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/