draft-ietf-speermint-architecture-05.txt		draft-ietf-speermint-architecture-06.txt
	Speermint Working Group R. Penno		Speermint Working Group R. Penno
	Internet Draft Juniper Networks		Internet Draft Juniper Networks
	Intended status: Informational D. Malas		Intended status: Informational D. Malas
	Expires: August 2008 Level 3		Expires: September 2008 CableLabs
	S. Khan		S. Khan
	Comcast		Comcast
	A. Uzelac		A. Uzelac
	Global Crossing		Global Crossing
	February 24, 2008		M. Hammer
			Cisco Systems
			May 2, 2008
	SPEERMINT Peering Architecture		SPEERMINT Peering Architecture
	draft-ietf-speermint-architecture-05		draft-ietf-speermint-architecture-06
	Status of this Memo		Status of this Memo
	By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that		By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that
	any applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is		any applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is
	aware have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she		aware have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she
	becomes aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of		becomes aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of
	BCP 79.		BCP 79.
	Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering		Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
	skipping to change at page 2, line 8		skipping to change at page 2, line 9
	Abstract		Abstract
	This document defines the SPEERMINT peering architecture, its		This document defines the SPEERMINT peering architecture, its
	functional components and peering interface functions. It also		functional components and peering interface functions. It also
	describes the steps taken to establish a session between two peering		describes the steps taken to establish a session between two peering
	domains in the context of the functions defined.		domains in the context of the functions defined.
	Conventions used in this document		Conventions used in this document
	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 RFC 2119[1]		document are to be interpreted as described in RFC-2119[1]
	Table of Contents		Table of Contents
	1. Introduction...................................................3		1. Introduction...................................................3
	2. Network Context................................................4		2. Network Context................................................3
	3. Procedures.....................................................5		3. Procedures.....................................................6
	4. Reference SPEERMINT Architecture...............................6		4. Reference SPEERMINT Architecture...............................6
	5. Peer Function Examples.........................................8		5. Recommended SSP Procedures.....................................8
	5.1. The Location Function (LF) of an Initiating Provider......8		5.1. Originating SSP Procedures................................8
	5.1.1. Target address analysis..............................8		5.1.1. The Look-Up Function (LUF)...........................8
	5.1.2. User ENUM Lookup.....................................9		5.1.1.1. Target address analysis.........................8
	5.1.3. Carrier ENUM lookup.................................10		5.1.1.2. User ENUM Lookup................................9
	5.1.4. Routing Table.......................................10		5.1.1.3. Infrastructure ENUM lookup......................9
	5.1.5. SIP DNS Resolution..................................10		5.1.2. Location Routing Function (LRF).....................10
	5.1.6. SIP Redirect Server.................................11		5.1.2.1. Routing Table..................................10
	5.2. The Location Function (LF) of a Receiving Provider.......11		5.1.2.2. SIP DNS Resolution.............................10
	5.2.1. Publish ENUM records................................11		5.1.2.3. SIP Redirect Server............................11
	5.2.2. Publish SIP DNS records.............................11		5.1.3. The Signaling Function (SF).........................11
	5.2.3. Subscribe Notify....................................11		5.1.3.1. Establishing a Trusted Relationship............11
	5.3. Signaling Function (SF)..................................11		5.1.3.2. Sending the SIP request........................12
	5.4. The Signaling Function (SF) of an Initiating Provider....12		5.2. Terminating SSP Procedures...............................12
	5.4.1. Setup TLS connection................................12		5.2.1. The Location Function (LF)..........................12
	5.4.2. IPSec...............................................12		5.2.1.1. Publish ENUM records...........................12
	5.4.3. Co-Location.........................................12		5.2.1.2. Publish SIP DNS records........................13
	5.4.4. Send the SIP request................................12		5.2.1.3. Subscribe Notify...............................13
	5.5. The Signaling Function (SF) of an Initiating Provider....14		5.2.2. Signaling Function (SF).............................13
	5.5.1. Verify TLS connection...............................14		5.2.2.1. TLS............................................13
	5.5.2. Receive SIP requests................................14		5.2.2.2. Receive SIP requests...........................13
	5.6. Media Function (MF)......................................15		5.3. Target SSP Procedures....................................14
	5.7. Policy Considerations....................................15		5.3.1. Signaling Function (SF).............................14
	6. Call Control and Media Control Deployment Options.............16		5.3.1.1. TLS............................................14
			5.3.1.2. Receive SIP requests...........................14
			5.4. Media Function (MF)......................................14
			5.5. Policy Considerations....................................14
			6. Call Control and Media Control Deployment Options.............15
	7. Address space considerations..................................17		7. Address space considerations..................................17
	8. Security Considerations.......................................17		8. Security Considerations.......................................17
	9. IANA Considerations...........................................18		9. IANA Considerations...........................................17
	10. Acknowledgments..............................................18		10. Acknowledgments..............................................17
	11. References...................................................19		11. References...................................................18
	11.1. Normative References....................................19		11.1. Normative References....................................18
	11.2. Informative References..................................20		11.2. Informative References..................................19
	Author's Addresses...............................................21		Author's Addresses...............................................20
	Intellectual Property Statement..................................21		Intellectual Property Statement..................................20
	Disclaimer of Validity...........................................22		Disclaimer of Validity...........................................21
	1. Introduction		1. Introduction
	The objective of this document is to define a reference peering		The objective of this document is to define a reference peering
	architecture in the context of Session PEERing for Multimedia		architecture in the context of Session PEERing for Multimedia
	INTerconnect (SPEERMINT). In this process, we define the peering		INTerconnect (SPEERMINT). In this process, we define the peering
	reference architecture (reference, for short), it's functional		reference architecture (reference, for short), it's functional
	components, and peering interface functions from the perspective of		components, and peering interface functions from the perspective of
	a SIP [3] Service provider's (SSP) network.		a SIP Service provider's (SSP) network.
	This architecture allows the interconnection of two SSPs in layer 5		This architecture allows the interconnection of two SSPs in layer 5
	peering as defined in the SPEERMINT Requirements [13] and		peering as defined in the SPEERMINT Requirements [13] and
	Terminology [12] documents.		Terminology [12] documents.
