GENWiki

Premier IT Outsourcing and Support Services within the UK

User Tools

Site Tools

Problem, Formatting or Query -  Send Feedback

Was this page helpful?-10+1


rfc:rfc6461

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) S. Channabasappa, Ed. Request for Comments: 6461 CableLabs Category: Informational January 2012 ISSN: 2070-1721

     Data for Reachability of Inter-/Intra-NetworK SIP (DRINKS)
                Use Cases and Protocol Requirements

Abstract

 This document captures the use cases and associated requirements for
 interfaces that provision session establishment data into Session
 Initiation Protocol (SIP) Service Provider components to assist with
 session routing.  Specifically, this document focuses on the
 provisioning of one such element termed the "registry".

Status of This Memo

 This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is
 published for informational purposes.
 This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
 (IETF).  It represents the consensus of the IETF community.  It has
 received public review and has been approved for publication by the
 Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG).  Not all documents
 approved by the IESG are a candidate for any level of Internet
 Standard; see Section 2 of RFC 5741.
 Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
 and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
 http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6461.

Copyright Notice

 Copyright (c) 2012 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 Informational [Page 1] RFC 6461 DRINKS Use Cases and Requirements January 2012

Table of Contents

 1. Overview ........................................................2
 2. Terminology .....................................................5
 3. Registry Use Cases ..............................................6
    3.1. Category: Provisioning Mechanisms ..........................6
    3.2. Category: Interconnect Schemes .............................7
    3.3. Category: SED Exchange and Discovery Models ................8
    3.4. Category: SED Record Content ...............................9
    3.5. Category: Separation and Facilitation of Data Management ...9
    3.6. Category: Public Identifiers, TN Ranges, and RNs ..........10
    3.7. Category: Misc ............................................11
 4. Requirements ...................................................11
    4.1. Provisioning Mechanisms ...................................12
    4.2. Interconnect Schemes ......................................12
    4.3. SED Exchange and Discovery Requirements ...................12
    4.4. SED Record Content Requirements ...........................12
    4.5. Data Management Requirements ..............................13
    4.6. Public Identifier, TN Range, and RN Requirements ..........13
    4.7. Misc. Requirements ........................................13
 5. Security Considerations ........................................14
 6. Acknowledgments ................................................14
 7. References .....................................................15
    7.1. Normative References ......................................15
    7.2. Informative References ....................................15

1. Overview

 [RFC5486] (Section 3.3) defines 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.  However, [RFC5486] does not specify the
 protocol(s) or format(s) to provision SED.  To pave the way to
 specify such a protocol, this document presents the use cases and
 associated requirements that have been proposed to provision SED.
 SED is typically created by the terminating or next-hop SIP service
 provider (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
 (LDRs).  These LDRs are used for call routing by outgoing SBEs.  This
 is depicted in Figure 1.

Channabasappa Informational [Page 2] RFC 6461 DRINKS Use Cases and Requirements January 2012

  • ————-*

1. Provision SED | |

  1. ———————→ | Registry |

| |

  • ————-*

/ \

                                         /    \
                                        /      \
                                       /        \
                                      /          \
                                     /            \
                                    / 2.Distribute \
                                   /      SED       \
                                  V                  V
                            +----------+       +----------+
                            |Local Data|       |Local Data|
                            |Repository|       |Repository|
                            +----------+       +----------+
                       Figure 1: General Diagram
 In this document, we address the use cases and requirements for
 provisioning registries.  Data distribution to local data
 repositories is out of scope for this document.  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)
                     Figure 2: Functional Overview

Channabasappa Informational [Page 3] RFC 6461 DRINKS Use Cases and Requirements January 2012

 In addition, this document proposes two aggregation groups, as
 follows:
 o  Aggregation of public Identifiers into a destination group.
 o  Aggregation of SED records into a route group.
 The use cases in Section 3.5 provide the rationale.  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   |
     |Recipient|------------|     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:
  1. 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.
  1. A destination group object can contain zero or more TN (telephone

number) Range objects, and a TN Range object can be contained in

    exactly one destination group object.

Channabasappa Informational [Page 4] RFC 6461 DRINKS Use Cases and Requirements January 2012

  1. 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.
  1. A destination group object can contain zero or more RN (routing

number) objects, and an RN object can be contained in exactly one

    destination group object.
  1. 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.
  1. 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.
  1. 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.

2. 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), [RFC5486]
 (e.g., SSP, 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 or be 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 (LDR):  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).

