[Search] [txt|pdfized|bibtex] [Tracker] [Email] [Nits]
Versions: 00                                                            
Session PEERing for Multimedia                                  O. Lendl
INTerconnect                                                     enum.at
Internet-Draft                                            August 2, 2006
Expires: February 3, 2007


      Publishing Policies using the Domain Policy DDDS Application
               draft-lendl-speermint-technical-policy-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 February 3, 2007.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).

Abstract

   This documents contains the policy-type definition for "std" within
   the Domain Policy DDDS Application.  Using this policy-type, service
   providers can announce to prospective callers which protocols (or
   protocol extensions) need to be supported to reach this destination
   network.






Lendl                   Expires February 3, 2007                [Page 1]


Internet-Draft             Policy Publication                August 2006


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

   2.  Protocol Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

   3.  Naming Protocol Extensions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
     3.1.  RFCs  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
     3.2.  Internet Drafts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
     3.3.  Other Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

   4.  Policy-Type template  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

   5.  Examples  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

   6.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

   7.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

   8.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

   9.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
     9.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
     9.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

   Author's Address  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
   Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements  . . . . . . . . . . 8
























Lendl                   Expires February 3, 2007                [Page 2]


Internet-Draft             Policy Publication                August 2006


1.  Introduction

   The domain policy DDDS application [2] defines a generic method how a
   domain owner may announce the conditions to accept incoming
   communications.  This documents defines the policy-type for
   publishing a list of required standards (often protocol extensions)
   which a caller must support.

   The policy-type chosen for this application is "std".

   Rules using the the "std" policy-type refer to published and thus
   well-known rule-sets.  These are thus "Publications" in the language
   of [2].  Two parties can thus independently start to support and
   require a standard and will interoperate without any coordination.

   The examples in the Domain Policy DDDS I-D use this policy-type.


2.  Protocol Extensions

   Usually, protocols have built-in methods to signal support for
   extensions to the core protocol.  Such negotiations happen inside the
   protocol and thus only after the connection has been established.  If
   protocol extensions are not optional, but required by the receiving
   side, this can lead to the following unwanted effects:

   o  Delay: If the sender side can fall back to a different protocol or
      delivery path than such an unsuccessful connection attempt costs
      time.

   o  Layering problems: If the destination side requires special TLS or
      IPsec parameters for the connection to succeed, it cannot tell the
      sender side about these requirements within the protocol, as no
      connection can be established with having conveyed these
      parameters.

   o  Extension naming: Negotiations within the protocol usually use
      IANA-assigned protocol identifiers.  These might not be available
      for experimental extensions.

   The Domain Policy DDDS Application can be used to convey a list of
   required protocol extensions to any prospective sender out-of-band of
   the actual application protocol.


3.  Naming Protocol Extensions

   The Domain Policy DDDS Application uses URIs as identifiers for



Lendl                   Expires February 3, 2007                [Page 3]


Internet-Draft             Policy Publication                August 2006


   individual policy rules.  This is a good fit as URIs are perfect to
   indicate standards.

3.1.  RFCs

   According to RFC 2648 [1] IETF RFCs can be referenced by the URIs of
   the form "urn:ietf:rfc:<number>".

   As an example, a record of

      $ORIGIN example.com
      @ IN NAPTR 10 50   "U"  "D2P+SIP:std" (
                 "!^.*$!urn:ietf:rfc:3325!" . )

   indicates that example.com expects incoming calls to use the SIP
   Asserted Identity standard to transmit caller ID data.

3.2.  Internet Drafts

   RFC 2648 includes an URN definition for Internet Drafts as well.
   These look like "urn:ietf:id:<author-wg-name-version>".  RFC 2648
   lists "urn:ietf:id:ietf-urn-ietf-06" as an example.

3.3.  Other Standards

   As a general rule, if the publishing organization has defined an URN
   schema for its documents, that should be used.  If not, the location
   of the standard document on the official web-page can be used.


4.  Policy-Type template


      Policy Type: "std"

      URI Scheme(s): Any URI is allowed.

      Functional Specification: The URI acts as an identifier of
            a standardization document which describes procedures
            that a sender needs to follow.

      Security considerations: None beyond the ones listed in

   [2]
   .

      Intended usage: COMMON




Lendl                   Expires February 3, 2007                [Page 4]


Internet-Draft             Policy Publication                August 2006


      Author: Otmar Lendl



5.  Examples

   The examples are for the SIP [4] peering case.  To build complex
   examples, the policy-type "fed" as described in [3] is also used.

   o  The carrier example.com only accepts SIP calls if a set of
      features is present, he might publish a policy like this:

      $ORIGIN example.com.
      ;      order pref flags service       regexp           replacement
       IN NAPTR 10 10   "U" "D2P+SIP:std" "!^.*$!urn:ietf:rfc:3325!" .
       IN NAPTR 10 11   "U" "D2P+SIP:std" "!^.*$!urn:ietf:rfc:3326!" .

   o  In this example the "example.com" also allows incoming connections
      as long they use the SIP remote party ID header.  Calls according
      to federation rules are preferred.

      $ORIGIN example.com.
       IN NAPTR 10 50 (                                 ; order priority
             "U" "D2P+SIP:fed"                          ; flags service
             "!^.*$!http://sipxconnect.example.org/!" . ; regexp repl
             )
       IN NAPTR 20 10 (                                 ; order priority
             "U" "D2P+SIP:std"                          ; flags service
             "!^.*$!urn:ietf:id:ietf-sip-privacy-02!" . ; regexp repl
             )


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 "std" for the domain policy
   DDDS application.


8.  Acknowledgements




Lendl                   Expires February 3, 2007                [Page 5]


Internet-Draft             Policy Publication                August 2006


   The author would like to thank Alexander Mayrhofer and Michael
   Haberler for their contributions.


9.  References

9.1.  Normative References

   [1]  Moats, R., "A URN Namespace for IETF Documents", RFC 2648,
        August 1999.

   [2]  Lendl, O., "The Domain Policy DDDS Application",
        draft-lendl-domain-policy-ddds-00 (work in progress),
        February 2006.

9.2.  Informative References

   [3]  Lendl, O., "A Federation based VoIP Peering Architecture",
        draft-lendl-speermint-federations-02 (work in progress),
        August 2006.

   [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.



























Lendl                   Expires February 3, 2007                [Page 6]


Internet-Draft             Policy Publication                August 2006


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 February 3, 2007                [Page 7]


Internet-Draft             Policy Publication                August 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 February 3, 2007                [Page 8]