Movatterモバイル変換

Network Working Group                                        R. BrandnerRequest for Comments: 4002                                    Siemens AGCategory: Standards Track                                      L. Conroy                                             Siemens Roke Manor Research                                                              R. Stastny                                                                   Oefeg                                                           February 2005IANA Registration for Enumservice 'web' and 'ft'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 the Enumservices 'web' and 'ft' by using the   URI schemes 'http:', 'https:' and 'ftp:' as per the IANA registration   process defined in the ENUM specification (RFC 3761).Table of Contents1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22.  Terminology  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33.  Web Service  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33.1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33.2.  Web Service Registration with 'http:'  . . . . . . . . .33.3.  Web Service Registration with 'https:' . . . . . . . . .44.  FT Service Registration  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .55.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .56.  IANA Considerations . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .77.  References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .77.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .77.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9   Full Copyright Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10Brandner, et al.            Standards Track                     [Page 1]

RFC 4002      IANA Registration for Enumservice web and ft February 20051.  Introduction   ENUM (E.164 Number Mapping,RFC 3761 [2]) is a system that transforms   E.164 numbers [3] into domain names and that then uses DNS (Domain   Name Service,RFC 1034 [4]) services such as delegation through NS   records and NAPTR records to look up what services are available for   a specific domain name.   This document registers 'Enumservices' according to the guidelines   given inRFC 3761 [2] to be used for provisioning in the services   field of an NAPTR [7] resource record to indicate what class of   functionality a given end point offers.  The registration is defined   within the DDDS (Dynamic Delegation Discovery System [5][6][7][8][9])   hierarchy, for use with the "E2U" DDDS Application, defined inRFC3761 [2].   The following 'Enumservices' are registered with this document: 'web'   and 'ft'.  These share a common feature in that they each indicate   that the functionality of the given end points and the associated   resources are primarily sources of information.   According toRFC 3761 [2], the 'Enumservice' registered must be able   to function as a selection mechanism when one chooses between one   NAPTR resource record and another.  This means that the registration   MUST specify what is expected when that NAPTR record is used, and the   URI scheme that is the outcome of use.   Therefore an 'Enumservice' acts as a hint, indicating the kind of   service with which the URI constructed by using the regexp field is   associated.  More than one 'Enumservice' can be included within a   single NAPTR; this indicates that there is more than one service that   can be achieved by using the associated URI scheme.   The common thread with this set of definitions is that they reflect   the kind of service that the end user will hope to achieve with the   communication by using the associated URI.   The services specified here are NOT intended to specify the protocol   or even the method of connection that MUST be used to achieve each   service.  Instead, we define the kind of interactive behavior that an   end user will expect, leaving the end system to decide (based on   policies outside the scope of this specification) how to execute the   service.Brandner, et al.            Standards Track                     [Page 2]

RFC 4002      IANA Registration for Enumservice web and ft February 2005   As the same URI scheme may be used for different services (e.g.,   'tel:') and the same kind of service may use different URI schemes   (e.g., for VoIP, 'sip:', 'h323:', and 'tel:' may be used), it is   necessary in some cases to specify the service and the URI scheme   used.   The service parameters defined inRFC 3761 [2] therefore allow a   'type' and a 'subtype' to be specified.  Within this set of   specifications, it is assumed that the 'type' (being the more generic   term) defines the service and the 'subtype' defines the URI scheme.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 inBCP 14,RFC 2119 [1].3.  Web Service3.1.  Introduction   The Enumservices registered in this section indicate that the   resource identified by the associated URI is capable of being a   source of information.3.2.  Web Service Registration with 'http:'   Enumservice Name: "web"   Enumservice Type: "web"   Enumservice Subtype: "http"   URI Scheme: 'http:'   Functional Specification:   This Enumservice indicates that the resource identified by the   associated URI scheme is capable of being a source of information.   Note that the kind of information retrieved can be manifold.   Usually, contacting a resource by an 'http:' [11] URI provides a   document.  This document can contain references that will trigger the   download of many different kinds of information, such as audio,   video, or executable code.  Thus, one cannot be more specific about   the kind of information expected when contacting the resource.Brandner, et al.            Standards Track                     [Page 3]

