idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-drinks-usecases-requirements-06.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year -- The document date (August 12, 2011) is 4639 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Informational ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 1 warning (==), 1 comment (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 DRINKS S. Channabasappa, Ed. 3 Internet-Draft CableLabs 4 Intended status: Informational August 12, 2011 5 Expires: February 13, 2012 7 Data for Reachability of Inter/tra-NetworK SIP (DRINKS) Use cases and 8 Protocol Requirements 9 draft-ietf-drinks-usecases-requirements-06 11 Abstract 13 This document captures the use cases and associated requirements for 14 interfaces that provision session establishment data into Session 15 Initiation Protocol (SIP) Service Provider components, to assist with 16 session routing. Specifically, this document focuses on the 17 provisioning of one such element, termed the registry. 19 Status of this Memo 21 This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the 22 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 24 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 25 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 26 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 27 Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 29 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 30 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 31 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 32 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 34 This Internet-Draft will expire on February 13, 2012. 36 Copyright Notice 38 Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 39 document authors. All rights reserved. 41 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 42 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 43 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 44 publication of this document. Please review these documents 45 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 46 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 47 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 48 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 49 described in the Simplified BSD License. 51 Table of Contents 53 1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 54 2. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 55 3. Registry Use Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 56 3.1. Category: Provisioning Mechanisms . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 57 3.2. Category: Interconnect Schemes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 58 3.3. Category: SED Exchange and Discovery Models . . . . . . . 11 59 3.4. Category: SED Record Content . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 60 3.5. Category: Separation and Facilitation of Data 61 Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 62 3.6. Category: Public Identifiers, TN Ranges and RNs . . . . . 13 63 3.7. Category: Misc . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 64 4. Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 65 4.1. Provisioning Mechanisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 66 4.2. Interconnect Schemes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 67 4.3. SED Exchange and Discovery Requirements . . . . . . . . . 17 68 4.4. SED Record Content Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 69 4.5. Data Management Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 70 4.6. Public Identifier, TN Range and RN Requirements . . . . . 18 71 4.7. Misc. Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 72 5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 73 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 74 7. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 75 8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 76 8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 77 8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 78 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 80 1. Terminology 82 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 83 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 84 document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. 86 This document reuses terms from [RFC3261] (e.g., SIP, SSP), [RFC5486] 87 (e.g., LUF, LRF, SED) and [RFC5067] (carrier-of-record and transit 88 provider). In addition, this document specifies the following 89 additional terms. 91 Registry: The authoritative source for provisioned session 92 establishment data (SED) and related information. A registry can 93 be part of an SSP or be an independent entity. 95 Registrar: An entity that provisions and manages data into the 96 registry. An SSP can act as its own registrar or - additionally 97 or alternatively - delegate this function to a third party (who 98 acts as its registrar). 100 Local Data Repository(LDR): The data store component of an 101 addressing server that provides resolution responses. 103 Public Identifier: A public identifier refers to a telephone number 104 (TN), a SIP address, or other identity as deemed appropriate, such 105 as a globally routable URI of a user address (e.g., 106 sip:john.doe@example.net). 108 Telephone Number (TN) Range: A numerically contiguous set of 109 telephone numbers. 111 Telephone Number (TN) Prefix: A preceding portion of the digits 112 common across a series of E.164 numbers. A given TN prefix will 113 include all the valid E.164 numbers that satisfy the expansion 114 rules mandated by the country or the region that the TNs comply 115 with. 117 Routing Number (RN): A Routing Number. For more information, see 118 [RFC4694]. 120 Destination Group: An aggregation of a set of public identifiers, 121 TN Ranges, or RNs that share common SED, which is exposed to a 122 common set of peers. 124 Data Recipient: An entity with visibility into a specific set of 125 public identifiers (or TN Ranges or RNs), the destination groups 126 that contain these public identifiers (or TN Ranges and RNs), and 127 a route group's SED records. 129 Route Group: An aggregation that contains a related set of SED 130 records, and is associated with a set of destination groups. 131 Route groups facilitate the management of SED records for one or 132 more data recipients. 134 2. Overview 136 [RFC5486] (Section 3.3) defines Session Establishment Data, or SED, 137 as the data used to route a call to the next hop associated with the 138 called domain's ingress point. More specifically, the SED is the set 139 of parameters that the outgoing signaling path border elements (SBEs) 140 need to establish a session. However, [RFC5486] does not specify the 141 protocol(s) or format(s) to provision SED. To pave the way to 142 specify such a protocol, this document presents the use cases and 143 associated requirements that have been proposed to provision SED 144 data. 146 SED is typically created by the terminating or next-hop SSP and 147 consumed by the originating SSP. To avoid a multitude of bilateral 148 exchanges, SED is often shared via intermediary systems - termed 149 registries within this document. Such registries receive data via 150 provisioning transactions from SSPs, and then distribute the received 151 data into Local Data Repositories (LDRs). These LDRs are used for 152 call routing by outgoing SBEs. This is depicted in Figure 1. 154 *-------------* 155 1. Provision SED | | 156 -----------------------> | Registry | 157 | | 158 *-------------* 159 / \ 160 / \ 161 / \ 162 / \ 163 / \ 164 / \ 165 / 2.Distribute \ 166 / SED \ 167 V V 168 +----------+ +----------+ 169 |Local Data| |Local Data| 170 |Repository| |Repository| 171 +----------+ +----------+ 173 Figure 1: General Diagram 175 In this document, we address the use cases and requirements for 176 provisioning registries. Data distribution to local data 177 repositories is out of scope for this document. The resulting 178 provisioning protocol can be used to provision data into a registry, 179 or between multiple registries operating in parallel. In Figure 2, 180 the case of multiple registries is depicted with dotted lines. 182 . . . . . . . 183 . . . . . . . registry . . . . . . . 184 . . . . . . . . . 185 . . . 186 . . . 187 . . provision . 188 +-----------+ . +-----------+ 189 | | provision +----------+ provision | | 190 | SSP 1 |------------>| Registry |<-----------| SSP 2 | 191 | | +----------+ | | 192 | +-----+ | /\ | +-----+ | 193 | | LDR | <-------------------- ------------------>| LDR | | 194 | +-----+ | distribute distribute | +-----+ | 195 | | | | 196 +-----------+ +-----------+ 197 . . 198 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199 (provision / distribute) 201 Figure 2: Functional Overview 203 In addition, this document proposes two aggregation groups, as 204 follows: 206 o Aggregation of public Identifiers into a destination group. 208 o Aggregation of SED records into a route group. 210 The use cases in Section 3.5 provide the rationale. The data model 211 depicted in Figure 3 shows the various entities, aggregations and the 212 relationships between them. 214 +---------+ +--------------+ +---------+ 215 | Data |0..n 0..n| Route | 1 0..n| SED | 216 |Recepient|------------| Group | --------------| Record | 217 +---------+ +--------------+ +---------+ 218 |0..n |0..n 219 | | 220 | | 221 | | 222 |0..n | 223 1 +--------------+ 0..1 | 224 ---------| Destination |--------- | 225 | | Group | | | 226 | +--------------+ | | 227 | | | | 228 | 1| | | 229 | | | | 230 | | | | 231 0..n | 0..n | | 0..n | 232 +---------+ +---------+ +----------+ | 233 | RN | | TN | | Public |---- 234 | | | Range | |Identifier| 1 235 +---------+ +---------+ +----------+ 237 Figure 3: Data Model Diagram 239 The relationships are as described below: 241 - A public identifier object can be directly related to zero or more 242 SED Record objects, and a SED Record object can be related to 243 exactly one public identifier object. 