[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                               May 3, 2010
Expires: November 4, 2010


               DRINKS Use cases and Protocol Requirements
               draft-ietf-drinks-usecases-requirements-02

Abstract

   This document captures the use cases and associated requirements for
   interfaces that provision session establishment data into SIP Service
   Provider components, to assist 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).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   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."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on November 4, 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
   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.



Channabasappa, Ed.      Expires November 4, 2010                [Page 1]

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


Table of Contents

   1.  Terminology  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   2.  Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   3.  Use Cases and Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
     3.1.  Registry Provisioning  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
       3.1.1.  Use Cases  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
       3.1.2.  Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
   4.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
   5.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
   6.  Acknowledgments  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
   7.  References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
     7.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
     7.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
   Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22




































Channabasappa, Ed.      Expires November 4, 2010                [Page 2]

Internet-Draft          ietf-drinks-usecases-reqs               May 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.



   Authoritative SSP or Entity  This refers to the carrier-of-record,
      for a public identity or TN Range.

   Non-authoritative SSP or Entity  This refers to the transit provider
      for a public identity or TN Range.









Channabasappa, Ed.      Expires November 4, 2010                [Page 3]

Internet-Draft          ietf-drinks-usecases-reqs               May 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 establish a session.  See [RFC5486] for more details.

   The specification of the format and protocols to provision 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.  To avoid a multitude of bilateral exchanges, SED is
   usually shared via intermediary 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 November 4, 2010                [Page 4]

Internet-Draft          ietf-drinks-usecases-reqs               May 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 November 4, 2010                [Page 5]

Internet-Draft          ietf-drinks-usecases-reqs               May 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 (refer to the use cases in Section 3.1.1.3 for
   the rationale):

   o  Aggregation of public Identifiers into a destination group.


   o  Aggregation of SED records into a Routing Group.


   The above aggregations are illustrated in Figure 3.




       +---------+            +--------------+               +---------+
       |  Data   |0..n       1|    ROUTING   | 1         0..n|   SED   |
       |Recepient|------------|     GROUP    | --------------|  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



Channabasappa, Ed.      Expires November 4, 2010                [Page 6]

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


   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".


   -  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 November 4, 2010                [Page 7]

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


3.  Use Cases and Requirements

   This section presents the use cases and associated requirements.

3.1.  Registry Provisioning

   This Section documents use cases related to the provisioning of the
   registry.  Any request to provision, modify or delete data is subject
   to authorization.  However, the act of authorization is considered
   out of scope within this document.

3.1.1.  Use Cases

   The use cases are divided into the following categories - different
   provisioning options, options for provisioning SED data,
   administration, and number portability.

3.1.1.1.  Category: Provisioning Options

   UC PROCESS #1  Real-time provisioning: once a registry is established
                  events may occur that necessitate SSPs to add, modify
                  or delete data in the registry, in real-time, to
                  maintain accuracy of the data.  Examples of such
                  events can be found in other use cases within this
                  document (e.g., identity related use cases).



   UC PROCESS #2  Non-real-time or bulk provisioning: There are cases
                  when a registry needs to be provisioned with bulk data
                  sets, via an offline mechanism, as opposed to real-
                  time provisioning requests.  Examples include: when a
                  new registry is established or when data is being
                  restored from a backup.



3.1.1.2.  Category: SED options

   UC SED DATA #1  Inter-network SED: An SSP provisons SED records for a
                   specific end-user, so that other SSPs can use this
                   SED data to establish sessions intended with this
                   end-user.  The provisioning SSP can either be the
                   carrier-of-record (direct peering), or a transit
                   provider (indirect peering).






Channabasappa, Ed.      Expires November 4, 2010                [Page 8]

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


   UC SED DATA #2  Intra-network SED: An SSP provisons SED records for a
                   specific end-user, for use within the SSP's networks.
                   This will allow internal signaling elements to
                   establish sessions intended for this end-user.  The
                   provisioned SED is only distributed to specific local
                   data repositories, and will probably differ from the
                   SED provisioned for use by signaling elements from
                   other SSPs.



