[Docs] [txt|pdf|xml|html] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits] [IPR]

Versions: (draft-jones-insipid-session-id) 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 RFC 7989

Network Working Group                                           P. Jones
Internet-Draft                                              G. Salgueiro
Obsoletes: 7329 (if approved)                                  C. Pearce
Intended status: Standards Track                               P. Giralt
Expires: February 19, 2017                           Cisco Systems, Inc.
                                                         August 18, 2016


 End-to-End Session Identification in IP-Based Multimedia Communication
                                Networks
                    draft-ietf-insipid-session-id-27

Abstract

   This document describes an end-to-end Session Identifier for use in
   IP-based multimedia communication systems that enables endpoints,
   intermediary devices, and management systems to identify a session
   end-to-end, associate multiple endpoints with a given multipoint
   conference, track communication sessions when they are redirected,
   and associate one or more media flows with a given communication
   session.  While the identifier is intended to work across multiple
   protocols, this document describes its usage in SIP.

   This document also describes a backwards compatibility mechanism for
   an existing session identifier implementation (RFC 7329) that is
   sufficiently different from the procedures defined in this document.

   This document obsoletes RFC 7329.

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

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on February 19, 2017.






Jones, et al.           Expires February 19, 2017               [Page 1]


Internet-Draft            End-To-End Session ID              August 2016


Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2016 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.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   2.  Conventions used in this document . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   3.  Session Identifier Definitions, Requirements, and Use Cases .   4
   4.  Constructing and Conveying the Session Identifier . . . . . .   4
     4.1.  Constructing the Session Identifier . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     4.2.  Conveying the Session Identifier  . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   5.  The Session-ID Header Field . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   6.  Endpoint Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   7.  Processing by Intermediaries  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   8.  Handling of Remote UUID Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   9.  Associating Endpoints in a Multipoint Conference  . . . . . .  15
   10. Examples of Various Call Flow Operations  . . . . . . . . . .  16
     10.1.  Basic Call with 2 UUIDs  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
     10.2.  Basic Call Transfer using REFER  . . . . . . . . . . . .  20
     10.3.  Basic Call Transfer using re-INVITE  . . . . . . . . . .  22
     10.4.  Single Focus Conferencing  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  24
     10.5.  Single Focus Conferencing using a web-based conference
            service  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  26
     10.6.  Cascading Conference Bridges . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  28
       10.6.1.  Establishing a Cascaded Conference . . . . . . . . .  28
       10.6.2.  Calling into Cascaded Conference Bridges . . . . . .  29
     10.7.  Basic 3PCC for two UAs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  30
     10.8.  Handling in 100 Trying SIP Response and CANCEL Request .  31
       10.8.1.  Handling in a 100 Trying SIP Response  . . . . . . .  31
       10.8.2.  Handling a CANCEL SIP Request  . . . . . . . . . . .  33
     10.9.  Out-of-dialog REFER Transaction  . . . . . . . . . . . .  34
   11. Compatibility with a Previous Implementation  . . . . . . . .  35
   12. Security and Privacy Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . .  36
   13. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  38
     13.1.  Registration of the "Session-ID" Header Field  . . . . .  38
     13.2.  Registration of the "remote" Parameter . . . . . . . . .  38



Jones, et al.           Expires February 19, 2017               [Page 2]


Internet-Draft            End-To-End Session ID              August 2016


   14. Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  38
   15. Dedication  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  38
   16. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  39
     16.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  39
     16.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  40
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  41

1.  Introduction

   IP-based multimedia communication systems such as Session Initiation
   Protocol (SIP) [RFC3261] and [H.323] have the concept of a "call
   identifier" that is globally unique.  The identifier is intended to
   represent an end-to-end communication session from the originating
   device to the terminating device.  Such an identifier is useful for
   troubleshooting, session tracking, and so forth.

   For several reasons, however, the current call identifiers defined in
   SIP and H.323 are not suitable for end-to-end session identification.
   A fundamental issue in protocol interworking is the fact that the
   syntax for the call identifier in SIP and H.323 is different.  Thus,
   if both protocols are used in a call, it is impossible to exchange
   the call identifier end-to-end.

   Another reason why the current call identifiers are not suitable to
   identify a session end-to-end is that, in real-world deployments,
   devices such as session border controllers [RFC7092] often change the
   session signaling, including the value of the call identifier, as it
   passes through the device.  While this is deliberate and useful, it
   makes it very difficult to track a session end-to-end.

   This document defines a new identifier, referred to as the Session
   Identifier, that is intended to overcome the issues that exist with
   the currently defined call identifiers used in SIP and other IP-based
   communication systems.  The identifier defined here has been adopted
   by the ITU ([H.460.27]) for use in H.323-based systems, allowing for
   the ability to trace a session end-to-end for sessions traversing
   both SIP and H.323-based systems.  This document defines its use in
   SIP.

   The procedures specified in this document attempt to comply with the
   requirements specified in [RFC7206].  The procedures also specify
   capabilities not mentioned in [RFC7206], shown in call flows in
   section 10.  Additionally, the specification attempts to account for
   a previous, pre-standard version of a SIP Session Identifier header
   [RFC7329], specifying a backwards compatibility approach in section
   11.





Jones, et al.           Expires February 19, 2017               [Page 3]


Internet-Draft            End-To-End Session ID              August 2016


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] when they
   appear in ALL CAPS.  These words may also appear in this document in
   lower case as plain English words, absent their normative meanings.

   The term "Session Identifier" refers to the value of the identifier,
   whereas "Session-ID" refers to the header field used to convey the
   identifier.  The Session Identifier is a set of two Universally
   Unique Identifiers (UUIDs) and each element of that set is simply
   referred to herein as a UUID.

   Throughout this document, the term "endpoint" refers to a SIP User
   Agent (UA) that either initiates or terminates a SIP session, such as
   a user's mobile phone or a conference server, but excludes entities
   such as Back-to-Back User Agents (B2BUAs) that are generally located
   along the call signaling path between endpoints.  The term
   "intermediary" refers to any entity along the call signaling path
   between the aforementioned endpoints, including B2BUAs and SIP
   proxies.  In certain scenarios, intermediaries are allowed to
   originate and terminate SIP messages without an endpoint being part
   of the session or transaction.  An intermediary may be performing
   interworking between different protocols (e.g.  SIP and H.323) that
   support the Session Identifier defined in this document.

3.  Session Identifier Definitions, Requirements, and Use Cases

   Requirements and use cases for the end-to-end Session Identifier,
   along with the definition of "session identifier", "communication
   session", and "end-to-end" can be found in [RFC7206].  Throughout
   this document, the term "session" refers to a "communication session"
   as defined in [RFC7206].

   As mentioned in section 6.1 of [RFC7206], the ITU-T undertook a
   parallel effort to define compatible procedures for an H.323 Session
   Identifier.  They are documented in [H.460.27].

4.  Constructing and Conveying the Session Identifier

4.1.  Constructing the Session Identifier

   The Session Identifier comprises two UUIDs [RFC4122], with each UUID
   representing one of the endpoints participating in the session.

   The version number in the UUID indicates the manner in which the UUID
   is generated, such as using random values or using the MAC address of



Jones, et al.           Expires February 19, 2017               [Page 4]


Internet-Draft            End-To-End Session ID              August 2016


   the endpoint.  To satisfy the requirement that no user or device
   information be conveyed, endpoints MUST generate version 4 (random)
   or version 5 (SHA-1) UUIDs to address privacy concerns related to use
   of MAC addresses in UUIDs.

   When generating a version 5 UUID, endpoints or intermediaries MUST
   utilize the procedures defined in Section 4.3 of [RFC4122] and employ
   the following "name space ID":

       uuid_t NameSpace_SessionID = {
           /* a58587da-c93d-11e2-ae90-f4ea67801e29 */
           0xa58587da,
           0xc93d,
           0x11e2,
           0xae, 0x90, 0xf4, 0xea, 0x67, 0x80, 0x1e, 0x29
       };

   Further, the "name" to utilize for version 5 UUIDs is the
   concatenation of the Call-ID header-value and the "tag" parameter
   that appears on the "From" or "To" line associated with the device
   for which the UUID is created.  Once an endpoint generates a UUID for
   a session, the UUID never changes, even if values originally used as
   input into its construction change over time.

   Stateless intermediaries that insert a Session-ID header field into a
   SIP message on behalf of an endpoint MUST utilize version 5 UUIDs to
   ensure that UUIDs for the communication session are consistently
   generated.  If a stateless intermediary does not know the tag value
   for the endpoint (e.g., a new INVITE without a To: tag value or an
   older SIP implementation [RFC2543] that did not include a tag
   parameter), the intermediary MUST NOT attempt to generate a UUID for
   that endpoint.  Note that if an intermediary is stateless and the
   endpoint on one end of the call is replaced with another endpoint due
   to some service interaction, the values used to create the UUID
   should change and, if so, the intermediary will compute a different
   UUID.

4.2.  Conveying the Session Identifier

   The SIP User Agent (UA) initiating a new session by transmitting a
   SIP request ("Alice"), i.e., a User Agent Client (UAC), MUST create a
   new, previously unused, UUID and transmit that to the ultimate
   destination UA ("Bob").  Likewise, the destination UA ("Bob"), i.e.,
   a User Agent Server (UAS), MUST create a new, previously unused, UUID
   and transmit that to the first UA ("Alice").  These two distinct
   UUIDs form what is referred to as the Session Identifier and is
   represented in this document in set notation of the form {A,B}, where
   "A" is UUID value created by UA "Alice" and "B" is the UUID value



Jones, et al.           Expires February 19, 2017               [Page 5]


Internet-Draft            End-To-End Session ID              August 2016


   created by UA "Bob".  The Session Identifier {A,B} is equal to the
   Session Identifier {B,A}. Section 6 describes how the UUIDs selected
   by the source and destination UAs persist for the duration of the
   session.

   In the case where only one UUID is known, such as when a UA first
   initiates a potentially dialog-initiating SIP request, the Session
   Identifier would be {A,N}, where "A" represents the UUID value
   transmitted by the UA "Alice" and "N" is what is referred to as the
   nil UUID [RFC4122] (see section 5).

   Since SIP sessions are subject to any number of service interactions,
   SIP INVITE messages might be forked as sessions are established, and
   since conferences might be established or expanded with endpoints
   calling in or the conference focus calling out, the construction of
   the Session Identifier as a set of UUIDs is important.

