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

Versions: (draft-gurbani-sipclf-problem-statement) 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 RFC 6872

SIPCLF                                                   V. Gurbani, Ed.
Internet-Draft                         Bell Laboratories, Alcatel-Lucent
Intended status: Informational                            E. Burger, Ed.
Expires: June 8, 2012                              Georgetown University
                                                               T. Anjali
                                        Illinois Institute of Technology
                                                             H. Abdelnur
                                                               O. Festor
                                                                   INRIA
                                                        December 6, 2011


 The Common Log Format (CLF) for the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP):
                        Framework and Data Model
                 draft-ietf-sipclf-problem-statement-09

Abstract

   Well-known web servers such as Apache and web proxies like Squid
   support event logging using a common log format.  The logs produced
   using these de-facto standard formats are invaluable to system
   administrators for trouble-shooting a server and tool writers to
   craft tools that mine the log files and produce reports and trends.
   Furthermore, these log files can also be used to train anomaly
   detection systems and feed events into a security event management
   system.  The Session Initiation Protocol does not have a common log
   format, and as a result, each server supports a distinct log format
   that makes it unnecessarily complex to produce tools to do trend
   analysis and security detection.  We propose a common log file format
   for SIP servers that can be used uniformly by user agents, proxies,
   registrars, redirect servers as well as back-to-back user agents.

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 June 8, 2012.



Gurbani, et al.           Expires June 8, 2012                  [Page 1]


Internet-Draft                   SIP CLF                   December 2011


Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  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.  Terminology  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   2.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   3.  Problem statement  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   4.  What SIP CLF is and what it is not . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   5.  Alternative approaches to SIP CLF  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     5.1.  SIP CLF and CDRs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     5.2.  SIP CLF and Wireshark packet capture . . . . . . . . . . .  6
   6.  Motivation and use cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
   7.  Challenges in establishing a SIP CLF . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
   8.  Data model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
     8.1.  SIP CLF mandatory fields . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
     8.2.  Mandatory fields and SIP entities  . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
   9.  Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
     9.1.  UAC registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
     9.2.  Direct call between Alice and Bob  . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
     9.3.  Single downstream branch call  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
     9.4.  Forked call  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
   10. Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
   11. Operational guidance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
   12. IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
   13. Acknowledgments  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
   14. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
     14.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
     14.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33








Gurbani, et al.           Expires June 8, 2012                  [Page 2]


Internet-Draft                   SIP CLF                   December 2011


1.  Terminology

   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 RFC 2119 [RFC2119].

   RFC 3261 [RFC3261] defines additional terms used in this document
   that are specific to the SIP domain such as "proxy"; "registrar";
   "redirect server"; "user agent server" or "UAS"; "user agent client"
   or "UAC"; "back-to-back user agent" or "B2BUA"; "dialog";
   "transaction"; "server transaction".

   This document uses the term "SIP Server" that is defined to include
   the following SIP entities: user agent server, registrar, redirect
   server, a SIP proxy in the role of user agent server, and a B2BUA in
   the role of a user agent server.


2.  Introduction

   Servers executing on Internet hosts produce log records as part of
   their normal operations.  Some log records are, in essence, a summary
   of an application layer protocol data unit (PDU), that captures in
   precise terms an event that was processed by the server.  These log
   records serve many purposes, including analysis and troubleshooting.

   Well-known web servers such as Apache and Squid support event logging
   using a Common Log Format (CLF), the common structure for logging
   requests and responses serviced by the web server.  It can be argued
   that a good part of the success of Apache has been its CLF because it
   allowed third parties to produce tools that analyzed the data and
   generated traffic reports and trends.  The Apache CLF has been so
   successful that not only did it become the de-facto standard in
   producing logging data for web servers, but also many commercial web
   servers can be configured to produce logs in this format.  An example
   of Apache CLF is depicted next:

             %h      %l     %u       %t   \"%r\"   %s    %b
        remotehost rfc931 authuser [date] request status bytes

   remotehost:  Remote hostname (or IP number if DNS hostname is not
      available, or if DNSLookup is Off.

   rfc931:  The remote logname of the user.







Gurbani, et al.           Expires June 8, 2012                  [Page 3]


Internet-Draft                   SIP CLF                   December 2011



   authuser:  The username by which the user has authenticated himself.

   [date]:  Date and time of the request.

   request:  The request line exactly as it came from the client.

   status:  The HTTP status code returned to the client.

   bytes:  The content-length of the document transferred.


   The inspiration for the SIP CLF is the Apache CLF.  However, the
   state machinery for a HTTP transaction is much simpler than that of
   the SIP transaction (as evidenced in Section 7).  The SIP CLF needs
   to do considerably more.


3.  Problem statement

   The Session Initiation Protocol [RFC3261](SIP) is an Internet
   multimedia session signaling protocol.  A typical deployment of SIP
   in an enterprise will consist of SIP entities from multiple vendors.
   Currently, if these entities are capable of producing a log file of
   the transactions being handled by them, the log files are produced in
   a proprietary format.  The result of multiplicity of the log file
   formats is the inability of the support staff to easily trace a call
   from one entity to another, or even to craft common tools that will
   perform trend analysis, debugging and troubleshooting problems
   uniformly across the SIP entities of multiple vendors.

   SIP does not currently have a CLF format and this document serves to
   provide the rationale to establish a SIP CLF and identifies the
   required minimal information that must appear in any SIP CLF record.


4.  What SIP CLF is and what it is not

   The SIP CLF is a standardized manner of producing a log file.  This
   format can be used by SIP clients, SIP Servers, proxies, and B2BUAs.
   The SIP CLF is simply an easily digestible log of currently occurring
   events and past transactions.  It contains enough information to
   allow humans and automata to derive relationships between discrete
   transactions handled at a SIP entity or to search for a certain
   dialog or a related set of transactions.

   The SIP CLF is amenable to quick parsing (i.e., well-delimited
   fields) and it is platform and operating system neutral.



Gurbani, et al.           Expires June 8, 2012                  [Page 4]


Internet-Draft                   SIP CLF                   December 2011


   The SIP CLF is amenable to easy parsing and lends itself well to
   creating other innovative tools.

   The SIP CLF is not a billing tool.  It is not expected that
   enterprises will bill customers based on SIP CLF.  The SIP CLF
   records events at the signaling layer only and does not attempt to
   correlate the veracity of these events with the media layer.  Thus,
   it cannot be used to trigger customer billing.

   The SIP CLF is not a quality of service (QoS) measurement tool.  If
   QoS is defined as measuring the mean opinion score (MOS) of the
   received media, then SIP CLF does not aid in this task since it does
   not summarize events at the media layer.


5.  Alternative approaches to SIP CLF

   It is perhaps tempting to consider other approaches --- which though
   not standardized, are in wide enough use in networks today --- to
   determine whether or not a SIP CLF would benefit a SIP network
   consisting of multi-vendor products.  The two existing approaches
   that approximate what SIP CLF does are Call Detail Records (CDRs) and
   Wireshark packet sniffing.

