[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 25, 2010
Expires: November 26, 2010


               DRINKS Use cases and Protocol Requirements
               draft-ietf-drinks-usecases-requirements-03

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 26, 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 26, 2010               [Page 1]

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


Table of Contents

   1.  Terminology  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   2.  Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
   3.  Registry Use Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
     3.1.  Category: Provisioning Mechanisms  . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
     3.2.  Category: Interconnect Schemes . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
     3.3.  Category: SED Exchange and Discovery Models  . . . . . . . 11
     3.4.  Category: SED Record Content . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
     3.5.  Category: Separation and Facilitation of Data
           Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
     3.6.  Category: Lookup Keys  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
     3.7.  Category: Number Portability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
     3.8.  Category: Misc . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
   4.  Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
   5.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
   6.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
   7.  Acknowledgments  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
   8.  References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
     8.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
     8.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
   Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22





























Channabasappa, Ed.      Expires November 26, 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), [RFC5486]
   (e.g., LUF, LRF, SED) and [RFC5067] (carrier-of-record and transit
   provider).  In addition, this document specifies the following
   additional terms.


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



   Registrar  An entity that provisions and manages data into the
      registry.



   Registrant  An entity whose data is provisioned into the registry.
      The registrant can act as its own registrar or - additionally or
      alternatively - delegate this function to a third party who acts
      as its registrar.



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



   Public Identifier:   A public identifier 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).



   TN Range:   A numerically contiguous set of telephone numbers whose
      SED can be looked up (resolved).








Channabasappa, Ed.      Expires November 26, 2010               [Page 3]

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


   Destination Group:   An aggregation of a set of public identifiers,
      TN Ranges, or RNs that share common SED.



   Data Recipient:   An entity with visibility into a specific set of
      public identifiers, the destination groups that contain these
      public identifiers, and a routing group's SED records.



   Routing Group:   An aggregation that contains a related set of SED
      records, and is associated with a set of destination groups.
      Routing groups facilitate the management of SED records - which
      are common to a large number of public identifiers, TN Ranges or
      RNs - for one or more data recipients.



































Channabasappa, Ed.      Expires November 26, 2010               [Page 4]

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 signaling 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.  This document contains the use cases
   and requirements that have been proposed in this regard.

   SED is typically created by the terminating SSP and consumed by the
   originating SSP.  To avoid a multitude of bilateral exchanges, SED is
   often 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 26, 2010               [Page 5]

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 to local data repositories.  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



   In addition, this document proposes the following aggregation groups
   with regards to SED (refer to the use cases in Section 3.5 for the
   rationale):

   o  Aggregation of public Identifiers into a destination group.


   o  Aggregation of SED records into a Routing Group.


   The data model depicted in Figure 3 shows the various entities,



Channabasappa, Ed.      Expires November 26, 2010               [Page 6]

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


   aggregations and the relationships between them.





       +---------+            +--------------+               +---------+
       |  Data   |0..n    0..n|    ROUTING   | 1         0..n|   SED   |
       |Recepient|------------|     GROUP    | --------------|  Record |
       +---------+            +--------------+               +---------+
                                     |0..n                        |0..n
                                     |                            |
                                     |                            |
                                     |                            |
                                     |0..n                        |
                            1 +--------------+  0..1              |
                     ---------| DESTINATION  |---------           |
                    |         |    GROUP     |         |          |
                    |         +--------------+         |          |
                    |                |                 |          |
                    |               1|                 |          |
                    |                |                 |          |
                    |                |                 |          |
               0..n |           0..n |                 | 0..n     |
               +---------+      +---------+       +----------+    |
               |   RN    |      |   TN    |       | Public   |----
               |         |      |  Range  |       |Identifier| 1
               +---------+      +---------+       +----------+




                       Figure 3: Data Model Diagram


   The relationships are as described below:


   -  A Data Recipient object can be associated with zero or more
      Routing Group objects, and a Routing Group object can refer to
      zero or more Data Recipient objects.


   -  A Routing Group object can contain zero or more SED Record
      objects, and a SED Record object can be contained in exactly one
      Routing Group object.





Channabasappa, Ed.      Expires November 26, 2010               [Page 7]

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


   -  A Routing Group object can be associated with zero or more
      Destination Group objects, and a Destination Group object can be
      associated with zero or more Routing Group objects.


