[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 13, 2011
Expires: September 14, 2011


               DRINKS Use cases and Protocol Requirements
               draft-ietf-drinks-usecases-requirements-05

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 September 14, 2011.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2011 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 September 14, 2011               [Page 1]

Internet-Draft          ietf-drinks-usecases-reqs             March 2011


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: Misc . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
   4.  Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
     4.1.  Provisioning Mechanisms  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
     4.2.  Interconnect Schemes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
     4.3.  SED Exchange and Discovery Requirements  . . . . . . . . . 16
     4.4.  SED Record Content Requirements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
     4.5.  Data Management Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
     4.6.  Lookup Key Requirements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
     4.7.  Misc. Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
   5.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
   6.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
   7.  Acknowledgments  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
   8.  References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
     8.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
     8.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
   Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24























Channabasappa, Ed.     Expires September 14, 2011               [Page 2]

Internet-Draft          ietf-drinks-usecases-reqs             March 2011


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, SSP), [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.  A Registry can
      be part of an SSP as well as an independent entity.



   Registrar:  An entity that provisions and manages data into the
      registry.  An SSP 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), a SIP address, or other identity as deemed appropriate, such
      as a globally routable URI of a user address (e.g.,
      sip:john.doe@example.net).



   TN Range:   A numerically contiguous set (or, in the case of an open
      numbering plan, a prefix) of telephone numbers whose SED can be
      looked up (resolved).



   RN:   A Routing Number.  See [RFC4694] for details







Channabasappa, Ed.     Expires September 14, 2011               [Page 3]

Internet-Draft          ietf-drinks-usecases-reqs             March 2011


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



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



   Route Group:   An aggregation that contains a related set of SED
      records, and is associated with a set of destination groups.
      Route groups facilitate the management of SED records for one or
      more data recipients.



































Channabasappa, Ed.     Expires September 14, 2011               [Page 4]

Internet-Draft          ietf-drinks-usecases-reqs             March 2011


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 Section 3.3 of [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 or next-hop 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 data via
   provisioning transactions from 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|
                              +----------+       +----------+








Channabasappa, Ed.     Expires September 14, 2011               [Page 5]

Internet-Draft          ietf-drinks-usecases-reqs             March 2011


                         Figure 1: General Diagram


   In this 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
   multiple registries operating in parallel.  In Figure 2, the case of
   multiple registries is depicted with dotted lines.





                                  . . . . . . .
                  . . . .  . . .   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.




Channabasappa, Ed.     Expires September 14, 2011               [Page 6]

Internet-Draft          ietf-drinks-usecases-reqs             March 2011


   o  Aggregation of SED records into a Route Group.


   The data model depicted in Figure 3 shows the various entities,
   aggregations and the relationships between them.





       +---------+            +--------------+               +---------+
       |  Data   |0..n    0..n|     ROUTE    | 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 Public Identifier object can be directly related to zero or more
      SED Record objects, and a SED Record object can be related to
      exactly one Public Identifier object.






Channabasappa, Ed.     Expires September 14, 2011               [Page 7]

Internet-Draft          ietf-drinks-usecases-reqs             March 2011


   -  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.


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


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


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























Channabasappa, Ed.     Expires September 14, 2011               [Page 8]

Internet-Draft          ietf-drinks-usecases-reqs             March 2011


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 of 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 September 14, 2011               [Page 9]

Internet-Draft          ietf-drinks-usecases-reqs             March 2011


                       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.  Selective
                       peering is done on a Route Group basis.



   UC INTERCONNECT #5  Provisioning of a delegated hierarchy: An SSP may
                       decide to maintain its own infrastructure to
                       contain the route records that constitute the
                       terminal step in the LUF.  In such cases, the SSP
                       will provision registries to direct queries for
                       the SSP's public identifiers to its own
                       infrastructure, rather than provisioning the
                       route records directly.  For example, in the case



Channabasappa, Ed.     Expires September 14, 2011              [Page 10]

Internet-Draft          ietf-drinks-usecases-reqs             March 2011


                       of DNS-based route records, such a delegated
                       hierarchy would make use of NS and CNAME records,
                       while a flat structure would make use of NAPTR
                       resource records.



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
                       may wish to communicate or receive SED (e.g.,
                       points of ingress) that constitutes the
                       aggregated result of both 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 (LUF step only), and then independently
                       resolvable those domain names via [RFC3263] to
                       the final points of ingress data (and other SED).



   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



Channabasappa, Ed.     Expires September 14, 2011              [Page 11]

Internet-Draft          ietf-drinks-usecases-reqs             March 2011


                       Public Identifiers.



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 provision the
               associated public identifiers.



   UC DATA #2  Destination Groups: SSPs often provision identical SED
               for large numbers of public identifiers.  For reasons of
               efficiency, groups of public identifiers that have the
               same SED can be aggregated.  These aggregations are known
               as destination groups.  The SED is then indirectly
               associated with destination groups rather than with each
               individual public identity.






Channabasappa, Ed.     Expires September 14, 2011              [Page 12]

Internet-Draft          ietf-drinks-usecases-reqs             March 2011


   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
               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.







Channabasappa, Ed.     Expires September 14, 2011              [Page 13]

Internet-Draft          ietf-drinks-usecases-reqs             March 2011


   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.



   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: Misc

   UC MISC #1  Number Portability: The SSP wishes to provide, in query
               response to public identifiers, an associated routing
               number (RN).  This is the case where 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.



   UC MISC #2  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



Channabasappa, Ed.     Expires September 14, 2011              [Page 14]

Internet-Draft          ietf-drinks-usecases-reqs             March 2011


               for a given data recipient.



   UC MISC #3  Open numbering plans: In several countries, an open
               numbering plan is used, which is where the carrier-of-
               record is only aware of a portion of the E.164 number
               (i.e., the prefix).  The carrier-of-record may not know
               the complete number, or the number of digits in the
               number.  The rest of the digits are handled offline
               (e.g., by a PBX).  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.  This can be described as the carrier-of-record
               effectively being authoritative for the prefix.


































Channabasappa, Ed.     Expires September 14, 2011              [Page 15]

Internet-Draft          ietf-drinks-usecases-reqs             March 2011


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.


4.1.  Provisioning Mechanisms

   REQ-PROV-1:  Real-time provisioning.



   REQ-PROV-2:  Non-real-time bulk provisioning.



   REQ-PROV-3:  Multi-request provisioning.



4.2.  Interconnect Schemes

   REQ-INTERCONNECT-1:  Inter-SSP peering.



   REQ-INTERCONNECT-2:  Direct and Indirect peering.



   REQ-INTERCONNECT-3:  Intra-SSP SED.



   REQ-INTERCONNECT-4:  Selective peering.



   REQ-INTERCONNECT-5:  Provisioning of a delegated hierarchy.



4.3.  SED Exchange and Discovery Requirements







Channabasappa, Ed.     Expires September 14, 2011              [Page 16]

Internet-Draft          ietf-drinks-usecases-reqs             March 2011


   REQ-SED-1:  SED containing unified LUF and LRF content.



   REQ-SED-2:  SED containing LUF-only data using domain names.



   REQ-SED-3:  SED containing LUF-only data using administrative
               domains.



   REQ-SED-4:  Support for all the other REQ-SED requirements,
               concurrently, for the same public identifier.



4.4.  SED Record Content Requirements

   REQ-SED-RECORD-1:  Ability to provision SED record content.



   REQ-SED-RECORD-2:  (Optional) Communication of an associated TTL for
                      a SED Record.



4.5.  Data Management Requirements

   REQ-DATA-MGMT-1:  Separation of responsibility for the provisioning
                     the points of ingress and other SED, from the
                     responsibility of provisioning public identifiers.



   REQ-DATA-MGMT-2:  Ability to aggregate a set of public identifiers as
                     destination groups.



   REQ-DATA-MGMT-3:  Ability to create the aggregation termed route
                     group.







Channabasappa, Ed.     Expires September 14, 2011              [Page 17]

Internet-Draft          ietf-drinks-usecases-reqs             March 2011


4.6.  Lookup Key Requirements

   REQ-LOOKUP-1:  Provisioning of, and modifications to, the following
                  aggregations: destination group and route groups.



   REQ-LOOKUP-2:  Ability to distinguish an SSP as either the carrier-
                  of-record provider or transit provider.



   REQ-LOOKUP-3:  A given lookup key (e.g., public identity, RN, TN
                  Range) can reside in multiple destination groups at
                  the same time.



   REQ-LOOKUP-4:  Modification of lookup keys by allowing them to be
                  moved to a different destination group via an atomic
                  operation.



   REQ-LOOKUP-5:  SSPs can indicate a change to their role from carrier-
                  of-record provider to transit, or vice-versa.



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



4.7.  Misc. Requirements

   REQ-MISC-1:  Number portability support.



   REQ-MISC-2:  Ability for the SSP to be offered a peering
                relationship, and for the SSP to accept (explicitly or
                implicitly) or reject such an offer.








Channabasappa, Ed.     Expires September 14, 2011              [Page 18]

Internet-Draft          ietf-drinks-usecases-reqs             March 2011


   REQ-MISC-3:  Support for open numbering plans.


















































Channabasappa, Ed.     Expires September 14, 2011              [Page 19]

Internet-Draft          ietf-drinks-usecases-reqs             March 2011


5.  Security Considerations

   Session establishment data allows for the routing of SIP sessions
   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.

   A provisioning protocol or interface that implements the described
   use cases MUST therefore provide data confidentiality, and MUST
   ensure message integrity for the provisioning flow.  Authentication
   and authorization of the provisioning entities are REQUIRED features
   of the protocol and interfaces.





































Channabasappa, Ed.     Expires September 14, 2011              [Page 20]

Internet-Draft          ietf-drinks-usecases-reqs             March 2011


6.  IANA Considerations

   This document does not register any values in IANA registries, nor
   request the creation of a registry.















































Channabasappa, Ed.     Expires September 14, 2011              [Page 21]

Internet-Draft          ietf-drinks-usecases-reqs             March 2011


7.  Acknowledgments

   This document is a result of various discussions held within the
   DRINKS WG; specifically , in alphabetical order: Alexander Mayrhofer,
   Deborah A Guyton, Gregory Schumacher, Jean-Francois Mule, Kenneth
   Cartwright, Manjul Maharishi, Penn Pfautz, Ray Bellis, Richard
   Shockey, and Syed Ali.

   This specific version of the document is a result of contributions
   from the following individuals: Alexander Mayrhofer, Otmar Lendl,
   Sohel Khan, and Peter Koch.  In addition, we also thank Brian Rose
   and Jon Peterson for suggestions we incorporated.







































Channabasappa, Ed.     Expires September 14, 2011              [Page 22]

Internet-Draft          ietf-drinks-usecases-reqs             March 2011


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.

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

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.

   [RFC4694]  Yu, J., "Number Portability Parameters for the "tel" URI",
              RFC 4694, October 2006.

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
























Channabasappa, Ed.     Expires September 14, 2011              [Page 23]

Internet-Draft          ietf-drinks-usecases-reqs             March 2011


Author's Address

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

   Email: sumanth@cablelabs.com










































Channabasappa, Ed.     Expires September 14, 2011              [Page 24]


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