Current Meeting Report
Slides
2.8.16 Service in the PSTN/IN Requesting InTernet Service (spirits)
In addition to this official charter maintained by the IETF Secretariat, there is additional information about this working group on the Web at:
http://www.bell-labs.com/mailing-lists/spirits/ -- Additional SPIRITS Web page
NOTE: This charter is a snapshot of the 54th IETF Meeting in Yokohama, Japan. It may now be out-of-date.
Last Modifield: 05/06/2002
Chair(s):
Steve Bellovin <smb@research.att.com>
Alec Brusilovsky <abrusilovsky@lucent.com>
Transport Area Director(s):
Scott Bradner <sob@harvard.edu>
A. Mankin <mankin@isi.edu>
Transport Area Advisor:
Scott Bradner <sob@harvard.edu>
Mailing Lists:
General Discussion: spirits@lists.bell-lab.com
To Subscribe: spirits-request@lists.bell-labs.com
In Body: subscribe or unsubscribe
Archive: http://www.bell-labs.com/mailing-lists/spirits/
Description of Working Group:
The Services in the PSTN/IN Requesting InTernet Services (SPIRITS)
Working Group addresses how services supported by IP network entities
can be started from IN (Intelligent Network) requests, as well as the
protocol arrangements through which PSTN (Public Switched Telephone
Network) can request actions to be carried out in the IP network in
response to events (IN Triggers) occurring within the PSTN/IN. SPIRITS
concerns architecture and protocols for secure transport of IN trigger
information (requests for actions, as well as plain event
notifications,
including parameters) from PSTN/IN to the IP network, and optional
responses from the IP network back to the PSTN/IN.
The SPIRITS architecture includes, but not limited to, three
potentially
independent entities:
- the SPIRITS client
- the SPIRITS server
- the PSTN/IN requesting system
The SPIRITS client is the entity that requests notification or some
actions to be performed in the IP network. The SPIRITS server is the
entity that receives notifications or requests from the PSTN/IN and
returns optional responses back to the PSTN/IN, while initiating
execution of the services requested in the IP domain. The SPIRITS
server and PSTN/IN requesting sytem both reside in the IP domain, with
PSTN/IN entity on the boundary between the IP and PSTN/IN networks.
The
presence of three independent parties implies a requirement to support
complex trust models. Accordingly, the security architecture must
support limited trust between the parties.
The parameters passed in any SPIRITS Service request are limited
to information available from PSTN/IN entities. An example of such a
service is Internet Call Waiting: on an incoming PSTN call, an IP node
is notified of the call and can then carry out some actions. Definition
of any information or data within the PSTN is the responsibility of the
ITU-T and so is out of scope for SPIRITS.
The target of this working group is to describe building blocks for
PSTN-IP services that start from PSTN/IN requests, and not to
standardize the PSTN-IP services themselves. The WG will focus on an
event-oriented design, rather than a service-oriented design. Specific
services to be considered initially as examples are: (1) Incoming Call
Notification (Internet Call Waiting); (2) Internet Caller-Id Delivery;
and (3) Internet Call Forwarding and "Follow Me".
SPIRITS will:
o Produce an Informational RFC that describes current practices
for supporting the services in question.
o Produce an Informational RFC on the overall architecture of
SPIRITS-type services.
o Develop a Standards Track RFC that specifies a protocol by
which PSTN Intelligent Network Service Nodes (or any other
node that implements the Service Control Function) can
request services of IP hosts, and which can return status
indications to the PSTN/IN.
o Consider security and privacy issues relating to providing
functions of SPIRITS type. In particular, understand any
threats posed by this technology and address them in the
proposed standard.
o Develop a standards track RFC for a SPIRITS MIB to support the
service management protocol between Internet applications and the
PSTN/IN Service Management System. The MIB is to conform to SNMP
standards.
SPIRITS will collaborate with other IETF WG's working on similar issues
and having expertise in PSTN/IP interworking (IPTEL, MMUSIC, PINT,
SIP).
