faqs.org - Internet FAQ Archives

RFC 4725 - ENUM Validation Architecture

Or Display the document by number

Network Working Group                                       A. Mayrhofer
Request for Comments: 4725                                       enum.at
Category: Informational                                     B. Hoeneisen
                                                           November 2006

                      ENUM Validation Architecture

Status of This Memo

   This memo provides information for the Internet community.  It does
   not specify an Internet standard of any kind.  Distribution of this
   memo is unlimited.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2006).


   An ENUM domain name is tightly coupled with the underlying E.164
   number.  The process of verifying whether or not the Registrant of an
   ENUM domain name is identical to the Assignee of the corresponding
   E.164 number is commonly called "validation".  This document
   describes validation requirements and a high-level architecture for
   an ENUM validation infrastructure.

Table of Contents

   1. Introduction ....................................................3
   2. Requirements ....................................................3
   3. ENUM Provisioning Model and Roles ...............................4
      3.1. Number Assignment Entity (NAE) .............................5
      3.2. Assignee ...................................................7
      3.3. Registrant .................................................7
      3.4. Validation Entity (VE) .....................................7
      3.5. Registry ...................................................8
      3.6. Registrar ..................................................8
      3.7. Domain Name System Service Provider (DNS-SP) ...............8
      3.8. Application Service Provider (ASP) .........................8
   4. Validation Process Assumptions ..................................9
      4.1. Workflow ...................................................9
      4.2. Trust Relations ...........................................10
      4.3. Data Flow and Format ......................................11
   5. Example Scenarios ..............................................11
      5.1. E.164 Number Assignment along with ENUM Registration ......11
      5.2. Fully Disjoint Roles ......................................13
   6. Security Considerations ........................................14
      6.1. Fraud Prevention ..........................................14
      6.2. Assignee Data .............................................14
   7. Acknowledgements ...............................................15
   8. References .....................................................15
      8.1. Normative References ......................................15
      8.2. Informative References ....................................15

1.  Introduction

   E.164 Number Mapping (ENUM) [1] uses the Domain Name System (DNS) [4]
   to refer from E.164 numbers [2] to Uniform Resource Identifiers
   (URIs) [3].  E.164 numbers are mapped to domain names through means
   described further in RFC 3761 [1].

   "Ordinary" domain names are usually allocated on a first-come-first-
   served basis, where the associated registration data is the complete
   source of ownership.  However, ENUM domain names are linked to E.164
   numbers, and thus intrinsically tied to the status and the "Assignee"
   (defined in Section 3.2) of the corresponding E.164 number.

2.  Requirements

   Preserving integrity between ENUM and E.164 is one of the main
   concerns in ENUM implementations, and often one of the reasons why
   "trials" precede commercial implementations.

   To maintain this relationship between E.164 numbers and ENUM domain
   names, registration processes must ensure that the following
   requirements are fulfilled during the entire lifetime of an ENUM

   o  The ENUM domain name corresponds either to an assigned E.164
      number or to a respective E.164 number that is assigned during the
      registration process itself.

   o  The corresponding E.164 number is within a number range approved
      to be used with ENUM.

   o  The registration of the ENUM domain name is authorized by the
      Assignee of the corresponding E.164 number; i.e., the entity
      requesting the registration of an ENUM domain name is either the
      Assignee of the corresponding E.164 number itself or an entity
      authorized to request registration on behalf of said Assignee.

   o  The "Registrant" (see Section 3.3) of the ENUM domain is identical
      to the Assignee of the corresponding E.164 number.

   The process of verifying the above requirements during registration
   is commonly called "initial validation".  In addition to this one-
   time validation process, provisions must be made that ENUM domain
   name delegations are revoked when the above requirements are no
   longer met.  In other words, it must be ensured that the state of the
   ENUM domain name tracks any change in state and ownership of the

   corresponding E.164 number.  The regular process of checking that the
   above requirements are still satisfied is commonly called "recurring
   validation" or "revalidation".

   The above requirements are usually part of the local registration
   policy issued by the authorities in charge of ENUM administration.

