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

Versions: (draft-conroy-enum-experiences) 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 RFC 5483

ENUM Working Group                                            L. Conroy
Internet Draft                                      Roke Manor Research
INFORMATIONAL                                               K. Fujiwara

Expires: February 2005                                        July 2004

             ENUM Implementation Issues and Experiences

Status of this Memo

  By submitting this Internet-Draft, I certify that any applicable
  patent or other IPR claims of which I am aware have been disclosed,
  or will be disclosed, and any of which I become aware will be
  disclosed, in accordance with RFC 3668.

  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 a "work in progress."

  The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at

  The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at

Copyright Notice

  Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004).  All Rights Reserved.


  This document captures experience in implementing systems based on
  the ENUM protocol, and experience of ENUM data that have been created
  by others. As such, it is informational only, and produced as a help
  to others in reporting what is "out there" and the potential pitfalls
  in interpreting the set of documents that specify the protocol.

1.  Introduction

The ENUM protocol [1] and the Dynamic Delegation Discovery System
(DDDS) [2] [9] [10] [11] are defined elsewhere, and those documents
alone form the normative definition of the ENUM system. Unfortunately,
this document cannot provide an overview of the specifications, so the
reader is assumed to have read and understood the complete set of ENUM
normative documents.

>From experience of creating ENUM data and of developing client systems
to process that data it is apparent that there are some subtleties in
the specifications that have led to different interpretations; in
addition there are common syntactic mistakes in data currently "out
there" on the Internet.

This document is intended to help others avoid the potential pitfalls
in interpreting the set of documents that specify the protocol. It also
reports the kind of data they will "find" and so how to process the
intent of the publisher of that ENUM data, regardless of the syntax
used. As such, it is in keeping with the principle evinced in RFC791
that "In general, an implementation must be conservative in its sending
behavior, and liberal in its receiving behavior".

Note that the DDDS system is intricate and so in some places there are
several potential interpretations of the specifications. This document
proposes a suggested interpretation for some of these points, but they
are just that; suggestions.

This draft covers 9 issues in four areas, making 28 recommendations
and giving 3 clarifications.

Any ENUM implementation issue has two sides:
- the "Server" side covering the expected behaviour of the ENUM zone
  population system and expectations that the Registrant may make, and
- the "Client" side covering behaviour that has been observed and that
  can be expected of the Client, together with the expectations that an
  end user who requests an ENUM lookup may make.

For each of the issues, we have split the recommendations into "Client"
and "Server" proposals. In three cases, we have indicated proposals that
relate to ENUMservice specifications, rather than implementations; these
are labelled as "Spec".

Note that these recommendations contain the words "MUST", "REQUIRE",
"SHOULD", and "MAY". In this particular document, these do not form a
standard, and so do not hold their normative definitions. The proposals
include these terms from observation of behaviour and for internal
consistency, where Client and Server recommendations have to match.

There are undoubtedly other issues, and developers are asked to raise
any others they find on the IETF ENUM Working group's mailing list
and/or by mail to the authors (see later for contact information).

Note that the authors are not aware of any IPR issues that are involved
in the suggestions made in this document.

2.  Character Sets and ENUM

2.1. Character Sets - Non-ASCII considered harmful

RFC3761 [1] and RFC3403 [2] specify that ENUM (and NAPTRs) support
Unicode using the UTF-8 [5] encoding. This raises an issue where
implementations use "single byte" string processing routines. If there
are multi-byte characters within an ENUM NAPTR, incorrect processing
may well result from these non "UTF-8 aware" systems.

The UTF-8 encoding has a "US-ASCII equivalent range", so that all
characters in US-ASCII from 0x00 to 0x7F hexadecimal have an identity
map to the UTF-8 encoding; the encodings are the same. In UTF-8,
characters with Unicode code points above this range will be encoded
using more than one byte, all of which will be in the range 0x80 to
0xFF hexadecimal. Thus it is important to consider the different fields
of a NAPTR and whether or not multi-byte characters can or should
appear in them.

In addition, characters in the "non-printable" portion of US-ASCII
(0x00 to 0x1F hexadecimal, plus 0x7F hexadecimal) are "difficult".
Although NAPTRs are processed by machine, they may sometimes need to be
written in a "human readable" form. Similarly, if NAPTR content is
shown to an end user so that they may choose, it is important that the
content is "human readable". Thus it is unwise to use non-printable
characters within the US-ASCII range; the Client may have good reason
to reject NAPTRs that include these characters as they cannot be shown.

