IANA Registration of Enumservices: Guide, Template and IANA Considerations

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.”

Abstract

This document specifies a revision of the IANA Registry for Enumservices, describes corresponding registration procedures, and provides a guideline for creating Enumservices and its Registration Documents.

1. Introduction

2. Terminology

3. Registration Requirements
    3.1. Functionality Requirements
    3.2. Naming Requirements
    3.3. Security Requirements
    3.4. Publication Requirements

4. Enumservice Creation Cookbook
    4.1. General Enumservice Considerations
    4.2. Classification, Type and Subtype
        4.2.1. General Type / Subtype Considerations
        4.2.2. Protocol-based Enumservices Class
        4.2.3. Application-based Enumservice Classes
        4.2.4. Data- / Format-based Enumservice Class
        4.2.5. Other Enumservice

5. Required Sections and Information
    5.1. Introduction (MANDATORY)
    5.2. IANA Registration (MANDATORY)
    5.3. Examples (MANDATORY)
    5.4. Implementation Recommendations / Notes (OPTIONAL)
    5.5. Security Considerations (MANDATORY)
    5.6. IANA Considerations (MANDATORY)
    5.7. DNS Considerations (MANDATORY)
    5.8. Other Sections (OPTIONAL)

6. The Process of Registering New Enumservices
    6.1. Step 1: Read this Document in Detail
    6.2. Step 2: Write and Submit Registration Document
    6.3. Step 3: Request Comments from the IETF Community
        6.3.1. Outcome 1: No Changes Needed
        6.3.2. Outcome 2: Changes, but no further Comments Requested
        6.3.3. Outcome 3: Changes and further Comments Requested
    6.4. Step 4: Submit Registration Document to IANA
    6.5. Further Steps

7. Expert Review
    7.1. Expert Selection Process
    7.2. Review Guidelines
    7.3. Appeals

8. Revision of Pre-Existing Enumservice RFCs

9. Extension of Existing Enumservice Registrations

10. Security Considerations
    10.1. Considerations Regarding This Document
    10.2. Enumservice Security Considerations Guideline

11. IANA Considerations
    11.1. Enumservice Registrations
        11.1.1. IANA Registration Template
        11.1.2. Location
        11.1.3. Structure
        11.1.4. Registration Procedure
        11.1.5. Change Control
        11.1.6. Restrictions
    11.2. XML2RFC Template

12. Acknowledgements

13. References
    13.1. Normative References
    13.2. Informative References

Appendix A. XML2RFC Template for Enumservice Registration

Appendix B. Changes Overview

Appendix C. Document Changelog

Appendix D. Open Issues

§ Authors' Addresses
§ Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements

1. Introduction

The IETF's ENUM Working Group has encountered an unnecessary amount of variation in the format of Enumservice Registrations 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.

The new registration processes have been specifically designed to be decoupled from the existence of the ENUM working group. Compared to RFC 3761, the main changes are:

2. Terminology

For the purpose of this document, 'Registration Document' and 'Registration' refer to a specification that defines an Enumservice and proposes its registration following the procedures outlined herein.

3. Registration Requirements

While the combination of each Type and all of its Subtypes constitutes the allowed values for the 'Enumservice' field, it is not sufficient to simply list the allowed values of those fields. To allow interoperability, a complete Registration MUST document the semantics of the Type and Subtype values to be registered, and MUST contain all sections listed in Section 5 (Required Sections and Information) of this document.

All Enumservice Registration proposals 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 when choosing one NAPTR resource record from another. That means that the Registration MUST specify what is expected when using that very NAPTR record, and the URI which is the outcome of the use of it.

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

To avoid confusion with Enumservice fields using an obsolete syntax, any identifying tag of any Enumservice MUST NOT be set to nor start with "E2U".

The Subtype for one Type MAY be the same as a Subtype for a different registered Type but it is not sufficient to simply reference another Type's Subtype. The functionality of each Subtype MUST be specified in the context of the Type being registered.

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 the Registration of an Enumservice.

The security considerations section of all Registrations is subject to continuing evaluation and modification.

Some of the issues that SHOULD be looked at in a security analysis of an Enumservice are:

3.4. Publication Requirements

In case the Registration is not published as an RFC, sufficient information that allows to uniquely identify the Registration Document 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.

Generally, before commencing work on a new Enumservice registration, the following should be considered:

4.2. Classification, 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 Type and Subtype strings for each individual Enumservice Class.

The Classification of each Enumservice MUST be listed in the Enumservice Registration (see Section 5.2 (IANA Registration (MANDATORY))). 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 an URI Scheme MUST NOT be used as a Type name for an Enumservice which is not specifically about the respective protocol / URI Scheme - for example, the Type name '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 a 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 just one is currently defined.

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 used to reflect the base service, while the other Enumservices SHOULD be used to reflect variants.

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.

4.2.2.1. Protocol-based Enumservice "Type" Strings

A protocol-based Enumservice SHOULD use the lowercased name of the protocol as its 'type' name.

4.2.2.2. 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 there are a number of different URI Schemes associated with this protocol, the Registration 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:

4.2.3.1. Application-based Enumservice "Type" Strings

It is RECOMMENDED that Application-class Enumservices use the lowercased well known name of the abstract application as Type name.

4.2.3.2. Application-based Enumservice "Subtype" Strings

It is RECOMMENDED to use the URI Scheme(s) which the application uses, as Subtype name(s). Subtype names SHOULD be shared only between URI Schemes that the Registration specifies as mandatory to implement for a given Subtype.

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- / Format-based Enumservice Class

4.2.4.1. Data- / Format-based Enumservice "Type" Strings

It is RECOMMENDED to use the lowercase well known name of the data / format as the Type name.

4.2.4.2. Data- / Format-based Enumservice "Subtype" Strings

It is RECOMMENDED to use the URI Schemes used to access the service as Subtype name. Subtype names SHOULD be shared only between URI Schemes the Registration specifies as mandatory to implement for a given Subtype.

If there is only one URI Scheme foreseen to access the data / format, the empty Subtype string MAY be used.

4.2.5. Other Enumservice

In case an Enumservice proposal cannot be assigned to any of the classes mentioned above, the "Classification" field in the Enumservice Registration (see Section 5.2 (IANA Registration (MANDATORY)) MUST be populated with "Other". In that case, the Registration Document MUST contain a section elaborating why the Enumservice does not fit into the classification structure.

5. Required Sections and Information

The following terms SHOULD begin with a capital letter, whenever they refer to the IANA Registration:

Appendix A (XML2RFC Template for Enumservice Registration) contains an XML2RFC template that can be used to create Internet Drafts and RFCs by means described on <http://xml.resource.org/>. This XML2RFC template contains a prototype for most of these sections.

5.1. Introduction (MANDATORY)

An introductory section MUST be included. This section will explain, in plain English, the purpose of 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 (MANDATORY)

This section MUST be included in an Enumservice Registration. Where a given Enumservice Type has multiple Subtypes, there MUST be a separate 'IANA Registration' section for each Subtype. The following lists the fields and order of an 'IANA Registration' section.

5.3. Examples (MANDATORY)

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.

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/!" .

5.4. 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.

5.5. 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.

5.6. IANA Considerations (MANDATORY)

Describe the task IANA needs to fulfill processing the Enumservice Registration Document.

e.g.
This document requests an update of the IANA registration of the Enumservice with Type "foo" and all its Subtypes, in order to declare it obsolete. Therefore, in the existing IANA registration for this Enumservice, the field "Intended Usage" is changed to "OBSOLETE", and the field "Registration Document(s)" is enhanced by adding a supplementary reference that points to this document.

5.7. DNS Considerations (MANDATORY)

In case the inclusion of protocols and URI Schemes into ENUM specifically introduces new DNS issues, those MUST be described within this section.

Rationale: some Enumservices try to exploit side effects of the DNS that need to be explicitly discussed.

5.8. Other Sections (OPTIONAL)

Other sections, beyond those required by the IETF and/or IANA, which are cited or otherwise referenced herein, MAY be included in an Enumservice Registration. 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.

It is highly recommended that a section describing the intended use be included, as this will serve to inform Expert Reviewers as well as assist potential implementers.

6. The Process of Registering New Enumservices

This section describes the process by which a new Enumservice is submitted for review and comment, how such proposed Enumservices are reviewed, and how they are published.

Figure 1 describes, what authors of a Registration Document describing an Enumservice MUST carry out, before said Registration can be formally submitted to IANA.

6.1. Step 1: Read this Document in Detail

This document describes all of the necessary sections required and recommended, makes suggestions on content, and provides sample XML.

6.2. Step 2: Write and Submit Registration Document

6.3. Step 3: Request Comments from the IETF Community

The authors MUST 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.

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.

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(s) to Step 3 above, which involves sending another email to <enum@ietf.org> to request additional comments for the updated version.

