GENWiki

Premier IT Outsourcing and Support Services within the UK

User Tools

Site Tools


rfc:rfc4002

Network Working Group R. Brandner Request for Comments: 4002 Siemens AG Category: Standards Track L. Conroy

                                           Siemens Roke Manor Research
                                                            R. Stastny
                                                                 Oefeg
                                                         February 2005
          IANA Registration for Enumservice 'web' and 'ft'

Status of This Memo

 This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the
 Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for
 improvements.  Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet
 Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the standardization state
 and status of this protocol.  Distribution of this memo is unlimited.

Copyright Notice

 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005).

Abstract

 This document registers the Enumservices 'web' and 'ft' by using the
 URI schemes 'http:', 'https:' and 'ftp:' as per the IANA registration
 process defined in the ENUM specification (RFC 3761).

Table of Contents

 1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  2
 2.  Terminology  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
 3.  Web Service  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
     3.1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
     3.2.  Web Service Registration with 'http:'  . . . . . . . . .  3
     3.3.  Web Service Registration with 'https:' . . . . . . . . .  4
 4.  FT Service Registration  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
 5.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
 6.  IANA Considerations . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
 7.  References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
     7.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
     7.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
 Full Copyright Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Brandner, et al. Standards Track [Page 1] RFC 4002 IANA Registration for Enumservice web and ft February 2005

1. Introduction

 ENUM (E.164 Number Mapping, RFC 3761 [2]) is a system that transforms
 E.164 numbers [3] into domain names and that then uses DNS (Domain
 Name Service, RFC 1034 [4]) services such as delegation through NS
 records and NAPTR records to look up what services are available for
 a specific domain name.
 This document registers 'Enumservices' according to the guidelines
 given in RFC 3761 [2] to be used for provisioning in the services
 field of an NAPTR [7] resource record to indicate what class of
 functionality a given end point offers.  The registration is defined
 within the DDDS (Dynamic Delegation Discovery System [5][6][7][8][9])
 hierarchy, for use with the "E2U" DDDS Application, defined in RFC
 3761 [2].
 The following 'Enumservices' are registered with this document: 'web'
 and 'ft'.  These share a common feature in that they each indicate
 that the functionality of the given end points and the associated
 resources are primarily sources of information.
 According to RFC 3761 [2], the 'Enumservice' registered must be able
 to function as a selection mechanism when one chooses between one
 NAPTR resource record and another.  This means that the registration
 MUST specify what is expected when that NAPTR record is used, and the
 URI scheme that is the outcome of use.
 Therefore an 'Enumservice' acts as a hint, indicating the kind of
 service with which the URI constructed by using the regexp field is
 associated.  More than one 'Enumservice' can be included within a
 single NAPTR; this indicates that there is more than one service that
 can be achieved by using the associated URI scheme.
 The common thread with this set of definitions is that they reflect
 the kind of service that the end user will hope to achieve with the
 communication by using the associated URI.
 The services specified here are NOT intended to specify the protocol
 or even the method of connection that MUST be used to achieve each
 service.  Instead, we define the kind of interactive behavior that an
 end user will expect, leaving the end system to decide (based on
 policies outside the scope of this specification) how to execute the
 service.

Brandner, et al. Standards Track [Page 2] RFC 4002 IANA Registration for Enumservice web and ft February 2005

 As the same URI scheme may be used for different services (e.g.,
 'tel:') and the same kind of service may use different URI schemes
 (e.g., for VoIP, 'sip:', 'h323:', and 'tel:' may be used), it is
 necessary in some cases to specify the service and the URI scheme
 used.
 The service parameters defined in RFC 3761 [2] therefore allow a
 'type' and a 'subtype' to be specified.  Within this set of
 specifications, it is assumed that the 'type' (being the more generic
 term) defines the service and the 'subtype' defines the URI scheme.

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 [1].

3. Web Service

3.1. Introduction

 The Enumservices registered in this section indicate that the
 resource identified by the associated URI is capable of being a
 source of information.

3.2. Web Service Registration with 'http:'

 Enumservice Name: "web"
 Enumservice Type: "web"
 Enumservice Subtype: "http"
 URI Scheme: 'http:'
 Functional Specification:
 This Enumservice indicates that the resource identified by the
 associated URI scheme is capable of being a source of information.
 Note that the kind of information retrieved can be manifold.
 Usually, contacting a resource by an 'http:' [11] URI provides a
 document.  This document can contain references that will trigger the
 download of many different kinds of information, such as audio,
 video, or executable code.  Thus, one cannot be more specific about
 the kind of information expected when contacting the resource.