5.1.  SIP CLF and CDRs

   CDRs are used in operator networks widely and with the adoption of
   SIP, standardization bodies such as 3GPP have subsequently defined
   SIP-related CDRs as well.  Today, CDRs are used to implement the
   functionality approximated by SIP CLF, however, there are important
   differences.

   One, SIP CLF operates natively at the transaction layer and maintains
   enough information in the information elements being logged that
   dialog-related data can be subsequently derived from the transaction
   logs.  Thus, esoteric SIP fields and parameters like the To header,
   including tags; the From header, including tags, the CSeq number,
   etc. are logged in SIP CLF.  By contrast, a CDR is used mostly for
   charging and thus saves information to facilitate that very aspect.
   A CDR will most certainly log the public user identification of a
   party requesting a service (which may not correspond to the From
   header) and the public user identification of the party called party
   (which may not correspond to the To header.)  Furthermore, the
   sequence numbers maintained by the CDR may not correspond to the SIP
   CSeq header.  Thus it will be hard to piece together the state of a
   dialog through a sequence of CDR records.

   Two, a CDR record will, in all probability, be generated at a SIP



Gurbani, et al.           Expires June 8, 2012                  [Page 5]


Internet-Draft                   SIP CLF                   December 2011


   entity performing some form of proxy-like functionality of a B2BUA
   providing some service.  By contrast, SIP CLF is light- weight enough
   that it can be generated by a canonical SIP user agent server and
   user agent client as well, including those that execute on resource
   constrained devices (mobile phones).

   Finally, SIP is also being deployed outside of operator- managed VoIP
   networks.  Universities, research laboratories, and small-to-medium
   size companies are deploying SIP-based VoIP solutions on networks
   owned and managed by them.  Much of the latter constituencies will
   not have an interest in generating CDRs, but they will like to have a
   concise representation of the messages being handled by the SIP
   entities in a common format.

5.2.  SIP CLF and Wireshark packet capture

   Wireshark is a popular raw packet capture tool.  It contains filters
   that can understand SIP at the protocol level and break down a
   captured message into its individual header components.  While
   Wireshark is appropriate to capture and view discrete SIP messages,
   it does not suffice to serve in the same capacity as SIP CLF for two
   reasons.

   First, all SIP entities that need to save SIP CLF records would
   require a Wireshark library for different operating systems and
   configurations to link into.  Second, and more importantly, if the
   SIP messages are exchanged over a TLS-oriented transport, Wireshark
   will be unable to decrypt them and render them as individual SIP
   headers.


6.  Motivation and use cases

   As SIP becomes pervasive in multiple business domains and ubiquitous
   in academic and research environments, it is beneficial to establish
   a CLF for the following reasons:

   Common reference for interpreting events:  In a laboratory
      environment or an enterprise service offering there will typically
      be SIP entities from multiple vendors participating in routing
      requests.  Absent a CLF format, each entity will produce output
      records in a native format making it hard to establish commonality
      for tools that operate on the log file.








Gurbani, et al.           Expires June 8, 2012                  [Page 6]


Internet-Draft                   SIP CLF                   December 2011


   Writing common tools:  A CLF format allows independent tool providers
      to craft tools and applications that interpret the CLF data to
      produce insightful trend analysis and detailed traffic reports.
      The format should be such that it retains the ability to be read
      by humans and processed using traditional Unix text processing
      tools.

   Session correlation across diverse processing elements:  In
      operational SIP networks, a request will typically be processed by
      more than one SIP server.  A SIP CLF will allow the network
      operator to trace the progression of the request (or a set of
      requests) as they traverse through the different servers to
      establish a concise diagnostic trail of a SIP session.


         Note that tracing the request through a set of servers is
         considerably less challenging if all the servers belong to the
         same administrative domain.

   Message correlation across transactions:  A SIP CLF can enable a
      quick lookup of all messages that comprise a transaction (e.g.,
      "Find all messages corresponding to server transaction X,
      including all forked branches.")

   Message correlation across dialogs:  A SIP CLF can correlate
      transactions that comprise a dialog (e.g., "Find all messages for
      dialog created by Call-ID C, From tag F and To tag T.")

   Trend analysis:  A SIP CLF allows an administrator to collect data
      and spot patterns or trends in the information (e.g., "What is the
      domain where the most sessions are routed to between 9:00 AM and
      12:00 PM?")

   Train anomaly detection systems:  A SIP CLF will allow for the
      training of anomaly detection systems that once trained can
      monitor the CLF file to trigger an alarm on the subsequent
      deviations from accepted patterns in the data set.  Currently,
      anomaly detection systems monitor the network and parse raw
      packets that comprise a SIP message -- a process that is
      unsuitable for anomaly detection systems [rieck2008].  With all
      the necessary event data at their disposal, network operations
      managers and information technology operation managers are in a
      much better position to correlate, aggregate, and prioritize log
      data to maintain situational awareness.







Gurbani, et al.           Expires June 8, 2012                  [Page 7]


Internet-Draft                   SIP CLF                   December 2011



   Testing:  A SIP CLF allows for automatic testing of SIP equipment by
      writing tools that can parse a SIP CLF file to ensure behavior of
      a device under test.

   Troubleshooting:  A SIP CLF can enable cursory trouble shooting of a
      SIP entity (e.g., "How long did it take to generate a final
      response for the INVITE associated with Call-ID X?")

   Offline analysis:  A SIP CLF allows for offline analysis of the data
      gathered.  Once a SIP CLF file has been generated, it can be
      transported (subject to the security considerations in Section 10)
      to a host with appropriate computing resources to perform
      subsequent analysis.

   Real-time monitoring:  A SIP CLF allows administrators to visually
      notice the events occurring at a SIP entity in real-time providing
      accurate situational awareness.


7.  Challenges in establishing a SIP CLF

   Establishing a CLF for SIP is a challenging task.  The behavior of a
   SIP entity is more complex when compared to the equivalent HTTP
   entity.

   Base protocol services such as parallel or serial forking elicit
   multiple final responses.  Ensuing delays between sending a request
   and receiving a final response all add complexity when considering
   what fields should comprise a CLF and in what manner.  Furthermore,
   unlike HTTP, SIP groups multiple discrete transactions into a dialog,
   and these transactions may arrive at a varying inter-arrival rate at
   a proxy.  For example, the BYE transaction usually arrives much after
   the corresponding INVITE transaction was received, serviced and
   expunged from the transaction list.  Nonetheless, it is advantageous
   to relate these transactions such that automata or a human monitoring
   the log file can construct a set consisting of related transactions.

   ACK requests in SIP need careful consideration as well.  In SIP, an
   ACK is a special method that is associated with an INVITE only.  It
   does not require a response, and furthermore, if it is acknowledging
   a non-2xx response, then the ACK is considered part of the original
   INVITE transaction.  If it is acknowledging a 2xx-class response,
   then the ACK is a separate transaction consisting of a request only
   (i.e., there is not a response for an ACK request.)  CANCEL is
   another method that is tied to an INVITE transaction, but unlike ACK,
   the CANCEL request elicits a final response.




