Network Working Group J. Peterson Internet-Draft Neustar, Inc. Intended status: Standards Track October 19, 2015 Expires: April 21, 2016 A Framework and Information Model for Telephone-Related Information (TeRI) draft-peterson-modern-teri-00 Abstract As telephone services migrate to the Internet, Internet applications require tools to access and manage information about telephone numbers. This document specifies a protocol-independent framework and information model for managing service and adminsitration data associated with telephone numbers. Status of This Memo This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." This Internet-Draft will expire on April 21, 2016. Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved. This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) 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 Peterson Expires April 21, 2016 [Page 1] Internet-Draft TeRI Framework October 2015 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License. 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. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. The Information Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3.1. Record Elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.1.1. Identifier . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.1.2. Authority . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.1.3. Contact . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.1.4. Subject . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.1.5. Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3.1.6. Signature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3.2. Element Value Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3.2.1. Service Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3.2.2. Public Key Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 3.2.3. Contact Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 3.2.4. Expiry Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 3.2.5. Priority Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 3.2.6. Record Identifier Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 3.2.7. Signature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 3.2.8. Extension Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 4. Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 4.1. Common to All Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 4.1.1. Requests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 4.1.2. Responses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 4.2. The Acquisition Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 4.3. The Management Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 4.4. The Retrieval Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 4.5. Common Attributes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 4.5.1. Administrative Attributes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 4.5.2. Service Attributes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 5. Implementing Opertions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 5.1. Transport Independence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Peterson Expires April 21, 2016 [Page 2] Internet-Draft TeRI Framework October 2015 5.2. Bindings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 5.3. Encodings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 5.4. Profiles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 9. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 1. Terminology In this document, the key words "MAY", "MUST, "MUST NOT", "SHOULD", and "SHOULD NOT", are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. 2. Motivation Telephone numbers remain the worldwide standard identifier for routing calls and text messages over the Public Switched Telephone Network (PSTN). Increasingly, real-time communications is migrating to the Internet, and bringing telephone numbers with it. As identifiers, however, telephone numbers differ fundamentally from those commonly used by Internet applications. Email, the web and native Voice over IP (VoIP) systems such as SIP ([RFC3261]) typically use identifiers that rely on the Domain Name System (DNS) to resolve a domain portion of the identifier to a particular IP address; commonly, Uniform Resource Indicators (URIs) with a user and host component serve this purpose. To help telephone numbers work similarly on the Internet, a number of efforts have specified mechanisms to manage and retrieve information about telephone numbers via network services. For example, the ENUM ([RFC6116]) effort specified a public DNS profile for translating telephone numbers into URIs. Due to the difficulty of coordinating the public administration of telephone numbers in the DNS, this work transitioned to "infrastructure" ENUM ([RFC5067]), which assumed private DNS implementations, each of which could give a different answer to the same request to translate a telephone number depending on who asked, or other internal factors. The framework of the SPEERMINT working group ([RFC6406]), expanding on these requirements, differentiated the mapping of a telephone number to a target network (the "Look-up Function") from the mapping made by the originating network to the proper next-hop to reach such a target network (the "Location Routing Function"). To provision the data associated with telephone numbers, the DRINKS working group ([RFC6461]) designed systems for uploading back-end data to the services that would answer ENUM queries. Peterson Expires April 21, 2016 [Page 3] Internet-Draft TeRI Framework October 2015 None of the preceding efforts, however, encompassed the entire lifecycle of a telephone number as an Internet identifier. They focused largely on service data, on how to "resolve" a telephone number to a location on the Internet, rather than on administrative questions of how numbers are acquired, how the entities associated with telephone numbers are authorized to provision data, and how what kinds of systems need to be in place to allow a diverse community of devices, applications and uses to manage numbers. Early considerations were moreover based on overlapping, but not entirely consistent, information models: intrinsic limitations in the DNS kept the queries and responses of ENUM relatively simple, whereas the DRINKS provisioning system considered a much richer syntax. The need for solutions in this space is pressing, as many carriers worldwide contemplate migrating their entire PSTN infrastructure onto the Internet within the next decade. Further pressures come from emerging Internet communications providers who never invested in PSTN infrastructure in the first place, but want access to services related to telephone numbers. This includes devices, services, and applications on the Internet that make use of telephone numbers and need to distribute and manage numbering inventory: for example, an Internet-enabled PBX that might want to automate the process for allowing new connected phones to acquire numbers and provision contact information for their users. These different communities have diverse requirements. In some environments, there are performance constraints that would require a very lightweight binary protocol; in others, applications might prefer human-readable markup languages suitable for interfacing with existing APIs. The use cases associated with these functions are detailed in [I-D.peterson-modern-problems]. Therefore, this document proposes a reconsideration of telephone service and administration data on the Internet, based on an information model that allows records associated with telephone number to be created, modified and accessed through network interfaces. This document specifies no particular syntax or encoding for queries or responses, but instead describes an extensible information model for the semantics of provisioning and querying operations associated with a telephone number. 3. The Information Model The fundamental building block of the TeRI model is the Record. A Record is created by an Authority who has authority over a particular telephone number or a set of numbers. There may be more than one Authority who is authorized to create Records for a particular telephone number, and a TeRI service may have multiple Records corresponding to a single telephone number, including potentially Peterson Expires April 21, 2016 [Page 4] Internet-Draft TeRI Framework October 2015 Records associated with a range of numbers including a particular telephone number. Under various circumstances detailed in Section 4, participants in the numbering ecosystem may create, read, update, and modify Records. Records contain Elements that hold data about the telephone number. Elements in this information model have a Name, which may optionally be associated with a Type and Value. Elements are grouped into Service Elements and Administrative Elements. 3.1. Record Elements A Record is made up of Elements, which may be either Service Data Elements or Administrative Data Elements. 3.1.1. Identifier Every Record has an Identifier, which is a globally unique identifier of the Record. The Identifier will typically be created at the same time as the Record itself, at a time when an assignment or delegation has occurred (as described in [I-D.peterson-modern-problems]). 3.1.2. Authority Every Record contains an Authority element the source of the data: either the entity that provisioned the data with the Service, or the external source from which the Service collected the data. The Authority element ideally gives a logical identity of the source of the data. A public key value may also be designated by the Authority element. 3.1.3. Contact Every Record has at least one Contact. The Contact contains administrative data about the assignee of the telephone number, though additional Contacts may contain information about delegates (as defined in [I-D.peterson-modern-problems]). 3.1.4. Subject Every Record has a Subject. As the TeRI record concerns telephone numbers, the Subject of a Record is either a telephone number type or a telephone number range type. Peterson Expires April 21, 2016 [Page 5] Internet-Draft TeRI Framework October 2015 3.1.5. Service Records optionally have one or more Service entries. A Service may be of any Service Type, as given in Section 3.2.1. 3.1.5.1. Priority Optionally, a Service may specify a weighted Priority associated with a Record. Priorities are between 0 and 1, with a value of 1 having the highest priority. 