From 4bfd864f10b68b71482b35c818559068ef8d5797 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Thomas Voss <mail@thomasvoss.com> Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2024 20:54:24 +0100 Subject: doc: Add RFC documents --- doc/rfc/rfc3026.txt | 339 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 339 insertions(+) create mode 100644 doc/rfc/rfc3026.txt (limited to 'doc/rfc/rfc3026.txt') diff --git a/doc/rfc/rfc3026.txt b/doc/rfc/rfc3026.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..55f7f8b --- /dev/null +++ b/doc/rfc/rfc3026.txt @@ -0,0 +1,339 @@ + + + + + + +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 Roy_Blane@inmarsat.com. + +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: Roy_Blane@inmarsat.com + 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] + -- cgit v1.2.3