draft-ietf-speermint-architecture-15.txt   draft-ietf-speermint-architecture-16.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: May 12, 2011 Comcast Expires: May 12, 2011 Comcast
November 8, 2010 November 8, 2010
SPEERMINT Peering Architecture SPEERMINT Peering Architecture
draft-ietf-speermint-architecture-15 draft-ietf-speermint-architecture-16
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 8, line 41 skipping to change at page 8, line 41
5.1.2.1. DNS Resolution 5.1.2.1. DNS Resolution
The originating (or indirect) SSP uses the procedures in Section 4 of The originating (or indirect) SSP uses the procedures in Section 4 of
[RFC3263] to determine how to contact the receiving SSP. To [RFC3263] to determine how to contact the receiving SSP. To
summarize the [RFC3263] procedure: unless these are explicitly summarize the [RFC3263] procedure: unless these are explicitly
encoded in the target URI, a transport is chosen using NAPTR records, encoded in the target URI, a transport is chosen using NAPTR records,
a port is chosen using SRV records, and an address is chosen using A a port is chosen using SRV records, and an address is chosen using A
or AAAA records. 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 [RFC4366] for document should select a TLS-protected transport for communication
communication from the originating (or indirect) SSP to the receiving from the originating (or indirect) SSP to the receiving SSP if
SSP if available. available, as described further in Section 5.2.1.
5.1.2.2. Routing Table 5.1.2.2. Routing Table
If there are no End User ENUM records and the originating (or If there are no End User ENUM records and the originating (or
indirect) SSP cannot discover the carrier-of-record or if the indirect) SSP cannot discover the carrier-of-record or if the
originating (or indirect) SSP cannot reach the carrier-of-record via originating (or indirect) SSP cannot reach the carrier-of-record via
SIP peering, the originating (or indirect) SSP may deliver the call SIP peering, the originating (or indirect) SSP may deliver the call
to the PSTN or reject it. Note that the originating (or indirect) to the PSTN or reject it. Note that the originating (or indirect)
SSP may forward the call to another SSP for PSTN gateway termination SSP may forward the call to another SSP for PSTN gateway termination
by prior arrangement using the routing table. by prior arrangement using the routing table.
skipping to change at page 10, line 16 skipping to change at page 10, line 16
Once a trust relationship between the peers is established, the Once a trust relationship between the peers is established, the
originating (or indirect) SSP sends the request. originating (or indirect) SSP sends the request.
5.2. Target SSP Procedures 5.2. Target SSP Procedures
This section describes the Target SSP Procedures. This section describes the Target SSP Procedures.
5.2.1. TLS 5.2.1. TLS
The section defines uses of TLS [RFC4366] between two SSPs [RFC5246]. The section defines uses of TLS between two SSPs [RFC5246] [RFC5746]
When the receiving SSP receives a TLS client hello, it responds with [RFC5878]. When the receiving SSP receives a TLS client hello, it
its certificate. The Target SSP certificate should be valid and responds with its certificate. The Target SSP certificate should be
rooted in a well-known certificate authority. The procedures to valid and rooted in a well-known certificate authority. The
authenticate the SSP's originating domain are specified in [RFC5922]. procedures to authenticate the SSP's originating domain are specified
in [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.
5.2.2. Receive SIP Requests 5.2.2. 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 13, line 24 skipping to change at page 13, line 24
Global Crossing Global Crossing
Rochester, NY - USA Rochester, NY - USA
Email: adam.uzelac@globalcrossing.com Email: adam.uzelac@globalcrossing.com
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 16: Yes, one final outdated reference to fix.
o 15: Doh! Uploaded the wrong doc to create -14. Trying again. :-) o 15: Doh! Uploaded the wrong doc to create -14. Trying again. :-)
o 14: WGLC ended. Ran final nits check prior to sending proto to o 14: WGLC ended. Ran final nits check prior to sending proto to
the AD and sending the doc to the IESG. Found a few very minor the AD and sending the doc to the IESG. Found a few very minor
nits, such as capitalization and replacement of an obsoleted RFC, nits, such as capitalization and replacement of an obsoleted RFC,
which were corrected per nits tool recommendation. The -14 now which were corrected per nits tool recommendation. The -14 now
moves to the AD and the IESG. moves to the AD and the IESG.
o 13: Closed out all remaining tickets, resolved all editorial o 13: Closed out all remaining tickets, resolved all editorial
notes. notes.
skipping to change at page 14, line 4 skipping to change at page 14, line 8
up some of the XML for references. A real revision is coming up some of the XML for references. A real revision is coming
soon. 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 NONE! o NONE!