3.  ENUM Provisioning Model and Roles

   The above requirements lead to the introduction of a new role in the
   provisioning model, an entity performing validation related tasks:
   The Validation Entity (VE).  A typical ENUM provisioning model, on
   which this document is based, is depicted in Figure 1:

                          .| Registry |- -- -- -- -- -- --
                        .  +----------+                   |
                      .          |
                    .            |                        | Trust
            DNS Delegation       |                          Relation
                .                | Registration           |
              .                  |
            .                    |                        |
   +--------+              +-----------+                +----+
   | DNS-SP |-- -- -- -- --| Registrar |----------------| VE |
   +--------+ Nameservers  +-----------+   Validation   +----+
       :                         |                     /  |
       :                         |                  E.164 Number
       :                         | ENUM             Assignment
       : NAPTR                   | Management     _ Verification
       :                         |             /          |
       :                         |          _
       :                         |      /                 |
    +-----+  ENUM enabled  +------------+ E.164 Number +-----+
    | ASP |- -- -- -- -- --| Assignee = |-- -- -- -- --| NAE |
    +-----+    Service     | Registrant |  Assignment  +-----+


         ASP:    Application Service Provider
         DNS-SP: Domain Name System Service Provider
         NAE:    Number Assignment Entity
         VE:     Validation Entity

                           Figure 1: ENUM Model

   These different roles are described further below.  Note that an
   entity can act in more than one of these roles simultaneously; for
   example, the Registrar, the DNS-SP, and the ASP roles could be
   performed by a single company.

3.1.  Number Assignment Entity (NAE)

   A Number Assignment Entity (NAE) assigns E.164 numbers to end-users.
   Often, but not always, the Communication Service Provider (CSP) of
   the end-user (Assignee) acts as NAE.  There are two main variants for
   E.164 number assignments:

   1.  Indirect assignment:

       The National Number Plan Administrator (NNPA) assigns ranges of
       E.164 numbers to CSPs.  Out of these ranges, the CSPs assign
       numbers (or number blocks) to their customers (end-users,
       Assignees).  In this variant, the CSPs perform the role of the

   2.  Direct assignment:

       In certain cases, an NNPA assigns E.164 numbers directly to
       Assignees (end-users), and therefore the NNPA acts as NAE in this
       variant.  Typically, this concerns the assignment of special
       purpose numbers (e.g., premium rate).

   These two variants of E.164 number assignment are depicted in
   Figure 2:

   | International Telecommunication Union (ITU)|
              Country codes (e.g., +44)
    | National Number Plan Administrator (NNPA) |------------+
    +-------------------------------------------+            |
                        |                                    |
                  Number Ranges                              |
            (e.g., +44 20 7946 xxxx)                         |
                        |                                    |
                        v                                    |
      +--------------------------------------+               |
      | Communication Service Provider (CSP) |               |
      +--------------------------------------+               |
                        |                                    |
                        |                              Single Numbers
              Either Single Numbers              (e.g., +44 909 8790879)
                 or Number Blocks                       (Variant 2)
     (e.g., +44 20 7946 0999, +44 20 7946 07xx)              |
                   (Variant 1)                               |
                        |                                    |
                        v                                    |
                  +----------+                               |
                  | Assignee |<------------------------------+

                     Figure 2: E.164 Number Assignment

   (Note: Numbers above are "drama" numbers and are shown for
   illustrative purpose only.  Assignment polices for similar "real"
   numbers in country code +44 may differ.)

   As the Assignee (subscriber) data associated with an E.164 number is
   the primary source of number assignment information, the NAE usually
   holds the authoritative information required to confirm the

   A CSP that acts as NAE (indirect assignment) may therefore easily
   assert the E.164 number assignment for its subscribers.  In some
   cases, such CSPs operate database(s) containing service information
   on their subscribers' numbers.  Typically, authorized entities such

   as other CSPs are allowed to access these databases, in real-time,
   under contract for the limited purposes of billing and validation (no
   marketing, data mining, or otherwise).  These databases could be re-
   used for ENUM validation purposes.

   Number portability transactions may lead to situations where the CSP
   that originally acted as NAE no longer has authoritative assignment
   information about ported numbers.  Whether the old and/or the new CSP
   act(s) as NAE for ported numbers depends on local policy.

   However, it is unlikely that all CSPs acting as NAEs will participate
   in ENUM validation.

3.2.  Assignee

   The person or organization to whom a NAE assigns an E.164 number is
   called Assignee of this number.  For the scope of this document, the
   terms Assignee, subscriber, and number-holder are used equivalently.

