draft-ietf-speermint-architecture-11.txt   draft-ietf-speermint-architecture-12.txt 
SPEERMINT D. Malas, Ed. SPEERMINT D. Malas, Ed.
Internet-Draft CableLabs Internet-Draft CableLabs
Intended status: Informational J. Livingood, Ed. Intended status: Informational J. Livingood, Ed.
Expires: March 3, 2011 Comcast Expires: April 25, 2011 Comcast
August 30, 2010 October 22, 2010
SPEERMINT Peering Architecture SPEERMINT Peering Architecture
draft-ietf-speermint-architecture-11 draft-ietf-speermint-architecture-12
Abstract Abstract
This document defines a peering architecture for the Session This document defines a peering architecture for the Session
Initiation Protocol (SIP) [RFC3261], it's functional components and Initiation Protocol (SIP) [RFC3261], it's functional components and
interfaces. It also describes the components and the steps necessary interfaces. It also describes the components and the steps necessary
to establish a session between two SIP Service Provider (SSP) peering to establish a session between two SIP Service Provider (SSP) peering
domains. domains.
Status of this Memo Status of this Memo
skipping to change at page 1, line 35 skipping to change at page 1, line 35
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 March 3, 2011. This Internet-Draft will expire on April 25, 2011.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2010 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2010 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 14 skipping to change at page 2, line 14
described in the Simplified BSD License. described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Reference Architecture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Reference Architecture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Procedures of Inter-domain SSP Session Establishment . . . . . 4 3. Procedures of Inter-domain SSP Session Establishment . . . . . 4
4. Relationships Between Functions/Elements . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4. Relationships Between Functions/Elements . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5. Recommended SSP Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 5. Recommended SSP Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5.1. Originating SSP Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 5.1. Originating SSP Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5.1.1. The Look-Up Function (LUF) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 5.1.1. The Look-Up Function (LUF) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5.1.1.1. Target Address Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 5.1.1.1. Target Address Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5.1.1.2. ENUM Lookup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 5.1.1.2. ENUM Lookup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5.1.2. Location Routing Function (LRF) . . . . . . . . . . . 7 5.1.2. Location Routing Function (LRF) . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5.1.2.1. DNS resolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 5.1.2.1. DNS resolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5.1.2.2. Routing Table . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 5.1.2.2. Routing Table . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5.1.2.3. LRF to LRF Routing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 5.1.2.3. LRF to LRF Routing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5.1.3. The Signaling Path Border Element (SBE) . . . . . . . 7 5.1.3. The Signaling Path Border Element (SBE) . . . . . . . 8
5.1.3.1. Establishing a Trusted Relationship . . . . . . . 8 5.1.3.1. Establishing a Trusted Relationship . . . . . . . 8
5.1.3.2. IPSec . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 5.1.3.2. IPSec . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.1.3.3. Co-Location . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 5.1.3.3. Co-Location . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.1.3.4. Sending the SIP Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 5.1.3.4. Sending the SIP Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.2. Target SSP Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 5.2. Target SSP Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.2.1. The Ingress SBE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 5.2.1. The Ingress SBE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.2.1.1. TLS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 5.2.1.1. TLS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.2.1.2. Receive SIP Requests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 5.2.1.2. Receive SIP Requests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.3. Data Path Border Element (DBE) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 5.3. Data Path Border Element (DBE) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6. Address Space Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 6. Address Space Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 7. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
10. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 10. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
11. Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 11. Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
12. Open Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 12. Open Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
13. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 13. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
13.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 13.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
13.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 13.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
This document defines a reference peering architecture in the context This document defines a reference peering architecture for the
of session peering for multimedia interconnects. In this process, we Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)[RFC3261], it's functional
define the peering reference architecture, its functional components, components and interfaces, in the context of session peering for
and peering interface functions from the perspective of a SIP Service multimedia interconnects. In this process, we define the peering
providers [RFC5486] network. reference architecture, its functional components, and peering
interface functions from the perspective of a SIP Service providers
[RFC5486] network. Thus, it also describes the components and the
steps necessary to establish a session between two SIP Service
Provider (SSP) peering domains.
