Network Working Group J. Livingood
Request for Comments: 5526 Comcast Cable Communications
Category: Informational P. Pfautz
AT&T
R. Stastny
Unaffiliated
April 2009
Network Working Group J. Livingood
Request for Comments: 5526 Comcast Cable Communications
Category: Informational P. Pfautz
AT&T
R. Stastny
Unaffiliated
April 2009
The E.164 to Uniform Resource Identifiers (URI) Dynamic Delegation Discovery System (DDDS) Application for Infrastructure ENUM
E.164到统一资源标识符（URI）动态委托发现系统（DDDS）应用程序的基础结构枚举
Status of This Memo
关于下段备忘
This memo provides information for the Internet community. It does not specify an Internet standard of any kind. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
本备忘录为互联网社区提供信息。它没有规定任何类型的互联网标准。本备忘录的分发不受限制。
Copyright Notice
版权公告
Copyright (c) 2009 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved.
版权所有（c）2009 IETF信托基金和确定为文件作者的人员。版权所有。
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 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info). Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document.
本文件受BCP 78和IETF信托在本文件出版之日生效的与IETF文件有关的法律规定的约束(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info). 请仔细阅读这些文件，因为它们描述了您对本文件的权利和限制。
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.
本文件可能包含2008年11月10日之前发布或公开的IETF文件或IETF贡献中的材料。控制某些材料版权的人员可能未授予IETF信托允许在IETF标准流程之外修改此类材料的权利。在未从控制此类材料版权的人员处获得充分许可的情况下，不得在IETF标准流程之外修改本文件，也不得在IETF标准流程之外创建其衍生作品，除了将其格式化以RFC形式发布或将其翻译成英语以外的其他语言。
Abstract
摘要
This document defines the use case for Infrastructure ENUM and proposes its implementation as a parallel namespace to "e164.arpa", as defined in RFC 3761, as the long-term solution to the problem of allowing carriers to provision DNS records for telephone numbers independently of those provisioned by end users (number assignees).
本文档定义了Infrastructure ENUM的用例，并建议将其实现为RFC 3761中定义的“e164.arpa”的并行命名空间，作为允许运营商为电话号码提供DNS记录的长期解决方案，而不依赖于终端用户（号码受让人）提供的电话号码。
Table of Contents
目录
1. Introduction ....................................................2
2. Terminology .....................................................3
3. Zone Apex for Infrastructure ENUM ...............................3
4. IANA Considerations .............................................3
5. Security and Privacy Considerations .............................4
6. Acknowledgements ................................................4
7. Normative References ............................................4
1. Introduction ....................................................2
2. Terminology .....................................................3
3. Zone Apex for Infrastructure ENUM ...............................3
4. IANA Considerations .............................................3
5. Security and Privacy Considerations .............................4
6. Acknowledgements ................................................4
7. Normative References ............................................4
ENUM (E.164 Number Mapping [1]) is a system that transforms E.164 numbers [2] into domain names and then uses the DNS (Domain Name Service) [3] to discover NAPTR records that specify what services are available for a specific domain name.
ENUM（E.164数字映射[1]）是一个系统，它将E.164数字[2]转换为域名，然后使用DNS（域名服务）[3]发现指定特定域名可用服务的NAPTR记录。
ENUM as originally defined was based on the end-user opt-in principle. While this has great potential to foster new services and end-user choices in the long term, the current requirements for IP-based interconnection of Voice over IP (VoIP) domains require the provisioning of large numbers of allocated or served (hosted) numbers of a participating service provider, without the need for individual users to opt-in. This way, service providers can provision their own ENUM information that is separate, distinct, and likely to be different from what an end-user may provision. This is particularly important if Infrastructure ENUM is used for number-portability applications, for example, which an end-user would be unlikely interested in provisioning but which a service provider would likely find essential.
