--- 1/draft-ietf-speermint-requirements-08.txt	2009-10-26 20:12:27.000000000 +0100
+++ 2/draft-ietf-speermint-requirements-09.txt	2009-10-26 20:12:27.000000000 +0100
@@ -1,18 +1,18 @@
 
 SPEERMINT Working Group                                        J-F. Mule
 Internet-Draft                                                 CableLabs
 Intended status: Informational                          October 26, 2009
 Expires: April 29, 2010
 
           SPEERMINT Requirements for SIP-based Session Peering
-                draft-ietf-speermint-requirements-08.txt
+                draft-ietf-speermint-requirements-09.txt
 
 Status of this Memo
 
    This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the
    provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
 
    Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
    Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups.  Note that
    other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
    Drafts.
@@ -502,51 +502,51 @@
    The Look-Up Function (LUF) and Location Routing Function (LRF) are
    defined in [RFC5486].  They provide mechanisms for determining the
    SIP target address and domain the request should be sent to, and the
    associated SED to route the request to that domain.
 
    o  Requirement #15:
       The protocols used to query the Lookup and Location Routing
       Functions SHOULD support mutual authentication.
 
       Motivations:
-      A mutual authentication service is desirable for the LUF and LRF
-      protocol exchanges.  The content of the response returned by the
-      LUF and LRF may depend on the identity of the requestor: the
+      A mutual authentication service should be provided for the LUF and
+      LRF protocol exchanges.  The content of the response returned by
+      the LUF and LRF may depend on the identity of the requestor: the
       authentication of the LUF & LRF requests is therefore a desirable
       property.  Mutual authentication is also desirable: the requestor
       may verify the identity of the systems that provided the LUF & LRF
       responses given the nature of the data returned in those
       responses.  Authentication also provides some protection for the
       availability of the LUF and LRF against attackers that would
       attempt to launch DoS attacks by sending bogus requests causing
       the LUF to perform a lookup and consume resources.
 
    o  Requirement #16:
       The protocols used to query the Lookup and Location Routing
-      Functions MUST provide support for data confidentiality and
+      Functions SHOULD provide support for data confidentiality and
       integrity.
 
       Motivations:
       Given the sensitive nature of the session establishment data
       exchanged with the LUF and LRF functions, the protocol mechanisms
       chosen for the lookup and location routing should offer data
       confidentiality and integrity protection (SED data may contain
       user addresses, SIP URI, location of SIP entities at the
       boundaries of SIP Service Provider domains, etc.).
 
    o  Notes on the solution space for Requirements #15 and #16: ENUM,
       SIP and proprietary protocols are typically used today for
       accessing these functions.  Even though SSPs may use lower layer
       security mechanisms to guarantee some of those security
-      properties, candidate protocols for the LUF and LRF must meet the
-      above requirements.
+      properties, candidate protocols for the LUF and LRF should meet
+      the above requirements.
 
 5.2.  Security Properties for the SIP signaling exchanges
 
    The SIP signaling exchanges are out of scope of this document.  This
    section describes some of the security properties that are desirable
    in the context of SIP interconnects between SSPs without formulating
    any normative requirements.
 
    In general, the security properties desirable for the SIP exchanges
    in an inter-domain context apply to session peering.  These include: