GENWiki

Premier IT Outsourcing and Support Services within the UK

User Tools

Site Tools


rfc:rfc4596

Network Working Group J. Rosenberg Request for Comments: 4596 P. Kyzivat Category: Informational Cisco Systems

                                                             July 2006
   Guidelines for Usage of the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)
                    Caller Preferences Extension

Status of This Memo

 This memo provides information for the Internet community.  It does
 not specify an Internet standard of any kind.  Distribution of this
 memo is unlimited.

Copyright Notice

 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).

Abstract

 This document contains guidelines for usage of the Caller Preferences
 Extension to the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP).  It demonstrates
 the benefits of caller preferences with specific example
 applications, provides use cases to show proper operation, provides
 guidance on the applicability of the registered feature tags, and
 describes a straightforward implementation of the preference and
 capability matching algorithm specified in Section 7.2 of RFC 3841.

Rosenberg & Kyzivat Informational [Page 1] RFC 4596 Caller Preferences Uses July 2006

Table of Contents

 1. Introduction ....................................................4
 2. Motivations for Caller Preferences ..............................5
    2.1. One-Number .................................................7
    2.2. Direct-to-Voicemail ........................................7
 3. Caller Preference Use Cases .....................................8
    3.1. Routing of INVITE and MESSAGE to Different UA ..............8
         3.1.1. Desired Behavior ....................................8
         3.1.2. Solution ............................................9
    3.2. Single Contact Not Matching Implicit Preferences ..........10
         3.2.1. Desired Behavior ...................................10
         3.2.2. Solution ...........................................10
    3.3. Package-Based Routing .....................................11
         3.3.1. Desired Behavior ...................................11
         3.3.2. Solution ...........................................11
    3.4. Package Routing II ........................................12
         3.4.1. Desired Behavior ...................................12
         3.4.2. Solution ...........................................13
    3.5. Audio/Video vs. Audio Only ................................13
         3.5.1. Desired Behavior ...................................13
         3.5.2. Solution ...........................................14
    3.6. Forcing Audio/Video .......................................15
         3.6.1. Desired Behavior ...................................15
         3.6.2. Solution ...........................................15
    3.7. Third-Party Call Control: Forcing Media ...................16
         3.7.1. Desired Behavior ...................................16
         3.7.2. Solution ...........................................16
    3.8. Maximizing Media Overlaps .................................17
         3.8.1. Desired Behavior ...................................17
         3.8.2. Solution ...........................................17
    3.9. Multilingual Lines ........................................18
         3.9.1. Desired Behavior ...................................18
         3.9.2. Solution ...........................................19
    3.10. I Hate Voicemail! ........................................20
         3.10.1. Desired Behavior ..................................20
         3.10.2. Solution ..........................................20
    3.11. I Hate People! ...........................................21
         3.11.1. Desired Behavior ..................................21
         3.11.2. Solution ..........................................21
    3.12. Prefer Voicemail .........................................22
         3.12.1. Desired Behavior ..................................22
         3.12.2. Solution ..........................................22
    3.13. Routing to an Executive ..................................22
         3.13.1. Desired Behavior ..................................22
         3.13.2. Solution ..........................................22

Rosenberg & Kyzivat Informational [Page 2] RFC 4596 Caller Preferences Uses July 2006

    3.14. Speak to the Executive ...................................23
         3.14.1. Desired Behavior ..................................23
         3.14.2. Solution ..........................................24
    3.15. Mobile Phone Only ........................................24
         3.15.1. Desired Behavior ..................................24
         3.15.2. Solution ..........................................24
    3.16. Simultaneous Languages ...................................25
         3.16.1. Desired Behavior ..................................25
         3.16.2. Solution ..........................................25
    3.17. The Number You Have Called... ............................26
         3.17.1. Desired Behavior ..................................26
         3.17.2. Solution ..........................................26
    3.18. The Number You Have Called, Take Two .....................27
         3.18.1. Desired Behavior ..................................27
         3.18.2. Solution ..........................................27
    3.19. Forwarding to a Colleague ................................28
         3.19.1. Desired Behavior ..................................28
         3.19.2. Solution ..........................................28
 4. Capability Use Cases ...........................................30
    4.1. Web Redirect ..............................................30
    4.2. Voicemail Icon ............................................30
 5. Usage of the Feature Tags ......................................31
    5.1. Traditional Cell Phone ....................................31
    5.2. Traditional Work Phone ....................................32
    5.3. PC Messaging Application ..................................32
    5.4. Standalone Videophone .....................................33
 6. Example of Implementation of Preference and Capability
    Matching .......................................................33
    6.1. Extracting a Feature Set from a Header ....................34
    6.2. Extracting Values from a Feature Parameter ................35
    6.3. Comparing Two Value-Ranges ................................36
    6.4. Feature Set to Feature Set Matching .......................36
    6.5. Selecting and Ordering Contacts Based on Caller
         Preferences ...............................................37
         6.5.1. Reject-Contact Processing ..........................37
         6.5.2. Accept-Contact Processing ..........................37
 7. Security Considerations ........................................38
 8. Acknowledgements ...............................................38
 9. Informative References .........................................38

Rosenberg & Kyzivat Informational [Page 3] RFC 4596 Caller Preferences Uses July 2006

1. Introduction

 The Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) [1] extension for Callee
 Capabilities [2] describes mechanisms that allow a UA (User Agent) to
 register its capabilities in a REGISTER request.  A caller can
 express preferences, either explicitly or implicitly, about how that
 request is to be handled.  This is accomplished with the Accept-
 Contact and Reject-Contact header fields described in Caller
 Preferences for the Session Initiation Protocol[3].
 The caller preferences extension can serve as a useful tool for
 supporting many applications.  However, its generality makes it
 difficult to use correctly and effectively in any one situation.  To
 remedy that, this document serves as a compendium of examples of the
 usage of the caller preferences extension.
    NOTE: This document is intended to assist the reader in
    understanding RFCs 3840 and 3841.  It is not intended to serve as
    a substitute for reading those documents.  The examples presented
    in this document cannot be fully understood without awareness of
    the mechanisms defined in RFCs 3840 and 3841.
 First, Section 2 demonstrates the benefits of using caller
 preferences by describing several concrete applications that are
 enabled by the extension.  Section 3 describes a set of detailed use
 cases for expressing caller preferences.  Each use case presents a
 situation, describes how caller preferences can be used to handle the
 requirements for the situation, and verifies that the desired
 behavior occurs by showing the results of the matching operation.
 These use cases validate that the caller preferences specification is
 complete and capable of meeting a specific set of requirements.
 Since the caller preferences specification predates the SIP change
 process [4], no requirements document was ever published for it.  To
 some degree, this document "backfills" requirements.  However, this
 is not an academic exercise only, since the use cases described here
 did result in changes in the caller preferences document as it
 evolved.  These use cases also help implementors figure out how to
 use caller preferences in their own applications.
 Section 4 discusses applications for the callee capabilities
 specification.  Section 5 discusses the example registrations of the
 feature tags described in [2].  Proper usage of the caller
 preferences extension depends on proper interpretation of the
 semantics of these tags.  More detail is provided on the tags, and
 example registrations are included that show typical usage.

Rosenberg & Kyzivat Informational [Page 4] RFC 4596 Caller Preferences Uses July 2006

 Section 6 outlines an implementation approach to the matching
 algorithm that doesn't require RFC 2533 [6] to be implemented in all
 its generality.

2. Motivations for Caller Preferences

 At its core, SIP is a protocol that facilitates rendezvous of users.
 The caller and callee need to meet up in order to exchange session
 information, so that they may communicate.  The rendezvous process is
 complicated by the fact that a user has multiple points of attachment
 to the network.  A called user (callee) can have a cell phone, a PDA,
 a work phone, a home phone, and one of several PC-based
 communications applications.  When someone calls that user, to which
 of these devices is the call routed?
 Certainly, the call can be routed to all of them at the same time, a
 process known as parallel forking.  However, that is not always the
 desired behavior.  Users may prefer that their registered devices be
 tried in a particular order.  As an example, a user might prefer that
 his cell phone ring first, and if no one answers, that his work phone
 ring next.  Another user might prefer that her cell phone ring first,
 and then her home and work phones ring at the same time, and then, if
 no one answers either of those, that the call be forwarded to
 voicemail.  These variations are all referred to as find-me/
 follow-me features.
 SIP supports find-me/follow-me features in many ways.  The most basic
 is through the SIP registration process.  Each device at which a user
 can be contacted registers to the network.  This registration
 associates the device with the canonical name of the user, called the
 address-of-record (AOR), which is a SIP URI.  Each registration can
 include a preference value, indicating the relative preference for
 receiving calls at that device, compared to other devices.  When
 someone makes a call to the AOR, proxies compliant to RFC 3261 will
 try the registered devices in order of preference, unless
 administrative policy overrides user preferences.
 Preference values in SIP registrations can only provide basic find-
 me/follow-me features.  To support more complex features, the Call
 Processing Language (CPL) [5] has been specified.  It is an XML
 script that provides specific call routing instructions.  Users can
 upload these scripts to the network, instructing the servers how
 calls should be routed.  As an example, a CPL script can instruct a
 proxy to route a call to the work phone during work hours (9 am -
 5 pm) and then to the cell phone after hours, unless the call is from
 a family member, in which case it always goes to the cell phone.