Brandner, et al. Standards Track [Page 3] RFC 4002 IANA Registration for Enumservice web and ft February 2005

 Security Considerations:
 There are no specific security issues with this 'Enumservice'.
 However, the general considerations of Section 5 apply.
 Intended Usage: COMMON
 Authors:
 Rudolf Brandner, Lawrence Conroy, Richard Stastny (for author contact
 detail, see the Authors' Addresses section)
 Any other information the author deems interesting:
 None

3.3. Web Service Registration with 'https:'

 Enumservice Name: "web"
 Enumservice Type: "web"
 Enumservice Subtype: "https"
 URI Scheme: 'https:'
 Functional Specification:
 This Enumservice indicates that the resource identified by the
 associated URI scheme is capable of being a source of information,
 which can be contacted by using TLS or the Secure Socket Layer
 protocol.
 Note that the kind of information retrieved can be manifold.
 Usually, contacting a resource by an 'https:' URI [12] provides a
 document.  This document can contain many different kinds of
 information, such as audio, video, or executable code.  Thus, one
 cannot be more specific about what information to expect when
 contacting the resource.
 Security Considerations:
 There are no specific security issues with this 'Enumservice'.
 However, the general considerations of Section 5 apply.
 Intended Usage: COMMON

Brandner, et al. Standards Track [Page 4] RFC 4002 IANA Registration for Enumservice web and ft February 2005

 Authors:
 Rudolf Brandner, Lawrence Conroy, Richard Stastny (for author contact
 detail, see the Authors' Addresses section)
 Any other information the author deems interesting:
 None

4. FT Service Registration

 Enumservice Name: "ft"
 Enumservice Type: "ft"
 Enumservice Subtype: "ftp"
 URI Scheme: 'ftp:'
 Functional Specification:
 This Enumservice indicates that the resource identified by the
 associated URI scheme is a service usable in the manner specified for
 ftp: in RFC 1738 [10], for instance, file retrieval.
 Security Considerations:
 There are no specific security issues with this 'Enumservice'.
 However, the general considerations of Section 5 apply.
 Intended Usage: COMMON
 Authors:
 Rudolf Brandner, Lawrence Conroy, Richard Stastny (for author contact
 detail, see the Authors' Addresses section)
 Any other information the author deems interesting:
 None

5. Security Considerations

 As used by ENUM, DNS is a global, distributed database.  Thus any
 information stored there is visible to anyone anonymously.  Although
 this is not qualitatively different from publication in a telephone
 directory, it does expose the data subject to having "their"

Brandner, et al. Standards Track [Page 5] RFC 4002 IANA Registration for Enumservice web and ft February 2005

 information collected automatically without any indication that this
 has been done, or by whom.
 Data harvesting by third parties is often used to generate lists of
 targets for unrequested information; in short, it is used to address
 "spam".  Anyone who uses a Web-archived mailing list is aware that
 the volume of "spam" email they receive increases when they post to
 the mailing list; publication of a telephone number in ENUM is no
 different and may be used to send "junk faxes" or "junk SMS", for
 example.
 Many mailing list users have more than one email address and use
 "sacrificial" email accounts when they post to these lists to help
 filter out unrequested emails.  This is not so easy with published
 telephone numbers; the PSTN E.164 number assignment process is much
 more involved, and usually a single E.164 number (or a fixed range of
 numbers) is associated with each PSTN access.  Thus, providing a
 "sacrificial" phone number in any publication is not possible.
 Due to the implications of publishing data on a globally accessible
 database, as a principle the data subject MUST give explicit informed
 consent when data is published in ENUM.
 In addition, the data subject should be made aware that, due to
 storage of such data during harvesting by third parties, removal of
 the data from publication will not remove any copies that have been
 taken; in effect, any publication may be permanent.
 However, regulations in many regions will require that the data
 subject can at any time request that the data is removed from
 publication, and that consent for its publication is explicitly
 confirmed at regular intervals.
 The user SHOULD be asked to confirm opening a web page or starting an
 ftp session (particularly if the ftp client is configured to send the
 user's email address as an "anonymous" user password).
 Using a web:http or ft:ftp service is not secure, so the user should
 apply the same caution when entering personal data as they would do
 if using a client application started with any other method.
 Although this is not a feature of ENUM or these Enumservices, the
 ENUM-using application on the end system may appear different from
 the user's "normal" browser, so the user SHOULD receive an indication
 of whether their communication is secured.