   -  A Destination Group object can contain zero or more RN objects,
      and an RN object can be contained in exactly one Destination Group
      object.


   -  A Destination Group object can contain zero or more TN Range
      objects, and a TN Range object can be contained in exactly one
      Destination Group object.


   -  A Destination Group object can contain zero or more Public
      Identifier objects, and a Public Identifier object can be
      contained in exactly one Destination Group object.

































Channabasappa, Ed.      Expires November 26, 2010               [Page 8]

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


3.  Registry Use Cases

   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 to
   be out of scope within this document.

3.1.  Category: Provisioning Mechanisms

   UC PROV #1  Real-Time Provisioning: Registrars have operational
               systems that provision public identifiers, in association
               with their SED.  These systems often function in a manner
               that expect or require that these provisioning activities
               be completed immediately, as apposed to an out-of-band or
               batch provisioning scheme that can occur at a later time.
               This type of provisioning is referred to as real-time, or
               on-demand provisioning.



   UC PROV #2  Non-Real-Time Bulk Provisioning: Operational systems that
               provision public identifiers and associated SED sometimes
               expect that these provisioning activities be batched up
               into large sets.  These batched requests are then
               processed using a provisioning mechanism that is out-of-
               band and occurs at a later time.



   UC PROV #3  Multi-Request Provisioning: Regardless of whether a
               provisioning action is performed in real-time or not,
               SSPs often perform several provisioning actions on
               several objects in a single request or transaction.  This
               is done for performance and scalability reasons, and for
               transactional reasons, such that the set of provisioning
               actions either fail or succeed atomically, as a complete
               set.



3.2.  Category: Interconnect Schemes

   UC INTERCONNECT #1  Inter-SSP SED: SSPs create peering relationships
                       with other SSPs in order to establish
                       interconnects.  Establishing these interconnects
                       involves, among other things, communicating and
                       enabling the points of ingress and other SED used
                       to establish sessions to a set of public



Channabasappa, Ed.      Expires November 26, 2010               [Page 9]

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


                       identifiers.



   UC INTERCONNECT #2  Direct vs Indirect Peering: Some inter-SSP
                       peering relationships are created to enable the
                       establishment of sessions to the public
                       identifiers for which an SSP is the carrier-of-
                       record.  This is referred to as direct peering.
                       Other inter-SSP peering relationships are created
                       to enable the establishment of sessions to public
                       identifiers for which an SSP is a transit
                       provider.  This is referred to as indirect
                       peering.  Some SSPs take into consideration an
                       SSP's role as a transit or carrier-of-record
                       provider when selecting a route to a public
                       identifier.



   UC INTERCONNECT #3  Intra-SSP SED: SSPs support the establishment of
                       sessions between their own public identifiers,
                       not just to other SSPs public identifiers.
                       Enabling this involves, among other things,
                       communicating and enabling intra-SSP signaling
                       points and other SED that can differ from inter-
                       SSP signaling points and SED.



   UC INTERCONNECT #4  Selective Peering (a.k.a. per peer policies):
                       SSPs create peering relationships with other SSPs
                       in order to establish interconnects.  However,
                       SSPs peering relationships often result in
                       different points of ingress or other SED for the
                       same set of public identifiers.



   UC INTERCONNECT #5  Provisioning of a delegated 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 a
                       registry to direct queries for the SSP's numbers
                       to the Tier 2 name server.  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



Channabasappa, Ed.      Expires November 26, 2010              [Page 10]

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


                       NS records may be employed instead.



3.3.  Category: SED Exchange and Discovery Models

   UC SED EXCHANGE #1  SED Exchange and Discovery using unified LUF/LRF:
                       When establishing peering relationships some SSPs
                       wish to communicate or receive points of ingress
                       and other SED that contain LUF and LRF.



   UC SED EXCHANGE #2  SED Exchange and Discovery using LUF's Domain
                       Name: When establishing peering relationships
                       some SSPs may not wish to communicate or receive
                       points of ingress and other SED using a registry.
                       They wish to only communicate or receive domain
                       names resolvable via [RFC3263], and this query
                       will then return the points of ingress or other
                       SED that form the LUF.



   UC SED EXCHANGE #3  SED Exchange and Discovery using LUF's
                       Administrative Domain Identifier: When
                       establishing peering relationships some SSPs may
                       not wish to communicate or receive points of
                       ingress and other SED using a registry.  They
                       wish to only communicate or receive an
                       administrative domain identifier, which is not
                       necessarily resolvable via DNS.  The subsequent
                       process of using that administrative domain
                       identifier to select points of ingress or other
                       SED can be SSP specific and occurs outside the
                       context of this protocol.



   UC SED EXCHANGE #4  Co-existent SED Exchange and Discovery Models:
                       When supporting multiple peering relationships
                       some SSPs have the need to concurrently support
                       all three of the SED Exchange and Discovery
                       Models described above, for the same set of
                       lookup keys.






Channabasappa, Ed.      Expires November 26, 2010              [Page 11]

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


3.4.  Category: SED Record Content

   UC SED RECORD #1  SED Record Content: Establishing interconnects
                     between SSPs involves, among other things,
                     communicating points of ingress, the service types
                     (SIP, SIPS, etc) supported by each point of
                     ingress, and the relative priority of each point of
                     ingress for each service type.



   UC SED RECORD #2  Time-To-Live (TTL): For performance reasons,
                     querying SSPs sometimes cache SED that had been
                     previously looked up for a given public identity.
                     In order to accomplish this, SSPs sometimes specify
                     the TTL associated with a given SED record.



3.5.  Category: Separation and Facilitation of Data Management

   UC DATA #1  Separation of Provisioning Responsibility: An SSP's
               operational practices often separate the responsibility
               of provisioning the points of ingress and other SED, from
               the responsibility of provisioning public identifiers (or
               TN ranges or RNs).  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
               subscriber, the SSP's provisioning systems provisions the
               associated public identifiers.



   UC DATA #2  Destination Groups: SSPs often provision identical SED
               for large numbers of public identifiers.  Groups of
               public identifiers that have the same SED are created.
               This grouping is know as Destination Group.  SED is then
               indirectly associated with that group rather than to each
               individual public identity.



   UC DATA #3  Route Groups: SSPs often provision identical SED for
               large numbers of public identifiers, and then expose that
               relationship between a group of SED records and a group
               of public identifiers to one or more SSPs.  This combined
               grouping of SED records and Destination Groups



Channabasappa, Ed.      Expires November 26, 2010              [Page 12]

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


               facilitates management of public identity SED
               relationships and the list of peers (data recipients)
               that can lookup those public identifiers and receive that
               SED.  This dual set of SED Records and Destination Groups
               is termed as a Route Group.



3.6.  Category: Lookup Keys

   UC LOOKUP #1  Additions and deletions: SSPs often allocate and de-
                 allocate specific public identifiers to and from end-
                 users.  This involves, among other things, activating
                 or deactivating specific public identifiers (or TN
                 ranges or RNs), and directly (or indirectly)
                 associating them with the appropriate points of ingress
                 and other SED.



   UC LOOKUP #2  Carrier-of-Record vs Transit Lookup Key Provisioning:
                 Some inter-SSP peering relationships are created to
                 enable the establishment of sessions to the lookup keys
                 for which an SSP is the carrier-of-record.  Other
                 inter-SSP peering relationships are created to enable
                 the establishment of sessions to lookup keys for which
                 an SSP is a transit provider.  Some SSPs take into
                 consideration an SSP's role as a transit or carrier-of-
                 record provider when selecting a route to a public
                 identifier.



   UC LOOKUP #3  Multiplicity of Identical Lookup Keys: As described in
                 previous use cases, SSPs provision lookup keys and
                 their associated SED for multiple peering SSPs, and as
                 both the carrier-of-record and transit provider.  As a
                 result, a given lookup key can reside in multiple
                 destination groups at any given time.



   UC LOOKUP #4  Lookup Key Destination Group Modification: SSPs often
                 change the SED associated with a given lookup key.
                 This involves, among other things, directly or
                 indirectly associating them with a different point of
                 ingress, different services, and/or different other
                 SED.



Channabasappa, Ed.      Expires November 26, 2010              [Page 13]

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


   UC LOOKUP #5  Lookup Key Carrier-Of-Record vs Transit Modification:
                 SSPs may have the need to change their Carrier-Of-
                 Record vs Transit role for lookup keys they previously
                 provisioned.



   UC LOOKUP #6  Modification of authority: An SSP indicates that it is
                 the carrier-of-record for an existing public identity
                 or TN Range.  If the public identity or TN Range was
                 previously associated with a different carrier-of-
                 record then there are multiple possible outcomes, such
                 as: a) the previous carrier-of-record is disassociated,
                 b) the previous carrier-of-record is relegated to
                 transit status, or c) the new carrier-of-record is
                 placed in inactive mode.  The choice may be dependent
                 on the deployment scenario, and is out of scope for
                 this document.



3.7.  Category: Number Portability

   UC NP #1  EDITOR's NOTE: Need to clarify this further.


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



3.8.  Category: Misc

   UC MISC #1  Data Recipient Offer and Accept: When a peering
               relationship is established (or invalidated) SSPs
               provision (or remove) data recipients in the registry.
               However, a peer may first need to accept it's role (as a
               data recipient) before such a change is made effective.
               Alternatively an auto-accept feature can be configured
               for a given data recipient.




Channabasappa, Ed.      Expires November 26, 2010              [Page 14]

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


   UC MISC #2  Open numbering plans: In several countries, an "open
               numbering plan" is used, which is such that the carrier-
               of-record does not in fact know the complete number, but
               instead only knows a portion of the E.164 number.  The
               rest of the digits are handled by a PBX off of that
               carrier-of-record, and even the number of those digit is
               not fixed.  For example, an SSP can be the carrier-of-
               record for "+123456789", and is also the carrier-of-
               record for every possible expansion of that number such
               as "+12345678901" and "+123456789012", even though the
               SSP does not know what those expansions could be, because
               the PBX decides that.  This can be described as the
               carrier-of-record effectively being authoritative for a
               "prefix".





































Channabasappa, Ed.      Expires November 26, 2010              [Page 15]

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


4.  Requirements

   This Section lists the requirements based on the use cases in
   Section 3.  Unless explicitly stated as optional, the registry
   provisioning interface must support these requirements.


   REQ1:   a) Real-time, b) non-real-time bulk, and c) multi-request
           provisioning.



   REQ2:   Inter-SSP SED with support for direct and indirect peering.



   REQ3:   Intra-SSP SED.



   REQ4:   Selective peering.



   REQ5:   Provisioning of a delegated name server.



   REQ6:   The following SED Exchange and discovery models (concurrently
           for the same public identifier): a) unified LUF/LRF, b) LUF-
           only with domain name, and c) LUF-only with administrative
           domain.



   REQ7:   Provisioning of SED Record content



   REQ8:   (Optional) Communicate the TTL for a given SED Record.



   REQ9:   Separation of responsibility of provisioning the points of
           ingress and other SED, from the responsibility of
           provisioning public identifiers.





Channabasappa, Ed.      Expires November 26, 2010              [Page 16]

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


   REQ10:  Additions and deletions of public identifiers, TN ranges and
           RNs.



   REQ11:  Provisioning of, and modifications to, the following
           aggregations: destination group and route groups.



   REQ12:  Support the distinction between an SSP as a carrier-of-record
           provider versus transit provider.



   REQ13:  Support for lookup keys having identical business keys (the
           public identity string, the digits that comprise an RN, the
           start and end point of a TN range's range) that concurrently
           exist across multiple destination groups and where each
           destination group may be managed by different SSPs.

           Editor's note: We need to simplify the above requirement.



   REQ14:  Modification of lookup keys by allowing them to be moved to a
           different destination group via an atomic operation.



   REQ15:  SSPs to change their Carrier-Of- Record vs Transit role.



   REQ16:  Support for modification of authority with the conditions
           described in UC LOOKUP #6.



   REQ17:  Destination group offer and acceptance (optionally support
           auto-acceptance).



   REQ18:  Open numbering plans.






Channabasappa, Ed.      Expires November 26, 2010              [Page 17]

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


5.  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 26, 2010              [Page 18]

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


6.  IANA Considerations

   This document does not register any values in IANA registries.
















































Channabasappa, Ed.      Expires November 26, 2010              [Page 19]

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


7.  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.), Hadriel
   Kaplan (Acme Packet) and other participants on the DRINKS mailing
   list.

































Channabasappa, Ed.      Expires November 26, 2010              [Page 20]

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


8.  References

8.1.  Normative References

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

8.2.  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.

   [RFC5067]  Lind, S. and P. Pfautz, "Infrastructure ENUM
              Requirements", RFC 5067, November 2007.

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



























Channabasappa, Ed.      Expires November 26, 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 26, 2010              [Page 22]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.108, available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/