RFC5105 日本語訳
5105 ENUM Validation Token Format Definition. O. Lendl. December 2007. (Format: TXT=33057 bytes) (Status: PROPOSED STANDARD)
プログラムでの自動翻訳です。
英語原文
Network Working Group O. Lendl Request for Comments: 5105 enum.at Category: Standards Track December 2007
Network Working Group O. Lendl Request for Comments: 5105 enum.at Category: Standards Track December 2007
ENUM Validation Token Format Definition
ENUM Validation Token Format Definition
Status of This Memo
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.
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
Abstract
An ENUM domain name is tightly coupled with the underlying E.164 number. The process of verifying whether 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 a signed XML data format -- the Validation Token -- with which Validation Entities can convey successful completion of a validation procedure in a secure fashion.
An ENUM domain name is tightly coupled with the underlying E.164 number. The process of verifying whether 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 a signed XML data format -- the Validation Token -- with which Validation Entities can convey successful completion of a validation procedure in a secure fashion.
Table of Contents
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ....................................................2
2. Data Requirements ...............................................2
3. Digital Signature ...............................................3
4. Field Descriptions ..............................................4
4.1. The <validation> Element ...................................4
4.2. The <tokendata> Element ....................................5
5. Examples ........................................................6
5.1. Unsigned Token without Registrant Information ..............6
5.2. Signed Token ...............................................6
6. Formal Syntax ...................................................8
6.1. Token Core Schema ..........................................9
6.2. Token Data Schema .........................................10
7. Other Applications of the Token Concept ........................12
8. IANA Considerations ............................................12
9. Security Considerations ........................................13
10. Acknowledgements ..............................................14
11. References ....................................................14
11.1. Normative References .....................................14
11.2. Informative References ...................................15
1. Introduction ....................................................2 2. Data Requirements ...............................................2 3. Digital Signature ...............................................3 4. Field Descriptions ..............................................4 4.1. The <validation> Element ...................................4 4.2. The <tokendata> Element ....................................5 5. Examples ........................................................6 5.1. Unsigned Token without Registrant Information ..............6 5.2. Signed Token ...............................................6 6. Formal Syntax ...................................................8 6.1. Token Core Schema ..........................................9 6.2. Token Data Schema .........................................10 7. Other Applications of the Token Concept ........................12 8. IANA Considerations ............................................12 9. Security Considerations ........................................13 10. Acknowledgements ..............................................14 11. References ....................................................14 11.1. Normative References .....................................14 11.2. Informative References ...................................15
Lendl Standards Track [Page 1] RFC 5105 ENUM Validation Token December 2007
Lendl Standards Track [Page 1] RFC 5105 ENUM Validation Token December 2007
1. Introduction
1. Introduction
In the case where an ENUM (E.164 Number Mapping [1]) domain name corresponds to an existing E.164 number [2], the delegation of this domain needs to be authorized by the Assignee of the corresponding E.164 number. In the role model described in [15], the entity that performs this check is called the Validation Entity (VE).
In the case where an ENUM (E.164 Number Mapping [1]) domain name corresponds to an existing E.164 number [2], the delegation of this domain needs to be authorized by the Assignee of the corresponding E.164 number. In the role model described in [15], the entity that performs this check is called the Validation Entity (VE).
By conveying an ENUM Validation Token -- a signed XML document -- to the Registry, a VE certifies that delegation requirements have been met and are current.
By conveying an ENUM Validation Token -- a signed XML document -- to the Registry, a VE certifies that delegation requirements have been met and are current.
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 RFC 2119 [3].
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 RFC 2119 [3].
2. Data Requirements
2. Data Requirements
In this model, the Token is the only piece of data passed from the VE to the Registry. Therefore, the Token needs to contain at least as much information as the Registry requires to grant the delegation of the requested ENUM domain according to its registration policy. As such, the Registry will need confirmation that:
In this model, the Token is the only piece of data passed from the VE to the Registry. Therefore, the Token needs to contain at least as much information as the Registry requires to grant the delegation of the requested ENUM domain according to its registration policy. As such, the Registry will need confirmation that:
o the Token was created by an accredited VE,
o the Token was created by an accredited VE,
o the Token's duration of validity conforms to the policy,
o the Token's duration of validity conforms to the policy,
o the validation procedure employed has met minimum requirements as
set forth by policy,
o the validation procedure employed has met minimum requirements as set forth by policy,
o and that the Token is protected against tampering and replay
attacks.
o and that the Token is protected against tampering and replay attacks.
Beyond such mandatory information, the Token may optionally include number holder information, in particular, to simplify future revalidations.
Beyond such mandatory information, the Token may optionally include number holder information, in particular, to simplify future revalidations.
For example, if initial validation requires the steps "Check the identity of the Registrant" and "Check the ownership of an E.164 number", then a later revalidation only needs to re-check the ownership as the identity of the Registrant does not change.
For example, if initial validation requires the steps "Check the identity of the Registrant" and "Check the ownership of an E.164 number", then a later revalidation only needs to re-check the ownership as the identity of the Registrant does not change.
As the Token will be included (see e.g., [16]) in XML-based Registry/ Registrar protocols like the Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP) [13], it is a natural choice to use XML to encode Validation Tokens.
As the Token will be included (see e.g., [16]) in XML-based Registry/ Registrar protocols like the Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP) [13], it is a natural choice to use XML to encode Validation Tokens.
Lendl Standards Track [Page 2] RFC 5105 ENUM Validation Token December 2007
Lendl Standards Track [Page 2] RFC 5105 ENUM Validation Token December 2007
3. Digital Signature
3. Digital Signature
According to the architecture model the propriety of an ENUM delegation depends on the trust relationship between the Registry and the VE. In general, an untrusted link between the Registry and VE should be assumed (for instance, the Token is passed along with the registration request by a Registrar, who might have no role in asserting the right-to-use). Therefore, the Token must be protected against forgery, tampering, and replay-attacks.
According to the architecture model the propriety of an ENUM delegation depends on the trust relationship between the Registry and the VE. In general, an untrusted link between the Registry and VE should be assumed (for instance, the Token is passed along with the registration request by a Registrar, who might have no role in asserting the right-to-use). Therefore, the Token must be protected against forgery, tampering, and replay-attacks.
A digital signature on the token:
A digital signature on the token:
o asserts that the token was indeed generated by the indicated VE
(authenticity).
o asserts that the token was indeed generated by the indicated VE (authenticity).
o guarantees that the token was not tampered with in transit
(integrity).
o guarantees that the token was not tampered with in transit (integrity).
o enables auditing the validation process (non-repudiation).
o enables auditing the validation process (non-repudiation).
The cryptographic signature on the token follows RFC 3275 (XML-DSIG [4]). As tokens might be transmitted as part of an already XML based protocol, the exclusive XML canonicalization [9] MUST be used. This transform guarantees that namespace declarations inherited from the surrounding XML do not invalidate the signature. In order to make the signature an integral part of the token, the "enveloped"-signature mode is employed. The signature covers all information contained in the Token.
