DRINKS S. Channabasappa, Ed.
Internet-Draft CableLabs
Intended status: Informational March 13, 2011
Expires: September 14, 2011
DRINKS Use cases and Protocol Requirements
draft-ietf-drinks-usecases-requirements-05
Abstract
This document captures the use cases and associated requirements for
interfaces that provision session establishment data into SIP Service
Provider components, to assist with session routing. Specifically,
the current version of this document focuses on the provisioning of
one such element, termed the registry.
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). 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, 2011.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2011 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
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.
Channabasappa, Ed. Expires September 14, 2011 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft ietf-drinks-usecases-reqs March 2011
Table of Contents
1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. Registry Use Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.1. Category: Provisioning Mechanisms . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.2. Category: Interconnect Schemes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.3. Category: SED Exchange and Discovery Models . . . . . . . 11
3.4. Category: SED Record Content . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.5. Category: Separation and Facilitation of Data
Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.6. Category: Lookup Keys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
3.7. Category: Misc . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
4. Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
4.1. Provisioning Mechanisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
4.2. Interconnect Schemes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
4.3. SED Exchange and Discovery Requirements . . . . . . . . . 16
4.4. SED Record Content Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
4.5. Data Management Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
4.6. Lookup Key Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
4.7. Misc. Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
7. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Channabasappa, Ed. Expires September 14, 2011 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft ietf-drinks-usecases-reqs March 2011
1. Terminology
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 [RFC2119].
This document reuses terms from [RFC3261] (e.g., SIP, SSP), [RFC5486]
(e.g., LUF, LRF, SED) and [RFC5067] (carrier-of-record and transit
provider). In addition, this document specifies the following
additional terms.
Registry: The authoritative source for provisioned session
establishment data (SED) and related information. A Registry can
be part of an SSP as well as an independent entity.
Registrar: An entity that provisions and manages data into the
registry. An SSP can act as its own registrar or - additionally
or alternatively - delegate this function to a third party who
acts as its registrar.
Local Data Repository: The data store component of an addressing
server that provides resolution responses.
Public Identifier: A public identifier refers to a telephone number
(TN), a SIP address, or other identity as deemed appropriate, such
as a globally routable URI of a user address (e.g.,
sip:john.doe@example.net).
TN Range: A numerically contiguous set (or, in the case of an open
numbering plan, a prefix) of telephone numbers whose SED can be
looked up (resolved).
RN: A Routing Number. See [RFC4694] for details
Channabasappa, Ed. Expires September 14, 2011 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft ietf-drinks-usecases-reqs March 2011
Destination Group: An aggregation of a set of public identifiers,
TN Ranges, or RNs that share common SED which is exposed to a
common set of peers.
Data Recipient: An entity with visibility into a specific set of
public identifiers, the destination groups that contain these
public identifiers, and a route group's SED records.
Route Group: An aggregation that contains a related set of SED
records, and is associated with a set of destination groups.
Route groups facilitate the management of SED records for one or
more data recipients.
Channabasappa, Ed. Expires September 14, 2011 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft ietf-drinks-usecases-reqs March 2011
2. Overview
The SPEERMINT WG specifies Session Establishment Data, or SED, as the
data used to route a call to the next hop associated with the called
domain's ingress point. More specifically, the SED is the set of
parameters that the outgoing signaling path border elements (SBEs)
need to establish a session. See Section 3.3 of [RFC5486] for more
details.
The specification of the format and protocols to provision SED is a
task taken up by the DRINKS WG. This document contains the use cases
and requirements that have been proposed in this regard.
SED is typically created by the terminating or next-hop SSP and
consumed by the originating SSP. To avoid a multitude of bilateral
exchanges, SED is often shared via intermediary systems - termed
registries within this document. Such registries receive data via
provisioning transactions from SSPs, and then distribute the received
data into Local Data Repositories. These local data repositories are
used for call routing by outgoing SBEs. This is depicted in
Figure 1.
