[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: November 9, 2008                                        Comcast
                                                            May 08, 2008


      IANA Registration of Enumservices: Guide, Template and IANA
                             Considerations
                 draft-ietf-enum-enumservices-guide-09

Status of this Memo

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

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

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

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

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

   This Internet-Draft will expire on November 9, 2008.

Abstract

   This document specifies a revision of the IANA registry for
   Enumservices, describes corresponding registration procedures, and
   provides a guideline for creating Enumservices and its Registration
   Documents.







Hoeneisen, et al.       Expires November 9, 2008                [Page 1]

Internet-Draft      IANA Registration of Enumservices           May 2008


Table of Contents

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

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

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

   4.  Enumservice Creation Cookbook  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
     4.1.  General Enumservice Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
     4.2.  Classification, Type and Subtype . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
       4.2.1.  General Type / Subtype Considerations  . . . . . . . .  9
       4.2.2.  Protocol-based Enumservices Class  . . . . . . . . . .  9
       4.2.3.  Application-based Enumservices . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
       4.2.4.  Data / Format Enumservice Class  . . . . . . . . . . . 12
       4.2.5.  Other Enumservice  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

   5.  Required Sections and Information  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
     5.1.  Introduction (MANDATORY) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
     5.2.  IANA 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)  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

   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 . . . . . 20
       6.3.1.  Outcome 1: No Changes Needed . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
       6.3.2.  Outcome 2: Changes, but no further Comments
               Requested  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
       6.3.3.  Outcome 3: Changes and further Comments Requested  . . 20
     6.4.  Step 4: Submit Registration Document to IANA . . . . . . . 20
     6.5.  Further Steps  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

   7.  Expert Review  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
     7.1.  Expert Selection Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
     7.2.  Review Guidelines  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
     7.3.  Appeals  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

   8.  Revision of Pre-Existing Enumservice RFCs  . . . . . . . . . . 22



Hoeneisen, et al.       Expires November 9, 2008                [Page 2]

Internet-Draft      IANA Registration of Enumservices           May 2008


   9.  Extension of Existing Enumservice RFCs . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

   10. Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
     10.1. Considerations Regarding this Document . . . . . . . . . . 23
     10.2. Enumservice Security Considerations Guideline  . . . . . . 23

   11. IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
     11.1. Enumservice Registrations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
       11.1.1. IANA Registration Template . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
       11.1.2. Location . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
       11.1.3. Registration Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
       11.1.4. Change Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
       11.1.5. Restrictions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
     11.2. XML2RFC Template . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

   12. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

   13. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
     13.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
     13.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

   Appendix A.  XML2RFC Template for Enumservice Registration . . . . 27

   Appendix B.  Changes Overview  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

   Appendix C.  Document Changelog  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

   Appendix D.  Open Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
   Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 38




















Hoeneisen, et al.       Expires November 9, 2008                [Page 3]

Internet-Draft      IANA Registration of Enumservices           May 2008


1.  Introduction

   E.164 Number Mapping (ENUM) [I-D.ietf-enum-3761bis] provides an
   identifier mapping mechanism to map E.164 numbers [ITU.E164.2005] to
   Uniform Resource Identifiers (URIs) [RFC3986].  One of the primary
   concepts of ENUM is the definition of "Enumservices", which allows
   for providing different URIs for different applications of said
   mapping mechanism.

   The IETF's ENUM Working Group has encountered an unnecessary amount
   of variation in the format of Enumservice Registrations presented to
   the group.  The ENUM Working Group's view of what particular fields
   and information are required and/or recommended has also evolved, and
   capturing these best current practices is helpful in both the
   creation of new Registrations, as well as the revision or refinement
   of existing Registrations.

   This document specifies a revision of the IANA registry for
   Enumservices, which was originally described in [RFC3761].  This
   document obsoletes Section 3 of RFC 3761.

   The new registration processes have been specifically designed to be
   decoupled from the existence of the ENUM working group.  Compared to
   RFC 3761, the main changes are:

   o  For an Enumservice to be inserted to the IANA registry, 'Expert
      Review' and 'Specification Required' according to "Guidelines for
      Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs"
      [I-D.narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis] are now sufficient.

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

   o  The former field "Any other information that the author deems
      interesting" of the IANA registration template has been changed to
      "Further Information".

   For the purpose of this document, 'Registration Document' and
   'Registration' refer to a specification that defines an Enumservice
   and proposes its registration following the procedures outlined
   herein.


2.  Terminology

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].



Hoeneisen, et al.       Expires November 9, 2008                [Page 4]

Internet-Draft      IANA Registration of Enumservices           May 2008


3.  Registration Requirements

   As specified in the ABNF found in [I-D.ietf-enum-3761bis], an
   Enumservice is made up of Types and Subtypes.  For any given Type,
   the allowable Subtypes (if any) must be specified in the
   Registration.  There is currently no concept of a registered Subtype
   outside the scope of a given Type.

   While the combination of each Type and all of its Subtypes
   constitutes the allowed values for the 'Enumservice' field, it is not
   sufficient to simply list the allowed values of those fields.  To
   allow interoperability, a complete Registration MUST document the
   semantics of the Type and Subtype values to be registered, and MUST
   contain all sections listed in Section 5 of this document.

   Furthermore, in order for an Enumservice to be registered, the entire
   Registration Document requires approval by the expert(s) according to
   the 'Expert Review' process defined in "Guidelines for Writing an
   IANA Considerations Section in RFCs"
   [I-D.narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis].

