draft-ietf-drinks-usecases-requirements-01.txt   draft-ietf-drinks-usecases-requirements-02.txt 
DRINKS S. Channabasappa, Ed. DRINKS S. Channabasappa, Ed.
Internet-Draft CableLabs Internet-Draft CableLabs
Intended status: Informational March 8, 2010 Intended status: Informational May 3, 2010
Expires: September 9, 2010 Expires: November 4, 2010
DRINKS Use cases and Protocol Requirements DRINKS Use cases and Protocol Requirements
draft-ietf-drinks-usecases-requirements-01 draft-ietf-drinks-usecases-requirements-02
Abstract Abstract
This document captures the use cases and associated requirements for This document captures the use cases and associated requirements for
interfaces to provision session establishment data into SIP Service interfaces that provision session establishment data into SIP Service
Provider components that aid with session routing. Specifically, the Provider components, to assist with session routing. Specifically,
current version of this document focuses on the provisioning of one the current version of this document focuses on the provisioning of
such element, termed the registry. one such element, termed the registry.
Status of this Memo Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts. Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at This Internet-Draft will expire on November 4, 2010.
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on September 9, 2010.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2010 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2010 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the BSD License. described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Use Cases and Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 3. Use Cases and Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.1. Registry Provisioning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 3.1. Registry Provisioning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.1.1. Use Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 3.1.1. Use Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.1.2. Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 3.1.2. Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
3.2. Distribution of data into local data repositories . . . . 18 4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 6. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
6. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
1. Terminology 1. Terminology
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
This document reuses terms from [RFC3261] (e.g., SIP) and [RFC5486] This document reuses terms from [RFC3261] (e.g., SIP) and [RFC5486]
(e.g., LUF, LRF). In addition, this document specifies the following (e.g., LUF, LRF). In addition, this document specifies the following
additional terms. additional terms.
skipping to change at page 3, line 29 skipping to change at page 3, line 29
server that provides resolution responses. server that provides resolution responses.
Destination Group: A set of public identities that are grouped Destination Group: A set of public identities that are grouped
together to facilitate session setup and routing. together to facilitate session setup and routing.
Public Identity: A generic term that refers to a telephone number Public Identity: A generic term that refers to a telephone number
(TN), an email address, or other identity as deemed appropriate, (TN), an email address, or other identity as deemed appropriate,
such as a globally routable URI of a user address (e.g., such as a globally routable URI of a user address (e.g.,
mailto:john.doe@example.net). mailto:john.doe@example.net).
Routing Group: a grouping of SED records. Routing Group: A grouping of SED records.
SED Record: A SED Record contains much of the session establishment
data or a 'redirect' to another registry where the session
establishment data can be discovered. SED Records types supported
are NAPTRs, CNAME, DNAME, and NS Records.
Data Recipient: SP or SSP that receives or consumes SED and related Authoritative SSP or Entity This refers to the carrier-of-record,
information. for a public identity or TN Range.
Data Recipient Group: A group of Data Recipients that receive the Non-authoritative SSP or Entity This refers to the transit provider
same set (or subset) of SED and related information. for a public identity or TN Range.
2. Overview 2. Overview
The SPEERMINT WG specifies Session Establishment Data, or SED, as the 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 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 domain's ingress point. More specifically, the SED is the set of
parameters that the outgoing signalling path border elements (SBEs) parameters that the outgoing signalling path border elements (SBEs)
need to complete the call. See [RFC5486] for more details. need to establish a session. See [RFC5486] for more details.
The specification of the format and protocols to configure SED is a The specification of the format and protocols to provision SED is a
task taken up by the DRINKS WG. The use cases and requirements that task taken up by the DRINKS WG. The use cases and requirements that
have been proposed in this regard are compiled in this document. have been proposed in this regard are compiled in this document.
SED is typically created by the terminating SSP and consumed by the SED is typically created by the terminating SSP and consumed by the
originating SSP. For scalability reasons SED is rarely exchanged originating SSP. To avoid a multitude of bilateral exchanges, SED is
directly between the intended parties. Instead, it is exchanged via usually shared via intermediary systems - termed Registries within
intermediate systems - termed Registries within this document. Such this document. Such registries receive SED via provisioning
registries receive SED via provisioning transactions from other SSPs, transactions from other SSPs, and then distribute the received data
and then distribute the received data into Local Data Repositories. into Local Data Repositories. These local data repositories are used
These local data repositories are used for call routing by outgoing for call routing by outgoing SBEs. This is depicted in Figure 1.
