draft-ietf-sip-guidelines-09.txt   rfc4485.txt 
SIP J. Rosenberg
Internet-Draft Cisco Systems
Expires: August 17, 2005 H. Schulzrinne
Columbia University
February 16, 2005
Guidelines for Authors of Extensions to the Session Initiation
Protocol (SIP)
draft-ietf-sip-guidelines-09
Status of this Memo
This document is an Internet-Draft and is subject to all provisions
of section 3 of RFC 3667. By submitting this Internet-Draft, each
author represents that any applicable patent or other IPR claims of
which he or she is aware have been or will be disclosed, and any of
which he or she become aware will be disclosed, in accordance with
RFC 3668.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Network Working Group J. Rosenberg
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that Request for Comments: 4485 Cisco Systems
other groups may also distribute working documents as Category: Informational H. Schulzrinne
Internet-Drafts. Columbia University
May 2006
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."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at Guidelines for Authors of Extensions to
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at Status of This Memo
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on August 17, 2005. This memo provides information for the Internet community. It does
not specify an Internet standard of any kind. Distribution of this
memo is unlimited.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005). Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).
Abstract Abstract
The Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) is a flexible, yet simple tool The Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) is a flexible yet simple tool
for establishing interactive connections across the Internet. Part for establishing interactive communications sessions across the
of this flexibility is the ease with which it can be extended. In Internet. Part of this flexibility is the ease with which it can be
order to facilitate effective and interoperable extensions to SIP, extended. In order to facilitate effective and interoperable
some guidelines need to be followed when developing SIP extensions. extensions to SIP, some guidelines need to be followed when
developing SIP extensions. This document outlines a set of such
This document outlines a set of such guidelines for authors of SIP guidelines for authors of SIP extensions.
extensions.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1. Introduction ....................................................2
2. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Terminology .....................................................3
3. Should I define a SIP Extension? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. Should I Define a SIP Extension? ................................3
3.1 SIP's Solution Space . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3.1. SIP's Solution Space .......................................4
3.2 SIP Architectural Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3.2. SIP Architectural Model ....................................5
4. Issues to be Addressed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 4. Issues to Be Addressed ..........................................7
4.1 Backwards Compatibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 4.1. Backwards Compatibility ....................................7
4.2 Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 4.2. Security ..................................................10
4.3 Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 4.3. Terminology ...............................................10
4.4 Syntactic Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 4.4. Syntactic Issues ..........................................10
4.5 Semantics, Semantics, Semantics . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 4.5. Semantics, Semantics, Semantics ...........................13
4.6 Examples Section . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 4.6. Examples Section ..........................................14
4.7 Overview Section . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 4.7. Overview Section ..........................................14
4.8 IANA Considerations Section . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 4.8. IANA Considerations Section ...............................14
4.9 Document Naming Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 4.9. Document-Naming Conventions ...............................16
4.10 Additional Considerations for New Methods . . . . . . . 16 4.10. Additional Considerations for New Methods ................16
4.11 Additional Considerations for New Header Fields or 4.11. Additional Considerations for New Header Fields
Header Field Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 or Header Field ..........................................17
4.12 Additional Considerations for New Body Types . . . . . . 18 4.12. Additional Considerations for New Body Types .............18
5. Interactions with SIP Features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 5. Interactions with SIP Features .................................18
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 6. Security Considerations ........................................19
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 7. Acknowledgements ...............................................19
8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 8. References .....................................................19
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 8.1. Normative References ......................................19
9.1 Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 8.2. Informative References ....................................20
9.2 Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . 23
1. Terminology
In this document, the key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED",
"SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY",
and "OPTIONAL" are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [1] and
indicate requirement levels for compliant implementations.
2. Introduction 1. Introduction
The Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) [2] is a flexible, yet simple The Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) [2] is a flexible yet simple
tool for establishing interactive connections across the Internet. tool for establishing interactive communications sessions across the
Part of this flexibility is the ease with which it can be extended Internet. Part of this flexibility is the ease with which it can be
(with new methods, new header fields, new body types, and new extended (with new methods, new header fields, new body types, and
parameters), and there have been countless proposals that have been new parameters), and there have been countless proposals that have
made to do just that. An IETF process has been put into place which been made to do just that. An IETF process has been put into place
defines how extensions are to be made to the SIP protocol [10]. That that defines how extensions are to be made to the SIP protocol [10].
process is designed to ensure that extensions are made which are That process is designed to ensure that extensions are made that are
appropriate for SIP (as opposed to being done in some other appropriate for SIP (as opposed to being done in some other
protocol), that these extensions fit within the model and framework protocol), that these extensions fit within the model and framework
provided by SIP and are consistent with its operation, and that these provided by SIP and are consistent with its operation, and that these
extensions solve problems generically rather than for a specific use extensions solve problems generically rather than for a specific use
case. However, [10] does not provide the technical guidelines needed case. However, [10] does not provide the technical guidelines needed
to assist that process. This specification helps to meet that need. to assist that process. This specification helps to meet that need.
This specification first provides a set of guidelines to help decide This specification first provides a set of guidelines to help decide
whether a certain piece of functionality is appropriately done in whether a certain piece of functionality is appropriately done in
SIP. Assuming the functionality is appropriate, it then points out SIP. Assuming the functionality is appropriate, it then points out
issues which extensions should deal with from within their issues that extensions should deal with from within their
specification. Finally, it discusses common interactions with specification. Finally, it discusses common interactions with
existing SIP features which often cause difficulties in extensions. existing SIP features that often cause difficulties in extensions.
3. Should I define a SIP Extension? 2. Terminology
The first question to be addressed when defining a SIP extension is: In this document, the key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED",
is a SIP extension the best solution to my problem? SIP has been "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY",
proposed as a solution for numerous problems, including mobility, and "OPTIONAL" are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [1] and
configuration and management, QoS control, call control, caller indicate requirement levels for compliant implementations.
preferences, device control, third party call control, and MPLS path
setup, to name a few. Clearly, not every problem can be solved by a 3. Should I Define a SIP Extension?
SIP extension. More importantly, some problems that could be solved
by a SIP extension, probably shouldn't. The first question to be addressed when defining a SIP extension is
whether a SIP extension is the best solution to the problem. SIP has
been proposed as a solution for numerous problems, including
mobility, configuration and management, QoS control, call control,
caller preferences, device control, third-party call control, and
MPLS path setup, to name a few. Clearly, not every problem can be
solved by a SIP extension. More importantly, some problems that
could be solved by a SIP extension probably shouldn't.
To assist engineers in determining whether a SIP extension is an To assist engineers in determining whether a SIP extension is an
appropriate solution to their problem, we present two broad criteria. appropriate solution to their problem, we present two broad criteria.
First, the problem SHOULD fit into the general purview of SIP's First, the problem SHOULD fit into the general purview of SIP's
solution space. Secondly, the solution MUST conform to the general solution space. Secondly, the solution MUST conform to the general
SIP architectural model. SIP architectural model.
While the first criteria might seem obvious, we have observed that Although the first criteria might seem obvious, we have observed that
numerous extensions to SIP have been proposed because some function numerous extensions to SIP have been proposed because some function
is needed in a device which also speaks SIP. The argument is is needed in a device that also speaks SIP. The argument is
generally given that "I'd rather implement one protocol than many". generally given that "I'd rather implement one protocol than many".
As an example, user agents, like all other IP hosts, need some way to As an example, user agents, like all other IP hosts, need some way to
obtain their IP address. This is generally done through DHCP [11]. obtain their IP address. This is generally done through DHCP [11].
SIP's multicast registration mechanisms might supply an alternate way SIP's multicast registration mechanisms might supply an alternate way
to obtain an IP address. This would eliminate the need for DHCP in to obtain an IP address. This would eliminate the need for DHCP in
clients. However, we do not believe such extensions are appropriate. clients. However, we do not believe such extensions are appropriate.
We believe that protocols should be defined to provide specific, We believe that protocols should be defined to provide specific,
narrow functions, rather than being defined based on all protocols narrow functions, rather than be defined for all protocols needed
needed between a pair of devices. The former approach to protocol between a pair of devices. The former approach to protocol design
design yields modular protocols with broad application. It also yields modular protocols with broad application. It also facilitates
facilitates extensibility and growth; single protocols can be removed extensibility and growth; single protocols can be removed and changed
and changed without affecting the entire system. We observe that without affecting the entire system. We observe that this approach
this approach to protocol engineering mirrors object oriented to protocol engineering mirrors object-oriented software engineering.
software engineering.
Our second criteria, that the extension must conform to the general Our second criteria, that the extension must conform to the general
SIP architectural model, ensures that the protocol remains manageable SIP architectural model, ensures that the protocol remains manageable
and broadly applicable. and broadly applicable.
3.1 SIP's Solution Space 3.1. SIP's Solution Space
In order to evaluate the first criteria, it is necessary to define In order to evaluate the first criteria, it is necessary to define
exactly what SIP's solution space is, and what it is not. exactly what SIP's solution space is, and what it is not.
