--- 1/draft-ietf-drinks-usecases-requirements-03.txt 2010-10-25 22:15:45.000000000 +0200 +++ 2/draft-ietf-drinks-usecases-requirements-04.txt 2010-10-25 22:15:45.000000000 +0200 @@ -1,18 +1,18 @@ DRINKS S. Channabasappa, Ed. Internet-Draft CableLabs -Intended status: Informational May 25, 2010 -Expires: November 26, 2010 +Intended status: Informational October 25, 2010 +Expires: April 28, 2011 DRINKS Use cases and Protocol Requirements - draft-ietf-drinks-usecases-requirements-03 + draft-ietf-drinks-usecases-requirements-04 Abstract This document captures the use cases and associated requirements for interfaces that provision session establishment data into SIP Service Provider components, to assist with session routing. Specifically, the current version of this document focuses on the provisioning of one such element, termed the registry. Status of this Memo @@ -23,21 +23,21 @@ Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." - This Internet-Draft will expire on November 26, 2010. + This Internet-Draft will expire on April 28, 2011. Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2010 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved. This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents @@ -52,96 +52,104 @@ 1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3. Registry Use Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 3.1. Category: Provisioning Mechanisms . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 3.2. Category: Interconnect Schemes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 3.3. Category: SED Exchange and Discovery Models . . . . . . . 11 3.4. Category: SED Record Content . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 3.5. Category: Separation and Facilitation of Data Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 3.6. Category: Lookup Keys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 - 3.7. Category: Number Portability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 - 3.8. Category: Misc . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 + 3.7. Category: Misc . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 4. Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 - 5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 - 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 - 7. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 - 8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 - 8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 - 8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 - Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 + 4.1. Provisioning Mechanisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 + 4.2. Interconnect Schemes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 + 4.3. SED Exchange and Discovery Requirements . . . . . . . . . 16 + 4.4. SED Record Content Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 + 4.5. Data Management Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 + 4.6. Lookup Key Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 + 4.7. Misc. Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 + 5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 + 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 + 7. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 + 8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 + 8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 + 8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 + Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 1. Terminology The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. - This document reuses terms from [RFC3261] (e.g., SIP), [RFC5486] + This document reuses terms from [RFC3261] (e.g., SIP, SSP), [RFC5486] (e.g., LUF, LRF, SED) and [RFC5067] (carrier-of-record and transit provider). In addition, this document specifies the following additional terms. Registry: The authoritative source for provisioned session - establishment data (SED) and related information. - - Registrar An entity that provisions and manages data into the - registry. + establishment data (SED) and related information. A Registry can + be part of an SSP as well as an independent entity. - Registrant An entity whose data is provisioned into the registry. - The registrant can act as its own registrar or - additionally or - alternatively - delegate this function to a third party who acts - as its registrar. + Registrar: An entity that provisions and manages data into the + registry. An SSP can act as its own registrar or - additionally + or alternatively - delegate this function to a third party who + acts as its registrar. Local Data Repository: The data store component of an addressing server that provides resolution responses. Public Identifier: A public identifier refers to a telephone number - (TN), an email address, or other identity as deemed appropriate, - such as a globally routable URI of a user address (e.g., - mailto:john.doe@example.net). + (TN), a SIP address, or other identity as deemed appropriate, such + as a globally routable URI of a user address (e.g., + sip:john.doe@example.net). - TN Range: A numerically contiguous set of telephone numbers whose - SED can be looked up (resolved). + TN Range: A numerically contiguous set (or, in the case of an open + numbering plan, a prefix) of telephone numbers whose SED can be + looked up (resolved). + RN: A Routing Number. See [RFC4694] for details 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 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. - Routing groups facilitate the management of SED records - which - are common to a large number of public identifiers, TN Ranges or - RNs - for one or more data recipients. + Route groups facilitate the management of SED records for one or + more data recipients. 