[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                            B. Hoeneisen
Working Group                                                     SWITCH
Internet-Draft                                              A. Mayrhofer
Obsoletes: 3761 (if approved)                                    enum.at
Intended status: Standards Track                            J. Livingood
Expires: August 28, 2008                                         Comcast
                                                            Feb 25, 2008


      IANA Registration of Enumservices: Guide, Template and IANA
                             Considerations
                 draft-ietf-enum-enumservices-guide-07

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, 2008.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (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 August 28, 2008                [Page 1]

Internet-Draft      IANA Registration of Enumservices           Feb 2008


   Registration of Enumservices is now handled using the "Expert Review"
   process.  A Registration Document containing the specification of the
   Enumservice is required.  However, contrary to earlier registration
   procedures, said Registration Document does not necessarily need to
   be promoted to RFC status.


Table of Contents

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

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

   3.  Registration Requirements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     3.1.  Functionality Requirement  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     3.2.  Naming Requirement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     3.3.  Security Requirement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
     3.4.  Publication Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7

   4.  Enumservice Creation Cookbook  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
     4.1.  General Enumservice Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
     4.2.  Classification, Name, Type and Subtype . . . . . . . . . .  8
       4.2.1.  Choosing a "name" String . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
       4.2.2.  General Type/Subtype Considerations  . . . . . . . . .  9
       4.2.3.  Protocol-based Enumservices Class  . . . . . . . . . .  9
       4.2.4.  Application-based Enumservices . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
       4.2.5.  Data/Format Enumservice Class  . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
       4.2.6.  Other Enumservice  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

   5.  Required Sections and Information  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
     5.1.  Introduction (MANDATORY) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
     5.2.  ENUM Service Registration (MANDATORY)  . . . . . . . . . . 13
     5.3.  Examples (MANDATORY) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
     5.4.  Implementation Recommendations / Notes (OPTIONAL)  . . . . 16
     5.5.  Security Considerations (MANDATORY)  . . . . . . . . . . . 16
     5.6.  IANA Considerations (MANDATORY)  . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
     5.7.  DNS Considerations (MANDATORY) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
     5.8.  Other Sections (OPTIONAL)  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

   6.  The Process of Registering New Enumservices  . . . . . . . . . 18
     6.1.  Step 1: Read this Document in Detail . . . . . . . . . . . 19
     6.2.  Step 2: Write and Submit Registration Document . . . . . . 19
     6.3.  Step 3: Request Comments from the IETF Community . . . . . 19
       6.3.1.  Outcome 1: No Changes Needed . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
       6.3.2.  Outcome 2: Changes, but no further Comments
               Requested  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
       6.3.3.  Outcome 3: Changes and further Comments Requested  . . 19
     6.4.  Step 4: Submit Registration Document to IANA . . . . . . . 20



Hoeneisen, et al.        Expires August 28, 2008                [Page 2]

Internet-Draft      IANA Registration of Enumservices           Feb 2008


     6.5.  Further Steps  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

   7.  The Enumservice Expert Selection Process . . . . . . . . . . . 20

   8.  Enumservice Expert Reviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

   9.  Appeals against Expert Review Decisions  . . . . . . . . . . . 21

   10. Revision of Pre-Existing Enumservice RFCs  . . . . . . . . . . 21

   11. Extension of Existing Enumservice RFCs . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

   12. Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
     12.1. Considerations regarding this Document . . . . . . . . . . 22
     12.2. Enumservice Security Considerations Guideline  . . . . . . 22

   13. IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
     13.1. Enumservice Registrations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
       13.1.1. IANA Registration Template . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
       13.1.2. Location . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
       13.1.3. Registration Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
       13.1.4. Change Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
       13.1.5. Restrictions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
     13.2. XML2RFC Template . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

   14. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

   15. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
     15.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
     15.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

   Appendix A.  XML2RFC Template for Enumservice Registration . . . . 26

   Appendix B.  Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

   Appendix C.  Open Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
   Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 36












Hoeneisen, et al.        Expires August 28, 2008                [Page 3]

Internet-Draft      IANA Registration of Enumservices           Feb 2008


1.  Introduction

   E.164 Number Mapping (ENUM) [4] provides an identifier mapping
   mechanism to map E.164 numbers [13] to Uniform Resource Identifiers
   (URIs) [8].  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 RFC 3761 [3]).  This
   document obsoletes Section 3 of RFC 3761.