3.1.5.2. Expiration Optionally, a Service may specify an absolute time at which a Record will no longer be valid, should a client or intermediary wish to cache a Record. In the absence of an Expiration element, Records may be cached for a maximum of twenty-four hours. 3.1.6. Signature Optionaly, a Record contains a Signature element. The Signature element contains a signature over the concatenation of the other elements given the Record. Signatures are provided by the Authority responsible for the Record. [Syntax TBD] 3.2. Element Value Types The remainder of a Record is made up of Elements. Elements types ae specified in this section. Every Element Type has a Type Code. A Type Code is used as a short form for the Element in a Record. 3.2.1. Service Types 3.2.1.1. Telephone Number Type The telephone number type conforms to the telephone number syntax given in [RFC3966] Section 3, in the ABNF for "telephone-subscriber." Type Code: T [TBD - need for subtying? E.164, Service Code, Short Code, Prefix, Nationally-Specific and Unknown. ] Peterson Expires April 21, 2016 [Page 6] Internet-Draft TeRI Framework October 2015 3.2.1.1.1. TN Range Type The TN range type consists of a prefix of a telephone number (per [RFC3966] "telephone-subscriber"), and is semantically equivalent to all syntactically-valid telephone numbers below that prefix. For example, in the North American Numbering plan, the prefix 157143454 would be equivalent to all numbers ranging from 15714345400 to 15714345499. [TBD - identify alternative ways of specifying ranges, potentially as separate element types] Type Code: R 3.2.1.2. Domain Name Type The domain name type conforms to the syntax of RFC1034 Section 3.5 and Section 2.1 of [RFC1123]. Type Code: D 3.2.1.3. Uniform Resource Indicator (URI) Type The Uniform Resource Indicator (URI) type conforms to the syntax for URIs given in [RFC3986] (see Section 3). Type Code: U 3.2.1.4. Internet Protocol (IP) Address Type The IP Address type conforms to the ABNF syntax of either the IPv4address given in RFC3986 (Appendix A) or the IPv6reference of [RFC5954]. Type Code: I 3.2.1.5. Trunk Group Type The trunk group type conforms to the "trunk-group-label" ABNF given in [RFC4904] (Section 5). Type Code: G 3.2.1.6. Service Provider Identifier (SPID) Type The SPID type consists of a four-digit number. [TBD - introduce other elements for alternative SPID syntaxes] Peterson Expires April 21, 2016 [Page 7] Internet-Draft TeRI Framework October 2015 Type Code: ? 3.2.2. Public Key Type The Credential type consists of a public key [encoding TBD]. Type Code: C 3.2.3. Contact Type The contact type follows the conventions of jCard [RFC7095]. Type Code: C 3.2.4. Expiry Type The Expiry type is an absolute time conformant to the syntax of [RFC3339]. Type Code: E 3.2.5. Priority Type The Priority type contains a number between 0 and 1, conforming to the specification of the "q" parameter of the Contact header field in [RFC3261]. Type Code: P 3.2.6. Record Identifier Type The Record Identifier Type consists of a unique identifier for a record [format TBD]. Type Code: U 3.2.7. Signature [Syntax TBD] Type Code: S 3.2.8. Extension Type This code is reserved for future use. Type Code: X Peterson Expires April 21, 2016 [Page 8] Internet-Draft TeRI Framework October 2015 4. Operations In this section are detailed the three TeRI Operations: Acquisition, Management, and Retrieval Operations. 4.1. Common to All Operations All Operations in the TeRI model consist of Requests and Responses. A Request from a TeRI client to a service may attempt to create, read, update, or delete TeRI Records. Requests may focus only on particular parts of a TeRI record. A Response gives the result of the Operation back to the client, which may indicate success of failure. 4.1.1. Requests All TeRI Requests have a Source, a Subject, and optionally a set of Attributes which further specify the nature of the Request. Some Requests will know the Identifier of the Record they concern, and may convey that in an Attribute; others will query for all Records matching a given Subject. 4.1.1.1. Source The Source is a required element in all Requests. In this specification, two categories of Sources are defined: Request Source and Request Intermediary. At least one of these Sources must be present in a Retrieval Request, and multiple Sources are permitted. Responses do not contain a Source. Future specifications may extend the set of Source types. 