There are two numeric fields in a NAPTR; the ORDER and PREFERENCE
fields. As these contain binary values, no risk is involved as string
processing should not be applied to them. The "string based" fields are
the flags, services, and RegExp fields. The Replacement field holding a
domain name encoded according to the standard DNS mechanism [3] [4].
With the introduction of Internationalized Domain Name (IDN) support,
this domain name MUST be further encoded using Punycode [6]. As this
holds a domain name that is not subject to replacement or modification
(other than Punycode processing), it is not of concern here.

Taking the "string" fields in turn, the flags field contains characters
that indicate the disposition of the NAPTR. This may be empty, in which
case the NAPTR is "non-final", or it may include a flag character as
specified in RFC3761. These characters all fall into the US-ASCII
equivalent range, so multi-byte characters cannot occur.

The services field includes the DDDS Application identifier ("E2U")
used for ENUM, the '+' character used to separate tokens, and a set
of ENUMservice identifiers, any of which may include the ':' separator
character. In section 2.4.2 of RFC3761 these identifiers are specified
as 1*32 ALPHA/DIGIT, so there is no possibility of non-ASCII characters
in the services field.

The RegExp field is more complex. It forms a SED-like substitution
expression, defined in [2], and consists of two sub-fields:
* the POSIX Extended Regular Expression (ERE) sub-field [7]
* a replacement (repl) sub-field [2].

Additionally, RFC3403 specifies that a flag character may be appended,
but the only flag currently defined there (the 'i' case insensitivity
flag) is not appropriate for ENUM - see later in this document.

The ERE sub-field matches against the "Application Unique String"; for
ENUM, this is defined in RFC3761 to consist of digit characters, with
an initial '+' character. All of these fall into the US-ASCII
equivalent range of UTF-8 encoding, as do the characters significant to
the ERE processing. Thus, for ENUM, there will be no multi-byte
characters within this sub-field.

The repl sub-field can include a mixture of explicit text used to
construct a URI and characters significant to the substitution
expression, as defined in RFC3403. Whilst the latter set all fall into
the US-ASCII equivalent range of UTF-8 encoding, this might not be the
case for all conceivable text used to construct a URI.

The current URIs use the overall URI character "escaping" rules [8],
and so any multi-byte characters will be pre-processed; they will not
occur in the explicit text used to construct a URI within the repl
sub-field. However, a future URI scheme might be developed that allows
characters with multi-byte UTF-8 encoding to exist. If this happens,
and if an ENUMservice specification is created that refers to this
scheme, then multi-byte characters could then occur in a NAPTR. The
presence of these characters could complicate URI generation and
processing routines.

Given that this is the only place within an ENUM NAPTR where such
multi-byte encodings might reasonably be found, a simple solution is
for no ENUMservice definition to include a reference to a URI that
allows UTF-8 characters outside the US-ASCII equivalent range to be
included, or to require that such characters be "escape encoded" before
inclusion in the repl sub-field. Note that the domain part of a URI
MUST be processed using Punycode if it has a non-ASCII domain name,
so there will be no non-ASCII characters in this part of any URI.

Thus, it is RECOMMENDED that, taking into account the existing client

Spec   - ENUMservice registrations SHOULD REQUIRE that any static text
         in the repl sub-field is encoded using only characters in the
         US-ASCII equivalent range that are "printable".
         If any of the static text characters do fall outside this
         range then they MUST be pre-processed using a URI-specific
         "escape" mechanism to re-encode them only using US-ASCII
         equivalent printable characters ( in the range 0x20 to 0x7E).

At the least, it is RECOMMENDED that:

Spec   - Any ENUMservice registration that allows characters requiring
         multi-byte UTF-8 encoding to be present in the repl sub-field
         MUST have a clear indication that there may be characters
         outside of the US-ASCII equivalent range.

