GENWiki

Premier IT Outsourcing and Support Services within the UK

User Tools

Site Tools


rfc:rfc7647

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) R. Sparks Request for Comments: 7647 Oracle Updates: 3515 A.B. Roach Category: Standards Track Mozilla ISSN: 2070-1721 September 2015

         Clarifications for the Use of REFER with RFC 6665

Abstract

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

Status of This Memo

 This is an Internet Standards Track document.
 This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
 (IETF).  It represents the consensus of the IETF community.  It has
 received public review and has been approved for publication by the
 Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG).  Further information on
 Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 5741.
 Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
 and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
 http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7647.

Copyright Notice

 Copyright (c) 2015 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.  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.

Sparks & Roach Standards Track [Page 1] RFC 7647 Refer Clarifications September 2015

Table of Contents

 1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
 2.  Conventions Used in This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
 3.  Use of GRUU Is Mandatory  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
 4.  Dialog Reuse Is Prohibited  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
 5.  The 202 Response Code Is Deprecated . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
 6.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
 7.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   7.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   7.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
 Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
 Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6

1. Introduction

 The SIP REFER method relies on the SIP-Specific Event Notification
 framework.  That framework was revised by [RFC6665].  This document
 highlights the implications of the requirement changes in 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 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) that use out-of-signaling agreements to ensure that
 in-dialog REFER requests using the RFC 4488 extension do not create a
 new subscription inside that dialog.  In the 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 [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].

Sparks & Roach Standards Track [Page 2] RFC 7647 Refer Clarifications September 2015

3. Use of GRUU 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., 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) [RFC7621].  This ensures that out-of-dialog REFER
 requests corresponding to any resulting INVITE dialogs arrive at this
 UA.  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 RFC 6665 notifier in the context of
 this dialog.  [RFC7614] is an example of such an extension.

4. Dialog 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 and the requirements in
 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 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.

Sparks & Roach Standards Track [Page 3] RFC 7647 Refer Clarifications September 2015

 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 [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 URI as
 specified in Section 12 of [RFC3261].
 As described in 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.,
 when the peer is an implementation of RFC 3515 that has not been
 updated to conform with RFC 6665).

5. The 202 Response Code Is Deprecated

 Section 8.3.1 of [RFC6665] requires that elements 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. References

7.1. Normative References

 [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
            Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
            DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 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,
            <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3261>.

Sparks & Roach Standards Track [Page 4] RFC 7647 Refer Clarifications September 2015

 [RFC3515]  Sparks, R., "The Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Refer
            Method", RFC 3515, DOI 10.17487/RFC3515, April 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,
            <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,
            <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5627>.
 [RFC6665]  Roach, A.B., "SIP-Specific Event Notification", RFC 6665,
            DOI 10.17487/RFC6665, July 2012,
            <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6665>.
 [RFC7621]  Roach, A.B., "A Clarification on the Use of Globally
            Routable User Agent URIs (GRUUs) in 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,
            <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, <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,
            <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>.

Sparks & Roach Standards Track [Page 5] RFC 7647 Refer Clarifications September 2015

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
 United States
 Email: rjsparks@nostrum.com
 Adam Roach
 Mozilla
 Dallas, TX
 United States
 Phone: +1 650 903 0800 x863
 Email: adam@nostrum.com

Sparks & Roach Standards Track [Page 6]

/data/webs/external/dokuwiki/data/pages/rfc/rfc7647.txt · Last modified: 2015/09/25 21:30 by 127.0.0.1

Donate Powered by PHP Valid HTML5 Valid CSS Driven by DokuWiki