Rosenberg & Kyzivat Informational [Page 5] RFC 4596 Caller Preferences Uses July 2006

 It is important to note that both CPL scripts and preference values
 in registrations describe operation of a service from the perspective
 of the called party.  That is, they describe how a call made to the
 called party should be routed by the network.  However, the called
 party is not the only one with preferences.  A caller will also have
 preferences for how they want their call to be routed.  As an
 example, a caller will often want to reach a user on their cell
 phone.  In the current telephone network, this is accomplished by
 requiring a user to have a separate number for each device.  This
 way, when a caller wishes to reach the cell phone, they dial the
 number for the cell phone.  This requires users to maintain lists of
 potential reach numbers for a user, and then select the appropriate
 one.  A far better approach is for a user to maintain a single
 address-of-record.  When someone wishes to reach them on their cell
 phone, they call the AOR, but indicate a preference for the call to
 be routed to the cell phone.
 A caller may actually have a wide variety of preferences for how a
 call should be routed.  They may prefer to go right to voicemail.
 They may prefer never to reach voicemail.  The may prefer to reach
 the user on a device that supports video (because a video-conference
 is desired).  They may wish to reach a device that has an attendant
 who can answer if the user is not there.
 The SIP caller preferences extension allows a caller to express these
 preferences for the way in which their calls are handled.  These
 preferences are expressed in terms of properties of the desired
 device.  These properties are name-value pairs that convey some kind
 of information about a device.  One example is the property
 "mobility", which can have the values "mobile" or "fixed".  When a
 caller wishes to reach a cell phone, they include information in
 their call setup request (the INVITE method) which indicates that the
 call should be routed to a device that has the property "mobility"
 set to "mobile".  When devices register to the network, they include
 their properties (also known as callee capabilities) as part of the
 registration.  In this way, a proxy can match the caller's
 preferences against the capabilities of the various devices
 registered to the user and route the call appropriately.
 While this document addresses the preferences of a caller, it does so
 from the perspective of a SIP User Agent representing the caller.
 Caller preferences are herein represented via syntactic elements
 placed in a SIP request.  This document does not attempt to address
 how preferences might be conveyed by a human user to the User Agent.
 Thus this document is likely to be of most value to the developer of
 a User Agent.

Rosenberg & Kyzivat Informational [Page 6] RFC 4596 Caller Preferences Uses July 2006

 The caller preferences extension can support a wide variety of call
 routing applications and features.  Two particularly important
 examples are "one-number" and "direct-to-voicemail".

2.1. One-Number

 In today's circuit-switched telephony networks, users have multiple
 devices, and each device is associated with its own phone number.  A
 user will typically list all of these numbers on a business card:
 cell phone, work phone, home office phone, and so on.  Other users
 need to store and manage all of these numbers.  It is difficult to
 keep these numbers complete and up-to-date.  Worse, when you want to
 call someone, you need to pick a number to try.  Sometimes, you want
 a specific device (the cell phone); and other times, you just want to
 reach them wherever they are.  In the latter case, a user is forced
 to try each number, one at a time.  This is inefficient, and
 difficult to do while driving, for example.
 As an alternative, a user can have a single address.  This is the one
 and only address they give out to other users on their business
 cards.  If a caller wishes to reach that user on their cell phone,
 they select that one address, and then access a pull-down menu of
 device types.  This menu would include home phone, work phone, and
 cell phone.  The caller can select cell-phone, and then the call is
 placed to the cell phone.  There is no need to manage or maintain
 more than one number for the user -- a single number will suffice.
 If, on the other hand, the caller wishes to reach the user wherever
 they are, they make a call to that one number without a selection of
 a preferred device.  The network will ring all devices at the same
 time, and therefore reach the user as fast as possible.
 This one-number service makes use of caller preferences.  To express
 a preference for the cell phone, the caller's device would include a
 header in the SIP INVITE request, indicating a desire to reach a
 device with "mobility" equal to "mobile".

2.2. Direct-to-Voicemail

 Frequently, a busy executive on the road wants to quickly pass a
 message to a colleague by voice.  As an example, a boss might want to
 instruct an employee to call a specific customer and resolve a
 pending issue.  In such a case, the user doesn't actually want to
 talk to the person; they just want to leave a voice message.  Having
 a phone conversation may require too much time, whereas a voice
 message can be quick and to the point.  The voice message can also
 serve as a record of exactly what is desired, whereas a fleeting
 voice conversation can be forgotten or misremembered.

Rosenberg & Kyzivat Informational [Page 7] RFC 4596 Caller Preferences Uses July 2006

 In today's circuit-switched telephone networks, there is often no way
 to go directly to someone's voicemail and leave a message.
 Sometimes, you can dial the main number for the voicemail system,
 enter in the extension of the desired party, and leave a message by
 entering a specific prompt.  This is time consuming, and requires the
 caller to know the main voicemail number.
 Instead, an address book in a cell phone can have an option called
 "leave voice message", available for each entry in the address book.
 When this option is selected, a call is made directly to the
 voicemail for that user, which immediately picks up and prompts for a
 message.  In fact, a rapid greeting is played, so that the caller can
 go directly to the recording procedure.
 This saves time for the caller, making it very easy to quickly leave
 recorded messages for a large number of people.
 This feature is possible using the caller preferences extension.
 When the user selects the "leave voice message" option, the phone
 sends a SIP INVITE request, and includes a caller preferences header
 field that indicates a preference for devices whose "msgserver"
 attribute has a value of "true".  This will cause the proxy to route
 the call directly to a registered voicemail service.  Furthermore,
 the voicemail server will see that the caller asked to go directly to
 voicemail, and can therefore play an abbreviated greeting explicitly
 designed for this case.

3. Caller Preference Use Cases

 Each use case is described as a situation along with a desired
 behavior.  Then, it demonstrates how the various caller preferences
 headers and the proxy processing logic would result in the
 appropriate decision.

3.1. Routing of INVITE and MESSAGE to Different UA

3.1.1. Desired Behavior

 Address of Record (AOR) Y has two contacts, Y1 and Y2.  Y1 is a phone
 and supports the standard operations INVITE, ACK, OPTIONS, BYE, and
 CANCEL but does not support MESSAGE, whereas Y2 is a pager and
 supports only OPTIONS and MESSAGE.  Caller X wants to send pages to
 Y.  There is a lot of traffic in the network of both calls and pages,
 so there is a goal not to unnecessarily fork messages to devices that
 can't support them.  So, this is done by ensuring that INVITEs of Y
 are delivered only to Y1, while MESSAGEs to Y are delivered only to
 Y2.

Rosenberg & Kyzivat Informational [Page 8] RFC 4596 Caller Preferences Uses July 2006

3.1.2. Solution

 Y1 will create a registration that looks like, in part:
    REGISTER sip:example.com SIP/2.0
    To: sip:Y@example.com
    Contact:<sip:Y1@pc.example.com>
      ;methods="INVITE,ACK,OPTIONS,BYE,CANCEL"
      ;uri-user="<Y1>"
      ;uri-domain="example.com"
      ;audio
      ;schemes="sip"
      ;mobility="mobile"
 Y2 will create a registration that looks like, in part:
    REGISTER sip:example.com SIP/2.0
    To: sip:Y@example.com
    Contact: <sip:Y2@pc.example.com>
      ;methods="OPTIONS,MESSAGE"
      ;uri-user="<Y2>"
      ;uri-domain="example.com"
      ;+sip.message
      ;schemes="sip,im"
      ;mobility="mobile"
 When a UAC (User Agent Client) sends an INVITE, it will arrive at the
 proxy for example.com.  There are no caller preferences in the
 request.  However, per Section 7.2.2 of [3], the proxy will construct
 an implicit require-flagged Accept-Contact preference that looks
 like:
    (& (sip.methods="INVITE"))
 Applying the matching algorithm of RFC 2533 [6] to this feature set
 and those registered by Y1 and Y2, the feature set of Y1 alone
 matches.  Because the Accept-Contact predicate has its require flag
 set, Y2 is discarded, and the INVITE is routed to Y1.
 If the request was MESSAGE, the proxy constructs an implicit Accept-
 Contact preference with its require flag set (require-flagged) that
 looks like:
    (& (sip.methods="MESSAGE"))
 which matches the feature set of Y2, but not Y1.  Thus, Y1 is
 discarded, and the request is routed to Y2.