	Layer 3 peering is outside the scope of this document. Hence, the		Layer 3 peering is outside the scope of this document. Hence, the
	figures in this document do not show routers so that the focus is on		figures in this document do not show routers so that the focus is on
	Layer 5 protocol aspects.		Layer 5 protocol aspects.
	This document uses terminology defined in the SPEERMINT Terminology		This document uses terminology defined in the SPEERMINT Terminology
	skipping to change at page 4, line 40		skipping to change at page 5, line 8
	The members of a federation may jointly use a set of functions such		The members of a federation may jointly use a set of functions such
	as location function, signaling function, media function, ENUM		as location function, signaling function, media function, ENUM
	database or SIP Registrar, SIP proxies, and/or functions that		database or SIP Registrar, SIP proxies, and/or functions that
	synthesize various SIP and non-SIP based applications. Similarly,		synthesize various SIP and non-SIP based applications. Similarly,
	two SSPs may jointly use a set of functions. The functions can be		two SSPs may jointly use a set of functions. The functions can be
	either public or private.		either public or private.
	+-------------------+		+-------------------+
	| |		| |
	| Public |		| Public |
			| SIP |
	| Peering |		| Peering |
	| Function |
	| |		| |
	+-------------------+		+-------------------+
	|		|
	-----		-----
	+-----------+ / \ +-----------+		+-----------+ / \ +-----------+
	|Enterprise | -- -- |Enterprise |		|Enterprise | -- -- |Enterprise |
	|Provider A |-----------/ \-----------|Provider B |		|Provider A |-----------/ \-----------|Provider B |
	+-----------+ -- -- +-----------+		+-----------+ -- -- +-----------+
	/ Public \		/ Public \
	| Internet |		| Internet |
	\ (Layer 3) /		\ (Layer 3) /
	+-----------+ -- -- +-----------+		+-----------+ -- -- +-----------+
	|Service |-----------\ /-----------|Service |		| SSP C |-----------\ /-----------| SSP D |
	|Provider C | -- -- |Provider D |		| | -- -- | |
	+-----------+ \_____/ +-----------+		+-----------+ \_____/ +-----------+
	| Layer 3 Peering		| Layer 3 Peering
	| Point (out of scope)		| Point (out of scope)
	-----		-----
	+-----------+ / \ +-----------+		+-----------+ / \ +-----------+
	|Enterprise | -- -- |Enterprise |		|Enterprise | -- -- |Enterprise |
	|Provider E |-----------/ \-----------|Provider F |		|Provider E |-----------/ \-----------|Provider F |
	+-----------+ -- Private -- +-----------+		+-----------+ -- Private -- +-----------+
	/ Network \		/ Network \
	| (Layer 3) |		| (Layer 3) |
	skipping to change at page 5, line 36		skipping to change at page 6, line 7
	| Private |		| Private |
	| SIP |		| SIP |
	| Peering |		| Peering |
	| |		| |
	+-------------------+		+-------------------+
	Figure 1: SPEERMINT Network Context		Figure 1: SPEERMINT Network Context
	3. Procedures		3. Procedures
	This document assumes that a call from a UAC end user in the		This document assumes that in order for call to be establish from a
	initiating peer's network goes through the following steps to		UAC end user in the initiating peer's network to a UAS in the
	establish a call to a UAS in the receiving peer's network:		receiving peer's network the following steps are taken:
	1. The analysis of a target address.		1. The analysis of the target address.
	a. If the target address represents an intra-SSP resource,		. If the target address represents an intra-SSP resource, the
	we go directly to step 4.		behavior is out-of-scope with respect to this draft.
	2. the discovery of the receiving peering point address,		2. the determination of the target SSP,
	3. the enforcement of authentication and potentially other		3. the determination of the SF next-hop in the target SSP,
	policies,
	4. the discovery of the UAS,		4. the enforcement of authentication and potentially other
			policies,
	5. the routing of SIP messages,		5. the determination of the UAS,
	6. the session establishment,		6. the session establishment,
	7. the transfer of media which could include voice, video, text		7. the transfer of media which could include voice, video, text
	and others,		and others,
	8. and the session termination.		8. and the session termination.
			The originating SSP would likely perform steps 1-4, and the
			terminating SSP would likely perform steps 4-5.
			In the case the target SSP is different from the terminating SSP it
			would repeat steps 1-4. This is reflected in Figure 2 that shows the
			target SSP with its own peering functions.
	4. Reference SPEERMINT Architecture		4. Reference SPEERMINT Architecture
	Figure 2 depicts the SPEERMINT architecture and logical functions		Figure 2 depicts the SPEERMINT architecture and logical functions
	that form the peering between two SSPs.		that form the peering between two SSPs.
	+------+		+------+
	| DNS, |		| DNS, |
	+---------->| Db, |<---------+		+---------->| Db, |<---------+
	| | etc | |		| | etc | |
	| +------+ |		| +------+ |
	| |		| |
	------|-------- -------|-------		------|-------- -------|-------
	/ v \ / v \		/ v \ / v \
	| +--LUF-+ | | +--LUF-+ |		| +--LUF-+ | | +--LUF-+ |
	| | | | | | | |		| | | | | | | |
	| | | | | | | |		| | | | | | | |
	| | | | | | | |		| | | | | | | |
	| +------+ | | +------+ |		| +------+ | | +------+ |
	| | | | | |		| | | |
	| | | | | |
	| v | | v |
	| +--LRF-+ | | +--LRF-+ |		| +--LRF-+ | | +--LRF-+ |
	| | | | | | | |		| | | | | | | |
	| | | | | | | |		| | | | | | | |
	| | | | | | | |		| | | | | | | |
	| +------+ | | +------+ |		| +------+ | | +------+ |
	| \ | | / |		| | | |
	| `. | | / |		| | | |
	| \ | | .' |		| +---SF--+ +---SF--+ |
	| `. +---SF--+ +---SF--+ / |		| | | | | |
	| \| | | | / |
	| | SBE | | SBE | |		| | SBE | | SBE | |
	| Originating | | | | Target |		| Originating | | | | Target |
	| +---SF--+ +---SF--+ |		| +---SF--+ +---SF--+ |
	| SSP | | SSP |		| SSP | | SSP |
	| +---MF--+ +---MF--+ |		| +---MF--+ +---MF--+ |
	| | | | | |		| | | | | |
	| | DBE | | DBE | |		| | DBE | | DBE | |
	| | | | | |		| | | | | |
	| +---MF--+ +---MF--+ |		| +---MF--+ +---MF--+ |
	\ / \ /		\ / \ /
	--------------- ---------------		--------------- ---------------
	Figure 2: Reference SPEERMINT Architecture		Figure 2: Reference SPEERMINT Architecture
	The procedures presented in Chapter 3 are implemented by a set of		The procedures presented in section 3 are implemented by a set of
	peering functions:		peering functions:
	The Look-Up Function (LUF) provides a mechanism for determining for		The Look-Up Function (LUF) provides a mechanism for determining for
	a given request the target domain to which the request should be		a given request the target domain to which the request should be
	routed.		routed.
