|
|
|
|
|
|
IETF RFC 6117
IANA Registration of Enumservices: Guide, Template, and IANA Considerations
Last modified on Saturday, March 12th, 2011
 Permanent link to RFC 6117
 Search GitHub Wiki for RFC 6117
 Show other RFCs mentioning RFC 6117
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) B. Hoeneisen
Request for Comments: 6117 Ucom.ch
Obsoletes: 3761 A. Mayrhofer
Category: Standards Track enum.at
ISSN: 2070-1721 J. Livingood
Comcast
March 2011
IANA Registration of Enumservices:
Guide, Template, and IANA Considerations
 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.
Status of This Memo
This is an Internet Standards Track document.
This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
(IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
received public review and has been approved for publication by the
Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on
Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 5741.
Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 6117.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Hoeneisen, et al. Standards Track PAGE 1 
RFC 6117 IANA Registration of Enumservices March 2011
This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF
Contributions published or made publicly available before November
10, 2008. The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this
material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow
modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process.
Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling
the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified
outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may
not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format
it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other
than English.
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 (REQUIRED) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5.2. IANA Registration (REQUIRED) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5.2.1. Enumservice Class (<class>) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5.2.2. Enumservice Type (<type>) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
5.2.3. Enumservice Subtype (<subtype>) . . . . . . . . . . . 14
5.2.4. URI Scheme(s) (<urischeme>) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
5.2.5. Functional Specification (<functionalspec>) . . . . . 15
5.2.6. Security Considerations (<security>) . . . . . . . . . 15
5.2.7. Intended Usage (<usage>) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
5.2.8. Enumservice Specification (<registrationdocs>) . . . . 16
5.2.9. Requesters (<requesters>) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
5.2.10. Further Information (<additionalinfo>) . . . . . . . . 17
5.3. Examples (REQUIRED) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
5.4. Implementation Recommendations / Notes (OPTIONAL) . . . . 18
5.5. DNS Considerations (REQUIRED) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
5.6. Security Considerations (REQUIRED) . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
5.7. IANA Considerations (REQUIRED) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
5.8. Other Sections (OPTIONAL) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Hoeneisen, et al. Standards Track PAGE 2
RFC 6117 IANA Registration of Enumservices March 2011
6. The Process of Registering New Enumservices . . . . . . . . . 21
6.1. Step 1: Read This Document in Detail . . . . . . . . . . . 22
6.2. Step 2: Write and Submit Registration Document . . . . . . 22
6.3. Step 3: Request Comments From the IETF Community . . . . . 23
6.3.1. Outcome 1: No Changes Needed . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
6.3.2. Outcome 2: Changes, But No Further Comments
Requested . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
6.3.3. Outcome 3: Changes and Further Comments Requested . . 23
6.4. Step 4: Submit Registration Document to IANA . . . . . . . 24
6.5. Step 5: Expert Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
6.5.1. Outcome 1: Experts Approve the Registration
Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
6.5.2. Outcome 2: Changes Required . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
6.5.3. Outcome 3: Experts Reject the Registration Document . 25
6.6. Step 6: Publication of the Registration Document . . . . . 25
6.7. Step 7: Adding Enumservice to the IANA Registry . . . . . 25
7. Expert Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
7.1. Expert Selection Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
7.2. Review Guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
7.3. Appeals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
8. Revision of Existing Enumservice Specifications . . . . . . . 27
9. Extension of Existing Enumservice Specifications . . . . . . . 27
10. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
10.1. Considerations Regarding This Document . . . . . . . . . . 28
10.2. Enumservice Security Considerations Guideline . . . . . . 28
11. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
11.1. Registry Update . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
11.2. Registration Template (XML chunk) . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
11.3. Location . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
11.4. Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
11.5. Expert Review Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
11.6. Registration Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
11.6.1. Published as an RFC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
11.6.2. Published as a Non-RFC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
11.7. Change Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
11.8. Restrictions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
12. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
13. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
13.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
13.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Appendix A. IANA Registration Template Examples . . . . . . . . . 36
Appendix B. Changes from RFC 3761 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Hoeneisen, et al. Standards Track PAGE 3
RFC 6117 IANA Registration of Enumservices March 2011
1. Introduction
E.164 Number Mapping (ENUM) [RFC 6116] provides an identifier mapping
mechanism to map E.164 numbers [ITU.E164.2005] to Uniform Resource
Identifiers (URIs) [RFC 3986] using the Domain Name System (DNS)
[RFC 1035]. 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 [RFC 3761]. This
document obsoletes Section 3 of RFC 3761 while RFC 6116 obsoletes RFC
3761.
