                  [Page 8]

Internet-Draft        BCP Enumservice Registrations             Nov 2007


   Enumservice.  These sections are, as follows, and SHOULD be in the
   same order.

   Appendix A contains a template which can be used to create Internet
   Drafts and RFC by means described on <http://xml.resource.org/>.
   This template contains a prototype for most of these sections.

4.1.  Introduction (MANDATORY)

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

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

4.2.  ENUM Service Registration (MANDATORY)

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

   Enumservice Class:

      This section contains the class of the Enumservice as defined in
      Section 3.2.

      e.g.  "Application-based Enumservice"

   Enumservice Name:

      A short word or stub sentence describing this Enumservice.  Often
      this is equivalent to the Enumservice Type (see below), however,
      capitalization may be different from it.

      e.g.  "Foo"

   Enumservice Type:

      The type of the Enumservice.  Often this is equivalent to the
      Enumservice Name (see above).






Hoeneisen, et al.         Expires May 17, 2008                  [Page 9]

Internet-Draft        BCP Enumservice Registrations             Nov 2007


      e.g. "foo"


   Enumservice Subtype:

      The Subtype of the Enumservice.

      e.g. "bar"

      Many Enumservices do not require a subtype; use "N/A" in this
      case.

   URI Schemes:

      The URI Schemes, which are used with the Enumservice.

      e.g. "bar:", "sbar:"

      A URI scheme often matches the subtype (see above).  Multiple URI
      schemes can be listed here if they are used for the same subtype,
      and provide almost identical functionality.
      Note well that a client cannot choose a specific ENUM record in a
      record set based on the URI scheme - the selection is only based
      on 'type' and 'subtype'.

   Functional Specification:

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

   Security Considerations:

      An internal reference to the 'Security Considerations' section of
      a given registration document.

      e.g. "see Section 10"

   Intended Usage:

      One of "COMMON", "LIMITED USE" or "OBSOLETE", as defined in RFC
      3761 [3]

      e.g.  "COMMON"

   Author(s):





Hoeneisen, et al.         Expires May 17, 2008                 [Page 10]

Internet-Draft        BCP Enumservice Registrations             Nov 2007


      The author(s) of the Enumservice registration.

      e.g.  John Doe <john.doe@example.com>

   Any other information the author(s) deem(s) interesting:

      e.g.  None

4.3.  Examples (MANDATORY)

   This section MUST show one or more example(s) of the Enumservice
   registration, for illustrative purposes.  The example(s) shall in no
   way limit the various forms that a given Enumservice may take, and
   this should be noted at the beginning of this section of the
   document.  The example(s) MUST show the specific formatting of the
   intended NAPTRs RFC 3403 [5], including one or more NAPTR example(s),
   AND a brief textual description, consisting of one or more sentences
   written in plain English, explaining the various parts or attributes
   of the record(s).

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

   e.g.

   $ORIGIN 9.7.8.0.9.7.8.9.0.9.4.4.e164.arpa.
   @ IN NAPTR 100 10 "u" "E2U+foo:bar" "!^.*$!bar://example.com/!" .

4.4.  Implementation Recommendations / Notes (OPTIONAL)

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

4.5.  Security Considerations (MANDATORY)

   A section explaining any potential security threats that are unique
   to the given registration MUST be included.  This MUST also include
   any information about access to Personally Identifiable Information
   (PII).

   However, this section is not intended as a general security Best
   Current Practices (BCP) document and therefore it should not include
   general and obvious security recommendations, such as securing
   servers with strong password authentication.




Hoeneisen, et al.         Expires May 17, 2008                 [Page 11]

Internet-Draft        BCP Enumservice Registrations             Nov 2007


4.6.  IANA Considerations (MANDATORY)

   Describe the task IANA needs to fulfill processing the Enumservice
   registration document.

   e.g.  This memo requests registration of the "foo" Enumservice with
   the subtype "bar" according to the definitions in this document and
   RFC 3761 [3].

4.7.  DNS Considerations (OPTIONAL)

   In case the inclusion of protocols and URI schemes into ENUM
   specifically introduces new DNS issues, those MUST be described
   within this section.

