One document matched: draft-ietf-simple-msrp-sessmatch-02.txt
Differences from draft-ietf-simple-msrp-sessmatch-01.txt
SIMPLE Working Group C. Holmberg
Internet-Draft Ericsson
Updates: RFC 4975 S. Blau
(if approved) Ericsson AB
Intended status: Standards Track January 18, 2010
Expires: July 22, 2010
Session Matching Update for the Message Session Relay Protocol (MSRP)
draft-ietf-simple-msrp-sessmatch-02.txt
Abstract
This document updates the session matching procedure defined in
sections 5.4 and 7.3 of RFC 4975, so that an Message Session Relay
Protocol (MSRP) User Agent (UA) only uses the session-id part of the
MSRP URI in order to perform the consistency checks. The update
allows intermediaries, Application Layer Gateways (ALGs), to modify
the address information in the MSRP URI of the Session Description
Protocol (SDP) a=path attribute, without the need for the
intermediaries to terminate and do the correlating modifications in
the associated MSRP messages.
Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts.
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
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on July 22, 2010.
Copyright Notice
Holmberg & Blau Expires July 22, 2010 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft MRSP January 2010
Copyright (c) 2010 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Applicability statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. Normative update of RFC 4975 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4.1. General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4.2. RFC4975: 5.4 MSRP Connection Model . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4.3. RFC4975: 7.3 Receiving Requests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Holmberg & Blau Expires July 22, 2010 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft MRSP January 2010
1. Introduction
The Message Session Relay Protocol (MSRP) [RFC4975] is designed to
use MSRP relays [RFC4976] as a means for NAT traversal and policy
enforcement.
Many networks in which MSRP usage is emerging also contain generic
Application Layer Gateways (ALGs), which might control media relays
and perform tasks such as performance monitoring, lawful intercept,
address domain bridging, interconnect Service Layer Agreement (SLA)
policy enforcement, etc. An example here is the Interconnect Border
Control Function (IBCF) [3GPP.23.228] defined by the 3rd Generation
Partnership Project (3GPP), which controls a media relay that handles
all types of Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) session media (voice,
video, MSRP, etc).
Due to the fact that MSRP UAs check consistency between address
information in the MSRP messages and in the Session Description
Protocol (SDP) a=path attribute, this forces the IBCF/media relay to
act as an SDP aware MSRP Back-To-Back User Agent (B2BUA), whereas for
basically all other UDP and TCP transported based media sessions it
can acts as an SDP aware B2BUA, which is much simpler than having to
act as an MSRP B2BUA.
In order to use general NAT traversal methods and ALGs, this document
updates the session matching procedures defined in section 7.3 of
[RFC4975], so that MSRP endpoints only use the session-id part when
they compare the MSRP URI in the SDP a=path attribute with the
corresponding MSRP URI in MSRP messages.
2. Conventions
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14, RFC 2119
[RFC2119].
3. Applicability statement
This document updates sections 5.4 (MSRP Connection Model) and 7.3
(Receiving Requests) of [RFC4975]. An MSRP UA MUST implement the
procedures defined in this document in order to interwork with remote
MSRP UAs in a network where intermediaries might modify the address
information in the MSRP URI of the SDP a=path attribute.
Holmberg & Blau Expires July 22, 2010 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft MRSP January 2010
4. Normative update of RFC 4975
4.1. General
This section replaces the text for the ninth paragraph of section 5.4
(MSRP Connection Model), and the first paragraph of section 7.3
(Receiving Requests), of [RFC4975].
4.2. RFC4975: 5.4 MSRP Connection Model
When the first request arrives, its To-Path header field should
contain a URI with a session-id part that the listening element
provided in the SDP for a session. The element that accepted the
connection session-id part of the URI in the received request. If a
match exists, the node MUST assume that the host that formed the
connection is the host to which this URI was given. If no match
exists, the node MUST reject the request with a 481 response. The
node MUST also check to make sure the session is not already in use
on another connection. If the session is already in use, it MUST
reject the request with a 506 response.
4.3. RFC4975: 7.3 Receiving Requests
The receiving endpoint MUST first check the URI in the To-Path to
make sure the request belongs to an existing session. When the
request is received, the To-Path will have exactly one URI, of which
the session-id part MUST map to an existing session that is
associated with the connection on which the request arrived. The
session-id part is compared as case sensitive, as specified in
Section 6.1 (point 4) of [RFC4975]. If this is not true, then the
receiver MUST generate a 481 error and ignore the request. Note that
if the Failure-Report header field had a value of "no", then no error
report would be sent.
5. Security Considerations
Due to the change of the session matching procedure, MSRP endpoints
can only check that the session-id part of the MSRP URI carried in
the MSRP messages matches the session-id which was provided in the
associated SDP a=path attribute. Differing from [RFC4975], the host/
domain part of the MSRP URI is thus not checked. However, since a
man-in-the-middle would in any case be able to modify the domain
information in both the SDP and the MSRP messages, this does not
introduce any new security risk.
An MSRP UA treats its session URI as a shared secret to determine
that an incoming transport connection is indeed from the signaled
Holmberg & Blau Expires July 22, 2010 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft MRSP January 2010
peer device. An MSRP session URI therefore needs to be hard to
guess. However, [RFC4975] already requires the session-id part of
the URI to be sufficiently hard to guess. Furthermore, the
addressing information in the domain part of the URI is relatively
easy to guess. This makes the difficulty in guessing the session-id
roughly equivalent to the difficulty of guessing the entire URI.
Even if MSRP entities do not use the MSRP URI domain part to perform
session matching, if the domain information is different in the SDP
a=path attribute and the associated MSRP messages the MSRP entities
might be able to determine whether one or more intermediaries have
been inserted in the message path. With the current session matching
procedures, intermediaries would have to modify both the domain part
of the MSRP URI both in the SDP a=path attribute and the associated
MSRP messages, which means that MSRP entities cannot compare the
domain information in order to determine whether intermediaries have
been inserted in the message path.
6. IANA Considerations
This document updates section 7.3 of [RFC4975]
7. Acknowledgements
Thanks to Ben Campbell, Remi Denis-Courmont, Nancy Greene, Hadriel
Kaplan, Adam Roach, Robert Sparks, Salvatore Loreto and Shida
Schubert for their guidance and input in order to produce this
document.
8. References
8.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC4975] Campbell, B., Mahy, R., and C. Jennings, "The Message
Session Relay Protocol (MSRP)", RFC 4975, September 2007.
[RFC4976] Jennings, C., Mahy, R., and A. Roach, "Relay Extensions
for the Message Sessions Relay Protocol (MSRP)", RFC 4976,
September 2007.
Holmberg & Blau Expires July 22, 2010 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft MRSP January 2010
8.2. Informative References
[3GPP.23.228]
3GPP, "IP Multimedia Subsystem (IMS); Stage 2", 3GPP
TS 23.228 5.15.0, June 2006.
Authors' Addresses
Christer Holmberg
Ericsson
Hirsalantie 11
Jorvas 02420
Finland
Email: christer.holmberg@ericsson.com
Staffan Blau
Ericsson AB
P.O Box 407
Sweden
Email: staffan.blau@ericsson.com
Holmberg & Blau Expires July 22, 2010 [Page 6]
| PAFTECH AB 2003-2026 | 2026-04-23 12:57:44 |