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. This registration MUST be submitted in XML format, in order to be compatible with the new XML-based IANA Registry.

6.5. Further Steps

The authors MUST be prepared for further interaction with IANA and the IANA Designated Expert Reviewers.

7. Expert Review

7.1. Expert Selection Process

7.2. Review Guidelines

7.3. Appeals

8. Revision of Pre-Existing Enumservice RFCs

Many Enumservice Registrations, published via IETF RFCs, already exist at the time of the development of this document. These existing Registration Documents MUST be reviewed and, where necessary and appropriate, MAY be revised in accordance with the specifications contained herein. All future Enumservice Registrations MUST follow the specifications contained herein.

9. Extension of Existing Enumservice Registrations

There are cases where it is more sensible to extend an existing Enumservice registration 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) [RFC2223] (Postel, J. and J. Reynolds, “Instructions to RFC Authors,” October 1997.). 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.

10. Security Considerations

10.1. Considerations Regarding This Document

Since this document does not introduce any new technology, protocol, or Enumserevice Registration, there are no specific security issues to be considered for this document. However, as this is a guide to authors of new Enumservice Resgistration Documents, the next section should be considered closely by authors and Expert Reviewers.

10.2. Enumservice Security Considerations Guideline

ENUM refers to resources using existing URI Schemes and protocols. Enumservice Registration Documents do not need to and SHOULD NOT repeat security considerations affecting those protocols and URI Schemes themselves.

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 Registration Document. 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).

11. IANA Considerations

11.1. Enumservice Registrations

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).

11.1.1. IANA Registration Template

Note: In the case where a particular field has no value, 'N/A' (Not Applicable) MUST be used. This case especially may occur where a given Type has no Subtypes, or if there is no "Further Information".

11.1.2. 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 >.

Where the Registration Document is NOT an RFC, IANA MUST hold an escrow copy of that Registration Document. Said escrow copy will act as the master reference for that Enumservice Registration.

11.1.3. Structure

IANA maintains the Enumservice Registry sorted in alphabetical order. The first sort field is Type, the second is Subtype.

Each Enumservice starts with a caption, which is composed of Type and Subtype, separated by a colon; e.g. if the Type is "foo" and the Subtype "bar", the resulting caption is "foo:bar".

11.1.4. Registration Procedure

Provided that the Enumservice has obtained the necessary approval of the experts, and the Registration Document is published, IANA will register the Enumservice, i.e. add the Enumservice to the IANA "Enumservice Registrations" registry (see also Section 11.1.2 (Location)).

11.1.5. Change Control

For Enumservices Registrations published as an RFC, change control stays with the IETF via the RFC publication process.

Enumservice registrations MUST NOT be deleted. An Enumservice that is believed no longer appropriate for use, can be declared obsolete by publication of a new Enumservices Registrations document changing its "Intended Usage" field to "OBSOLETE"; such Enumservices will be clearly marked in the lists published by IANA.

Updates of any Enumservice Registrations MUST follow the guidelines described in this document.

11.1.6. Restrictions

As stated in Section 3.2 (Naming Requirements), a "-" (dash) MUST NOT be used as the first nor as the second character of a Type nor a Subtype. Furthermore, any identifying tag of any Enumservice MUST NOT be set to nor start with "E2U". Any Enumservice registration requests covered by these restrictions MUST be rejected by IANA, and the 'Expert Review Process' SHOULD NOT be initiated.

Appendix A (XML2RFC Template for Enumservice Registration) 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.

11.2. XML2RFC Template

12. Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the following people who have provided feedback or significant contributions to the development of this document: Lawrence Conroy, Alfred Hoenes, Peter Koch, Edward Lewis, and Jon Peterson

Lawrence Conroy has provided extensive text for the Enumservice Classification section.

13. References

13.1. Normative References

13.2. Informative References

Appendix A. XML2RFC Template for Enumservice Registration

The latest version of the following XML2RFC template can be downloaded from XYZ [Note to RFC editor: Before publication, replace XYZ with download URL assigned by IANA.]


