draft-ietf-drinks-usecases-requirements-05.txt		draft-ietf-drinks-usecases-requirements-06.txt
	DRINKS S. Channabasappa, Ed.		DRINKS S. Channabasappa, Ed.
	Internet-Draft CableLabs		Internet-Draft CableLabs
	Intended status: Informational March 13, 2011		Intended status: Informational August 12, 2011
	Expires: September 14, 2011		Expires: February 13, 2012
	DRINKS Use cases and Protocol Requirements		Data for Reachability of Inter/tra-NetworK SIP (DRINKS) Use cases and
	draft-ietf-drinks-usecases-requirements-05		Protocol Requirements
			draft-ietf-drinks-usecases-requirements-06
	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 Session
	Provider components, to assist with session routing. Specifically,		Initiation Protocol (SIP) Service Provider components, to assist with
	the current version of this document focuses on the provisioning of		session routing. Specifically, this document focuses on the
	one such element, termed the registry.		provisioning of one such element, termed the registry.
	Status of this Memo		Status of this Memo
	This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the		This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the
	provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.		provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
	Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering		Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
	Task Force (IETF). 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 September 14, 2011.		This Internet-Draft will expire on February 13, 2012.
	Copyright Notice		Copyright Notice
	Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the		Copyright (c) 2011 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 16		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: Public Identifiers, TN Ranges and RNs . . . . . 13
	3.7. Category: Misc . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14		3.7. Category: Misc . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
	4. Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16		4. Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
	4.1. Provisioning Mechanisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16		4.1. Provisioning Mechanisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
	4.2. Interconnect Schemes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16		4.2. Interconnect Schemes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
	4.3. SED Exchange and Discovery Requirements . . . . . . . . . 16		4.3. SED Exchange and Discovery Requirements . . . . . . . . . 17
	4.4. SED Record Content Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17		4.4. SED Record Content Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
	4.5. Data Management Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17		4.5. Data Management Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
	4.6. Lookup Key Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18		4.6. Public Identifier, TN Range and RN Requirements . . . . . 18
	4.7. Misc. Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18		4.7. Misc. Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
	5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20		5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
	6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21		6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
	7. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22		7. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
	8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23		8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
	8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23		8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
	8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23		8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
	Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24		Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
	1. Terminology		1. Terminology
	skipping to change at page 3, line 17		skipping to change at page 3, line 17
	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, SSP), [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. A Registry can		establishment data (SED) and related information. A registry can
	be part of an SSP as well as an independent entity.		be part of an SSP or be an independent entity.
	Registrar: An entity that provisions and manages data into the		Registrar: An entity that provisions and manages data into the
	registry. An SSP can act as its own registrar or - additionally		registry. An SSP can act as its own registrar or - additionally
	or alternatively - delegate this function to a third party who		or alternatively - delegate this function to a third party (who
	acts as its registrar.		acts as its registrar).
	Local Data Repository: The data store component of an addressing		Local Data Repository(LDR): The data store component of an
	server that provides resolution responses.		addressing 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), a SIP address, or other identity as deemed appropriate, such		(TN), a SIP address, or other identity as deemed appropriate, such
	as a globally routable URI of a user address (e.g.,		as a globally routable URI of a user address (e.g.,
	sip:john.doe@example.net).		sip:john.doe@example.net).
	TN Range: A numerically contiguous set (or, in the case of an open		Telephone Number (TN) Range: A numerically contiguous set of
	numbering plan, a prefix) of telephone numbers whose SED can be		telephone numbers.
	looked up (resolved).
			Telephone Number (TN) Prefix: A preceding portion of the digits
			common across a series of E.164 numbers. A given TN prefix will
			include all the valid E.164 numbers that satisfy the expansion
			rules mandated by the country or the region that the TNs comply
			with.
			Routing Number (RN): A Routing Number. For more information, see
			[RFC4694].
	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 which is exposed to a		TN Ranges, or RNs that share common SED, which is exposed to a
	common set of peers.		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 (or TN Ranges or RNs), the destination groups
	public identifiers, and a route group's SED records.		that contain these public identifiers (or TN Ranges and RNs), and
			a route group's SED records.
	Route 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.
	Route groups facilitate the management of SED records for one or		Route groups facilitate the management of SED records for one or
	more data recipients.		more data recipients.
