draft-ietf-drinks-usecases-requirements-03.txt   draft-ietf-drinks-usecases-requirements-04.txt 
DRINKS S. Channabasappa, Ed. DRINKS S. Channabasappa, Ed.
Internet-Draft CableLabs Internet-Draft CableLabs
Intended status: Informational May 25, 2010 Intended status: Informational October 25, 2010
Expires: November 26, 2010 Expires: April 28, 2011
DRINKS Use cases and Protocol Requirements DRINKS Use cases and Protocol Requirements
draft-ietf-drinks-usecases-requirements-03 draft-ietf-drinks-usecases-requirements-04
Abstract Abstract
This document captures the use cases and associated requirements for This document captures the use cases and associated requirements for
interfaces that provision session establishment data into SIP Service interfaces that provision session establishment data into SIP Service
Provider components, to assist with session routing. Specifically, Provider components, to assist with session routing. Specifically,
the current version of this document focuses on the provisioning of the current version of this document focuses on the provisioning of
one such element, termed the registry. one such element, termed the registry.
Status of this Memo Status of this Memo
skipping to change at page 1, line 34 skipping to change at page 1, line 34
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 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."
This Internet-Draft will expire on November 26, 2010. This Internet-Draft will expire on April 28, 2011.
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
skipping to change at page 2, line 17 skipping to change at page 2, line 17
1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. Registry Use Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 3. Registry Use Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.1. Category: Provisioning Mechanisms . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 3.1. Category: Provisioning Mechanisms . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.2. Category: Interconnect Schemes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 3.2. Category: Interconnect Schemes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.3. Category: SED Exchange and Discovery Models . . . . . . . 11 3.3. Category: SED Exchange and Discovery Models . . . . . . . 11
3.4. Category: SED Record Content . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 3.4. Category: SED Record Content . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.5. Category: Separation and Facilitation of Data 3.5. Category: Separation and Facilitation of Data
Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.6. Category: Lookup Keys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 3.6. Category: Lookup Keys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
3.7. Category: Number Portability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 3.7. Category: Misc . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
3.8. Category: Misc . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
4. Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 4. Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 4.1. Provisioning Mechanisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 4.2. Interconnect Schemes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
7. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 4.3. SED Exchange and Discovery Requirements . . . . . . . . . 16
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 4.4. SED Record Content Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 4.5. Data Management Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 4.6. Lookup Key Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 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
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), [RFC5486] This document reuses terms from [RFC3261] (e.g., SIP, SSP), [RFC5486]
(e.g., LUF, LRF, SED) and [RFC5067] (carrier-of-record and transit (e.g., LUF, LRF, SED) and [RFC5067] (carrier-of-record and transit
provider). In addition, this document specifies the following provider). In addition, this document specifies the following
additional terms. additional terms.
Registry: The authoritative source for provisioned session Registry: The authoritative source for provisioned session
establishment data (SED) and related information. 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.
Registrant An entity whose data is provisioned into the registry. Registrar: An entity that provisions and manages data into the
The registrant can act as its own registrar or - additionally or registry. An SSP can act as its own registrar or - additionally
alternatively - delegate this function to a third party who acts or alternatively - delegate this function to a third party who
as its registrar. acts as its registrar.
Local Data Repository: The data store component of an addressing Local Data Repository: The data store component of an addressing
server that provides resolution responses. server that provides resolution responses.
Public Identifier: A public identifier refers to a telephone number Public Identifier: A public identifier refers to a telephone number
(TN), an email address, or other identity as deemed appropriate, (TN), a SIP address, or other identity as deemed appropriate, such
such as a globally routable URI of a user address (e.g., as a globally routable URI of a user address (e.g.,
mailto:john.doe@example.net). sip:john.doe@example.net).
TN Range: A numerically contiguous set of telephone numbers whose TN Range: A numerically contiguous set (or, in the case of an open
SED can be looked up (resolved). numbering plan, a prefix) of telephone numbers whose SED can be
looked up (resolved).
RN: A Routing Number. See [RFC4694] for details
Destination Group: An aggregation of a set of public identifiers, Destination Group: An aggregation of a set of public identifiers,
TN Ranges, or RNs that share common SED. 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 Data Recipient: An entity with visibility into a specific set of
public identifiers, the destination groups that contain these public identifiers, the destination groups that contain these
public identifiers, and a routing group's SED records. public identifiers, and a route group's SED records.
