[Docs] [txt|pdf|xml] [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                                                   Swisscom
Internet-Draft                                              A. Mayrhofer
Obsoletes: 3761 (if approved)                                    enum.at
Intended status: Best Current                               J. Livingood
Practice                                                         Comcast
Expires: June 11, 2009                                 December 08, 2008


      IANA Registration of Enumservices: Guide, Template and IANA
                             Considerations
                 draft-ietf-enum-enumservices-guide-15

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 June 11, 2009.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008).

Abstract

   This document specifies a revision of the IANA Registration
   Guidelines for Enumservices, describes corresponding registration
   procedures, and provides a guideline for creating Enumservice
   Specifications.



Hoeneisen, et al.         Expires June 11, 2009                 [Page 1]

Internet-Draft      IANA Registration of Enumservices      December 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  . . . . . . . . . . 10
       4.2.3.  Application-Based Enumservice Classes  . . . . . . . . 10
       4.2.4.  Data Type-Based Enumservice Class  . . . . . . . . . . 12
       4.2.5.  Other Enumservice  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

   5.  Required Sections and Information  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
     5.1.  Introduction (MANDATORY) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
     5.2.  IANA Registration (MANDATORY)  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
     5.3.  Examples (MANDATORY) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
     5.4.  Implementation Recommendations / Notes (OPTIONAL)  . . . . 18
     5.5.  Security Considerations (MANDATORY)  . . . . . . . . . . . 18
     5.6.  IANA Considerations (MANDATORY)  . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
     5.7.  DNS Considerations (MANDATORY) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
     5.8.  Other Sections (OPTIONAL)  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

   6.  The Process of Registering New Enumservices  . . . . . . . . . 20
     6.1.  Step 1: Read this Document in Detail . . . . . . . . . . . 21
     6.2.  Step 2: Write and Submit Registration Document . . . . . . 21
     6.3.  Step 3: Request Comments from the IETF Community . . . . . 22
       6.3.1.  Outcome 1: No Changes Needed . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
       6.3.2.  Outcome 2: Changes, but no further Comments
               Requested  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
       6.3.3.  Outcome 3: Changes and further Comments Requested  . . 22
     6.4.  Step 4: Submit Registration Document . . . . . . . . . . . 23
     6.5.  Step 5: Expert Review  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
       6.5.1.  Outcome 1: Experts Approve the Registration
               Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
       6.5.2.  Outcome 2: Changes Required  . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
       6.5.3.  Outcome 3: Experts Reject the Registration Document  . 24
     6.6.  Step 6: Publication of the Registration Document . . . . . 24
     6.7.  Step 7: Adding Enumservice to IANA Registry  . . . . . . . 24




Hoeneisen, et al.         Expires June 11, 2009                 [Page 2]

Internet-Draft      IANA Registration of Enumservices      December 2008


   7.  Expert Review  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
     7.1.  Expert Selection Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
     7.2.  Review Guidelines  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
     7.3.  Appeals  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

   8.  Revision of Pre-Existing Enumservice Specifications  . . . . . 26

   9.  Extension of Existing Enumservice Specifications . . . . . . . 26

   10. Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
     10.1. Considerations Regarding This Document . . . . . . . . . . 26
     10.2. Enumservice Security Considerations Guideline  . . . . . . 27

   11. IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
     11.1. Enumservice Registrations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
       11.1.1. IANA Registration Template . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
       11.1.2. Location . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
       11.1.3. Structure  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
       11.1.4. Registration Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
       11.1.5. Change Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
       11.1.6. Restrictions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

   12. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

   13. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
     13.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
     13.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

   Appendix A.  IANA XML Template Examples  . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

   Appendix B.  Changes Overview  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

   Appendix C.  Document Changelog  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

   Appendix D.  Open Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
   Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 44













Hoeneisen, et al.         Expires June 11, 2009                 [Page 3]

Internet-Draft      IANA Registration of Enumservices      December 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.

   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" [RFC5226] are now
      sufficient.

   o  The IANA Registration Template contains new elements, i.e.
      "Enumservice Class" and "Enumservice Specifications(s)".

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


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].

   For the purpose of this document:

   o  'Registration Document' refers to a draft specification that
      defines an Enumservice and proposes its registration following the
      procedures outlined herein.






Hoeneisen, et al.         Expires June 11, 2009                 [Page 4]

Internet-Draft      IANA Registration of Enumservices      December 2008


   o  'Enumservice Specification' refers to a Registration Document that
      has been approved by the Experts and published according to
      'Specification Required' as defined in [RFC3552].


3.  Registration Requirements

   As specified in the Augmented Backus-Naur Form (ABNF, [RFC5234])
   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 defined in the Enumservice Specification.  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 just list their allowed values.  To allow for
   interoperability, a complete Enumservice Specification 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 experts according to
   the 'Expert Review' process defined in "Guidelines for Writing an
   IANA Considerations Section in RFCs" [RFC5226].

   All Enumservice Specifications 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 for choosing one NAPTR resource record [RFC3403] from a set
   of such records.  That means that the Enumservice Specification MUST
   specify the functionality that can be expected from the NAPTR record,
   especially the set of URI schemes and that is returned from
   processing the record.

   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:





Hoeneisen, et al.         Expires June 11, 2009                 [Page 5]

Internet-Draft      IANA Registration of Enumservices      December 2008


   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
   [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.  Furthermore, a "-" MUST
   NOT be used as the last character of a Type nor a Subtype.  In
   addition, Types and Subtypes are case insensitive and MUST be
   specified in small letters.

   To avoid confusion with Enumservice fields using an obsolete syntax,
   Type and Subtype MUST NOT start with the string "e2u".

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

   Section 4 contains further naming recommendations.

3.3.  Security Requirements

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

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

   There is no requirement that an Enumservice must be completely free
   of security risks.  Nevertheless, all known security risks MUST be
   identified in an Enumservice Specification.

   The security considerations section of Enumservice Specifications is
   subject to continuing evaluation and modification, in accordance with
   Section 11.1.5.

   Some of the issues to be looked at in a security analysis of an
   Enumservice are:



Hoeneisen, et al.         Expires June 11, 2009                 [Page 6]

Internet-Draft      IANA Registration of Enumservices      December 2008


   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).

