From 4bfd864f10b68b71482b35c818559068ef8d5797 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Thomas Voss Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2024 20:54:24 +0100 Subject: doc: Add RFC documents --- doc/rfc/rfc4414.txt | 2859 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 2859 insertions(+) create mode 100644 doc/rfc/rfc4414.txt (limited to 'doc/rfc/rfc4414.txt') diff --git a/doc/rfc/rfc4414.txt b/doc/rfc/rfc4414.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..794ea6c --- /dev/null +++ b/doc/rfc/rfc4414.txt @@ -0,0 +1,2859 @@ + + + + + + +Network Working Group A. Newton +Request for Comments: 4414 VeriSign, Inc. +Category: Standards Track February 2006 + + + An ENUM Registry Type + for the Internet Registry Information Service (IRIS) + +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 (2006). + +Abstract + + This document describes an Internet Registry Information Service + (IRIS) registry schema for registered ENUM information. The schema + extends the necessary query and result operations of IRIS to provide + the functional information service needs for syntaxes and results + used by ENUM registries. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Newton Standards Track [Page 1] + +RFC 4414 ENUM Registry Type for IRIS February 2006 + + +Table of Contents + + 1. Introduction ....................................................3 + 2. Document Terminology ............................................3 + 3. Schema Description ..............................................3 + 3.1. Query Derivatives ..........................................3 + 3.1.1. Query .............................3 + 3.1.2. Query ..........................4 + 3.1.3. Query ................................4 + 3.1.4. Query .............................4 + 3.1.5. Contact Search Group ................................5 + 3.2. Result Derivatives .........................................5 + 3.2.1. Privacy Labels ......................................5 + 3.2.2. Contact Group .......................................7 + 3.2.3. Result .......................................8 + 3.2.4. Result ......................................12 + 3.2.5. Result ...................................13 + 3.2.6. Result .....................15 + 3.2.7. Result ..........................16 + 3.2.8. Result ..............17 + 3.2.9. Result ...........................18 + 3.3. Generic Code Derivatives ..................................19 + 3.3.1. ....................................19 + 3.3.2. .............................19 + 3.4. Support for ...........................19 + 4. Formal XML Syntax ..............................................21 + 5. Blocks Extensible Exchange Protocol (BEEP) Transport + Compliance .....................................................46 + 5.1. Message Pattern ...........................................46 + 5.2. Server Authentication .....................................46 + 6. URI Resolution .................................................46 + 6.1. Application Service Label .................................46 + 7. Internationalization Considerations ............................46 + 8. IANA Considerations ............................................47 + 8.1. XML Namespace URN Registration ............................47 + 8.2. S-NAPTR Registration ......................................48 + 8.3. BEEP Registration .........................................48 + 9. Security Considerations ........................................48 + 10. Normative References ..........................................48 + A. Contributions and Acknowledgements ............................50 + + + + + + + + + + + +Newton Standards Track [Page 2] + +RFC 4414 ENUM Registry Type for IRIS February 2006 + + +1. Introduction + + This document describes an IRIS registry schema for registries of + ENUM data using an XML Schema [4] derived from and using the IRIS [5] + schema. + + The schema given is this document is specified using the Extensible + Markup Language (XML) 1.0 as described in XML [1], XML Schema + notation as described in XML_SD [3] and XML_SS [4], and XML + Namespaces as described in XML_NS [2]. + +2. Document 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 RFC 2119 [10]. + + This document uses the term "ENUM" as the fully qualified domain name + following the conventions of ENUM [17]. + +3. Schema Description + + IRIS requires the derivation of both query and result elements by a + registry schema. These descriptions follow. + + References to XML elements with no namespace qualifier are from the + schema defined in Section 4. References to elements and attributes + with the "iris" XML namespace qualifier are from the schema defined + in IRIS [5]. + + The descriptions contained within this section refer to XML elements + and attributes and their relation to the exchange of data within the + protocol. These descriptions also