Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)                      B. Hoeneisen
Request for Comments: 6117                             
Obsoletes: 3761                                             A. Mayrhofer
Category: Standards Track                              
ISSN: 2070-1721                                             J. Livingood
                                                              March 2011
                   IANA Registration of Enumservices:
                Guide, Template, and IANA Considerations



This document specifies a revision of the IANA Registration Guidelines for Enumservices, describes corresponding registration procedures, and provides a guideline for creating Enumservice Specifications.


Status of This Memo


This is an Internet Standards Track document.


This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has received public review and has been approved for publication by the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 5741.

このドキュメントはインターネットエンジニアリングタスクフォース(IETF)の製品です。これは、IETFコミュニティの総意を表しています。これは、公開レビューを受けており、インターネットエンジニアリング運営グループ(IESG)によって公表のために承認されています。インターネット標準の詳細については、RFC 5741のセクション2で利用可能です。

Information about the current status of this document, any errata, and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at


Copyright Notice


Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved.

著作権(C)2011 IETF信託とドキュメントの作成者として特定の人物。全著作権所有。

This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents ( in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License.

この文書では、BCP 78と、この文書の発行日に有効なIETFドキュメント(に関連IETFトラストの法律の規定に従うものとします。彼らは、この文書に関してあなたの権利と制限を説明するように、慎重にこれらの文書を確認してください。コードコンポーネントは、トラスト法規定のセクションで説明4.eおよび簡体BSDライセンスで説明したように、保証なしで提供されているよう簡体BSDライセンスのテキストを含める必要があり、この文書から抽出されました。

This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF Contributions published or made publicly available before November 10, 2008. The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process. Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other than English.


Table of Contents


   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   2.  Terminology  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   3.  Registration Requirements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     3.1.  Functionality Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     3.2.  Naming Requirements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     3.3.  Security Requirements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
     3.4.  Publication Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
   4.  Enumservice Creation Cookbook  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
     4.1.  General Enumservice Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
     4.2.  Classification, Type and Subtype . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
       4.2.1.  General Type/Subtype Considerations  . . . . . . . . .  9
       4.2.2.  Protocol-Based Enumservices Class  . . . . . . . . . . 10
       4.2.3.  Application-Based Enumservice Classes  . . . . . . . . 10
       4.2.4.  Data Type-Based Enumservice Class  . . . . . . . . . . 12
       4.2.5.  Other Enumservice  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
   5.  Required Sections and Information  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
     5.1.  Introduction (REQUIRED)  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
     5.2.  IANA Registration (REQUIRED) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
       5.2.1.  Enumservice Class (<class>)  . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
       5.2.2.  Enumservice Type (<type>)  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
       5.2.3.  Enumservice Subtype (<subtype>)  . . . . . . . . . . . 14
       5.2.4.  URI Scheme(s) (<urischeme>)  . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
       5.2.5.  Functional Specification (<functionalspec>)  . . . . . 15
       5.2.6.  Security Considerations (<security>) . . . . . . . . . 15
       5.2.7.  Intended Usage (<usage>) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
       5.2.8.  Enumservice Specification (<registrationdocs>) . . . . 16
       5.2.9.  Requesters (<requesters>)  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
       5.2.10. Further Information (<additionalinfo>) . . . . . . . . 17
     5.3.  Examples (REQUIRED)  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
     5.4.  Implementation Recommendations / Notes (OPTIONAL)  . . . . 18
     5.5.  DNS Considerations (REQUIRED)  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
     5.6.  Security Considerations (REQUIRED) . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
     5.7.  IANA Considerations (REQUIRED) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
     5.8.  Other Sections (OPTIONAL)  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
   6.  The Process of Registering New Enumservices  . . . . . . . . . 21
     6.1.  Step 1: Read This Document in Detail . . . . . . . . . . . 22
     6.2.  Step 2: Write and Submit Registration Document . . . . . . 22
     6.3.  Step 3: Request Comments From the IETF Community . . . . . 23
       6.3.1.  Outcome 1: No Changes Needed . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
       6.3.2.  Outcome 2: Changes, But No Further Comments
               Requested  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
       6.3.3.  Outcome 3: Changes and Further Comments Requested  . . 23
     6.4.  Step 4: Submit Registration Document to IANA . . . . . . . 24
     6.5.  Step 5: Expert Review  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
       6.5.1.  Outcome 1: Experts Approve the Registration
               Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
       6.5.2.  Outcome 2: Changes Required  . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
       6.5.3.  Outcome 3: Experts Reject the Registration Document  . 25
     6.6.  Step 6: Publication of the Registration Document . . . . . 25
     6.7.  Step 7: Adding Enumservice to the IANA Registry  . . . . . 25
   7.  Expert Review  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
     7.1.  Expert Selection Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
     7.2.  Review Guidelines  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
     7.3.  Appeals  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
   8.  Revision of Existing Enumservice Specifications  . . . . . . . 27
   9.  Extension of Existing Enumservice Specifications . . . . . . . 27
   10. Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
     10.1. Considerations Regarding This Document . . . . . . . . . . 28
     10.2. Enumservice Security Considerations Guideline  . . . . . . 28
   11. IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
     11.1. Registry Update  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
     11.2. Registration Template (XML chunk)  . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
     11.3. Location . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
     11.4. Structure  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
     11.5. Expert Review Procedure  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
     11.6. Registration Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
       11.6.1. Published as an RFC  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
       11.6.2. Published as a Non-RFC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
     11.7. Change Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
     11.8. Restrictions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
   12. Acknowledgments  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
   13. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
     13.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
     13.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
   Appendix A.  IANA Registration Template Examples . . . . . . . . . 36
   Appendix B.  Changes from RFC 3761 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
1. Introduction
1. はじめに

E.164 Number Mapping (ENUM) [RFC6116] provides an identifier mapping mechanism to map E.164 numbers [ITU.E164.2005] to Uniform Resource Identifiers (URIs) [RFC3986] using the Domain Name System (DNS) [RFC1035]. One of the primary concepts of ENUM is the definition of "Enumservices", which allows for providing different URIs for different applications of said mapping mechanism.

E.164番号マッピング(ENUM)[RFC6116]ユニフォームリソース識別子(URIの)にE.164番号[ITU.E164.2005]をマップする識別子マッピング機構を提供する[RFC3986]ドメインネームシステム(DNS)を使用して、[RFC1035] 。 ENUMの主要概念の一つは、マッピング機構の前記異なる用途に異なるURIを提供することができます「Enumservices」の定義です。

This document specifies a revision of the IANA registry for Enumservices, which was originally described in [RFC3761]. This document obsoletes Section 3 of RFC 3761 while RFC 6116 obsoletes RFC 3761.

この文書は、元々[RFC3761]で説明されたEnumservices、のためのIANAレジストリのリビジョンを指定します。 RFC 6116は、RFC 3761を廃止しながら、この文書は、RFC 3761のセクション3を廃止します。

The new registration processes, which are detailed in Section 6, have been specifically designed to be decoupled from the existence of the ENUM working group. Compared to RFC 3761, the main changes are as follows:

第6節で詳述されている新規登録プロセスは、特にENUMワーキンググループの存在から分離されるように設計されています。次のようにRFC 3761と比較すると、主な変更点は以下のとおりです。

o For an Enumservice to be inserted to the IANA registry, "Specification Required", which implies the use of a Designated Expert, according to "Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs" [RFC5226], are now sufficient.

O Enumserviceについては[RFC5226]を「RFCsにIANA問題部に書くためのガイドライン」に従って、指定された専門家の使用を意味IANAレジストリ、「仕様が必要」に挿入されるように、今で十分です。

o The IANA Registration Template has been supplemented with elements for "Enumservice Class" and "Enumservice Specification".

O IANA登録テンプレートは、「Enumserviceクラス」と「Enumservice仕様」の要素を補ってきました。

The IETF's ENUM Working Group has encountered an unnecessary amount of variation in the format of Enumservice Specifications. The ENUM Working Group's view of what particular information is required and/or recommended has also evolved, and capturing these best current practices is helpful in both the creation of new Enumservice Specifications, as well as the revision or refinement of existing Enumservice Specifications.


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 [RFC2119].

この文書のキーワード "MUST"、 "MUST NOT"、 "REQUIRED"、、、、 "べきではない" "べきである" "ないもの" "ものとし"、 "推奨"、 "MAY"、および "OPTIONAL" はあります[RFC2119]に記載されているように解釈されます。

For the purpose of this document:


o "Registration Document" refers to a draft specification that defines an Enumservice and proposes its registration following the procedures outlined herein.


o "Enumservice Specification" refers to a Registration Document that has been approved by the experts and published according to "Specification Required" as defined in [RFC5226].


3. Registration Requirements

As specified in the Augmented Backus-Naur Form (ABNF, [RFC5234]) found in Section 3.4.3 of [RFC6116], an Enumservice is made up of Types and Subtypes. For any given Type, the allowable Subtypes (if any) must be defined in the Enumservice Specification. There is currently no concept of a registered Subtype outside the scope of a given Type.

[RFC6116]のセクション3.4.3に見られる増補バッカス - ナウアフォーム(ABNF、[RFC5234])で指定されるように、Enumserviceは型およびサブタイプで構成されています。任意のタイプの場合、許容サブタイプは、(もしあれば)Enumservice仕様で定義する必要があります。指定された型の範囲外の登録サブタイプの概念は現在ありません。

While the combination of each Type and all of its Subtypes constitutes the allowed values for the "Enumservice" field, it is not sufficient to just list their allowed values. To allow for interoperability, a complete Enumservice Specification MUST document the semantics of the Type and Subtype values to be registered, and MUST contain all sections listed in Section 5 of this document.


Furthermore, in order for an Enumservice to be registered, the entire Registration Document requires approval by the experts according to "Specification Required", which implies the use of a Designated Expert, as set out in "Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs" [RFC5226] and Section 7.2 of this document.


All Enumservice Specifications are expected to conform also to various requirements laid out in the following sections.


3.1. Functionality Requirements
3.1. 機能要件

A registered Enumservice must be able to function as a selection mechanism for choosing one Naming Authority Pointer (NAPTR) [RFC3403] DNS Resource Record (RR) from a set of such RRs. That means the Enumservice Specification MUST define how to use the NAPTR RR and the URI(s) the NAPTR RR resolves to.