   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 Specifications MUST be published according to the
   requirements for 'Specification Required' set in "Guidelines for
   Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs" [RFC5226].  RFCs
   fulfill these requirements.  Therefore, it is strongly RECOMMENDED
   Enumservice Specifications be published as RFCs.

   In case the Enumservice Specification is not published as an RFC,
   sufficient information that allows to uniquely identify the
   Enumservice Specification 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" [RFC5226] provides motivation why management of a name space
   might be necessary.  Even though the namespace for Enumservices is
   rather large (up to 32 alphanumeric characters), there are reasons to
   manage this in accordance with Section 2 of [RFC5226].  The following
   is a list of motivations applying to Enumservices:



Hoeneisen, et al.         Expires June 11, 2009                 [Page 7]

Internet-Draft      IANA Registration of Enumservices      December 2008


   o  Prevent hoarding or 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 and applications used are strongly
      RECOMMENDED.  Therefore, preventing hoarding, wasting, or
      "hijacking" of Enumservice Type names is important.

   o  Sanity check to ensure sensible or 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 and/or
      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 and use of
      several services for a similar or identical purpose clearly
      reduces interoperability.  Operational circumstances suggest to
      keep the space occupied by all services published in the NAPTR
      RRSet at any owner in the e164.arpa domain bounded.  Registration
      of nearly identical services and subsequent competing or parallel
      use could easily increase the DNS operational complexity.

   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
      Registry at <http://www.iana.org/assignments/enum-services>.

   o  Is there work in progress, or previous work, on a similar
      Enumservice?  Check the <enum@ietf.org> mailing list archives at
      <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/enum/index.html>, and search
      the Internet-Drafts Archive at <http://tools.ietf.org/>.  As some
      Internet-Drafts may have expired and no longer be available in the
      Internet-Drafts Archive, it may be useful to search the
      <enum@ietf.org> mailing list archives and to perform a web search.
      Furthermore, bear in mind that some work on Enumservices may have



Hoeneisen, et al.         Expires June 11, 2009                 [Page 8]

Internet-Draft      IANA Registration of Enumservices      December 2008


      been considered outside the IETF.

   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, Type and Subtype

   Because of their 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 Specification (see Section 5.2).  If the Enumservice
   cannot be assigned to one of the classes outlined below, the
   Enumservice Specification MUST contain a section on the difficulties
   encountered while trying to classify the service to help the experts
   in their decision.

4.2.1.  General Type / Subtype Considerations

   To avoid confusion, the name of a URI Scheme MUST NOT be used as a
   Type name for an Enumservice which is not specifically about the
   respective protocol or 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
   or protocol for something different.

   If Subtypes are defined, the minimum number SHOULD be two (including
   the empty subtype, if defined).  The choice of just one possible
   Subtype for a given Type does not add any information when selecting
   a ENUM record, and hence can be left out completely.  However,
   potential future expansion of a Type towards several Subtypes may
   justify the use of Subtypes, even in the case just one is currently
   defined, as noted in Section 9.

   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 specified to reflect the base service, while the



Hoeneisen, et al.         Expires June 11, 2009                 [Page 9]

Internet-Draft      IANA Registration of Enumservices      December 2008


   other Enumservices SHOULD be specified 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.

   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 lowercase 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, a
   Subtype SHOULD NOT be specified for the Enumservice.

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

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

4.2.3.  Application-Based Enumservice Classes

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

   o  Common Application Enumservice:

      The application reflects a kind of interaction that can be
      realized by different protocols, but where the intent of the
      publisher is the same.  From a user's perspective, there is a
      common kind of interaction - how that interaction is implemented
      is not important.  The Enumservice Specification MUST describe the
      interaction and expected behavior in enough detail that an



Hoeneisen, et al.         Expires June 11, 2009                [Page 10]

Internet-Draft      IANA Registration of Enumservices      December 2008


      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 existence 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
      Specification 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



Hoeneisen, et al.         Expires June 11, 2009                [Page 11]

Internet-Draft      IANA Registration of Enumservices      December 2008


      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
   lowercase well known name of the abstract application as Type name.

4.2.3.2.  Application-Based Enumservice "Subtype" Strings

   It is RECOMMENDED to use the URI Scheme(s) which the application
   uses, as Subtype name(s).  Subtype names MAY be shared between URI
   Schemes, if all the URI Schemes within the same Subtype are mandatory
   to implement.

   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 Type-Based Enumservice Class

   "Data Type" 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 or format as the Enumservice Type.  Examples of such
   Enumservices include 'vpim' [RFC4238] and 'vCard' [RFC4969].

4.2.4.1.  Data Type-Based Enumservice "Type" Strings

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

4.2.4.2.  Data Type-Based Enumservice "Subtype" Strings

   It is RECOMMENDED to use the URI Schemes used to access the service
   as Subtype name.  Subtype names MAY be shared between URI Schemes, if
   all the URI Schemes within the same Subtype are mandatory to
   implement.

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






Hoeneisen, et al.         Expires June 11, 2009                [Page 12]

Internet-Draft      IANA Registration of Enumservices      December 2008


4.2.5.  Other Enumservice

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


5.  Required Sections and Information

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

   The following terms SHOULD begin with a capital letter, whenever they
   refer to the IANA Registration:
   o  Class
   o  Type
   o  Subtype
   o  URI Scheme

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 Specification.  Where
   a given Enumservice Type has multiple Subtypes, there MUST be a
   separate 'IANA Registration' section for each Subtype.  The following
   lists the elements that are to be used in the XML template of an
   'IANA Registration' section.



   o  Enumservice Class (<class>):

      This element contains the Class of the Enumservice as defined in
      Section 4.2.  It's value MUST be one of (without quotes):



Hoeneisen, et al.         Expires June 11, 2009                [Page 13]

Internet-Draft      IANA Registration of Enumservices      December 2008


      *  "Protocol-Based": The Enumservice belongs to the Protocol-based
         class as described in Section 4.2.2.

      *  "Application-Based, Common": The Enumservice is a "common" case
         of the Application-based class as described in Section 4.2.3.

      *  "Application-Based, Subset": The Enumservice belongs to the
         "subset" case of the Application-based class as described in
         Section 4.2.3.

      *  "Application-Based, Ancillary": The Enumservice is an
         "ancillary" case of the Application-based class, as described
         in Section 4.2.3.