Gurbani, et al.           Expires June 8, 2012                  [Page 8]


Internet-Draft                   SIP CLF                   December 2011


   While most requests elicit a response immediately, the INVITE request
   in SIP can pend at a proxy as it forks branches downstream or at a
   user agent server while it alerts the user.  RFC 3261 [RFC3261]
   instructs the server transaction to send a 1xx-class provisional
   response if a final response is delayed for more than 200 ms.  A SIP
   CLF log file needs to include such provisional responses because they
   help train automata associated with anomaly detection systems and
   provide some positive feedback for a human observer monitoring the
   log file.

   Finally, beyond supporting native SIP actors such as proxies,
   registrars, redirect servers, and user agent servers (UAS), it is
   beneficial to derive a CLF format that supports back-to-back user
   agent (B2BUA) behavior, which may vary considerably depending on the
   specific nature of the B2BUA.


8.  Data model

   The minimal SIP CLF fields are defined below.  Some of these fields
   contain URIs.  If the URI contains an escaped character (""%" HEX
   HEX" mechanism), the escaped character MUST be logged as received.
   The maximum size (in number of bytes) for a SIP CLF field is 4096
   bytes.  This limit is the same regardless of whether the SIP CLF
   field is a meta-field (see "Timestamp" and "Directionality" defined
   below) or a normal SIP header.  If the body of the SIP message is to
   be logged, it MUST conform to this limit as well.

   Logging bodies of a SIP message is left optional (and is not shown in
   the examples of Section 9).  If the body is to be logged, the
   specific syntax and semantics used to log bodies MUST be defined by
   the specific representation format used to generate the SIP CLF
   record.

   The data model supports extensibility by providing the capability to
   log "optional fields".  Optional fields are those SIP header fields
   (or field components) that are not mandatory (see Section 8.1 for the
   mandatory field list).  Optional fields may contain SIP headers or
   other elements present in a SIP message (for example, the Reason-
   Phrase element from the Status-Line production rule in RFC 3261
   [RFC3261]).  Optional fields may also contain additional information
   that a particular vendor desires to log.  The specific syntax and
   semantics to be accorded to optional fields MUST be defined by the
   specific representation format used to generate the SIP CLF record.

   Finally, [I-D.ietf-sipclf-format] is an example of a representation
   format draft that provides an ASCII-based encoding scheme.




Gurbani, et al.           Expires June 8, 2012                  [Page 9]


Internet-Draft                   SIP CLF                   December 2011


8.1.  SIP CLF mandatory fields

   The following SIP CLF fields are defined as minimal information that
   MUST appear in any SIP CLF record:

   Timestamp -  Date and time of the request or response represented as
      the number of seconds and milliseconds since the Unix epoch.

   Message type -  An indicator on whether the SIP message is a request
      or a response.  The allowable values for this field are 'R' (for
      Request) and 'r' (for response).

   Directionality -  An indicator on whether the SIP message is received
      by the SIP entity or sent by the SIP entity.  The allowable values
      for this field are 's' (for message sent) and 'r' (for message
      received).

   Transport -  The transport over which a SIP message is sent or
      received.  The allowable values for the transport are governed by
      the "transport" production rule in Section 25.1 of RFC3261
      [RFC3261].

   Source-address -  The IPv4 or IPv6 address of the sender of the SIP
      message.

   Source-port -  The source port number of the sender of the SIP
      message.

   Destination-address -  The IPv4 or IPv6 address of the recipient of
      the SIP message.

   Destination-port -  The port number of the recipient of the SIP
      message.

   From -  The From URI.  For the sake of brevity, URI parameters SHOULD
      NOT be logged.

   From-tag -  The tag parameter of the From header.

   To -  The To URI.  For the sake of brevity, URI parameters SHOULD NOT
      be logged.

   To-tag -   The tag parameter of the To header.  Note that the tag
      parameter will be absent in the initial request that forms a
      dialog.






Gurbani, et al.           Expires June 8, 2012                 [Page 10]


Internet-Draft                   SIP CLF                   December 2011



   Callid -  The Call-ID.

   CSeq-Method -  The method from the CSeq header.

   CSeq-Number -  The number from the CSeq header.

   R-URI -  The Request-URI, including any URI parameters.

   Status -  The SIP response status code.

   SIP Proxies may fork, creating several client transactions that
   correlate to a single server transaction.  Responses arriving on
   these client transactions, or new requests (CANCEL, ACK) sent on the
   client transaction need log file entries that correlate with a server
   transaction.  Similarly, a B2BUA may create one or more client
   transactions in response to an incoming request.  These transactions
   will require correlation as well.  The last two data model elements
   provide this correlation.

   Server-Txn -  Server transaction identification code - the
      transaction identifier associated with the server transaction.
      Implementations can reuse the server transaction identifier (the
      topmost branch-id of the incoming request, with or without the
      magic cookie), or they could generate a unique identification
      string for a server transaction (this identifier needs to be
      locally unique to the server only.)  This identifier is used to
      correlate ACKs and CANCELs to an INVITE transaction; it is also
      used to aid in forking as explained later in this section.  (See
      Section 9 for usage.)

   Client-Txn -  Client transaction identification code - this field is
      used to associate client transactions with a server transaction
      for forking proxies or B2BUAs.  Upon forking, implementations can
      reuse the value they inserted into the topmost Via header's branch
      parameter, or they can generate a unique identification string for
      the client transaction.  (See Section 9 for usage.)

   This data model applies to all SIP entities --- a UAC, UAS, Proxy, a
   B2BUA, registrar and redirect server.  The SIP CLF fields prescribed
   for a proxy are equally applicable to the B2BUA.  Similarly, the SIP
   CLF fields prescribed for a UAS are equally applicable to registrars
   and redirect servers.

   The next section specifies the individual SIP CLF data model elements
   that form a log record for specific instance of a SIP entity.  It is
   understood that a SIP CLF record is extensible using extension
   mechanisms appropriate to the specific representation used to



Gurbani, et al.           Expires June 8, 2012                 [Page 11]


Internet-Draft                   SIP CLF                   December 2011


   generate the SIP CLF record.  This document, however, does not
   prescribe a specific representation format and it limits the
   discussion to the mandatory data elements described above.

8.2.  Mandatory fields and SIP entities

   Each SIP CLF record MUST consist of all the mandatory data model
   elements outlined in Section 8.1.  This document does not specify a
   representation of a logging format; it is expected that other
   documents will do so.  Each SIP CLF record MUST contain the mandatory
   elements shown below:

         Timestamp, Message type, Directionality, CSeq-Method,
         CSeq-Number, Transport, R-URI, Destination-address,
         Destination-port, Source-address, Source-port, To,
         To-tag, From, From-tag, Call-ID, Status, Server-Txn,
         Client-Txn

   An element will not always have an appropriate value to provide for
   one of these fields, even when the field is required to appear in the
   SIP CLF record.  Therefore, the representation document MUST define
   how to indicate a field is "not applicable".  For example, the R-URI
   field is not applicable when logging a response, the Status field is
   not applicable when logging a request, the To-tag is not known when a
   request is first sent out, etc.

