DRINKS J-F. Mule
Internet-Draft CableLabs
Intended status: Standards Track K. Cartwright
Expires: January 13, 2011 TNS
S. Ali
NeuStar
A. Mayrhofer
enum.at GmbH
July 12, 2010
Session Peering Provisioning Protocol
draft-ietf-drinks-spprov-01
Abstract
This document defines a protocol for provisioning session
establishment data into Session Data Registries and SIP Service
Provider data stores. The provisioned data is typically used by
various network elements for session peering.
This document describes the Session Peering Provisioning Protocol
used by clients to provision registries. The document provides a set
of guiding principles for the design of this protocol including
extensibility and independent transport definitions, a basic data
model and an XML Schema Document.
Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
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."
This Internet-Draft will expire on January 13, 2011.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2010 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
Mule, et al. Expires January 13, 2011 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft draft-drinks-spprov July 2010
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.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3. Protocol Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.1. Protocol Overview and Layering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.2. Data Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.2.1. Structure of the SPPP Data Model . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.2.2. Data Model Objects and Attributes . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.2.3. Applicability for LUF-only Data Provisioning . . . . . 13
3.2.4. Applicability for LUF+LRF data Provisioning . . . . . 15
3.3. Common Attributes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
3.4. Known Issues and Current Limitations of the Data Model . . 17
4. Transport Protocol Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
4.1. Connection Oriented . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
4.2. Request & Response Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
4.3. Connection Lifetime . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
4.4. Authentication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
4.5. Confidentiality & Integrity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
4.6. Near Real Time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
4.7. Request & Response Sizes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
4.8. Request and Response Correlation . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
4.9. Request Acknowledgement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
4.10. Mandatory Transport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
5. XML Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
5.1. Namespaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
5.2. Versioning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
6. Request and Reply Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
6.1. Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
6.2. Reply . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
7. Response Codes and Messages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
8. Protocol Commands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
8.1. Add Route Group Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
8.2. Get Route Groups Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
8.3. Add Route Group Offers Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
8.4. Accept Route Group Offers Operation . . . . . . . . . . . 41
8.5. Reject Route Group Offers Operation . . . . . . . . . . . 42
Mule, et al. Expires January 13, 2011 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft draft-drinks-spprov July 2010
8.6. Get Route Group Offers Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
8.7. Public Identifier Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
8.7.1. Add Public Identifier . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
8.7.2. Get Public Identifier . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
8.7.3. Delete Public Identifier . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
8.8. Egress Route Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
8.8.1. Add Egress Route . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
8.8.2. Get Egress Route . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
8.8.3. Delete Egress Route . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
10. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
11. Formal Specification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
12. Specification Extensibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
13. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
14. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
14.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
14.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
Mule, et al. Expires January 13, 2011 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft draft-drinks-spprov July 2010
1. Introduction
Service providers and enterprises use registries to make call or
session routing decisions for Voice over IP, SMS and MMS traffic
exchanges. This document is narrowly focused on the provisioning
protocol for these registries. This protocol prescribes a way for an
entity to provision session-related data into a registry. The data
being provisioned can be optionally shared with other participating
peering entities. The requirements and use cases driving this
protocol have been documented in
[I-D.ietf-drinks-usecases-requirements]. The reader is expected to
be familiar with the terminology defined in the previously mentioned
document.
Three types of provisioning flows have been described in the use case
document: client to registry provisioning, registry to local data
repository and registry-to-registry. This document addresses a
subset (client-to-registry provisioning) by defining a Session
Peering Provisioning Protocol (SPPP) for provisioning Session
Establishment Data (SED) into a Registry (arrow numbered one in the
figure below). While the other "provisioning flows" are shown below
as separate message flows, no determination has been made for whether
one common baseline protocol could be used for all three, or whether
distinct protocols are required.
Mule, et al. Expires January 13, 2011 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft draft-drinks-spprov July 2010
*------------* *------------*
(1). Provisioning SED | | (3).Registry | |
-----------------------> | Registry |<------------->| Registry |
data into Registries| | to Registry | |
*------------* exchanges *------------*
/ \ \
/ \ \
/ \ \
/ \ v
/ \ ...
/ \
/ (2). \
/ Distributing \
/ SED \
V V
+----------+ +----------+
|Local Data| |Local Data|
|Repository| |Repository|
+----------+ +----------+
Three Registry Provisioning Flows
Figure 1
The data provisioned for session establishment is typically used by
various downstream SIP signaling systems to route a call to the next
hop associated with the called domain. These systems typically use a
local data store ("Local Data Repository") as their source of session
routing information. More specifically, the SED data is the set of
parameters that the outgoing signaling path border elements (SBEs)
need to initiate the session. See [RFC5486] for more details.
A "terminating" SIP Service Provider (SSP) provisions SED into the
registry to be selectively shared with other peer SSPs.
Subsequently, a Registry may distribute the provisioned data into
local Data Repositories used for look-up queries (identifier -> URI)
or for lookup and location resolution (identifier -> URI -> ingress
SBE of terminating SSP). In some cases, the Registry may
additionally offer a central query resolution service (not shown in
the above figure).
A key requirement for the SPPP protocol is to be able to accommodate
two basic deployment scenarios:
1. A Look-Up Function (LUF) to determine the target domain to assist
in call routing (as described in [RFC5486]). In this case, the
querying entity may use other means to perform the Location
Mule, et al. Expires January 13, 2011 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft draft-drinks-spprov July 2010
Routing Function (LRF) which in turn helps determine the actual
location of the Signaling Function in that domain.
2. Both Look-Up function (LUF) and Location Routing Function (LRF)
to locate the SED data fully.
In terms of protocol design, SPPP protocol is agnostic to the
transport. This document includes the description of the data model
and the means to enable protocol operations within a request and
response structure. To encourage interoperability, the protocol
supports extensibility aspects.
Transport requirements are provided in this document to help with the
selection of the optimum transport mechanism.
([I-D.ietf-drinks-sppp-over-soap]) identifies a SOAP transport
mechanism for SPPP.
This document is organized as follows:
o Section 3 provides an overview of the SPPP protocol, including
the layering approach, functional entities and data model;
o Section 4 defines requirements for SPPP transport protocols;
o Section 5 defines XML considerations that XML parsers must meet
to conform to this specification.
o Section 6 describes the protocol request-reply model;
o Section 8 defines the protocol commands for this version of
SPPP, and how to extend them;
Mule, et al. Expires January 13, 2011 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft draft-drinks-spprov July 2010
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], [RFC5486], use cases and
requirements documented in [I-D.ietf-drinks-usecases-requirements]
and the ENUM Validation Architecture [RFC4725].
In addition, this document specifies the following additional terms:
SPPP: Session Peering Provisioning Protocol, the protocol used to
provision data into a Registry (see arrow labeled "1." in Figure 1
of [I-D.ietf-drinks-usecases-requirements]). It is the primary
scope of this document.
SPDP: Session Peering Distribution Protocol, the protocol used to
distribute data to Local Data Repository (see arrow labeled "2."
in Figure 1 of [I-D.ietf-drinks-usecases-requirements]).
Client: An application that supports an SPPP Client; it is
sometimes referred to as a "Registry Client".
Registry: The Registry operates a master database of Session
Establishment Data for one or more Registrants.
A Registry acts as an SPPP Server.
Registrant: In this document, we extend the definition of a
Registrant based on [RFC4725]. The Registrant is the end-user,
the person or organization who is the "holder" of the Session
Establishment Data being provisioned into the Registry. For
example, in [I-D.ietf-drinks-usecases-requirements], a Registrant
is pictured as a SIP Service Provider in Figure 2.
A Registrant is identified by its name in the data model.
Registrar: In this document, we also extend the definition of a
Registrar from [RFC4725]. A Registrar performs provisioning
operations on behalf of a Registrant by interacting with the
Registry, in our case via the SPPP protocol defined in this
Mule, et al. Expires January 13, 2011 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft draft-drinks-spprov July 2010
document.
A Registrar is identified by its name in the data model.