      *  "Data Type-Based": The Enumservice belongs to the Data Type-
         Based class as described in Section 4.2.4.

      *  "Other": The majority of the functionality of the Enumservice
         does not fall into one of the classes defined.

         e.g.
         <class>Protocol-Based</class>

   o  Enumservice Type (<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.
         <type>foo</type>

   o  Enumservice Subtype (<subtype>):

      The Subtype of the Enumservice.  All Subtypes SHOULD be listed in
      lower-case.  The choice of Subtype depends on the Enumservice
      Class.  Should the Enumservice not require a Subtype, then the
      'subtype' element must not be used in the registration XML chunk.
      If a given Enumservice Type has multiple Subtypes, then there MUST
      be a separate 'IANA Registration' XML chunk for each Subtype.
      Please find further instructions in Section 4.

         e.g.
         <subtype>bar</subtype>

   o  URI Scheme(s) (<urischeme>):

      The URI Schemes that are used with the Enumservice.  The selection



Hoeneisen, et al.         Expires June 11, 2009                [Page 14]

Internet-Draft      IANA Registration of Enumservices      December 2008


      of URI Schemes often depends on the Enumservice Class, Type,
      and/or Subtype.  A colon MUST NOT be placed after the URI Scheme
      name.  If there is more that one URI Scheme, then one 'urischeme'
      element per URI scheme must be used in the XML chunk.  Please find
      further instructions in Section 4.

         e.g.
         <urischeme>bar</urischeme>
         <urischeme>sbar</urischeme>

      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, in accordance with [RFC3402]

   o  Functional Specification (<functionalspec>):

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

         e.g.

       <functionalspec>
         <paragraph>
           This Enumservice indicates
           that the resource identified can be addressed
           by the associated URI in order to foo the bar.
         </paragraph>
         <paragraph>
           [...]
         </paragraph>
       </functionalspec>


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

   o  Security Considerations (<security>):

      A reference to the 'Security Considerations' section of a given
      Enumservice Specification.

         e.g.

           <security>
             See <xref type="rfc" data="rfc4979"/>, Section 6.
           </security>




Hoeneisen, et al.         Expires June 11, 2009                [Page 15]

Internet-Draft      IANA Registration of Enumservices      December 2008


   o  Intended Usage (<usage>):

      One of the following values (without quotes):

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

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

      *  "OBSOLETE": Indicates that the Enumservice has been declared
         obsolete (Section 11.1.5) and is not to be used in new
         deployments.  Applications SHOULD however expect to encounter
         legacy instances of this Enumservice.

         e.g.
         <usage>COMMON</usage>

   o  Enumservice Registration Document(s) (<registrationdocs>):

      Reference(s) to the Document(s) containing the Enumservice
      Specification.

         e.g.

                     <registrationdocs>
                       <xref type="rfc" data="rfc4979"/>
                     </registrationdocs>


         e.g.

           <registrationdocs>
             <xref type="rfc" data="rfc8888"/> (obsoleted by RFC 9999)
             <xref type="rfc" data="rfc9999"/>
           </registrationdocs>


         e.g.


           <registrationdocs>
             [International
             Telecommunications Union, "Enumservice Specification
             for Foobar", ITU-F Recommendation B.193, Release 73,



Hoeneisen, et al.         Expires June 11, 2009                [Page 16]

Internet-Draft      IANA Registration of Enumservices      December 2008


             Mar 2008.]
           </registrationdocs>

   o  Requester (<requester>):

      The persons requesting the registration of the Enumservice.
      Usually these are the authors of the Enumservice specification.

         e.g.

           <requester>
             <xref type="person" data="John_Doe"/>
           </requester>
           ...
           <people>
             <person id="John_Doe">
               <name>John Doe</name>
               <org>ACME Research and Development Inc.</org>
               <uri>mailto:jd@acme.example.com</uri>
               <updated>2008-11-20</updated>
             </person>
           </people>


      Note: If there is more than one requester, there must be one
      'xref' element per requester in the 'requester' element, and one
      'person' chunk per 'requester' in the 'people' element.


   o  Further Information (<additionalinfo>):

      Any other information the authors deem interesting.

         e.g.

           <additionalinfo>
             <paragraph>more info goes here</paragraph>
           </additionalinfo>


      Note: If there is no such additional information, then the
      'additionalinfo' part of the XML chunk is to be left out.

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



Hoeneisen, et al.         Expires June 11, 2009                [Page 17]

Internet-Draft      IANA Registration of Enumservices      December 2008


   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.

   The example(s) SHOULD follow any relevant IETF guidelines on the use
   of domain names, phone numbers, and other resource identifier
   examples, such as [RFC2606].

   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 an Enumservice Specification 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).

   An Enumservice Specification SHOULD NOT include general and obvious
   security recommendations, such as securing servers with strong
   password authentication.

   [RFC3552] provides guidance to write a good Security Considerations
   section, Section 10.2 of this document contains guidance specific to
   Enumservice registration.

5.6.  IANA Considerations (MANDATORY)

   Describe the task IANA needs to fulfill processing the Enumservice
   Registration Document.

   e.g.



Hoeneisen, et al.         Expires June 11, 2009                [Page 18]

Internet-Draft      IANA Registration of Enumservices      December 2008


   This document requests 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].

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

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

5.7.  DNS Considerations (MANDATORY)

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

   Such DNS issues include, but are not limited to:

   o  Assumptions about ownership or administrative control of the
      namespace.

   o  Requirement or need to use DNS wildcards.

   o  Incompatibility with DNS wildcards.

   o  Presence or absence of respective NAPTR Resource Records at
      particular levels in the DNS hierarchy (e.g. only for 'full' E.164
      numbers, or wildcards only).

   o  Use of any Resource Records (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



Hoeneisen, et al.         Expires June 11, 2009                [Page 19]

Internet-Draft      IANA Registration of Enumservices      December 2008


   that need to be explicitly discussed.

5.8.  Other Sections (OPTIONAL)

   Other sections beyond those required above MAY be included in an
   Enumservice Specification.  These sections may relate to the
   specifics of the intended use of the Enumservice registration, as
   well as to any associated technical, operational, administrative, or
   other concerns.