   To understand this better, consider that an endpoint participating in
   a communication session might be replaced with another, such as the
   case where two "legs" of a call are joined together by a Private
   Branch Exchange (PBX).  Suppose "Alice" and "Bob" both call UA C
   ("Carol").  There would be two distinctly identifiable Session
   Identifiers, namely {A,C} and {B,C}.  Then suppose that "Carol" uses
   a local PBX function to join the call between herself and "Alice"
   with the call between herself and "Bob", resulting in a single
   remaining call between "Alice" and "Bob".  This merged call can be
   identified using two UUID values assigned by each entity in the
   communication session, namely {A,B} in this example.

   In the case of forking, "Alice" might send an INVITE that gets forked
   to several different endpoints.  A means of identifying each of these
   separate communication sessions is needed and, since each of the
   destination UAs will create its own UUID, each communication session
   would be uniquely identified by the values {A, B1}, {A, B2}, {A, B3},
   and so on, where each of the Bn values refers to the UUID created by
   the different UAs to which the SIP session is forked.

   For conferencing scenarios, it is also useful to have a two-part
   Session Identifier where the conference focus specifies the same UUID
   for each conference participant.  This allows for correlation among
   the participants in a single conference.  For example, in a
   conference with three participants, the Session Identifiers might be
   {A,M}, {B,M}, and {C,M}, where "M" is assigned by the conference
   focus.  Only a conference focus will purposely utilize the same UUID
   for more than one SIP session and, even then, such reuse MUST be
   restricted to the participants in the same conference.





Jones, et al.           Expires February 19, 2017               [Page 6]


Internet-Draft            End-To-End Session ID              August 2016


   How a device acting on Session Identifiers processes or utilizes the
   Session Identifier is outside the scope of this document, however
   devices storing a Session Identifier in a log file SHOULD follow the
   security considerations outlined in [RFC6872].  Note that the primary
   intent of a Session Identifier is for troubleshooting and should
   therefore be included in logs at rest that will be used for
   troubleshooting purposes.

5.  The Session-ID Header Field

   This document replaces the definition of the "Session-ID" token that
   was added to the definition of the element "message-header" in the
   SIP message grammar by [RFC7329].  The Session-ID header is a single-
   instance header.

   Each endpoint participating in a communication session has a
   distinct, preferably locally-generated, UUID associated with it.  The
   endpoint's UUID value remains unchanged throughout the duration of
   the communication session.  Multipoint conferences can bridge
   sessions from multiple endpoints and impose unique requirements
   defined in Section 9.  An intermediary MAY generate a UUID on behalf
   of an endpoint that did not include a UUID of its own.

   The UUID values for each endpoint are inserted into the "Session-ID"
   header field of all transmitted SIP messages.  The Session-ID header
   field has the following ABNF [RFC5234] syntax:

     session-id          = "Session-ID" HCOLON session-id-value

     session-id-value    = local-uuid *(SEMI sess-id-param)

     local-uuid          = sess-uuid / nil

     remote-uuid         = sess-uuid / nil

     sess-uuid           = 32(DIGIT / %x61-66)  ;32 chars of [0-9a-f]

     sess-id-param       = remote-param / generic-param

     remote-param        = "remote" EQUAL remote-uuid

     nil                 = 32("0")

   The productions "SEMI", "EQUAL", and "generic-param" are defined in
   [RFC3261].  The production DIGIT is defined in [RFC5234].

   The Session-ID header field MUST NOT have more than one "remote"
   parameter.  In the case where an entity compliant with this



Jones, et al.           Expires February 19, 2017               [Page 7]


Internet-Draft            End-To-End Session ID              August 2016


   specification is interworking with an entity that implemented
   [RFC7329], the "remote" parameter may be absent, but otherwise the
   remote parameter MUST be present.  The details under which those
   conditions apply are described in Section 11.  Except for backwards
   compatibility with [RFC7329], the "remote" parameter MUST be present.

   A special nil UUID value composed of 32 zeros is required in certain
   situations.  A nil UUID is expected as the "remote-uuid" of every
   initial standard SIP request since the initiating endpoint would not
   initially know the UUID value of the remote endpoint.  This nil value
   will get replaced by the ultimate destination UAS when that UAS
   generates a response message.  One caveat is explained in Section 11
   for a possible backwards compatibility case.  A nil UUID value is
   also returned by some intermediary devices that send provisional or
   other responses as the "local-uuid" component of the Session-ID
   header field value, as described in Section 7.

   The "local-uuid" in the Session-ID header field represents the UUID
   value of the endpoint transmitting a message and the "remote-uuid" in
   the Session-ID header field represents the UUID of the endpoint's
   peer.  For example, a Session-ID header field might appear like this:

     Session-ID: ab30317f1a784dc48ff824d0d3715d86;
                 remote=47755a9de7794ba387653f2099600ef2

   While this is the general form of the Session-ID header field,
   exceptions to syntax and procedures are detailed in subsequent
   sections.

   The UUID values are presented as strings of lowercase hexadecimal
   characters, with the most significant octet of the UUID appearing
   first.

6.  Endpoint Behavior

   To comply with this specification, endpoints (non-intermediaries)
   MUST include a Session-ID header field value in all SIP messages
   transmitted as a part of a communication session.  The locally-
   generated UUID of the transmitter of the message MUST appear in the
   "local-uuid" portion of the Session-ID header field value.  The UUID
   of the peer device, if known, MUST appear as the "remote" parameter
   following the transmitter's UUID.  The nil UUID value MUST be used if
   the peer device's UUID is not known.

   Once an endpoint allocates a UUID value for a communication session,
   the endpoint originating the request MUST NOT change that UUID value
   for the duration of the session, including when




Jones, et al.           Expires February 19, 2017               [Page 8]


Internet-Draft            End-To-End Session ID              August 2016


   o  communication attempts are retried due to receipt of 4xx messages
      or request timeouts;

   o  the session is redirected in response to a 3xx message;

   o  a session is transferred via a REFER message [RFC3515]; or

   o  a SIP dialog is replaced via an INVITE with Replaces [RFC3891].

   An endpoint that receives a Session-ID header field MUST take note of
   any non-nil "local-uuid" value that it receives and assume that is
   the UUID of the peer endpoint within that communications session.
   Endpoints MUST include this received UUID value as the "remote"
   parameter when transmitting subsequent messages, making sure not to
   change this UUID value in the process of moving the value internally
   from the "local-uuid" field to the "remote-uuid" field.

   If an endpoint receives a 3xx message, receives a REFER that directs
   the endpoint to a different peer, or receives an INVITE with Replaces
   that also potentially results in communicating with a new peer, the
   endpoint MUST complete any message exchanges with its current peer
   using the existing Session Identifier, but MUST NOT use the current
   peer's UUID value when sending the first message to what it believes
   may be a new peer endpoint (even if the exchange results in
   communicating with the same physical or logical entity).  The
   endpoint MUST retain its own UUID value, however, as described above.

   It should be noted that messages received by an endpoint might
   contain a "local-uuid" value that does not match what the endpoint
   expected its peer's UUID to be.  It is also possible for an endpoint
   to receive a "remote-uuid" value that does not match its generated
   UUID for the session.  Either might happen as a result of service
   interactions by intermediaries and MUST NOT affect how the endpoint
   processes the session; however, the endpoint may log this event for
   troubleshooting purposes.

   An endpoint MUST assume that the UUID value of the peer endpoint may
   change at any time due to service interactions.  Section 8 discusses
   how endpoints must handle remote UUID changes.

   It is also important to note that if an intermediary in the network
   forks a session, the endpoint initiating a session may receive
   multiple responses back from different endpoints, each of which
   contains a different UUID ("local-uuid") value.  Endpoints MUST
   ensure that the correct UUID value is returned in the "remote"
   parameter when interacting with each endpoint.  The one exception is
   when the endpoint sends a CANCEL message, in which case the Session-




Jones, et al.           Expires February 19, 2017               [Page 9]


Internet-Draft            End-To-End Session ID              August 2016


   ID header field value MUST be identical to the Session-ID header
   field value sent in the original request.

   If an endpoint receives a message that does not contain a Session-ID
   header field, that message must have no effect on what the endpoint
   believes is the UUID value of the remote endpoint.  That is, the
   endpoint MUST NOT change the internally maintained "remote-uuid"
   value for the peer.

   If an endpoint receives a SIP response with a non-nil "local-uuid"
   that is not 32 octets long, this response comes from a misbehaving
   implementation, and its Session-ID header field MUST be discarded.
   That said, the response might still be valid according to the rules
   within SIP [RFC3261], and SHOULD be checked further.

   A Multipoint Control Unit (MCU) is a special type of conferencing
   endpoint and is discussed in Section 9.

7.  Processing by Intermediaries

   The following applies only to an intermediary that wishes to comply
   with this specification and does not impose a conformance requirement
   on intermediaries that elect to not provide any special treatment for
   the Session-ID header field.  Intermediaries that do not comply with
   this specification might pass the header unchanged or drop it
   entirely.

   The Call-ID often reveals personal, device, domain or other sensitive
   information associated with a user, which is one reason why
   intermediaries, such as session border controllers, sometimes alter
   the Call-ID.  In order to ensure the integrity of the end-to-end
   Session Identifier, it is constructed in a way which does not reveal
   such information, removing the need for intermediaries to alter it.

   When an intermediary receives messages from one endpoint in a
   communication session that causes the transmission of one or more
   messages toward the second endpoint in a communication session, the
   intermediary MUST include the Session-ID header field in the
   transmitted messages with the same UUID values found in the received
   message, except as outlined in this section and in section 8.

   If the intermediary aggregates several responses from different
   endpoints, as described in Section 16.7 of [RFC3261], the
   intermediary MUST set the local-uuid field to the nil UUID value when
   forwarding the aggregated response to the endpoint since the true
   UUID value of the peer is undetermined at that point.  Note that an
   intermediary that does not implement this specification might forward
   a non-nil value, resulting in the originating endpoint receiving



Jones, et al.           Expires February 19, 2017              [Page 10]


Internet-Draft            End-To-End Session ID              August 2016


   different UUID values in the responses.  It is possible for this to
   result in the endpoint temporarily using the wrong remote UUID.
   Subsequent messages in the dialog should resolve the temporary
   mismatch as long as the endpoint follows the rules outlined in
   Section 8 dealing with the handling of remote UUID changes.