*-------------*
1. Provision SED | |
-----------------------> | Registry |
| |
*-------------*
/ \
/ \
/ \
/ \
/ \
/ \
/ 2.Distribute \
/ SED \
V V
+----------+ +----------+
|Local Data| |Local Data|
|Repository| |Repository|
+----------+ +----------+
Channabasappa, Ed. Expires September 14, 2011 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft ietf-drinks-usecases-reqs March 2011
Figure 1: General Diagram
In this document, we primarily address the use cases and requirements
for provisioning registries. Future revisions may include data
distribution to local data repositories. The resulting provisioning
protocol can be used to provision data into a registry, or between
multiple registries operating in parallel. In Figure 2, the case of
multiple registries is depicted with dotted lines.
. . . . . . .
. . . . . . . registry . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . .
. . .
. . provision .
+-----------+ . +-----------+
| | provision +----------+ provision | |
| SSP 1 |------------>| Registry |<-----------| SSP 2 |
| | +----------+ | |
| +-----+ | /\ | +-----+ |
| | LDR | <-------------------- ------------------>| LDR | |
| +-----+ | distribute distribute | +-----+ |
| | | |
+-----------+ +-----------+
. .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
(provision / distribute)
Where, LDR = Local Data Repository
Figure 2: Functional Overview
In addition, this document proposes the following aggregation groups
with regards to SED (refer to the use cases in Section 3.5 for the
rationale):
o Aggregation of public Identifiers into a destination group.
Channabasappa, Ed. Expires September 14, 2011 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft ietf-drinks-usecases-reqs March 2011
o Aggregation of SED records into a Route Group.
The data model depicted in Figure 3 shows the various entities,
aggregations and the relationships between them.
+---------+ +--------------+ +---------+
| Data |0..n 0..n| ROUTE | 1 0..n| SED |
|Recepient|------------| GROUP | --------------| Record |
+---------+ +--------------+ +---------+
|0..n |0..n
| |
| |
| |
|0..n |
1 +--------------+ 0..1 |
---------| DESTINATION |--------- |
| | GROUP | | |
| +--------------+ | |
| | | |
| 1| | |
| | | |
| | | |
0..n | 0..n | | 0..n |
+---------+ +---------+ +----------+ |
| RN | | TN | | Public |----
| | | Range | |Identifier| 1
+---------+ +---------+ +----------+
Figure 3: Data Model Diagram
The relationships are as described below:
- A Public Identifier object can be directly related to zero or more
SED Record objects, and a SED Record object can be related to
exactly one Public Identifier object.
Channabasappa, Ed. Expires September 14, 2011 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft ietf-drinks-usecases-reqs March 2011
- A Destination Group object can contain zero or more TN Range
objects, and a TN Range object can be contained in exactly one
Destination Group object.
- A Destination Group object can contain zero or more Public
Identifier objects, and a Public Identifier object can be
contained in exactly one Destination Group object.
- A Destination Group object can contain zero or more RN objects,
and an RN object can be contained in exactly one Destination Group
object.
- A Route Group object can contain zero or more SED Record objects,
and a SED Record object can be contained in exactly one Route
Group object.
- A Route Group object can be associated with zero or more
Destination Group objects, and a Destination Group object can be
associated with zero or more Route Group objects.
- A Data Recipient object can be associated with zero or more Route
Group objects, and a Route Group object can refer to zero or more
Data Recipient objects.
Channabasappa, Ed. Expires September 14, 2011 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft ietf-drinks-usecases-reqs March 2011
3. Registry Use Cases
This Section documents use cases related to the provisioning of the
registry. Any request to provision, modify or delete data is subject
to authorization. However, the act of authorization is considered to
be out of scope of this document.