SBEs. This is depicted in Figure 1.
*-------------* *-------------*
1. Provision SED | | 1. Provision SED | |
-----------------------> | Registry | -----------------------> | Registry |
| | | |
*-------------* *-------------*
/ \ / \
/ \ / \
/ \ / \
/ \ / \
skipping to change at page 7, line 9 skipping to change at page 6, line 9
o Registries are the authoritative source for provisioned session o Registries are the authoritative source for provisioned session
establishment data (SED) and related information. establishment data (SED) and related information.
o Local Data Repositories are the data store component of an o Local Data Repositories are the data store component of an
addressing server that provides resolution responses. addressing server that provides resolution responses.
o Registries are responsible for distributing SED and related o Registries are responsible for distributing SED and related
information to the local data repositories. information to the local data repositories.
In addition, this document proposes the following aggregation groups In addition, this document proposes the following aggregation groups
with regards to SED (certain use cases also illustrate these groups): with regards to SED (refer to the use cases in Section 3.1.1.3 for
the rationale):
o Aggregation of public Identifiers: The initial input 'key' to a
SED lookup is a public identifier. Since many public identifiers
will share similar (or identical) destinations, and hence return
similar (or identical) SED, provisioning the same set of SED for
millions of public identifiers is inefficient, especially in cases
where the SED needs to be modified. Therefore, an aggregation
mechanism to 'group' public identifiers is proposed. This
aggregation is called a 'destination group'.
o Aggregation of SSPs: It is expected that SSPs may want to expose o Aggregation of public Identifiers into a destination group.
different sets of SED, depending on the receiving SSP. This
exposure may not always be unique, in which case an aggregation
makes it efficient. Such an aggregation is proposed, and termed
'Data Receipient Group'.
o Aggregation of SED records: Finally, it is anticipated that a o Aggregation of SED records into a Routing Group.
complete set of routing data will consist of more than just one
SED record. To be able to create and use the same set of SED
records multiple times (without creating duplicates) an
aggregation mechanism at this level is proposed, and called
'Routing Group'.
The above aggregations are illustrated in Figure 3. The above aggregations are illustrated in Figure 3.
+---------+ +--------------+ +---------+ +--------------+ +---------+
| Data | 0..n 1 |DATA RECIPIENT| | Data |0..n 1| ROUTING | 1 0..n| SED |
|Recipient|------------| GROUP | |Recepient|------------| GROUP | --------------| Record |
+---------+ +------.-------+ +---------+ +--------------+ +---------+
0..n |
|
|
1 |
+--------------+ +---------+
| ROUTING | ------------->| SED |
| GROUP | 1 0..n | Record |
+--------------+ +---------+
|0..n |0..n |0..n |0..n
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| 1 | | 1 |
1..n +--------------+ 0..n | 1..n +--------------+ 0..n |
---------| DESTINATION |--------- | ---------| DESTINATION |--------- |
| | GROUP | | | | | GROUP | | |
| +--------------+ | | | +--------------+ | |
| | | | | | | |
skipping to change at page 10, line 11 skipping to change at page 8, line 11
- A data recipient group contains zero or more data recipients to - A data recipient group contains zero or more data recipients to
facilitate the allocation of access privileges to routing groups. facilitate the allocation of access privileges to routing groups.
3. Use Cases and Requirements 3. Use Cases and Requirements
This section presents the use cases and associated requirements. This section presents the use cases and associated requirements.
3.1. Registry Provisioning 3.1. Registry Provisioning
Registry is the authoritative source for session establishment data This Section documents use cases related to the provisioning of the
(SED). The registry needs to be provisioned with this data to registry. Any request to provision, modify or delete data is subject
perform its function. This data includes: destination groups, to authorization. However, the act of authorization is considered
routing groups and data recipient groups. It can also include RNs out of scope within this document.
and TN Ranges. The following sub-sections illustrate the use cases
and the requirements, respectively.
