ENUM -- Telephone Number Mapping B. Hoeneisen Working Group Switch Internet-Draft Nov 5, 2007 Expires: May 8, 2008 Registration of Enumservices for experimental, private or trial use draft-ietf-enum-x-service-regs-00 Status of this Memo By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- Drafts. Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. This Internet-Draft will expire on May 8, 2008. Copyright Notice Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007). Abstract This document provides a guide to the creation of new IANA registrations of experimental, private or trial ENUM (E.164 Number Mapping) services. It is also to be used for updates of those experimental, private or trial Enumservice (X-Enumservice) registrations. Hoeneisen Expires May 8, 2008 [Page 1] Internet-Draft X-Enumservice Registrations Nov 2007 Table of Contents 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. Required Sections and Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 4. The Process of Registering New X-Enumservices . . . . . . . . 4 4.1. Step 1: Read This Document In Detail . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4.2. Step 2: Submit An Internet-Draft . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4.3. Step 3: Request Comments from the IETF Community . . . . . 6 4.3.1. Outcome 1: No Changes Needed . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4.3.2. Outcome 2: Changes, but no Further Comments Requested . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4.3.3. Outcome 3: Changes and Further Comments Requested . . 6 4.4. Step 4: Submit I-D for Publication . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 5. Expert Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 5.1. IANA initiates Expert Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 5.2. Expert(s) Review(s) the Internet Draft . . . . . . . . . . 9 5.2.1. Outcome 1: Experts Approve X-Enumservice . . . . . . . 9 5.2.2. Outcome 2: Experts Raise Issues, Changes Required . . 9 5.2.3. Outcome 3: Experts Reject X-Enumservice . . . . . . . 9 5.3. Add Results of Expert Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 5.4. IANA inserts X-Enumservice to Registry . . . . . . . . . . 9 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Appendix A. Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Appendix B. Open Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 13 Hoeneisen Expires May 8, 2008 [Page 2] Internet-Draft X-Enumservice Registrations Nov 2007 1. Introduction This document provides a guide to the creation of new IANA registrations of X-Enumservices. This document aims to enhance section 3 of RFC 3761 [3], where the registration procedure for Enumservices was initially documented at a high level. It further complements the Guide and Template for IANA Registrations of Enumservices [2]. The X-Enumservice registration is intended to allow people to use the template for ordinary Enumservices to describe what X-Enumservice strings exist in NAPTR Resource Records and to describe how they are used, but not (yet) to require a full IETF review and change control. This is needed as some trials use URL schemes that are not registered, and so cannot be used in Standards Track Enumservice registrations. Also, until trials have been completed, it may not be appropriate to produce a Standards Track document, as Enumservice syntax details, use and issues of security / privacy may not have been analyzed fully at that point. For the purpose of this document, 'x-registration document' and 'x-registration' refer to an Internet Draft proposing the IANA registration of an X-Enumservice following the procedures outlined herein. The terms 'registration document' and 'registration' refer to an Internet Draft proposing the IANA registration of a ordinary Enumservice as defined in [2]. 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. Required Sections and Information An x-registration document for an X-Enumservice is similar to a ordinary Enumservice registration as described in Guide and Template for IANA Registrations of Enumservices [2] except for the following: o Enumservice Name: The Enumservice Name MUST contain the prefix "X-". e.g. "X-Foo" Hoeneisen Expires May 8, 2008 [Page 3] Internet-Draft X-Enumservice Registrations Nov 2007 o Enumservice Type: The Type MUST be prefixed with "x-". To avoid confusion a name SHOULD be equal to type (but in lower case). e.g. "x-foo" o URI Schemes: The Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) [8] Schemes, which