Routing Group: An aggregation that contains a related set of SED Route Group: An aggregation that contains a related set of SED
records, and is associated with a set of destination groups. records, and is associated with a set of destination groups.
Routing groups facilitate the management of SED records - which Route groups facilitate the management of SED records for one or
are common to a large number of public identifiers, TN Ranges or more data recipients.
RNs - for one or more data recipients.
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 signaling path border elements (SBEs) parameters that the outgoing signaling path border elements (SBEs)
need to establish a session. See [RFC5486] for more details. 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 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 task taken up by the DRINKS WG. This document contains the use cases
and requirements that have been proposed in this regard. and requirements that have been proposed in this regard.
SED is typically created by the terminating SSP and consumed by the SED is typically created by the terminating or next-hop SSP and
originating SSP. To avoid a multitude of bilateral exchanges, SED is consumed by the originating SSP. To avoid a multitude of bilateral
often shared via intermediary systems - termed registries within this exchanges, SED is often shared via intermediary systems - termed
document. Such registries receive SED via provisioning transactions registries within this document. Such registries receive data via
from other SSPs, and then distribute the received data into Local provisioning transactions from SSPs, and then distribute the received
Data Repositories. These local data repositories are used for call data into Local Data Repositories. These local data repositories are
routing by outgoing SBEs. This is depicted in Figure 1. used for call routing by outgoing SBEs. This is depicted in
Figure 1.
*-------------* *-------------*
1. Provision SED | | 1. Provision SED | |
-----------------------> | Registry | -----------------------> | Registry |
| | | |
*-------------* *-------------*
/ \ / \
/ \ / \
/ \ / \
/ \ / \
skipping to change at page 6, line 5 skipping to change at page 6, line 7
/ 2.Distribute \ / 2.Distribute \
/ SED \ / SED \
V V V V
+----------+ +----------+ +----------+ +----------+
|Local Data| |Local Data| |Local Data| |Local Data|
|Repository| |Repository| |Repository| |Repository|
+----------+ +----------+ +----------+ +----------+
Figure 1: General Diagram Figure 1: General Diagram
In this version of the document, we primarily address the use cases In this document, we primarily address the use cases and requirements
and requirements for provisioning registries. Future revisions may for provisioning registries. Future revisions may include data
include data distribution to local data repositories. The resulting distribution to local data repositories. The resulting provisioning
provisioning protocol can be used to provision data into a registry, protocol can be used to provision data into a registry, or between
or between registries. This is depicted in Figure 2. multiple registries operating in parallel. In Figure 2, the case of
multiple registries is depicted with dotted lines.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . registry . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . .
. . provision . . . provision .
+-----------+ . +-----------+ +-----------+ . +-----------+
| | provision +----------+ provision | | | | provision +----------+ provision | |
| SSP 1 |------------>| Registry |<-----------| SSP 2 | | SSP 1 |------------>| Registry |<-----------| SSP 2 |
| | +----------+ | | | | +----------+ | |
| +-----+ | /\ | +-----+ | | +-----+ | /\ | +-----+ |
| | LDR | <-------------------- ------------------>| LDR | | | | LDR | <-------------------- ------------------>| LDR | |
| +-----+ | distribute distribute | +-----+ | | +-----+ | distribute distribute | +-----+ |
| | | | | | | |
+-----------+ +-----------+ +-----------+ +-----------+
skipping to change at page 6, line 39 skipping to change at page 7, line 5
Where, LDR = Local Data Repository Where, LDR = Local Data Repository
Figure 2: Functional Overview Figure 2: Functional Overview
In addition, this document proposes the following aggregation groups In addition, this document proposes the following aggregation groups
with regards to SED (refer to the use cases in Section 3.5 for the with regards to SED (refer to the use cases in Section 3.5 for the
rationale): rationale):
o Aggregation of public Identifiers into a destination group. o Aggregation of public Identifiers into a destination group.
o Aggregation of SED records into a Routing Group. o Aggregation of SED records into a Route Group.