The new registration processes, which are detailed in Section 6, have
been specifically designed to be decoupled from the existence of the
ENUM working group. Compared to RFC 3761, the main changes are as
follows:
o For an Enumservice to be inserted to the IANA registry,
"Specification Required", which implies the use of a Designated
Expert, according to "Guidelines for Writing an IANA
Considerations Section in RFCs" [RFC 5226], are now sufficient.
o The IANA Registration Template has been supplemented with elements
for "Enumservice Class" and "Enumservice Specification".
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].
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. Standards Track PAGE 4
RFC 6117 IANA Registration of Enumservices March 2011
o "Enumservice Specification" refers to a Registration Document that
has been approved by the experts and published according to
"Specification Required" as defined in [RFC 5226].
3. Registration Requirements
As specified in the Augmented Backus-Naur Form (ABNF, [RFC 5234])
found in Section 3.4.3 of [RFC 6116], 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
"Specification Required", which implies the use of a Designated
Expert, as set out in "Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations
Section in RFCs" [RFC 5226] and Section 7.2 of this document.
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 Naming Authority Pointer (NAPTR) [RFC 3403]
DNS Resource Record (RR) from a set of such RRs. That means the
Enumservice Specification MUST define how to use the NAPTR RR and the
URI(s) the NAPTR RR resolves to.
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
The name of an Enumservice MUST be unique in order to be useful as a
selection criteria:
o The Type MUST be unique.
Hoeneisen, et al. Standards Track PAGE 5
RFC 6117 IANA Registration of Enumservices March 2011
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 Section
3.4.3 of [RFC 6116].
The ABNF specified in Section 3.4.3 of [RFC 6116] 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 SHOULD be
specified in lowercase letters.
Note: The legacy IANA registry of Enumservices contains Type and
Subtype strings with uppercase letters. Implementors could be
tempted to refuse handling uppercase Type or Subtype strings, which
could negatively affect interoperability.
To avoid confusion with Enumservice fields using a deprecated
(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 requirements.
3.3. Security Requirements
An analysis of security issues is REQUIRED for all registered
Enumservices. (This is in accordance with the basic requirements for
all IETF protocols.)
All descriptions of security issues MUST be as accurate and extensive
as feasible. In particular, a statement that there are "no security
issues associated with this Enumservice" must not be confused with
"the security issues associated with this Enumservice have not been
assessed".
There is no requirement that an Enumservice must be completely free
of security risks. Nevertheless, all known security risks MUST be
identified in an Enumservice Specification.
Some of the issues to be looked at in a security analysis of an
Enumservice are:
Hoeneisen, et al. Standards Track PAGE 6
RFC 6117 IANA Registration of Enumservices March 2011
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 out in "Guidelines for
Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs" [RFC 5226]. RFCs
fulfill these requirements. Therefore, it is strongly RECOMMENDED to
publish Enumservice Specifications as RFCs.
In case the Enumservice Specification is not published as an RFC,
sufficient information that allows unique identification of 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" [RFC 5226] provides motivation for why management of a
namespace 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
[RFC 5226]. The following is a list of motivations applying to
Enumservices:
Hoeneisen, et al. Standards Track PAGE 7
RFC 6117 IANA Registration of Enumservices March 2011
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 strings 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 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/>. Some
Internet-Drafts may have expired and no longer be available in the
Internet-Drafts Archive, or some work on Enumservices may have
been considered outside the IETF; therefore, we also recommend a
web search.
Hoeneisen, et al. Standards Track PAGE 8
RFC 6117 IANA Registration of Enumservices March 2011
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 providing 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
Registration Document (see Section 5.2). If the Enumservice cannot
be assigned to one of the classes outlined below, the Registration
Document MUST contain a section on the difficulties encountered while
trying to classify the service to help the 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 string for an Enumservice that is not specifically about the
respective protocol or URI Scheme. For example, the Type string
"imap" would be inadequate for use in an Enumservice about "Internet
mapping" services, because it corresponds to an existing URI Scheme /
protocol for something different.
If Subtypes are defined, the minimum number SHOULD be two (including
the empty Subtype, if defined). The choice of just one possible
Subtype for a given Type does not add any information when selecting
an 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 that 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
other Enumservices SHOULD be specified to reflect variants.
Hoeneisen, et al. Standards Track PAGE 9
RFC 6117 IANA Registration of Enumservices March 2011
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" [RFC 4979] and "sip"
[RFC 3764].