   Such DNS issues include, but are not limited to:

   o  Assumptions about the namespace below the owner of the respective
      NAPTR RRSet.

   o  Demand to use DNS wildcards.

   o  Incompatibility with DNS wildcards.

   o  presence or absence of the respective NAPTR RRSet at particular
      levels in the DNS hierarchy (e.g. only for 'full' E.164 numbers,
      or number blocks only).

   o  use of any RRs (especially non-NAPTR) within or beyond the
      e164.arpa namespace other than those needed to resolve the domain
      names that appear in the 'replacement' URI.

   Rationale: some ENUM services try to exploit side effects of the DNS
   that need to be explicitly discussed.

4.8.  Other Sections (OPTIONAL)

   Other sections, beyond those required by the IETF and/or IANA, which
   are cited or otherwise referenced here, MAY be included in an
   Enumservice registration.  These sections may relate to the specifics
   of the intended usage of the Enumservice registration and associated
   technical, operational, or administrative concerns.


5.  The Process of Registering New Enumservices

   This section describes the process by which someone shall submit a
   new Enumservice for review and comment, how such proposed



Hoeneisen, et al.         Expires May 17, 2008                 [Page 12]

Internet-Draft        BCP Enumservice Registrations             Nov 2007


   Enumservices shall be reviewed, and how they shall be published.

   The following Figure 1 depicts an overview on the ENUM service
   registration process:















































Hoeneisen, et al.         Expires May 17, 2008                 [Page 13]

Internet-Draft        BCP Enumservice Registrations             Nov 2007


                        +--------------------+
                        |       Step 1:      |
                        | Read this document |
                        +--------------------+
                                  V
                       +----------------------+
                       |          Step 2:     |
                       | Write I-D and submit |
                       +----------------------+
                                  V
               +--------------------------------------+
               |                Step 3:               |<------+- - - -+
               | Announce I-D to and solicit feedback |       |       |
               +--------------------------------------+       |
                                  |                           |       |
                                  V                           |
                                 .^.                          |       |
                               .     .                        |
   +------------+            .  Feed-  .               +------------+ |
   | Update I-D |<---------<    back     >------------>| Update I-D |
   | and submit |  non-sub-  . results .   substantial | and submit | |
   +------------+  stantial    . in: .     changes     +------------+
         |         changes       . .       needed                     |
         |         needed         Y
         |                        | no changes needed                 |
         |                        V
         |             +-----------------------+                      |
         +------------>|       Step 4:         |<-------------+
                       | Request Expert Review |              |       |
                       +-----------------------+              |
                                  |                           |       |
                                  V                           |
                                 .^.                          |       |
                               .     .                        |
    +---------+              .  Expert .               +------------+ |
    | Appeal- |<-----------<    review   >------------>| Update I-D |-+
    | process |  rejection   . results .   issues      | and submit |
    +---------+  by expert(s)  . in: .     raised by   +------------+
                                 . .       expert(s)
                                  Y
                                  | approval by expert(s)
                                  V
                  +-----------------------------+
                  |            Step 5:          |
                  | Submit I-D for publication |
                  +-----------------------------+

                                 Figure 1



Hoeneisen, et al.         Expires May 17, 2008                 [Page 14]

Internet-Draft        BCP Enumservice Registrations             Nov 2007


5.1.  Step 1: Read This Document In Detail

   This document describes all of the necessary sections required and
   recommended, makes suggestions on content, and provides sample XML.

5.2.  Step 2: Submit An Internet-Draft

   An Internet-Draft shall be submitted in accordance with RFC 2026 [2]
   and RFC 2223bis [4], as well as RFC 3761 [3], and any other documents
   applicable to the Internet-Draft process.  This Internet-Draft may be
   submitted as an "Individual Submission".

5.3.  Step 3: Request Comments from the IETF Community

   After the Internet-Draft has been published, the author(s) shall send
   an email to <enum@ietf.org>, in which comments on the Internet-Draft
   are requested.

   Suggested Format of Announcement:

      To: enum@ietf.org
      Subject: Comments on <I-D Name Here>

      The author is requesting comments and feedback from the ENUM and
      IETF communities on the I-D listed below.