The data model depicted in Figure 3 shows the various entities, The data model depicted in Figure 3 shows the various entities,
aggregations and the relationships between them. aggregations and the relationships between them.
+---------+ +--------------+ +---------+ +---------+ +--------------+ +---------+
| Data |0..n 0..n| ROUTING | 1 0..n| SED | | Data |0..n 0..n| ROUTE | 1 0..n| SED |
|Recepient|------------| GROUP | --------------| Record | |Recepient|------------| GROUP | --------------| Record |
+---------+ +--------------+ +---------+ +---------+ +--------------+ +---------+
|0..n |0..n |0..n |0..n
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
|0..n | |0..n |
1 +--------------+ 0..1 | 1 +--------------+ 0..1 |
---------| DESTINATION |--------- | ---------| DESTINATION |--------- |
| | GROUP | | | | | GROUP | | |
skipping to change at page 7, line 33 skipping to change at page 7, line 37
0..n | 0..n | | 0..n | 0..n | 0..n | | 0..n |
+---------+ +---------+ +----------+ | +---------+ +---------+ +----------+ |
| RN | | TN | | Public |---- | RN | | TN | | Public |----
| | | Range | |Identifier| 1 | | | Range | |Identifier| 1
+---------+ +---------+ +----------+ +---------+ +---------+ +----------+
Figure 3: Data Model Diagram Figure 3: Data Model Diagram
The relationships are as described below: The relationships are as described below:
- A Data Recipient object can be associated with zero or more - A Public Identifier object can be directly related to zero or more
Routing Group objects, and a Routing Group object can refer to SED Record objects, and a SED Record object can be related to
zero or more Data Recipient objects. exactly one Public Identifier object.
- A Routing Group object can contain zero or more SED Record
objects, and a SED Record object can be contained in exactly one
Routing Group object.
- A Routing Group object can be associated with zero or more
Destination Group objects, and a Destination Group object can be
associated with zero or more Routing Group objects.
- A Destination Group object can contain zero or more RN objects,
and an RN object can be contained in exactly one Destination Group
object.
- A Destination Group object can contain zero or more TN Range - A Destination Group object can contain zero or more TN Range
objects, and a TN Range object can be contained in exactly one objects, and a TN Range object can be contained in exactly one
Destination Group object. Destination Group object.
- A Destination Group object can contain zero or more Public - A Destination Group object can contain zero or more Public
Identifier objects, and a Public Identifier object can be Identifier objects, and a Public Identifier object can be
contained in exactly one Destination Group object. 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.
3. Registry Use Cases 3. Registry Use Cases
This Section documents use cases related to the provisioning of the This Section documents use cases related to the provisioning of the
registry. Any request to provision, modify or delete data is subject registry. Any request to provision, modify or delete data is subject
to authorization. However, the act of authorization is considered to to authorization. However, the act of authorization is considered to
be out of scope within this document. be out of scope of this document.
3.1. Category: Provisioning Mechanisms 3.1. Category: Provisioning Mechanisms
UC PROV #1 Real-Time Provisioning: Registrars have operational UC PROV #1 Real-Time Provisioning: Registrars have operational
systems that provision public identifiers, in association systems that provision public identifiers, in association
with their SED. These systems often function in a manner with their SED. These systems often function in a manner
that expect or require that these provisioning activities that expect or require that these provisioning activities
be completed immediately, as apposed to an out-of-band or be completed immediately, as apposed to an out-of-band or
batch provisioning scheme that can occur at a later time. batch provisioning scheme that can occur at a later time.
This type of provisioning is referred to as real-time, or This type of provisioning is referred to as real-time, or
skipping to change at page 10, line 22 skipping to change at page 10, line 22
to enable the establishment of sessions to public to enable the establishment of sessions to public
identifiers for which an SSP is a transit identifiers for which an SSP is a transit
provider. This is referred to as indirect provider. This is referred to as indirect
peering. Some SSPs take into consideration an peering. Some SSPs take into consideration an
SSP's role as a transit or carrier-of-record SSP's role as a transit or carrier-of-record
provider when selecting a route to a public provider when selecting a route to a public
identifier. identifier.