	2. Overview		2. Overview
	The SPEERMINT WG specifies Session Establishment Data, or SED, as the		[RFC5486] (Section 3.3) defines Session Establishment Data, or SED,
	data used to route a call to the next hop associated with the called		as the data used to route a call to the next hop associated with the
	domain's ingress point. More specifically, the SED is the set of		called domain's ingress point. More specifically, the SED is the set
	parameters that the outgoing signaling path border elements (SBEs)		of parameters that the outgoing signaling path border elements (SBEs)
	need to establish a session. See Section 3.3 of [RFC5486] for more		need to establish a session. However, [RFC5486] does not specify the
	details.		protocol(s) or format(s) to provision SED. To pave the way to
			specify such a protocol, this document presents the use cases and
	The specification of the format and protocols to provision SED is a		associated requirements that have been proposed to provision SED
	task taken up by the DRINKS WG. This document contains the use cases		data.
	and requirements that have been proposed in this regard.
	SED is typically created by the terminating or next-hop SSP and		SED is typically created by the terminating or next-hop SSP and
	consumed by the originating SSP. To avoid a multitude of bilateral		consumed by the originating SSP. To avoid a multitude of bilateral
	exchanges, SED is often shared via intermediary systems - termed		exchanges, SED is often shared via intermediary systems - termed
	registries within this document. Such registries receive data via		registries within this document. Such registries receive data via
	provisioning transactions from SSPs, and then distribute the received		provisioning transactions from SSPs, and then distribute the received
	data into Local Data Repositories. These local data repositories are		data into Local Data Repositories (LDRs). These LDRs are used for
	used for call routing by outgoing SBEs. This is depicted in		call routing by outgoing SBEs. This is depicted in Figure 1.
	Figure 1.
	*-------------*		*-------------*
	1. Provision SED | |		1. Provision SED | |
	-----------------------> | Registry |		-----------------------> | Registry |
	| |		| |
	*-------------*		*-------------*
	/ \		/ \
	/ \		/ \
	/ \		/ \
	/ \		/ \
	skipping to change at page 6, line 7		skipping to change at page 6, line 5
	/ 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 document, we primarily address the use cases and requirements		In this document, we address the use cases and requirements for
	for provisioning registries. Future revisions may include data		provisioning registries. Data distribution to local data
	distribution to local data repositories. The resulting provisioning		repositories is out of scope for this document. The resulting
	protocol can be used to provision data into a registry, or between		provisioning protocol can be used to provision data into a registry,
	multiple registries operating in parallel. In Figure 2, the case of		or between multiple registries operating in parallel. In Figure 2,
	multiple registries is depicted with dotted lines.		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 | +-----+ |
	| | | |		| | | |
	+-----------+ +-----------+		+-----------+ +-----------+
	. .		. .
	. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .		. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
	(provision / distribute)		(provision / distribute)
	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 two aggregation groups, as
	with regards to SED (refer to the use cases in Section 3.5 for the		follows:
	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 Route Group.		o Aggregation of SED records into a route group.
	The data model depicted in Figure 3 shows the various entities,		The use cases in Section 3.5 provide the rationale. The data model
	aggregations and the relationships between them.		depicted in Figure 3 shows the various entities, aggregations and the
			relationships between them.
	+---------+ +--------------+ +---------+		+---------+ +--------------+ +---------+
	| Data |0..n 0..n| ROUTE | 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 | | |
	| +--------------+ | |		| +--------------+ | |
	| | | |		| | | |
	| 1| | |		| 1| | |
	| | | |		| | | |
	| | | |		| | | |
	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 Public Identifier object can be directly related to zero or more		- A public identifier object can be directly related to zero or more
	SED Record objects, and a SED Record object can be related to		SED Record objects, and a SED Record object can be related to
	exactly one Public Identifier object.		exactly one public identifier 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,		- A destination group object can contain zero or more RN objects,
	and an RN object can be contained in exactly one Destination Group		and an RN object can be contained in exactly one destination group
	object.		object.
	- A Route Group object can contain zero or more SED Record objects,		- A route group object can contain zero or more SED Record objects,
	and a SED Record object can be contained in exactly one Route		and a SED Record object can be contained in exactly one route
	Group object.		group object.