   A use case SHOULD be included by the authors of the proposal, so that
   experts can better understand the problem the proposal seeks to solve
   (intended use of the Enumservice).  The inclusion of such a use case
   will both accelerate the Expert Review Process, as well as make any
   eventual registration easier to understand and implement by other
   parties.


6.  The Process of Registering New Enumservices

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

   Figure 1 shows, what authors of a Registration Document describing an
   Enumservice MUST carry out, before said Registration Document can be
   formally submitted to IANA for Expert Review.  Figure 2 shows the
   process from Expert Review onwards.






















Hoeneisen, et al.         Expires June 11, 2009                [Page 20]

Internet-Draft      IANA Registration of Enumservices      December 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  |
                       +----------------------+
                                  :
                                  :
                                  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, and makes suggestions on content.

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.




Hoeneisen, et al.         Expires June 11, 2009                [Page 21]

Internet-Draft      IANA Registration of Enumservices      December 2008


6.3.  Step 3: Request Comments from the IETF Community

   The authors MUST send an email to <enum@ietf.org>, in which comments
   on the Registration Document are requested.  A proper public
   reference (a URL is RECOMMENDED) to the Registration Document MUST be
   included in this email.

   The authors SHOULD allow a reasonable period of time to elapse, such
   as two to four weeks, in order to collect any feedback.  The authors
   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 authors.  The choice of path is left to the
   authors' judgement.

   Note: Whatever that outcome is, the Experts are not bound to any
   decision during this phase.

6.3.1.  Outcome 1: No Changes Needed

   No changes to the Registration Document are made, and the authors
   proceed 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 authors update the Registration Document and is/are confident
   that all issues are resolved and do not require further discussion.
   The authors proceed 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 authors update and submit the Registration Document, and proceed
   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.







Hoeneisen, et al.         Expires June 11, 2009                [Page 22]

Internet-Draft      IANA Registration of Enumservices      December 2008


6.4.  Step 4: Submit Registration Document

   If the Registration Document is to be published as RFC, the normal
   IETF publication process applies (see [instructions2authors]), i.e.
   the Registration Document is submitted to the RFC Editor in the form
   of an Internet Draft.  For Independent Submission the guidelines in
   Independent Submissions to the RFC Editor [RFC4846] apply.

   For publications as RFC Steps 6 below does not apply.

   If the Registration Document is not published as RFC, the authors
   submit the Registration Document to IANA for Expert Review via the
   http://iana.org/ website.

   The Step 6 below does only apply in case the Registration Document is
   to be published in a specification other than RFC.

                                  :
                                  :
                                  V
                       +-----------------------+
                       | Step 5: Expert Review |<-------------+
                       +-----------------------+              |
                                  |                           |
                                  V                           |
                                 .^.                          |
                               .     .                        |
     .---------.             .  Expert .               +------------+
    ( Bad luck! )<-------- <    Review   >------------>| Update R-D |
     `---------'   experts   . results .   changes     | and submit |
                   reject      . in: .     required    +------------+
                                 . .
                                  Y
                                  | experts approve
                                  V
                +-----------------------------------+
                | Step 6: Publication of R-D        |
                |         (only relevant if R-D not |
                |         to be published as RFC)   |
                +-----------------------------------+
                                  |
                                  V
           +---------------------------------------------+
           | Step 7: Adding Enumservice to IANA Registry |
           +---------------------------------------------+

   R-D: Registration Document




Hoeneisen, et al.         Expires June 11, 2009                [Page 23]

Internet-Draft      IANA Registration of Enumservices      December 2008


                                 Figure 2

6.5.  Step 5: Expert Review

   After the Registration Document arrives at IANA, they will conduct an
   Expert Review according to [RFC5226].  The authors MUST be prepared
   for further interaction with IANA and the experts.

6.5.1.  Outcome 1: Experts Approve the Registration Document

   No (more) changes to the Registration Document are made.  IANA will
   inform the authors, who then will proceed to Step 6 below.

6.5.2.  Outcome 2: Changes Required

   The experts might require changes before they can approve the
   Registration Document.  The authors update and submit the
   Registration Document.  The authors inform the experts about the
   available update, who then continue the Expert Review Process.

6.5.3.  Outcome 3: Experts Reject the Registration Document

   The expert might reject the Registration, which means the Expert
   Review Process is discontinued.  For appeals, see Section 7.3.

6.6.  Step 6: Publication of the Registration Document

   This Step 5 only applies in case the Registration Document is to be
   published in a specification other than RFC.  (In the RFC case the
   RFC publication process ensures that the Enumservice Specification is
   published.)

   The authors are responsible that the Registration Document is
   published according to 'Specification Required' as defined in
   [RFC5226].

6.7.  Step 7: Adding Enumservice to IANA Registry

   In case the Registration Document is to be published as an RFC, the
   RFC publication process ensures that IANA will add the Enumservice to
   the Registry.

   In case the Registration Document is to be published in a
   specification other than RFC, the authors MUST inform IANA, as soon
   as the Enumservice Specification has been published according to
   'Specification Required' as defined in [RFC5226].  The 'Enumservice
   Specification(s)' element in the IANA Template MUST contain a
   unambiguous reference to the Enumservice Specification (see also



Hoeneisen, et al.         Expires June 11, 2009                [Page 24]

Internet-Draft      IANA Registration of Enumservices      December 2008


   Section 5.2).  In addition, the authors MUST provide IANA with a
   stable URL to the Enumservice Specification, in order that IANA may
   obtain the information included in the Enumservice Specification.
   IANA will then add the Enumservice to the Registry.


7.  Expert Review

7.1.  Expert Selection Process

   According to Section 3.2 of [RFC5226], 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" [RFC5226].

   The experts MUST evaluate the criterion as set out in [RFC5226], 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 3,
      Section 5) are met.  This includes check for completeness and
      whether all the aspects described in Section 3 and Section 5 are
      sufficiently addressed.

   o  If a use case is provided, the experts SHOULD verify whether the
      proposed Enumservice does actually match the use case.  The
      experts SHOULD also determine whether the use case could be
      covered by an existing Enumservice.

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

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

   o  In case the Enumservice is not classified, the experts MUST verify
      whether a convincing reason for the deviation is provided in the
      Registration Document.




