[Docs] [txt|pdf] [Tracker] [Email] [Nits]

Versions: 00

Network Working Group                                       J. Rosenberg
Internet-Draft                                                     Five9
Intended status: Standards Track                        February 7, 2020
Expires: August 10, 2020


          RealTime Internet Peering for Single User Endpoints
                draft-rosenberg-dispatch-ript-inbound-00

Abstract

   The Real-Time Internet Peering for Telephony (RIPT) protocol defines
   a technique for establishing, terminating and otherwise managing
   calls between entities in differing administrative domains.  While it
   can be used for single user devices like an IP phone, it requires the
   IP phone to have TLS certificates and be publically reachable with a
   DNS record.  This specification remedies this by extending RIPP to
   enable clients to receive inbound calls.  It also provides basic
   single-user features such as forking, call push and pull, third-party
   call controls, and call appearances.  It describes techniques for
   resiliency of calls, especially for mobile clients with spotty
   network connectivity.

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 https://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 August 10, 2020.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2020 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
   (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of



Rosenberg                Expires August 10, 2020                [Page 1]


Internet-Draft                RIPT Inbound                 February 2020


   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  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Differences with SIP Outbound . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  Overview of Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   4.  Example Use Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     4.1.  Inbound Call Forking  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     4.2.  Answer and Stop Ringing Other Devices . . . . . . . . . .   6
     4.3.  Remote in Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     4.4.  Call Pull . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     4.5.  Call Push . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     4.6.  Select Device . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     4.7.  Third Party Call Control - Place Outbound . . . . . . . .   8
     4.8.  Third Party Call Control Answer or Decline Inbound  . . .   9
     4.9.  Third Party Call Control  Hangup  . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     4.10. Third Party Call Control  Move Call . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     4.11. Resiliency Miss Incoming call . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     4.12. Resiliency MidCall Network Change . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     4.13. Resiliency MidCall Wireless Fade and Recover  . . . . . .  10
     4.14. Resiliency MidCall Wireless Fade and Move . . . . . . . .  11
     4.15. Resiliency MidCall Wireless Fade and Peer Hangup  . . . .  11
     4.16. Resiliency MidCall Wireless Fade and Server Drop  . . . .  11
   5.  Normative Protocol Specification  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   6.  Syntax  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   7.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   8.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   9.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   10. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     10.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     10.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   Author's Address  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13

1.  Introduction

   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].

   The Real-Time Internet Peering Protocol (RIPT) defines a technique
   for establishing, terminating and otherwise managing calls between
   entities.  It is an application ontop of HTTP/3, and as such has the



Rosenberg                Expires August 10, 2020                [Page 2]


Internet-Draft                RIPT Inbound                 February 2020


   notion of a client that opens connections and makes requests to a
   server.  In the core RIPT specification, clients can only place
   outbound calls.  Inbound calls are supported by requiring an entity
   to also run a server.

   While this requirement is appropriate for use cases like SIP
   trunking, carrier to carrier peering, or other arrangements involving
   a large number of calls, it is a poor match for single user devices.
   A single user device is one in which an actual end user would log in
   and use that device for making and receiving calls.  Exampes include
   desktop softphones, browser based webRTC appications, IP hardphones,
   and video conferencing endpoints.  These devices are often behind a
   NAT, dont have DNS names, and don't have TLS certificates, all of
   which are pre-requisiites to run a server.

   Furthermore, an end user may often be logged into multiple such
   devices, possibly from multiple locations.  This introduces
   additional requirements.  Inbound calls need to be forked to all
   devices, and ring on all of them.  A user must be able to answer on
   one, and stop ringing on the others.  SIP [RFC3261] natively
   supported these capabilities.  However, it lacked other ones which
   are clearly needed - native support for mobile-based apps which
   utilize push notifications is one significant example.

   SIP's lack of call state in servers as a built-in feature of the
   protocol has also meant it couldn't readily support other features
   truly needed for a system where a user can be logged into multiple
   devices.  These include the ability for one device to see the state
   of the call, and know on which other device the call is being
   handled.  Another important feature includes the ability to - from
   any device - end the call, move it to a different device, or on the
   device the user is sitting on.  It also includes basic third party
   call controls - the ability to initiate or answer a call from one
   client, but have the media delivered to another.

   To remedy these challenges this specification provides an extension
   to RIPT to facilitate single-user devices.

2.  Differences with SIP Outbound

   This specification covers a similar problem space as SIP Outboud
   [RFC5626], however it works much differently.