245 - A destination group object can contain zero or more TN Range 246 objects, and a TN Range object can be contained in exactly one 247 destination group object. 249 - A destination group object can contain zero or more public 250 identifier objects, and a public identifier object can be 251 contained in exactly one destination group object. 253 - A destination group object can contain zero or more RN objects, 254 and an RN object can be contained in exactly one destination group 255 object. 257 - A route group object can contain zero or more SED Record objects, 258 and a SED Record object can be contained in exactly one route 259 group object. 261 - A route group object can be associated with zero or more 262 destination group objects, and a destination group object can be 263 associated with zero or more route group objects. 265 - A data recipient object can be associated with zero or more route 266 group objects, and a route group object can refer to zero or more 267 data recipient objects. 269 3. Registry Use Cases 271 This Section documents use cases related to the provisioning of the 272 registry. Any request to provision, modify or delete data is subject 273 to several security considerations (see Section Section 5). This 274 document does not address these considerations. The protocols that 275 implement these use cases (and associated requirements) will need to 276 explicitly identify and address them. 278 3.1. Category: Provisioning Mechanisms 280 UC PROV #1 Real-Time Provisioning: Registrars have operational 281 systems that provision public identifiers (or TN Ranges 282 or RNs), in association with their SED. These systems 283 often function in a manner that expect or require that 284 these provisioning activities be completed immediately, 285 as apposed to an out-of-band or batch provisioning scheme 286 that can occur at a later time. This type of 287 provisioning is referred to as real-time, or on-demand 288 provisioning. 290 UC PROV #2 Non-Real-Time Bulk Provisioning: Operational systems that 291 provision public identifiers (or TN Ranges or RNs) and 292 associated SED sometimes expect that these provisioning 293 activities be batched up into large sets. These batched 294 requests are then processed using a provisioning 295 mechanism that is out-of-band and occurs at a later time. 297 UC PROV #3 Multi-Request Provisioning: Regardless of whether a 298 provisioning action is performed in real-time or not, 299 SSPs often perform several provisioning actions on 300 several objects in a single request or transaction. This 301 is done for performance and scalability reasons, and for 302 transactional reasons, such that the set of provisioning 303 actions either fail or succeed atomically, as a complete 304 set. 306 3.2. Category: Interconnect Schemes 307 UC INTERCONNECT #1 Inter-SSP SED: SSPs create peering relationships 308 with other SSPs in order to establish 309 interconnects. Establishing these interconnects 310 involves, among other things, communicating and 311 enabling the points of ingress and other SED used 312 to establish sessions. 314 UC INTERCONNECT #2 Direct and Indirect Peering: Some inter-SSP 315 peering relationships are created to enable the 316 establishment of sessions to the public 317 identifiers for which an SSP is the carrier-of- 318 record. This is referred to as direct peering. 319 Other inter-SSP peering relationships are created 320 to enable the establishment of sessions to public 321 identifiers for which an SSP is a transit 322 provider. This is referred to as indirect 323 peering. Some SSPs take into consideration an 324 SSP's role as a transit or carrier-of-record 325 provider when selecting a route to a public 326 identifier. 328 UC INTERCONNECT #3 Intra-SSP SED: SSPs support the establishment of 329 sessions between their own public identifiers, 330 not just to other SSPs' public identifiers. 331 Enabling this involves, among other things, 332 communicating and enabling intra-SSP signaling 333 points and other SED that can differ from inter- 334 SSP signaling points and SED. 336 UC INTERCONNECT #4 Selective Peering (a.k.a. per peer policies): 337 SSPs create peering relationships with other SSPs 338 in order to establish interconnects. However, 339 SSPs peering relationships often result in 340 different points of ingress or other SED for the 341 same set of public identifiers. This is referred 342 to as selective peering, and is done on a route 343 group basis. 