[Docs] [txt|pdf|xml|html] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: (draft-channabasappa-drinks-usecases-requirements) 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 RFC 6461

DRINKS                                             S. Channabasappa, Ed.
Internet-Draft                                                 CableLabs
Intended status: Informational                             March 8, 2010
Expires: September 9, 2010


               DRINKS Use cases and Protocol Requirements
               draft-ietf-drinks-usecases-requirements-01

Abstract

   This document captures the use cases and associated requirements for
   interfaces to provision session establishment data into SIP Service
   Provider components that aid with session routing.  Specifically, the
   current version of this document focuses on the provisioning of one
   such element, termed the registry.

Status of this Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups.  Note that
   other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
   Drafts.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.

   This Internet-Draft will expire on September 9, 2010.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2010 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
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of



Channabasappa, Ed.      Expires September 9, 2010               [Page 1]

Internet-Draft          ietf-drinks-usecases-reqs             March 2010


   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 BSD License.


Table of Contents

   1.  Terminology  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   2.  Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
   3.  Use Cases and Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
     3.1.  Registry Provisioning  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
       3.1.1.  Use Cases  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
       3.1.2.  Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
     3.2.  Distribution of data into local data repositories  . . . . 18
   4.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
   5.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
   6.  Acknowledgments  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
   7.  References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
     7.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
     7.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
   Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23



























Channabasappa, Ed.      Expires September 9, 2010               [Page 2]

Internet-Draft          ietf-drinks-usecases-reqs             March 2010


1.  Terminology

   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 [RFC2119].

   This document reuses terms from [RFC3261] (e.g., SIP) and [RFC5486]
   (e.g., LUF, LRF).  In addition, this document specifies the following
   additional terms.


   Registry:   The authoritative source for provisioned session
      establishment data (SED) and related information.



   Local Data Repository:   The data store component of an addressing
      server that provides resolution responses.



   Destination Group:   A set of public identities that are grouped
      together to facilitate session setup and routing.



   Public Identity:   A generic term that refers to a telephone number
      (TN), an email address, or other identity as deemed appropriate,
      such as a globally routable URI of a user address (e.g.,
      mailto:john.doe@example.net).



   Routing Group:   a grouping of SED records.



   SED Record:   A SED Record contains much of the session establishment
      data or a 'redirect' to another registry where the session
      establishment data can be discovered.  SED Records types supported
      are NAPTRs, CNAME, DNAME, and NS Records.










Channabasappa, Ed.      Expires September 9, 2010               [Page 3]

Internet-Draft          ietf-drinks-usecases-reqs             March 2010


   Data Recipient:   SP or SSP that receives or consumes SED and related
      information.



   Data Recipient Group:   A group of Data Recipients that receive the
      same set (or subset) of SED and related information.












































Channabasappa, Ed.      Expires September 9, 2010               [Page 4]

Internet-Draft          ietf-drinks-usecases-reqs             March 2010


2.  Overview

   The SPEERMINT WG specifies Session Establishment Data, or SED, as the
   data used to route a call to the next hop associated with the called
   domain's ingress point.  More specifically, the SED is the set of
   parameters that the outgoing signalling path border elements (SBEs)
   need to complete the call.  See [RFC5486] for more details.

   The specification of the format and protocols to configure SED is a
   task taken up by the DRINKS WG.  The use cases and requirements that
   have been proposed in this regard are compiled in this document.

   SED is typically created by the terminating SSP and consumed by the
   originating SSP.  For scalability reasons SED is rarely exchanged
   directly between the intended parties.  Instead, it is exchanged via
   intermediate systems - termed Registries within this document.  Such
   registries receive SED via provisioning transactions from other SSPs,
   and then distribute the received data into Local Data Repositories.
   These local data repositories are used for call routing by outgoing
   SBEs.  This is depicted in Figure 1.




                                       *-------------*
                1. Provision SED       |             |
              -----------------------> |  Registry   |
                                       |             |
                                       *-------------*
                                            /  \
                                           /    \
                                          /      \
                                         /        \
                                        /          \
                                       /            \
                                      / 2.Distribute \
                                     /      SED       \
                                    V                  V
                              +----------+       +----------+
                              |Local Data|       |Local Data|
                              |Repository|       |Repository|
                              +----------+       +----------+





                         Figure 1: General Diagram



Channabasappa, Ed.      Expires September 9, 2010               [Page 5]

Internet-Draft          ietf-drinks-usecases-reqs             March 2010


   In this version of the document, we primarily address the use cases
   and requirements for provisioning registries.  Future revisions may
   include data distribution.  The resulting provisioning protocol can
   be used to provision data into a registry, or between registries.
   This is depicted in Figure 2.





