Network Working Group                                            S. Lind
Request for Comments: 5067                                     AT&T Labs
Category: Informational                                        P. Pfautz
                                                                   AT&T
                                                          November 2007


                   Infrastructure ENUM Requirements

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.

Abstract

  This document provides requirements for "infrastructure" or "carrier"
  ENUM (E.164 Number Mapping), defined as the use of RFC 3761
  technology to facilitate interconnection of networks for E.164 number
  addressed services, in particular but not restricted to VoIP (Voice
  over IP.)

Table of Contents

  1.  Infrastructure ENUM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
    1.1.  Definition  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
    1.2.  Background  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
  2.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
  3.  Requirements for Infrastructure ENUM  . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
  4.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
  5.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
  6.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

1.  Infrastructure ENUM

1.1.  Definition

  Infrastructure ENUM is defined as the use of the technology in RFC
  3761 [1] by the carrier-of-record (as defined below) for a specific
  E.164 number [2] to publish the mapping of the E.164 number into a
  URI [3] that identifies a specific point of interconnection to that
  service provider's network.  It is separate from any URIs that the
  end user, who registers their E.164 number, may wish to associate
  with that E.164 number.






Lind & Pfautz                Informational                      [Page 1]

RFC 5067            Infrastructure ENUM Requirements       November 2007


  "Infrastructure ENUM" is distinguished from "End User ENUM", defined
  in RFC3761 [1], in which the entity or person having the right to use
  a number has the sole discretion about the content of the associated
  domain and thus the zone content.  From a domain registration
  perspective, the end user number assignee is thus the registrant.
  Within the infrastructure ENUM namespace, we use the term "carrier-
  of-record" for the entity having discretion over the domain and zone
  content and acting as the registrant.  The "carrier-of-record" is:

  o The Service Provider to which the E.164 number was allocated for
  end user assignment, whether by the National Regulatory Authority
  (NRA) or the International Telecommunication Union (ITU), for
  instance, a code under "International Networks" (+882) or "Universal
  Personal Telecommunications (UPT)" (+878) or,

  o if the number is ported, the service provider to which the number
  was ported, or

  o where numbers are assigned directly to end users, the service
  provider that the end user number assignee has chosen to provide a
  Public Switched Telephone Network/Public Land Mobile Network (PSTN/
  PLMN) point-of-interconnect for the number.

  It is understood that the definition of carrier-of-record within a
  given jurisdiction is subject to modification by national
  authorities.

1.2.  Background

  Voice service providers use E.164 numbers currently as their main
  naming and routing vehicle.  Infrastructure ENUM in e164.arpa or
  another publicly available tree allows service providers to link
  Internet-based resources such as URIs to E.164 numbers.  This allows
  service providers, in addition to interconnecting via the PSTN/PLMN
  (or exclusively), to peer via IP-based protocols.  Service providers
  may announce all E.164 numbers or number ranges they host, regardless
  of whether the final end user device is on the Internet, on IP-based
  open or closed Next Generation Networks (NGNs), or on the PSTN or
  PLMN, provided that an access point of some type to the destination
  service provider's network is available on the Internet.  There is
  also no guarantee that the originating service provider querying
  infrastructure ENUM is able to access the ingress network element of
  the destination provider's network.  Additional peering and
  accounting agreements requiring authentication may be necessary.  The
  access provided may also be to a shared network of a group of
  providers, resolving the final destination network within the shared
  network.




Lind & Pfautz                Informational                      [Page 2]

RFC 5067            Infrastructure ENUM Requirements       November 2007


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, RFC2119 [4].

3.  Requirements for Infrastructure ENUM

  1.  Infrastructure ENUM SHALL provide a means for a provider to
      populate DNS resource records (RRs) for the E.164 numbering
      resources for which it is the carrier-of-record in a single
      common publicly accessible namespace.  The single common
      namespace ultimately designated may or may not be the same as
      that designated for End User ENUM (e164.arpa.)  The Fully-
      Qualified Domain Name (FQDN) in the resulting resource records
      will not necessarily belong to or identify the carrier-of-record.

  2.  Queries of infrastructure ENUM fully qualified domain names MUST
      return a result, even if the result is Refused (RCODE = 5).
      Queries must not be rejected without response, e.g., based on
      access control lists.

  3.  Infrastructure ENUM SHALL support RRs providing a URI that can
      identify a point of interconnection for delivery to the carrier-
      of-record of communications addressed to the E.164 number.

  4.  Infrastructure ENUM SHOULD be able to support an Internet
      Registry Information Service (IRIS) [5] capability that allows
      qualified parties to obtain information regarding the E.164
      numbering resources and the corresponding carrier-of-record.
      Determination of what information, if any, shall be available
      which parties for geographic numbers is a national matter.