   UC SED DATA #3  Selective peering: While an SSP may provision the
                   same SED records for all other SSPs, an SSP may also
                   wish to provision different SED records for different
                   SSPs (e.g., if they have different peering
                   agreements).



   UC SED DATA #4  LUF-only data: An SSP can choose to provison LUF-only
                   data in the registry.  A querying SSP that receives
                   LUF-only data may need to rely on other mechanisms
                   (e.g., [RFC3263] for domain-name based LUF) to obtain
                   LRF information.



   UC SED DATA #5  LUF and LRF data: An SSP can provison LUF- and LRF-
                   data in the registry.  In such cases, the querying
                   SSP does not have to rely on mechanisms such as DNS
                   (e.g., [RFC3263]) for routing information.



   UC SED DATA #6  Target Domain as a resolvable Domain Name,
                   administrative domain name, or both: The target
                   domain pertaining to a public identity or TN Range
                   can either be a DNS-resolvable domain name (i.e., via
                   [RFC3263]) or an administrative domain.  An SSP may
                   also wish to provision both sets of data, and the
                   response is based on a default choice or the querying
                   entity.









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

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


   UC SED DATA #7  Target Domain as an administrative domain: The target
                   domain for a public identity or TN Range can be an
                   administrative domain.  In such cases the resolution
                   may be out of scope for this document.



   UC SED DATA #8



   UC SED DATA #9  EDITOR's NOTE: This use case seems to be a special
                   case of LUF-only provisioning.  Thoughts?


                   Provision an authoritative name server: 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: Data Aggregations

   UC DATA #1  Aggregation of public Identifiers: The input key to a SED
               lookup is a public identifier.  Since several public
               identifiers will potentially share similar (or identical)
               destinations, and hence similar (or identical) SED
               records, provisioning the same set of SED for millions of
               public identifiers is inefficient.  Therefore, an
               aggregation mechanism to 'group' public identifiers is
               proposed.  This aggregation is termed as a 'destination
               group' in the proposed data model.



   UC DATA #2  Aggregation of SED records: A complete set of session
               establishment data may 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 is required.  This is termed as a
               'Routing Group' in the data model.



Channabasappa, Ed.      Expires November 4, 2010               [Page 10]

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


3.1.1.4.  Category: Administration

   UC ADMIN #1  New authoritative additions: An SSP provisions a public
                identity or TN Range, as its authoritative entity (i.e.,
                carrier-of-record).



   UC ADMIN #2  New non-authoritative additions: An SSP provisions a
                public identity or TN Range, as a non-authoritative
                (i.e., transit) entity.



   UC ADMIN #3  Authoritative modifications to existing entries: An SSP
                indicates that it is the authoritative entity for an
                existing public identity or TN Range.  If the public
                identity or TN Range was previously associated with a
                different authoritative entity then there are two
                possible outcomes: a) the previous authoritative entity
                is disassociated, or, b) the previous authoritative
                entity is relegated to non-authoritative status.  The
                choice may be dependent on the deployment scenario, and
                is out of scope for this document.



   UC ADMIN #4  Non-authoritative modifications to existing entries: An
                SSP indicates that it is a transit provider for an
                existing public identity or TN Range.  In such cases,
                this SSP is associated with the public identity or TN
                Range, in non-authoritative status.



   UC ADMIN #5  Authoritative disassociation from existing entries: An
                SSP disassociates itself from a public identity or TN
                Range that it is authoritative for.  If there are no
                other (non-authoritative) SSPs associated with this
                public identity or TN Range, then the public identity
                may be deleted.



   UC ADMIN #6  Non-authoritative disassociation from existing entries:
                A SSP disassociates itself from a public identity or TN
                Range that it is linked with, as a non-authoritative
                entity.  If there are no other authoritative or non-



Channabasappa, Ed.      Expires November 4, 2010               [Page 11]

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


                authoritative entities associated with this public
                identity or TN Range, the public identity may be
                deleted.



   UC ADMIN #7  Deletion of existing public identity or TN Range: 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.



   UC ADMIN #8  EDITOR's Note: We may need to normalize the language
                here to use specified terms.