	The Location Routing Function (LRF) determines for the target domain		The Location Routing Function (LRF) determines for the target domain
	of a given request the location of the SF in that domain and		of a given request the location of the SF in that domain and
	optionally develops other SED required to route the request to that		optionally develops other Session Establishment Data (SED) required
	domain.		to route the request to that domain.
	Location Function (LF): The Location functions is composed of the
	LUF and LRF functions
	Signaling Function (SF): Purpose is to perform SIP call routing, to		Signaling Function (SF): Purpose is to perform SIP call routing, to
	optionally perform termination and re-initiation of call, to		optionally perform termination and re-initiation of call, to
	optionally implement security and policies on SIP messages, and to		optionally implement security and policies on SIP messages, and to
	assist in discovery/exchange of parameters to be used by the Media		assist in discovery/exchange of parameters to be used by the Media
	Function (MF).		Function (MF).
	Media Function (MF): Purpose is to perform media related function		Media Function (MF): Purpose is to perform media related function
	such as media transcoding and media security implementation between		such as media transcoding and media security implementation between
	two SIP providers.		two SIP providers.
	The intention of defining these functions is to provide a framework		The intention of defining these functions is to provide a framework
	for design segmentation and allow each one to evolve independently.		for design segmentation and allow each one to evolve independently.
	5. Peer Function Examples		5. Recommended SSP Procedures
	This section describes the functions in more detail and provides		This section describes the functions in more detail and provides
	some examples on the role they would play in a SIP call in a Layer 5		some recommendations on the role they would play in a SIP call in a
	peering scenario.		Layer 5 peering scenario.
	Some of the information in the chapter is taken from [14] and is put		Some of the information in the chapter is taken from [14] and is put
	here for continuity purposes.		here for continuity purposes.
	5.1. The Location Function (LF) of an Initiating Provider		5.1. Originating SSP Procedures
			5.1.1. The Look-Up Function (LUF)
	Purpose is to determine the SF of the target domain of a given		Purpose is to determine the SF of the target domain of a given
	request and optionally develop Session Establishment Data (SED)		request and optionally develop Session Establishment Data (SED)
	[12]. The LF of an Initiating SSP analyzes target address and		[12].
	discovers the next hop signaling function (SF) in a peering
	relationship using the Look-Up Function. The resource to determine		5.1.1.1. Target address analysis
	the SF of the target domain might be provided by a third-party as in
	the assisted-peering case.
	5.1.1. Target address analysis
	When the initiating SSP receives a request to communicate, it		When the initiating SSP receives a request to communicate, it
	analyzes the target state data to determine whether the call needs		analyzes the target URI to determine whether the call needs to be
	to be terminated internal or external to its network. The analysis		terminated internally or externally to its network. The analysis
	method is internal to the SSP; thus, outside the scope of SPEERMINT.		method is internal to the SSP; thus, outside the scope of SPEERMINT.
	Note that the SSP is free to consult any manner of private data		Note that the SSP is free to consult any manner of private data
	sources to make this determination.		sources to make this determination.
	If the target address does not represent a resource inside the		If the target address does not represent a resource inside the
	initiating SSP's administrative domain or federation of domains, the		initiating SSP's administrative domain or federation of domains, the
	initiating SSP resolves the call routing data by using the Location		initiating SSP resolves the call routing data by using the Location
	Function (LF).		Routing Function (LRF).
	If the request to communicate is for an im: or pres: URI type, the		For example, if the request to communicate is for an im: or pres:
	initiating peer follows the procedures in [8]. If the highest		URI type, the initiating peer follows the procedures in [8]. If the
	priority supported URI scheme is sip: or sips:, the initiating peer		highest priority supported URI scheme is sip: or sips:, the
	skips to SIP DNS resolution in Section 5.1.5. Likewise, if the		initiating peer skips to SIP DNS resolution in Section 5.1.3.
	target address is already a sip: or sips: URI in an external domain,		Likewise, if the target address is already a sip: or sips: URI in an
	the initiating peer skips to SIP DNS resolution in Section 5.1.5.		external domain, the initiating peer skips to SIP DNS resolution in
			Section 5.1.2.2.
	If the target address corresponds to a specific E.164 address, the		If the target address corresponds to a specific E.164 address, the
	peer may need to perform some form of number plan mapping according		peer may need to perform some form of number plan mapping according
	to local policy. For example, in the United States, a dial string		to local policy. For example, in the United States, a dial string
	beginning "011 44" could be converted to "+44", or in the United		beginning "011 44" could be converted to "+44", or in the United
	Kingdom "00 1" could be converted to "+1". Once the peer has an		Kingdom "00 1" could be converted to "+1". Once the peer has an
	E.164 address, it can use ENUM.		E.164 address, it can use ENUM.
	5.1.2. User ENUM Lookup		5.1.1.2. User ENUM Lookup
	If an external E.164 address is the target, the initiating peer		If an external E.164 address is the target, the initiating peer
	consults the public "User ENUM" rooted at e164.arpa, according to		consults the public "User ENUM" rooted at e164.arpa, according to
	the procedures described in RFC 3761. The peer MUST query for the		the procedures described in RFC 3761. The peer must query for the
	"E2U+sip" enumservice as described in RFC 3764 [11], but MAY check		"E2U+sip" enumservice as described in RFC 3764 [11], but MAY check
	for other enumservices. The initiating peer MAY consult a cache or		for other enumservices. The initiating peer MAY consult a cache or
	alternate representation of the ENUM data rather than actual DNS		alternate representation of the ENUM data rather than actual DNS
	queries. Also, the peer MAY skip actual DNS queries if the		queries. Also, the peer may skip actual DNS queries if the
	initiating peer is sure that the target address country code is not		initiating peer is sure that the target address country code is not
	represented in e164.arpa. If a sip: or sips: URI is chosen the peer		represented in e164.arpa. If a sip: or sips: URI is chosen the peer
	skips to Section 5.1.5.		skips to Section 5.1.6.