2. Overview The SPEERMINT WG specifies Session Establishment Data, or SED, as the data used to route a call to the next hop associated with the called domain's ingress point. More specifically, the SED is the set of parameters that the outgoing signaling path border elements (SBEs) - need to establish a session. See [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 task taken up by the DRINKS WG. This document contains the use cases and requirements that have been proposed in this regard. - SED is typically created by the terminating SSP and consumed by the - originating SSP. To avoid a multitude of bilateral exchanges, SED is - often shared via intermediary systems - termed registries within this - document. Such registries receive SED via provisioning transactions - from other SSPs, and then distribute the received data into Local - Data Repositories. These local data repositories are used for call - routing by outgoing SBEs. This is depicted in Figure 1. + SED is typically created by the terminating or next-hop SSP and + consumed by the originating SSP. To avoid a multitude of bilateral + exchanges, SED is often shared via intermediary systems - termed + registries within this document. Such registries receive data via + provisioning transactions from SSPs, and then distribute the received + data into Local Data Repositories. These local data repositories are + used for call routing by outgoing SBEs. This is depicted in + Figure 1. *-------------* 1. Provision SED | | -----------------------> | Registry | | | *-------------* / \ / \ / \ / \ @@ -150,30 +158,32 @@ / 2.Distribute \ / SED \ V V +----------+ +----------+ |Local Data| |Local Data| |Repository| |Repository| +----------+ +----------+ Figure 1: General Diagram - In this version of the document, we primarily address the use cases - and requirements for provisioning registries. Future revisions may - include data distribution to local data repositories. The resulting - provisioning protocol can be used to provision data into a registry, - or between registries. This is depicted in Figure 2. + In this document, we primarily address the use cases and requirements + for provisioning registries. Future revisions may include data + distribution to local data repositories. The resulting provisioning + protocol can be used to provision data into a registry, or between + multiple registries operating in parallel. In Figure 2, the case of + multiple registries is depicted with dotted lines. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . + . . . . . provision . +-----------+ . +-----------+ | | provision +----------+ provision | | | SSP 1 |------------>| Registry |<-----------| SSP 2 | | | +----------+ | | | +-----+ | /\ | +-----+ | | | LDR | <-------------------- ------------------>| LDR | | | +-----+ | distribute distribute | +-----+ | | | | | +-----------+ +-----------+ @@ -184,27 +194,27 @@ Where, LDR = Local Data Repository Figure 2: Functional Overview In addition, this document proposes the following aggregation groups with regards to SED (refer to the use cases in Section 3.5 for the rationale): o Aggregation of public Identifiers into a destination group. - 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, 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 | +---------+ +--------------+ +---------+ |0..n |0..n | | | | | | |0..n | 1 +--------------+ 0..1 | ---------| DESTINATION |--------- | | | GROUP | | | @@ -216,50 +226,54 @@ 0..n | 0..n | | 0..n | +---------+ +---------+ +----------+ | | RN | | TN | | Public |---- | | | Range | |Identifier| 1 +---------+ +---------+ +----------+ Figure 3: Data Model Diagram The relationships are as described below: - - A Data Recipient object can be associated with zero or more - Routing Group objects, and a Routing Group object can refer to - zero or more Data Recipient objects. - - - 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 Public Identifier object can be directly related to zero or more + SED Record objects, and a SED Record object can be related to + exactly one Public Identifier object. - A Destination Group object can contain zero or more TN Range objects, and a TN Range object can be contained in exactly one Destination Group object. - A Destination Group object can contain zero or more Public Identifier objects, and a Public Identifier object can be contained in exactly one Destination Group object. + - A Destination Group object can contain zero or more RN objects, + and an RN object can be contained in exactly one Destination Group + object. + + - A Route Group object can contain zero or more SED Record objects, + and a SED Record object can be contained in exactly one Route + Group object. + + - A Route Group object can be associated with zero or more + Destination Group objects, and a Destination Group object can be + associated with zero or more Route Group objects. + + - A Data Recipient object can be associated with zero or more Route + Group objects, and a Route Group object can refer to zero or more + Data Recipient objects. + 3. Registry Use Cases This Section documents use cases related to the provisioning of the registry. Any request to provision, modify or delete data is subject to authorization. However, the act of authorization is considered to - be out of scope within this document. + be out of scope of this document. 