登録Enumserviceは、RRのセットから権限ポインタ(NAPTR)[RFC3403] DNSリソースレコード(RR)を命名いずれかを選択するための選択機構として機能することができなければなりません。すなわちEnumservice仕様はNAPTR RRはに解決NAPTR RRおよびURI(複数可)を使用する方法を定義しなければならないことを意味します。

Specifically, a registered Enumservice MUST specify the URI Scheme(s) that may be used for the Enumservice, and, when needed, other information that will have to be transferred into the URI resolution process itself.


3.2. Naming Requirements
3.2. 要件の命名

The name of an Enumservice MUST be unique in order to be useful as a selection criteria:


o The Type MUST be unique.


o The Subtype (being dependent on the Type) MUST be unique within a given Type.


Types and Subtypes MUST conform to the ABNF specified in Section 3.4.3 of [RFC6116].


The ABNF specified in Section 3.4.3 of [RFC6116] allows the "-" (dash) character for Types and Subtypes. To avoid confusion with possible future prefixes, a "-" MUST NOT be used as the first nor as the second character of a Type nor a Subtype. Furthermore, a "-" MUST NOT be used as the last character of a Type nor a Subtype. In addition, Types and Subtypes are case insensitive and SHOULD be specified in lowercase letters.

「 - 」型およびサブタイプのために(ダッシュ)文字[RFC6116]のセクション3.4.3で指定されたABNFができます。将来の接頭辞、Aとの混同を避けるために、「 - 」最初としてNOR型やサブタイプの2番目の文字として使用してはいけません。さらに、「 - 」タイプでもサブタイプの最後の文字として使用してはいけません。また、型およびサブタイプは、大文字と小文字を区別しないと小文字で指定する必要があります。

Note: The legacy IANA registry of Enumservices contains Type and Subtype strings with uppercase letters. Implementors could be tempted to refuse handling uppercase Type or Subtype strings, which could negatively affect interoperability.


To avoid confusion with Enumservice fields using a deprecated (obsolete) syntax, Type and Subtype MUST NOT start with the string "e2u".


The Subtype for one Type MAY have the same identifier as a Subtype for another Type, but it is not sufficient to simply reference another Type's Subtype. The functionality of each Subtype MUST be fully specified in the context of the Type being registered.


Section 4 contains further naming requirements.


3.3. Security Requirements
3.3. セキュリティ要件

An analysis of security issues is REQUIRED for all registered Enumservices. (This is in accordance with the basic requirements for all IETF protocols.)

セキュリティ問題の分析は、すべての登録Enumservicesに必要です。 (これは、すべてのIETFプロトコルのための基本的な要件に従ったものです。)

All descriptions of security issues MUST be as accurate and extensive as feasible. In particular, a statement that there are "no security issues associated with this Enumservice" must not be confused with "the security issues associated with this Enumservice have not been assessed".


There is no requirement that an Enumservice must be completely free of security risks. Nevertheless, all known security risks MUST be identified in an Enumservice Specification.


Some of the issues to be looked at in a security analysis of an Enumservice are:


1. Complex Enumservices may include provisions for directives that institute actions on a user's resources. In many cases provision can be made to specify arbitrary actions in an unrestricted fashion which may then have devastating results (especially if there is a risk for a new ENUM look-up, and because of that an infinite loop in the overall resolution process of the E.164 number).


2. Complex Enumservices may include provisions for directives that institute actions which, while not directly harmful, may result in disclosure of information that either facilitates a subsequent attack or else violates the users' privacy in some way.


3. An Enumservice might be targeted for applications that require some sort of security assurance but do not provide the necessary security mechanisms themselves. For example, an Enumservice could be defined for storage of confidential security services information such as alarm systems or message service passcodes, which in turn require an external confidentiality service.


3.4. Publication Requirements
3.4. 出版の要件

Enumservices Specifications MUST be published according to the requirements for "Specification Required" set out in "Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs" [RFC5226]. RFCs fulfill these requirements. Therefore, it is strongly RECOMMENDED to publish Enumservice Specifications as RFCs.

Enumservicesの仕様は、「RFCでIANA問題部に書くためのガイドライン」に定める「仕様が必要」[RFC5226]の要件に応じて公開する必要があります。 RFCはこれらの要件を満たしています。したがって、強くRFCとしてEnumservice仕様を公開することをお勧めします。

In case the Enumservice Specification is not published as an RFC, sufficient information that allows unique identification of the Enumservice Specification MUST be provided.


4. Enumservice Creation Cookbook
4. Enumservice作成クックブック
4.1. General Enumservice Considerations
4.1. 一般Enumserviceの考慮事項

ENUM is an extremely flexible identifier mapping mechanism, using E.164 (phone) numbers as input identifiers, and returning URIs as output identifiers. Because of this flexibility, almost every use case for ENUM could be implemented in several ways.


Section 2 of "Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs" [RFC5226] provides motivation for why management of a namespace might be necessary. Even though the namespace for Enumservices is rather large (up to 32 alphanumeric characters), there are reasons to manage this in accordance with Section 2 of [RFC5226]. The following is a list of motivations applying to Enumservices: o Prevent hoarding or wasting of values: Enumservice Types are not an opaque identifier to prevent collisions in the namespace, but rather identify the use of a certain technology in the context of ENUM. Service Types might also be displayed to end users in implementations, so meaningful Type strings having a clear relation to the protocols and applications used are strongly RECOMMENDED. Therefore, preventing hoarding, wasting, or "hijacking" of Enumservice Type strings is important.

「RFCでIANA問題部に書くためのガイドライン」[RFC5226]の第2節では、名前空間の管理が必要になることがあります理由の動機を提供します。 Enumservicesの名前空間は、(英数字32文字まで)かなり大きい場合であっても、[RFC5226]のセクション2に応じてこれを管理するための理由があります。以下はEnumservicesに適用する動機のリストです:値の防止の買いだめや消耗○:Enumserviceタイプは、名前空間での衝突を防ぐために、不透明な識別子ではなく、むしろENUMの文脈における特定の技術の使用を特定します。サービスタイプも実装でエンドユーザーに表示されることがありますので、使用されるプロトコルやアプリケーションへの明確な関係を持つ意味のあるタイプの文字列が強く推奨されています。そのため、買いだめ、消耗、またはEnumserviceタイプ文字列の「ハイジャック」を防止することが重要です。

o Sanity check to ensure sensible or necessary requests: This applies to Enumservices, since especially various Enumservices for the same purpose would reduce the chance of successful interoperability, and unnecessarily increase confusion among implementers.


o Delegation of namespace portions: Theoretically, the Type and/or Subtype structure of Enumservices would allow for delegations of Type values, and self-supporting management of Subtype values by a delegate within the Type value. Such delegates could, for example, be other standardization bodies. However, this would require clear policies regarding publication and use of such Subtypes. Delegation of Enumservice namespace portions is therefore currently not supported.

O名前空間部の委任:理論的には、タイプ及び/又はEnumservicesのサブタイプの構造は、タイプ値の委任を可能にする、タイプ値内デリゲートによってサブタイプ値の自立管理あろう。このような代表団は、例えば、他の標準化団体である可能性があります。しかし、これは出版物と、そのようなサブタイプの使用に関する明確な方針を必要とします。 Enumservice名前空間部分の代表団は、したがって、現在サポートされていません。

o Interoperability: Since the benefit of an Enumservice rises with the number of supporting clients, the registration and use of several services for a similar or identical purpose clearly reduces interoperability. Operational circumstances suggest to keep the space occupied by all services published in the NAPTR RRSet at any owner in the domain bounded. Registration of nearly identical services and subsequent competing or parallel use could easily increase the DNS operational complexity.


Generally, before commencing work on a new Enumservice registration, the following should be considered:


o Is there an existing Enumservice that could fulfill the desired functionality without overloading it? Check the IANA Enumservice Registry at <>.

oはそれをオーバーロードすることなく、所望の機能を果たすことができ、既存のEnumserviceはありますか? <>でIANA Enumserviceレジストリをチェックしてください。

o Is there work in progress, or previous work, on a similar Enumservice? Check the <> mailing list archives at <>, and search the Internet-Drafts Archive at <>. Some Internet-Drafts may have expired and no longer be available in the Internet-Drafts Archive, or some work on Enumservices may have been considered outside the IETF; therefore, we also recommend a web search.

oは同様のEnumserviceに、進捗状況、または前の仕事でそこに働きますか? <>で<>メーリングリストのアーカイブを確認し、<HTTPでインターネットドラフトアーカイブを検索://>。いくつかのインターネットドラフトの有効期限が切れていないと、もはやインターネットドラフトアーカイブで利用できる、またはEnumservices上のいくつかの作業は、IETFの外に考えられてきたかもしれたかもしれません。そのため、我々はまた、ウェブ検索をお勧めします。

o Section 4.2 provides three general categories for Enumservice classification. In some cases, there might be several options for designing an Enumservice. For example, a mapping service using HTTP could be considered a "protocol Type" Enumservice (using HTTP as the protocol), while it could also be viewed as an "application Type" Enumservice, with the application providing access to mapping services. In such a case where several options are available, defining use cases before commencing work on the Enumservice itself might be useful before making a decision on which aspect of the Enumservice is more important.


4.2. Classification, Type and Subtype
4.2. 分類、タイプとサブタイプ

Because of their flexibility, Enumservices can be and are used in a lot of different ways. This section contains a classification of Enumservices, and provides guidance for choosing suitable Type and Subtype strings for each individual Enumservice Class.


The Classification of each Enumservice MUST be listed in the Registration Document (see Section 5.2). If the Enumservice cannot be assigned to one of the classes outlined below, the Registration Document MUST contain a section on the difficulties encountered while trying to classify the service to help the experts in their decision.

各Enumserviceの分類は、登録文書に記載されている必要があります(5.2節を参照してください)。 Enumserviceは以下のとおりクラスの1つに割り当てることができない場合は、登録文書は、彼らの意思決定の専門家を支援するサービスを分類しようとしているときに遭遇する困難のセクションを含まなければなりません。

4.2.1. General Type/Subtype Considerations
4.2.1. 一般的なタイプ/サブタイプの考慮事項

To avoid confusion, the name of a URI Scheme MUST NOT be used as a Type string for an Enumservice that is not specifically about the respective protocol or URI Scheme. For example, the Type string "imap" would be inadequate for use in an Enumservice about "Internet mapping" services, because it corresponds to an existing URI Scheme / protocol for something different.