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

3.1.  Functionality Requirements

   A registered Enumservice must be able to function as a selection
   mechanism when choosing one NAPTR resource record from another.  That
   means that the Registration MUST specify what is expected when using
   that very NAPTR record, and the URI which is the outcome of the use
   of it.

   Specifically, a registered Enumservice MUST specify the URI Scheme(s)
   that may be used for the Enumservice, and, when needed, other
   information that will have to be transferred into the URI resolution
   process itself.

3.2.  Naming Requirements

   An Enumservice MUST be unique in order to be useful as a selection
   criteria:

   o  The Type MUST be unique.

   o  The Subtype (being dependent on the Type) MUST be unique within a
      given Type.

   Types and Subtypes MUST conform to the ABNF specified in



Hoeneisen, et al.       Expires November 9, 2008                [Page 5]

Internet-Draft      IANA Registration of Enumservices           May 2008


   [I-D.ietf-enum-3761bis].

   The ABNF specified in [I-D.ietf-enum-3761bis] allows the "-" (dash)
   character for Types and Subtypes .  To avoid confusion with possible
   future prefixes, a "-" MUST NOT be used as the first nor as the
   second character of a Type nor a Subtype.

   To avoid confusion with Enumservice fields using an obsolete syntax,
   any identifying tag of any Enumservice MUST NOT be set to "E2U".

   The Subtype for one Type MAY be the same as a Subtype for a different
   registered Type but it is not sufficient to simply reference another
   Type's Subtype.  The functionality of each Subtype MUST be specified
   in the context of the Type being registered.

   Section 4 contains further naming requirements.

3.3.  Security Requirements

   An analysis of security issues is REQUIRED for all registered
   Enumservices.  (This is in accordance with the basic requirements for
   all IETF protocols.)

   All descriptions of security issues MUST be as accurate and extensive
   as feasible.  In particular, a statement that there are "no security
   issues associated with this Enumservice" must not be confused with
   "the security issues associated with this Enumservice have not been
   assessed".

   There is no requirement that an Enumservice must be 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
       number.





Hoeneisen, et al.       Expires November 9, 2008                [Page 6]

Internet-Draft      IANA Registration of Enumservices           May 2008


   2.  Complex Enumservices may include provisions for directives that
       institute actions which, while not directly harmful, may result
       in disclosure of information that either facilitates a subsequent
       attack or else violates the users privacy in some way.

   3.  An Enumservice might be targeted for applications that require
       some sort of security assurance but do not provide the necessary
       security mechanisms themselves.  For example, an Enumservice
       could be defined for storage of confidential security services
       information such as alarm systems or message service passcodes,
       which in turn require an external confidentiality service.

3.4.  Publication Requirements

   Enumservices Registrations MUST be published according to the
   requirements set in "Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations
   Section in RFCs" [I-D.narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis] for
   'Specification Required'.  RFCs fulfill these requirements.
   Therefore, it is strongly RECOMMENDED Registration Documents be
   published as RFCs.

   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" [I-D.narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis] provides
   motivation why management of a name space might be necessary.  Since
   the name space for Enumservice registrations is among the largest
   namespaces that IANA manages (even when ignoring Subtypes, 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
   [I-D.narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis] applies to Enumservices:

   o  Prevent hoarding / wasting of values: Enumservice Types are not an
      opaque identifier to prevent collisions in the namespace, but
      rather identify the use of a certain technology in the context of
      ENUM.  Service Types might also be displayed to end users in



Hoeneisen, et al.       Expires November 9, 2008                [Page 7]

Internet-Draft      IANA Registration of Enumservices           May 2008


      implementations, so meaningful Type strings having a clear
      relation to the protocols / applications used are strongly
      preferred (and RECOMMENDED).  Therefore, preventing hoarding /
      wasting / "hijacking" of Enumservice Type names is important.

   o  Sanity check to ensure sensible / necessary requests: This applies
      to Enumservices, since especially various Enumservices for the
      same purpose would reduce the chance of successful
      interoperability, and unnecessarily increase the confusion among
      implementers.

   o  Delegation of namespace portions: Theoretically, the Type /
      Subtype structure of Enumservices would allow for delegations of
      Type values, and self-supporting management of Subtype values by a
      delegate within the Type value.  Such delegates could for example
      be other standardization bodies.  However, this would require
      clear policies regarding publication and use of such Subtypes.
      Delegation of Enumservice namespace portions is therefore
      currently not supported.

   o  Interoperability: Since the benefit of an Enumservice rises with
      the number of supporting clients, the registration of several
      services for a similar or identical purpose clearly reduces
      interoperability.  Also, space within the protocol on which ENUM
      is based (DNS packets) is rather scarce compared to the huge
      identifier space that Enumservice typing provides.  Registering
      nearly identical services would clutter that space.

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

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

   o  Is there work in progress on a similar Enumservice?  Check the
      <enum@ietf.org> mailing list archives on
      <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/enum/index.html>, and search
      the Internet-Drafts Archive on <http://tools.ietf.org/>.

   o  Section 4.2 provides three general categories for Enumservice
      classification.  In some cases, there might be several options for
      designing an Enumservice.  For example, a mapping service using
      HTTP could be considered a "protocol Type" Enumservice (using HTTP
      as the protocol), while it could also be viewed as an "application
      Type" Enumservice, with the application being access to mapping
      services.  In such a case where several options are available,
      defining use cases before commencing work on the Enumservice



Hoeneisen, et al.       Expires November 9, 2008                [Page 8]

Internet-Draft      IANA Registration of Enumservices           May 2008


      itself might be useful before making a decision on which aspect of
      the Enumservice is more important.

