ENUM -- Telephone Number Mapping B. Hoeneisen Working Group Switch Internet-Draft A. Mayrhofer Intended status: Best Current enum.at Practice J. Livingood Expires: January 10, 2008 Comcast Jul 09, 2007 Guide and Template for IANA Registrations of Enumservices draft-ietf-enum-enumservices-guide-04 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 January 10, 2008. Copyright Notice Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007). Abstract This document provides a guide to and template for the creation of new IANA registrations of ENUM (E.164 Number Mapping) services. It is also to be used for updates of existing IANA registrations. Hoeneisen, et al. Expires January 10, 2008 [Page 1] Internet-Draft BCP Enumservice Registrations Jul 2007 Table of Contents 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. Enumservice Creation Cookbook . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3.1. Preparation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3.2. Classification, Name, Type and Subtype . . . . . . . . . . 3 3.2.1. Choosing a "name" string . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3.2.2. Protocol-based Enumservices . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3.2.3. Application-based Enumservices . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3.2.4. Data/Format Enumservice class . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4. Required Sections and Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4.1. Introduction (MANDATORY) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4.2. ENUM Service Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4.3. Examples (MANDATORY) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 4.4. Implementation Recommendations / Notes (OPTIONAL) . . . . 9 4.5. Security Considerations (MANDATORY) . . . . . . . . . . . 9 4.6. IANA Considerations (MANDATORY) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 4.7. DNS Considerations (OPTIONAL) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 4.8. Other Sections (OPTIONAL) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 5. Revision of Pre-Existing Enumservice RFCs . . . . . . . . . . 10 6. Extension of Existing Enumservice RFCs . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 7.1. Considerations regarding this Document . . . . . . . . . . 10 7.2. Enumservice Security Considerations Guideline . . . . . . 10 8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 9. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Appendix A. XML2RFC Template for Enumservice Registration . . . . 12 Appendix B. Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Appendix C. Open Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 21 Hoeneisen, et al. Expires January 10, 2008 [Page 2] Internet-Draft BCP Enumservice Registrations Jul 2007 1. Introduction This document provides a guide to and template for the creation of new IANA registrations of Enumservices. This document aims to enhance section 3 of RFC 3761 [2], where the registration procedure for Enumservices was initially documented at a high level. However, the IETF's ENUM Working Group has encountered an unnecessary amount of variation in the format of Enumservice drafts presented to the group. The ENUM Working Group's view of what particular fields and information are required and/or recommended has also evolved, and capturing these best current practices is helpful in both the creation of new registrations, as well as the revision or refinement of existing registrations. For the purpose of this document, 'registration document' and 'registration' refers to an Internet Draft proposing the IANA registration of an Enumservice following the procedures outlined above. 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 [1]. 3. Enumservice Creation Cookbook 3.1. Preparation Before commencing work on a new Enumservice registration, the following should be considered: o Is there an existing Enumservice which could fulfill the desired functionality without overloading it? Check the IANA Enumservice registrations on . o Is there work in progress on a similar Enumservice? Check the mailing list archives on , and the Internet Drafts Archive on . 3.2. Classification, Name, Type and Subtype Because of its flexibility, Enumservices can be and are used in a lot of different ways. This section contains a classification of Enumservices, and provides guidance for choosing suitable 'name', Hoeneisen, et al. Expires January 10, 2008 [Page 3] Internet-Draft BCP Enumservice Registrations Jul 2007 'type' and 'subtype' strings for each individual Enumservice class. 