Channabasappa Informational [Page 5] RFC 6461 DRINKS Use Cases and Requirements January 2012

 Telephone Number (TN) Range:  A numerically contiguous set of
    telephone numbers.
 Telephone Number (TN) Prefix:  A preceding portion of the digits
    common across a series of E.164 numbers.  A given TN prefix will
    include all the valid E.164 numbers that satisfy the expansion
    rules mandated by the country or the region with which the TNs
    comply.
 Routing Number (RN):  A Routing Number.  For more information, see
    [RFC4694].
 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 (or TN Ranges or RNs), the destination groups
    that contain these public identifiers (or TN Ranges and RNs), 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.

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 several security considerations (see Section 5).  The
 protocols that implement these use cases (and associated
 requirements) will need to explicitly identify and address them.

3.1. Category: Provisioning Mechanisms

 UC PROV #1  Real-Time Provisioning: Registrars have operational
             systems that provision public identifiers (or TN Ranges
             or RNs) in association with their SED.  These systems
             often function in a manner that expects or requires that
             these provisioning activities be completed immediately,
             as opposed 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.

Channabasappa Informational [Page 6] RFC 6461 DRINKS Use Cases and Requirements January 2012

 UC PROV #2  Non-Real-Time Bulk Provisioning: Operational systems that
             provision public identifiers (or TN Ranges or RNs) 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 or not
             a provisioning action is performed in real time, 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.
 UC INTERCONNECT #2  Direct and 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.

Channabasappa Informational [Page 7] RFC 6461 DRINKS Use Cases and Requirements January 2012

 UC INTERCONNECT #4  Selective Peering (a.k.a. per-peer policies):
                     SSPs create peering relationships with other SSPs
                     in order to establish interconnects.  However,
                     SSP peering relationships often result in
                     different points of ingress or other SED for the
                     same set of public identifiers.  This is referred
                     to as "selective peering" and 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 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 only wish to communicate or receive domain
                     names (LUF step only), and then independently
                     resolve 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
                     only wish to communicate or receive an
                     administrative domain identifier, which is not
                     necessarily resolvable via DNS.  The subsequent
                     process of using that administrative domain

Channabasappa Informational [Page 8] RFC 6461 DRINKS Use Cases and Requirements January 2012

                     identifier to select points of ingress or other
                     SED can be SSP specific and is out of scope for
                     this document.
 UC SED EXCHANGE #4  Coexistent 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 already described in this section
                     (Section 3.3) for the same set of 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 identifier.
                   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 (or TN Ranges or
             RNs).  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 identifier (or TN
             Ranges or RNs).

Channabasappa Informational [Page 9] RFC 6461 DRINKS Use Cases and Requirements January 2012

 UC DATA #3  Route Groups: SSPs often provision identical SED for
             large numbers of public identifiers (or TN Ranges or
             RNs), and then expose that relationship between a group
             of SED records and a group of public identifiers (or TN
             Ranges or RNs) to one or more SSPs.  This combined
             grouping of SED records and destination groups
             facilitates efficient management of relationships and the
             list of peers (data recipients) that can look up public
             identifiers and receive the associated SED.  This dual
             set of SED records and destination groups is termed a
             "route group".

3.6. Category: Public Identifiers, TN Ranges, and RNs

 UC PI #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 (TN Ranges or
           RNs), and directly or indirectly associating them with the
           appropriate points of ingress and other SED.
 UC PI #2  Carrier-of-Record versus Transit Provisioning: Some inter-
           SSP peering relationships are created to enable the
           establishment of sessions to the public identifiers (or TN
           Ranges or RNs) for which an SSP is the carrier-of-record.
           Other inter-SSP peering relationships are created to enable
           the establishment of sessions 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.
 UC PI #3  Multiplicity: As described in previous use cases, SSPs
           provision public identifiers (or TN Ranges or RNs) and
           their associated SED for multiple peering SSPs, and as both
           the carrier-of-record and transit provider.  As a result, a
           given public identifier (or TN Range or RN) key can reside
           in multiple destination groups at any given time.
 UC PI #4  Destination Group Modification: SSPs often change the SED
           associated with a given public identifier (or TN Range or
           RN).  This involves, among other things, directly or
           indirectly associating them with a different point of
           ingress, different services, or different SED.
 UC PI #5  Carrier-of-Record versus Transit Modification: SSPs may
           have the need to change their carrier-of-record versus
           transit role for public identifiers (or TN Ranges or RNs)
           that they previously provisioned.

Channabasappa Informational [Page 10] RFC 6461 DRINKS Use Cases and Requirements January 2012

 UC PI #6  Modification of Authority: An SSP indicates that it is the
           carrier-of-record for an existing public identifier or TN
           Range.  If the public identifier or TN Range were
           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 the original SSP
             but has been ported to a recipient SSP, who provides
             access to these identifiers via a switch on the Signaling
             System Number 7 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 its role (as a
             data recipient) before such a change is made effective.
             Alternatively, an auto-accept feature can be configured
             for a given data recipient.
 UC MISC #3  Open Numbering Plans: In several countries, an open
             numbering plan is used, where the carrier-of-record is
             only aware of a portion of the E.164 number (i.e., the TN
             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 Private
             Branch Exchange, or PBX).  For example, an SSP can be the
             carrier-of-record for "+123456789" and be 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 TN prefix.

4. Requirements

 This section lists the requirements extracted from the use cases in
 Section 3.  The objective is to make it easier for protocol designers
 to understand the underlying requirements and to reference and list

Channabasappa Informational [Page 11] RFC 6461 DRINKS Use Cases and Requirements January 2012

 the requirements that they support (or not).  The requirements listed
 here, unless explicitly indicated otherwise, are expected to be
 supported.  Protocol proposals are also expected to indicate their
 compliance with these requirements and highlight ones that they don't
 meet (if any).  Furthermore, the requirements listed here are not
 meant to be limiting, i.e., protocol implementations and deployments
 may choose to support additional requirements based on use cases that
 are not listed in this document.

4.1. Provisioning Mechanisms

 REQ-PROV-1:  Real-time provisioning.
 REQ-PROV-2:  (Optional) 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

 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 (listed in
             this section), concurrently, for the same public
             identifier (or TN Range or RN).

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.

Channabasappa Informational [Page 12] RFC 6461 DRINKS Use Cases and Requirements January 2012

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.

4.6. Public Identifier, TN Range, and RN Requirements

 REQ-PI-TNR-RN-1:  Provisioning of, and modifications to, the
                   following aggregations: destination group and route
                   groups.
 REQ-PI-TNR-RN-2:  Ability to distinguish an SSP as either the
                   carrier-of-record provider or the transit provider.
 REQ-PI-TNR-RN-3:  A given public identifier (or TN Range or RN) can
                   reside in multiple destination groups at the same
                   time.
 REQ-PI-TNR-RN-4:  Modification of public identifier (or TN Range or
                   RN) by allowing them to be moved to a different
                   destination group via an atomic operation.
 REQ-PI-TNR-RN-5:  SSPs can indicate a change to their role from
                   carrier-of-record provider to transit, or vice
                   versa.
 REQ-PI-TNR-RN-6:  Support for modification of authority with the
                   conditions described in UC PI #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.
 REQ-MISC-3:  Support for open numbering plans.

Channabasappa Informational [Page 13] RFC 6461 DRINKS Use Cases and Requirements January 2012

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 framework or protocol that implements the described
 use cases MUST, therefore, provide data confidentiality and message
 integrity.  Such frameworks and protocols MUST specify mechanisms to
 authenticate and authorize any entity that provisions data into the
 registry, i.e., that the entity is who it says it is and is allowed
 to use the provisioning interface.  The determination of whether such
 an entity is authorized to provision specific data elements (e.g., a
 certain public identifier or TN Range) -- while REQUIRED -- may be
 left to local policy.

6. Acknowledgments

 This document is a result of various contributions from (and
 discussions within) the IETF DRINKS Working Group; 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.
 The editor also wishes to thank the following for their comments and
 suggestions: Otmar Lendl, Sohel Khan, Peter Koch, Brian Rosen, Jon
 Peterson, Gonzalo Camarillo, and Stephen Farrell.

Channabasappa Informational [Page 14] RFC 6461 DRINKS Use Cases and Requirements January 2012

7. References

7.1. 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.

7.2. 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.

Author's Address

 Sumanth Channabasappa (editor)
 CableLabs
 858 Coal Creek Circle
 Louisville, CO  80027
 USA
 EMail: sumanth@cablelabs.com

Channabasappa Informational [Page 15]

/data/webs/external/dokuwiki/data/pages/rfc/rfc6461.txt · Last modified: 2012/01/17 18:48 (external edit)