SIP is a protocol for initiating, modifying, and terminating SIP is a protocol for initiating, modifying, and terminating
interactive sessions. This process involves the discovery of users, interactive sessions. This process involves the discovery of users,
(or more generally, entities that can be communicated with, including (or, more generally, entities that can be communicated with,
services, such as voicemail or translation devices) wherever they may including services, such as voicemail or translation devices)
be located, so that a description of the session can be delivered to wherever they may be located, so that a description of the session
the user. It is assumed that these users or communications entities can be delivered to the user. It is assumed that these users or
are mobile, and their point of attachment to the network changes over communications entities are mobile, and that their point of
time. The primary purpose of SIP is a rendezvous function, to allow attachment to the network changes over time. The primary purpose of
a request initiator to deliver a message to a recipient wherever they SIP is a rendezvous function, to allow a request initiator to deliver
may be. Such rendezvous is needed to establish a session, but can be a message to a recipient wherever they may be. Such a rendezvous is
used for other purposes related to communications, such as querying needed to establish a session, but it can be used for other purposes
for capabilities or delivery of an instant message. related to communications, such as querying for capabilities or
delivery of an instant message.
Much of SIP focuses on this discovery and rendezvous component. Its Much of SIP focuses on this discovery and rendezvous component. Its
ability to fork, its registration capabilities, and its routing ability to fork, its registration capabilities, and its routing
capabilities are all present for the singular purpose of finding the capabilities are all present for the singular purpose of finding the
desired user wherever they may be. As such, features and desired user wherever they may be. As such, features and
capabilities such as personal mobility, automatic call distribution, capabilities such as personal mobility, automatic call distribution,
and follow-me are well within the SIP solution space. and follow-me are well within the SIP solution space.
Session initiation also depends on the ability of the called party to Session initiation also depends on the ability of the called party to
have enough information about the session itself in order to make a have enough information about the session itself to make a decision
decision on whether to join or not. That information includes data on whether to join. That information includes data about the caller,
about the caller, the purpose for the invitation, and parameters of the purpose for the invitation, and parameters of the session itself.
the session itself. For this reason, SIP includes this kind of For this reason, SIP includes this kind of information.
information.
Part of the process of session initiation is the communication of Part of the process of session initiation is the communication of
progress and the final results of establishment of the session. SIP progress and the final results of establishment of the session. SIP
provides this information as well. provides this information as well.
SIP itself is independent of the session, and the session description SIP itself is independent of the session, and the session description
is delivered as an opaque body within SIP messages. Keeping SIP is delivered as an opaque body within SIP messages. Keeping SIP
independent of the sessions it initiates and terminates is independent of the sessions it initiates and terminates is
fundamental. As such, there are many functions that SIP explicitly fundamental. As such, there are many functions that SIP explicitly
does not provide. It is not a session management protocol or a does not provide. It is not a session management protocol or a
skipping to change at page 5, line 38 skipping to change at page 5, line 16
The path independence refers to paths within a provider's network and The path independence refers to paths within a provider's network and
the set of providers itself. For example, it is perfectly reasonable the set of providers itself. For example, it is perfectly reasonable
for a SIP message to traverse a completely different set of for a SIP message to traverse a completely different set of
autonomous systems than the audio in a session SIP establishes. autonomous systems than the audio in a session SIP establishes.
SIP is not a general purpose transfer protocol. It is not meant to SIP is not a general purpose transfer protocol. It is not meant to
send large amounts of data unrelated to SIP's operation. It is not send large amounts of data unrelated to SIP's operation. It is not
meant as a replacement for HTTP. This is not to say that carrying meant as a replacement for HTTP. This is not to say that carrying
payloads in SIP messages is never a good thing; in many cases, the payloads in SIP messages is never a good thing; in many cases, the
data is very much related to SIP's operation. In those cases, data is very much related to SIP's operation. In those cases,
congestion controlled transports end-to-end are critical. congestion-controlled transports end-to-end are critical.
SIP is not meant to be a general Remote Procedure Call (RPC) SIP is not meant to be a general Remote Procedure Call (RPC)
mechanism. None of its user discovery and registration capabilities mechanism. None of its user discovery and registration capabilities
are needed for RPC, neither are most of its proxy functions. are needed for RPC, and neither are most of its proxy functions.
SIP is not meant to be used as a strict Public Switched Telephone SIP is not meant to be used as a strict Public Switched Telephone
Network (PSTN) signaling replacement. It is not a superset of the Network (PSTN) signaling replacement. It is not a superset of the
Integrated Services Digital Network (ISDN) User Part (ISUP). While Integrated Services Digital Network (ISDN) User Part (ISUP).
it can support gatewaying of PSTN signaling, and can provide many Although it can support gatewaying of PSTN signaling and can provide
features present in the PSTN, the mere existence of a feature or many features present in the PSTN, the mere existence of a feature or
capability in the PSTN is not a justification for its inclusion in capability in the PSTN is not a justification for its inclusion in
SIP. Extensions needed to support telephony MUST meet the other SIP. Extensions needed to support telephony MUST meet the other
criteria described here. criteria described here.
SIP is a poor control protocol. It is not meant to be used for one SIP is a poor control protocol. It is not meant to be used for one
entity to tell another to pick up or answer a phone, send audio using entity to tell another to pick up or answer a phone, to send audio
a particular codec, or to provide a new value for a configuration using a particular codec, or to provide a new value for a
parameter. Control protocols have different trust relationships than configuration parameter. Control protocols have different trust
is assumed in SIP, and are more centralized in architecture than SIP, relationships from that assumed in SIP and are more centralized in
which is a very distributed protocol. architecture than SIP is, as SIP is a very distributed protocol.
There are many network layer services needed to make SIP function. There are many network layer services needed to make SIP function.
These include quality of service, mobility, and security, among These include quality of service, mobility, and security, among
others. Rather than building these capabilities into SIP itself, others. Rather than build these capabilities into SIP itself, they
they SHOULD be developed outside of SIP, and then used by it. SHOULD be developed outside of SIP and then used by it.
Specifically, any protocol mechanisms that are needed by SIP, but are Specifically, any protocol mechanisms that are needed by SIP, but
also needed by many other application layer protocols, SHOULD NOT be that are also needed by many other application layer protocols SHOULD
addressed within SIP. NOT be addressed within SIP.
3.2 SIP Architectural Model 3.2. SIP Architectural Model
We describe here some of the primary architectual assumptions which We describe here some of the primary architectural assumptions that
underly SIP. Extensions which violate these assumptions should be underlie SIP. Extensions that violate these assumptions should be
examined more carefully to determine their appropriateness for SIP. examined more carefully to determine their appropriateness for SIP.
Session independence: SIP is independent of the session it Session independence: SIP is independent of the session it
establishes. This includes the type of session, be it audio, establishes. This includes the type of session, be it audio,
video, game, chat session, or virtual reality. SIP operation video, game, chat session, or virtual reality. SIP operation
SHOULD NOT be dependent on some characteristic of the session. SHOULD NOT depend on some characteristic of the session. SIP is
SIP is not specific to voice only. Any extensions to SIP MUST not specific to voice only. Any extensions to SIP MUST consider
consider the application of SIP to a variety of different session the application of SIP to a variety of different session types.
types.
SIP and Session Path Independence: We have already touched on this SIP and Session path independence: We have already touched on this
once, but it is worth noting again. The set of routers and/or once, but it is worth noting again. The set of routers, networks,
networks and/or autonomous systems traversed by SIP messages are and/or autonomous systems traversed by SIP messages are unrelated
unrelated to the set of routers and/or networks and/or autonomous to the set of routers, networks, and/or autonomous systems
systems traversed by session packets. They may be the same in traversed by session packets. They may be the same in some cases,
some cases, but it is fundamental to SIP's architecture that they but it is fundamental to SIP's architecture that they need not be
need not be the same. Standards track extensions MUST NOT be the same. Standards-track extensions MUST NOT be defined that
defined that work only when the signaling and session paths are work only when the signaling and session paths are coupled. Non-
coupled. Non-standard P-header extensions [10] are required for standard P-header extensions [10] are required for any extension
any extension which only works in such a case. that only works in such a case.
Multi-provider and Multi-hop: SIP assumes that its messages will Multi-provider and multi-hop: SIP assumes that its messages will
traverse the Internet. That is, SIP works through multiple traverse the Internet. That is, SIP works through multiple
networks administered by different providers. It is also assumed networks administered by different providers. It is also assumed
that SIP messages traverse many hops (where each hop is a proxy). that SIP messages traverse many hops (where each hop is a proxy).
Extensions MUST NOT work only under the assumption of a single hop Extensions MUST NOT work only under the assumption of a single hop
or specialized network topology. They SHOULD avoid the assumption or specialized network topology. They SHOULD avoid the assumption
of a single SIP provider (but see the use of P-Headers, RFC 3427 of a single SIP provider (but see the use of P-Headers, per RFC
[10]). 3427 [10]).
Transactional: SIP is a request/response protocol, possibly enhanced Transactional: SIP is a request/response protocol, possibly enhanced
with intermediate responses. Many of the rules of operation in with intermediate responses. Many of the rules of operation in
SIP are based on general processing of requests and responses. SIP are based on general processing of requests and responses.