   Firstly, delivery of an inbound call to an IP phone in a timely
   fashion clearly requires the IP phone to be able to have some kind of
   persistent connection over which it can receive incoming call
   indications.  In SIP Outbound, the specification itself provided this
   capability.  This specification, however, does not.  Rather, it



Rosenberg                Expires August 10, 2020                [Page 3]


Internet-Draft                RIPT Inbound                 February 2020


   assumes that it merely exists, and is provided through some non-
   standardied means, which we refer to as a "push channel".

   For mobile devices, the push channel is provided by the mobile OS.
   For browser applications, it might be provided by a websocket
   connection that the application is using to receive a variety of
   events, including those having nothing to do with calling.

   The push channel is also used to provide an indication of feature
   invocations to the client when those features are invoked elsewhere
   (ie., third party call control).  The specific feature names and
   other UI elements are out of scope for this spceification as well.
   Rather, this specification only shows how, once a client knows it
   needs perform a call manipulation, it can use RIPT to do it.

   The second significant difference compared to SIP Outbound is that
   RIPT does not use the push channel to push actual protocol messages;
   rather it uses it as a "shoulder tap" to let the client know about a
   new event, and provide it a URI with which it can get more
   information or take action.

3.  Overview of Operation

   To signal usage of this specification, the server includes a new
   element, "inbound", in its TG description.  The format of this
   element is identical to what it would look like to receive calls on a
   TG that would have been hosted by the single-user device, had it been
   able to do so.  For example, the following TG describes a single user
   TG which can handle both outbound and inbound calls:

                   {
                     "outbound": {
                       "origins" : (encoded passport)
                       "destinations" : "*"
                     },
                     "inbound": {
                       "destinations" : "+14085551002",
                     }
                   }

   The client will follow RIPT procedures for handler registration.
   This is analagous to the SIP REGISTER operation.  For server to
   server peering arrangements, the handler represents a particular
   collection of capabilities on an SBC or IP PBX.  When used by single-
   user devices, it represents each individual device.  Consequently, if
   a user has four IP phones, there would be four handlers created on
   the server.  As specified in RIPT each client needs to remember its
   handler URI persistently in order to modify it or delete it later on.



Rosenberg                Expires August 10, 2020                [Page 4]


Internet-Draft                RIPT Inbound                 February 2020


   If an incoming call arrives for the client, the server creates the
   call, including the call URI, and the push channel is used to inform
   the client of a new call, and provide it with the call URI.  The
   client performs a GET against this URI to obtain the information
   about the call.  As defined in the core RIPT specification, this will
   provide the client with the calling and caller party identifiers,
   call direction (here, inbound), and the client directive.  The client
   can then alert the user, and in parallel establish the signaling and
   media byways.  The client can send the proceeding, alerting,
   answered, or declined events to the server to adjust the state of the
   call.  Once answered, the call is active and processing proceeds
   identically to the case where it had placed an outbound call.

   Multi-device handling follows from the fact that the server will
   broadcast all call events to all open GET requests to /events on the
   call.  As such, if there are multiple IP phones, each of which
   receives a push notification of the new call, all of them will
   perform a GET on the call URI, establish signaling and media byways,
   and then alert the user.  Once the user answers on one device, the
   call state changes to answered and this event is sent to the other
   devices, which can cease ringing.  Furthermore, the other devices can
   follow the state of the call by maintaining a GET to /events, even
   though they are not sending or receiving media.

   Since other devices can track the state of the call, they can render
   it while the call is ongoing - providing basic 'shared call
   appearance' functionality.

   The movement of calls between different devices is learned through a
   new event defined here, the "handler changed" event, which is sent by
   the server.  Its payload is the URI of the new handler.

   The core RIPT specification also provides a simple way for one device
   to take a call from another - by using a client-side migration.  The
   device which wishes to take the call would POST to the call URI,
   changing the handler to itself.  It would get a new, modified
   directive, and then connect its media byways to begin sending and
   receiving media.

   These basic primitives can be used in concert with application-
   specific (and non-standardized) user interface and push channel
   contents to accomplish many different functions.

4.  Example Use Cases

   This section outlines example use cases that are enabled by this
   specification.  It is not normative in nature.  It merely describes




Rosenberg                Expires August 10, 2020                [Page 5]


Internet-Draft                RIPT Inbound                 February 2020


   how the new API features defined by this specification can be used by
   clients to deal with these cases.