3.1. Category: Provisioning Mechanisms
UC PROV #1 Real-Time Provisioning: Registrars have operational
systems that provision public identifiers, in association
with their SED. These systems often function in a manner
that expect or require that these provisioning activities
be completed immediately, as apposed to an out-of-band or
batch provisioning scheme that can occur at a later time.
This type of provisioning is referred to as real-time, or
on-demand provisioning.
UC PROV #2 Non-Real-Time Bulk Provisioning: Operational systems that
provision public identifiers and associated SED sometimes
expect that these provisioning activities be batched up
into large sets. These batched requests are then
processed using a provisioning mechanism that is out-of-
band and occurs at a later time.
UC PROV #3 Multi-Request Provisioning: Regardless of whether a
provisioning action is performed in real-time or not,
SSPs often perform several provisioning actions on
several objects in a single request or transaction. This
is done for performance and scalability reasons, and for
transactional reasons, such that the set of provisioning
actions either fail or succeed atomically, as a complete
set.
3.2. Category: Interconnect Schemes
UC INTERCONNECT #1 Inter-SSP SED: SSPs create peering relationships
with other SSPs in order to establish
interconnects. Establishing these interconnects
involves, among other things, communicating and
enabling the points of ingress and other SED used
to establish sessions to a set of public
Channabasappa, Ed. Expires September 14, 2011 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft ietf-drinks-usecases-reqs March 2011
identifiers.
UC INTERCONNECT #2 Direct vs Indirect Peering: Some inter-SSP
peering relationships are created to enable the
establishment of sessions to the public
identifiers for which an SSP is the carrier-of-
record. This is referred to as direct peering.
Other inter-SSP peering relationships are created
to enable the establishment of sessions to public
identifiers for which an SSP is a transit
provider. This is referred to as indirect
peering. Some SSPs take into consideration an
SSP's role as a transit or carrier-of-record
provider when selecting a route to a public
identifier.
UC INTERCONNECT #3 Intra-SSP SED: SSPs support the establishment of
sessions between their own public identifiers,
not just to other SSPs' public identifiers.
Enabling this involves, among other things,
communicating and enabling intra-SSP signaling
points and other SED that can differ from inter-
SSP signaling points and SED.
UC INTERCONNECT #4 Selective Peering (a.k.a. per peer policies):
SSPs create peering relationships with other SSPs
in order to establish interconnects. However,
SSPs peering relationships often result in
different points of ingress or other SED for the
same set of public identifiers. Selective
peering is done on a Route Group basis.
UC INTERCONNECT #5 Provisioning of a delegated hierarchy: An SSP may
decide to maintain its own infrastructure to
contain the route records that constitute the
terminal step in the LUF. In such cases, the SSP
will provision registries to direct queries for
the SSP's public identifiers to its own
infrastructure, rather than provisioning the
route records directly. For example, in the case
Channabasappa, Ed. Expires September 14, 2011 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft ietf-drinks-usecases-reqs March 2011
of DNS-based route records, such a delegated
hierarchy would make use of NS and CNAME records,
while a flat structure would make use of NAPTR
resource records.
3.3. Category: SED Exchange and Discovery Models
UC SED EXCHANGE #1 SED Exchange and Discovery using unified LUF/LRF:
When establishing peering relationships some SSPs
may wish to communicate or receive SED (e.g.,
points of ingress) that constitutes the
aggregated result of both LUF and LRF.
UC SED EXCHANGE #2 SED Exchange and Discovery using LUF's Domain
Name: When establishing peering relationships
some SSPs may not wish to communicate or receive
points of ingress and other SED using a registry.
They wish to only communicate or receive domain
names (LUF step only), and then independently
resolvable those domain names via [RFC3263] to
the final points of ingress data (and other SED).
UC SED EXCHANGE #3 SED Exchange and Discovery using LUF's
Administrative Domain Identifier: When
establishing peering relationships some SSPs may
not wish to communicate or receive points of
ingress and other SED using a registry. They
wish to only communicate or receive an
administrative domain identifier, which is not
necessarily resolvable via DNS. The subsequent
process of using that administrative domain
identifier to select points of ingress or other
SED can be SSP specific and occurs outside the
context of this protocol.
