wdiff rfc7647.original rfc7647.txt

Network Working Group
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) R. Sparks
Internet-Draft
Request for Comments: 7647 Oracle
Updates: 3515 (if approved) A. A.B. Roach
Intended status:
Category: Standards Track Mozilla
Expires: October 24, 2015 April 22,
ISSN: 2070-1721 September 2015

Clarifications for the use Use of REFER with RFC6665
draft-ietf-sipcore-refer-clarifications-04 RFC 6665

Abstract

The SIP REFER method relies on the SIP-Specific Event Notification
Framework.
framework. That framework was revised by RFC6665. RFC 6665. This document
highlights the implications of the requirement changes in RFC6665, RFC 6665,
and updates the definition of the REFER method, RFC3515, method described in RFC 3515
to clarify and disambiguate the impact of those changes.

Status of This Memo

This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

Internet-Drafts are working documents an Internet Standards Track document.

This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
(IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list It represents the consensus of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid the IETF community. It has
received public review and has been approved for a maximum publication by the
Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on
Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of six months RFC 5741.

Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents obtained 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 October 24, 2015.
http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7647.

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. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

1. Conventions and Definitions . Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Conventions Used in This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
3. Use of GRUU is mandatory Is Mandatory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. Dialog reuse is prohibited Reuse Is Prohibited . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
5. The 202 response code is deprecated Response Code Is Deprecated . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . 4
8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
9. Changelog . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
10.
7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . 6
10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . 6
10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 6

1. Conventions and Definitions

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].

2. Introduction

The SIP REFER method relies on the SIP-Specific Event Notification
Framework.
framework. That framework was revised by [RFC6665]. This document
highlights the implications of the requirement changes in RFC6665, RFC 6665,
and updates [RFC3515] to clarify and disambiguate the impact of those
changes.

Accepting a REFER request (without invoking extensions) results in an
implicit SIP-Events subscription. If that REFER was part of an
existing dialog, the implicit subscription creates a new, problematic
dialog-usage
dialog usage within that dialog [RFC5057]. The "norefersub"
extension defined in [RFC4488] asks to suppress this implicit
subscription, but cannot prevent its creation.

There are implementations in some known specialized environments
(such as 3gpp) 3GPP) that use out-of-signalling out-of-signaling agreements to ensure that
in-dialog REFER requests using the RFC4488 RFC 4488 extension do not create a
new subscription inside that dialog. In the 3gpp 3GPP environment, the
behavior is based on capabilities advertised using media feature
tags. That mechanism does not, however, prevent additional dialog
usages when interoperating with implementations that do not support
the mechanism. The extensions in
[I-D.ietf-sipcore-refer-explicit-subscription] [RFC7614] provide a standardized
mechanism that allows avoiding any additional dialog usage.

2. Conventions Used in This Document

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].

3. Use of GRUU is mandatory Is Mandatory

Section 4.5.1 of [RFC6665] makes GRUU [RFC5627] mandatory for
notifiers to implement and use as the local target in the
subscription created by the REFER request.

A user agent (UA) accepting a REFER that creates a subscription MUST
populate its Contact header field with a GRUU.

A UA that might possibly become a notifier (e.g. (e.g., by accepting a
REFER request that creates a subscription) needs to include a GRUU in
the Contact header field of dialog-forming and target-refresh methods
(such as INVITE) [I-D.roach-sipcore-6665-clarification]. [RFC7621]. This ensures that out-of-dialog REFER
requests corresponding to any resulting INVITE dialogs arrive at this
UA. Future extensions (such
as [I-D.ietf-sipcore-refer-explicit-subscription]) might Extensions can relax this requirement by defining a REFER
request that cannot create an implicit subscription, thus not causing
the accepting UA to become an
RFC6665 RFC 6665 notifier in the context of
this dialog. [RFC7614] is an example of such an extension.

4. Dialog reuse is prohibited Reuse Is Prohibited

If a peer in an existing dialog has provided a GRUU as its Contact,
sending a REFER that might result in an additional dialog usage
within that dialog is prohibited. This is a direct consequence of
[RFC6665] requiring the use of GRUU, GRUU and the requirements in section
Section 4.5.2 of that document.

A user agent constructing a REFER request that could result in an
implicit subscription in a dialog MUST build it as an out-of-dialog
message as defined in [RFC3261], unless the remote endpoint is an
older, pre-RFC6665
older implementation of RFC 3515 that has not been updated to conform
to RFC 6665 (as determined by the absence of a GRUU in the remote
target). Thus, the REFER request will have no tag parameter in its
To: header field.

Using the "norefersub" option tag [RFC4488] does not change this
requirement, even if used in a "Require" header field. Even if the
recipient supports the "norefersub" mechanism, and accepts the
request with the option tag in the "Require" header field, it is
allowed to return a "Refer-Sub" header field with a value of "true"
in the response, and create an implicit subscription.

A user agent wishing to identify an existing dialog (such as for call
transfer as defined in [RFC5589]) MUST use the "Target-Dialog"
extension defined in [RFC4538] to do so, and user agents accepting
REFER MUST be able to process that extension in requests they
receive.

If a user agent can be certain that no implicit subscription will be
created as a result of sending a REFER request (such as by requiring
an extension that disallows any such subscription
[I-D.ietf-sipcore-refer-explicit-subscription]), [RFC7614]), the
REFER request MAY be sent within an existing dialog (whether or not
the remote target is a GRUU). Such a REFER will be constructed with
its Contact header field populated with the dialog's Local local URI as
specified in
section Section 12 of [RFC3261].