If Subtypes are defined, the minimum number SHOULD be two (including the empty Subtype, if defined). The choice of just one possible Subtype for a given Type does not add any information when selecting an ENUM record, and hence can be left out completely. However, potential future expansion of a Type towards several Subtypes may justify the use of Subtypes, even in the case that just one is currently defined, as noted in Section 9.


It is perfectly legal under a certain Type to mix the Enumservice without a Subtype (empty Subtype) with Enumservices containing a Subtype. In that case, however, the Enumservice with an empty Subtype SHOULD be specified to reflect the base service, while the other Enumservices SHOULD be specified to reflect variants.


4.2.2. Protocol-Based Enumservices Class
4.2.2. プロトコルベースEnumservicesクラス

Such an Enumservice indicates that an interaction using the named protocol will result for use of this NAPTR. The expected behavior of a system using this Enumservice MUST be clear from the protocol.


A good indication that an Enumservice belongs to this Class is the fact that a client does not need to understand the actual application to make use of an instance of this Enumservice.


Examples of such Enumservices include "xmpp" [RFC4979] and "sip" [RFC3764].

そのようなEnumservicesの例としては、 "XMPP" [RFC4979]及び "SIP" [RFC3764]を含みます。 Protocol-Based Enumservice "Type" Strings。プロトコルベースのEnumservice「タイプ」の文字列

A protocol-based Enumservice SHOULD use the lowercase name of the protocol as its Type string. Names as registered in the IANA Port Number Registry (<>, defined in Section 8 and 9 of [RFC2780]) are preferred.

プロトコルベースEnumserviceは、そのタイプの文字列などのプロトコルの小文字の名前を使用する必要があります。 IANAポート番号のレジストリに登録されているように名前(<>、セクション8に記載の9 [RFC2780])が好ましいです。 Protocol-Based Enumservice "Subtype" Strings。プロトコルベースのEnumservice「サブタイプ」の文字列

Where there is a single URI Scheme associated with this protocol, a Subtype SHOULD NOT be specified for the Enumservice.


Where there are a number of different URI Schemes associated with this protocol, the Enumservice Specification MAY use the empty Subtype for all URI Schemes that it specifies as mandatory to implement. For each URI Scheme that is not mandatory to implement, a distinct Subtype string MUST be used.


If Subtypes are defined, it is RECOMMENDED to use the URI Scheme name as the Subtype string.


4.2.3. Application-Based Enumservice Classes
4.2.3. アプリケーションベースのEnumserviceクラス

Application-based Enumservices are used when the kind of service intended is not fully defined by a protocol specification. There are three cases here:

意図したサービスの種類が完全プロトコル仕様によって定義されていないときに、アプリケーションベースEnumservicesが使用されます。 3例はここにあります。

o Common Application Enumservice:

一般的なアプリケーションEnumservice O:

The application reflects a kind of interaction that can be realized by different protocols, but where the intent of the publisher is the same. From a user's perspective, there is a common kind of interaction -- how that interaction is implemented is not important. The Enumservice Specification MUST describe the interaction and expected behavior in enough detail that an implementation can decide if this activity is one in which it can engage. However, it is RECOMMENDED that the Enumservice be defined in a way that will allow others to use it at a later date. An Enumservice that defines a generalized application is preferred to one that has narrow use.

アプリケーションは、異なるプロトコルで実現することができる相互作用の種類を反映しているが、どこ出版社の意図は同じです。実装されている相互作用が重要ではないか - ユーザーの視点からは、相互作用の一般的な種類があります。 Enumservice仕様は、この活動は、それが係合することができるものである場合には実装が決めることができることを十分に詳細に相互作用し、期待される動作を説明しなければなりません。しかし、Enumserviceは、他の人が後日それを使用できるようになりますように定義することをお勧めします。一般的なアプリケーションを定義Enumserviceは狭い用途を有するものに好適です。

An example of this flavor of Enumservice is email. Whilst this might appear to be a "pure" protocol scheme, it is not. The URI Scheme is 'mailto', and it does not identify the protocol used to offer or retrieve emails by the sender or the recipient.

Enumserviceのこの味の例では、電子メールです。これは「純粋な」プロトコルスキームのように見えるかもしれない一方で、そうではありません。 URIスキームは「MAILTO」であり、それは、送信者や受信者が電子メールを提供するか、または取得するために使用されるプロトコルを識別しません。

Another example is the Short Messaging Service (SMS), where the existence of such an Enumservice indicates that the publishing entity is capable of engaging in sending or receiving a message according to the SMS specifications. The underlying protocol used and the URI Scheme for the addressable end point can differ, but the "user visible" interaction of sending and receiving an SMS is similar.


o Subset Enumservice:


The application interaction reflects a subset of the interactions possible by use of a protocol. Use of this Enumservice indicates that some options available by use of the protocol will not be accepted or are not possible in this case. Any such Enumservice Specification MUST define the options available by use of this NAPTR in enough detail that an implementation can decide whether or not it can use this Enumservice. Examples of this kind of Enumservice are "voice:tel" and "fax:tel". In both cases, the URI holds a telephone number. However, the essential feature of these Enumservices is that the telephone number is capable of receiving a voice call or of receiving a Facsimile transmission, respectively. These form subsets of the interactions capable of using the telephone number, and so have their own Enumservices. These allow an end point to decide if it has the appropriate capability to engage in the advertised user service (a voice call or sending a fax) rather than just being capable of making a connection to such a destination address. This is especially important where there is no underlying mechanism within the protocol to negotiate a different kind of user interaction.

アプリケーションの相互作用は、プロトコルの使用によって可能な相互作用のサブセットを反映します。このEnumserviceの使用は、プロトコルを使用することにより利用できるいくつかのオプションが受け入れられないか、この場合では不可能であることを示します。任意のそのようEnumservice仕様の実装は、それがこのEnumserviceを使用できるかどうかを決めることができることを十分に詳細にこのNAPTRの使用によって利用可能なオプションを定義しなければなりません。 Enumserviceのこの種の例としては、「音声:TEL」であり、「ファックス:TEL」。どちらの場合も、URIは、電話番号を保持しています。しかし、これらのEnumservicesの本質的な特徴は、電話番号が音声通話を受信するか、それぞれ、ファクシミリ送信を受信することが可能であるということです。これらのフォームの電話番号を使用することが可能な相互作用のサブセットなどが独自Enumservicesを有します。これらは、それが広告を出してユーザーのサービス(音声通話やファクスを送信)に従事するための適切な能力を持っている場合、エンドポイントは、まさにそのような宛先アドレスへの接続を行うことが可能なのではなく、決定することができます。ユーザインタラクションの異なる種類を交渉するためのプロトコル内には基本的なメカニズムが存在しない場合に特に重要です。

o Ancillary Application Enumservice


Another variant on this is the Ancillary Application. This is one in which further processing (potentially using a number of different protocols or methods) is the intended result of using this Enumservice. An example of this kind of application is the "pstn:tel" Enumservice. This indicates that the NAPTR holds number portability data. It implies that the client should engage in number portability processing using the associated URI. Note that this Enumservice usually does not itself define the kind of interaction available using the associated URI. That application is negotiated with some other "out of band" means (either through prior negotiation, or explicitly through the number portability process, or through negotiation following the selection of the final destination address).

この上の他の変形は、補助的なアプリケーションです。これは、更なる処理の(潜在的に異なるプロトコルまたは多数の方法を使用して)このEnumserviceを使用することを意図した結果であるものです。 Enumservice:この種のアプリケーションの例では、「TEL PSTN」です。これは、NAPTRは、番号ポータビリティのデータを保持していることを示しています。これは、クライアントが関連付けられているURIを使用して処理する番号ポータビリティに従事しなければならないことを意味します。このEnumserviceは通常、自身が関連付けられているURIを使用して、使用可能な相互作用の種類を定義していないことに注意してください。そのアプリケーションは、いくつかの他の「帯域外」手段(いずれかの前のネゴシエーションを介して、または明示的に番号ポータビリティの処理を経て、又は交渉を経て、最終的な送信先アドレスの選択以下)と交渉します。 Application-Based Enumservice "Type" Strings。アプリケーションベースのEnumservice「タイプ」の文字列

It is recommended that Application-class Enumservices use the lowercase well-known name of the abstract application as the Type string.

アプリケーションクラスのEnumservicesは、タイプ文字列として抽象アプリケーションの小文字のよく知られた名前を使用することをお勧めします。 Application-Based Enumservice "Subtype" Strings。アプリケーションベースのEnumservice「サブタイプ」の文字列

It is RECOMMENDED that the URI Scheme(s) used by the application be used as the Subtype string(s). Subtype strings MAY be shared between URI Schemes, if all the URI Schemes within the same Subtype are mandatory to implement.


If it is foreseen that there is only one URI Scheme ever to be used with the application, the empty Subtype string MAY be used.


4.2.4. Data Type-Based Enumservice Class
4.2.4. データ型に基づくEnumserviceクラス

"Data Type" Enumservices typically refer to a specific data type or format, which may be addressed using one or more URI Schemes and protocols. Examples of such Enumservices include "vpim" [RFC4238] and "vcard" [RFC4969].

「データタイプ」Enumservicesは、典型的には、1つの以上のURIスキームおよびプロトコルを使用して対処することができる特定のデータ・タイプまたはフォーマットを指します。そのようなEnumservicesの例としては、 "VPIM" [RFC4238]及び "vCardの" [RFC4969]を含みます。 Data Type-Based Enumservice "Type" Strings。データ型に基づくEnumservice「タイプ」の文字列

It is recommended to use the lowercase well known name of the data type or format name as the Type string.

タイプ文字列としてデータ型または形式名の小文字良く知られている名前を使用することをお勧めします。 Data Type-Based Enumservice "Subtype" Strings。データ型に基づくEnumservice「サブタイプ」の文字列

It is RECOMMENDED to use the URI Schemes used to access the service as Subtype strings. Subtype strings MAY be shared between URI Schemes, if all the URI Schemes within the same Subtype are mandatory to implement.


If there is only one URI Scheme foreseen to access the data type or format, the empty Subtype string MAY be used.


4.2.5. Other Enumservice
4.2.5. その他Enumservice

In case an Enumservice proposal cannot be assigned to any of the classes mentioned above, the <class> element (Enumservice Class) in the IANA Registration Template (see Section 5.2) MUST be populated with "Other". In that case, the Enumservice Specification MUST contain a section elaborating on why the Enumservice does not fit into the classification structure.


5. Required Sections and Information

There are several sections that MUST appear in an Enumservice Specification. These sections are as follows, and they SHOULD be in the given order.