   The Assignee has the "right to use" on the assigned E.164 number.

3.3.  Registrant

   The ENUM Registrant is the end-user, the person or organization who
   is the "holder" of the ENUM domain name.

   The Registrant usually has control over his ENUM domain name(s) and
   its DNS zone content.

3.4.  Validation Entity (VE)

   The Validation Entity (VE) verifies whether or not the Registrant of
   an ENUM domain name is identical to the Assignee of the corresponding
   E.164 number.

   Often it also verifies that the entity requesting the registration of
   an ENUM domain name is either the Assignee of the corresponding E.164
   number itself or an entity authorized to request registration on
   behalf of said Assignee.

   This role may be performed by several parties and is not necessarily
   limited to a single entity.

   The actual validation methods applied may vary depending on, e.g.,
   the particular party, available data sources, Assignee's choice, and
   regulatory requirements.  Validation methods are out of scope of this

3.5.  Registry

   The ENUM Registry operates the master database of ENUM domain
   delegations and runs the authoritative nameservers for the relevant
   zone under e164.arpa.  There must always be a single authoritative
   ENUM Registry for a specific zone.

3.6.  Registrar

   An ENUM Registrar performs ENUM domain delegations on behalf of a
   Registrant by interacting with the Registry, typically through a
   protocol like Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP) [5].  This role
   is similar to the one that Registrars fulfill in the "ordinary"
   domain name registration world.

   The Registrar may well not be the same entity as the CSP of the
   Registrant.  Therefore, a Registrar may lack authoritative number-
   assignment information.  If the Registrar and the CSP are the same
   entity (or has a source of authoritative data), the Registrar could
   perform the role of the VE itself.

   In any case, a Registrar has to ensure a proper validation through a
   VE prior to the registration of an ENUM domain name.

3.7.  Domain Name System Service Provider (DNS-SP)

   The Domain Name System Service Provider (DNS-SP) operates the
   nameservers for the ENUM DNS zones, which contain the ENUM Naming
   Authority Pointer (NAPTR) Resource Record (RR) entries [1].

   In most cases, the Registry delegates the ENUM DNS zones to the
   nameservers at the DNS-SP.

   The DNS-SP is usually not involved in the validation process.

3.8.  Application Service Provider (ASP)

   The Application Service Provider (ASP) operates a service for the
   Registrant.  This service could be an IP telephony service, whereby
   the service provider populates the ENUM zone for its customers so
   that others can discover that customer's URI.

   Usually, the ASP is not involved in the validation process.

4.  Validation Process Assumptions

4.1.  Workflow

   The prototypical initial validation workflow using the above roles
   and definitions consists of the following steps:

   1.  A potential Registrant approaches a Registrar, and orders an ENUM
       domain name.

   2.  The Registrar chooses a cooperating Validation Entity, and
       requests an initial validation for the ENUM domain name ordered.

   3.  The Validation Entity performs the actual validation, which could
       require interaction with the Assignee/Registrant.

   4.  The Validation Entity indicates the result of the initial
       validation to the Registrar.

   5.  If the validation process was successful, the Registrar
       provisions the ENUM domain name with the Registry.  Depending on
       the local Registry policy, validation-related information may be
       provided to the Registry along with this registration.

   In most cases, local policy mandates expiration dates to be imposed
   on successful validations.  If the ENUM delegation is to be kept
   beyond this expiration date, recurring validation has to be
   performed.  A typical revalidation workflow involves the following

   1.  In good time before the current validation expires, the Registrar
       requests the Validation Entity to revalidate the domain name in

   2.  The Validation Entity verifies if the delegation requirements are
       still met.  It may use information acquired during the initial
       validation or associated to the registration data.

   3.  The Validation Entity indicates the result of the recurring
       validation to the Registrar.

   4.  In case the revalidation has been successful, the domain
       delegation may persist.  Local Registry policy may require
       updating domain name registration data, especially in case the
       Registry keeps validation-related expiry information.

   5.  In case the revalidation has failed, the ENUM domain delegation
       must be suspended, either by explicit interaction with the
       Registry or -- if the Registry keeps validation-related
       information -- automatically when the current validation expires.
       Local policy may grant a grace period on the expiration date.

