RFC 3762 (rfc3762) - Page 3 of 5
Telephone Number Mapping (ENUM) Service Registration for H
Alternative Format: Original Text Document
RFC 3762 ENUM Service Registration for H.323 April 2004 4. Conventions used in this document 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 [1]. 5. Security Considerations The h323-URL information, once populated in the DNS, effectively becomes publicly accessible. The access to the H.323 destinations (published using ENUM) can be secured by techniques and procedures defined in H.235 [4] - the security framework for H.323. The framework defines means for achieving integrity, authentication, non-repudiation, encryption, etc. for H.323 calls. An analysis of threats specific to the dependence of ENUM on the DNS, and the applicability of DNSSEC [6] to these, is provided in [3]. 6. IANA Considerations This document registers the E2U+H323 ENUM service according to specifications and guidelines in RFC 3761 [3] and the definitions in this document. 7. References 7.1. Normative References [1] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. [2] "Packet-based multimedia communications systems", ITU-T Recommendation H.323, 2003. [3] Faltstrom, P. and M. Mealling, "The E.164 to Uniform Resource Identifiers (URI) Dynamic Delegation Discovery System (DDDS) Application (ENUM)", RFC 3761, April 2004. [4] "Security and encryption for H-Series(H.323 and other H.245- based) multimedia terminals", ITU-T Recommendation H.235, 2003. [5] "Usage of URLs and DNS", ITU-T Recommendation H.323 Annex O, 2003. 7.2. Informative References [6] R. Arends, et al., "Protocol Modifications for the DNS Security Extensions", Work in Progress, February 2004. Levin Standards Track