4.2.  Classification, Type and Subtype

   Because of its flexibility, Enumservices can be and are used in a lot
   of different ways.  This section contains a classification of
   Enumservices, and provides guidance for choosing suitable Type and
   Subtype strings for each individual Enumservice Class.

   The Classification of each Enumservice MUST be listed in the
   Enumservice Registration (see Section 5.2).  If the Enumservice
   cannot be assigned to one of the classes outlined below, the
   Registration Document MUST contain a section on the difficulties
   encountered while trying to classify the service to help the expert
   in his decision.

4.2.1.  General Type / Subtype Considerations

   To avoid confusion, the name of an URI Scheme MUST NOT be used as a
   Type name for an Enumservice which is not specifically about the
   respective protocol / URI Scheme - for example, the Type name 'imap'
   would be inadequate for use in an Enumservice about Internet mapping
   services, because it corresponds to an existing URI Scheme / protocol
   for something different.

   If Subtypes are defined, the minimum number SHOULD be two.  The
   choice of just one possible Subtype for a given Type does not add any
   information when selecting a ENUM record, and hence can be left out
   completely.  However, potential future expansion of a Type towards
   several Subtypes MAY justify the use of Subtypes, even in the case
   just one is currently defined.

   It is perfectly legal under a certain Type to mix the Enumservice
   without a Subtype ("empty Subtype") with Enumservices containing a
   Subtype.  In that case, however, the Enumservice with an empty
   Subtype SHOULD be used to reflect the base service, while the other
   Enumservices SHOULD be used to reflect variants.

4.2.2.  Protocol-based Enumservices Class

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

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



Hoeneisen, et al.       Expires November 9, 2008                [Page 9]

Internet-Draft      IANA Registration of Enumservices           May 2008


   Examples of such Enumservices include XMPP [RFC4979] and SIP
   [RFC3764].

4.2.2.1.  Protocol-based Enumservice "Type" Strings

   A protocol-based Enumservice SHOULD use the lowercased name of the
   protocol as its 'type' name.

4.2.2.2.  Protocol-based Enumservice "Subtype" Strings

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

   Where there are a number of different URI Schemes associated with
   this protocol, the Registration MAY use the empty Subtype for all URI
   Schemes that it specifies as mandatory to implement.  For each URI
   Scheme that is not mandatory to implement a distinct Subtype string
   MUST be used.

   If Subtypes are defined, it is RECOMMENDED to use the URI Scheme name
   as the Subtype string.

4.2.3.  Application-based 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
      to one that has narrow use.

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

      Another example is sms, where the presence of such an Enumservice



Hoeneisen, et al.       Expires November 9, 2008               [Page 10]

Internet-Draft      IANA Registration of Enumservices           May 2008


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

   o  Subset Enumservice:

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

   o  Ancillary Application Enumservice

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

4.2.3.1.  Application-based Enumservice "Type" Strings

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



Hoeneisen, et al.       Expires November 9, 2008               [Page 11]

Internet-Draft      IANA Registration of Enumservices           May 2008


4.2.3.2.  Application-based Enumservice "Subtype" Strings

   It is RECOMMENDED to use the URI Scheme(s), that the application
   uses, as Subtype name(s).  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
   implementation of both variants is mandatory.

   If it is foreseen that there is only one URI Scheme ever to be used
   with the application, the empty Subtype string MAY be used.

4.2.4.  Data / Format Enumservice Class

   "Data Format" Enumservices typically refer to a specific data type or
   format, which may be addressed using one or more URI Schemes and
   protocols.  It is RECOMMENDED to use a well known name of the data
   type / format as the Enumservice Type.  Examples of such Enumservices
   include 'vpim' [RFC4238] and 'vCard' [RFC4969].

4.2.4.1.  Data / Format-based Enumservice "Type" Strings

   It is RECOMMENDED to use the lowercase well known name of the data /
   format as the Type name.

4.2.4.2.  Data / Format based Enumservice "Subtype" Strings

   It is RECOMMENDED to use the URI Schemes used to access the service
   as Subtype name.  Subtype names SHOULD be shared only between URI
   Schemes that correspond to the "base" URI Scheme of a protocol and
   its secure variant, if implementation of both is mandatory.

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

4.2.5.  Other Enumservice

   In case an Enumservice proposal cannot be assigned to any of the
   classes mentioned above, the "Classification" field in the
   Enumservice Registration (see Section 5.2 MUST be populated with
   "Other".  In that case, the Registration Document MUST contain a
   section elaborating why the Enumservice does not fit into the
   classification structure.


5.  Required Sections and Information

   In addition to the sections required for an RFC as outlined in
   [I-D.rfc-editor-rfc2223bis] (Instructions to RFC Authors), there are



Hoeneisen, et al.       Expires November 9, 2008               [Page 12]

Internet-Draft      IANA Registration of Enumservices           May 2008


   several sections that MUST appear in an Enumservice Registration
   Document.  These sections are as follows, and SHOULD be in the given
   order.

   Appendix A contains an XML2RFC template that can be used to create
   Internet Drafts and RFCs by means described on
   <http://xml.resource.org/>.  This XML2RFC template contains a
   prototype for most of these sections.