	- A Route Group object can be associated with zero or more		- A route group object can be associated with zero or more
	Destination Group objects, and a Destination Group object can be		destination group objects, and a destination group object can be
	associated with zero or more Route Group objects.		associated with zero or more route group objects.
	- A Data Recipient object can be associated with zero or more Route		- 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		group objects, and a route group object can refer to zero or more
	Data Recipient objects.		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 several security considerations (see Section Section 5). This
	be out of scope of this document.		document does not address these considerations. The protocols that
			implement these use cases (and associated requirements) will need to
			explicitly identify and address them.
	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 (or TN Ranges
	with their SED. These systems often function in a manner		or RNs), in association with their SED. These systems
	that expect or require that these provisioning activities		often function in a manner that expect or require that
	be completed immediately, as apposed to an out-of-band or		these provisioning activities be completed immediately,
	batch provisioning scheme that can occur at a later time.		as apposed to an out-of-band or batch provisioning scheme
	This type of provisioning is referred to as real-time, or		that can occur at a later time. This type of
	on-demand provisioning.		provisioning is referred to as real-time, or on-demand
			provisioning.
	UC PROV #2 Non-Real-Time Bulk Provisioning: Operational systems that		UC PROV #2 Non-Real-Time Bulk Provisioning: Operational systems that
	provision public identifiers and associated SED sometimes		provision public identifiers (or TN Ranges or RNs) and
	expect that these provisioning activities be batched up		associated SED sometimes expect that these provisioning
	into large sets. These batched requests are then		activities be batched up into large sets. These batched
	processed using a provisioning mechanism that is out-of-		requests are then processed using a provisioning
	band and occurs at a later time.		mechanism that is out-of-band and occurs at a later time.
	UC PROV #3 Multi-Request Provisioning: Regardless of whether a		UC PROV #3 Multi-Request Provisioning: Regardless of whether a
	provisioning action is performed in real-time or not,		provisioning action is performed in real-time or not,
	SSPs often perform several provisioning actions on		SSPs often perform several provisioning actions on
	several objects in a single request or transaction. This		several objects in a single request or transaction. This
	is done for performance and scalability reasons, and for		is done for performance and scalability reasons, and for
	transactional reasons, such that the set of provisioning		transactional reasons, such that the set of provisioning
	actions either fail or succeed atomically, as a complete		actions either fail or succeed atomically, as a complete
	set.		set.
	skipping to change at page 9, line 40		skipping to change at page 10, line 4
	UC PROV #3 Multi-Request Provisioning: Regardless of whether a		UC PROV #3 Multi-Request Provisioning: Regardless of whether a
	provisioning action is performed in real-time or not,		provisioning action is performed in real-time or not,
	SSPs often perform several provisioning actions on		SSPs often perform several provisioning actions on
	several objects in a single request or transaction. This		several objects in a single request or transaction. This
	is done for performance and scalability reasons, and for		is done for performance and scalability reasons, and for
	transactional reasons, such that the set of provisioning		transactional reasons, such that the set of provisioning
	actions either fail or succeed atomically, as a complete		actions either fail or succeed atomically, as a complete
	set.		set.
	3.2. Category: Interconnect Schemes		3.2. Category: Interconnect Schemes
	UC INTERCONNECT #1 Inter-SSP SED: SSPs create peering relationships		UC INTERCONNECT #1 Inter-SSP SED: SSPs create peering relationships
	with other SSPs in order to establish		with other SSPs in order to establish
	interconnects. Establishing these interconnects		interconnects. Establishing these interconnects
	involves, among other things, communicating and		involves, among other things, communicating and
	enabling the points of ingress and other SED used		enabling the points of ingress and other SED used
	to establish sessions to a set of public		to establish sessions.
	identifiers.
	UC INTERCONNECT #2 Direct vs Indirect Peering: Some inter-SSP		UC INTERCONNECT #2 Direct and Indirect Peering: Some inter-SSP
	peering relationships are created to enable the		peering relationships are created to enable the
	establishment of sessions to the public		establishment of sessions to the public
	identifiers for which an SSP is the carrier-of-		identifiers for which an SSP is the carrier-of-
	record. This is referred to as direct peering.		record. This is referred to as direct peering.
	Other inter-SSP peering relationships are created		Other inter-SSP peering relationships are created
	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
	skipping to change at page 10, line 33		skipping to change at page 10, line 38
	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. Selective		same set of public identifiers. This is referred
	peering is done on a Route Group basis.		to as selective peering, and is done on a route
			group basis.