3.2.1. Choosing a "name" string Generally, the 'name' string used for registering an Enumservice SHOULD give a clear indication of what the Enumservice is about. This string is likely to be used for labeling instances of the Enumservice to end users, and has no technical significance in the processing of the NAPTR (since it does not even appear in the actual record). 3.2.2. Protocol-based Enumservices Such an Enumservice indicates that an interaction using the named protocol will result for use of this NAPTR. The expected behaviour of a system using this Enumservice MUST be clear from the protocol. 3.2.2.1. Protocol-based Enumservice "type" strings A protocol-based Enumservice SHOULD use the name of the protocol (or the "base" URI scheme, where there are also secure variants) as its 'type' name. 3.2.2.2. Protocol-based Enumservice "subtype" strings Where there is a single URI scheme associated with this protocol, then the Enumservice SHOULD NOT use a subtype. Where a protocol is associated with a number of different URI schemes, the registration SHOULD define which of these is the default URI scheme, and register the empty subtype for use with this default scheme. The Enumservice registration SHOULD define subtypes for each of the non-default URI schemes with which it can be associated. The use of the URI schema name as subtype string is RECOMMENDED. Where a NAPTR includes the default URI scheme, the Enumservice without a subtype SHOULD be used. Where a non-default scheme is used, the Enumservice variant with type and respective sub-type SHOULD be used. 3.2.3. Application-based Enumservices Application-based Enumservices are used when the kind of service intended is not fully defined by a protocol specification. There are three cases here: Hoeneisen, et al. Expires January 10, 2008 [Page 4] Internet-Draft BCP Enumservice Registrations Jul 2007 o Common Application Enumservice: The application reflects a kind of interaction that can be realised by different protocols, but where the intent of the publisher is the same. From a user's perspective, there is a common kind of interaction - how that interaction is implemented is not important. The Enumservice registration MUST describe the interaction and expected behaviour in enough detail that an implementation can decide if this activity is one in which it can engage. However, it is RECOMMENDED that the Enumservice is defined in a way that will allow others to use it at a later date. An Enumservice that defines a generalised application is preferred to one that has narrow use. An example of this flavour of Enumservice is email. Whilst this might appear to be a "pure" protocol scheme, it is not. The URI scheme is mailto:, and does not identify the protocol used by the sender or the recipient to offer or retrieve emails. Another example is sms, where the presence of such an Enumservice indicates that the publishing entity is capable of engaging in sending or receiving a message according to the Short Messaging Service specifications. The underlying protocol used and the URI- scheme for the addressable end point can differ, but the "user visible" interaction of sending and receiving an SMS is similar. o Subset Enumservice: The application interaction reflects a subset of the interactions possible by use of a protocol. Use of this Enumservice indicates that some options available by use of the protocol will not be accepted or are not possible in this case. Any such Enumservice registration MUST define the options available by use of this NAPTR in enough detail that an implementation can decide whether or not it can use this Enumservice. Examples of this kind of Enumservice are voice:tel and fax:tel. In both cases the URI holds a telephone number. However, the essential feature of these Enumservices is that the telephone number is capable of receiving a voice call or of receiving a Facsimile transmission, respectively. These form subsets of the interactions capable of using the telephone number, and so have their own Enumservices. These allow an end point to decide if it has the appropriate capability of engaging in the advertised user service (a voice call or sending a fax) rather than just being capable of making a connection to such a destination address. This is especially important where there is no underlying mechanism within the protocol to negotiate a different kind of user interaction. Hoeneisen, et al. Expires January 10, 2008 [Page 5] Internet-Draft BCP Enumservice Registrations Jul 2007 o Ancillary Application Enumservice Another variant on this is the Ancillary Application. This is one in which further processing (potentially using a number of different protocols or methods) is the intended result of using this Enumservice. An example of this kind of application is the PSTN:tel Enumservice. This indicates that the NAPTR holds Number Portability data. It implies that the client should engage in number portability processing using the associated URI. Note that this Enumservice usually does not itself define the kind of interaction available using the associated URI. That application is negotiated with some other "out of band" means (either through prior negotiation, or explicitly through the number portability process, or through negotiation following the selection of the final destination address). 