draft-ietf-p2psip-concepts-08.txt		draft-ietf-p2psip-concepts-09.txt
	P2PSIP Working Group D. Bryan		P2PSIP Working Group D. Bryan
	Internet-Draft Cogent Force, LLC		Internet-Draft Cogent Force, LLC
	Intended status: Informational P. Matthews		Intended status: Informational P. Matthews
	Expires: August 14, 2016 Alcatel-Lucent		Expires: October 23, 2016 Alcatel-Lucent
	E. Shim		E. Shim
	Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.		Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
	D. Willis		D. Willis
	Softarmor Systems		Softarmor Systems
	S. Dawkins		S. Dawkins
	Huawei (USA)		Huawei (USA)
	February 11, 2016		April 21, 2016
	Concepts and Terminology for Peer to Peer SIP		Concepts and Terminology for Peer to Peer SIP
	draft-ietf-p2psip-concepts-08		draft-ietf-p2psip-concepts-09
	Abstract		Abstract
	This document defines concepts and terminology for the use of the		This document defines concepts and terminology for the use of the
	Session Initiation Protocol in a peer-to-peer environment where the		Session Initiation Protocol in a peer-to-peer environment where the
	traditional proxy-registrar and message routing functions are		traditional proxy-registrar and message routing functions are
	replaced by a distributed mechanism. These mechanisms may be		replaced by a distributed mechanism. These mechanisms may be
	implemented using a distributed hash table or other distributed data		implemented using a distributed hash table or other distributed data
	mechanism with similar external properties. This document includes a		mechanism with similar external properties. This document includes a
	high-level view of the functional relationships between the network		high-level view of the functional relationships between the network
	skipping to change at page 1, line 47 ¶		skipping to change at page 1, line 47 ¶
	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 August 14, 2016.		This Internet-Draft will expire on October 23, 2016.
	Copyright Notice		Copyright Notice
	Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the		Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
	document authors. All rights reserved.		document authors. All rights reserved.
	This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal		This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
	Provisions Relating to IETF Documents		Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
	(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of		(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
	publication of this document. Please review these documents		publication of this document. Please review these documents
	carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect		carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
	to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must		to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
	include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of		include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
	the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as		the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
	described in the Simplified BSD License.		described in the Simplified BSD License.
	This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF
	Contributions published or made publicly available before November
	10, 2008. The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this
	material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow
	modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process.
	Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling
	the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified
	outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may
	not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format
	it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other
	than English.
	Table of Contents		Table of Contents
	1. Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3		1. Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
	2. High-Level Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4		2. High-Level Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
	2.1. Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4		2.1. Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
	2.2. Clients . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4		2.2. Clients . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
	2.3. Relationship Between P2PSIP and RELOAD . . . . . . . . . 5		2.3. Relationship Between P2PSIP and RELOAD . . . . . . . . . 5
	2.4. Relationship Between P2PSIP and SIP . . . . . . . . . . . 5		2.4. Relationship Between P2PSIP and SIP . . . . . . . . . . . 5
	2.5. Relationship Between P2PSIP and Other AoR Dereferencing		2.5. Relationship Between P2PSIP and Other AoR Dereferencing
	Approaches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5		Approaches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
	2.6. NAT Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6		2.6. NAT Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
	3. Reference Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6		3. Reference Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
	4. Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8		4. Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
	5. Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12		5. Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
	skipping to change at page 3, line 11 ¶		skipping to change at page 2, line 48 ¶
	5.5. Clients and Connecting Unmodified SIP Devices . . . . . . 15		5.5. Clients and Connecting Unmodified SIP Devices . . . . . . 15
	5.6. Architecture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16		5.6. Architecture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
	6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16		6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
	7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16		7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
	8. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16		8. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
	Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18		Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
	1. Background		1. Background
	One of the fundamental problems in multimedia communication between		One of the fundamental problems in multimedia communication between
	Internet nodes is discovering the host at which a given user can be		Internet nodes is the rendezvous problem, or discovering the host at
	reached. In the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) [RFC3261] this		which a given user can be reached. In the Session Initiation
	problem is expressed as the problem of mapping an Address of Record		Protocol (SIP) [RFC3261] this problem is expressed as the problem of
	(AoR) for a user into one or more Contact URIs [RFC3986]. The AoR is		mapping an Address of Record (AoR) for a user into one or more
	a name for the user that is independent of the host or hosts where		Contact URIs [RFC3986]. The AoR is a name for the user that is
	the user can be contacted, while a Contact URI indicates the host		independent of the host or hosts where the user can be contacted,
	where the user can be contacted.		while a Contact URI indicates the host where the user can be
			contacted.
