2.5.14 Session PEERing for Multimedia INTerconnect (speermint)

NOTE: This charter is a snapshot of the 72nd IETF Meeting in Dublin, Ireland. It may now be out-of-date.

Last Modified: 2008-02-06


Jason Livingood <jason_livingood@cable.comcast.com>
Daryl Malas <d.malas@cablelabs.com>

Real-time Applications and Infrastructure Area Director(s):

Jon Peterson <jon.peterson@neustar.biz>
Cullen Jennings <fluffy@cisco.com>

* The Real-time Applications and Infrastructure Area Directors were seated during the IETF 65.

Real-time Applications and Infrastructure Area Advisor:

Jon Peterson <jon.peterson@neustar.biz>


Alexander Mayrhofer <alexander.mayrhofer@enum.at>

Mailing Lists:

General Discussion: speermint@ietf.org
To Subscribe: speermint-request@ietf.org
In Body: (un)subscribe
Archive: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/speermint/index.html

Description of Working Group:

The term "VoIP Peering" has historically been used to describe
inter-provider network interconnect and the delivery of voice
calls over interconnection points. While voice calls are the
primary motivation for this today, other forms of real-time
communications are and will continue to evolve as natural
additions to such peering. Therefore, the focus of this working
group is best generalized to describe calls as sessions, and to
note that that such communications are inherently real-time in

SPEERMINT focuses architectures to identify, signal, and route
delay-sensitive (real-time) communication sessions. These sessions
use the SIP signaling protocol to enable peering between two or more
administrative domains over IP networks. Where these domains peer,
or meet, the establishment of trust, security, and a resistance to
abuse and attack are all important considerations.

Note that the term "peering" is used here to refer to
the interconnection between application layer entities such as
SIP servers, as opposed to interconnection at the IP network
layer. However, in order to achieve real-time Session PEERing,
both signaling and media flows must be taken into
consideration. In addition, the working group recognizes that
there will be use cases that require SPEERMINT to focus on the
interaction between the application layer and lower network
layers, or the dependence of specific application layer use
cases on lower layers, so SPEERMINT will have to be prepared to
solve these problems as they arise.

More specifically, SPEERMINT focuses on real-time session
routing architectures and their associated use cases.
Deliverables here include the specification of the various
types of application flows, such as signaling and media flows, in
such networks, and includes both trunking and peer-to-peer
flows. In addition, SPEERMINT considers and documents requirements
for the feedback of operational conditions (e.g., congestion control)
that enables the application of dynamic policy and recognizes
that various mechanisms for achieving this should be studied as
a potential part of any architecture. In future, as its initial
work completes and the requirements become known, SPEERMINT may seek
rechartering to consider various mechanism to support applying
Quality of Service and/or traffic engineering mechanisms in an
architecturally sound way in support of real-time Session
PEERing. A charter discussion would consider how to work with
with mechanisms developed by other working groups, selecting
and integrating those, but as stated, first the initial milestones
must be completed.

The most focused deliverables of SPEERMINT are best current practices
regarding exchange of real-time sessions among VoIP and other
real-time application service providers and, in particular, how
such calls are routed. SPEERMINT will recognize that some of these
providers also control underlying access networks
(facilities-based), while others do not (not facilities-based),
and this fact may present various additional requirements or
use cases for consideration. The working group will develop
one or more use case documents to record the varieties of
the practices, as well as use this recognition as a guide to
maintaining the greatest possible separation of the application
layer from lower layers.

The SPEERMINT work plan is related to and distinct from the work
plans of the ENUM and SIPPING working groups. While the
the ENUM Working Group is primarily concerned
with the structure and lookup of data for the translation of
E.164 numbers into URIs (RFC3761), SPEERMINT is concerned with
the use of the resulting URI data, as well as non-ENUM-derived
URI data, for use in signaling and routing of real-time
sessions. The SIPPING WG produced the original document in
this area (RFC 3824). The future work in this area will be
produced by SPEERMINT, but RFC 3427, the SIP change process will
be followed as needed.

Issues that are out of scope for SPEERMINT include:

o Interoperability, and NITS/profiling of existing protocols
such as SIP, RTP, and SRTP,

o SPIT prevention. Note, however, that other working groups
may release relevant specifications that become required or
are referenced by various SPEERMINT uses cases and BCPs,

o Routing of sessions which are not signaled using SIP. In
particular, SPEERMINT is constrained to consider only those
scenarios in which call routing is signaled using the SIP
protocol and addressed by SIP or SIPS URIs. E.164 numbers and
other national or private formats may only be used as defined
within the SIP protocols, and

o H.323

In the goals and milestones, "submit" means to submit the document to
the IESG for publication.

Goals and Milestones:

Apr 2007  Submit SPEERMINT terminology I-D (Informational)
Aug 2007  Submit SPEERMINT IM-specific use cases I-D (Informational)
Aug 2007  Submit SPEERMINT VoIP-specific use cases I-D (Informational)
Jan 2008  Submit SPEERMINT architecture I-D (Informational)
Feb 2008  Submit SPEERMINT minimum requirements for SIP-based VoIP interconnection. (BCP)
Feb 2008  Submit SPEERMINT DNS SRV and NAPTR use I-D (BCP)
Feb 2008  Submit SPEERMINT message flows I-D (Informational)
Mar 2008  Propose re-chartering for any additional efforts/considerations, or propose conclusion of working group (following approval of last documents)


  • draft-ietf-speermint-terminology-16.txt
  • draft-ietf-speermint-requirements-04.txt
  • draft-ietf-speermint-architecture-05.txt
  • draft-ietf-speermint-srv-naptr-use-02.txt
  • draft-ietf-speermint-consolidated-presence-im-usecases-04.txt
  • draft-ietf-speermint-voip-consolidated-usecases-05.txt

    No Request For Comments

    Meeting Minutes


    VoIP Consolidated Use Cases (Adam Uzelac)
    Requirements (Jean-Francois Mule)
    Architecture (Reinaldo Penno)
    Message Flows (Hadriel Kaplan)
    Security BCPs (Jan Seedorf)
    Document Status (Jason Livingood)