Mule, et al. Expires January 13, 2011 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft draft-drinks-spprov July 2010
3. Protocol Definition
This section introduces the structure of the data model and provides
the information framework for the SPPP protocol. An overview of the
protocol operations is first provided with a typical deployment
scenario. The data model is then defined along with all the objects
manipulated by the protocol and their relationships.
3.1. Protocol Overview and Layering
SPPP is a simple request/reply protocol that allows a client
application to submit provisioning data and query requests to a
server. The SPPP data structures are designed to be protocol
agnostic. Concerns regarding encryption, non-repudiation, and
authentication are beyond the scope of this document. For more
details, please refer to the Transport Protocol Requirements section.
Layer Example
+-------------+ +-----------------------------+
(5) |Data Objects | | RteGrpType, etc. |
+-------------+ +-----------------------------+
| |
+-------------+ +-----------------------------+
(4) | Operations | | addRteGrpsRqst, etc. |
+-------------+ +-----------------------------+
| |
+-------------+ +-----------------------------+
(3) | Message | | spppRequest, spppResponse |
+-------------+ +-----------------------------+
| |
+-------------+ +-----------------------------+
(2) | Message | | HTTP, SOAP, None, etc. |
| Envelope | | |
+-------------+ +-----------------------------+
| |
+-------------+ +-----------------------------+
(1) | Transport | | TCP, TLS, BEEP, etc. |
| Protocol | | |
+-------------+ +-----------------------------+
SPPP Layering
Figure 2
SPPP can be viewed as a set of layers that collectively define the
structure of an SPPP request and response. Layers 1 and 2, as
Mule, et al. Expires January 13, 2011 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft draft-drinks-spprov July 2010
detailed below, are left to separate specifications to allow for
potentially multiple SPPP transport, envelope, and authentication
technologies. This document defines layers 3, 4, and 5 below.
1. The transport protocol layer provides a communication mechanism
between the client and server. SPPP can be layered over any
transport protocol that provides a set of basic requirements
defined in the Transport Protocol Requirements section.
2. The message envelope layer is optional, but can provide features
that are above the transport technology layer but below the
application messaging layer. Technologies such as HTTP and SOAP
are examples of messaging envelope technologies.
3. The message layer provides a simple, envelope-independent and
transport-independent, SPPP wrapper for SPPP request and response
messages.
4. The operation layer defines the set of base SPPP actions that can
be invoked using an SPPP message. Operations are encoded using
XML encoded actions and objects.
5. The data object layer defines the base set of SPPP data objects
that can be included in update operations or returned in
operation responses.
3.2. Data Model
The data model illustrated and described in Figure 3 defines the
logical objects and the relationships between these objects that the
SPPP protocol supports. SPPP defines the protocol operations through
which an SPPP Client populates a Registry with these logical objects.
Various clients belonging to different Registrants and distinct
Registrars may use the protocol for populating the Registry's data.
3.2.1. Structure of the SPPP Data Model
The logical structure presented below is consistent with the
terminology and requirements defined in
[I-D.ietf-drinks-usecases-requirements]. Note that the current
version of this data model does not yet address the notion of Data
Recipient Groups (left for a future revision of this document).
+-------------+ +------------------+
| all object | |Organization: |
| types | |orgId, |
+------+------+ |orgName, |
Mule, et al. Expires January 13, 2011 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft draft-drinks-spprov July 2010
+------------>| |
|extension |
All objects are | |
associated with 2 | |
Organizations to +------------------+
identify the ^
registrant and |A Route Group is
the registrar |associated with
|zero or more
|Organizations
|
+--------+--------------+
|Route Group: | +-----[abstract]-+
| rantId*, | | |
| rarId, | | |
| rteGrpName*, | | Route Record: |
| dgName*, +------->| priority, |
| isInSvc, | | extension |
| rteRec*, | | |
| peeringOrg, | +----------------+
| sourceIdent, | ^
| extension | |Various types
+-----------------------+ |of Route
^ |Records...
| +------+------------...
| | | |
| +----+ +-------+ +----+
| | URI| | NAPTR | | NS |
+----------------+-----+ +----+ +-------+ +----+
|Destination |
|Group: | +----------[abstract]-+
| rantId*, | |Public |
| rarId, | |Identifier: |
| dgName*, | | rantId*, |
| extension |<----+ rarId, |
+----------------------+ | publicIdentifier*, |
| dgName*, |
| extension |
+---------------------+
^
|Various types
|of Public
|Identifiers...
+------+------------...
| | |
+-----+ +----+ +-----+
|Email| | TN | | TNR |
+-----+ +----+ +-----+ ...
Mule, et al. Expires January 13, 2011 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft draft-drinks-spprov July 2010
SPPP Data Model
Figure 3
Note that the attributes whose names end with the character * are
mandatory attributes.
3.2.2. Data Model Objects and Attributes
The objects and attributes that comprise the data model can be
described as follows (objects listed from the bottom up):
o Public Identifier (publicIdentifier):
A public identifier is a well known attribute that is often used
to perform lookup functions. For the purposes of this document, a
Public Identifier can be an email address, a telephone number, a
range of telephone numbers or a PSTN Routing Number (RN).
A Destination Group may be associated with a Public Identifier to
create a logical grouping and share a common set of Routes.
A Public Identifier may optionally be associated with zero or more
individual route records. This ability for a Public Identifier to
be directly associated with a set of routes (e.g. target URI), as
opposed to being associated with a Destination Group, supports the
use cases where the target URI contains data specifically tailored
to an individual Public Identifier.
o Telephone Number Range (TNRType, tn, endTn):
A public identifier may represent an inclusive range of telephone
numbers. The TN range is defined by the first and last telephone
number of the inclusive range. For example, a TN range of
(tn=12125550000, endTn=12125560000) means all the TNs from
12125550000 to 12125560000 are included.
o Destination Group (dgName):
A collection of zero or more Public Identifiers that are related
to one or more Route Group relationships.
o Route Group (rteGrpName):
A Route Group contains a set of route records (RteRecs) that are
associated with Public Identifiers. To support the use cases
defined in [I-D.ietf-drinks-usecases-requirements], this document
defines the following types of RteRecs: NAPTRType, NSType, and
URIType. To support the Look-Up Function resolution, it is
assumed that the administrative domain will be defined as a URI
and it can be expressed as a URIType or a NAPTRType.
A Route Group can be either in or out of service (as indicated by
Mule, et al. Expires January 13, 2011 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft draft-drinks-spprov July 2010
'isInService' attribute). It also contains a list of
organizations that can query the object (peeringOrg) and have
access to its content (sourceIdent).
o Source Identity (SourceIdentType, sourceIdentLabels,
sourceIdentScheme):
In some scenarios, it is important to identify the source of a
query. The source identity label is a character string that
identifies the source of a resolution lookup and can be used for
source-based routing. We define several ways of identifying the
source: by IP address, by the source URI or a domain name.
o Route Record (RteRecType):
A Route Record is the data that the resolution systems return in
response to a successful query with the Public Identifier as the
query string. It is associated with a Route Group for routes that
are not specific to a Public Identifier.
To support the use cases defined in
[I-D.ietf-drinks-usecases-requirements], SPPP protocol defines
three type of Route Records: URIType, NAPTRType, and NSType.
These Route Records extend the abstract type RteRecType and
inherit the common attribute 'priority' that is meant for setting
precedence across the route records defined within a Route Group
in a protocol agnostic fashion.
o Organization (OrgIdType):
An Organization represents an entity that is authorized to access
given data elements. All objects are associated with two
organizations to identify the registrant and the registrar. An
entity authorized to view a Route Group (typically a SSP peering
partner) is identified a peering Organization (peeringOrg).
3.2.3. Applicability for LUF-only Data Provisioning
This section describes the data model for SPPP clients that only
provision data for LUF resolution.
The purpose of LUF data provisioning is to provide the administrative
domain given a destination group. As such, a client provisioning
LUF-only data only needs to provide one or more route groups that
contain a route group name and a URI for the target domain.
Note that source-based routing is supported: depending on what entity
requests the look-up resolution (sourceIdent), a different URI may be
returned by using different Route Groups.
Certain protocol operations could be added in future revisions of
this document as "short-cuts" for LUF related data provisioning.