   Intermediary devices that transfer a call, such as by joining
   together two different "call legs", MUST properly construct a
   Session-ID header field that contains the UUID values associated with
   the endpoints involved in the joined session and correct placement of
   those values.  As described in Section 6, the endpoint receiving a
   message transmitted by the intermediary will assume that the first
   UUID value belongs to its peer endpoint.

   If an intermediary receives a SIP message without a Session-ID header
   field or valid header field value from an endpoint for which the
   intermediary is not storing a "remote-uuid" value, the intermediary
   MAY assign a "local-uuid" value to represent that endpoint and,
   having done so, MUST insert that assigned value into all signaling
   messages on behalf of the endpoint for that dialog.  In effect, the
   intermediary becomes dialog stateful and it MUST follow the endpoint
   procedures in Section 6 with respect to Session-ID header field value
   treatment with itself acting as the endpoint (for the purposes of the
   Session-ID header field) for which it inserted a component into the
   Session-ID header field value.  If the intermediary is aware of the
   UUID value that identifies the endpoint to which a message is
   directed, it MUST insert that UUID value into the Session-ID header
   field value as the "remote-uuid" value.  If the intermediary is
   unaware of the UUID value that identifies the receiving endpoint, it
   MUST use the nil UUID value as the "remote-uuid" value.

   If an intermediary receives a SIP message without a Session-ID header
   field or valid Session-ID header field value from an endpoint for
   which the intermediary has previously received a Session-ID and is
   storing a "remote-uuid" value for that endpoint, the lack of a
   Session-ID must have no effect on what the intermediary believes is
   the UUID value of the endpoint.  That is, the intermediary MUST NOT
   change the internally maintained "remote-uuid" value for the peer.

   When an intermediary originates a response, such as a provisional
   response or a response to a CANCEL request, the "remote-uuid" field
   will contain the UUID value of the receiving endpoint.  When the UUID
   of the peer endpoint is known, the intermediary MUST insert the UUID
   of the peer endpoint in the "local-uuid" field of the header value.
   Otherwise, the intermediary MAY set the "local-uuid" field of the
   header value to the "nil" UUID value.





Jones, et al.           Expires February 19, 2017              [Page 11]


Internet-Draft            End-To-End Session ID              August 2016


   When an intermediary originates a request message without first
   having received a SIP message that triggered the transmission of the
   message (e.g., sending a BYE message to terminate a call for policy
   reasons), the intermediary MUST, if it has knowledge of the UUID
   values for the two communicating endpoints, insert a Session-ID
   header field with the "remote-uuid" field of the header value set to
   the UUID value of the receiving endpoint and the "local-uuid" field
   of the header value set to the UUID value of the other endpoint.
   When the intermediary does not have knowledge of the UUID value of an
   endpoint in the communication session, the intermediary SHOULD set
   the unknown UUID value(s) to the "nil" UUID value.  (If both are
   unknown, the Session-ID header value SHOULD NOT be included at all,
   since it would have no practical value.)

   With respect to the previous two paragraphs, note that if an
   intermediary transmits a "nil" UUID value, the receiving endpoint
   might use that value in subsequent messages it sends.  This
   effectively violates the requirement of maintaining an end-to-end
   Session Identifier value for the communication session if a UUID for
   the peer endpoint had been previously conveyed.  Therefore, an
   intermediary MUST only send the "nil" UUID when the intermediary has
   not communicated with the peer endpoint to learn its UUID.  This
   means that intermediaries SHOULD maintain state related to the UUID
   values for both ends of a communication session if it intends to
   originate messages (versus merely conveying messages).  An
   intermediary that does not maintain this state and that originates a
   message as described in the previous two paragraphs MUST NOT insert a
   Session-ID header field in order to avoid unintended, incorrect
   reassignment of a UUID value.

   The Session-ID header field value included in a CANCEL request MUST
   be identical to the Session-ID header field value included in the
   corresponding request being cancelled.

   If a SIP intermediary initiates a dialog between two endpoints in a
   third-party call control (3PCC [RFC3725]) scenario, the SIP request
   in the initial INVITE will have a non-nil, locally-fabricated "local-
   uuid" value; call this temporary UUID X.  The request will still have
   a nil "remote-uuid" value; call this value N.  The SIP server MUST be
   transaction stateful.  The UUID pair in the INVITE will be {X,N}.  A
   1xx or 2xx response will have a UUID pair {A,X}.  This transaction
   stateful, dialog initiating SIP server MUST replace its own UUID,
   i.e., X, with a nil UUID (i.e., {A,N}) in the INVITE sent towards the
   other UAS as expected (see Section 10.7 for an example).

   Intermediaries that manipulate messages containing a Session-ID
   header field SHOULD be aware of what UUID values it last sent towards
   an endpoint and, following any kind of service interaction initiated



Jones, et al.           Expires February 19, 2017              [Page 12]


Internet-Draft            End-To-End Session ID              August 2016


   or affected by the intermediary, of what UUID values the receiving
   endpoint should have knowledge to ensure that both endpoints in the
   session have the correct and same UUID values.  If an intermediary
   can determine that an endpoint might not have received a current,
   correct Session-ID field, the intermediary SHOULD attempt to provide
   the correct Session-ID header field to the endpoint such as by
   sending a re-INVITE message.  Failure to take such measures may make
   troubleshooting more difficult because of the mismatched identifiers,
   therefore it is strongly advised that intermediaries attempt to
   provide the correct Session Identifier if it able to do so.

   If an intermediary receives a SIP response with a non-nil "local-
   uuid" that is not 32 octets long, this response comes from a
   misbehaving implementation, and its Session-ID header field MUST be
   discarded.  That said, the response might still be valid according to
   the rules within SIP [RFC3261], and SHOULD be checked further.

   An intermediary MUST assume that the UUID value of session peers may
   change at any time due to service interactions and MAY itself change
   UUID values for sessions under its control to ensure end to end
   session identifiers are consistent for all participants in a session.
   Section 8 discusses how intermediaries must handle remote UUID
   changes if they maintain state of the session identifier.

   An intermediary may perform protocol interworking between different
   IP-based communications systems, e.g. interworking between H.323 and
   SIP.  If the intermediary supports the Session Identifier for both
   protocols for which it is interworking, it SHOULD pass the identifier
   between the two call legs to maintain an end-to-end identifier
   regardless of protocol.

8.  Handling of Remote UUID Changes

   It is desirable to have all endpoints and intermediaries involved in
   a session agree upon the current session identifier when these
   changes occur.  Due to race conditions or certain interworking
   scenarios, it is not always possible to guarantee session identifier
   consistency; however, in an attempt to ensure the highest likelihood
   of consistency, all endpoints and intermediaries involved in a
   session MUST accept a peer's new UUID under the following conditions:

   o  When an endpoint or intermediary receives a mid-dialog request
      containing a new UUID from a peer, all responses to that request
      MUST contain the new UUID value as the "remote" parameter unless a
      subsequent successful transaction (for example, an UPDATE)
      contains a different UUID, in which case the newest UUID MUST be
      used.




Jones, et al.           Expires February 19, 2017              [Page 13]


Internet-Draft            End-To-End Session ID              August 2016


   o  If an endpoint or intermediary sends a successful (2xx) or
      redirection (3xx) response to the request containing the new UUID
      value, the endpoint or intermediary MUST accept the peer's UUID
      and include this new UUID as the "remote" parameter for any
      subsequent messages unless the UUID from a subsequent transaction
      has already been accepted.  The one exception is a CANCEL request
      as outlined below.

   o  If the endpoint or intermediary sends a failure (4xx, 5xx, 6xx)
      response, it MUST NOT accept the new UUID value and any subsequent
      messages MUST contain the previously stored UUID value in the
      "remote" parameter for any subsequent message.  Note that the
      failure response itself will contain the new UUID value from the
      request in the "remote" parameter.

   o  The ACK method is a special case as there is no response.  When an
      endpoint or intermediary receives an ACK for a successful (2xx) or
      redirection (3xx) response with a new UUID value, it MUST accept
      the peer's new UUID value and include this new UUID as the
      "remote" parameter for any subsequent messages.  If the ACK is for
      a failure (4xx, 5xx, 6xx) response, the new value MUST NOT be
      used.

   o  As stated in Section 6 and Section 7, the Session-ID header field
      value included in a CANCEL request MUST be identical to the
      Session-ID header field value included in the corresponding
      INVITE.  Upon receiving a CANCEL request, an endpoint or
      intermediary would normally send a Request Terminated (487 - see
      Section 15.1.2 of [RFC3261]) response which, by the rules outlined
      above, would result in the endpoint or intermediary not storing
      any UUID value contained in the CANCEL.  Section 3.8 of [RFC6141]
      specifies conditions where a CANCEL can result in 2xx response.
      Because CANCEL is not passed end-to-end and will always contain
      the UUID from the original INVITE, retaining a new UUID value
      received in a CANCEL may result in inconsistency with the Session-
      ID value stored on the endpoints and intermediaries involved in
      the session.  To avoid this situation, an endpoint or intermediary
      MUST NOT accept the new UUID value received in a CANCEL and any
      subsequent messages MUST contain the previously stored UUID value
      in the "remote" parameter".  Note that the response to the CANCEL
      will contain the UUID value from the CANCEL request in the
      "remote" parameter.

   o  When an endpoint or intermediary receives a response containing a
      new UUID from a peer, the endpoint or intermediary MUST accept the
      new UUID as the peer's UUID and include this new UUID as the
      "remote" parameter for any subsequent messages.




Jones, et al.           Expires February 19, 2017              [Page 14]


Internet-Draft            End-To-End Session ID              August 2016


   When an intermediary accepts a new UUID from a peer, the intermediary
   SHOULD attempt to provide the correct Session-ID header field to
   other endpoints involved in the session, for example, by sending a
   re-INVITE message.  If an intermediary receives a message with a
   "remote" parameter in the session identifier that does not match the
   updated UUID, the intermediary MUST update the "remote" parameter
   with the latest stored UUID.

   If an intermediary is performing interworking between two different
   protocols that both support the Session Identifier defined in this
   document (e.g.  SIP to H.323), UUID changes SHOULD be communicated
   between protocols to maintain the end-to-end session identifier.

