idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-enum-voice-01.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** It looks like you're using RFC 3978 boilerplate. You should update this to the boilerplate described in the IETF Trust License Policy document (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info), which is required now. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3978, Section 5.1 on line 18. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3978, Section 5.5 on line 367. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 1 on line 344. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 2 on line 351. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 3 on line 357. ** This document has an original RFC 3978 Section 5.4 Copyright Line, instead of the newer IETF Trust Copyright according to RFC 4748. ** This document has an original RFC 3978 Section 5.5 Disclaimer, instead of the newer disclaimer which includes the IETF Trust according to RFC 4748. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == No 'Intended status' indicated for this document; assuming Proposed Standard Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the RFC 3978 Section 5.4 Copyright Line does not match the current year -- The document seems to lack a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work, but may have content which was first submitted before 10 November 2008. If you have contacted all the original authors and they are all willing to grant the BCP78 rights to the IETF Trust, then this is fine, and you can ignore this comment. If not, you may need to add the pre-RFC5378 disclaimer. (See the Legal Provisions document at https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info for more information.) -- The document date (October 19, 2005) is 6756 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) == Unused Reference: '13' is defined on line 297, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: '14' is defined on line 300, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: '15' is defined on line 303, but no explicit reference was found in the text ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 3761 (ref. '2') (Obsoleted by RFC 6116, RFC 6117) -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. '3' ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 3401 (ref. '6') -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 3978 (ref. '14') (Obsoleted by RFC 5378) -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 3979 (ref. '15') (Obsoleted by RFC 8179) Summary: 5 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 5 warnings (==), 10 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 ENUM R. Brandner 3 Internet-Draft Siemens AG 4 Expires: April 22, 2006 L. Conroy 5 Siemens Roke Manor Research 6 R. Stastny 7 Oefeg 8 October 19, 2005 10 IANA Registration for Enumservice Voice 11 13 Status of this Memo 15 By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any 16 applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware 17 have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes 18 aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79. 20 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 21 Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that 22 other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- 23 Drafts. 25 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 26 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 27 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 28 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 30 The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at 31 http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. 33 The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at 34 http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. 36 This Internet-Draft will expire on April 22, 2006. 38 Copyright Notice 40 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005). 42 Abstract 44 This document registers the ENUMservice "voice" (which has a defined 45 sub-type "tel"), as per the IANA registration process defined in the 46 ENUM specification RFC3761. This service indicates that the contact 47 held in the generated URI can be used to initiate an interactive 48 voice (audio) call. 50 Table of Contents 52 1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 53 2. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 54 3. Voice Service Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 55 4. Example of voice:tel enumservice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 56 5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 57 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 58 7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 59 7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 60 7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 61 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 62 Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 14 64 1. Terminology 66 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 67 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 68 document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14, RFC2119 [1]. 70 2. Introduction 72 ENUM (E.164 Number Mapping, RFC3761 [2]) is a system that transforms 73 E.164 numbers [3] into domain names and then uses DNS (Domain Name 74 Service, RFC1034 [4]) features like delegation through NS records, 75 and the use of NAPTR records, to look up the communication services 76 available for a specific domain name. 78 This document registers an Enumservice according to the guidelines 79 given in RFC3761 to be used for provisioning in the services field of 80 a NAPTR [5] resource record to indicate what class of functionality a 81 given end point offers. The registration is defined within the DDDS 82 (Dynamic Delegation Discovery System [6][7] [5][8] [9]) hierarchy, 83 for use with the "E2U" DDDS Application defined in RFC3761. 