Request for Comments: 4759 Category: Standards Track Neustar Inc. L. Conroy Roke Manor Research November 2006

Similar documents
Request for Comments: 3764 Category: Standards Track April enumservice registration for Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Addresses-of-Record

Network Working Group Request for Comments: 4143 Category: Standards Track Brandenburg November 2005

Request for Comments: 4715 Category: Informational NTT November 2006

September The Internet Assigned Number Authority (IANA) tel Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) Parameter Registry. Status of This Memo

Request for Comments: 5079 Category: Standards Track December Rejecting Anonymous Requests in the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)

vcard Extensions for Instant Messaging (IM)

Request for Comments: 5115 Category: Standards Track UCL January Telephony Routing over IP (TRIP) Attribute for Resource Priority

Network Working Group. BCP: 131 July 2007 Category: Best Current Practice

Columbia University G. Camarillo Ericsson October 2005

Category: Standards Track June Requesting Attributes by Object Class in the Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (LDAP) Status of This Memo

Network Working Group Request for Comments: 5346 Category: Informational NIDA L. Conroy RMRL October 2008

Network Working Group. Category: Standards Track August Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6) Relay Agent Remote-ID Option

Request for Comments: 3861 Category: Standards Track August 2004

Network Working Group Request for Comments: 4573 Category: Standard Track July MIME Type Registration for RTP Payload Format for H.

Request for Comments: Category: Standards Track January 2008

Request for Comments: 3959 Category: Standards Track December 2004

Network Working Group. Category: Standards Track June Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6) Relay Agent Subscriber-ID Option

Category: Standards Track September MIB Textual Conventions for Uniform Resource Identifiers (URIs)

Expires: October 9, 2005 April 7, 2005

Request for Comments: 3968 Updates: 3427 December 2004 BCP: 98 Category: Best Current Practice

Ericsson D. Willis. Cisco Systems. April 2006

Category: Standards Track Cisco H. Tschofenig Nokia Siemens Networks August 2008

Isode Limited March 2008

Category: Standards Track October 2006

Request for Comments: 4680 Updates: 4346 September 2006 Category: Standards Track

Request for Comments: May 2007

Category: Standards Track December 2007

Network Working Group Request for Comments: 4424 February 2006 Updates: 4348 Category: Standards Track

Network Working Group Request for Comments: 4242 Category: Standards Track University of Southampton B. Volz Cisco Systems, Inc.

Network Working Group Request for Comments: 5167 Category: Informational Polycom March 2008

Category: Standards Track June 2006

Network Working Group. Category: Informational October 2005

Request for Comments: 4315 December 2005 Obsoletes: 2359 Category: Standards Track. Internet Message Access Protocol (IMAP) - UIDPLUS extension

Request for Comments: 5179 Category: Standards Track May 2008

Category: Standards Track Cisco Systems, Inc January The Secure Shell (SSH) Session Channel Break Extension

Network Working Group Request for Comments: 4792 Updates: 3641 January 2007 Category: Standards Track

Network Working Group. Cisco Systems June 2007

Network Working Group. Category: Informational May OSPF Database Exchange Summary List Optimization

Network Working Group. February 2005

Category: Standards Track July The Post Office Protocol (POP3) Simple Authentication and Security Layer (SASL) Authentication Mechanism

Request for Comments: 5010 Category: Standards Track Cisco Systems, Inc. September 2007

Category: Standards Track Cisco Systems, Inc. March 2005

Network Working Group Request for Comments: Cisco Systems, Inc. December 2005

Request for Comments: 5369 Category: Informational October Framework for Transcoding with the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)

Request for Comments: 3578 Category: Standards Track dynamicsoft J. Peterson NeuStar L. Ong Ciena August 2003

Network Working Group. Category: Standards Track July 2007

Network Working Group Request for Comments: 4869 Category: Informational May Suite B Cryptographic Suites for IPsec. Status of This Memo

Request for Comments: 3934 Updates: 2418 October 2004 BCP: 94 Category: Best Current Practice

Network Working Group. Category: Informational September 2007

Category: Informational September A Suggested Scheme for DNS Resolution of Networks and Gateways

Network Working Group. Category: Standards Track Samsung S. Kumar Tech Mahindra Ltd S. Madanapalli Samsung May 2008

Category: Standards Track October 2006

Request for Comments: 4571 Category: Standards Track July 2006

Network Working Group Request for Comments: September IANA Considerations for the IPv4 and IPv6 Router Alert Options