      Note: RFC 3761 [3] is also obsoleted by RFC3761bis [4].

   The new registration processes have been specifically designed to be
   decoupled from the existence of the ENUM working group.  Compared to
   the 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" [7] are now
      sufficient.

   o  The IANA registration template contains new fields, i.e.
      "Enumservice Class" and "Registration Document".

   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



Hoeneisen, et al.        Expires August 28, 2008                [Page 4]

Internet-Draft      IANA Registration of Enumservices           Feb 2008


   document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [1].


3.  Registration Requirements

   As specified in the ABNF found in RFC3761bis [4], an 'Enumservice' is
   made up of 'types' and 'subtypes'.  For any given 'type', the
   allowable 'subtypes' must be specified in the Registration.  (There
   is currently no concept of a registered 'subtype' outside the scope
   of a given 'type'.)  Thus, the registration process uses the 'type'
   as its main key within the IANA Registry.

   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 document those values.  To allow
   interoperability, a complete Registration includes all the 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" [7].

   All Enumservice Registration proposals are expected to conform also
   to various requirements laid out in the following sections.

3.1.  Functionality Requirement

   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 which will have to be transferred into the URI resolution
   process itself.

3.2.  Naming Requirement

   An Enumservice MUST be unique in order to be useful as a selection
   criteria.  Since an Enumservice is made up of a Type and a type-
   dependent Subtype, it is sufficient to require that the 'type' itself
   be unique.  The 'type' MUST be unique, conform to the ABNF specified
   in RFC3761bis [4] and MUST NOT start with the facet "X-" which is
   reserved for experimental or trial use.




Hoeneisen, et al.        Expires August 28, 2008                [Page 5]

Internet-Draft      IANA Registration of Enumservices           Feb 2008


   The Subtype, being dependent on the Type, MUST be unique within a
   given 'type'.  It must conform to the ABNF specified in RFC3761bis
   [4], and MUST NOT start with the facet "X-" which is reserved for
   experimental or trial use.  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.

3.3.  Security Requirement

   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 as possible
   regardless of registration tree.  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 secure or
   completely free of 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.

   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,



Hoeneisen, et al.        Expires August 28, 2008                [Page 6]

Internet-Draft      IANA Registration of Enumservices           Feb 2008


       which in turn require an external confidentiality service.

3.4.  Publication Requirements

   Enumservices Registrations MUST be published according to the
   requirements set in "Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations
   Section in RFCs" [7] for 'Specification Required'.  RFCs fulfill
   these requirements.  Therefore, it is RECOMMENDED proposals be
   published as RFC.

   In case no RFC is published, sufficient information 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" [7] 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, it's 32 alphanumeric characters make it already much larger
   than the entire IPv6 addressing space), exhaustion is not a problem.
   However, the following motivation for management taken from Section 2
   of [7] 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
      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.





Hoeneisen, et al.        Expires August 28, 2008                [Page 7]

Internet-Draft      IANA Registration of Enumservices           Feb 2008


   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 not
      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 reduce
      interoperability.  Also, space within the protocol on which ENUM
      is based on (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,
      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, 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.




Hoeneisen, et al.        Expires August 28, 2008                [Page 8]

Internet-Draft      IANA Registration of Enumservices           Feb 2008


   The Classification of each Enumservice is to be listed in the ENUM
   service 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 expert in his decision.

4.2.1.  Choosing a "name" String

   Advice for choosing a proper 'name' string is independent of the
   classification 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.

4.2.2.  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.  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.

4.2.3.  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 August 28, 2008                [Page 9]

Internet-Draft      IANA Registration of Enumservices           Feb 2008


   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.

   Examples of such Enumservices include XMPP [11] and SIP [12].

4.2.3.1.  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.

4.2.3.2.  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 Subtype SHOULD
   be used.

4.2.4.  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



Hoeneisen, et al.        Expires August 28, 2008               [Page 10]

Internet-Draft      IANA Registration of Enumservices           Feb 2008


      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 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



Hoeneisen, et al.        Expires August 28, 2008               [Page 11]

Internet-Draft      IANA Registration of Enumservices           Feb 2008


      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).

4.2.4.1.  Application-based Enumservice "type" strings

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

4.2.4.2.  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.

4.2.5.  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'.  Examples of such
   Enumservices include 'vpim' (RFC 4238) [9] and 'vCard' (RFC 4969)
   [10].