Rosenberg & Kyzivat Informational [Page 9] RFC 4596 Caller Preferences Uses July 2006

3.2. Single Contact Not Matching Implicit Preferences

3.2.1. Desired Behavior

 AOR Y has a single contact, Y1.  It's a phone, and therefore supports
 the standard operations INVITE, ACK, OPTIONS, BYE, and CANCEL but
 does not support MESSAGE.  A caller X sends a MESSAGE request.  The
 desired behavior is that the request is still routed to the solitary
 contact so that it can generate a 405 response.

3.2.2. Solution

 The single contact Y1 will generate a registration that looks like,
 in part:
    REGISTER sip:example.com SIP/2.0
    To: sip:Y@example.com
    Contact: <sip:Y1@pc.example.com>
      ;methods="INVITE,ACK,OPTIONS,BYE,CANCEL"
      ;uri-user="<Y1>"
      ;uri-domain="example.com"
      ;audio
      ;schemes="sip"
      ;mobility="fixed"
      ;class="personal"
 X sends a MESSAGE request.  There are no explicit caller preferences.
 This results in an implicit require-flagged Accept-Contact
 preference:
    (& (sip.methods="MESSAGE"))
 Since Y1 doesn't match and the Accept-Contact predicate is require-
 flagged, it is discarded.  However, according to section 7.2.4 of RFC
 3841, if there are no matching targets, the original target set is
 used.  Thus, the request is sent to the one original target, Y1, as
 desired.  Y1 then responds with a 405.
 If there were multiple contacts, and none of them matched the Accept-
 Contact predicate, then the original target set including all of the
 contacts would be restored.  Then all the contacts would be processed
 according to Section 16.6 of RFC 3261.

Rosenberg & Kyzivat Informational [Page 10] RFC 4596 Caller Preferences Uses July 2006

3.3. Package-Based Routing

3.3.1. Desired Behavior

 AOR Y has a number of contacts, Y1, Y2, ..., Yn, that can each
 support the standard operations INVITE, ACK, OPTIONS, BYE, and CANCEL
 and can also support SUBSCRIBE for the "dialog" event package [7].  Y
 also has another contact, Yp, that is a presence agent (PA) [8]: it
 can accept only SUBSCRIBE requests for the "presence" event package.
 The goal is for SUBSCRIBE requests for presence to be routed to Yp
 while INVITEs and SUBSCRIBEs for the dialog package are forked to
 Y1...Yn.

3.3.2. Solution

 Y1..Yn will generate REGISTER requests that look like, in part:
    REGISTER sip:example.com SIP/2.0
    To: sip:Y@example.com
    Contact: <sip:Yi@pc.example.com>
      ;methods="INVITE,BYE,OPTIONS,ACK,CANCEL,SUBSCRIBE"
      ;events="dialog"
      ;uri-user="<Yi>"
      ;uri-domain="example.com"
      ;audio
      ;schemes="sip"
      ;mobility="fixed"
      ;class="personal"
 and Yp will generate a REGISTER request that looks like, in part:
    REGISTER sip:example.com SIP/2.0
    To: sip:Y@example.com
    Contact: <sip:Yp@pc.example.com>;methods="SUBSCRIBE"
      ;events="presence"
      ;uri-user="<Yp>"
      ;uri-domain="example.com"
      ;schemes="sip,pres"
      ;mobility="fixed"
      ;class="business"
 A SUBSCRIBE request for presence will arrive at the proxy for
 example.com.  Since there are no explicit preferences, it constructs
 an implicit require-flagged Accept-Contact preference from the
 request:
    (& (sip.methods="SUBSCRIBE") (sip.events="presence"))

Rosenberg & Kyzivat Informational [Page 11] RFC 4596 Caller Preferences Uses July 2006

 Following Section 7.2.4 of RFC 3841, this feature set only matches
 the one registered by Yp.  Because the require flag is set, the
 contacts which do not match are removed from the target set.
 Therefore, Y1..Yn are discarded.  The request is sent to the
 remaining contact, Yp, representing the PA.
 An INVITE request without explicit preferences results in an implicit
 require-flagged Accept-Contact preference:
    (& (sip.methods="INVITE"))
 The implicit Accept-Contact feature set matches Y1..Yn, but does not
 match Yp.  Using the scoring algorithm from Section 7.2.4 of RFC
 3841, the score for Y1..Yn against this predicate is 1.0.  As a
 result, the caller preference Qa for each contact is 1.0.  The
 registrations did not contain q-values, so the default q-value of 1.0
 is applied to each Contact URI.  Since the caller and callee
 preferences are the same and all equal to 1.0, there is no reordering
 of contacts.  The result is that the proxy will consider Y1..Yn each
 as equally good targets for the request and possibly fork the request
 to each.
 A SUBSCRIBE request for the dialog event package without explicit
 preferences will result in an implicit require-flagged Accept-Contact
 preference:
    (& (sip.methods="SUBSCRIBE") (sip.events="dialog"))
 This only matches Y1..Yn, so Yp is discarded, and the request is
 routed to the remaining contacts just as the INVITE was.

3.4. Package Routing II

3.4.1. Desired Behavior

 This case is nearly identical to that of Section 3.3.  However,
 Y1..Yn omit the "events" feature tag from their registration.  Yp
 registers as in Section 3.3.  A SUBSCRIBE for the presence event
 package should still preferentially route to Yp.

Rosenberg & Kyzivat Informational [Page 12] RFC 4596 Caller Preferences Uses July 2006

3.4.2. Solution

 The registration from Y1..Yn will look like:
    REGISTER sip:example.com SIP/2.0
    To: sip:Y@example.com
    Contact: <sip:Yi@pc.example.com>
      ;methods="INVITE,BYE,OPTIONS,ACK,CANCEL,SUBSCRIBE"
      ;uri-user="<Yi>"
      ;uri-domain="example.com"
      ;audio
      ;schemes="sip"
      ;mobility="fixed"
      ;class="personal"
 When the caller sends a SUBSCRIBE for the presence event package
 (without explicit preferences), the proxy computes an implicit
 preference:
    (& (sip.methods="SUBSCRIBE") (sip.events="presence"))
 This predicate matches Y1..Yn and Yp.  However, the score for Y1..Yn
 against this predicate is 0.5, and the score of Yp is 1.0.  The
 result is a caller preference Qa of 0.5 for Y1..Yn, and a caller
 preference Qa of 1.0 for Yp.  Since the callee provided no q-values,
 the proxy will assume a default of 1.0.  Thus, all contacts are in
 the same equivalence class.  They are then sorted by Qa, so that Yp
 is first, followed by Y1 through Yn.  It will therefore route the
 request first to Yp, and if that should fail, to Y1..Yn.

3.5. Audio/Video vs. Audio Only

3.5.1. Desired Behavior

 X sends an invitation to Y to initiate an audio/video call, including
 both m=audio and m=video lines in the SDP.  AOR Y has two contacts,
 Y1 and Y2.  Y1 represents a normal audio phone, where Y prefers to
 receive their calls.  It will answer an audio/video call, refusing
 the video.  Y2 represents an audio/video phone that should only used
 when needed.  The caller really wants the call answered by a device
 that supports video, but will accept an audio-only call as a second
 choice.

Rosenberg & Kyzivat Informational [Page 13] RFC 4596 Caller Preferences Uses July 2006

3.5.2. Solution

 Y1 will generate a registration that looks like, in part:
    REGISTER sip:example.com SIP/2.0
    To: sip:Y@example.com
    Contact: <sip:Y1@pc.example.com>;q=1.0
      ;methods="INVITE,BYE,OPTIONS,ACK,CANCEL"
      ;uri-user="<Y1>"
      ;uri-domain="example.com"
      ;audio
      ;schemes="sip,tel"
      ;mobility="fixed"
      ;class="business"
 Y2 will generate a registration that looks like, in part:
    REGISTER sip:example.com SIP/2.0
    To: sip:Y@example.com
    Contact: <sip:Y2@pc.example.com>;q=0.6
      ;methods="INVITE,BYE,OPTIONS,ACK,CANCEL"
      ;uri-user="<Y2>"
      ;uri-domain="example.com"
      ;audio
      ;video
      ;schemes="sip,tel"
      ;mobility="fixed"
      ;class="business"
 Note the different q-values, allowing Y2 to be selected as a device
 of "last resort".
 To have the call preferentially routed to a device that supports
 video, the caller X sends an INVITE that looks like, in part:
    INVITE sip:Y@example.com SIP/2.0
    Accept-Contact: *
      ;methods="INVITE"
      ;video
 The proxy will convert this to a feature set.  This feature set
 matches Y2 and Y1.  However, the score for Y2 is 1.0, and 0.5 for Y1.
 The two contacts are then ordered by q-value and broken into
 equivalence classes.  There are two equivalence classes, each with
 one contact.  As a result, the caller preference values have no
 impact on the ordering.  The call will first try the higher priority
 Y1, which will answer the call and reject the video stream.  Thus,
 the desired behavior is not achieved.