are used with an X-Enumservice do not necessarily need to be documented in an IETF document. If a publicly referenceable document is available it MUST be referenced in the x-registration document. In case there is no publicly referenceable document, the URI Scheme MUST be sufficiently described in the x-registration document. o Functional Specification: This section quite depends on how much publicly available documentation about the service already exists. o Intended Usage: For the Intended Usage RFC 3761 [3] is extended with "EXPERIMENTAL", "PRIVATE", and "TRIAL". One of those is to be used. e.g. "TRIAL" 4. The Process of Registering New X-Enumservices This section describes the process by which someone shall submit a new X-Enumservice for review and comment, how such proposed X-Enumservices shall be reviewed, and how x-registrations shall be published. Figure 1 and Figure 2 depict an overview on the X-Enumservice registration process. Figure 1 describes, what an author of an I-D describing an X-Enumservice has to carry out, before he can formally submit said I-D for publication. Figure 2 describes what happens afterwards including the expert review: Hoeneisen Expires May 8, 2008 [Page 4] Internet-Draft X-Enumservice Registrations Nov 2007 +----------------------------+ | Step 1: Read this document | +----------------------------+ V +-------------------------------+ | Step 2: Write I-D and submit | +-------------------------------+ V +-----------------------------------------------+ | Step 3: Announce I-D to and solicit feedback |<-+ +-----------------------------------------------+ | | | V | .^. | . . | +------------+ . Feed- . +------------+ | Update I-D |<---------< back >------------>| Update I-D | | and submit | non-sub- . results . substantial | and submit | +------------+ stantial . in: . changes +------------+ | changes . . needed | needed Y | | no changes needed | V | +-------------------------------------+ +---->| Step 4: Submit I-D for publication | +-------------------------------------+ : : V Figure 1 4.1. Step 1: Read This Document In Detail This document and the specification for ordinary Enumservice registrations [2] describe all of the necessary sections required and recommended, makes suggestions on content, and provides sample XML. 4.2. Step 2: Submit An Internet-Draft An Internet-Draft containing the x-registration shall be submitted in accordance with RFC 2026 [5] and RFC 2223bis [6], as well as RFC 3761 [3], and any other documents applicable to the Internet-Draft process. This Internet-Draft shall be submitted as an "Individual Submission". Hoeneisen Expires May 8, 2008 [Page 5] Internet-Draft X-Enumservice Registrations Nov 2007 4.3. Step 3: Request Comments from the IETF Community After the Internet-Draft has been published, the author(s) shall send an email to , in which comments on said Internet-Draft are requested. Suggested Format of Announcement: To: enum@ietf.org Subject: Comments on The author is requesting comments and feedback from the ENUM and IETF communities on the I-D listed below. The I-D is available at: Abstract of the I-D: The author(s) should allow a reasonable period of time to elapse, such as two to four weeks, in order to collect any feedback. The author(s) shall then consider whether or not to take any of those comments into account, by making changes to the Internet-Draft and submitting a revision to the I-D editor, or otherwise proceeding. The following outcomes are the ways the author(s) shall proceed, and it is up to the authors' judgement as to which one to choose. 4.3.1. Outcome 1: No Changes Needed No changes to the Internet-Draft are made, and the author(s) proceed(s) to Step 4 below. This outcome is recommended when the feedback received does not lead to a new revision of the Internet-Draft. 4.3.2. Outcome 2: Changes, but no Further Comments Requested The author(s) update(s) the Internet-Draft and is/are confident that all issues are resolved and do not require further discussion. The author(s) proceed(s) to Step 4 below. This outcome is recommended when minor objections have been raised, or minor changes have been suggested. 4.3.3. Outcome 3: Changes and Further Comments Requested The author(s) update(s) the Internet-Draft, and proceed(s) to Step 3 above, which involves sending another email to to Hoeneisen Expires May 8, 2008 [Page 6] Internet-Draft X-Enumservice Registrations Nov 2007 request additional comments for the updated version. This outcome is recommended when substantial objections have been raised, or substantial changes have been suggested. 4.4. Step 4: Submit I-D for Publication The author(s) submit the Internet-Draft containing the x-registration to be published as an RFC. The IETF publication process includes IANA actions such as adding the service to the IANA X-Enumservice registry. It is RECOMMENDED that an X-Enumservice registration is published as either a Informational, or Experimental RFC. However, if the author insists to publish an X-Enumservice registration as Standards Track or Best Current Practice (BCP), the process for ordinary Enumservice registrations [2] applies, which means apart from the "X-" prefix there is no difference to an ordinary Enumservice registration. 5. Expert Review A new X-Enumservice MUST undergo expert review before publication and is initiated by IANA before a new X-Enumservice added to the IANA registry. Expert review for X-Enumservices is conducted the same way as defined for ordinary Enumservice registrations [2]. However, the barriers for approval are rather low compared to ordinary Enumservice registrations. Expert review for X-Enumservices for will include an initial evaluation of whether this specification will have issues in transferring to a Standards Track document (for example, if it uses an unregistered URL scheme, or that the security and privacy analysis is incomplete at this stage). It will also indicate whether the use of this X-Enumservice will clash with any other (X-)Enumservices or cause damage to other compliant ENUM components, and should be used only in private configurations where all involved components are aware of its use. Expert reviews for X-Enumservices do not normally result in rejection, unless its use will cause serious negative impact to ENUM, DNS or the Internet. However, authors SHOULD address issues raised during expert review in an update of the x-registration document, before a new X-Enumservice is added to the IANA registry. The results of such an expert review MUST be appended to the x-registration document and will be recorded along with the specification itself. Hoeneisen Expires May 8, 2008 [Page 7] Internet-Draft X-Enumservice Registrations Nov 2007 The following Figure 2 shows the process for an X-Enumservice registration to go through Expert Review: +-------------------------------------+ | I-D comes in for publication as RFC | +-------------------------------------+ V +---------------------+ | I-D arrives at IANA | +---------------------+ V +------------------------------+ | IANA initiates Expert Review | +------------------------------+ V +------------------------------------+ | Expert(s) Review(s) X-Registration |<--------+ +------------------------------------+ | | | V | .^. | . . | +---------+ . Expert . +------------+ | Appeal- |<-----------< review >------------>| Update I-D | | process | rejection . results . issues | and submit | +---------+ by expert(s) . in: . raised by +------------+ . . expert(s) Y | approval by expert(s) V +------------------------------------------------------+ | Add results of Expert Review and submit updated I-D | +------------------------------------------------------+ V +----------------------------------------+ | IANA inserts X-Enumservice to Registry | +----------------------------------------+ V +------------------------------------+ | X-Registration is published as RFC | +------------------------------------+ Figure 2 As the steps before and after Expert Review are standard procedures, those are not further described herein. In the following a description of the Expert Review process: Hoeneisen Expires May 8, 2008 [Page 8] Internet-Draft X-Enumservice Registrations Nov 2007 5.1. IANA initiates Expert Review IANA contacts an expert that conducts the expert review. The X-Enumservice expert review process shall then be followed to conclusion. The pool of experts is the same as for ordinary Enumservice registrations [2]. 5.2. Expert(s) Review(s) the Internet Draft The Experts review the X-Enumservice according to the guidelines in this Section 5. 5.2.1. Outcome 1: Experts Approve X-Enumservice In this case, the proposed X-Enumservice has been endorsed and approved by the experts, and the Internet-Draft proceeds further. 5.2.2. Outcome 2: Experts Raise Issues, Changes Required The experts raise issues that prevent approval of the proposed X-Enumservice. If they believe that, with changes, the proposed X-Enumservice will be approved, then they may recommend that the author(s) make changes and submit a revised version that undergoes another review by the experts. 