5.1.  Introduction (MANDATORY)

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

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

5.2.  IANA Registration (MANDATORY)

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



   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.  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"






Hoeneisen, et al.       Expires November 9, 2008               [Page 13]

Internet-Draft      IANA Registration of Enumservices           May 2008


   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 'IANA Registration' section for
      each Subtype.

   o  URI Scheme(s):

      The URI Schemes that are used with the Enumservice.  The selection
      of URI Schemes often depends on the Enumservice Class, Type,
      and/or Subtype.  Please find further instructions in Section 4.

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

      Note: A client cannot choose a specific ENUM record in a record
      set based on the URI Scheme - the selection is only based on
      'Type' and 'Subtype'.

   o  Functional Specification:

      The Functional Specification describes how the Enumservice is used
      in connection with the URI to which it resolves.

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

      Where the terms used are non-obvious, they should be defined in
      the Registration Document, or a reference to an external document
      containing their definition should be made.






Hoeneisen, et al.       Expires November 9, 2008               [Page 14]

Internet-Draft      IANA Registration of Enumservices           May 2008


   o  Security Considerations:

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

         e.g.
         see Section 10

   o  Intended Usage:

      One of the following values (without quotes):

      *  "COMMON": Indicates that the Enumservice is intended for
         widespread use on the public Internet, and that it's scope is
         not limited to an certain environment.

      *  "LIMITED USE": Indicates that the Enumservice is intended for
         use on a limited scope, for example in private ENUM-like
         application scenarios.  The use case provided in the
         Registration should describe such a scenario.

      *  "OBSOLETE": Indicates that the Enumservice has been declared
         obsolete (Section 11.1.4) and is not to be used in new
         deployments.  Applications SHOULD however expect to encounter
         legacy instances of this Enumservice.

         e.g.
         COMMON

   o  Registration Document:

      A *unique* reference to the Enumservice Registration Document.

         e.g.
         [RFC 9999]

         e.g.
         [RFC 7777] (Obsoleted by RFC 8888)
         [RFC 8888] (Updated by RFC 9999)
         [RFC 9999]

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






Hoeneisen, et al.       Expires November 9, 2008               [Page 15]

Internet-Draft      IANA Registration of Enumservices           May 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 at least one example of the Enumservice being
   registered, for illustrative purposes.  The example(s) shall in no
   way limit the various forms that a given Enumservice may take, and
   this should be noted at the beginning of this section of the
   document.  The example(s) MUST show the specific formatting of the
   intended NAPTRs (according to [RFC3403] and [I-D.ietf-enum-3761bis]),
   including one or more NAPTR example(s), AND a brief textual
   description, consisting of one or more sentences written in plain
   English, explaining the various parts or attributes of the record(s).

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

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

5.4.  Implementation Recommendations / Notes (OPTIONAL)

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

5.5.  Security Considerations (MANDATORY)

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



Hoeneisen, et al.       Expires November 9, 2008               [Page 16]

Internet-Draft      IANA Registration of Enumservices           May 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
   [I-D.ietf-enum-3761bis].

   e.g.
   This document requests an update of the IANA registration of the
   Enumservice with Type "foo" and Subtype "bar", according to the
   definitions in this document, RFC XXXX [Note for RFC Editor: Please
   replace XXXX with the RFC number of this document before publication]
   and [I-D.ietf-enum-3761bis].  Therefore, in the existing IANA
   registration for this Enumservice, item "Registration Document" is
   enhanced by adding a supplementary reference that points to this
   document.

   e.g.
   This document requests an update of the IANA registration of the
   Enumservice with Type "foo" and all its Subtypes, in order to declare
   it obsolete.  Therefore, in the existing IANA registration for this
   Enumservice, item "Intended Usage" is changed to "OBSOLETE", and item
   "Registration Document" is enhanced by adding a supplementary
   reference that points to this document.

5.7.  DNS Considerations (MANDATORY)

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

   Such DNS issues include, but are not limited to:

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






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

Internet-Draft      IANA Registration of Enumservices           May 2008


   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 Enumservices try to exploit side effects of the DNS
   that need to be explicitly discussed.

5.8.  Other Sections (OPTIONAL)

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


6.  The Process of Registering New Enumservices

   This section describes the process by which a new Enumservice is
   submitted for review and comment, how such proposed Enumservices are
   reviewed, and how they are published.

   Figure 1 describes, what (an) author/s of a Registration Document
   describing an Enumservice MUST carry out, before said Registration
   can be formally submitted to IANA.


















Hoeneisen, et al.       Expires November 9, 2008               [Page 18]

Internet-Draft      IANA Registration of Enumservices           May 2008


                     +----------------------------+
                     | Step 1: Read this document |
                     +----------------------------+
                                  |
                                  V
                   +-------------------------------+
                   | Step 2:  Write R-D and submit |
                   +-------------------------------+
                                  |
                                  V
             +--------------------------------------------+
             | Step 3:  Announce R-D and solicit feedback |<--+
             +--------------------------------------------+   |
                                  |                           |
                                  V                           |
                                 .^.                          |
                               .     .                        |
   +------------+            .  Feed-  .               +------------+
   | Update R-D |<---------<    back     >------------>| Update R-D |
   | and submit |  non-sub-  . results .   substantial | and submit |
   +------------+  stantial    . in: .     changes     +------------+
         |         changes       . .       needed
         |         needed         Y
         |                        | no changes needed
         |                        V
         |         +-----------------------------+
         +-------->| Step 4:  Submit R-D to IANA |
                   +-----------------------------+
                                  :
                                  :
                                  V
   R-D: Registration Document

                                 Figure 1

6.1.  Step 1: Read this Document in Detail

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

6.2.  Step 2: Write and Submit Registration Document

   An Internet-Draft (or another specification as appropriate) MUST be
   written and made publicly available (submitted).  The Registration
   Document MUST follow the guidelines according to Section 4 and
   Section 5 of this document.  It is RECOMMENDED to use the XML2RFC
   template contained in Appendix A of this document.




