[RFC Home] [TEXT|PDF|HTML] [Tracker] [IPR] [Info page]

Tweet
This is a modified version of the Internet RFC suitable for machine-translating. Original version is available here: RFC5028
Ad

PROPOSED STANDARD
Updated by: 6118 
Network Working Group                                            R. Mahy
Request for Comments: 5028                                   Plantronics
Category: Standards Track                                   October 2007
A Telephone Number Mapping (ENUM) Service Registration for Instant Messaging (IM) Services

Status of This Memo

This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements. Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the standardization state and status of this protocol. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.

Abstract

This document registers a Telephone Number Mapping (ENUM) service for Instant Messaging (IM). Specifically, this document focuses on provisioning 'im:' URIs (Uniform Resource Identifiers) in ENUM.
1.  Introduction
ENUM (E.164 Number Mapping, RFC 3761 [1]) is a system that uses DNS (Domain Name Service, RFC 1034 [2]) to translate telephone numbers, such as '+12025550100', into URIs (Uniform Resource Identifiers, RFC 3986 [3]), such as 'im:user@example.com'. ENUM exists primarily to facilitate the interconnection of systems that rely on telephone numbers with those that use URIs to identify resources.

Instant Messaging (IM) is a service defined in RFC 2778 [6] that allows users to send and receive typically short, often textual messages in near real-time. The IETF has defined a generic URI used to identify an IM service for a particular resource: the 'im:' URI scheme (defined in RFC 3861 [4]). RFC 3861 [4] also defines rules for discovering service running specific protocols, such as SIP (the Session Initiation Protocol, RFC 3261 [8]) and XMPP (the eXtensible Messaging and Presence Protocol, RFC 3921 [9]) from a specific 'im:' URI.

RFC 3953 [10] already defines an enumservice for presence services, which returns 'pres:' URIs (also defined in RFC 3861 [4]). This document registers an enumservice for advertising IM information associated with an E.164 number.
Mahy                        Standards Track                     [Page 1]

RFC 5028                     IM Enumservice                 October 2007
2.  ENUM Service Registration - im
As defined in RFC 3761 [1], the following is a template covering information needed for the registration of the enumservice specified in this document:

Enumservice Name:
"im"
Enumservice Type:
"im"
Enumservice Subtypes:
N/A
URI scheme(s):
"im:"
Functional Specification:
This Enumservice indicates that the resource identified is an 'im:' URI. The 'im:' URI scheme does not identify any particular protocol that will be used to handle instant messaging receipt or delivery, rather the mechanism in RFC 3861 [4] is used to discover whether an IM protocol supported by the party querying ENUM is also supported by the target resource.
Security considerations:
See section 3.
Intended usage:
COMMON
Author:
Rohan Mahy (rohan@ekabal.com)
3.  Security Considerations
The Domain Name System (DNS) does not make policy decisions about which records it provides to a DNS resolver. All DNS records must be assumed to be available to all inquirers at all times. The information provided within an ENUM record set must therefore be considered open to the public -- which is a cause for some privacy considerations.

Revealing an 'im:' URI by itself is unlikely to introduce many privacy concerns, although, depending on the structure of the URI, it might reveal the full name or employer of the target. The use of anonymous URIs mitigates this risk.

As ENUM uses DNS, which in its current form is an insecure protocol, there is no mechanism for ensuring that the answer returned to a query is authentic. An analysis of threats specific to the dependence of ENUM on the DNS is provided in RFC 3761, and a thorough analysis of threats to the DNS itself is covered in RFC 3833 [11]. Many of these problems are prevented when the resolver verifies the authenticity of answers to its ENUM queries via DNSSEC [5] in zones where it is available.
Mahy                        Standards Track                     [Page 2]

RFC 5028                     IM Enumservice                 October 2007
More serious security concerns are associated with potential attacks against an underlying Instant Messaging system (for example, message forgery and tampering). For this reason, IM protocols have a number of security requirements (detailed in RFC 2779 [7]) that call for authentication, integrity and confidentiality properties, and similar measures to prevent such attacks. Any instant messaging protocol used in conjunction with the 'im:' URI scheme is required to meet these requirements.

Unlike a traditional telephone number, the resource identified by an 'im:' URI may require that callers provide cryptographic credentials for authentication and authorization before instant messages are exchanged. In concert with instant messaging protocols, ENUM can actually provide far greater protection from unwanted callers than does the existing PSTN, despite the public availability of ENUM records.
4.  IANA Considerations
This document requests registration of the "im" Enumservice according to the definitions in this document and RFC 3761 [1].
5.  References

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

[2] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - concepts and facilities", STD
13, RFC 1034, November 1987.

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

[4] Peterson, J., "Address Resolution for Instant Messaging and
Presence", RFC 3861, August 2004.

[5] Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S. Rose,
"Protocol Modifications for the DNS Security Extensions", RFC 4035, March 2005.
Mahy                        Standards Track                     [Page 3]

RFC 5028                     IM Enumservice                 October 2007
5.2.  Informative References
[6] Day, M., Rosenberg, J., and H. Sugano, "A Model for Presence
and Instant Messaging", RFC 2778, February 2000.

[7] Day, M., Aggarwal, S., Mohr, G., and J. Vincent, "Instant
Messaging / Presence Protocol Requirements", RFC 2779, February 2000.

[8] 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] Saint-Andre, P., Ed., "Extensible Messaging and Presence
Protocol (XMPP): Instant Messaging and Presence", RFC 3921, October 2004.

[10] Peterson, J., "Telephone Number Mapping (ENUM) Service
Registration for Presence Services", RFC 3953, January 2005.

[11] Atkins, D. and R. Austein, "Threat Analysis of the Domain Name
System (DNS)", RFC 3833, August 2004.

Author's Address

Rohan Mahy Plantronics

EMail: rohan@ekabal.com
Mahy                        Standards Track                     [Page 4]

RFC 5028                     IM Enumservice                 October 2007
Full Copyright Statement

Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).

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.












Mahy Standards Track [Page 5]

Ad
Translate documents to 日本語, svenska, Nederlands, Deutsch, français, русский, italiano, español, Tiếng Việt, polski, português, 中文, українська, català, norsk, فارسی, suomi, Bahasa Indonesia, العربية, čeština, 한국어, Bahasa Melayu, magyar, română, српски and other languages.
inserted by FC2 system