RFC 4002      IANA Registration for Enumservice web and ft February 2005   Security Considerations:   There are no specific security issues with this 'Enumservice'.   However, the general considerations ofSection 5 apply.   Intended Usage: COMMON   Authors:   Rudolf Brandner, Lawrence Conroy, Richard Stastny (for author contact   detail, see the Authors' Addresses section)   Any other information the author deems interesting:   None3.3.  Web Service Registration with 'https:'   Enumservice Name: "web"   Enumservice Type: "web"   Enumservice Subtype: "https"   URI Scheme: 'https:'   Functional Specification:   This Enumservice indicates that the resource identified by the   associated URI scheme is capable of being a source of information,   which can be contacted by using TLS or the Secure Socket Layer   protocol.   Note that the kind of information retrieved can be manifold.   Usually, contacting a resource by an 'https:' URI [12] provides a   document.  This document can contain many different kinds of   information, such as audio, video, or executable code.  Thus, one   cannot be more specific about what information to expect when   contacting the resource.   Security Considerations:   There are no specific security issues with this 'Enumservice'.   However, the general considerations ofSection 5 apply.   Intended Usage: COMMONBrandner, et al.            Standards Track                     [Page 4]

RFC 4002      IANA Registration for Enumservice web and ft February 2005   Authors:   Rudolf Brandner, Lawrence Conroy, Richard Stastny (for author contact   detail, see the Authors' Addresses section)   Any other information the author deems interesting:   None4.  FT Service Registration   Enumservice Name: "ft"   Enumservice Type: "ft"   Enumservice Subtype: "ftp"   URI Scheme: 'ftp:'   Functional Specification:   This Enumservice indicates that the resource identified by the   associated URI scheme is a service usable in the manner specified for   ftp: inRFC 1738 [10], for instance, file retrieval.   Security Considerations:   There are no specific security issues with this 'Enumservice'.   However, the general considerations ofSection 5 apply.   Intended Usage: COMMON   Authors:   Rudolf Brandner, Lawrence Conroy, Richard Stastny (for author contact   detail, see the Authors' Addresses section)   Any other information the author deems interesting:   None5.  Security Considerations   As used by ENUM, DNS is a global, distributed database.  Thus any   information stored there is visible to anyone anonymously.  Although   this is not qualitatively different from publication in a telephone   directory, it does expose the data subject to having "their"Brandner, et al.            Standards Track                     [Page 5]

RFC 4002      IANA Registration for Enumservice web and ft February 2005   information collected automatically without any indication that this   has been done, or by whom.   Data harvesting by third parties is often used to generate lists of   targets for unrequested information; in short, it is used to address   "spam".  Anyone who uses a Web-archived mailing list is aware that   the volume of "spam" email they receive increases when they post to   the mailing list; publication of a telephone number in ENUM is no   different and may be used to send "junk faxes" or "junk SMS", for   example.   Many mailing list users have more than one email address and use   "sacrificial" email accounts when they post to these lists to help   filter out unrequested emails.  This is not so easy with published   telephone numbers; the PSTN E.164 number assignment process is much   more involved, and usually a single E.164 number (or a fixed range of   numbers) is associated with each PSTN access.  Thus, providing a   "sacrificial" phone number in any publication is not possible.   Due to the implications of publishing data on a globally accessible   database, as a principle the data subject MUST give explicit informed   consent when data is published in ENUM.   In addition, the data subject should be made aware that, due to   storage of such data during harvesting by third parties, removal of   the data from publication will not remove any copies that have been   taken; in effect, any publication may be permanent.   However, regulations in many regions will require that the data   subject can at any time request that the data is removed from   publication, and that consent for its publication is explicitly   confirmed at regular intervals.   The user SHOULD be asked to confirm opening a web page or starting an   ftp session (particularly if the ftp client is configured to send the   user's email address as an "anonymous" user password).   Using a web:http or ft:ftp service is not secure, so the user should   apply the same caution when entering personal data as they would do   if using a client application started with any other method.   Although this is not a feature of ENUM or these Enumservices, the   ENUM-using application on the end system may appear different from   the user's "normal" browser, so the user SHOULD receive an indication   of whether their communication is secured.Brandner, et al.            Standards Track                     [Page 6]