最初定义的ENUM基于最终用户选择加入原则。虽然从长远来看，这有很大的潜力促进新的服务和最终用户选择，但当前对IP语音（VoIP）域基于IP的互连的要求需要提供大量参与服务提供商的分配或服务（托管）号码，而无需个别用户选择加入。通过这种方式，服务提供商可以提供他们自己的ENUM信息，这些信息是独立的、不同的，并且可能与最终用户可能提供的内容不同。如果基础设施枚举用于数字可移植性应用程序，这一点尤其重要，例如，最终用户不太可能对配置感兴趣，但服务提供商可能会发现这一点至关重要。
In addition, while it is possible that service providers could mandate that their users opt-into e164.arpa through end-user contract terms and conditions, there are substantial downsides to such an approach. Thus, for all these reasons and many others, ENUM for end-user provisioning is ill-suited for use by service providers for the interconnection of VoIP domains.
此外，虽然服务提供商可能会通过最终用户合同条款和条件强制其用户选择e164.arpa，但这种方法有很大的缺点。因此，由于所有这些原因和许多其他原因，最终用户资源调配的ENUM不适合服务提供商用于VoIP域的互连。
As VoIP evolves and becomes pervasive, E.164-addressed telephone calls need not necessarily traverse the Public Switched Telephone Network (PSTN). Therefore, VoIP service providers have an interest in using ENUM on a so-called "Infrastructure" basis in order to keep VoIP traffic on IP networks on an end-to-end basis, both within and between service provider domains. This requires a means of identifying a VoIP point of interconnection to which calls addressed to a given E.164 number may be delivered; Infrastructure ENUM provides this means. Calls that can originate and terminate on IP networks, and do not have to traverse the PSTN, will require fewer or no points of transcoding, and can also involve additional IP network services that are not possible on the PSTN, among other benefits.
随着VoIP的发展和普及，E.164寻址电话呼叫不一定要穿越公共交换电话网（PSTN）。因此，VoIP服务提供商有兴趣在所谓的“基础设施”基础上使用ENUM，以便在服务提供商域内和域之间以端到端的方式保持IP网络上的VoIP流量。这需要一种识别VoIP互连点的方法，可将发往给定E.164号码的呼叫发送到该点；Infrastructure ENUM提供了这种方法。可以在IP网络上发起和终止并且不必穿越PSTN的呼叫将需要更少或不需要转码点，并且还可以涉及PSTN上不可能的额外IP网络服务，以及其他好处。
Requirements for Infrastructure ENUM are provided in [4].
[4]中提供了基础设施枚举的要求。
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14, RFC 2119 [5].
本文件中的关键词“必须”、“不得”、“要求”、“应”、“不应”、“应”、“不应”、“建议”、“可”和“可选”应按照BCP 14、RFC 2119[5]中的描述进行解释。
This document proposes that Infrastructure ENUM be implemented by means of a parallel namespace to e164.arpa dedicated to Infrastructure ENUM, in a domain that is yet to be determined. Use of a parallel namespace allows carriers and end-users to control their ENUM registrations independently, without forcing one to work through the other.
本文件建议在一个尚未确定的域中，通过专用于基础设施枚举的e164.arpa的并行命名空间实现基础设施枚举。使用并行名称空间允许运营商和最终用户独立控制其枚举注册，而无需强制一方通过另一方进行操作。
Infrastructure ENUM Tier 2 resource records in the Infrastructure ENUM tree will be controlled by the service provider that is providing services to a given E.164 number, generally referred to in various countries as the "carrier-of-record" (see [4]). The definition of a carrier-of-record for a given E.164 number is a national matter or is defined by the entity controlling the numbering space.
基础设施枚举树中的基础设施枚举第2层资源记录将由向给定E.164编号提供服务的服务提供商控制，在各个国家通常称为“记录载体”（参见[4]）。给定E.164编号的记录载体定义属于国家事务，或由控制编号空间的实体定义。
See also Section 3, "Requirements for Infrastructure ENUM", of [4].
另见[4]第3节“基础设施枚举要求”。
IANA has created a registry for Enumservices as originally specified in RFC 2916 and revised in RFC 3761. Enumservices registered with IANA are valid for Infrastructure ENUM as well as end-user ENUM.
