RFC 8602 PROPOSED STANDARD TRIP · IANA · PRIVACY

TRIP IANA Postal Rule: Update to the Telephony Routing over IP (TRIP) IANA Registry Rules regarding Postal Addresses

Removes postal address collection from TRIP registry registration rules.

On rfc-editor.org ↗
PUBLISHED
July 2019
AUTHORS
J. Arkko, T. Hardie
STREAM
IETF
BUILDS ON
RFC 3219 — TRIP
REGISTRIES AFFECTED
TRIP Attributes and TRIP ITAD Numbers
POSTAL ADDRESSES IN EXISTING ENTRIES
Removed
DOI
10.17487/RFC8602

RFC text

Contents
Original text · RFC Editor View on rfc-editor.org ↗
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)                          J. Arkko
Request for Comments: 8602                                      Ericsson
Updates: 3219                                                  T. Hardie
Category: Standards Track                                      July 2019
ISSN: 2070-1721


   Update to the Telephony Routing over IP (TRIP) IANA Registry Rules
                       regarding Postal Addresses

Abstract

   This memo updates the IANA registry rules for the Telephony Routing
   over IP (TRIP) protocol, by no longer requiring that postal addresses
   be included in contact information.

   This memo updates RFC 3219.

Status of This Memo

   This is an Internet Standards Track document.

   This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
   (IETF).  It represents the consensus of the IETF community.  It has
   received public review and has been approved for publication by the
   Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG).  Further information on
   Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 7841.

   Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
   and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8602.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   3.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   4.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3

1.  Introduction

   This memo updates the IANA registry rules for the Telephony Routing
   over IP (TRIP) protocol, by no longer requiring that postal addresses
   be included in contact information.  No use for the addresses is
   identified, and omitting this information provides a privacy benefit.

   This memo updates RFC 3219.

2.  IANA Considerations

   This memo updates the registration rules [RFC8126] for TRIP
   Attributes ([RFC3219], Section 13.2) and TRIP IP Telephony
   Administrative Domain (ITAD) Numbers ([RFC3219], Section 13.5) as
   follows.

   The IETF no longer requires IANA to collect postal address
   information when adding TRIP registry entries.  Additionally, IANA
   has removed previously collected postal addresses from the
   registries.

3.  Security Considerations

   No security impacts of this change have been identified.

4.  Normative References

   [RFC3219]  Rosenberg, J., Salama, H., and M. Squire, "Telephony
              Routing over IP (TRIP)", RFC 3219, DOI 10.17487/RFC3219,
              January 2002, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3219>.

   [RFC8126]  Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for
              Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26,
              RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>.

Acknowledgements

   The authors would like to thank Michelle Cotton, Alissa Cooper, and
   Jonathan Rosenberg for interesting discussions in this problem space.
   The authors would also like to thank Carlos Pignataro, Russ Housley,
   Abdussalam Baryun, and Paul Wouters for feedback.

Authors' Addresses

   Jari Arkko
   Ericsson
   Kauniainen  02700
   Finland

   Email: jari.arkko@piuha.net


   Ted Hardie

   Email: ted.ietf@gmail.com

ISO Plain Language

On this page
PROBLEMTRIP registry rules required postal addresses in contact information, although the RFC identifies no use for those addresses.
MECHANISMThe RFC updates the registration rules for TRIP Attributes and ITAD Numbers so IANA no longer has to collect postal addresses, and removes previously collected addresses.
WHY IT MATTERSRFC 8602 updates RFC 3219 and identifies a privacy benefit with no identified security impact.

§1Why the Rule Changed

The memo updates the IANA registry rules for Telephony Routing over IP (TRIP). It removes the requirement to include postal addresses in contact information.

The RFC identifies no use for the addresses and says omitting them provides a privacy benefit. It updates RFC 3219.

The TRIP registries had required postal addresses, but this memo identifies no use for them. Removing that requirement reduces the personal information collected.

§2Changes to TRIP Registries

The updated registration rules apply to the TRIP Attributes registry and the TRIP IP Telephony Administrative Domain (ITAD) Numbers registry. The IETF no longer requires IANA to collect postal address information when adding TRIP entries.

IANA has also removed postal addresses that had already been collected from these registries.

New TRIP entries no longer need a postal address. Addresses already stored in the two registries have been removed.

§3Security Considerations

The RFC states that no security impacts of this change have been identified. Its stated benefit is privacy through omitting and removing postal address information.

The RFC identifies a privacy benefit and says no security impact has been identified.

§4References