[drinks] Diffs on Introduction as requested by Ken
Dean Willis <dean.willis@softarmor.com> Thu, 12 April 2012 02:24 UTC
Return-Path: <dean.willis@softarmor.com>
X-Original-To: drinks@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: drinks@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8EBA011E80E3 for <drinks@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Apr 2012 19:24:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.549
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.549 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.173, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_32=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jT+m58fzmAu6 for <drinks@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Apr 2012 19:24:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ob0-f172.google.com (mail-ob0-f172.google.com [209.85.214.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B70C11E80BF for <drinks@ietf.org>; Wed, 11 Apr 2012 19:24:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by obbtb4 with SMTP id tb4so2346956obb.31 for <drinks@ietf.org>; Wed, 11 Apr 2012 19:24:36 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=softarmor.com; s=google; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=bTKxrkp1b8z5aPfa/ot+clh0ISE176caecf/6NrJSNM=; b=EJfYOI6In19o+jEseB1JW+aIj82MjEfdp6ebxa4dwNLUIwnQB31BRn59moLk4oopZj lzFTQSnUEn6u8vETEI/kUNsmdljMpq/rRmKuG5DNxN4FV0qvF0QzsGUVwKXKXeSLkRvv t8z3rxWIZqDe5Hcei9ZCc8FZ2UM9zQkK4cTEo=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type :x-gm-message-state; bh=bTKxrkp1b8z5aPfa/ot+clh0ISE176caecf/6NrJSNM=; b=QelmBkbW/3TQuZBpwIUV6qpaawk6xRtUzZY2BSX+wbwpG20k+47iAvQPm5zR1zMPa+ qx0xUHLo/dkwV8nKqaC0cuaULlh9SFzbog4B1UklI8sxRGOeuhWlMS0pTlZDYwfb9jex eI9m8Afaz72x0U0dzat4j+AXQOsIQBgOyiUdaa+PJiMLuk2w5NHjccOZ/P7PWQG97Co+ c7r85VzEvzsqX1xuCEKnzLOpYn5QqHfDXajkSbpfYFvaEQ4ZwQjy15D1bdFjccBlphPb nDnuDqNL6Rcx0WvkchdrGO1qfl82VGrgFnL/c3TUBw/HGQdZYQHhDvk7lllBm1JTaI+P PQRw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.60.28.137 with SMTP id b9mr759630oeh.57.1334197476395; Wed, 11 Apr 2012 19:24:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.60.33.199 with HTTP; Wed, 11 Apr 2012 19:24:36 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2012 21:24:36 -0500
Message-ID: <CAOHm=4tgOd7S8C8x2-rvtq+b16Zoz1cTro=9t6ahxtprJ0WW+g@mail.gmail.com>
From: Dean Willis <dean.willis@softarmor.com>
To: drinks@ietf.org, ewillis@ieee.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="e89a8ff1c4aea4092e04bd720e0e"
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQk8Tq3z67ooUHPOF2i6Y3fkJ52SiVP3y1BV9EiWMA7M3vELcfNovl2csEWQg5g5IianaIy9
Subject: [drinks] Diffs on Introduction as requested by Ken
X-BeenThere: drinks@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DRINKS WG <drinks.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/drinks>, <mailto:drinks-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/drinks>
List-Post: <mailto:drinks@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:drinks-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/drinks>, <mailto:drinks-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2012 02:24:42 -0000
I hope this works. It probably won't; IETF mail server seems to hate MHTML. 11 1. Introduction22 3- Service providers and enterprises use4- registries to make session routing/targeting 3+ Service providers and enterprises use 4+ registries to make session routing 55 decisions for Voice over IP, SMS and MMS 66 traffic exchanges. This document is narrowly 77 focused on the provisioning framework for 8- these registries. In other words, the goal9- is to allow users to put session 10- establishment data (SED) into a registry, to 11- share that SED selectively with other users 12- of that registry, and to allow those other 13- users to further select a subset of that SED 14- for use in their own applications. The 15- requirements and use cases driving this 16- framework have been documented in [RFC 6461], 17- and the reader is expected to be familiar 18- with the terminology defined therein.19- 20- 21- The SED described in this framework is 22- limited to simple routing/targeting data. 23- Although the terms "peer" and "peering" are 24- used, these refer only to the sharing of 25- basic call routing/targeting information 26- between users of the registry, and do not 27- address the broad range of policy factors 28- that might be used in a commercial peering 29- "clearinghouse" operation. In short "peering 30- organizations" are other users of the same 31- registry, and "peers" are users of that 32- registry to whom the offer of sharing 33- specific SED has been extended, and who have 34- accepted that offer.35- 8+ these registries. This framework prescribes 9+ a way or an entity to provision session-10+ related data into a registry. The data 11+ being provisioned can be optionally shared 12+ with other participating peering entities. 