One document matched: draft-schwartz-sipping-domain-marking-requirements-00.xml

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE rfc SYSTEM '../rfc2629.dtd'>
<?rfc toc="yes"?>
<?rfc compact="yes"?>
<?rfc subcompact="yes"?>
<rfc category="info" docName="draft-schwartz-sipping-domain-marking-requirements-00.txt" ipr="full3978" obsoletes="" updates="" submissionType="IETF" xml:lang="en">
	<front>
		<title abbrev="Domain Marking Requirments">Requirements for domain marking for the purpose of Upstream Traffic Characterization </title>
		<author initials="D.S" surname="Schwartz" fullname="David Schwartz">
			<organization>XConnect Global Networks</organization>
				<address>
					<postal>
						<street>Malcha Technology Park</street>
						<street>Building # 1</street>
						<city>Jerusalem</city><code>90961</code>
						<country>Israel</country>
				</postal>
				<phone>+972 52 347 4656</phone>
				<email>dschwartz@xconnect.net</email>
				<uri>www.xconnect.net</uri>
			   </address>
		</author>
		<author initials="D.B" surname="Besprosvan" fullname="Diego Besprosvan">
			<organization>Mailvision</organization>
				<address>
					<postal>
						<street>10a Haganim Street</street>
						<street>P.O.B. 8460</street>
						<city>Haifa</city><code>31084</code>
						<country>Israel</country>
				</postal>
				<phone>+972-4-850-0505 ext 102</phone>
				<email>diegob@mailvision.com</email>
				<uri>www.mailvision.com</uri>
			   </address>
		</author>
		<date year="2007" month="November"/>
		<abstract>
			<t>SIP as defined in RFC 3261 <xref target="SIP"></xref> defines a Via header as a construct to be used for upstream response routing and for downstream assistance in loop detection. There is an increasing need on downstream administrative domains (ADs) to gain visibility into all the ADs in its upstream path.  The information needed is not IP based as internal architectures at upstream ADs is of no consequence to downstream ADs.  Logical domain marking, however, is desperately needed for any traffic analysis to occur at the receiving side.  Gathering AD information from Via headers is non obvious and in many instances nearly impossible.  This documents identifies the requirements for addressing this issue.</t>
		</abstract>		
	</front>
	<middle>
		<section title="Introduction" toc="include" anchor="S_INTRODUCTION">
		    <t>When receiving a SIP request from an upstream Administrative Domain (AD) there is no easy way of identifying administrative domains traversed by the SIP request prior to arrival at the current AD. While Via information may be available (depending on presence of upstream B2BUA), its presence alone may not necessarily shed light onto the path traversed in terms of which ADs were hit as there is no assurance that a domain name appears in any of the Vias.</t>
			<t>A downstream AD may wish to characterize traffic entering his domain for reasons such as SPIT detection or simply to gain visibility into the traffic patterns arriving at his servers.</t>
			<t>This document identifies requirements for a new header that can be used to pass Administrative Domain Identities downstream in a SIP request.</t>
		</section>
		<section title="Terminology" toc="include" anchor="S_TERMINOLOGY">
				<t>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 RFC 2119 <xref target="RFC2119"></xref>.  In addition to the above, Terminology in this document makes use of the following terminology:
			    <t></t>
				<list><t>Administrative Domain (AD):       A collection of SIP entities, managed by a single administrative authority</t></list>
			    <t></t>
				<list><t>Ingress Border SIP Entity (IBSE): The first SIP entity within AD to process an incoming SIP request from an upstream node</t></list>
			    <t></t>
				<list><t>AD Unique Identifier (ADUI):      An identifier that is unique only within the context of an Administrative Domain</t></list>
				</t>
		</section>

		<section title="Requirements" anchor="S_REQUIREMENTS">
			<t>
			    <t></t>
				<list><t>Req 1: It MUST be possible for the first SIP element in an Administrative Domain (AD) or the IBSE to uniquely identify the source of an incoming SIP request.</t></list>
			    <t></t>
				<list><t>Req 2: It MUST be possible for the IBSE to associate a unique identifier (ADUI) to a source and to maintain this ADUI for all future requests received from this source.</t></list>
			    <t></t>
				<list><t>Req 3: It MUST not be possible for downstream ADs to gain any information about upstream ADs from the ADUI list other than their uniqueness.</t></list>
			    <t></t>
				<list><t>Req 4: It MUST be possible for the ADUI to be appended to a list of ADUIs added by ADs traversed prior to current AD.</t></list>
			</t>
		</section>
		<section title="Open Issues" anchor="S_OPEN_ISSUES">
			<t>
			    <t></t>
			    <list><t>Should this mechanism be extended to SIP responses as well?</t></list>
			    <t></t>
			    <list><t>Should there be any requirements on the strength of uniqueness of the ADUI?</t></list>
			    <t></t>
			    <list><t>Do we want to allow for sub markings within an AD?</t></list>
            </t>
        </section>
		<section title="Security Considerations" anchor="S_SECURITY_CONSIDERATIONS">
			<t>This document describes the requirements for a new header to assist in downstream traffic characterization. The security concerns are related to the ability of certain entities to create/modify/delete the unique ID described above. Any implementation of this document will have to address these issues at greater depth.</t>
		</section>
		<section title="IANA Considerations" anchor="S_IANA_CONSIDERATIONS">
			<t>This document does not require actions by IANA.
			</t>
		</section>
		<section title="Acknowledgements" anchor="S_ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS">
			<t>Many Thanks to Brocha Strous of Kayote Networks and Jeremy Barkan of DigitalShtick for their insightful comments leading to the publication of this document.</t>
		</section>
	</middle>
	<back>
		<references title=" Normative References">
			<reference anchor="SIP">
				<front>
					<title abbrev="SIP">SIP: Session Initiation Protocol</title>
					<author fullname="Jonathan Rosenberg" initials="J.R" surname="Rosenberg"><organization></organization></author>
					<author fullname="Henning Schulzrinne" initials="H.S" surname="Schulzrinne"><organization></organization></author>
					<author fullname="Gonzalo Camarillo" initials="G.C" surname="Camarillo"><organization></organization></author>
					<author fullname="Alan Johnston" initials="A.J" surname="Johnston"><organization></organization></author>
					<author fullname="Jon Peterson" initials="J.P" surname="Peterson"><organization></organization></author>
					<author fullname="Robert Sparks" initials="R.S" surname="Sparks"><organization></organization></author>
					<author fullname="Mark Handley" initials="M.H" surname="Handley"><organization></organization></author>
					<author fullname="Eve Schooler" initials="E.S" surname="Schooler"><organization></organization></author>
					<date month="June" year="2002"></date>
				</front>
			   <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="3261" /> 
			   <format type="HTML" octets="16553" target="http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3261.txt" /> 
			</reference>
			
			<reference anchor="RFC2119">
				<front>
					<title abbrev="RFC2119">Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels</title>
					<author fullname="Scott Bradner" initials="S.B" surname="Bradner"><organization></organization></author>
					<date month="March" year="1997"></date>
				</front>
			   <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="2119" /> 
			   <format type="HTML" octets="16553" target="http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt" /> 
			</reference>
		</references>
	</back>
</rfc>