3.1.1. Use Cases 3.1.1. Use Cases
The use cases are divided into the following categories - process, The use cases are divided into the following categories - different
routing, identity, administration, and number portability. provisioning options, options for provisioning SED data,
administration, and number portability.
3.1.1.1. Category: Process 3.1.1.1. Category: Provisioning Options
UC PROCESS #1 Near-real-time provisioning: The registry is UC PROCESS #1 Real-time provisioning: once a registry is established
provisioned with data that is not accompanied by an events may occur that necessitate SSPs to add, modify
effective date or time. In such cases, the registry or delete data in the registry, in real-time, to
will validate the data and make it effective in near maintain accuracy of the data. Examples of such
real-time. events can be found in other use cases within this
document (e.g., identity related use cases).
UC PROCESS #2 Deferred provisioning with effective date/time: The UC PROCESS #2 Non-real-time or bulk provisioning: There are cases
registry is provisioned with data that is accompanied when a registry needs to be provisioned with bulk data
by an effective date and time. In scenarios such as sets, via an offline mechanism, as opposed to real-
this, the registry will validate the data and wait time provisioning requests. Examples include: when a
until the effective date and time to make it new registry is established or when data is being
effective. TBD: What happens if near-real time data restored from a backup.
overrides data parked for later incorporation?
UC PROCESS #3 Batch provisioning: The registry is provisioned via an 3.1.1.2. Category: SED options
asynchronous provisioning process. For instance, an
SSP has commissioned a new registry and wishes to
download a very large number of telephone numbers.
Rather than stream individual entities, one at a time,
the SSP's back-office system prefers to perform the
operation as a set of one or more batches (e.g., via
an external data file), instead of the near-real-time
provisioning interface.
3.1.1.2. Category: Routing UC SED DATA #1 Inter-network SED: An SSP provisons SED records for a
specific end-user, so that other SSPs can use this
SED data to establish sessions intended with this
end-user. The provisioning SSP can either be the
carrier-of-record (direct peering), or a transit
provider (indirect peering).
UC ROUTING #1 Intra-network SED: SSP wishes to provision their UC SED DATA #2 Intra-network SED: An SSP provisons SED records for a
intra-network Session Establishment Data (SED) such specific end-user, for use within the SSP's networks.
that it enables current and future network services to This will allow internal signaling elements to
identify and route real-time sessions. For example, establish sessions intended for this end-user. The
in the case of VoIP calls it allows one SoftSwitch provisioned SED is only distributed to specific local
(calling) to discover another (called). The SSP data repositories, and will probably differ from the
provisions IP addressing information pertaining to SED provisioned for use by signaling elements from
each SoftSwitch, which is provisioned to the registry other SSPs.
but only distributed to a specific local data
repository. This SED may differ from the SED that is
distributed to other local data repositories.
UC ROUTING #2 Support for destination groups: An SSP may wish to UC SED DATA #3 Selective peering: While an SSP may provision the
control the flow of traffic into their network same SED records for all other SSPs, an SSP may also
(ingress) based on groupings of Public Identities. wish to provision different SED records for different
Associating each group of Public Identities with a SSPs (e.g., if they have different peering
specific set of ingress SBEs or points-of- agreements).
interconnect. The SSP, for example, sub-divides the
country into four regions: North-East, South-East,
Mid-West, and West-Coast. For each region they
establish points-of-interconnect with peers and
provision the associated SED hostnames or IP addresses
of the SBEs used for ingress traffic. Against each
region they provision the served Public Identities
into groups- termed Destination Groups - and associate
those destination groups with the appropriate points
of ingres.
UC ROUTING #3 Modifying destination groups: A set of public UC SED DATA #4 LUF-only data: An SSP can choose to provison LUF-only
identities are assigned a different Destination Group data in the registry. A querying SSP that receives
which effectively changes their routing information. LUF-only data may need to rely on other mechanisms
This may be due to a network re-arrangement, a (e.g., [RFC3263] for domain-name based LUF) to obtain
Signaling path Border Element being split into two, or LRF information.
a need to do maintenance, two carriers merging, or
other considerations. This scenario can also include
an effective date and time.