Hoeneisen, et al.       Expires November 9, 2008               [Page 19]

Internet-Draft      IANA Registration of Enumservices           May 2008


6.3.  Step 3: Request Comments from the IETF Community

   The author(s) MUST send an email to <enum@ietf.org>, in which
   comments on the Registration Document are requested.  A proper public
   reference (a URL is RECOMMENDED) to the Registration Document MUST be
   included 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) then consider whether or not to take any of those comments
   into account, by making changes to the Registration Document and
   submitting a revision, or otherwise proceeding.  The following
   outcomes are open to the author(s).  The choice of path is left to
   the authors' judgement.

6.3.1.  Outcome 1: No Changes Needed

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

   This outcome is recommended when the feedback received does not lead
   to a new revision of the Registration Document.

6.3.2.  Outcome 2: Changes, but no further Comments Requested

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

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

6.3.3.  Outcome 3: Changes and further Comments Requested

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

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

6.4.  Step 4: Submit Registration Document to IANA

   The author(s) submit(s) the Registration Document to IANA.






Hoeneisen, et al.       Expires November 9, 2008               [Page 20]

Internet-Draft      IANA Registration of Enumservices           May 2008


6.5.  Further Steps

   IANA will take care about Expert Review according to
   [I-D.narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis] and afterwards add the
   service to the IANA Enumservice registry.

   The author(s) MUST be prepared for further interaction with IANA and
   the designated expert(s).

   In case the Registration Document has the form of an Internet-Draft,
   the author MUST submit it for publication as an RFC after successful
   Expert Review.  Typically it will be an individual submission.


7.  Expert Review

7.1.  Expert Selection Process

   According to Section 3.2 of
   [I-D.narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis], experts are appointed by
   the IESG upon recommendation by the RAI Area Directors.  The RAI area
   directors are responsible for ensuring that there is always a
   sufficient pool of experts available.

7.2.  Review Guidelines

   Generally, the Expert Review process of an Enumservice MUST follow
   the guidelines documented in section 3.3 of "Guidelines for Writing
   an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs"
   [I-D.narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis].

   The expert(s) SHOULD evaluate the criteria as set out in
   [I-D.narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis], as well as consider the
   following:

   o  Verify conformance with the ENUM specification
      [I-D.ietf-enum-3761bis].

   o  Verify that the requirements set in this document (Section 5) are
      met.  This includes check for completeness and whether all the
      aspects described in Section 5 are sufficiently addressed.

   o  If a use case is given by the author of the proposal (which is
      RECOMMENDED), the expert(s) SHOULD verify whether the proposed
      Enumservice does actually fulfill the use case, and whether the
      use case could be covered by an already existing Enumservice.





Hoeneisen, et al.       Expires November 9, 2008               [Page 21]

Internet-Draft      IANA Registration of Enumservices           May 2008


   o  Verify that the Enumservice proposed cannot be confused with
      identical (or similar) other Enumservices already registered.

   o  If the Enumservice is classified according to Section 4.2, the
      expert(s) MUST verify that the principles of the Class in question
      are followed.

   o  In case the Enumservice is not classified, the expert(s) MUST
      verify whether a convincing reason for the deviation is documented
      in the Registration proposal.

   o  Investigate whether the proposed Enumservice has any negative side
      effects on existing clients and infrastructure, particularly the
      DNS.

   o  If the output of processing an Enumservice may be used for input
      to more ENUM processing (especially services returning 'tel'
      URIs), the expert(s) SHOULD verify that the author has adequately
      addressed the issue of potential query loops.

   In case of conflicts between
   [I-D.narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis] and the guidelines in
   this section, the former remains authoritative.

7.3.  Appeals

   Appeals against Expert Review decisions follow the normal IETF appeal
   process as described in section 7 of
   [I-D.narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis] and section 6.5 of
   [RFC2026].


8.  Revision of Pre-Existing Enumservice RFCs

   Several Enumservice Registrations, published via IETF RFCs, already
   exist at the time of the development of this document.  The authors
   recommend that these existing Registration Documents SHOULD be
   reviewed and, where necessary and appropriate, MAY be revised in
   accordance with the specifications contained herein.  All future
   Enumservice Registrations MUST follow the specifications contained
   herein.


9.  Extension of Existing Enumservice RFCs

   There are cases where it is more sensible to extend an existing
   Enumservice registration rather than proposing a new one.  Such cases
   include adding a new Subtype to an existing Type.  Depending on the



Hoeneisen, et al.       Expires November 9, 2008               [Page 22]

Internet-Draft      IANA Registration of Enumservices           May 2008


   nature of the extension, the original Registration Document needs to
   be extended (Updates) or replaced (Obsoletes)
   [I-D.rfc-editor-rfc2223bis].  Specifically, an update is appropriate
   when a new subtype is being added without changes to the existing
   repertoire.  A replacement is needed if there is a change to the
   default, or changes to the assumptions of URI support in clients.


