draft-ietf-sipcore-refer-clarifications-03.txt   draft-ietf-sipcore-refer-clarifications-04.txt 
Network Working Group R. Sparks Network Working Group R. Sparks
Internet-Draft Oracle Internet-Draft Oracle
Updates: 3515 (if approved) A. Roach Updates: 3515 (if approved) A. Roach
Intended status: Standards Track Mozilla Intended status: Standards Track Mozilla
Expires: September 4, 2015 March 3, 2015 Expires: October 24, 2015 April 22, 2015
Clarifications for the use of REFER with RFC6665 Clarifications for the use of REFER with RFC6665
draft-ietf-sipcore-refer-clarifications-03 draft-ietf-sipcore-refer-clarifications-04
Abstract Abstract
The SIP REFER method relies on the SIP-Specific Event Notification The SIP REFER method relies on the SIP-Specific Event Notification
Framework. That framework was revised by RFC6665. This document Framework. That framework was revised by RFC6665. This document
highlights the implications of the requirement changes in RFC6665, highlights the implications of the requirement changes in RFC6665,
and updates the definition of the REFER method, RFC3515, to clarify and updates the definition of the REFER method, RFC3515, to clarify
and disambiguate the impact of those changes. and disambiguate the impact of those changes.
Status of This Memo Status of This Memo
skipping to change at page 1, line 35 skipping to change at page 1, line 35
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on September 4, 2015. This Internet-Draft will expire on October 24, 2015.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
skipping to change at page 2, line 13 skipping to change at page 2, line 13
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License. described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Conventions and Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1. Conventions and Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
3. Use of GRUU is mandatory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. Use of GRUU is mandatory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. Dialog reuse is prohibited . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 4. Dialog reuse is prohibited . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 5. The 202 response code is deprecated . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
8. Changelog . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 9. Changelog . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1. Conventions and Definitions 1. Conventions and Definitions
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
2. Introduction 2. Introduction
The SIP REFER method relies on the SIP-Specific Event Notification The SIP REFER method relies on the SIP-Specific Event Notification
skipping to change at page 4, line 22 skipping to change at page 4, line 22
target is a GRUU). Such a REFER will be constructed with its Contact target is a GRUU). Such a REFER will be constructed with its Contact
header field populated with the dialog's Local URI as specified in header field populated with the dialog's Local URI as specified in
section 12 of [RFC3261]. section 12 of [RFC3261].
As described in section 4.5.2 of [RFC6665], there are cases where a As described in section 4.5.2 of [RFC6665], there are cases where a
user agent may fall back to sharing existing dialogs for backwards- user agent may fall back to sharing existing dialogs for backwards-
compatibility purposes. This applies to REFER only when the peer has compatibility purposes. This applies to REFER only when the peer has
not provided a GRUU as its Contact in the existing dialog (i.e. when not provided a GRUU as its Contact in the existing dialog (i.e. when
the peer is a pre-RFC6665 implementation). the peer is a pre-RFC6665 implementation).
5. Security Considerations 5. The 202 response code is deprecated
Section 8.3.1 of [RFC6665] requires that elements do not send a 202
response code to a subscribe request, but use the 200 response code
instead. Any 202 response codes received to a subscribe request are
treated as 200s. These changes also apply to REFER. Specifically,
an element accepting a REFER request MUST NOT reply with a 202
response code and MUST treat any 202 responses received as identical
to a 200 response. Wherever [RFC3515] requires sending a 202
response code, a 200 response code MUST be sent instead.
6. Security Considerations
This document introduces no new security considerations directly. This document introduces no new security considerations directly.
The updated considerations in [RFC6665] apply to the implicit The updated considerations in [RFC6665] apply to the implicit
subscription created by an accepted REFER request. subscription created by an accepted REFER request.
6. IANA Considerations 7. IANA Considerations
This document has no actions for IANA. This document has no actions for IANA.
7. Acknowledgements 8. Acknowledgements
Christer Holmberg provided the formulation for the final paragraph of Christer Holmberg provided the formulation for the final paragraph of
the introduction. Christer Holmberg and Ivo Sedlacek provided the introduction. Christer Holmberg and Ivo Sedlacek provided
detailed comments during working group discussion of the document. detailed comments during working group discussion of the document.