UC SED EXCHANGE #4 Co-existent SED Exchange and Discovery Models:
When supporting multiple peering relationships
some SSPs have the need to concurrently support
all three of the SED Exchange and Discovery
Models described above, for the same set of
Channabasappa, Ed. Expires September 14, 2011 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft ietf-drinks-usecases-reqs March 2011
Public Identifiers.
3.4. Category: SED Record Content
UC SED RECORD #1 SED Record Content: Establishing interconnects
between SSPs involves, among other things,
communicating points of ingress, the service types
(SIP, SIPS, etc) supported by each point of
ingress, and the relative priority of each point of
ingress for each service type.
UC SED RECORD #2 Time-To-Live (TTL): For performance reasons,
querying SSPs sometimes cache SED that had been
previously looked up for a given public identity.
In order to accomplish this, SSPs sometimes specify
the TTL associated with a given SED record.
3.5. Category: Separation and Facilitation of Data Management
UC DATA #1 Separation of Provisioning Responsibility: An SSP's
operational practices often separate the responsibility
of provisioning the points of ingress and other SED, from
the responsibility of provisioning public identifiers (or
TN ranges or RNs). For example, a network engineer can
establish a physical interconnect with a peering SSP's
network and provision the associated domain name, host,
and IP addressing information. Separately, for each new
subscriber, the SSP's provisioning systems provision the
associated public identifiers.
UC DATA #2 Destination Groups: SSPs often provision identical SED
for large numbers of public identifiers. For reasons of
efficiency, groups of public identifiers that have the
same SED can be aggregated. These aggregations are known
as destination groups. The SED is then indirectly
associated with destination groups rather than with each
individual public identity.
Channabasappa, Ed. Expires September 14, 2011 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft ietf-drinks-usecases-reqs March 2011
UC DATA #3 Route Groups: SSPs often provision identical SED for
large numbers of public identifiers, and then expose that
relationship between a group of SED records and a group
of public identifiers to one or more SSPs. This combined
grouping of SED records and Destination Groups
facilitates management of public identity SED
relationships and the list of peers (data recipients)
that can lookup those public identifiers and receive that
SED. This dual set of SED Records and Destination Groups
is termed as a Route Group.
3.6. Category: Lookup Keys
UC LOOKUP #1 Additions and deletions: SSPs often allocate and de-
allocate specific public identifiers to and from end-
users. This involves, among other things, activating
or deactivating specific public identifiers (or TN
ranges or RNs), and directly (or indirectly)
associating them with the appropriate points of ingress
and other SED.
UC LOOKUP #2 Carrier-of-Record vs Transit Lookup Key Provisioning:
Some inter-SSP peering relationships are created to
enable the establishment of sessions to the lookup keys
for which an SSP is the carrier-of-record. Other
inter-SSP peering relationships are created to enable
the establishment of sessions to lookup keys for which
an SSP is a transit provider. Some SSPs take into
consideration an SSP's role as a transit or carrier-of-
record provider when selecting a route to a public
identifier.
UC LOOKUP #3 Multiplicity of Identical Lookup Keys: As described in
previous use cases, SSPs provision lookup keys and
their associated SED for multiple peering SSPs, and as
both the carrier-of-record and transit provider. As a
result, a given lookup key can reside in multiple
destination groups at any given time.
Channabasappa, Ed. Expires September 14, 2011 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft ietf-drinks-usecases-reqs March 2011
UC LOOKUP #4 Lookup Key Destination Group Modification: SSPs often
change the SED associated with a given lookup key.
This involves, among other things, directly or
indirectly associating them with a different point of
ingress, different services, and/or different other
SED.