3.1. Category: Provisioning Mechanisms UC PROV #1 Real-Time Provisioning: Registrars have operational systems that provision public identifiers, in association with their SED. These systems often function in a manner that expect or require that these provisioning activities be completed immediately, as apposed to an out-of-band or batch provisioning scheme that can occur at a later time. This type of provisioning is referred to as real-time, or @@ -300,79 +314,82 @@ to enable the establishment of sessions to public identifiers for which an SSP is a transit provider. This is referred to as indirect peering. Some SSPs take into consideration an SSP's role as a transit or carrier-of-record provider when selecting a route to a public identifier. UC INTERCONNECT #3 Intra-SSP SED: SSPs support the establishment of sessions between their own public identifiers, - not just to other SSPs public identifiers. + not just to other SSPs' public identifiers. Enabling this involves, among other things, communicating and enabling intra-SSP signaling points and other SED that can differ from inter- SSP signaling points and SED. UC INTERCONNECT #4 Selective Peering (a.k.a. per peer policies): SSPs create peering relationships with other SSPs in order to establish interconnects. However, SSPs peering relationships often result in different points of ingress or other SED for the same set of public identifiers. - UC INTERCONNECT #5 Provisioning of a delegated 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 a - registry to direct queries for the SSP's numbers - to the Tier 2 name server. 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 INTERCONNECT #5 Provisioning of a delegated hierarchy: An SSP may + decide to maintain its own infrastructure to + contain the route records that constitue the + terminal step in the LUF. In such cases, the SSP + will provision registries to direct queries for + the SSP's public identifiers to its own + infrastructure, rather than provisioning the + route records directly. For example, in the case + of DNS-based route records, such a delegated + hierarchy would make use of NS and CNAME records, + while a flat structure would make use of NAPTR + resource records. 3.3. Category: SED Exchange and Discovery Models UC SED EXCHANGE #1 SED Exchange and Discovery using unified LUF/LRF: When establishing peering relationships some SSPs - wish to communicate or receive points of ingress - and other SED that contain LUF and LRF. + may wish to communicate or receive SED (e.g., + points of ingress) that constitutes the + aggregated result of both LUF and LRF. UC SED EXCHANGE #2 SED Exchange and Discovery using LUF's Domain Name: When establishing peering relationships some SSPs may not wish to communicate or receive points of ingress and other SED using a registry. They wish to only communicate or receive domain - names resolvable via [RFC3263], and this query - will then return the points of ingress or other - SED that form the LUF. + names (LUF step only), and then independently + resolvable those domain names via [RFC3263] to + the final points of ingress data (and other SED). UC SED EXCHANGE #3 SED Exchange and Discovery using LUF's Administrative Domain Identifier: When establishing peering relationships some SSPs may not wish to communicate or receive points of ingress and other SED using a registry. They wish to only communicate or receive an administrative domain identifier, which is not necessarily resolvable via DNS. The subsequent process of using that administrative domain identifier to select points of ingress or other SED can be SSP specific and occurs outside the context of this protocol. UC SED EXCHANGE #4 Co-existent SED Exchange and Discovery Models: When supporting multiple peering relationships some SSPs have the need to concurrently support all three of the SED Exchange and Discovery Models described above, for the same set of - lookup keys. + Public Identifiers. 