4.2.2.1. Protocol-Based Enumservice "Type" Strings
A protocol-based Enumservice SHOULD use the lowercase name of the
protocol as its Type string. Names as registered in the IANA Port
Number Registry (<http://www.iana.org/assignments/port-numbers>,
defined in Section 8 and 9 of [RFC 2780]) are preferred.
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. Standards Track PAGE 10
RFC 6117 IANA Registration of Enumservices March 2011
implementation can decide if this activity is one in which it can
engage. However, it is RECOMMENDED that the Enumservice be
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 it does not identify the protocol used to
offer or retrieve emails by the sender or the recipient.
Another example is the Short Messaging Service (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 SMS 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 to engage 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
Hoeneisen, et al. Standards Track PAGE 11
RFC 6117 IANA Registration of Enumservices March 2011
number portability data. It implies that the client should engage
in number portability processing using the associated URI. Note
that this Enumservice usually does not itself define the kind of
interaction available using the associated URI. That application
is negotiated with some other "out of band" means (either through
prior negotiation, or explicitly through the number portability
process, or through negotiation following the selection of the
final destination address).
4.2.3.1. Application-Based Enumservice "Type" Strings
It is recommended that Application-class Enumservices use the
lowercase well-known name of the abstract application as the Type
string.
4.2.3.2. Application-Based Enumservice "Subtype" Strings
It is RECOMMENDED that the URI Scheme(s) used by the application be
used as the Subtype string(s). Subtype strings 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. Examples of such Enumservices include "vpim" [RFC 4238]
and "vcard" [RFC 4969].
4.2.4.1. Data Type-Based Enumservice "Type" Strings
It is recommended to use the lowercase well known name of the data
type or format name as the Type string.
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 strings. Subtype strings 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 type or
format, the empty Subtype string MAY be used.
Hoeneisen, et al. Standards Track PAGE 12
RFC 6117 IANA Registration of Enumservices March 2011
4.2.5. Other Enumservice
In case an Enumservice proposal cannot be assigned to any of the
classes mentioned above, the <class> element (Enumservice Class) 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 on 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 they 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 (REQUIRED)
An introductory section MUST be included. This section will explain,
in plain English, the purpose 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 (REQUIRED)
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
sections list the elements that are to be used in the XML-chunk-based
Registration Template of an "IANA Registration" section.
5.2.1. Enumservice Class (<class>)
This element contains the Class of the Enumservice as defined in
Section 4.2. Its value MUST be one of (without quotes):
o "Protocol-Based": The Enumservice belongs to the Protocol-based
class as described in Section 4.2.2.
Hoeneisen, et al. Standards Track PAGE 13
RFC 6117 IANA Registration of Enumservices March 2011
o "Application-Based, Common": The Enumservice is a "common" case of
the Application-based class as described in Section 4.2.3.
o "Application-Based, Subset": The Enumservice belongs to the
"subset" case of the Application-based class as described in
Section 4.2.3.
o "Application-Based, Ancillary": The Enumservice is an "ancillary"
case of the Application-based class, as described in
Section 4.2.3.
o "Data Type-Based": The Enumservice belongs to the Data Type-Based
class as described in Section 4.2.4.
o "Other": The majority of the functionality of the Enumservice does
not fall into one of the classes defined.
Class Example
<class>Protocol-Based</class>
5.2.2. 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.
Type Example
<type>foo</type>
5.2.3. 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 utilize a Subtype, then the <subtype>
element MUST be omitted in the IANA Registration Template. If a
given Enumservice Type has multiple Subtypes, then there MUST be a
separate IANA Registration Template for each Subtype. Please find
further instructions in Section 4.
Subtype Example
<subtype>bar</subtype>
Hoeneisen, et al. Standards Track PAGE 14
RFC 6117 IANA Registration of Enumservices March 2011
5.2.4. URI Scheme(s) (<urischeme>)
The URI Schemes [RFC 3986] that are used with the Enumservice. The
selection 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 than one URI Scheme, then one
<urischeme> element per URI scheme MUST be used in the IANA
Registration Template. Please find further instructions in
Section 4.
URI Scheme Example
<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 [RFC 3402].
5.2.5. Functional Specification (<functionalspec>)
The Functional Specification describes how the Enumservice is used in
connection with the URI to which it resolves.
Functional Specification Example
<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.
5.2.6. Security Considerations (<security>)
A reference to the "Security Considerations" section of a given
Enumservice Specification.
Hoeneisen, et al. Standards Track PAGE 15
RFC 6117 IANA Registration of Enumservices March 2011
Security Considerations Example
<security>
See <xref type="rfc" data="RFC 4979"/>, Section 6.
