Network Working Group O. Lendl Internet-Draft enum.at Expires: August 30, 2006 February 26, 2006 Federations for the Domain Policy DDDS Application draft-lendl-speermint-federations-00 Status of this Memo By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of 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. Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. This Internet-Draft will expire on August 30, 2006. Copyright Notice Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006). Abstract This documents defines the policy-type for federations within the Domain Policy DDDS Application. Using this policy-type domain-owners can announce their membership in a federation and thus their willingness to accept incoming communications according to the rules of that federation. Such federations can be used to establish selective peerings e.g. in the Voice over IP and Instant Messaging space. Lendl Expires August 30, 2006 [Page 1] Internet-Draft The Federation Policy-Type February 2006 Table of Contents 1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. Federations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 4. Policy-Type template . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 5. Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 8.1 Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 8.2 Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . 7 Lendl Expires August 30, 2006 [Page 2] Internet-Draft The Federation Policy-Type February 2006 1. Terminology This document uses the terminology as defined in draft-meyer-speermint-reqs-and-terminology-00 [1]. The acronym VSP will stand for "VoIP Service Provider". Nothing in this document requires VSPs to be commercial service providers, the same principles and algorithms apply to enterprises and private SIP proxies as well. 2. Introduction The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in [3]. The domain policy DDDS application [2] defines a method with which a domain owner can announce the conditions under which he will accept incoming communications. This documents defines one policy-type to be used within that framework. This document will focus on the use of the federation concept in the context of SIP [4] peering. The same mechanism can be applied to other protocols as well, the only difference in the domain policy DDDS DNS records is the protocol field within the service parameter of the NAPTR records. 3. Federations The proposed method is based upon the concept of a "Federation". A federation in this context is defined as follows: A Federation is a group of VoIP service providers which * agree to receive calls from each other via SIP, * agree on a set of administrative rules for such calls (settlement, abuse-handling, ...), and * agree on specific rules for the technical details of the interconnection. This document does not define what these rules can be and how they are communicated to all members of a federation. There is no requirement to make those rules public. Federations shall use URIs as their identifiers. It is RECOMMENDED that federations use URLs as identifiers which point to documents describing the federation. Lendl Expires August 30, 2006 [Page 3] Internet-Draft The Federation Policy-Type February 2006 The federation named "urn:ietf:rfc:3261" stands for the public Internet. A SIP service provider who announces his membership in "urn:ietf:rfc:3261" will accept calls as defined in the generic SIP RFC [4]. For the purposes of the domain policy DDDS application, federation identifiers are opaque strings. The only operations performed on these identifiers are string comparisons. If the identifier is in the form of an URL, the document referred to by that URL is never evaluated within the domain policy DDDS application. Examples for federation rules: o A set of VoIP service providers form an association and agree to accept calls from each other via the public Internet as long as the SIP call uses TCP/TLS as transport protocol and presents a X.509 cert which was signed by the association's own CA. o A set of VoIP service providers build a L3 network dedicated to VoIP peering ("walled garden", similar to the 3GPP GRX network). They agree to accept calls from all participants in that network and bill each other via a clearinghouse. o A set of VoIP service providers agree to accept calls originating from within the same country. They use a set of firewall rules to block calls from abroad. o Peering fabric based on SIP: A company sets up a SIP proxy which acts as a forwarding proxy between the SIP proxies of all participating VSPs. The group of these VSP form a federation whose technical rules state that calls have to be routed via that central proxy. 4. Policy-Type template Policy Type: "fed" URI Scheme(s): Any URI is allowed. Functional Specification: The URI acts purely as an identifier of a federation. If both the sender and the destination are members of the same federation then they can communicate using this federation's rules. Security considerations: Intended usage: COMMON Author: Otmar Lendl Lendl Expires August 30, 2006 [Page 4] Internet-Draft The Federation Policy-Type February 2006 5. Examples NAPTR records in zone-file format can exceed the line-length restrictions of the I-D document format. In these cases a backlash at the end of a line will indicate that the following line should be read as part of preceding line. o In the second example the SIP services at "example.com" is only reachable via a private interconnection arrangement maintained by a federation called "http://sipxconnect.example.org/". $ORIGIN example.com. ; order pref flags service regexp replacement IN NAPTR 10 50 "U" "D2P+SIP:fed" \ "!^.*$!http://sipxconnect.example.org/!" . o A restrictive SIP service might only accept calls from peers from two federations. The policy records could look like this: $ORIGIN example.com ; order pref flags service regexp replacement @ IN NAPTR 10 10 "U" "D2P+SIP:fed" \ "!^.*$!http://sipxconnect.example.org/!" . @ IN NAPTR 20 10 "U" "D2P+SIP:fed" \ "!^.*$!http://sip.federation.com/!" . 6. Security Considerations The publishing of the access policy via the DNS RR described in this draft will reduce the amount of unwanted communication attempts, as all well-meaning clients will follow them, but these records cannot substitute measures to actually enforce the published policy. 7. IANA Considerations This document registers the policy-type "fed" for the domain policy DDDS application. 8. References 8.1 Normative References [1] Meyer, D., "SPEERMINT Requirements and Terminology", draft-meyer-speermint-reqs-and-terminology-00 (work in progress), February 2006. Lendl Expires August 30, 2006 [Page 5] Internet-Draft The Federation Policy-Type February 2006 [2] Lendl, O., "The Domain Policy DDDS Application", draft-lendl-domain-policy-ddds-00 (work in progress), February 2006. 8.2 Informative References [3] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. [4] Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., Camarillo, G., Johnston, A., Peterson, J., Sparks, R., Handley, M., and E. Schooler, "SIP: Session Initiation Protocol", RFC 3261, June 2002. Author's Address Otmar Lendl enum.at GmbH Karlsplatz 1/9 Wien A-1010 Austria Phone: +43 1 5056416 33 Email: otmar.lendl@enum.at URI: http://www.enum.at/ Lendl Expires August 30, 2006 [Page 6] Internet-Draft The Federation Policy-Type February 2006 Intellectual Property Statement The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in this document or the extent to which any license under such rights might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be found in BCP 78 and BCP 79. Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at http://www.ietf.org/ipr. The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at ietf-ipr@ietf.org. Disclaimer of Validity This document and the information contained herein are provided on an "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Copyright Statement Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006). This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights. Acknowledgment Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the Internet Society. Lendl Expires August 30, 2006 [Page 7]