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

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

4.2.5.2.  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.






Hoeneisen, et al.        Expires August 28, 2008               [Page 12]

Internet-Draft      IANA Registration of Enumservices           Feb 2008


4.2.6.  Other Enumservice

   In case an Enumservice proposal cannot be assigned to any of the
   classes mentioned above, the "Classification" field in the ENUM
   service 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.


5.  Required Sections and Information

   In addition to the typical sections required for an RFC as outlined
   in RFC 2223bis [5] (Instructions to RFC Authors), there are several
   sections which MUST appear in an IANA Registration for an
   Enumservice.  These sections are, as follows, and SHOULD be in the
   same order.

   Appendix A contains an XML2RFC template which can be used to create
   Internet Drafts and RFC 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 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.

5.2.  ENUM Service Registration (MANDATORY)

   This section MUST be included in an Enumservice Registration.  Where
   a given Enumservice Type has multiple Subtypes, there MUST be a
   separate 'ENUM Service Registration' section for each Subtype.  The
   following lists the sections and order of an 'ENUM Service
   Registration' section.


   o  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.



Hoeneisen, et al.        Expires August 28, 2008               [Page 13]

Internet-Draft      IANA Registration of Enumservices           Feb 2008



         e.g.
         "Foo"

   o  Enumservice Class:

      This section contains the Class of the Enumservice as defined in
      Section 4.2.

         e.g.
         Application-based Enumservice (ancillary)

   o  Enumservice Type:

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

   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: Many Enumservices do not require a Subtype; it is
      RECOMMENDED to use "N/A" in this case.

      Note: As stated above, where a given Enumservice Type has multiple
      Subtypes, there MUST be a separate 'ENUM Service 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.





Hoeneisen, et al.        Expires August 28, 2008               [Page 14]

Internet-Draft      IANA Registration of Enumservices           Feb 2008



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

      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 it resolves to.

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

   o  Security Considerations:

      An internal reference to the 'Security Considerations' section of
      a given Registration Document.

         e.g.
         see Section 10

   o  Intended Usage:

      Select the Intended Usage from the following list: "COMMON",
      "LIMITED USE", or "OBSOLETE".  Normally, the Intended Usage will
      be "COMMON".

         e.g.
         COMMON

   o  Registration Document:

      A *unique* reference to the Enumservice Registration Document.

         e.g.
         RFC 9999

         e.g.
         International Telecommunications Union, "Enumservice
         Registration for Foobar", ITU-F Recommendation B.193, Release
         73, Mar 2008.





Hoeneisen, et al.        Expires August 28, 2008               [Page 15]

Internet-Draft      IANA Registration of Enumservices           Feb 2008


   o  Author(s):

      The author(s) of the Enumservice registration.

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

   o  Further Information:

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

         e.g.
         See Section 3

5.3.  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 [6], 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/!" .

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).




Hoeneisen, et al.        Expires August 28, 2008               [Page 16]

Internet-Draft      IANA Registration of Enumservices           Feb 2008


   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.

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
   RFC3761bis [4].

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.

   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.

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



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

Internet-Draft      IANA Registration of Enumservices           Feb 2008


   of the intended usage 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 someone shall submit a
   new Enumservice for review and comment, how such proposed
   Enumservices shall be reviewed, and how they are published.

   Figure 1 describes, what an author of a Registration Document
   describing an Enumservice shall carry out, before he formally submits
   said Registration to IANA.

                     +----------------------------+
                     | Step 1: Read this document |
                     +----------------------------+
                                  |
                                  V
                   +-------------------------------+
                   | Step 2:  Write R-D and submit |
                   +-------------------------------+
                                  |
                                  V
          +-----------------------------------------------+
          | Step 3:  Announce R-D to 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



Hoeneisen, et al.        Expires August 28, 2008               [Page 18]

Internet-Draft      IANA Registration of Enumservices           Feb 2008


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) shall be
   written and made publicly available (submitted).  The Registration
   Document shall 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.

6.3.  Step 3: Request Comments from the IETF Community

   The author(s) shall send an email to <enum@ietf.org>, in which
   comments on the Registration Document are requested.  A URL to the
   Registration Document shall be included to 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) shall 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 the ways the author(s) shall proceed, and it is up to
   the authors' judgement as to which one to choose.

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 Internet-Draft.