</security>
5.2.7. Intended Usage (<usage>)
One of the following values (without quotes):
o "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.
o "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.
o "DEPRECATED": Indicates that the Enumservice has been declared
deprecated (Section 11.7) and is not to be used in new
deployments. Applications SHOULD however expect to encounter
legacy instances of this Enumservice.
Intended Usage Example
<usage>COMMON</usage>
5.2.8. Enumservice Specification (<registrationdocs>)
Reference(s) to the Document(s) containing the Enumservice
Specification.
Enumservice Specification Examples
<registrationdocs>
<xref type="rfc" data="RFC 4979"/>
</registrationdocs>
or
<registrationdocs>
<xref type="rfc" data="RFC 2026"/> (obsoleted by RFC 2551)
<xref type="rfc" data="RFC 2551"/>
</registrationdocs>
or
Hoeneisen, et al. Standards Track PAGE 16
RFC 6117 IANA Registration of Enumservices March 2011
<registrationdocs>
[International Telecommunications Union,
"Enumservice Specification for Foobar",
ITU-F Recommendation B.193, Release 73, Mar 2009.]
</registrationdocs>
5.2.9. Requesters (<requesters>)
The persons requesting the registration of the Enumservice. Usually
these are the authors of the Enumservice Specification.
Requesters Example
<requesters>
<xref type="person" data="John_Doe"/>
</requesters>
[...]
<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>
If there is more than one requester, there MUST be one <xref> element
per requester in the <requesters> element, and one <person> chunk per
requester in the <people> element.
5.2.10. Further Information (<additionalinfo>)
Any other information the authors deem interesting, including
artwork.
Further Information Example
<additionalinfo>
<paragraph>more info goes here</paragraph>
</additionalinfo>
Note: If there is no such additional information, then the
<additionalinfo> element is omitted.
Hoeneisen, et al. Standards Track PAGE 17
RFC 6117 IANA Registration of Enumservices March 2011
5.3. Examples (REQUIRED)
This section MUST show at least one example of the Enumservice being
registered, for illustrative purposes. The example(s) shall in no
way limit the various forms that a given Enumservice may take, and
this should be noted at the beginning of this section of the
document. The example(s) MUST show the specific formatting of the
intended NAPTRs (according to [RFC 3403] and [RFC 6116]), 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 [RFC 2606].
For example:
$ORIGIN 9.7.8.0.6.9.2.3.6.1.4.4.e164.arpa.
@ IN NAPTR 100 10 "u" "E2U+foo:bar" "!^.*$!bar://example.com/!" .
5.4. Implementation Recommendations / Notes (OPTIONAL)
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. DNS Considerations (REQUIRED)
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.
Hoeneisen, et al. Standards Track PAGE 18
RFC 6117 IANA Registration of Enumservices March 2011
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.
o Potential for significant additional load on the nameserver chain
due to use of the service, and the mitigation of such additional
load.
o Mitigation of potential for DNS loops, specifically in cases where
the result URI of an Enumservice might be used to trigger
additional (subsequent) ENUM queries. This applies in particular
to Enumservices using the 'tel' URI Scheme [RFC 3966] or any other
(future) URI Scheme using (E.164) numbers. "The ENUM Dip
Indicator Parameter for the tel URI" [RFC 4759] provides an example
of a loop mitigation mechanism.
Rationale: some Enumservices try to exploit side effects of the DNS
that need to be explicitly discussed.
5.6. Security Considerations (REQUIRED)
A section explaining any potential security threats that are
especially applicable 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.
For additional background, please note that [RFC 3552] provides
guidance to write a good Security Considerations section. In
addition, [RFC 6116] 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.
Also, 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.
Hoeneisen, et al. Standards Track PAGE 19
RFC 6117 IANA Registration of Enumservices March 2011
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).
5.7. IANA Considerations (REQUIRED)
Describe the task IANA needs to fulfill to process the Enumservice
Registration Document.
For example:
This document requests the IANA registration of the Enumservice with
Type "foo" and Subtype "bar" according to the definitions in this
document, [RFC 6117], and [RFC 6116].
For example:
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 6117], and [RFC 6116]. Therefore,
in the existing IANA registration for this Enumservice, the
<registrationdocs> element (Enumservice Specification) is enhanced by
adding a supplementary reference that points to this document.