This architecture allows the interconnection of two SSPs in layer 5 This architecture enables the interconnection of two SSPs in layer 5
peering as defined in the SIP-based session peering requirements peering, as defined in the SIP-based session peering requirements
[I-D.draft-ietf-speermint-requirements-09]. [I-D.ietf-speermint-requirements].
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 Session Peering for This document uses terminology defined in the Session Peering for
Multimedia Interconnect Terminology document [RFC5486]. Multimedia Interconnect (SPEERMINT) Terminology document [RFC5486].
2. Reference Architecture 2. Reference Architecture
The following figure depicts the architecture and logical functions The following figure depicts the architecture and logical functions
that form peering between two SSPs. that form peering between two SSPs.
+=============++ ++==============+ +=============++ ++==============+
|| || || ||
+-----------+ +-----------+ +-----------+ +-----------+
| SBE | +-----+ | SBE | | SBE | +-----+ | SBE |
skipping to change at page 5, line 41 skipping to change at page 5, line 41
* LRF can communicate with SF and SBE * LRF can communicate with SF and SBE
5. Recommended SSP Procedures 5. Recommended SSP Procedures
This section describes the functions in more detail and provides some This section describes the functions in more detail and provides some
recommendations on the role they would play in a SIP call in a Layer recommendations on the role they would play in a SIP call in a Layer
5 peering scenario. 5 peering scenario.
Some of the information in the section is taken from Some of the information in the section is taken from
[I-D.draft-ietf-speermint-requirements-09] and is put here for [I-D.ietf-speermint-requirements] and is put here for continuity
continuity purposes. purposes.
5.1. Originating SSP Procedures 5.1. Originating SSP Procedures
This section describes the procedures of the originating SSP.
5.1.1. The Look-Up Function (LUF) 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. request and optionally develop Session Establishment Data.
5.1.1.1. Target Address Analysis 5.1.1.1. Target Address Analysis
When the originating SSP receives a request to communicate, it When the originating SSP receives a request to communicate, it
analyzes the target URI to determine whether the call needs to be analyzes the target URI to determine whether the call needs to be
routed internal or external to its network. The analysis method is routed internal or external to its network. The analysis method is
internal to the SSP; thus, outside the scope of SPEERMINT. internal to the SSP; thus, outside the scope of SPEERMINT.
If the target address does not represent a resource inside the If the target address does not represent a resource inside the
originating SSP?s administrative domain or federation of domains, originating SSP?s administrative domain or federation of domains,
then the originating SSP performs a Lookup Function (LUF) to then the originating SSP performs a Lookup Function (LUF) to
determine a target address, and then is resolves the call routing determine a target address, and then is resolves the call routing
data by using the Location routing Function (LRF). data by using the Location routing Function (LRF).
For example, if the request to communicate is for an im: or pres: URI For example, if the request to communicate is for an im: or pres: URI
type, the originating SSP follows the procedures in [8]. If the type [RFC3861] [RFC3953], the originating SSP follows the procedures
highest priority supported URI scheme is sip: or sips: the in [8--NEED TO CORRECT REFERENCE]. If the highest priority supported
originating SSP skips to SIP DNS resolution in Section 5.1.3. URI scheme is sip: or sips: the originating SSP skips to SIP DNS
Likewise, if the target address is already a sip: or sips: URI in an resolution in Section 5.1.3. Likewise, if the target address is
external domain, the originating SSP skips to SIP DNS resolution in already a sip: or sips: URI in an external domain, the originating
Section 4.1.2.1. SSP skips to SIP DNS resolution in Section 4.1.2.1 [CORRECT REFERENCE
HERE].