<?xml version='1.0' ?>
<!DOCTYPE rfc SYSTEM 'rfc2629.dtd'>
<rfc ipr='full3978' docName='draft-mysurname-enum-foo-service-00' >
<?rfc toc='yes' ?>
<?rfc tocompact='no' ?>
<?rfc compact='yes' ?>
<?rfc subcompact='yes' ?>

<front>

  <title abbrev='Foo Enumservice'>
    IANA Registration for Enumservice Foo
  </title>

  <author initials='MyI.' surname='MySurname'
          fullname='MyName MySurname'>
    <organization abbrev='MyOrg'>
      MyOrganization
    </organization>
    <address>
      <postal>
        <street>MyAddress</street>
        <city>MyCity</city>
        <code>MyZIP</code>
        <country>MyCountry</country>
      </postal>
      <phone>Myphonenumber</phone>
      <email>MyEmailAddress</email>
      <uri>MyWebpage</uri>
    </address>
  </author>

  <date month='ThisMonth' year='ThisYear' day='ThisDay'/>
  <area>RAI</area>
<workgroup>ENUM -- Telephone Number Mapping Working Group</workgroup>
  <keyword>ENUM</keyword>
  <keyword>foo</keyword>
  <keyword>bar</keyword>

  <abstract>

    <t>This document 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.
    </t>

    <t>A Client can use information gathered from a record using
       this Enumservice to foo the bar.
    </t>

  </abstract>

</front>


<middle>

  <section anchor='intro' title='Introduction'>

    <t><xref target='I-D.ietf-enum-3761bis'>RFC3761bis</xref>
       uses the <xref target='RFC1035'>Domain Name System
       (DNS)</xref> to refer from <xref target='ITU.E164.2005'>E.164
       numbers</xref> to <xref target='RFC3986'>Uniform Resource
       Identifiers (URIs)</xref>.
    </t>

    <t>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 <xref target='RFCXXXX'>RFC XXXX</xref>.
    </t>

    <t>The 'foo' protocol is specified in ... and provides ...
    </t>

    <t>The Enumservice specified in this document refers from an
       E.164 number to a foobar ... Clients use those foobars to foo
       the bar.
    </t>

  </section>

  <section anchor='terminology' title='Terminology'>

    <t>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 <xref target='RFC2119'>RFC 2119</xref>.
    </t>

  </section>

  <section anchor='reg' title='IANA Registration - foo'>

    <vspace blankLines='1'/>
    <t>foo:bar<vspace blankLines='1'/>
      <list style='symbols'>

        <t>Enumservice Class: Application-based, Subset</t>

        <t>Enumservice Type: "foo"</t>

        <t>Enumservice Subtype: "bar"</t>
                                <!-- Use N/A if none -->

        <t>URI Scheme(s): 'bar', 'sbar'</t>

        <t>Functional Specification:

          <list style='symbols'>

            <t>This Enumservice indicates that the resource identified is
              a foobar ...
            </t>

          </list>

        </t>

        <t>Security Considerations: See <xref target='sec'/></t>

        <t>Intended Usage: COMMON</t>

        <t>Registration Document(s): RFCXXXX</t>

        <t>Authors: MyFirstname MySurname</t>

				<t>Authorized Change Controllers: Firstname Surname</t>

        <t>Further Information: See <xref target='impl'/></t>
                                <!-- Use N/A if none -->
      </list>

    </t>

  </section>

  <section anchor='examples' title='Examples'>

    <t>An example ENUM record referencing to "foo" could look like:

    <list style='empty'>

      <vspace blankLines='1'/>

      <t>$ORIGIN 9.7.8.0.9.7.8.9.0.9.4.4.e164.arpa.

         <vspace blankLines='0'/>

      @ IN NAPTR 50 10 "u" "E2U+foo:bar" "!^.*$!bar://example.com/!" .

      </t>

      <t>...
      </t>

    </list>

    </t>
  </section>

  <section anchor='impl' title='Implementation Recommendations'>

    <t>Implementers should consider that fooing the bar...
    </t>

  </section>

  <section anchor='sec' title='Security Considerations'>
    <t>As with any Enumservice, the security considerations of ENUM
       itself (Section 6 of RFC 3761) apply.
    </t>

    <section anchor='secrecord' title='The ENUM Record Itself'>

      <t>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.
      </t>

      <t>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
         look-up:

        <vspace blankLines='1'/>
        <list>
         <t>http://sandiego.company.example.com/joe-william-user.vcf</t>
        </list>

      </t>

      <t>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):

        <vspace blankLines='1'/>
        <list>
          <t>http://anonhoster.example.org/file_adfa001.vcf</t>
        </list>

      </t>

      <t>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 document.
      </t>

    </section>

    <section anchor='secresource' title='The Resource Identified'>

      <t>Users MUST therefore carefully consider information they
         provide in the resource identified by the 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.
      </t>