This includes the reliability mechanisms, routing mechanisms, and This includes the reliability mechanisms, routing mechanisms, and
state maintenance rules. Extensions SHOULD NOT add messages that state maintenance rules. Extensions SHOULD NOT add messages that
are not within the request-response model. are not within the request-response model.
Proxies can ignore bodies: In order for proxies to scale well, they Proxies can ignore bodies: In order for proxies to scale well, they
must be able to operate with minimal message processing. SIP has must be able to operate with minimal message processing. SIP has
been engineered so that proxies can always ignore bodies. been engineered so that proxies can always ignore bodies.
Extensions SHOULD NOT require proxies to examine bodies. Extensions SHOULD NOT require proxies to examine bodies.
Proxies don't need to understand the method: Processing of requests Proxies don't need to understand the method: Processing of requests
in proxies does not depend on the method, except for the well in proxies does not depend on the method, except for the well-
known methods INVITE, ACK, and CANCEL. This allows for known methods INVITE, ACK, and CANCEL. This allows for
extensibility. Extensions MUST NOT define new methods which must extensibility. Extensions MUST NOT define new methods that must
be understood by proxies. be understood by proxies.
INVITE messages carry full state: An initial INVITE message for a INVITE messages carry full state: An initial INVITE message for a
session is nearly identical (the exception is the tag) to a session is nearly identical (the exception is the tag) to a re-
re-INVITE message to modify some characteristic of the session. INVITE message to modify some characteristic of the session. This
This full state property is fundamental to SIP, and is critical full state property is fundamental to SIP and is critical for
for robustness of SIP systems. Extensions SHOULD NOT modify robustness of SIP systems. Extensions SHOULD NOT modify INVITE
INVITE processing such that data spanning multiple INVITEs must be processing such that data spanning multiple INVITEs must be
collected in order to perform some feature. collected in order to perform some feature.
Generality over efficiency: Wherever possible, SIP has favored Generality over efficiency: Wherever possible, SIP has favored
general purpose components rather than narrow ones. If some general-purpose components rather than narrow ones. If some
capability is added to support one service, but a slightly broader capability is added to support one service but a slightly broader
capability can support a larger variety of services (at the cost capability can support a larger variety of services (at the cost
of complexity or message sizes), the broader capability SHOULD be of complexity or message sizes), the broader capability SHOULD be
preferred. preferred.
The Request URI is the primary key for forwarding: Forwarding logic The Request URI is the primary key for forwarding: Forwarding logic
at SIP servers depends primarily on the request URI (this is at SIP servers depends primarily on the request URI (this is
different from request routing in SIP, which uses the Route header different from request routing in SIP, which uses the Route header
fields to pass a request through intermediate proxies). It is fields to pass a request through intermediate proxies). It is
fundamental to the operation of SIP that the request URI indicate fundamental to the operation of SIP that the request URI indicate
a resource that, under normal operations, resolves to the desired a resource that, under normal operations, resolves to the desired
recipient. Extensions SHOULD NOT modify the semantics of the recipient. Extensions SHOULD NOT modify the semantics of the
request URI. request URI.
Heterogeneity is the norm: SIP supports hetereogeneous devices. It Heterogeneity is the norm: SIP supports heterogeneous devices. It
has built in mechanisms for determining the set of overlapping has built-in mechanisms for determining the set of overlapping
protocol functionalities. Extensions SHOULD NOT be defined which protocol functionalities. Extensions SHOULD NOT be defined that
only function if all devices support the extension. only function if all devices support the extension.
4. Issues to be Addressed 4. Issues to Be Addressed
Given an extension has met the litmus tests in the previous section, Given an extension has met the litmus tests in the previous section,
there are several issues that all extensions should take into there are several issues that all extensions should take into
consideration. consideration.
4.1 Backwards Compatibility 4.1. Backward Compatibility
One of the most important issues to consider is whether the new One of the most important issues to consider is whether the new
extension is backwards compatible with baseline SIP. This is tightly extension is backward compatible with baseline SIP. This is tightly
coupled with how the Require, Proxy-Require, and Supported header coupled with how the Require, Proxy-Require, and Supported header
fields are used. fields are used.
If an extension consists of new header fields or header field If an extension consists of new header fields or header field
parameters inserted by a user agent in a request with an existing parameters inserted by a user agent in a request with an existing
method, and the request cannot be processed reasonably by a proxy method, and the request cannot be processed reasonably by a proxy
and/or user agent without understanding the header fields or and/or user agent without understanding the header fields or
parameters, the extension MUST mandate the usage of the Require parameters, the extension MUST mandate the usage of the Require
and/or Proxy-Require header fields in the request. These extensions and/or Proxy-Require header fields in the request. These extensions
are not backwards compatible with SIP. The result of mandating usage are not backwards compatible with SIP. The result of mandating usage
skipping to change at page 9, line 11 skipping to change at page 8, line 40
the path failure grows exponentially with the number of hops. On the path failure grows exponentially with the number of hops. On
the other hand, the Require header field only mandates that a the other hand, the Require header field only mandates that a
single entity, the UAS, support the extension. Usage of single entity, the UAS, support the extension. Usage of
Proxy-Require is thus considered exponentially worse than usage of Proxy-Require is thus considered exponentially worse than usage of
the Require header field. the Require header field.
o If either Require or Proxy-Require are used by an extension, the o If either Require or Proxy-Require are used by an extension, the
extension SHOULD discuss how to fall back to baseline SIP extension SHOULD discuss how to fall back to baseline SIP
operation if the request is rejected with a 420 response. operation if the request is rejected with a 420 response.
Extensions which define new methods do not need to use the Require Extensions that define new methods do not need to use the Require
header field. SIP defines mechanisms which allow a UAC to know header field. SIP defines mechanisms that allow a UAC to know
whether a new method is understood by a UAS. This includes both the whether a new method is understood by a UAS. This includes both the
OPTIONS request, and the 405 (Method Not Allowed) response with the OPTIONS request and the 405 (Method Not Allowed) response with the
Allow header field. It is fundamental to SIP that proxies do not Allow header field. It is fundamental to SIP that proxies need not
need to understand the semantics of a new method in order to process understand the semantics of a new method in order to process it. If
it. If an extension defines a new method which must be understood by an extension defines a new method that must be understood by proxies
proxies in order to be processed, a Proxy-Require header field is in order to be processed, a Proxy-Require header field is needed. As
needed. As discussed above, these kinds of extensions are frowned discussed above, these kinds of extensions are frowned upon.
upon.
In order to achieve backwards compatibility for extensions that In order to achieve backwards compatibility for extensions that
define new methods, the Allow header field is used. There are two define new methods, the Allow header field is used. There are two
types of new methods - those that are used for established dialogs types of new methods - those that are used for established dialogs
(initiated by INVITE, for example), and those that are sent as the (initiated by INVITE, for example), and those that are sent as the
initial request to a UA. Since INVITE and its response both SHOULD initial request to a UA. Since INVITE and its response both SHOULD
contain an Allow header field, a UA can readily determine whether the contain an Allow header field, a UA can readily determine whether the
new method can be supported within the dialog. For example, once an new method can be supported within the dialog. For example, once an
INVITE dialog is established, a user agent could determine if the INVITE dialog is established, a user agent could determine whether
REFER method [12] is supported if it is present in an Allow header. the REFER method [12] is supported if it is present in an Allow
If it wasn't, the "transfer" button on the UI could be "greyed out" header field. If it wasn't, the "transfer" button on the UI could be
once the call is established. "greyed out" once the call is established.
Another type of extension are those which require a proxy to insert Another type of extension is that which requires a proxy to insert
header fields or header field parameters into a request as it header fields or header field parameters into a request as it
traverses the network, or for the UAS to insert header fields or traverses the network, or for the UAS to insert header fields or
header field parameters into a response. For some extensions, if the header field parameters into a response. For some extensions, if the
UAC or UAS does not understand these header fields, the message can UAC or UAS does not understand these header fields, the message can
still be processed correctly. These extensions are completely still be processed correctly. These extensions are completely
backwards compatible. backwards compatible.
Most other extensions of this type require that the server only Most other extensions of this type require that the server only
insert the header field or parameter if it is sure the client insert the header field or parameter if it is sure the client
understands it. In this case, these extensions will need to make use understands it. In this case, these extensions will need to make use
of the Supported request header field mechanism. This mechanism of the Supported request header field mechanism. This mechanism
allows a server to determine if the client can understand some allows a server to determine if the client can understand some
extension, so that it can apply the extension to the response. By extension, so that it can apply the extension to the response. By
their nature, these extensions may not always be able to be applied their nature, these extensions may not always be able to be applied
to every response. to every response.
If an extension requires a proxy to insert a header field or If an extension requires a proxy to insert a header field or
parameter into a request, and this header field or parameter needs to parameter into a request and this header field or parameter needs to
be understood by both UAC and UAS to be executed correctly, a be understood by both UAC and UAS to be executed correctly, a
combination of the Require and the Supported mechanism will need to combination of the Require and the Supported mechanism will need to
be used. The proxy can insert a Require header field into the be used. The proxy can insert a Require header field into the
request, given the Supported header field is present. An example of request if the Supported header field is present. An example of such
such an extension is the SIP Session Timer [13]. an extension is the SIP Session Timer [13].