10.  Security Considerations

10.1.  Considerations Regarding this Document

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

10.2.  Enumservice Security Considerations Guideline

   [I-D.ietf-enum-3761bis] already outlines security considerations
   affecting ENUM as a whole.  Enumservice Registration Documents do not
   need and SHOULD NOT repeat considerations already listed there, but
   they SHOULD include a reference to that section.

   ENUM refers to resources using preexisting URI Schemes and protocols.
   Enumservice Registration Documents do not need and SHOULD NOT repeat
   security considerations affecting those protocols and URI Schemes
   itself.

   However, in case that the inclusion of those protocols and URI
   Schemes into ENUM specifically introduces new security issues, those
   issues MUST be covered in the 'Security Considerations' section of
   the Registration Document.


11.  IANA Considerations

11.1.  Enumservice Registrations

   IANA will update the registry "Enumservice Registrations" according
   to (this) Section 11.1, which will replace the old mechanism as
   defined in RFC 3761 [RFC3761].

   It is noted that the process described herein applies only to
   ordinary Enumservice registrations (i.e. the registration process of
   'X-' Enumservices is beyond the scope of this document).







Hoeneisen, et al.       Expires November 9, 2008               [Page 23]

Internet-Draft      IANA Registration of Enumservices           May 2008


11.1.1.  IANA Registration Template

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


   o  Enumservice Class:

   o  Enumservice Type:

   o  Enumservice Subtype:

   o  URI Scheme(s):

   o  Functional Specification:

   o  Security Considerations:

   o  Intended Usage:

   o  Registration Document:

   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.

11.1.2.  Location

   Approved Enumservice registrations are published in the IANA
   repository "Enumservice Registrations", which is available at the
   following URI:
   < http://www.iana.org/assignments/enum-services >.

   At this repository only the filled IANA Registration Template as
   listed in Section 11.1.1 and specified in Section 5.2 is published.

   Where the Registration Document is NOT an RFC, IANA MUST hold an
   escrow copy of that Registration Document.  Said escrow copy will act
   as the master reference for that Enumservice Registration.







Hoeneisen, et al.       Expires November 9, 2008               [Page 24]

Internet-Draft      IANA Registration of Enumservices           May 2008


11.1.3.  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"
   [I-D.narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis].

   Provided that the Enumservice has obtained the necessary approval of
   the expert(s), and the Registration Document is published, IANA will
   register the Enumservice, i.e. add the Enumservice to the IANA
   "Enumservice Registrations" registry (see also Section 11.1.2).

11.1.4.  Change Control

   For Enumservices Registrations published as an RFC, change control
   stays with the IETF via the RFC publication process.

   Change control of Enumservices Registrations not published as an RFC
   (i.e. according the process described herein) is done by "Expert
   Review" and "Specification Required" according to
   [I-D.narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis].

   Enumservice registrations MUST NOT be deleted.  An Enumservice that
   is believed no longer appropriate for use, can be declared obsolete
   by publication of a new Enumservices Registrations document changing
   its "Intended Usage" field to "OBSOLETE"; such Enumservices will be
   clearly marked in the lists published by IANA.

   Updates of any Enumservice Registrations MUST follow the guidelines
   described in this document.

11.1.5.  Restrictions

   As stated in Section 3.2, a "-" (dash) MUST NOT be used as the first
   nor as the second character of a Type nor a Subtype.  Furthermore,
   any identifying tag of any Enumservice MUST NOT be set to "E2U".  Any
   Enumservice registration requests covered by these restrictions MUST
   be rejected by IANA, and the 'Expert Review' process SHOULD NOT be
   initiated.

   Appendix A contains examples for Enumservice registrations.
   Therefore, IANA MUST NOT register an Enumservice with Type or Subtype
   set to "foo", "bar", or "sbar", unless the Expert(s) explicitly
   confirm an exception.







Hoeneisen, et al.       Expires November 9, 2008               [Page 25]

Internet-Draft      IANA Registration of Enumservices           May 2008


11.2.  XML2RFC Template

   Before publication of this document IANA shall make the XML2RFC
   template in Appendix A publicly available so that authors of new
   Enumservice Registrations can easily download it.

   Note: The XML2RFC template in Appendix A contains a proposal for the
   'IANA Considerations' section of actual Enumservice Registration
   Document.


12.  Acknowledgements

   The authors would like to thank the following people who have
   provided feedback or significant contributions to the development of
   this document: Lawrence Conroy, Alfred Hoenes, Peter Koch, Edward
   Lewis, and Jon Peterson

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

   Section 3 of RFC 3761 [RFC3761], which was edited by Patrik Faltstrom
   and Michael Mealling, has been incorporated to this document.  Please
   see the Acknowledgments section in RFC 3761 for additional
   acknowledgments.


13.  References

13.1.  Normative References

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

   [RFC2026]  Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision
              3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, October 1996.

   [RFC3761]  Faltstrom, P. and M. Mealling, "The E.164 to Uniform
              Resource Identifiers (URI) Dynamic Delegation Discovery
              System (DDDS) Application (ENUM)", RFC 3761, April 2004.

   [I-D.ietf-enum-3761bis]
              Bradner, S., Conroy, L., and K. Fujiwara, "The E.164 to
              Uniform Resource Identifiers (URI) Dynamic Delegation
              Discovery  System (DDDS) Application (ENUM)",
              draft-ietf-enum-3761bis-03 (work in progress), March 2008.