9.  Associating Endpoints in a Multipoint Conference

   Multipoint Control Units (MCUs) group two or more sessions into a
   single multipoint conference and have a conference Focus responsible
   for maintaining the dialogs connected to it [RFC4353].  MCUs,
   including cascaded MCUs, MUST utilize the same UUID value ("local-
   uuid" portion of the Session-ID header field value) with all
   participants in the conference.  In so doing, each individual session
   in the conference will have a unique Session Identifier (since each
   endpoint will create a unique UUID of its own), but will also have
   one UUID in common with all other participants in the conference.

   When creating a cascaded conference, an MCU MUST convey the UUID
   value to utilize for a conference via the "local-uuid" portion of the
   Session-ID header field value in an INVITE to a second MCU when using
   SIP to establish the cascaded conference.  A conference bridge, or
   MCU, needs a way to identify itself when contacting another MCU.
   [RFC4579] defines the "isfocus" Contact header field value parameter
   just for this purpose.  The initial MCU MUST include the UUID of that
   particular conference in the "local-uuid" of an INVITE to the other
   MCU(s) participating in that conference.  Also included in this
   INVITE is an "isfocus" Contact header field value parameter
   identifying that this INVITE is coming from an MCU and that this UUID
   is to be given out in all responses from endpoints into those MCUs
   participating in this same conference.  This ensures a single UUID is
   common across all participating MCUs of the same conference, but is
   unique between different conferences.

   In the case where two existing conferences are joined, there should
   be a session between the two MCUs where the Session Identifier is
   comprised of the UUID values of the two conferences.  This Session
   Identifier can be used to correlate the sessions between participants
   in the joined conference.  This specification does not impose any
   additional requirements when two existing conferences are joined.




Jones, et al.           Expires February 19, 2017              [Page 15]


Internet-Draft            End-To-End Session ID              August 2016


   Intermediary devices or network diagnostics equipment might assume
   that when they see two or more sessions with different Session
   Identifiers, but with one UUID in common, that the sessions are part
   of the same conference.  However, the assumption that two sessions
   having one common UUID being part of the same conference is not
   always correct.  In a SIP forking scenario, for example, there might
   also be what appears to be multiple sessions with a shared UUID
   value; this is intended.  The desire is to allow for the association
   of related sessions, regardless of whether a session is forked or
   part of a conference.

10.  Examples of Various Call Flow Operations

   Seeing something frequently makes understanding easier.  With that in
   mind, this section includes several call flow examples with the
   initial UUID and the complete Session Identifier indicated per
   message, as well as when the Session Identifier changes according to
   the rules within this document during certain operations/functions.

   This section is for illustrative purposes only and is non-normative.
   In the following flows, RTP refers to the Real-time Transport
   Protocol [RFC3550].

   In the examples in this section, "N" represents a nil UUID and other
   letters represents the unique UUID values corresponding to endpoints
   or MCUs.

10.1.  Basic Call with 2 UUIDs

   Session-ID
     ---     Alice            B2BUA             Bob            Carol
    {A,N}      |---INVITE F1--->|                |
    {A,N}      |                |---INVITE F2--->|
    {B,A}      |                |<---200 OK F3---|
    {B,A}      |<---200 OK F4---|                |
    {A,B}      |-----ACK F5---->|                |
    {A,B}      |                |-----ACK F6---->|
               |<==============RTP==============>|

            Figure 1: Session-ID Creation when Alice calls Bob

   General operation of this example:

   o  UA-Alice populates the "local-uuid" portion of the Session-ID
      header field value.

   o  UA-Alice sends its UUID in the SIP INVITE, and populates the
      "remote" parameter with a nil value (32 zeros).



Jones, et al.           Expires February 19, 2017              [Page 16]


Internet-Draft            End-To-End Session ID              August 2016


   o  B2BUA receives an INVITE with both a "local-uuid" portion of the
      Session-ID header field value from UA-Alice as well as the nil
      "remote-uuid" value, and transmits the INVITE towards UA-Bob with
      an unchanged Session-ID header field value.

   o  UA-Bob receives Session-ID and generates its "local-uuid" portion
      of the Session-ID header field value UUID to construct the whole/
      complete Session-ID header field value, at the same time
      transferring Alice's UUID unchanged to the "remote-uuid" portion
      of the Session-ID header field value in the 200 OK SIP response.

   o  B2BUA receives the 200 OK response with a complete Session-ID
      header field value from UA-Bob, and transmits 200 OK towards UA-
      Alice with an unchanged Session-ID header field value.

   o  UA-Alice, upon reception of the 200 OK from the B2BUA, transmits
      the ACK towards the B2BUA.  The construction of the Session-ID
      header field in this ACK is that of Alice's UUID is the "local-
      uuid", and Bob's UUID populates the "remote-uuid" portion of the
      header-value.

   o  B2BUA receives the ACK with a complete Session-ID header field
      from UA-Alice, and transmits ACK towards UA-Bob with an unchanged
      Session-ID header field value.

   Below is a SIP message exchange illustrating proper use of the
   Session-ID header field.  For the sake of brevity, non-essential
   headers and message bodies are omitted.


   F1 INVITE Alice -> B2BUA

   INVITE sip:bob@biloxi.example.com SIP/2.0
   Via: SIP/2.0/UDP pc33.atlanta.example.com
    ;branch=z9hG4bK776asdhds
   Max-Forwards: 70
   To: Bob <sip:bob@biloxi.example.com>
   From: Alice <sip:alice@atlanta.example.com>;tag=1928301774
   Call-ID: a84b4c76e66710@pc33.atlanta.example.com
   Session-ID: ab30317f1a784dc48ff824d0d3715d86
    ;remote=00000000000000000000000000000000
   CSeq: 314159 INVITE
   Contact: <sip:alice@pc33.atlanta.example.com>
   Content-Type: application/sdp
   Content-Length: 142

   (Alice's SDP not shown)




Jones, et al.           Expires February 19, 2017              [Page 17]


Internet-Draft            End-To-End Session ID              August 2016


   F2 INVITE B2BUA -> Bob

   INVITE sip:bob@192.168.10.20 SIP/2.0
   Via: SIP/2.0/UDP server10.biloxi.example.com
    ;branch=z9hG4bK4b43c2ff8.1
   Via: SIP/2.0/UDP pc33.atlanta.example.com
    ;branch=z9hG4bK776asdhds;received=10.1.3.33
   Max-Forwards: 69
   To: Bob <sip:bob@biloxi.example.com>
   From: Alice <sip:alice@atlanta.example.com>;tag=1928301774
   Call-ID: a84b4c76e66710@pc33.atlanta.example.com
   Session-ID: ab30317f1a784dc48ff824d0d3715d86
    ;remote=00000000000000000000000000000000
   CSeq: 314159 INVITE
   Contact: <sip:alice@pc33.atlanta.example.com>
   Record-Route: <sip:server10.biloxi.example.com;lr>
   Content-Type: application/sdp
   Content-Length: 142

   (Alice's SDP not shown)


   F3 200 OK Bob -> B2BUA

   SIP/2.0 200 OK
   Via: SIP/2.0/UDP server10.biloxi.example.com
    ;branch=z9hG4bK4b43c2ff8.1;received=192.168.10.1
   Via: SIP/2.0/UDP pc33.atlanta.example.com
    ;branch=z9hG4bK776asdhds;received=10.1.3.33
   To: Bob <sip:bob@biloxi.example.com>;tag=a6c85cf
   From: Alice <sip:alice@atlanta.example.com>;tag=1928301774
   Call-ID: a84b4c76e66710@pc33.atlanta.example.com
   Session-ID: 47755a9de7794ba387653f2099600ef2
    ;remote=ab30317f1a784dc48ff824d0d3715d86
   CSeq: 314159 INVITE
   Contact: <sip:bob@192.168.10.20>
   Record-Route: <sip:server10.biloxi.example.com;lr>
   Content-Type: application/sdp
   Content-Length: 131

   (Bob's SDP not shown)


   F4 200 OK B2BUA -> Alice

   SIP/2.0 200 OK
   Via: SIP/2.0/UDP pc33.atlanta.example.com
    ;branch=z9hG4bK776asdhds;received=10.1.3.33



Jones, et al.           Expires February 19, 2017              [Page 18]


Internet-Draft            End-To-End Session ID              August 2016


   To: Bob <sip:bob@biloxi.example.com>;tag=a6c85cf
   From: Alice <sip:alice@atlanta.example.com>;tag=1928301774
   Call-ID: a84b4c76e66710@pc33.atlanta.example.com
   Session-ID: 47755a9de7794ba387653f2099600ef2
    ;remote=ab30317f1a784dc48ff824d0d3715d86
   CSeq: 314159 INVITE
   Contact: <sip:bob@192.168.10.20>
   Record-Route: <sip:server10.biloxi.example.com;lr>
   Content-Type: application/sdp
   Content-Length: 131

   (Bob's SDP not shown)


   F5 ACK Alice -> B2BUA

   ACK sip:bob@192.168.10.20 SIP/2.0
   Via: SIP/2.0/UDP pc33.atlanta.example.com
    ;branch=z9hG4bKnashds8
   Route: <sip:server10.biloxi.example.com;lr>
   Max-Forwards: 70
   To: Bob <sip:bob@biloxi.example.com>;tag=a6c85cf
   From: Alice <sip:alice@atlanta.example.com>;tag=1928301774
   Call-ID: a84b4c76e66710@pc33.atlanta.example.com
   Session-ID: ab30317f1a784dc48ff824d0d3715d86
    ;remote=47755a9de7794ba387653f2099600ef2
   CSeq: 314159 ACK
   Content-Length: 0


   F6 ACK B2BUA -> Bob

   ACK sip:bob@192.168.10.20 SIP/2.0
   Via: SIP/2.0/UDP server10.biloxi.example.com
    ;branch=z9hG4bK4b43c2ff8.2
   Via: SIP/2.0/UDP pc33.atlanta.example.com
    ;branch=z9hG4bKnashds8;received=10.1.3.33
   Max-Forwards: 70
   To: Bob <sip:bob@biloxi.example.com>;tag=a6c85cf
   From: Alice <sip:alice@atlanta.example.com>;tag=1928301774
   Call-ID: a84b4c76e66710@pc33.atlanta.example.com
   Session-ID: ab30317f1a784dc48ff824d0d3715d86
    ;remote=47755a9de7794ba387653f2099600ef2
   CSeq: 314159 ACK
   Content-Length: 0






Jones, et al.           Expires February 19, 2017              [Page 19]


Internet-Draft            End-To-End Session ID              August 2016


   The remaining examples in this Section do not display the complete
   SIP message exchange.  Instead, they simply use the set notation
   described in Section 4.2 to show the Session Identifier exchange
   throughout the particular call flow being illustrated.