UC LOOKUP #5 Lookup Key Carrier-Of-Record vs Transit Modification:
SSPs may have the need to change their Carrier-Of-
Record vs Transit role for lookup keys they previously
provisioned.
UC LOOKUP #6 Modification of authority: An SSP indicates that it is
the carrier-of-record for an existing public identity
or TN Range. If the public identity or TN Range was
previously associated with a different carrier-of-
record then there are multiple possible outcomes, such
as: a) the previous carrier-of-record is disassociated,
b) the previous carrier-of-record is relegated to
transit status, or c) the new carrier-of-record is
placed in inactive mode. The choice may be dependent
on the deployment scenario, and is out of scope for
this document.
3.7. Category: Misc
UC MISC #1 Number Portability: The SSP wishes to provide, in query
response to public identifiers, an associated routing
number (RN). This is the case where a set of public
identifiers is no longer associated with original SSP but
have been ported to a recipient SSP, who provides access
to these identifiers via a switch on the SS7 network
identified by the RN.
UC MISC #2 Data Recipient Offer and Accept: When a peering
relationship is established (or invalidated) SSPs
provision (or remove) data recipients in the registry.
However, a peer may first need to accept it's role (as a
data recipient) before such a change is made effective.
Alternatively an auto-accept feature can be configured
Channabasappa, Ed. Expires September 14, 2011 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft ietf-drinks-usecases-reqs March 2011
for a given data recipient.
UC MISC #3 Open numbering plans: In several countries, an open
numbering plan is used, which is where the carrier-of-
record is only aware of a portion of the E.164 number
(i.e., the prefix). The carrier-of-record may not know
the complete number, or the number of digits in the
number. The rest of the digits are handled offline
(e.g., by a PBX). For example, an SSP can be the
carrier-of-record for "+123456789", and is also the
carrier-of-record for every possible expansion of that
number such as "+12345678901" and "+123456789012", even
though the SSP does not know what those expansions could
be. This can be described as the carrier-of-record
effectively being authoritative for the prefix.
Channabasappa, Ed. Expires September 14, 2011 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft ietf-drinks-usecases-reqs March 2011
4. Requirements
This Section lists the requirements based on the use cases in
Section 3. Unless explicitly stated as optional, the registry
provisioning interface must support these requirements.
4.1. Provisioning Mechanisms
REQ-PROV-1: Real-time provisioning.
REQ-PROV-2: Non-real-time bulk provisioning.
REQ-PROV-3: Multi-request provisioning.
4.2. Interconnect Schemes
REQ-INTERCONNECT-1: Inter-SSP peering.
REQ-INTERCONNECT-2: Direct and Indirect peering.
REQ-INTERCONNECT-3: Intra-SSP SED.
REQ-INTERCONNECT-4: Selective peering.
REQ-INTERCONNECT-5: Provisioning of a delegated hierarchy.
4.3. SED Exchange and Discovery Requirements
Channabasappa, Ed. Expires September 14, 2011 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft ietf-drinks-usecases-reqs March 2011
REQ-SED-1: SED containing unified LUF and LRF content.
REQ-SED-2: SED containing LUF-only data using domain names.
REQ-SED-3: SED containing LUF-only data using administrative
domains.
REQ-SED-4: Support for all the other REQ-SED requirements,
concurrently, for the same public identifier.
4.4. SED Record Content Requirements
REQ-SED-RECORD-1: Ability to provision SED record content.
REQ-SED-RECORD-2: (Optional) Communication of an associated TTL for
a SED Record.
4.5. Data Management Requirements
REQ-DATA-MGMT-1: Separation of responsibility for the provisioning
the points of ingress and other SED, from the
responsibility of provisioning public identifiers.
REQ-DATA-MGMT-2: Ability to aggregate a set of public identifiers as
destination groups.
REQ-DATA-MGMT-3: Ability to create the aggregation termed route
group.
