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

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 RFC 5526

ENUM Working Group                                         J. Livingood
Internet-Draft                             Comcast Cable Communications
Expires: May 16, 2008                                         P. Pfautz
Intended Status: Proposed Standard                                 AT&T
                                                             R. Stastny
                                                                  Oefeg
                                                      November 13, 2007


              The E.164 to Uniform Resource Identifiers (URI)
           Dynamic Delegation Discovery System (DDDS) Application for
                            Infrastructure ENUM
                     draft-ietf-enum-infrastructure-07


Status of this Memo

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

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

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

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

   This Internet-Draft will expire on May 16, 2008.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).


Abstract

   This document defines the use case for Infrastructure ENUM and
   proposes its implementation as a parallel namespace to "e164.arpa" as
   defined in RFC3761, as the long-term solution to the problem of



Livingood, et. al.       Expires May 16, 2008                 [Page 1]

Internet-Draft           Infrastructure ENUM            November 2007


   allowing carriers to provision DNS records for telephone numbers
   independently of those provisioned by end users (number assignees).


Table of Contents

   1. Terminology....................................................2
   2. Introduction...................................................2
   3. Zone Apex for Infrastructure ENUM..............................3
   4. IANA Considerations............................................3
   5. Security and Privacy Considerations............................3
   6. Acknowledgements...............................................4
   7. References.....................................................4
      7.1 Normative References.......................................4
      7.2 Informative References.....................................4
   Authors' Addresses................................................4
   Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements....................5


1. 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 BCP 14, RFC-2119 [5].

2. Introduction

   ENUM (E.164 Number Mapping, RFC 3761 [1]) is a system that transforms
   E.164 numbers [2] into domain names and then uses the DNS (Domain
   Name Service) [3] to discover NAPTR records that specify what
   services are available for a specific domain name.

   ENUM as originally defined was based on the end-user opt-in
   principle.  While this has great potential to foster new services and
   end-user choice in the long-term, the current requirements for IP-
   based interconnection of Voice over IP (VoIP) domains require the
   provisioning of large numbers of allocated or served (hosted) numbers
   of a participating service provider, without the need for individual
   users to opt-in or not and so that service providers can provision
   their own ENUM information that is separate, distinct, and likely to
   be different from what and end-user may provision.  This is
   particularly important if Infrastructure ENUM is used for number
   portability applications, for example, which an end-user would be
   unlikely to be interested in provisioning but which a service
   provider would likely find essential.

   In addition, while it is possible that service providers could
   mandate that their users opt-in into e164.arpa through end-user



Livingood, et. al.       Expires May 16, 2008                 [Page 2]

Internet-Draft           Infrastructure ENUM            November 2007


   contract terms and conditions, there are substantial downsides to
   such an approach.  Thus, for all these reasons and many others, ENUM
   for end-user provisioning is ill-suited for use by service providers
   for the interconnection of VoIP domains.

   As VoIP evolves and becomes pervasive, E.164-addressed telephone
   calls need not necessarily traverse the Public Switched Telephone
   Network (PSTN).  Therefore, VoIP service providers have an interest
   in using ENUM, on a so-called "Infrastructure" basis, to keep VoIP
   traffic on IP networks on an end-to-end basis, both within and
   between service provider domains. This requires of means of
   identifying a VoIP point of interconnection to which calls addressed
   to a given E.164 number may be delivered and Infrastructure ENUM
   provides this means.  Calls that can originate and terminate on IP
   networks, and do not have to traverse the PSTN, will require fewer or
   no points of transcoding, and can also involve additional IP network
   services that are not possible on the PSTN, among other benefits.

   Requirements for Infrastructure ENUM are provided in[4].

3. Zone Apex for Infrastructure ENUM

   This document proposes that Infrastructure ENUM be implemented by
   means of a parallel namespace to e164.arpa dedicated to
   Infrastructure ENUM, in a domain which is to be determined. Use of a
   parallel namespace allows carriers and end users to control their
   ENUM registrations for a number independently without forcing one to
   work through the other.

   Infrastructure ENUM Tier 2 resource records in the Infrastructure
   ENUM tree would be controlled by the service provider that is
   providing services to a given E.164 number, generally referred to in
   various nations as the "carrier of record" (see [4]).  The definition
   of a carrier of record for a given E.164 number is a national matter
   or is defined by the entity controlling the numbering space.

   See also Section 3, Requirements, in [4].

4. IANA Considerations

   This document contains no requested IANA actions.

   IANA has created a registry for Enumservices as originally specified
   in RFC 2916 and revised in RFC 3761.  Enumservices registered with
   IANA are valid for Infrastructure ENUM as well as end-user ENUM.

5. Security and Privacy Considerations




Livingood, et. al.       Expires May 16, 2008                 [Page 3]

Internet-Draft           Infrastructure ENUM            November 2007


   This document proposes a new zone apex for ENUM to meet the
   requirements of Infrastructure ENUM.  The over-the-network protocol
   of ENUM is unchanged by the addition of an apex, and as such, the
   Security considerations of RFC3761 [1] still apply. Specific
   considerations related to the security of an Infrastructure ENUM apex
   are given in more detail in Section 4, Security Considerations, in
   [4].

   Infrastructure ENUM registrations proposed by this draft
   should resolve to service provider points of interconnection rather
   than end user equipment. Service providers need to take appropriate
   measures to protect their end user customers from unwanted
   communications as with other types of interconnections.


6. Acknowledgements

   The authors wish to thank Lawrence Conroy, Patrik Faltstrom, Michael
   Haberler, Otmar Lendl, Steve Lind, Alexander Mayrhofer, Jim Reid, and
   Richard Shockey for their helpful discussion of this draft and the
   concept of Infrastructure ENUM.

7. References

7.1 Normative References

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

   [2] ITU-T, "The International Public Telecommunication Number Plan",
   Recommendation E.164, February 2005.

   [3] Mockapetris, P., "DOMAIN NAMES - CONCEPTS AND FACILITIES", RFC
   1034, November 1987.

   [4] Lind, S., Pfautz, P., "Infrastructure ENUM Requirements", draft-
   ietf-enum-infrastructure-enum-reqs-04, May 2007.

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

7.2 Informative References

   None

Authors' Addresses

   Jason Livingood


Livingood, et. al.       Expires May 16, 2008                 [Page 4]

Internet-Draft           Infrastructure ENUM            November 2007


   Comcast Cable Communications
   1500 Market Street
   Philadelphia, PA 19102
   USA

   Phone: +1-215-981-7813
   Email: jason_livingood@cable.comcast.com


   Penn Pfautz
   AT&T
  200 S. Laurel Ave
  Middletown, NJ  07748
  USA

  Phone: +1-732-420-4962
  Email: ppfautz@att.com


   Richard Stastny
   Oefeg
   Postbox 147
   1103 Vienna
   Austria

   Phone: +43-664-420-4100
   Email: Richard.stastny@oefeg.at

Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements

   Full Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).

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

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

  Intellectual Property


Livingood, et. al.       Expires May 16, 2008                 [Page 5]

Internet-Draft           Infrastructure ENUM            November 2007



  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 currently provided by the IETF
   Administrative Support Activity (IASA).




















Livingood, et. al.       Expires May 16, 2008                 [Page 6]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.107, available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/