contain specifications outside the + scope of the formal XML syntax. Therefore, this section will use + terms defined by RFC 2119 [10] to describe the specification outside + the scope of the formal XML syntax. While reading this section, + please reference Section 4 for needed details on the formal XML + syntax. + +3.1. Query Derivatives + +3.1.1. Query + + finds ENUM domains by searching on prefixes of + E.164 numbers and returns (Section 3.2.3) results. + + The E.164 prefix is specified using the child of + . An optional child element of , + + + +Newton Standards Track [Page 3] + +RFC 4414 ENUM Registry Type for IRIS February 2006 + + + , can narrow the search to ENUM domains associated with + E.164 numbers that are either more specific or less specific. If the + element is present and has the content 'less', then the + search is to be narrowed to E.164 numbers that are less specific + (i.e., have fewer digits). If the element is present + and has the content 'more', then the search is to be narrowed to + E.164 numbers that are more specific (i.e., have more digits). + +3.1.2. Query + + finds ENUM domains by searches on fields + associated with an ENUM domain's contact. + + The allowable search fields are handled with either the + element or one of the elements in the + "contactSearchGroup" (see Section 3.1.5). The + element allows for the ENUM domains to be selected based on the + contact having the specified contact handle. + + The query MAY also be constrained further using the optional + element. The contents of this element signify the role the contact + has with the ENUM domain. + + This query also provides optional elements containing + language tags. Clients MAY use these elements to give a hint about + the natural language(s) of the affected element. Servers MAY use + this information in processing the query, such as tailoring + normalization routines to aid in more effective searches. + +3.1.3. Query + + searches for contacts given search constraints. + + The allowable search fields are handled by one of the elements in the + "contactSearchGroup" (see Section 3.1.5). + + This query also provides optional elements containing + language tags. Clients MAY use these elements to give a hint about + the natural language(s) of the affected element. Servers MAY use + this information in processing the query, such as tailoring + normalization routines to aid in more effective searches. + +3.1.4. Query + + This query does a simple search for the ENUM domains being hosted by + a name server. The search is constrained using either the host name + [12], host handle, IPv4 address, or IPv6 address of the name server. + + + + +Newton Standards Track [Page 4] + +RFC 4414 ENUM Registry Type for IRIS February 2006 + + +3.1.5. Contact Search Group + + Some of the queries above have similar query constraints for + searching on contacts. This section describes those common + parameters. + + allows the query to be constrained based on the common + name of the contact. The constraint can either constrain the query + by an exact match using the element, or it may constrain + the query by a subset of the common name using the and + elements. + + allows the query to be constrained based on the + organization name of the contact. It has the same semantics as the + element. + + constrains the query based on the e-mail address of the + contact. This may be done by an exact e-mail address using the + element or by any e-mail address in a domain using the + element. The MUST only contain a valid domain + name (i.e., no '@' symbol), and the matching SHOULD take place only + on the domain given (i.e., no partial matches with respect to + substrings or parent domains). If either the contents of the + element or domain part of the contents of the + element contain a name with non-ASCII characters, they MUST be + normalized according to the processes of RFC 3491 [15]. + + The , , and elements restrict the scope of + the query based on the city, region, or postal code of the contact, + respectively. Each one must only contain an element + containing the exact city, region, or postal code (i.e., no substring + searches). + +3.2. Result Derivatives + +3.2.1. Privacy Labels + + Several of the results in this registry type have values that cannot + be given but must be specified as present or must be flagged so that + clients do not divulge them. In order to achieve this, some of the + results use the following element types: + + o "dateTimePrivacyType" - contains the XML Schema [3] data type + "dateTime". The contents of this element MUST be specified using + the 'Z' indicator for Coordinated Universal Time (UTC). + + o "stringPrivacyType" - contains the XML Schema [3] data type + "string". + + + +Newton Standards Track [Page 5] + +RFC 4414 ENUM Registry Type for IRIS February 2006 + + + o "normalizedStringPrivacyType" - contains the XML Schema [3] data + type "normalizedString". + + o "tokenPrivacyType" - contains the XML Schema [3] data type + "token". + + o "enumStatusType" - describes a state for an ENUM domain. This + element has the following optional attributes: + + * 'scope' - indicates the scope or origin of the status value. + + * 'disposition' - contains either the value "pending", meaning + that initial processing for this status has begun and is not + yet complete, or the value "prohibited", meaning this ENUM + domain cannot achieve this status according to either the + registry or registrar of this ENUM domain. + + * 'actor' - contains either the value "registry", meaning this + status value has been associated with this ENUM domain by the + registry, or the value "registrar", meaning this status value + has been associated with this ENUM domain by the registrar. + + This element has the following optional child elements: + + * - indicates the date and time the status was + applied. + + * - provides a textual description of the status. + This element has a required 'language' attribute. + + * - indicates a jurisdictional-dependent reason for + this status value. This element has a required 'authority' + attribute to indicate the jurisdictional authority associated + with this sub-status. + + o "contactTypeType" - contains an optional child + elements. Each child element requires a 'language' + attribute. + + As specified, they are nillable and therefore may be present with + empty content or present with their specified content. The use of + these elements is also optional. + + If present without content, each of these element types MUST have one + or more of the following boolean attributes: + + o 'private' - if true, this specifies that the content is absent + because it may never be published. + + + +Newton Standards Track [Page 6] + +RFC 4414 ENUM Registry Type for IRIS February 2006 + + + o 'denied' - if true, this specifies that the content is absent + because policy does not allow it to be given under the current + level of access. + + If present with content, each of these element types MAY have one or + more of the following boolean attributes: + + o 'doNotRedistribute' - if true, this specifies that the content is + not to be redistributed. + + o 'specialAccess' - if true, this specifies that the content has + been provided due to special access rights. + + These boolean attributes SHOULD be used in accordance with the level + of access being granted the recipient of the data. For example, + marking data as 'private' or 'denied' is to be expected if the user + is anonymous or has some other low level of access that does not + warrant viewing of that particular data. Likewise, data marked with + 'doNotRedistribute' or 'specialAccess' is to be expected if the user + is authenticated and has a high level of access. + +3.2.2. Contact Group + + Many of the results share a set of references to contacts regarding + an associated role. These are represented by the following elements: + + o + + o + + o + + o + + o + + o + + o + + o + + Each of these elements contains an entity reference. The referent of + each MUST be a (Section 3.2.5). + + + + + + + +Newton Standards Track [Page 7] + +RFC 4414 ENUM Registry Type for IRIS February 2006 + + +3.2.3. Result + + An example of a result: + + + + +1 703 555 1234 + + + + + + + Bill Eckels + + + + + + Mark Kosters + + + + + + + + + AUTO-LOCK + + + + + +Newton Standards Track [Page 8] + +RFC 4414 ENUM Registry Type for IRIS February 2006 + + + + + AUTO-LOCK + + + + + AUTO-LOCK + + + + + STANDARD RGP + + + + + + + The result represents an instance of an ENUM domain + assignment. The children of the element are as follows: + + o - the E.164 number for this ENUM domain as defined by + [13]. It is RECOMMENDED that only space characters be used + between the digits of these E.164 numbers, as of the international + number format defined in [14]. + + o - a registry-unique assigned identifier to an ENUM + domain. + + o - MUST contain an entity reference to a referent of + type (Section 3.2.4). + + o - elements containing an entity reference to the + registrant of this ENUM domain. The referent MUST be a + (Section 3.2.5) result. + + o ENUM domain contacts - see Section 3.2.2. + + + + +Newton Standards Track [Page 9] + +RFC 4414 ENUM Registry Type for IRIS February 2006 + + + o - may contain at least one of the following elements of + type 'enumStatusType' (see Section 3.2.1). + + * - this ENUM domain falls outside the normal + registration rules and/or processes for registration + + * - assigned to a registrant + + * - available via DNS (either via delegation or direct + publication) + + * - unavailable via DNS + + * - registrant assignment is in dispute + + * - registrant assignment removed + + * - change of authority + + * - modification of this ENUM domain + + * - renewal of ENUM domain registration + + * - period at the creation or activation of this ENUM + domain (see RFC 3915 [18]) + + * - period at the renewal of this ENUM domain (see + RFC 3915 [18]) + + * - period at the automatic renewal of this + ENUM domain (see RFC 3915 [18]) + + * - period at the transfer of this ENUM domain + (see RFC 3915 [18]) + + * - period at the redemption of this ENUM + domain (see RFC 3915 [18]) + + * - change to previous status of this ENUM domain + + * - a status only defined by its child + element + + As stated in Section 3.2.1, each status value may have flags to + indicate the entity responsible for assigning the status (e.g., + actor='registrar') and the nature of the status (e.g., + disposition="prohibited"). Any one status value MUST NOT imply + other status values. For instance, is just an + + + +Newton Standards Track [Page 10] + +RFC 4414 ENUM Registry Type for IRIS February 2006 + + + indication that the ENUM domain is given special reserved + status; the status value must + also be present to indicate that the ENUM domain cannot be + registered. + + o - an element containing an entity + reference, the referent of which MUST be an + (Section 3.2.3). The intention of this element is to point to the + downstream registration reference. Therefore, if this is a result + given back by an ENUM domain registry, it should point to the ENUM + domain in the ENUM domain registrar or registrant service. + + o - contains an entity reference specifying the ENUM + domain registry operator for this ENUM domain that MUST be a + (Section 3.2.6). + + o - contains an entity reference specifying the ENUM + domain registrar operator for this ENUM domain that MUST be a + (Section 3.2.6). + + o - contains an entity reference specifying the + validation entity for this ENUM domain that MUST be a + (Section 3.2.7). + + o communication service providers - the following elements contain + an entity reference with a relationship to the ENUM domain. The + referent of each MUST be a + (Section 3.2.8). + + * + + * + + * + + * + + * + + o -- elements containing an entity reference to + validation events related to this ENUM domain. The referent MUST + be a (Section 3.2.9). + + o - an element containing the date and + time of the initial delegation of this ENUM domain. + + o - an element containing the date and time of + last renewal of this ENUM domain. + + + +Newton Standards Track [Page 11] + +RFC 4414 ENUM Registry Type for IRIS February 2006 + + + o - an element containing the date and time of + the expiration of this ENUM domain. + + o - specifies the last time a + contact for the ENUM domain was added or removed. + + o - an element containing an entity + reference. The referent MUST be a (Section 3.2.5) + responsible for the last addition or removal of a contact for this + ENUM domain. + + o - an element containing the + date and time of the last time one of the nameservers was added or + removed for the delegation of this ENUM domain. + + o - an element containing an entity + reference. The referent MUST be a (Section 3.2.5) + result and be responsible for the last addition or removal of a + nameserver for this ENUM domain. + + o - an element containing the date and + time of the last time the data for this domain was verified by the + responsible registration authority. + + o - an element containing an entity reference + specifying a referent that is indirectly associated with this + domain. + +3.2.4. Result + + An example of a result: + + + nsol184 + a.iana-servers.net + 192.0.2.43 + + + + The element represents an instance of a host registration. + The children of the element are as follows: + + o - a registry-unique assigned identifier for the host. + + + +Newton Standards Track [Page 12] + +RFC 4414 ENUM Registry Type for IRIS February 2006 + + + o - the fully qualified domain name of the host. The + contents of this element are a host name and MUST conform to RFC + 1123 [19]. + + o - the content of which MUST conform to a valid + IP version 4 host address as specified by RFC 791 [8]. + + o - the content of which MUST conform to a valid + IP version 6 host address as specified by RFC 3513 [7]. + + o - an element containing an entity reference + specifying a contact associated with this host. The referent MUST + be (Section 3.2.5) results. + + o - an element containing the date and time this + host was created. + + o - an element containing the date and + time this host was last modified. + + o - an element containing the date and + time this data for this host was last verified to be correct by + the appropriate registration authority. + + o - an element containing an entity reference + specifying a referent that is indirectly associated with this + host. + +3.2.5. Result + + An example of a result: + + + example-admin + Example.Org Manager + Internet Assigned Numbers Authority + res-dom@example.org + +
123 Mocking Bird Lane