      The I-D is available at: <INSERT URL to I-D ON IETF WEB SITE HERE>

      Abstract of the I-D:
      <INSERT I-D ABSTRACT HERE>

   The author(s) should allow a reasonable period of time to elapse,
   such as two to four weeks, in order to collect any feedback.  The
   author(s) shall then consider whether or not to take any of those
   comments into account, by making changes to the Internet-Draft and
   submitting a revision to the I-D editor, or otherwise proceeding.
   The following outcomes are the ways the author(s) shall proceed, and
   it is up to the authors' judgement as to which one to choose.

5.3.1.  Outcome 1: No Changes Needed

   No changes to the draft are made, and the author(s) proceed(s) to
   Step 4 below.

   This outcome is recommended when the feedback received does not lead
   to a new revision of the Internet-Draft.





Hoeneisen, et al.         Expires May 17, 2008                 [Page 15]

Internet-Draft        BCP Enumservice Registrations             Nov 2007


5.3.2.  Outcome 2: Changes, but no Further Comments Requested

   The author(s) update(s) the Internet-Draft and is/are confident that
   all issues are resolved and do not require further discussion.  The
   author(s) proceed(s) to Step 4 below.

   This outcome is recommended when minor objections have been raised,
   or minor changes have been suggested.

5.3.3.  Outcome 3: Changes and Further Comments Requested

   The author(s) update(s) the Internet-Draft, and proceed(s) to Step 3
   above, which involves sending another email to <enum@ietf.org> to
   request additional comments for the updated version.

   This outcome is recommended when substantial objections have been
   raised, or substantial changes have been suggested.

5.4.  Step 4: Request Expert Review

   In this step, the author(s) send(s) an email to the ENUM expert
   review panel at <enumservice-expert-review@ietf.org>.  The
   Enumservice Expert Review Process shall then be followed to
   conclusion.  A later section of this document describes how expert
   reviewers are selected (Section 6) and how the process of expert
   reviews takes place Section 7.

5.4.1.  Outcome 1: Experts Approve Enumservice

   In this case, the proposed Enumservice has been endorsed and approved
   by the experts, and the Internet-Draft proceeds to Step 5 below.

5.4.2.  Outcome 2: Experts Raise Issues, Changes Required

   The experts raise issues that prevent approval of the proposed
   Enumservice.  If they believe that, with changes, the proposed
   Enumservice will be approved, then they may recommend that the
   author(s) make changes and submit the draft again.  Depending on the
   nature of the changes the Internet-Draft proceeds either to Step 4 or
   to Step 3 above, which both involve update of the Internet-Draft and
   request additional review and/or comments for the updated version.

5.4.3.  Outcome 3: Experts Reject Enumservice

   The experts raise issues that result in rejection of the proposed
   Enumservice.  If they believe that, even with changes, the proposed
   Enumservice will not be approved, the process normally terminates.
   However, if the author(s) disagrees(s) with this judgement, he has



Hoeneisen, et al.         Expires May 17, 2008                 [Page 16]

Internet-Draft        BCP Enumservice Registrations             Nov 2007


   the possibility to to appeal.  In that case, the appeal process is
   initiated according to Section 8.

5.5.  Step 5: Submit for Publication

   The Internet-Draft is submitted to be published as an RFC.  The IETF
   publication process includes IANA actions such as adding the service
   to the IANA Enumservice registry.  According to RFC 3761 [3] an
   Enumservice description can be published as either a Standards Track,
   Best Current Practice (BCP), or Experimental RFC.


6.  The Enumservice Expert Selection Process

   According to Section 3.2 of [6], experts are appointed by the IESG
   upon recommendation by the RAI Area Directors.  The RAI area
   directors are responsible that there is always a sufficient amount of
   experts available.


7.  Enumservice Expert Reviews

   Generally, the expert review process of an Enumservice MUST follow
   the guidelines documented in section 3.3 of [6].