Yet another type of extension is that which defines new body types to Yet another type of extension is that which defines new body types to
be carried in SIP messages. According to the SIP specification, be carried in SIP messages. According to the SIP specification,
bodies must be understood by user agents in order to process a bodies must be understood by user agents in order to process a
request. As such, the interoperability issues are similar to new request. As such, the interoperability issues are similar to new
methods. However, the Content-Disposition header field has been methods. However, the Content-Disposition header field has been
defined to allow a client or server to indicate that the message body defined to allow a client or server to indicate that the message body
is optional [2]. Extensions that define or require new body types is optional [2]. Extensions that define or require new body types
SHOULD make them optional for the user agent to process. SHOULD make them optional for the user agent to process.
When a body must be understood to properly process a request or When a body must be understood to properly process a request or
response, it is preferred that the sending entity know ahead of time response, it is preferred that the sending entity know ahead of time
whether the new body is understood by the recipient. For requests whether the new body is understood by the recipient. For requests
that establish a dialog, inclusion of Accept in the request and its that establish a dialog, inclusion of Accept in the request and its
success responses is RECOMMENDED. This will allow both parties to success responses is RECOMMENDED. This will allow both parties to
determine what body types are supported by their peers. Subsequent determine what body types are supported by their peers. Subsequent
messaging between the peers would then only include body types that messaging between the peers would then only include body types that
were indicated as being understood. were indicated as being understood.
4.2 Security 4.2. Security
Security is an important component of any protocol. Designers of SIP Security is an important component of any protocol. Designers of SIP
extensions need to carefully consider if additional security extensions need to carefully consider if additional security
requirements are required over those described in RFC 3261. requirements are required over those described in RFC 3261.
Frequently authorization requirements, and requirements for Frequently, authorization requirements and requirements for end-to-
end-to-end integrity are the most overlooked. end integrity are the most overlooked.
SIP extensions MUST consider how (or if) they affect usage of the SIP extensions MUST consider how (or if) they affect usage of the
general SIP security mechanisms. Most extensions should not require general SIP security mechanisms. Most extensions should not require
any new security capabilities beyond general purpose SIP. If they any new security capabilities beyond general-purpose SIP. If they
do, it is likely that the security mechanism has more general purpose do, it is likely that the security mechanism has more general-purpose
application, and should be considered an extension in its own right. application and should be considered an extension in its own right.
Overall system security requires that both the SIP signaling and the Overall system security requires that both the SIP signaling and the
media sessions it established be secured. The media sessions media sessions it established be secured. The media sessions
normally use of their own security techniques that are quite distinct normally use their own security techniques, which are quite distinct
by those used by SIP itself. Extensions should take care not to from those used by SIP itself. Extensions should take care not to
conflate the two. However, specifications that define extensions conflate the two. However, specifications that define extensions
which impact the media sessions in any way SHOULD consider the that impact the media sessions in any way SHOULD consider the
interactions between SIP and session security mechanisms. interactions between SIP and session security mechanisms.
4.3 Terminology 4.3. Terminology
RFC 3261 has an extensive terminology section that defines terms like RFC 3261 has an extensive terminology section that defines terms such
caller, callee, user agent, header field, and so on. All SIP as caller, callee, user agent, and header field. All SIP extensions
extensions MUST conform to this terminology. They MUST NOT define MUST conform to this terminology. They MUST NOT define new terms
new terms that describe concepts already defined by a term in another that describe concepts already defined by a term in another SIP
SIP specification. If new terminology is needed, it SHOULD appear in specification. If new terminology is needed, it SHOULD appear in a
a separate section towards the beginning of the document. separate section towards the beginning of the document.
Careful attention must be paid to the actual usage of terminology. Careful attention must be paid to the actual usage of terminology.
Many documents misuse the terms header, header field, and header Many documents misuse the terms header, header field, and header
field values, for example. Document authors SHOULD do a careful field values, for example. Document authors SHOULD do a careful
review of their documents for proper usage of these terms. review of their documents for proper usage of these terms.
4.4 Syntactic Issues 4.4. Syntactic Issues
Extensions that define new methods SHOULD use all capitals for the Extensions that define new methods SHOULD use all capitals for the
method name. Method names SHOULD be less than 10 characters, and method name. Method names SHOULD be shorter than 10 characters and
SHOULD attempt to convey the general meaning of the request. Method SHOULD attempt to convey the general meaning of the request. Method
names are case sensitive, and therefore, strictly speaking, they names are case sensitive, and therefore, strictly speaking, they
don't have to be capitalized. However, using capitalized method don't have to be capitalized. However, using capitalized method
names keeps with a long-standing convention in SIP and many similar names keeps with a long-standing convention in SIP and many similar
protocols, such as HTTP [15] and RTSP [16] protocols, such as HTTP [15] and RTSP [16].
Extensions that define new header fields that are anticipated to be Extensions that define new header fields that are anticipated to be
heavily used MAY define a compact form if those header fields are heavily used MAY define a compact form if those header fields are
more than six characters. "Heavily used" means that the percentage more than six characters. "Heavily used" means that the percentage
of all emitted messages which contain that header field is over of all emitted messages that contain that header field is over thirty
thirty percent. Usage of compact forms in these cases is only a MAY percent. Usage of compact forms in these cases is only a MAY because
because there are better approaches for reducing message overhead there are better approaches for reducing message overhead [20].
[20]. Compact header fields MUST be a single character. When all 26 Compact header fields MUST be a single character. When all 26
characters are exhausted, new compact forms will no longer be characters are exhausted, new compact forms will no longer be
defined. Header field names are defined by the "token" production in defined. Header field names are defined by the "token" production in
RFC 3261 Section 25.1, and thus include the upper and lowercase RFC 3261, Section 25.1, and thus include the upper and lowercase
letters, the digits 0 through 9, the HYPHEN-MINUS (-), FULL STOP (.), letters, the digits 0 through 9, the HYPHEN-MINUS (-), FULL STOP (.),
EXCLAMATION MARK (!), PERCENT SIGN (%), ASTERISK (*), LOW LINE (_), EXCLAMATION MARK (!), PERCENT SIGN (%), ASTERISK (*), LOW LINE (_),
PLUS SIGN (+), GRAVE ACCENT (`), APOSTROPHE ('), and TILDE (~). They PLUS SIGN (+), GRAVE ACCENT (`), APOSTROPHE ('), and TILDE (~). They
SHOULD be descriptive but reasonably brief. Although header field SHOULD be descriptive but reasonably brief. Although header field
names are case insensitive, a single common capitalization SHOULD be names are case insensitive, a single common capitalization SHOULD be
used throughout the document. It is RECOMMENDED that each English used throughout the document. It is RECOMMENDED that each English
word present in the header field name have its first letter word present in the header field name have its first letter
capitalized. For example, "ThisIsANewHeader". capitalized. For example, "ThisIsANewHeader".
As an example, the following are poor choices for header field names: As an example, the following are poor choices for header field names:
ThisIsMyNewHeaderThatDoesntDoVeryMuchButItHasANiceName ThisIsMyNewHeaderThatDoesntDoVeryMuchButItHasANiceName
--.!A --.!A
Function Function
Case sensitivity of parameters and values is a constant source of Case sensitivity of parameters and values is a constant source of
confusion, a difficulty that plagued RFC 2543 [17]. This has been confusion, a difficulty that plagued RFC 2543 [17]. This has been
made simple through the usage of the BNF constructs of RFC 2234 [5], simplified through the usage of the BNF constructs of RFC 4234 [5],
which have clear rules of case sensivitity and insensitivity. which have clear rules of case sensitivity and insensitivity.
Therefore, the BNF for an extension completely defines the matching Therefore, the BNF for an extension completely defines the matching
rules. rules.
Extensions MUST be consistent with the SIP conventions for case Extensions MUST be consistent with the SIP conventions for case
sensitivity. Methods MUST be case sensitive. Header field names sensitivity. Methods MUST be case sensitive. Header field names
MUST be case insensitive. Header field parameter names MUST be case MUST be case insensitive. Header field parameter names MUST be case
insensitive. Header field values and parameter values are sometimes insensitive. Header field values and parameter values are sometimes
case sensitive, and sometimes case insensitive. However, generally case sensitive, and sometimes case insensitive. However, generally,
they SHOULD be case insensitive. Definiting a case sensitive they SHOULD be case insensitive. Defining a case-sensitive component
component requires explicitly listing each character through its requires explicitly listing each character through its ASCII code.
ASCII code.