13. References 13. References
13.1. Normative References 13.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-speermint-requirements] [I-D.ietf-speermint-requirements]
Mule, J., "Requirements for SIP-based Session Peering", Mule, J., "Requirements for SIP-based Session Peering",
draft-ietf-speermint-requirements-10 (work in progress), draft-ietf-speermint-requirements-10 (work in progress),
October 2010. October 2010.
[I-D.ietf-speermint-voipthreats] [I-D.ietf-speermint-voipthreats]
Seedorf, J., Niccolini, S., Chen, E., and H. Scholz, Seedorf, J., Niccolini, S., Chen, E., and H. Scholz,
"SPEERMINT Security Threats and Suggested "Session Peering for Multimedia Interconnect (SPEERMINT)
Countermeasures", draft-ietf-speermint-voipthreats-05 Security Threats and Suggested Countermeasures",
(work in progress), September 2010. draft-ietf-speermint-voipthreats-06 (work in progress),
November 2010.
[RFC1918] Rekhter, Y., Moskowitz, R., Karrenberg, D., Groot, G., and [RFC1918] Rekhter, Y., Moskowitz, R., Karrenberg, D., Groot, G., and
E. Lear, "Address Allocation for Private Internets", E. Lear, "Address Allocation for Private Internets",
BCP 5, RFC 1918, February 1996. BCP 5, RFC 1918, February 1996.
[RFC3261] Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., Camarillo, G., Johnston, [RFC3261] Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., Camarillo, G., Johnston,
A., Peterson, J., Sparks, R., Handley, M., and E. A., Peterson, J., Sparks, R., Handley, M., and E.
Schooler, "SIP: Session Initiation Protocol", RFC 3261, Schooler, "SIP: Session Initiation Protocol", RFC 3261,
June 2002. June 2002.
skipping to change at page 14, line 45 skipping to change at page 14, line 51
Initiation Protocol (SIP) Addresses-of-Record", RFC 3764, Initiation Protocol (SIP) Addresses-of-Record", RFC 3764,
April 2004. April 2004.
[RFC3861] Peterson, J., "Address Resolution for Instant Messaging [RFC3861] Peterson, J., "Address Resolution for Instant Messaging
and Presence", RFC 3861, August 2004. and Presence", RFC 3861, August 2004.
[RFC3953] Peterson, J., "Telephone Number Mapping (ENUM) Service [RFC3953] Peterson, J., "Telephone Number Mapping (ENUM) Service
Registration for Presence Services", RFC 3953, Registration for Presence Services", RFC 3953,
January 2005. January 2005.
[RFC4366] Blake-Wilson, S., Nystrom, M., Hopwood, D., Mikkelsen, J.,
and T. Wright, "Transport Layer Security (TLS)
Extensions", RFC 4366, April 2006.
[RFC5246] Dierks, T. and E. Rescorla, "The Transport Layer Security [RFC5246] Dierks, T. and E. Rescorla, "The Transport Layer Security
(TLS) Protocol Version 1.2", RFC 5246, August 2008. (TLS) Protocol Version 1.2", RFC 5246, August 2008.
[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.
[RFC5746] Rescorla, E., Ray, M., Dispensa, S., and N. Oskov,
"Transport Layer Security (TLS) Renegotiation Indication
Extension", RFC 5746, February 2010.
[RFC5878] Brown, M. and R. Housley, "Transport Layer Security (TLS)
Authorization Extensions", RFC 5878, May 2010.
[RFC5922] Gurbani, V., Lawrence, S., and A. Jeffrey, "Domain [RFC5922] Gurbani, V., Lawrence, S., and A. Jeffrey, "Domain
Certificates in the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)", Certificates in the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)",
RFC 5922, June 2010. RFC 5922, June 2010.
13.2. Informative References 13.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-speermint-voip-consolidated-usecases] [I-D.ietf-speermint-voip-consolidated-usecases]
Uzelac, A. and Y. Lee, "VoIP SIP Peering Use Cases", Uzelac, A. and Y. Lee, "VoIP SIP Peering Use Cases",
draft-ietf-speermint-voip-consolidated-usecases-18 (work draft-ietf-speermint-voip-consolidated-usecases-18 (work
in progress), April 2010. in progress), April 2010.
 End of changes. 8 change blocks. 
16 lines changed or deleted 24 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/