UC INTERCONNECT #3 Intra-SSP SED: SSPs support the establishment of UC INTERCONNECT #3 Intra-SSP SED: SSPs support the establishment of
sessions between their own public identifiers, sessions between their own public identifiers,
not just to other SSPs public identifiers. not just to other SSPs' public identifiers.
Enabling this involves, among other things, Enabling this involves, among other things,
communicating and enabling intra-SSP signaling communicating and enabling intra-SSP signaling
points and other SED that can differ from inter- points and other SED that can differ from inter-
SSP signaling points and SED. SSP signaling points and SED.
UC INTERCONNECT #4 Selective Peering (a.k.a. per peer policies): UC INTERCONNECT #4 Selective Peering (a.k.a. per peer policies):
SSPs create peering relationships with other SSPs SSPs create peering relationships with other SSPs
in order to establish interconnects. However, in order to establish interconnects. However,
SSPs peering relationships often result in SSPs peering relationships often result in
different points of ingress or other SED for the different points of ingress or other SED for the
same set of public identifiers. same set of public identifiers.
UC INTERCONNECT #5 Provisioning of a delegated name server: An SSP UC INTERCONNECT #5 Provisioning of a delegated hierarchy: An SSP may
maintains a Tier 2 name server that contains the decide to maintain its own infrastructure to
NAPTR records that constitute the terminal step contain the route records that constitue the
in the LUF. The SSP needs to provision a terminal step in the LUF. In such cases, the SSP
registry to direct queries for the SSP's numbers will provision registries to direct queries for
to the Tier 2 name server. Usually queries to the SSP's public identifiers to its own
the registry should return NS records, but in infrastructure, rather than provisioning the
cases where the Tier 2 uses a different domain route records directly. For example, in the case
suffix from that used in the registry, CNAME and of DNS-based route records, such a delegated
NS records may be employed instead. 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 3.3. Category: SED Exchange and Discovery Models
UC SED EXCHANGE #1 SED Exchange and Discovery using unified LUF/LRF: UC SED EXCHANGE #1 SED Exchange and Discovery using unified LUF/LRF:
When establishing peering relationships some SSPs When establishing peering relationships some SSPs
wish to communicate or receive points of ingress may wish to communicate or receive SED (e.g.,
and other SED that contain LUF and LRF. 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 UC SED EXCHANGE #2 SED Exchange and Discovery using LUF's Domain
Name: When establishing peering relationships Name: When establishing peering relationships
some SSPs may not wish to communicate or receive some SSPs may not wish to communicate or receive
points of ingress and other SED using a registry. points of ingress and other SED using a registry.
They wish to only communicate or receive domain They wish to only communicate or receive domain
names resolvable via [RFC3263], and this query names (LUF step only), and then independently
will then return the points of ingress or other resolvable those domain names via [RFC3263] to
SED that form the LUF. the final points of ingress data (and other SED).
UC SED EXCHANGE #3 SED Exchange and Discovery using LUF's UC SED EXCHANGE #3 SED Exchange and Discovery using LUF's
Administrative Domain Identifier: When Administrative Domain Identifier: When
establishing peering relationships some SSPs may establishing peering relationships some SSPs may
not wish to communicate or receive points of not wish to communicate or receive points of
ingress and other SED using a registry. They ingress and other SED using a registry. They
wish to only communicate or receive an wish to only communicate or receive an
administrative domain identifier, which is not administrative domain identifier, which is not
necessarily resolvable via DNS. The subsequent necessarily resolvable via DNS. The subsequent
process of using that administrative domain process of using that administrative domain
identifier to select points of ingress or other identifier to select points of ingress or other
SED can be SSP specific and occurs outside the SED can be SSP specific and occurs outside the
context of this protocol. context of this protocol.
UC SED EXCHANGE #4 Co-existent SED Exchange and Discovery Models: UC SED EXCHANGE #4 Co-existent SED Exchange and Discovery Models:
When supporting multiple peering relationships When supporting multiple peering relationships
some SSPs have the need to concurrently support some SSPs have the need to concurrently support
all three of the SED Exchange and Discovery all three of the SED Exchange and Discovery
Models described above, for the same set of Models described above, for the same set of
lookup keys. Public Identifiers.