Extensions which contain freeform text MUST allow that text to be Extensions that contain freeform text MUST allow that text to be
UTF-8, as per the IETF policies on character set usage [3]. This UTF-8, as per the IETF policies on character set usage [3]. This
ensures that SIP remains an internationalized standard. As a general ensures that SIP remains an internationalized standard. As a general
guideline, freeform text is never needed by programs in order to guideline, freeform text is never needed by programs to perform
perform protocol processing. It is usually entered by and displayed protocol processing. It is usually entered by and displayed to the
to the user. If an extension uses a parameter which can contain user. If an extension uses a parameter that can contain UTF-8-
UTF-8 encoded characters, and that extension requires a comparison to encoded characters, and that extension requires a comparison to be
be made of this parameter to other parameters, the comparison MUST be made of this parameter to other parameters, the comparison MUST be
case sensitive. Case insensitive comparison rules for UTF-8 text case sensitive. Case-insensitive comparison rules for UTF-8 text
are, at this time, impossible and MUST be avoided. are, at this time, impossible and MUST be avoided.
Extensions which make use of dates MUST use the SIP-Date BNF defined Extensions that make use of dates MUST use the SIP-Date BNF defined
in RFC 3261. No other date formats are allowed. However, the usage in RFC 3261. No other date formats are allowed. However, the usage
of absolute dates in order to determine intervals (for example, the of absolute dates to determine intervals (for example, the time at
time at which some timer fires) is NOT RECOMMENDED. This is because which some timer fires) is NOT RECOMMENDED. This is because it
it requires synchronized time between peers, and this is frequently requires synchronized time between peers, and this is frequently not
not the case. Therefore, relative times, expressed in numbers of the case. Therefore, relative times, expressed in numbers of
seconds, SHOULD be used. seconds, SHOULD be used.
Extensions which include network layer addresses SHOULD permit dotted Extensions that include network-layer addresses SHOULD permit dotted
quad IPv4 addresses, IPv6 addresses in the format described in [4], quad IPv4 addresses, IPv6 addresses in the format described in [4],
and domain names. and domain names.
Extensions which have header fields containing URIs SHOULD be Extensions that have header fields containing URIs SHOULD be explicit
explicit about which URI schemes can be used in that header field. about which URI schemes can be used in that header field. Header
Header fields SHOULD allow the broadest set of URI schemes possible fields SHOULD allow the broadest set of URI schemes possible that are
that are a match for the semantics of the header field. a match for the semantics of the header field.
Header fields MUST follow the standard formatting for SIP, defined Header fields MUST follow the standard formatting for SIP, defined as
as: follows:
header = header-name HCOLON header-value header = header-name HCOLON header-value
*(COMMA header-value) *(COMMA header-value)
header-name = token header-name = token
header-value = value *(SEMI value-parameter) header-value = value *(SEMI value-parameter)
value-parameter = token [EQUAL gen-value] value-parameter = token [EQUAL gen-value]
gen-value = token / host / quoted-string gen-value = token / host / quoted-string
value = token / host / quoted-string value = token / host / quoted-string
In some cases, this form is not sufficient. That is the case for In some cases, this form is not sufficient. That is the case for
skipping to change at page 13, line 25 skipping to change at page 13, line 7
consumption. An example is the Subject header field in SIP [2]. In consumption. An example is the Subject header field in SIP [2]. In
this case, an alternate form is: this case, an alternate form is:
header = header-name HCOLON [TEXT-UTF8-TRIM] header = header-name HCOLON [TEXT-UTF8-TRIM]
Developers of extensions SHOULD allow for extension parameters in Developers of extensions SHOULD allow for extension parameters in
their header fields. their header fields.
Header fields that contain a list of URIs SHOULD follow the same Header fields that contain a list of URIs SHOULD follow the same
syntax as the Contact header field in SIP. Implementors are also syntax as the Contact header field in SIP. Implementors are also
encouraged to always wrap these URI in angle brackets "<" and ">". encouraged to wrap these URI in angle brackets, "<" and ">", at all
We have found this to be a frequently misimplemented feature. times. We have found this to be a frequently misimplemented feature.
Beyond compact form, there is no need to define compressed versions Beyond the compact form, there is no need to define compressed
of header field values. Compression of SIP messages SHOULD be versions of header field values. Compression of SIP messages SHOULD
handled at lower layers, for example, using IP payload compression be handled at lower layers, for example, using IP payload compression
[18] or signalling compression [20]. [18] or signalling compression [20].
Syntax for header fields is expressed in Augmented Backus-Naur Form Syntax for header fields is expressed in Augmented Backus-Naur Form
and MUST follow the format of RFC 2234 [5]. Extensions MUST make use and MUST follow the format of RFC 4234 [5]. Extensions MUST make use
of the primitive components defined in RFC 3261 [2]. If the of the primitive components defined in RFC 3261 [2]. If the
construction for a BNF element is defined in another specification, construction for a BNF element is defined in another specification,
it is RECOMMENDED that the construction be referenced rather than it is RECOMMENDED that the construction be referenced rather than
copied. The reference SHOULD include both the document and section copied. The reference SHOULD include both the document and section
number. All BNF elements must be either defined or referenced. number. All BNF elements must be either defined or referenced.
It is RECOMMENDED that BNF be collected into a single section near It is RECOMMENDED that BNF be collected into a single section near
the end of the document. the end of the document.
All tokens and quoted strings are separated by explicit linear white All tokens and quoted strings are separated by explicit linear white
space. Linear white space, for better or worse, allows for line space. Linear white space, for better or worse, allows for line
folding. Extensions MUST NOT define new header fields that use folding. Extensions MUST NOT define new header fields that use
alternate linear white space rules. alternate linear white space rules.
All SIP extensions MUST verify that any BNF productions that they All SIP extensions MUST verify that any BNF productions that they
define in their grammar do not conflict with any existing grammar define in their grammar do not conflict with any existing grammar
defined in other SIP standards track specifications. defined in other SIP standards-track specifications.
4.5 Semantics, Semantics, Semantics 4.5. Semantics, Semantics, Semantics
Developers of protocols often get caught up in syntax issues, without Developers of protocols often get caught up in syntax issues, without
spending enough time on semantics. The semantics of a protocol are spending enough time on semantics. The semantics of a protocol are
far more important. SIP extensions MUST clearly define the semantics far more important. SIP extensions MUST clearly define the semantics
of the extensions. Specifically, the extension MUST specify the of the extensions. Specifically, the extension MUST specify the
behaviors expected of a UAC, UAS and proxy in processing the behaviors expected of a UAC, UAS, and proxy in processing the
extension. This is often best described by having separate sections extension. This is often best described by having separate sections
for each of these three elements. Each section SHOULD step through for each of these three elements. Each section SHOULD step through
the processing rules in temporal order of the most common messaging the processing rules in temporal order of the most common messaging
scenario. scenario.
Processing rules generally specify actions to take (in terms of Processing rules generally specify actions to be taken (in terms of
messages to send, variables to store, rules to follow) on receipt of messages to be sent, variables to be stored, and rules to be
messages and expiration of timers. If an action requires followed) on receipt of messages and expiration of timers. If an
transmission of a message, the rule SHOULD outline requirements for action requires transmission of a message, the rule SHOULD outline
insertion of header fields or other information in the message. requirements for insertion of header fields or other information in
the message.
The extension SHOULD specify procedures to take in exceptional The extension SHOULD specify procedures to be taken in exceptional
conditions which are recoverable, or which require some kind of user conditions that are recoverable, or that require some kind of user
intervention. Recovering from unrecoverable problems generally does intervention. Handling of unrecoverable errors does not require
not require specification. specification.
4.6 Examples Section 4.6. Examples Section
The specification SHOULD contain a section that gives examples of The specification SHOULD contain a section that gives examples of
call flows and message formatting. Extensions which define call flows and message formatting. Extensions that define
substantial new syntax SHOULD include examples of messages containing substantial new syntax SHOULD include examples of messages containing
that syntax. Examples of message flows should be given to cover that syntax. Examples of message flows should be given to cover
common cases and at least one failure or unusual case. common cases and at least one failure or unusual case.
For an example of how to construct a good examples section, see the For an example of how to construct a good examples section, see the
message flows and message formatting defined in the Basic Call Flows message flows and message formatting defined in the Basic Call Flows
specification [21]. Note that complete messages SHOULD be used. Be specification [21]. Note that complete messages SHOULD be used. Be
careful to include tags, Via header fields (with the branch ID careful to include tags, Via header fields (with the branch ID
cookie), Max-Forwards, Content-Lengths, Record-Route and Route header cookie), Max-Forwards, Content-Lengths, Record-Route, and Route
fields. Example INVITE messages MAY omit session descriptions, and header fields. Example INVITE messages MAY omit session
Content-Length values MAY be set to "..." to indicate that the value descriptions, and Content-Length values MAY be set to "..." to
is not provided. However, the specification MUST explicitly call out indicate that the value is not provided. However, the specification
the meaning of the "..." and explicitly indicate that session MUST explicitly call out the meaning of the "..." and explicitly
descriptions were not included. indicate that session descriptions were not included.
