One document matched: draft-lendl-speermint-federations-00.txt

Network Working Group                                           O. Lendl
Internet-Draft                                                   enum.at
Expires: August 30, 2006                               February 26, 2006


           Federations for the Domain Policy DDDS Application
                  draft-lendl-speermint-federations-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 August 30, 2006.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).

Abstract

   This documents defines the policy-type for federations within the
   Domain Policy DDDS Application.  Using this policy-type domain-owners
   can announce their membership in a federation and thus their
   willingness to accept incoming communications according to the rules
   of that federation.  Such federations can be used to establish
   selective peerings e.g. in the Voice over IP and Instant Messaging
   space.





Lendl                    Expires August 30, 2006                [Page 1]

Internet-Draft         The Federation Policy-Type          February 2006


Table of Contents

   1.  Terminology  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3

   2.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3

   3.  Federations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3

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

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

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

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

   8.  References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     8.1   Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     8.2   Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6

       Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6

       Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . .  7




























Lendl                    Expires August 30, 2006                [Page 2]

Internet-Draft         The Federation Policy-Type          February 2006


1.  Terminology

   This document uses the terminology as defined in
   draft-meyer-speermint-reqs-and-terminology-00 [1].

   The acronym VSP will stand for "VoIP Service Provider".

   Nothing in this document requires VSPs to be commercial service
   providers, the same principles and algorithms apply to enterprises
   and private SIP proxies as well.

2.  Introduction

   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 [3].

   The domain policy DDDS application [2] defines a method with which a
   domain owner can announce the conditions under which he will accept
   incoming communications.  This documents defines one policy-type to
   be used within that framework.

   This document will focus on the use of the federation concept in the
   context of SIP [4] peering.  The same mechanism can be applied to
   other protocols as well, the only difference in the domain policy
   DDDS DNS records is the protocol field within the service parameter
   of the NAPTR records.

3.  Federations

   The proposed method is based upon the concept of a "Federation".  A
   federation in this context is defined as follows:

      A Federation is a group of VoIP service providers which
      *  agree to receive calls from each other via SIP,
      *  agree on a set of administrative rules for such calls
         (settlement, abuse-handling, ...), and
      *  agree on specific rules for the technical details of the
         interconnection.

   This document does not define what these rules can be and how they
   are communicated to all members of a federation.  There is no
   requirement to make those rules public.

   Federations shall use URIs as their identifiers.  It is RECOMMENDED
   that federations use URLs as identifiers which point to documents
   describing the federation.




Lendl                    Expires August 30, 2006                [Page 3]

Internet-Draft         The Federation Policy-Type          February 2006


   The federation named "urn:ietf:rfc:3261" stands for the public
   Internet.  A SIP service provider who announces his membership in
   "urn:ietf:rfc:3261" will accept calls as defined in the generic SIP
   RFC [4].

   For the purposes of the domain policy DDDS application, federation
   identifiers are opaque strings.  The only operations performed on
   these identifiers are string comparisons.  If the identifier is in
   the form of an URL, the document referred to by that URL is never
   evaluated within the domain policy DDDS application.

   Examples for federation rules:

   o  A set of VoIP service providers form an association and agree to
      accept calls from each other via the public Internet as long as
      the SIP call uses TCP/TLS as transport protocol and presents a
      X.509 cert which was signed by the association's own CA.
   o  A set of VoIP service providers build a L3 network dedicated to
      VoIP peering ("walled garden", similar to the 3GPP GRX network).
      They agree to accept calls from all participants in that network
      and bill each other via a clearinghouse.
   o  A set of VoIP service providers agree to accept calls originating
      from within the same country.  They use a set of firewall rules to
      block calls from abroad.
   o  Peering fabric based on SIP: A company sets up a SIP proxy which
      acts as a forwarding proxy between the SIP proxies of all
      participating VSPs.  The group of these VSP form a federation
      whose technical rules state that calls have to be routed via that
      central proxy.

4.  Policy-Type template


      Policy Type: "fed"

      URI Scheme(s): Any URI is allowed.

      Functional Specification: The URI acts purely as an identifier
           of a federation.  If both the sender and the destination
           are members of the same federation then they can communicate
           using this federation's rules.

      Security considerations:

      Intended usage: COMMON

      Author: Otmar Lendl




Lendl                    Expires August 30, 2006                [Page 4]

Internet-Draft         The Federation Policy-Type          February 2006


5.  Examples

   NAPTR records in zone-file format can exceed the line-length
   restrictions of the I-D document format.  In these cases a backlash
   at the end of a line will indicate that the following line should be
   read as part of preceding line.

   o  In the second example the SIP services at "example.com" is only
      reachable via a private interconnection arrangement maintained by
      a federation called "http://sipxconnect.example.org/".

      $ORIGIN example.com.
      ;      order pref flags service regexp replacement
       IN NAPTR 10 50   "U" "D2P+SIP:fed" \
           "!^.*$!http://sipxconnect.example.org/!" .


   o  A restrictive SIP service might only accept calls from peers from
      two federations.  The policy records could look like this:

      $ORIGIN example.com
      ;      order pref flags service regexp replacement
      @ IN NAPTR 10 10   "U" "D2P+SIP:fed" \
        "!^.*$!http://sipxconnect.example.org/!" .
      @ IN NAPTR 20 10   "U" "D2P+SIP:fed" \
        "!^.*$!http://sip.federation.com/!" .


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 "fed" for the domain policy
   DDDS application.

8.  References

8.1  Normative References

   [1]  Meyer, D., "SPEERMINT Requirements and Terminology",
        draft-meyer-speermint-reqs-and-terminology-00 (work in
        progress), February 2006.




Lendl                    Expires August 30, 2006                [Page 5]

Internet-Draft         The Federation Policy-Type          February 2006


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

8.2  Informative References

   [3]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement
        Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

   [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.


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 August 30, 2006                [Page 6]

Internet-Draft         The Federation Policy-Type          February 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 August 30, 2006                [Page 7]