The following terms SHOULD begin with a capital letter, whenever they refer to the IANA Registration: o Class o Type o Subtype o URI Scheme

URIスキームOクラスO O型サブタイプ○:彼らはIANAの登録を参照してくださいするたびに、次の用語は、大文字で始める必要があります

5.1. Introduction (REQUIRED)
5.1. はじめに(REQUIRED)

An introductory section MUST be included. This section will explain, in plain English, the purpose and intended use of the proposed Enumservice registration.


The Introduction SHOULD start with a short sentence about ENUM, introduce the protocol used in the Enumservice, and discuss the Enumservice as it refers from the E.164 number to the protocol or service.


5.2. IANA Registration (REQUIRED)
5.2. IANA登録(必須)

This section MUST be included in an Enumservice Specification. Where a given Enumservice Type has multiple Subtypes, there MUST be a separate "IANA Registration" section for each Subtype. The following sections list the elements that are to be used in the XML-chunk-based Registration Template of an "IANA Registration" section.


5.2.1. Enumservice Class (<class>)
5.2.1. Enumserviceクラス(<クラス>)

This element contains the Class of the Enumservice as defined in Section 4.2. Its value MUST be one of (without quotes):


o "Protocol-Based": The Enumservice belongs to the Protocol-based class as described in Section 4.2.2.


o "Application-Based, Common": The Enumservice is a "common" case of the Application-based class as described in Section 4.2.3.


o "Application-Based, Subset": The Enumservice belongs to the "subset" case of the Application-based class as described in Section 4.2.3.


o "Application-Based, Ancillary": The Enumservice is an "ancillary" case of the Application-based class, as described in Section 4.2.3.


o "Data Type-Based": The Enumservice belongs to the Data Type-Based class as described in Section 4.2.4.


o "Other": The majority of the functionality of the Enumservice does not fall into one of the classes defined.


Class Example




5.2.2. Enumservice Type (<type>)
5.2.2. Enumserviceタイプ(<タイプ>)

The Type of the Enumservice. All Types SHOULD be listed in lower-case. The choice of Type depends on the Enumservice Class. Please find further instructions in Section 4.


Type Example



<タイプ> FOO </タイプ>

5.2.3. Enumservice Subtype (<subtype>)
5.2.3. Enumserviceサブタイプ(<サブタイプ>)

The Subtype of the Enumservice. All Subtypes SHOULD be listed in lower-case. The choice of Subtype depends on the Enumservice Class. Should the Enumservice not utilize a Subtype, then the <subtype> element MUST be omitted in the IANA Registration Template. If a given Enumservice Type has multiple Subtypes, then there MUST be a separate IANA Registration Template for each Subtype. Please find further instructions in Section 4.

Enumserviceのサブタイプ。すべてのサブタイプは小文字で表示される必要があります。サブタイプの選択はEnumserviceクラスに依存します。 Enumserviceは、サブタイプを使用してはならない、そして、<サブタイプ>要素は、IANAの登録テンプレートに省略しなければなりません。与えられたEnumserviceタイプは複数のサブタイプがある場合は、各サブタイプに対して個別のIANA登録テンプレートがあるに違いありません。第4節では、指示を見つけてください。

Subtype Example




5.2.4. URI Scheme(s) (<urischeme>)
5.2.4. URIスキーム(S)(<urischeme>)

The URI Schemes [RFC3986] that are used with the Enumservice. The selection of URI Schemes often depends on the Enumservice Class, Type, and/or Subtype. A colon MUST NOT be placed after the URI Scheme name. If there is more than one URI Scheme, then one <urischeme> element per URI scheme MUST be used in the IANA Registration Template. Please find further instructions in Section 4.

Enumserviceと共に使用されるURIスキーム[RFC3986]。 URIスキームの選択はしばしばEnumserviceクラス、タイプ、および/またはサブタイプに依存します。コロンは、URIスキーム名の後に置かれてはなりません。複数のURIスキームが存在する場合、URIスキームにつき1 <urischeme>要素は、IANAの登録テンプレートで使用する必要があります。第4節では、指示を見つけてください。

URI Scheme Example


<urischeme>bar</urischeme> <urischeme>sbar</urischeme>

<urischeme>バー</ urischeme> <urischeme> SBAR </ urischeme>

Note: A client cannot choose a specific ENUM record in a record set based on the URI Scheme - the selection is only based on Type and Subtype, in accordance with [RFC3402].

注意:クライアントは、URIスキームに基づいてレコードセット内の特定のENUMレコードを選択することはできません - 選択はのみタイプとサブタイプに基づいており、[RFC3402]に従いました。

5.2.5. Functional Specification (<functionalspec>)
5.2.5. 機能仕様(<functionalspec>)

The Functional Specification describes how the Enumservice is used in connection with the URI to which it resolves.


Functional Specification Example


              This Enumservice indicates that the resource
              identified can be addressed by the associated
              URI in order to foo the bar.

Where the terms used are non-obvious, they should be defined in the Enumservice Specification, or a reference to an external document containing their definition should be provided.


5.2.6. Security Considerations (<security>)
5.2.6. セキュリティに関する注意事項(<セキュリティ>)

A reference to the "Security Considerations" section of a given Enumservice Specification.


Security Considerations Example


            See <xref type="rfc" data="rfc4979"/>, Section 6.
5.2.7. Intended Usage (<usage>)
5.2.7. 使用目的(<使い方>)

One of the following values (without quotes):


o "COMMON": Indicates that the Enumservice is intended for widespread use on the public Internet, and that its scope is not limited to a certain environment.


o "LIMITED USE": Indicates that the Enumservice is intended for use on a limited scope, for example in private ENUM-like application scenarios. The use case provided in the Enumservice Specification should describe such a scenario.

o「は限られた使用は、」:EnumserviceはプライベートENUMのようなアプリケーション・シナリオでは、たとえば、限定された範囲で使用することを意図していることを示します。 Enumservice仕様に設けられたユースケースは、そのようなシナリオを記述するべきです。

o "DEPRECATED": Indicates that the Enumservice has been declared deprecated (Section 11.7) and is not to be used in new deployments. Applications SHOULD however expect to encounter legacy instances of this Enumservice.


Intended Usage Example



<使用方法> COMMON </使い方>

5.2.8. Enumservice Specification (<registrationdocs>)
5.2.8. Enumservice仕様(<registrationdocs>)

Reference(s) to the Document(s) containing the Enumservice Specification.


Enumservice Specification Examples


<registrationdocs> <xref type="rfc" data="rfc4979"/> </registrationdocs>

<registrationdocs> <XREFタイプ= "RFC" データ= "rfc4979" /> </ registrationdocs>



<registrationdocs> <xref type="rfc" data="rfc2026"/> (obsoleted by RFC 2551) <xref type="rfc" data="rfc2551"/> </registrationdocs>

<registrationdocs> <XREFタイプ= "RFC" データ= "RFC2026" />(RFC 2551によって廃止)<XREFタイプ= "RFC" データ= "rfc2551" /> </ registrationdocs>



<registrationdocs> [International Telecommunications Union, "Enumservice Specification for Foobar", ITU-F Recommendation B.193, Release 73, Mar 2009.] </registrationdocs>

<registrationdocs> [国際電気通信連合、 "FOOBARのためEnumservice仕様"、ITU-F勧告B.193、リリース73、マル2009] </ registrationdocs>

5.2.9. Requesters (<requesters>)
5.2.9. リクエスタ(<リクエスタ>)

The persons requesting the registration of the Enumservice. Usually these are the authors of the Enumservice Specification.


Requesters Example


<requesters> <xref type="person" data="John_Doe"/> </requesters>

<リクエスタ> <外部参照タイプ= "人" データ= "john_doeなど" /> </リクエスタ>



<people> <person id="John_Doe"> <name>John Doe</name> <org>ACME Research and Development Inc.</org> <uri></uri> <updated>2008-11-20</updated> </person> </people>

<人> <人のid = "john_doeなど"> <名前>ジョン・ドウ</名前> <組織> ACME研究開発株式会社</ ORG> <URI>のmailto:。 </ URI> <更新> 2008-11-20 </更新> </人> </人>

If there is more than one requester, there MUST be one <xref> element per requester in the <requesters> element, and one <person> chunk per requester in the <people> element.

複数の依頼者がある場合は、<リクエスタ>要素で依頼者ごとに、<外部参照>要素、および<人>要素で依頼者につき1 <人>のチャンクがあるに違いありません。

5.2.10. Further Information (<additionalinfo>)
5.2.10. 詳細情報(<additionalinfo>)

Any other information the authors deem interesting, including artwork.


Further Information Example


<additionalinfo> <paragraph>more info goes here</paragraph> </additionalinfo>

<additionalinfo> <パラグラフ>詳細をここに</パラグラフ> </ additionalinfo>

Note: If there is no such additional information, then the <additionalinfo> element is omitted.


5.3. Examples (REQUIRED)
5.3. 例(REQUIRED)

This section MUST show at least one example of the Enumservice being registered, for illustrative purposes. The example(s) shall in no way limit the various forms that a given Enumservice may take, and this should be noted at the beginning of this section of the document. The example(s) MUST show the specific formatting of the intended NAPTRs (according to [RFC3403] and [RFC6116]), including one or more NAPTR example(s), AND a brief textual description, consisting of one or more sentences written in plain English, explaining the various parts or attributes of the record(s).


The example(s) SHOULD contain a brief description how a client supporting this Enumservice could behave, if that description was not already given in, e.g., the Introduction or the Functional Specification.


The example(s) SHOULD follow any relevant IETF guidelines on the use of domain names, phone numbers, and other resource identifier examples, such as [RFC2606].


For example: $ORIGIN @ IN NAPTR 100 10 "u" "E2U+foo:bar" "!^.*$!bar://!" .

例:$原点。 @ NAPTR 100 10 "U" "E2U + FOO:バー" "^ * $バー:!。!!//" 。

5.4. Implementation Recommendations / Notes (OPTIONAL)
5.4. 実装の推奨事項/注意事項(オプション)

Recommendations that pertain to implementation and/or operations SHOULD be included. Such a section is helpful to someone reading an Enumservice Specification and trying to understand how best to use it to support their network or service.


5.5. DNS Considerations (REQUIRED)
5.5. DNSの考慮事項(必須)

In case the inclusion of protocols and URI Schemes into ENUM specifically introduces new DNS issues, those MUST be described within this section.