4.7 Overview Section 4.7. Overview Section
Too often, extension documents dive into detailed syntax and Too often, extension documents dive into detailed syntax and
semantics without giving a general overview of operation. This makes semantics without giving a general overview of operation. This makes
understanding of the extension harder. It is RECOMMENDED that understanding of the extension harder. It is RECOMMENDED that
extensions have a protocol overview section which discusses the basic extensions have a protocol overview section that discusses the basic
operation of the extension. Basic operation usually consists of the operation of the extension. Basic operation usually consists of the
message flow, in temporal order, for the most common case covered by message flow, in temporal order, for the most common case covered by
the extension. The most important processing rules for the elements the extension. The most important processing rules for the elements
in the call flow SHOULD be mentioned. Usage of the RFC 2119 [1] in the call flow SHOULD be mentioned. Usage of the RFC 2119 [1]
terminology in the overview section is NOT RECOMMENDED, and the terminology in the overview section is NOT RECOMMENDED, and the
specification should explicitly state that the overview is tutorial specification should explicitly state that the overview is tutorial
in nature only. This section SHOULD expand all acronyms, even those in nature only. This section SHOULD expand all acronyms, even those
common in SIP systems, and SHOULD be understandable to readers that common in SIP systems, and SHOULD be understandable to readers who
are not SIP experts. [27] provides additional guidance on writing are not SIP experts. [27] provides additional guidance on writing
good overview sections. good overview sections.
4.8 IANA Considerations Section 4.8. IANA Considerations Section
Documents which define new SIP extensions will invariably have IANA Documents that define new SIP extensions will invariably have IANA
Considerations sections. Considerations sections.
If your extension is defining a new event package, you MUST register If your extension is defining a new event package, you MUST register
that package. RFC 3265 [6] provides the registration template. See that package. RFC 3265 [6] provides the registration template. See
[22] for an example of the registration of a new event package. As [22] for an example of the registration of a new event package. As
discussed in RFC 3427 [10], only standards track documents can discussed in RFC 3427 [10], only standards-track documents can
register new event-template packages. Both standards track and register new event-template packages. Both standards-track and
informational specifications can register event packages. informational specifications can register event packages.
If your extension is defining a new header field, you MUST register If your extension is defining a new header field, you MUST register
that header field. RFC 3261 [2] provides a registration template. that header field. RFC 3261 [2] provides a registration template.
See Section 8.2 of RFC 3262 [23] for an example of how to register See Section 8.2 of RFC 3262 [23] for an example of how to register
new SIP header fields. Both standards track and informational new SIP header fields. Both standards-track and informational
P-header specifications can register new header fields [10]. P-header specifications can register new header fields [10].
If your extension is defining a new response code, you MUST register If your extension is defining a new response code, you MUST register
that response code. RFC 3261 [2] provides a registration template. that response code. RFC 3261 [2] provides a registration template.
See Section 6.4 of RFC 3329 [19] for an example of how to register a See Section 6.4 of RFC 3329 [19] for an example of how to register a
new response code. As discussed in RFC 3427 [10], only standards new response code. As discussed in RFC 3427 [10], only standards-
track documents can register new response codes. track documents can register new response codes.
If your extension is defining a new SIP method, you MUST register If your extension is defining a new SIP method, you MUST register
that method. RFC 3261 [2] provides a registration template. See that method. RFC 3261 [2] provides a registration template. See
Section 10 of RFC 3311 [24] for an example of how to register a new Section 10 of RFC 3311 [24] for an example of how to register a new
SIP method. As discussed in RFC 3427 [10], only standards track SIP method. As discussed in RFC 3427 [10], only standards-track
documents can register new methods. documents can register new methods.
If your extension is defining a new SIP header field parameter, you If your extension is defining a new SIP header field parameter, you
MUST register that header field parameter per the guidelines in RFC MUST register that header field parameter per the guidelines in RFC
3968 [7]. Section 4.1 of that specification provides a template. 3968 [7]. Section 4.1 of that specification provides a template.
Only IETF approved specifications can register new header field Only IETF approved specifications can register new header field
parameters. However, there is no requirement that these be standards parameters. However, there is no requirement that these be standards
track. track.
If your extension is defining a new SIP URI parameter, you MUST If your extension is defining a new SIP URI parameter, you MUST
register that URI parameter per the guidelines in RFC 3969 [8]. register that URI parameter per the guidelines in RFC 3969 [8].
Section 4.1 of that specification provides a template. Only Section 4.1 of that specification provides a template. Only
standards track documents can register new URI parameters. standards-track documents can register new URI parameters.
Many SIP extensions make use of option tags, carried in the Require, Many SIP extensions make use of option tags, carried in the Require,
Proxy-Require and Supported header fields. Section 4.1 discusses Proxy-Require, and Supported header fields. Section 4.1 discusses
some of the issues involved in the usage of these header fields. If some of the issues involved in the usage of these header fields. If
your extension does require them, you MUST register an option tag for your extension does require them, you MUST register an option tag for
your extension. RFC 3261 [2] provides a registration template. See your extension. RFC 3261 [2] provides a registration template. See
Section 8.1 of RFC 3262 [23] for an example of how to register an Section 8.1 of RFC 3262 [23] for an example of how to register an
option tag. Only standards track RFCs can register new option tags. option tag. Only standards-track RFCs can register new option tags.
Some SIP extensions will require establishment of their own IANA Some SIP extensions will require establishment of their own IANA
registries. RFC 2434 [25] provides guidance on how and when IANA registries. RFC 2434 [25] provides guidance on how and when IANA
registries are established. For an example of how to set one up, see registries are established. For an example of how to set one up, see
Section 6 of RFC 3265 [6] for an example. Section 6 of RFC 3265 [6] for an example.
4.9 Document Naming Conventions 4.9. Document-Naming Conventions
An important decision to be made about the extension is its title. An important decision to be made about the extension is its title.
The title MUST indicate that the document is an extension to SIP. It The title MUST indicate that the document is an extension to SIP. It
is RECOMMENDED that the title follow the basic form of "A [summary of is RECOMMENDED that the title follow the basic form of "A [summary of
function] for the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)", where the function] for the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)", where the
summary of function is a one to three word description of the summary of function is a one- to three-word description of the
extension. For example, if an extension defines a new header field, extension. For example, if an extension defines a new header field,
called Make-Coffee, for making coffee, the title would read, "Making called Make-Coffee, for making coffee, the title would read, "Making
Coffee with the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)". It is Coffee with the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)". It is
RECOMMENDED that these additional words be descriptive rather than RECOMMENDED that these additional words be descriptive rather than
naming the header field. For example, the extension for making naming the header field. For example, the extension for making
coffee should not be named "The Make-Coffee Header for the Session coffee should not be named "The Make-Coffee Header for the Session
Initiation Protocol". Initiation Protocol".
For extensions that define new methods, an acceptable template for For extensions that define new methods, an acceptable template for
titles is "The Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) X Method" where X is titles is "The Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) X Method" where X is
the name of the method. the name of the method.
Note that the acronymn SIP MUST be expanded in the titles of RFCs, as Note that the acronym SIP MUST be expanded in the titles of RFCs, as
per [26]. per [26].
4.10 Additional Considerations for New Methods 4.10. Additional Considerations for New Methods
Extensions which define new methods SHOULD take into consideration, Extensions that define new methods SHOULD take into consideration and
and discuss, the following issues: discuss the following issues:
o Can it contain bodies? If so, what is the meaning of the presence o Can it contain bodies? If so, what is the meaning of the presence
of those bodies? What body types are allowed? of those bodies? What body types are allowed?
o Can a transaction with this request method occur while another o Can a transaction with this request method occur while another
transaction, in the same and/or reverse direction, is in progress? transaction, in the same and/or reverse direction, is in progress?
o The extension MUST define which header fields can be present in o The extension MUST define which header fields can be present in
requests of that method. It is RECOMMENDED that this information requests of that method. It is RECOMMENDED that this information
be represented as a new column of Table 2/3 of RFC 3261 [2]. The be represented as a new column of Table 2/3 of RFC 3261 [2]. The
table MUST contain rows for all header fields defined in standards table MUST contain rows for all header fields defined in
track RFCs at the time of writing of the extension. standards-track RFCs at the time of writing of the extension.
o Can the request be sent within a dialog, or does it establish a o Can the request be sent within a dialog, or does it establish a
dialog? dialog?
o Is it a target refresh request? o Is it a target refresh request?
o Extensions to SIP that define new methods MAY specify whether o Extensions to SIP that define new methods MAY specify whether
offers and answers can appear in requests of that method or its offers and answers can appear in requests of that method or its
responses. However, those extensions MUST adhere to the protocol responses. However, those extensions MUST adhere to the protocol
rules specified in [28], and MUST adhere to the additional rules specified in [28] and MUST adhere to the additional
constraints for offers and answers as specified in SIP [2]. constraints for offers and answers as specified in SIP [2].
o Because of the nature of reliability treatment of requests with o Because of the nature of reliability treatment of requests with
new methods, those requests need to be answered immediately by the new methods, those requests need to be answered immediately by the
UAS. Protocol extensions that require longer durations for the UAS. Protocol extensions that require longer durations for the
generation of a response (such as a new method that requires human generation of a response (such as a new method that requires human
interaction) SHOULD instead use two transactions - one to send the interaction) SHOULD instead use two transactions - one to send the
request, and another in the reverse direction to convey the result request, and another in the reverse direction to convey the result
of the request. An example of that is SUBSCRIBE and NOTIFY [6]. of the request. An example of that is SUBSCRIBE and NOTIFY [6].