Hoeneisen, et al.         Expires June 11, 2009                [Page 25]

Internet-Draft      IANA Registration of Enumservices      December 2008


   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 experts SHOULD verify that the authors have adequately
      addressed the issue of potential query loops.

   In case of conflicts between [RFC5226] and the guidelines in this
   section, the former remains authoritative.

7.3.  Appeals

   Appeals of Expert Review decisions follow the process described in
   section 7 of [RFC5226] and section 6.5 of [RFC2026].


8.  Revision of Pre-Existing Enumservice Specifications

   Many Enumservice Registrations, published via IETF RFCs, already
   exist at the time of the development of this document.  These
   existing Enumservice Specifications MAY be revised to comply with the
   specifications contained herein.  All revisions of Enumservice
   Specifications MUST follow the specifications contained herein.


9.  Extension of Existing Enumservice Specifications

   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 Enumservice Specification needs
   to be extended (Updates) or replaced (Obsoletes) [RFC2223].
   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 new technology, protocol,
   or Enumservice Specification, there are no specific security issues
   to be considered for this document.  However, as this is a guide to
   authors of new Enumservice Specifications, the next section should be



Hoeneisen, et al.         Expires June 11, 2009                [Page 26]

Internet-Draft      IANA Registration of Enumservices      December 2008


   considered closely by authors and experts.

10.2.  Enumservice Security Considerations Guideline

   [I-D.ietf-enum-3761bis] already outlines security considerations
   affecting ENUM as a whole.  Enumservice Specifications do not need to
   and SHOULD NOT repeat considerations already listed in that document.
   However, Enumservice Specifications SHOULD include a reference to
   that section.

   ENUM refers to resources using existing URI Schemes and protocols.
   Enumservice Specifications do not need to and SHOULD NOT repeat
   security considerations affecting those protocols and URI Schemes
   themselves.

   However, in some cases, the inclusion of those protocols and URI
   Schemes into ENUM specifically could introduce new security issues.
   In these cases, those issues or risks MUST be covered in the
   'Security Considerations' section of the Enumservice Specification.
   Authors should pay particular attention to any indirect risks that
   are associated with a proposed Enumservice, including cases where the
   proposed Enumservice could lead to the discovery or disclosure of
   Personally Identifiable Information (PII).


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).

11.1.1.  IANA Registration Template

   The XML chunk listed below should be used as a template to create the
   IANA Registration Template.  Examples for the use of this template
   are contained in Appendix A.









Hoeneisen, et al.         Expires June 11, 2009                [Page 27]

Internet-Draft      IANA Registration of Enumservices      December 2008


           <record>
             <class> <!-- Enumservice Class --> </class>
             <type> <!-- Type --> </type>
             <subtype> <!-- Subtype --> </subtype>
             <urischeme> <!-- URI Schema Name --> </urischeme>
             <urischeme> <!-- another URI Schema Name --> </urischeme>
             <functionalspec>
               <paragraph>
                 <!-- Text that explains the functionality of
                      the Enumservice to be registered -->
               </paragraph>
             </functionalspec>
             <security>
               <!-- Change accordingly -->
               See <xref type="rfc" data="rfc9999"/>, Section 7.
             </security>
             <usage> <!-- COMMON, LIMITED USE or OBSOLETE --> </usage>
             <registrationdocs>
               <!-- Change accordingly -->
               <xref type="rfc" data="rfc9999"/>
             </registrationdocs>
             <requesters>
               <!-- Change accordingly -->
               <xref type="person" data="John_Doe"/>
               <xref type="person" data="Jane_Dale"/>
             </requesters>
             <additionalinfo>
                     <paragraph>
                       <!-- Text with additional information about
                            the Enumservice to be registered -->
                     </paragraph>
                     <artwork>
                       <!-- There can be artwork sections, too -->
                       :-)
                     </artwork>
             </additionalinfo>
           </record>

          <people>
            <person id="John_Doe">
              <name> <!-- Firstname Lastname --> </name>
              <org> <!-- Organisation Name --> </org>
              <uri> <!-- mailto: or http: URI --> </uri>
              <updated> <!-- date format YYYY-MM-DD --> </updated>
            </person>
            <!-- repeat person section for each person -->
          </people>




Hoeneisen, et al.         Expires June 11, 2009                [Page 28]

Internet-Draft      IANA Registration of Enumservices      December 2008


11.1.2.  Location

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

   This Registry publishes representations derived from the IANA
   Registration Template as described in Section 11.1.1 and specified in
   Section 5.2.

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

11.1.3.  Structure

   IANA maintains the Enumservice Registry sorted in alphabetical order.
   The first sort field is Type, the second is Subtype.

   Each Enumservice starts with a caption, which is composed of Type and
   Subtype, separated by a colon; e.g. if the Type is "foo" and the
   Subtype "bar", the resulting caption is "foo:bar".

   [I-D.hoeneisen-enum-enumservices-transition] updates the existing
   Enumservices into the new IANA Registration Template.

11.1.4.  Registration Procedure

   There is a difference in process depending on whether or not the
   Enumservice Specification will be published as RFC.  In case of RFC,
   the normal IETF procures (according to [RFC5226]) apply.  In case of
   a specification other than RFC, there is a slight difference to
   [RFC5226] (see below).  The reason for this lies in the complexity of
   Enumservice Specifications.  Registration Documents will most likely
   undergo changes during Expert Review, so that in most cases it will
   not be published by the time the Expert Review is carried out.

11.1.4.1.  Published as RFC

   As soon as IANA receives the Registration Document from the RFC
   Editor, IANA will take care of the 'Expert Review Process' according
   to "Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs"
   [RFC5226].

   After successful Expert Review IANA will register the Enumservice,
   i.e. add the Enumservice to the IANA "Enumservice Registrations"
   Registry (see also Section 11.1.2).



Hoeneisen, et al.         Expires June 11, 2009                [Page 29]

Internet-Draft      IANA Registration of Enumservices      December 2008


   The RFC Editor will now take care of the publication of the RFC.

11.1.4.2.  Published as generic Specification

   Whenever a Registration Document is submitted via the IANA website,
   IANA will take care of the 'Expert Review Process' according to
   "Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs"
   [RFC5226].