4.1.1.1.1. Request Source Every Request generated by a Client has a Request Source, which identifies the originator of the Request. This represents the logical identity of the user or service provider who first sent the Request, rather than the identity of any Intermediate entity. This field is provided in the Source to authenticate the poser of the Request, so that the Service can make any necessary authorization decisions as it formulates a Response. In some service deployments, an Intermediary may wish to mask the Request's Source from a Service. The removal of the Request's Source by an intermediary is permitted by TeRI, but any Intermediary that removes the Request Source must provide a Request Intermediary for the Source element. Peterson Expires April 21, 2016 [Page 9] Internet-Draft TeRI Framework October 2015 A Request Source element has a Type, which indicates how the logical identity of the originator of the Request has been represented. The Type field of the Request Source is extensible. Initial values include a domain name, a URI and a telephone number. The Type element of the Request Source is followed by a Value, which contains the identity. The format of the identity is determined by the Type. 4.1.1.1.2. Request Intermediary Optionally, Requests may contain one or more Request Intermediary elements in the Source. A Request Intermediary resides between the originator of the Request (the Client) and the Service, where it may aggregate queries, proxy them, transcode them, or provide any related relay function to assist the delivery of Requests to the Service. The Request Intermediary element, like the Request Source, contains the logical identity of the service that relayed the Request. This field is provided in the Source for those deployments in which the Service makes an authorization decision based on the identity of the Intermediary rather than a Request Source. A Request Intermediary element has a Type, which indicates how the logical identity of the Intermediary has been represented. The Type element of the Request Intermediary is extensible. Initial values include a domain name, an X.509 certificate subject, or a URI. The Type of the Request Intermediary element is followed by a Value, which contains the identity. The format of the identity is determined by the Type. 4.1.1.2. Subject All Requests have a Subject. The Subject identifies the resource that the Request concerns. Responses only contain a Subject if the Subject of the Response differs from that of the original Request, which may occur when (for example) the Subject contains a broad range, and the Service replies with a more narrow Subject. Future specifications, including Profiles, may define alternative Subject elements. 4.1.1.2.1. Attributes TeRI Attributes consist of a Name with an optional Type and an Optional Value. Most Attributes are specific to the Operation. Peterson Expires April 21, 2016 [Page 10] Internet-Draft TeRI Framework October 2015 4.1.2. Responses All TeRI responses consist of a Response Code and optionally a set of Attributes which convey further information about the Operation. Most Attributes are specific to the Operation. 4.1.2.1. Response Code All Responses contain a Response Code. Response Codes defined by this document include: Success, Subject Does Not Exist, Subject Conflict, No Suitable Records Exist for Subject, Subject Syntax Error, Unknown Attribute, Unauthorized Source, Route Source Topology Unavailable. [TBD] 4.2. The Acquisition Operation An Acquisition Request has a Source and a Subject, and may have one or more Attributes. An Acquisition Response has a Response Code, and will contain one Record if it is succesful. The Subject of an Acquisition Request always specifies a Telephone Number Type or a Telephone Number Range Type. If the Subject contains a particular telephone number, then the Acquisition Request is a Request to acquire that particular telephone number. If it is a range, the Acquisition Request should be considered to be for the entire range, but Attributes of the Request may limit the scope of the resources requested. The Service will determine whether or not the Client is authorized to acquire the resources in question based on the Source of the Acqusition Request. The Response to an Acquisition Request will contain a Success Response Code if the resource can be allocated. The Subject of a Success Response will always contain the Telephone Number Type or Telephone Number Range that has been allocated. A successful Acqusition Response must contain a Record with a Identifier Element; that Record may also contain a Public Key attribute. By default, this Record will contain only Administrative Elements, without Service Elements. If a requested telephone number (or range) is already allocated, or a telephone number in the specified range is not available, then a Subject Conflict Response Code is returned. Peterson Expires April 21, 2016 [Page 11] Internet-Draft TeRI Framework October 2015 4.3. The Management Operation A Management Request comprises a Source, a Subject, and one or more Records; it also may contain one or more Attributes. A Management Request contains a Response Code, and optionally may contain a Record. The Subject of a Management Request always specifies a Telephone Number Type or a Telephone Number Range Type. If the Subject contains a particular telephone number, then the Acquisition Request is a Request to acquire that particular telephone number. If it is a range, the Acquisition Request should be considered to be for the entire range. A Management Request contains at least one Record; it may contain multiple Records. Each Record in the Management Request must contain a Record Identifier Element which designates the Record that the Client is requesting that the Service replace with the Record included in the Management Request. The Service will determine whether or not the Client is authorized to modify the Record in question via the Source of the Management Request. 4.4. The Retrieval Operation Every Retrieval Request comprises a Source and a Subject, and may have one or more Attributes. A Retrieval Response has a Response Code, optionally one or more Records, and optionally a Subject, if the Subject differs from that of the Request. Retrieval Requests optionally contain Attributes; a Request with no specified Attributes requests that the Service return any Attributes associated with the Subject. In a Request, the presence of one or more Attributes limits the scope of the Request to Records about the Subject containing those Attributes. Typically an Attribute will specify a Service or Service Type that the Client seeks Records for. Retrieval Responses contain one or more Records. At least one Record will always be present in a successful Response. 4.5. Common Attributes Attributes are broadly divided between Service Attributes and Administrative Attributes. Service Attributes provide information required to route communications, including URIs. The format of the elements contained in the Attributes is given in Section 3.2. Peterson Expires April 21, 2016 [Page 12] Internet-Draft TeRI Framework October 2015 4.5.1. Administrative Attributes Administrative Attributes defined by this document include: CNAM (Type Display Name), SPID (Type SPID), dialplan (Type ?) [TBD] 4.5.2. Service Attributes Service Attributes defined by this document include: voip (Type URI), sms (Type URI) [TBD] 4.5.2.1. Route Source Optionally, Retrieval Requests may contain a Route Source Attribute which identifies a reference point in the network from which any Service Attributes in the response should be calculated. It therefore always designates a network element, though depending on the circumstances, it may be an endpoint, a gateway, a border device, or any other agent that makes forwarding decisions for telephone calls and related services. A Route Source element has a Type, which indicates how the network element has been represented. The Type field of the Request Source is extensible. Initial values include a domain name, an IP address or a trunk group. The Type of the Route Source element is followed by a Value, which designates the network element. The format of the identity is determined by the Type. 5. Implementing Opertions This framework specifies an abstract Request/Response protocol that enables a Client to send Requests to a Service about telephone numbers or related telephone services. Requests may pass through one or more Intermediaries on their way from a Client to a Service; for example, through aggregators or service bureaus. A Client establishes the Subject of a Request, and optionally includes one or more Attributes to focus the scope of the Request. When a Service receives a Request, it performs any necessary authorization and policy decisions based on the Source. If policy permits, the Service generates a Response, which will consist of a Response Code and one or more Records associated with the Subject. The Service then sends the Response through the same path that the Request followed; transactional identifiers set by the Client and Service correlate the Request to the Response and assist any intermediary routing. Peterson Expires April 21, 2016 [Page 13] Internet-Draft TeRI Framework October 2015 5.1. Transport Independence The information model provided for Requests and Responses in this framework is independent of any underlying transport or encoding. Future specifications will define Bindings that specify particular transports and Encodings for Requests and Responses. In some deployment environments, for example, a binary encoding and lightweight transport might be more appropriate than the use of a web protocol. This specification provides a template of requirements that must be addressed by any encoding scheme. It is a design goal of this work that the semantics of Requests and Responses survive interworking through translations from one encoding to another; for example, when an Intermediary receives a binary Request from a Client, it should be able to transcode it to an XML format to send to a Service without discarding any of the original semantics. 5.2. Bindings A TeRI Binding is an underlying protocol that carries Requests and Responses. Future specifications may define Bindings in accordance with the procedures in the IANA Considerations sections of this document. By underlying protocol, this specification means both transport-layer protocols as well as any application-layer protocols that the Binding requires. Thus an example Binding might specify a combination of TCP, TLS, HTTP and SOAP as the underlying transport for TeRI. Alternatively, it might only specify a very lightweight underlying protocol like UDP. A Binding may be specific to a particular Encoding, or it may be independent of any Encoding. Bindings must specify whether they are continuous, transactional or non-transactional. A continuous Binding creates a persistent connection between two TeRI entities over which many, potentially unrelated, Requests and Responses might flow. Many Bindings defined for use between an Intermediary and a Service will have this property, as Intermediaries may aggregate on behalf of many Clients, and opening a separate transport-layer connection for each new