   The Client-Txn field is always applicable to a UAC.  The Server- Txn
   field does not apply to a UAC unless the element is also acting as a
   UAS, and the message associated to this log record corresponds to a
   message handled by that UAS.  For instance, a proxy forwarding a
   request will populate both the Client-Txn and Server-Txn fields in
   the record corresponding to the forwarded request.

   The Server-Txn field is always applicable to a UAS.  The Client-Txn
   field does not apply to a UAS unless the element is also acting as a
   UAC, and the message associated to this log record corresponds to a
   message handled by that UAC.  For instance, a proxy forwarding a
   response will populate both the Server-Txn and Client-Txn fields in
   the record corresponding to the forwarded response.  However, a proxy
   would only populate the Client-Txn field when creating a log record
   corresponding to a request.


9.  Examples

   The examples use only the mandatory data elements defined in
   Section 8.1.  Extension elements are not considered.  When a given
   mandatory field is not applicable to a SIP entity, we use the



Gurbani, et al.           Expires June 8, 2012                 [Page 12]


Internet-Draft                   SIP CLF                   December 2011


   horizontal dash ("-") to represent it.

   There are five principals in the examples below.  They are Alice, the
   initiator of requests.  Alice's user agent uses IPv4 address
   198.51.100.1, port 5060.  P1 is a proxy that Alice's request traverse
   on their way to Bob, the recipient of the requests.  P1 also acts as
   a registrar to Alice.  P1 uses an IPv4 address of 198.51.100.10, port
   5060.  Bob has two instances of his user agent running on different
   hosts.  The first instance uses an IPv4 address of 203.0.113.1, port
   5060 and the second instance uses an IPv6 address of 2001:db8::9,
   port 5060.  P2 is a proxy responsible for Bob's domain.  Table 1
   summarizes these addresses.

      +-------------------+--------------------+-------------------+
      | Principal         | IP:port            | Host/Domain name  |
      +-------------------+--------------------+-------------------+
      | Alice             | 198.51.100.1:5060  | alice.example.com |
      | P1                | 198.51.100.10:5060 | p1.example.com    |
      | P2                | 203.0.113.200:5060 | p2.example.net    |
      | Bob UA instance 1 | 203.0.113.1:5060   | bob1.example.net  |
      | Bob UA instance 2 | [2001:db8::9]:5060 | bob2.example.net  |
      +-------------------+--------------------+-------------------+

                     Principal to IP address asignment

                                  Table 1

   Illustrative examples of SIP CLF follow.

9.1.  UAC registration

   Alice sends a registration registrar P1 and receives a 2xx-class
   response.  The register requests causes Alice's UAC to produce a log
   record shown below.

















Gurbani, et al.           Expires June 8, 2012                 [Page 13]


Internet-Draft                   SIP CLF                   December 2011


        Timestamp: 1275930743.699
        Message Type: R
        Directionality: s
        Transport: udp
        CSeq-Number: 1
        CSeq-Method: REGISTER
        R-URI: sip:example.com
        Destination-address: 198.51.100.10
        Destination-port: 5060
        Source-address: 198.51.100.1
        Source-port: 5060
        To: sip:example.com
        To-tag: -
        From: sip:alice@example.com
        From-tag: 76yhh
        Call-ID: f81-d4-f6@example.com
        Status: -
        Server-Txn: -
        Client-Txn: c-tr-1

   After some time, Alice's UAC will receive a response from the
   registrar.  The response causes Alice's agent to produce a log record
   shown below.

        Timestamp: 1275930744.100
        Message Type: r
        Directionality: r
        Transport: udp
        CSeq-Number: 1
        CSeq-Method: REGISTER
        R-URI: -
        Destination-address: 198.51.100.1
        Destination-port: 5060
        Source-address: 198.51.100.10
        Source-port: 5060
        To: sip:example.com
        To-tag: reg-1-xtr
        From: sip:alice@example.com
        From-tag: 76yhh
        Call-ID: f81-d4-f6@example.com
        Status: 100
        Server-Txn: -
        Client-Txn: c-tr-1








Gurbani, et al.           Expires June 8, 2012                 [Page 14]


Internet-Draft                   SIP CLF                   December 2011


9.2.  Direct call between Alice and Bob

   In this example, Alice sends a session initiation request directly to
   Bob's agent (instance 1.)  Bob's agent accepts the session
   invitation.  We first present the SIP CLF logging from Alice's UAC
   point of view.  In line 1, Alice's user agent sends out the INVITE.
   Shortly, it receives a "180 Ringing" (line 2), followed by a "200 OK"
   response (line 3).  Upon the receipt of the 2xx-class response,
   Alice's user agent sends out an ACK request (line 4).

        Timestamp: 1275930743.699
        Message Type: R
        Directionality: s
        Transport: udp
        CSeq-Number: 32
        CSeq-Method: INVITE
        R-URI: sip:bob@bob1.example.net
        Destination-address: 203.0.113.1
        Destination-port: 5060
        Source-address: 198.51.100.1
        Source-port: 5060
        To: sip:bob@bob1.example.net
        To-tag: -
        From: sip:alice@example.com
        From-tag: 76yhh
        Call-ID: f82-d4-f7@example.com
        Status: -
        Server-Txn: -
        Client-Txn: c-1-xt6

        Timestamp: 1275930745.002
        Message Type: r
        Directionality: r
        Transport: udp
        CSeq-Number: 32
        CSeq-Method: INVITE
        R-URI: -
        Destination-address: 198.51.100.1
        Destination-port: 5060
        Source-address: 203.0.113.1
        Source-port: 5060
        To: sip:bob@example.net
        To-tag: b-in6-iu
        From: sip:alice@example.com
        From-tag: 76yhh
        Call-ID: f82-d4-f7@example.com
        Status: 180
        Server-Txn: -



Gurbani, et al.           Expires June 8, 2012                 [Page 15]


Internet-Draft                   SIP CLF                   December 2011


        Client-Txn: c-1-xt6

        Timestamp: 1275930746.100
        Message Type: r
        Directionality: r
        Transport: udp
        CSeq-Number: 32
        CSeq-Method: INVITE
        R-URI: -
        Destination-address: 198.51.100.1
        Destination-port: 5060
        Source-address: 203.0.113.1
        Source-port: 5060
        To: sip:bob@example.net
        To-tag: b-in6-iu
        From: sip:alice@example.com
        From-tag: 76yhh
        Call-ID: f82-d4-f7@example.com
        Status: 200
        Server-Txn: -
        Client-Txn: c-1-xt6

        Timestamp: 1275930746.120
        Message Type: R
        Directionality: s
        Transport: udp
        CSeq-Number: 32
        CSeq-Method: ACK
        R-URI: sip:bob@bob1.example.net
        Destination-address: 203.0.113.1
        Destination-port: 5060
        Source-address: 198.51.100.1
        Source-port: 5060
        To: sip:bob@example.net
        To-tag: b-in6-iu
        From: sip:alice@example.com
        From-tag: 76yhh
        Call-ID: f82-d4-f7@example.com
        Status: -
        Server-Txn: -
        Client-Txn: c-1-xt6