Rosenberg & Kyzivat Informational [Page 14] RFC 4596 Caller Preferences Uses July 2006

 The desired behavior could be achieved by adding the "explicit" and
 "require" tags to the Accept-Contact header field in the INVITE, as
 is done in Section 3.6.  However, doing so may result in calls
 failing when they could occur, but without video.  As discussed in
 [3], both the "require" and "explicit" tags are generally used only
 when the request cannot be serviced in any way unless the preferences
 are met.  That is not the case here.

3.6. Forcing Audio/Video

3.6.1. Desired Behavior

 This case is similar to that of Section 3.5.  However, X requires an
 audio/video call and would like the call to fail if this is not
 possible, rather than succeed with audio only.

3.6.2. Solution

 The solution is similar to that of Section 3.5; however, the Accept-
 Contact header field now includes the "explicit" and "require" tags,
 guaranteeing that the call is never established to any UA that had
 not explicitly indicated support for video:
    INVITE sip:Y@example.com SIP/2.0
    Accept-Contact: *;video;require;explicit
 This arrives at the example.com proxy.  This explicit feature set
 matches the feature set for Y2 and Y1.  However, the match for Y1 did
 not have a score of 1.  Since the "explicit" and "require" tags are
 present, the contact is discarded.  That leaves Y2 only.  The call
 will therefore get routed to the videophone, and if the user is not
 there, the audio phone will never ring.
 Because both the "require" and "explicit" flags are present, a
 contact will also be discarded if it does not include a feature tag
 indicating support for video.  Thus, a UA that can do video, but
 neglected to indicate it, would not be reached in this case.  This is
 why it is important for a UA to indicate all of its capabilities.
 Note that this is only true for a contact that indicated some
 capabilities but not the video capability.  Contacts that don't
 indicate any capabilities are "immune" from caller preferences
 filtering and would not be discarded.

Rosenberg & Kyzivat Informational [Page 15] RFC 4596 Caller Preferences Uses July 2006

3.7. Third-Party Call Control: Forcing Media

3.7.1. Desired Behavior

 Z is a third-party call control controller (3pcc) [9] trying to
 establish an audio/video call from X to Y.  X has contacts X1 and X2,
 and Y has contacts Y1 and Y2.  X1 and X2 have capabilities identical
 to Y1 and Y2, respectively.  Z needs to send an offerless invite to X
 and use the offer proposed by X to send an invite to Y.  When sending
 the offerless invite to X, the 3pcc controller must ensure that an
 audio/video contact (X2) is chosen over an audio only contact (X1).

3.7.2. Solution

 X1 will generate a registration that looks like, in part:
    REGISTER sip:example.com SIP/2.0
    To: sip:X@example.com
    Contact: <sip:X1@pc.example.com>;q=1.0
      ;methods="INVITE,BYE,OPTIONS,ACK,CANCEL"
      ;uri-user="<X1>"
      ;uri-domain="example.com"
      ;audio
      ;schemes="sip,tel"
      ;mobility="fixed"
      ;class="business"
 X2 will generate a registration that looks like, in part:
    REGISTER sip:example.com SIP/2.0
    To: sip:X@example.com
    Contact: <sip:X2@pc.example.com>;q=0.6
      ;methods="INVITE,BYE,OPTIONS,ACK,CANCEL"
      ;uri-user="<X2>"
      ;uri-domain="example.com"
      ;audio
      ;video
      ;schemes="sip,tel"
      ;mobility="fixed"
      ;class="business"
 Z would include, in its INVITE, an Accept-Contact header field:
    INVITE sip:X@example.com SIP/2.0
    Accept-Contact: *;audio;video;require;explicit

Rosenberg & Kyzivat Informational [Page 16] RFC 4596 Caller Preferences Uses July 2006

 This caller preference matches both X1 and X2.  However, it matches
 X1 with a score of .5 and X2 with a score of 1.  Because of the
 "require" and "explicit" tags, X1 is discarded despite X's preference
 for it.  Thus, the call is routed to X2.
 The same caveats apply here as do in Section 3.6.  Generally, it is
 not advisable to mandate support for features (such as video) that
 are not strictly necessary for the request to proceed.

3.8. Maximizing Media Overlaps

3.8.1. Desired Behavior

 AOR Y has two contacts: Y1, which is a regular audio phone, and Y2,
 which is a PC capable of supporting both audio and session-oriented
 IM [10].  X is a PC with capability to support audio, video, and
 session-oriented IM.  X calls Y for the purpose of establishing a
 voice call.  However, X wishes to connect to the device that has the
 maximal overlap with its media capabilities, in order to maximize the
 functionality available to the caller.

3.8.2. Solution

 Y1 will generate a registration that looks like, in part:
    REGISTER sip:example.com SIP/2.0
    To: sip:Y@example.com
    Contact: <sip:Y1@phone.example.com>
      ;methods="INVITE,BYE,OPTIONS,ACK,CANCEL"
      ;uri-user="<Y1>"
      ;uri-domain="example.com"
      ;audio
      ;schemes="sip,tel"
      ;mobility="fixed"
      ;class="business"

Rosenberg & Kyzivat Informational [Page 17] RFC 4596 Caller Preferences Uses July 2006

 Y2 will generate a registration that looks like, in part:
    REGISTER sip:example.com SIP/2.0
    To: sip:Y@example.com
    Contact: <sip:Y2@pc.example.com>
      ;methods="INVITE,BYE,OPTIONS,ACK,CANCEL,MESSAGE"
      ;uri-user="<Y2>"
      ;uri-domain="example.com"
      ;audio
      ;+sip.message
      ;schemes="sip,tel"
      ;mobility="fixed"
      ;class="business"
 The solution requires the caller to support caller preferences.  The
 caller would include, in their INVITE, an Accept-Contact header field
 that lists all the media types they support.  In this case:
    INVITE sip:Y@example.com SIP/2.0
    Accept-Contact: *;audio;video;+sip.message
 Both Y1 and Y2 match the predicate.  Y1 matches with a score of 0.33,
 and Y2 matches with a score of 0.66.  Since there is only one Accept-
 Contact predicate, the Qa for each contact is equal to the score.
 The registered contacts are then sorted by q-value and broken into
 equivalence classes.  There is a single equivalence class with
 q-value of 1.0.  The two contacts in that class are then re-ordered
 based on the values of Qa.  Y2 has a higher Qa, so it is used first,
 followed by Y1.  The result is that the call is routed to the device
 with the maximum overlap in media capabilities, as desired.
 Note that neither "require" nor "explicit" tags are used because
 there is no intent to exclude contacts, only to order them.

3.9. Multilingual Lines

3.9.1. Desired Behavior

 AOR Y represents a shared line in an office.  Several employees in
 the office have phones registered for Y.  Some of the employees speak
 only English, some speak Spanish fluently and have some limited
 capability for English, and some speak both English and Spanish
 fluently.  Calls from callers that speak only English should be
 parallel forked to all office workers that speak fluent English.  If
 the call isn't picked up, then the phones of workers that speak
 English marginally should be rung.  Calls from callers that speak
 only Spanish should be forked only to workers that speak Spanish.

Rosenberg & Kyzivat Informational [Page 18] RFC 4596 Caller Preferences Uses July 2006

3.9.2. Solution

 A user at phone Y1 that speaks English only would generate a REGISTER
 that looks like, in part:
    REGISTER sip:example.com SIP/2.0
    To: sip:Y@example.com
    Contact: <sip:Y1@pc.example.com>;languages="en"
 A user at a phone Y2 that speaks Spanish and a little bit of English
 would generate a REGISTER that looks like, in part:
    REGISTER sip:example.com SIP/2.0
    To: sip:Y@example.com
    Contact: <sip:Y2-es@pc2.example.com>;languages="es"
    Contact: <sip:Y2-en@pc2.example.com>;languages="en";q=0.2
 Y2 has registered two contacts.  Both of them route to the same
 device (pc2.example.com), but they differ in their language support
 and relative q-values.  Multiple contacts are needed whenever a UA
 wishes to express differing preferences for being reached for
 different feature collections.
 A user at phone Y3 that speaks English and Spanish fluently would
 generate a REGISTER that looks like, in part:
    REGISTER sip:example.com SIP/2.0
    To: sip:Y@example.com
    Contact: <sip:Y3@pc3.example.com>;languages="es,en"
 Notice that only a single contact is needed because the same q-value
 is applied across all feature collections.
 For the language-based routing to occur, the caller must indicate its
 language preferences explicitly:
    INVITE sip:Y@example.com SIP/2.0
    Accept-Contact: *;languages="en";require
 The predicate derived from this looks like:
    (& (languages="en"))
 This matches the one contact for Y1, the second contact registered
 for Y2, and the one contact for Y3, all with a score of 1.0.  The
 first contact registered by Y2 does not match, and because of the
 "require" flag, is discarded.  The remaining contacts are sorted by
 q-value and divided into equivalence classes.  There are two