                                  . . . . . . .
                  . . . .  . . .   registry    . . . . . . .
                .                 . . . . . . .              .
              .                        .                      .
            .                          . provision             .
       +-----------+                   .                 +-----------+
       |           |  provision  +----------+  provision |           |
       |   SSP 1   |------------>| Registry |<-----------|   SSP 2   |
       |           |             +----------+            |           |
       |  +-----+  |                   /\                |  +-----+  |
       |  | LDR | <--------------------  ------------------>| LDR |  |
       |  +-----+  |   distribute           distribute   |  +-----+  |
       |           |                                     |           |
       +-----------+                                     +-----------+
              .                                                .
               . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
                              (provision / distribute)


             Where, LDR = Local Data Repository



                       Figure 2: Functional Overview


   The following is a summary of the proposed responsibilities for
   Registries and Local Data Repositories:

   o  Registries are the authoritative source for provisioned session
      establishment data (SED) and related information.


   o  Local Data Repositories are the data store component of an
      addressing server that provides resolution responses.






Channabasappa, Ed.      Expires September 9, 2010               [Page 6]

Internet-Draft          ietf-drinks-usecases-reqs             March 2010


   o  Registries are responsible for distributing SED and related
      information to the local data repositories.



   In addition, this document proposes the following aggregation groups
   with regards to SED (certain use cases also illustrate these groups):

   o  Aggregation of public Identifiers: The initial input 'key' to a
      SED lookup is a public identifier.  Since many public identifiers
      will share similar (or identical) destinations, and hence return
      similar (or identical) SED, provisioning the same set of SED for
      millions of public identifiers is inefficient, especially in cases
      where the SED needs to be modified.  Therefore, an aggregation
      mechanism to 'group' public identifiers is proposed.  This
      aggregation is called a 'destination group'.


   o  Aggregation of SSPs: It is expected that SSPs may want to expose
      different sets of SED, depending on the receiving SSP.  This
      exposure may not always be unique, in which case an aggregation
      makes it efficient.  Such an aggregation is proposed, and termed
      'Data Receipient Group'.


   o  Aggregation of SED records: Finally, it is anticipated that a
      complete set of routing data will consist of more than just one
      SED record.  To be able to create and use the same set of SED
      records multiple times (without creating duplicates) an
      aggregation mechanism at this level is proposed, and called
      'Routing Group'.


   The above aggregations are illustrated in Figure 3.

















Channabasappa, Ed.      Expires September 9, 2010               [Page 7]

Internet-Draft          ietf-drinks-usecases-reqs             March 2010


       +---------+            +--------------+
       |  Data   | 0..n     1 |DATA RECIPIENT|
       |Recipient|------------|     GROUP    |
       +---------+            +------.-------+
                                0..n |
                                     |
                                     |
                                   1 |
                              +--------------+               +---------+
                              |    ROUTING   | ------------->|   SED   |
                              |     GROUP    | 1        0..n |  Record |
                              +--------------+               +---------+
                                     |0..n                        |0..n
                                     |                            |
                                     |                            |
                                     |                            |
                                     | 1                          |
                         1..n +--------------+  0..n              |
                     ---------| DESTINATION  |---------           |
                    |         |    GROUP     |         |          |
                    |         +--------------+         |          |
                    |                |                 |          |
                    |            1..n|                 |          |
                    |                |                 |          |
                    |                |                 |          |
                  1 |              1 |                 | 1        |
               +---------+      +---------+       +---------+     |
               |   RN    |      |   TN    |       | Public  |-----
               |         |      |  Range  |       |Identity | 1
               +---------+      +---------+       +---------+





                       Figure 3: Data Model Diagram


   Additional clarifications follow:


   -  A routing group is associated with zero or more SED Records;
      NAPTRs and other SED record types associated with routes are not
      user or TN-specific.  For example the user portion of a NAPTR
      regular expression will be "\1".






Channabasappa, Ed.      Expires September 9, 2010               [Page 8]

Internet-Draft          ietf-drinks-usecases-reqs             March 2010


   -  A routing group is associated with zero or more peering
      organizations to control visibility or access privileges to that
      routing group and the destination groups they expose.