o The SIP specification [2] allows new methods to specify whether o The SIP specification [2] allows new methods to specify whether
transactions using that new method can be canceled using a CANCEL transactions using that new method can be canceled using a CANCEL
request. Further study of the non-INVITE transaction [14] has request. Further study of the non-INVITE transaction [14] has
determined that non-INVITE transactions must complete as soon as determined that non-INVITE transactions must be completed as soon
possible. New methods must not plan for the transaction to pend as possible. New methods must not plan for the transaction to
long enough for CANCEL to be meaningful. Thus, new methods MUST pend long enough for CANCEL to be meaningful. Thus, new methods
declare that transactions initiated by requests with that method MUST declare that transactions initiated by requests with that
cannot be canceled. Future work may relax this restriction, at method cannot be canceled. Future work may relax this
which point these guidelines will be revised. restriction, at which point these guidelines will be revised.
o New methods that establish a new dialog must discuss the impacts o New methods that establish a new dialog must discuss the impacts
of forking. The design of such new methods should follow the of forking. The design of such new methods should follow the
pattern of requiring an immediate request in the reverse direction pattern of requiring an immediate request in the reverse direction
from the request establishing a dialog, similar to the immediate from the request establishing a dialog, similar to the immediate
NOTIFY sent when a subscription is created per RFC 3265 [6]. NOTIFY sent when a subscription is created per RFC 3265 [6].
The reliability mechanisms for all new methods must be the same as The reliability mechanisms for all new methods must be the same as
for BYE. The delayed response feature of INVITE is only available in for BYE. The delayed response feature of INVITE is only available in
INVITE, never for new methods. The design of new methods must INVITE, never for new methods. The design of new methods must
encourage an immediate response. If the application being enabled encourage an immediate response. If the application being enabled
requires a delay, the design SHOULD follow a pattern using multiple requires a delay, the design SHOULD follow a pattern using multiple
transactions similar to RFC 3265's use of NOTIFYs with different transactions, similar to RFC 3265's use of NOTIFYs with different
Subscription-State header field values (pending and active in Subscription-State header field values (pending and active in
particular) in response to SUBSCRIBE [6]. particular) in response to SUBSCRIBE [6].
4.11 Additional Considerations for New Header Fields or Header Field 4.11. Additional Considerations for New Header Fields or Header Field
Parameters Parameters
The most important issue for extensions that define new header fields The most important issue for extensions that define new header fields
or header field parameters is backwards compatibility. See Section or header field parameters is backwards compatibility. See
4.1 for a discussion of the issues. The extension MUST detail how Section 4.1 for a discussion of the issues. The extension MUST
backwards compatibility is addressed. detail how backwards compatibility is addressed.
It is often tempting to avoid creation of a new method by overloading It is often tempting to avoid creation of a new method by overloading
an existing method through a header field or parameter. Header an existing method through a header field or parameter. Header
fields and parameters are not meant to fundamentally alter the fields and parameters are not meant to fundamentally alter the
meaning of the method of the request. A new header field cannot meaning of the method of the request. A new header field cannot
change the basic semantic and processing rules of a method. There is change the basic semantic and processing rules of a method. There is
no shortage of method names, so when an extension changes the basic no shortage of method names, so when an extension changes the basic
meaning of a request, a new method SHOULD be defined. meaning of a request, a new method SHOULD be defined.
For extensions that define new header fields, the extension MUST For extensions that define new header fields, the extension MUST
define the request methods the header field can appear in, and what define the request methods the header field can appear in, and what
responses it can be used in. It is RECOMMENDED that this information responses it can be used in. It is RECOMMENDED that this information
be represented as a new row of Table 2/3 of RFC 3261 [2]. The table be represented as a new row of Table 2/3 of RFC 3261 [2]. The table
MUST contain columns for all methods defined in standards track RFCs MUST contain columns for all methods defined in standards-track RFCs
at time of writing of the extension. at the time of writing of the extension.
4.12 Additional Considerations for New Body Types 4.12. Additional Considerations for New Body Types
Because SIP can run over UDP, extensions that specify the inclusion Because SIP can run over UDP, extensions that specify the inclusion
of large bodies (where large is several times the ethernet MTU) are of large bodies (where large is several times the ethernet MTU) are
frowned upon unless end-to-end congestion controlled transport can be frowned upon unless end-to-end congestion controlled transport can be
guaranteed. If at all possible, the content SHOULD be included guaranteed. If at all possible, the content SHOULD be included
indirectly [9] even if congestion controlled transports are indirectly [9], even if congestion controlled transports are
available. available.
Note that the presence of a body MUST NOT change the nature of the Note that the presence of a body MUST NOT change the nature of the
message. That is, bodies cannot alter the state machinery associated message. That is, bodies cannot alter the state machinery associated
with processing a request of a particular method or a response. with processing a request of a particular method or a response.
Bodies enhance this processing by providing additional data. Bodies enhance this processing by providing additional data.
5. Interactions with SIP Features 5. Interactions with SIP Features
We have observed that certain capabilities of SIP continually We have observed that certain capabilities of SIP continually
interact with extensions in unusual ways. Writers of extensions interact with extensions in unusual ways. Writers of extensions
SHOULD consider the interactions of their extensions with these SIP SHOULD consider the interactions of their extensions with these SIP
capabilities, document any unusual interactions if they exist. The capabilities and document any unusual interactions, if they exist.
most common causes of problems are: The following are the most common causes of problems:
Forking: Forking by far presents the most troublesome interactions Forking: Forking by far presents the most troublesome interactions
with extensions. This is generally because it can cause (1) a with extensions. This is generally because it can cause (1) a
single transmitted request to be received by an unknown number of single transmitted request to be received by an unknown number of
UASs, and (2) a single INVITE request to have multiple responses. UASes, and (2) a single INVITE request to have multiple responses.
CANCEL and ACK: CANCEL and ACK are "special" SIP requests, in that CANCEL and ACK: CANCEL and ACK are "special" SIP requests, in that
they are exceptions to many of the general request processing they are exceptions to many of the general request processing
rules. The main reason for this special status is that CANCEL and rules. The main reason for this special status is that CANCEL and
ACK are always associated with another request. New methods ACK are always associated with another request. New methods
SHOULD consider the meaning of cancellation, as described above. SHOULD consider the meaning of cancellation, as described above.
Extensions which defined new header fields in INVITE requests Extensions that define new header fields in INVITE requests SHOULD
SHOULD consider whether they also need to be included in ACK and consider whether they also need to be included in ACK and CANCEL.
CANCEL. Frequently they do, in order to allow a stateless proxy Frequently they do, in order to allow a stateless proxy to route
to route the CANCEL or ACK identically to the INVITE. the CANCEL or ACK identically to the INVITE.
Routing: The presence of Route header fields in a request can cause Routing: The presence of Route header fields in a request can cause
it to be sent through intermediate proxies. Requests that it to be sent through intermediate proxies. Requests that
establish dialogs can be record-routed, so that the initial establish dialogs can be record-routed, so that the initial
request goes through one set of proxies, and subsequent requests request goes through one set of proxies, and subsequent requests
through a different set. These SIP features can interact in through a different set. These SIP features can interact in
unusual ways with extensions. unusual ways with extensions.
Stateless Proxies: SIP allows a proxy to be stateless. Stateless Stateless Proxies: SIP allows a proxy to be stateless. Stateless
proxies are unable to retransmit messages and cannot execute proxies are unable to retransmit messages and cannot execute
certain services. Extensions which depend on some kind of proxy certain services. Extensions that depend on some kind of proxy
processing SHOULD consider how stateless proxies affect that processing SHOULD consider how stateless proxies affect that
processing. processing.
Dialog Usages: SIP allows for requests that normally create their own
dialog (such as SUBSCRIBE) to be used within a dialog created by
another method (such as INVITE). In such a case, there are said
to be multiple usages of that dialog. Extensions SHOULD consider
their interaction with dialog usages. In particular, extensions
that define new error response codes SHOULD describe whether that
response code causes the dialog and all usages to terminate, or
just a specific usage.
6. Security Considerations 6. Security Considerations
The nature of this document is such that it does not introduce any The nature of this document is such that it does not introduce any
new security considerations. However, many of the principles new security considerations. However, many of the principles
described in the document affect whether a potential SIP extension described in the document affect whether a potential SIP extension
design is likely to support the SIP security architecture. design is likely to support the SIP security architecture.
7. IANA Considerations 7. Acknowledgements
There are no IANA considerations associated with this specification.
8. Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Rohan Mahy and Spencer Dawkins for The authors would like to thank Rohan Mahy and Spencer Dawkins for
their comments. Robert Sparks contributed important text on CANCEL their comments. Robert Sparks contributed important text on CANCEL
issues. Thanks to Allison Mankin for her support. issues. Thanks to Allison Mankin for her support.