8. Changelog 9. Changelog
RFC Editor - please remove this section when formatting this document RFC Editor - please remove this section when formatting this document
as an RFC as an RFC
-03 to -04
Added section on deprecating 202.
-02 to -03 -02 to -03
Reinforced that the MAY send in-dialog applied no matter what Reinforced that the MAY send in-dialog applied no matter what
the remote target URI contained. the remote target URI contained.
-01 to -02 -01 to -02
Tweaked the third paragraph of section 3 per list discussion. Tweaked the third paragraph of section 3 per list discussion.
(Note the subject line of that discussion said -explicit- (Note the subject line of that discussion said -explicit-
subscription) subscription)
-00 to -01 -00 to -01
Added the 3rd paragraph to the introduction per extensive list Added the 3rd paragraph to the introduction per extensive list
discussion discussion
draft-sparks-sipcore-refer-clarifications-05 to draft-ietf- draft-sparks-sipcore-refer-clarifications-05 to draft-ietf-
skipping to change at page 5, line 25 skipping to change at page 6, line 4
Attempted to improve the accuracy of the Abstract and Attempted to improve the accuracy of the Abstract and
Introduction without diluting the essential point of the Introduction without diluting the essential point of the
document. document.
Added an informative reference to RFC5057. Added an informative reference to RFC5057.
Adjusted text to more reflect what RFC6665 (as clarified by Adjusted text to more reflect what RFC6665 (as clarified by
draft-roach-sipcore-6665-clarification) actually requires, and draft-roach-sipcore-6665-clarification) actually requires, and
added a normative reference to that clarification draft. added a normative reference to that clarification draft.
Specifically, the requirement for the _sender_ of a REFER to Specifically, the requirement for the _sender_ of a REFER to
use a GRUU as its local targetwas removed. use a GRUU as its local target was removed.
Clarified why the explicit-subscription extensions relieve an Clarified why the explicit-subscription extensions relieve an
in-dialog REFERer from the 6665 requirements for using GRUU as in-dialog REFERer from the 6665 requirements for using GRUU as
its contact in the INVITE dialog. its contact in the INVITE dialog.
9. References 10. References
9.1. Normative References 10.1. Normative References
[I-D.roach-sipcore-6665-clarification] [I-D.roach-sipcore-6665-clarification]
Roach, A., "A clarification on the use of Globally Roach, A., "A clarification on the use of Globally
Routable User Agent URIs (GRUUs) in the Session Initiation Routable User Agent URIs (GRUUs) in the Session Initiation
Protocol (SIP) Event Notification Framework", draft-roach- Protocol (SIP) Event Notification Framework", draft-roach-
sipcore-6665-clarification-00 (work in progress), October sipcore-6665-clarification-00 (work in progress), October
2014. 2014.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
skipping to change at page 6, line 24 skipping to change at page 6, line 45
Identification in the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)", Identification in the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)",
RFC 4538, June 2006. RFC 4538, June 2006.
[RFC5627] Rosenberg, J., "Obtaining and Using Globally Routable User [RFC5627] Rosenberg, J., "Obtaining and Using Globally Routable User
Agent URIs (GRUUs) in the Session Initiation Protocol Agent URIs (GRUUs) in the Session Initiation Protocol
(SIP)", RFC 5627, October 2009. (SIP)", RFC 5627, October 2009.
[RFC6665] Roach, A., "SIP-Specific Event Notification", RFC 6665, [RFC6665] Roach, A., "SIP-Specific Event Notification", RFC 6665,
July 2012. July 2012.
9.2. Informative References 10.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-sipcore-refer-explicit-subscription] [I-D.ietf-sipcore-refer-explicit-subscription]
Sparks, R., "Explicit Subscriptions for the REFER Method", Sparks, R., "Explicit Subscriptions for the REFER Method",
draft-ietf-sipcore-refer-explicit-subscription-00 (work in draft-ietf-sipcore-refer-explicit-subscription-00 (work in
progress), November 2014. progress), November 2014.
[RFC4488] Levin, O., "Suppression of Session Initiation Protocol [RFC4488] Levin, O., "Suppression of Session Initiation Protocol
(SIP) REFER Method Implicit Subscription", RFC 4488, May (SIP) REFER Method Implicit Subscription", RFC 4488, May
2006. 2006.
 End of changes. 15 change blocks. 
19 lines changed or deleted 37 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.42. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/