   -  A data recipient group contains zero or more data recipients to
      facilitate the allocation of access privileges to routing groups.












































Channabasappa, Ed.      Expires September 9, 2010               [Page 9]

Internet-Draft          ietf-drinks-usecases-reqs             March 2010


3.  Use Cases and Requirements

   This section presents the use cases and associated requirements.

3.1.  Registry Provisioning

   Registry is the authoritative source for session establishment data
   (SED).  The registry needs to be provisioned with this data to
   perform its function.  This data includes: destination groups,
   routing groups and data recipient groups.  It can also include RNs
   and TN Ranges.  The following sub-sections illustrate the use cases
   and the requirements, respectively.

3.1.1.  Use Cases

   The use cases are divided into the following categories - process,
   routing, identity, administration, and number portability.

3.1.1.1.  Category: Process

   UC PROCESS #1  Near-real-time provisioning: The registry is
                  provisioned with data that is not accompanied by an
                  effective date or time.  In such cases, the registry
                  will validate the data and make it effective in near
                  real-time.



   UC PROCESS #2  Deferred provisioning with effective date/time: The
                  registry is provisioned with data that is accompanied
                  by an effective date and time.  In scenarios such as
                  this, the registry will validate the data and wait
                  until the effective date and time to make it
                  effective.  TBD: What happens if near-real time data
                  overrides data parked for later incorporation?



   UC PROCESS #3  Batch provisioning: The registry is provisioned via an
                  asynchronous provisioning process.  For instance, an
                  SSP has commissioned a new registry and wishes to
                  download a very large number of telephone numbers.
                  Rather than stream individual entities, one at a time,
                  the SSP's back-office system prefers to perform the
                  operation as a set of one or more batches (e.g., via
                  an external data file), instead of the near-real-time
                  provisioning interface.




Channabasappa, Ed.      Expires September 9, 2010              [Page 10]

Internet-Draft          ietf-drinks-usecases-reqs             March 2010


3.1.1.2.  Category: Routing

   UC ROUTING #1  Intra-network SED: SSP wishes to provision their
                  intra-network Session Establishment Data (SED) such
                  that it enables current and future network services to
                  identify and route real-time sessions.  For example,
                  in the case of VoIP calls it allows one SoftSwitch
                  (calling) to discover another (called).  The SSP
                  provisions IP addressing information pertaining to
                  each SoftSwitch, which is provisioned to the registry
                  but only distributed to a specific local data
                  repository.  This SED may differ from the SED that is
                  distributed to other local data repositories.



   UC ROUTING #2  Support for destination groups: An SSP may wish to
                  control the flow of traffic into their network
                  (ingress) based on groupings of Public Identities.
                  Associating each group of Public Identities with a
                  specific set of ingress SBEs or points-of-
                  interconnect.  The SSP, for example, sub-divides the
                  country into four regions: North-East, South-East,
                  Mid-West, and West-Coast.  For each region they
                  establish points-of-interconnect with peers and
                  provision the associated SED hostnames or IP addresses
                  of the SBEs used for ingress traffic.  Against each
                  region they provision the served Public Identities
                  into groups- termed Destination Groups - and associate
                  those destination groups with the appropriate points
                  of ingres.

   UC ROUTING #3  Modifying destination groups: A set of public
                  identities are assigned a different Destination Group
                  which effectively changes their routing information.
                  This may be due to a network re-arrangement, a
                  Signaling path Border Element being split into two, or
                  a need to do maintenance, two carriers merging, or
                  other considerations.  This scenario can also include
                  an effective date and time.



   UC ROUTING #4  Indirect Peering to Selected Destinations: The SSP
                  transit provider wishes to provide transit peering
                  points for a set of destinations.  But that set of
                  destinations does not align with the destination
                  groups that already exist.  The SSP wishes to



Channabasappa, Ed.      Expires September 9, 2010              [Page 11]

Internet-Draft          ietf-drinks-usecases-reqs             March 2010


                  establish its own destination groups for the
                  destinations that it provides transit to.  (Editor's
                  note: This use case needs more work.)

   UC ROUTING #5  Inter-network SED (direct and selective peering): In
                  this case the SSP is the actual carrier-of-record; the
                  entity serving the end-user.  The SSP wishes to
                  communicate different SED data to some of its peers
                  that wish to route to its destinations.  So the SSP
                  has implemented direct points-of-interconnect with
                  each peer and therefore would like address-resolution
                  to result in different answers depending on which peer
                  is asking.