Request for Comments: 4142 Category: Standards Track Nine by Nine November 2005

Network Working Group. Category: Standards Track June 2005

Network Working Group. Intended status: Standards Track Columbia U. Expires: March 5, 2009 September 1, 2008

Network Working Group. Category: Informational January 2006

Network Working Group. N. Williams Sun Microsystems June 2006

Network Working Group. Category: Standards Track Cisco Systems May 2007

Network Working Group Request for Comments: August Address-Prefix-Based Outbound Route Filter for BGP-4

October Network News Transfer Protocol (NNTP) Extension for Streaming Feeds

Category: Standards Track October Vendor-Identifying Vendor Options for Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol version 4 (DHCPv4)

Network Working Group. Category: Standards Track Juniper Networks August 2008

Expires in six months 24 October 2004 Obsoletes: RFC , , 3377, 3771

C. Martin ipath Services February A Policy Control Mechanism in IS-IS Using Administrative Tags

Network Working Group Request for Comments: A. Zinin Alcatel-Lucent March 2007

Category: Standards Track LabN Consulting, LLC July 2008

Request for Comments: 3401 Updates: 2276 October 2002 Obsoletes: 2915, 2168 Category: Informational

Request for Comments: Ericsson February 2004

Network Working Group Request for Comments: 4558 Category: Standards Track Cisco Systems D. Papadimitriou Alcatel June 2006

Updates: 2409 May 2005 Category: Standards Track. Algorithms for Internet Key Exchange version 1 (IKEv1)

Network Working Group Request for Comments: 3508 Category: Informational April H.323 Uniform Resource Locator (URL) Scheme Registration

Updates: 2710 September 2003 Category: Standards Track. Source Address Selection for the Multicast Listener Discovery (MLD) Protocol

Network Working Group. Category: Informational April A Uniform Resource Name (URN) Namespace for the Open Geospatial Consortium (OGC)

Request for Comments: 4755 Category: Standards Track December 2006

Request for Comments: 4633 Category: Experimental August 2006

Network Working Group Internet-Draft October 27, 2007 Intended status: Experimental Expires: April 29, 2008

Category: Informational October Common Format and MIME Type for Comma-Separated Values (CSV) Files

Category: Standards Track Redback Networks June 2008

Request for Comments: 5178 Category: Standards Track Isode Ltd. May 2008

Request for Comments: 4255 Category: Standards Track SPARTA January Using DNS to Securely Publish Secure Shell (SSH) Key Fingerprints

Network Working Group Request for Comments: Cisco Systems, Inc. June 2006

Network Working Group Request for Comments: 3937 Category: Informational October 2004

Network Working Group. February Media Gateway Control Protocol (MGCP) Redirect and Reset Package

Category: Informational Woven Systems May 2008

Network Working Group Request for Comments: 4603 Category: Informational Cisco Systems July Additional Values for the NAS-Port-Type Attribute

Network Working Group Internet-Draft January 25, 2006 Expires: July 29, Feed Rank draft-snell-atompub-feed-index-05.txt. Status of this Memo

Category: Standards Track March Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP) Transport Over TCP

Category: Standards Track May Transport Layer Security Protocol Compression Methods

Request for Comments: K. Norrman Ericsson June 2006

Network Working Group Request for Comments: February 2006

Request for Comments: 3932 October 2004 BCP: 92 Updates: 3710, 2026 Category: Best Current Practice

Category: Standards Track August 2002

Request for Comments: 4393 Category: Standards Track March MIME Type Registrations for 3GPP2 Multimedia Files

Intended status: Standards Track August 15, 2008 Expires: February 16, 2009

Network Working Group. Siemens Networks GmbH & Co KG February Online Certificate Status Protocol (OCSP) Extensions to IKEv2

Request for Comments: 4509 Category: Standards Track May Use of SHA-256 in DNSSEC Delegation Signer (DS) Resource Records (RRs)

Network Working Group Internet-Draft August 2005 Expires: February 2, Atom Link No Follow draft-snell-atompub-feed-nofollow-00.