Brandner, et al. Standards Track [Page 6] RFC 4002 IANA Registration for Enumservice web and ft February 2005

 As evaluating a web page can involve execution of embedded (or
 linked) content that may include executable code, evaluating a web
 URL involves risks.  If automatic evaluation of a web link were to be
 used, the querying user would be exposed to risks associated with
 that automatic download and execution of content.  Thus, the client
 MUST ask the querying user for confirmation before evaluating the web
 URL; the client MUST NOT download and evaluate the web content
 automatically.
 An analysis of threats specific to the dependence of ENUM on the DNS,
 (threats against which are covered in [14]) and the applicability of
 DNSSEC [13] to these, is provided in RFC 3761 [2].

6. IANA Considerations

 The IANA has registered Enumservice 'web' and 'ft' per the
 registration process defined in the ENUM specification [2].

7. References

7.1. Normative References

 [1]   Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement
       Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
 [2]   Faltstrom, P. and M. Mealling, "The E.164 to Uniform Resource
       Identifiers (URI) Dynamic Delegation Discovery System (DDDS)
       Application (ENUM)", RFC 3761, April 2004.
 [3]   ITU-T, "The International Public Telecommunication Number
       Plan", Recommendation E.164 , May 1997.
 [4]   Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - concepts and facilities", STD
       13, RFC 1034, November 1987.
 [5]   Mealling, M., "Dynamic Delegation Discovery System (DDDS) Part
       One: The Comprehensive DDDS", RFC 3401, October 2002.
 [6]   Mealling, M., "Dynamic Delegation Discovery System (DDDS) Part
       Two: The Algorithm", RFC 3402, October 2002.
 [7]   Mealling, M., "Dynamic Delegation Discovery System (DDDS) Part
       Three: The Domain Name System (DNS) Database", RFC 3403,
       October 2002.
 [8]   Mealling, M., "Dynamic Delegation Discovery System (DDDS) Part
       Four: The Uniform Resource Identifiers (URI)", RFC 3404,
       October 2002.

Brandner, et al. Standards Track [Page 7] RFC 4002 IANA Registration for Enumservice web and ft February 2005

 [9]   Mealling, M., "Dynamic Delegation Discovery System (DDDS) Part
       Five: URI.ARPA Assignment Procedures", BCP 65, RFC 3405,
       October 2002.
 [10]  Berners-Lee, T., Masinter, L., and M. McCahill, "Uniform
       Resource Locators (URL)", RFC 1738, December 1994.
 [11]  Fielding,  R., Gettys, J., Mogul, J., Frystyk, H., Masinter,
       L., Leach, P., and T. Berners-Lee, "Hypertext Transfer Protocol
       -- HTTP/1.1", RFC 2616, June 1999.
 [12]  Rescorla, E., "HTTP Over TLS", RFC 2818, May 2000.

7.2. Informative References

 [13]  Arends, R. and et al., "Protocol Modifications for the DNS
       Security Extensions", Work in Progress.
 [14]  Atkins, D. and R. Austein, "Threat Analysis of the Domain Name
       System (DNS)", RFC 3833, August 2004.

Brandner, et al. Standards Track [Page 8] RFC 4002 IANA Registration for Enumservice web and ft February 2005

Authors' Addresses

 Rudolf Brandner
 Siemens AG
 Hofmannstr. 51
 81359 Munich
 Germany
 Phone: +49-89-722-51003
 EMail: rudolf.brandner@siemens.com
 Lawrence Conroy
 Siemens Roke Manor Research
 Roke Manor
 Romsey
 United Kingdom
 Phone: +44-1794-833666
 EMail: lwc@roke.co.uk
 Richard Stastny
 Oefeg
 Postbox 147
 1103 Vienna
 Austria
 Phone: +43-664-420-4100
 EMail: richard.stastny@oefeg.at

Brandner, et al. Standards Track [Page 9] RFC 4002 IANA Registration for Enumservice web and ft February 2005

Full Copyright Statement

 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005).
 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 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 IETF's procedures with respect to rights in IETF 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.

Acknowledgement

 Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
 Internet Society.

Brandner, et al. Standards Track [Page 10]

/data/webs/external/dokuwiki/data/pages/rfc/rfc4002.txt · Last modified: 2005/02/01 20:41 by 127.0.0.1

Donate Powered by PHP Valid HTML5 Valid CSS Driven by DokuWiki