Rosenberg & Kyzivat Informational [Page 19] RFC 4596 Caller Preferences Uses July 2006

 equivalence classes.  The first contains Y1 and Y3 with a q-value of
 1.0, and the second contains Y2-en with a q-value of 0.2.  The
 contacts in the first class are ordered by Qa.  However, since all
 contacts have the same value of Qa (1.0), there is no change in
 ordering.  Thus, Y1 and Y3 are tried first, followed by Y2-en.  This
 is the desired behavior.
 An "explicit" tag is not used because that would cause the exclusion
 of a contact that does not mention language.
 A caller that speaks Spanish only would specify their preference
 thusly:
    INVITE sip:Y@example.com SIP/2.0
    Accept-Contact: *;languages="es";require
 This matches the first contact of Y2 phones, and Y3 phones, all with
 a score of 1.0.  The English contact of Y2, Y2-en, doesn't match and
 is discarded because of the "require" flag.  The remaining contacts
 are sorted by q-values (Y3, Y2-es) and broken into a single
 equivalence class containing both contacts.  Since the Qa for both
 contacts is the same (1.0) there is no reordering.  The result is
 that the call is routed to either Y3 or Y2-es.

3.10. I Hate Voicemail!

3.10.1. Desired Behavior

 AOR Y has two contacts, a phone Y1 and a voicemail service Y2.  X
 wishes to call Y and talk in person.  X does not want to be sent to
 voicemail under any circumstances.

3.10.2. Solution

 The phone would register with a Contact that looks like, in part:
    REGISTER sip:example.com SIP/2.0
    To: sip:Y@example.com
    Contact: <sip:Y1@pc.example.com>
      ;audio
      ;mobility="fixed"

Rosenberg & Kyzivat Informational [Page 20] RFC 4596 Caller Preferences Uses July 2006

 and the voicemail server would register with a Contact that looks
 like, in part:
    REGISTER sip:example.com SIP/2.0
    To: sip:Y@example.com
    Contact: <sip:Y2@pc.example.com>
       ;msgserver
       ;automata
       ;attendant
       ;audio
       ;q=0.2
 The voicemail server registers with a lower q-value so that it is
 used only after the phone itself is rung.  Note that the voicemail
 server need not actually register.  There can be a configured contact
 and feature set defined for it instead.
 A caller that wishes to avoid voicemail can include an explicit
 preference to avoid it.  A caller would do this with the Reject-
 Contact header field:
    INVITE sip:Y@example.com SIP/2.0
    Reject-Contact: *;msgserver
 Since this feature set contains a feature tag that is not contained
 in the registration for Y1, the feature set is discarded when
 examining Y1.  However, the registration for Y2 contains all feature
 tags listed in the feature set, and so the rule is considered.  There
 is a match, and therefore, Y2 is discarded.  The result is that the
 user is never routed to voicemail.

3.11. I Hate People!

3.11.1. Desired Behavior

 The situation is similar to Section 3.10, except the caller wishes
 only to leave a message, not actually speak to the person.

3.11.2. Solution

 The caller would send an INVITE that looks like, in part:
    INVITE sip:Y@example.com SIP/2.0
    Accept-Contact: *;msgserver;require;explicit
 This caller preference matches both Y1 and Y2.  Y1 matches, but with
 a score of zero.  Y2 matches with a score of 1.  Since both the

Rosenberg & Kyzivat Informational [Page 21] RFC 4596 Caller Preferences Uses July 2006

 "require" and "explicit" flags are set, Y1 is discarded.  Therefore,
 the call is routed to Y2, the voicemail server, as desired.
 Because of the presence of the "require" and "explicit" tags, if
 these preferences are used with a user that doesn't have voicemail or
 that fails to indicate it with a msgserver capability, the call will
 fail completely with a 480 Temporarily Unavailable error, rather than
 connect to the user.

3.12. Prefer Voicemail

3.12.1. Desired Behavior

 The situation is similar to that of Section 3.10.  However, the
 caller prefers to leave a message.  If voicemail is not available,
 they are willing to talk to a person.

3.12.2. Solution

 It had been hoped that RFC 3841 could provide a solution for this
 case, but it does not, because doing so would require a re-ordering
 of the callee contacts, which is not done.  The caller may achieve
 the intended effect by making two call attempts:
 o  First, make an attempt requiring voicemail, as described in
    Section 3.11.
 o  If that fails with a 480 error, send an invitation with no Accept-
    Contact or Reject-Contact headers.

3.13. Routing to an Executive

3.13.1. Desired Behavior

 Y is the AOR of an executive.  It has three contacts.  Y1 is the
 phone on the executive's desk.  Y2 is the phone on the desk of the
 executive's assistant.  Y3 is the address of an auto-attendant system
 that can answer general questions, route calls to other parties, etc.
 By default, calls to Y should be directed to Y2, and if that fails,
 to Y3.  If Y3 doesn't answer, then Y1 should ring.

3.13.2. Solution

 This is primarily a called party feature and is best accomplished
 with a CPL (Call Processing Language) script [5].  However, it can be
 accomplished with caller preferences alone by properly setting the
 q-values across the three devices.  Assuming this coordination is
 possible, here are the settings that would be made:

Rosenberg & Kyzivat Informational [Page 22] RFC 4596 Caller Preferences Uses July 2006

 Y1 would generate a REGISTER that looks like, in part:
    REGISTER sip:example.com SIP/2.0
    To: sip:Y@example.com
    Contact: <sip:Y1@pc.example.com>;q=0.1
 Y2 would generate a REGISTER that looks like, in part:
    REGISTER sip:example.com SIP/2.0
    To: sip:Y@example.com
    Contact: <sip:Y2@pc2.example.com>;attendant;q=1.0
 Y3 would generate a REGISTER that looks like, in part:
    REGISTER sip:example.com SIP/2.0
    To: sip:Y@example.com
    Contact: <sip:Y3@pc3.example.com>;attendant;automata;q=0.5
 Note that, in reality, the automated attendant would probably not use
 REGISTER.  Since the attendant would be used for every employee in
 the company, a static contact would probably be added
 administratively for each user in the enterprise.  However, the
 information in that static contact would be identical to the
 information in the registration above.
 When X makes a call to the executive, Y, and expresses no preference,
 the proxy computes an implicit preference to support INVITE.  All
 three contacts match such a preference, even though they have not
 indicated explicit support for INVITE.  Thus, no contacts are
 discarded.  Since each contact has a different q-value, the caller
 preferences do not cause any reordering.  The result is that the call
 is first routed to Y2, then Y3, then Y1, all as a result of the
 proper setting of the q-values.

3.14. Speak to the Executive

3.14.1. Desired Behavior

 This case is similar to that of Section 3.13, but this time the
 caller, X, has a preference.  X calls Y, but wants to speak directly
 to the executive.  X doesn't want the call to ring either the
 assistant or the auto attendant (automaton).

Rosenberg & Kyzivat Informational [Page 23] RFC 4596 Caller Preferences Uses July 2006

3.14.2. Solution

 X's INVITE would look like, in part:
    INVITE sip:Y@example.com SIP/2.0
    Reject-Contact: *;attendant
    Reject-Contact: *;automata
 Note that the caller uses two separate Reject-Contact header field
 values, rather than a single one with two separate feature
 parameters.  The distinction is important.  If X had to use a single
 value with two parameters, a matching UA would need to declare that
 it was BOTH an attendant and an automaton.  If it only declared that
 it was one of these, based on the matching rules in the caller
 preferences specification, it would not be rejected.
 The above request would result in the elimination of both Y2 and Y3
 as contacts.  The call would then be routed to Y1, as desired.
 This case indicates why a CPL script, or some other programmed
 version of the feature, is preferable.  With caller preferences, a
 caller can override the desired ring sequence and disturb the
 executive without any kind of authorization.  A proper version of
 this service would simply not permit caller preferences to force the
 call to go directly to the executive.

3.15. Mobile Phone Only

3.15.1. Desired Behavior

 The situation is similar to that in Section 3.13.  However, the
 executive also has a mobile phone that they have registered.  Caller
 X knows that the owner of Y is traveling, and that an assistant is
 covering the office phone.  X wants to call Y and ring only the
 mobile phone.