Network Working Group Request for Comments: A. Zinin Alcatel-Lucent March OSPF Out-of-Band Link State Database (LSDB) Resynchronization

Transcription:

Network Working Group Request for Comments: 4759 Category: Standards Track R. Stastny Oefeg R. Shockey Neustar Inc. L. Conroy Roke Manor Research November 2006 Status of This Memo The ENUM Dip Indicator Parameter for the "tel" URI 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 IETF Trust (2006). Abstract This document defines a new parameter "enumdi" for the "tel" Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) to support the handling of ENUM queries in Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) network elements. A VoIP network element may receive a URI containing an E.164 number, where that URI contains an "enumdi" parameter. The presence of the "enumdi" parameter indicates that an ENUM query has already been performed on the E.164 number by a previous VoIP network element. Equally, if a VoIP network element sends such a URI, it asserts that an ENUM query has been carried out on this number. Stastny, et al. Standards Track [Page 1]

Table of Contents 1. Introduction...2 2. Terminology...2 3. Formal Syntax...3 4. Normative Rules...3 4.1. Options for ENUM Domain Providers...3 4.2. Client Behaviour for VoIP Network Elements...3 4.2.1. Handling a URI with the "enumdi" Parameter...3 4.2.2. Adding the "enumdi" Parameter to URIs...4 4.2.3. Handling a URI Retrieved from ENUM...4 5. Examples...4 6. Security Considerations...5 7. IANA Considerations...5 8. Acknowledgements...6 9. References...6 9.1. Normative References...6 9.2. Informative References...6 1. Introduction VoIP network elements (including User Agent Servers and User Agent Clients) may be set up in different ways to handle E.164 [3] numbers during call setup, depending on the capabilities provided. One common approach is to query ENUM as defined in RFC 3761 [4], and to use the set of NAPTR resource records that is returned. If the ENUM query leads to a result, the call is set up accordingly. If the ENUM query does not lead finally to a result, another database may be queried and/or the call may finally be routed to the Public Switched Telephone Network (PSTN). In doing so, the call may be routed to another VoIP network element. To indicate in signalling to this next VoIP element that an ENUM query has already been made for the "tel" URI (specified in RFC 3966 [5]), the "enumdi" parameter is used, to prevent the next VoIP network element from repeating redundant queries. 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, RFC 2119 [1]. Stastny, et al. Standards Track [Page 2]

3. Formal Syntax The following syntax specification uses the Augmented Backus-Naur Form (ABNF) as described in RFC 4234 [2] to extend the syntax of the "par" production defined in the ABNF of RFC 3966 [5]. par =/ enum-dip-indicator enum-dip-indicator = ";enumdi" The enum-dip-indicator is an optional parameter for the "tel" URI. Note also that enum-dip-indicator can appear at most once in any "tel" URI. 4. Normative Rules 4.1. Options for ENUM Domain Providers A domain provider can, at its choosing, populate a NAPTR record with a "tel" URI that contains the enum dip indicator. This would, as a consequence of the rules stated below, inform the client that it should not bother performing a query and pass the request on. 4.2. Client Behaviour for VoIP Network Elements This section discusses how a VoIP network element handles a received "tel" URI that contains the "enumdi" parameter or has queried ENUM in e164.arpa. for a given E.164 number. 4.2.1. Handling a URI with the "enumdi" Parameter If a VoIP network element receives a "tel" URI containing the "enumdi" parameter, the VoIP network element SHOULD NOT retrieve the related information for this number from ENUM in e164.arpa. even if it would normally do so. Note that the recipient network element may reasonably choose to query ENUM if it does not have a trust relationship with the immediate sender of the URI. If the "tel" URI (received from a trusted entity) is to be passed to the next network element, the VoIP network element MUST pass on the received URI containing the "enumdi" parameter unchanged. If, however, the URI has been received from an untrusted entity, then the recipient entity may either strip it before sending the URI onwards or instead carry out its own ENUM query and add the parameter accordingly to the URI (see next). Stastny, et al. Standards Track [Page 3]

4.2.2. Adding the "enumdi" Parameter to URIs When a VoIP network element queries ENUM in e164.arpa. for a given E.164 number and the result of the query is DNS error code 3 (commonly known as "NXDOMAIN"), then if that network element chooses to pass the call to another network element by using a "tel" URI, the "enumdi" parameter MUST be set. 4.2.3. Handling a URI Retrieved from ENUM When a VoIP network element queries ENUM in e164.arpa. for a given E.164 number and either: o the result of the query includes a NAPTR resource record containing a "tel" URI that has the same E.164 number, or o the result of the query includes a NAPTR resource record containing a "tel" URI with the "enumdi" parameter set, then if that retrieved "tel" URI is chosen to be passed to another network element, the sending VoIP network element MUST pass on the retrieved URI with the "enumdi" parameter set. When a VoIP network element queries ENUM in e164.arpa. for a given E.164 number and the result is a "tel" URI with a different E.164 number that lacks the enum dip indicator, the client can either perform another query against that number or pass the request on, as a matter of local policy. 5. Examples a. A VoIP network element called server.example.com receives a "tel" URI tel:+441632960038. The VoIP network element queries the DNS for NAPTR resource records in 8.3.0.0.6.9.2.3.6.1.4.4.e164.arpa., and gets an error response with code = 3 (commonly known as "NXDOMAIN"). The VoIP network element decides to route the call to the PSTN via another VoIP network element called gw.example.com. It therefore signals to the next VoIP network element with: tel:+441632960038;enumdi or (using the procedures of RFC 3261 [6] section 19.1.6): sip:+441632960038;enumdi@gw.example.com;user=phone Stastny, et al. Standards Track [Page 4]

b. A VoIP network element called server.example.com receives a "tel" URI tel:+441632960038. The VoIP network element queries the DNS for NAPTR resource records in 8.3.0.0.6.9.2.3.6.1.4.4.e164.arpa., and receives the same "tel" URI in reply (i.e., tel:+441632960038). The VoIP network element decides to route the call to the PSTN via another VoIP network element called gw.example.com. It therefore signals to this next VoIP network element with: tel:+441632960038;enumdi or (using the procedures of RFC 3261 [6] section 19.1.6): sip:+441632960038;enumdi@gw.example.com;user=phone 6. Security Considerations In addition to those security implications discussed in the "tel" URI [5] specification, there are new security implications associated with the defined parameter. If the "enumdi" is illegally inserted into the "tel" URI when the signalling message carrying the "tel" URI is en route to the destination entity, the call may be routed to the PSTN network, incurring unexpected charges or causing a downstream VoIP network element to reject the call setup. Many network elements that will process URIs containing this parameter will maintain trust relationships with others. If such a URI is received from an entity outside the trust boundary of the recipient, then that recipient entity may reasonably ignore it and make an ENUM query itself. In so doing, it can avoid this potential attack. It is less a problem if the "enumdi" is illegally removed. An additional ENUM query may be performed to retrieve the routing number information and have the "enumdi" included again. It is RECOMMENDED that protocols carrying the "tel" URI ensure message integrity during the message transfer between the two communicating network elements so as to detect any unauthorised changes to the content of the "tel" URI and other information. 7. IANA Considerations This document does not itself require any IANA actions. It does define a parameter for the "tel" URI. Further information on a registry for such parameters is covered in the IANA "tel" URI Parameter Registry [7]. Stastny, et al. Standards Track [Page 5]

8. Acknowledgements Many thanks for the thorough review provided by Alex Mayrhofer. 9. References 9.1. Normative References [1] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", RFC 2119, BCP 14, March 1997. [2] Crocker, D. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax Specifications: ABNF", RFC 4234, October 2005. [3] ITU-T, "The International Public Telecommunication Number Plan", Recommendation E.164, February 2005. [4] Faltstrom, P. and M. Mealling, "The E.164 to Uniform Resource Identifiers (URI) Dynamic Delegation Discovery System (DDDS) Application (ENUM)", RFC 3761, April 2004. [5] Schulzrinne, H., "The tel URI for Telephone Numbers", RFC 3966, December 2004. [6] Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., Camarillo, G., Johnston, A., Peterson, J., Sparks, R., Handley, M., and E. Schooler, "SIP: Session Initiation Protocol", RFC 3261, June 2002. 9.2. Informative References [7] Jennings, C. and V. Gurbani, "The Internet Assigned Number Authority (IANA) tel Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) Parameter Registry", Work in Progress, May 2006. Stastny, et al. Standards Track [Page 6]

Authors Addresses Richard Stastny Oefeg Postbox 147 1103 Vienna Austria Phone: +43-664-420-4100 EMail: Richard.stastny@oefeg.at Richard Shockey Neustar Inc. 46000 Center Oak Plaza Sterling, VA 20166 United States Phone: +1-571-434-5651 EMail: richard.shockey@neustar.biz Lawrence Conroy Roke Manor Research Roke Manor Romsey United Kingdom Phone: +44-1794-833666 EMail: lconroy@insensate.co.uk Stastny, et al. Standards Track [Page 7]

Full Copyright Statement Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (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, 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 ietf-ipr@ietf.org. Acknowledgement Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the Internet Society. Stastny, et al. Standards Track [Page 8]