SPIRITS will also establish communication with other relevant standard
bodies (ITU-T SG11).
Goals and Milestones:
Done | | Current Practice document submitted for publication as
Informational |
Done | | SPIRITS protocol submitted for publication as Proposed
Standard |
OCT 00 | | SPIRITS MIB submitted for publication as Proposed Standard |
NOV 00 | | Protocol Requirements Document submitted for publication as
an Informational RFC |
Internet-Drafts:
- draft-ietf-spirits-protocol-02.txt
- draft-ietf-spirits-reqs-04.txt
- draft-ietf-spirits-in-03.txt
- draft-ietf-spirits-sip-evt-package-02.txt
- draft-ietf-spirits-mobility-00.txt
Request For Comments:
RFC | Status | Title |
RFC2995 | I | Pre-Spirits Implementations of PSTN-initiated Services |
RFC3136 | I | The SPIRITS Architecture |
Current Meeting Report
54rd. IETF SPIRITS Working Group Meeting Notes
Reported by Alec Brusilovsky.
SPIRITS WG met in the afternoon of Tuesday, July 16, 2002.
There were 62 registered attendees.
Chairs: Steve Bellovin, Alec Brusilovsky
Agenda
1. Goals of the session - Alec Brusilovsky - 3 min.
2. Agenda bashing - General Discussion - 2 min.
3. Issues from the I-D "On selection of IN parameters for the SPIRITS
Protocol"
- General Discussion - 10 min.
Source: http://search.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-spirits-in-03.txt
4. Issues from the SPIRITS Protocol I-D - General Discussion - 40 min.
Source: http://search.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-spirits-protocol-02.txt
- Subscribing to multiple DP's;
- Example services:
- ICW (section 3 of SPIRITS I-D)
- ICIDD service call flow (section 5 of SPIRITS I-D)
- ???
- SPIRITS specific security considerations;
Resolution: Security is the most important issue. Group will enlist help from TA Security Advisor.
Chair (SMB) gave a good explanation of security principals for SPIRITS. VKG offered his help in jotting down security threats and publish them as an I-D.
- Unfinished portions of Section 4.
Just a matter of time and will be completed shortly;
5. Conclusions - General discussion - 5 min.
Agenda item 1:
Chair (A.B.) briefly announced goals of the session: going through the issues in the Protocol I-D, finding out and closing the issues.
Agenda item 2:
Chair (A.B.) went through the agenda and the agenda bashing. Proposed agenda was accepted.
Agenda item 3:
Issue: DTDs vs. Schemas.
Answer: Current version of the I-D available at:
http://search.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-spirits-in-03.txt
gives examples of utilizing DTDs as well as Schemas. SPIRITS does not mandate using one vs. another. These are just examples
Agenda item 4:
- Subscribing to multiple DP's;
It is questionable whether SIP SUB/NOt supports such actions and whether SPIRITS needs such a way. Resolution: outside of today's scope
- Example services:
- ICW (section 3 of SPIRITS I-D)
Resolution: no comments, proceed with the I-D.
- ICIDD service call flow (section 5 of SPIRITS I-D)
Resolution: no comments, proceed with the I-D.
Other services? VKG proposed SMS to SIP IM as an example service for the I-D.
Resolution: Flash theis idea on the mailing list to check the idea against SPIRITS charter and to gage WG's interest.
- SPIRITS specific security considerations;
- Unfinished portions of Section 4
Resolution: It is just a matter of time. These sections will be finished shortly.
Agenda item 5. Conclusions:
One of the outstanding issues, besides security, is SPIRITS MIB. Igor Faynberg proposed re-use of PINT MIB. WG will look into this. Consensus to start work on MIB when Protocol is ready to go to the Last Call. Maybe PINT MIB is a good starting point. Ask PINT MIB Doctor (Dan Ramascanu) for assistance.
Respectfully submitted,
Alec Brusilovsky
Slides
Agenda
- Steve Bellovin
- Alec Brusilovsky
Service in SPIRITS