4.1.  Inbound Call Forking

   Consider two devices - A and B.  A single user, Alice, logs into both
   devices.  These devices query the provider, and through the
   techniques described in RIPT, get the TG for the service provided to
   Alice and register their respective handlers.  Furthermore, assume
   that device A only supports G.711 and Opus, while device B supports
   both Opus, G.711, and G.729.

   When a new call arrives for Alice, the server would create a call
   URI, and use the push channel to inform both devices that a new call
   has arrived.  The push notification would inform the IP Phones of the
   call URI.  Both phones perform a GET against the call URI, which
   returns the caller and called numbers, call direction, and current
   state - which is proceeding.  Since the clients see that this call
   has not yet been answered, both of them render UI and begin alerting.
   Both will also open signaling byways to the call URI and PUT
   "proceeding" and then "alerting" events.  The server will in turn,
   echo the "alerting" events back to all clients which are receiving
   events on the byway, since the state of the call has changed to
   "alerting".

   This achieves the basic forking operation.

4.2.  Answer and Stop Ringing Other Devices

   Consider now that user Alice answers on device A.  This will cause
   device A to send an "answered" event to the server.  In parallel, it
   will perform a POST to the call URI and provide its handler URI in
   the body.  The response includes the directive for the call.  This
   allows the server to know that device A doesnt support G.729, and
   thus it directs device A to send with G.711.  Furthemore, the server
   would send the "answered" event to all other clients which have an
   open signaling byway, which in this case is phone B.  It will receive
   the "answered" event and thus cease ringing.

   Note that - had IP phone B receive the original push notification
   late, if it should query the call URI after the call has been
   answered, it would see that the state is answered and thus not ring.
   Because the server maintais state, it is resilient to intermittent
   client connectivity.







Rosenberg                Expires August 10, 2020                [Page 6]


Internet-Draft                RIPT Inbound                 February 2020


4.3.  Remote in Use

   Consider further now what happens with device B.  The call is being
   handled on device A.  However, device B maintains its signaling
   byway.  As a result, it will see the the call remains live.  If that
   call should end, the client would receive the "ended" event from the
   server, and therefore be able to show that the call is no longer
   active.

   Additionally, if the service provider offers advanced telephony
   features such as "hold" or "transfer", those state changes could be
   delivered to device B via the push-channel.  Similarly, the client
   could query - using web APIs beyond the scope of this specification -
   to learn about states like "on-hold".  (OPEN ISSUE: this does seem a
   bit wonky that RIPP is used for the basic call state, but a separate
   web API is needed if the state is something like "on-hold".)

4.4.  Call Pull

   Consider now that IP phone B wishes to take over the call.  This is
   called "call pull".

   To do that, it performs a client migration.  It POSTS to the call URI
   its own handler.  The server sees that this new handler supports
   G.729, so it returns a directive to the client telling it to send
   with G.729.  Device A would receive a notification on the signaling
   byway that the handler has changed to device B, and thus it knows
   that a migration has happened and it should close its media byway.
   (NOTE: need to consider race conditions).

4.5.  Call Push

   In the push case, the user on device A wishes to move the call to
   device B.  The user is in front of device A, and not device B.  To
   perform the move, it uses its UI, obtains the list of devices which
   are available from the server, and asks the server to move the call
   to device B.  The means by which this happens are not standardized
   here, and assume the existence of a browser function in the client
   which can render the UI for features such as this.

   When the server wants to move the call to device B, it sends it a
   push on the push channel and tells it to take the call, along with
   the call URI.  Device B then performs the client migration,
   identically to the pull case above.







Rosenberg                Expires August 10, 2020                [Page 7]


Internet-Draft                RIPT Inbound                 February 2020


4.6.  Select Device

   As part of the call push operation, the user on device A will need to
   obtain the list of devices to which it can push the call.  This
   specification assumes that this is provided through non-standardized
   means, by virtue of the phone having a browser which allows it to see
   the set of devices and select one.

4.7.  Third Party Call Control - Place Outbound

   In a similar way, this specification allows a device to be controlled
   by third party call control.  A user would visit a web page, enter in
   a number to call, and click the "call" button.  This capability does
   not require standardization.  The RIPT server would create an
   outbound call object, and then perform a push notification to both
   devices with the call URI.  Both devices would query the call URI,
   and see that there is a new call happening, in the outbound
   direction, with the state of proceeding.  The call state would also
   indicate the caller (here, user Alice herself) and the called party -
   the number dialed by Alice.

   Both phones could alert Alice to the outbound call in progress.  When
   Alice selets the device on which to proceed, this would cause that
   device to perform a POST to the call URI to set itself as the
   handler, and then establish media and signaling byways.  This would
   also trigger the server to actually place the call towards the
   destination.