3.2.4. Data/Format Enumservice class "Data Format" Enumservices typically refer to a specific data type or format, which may be addressed using one or more URI schemes and protocols. It is RECOMMENDED to use a well known name of the data type / format as the Enumservice 'type'. An example of such an Enumservice is 'vpim' (RFC 4238) [9] and 'vCard' [13] (work in progress). 4. Required Sections and Information In addition to the typical sections required for an RFC as outlined in RFC 2223bis [3] (Instructions to RFC Authors), there are several sections which MUST appear in an IANA Registration for an Enumservice. These sections are, as follows, and SHOULD be in the same order. Appendix A contains a template which can be used to create Internet Drafts and RFC by means described on . This template contains a prototype for most of these sections. 4.1. Introduction (MANDATORY) An introductory section MUST be included. This section will explain, in plain English, the purpose of and intended usage 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. Hoeneisen, et al. Expires January 10, 2008 [Page 6] Internet-Draft BCP Enumservice Registrations Jul 2007 4.2. ENUM Service Registration This section MUST be included in an Enumservice registration. In addition, where a given registration type has multiple subtypes, there MUST be a separate registration section for each subtype. The following lists the sections and order of an Enumservice Registration section. All types and subtypes SHOULD be listed in lower-case. Enumservice Name: A short word or stub sentence describing this Enumservice. Often this is equivalent to the Enumservice Type (see below), however, capitalization may be different from it. e.g. "Foo" Enumservice Type: The type of the Enumservice. Often this is equivalent to the Enumservice Name (see above). e.g. "foo" Enumservice Subtype: The Subtype of the Enumservice. e.g. "bar" Many Enumservices do not require a subtype; use "N/A" in this case. URI Schemes: The URI Schemes, which are used with the Enumservice. e.g. "bar:", "sbar:" A URI scheme often matches the subtype (see above). Multiple URI schemes can be listed here if they are used for the same subtype, and provide almost identical functionality. Note well that 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'. Functional Specification: Hoeneisen, et al. Expires January 10, 2008 [Page 7] Internet-Draft BCP Enumservice Registrations Jul 2007 e.g. This Enumservice indicates that the remote resource identified can be addressed by the associated URI scheme in order to foo the bar. Security Considerations: An internal reference to the 'Security Considerations' section of a given registration document. e.g. "see Section 10" Intended Usage: One of "COMMON", "LIMITED USE" or "OBSOLETE", as defined in RFC 3761 [2] e.g. "COMMON" Author(s): The author(s) of the Enumservice registration. e.g. John Doe Any other information the author(s) deem(s) interesting: e.g. None 4.3. Examples (MANDATORY) This section MUST show one or more example(s) of the Enumservice registration, 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 RFC 3403 [4], 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. e.g. $ORIGIN 9.7.8.0.9.7.8.9.0.9.4.4.e164.arpa. @ IN NAPTR 100 10 "u" "E2U+foo:bar" "!^.*$!bar://example.com/!" . Hoeneisen, et al. Expires January 10, 2008 [Page 8] Internet-Draft BCP Enumservice Registrations Jul 2007 4.4. Implementation Recommendations / Notes (OPTIONAL) If at all possible, recommendations that pertain to implementation and/or operations SHOULD be included. Such a section is helpful to someone reading a registration and trying to understand how best to use it to support their network or service. 4.5. Security Considerations (MANDATORY) A section explaining any potential security threats that are unique to the given registration MUST be included. This MUST also include any information about access to Personally Identifiable Information (PII). However, this section is not intended as a general security Best Current Practices (BCP) document and therefore it should not include general and obvious security recommendations, such as securing servers with strong password authentication. 