Network Working Group | S P. Romano |
Internet-Draft | A. Amirante |
Expires: December 22, 2011 | University of Napoli |
T. Castaldi | |
L. Miniero | |
Meetecho | |
A. Buono | |
Ansaldo Trasporti e Sistemi Ferroviari | |
June 20, 2011 |
Requirements for the XCON-DCON Synchronization Protocol
draft-romano-dcon-xdsp-reqs-09
The Distributed Conferencing (DCON) framework provides the means to distribute Centralized Conference (XCON) information by appropriately orchestrating a number of centralized focus entities (clouds). The mechanism we propose to make each XCON cloud communicate with its related DCON peer is based on the use of some kind of XCON-DCON Synchronization Protocol (XDSP). This document gives the requirements for XDSP.
This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF 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 December 22, 2011.
Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved.
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.
The Distributed Conferencing framework [I-D.romano-dcon-requirements] describes the requirements for the overall architecture, terminology, and protocol components needed for distribuited conferencing. DCON is based on the idea that a distributed conference can be setup and accessed by appropriately orchestrating the operation of a number of XCON "focus" elements, each in charge of managing a certain number of participants. Each pair composed of a centralized focus entity (XCON) and its related distributed counterpart (namely, a DCON focus) is called "island", or "cloud". These islands are then made part of an overlay network composed of several inter-communicating clouds.
Interaction between each participant and the corresponding conference focus is based on the standard XCON framework [RFC5239], whereas inter-focus interaction is based on a peer-to-peer paradigm. The interaction between the centralized conference focus and the distributed conference focus, instead, has requirements that are defined in this document.
In this document, the key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14, RFC 2119 [RFC2119] and indicate requirement levels for compliant implementations.
Distributed conferencing uses, when appropriate, and expands on the terminology introduced in the both the SIPPING [RFC4353] and XCON [RFC5239] conferencing frameworks. The following additional terms are defined for specific use within the distributed conferencing work.
This section describes requirements for the XCON-DCON synchronization protocol (XDSP).
The communication between each DCON focus entity and its related XCON entity contains sensitive information, since it envisages the possibility to spread important information that only authorized entities should be aware of (e.g. the full internal state of the centralized conference objects and relevant privacy information about users authenticated by the system).
Hence it is very important that protocol messages be protected because otherwise an attacker might spoof the legitimate identity of the DCON focus entity and/or inject messages on his behalf. Many obvious consequences could come out of such an undesirable situation.
To mitigate the above threats, both the DCON focus entity and the XCON focus entity SHOULD be authenticated upon initial contact. All protocol messages SHOULD be authenticated and integrity-protected to prevent third-party intervention and MITM (Man-In-The-Middle) attacks. All messages SHOULD be encrypted to prevent eavesdropping.
[RFC2234] | Crocker, D. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax Specifications: ABNF", RFC 2234, November 1997. |
[RFC2119] | Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. |
[RFC2434] | Narten, T. and H.T. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 2434, October 1998. |
[RFC4353] | Rosenberg, J., "A Framework for Conferencing with the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)", RFC 4353, February 2006. |
[RFC4575] | Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H. and O. Levin, "A Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Event Package for Conference State", RFC 4575, August 2006. |
[I-D.romano-dcon-requirements] | Romano, S, Amirante, A, Castaldi, T, Miniero, L and A Buono, "Requirements for Distributed Conferencing", Internet-Draft draft-romano-dcon-requirements-09, June 2011. |
[RFC5239] | Barnes, M., Boulton, C. and O. Levin, "A Framework for Centralized Conferencing", RFC 5239, June 2008. |