3.15.2. Solution

 The mobile phone would generate a registration that looks like, in
 part:
    REGISTER sip:example.com SIP/2.0
    To: sip:Y@example.com
    Contact: <sip:Y4@mobile.example.com>;mobility="mobile";q=0.1

Rosenberg & Kyzivat Informational [Page 24] RFC 4596 Caller Preferences Uses July 2006

 The caller would express their preference by generating an INVITE
 that looks like, in part:
    INVITE sip:Y@example.com SIP/2.0
    Accept-Contact: *;mobility="mobile";require;explicit
 All four contacts match.  However, Y1 through Y3 match with a score
 of zero.  Y4 matches with a score of 1.  Because of the "require" and
 "explicit" tags, Y1 through Y3 are discarded, and only Y4 is used, as
 desired.
 Note that this only works if the mobile phone specifies the mobility
 feature in its registration.

3.16. Simultaneous Languages

3.16.1. Desired Behavior

 AOR Y is as in Section 3.9.  Caller X, fluent in both English and
 Spanish, has discovered that the company's Spanish language
 documentation is inconsistent with the English language documentation
 and wants to discuss the differences between the two.  So X wants to
 speak with one of the workers that is fluent in both English and
 Spanish.

3.16.2. Solution

 The caller would generate an INVITE that looks like, in part:
    INVITE sip:Y@example.com SIP/2.0
    Accept-Contact: *;language="en";require
    Accept-Contact: *;language="es";require
 This will require a Contact URI to match both constraints.  That
 means it needs to support English and Spanish.  This will achieve the
 desired property.
 Note that there are two separate Accept-Contact header fields.  If
 the caller had instead used this INVITE:
    INVITE sip:Y@example.com SIP/2.0
    Accept-Contact: *;language="en,es";require
 It would have connected them to a UA that speaks either English or
 Spanish, which is not what is desired here.
 An "explicit" option is not used, because it would bypass contacts
 that do not include a language tag.

Rosenberg & Kyzivat Informational [Page 25] RFC 4596 Caller Preferences Uses July 2006

3.17. The Number You Have Called…

3.17.1. Desired Behavior

 Consider once more the case of the executive, where the caller wishes
 to reach only their mobile phone (Section 3.15).  However, there is a
 twist.  The callee Y has moved to new address YY, and all the
 configuration described for the callee now applies to YY.  The old
 address Y remains with a pair of statically assigned contacts.  One
 contact is YY.  The other is M, referencing an automaton that
 generates a voice message reporting that the number has been changed.
 The caller is unaware of the move and calls Y, requesting to reach
 the mobile phone in exactly the same way they did in Section 3.15.
 The call should connect to the mobile.

3.17.2. Solution

 There would be four registrations against YY:
 YY1, the executive, would generate a REGISTER that looks like, in
 part:
    REGISTER sip:example.com SIP/2.0
    To: sip:YY@example.com
    Contact: <sip:YY1@pc.example.com>;q=0.1
 YY2, the attendant, would generate a REGISTER that looks like, in
 part:
    REGISTER sip:example.com SIP/2.0
    To: sip:YY@example.com
    Contact: <sip:YY2@pc2.example.com>;attendant;q=1.0
 YY3, the answering service, would generate a REGISTER that looks
 like, in part:
    REGISTER sip:example.com SIP/2.0
    To: sip:YY@example.com
    Contact: <sip:YY3@pc3.example.com>;attendant;automata;q=0.5
 YY4, the mobile, would generate a REGISTER that looks like, in part:
    REGISTER sip:example.com SIP/2.0
    To: sip:YY@example.com
    Contact: <sip:YY4@mobile.example.com>;mobility="mobile";q=0.5

Rosenberg & Kyzivat Informational [Page 26] RFC 4596 Caller Preferences Uses July 2006

 Although it would be configured administratively, there are two
 registered contacts for Y.  The first is for the forwarding:
    REGISTER sip:example.com SIP/2.0
    To: sip:Y@example.com
    Contact: <sip:YY@example.com>;q=1.0
 and the second for the automated answering service:
    REGISTER sip:example.com SIP/2.0
    To: sip:Y@example.com
    Contact: <sip:machine@example.com>;automata;q=0.5
 The caller, not knowing that Y has moved, calls Y and asks for their
 mobile phone:
    INVITE sip:Y@example.com SIP/2.0
    Accept-Contact: *;mobility="mobile";require;explicit
 This reaches the example.com proxy, which finds two registrations.
 Only one of these (the automaton) is associated with feature
 parameters.  The other has no feature parameters and is therefore
 immune to caller preferences processing.  The caller preferences are
 applied to the automaton's contact.  The feature sets match, but have
 a score of zero.  Since the "require" and "explicit" tags are
 present, the contact for the automaton is dropped.  The other
 contact, YY@example.com, is then added back in as the sole contact.
 The proxy therefore sends the call to sip:YY@example.com.  There,
 there are four registrations, all of which are associated with
 feature parameters.  The caller preferences are applied.  Only YY4
 matches explicitly, however.  Because of the presence of the
 "require" and "explicit" flags, all other contacts are dropped.  As
 such, the call is forwarded to YY4, and the mobile phone rings.

3.18. The Number You Have Called, Take Two

3.18.1. Desired Behavior

 This use case is nearly identical to that of Section 3.17.  However,
 this time, the caller wishes to contact the personal phone of Y.
 They don't feel strongly about it, and will accept other devices.

3.18.2. Solution

 The INVITE generated by the caller in this case will look like:
    INVITE sip:Y@example.com SIP/2.0
    Accept-Contact: *;class="personal"

Rosenberg & Kyzivat Informational [Page 27] RFC 4596 Caller Preferences Uses July 2006

 This reaches the example.com proxy.  Once more, the first
 registration (which forwards to the address-of-record for YY) is
 unaffected by the caller preferences computation.  The other contact,
 for the automaton, is a match, but its score is zero.  Its caller
 preference Qa equals zero.  The other contact is added back in with a
 Qa of 1.0.  The contacts are sorted based on q-value, resulting in YY
 (q=1.0) followed by machine (q=0.5).  These are broken into
 equivalence classes.  There are two classes, one for each contact.
 As a result, the caller's preferences have no impact on the ordering,
 and the call is routed to YY.
 When the request for YY@example.com is processed, all four contacts
 match.  However, the score for all of them is zero (none are the
 personal phone).  As such, the contacts are ordered based on q-value.
 Each contact has a different q-value, so no reordering based on
 caller preference is possible (not that the caller preference would
 cause a reordering; all contacts have a Qa of 0.0).  Thus, the
 highest q-value contact is tried, which is the executive assistant.

3.19. Forwarding to a Colleague

3.19.1. Desired Behavior

 Alice wants to forward her phone to Bob, but doesn't want folks
 calling her to get Bob's voicemail if he doesn't answer.  She wants
 her callers to get her voicemail.

3.19.2. Solution

 Alice would create three registrations.  The first, Y1, represents
 Alice's phone.  The second is Bob's AOR.  The third is a voicemail
 server.  The three contacts have decreasing q-values.  The
 registration for Bob's AOR contains an embedded Reject-Contact header
 field, which rejects message servers.
    REGISTER sip:example.com
    To: <sip:alice@example.com>
    Contact: <sip:Y1@192.0.2.150>;q=1.0
    REGISTER sip:example.com
    To: <sip:alice@example.com>
    Contact: <sip:bob@example.com?Reject-Contact=*;msgserver>;q=0.3

Rosenberg & Kyzivat Informational [Page 28] RFC 4596 Caller Preferences Uses July 2006

    REGISTER sip:example.com
    To: <sip:alice@example.com>
    Contact: <sip:alice-drop@msgcenter.example.com>
      ;msgserver;
      ;automata
      ;attendant
      ;q=0.1
 Meanwhile, Bob is registered as follows:
    REGISTER sip:example.com
    To: <sip:bob@example.com>
    Contact: <sip:bob3@192.0.2.212>;q=0.8
    REGISTER sip:example.com
    To: <sip:bob@example.com>
    Contact: <sip:bob-drop@msgcenter.example.com>
      ;msgserver
      ;automata
      ;attendant
      ;q=0.2
 Carol calls Alice and doesn't include any caller preference
 parameters.  As such, the example.com proxy constructs an implicit
 preference for INVITE.  This preference matches all three registered
 contacts, with a score of zero.  Because each contact has a different
 q-value, there is no reordering of contacts.  So, the proxy tries the
 highest q-value Contact, Alice's desk phone (Y1).  The proxy cancels
 after a few seconds (no answer).  The proxy then tries the next
 Contact, which is Bob's AOR.  When constructing the request for this
 Contact, the proxy includes the embedded Reject-Contact header field
 in the INVITE.  This INVITE undergoes caller preferences processing
 based on Bob's registered Contacts.
 Bob has two registered Contacts.  The second is a message server, and
 it matches the Reject-Contact in the INVITE.  Thus, this contact is
 discarded.  The other remaining Contact, Bob's phone, is tried.  Bob
 is not around, so his phone rings for a while.  Upon timeout, the
 proxy determines it is unable to reach Bob's AOR.  So, the proxy
 handling Alice tries the final remaining contact, which is Alice's
 message server.