                Time-To-Live (TTL): For performance reasons, in favor of
                localized lookups, a query entity may decide to cache
                the answers and selectively query the resolution server
                when either the TTL expires or as a result of another
                out of band trigger.  Therefore, the publishing entity
                should be able to *optionally* specify the TTL for a
                given route record.  If the provisioning server doesn't
                support TTL option, it will result in a failure and a
                well-known error should be returned in the response.



3.1.1.5.  Category: Number Portability

   UC NP #1  EDITOR's NOTE: We need to reconcile these two paragraphs.


             Routing Numbers: The SSP does not wish to provision
             individual TNs, but instead, for ease of management, wishes
             to provision Routing Numbers.  Each RN represents a set of
             individual TNs, and that set of TNs is assumed to change
             'automatically' as TNs are ported-in or ported-out.  Note
             that this approach requires a query to resolve a TN to an
             RN prior to using the provisioned data to route.


             The SSP wishes to provide in query response to public
             identities an associated routing number or RN.  This is the
             case when a set of public identities is no longer
             associated with original SSP but have been ported to a



Channabasappa, Ed.      Expires November 4, 2010               [Page 12]

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


             recipient SSP who provides access to these identities via a
             switch on the SS7 network identified by the RN.  In this
             case a destination group containing all numbers that should
             be routed to this RN needs to be created and the route
             group associated with this DG needs to contain the RN



   UC NP #2  Authoritative release: A release command associated with
             one or more public identities (or TN Ranges) is received
             from an authoritative entity indicating his relinquishing
             of authoritative "ownership" over the respective
             identities.


             EDITOR's NOTE: Can't this be achieved by an authoritative
             disassociation?



   UC NP #3  Authoritative lock error: An existing public identity (or a
             TN range) is added indicating authoritative ownership by
             the provisioning entity.  However, there may be cases where
             an explicit release is required.  If so, and a release has
             not been provided, this will result in an error response.



3.1.1.6.  Category: PLEASE REVIEW AND SEE IF THESE NEED TO BE ADDED

   UC ID #1  Global TN destinations: The SSP wishes to add or remove one
             or multiple fully qualified TN destinations in a single
             provisioning request.



   UC ID #2  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'.









Channabasappa, Ed.      Expires November 4, 2010               [Page 13]

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


   UC ID #3  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
             allows the mobile multimedia messaging service center
             (MMSC) to use the subscriber email address as the lookup
             key and route messages accordingly.



   UC ID #4  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 ID #5  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 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.



3.1.2.  Requirements

   EDITOR's NOTE: !!!!!THIS NEEDS TO BE REVISED AFTER WE SIGN-OFF ON THE
   USE CASES!!!!!




Channabasappa, Ed.      Expires November 4, 2010               [Page 14]

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


   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:

   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.



Channabasappa, Ed.      Expires November 4, 2010               [Page 15]

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


   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.


   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



Channabasappa, Ed.      Expires November 4, 2010               [Page 16]

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


            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
            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.












Channabasappa, Ed.      Expires November 4, 2010               [Page 17]

Internet-Draft          ietf-drinks-usecases-reqs               May 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 November 4, 2010               [Page 18]

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


5.  IANA Considerations

   This document does not register any values in IANA registries.
















































Channabasappa, Ed.      Expires November 4, 2010               [Page 19]

Internet-Draft          ietf-drinks-usecases-reqs               May 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 of the document is a result of contributions
   from, primarily, David Schwartz (XConnect), Kenneth Cartwright (TNS,
   Inc.) and Syed Ali (Neustar, Inc.).  Other participants who reviewed
   and provided comments include: Alexander Mayrhofer (enum.at GmbH),
   Jean-Francois Mule (CableLabs), Manjul Maharishi (TNS, Inc.), and
   other participants on the DRINKS mailing list.


































Channabasappa, Ed.      Expires November 4, 2010               [Page 20]

Internet-Draft          ietf-drinks-usecases-reqs               May 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 November 4, 2010               [Page 21]

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


Author's Address

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

   Email: sumanth@cablelabs.com










































Channabasappa, Ed.      Expires November 4, 2010               [Page 22]


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