Internet DRAFT - draft-houri-speermint-rtc-provisioning-reqs
draft-houri-speermint-rtc-provisioning-reqs
SPEERMINT WG A. Houri
Internet-Draft IBM
Expires: December 21, 2006 E. Aoki
AOL LLC
T. Rang
Microsoft Corporation
June 19, 2006
RTC Provisioning Requirements
draft-houri-speermint-rtc-provisioning-reqs-00.txt
Status of this Memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on December 21, 2006.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).
Abstract
Real Time Communications (RTC) tools are becoming as prevalent and
essential for users on the Internet as email. While RTC tools can,
like email, be implemented directly by users in a point-to-point
fashion, they are often provided for or on behalf of a community of
users within an administrative domain. As the use of these tools
Houri, et al. Expires December 21, 2006 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft RTC Provisioning Requirements June 2006
grows, users increasingly have the need to communicate with users not
only within their own community but with those in other communities
as well. In practice, each community is controlled by some
authority, and so there is a need to provide for easier establishment
of connectivity between communities, and the management of the inter-
community link. This document contains an initial list of
requirements for provisioning and managing connectivity between
communities.
Table of Contents
1. Requirements notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Core Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. Additional Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 11
Houri, et al. Expires December 21, 2006 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft RTC Provisioning Requirements June 2006
1. Requirements notation
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].
Houri, et al. Expires December 21, 2006 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft RTC Provisioning Requirements June 2006
2. Introduction
Real Time Communications (RTC) tools are becoming as prevalent and
essential for users on the Internet as email. While RTC tools can,
like email, be implemented directly by users in a point-to-point
fashion, they are often provided for or on behalf of a community of
users within an administrative domain. As the use of these tools
grows, users increasingly have the need to communicate with users not
only within their own community but with those in other communities
as well. In practice, each community is controlled by some
authority, and so there is a need to provide for easier establishment
of connectivity between communities, and the management of the inter-
community link. This document contains an initial list of
requirements for provisioning and managing connectivity between
communities.
The following terminology will be used in the document:
o Single community - A server or a set of servers (e.g. an
enterprise or a consumer domain) that provides service to a single
community of users. Users connect to a server within the
community in order to get RTC services from the community.
o Clearing house - A service that facilitates interaction between
multiple communities. The communities connect to the clearing
house and this clearinghouse provides transitive connectivity to
any of the other communities connected to and receiving service
from the clearing house.
o Provisioning - The ability to supply in whatever means or
protocols a set of attributes that are required for smoother and
safer establishment of connectivity between communities. The
requirements that are provided in this document are targeted to
enable two communities to connect to each other while knowing in
advance what is the expectation of the other community regarding
connectivity and other features that are part of the federation
between the communities. In the clearing house model the
intention is to enable each community that connects to the
clearing house to know what services to accept from the clearing
house.
The requirements in this document are divided into core requirements
and requirements that are nice to have or can be implemented in the
future.
The following categories of requirements are considered as out of
scope requirements for this document (at least for this version):
Houri, et al. Expires December 21, 2006 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft RTC Provisioning Requirements June 2006
o The establishment of any out of band agreements agreement between
the various communities that participate in the federation
o Quality of Service (QoS) requirements
o Billing requirements
Houri, et al. Expires December 21, 2006 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft RTC Provisioning Requirements June 2006
3. Core Requirements
The requirements that are listed in this section are considered as
core requirements and are intended to enable easier and safer
connectivity between communities
CORE-REQ-001: It should be possible to push and pull provisioning
data between communities
CORE-REQ-002: It should be possible to secure the pushing and pulling
of provisioning data. Provisioning data should be provided only to
the appropriate community and only on a need to know basis.
CORE-REQ-003: It should be possible to provide the FQDN of the edge
proxies of the other community.
CORE-REQ-004: It should be possible to provide necessary details
regarding firewall and NAT that will enable easier connection of
other communities to the community
CORE-REQ-005: It should be possible to provide the details of the how
to contact the other community's administrator(s). Phone number,
email etc.