85 Enumservices have a type and subtype. This latter is optional, as it 86 may be implicit in the service type. The type defines the kind of 87 communication session that can be initiated using the contact 88 indicated by the URI generated by the enclosing NAPTR. In 89 telecommunications engineering terms, it reflects the "teleservice". 91 The sub-type defines the subsystem that is to be used to initiate the 92 communication session. Note that the sub-type definition is usually 93 associated with the URI scheme that is to be used. 95 Both the type and subtype (where present) must be supported for the 96 NAPTR to be used by a potential correspondent. 98 There are a number of DDDS Applications in addition to ENUM (for 99 example, see [8] and [9]). However, an Enumservice indication 100 operates only within the context of the "E2U" (ENUM) DDDS 101 Application. 103 Whilst the protocol elements that make up ENUM are defined in the 104 above documents and in this one, further examples of the use to which 105 these may be put are given in other documents, for example in ETSI TS 106 102 172 [11]. 108 This document registers the Enumservice "voice" (which has a defined 109 sub-type "tel"), as per the IANA registration process defined in the 110 ENUM specification RFC3761. This service indicates that the contact 111 held in the generated URI can be used to initiate an interactive 112 voice (audio) call. 114 3. Voice Service Registration 116 Enumservice Name: "voice" 118 Enumservice Type: "voice" 120 Enumservice Subtype: "tel" 122 URI Scheme: 'tel:' 124 Functional Specification: 126 The kind of communication indicated by this Enumservice is 127 "Interactive Voice". From a protocol perspective, this 128 communication is expected to involve bidirectional media streams 129 carrying audio data. 131 A client may imply that the person controlling population of a 132 NAPTR holding this Enumservice indicates their capability to 133 engage in an interactive voice session when contacted using the 134 URI generated by this NAPTR. 136 Security Considerations: 138 See Section 5. 140 Intended Usage: COMMON 142 Authors: 144 Rudolf Brandner, Lawrence Conroy, Richard Stastny (for author 145 contact detail see Authors' Addresses section) 147 Any other information the author deems interesting: 149 This Enumservice indicates that the person responsible for the 150 NAPTR is accessible via the PSTN (Public Switched Telephone 151 Network) or PLMN (Public Land Mobile Network) using the value of 152 the generated URI. 154 The kind of subsystem required to initiate a Voice Enumservice 155 with this sub-type is a "Dialler". This is a subsystem that 156 either provides a local connection to the PSTN or PLMN, or that 157 provides an indirect connection to those networks. The subsystem 158 will use the telephone number held in the generated URI to place a 159 voice call. The voice call is placed to a network that uses E.164 160 numbers to route calls to an appropriate destination. 162 Note that the PSTN/PLMN connection may be indirect. The end user 163 receiving this NAPTR may have a relationship with a Communications 164 Service Provider that accepts call initiation requests from that 165 subsystem using an IP-based protocol such as SIP or H.323, and 166 places the call to the PSTN using a remote gateway service. In 167 this case the Provider may either accept requests using "tel:" 168 URIs or has a defined mechanism to convert "tel:" URI values into 169 a "protocol-native" form. 171 The "tel:" URI value SHOULD be fully qualified (using the "global 172 phone number" form of RFC3966 [10]). A "local phone number" as 173 defined in that document SHOULD NOT be used unless the controller 174 of the zone in which the NAPTR appears is sure that it can be 175 distinguished unambiguously by all clients that can access the 176 resource record and that a call from their network access points 177 can be routed to that destination. 179 4. Example of voice:tel enumservice 181 The following is an example of the use of the enumservice registered 182 by this document in a NAPTR resource record. 184 $ORIGIN 0.6.9.2.3.6.1.4.4.e164.arpa. 186 3.8.0 NAPTR 10 100 "u" "E2U+voice:tel" 188 "!^.*$!tel:+441414960000!" . 190 5. Security Considerations 192 DNS, as used by ENUM, is a global, distributed database. Thus any 193 information stored there is visible to anyone anonymously. Whilst 194 this is not qualitatively different from publication in a Telephone 195 Directory, it does open the data subject to having "their" 196 information collected automatically without any indication that this 197 has been done or by whom. 199 Such data harvesting by third parties is often used to generate lists 200 of targets for unrequested information; in short, they are used to 201 address "spam". Anyone who uses a Web-archived mailing list is aware 202 that the volume of "spam" email they are sent increases when he or 203 she posts to the mailing list; publication of a telephone number in 204 ENUM is no different, and may be used for attempts to send "junk 205 faxes" or "junk SMS" for example. 207 Many mailing list users have more than one email address and use 208 "sacrificial" email accounts when posting to such lists to help 209 filter out unrequested emails sent to them. This is not so easy with 210 published telephone numbers; the PSTN E.164 number assignment process 211 is much more involved and usually a single E.164 number (or a fixed 212 range of numbers) is associated with each PSTN access. Thus 213 providing a "sacrificial" phone number in any publication is not 214 possible. 216 Due to the implications of publishing data on a globally accessible 217 database, as a principle the data subject MUST give their explicit 218 informed consent to data being published in ENUM. 220 In addition, they should be made aware that, due to storage of such 221 data during harvesting by third parties, removal of the data from 222 publication will not remove any copies that have been taken; in 223 effect, any publication may be permanent. 