view Side-By-Side changes

ENUM





Network Working Group                                       J. Livingood 
Internet-Draft
Request for Comments: 5526                  Comcast Cable Communications 
Expires: May 16, 2008
Category: Informational                                        P. Pfautz 
Intended Status: Proposed Standard
                                                                    AT&T
                                                              R. Stastny 
                                                                  Oefeg 
                                                      November 13, 2007
                                                            Unaffiliated
                                                              April 2009


            The E.164 to Uniform Resource Identifiers (URI)
        Dynamic Delegation Discovery System (DDDS) Application
                        for Infrastructure ENUM 
                     draft-ietf-enum-infrastructure-07

Status of this This Memo 
    
   By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that

   This memo provides information for the Internet community.  It does
   not specify an Internet standard of any 
   applicable patent or other IPR claims kind.  Distribution of which he or she this
   memo is aware 
   have been or will be disclosed, unlimited.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2009 IETF Trust and any the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents in effect on the date of which he
   publication of this document (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info).
   Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
   and restrictions with respect to this document.

   This document may contain material from IETF Documents or she becomes 
   aware will be disclosed, IETF
   Contributions published or made publicly available before November
   10, 2008.  The person(s) controlling the copyright in accordance with Section 6 some of BCP 79. 
    
   Internet-Drafts are working documents this
   material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow
   modifications of such material outside the Internet Engineering 
   Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups.  Note that      
   other groups IETF Standards Process.
   Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling
   the copyright in such materials, this document may also distribute working documents as Internet-
   Drafts. 
    
   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months not be modified
   outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may
   not be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 
   time.  It is inappropriate created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to use Internet-Drafts format
   it for publication as reference 
   material an RFC or to cite them translate it into languages 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 16, 2008.  
    
Copyright Notice 
    
   Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007). English.










Livingood, et al.            Informational                      [Page 1]

RFC 5526                  Infrastructure ENUM                 April 2009


Abstract

   This document defines the use case for Infrastructure ENUM and
   proposes its implementation as a parallel namespace to "e164.arpa" "e164.arpa",
   as defined in RFC3761, RFC 3761, as the long-term solution to the problem of 

 
 
Livingood, et. al.       Expires May 16, 2008                 [Page 1] 
Internet-Draft           Infrastructure ENUM            November 2007
   allowing carriers to provision DNS records for telephone numbers
   independently of those provisioned by end users (number assignees).

Table of Contents

   1. Terminology....................................................2 Introduction ....................................................2
   2. Introduction...................................................2 Terminology .....................................................3
   3. Zone Apex for Infrastructure ENUM..............................3 ENUM ...............................3
   4. IANA Considerations............................................3 Considerations .............................................3
   5. Security and Privacy Considerations............................3 Considerations .............................4
   6. Acknowledgements...............................................4 Acknowledgements ................................................4
   7. References.....................................................4 
      7.1 Normative References.......................................4 
      7.2 Informative References.....................................4 
   Authors' Addresses................................................4 
   Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements....................5 References ............................................4

1. 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 BCP 14, RFC-2119 [5]. 
    
2.  Introduction

   ENUM (E.164 Number Mapping, RFC 3761 Mapping [1]) is a system that transforms E.164
   numbers [2] into domain names and then uses the DNS (Domain Name
   Service) [3] to discover NAPTR records that specify what services are
   available for a specific domain name.

   ENUM as originally defined was based on the end-user opt-in
   principle.  While this has great potential to foster new services and
   end-user choice choices in the long-term, long term, the current requirements for IP-
   based
   IP-based interconnection of Voice over IP (VoIP) domains require the
   provisioning of large numbers of allocated or served (hosted) numbers
   of a participating service provider, without the need for individual
   users to opt-in or not and so that opt-in.  This way, service providers can provision their own
   ENUM information that is separate, distinct, and likely to be
   different from what and an end-user may provision.  This is particularly
   important if Infrastructure ENUM is used for number 
   portability number-portability
   applications, for example, which an end-user would be unlikely to be
   interested in provisioning but which a service provider would likely
   find essential.

   In addition, while it is possible that service providers could
   mandate that their users opt-in into opt-into e164.arpa through end-user 

 
 
Livingood, et. al.       Expires May 16, 2008                 [Page 2] 
Internet-Draft           Infrastructure ENUM            November 2007 contract
   terms and conditions, there are substantial downsides to such an
   approach.  Thus, for all these reasons and many others, ENUM for
   end-user provisioning is ill-suited for use by service providers for
   the interconnection of VoIP domains.






Livingood, et al.            Informational                      [Page 2]

RFC 5526                  Infrastructure ENUM                 April 2009


   As VoIP evolves and becomes pervasive, E.164-addressed telephone
   calls need not necessarily traverse the Public Switched Telephone
   Network (PSTN).  Therefore, VoIP service providers have an interest
   in using ENUM, ENUM on a so-called "Infrastructure" basis, basis in order to keep
   VoIP traffic on IP networks on an end-to-end basis, both within and
   between service provider domains.  This requires of a means of
   identifying a VoIP point of interconnection to which calls addressed
   to a given E.164 number may be delivered and delivered; Infrastructure ENUM
   provides this means.  Calls that can originate and terminate on IP
   networks, and do not have to traverse the PSTN, will require fewer or
   no points of transcoding, and can also involve additional IP network
   services that are not possible on the PSTN, among other benefits.