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) the Registration Document, and proceed(s) to
   Step 3 above, which involves sending another email to <enum@ietf.org>



Hoeneisen, et al.        Expires August 28, 2008               [Page 19]

Internet-Draft      IANA Registration of Enumservices           Feb 2008


   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 the Registration Document to IANA.

6.5.  Further Steps

   IANA will take care about Expert Review according to [7] and
   afterwards add the service to the IANA Enumservice registry.

   The author(s) shall 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 shall submit it for publication as an RFC after successful
   Expert Review.  Typically it will be an individual submission.


7.  The Enumservice Expert Selection Process

   According to Section 3.2 of [7], 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.


8.  Enumservice Expert Reviews

   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" [7].

   The expert(s) SHOULD evaluate the criteria as set out in [7], 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 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 August 28, 2008               [Page 20]

Internet-Draft      IANA Registration of Enumservices           Feb 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.
   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 [7] and the guidelines in this section,
   the former remains authoritative.


9.  Appeals against Expert Review Decisions

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


10.  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.


11.  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
   nature of the extension, the original Registration Document needs to
   be extended (updates) or replaced (obsoletes) [5].


12.  Security Considerations





Hoeneisen, et al.        Expires August 28, 2008               [Page 21]

Internet-Draft      IANA Registration of Enumservices           Feb 2008


12.1.  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.

12.2.  Enumservice Security Considerations Guideline

   RFC3761bis [4] 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.


13.  IANA Considerations

13.1.  Enumservice Registrations

   IANA will update the registry "Enumservice Registrations" according
   to (this) Section 13.1, which will replace the old mechanism as
   defined in RFC 3761 [3].

13.1.1.  IANA Registration Template

   The IANA registration template consists of the following fields that
   are specified in Section 5.2:


   o  Enumservice Name:

   o  Enumservice Class:

   o  Enumservice Type:

   o  Enumservice Subtype:

   o  URI Scheme(s):





Hoeneisen, et al.        Expires August 28, 2008               [Page 22]

Internet-Draft      IANA Registration of Enumservices           Feb 2008


   o  Functional Specification:

   o  Security Considerations:

   o  Intended Usage:

   o  Registration Document:

   o  Author:

   o  Further Information:

   Note: In the case where a particular field has no value, that field
   can be left completely blank, or, to state it explicitly, 'N/A' (Not
   Applicable) MAY be used instead.  This case especially occurs where a
   given Type has no Subtypes.

13.1.2.  Location

   Approved Enumservice registrations are published in the IANA
   repository "Enumservice Registrations", which is available via
   anonymous FTP at the following URI:
   "ftp://ftp.iana.org/assignments/enum-services/".

   At this repository only the filled IANA Registration Template as
   listed in Section 13.1.1 and specified in Section 5.2 is published.

   To avoid obscurities in case the original Registration Document can't
   be found anymore for some reason, IANA shall maintain escrow copies
   of all Enumservice Registration Documents that are not published as
   RFC.

13.1.3.  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" [7].

   Provided that the Enumservice has obtained the necessary approval of
   the expert(s), and the Registration Document is published, IANA shall
   register the Enumservice, i.e. add the Enumservice to the IANA
   "Enumservice Registrations" registry (see also Section 13.1.2).

13.1.4.  Change Control

   For Enumservices Registrations published as an RFC, change control of
   Enumservices stays with the IETF via the RFC publication process.
   Enumservice registrations may not be deleted.  An Enumservice, that



Hoeneisen, et al.        Expires August 28, 2008               [Page 23]

Internet-Draft      IANA Registration of Enumservices           Feb 2008


   is believed no longer appropriate for use, can be declared obsolete
   by publication of a new RFC changing its "Intended Usage" field to
   "OBSOLETE"; such Enumservices will be clearly marked in the lists
   published by IANA.

   The same procedure applies to Enumservices Registrations not
   published as an RFC, except that "Expert Review" and "Specification
   Required" according to "rfc2434bis" [7] apply to change or obsolete
   an existing Enumservice registration.

13.1.5.  Restrictions

   To avoid confusion with Enumservice fields using an obsolete syntax,
   IANA MUST NOT register an Enumservice with any of its identifying
   tags set to "E2U".

   Appendix A contains examples for Enumservice registrations.
   Therefore, IANA SHOULD NOT register an Enumservice with Type or
   Subtype set to "foo", "bar", or "sbar".