4.6. IANA Considerations (MANDATORY) Describe the task IANA needs to fulfill processing the Enumservice registration document. e.g. This memo requests registration of the "foo" Enumservice with the subtype "bar" according to the definitions in this document and RFC3761 [2]. 4.7. DNS Considerations (OPTIONAL) In case the inclusion of protocols and URI schemes into ENUM specifically introduces new DNS issues, those MUST be described within this section. Such DNS issues include, but are not limited to: o Assumptions about the namespace below the owner of the respective NAPTR RRSet. o Demand to use DNS wildcards. o Incompatibility with DNS wildcards. o presence or absence of the respective NAPTR RRSet at particular levels in the DNS hierarchy (e.g. only for 'full' E.164 numbers, or number blocks only). Hoeneisen, et al. Expires January 10, 2008 [Page 9] Internet-Draft BCP Enumservice Registrations Jul 2007 o use of any RRs (especially non-NAPTR) within or beyond the e164.arpa namespace other than those needed to resolve the domain names that appear in the 'replacement' URI. Rationale: some ENUM services try to exploit side effects of the DNS that need to be explicitly discussed. 4.8. Other Sections (OPTIONAL) Other sections, beyond those required by the IETF and/or IANA, which are cited or otherwise referenced here, MAY be included in an Enumservice registration. These sections may relate to the specifics of the intended usage of the Enumservice registration and associated technical, operational, or administrative concerns. 5. Revision of Pre-Existing Enumservice RFCs Several Enumservice registrations, published via IETF RFCs, already exist at the time of the development of this document. The authors recommend that these existing registration documents SHOULD be reviewed and, where necessary and appropriate, MAY be revised in accordance with the recommendations contained herein. All future Enumservice registrations SHOULD follow the recommendations contained herein, where practical and applicable. 6. Extension of Existing Enumservice RFCs There are cases, where it is more sensible to extend an existing Enumservice registrations rather than proposing a new one. Such cases include adding a new subtype to an existing type. Depending on the nature of the extension, the original registration document needs to be extended (updates) or replaced (obsoletes) [3]. 7. Security Considerations 7.1. Considerations regarding this Document Since this document does not introduce any technology or protocol, there are no security issues to be considered for this memo itself. 7.2. Enumservice Security Considerations Guideline Section 6 of RFC 3761 already outlines security considerations affecting ENUM as a whole. Enumservice registration documents do not need and SHOULD NOT repeat considerations already listed there, but Hoeneisen, et al. Expires January 10, 2008 [Page 10] Internet-Draft BCP Enumservice Registrations Jul 2007 they SHOULD include a reference to that section. ENUM refers to resources using preexisting URI schemes and protocols. Enumservice registration documents do not need and SHOULD NOT repeat security considerations affecting those protocols and URI schemes itself. However, in case that the inclusion of those protocols and URI schemes into ENUM specifically introduces new security issues, those issues MUST be lined out in the 'Security Considerations' section of the registration document. 8. IANA Considerations This document itself does not define a new protocol, and therefore has no considerations for IANA. However, it contains a proposal for the 'IANA Considerations' section of actual Enumservice registration documents in Appendix A. Note: Section 4.2 is just an example of an Enumservice registration. The Enumservice "foo" outlined there MUST NOT be registered by IANA unless this memo is to be published on April 1st. 9. Acknowledgements Lawrence Conroy provided extensive text for the Enumservice Classification section. The authors also wish to thank Peter Koch for his contribution to this document. 10. References 10.1. Normative References [1] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. [2] Faltstrom, P. and M. Mealling, "The E.164 to Uniform Resource Identifiers (URI) Dynamic Delegation Discovery System (DDDS) Application (ENUM)", RFC 3761, April 2004. [3] Reynolds, J. and R. Braden, "Instructions to Request for Comments (RFC) Authors", draft-rfc-editor-rfc2223bis-08 (work in progress), July 2004. [4] Mealling, M., "Dynamic Delegation Discovery System (DDDS) Part Hoeneisen, et al. Expires January 10, 2008 [Page 11] Internet-Draft BCP Enumservice Registrations Jul 2007 Three: The Domain Name System (DNS) Database", RFC 3403, October 2002. 