If the target address corresponds to a specific E.164 address, the If the target address corresponds to a specific E.164 address, the
SSP may need to perform some form of number plan mapping according to SSP may need to perform some form of number plan mapping according to
local policy. For example, in the United States, a dial string 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 SSP has an E.164 Kingdom "00 1" could be converted to "+1". Once the SSP has an E.164
address, it can use ENUM. address, it can use ENUM.
5.1.1.2. ENUM Lookup 5.1.1.2. ENUM Lookup
If an external E.164 address is the target, the originating SSP If an external E.164 address is the target, the originating SSP
consults the public "User ENUM" rooted at e164.arpa, according to the consults the public "User ENUM" rooted at e164.arpa, according to the
procedures described in RFC 3761. The SSP must query for the "E2U+ procedures described in [RFC3761]. The SSP must query for the "E2U+
sip" enumservice as described in RFC 3764 [11], but MAY check for sip" enumservice as described in [RFC3764], but MAY check for other
other enumservices. The originating SSP MAY consult a cache or enumservices. The originating SSP MAY consult a cache or alternate
alternate representation of the ENUM data rather than actual DNS representation of the ENUM data rather than actual DNS queries.
queries. Also, the SSP may skip actual DNS queries if the Also, the SSP may skip actual DNS queries if the originating SSP is
originating SSP is sure that the target address country code is not sure that the target address country code is not represented in
represented in e164.arpa. If a sip: or sips: URI is chosen the SSP e164.arpa. If a sip: or sips: URI is chosen the SSP skips to Section
skips to Section 5.1.6. 5.1.6 [CORRECT REFERENCE HERE].
If an im: or pres: URI is chosen for based on an "E2U+im" [8] or If an im: or pres: URI is chosen for based on an "E2U+im" [RFC3861]
"E2U+pres" [9] enumserver, the SSP follows the procedures for or "E2U+pres" [RFC3953] enumserver, the SSP follows the procedures
resolving these URIs to URIs for specific protocols such a SIP or for 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.
5.1.2. Location Routing Function (LRF) 5.1.2. Location Routing Function (LRF)
The LRF of an Originating SSP analyzes target address and target The LRF of an Originating SSP analyzes target address and target
domain identified by the LUF, and discovers the next hop signaling domain identified by the LUF, and discovers the next hop signaling
function (SF) in a peering relationship. The resource to determine 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 SF of the target domain might be provided by a third-party as in
the assisted-peering case. The following sections define mechanisms the assisted-peering case. The following sections define mechanisms
which may be used by the LRF. These are not in any particular order which may be used by the LRF. These are not in any particular order
and, importantly, not all of them may be used. and, importantly, not all of them may be used.
5.1.2.1. DNS resolution 5.1.2.1. DNS resolution
The originating SSP uses the procedures in RFC 3263 [4] Section 4 to The originating SSP uses the procedures in Section 4 of [RFC3263] to
determine how to contact the receiving SSP. To summarize the RFC determine how to contact the receiving SSP. To summarize the
3263 procedure: unless these are explicitly encoded in the target [RFC3263] procedure: unless these are explicitly encoded in the
URI, a transport is chosen using NAPTR records, a port is chosen target URI, a transport is chosen using NAPTR records, a port is
using SRV records, and an address is chosen using A or AAAA records. chosen using SRV records, and an address is chosen using A or AAAA
records.
When communicating with another SSP, entities compliant to this When communicating with another SSP, entities compliant to this
document should select a TLS-protected transport for communication document should select a TLS-protected transport for communication
from the originating SSP to the receiving SSP if available. from the originating SSP to the receiving SSP if available.
5.1.2.2. Routing Table 5.1.2.2. Routing Table
If there are no End User ENUM records and the Originating SSP cannot If there are no End User ENUM records and the Originating SSP cannot
discover the carrier-of-record or if the Originating SSP cannot reach discover the carrier-of-record or if the Originating SSP cannot reach
the carrier-of-record via SIP peering, the Originating SSP may the carrier-of-record via SIP peering, the Originating SSP may
skipping to change at page 8, line 20 skipping to change at page 8, line 26
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, SIP security, privacy, and Hiding, SIP header normalization, SIP security, privacy, and
encryption. encryption.
