Network Working Group                                        J. Peterson
Request for Comments: 3953                                       NeuStar
Category: Standards Track                                   January 2005


               Telephone Number Mapping (ENUM) Service
                 Registration for Presence Services

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 a Telephone Number Mapping (ENUM) service for
  presence.  Specifically, this document focuses on provisioning pres
  URIs in ENUM.

Table of Contents

  1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
  2. ENUM Service Registration  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
  3. Presence for E.164 Numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
  4. The 'E2U+pres' Enumservice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
  5. Example of E2U+pres Enumservice  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
  6. Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
  7. IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
  8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
     8.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
     8.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
  Author's Address. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
  Full Copyright Statement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7











Peterson                    Standards Track                     [Page 1]

RFC 3953        ENUM Registration for Presence Services     January 2005


1. Introduction

  ENUM (E.164 Number Mapping, RFC 3761 [1]) is a system that uses DNS
  (Domain Name Service, RFC 1034 [8]) to translate telephone numbers,
  such as +12025332600, into URIs (Uniform Resource Identifiers, RFC
  2396 [9]), such as pres:[email protected].  ENUM exists primarily to
  facilitate the interconnection of systems that rely on telephone
  numbers with those that use URIs to identify resources.

  Presence is a service defined in RFC 2778 [2] that allows users of a
  communications service to monitor one another's availability and
  disposition in order to make decisions about communicating.  Presence
  information is highly dynamic and generally characterizes whether a
  user is online or offline, busy or idle, away from communications
  devices or nearby, and the like.

  The IETF has defined a generic URI used to identify a presence
  service for a particular resource: the 'pres' URI scheme (defined in
  CPP [4]).  This document describes an enumservice for advertising
  presence information associated with an E.164 number.

2.  ENUM Service Registration

  As defined in [1], the following is a template covering information
  needed for the registration of the enumservice specified in this
  document:

     Service name: "E2U+pres"

     URI scheme(s): "pres:"

     Functional Specification: See section 4.

     Security considerations: See section 6.

     Intended usage: COMMON

     Author: Jon Peterson ([email protected])

     Any other information that the author deems interesting: See
     section 3.

3.  Presence for E.164 Numbers

  This document specifies an enumservice field that allows presence
  information to be provided for an E.164 number.  This may include
  presence states associated with telephones, or presence of non-
  telephony communications services advertised by ENUM.



Peterson                    Standards Track                     [Page 2]

RFC 3953        ENUM Registration for Presence Services     January 2005


  Endpoints that participate in a presence architecture are known
  (following the framework in RFC 2778 [2]) as watchers and
  presentities.  Watchers subscribe to the presence of presentities and
  are notified when the presence of a presentity changes.  Watchers
  generally monitor the presence of a group of presentities with whom
  they have an ongoing association.  As an example, consider how this
  might apply to a telephony service.  Most cellular telephones today
  have an address book-like feature, a small database of names and
  telephone numbers.  Such a telephone might act as a watcher,
  subscribing to the presence of some or all of the telephone numbers
  in its address book.  The display of the telephone might then show
  its user, when a presence-enabled telephone number is selected, the
  availability of the destination.  With this information, the user
  might change their calling habits to correspond better to the
  availability of his or her associates.

  The presence information that is shared varies by communications
  service.  The IETF has defined a Presence Information Data Format (or
  PIDF [6]) for describing the presence data associated with a
  presentity.  The baseline PIDF specification declares only two
  presence states: OPEN and CLOSED (these terms are defined in RFC 2778
  [2]); the former suggests that the destination resource is able to
  accept communication requests, the latter that it is not.  These two
  states provide useful but rudimentary insight into the communications
  status of a presentity.  For that reason, PIDF is an extensible
  format, and new sorts of statuses can be defined for specific
  communications services.  For example, a telephony-based presence
  service might define a status corresponding to 'busy'.  Extending
  PIDF for telephony services is, however, outside the scope of this
  document.

4.  The 'E2U+pres' Enumservice

  Traditionally, the services field of an NAPTR record (as defined in
  [10]) contains a string composed of two subfields: a 'protocol'
  subfield and a 'resolution service' subfield.  ENUM in particular
  defines an 'E2U' (E.164 to URI) resolution service.  This document
  defines an 'E2U+pres' enumservice for presence.

  The scheme of the URI that will appear in the regexp field of an
  NAPTR record using the 'E2U+pres' enumservice SHOULD be the 'pres'
  URI scheme.  Other URI schemes appropriate to presence services MAY
  be used; however, the use of the 'pres' URI scheme ensures a greater
  level of compatibility than would the use of any URI specific to a
  particular presence protocol.  The purpose of a pres URI is to
  provide a generic way to locate a presence service.  Techniques for
  dereferencing the pres URI to locate a presence service are given in
  [5].



Peterson                    Standards Track                     [Page 3]

RFC 3953        ENUM Registration for Presence Services     January 2005


  The 'pres' URI scheme does not identify any particular protocol that
  will be used to handle presence operations (such as subscriptions and
  notifications).  Rather, the mechanism in [5] details a way to
  discover whether the presence protocol(s) supported by the watcher
  is/are also supported by the presentity.  SIP [7] is one protocol
  that can be used to convey presence information and manage
  subscriptions/notifications.

5.  Example of E2U+pres enumservice

  The following is an example of the use of the enumservice registered
  by this document in an NAPTR resource record.

$ORIGIN 3.8.0.0.6.9.2.3.6.1.4.4.e164.arpa.
  IN NAPTR 100 10 "u" "E2U+pres" "!^.*$!pres:[email protected]!"

6.  Security Considerations

  DNS does not make policy decisions about the records it shares with
  an inquirer.  All DNS records must be assumed to be available to all
  inquirers at all times.  The information provided within an ENUM
  record set must therefore be considered open to the public -- which
  is a cause for some privacy considerations.

  Revealing a pres URI in and of itself is unlikely to introduce many
  privacy concerns, although, depending on the structure of the URI, it
  might reveal the full name or employer of the target.  The use of
  anonymous URIs mitigates this risk.  More serious privacy concerns
  are associated with the unauthorized distribution of presence
  information.  For this reason, presence protocols have a number of
  security requirements (detailed in RFC 2779 [3]) that call for
  authentication of watchers, integrity and confidentiality properties,
  and similar measures to prevent abuse of presence information.  Any
  presence protocol used in conjunction with the 'pres' URI scheme is
  required to meet these requirements.

  Unlike a traditional telephone number, the resource identified by a
  pres URI may require that callers provide cryptographic credentials
  for authentication and authorization before presence information is
  returned.  In concert with presence protocols, ENUM can actually
  provide far greater protection from unwanted callers than does the
  existing PSTN, despite the public availability of ENUM records.









Peterson                    Standards Track                     [Page 4]

RFC 3953        ENUM Registration for Presence Services     January 2005


7.  IANA Considerations

  This document registers the 'E2U+pres' enumservice under the
  enumservice registry described in the IANA considerations in RFC
  3761.  Details of the registration are given in section 2.

8.  References

8.1.  Normative References

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

  [2]  Day, M., Rosenberg, J., and H. Sugano, "A Model for Presence and
       Instant Messaging", RFC 2778, February 2000.

  [3]  Day, M., Aggarwal, S., Mohr, G., and J. Vincent, "Instant
       Messaging / Presence Protocol Requirements", RFC 2779, February
       2000.

  [4]  Peterson, J., "Common Profile for Presence (CPP)", RFC 3859,
       August 2004.

  [5]  Peterson, J., "Address Resolution for Instant Messaging and
       Presence", RFC 3861, August 2004.

8.2.  Informative References

  [6]  Sugano, H., Fujimoto, S., Klyne, G., Bateman, A., Carr, W., and
       J. Peterson, "Presence Information Data Format (PIDF)", RFC
       3863, August 2004.

  [7]  Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., Camarillo, G., Johnston, A.,
       Peterson, J., Sparks, R., Handley, M., and E. Schooler, "SIP:
       Session Initiation Protocol", RFC 3261, June 2002.

  [8]  Mockapetris, P., "Domain Names - Concepts and Facilities", STD
       13, RFC 1034, November 1987.

  [9]  Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform
       Resource Identifiers (URI): Generic Syntax", RFC 2396, August
       1998.

  [10] Mealling, M., "Dynamic Delegation Discovery System (DDDS) Part
       Three: The Domain Name System (DNS) Database", RFC 3403, October
       2002.




Peterson                    Standards Track                     [Page 5]

RFC 3953        ENUM Registration for Presence Services     January 2005


Author's Address

  Jon Peterson
  NeuStar, Inc.
  1800 Sutter St.
  Suite 570
  Concord, CA  94520
  USA

  Phone: +1 925/363-8720
  EMail: [email protected]
  URI:   http://www.neustar.biz/







































Peterson                    Standards Track                     [Page 6]

RFC 3953        ENUM Registration for Presence Services     January 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-
  [email protected].

Acknowledgement

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







Peterson                    Standards Track                     [Page 7]