draft-ietf-speermint-architecture-16.txt   draft-ietf-speermint-architecture-17.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: June 23, 2011 Comcast
November 8, 2010 December 20, 2010
SPEERMINT Peering Architecture Session PEERing for Multimedia INTerconnect Architecture
draft-ietf-speermint-architecture-16 draft-ietf-speermint-architecture-17
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], its 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
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
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 May 12, 2011. This Internet-Draft will expire on June 23, 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 3, line 9 skipping to change at page 2, line 22
the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified
outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may
not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format
it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other
than English. than English.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. Reference Architecture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2. Reference Architecture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Procedures of Inter-Domain SSP Session Establishment . . . . . 5 3. Procedures of Inter-Domain SSP Session Establishment . . . . . 6
4. Relationships Between Functions/Elements . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4. Relationships Between Functions/Elements . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5. Recommended SSP Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 5. Recommended SSP Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5.1. Originating or Indirect SSP Procedures . . . . . . . . . . 6 5.1. Originating or Indirect SSP Procedures . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.1.1. The Look-Up Function (LUF) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 5.1.1. The Look-Up Function (LUF) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.1.1.1. Target Address Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 5.1.1.1. Target Address Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.1.1.2. ENUM Lookup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 5.1.1.2. ENUM Lookup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.1.2. Location Routing Function (LRF) . . . . . . . . . . . 8 5.1.2. Location Routing Function (LRF) . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.1.2.1. DNS Resolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 5.1.2.1. DNS Resolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.1.2.2. Routing Table . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 5.1.2.2. Routing Table . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.1.2.3. LRF to LRF Routing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 5.1.2.3. LRF to LRF Routing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.1.3. The Signaling Path Border Element (SBE) . . . . . . . 9 5.1.3. The Signaling Path Border Element (SBE) . . . . . . . 10
5.1.3.1. Establishing a Trusted Relationship . . . . . . . 9 5.1.3.1. Establishing a Trusted Relationship . . . . . . . 10
5.1.3.2. IPSec . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 5.1.3.2. IPSec . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.1.3.3. Co-Location . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 5.1.3.3. Co-Location . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.1.3.4. Sending the SIP Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 5.1.3.4. Sending the SIP Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.2. Target SSP Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 5.2. Target SSP Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.2.1. TLS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 5.2.1. TLS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.2.2. Receive SIP Requests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 5.2.2. Receive SIP Requests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.3. Data Path Border Element (DBE) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 5.3. Data Path Border Element (DBE) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
6. Address Space Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 6. Address Space Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 7. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
10. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 10. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
11. Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 11. Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
12. Open Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 12. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
13. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 12.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
13.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 12.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
13.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
This document defines a reference peering architecture for the This document defines a reference peering architecture for the
Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)[RFC3261], it's functional Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)[RFC3261], it's functional
components and interfaces, in the context of session peering for components and interfaces, in the context of session peering for
multimedia interconnects. In this process, we define the peering multimedia interconnects. In this process, we define the peering
reference architecture, its functional components, and peering reference architecture, its functional components, and peering
interface functions from the perspective of a SIP Service providers interface functions from the perspective of a SIP Service Provider's
[RFC5486] network. Thus, it also describes the components and the (SSP) [RFC5486] network. Thus, it also describes the components and
steps necessary to establish a session between two SIP Service the steps necessary to establish a session between two SSP peering
Provider (SSP) peering domains. domains.
This architecture enables 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.ietf-speermint-requirements]. [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 (SPEERMINT) Terminology document [RFC5486]. Multimedia Interconnect (SPEERMINT) Terminology document [RFC5486].
Apart from normative references included herein, readers may also
find [I-D.ietf-speermint-voip-consolidated-usecases] informative.
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.
For further details on the elements and functions described in this
figure, please refer to [RFC5486]. The following terms, which appear
in Figure 1, which are documented in [RFC5486] are reproduced here
for simplicity.
- Data Path Border Element (DBE): A data path border element (DBE) is
located on the administrative border of a domain through which flows
the media associated with an inter-domain session. It typically
provides media-related functions such as deep packet inspection and
modification, media relay, and firewall-traversal support. The DBE
may be controlled by the SBE.
- E.164 Number Mapping (ENUM): See [RFC3761].
- Fully Qualified Domain Name (FQDN): See Section 5.1 of [RFC1035].
- Location Routing Function (LRF): The Location Routing Function
(LRF) determines for the target domain of a given request the
location of the SF in that domain, and optionally develops other SED
required to route the request to that domain. An example of the LRF
may be applied to either example in Section 4.3.3 of [RFC5486]. Once
the ENUM response or SIP 302 redirect is received with the
destination's SIP URI, the LRF must derive the destination peer's SF
from the FQDN in the domain portion of the URI. In some cases, some
entity (usually a 3rd party or federation) provides peering
assistance to the originating SSP by providing this function. The
assisting entity may provide information relating to direct (Section
4.2.1 of [RFC5486]) or indirect (Section 4.2.2 of [RFC5486]) peering
as necessary.