	In the common SIP-using architectures that we refer to as		In the common SIP-using architectures that we refer to as
	"Conventional SIP" or "Client/Server SIP", there is a relatively		"Conventional SIP" or "Client/Server SIP", there is a relatively
	fixed hierarchy of SIP routing proxies and SIP user agents. To		fixed hierarchy of SIP routing proxies and SIP user agents. To
	deliver a SIP INVITE to the host or hosts at which the user can be		deliver a SIP INVITE to the host or hosts at which the user can be
	contacted, a SIP UA follows the procedures specified in [RFC3263] to		contacted, a SIP UA follows the procedures specified in [RFC3263] to
	determine the IP address of a SIP proxy, and then sends the INVITE to		determine the IP address of a SIP proxy, and then sends the INVITE to
	that proxy. The proxy will then, in turn, deliver the SIP INVITE to		that proxy. The proxy will then, in turn, deliver the SIP INVITE to
	the hosts where the user can be contacted.		the hosts where the user can be contacted.
	skipping to change at page 5, line 10 ¶		skipping to change at page 4, line 47 ¶
	An overlay may or may not also include one or more nodes called		An overlay may or may not also include one or more nodes called
	clients. Clients are supported in the RELOAD protocol as peers that		clients. Clients are supported in the RELOAD protocol as peers that
	have not joined the overlay, and therefore do not route messages or		have not joined the overlay, and therefore do not route messages or
	store information. Clients access the services of the RELOAD		store information. Clients access the services of the RELOAD
	protocol by connecting to a peer which performs operations on the		protocol by connecting to a peer which performs operations on the
	behalf of the client. Note that in RELOAD there is no distinct		behalf of the client. Note that in RELOAD there is no distinct
	client protocol. Instead, a client connects using the same protocol,		client protocol. Instead, a client connects using the same protocol,
	but never joins the overlay as a peer. For more information, see		but never joins the overlay as a peer. For more information, see
	[RFC6940].		[RFC6940].
	Note that in the context of P2PSIP, there is an additional entity		A special peer may also be a member of the P2PSIP overlay and may
	that is sometimes referred to as a client. A special peer may be a		present the functionality of one or all of a SIP registrar, proxy or
	member of the in the P2PSIP overlay and may present the functionality		redirect server to conventional SIP devices (i.e., unmodified SIP UA
	of one or all of a SIP registrar, proxy or redirect server to		or client). In this way, existing, unmodified SIP clients may
	conventional SIP devices (SIP clients). In this way, existing, non-		connect to the P2PSIP network. Note that in the context of P2PSIP,
	modified SIP clients may connect to the network. These unmodified		the unmodified SIP client is also sometimes referred to as a client.
	SIP devices do not speak the RELOAD protocol, and this is a distinct
	concept from the notion of client discussed in the previous		These unmodified SIP devices do not speak the RELOAD protocol, and
	paragraph.		this is a distinct concept from the notion of client discussed in the
			previous paragraph.
	2.3. Relationship Between P2PSIP and RELOAD		2.3. Relationship Between P2PSIP and RELOAD
	The RELOAD protocol defined by the P2PSIP working group implements a		The RELOAD protocol defined by the P2PSIP working group implements a
	DHT primarily for use by server-less, peer-to-peer SIP deployments.		DHT primarily for use by server-less, peer-to-peer SIP deployments.
	However, the RELOAD protocol could be used for other applications as		However, the RELOAD protocol could be used for other applications as
	well. As such, a "P2PSIP" deployment is generally assumed to be a		well. As such, a "P2PSIP" deployment is generally assumed to be a
	use of RELOAD to implement distributed SIP, but it is possible that		use of RELOAD to implement distributed SIP, but it is possible that
	RELOAD is used as a mechanism to distribute other applications,		RELOAD is used as a mechanism to distribute other applications,
	completely unrelated to SIP.		completely unrelated to SIP.
	skipping to change at page 5, line 48 ¶		skipping to change at page 5, line 37 ¶
	the peer or client portion of the node is logically distinct from the		the peer or client portion of the node is logically distinct from the
	SIP entity portion. However, there is no hard requirement that every		SIP entity portion. However, there is no hard requirement that every
	P2PSIP node (peer or client) be coupled to a SIP entity. As an		P2PSIP node (peer or client) be coupled to a SIP entity. As an
	example, additional peers could be placed in the overlay to provide		example, additional peers could be placed in the overlay to provide
	additional storage or redundancy for the RELOAD overlay, but might		additional storage or redundancy for the RELOAD overlay, but might
	not have any direct SIP capabilities.		not have any direct SIP capabilities.
	2.5. Relationship Between P2PSIP and Other AoR Dereferencing Approaches		2.5. Relationship Between P2PSIP and Other AoR Dereferencing Approaches
	As noted above, the fundamental task of P2PSIP is turning an AoR into		As noted above, the fundamental task of P2PSIP is turning an AoR into
	a Contact. This task might be approached using zeroconf techniques		a Contact. This task might be approached using zero configuration
	such as multicast DNS and DNS Service Discovery [RFC6762][RFC6763],		techniques such as multicast DNS and DNS Service Discovery
	link-local multicast name resolution [RFC4795], and dynamic DNS		[RFC6762][RFC6763], link-local multicast name resolution [RFC4795],
	[RFC2136].		and dynamic DNS [RFC2136].
	These alternatives were discussed in the P2PSIP Working Group, and		These alternatives were discussed in the P2PSIP Working Group, and
	not pursued as a general solution for a number of reasons related to		not pursued as a general solution for a number of reasons related to
	scalability, the ability to work in a disconnected state, partition		scalability, the ability to work in a disconnected state, partition
	recovery, and so on. However, there does seem to be some continuing		recovery, and so on. However, there does seem to be some continuing
	interest in the possibility of using DNS-SD and mDNS for		interest in the possibility of using DNS-SD and mDNS for
	bootstrapping of P2PSIP overlays.		bootstrapping of P2PSIP overlays.
	2.6. NAT Issues		2.6. NAT Issues
	skipping to change at page 16, line 49 ¶		skipping to change at page 16, line 49 ¶
	peer-to-peer lookup protocol for internet applications",		peer-to-peer lookup protocol for internet applications",
	IEEE/ACM Transactions on Neworking Volume 11 Issue 1, pp.		IEEE/ACM Transactions on Neworking Volume 11 Issue 1, pp.
	17-32, Feb. 2003, August 2001.		17-32, Feb. 2003, August 2001.
	Copy available at http://pdos.csail.mit.edu/chord/papers/		Copy available at http://pdos.csail.mit.edu/chord/papers/
	paper-ton.pdf		paper-ton.pdf
	[I-D.ietf-p2psip-diagnostics]		[I-D.ietf-p2psip-diagnostics]
	Song, H., Xingfeng, J., Even, R., Bryan, D., and Y. Sun,		Song, H., Xingfeng, J., Even, R., Bryan, D., and Y. Sun,
	"P2P Overlay Diagnostics", draft-ietf-p2psip-		"P2P Overlay Diagnostics", draft-ietf-p2psip-
	diagnostics-19 (work in progress), November 2015.		diagnostics-22 (work in progress), March 2016.
	[I-D.ietf-p2psip-sip]		[I-D.ietf-p2psip-sip]
	Jennings, C., Lowekamp, B., Rescorla, E., Baset, S.,		Jennings, C., Lowekamp, B., Rescorla, E., Baset, S.,
	Schulzrinne, H., and T. Schmidt, "A SIP Usage for RELOAD",		Schulzrinne, H., and T. Schmidt, "A SIP Usage for RELOAD",
	draft-ietf-p2psip-sip-16 (work in progress), December		draft-ietf-p2psip-sip-20 (work in progress), April 2016.
	2015.
	[RFC2136] Vixie, P., Ed., Thomson, S., Rekhter, Y., and J. Bound,		[RFC2136] Vixie, P., Ed., Thomson, S., Rekhter, Y., and J. Bound,
	"Dynamic Updates in the Domain Name System (DNS UPDATE)",		"Dynamic Updates in the Domain Name System (DNS UPDATE)",
	RFC 2136, DOI 10.17487/RFC2136, April 1997,		RFC 2136, DOI 10.17487/RFC2136, April 1997,
	<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2136>.		<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2136>.
	[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,
	DOI 10.17487/RFC3261, June 2002,		DOI 10.17487/RFC3261, June 2002,
End of changes. 11 change blocks.
	41 lines changed or deleted		30 lines changed or added
This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.45. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/