RFC 8396: Managing, Ordering, Distributing, Exposing, and Registering Telephone Numbers (MODERN): Problem Statement, Use Cases, and Framework
In plain English — editorial summary, not part of the RFC
The functions of the Public Switched Telephone Network (PSTN) are rapidly migrating to the Internet. This is generating new requirements for many traditional elements of the PSTN, including Telephone Numbers (TNs). TNs no longer serve simply as telephone routing addresses: they are now identifiers that may be used by Internet-based services for a variety of purposes including session establishment, identity verification, and service enablement. This problem statement examines how the existing tools for allocating and managing telephone numbers do not align with the use cases of the Internet environment and proposes a framework for Internet-based services relying on TNs.
Document record
- Document ID
- RFC8396
- Published
- July 2018
- Authors
- J. Peterson; T. McGarry
- Status
- INFORMATIONAL
- Stream
- IETF
- Area
- art
- Pages
- 23
- Also known as
- —
Topics
Related documents
Ranked automatically by shared keywords, IETF area and stream — not by editorial selection.
- RFC 7340Secure Telephone Identity Problem Statement and RequirementsCurrent
September 2014
- RFC 8224Authenticated Identity Management in the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)Updated
February 2018
- RFC 9060Secure Telephone Identity Revisited (STIR) Certificate DelegationCurrent
September 2021
- RFC 7375Secure Telephone Identity Threat ModelCurrent
October 2014
- RFC 8373Negotiating Human Language in Real-Time CommunicationsUpdated
May 2018
- RFC 8497Marking SIP Messages to Be LoggedCurrent
November 2018
- RFC 8498A P-Served-User Header Field Parameter for an Originating Call Diversion (CDIV) Session Case in the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)Current
February 2019
- RFC 8266Preparation, Enforcement, and Comparison of Internationalized Strings Representing NicknamesCurrent
October 2017
Also filed under
About this page
The document record above — title, authors, date, status, stream, area, relationships, DOI and errata — is imported verbatim from the public RFC Editor index. The “in plain English” section is editorial: written by The metasystema editorial team, not part of the RFC. Where the two differ, the RFC text governs.
Last checked against the RFC Editor index on . RFCs are never revised after publication; changes are issued as new documents.
Data sources · Editorial policy · Report a correction · What is an RFC?