3.4. Category: SED Record Content UC SED RECORD #1 SED Record Content: Establishing interconnects between SSPs involves, among other things, communicating points of ingress, the service types (SIP, SIPS, etc) supported by each point of ingress, and the relative priority of each point of ingress for each service type. @@ -385,28 +402,29 @@ 3.5. Category: Separation and Facilitation of Data Management UC DATA #1 Separation of Provisioning Responsibility: An SSP's operational practices often separate the responsibility of provisioning the points of ingress and other SED, from the responsibility of provisioning public identifiers (or TN ranges or RNs). For example, a network engineer can establish a physical interconnect with a peering SSP's network and provision the associated domain name, host, and IP addressing information. Separately, for each new - subscriber, the SSP's provisioning systems provisions the + subscriber, the SSP's provisioning systems provision the associated public identifiers. UC DATA #2 Destination Groups: SSPs often provision identical SED - for large numbers of public identifiers. Groups of - public identifiers that have the same SED are created. - This grouping is know as Destination Group. SED is then - indirectly associated with that group rather than to each + for large numbers of public identifiers. For reasons of + efficiency, groups of public identifiers that have the + same SED can be aggregated. These aggregations are known + as destination groups. The SED is then indirectly + associated with destination groups rather than with each individual public identity. UC DATA #3 Route Groups: SSPs often provision identical SED for large numbers of public identifiers, and then expose that relationship between a group of SED records and a group of public identifiers to one or more SSPs. This combined grouping of SED records and Destination Groups facilitates management of public identity SED relationships and the list of peers (data recipients) that can lookup those public identifiers and receive that @@ -458,175 +476,201 @@ or TN Range. If the public identity or TN Range was previously associated with a different carrier-of- record then there are multiple possible outcomes, such as: a) the previous carrier-of-record is disassociated, b) the previous carrier-of-record is relegated to transit status, or c) the new carrier-of-record is placed in inactive mode. The choice may be dependent on the deployment scenario, and is out of scope for this document. -3.7. Category: Number Portability +3.7. Category: Misc - UC NP #1 EDITOR's NOTE: Need to clarify this further. + UC MISC #1 - The SSP wishes to provide in query response to public - identifiers an associated routing number or RN. This is - the case when a set of public identifiers is no longer + 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. 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 + 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 provision (or remove) data recipients in the registry. However, a peer may first need to accept it's role (as a data recipient) before such a change is made effective. Alternatively an auto-accept feature can be configured for a given data recipient. - UC MISC #2 Open numbering plans: In several countries, an "open - numbering plan" is used, which is such that the carrier- - of-record does not in fact know the complete number, but - instead only knows a portion of the E.164 number. The - rest of the digits are handled by a PBX off of that - carrier-of-record, and even the number of those digit is - not fixed. For example, an SSP can be the carrier-of- - record for "+123456789", and is also the carrier-of- - record for every possible expansion of that number such - as "+12345678901" and "+123456789012", even though the - SSP does not know what those expansions could be, because - the PBX decides that. This can be described as the - carrier-of-record effectively being authoritative for a - "prefix". + UC MISC #3 Open numbering plans: In several countries, an open + numbering plan is used, which is where the carrier-of- + record is only aware of a portion of the E.164 number + (i.e., the prefix). The carrier-of-record may not know + the complete number, or the number of digits in the + number. The rest of the digits are handled offline + (e.g., by a PBX). For example, an SSP can be the + carrier-of-record for "+123456789", and is also the + carrier-of-record for every possible expansion of that + number such as "+12345678901" and "+123456789012", even + though the SSP does not know what those expansions could + be. This can be described as the carrier-of-record + effectively being authoritative for the prefix. 4. Requirements This Section lists the requirements based on the use cases in Section 3. Unless explicitly stated as optional, the registry provisioning interface must support these requirements. - REQ1: a) Real-time, b) non-real-time bulk, and c) multi-request - provisioning. +4.1. Provisioning Mechanisms - 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 - for the same public identifier): a) unified LUF/LRF, b) LUF- - only with domain name, and c) LUF-only with administrative - domain. + REQ-INTERCONNECT-1: Inter-SSP peering. - 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 - ingress and other SED, from the responsibility of - provisioning public identifiers. + REQ-INTERCONNECT-4: Selective peering. - REQ10: Additions and deletions of public identifiers, TN ranges and - RNs. + REQ-INTERCONNECT-5: Provisioning of a delegated hierarchy. - REQ11: Provisioning of, and modifications to, the following +4.3. SED Exchange and Discovery Requirements + REQ-SED-1: SED containing unified LUF and LRF content. + + REQ-SED-2: SED containing LUF-only data using domain names. + + REQ-SED-3: SED containing LUF-only data using administrative + domains. + + REQ-SED-4: Support for all the other REQ-SED requirements, + concurrently, for the same public identifier. + +4.4. SED Record Content Requirements + + REQ-SED-RECORD-1: Ability to provision SED record content. + + REQ-SED-RECORD-2: (Optional) Communication of an associated TTL for + a SED Record. + +4.5. Data Management Requirements + + REQ-DATA-MGMT-1: Separation of responsibility for the provisioning + the points of ingress and other SED, from the + responsibility of provisioning public identifiers. + + REQ-DATA-MGMT-2: Ability to aggregate a set of public identifiers as + destination groups. + + REQ-DATA-MGMT-3: Ability to create the aggregation termed route + group. + +4.6. Lookup Key Requirements + + REQ-LOOKUP-1: Provisioning of, and modifications to, the following aggregations: destination group and route groups. - REQ12: Support the distinction between an SSP as a carrier-of-record - provider versus transit provider. + REQ-LOOKUP-2: Ability to distinguish an SSP as either the carrier- + of-record provider or transit provider. - REQ13: Support for lookup keys having identical business keys (the - public identity string, the digits that comprise an RN, the - 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. + REQ-LOOKUP-3: A given lookup key (e.g., public identity, RN, TN + Range) can reside in multiple destination groups at + the same time. - Editor's note: We need to simplify the above requirement. + REQ-LOOKUP-4: Modification of lookup keys by allowing them to be + moved to a different destination group via an atomic + operation. - REQ14: 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. - REQ15: SSPs to change their Carrier-Of- Record vs Transit role. + REQ-LOOKUP-6: Support for modification of authority with the + conditions described in UC LOOKUP #6. - REQ16: Support for modification of authority with the conditions - described in UC LOOKUP #6. +4.7. Misc. Requirements - REQ17: Destination group offer and acceptance (optionally support - auto-acceptance). + REQ-MISC-1: Number portability support. - REQ18: Open numbering plans. + 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 Session establishment data allows for the routing of SIP sesions within, and between, SIP Service Providers. Access to this data can compromise the routing of sessions and expose a SIP Service Provider to attacks such as service hijacking and denial of service. The data can be compromised by vulnerable functional components and interfaces identified within the use cases. + A provisioning protocol or interface that implements the described + use cases MUST therefore provide data confidentiality, and MUST + ensure message integrity for the provisioning flow. Authentication + and authorization of the provisioning entities are REQUIRED features + of the protocol and interfaces. + 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 - This document is a result of various discussions held by the DRINKS - requirements design team, which is comprised of the following - individuals, in alphabetical order: Deborah A Guyton (Telcordia), - Gregory Schumacher (Sprint), Jean-Francois Mule (CableLabs), Kenneth - Cartwright (TNS, Inc.), Manjul Maharishi (TNS, Inc.), Penn Pfautz - (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 document is a result of various discussions held within the + DRINKS WG; specifically , in alphabetical order: Alexander Mayrhofer, + Deborah A Guyton, Gregory Schumacher, Jean-Francois Mule, Kenneth + Cartwright, Manjul Maharishi, Penn Pfautz, Ray Bellis, Richard + Shockey, and Syed Ali. This specific version of the document is a result of contributions - from, primarily, David Schwartz (XConnect), Kenneth Cartwright (TNS, - 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.), Hadriel - Kaplan (Acme Packet) and other participants on the DRINKS mailing - list. + from the following individuals: Alexander Mayrhofer, Otmar Lendl, + Sohel Khan, and Peter Koch. In addition, we also thank Brian Rose + and Jon Peterson for suggestions we incorporated. 8. References 8.1. Normative References [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. + [RFC5486] Malas, D. and D. Meyer, "Session Peering for Multimedia + Interconnect (SPEERMINT) Terminology", RFC 5486, + March 2009. + 8.2. Informative References [RFC3261] Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., Camarillo, G., Johnston, A., Peterson, J., Sparks, R., Handley, M., and E. Schooler, "SIP: Session Initiation Protocol", RFC 3261, June 2002. [RFC3263] Rosenberg, J. and H. Schulzrinne, "Session Initiation Protocol (SIP): Locating SIP Servers", RFC 3263, June 2002. + [RFC4694] Yu, J., "Number Portability Parameters for the "tel" URI", + RFC 4694, October 2006. + [RFC5067] Lind, S. and P. Pfautz, "Infrastructure ENUM Requirements", RFC 5067, November 2007. - [RFC5486] Malas, D. and D. Meyer, "Session Peering for Multimedia - Interconnect (SPEERMINT) Terminology", RFC 5486, - March 2009. - Author's Address Sumanth Channabasappa CableLabs 858 Coal Creek Circle Louisville, CO 80027 USA Email: sumanth@cablelabs.com