345 UC INTERCONNECT #5 Provisioning of a delegated hierarchy: An SSP may 346 decide to maintain its own infrastructure to 347 contain the route records that constitute the 348 terminal step in the LUF. In such cases, the SSP 349 will provision registries to direct queries for 350 the SSP's public identifiers to its own 351 infrastructure, rather than provisioning the 352 route records directly. For example, in the case 353 of DNS-based route records, such a delegated 354 hierarchy would make use of NS and CNAME records, 355 while a flat structure would make use of NAPTR 356 resource records. 358 3.3. Category: SED Exchange and Discovery Models 360 UC SED EXCHANGE #1 SED Exchange and Discovery using unified LUF/LRF: 361 When establishing peering relationships some SSPs 362 may wish to communicate or receive SED (e.g., 363 points of ingress) that constitutes the 364 aggregated result of both LUF and LRF. 366 UC SED EXCHANGE #2 SED Exchange and Discovery using LUF's Domain 367 Name: When establishing peering relationships 368 some SSPs may not wish to communicate or receive 369 points of ingress and other SED using a registry. 370 They wish to only communicate or receive domain 371 names (LUF step only), and then independently 372 resolvable those domain names via [RFC3263] to 373 the final points of ingress data (and other SED). 375 UC SED EXCHANGE #3 SED Exchange and Discovery using LUF's 376 Administrative Domain Identifier: When 377 establishing peering relationships some SSPs may 378 not wish to communicate or receive points of 379 ingress and other SED using a registry. They 380 wish to only communicate or receive an 381 administrative domain identifier, which is not 382 necessarily resolvable via DNS. The subsequent 383 process of using that administrative domain 384 identifier to select points of ingress or other 385 SED can be SSP specific and is out of scope for 386 this document. 388 UC SED EXCHANGE #4 Co-existent SED Exchange and Discovery Models: 389 When supporting multiple peering relationships 390 some SSPs have the need to concurrently support 391 all three of the SED Exchange and Discovery 392 Models already described in this Section 393 (Section 3.3), for the same set of public 394 identifiers. 396 3.4. Category: SED Record Content 398 UC SED RECORD #1 SED Record Content: Establishing interconnects 399 between SSPs involves, among other things, 400 communicating points of ingress, the service types 401 (SIP, SIPS, etc) supported by each point of 402 ingress, and the relative priority of each point of 403 ingress for each service type. 405 UC SED RECORD #2 Time-To-Live (TTL): For performance reasons, 406 querying SSPs sometimes cache SED that had been 407 previously looked up for a given public identifier. 408 In order to accomplish this, SSPs sometimes specify 409 the TTL associated with a given SED record. 411 3.5. Category: Separation and Facilitation of Data Management 413 UC DATA #1 Separation of Provisioning Responsibility: An SSP's 414 operational practices often separate the responsibility 415 of provisioning the points of ingress and other SED, from 416 the responsibility of provisioning public identifiers (or 417 TN ranges or RNs). For example, a network engineer can 418 establish a physical interconnect with a peering SSP's 419 network and provision the associated domain name, host, 420 and IP addressing information. Separately, for each new 421 subscriber, the SSP's provisioning systems provision the 422 associated public identifiers. 424 UC DATA #2 Destination Groups: SSPs often provision identical SED 425 for large numbers of public identifiers (or TN Ranges or 426 RNs). For reasons of efficiency, groups of public 427 identifiers that have the same SED can be aggregated. 429 These aggregations are known as destination groups. The 430 SED is then indirectly associated with destination groups 431 rather than with each individual public identifier (or TN 432 Ranges or RNs). 434 UC DATA #3 Route Groups: SSPs often provision identical SED for 435 large numbers of public identifiers (or TN Ranges or 436 RNs), and then expose that relationship between a group 437 of SED records and a group of public identifiers (or TN 438 Ranges or RNs) to one or more SSPs. This combined 439 grouping of SED records and destination groups 440 facilitates efficient management of relationships and the 441 list of peers (data recipients) that can lookup public 442 identifiers and receive the associated SED. This dual 443 set of SED Records and destination groups is termed as a 444 route group. 446 3.6. Category: Public Identifiers, TN Ranges and RNs 448 UC PI #1 Additions and deletions: SSPs often allocate and de- 449 allocate specific public identifiers to and from end-users. 