RFC 4002      IANA Registration for Enumservice web and ft February 2005   As evaluating a web page can involve execution of embedded (or   linked) content that may include executable code, evaluating a web   URL involves risks.  If automatic evaluation of a web link were to be   used, the querying user would be exposed to risks associated with   that automatic download and execution of content.  Thus, the client   MUST ask the querying user for confirmation before evaluating the web   URL; the client MUST NOT download and evaluate the web content   automatically.   An analysis of threats specific to the dependence of ENUM on the DNS,   (threats against which are covered in [14]) and the applicability of   DNSSEC [13] to these, is provided inRFC 3761 [2].6.  IANA Considerations   The IANA has registered Enumservice 'web' and 'ft' per the   registration process defined in the ENUM specification [2].7.  References7.1.  Normative References   [1]   Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement         Levels",BCP 14,RFC 2119, March 1997.   [2]   Faltstrom, P. and M. Mealling, "The E.164 to Uniform Resource         Identifiers (URI) Dynamic Delegation Discovery System (DDDS)         Application (ENUM)",RFC 3761, April 2004.   [3]   ITU-T, "The International Public Telecommunication Number         Plan", Recommendation E.164 , May 1997.   [4]   Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - concepts and facilities", STD         13,RFC 1034, November 1987.   [5]   Mealling, M., "Dynamic Delegation Discovery System (DDDS) Part         One: The Comprehensive DDDS",RFC 3401, October 2002.   [6]   Mealling, M., "Dynamic Delegation Discovery System (DDDS) Part         Two: The Algorithm",RFC 3402, October 2002.   [7]   Mealling, M., "Dynamic Delegation Discovery System (DDDS) Part         Three: The Domain Name System (DNS) Database",RFC 3403,         October 2002.   [8]   Mealling, M., "Dynamic Delegation Discovery System (DDDS) Part         Four: The Uniform Resource Identifiers (URI)",RFC 3404,         October 2002.Brandner, et al.            Standards Track                     [Page 7]

RFC 4002      IANA Registration for Enumservice web and ft February 2005   [9]   Mealling, M., "Dynamic Delegation Discovery System (DDDS) Part         Five: URI.ARPA Assignment Procedures",BCP 65,RFC 3405,         October 2002.   [10]  Berners-Lee, T., Masinter, L., and M. McCahill, "Uniform         Resource Locators (URL)",RFC 1738, December 1994.   [11]  Fielding,  R., Gettys, J., Mogul, J., Frystyk, H., Masinter,         L., Leach, P., and T. Berners-Lee, "Hypertext Transfer Protocol         -- HTTP/1.1",RFC 2616, June 1999.   [12]  Rescorla, E., "HTTP Over TLS",RFC 2818, May 2000.7.2.  Informative References   [13]  Arends, R. and et al., "Protocol Modifications for the DNS         Security Extensions", Work in Progress.   [14]  Atkins, D. and R. Austein, "Threat Analysis of the Domain Name         System (DNS)",RFC 3833, August 2004.Brandner, et al.            Standards Track                     [Page 8]

RFC 4002      IANA Registration for Enumservice web and ft February 2005Authors' Addresses   Rudolf Brandner   Siemens AG   Hofmannstr. 51   81359 Munich   Germany   Phone: +49-89-722-51003   EMail: rudolf.brandner@siemens.com   Lawrence Conroy   Siemens Roke Manor Research   Roke Manor   Romsey   United Kingdom   Phone: +44-1794-833666   EMail: lwc@roke.co.uk   Richard Stastny   Oefeg   Postbox 147   1103 Vienna   Austria   Phone: +43-664-420-4100   EMail: richard.stastny@oefeg.atBrandner, et al.            Standards Track                     [Page 9]

RFC 4002      IANA Registration for Enumservice web and ft February 2005Full Copyright Statement   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005).   This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions   contained inBCP 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 inBCP 78 andBCP 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 athttp://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 currently provided by the   Internet Society.Brandner, et al.            Standards Track                    [Page 10]