9.3.  Single downstream branch call

   In this example, Alice sends a session invitation request to Bob
   through proxy P1, which inserts a Record-Route header causing
   subsequent requests between Alice and Bob to traverse the proxy.  The



Gurbani, et al.           Expires June 8, 2012                 [Page 16]


Internet-Draft                   SIP CLF                   December 2011


   SIP CLF log records correspond to the viewpoint of P1.  The line
   numbers below refer to Figure 1

        Alice             P1             Bob
         +---INV--------->|               |  Line 1
         |                |               |
         |<---------100---+               |  Line 2
         |                |               |
         |                +---INV-------->|  Line 3
         |                |               |
         |                |<--------100---+  Line 4
         |                |               |
         |                |<--------180---+  Line 5
         |                |               |
         |<---------180---+               |  Line 6
         |                |               |
         |                |<--------200---+  Line 7
         |                |               |
         |<---------200---+               |  Line 8
         |                |               |
         +---ACK--------->|               |  Line 9
         |                |               |
         |                |---ACK-------->|  Line 10

                  Figure 1: Simple proxy-aided call flow



   1    Timestamp: 1275930743.699
        Message Type: R
        Directionality: r
        Transport: udp
        CSeq-Number: 43
        CSeq-Method: INVITE
        R-URI: sip:bob@example.net
        Destination-address: 198.51.100.10
        Destination-port: 5060
        Source-address: 198.51.100.1
        Source-port: 5060
        To: sip:bob@example.net
        To-tag: -
        From: sip:alice@example.com
        From-tag: al-1
        Call-ID: tr-87h@example.com
        Status: -
        Server-Txn: s-x-tr
        Client-Txn: -




Gurbani, et al.           Expires June 8, 2012                 [Page 17]


Internet-Draft                   SIP CLF                   December 2011


   Note that at this point P1 has created a server transaction
   identification code and populated the SIP CLF field Server-Txn with
   it.  P1 has not yet created a client transaction identification code,
   thus Client-Txn contains a "-".


   2    Timestamp: 1275930744.001
        Message Type: r
        Directionality: s
        Transport: udp
        CSeq-Number: 43
        CSeq-Method: INVITE
        R-URI: -
        Destination-address: 198.51.100.1
        Destination-port: 5060
        Source-address: 198.51.100.10
        Source-port: 5060
        To: sip:bob@example.net
        To-tag: -
        From: sip:alice@example.com
        From-tag: al-1
        Call-ID: tr-87h@example.com
        Status: 100
        Server-Txn: s-x-tr
        Client-Txn: -

   In line 3 below, P1 has created a client transaction identification
   code for the downstream branch and populated the SIP CLF field
   Client-Txn.

   3    Timestamp: 1275930744.998
        Message Type: R
        Directionality: s
        Transport: udp
        CSeq-Number: 43
        CSeq-Method: INVITE
        R-URI: sip:bob@bob1.example.net
        Destination-address: 203.0.113.1
        Destination-port: 5060
        Source-address: 198.51.100.10
        Source-port: 5060
        To: sip:bob@example.net
        To-tag: -
        From: sip:alice@example.com
        From-tag: al-1
        Call-ID: tr-87h@example.com
        Status: -
        Server-Txn: s-x-tr



Gurbani, et al.           Expires June 8, 2012                 [Page 18]


Internet-Draft                   SIP CLF                   December 2011


        Client-Txn: c-x-tr

   4    Timestamp: 1275930745.200
        Message Type: r
        Directionality: r
        Transport: udp
        CSeq-Number: 43
        CSeq-Method: INVITE
        R-URI: -
        Destination-address: 198.51.100.10
        Destination-port: 5060
        Source-address: 203.0.113.1
        Source-port: 5060
        To: sip:bob@example.net
        To-tag: b1-1
        From: sip:alice@example.com
        From-tag: al-1
        Call-ID: tr-87h@example.com
        Status: 100
        Server-Txn: s-x-tr
        Client-Txn: c-x-tr

   5    Timestamp: 1275930745.800
        Message Type: r
        Directionality: r
        Transport: udp
        CSeq-Number: 43
        CSeq-Method: INVITE
        R-URI: -
        Destination-address: 198.51.100.10
        Destination-port: 5060
        Source-address: 203.0.113.1
        Source-port: 5060
        To: sip:bob@example.net
        To-tag: b1-1
        From: sip:alice@example.com
        From-tag: al-1
        Call-ID: tr-87h@example.com
        Status: 180
        Server-Txn: s-x-tr
        Client-Txn: c-x-tr

   6    Timestamp: 1275930746.009
        Message Type: r
        Directionality: s
        Transport: udp
        CSeq-Number: 43
        CSeq-Method: INVITE



Gurbani, et al.           Expires June 8, 2012                 [Page 19]


Internet-Draft                   SIP CLF                   December 2011


        R-URI: -
        Destination-address: 198.51.100.1
        Destination-port: 5060
        Source-address: 198.51.100.10
        Source-port: 5060
        To: sip:bob@example.net
        To-tag: b1-1
        From: sip:alice@example.com
        From-tag: al-1
        Call-ID: tr-87h@example.com
        Status: 180
        Server-Txn: s-x-tr
        Client-Txn: c-x-tr

   7    Timestamp: 1275930747.120
        Message Type: r
        Directionality: r
        Transport: udp
        CSeq-Number: 43
        CSeq-Method: INVITE
        R-URI: -
        Destination-address: 198.51.100.10
        Destination-port: 5060
        Source-address: 203.0.113.1
        Source-port: 5060
        To: sip:bob@example.net
        To-tag: b1-1
        From: sip:alice@example.com
        From-tag: al-1
        Call-ID: tr-87h@example.com
        Status: 200
        Server-Txn: s-x-tr
        Client-Txn: c-x-tr

   8    Timestamp: 1275930747.300
        Message Type: r
        Directionality: s
        Transport: udp
        CSeq-Number: 43
        CSeq-Method: INVITE
        R-URI: -
        Destination-address: 198.51.100.1
        Destination-port: 5060
        Source-address: 198.51.100.10
        Source-port: 5060
        To: sip:bob@example.net
        To-tag: b1-1
        From: sip:alice@example.com



Gurbani, et al.           Expires June 8, 2012                 [Page 20]


Internet-Draft                   SIP CLF                   December 2011


        From-tag: al-1
        Call-ID: tr-87h@example.com
        Status: 200
        Server-Txn: s-x-tr
        Client-Txn: c-x-tr