10.2.  Basic Call Transfer using REFER

   From the example built within Section 10.1, we proceed to this 'Basic
   Call Transfer using REFER' example.  Note that this is a mid-dialog
   REFER in contrast with the out-of-dialog REFER in Section 10.9.









































Jones, et al.           Expires February 19, 2017              [Page 20]


Internet-Draft            End-To-End Session ID              August 2016


      Session-ID
         ---     Alice            B2BUA             Bob            Carol
                   |                |                |               |
                   |<==============RTP==============>|               |
        {B,A}      |                |<---re-INVITE---|               |
        {B,A}      |<---re-INVITE---| (puts Alice on Hold)           |
        {A,B}      |-----200 OK---->|                |               |
        {A,B}      |                |-----200 OK---->|               |
        {B,A}      |                |<-----ACK-------|               |
        {B,A}      |<-----ACK-------|                |               |
                   |                |                |               |
        {B,A}      |                |<----REFER------|               |
        {B,A}      |<----REFER------|                |               |
        {A,B}      |-----200 OK---->|                |               |
        {A,B}      |                |-----200 OK---->|               |
        {A,B}      |-----NOTIFY---->|                |               |
        {A,B}      |                |-----NOTIFY---->|               |
        {B,A}      |                |<----200 OK-----|               |
        {B,A}      |<----200 OK-----|                |               |
                   |                |                |               |
        {A,N}      |-----INVITE---->|                                |
        {A,N}      |                |-----INVITE-------------------->|
        {C,A}      |                |<----200 OK---------------------|
        {C,A}      |<----200 OK-----|                                |
        {A,C}      |------ACK------>|                                |
        {A,C}      |                |------ACK---------------------->|
                   |                |                |               |
                   |<======================RTP======================>|
                   |                |                |               |
        {A,B}      |-----NOTIFY---->|                |               |
        {A,B}      |                |-----NOTIFY---->|               |
        {B,A}      |                |<----200 OK-----|               |
        {B,A}      |<----200 OK-----|                |               |
        {B,A}      |                |<-----BYE-------|               |
        {B,A}      |<-----BYE-------|                |               |
        {A,B}      |-----200 OK---->|                |               |
        {A,B}      |                |-----200 OK---->|               |
                   |                |                |               |


                    Figure 2: Call Transfer using REFER

   General operation of this example:

   Starting from the existing Alice/Bob call described in Figure 1 of
   this document, which established an existing Session-ID header field
   value:




Jones, et al.           Expires February 19, 2017              [Page 21]


Internet-Draft            End-To-End Session ID              August 2016


   o  UA-Bob requests Alice to call Carol, using a REFER transaction, as
      described in [RFC3515].  UA-Alice is initially put on hold, then
      told in the REFER who to contact with a new INVITE, in this case
      UA-Carol.  This Alice-to-Carol dialog will have a new Call-ID,
      therefore it requires a new Session-ID header field value.  The
      wrinkle here is we can, and will, use Alice's UUID from her
      existing dialog with Bob in the new INVITE to Carol.

   o  UA-Alice retains her UUID from the Alice-to-Bob call {A} when
      requesting a call with UA-Carol.  This is placed in the "local-
      uuid" portion of the Session-ID header field value, at the same
      time inserting a nil "remote-uuid" value (because Carol's UA has
      not yet received the UUID value).  This same UUID traverses the
      B2BUA unchanged.

   o  UA-Carol receives the INVITE with a Session Identifier UUID {A,N},
      replaces the A UUID value into the "remote-uuid" portion of the
      Session-ID header field value and creates its own UUID {C} and
      places this value in the "local-uuid" portion of the Session-ID
      header field value, thereby removing the N (nil) value altogether.
      This combination forms a full Session Identifier {C,A} in the 200
      OK to the INVITE.  This Session-ID header field traverses the
      B2BUA unchanged towards UA-Alice.

   o  UA-Alice receives the 200 OK with the Session Identifier {C,A} and
      responds to UA-Carol with an ACK (just as in Figure 1 - switches
      places of the two UUID fields), and generates a NOTIFY to Bob with
      a Session Identifier {A,B} indicating the call transfer was
      successful.

   o  It does not matter which UA terminates the Alice-to-Bob call;
      Figure 2 shows UA-Bob doing this transaction.

10.3.  Basic Call Transfer using re-INVITE

   From the example built within Section 10.1, we proceed to this 'Basic
   Call Transfer using re-INVITE' example.

   Alice is talking to Bob. Bob pushes a button on his phone to transfer
   Alice to Carol via the B2BUA (using re-INVITE).











Jones, et al.           Expires February 19, 2017              [Page 22]


Internet-Draft            End-To-End Session ID              August 2016


      Session-ID
         ---     Alice            B2BUA             Bob            Carol
                   |                |                |               |
                   |<==============RTP==============>|               |
                   |                |                |               |
                   |                | <--- (non-standard signaling)  |
        {A,B}      |                |---re-INVITE--->|               |
        {B,A}      |                |<-----200 OK----|               |
        {A,B}      |                |-----ACK------->|               |
                   |                |                |               |
        {A,N}      |                |-----INVITE-------------------->|
        {C,A}      |                |<----200 OK---------------------|
        {A,C}      |                |------ACK---------------------->|
                   |                |                |               |
                   |<======================RTP======================>|
                   |                |                |               |
        {A,B}      |                |------BYE------>|               |
        {B,A}      |                |<----200 OK-----|               |
                   |                |                |               |
        {C,A}      |<--re-INVITE----|                |               |
        {A,C}      |----200 OK----->|                |               |
        {C,A}      |<-----ACK-------|                |               |
                   | (Suppose Alice modifies the session)            |
        {A,C}      |---re-INVITE--->|                |               |
        {A,C}      |                |---re-INVITE------------------->|
        {C,A}      |                |<---200 OK----------------------|
        {C,A}      |<---200 OK------|                |               |
        {A,C}      |------ACK------>|                |               |
        {A,C}      |                |------ACK---------------------->|
                   |                |                |               |

                  Figure 3: Call transfer using re-INVITE

   General operation of this example:

   o  We assume the call between Alice and Bob from Section 10.1 is
      operational with Session Identifier {A,B}.

   o  Bob uses non-standard signaling to the B2BUA to initiate a call
      transfer from Alice to Carol.  This could also be initiated via a
      REFER message from Bob, but the signaling that follows might still
      be similar to the above flow.  In either case, Alice is completely
      unaware of the call transfer until a future point in time when
      Alice receives a message from Carol.

   o  The B2BUA sends a re-INVITE with the Session Identifier {"local-
      uuid" = "A", "remote-uuid" = "B"} to re-negotiate the session with
      Bob.



Jones, et al.           Expires February 19, 2017              [Page 23]


Internet-Draft            End-To-End Session ID              August 2016


   o  The B2BUA sends a new INVITE with Alice's UUID {"local-uuid" =
      "A"} to Carol.

   o  Carol receives the INVITE and accepts the request and adds her
      UUID {C} to the Session Identifier for this session {"local-uuid"
      = "C", "remote-uuid" = "A"}.

   o  The B2BUA then terminates the call to Bob with a BYE using the
      Session Identifier {"local-uuid" = "A", "remote-uuid" = "B"}.

   o  The B2BUA sends a re-INVITE to Alice to update Alice's view of the
      Session Identifier.

   o  When Alice later attempts to modify the session with a re-INVITE,
      Alice will send "remote-uuid" = "C" toward Carol because it had
      previously received the updated UUID in the re-INVITE from the
      B2BUA.  The B2BUA maintains the Session Identifier {"local-uuid" =
      "A", "remote-uuid" = "C"}. Carol replies with the "local-uuid" =
      "C", "remote-uuid" = "A" to reflect what was received in the
      INVITE (which Carol already knew from previous exchanges with the
      B2BUA).  Alice then includes "remote-uuid" = "C" in the subsequent
      ACK message.

10.4.  Single Focus Conferencing

   Multiple users call into a conference server (say, an MCU) to attend
   one of many conferences hosted on or managed by that server.  Each
   user has to identify which conference they want to join, but this
   information is not necessarily in the SIP messaging.  It might be
   done by having a dedicated address for the conference or via an IVR,
   as assumed in this example and depicted with the use of M1, M2, and
   M3.  Each user in this example goes through a two-step process of
   signaling to gain entry onto their conference call, which the
   conference focus identifies as M'.

















Jones, et al.           Expires February 19, 2017              [Page 24]


Internet-Draft            End-To-End Session ID              August 2016


      Session-ID                Conference
         ---     Alice            Focus             Bob            Carol
                   |                |                |               |
                   |                |                |               |
        {A,N}      |----INVITE----->|                |               |
        {M1,A}     |<---200 OK------|                |               |
        {A,M1}     |-----ACK------->|                |               |
                   |<====RTP=======>|                |               |
        {M',A}     |<---re-INVITE---|                |               |
        {A,M'}     |-----200 OK---->|                |               |
        {M',A}     |<-----ACK-------|                |               |
                   |                |                |               |
                   |                |                |               |
        {B,N}      |                |<----INVITE-----|               |
        {M2,B}     |                |-----200 OK---->|               |
        {B,M2}     |                |<-----ACK-------|               |
                   |                |<=====RTP======>|               |
        {M',B}     |                |---re-INVITE--->|               |
        {B,M'}     |                |<----200 OK-----|               |
        {M',B}     |                |------ACK------>|               |
                   |                |                |               |
                   |                |                |               |
        {C,N}      |                |<--------------------INVITE-----|
        {M3,C}     |                |---------------------200 OK---->|
        {C,M3}     |                |<---------------------ACK-------|
                   |                |<=====================RTP======>|
        {M',C}     |                |-------------------re-INVITE--->|
        {C,M'}     |                |<--------------------200 OK-----|
        {M',C}     |                |----------------------ACK------>|

                 Figure 4: Single Focus Conference Bridge

   General operation of this example:

   Alice calls into a conference server to attend a certain conference.
   This is a two-step operation since Alice cannot include the
   conference ID at this time and/or any passcode in the INVITE request.
   The first step is Alice's UA calling another UA to participate in a
   session.  This will appear to be similar as the call-flow in Figure 1
   (in section 10.1).  What is unique about this call is the second
   step: the conference server sends a re-INVITE request with its second
   UUID, but maintaining the UUID Alice sent in the first INVITE.  This
   subsequent UUID from the conference server will be the same for each
   UA that calls into this conference server participating in this same
   conference bridge/call, which is generated once Alice typically
   authenticates and identifies which bridge she wants to participate
   on.