Mule, et al. Expires January 13, 2011 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft draft-drinks-spprov July 2010
+-----------------------+
|Route Group: |
| rteGrpName*, |
| isInService, |
| URI , |
| extension |
| |
+-----------------------+
^
|
+---------+------------+
|Destination |
|Group: |
| dgName*, |<----+
| extension | |
+----------------------+ |
|
+-------------+---------+
|Public |
|Identifier: |
| publicIdentifier*, |
| dgName*, |
| extension |
+-----------------------+
LUF-only Data Model Example for SPPP
Figure 4
As an example, a request to add a route group where public
identifiers resolve into the URI sip:ssp1.example.com during look-up
resolution would be:
Mule, et al. Expires January 13, 2011 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft draft-drinks-spprov July 2010
id-12317123
20
registrantID123
registrarId0
route_grp_1
^(.*)$
urn:ssp1.example.com
true
Figure 5
3.2.4. Applicability for LUF+LRF data Provisioning
This section provides a read-out of the data model for SPPP clients
that provision data for both LUF and LRF resolution.
The purpose of LUF+LRF data provisioning is to provide a URI given a
destination group as well as the location routing for that target
domain. As such, a client provisioning LUF+LRF data provides one or
more route groups that contain a route group name and a URI for the
target domain and each route group is associated with a Route Record
which can be in the form of a URI, NAPTR or NS resource record.
Mule, et al. Expires January 13, 2011 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft draft-drinks-spprov July 2010
+-----------------------+
|Route Group: | +-----[abstract]-+
| rteGrpName*, | | |
| isInSvc, | | Route Record: |
| rteRec, +------->| NAPTR |
| extension | | priority, |
| | | extension |
+-----------------------+ | |
^ +----------------+
|
+---------+------------+
|Destination |
|Group: |
| dgName*, |<----+
| extension | |
+----------------------+ |
|
+-------------+-[abstract]-+
|Public |
|Identifier: |
| publicIdentifier*, |
| dgName*, |
| extension |
+--------------------------+
LUF+LRF Data Model Example for SPPP
Figure 6
As an example, a request to add a route group where public
identifiers resolve into the URI ssp1.example.com and NAPTR
associated with that domain based on the source Organization would
be:
Mule, et al. Expires January 13, 2011 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft draft-drinks-spprov July 2010
id-12317123
20
registrantID123
registrarId0
route_grp_1
true
^(.*)$
urn:ssp1.example.com
true
Figure 7
3.3. Common Attributes
This section defines common object attributes. The protocol
exchanges and operations in SPPP take various parameters. Some of
these are common to several objects.
Two organization roles have been identified in the use cases and in
this protocol. A registrant is the organization or business entity
that "owns" the object while a registrar is an entity that can
provision an object.
3.4. Known Issues and Current Limitations of the Data Model
The data model described in Figure 3 does not yet address all of the
requirements and use cases defined in
[I-D.ietf-drinks-usecases-requirements].
This section will list known protocol issues to be addressed in
future revisions.
Mule, et al. Expires January 13, 2011 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft draft-drinks-spprov July 2010
4. Transport Protocol Requirements
This section provides requirements for transport protocols suitable
for SPPP. More specifically, this section specifies the services,
features, and assumptions that SPPP delegates to the chosen transport
and envelope technologies.
Two different groups of use cases are specified in
[I-D.ietf-drinks-usecases-requirements]. One group of use cases
describes the provisioning of data by a client into a Registry
(Section 3.1 of the above referenced document), while the other group
describes the distribution of data into local data repositories
(Section 3.2). The current version of this document focuses on the
first set of use cases (client to registry provisioning).
These use cases may involve the provisioning of very small data sets
like the modification or update of a single public identifier. Other
provisioning operations may deal with huge datasets like the
"download" of a whole local number portability database to a
Registry.
As a result, a transport protocol for SPPP must be very flexible and
accommodate various sizes of data set sizes.
For the reasons outlined above, it is conceivable that provisioning
and distributing may use different transport protocols. This
document focuses on the provisioning protocol.
A few topics remain open for discussion:
o The ability to establish multiple connections between a client and
server may be desirable. If so, we may want to specify the
relation of transactions between the various connections.
o Pipelining of requests is required at the SPPP protocol layer. It
may have impacts at the transport level that need to be outlined.
o Scope: the current scope of this effort is based upon having a
connection oriented transport. Is there any need to support a
transport protocol with asynchronous operation?
o If it is required that responses arrive in the order of the
requests, this must be specified clearly.
Mule, et al. Expires January 13, 2011 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft draft-drinks-spprov July 2010
4.1. Connection Oriented
The SPPP protocol follows a model where a Client establishes a
connection to a Server in order to further exchange provisioning
transactions over such point-to-point connection. A transport
protocol for SPPP MUST therefore be connection oriented.
Note that the role of the "Client" and the "Server" only applies to
the connection, and those roles are not related in any way to the
type of entity that participates in a protocol exchange. For
example, a Registry might also include a "Client" when such a
Registry initiates a connection (for example, for data distribution
to SSP).
4.2. Request & Response Model
Provisioning operations in SPPP follow the request - response model,
where a transaction is initiated by a Client using a Request command,
and the Server responds to the Client by means of a Response.
Multiple subsequent request-response exchanges MAY be performed over
a single connection.
Therefore, a transport protocol for SPPP MUST follow the request-
response model by allowing a response to be sent to the request
initiator.
4.3. Connection Lifetime
Some use cases involve provisioning a single request to a network
element - connections supporting such provisioning requests might be
short-lived, and only established on demand.
Other use cases involve either provisioning a huge set of data, or a
constant stream of small updates, which would require long-lived
connections.
Therefore, a protocol suitable for SPPP SHOULD support short lived as
well as long lived connections.
4.4. Authentication
Many use cases require the Server to authenticate the Client, and
potentially also the Client to authenticate the Server. While
authentication of the Server by the Client is expected to be used
only to prevent impersonation of the Server, authentication of the
Client by the Server is expected to be used to identify and further
authorize the Client to certain resources on the Server.
Mule, et al. Expires January 13, 2011 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft draft-drinks-spprov July 2010
Therefore, an SPPP transport protocol MUST provide means for a Server
to authenticate and authorize a Client, and MAY provide means for
Clients to authenticate a Server.
However, SPPP transport SHOULD also allow for unauthenticated
connections.
4.5. Confidentiality & Integrity
Data that is transported over the protocol is deemed confidential.
Therefore, a transport protocol suitable for SPPP MUST ensure
confidentiality and integrity protection by providing encryption
capabilities.
Additionally, a DRINKS protocol MUST NOT use an unreliable lower-
layer transport protocol that does not provide confidentiality and
integrity protection.
4.6. Near Real Time
Many use cases require near real-time responses from the Server.
Therefore, a DRINKS transport protocol MUST support near-real-time
response to requests submitted by the Client.
4.7. Request & Response Sizes
SPPP covers a range of use cases - from cases where provisioning a
single public identifier will create very small request and response
sizes to cases where millions of data records are submitted or
retrieved in one transaction. Therefore, a transport protocol
suitable for SPPP MUST support a great variety of request and
response sizes.
A transport protocol MAY allow splitting large chunks of data into
several smaller chunks.
4.8. Request and Response Correlation
A transport protocol suitable for SPPP MUST allow responses to be
correlated with requests.
4.9. Request Acknowledgement
Data transported in the SPPP protocol is likely crucial for the
operation of the communication network that is being provisioned.
Failed transactions can lead to situations where a subset of public
identifiers (or even SSPs) might not be reachable, or situations
Mule, et al. Expires January 13, 2011 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft draft-drinks-spprov July 2010
where the provisioning state of the network is inconsistent.
Therefore, a transport protocol for SPPP MUST provide a Response for
each Request, so that a Client can identify whether a Request
succeeded or failed.
4.10. Mandatory Transport
As of this writing of this revision, one transport protocol proposal
has been provided in [I-D.ietf-drinks-sppp-over-soap].
This section will define a mandatory transport protocol to be
compliant with this RFC.