   The expert SHOULD evaluate the criteria as set out in the draft
   mentioned above, as well as consider the following:
   o  Verify conformance with the ENUM specification (RFC 3761).
   o  Verify that the requirements set in this document (Section 4) are
      met.  This includes check for completeness and whether all the
      aspects described in Section 4 are sufficiently addressed.
   o  If a use case is given by the author of the proposal (which is
      RECOMMENDED), the expert SHOULD verify whether the proposed
      Enumservice does actually fulfill the use case, and whether the
      use case could be covered by an already existing Enumservice.
   o  Verify that the Enumservice proposed cannot be confused with
      identical (or similar) other Enumservices already registered.
   o  If the Enumservice is classified according to Section 3.2, the
      expert MUST verify that the principles of the class in question
      are followed.
   o  In case the Enumservice is not classified, the expert MUST verify
      whether a convincing reason for the deviation is documented in the
      registration proposal.
   o  Investigate whether the proposed Enumservice has any negative side
      effects on existing clients and infrastructure.
   o  If the output of processing an Enumservice may be used for input
      to more ENUM processing (especially services returning 'tel'
      URIs), the expert SHOULD verify that the author has adequately



Hoeneisen, et al.         Expires May 17, 2008                 [Page 17]

Internet-Draft        BCP Enumservice Registrations             Nov 2007


      addressed the issue of potential query loops.


8.  Appeals against Expert Review Decisions

   Appeals follow the normal IETF appeal process as described in section
   7 of [6] and section 6.5 of RFC 2026 [2]


9.  Revision of Pre-Existing Enumservice RFCs

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


10.  Extension of Existing Enumservice RFCs

   There are cases, where it is more sensible to extend an existing
   Enumservice registrations rather than proposing a new one.  Such
   cases include adding a new subtype to an existing type.  Depending on
   the nature of the extension, the original registration document needs
   to be extended (updates) or replaced (obsoletes) [4].


11.  Security Considerations

11.1.  Considerations regarding this Document

   Since this document does not introduce any technology or protocol,
   there are no security issues to be considered for this memo itself.

11.2.  Enumservice Security Considerations Guideline

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

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




Hoeneisen, et al.         Expires May 17, 2008                 [Page 18]

Internet-Draft        BCP Enumservice Registrations             Nov 2007


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


12.  IANA Considerations

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

   Note: Section 4.2 is just an example of an Enumservice registration.
   The Enumservice "foo" outlined there MUST NOT be registered by IANA
   unless this memo is to be published on April 1st.


13.  Acknowledgements

   Lawrence Conroy provided extensive text for the Enumservice
   Classification section.  The authors also wish to thank Peter Koch
   for his contribution to this document.


14.  References

14.1.  Normative References

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

   [2]  Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 3",
        BCP 9, RFC 2026, October 1996.

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

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

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

   [6]  Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an IANA



Hoeneisen, et al.         Expires May 17, 2008                 [Page 19]

Internet-Draft        BCP Enumservice Registrations             Nov 2007


        Considerations Section in RFCs",
        draft-narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis-08 (work in
        progress), October 2007.

14.2.  Informative References

   [7]  Vaudreuil, G., "Voice Message Routing Service", RFC 4238,
        October 2005.

   [8]  Mayrhofer, A., "IANA Registration for vCard Enumservice",
        RFC 4969, August 2007.


Appendix A.  XML2RFC Template for Enumservice Registration


 <?xml version='1.0' ?>
 <!DOCTYPE rfc SYSTEM 'rfc2629.dtd'>
 <rfc ipr='full3978' docName='draft-mysurname-enum-foo-service-00' >
 <?rfc toc='yes' ?>
 <?rfc tocompact='no' ?>
 <?rfc compact='yes' ?>
 <?rfc subcompact='yes' ?>

 <front>

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

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




Hoeneisen, et al.         Expires May 17, 2008                 [Page 20]

Internet-Draft        BCP Enumservice Registrations             Nov 2007


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

   <abstract>

     <t>This memo registers the Enumservice "foo" with subtype "bar"
        using the URI scheme "bar".
        This Enumservice is to be used to refer from an ENUM domain
        name to the foobar of the entity using the corresponding
        E.164 number.
     </t>

     <t>A Client can use information gathered from a record using
     this Enumservice to foo the bar.
     </t>