Finally, the majority of ENUM Clients in use today do not support
multi-byte encodings of UCS. This is a reasonable choice, particularly
for "small footprint" implementations, and may not be able to support
NAPTR content that is non-printable as they need to present the content
to an end user for selection. Thus, it is RECOMMENDED that:

Client - Clients MAY discard NAPTRs in which they detect characters not
         in the US-ASCII "printable" range (0x20 to 0x7E hexadecimal).

ENUM zone population systems should consider this. It is RECOMMENDED

Server - ENUM zone content population systems SHOULD NOT use non-ASCII
         characters in the NAPTRs they generate unless they are sure
         that all Clients they intend to support will be able correctly
         to process them.

2.2. Case Sensitivity

The only place where NAPTR field content is case sensitive is in any
static text in the repl sub-field of the RegExp field. Everywhere else,
case insensitive processing can be used.

The case insensitivity flag ('i') may be added at the end of the RegExp
field. However, in ENUM, the ERE sub-field operates on a string defined
as the '+' character, followed by a sequence of digit characters. Thus
this flag is redundant for E2U NAPTRs, as it does not act on the repl
sub-field contents.


Server - When populating ENUM zones with NAPTRs, population systems
         SHOULD NOT use the 'i' flag, as it has no effect and some
         Clients don't expect it.

Client - Clients SHOULD NOT assume that the field delimiter is the last

2.3. Regexp field delimiter

It is not possible to select a delimiter character that cannot appear
in one of the sub-fields. Some old clients are "hardwired" to expect
the character '!' as a delimiter.
This is used in an example in RFC3403.


Server - ENUM zone population systems SHOULD use '!' (U+0021) as their
         RegExp delimiter character.

Client - Clients MAY discard NAPTRs that do not use '!' as a RegExp

This cannot appear in the ERE sub-field. It may appear in the content
of some URIs, as it is a valid character (e.g. in http URLs). Thus, it
is further RECOMMENDED that:

Server - ENUM zone population systems MUST ensure that, if the RegExp
         delimiter is a character in the static text of the repl
         sub-field, it MUST be "escaped" using the escaped-delimiter
         production of the BNF specification shown in section 3.2 of
         RFC3402 (i.e. "\!", U+005C U+0021).

Client - Clients SHOULD discard NAPTRs that have more or less than 3
         "unescaped" instances of the delimiter character within the
         RegExp field.

2.4. Regexp meta-character issue

In ENUM, the ERE sub-field may include a literal character '+', as
the Application Unique String on which it operates includes this.
However, if it is present, then '+' must be "escaped" using a backslash
character as '+' is a meta-character in POSIX Extended Regular
Expression syntax.

The following NAPTR example is incorrect:
* IN NAPTR 100 10 "u" "E2U+sip" "!^+46555(.*)$!sip:\1@sipcsp.se!" .

This example MUST be written as:
* IN NAPTR 100 10 "u" "E2U+sip" "!^\+46555(.*)$!sip:\1@sipcsp.se!" .

Server - If present in the ERE sub-field of an ENUM NAPTR, '+' MUST be
         written as "\+" (i.e. U+005C U+002B).

3.  ORDER/PRIORITY Processing

3.1. Order/Priority values - general processing

RFC3761 and RFC3403 state that the client MUST sort the NAPTRs using
the ORDER field value ("lowest value is first") and SHOULD order the
NAPTRs using the PRIORITY field value as the minor sort term (again,
lowest value first). The NAPTRs in the sorted list must be processed
in order. Subsequent NAPTRs with less preferred ORDER values must only
be dealt with once the current ones with a "winning" ORDER value have
been processed.

However, this expected behaviour is a simplification; clients may not
behave this way in practice, and so there is a conflict between the
specification and practice. For example, ENUM clients will be incapable
of using most NAPTRs as they don't support the ENUMservice (and the URI
generated by those NAPTRs). As such, they will discard the "unusable"
NAPTRs and continue with processing the "next best" NAPTR in the list.

The end user may have pre-specified their own preference for services
to be used. Thus, an end user may specify that they would prefer to use
contacts with a "sip" ENUMservice, and then those with "msg:email"
service, and are not interested in any other options. Thus the sorted
list as proposed by the Registrant (and published via ENUM) may be
re-ordered. For example, a NAPTR with a "sip" ENUMservice may have a
low ORDER field value, and yet is chosen before a NAPTR with an "h323"
ENUMservice and a high ORDER value. This may occur even if the node the
end user controls is capable of handling other ENUMservices.