CORE-REQ-006: It should be possible to provide the details of the
certificates that are expected by the other community. I.e. common
name, certificate issuer and expiration.
CORE-REQ-007: It should be possible to provide the details of the
certificates that are acceptable by the community. E.g. certificate
authority.
CORE-REQ-008: It should be possible to provide the possible
encryption methods that are expected by the community.
CORE-REQ-009: It should be possible to provide the possible
compression methods that are expected by the community.
CORE-REQ-010: It should be possible to provide the maximum number of
allowed concurrent connection that are acceptable by the community.
Houri, et al. Expires December 21, 2006 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft RTC Provisioning Requirements June 2006
4. Additional Requirements
The requirements that are listed in this section are more "nice to
have" requirements. Although the services can be established without
them, these requirements can increase the quality and reduce the
overhead of providing services between communities.
ADD-REQ-001: It should be possible to provide the list of services
that are provided by the community. E.g. N- way chat, file
transfer.
ADD-REQ-002: It should be possible to provide the characteristic for
each service that is provided by the community. These characteristic
should include additional info on each service provided
ADD-REQ-003: It should be possible to provide the expected policy
regarding various parameters that may affect the service between the
communities. These SHOULD include the following:
o A flag if the community supports polling (fetches i.e. SUBSCRIBE
with duration 0) for presence information
o The time limits for periodic operations as re-subscriptions
o The time period in which a user-ID that was removed from the
community will not be reassigned to another user. This period can
affect the maximum duration of subscription. for example a
community may keep subscription open for half of the above period
and reassert it every half of the period
o The error codes that are to be expected for certain conditions
ADD-REQ-004: it should be possible to provide the intended usage
profile. for example the expected number of subscriptions, message
rate per second and more. These parameters should be the highest
limit and provisioning requests that are below this limit should be
expected to succeed, and could be performed automatically without
user intervention.
ADD-REQ-005: It should be possible to provide updates regarding
changes to provisioning parameters immediately as they are changed
ADD-REQ-006: A clearing house should be able to provide the list of
communities that are enabled to connect to it
ADD-REQ-007: It should be possible for a community that connects the
clearing house to provide whether it should be listed in the list of
the communities that can connect to the clearing house
Houri, et al. Expires December 21, 2006 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft RTC Provisioning Requirements June 2006
ADD-REQ-008: It should be possible for a community that connects the
clearing house to provide a white or a black list of communities to
the clearing house. if the community provides a white list then only
the communities that are listed in the white list are allowed to
connect to that community. if the community provides a black list
then only the communities that are not listed in the black list are
allowed to connect to that community. if neither a white or nor black
list is provided then the community imposes no restrictions on
connecting to it from the clearing house
Houri, et al. Expires December 21, 2006 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft RTC Provisioning Requirements June 2006
5. Security Considerations
This document discusses requirements for provisioning between
communities. Some of these requirements may have security
implications when they are provided for. for example the ability to
securely connect between communities and making sure that the other
community is the community it claims to be. When these requirements
will be addressed the security implications of them should be
addressed also.
6. References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
Houri, et al. Expires December 21, 2006 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft RTC Provisioning Requirements June 2006
Authors' Addresses
Avshalom Houri
IBM
Science Park Building 18/D
Rehovot,
Israel
Email: avshalom@il.ibm.com
Edwin Aoki
AOL LLC
360 W. Caribbean Drive
Sunnyvale, CA 94089
USA
Email: aoki@aol.net
Tim Rang
Microsoft Corporation
One Microsoft Way
Redmond, WA 98052
USA
Email: timrang@microsoft.com
Houri, et al. Expires December 21, 2006 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft RTC Provisioning Requirements June 2006
Intellectual Property Statement
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at
ietf-ipr@ietf.org.
Disclaimer of Validity
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET
ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE
INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006). This document is subject
to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and
except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights.
Acknowledgment
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society.
Houri, et al. Expires December 21, 2006 [Page 11]