   9    Timestamp: 1275930749.100
        Message Type: R
        Directionality: r
        Transport: udp
        CSeq-Number: 43
        CSeq-Method: ACK
        R-URI: sip:bob@example.net
        Destination-address: 198.51.100.10
        Destination-port: 5060
        Source-address: 198.51.100.1
        Source-port: 5060
        To: sip:bob@example.net
        To-tag: b1-1
        From: sip:alice@example.com
        From-tag: al-1
        Call-ID: tr-87h@example.com
        Status: -
        Server-Txn: s-x-tr
        Client-Txn: c-x-tr

   10   Timestamp: 1275930749.100
        Message Type: R
        Directionality: s
        Transport: udp
        CSeq-Number: 43
        CSeq-Method: ACK
        R-URI: sip:bob@bob1.example.net
        Destination-address: 203.0.113.1
        Destination-port: 5060
        Source-address: 198.51.100.10
        Source-port: 5060
        To: sip:bob@example.net
        To-tag: b1-1
        From: sip:alice@example.com
        From-tag: al-1
        Call-ID: tr-87h@example.com
        Status: -
        Server-Txn: s-x-tr
        Client-Txn: c-x-tr






Gurbani, et al.           Expires June 8, 2012                 [Page 21]


Internet-Draft                   SIP CLF                   December 2011


9.4.  Forked call

   In this example, Alice sends a session invitation to Bob's proxy, P2.
   P2 forks the session invitation request to two registered endpoints
   corresponding to Bob's address-of-record.  Both endpoints respond
   with provisional responses.  Shortly thereafter, one of Bob's user
   agent instances accepts the call, causing P2 to send a CANCEL request
   to the second user agent.  P2 does not Record-Route, therefore the
   subsequent ACK request from Alice to Bob's user agent does not
   traverse through P2 (and is not shown below.)

   Figure 2 depicts the call flow.

                           Bob            Bob
        Alice      P2   (Instance 1) (Instance 2)
         +---INV--->|          |         |  Line 1
         |          |          |         |
         |<---100---+          |         |  Line 2
         |          |          |         |
         |          +---INV--->|         |  Line 3
         |          |          |         |
         |          +---INV----+-------->|  Line 4
         |          |          |         |
         |          |<---100---+         |  Line 5
         |          |          |         |
         |          |<---------+---100---+  Line 6
         |          |          |         |
         |          |<---180---+---------+  Line 7
         |          |          |         |
         |<---180---+          |         |  Line 8
         |          |          |         |
         |          |<---180---+         |  Line 9
         |          |          |         |
         |<---180---+          |         |  Line 10
         |          |          |         |
         |          |<---200---+         |  Line 11
         |          |          |         |
         |<---200---+          |         |  Line 12
         |          |          |         |
         |          +---CANCEL-+-------->|  Line 13
         |          |          |         |
         |          |<---------+---487---+  Line 14
         |          |          |         |
         |          +---ACK----+-------->|  Line 15
         |          |          |         |
         |          |<---------+---200---+  Line 16





Gurbani, et al.           Expires June 8, 2012                 [Page 22]


Internet-Draft                   SIP CLF                   December 2011


                        Figure 2: Forked call flow

   The SIP CLF log correspond to the viewpoint of P2.  The fields logged
   are shown below; the line numbers refer to Figure 2.


   1    Timestamp: 1275930743.699
        Message Type: R
        Directionality: r
        Transport: udp
        CSeq-Number: 43
        CSeq-Method: INVITE
        R-URI: sip:bob@example.net
        Destination-address: 203.0.113.200
        Destination-port: 5060
        Source-address: 198.51.100.1
        Source-port: 5060
        To: sip:bob@example.net
        To-tag: -
        From: sip:alice@example.com
        From-tag: a1-1
        Call-ID: tr-88h@example.com
        Status: -
        Server-Txn: s-1-tr
        Client-Txn: -

   2    Timestamp: 1275930744.001
        Message Type: r
        Directionality: s
        Transport: udp
        CSeq-Number: 43
        CSeq-Method: INVITE
        R-URI: -
        Destination-address: 198.51.100.1
        Destination-port: 5060
        Source-address: 203.0.113.200
        Source-port: 5060
        To: sip:bob@example.net
        To-tag: -
        From: sip:alice@example.com
        From-tag: a1-1
        Call-ID: tr-88h@example.com
        Status: 100
        Server-Txn: s-1-tr
        Client-Txn: -

   3    Timestamp: 1275930744.998
        Message Type: R



Gurbani, et al.           Expires June 8, 2012                 [Page 23]


Internet-Draft                   SIP CLF                   December 2011


        Directionality: s
        Transport: udp
        CSeq-Number: 43
        CSeq-Method: INVITE
        R-URI: sip:bob@bob1.example.net
        Destination-address: 203.0.113.1
        Destination-port: 5060
        Source-address: 203.0.113.200
        Source-port: 5060
        To: sip:bob@example.net
        To-tag: -
        From: sip:alice@example.com
        From-tag: a1-1
        Call-ID: tr-88h@example.com
        Status: -
        Server-Txn: s-1-tr
        Client-Txn: c-1-tr

   4    Timestamp: 1275930745.500
        Message Type: R
        Directionality: s
        Transport: udp
        CSeq-Number: 43
        CSeq-Method: INVITE
        R-URI: sip:bob@bob2.example.net
        Destination-address: [2001:db8::9]
        Destination-port: 5060
        Source-address: 203.0.113.200
        Source-port: 5060
        To: sip:bob@example.net
        To-tag: -
        From: sip:alice@example.com
        From-tag: a1-1
        Call-ID: tr-88h@example.com
        Status: -
        Server-Txn: s-1-tr
        Client-Txn: c-2-tr

   5    Timestamp: 1275930745.800
        Message Type: r
        Directionality: r
        Transport: udp
        CSeq-Number: 43
        CSeq-Method: INVITE
        R-URI: -
        Destination-address: 203.0.113.200
        Destination-port: 5060
        Source-address: 203.0.113.1



Gurbani, et al.           Expires June 8, 2012                 [Page 24]


Internet-Draft                   SIP CLF                   December 2011


        Source-port: 5060
        To: sip:bob@example.net
        To-tag: b1=-1
        From: sip:alice@example.com
        From-tag: a1-1
        Call-ID: tr-88h@example.com 100
        Status: 100
        Server-Txn: s-1-tr
        Client-Txn: c-1-tr

   6    Timestamp: 1275930746.100
        Message Type: r
        Directionality: r
        Transport: udp
        CSeq-Number: 43
        CSeq-Method: INVITE
        R-URI: -
        Destination-address: 203.0.113.200
        Destination-port: udp
        Source-address: [2001:db8::9]
        Source-port: 5060
        To: sip:bob@example.net
        To-tag: b2-2
        From: sip:alice@example.com
        From-tag: a1-1
        Call-ID: tr-88h@example.com
        Status: 100
        Server-Txn: s-1-tr
        Client-Txn: c-2-tr

   7    Timestamp: 1275930746.700
        Message Type: r
        Directionality: r
        Transport: udp
        CSeq-Number: 43
        CSeq-Method: INVITE
        R-URI: -
        Destination-address: 203.0.113.200
        Destination-port: udp
        Source-address: [2001:db8::9]
        Source-port: 5060
        To: sip:bob@example.net
        To-tag: b2-2
        From: sip:alice@example.com
        From-tag: a1-1
        Call-ID: tr-88h@example.com
        Status: 180
        Server-Txn: s-1-tr