	If an im: or pres: URI is chosen for based on an "E2U+im" [10] or		If an im: or pres: URI is retrieved based on an "E2U+im" [10] or
	"E2U+pres" [9] enumserver, the peer follows the procedures for		"E2U+pres" [9] enumserver, the peer follows the procedures for
	resolving these URIs to URIs for specific protocols such a SIP or		resolving these URIs to URIs for specific protocols such a SIP or
	XMPP as described in the previous section.		XMPP as described in the previous section.
	5.1.3. Infrastructure ENUM lookup		5.1.1.3. Infrastructure ENUM lookup
	Next the initiating peer checks for a carrier-of-record in a carrier		Next the initiating peer checks for a carrier-of-record in a carrier
	ENUM domain according to the procedures described in [12]. As in		ENUM domain according to the procedures described in [12]. As in
	the previous step, the peer MAY consult a cache or alternate		the previous step, the peer may consult a cache or alternate
	representation of the ENUM data in lieu of actual DNS queries. The		representation of the ENUM data in lieu of actual DNS queries. The
	peer first checks for records for the "E2U+sip" enumservice, then		peer first checks for records for the "E2U+sip" enumservice, then
	for the "E2U+pstn" enumservice as defined in [21]. If a terminal		for the "E2U+pstn" enumservice as defined in [21]. If a terminal
	record is found with a sip: or sips: URI, the peer skips to Section		record is found with a sip: or sips: URI, the peer skips to Section
	5.1.5, otherwise the peer continues processing according to the next		5.1.2.2. , otherwise the peer continues processing according to the
	section.		next section.
	5.1.4. Routing Table		5.1.2. Location Routing Function (LRF)
			The LRF of an Initiating SSP analyzes target address and discovers
			the next hop signaling function (SF) in a peering relationship. The
			resource to determine the SF of the target domain might be provided
			by a third-party as in the assisted-peering case.
			5.1.2.1. Routing Table
	If there is no user ENUM records and the initiating peer cannot		If there is no user ENUM records and the initiating peer cannot
	discover the carrier-of-record or if the initiating peer cannot		discover the carrier-of-record or if the initiating peer cannot
	reach the carrier-of-record via SIP peering, the initiating peer		reach the carrier-of-record via SIP peering, the initiating peer
	still needs to deliver the call to the PSTN or reject it. Note that		still needs to deliver the call to the PSTN or reject it. Note that
	the initiating peer MAY still forward the call to another SSP for		the initiating peer may still forward the call to another SSP for
	PSTN gateway termination by prior arrangement using the routing		PSTN gateway termination by prior arrangement using the routing
	table.		table.
	If so, the initiating peer rewrites the Request-URI to address the		If so, the initiating peer may rewrite the Request-URI to address
	gateway resource in the target SSP's domain and MAY forward the		the gateway resource in the target SSP's domain and may forward the
	request on to that SSP using the procedures described in the		request on to that SSP using the procedures described in the
	remainder of these steps.		remainder of these steps.
	5.1.5. SIP DNS Resolution		Alternatively to Request-URI re-writing, the initiating peer may
			populate the Route header with the address of the gateway resource
			in the target SSP's domain and forward the request on to that SSP
			using the procedures described in the remainder of these steps, but
			applied to the Route header.
			5.1.2.2. SIP DNS Resolution
	Once a sip: or sips: in an external domain is selected as the		Once a sip: or sips: in an external domain is selected as the
	target, the initiating peer MAY apply local policy to decide whether		target, the initiating peer may apply local policy to decide whether
	forwarding requests to the target domain is acceptable. If so, the		forwarding requests to the target domain is acceptable. If so, the
	initiating peer uses the procedures in RFC 3263 [4] Section 4 to		initiating peer uses the procedures in RFC 3263 [4] Section 4 to
	determine how to contact the receiving peer. To summarize the RFC		determine how to contact the receiving peer. To summarize the RFC
	3263 procedure: unless these are explicitly encoded in the target		3263 procedure: unless these are explicitly encoded in the target
	URI, a transport is chosen using NAPTR records, a port is chosen		URI, a transport is chosen using NAPTR records, a port is chosen
	using SRV records, and an address is chosen using A or AAAA records.		using SRV records, and an address is chosen using A or AAAA records.
	Note that these are queries of records in the global DNS.		Note that these are queries of records in the global DNS.
	When communicating with a public external peer, entities compliant		When communicating with another SSP, entities compliant to this
	to this document MUST only select a TLS-protected transport for		document should select a TLS-protected transport for communication
	communication from the initiating peer to the receiving peer. Note		from the initiating peer to the receiving peer if available. Note
	that this is a single-hop requirement. Either peer MAY insist on		that this is a single-hop requirement.
	using a sips: URI which asserts that each hop is TLS-protected, but
	this document does not require protection over each hop.
	5.1.6. SIP Redirect Server
	A SIP Redirect Server may help in resolving the current address of a
	UAS.
	5.2. The Location Function (LF) of a Receiving Provider
	5.2.1. Publish ENUM records
	The receiving peer SHOULD participate by publishing "E2U+sip" and
	"E2U+pstn" records with sip: or sips: URIs wherever a public carrier
	ENUM root is available. This assumes that the receiving peer wants
	to peer by default. When the receiving peer does not want to accept
	traffic from specific initiating peers, it MAY still reject requests
	on a call-by-call basis.
	5.2.2. Publish SIP DNS records
	To receive peer requests, the receiving peer MUST insure that it
	publishes appropriate NAPTR, SRV, and address (A and/or AAAA)
	records in the LF relevant to the peer's SF.
	5.2.3. Subscribe Notify		5.1.2.3. SIP Redirect Server
	Policies function may also be optionally implemented by dynamic		A SIP Redirect Server may help in resolving the current address of
	subscribe, notify, and exchange of policy information and feature		the next-hop SF in the target domain.
	information among SSPs [22].