Channabasappa, Ed. Expires September 14, 2011 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft ietf-drinks-usecases-reqs March 2011
4.6. Lookup Key Requirements
REQ-LOOKUP-1: Provisioning of, and modifications to, the following
aggregations: destination group and route groups.
REQ-LOOKUP-2: Ability to distinguish an SSP as either the carrier-
of-record provider or transit provider.
REQ-LOOKUP-3: A given lookup key (e.g., public identity, RN, TN
Range) can reside in multiple destination groups at
the same time.
REQ-LOOKUP-4: Modification of lookup keys by allowing them to be
moved to a different destination group via an atomic
operation.
REQ-LOOKUP-5: SSPs can indicate a change to their role from carrier-
of-record provider to transit, or vice-versa.
REQ-LOOKUP-6: Support for modification of authority with the
conditions described in UC LOOKUP #6.
4.7. Misc. Requirements
REQ-MISC-1: Number portability support.
REQ-MISC-2: Ability for the SSP to be offered a peering
relationship, and for the SSP to accept (explicitly or
implicitly) or reject such an offer.
Channabasappa, Ed. Expires September 14, 2011 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft ietf-drinks-usecases-reqs March 2011
REQ-MISC-3: Support for open numbering plans.
Channabasappa, Ed. Expires September 14, 2011 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft ietf-drinks-usecases-reqs March 2011
5. Security Considerations
Session establishment data allows for the routing of SIP sessions
within, and between, SIP Service Providers. Access to this data can
compromise the routing of sessions and expose a SIP Service Provider
to attacks such as service hijacking and denial of service. The data
can be compromised by vulnerable functional components and interfaces
identified within the use cases.
A provisioning protocol or interface that implements the described
use cases MUST therefore provide data confidentiality, and MUST
ensure message integrity for the provisioning flow. Authentication
and authorization of the provisioning entities are REQUIRED features
of the protocol and interfaces.
Channabasappa, Ed. Expires September 14, 2011 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft ietf-drinks-usecases-reqs March 2011
6. IANA Considerations
This document does not register any values in IANA registries, nor
request the creation of a registry.
Channabasappa, Ed. Expires September 14, 2011 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft ietf-drinks-usecases-reqs March 2011
7. Acknowledgments
This document is a result of various discussions held within the
DRINKS WG; specifically , in alphabetical order: Alexander Mayrhofer,
Deborah A Guyton, Gregory Schumacher, Jean-Francois Mule, Kenneth
Cartwright, Manjul Maharishi, Penn Pfautz, Ray Bellis, Richard
Shockey, and Syed Ali.
This specific version of the document is a result of contributions
from the following individuals: Alexander Mayrhofer, Otmar Lendl,
Sohel Khan, and Peter Koch. In addition, we also thank Brian Rose
and Jon Peterson for suggestions we incorporated.
Channabasappa, Ed. Expires September 14, 2011 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft ietf-drinks-usecases-reqs March 2011
8. References
8.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC5486] Malas, D. and D. Meyer, "Session Peering for Multimedia
Interconnect (SPEERMINT) Terminology", RFC 5486,
March 2009.
8.2. Informative References
[RFC3261] 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.
[RFC3263] Rosenberg, J. and H. Schulzrinne, "Session Initiation
Protocol (SIP): Locating SIP Servers", RFC 3263,
June 2002.
[RFC4694] Yu, J., "Number Portability Parameters for the "tel" URI",
RFC 4694, October 2006.
[RFC5067] Lind, S. and P. Pfautz, "Infrastructure ENUM
Requirements", RFC 5067, November 2007.
Channabasappa, Ed. Expires September 14, 2011 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft ietf-drinks-usecases-reqs March 2011
Author's Address
Sumanth Channabasappa
CableLabs
858 Coal Creek Circle
Louisville, CO 80027
USA
Email: sumanth@cablelabs.com
Channabasappa, Ed. Expires September 14, 2011 [Page 24]