Request would be inefficient. A transactional Binding creates a temporary connection between two TeRI entities for the purpose of fulfilling a single Request; any Responses to the Request will use the same connection to return to the sender of the Request. Finally, a non-transactional Binding does not rely on any sort of connection semantics: the senders of Requests and Responses will always initiate a new instance of the Binding to send a message. Peterson Expires April 21, 2016 [Page 14] Internet-Draft TeRI Framework October 2015 This document makes no provision for discovering the Bindings supported by a TeRI Client, Intermediary or Service. Intermediaries may transcode between Bindings if necessary when acting to connect a Client and a Service, especially if the Client and Service support no Bindings in common. A Binding specification must enumerate all categories of metadata required to establish a connection using a Binding. For some Bindings, this might comprise solely an IP address and a port; for other Bindings, this might instead require higher-layer application identifiers like a URI. This metadata includes any identifiers necessary for correlating Requests to Responses in a continuous or non-transactional Binding; any Encoding making use of these Bindings must specify how it carries those elements. Bindings must also describe the security services they make available. Bindings must have a means of providing mutual authentication, integrity and confidentiality between Clients, Intermediaries and Services. If a Binding supports TLS, for example, these features can be provided by using TLS in an appropriate deployment environment. 5.3. Encodings A TeRI Encoding specifies how the Request and Response are constructed syntactically. An Encoding may be specific to a particular Binding, or it may be specified independently of any Binding. An Encoding may define an object format; for example, an XML or JSON object, described with any appropriate schemas, or an ABNF description. An Encoding might alternatively specify a mapping of the semantic elements of Requests and Responses on to the existing fields of headers of a protocol, especially when that protocol has been defined as an underlying protocol Binding. Encodings must also define whether or not they provide a bundling feature that allows multiple Requests to be carried within particular objects or mappings. Every Encoding must specify how each semantic Element Type of a Request and Response will be represented. For all baseline TeRI Attributes and Element Types, the Encoding specifies whether values will be text or binary, how they will be encoded. Many baseline Element Types (such as telephone numbers) can appear in different places in a TeRI message; Encodings need only specify these common element types once. Due to the extensibility of TeRI, however, future specifications might define Element Types that an Encoding Peterson Expires April 21, 2016 [Page 15] Internet-Draft TeRI Framework October 2015 does not address. Profiles using those extensions and Encodings must explain their interaction. Encodings must also describe the security services they make available. In particular, encodings must describe a means of providing authentication of the Sources and Authorities of Requests and Responses respectively, as well as an integrity check over critical elements including the Subject of Requests and the Record of Responses. [TBD - we may define more about the computation of this signature, including canonicalization of elements, in this framework, and make it a requirement for encodings to support this mechanism] 5.4. Profiles For particular deployment environments, only one Binding, Encoding and set of Attributes or other extended elements may be meaningful. Future specifications may therefore define TeRI Profiles, which describe a particular deployment environment and the Binding, Encoding and set of Attributes or elements it requires. Profiles may be extensible, but any Attributes or elements required to negotiate support for extensions must be defined within the Profile. 6. Security Considerations The framework of this document differs from previous efforts to manage telephone numbers on the Internet largely by offering a much richer set of security services. In particular, it requires that three entities be capable of authenticating themselves to one another at the layer of a binding: Clients, Intermediaries and Services. It furthermore requires object security at the encoding layer so that Sources and Authorities can sign data in order to authenticate Requests and Responses that may pass through Intermediaries, and moreover so that Authorities can prove to Clients that their Records are authoritative even when the Authority does not operate the Service. The requirements that bindings and encodings must satisfy to meet these security needs are specified in Section 5.1. [TBD - more] 7. IANA Considerations This specification defines several registries: A registry of Elements, a registry of Element Types, a registry of Attributes, and a registry of Response Codes. Peterson Expires April 21, 2016 [Page 16] Internet-Draft TeRI Framework October 2015 This document creates a registry of Elements for use with this