Jones, et al.           Expires February 19, 2017              [Page 25]


Internet-Draft            End-To-End Session ID              August 2016


   o  Alice sends an INVITE to the conference server with her UUID {A}
      and a "remote-uuid" = N.

   o  The conference server responds with a 200 OK response which
      replaces the N UUID with a temporary UUID ("M1") as the "local-
      uuid" and a "remote-uuid" = "A".

   NOTE: this 'temporary' UUID is a real UUID; it is only temporary to
   the conference server because it knows that it is going to generate
   another UUID to replace the one just send in the 200 OK.

   o  Once Alice, the user, gains access to the IVR for this conference
      server, she enters a specific conference ID and whatever passcode
      (if needed) to enter a specific conference call.

   o  Once the conference server is satisfied Alice has identified which
      conference she wants to attend (including any passcode
      verification), the conference server re-INVITEs Alice to the
      specific conference and includes the Session-ID header field value
      component "local-uuid" = "M'" (and "remote-uuid" = "A") for that
      conference.  All valid participants in the same conference will
      receive this same UUID for identification purposes and to better
      enable monitoring, and tracking functions.

   o  Bob goes through this two-step process of an INVITE transaction,
      followed by a re-INVITE transaction to get this same UUID ("M'")
      for that conference.

   o  In this example, Carol (and each additional user) goes through the
      same procedures and steps as Alice and Bob to get on this same
      conference.

10.5.  Single Focus Conferencing using a web-based conference service

   Alice, Bob and Carol call into same web-based conference.  Note this
   this is one of many ways of implementing this functionality and
   should not be construed as the preferred way of establishing a web-
   based conference.













Jones, et al.           Expires February 19, 2017              [Page 26]


Internet-Draft            End-To-End Session ID              August 2016


      Session-ID                Conference
         ---     Alice            Focus             Bob            Carol
                   |                |                |               |
                   |<** HTTPS *****>|                |               |
                   |  Transaction   |                |               |
                   |                |                |               |
        {M,N}      |<----INVITE-----|                |               |
        {A,M}      |-----200 OK---->|                |               |
        {M,A}      |<-----ACK-------|                |               |
                   |<=====RTP======>|                |               |
                   |                |                |               |
                   |                |<** HTTPS *****>|               |
                   |                |  Transaction   |               |
                   |                |                |               |
        {M,N}      |                |-----INVITE---->|               |
        {B,M}      |                |<----200 OK-----|               |
        {M,B}      |                |------ACK------>|               |
                   |                |<=====RTP======>|               |
                   |                |                |               |
                   |                |<****************** HTTPS *****>|
                   |                |                   Transaction  |
                   |                |                |               |
        {M,N}      |                |--------------------INVITE----->|
        {C,M}      |                |<-------------------200 OK------|
        {M,C}      |                |---------------------ACK------->|
                   |                |<====================RTP=======>|

                Figure 5: Single Focus Web-based Conference

   General operation of this example:

   o  Alice communicates with web server with desire to join a certain
      meeting, by meeting number; also includes UA-Alice's contact
      information (phone number, URI and/or IP address, etc.) for each
      device she wants for this conference call.  For example, the audio
      and video play-out devices could be separate units.

   o  Conference Focus server sends INVITE (Session-ID header field
      value components "local-uuid" = M and a remote UUID of N, where M
      equals the "local-uuid" for each participant on this conference
      bridge) to UA-Alice to start session with that server for this A/V
      conference call.

   o  Upon receiving the INVITE request from the conference focus
      server, Alice responds with a 200 OK.  Her UA moves the "local-
      uuid" unchanged into the "remote-uuid" field, and generates her
      own UUID and places that into the "local-uuid" field to complete
      the Session-ID construction.



Jones, et al.           Expires February 19, 2017              [Page 27]


Internet-Draft            End-To-End Session ID              August 2016


   o  Bob and Carol perform same function to join this same A/V
      conference call as Alice.

10.6.  Cascading Conference Bridges

10.6.1.  Establishing a Cascaded Conference

   To expand conferencing capabilities requires cascading conference
   bridges.  A conference bridge, or MCU, needs a way to identify itself
   when contacting another MCU.  [RFC4579] defines the 'isfocus'
   Contact: header parameter just for this purpose.


      Session-ID
         ---     MCU-1            MCU-2            MCU-3           MCU-4
                   |                |                |               |
        {M',N}     |----INVITE----->|                |               |
        {J,M'}     |<---200 OK------|                |               |
        {M',J}     |-----ACK------->|                |               |

      Figure 6: MCUs Communicating Session Identifier UUID for Bridge

   Regardless of which MCU (1 or 2) a UA contacts for this conference,
   once the above exchange has been received and acknowledged, the UA
   will get the same {M',N} UUID pair from the MCU for the complete
   Session Identifier.

   A more complex form would be a series of MCUs all being informed of
   the same UUID to use for a specific conference.  This series of MCUs
   can either be informed

   o  All by one MCU (that initially generates the UUID for the
      conference).

   o  The MCU that generates the UUID informs one or several MCUs of
      this common UUID, and they inform downstream MCUs of this common
      UUID that each will be using for this one conference.














Jones, et al.           Expires February 19, 2017              [Page 28]


Internet-Draft            End-To-End Session ID              August 2016


      Session-ID
         ---     MCU-1            MCU-2            MCU-3           MCU-4
                   |                |                |               |
        {M',N}     |----INVITE----->|                |               |
        {J,M'}     |<---200 OK------|                |               |
        {M',J}     |-----ACK------->|                |               |
                   |                |                |               |
        {M',N}     |---------------------INVITE----->|               |
        {K,M'}     |<--------------------200 OK------|               |
        {M',K}     |----------------------ACK------->|               |
                   |                |                |               |
        {M',N}     |-------------------------------------INVITE----->|
        {L,M'}     |<------------------------------------200 OK------|
        {M',L}     |--------------------------------------ACK------->|


   Figure 7: MCU Communicating Session Identifier UUID to More than One
                                    MCU

   General operation of this example:

   o  The MCU generating the Session Identifier UUID communicates this
      in a separate INVITE, having a Contact header with the 'isfocus'
      header parameter.  This will identify the MCU as what [RFC4579]
      calls a conference-aware SIP entity.

   o  An MCU that receives this {M',N} UUID pair in an inter-MCU
      transaction can communicate the M' UUID in a manner in which it
      was received to construct a hierarchical cascade (though this time
      this second MCU would be the UAC MCU).

   o  Once the conference is terminated, the cascaded MCUs will receive
      a BYE message to terminate the cascade.

10.6.2.  Calling into Cascaded Conference Bridges

   Here is an example of how a UA, say Robert, calls into a cascaded
   conference focus.  Because MCU-1 has already contacted MCU-3, the MCU
   where Robert is going to join the conference, MCU-3 already has the
   Session-ID (M') for this particular conference call.











Jones, et al.           Expires February 19, 2017              [Page 29]


Internet-Draft            End-To-End Session ID              August 2016


      Session-ID
         ---     MCU-1            MCU-2            MCU-3          Robert
                   |                |                |               |
        {M',N}     |----INVITE----->|                |               |
        {J,M'}     |<---200 OK------|                |               |
        {M',J}     |-----ACK------->|                |               |
                   |                |                |               |
        {M',N}     |---------------------INVITE----->|               |
        {K,M'}     |<--------------------200 OK------|               |
        {M',K}     |----------------------ACK------->|               |
                   |                |                |               |
        {R,N}      |                |                |<---INVITE-----|
        (M',R}     |                |                |----200 OK---->|
        {R,M'}     |                |                |<----ACK-------|

              Figure 8: A UA Calling into a Cascaded MCU UUID

   General operation of this example:

   o  The UA, Robert in this case, INVITEs the MCU to join a particular
      conference call.  Robert's UA does not know anything about whether
      this is the main MCU of the conference call, or a cascaded MCU.
      Robert likely does not know MCUs can be cascaded, he just wants to
      join a particular call.  Like as with any standard implementation,
      he includes a nil "remote-uuid".

   o  The cascaded MCU, upon receiving this INVITE from Robert, replaces
      the nil UUID with the UUID value communicated from MCU-1 for this
      conference call as the "local-uuid" in the SIP response.  Thus,
      moving Robert's UUID "R" to the "remote-uuid" value.

   o  The ACK has the Session-ID {R,M'}, completing the 3-way handshake
      for this call establishment.  Robert has now joined the conference
      call originated from MCU-1.

   o  Once the conference is terminated, the cascaded MCUs will receive
      a BYE message to terminate the cascade.

10.7.  Basic 3PCC for two UAs

   An external entity sets up calls to both Alice and Bob for them to
   talk to each other.









Jones, et al.           Expires February 19, 2017              [Page 30]


Internet-Draft            End-To-End Session ID              August 2016


      Session-ID
         ---     Alice            B2BUA             Bob            Carol
                   |                |                |
        {X,N}      |<----INVITE-----|                |
        {A,X}      |-----200 OK---->|                |
        {A,N}      |                |----INVITE----->|
        {B,A}      |                |<---200 OK------|
        {B,A}      |<-----ACK-------|                |
        {A,B}      |                |------ACK------>|
                   |<==============RTP==============>|

            Figure 9: 3PCC initiated call between Alice and Bob

   General operation of this example:

   o  Some out of band procedure directs a B2BUA (or other SIP server)
      to have Alice and Bob talk to each other.  In this case, the SIP
      server has to be transaction stateful, if not dialog stateful.

   o  The SIP server INVITEs Alice to a session and uses a temporary
      UUID {X} and a nil UUID pairing.

   o  Alice receives and accepts this call set-up and replaces the nil
      UUID with her UUID {A} in the Session Identifier, now {A,X}.

   o  The transaction stateful SIP server receives Alice's UUID {A} in
      the local UUID portion and keeps it there, and discards its own
      UUID {X}, replacing this with a nil UUID value in the INVITE to
      Bob as if this came from Alice originally.

   o  Bob receives and accepts this INVITE and adds his own UUID {B} to
      the Session Identifier, now {B,A} for the response.

   o  The session is established.