Mule, et al. Expires January 13, 2011 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft draft-drinks-spprov July 2010
5. XML Considerations
XML serves as the encoding format for SPPP, allowing complex
hierarchical data to be expressed in a text format that can be read,
saved, and manipulated with both traditional text tools and tools
specific to XML.
XML is case sensitive. Unless stated otherwise, XML specifications
and examples provided in this document MUST be interpreted in the
character case presented to develop a conforming implementation.
This section discusses a small number of XML-related considerations
pertaining to SPPP.
5.1. Namespaces
All SPPP protocol elements are defined in the following namespace:
urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:sppp:base:1
Namespace and schema definitions are used to identify both the base
protocol schema and the schemas for managed objects.
5.2. Versioning
All XML instances SHOULD begin with an declaration to
identify the version of XML that is being used, optionally identify
use of the character encoding used, and optionally provide a hint to
an XML parser that an external schema file is needed to validate the
XML instance.
Conformant XML parsers recognize both UTF-8 (defined in [RFC3629])
and UTF-16 (defined in [RFC2781]); per [RFC2277] UTF-8 is the
RECOMMENDED character encoding for use with SPPP.
Character encodings other than UTF-8 and UTF-16 are allowed by XML.
UTF-8 is the default encoding assumed by XML in the absence of an
"encoding" attribute or a byte order mark (BOM); thus, the "encoding"
attribute in the XML declaration is OPTIONAL if UTF-8 encoding is
used. SPPP clients and servers MUST accept a UTF-8 BOM if present,
though emitting a UTF-8 BOM is NOT RECOMMENDED.
Example XML declarations:
version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="no"?>
Mule, et al. Expires January 13, 2011 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft draft-drinks-spprov July 2010
6. Request and Reply Model
An SPPP client interacts with an SPPP server by using one of the
supported transport mechanisms to send one or more requests to the
server and receive corresponding replies from the server. An SPPP
request is wrapped within the element while an SPPP
reply is wrapped within an element. Furthermore, fully
formed SPPP requests and replies are comprised of constructs required
by the chosen transport technology, and the chosen envelope
technology. The supported transport technology and envelope
technology specifications will be defined in separate documents, and
are not discussed here.
6.1. Request
An SPPP request object, common to any transport and envelope
technology, is contained within the generic element.
Within any element is the request object specific to
the type of object(s) being operated on and the action(s) being
performed on that object. For example, the addRteGroupRqst object,
used to create Route Groups, that would be passed within an
is defined as follows:
Mule, et al. Expires January 13, 2011 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft draft-drinks-spprov July 2010
All update requests contain a BasicRqstType object. This object is
defined as follows:
The data elements within the BasicRqstType object are primarily
"house keeping" data elements. They are described as follows:
o clientTransId: The client generated transaction ID that
identifies this request for tracking purposes. This value is
also echoed back to the client in the response. This value will
not be checked for uniqueness.
o minorVer: This identifies the minor version of the SPPP API that
the client is attempting to use. This is used in conjunction
with the major version identifier in the XML namespace. Refer
to the Versioning section of this document for more detail.
o ext: This is the standard extension element for this object.
Refer to the Extensibility section of this document for more
details.
Mule, et al. Expires January 13, 2011 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft draft-drinks-spprov July 2010
6.2. Reply
An SPPP reply object, common to any transport and envelope
technology, is contained within the generic element.
Within any element is the reply object containing the
result of the request. All create, update, and delete operations
result in a common response object structure, defined as follows:
Mule, et al. Expires January 13, 2011 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft draft-drinks-spprov July 2010
The data elements within the BasicRspnseType object are described as
follows:
o clientTransId: The echoed back client transaction ID that
explicitly identifies this request for tracking purposes. This
value is not guaranteed to be unique.
o serverTransId: The server transaction ID that identifies this
request for tracking purposes. This value is guaranteed to be
unique.
o resCode: The response code that explicitly identifies the result
of the request. See the Response Code section for further
details.
o resMsg: The human readable response message that accompanies the
response code. See the Response Code section for further
details.
o ext: This is the standard extension element for this object.
Refer to the Extensibility section for more details.
Mule, et al. Expires January 13, 2011 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft draft-drinks-spprov July 2010
7. Response Codes and Messages
This section contains an initial listing of response codes and their
corresponding human readable text.
The response code numbering scheme generally adheres to the theory
formalized in section 4.2.1 of [RFC2821]:
o The first digit of the response code can only be 1 or 2: 1 = a
positive result, 2 = a negative result.
o The second digit of the response code indicates the category: 0
= Protocol Syntax, 1 = Implementation Specific Business Rule, 2
= Security, 3 = Server System.
o The third and fourth digits of the response code indicate the
individual message event within the category defines by the
first two digits.
+--------+----------------------------------------------------------+
| Result | Text |
| Code | |
+--------+----------------------------------------------------------+
| 1000 | Request Succeeded. |
| | |
| 2001 | Request syntax invalid. |
| | |
| 2002 | Request too large. |
| | |
| 2003 | Version not supported. |
| | |
| 2103 | Command invalid. |
| | |
| 2104 | Attribute value invalid: [ObjecTypeName]:[Object's |
| | rantId]:[Object's name]:{[Embedded |
| | ObjecTypeName]}:[attribute name]:[attribute value]. |
| | |
| 2105 | Object does not exist: [ObjecTypeName]:[Object's |
| | rantId]:[Object's name]. |
| | |
| 2106 | Object status or ownership does not allow for operation: |
| | [OperationName]:[ObjecTypeName]:[Object's |
| | rantId]:[Object's name]. |
| | |
| 2301 | System temporarily unavailable. |
| | |
| 2302 | Unexpected internal system or server error. |
+--------+----------------------------------------------------------+
Mule, et al. Expires January 13, 2011 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft draft-drinks-spprov July 2010
Table 1: Response Codes Numbering Scheme and Messages
Some response messages are "parameterized" with one or more of the
following parameters: "attribute name", "attribute value",
"objectType-objectId", and "operation name".
The use of these parameters MUST adhere to the following rules:
o All parameters within a response message are mandatory and MUST
be present. Parameters within a response message MUST NOT be
left empty.
o Any value provided for the "attribute name" parameter MUST be an
exact element name of the protocol data element that the
response message is referring to. For example, valid values for
"attribute name" are "destGrpName", "rteGrpName", etc.
o A value provided for the "command/request type" parameter MUST
be an exact request object name that the response message is
referring to. For example, a valid value for "request object
name" is "delRteGrpsRqst".
o The value for "attribute value" MUST be the value of the data
element to which the preceding "attribute name" refers.
o Result code 2104 SHOULD be used whenever an element value does
not adhere to data validation rules.
o Result codes 2104 and 2105 MUST NOT be used interchangeably.
Response code 2105 SHOULD be returned when the data element(s)
used to uniquely identify a pre-existing object do not exist.
If the data elements used to uniquely identify an object are
malformed, then response code 2104 SHOULD be returned.
Mule, et al. Expires January 13, 2011 [Page 28]
Internet-Draft draft-drinks-spprov July 2010
8. Protocol Commands
This section provides a preliminary list of SPPP protocol commands.
At this early stage of the protocol development, the commands are
only listed with a brief description.
8.1. Add Route Group Operation
As described in the introductory sections, a Route Group represents a
combined grouping of Route Records that define route information,
Destination Groups that contain a set of Public Identifiers with
common routing information, and the list of peer organizations that
have access to these public identifiers using this route information.
It is this indirect linking of public identities to route information
that significantly improves the scalability and manageability of the
peering data. Additions and changes to routing information are
reduced to a single operation on a Route Group, rather than millions
of data updates to individual public identity records that
individually contain their peering point data.