The SF of a SBE can also process SDP payloads for media information The SF of a SBE can also process SDP payloads for media information
such as media type, bandwidth, and type of codec; then, communicate such as media type, bandwidth, and type of codec; then, communicate
this information to the media function. Signaling function may this information to the media function. Signaling function may
optionally communicate with the network to pass Layer 3 related optionally communicate with the network to pass Layer 3 related
policies [10]. policies [10--NEED TO CORRECT REFERENCE].
5.1.3.1. Establishing a Trusted Relationship 5.1.3.1. Establishing a Trusted Relationship
Depending on the security needs and trust relationships between SSPs, Depending on the security needs and trust relationships between SSPs,
different security mechanism can be used to establish SIP calls. different security mechanism can be used to establish SIP calls.
These are discussed in the following subsections. These are discussed in the following subsections.
5.1.3.2. IPSec 5.1.3.2. IPSec
In certain deployments the use of IPSec between the signaling In certain deployments the use of IPSec between the signaling
skipping to change at page 8, line 48 skipping to change at page 9, line 7
messages between the originating and terminating SSPs would be sent messages between the originating and terminating SSPs would be sent
as clear text. as clear text.
5.1.3.4. Sending the SIP Request 5.1.3.4. Sending the SIP Request
Once a trust relationship between the peers is established, the Once a trust relationship between the peers is established, the
originating SSP sends the request. originating SSP sends the request.
5.2. Target SSP Procedures 5.2. Target SSP Procedures
[ANY TEXT HERE?]
5.2.1. The Ingress SBE 5.2.1. The Ingress SBE
[ANY TEXT HERE?]
5.2.1.1. TLS 5.2.1.1. TLS
When the receiving SSP receives a TLS client hello, it responds with When the receiving SSP receives a TLS client hello, it responds with
its certificate. The Target SSP certificate should be valid and its certificate. The Target SSP certificate should be valid and
rooted in a well-known certificate authority. The procedures to rooted in a well-known certificate authority. The procedures to
authenticate the SSP?s originating domain are specified in [24]. authenticate the SSP's originating domain are specified in [24-
CORRECT REFERENCE-IS THIS FOR RFC5922?].
The SF of the Target SSP verifies that the Identity header is valid, The SF of the Target SSP verifies that the Identity header is valid,
corresponds to the message, corresponds to the Identity-Info header, corresponds to the message, corresponds to the Identity-Info header,
and that the domain in the From header corresponds to one of the and that the domain in the From header corresponds to one of the
domains in the TLS client certificate. domains in the TLS client certificate.
5.2.1.2. Receive SIP Requests 5.2.1.2. Receive SIP Requests
Once a trust relationship is established, the Target SSP is prepared Once a trust relationship is established, the Target SSP is prepared
to receive incoming SIP requests. For new requests (dialog forming to receive incoming SIP requests. For new requests (dialog forming
skipping to change at page 9, line 33 skipping to change at page 9, line 43
requests, the receiving SSP can verify that it corresponds to the requests, the receiving SSP can verify that it corresponds to the
top-most Route header field value. top-most Route header field value.
The receiving SSP may reject incoming requests due to local policy. The receiving SSP may reject incoming requests due to local policy.
When a request is rejected because the originating SSP is not When a request is rejected because the originating SSP is not
authorized to peer, the receiving SSP should respond with a 403 authorized to peer, the receiving SSP should respond with a 403
response with the reason phrase "Unsupported Peer". response with the reason phrase "Unsupported Peer".
5.3. Data Path Border Element (DBE) 5.3. Data Path Border Element (DBE)
The purpose of the DBE [RFC 5486] is to perform media related The purpose of the DBE [RFC5486] is to perform media related
functions such as media transcoding and media security implementation functions such as media transcoding and media security implementation
between two SSPs. between two 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.