   This workflow ensures the integrity between the E.164 and ENUM
   namespaces.  ENUM domain delegations that fail to meet the validation
   requirements are suspended from the DNS.

4.2.  Trust Relations

   The above validation workflow implies the following trust relations:

   o  The Registry trusts the Validation Entities to enforce the local
      validation policy.

   o  The Registrars trust the Validation Entities to properly perform
      validation based on the Registrar's request.

   o  Depending on the amount of validation data provided to the
      Registry additional trust relations may be necessary.  Three cases
      can be differentiated:

      *  The Registry receives no validation-related data: The Registry
         needs to trust the Registrar that validation has been
         performed, and the result was positive.  In addition, the
         Registry needs to trust the Registrar that it will properly
         remove delegations for which revalidation fails.

      *  The Registry receives validation-related data including expiry
         date, but there are no means of checking its authenticity: The
         Registry needs to trust the Registrar that the validation data
         provided is authentic.

      *  The Registry receives validation-related data including expiry
         date and means to verify its authenticity (e.g., a
         cryptographic signature issued by the VE): No additional trust
         relations are necessary.

4.3.  Data Flow and Format

   The validation process requires the following regular data flows
   (Note: data flows not directly related to validation are out of scope
   of this document):

   o  Registrars communicate with Validation Entities to initiate,
      modify, or cancel validation requests.  Validation Entities act
      upon validation requests and provide validation results to
      Registrars.  Since Registrars could potentially communicate with
      several Validation Entities, and Validation Entities could provide
      services to several Registrars (worst case: full mesh), a
      standardized protocol and data format should be used in this data

   o  If the local Registry policy mandates that validation-related
      information is to be stored along with delegation records, a
      validation-related data flow between Registry and Registrar is
      required.  Since the registration itself already requires
      communication between those entities, validation-related
      information in a standardized data format should be embedded into
      the existing Registry-Registrar protocol data flow.

   o  Validation Entities may need to communicate with Assignees to
      perform validation.  A Validation Entity may choose to perform all
      communication with the Assignee via the requesting Registrar
      rather than contacting the Assignee by itself.  Since the actual
      communication form and process are expected to greatly vary, it
      does not make sense to specify any data formats or processes for
      this purpose.

5.  Example Scenarios

5.1.  E.164 Number Assignment along with ENUM Registration

   In this simple scenario, we assume that the roles of the Registrar,
   the VE, and the NAE are performed by the same entity, e.g., an
   Internet Telephony Service Provider (ITSP).  This ITSP is a CSP that
   was assigned number ranges by the NNPA.  Out of these ranges he
   assigns numbers to his customers (Assignees) to provide those with
   communication services.  The ITSP chooses to assign an E.164 number
   together with the corresponding ENUM domain name.  Therefore, it can
   perform the validation simply by reference to its subscriber

   Figure 3 shows the external interactions needed for the ENUM domain
   name provisioning process:

                   | Registry |
                |                                      |
                |                    ITSP              |
                |  +-----------+              +----+   |
                |  | Registrar |              | VE |   |
                |  +-----------+      (2)     +----+   |
                |                                      |
                +--------------------------+           |
                        ^                  |           |
                        |                  |           |
                        |(1)               |           |
                        |                  |           |
                        |                  |           |
                  +------------+   (4)     |  +-----+  |
                  | Assignee = |<----------|  | NAE |  |
                  | Registrant |           |  +-----+  |
                  -------------            |           |


                     ITSP: Internet Telephony Service Provider
                     NAE:  Number Assignment Entity
                     VE:   Validation Entity

      Figure 3: E.164 Number Assignment along with ENUM Registration

   (1)  The ITSP receives an order for ENUM services.
   (2)  The ITSP assigns a free E.164 number and performs the validation
        at the same time.
   (3)  The ITSP sends an ENUM registration request to the Registry,
        which might contain additional information about the validation
   (4)  The ITSP sends a confirmation about the E.164 number assignment
        and the ENUM registration to its customer, who is now Assignee
        and Registrant.

   This scenario is quite close to "ordinary" domain name registrations.