Gurbani, et al.           Expires June 8, 2012                 [Page 25]


Internet-Draft                   SIP CLF                   December 2011


        Client-Txn: c-2-tr

   8    Timestamp: 1275930746.990
        Message Type: r
        Directionality: s
        Transport: udp
        CSeq-Number: 43
        CSeq-Method: INVITE
        R-URI: -
        Destination-address: 198.51.100.1
        Destination-port: 5060
        Source-address: 203.0.113.200
        Source-port: 5060
        To: sip:bob@example.net
        To-tag: b2-2
        From: sip:alice@example.com
        From-tag: a1-1
        Call-ID: tr-88h@example.com
        Status: 180
        Server-Txn: s-1-tr
        Client-Txn: c-2-tr

   9    Timestamp: 1275930747.100
        Message Type: r
        Directionality: r
        Transport: udp
        CSeq-Number: 43
        CSeq-Method: INVITE
        R-URI: -
        Destination-address: 203.0.113.200
        Destination-port: 5060
        Source-address: 203.0.113.1
        Source-port: 5060
        To: sip:bob@example.net
        To-tag: b1-1
        From: sip:alice@example.com
        From-tag: a1-1
        Call-ID: tr-88h@example.com 100
        Status: 180
        Server-Txn: s-1-tr
        Client-Txn: c-1-tr

   10   Timestamp: 1275930747.300
        Message Type: r
        Directionality: s
        Transport: udp
        CSeq-Number: 43
        CSeq-Method: INVITE



Gurbani, et al.           Expires June 8, 2012                 [Page 26]


Internet-Draft                   SIP CLF                   December 2011


        R-URI: -
        Destination-address: 198.51.100.1
        Destination-port: 5060
        Source-address: 203.0.113.200
        Source-port: 5060
        To: sip:bob@example.net
        To-tag: b1-1
        From: sip:alice@example.com
        From-tag: a1-1
        Call-ID: tr-88h@example.com
        Status: 180
        Server-Txn: s-1-tr
        Client-Txn: c-2-tr

   11   Timestamp: 1275930747.800
        Message Type: r
        Directionality: r
        Transport: udp
        CSeq-Number: 43
        CSeq-Method: INVITE
        R-URI: -
        Destination-address: 203.0.113.200
        Destination-port: 5060
        Source-address: 203.0.113.1
        Source-port: 5060
        To: sip:bob@example.net
        To-tag: b1-1
        From: sip:alice@example.com
        From-tag: a1-1
        Call-ID: tr-88h@example.com 100
        Status: 200
        Server-Txn: s-1-tr
        Client-Txn: c-1-tr

   12   Timestamp: 1275930748.000
        Message Type: r
        Directionality: s
        Transport: udp
        CSeq-Number: 43
        CSeq-Method: INVITE
        R-URI: -
        Destination-address: 198.51.100.1
        Destination-port: 5060
        Source-address: 203.0.113.200
        Source-port: 5060
        To: sip:bob@example.net
        To-tag: b1-1
        From: sip:alice@example.com



Gurbani, et al.           Expires June 8, 2012                 [Page 27]


Internet-Draft                   SIP CLF                   December 2011


        From-tag: a1-1
        Call-ID: tr-88h@example.com
        Status: 200
        Server-Txn: s-1-tr
        Client-Txn: c-1-tr

   13   Timestamp: 1275930748.201
        Message Type: R
        Directionality: s
        Transport: udp
        CSeq-Number: 43
        CSeq-Method: CANCEL
        R-URI: sip:bob@bob2.example.net
        Destination-address: [2001:db8::9]
        Destination-port: 5060
        Source-address: 203.0.113.200
        Source-port: 5060
        To: sip:bob@example.net
        To-tag: b2-2
        From: sip:alice@example.com
        From-tag: a1-1
        Call-ID: tr-88h@example.com
        Status: -
        Server-Txn: s-1-tr
        Client-Txn: c-2-tr

   14   Timestamp: 1275930748.300
        Message Type: r
        Directionality: r
        Transport: udp
        CSeq-Number: 43
        CSeq-Method: INVITE
        R-URI: -
        Destination-address: 203.0.113.200
        Destination-port: udp
        Source-address: [2001:db8::9]
        Source-port: 5060
        To: sip:bob@example.net
        To-tag: b2-2
        From: sip:alice@example.com
        From-tag: a1-1
        Call-ID: tr-88h@example.com
        Status: 487
        Server-Txn: s-1-tr
        Client-Txn: c-2-tr

   15   Timestamp: 1275930748.355
        Message Type: R



Gurbani, et al.           Expires June 8, 2012                 [Page 28]


Internet-Draft                   SIP CLF                   December 2011


        Directionality: s
        Transport: udp
        CSeq-Number: 43
        CSeq-Method: ACK
        R-URI: sip:bob@bob2.example.net
        Destination-address: [2001:db8::9]
        Destination-port: 5060
        Source-address: 203.0.113.200
        Source-port: 5060
        To: sip:bob@example.net
        To-tag: b2-2
        From: sip:alice@example.com
        From-tag: a1-1
        Call-ID: tr-88h@example.com
        Status: -
        Server-Txn: s-1-tr
        Client-Txn: c-2-tr

   16   Timestamp: 1275930748.698
        Message Type: r
        Directionality: r
        Transport: udp
        CSeq-Number: 43
        CSeq-Method: CANCEL
        R-URI: -
        Destination-address: 203.0.113.200
        Destination-port: udp
        Source-address: [2001:db8::9]
        Source-port: 5060
        To: sip:bob@example.net
        To-tag: b2-2
        From: sip:alice@example.com
        From-tag: a1-1
        Call-ID: tr-88h@example.com
        Status: 200
        Server-Txn: s-1-tr
        Client-Txn: c-2-tr

   The above SIP CLF log makes it easy to search for a specific
   transaction or a state of the session.  Searching for the string
   "c-1-tr" on the log records will readily yield the information that
   an INVITE was sent to sip:bob@bob1.example.com, it elicited a 100
   followed by a 180 and then a 200.  Because the ACK request in this
   case would be exchanged end-to-end, this element does not see (and
   therefore will not log) the ACK.

   Searching on "c-2-tr" yields a more complex scenario of sending an
   INVITE to sip:bob@bob2.example.net, receiving 100 and 180.  However,



Gurbani, et al.           Expires June 8, 2012                 [Page 29]


Internet-Draft                   SIP CLF                   December 2011


   the log makes it apparent that the request to
   sip:bob@bob2.example.net was subsequently CANCEL'ed before a final
   response was generated, and that the pending INVITE returned a 487.
   The ACK to the final non-2xx response and a 200 to the CANCEL request
   complete the exchange on that branch.