450 This involves, among other things, activating or 451 deactivating specific public identifiers (TN ranges or 452 RNs), and directly or indirectly associating them with the 453 appropriate points of ingress and other SED. 455 UC PI #2 Carrier-of-Record vs Transit Provisioning: Some inter-SSP 456 peering relationships are created to enable the 457 establishment of sessions to the public identifiers (or TN 458 Ranges or RNs) for which an SSP is the carrier-of-record. 459 Other inter-SSP peering relationships are created to enable 460 the establishment of sessions for which an SSP is a transit 461 provider. Some SSPs take into consideration an SSP's role 462 as a transit or carrier-of-record provider when selecting a 463 route. 465 UC PI #3 Multiplicity: As described in previous use cases, SSPs 466 provision public identifiers (or TN Ranges or RNs) and 467 their associated SED for multiple peering SSPs, and as both 468 the carrier-of-record and transit provider. As a result, a 469 given public identifier (or TN Range or RN) key can reside 470 in multiple destination groups at any given time. 472 UC PI #4 Destination Group Modification: SSPs often change the SED 473 associated with a given public identifier (or TN Range or 474 RN). This involves, among other things, directly or 475 indirectly associating them with a different point of 476 ingress, different services, or different SED. 478 UC PI #5 Carrier-Of-Record vs Transit Modification: SSPs may have 479 the need to change their Carrier-Of-Record vs Transit role 480 for public identifiers (or TN Ranges or RNs) that they 481 previously provisioned. 483 UC PI #6 Modification of authority: An SSP indicates that it is the 484 carrier-of-record for an existing public identifier or TN 485 Range. If the public identifier or TN Range was previously 486 associated with a different carrier-of-record then there 487 are multiple possible outcomes, such as: a) the previous 488 carrier-of-record is disassociated, b) the previous 489 carrier-of-record is relegated to transit status, or c) the 490 new carrier-of-record is placed in inactive mode. The 491 choice may be dependent on the deployment scenario, and is 492 out of scope for this document. 494 3.7. Category: Misc 496 UC MISC #1 Number Portability: The SSP wishes to provide, in query 497 response to public identifiers, an associated routing 498 number (RN). This is the case where a set of public 499 identifiers is no longer associated with original SSP but 500 have been ported to a recipient SSP, who provides access 501 to these identifiers via a switch on the Signaling System 502 Number 7 network identified by the RN. 504 UC MISC #2 Data Recipient Offer and Accept: When a peering 505 relationship is established (or invalidated) SSPs 506 provision (or remove) data recipients in the registry. 507 However, a peer may first need to accept it's role (as a 508 data recipient) before such a change is made effective. 509 Alternatively an auto-accept feature can be configured 510 for a given data recipient. 512 UC MISC #3 Open numbering plans: In several countries, an open 513 numbering plan is used, where the carrier-of-record is 514 only aware of a portion of the E.164 number (i.e., the TN 515 prefix). The carrier-of-record may not know the complete 516 number, or the number of digits in the number. The rest 517 of the digits are handled offline (e.g., by a Private 518 Branch Exchange, or PBX). For example, an SSP can be the 519 carrier-of-record for "+123456789", and is also the 520 carrier-of-record for every possible expansion of that 521 number such as "+12345678901" and "+123456789012", even 522 though the SSP does not know what those expansions could 523 be. This can be described as the carrier-of-record 524 effectively being authoritative for the TN prefix. 526 4. Requirements 528 This Section lists the requirements extracted from the use cases in 529 Section 3. The objective is to make it easier for protocol designers 530 to understand the underlying requirements, and to reference and list 531 the requirements that they support (or not). The requirements listed 532 here, unless explicitly indicated otherwise, are expected to be 533 supported. Protocol proposals are also expected to indicate their 534 compliance with these requirements, and highlight ones that they 535 don't meet (if any). Furthermore, the requirements listed here are 536 not meant to be limiting, i.e., protocol implementations and 537 deployments may choose to support additional requirements based on 538 use cases that are not listed in this document. 540 4.1. Provisioning Mechanisms 542 REQ-PROV-1: Real-time provisioning. 544 REQ-PROV-2: (Optional) Non-real-time bulk provisioning. 546 REQ-PROV-3: Multi-request provisioning. 548 4.2. Interconnect Schemes 550 REQ-INTERCONNECT-1: Inter-SSP peering. 