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/