      <t>(modify as appropriate - more about the specific
         resource here)
      </t>

    </section>

  </section>

  <section anchor='iana' title='IANA Considerations'>

    <t>This document requests the IANA registration of the Enumservice
       "Foo" with Type "foo" and Subtype "bar" according to the
       definitions in this document, RFC XXXX [Note for RFC Editor:
       Please replace XXXX with the RFC number of this document
       (draft-ietf-enum-enumservices-guide) before publication]
       and <xref target='I-D.ietf-enum-3761bis'>RFC3761bis</xref>.
    </t>

    <t>...
    </t>

  </section>

  <section anchor='dns' title='DNS Considerations'>

    <t>This Enumservices does not introduce any
       new considerations for the DNS.
    </t>

    <t>...
    </t>

  </section>

</middle>

<back>

  <references title='Normative References'>

    <?rfc include="reference.RFC.2119" ?>
    <?rfc include="reference.RFC.3761" ?>
    <?rfc include="reference.RFC.1035" ?>

  </references>

  <references title='Informative References'>

    <reference anchor="ITU.E164.2005">
      <front>
        <title>The International Public Telecommunication Numbering
        Plan</title>
        <author>
          <organization>International Telecommunications
          Union</organization>
        </author>
        <date month="Feb" year="2005" />
      </front>

      <seriesInfo name="ITU-T" value="Recommendation E.164" />

    </reference>

  </references>

</back>

</rfc>

Appendix B. Changes Overview

This section lists the changes applied to the Enumservice registration process and the IANA registry definition, compared to RFC 3761.

Appendix C. Document Changelog

Appendix D. Open Issues

Authors' Addresses

Full Copyright Statement

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.

[RFC2119]	Bradner, S., “Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels,” BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997 (TXT, HTML, XML).
[RFC2026]	Bradner, S., “The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 3,” BCP 9, RFC 2026, October 1996 (TXT).
[RFC3761]	Faltstrom, P. and M. Mealling, “The E.164 to Uniform Resource Identifiers (URI) Dynamic Delegation Discovery System (DDDS) Application (ENUM),” RFC 3761, April 2004 (TXT).
[I-D.ietf-enum-3761bis]	Bradner, S., Conroy, L., and K. Fujiwara, “The E.164 to Uniform Resource Identifiers (URI) Dynamic Delegation Discovery System (DDDS) Application (ENUM),” draft-ietf-enum-3761bis-06 (work in progress), November 2009 (TXT).
[RFC2223]	Postel, J. and J. Reynolds, “Instructions to RFC Authors,” RFC 2223, October 1997 (TXT, HTML, XML).
[RFC3403]	Mealling, M., “Dynamic Delegation Discovery System (DDDS) Part Three: The Domain Name System (DNS) Database,” RFC 3403, October 2002 (TXT).
[RFC5226]	Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, “Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs,” BCP 26, RFC 5226, May 2008 (TXT).

[RFC3986]	Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, “Uniform Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax,” STD 66, RFC 3986, January 2005 (TXT, HTML, XML).
[RFC4238]	Vaudreuil, G., “Voice Message Routing Service,” RFC 4238, October 2005 (TXT).
[RFC4969]	Mayrhofer, A., “IANA Registration for vCard Enumservice,” RFC 4969, August 2007 (TXT).
[RFC4979]	Mayrhofer, A., “IANA Registration for Enumservice 'XMPP',” RFC 4979, August 2007 (TXT).
[RFC3764]	Peterson, J., “enumservice registration for Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Addresses-of-Record,” RFC 3764, April 2004 (TXT).
[I-D.hoeneisen-enum-enumservices-transition]	Hoeneisen, B. and A. Mayrhofer, “Update of legacy IANA Registrations of Enumservices,” draft-hoeneisen-enum-enumservices-transition-01 (work in progress), May 2008 (TXT).
[ITU.E164.2005]	International Telecommunications Union, “The International Public Telecommunication Numbering Plan,” ITU-T Recommendation E.164, Feb 2005.

	Bernie Hoeneisen
	SWITCH
	Werdstrasse 2
	CH-8004 Zuerich
	Switzerland
Phone:	+41 44 268 1515
Email:	bernhard.hoeneisen@switch.ch, bernie@ietf.hoeneisen.ch
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/

	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/

IANA Registration of Enumservices: Guide, Template and IANA Considerationsdraft-ietf-enum-enumservices-guide-11

Status of this Memo