   Once the experts have approved the Enumservice, IANA will inform the
   authors.  This information SHOULD also include a reminder, that the
   authors are now responsible for publication of the Registration
   Document (see also Section 6.6) and that the Enumservice will be
   added to the IANA Registry only after its Enumservice Specification
   is published according to 'Specification Required' as defined in
   [RFC5226] (see also Section 6.7).  The Registration process will now
   be on hold until the authors inform IANA about the publication of the
   Enumservice Specification (see also Section 6.7).

   Once the authors have informed IANA about the publication, IANA MUST
   ensure that the requirements to "Specification Required" as defined
   in [RFC5226] are met, the reference to the specification is
   unambiguous, and the content of the Enumservice Specification is
   identical to the Registration Document as approved by the Experts.
   IANA will then register the Enumservice, i.e. add the Enumservice to
   the IANA "Enumservice Registrations" Registry (see also
   Section 11.1.2).

11.1.5.  Change Control

   Change control of any Enumservice Registrations is done by "Expert
   Review" and "Specification Required" according to [RFC5226].  Updates
   of Enumservice Specifications MUST comply with the guidelines
   described in this document.  Updates are handled the same way as
   initial Enumservice Registrations.

   Authorized Change Controllers are the experts and the IESG.

   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 Enumservice Specification changing its
   "Intended Usage" element to "OBSOLETE"; such Enumservices will be
   clearly marked in the lists published by IANA.  As obsoletions are
   updates, they are also handled the same way as initial Enumservice
   Registrations.






Hoeneisen, et al.         Expires June 11, 2009                [Page 30]

Internet-Draft      IANA Registration of Enumservices      December 2008


11.1.6.  Restrictions

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

   Section 5.2 contains examples for Enumservice registrations.
   Therefore, IANA MUST NOT register an Enumservice with Type or Subtype
   set to "foo", "bar", or "sbar", unless the experts explicitly confirm
   an exception.


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



Hoeneisen, et al.         Expires June 11, 2009                [Page 31]

Internet-Draft      IANA Registration of Enumservices      December 2008


              Discovery  System (DDDS) Application (ENUM)",
              draft-ietf-enum-3761bis-03 (work in progress), March 2008.

   [RFC2223]  Postel, J. and J. Reynolds, "Instructions to RFC Authors",
              RFC 2223, October 1997.

   [RFC3402]  Mealling, M., "Dynamic Delegation Discovery System (DDDS)
              Part Two: The Algorithm", RFC 3402, October 2002.

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

   [RFC5226]  Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
              IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226,
              May 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.

   [RFC5234]  Crocker, D. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax
              Specifications: ABNF", STD 68, RFC 5234, January 2008.

   [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.

   [RFC4846]  Klensin, J. and D. Thaler, "Independent Submissions to the
              RFC Editor", RFC 4846, July 2007.

   [RFC4355]  Brandner, R., Conroy, L., and R. Stastny, "IANA
              Registration for Enumservices email, fax, mms, ems, and
              sms", RFC 4355, January 2006.

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

   [RFC3552]  Rescorla, E. and B. Korver, "Guidelines for Writing RFC
              Text on Security Considerations", BCP 72, RFC 3552,



Hoeneisen, et al.         Expires June 11, 2009                [Page 32]

Internet-Draft      IANA Registration of Enumservices      December 2008


              July 2003.

   [RFC2606]  Eastlake, D. and A. Panitz, "Reserved Top Level DNS
              Names", BCP 32, RFC 2606, June 1999.

   [I-D.hoeneisen-enum-enumservices-transition]
              Hoeneisen, B. and A. Mayrhofer, "Update of legacy IANA
              Registrations of Enumservices",
              draft-hoeneisen-enum-enumservices-transition-01 (work in
              progress), May 2008.

   [instructions2authors]
              Reynolds, J. and R. Braden, "Instructions to Request for
              Comments (RFC) Authors", RFC Editor http://
              www.rfc-editor.org/rfc-editor/instructions2authors.txt,
              August 2004.

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


Appendix A.  IANA XML Template Examples

   This section contains non-normative examples of the IANA Registration
   Template XML chunk.


   This is the first example:





















Hoeneisen, et al.         Expires June 11, 2009                [Page 33]

Internet-Draft      IANA Registration of Enumservices      December 2008


           <record>
             <class>Protocol-based</class>
             <type>email</type>
             <subtype>mailto</subtype>
             <urischeme>mailto:</urischeme>
             <functionalspec>
                   <paragraph>
                     This Enumservice indicates that the remote
                     resource can be addressed by the associated
                     URI scheme in order to send an email.
                   </paragraph>
             </functionalspec>
             <security>
                See <xref type="rfc" data="rfc4355"/>, Section 6.
             </security>
             <usage>COMMON</usage>
             <registrationdocs>
                    <xref type="rfc" data="rfc4355"/>
             </registrationdocs>
             <requesters>
               <xref type="person" data="Lawrence_Conroy"/>
             </requesters>
            </record>

           <people>
                   <person id="Lawrence_Conroy">
                     <name>Lawrence Conroy</name>
                     <org>Siemens Roke Manor Research</org>
                     <uri>mailto:lwc@roke.co.uk</uri>
                     <updated>2008-11-20</updated>
                   </person>
           </people>


   This is the second example.
















Hoeneisen, et al.         Expires June 11, 2009                [Page 34]

Internet-Draft      IANA Registration of Enumservices      December 2008


           <record>
             <class>Protocol-based</class>
             <type>xmpp</type>
             <urischeme>xmpp</urischeme>
             <functionalspec>
                   <paragraph>This Enumservice indicates that the
                   resource identified is an XMPP entity.</paragraph>
             </functionalspec>
             <security>See <xref type="rfc" data="rfc4979"/>,
             Section 6.</security>
             <usage>COMMON</usage>
             <registrationdocs>
                    <xref type="rfc" data="rfc4979"/>
             </registrationdocs>
             <requesters>
               <xref type="person" data="Alexander_Mayrhofer"/>
             </requesters>
           </record>

           <people>
                   <person id="Alexander_Mayrhofer">
                     <name>Alexander Mayrhofer</name>
                     <org>enum.at GmbH</org>
                     <uri>mailto:alexander.mayrhofer@enum.at</uri>
                     <updated>2008-10-10</updated>
                   </person>
           </people>


   This is the third example:





