   Since RFC3761bis [4] the ABNF for Type and Subtype allows the "-"
   character.  To avoid confusion with possible future prefixes, a "-"
   MUST NOT be used as the first nor as the second character of a Type
   or Subtype, unless the prefix has been documented in an RFC (or the
   IESG has approved its associated Internet Draft).  Currently, the
   only such prefix known to be documented is "X-".

   Any Enumservice registration requests covered by these restrictions
   MUST be rejected by IANA, and the 'Expert Review' process SHOULD not
   be initiated.

13.2.  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.


14.  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, Peter Koch, Edward Lewis, and Jon
   Peterson



Hoeneisen, et al.        Expires August 28, 2008               [Page 24]

Internet-Draft      IANA Registration of Enumservices           Feb 2008


   Lawrence Conroy has provided extensive text for the Enumservice
   Classification section.

   Section 3 of RFC 3761 [3], 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.


15.  References

15.1.  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]   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-02 (work in
         progress), February 2008.

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

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

   [7]   Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an IANA
         Considerations Section in RFCs",
         draft-narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis-08 (work in
         progress), October 2007.

15.2.  Informative References

   [8]   Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform
         Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax", STD 66, RFC 3986,
         January 2005.

   [9]   Vaudreuil, G., "Voice Message Routing Service", RFC 4238,



Hoeneisen, et al.        Expires August 28, 2008               [Page 25]

Internet-Draft      IANA Registration of Enumservices           Feb 2008


         October 2005.

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

   [11]  Mayrhofer, A., "IANA Registration for Enumservice 'XMPP'",
         RFC 4979, August 2007.

   [12]  Peterson, J., "enumservice registration for Session Initiation
         Protocol (SIP) Addresses-of-Record", RFC 3764, April 2004.

   [13]  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'>
<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>



Hoeneisen, et al.        Expires August 28, 2008               [Page 26]

Internet-Draft      IANA Registration of Enumservices           Feb 2008


      </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.
    </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>



Hoeneisen, et al.        Expires August 28, 2008               [Page 27]

Internet-Draft      IANA Registration of Enumservices           Feb 2008


    <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='ENUM Service Registration - foo'>

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

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

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

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

    <t>URI Scheme(s): "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>




Hoeneisen, et al.        Expires August 28, 2008               [Page 28]

Internet-Draft      IANA Registration of Enumservices           Feb 2008


    <t>Registration Document: RFC XXXX</t>

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

    <t>Further Information: see <xref target='impl'/></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.

         <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



Hoeneisen, et al.        Expires August 28, 2008               [Page 29]

Internet-Draft      IANA Registration of Enumservices           Feb 2008


         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>

      </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



Hoeneisen, et al.        Expires August 28, 2008               [Page 30]

Internet-Draft      IANA Registration of Enumservices           Feb 2008


         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
       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" ?>



Hoeneisen, et al.        Expires August 28, 2008               [Page 31]

Internet-Draft      IANA Registration of Enumservices           Feb 2008


    <?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" />

    </reference>

  </references>

</back>

</rfc>


                                 Figure 2


Appendix B.  Changes

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

   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
   o  bernie: Changed title to adjust to new purpose
   o  bernie: Intended status changed to Standards Track (was bcp)





Hoeneisen, et al.        Expires August 28, 2008               [Page 32]

Internet-Draft      IANA Registration of Enumservices           Feb 2008


   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"
         ==> "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
   o  alex: removed note asking for feedback
   o  bernie: added DNS consideration section





Hoeneisen, et al.        Expires August 28, 2008               [Page 33]

Internet-Draft      IANA Registration of Enumservices           Feb 2008


   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 C.  Open Issues

   [RFC Editor: This section should be empty before publication]
   o  Ensure consistency (with new aim and section) throughout the whole
      document (jason?)
   o  Transition Regime for changed IANA registration process and
      template
   o  Re-Check references to RFC3761 / rfc3761bis
   o  Intended Usage: Do we need to add there "EXPERIMENTAL" and
      "TRIAL"?


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 August 28, 2008               [Page 34]

Internet-Draft      IANA Registration of Enumservices           Feb 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 August 28, 2008               [Page 35]

Internet-Draft      IANA Registration of Enumservices           Feb 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.


Acknowledgment

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





Hoeneisen, et al.        Expires August 28, 2008               [Page 36]


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