Network Working Group R. Blane
Request for Comments: 3026 ITU
Category: Informational January 2001
Liaison to IETF/ISOC on ENUM
Status of this Memo
This memo provides information for the Internet community. It does
not specify an Internet standard of any kind. Distribution of this
memo is unlimited.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2001). All Rights Reserved.
Abstract
Working Party 1/2, of the International Telecommunication Union
Telecommunication Standardization Sector (ITU-T) held a meeting of
its collaborators in Berlin Germany 19-26 October 2000. The agenda
of the meeting contained several contributions regarding RFC 2916:
"E.164 Number and DNS" from the Internet Engineering Task Force's
(IETF) ENUM Working Group - more specifically, the method for
administering and maintaining the E.164-based resources in the Domain
Name System (DNS) as related to the ENUM protocol. Consequently, in
addition to the WP1/2 collaborators, there were several members of
the IETF present to assist with the discussion of issues contained in
the aforementioned contributions.
This liaison from WP1/2 to the IETF/ISOC conveys the understandings
of the WP1/2 collaborators resulting from the discussions.
1. Considerations under Question 1/2 (Numbering)
Throughout this document, the terms "administration" or
"administrative functions" refer to the provision and update of the
E.164 numerical values, to be contained in the zones of a domain name
in the "e164.arpa" domain, in the DNS.
It is noted that most ENUM service and administrative decisions are
national issues under the purview of ITU Member States, since most of
the E.164 resources are utilized nationally.
These understandings are relative only to the provision of E.164
information for DNS administrative functions, not policy or
operational functions.
Blane Informational [Page 1]
RFC 3026 Liaison to IETF/ISOC on ENUM January 2001
In order to advance a common terminology for the purpose of this
liaison, we have defined the zones of a domain name as follows.
Using an example, domain name "1.5.1.5.0.2.0.4.1.3.3.e164.arpa" (as
in RFC 2916) is segmented into zones as follow:
E164.arpa - domain zone
3.3. - country code zone (1, 2, or 3 digits dependent on CC)
1.5.1.5.0.2.0.4.1. - national zone
The first understandings to be conveyed are those regarding the
responsibilities for administration of the various zones within the
"e164.arpa" domain:
o The domain zone administration was agreed to be outside the scope
of this meeting and WP1/2.
o For all E.164 Country Code Zone resources (Country Codes and
Identification Codes), the ITU has the responsibility to provide
assignment information to DNS administrators, for performing the
administrative function. The ITU will ensure that each Member
State has authorized the inclusion of their Country Code
information for input to the DNS. For resources that are spare or
designated as test codes there will normally be no entry in the
DNS. However, the ITU will provide spare code lists to DNS
administrators for purposes of clarification. The entity to which
E.164 test codes have been assigned will be responsible for
providing any appropriate assignment information to DNS
administrators.
o The administration of National Zone numbering information is
determined by the type of Country Code resource that a National
Zone is behind:
* The national zone, for geographic resources, is a national
matter and is, therefore, administered by the ITU Member
State(s) to which the country code is assigned. In an
integrated numbering plan, e.g., CC "1", each Country within
the plan may administer their portion of the resource in a
different manner.
* For national zone resources behind the Country Codes assigned
to and shared by Networks, the entity to which the resource is
assigned provides the E.164 assignment information, to DNS
administrators for performing the administrative function.
Blane Informational [Page 2]
RFC 3026 Liaison to IETF/ISOC on ENUM January 2001
* For national zone resources behind the Country Codes assigned
to and shared by Groups of Countries, the administrative entity
identified by the Countries of the Group provides the E.164
assignment information, to DNS administrators, for performing
the administrative function. Note that the creation of this
category is dependent upon the approval of draft Recommendation
E.164.3.
o Each of the administrative entities responsible for the
administration of resources within the zones (as identified above)
is individually and separately responsible for ensuring that DNS
administrators are aware of appropriate changes to their resources
once they have agreed to their input into the DNS.
o Assigned geographic E.164 resources, for all zones, not authorized
for input by the appropriate administrative entity will not be
entered into the DNS under any circumstance. For example, if the
ENUM service is not approved for use in a country, by the
appropriate ITU Member States, the E.164 numbers of that country
will not be input to the DNS.
o With regard to Number Portability, it was agreed that WP1/2 would
further study this issue, in the context of ENUM. However, it is
currently understood that this study and its result will not
impact the IETF and its work.
o The study being undertaken within WP1/2 (referred to above) will
also attempt to identify options and provide guidance to assist
those entities charged with the task of providing the
administrative information to DNS administrators.
o All administrative entities, including DNS administrators, will
adhere to all the applicable tenets of all pertinent ITU
Recommendations, e.g., E.164, E.164.1, E.190, and E.195, with
regard to the inclusion of the E.164 resource information in the
DNS.
o The ITU, IETF, and IAB will jointly cooperate fully to ensure that
the agreed administrative procedures to accommodate the above
understandings, and any other mutually agreed appropriate future
understandings, will be implemented and adhered to on an ongoing
basis. The ITU may request the consultation of the WP1/2 experts
as necessary and as prescribed in Resolution 20.
Blane Informational [Page 3]
RFC 3026 Liaison to IETF/ISOC on ENUM January 2001
2. Additional items below are from Q.10/2 Rapporteur Group (Service
Issues)
o The issues surrounding number portability are to be addressed in
the draft supplement to Recommendation E.370
o This issue surrounding freephone service was expanded to include
other global services (i.e., International Premium Rate Service
and International Shared Cost Service). Preliminary findings
would indicate that routing the call to the appropriate
destination will depend on successfully receiving information
about the geographic point of origination (e.g., calling
"telephone Number"). A proxy server would process such
information and either redirect or forward the call (based on the
proxy owner's decision) on to the appropriate destination.
o The issue surrounding selection of the IP gateway within a PSTN-
to-IP call flow may depend on options that may be available to
telephony carriers in such selection.
The WP1/2 collaborators thank their IETF counterparts who attended
this meeting and assisted in the resolution of these issues.
Any questions regarding the contents of this liaison should be
referred to the WP1/2 Chairman Roy Blane at
[email protected].
3. Security Considerations (added by the IESG)
The ENUM solution uses the Domain Name System (DNS) for storage of
information. Delegation and distributed administration is done
according to DNS routines. The E.164 numbers are though distributed
according to a different algorithm than domain names.
This Liaison Statement describes how mapping E.164 number
administration and DNS administration can work together, and how
further discussions are delegated to each administrative body for the
country codes in E.164 space.
If delegation and mapping is not done carefully between E.164 and DNS
there is a risk of "napping" of E.164 numbers when they are stored in
DNS. It is also important that the DNS strictly hierarchal system is
preserved (see RFC 2826 [1]).
4. References
[1] IAB, "IAB Technical Comment on the Unique DNS Root", RFC 2826,
May 2000.
Blane Informational [Page 4]
RFC 3026 Liaison to IETF/ISOC on ENUM January 2001
5. Author's Address
Roy Blane
ITU
EMail:
[email protected]
URI:
http://www.itu.int
Blane Informational [Page 5]
RFC 3026 Liaison to IETF/ISOC on ENUM January 2001
6. Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2001). All Rights Reserved.
This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published
and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any
kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are
included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this
document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of
developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for
copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be
followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than
English.
The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.
This document and the information contained herein is provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING
TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS 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.
Acknowledgement
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society.
Blane Informational [Page 6]