   Requirements for Infrastructure ENUM are provided in[4]. in [4].

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 BCP 14, RFC 2119 [5].

3.  Zone Apex for Infrastructure ENUM

   This document proposes that Infrastructure ENUM be implemented by
   means of a parallel namespace to e164.arpa dedicated to
   Infrastructure ENUM, in a domain which that is yet to be determined.  Use
   of a parallel namespace allows carriers and end users end-users to control
   their ENUM registrations for a number independently independently, without forcing one to work
   through the other.

   Infrastructure ENUM Tier 2 resource records in the Infrastructure
   ENUM tree would will be controlled by the service provider that is
   providing services to a given E.164 number, generally referred to in
   various nations countries as the "carrier of record" "carrier-of-record" (see [4]).  The
   definition of a carrier of record carrier-of-record for a given E.164 number is a
   national matter or is defined by the entity controlling the numbering
   space.

   See also Section 3, Requirements, in "Requirements for Infrastructure ENUM", of [4].

4.  IANA Considerations 
 
   This document contains no requested IANA actions.

   IANA has created a registry for Enumservices as originally specified
   in RFC 2916 and revised in RFC 3761.  Enumservices registered with
   IANA are valid for Infrastructure ENUM as well as end-user ENUM.   
    
5. Security and Privacy Considerations






Livingood, et. et al.       Expires May 16, 2008            Informational                      [Page 3] 
Internet-Draft

RFC 5526                  Infrastructure ENUM            November 2007                 April 2009


5.  Security and Privacy Considerations

   This document proposes a new zone apex for ENUM to meet the
   requirements of Infrastructure ENUM.  The over-the-network protocol
   of ENUM is unchanged by the addition of an apex, and apex and, as such, the
   Security considerations Considerations of RFC3761 RFC 3761 [1] still apply.  Specific
   considerations related to the security of an Infrastructure ENUM apex
   are given in more detail in Section 4, Security Considerations, in "Security Considerations", of
   [4].

   Infrastructure ENUM registrations proposed by this draft document should
   resolve to service provider points of interconnection points-of-interconnection rather than end user to
   end-user equipment.  Service providers need to take appropriate
   measures to protect their end user end-user customers from unwanted
   communications as with other types of interconnections.

6.  Acknowledgements

   The authors wish to thank Lawrence Conroy, Patrik Faltstrom, Michael
   Haberler, Otmar Lendl, Steve Lind, Alexander Mayrhofer, Jim Reid, and
   Richard Shockey for their helpful discussion discussions of this draft document and
   the concept of Infrastructure ENUM.

7. References 
    
7.1  Normative References

   [1] Faltstrom, P. and M. Mealling, "The E.164 to Uniform Resource
       Identifiers (URI) Dynamic Delegation Discovery System (DDDS)
       Application (ENUM)", RFC 3761, April 2004.

   [2] ITU-T, "The International Public Telecommunication Number Plan",
       Recommendation E.164, February 2005.

   [3] Mockapetris, P., "DOMAIN NAMES "Domain names - CONCEPTS AND FACILITIES", concepts and facilities", STD
       13, RFC 1034, November 1987.

   [4] Lind, S., S. and P. Pfautz, P., "Infrastructure ENUM Requirements", draft-
   ietf-enum-infrastructure-enum-reqs-04, May RFC
       5067, November 2007.

   [5] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement
       Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. 
 
7.2 Informative References  
    
   None 
    
Authors' Addresses 
    
   Jason Livingood











Livingood, et. et al.       Expires May 16, 2008            Informational                      [Page 4] 
Internet-Draft

RFC 5526                  Infrastructure ENUM            November 2007                 April 2009


Authors' Addresses

   Jason Livingood
   Comcast Cable Communications
   1500 Market Street
   Philadelphia, PA 19102
   USA

   Phone: +1-215-981-7813 
   Email:
   EMail: jason_livingood@cable.comcast.com


   Penn Pfautz
   AT&T
   200 S. Laurel Ave
   Middletown, NJ  07748
   USA

   Phone: +1-732-420-4962 
  Email:
   EMail: ppfautz@att.com


   Richard Stastny 
   Oefeg 
   Postbox 147 
   1103
   Anzbachgasse 43
   1140 Vienna
   Austria

   Phone: +43-664-420-4100 
   Email: Richard.stastny@oefeg.at 
    
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements 
    
   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
   EMail: richard.stastny@gmail.com






















Livingood, et. et al.       Expires May 16, 2008            Informational                      [Page 5] 
Internet-Draft           Infrastructure ENUM            November 2007 
 
 
   
  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 currently provided by the IETF 
   Administrative Support Activity (IASA). 


















 
 
Livingood, et. al.       Expires May 16, 2008                 [Page 6]

----