13+ The requirements and use cases driving this 14+ framework have been documented in [RFC6461]. 15+ The reader is expected to be familiar with 16+ the terminology defined in the previously 17+ mentioned document.3618 37- Three types of data flows are described in 38- [RFC 6471]: client to/from registry, registry 39- to local data repository and registry to 40- registry, as shown here:4119 20+ Three types of provisioning flows have been 21+ described in the use case document: client 22+ to registry provisioning, registry to local 23+ data repository and registry to registry. 24+ This document addresses client to registry 25+ aspect to fulfill the need to provision 26+ Session Establishment Data (SED). The 27+ framework that supports flow of messages to 28+ facilitate client to registry provisioning 29+ is referred to as Session Peering 30+ Provisioning Framework (SPPF).4231 32+ Please note that the role of the "client" 33+ and the "server" only applies to the 34+ connection, and those roles are not related 35+ in any way to the type of entity that 36+ participates in a protocol exchange. For 37+ example, a registry might also include a 38+ "client" when such a registry initiates a 39+ connection (for example, for data 40+ distribution to SSP).4341 4442 4543 *--------* *------------* *------------*4644 | | (1). Client | | (3).Registry | |47- | Client | <-----------> | Registry |<------------->| Registry |45+ | Client | ------------> | Registry |<------------->| Registry |4846 | | to Registry | | to Registry | |4947 *--------* *------------* *------------*5048 / \ \51 49 / \ \5250 / \ \5351 / \ v5452 / \ ...5553 / \5654 / (2). Distrib \5755 / Registry data \5856 / to local data \5957 V store V60- +----------+ +----------+61- |Local Data| |Local Data|62- |Repository| |Repository|63- +----------+ +----------+58+ +----------+ +----------+59+ |Local Data| |Local Data|60+ |Repository| |Repository|61+ +----------+ +----------+6462 6563 Three Registry Provisioning Flows66- 67- 68- This document addresses only the (1) Client69- to Registry aspect. This document defines an 70- abstract framework for the interaction of 71- registry clients with registries, referred to 72- as the Session Peering Provisioning Framework 73- (SPPF). This abstract framework is to be 74- mapped into specific protocol bindings in 75- other documents, initially to SOAP in 76- [draft-ietf-drinks-spp-soap].7764 65+ Figure 17866 7967 The data provisioned for session 8068 establishment is typically used by various 8169downstream SIP signaling systems to route a 8270 call to the next hop associated with the 83- called domain. These systems typically use a 84- local data store ("Local Data Repository") as 85- their source of session routing information. 86- More specifically, the SED data is the set of 87- parameters that the outgoing signaling path 88- border elements (SBEs) need to initiate the 89- session. See [RFC5486] for more details.90- 71+ called domain. These systems typically use 72+ a local data store ("Local Data Repository") 73+ as their source of session routing 74+ information. More specifically, the SED data 75+ is the set of parameters that the outgoing 76+ signaling path border elements (SBEs) 77+ need to initiate the session. See [RFC5486] 78+ for more details.9179 9280A "terminating" SIP Service Provider (SSP) 9381 provisions SED into the registry to be 94- selectively shared with other SSPs. 82+ selectively shared with other peer SSPs. 9583 Subsequently, a registry may distribute the 96- provisioned data into local data repositories 97- used for look-up queries (identifier -> URI) 98- or for lookup and location resolution 99- (identifier -> URI -> ingress SBE of 100- terminating SSP). In some cases, the 101- registry may additionally offer a central 102- query resolution service (not shown in the 103- above figure). Typically, this query 104- resolution service will be something like an 105- ENUM [RFC 3761] server or a SIP [RFC 3261] 106- proxy or redirect server.107- 84+ provisioned data into local data 85+ repositories used for look-up queries 86+ (identifier -> URI)or for lookup and 87+ location resolution (identifier -> URI -> 88+ ingress SBE of terminating SSP). In some 89+ cases, the registry may additionally offer a 90+ central query resolution service (not shown 91+ in the above figure).10892 109- The roles of "client" and "server" are 110- abstract and only apply to the requesting and 111- responding roles in given transactions and 112- are not related in any way to the type of 113- entity participating in a protocol exchange. 114- For example, a registry might also include a 115- "client" when such a registry initiates a 116- connection (for example, for data 117- distribution to an SSP).