+ Some City + CA + 00000 + US + + +1234567890 + + + + +Newton Standards Track [Page 13] + +RFC 4414 ENUM Registry Type for IRIS February 2006 + + + The element represents an instance of a contact + registration. The children of the element are as follows: + + o - a registry-unique assigned identifier for this + contact. + + o - the name of the contact. + + o - a specification of the language code to use to + localize the data in this result. + + o - contains one of the following child elements: , + , , or . Each of these elements is a + "contactTypeType" as defined in Section 3.2.1. + + o - an element containing the organization name of + the contact. + + o The child element contains a jurisdictional identifier + of this contact (an example of such an identifier is a national + taxation ID or a commercial registry number). + + o - elements containing an e-mail address for this contact. + + o - elements containing a SIP URI for this contact. + + o - elements containing children representing a + postal address. has the following children: + + *
- an element containing the street address for this + contact. + + * - an element containing the city for this contact. + + * - an element containing the national region for this + contact. + + * - an element containing the postal code for this + contact. + + * - an element containing the country for this contact. + This SHOULD be a 2-letter country code compliant with ISO 3166 + [11]. + + o - elements containing a voice phone number for this + contact. If it begins with a '+' (plus) character, it MUST be a + number defined by E.164 [13]. The format number defined in E.164 + [13] is RECOMMENDED. + + + +Newton Standards Track [Page 14] + +RFC 4414 ENUM Registry Type for IRIS February 2006 + + + o - elements containing a facsimile phone number for this + contact. If it begins with a '+' (plus) character, it MUST be a + number defined by E.164 [13]. The format number defined in E.164 + [13] is RECOMMENDED. + + o - an element containing the date and time this + contact was created. + + o - an element containing the date and + time this contact was last modified. + + o - an element containing the date and + time this data for this contact was last verified to be correct by + the appropriate registration authority. + + o - an element containing an entity reference + specifying equivalents of this contact that have been translated + into other languages. The referent MUST be + (Section 3.2.5) results. + + o - an element containing an entity reference + specifying a referent that is indirectly associated with this + contact. + +3.2.6. Result + + An example of a result: + + + + + Internet Assigned Numbers Authority + + + + + The result represents an entity capable of + registering domains. + + The child element of + contains an entity reference pointing to the entity "id" in the + entity class "iris". + + + + +Newton Standards Track [Page 15] + +RFC 4414 ENUM Registry Type for IRIS February 2006 + + + The child element contains the name of the + registration authority. + + The child element contains an identifier of this + registration authority (an example of such an identifier is a + national taxation ID or a commercial registry number). + + The registration authority type child elements, , + , and , determine the role in which this + registration authority plays in the process of registering ENUM + domains. The intent of this element is to explain the various roles + a registration authority may have with regards to the authority areas + pointed to by the element. A client MAY understand + the relationship of a registration authority with respect to an ENUM + domain by the placement of the reference in the domain (e.g., + or ). + + contacts - see Section 3.2.2. + + - an element containing an entity reference specifying + a referent that is indirectly associated with this registration + authority. + +3.2.7. Result + + An example of a result: + + + + + Some Government Authority + + + + + + + + + +Newton Standards Track [Page 16] + +RFC 4414 ENUM Registry Type for IRIS February 2006 + + + The result represents an entity responsible for + validating ENUM domains against E.164 [13] registrations. + + The child element of contains an + entity reference pointing to the entity "id" in the entity class + "iris". + + The child element contains the name of the + validation authority. + + The child element contains an identifier of this validation + authority (an example of such an identifier is a national taxation ID + or a commercial registry number). + + contacts - see Section 3.2.2. + + - an element containing an entity reference specifying + a referent that is indirectly associated with this validation + authority. + +3.2.8. Result + + An example of a result: + + + + + Big Phone Co. + + + + + The result represents an entity + providing ENUM domain service. + + The child element of + contains an entity