10.2. Informative References [5] Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax", STD 66, RFC 3986, January 2005. [6] Peterson, J., "enumservice registration for Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Addresses-of-Record", RFC 3764, April 2004. [7] Mayrhofer, A., "IANA Registration for Enumservice 'XMPP'", draft-ietf-enum-xmpp-02 (work in progress), May 2007. [8] Levin, O., "Telephone Number Mapping (ENUM) Service Registration for H.323", RFC 3762, April 2004. [9] Vaudreuil, G., "Voice Message Routing Service", RFC 4238, October 2005. [10] Daigle, L. and A. Newton, "Domain-Based Application Service Location Using SRV RRs and the Dynamic Delegation Discovery Service (DDDS)", RFC 3958, January 2005. [11] Brandner, R., Conroy, L., and R. Stastny, "IANA Registration for Enumservice 'web' and 'ft'", RFC 4002, February 2005. [12] Peterson, J., "Telephone Number Mapping (ENUM) Service Registration for Presence Services", RFC 3953, January 2005. [13] Mayrhofer, A., "IANA Registration for vCard Enumservice", draft-ietf-enum-vcard-05 (work in progress), November 2006. Appendix A. XML2RFC Template for Enumservice Registration Hoeneisen, et al. Expires January 10, 2008 [Page 12] Internet-Draft BCP Enumservice Registrations Jul 2007 IANA Registration for Enumservice Foo MyOrganization
MyAddress MyCity MyZIP MyCountry Myphonenumber MyEmailAddress MyWebpage
RAI ENUM -- Telephone Number Mapping Working Group ENUM foo bar This memo registers the Enumservice "foo" with subtype "bar" using the URI scheme "bar". This Enumservice is to be used to refer from an ENUM domain name to the foobar of the entity using the corresponding E.164 number. A Client can use information gathered from a record using this Enumservice to foo the bar. Hoeneisen, et al. Expires January 10, 2008 [Page 13] Internet-Draft BCP Enumservice Registrations Jul 2007
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.
E.164 Number Mapping (ENUM) uses the Domain Name System (DNS) to refer from E.164 numbers to Uniform Resource Identifiers (URIs). To distinguish between different services for a single E.164 number, section 2.4.2 of RFC 3761 specifies 'Enumservices', which are to be registered with IANA according to section 3 of RFC 3761 and RFC XXXX. The 'foo' protocol is specified in ... and provides ... The Enumservice specified in this document refers from an E.164 number to a foobar ... Clients use those foobars to foo the bar.
Enumservice Name: "foo" Enumservice Type: "foo" Enumservice Subtypes: "bar" URI Schemes: "bar" Functional Specification: Hoeneisen, et al. Expires January 10, 2008 [Page 14] Internet-Draft BCP Enumservice Registrations Jul 2007 This Enumservice indicates that the resource identified is a foobar ... Security Considerations: see Intended Usage: COMMON Author(s): MyName MySurname, <myEmail> Any other information the author(s) deem(s) interesting: None
An example ENUM record referencing to "foo" could look like: $ORIGIN 9.7.8.0.9.7.8.9.0.9.4.4.e164.arpa. @ IN NAPTR 50 10 "u" "E2U+foo:bar" "!^.*$!bar://example.com/!" . ...
Implementers should consider that fooing the bar... Hoeneisen, et al. Expires January 10, 2008 [Page 15] Internet-Draft BCP Enumservice Registrations Jul 2007
As with any Enumservice, the security considerations of ENUM itself (Section 6 of RFC 3761) apply.
Since ENUM uses DNS - a publicly available database - any information contained in records provisioned in ENUM domains must be considered public as well. Even after revoking the DNS entry and removing the referred resource, copies of the information could still be available. Information published in ENUM records could reveal associations between E.164 numbers and their owners - especially if URIs contain personal identifiers or domain names for which ownership information can be obtained easily. For example, the following URI makes it easy to guess the owner of an E.164 number as well as his location and association by just examining the result from the ENUM lookup: http://sandiego.company.example.com/joe-william-user.vcf However, it is important to note that the ENUM record itself does not need to contain any personal information. It just points to a location where access to personal information could be granted. For example, the following URI only reveals the service provider hosting the vCard (who probably even provides anonymous hosting): http://anonhoster.example.org/file_adfa001.vcf ENUM records pointing to third party resources can easily be provisioned on purpose by the ENUM domain owner - so any assumption about the association between a number and an entity could therefore be completely bogus unless some kind of identity verification is in place. This verification is out of scope for this memo.
Users MUST therefore carefully consider information they provide in the resource identified by the Hoeneisen, et al. Expires January 10, 2008 [Page 16] Internet-Draft BCP Enumservice Registrations Jul 2007 ENUM record as well as in the record itself. Considerations could include serving information only to entities of the user's choice and/or limiting the comprehension of the information provided based on the identity of the requester. (modify as appropriate - more about the specific resource here)
This memo requests registration of the "foo" Enumservice with the subtype "bar" according to the template in of this document and RFC3761. ...
This Enumservices does not introduce any new considerations for the DNS. ...
Hoeneisen, et al. Expires January 10, 2008 [Page 17] Internet-Draft BCP Enumservice Registrations Jul 2007 The international public telecommunication numbering plan ITU-T Figure 1 Appendix B. Changes [RFC Editor: This section is to be removed before publication] draft-ietf-enum-enumservices-guide-04: o bernie: added section about Extension of existing Enumservice RFCs o bernie: added open issue about future registration process o bernie: added category (bcp) o bernie: clean up in Security considerations o bernie: editorial stuff (mainly XML issues) draft-ietf-enum-enumservices-guide-03: o alex: moved terminology section o alex: removed note asking for feedback o bernie: added DNS consideration section o bernie: added Acknowledgements section o bernie: editorial stuff (nicer formating, fixing too long lines) o alex: added security considerations from vcard draft. draft-ietf-enum-enumservices-guide-02: o bernie: replaced numbers in examples by "Drama Numbers" o bernie: moved Change and Open Issues to Appendix. o bernie: major rewrite of section "6. Required Sections and Information" incl. separating explanations and examples. o bernie: removed section 7 (was just a repetition of referencing to template) Hoeneisen, et al. Expires January 10, 2008 [Page 18] Internet-Draft BCP Enumservice Registrations Jul 2007 o bernie: extended Appendix with Open Issues. draft-ietf-enum-enumservices-guide-01: o alex: added Security Considerations section for the doc itself o alex: added IANA Considerations section for the doc itself o alex: added cookbook idea Appendix C. Open Issues [RFC Editor: This section should be empty before publication] o Clarify, whether process for future Enumservice registrations (after ENUM WG has been closed) belongs herein. o Write something in the introduction about what the document does not intend (no guarantee for surviving in the ENUM WG, no change of the process itself). o Clarify IANA impact of this document. o URL for template, so that it can be fetched without header-/ footer-lines of RFC. Authors' Addresses Bernie Hoeneisen Switch Werdstrasse 2 CH-8004 Zuerich Switzerland Phone: +41 44 268 1515 Email: hoeneisen@switch.ch, b.hoeneisen@ieee.org URI: http://www.switch.ch/ Alexander Mayrhofer enum.at GmbH Karlsplatz 1/9 Wien A-1010 Austria Phone: +43 1 5056416 34 Email: alexander.mayrhofer@enum.at URI: http://www.enum.at/ Hoeneisen, et al. Expires January 10, 2008 [Page 19] Internet-Draft BCP Enumservice Registrations Jul 2007 Jason Livingood Comcast Cable Communications 1500 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19102 USA Phone: +1-215-981-7813 Email: jason_livingood@cable.comcast.com URI: http://www.comcast.com/ Hoeneisen, et al. Expires January 10, 2008 [Page 20] Internet-Draft BCP Enumservice Registrations Jul 2007 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 The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in this document or the extent to which any license under such rights might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be found in BCP 78 and BCP 79. Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at http://www.ietf.org/ipr. The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at ietf-ipr@ietf.org. Acknowledgment Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF Administrative Support Activity (IASA). Hoeneisen, et al. Expires January 10, 2008 [Page 21]