	5.3. Signaling Function (SF)		5.1.3. The Signaling Function (SF)
	The purpose of signaling function is to perform routing of SIP		The purpose of signaling function is to perform routing of SIP
	messages, to optionally perform termination and re-initiation of a		messages, to optionally perform termination and re-initiation of a
	call, to optionally implement security and policies on SIP messages,		call, to optionally implement security and policies on SIP messages,
	and to assist in discovery/exchange of parameters to be used by the		and to assist in discovery/exchange of parameters to be used by the
	Media Function (MF).		Media Function (MF).
	The signaling function perform the routing of SIP messages. The		The signaling function performs the routing of SIP messages. The
	optional termination and re-initiation of calls are performed by the		optional termination and re-initiation of calls are performed by the
	signaling path border element (SBE).		signaling path border element (SBE).
	Optionally, a SF may perform additional functions such as Session		Optionally, a SF may perform additional functions such as Session
	Admission Control, SIP Denial of Service protection, SIP Topology		Admission Control, SIP Denial of Service protection, SIP Topology
	Hiding, SIP header normalization, and SIP security, privacy and		Hiding, SIP header normalization, and SIP security, privacy and
	encryption.		encryption.
	The SF can also process SDP payloads for media information such as		The SF can also process SDP payloads for media information such as
	media type, bandwidth, and type of codec; then, communicate this		media type, bandwidth, and type of codec; then, communicate this
	information to the media function. Signaling function may optionally		information to the media function. Signaling function may optionally
	communicate with the network to pass Layer 3 related policies [10]		communicate with the network to pass Layer 3 related policies [10]
	5.4. The Signaling Function (SF) of an Initiating Provider		5.1.3.1. Establishing a Trusted Relationship
	5.4.1. Setup TLS connection		Depending on the security needs and trust relationship between SSPs,
			different security mechanism can be used to establish SIP calls.
			These are discussed in the following subsections.
			5.1.3.1.1. TLS connection
	Once a transport, port, and address are found, the initiating SSP		Once a transport, port, and address are found, the initiating SSP
	will open or find a reusable TLS connection to the peer. The		will open or find a reusable TLS connection to the peer. The
	initiating provider MUST verify the server certificate that SHOULD		procedures to authenticate the SSP's target domain is specified in
	be rooted in a well-known certificate authority. The initiating SSP		[24]
	MUST be prepared to provide a TLS client certificate upon request
	during the TLS handshake. The client certificate MUST contain a DNS
	or URI choice type in the subjectAltName which corresponds to the
	domain asserted in the host production of the From header URI. The
	certificate SHOULD be valid and rooted in a well-known certificate
	authority.
	Note that the client certificate MAY contain a list of entries in
	the subjectAltName, only one of which has to match the domain in the
	From header URI.
	5.4.2. IPSec		5.1.3.1.2. IPSec
	In certain deployments the use of IPSec between the signaling		In certain deployments, the use of IPSec between the signaling
	functions of the originating and terminating domains can be used as		functions of the originating and terminating domains can be used as
	a security mechanism instead of TLS.		a security mechanism instead of TLS.
	5.4.3. Co-Location		5.1.3.1.3. Co-Location
	In this scenario the SFs are co-located in a		In this scenario, the SFs are co-located in a physically secure
	physically secure location and/or are members of a segregated		location and/or are members of a segregated network. In this case
	network. In this case messages between the originating and		messages between the originating and terminating SSPs would be sent
	terminating SSPs would be sent as clear text.		as clear text.
	5.4.4. Send the SIP request		5.1.3.2. Sending the SIP request
	Once a TLS connection between the peers is established, the		Once a trust relationship between the peers is established, the
	initiating peer sends the request. When sending some requests, the		initiating peer sends the request.
	initiating peer MUST verify and assert the senders identity using
	the SIP Identity mechanism.
	The domain name in the URI of the From: header MUST be a domain		5.1.3.2.1. TLS
	which was present in the certificate provided when establishing the
	TLS connection for this request, even if the user part has an
	anonymous value. If the From header contains the user URI parameter
	with the value of "phone", the user part of the From header URI MUST
	be a complete and valid tel: URI [9] telephone-subscriber
	production, and SHOULD be a global-number. For example, the
	following are all acceptable and the first three are encouraged:
	From: "John Doe" john.doe@example.net		If the trust relationship was established through TLS, the
			initiating peer can optionally verify and assert the sender's
			identity using the SIP Identity mechanism.
	From: "+12125551212" <+12125551212@example.net;user=phone>		In addition, new requests should contain a valid Identity and
			Identity-Info header as described in [12]. The Identity-Info header
			must present a domain name that is represented in the certificate
			provided when establishing the TLS connection over which the request
			is sent. The initiating peer should include an Identity header on
			in-dialog requests as well if the From header field value matches an
			identity the initiating peer is willing to assert.
	From: "Anonymous" <anonymous@example.net>		5.2. Terminating SSP Procedures
	From: <4092;phone-context=+12125554000@example.net;user=phone>		5.2.1. The Location Function (LF)
	From: "5551212" <5551212@example.net>		5.2.1.1. Publish ENUM records
	The following are not acceptable:		The receiving peer should publish "E2U+SIP" and "E2U+pstn" records
			with sip: or sips: URIs wherever a public carrier ENUM root is
			available. In the event that a public root is not available, a
			publishing to a common ENUM registry with the originating peer will
			suffice.
	From: "2125551212" <2125551212@example.net;user=phone>		This assumes that the receiving peer wants to peer by default. When
			the receiving peer does not want to accept traffic from specific
			initiating peers, it may still reject requests on a call-by-call
			basis.
	From: "Anonymous" <anonymous@anonymous.invalid>		5.2.1.2. Publish SIP DNS records
	In addition, new requests MUST contain a valid Identity and		To receive peer requests, the receiving peer must ensure that it
	Identity-Info header as described in [12]. The Identity-Info header		publishes appropriate NAPTR, SRV, and address (A and/or AAAA)
	must present a domain name that is represented in the certificate		records in the LF relevant to the originating peer's SF.
	provided when establishing the TLS connection over which the request
	is sent. The initiating peer SHOULD include an Identity header on
	in-dialog requests as well, if the From header field value matches
	an identity the initiating peer is willing to assert.
	The initiating peer MAY include any SIP option-tags in Supported,		5.2.1.3. Subscribe Notify
	Require, or Proxy-Require headers according to procedures in
	standards-track SIP extensions. Note however that the initiating
	peer MUST be prepared to fallback to baseline SIP functionality as
	defined by the mandatory-to-implement features of RFC 3261, RFC
	3263,and RFC 3264 [7], except that peers implementing this
	specification MUST implement SIP over TLS using the sip: URI scheme,
	the SIP Identity header, and RFC 4320 [10] non-INVITE transaction
	fixes.
	5.5. The Signaling Function (SF) of an Target Provider		A policy notification function may also be optionally implemented by
			dynamic subscribe, notify, and exchange of policy information and
			feature information among SSPs [21].
	5.5.1. Verify TLS connection		5.2.2. Signaling Function (SF)
	When the receiving peer receives a TLS client hello, it responds		5.2.2.1. TLS
	with its certificate. The receiving peer certificate SHOULD be
	valid and rooted in a well-known certificate authority. The
	receiving peer MUST request and verify the client certificate during
	the TLS handshake.
	Once the initiating peer has been authenticated, the receiving peer		When the receiving peer receives a TLS client hello, it responds
	can authorize communication from this peer based on the domain name		with its certificate. The target SSP certificate should be valid
	of the peer and the root of its certificate. This allows two		and rooted in a well-known certificate authority. The procedures to
	authorization models to be used, together or separately. In the		authenticate the SSP's originating domain are specified in [24].
	domain-based model, the receiving peer can allow communication from
	peers with some trusted administrative domains that use general-
	purpose certificate authorities, without explicitly permitting all
	domains with certificates rooted in the same authority. It also
	allows a certificate authority (CA) based model where every domain
	with a valid certificate rooted in some list of CAs is automatically
	authorized.
	5.5.2. Receive SIP requests		The terminating SF verifies that the Identity header is valid,
			corresponds to the message, corresponds to the Identity-Info header,
			and that the domain in the From header corresponds to one of the
			domains in the TLS client certificate.
	Once a TLS connection is established, the receiving peer is prepared		5.2.2.2. Receive SIP requests
	to receive incoming SIP requests. For new requests (dialog forming
	or not) the receiving peer verifies that the target (request-URI) is
	a domain that for which it is responsible. For these requests, there
	should be no remaining Route header field values. Next the receiving
	verifies that the Identity header is valid, corresponds to the
	message, and corresponds to the Identity-Info header, and that the
	domain in the From header corresponds to one of the domains in the
	TLS client certificate.
			Once a trust relationship is established, the receiving peer is
			prepared to receive incoming SIP requests. For new requests (dialog
			forming or not) the receiving peer verifies if the target (request-
			URI) is a domain that for which it is responsible. For these
			requests, there should be no remaining Route header field values.
	For in-dialog requests, the receiving peer can verify that it		For in-dialog requests, the receiving peer can verify that it
	corresponds to the top-most Route header field value. The peer also		corresponds to the top-most Route header field value.
	validates any Identity header if present.
	The receiving peer MAY reject incoming requests due to local policy.		The receiving peer may reject incoming requests due to local policy.
	When a request is rejected because the initiating peer is not		When a request is rejected because the initiating peer is not
	authorized to peer, the receiving peer SHOULD respond with a 403		authorized to peer, the receiving peer should respond with a 403
	response with the reason phrase "Unsupported Peer".		response with the reason phrase "Unsupported Peer".
	5.6. Media Function (MF)		5.3. Target SSP Procedures
			5.3.1. Signaling Function (SF)
			5.3.1.1. TLS
			When the receiving peer receives a TLS client hello, it responds
			with its certificate. The target SSP certificate should be valid
			and rooted in a well-known certificate authority. The procedures to
			authenticate the SSP's originating domain are specified in [24].
			If the requests should contain a valid Identity and Identity-Info
			header as described in [12] the target SF verifies that the Identity
			header is valid, corresponds to the message, corresponds to the
			Identity-Info header, and that the domain in the From header
			corresponds to one of the domains in the TLS client certificate.
			5.3.1.2. Receive SIP requests
			The procedures of the SF of the target SSP are the same as the ones
			described in section 5.2.2.2 with the addition that it might
			establish a connection to another target SSP, and in this case use
			the procedures recommended to an originating SSP (section 5.1).
			5.4. Media Function (MF)
	The purpose of the MF is to perform media related functions such as		The purpose of the MF is to perform media related functions such as
	media transcoding and media security implementation between two		media transcoding and media security implementation between two
	SSPs.		SSPs.
	An Example of this is to transform a voice payload from one codec		An Example of this is to transform a voice payload from one codec
	(e.g., G.711) to another (e.g., EvRC). Additionally, the MF MAY		(e.g., G.711) to another (e.g., EvRC). Additionally, the MF may
	perform media relaying, media security, privacy, and encryption.		perform media relaying, media security, privacy, and encryption.
	5.7. Policy Considerations		5.5. Policy Considerations
	In the context of the SPEERMINT working group when two SSPs peer,		In the context of the SPEERMINT working group when two SSPs peer,
	there MAY be a desire to exchange peering policy information		there MAY be a desire to exchange peering policy information
	dynamically. There are specifications in progress in the SIPPING		dynamically. There are specifications in progress in the SIPPING
	working group to define policy exchange between an UA and a domain		working group to define policy exchange between an UA and a domain
	[23] and providing profile data to SIP user agents [24] These		[23] and providing profile data to SIP user agents [24] These
	considerations borrow from both.		considerations borrow from both.
	Following the terminology introduced in [12], this package uses the		Following the terminology introduced in [12], this package uses the
	terms Peering Session-Independent and Session-Specific policies in		terms Peering Session-Independent and Session-Specific policies in
	skipping to change at page 15, line 40		skipping to change at page 15, line 17
	amongst others. The time period between Peering Session-		amongst others. The time period between Peering Session-
	Independent policy changes is much greater than the time it		Independent policy changes is much greater than the time it
	takes to establish a call.		takes to establish a call.
	o Peering Session-Specific polices includes supported		o Peering Session-Specific polices includes supported
	connection/call rate, total number of connections/calls		connection/call rate, total number of connections/calls
	available, current utilization, amongst others. Peering		available, current utilization, amongst others. Peering
	Session-specific policies can change within the time it takes		Session-specific policies can change within the time it takes
	to establish a call.		to establish a call.