  5.  Implementation of infrastructure ENUM MUST NOT restrict the
      ability of an end user, in a competitive environment, to choose a
      Registrar and/or name server provider for End User ENUM
      registrations.

  6.  The domain name chosen for infrastructure ENUM and any parent
      domains MUST be hosted on name servers that have performance
      characteristics and supporting infrastructure that is comparable
      to those deployed for the Internet root name servers.  Those name
      servers for infrastructure ENUM should be configured and operated
      according to the guidelines described in [6].

  7.  Infrastructure ENUM MUST meet all reasonable privacy concerns
      about visibility of information over which an end user has no
      control.  It should, for example, support mechanisms to prevent



Lind & Pfautz                Informational                      [Page 3]

RFC 5067            Infrastructure ENUM Requirements       November 2007


      discovery of unlisted numbers by comparison of ENUM registrations
      against directory listings, or inadvertent disclosure of user
      identity.

  8.  Proposed implementations of infrastructure ENUM SHOULD:

      A.  Minimize changes required to existing requirements that are
          part of RFC 3761.

      B.  Work with open as well as closed numbering plans.

      C.  Not require additional functionality of resolvers at large
          though they may require additional functionality in service
          provider resolvers that would make use of infrastructure
          ENUM.

      D.  Minimize the number of lookups required to obtain as many
          NAPTR (Naming Authority Pointer) records (end user and
          infrastructure) as possible.

      E.  Minimize knowledge of the numbering plan required of
          resolvers making use of Infrastructure ENUM.

      F.  Maximize synergies with End User ENUM.

      G.  Support interworking with private ENUM trees.  (In this
          context, a private ENUM tree is one that is not under
          e164.arpa or whatever namespace is chosen for infrastructure
          ENUM but uses instead a privately held domain.)

4.  Security Considerations

  Existing security considerations for ENUM (detailed in [1]) still
  apply.  Since infrastructure ENUM involves carriers where RFC 3761
  mainly considered indviduals, implementations meeting these
  requirements SHOULD reconsider the RFC 3761 security model given this
  difference in actors concerned.  Note that some registration
  validation issues concerning End User ENUM may not apply to
  infrastructure ENUM.  Where the Tier 1 registry is able to identify
  the provider serving a number, e.g., based on industry data for
  number block assignments and number portability, registration might
  be more easily automated and a separate registrar not required.

  Some parties have expressed concern that an infrastructure ENUM could
  compromise end user privacy by making it possible for others to
  identify unlisted or unpublished numbers based on their registration
  in ENUM.  This can be avoided if providers register all of the their
  allocated (as opposed to assigned) numbers.  Unassigned numbers



Lind & Pfautz                Informational                      [Page 4]

RFC 5067            Infrastructure ENUM Requirements       November 2007


  should be provisioned to route to the provider's network in the same
  fashion as assigned numbers and only then provide an indication that
  they are unassigned.  In that way, provider registration of a number
  in ENUM provides no more information about the status of a number
  than could be obtained by dialing it.

  Implementers should take care to avoid inadvertent disclosure of user
  identities, for example, in the URIs returned in response to
  infrastructure ENUM queries.

5.  IANA Considerations

  This document includes no actions to be taken by IANA.  The
  architecture ultimately chosen to meet the requirements may require
  IANA actions.

6.  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]  International Telecommunication Union-Telecommunication
       Standardization Sector, "The International Public
       Telecommunication Numbering Plan", Recommendation E.164",
       February 2005.

  [3]  Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform
       Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax", STD 66, RFC 3986,
       January 2005.

  [4]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement
       Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

  [5]  Newton, A. and M. Sanz, "IRIS: The Internet Registry Information
       Service (IRIS) Core Protocol", RFC 3981, January 2005.

  [6]  Bush, R., Karrenberg, D., Kosters, M., and R. Plzak, "Root Name
       Server Operational Requirements", BCP 40, RFC 2870, June 2000.












Lind & Pfautz                Informational                      [Page 5]

RFC 5067            Infrastructure ENUM Requirements       November 2007


Authors' Addresses

  Steven Lind
  AT&T Labs
  180 Park Ave
  Florham Park, NJ  07932-0971
  USA

  EMail: [email protected]


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

  EMail: [email protected]

































Lind & Pfautz                Informational                      [Page 6]

RFC 5067            Infrastructure ENUM Requirements       November 2007


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

  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
  [email protected].












Lind & Pfautz                Informational                      [Page 7]