--- 1/draft-ietf-p2psip-concepts-08.txt 2016-04-21 08:15:58.868665115 -0700 +++ 2/draft-ietf-p2psip-concepts-09.txt 2016-04-21 08:15:58.912666200 -0700 @@ -1,25 +1,25 @@ P2PSIP Working Group D. Bryan Internet-Draft Cogent Force, LLC Intended status: Informational P. Matthews -Expires: August 14, 2016 Alcatel-Lucent +Expires: October 23, 2016 Alcatel-Lucent E. Shim Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. D. Willis Softarmor Systems S. Dawkins Huawei (USA) - February 11, 2016 + April 21, 2016 Concepts and Terminology for Peer to Peer SIP - draft-ietf-p2psip-concepts-08 + draft-ietf-p2psip-concepts-09 Abstract This document defines concepts and terminology for the use of the Session Initiation Protocol in a peer-to-peer environment where the traditional proxy-registrar and message routing functions are replaced by a distributed mechanism. These mechanisms may be implemented using a distributed hash table or other distributed data mechanism with similar external properties. This document includes a high-level view of the functional relationships between the network @@ -36,53 +36,41 @@ 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 August 14, 2016. + This Internet-Draft will expire on October 23, 2016. Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2016 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 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 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 - 1. Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 2. High-Level Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 + 1. Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 + 2. High-Level Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2.1. Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2.2. Clients . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2.3. Relationship Between P2PSIP and RELOAD . . . . . . . . . 5 2.4. Relationship Between P2PSIP and SIP . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2.5. Relationship Between P2PSIP and Other AoR Dereferencing Approaches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2.6. NAT Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3. Reference Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4. Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 5. Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 @@ -93,27 +81,28 @@ 5.5. Clients and Connecting Unmodified SIP Devices . . . . . . 15 5.6. Architecture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 8. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 1. Background One of the fundamental problems in multimedia communication between - Internet nodes is discovering the host at which a given user can be - reached. In the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) [RFC3261] this - problem is expressed as the problem of mapping an Address of Record - (AoR) for a user into one or more Contact URIs [RFC3986]. The AoR is - a name for the user that is independent of the host or hosts where - the user can be contacted, while a Contact URI indicates the host - where the user can be contacted. + Internet nodes is the rendezvous problem, or discovering the host at + which a given user can be reached. In the Session Initiation + Protocol (SIP) [RFC3261] this problem is expressed as the problem of + mapping an Address of Record (AoR) for a user into one or more + Contact URIs [RFC3986]. The AoR is a name for the user that is + independent of the host or hosts 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 "Conventional SIP" or "Client/Server SIP", there is a relatively 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 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 that proxy. The proxy will then, in turn, deliver the SIP INVITE to the hosts where the user can be contacted. @@ -186,29 +175,30 @@ An overlay may or may not also include one or more nodes called clients. Clients are supported in the RELOAD protocol as peers that have not joined the overlay, and therefore do not route messages or store information. Clients access the services of the RELOAD protocol by connecting to a peer which performs operations on the behalf of the client. Note that in RELOAD there is no distinct client protocol. Instead, a client connects using the same protocol, but never joins the overlay as a peer. For more information, see [RFC6940]. - Note that in the context of P2PSIP, there is an additional entity - that is sometimes referred to as a client. A special peer may be a - member of the in the P2PSIP overlay and may present the functionality - of one or all of a SIP registrar, proxy or redirect server to - conventional SIP devices (SIP clients). In this way, existing, non- - modified SIP clients may connect to the network. These unmodified - SIP devices do not speak the RELOAD protocol, and this is a distinct - concept from the notion of client discussed in the previous - paragraph. + A special peer may also be a member of the P2PSIP overlay and may + present the functionality of one or all of a SIP registrar, proxy or + redirect server to conventional SIP devices (i.e., unmodified SIP UA + or client). In this way, existing, unmodified SIP clients may + connect to the P2PSIP network. Note that in the context of P2PSIP, + the unmodified SIP client is also sometimes referred to as a client. + + These unmodified SIP devices do not speak the RELOAD protocol, and + this is a distinct concept from the notion of client discussed in the + previous paragraph. 2.3. Relationship Between P2PSIP and RELOAD The RELOAD protocol defined by the P2PSIP working group implements a DHT primarily for use by server-less, peer-to-peer SIP deployments. However, the RELOAD protocol could be used for other applications as well. As such, a "P2PSIP" deployment is generally assumed to be a use of RELOAD to implement distributed SIP, but it is possible that RELOAD is used as a mechanism to distribute other applications, completely unrelated to SIP. @@ -224,24 +214,24 @@ the peer or client portion of the node is logically distinct from the SIP entity portion. However, there is no hard requirement that every P2PSIP node (peer or client) be coupled to a SIP entity. As an example, additional peers could be placed in the overlay to provide additional storage or redundancy for the RELOAD overlay, but might not have any direct SIP capabilities. 2.5. Relationship Between P2PSIP and Other AoR Dereferencing Approaches As noted above, the fundamental task of P2PSIP is turning an AoR into - a Contact. This task might be approached using zeroconf techniques - such as multicast DNS and DNS Service Discovery [RFC6762][RFC6763], - link-local multicast name resolution [RFC4795], and dynamic DNS - [RFC2136]. + a Contact. This task might be approached using zero configuration + techniques such as multicast DNS and DNS Service Discovery + [RFC6762][RFC6763], link-local multicast name resolution [RFC4795], + and dynamic DNS [RFC2136]. These alternatives were discussed in the P2PSIP Working Group, and not pursued as a general solution for a number of reasons related to scalability, the ability to work in a disconnected state, partition recovery, and so on. However, there does seem to be some continuing interest in the possibility of using DNS-SD and mDNS for bootstrapping of P2PSIP overlays. 2.6. NAT Issues @@ -725,27 +715,26 @@ peer-to-peer lookup protocol for internet applications", IEEE/ACM Transactions on Neworking Volume 11 Issue 1, pp. 17-32, Feb. 2003, August 2001. Copy available at http://pdos.csail.mit.edu/chord/papers/ paper-ton.pdf [I-D.ietf-p2psip-diagnostics] Song, H., Xingfeng, J., Even, R., Bryan, D., and Y. Sun, "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] Jennings, C., Lowekamp, B., Rescorla, E., Baset, S., Schulzrinne, H., and T. Schmidt, "A SIP Usage for RELOAD", - draft-ietf-p2psip-sip-16 (work in progress), December - 2015. + draft-ietf-p2psip-sip-20 (work in progress), April 2016. [RFC2136] Vixie, P., Ed., Thomson, S., Rekhter, Y., and J. Bound, "Dynamic Updates in the Domain Name System (DNS UPDATE)", RFC 2136, DOI 10.17487/RFC2136, April 1997, . [RFC3261] Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., Camarillo, G., Johnston, A., Peterson, J., Sparks, R., Handley, M., and E. Schooler, "SIP: Session Initiation Protocol", RFC 3261, DOI 10.17487/RFC3261, June 2002,