- Look-Up Function (LUF): The Look-Up Function (LUF) determines for a
given request the target domain to which the request should be
routed. An example of an LUF is an ENUM [4] look-up or a SIP INVITE
request to a SIP proxy providing redirect responses for peers. In
some cases, some entity (usually a 3rd party or federation) provides
peering assistance to the originating SSP by providing this function.
The assisting entity may provide information relating to direct
(Section 4.2.1 of [RFC5486]) or indirect (Section 4.2.2 of [RFC5486])
peering as necessary.
- Real-Time Transport Protocol (RTP): See [RFC3550].
- Session Initiation Protocol (SIP): See [RFC3261].
- Signaling Path Border Element (SBE): A signaling path border
element (SBE) is located on the administrative border of a domain
through which inter-domain session layer messages will flow. It
typically provides signaling functions such as protocol inter-working
(for example, H.323 to SIP), identity and topology hiding, and
Session Admission Control for a domain.
- Signaling Function (SF): The Signaling Function (SF) performs
routing of SIP requests for establishing and maintaining calls, and
to assist in the discovery or exchange of parameters to be used by
the Media Function (MF). The SF is a capability of SIP processing
elements such as SIP proxies, SBEs, and user agents.
- SIP Service Provider (SSP): A SIP Service Provider (SSP) is an
entity that provides session services utilizing SIP signaling to its
customers. In the event that the SSP is also a function of the SP,
it may also provide media streams to its customers. Such an SSP may
additionally be peered with other SSPs. An SSP may also interconnect
with the PSTN. An SSP may also be referred to as an Internet
Telephony Service Provider (ITSP). While the terms ITSP and SSP are
frequently used interchangeably, this document and other subsequent
SIP peering-related documents should use the term SSP. SSP more
accurately depicts the use of SIP as the underlying layer 5 signaling
protocol.
+=============++ ++==============+ +=============++ ++==============+
|| || || ||
+-----------+ +-----------+ +-----------+ +-----------+
| SBE | +-----+ | SBE | | SBE | +-----+ | SBE |
| +-----+ | SIP |Proxy| | +-----+ | | +-----+ | SIP |Proxy| | +-----+ |
| | LUF |<-|------>|ENUM | | | LUF | | | | LUF |<-|------>|ENUM | | | LUF | |
| +-----+ | ENUM |TN DB| | +-----+ | | +-----+ | ENUM |TN DB| | +-----+ |
SIP | | +-----+ | | SIP | | +-----+ | |
------>| +-----+ | DNS +-----+ | +-----+ | ------>| +-----+ | DNS +-----+ | +-----+ |
| | LRF |<-|------>|FQDN | | | LRF | | | | LRF |<-|------>|FQDN | | | LRF | |
skipping to change at page 5, line 33 skipping to change at page 6, line 36
------>| |--------------->| | ------>| |--------------->| |
+-----------+ +-----------+ +-----------+ +-----------+
|| || || ||
SSP1 Network || || SSP2 Network SSP1 Network || || SSP2 Network
+=============++ ++=============+ +=============++ ++=============+
Reference Architecture Reference Architecture
Figure 1 Figure 1
For further details on the elements and functions described in this
figure, please refer to [RFC5486].
3. Procedures of Inter-Domain SSP Session Establishment 3. Procedures of Inter-Domain SSP Session Establishment
This document assumes that in order for a session to be established This document assumes that in order for a session to be established
from a UA in the originating (or indirect) SSP's network to an UA in from a User Agent (UA) in the originating (or indirect) SSP's network
the Target SSP's network the following steps are taken: to an UA in the Target SSP's network the following steps are taken:
1. Determine the target or indirect SSP via the LUF. (Note: If the 1. Determine the target or indirect SSP via the LUF. (Note: If the
target address represents an intra-SSP resource, the behavior is target address represents an intra-SSP resource, the behavior is
out-of-scope with respect to this draft.) out-of-scope with respect to this draft.)
2. Determine the address of the SF of the target SSP via the LRF. 2. Determine the address of the SF of the target SSP via the LRF.
3. Establish the session 3. Establish the session
4. Exchange the media, which could include voice, video, text, etc. 4. Exchange the media, which could include voice, video, text, etc.
5. End the session (BYE) 5. End the session (BYE)
The originating or indirect SSP would likely perform steps 1-4, and The originating or indirect SSP would likely perform steps 1-4, the
the target SSP would likely perform steps 4-5. target SSP would likely perform steps 4, and either one is likely to
perform step 5.
In the case the target SSP changes, then steps 1-4 would be repeated. In the case the target SSP changes, then steps 1-4 would be repeated.
This is reflected in Figure 1 that shows the target SSP with its own This is reflected in Figure 1 that shows the target SSP with its own
peering functions. peering functions.