The addRteGrpsRqst operation creates or overwrites one or more Route
Group objects. If a Route Group with the given name and registrant
ID does not exist, then the server MUST create the Route Group. If a
Route Group with the given name and registrant does exist, then the
server MUST replace the current properties of the Route Group with
the properties passed into the addRteGrpsRqst operation. The XSD
declarations of the operation request object are as follows:
The element passed into the spppRequest element for this operation is
the addRteGrpsRqst element. This element is of type
AddRteGrpsRqstType, which extends BasicRqstType and contains one or
more RteGrpType objects. Any limitation on the maximum number of
RteGrpType objects that may be passed into this operation is a policy
Mule, et al. Expires January 13, 2011 [Page 29]
Internet-Draft draft-drinks-spprov July 2010
decision and is not limited by the protocol. The RteGrpType object
structure is defined as follows:
The RteGrpType object is composed of the following elements:
o base: As described in previous sections, most objects contain
exactly one instance of BasicObjType which contains the ID of
the registrant organization that owns this object and the ID of
the registrar organization that provisioned this object.
o rteGrpName: The character string that contains the name of the
Route Group. It uniquely identifies this object within the
context of the registrant ID (a child element of the base
element as described above).
o rteRec: Set of zero or more objects of type RteRecType that
house the routing information, sometimes referred to as SED,
that the RteGrpType object contains.
o dgName: Set of zero or more names of DestGrpType object
instances. Each dgName name, in association with this Route
Group's registrant ID, uniquely identifies a DestGrpType object
instance whose public identities are reachable using the routing
information housed in this Route Group.
o peeringOrg: Set of zero or more peering organization IDs that
have accepted an offer to receive this Route Group's
Mule, et al. Expires January 13, 2011 [Page 30]
Internet-Draft draft-drinks-spprov July 2010
information. The set of peering organizations in this list is
not directly settable or modifiable using the addRteGrpsRqst
operation. This set is instead controlled using the route offer
and accept operations.
o sourceIdent: Set of zero or more SourceIdentType object
instances. These objects, described further below, house the
source identification schemes and identifiers that are applied
at resolution time as part of source based routing algorithms
for the Route Group.
o isInSvc: A boolean element that defines whether this Route Group
is in service. The routing information contained in a Route
Group that is in service is a candidate for inclusion in
resolution responses for public identities residing in the
Destination Group associated with this Route Group. The routing
information contained in a Route Group that is not in service is
not a candidate for inclusion is resolution responses.
o ext: Point of extensibility described in a previous section of
this document.
As described above, the Route Group contains a set of route record
objects. A route record object is based on an abstract type:
RteRecType. The concrete types that use RteRecType as an extension
base are NAPTRType, NSType, and URIType. The definitions of these
types are included below. The NAPTRType object is comprised of the
data elements necessary for a NAPTR that contains routing information
the Route Group. The NSType object is comprised of the data elements
necessary for a Name Server that points to another DNS server that
contains the desired routing information. The URIType object is
comprised of the data elements necessary to house a URI.
The data provisioned in a Registry can be leveraged for many purposes
and queried using various protocols including SIP, ENUM and others.
It is for this reason that a route record type offers a choice of
URI, and DNS resource record types. The URIType is commonly used to
provision data related to the SIP route in registries. The use of
DNS resource record types is also relevant to the scenario where the
data provisioned in the registry is used to answer ENUM queries but
the provisioning protocol should be agnostic to a particular
resolution protocol.
Mule, et al. Expires January 13, 2011 [Page 32]
Internet-Draft draft-drinks-spprov July 2010
The NAPTRType object is composed of the following elements:
o order: Order value in an ENUM NAPTR, relative to other NAPTRType
objects in the same Route Group.
o pref: Preference value in an ENUM NAPTR.
o svcs: ENUM service(s) that are served by the SBE. This field's
value must be of the form specified in RFC 3761 (e.g., E2U+
pstn:sip+sip). The allowable values are a matter of policy and
not limited by this protocol.
o regx: NAPTR's regular expression field. If this is not included
then the Repl field must be included.
o repl: NAPTR replacement field, should only be provided if the
Regex field is not provided, otherwise it will be ignored by the
server.
o ttl: Number of seconds that an addressing server may cache this
NAPTR.
o ext: Point of extensibility described in a previous section of
this document.
The NSType object is composed of the following elements:
Mule, et al. Expires January 13, 2011 [Page 33]
Internet-Draft draft-drinks-spprov July 2010
o hostName: Fully qualified host name of the name server.
o ipAddr: Zero or more objects of type IpAddrType. Each object
holds an IP Address and the IP Address type, IPv4 or IP v6.
o ttl: Number of seconds that an addressing server may cache this
Name Server.
o ext: Point of extensibility described in a previous section of
this document.
The URIType object is composed of the following elements:
o ere: The POSIX Extended Regular Expression (ere) as defined in
[RFC3986]
o uri: the URI as defined in [RFC3986]
The RteGrpType object provides support for source-based routing via
the source identity element. The source-based routing criteria
provides the ability to specify zero or more of the following in
association with a given Route Group: a regular expression that is
matched against the resolution client IP address, a regular
expression that is matched against the root domain name(s), and/or a
regular expression that is matched against the calling party URI(s).
The result will be that, after identifying the visible Route Groups
whose associated Destination Group(s) contain the lookup key being
queried, the resolution server will evaluate the characteristics of
the Source URI, and Source IP address, and root domain of the lookup
key being queried. The resolution server compares these criteria
against source based routing criteria associated with the Route
Groups. The routing information contained in Route Groups that have
source based routing criteria will only be included in the resolution
response if one or more of the criteria matches the source criteria
from the resolution request.
Mule, et al. Expires January 13, 2011 [Page 34]
Internet-Draft draft-drinks-spprov July 2010
The SourceIdentType object is composed of the following data
elements:
o sourceIdentScheme: The source identification scheme that this
source identification criteria applies to and that the
associated sourceIdentRegex should be matched against.
o sourceIdentRegex: The regular expression that should be used to
test for a match against the portion of the resolution request
that is dictated by the associated sourceIdentScheme.
o ext: Point of extensibility described in a previous section of
this document.
The result of the addRteGrpsRqst operation is the addRteGrpsRspns
element defined below. As with all SPPP requests, the result is all-
or-nothing. If more than one RteRecType is passed into this request,
then they will either all succeed or all fail. In the case of
failure, the failure response code(s) and message(s) will indicate
the reason for the failure and the object(s) that caused the failure.
The response codes that the addRteGrpsRqst operation can return are
as follows:
Mule, et al. Expires January 13, 2011 [Page 35]
Internet-Draft draft-drinks-spprov July 2010
o 1000: Request Succeeded.
o 2001: Request syntax invalid.
o 2002: Request too large.
o 2003: Version not supported.
o 2103: Command invalid.
o 2104: Attribute value invalid.
o 2105: Object does not exist.
o 2106: Object status or ownership does not allow for request.
o 2301: System temporarily unavailable.
o 2302: Unexpected internal system or server error.
8.2. Get Route Groups Operation
The getRteGrpsRqst operation allows a client to get the properties of
Route Group objects that a registrar organization is authorized to
view. The server will attempt to find a Route Group object that has
the registrant ID and route group name pair contained in each
ObjKeyType object instance. If the set of ObjKeyType objects is
empty then the server will return the list of Route Group objects
that the querying client has the authority to view. If there are no
matching Route Groups found then an empty result set will be
returned.
The element passed into the spppRequest element for this operation is
the getRteGrpsRqst element. This element is of type
GetRteGrpsRqstType, which extends BasicRqstType and contains zero or
more ObjKeyType objects. Any limitation on the maximum number of
objects that may be passed into or returned by this operation is a
policy decision and not limited by the protocol. The XSD declaration
of the operation is as follows:
Mule, et al. Expires January 13, 2011 [Page 36]
Internet-Draft draft-drinks-spprov July 2010
The result of the getRteGrpsRqst operation returned in the
spppResponse element is the getRteGrpsRspns element defined below.
This object contains the resulting set of RteGrpType objects, or an
empty set if there were no matches.
The response codes that the getRteGrpsRqst operation can return are
as follows:
o 1000: Request Succeeded.
o 2001: Request syntax invalid.
o 2002: Request too large.
o 2003: Version not supported.
Mule, et al. Expires January 13, 2011 [Page 37]
Internet-Draft draft-drinks-spprov July 2010
o 2103: Command invalid.
o 2104: Attribute value invalid.
o 2301: System temporarily unavailable.
o 2302: Unexpected internal system or server error.