   </abstract>

 </front>


 <middle>

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

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

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

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

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



Hoeneisen, et al.         Expires May 17, 2008                 [Page 21]

Internet-Draft        BCP Enumservice Registrations             Nov 2007


     </t>

   </section>

   <section anchor='terminology' title='Terminology'>

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

   </section>

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

     <t>Enumservice Class: "Barfoo-based Enumservice"</t>

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

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

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

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

     <t>Functional Specification:

       <list style='empty'>

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

       </list>

     </t>

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

     <t>Intended Usage: COMMON</t>

     <t>Author(s): MyName MySurname, &lt;myEmail&gt;</t>

     <t>Any other information the author(s) deem(s) interesting:
        None
     </t>




Hoeneisen, et al.         Expires May 17, 2008                 [Page 22]

Internet-Draft        BCP Enumservice Registrations             Nov 2007


   </section>

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

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

     <list style='empty'>

       <vspace blankLines='1'/>

       <t>$ORIGIN 9.7.8.0.9.7.8.9.0.9.4.4.e164.arpa.

          <vspace blankLines='0'/>

       @ IN NAPTR 50 10 "u" "E2U+foo:bar" "!^.*$!bar://example.com/!" .

       </t>

       <t>...
       </t>

     </list>

     </t>
   </section>

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

     <t>Implementers should consider that fooing the bar...
     </t>

   </section>

   <section anchor='sec' title='Security Considerations'>
         <t>As with any Enumservice, the security considerations of ENUM
         itself (Section 6 of RFC 3761) apply.
         </t>
         <section anchor='secrecord' title='The ENUM Record Itself'>
         <t>Since ENUM uses DNS - a publicly available database -
         any information contained in records provisioned in ENUM
         domains must be considered public as well. Even after revoking
         the DNS entry and removing the referred resource, copies of the
         information could still be available. </t>
         <t>
         Information published in ENUM records could reveal associations
         between E.164 numbers and their owners - especially if URIs
         contain personal identifiers or domain names for which
         ownership information can be obtained easily.



Hoeneisen, et al.         Expires May 17, 2008                 [Page 23]

Internet-Draft        BCP Enumservice Registrations             Nov 2007


         For example, the following URI makes it easy to guess
         the owner of an E.164 number as well as his location and
         association by just examining the result from the ENUM lookup:
         <vspace blankLines='1'/>
         <list>
         <t>http://sandiego.company.example.com/joe-william-user.vcf</t>
         </list>
         </t>
         <t>However, it is important to note that the ENUM record itself
         does not need to contain any personal information. It just
         points to a location where access to personal information could
         be granted.  For example, the following URI only reveals the
         service provider hosting the vCard (who probably even provides
         anonymous hosting):
         <vspace blankLines='1'/>
         <list>
           <t>http://anonhoster.example.org/file_adfa001.vcf</t>
         </list>
         </t>
         <t>ENUM records pointing
         to third party resources can easily be provisioned on purpose
         by the ENUM domain owner - so any assumption
         about the association between a number and an entity could
         therefore be completely bogus unless some kind of identity
         verification is in place. This verification is out of scope for
         this memo.</t>
         </section>
         <section anchor='secresource' title='The Resource Identified'>
         <t>
         Users MUST therefore carefully consider information they
         provide in the resource identified by the
         ENUM record as well as in the record itself.
         Considerations could include serving information only to
         entities of the user's choice and/or limiting the comprehension
         of the information provided based on the identity of the
         requester.</t>
         <t>(modify as appropriate - more about the specific
         resource here)</t>
   </section>

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

     <t>This memo requests registration of the "foo" Enumservice
        with the subtype "bar" according to the template in
        <xref section='reg'> of this
        document and <xref target='RFC3761'>RFC 3761</xref>.
     </t>




Hoeneisen, et al.         Expires May 17, 2008                 [Page 24]

Internet-Draft        BCP Enumservice Registrations             Nov 2007


     <t>...
     </t>

   </section>

   <section anchor='dns' title='DNS Considerations'>

     <t>This Enumservices does not introduce any
     new considerations for the DNS.
     </t>