   This technique for third party call control is superior to the one
   described in [RFC3725].  Firstly, the calling and called party
   numbers are properly represented and will render correctly on the
   devices.  This is because we're not actually placing a call towards
   ALice's phone - we're informing Alice of an outbound call placed from
   another location.  Secondly, the technique allows the phone to render
   proper UI - that this is not an inbound call, that it is an outbound
   call to be taken.  Call progress can also be properly rendered,
   including locally generated ringback.

   In this use case, the outbound call was picked up by Alice by
   'forking' the outbound call notification to all of her devices.  The
   service provider could, alternatively, allow Alice to choose a
   specific device for placing the outbound call.  In that case, the
   server would send an indication to just that device, over the push
   channel, telling it to connect to the call URI.







Rosenberg                Expires August 10, 2020                [Page 8]


Internet-Draft                RIPT Inbound                 February 2020


4.8.  Third Party Call Control Answer or Decline Inbound

   Another third party call control use case is that of an inbound call
   which rings user devices, and a user would like to accept the call
   from a webpage or other client, distinct from the device on which the
   call is to actually be answered.

   This capability is not possible with the mechanism defined in
   [RFC3725].

   This is possible with RIPT.  The webpage would render the incoming
   call notification to the user (again, no standardization is needed
   for this, it is all just a browser application).  The user would see
   information on the incoming caller, select the device on which to
   answer, and then hit an answer button.  The server would then send a
   push notification to the selceted device, with an instruction to
   answer the call.  The IP phone would then perform the POST operation
   to the call URI, including its handler in the body, and accept the
   call with the "answered" event.

4.9.  Third Party Call Control Hangup

   To hangup the call, once again Alice is in front of her browser, and
   is able to see the call in the browser UI, and see that the call is
   being handled by device A.  Alice clicks the 'hangup' button on her
   browser.  The server changes the state of the call by sending an
   "ended" event to all devices which have a signaling byway open
   (which, in this case, would be both devices A and B).  Device A would
   cease rendering media and disconnect its signaling and media byways
   for the call.  Device B, which had remote-in-use, would remove the
   remote-in-use indication from the UI.

   TODO: should add meta-data to the ended event, indicating who ended
   the event, to drive better UI and also deal with call drops

4.10.  Third Party Call Control Move Call

   In this use case, Alice is once again at her PC on her browser.  She
   is on a call which is rendering media on device A, and wishes to move
   the call to device B.  Using the browser UI, she instructs the server
   to do so.  The server would send a push notification to device B,
   asking it to take the call.  Device B would then POST its handler to
   the call URI, open the media byways, and take the call, identically
   to the pull use case above.







Rosenberg                Expires August 10, 2020                [Page 9]


Internet-Draft                RIPT Inbound                 February 2020


4.11.  Resiliency Miss Incoming call

   Consider now user Alice that has a mobile app with a RIPT client in
   it.  Alice was driving in her car.  At the very moment the server
   sends a push notification, Alice's device loses network coverage and
   the push notification is lost.

   When Alice exits the tunnel a few moments later, the application gets
   notified that network connectivity has ben restored (note: i dont
   believe this is actually provided in mobile OS today, it would
   require a change perhaps to enable it).  The application can then
   perform a query to the server to get its current calls, using
   techniques outside of the scope of this spceification.  Once it
   learns the call URI, it can query the call state and then render the
   call as alerting.

4.12.  Resiliency MidCall Network Change

   Consider a case where user Alice is on her mobile device, and on a
   call.  While she is on the call, she moves from her cellular network
   into her home, and her device switches to WiFi.

   When this happens, the VoIP application on the mobile device receives
   a notification from the OS that there has been a network change.
   Note that - since RIPT doesnt use IP addresses at all - there is no
   need to 're-REGISTER', or in fact to 're-INVITE'.  The client just
   continues doing what it was doing - performing GETs on /media to
   receive media packets, and PUTs on /media to send them.  In fact, the
   client need not even explicitly listen for network change events.  It
   just continues sending and receiving media as before.

   The change in IP will cause the signaling byways to end.  The client
   just re-establises them and continues where it was.  RIPT requires a
   client and server to buffer a small amount of media for cases where
   the media byways are temporarily disconnected.  In cases where there
   is no network connectivity during the transition, the buffered
   packets are sent in a burst.  In this way, there is no loss of media
   through the transition.