10.  Security Considerations

   A log file by its nature reveals both the state of the entity
   producing it and the nature of the information being logged.  To the
   extent that this state should not be publicly accessible and that the
   information is to be considered private, appropriate file and
   directory permissions attached to the log file should be used.  The
   following threats may be considered for the log file while it is
   stored:

   o  An attacker may gain access to view the log file, or may
      surreptitiously make a copy of the log file for later viewing.
   o  An attacker who is unable to eavesdrop real-time SIP traffic on
      the network but nonetheless can access the log file, is able to
      easily mount reply attack or other attacks that result from
      channel eavesdropping.  Encrypting SIP traffic does not help here
      because the SIP entity generating the log file would have
      decrypted the message for processing and subsequent logging.
   o  An attacker may delete parts of --- or indeed, the whole --- file.

   It is outside the scope of this document to specify how to protect
   the log file while it is stored on disk.  However, operators may
   consider using common administrative features such as disk encryption
   and securing log files [schneier-1].  Operators may also consider
   hardening the machine on which the log files are stored by
   restricting physical access to the host as well as restricting access
   to the files themselves.

   In the worst case, public access to the SIP log file provides the
   same information that an adversary can gain using network sniffing
   tools (assuming that the SIP traffic is in clear text.)  If all SIP
   traffic on a network segment is encrypted, then as noted above,
   special attention must be directed to the file and directory
   permissions associated with the log file to preserve privacy such
   that only a privileged user can access the contents of the log file.

   Transporting SIP CLF files across the network pose special challenges
   as well.  The following threats may be considered for transferring
   log files or while transferring individual log records:





Gurbani, et al.           Expires June 8, 2012                 [Page 30]


Internet-Draft                   SIP CLF                   December 2011


   o  An attacker may view the records;
   o  An attacker may modify the records in transit or insert previously
      captured records into the stream;
   o  An attacker may remove records in transit, or may stage a man- in-
      the-middle attack to deliver a partially or entirely falsified log
      file.

   It is also outside the scope of this document to specify protection
   methods for log files or log records that are being transferred
   between hosts.  However, operators may consider using common security
   protocols described in [RFC3552] to transfer log files or individual
   records.  Alternatively, the log file may be transferred through bulk
   methods that also guarantees integrity, or at least detects and
   alerts to modification attempts.

   The SIP CLF represents the minimum fields that lend themselves to
   trend analysis and serve as information that may be deemed useful.
   Other formats can be defined that include more headers (and the body)
   from Section 8.1.  However, where to draw a judicial line regarding
   the inclusion of non-mandatory headers can be challenging.  Clearly,
   the more information a SIP entity logs, the longer time the logging
   process will take, the more disk space the log entry will consume,
   and the more potentially sensitive information could be breached.
   Therefore, adequate tradeoffs should be taken in account when logging
   more fields than the ones recommended in Section 8.1.

   Implementers need to pay particular attention to buffer handling when
   reading or writing log files.  SIP CLF entries can be unbounded in
   length.  It would be reasonable for a full dump of a SIP message to
   be thousands of octets long.  This is of particular importance to CLF
   log parsers, as a SIP CLF log writers may add one or more extension
   fields to the message to be logged.


11.  Operational guidance

   SIP CLF log files will take up substantive amount of disk space
   depending on traffic volume at a processing entity and the amount of
   information being logged.  As such, any enterprise using SIP CLF
   should establish operational procedures for file rollovers as
   appropriate to the needs of the organization.

   Listing such operational guidelines in this document is out of scope
   for this work.







Gurbani, et al.           Expires June 8, 2012                 [Page 31]


Internet-Draft                   SIP CLF                   December 2011


12.  IANA Considerations

   This document does not require any considerations from IANA.


13.  Acknowledgments

   Members of the sipping, dispatch, ipfix and syslog working groups
   provided invaluable input to the formulation of the draft.  These
   include Benoit Claise, Spencer Dawkins, John Elwell, David
   Harrington, Christer Holmberg, Hadriel Kaplan, Atsushi Kobayashi,
   Jiri Kuthan, Scott Lawrence, Chris Lonvick, Peter Musgrave, Simon
   Perreault, Adam Roach, Dan Romascanu, Robert Sparks, Brian Trammell,
   Dale Worley, Theo Zourzouvillys and others that we have undoubtedly,
   but inadvertently, missed.

   Rainer Gerhards, David Harrington, Cullen Jennings and Gonzalo
   Salgueiro helped tremendously in discussions related to arriving at
   the beginnings of a data model.


14.  References

14.1.  Normative References

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

14.2.  Informative References

   [I-D.ietf-sipclf-format]
              Salgueiro, G., Gurbani, V., and A. Roach, "Format for the
              Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Common Log Format
              (CLF)", draft-ietf-sipclf-format-03 (work in progress),
              October 2011.

   [RFC3261]  Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., Camarillo, G., Johnston,
              A., Peterson, J., Sparks, R., Handley, M., and E.
              Schooler, "SIP: Session Initiation Protocol", RFC 3261,
              June 2002.

   [RFC3552]  Rescorla, E. and B. Korver, "Guidelines for Writing RFC
              Text on Security Considerations", BCP 72, RFC 3552,
              July 2003.

   [rieck2008]
              Rieck, K., Wahl, S., Laskov, P., Domschitz, P., and K-R.
              Muller, "A Self-learning System for Detection of Anomalous



Gurbani, et al.           Expires June 8, 2012                 [Page 32]


Internet-Draft                   SIP CLF                   December 2011


              SIP Messages",  Principles, Systems and Applications of IP
              Telecommunications  Services and Security for Next
              Generation Networks (IPTComm),  LNCS 5310, pp. 90-106,
              2008.

   [schneier-1]
              Schneier, B. and J. Kelsey, "Secure audit logs to support
              computer forensics",  ACM Transactions on Information and
              System Security (TISSEC), 2(2), pp. 159,176, May 1999.


Authors' Addresses

   Vijay K. Gurbani (editor)
   Bell Laboratories, Alcatel-Lucent
   1960 Lucent Lane
   Naperville, IL  60566
   USA

   Email: vkg@bell-labs.com


   Eric W. Burger (editor)
   Georgetown University
   USA

   Email: eburger@standardstrack.com
   URI:   http://www.standardstrack.com


   Tricha Anjali
   Illinois Institute of Technology
   316 Siegel Hall
   Chicago, IL  60616
   USA

   Email: tricha@ece.iit.edu


   Humberto Abdelnur
   INRIA
   INRIA - Nancy Grant Est
   Campus Scientifique
   54506, Vandoeuvre-les-Nancy Cedex
   France

   Email: Humberto.Abdelnur@loria.fr




Gurbani, et al.           Expires June 8, 2012                 [Page 33]


Internet-Draft                   SIP CLF                   December 2011


   Olivier Festor
   INRIA
   INRIA - Nancy Grant Est
   Campus Scientifique
   54506, Vandoeuvre-les-Nancy Cedex
   France

   Email: Olivier.Festor@loria.fr











































Gurbani, et al.           Expires June 8, 2012                 [Page 34]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.129c, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/