8.3. Add Route Group Offers Operation
The list of peer organizations whose resolution responses can include
the routing information contained in a given Route Group is
controlled by the organization to which a Route Group object belongs,
its registrant, and the peer organization that submits resolution
requests, a data recipient or peering organization. The registrant
offers access to a Route Group by submitting a Route Group Offer and
the data recipient can then accept or reject that offer. Not until
access to a Route Group has been offered and accepted will the data
recipient's organization ID be included in the peeringOrg list in a
Route Group object, and that Route Group's peering information become
a candidate for inclusion in the responses to the resolution requests
submitted by that data recipient. The addRteGrpOffersRqst operation
creates or overwrites one or more Route Group Offer objects. If a
Route Group Offer for the given Route key (route name and registrant
ID) and offeredToOrg ID does not exist, then the server creates the
Route Group Offer object. If a such a Route Group Offer does exist,
then the server replaces the current object with the new object. The
XSD declarations of the operation request object are as follows:
The element passed into the spppRequest element for this operation is
the addRteGrpOffersRqst element. This element is of type
Mule, et al. Expires January 13, 2011 [Page 38]
Internet-Draft draft-drinks-spprov July 2010
AddRteGrpOffersRqstType, which extends BasicRqstType and contains one
or more RteGrpOfferType objects. Any limitation on the maximum
number of objects that may be passed into or returned by this
operation is a policy decision and not limited by the protocol. The
XSD declaration of the operation is as follows:
The RteGrpOfferType object is composed of the following elements:
o base: As described in previous sections, most objects contain
exactly one instance of BasicObjType which contains the ID of
the registrant organization that owns this object and the ID of
the registrar organization that provisioned this object.
o rteGrpOfferKey: The object that identifies the route that is or
has been offered and the organization that it is or has been
offered to. The combination of these three data elements
uniquely identify a Route Group Offer.
o status: The status of the offer, offered or accepted. This
status is controlled by the server. It is automatically set to
"offered" when ever a new Route Group Offer is added, and is
Mule, et al. Expires January 13, 2011 [Page 39]
Internet-Draft draft-drinks-spprov July 2010
automatically set to "accepted" if and when that offer is
accepted. The value of the element is ignored when passed in by
the client.
o offerDateTime: Date and time in GMT when the Route Group Offer
was added.
o acceptDateTime: Date and time in GMT when the Route Group Offer
was accepted.
The result of addRteGrpOffersRqst is the addRteGrpOffersRspns element
defined below. As with all SPPP requests, the result is all-or-
nothing. If more than one RteGrpOfferType is passed into this
request, then they will either all succeed or all fail. In the case
of failure, the failure response code(s) and message(s) will indicate
the reason for the failure and the object(s) that caused the failure.
The response codes that the addRteGrpOffersRqst operation can return
are as follows:
o 1000: Request Succeeded.
o 2001: Request syntax invalid.
o 2002: Request too large.
o 2003: Version not supported.
o 2103: Command invalid.
o 2104: Attribute value invalid.
o 2105: Object does not exist.
o 2106: Object status or ownership does not allow for request.
o 2301: System temporarily unavailable.
o 2302: Unexpected internal system or server error.
Mule, et al. Expires January 13, 2011 [Page 40]
Internet-Draft draft-drinks-spprov July 2010
8.4. Accept Route Group Offers Operation
Not until access to a Route Group has been offered and accepted will
the data recipient's organization ID be included in the peeringOrg
list in that Route Group object, and that Route Group's peering
information become a candidate for inclusion in the responses to the
resolution requests submitted by that data recipient.The
acceptRteGrpOffersRqst operation is called by, or on behalf of, the
data recipient to accept one or more Route Group Offers that are
pending in the "offered" status for the data recipient's organization
ID. If a Route Group Offer for the given Route Group Offer key
(route name, route registrant ID, data recipient's organization ID)
exists, then the server moves the Route Group Offer to the "accepted"
status and adds that data recipient's organization ID into the list
of peerOrgIds for that Route Group. If a such a Route Group Offer
does not exist, then the server returns the appropriate error code
2105. The XSD declarations for the operation request object are as
follows:
The element passed into the spppRequest element for this operation is
the acceptRteGrpOffersRqst element. This element is of type
AcceptRteGrpOffersRqstType, which extends BasicRqstType and contains
one or more RteGrpOfferKeyType objects. Any limitation on the
maximum number of objects that may be passed into or returned by this
operation is a policy decision and not limited by the protocol.
The result of acceptRteGrpOffersRqst is the acceptRteGrpOffersRspns
element defined below. As with all SPPP requests, the result is all-
or-nothing. If more than one RteGrpOfferKeyType is passed into this
request, then they will either all succeed or all fail. In the case
of failure, the failure response code(s) and message(s) will indicate
Mule, et al. Expires January 13, 2011 [Page 41]
Internet-Draft draft-drinks-spprov July 2010
the reason for the failure and the object(s) that caused the failure.
The response codes that the acceptRteGrpOffersRspns operation can
return are as follows:
o 1000: Request Succeeded.
o 2001: Request syntax invalid.
o 2002: Request too large.
o 2003: Version not supported.
o 2103: Command invalid.
o 2104: Attribute value invalid.
o 2105: Object does not exist.
o 2106: Object status or ownership does not allow for request.
o 2301: System temporarily unavailable.
o 2302: Unexpected internal system or server error.
8.5. Reject Route Group Offers Operation
Not until access to a Route Group has been offered and accepted will
the data recipient's organization ID be included in the peeringOrg
list in that Route Group object, and that Route Group's peering
information become a candidate for inclusion in the responses to the
resolution requests submitted by that data recipient. However, the
data recipient that the Route Group has been offered to has the
option of rejecting a Route Group Offer that has been offered but not
accepted or that has been offered and accepted. The
rejectRteGrpOffersRqst operation is used for these purposes and is
called by, or on behalf of, the data recipient to accept one or more
Route Group Offers that are pending in the "offered" status or the
"accepted" status for the data recipient's organization ID. If a
Route Group Offer for the given Route Group Offer key (route name,
route registrant ID, data recipient's organization ID) exists in
either the offered or accepted status, then the server deletes that
Mule, et al. Expires January 13, 2011 [Page 42]
Internet-Draft draft-drinks-spprov July 2010
Route Group Offer object , and, if appropriate, removes the data
recipients organization ID from the list of peerOrgIds for that Route
Group. If the Route Group Offer does not exist, then the server
returns the appropriate error code 2105. The XSD declarations for
the operation request object are as follows:
The element passed into the spppRequest element for this operation is
the rejectRteGrpOffersRqst element. This element is of type
RejectRteGrpOffersRqstType, which extends BasicRqstType and contains
one or more RteGrpOfferKeyType objects. Any limitation on the
maximum number of objects that may be passed into or returned by this
operation is a policy decision and not limited by the protocol.
The result of rejectRteGrpOffersRqst is the rejectRteGrpOffersRspns
element defined below. As with all SPPP requests, the result is all-
or-nothing. If more than one RteGrpOfferKeyType is passed into this
request, then they will either all succeed or all fail. In the case
of failure, the failure response code(s) and message(s) will indicate
the reason for the failure and the object(s) that caused the failure.
The response codes that the rejectRteGrpOffersRspns operation can
return are as follows:
o 1000: Request Succeeded.
Mule, et al. Expires January 13, 2011 [Page 43]
Internet-Draft draft-drinks-spprov July 2010
o 2001: Request syntax invalid.
o 2002: Request too large.
o 2003: Version not supported.
o 2103: Command invalid.
o 2104: Attribute value invalid.
o 2105: Object does not exist.
o 2106: Object status or ownership does not allow for request.
o 2301: System temporarily unavailable.
o 2302: Unexpected internal system or server error.
8.6. Get Route Group Offers Operation
The getRteGrpOffersRqst operation allows a client to get the
properties of zero or more Route Group Offer objects that that
registrar is authorized to view. The server will attempt to find
Route Group Offer objects that has all the properties specified in
the criteria passed into the operation. If no criteria is passed in
then the server will return the list of Route Group Offer objects
that the querying client has the authority to view. If there are no
matching Route Group Offers found then an empty result set will be
returned.