For example:
This document requests an update of the IANA registration of the
Enumservice Type "foo" with all its Subtypes, in order to declare it
deprecated. Therefore, in the existing IANA registration for this
Enumservice, the <usage> element (Intended Usage) is changed to
"DEPRECATED", and the <registrationdocs> element (Enumservice
Specification) is enhanced by adding a supplementary reference that
points to this document.
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
Hoeneisen, et al. Standards Track PAGE 20
RFC 6117 IANA Registration of Enumservices March 2011
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. This section is a non-normative description of the
process. The normative process is described in [RFC 5226].
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. Standards Track PAGE 21
RFC 6117 IANA Registration of Enumservices March 2011
+----------------------------+
| Step 1: Read this document |
+----------------------------+
|
V
+-------------------------------+
| Step 2: Write R-D and submit |
+-------------------------------+
|
V
+--------------------------------------------+
| Step 3: Announce R-D and solicit feedback |<--+
+--------------------------------------------+ |
| |
V |
.^. |
. . |
+------------+ . Feed- . +------------+
| Update R-D |<---------< back >------------>| Update R-D |
| and submit | non-sub- . results . substantial | and submit |
+------------+ stantial . in: . changes +------------+
| changes . . needed
| needed Y
| | no changes needed
| V
| +-----------------------------+
+-------->| Step 4: Submit R-D to IANA |
+-----------------------------+
:
:
V
R-D: Registration Document
Figure 1
6.1. Step 1: Read This Document in Detail
This document, particularly in Sections 3, 4, and 5, describes all of
the recommended and required sections, as well as requirements and
suggestions for content of an Enumservice Specification.
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 shall follow the guidelines according to Sections 4 and 5 of
Hoeneisen, et al. Standards Track PAGE 22
RFC 6117 IANA Registration of Enumservices March 2011
this document. The Review Guidelines for experts are defined in
Section 7.2.
6.3. Step 3: Request Comments From the IETF Community
The authors shall 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.
Note: The ENUM WG mailing list <enum@ietf.org> will be kept open
after conclusion of the ENUM WG.
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 the outcome is, the experts performing the Expert
Review later in the process 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.
Hoeneisen, et al. Standards Track PAGE 23
RFC 6117 IANA Registration of Enumservices March 2011
This outcome is recommended when substantial objections have been
raised, or substantial changes have been suggested.
6.4. Step 4: Submit Registration Document to IANA
The authors submit the Registration Document to IANA (using the
<http://www.iana.org/> website) for Expert Review.
:
:
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 |
+-----------------------------------+
|
V
+---------------------------------------------+
| Step 7: Adding Enumservice to IANA Registry |
+---------------------------------------------+
R-D: Registration Document
Figure 2
6.5. Step 5: Expert Review
IANA will take care of the "Expert Review" according to [RFC 5226].
The Expert Review guidelines are outlined in Section 7.2 of this
document. The authors must be prepared for further interaction with
IANA and the experts.
Hoeneisen, et al. Standards Track PAGE 24
RFC 6117 IANA Registration of Enumservices March 2011
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.
6.6. Step 6: Publication of the Registration Document
The authors are responsible for ensuring that the Registration
Document is published according to "Specification Required" as
defined in [RFC 5226].
As set out in Section 3.4 it is strongly RECOMMENDED that Enumservice
Specifications be published RFCs. As to every RFC, the normal IETF
publication process applies (see [Instructions2authors]); i.e., the
Registration Document is submitted in the form of an Internet Draft
(e.g. via an IETF Working Group or a sponsoring Area Director).
[Instructions2authors] also contains an option to publish an RFC as
'Independent Submission', which is further described in "Independent
Submissions to the RFC Editor" [RFC 4846].
6.7. Step 7: Adding Enumservice to the IANA Registry
In cases where 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 cases where 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 [RFC 5226]. The
<registrationdocs> element in the IANA Registration Template must
contain an unambiguous reference to the Enumservice Specification
(see also 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.
Hoeneisen, et al. Standards Track PAGE 25
RFC 6117 IANA Registration of Enumservices March 2011
7. Expert Review
7.1. Expert Selection Process
According to Section 3.2 of [RFC 5226], experts are appointed by the
IESG. The IESG is 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 follows the
guidelines documented in Section 3.3 of "Guidelines for Writing an
IANA Considerations Section in RFCs" [RFC 5226]. Note that RFC 5226
says 'The review may be wide or narrow, depending on the situation
and the judgment of the designated expert'. Therefore, the following
list should be considered a guideline, rather than a binding list.
In case of conflicts between [RFC 5226] and the guidelines in this
section, [RFC 5226] remains authoritative.