Rosenberg & Kyzivat Informational [Page 29] RFC 4596 Caller Preferences Uses July 2006

4. Capability Use Cases

 The callee capabilities spec [2] allows the Contact header field in
 OPTIONS responses and dialog initiating messages to contain
 capabilities of the UA.  These capabilities can be very useful for
 developing new applications.  In the subsections below, several
 usages are outlined.

4.1. Web Redirect

 A caller sends an INVITE to the called party.  However, the called
 party is not present.  The proxy server representing the called party
 would like to redirect the caller to a web page, where they can find
 out more information on how to reach the called party.  However, the
 proxy needs to know whether or not the caller supports redirects to
 web pages.  If it doesn't, the proxy would connect the user to an
 interactive voice response (IVR) device, which would execute an
 answering machine application.
 The proxy could make such a determination if the caller included the
 "schemes" feature tag in the Contact header field of its INVITE:
    INVITE sip:callee@example.com SIP/2.0
    Contact: <sip:host22.example.com>;schemes="http,sip,sips,tel"
 This tells the proxy that the UAC can be redirected to an http URI.
 The INVITE from a normal "black phone" that lacked this capability
 would look like:
    INVITE sip:callee@example.com SIP/2.0
    Contact: <sip:host22.example.com>;schemes="sip,sips,tel"
 This indicates that it needs to be connected to the IVR.

4.2. Voicemail Icon

 On the circuit network, when a user makes a call, and an answering
 machine picks up, the caller usually requires several seconds to
 determine that they are speaking to an answering machine.  It would
 be helpful if a phone could display an icon immediately on call
 completion that indicated that an answering machine was reached.
 This indication can be provided by the "msgserver" feature parameter.
 When the answering machine picks up, its 200 OK looks like, in part:
    SIP/2.0 200 OK
    Contact: <sip:server33.example.com>;msgserver;automata;attendant

Rosenberg & Kyzivat Informational [Page 30] RFC 4596 Caller Preferences Uses July 2006

 This tells the caller that it's an answering machine.

5. Usage of the Feature Tags

 The caller preferences extension briefly enumerates a list of media
 feature tags that can be registered by a device and included in the
 Accept-Contact and Reject-Contact header fields in a request.  Proper
 operation of caller preferences depends strongly on consistent
 interpretation of these feature tags by the caller and the callee.
 In this section, we provide some guidelines on the usage of these
 feature tags.
 Generally speaking, the more information a device provides when it
 registers, the more effective the caller preferences extension is.
 This is why the callee capabilities extension recommends that a
 device register as much information as it can.  This point cannot be
 overstated.
 If devices explicitly registered features that they don't support,
 such as 'video="false"', the operation of RFC 3841 would be improved.
 However, given the open-ended nature of capabilities, it will never
 be possible to ensure the registration of negative values for all
 capabilities of interest to a caller.  Furthermore, attempting to do
 so would significantly bloat registrations.  Instead, it is
 recommended that all "unusual" capabilities be explicitly registered.
 The subsections below show example registrations from typical
 devices.

5.1. Traditional Cell Phone

 A VoIP cell phone capable of making voice calls would generate a
 registration that looks like, in part:
    REGISTER sip:example.com SIP/2.0
    To: sip:user@example.com
    Contact: <sip:cell-phone@example.com>
      ;audio
      ;class="business"
      ;duplex="full"
      ;+sip.extensions="100rel,path"
      ;mobility="mobile"
      ;methods="INVITE,BYE,OPTIONS,CANCEL,ACK"
      ;schemes="sip,sips,tel"
      ;uri-user="<cell-phone>"
      ;uri-domain="example.com"

Rosenberg & Kyzivat Informational [Page 31] RFC 4596 Caller Preferences Uses July 2006

5.2. Traditional Work Phone

 A traditional landline IP PBX phone would generate a registration
 that looks like:
    REGISTER sip:example.com SIP/2.0
    To: sip:user@example.com
    Contact: <sip:ippbx-phone@example.com>
      ;audio
      ;class="business"
      ;duplex="full"
      ;events="dialog"
      ;+sip.extensions="100rel,privacy"
      ;mobility="fixed"
      ;methods="INVITE,BYE,OPTIONS,CANCEL,ACK,SUBSCRIBE"
      ;schemes="sip,sips,tel"
      ;uri-user="<ippbx-phone>"
      ;uri-domain="example.com"
 This device also supports the dialog event package and several SIP
 extensions that would be typical in an IP PBX phone.

5.3. PC Messaging Application

 A PC messenger client, capable of just doing presence and IM (no
 voice) would generate a registration that looks like:
    REGISTER sip:example.com SIP/2.0
    To: sip:user@example.com
    Contact: <sip:pc-msgr@example.com>
      ;class="personal"
      ;mobility="fixed"
      ;methods="OPTIONS,MESSAGE,NOTIFY"
      ;schemes="sip,sips,im,pres"
      ;uri-user="<pc-msgr>"
      ;uri-domain="example.com"

Rosenberg & Kyzivat Informational [Page 32] RFC 4596 Caller Preferences Uses July 2006

5.4. Standalone Videophone

 A standalone IP videophone, capable of audio and video, would
 generate a registration that looks like, in part
    REGISTER sip:example.com SIP/2.0
    To: sip:user@example.com
    Contact: <sip:vp@example.com>
      ;audio
      ;video
      ;class="business"
      ;duplex="full"
      ;mobility="fixed"
      ;methods="INVITE,BYE,OPTIONS,CANCEL,ACK"
      ;schemes="sip,sips,tel"
      ;uri-user="<vp>"
      ;uri-domain="example.com"

6. Example of Implementation of Preference and Capability Matching

 RFC 3841 [3] utilizes the definitions and feature matching algorithm
 defined in RFC 2533 [6].  This provides a precise normative
 specification of the algorithm.  However, that specification isn't
 ideal as a guideline for implementation because it is more complex
 than is required for the restricted use employed by RFC 3841.  (The
 simplification is primarily because a particular feature tag may only
 appear once in each Contact, Accept-Contact, or Reject-Contact
 header.)
 This section provides a sample approach to implementing the matching
 of caller preferences to callee capabilities; it does not require the
 use of the notation and techniques of RFC 2533.  It is not normative,
 but is believed to be consistent with that definition.  It may be
 considered an alternative for that portion of RFC 3841 beginning with
 Section 7.2.3 and extending to the end of page 13 in the middle of
 Section 7.2.4.
 In this section, there are frequent references to syntactic elements
 defined by ABNF in RFC 3840, Section 9, and RFC 3841, Section 10.
 Here, ABNF elements are enclosed to single quotes -- for example,
 'feature-param'.  Such a reference identifies a sequence of octets
 within a SIP request that match the corresponding ABNF element when
 the sip request is parsed according to RFCs 3261, 3840, and 3841.

Rosenberg & Kyzivat Informational [Page 33] RFC 4596 Caller Preferences Uses July 2006

6.1. Extracting a Feature Set from a Header

 Contact header fields, Accept-Contact header fields, and Reject-
 Contact header fields each contain zero or more 'feature-param's,
 each in turn may contain one or more 'tag-value's, or a 'string-
 value'.  The first step is to extract from each header field a more
 useful representation as a feature set, herein called an FS.  (This
 FS representation of a feature set representation differs from that
 in RFC 2533.)  This process is the same for each type of header.
 An FS consists of a set of one or more feature params denoted by FP.
 Each FP has a name, denoted FP.NAME, and a set of one or more value
 ranges denoted by VR.  Each VR consists of:
 o  A type (VR.TYPE): either token (TOKEN-TYPE), string (STRING-TYPE),
    or number-range (RANGE-TYPE)
 o  A negation flag (VR.NEGATION): either NEGATED, or NON-NEGATED
 o  The actual value, differing by type:
  • For TOKEN-TYPE and STRING-TYPE, a sequence of octets

(VR.OCTETS)

  • For RANGE-TYPE, a pair of signed real numbers (VR.LB and VR.UB)

representing the lower and upper bounds on the range,

       inclusive.
 A single FS is created to represent the features of one header.
 (Contact, Accept-Contact, Reject-Contact.)  Within the FS, an FP is
 created for each 'feature-param' in the header.  To create an FP, a
 'feature-param' is examined as follows:
 o  If the 'feature-param' contains an instance of 'other-tags', then
    FP.NAME is the value matched by 'ftag-name'.
 o  Otherwise, the 'feature-param' contains an instance of 'base-
    tags'.  If the value matched by 'base-tags' is "language" or
    "type", then FP.NAME is just the value matched by 'base-tags'.  If
    not, then FP.NAME is the value matched by 'base-tags' and prefixed
    with "sip.".
 o  The value of the 'feature-param', if any, is processed (according
    to the rules in the next section) to extract a set of one or more
    VRs that are associated with the FP.

