SPEERMINT WG A. Houri Internet-Draft IBM Intended status: Standards Track E. Aoki Expires: April 18, 2007 AOL LLC S. Parameswar Microsoft Corporation October 15, 2006 RTC Provisioning Requirements draft-houri-speermint-usecase-presence-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 18, 2007. Copyright Notice Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006). Houri, et al. Expires April 18, 2007 [Page 1] Internet-Draft RTC Provisioning Requirements October 2006 Abstract The document describes several use cases for peering between two or more communities that provide real time communications services and presence and IM in particular. The communities create a peering relationship between themselves thus enabling their users to collaborate with users on other communities. The target of the document is to help understanding the requirements for peering between domains with regard to real time services Table of Contents 1. Requirements notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3. Use Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.1. Simple Interdomain Subscription . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.2. List Interdomain Subscription . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.3. Page mode IM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.4. Session based IM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.5. Other services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.6. Federation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4. Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 6.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 6.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 12 Houri, et al. Expires April 18, 2007 [Page 2] Internet-Draft RTC Provisioning Requirements October 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 [1]. Houri, et al. Expires April 18, 2007 [Page 3] Internet-Draft RTC Provisioning Requirements October 2006 2. Introduction Real Time Communications (RTC) services are becoming as prevalent and essential for users on the Internet as email. While RTC services 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 services 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 a set of user cases that describe how peering between communities may be used. The use cases are intended to help in creating a set of requirements that will enable more secure and easier peering between communities that provide RTC services. This document will use the terminology as defined in [2] unless otherwise is stated. The following sections provide several use cases followed by a discussion on what these use cases may imply regarding the functionalities that need to be provided for in order to implement those use cases Houri, et al. Expires April 18, 2007 [Page 4] Internet-Draft RTC Provisioning Requirements October 2006 3. Use Cases 3.1. Simple Interdomain Subscription Assume that we have two peer networks [2], peer network A and peer network B. User Alice@A.com wants to subscribe to user Bob@B.com and get his presence information. In order to do so, Alice@A.com may connect directly to B.com and subscribe to Bob's presence information. However, peer network B is not willing to support subscriptions from any user in the network and is willing only to support its users and users that are coming from other peer networks that peer network B trusts. In reality what will happen is that peer network A will connect to peer network B and will send Alice's subscription on Bob to peer network B. When peer network B has new information on Bob it will send notifications to peer network A that will pass them to Alice. 3.2. List Interdomain Subscription This is the same as the simple interdomain subscription use case but in this case Alice subscribes to a URI that represents a list of users in peer network B [3] 3.3. Page mode IM In this use case a user from one peer network sends a page mode [4] IM to a user on another peer network. As with subscription, the message will pass between the users through the SBEs [2] of the peer networks. 3.4. Session based IM In this use case a user from one peer network creates an MSRP [5] session with a user from another peer network. The session establishment and the messages will pass between the users through the SBEs [2] of the peer networks. 3.5. Other services In addition to media (voice/video) which are out of scope for this document only presence and IM are more or less fully standardized in real time communication. However there are many other services that are being standardized or may be implemented using minimal extensions to existing standards. These include: Houri, et al. Expires April 18, 2007 [Page 5] Internet-Draft RTC Provisioning Requirements October 2006 o N-way chat - Enable a multi participant chat that will include users from many peer networs. o File transfer - Send files from a user in one peer network to a user in another peer network. Obviously this kind of operation will require appropriate security mechanisms. o More to come... 3.6. Federation Federation as defined in [2] is a use case also in real time communication. Multiple peer networks may federate in order to create a whole that is greater then its parts. In a federation there is no need for one peer network to explicitly know about the other peer network that is a member in the federation. It is enough for each peer network that is a member in the federation to connect to the federation and thus be able to communicate with other members of the federation. Additional services as security, lawful intercept and more may be provided to the peer networks that are members of the federation. Federation is also known as clearing house in the industry. Houri, et al. Expires April 18, 2007 [Page 6] Internet-Draft RTC Provisioning Requirements October 2006 4. Discussion The use cases described above may seem to be simple. However, in reality it is not so. The following describes issues that need to be solved in order to enable the creation of the use cases without the need to negotiate each peer network relationship separately and manually. o Connectivity - A peer network needs a mechanism to learn the connectivity setting of the other peer network or of the federation. Examples of connectivity parameters may be list of domains that the peer network is representing, firewall and NAT settings and more. o Security - The peer network or the federation that is being connected to may require certain level of security in order to accept connections from another peer network. For example, peer network B may require that only TL'S will be used and it can also specifies the type and level of certificates that should be used. Community A will need a way to discover and use these parameters. o Privacy - In many peer networks that provide real time collaboration services there are inter mechanisms that enable a user to configure the level of privacy that they wish to achieve. for example, a user may say that only certain users will be able to see him/her etc. Similar mechanisms are required to be in place in peering and especially in the federation model. o Services - When two or more peer networks are peering for real time communication services, each peer network has to have an understanding regarding the services that are provided by the other peer network. This may/should include: A) The list of services that are provided by the peer network or the federation. B) Parameters for each services that may be different between peer networks. For example if the peer network provides for page mode IMs or session based IMs or both? Is presence filtering is supported? o Mappings - Many times one peer network may have different set of values for different statuses of a user. For example "Do not Disturb" is translated to "Busy" in the other peer network. Each peer network that peers with another peer network or with a federation, should have means for translating the values that may differ appropriately. o Good Citizenship - presence and IM have many network and processing demands both form the point of view of number of messages and the point of view of processing time. In order to Houri, et al. Expires April 18, 2007 [Page 7] Internet-Draft RTC Provisioning Requirements October 2006 enable peer networks connecting to each other without overloading each other, each peer network should be able to learn what is the expected behavior by the connected to peer network or federation and act accordingly. Houri, et al. Expires April 18, 2007 [Page 8] Internet-Draft RTC Provisioning Requirements October 2006 5. Security Considerations This document discusses use cases for peering between communities. It is very clear that the protocols that will enable and make such peering easier will have significant security considerations, there are our of scope for a use case document. Houri, et al. Expires April 18, 2007 [Page 9] Internet-Draft RTC Provisioning Requirements October 2006 6. References 6.1. Normative References [1] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. 6.2. Informative References [2] Meyer, D., "SPEERMINT Terminology", draft-ietf-speermint-terminology-06 (work in progress), September 2006. [3] Roach, A., Campbell, B., and J. Rosenberg, "A Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Event Notification Extension for Resource Lists", RFC 4662, August 2006. [4] Campbell, B., Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., Huitema, C., and D. Gurle, "Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Extension for Instant Messaging", RFC 3428, December 2002. [5] Campbell, B., "The Message Session Relay Protocol", draft-ietf-simple-message-sessions-15 (work in progress), July 2006. Houri, et al. Expires April 18, 2007 [Page 10] Internet-Draft RTC Provisioning Requirements October 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 Sriram Parameswar Microsoft Corporation One Microsoft Way Redmond, WA 98052 USA Email: Sriram.Parameswar@microsoft.com Houri, et al. Expires April 18, 2007 [Page 11] Internet-Draft RTC Provisioning Requirements October 2006 Full 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. 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. Intellectual Property 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. Acknowledgment Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF Administrative Support Activity (IASA). Houri, et al. Expires April 18, 2007 [Page 12]