The expert evaluates the criteria as set out in [RFC 5226], and should
additionally consider the following:
o Verify conformance with the ENUM specification [RFC 6116].
o Verify that the requirements set out in this document (Sections 3
and 5) are met. This includes checking for completeness and
whether all the aspects described in Sections 3 and 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. Standards Track PAGE 26
RFC 6117 IANA Registration of Enumservices March 2011
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 might 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.
7.3. Appeals
Appeals of Expert Review decisions follow the process described in
Section 7 of [RFC 5226] and Section 6.5 of [RFC 2026].
8. Revision of 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 be compliant with the specifications contained
herein.
Note: Enumservice Specifications updated only by [RFC 6118] are not
compliant with 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 propose 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) [RFC 2223].
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.
Any Enumservice Specifications for existing Enumservices that are
extended MUST comply with the specifications contained herein. As a
consequence, revisions of existing Enumservice Specifications may be
required according to Section 8.
Hoeneisen, et al. Standards Track PAGE 27
RFC 6117 IANA Registration of Enumservices March 2011
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
considered closely by authors and experts.
10.2. Enumservice Security Considerations Guideline
Guidelines concerning the Security Considerations section of an
Enumservice Specification can be found in Section 5.6.
11. IANA Considerations
11.1. Registry Update
IANA updated the registry "Enumservice Registrations" as defined in
(this) Section 11, which replaces the old mechanism as defined in
[RFC 3761].
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, and as per
[RFC 6116] "P-" Enumservices will not be registered at all).
11.2. Registration Template (XML chunk)
<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>
<!-- Security Considerations of the
Enumservice to be registered -->
</security>
<usage> <!-- COMMON, LIMITED USE, or OBSOLETE --> </usage>
<registrationdocs>
Hoeneisen, et al. Standards Track PAGE 28
RFC 6117 IANA Registration of Enumservices March 2011
<!-- Change accordingly -->
<xref type="rfc" data="RFC 2551"/>
</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>
Authors of an Enumservice Specification are encouraged to use these
XML chunks as a template to create the IANA Registration Template.
Examples for the use of this template are contained in Appendix A.
11.3. 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 11.2 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.
Hoeneisen, et al. Standards Track PAGE 29
RFC 6117 IANA Registration of Enumservices March 2011
11.4. Structure
IANA maintains the Enumservice Registry sorted in alphabetical order.
The first sort field is Type, the second is Subtype.
[RFC 6118] updates the existing Enumservices by transforming them into
the new XML-chunk-based IANA Registration Template (see also
Section 8).
11.5. Expert Review Procedure
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"
[RFC 5226].
To prevent clashes, IANA will check whether a request with identical
"type:subtype" (or "type" without Subtype) was submitted for Expert
Review earlier and will inform the experts accordingly. The experts
are authorized to resolve clashes as they see fit. The requesters
may need to update their registration request before getting expert
approval.
Once the experts have conditionally approved the Enumservice, IANA
will inform the authors. This information should also include a
reminder that (i) the authors are now responsible for publication of
the Registration Document (see also Section 6.6) and (ii) the
Enumservice will be added to the IANA registry only after its
Enumservice Specification is published according to the
"Specification Required" policy as defined in [RFC 5226] (see also
Section 6.7).
Note: After sending the approval note to the authors, IANA has no
further responsibilities besides keeping internal records of approved
Registration Documents. IANA will be involved again at registration
of the Enumservice (see Section 11.6).
11.6. Registration Procedure
There is a slight difference in process depending on whether or not
the Enumservice Specification will be published as an RFC. The
reason for this difference lies in the current RFC publication
process that includes IANA interaction shortly before publication of
an RFC.
Hoeneisen, et al. Standards Track PAGE 30
RFC 6117 IANA Registration of Enumservices March 2011
11.6.1. Published as an RFC
As per the RFC publication process, IANA will receive the Enumservice
Specification to carry out IANA actions shortly before publication of
the RFC. The IANA action will be to register the Enumservice, i.e.,
add the Enumservice to the IANA "Enumservice Registrations" registry
(see also Section 11.3).
IANA must only add Enumservices to the Registry, if the experts have
(conditionally) approved the corresponding Enumservice Specification.
IANA should attempt to resolve possible conflicts arising from this
together with the experts. In case there are substantial changes
between the (conditionally) approved and the to be published version,
IANA may reject the request after consulting the experts.
IANA must ensure that any further substantial changes the Enumservice
Specification might undergo before final RFC publication are approved
by the experts.