Such DNS issues include, but are not limited to:


o Assumptions about ownership or administrative control of the namespace.


o Requirement or need to use DNS wildcards.


o Incompatibility with DNS wildcards.


o Presence or absence of respective NAPTR Resource Records at particular levels in the DNS hierarchy (e.g., only for "full" E.164 numbers or wildcards only).


o Use of any Resource Records (especially non-NAPTR) within or beyond the namespace other than those needed to resolve the domain names that appear in the "replacement" URI.


o Potential for significant additional load on the nameserver chain due to use of the service, and the mitigation of such additional load.


o Mitigation of potential for DNS loops, specifically in cases where the result URI of an Enumservice might be used to trigger additional (subsequent) ENUM queries. This applies in particular to Enumservices using the 'tel' URI Scheme [RFC3966] or any other (future) URI Scheme using (E.164) numbers. "The ENUM Dip Indicator Parameter for the tel URI" [RFC4759] provides an example of a loop mitigation mechanism.

O DNSのための潜在的なの軽減は、特にEnumserviceの結果URIが追加の(後続の)ENUMクエリーをトリガするために使用されるかもしれない場合には、ループ。これは、「TEL」URIスキーム[RFC3966]または任意の他の(将来の)URIスキームは、(E.164)番号を使用してを使用してEnumservicesに当てはまります。 「TEL URIのENUMディップインジケータパラメータ」[RFC4759]はループ緩和機構の例を提供します。

Rationale: some Enumservices try to exploit side effects of the DNS that need to be explicitly discussed.


5.6. Security Considerations (REQUIRED)
5.6. セキュリティの考慮事項(必須)

A section explaining any potential security threats that are especially applicable to the given registration MUST be included. This MUST also include any information about access to Personally Identifiable Information (PII).


An Enumservice Specification SHOULD NOT include general and obvious security recommendations, such as securing servers with strong password authentication.


For additional background, please note that [RFC3552] provides guidance to write a good Security Considerations section. In addition, [RFC6116] already outlines security considerations affecting ENUM as a whole. Enumservice Specifications do not need to and SHOULD NOT repeat considerations already listed in that document. However, Enumservice Specifications SHOULD include a reference to that section.

追加の背景については、[RFC3552]は良いSecurity Considerations部を書き込むためのガイダンスを提供していますのでご注意下さい。また、[RFC6116]は、すでに全体としてENUMに影響を与えるセキュリティ上の考慮事項の概要を説明します。 Enumservice仕様にする必要はありませんし、すでにその文書に記載されている注意事項を繰り返しすべきではありません。しかし、Enumservice仕様は、そのセクションへの参照を含むべきです。

Also, ENUM refers to resources using existing URI Schemes and protocols. Enumservice Specifications do not need to and SHOULD NOT repeat security considerations affecting those protocols and URI Schemes themselves.

また、ENUMは、既存のURIスキームとプロトコルを使用してリソースを指します。 Enumservice仕様にする必要はありませんし、これらのプロトコルとURIスキームそのものに影響を与えるセキュリティ上の配慮を繰り返しすべきではありません。

However, in some cases, the inclusion of those protocols and URI Schemes into ENUM specifically could introduce new security issues. In these cases, those issues or risks MUST be covered in the "Security Considerations" section of the Enumservice Specification. Authors should pay particular attention to any indirect risks that are associated with a proposed Enumservice, including cases where the proposed Enumservice could lead to the discovery or disclosure of Personally Identifiable Information (PII).


5.7. IANA Considerations (REQUIRED)
5.7. IANAの考慮事項(必須)

Describe the task IANA needs to fulfill to process the Enumservice Registration Document.


For example: This document requests the IANA registration of the Enumservice with Type "foo" and Subtype "bar" according to the definitions in this document, [RFC6117], and [RFC6116].


For example: This document requests an update of the IANA registration of the Enumservice Type "foo" with Subtype "bar", according to the definitions in this document, [RFC6117], and [RFC6116]. Therefore, in the existing IANA registration for this Enumservice, the <registrationdocs> element (Enumservice Specification) is enhanced by adding a supplementary reference that points to this document.


For example: This document requests an update of the IANA registration of the Enumservice Type "foo" with all its Subtypes, in order to declare it deprecated. Therefore, in the existing IANA registration for this Enumservice, the <usage> element (Intended Usage) is changed to "DEPRECATED", and the <registrationdocs> element (Enumservice Specification) is enhanced by adding a supplementary reference that points to this document.


5.8. Other Sections (OPTIONAL)
5.8. 他のセクション(オプション)

Other sections beyond those required above MAY be included in an Enumservice Specification. These sections may relate to the specifics of the intended use of the Enumservice registration, as well as to any associated technical, operational, administrative, or other concerns.


A use case SHOULD be included by the authors of the proposal, so that experts can better understand the problem the proposal seeks to solve (intended use of the Enumservice). The inclusion of such a use case will both accelerate the Expert Review process, as well as make any eventual registration easier to understand and implement by other parties.


6. The Process of Registering New Enumservices

This section is an illustration of the process by which a new Enumservice Registration Document is submitted for review and comment, how such proposed Enumservices are reviewed, and how they are published. This section is a non-normative description of the process. The normative process is described in [RFC5226].


Figure 1 shows what authors of a Registration Document describing an Enumservice must carry out before said Registration Document can be formally submitted to IANA for Expert Review. Figure 2 shows the process from Expert Review onwards.


                     | Step 1: Read this document |
                   | Step 2:  Write R-D and submit |
             | Step 3:  Announce R-D and solicit feedback |<--+
             +--------------------------------------------+   |
                                  |                           |
                                  V                           |
                                 .^.                          |
                               .     .                        |
   +------------+            .  Feed-  .               +------------+
   | Update R-D |<---------<    back     >------------>| Update R-D |
   | and submit |  non-sub-  . results .   substantial | and submit |
   +------------+  stantial    . in: .     changes     +------------+
         |         changes       . .       needed
         |         needed         Y
         |                        | no changes needed
         |                        V
         |         +-----------------------------+
         +-------->| Step 4:  Submit R-D to IANA |

R-D: Registration Document


Figure 1


6.1. Step 1: Read This Document in Detail
6.1. ステップ1:詳細にこのドキュメントを読みます

This document, particularly in Sections 3, 4, and 5, describes all of the recommended and required sections, as well as requirements and suggestions for content of an Enumservice Specification.


6.2. Step 2: Write and Submit Registration Document
6.2. ステップ2:登録文書を書き、提出

An Internet-Draft (or another specification as appropriate) must be written and made publicly available (submitted). The Registration Document shall follow the guidelines according to Sections 4 and 5 of


this document. The Review Guidelines for experts are defined in Section 7.2.


6.3. Step 3: Request Comments From the IETF Community
6.3. ステップ3:IETFコミュニティからの要求のコメント

The authors shall send an email to <>, in which comments on the Registration Document are requested. A proper public reference (a URL is recommended) to the Registration Document must be included in this email.


Note: The ENUM WG mailing list <> will be kept open after conclusion of the ENUM WG.

注:ENUM WGメーリングリストは、<> ENUM WGの結論後に開いたままになります。

The authors should allow a reasonable period of time to elapse, such as two to four weeks, in order to collect any feedback. The authors then consider whether or not to take any of those comments into account, by making changes to the Registration Document and submitting a revision, or otherwise proceeding. The following outcomes are open to the authors. The choice of path is left to the authors' judgement.


Note: Whatever the outcome is, the experts performing the Expert Review later in the process are not bound to any decision during this phase.


6.3.1. Outcome 1: No Changes Needed
6.3.1. 成果1:必要な変更なし

No changes to the Registration Document are made, and the authors proceed to Step 4 below.


This outcome is recommended when the feedback received does not lead to a new revision of the Registration Document.


6.3.2. Outcome 2: Changes, But No Further Comments Requested
6.3.2. 成果2:変更、しかし、それ以上のコメント要求

The authors update the Registration Document and is/are confident that all issues are resolved and do not require further discussion. The authors proceed to Step 4 below.


This outcome is recommended when minor objections have been raised, or minor changes have been suggested.


6.3.3. Outcome 3: Changes and Further Comments Requested
6.3.3. 成果3:変更し、要求されたさらなるコメント

The authors update and submit the Registration Document, and proceed to Step 3 above, which involves sending another email to <> to request additional comments for the updated version.


This outcome is recommended when substantial objections have been raised, or substantial changes have been suggested.


6.4. Step 4: Submit Registration Document to IANA
6.4. ステップ4:IANAに登録書類を提出

The authors submit the Registration Document to IANA (using the <> website) for Expert Review.


                       | Step 5: Expert Review |<-------------+
                       +-----------------------+              |
                                  |                           |
                                  V                           |
                                 .^.                          |
                               .     .                        |
     .---------.             .  Expert .               +------------+
    ( Bad luck! )<-------- <    Review   >------------>| Update R-D |
     `---------'   experts   . results .   changes     | and submit |
                   reject      . in: .     required    +------------+
                                 . .
                                  | experts approve
                | Step 6: Publication of R-D        |
           | Step 7: Adding Enumservice to IANA Registry |

R-D: Registration Document


Figure 2


6.5. Step 5: Expert Review
6.5. ステップ5:エキスパートレビュー

IANA will take care of the "Expert Review" according to [RFC5226]. The Expert Review guidelines are outlined in Section 7.2 of this document. The authors must be prepared for further interaction with IANA and the experts.


6.5.1. Outcome 1: Experts Approve the Registration Document
6.5.1. 成果1:専門家は、登録文書を承認します

No (more) changes to the Registration Document are made. IANA will inform the authors, who then will proceed to Step 6 below.

登録文書へんが(もっと)の変更は行われません。 IANAは、以下のステップ6に進みます作家を、お知らせいたします。

6.5.2. Outcome 2: Changes Required
6.5.2. 成果2:必要な変更

The experts might require changes before they can approve the Registration Document. The authors update and submit the Registration Document. The authors inform the experts about the available update, who then continue the Expert Review Process.


6.5.3. Outcome 3: Experts Reject the Registration Document
6.5.3. 成果3:専門家は、登録文書を拒否します

The expert might reject the Registration, which means the Expert Review process is discontinued.


6.6. Step 6: Publication of the Registration Document
6.6. ステップ6:登録文書の出版

The authors are responsible for ensuring that the Registration Document is published according to "Specification Required" as defined in [RFC5226].