9. References 8. References
9.1 Normative References 8.1. Normative References
[1] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement [1] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement
Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[2] Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., Camarillo, G., Johnston, A., [2] Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., Camarillo, G., Johnston, A.,
Peterson, J., Sparks, R., Handley, M. and E. Schooler, "SIP: Peterson, J., Sparks, R., Handley, M., and E. Schooler, "SIP:
Session Initiation Protocol", RFC 3261, June 2002. Session Initiation Protocol", RFC 3261, June 2002.
[3] Alvestrand, H., "IETF Policy on Character Sets and Languages", [3] Alvestrand, H., "IETF Policy on Character Sets and Languages",
BCP 18, RFC 2277, January 1998. BCP 18, RFC 2277, January 1998.
[4] Hinden, R., Carpenter, B. and L. Masinter, "Format for Literal [4] Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform
IPv6 Addresses in URL's", RFC 2732, December 1999. Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax", STD 66, RFC 3986,
January 2005.
[5] Crocker, D. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax [5] Crocker, D. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax
Specifications: ABNF", RFC 2234, November 1997. Specifications: ABNF", RFC 4234, October 2005.
[6] Roach, A., "Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)-Specific Event [6] Roach, A.B., "Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)-Specific Event
Notification", RFC 3265, June 2002. Notification", RFC 3265, June 2002.
[7] Camarillo, G., "The Internet Assigned Number Authority (IANA) [7] Camarillo, G., "The Internet Assigned Number Authority (IANA)
Header Field Parameter Registry for the Session Initiation Header Field Parameter Registry for the Session Initiation
Protocol (SIP)", BCP 98, RFC 3968, December 2004. Protocol (SIP)", BCP 98, RFC 3968, December 2004.
[8] Camarillo, G., "The Internet Assigned Number Authority (IANA) [8] Camarillo, G., "The Internet Assigned Number Authority (IANA)
Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) Parameter Registry for the Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) Parameter Registry for the
Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)", BCP 99, RFC 3969, December Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)", BCP 99, RFC 3969, December
2004. 2004.
[9] Burger, E., "A Mechanism for Content Indirection in Session [9] Burger, E., Ed., "A Mechanism for Content Indirection in Session
Initiation Protocol (SIP) Messages", Initiation Protocol (SIP) Messages", RFC 4483, May 2006.
draft-ietf-sip-content-indirect-mech-05 (work in progress),
October 2004.
9.2 Informative References 8.2. Informative References
[10] Mankin, A., Bradner, S., Mahy, R., Willis, D., Ott, J. and B. [10] Mankin, A., Bradner, S., Mahy, R., Willis, D., Ott, J., and B.
Rosen, "Change Process for the Session Initiation Protocol Rosen, "Change Process for the Session Initiation Protocol
(SIP)", BCP 67, RFC 3427, December 2002. (SIP)", BCP 67, RFC 3427, December 2002.
[11] Droms, R., "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol", RFC 2131, [11] Droms, R., "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol", RFC 2131,
March 1997. March 1997.
[12] Sparks, R., "The Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Refer [12] Sparks, R., "The Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Refer
Method", RFC 3515, April 2003. Method", RFC 3515, April 2003.
[13] Donovan, S. and J. Rosenberg, "Session Timers in the Session [13] Donovan, S. and J. Rosenberg, "Session Timers in the Session
Initiation Protocol (SIP)", draft-ietf-sip-session-timer-15 Initiation Protocol (SIP)", RFC 4028, April 2005.
(work in progress), August 2004.
[14] Sparks, R., "Problems identified associated with the Session [14] Sparks, R., "Problems Identified Associated with the Session
Initiation Protocol's non-INVITE Transaction", Initiation Protocol's (SIP) Non-INVITE Transaction", RFC 4321,
draft-sparks-sip-nit-problems-02 (work in progress), January January 2006.
2005.
[15] Fielding, R., Gettys, J., Mogul, J., Frystyk, H., Masinter, L., [15] Fielding, R., Gettys, J., Mogul, J., Frystyk, H., Masinter,
Leach, P. and T. Berners-Lee, "Hypertext Transfer Protocol -- L., Leach, P., and T. Berners-Lee, "Hypertext Transfer Protocol
HTTP/1.1", RFC 2616, June 1999. -- HTTP/1.1", RFC 2616, June 1999.
[16] Schulzrinne, H., Rao, A. and R. Lanphier, "Real Time Streaming [16] Schulzrinne, H., Rao, A., and R. Lanphier, "Real Time Streaming
Protocol (RTSP)", RFC 2326, April 1998. Protocol (RTSP)", RFC 2326, April 1998.
[17] Handley, M., Schulzrinne, H., Schooler, E. and J. Rosenberg, [17] Handley, M., Schulzrinne, H., Schooler, E., and J. Rosenberg,
"SIP: Session Initiation Protocol", RFC 2543, March 1999. "SIP: Session Initiation Protocol", RFC 2543, March 1999.
[18] Shacham, A., Monsour, B., Pereira, R. and M. Thomas, "IP [18] Shacham, A., Monsour, B., Pereira, R., and M. Thomas, "IP
Payload Compression Protocol (IPComp)", RFC 3173, September Payload Compression Protocol (IPComp)", RFC 3173, September
2001. 2001.
[19] Arkko, J., Torvinen, V., Camarillo, G., Niemi, A. and T. [19] Arkko, J., Torvinen, V., Camarillo, G., Niemi, A., and T.
Haukka, "Security Mechanism Agreement for the Session Haukka, "Security Mechanism Agreement for the Session
Initiation Protocol (SIP)", RFC 3329, January 2003. Initiation Protocol (SIP)", RFC 3329, January 2003.
[20] Price, R., Bormann, C., Christoffersson, J., Hannu, H., Liu, Z. [20] Price, R., Bormann, C., Christoffersson, J., Hannu, H., Liu,
and J. Rosenberg, "Signaling Compression (SigComp)", RFC 3320, Z., and J. Rosenberg, "Signaling Compression (SigComp)", RFC
January 2003. 3320, January 2003.
[21] Johnston, A., Donovan, S., Sparks, R., Cunningham, C. and K. [21] Johnston, A., Donovan, S., Sparks, R., Cunningham, C., and K.
Summers, "Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Basic Call Flow Summers, "Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Basic Call Flow
Examples", BCP 75, RFC 3665, December 2003. Examples", BCP 75, RFC 3665, December 2003.
[22] Rosenberg, J., "A Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Event [22] Rosenberg, J., "A Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Event
Package for Registrations", RFC 3680, March 2004. Package for Registrations", RFC 3680, March 2004.
[23] Rosenberg, J. and H. Schulzrinne, "Reliability of Provisional [23] Rosenberg, J. and H. Schulzrinne, "Reliability of Provisional
Responses in Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)", RFC 3262, June Responses in Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)", RFC 3262, June
2002. 2002.
[24] Rosenberg, J., "The Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) UPDATE [24] Rosenberg, J., "The Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) UPDATE
Method", RFC 3311, October 2002. Method", RFC 3311, October 2002.
[25] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an IANA [25] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an IANA
Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 2434, October Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 2434, October
1998. 1998.
[26] Reynolds, J. and R. Braden, "Instructions to Request for [26] Reynolds, J. and R. Braden, "Instructions to Request for
Comments (RFC) Authors", draft-rfc-editor-rfc2223bis-08 (work Comments (RFC) Authors", Work in Progress, July 2004.
in progress), July 2004.
[27] Rescorla, E., "Writing Protocol Models", draft-iab-model-02 [27] Rescorla, E. and IAB, "Writing Protocol Models", RFC 4101, June
(work in progress), September 2004. 2005.
[28] Rosenberg, J. and H. Schulzrinne, "An Offer/Answer Model with [28] Rosenberg, J. and H. Schulzrinne, "An Offer/Answer Model with
Session Description Protocol (SDP)", RFC 3264, June 2002. Session Description Protocol (SDP)", RFC 3264, June 2002.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Jonathan Rosenberg Jonathan Rosenberg
Cisco Systems Cisco Systems
600 Lanidex Plaza 600 Lanidex Plaza
Parsippany, NJ 07054 Parsippany, NJ 07054
skipping to change at page 23, line 5 skipping to change at page 23, line 5
Henning Schulzrinne Henning Schulzrinne
Columbia University Columbia University
M/S 0401 M/S 0401
1214 Amsterdam Ave. 1214 Amsterdam Ave.
New York, NY 10027 New York, NY 10027
US US
EMail: schulzrinne@cs.columbia.edu EMail: schulzrinne@cs.columbia.edu
URI: http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~hgs URI: http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~hgs
Intellectual Property Statement Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).
This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
retain all their rights.
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET
ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE
INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Intellectual Property
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
found in BCP 78 and BCP 79. found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
skipping to change at page 23, line 29 skipping to change at page 23, line 45
such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
http://www.ietf.org/ipr. http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at
ietf-ipr@ietf.org. ietf-ipr@ietf.org.
Disclaimer of Validity Acknowledgement
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET
ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE
INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005). This document is subject
to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and
except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights.
Acknowledgment
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF
Internet Society. Administrative Support Activity (IASA).
 End of changes. 143 change blocks. 
380 lines changed or deleted 355 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.41. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/