The cryptographic signature on the token follows RFC 3275 (XML-DSIG [4]). As tokens might be transmitted as part of an already XML based protocol, the exclusive XML canonicalization [9] MUST be used. This transform guarantees that namespace declarations inherited from the surrounding XML do not invalidate the signature. In order to make the signature an integral part of the token, the "enveloped"-signature mode is employed. The signature covers all information contained in the Token.
XML-DSIG offers a number of cryptographic algorithms for digesting and signing documents and recommends SHA1/RSA-SHA1. Recent advances in cryptanalysis have cast doubt on the security of SHA1, thus rendering this recommendation obsolete (see e.g., the Security Considerations of [14]). RFC 4051 [5] defines how additional algorithms can be used with XML-DSIG.
XML-DSIG offers a number of cryptographic algorithms for digesting and signing documents and recommends SHA1/RSA-SHA1. Recent advances in cryptanalysis have cast doubt on the security of SHA1, thus rendering this recommendation obsolete (see e.g., the Security Considerations of [14]). RFC 4051 [5] defines how additional algorithms can be used with XML-DSIG.
Validation Entities MUST be able to sign tokens according to XML-DSIG, MUST support RSA-SHA1 and RSA-SHA256 [5], MUST support RSA key sizes of 1024 and 2048 bits, and MUST be able to embed X.509 [10] certificates. The Registry MUST define which signature algorithms and key sizes it will accept in Validation Tokens as part of its local policy.
Validation Entities MUST be able to sign tokens according to XML-DSIG, MUST support RSA-SHA1 and RSA-SHA256 [5], MUST support RSA key sizes of 1024 and 2048 bits, and MUST be able to embed X.509 [10] certificates. The Registry MUST define which signature algorithms and key sizes it will accept in Validation Tokens as part of its local policy.
The choice of a RSA-based signature does not require a public key infrastructure. Whether the Registry acts as a certification authority, accepts certs from a public certification authority, or only accepts pre-registered keys is a local policy choice.
The choice of a RSA-based signature does not require a public key infrastructure. Whether the Registry acts as a certification authority, accepts certs from a public certification authority, or only accepts pre-registered keys is a local policy choice.
Lendl Standards Track [Page 3] RFC 5105 ENUM Validation Token December 2007
Lendl Standards Track [Page 3] RFC 5105 ENUM Validation Token December 2007
4. Field Descriptions
4. Field Descriptions
The Validation Token is structured into three parts: the basic validation information, additional information about the Registrant, and the digital signature. The XML schema can be found in Section 6.
The Validation Token is structured into three parts: the basic validation information, additional information about the Registrant, and the digital signature. The XML schema can be found in Section 6.
4.1. The <validation> Element
4.1. The <validation> Element
A token MUST contain a <validation> element that contains the following:
A token MUST contain a <validation> element that contains the following:
o A single validation "serial" attribute identifying a validation
token for a certain VE. It must be unique per VE.
o A single validation "serial" attribute identifying a validation token for a certain VE. It must be unique per VE.
o A single <E164Number> element containing the underlying E.164
number in fully qualified (international) format.
o A single <E164Number> element containing the underlying E.164 number in fully qualified (international) format.
o An optional <lastE164Number> element. If present, it indicates
that the whole number block starting with <E164Number> up to and
including <lastE164Number> has been validated. To avoid
ambiguity, both numbers MUST be of the same length.
o An optional <lastE164Number> element. If present, it indicates that the whole number block starting with <E164Number> up to and including <lastE164Number> has been validated. To avoid ambiguity, both numbers MUST be of the same length.
o A single <validationEntityID> element identifying the VE.
o A single <validationEntityID> element identifying the VE.
o A single <registrarID> element identifying the Registrar on whose
behalf the validation was performed.
o A single <registrarID> element identifying the Registrar on whose behalf the validation was performed.
o A single <methodID> element identifying the method used by the VE
for validation.
o A single <methodID> element identifying the method used by the VE for validation.
o A single <executionDate> attribute containing the date of
validation formatted as "full-date" according to RFC 3339 [6].
o A single <executionDate> attribute containing the date of validation formatted as "full-date" according to RFC 3339 [6].
o An optional <expirationDate> attribute marking the expiration date
of the validation token formatted as "full-date" according to RFC
3339. The Registry will automatically revoke the delegation at
this date unless a new Token has been submitted that extends the
lifetime of the validation. A missing <expirationDate> indicates
infinite validity of the Token.
o An optional <expirationDate> attribute marking the expiration date of the validation token formatted as "full-date" according to RFC 3339. The Registry will automatically revoke the delegation at this date unless a new Token has been submitted that extends the lifetime of the validation. A missing <expirationDate> indicates infinite validity of the Token.
The format and the uniqueness-constraints of these IDs is left to the local policy of the Registry.
The format and the uniqueness-constraints of these IDs is left to the local policy of the Registry.
Lendl Standards Track [Page 4] RFC 5105 ENUM Validation Token December 2007
Lendl Standards Track [Page 4] RFC 5105 ENUM Validation Token December 2007
4.2. The <tokendata> Element
4.2. The <tokendata> Element
A token may contain a <tokendata> section containing information about the number holder, consisting of the following elements:
A token may contain a <tokendata> section containing information about the number holder, consisting of the following elements:
o A single <organization> element containing the full name of the
organization to which the Registrant is affiliated.
o A single <organization> element containing the full name of the organization to which the Registrant is affiliated.
o A single <commercialregisternumber> element. If the Registrant is
a company, then this field can be used to uniquely identify this
company by its official registration number within the local
country. The interpretation of this field is thus
country-specific.
o A single <commercialregisternumber> element. If the Registrant is a company, then this field can be used to uniquely identify this company by its official registration number within the local country. The interpretation of this field is thus country-specific.
o A single <title> element.
o A single <title> element.
o A single <firstname> element.
o A single <firstname> element.
o A single <lastname> element.
o A single <lastname> element.
o A single <address> section containing the following elements:
* A single optional <streetName>
* A single optional <houseNumber>
* A single optional <postalCode>
* A single optional <locality>
* A single optional <countyStateOrProvince>
* A single optional <ISOcountryCode>
o A single <address> section containing the following elements: * A single optional <streetName> * A single optional <houseNumber> * A single optional <postalCode> * A single optional <locality> * A single optional <countyStateOrProvince> * A single optional <ISOcountryCode>
o Up to 10 <phone> elements containing full E.164 numbers.
o Up to 10 <phone> elements containing full E.164 numbers.
o Up to 10 <fax> elements containing full E.164 numbers.
o Up to 10 <fax> elements containing full E.164 numbers.
o Up to 10 <email> elements.
o Up to 10 <email> elements.