reference pointing to the entity "id" in the + entity class "iris". + + The child element contains the name of the + registration authority. + + + + + +Newton Standards Track [Page 17] + +RFC 4414 ENUM Registry Type for IRIS February 2006 + + + The child element contains an identifier of this + communication service provider (an example of such an identifier is a + national taxation ID or a commercial registry number). + + The child element contains an identifier unique to this + communication service provider and identifies this communication + service provider with regard to its operating jurisdiction. + + The child elements, , , , , and , + detail the capabilities of this communication service provider. The + capabilities this communication service provider provides to a + specific ENUM domain are a subset of these capabilities and are + expressed in the result using the , , + , , and entity references. + + contacts - see Section 3.2.2. + + - an element containing an entity reference specifying + a referent that is indirectly associated with this communication + service provider. + +3.2.9. Result + + An example of a result: + + + xyz-0123 + + + + The result represents a record of validation for an + ENUM domain. + + The child element contains an identifier identifying this + validation event between a validation entity and a registrar. + + The child element contains an identifier describing the + method used for validation. + + - contains an entity reference specifying the ENUM domain + registrar operator for this validation event that MUST be a + (Section 3.2.6). + + + + +Newton Standards Track [Page 18] + +RFC 4414 ENUM Registry Type for IRIS February 2006 + + + - contains an entity reference specifying the + validation entity for this validation event that MUST be a + (Section 3.2.7). + + - an element containing the date and time of the + creation of this validation event. + + - an element containing the date and time of the + expiration of this validation event. + + - an element containing an entity reference specifying + a referent that is indirectly associated with this validation event. + +3.3. Generic Code Derivatives + +3.3.1. + + Servers MAY use the error code when a query must be + narrowed to yield a result set acceptable to the policies of the + server operator. + +3.3.2. + + The queries and support optional + language tags that allow a client to suggest to a server the + languages in which to scope the queries. If a client passes to the + server a language that the server does not support, the server MAY + use this error code to indicate that one of the languages is not + supported. + + This element contains child elements named . + Each of these child elements specifies a language not supported by + the server. When a server returns this error, it MUST give the + languages from the query that are not supported. + +3.4. Support for + + The following types of entity classes are recognized by the + query of IRIS for this registry: + + o host-name - the fully qualified domain name of a nameserver. It + yields a (Section 3.2.4) in the response. + + o host-handle - the registry-unique identifier given a nameserver. + It yields a (Section 3.2.4) in the response. + + + + + + +Newton Standards Track [Page 19] + +RFC 4414 ENUM Registry Type for IRIS February 2006 + + + o e164 - an E.164 number as specified by [13]. It yields an + (Section 3.2.3) in the response. Clients SHOULD remove all non- + digit characters between the digits of an E.164 number, and + servers MUST ignore any non-digit characters between the digits of + an E.164 number (e.g., "+1 703 555 1234" is to be interpreted as + "+17035551234"). + + o enum - the fully qualified name of an ENUM domain. This is a + domain name as specified by RFC 3761 [17]. It yields an + (Section 3.2.3) in the response. + + o enum-handle - the registry-unique identifier given an ENUM domain. + It yields an (Section 3.2.3) in the response. + + o contact-handle - the registry-unique identifier given a contact. + It yields a (Section 3.2.5) in the response. + + o ipv4-address - the IPv4 address of a nameserver. It yields a + (Section 3.2.4) in the response. + + o ipv6-address - the IPv6 address of a nameserver. It yields a + (Section 3.2.4) in the response. + + o registration-authority - the name of a registration authority. It + yields a (Section 3.2.6) in the response. + + o validation-entity - the name of a validation entity. It yields a + (Section 3.2.7) + + o csp - the identifier of a communication service provider. Yields + a (Section 3.2.8). + + o validation-event - the identifier for a validation event. It + yields a (Section 3.2.9). + + o All names in these entity classes are case insensitive. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Newton Standards Track [Page 20] + +RFC 4414 ENUM Registry Type for IRIS February 2006 + + +4. Formal XML Syntax + + This registry schema is specified in the XML Schema notation. The + formal syntax presented here is a complete schema representation + suitable for automated validation of an XML instance when combined + with the formal schema syntax of IRIS. + + + + + + + + + ENUM registry schema + derived from IRIS schema + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Newton Standards Track [Page 21] + +RFC 4414 ENUM Registry Type for IRIS February 2006 + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Newton Standards Track [Page 23] + +RFC 4414 ENUM Registry Type for IRIS February 2006 + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Newton Standards Track [Page 24] + +RFC 4414 ENUM Registry Type for IRIS February 2006 + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Newton Standards Track [Page 25] + +RFC 4414 ENUM Registry Type for IRIS February 2006 + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Newton Standards Track [Page 26] + +RFC 4414 ENUM Registry Type for IRIS February 2006 + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Newton Standards Track [Page 27] + +RFC 4414 ENUM Registry Type for IRIS February 2006 + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Newton Standards Track [Page 31] + +RFC 4414 ENUM Registry Type for IRIS February 2006 + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Newton Standards Track [Page 35] + +RFC 4414 ENUM Registry Type for IRIS February 2006 + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Newton Standards Track [Page 37] + +RFC 4414 ENUM Registry Type for IRIS February 2006 + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Newton Standards Track [Page 38] + +RFC 4414 ENUM Registry Type for IRIS February 2006 + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Newton Standards Track [Page 40] + +RFC 4414 ENUM Registry Type for IRIS February 2006 + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Newton Standards Track [Page 41] + +RFC 4414 ENUM Registry Type for IRIS February 2006 + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Newton Standards Track [Page 42] + +RFC 4414 ENUM Registry Type for IRIS February 2006 + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Newton Standards Track [Page 43] + +RFC 4414 ENUM Registry Type for IRIS February 2006 + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Figure 1: ereg.xsd + +5. Blocks Extensible Exchange Protocol (BEEP) Transport Compliance + + IRIS allows several extensions of the core capabilities. This + section outlines those extensions allowable by IRIS-BEEP [6]. + +5.1. Message Pattern + + This registry type uses the default message pattern as described in + IRIS-BEEP [6]. + +5.2. Server Authentication + + This registry type only uses the basic Transport Layer Security (TLS) + server authentication method as described in IRIS-BEEP [6]. + +6. URI Resolution + +6.1. Application Service Label + + The application service label associated with this registry type MUST + be "EREG1". This is the abbreviated form of the URN for this + registry type, urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:ereg1. + +7. Internationalization Considerations + + Implementers should be aware of considerations for + internationalization in IRIS [5]. + + The social data associated with contacts may be non-ASCII, and could + contain virtually any Unicode character. The element is + provided in queries that have potential to traverse such data. + Clients should use these elements to indicate to the server of the + target languages desired, and servers should use these elements to + better enable normalization and search processes (see + ). + + Clients needing to localize the data tags in this protocol should + take note that localization is only needed on the names of XML + elements and attributes with the exception of elements containing + date and time information. The schema for this registry has been + designed so that clients need not interpret the content of elements + + + +Newton Standards Track [Page 46] + +RFC 4414 ENUM Registry Type for IRIS February 2006 + + + or attributes for localization, other than those elements containing + date and time information. + + Clients should also make use of the elements provided in + many of the results. Results containing data that may be in Unicode + are accompanied by these elements in order to aid better presentation + of the data to the user. + + The "dateTimePrivacyType" element content conforms to the XML Schema + [3] data type "dateTime". The contents of this element MUST be + specified using the 'Z' indicator for Coordinated Universal Time + (UTC). + +8. IANA Considerations + +8.1. XML Namespace URN Registration + + This document makes use of a proposed XML namespace and schema + registry specified in XML_URN [16]. Accordingly, the following + registration information is provided for the IANA: + + o URN/URI: + + * urn:ietf:params:xml:schema:ereg1 + + o Contact: + + * Andrew Newton + + o XML: + + * The XML Schema specified in Section 4 + + o URN/URI: + + * urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:ereg1 + + o Contact: + + * Andrew Newton + + o XML: + + * None. + + + + + + + +Newton Standards Track [Page 47] + +RFC 4414 ENUM Registry Type for IRIS February 2006 + + +8.2. S-NAPTR Registration + + The following S-NAPTR application service tag [20] has been + registered with IANA according to the IANA considerations defined in + IRIS [5]: + + EREG1 + +8.3. BEEP Registration + + The following BEEP Profile URI has been registered with IANA + (http://www.iana.org/assignments/beep-parameters), in addition to the + registration provided in IRIS-BEEP [6]. + + http://iana.org/beep/iris1/ereg1 + +9. Security Considerations + + This document lays out no new considerations for security precautions + beyond that specified in IRIS [5]. + +10. Normative References + + [1] World Wide Web Consortium, "Extensible Markup Language (XML) + 1.0", W3C XML, February 1998, + . + + [2] World Wide Web Consortium, "Namespaces in XML", W3C XML + Namespaces, January 1999, + . + + [3] World Wide Web Consortium, "XML Schema Part 2: Datatypes", W3C + XML Schema, October 2004, . + + [4] World Wide Web Consortium, "XML Schema Part 1: Structures", W3C + XML Schema, October 2004, . + + [5] Newton, A. and M. Sanz, "IRIS: The Internet Registry + Information Service (IRIS) Core Protocol", RFC 3981, January + 2005. + + [6] Newton, A. and M. Sanz, "Using the Internet Registry + Information Service (IRIS) over the Blocks Extensible Exchange + Protocol (BEEP)", RFC 3983, January 2005. + + [7] Hinden, R. and S. Deering, "Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) + Addressing Architecture", RFC 3513, April 2003. + + + + +Newton Standards Track [Page 48] + +RFC 4414 ENUM Registry Type for IRIS February 2006 + + + [8] Postel, J., "Internet Protocol", STD 5, RFC 791, September + 1981. + + [9] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - implementation and + specification", STD 13, RFC 1035, November 1987. + + [10] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement + Levels", RFC 2119, BCP 14, March 1997. + + [11] International Organization for Standardization, "Codes for the + representation of names of countries, 3rd edition", ISO + Standard 3166, August 1988. + + [12] Braden, R., "Requirements for Internet Hosts - Application and + Support", STD 3, RFC 1123, October 1989. + + [13] International Telecommunications Union, "The International + Public Telecommunication Numbering Plan", ITU-T Recommendation + E.164, February 2005. + + [14] International Telecommunications Union, "Notation for national + and international telephone numbers, e-mail addresses and Web + addresses", ITU-T Recommendation E.123, February 2001. + + [15] Hoffman, P. and M. Blanchet, "Nameprep: A Stringprep Profile + for Internationalized Domain Names (IDN)", RFC 3491, March + 2003. + + [16] Mealling, M., "The IETF XML Registry", BCP 81, RFC 3688, + January 2004. + + [17] Faltstrom, P. and M. Mealling, "The E.164 to Uniform Resource + Identifiers (URI) Dynamic Delegation Discovery System (DDDS) + Application (ENUM)", RFC 3761, April 2004. + + [18] Hollenbeck, S., "Domain Registry Grace Period Mapping for the + Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP)", RFC 3915, September + 2004. + + [19] Braden, R., "Requirements for Internet Hosts - Application and + Support", STD 3, RFC 1123, October 1989. + + [20] Daigle, L. and A. Newton, "Domain-Based Application Service + Location Using SRV RRs and the Dynamic Delegation Discovery + Service (DDDS)", RFC 3958, January 2005. + + + + + + +Newton Standards Track [Page 49] + +RFC 4414 ENUM Registry Type for IRIS February 2006 + + +Appendix A. Contributions and Acknowledgements + + This document is a derivative of the specification used to define + forward domain registries for IRIS. Marcos Sanz was a major + contributor to that specification, and many of his words and ideas + are present in this document. Other contributors include Alexander + Mayrhofer, Bernie Hoeneisen, Otmar Lendl, and Scott Hollenbeck. + +Author's Address + + Andrew L. Newton + VeriSign, Inc. + 21345 Ridgetop Circle + Sterling, VA 20166 + USA + + Phone: +1.7039483382 + EMail: andy@hxr.us + URI: http://www.verisignlabs.com/ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Newton Standards Track [Page 50] + +RFC 4414 ENUM Registry Type for IRIS February 2006 + + +Full Copyright Statement + + Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006). + + 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 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 + ietf-ipr@ietf.org. + +Acknowledgement + + Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF + Administrative Support Activity (IASA). + + + + + + + +Newton Standards Track [Page 51] + -- cgit v1.2.3