UC ROUTING #4 Indirect Peering to Selected Destinations: The SSP UC SED DATA #5 LUF and LRF data: An SSP can provison LUF- and LRF-
transit provider wishes to provide transit peering data in the registry. In such cases, the querying
points for a set of destinations. But that set of SSP does not have to rely on mechanisms such as DNS
destinations does not align with the destination (e.g., [RFC3263]) for routing information.
groups that already exist. The SSP wishes to
establish its own destination groups for the
destinations that it provides transit to. (Editor's
note: This use case needs more work.)
UC ROUTING #5 Inter-network SED (direct and selective peering): In UC SED DATA #6 Target Domain as a resolvable Domain Name,
this case the SSP is the actual carrier-of-record; the administrative domain name, or both: The target
entity serving the end-user. The SSP wishes to domain pertaining to a public identity or TN Range
communicate different SED data to some of its peers can either be a DNS-resolvable domain name (i.e., via
that wish to route to its destinations. So the SSP [RFC3263]) or an administrative domain. An SSP may
has implemented direct points-of-interconnect with also wish to provision both sets of data, and the
each peer and therefore would like address-resolution response is based on a default choice or the querying
to result in different answers depending on which peer entity.
is asking.
UC ROUTING #6 Selecting egress points: An SSP has a peering UC SED DATA #7 Target Domain as an administrative domain: The target
relationship with a peer, and when sending messages to domain for a public identity or TN Range can be an
that peer's point of interconnection, the originating administrative domain. In such cases the resolution
SSP wishes to use one or more points of egress. These may be out of scope for this document.
points of egress may vary for an given peer. This
capability is supported by allowing an originating SSP
to provision SED for identities terminating to other
SSPs where the originating SSP is itself the data
recipient. The provisioning SSP may make use of
multiple data recipient identities if it requires
different sets of egress points be used for calls
originating from different parts of its network.
Routing from egress points to ingress points of the
terminating SSP may be accomplished by static routing
from the egress points or by the egress points using
data provisioned to the Registry by the terminating
SSP.
UC ROUTING #7 SSP prefers to provision LUF and LRF data in the UC SED DATA #8
registry: SSP prefers the registry to have access to
LUF and LRF information. In this case the originating
SSP does not have to rely on mechanisms such as DNS
(e.g., [RFC3263]) for routing information since a
registry query will return the terminating SBE.
UC ROUTING #8 Provision an authoritative name server (not actual UC SED DATA #9 EDITOR's NOTE: This use case seems to be a special
route): An SSP maintains a Tier 2 name server that case of LUF-only provisioning. Thoughts?
contains the NAPTR records that constitute the
terminal step in the LUF. The SSP needs to provision
an registry to direct queries for the SSPs numbers to
the Tier 2. Usually queries to the registry should
return NS records, but, in cases where the Tier 2 uses
a different domain suffix from that used in the
registry, CNAME and NS records may be employed
instead.
3.1.1.3. Category: Identity Provision an authoritative name server: An SSP
maintains a Tier 2 name server that contains the
NAPTR records that constitute the terminal step in
the LUF. The SSP needs to provision an registry to
direct queries for the SSPs numbers to the Tier 2.
Usually queries to the registry should return NS
records, but, in cases where the Tier 2 uses a
different domain suffix from that used in the
registry, CNAME and NS records may be employed
instead.
UC ID #1 Deletion of public identity: A public identity (or a TN 3.1.1.3. Category: Data Aggregations
range) is taken out of service because it is no longer
valid. The Registry receives a delete operation and
removes the public identity from its database. This can
also trigger delete operations to keep the local data
repositories up-to-date.
UC ID #2 Global TN destinations: The SSP wishes to add or remove one UC DATA #1 Aggregation of public Identifiers: The input key to a SED
lookup is a public identifier. Since several public
identifiers will potentially share similar (or identical)
destinations, and hence similar (or identical) SED
records, provisioning the same set of SED for millions of
public identifiers is inefficient. Therefore, an
aggregation mechanism to 'group' public identifiers is
proposed. This aggregation is termed as a 'destination
group' in the proposed data model.
UC DATA #2 Aggregation of SED records: A complete set of session
establishment data may consist of more than just one SED
record. To be able to create and use the same set of SED
records multiple times (without creating duplicates) an
aggregation mechanism is required. This is termed as a
'Routing Group' in the data model.
