DRINKS Working Group G. Schumacher Internet Draft Sprint Intended status: Standards Track H. Kaplan Expires: April 27, 2009 Acme Packet October 27, 2008 Look Up Function vs. Location Routing Function discussion draft-schumacher-drinks-luf-lrf-diff-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 April 27, 2009. Copyright Notice Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008). Schumacher Expires April 17, 2009 [Page 1] Look Up Function vs. Location Routing Function discussion October 2008 Abstract This document provides a comparison between the Look Up Function (LUF) and the Location Routing Function (LRF) as used for inter and intra-domain SIP session routing. It also develops the relationship between the two functions. Table of Contents 1. Introduction...................................................2 2. Terminology....................................................2 3. Review of SPEERMINT Terminology................................3 4. Look Up Function...............................................3 5. Location Routing Function......................................3 6. Interaction between LUF and LRF................................3 7. Security Considerations........................................4 8. IANA Considerations............................................4 9. Conclusions....................................................4 10. Acknowledgments...............................................4 10.1. Normative References.....................................5 10.2. Informative References...................................5 1. Introduction In [SPEERMINT-Terminology] the a definition of the Look Up Function (LUF) and the Location Routing Function is provided. However in subsequent DRINKS discussions, the specific aspects attributable to each function is not clear. It has been easy to consider the operation of both of the functions when combined - a SIP address (URI) is provided to the LUF and a route to the next SSP is provided out of the LRF. However when each function is considered in situ relative to the other, the concept consistency breaks down in to a number of different definitions. This extends to where in a SSP's network the function resides and what sort of data it operates on. In this document, the definition of each function will be expanded beyond what is done in [SPEERMINT-Terminology]. Finally the relationship between the LUF and LUF will be developed to provide a clearer distinction of the functions. 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 RFC 2119. The Schumacher Expires April 27, 2009 [Page 2] Look Up Function vs. Location Routing Function discussion October 2008 terminology in this document conforms to RFC 2828, "Internet Security Glossary". 3. Review of SPEERMINT Terminology In [SPEERMINT-Terminology] the definition of the LUF is: The Look-Up Function (LUF) provides a mechanism for determining for a given request the target domain to which the request should be routed. In some cases, some entity (usually a 3rd party or federation) provides peering assistance to the originating SSP by providing this function. The assisting entity may provide information relating to direct (Section 4.2.1) or indirect (Section 4.2.2) peering as necessary. [From Section 4.3.1] And in [SPEERMINT-Terminology] the definition of the LRF is: The Location Routing Function (LRF) determines for the target domain of a given request the location of the SF in that domain and optionally develops other SED required to route the request to that domain. In some cases, some entity (usually a 3rd party or federation) provides peering assistance to the originating SSP by providing this function. The assisting entity may provide information relating to direct (Section 4.2.1) or indirect (Section 4.2.2) peering as necessary. [From Section 4.3.2] 4. Look Up Function More text 5. Location Routing Function More text 6. Interaction between LUF and LRF More text Schumacher Expires April 27, 2009 [Page 3] Look Up Function vs. Location Routing Function discussion October 2008 7. Security Considerations This document introduces no new security considerations. 8. IANA Considerations This document creates no new requirements on IANA namespaces. 9. Conclusions Conclusion text 10. Acknowledgments Acknowledgment text Schumacher Expires April 27, 2009 [Page 4] Look Up Function vs. Location Routing Function discussion October 2008 References 10.1. Normative References [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. [RFC3263] Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., "Session Initiation Protocol (SIP): Locating SIP Servers", RFC 3263, June 2002. 10.2. Informative References [SPEERMINT-Terminology] Malas, D., Meyer, D., "SPEERMINT Terminology", draft-ietf-speermint-terminology-16.txt, February 12, 2008 Author's Address Greg Schumacher Sprint Nextel 19 Cold Spring Road Holliston, MA, USA 01746 Email: Gregory.schumacher@sprint.com Hadriel Kaplan Acme Packet 71 Third Ave. Burlington, MA, USA 01803 Email: hkaplan@acmepacket.com Full Copyright Statement Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008). 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. 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, THE IETF TRUST AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY Schumacher Expires April 27, 2009 [Page 5] Look Up Function vs. Location Routing Function discussion October 2008 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. 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. Schumacher Expires April 27, 2009 [Page 6]