Identity Registry (idreg)
draft-wendt-modern-identity-registry-01

Document Type Active Internet-Draft (individual)
Last updated 2017-03-13
Stream (None)
Intended RFC status (None)
Formats plain text xml pdf html bibtex
Stream Stream state (No stream defined)
Consensus Boilerplate Unknown
RFC Editor Note (None)
IESG IESG state I-D Exists
Telechat date
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to (None)
modern                                                          C. Wendt
Internet-Draft                                                   Comcast
Intended status: Standards Track                          March 13, 2017
Expires: September 14, 2017

                       Identity Registry (idreg)
                draft-wendt-modern-identity-registry-01

Abstract

   This document will describe an approach for how a distributed
   identity registry model might look.  It will consider both public
   registry components of the data model necessary for routing calls
   from one globally routable identity to another.  It will also
   consider part of the private registry components a provider may need
   to manage associations with users or customers.  Other topics include
   provider associations, application or service association, and the
   ability to support multiple identities associated with a user/
   subscriber (e.g. telephone number and e-mail identity).

Status of This Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   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."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on September 14, 2017.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect

Wendt                  Expires September 14, 2017               [Page 1]
Internet-Draft                    idreg                       March 2017

   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  Overview  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     3.1.  Identity Data Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     3.2.  Other identity registry attributes  . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   4.  Message and Control Flows . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     4.1.  Queries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     4.2.  Allocation/Assignment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
       4.2.1.  API definition  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
       4.2.2.  Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     4.3.  Update Entry/Port . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
       4.3.1.  API definition  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     4.4.  Removal/de-allocation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
       4.4.1.  API definition  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   5.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   6.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   7.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     7.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     7.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   Author's Address  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9

1.  Introduction

   There are many useful VoIP and user to user communications
   applications that desire the ability to provide services that don't
   depend on a single entity or provider to manage the end-to-end
   identities associated with that application.  For example, using the
   VoIP protocol, SIP [RFC3261], the telephone network provides a
   federated mechanism that using a publicly known identity, the
   telephone number, a customer of a telephone provider A can call a
   customer of telephone provider B based on managed routing databases
   and routing rules.  XMPP [RFC6120] is another example of a protocol
   that allowed federation of communications based on the username and
   domain of the host of the XMPP server.  Each of these examples uses
   service specific databases or registries that are generally protocol
Show full document text