Note: Clearly editorial changes (such as typos) or minor changes in
purely editorial sections (such as Authors' Addresses,
Acknowledgments, References, and alike) are not considered
substantial.
11.6.2. Published as a Non-RFC
Once the authors have informed IANA about the publication, IANA must
ensure that the requirements for "Specification Required" as defined
in [RFC 5226] 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, and make an escrow
copy (see also Section 11.3).
IANA must only add Enumservices to the Registry, if the experts have
approved the corresponding Enumservice Specification. IANA should
attempt to resolve possible conflicts arising from this together with
the experts. In case there are substantial changes between the
approved and the published version, IANA may reject the request after
consulting the experts.
Note: Clearly editorial changes (such as typos) or minor changes in
purely editorial sections (such as Authors' Addresses,
Acknowledgments, References, and alike) are not considered
substantial.
Hoeneisen, et al. Standards Track PAGE 31
RFC 6117 IANA Registration of Enumservices March 2011
11.7. Change Control
Change control of any Enumservice registrations is done by
"Specification Required", which implies the use of a Designated
Expert, according to [RFC 5226]. Updates of Enumservice
Specifications MUST comply with the requirements 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 to be no longer appropriate for use can be declared
deprecated by publication of a new Enumservice Specification,
changing the Enumservice <usage> element (Intended Usage) to
"DEPRECATED"; 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. Alternatively,
Enumservices may be declared deprecated by an IESG action.
11.8. 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 or a Subtype.
Furthermore, Type or 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. Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank the following people who have
provided feedback or significant contributions to the development of
this document: Jari Arkko, Stewart Bryant, Gonzalo Camarillo,
Lawrence Conroy, Michelle Cotton, Miguel Garcia, David Harrington,
Alfred Hoenes, Ari Keranen, Peter Koch, Edward Lewis, Alexey
Melnikov, Jon Peterson, Pekka Savola, and Peter Saint-Andre.
Lawrence Conroy has provided extensive text for the Enumservice
Classification section.
Hoeneisen, et al. Standards Track PAGE 32
RFC 6117 IANA Registration of Enumservices March 2011
Section 3 of [RFC 3761], which was edited by Patrik Faltstrom and
Michael Mealling, has been incorporated into this document. Please
see the Acknowledgments section in RFC 3761 for additional
acknowledgments.
13. References
13.1. Normative References
[RFC 2026] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision
3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, October 1996.
[RFC 2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC 3402] Mealling, M., "Dynamic Delegation Discovery System (DDDS)
Part Two: The Algorithm", RFC 3402, October 2002.
[RFC 3403] Mealling, M., "Dynamic Delegation Discovery System (DDDS)
Part Three: The Domain Name System (DNS) Database",
RFC 3403, October 2002.
[RFC 3761] Faltstrom, P. and M. Mealling, "The E.164 to Uniform
Resource Identifiers (URI) Dynamic Delegation Discovery
System (DDDS) Application (ENUM)", RFC 3761, April 2004.
[RFC 3986] Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform
Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax", STD 66,
RFC 3986, January 2005.
[RFC 5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226,
May 2008.
[RFC 6116] Bradner, S., Conroy, L., and K. Fujiwara, "The E.164 to
Uniform Resource Identifiers (URI) Dynamic Delegation
Discovery System (DDDS) Application (ENUM)", RFC 6116,
March 2011.
Hoeneisen, et al. Standards Track PAGE 33
RFC 6117 IANA Registration of Enumservices March 2011
13.2. Informative References
[ITU.E164.2005]
International Telecommunications Union, "The International
Public Telecommunication Numbering Plan", ITU-
T Recommendation E.164, Feb 2005.
[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.
[RFC 1035] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - implementation and
specification", STD 13, RFC 1035, November 1987.
[RFC 2223] Postel, J. and J. Reynolds, "Instructions to RFC Authors",
RFC 2223, October 1997.
[RFC 2606] Eastlake, D. and A. Panitz, "Reserved Top Level DNS
Names", BCP 32, RFC 2606, June 1999.
[RFC 2780] Bradner, S. and V. Paxson, "IANA Allocation Guidelines For
Values In the Internet Protocol and Related Headers",
BCP 37, RFC 2780, March 2000.
[RFC 3552] Rescorla, E. and B. Korver, "Guidelines for Writing RFC
Text on Security Considerations", BCP 72, RFC 3552,
July 2003.
[RFC 3764] Peterson, J., "enumservice registration for Session
Initiation Protocol (SIP) Addresses-of-Record", RFC 3764,
April 2004.
[RFC 3966] Schulzrinne, H., "The tel URI for Telephone Numbers",
RFC 3966, December 2004.
[RFC 4238] Vaudreuil, G., "Voice Message Routing Service", RFC 4238,
October 2005.
[RFC 4759] Stastny, R., Shockey, R., and L. Conroy, "The ENUM Dip
Indicator Parameter for the "tel" URI", RFC 4759,
December 2006.
[RFC 4846] Klensin, J. and D. Thaler, "Independent Submissions to the
RFC Editor", RFC 4846, July 2007.
Hoeneisen, et al. Standards Track PAGE 34
RFC 6117 IANA Registration of Enumservices March 2011
[RFC 4969] Mayrhofer, A., "IANA Registration for vCard Enumservice",
RFC 4969, August 2007.
[RFC 4979] Mayrhofer, A., "IANA Registration for Enumservice 'XMPP'",
RFC 4979, August 2007.
[RFC 5234] Crocker, D. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax
Specifications: ABNF", STD 68, RFC 5234, January 2008.
[RFC 6118] Hoeneisen, B. and A. Mayrhofer, "Update of Legacy IANA
Registrations of Enumservices", RFC 6118, March 2011.
Hoeneisen, et al. Standards Track PAGE 35
RFC 6117 IANA Registration of Enumservices March 2011
Appendix A. IANA Registration Template Examples
This section contains non-normative examples of the XML-chunk-based
IANA Registration Template:
This is the first example:
<record>
<class>Protocol-Based</class>
<type>email</type>
<subtype>mailto</subtype>
<urischeme>mailto</urischeme>
<functionalspec>
<paragraph>
This Enumservice indicates that the resource
can be addressed by the associated URI in
order to send an email.
</paragraph>
</functionalspec>
<security>
See <xref type="rfc" data="RFC 4355"/>, Section 6.
</security>
<usage>COMMON</usage>
<registrationdocs>
<xref type="rfc" data="RFC 4355"/>
</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>
Hoeneisen, et al. Standards Track PAGE 36
RFC 6117 IANA Registration of Enumservices March 2011
This is the second example.
<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="RFC 4979"/>, Section 6.
</security>
<usage>COMMON</usage>
<registrationdocs>
<xref type="rfc" data="RFC 4979"/>
</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>
Hoeneisen, et al. Standards Track PAGE 37
RFC 6117 IANA Registration of Enumservices March 2011
This is the third example:
<record>
<class>Application-Based</class>
<type>voicemsg</type>
<subtype>sip</subtype>
<urischeme>sip</urischeme>
<functionalspec>
<paragraph>
This Enumservice indicates that the 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="RFC 4279"/>, Section 3.
</security>
<usage>COMMON</usage>
<registrationdocs>
<xref type="rfc" data="RFC 4279"/>
</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="RFC 4279"/>,
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>
Hoeneisen, et al. Standards Track PAGE 38
RFC 6117 IANA Registration of Enumservices March 2011
<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>
In the third IANA Registration Template example above, the "voicemsg"
Enumservice is used. This Enumservice actually has several Subtypes,
and one of those is shown in the example. For each Subtype, an
individual Registration Template must be submitted to IANA, so that
an Enumservice with several Subtypes will have several corresponding
IANA Registration Templates. This is to avoid any ambiguity of the
relation between <subtype> and <urischeme> elements.
Appendix B. Changes from RFC 3761
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
"Specification Required", which implies the use of a Designated
Expert.
o This document defines the classification of Enumservices. The
IANA Registration Template has been complemented to contain a
<class> element (Enumservice Class).
o A new element <registrationdocs> (Enumservice Specification) has
been added to the IANA Registration Template.
o The former field "Any other information that the author deems
interesting" of the IANA Registration Template turned into the
<additionalinfo> element (Further Information).
o The Enumservice "Name" field 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.
Hoeneisen, et al. Standards Track PAGE 39
RFC 6117 IANA Registration of Enumservices March 2011
Authors' Addresses
Bernie Hoeneisen
Ucom Standards Track Solutions GmbH
CH-8000 Zuerich
Switzerland
Phone: +41 44 500 52 44
EMail: bernie@ietf.hoeneisen.ch (bernhard.hoeneisen AT ucom.ch)
URI: http://www.ucom.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. Standards Track PAGE 40
IANA Registration of Enumservices: Guide, Template, and IANA Considerations
RFC TOTAL SIZE: 83838 bytes
PUBLICATION DATE: Saturday, March 12th, 2011
LEGAL RIGHTS: The IETF Trust (see BCP 78)
|