The element passed into the spppRequest element for this operation is
the getRteGrpOffersRqst element. This element is of type
GetRteGrpOffersRqstType, which extends BasicRqstType and contains the
criteria that the returnedRoute Group Offer objects must match. Any
limitation on the maximum number of objects that may be passed into
or returned by this operation is a policy decision and not limited by
the protocol. The XSD declaration of the operation is as follows:
Mule, et al. Expires January 13, 2011 [Page 44]
Internet-Draft draft-drinks-spprov July 2010
The GetRteGrpOffersRqstType object is composed of the following
elements:
o offeredByPeers: Zero or one boolean value that, if true,
indicates that only offers that are offered by peering
organizations to the querying registrant should be included in
the result set. If this value is false, the offers by peering
organizations to the querying registrant should not be included
in the result set. The result set is also subject to other
query criteria in the request.
o offeredToPeers: Zero or one boolean value that, if true,
indicates that only offers that are offered to peering
organizations by the querying registrant should be included in
the result set. If this value is false, the offers to peering
organizations by the querying registrant should not be included
in the result set. The result set is also subject to other
query criteria in the request.
o status: The status of the offer, offered or accepted. Only
offers in the specified status should be included in the result
set. If this element is not present then the status of the
offer should not be considered in the query. The result set is
also subject to other query criteria in the request.
Mule, et al. Expires January 13, 2011 [Page 45]
Internet-Draft draft-drinks-spprov July 2010
o peeringOrg: Zero or more organization IDs. Only offers that are
offered to or offered by the organization IDs in this list
should be included in the result set. The result set is also
subject to other query criteria in the request.
o rteGrpOfferKey: Zero or more Route Group Offer Keys. Only
offers having one of these keys should be included in the result
set. The result set is also subject to other query criteria in
the request.
The result of the getRteGrpOffersRqst operation returned in the
spppResponse element is the getRteGrpOffersRspns element defined
below. This object contains the resulting set of RteGrpOfferType
objects, or an empty set if there were no matches.
The response codes that the getRteGrpOffersRqst operation can return
are as follows:
o 1000: Request Succeeded.
o 2001: Request syntax invalid.
o 2002: Request too large.
o 2003: Version not supported.
o 2103: Command invalid.
o 2104: Attribute value invalid.
Mule, et al. Expires January 13, 2011 [Page 46]
Internet-Draft draft-drinks-spprov July 2010
o 2301: System temporarily unavailable.
o 2302: Unexpected internal system or server error.
8.7. Public Identifier Operations
Public Identifier is a well-known attribute that is used as the
search key to find the routes associated with it. There are three
types of public identifiers defined in this document: TNType for the
telephone number, EmailType for the email address, and RNType for
PSTN routing number. Further, TNRangeType is used to add a range of
telephone numbers.
8.7.1. Add Public Identifier
addPubIdsRqst operation is used to create or overwrite one or more
public identifier(s). When activating a new public identifier that
can be reached using a common set of routes, it is often associated
with a well-known destination group. In some cases, such as the
email public identifier, the routing information is unique, and
therefore, addPubIdsRqst allows the public identifier to be directly
associated with a route record.
PubIdType in the schema represents the public identifier and it is
defined as an abstract type. TNType, EmailType, and RNType, the
concrete types of PubIdType, are inputs to 'addPubIdRqst' operation.
The declaration of 'addPubIdsRqst' is as follows:
For the 'addPubIdsRqst' operation to succeed, each public identifier
should be associated with at least a valid destination group or a
valid route type as defined within the PubIdType definition. If not,
the provisioning server will deem the request a failure and return an
appropriate failure code in the response.
Mule, et al. Expires January 13, 2011 [Page 47]
Internet-Draft draft-drinks-spprov July 2010
TNType is a concrete public identifier that extends PubIdType
definition. If the entity provisioning the telephone number is the
carrier of record [see RFC 5067], then it SHOULD include the
'corClaim' element with a value 'true'. If the SPPP server records
disagree with the COR claim of the provisioning entity, an
appropriate failure response MUST be returned.
For added flexibility, there is support to add a range of telephone
numbers and associate them with a destination group. TNRType extends
TNType and adds the 'endTn' attribute to mark the end of the range.
In the TNRType context, the extended 'tn' attribute is used for the
starting TN of a given telephone number range.
Mule, et al. Expires January 13, 2011 [Page 48]
Internet-Draft draft-drinks-spprov July 2010
The element passed into the spppRequest element for this operation is
the addPubIdsRqst element. This element is of type
AddPubIdsRqstType, which extends BasicRqstType and contians one or
more PubIdType objects. Any limitation on the maximum number of
PubIdType objects that may be passed into this operatoin is a policy
decision and is not limited by the protocol.
The response from the server is returned in addPubIdsRspns element.
If more than one public identifiers are passed in the addPubIdsRqst,
then a failure to add one will result in the failure of addPubIdsRqst
operation. If the 'transactional' attribute is set to 'true' in the
root element spppRequest and more than one operation request elements
are included, then a failure of any one operation will result in the
overall failure of spppRequest. In the case of a failure, the
response code(s) and message(s) will indicate the reason of failure.
The response codes that the addRteGrpsRqst operation can return are
as follows:
o 1000: Request Succeeded.
o 2001: Request syntax invalid.
o 2002: Request too large.
o 2003: Version not supported.
o 2103: Command invalid.
o 2104: Attribute value invalid.
o 2105: Object does not exist.
o 2106: Object status or ownership does not allow for request.
o 2301: System temporarily unavailable.
o 2302: Unexpected internal system or server error.
Mule, et al. Expires January 13, 2011 [Page 49]
Internet-Draft draft-drinks-spprov July 2010
8.7.2. Get Public Identifier
The getPubIdsRqst can be used by an authorized entity to obtain the
properties of one or more public identifiers. In case of an
authorization failure or if no matching public identifiers are found,
an appropriate failure code will be returned.
To make a successful query, getPubIdsRqst element is set within the
spppRequest root element. getPubIdsRqst is of type GetPubIdsRqstType,
which extends from the common BasicRqstType.
The result of the getPubIdsRqst operation returned in the
spppResponse element is the getPubIdsRspns element of type
GetPubIdsRspnsType. If the matching record is found, getPubIdsRspns
element will include one or more pi elements with destination group
name and/or the route record associations.
The response codes that the addRteGrpsRqst operation can return are
Mule, et al. Expires January 13, 2011 [Page 50]
Internet-Draft draft-drinks-spprov July 2010
as follows:
o 1000: Request Succeeded.
o 2001: Request syntax invalid.
o 2002: Request too large.
o 2003: Version not supported.
o 2103: Command invalid.
o 2104: Attribute value invalid.
o 2105: Object does not exist.
o 2106: Object status or ownership does not allow for request.
o 2301: System temporarily unavailable.
o 2302: Unexpected internal system or server error.
8.7.3. Delete Public Identifier
In order to remove the public identifier, an authorized entity can
use the delPubIdsRqst operation. If the entity that issued the
command is not authorized to perform this operation or if the public
identifier doesn't exist, an appropriate error code will be returned
in the response.
delPubIdsRqst element is set in the root spppRequest element.
delPubIdsRqst element is of type DelPubIdsRqstType as shown below:
Mule, et al. Expires January 13, 2011 [Page 51]
Internet-Draft draft-drinks-spprov July 2010
The result of the delPubIdsRqst operation returned in the
spppResponse element is the getPubIdsRspns element of type
GetPubIdsRspnsType.
8.8. Egress Route Operations
This section describes the operations related to egress routes. In
this version, egress routes are only defined for route records of
NAPTR type (future versions may expand this notion to URI types).
The egress route functionality allows a call originating SSP to
define its egress route in an attempt to reach the ingress SBE of the
target SSP. In some cases, the call originating SSP has more than
one choice of egress SBEs and intends to selectively use one of these
route elements for call termination to the target SSP.
An egress route simply allows an organization to re-write the route
records provided by a peer in a given Route Group. If a terminating
SSP has provided a route group with at least one route record in the
form of an ingress DNS NAPTR record, then the egress route allows the
originating SSP to re-write the regular expression of the matching
ingress NAPTR. The SPPP protocol allows a client to add, get and
delete egress route objects based on a given peer's ingress route
group.