ENUM Clients may also include the end user "in the decision loop",
offering the end user the choice from a list of possible NAPTRs. Given
that the ORDER field value is the major sort term, one would expect a
conforming ENUM Client to present only those NAPTRs with a "winning"
ORDER field value as choices. However, if all the options presented had
been rejected, then the ENUM Client might offer those with the "next
best" ORDER field value, and so on. As this may be inconvenient for the
end user, some clients simply offer all of the available NAPTRs as
options to the end user for their selection "in one go".

In summary, some clients will take into account the service field value
along with the ORDER and PRIORITY field values, and may consider the
preferences of the end user.

The Registrant and the ENUM zone population system they use MUST be
aware of this and SHOULD NOT rely on Clients taking account of the
value of the ORDER and the PRIORITY fields.

Specifically, it is unsafe to assume that a Client WILL NOT consider
another NAPTR until they have discarded one with a "winning" ORDER
value. The instruction (in RFC3403 section 4.1 and section 8) may or
may not be followed strictly by different ENUM clients for perfectly
justifiable reasons.

To avoid the risk of variable Client behaviour, it is RECOMMENDED that:

Server - An ENUM zone population system SHOULD NOT use different ORDER
         values for NAPTRs within a zone.

In our experience, incorrect ORDER values in ENUM zones is a major
source of problems. Although it is by no means required, it is further

Server - An ENUM zone population systems SHOULD use a value of 100
         as the default ORDER value to be used with all NAPTRs.

As such, when populating a zone with NAPTRS, it is RECOMMEDED that:

Server - A Registrant SHOULD NOT expect the client to ignore NAPTRs
         with higher ORDER field values - the "winning" ones may have
         been discarded.

Server - A Registrant SHOULD NOT expect the client to conform to the
         ORDER and PRIORITY sort order they have specified for their
         NAPTRs; the end user may have their own preferences for

Client - Clients MAY re-order the NAPTRs only to match an explicit
         preference pre-specified by their end user.

Client - Clients that offer a list of contacts to the end user for
         their choice MAY present all NAPTRs, not just the ones with
         the highest currently unprocessed ORDER field value.

Server - A Registrant SHOULD NOT assume which NAPTR choices will be
         presented "at once".

The impact of this is that a Registrant should place into their zone
only contacts that they are willing to support; even those with the
"least preferred" ORDER/PRIORITY values may be selected by an end user.

Finally, we have noticed a number of ENUM zones with NAPTRs that have
identical PRIORITY field values and different ORDER values. This may be
the result of a zone population system "bug" or a misunderstanding over
the uses of the two fields.

To clarify, the ORDER field value is the major sort term, and the
PRIORITY field value is the minor sort term. Thus one should expect to
have a set of NAPTRs in a zone with identical ORDER field values and
different PRIORITY field values.

3.2. Treatment of NAPTRs with identical ORDER/PRIORITY values

>From experience, there are zones that hold discrete NAPTRs with
identical ORDER and PRIORITY field values. This is an error and so
should not occur. However, in the spirit of being liberal in what is


Client - Clients should accept all NAPTRs with identical ORDER/PRIORITY
         field values, and process them in the order in which they
         appear in the DNS response.
(There is no benefit in further randomizing the order in which these
 are processed, as intervening DNS servers may do this already).

Conversely, populating the records with these identical values is a
mistake, and so it is RECOMMENDED that:

Server - When populating ENUM zones with NAPTRs, ENUM zone population
         systems SHOULD NOT have more than one with the same ORDER and
         the same PRIORITY field values, as Clients MAY reject the

There is a special case in which one could derive a set of NAPTRs with
identical ORDER/PRIORITY fields. With RFC3761, it is possible to have
more than one ENUMservice associated with a single NAPTR. Of course,
the different ENUMservices share the same RegExp field and so generate
the same URI. Such a "compound ENUMservice" NAPTR could well be used to
indicate, for example, a mobile phone that supports both voice:tel and
msg:sms ENUMservices.

This compound NAPTR may be deconstructed into a set of NAPTRs each
holding a single ENUMservice. However, in this case the members of this
set all hold the same ORDER and PRIORITY field values.