3.1.1.4. Category: Administration
UC ADMIN #1 New authoritative additions: An SSP provisions a public
identity or TN Range, as its authoritative entity (i.e.,
carrier-of-record).
UC ADMIN #2 New non-authoritative additions: An SSP provisions a
public identity or TN Range, as a non-authoritative
(i.e., transit) entity.
UC ADMIN #3 Authoritative modifications to existing entries: An SSP
indicates that it is the authoritative entity for an
existing public identity or TN Range. If the public
identity or TN Range was previously associated with a
different authoritative entity then there are two
possible outcomes: a) the previous authoritative entity
is disassociated, or, b) the previous authoritative
entity is relegated to non-authoritative status. The
choice may be dependent on the deployment scenario, and
is out of scope for this document.
UC ADMIN #4 Non-authoritative modifications to existing entries: An
SSP indicates that it is a transit provider for an
existing public identity or TN Range. In such cases,
this SSP is associated with the public identity or TN
Range, in non-authoritative status.
UC ADMIN #5 Authoritative disassociation from existing entries: An
SSP disassociates itself from a public identity or TN
Range that it is authoritative for. If there are no
other (non-authoritative) SSPs associated with this
public identity or TN Range, then the public identity
may be deleted.
UC ADMIN #6 Non-authoritative disassociation from existing entries:
A SSP disassociates itself from a public identity or TN
Range that it is linked with, as a non-authoritative
entity. If there are no other authoritative or non-
authoritative entities associated with this public
identity or TN Range, the public identity may be
deleted.
UC ADMIN #7 Deletion of existing public identity or TN Range: A
public identity (or a TN range) is taken out of service
because it is no longer valid. The Registry receives a
delete operation and removes the public identity from
its database.
UC ADMIN #8 EDITOR's Note: We may need to normalize the language
here to use specified terms.
Time-To-Live (TTL): For performance reasons, in favor of
localized lookups, a query entity may decide to cache
the answers and selectively query the resolution server
when either the TTL expires or as a result of another
out of band trigger. Therefore, the publishing entity
should be able to *optionally* specify the TTL for a
given route record. If the provisioning server doesn't
support TTL option, it will result in a failure and a
well-known error should be returned in the response.
3.1.1.5. Category: Number Portability
UC NP #1 EDITOR's NOTE: We need to reconcile these two paragraphs.
Routing Numbers: The SSP does not wish to provision
individual TNs, but instead, for ease of management, wishes
to provision Routing Numbers. Each RN represents a set of
individual TNs, and that set of TNs is assumed to change
'automatically' as TNs are ported-in or ported-out. Note
that this approach requires a query to resolve a TN to an
RN prior to using the provisioned data to route.
The SSP wishes to provide in query response to public
identities an associated routing number or RN. This is the
case when a set of public identities is no longer
associated with original SSP but have been ported to a
recipient SSP who provides access to these identities via a
switch on the SS7 network identified by the RN. In this
case a destination group containing all numbers that should
be routed to this RN needs to be created and the route
group associated with this DG needs to contain the RN
UC NP #2 Authoritative release: A release command associated with
one or more public identities (or TN Ranges) is received
from an authoritative entity indicating his relinquishing
of authoritative "ownership" over the respective
identities.
EDITOR's NOTE: Can't this be achieved by an authoritative
disassociation?
UC NP #3 Authoritative lock error: An existing public identity (or a
TN range) is added indicating authoritative ownership by
the provisioning entity. However, there may be cases where
an explicit release is required. If so, and a release has
not been provided, this will result in an error response.
3.1.1.6. Category: PLEASE REVIEW AND SEE IF THESE NEED TO BE ADDED
UC ID #1 Global TN destinations: The SSP wishes to add or remove one
or multiple fully qualified TN destinations in a single or multiple fully qualified TN destinations in a single
provisioning request. provisioning request.
UC ID #3 TN range destinations: The SSP wishes to add or remove one UC ID #2 TN range destinations: The SSP wishes to add or remove one
or multiple TN range destinations in a single provisioning or multiple TN range destinations in a single provisioning
request. TN ranges support number ranges that need not be request. TN ranges support number ranges that need not be
'blocks'. In other words the TN range 'start' can be any 'blocks'. In other words the TN range 'start' can be any
number and the TN range 'end' can be any number that is number and the TN range 'end' can be any number that is
greater than the TN range 'start'. greater than the TN range 'start'.