	UC INTERCONNECT #5 Provisioning of a delegated hierarchy: An SSP may		UC INTERCONNECT #5 Provisioning of a delegated hierarchy: An SSP may
	decide to maintain its own infrastructure to		decide to maintain its own infrastructure to
	contain the route records that constitute the		contain the route records that constitute the
	terminal step in the LUF. In such cases, the SSP		terminal step in the LUF. In such cases, the SSP
	will provision registries to direct queries for		will provision registries to direct queries for
	the SSP's public identifiers to its own		the SSP's public identifiers to its own
	infrastructure, rather than provisioning the		infrastructure, rather than provisioning the
	route records directly. For example, in the case		route records directly. For example, in the case
	of DNS-based route records, such a delegated		of DNS-based route records, such a delegated
	skipping to change at page 11, line 36		skipping to change at page 11, line 45
	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 is out of scope for
	context of this protocol.		this document.
	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 already described in this Section
	Public Identifiers.		(Section 3.3), for the same set of 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.
	UC SED RECORD #2 Time-To-Live (TTL): For performance reasons,		UC SED RECORD #2 Time-To-Live (TTL): For performance reasons,
	querying SSPs sometimes cache SED that had been		querying SSPs sometimes cache SED that had been
	previously looked up for a given public identity.		previously looked up for a given public identifier.
	In order to accomplish this, SSPs sometimes specify		In order to accomplish this, SSPs sometimes specify
	the TTL associated with a given SED record.		the TTL associated with a given SED record.
	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 provision 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. For reasons of		for large numbers of public identifiers (or TN Ranges or
	efficiency, groups of public identifiers that have the		RNs). For reasons of efficiency, groups of public
	same SED can be aggregated. These aggregations are known		identifiers that have the same SED can be aggregated.
	as destination groups. The SED is then indirectly
	associated with destination groups rather than with each		These aggregations are known as destination groups. The
	individual public identity.		SED is then indirectly associated with destination groups
			rather than with each individual public identifier (or TN
			Ranges or RNs).
	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 (or TN Ranges or
	relationship between a group of SED records and a group		RNs), and then expose that relationship between a group
	of public identifiers to one or more SSPs. This combined		of SED records and a group of public identifiers (or TN
	grouping of SED records and Destination Groups		Ranges or RNs) to one or more SSPs. This combined
	facilitates management of public identity SED		grouping of SED records and destination groups
	relationships and the list of peers (data recipients)		facilitates efficient management of relationships and the
	that can lookup those public identifiers and receive that		list of peers (data recipients) that can lookup public
	SED. This dual set of SED Records and Destination Groups		identifiers and receive the associated SED. This dual
	is termed as a Route Group.		set of SED Records and destination groups is termed as a
			route group.
	3.6. Category: Lookup Keys		3.6. Category: Public Identifiers, TN Ranges and RNs
	UC LOOKUP #1 Additions and deletions: SSPs often allocate and de-		UC PI #1 Additions and deletions: SSPs often allocate and de-
	allocate specific public identifiers to and from end-		allocate specific public identifiers to and from end-users.
	users. This involves, among other things, activating		This involves, among other things, activating or
	or deactivating specific public identifiers (or TN		deactivating specific public identifiers (TN ranges or
	ranges or RNs), and directly (or indirectly)		RNs), and directly or indirectly associating them with the
	associating them with the appropriate points of ingress		appropriate points of ingress and other SED.
	and other SED.
	UC LOOKUP #2 Carrier-of-Record vs Transit Lookup Key Provisioning:		UC PI #2 Carrier-of-Record vs Transit Provisioning: Some inter-SSP
	Some inter-SSP peering relationships are created to		peering relationships are created to enable the
	enable the establishment of sessions to the lookup keys		establishment of sessions to the public identifiers (or TN
	for which an SSP is the carrier-of-record. Other		Ranges or RNs) for which an SSP is the carrier-of-record.
	inter-SSP peering relationships are created to enable		Other inter-SSP peering relationships are created to enable
	the establishment of sessions to lookup keys for which		the establishment of sessions for which an SSP is a transit
	an SSP is a transit provider. Some SSPs take into		provider. Some SSPs take into consideration an SSP's role
	consideration an SSP's role as a transit or carrier-of-		as a transit or carrier-of-record provider when selecting a
	record provider when selecting a route to a public		route.
	identifier.
	UC LOOKUP #3 Multiplicity of Identical Lookup Keys: As described in		UC PI #3 Multiplicity: As described in previous use cases, SSPs
	previous use cases, SSPs provision lookup keys and		provision public identifiers (or TN Ranges or RNs) and
	their associated SED for multiple peering SSPs, and as		their associated SED for multiple peering SSPs, and as both
	both the carrier-of-record and transit provider. As a		the carrier-of-record and transit provider. As a result, a
	result, a given lookup key can reside in multiple		given public identifier (or TN Range or RN) key can reside
	destination groups at any given time.		in multiple destination groups at any given time.
	UC LOOKUP #4 Lookup Key Destination Group Modification: SSPs often		UC PI #4 Destination Group Modification: SSPs often change the SED
	change the SED associated with a given lookup key.		associated with a given public identifier (or TN Range or
	This involves, among other things, directly or		RN). This involves, among other things, directly or
	indirectly associating them with a different point of		indirectly associating them with a different point of
	ingress, different services, and/or different other		ingress, different services, or different SED.
	SED.
	UC LOOKUP #5 Lookup Key Carrier-Of-Record vs Transit Modification:		UC PI #5 Carrier-Of-Record vs Transit Modification: SSPs may have
	SSPs may have the need to change their Carrier-Of-		the need to change their Carrier-Of-Record vs Transit role
	Record vs Transit role for lookup keys they previously		for public identifiers (or TN Ranges or RNs) that they
	provisioned.		previously provisioned.
	UC LOOKUP #6 Modification of authority: An SSP indicates that it is		UC PI #6 Modification of authority: An SSP indicates that it is the
	the carrier-of-record for an existing public identity		carrier-of-record for an existing public identifier or TN
	or TN Range. If the public identity or TN Range was		Range. If the public identifier or TN Range was previously
	previously associated with a different carrier-of-		associated with a different carrier-of-record then there
	record then there are multiple possible outcomes, such		are multiple possible outcomes, such as: a) the previous
	as: a) the previous carrier-of-record is disassociated,		carrier-of-record is disassociated, b) the previous
	b) the previous carrier-of-record is relegated to		carrier-of-record is relegated to transit status, or c) the
	transit status, or c) the new carrier-of-record is		new carrier-of-record is placed in inactive mode. The
	placed in inactive mode. The choice may be dependent		choice may be dependent on the deployment scenario, and is
	on the deployment scenario, and is out of scope for		out of scope for this document.
	this document.
	3.7. Category: Misc		3.7. Category: Misc
	UC MISC #1 Number Portability: The SSP wishes to provide, in query		UC MISC #1 Number Portability: The SSP wishes to provide, in query
	response to public identifiers, an associated routing		response to public identifiers, an associated routing
	number (RN). This is the case where a set of public		number (RN). This is the case where a set of public
	identifiers is no longer associated with original SSP but		identifiers is no longer associated with original SSP but
	have been ported to a recipient SSP, who provides access		have been ported to a recipient SSP, who provides access
	to these identifiers via a switch on the SS7 network		to these identifiers via a switch on the Signaling System
	identified by the RN.		Number 7 network identified by the RN.
	UC MISC #2 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 #3 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 where the carrier-of-		numbering plan is used, where the carrier-of-record is
	record is only aware of a portion of the E.164 number		only aware of a portion of the E.164 number (i.e., the TN
	(i.e., the prefix). The carrier-of-record may not know		prefix). The carrier-of-record may not know the complete
	the complete number, or the number of digits in the		number, or the number of digits in the number. The rest
	number. The rest of the digits are handled offline		of the digits are handled offline (e.g., by a Private
	(e.g., by a PBX). For example, an SSP can be the		Branch Exchange, or PBX). For example, an SSP can be the
	carrier-of-record for "+123456789", and is also the		carrier-of-record for "+123456789", and is also the
	carrier-of-record for every possible expansion of that		carrier-of-record for every possible expansion of that
	number such as "+12345678901" and "+123456789012", even		number such as "+12345678901" and "+123456789012", even
	though the SSP does not know what those expansions could		though the SSP does not know what those expansions could
	be. This can be described as the carrier-of-record		be. This can be described as the carrier-of-record
	effectively being authoritative for the prefix.		effectively being authoritative for the TN prefix.
	4. Requirements		4. Requirements
	This Section lists the requirements based on the use cases in		This Section lists the requirements extracted from the use cases in
	Section 3. Unless explicitly stated as optional, the registry		Section 3. The objective is to make it easier for protocol designers
	provisioning interface must support these requirements.		to understand the underlying requirements, and to reference and list
			the requirements that they support (or not). The requirements listed
			here, unless explicitly indicated otherwise, are expected to be
			supported. Protocol proposals are also expected to indicate their
			compliance with these requirements, and highlight ones that they
			don't meet (if any). Furthermore, the requirements listed here are
			not meant to be limiting, i.e., protocol implementations and
			deployments may choose to support additional requirements based on
			use cases that are not listed in this document.
	4.1. Provisioning Mechanisms		4.1. Provisioning Mechanisms
	REQ-PROV-1: Real-time provisioning.		REQ-PROV-1: Real-time provisioning.
	REQ-PROV-2: Non-real-time bulk provisioning.		REQ-PROV-2: (Optional) Non-real-time bulk provisioning.
	REQ-PROV-3: Multi-request provisioning.		REQ-PROV-3: Multi-request provisioning.
	4.2. Interconnect Schemes		4.2. Interconnect Schemes
	REQ-INTERCONNECT-1: Inter-SSP peering.		REQ-INTERCONNECT-1: Inter-SSP peering.
	REQ-INTERCONNECT-2: Direct and Indirect peering.		REQ-INTERCONNECT-2: Direct and Indirect peering.
	REQ-INTERCONNECT-3: Intra-SSP SED.		REQ-INTERCONNECT-3: Intra-SSP SED.
	skipping to change at page 17, line 4		skipping to change at page 17, line 8
	REQ-INTERCONNECT-2: Direct and Indirect peering.		REQ-INTERCONNECT-2: Direct and Indirect peering.
	REQ-INTERCONNECT-3: Intra-SSP SED.		REQ-INTERCONNECT-3: Intra-SSP SED.
	REQ-INTERCONNECT-4: Selective peering.		REQ-INTERCONNECT-4: Selective peering.
	REQ-INTERCONNECT-5: Provisioning of a delegated hierarchy.		REQ-INTERCONNECT-5: Provisioning of a delegated hierarchy.
	4.3. SED Exchange and Discovery Requirements		4.3. SED Exchange and Discovery Requirements
	REQ-SED-1: SED containing unified LUF and LRF content.		REQ-SED-1: SED containing unified LUF and LRF content.
	REQ-SED-2: SED containing LUF-only data using domain names.		REQ-SED-2: SED containing LUF-only data using domain names.
	REQ-SED-3: SED containing LUF-only data using administrative		REQ-SED-3: SED containing LUF-only data using administrative
	domains.		domains.
	REQ-SED-4: Support for all the other REQ-SED requirements,		REQ-SED-4: Support for all the other REQ-SED requirements (listed in
	concurrently, for the same public identifier.		this Section), concurrently, for the same public
			identifier (or TN Range or RN).
	4.4. SED Record Content Requirements		4.4. SED Record Content Requirements
	REQ-SED-RECORD-1: Ability to provision SED record content.		REQ-SED-RECORD-1: Ability to provision SED record content.
	REQ-SED-RECORD-2: (Optional) Communication of an associated TTL for		REQ-SED-RECORD-2: (Optional) Communication of an associated TTL for
	a SED Record.		a SED Record.
	4.5. Data Management Requirements		4.5. Data Management Requirements
	REQ-DATA-MGMT-1: Separation of responsibility for the provisioning		REQ-DATA-MGMT-1: Separation of responsibility for the provisioning
	the points of ingress and other SED, from the		the points of ingress and other SED, from the
	responsibility of provisioning public identifiers.		responsibility of provisioning public identifiers.
	REQ-DATA-MGMT-2: Ability to aggregate a set of public identifiers as		REQ-DATA-MGMT-2: Ability to aggregate a set of public identifiers as
	destination groups.		destination groups.
	REQ-DATA-MGMT-3: Ability to create the aggregation termed route		REQ-DATA-MGMT-3: Ability to create the aggregation termed route
	group.		group.
	4.6. Lookup Key Requirements		4.6. Public Identifier, TN Range and RN Requirements
	REQ-LOOKUP-1: Provisioning of, and modifications to, the following		REQ-PI-TNR-RN-1: Provisioning of, and modifications to, the
	aggregations: destination group and route groups.		following aggregations: destination group and route
			groups.
	REQ-LOOKUP-2: Ability to distinguish an SSP as either the carrier-		REQ-PI-TNR-RN-2: Ability to distinguish an SSP as either the
	of-record provider or transit provider.		carrier-of-record provider or transit provider.
	REQ-LOOKUP-3: A given lookup key (e.g., public identity, RN, TN		REQ-PI-TNR-RN-3: A given public identifier (or TN Range or RN) can
	Range) can reside in multiple destination groups at		reside in multiple destination groups at the same
	the same time.		time.
	REQ-LOOKUP-4: Modification of lookup keys by allowing them to be		REQ-PI-TNR-RN-4: Modification of public identifier (or TN Range or
	moved to a different destination group via an atomic		RN) by allowing them to be moved to a different
	operation.		destination group via an atomic operation.
	REQ-LOOKUP-5: SSPs can indicate a change to their role from carrier-		REQ-PI-TNR-RN-5: SSPs can indicate a change to their role from
	of-record provider to transit, or vice-versa.		carrier-of-record provider to transit, or vice-
			versa.
	REQ-LOOKUP-6: Support for modification of authority with the		REQ-PI-TNR-RN-6: Support for modification of authority with the
	conditions described in UC LOOKUP #6.		conditions described in UC PI #6.
	4.7. Misc. Requirements		4.7. Misc. Requirements
	REQ-MISC-1: Number portability support.		REQ-MISC-1: Number portability support.
	REQ-MISC-2: Ability for the SSP to be offered a peering		REQ-MISC-2: Ability for the SSP to be offered a peering
	relationship, and for the SSP to accept (explicitly or		relationship, and for the SSP to accept (explicitly or
	implicitly) or reject such an offer.		implicitly) or reject such an offer.
	REQ-MISC-3: Support for open numbering plans.		REQ-MISC-3: Support for open numbering plans.
	skipping to change at page 22, line 7		skipping to change at page 22, line 7
	and authorization of the provisioning entities are REQUIRED features		and authorization of the provisioning entities are REQUIRED features
	of the protocol and interfaces.		of the protocol and interfaces.
	6. IANA Considerations		6. IANA Considerations
	This document does not register any values in IANA registries, nor		This document does not register any values in IANA registries, nor
	request the creation of a registry.		request the creation of a registry.
	7. Acknowledgments		7. Acknowledgments
	This document is a result of various discussions held within the		This document is a result of various contributions from (and
	DRINKS WG; specifically , in alphabetical order: Alexander Mayrhofer,		discussions within) the IETF DRINKS Working Group; specifically, in
	Deborah A Guyton, Gregory Schumacher, Jean-Francois Mule, Kenneth		alphabetical order: Alexander Mayrhofer, Deborah A Guyton, Gregory
	Cartwright, Manjul Maharishi, Penn Pfautz, Ray Bellis, Richard		Schumacher, Jean-Francois Mule, Kenneth Cartwright, Manjul Maharishi,
	Shockey, and Syed Ali.		Penn Pfautz, Ray Bellis, Richard Shockey, and Syed Ali.
	This specific version of the document is a result of contributions		The editor also wishes to thank the following for their comments and
	from the following individuals: Alexander Mayrhofer, Otmar Lendl,		suggestions: Otmar Lendl, Sohel Khan, Peter Koch, Brian Rosen, Jon
	Sohel Khan, and Peter Koch. In addition, we also thank Brian Rose		Peterson and Gonzalo Camarillo.
	and Jon Peterson for suggestions we incorporated.
	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		[RFC5486] Malas, D. and D. Meyer, "Session Peering for Multimedia
	Interconnect (SPEERMINT) Terminology", RFC 5486,		Interconnect (SPEERMINT) Terminology", RFC 5486,
End of changes. 67 change blocks.
	198 lines changed or deleted		216 lines changed or added
This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.41. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/