In this case, it is RECOMMENDED that:

Client - Clients receiving "compound" NAPTRs (i.e ones with more than
         one ENUMservice) should process these ENUMservices using a
         "left-to-right" sort ordering, so that the first ENUMservice
         to be processed will be the leftmost one, and the last will be
         the rightmost one.

Server - An ENUM zone population system SHOULD generate compound NAPTRs
         under the assumption that the ENUMservices will be processed
         in "left to right" order within such NAPTRs.

4.  Non-Final NAPTR Processing

4.1. Non-final NAPTRs - general issues

To clarify, a non-final NAPTR should include an empty services field.
Such a NAPTR will be significant regardless of the DDDS Application
processing NAPTRs in a zone. Clients should ignore the service field
contents when encountering a NAPTR with an empty flags field. As the
RegExp field should be empty in this case, the client should also
ignore this field.

To clarify, if all NAPTRs in a domain traversed as a result of a
reference in a non-final NAPTR have been discarded, then the Client
should continue its processing with the next NAPTR in the zone
including the non-final NAPTR that caused the traversal.

To clarify, most ENUM Clients appear not to support non-final NAPTRs,
and ignore them if received. This should be taken into account when
populating a zone. Thus, it is RECOMMENDED that:

Server - ENUM zone population systems SHOULD NOT generate non-final
         NAPTRs (i.e. NAPTRs with an empty flags field).

Client - ENUM clients MAY discard non-final NAPTRs (i.e. they MAY
         only support ENUM NAPTRs with a flags field of "u").

4.2. Non-final NAPTRs - loop detection and response

Where a "chain" of Non-final NAPTRs refers back to a domain already
traversed in the current query, this implies a "non-final loop".


Client - Clients SHOULD consider processing more than 5 "non-final"
         NAPTRs in a single ENUM query to indicate that a loop may
         have been detected, and act accordingly.

Server - When populating a set of domains with NAPTRs, one should not
         configure non-final NAPTRs so that more than 5 such NAPTRs
         will be processed in an ENUM query.

Client - Where a domain is about to be entered as the result of a
         reference in a non-final NAPTR, and the client has detected a
         potential "non-final loop", then the Client should discard the
         non-final NAPTR from its processing and continue with the next
         NAPTR in its list.

5.  Backwards Compatibility

5.1. Service field syntax

RFC3761 is the current standard for the syntax for NAPTRs supporting
the ENUM DDDS application. This obsoletes the original specification
that was given in RFC2916. There has been a change to the syntax of the
services field of the NAPTR that reflects a refinement of the concept
of ENUM processing.

As defined in RFC3403, there is now single identifier that indicates
the DDDS Application. In the obsolete specification (RFC2915), there
were zero or more "Resolution Service" identifiers (the equivalent of
the DDDS Application). The same identifier string is defined in both
RFC3761 and in the old RFC2916 specifications for the DDDS identifier
or the Resolution Service; "E2U".

Also, RFC3761 defines at least one but potentially several ENUMservice
sub-fields; in the obsolete specification, only one "protocol"
sub-field was allowed.

In many ways, the most important change for implementations is that the
order of the sub-fields has been reversed. RFC3761 specifies that the
DDDS Application identifier is the leftmost sub-field, followed by one
or more ENUMservice sub-fields, each separated by the '+' character
delimiter. RFC2916 specified that the protocol sub-field was the
leftmost, followed by the '+' delimiter, in turn followed by the "E2U"
resolution service tag.

RFC2915 and RFC2916 have been obsoleted by RFC3401-RFC3404 and by
RFC3761. Thus it is RECOMMENDED that:

Server - ENUM zone population systems MUST NOT generate NAPTRs
         according to the syntax defined in RFC2916. All zones MUST
         hold ENUM NAPTRs according to RFC3761 (and ENUMservice
         specifications according to the framework specified there).

However, RFC3834 suggests that clients SHOULD be prepared to accept
NAPTRs with the obsolete syntax. Thus, a Client implementation may have
to deal with both forms.


Client - Clients MUST support ENUM NAPTRs according to RFC3761 syntax
         Clients SHOULD also support ENUM NAPTRs according to the
         obsolete syntax of RFC2916; there are still zones that hold
         "old" syntax NAPTRs.