All elements directly under <tokendata> are optional. The <ISOcountryCode> element specifies the country using the alpha-2 country code from ISO 3166-1:2006 [11] (including updates published by the 3166 Maintenance Agency). The definition of the first five elements within the <address> element conforms to the second version of the E.115 Computerized Directory Assistance [17].
All elements directly under <tokendata> are optional. The <ISOcountryCode> element specifies the country using the alpha-2 country code from ISO 3166-1:2006 [11] (including updates published by the 3166 Maintenance Agency). The definition of the first five elements within the <address> element conforms to the second version of the E.115 Computerized Directory Assistance [17].
Lendl Standards Track [Page 5] RFC 5105 ENUM Validation Token December 2007
Lendl Standards Track [Page 5] RFC 5105 ENUM Validation Token December 2007
5. Examples
5. Examples
5.1. Unsigned Token without Registrant Information
5.1. Unsigned Token without Registrant Information
This basic Token without any information about the Registrant and without the cryptographic signature shows the basic layout of the Token.
This basic Token without any information about the Registrant and without the cryptographic signature shows the basic layout of the Token.
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="no" ?>
<token xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:enum-token-1.0" Id="TOKEN"
xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance"
xsi:schemaLocation=
"urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:enum-token-1.0 enum-token-1.0.xsd">
<validation serial="acmeve-000002">
<E164Number>+442079460200</E164Number>
<lastE164Number>+442079460499</lastE164Number>
<validationEntityID>ACME-VE</validationEntityID>
<registrarID>reg-4711</registrarID>
<methodID>42</methodID>
<executionDate>2007-05-08</executionDate>
<expirationDate>2007-11-01</expirationDate>
</validation>
</token>
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="no" ?> <token xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:enum-token-1.0" Id="TOKEN" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xsi:schemaLocation= "urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:enum-token-1.0 enum-token-1.0.xsd"> <validation serial="acmeve-000002"> <E164Number>+442079460200</E164Number> <lastE164Number>+442079460499</lastE164Number> <validationEntityID>ACME-VE</validationEntityID> <registrarID>reg-4711</registrarID> <methodID>42</methodID> <executionDate>2007-05-08</executionDate> <expirationDate>2007-11-01</expirationDate> </validation> </token>
5.2. Signed Token
5.2. Signed Token
This example uses an X.509 based signature that includes the certificate of the signing validation entity. Thus, the validity of the signature can be verified without the need for a key-server. A valid signature is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for a valid Token. Any entity evaluating a Token needs to check other factors as well, e.g., the certificate and the XML schema.
This example uses an X.509 based signature that includes the certificate of the signing validation entity. Thus, the validity of the signature can be verified without the need for a key-server. A valid signature is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for a valid Token. Any entity evaluating a Token needs to check other factors as well, e.g., the certificate and the XML schema.
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="no" ?>
<token xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:enum-token-1.0" Id="TOKEN"
xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance"
xsi:schemaLocation=
"urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:enum-token-1.0 enum-token-1.0.xsd">
<validation serial="acmeve-000001">
<E164Number>+442079460123</E164Number>
<validationEntityID>ACME-VE</validationEntityID>
<registrarID>reg-4711</registrarID>
<methodID>42</methodID>
<executionDate>2007-05-08</executionDate>
</validation>
<tokendata xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:enum-tokendata-1.0"
xsi:schemaLocation=
"urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:enum-tokendata-1.0 enum-tokendata-1.0.xsd">
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="no" ?> <token xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:enum-token-1.0" Id="TOKEN" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xsi:schemaLocation= "urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:enum-token-1.0 enum-token-1.0.xsd"> <validation serial="acmeve-000001"> <E164Number>+442079460123</E164Number> <validationEntityID>ACME-VE</validationEntityID> <registrarID>reg-4711</registrarID> <methodID>42</methodID> <executionDate>2007-05-08</executionDate> </validation> <tokendata xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:enum-tokendata-1.0" xsi:schemaLocation= "urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:enum-tokendata-1.0 enum-tokendata-1.0.xsd">
Lendl Standards Track [Page 6] RFC 5105 ENUM Validation Token December 2007
Lendl Standards Track [Page 6] RFC 5105 ENUM Validation Token December 2007
<contact>
<organisation>Example Inc.</organisation>
<commercialregisternumber>4711</commercialregisternumber>
<title>Dr.</title>
<firstname>Max</firstname>
<lastname>Mustermann</lastname>
<address>
<streetName>Main</streetName>
<houseNumber>10</houseNumber>
<postalCode>1010</postalCode>
<locality>London</locality>
<countyStateOrProvince>London</countyStateOrProvince>
<ISOcountryCode>GB</ISOcountryCode>
</address>
<phone>+442079460123</phone>
<email>mm@example.com</email>
</contact>
</tokendata>
<Signature xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/09/xmldsig#">
<SignedInfo>
<CanonicalizationMethod