IANA为Enumservices创建了一个注册表，最初在RFC 2916中指定，并在RFC 3761中进行了修订。向IANA注册的Enumservices对基础结构ENUM和最终用户ENUM都有效。
This document proposes a new zone apex for ENUM to meet the requirements of Infrastructure ENUM. The over-the-network protocol of ENUM is unchanged by the addition of an apex and, as such, the Security Considerations of RFC 3761 [1] still apply. Specific considerations related to the security of an Infrastructure ENUM apex are given in more detail in Section 4, "Security Considerations", of [4].
本文档为ENUM提出了一个新的分区顶点，以满足基础设施ENUM的要求。ENUM的网络协议通过添加apex而保持不变，因此，RFC 3761[1]的安全考虑仍然适用。[4]第4节“安全注意事项”中更详细地给出了与基础设施ENUM apex安全相关的具体注意事项。
Infrastructure ENUM registrations proposed by this document should resolve to service provider points-of-interconnection rather than to end-user equipment. Service providers need to take appropriate measures to protect their end-user customers from unwanted communications as with other types of interconnections.
本文件提出的基础设施枚举注册应针对服务提供商互连点，而不是最终用户设备。服务提供商需要采取适当措施，保护其最终用户客户免受与其他互连类型一样的不必要通信的影响。
The authors wish to thank Lawrence Conroy, Patrik Faltstrom, Michael Haberler, Otmar Lendl, Steve Lind, Alexander Mayrhofer, Jim Reid, and Richard Shockey for their helpful discussions of this document and the concept of Infrastructure ENUM.
作者希望感谢劳伦斯·康罗伊、帕特里克·法茨特罗姆、迈克尔·哈伯勒、奥特玛·伦德尔、史蒂夫·林德、亚历山大·梅尔霍夫、吉姆·里德和理查德·肖基对本文件和基础设施枚举概念的有益讨论。
[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.
[1] Faltstrom，P.和M.Mealling，“E.164到统一资源标识符（URI）动态委托发现系统（DDDS）应用程序（ENUM）”，RFC 3761，2004年4月。
[2] ITU-T, "The International Public Telecommunication Number Plan", Recommendation E.164, February 2005.
[2] ITU-T，“国际公共电信号码计划”，建议E.164，2005年2月。
[3] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - concepts and facilities", STD 13, RFC 1034, November 1987.
[3] Mockapetris，P.，“域名-概念和设施”，STD 13，RFC 1034，1987年11月。
[4] Lind, S. and P. Pfautz, "Infrastructure ENUM Requirements", RFC 5067, November 2007.
[4] Lind，S.和P.Pfautz，“基础设施枚举要求”，RFC 5067，2007年11月。
[5] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[5] Bradner，S.，“RFC中用于表示需求水平的关键词”，BCP 14，RFC 2119，1997年3月。
Authors' Addresses
作者地址
Jason Livingood Comcast Cable Communications 1500 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19102 USA
美国宾夕法尼亚州费城市场街1500号Jason Livingood Comcast有线通信公司，邮编：19102
Phone: +1-215-981-7813
EMail: jason_livingood@cable.comcast.com
Phone: +1-215-981-7813
EMail: jason_livingood@cable.comcast.com
Penn Pfautz AT&T 200 S. Laurel Ave Middletown, NJ 07748 USA
美国新泽西州米德尔顿市劳雷尔大道南200号宾夕法尼亚州普法茨电话电报公司，邮编：07748
Phone: +1-732-420-4962
EMail: ppfautz@att.com
Phone: +1-732-420-4962
EMail: ppfautz@att.com
Richard Stastny Anzbachgasse 43 1140 Vienna Austria
Richard Stastny Anzbachgasse 43 1140奥地利维也纳
Phone: +43-664-420-4100
EMail: richard.stastny@gmail.com
Phone: +43-664-420-4100
EMail: richard.stastny@gmail.com