4. Relationships Between Functions/Elements 4. Relationships Between Functions/Elements
o An SBE can contain a SF function. o An SBE can contain a SF function.
o An SF can perform LUF and LRF functions. o An SF can perform LUF and LRF functions.
skipping to change at page 8, line 8 skipping to change at page 9, line 17
If an external E.164 address is the target, the originating (or If an external E.164 address is the target, the originating (or
indirect) SSP consults the public "User ENUM" rooted at e164.arpa, indirect) SSP consults the public "User ENUM" rooted at e164.arpa,
according to the procedures described in [RFC3761]. The SSP must according to the procedures described in [RFC3761]. The SSP must
query for the "E2U+sip" enumservice as described in [RFC3764], but query for the "E2U+sip" enumservice as described in [RFC3764], but
may check for other enumservices. The originating (or indirect) SSP may check for other enumservices. The originating (or indirect) SSP
may consult a cache or alternate representation of the ENUM data may consult a cache or alternate representation of the ENUM data
rather than actual DNS queries. Also, the SSP may skip actual DNS rather than actual DNS queries. Also, the SSP may skip actual DNS
queries if the originating (or indirect) SSP is sure that the target queries if the originating (or indirect) SSP is sure that the target
address country code is not represented in e164.arpa. address country code is not represented in e164.arpa.
If an im: or pres: URI is chosen for based on an "E2U+im" [RFC3861] If an im: or pres: URI is chosen based on an "E2U+im" [RFC3861] or
or "E2U+pres" [RFC3953] enumserver, the SSP follows the procedures "E2U+pres" [RFC3953] enumserver, the SSP follows the procedures for
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.
The NAPTR response to the ENUM lookup may be a SIP AoR (such as The NAPTR response to the ENUM lookup may be a SIP AoR (such as
"sips:bob@example.com") or SIP URI (such as "sips:bob@example.com") or SIP URI (such as
"sips:bob@sbe1.biloxi.example.com"). In the case of when a SIP URI "sips:bob@sbe1.biloxi.example.com"). In the case of when a SIP URI
is returned, the originating (or indirect) SSP has sufficient routing is returned, the originating (or indirect) SSP has sufficient routing
information to locate the target SSP. In the case of when a SIP AoR information to locate the target SSP. In the case of when a SIP AoR
is returned, the SF then uses the LRF to determine the URI for more is returned, the SF then uses the LRF to determine the URI for more
explicitly locating the target SSP. explicitly locating the target SSP.
skipping to change at page 13, line 24 skipping to change at page 14, line 36
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 17: Misc. updates at the request of Gonzalo, the RAI AD, in order
to clear his review and move to the IESG. This included adding
terminology from RFC 5486 and expanding the document name.
o 16: Yes, one final outdated reference to fix. 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.
o 12: Closed out several open issues. Properly XML-ized all o 12: Closed out several open issues. Properly XML-ized all
references. Updated contributors list. references. Updated contributors list.
o 11: Quick update to refresh the I-D since it expired, and cleaned 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 up some of the XML for references. A real revision is coming
soon. soon.
12. Open Issues 12. References
NOTE TO RFC EDITOR: PLEASE REMOVE THIS SECTION PRIOR TO PUBLICATION.
o NONE!
13. References
13.1. Normative References 12.1. 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,
"Session Peering for Multimedia Interconnect (SPEERMINT) "Session Peering for Multimedia Interconnect (SPEERMINT)
Security Threats and Suggested Countermeasures", Security Threats and Suggested Countermeasures",
draft-ietf-speermint-voipthreats-06 (work in progress), draft-ietf-speermint-voipthreats-06 (work in progress),
November 2010. November 2010.
[RFC1035] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - implementation and
specification", STD 13, RFC 1035, November 1987.
[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.
[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.
[RFC3550] Schulzrinne, H., Casner, S., Frederick, R., and V.
Jacobson, "RTP: A Transport Protocol for Real-Time
Applications", STD 64, RFC 3550, July 2003.
[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 [RFC3764] Peterson, J., "enumservice registration for Session
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.
skipping to change at page 15, line 21 skipping to change at page 16, line 36
"Transport Layer Security (TLS) Renegotiation Indication "Transport Layer Security (TLS) Renegotiation Indication
Extension", RFC 5746, February 2010. Extension", RFC 5746, February 2010.
[RFC5878] Brown, M. and R. Housley, "Transport Layer Security (TLS) [RFC5878] Brown, M. and R. Housley, "Transport Layer Security (TLS)
Authorization Extensions", RFC 5878, May 2010. 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 12.2. 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.
[RFC3711] Baugher, M., McGrew, D., Naslund, M., Carrara, E., and K. [RFC3711] Baugher, M., McGrew, D., Naslund, M., Carrara, E., and K.
Norrman, "The Secure Real-time Transport Protocol (SRTP)", Norrman, "The Secure Real-time Transport Protocol (SRTP)",
RFC 3711, March 2004. RFC 3711, March 2004.
 End of changes. 19 change blocks. 
60 lines changed or deleted 135 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/