Algorithm="http://www.w3.org/2001/10/xml-exc-c14n#"/>
<SignatureMethod
Algorithm="http://www.w3.org/2001/04/xmldsig-more#rsa-sha256"/>
<Reference URI="#TOKEN">
<Transforms>
<Transform Algorithm=
"http://www.w3.org/2000/09/xmldsig#enveloped-signature"/>
<Transform
Algorithm="http://www.w3.org/2001/10/xml-exc-c14n#">
<InclusiveNamespaces
xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2001/10/xml-exc-c14n#"
PrefixList="enum-token enum-tokendata"/>
</Transform>
</Transforms>
<DigestMethod
Algorithm="http://www.w3.org/2001/04/xmlenc#sha256"/>
<DigestValue
>VxqsBxSNPFwPAUlCHts3g3DehcexnB1dqUz+GypLZ0k=</DigestValue>
</Reference>
</SignedInfo>
<SignatureValue>
QKqphKRNPokVZFbenje+HZZV+RLrNweGnlWBw7ngAtH+rtuslR8LhMLmC4DlBb9V
HvKItl+7zLGm3VgYsqfHH8q3jCl1mFxUIuLlIPqtpJs+xAHAJDzZ+vmsF/q2IgrS
K0uMmKuU5V1gydDBOvIipcJx+PrPYyXYZSjQXkWknK8=</SignatureValue>
<KeyInfo>
<X509Data>
<X509Certificate>
<contact> <organisation>Example Inc.</organisation> <commercialregisternumber>4711</commercialregisternumber> <title>Dr.</title> <firstname>Max</firstname> <lastname>Mustermann</lastname> <address> <streetName>Main</streetName> <houseNumber>10</houseNumber> <postalCode>1010</postalCode> <locality>London</locality> <countyStateOrProvince>London</countyStateOrProvince> <ISOcountryCode>GB</ISOcountryCode> </address> <phone>+442079460123</phone> <email>mm@example.com</email> </contact> </tokendata> <Signature xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/09/xmldsig#"> <SignedInfo> <CanonicalizationMethod Algorithm="http://www.w3.org/2001/10/xml-exc-c14n#"/> <SignatureMethod Algorithm="http://www.w3.org/2001/04/xmldsig-more#rsa-sha256"/> <Reference URI="#TOKEN"> <Transforms> <Transform Algorithm= "http://www.w3.org/2000/09/xmldsig#enveloped-signature"/> <Transform Algorithm="http://www.w3.org/2001/10/xml-exc-c14n#"> <InclusiveNamespaces xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2001/10/xml-exc-c14n#" PrefixList="enum-token enum-tokendata"/> </Transform> </Transforms> <DigestMethod Algorithm="http://www.w3.org/2001/04/xmlenc#sha256"/> <DigestValue >VxqsBxSNPFwPAUlCHts3g3DehcexnB1dqUz+GypLZ0k=</DigestValue> </Reference> </SignedInfo> <SignatureValue> QKqphKRNPokVZFbenje+HZZV+RLrNweGnlWBw7ngAtH+rtuslR8LhMLmC4DlBb9V HvKItl+7zLGm3VgYsqfHH8q3jCl1mFxUIuLlIPqtpJs+xAHAJDzZ+vmsF/q2IgrS K0uMmKuU5V1gydDBOvIipcJx+PrPYyXYZSjQXkWknK8=</SignatureValue> <KeyInfo> <X509Data> <X509Certificate>
Lendl Standards Track [Page 7] RFC 5105 ENUM Validation Token December 2007
Lendl Standards Track [Page 7] RFC 5105 ENUM Validation Token December 2007
MIIDZjCCAs+gAwIBAgIBBDANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQQFADB0MQswCQYDVQQGEwJBVDEP MA0GA1UEBxMGVmllbm5hMRQwEgYDVQQKEwtCT0ZIIENlcnRzLjEbMBkGA1UEAxMS Q0VSVFMuYm9maC5wcml2LmF0MSEwHwYJKoZIhvcNAQkBFhJjZXJ0c0Bib2ZoLnBy aXYuYXQwHhcNMDQwNzIwMTMxNTA5WhcNMDUwNzIwMTMxNTA5WjB/MQswCQYDVQQG EwJBVDEKMAgGA1UECBMBLTEPMA0GA1UEBxMGVmllbm5hMR0wGwYDVQQKExRBY21l IEVOVU0gVmFsaWRhdGlvbjEQMA4GA1UEAxMHYWNtZS1WRTEiMCAGCSqGSIb3DQEJ ARYTbm9ib2R5QGVudW0tYWNtZS5hdDCBnzANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQEFAAOBjQAwgYkC gYEArJPcjMFc54/zwztSdQXGxUtodJT9r1qGI2lQPNjLvtPJg93+7o5SIOsZGSpg zWbztDAV5qc7PHZWUVIyf6MbM5qSgQDVrjNRhTosNtyqmwi23BH52SKkX3P7eGit LmqEkiUZRxZhZ6upRbtcqvKSwmXitvW4zXZhkVHYJZ2HuMcCAwEAAaOB/DCB+TAJ BgNVHRMEAjAAMCwGCWCGSAGG+EIBDQQfFh1PcGVuU1NMIEdlbmVyYXRlZCBDZXJ0 aWZpY2F0ZTAdBgNVHQ4EFgQUyK4otTQtvv6KdSlMBOPT5Ve18JgwgZ4GA1UdIwSB ljCBk4AUvfPadpm0HhmZx2iAVumQTwgnG2eheKR2MHQxCzAJBgNVBAYTAkFUMQ8w DQYDVQQHEwZWaWVubmExFDASBgNVBAoTC0JPRkggQ2VydHMuMRswGQYDVQQDExJD RVJUUy5ib2ZoLnByaXYuYXQxITAfBgkqhkiG9w0BCQEWEmNlcnRzQGJvZmgucHJp di5hdIIBADANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQQFAAOBgQCB9CHBnIUhrdic4h5Ar4hdxjHSQkDH sJWd+MYrNcuSrv3TIOsUkUgNpNNhmkZPtiXqfy3388IRdJtJiLWXSOb/XlZHOM9I MvwKYwhcpQ9UdM/w7VpXQqf+CEj0XSyqxGw65UsHIOijgiG/WyhSj+Lzriw7CTge P2iAJkJVC4t2XA== </X509Certificate> </X509Data> </KeyInfo> </Signature> </token>
MIIDZjCCAs+gAwIBAgIBBDANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQQFADB0MQswCQYDVQQGEwJBVDEP MA0GA1UEBxMGVmllbm5hMRQwEgYDVQQKEwtCT0ZIIENlcnRzLjEbMBkGA1UEAxMS Q0VSVFMuYm9maC5wcml2LmF0MSEwHwYJKoZIhvcNAQkBFhJjZXJ0c0Bib2ZoLnBy aXYuYXQwHhcNMDQwNzIwMTMxNTA5WhcNMDUwNzIwMTMxNTA5WjB/MQswCQYDVQQG EwJBVDEKMAgGA1UECBMBLTEPMA0GA1UEBxMGVmllbm5hMR0wGwYDVQQKExRBY21l IEVOVU0gVmFsaWRhdGlvbjEQMA4GA1UEAxMHYWNtZS1WRTEiMCAGCSqGSIb3DQEJ ARYTbm9ib2R5QGVudW0tYWNtZS5hdDCBnzANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQEFAAOBjQAwgYkC gYEArJPcjMFc54/zwztSdQXGxUtodJT9r1qGI2lQPNjLvtPJg93+7o5SIOsZGSpg zWbztDAV5qc7PHZWUVIyf6MbM5qSgQDVrjNRhTosNtyqmwi23BH52SKkX3P7eGit LmqEkiUZRxZhZ6upRbtcqvKSwmXitvW4zXZhkVHYJZ2HuMcCAwEAAaOB/DCB+TAJ BgNVHRMEAjAAMCwGCWCGSAGG+EIBDQQfFh1PcGVuU1NMIEdlbmVyYXRlZCBDZXJ0 aWZpY2F0ZTAdBgNVHQ4EFgQUyK4otTQtvv6KdSlMBOPT5Ve18JgwgZ4GA1UdIwSB ljCBk4AUvfPadpm0HhmZx2iAVumQTwgnG2eheKR2MHQxCzAJBgNVBAYTAkFUMQ8w DQYDVQQHEwZWaWVubmExFDASBgNVBAoTC0JPRkggQ2VydHMuMRswGQYDVQQDExJD RVJUUy5ib2ZoLnByaXYuYXQxITAfBgkqhkiG9w0BCQEWEmNlcnRzQGJvZmgucHJp di5hdIIBADANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQQFAAOBgQCB9CHBnIUhrdic4h5Ar4hdxjHSQkDH sJWd+MYrNcuSrv3TIOsUkUgNpNNhmkZPtiXqfy3388IRdJtJiLWXSOb/XlZHOM9I MvwKYwhcpQ9UdM/w7VpXQqf+CEj0XSyqxGw65UsHIOijgiG/WyhSj+Lzriw7CTge P2iAJkJVC4t2XA== </X509Certificate> </X509Data> </KeyInfo> </Signature> </token>
6. Formal Syntax
6. Formal Syntax
The formal syntax of the validation token is specified using XML schema notation [7] [8]. Two schemas are defined: The "token core schema" contains mandatory attribute definitions, and the "token data schema" defines the format of the optional "tokendata" section. The BEGIN and END tags are not part of the schema; they are used to note the beginning and ending of the schema for URI registration purposes.