As described in section Section 4.5.2 of [RFC6665], there are cases where a
user agent may fall back to sharing existing dialogs for backwards-
compatibility purposes. This applies to a REFER only when the peer
has not provided a GRUU as its Contact in the existing dialog (i.e. (i.e.,
when the peer is a pre-RFC6665 implementation). an implementation of RFC 3515 that has not been
updated to conform with RFC 6665).

5. The 202 response code is deprecated Response Code Is Deprecated

Section 8.3.1 of [RFC6665] requires that elements do not send a 202
response code to a subscribe request, but use the 200 response code
instead. Any 202 response codes received to a subscribe request are
treated as 200s. These changes also apply to REFER. Specifically,
an element accepting a REFER request MUST NOT reply with a 202
response code and MUST treat any 202 responses received as identical
to a 200 response. Wherever [RFC3515] requires sending a 202
response code, a 200 response code MUST be sent instead.

6. Security Considerations

This document introduces no new security considerations directly.
The updated considerations in [RFC6665] apply to the implicit
subscription created by an accepted REFER request.

7. IANA Considerations

This document has no actions for IANA.

8. Acknowledgements

Christer Holmberg provided the formulation for the final paragraph of
the introduction. Christer Holmberg and Ivo Sedlacek provided
detailed comments during working group discussion of the document.

9. Changelog

RFC Editor - please remove this section when formatting this document
as an RFC

-03 to -04

Added section on deprecating 202.

-02 to -03

Reinforced that the MAY send in-dialog applied no matter what
the remote target URI contained.

-01 to -02

Tweaked the third paragraph of section 3 per list discussion.
(Note the subject line of that discussion said -explicit-
subscription)

-00 to -01

Added the 3rd paragraph to the introduction per extensive list
discussion

draft-sparks-sipcore-refer-clarifications-05 to draft-ietf-
sipcore-refer-clarifications-00

Attempted to improve the accuracy of the Abstract and
Introduction without diluting the essential point of the
document.

Added an informative reference to RFC5057.

Adjusted text to more reflect what RFC6665 (as clarified by
draft-roach-sipcore-6665-clarification) actually requires, and
added a normative reference to that clarification draft.

Specifically, the requirement for the _sender_ of a REFER to
use a GRUU as its local target was removed.

Clarified why the explicit-subscription extensions relieve an
in-dialog REFERer from the 6665 requirements for using GRUU as
its contact in the INVITE dialog.

10. References

10.1.

7.1. Normative References

[I-D.roach-sipcore-6665-clarification]
Roach, A., "A clarification on the use of Globally
Routable User Agent URIs (GRUUs) in the Session Initiation
Protocol (SIP) Event Notification Framework", draft-roach-
sipcore-6665-clarification-00 (work in progress), October
2014.

[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997. 1997,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.

[RFC3261] Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., Camarillo, G., Johnston,
A., Peterson, J., Sparks, R., Handley, M., and
E. Schooler, "SIP: Session Initiation Protocol", RFC 3261,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3261, June 2002. 2002,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3261>.

[RFC3515] Sparks, R., "The Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Refer
Method", RFC 3515, DOI 10.17487/RFC3515, April 2003. 2003,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3515>.

[RFC4538] Rosenberg, J., "Request Authorization through Dialog
Identification in the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)",
RFC 4538, DOI 10.17487/RFC4538, June 2006. 2006,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4538>.

[RFC5627] Rosenberg, J., "Obtaining and Using Globally Routable User
Agent URIs (GRUUs) in the Session Initiation Protocol
(SIP)", RFC 5627, DOI 10.17487/RFC5627, October 2009. 2009,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5627>.

[RFC6665] Roach, A., A.B., "SIP-Specific Event Notification", RFC 6665,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6665, July 2012.

10.2. Informative References

[I-D.ietf-sipcore-refer-explicit-subscription]
Sparks, R., "Explicit Subscriptions for 2012,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6665>.

[RFC7621] Roach, A.B., "A Clarification on the REFER Method",
draft-ietf-sipcore-refer-explicit-subscription-00 (work Use of Globally
Routable User Agent URIs (GRUUs) in
progress), November 2014. the SIP Event
Notification Framework", RFC 7621, DOI 10.17487/RFC7621,
August 2015, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7621>.

7.2. Informative References

[RFC4488] Levin, O., "Suppression of Session Initiation Protocol
(SIP) REFER Method Implicit Subscription", RFC 4488,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4488, May
2006. 2006,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4488>.

[RFC5057] Sparks, R., "Multiple Dialog Usages in the Session
Initiation Protocol", RFC 5057, DOI 10.17487/RFC5057,
November 2007. 2007, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5057>.

[RFC5589] Sparks, R., Johnston, A., Ed., and D. Petrie, "Session
Initiation Protocol (SIP) Call Control - Transfer",
BCP 149, RFC 5589, DOI 10.17487/RFC5589, June 2009. 2009,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5589>.

[RFC7614] Sparks, R., "Explicit Subscriptions for the REFER Method",
RFC 7614, DOI 10.17487/RFC7614, August 2015,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7614>.

Acknowledgements

Christer Holmberg provided the formulation for the final paragraph of
the introduction. Christer Holmberg and Ivo Sedlacek provided
detailed comments during working group discussion of the document.

Authors' Addresses

Robert Sparks
Oracle
7460 Warren Parkway
Suite 300
Frisco, Texas 75034
US

Email: rjsparks@nostrum.com

Adam Roach
Mozilla
Dallas, TX
US

Phone: +1 650 903 0800 x863
Email: adam@nostrum.com