This need not be difficult. For example, an implementation could
process the services field into a set of tokens, and expect exactly one
of these tokens to be "E2U". In this way, the client might be designed
to handle both the old and the current forms without added complexity.

There is one subtle implication of this scheme. It is RECOMMENDED that:

Spec   - Registrations for an ENUMservice with the type string of
         "E2U" and an empty sub-type string MUST NOT be accepted.

6.  Security Considerations

This document does not specify any standard. It does however make some
recommendations, and so the implications of following those suggestions
have to be considered.

In addition to these issues, those in the basic use of ENUM (and
specified in the normative documents for this protocol) should be
considered as well; this document does not negate those in any way.

The clarifications throughout this document are intended only as that;
clarifications of text in the normative documents. They do not appear
to have any security implications above those mentioned in the
normative documents.

The suggestions in sections 2, 3, and 5 do not appear to have any
security considerations (either positive or negative).

The suggestions in section 4.2 are a valid approach to a known security
threat. It does not open an advantage to an attacker in client excess
processing or memory usage. It does, however, mean that a client will
traverse a "tight loop" of non-final NAPTRs in two domains 5 times
before the client detects this as a loop; this does introduce slightly
higher processing load that would be provided using other methods, but
avoids the risks they incur.

7.  IANA Considerations

This document is informational only, and does not include any IANA
considerations other than the suggestion in section 5.1 that no-one
should specify an enumservice with the identifying tag "E2U".

8. Acknowledgments

We would like to thank the various development teams who implemented
ENUM (both creation systems and clients) and who read the normative
documents differently - without these differences it would have been
harder for us all to develop robust clients and suitably conservative
management systems. We would also thank those who allowed us to check
their implementations to explore behaviour; their trust and help were
much appreciated.

In particular, thanks to Richard Stastny for his hard work on a similar
task [12] under the aegis of ETSI, and for supporting some of the ENUM
implementations that exist today.

Finally, thanks for the dedication of Michael Mealling in giving us
such detailed DDDS specifications, without which the ENUM development
effort would have had a less rigorous framework on which to build. This
document reflects how complex a system it is - without the intricacy of
RFC3401-RFC3404 and the work that went into them, it could have been
quite different.

9. Normative References

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

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

[3]  Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - implementation and
     specification", STD 13, RFC 1035, November 1987.

[4]  Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - concepts and facilities", STD 13,
     RFC 1034, November 1987.

[5]  F. Yergeau, "UTF-8, a transformation format of ISO 10646",
     STD 63, RFC 3629, November 2003.

[6]  A. Costello, "Punycode: A Bootstring encoding of Unicode for
     Internationalized Domain Names in Applications (IDNA)",
     RFC 3492, March 2003.

[7]  IEEE, "IEEE Standard for Information Technology - Portable
     Operating System Interface (POSIX) - Part 2: Shell and Utilities
     (Vol. 1)", IEEE Std 1003.2-1992, January 1993.

[8]  Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R. and L. Masinter, "Uniform Resource
     Identifiers (URI): Generic Syntax", RFC 2396, August 1998.

[9]  M. Mealling, RFC 3401,
       "Dynamic Delegation Discovery System (DDDS) Part One:
       The Comprehensive DDDS",
       October 2002

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

[11] M. Mealling, RFC 3404,
       "Dynamic Delegation Discovery System (DDDS) Part Four:
       The Uniform Resource Identifiers (URI)",
       October 2002

10. Non-normative Reference

[12]  ETSI TS 102 172,
       "Minimum Requirements for Interoperability of European ENUM
        Trials", July 2004

11. Authors' Addresses

Lawrence Conroy
Roke Manor Research
Old Salisbury Lane
Hampshire  SO51 0ZN
United Kingdom

email: lwc@roke.co.uk
URI:  http://www.sienum.co.uk

Kazunori Fujiwara
Japan Registry Service Co., Ltd.
Chiyoda First Bldg. East 13F
3-8-1 Nishi-Kanda Chiyoda-ku
Tokyo 101-0065

email: fujiwara@jprs.co.jp
URI:  http://jprs.jp/en/

12.  IPR and Full Copyright Statement

Disclaimer of validity:

  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.

Full Copyright Statement

  Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004).  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.

Disclaimer of Warranty

  This document and the information contained herein are provided on an


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

Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.111, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/