The formal syntax of the validation token is specified using XML schema notation [7] [8]. Two schemas are defined: The "token core schema" contains mandatory attribute definitions, and the "token data schema" defines the format of the optional "tokendata" section. The BEGIN and END tags are not part of the schema; they are used to note the beginning and ending of the schema for URI registration purposes.
Lendl Standards Track [Page 8] RFC 5105 ENUM Validation Token December 2007
Lendl Standards Track [Page 8] RFC 5105 ENUM Validation Token December 2007
6.1. Token Core Schema
6.1. Token Core Schema
BEGIN <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
BEGIN <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<schema targetNamespace="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:enum-token-1.0"
xmlns:enum-token="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:enum-token-1.0"
xmlns:enum-tokendata="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:enum-tokendata-1.0"
xmlns:ds="http://www.w3.org/2000/09/xmldsig#"
xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema"
elementFormDefault="qualified">
<schema targetNamespace="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:enum-token-1.0" xmlns:enum-token="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:enum-token-1.0" xmlns:enum-tokendata="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:enum-tokendata-1.0" xmlns:ds="http://www.w3.org/2000/09/xmldsig#" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema" elementFormDefault="qualified">
<!-- Import common element types. -->
<!-- Import common element types. -->
<import namespace="http://www.w3.org/2000/09/xmldsig#"
schemaLocation="xmldsig-core-schema.xsd"/>
<import namespace="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:enum-tokendata-1.0"
schemaLocation="enum-tokendata-1.0.xsd"/>
<import namespace="http://www.w3.org/2000/09/xmldsig#" schemaLocation="xmldsig-core-schema.xsd"/> <import namespace="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:enum-tokendata-1.0" schemaLocation="enum-tokendata-1.0.xsd"/>
<annotation>
<documentation>
Validation Token core schema
</documentation>
</annotation>
<annotation> <documentation> Validation Token core schema </documentation> </annotation>
<element name="token" type="enum-token:tokenBaseType"/>
<element name="token" type="enum-token:tokenBaseType"/>
<simpleType name="shortTokenType">
<restriction base="token">
<minLength value="1"/>
<maxLength value="20"/>
</restriction>
</simpleType>
<simpleType name="shortTokenType"> <restriction base="token"> <minLength value="1"/> <maxLength value="20"/> </restriction> </simpleType>
<simpleType name="e164numberType">
<restriction base="token">
<maxLength value="20"/>
<pattern value="\+\d\d*"/>
</restriction>
</simpleType>
<simpleType name="e164numberType"> <restriction base="token"> <maxLength value="20"/> <pattern value="\+\d\d*"/> </restriction> </simpleType>
<complexType name="validationDataType">
<sequence>
<element name="E164Number"
type="enum-token:e164numberType"/>
<element name="lastE164Number" minOccurs="0"
type="enum-token:e164numberType"/>
<element name="validationEntityID"
<complexType name="validationDataType"> <sequence> <element name="E164Number" type="enum-token:e164numberType"/> <element name="lastE164Number" minOccurs="0" type="enum-token:e164numberType"/> <element name="validationEntityID"
Lendl Standards Track [Page 9] RFC 5105 ENUM Validation Token December 2007
Lendl Standards Track [Page 9] RFC 5105 ENUM Validation Token December 2007
type="enum-token:shortTokenType"/>
<element name="registrarID"
type="enum-token:shortTokenType"/>
<element name="methodID"
type="enum-token:shortTokenType"/>
<element name="executionDate" type="date"/>
<element name="expirationDate"
type="date" minOccurs="0"/>
</sequence>
<attribute name="serial" type="enum-token:shortTokenType"
use="required"/>
</complexType>
type="enum-token:shortTokenType"/> <element name="registrarID" type="enum-token:shortTokenType"/> <element name="methodID" type="enum-token:shortTokenType"/> <element name="executionDate" type="date"/> <element name="expirationDate" type="date" minOccurs="0"/> </sequence> <attribute name="serial" type="enum-token:shortTokenType" use="required"/> </complexType>
<complexType name="tokenBaseType">
<sequence>
<element name="validation"
type="enum-token:validationDataType"/>
<any namespace="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:enum-tokendata-1.0"
minOccurs="0"/>
<any namespace="http://www.w3.org/2000/09/xmldsig#"/>
</sequence>
<attribute name="Id" type="ID" use="required"/>
</complexType>
</schema>
END
<complexType name="tokenBaseType"> <sequence> <element name="validation" type="enum-token:validationDataType"/> <any namespace="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:enum-tokendata-1.0" minOccurs="0"/> <any namespace="http://www.w3.org/2000/09/xmldsig#"/> </sequence> <attribute name="Id" type="ID" use="required"/> </complexType> </schema> END
6.2. Token Data Schema
6.2. Token Data Schema
BEGIN <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
BEGIN <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<schema targetNamespace="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:enum-tokendata-1.0"
xmlns:enum-tokendata="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:enum-tokendata-1.0"
xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema"
elementFormDefault="qualified">
<schema targetNamespace="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:enum-tokendata-1.0" xmlns:enum-tokendata="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:enum-tokendata-1.0" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema" elementFormDefault="qualified">
<element name="tokendata" type="enum-tokendata:tokenDataType"/>
<element name="tokendata" type="enum-tokendata:tokenDataType"/>
<simpleType name="E115String">
<restriction base="string">
<pattern value="[ -z -퟿-�]*"/>
</restriction>
</simpleType>
<simpleType name="E115String"> <restriction base="string"> <pattern value="[ -z --�]*"/> </restriction> </simpleType>
<simpleType name="E115StringUb256">
<restriction base="enum-tokendata:E115String">
<minLength value="1"/>
<maxLength value="256"/>
<simpleType name="E115StringUb256"> <restriction base="enum-tokendata:E115String"> <minLength value="1"/> <maxLength value="256"/>