5.2.  Fully Disjoint Roles

   In this more complex scenario, we assume that all roles of the ENUM
   provisioning model are performed by different entities.  In contrast
   with the previous example (in Section 5.1), we assume that the ENUM
   domain name to be registered is based on an already assigned E.164
   number and the NAE in question provides the VE with access to the
   subscriber database.  We further assume that there is a requirement
   for the VE to verify the intention of the Assignee.  The validation
   process therefore involves also contacting the Assignee.

   Figure 4 shows the interactions needed for the ENUM domain name
   provisioning process:

                    | Registry |
                         |             (3)
                    +-----------+ ---------->+----+
                    | Registrar |<---------- | VE |
                    +-----------+   (8)    > +----+
                         ^                / /  ^  |
                         |               / /   |  |
                         |           (7)/ /    |  |
                         |(2)          / /     |  |
                         |            / /   (5)|  |
                         |           / /       |  |
                         |          / /        |  |
                         |         / /(6)      |  |
                         |        / /          |  |(4)
                         |       / /           |  |
                         |      / /            |  |
                   +------------+<             |  v
                   | Assignee = |            +-----+
                   | Registrant |<---------- | NAE |
                   +------------+    (1)     +-----+


                     NAE:  Number Assignment Entity
                     VE:   Validation Entity

                      Figure 4: Fully Disjoint Roles

   (1)  The NAE assigns an E.164 number.  This assignment could have
        been done long before the ENUM domain name registration, e.g.,
        at the time when the Assignee subscribed to a common telephony
   (2)  The Assignee orders the corresponding ENUM domain name at a
        Registrar of his choice.
   (3)  The Registrar requests validation at an independent VE.
   (4)  The VE contacts the subscriber database of the NAE, to verify
        that the Assignee of the E.164 number corresponds to the
        Registrant of the ENUM domain name.
   (5)  The result of the NAE subscriber database is positive.
   (6)  The VE performs a call-back to the E.164 number to be registered
        as ENUM domain name, makes provisions for authentication, and
        asks the Assignee to confirm his intention.
   (7)  The Assignee confirms and the VE documents this confirmation.
   (8)  The VE returns a positive answer to the Registrar.  The answer
        might contain some additional information about the validation
        process, such as expiration date, validation method applied, and
        so on.
   (9)  Finally, the Registrar sends an ENUM registration request to the
        Registry.  Additional information about the validation process
        might be sent along with the registration request.

6.  Security Considerations

6.1.  Fraud Prevention

   Situations where an entity has control over the ENUM domain of a
   third party's E.164 number impose high fraud potential.  Unauthorized
   control over an ENUM domain of a bank could, for example, be used for
   "man in the middle" attacks on telephone banking applications.  Cases
   of such attacks could discredit ENUM as a whole.

   Implementing high-quality validation processes is therefore crucial
   to any ENUM deployment and should receive high attention.

6.2.  Assignee Data

   When handling Assignee data, privacy and discretion issues must be
   considered.  Implementations transporting assignee data over the
   Internet must use authenticated and encrypted transport protocols.
   Local registration/validation policy and agreements should clearly
   limit usage of Assignee data.

7.  Acknowledgements

   The authors would like to thank the following persons for their
   valuable suggestions and contributions: Lawrence Conroy, Michael
   Haberler, Ted Hardie, Otmar Lendl, Hala Mowafy, Marcel Parodi, Jon
   Peterson, Penn Pfautz, Patrik Schaefer, and Richard Stastny.

8.  References

8.1.  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]  ITU-T, "The international public telecommunication numbering
        plan", Recommendation E.164 (02/05), Feb 2005.

8.2.  Informative References

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

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

   [5]  Hollenbeck, S., "Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP)",
        RFC 3730, March 2004.

Authors' Addresses

   Alexander Mayrhofer
   enum.at GmbH
   Karlsplatz 1/9
   Wien  A-1010

   Phone: +43 1 5056416 34
   EMail: alexander.mayrhofer@enum.at
   URI:   http://www.enum.at/

   Bernie Hoeneisen
   Neumuehlequai 6
   CH-8001 Zuerich

   Phone: +41 44 268 1515
   EMail: hoeneisen@switch.ch, b.hoeneisen@ieee.org
   URI:   http://www.switch.ch/

Full Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2006).

   This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
   contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
   retain all their rights.

   This document and the information contained herein are provided on an

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

   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


   Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
   Internet Society.


User Contributions:

Comment about this RFC, ask questions, or add new information about this topic: