One document matched: draft-loreto-sipping-dialog-correlation-00.txt
SIPPING Working Group S. Loreto
Internet-Draft G. Camarillo
Expires: August 20, 2006 Ericsson
February 16, 2006
The Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Same-Session Header Field
draft-loreto-sipping-dialog-correlation-00.txt
Status of this Memo
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 becomes
aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of 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 August 20, 2006.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).
Abstract
This document defines a new header field for use with SIP. The Same-
Session header field is used to logically correlate an existing SIP
dialog with a new SIP dialog when the media sessions established by
both dialogs can be considered a single logical session. This
mechanism can be used to share the user interface and other resources
between all the media streams from both sessions.
Loreto & Camarillo Expires August 20, 2006 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Same-Session Header Field February 2006
Table of Contents
1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. Use case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
5. Same-Session Header Field Syntax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
6. User Agent Server Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
7. User Agent Client Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
8. New Same-Session Option Tag . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
9. Usage Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
9.1. Correlate a Dialog . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
10. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
11. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
11.1. Registration of Same-Session SIP header field . . . . . . 9
11.2. Registration of Same-Session SIP Option-tag . . . . . . . 9
12. Acknowledges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
13. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
13.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
13.2. Informational References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 12
Loreto & Camarillo Expires August 20, 2006 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Same-Session Header Field February 2006
1. Terminology
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [1].
2. Overview
This document defines a new SIP [4] header field: Same-Session. The
Same-Session header field is used to logically correlate an existing
SIP dialog with a new SIP dialog when the media sessions established
by both dialogs can be considered a single logical session. This is
especially useful in peer-to-peer call control environments.
While is possible insert a new participant into a multimedia
conversation with the Join header field [7], the Join operation is
normally used to create or join a conference. It adds a dialog to
the conversation space associated with the matched dialog and
performs a media mixing or media combining.
Instead, the Same-Session operation inserts a new dialog into a
multimedia conversation. It enables a dialog to share all the
resources and the user interface with the matched dialog.
3. Requirements
This specification was created in order to meet the following
requirement:
It should be possible for a user agent to correlate two dialogs so
that all the media streams associated to them are treated as a single
media session.
4. Use case
Alice establishes a voice session with Bob. Alice wants add video to
the session using her SIP-enabled camera. Alice sends a REFER to her
camera, which has SIP user agent on it, so that her camera sends an
INVITE request to Bob in order to establish a video stream. Alice
wants Bob to treat the video stream from her camera and the voice
stream from her voice-only user agent as part of the same media
session. That is, Alice wants Bob to treat both streams as if both
had been established using a single SIP dialog.
Loreto & Camarillo Expires August 20, 2006 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Same-Session Header Field February 2006
5. Same-Session Header Field Syntax
The following is the augmented Backus-Naur Form (BNF) syntax [2] of
the Same-Session header field:
Same-Session = "Same-Session" HCOLON callid
*(SEMI same-session-param)
same-session-param = to-tag / form-tag / generic-param
to-tag = "to-tag" EQUAL token
from-tag = "from-tag" EQUAL token
The following is an example of a Same-Session header field:
Same-Session: 98732@sip.example.com
;from-tag=r33th4x0r
;to-tag=ff87ff
Same-Session: 12adf2f34456gs5;to-tag=12345;from-tag=54321
Same-Session: 87134@171.161.34.23;to-tag=24796;from-tag=0
6. User Agent Server Behavior
The Same-Session header field contains information used to match an
existing SIP dialog (Call-ID, to-tag, and from-tag). Upon receiving
an INVITE with a Same-Session header field, the UA (User Agent)
attempts to match this information with a confirmed or early dialog.
The to-tag and from-tag parameters are matched as if they were tags
present in an incoming request. In other words the to-tag parameter
is compared to the local tag, and the from-tag parameter is compared
to the remote tag.
If more than one Same-Session header field is present in an INVITE,
or if a Same-Session header field is present in a request other than
INVITE, the UAS (User Agent Server) MUST reject the request with a
400 (Bad Request) response.
The Same-Session header has specific call control semantics. If both
a Same-Session header field and another header field with
contradictory semantics (for example a Replaces [8] header field) are
present in a request, the request MUST be rejected with a 400 (Bad
Request) response.
If the Same-Session header field matches more than one dialog, the UA
MUST act as if no match is found.
Loreto & Camarillo Expires August 20, 2006 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Same-Session Header Field February 2006
If no match is found, the UAS rejects the INVITE and returns a 481
(Call/Transaction Does Not Exist) response. Likewise, if the Same-
Session header field matches a dialog which was not created with an
INVITE, the UAS MUST reject the request with a 481 (Call/Transaction
Does Not Exist) response.
If the Same-Session header field matches a dialog which has already
terminated, the UA SHOULD decline the request with a 603 (Decline)
response.
If the Same-Session header field matches an active dialog, the UA
MUST verify that the initiator of the new INVITE is authorized to be
part of the session previously established by the matched dialog. If
the initiator of the new INVITE has authenticated successfully as
equivalent to the user who established the matched dialog, then the
merging of both sessions is authorized. For example, if the user who
established the initial dialog and the initiator of the new INVITE
request share the same credentials for Digest authentication [3], or
they sign the INVITE request with S/MIME [5] with the same private
key and present the (same) corresponding certificate used in the
original dialog, then the merging of the sessions is authorized.
Alternatively, the Referred-By mechanism [6] defines a mechanism that
the UAS can use to verify that an INVITE request with a Same-Session
header field was sent on behalf of the other participant in the
matched dialog (in this case, triggered by a REFER request). If the
INVITE request contains a Referred-By header which corresponds to the
user that established the matched dialog, the UA SHOULD authorize the
merging of the sessions. The Referred-By header field MUST reference
a corresponding, valid Refererred-By Authenticated Identity Body
[10]. The UA MAY apply other local policy to authorize the remainder
of the request. In other words, the UAS may apply different policy
to the new dialog than was applied to the matched dialog.
If authorization is successful, the UA attempts to accept the new
INVITE and treats the session newly-established and the previously-
established session as if they were one. If the UA cannot accept the
new INVITE (for example: it cannot establish required QoS or keying,
or it has incompatible media), the UA MUST return an appropriate
error response and MUST leave the matched dialog unchanged.
If the UAS is incapable of satisfying the Same-Session request, it
MUST return a 488 (Not Acceptable Here) response.
7. User Agent Client Behavior
A User Agent that wishes to add a new dialog of its own to a single
Loreto & Camarillo Expires August 20, 2006 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Same-Session Header Field February 2006
existing early or confirmed dialog sends the target User Agent an
INVITE request containing a Same-Session header field. The UAC (User
Agent Client) places the Call-ID, to-tag, and from-tag information
for the target dialog in a single Same-Session header field and sends
the new INVITE to the target.
If the User Agent receives a 300-class response, and acts on this
response by sending an INVITE to a Contact in the response, this
redirected INVITE MUST contain the same Same-Session header which was
present in the original request. Although this is unusual, this
allows INVITE requests with a Same-Session header to be redirected
before reaching the target UAS.
Note that use of the Same-Session mechanism does not provide a way to
match multiple dialogs, nor does it provide a way to match an entire
call, an entire transaction, or to follow a chain of proxy forking
logic.
8. New Same-Session Option Tag
This specification defines a new Require/Supported header option tag
"Same-Session". UAs which support the Same-Session header field MUST
include the "Same-Session" option tag in a Supported header field.
UAs that want explicit failure notification if Same-Session is not
supported MAY include the "Same-Session" option in a Require header
field.
The following is an example of a Require header field with the "Same-
Session" option tag:
Require: Same-Session
9. Usage Example
The following non-normative examples are not intended to enumerate
all the possibilities for the usage of this extension, but rather to
provide examples or ideas only.
9.1. Correlate a Dialog
Loreto & Camarillo Expires August 20, 2006 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Same-Session Header Field February 2006
Alice's phone Alice's viedo Bob
| | |
| | |
| | |
|(1) INVITE | |
|---------------------------->|
|(2) 200 Ok | |
|<----------------------------|
|(3) ACK | |
|---------------------------->|
|dialog 1 | |
|.............................|
|(4) REFER (Target-Dialog: 1) |
|------------->| |
|(5) 202 Accepted |
|<-------------| |
|(6) NOTIFY (100 Trying) |
|<-------------| |
|(7) 200 Ok | |
|------------->| |
| |(8) INVITE |
| |------------->|
| |(9) 200 Ok |
| |<-------------|
| |(10) ACK |
| |------------->|
| |dialog 2 (correlated to dialog 1)
| |..............|
|(11) NOTIFY (200 Ok) |
|<-------------| |
|(12) 200 Ok | |
|------------->| |
| | |
| | |
In this example, Alice starts a voice session with Bob (messages 1,2,
and 3) using a voice-only user agent. At a later point, Alice wants
to add video to the session using a different user agent that
supports video. Alice wants Bob to treat both media streams (i.e.,
audio and video) as if they had been established using a single
INVITE-initiated dialog. Consequently, Alice's user agent generates
the following REFER request.
Loreto & Camarillo Expires August 20, 2006 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Same-Session Header Field February 2006
Message (4):
REFER sip:aliceVideo@b.example.org SIP/2.0
To: <sip:aliceVideo@example.org>
From: <sip:alicePhone@example.org>;tag=iii
Call-ID: 7@a.example.org
CSeq: 1 REFER
Contact: <sip:alicePhone@example.org>
Refer-to: <sip:Bob@example.com?Same-Session=98732@example.com
%3Bfrom-tag=r33th4x0r%3Bto-tag=ff87ff>
Referred-By: < sip:alicePhone@example.org>
When Alice video-enabled user agent receives the REFER request, it
establish a new dialog (message 8,9,10) with Bob using the
information received in the REFER request.
Message (8):
INVITE sip:bob@b.example.org SIP/2.0
To: <sip:bob@example.org>
From: <sip:aliceVideo@example.org>;tag=iii
Call-ID: 777@a.example.org
CSeq: 1 INVITE
Contact: <sip:aliceVideo@example.org>
Same-Session: 425928@phone.example.org;to-tag=xyz;from-tag=pdq
Message (9):
SIP/2.0 200 OK
To: <sip:bob@example.org>
From: <sip:aliceVideo@example.org>;tag=iii
Call-ID: 777@a.example.org
CSeq 1 INVITE
Contact: <sip:bob@b.example.org>
10. Security Considerations
The extension specified in this document significantly changes the
relative security of SIP devices. It has the same problems of both
"Join" and "Replace" header fields.
This extension can be used to insert a new dialog in a multimedia
conversation in order to monitor potentially sensitive content. As
such, invitations with the Same-Session header field MUST only be
accepted if the peer requesting a Same-Session has been properly
authenticated as a user already involved in the call.
Loreto & Camarillo Expires August 20, 2006 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Same-Session Header Field February 2006
11. IANA Considerations
11.1. Registration of Same-Session SIP header field
Name of Header: Same-Session
Short form: none
Normative description: RFC xxxx
11.2. Registration of Same-Session SIP Option-tag
Name of option: Same-Session
Description: Support for the SIP Same-Session header
SIP headers defined: Same-Session
Normative description: RFC xxxx
12. Acknowledges
Goeran Eriksson provided valuable ideas for this document.
13. References
13.1. Normative References
[1] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement
Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[2] Crocker, D., Ed. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax
Specifications: ABNF", RFC 2234, November 1997.
[3] Franks, J., Hallam-Baker, P., Hostetler, J., Lawrence, S.,
Leach, P., Luotonen, A., and L. Stewart, "HTTP Authentication:
Basic and Digest Access Authentication", RFC 2617, June 1999.
[4] Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., Camarillo, G., Johnston, A.,
Peterson, J., Sparks, R., Handley, M., and E. Schooler, "SIP:
Session Initiation Protocol", RFC 3261, June 2002.
[5] Ramsdell, B., "Secure/Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions
(S/MIME) Version 3.1 Message Specification", RFC 3851,
July 2004.
Loreto & Camarillo Expires August 20, 2006 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Same-Session Header Field February 2006
[6] Sparks, R., "The Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Referred-By
Mechanism", RFC 3892, September 2004.
13.2. Informational References
[7] Mahy, R. and D. Petrie, "The Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)
"Join" Header", RFC 3911, October 2004.
[8] Mahy, R., Biggs, B., and R. Dean, "The Session Initiation
Protocol (SIP) "Replaces" Header", RFC 3891, September 2004.
Loreto & Camarillo Expires August 20, 2006 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Same-Session Header Field February 2006
Authors' Addresses
Salvatore Loreto
Ericsson
Hirsalantie 11
Jorvas 02420
Finland
Email: Salvatore.Loreto@ericsson.com
Gonzalo Camarillo
Ericsson
Hirsalantie 11
Jorvas 02420
Finland
Email: Gonzalo.Camarillo@ericsson.com
Loreto & Camarillo Expires August 20, 2006 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Same-Session Header Field February 2006
Intellectual Property Statement
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
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
made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at
ietf-ipr@ietf.org.
Disclaimer of Validity
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 (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.
Acknowledgment
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society.
Loreto & Camarillo Expires August 20, 2006 [Page 12]
| PAFTECH AB 2003-2026 | 2026-04-24 02:47:02 |