An egress route is of type EgrRteType as shown below:
The EgrRteType object is composed of the following elements:
Mule, et al. Expires January 13, 2011 [Page 52]
Internet-Draft draft-drinks-spprov July 2010
o base: As described in previous sections, most objects contain
exactly one instance of BasicObjType which contains the ID of
the registrant organization that owns this object and the ID of
the registrar organization that provisioned this object.
o egrRteName: The name of the egress route.
o pref:
o svcs: The ENUM services that the egress route should be used for
if the route record is a NAPTR.
o regxRewriteRule: The regular expression re-write rule that
should be applied to the regular expression of the ingress
NAPTR(s) that belong to the ingress route and that have the
given ENUM service (ere + repl).
o ingressRte: The ingress route group name that the egress route
should be used for.
o ext: Point of extensibility described in a previous section of
this document.
8.8.1. Add Egress Route
addEgrRtesRqst operation is used to create or overwrite one or more
egress routes.
Mule, et al. Expires January 13, 2011 [Page 53]
Internet-Draft draft-drinks-spprov July 2010
addEgrRtesRqst is added in the spppRequest root element in order to
send a valid request to the server. A limitation on the maximum
number of EgrRteType is enforced by the registry and will vary from
one implementation to the next.
The response from the server is returned in addEgrRtesRspns element,
which is defined as the element of type BasicRspnsType.
8.8.2. Get Egress Route
The getEgrRtesRqst is used by an authorized entity to fetch the well-
known egress route data.
Mule, et al. Expires January 13, 2011 [Page 54]
Internet-Draft draft-drinks-spprov July 2010
8.8.3. Delete Egress Route
delEgressRte is used by authorized entities to remove a well-know
route.
Mule, et al. Expires January 13, 2011 [Page 55]
Internet-Draft draft-drinks-spprov July 2010
9. Security Considerations
The transport protocol section contains some security properties that
the transport protocol must provide so that authenticated endpoints
can exchange data confidentially and with integrity protection.
More details will be provided in a future revision of this document.
Mule, et al. Expires January 13, 2011 [Page 56]
Internet-Draft draft-drinks-spprov July 2010
10. IANA Considerations
This document uses URNs to describe XML namespaces and XML schemas
conforming to a registry mechanism described in [RFC3688].
Two URI assignments are requested.
Registration request for the SPPP XML namespace:
urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:sppp:base:1
Registrant Contact: IESG
XML: None. Namespace URIs do not represent an XML specification.
Registration request for the XML schema:
URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:schema:sppp:1
Registrant Contact: IESG
XML: See the "Formal Specification" section of this document
(Section 11).
Mule, et al. Expires January 13, 2011 [Page 57]
Internet-Draft draft-drinks-spprov July 2010
11. Formal Specification
This section provides the draft XML Schema Definition for the SPPP
protocol. Please read Section 3.4 for known issues.
------------------ Object Type Definitions
--------------
Mule, et al. Expires January 13, 2011 [Page 58]
Internet-Draft draft-drinks-spprov July 2010
Mule, et al. Expires January 13, 2011 [Page 60]
Internet-Draft draft-drinks-spprov July 2010
------------------ Abstract Object and Element
Type Definitions --------------
Mule, et al. Expires January 13, 2011 [Page 61]
Internet-Draft draft-drinks-spprov July 2010
Mule, et al. Expires January 13, 2011 [Page 62]
Internet-Draft draft-drinks-spprov July 2010
-------------- Operation Request and Response
Object Type Definitions ------------
Mule, et al. Expires January 13, 2011 [Page 63]
Internet-Draft draft-drinks-spprov July 2010
Mule, et al. Expires January 13, 2011 [Page 65]
Internet-Draft draft-drinks-spprov July 2010
Mule, et al. Expires January 13, 2011 [Page 66]
Internet-Draft draft-drinks-spprov July 2010
Mule, et al. Expires January 13, 2011 [Page 67]
Internet-Draft draft-drinks-spprov July 2010
-------------- Operation Request and Response
Element Definitions ------------
-------------- Manage Route Groups
Mule, et al. Expires January 13, 2011 [Page 68]
Internet-Draft draft-drinks-spprov July 2010
-------------- Manage Destination Groups
-------------- Manage Public Identifiers
-------------- Manage Route Group Offers
-------------- Manage Egress Routes
-------------- Misc Operations
-------- Generic Request and Response Definitions
---------------
Mule, et al. Expires January 13, 2011 [Page 70]
Internet-Draft draft-drinks-spprov July 2010
12. Specification Extensibility
The protocol defined in this specification is extensible. This
section explains how to extend the protocol and what procedures are
necessary to follow in order to ensure proper extensions.
Mule, et al. Expires January 13, 2011 [Page 71]
Internet-Draft draft-drinks-spprov July 2010
13. Acknowledgments
This document is a result of various discussions held in the DRINKS
working group and within the DRINKS protocol design team, which is
comprised of the following individuals, in alphabetical order:
Deborah A Guyton (Telcordia), Sumanth Channabasappa (CableLabs),
Jean-Francois Mule (CableLabs), Kenneth Cartwright (TNSI), Manjul
Maharishi (TNSI), David Schwartz (XConnect), and the co-chairs
Richard Shockey and Alexander Mayrhofer (enum.at GmbH).
The authors of this document thank the following individuals for
their advice, reviews and comments during the development of this
protocol: Lisa Dusseault, "YOUR NAME HERE" -- send comments to drinks
list.
Mule, et al. Expires January 13, 2011 [Page 72]
Internet-Draft draft-drinks-spprov July 2010
14. References
14.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-drinks-sppp-over-soap]
Cartwright, K., "SPPP Over SOAP and HTTP",
draft-ietf-drinks-sppp-over-soap-00 (work in progress),
June 2010.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC2277] Alvestrand, H., "IETF Policy on Character Sets and
Languages", BCP 18, RFC 2277, January 1998.
[RFC2781] Hoffman, P. and F. Yergeau, "UTF-16, an encoding of ISO
10646", RFC 2781, February 2000.
[RFC3629] Yergeau, F., "UTF-8, a transformation format of ISO
10646", STD 63, RFC 3629, November 2003.
[RFC3688] Mealling, M., "The IETF XML Registry", BCP 81, RFC 3688,
January 2004.
[RFC3986] Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform
Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax", STD 66,
RFC 3986, January 2005.
14.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-drinks-usecases-requirements]
Channabasappa, S., "DRINKS Use cases and Protocol
Requirements", draft-ietf-drinks-usecases-requirements-03
(work in progress), May 2010.
[RFC2821] Klensin, J., "Simple Mail Transfer Protocol", RFC 2821,
April 2001.
[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.
[RFC3761] Faltstrom, P. and M. Mealling, "The E.164 to Uniform
Resource Identifiers (URI) Dynamic Delegation Discovery
System (DDDS) Application (ENUM)", RFC 3761, April 2004.
[RFC4725] Mayrhofer, A. and B. Hoeneisen, "ENUM Validation
Mule, et al. Expires January 13, 2011 [Page 73]
Internet-Draft draft-drinks-spprov July 2010
Architecture", RFC 4725, November 2006.
[RFC5486] Malas, D. and D. Meyer, "Session Peering for Multimedia
Interconnect (SPEERMINT) Terminology", RFC 5486,
March 2009.
Mule, et al. Expires January 13, 2011 [Page 74]
Internet-Draft draft-drinks-spprov July 2010
Authors' Addresses
Jean-Francois Mule
CableLabs
858 Coal Creek Circle
Louisville, CO 80027
USA
Email: jfm@cablelabs.com
Kenneth Cartwright
TNS
1939 Roland Clarke Place
Reston, VA 20191
USA
Email: kcartwright@tnsi.com
Syed Wasim Ali
NeuStar
46000 Center Oak Plaza
Sterling, VA 20166
USA
Email: syed.ali@neustar.biz
Alexander Mayrhofer
enum.at GmbH
Karlsplatz 1/9
Wien, A-1010
Austria
Email: alexander.mayrhofer@enum.at
Mule, et al. Expires January 13, 2011 [Page 75]