As set out in Section 3.4 it is strongly RECOMMENDED that Enumservice Specifications be published RFCs. As to every RFC, the normal IETF publication process applies (see [Instructions2authors]); i.e., the Registration Document is submitted in the form of an Internet Draft (e.g. via an IETF Working Group or a sponsoring Area Director). [Instructions2authors] also contains an option to publish an RFC as 'Independent Submission', which is further described in "Independent Submissions to the RFC Editor" [RFC4846].

3.4節に記載されたとして、強くEnumservice仕様はRFCを公表することが推奨されます。すべてのRFCのように、通常のIETF公開プロセスは、([Instructions2authors]参照)適用されます。すなわち、登録文書は、(例えば、IETFワーキンググループやスポンサーエリアディレクターを経て)インターネットドラフトの形で提出されます。 【Instructions2authors】また、「RFC編集者への独立した投稿」[RFC4846]に記載されている「独立提出」としてRFCを公開するためのオプションを含んでいます。

6.7. Step 7: Adding Enumservice to the IANA Registry
6.7. ステップ7:IANAレジストリにEnumserviceを追加します

In cases where the Registration Document is to be published as an RFC, the RFC publication process ensures that IANA will add the Enumservice to the registry.


In cases where the Registration Document is to be published in a specification other than RFC, the authors must inform IANA, as soon as the Enumservice Specification has been published according to "Specification Required" as defined in [RFC5226]. The <registrationdocs> element in the IANA Registration Template must contain an unambiguous reference to the Enumservice Specification (see also Section 5.2). In addition, the authors must provide IANA with a stable URL to the Enumservice Specification, in order that IANA may obtain the information included in the Enumservice Specification. IANA will then add the Enumservice to the registry.

登録文書がRFC以外の仕様で公開する場合には、作者はEnumservice仕様は、[RFC5226]で定義されている「仕様が必要」に応じて公開されているとすぐに、IANAに通知しなければなりません。 IANA登録テンプレートの<registrationdocs>要素(セクションも5.2を参照してください)Enumservice仕様への明確な言及が含​​まれている必要があります。また、著者は、IANAがEnumservice仕様に含まれる情報を得ることができるようにするために、Enumservice仕様に安定したURLでIANAを提供しなければなりません。 IANAは、レジストリにEnumserviceを追加します。

7. Expert Review
7.1. Expert Selection Process
7.1. エキスパート選択プロセス

According to Section 3.2 of [RFC5226], experts are appointed by the IESG. The IESG is responsible for ensuring that there is always a sufficient pool of experts available.

[RFC5226]の3.2節によると、専門家はIESGによって任命されています。 IESGは、利用可能な専門家の十分なプールが常にあることを保証する責任があります。

7.2. Review Guidelines
7.2. レビューガイドライン

Generally, the "Expert Review" process of an Enumservice follows the guidelines documented in Section 3.3 of "Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs" [RFC5226]. Note that RFC 5226 says 'The review may be wide or narrow, depending on the situation and the judgment of the designated expert'. Therefore, the following list should be considered a guideline, rather than a binding list.

一般的に、Enumserviceの「エキスパートレビュー」プロセスは、[RFC5226]「RFCでIANA問題部に書くためのガイドライン」のセクション3.3で文書化されたガイドラインに従います。そのRFC 5226が「レビュー状況と指定された専門家の判断に応じて、幅の広いまたは狭いかもしれ」と言う注意してください。そのため、以下のリストは、ガイドラインではなく、バインディングリストと考えるべきです。

In case of conflicts between [RFC5226] and the guidelines in this section, [RFC5226] remains authoritative.


The expert evaluates the criteria as set out in [RFC5226], and should additionally consider the following:


o Verify conformance with the ENUM specification [RFC6116].

O ENUM仕様[RFC6116]との適合性を確認します。

o Verify that the requirements set out in this document (Sections 3 and 5) are met. This includes checking for completeness and whether all the aspects described in Sections 3 and 5 are sufficiently addressed.


o If a use case is provided, the experts should verify whether the proposed Enumservice does actually match the use case. The experts should also determine whether the use case could be covered by an existing Enumservice.


o Verify that the Enumservice proposed cannot be confused with identical (or similar) other Enumservices already registered.

O Enumserviceが既に登録された他の同一の(または類似の)Enumservicesと混同することができない提案ことを確認します。

o If the Enumservice is classified according to Section 4.2, the experts must verify that the principles of the Class in question are followed.


o In case the Enumservice is not classified, the experts must verify whether a convincing reason for the deviation is provided in the Registration Document.


o Investigate whether the proposed Enumservice has any negative side effects on existing clients and infrastructure, particularly the DNS.


o If the output of processing an Enumservice might be used for input to more ENUM processing (especially services returning 'tel' URIs), the experts should verify that the authors have adequately addressed the issue of potential query loops.


7.3. Appeals
7.3. 控訴

Appeals of Expert Review decisions follow the process described in Section 7 of [RFC5226] and Section 6.5 of [RFC2026].


8. Revision of Existing Enumservice Specifications

Many Enumservice registrations, published via IETF RFCs, already exist at the time of the development of this document. These existing Enumservice Specifications MAY be revised to comply with the specifications contained herein. All revisions of Enumservice Specifications MUST be compliant with the specifications contained herein.

IETFのRFC経由で発行され、多くのEnumservice登録は、すでにこのドキュメントの現像時に存在しています。これらの既存のEnumservice仕様は、本書に含まれる仕様に準拠するように変更されることがあります。 Enumservice仕様のすべての改訂は、ここに含まれる仕様に準拠している必要があります。

Note: Enumservice Specifications updated only by [RFC6118] are not compliant with the specifications contained herein!


9. Extension of Existing Enumservice Specifications

There are cases where it is more sensible to extend an existing Enumservice registration rather than propose a new one. Such cases include adding a new Subtype to an existing Type. Depending on the nature of the extension, the original Enumservice Specification needs to be extended (Updates) or replaced (Obsoletes) [RFC2223]. Specifically, an update is appropriate when a new Subtype is being added without changes to the existing repertoire. A replacement is needed if there is a change to the default, or changes to the assumptions of URI support in clients.


Any Enumservice Specifications for existing Enumservices that are extended MUST comply with the specifications contained herein. As a consequence, revisions of existing Enumservice Specifications may be required according to Section 8.


10. Security Considerations
10.1. Considerations Regarding This Document
10.1. この文書に関する考慮事項

Since this document does not introduce any new technology, protocol, or Enumservice Specification, there are no specific security issues to be considered for this document. However, as this is a guide to authors of new Enumservice Specifications, the next section should be considered closely by authors and experts.


10.2. Enumservice Security Considerations Guideline
10.2. Enumserviceセキュリティの考慮事項ガイドライン

Guidelines concerning the Security Considerations section of an Enumservice Specification can be found in Section 5.6.

Enumservice仕様のSecurity Considerations部に関するガイドラインは、セクション5.6に記載されています。

11. IANA Considerations
11. IANAの考慮事項
11.1. Registry Update
11.1. レジストリの更新

IANA updated the registry "Enumservice Registrations" as defined in (this) Section 11, which replaces the old mechanism as defined in [RFC3761].


It is noted that the process described herein applies only to ordinary Enumservice registrations (i.e., the registration process of "X-" Enumservices is beyond the scope of this document, and as per [RFC6116] "P-" Enumservices will not be registered at all).


11.2. Registration Template (XML chunk)
11.2. 登録テンプレート(XMLチャンク)
             <class> <!-- Enumservice Class --> </class>
             <type> <!-- Type --> </type>
             <subtype> <!-- Subtype --> </subtype>
             <urischeme> <!-- URI Schema Name --> </urischeme>
             <urischeme> <!-- another URI Schema Name --> </urischeme>
                 <!-- Text that explains the functionality of
                      the Enumservice to be registered -->
                 <!-- Security Considerations of the
                      Enumservice to be registered -->
             <usage> <!-- COMMON, LIMITED USE, or OBSOLETE --> </usage>

<!-- Change accordingly --> <xref type="rfc" data="rfc2551"/> </registrationdocs> <requesters> <!-- Change accordingly --> <xref type="person" data="John_Doe"/> <xref type="person" data="Jane_Dale"/> </requesters> <additionalinfo> <paragraph> <!-- Text with additional information about the Enumservice to be registered --> </paragraph> <artwork> <!-- There can be artwork sections, too --> :-) </artwork> </additionalinfo> </record>

<! - 変化に応じて - > <外部参照タイプ= "RFC" データ= "rfc2551" /> </ registrationdocs> <リクエスタ> <! - それに応じて変更します - > <外部参照タイプ= "人" データ= "john_doeなど"/> <XREFタイプ=" 人」データ= "Jane_Dale" /> </リクエスタ> <additionalinfo> <パラグラフ> <! - 登録するEnumserviceに関する追加情報をテキスト - > </パラグラフ> <アートワーク> <! - あまりにも、アートワークのセクションが存在することができます - > :-) </アートワーク> </ additionalinfo> </記録>

<people> <person id="John_Doe"> <name> <!-- Firstname Lastname --> </name> <org> <!-- Organisation Name --> </org> <uri> <!-- mailto: or http: URI --> </uri> <updated> <!-- date format YYYY-MM-DD --> </updated> </person> <!-- repeat person section for each person --> </people>

<人> <人のID = "john_doeなど"> <名前> <! - 名姓 - > </名前> <組織> <! - 組織名 - > </ ORG> <URI> <! - mailto:またはhttp:!!URI - > </ URI> <更新> < - 日付形式YYYY-MM-DD - > </更新> </人> < - それぞれの人のためのリピート者セクション - > </人>

Authors of an Enumservice Specification are encouraged to use these XML chunks as a template to create the IANA Registration Template. Examples for the use of this template are contained in Appendix A.


11.3. Location
11.3. ロケーション

Approved Enumservice registrations are published in the IANA registry named "Enumservice Registrations", which is available at the following URI: <>.


This registry publishes representations derived from the IANA Registration Template as described in Section 11.2 and specified in Section 5.2.


Where the Enumservice Specification is not an RFC, IANA must hold an escrow copy of that Enumservice Specification. Said escrow copy will act as the master reference for that Enumservice registration.


11.4. Structure
11.4. 構造

IANA maintains the Enumservice Registry sorted in alphabetical order. The first sort field is Type, the second is Subtype.


[RFC6118] updates the existing Enumservices by transforming them into the new XML-chunk-based IANA Registration Template (see also Section 8).


11.5. Expert Review Procedure
11.5. 専門家レビュー手順

Whenever a Registration Document is submitted via the IANA website, IANA will take care of the "Expert Review" process according to "Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs" [RFC5226].


To prevent clashes, IANA will check whether a request with identical "type:subtype" (or "type" without Subtype) was submitted for Expert Review earlier and will inform the experts accordingly. The experts are authorized to resolve clashes as they see fit. The requesters may need to update their registration request before getting expert approval.


Once the experts have conditionally approved the Enumservice, IANA will inform the authors. This information should also include a reminder that (i) the authors are now responsible for publication of the Registration Document (see also Section 6.6) and (ii) the Enumservice will be added to the IANA registry only after its Enumservice Specification is published according to the "Specification Required" policy as defined in [RFC5226] (see also Section 6.7).


Note: After sending the approval note to the authors, IANA has no further responsibilities besides keeping internal records of approved Registration Documents. IANA will be involved again at registration of the Enumservice (see Section 11.6).

注意:作成者に承認ノートを送信した後、IANAが承認された登録書類の内部記録を維持する以外に何もさらに責任を持ちません。 IANAはEnumserviceの登録時に再び関与することになります(11.6節を参照してください)。

11.6. Registration Procedure
11.6. 登録手順

There is a slight difference in process depending on whether or not the Enumservice Specification will be published as an RFC. The reason for this difference lies in the current RFC publication process that includes IANA interaction shortly before publication of an RFC.


11.6.1. Published as an RFC
11.6.1. RFCとして公開

As per the RFC publication process, IANA will receive the Enumservice Specification to carry out IANA actions shortly before publication of the RFC. The IANA action will be to register the Enumservice, i.e., add the Enumservice to the IANA "Enumservice Registrations" registry (see also Section 11.3).

RFCの公開プロセスごととして、IANAは、まもなくRFCの公表前に、IANAのアクションを実行するためにEnumservice仕様を受け取ることになります。 IANAのアクションは、すなわち、IANA「Enumservice登録」レジストリ(セクションも11.3を参照)にEnumserviceを追加し、Enumserviceを登録することになります。

IANA must only add Enumservices to the Registry, if the experts have (conditionally) approved the corresponding Enumservice Specification. IANA should attempt to resolve possible conflicts arising from this together with the experts. In case there are substantial changes between the (conditionally) approved and the to be published version, IANA may reject the request after consulting the experts.

IANAは専門家だけが持っている場合(条件付き)対応Enumservice仕様を承認し、レジストリにEnumservicesを追加する必要があります。 IANAは、専門家と一緒に、このから生じる可能性競合を解決しようとすべきです。場合(条件付き)承認されたバージョンを発表することとの間に実質的な変更がある、IANAは、専門家に相談した後、要求を拒否することができます。

IANA must ensure that any further substantial changes the Enumservice Specification might undergo before final RFC publication are approved by the experts.


Note: Clearly editorial changes (such as typos) or minor changes in purely editorial sections (such as Authors' Addresses, Acknowledgments, References, and alike) are not considered substantial.


11.6.2. Published as a Non-RFC
11.6.2. 非RFCとして公開されました

Once the authors have informed IANA about the publication, IANA must ensure that the requirements for "Specification Required" as defined in [RFC5226] are met, the reference to the specification is unambiguous, and the content of the Enumservice Specification is identical to the Registration Document as approved by the experts. IANA will then register the Enumservice, i.e., add the Enumservice to the IANA "Enumservice Registrations" registry, and make an escrow copy (see also Section 11.3).

著者は、出版物についてIANAに通知した後、IANAは[RFC5226]で定義されている「仕様が必要」の要件が満たされていることを確認する必要があり、仕様への参照はあいまいであり、Enumservice仕様の内容は、登録と同じです専門家によって承認された文書。 IANAは、その後、すなわち、Enumserviceを登録IANA「Enumservice登録」レジストリにEnumserviceを追加し、エスクローコピーを作成します(セクション11.3を参照してください)。

IANA must only add Enumservices to the Registry, if the experts have approved the corresponding Enumservice Specification. IANA should attempt to resolve possible conflicts arising from this together with the experts. In case there are substantial changes between the approved and the published version, IANA may reject the request after consulting the experts.

専門家が対応するEnumservice仕様を承認した場合はIANAにのみ、レジストリにEnumservicesを追加する必要があります。 IANAは、専門家と一緒に、このから生じる可能性競合を解決しようとすべきです。場合は、認可されたと発表されたバージョンとの間に実質的な変更がある、IANAは、専門家に相談した後、要求を拒否することができます。

Note: Clearly editorial changes (such as typos) or minor changes in purely editorial sections (such as Authors' Addresses, Acknowledgments, References, and alike) are not considered substantial.


11.7. Change Control
11.7. 変更管理

Change control of any Enumservice registrations is done by "Specification Required", which implies the use of a Designated Expert, according to [RFC5226]. Updates of Enumservice Specifications MUST comply with the requirements described in this document. Updates are handled the same way as initial Enumservice registrations.

任意のEnumservice登録の変更管理は、[RFC5226]によると、指定エキスパートを使用することを意味「仕様が必要」によって行われます。 Enumservice仕様の更新は、この文書に記載されている要件を遵守しなければなりません。更新は初期Enumservice登録と同じように処理されます。

Authorized Change Controllers are the experts and the IESG.


Enumservice registrations must not be deleted. An Enumservice that is believed to be no longer appropriate for use can be declared deprecated by publication of a new Enumservice Specification, changing the Enumservice <usage> element (Intended Usage) to "DEPRECATED"; such Enumservices will be clearly marked in the lists published by IANA. As obsoletions are updates, they are also handled the same way as initial Enumservice registrations. Alternatively, Enumservices may be declared deprecated by an IESG action.

Enumservice登録は削除しないでください。使用のためにもはや適切であると考えられていないEnumserviceは、「非推奨」にEnumservice <使用>要素(使用目的)を変更、新しいEnumservice仕様の刊行によって非難宣言することができます。このようEnumservicesは明らかにIANAによって公表リストにマークされます。 obsoletionsがアップデートされているとして、彼らはまた、初期Enumservice登録と同じように処理されます。また、EnumservicesはIESGの作用で非推奨と宣言することができます。

11.8. Restrictions
11.8. 制限事項

As stated in Section 3.2, a "-" (dash) MUST NOT be used as the first nor as the second nor as the last character of a Type or a Subtype. Furthermore, Type or Subtype of any Enumservice MUST NOT be set to, nor start with, "E2U". Any Enumservice registration requests not following these restrictions must be rejected by IANA, and the Expert Review process should not be initiated.

3.2節で述べたように、「 - 」(ダッシュ)は、第一としても、第二として、NOR型またはサブタイプの最後の文字として使用してはいけません。さらに、任意のEnumserviceのタイプまたはサブタイプがに設定され、また、「E2U」で始まるしてはなりません。これらの制限は、次のいずれかのないEnumservice登録要求はIANAによって拒否されなければならない、と専門家レビュー・プロセスを開始するべきではありません。

Section 5.2 contains examples for Enumservice registrations. Therefore, IANA must not register an Enumservice with Type or Subtype set to "foo", "bar", or "sbar", unless the experts explicitly confirm an exception.


12. Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the following people who have provided feedback or significant contributions to the development of this document: Jari Arkko, Stewart Bryant, Gonzalo Camarillo, Lawrence Conroy, Michelle Cotton, Miguel Garcia, David Harrington, Alfred Hoenes, Ari Keranen, Peter Koch, Edward Lewis, Alexey Melnikov, Jon Peterson, Pekka Savola, and Peter Saint-Andre.


Lawrence Conroy has provided extensive text for the Enumservice Classification section.


Section 3 of [RFC3761], which was edited by Patrik Faltstrom and Michael Mealling, has been incorporated into this document. Please see the Acknowledgments section in RFC 3761 for additional acknowledgments.

パトリックFaltstromとマイケル・メオーリングによって編集された[RFC3761]のセクション3は、本文書に組み込まれています。追加の承認については、RFC 3761での謝辞のセクションを参照してください。

13. References
13.1. Normative References
13.1. 引用規格

[RFC2026] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, October 1996.

[RFC2026]ブラドナーの、S.、 "インターネット標準化プロセス - リビジョン3"、BCP 9、RFC 2026、1996年10月。

[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

[RFC2119]ブラドナーの、S.、 "要件レベルを示すためにRFCsにおける使用のためのキーワード"、BCP 14、RFC 2119、1997年3月。

[RFC3402] Mealling, M., "Dynamic Delegation Discovery System (DDDS) Part Two: The Algorithm", RFC 3402, October 2002.

[RFC3402] Mealling、M.、 "ダイナミックな委譲発見システム(DDDS)パート2:アルゴリズム"、RFC 3402、2002年10月。

[RFC3403] Mealling, M., "Dynamic Delegation Discovery System (DDDS) Part Three: The Domain Name System (DNS) Database", RFC 3403, October 2002.

[RFC3403] Mealling、M.、 "ダイナミックな委譲発見システム(DDDS)パート3:ドメインネームシステム(DNS)データベース"、RFC 3403、2002年10月。

[RFC3761] Faltstrom, P. and M. Mealling, "The E.164 to Uniform Resource Identifiers (URI) Dynamic Delegation Discovery System (DDDS) Application (ENUM)", RFC 3761, April 2004.

[RFC3761] Faltstrom、P.とM. Mealling、RFC 3761、2004年4月 "統一資源識別子(URI)ダイナミックな委譲発見システム(DDDS)アプリケーション(ENUM)へのE.164"。

[RFC3986] Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax", STD 66, RFC 3986, January 2005.

[RFC3986]バーナーズ - リー、T.、フィールディング、R.、およびL. Masinter、 "ユニフォームリソース識別子(URI):汎用構文"、STD 66、RFC 3986、2005年1月。

[RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226, May 2008.

[RFC5226] Narten氏、T.とH. Alvestrand、 "RFCsにIANA問題部に書くためのガイドライン"、BCP 26、RFC 5226、2008年5月。

[RFC6116] Bradner, S., Conroy, L., and K. Fujiwara, "The E.164 to Uniform Resource Identifiers (URI) Dynamic Delegation Discovery System (DDDS) Application (ENUM)", RFC 6116, March 2011.