Rosenberg & Kyzivat Informational [Page 34] RFC 4596 Caller Preferences Uses July 2006

6.2. Extracting Values from a Feature Parameter

 The value of a 'feature-param' is an encoded representation (as
 specified in RFC 3840) of one or more value ranges of the
 corresponding feature.  There are several data types that these
 values may take on: boolean, token, string, number, or numeric range.
 The type is determined by the encoded form of the value.  (These
 types and their representations are specific to this implementation.)
 (Note: numeric values can explicitly represent a range of values.
 The other types only represent single value: a degenerate range.  The
 term value range is used to encompass all of these.)
 The value of the 'feature-param' ('string-value', 'tag-value-list',
 or none) is converted to VR form as follows:
 o  If there is no value, then a single new VR is created with VR.TYPE
    = TOKEN-TYPE, VR.NEGATION = NON-NEGATED, and VR.OCTETS set to
    "true".
 o  If the 'feature-param' contains a 'string-value', then a single
    new VR is created with VR.TYPE = STRING-TYPE, VR.NEGATION =
    NON-NEGATED, and VR.OCTETS is set to the octets matching 'qdtext'.
 o  Otherwise the 'feature-param' contains a 'tag-value-list', and a
    new VR is created for each 'tag-value' in the 'tag-value-list', as
    follows:
 o  If the 'tag-value' begins with "!", VR.NEGATION = NEGATED;
    otherwise, VR.NEGATION = NON-NEGATED.
 o  If the 'tag-value' contains a 'boolean' or 'token-nobang', then
    VR.TYPE = TOKEN-TYPE, and VR.OCTETS is set to the octets matched
    by 'boolean' or 'token-nobang'.
 o  If the 'tag-value' contains a 'numeric', VR.TYPE = RANGE-TYPE and:
  • If 'numeric-relation' is "⇐", VR.UB is set to the numeric

value matching 'number'. VR.LB is set to MIN-REAL (a negative

       number with the largest expressible magnitude.)
  • If 'numeric-relation' is "=", both VR.LB and VR.UB are set to

the numeric value matching 'number'.

  • If 'numeric-relation' is ">=", VR.LB is set to the numeric

value matching 'number' plus a small epsilon. VR.UB is set to

       MAX-REAL (a positive number with the largest expressible
       magnitude).

Rosenberg & Kyzivat Informational [Page 35] RFC 4596 Caller Preferences Uses July 2006

  • Else the 'numeric-relation' consists of two 'number's separated

by a colon. In this case, VR.LB is set to the numeric value of

       the smaller of the two numbers, and VR.UB is set to the numeric
       value of the larger of the two numbers.

6.3. Comparing Two Value-Ranges

 Two VRs match if their ranges overlap.  The comparison is done
 according to type, and only comparisons between like types are
 defined.  When two VRs of differing types are compared, they are
 considered not to overlap.  Either or both of the VRs may be NEGATED.
 Comparison proceeds as follows:
 o  If the VRs are of different types, the match is false.
 o  Otherwise:
  • Two VRs with VR.TYPE = RANGE-TYPE match if max(VR1.LB, VR2.LB)

⇐ min(VR1.UB, VR2.UB).

  • Two VRs with VR.TYPE = TOKEN-TYPE match if their respective

VR.OCTETS values compare equal by case-insensitive comparison.

  • Two VRs with VR.TYPE = STRING-TYPE match if their respective

VR.OCTETS values compare equal by case-sensitive comparison.

 o  The result (true/false) is then negated if VR1.NEGATION = NEGATED,
    and negated again if VR2.NEGATION = NEGATED.

6.4. Feature Set to Feature Set Matching

 In RFC 2533, the matching of two feature sets is commutative, but as
 applied to caller preferences matching it is not.  In this
 application, one feature set comes from an Accept-Contact or Reject-
 Contact header, and the other comes from a Contact header.  For
 purposes of this description, these will be termed the preferred-
 features (FSp) and the capability-features (FSc), respectively.
 Non-commutativity arises from explicit tests for the presence among
 capability-params of feature param names used in preferred-features.
 A preferred-features feature set FSp may be matched to one
 capability-features feature set FSc, and this yields the following
 metrics:
 o  NPF - The number of preferred-features.
 o  NCF - The number of preferred-features for which there is a
    capability-feature of the same name.

Rosenberg & Kyzivat Informational [Page 36] RFC 4596 Caller Preferences Uses July 2006

 o  NVM - The number of value matches between corresponding features
    of the two feature sets.
 For a particular pair of FPp and FPc, these metrics are computed as
 follows:
 o  All the metrics are set to zero.
 o  The following steps are applied for each feature param (FPp) of
    the FSp:
  • NPF is incremented.
  • A corresponding FP with the same name is sought (using case-

insensitive comparison) in the FSc.

  • If a corresponding feature param (FPc) is found:
       +  NCF is incremented.
       +  Every VR of FPp is matched to every VR of FPc.
       +  If any of those matches succeed, NVM is incremented.

6.5. Selecting and Ordering Contacts Based on Caller Preferences

6.5.1. Reject-Contact Processing

 The reject processing specified in Section 7.4.2 of RFC 3841 may be
 performed as follows:
 o  For each candidate Contact in the target set, match the feature
    set of each Reject-Contact to it.
 o  If (NVM == NPF) & (NCF == NPF), remove the contact URI from the
    target set.

6.5.2. Accept-Contact Processing

 The matching of an Accept-Contact against a Contact and subsequent
 scoring of the match specified in Section 7.4.2 of RFC 3841 may be
 performed as follows:
 o  Match the feature set of the Accept-Contact to that of the Contact
    as specified in Section 6.4.

Rosenberg & Kyzivat Informational [Page 37] RFC 4596 Caller Preferences Uses July 2006

 o  If (NVM < NCF), then the match failed.  If the Accept-Contact had
    its "require" flag set, then discard the corresponding contact URI
    from the target set.
 o  Compute the score as NVM/NPF.
 o  Apply the "require" and "explicit" flags as specified in the text
    and Figure 7 of RFC 3841.

7. Security Considerations

 This document provides explanation and examples of the use and
 implementation of RFCs 3840 and 3841.  The security considerations
 sections of those documents apply to the material presented here.

8. Acknowledgements

 The authors would like to thank Rohan Mahy for his input in this
 specification.

9. Informative References

 [1]   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.
 [2]   Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., and P. Kyzivat, "Indicating
       User Agent Capabilities in the Session Initiation Protocol
       (SIP)", RFC 3840, August 2004.
 [3]   Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., and P. Kyzivat, "Caller
       Preferences for the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)",
       RFC 3841, August 2004.
 [4]   Mankin, A., Bradner, S., Mahy, R., Willis, D., Ott, J., and B.
       Rosen, "Change Process for the Session Initiation Protocol
       (SIP)", BCP 67, RFC 3427, December 2002.
 [5]   Lennox, J. and H. Schulzrinne, "Call Processing Language
       Framework and Requirements", RFC 2824, May 2000.
 [6]   Klyne, G., "A Syntax for Describing Media Feature Sets",
       RFC 2533, March 1999.
 [7]   Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., and R. Mahy, "An INVITE-
       Initiated Dialog Event Package for the Session Initiation
       Protocol (SIP)", RFC 4235, November 2005.

Rosenberg & Kyzivat Informational [Page 38] RFC 4596 Caller Preferences Uses July 2006

 [8]   Rosenberg, J., "A Presence Event Package for the Session
       Initiation Protocol (SIP)", RFC 3856, August 2004.
 [9]   Rosenberg, J., Peterson, J., Schulzrinne, H., and G. Camarillo,
       "Best Current Practices for Third Party Call Control (3pcc) in
       the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)", BCP 85, RFC 3725,
       April 2004.
 [10]  Campbell, B., "The Message Session Relay Protocol", Work in
       Progress, July 2006.

Authors' Addresses

 Jonathan Rosenberg
 Cisco Systems
 600 Lanidex Plaza
 Parsippany, NJ  07054
 US
 Phone: +1 973 952-5000
 EMail: jdrosen@cisco.com
 URI:   http://www.jdrosen.net
 Paul Kyzivat
 Cisco Systems
 1414 Massachusetts Avenue
 Boxborough, MA  01719
 US
 Phone: +1 978 936-1881
 EMail: pkyzivat@cisco.com

Rosenberg & Kyzivat Informational [Page 39] RFC 4596 Caller Preferences Uses July 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.

Acknowledgement

 Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF
 Administrative Support Activity (IASA).

Rosenberg & Kyzivat Informational [Page 40]

/data/webs/external/dokuwiki/data/pages/rfc/rfc4596.txt · Last modified: 2006/07/21 00:58 by 127.0.0.1

Donate Powered by PHP Valid HTML5 Valid CSS Driven by DokuWiki