   [I-D.rfc-editor-rfc2223bis]



Hoeneisen, et al.       Expires November 9, 2008               [Page 26]

Internet-Draft      IANA Registration of Enumservices           May 2008


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

   [RFC3403]  Mealling, M., "Dynamic Delegation Discovery System (DDDS)
              Part Three: The Domain Name System (DNS) Database",
              RFC 3403, October 2002.

   [I-D.narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis]
              Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
              IANA Considerations Section in RFCs",
              draft-narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis-09 (work in
              progress), March 2008.

13.2.  Informative References

   [RFC3986]  Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform
              Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax", STD 66,
              RFC 3986, January 2005.

   [RFC4238]  Vaudreuil, G., "Voice Message Routing Service", RFC 4238,
              October 2005.

   [RFC4969]  Mayrhofer, A., "IANA Registration for vCard Enumservice",
              RFC 4969, August 2007.

   [RFC4979]  Mayrhofer, A., "IANA Registration for Enumservice 'XMPP'",
              RFC 4979, August 2007.

   [RFC3764]  Peterson, J., "enumservice registration for Session
              Initiation Protocol (SIP) Addresses-of-Record", RFC 3764,
              April 2004.

   [ITU.E164.2005]
              International Telecommunications Union, "The International
              Public Telecommunication Numbering Plan", ITU-
              T Recommendation E.164, Feb 2005.


Appendix A.  XML2RFC Template for Enumservice Registration

   The latest version of the following XML2RFC template can be
   downloaded from XYZ [Note to RFC editor: Before publication, replace
   XYZ with download URL assigned by IANA.]


<?xml version='1.0' ?>
<!DOCTYPE rfc SYSTEM 'rfc2629.dtd'>



Hoeneisen, et al.       Expires November 9, 2008               [Page 27]

Internet-Draft      IANA Registration of Enumservices           May 2008


<rfc ipr='full3978' docName='draft-mysurname-enum-foo-service-00' >
<?rfc toc='yes' ?>
<?rfc tocompact='no' ?>
<?rfc compact='yes' ?>
<?rfc subcompact='yes' ?>

<front>

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

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

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

  <abstract>

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

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



Hoeneisen, et al.       Expires November 9, 2008               [Page 28]

Internet-Draft      IANA Registration of Enumservices           May 2008


    </t>

  </abstract>

</front>


<middle>

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

    <t><xref target='I-D.ietf-enum-3761bis'>RFC3761bis</xref>
       uses the <xref target='RFC1035'>Domain Name System
       (DNS)</xref> to refer from <xref target='ITU.E164.2005'>E.164
       numbers</xref> to <xref target='RFC3986'>Uniform Resource
       Identifiers (URIs)</xref>.
    </t>

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

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

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

  </section>

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

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

  </section>

  <section anchor='reg' title='IANA Registration - foo'>

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




Hoeneisen, et al.       Expires November 9, 2008               [Page 29]

Internet-Draft      IANA Registration of Enumservices           May 2008


    <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>

    <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>




Hoeneisen, et al.       Expires November 9, 2008               [Page 30]

Internet-Draft      IANA Registration of Enumservices           May 2008


      <t>...
      </t>

    </list>

    </t>
  </section>

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

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

  </section>

  <section anchor='sec' title='Security Considerations'>
    <t>As with any Enumservice, the security considerations of ENUM
       itself (Section 6 of RFC 3761) apply.
    </t>

    <section anchor='secrecord' title='The ENUM Record Itself'>

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

      <t>Information published in ENUM records could reveal
         associations between E.164 numbers and their owners -
         especially if URIs contain personal identifiers or domain
         names for which ownership information can be obtained easily.
         For example, the following URI makes it easy to guess the
         owner of an E.164 number as well as his location and
         association by just examining the result from the ENUM
         look-up:

        <vspace blankLines='1'/>
        <list>
         <t>http://sandiego.company.example.com/joe-william-user.vcf</t>
        </list>

      </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



Hoeneisen, et al.       Expires November 9, 2008               [Page 31]

Internet-Draft      IANA Registration of Enumservices           May 2008


        be granted.  For example, the following URI only reveals the
        service provider hosting the vCard (who probably even provides
        anonymous hosting):

        <vspace blankLines='1'/>
        <list>
          <t>http://anonhoster.example.org/file_adfa001.vcf</t>
        </list>

      </t>

      <t>ENUM records pointing to third party resources can easily be
         provisioned on purpose by the ENUM domain owner - so any
         assumption about the association between a number and an
         entity could therefore be completely bogus unless some kind
         of identity verification is in place. This verification is
         out of scope for this memo.
      </t>

    </section>

    <section anchor='secresource' title='The Resource Identified'>

      <t>Users MUST therefore carefully consider information they
         provide in the resource identified by the ENUM record as well
         as in the record itself.  Considerations could include
         serving information only to entities of the user's choice
         and/or limiting the comprehension of the information provided
         based on the identity of the requester.
      </t>

      <t>(modify as appropriate - more about the specific
         resource here)
      </t>

    </section>

  </section>

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

    <t>This document requests the IANA registration of the Enumservice
       "Foo" with Type "foo" and Subtype "bar" according to the
       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>



Hoeneisen, et al.       Expires November 9, 2008               [Page 32]

Internet-Draft      IANA Registration of Enumservices           May 2008


    <t>...
    </t>

  </section>

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

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

    <t>...
    </t>

  </section>

</middle>

<back>

  <references title='Normative References'>

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

  </references>

  <references title='Informative References'>

    <reference anchor="ITU.E164.2005">
      <front>
        <title>The International Public Telecommunication Numbering
        Plan</title>
        <author>
          <organization>International Telecommunications
          Union</organization>
        </author>
        <date month="Feb" year="2005" />
      </front>