3.4. Category: SED Record Content 3.4. Category: SED Record Content
UC SED RECORD #1 SED Record Content: Establishing interconnects UC SED RECORD #1 SED Record Content: Establishing interconnects
between SSPs involves, among other things, between SSPs involves, among other things,
communicating points of ingress, the service types communicating points of ingress, the service types
(SIP, SIPS, etc) supported by each point of (SIP, SIPS, etc) supported by each point of
ingress, and the relative priority of each point of ingress, and the relative priority of each point of
ingress for each service type. ingress for each service type.
skipping to change at page 12, line 30 skipping to change at page 12, line 30
3.5. Category: Separation and Facilitation of Data Management 3.5. Category: Separation and Facilitation of Data Management
UC DATA #1 Separation of Provisioning Responsibility: An SSP's UC DATA #1 Separation of Provisioning Responsibility: An SSP's
operational practices often separate the responsibility operational practices often separate the responsibility
of provisioning the points of ingress and other SED, from of provisioning the points of ingress and other SED, from
the responsibility of provisioning public identifiers (or the responsibility of provisioning public identifiers (or
TN ranges or RNs). For example, a network engineer can TN ranges or RNs). For example, a network engineer can
establish a physical interconnect with a peering SSP's establish a physical interconnect with a peering SSP's
network and provision the associated domain name, host, network and provision the associated domain name, host,
and IP addressing information. Separately, for each new and IP addressing information. Separately, for each new
subscriber, the SSP's provisioning systems provisions the subscriber, the SSP's provisioning systems provision the
associated public identifiers. associated public identifiers.
UC DATA #2 Destination Groups: SSPs often provision identical SED UC DATA #2 Destination Groups: SSPs often provision identical SED
for large numbers of public identifiers. Groups of for large numbers of public identifiers. For reasons of
public identifiers that have the same SED are created. efficiency, groups of public identifiers that have the
This grouping is know as Destination Group. SED is then same SED can be aggregated. These aggregations are known
indirectly associated with that group rather than to each as destination groups. The SED is then indirectly
associated with destination groups rather than with each
individual public identity. individual public identity.
UC DATA #3 Route Groups: SSPs often provision identical SED for UC DATA #3 Route Groups: SSPs often provision identical SED for
large numbers of public identifiers, and then expose that large numbers of public identifiers, and then expose that
relationship between a group of SED records and a group relationship between a group of SED records and a group
of public identifiers to one or more SSPs. This combined of public identifiers to one or more SSPs. This combined
grouping of SED records and Destination Groups grouping of SED records and Destination Groups
facilitates management of public identity SED facilitates management of public identity SED
relationships and the list of peers (data recipients) relationships and the list of peers (data recipients)
that can lookup those public identifiers and receive that that can lookup those public identifiers and receive that
skipping to change at page 14, line 22 skipping to change at page 14, line 23
or TN Range. If the public identity or TN Range was or TN Range. If the public identity or TN Range was
previously associated with a different carrier-of- previously associated with a different carrier-of-
record then there are multiple possible outcomes, such record then there are multiple possible outcomes, such
as: a) the previous carrier-of-record is disassociated, as: a) the previous carrier-of-record is disassociated,
b) the previous carrier-of-record is relegated to b) the previous carrier-of-record is relegated to
transit status, or c) the new carrier-of-record is transit status, or c) the new carrier-of-record is
placed in inactive mode. The choice may be dependent placed in inactive mode. The choice may be dependent
on the deployment scenario, and is out of scope for on the deployment scenario, and is out of scope for
this document. this document.
3.7. Category: Number Portability 3.7. Category: Misc
UC NP #1 EDITOR's NOTE: Need to clarify this further.
The SSP wishes to provide in query response to public UC MISC #1
identifiers an associated routing number or RN. This is
the case when a set of public identifiers is no longer
associated with original SSP but have been ported to a
recipient SSP who provides access to these identifiers via
a switch on the SS7 network identified by the RN. In this
case a destination group containing all numbers that should
be routed to this RN needs to be created and the route
group associated with this DG needs to contain the RN
3.8. Category: Misc 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 #1 Data Recipient Offer and Accept: When a peering UC MISC #2 Data Recipient Offer and Accept: When a peering
relationship is established (or invalidated) SSPs relationship is established (or invalidated) SSPs
provision (or remove) data recipients in the registry. provision (or remove) data recipients in the registry.