     <t>...
     </t>

   </section>

 </middle>

 <back>

   <references title='Normative References'>

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

   </references>

   <references title='Informative References'>

     <reference anchor='refs.E164'>
       <front>
         <title abbrev='E.164 (02/05)'>The international public
         telecommunication numbering plan</title>
         <author initials='' surname='' fullname=''>
           <organization abbrev='ITU-T'>ITU-T</organization>
         </author>
         <date month='Feb' year='2005'/>
       </front>
       <seriesInfo name='Recommendation' value='E.164 (02/05)'/>
     </reference>

   </references>

 </back>

 </rfc>




Hoeneisen, et al.         Expires May 17, 2008                 [Page 25]

Internet-Draft        BCP Enumservice Registrations             Nov 2007


                                 Figure 2


Appendix B.  Changes

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

   draft-ietf-enum-enumservices-guide-06:
   o  bernie: Moved Terminology section in Template (now after
      Introduction)
   o  bernie: Class is now part of the Enumservice registration and
      template
   o  bernie: Individual Submission realaxed (comment Peter Koch)
   o  bernie: updated vcard Ref (now RFC)

   draft-ietf-enum-enumservices-guide-05:
   o  bernie/alex: added text for sections 'The Enumservice Expert
      Selection Process' and 'The Process for Appealing Expert Review
      Decisions'
   o  bernie: added ASCII-art figure for registration process
   o  bernie: adjusted registration process
   o  jason: proposed registration process

   draft-ietf-enum-enumservices-guide-04:
   o  bernie: added section about Extension of existing Enumservice RFCs
   o  bernie: added open issue about future registration process
   o  bernie: added category (bcp)
   o  bernie: clean up in Security considerations
   o  bernie: editorial stuff (mainly XML issues)

   draft-ietf-enum-enumservices-guide-03:
   o  alex: moved terminology section
   o  alex: removed note asking for feedback
   o  bernie: added DNS consideration section
   o  bernie: added Acknowledgments section
   o  bernie: editorial stuff (nicer formating, fixing too long lines)
   o  alex: added security considerations from vcard draft.

   draft-ietf-enum-enumservices-guide-02:
   o  bernie: replaced numbers in examples by "Drama Numbers"
   o  bernie: moved Change and Open Issues to Appendix.
   o  bernie: major rewrite of section "6.  Required Sections and
      Information" incl. separating explanations and examples.
   o  bernie: removed section 7 (was just a repetition of referencing to
      template)
   o  bernie: extended Appendix with Open Issues.

   draft-ietf-enum-enumservices-guide-01:



Hoeneisen, et al.         Expires May 17, 2008                 [Page 26]

Internet-Draft        BCP Enumservice Registrations             Nov 2007


   o  alex: added Security Considerations section for the doc itself
   o  alex: added IANA Considerations section for the doc itself
   o  alex: added cookbook idea


Appendix C.  Open Issues

   [RFC Editor: This section should be empty before publication]
   o  Clarify the role of the expert(s) and the requirements that apply
      for reviewing Enumservice registrations
   o  Clarify what Process applies after Expert Review (before
      publication)
   o  Check whether alignment with RFC3761bis is needed (e.g.
      Enumservice class)
   o  Clarify IANA impact of this document.
   o  URL for template, so that it can be fetched without header-/
      footer-lines of RFC.


Authors' Addresses

   Bernie Hoeneisen
   SWITCH
   Werdstrasse 2
   CH-8004 Zuerich
   Switzerland

   Phone: +41 44 268 1515
   Email: bernhard.hoeneisen@switch.ch, bernie@ietf.hoeneisen.ch
   URI:   http://www.switch.ch/


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

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










Hoeneisen, et al.         Expires May 17, 2008                 [Page 27]

Internet-Draft        BCP Enumservice Registrations             Nov 2007


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

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










































Hoeneisen, et al.         Expires May 17, 2008                 [Page 28]

Internet-Draft        BCP Enumservice Registrations             Nov 2007


Full Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).

   This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
   contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
   retain all their rights.

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


Intellectual Property

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

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

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


Acknowledgment

   Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF
   Administrative Support Activity (IASA).





Hoeneisen, et al.         Expires May 17, 2008                 [Page 29]


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