10.8.  Handling in 100 Trying SIP Response and CANCEL Request

   The following two subsections show examples of the Session Identifier
   for a 100 Trying response and a CANCEL request in a single call-flow.

10.8.1.  Handling in a 100 Trying SIP Response

   The following 100 Trying response is taken from an existing RFC, from
   [RFC5359] Section 2.9 ("Call Forwarding - No Answer").







Jones, et al.           Expires February 19, 2017              [Page 31]


Internet-Draft            End-To-End Session ID              August 2016


    Session-ID   Alice         SIP Server        Bob-1            Bob-2
                   |                |              |                |
      {A,N}        |----INVITE----->|              |                |
      {A,N}        |                |---INVITE---->|                |
      {N,A}        |<--100 Trying---|              |                |
      {B1,A}       |                |<-180 Ringing-|                |
      {B1,A}       |<--180 Ringing--|              |                |
                   |                |              |                |
                   |                *Request Timeout*               |
                   |                |              |                |
      {A,N}        |                |---CANCEL---->|                |
      {B1,A}       |                |<--200 OK-----|                |
      {B1,A}       |                |<---487-------|                |
      {A,B1}       |                |---- ACK ---->|                |
                   |                |              |                |
      {N,A}        |<-181 Call Fwd--|              |                |
                   |                |              |                |
      {A,N}        |                |------------------INVITE------>|
      {B2,A}       |                |<----------------180 Ringing---|
      {B2,A}       |<-180 Ringing---|              |                |
      {B2,A}       |                |<-----------------200 OK ------|
      {B2,A}       |<--200 OK-------|              |                |
      {A,B2}       |----ACK-------->|              |                |
      {A,B2}       |                |------------------ACK--------->|
                   |                |              |                |
                   |<=========== Both way RTP Established =========>|
                   |                |              |                |
      {A,B2}       |----BYE-------->|              |                |
      {A,B2}       |                |--------------------BYE------->|
      {B2,A}       |                |<------------------200 OK------|
      {B2,A}       |<--200 OK-------|              |                |
                   |                |              |                |

   Figure 10: Session Identifier in the 100 Trying and CANCEL Messaging

   Below is the explanatory text from RFC 5359 Section 2.9 detailing
   what the desired behavior is in the above call flow (i.e., what the
   call-flow is attempting to achieve).

   "Bob wants calls to B1 forwarded to B2 if B1 is not answered
   (information is known to the SIP server).  Alice calls B1 and no one
   answers.  The SIP server then places the call to B2."

   General operation of this example:

   o  Alice generates an INVITE request because she wants to invite Bob
      to join her session.  She creates a UUID as described in section
      10.1, and places that value in the "local-uuid" field of the



Jones, et al.           Expires February 19, 2017              [Page 32]


Internet-Draft            End-To-End Session ID              August 2016


      Session-ID header field value.  Alice also generates a "remote-
      uuid" of nil and sends this along with the "local-uuid".

   o  The SIP server (imagine this is a B2BUA), upon receiving Alice's
      INVITE, generates the optional provisional response 100 Trying.
      Since the SIP server has no knowledge Bob's UUID for his part of
      the Session Identifier value, it cannot include his "local-uuid".
      Rather, any 100 Trying response includes Alice's UUID in the
      "remote-uuid" portion of the Session-ID header-value with a nil
      "local-uuid" value in the response.  This is consistent with what
      Alice's UA expects to receive in any SIP response containing this
      UUID.

10.8.2.  Handling a CANCEL SIP Request

   In the same call-flow example as the 100 Trying response is a CANCEL
   request.  Please refer to Figure 10 for the CANCEL request example.

   General operation of this example:

   o  In Figure 10 above, Alice generates an INVITE with her UUID value
      in the Session-ID header field.

   o  Bob-1 responds to this INVITE with a 180 Ringing.  In that
      response, he includes his UUID in the Session-ID header field
      value (i.e., {B1,A}); thus completing the Session-ID header field
      for this session, even though no final response has been generated
      by any of Bob's UAs.

   o  While this means that if the SIP server were to generate a SIP
      request within this session it could include the complete
      SessionID, the server sends a CANCEL and a CANCEL always uses the
      same Session-ID header field as the original INVITE.  Thus, the
      CANCEL would have a Session Identifier with the "local-uuid" =
      "A", and the "remote-uuid" = "N".

   o  As it happens with this CANCEL, the SIP server intends to invite
      another UA of Bob (i.e., B2) for Alice to communicate with.

   o  In this example call-flow, taken from RFC 5359, Section 2.9, a 181
      (Call is being Forwarded) response is sent to Alice.  Since the
      SIP server generated this SIP request, and has no knowledge of
      Bob-2's UUID value, it cannot include that value in this 181.
      Thus, and for the exact reasons the 100 Trying including the
      Session Identifier value, only Alice's UUID is included in the
      remote-uuid component of the Session-ID header field value, with a
      nil UUID present in the "local-uuid" component.




Jones, et al.           Expires February 19, 2017              [Page 33]


Internet-Draft            End-To-End Session ID              August 2016


10.9.  Out-of-dialog REFER Transaction

   The following call-flow was extracted from Section 6.1 of [RFC5589]
   ("Successful Transfer"), with the only changes being the names of the
   UAs to maintain consistency within this document.

         Alice is the transferee
         Bob is the transferer
         and Carol is the transfer-target

     Session-ID     Bob                 Alice                 Carol
                     |                    |                     |
        {A,N}        |<-----INVITE--------|                     |
        {B,A}        |------200 OK------->|                     |
        {A,B}        |<------ACK----------|                     |
                     |                    |                     |
        {B,A}        |--INVITE {hold}---->|                     |
        {A,B}        |<-200 OK------------|                     |
        {B,A}        |--- ACK ----------->|                     |
                     |                    |                     |
        {B,A}        |--REFER------------>|(Refer-To:Carol)     |
        {A,B}        |<-202 Accepted------|                     |
                     |                    |                     |
        {A,B}        |<NOTIFY {100 Trying}|                     |
        {B,A}        |-200 OK------------>|                     |
                     |                    |                     |
        {A,N}        |                    |--INVITE------------>|
        {C,A}        |                    |<-200 OK-------------|
        {A,C}        |                    |---ACK-------------->|
                     |                    |                     |
        {A,B}        |<--NOTIFY {200 OK}--|                     |
        {B,A}        |---200 OK---------->|                     |
                     |                    |                     |
        {B,A}        |--BYE-------------->|                     |
        {A,B}        |<-200 OK------------|                     |
        {C,A}        |                    |<------------BYE-----|
        {A,C}        |                    |-------------200 OK->|


                  Figure 11: Out-Of-Dialog Call Transfer

   General operation of this example:

   o  Just as in Section 10.2, Figure 2, Alice invites Bob to a session,
      and Bob eventually transfers Alice to communicate with Carol.

   o  What is different about the call-flow in Figure 11 is that Bob's
      REFER is not in-dialog.  Even so, this is treated as part of the



Jones, et al.           Expires February 19, 2017              [Page 34]


Internet-Draft            End-To-End Session ID              August 2016


      same communication session and, thus, the Session Identifier in
      those messages is {A,B}.

   o  Alice will use her existing UUID and the nil UUID ({A,N}) in the
      INVITE towards Carol (who generates UUID "C" for this session),
      thus maintaining the common UUID within the Session Identifier for
      this new Alice-to-Carol session.

11.  Compatibility with a Previous Implementation

   There is a much earlier document that specifies the use of a Session-
   ID header field (namely, [RFC7329]) that we will herewith attempt to
   achieve backwards compatibility.  Neither Session-ID header field has
   any versioning information, so merely adding that this document
   describes "version 2" is insufficient.  Here are the set of rules for
   compatibility between the two specifications.  Although the previous
   version was never standardized, it has been heavily implemented and
   adopted by other standards development organizations.  For the
   purposes of this discussion, we will label the pre-standard
   specification of the Session-ID as the "old" version and this
   specification as the "new" version of the Session-ID.

   The previous (i.e., "old") version only has a single UUID value as a
   Session-ID header field value, but has a generic-parameter value that
   can be of use.

   In order to have an "old" version talk to an "old" version
   implementation, nothing needs to be done as far as the IETF is
   concerned.

   In order to have a "new" version talk to a "new" version
   implementation, both implementations need to follow this document (to
   the letter) and everything should be just fine.

   For this "new" implementation to work with the "old" implementation
   and an "old" implementation to work with "new" implementations, there
   needs to be a set of rules that all "new" implementations MUST follow
   if the "new" implementation will be communicating with devices that
   have implemented the "old" implementation.

   o  Since no option tags or feature tags are to be used for
      distinguishing versions, the presence and order of any "remote-
      uuid" value within the Session-ID header field value is to be used
      to distinguish implementation versions.

   o  If a SIP request has a "remote-uuid" value, this comes from a
      standard implementation, and not a pre-standard one.




Jones, et al.           Expires February 19, 2017              [Page 35]


Internet-Draft            End-To-End Session ID              August 2016


   o  If a SIP request has no "remote-uuid" value, this comes from a
      pre-standard implementation, and not a standard one.  In this
      case, one UUID is used to identify this dialog, even if the
      responder is a standard implementation of this specification.

   o  If a SIP response has a non-nil "local-uuid" that is 32 octets
      long and differs from the endpoint's own UUID value, this response
      comes from a standard implementation.

   o  If a SIP response arrives that has the same value of Session-ID
      UUIDs in the same order as was sent, this comes from a pre-
      standard implementation, and MUST NOT be discarded even though the
      "remote-uuid" may be nil.  In this case, any new transaction
      within this dialog MUST preserve the order of the two UUIDs within
      all Session-ID header fields, including the ACK, until this dialog
      is terminated.

   o  If a SIP response only contains the "local-uuid" that was sent
      originally, this comes from a pre-standard implementation and MUST
      NOT be discarded for removing the nil "remote-uuid".  In this
      case, all future transactions within this dialog MUST contain only
      the UUID received in the first SIP response.  Any new transaction
      starting a new dialog from the standard Session-ID implementation
      MUST include a "local-uuid" and a nil "remote-uuid", even if that
      new dialog is between the same two UAs.

   o  Standard implementations should not expect pre-standard
      implementations to be consistent in their implementation, even
      within the same dialog.  For example, perhaps the first, third and
      tenth responses contain a "remote-uuid", but all the others do
      not.  This behavior MUST be allowed by implementations of this
      specification.

   o  The foregoing does not apply to other, presently unknown
      parameters that might be defined in the future.  They are ignored
      for the purposes of interoperability with previous
      implementations.