4.13.  Resiliency MidCall Wireless Fade and Recover

   Consider a similar case, where user Alice is on her mobile device,
   and on a call.  While she is on the call, she moves into a tunnel,
   and network connectivity is lost for a few seconds.

   The PUT and GET requests against the server for the media byway will
   fail, and the signaling byway will possibly timeout or return an
   error.  The IP phone just buffers the media content being spoken by



Rosenberg                Expires August 10, 2020               [Page 10]


Internet-Draft                RIPT Inbound                 February 2020


   the user.  Similarly, the server will be buffering the media it
   receives.  When the connection is restored, the media byways will be
   re-established, and the server will quickly push the buffered media
   to the client and vice-a-versa.  This allows the call to continue,
   with no loss of media, within the depths of the jitter buffer.

4.14.  Resiliency MidCall Wireless Fade and Move

   In a similar use case, Alice is on her mobile phone in a call and
   goes to her house.  She is one of those unfortunate few who have no
   cell signal in her house, nor does she have WiFi on her cell phone.
   Poor Alice.

   When Alice enters her home, the network connectivity on her mobile
   phone is lost.  However, her PC is up and running, so she logs into
   her service provider's portal from the browser.  This shows the call
   in progress.  Alice can hit the "move" button, which will cause the
   browser to take the call, identically to the technqiues described
   above.

4.15.  Resiliency MidCall Wireless Fade and Peer Hangup

   In this case, Alice is once again on her mobile device and enters an
   area where there is no coverage for a long distance.  As such, her
   device is unable to send and receive media for many seconds.  The
   server is able to detect this, and can inform the remote user that
   Alice has lost network connectivity (open question: should this be
   done via ripp or through proprietary means?).  The remote user gives
   up and some point and hangs up the call.  Alice's server ends the
   call.

   When Alice's phone finally regains network connectivity, it connects
   to the call URI and gets a 404.  This tells the device that the call
   no longer exists, and so Alice's phone indicates to Alice that the
   call has been ended (todo: should we keep the call state around in
   the 'ended' state for an hour or so, so that Alice's device can query
   it later and learn that it was ended by the remote party through an
   explicit hangup event, and also learn when)

4.16.  Resiliency MidCall Wireless Fade and Server Drop

   In this final use case, Alice enters an area where there is no
   coverage for an extended period of time.  The server quickly detects
   that she is not connected (it ceases receiving media).  After a
   period of time, the server decices to end the call.  It changes the
   call state to ended, which is passed to the remote party.





Rosenberg                Expires August 10, 2020               [Page 11]


Internet-Draft                RIPT Inbound                 February 2020


   When Alice's phone recovers and connects to the call, it gets a 404,
   informing her that the call has ended.

5.  Normative Protocol Specification

   A server that supports inbound calls on its TG MUST include the
   "inbound" element in its TG description.  This MUST include the
   allowed caller IDs in the "origins" element, and the allowed
   destinations in the "destinations".

   The server MUST allow the client to send a "proceeding", "alerting",
   "answered", "declined", "failed", "noanswer" and "end" events, and
   take the associated actions on the call.

   A client that answers a call MUST perform a POST operation to the
   call URI, and in the body of the request, it MUST include its handler
   URI, and no other information.  The server MUST respond with a
   directive.  If the directive works for the client, the client MUST
   generate an 'answered' event to answer the call.  The client MUST NOT
   POST its handler to the call URI until the user indicates that this
   device should accept the call.

   It MUST initiate signaling and media byways for the call, render
   incoming media and generate outgoing media for the call.

6.  Syntax

   This specification outlines the syntax for the new events and TG
   description.

7.  IANA Considerations

   No values are assigned in this document, no registries are created,
   and there is no action assigned to the IANA by this document.

8.  Security Considerations

   TODO

9.  Acknowledgements

   Thanks to Cullen Jennings for his input on this document.

10.  References







Rosenberg                Expires August 10, 2020               [Page 12]


Internet-Draft                RIPT Inbound                 February 2020


10.1.  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,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.

10.2.  Informative References

   [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,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3261>.

   [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,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3725>.

   [RFC5626]  Jennings, C., Ed., Mahy, R., Ed., and F. Audet, Ed.,
              "Managing Client-Initiated Connections in the Session
              Initiation Protocol (SIP)", RFC 5626,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC5626, October 2009,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5626>.

Author's Address

   Jonathan Rosenberg
   Five9

   Email: jdrosen@jdrosen.net


















Rosenberg                Expires August 10, 2020               [Page 13]


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