Lendl Standards Track [Page 10] RFC 5105 ENUM Validation Token December 2007
Lendl Standards Track [Page 10] RFC 5105 ENUM Validation Token December 2007
</restriction>
</simpleType>
</restriction> </simpleType>
<simpleType name="countryCodeType">
<restriction base="token">
<minLength value="2"/>
<maxLength value="2"/>
</restriction>
</simpleType>
<simpleType name="countryCodeType"> <restriction base="token"> <minLength value="2"/> <maxLength value="2"/> </restriction> </simpleType>
<simpleType name="TokenType">
<restriction base="token">
<minLength value="1"/>
<maxLength value="64"/>
</restriction>
</simpleType>
<simpleType name="TokenType"> <restriction base="token"> <minLength value="1"/> <maxLength value="64"/> </restriction> </simpleType>
<complexType name="addressType">
<all>
<element name="streetName" minOccurs="0"
type="enum-tokendata:E115StringUb256" />
<element name="houseNumber" minOccurs="0"
type="enum-tokendata:E115StringUb256"/>
<element name="postalCode" minOccurs="0"
type="enum-tokendata:E115StringUb256"/>
<element name="locality" minOccurs="0"
type="enum-tokendata:E115StringUb256"/>
<element name="countyStateOrProvince" minOccurs="0"
type="enum-tokendata:E115StringUb256"/>
<element name="ISOcountryCode" minOccurs="0"
type="enum-tokendata:countryCodeType"/>
</all>
</complexType>
<complexType name="addressType"> <all> <element name="streetName" minOccurs="0" type="enum-tokendata:E115StringUb256" /> <element name="houseNumber" minOccurs="0" type="enum-tokendata:E115StringUb256"/> <element name="postalCode" minOccurs="0" type="enum-tokendata:E115StringUb256"/> <element name="locality" minOccurs="0" type="enum-tokendata:E115StringUb256"/> <element name="countyStateOrProvince" minOccurs="0" type="enum-tokendata:E115StringUb256"/> <element name="ISOcountryCode" minOccurs="0" type="enum-tokendata:countryCodeType"/> </all> </complexType>
<group name="tokenContactBaseGroup">
<sequence>
<element name="organisation" minOccurs="0"
type="enum-tokendata:E115StringUb256"/>
<element name="commercialregisternumber" minOccurs="0"
type="enum-tokendata:TokenType"/>
<element name="title" minOccurs="0"
type="enum-tokendata:TokenType"/>
<element name="firstname" minOccurs="0"
type="enum-tokendata:E115StringUb256"/>
<element name="lastname" minOccurs="0"
type="enum-tokendata:E115StringUb256"/>
<element name="address" minOccurs="0"
type="enum-tokendata:addressType"/>
<グループ名=「tokenContactBaseGroup「><系列><要素名=」機構」minOccursが等しい、「0インチが=「enum-tokendata: E115StringUb256」/><要素名=の「よりcommercialregisternumberな」minOccurs=をタイプする、「0インチは=「enum-tokendata: TokenType」という/><要素名義の=「タイトル」minOccurs=「0インチ」をタイプします; =「enum-tokendata: TokenType」/><要素名=の「firstnameな」minOccurs=をタイプしてください、「0インチが=「enum-tokendata: E115StringUb256」/><要素名=の「lastnameな」minOccurs=をタイプする、「0インチのタイプ=「enum-tokendata: E115StringUb256」という/><要素名義の=「アドレス」minOccursは「0インチは=「enum-tokendata: addressType」/>をタイプすること」と等しいです。
Lendl Standards Track [Page 11] RFC 5105 ENUM Validation Token December 2007
レンドルStandardsはENUM合法化トークン2007年12月にRFC5105を追跡します[11ページ]。
<element name="phone" type="enum-tokendata:TokenType"
minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="10" />
<element name="fax" type="enum-tokendata:TokenType"
minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="10" />
<element name="email" type="enum-tokendata:TokenType"
minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="10" />
</sequence>
</group>
<要素名前=「電話」タイプが等しい、「enum-tokendata: TokenType」minOccursが10インチ/>の「0インチのmaxOccurs=」の<の要素の名前の=の「ファックス」のタイプ=「enum-tokendata: TokenType」minOccurs=「0インチのmaxOccurs=」の<の要素の名前の=の「メール」のタイプ=「enum-tokendata: TokenType」minOccurs=「0インチのmaxOccurs=」の10インチ/>の10インチ/>の</系列と等しい、></グループ>。
<complexType name="contactType">
<sequence>
<group ref="enum-tokendata:tokenContactBaseGroup"/>
</sequence>
</complexType>
<complexTypeが=を命名する、「contactType「><系列><グループの審判=「enum-tokendata: tokenContactBaseGroup」/></系列></complexType>」
<complexType name="tokenDataType">
<sequence>
<element name="contact" type="enum-tokendata:contactType"/>
</sequence>
</complexType>
<complexType名前=「tokenDataType「><系列><要素名=」接触」タイプ=「enum-tokendata: contactType」/></系列></complexType>。
</schema> END
</図式>エンド
7. Other Applications of the Token Concept
7. トークン概念の他のアプリケーション
The concept of the validation token may be useful in other registry-type applications where the proof of an underlying right is a condition for a valid registration.
合法化トークンの概念は基本的な権利の証拠が有効な登録のための状態である他の登録タイプアプリケーションで役に立つかもしれません。
An example is a Top Level Domain (TLD) where registration is subject to proof of some precondition, like a trade mark or the right in a name. Such situations often arise during the introduction of a new TLD, e.g., during a "sunrise" phase.
例は登録が何らかの前提条件の証拠を受けることがあるTop Level Domain(TLD)です、商標や名前の権利のように。 そのような状況は新しいTLDの導入、例えば、「日の出」段階の間、しばしば起こります。
A Number Portability (NP) database faces very similar verification issues. An NP system based on the Token concept could potentially be superior to current methods, and aid in the convergence of NP and ENUM.
Number Portability(NP)データベースは非常に同様の検証問題に直面しています。 Token概念に基づくNPシステムは現在のメソッド、および援助よりNPとENUMの集合に潜在的に優れているかもしれません。
8. IANA Considerations
8. IANA問題
This document uses Uniform Resource Names (URNs) to describe XML namespaces and XML schemas conforming to a registry mechanism described in RFC 3688 [12]. IANA has made the following four URI assignments.
このドキュメントは、RFC3688[12]で説明された登録メカニズムに従うXML名前空間とXML schemasについて説明するのに、Uniform Resource Names(URNs)を使用します。 IANAは以下の4つのURI課題をしました。
Lendl Standards Track [Page 12] RFC 5105 ENUM Validation Token December 2007
レンドルStandardsはENUM合法化トークン2007年12月にRFC5105を追跡します[12ページ]。
1. Registration for the Token namespace:
* URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:enum-token-1.0
* Registrant Contact: See the "Author's Address" section of this
document.
* XML: None. Namespace URIs do not represent an XML
specification.
1. Token名前空間のための登録: * URI: つぼ:ietf:params:xml:ナノ秒: enumトークン1.0*記入者Contact: このドキュメントの「作者のアドレス」セクションを見てください。 * XML: なし。 名前空間URIはXML仕様を表しません。
2. Registration for the Token XML schema:
* URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:schema:enum-token-1.0
* Registrant Contact: See the "Author's Address" section of this
document.
* XML: See Section 6.1 of this document.
2. Token XML図式のための登録: * URI: つぼ:ietf:params:xml:図式: enumトークン1.0*記入者Contact: このドキュメントの「作者のアドレス」セクションを見てください。 * XML: このドキュメントのセクション6.1を見てください。
3. Registration for the Token Data namespace:
* URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:enum-tokendata-1.0
* Registrant Contact: See the "Author's Address" section of this
document.
* XML: None. Namespace URIs do not represent an XML
specification.
3. Token Data名前空間のための登録: * URI: つぼ:ietf:params: xml:ナノ秒:enum-tokendata-1.0*記入者Contact: このドキュメントの「作者のアドレス」セクションを見てください。 * XML: なし。 名前空間URIはXML仕様を表しません。
4. Registration for the Token Data XML schema:
* URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:schema:enum-tokendata-1.0
* Registrant Contact: See the "Author's Address" section of this
document.
* XML: See Section 6.2 of this document.
4. Token Data XML図式のための登録: * URI: つぼ:ietf:params: xml:図式:enum-tokendata-1.0*記入者Contact: このドキュメントの「作者のアドレス」セクションを見てください。 * XML: このドキュメントのセクション6.2を見てください。
The IDs used in the validationEntityID, RegistrarID, and methodID elements are subject to local policy and thus do not require IANA registration.
validationEntityID、RegistrarID、およびmethodID要素で使用されるIDは、ローカルの方針を受けることがあって、その結果、IANA登録を必要としません。
9. Security Considerations
9. セキュリティ問題
The security of the Validation Token depends on the security of the underlying XML DSIG algorithms. As such, all the security considerations from [4] apply here as well. Two points from [4] merit repetition:
Validation Tokenのセキュリティは基本的なXML DSIGアルゴリズムのセキュリティによります。また、そういうものとして、[4]からのすべてのセキュリティ問題がここに適用されます。 [4]から2ポイントは反復に値します:
Transforms are used to select the relevant data for signing and discarding irrelevant information (e.g., pretty-printing and name-space local names).
変換は、無関係の情報(例えば、きれいな印刷と名前空間地方名)に署名して、捨てるための関連データを選択するのに使用されます。
The <Reference URI="#TOKEN"> element and attribute combined with the Id="TOKEN" attribute in <token> specifies that the signature should cover the complete token. Moving the Id="TOKEN" attribute to e.g., the <tokendata> element would make the signature worthless.
<Reference URIは」 #TOKENと等しいです。「「="TOKEN"が<トークン>で結果と考えるIdに結合された>要素と属性は、署名が完全なトークンをカバーするべきであると指定します」。 Id="TOKEN"が例えば、<tokendata>要素の結果と考える移行で、署名は価値がなくなるでしょう。
Lendl Standards Track [Page 13] RFC 5105 ENUM Validation Token December 2007
レンドルStandardsはENUM合法化トークン2007年12月にRFC5105を追跡します[13ページ]。
It is thus critical that the Registry not only checks whether the Token passes a generic XML-DSIG signature check, but also that:
その結果、Registryが、Tokenがしかし、ジェネリックXML-DSIG署名チェック、それも通過するかどうかチェックするだけではないのは、重要です:
1. the signature uses approved transforms and cryptographic
algorithms.
2. the signature references the <token> element.
3. the key used in the signature belongs to an accredited VE.
1. 署名は承認された変換を使用します、そして、暗号アルゴリズム2 署名参照は<トークン>要素を使用します。 3. 署名に使用されるキーは公認のVEに属します。
The Token content is not encrypted. If local policy dictates that the information contained within the token should be confidential, then this has to be handled through a different mechanism.
Token内容は暗号化されていません。 情報がトークンの中に含んだローカルの方針命令が秘密であるなら、これは異なったメカニズムを通して扱われなければなりません。
When processing a delegation request, the Registry MUST verify that the information contained in the Token matches the delegation request. The <registrarID> element in the Token prevents a malicious second Registrar from using an eavesdropped Token to register a domain in his name. The Registry MUST verify that the <expirationDate> given (including the case of no given expiration date) conforms to the Registry's policy. To avert replay attacks, local policy MUST specify how long after <executionDate> the Token can be used to authorize a delegation.
委譲要求を処理するとき、Registryは、情報がTokenマッチに委譲要求を含んだことを確かめなければなりません。 Tokenの<registrarID>要素は、第2の悪意があるRegistrarが彼の名前のドメインを登録するのに盗み聞かれたTokenを使用するのを防ぎます。 Registryは、与えられている(与えられた有効期限がないケースを含んでいます)<expirationDate>がRegistryの方針に一致していることを確かめなければなりません。 反射攻撃を逸らすために、ローカルの方針は<executionDate>のずっと後に委譲を認可するのにどうTokenを使用できるかを指定しなければなりません。
10. Acknowledgements
10. 承認
The author would like to thank the following persons for their valuable suggestions and contributions: Michael Haberler, Alexander Mayrhofer, Bernie Hoeneisen, Michael Braunoeder, Staffan Hagnell, Lawrence Conroy, and Tony Rutkowski.
作者は彼らの貴重な提案と貢献について以下の人々に感謝したがっています: マイケル・ハーバラー、アレクサンダー・マイルホーファー、バーニーHoeneisen、マイケルBraunoeder、スタファンHagnell、ローレンス・コンロイ、およびトニー・ルトコフスキ。
11. References
11. 参照
11.1. Normative References
11.1. 引用規格
[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とP.とM.食事、「Uniform Resource Identifier(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」、RFC3761、2004年4月。
[2] ITU-T, "The international public telecommunication numbering
plan", Recommendation E.164, May 1997.
1997年5月の[2] ITU-T、「国際的な公共の電気通信付番プラン」Recommendation E.164。
[3] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement
Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[3] ブラドナー、S.、「Indicate Requirement LevelsへのRFCsにおける使用のためのキーワード」、BCP14、RFC2119、1997年3月。
[4] Eastlake 3rd, D., Reagle, J., and D. Solo, "(Extensible Markup
Language) XML-Signature Syntax and Processing", RFC 3275, March
2002.
[4] イーストレーク3番目、D.、Reagle、J.、およびD.は独奏されて、「(拡張マークアップ言語)XML-署名構文と処理」(RFC3275)は2002を行進させます。
Lendl Standards Track [Page 14] RFC 5105 ENUM Validation Token December 2007
レンドルStandardsはENUM合法化トークン2007年12月にRFC5105を追跡します[14ページ]。
[5] Eastlake 3rd, D., "Additional XML Security Uniform Resource
Identifiers (URIs)", RFC 4051, April 2005.
[5] イーストレーク3番目、D.、「追加XMLセキュリティUniform Resource Identifier(URI)」、RFC4051、2005年4月。
[6] Klyne, G. and C. Newman, "Date and Time on the Internet:
Timestamps", RFC 3339, July 2002.
[6] Klyne(G.とC.ニューマン)は「インターネットで以下の日付を入れて、調節します」。 「タイムスタンプ」、RFC3339、2002年7月。
[7] Maloney, M., Beech, D., Mendelsohn, N., and H. Thompson, "XML
Schema Part 1: Structures", W3C REC REC-xmlschema-1-20010502,
May 2001.
[7] マローニー、M.、ぶな、D.、メンデルゾーン、N.、およびH.トンプソン、「XML図式第1部:」 「構造」(W3C REC REC-xmlschema-1-20010502)は2001がそうするかもしれません。
[8] Malhotra, A. and P. Biron, "XML Schema Part 2: Datatypes", W3C
REC REC-xmlschema-2-20010502, May 2001.
[8]Malhotra、A.、およびP.ビロン、「XML図式第2部:」 「データ型式」(W3C REC REC-xmlschema-2-20010502)は2001がそうするかもしれません。
[9] Eastlake, D., Boyer, J., and J. Reagle, "Exclusive XML
Canonicalization Version 1.0", W3C REC REC-xml-exc-c14n-
20020718, July 2002.
[9] イーストレーク、D.、ボワイエ、J.、そして、J.Reagle、「排他的なXML Canonicalization、バージョン1インチ、W3C REC REC-xml-exc-c14n20020718、2002インチ年7月。
[10] International Telecommunications Union, "Information technology
- Open Systems Interconnection - The Directory: Public-key and
attribute certificate frameworks", ITU-T Recommendation X.509,
ISO Standard 9594-8, March 2000.
[10] 国際Telecommunications Union、「情報技術--オープン・システム・インターコネクション--ディレクトリ:、」 「公開鍵と属性証明書フレームワーク」、ITU-T Recommendation X.509、ISO Standard9594-8、2000年3月。
[11] International Organization for Standardization, "Codes for the
representation of names of countries and their subdivisions --
Part 1: Country codes, 2nd edition", ISO Standard 3166,
November 2006.
[11] 国際標準化機構、「国とそれらの区画分譲地の名前の表現のためのコード--、第1部:、」 「国名略号、2番目の版」、ISO Standard3166、11月2006日
[12] Mealling, M., "The IETF XML Registry", BCP 81, RFC 3688,
January 2004.
[12] 食事、M.、「IETF XML登録」、BCP81、RFC3688、2004年1月。
11.2. Informative References
11.2. 有益な参照
[13] Hollenbeck, S., "Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP)", RFC
4930, May 2007.
[13] Hollenbeck(S.、「広げることができる食糧を供給するプロトコル(EPP)」RFC4930)は2007がそうするかもしれません。
[14] Schaad, J., Kaliski, B., and R. Housley, "Additional Algorithms
and Identifiers for RSA Cryptography for use in the Internet
X.509 Public Key Infrastructure Certificate and Certificate
Revocation List (CRL) Profile", RFC 4055, June 2005.
[14]Schaad、J.、Kaliski、B.、R.Housley、および「中のインターネットX.509公開鍵暗号基盤CertificateとCertificate Revocation List(CRL)が輪郭を描く使用のためのRSA Cryptographyのための追加AlgorithmsとIdentifiers」、RFC4055(2005年6月)
[15] Mayrhofer, A. and B. Hoeneisen, "ENUM Validation
Architecture", RFC 4725, November 2006.
[15] マイルホーファーとA.とB.Hoeneisen、「ENUM合法化アーキテクチャ」、RFC4725、2006年11月。
[16] Hoeneisen, B., "ENUM Validation Information Mapping for the
Extensible Provisioning Protocol", RFC 5076, December 2007.
[16]Hoeneisen、B.、「広げることができる食糧を供給するプロトコルのためのENUM合法化情報マッピング」、RFC5076、2007年12月。
[17] ITU-T, "Computerized Directory Assistance Version 2",
Recommendation E.115v2, October 2005.
[17] 「ディレクトリ支援バージョン2インチ、推薦E.115v2、2005年10月であるとコンピューター化された」ITU-T。
Lendl Standards Track [Page 15] RFC 5105 ENUM Validation Token December 2007
レンドルStandardsはENUM合法化トークン2007年12月にRFC5105を追跡します[15ページ]。
Author's Address
作者のアドレス
Otmar Lendl enum.at GmbH Karlsplatz 1/2/9 Wien A-1010 Austria
Otmarレンドルenum.at GmbH Karlsplatz1/2/9のウィーンA-1010オーストリア
Phone: +43 1 5056416 33 EMail: otmar.lendl@enum.at URI: http://www.enum.at/
以下に電話をしてください。 +43 1 5056416 33はメールされます: otmar.lendl@enum.at ユリ: http://www.enum.at/
Lendl Standards Track [Page 16] RFC 5105 ENUM Validation Token December 2007
レンドルStandardsはENUM合法化トークン2007年12月にRFC5105を追跡します[16ページ]。
Full Copyright Statement
完全な著作権宣言文
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).
IETFが信じる著作権(C)(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.
このドキュメントはBCP78に含まれた権利、ライセンス、および制限を受けることがあります、そして、そこに詳しく説明されるのを除いて、作者は彼らのすべての権利を保有します。
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.
このドキュメントとここに含まれた情報はその人が代理をするか、または(もしあれば)後援される組織、インターネットの振興発展を目的とする組織、「そのままで」という基礎と貢献者の上で提供していて、IETFはそして、インターネット・エンジニアリング・タスク・フォースがすべての保証を放棄すると信じます、急行である、または暗示していて、他を含んでいて、情報の使用がここに侵害しないどんな保証も少しもまっすぐになるということであるかいずれが市場性か特定目的への適合性の黙示的な保証です。
Intellectual Property
知的所有権
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.
IETFはどんなIntellectual Property Rightsの正当性か範囲、実装に関係すると主張されるかもしれない他の権利、本書では説明された技術の使用またはそのような権利の下におけるどんなライセンスも利用可能であるかもしれない、または利用可能でないかもしれない範囲に関しても立場を全く取りません。 または、それはそれを表しません。どんなそのような権利も特定するどんな独立している取り組みも作りました。 BCP78とBCP79でRFCドキュメントの権利に関する手順に関する情報を見つけることができます。
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.
IPR公開のコピーが利用可能に作られるべきライセンスの保証、または一般的な免許を取得するのが作られた試みの結果をIETF事務局といずれにもしたか、または http://www.ietf.org/ipr のIETFのオンラインIPR倉庫からこの仕様のimplementersかユーザによるそのような所有権の使用のために許可を得ることができます。
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.
IETFはこの規格を実装するのに必要であるかもしれない技術をカバーするかもしれないどんな著作権もその注目していただくどんな利害関係者、特許、特許出願、または他の所有権も招待します。 ietf-ipr@ietf.org のIETFに情報を扱ってください。
Lendl Standards Track [Page 17]
レンドル標準化過程[17ページ]
一覧
スポンサーリンク