12.  Security and Privacy Considerations

   The Session Identifier MUST be constructed in such a way that does
   not conveyed any user or device information as outlined in
   Section 4.1.  This ensures that the data contained in the Session
   Identifier itself does not convey user or device information, however
   the Session Identifier may reveal relationships between endpoints
   that might not be revealed by messages without a Session Identifier.





Jones, et al.           Expires February 19, 2017              [Page 36]


Internet-Draft            End-To-End Session ID              August 2016


   Section 4.2 requires that a UA always generate a new, previously
   unused, UUID when transmitting a request to initiate a new session.
   This ensures that two unrelated sessions originating from the same UA
   will never have the same UUID value, thereby removing the ability for
   an attacker to use the Session Identifier to identify the two
   unrelated sessions as being associated with the same user.

   Because of the inherent property that Session Identifiers are
   conveyed end-to-end and remain unchanged by a UA for the duration of
   a session, the Session Identifier could be misused to discover
   relationships between two or more parties when multiple parties are
   involved in the same session such as the case of a redirect,
   transfer, or conference.  For example, suppose that Alice calls Bob
   and Bob, via his PBX (acting as a B2BUA), forwards or transfers the
   call to Carol.  Without use of the Session Identifier, an
   unauthorized third party that is observing the communications between
   Alice and Bob might not know that Alice is actually communicating
   with Carol.  If Alice, Bob, and Carol include the Session Identifier
   as a part of the signaling messages, it is possible for the third
   party to observe that the UA associated with Bob changed to some
   other UA.  If the third party also has access to signaling messages
   between Bob and Carol, the third party can then discover that Alice
   is communicating with Carol.  This would be true even if all other
   information relating to the session is changed by the PBX, including
   both signaling information and media address information.  That said,
   the Session Identifier would not reveal the identity of Alice, Bob,
   or Carol.  It would only reveal the fact that those endpoints were in
   associated with the same session.

   This document allows for additional parameters (generic-param) to be
   included in the Session-ID header.  This is done to allow for future
   extensions while preserving backward compatibility with this
   document.  To protect privacy, the data for any generic-param
   included in the Session-ID header value MUST NOT include any user or
   device information.  Additionally, any information conveyed through
   an additional parameter MUST NOT persist beyond the current session
   and therefore MUST NOT be reused between unrelated sessions.
   Additional parameters MAY be used by future extensions of this
   document to correlate related communication sessions that cannot
   already be correlated by the procedures described in this document as
   long as the requirements regarding privacy and persistence defined
   above are followed."

   An intermediary implementing a privacy service that provides user
   privacy as per Section 5.3 of [RFC3323] MAY choose to consider the
   Session-ID header as being a non-essential informational header with
   the understanding that doing so will impair the ability to use the
   Session Identifier for troubleshooting purposes.



Jones, et al.           Expires February 19, 2017              [Page 37]


Internet-Draft            End-To-End Session ID              August 2016


13.  IANA Considerations

13.1.  Registration of the "Session-ID" Header Field

   The following is the registration for the 'Session-ID' header field
   to the "Header Name" registry at

   http://www.iana.org/assignments/sip-parameters:

   RFC number: RFC XXXX

   Header name: 'Session-ID'

   Compact form: none

   Note: This document replaces the "Session-ID" header originally
   registered via [RFC7329].

   [RFC Editor: Please replace XXXX in this section and the next with
   the this RFC number of this document.]

13.2.  Registration of the "remote" Parameter

   The following parameter is to be added to the "Header Field
   Parameters and Parameter Values" section of the SIP parameter
   registry:

     +--------------+----------------+-------------------+-----------+
     | Header Field | Parameter Name | Predefined Values | Reference |
     +--------------+----------------+-------------------+-----------+
     |  Session-ID  |     remote     |         No        | [RFCXXXX] |
     +--------------+----------------+-------------------+-----------+

14.  Acknowledgements

   The authors would like to thank Robert Sparks, Hadriel Kaplan,
   Christer Holmberg, Paul Kyzivat, Brett Tate, Keith Drage, Mary
   Barnes, Charles Eckel, Peter Dawes, Andrew Hutton, Arun Arunachalam,
   Adam Gensler, Roland Jesske, and Faisal Siyavudeen for their
   invaluable comments during the development of this document.

15.  Dedication

   This document is dedicated to the memory of James Polk, a long-time
   friend and colleague.  James made important contributions to this
   specification, including being one of its primary editors.  The IETF
   global community mourns his loss and he will be missed dearly.




Jones, et al.           Expires February 19, 2017              [Page 38]


Internet-Draft            End-To-End Session ID              August 2016


16.  References

16.1.  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>.

   [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>.

   [RFC3891]  Mahy, R., Biggs, B., and R. Dean, "The Session Initiation
              Protocol (SIP) "Replaces" Header", RFC 3891,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC3891, September 2004,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3891>.

   [RFC4122]  Leach, P., Mealling, M., and R. Salz, "A Universally
              Unique IDentifier (UUID) URN Namespace", RFC 4122,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC4122, July 2005,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4122>.

   [RFC4579]  Johnston, A. and O. Levin, "Session Initiation Protocol
              (SIP) Call Control - Conferencing for User Agents",
              BCP 119, RFC 4579, DOI 10.17487/RFC4579, August 2006,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4579>.

   [RFC5234]  Crocker, D., Ed. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax
              Specifications: ABNF", STD 68, RFC 5234,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC5234, January 2008,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5234>.

   [RFC7206]  Jones, P., Salgueiro, G., Polk, J., Liess, L., and H.
              Kaplan, "Requirements for an End-to-End Session
              Identification in IP-Based Multimedia Communication
              Networks", RFC 7206, DOI 10.17487/RFC7206, May 2014,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7206>.







Jones, et al.           Expires February 19, 2017              [Page 39]


Internet-Draft            End-To-End Session ID              August 2016


16.2.  Informative References

   [H.323]    International Telecommunications Union, "Recommendation
              ITU-T H.323, Packet-based multimedia communications
              systems", December 2009.

   [H.460.27]
              International Telecommunications Union, "Recommendation
              ITU-T H.460.27, End-to-End Session Identifier for H.323
              Systems", November 2015.

   [RFC2543]  Handley, M., Schulzrinne, H., Schooler, E., and J.
              Rosenberg, "SIP: Session Initiation Protocol", RFC 2543,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2543, March 1999,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2543>.

   [RFC3323]  Peterson, J., "A Privacy Mechanism for the Session
              Initiation Protocol (SIP)", RFC 3323,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC3323, November 2002,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3323>.

   [RFC3550]  Schulzrinne, H., Casner, S., Frederick, R., and V.
              Jacobson, "RTP: A Transport Protocol for Real-Time
              Applications", STD 64, RFC 3550, DOI 10.17487/RFC3550,
              July 2003, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3550>.

   [RFC3725]  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, DOI 10.17487/RFC3725, April 2004,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3725>.

   [RFC4353]  Rosenberg, J., "A Framework for Conferencing with the
              Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)", RFC 4353,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC4353, February 2006,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4353>.

   [RFC5359]  Johnston, A., Ed., Sparks, R., Cunningham, C., Donovan,
              S., and K. Summers, "Session Initiation Protocol Service
              Examples", BCP 144, RFC 5359, DOI 10.17487/RFC5359,
              October 2008, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5359>.

   [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>.





Jones, et al.           Expires February 19, 2017              [Page 40]


Internet-Draft            End-To-End Session ID              August 2016


   [RFC6141]  Camarillo, G., Ed., Holmberg, C., and Y. Gao, "Re-INVITE
              and Target-Refresh Request Handling in the Session
              Initiation Protocol (SIP)", RFC 6141,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6141, March 2011,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6141>.

   [RFC6872]  Gurbani, V., Ed., Burger, E., Ed., Anjali, T., Abdelnur,
              H., and O. Festor, "The Common Log Format (CLF) for the
              Session Initiation Protocol (SIP): Framework and
              Information Model", RFC 6872, DOI 10.17487/RFC6872,
              February 2013, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6872>.

   [RFC7092]  Kaplan, H. and V. Pascual, "A Taxonomy of Session
              Initiation Protocol (SIP) Back-to-Back User Agents",
              RFC 7092, DOI 10.17487/RFC7092, December 2013,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7092>.

   [RFC7329]  Kaplan, H., "A Session Identifier for the Session
              Initiation Protocol (SIP)", RFC 7329,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7329, August 2014,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7329>.

Authors' Addresses

   Paul E. Jones
   Cisco Systems, Inc.
   7025 Kit Creek Rd.
   Research Triangle Park, NC  27709
   USA

   Phone: +1 919 476 2048
   Email: paulej@packetizer.com


   Gonzalo Salgueiro
   Cisco Systems, Inc.
   7025 Kit Creek Rd.
   Research Triangle Park, NC  27709
   USA

   Phone: +1 919 392 3266
   Email: gsalguei@cisco.com









Jones, et al.           Expires February 19, 2017              [Page 41]


Internet-Draft            End-To-End Session ID              August 2016


   Chris Pearce
   Cisco Systems, Inc.
   2300 East President George Bush Highway
   Richardson, TX  75082
   USA

   Phone: +1 972 813 5123
   Email: chrep@cisco.com


   Paul Giralt
   Cisco Systems, Inc.
   7025 Kit Creek Rd.
   Research Triangle Park, NC  27709
   USA

   Phone: +1 919 991 5644
   Email: pgiralt@cisco.com

































Jones, et al.           Expires February 19, 2017              [Page 42]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.124, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/