Hoeneisen, et al.         Expires June 11, 2009                [Page 35]

Internet-Draft      IANA Registration of Enumservices      December 2008


          <record>
            <class>Application-based</class>
            <type>voicemsg</type>
            <subtype>sip</subtype>
            <urischeme>sip</urischeme>
            <functionalspec>
                  <paragraph>This Enumservice indicates that the remote
                  resource identified can be addressed by the associated
                  URI scheme in order to initiate a voice communication
                  session to a voice messaging system.</paragraph>
            </functionalspec>
            <security>See <xref type="rfc" data="rfc4279"/>,
            Section 3.</security>
            <usage>COMMON</usage>
            <registrationdocs>
                   <xref type="rfc" data="rfc4279"/>
            </registrationdocs>
            <requesters>
              <xref type="person" data="Jason_Livingood"/>
              <xref type="person" data="Donald_Troshynski">
            </requesters>
            <additionalinfo>
                    <paragraph>Implementers should review a
                    non-exclusive list of examples in
                    <xref type="rfc" data="rfc4279"/>,
                    Section 7.</paragraph>
            </additionalinfo>
          </record>

          <people>
                  <person id="Jason_Livingood">
                    <name>Jason Livingood</name>
                    <org>Comcast Cable Communications</org>
                    <uri>mailto:jason_livingood@cable.comcast.com</uri>
                    <updated>2008-11-20</updated>
                  </person>
                  <person id="Donald_Troshynski">
                    <name>Donald Troshynski</name>
                    <org>Acme Packet</org>
                    <uri>mailto:dtroshynski@acmepacket.com</uri>
                    <updated>2008-11-20</updated>
                  </person>
          </people>

   Note: The "voicemsg" Enumservice has several Subtypes.  For each
   Subtype, an individual XML chunk must be submitted to IANA, with only
   the first one shown above.  This is to avoid any ambiguity of the
   relation between "subtype" and "urischeme" elements.



Hoeneisen, et al.         Expires June 11, 2009                [Page 36]

Internet-Draft      IANA Registration of Enumservices      December 2008


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
      an Enumservice to be registered, this document mandates "Expert
      Review" and "Specification Required".

   o  This document defines the classification of Enumservices.  The
      IANA Registration Template has been complemented to contain a
      "Classification" element.

   o  A new element "Enumservice Registration(s)" has been added to the
      IANA Registration Template.

   o  The former element "Any other information that the author deems
      interesting" of the IANA Registration Template has been renamed to
      "Further Information".

   o  The Enumservice "Name" element has been removed from the IANA
      Registration Template.
   o  The Registration Template is now a chunk of XML data, reflecting
      IANA's recent work to convert registries to XML.


Appendix C.  Document Changelog

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

   draft-ietf-enum-enumservices-guide-15:
   o  bernie: cleared out authors/requesters
   o  alex: added ABNF reference + acronym expansion
   o  alex: changed order of paragraphs in introduction - registry
      update now in front of blah blah paragraph
   o  alex: various editorial and formatting updates to the new XML
      template specs.
   o  alex: moved XML template to IANA considerations
   o  alex: removed "identifying tag" language
   o  alex: clarified "element" vs. "field" usage - "element" now refers
      to XML chunk pieces of IANA registration, while "fields" refers to
      other things, like fields of a NAPTR record, etc.
   o  alex: removed more subtypes from third example - one subtype per
      template ensures that there is no confusion between the URI
      schemes for various subtypes

   draft-ietf-enum-enumservices-guide-14:



Hoeneisen, et al.         Expires June 11, 2009                [Page 37]

Internet-Draft      IANA Registration of Enumservices      December 2008


   o  alex: changed template information in description of fields to XML
      chunk information
   o  alex: added references to person information in examples
   o  alex: replaced "registrant" with "requester"
   o  bernie: minor editorial corrections and nits
   o  jason: added the IANA XML chunk, as well as some examples

   draft-ietf-enum-enumservices-guide-13:
   o  alex: Some minor changes - the only real open issue is whether or
      not we should go to an XML template instead of the plain text one.
      IANA provided a "chunk", but gave no feedback about schema,
      namespace, etc. so it is deemed not "normative" enough yet.
   o  bernie: Implemented IANA Feedback: made difference between RFC and
      no-RFC specs more clear; now the both variants slightly differ in
      process.
   o  bernie: Implemented more feedback of Peter Koch:
      *  Terminology updated throughout the document: Enumservice
         Specification / Registration Document
      *  Changed IANA Template field 'Registration Document(s) to
         'Enumservice specification(s)'
      *  Disallow dash '-' as last char of Type or Subtype
      *  Removed XML2RFC template and referencing sections
   o  bernie: changed "Subtype names MAY be shared between URI Schemes
      that the Registration specifies as mandatory to implement for a
      given Subtype." to "Subtype names MAY be shared between URI
      Schemes, if all the URI Schemes within the same Subtype are
      mandatory to implement."
   o  bernie: Cleared out independent submission and added reference to
      RFC 4846
   o  jason: Per the co-chair and Peter Koch, doc changed to BCP.  Doc
      doesn't specify a protocol but a process.  Both RFC 2026, section 
      5, and section 4.3 of RFC 5226 suggest that process documents, and
      IANA Guidelines in particular, usually are published as BCP RFCs.
      Also, there's little to implement independently in this draft that
      could help advance it on the Standards Track.
   o  jason: various nits clean-up suggested by Peter Koch.

   draft-ietf-enum-enumservices-guide-12:
   o  bernie: Refined process, i.e. separation of Expert Review and
      addition to IANA Registry (only after publication of spec):
      *  Split up "Further Steps" into three new sections
      *  Extended ASCII Art
      *  Adjusted IANA considerations
   o  bernie: Updated Open Issues
   o  alex: Added reference to RFC3552 (security considerations
      guidance)





Hoeneisen, et al.         Expires June 11, 2009                [Page 38]

Internet-Draft      IANA Registration of Enumservices      December 2008


   o  alex: Added instructions2author as informative reference - i don't
      see another way (revision 439, closing ticket 25)
   o  alex: Moved text about use cases from Review Guidelines up to
      "other sections", slightly reworded it (revision 438, closing
      ticket 66)
   o  bernie: Updated own contact details
   o  bernie: Implemented editorial feedback from Alfred Hoenes
   o  bernie: Added some clarifications to IANA consideration as
      proposed by Michelle Cotton (IANA)
   o  bernie: Edited appendix "Changes Overview", moved stuff from
      "Introduction" to "Changes Overview"
   o  bernie: Updated IANA section "Change Control":
      *  Authorized Change controllers are experts and IESG
      *  Removed field "Authorized Change Controller" (was introduced in
         -11)
   o  bernie: Replaced "number blocks" by "wildcards" (DNS
      Considerations) to avoid conflict with RFC3761
   o  bernie: Extended recommendations about search for previous work
   o  bernie: Adjusted sections "Revision of Pre-Existing Enumservice
      RFCs" and "Submit Registration Document to IANA"

   draft-ietf-enum-enumservices-guide-11:
   o  bernie: Replaced reference rfc2434bis with rfc5226
   o  bernie: Moved terminology related paragraph from Introduction to
      Terminology Section
   o  bernie: Added reference to transition document
   o  jason: Updated my author address
   o  jason: Closed out active tickets at
      http://ietf.enum.at/cgi-bin/trac.cgi/report/1
   o  jason: Section 8, review of pre-existing enumservices, updated
      with IETF 72 feedback that this must take place
   o  jason: Ticket 39: Added text to section 4.1, general enumservice
      considerations, section 2, bullet 2 to address comment by Lawrence
      Conroy about expired I-Ds
   o  jason: Ticket 45: Added text to section 7.1, expert review /
      review guidelines, bullet 3, to indicate that a use case SHOULD be
      included.  Also added related text to section 5.8, other sections,
      to address this.  This resolves comments by Lawrence Conroy
   o  jason: Ticket 55: Replaced 'repository' with 'registry' throughout
      the document to normalize this text and make it uniform.
   o  jason: Ticket 52: Checked references to ensure rfc5226 is cited
      instead of rfc2434bis, which Bernie seems to have mainly covered.
      I also added a reference in the header for rfc5226, since it is a
      normative reference.
   o  jason: Ticket 25: Removed reference to rfc2223bis-08 as this I-D
      is now listed as dead.





Hoeneisen, et al.         Expires June 11, 2009                [Page 39]

Internet-Draft      IANA Registration of Enumservices      December 2008


   o  jason: Ticket 49: Have updated section 5.2, IANA registration,
      bullet on authors addresses, to say that email addresses MUST NOT
      be included in the IANA Registry.  I opened a related ticket.
      Seems there are some email addresses in the registry.  Also
      simplified author(s) and expert(s) to authors and experts
      throughout.
   o  jason: Ticket 28: Minor changes to Section 10.1 and 10.2, Security
      Considerations
   o  jason: Ticket 30: Updated section 6.4, 6.5, on IANA registration
      to include that submission must be in XML format for IANA and that
      the Enumservice must have an RFC number, per discussion at IETF 72
   o  jason: Ticket 42: Cleaned up section 5.7, DNS considerations, per
      comments from Lawrence.
   o  jason: Updated definitions to reflect IANA Designated Experts per
      RFC 5226, and clean up of IANA-related terms (Registry, Template,
      etc.)
   o  jason: Ticket 51: added section to describe the need to have a
      contact listed for updating a registration, per RFC 5226, section 
      5.2.

   draft-ietf-enum-enumservices-guide-10:
   o  bernie: No longer empty field for IANA Registration ('N/A' must be
      used in this case)
   o  bernie: Adjusted IANA Registration Template:
      *  Registration Document -> Registration Document(s)
      *  Author -> Author(s)
   o  bernie: IANA repository in alphabetical order by Type and Subtype
   o  bernie: Class, Type, Subtype and URI Schema to begin with capital
   o  bernie: Caption for each Enumservice
   o  bernie: Consistent use of "field" for fields within IANA
      registration template (no longer used are "item" or "section")
   o  bernie: URI Schemes without colons and between single quotes, no
      longer email address in author(s) field
   o  bernie: Adjusted IANA Registration Section of XML2RFC template
   o  alex: Added List of Classes to choose from

   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'





Hoeneisen, et al.         Expires June 11, 2009                [Page 40]

Internet-Draft      IANA Registration of Enumservices      December 2008


   o  bernie: Combined Expert Review related sections
   o  bernie: Partly implemented feedback Alfred Hoenes and added him to
      Acknowledgments
   o  bernie: Enhanced examples for "Registration Document"
   o  bernie: Enhanced examples for "IANA Considerations" (feedback from
      Alfred Hoenes)
   o  bernie: Removed Note about RFC3761bis obsoleting RFC3761 (does not
      belong to this doc)
   o  bernie: Rewrote Naming Requirements section (impact to IANA
      Considerations - Restrictions)

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

   draft-ietf-enum-enumservices-guide-07:
   o  bernie: Section DNS considerations made mandatory
   o  bernie: Complete rewrite of IANA considerations
   o  bernie: XML2RFC template will be downloadable at IANA
   o  bernie: Complete re-write of process
   o  alex: Adjusted Cook-book / classification
   o  bernie: Take over chapter "Registration mechanism for
      Enumservices" from RFC 3761bis
   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




Hoeneisen, et al.         Expires June 11, 2009                [Page 41]

Internet-Draft      IANA Registration of Enumservices      December 2008


   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
   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:




Hoeneisen, et al.         Expires June 11, 2009                [Page 42]

Internet-Draft      IANA Registration of Enumservices      December 2008


   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  None


Authors' Addresses

   Bernie Hoeneisen
   Swisscom
   Hardturmstrasse 3
   CH-8005 Zuerich
   Switzerland

   Phone: +41 44 2747111
   Email: bernie@ietf.hoeneisen.ch (bernhard.hoeneisen AT swisscom.com)
   URI:   http://www.swisscom.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
   One Comcast Center
   1701 John F. Kennedy Boulevard
   Philadelphia, PA 19103
   USA

   Phone: +1-215-286-7813
   Email: jason_livingood@cable.comcast.com
   URI:   http://www.comcast.com/






Hoeneisen, et al.         Expires June 11, 2009                [Page 43]

Internet-Draft      IANA Registration of Enumservices      December 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 June 11, 2009                [Page 44]


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