225 However, regulations in many regions will require that the data 226 subject can at any time request that the data is removed from 227 publication, and that their consent for its publication is explicitly 228 confirmed at regular intervals. 230 When placing a voice call via the PSTN (or from the Public Land 231 Mobile Network), the sender may be charged for this action. In both 232 kinds of network, calling some numbers is more expensive than sending 233 to others; both kinds of network have "premium rate" services that 234 can be charged at a rate considerably more than a "normal" call. As 235 such, it is important that the end user be asked to confirm placing 236 the call, and that the destination number be presented to them. It 237 is the originating user's choice on whether or not to place a call to 238 this destination number, but they SHOULD be shown the destination 239 number so that they can make this decision. 241 In addition to the specific security considerations given above, all 242 security considerations given in RFC3761 apply, as well as the DNS- 243 specific threats covered in RFC3833 [12]. 245 6. IANA Considerations 247 This document requests that IANA registers the Enumservice "voice" 248 with a single sub-type "tel" according to the framework defined in 249 RFC3761. The current document defines this Enumservice and the 250 expected behaviour of clients. 252 7. References 254 7.1. Normative References 256 [1] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement 257 Levels", RFC 2119, BCP 14, March 1997. 259 [2] Faltstrom, P. and M. Mealling, "The E.164 to Uniform Resource 260 Identifiers (URI) Dynamic Delegation Discovery System (DDDS) 261 Application (ENUM)", RFC 3761, April 2004. 263 [3] ITU-T, "The International Public Telecommunication Number 264 Plan", Recommendation E.164, May 1997. 266 [4] Mockapetris, P., "DOMAIN NAMES - CONCEPTS AND FACILITIES", 267 RFC 1034, November 1987. 269 [5] Mealling, M., "Dynamic Delegation Discovery System (DDDS) Part 270 Three: The Domain Name System (DNS) Database", RFC 3403, 271 October 2002. 273 [6] Mealling, M., "Dynamic Delegation Discovery System (DDDS) Part 274 One: The Comprehensive DDDS", RFC 3401, October 2002. 276 [7] Mealling, M., "Dynamic Delegation Discovery System (DDDS) Part 277 Two: The Algorithm", RFC 3402, October 2002. 279 [8] Mealling, M., "Dynamic Delegation Discovery System (DDDS) Part 280 Four: The Uniform Resource Identifiers (URI)", RFC 3404, 281 October 2002. 283 [9] Mealling, M., "Dynamic Delegation Discovery System (DDDS) Part 284 Five: URI.ARPA Assignment Procedures", RFC 3405, October 2002. 286 [10] Schulzrinne, H., "The tel URI for Telephone Numbers", RFC 3966, 287 December 2004. 289 7.2. Informative References 291 [11] ETSI, "Minimum Requirements for Interoperability of ENUM 292 Implementations", ETSI TS 102 172, January 2005. 294 [12] Atkins, D. and R. Austein, "Threat Analysis of the Domain Name 295 System (DNS)", RFC 3833, August 2004. 297 [13] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 3", 298 RFC 2026, BCP 9, October 1996. 300 [14] Bradner, S., "IETF Rights in Contributions", BCP 78, RFC 3978, 301 March 2005. 303 [15] Bradner, S., "Intellectual Property Rights in IETF Technology", 304 BCP 79, RFC 3979, March 2005. 306 Authors' Addresses 308 Rudolf Brandner 309 Siemens AG 310 Hofmannstr. 51 311 81359 Munich 312 Germany 314 Phone: +49-89-722-51003 315 Email: rudolf.brandner@siemens.com 317 Lawrence Conroy 318 Siemens Roke Manor Research 319 Roke Manor 320 Romsey 321 United Kingdom 323 Phone: +44-1794-833666 324 Email: lwc@roke.co.uk 326 Richard Stastny 327 Oefeg 328 Postbox 147 329 1103 Vienna 330 Austria 332 Phone: +43-664-420-4100 333 Email: Richard.stastny@oefeg.at 335 Intellectual Property Statement 337 The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any 338 Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to 339 pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in 340 this document or the extent to which any license under such rights 341 might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has 342 made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information 343 on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be 344 found in BCP 78 and BCP 79. 346 Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any 347 assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an 348 attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of 349 such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this 350 specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at 351 http://www.ietf.org/ipr. 353 The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any 354 copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary 355 rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement 356 this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at 357 ietf-ipr@ietf.org. 359 Disclaimer of Validity 361 This document and the information contained herein are provided on an 362 "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS 363 OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET 364 ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, 365 INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE 366 INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED 367 WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. 369 Copyright Statement 371 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005). This document is subject 372 to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and 373 except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights. 375 Acknowledgment 377 Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the 378 Internet Society.