552 REQ-INTERCONNECT-2: Direct and Indirect peering. 554 REQ-INTERCONNECT-3: Intra-SSP SED. 556 REQ-INTERCONNECT-4: Selective peering. 558 REQ-INTERCONNECT-5: Provisioning of a delegated hierarchy. 560 4.3. SED Exchange and Discovery Requirements 562 REQ-SED-1: SED containing unified LUF and LRF content. 564 REQ-SED-2: SED containing LUF-only data using domain names. 566 REQ-SED-3: SED containing LUF-only data using administrative 567 domains. 569 REQ-SED-4: Support for all the other REQ-SED requirements (listed in 570 this Section), concurrently, for the same public 571 identifier (or TN Range or RN). 573 4.4. SED Record Content Requirements 575 REQ-SED-RECORD-1: Ability to provision SED record content. 577 REQ-SED-RECORD-2: (Optional) Communication of an associated TTL for 578 a SED Record. 580 4.5. Data Management Requirements 582 REQ-DATA-MGMT-1: Separation of responsibility for the provisioning 583 the points of ingress and other SED, from the 584 responsibility of provisioning public identifiers. 586 REQ-DATA-MGMT-2: Ability to aggregate a set of public identifiers as 587 destination groups. 589 REQ-DATA-MGMT-3: Ability to create the aggregation termed route 590 group. 592 4.6. Public Identifier, TN Range and RN Requirements 594 REQ-PI-TNR-RN-1: Provisioning of, and modifications to, the 595 following aggregations: destination group and route 596 groups. 598 REQ-PI-TNR-RN-2: Ability to distinguish an SSP as either the 599 carrier-of-record provider or transit provider. 601 REQ-PI-TNR-RN-3: A given public identifier (or TN Range or RN) can 602 reside in multiple destination groups at the same 603 time. 605 REQ-PI-TNR-RN-4: Modification of public identifier (or TN Range or 606 RN) by allowing them to be moved to a different 607 destination group via an atomic operation. 609 REQ-PI-TNR-RN-5: SSPs can indicate a change to their role from 610 carrier-of-record provider to transit, or vice- 611 versa. 613 REQ-PI-TNR-RN-6: Support for modification of authority with the 614 conditions described in UC PI #6. 616 4.7. Misc. Requirements 618 REQ-MISC-1: Number portability support. 620 REQ-MISC-2: Ability for the SSP to be offered a peering 621 relationship, and for the SSP to accept (explicitly or 622 implicitly) or reject such an offer. 624 REQ-MISC-3: Support for open numbering plans. 626 5. Security Considerations 628 Session establishment data allows for the routing of SIP sessions 629 within, and between, SIP Service Providers. Access to this data can 630 compromise the routing of sessions and expose a SIP Service Provider 631 to attacks such as service hijacking and denial of service. The data 632 can be compromised by vulnerable functional components and interfaces 633 identified within the use cases. 635 A provisioning protocol or interface that implements the described 636 use cases MUST therefore provide data confidentiality, and MUST 637 ensure message integrity for the provisioning flow. Authentication 638 and authorization of the provisioning entities are REQUIRED features 639 of the protocol and interfaces. 641 6. IANA Considerations 643 This document does not register any values in IANA registries, nor 644 request the creation of a registry. 646 7. Acknowledgments 648 This document is a result of various contributions from (and 649 discussions within) the IETF DRINKS Working Group; specifically, in 650 alphabetical order: Alexander Mayrhofer, Deborah A Guyton, Gregory 651 Schumacher, Jean-Francois Mule, Kenneth Cartwright, Manjul Maharishi, 652 Penn Pfautz, Ray Bellis, Richard Shockey, and Syed Ali. 654 The editor also wishes to thank the following for their comments and 655 suggestions: Otmar Lendl, Sohel Khan, Peter Koch, Brian Rosen, Jon 656 Peterson and Gonzalo Camarillo. 658 8. References 660 8.1. Normative References 662 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 663 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. 665 [RFC5486] Malas, D. and D. Meyer, "Session Peering for Multimedia 666 Interconnect (SPEERMINT) Terminology", RFC 5486, 667 March 2009. 669 8.2. Informative References 671 [RFC3261] Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., Camarillo, G., Johnston, 672 A., Peterson, J., Sparks, R., Handley, M., and E. 673 Schooler, "SIP: Session Initiation Protocol", RFC 3261, 674 June 2002. 676 [RFC3263] Rosenberg, J. and H. Schulzrinne, "Session Initiation 677 Protocol (SIP): Locating SIP Servers", RFC 3263, 678 June 2002. 680 [RFC4694] Yu, J., "Number Portability Parameters for the "tel" URI", 681 RFC 4694, October 2006. 683 [RFC5067] Lind, S. and P. Pfautz, "Infrastructure ENUM 684 Requirements", RFC 5067, November 2007. 686 Author's Address 688 Sumanth Channabasappa 689 CableLabs 690 858 Coal Creek Circle 691 Louisville, CO 80027 692 USA 694 Email: sumanth@cablelabs.com