[RFC6116]ブラドナーの、S.、コンロイ、L.、およびK.藤原、 "統一資源識別子にE.164(URI)ダイナミックな委譲発見システム(DDDS)アプリケーション(ENUM)"、RFC 6116、2011年3月。

13.2. Informative References
13.2. 参考文献

[ITU.E164.2005] International Telecommunications Union, "The International Public Telecommunication Numbering Plan", ITU-T Recommendation E.164, Feb 2005.

[ITU.E164.2005]国際電気通信連合、 "国際公共電気通信番号計画"、ITU-T勧告E.164、2005年2月。

[Instructions2authors] Reynolds, J. and R. Braden, "Instructions to Request for Comments (RFC) Authors", RFC Editor http://, August 2004.

[Instructions2authors]レイノルズ、J.、およびR.ブレーデン、 "コメント(RFC)作者の要求への指示"、RFCエディタのhttp://、2004年8月。

[RFC1035] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - implementation and specification", STD 13, RFC 1035, November 1987.

[RFC1035] Mockapetris、P.、 "ドメイン名 - 実装及び仕様"、STD 13、RFC 1035、1987年11月。

[RFC2223] Postel, J. and J. Reynolds, "Instructions to RFC Authors", RFC 2223, October 1997.

[RFC2223]ポステル、J.、およびJ.レイノルズ、RFC 2223、1997年10月 "RFC作者への指示"。

[RFC2606] Eastlake, D. and A. Panitz, "Reserved Top Level DNS Names", BCP 32, RFC 2606, June 1999.

[RFC2606]イーストレイク、D.とA. Panitz、 "予約トップレベルDNS名"、BCP 32、RFC 2606、1999年6月。

[RFC2780] Bradner, S. and V. Paxson, "IANA Allocation Guidelines For Values In the Internet Protocol and Related Headers", BCP 37, RFC 2780, March 2000.

[RFC2780]ブラドナー、S.とV.パクソン、 "インターネットプロトコルと関連ヘッダーの値のためのIANA配分ガイドライン"、BCP 37、RFC 2780、2000年3月。

[RFC3552] Rescorla, E. and B. Korver, "Guidelines for Writing RFC Text on Security Considerations", BCP 72, RFC 3552, July 2003.

[RFC3552]レスコラ、E.とB.コーバー、BCP 72、RFC 3552、2003年7月、 "セキュリティ上の考慮事項の書き方RFCテキストのためのガイドライン"。

[RFC3764] Peterson, J., "enumservice registration for Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Addresses-of-Record", RFC 3764, April 2004.

[RFC3764]ピーターソン、J.、 "セッション開始プロトコル(SIP)アドレス・オブ・レコードのenumservice登録"、RFC 3764、2004年4月。

[RFC3966] Schulzrinne, H., "The tel URI for Telephone Numbers", RFC 3966, December 2004.

[RFC3966] Schulzrinneと、H.、 "電話番号については、TEL URI"、RFC 3966、2004年12月。

[RFC4238] Vaudreuil, G., "Voice Message Routing Service", RFC 4238, October 2005.

[RFC4238]ヴォードルイユ、G.、 "ボイスメッセージルーティング・サービス"、RFC 4238、2005年10月。

[RFC4759] Stastny, R., Shockey, R., and L. Conroy, "The ENUM Dip Indicator Parameter for the "tel" URI", RFC 4759, December 2006.

[RFC4759] Stastny、R.、ショッキー、R.、およびL.コンロイ、 "ENUMディップインジケータパラメータの "TEL" URI"、RFC 4759、2006年12月。

[RFC4846] Klensin, J. and D. Thaler, "Independent Submissions to the RFC Editor", RFC 4846, July 2007.

[RFC4846] Klensin、J.とD.ターラー、 "RFC編集者への独立の提出"、RFC 4846、2007年7月。

[RFC4969] Mayrhofer, A., "IANA Registration for vCard Enumservice", RFC 4969, August 2007.

[RFC4969] Mayrhofer、A.、 "vCardのEnumserviceのためのIANA登録"、RFC 4969、2007年8月。

[RFC4979] Mayrhofer, A., "IANA Registration for Enumservice 'XMPP'", RFC 4979, August 2007.

[RFC4979] Mayrhofer、A.、 "Enumservice 'XMPP' のIANA登録"、RFC 4979、2007年8月。

[RFC5234] Crocker, D. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax Specifications: ABNF", STD 68, RFC 5234, January 2008.

[RFC5234]クロッカー、D.、およびP. Overell、 "構文仕様のための増大しているBNF:ABNF"、STD 68、RFC 5234、2008年1月。

[RFC6118] Hoeneisen, B. and A. Mayrhofer, "Update of Legacy IANA Registrations of Enumservices", RFC 6118, March 2011.

[RFC6118] Hoeneisen、B.とA. Mayrhofer、RFC 6118 "EnumservicesのレガシーIANA登録の更新"、2011年3月。

Appendix A. IANA Registration Template Examples

付録A. IANA登録テンプレートの例

This section contains non-normative examples of the XML-chunk-based IANA Registration Template:


This is the first example:


                 This Enumservice indicates that the resource
                 can be addressed by the associated URI in
                 order to send an email.
               See <xref type="rfc" data="rfc4355"/>, Section 6.
               <xref type="rfc" data="rfc4355"/>
               <xref type="person" data="Lawrence_Conroy"/>

<people> <person id="Lawrence_Conroy"> <name>Lawrence Conroy</name> <org>Siemens Roke Manor Research</org> <uri></uri> <updated>2008-11-20</updated> </person> </people>

<人> <人のID = "Lawrence_Conroy"> <名前>ローレンスコンロイ</名前> <組織>シーメンスRokeマナーリサーチ</ ORG> <URI>の </ URI> <更新> 2008年11月20日</更新> </人> </人>

This is the second example.


                 This Enumservice indicates that the
                 resource identified is an XMPP entity.
               See <xref type="rfc" data="rfc4979"/>, Section 6.
               <xref type="rfc" data="rfc4979"/>
               <xref type="person" data="Alexander_Mayrhofer"/>

<people> <person id="Alexander_Mayrhofer"> <name>Alexander Mayrhofer</name> <org> GmbH</org> <uri></uri> <updated>2008-10-10</updated> </person> </people>

<人> <人のID = "Alexander_Mayrhofer"> <名前>アレクサンダーMayrhofer </名前> <組織> enum.at社</ ORG> <URI>の </ URI> <更新> 2008年10月10日</更新> </人> </人>

This is the third example:


                 This Enumservice indicates that the resource
                 identified can be addressed by the associated
                 URI scheme in order to initiate a voice
                 communication session to a voice messaging system.
               See <xref type="rfc" data="rfc4279"/>, Section 3.
               <xref type="rfc" data="rfc4279"/>
               <xref type="person" data="Jason_Livingood"/>
               <xref type="person" data="Donald_Troshynski"/>
                 Implementers should review a non-exclusive list of
                 examples in <xref type="rfc" data="rfc4279"/>,
                 Section 7.

<people> <person id="Jason_Livingood"> <name>Jason Livingood</name> <org>Comcast Cable Communications</org> <uri></uri> <updated>2008-11-20</updated> </person>

<人> <人のid = "Jason_Livingood"> <名前>ジェイソンLivingood </名前> <組織> Comcastのケーブルコミュニケーションズ</ ORG> <URI>の </ URI> 2008 <更新> -11-20 </更新> </人>

<person id="Donald_Troshynski"> <name>Donald Troshynski</name> <org>Acme Packet</org> <uri></uri> <updated>2008-11-20</updated> </person> </people>

<人のID = "Donald_Troshynski"> <名前>ドナルドTroshynski </名前> <組織>アクメパケット</ ORG> <URI>の </ URI> <更新> 2008-11-20 </更新> </人> </人>

In the third IANA Registration Template example above, the "voicemsg" Enumservice is used. This Enumservice actually has several Subtypes, and one of those is shown in the example. For each Subtype, an individual Registration Template must be submitted to IANA, so that an Enumservice with several Subtypes will have several corresponding IANA Registration Templates. This is to avoid any ambiguity of the relation between <subtype> and <urischeme> elements.


Appendix B. Changes from


This section lists the changes applied to the Enumservice registration process and the IANA registry definition, compared to RFC 3761.

このセクションでは、RFC 3761に比べて、Enumservice登録プロセスに適用された変更とIANAレジストリの定義を示しています。

o While RFC 3761 required "Standards track or Experimental" RFCs for an Enumservice to be registered, this document mandates "Specification Required", which implies the use of a Designated Expert.

RFC 3761は、指定エキスパートの使用を意味し、この文書の義務「仕様が必要である」と、登録するEnumserviceための「基準トラックや実験」RFCを必要としながら。O

o This document defines the classification of Enumservices. The IANA Registration Template has been complemented to contain a <class> element (Enumservice Class).

Oこの文書はEnumservicesの分類を定義します。 IANAの登録テンプレートは、<class>要素(Enumserviceクラス)を含むように補完されています。

o A new element <registrationdocs> (Enumservice Specification) has been added to the IANA Registration Template.


o The former field "Any other information that the author deems interesting" of the IANA Registration Template turned into the <additionalinfo> element (Further Information).


o The Enumservice "Name" field has been removed from the IANA Registration Template.

O Enumservice「名前」フィールドは、IANAの登録テンプレートから削除されました。

o The Registration Template is now a chunk of XML data, reflecting IANA's recent work to convert registries to XML.


Authors' Addresses


Bernie Hoeneisen Ucom Standards Track Solutions GmbH CH-8000 Zuerich Switzerland

バーニーHoeneisen UCOM標準化過程ソリューションズ社CH-8000チューリッヒスイス

Phone: +41 44 500 52 44 EMail: (bernhard.hoeneisen AT URI:

電話:+41 44 500 52 44 Eメール:( AT bernhard.hoeneisen) URI:

Alexander Mayrhofer GmbH Karlsplatz 1/9 Wien A-1010 Austria


Phone: +43 1 5056416 34 EMail: URI:

電話:+43 1 5056416 34電子メール:URI

Jason Livingood Comcast Cable Communications One Comcast Center 1701 John F. Kennedy Boulevard Philadelphia, PA 19103 USA

ジェイソンLivingood Comcastのケーブルコミュニケーションズ一つコムキャストセンター1701ジョンF.ケネディ大通りフィラデルフィア、PA 19103 USA

Phone: +1-215-286-7813 EMail: URI:

電話:+ 1-215-286-7813 Eメール URI: