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

Versions: 00 01

P2PSIP Working Group                                           E. Cooper
Internet-Draft                                               A. Johnston
Intended status: Standards Track                             P. Matthews
Expires: August 28, 2008                                           Avaya
                                                       February 25, 2008


                 An ID/Locator Architecture for P2PSIP
                    draft-matthews-p2psip-id-loc-01

Status of this Memo

   By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
   applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
   have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
   aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.

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

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

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

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

   This Internet-Draft will expire on August 28, 2008.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008).

Abstract

   This document describes an architecture where peers in an peer-to-
   peer overlay use special IP addresses to identify other peers.  Two
   of the advantages of this approach are that (a) most existing
   applications can run in an overlay without needing any changes and
   (b) peer mobility and NAT traversal are handled in a way that is
   transparent to most applications.




Cooper, et al.           Expires August 28, 2008                [Page 1]


Internet-Draft                   ID/Loc                    February 2008


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3

   2.  Overview/Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4

   3.  Terminology  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6

   4.  Details  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
     4.1.  LSI  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
     4.2.  Peer Protocol  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
     4.3.  Shim Layer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8

   5.  Domain Names . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

   6.  Example  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

   7.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

   8.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

   9.  Appendix: Discussion of Design Choices . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
     9.1.  LSIs have Local Significance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

   10. Relationship to HIP  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

   11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
     11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
     11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
   Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 15



















Cooper, et al.           Expires August 28, 2008                [Page 2]


Internet-Draft                   ID/Loc                    February 2008


1.  Introduction

   This document describes a scheme whereby the applications running on
   a peer can use a special IP addresses, called "LSIs" (Locally
   Significant Identifiers), to identify other peers in the peer-to-peer
   overlay, rather than using real IP addresses or peer IDs.  Using
   these LSIs brings the following advantages:

   o  An LSI is unique, unlike the real IP address of most peers (which
      is often a private IP address);

   o  An LSI can be used in the Socket API without change, unlike 160-
      bit peer IDs;

   o  Applications using LSIs do not have to worry about NAT traversal,
      mobility, or multi-homing, since these are handled by a helper
      application.

   The scheme effectively turns the overlay into a VPN.  Like other
   VPNs, it can be implemented so that most applications are unaware
   that they are using the VPN.  Only applications that want to take
   advantage of the special properties of the overlay need to be aware.

   Though not discussed further in the document, this scheme can be
   trivially extended to handle clients as well.

   This scheme is not a Peer Protocol in itself.  Rather, it is an
   enhancement to a Peer Protocol.

   This approach can be compared with the approach taken by many of the
   other proposals in P2PSIP (e.g., RELOAD, ASP, P2PP, and XPP/PCAN).
   In these proposals, peers are identified with bitstrings that do not
   look like addresses, forcing applications that want to run in an
   overlay to use a new (as yet unspecified) API, rather than the
   existing Socket API.  Furthermore, though these proposals handle NAT
   traversal for the Peer protocol, they do not handle NAT traversal for
   applications, forcing each application to invent its own ICE
   variation.  None of these proposals currently consider mobility at
   all.  All of this means that any application that wants to run in an
   overlay requires significant modification.

   This scheme grew out of the authors' previous efforts to adapt HIP to
   peer-to-peer overlays.  More details on the relationship of this work
   to HIP is given in Section 10.







Cooper, et al.           Expires August 28, 2008                [Page 3]


Internet-Draft                   ID/Loc                    February 2008


2.  Overview/Example

   This section gives an overview of how the scheme works.  It is non-
   normative.

   This overview is in the form of an extended example and assume a
   particular implementation approach.  While not fully general,
   experience has shown that this is a good way to explain the concepts.

   Consider a peer-to-peer overlay.  This overlay is assigned a domain
   name by the peer that created it; say it is "example.com".  This
   overlay has a number of peers, of which there are three of interest,
   called "venus", "earth", and "mars".  Each peer in the overlay is
   assigned a domain name underneith the "example.com" domain; for
   example "mars.example.com".  The domain names of peers are NOT stored
   in DNS.  Instead, each peer stores a mapping between its domain name
   and its peer ID in the overlay's Distributed Database.

   The machines Venus and Mars are using popular commercial operating
   systems.  To allow them to join the overlay, a user named Wilma has
   installed some peer-to-peer software.  This software has two parts.
   One part an implementation of the Peer Protocol with some ID-LOC
   extensions, the other part is a TAP device driver
   <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TUN/TAP>.  This is shown in the
   following figure.
     _______________                 _________________
    |               |               |  Peer Protocol  |
    | Application   |               |  with ID-LOC    |
    |_______________|               |_________________|    Userspace
     _______+_________________________+________+_______   -------------
    |                              +                   |     Kernel
    |          TCP/IP stack    +                       |
    |______________________+___________________________|
     _______+___________+            __________+______
    |                   |           |  Ethernet       |
    | TAP Device Driver |           |  Device Driver  |
    |___________________|           |_________________|
                                               +
                                               +


                                 Figure 1

   The "+" signs show the typical path of an application data packet
   traveling to/from a remote peer.  Packets sent by the application
   pass down through the kernel's TCP/IP stack.  Packets satisfying
   certain criteria are intercepted by the TAP driver and passed to the
   Peer Protocol, which modifies them before sending them back down



Cooper, et al.           Expires August 28, 2008                [Page 4]


Internet-Draft                   ID/Loc                    February 2008


   through the kernel's TCP/IP stack and out through the Ethernet device
   driver.  In the reverse direction, incoming packets arrive at the
   Ethernet device driver and pass up through the TCP/IP stack and are
   delivered to the Peer Protocol.  There they are modified and then
   passed to the TAP driver which reinjects them into the bottom of the
   TCP/IP stack.  They then pass up through the TCP/IP stack and are
   delivered to the application.

   Wilma wishes to view a website on the machine Mars.  To do this, she
   opens a popular web brower and enters "http://mars.example.com" into
   the address bar.  This causes the web browser to do gethostbyname()
   on "mars.example.com", which in turn causes a DNS query packet to be
   formed and sent down the TCP/IP stack.  It is important to note that
   this web browser has not been modified in any way, and thus has no
   knowledge that it is operating in a peer-to-peer overlay.

   The DNS query packet is intercepted by the TAP driver, which passes
   it to the Peer Protocol process.  The Peer Protocol notices that the
   domain name is in the "example.com" overlay which Venus is currently
   a member of.  So the Peer Protocol does a Distributed Database query
   for "mars.example.com" and gets back the 160-bit peer ID of Mars.

   The Peer Protocol process stores the peer ID of Mars and assigns it
   an LSI (call it Y).  The Peer Protocol process then creates a DNS
   response packet indicating that "mars.example.com" maps to Y. This
   packet is passed to the TAP driver, which injects it into the bottom
   of the TCP/IP stack.

   The result is that the Wilma's web browser gets back the LSI "Y" as
   the address of Mars.

   Wilma's web browser then issues a connect() call to create a TCP
   connection to "Y".  This causes the TCP/IP stack to send a SYN packet
   with destination "Y".  This packet is intercepted by the TAP driver
   and passed to the Peer Protocol process.

   The Peer Protocol stores the TCP SYN while it sets up a UDP
   connection between Venus and Mars.  This UDP connection is
   established using the connection establishment procedures of the peer
   protocol and uses ICE to traverse any NATs between Venus and Mars.
   This UDP connection is then uses as a "pipe" to carry all traffic
   between Venus and Mars encapsulated inside it.

      This approach is known as the "Outer UDP encapsulation".  An
      alternative approach, known as the "Null encapsulation" is
      described in the normative text below.





Cooper, et al.           Expires August 28, 2008                [Page 5]


Internet-Draft                   ID/Loc                    February 2008


        ___________                                      ___________
       |           |                                    |           |
       |           | -------- outer UDP pipe ---------- |           |
       |           |                                    |           |
       |  Venus    | === web browser TCP connection ==  |   Mars    |
       |           | ===== other TCP connection ======  |           |
       |           | -------- outer UDP pipe ---------- |           |
       |___________|                                    |___________|



   Once this UDP pipe is established, the Peer Protocol process on Venus
   then modifies the TCP SYN so that it will travel inside the "UDP
   pipe" to the machine Mars.  By doing this, the web browser and the
   web server do not need to run ICE or deal with peer IDs.

   At Mars, the UDP header is removed and the TCP SYN is then passed to
   the TAP driver on Mars, which passes it up through the TCP/IP stack.

   Subsequent TCP packets between Venus and Mars are also encapsulated
   inside UDP and sent along the pipe.


3.  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 RFC 2119 [RFC2119].

   Readers are expected to be familar with [I-D.ietf-p2psip-concepts]
   and the terms defined there.

   This document defines the following terms:

   LSI:  An IP address uses to identify a peer in the overlay.

   Outer UDP Encapsulation  An encapsulation scheme for packets
      travelling between two peers in the overlay that insert a UDP
      header and a demux header between the IP header and the existing
      transport header.

   Null Encapsulation  An excapsulation scheme for packets travelling
      between two peers in the overlay that does not insert any extra
      headers, but instead modifies fields in the existing IP and
      transport headers.






Cooper, et al.           Expires August 28, 2008                [Page 6]


Internet-Draft                   ID/Loc                    February 2008


4.  Details

   Figure X shows the conceptual relationship between the parts
   discussed in this section.
             _______________ _______________
            |               |               |
            | Peer Protocol |      SIP      |  Other Apps ...
            |_______________|_______________|_________________
            |                                                 |
            |                 TCP, UDP, etc                   |
            |_________________________________________________|
            |                                                 |
            |                   Shim layer                    |
            |_________________________________________________|
            |                                                 |
            |                  IP (v4 or v6)                  |
            |_________________________________________________|

   In this architecture, the Peer Protocol is responsible for creating
   the mapping between LSIs and real addresses, while the Shim layer is
   responsible for doing the translation on a packet-by-packet basis as
   well as adding any necessary encapsulation.  More details on these
   roles can be found below.

4.1.  LSI

   An LSI is either:

   o  An IPv4 address selected from a range to be allocated by IANA
      (likely a /16), or

   o  An IPv6 address selected from a range to be determined (perhaps
      the ORCHID range [RFC4843]).

   An LSI has local significance only.

   Applications can freely intermix LSIs with ordinary ("real")
   addresses.  For example, an application can use LSIs to identify
   nodes in the overlay, and real addresses to identify nodes off the
   overlay.

4.2.  Peer Protocol

   The job of the Peer Protocol in this scheme (in addition to its other
   duties of managing the overlay and implementing the Distributed
   Database [I-D.ietf-p2psip-concepts]) is to establish connections
   between peers and to manage the mappings between LSIs and real
   addresses.  To do this, the Peer Protocol does an ICE exchange with



Cooper, et al.           Expires August 28, 2008                [Page 7]


Internet-Draft                   ID/Loc                    February 2008


   the destination peer to negotiate a set of addresses and ports to use
   for the data traffic.

   The stimulus for doing this ICE exchange is an indication from the
   Shim layer saying that is has no set of real addresses to use for a
   given destination LSI (cf. an ARP cache miss).  The Peer Protocol
   then does an ICE exchange with the destination peer, routing the
   Offer/Answer though other peers in the overlay.  Once the exchange
   has completed, the Peer Protocol installs the appropriate mapping
   entry into the Shim layer.

4.3.  Shim Layer

   The shim layer is a new layer introduced between the IP layer and the
   transport layer.  It has two functions: translating LSIs to/from real
   addresses, and adding any necessary encapsulation.

   There are two forms of encapsulation: null encapsulation and outer-
   UDP encapsulation.
     _____________________________         ___________________________
    |                             |       |                           |
    |      Application data       |       |     Application data      |
    |_____________________________|       |___________________________|
    |                             |       |                           |
    | Transport (TCP or UDP only) |       |     Transport header      |
    |_____________________________|       |___________________________|
    |                             |       |                           |
    |        Demux header         |       |    IP header (v4 or v6)   |
    |_____________________________|       |___________________________|
    |                             |
    |         UDP header          |             Null Encapsulation
    |_____________________________|
    |                             |
    |     IP header (v4 or v6)    |
    |_____________________________|

        Outer-UDP Encapsulation

   The Demux header looks like:
       0                   1                   2                   3
       0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |  Protocol     |                Reserved                       |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   Here the protocol field indicates which transport (or other) protocol
   follows, and uses the same codepoints as used for the 'protocol'
   field in the IPv4/IPv6 header.



Cooper, et al.           Expires August 28, 2008                [Page 8]


Internet-Draft                   ID/Loc                    February 2008


   The null encapsulation adds no extra bytes but simply translates LSIs
   to real addresses and modifies port numbers as necessary to traverse
   NATs.  The null encapsulation is very similar to existing protocol
   stacks, but requires more work to set up and maintain because each
   connection requires its own set of ICE connectivity checks.

   By contrast, the Outer-UDP encapsulation adds a UDP header plus a
   4-byte demux header between the IP header and the transport header.
   The Outer-UDP encapsulation multiplexes all connections between two
   given nodes inside a single UDP "pipe".  Because intervening NATs see
   only the outer UDP header, this encapsulation requires only one ICE
   exchange (to set up the outer pipe), regardless of how many
   connections there are inside the pipe.

   The Outer-UDP encapsulation can be used with all transport protocols,
   while the null encapsulation can only be used with UDP and TCP.

   To explain the mapping and encapsulations in more detail, consider a
   transport layer PDU is sent from X:x to Y:y, where X is the LSI of
   the local host, Y is the LSI of the remote host, and x and y are the
   port numbers allocated off of these identifiers.  For both
   encapsulations, the Peer Protocol will have used ICE to determine a
   corresponding set of real addresses and ports.

   For the null encapsulation, each transport layer 5-tuple (transport
   protocol,X,x,Y,y) will have a corresponding set of real addresses and
   ports (X',x',Y',y').  When sending, the port numbers x and y in the
   transport header are replaced with x' and y', and an IP header is
   added containing addresses X' and Y' is added.  (TBD: Are the
   addresses in the transport layer pseudo-header also replaced?).  The
   reverse replacement is done when receiving a PDU.

   If either X or Y change their real address, then an ICE exchange is
   required to determine a new 5-tuple for each connection.  For UDP,
   this new 5-tuple is simply used in place of the old.

      OPEN ISSUE: For TCP, this doesn't work, since generating the new
      5-tuple requires a new TCP handshake.  This seems to imply that
      the TCP layer has to be aware of the change in address.  So what
      do we do?  Do we just say "don't use null encapsulation for TCP if
      you want mobility to work"?  Or do we figure out how to make this
      work?

   For the outer-UDP encapsulation, there is a single 5-tuple
   (UDP,X',x',Y',y') for each (X,Y) pair.  When sending, the transport
   header is not modified, instead a demux header and a outer UDP header
   is added.  Ports x' and y' are inserted in the outer UDP header, and
   an IP header containing addresses X' and Y' is added.



Cooper, et al.           Expires August 28, 2008                [Page 9]


Internet-Draft                   ID/Loc                    February 2008


   Mobility is simpler with the Outer-UDP encapsulation.  In this case,
   only a single ICE exchange is required, and the new 5-tuple is simply
   used in place of the old.  There are no TCP concerns in this case,
   since the TCP header is never modified.


5.  Domain Names

   Each overlay is assigned a domain name by the peer that creates the
   overlay.  This can be any domain name that the peer has authority
   over.

   Each peer is assigned a unique domain name underneith the overlay's
   domain name.  This document does not specify how this assignment is
   done, but one option might be to use the peer's machine name as the
   label in front of the overlay domain name, and then use some scheme
   to break ties.

   Each peer MUST store a mapping between its domain name and its peer
   ID in the Distributed Database.  The peer's domain name MAY be stored
   in DNS as well.


6.  Example

   In this section, we show a SIP call between two UAs in an overlay.

   This example illustrates how this scheme allows applications to work
   in an overlay without being aware of that fact.  The two SIP UAs in
   this example use standard client-server SIP to communicate, without
   needing any SIP extensions.

   IMPORTANT NOTE: Without extensions to SIP, there is no way to do an
   AOR to contact URI lookup using the Distributed Database.  So in this
   example, Wilma calls Fred by specifying Fred's machine name, using
   the domain name scheme described in the previous section.  With this
   caveat, everything works with SIP as it is today.

   The figure below shows the call flow for this example.












Cooper, et al.           Expires August 28, 2008               [Page 10]


Internet-Draft                   ID/Loc                    February 2008


 Wilma                                                              Fred
 Venus                                  Earth                       Mars
  |                                       |                           |
  |-- DD query for mars.example.com  ---->|                           |
  |<--------------- DD response ----------|                           |
  |                                       |                           |
  |----------- Msg w/ICE Offer ---------->|                           |
  |                                       |----- Msg w/ICE Offer ---->|
  |                                       |<---- Msg w/ICE Ans -------|
  |<---------- Msg w/ ICE Ans ------------|                           |
  |                                                                   |
  |<=================== ICE Connectivity Checks =====================>|
  |                                                                   |
  |<-------------------- TCP and TLS handshake ---------------------->|
  |                                                                   |
  |<------------- SIP transaction over TLS connection --------------->|
  |                                                                   |


   This example shows three machines, named "Venus", "Earth", and "Mars"
   which are part of a larger overlay named "example.com".  Wilma is on
   Venus, and Fred is on Mars.

   Wilma initiates the call by typing in "sips:fred@mars.example.com"
   into her UA.  Wilma's UA does a gethostbyname() call to resolve
   "mars.example.com" and this is resolved by doing a Distributed
   Database lookup.  In this example, it turns out that the
   corresponding resource record is stored on the machine "Earth".  As a
   result, an LSI for the peer Mars is returned from the gethostbyname()
   call to Wilma's UA.

      NOTE: The Peer Protocol allocates an LSI and remembers that it
      maps to the machine named "mars.solar-system.p2p" which has the
      peer id learned from the response.

   Wilma's UA then issues a connect() to this LSI.  This causes TCP to
   send a SYN to this LSI.  Since there is currently no direct
   connection between Venus and Mars, the Shim layer finds no mapping
   for this LSI and thus generates an indication to the Peer Protocol.

   The Peer Protocol layer on Venus now does an ICE offer/answer
   exchange with the Peer Protocol layer on Mars.  The Offer is sent on
   the existing connection to Earth, which forwards it to Mars, and the
   Answer is returned in the same way.  ICE connectivity checks are then
   done, and the result is a tuple of real addresses and ports for the
   connection.

   If null encapsulation is used, then the TCP connection was



Cooper, et al.           Expires August 28, 2008               [Page 11]


Internet-Draft                   ID/Loc                    February 2008


   established as part of the ICE connectivity checks.  This new
   connection is used only for SIP signaling, and subsequent connections
   require a new offer/answer exchange.

   But if Outer-UDP encapsulation is used, then all the ICE connectivity
   checks do is establish a UDP "pipe" between the two peers, and the
   TCP and TLS handshakes must still be done inside that pipe (as shown
   above).  However, this UDP pipe can be used for all traffic between
   Venus and Mars, including subsequent RTP packets) without the need of
   subsequent offer/answer exchanges.


7.  IANA Considerations

   TBD.


8.  Security Considerations

   TBD.


9.  Appendix: Discussion of Design Choices

   This appendix discusses the thinking around some of the design
   choices made.

9.1.  LSIs have Local Significance

   In the design presented here, the LSIs presented to applications have
   local significance only.  For IPv4, this seems to be the only
   reasonable choice, as it would be difficult to get an IPv4 block of
   addresses large enough to be of wider significance.  However, for
   IPv6, a wider scope would be possible, and that option was
   considered.  In particular, it would have been possible to use a
   globally scoped identifier, like the HIT of HIP.  At first blush, it
   seems that using a globally scoped identifier would allow an
   applications to send the identifier (embedded in protocol messages)
   to an application on other nodes and have that identifier make sense.

   However, an examination of the details shows that there are problems
   with this approach.  Say a node X has an indentifier for node Z
   (e.g., a HIT) and sends its to node Y. For Y to be able to use this
   identifier, it must know how to establish a connection with node Z.
   If node Y is in multiple overlays, then Y has no idea which overlay
   to search to find node Z. It is this difficulty that led us to the
   decision to make LSI have local significance only.




Cooper, et al.           Expires August 28, 2008               [Page 12]


Internet-Draft                   ID/Loc                    February 2008


10.  Relationship to HIP

   The fundamental concept in this document, that of an identifier for a
   node which is distinct from the node's real addresses, has been
   adopted from HIP.  In HIP, this identifier (known as a HIT
   [I-D.ietf-hip-base]) is always an IPv6 identifier, and has global
   scope and cryptographic properties, making it computationally hard
   for an second node to steal a node's identity.  (Current HIP
   implementations also implement an IPv4 identifier as a local
   identifier, but the properties of this IPv4 identifier are not
   currently specified anywhere).


11.  References

11.1.  Normative References

   [I-D.ietf-mmusic-ice]
              Rosenberg, J., "Interactive Connectivity Establishment
              (ICE): A Protocol for Network Address  Translator (NAT)
              Traversal for Offer/Answer Protocols",
              draft-ietf-mmusic-ice-19 (work in progress), October 2007.

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

11.2.  Informative References

   [I-D.ietf-hip-base]
              Moskowitz, R., Nikander, P., Jokela, P., and T. Henderson,
              "Host Identity Protocol", draft-ietf-hip-base-10 (work in
              progress), October 2007.

   [I-D.ietf-p2psip-concepts]
              Bryan, D., Matthews, P., Shim, E., and D. Willis,
              "Concepts and Terminology for Peer to Peer SIP",
              draft-ietf-p2psip-concepts-01 (work in progress),
              November 2007.

   [RFC4843]  Nikander, P., Laganier, J., and F. Dupont, "An IPv6 Prefix
              for Overlay Routable Cryptographic Hash Identifiers
              (ORCHID)", RFC 4843, April 2007.









Cooper, et al.           Expires August 28, 2008               [Page 13]


Internet-Draft                   ID/Loc                    February 2008


Authors' Addresses

   Eric Cooper
   Avaya
   1135 Innovation Drive
   Ottawa, Ontario  K2K 3G7
   Canada

   Phone: +1 613 592 4343 x228
   Email: ecooper@avaya.com


   Alan Johnston
   Avaya
   St. Louis, MO  63124
   USA

   Email: alan@sipstation.com


   Philip Matthews
   Avaya
   100 Innovation Drive
   Ottawa, Ontario  K2K 3G7
   Canada

   Phone: +1 613 592 4343 x224
   Email: philip_matthews@magma.ca























Cooper, et al.           Expires August 28, 2008               [Page 14]


Internet-Draft                   ID/Loc                    February 2008


Full Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008).

   This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
   contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
   retain all their rights.

   This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
   "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
   OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND
   THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS
   OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF
   THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
   WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.


Intellectual Property

   The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
   Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
   pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
   this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
   might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
   made any independent effort to identify any such rights.  Information
   on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
   found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
   assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
   attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
   such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
   specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
   http://www.ietf.org/ipr.

   The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
   copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
   rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
   this standard.  Please address the information to the IETF at
   ietf-ipr@ietf.org.


Acknowledgment

   Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF
   Administrative Support Activity (IASA).





Cooper, et al.           Expires August 28, 2008               [Page 15]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.129c, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/