framework. This registry is extensible, with an IANA Registration policy of Specification Required. Any new Element registered must supply the name of the Element, the name of the parent Element in the information model, and a code point. [TBD] This specification pre-provisions the Element Types registry with the entries given in Section 6. These elements are indexed by their Type Code. This registry is extensible, with an IANA Registration policy of Specification Required. Any new Element Type registered must supply the name of the Element Type, the name of the parent element in the information model, and a Type Code. This specification creates an Attribute registry which is indexed by Attribute names. This registry is extensible, with an IANA Registration policy of Specification Required. Any new element registered must supply the name of Attribute, and list all Element Types that may be associated with Values of the Attribute. This document furthermore creates a registry of Response Codes. This registry is pre-provisioned with the values given in Section 5.5. [TBD] 8. Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank Paul Kyzviat and Dale Worley for their input into this specification. 9. Informative References [I-D.peterson-modern-problems] Peterson, J. and T. McGarry, "Modern Problem Statement, Use Cases, and Framework", draft-peterson-modern- problems-01 (work in progress), July 2015. [RFC1123] Braden, R., Ed., "Requirements for Internet Hosts - Application and Support", STD 3, RFC 1123, DOI 10.17487/RFC1123, October 1989, . [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, . Peterson Expires April 21, 2016 [Page 17] Internet-Draft TeRI Framework October 2015 [RFC3261] Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., Camarillo, G., Johnston, A., Peterson, J., Sparks, R., Handley, M., and E. Schooler, "SIP: Session Initiation Protocol", RFC 3261, DOI 10.17487/RFC3261, June 2002, . [RFC3324] Watson, M., "Short Term Requirements for Network Asserted Identity", RFC 3324, DOI 10.17487/RFC3324, November 2002, . [RFC3325] Jennings, C., Peterson, J., and M. Watson, "Private Extensions to the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) for Asserted Identity within Trusted Networks", RFC 3325, DOI 10.17487/RFC3325, November 2002, . [RFC3339] Klyne, G. and C. Newman, "Date and Time on the Internet: Timestamps", RFC 3339, DOI 10.17487/RFC3339, July 2002, . [RFC3966] Schulzrinne, H., "The tel URI for Telephone Numbers", RFC 3966, DOI 10.17487/RFC3966, December 2004, . [RFC3986] Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax", STD 66, RFC 3986, DOI 10.17487/RFC3986, January 2005, . [RFC4474] Peterson, J. and C. Jennings, "Enhancements for Authenticated Identity Management in the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)", RFC 4474, DOI 10.17487/RFC4474, August 2006, . [RFC4904] Gurbani, V. and C. Jennings, "Representing Trunk Groups in tel/sip Uniform Resource Identifiers (URIs)", RFC 4904, DOI 10.17487/RFC4904, June 2007, . [RFC4916] Elwell, J., "Connected Identity in the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)", RFC 4916, DOI 10.17487/RFC4916, June 2007, . [RFC5039] Rosenberg, J. and C. Jennings, "The Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) and Spam", RFC 5039, DOI 10.17487/RFC5039, January 2008, . Peterson Expires April 21, 2016 [Page 18] Internet-Draft TeRI Framework October 2015 [RFC5067] Lind, S. and P. Pfautz, "Infrastructure ENUM Requirements", RFC 5067, DOI 10.17487/RFC5067, November 2007, . [RFC5727] Peterson, J., Jennings, C., and R. Sparks, "Change Process for the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) and the Real- time Applications and Infrastructure Area", BCP 67, RFC 5727, DOI 10.17487/RFC5727, March 2010, . [RFC5954] Gurbani, V., Ed., Carpenter, B., Ed., and B. Tate, Ed., "Essential Correction for IPv6 ABNF and URI Comparison in RFC 3261", RFC 5954, DOI 10.17487/RFC5954, August 2010, . [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, DOI 10.17487/RFC6116, March 2011, . [RFC6406] Malas, D., Ed. and J. Livingood, Ed., "Session PEERing for Multimedia INTerconnect (SPEERMINT) Architecture", RFC 6406, DOI 10.17487/RFC6406, November 2011, . [RFC6461] Channabasappa, S., Ed., "Data for Reachability of Inter- /Intra-NetworK SIP (DRINKS) Use Cases and Protocol Requirements", RFC 6461, DOI 10.17487/RFC6461, January 2012, . [RFC6698] Hoffman, P. and J. Schlyter, "The DNS-Based Authentication of Named Entities (DANE) Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol: TLSA", RFC 6698, DOI 10.17487/RFC6698, August 2012, . [RFC6950] Peterson, J., Kolkman, O., Tschofenig, H., and B. Aboba, "Architectural Considerations on Application Features in the DNS", RFC 6950, DOI 10.17487/RFC6950, October 2013, . [RFC7095] Kewisch, P., "jCard: The JSON Format for vCard", RFC 7095, DOI 10.17487/RFC7095, January 2014, . Peterson Expires April 21, 2016 [Page 19] Internet-Draft TeRI Framework October 2015 [RFC7340] Peterson, J., Schulzrinne, H., and H. Tschofenig, "Secure Telephone Identity Problem Statement and Requirements", RFC 7340, DOI 10.17487/RFC7340, September 2014, . Author's Address Jon Peterson Neustar, Inc. Email: jon.peterson@neustar.biz Peterson Expires April 21, 2016 [Page 20]