      <seriesInfo name="ITU-T" value="Recommendation E.164" />

    </reference>

  </references>

</back>



Hoeneisen, et al.       Expires November 9, 2008               [Page 33]

Internet-Draft      IANA Registration of Enumservices           May 2008


</rfc>


                                 Figure 2


Appendix B.  Changes Overview

   This section lists the changes applied to the Enumservice
   registration process and the IANA registry definition, compared to
   RFC 3761.
   o  While RFC 3761 required "Standards track or Experimental" RFCs for
      a Enumservice to be registered, this document mandates "Expert
      Review" and "Documentation Required".

   o  This document adds a classification of Enumservices, which is to
      be specified in the registration data, and is stored in the IANA
      registry.

   o  The Enumservice "name" field is removed from the registration
      template and the IANA registry.


Appendix C.  Document Changelog

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

   draft-ietf-enum-enumservices-guide-09:
   o  alex: Removed Enumservice "Name" as decided at IETF 71
   o  alex: Reworded registration requirements
   o  alex: Explained possible values for "Intended Usage"
   o  bernie: Rewrite of section 'Change Control'
   o  bernie: Cleared out scope of this document (only ordinary, but no
      'X-' registrations)
   o  bernie: Cleared out naming restrictions in IANA section
   o  bernie: Changed section name from 'ENUM Service Registration' to
      'IANA Registration'
   o  bernie: Combined Expert Review related sections
   o  bernie: Partly implemented feedback Alfred Hoenes and added him to
      Acknowledgments
   o  bernie: Enhanced examples for "Registration Document"
   o  bernie: Enhanced examples for "IANA Considerations" (feedback from
      Alfred Hoenes)
   o  bernie: Removed Note about RFC3761bis obsoleting RFC3761 (does not
      belong to this doc)
   o  bernie: Rewrote Naming Requirements section (impact to IANA
      Considerations - Restrictions)




Hoeneisen, et al.       Expires November 9, 2008               [Page 34]

Internet-Draft      IANA Registration of Enumservices           May 2008


   draft-ietf-enum-enumservices-guide-08:
   o  alex: new text for Subtypes of protocol class enumservices
      ("mandatory to implement" stuff)
   o  alex: added "to be foreseen" to the application Type Subtype
      recommendation
   o  alex: added "lowercase" recommendation to the Type names
   o  bernie: Corrected various typos, clarifications, and other
      editorial stuff (feedback from Lawrence Conroy)
   o  bernie: IANA Registry ftp -> http (feedback from Lawrence Conroy)
   o  bernie: Made steps prior to IANA submission mandatory (feedback
      from Lawrence Conroy)
   o  bernie: Shortened abstract

   draft-ietf-enum-enumservices-guide-07:
   o  bernie: Section DNS considerations made mandatory
   o  bernie: Complete rewrite of IANA considerations
   o  bernie: XML2RFC template will be downloadable at IANA
   o  bernie: Complete re-write of process
   o  alex: Adjusted Cook-book / classification
   o  bernie: Take over chapter "Registration mechanism for
      Enumservices" from RFC 3761bis
   o  bernie: Changed title to adjust to new purpose
   o  bernie: Intended status changed to Standards Track (was bcp)
   o  bernie: Obsoletes (partly) RFC 3761
   o  bernie: Adjusted section "Registration mechanism for Enumservices"
   o  bernie: Updated most RFC 3761 references to either RFC3761bis or
      new (internal) section
   o  bernie: Acknowledgment for RFC3761 contributors
   o  bernie: Shortened bullet point in IANA Registration Template:
         "Any other information that the author deems interesting"
         ==> "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




Hoeneisen, et al.       Expires November 9, 2008               [Page 35]

Internet-Draft      IANA Registration of Enumservices           May 2008


   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
   o  bernie: added Acknowledgments section
   o  bernie: editorial stuff (nicer formating, fixing too long lines)
   o  alex: added security considerations from vcard draft.

   draft-ietf-enum-enumservices-guide-02:
   o  bernie: replaced numbers in examples by "Drama Numbers"
   o  bernie: moved Change and Open Issues to Appendix.
   o  bernie: major rewrite of section "6.  Required Sections and
      Information" incl. separating explanations and examples.
   o  bernie: removed section 7 (was just a repetition of referencing to
      XML2RFC template)
   o  bernie: extended Appendix with Open Issues.

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


Appendix D.  Open Issues

   [RFC Editor: This section should be empty before publication]
   o  Review by IANA
   o  Review XML2RFC template





Hoeneisen, et al.       Expires November 9, 2008               [Page 36]

Internet-Draft      IANA Registration of Enumservices           May 2008


   o  Ensure consistency (with new aim and section) throughout the whole
      document (jason?)
   o  Transition Regime for changed IANA registration process and
      template needed?


Authors' Addresses

   Bernie Hoeneisen
   SWITCH
   Werdstrasse 2
   CH-8004 Zuerich
   Switzerland

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


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

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


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

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












Hoeneisen, et al.       Expires November 9, 2008               [Page 37]

Internet-Draft      IANA Registration of Enumservices           May 2008


Full Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008).

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

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


Intellectual Property

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

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

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











Hoeneisen, et al.       Expires November 9, 2008               [Page 38]


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