6. Address Space Considerations 6. Address Space Considerations
Peering must occur in a common IP address space, which is defined by Peering must occur in a common IP address space, which is defined by
skipping to change at page 10, line 15 skipping to change at page 10, line 26
7. Acknowledgments 7. 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. John Elwell, Mike draft that helped to initiate work on this draft. John Elwell, Mike
Hammer, Otmar Lendl, Jason Livingood, Alexander Mayrhofer, Jean- Hammer, Otmar Lendl, Jason Livingood, Alexander Mayrhofer, Jean-
Francois Mule, Jonathan Rosenberg, David Schwartz, Richard Shockey, Francois Mule, Jonathan Rosenberg, David Schwartz, Richard Shockey,
Jim McEachern, and Dan Wing all made valuable contributions to Jim McEachern, and Dan Wing all made valuable contributions to
versions of this document. versions of this document.
A significant portion of this draft is taken from A significant portion of this draft is taken from
[I-D.draft-mahy-speermint-direct-peering-02] with permission from the [I-D.mahy-speermint-direct-peering] with permission from the author
author R. Mahy. R. Mahy.
8. IANA Considerations 8. IANA Considerations
This memo includes no request to IANA. This memo includes no request to IANA.
9. Security Considerations 9. Security Considerations
In all cases, cryptographic-based security should be maintained as an In all cases, cryptographic-based security should be maintained as an
optional requirement between peering providers conditioned on the optional requirement between peering providers conditioned on the
presence or absence of underlying physical security of SSP presence or absence of underlying physical security of SSP
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
relationships, should be standardized within the IETF. These relationships, should be standardized within the IETF. These
standardized methods may enable capabilities such as dynamic peering standardized methods may enable capabilities such as dynamic peering
relationships across publicly maintained interconnections. relationships across publicly maintained interconnections.
Additional security considerations have been documented separately in
[I-D.ietf-speermint-voipthreats].
10. Contributors 10. Contributors
Adam Uzelac Adam Uzelac
Reinadlo Penno Global Crossing
Rochester, NY - USA
Email: adam.uzelac@globalcrossing.com
--------------------------------------------------------------
Reinaldo Penno
Juniper Networks
Sunnyvale, CA - USA
Email: rpenno@juniper.net
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Hammer Mike Hammer
Sohel Khan Cisco Systems
Herndon, VA - USA
Email: mhammer@cisco.com
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sohel Khan, Ph.D.
Comcast Cable
Philadelphia, PA - USA
Email: sohel_khan@cable.comcast.com
--------------------------------------------------------------
Hadriel Kaplan Hadriel Kaplan
Acme Packet
Burlington, MA - USA
Email: hkaplan@acmepacket.com
--------------------------------------------------------------
David Schwartz David Schwartz
Richard Shockey XConnect Global Networks
Jerusalem - Israel
Email: dschwartz@xconnnect.net
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rich Shockey
Shockey Consulting
USA
Email: Richard@shockey.us
11. Change Log 11. Change Log
NOTE TO RFC EDITOR: PLEASE REMOVE THIS SECTION PRIOR TO PUBLICATION. NOTE TO RFC EDITOR: PLEASE REMOVE THIS SECTION PRIOR TO PUBLICATION.
o -11 - Quick update to refresh the I-D since it expired, and o 12: Closed out several open issues. Properly XML-ized all
cleaned up some of the XML for references. A real revision is references. Updated contributors list.
coming soon.
o 11: Quick update to refresh the I-D since it expired, and cleaned
up some of the XML for references. A real revision is coming
soon.
12. Open Issues 12. Open Issues
NOTE TO RFC EDITOR: PLEASE REMOVE THIS SECTION PRIOR TO PUBLICATION. NOTE TO RFC EDITOR: PLEASE REMOVE THIS SECTION PRIOR TO PUBLICATION.
o Cleanup odd spacing in XML o Do all the references need to remain if they are not cited? If
they do, then add text to cite them. If not, remove them.
o Revise contributors list, which are really authors, due to o Are the references in the correct sections?
document masthead constraint
o Lots of clean-up o Validate references to RFC 3861, RFC 3953, and old references to
"reference 8" and "reference 10" and "reference 24".