   UC ROUTING #6  Selecting egress points: An SSP has a peering
                  relationship with a peer, and when sending messages to
                  that peer's point of interconnection, the originating
                  SSP wishes to use one or more points of egress.  These
                  points of egress may vary for an given peer.  This
                  capability is supported by allowing an originating SSP
                  to provision SED for identities terminating to other
                  SSPs where the originating SSP is itself the data
                  recipient.  The provisioning SSP may make use of
                  multiple data recipient identities if it requires
                  different sets of egress points be used for calls
                  originating from different parts of its network.
                  Routing from egress points to ingress points of the
                  terminating SSP may be accomplished by static routing
                  from the egress points or by the egress points using
                  data provisioned to the Registry by the terminating
                  SSP.



   UC ROUTING #7  SSP prefers to provision LUF and LRF data in the
                  registry: SSP prefers the registry to have access to
                  LUF and LRF information.  In this case the originating
                  SSP does not have to rely on mechanisms such as DNS
                  (e.g., [RFC3263]) for routing information since a
                  registry query will return the terminating SBE.









Channabasappa, Ed.      Expires September 9, 2010              [Page 12]

Internet-Draft          ietf-drinks-usecases-reqs             March 2010


   UC ROUTING #8  Provision an authoritative name server (not actual
                  route): An SSP maintains a Tier 2 name server that
                  contains the NAPTR records that constitute the
                  terminal step in the LUF.  The SSP needs to provision
                  an registry to direct queries for the SSPs numbers to
                  the Tier 2.  Usually queries to the registry should
                  return NS records, but, in cases where the Tier 2 uses
                  a different domain suffix from that used in the
                  registry, CNAME and NS records may be employed
                  instead.



3.1.1.3.  Category: Identity

   UC ID #1  Deletion of public identity: A public identity (or a TN
             range) is taken out of service because it is no longer
             valid.  The Registry receives a delete operation and
             removes the public identity from its database.  This can
             also trigger delete operations to keep the local data
             repositories up-to-date.



   UC ID #2  Global TN destinations: The SSP wishes to add or remove one
             or multiple fully qualified TN destinations in a single
             provisioning request.



   UC ID #3  TN range destinations: The SSP wishes to add or remove one
             or multiple TN range destinations in a single provisioning
             request.  TN ranges support number ranges that need not be
             'blocks'.  In other words the TN range 'start' can be any
             number and the TN range 'end' can be any number that is
             greater than the TN range 'start'.



   UC ID #4  Non-TN destinations: An SSP chooses to peer their messaging
             service with another SSPs picture/video mail service.
             Allowing a user to send and receive pictures and/or video
             messages to a mobile user's handset, for example.  The
             important aspect of this use case is that it goes beyond
             simply mapping TNs to IP addresses/hostnames that describe
             points-of-interconnect between peering network SSP's.
             Rather, for each user the SSP provisions the subscriber's
             email address (i.e. jane.doe@example.com).  This mapping



Channabasappa, Ed.      Expires September 9, 2010              [Page 13]

Internet-Draft          ietf-drinks-usecases-reqs             March 2010


             allows the mobile multimedia messaging service center
             (MMSC) to use the subscriber email address as the lookup
             key and route messages accordingly.



   UC ID #5  LUF-only provisioning: SSP wants to provision the registry
             for LUF lookup only and prefers LRF to be accomplished via
             non-registry mechanisms.  In this case the registry lookup
             will return a domain name and the originating SSP will rely
             on mechanisms such as ([RFC3263]) to obtain routing
             information.  This routing information is managed by the
             (terminating) SSP, via DNS mechanisms.



3.1.1.4.  Category: Administration

   UC ADMIN #1  Moving an SSP from one data recipient group to another:
                An SSP would like to re-assign the destination groups it
                shares with a peer and move the peer SSP from one Data
                Recipient Group to another.  This results in the moved
                peer seeing a new and different set of routing data.



   UC ADMIN #2  Separation of responsibility: An SSP's operational
                practices can seperate the responsibility of
                provisioning the routing information, and the associated
                identities, to different entities.  For example, a
                network engineer can establish a physical interconnect
                with a peering SSP's network and provision the
                associated domain name, host, and IP addressing
                information.  Separately, for each new service
                subscription, the SSP's back office system provisions
                the associated public identities.