However, a peer may first need to accept it's role (as a However, a peer may first need to accept it's role (as a
data recipient) before such a change is made effective. data recipient) before such a change is made effective.
Alternatively an auto-accept feature can be configured Alternatively an auto-accept feature can be configured
for a given data recipient. for a given data recipient.
UC MISC #2 Open numbering plans: In several countries, an "open UC MISC #3 Open numbering plans: In several countries, an open
numbering plan" is used, which is such that the carrier- numbering plan is used, which is where the carrier-of-
of-record does not in fact know the complete number, but record is only aware of a portion of the E.164 number
instead only knows a portion of the E.164 number. The (i.e., the prefix). The carrier-of-record may not know
rest of the digits are handled by a PBX off of that the complete number, or the number of digits in the
carrier-of-record, and even the number of those digit is number. The rest of the digits are handled offline
not fixed. For example, an SSP can be the carrier-of- (e.g., by a PBX). For example, an SSP can be the
record for "+123456789", and is also the carrier-of- carrier-of-record for "+123456789", and is also the
record for every possible expansion of that number such carrier-of-record for every possible expansion of that
as "+12345678901" and "+123456789012", even though the number such as "+12345678901" and "+123456789012", even
SSP does not know what those expansions could be, because though the SSP does not know what those expansions could
the PBX decides that. This can be described as the be. This can be described as the carrier-of-record
carrier-of-record effectively being authoritative for a effectively being authoritative for the prefix.
"prefix".
4. Requirements 4. Requirements
This Section lists the requirements based on the use cases in This Section lists the requirements based on the use cases in
Section 3. Unless explicitly stated as optional, the registry Section 3. Unless explicitly stated as optional, the registry
provisioning interface must support these requirements. provisioning interface must support these requirements.
REQ1: a) Real-time, b) non-real-time bulk, and c) multi-request 4.1. Provisioning Mechanisms
provisioning.
REQ2: Inter-SSP SED with support for direct and indirect peering. REQ-PROV-1: Real-time provisioning.
REQ3: Intra-SSP SED. REQ-PROV-2: Non-real-time bulk provisioning.
REQ4: Selective peering. REQ-PROV-3: Multi-request provisioning.
REQ5: Provisioning of a delegated name server. 4.2. Interconnect Schemes
REQ6: The following SED Exchange and discovery models (concurrently REQ-INTERCONNECT-1: Inter-SSP peering.
for the same public identifier): a) unified LUF/LRF, b) LUF-
only with domain name, and c) LUF-only with administrative
domain.
REQ7: Provisioning of SED Record content REQ-INTERCONNECT-2: Direct and Indirect peering.
REQ8: (Optional) Communicate the TTL for a given SED Record. REQ-INTERCONNECT-3: Intra-SSP SED.
REQ9: Separation of responsibility of provisioning the points of REQ-INTERCONNECT-4: Selective peering.
ingress and other SED, from the responsibility of
provisioning public identifiers.
REQ10: Additions and deletions of public identifiers, TN ranges and REQ-INTERCONNECT-5: Provisioning of a delegated hierarchy.
RNs.
REQ11: Provisioning of, and modifications to, the following 4.3. SED Exchange and Discovery Requirements
aggregations: destination group and route groups. REQ-SED-1: SED containing unified LUF and LRF content.
REQ12: Support the distinction between an SSP as a carrier-of-record REQ-SED-2: SED containing LUF-only data using domain names.
provider versus transit provider.
REQ13: Support for lookup keys having identical business keys (the REQ-SED-3: SED containing LUF-only data using administrative
public identity string, the digits that comprise an RN, the domains.
start and end point of a TN range's range) that concurrently
exist across multiple destination groups and where each
destination group may be managed by different SSPs.
Editor's note: We need to simplify the above requirement. REQ-SED-4: Support for all the other REQ-SED requirements,
concurrently, for the same public identifier.
REQ14: Modification of lookup keys by allowing them to be moved to a 4.4. SED Record Content Requirements
different destination group via an atomic operation.
REQ15: SSPs to change their Carrier-Of- Record vs Transit role. REQ-SED-RECORD-1: Ability to provision SED record content.