13. References 13. References
13.1. Normative References 13.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-speermint-requirements] [I-D.ietf-speermint-requirements]
Mule, J., "SPEERMINT Requirements for SIP-based Session Mule, J., "SPEERMINT Requirements for SIP-based Session
Peering", draft-ietf-speermint-requirements-09 (work in Peering", draft-ietf-speermint-requirements-09 (work in
progress), October 2009. progress), October 2009.
[I-D.lee-speermint-use-case-cable] [I-D.ietf-speermint-voip-consolidated-usecases]
Lee, Y., "Session Peering Use Case for Cable", Uzelac, A. and Y. Lee, "VoIP SIP Peering Use Cases",
draft-lee-speermint-use-case-cable-01 (work in progress), draft-ietf-speermint-voip-consolidated-usecases-18 (work
September 2006. in progress), April 2010.
[I-D.ietf-speermint-voipthreats]
Seedorf, J., Niccolini, S., Chen, E., and H. Scholz,
"SPEERMINT Security Threats and Suggested
Countermeasures", draft-ietf-speermint-voipthreats-05
(work in progress), September 2010.
[I-D.lendl-speermint-federations] [I-D.lendl-speermint-federations]
Lendl, O., "A Federation based VoIP Peering Architecture", Lendl, O., "A Federation based VoIP Peering Architecture",
draft-lendl-speermint-federations-03 (work in progress), draft-lendl-speermint-federations-03 (work in progress),
September 2006. September 2006.
[I-D.mahy-speermint-direct-peering] [I-D.mahy-speermint-direct-peering]
Mahy, R., "A Minimalist Approach to Direct Peering", Mahy, R., "A Minimalist Approach to Direct Peering",
draft-mahy-speermint-direct-peering-02 (work in progress), draft-mahy-speermint-direct-peering-02 (work in progress),
July 2007. July 2007.
skipping to change at page 12, line 35 skipping to change at page 14, line 20
June 2002. June 2002.
[RFC3263] Rosenberg, J. and H. Schulzrinne, "Session Initiation [RFC3263] Rosenberg, J. and H. Schulzrinne, "Session Initiation
Protocol (SIP): Locating SIP Servers", RFC 3263, Protocol (SIP): Locating SIP Servers", RFC 3263,
June 2002. June 2002.
[RFC3761] Faltstrom, P. and M. Mealling, "The E.164 to Uniform [RFC3761] Faltstrom, P. and M. Mealling, "The E.164 to Uniform
Resource Identifiers (URI) Dynamic Delegation Discovery Resource Identifiers (URI) Dynamic Delegation Discovery
System (DDDS) Application (ENUM)", RFC 3761, April 2004. System (DDDS) Application (ENUM)", RFC 3761, April 2004.
[RFC3764] Peterson, J., "enumservice registration for Session
Initiation Protocol (SIP) Addresses-of-Record", RFC 3764,
April 2004.
[RFC3861] Peterson, J., "Address Resolution for Instant Messaging
and Presence", RFC 3861, August 2004.
[RFC3953] Peterson, J., "Telephone Number Mapping (ENUM) Service
Registration for Presence Services", RFC 3953,
January 2005.
[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,
March 2009. March 2009.
13.2. Informative References 13.2. Informative References
[I-D.lewis-peppermint-enum-reg-if] [I-D.lewis-peppermint-enum-reg-if]
Lewis, E., "ENUM Registry Interface Requirements", Lewis, E., "ENUM Registry Interface Requirements",
draft-lewis-peppermint-enum-reg-if-01 (work in progress), draft-lewis-peppermint-enum-reg-if-01 (work in progress),
November 2007. November 2007.
 End of changes. 35 change blocks. 
69 lines changed or deleted 160 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.40. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/