   UC ADMIN #3  Peering offer/acceptance: An SSP offers to allow
                terminations from another SSP by adding that SSP to a
                Data Recipient Group it controls.  This causes
                notification of the offered SSP.  An SSP receiving a
                peering offer should be able to accept or decline the
                offer.  If the offer is rejected the registry should not
                provision corresponding SED to the rejecting SSP.  It is
                expected that this capability will apply mainly in the
                transit case where non-authoritative parties (in the



Channabasappa, Ed.      Expires September 9, 2010              [Page 14]

Internet-Draft          ietf-drinks-usecases-reqs             March 2010


                sense of not being the terminating SSP for an identity)
                wish to offer the ability to reach the identity and
                originating SSPs may wish to restrict the routes that
                are provisioned to their local data repositories.



3.1.1.5.  Category: Number Portability

   UC NP #1  The SSP does not wish to provision individual TNs, but
             instead, for ease of management, wishes to provision
             Routing Numbers (e.g., as in some number portability
             implementations).  Each RN effectively represents a set of
             individual TNs, and that set of TNs is assumed to change
             'automatically' as TNs are ported in and ported out.  Note
             that this approach requires a query to resolve a TN to an
             RN prior to using the provisioned data to route.

3.1.2.  Requirements


   The following data requirements apply:

   DREQ1:  The registry provisioning data model MUST support the
           following entities: public identities, destination groups,
           routing groups and data recipient groups.


   DREQ2:  The registry provisioning data model MUST support the
           grouping and aggregation of public identities within
           destination groups.


   DREQ3:  The registry provisioning data model SHOULD support the
           grouping and aggregation of TN Ranges within destination
           groups.


   DREQ4:  The registry provisioning data model SHOULD support the
           grouping and aggregation of RNs within destination groups.



   The following functional requirements apply:







Channabasappa, Ed.      Expires September 9, 2010              [Page 15]

Internet-Draft          ietf-drinks-usecases-reqs             March 2010


   FREQ1:   The registry provisioning interface MUST support the
            creation and deletion of: public identities, destination
            groups, routing groups and data recipient groups.


   FREQ2:   The registry provisioning interface MUST support near-real-
            time, non-real-time and deferred provisioning operations.


   FREQ3:   The registry provisioning interface MUST support the
            following types of modifications:

            - reassignment of one or more public identities from one
            destination group to another;

            - reassignment of one data recipient from one destination
            group to another;

            - association and disassociation of a "Default Routing
            Group" with a Data Recipient; and,

            - identification of a destination group as a "Carrier of
            Record" (COR) destination group or a "Transit" destination
            group.


   FREQ4:   When an entity with a different client identifier than that
            of the carrier of record for a public identity in a
            destination group adds a new SSP to a destination recipient
            group associated with that destination group, the registry
            provisioning interface MUST: a) notify the new SSP of the
            updated routing information (which constitutes a peering
            offer) b) not provision the SED to the new SSP's LDR unless
            the new SSP signals acceptance.

   FREQ5:   The registry provisioning interface MUST separate the
            provisioning of the routing information from the associated
            identities.


   FREQ6:   The registry provisioning protocol MUST define a discrete
            set of response codes for each supported protocol operation.
            Each response code MUST definitively indicate whether the
            operation succeeded or failed.  If the operation failed, the
            response code MUST indicate the reason for the failure.






Channabasappa, Ed.      Expires September 9, 2010              [Page 16]

Internet-Draft          ietf-drinks-usecases-reqs             March 2010


   FREQ7:   The registry provisioning interface MUST allow an SSP to
            define multiple sub-identities that can be used in data
            recipient groups

   FREQ8:   The registry provisioning interface MUST define the
            concurrency rules, locking rules, and race conditions that
            underlie the implementation of that protocol operation and
            that result from the coexistence of protocol operations that
            can operate on multiple objects in a single operation and
            bulk file operations that may process for an extended period
            of time.


   FREQ9:   The registry provisioning interface MUST support the ability
            for a Data Recipient to optionally define a Routing Group as
            their Default Routing Group, such that if the Data Recipient
            performs a resolution request and the lookup key being
            resolved is not found in the Destination Groups visible to
            that Data Recipient then the SED Records associated with the
            Default Routing Group shall be returned in the resolution
            response.

   FREQ10:  The registry provisioning interface MUST support the ability
            for the owner of a Routing Group to optionally define Source
            Based Routing Criteria to be associated with their Routing
            Group(s).  The Source Based Routing Criteria will include
            the ability to specify zero or more of the following in
            association with a given Routing Group: Resolution Client IP
            Address(es) or Domain Names, Calling Party URI(s).  The
            result will be that the resolution server would evaluate the
            characteristics of the Source, compare them against Source
            Based Routing Criteria associated with the Routing Groups
            visible to that Data Recipient, and return any SED Records
            associated with the matching Routing Groups.

   FREQ11:  The registry provisioning interface MUST track, via a client
            identifier, the entity provisioning each data object (e.g.
            Destination Group or Routing Group ).  This client
            identifier will identify the entity that is responsible for
            that data object from a protocol interface perspective.
            This client identifier SHOULD be tied to the session
            authentication credentials that the client uses to connect
            into to the registry.

            The registry provisioning interface MUST incorporate a data
            recipient identifier that identifies the organization
            responsible for each data object from a business
            perspective.  This organization identifier may or may not



Channabasappa, Ed.      Expires September 9, 2010              [Page 17]

Internet-Draft          ietf-drinks-usecases-reqs             March 2010


            ultimately refer to the same organization that the client
            Identifier refers to.  The separation of the data recipient
            identifier from the client identifier will allow for the
            separation of the two entities, when the need arises.

            Exactly one client identifier MUST be allowed to provision
            objects under a given data recipient identifier.  But a
            client identifier MUST be allowed to provision objects under
            multiple data recipient identifiers.

            Objects provisioned under one "Protocol Client Identifier"
            MUST NOT be alterable by a provisioning session established
            by another "Protocol Client Identifier".


   FREQ12:  The registry provisioning protocol MUST allow an SSP to
            provision LUF-only or LUF+LRF data in the registry via a
            single provisioning interface and data model.


3.2.  Distribution of data into local data repositories

   This section targets use cases concerned with the distribution of SED
   to local data repositories.  This is considered out-of-scope for this
   version of the document.


























Channabasappa, Ed.      Expires September 9, 2010              [Page 18]

Internet-Draft          ietf-drinks-usecases-reqs             March 2010


4.  Security Considerations

   Session establishment data allows for the routing of SIP sesions
   within, and between, SIP Service Providers.  Access to this data can
   compromise the routing of sessions and expose a SIP Service Provider
   to attacks such as service hijacking and denial of service.  The data
   can be compromised by vulnerable functional components and interfaces
   identified within the use cases.











































Channabasappa, Ed.      Expires September 9, 2010              [Page 19]

Internet-Draft          ietf-drinks-usecases-reqs             March 2010


5.  IANA Considerations

   This document does not register any values in IANA registries.
















































Channabasappa, Ed.      Expires September 9, 2010              [Page 20]

Internet-Draft          ietf-drinks-usecases-reqs             March 2010


6.  Acknowledgments

   This document is a result of various discussions held by the DRINKS
   requirements design team, which is comprised of the following
   individuals, in alphabetical order: Deborah A Guyton (Telcordia),
   Gregory Schumacher (Sprint), Jean-Francois Mule (CableLabs), Kenneth
   Cartwright (TNS, Inc.), Manjul Maharishi (TNS, Inc.), Penn Pfautz
   (AT&T Corp), Ray Bellis (Nominet), the co-chairs (Richard Shockey,
   Nuestar; and Alexander Mayrhofer, enum.at GmbH), and the editors of
   this document.

   This specific version is primarily the result of feedback from David
   Schwartz (Xconnect) and Jean-Francois Mule (CableLabs), with input
   from other participants listed above.





































Channabasappa, Ed.      Expires September 9, 2010              [Page 21]

Internet-Draft          ietf-drinks-usecases-reqs             March 2010


7.  References

7.1.  Normative References

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

7.2.  Informative References

   [RFC3261]  Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., Camarillo, G., Johnston,
              A., Peterson, J., Sparks, R., Handley, M., and E.
              Schooler, "SIP: Session Initiation Protocol", RFC 3261,
              June 2002.

   [RFC3263]  Rosenberg, J. and H. Schulzrinne, "Session Initiation
              Protocol (SIP): Locating SIP Servers", RFC 3263,
              June 2002.

   [RFC5486]  Malas, D. and D. Meyer, "Session Peering for Multimedia
              Interconnect (SPEERMINT) Terminology", RFC 5486,
              March 2009.






























Channabasappa, Ed.      Expires September 9, 2010              [Page 22]

Internet-Draft          ietf-drinks-usecases-reqs             March 2010


Author's Address

   Sumanth Channabasappa
   CableLabs
   858 Coal Creek Circle
   Louisville, CO  80027
   USA

   Email: sumanth@cablelabs.com










































Channabasappa, Ed.      Expires September 9, 2010              [Page 23]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.109, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/