UC ID #4 Non-TN destinations: An SSP chooses to peer their messaging UC ID #3 Non-TN destinations: An SSP chooses to peer their messaging
service with another SSPs picture/video mail service. service with another SSPs picture/video mail service.
Allowing a user to send and receive pictures and/or video Allowing a user to send and receive pictures and/or video
messages to a mobile user's handset, for example. The messages to a mobile user's handset, for example. The
important aspect of this use case is that it goes beyond important aspect of this use case is that it goes beyond
simply mapping TNs to IP addresses/hostnames that describe simply mapping TNs to IP addresses/hostnames that describe
points-of-interconnect between peering network SSP's. points-of-interconnect between peering network SSP's.
Rather, for each user the SSP provisions the subscriber's Rather, for each user the SSP provisions the subscriber's
email address (i.e. jane.doe@example.com). This mapping email address (i.e. jane.doe@example.com). This mapping
allows the mobile multimedia messaging service center allows the mobile multimedia messaging service center
(MMSC) to use the subscriber email address as the lookup (MMSC) to use the subscriber email address as the lookup
key and route messages accordingly. key and route messages accordingly.
UC ID #5 LUF-only provisioning: SSP wants to provision the registry UC ID #4 Separation of responsibility: An SSP's operational
for LUF lookup only and prefers LRF to be accomplished via practices can seperate the responsibility of provisioning
non-registry mechanisms. In this case the registry lookup the routing information, and the associated identities, to
will return a domain name and the originating SSP will rely different entities. For example, a network engineer can
on mechanisms such as ([RFC3263]) to obtain routing establish a physical interconnect with a peering SSP's
information. This routing information is managed by the network and provision the associated domain name, host, and
(terminating) SSP, via DNS mechanisms. IP addressing information. Separately, for each new
service subscription, the SSP's back office system
3.1.1.4. Category: Administration provisions the associated public identities.
UC ADMIN #1 Moving an SSP from one data recipient group to another:
An SSP would like to re-assign the destination groups it
shares with a peer and move the peer SSP from one Data
Recipient Group to another. This results in the moved
peer seeing a new and different set of routing data.
UC ADMIN #2 Separation of responsibility: An SSP's operational
practices can seperate the responsibility of
provisioning the routing information, and the associated
identities, to different entities. For example, a
network engineer can establish a physical interconnect
with a peering SSP's network and provision the
associated domain name, host, and IP addressing
information. Separately, for each new service
subscription, the SSP's back office system provisions
the associated public identities.
UC ADMIN #3 Peering offer/acceptance: An SSP offers to allow
terminations from another SSP by adding that SSP to a
Data Recipient Group it controls. This causes
notification of the offered SSP. An SSP receiving a
peering offer should be able to accept or decline the
offer. If the offer is rejected the registry should not
provision corresponding SED to the rejecting SSP. It is
expected that this capability will apply mainly in the
transit case where non-authoritative parties (in the
sense of not being the terminating SSP for an identity)
wish to offer the ability to reach the identity and
originating SSPs may wish to restrict the routes that
are provisioned to their local data repositories.
3.1.1.5. Category: Number Portability
UC NP #1 The SSP does not wish to provision individual TNs, but UC ID #5 Peering offer/acceptance: An SSP offers to allow
instead, for ease of management, wishes to provision terminations from another SSP by adding that SSP to a Data
Routing Numbers (e.g., as in some number portability Recipient Group it controls. This causes notification of
implementations). Each RN effectively represents a set of the offered SSP. An SSP receiving a peering offer should
individual TNs, and that set of TNs is assumed to change be able to accept or decline the offer. If the offer is
'automatically' as TNs are ported in and ported out. Note rejected the registry should not provision corresponding
that this approach requires a query to resolve a TN to an SED to the rejecting SSP. It is expected that this
RN prior to using the provisioned data to route. capability will apply mainly in the transit case where non-
authoritative parties (in the sense of not being the
terminating SSP for an identity) wish to offer the ability
to reach the identity and originating SSPs may wish to
restrict the routes that are provisioned to their local
data repositories.