REQ16: Support for modification of authority with the conditions REQ-SED-RECORD-2: (Optional) Communication of an associated TTL for
described in UC LOOKUP #6. a SED Record.
REQ17: Destination group offer and acceptance (optionally support 4.5. Data Management Requirements
auto-acceptance).
REQ18: Open numbering plans. 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.
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.
REQ-MISC-3: Support for open numbering plans.
5. Security Considerations 5. 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.
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.
6. IANA Considerations 6. IANA Considerations
This document does not register any values in IANA registries. This document does not register any values in IANA registries, nor
request the creation of a registry.
7. Acknowledgments 7. Acknowledgments
This document is a result of various discussions held by the DRINKS This document is a result of various discussions held within the
requirements design team, which is comprised of the following DRINKS WG; specifically , in alphabetical order: Alexander Mayrhofer,
individuals, in alphabetical order: Deborah A Guyton (Telcordia), Deborah A Guyton, Gregory Schumacher, Jean-Francois Mule, Kenneth
Gregory Schumacher (Sprint), Jean-Francois Mule (CableLabs), Kenneth Cartwright, Manjul Maharishi, Penn Pfautz, Ray Bellis, Richard
Cartwright (TNS, Inc.), Manjul Maharishi (TNS, Inc.), Penn Pfautz Shockey, and Syed Ali.
(AT&T Corp), Ray Bellis (Nominet), the co-chairs (Richard Shockey,
Nuestar; and Alexander Mayrhofer, enum.at GmbH), and the editors of
this document.
This specific version of the document is a result of contributions This specific version of the document is a result of contributions
from, primarily, David Schwartz (XConnect), Kenneth Cartwright (TNS, from the following individuals: Alexander Mayrhofer, Otmar Lendl,
Inc.) and Syed Ali (Neustar, Inc.). Other participants who reviewed Sohel Khan, and Peter Koch. In addition, we also thank Brian Rose
and provided comments include: Alexander Mayrhofer (enum.at GmbH), and Jon Peterson for suggestions we incorporated.
Jean-Francois Mule (CableLabs), Manjul Maharishi (TNS, Inc.), Hadriel
Kaplan (Acme Packet) and other participants on the DRINKS mailing
list.
8. References 8. References
8.1. Normative References 8.1. 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.
[RFC5486] Malas, D. and D. Meyer, "Session Peering for Multimedia
Interconnect (SPEERMINT) Terminology", RFC 5486,
March 2009.
8.2. Informative References 8.2. Informative References
[RFC3261] Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., Camarillo, G., Johnston, [RFC3261] Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., Camarillo, G., Johnston,
A., Peterson, J., Sparks, R., Handley, M., and E. A., Peterson, J., Sparks, R., Handley, M., and E.
Schooler, "SIP: Session Initiation Protocol", RFC 3261, Schooler, "SIP: Session Initiation Protocol", RFC 3261,
June 2002. June 2002.
[RFC3263] Rosenberg, J. and H. Schulzrinne, "Session Initiation [RFC3263] Rosenberg, J. and H. Schulzrinne, "Session Initiation
Protocol (SIP): Locating SIP Servers", RFC 3263, Protocol (SIP): Locating SIP Servers", RFC 3263,
June 2002. June 2002.
[RFC4694] Yu, J., "Number Portability Parameters for the "tel" URI",
RFC 4694, October 2006.
[RFC5067] Lind, S. and P. Pfautz, "Infrastructure ENUM [RFC5067] Lind, S. and P. Pfautz, "Infrastructure ENUM
Requirements", RFC 5067, November 2007. Requirements", RFC 5067, November 2007.
[RFC5486] Malas, D. and D. Meyer, "Session Peering for Multimedia
Interconnect (SPEERMINT) Terminology", RFC 5486,
March 2009.
Author's Address Author's Address
Sumanth Channabasappa Sumanth Channabasappa
CableLabs CableLabs
858 Coal Creek Circle 858 Coal Creek Circle
Louisville, CO 80027 Louisville, CO 80027
USA USA
Email: sumanth@cablelabs.com Email: sumanth@cablelabs.com
 End of changes. 62 change blocks. 
168 lines changed or deleted 212 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.40. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/