5.2.3. Outcome 3: Experts Reject X-Enumservice The experts raise issues that result in rejection of the proposed X-Enumservice. If they believe that, even with changes, the proposed X-Enumservice will not be approved, the process normally terminates. However, if the author(s) disagrees(s) with this judgement, he has the possibility to to appeal. Appeals follow the common IETF appeal process as described in section 7 of [7] and section 6.5 of RFC 2026 [5] 5.3. Add Results of Expert Review The author(s) include(s) the results of the Expert review to the Internet-Draft containing the x-registration and submit the updated version. 5.4. IANA inserts X-Enumservice to Registry IANA inserts the X-Enumservice to the corresponding Registry and the x-registration proceeds on its way to publication as RFC. Hoeneisen Expires May 8, 2008 [Page 9] Internet-Draft X-Enumservice Registrations Nov 2007 6. Security Considerations Since this document does not introduce any technology or protocol, there are no security issues to be considered for this memo itself. 7. IANA Considerations This document introduces three new strings for Intended Usage as defined in RFC 3761 [3]. These new strings are: "EXPERIMENTAL", "PRIVATE", and "TRIAL". The revision of RFC 3761 [3] RFC3761bis [4] shall contain these new strings. Furthermore the dash in the 'X-' string needs to be put into the set of allowed characters in an Enumservice Type. In case the revision of RFC 3761 is not yet ready at publication time of this memo, an intermediary regime needs to be defined. An IANA Registry for X-Enumservices is to be defined. 8. Acknowledgements The author wishes to thank Alexander Mayrhofer and Lawrence Conroy for their contributions to this document. 9. References 9.1. Normative References [1] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. [2] Hoeneisen, B., Mayrhofer, A., and J. Livingood, "Guide and Template for IANA Registrations of Enumservices", draft-ietf-enum-enumservices-guide-05 (work in progress), October 2007. [3] Faltstrom, P. and M. Mealling, "The E.164 to Uniform Resource Identifiers (URI) Dynamic Delegation Discovery System (DDDS) Application (ENUM)", RFC 3761, April 2004. [4] Faltstrom, P., "The E.164 to Uniform Resource Identifiers (URI) Dynamic Delegation Discovery System (DDDS) Application (ENUM)", draft-ietf-enum-3761bis-01 (work in progress), July 2007. [5] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, October 1996. Hoeneisen Expires May 8, 2008 [Page 10] Internet-Draft X-Enumservice Registrations Nov 2007 [6] Reynolds, J. and R. Braden, "Instructions to Request for Comments (RFC) Authors", draft-rfc-editor-rfc2223bis-08 (work in progress), July 2004. [7] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", draft-narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis-08 (work in progress), October 2007. 9.2. Informative References [8] Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax", STD 66, RFC 3986, January 2005. Appendix A. Changes [RFC Editor: This section is to be removed before publication] draft-ietf-enum-x-service-regs-00: o Spelled out the Expert Review Process o Added ASCII-arts and descriptions o Now Working Group Item draft-hoeneisen-enum-x-service-regs-02: o Name must have 'X-' prefix (Feedback L. Conroy) o Type should be equal to Name (Feedback L. Conroy) draft-hoeneisen-enum-x-service-regs-01: o added dash issue o introduced abbreviation X-Enumservice and used it throughout the document o clarified section URI Schemes o added to section Expert Review draft-hoeneisen-enum-x-service-regs-00: o Initial version Appendix B. Open Issues [RFC Editor: This section should be empty before publication] o Sync with RFC3761bis: e.g. Intended Usage "EXPERIMENTAL", "PRIVATE", and "TRIAL"; dash in 'X-' to allowed chars o Is there a need for "duration" of X-Enumservice registrations? Hoeneisen Expires May 8, 2008 [Page 11] Internet-Draft X-Enumservice Registrations Nov 2007 o Describe how to submit a x-registration document to IANA o Will there be an additional (IANA) Registry or just use the same IANA Registry as for ordinary Enumservice registrations? o Require a first Security analysis for trial registrations? Author's Address 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/ Hoeneisen Expires May 8, 2008 [Page 12] Internet-Draft X-Enumservice Registrations Nov 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 Expires May 8, 2008 [Page 13]