3.1.2. Requirements 3.1.2. Requirements
EDITOR's NOTE: !!!!!THIS NEEDS TO BE REVISED AFTER WE SIGN-OFF ON THE
USE CASES!!!!!
The following data requirements apply: The following data requirements apply:
DREQ1: The registry provisioning data model MUST support the DREQ1: The registry provisioning data model MUST support the
following entities: public identities, destination groups, following entities: public identities, destination groups,
routing groups and data recipient groups. routing groups and data recipient groups.
DREQ2: The registry provisioning data model MUST support the DREQ2: The registry provisioning data model MUST support the
grouping and aggregation of public identities within grouping and aggregation of public identities within
destination groups. destination groups.
skipping to change at page 18, line 22 skipping to change at page 18, line 5
multiple data recipient identifiers. multiple data recipient identifiers.
Objects provisioned under one "Protocol Client Identifier" Objects provisioned under one "Protocol Client Identifier"
MUST NOT be alterable by a provisioning session established MUST NOT be alterable by a provisioning session established
by another "Protocol Client Identifier". by another "Protocol Client Identifier".
FREQ12: The registry provisioning protocol MUST allow an SSP to FREQ12: The registry provisioning protocol MUST allow an SSP to
provision LUF-only or LUF+LRF data in the registry via a provision LUF-only or LUF+LRF data in the registry via a
single provisioning interface and data model. single provisioning interface and data model.
3.2. Distribution of data into local data repositories
This section targets use cases concerned with the distribution of SED
to local data repositories. This is considered out-of-scope for this
version of the document.
4. Security Considerations 4. Security Considerations
Session establishment data allows for the routing of SIP sesions Session establishment data allows for the routing of SIP sesions
within, and between, SIP Service Providers. Access to this data can within, and between, SIP Service Providers. Access to this data can
compromise the routing of sessions and expose a SIP Service Provider compromise the routing of sessions and expose a SIP Service Provider
to attacks such as service hijacking and denial of service. The data to attacks such as service hijacking and denial of service. The data
can be compromised by vulnerable functional components and interfaces can be compromised by vulnerable functional components and interfaces
identified within the use cases. identified within the use cases.
5. IANA Considerations 5. IANA Considerations
skipping to change at page 21, line 16 skipping to change at page 20, line 16
This document is a result of various discussions held by the DRINKS This document is a result of various discussions held by the DRINKS
requirements design team, which is comprised of the following requirements design team, which is comprised of the following
individuals, in alphabetical order: Deborah A Guyton (Telcordia), individuals, in alphabetical order: Deborah A Guyton (Telcordia),
Gregory Schumacher (Sprint), Jean-Francois Mule (CableLabs), Kenneth Gregory Schumacher (Sprint), Jean-Francois Mule (CableLabs), Kenneth
Cartwright (TNS, Inc.), Manjul Maharishi (TNS, Inc.), Penn Pfautz Cartwright (TNS, Inc.), Manjul Maharishi (TNS, Inc.), Penn Pfautz
(AT&T Corp), Ray Bellis (Nominet), the co-chairs (Richard Shockey, (AT&T Corp), Ray Bellis (Nominet), the co-chairs (Richard Shockey,
Nuestar; and Alexander Mayrhofer, enum.at GmbH), and the editors of Nuestar; and Alexander Mayrhofer, enum.at GmbH), and the editors of
this document. this document.
This specific version is primarily the result of feedback from David This specific version of the document is a result of contributions
Schwartz (Xconnect) and Jean-Francois Mule (CableLabs), with input from, primarily, David Schwartz (XConnect), Kenneth Cartwright (TNS,
from other participants listed above. Inc.) and Syed Ali (Neustar, Inc.). Other participants who reviewed
and provided comments include: Alexander Mayrhofer (enum.at GmbH),
Jean-Francois Mule (CableLabs), Manjul Maharishi (TNS, Inc.), and
other participants on the DRINKS mailing list.
7. References 7. References
7.1. Normative References 7.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
7.2. Informative References 7.2. Informative References
 End of changes. 42 change blocks. 
267 lines changed or deleted 270 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.38. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/