	These policies can be Peer dependent or independent, creating the		Likewise, but orthogonal to session dependency, an SSP may have
	following peering policy tree definition:		policies that may be peer-dependent or peer-independent. That is,
			the session-dependent and session-independent policies may by
	o Peer Independent		further sub-divided and modified by additional controls that depend
	Session dependent		on which peer SSP or federation with which communications is being
	Session independent		established.
	o Peer Dependent
	Session dependent
	Session independent
	6. Call Control and Media Control Deployment Options		6. Call Control and Media Control Deployment Options
	The peering functions can either be deployed along the following two		The peering functions can be deployed along the following two
	dimensions depending upon how the signaling function and the media		dimensions depending upon how the signaling and the media functions
	function along with IP functions are implemented:		along with IP layer are implemented:
	Composed or Decomposed: Addresses the question whether the media		Composed or Decomposed: Addresses the question whether the media
	must flow through the same physical and geographic elements as SIP		must flow through the same physical and geographic elements as SIP
	dialogs and sessions.		dialogs and sessions.
	Centralized or Distributed: Addresses the question whether the		Centralized or Distributed: Addresses the question whether the
	logical and physical peering points are in one geographical location		logical and physical interconnections are in one geographical
	or distributed to multiple physical locations on the SSP's network.		location or distributed to multiple physical locations on the SSP's
			network.
	In a composed model, SF and MF functions are implemented in one		In a composed model, SF and MF functions are implemented in one
	peering logical element.		peering logical element.
	Provider A Provider B		Provider A Provider B
	---------- . . ----------		---------- . . ----------
	/ \ . . / \		/ \ . . / \
	| | . _ . | |		| | . _ . | |
	| +----+ . / \_ . +----+ |		| +----+ . / \_ . +----+ |
	| | SF |<-----/ \------| SF | |		| | SF |<-----/ \------| SF | |
	skipping to change at page 17, line 15		skipping to change at page 16, line 39
	scalability.		scalability.
	In a decomposed model, SF and MF are implemented in separate peering		In a decomposed model, SF and MF are implemented in separate peering
	logical elements. SFs are implemented in a proxy and MFs are		logical elements. SFs are implemented in a proxy and MFs are
	implemented in another logical element. The scaling of signaling		implemented in another logical element. The scaling of signaling
	versus scaling of media may differ between applications.		versus scaling of media may differ between applications.
	Decomposing allows each to follow a separate migration path.		Decomposing allows each to follow a separate migration path.
	This model allows the implementation of M:N model where one SF is		This model allows the implementation of M:N model where one SF is
	associated with multiple peering MF and one peering MF is associated		associated with multiple peering MF and one peering MF is associated
	with multiple peering proxies. Generally, a vertical protocol		with multiple SFs. Generally, a vertical protocol associates the
	associates the relationship between a SF and a MF. This architecture		relationship between a SF and a MF. This architecture reduces the
	reduces the potential of a single point of failure. It allows		potential of a single point of failure. It allows separation of the
	separation of the policy decision point and the policy enforcement		policy decision point and the policy enforcement point. An example
	point. An example of disadvantages is the scaling complexity because		of disadvantages is the scaling complexity because of the M:N
	of the M:N relationship and latency due to the vertical control		relationship and latency due to the vertical control messages
	messages between entities.		between entities.
	7. Address space considerations		7. Address space considerations
	Peering must occur in a common address space, which is defined by		Peering must occur in a common IP address space, which is defined by
	the federation, which may be entirely on the public Internet, or		the federation, which may be entirely on the public Internet, or
	some private address space. The origination or termination networks		some private address space. The origination or termination networks
	may or may not entirely be in that same address space. If they are		may or may not entirely be in the same address space. If they are
	not, then a network address translation (NAT) or similar may be		not, then a network address translation (NAT) or similar function
	needed before the signaling or media is presented correctly to the		may be needed before the signaling or media is presented correctly
	federation. The only requirement is that all associated entities		to the federation. The only requirement is that all associated
	across the peering interface are reachable.		entities across the peering interface are reachable.
	8. Security Considerations		8. Security Considerations
	In all cases, cryptographic-based security should be maintained as		In all cases, cryptographic-based security should be maintained as
	an optional requirement between peering providers conditioned on the		an optional requirement between peering providers conditioned on the
	presence or absence of underlying physical security of peer		presence or absence of underlying physical security of peer
	connections, e.g. within the same secure physical building.		connections, e.g. within the same secure physical building.
	In order to maintain a consistent approach, unique and specialized		In order to maintain a consistent approach, unique and specialized
	security requirements common for the majority of peering		security requirements common for the majority of peering
	skipping to change at page 18, line 16		skipping to change at page 17, line 40
	9. IANA Considerations		9. IANA Considerations
	There are no IANA considerations at this time.		There are no IANA considerations at this time.
	10. Acknowledgments		10. Acknowledgments
	The working group thanks Sohel Khan for his initial architecture		The working group thanks Sohel Khan for his initial architecture
	draft that helped to initiate work on this draft.		draft that helped to initiate work on this draft.
	A significant portion of this draft is taken from [14] with		A portion of this draft is taken from [14] with permission from the
	permission from the author R. Mahy. The other important contributor		author R. Mahy. The other important contributor is Otmar Lendl.
	is Otmar Lendl.
	11. References		References
	11.1. Normative References		10.1. Normative References
	[1] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate		[1] 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.
	[2] Mealling, M. and R. Daniel, "The Naming Authority Pointer		[2] Mealling, M. and R. Daniel, "The Naming Authority Pointer
	(NAPTR) DNS Resource Record", RFC 2915, September 2000.		(NAPTR) DNS Resource Record", RFC 2915, September 2000.
	[3] Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., Camarillo, G., Johnston, A.,		[3] Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., Camarillo, G., Johnston, A.,
	Peterson, J., Sparks, R., Handley, M., and E. Schooler, "SIP:		Peterson, J., Sparks, R., Handley, M., and E. Schooler, "SIP:
	Session Initiation Protocol", RFC 3261, June 2002.		Session Initiation Protocol", RFC 3261, June 2002.
	skipping to change at page 20, line 5		skipping to change at page 19, line 5
	Services and Protocols for Advanced Networking (TISPAN); Gate		Services and Protocols for Advanced Networking (TISPAN); Gate
	control protocol".		control protocol".
	[11] Peterson, J., "enumservice registration for Session Initiation		[11] Peterson, J., "enumservice registration for Session Initiation
	Protocol (SIP) Addresses-of-Record", RFC 3764, April 2004.		Protocol (SIP) Addresses-of-Record", RFC 3764, April 2004.
	[12] Livingood, J. and R. Shockey, "IANA Registration for an		[12] Livingood, J. and R. Shockey, "IANA Registration for an
	Enumservice Containing PSTN Signaling Information", RFC 4769,		Enumservice Containing PSTN Signaling Information", RFC 4769,
	November 2006.		November 2006.
	11.2. Informative References		10.2. Informative References
	[13] Malas, D., "SPEERMINT Terminology", draft-ietf-speermint-		[13] Malas, D., "SPEERMINT Terminology", draft-ietf-speermint-
	terminology-16 (work in progress), February 2008.		terminology-16 (work in progress), February 2008.
	[14] Mule, J-F., "SPEERMINT Requirements for SIP-based VoIP		[14] Mule, J-F., "SPEERMINT Requirements for SIP-based VoIP
	Interconnection", draft-ietf-speermint-requirements-03.txt,		Interconnection", draft-ietf-speermint-requirements-04.txt,
	November 2007.		February 2008.
	[15] Mahy, R., "A Minimalist Approach to Direct Peering", draft-		[15] Mahy, R., "A Minimalist Approach to Direct Peering", draft-
	mahy-speermint-direct-peering-02.txt, July 2007.		mahy-speermint-direct-peering-02.txt, July 2007.
	[16] Penno, R., et al., "SPEERMINT Routing Architecture Message		[16] Penno, R., et al., "SPEERMINT Routing Architecture Message
	Flows", draft-ietf-speermint-flows-02.txt", April 2007.		Flows", draft-ietf-speermint-flows-02.txt", April 2007.
	[17] Houri, A., et al., "RTC Provisioning Requirements", draft-		[17] Houri, A., et al., "RTC Provisioning Requirements", draft-
	houri-speermint-rtc-provisioning-reqs-00.txt, June, 2006.		houri-speermint-rtc-provisioning-reqs-00.txt, June, 2006.
	[18] Habler, M., et al., "A Federation based VOIP Peering		[18] Habler, M., et al., "A Federation based VOIP Peering
	Architecture", draft-lendl-speermint-federations-03.txt,		Architecture", draft-lendl-speermint-federations-03.txt,
	September 2006.		September 2006.
	[19] Mahy, R., "A Telephone Number Mapping (ENUM) Service		[19] Mahy, R., "A Telephone Number Mapping (ENUM) Service
	Registration for Instant Messaging (IM) Services", RFC 5028		Registration for Instant Messaging (IM) Services", draft-ietf-
			enum-im-service-03 (work in progress), March 2006.
	[20] Haberler, M. and R. Stastny, "Combined User and Carrier ENUM		[20] Haberler, M. and R. Stastny, "Combined User and Carrier ENUM
	in the e164.arpa tree", draft-haberler-carrier-enum-03 (work		in the e164.arpa tree", draft-haberler-carrier-enum-03 (work
	in progress), March 2006.		in progress), March 2006.
	[21] Penno, R., Malas D., and Melampy, P., "A Session Initiation		[21] Penno, R., Malas D., and Melampy, P., "A Session Initiation
	Protocol (SIP) Event package for Peering", draft-penno-		Protocol (SIP) Event package for Peering", draft-penno-
	sipping-peering-package-01 (work in progress), September 2006.		sipping-peering-package-00 (work in progress), September 2006.
	[22] Hollander, D., Bray, T., and A. Layman, "Namespaces in XML",		[22] Hollander, D., Bray, T., and A. Layman, "Namespaces in XML",
	W3C REC REC-xml-names-19990114, January 1999.		W3C REC REC-xml-names-19990114, January 1999.
	[23] Burger, E (Ed.), "A Mechanism for Content Indirection in		[23] Burger, E (Ed.), "A Mechanism for Content Indirection in
	Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Messages", RFC 4483, May		Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Messages", RFC 4483, May
	2006		2006
			[24] Gurbani, V., Lawrence, S., and B. Laboratories, "Domain
			Certificates in the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)", draft-
			ietf-sip-domain-certs-00 (work in progress), November 2007.
	Author's Addresses		Author's Addresses
			Reinaldo Penno (Editor)
			Juniper Networks
			1194 N Mathilda Avenue
			Sunnyvale, CA
			USA
			Email: rpenno@juniper.net
	Mike Hammer		Mike Hammer
	Cisco Systems		Cisco Systems
	13615 Dulles Technology Drive		13615 Dulles Technology Drive
	Herndon, VA 20171		Herndon, VA 20171
	USA		USA
	Email: mhammer@cisco.com		Email: mhammer@cisco.com
	Sohel Khan, Ph.D.		Sohel Khan, Ph.D.
	Comcast Cable Communications		Comcast Cable Communications
	U.S.A		U.S.A
	Email: sohel_khan@cable.comcast.com		Email: sohel_khan@cable.comcast.com
	Daryl Malas		Daryl Malas
	Level 3 Communications LLC		CableLabs
	1025 Eldorado Blvd.		858 Coal Creek Circle
	Broomfield, CO 80021		Louisville, CO 80027
	USA		Email: d.malas@cablelabs.com
	EMail: daryl.malas@level3.com
	Reinaldo Penno (Editor)
	Juniper Networks
	1194 N Mathilda Avenue
	Sunnyvale, CA
	USA
	Email: rpenno@juniper.net
	Adam Uzelac		Adam Uzelac
	Global Crossing		Global Crossing
	1120 Pittsford Victor Road		1120 Pittsford Victor Road
	PITTSFORD, NY 14534		PITTSFORD, NY 14534
	USA		USA
	Email: adam.uzelac@globalcrossing.com		Email: adam.uzelac@globalcrossing.com
	Intellectual Property Statement		Intellectual Property Statement
End of changes. 98 change blocks.
	279 lines changed or deleted		277 lines changed or added
This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.34. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/