One document matched: draft-shacham-sip-media-privacy-00.txt





Session Initiation Protocol                                   R. Shacham
Internet-Draft                                            H. Schulzrinne
Expires: December 29, 2005                           Columbia University
                                                             W. Kellerer
                                                            S. Thakolsri
                                                         DoCoMo Eurolabs
                                                           June 27, 2005


Specifying Media Privacy Requirements in the Session Initiation Protocol
                                 (SIP)
                   draft-shacham-sip-media-privacy-00

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 December 29, 2005.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005).

Abstract

   Participants in a normal phone conversation can assume that, given
   the appropriate measures are taken against network eavesdropping,
   what they say is only heard by the other participant.  The use of
   speakerphones or visual output devices displaying video or messaging



Shacham, et al.         Expires December 29, 2005               [Page 1]

Internet-Draft            Media Privacy in SIP                 June 2005


   removes this assumption.  In the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP), a
   call may also be transfered to another device, suddenly compromising
   the other participant's privacy.  Therefore, this document proposes
   SDP and SIP protocol extensions that allow participants to specify
   their privacy requirements for the other party's device, and
   discusses how they may be used in different session scenarios.  It
   also defines an SDP extension for allowing or disallowing the
   recording of the session.

1.  Overview

   Participants in a normal phone conversation can assume that what they
   say is only heard by the other participant.  The use of speakerphones
   or visual output devices displaying video or messaging removes this
   assumption.  In the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) [1], a call may
   also be transfered to another device, as specified in [4], suddenly
   compromising the other participant's privacy.  This document proposes
   two protocol extensions to be used in SIP sessions that allow
   participants to specify their privacy requirements: an extension to
   Caller Preferences [2] and two new attributes in the Session
   Description Protocol [3].

   The two methods, together, aim to support privacy in a number of ways
   during a session.  These ways apply either during call setup or in
   the middle of a call.  During call setup, the call will only be set
   up on devices that satisfy the privacy requirements of each party.
   Although a device may support a certain level of privacy, a specific
   use of the device, such as a mobile phone's speakerphone capability,
   may compromise this privacy.  Therefore, the device that processes
   the request should disallow such use, or at least warn its user that
   the other party has requested a private conversation.

   Once a session has been established, a user may try to alter it in
   ways that compromise the intended privacy.  For instance, he may
   choose to turn on the speakerphone or transfer the audio to a speaker
   system in the room.  The information ascertained in the call setup
   must govern the entire session, so that such changes are disallowed.
   If the device does not exercise such control on the user, the remote
   device may still block undesirable changes in the session.  While it
   will have no recourse if the device allows the speakerphone to be
   activated, it can block attempted session transfer.

   If the content of the session becomes more private, a participant may
   wish to update the privacy restrictions.  For instance, he may need
   to give private information such as a credit card number, and would
   like to ensure that only the other user can hear.  If the other
   device currently provides sufficient privacy, the update serves to
   notify the other device of the change, so that future changes will be



Shacham, et al.         Expires December 29, 2005               [Page 2]

Internet-Draft            Media Privacy in SIP                 June 2005


   disallowed.  If the other device is currently not private enough, the
   remote participant is taking an active role in ensuring that the
   other participant is using an appropriate device.  It may remotely
   force the other user's device to retrieve a session currently on
   another device, or output audio to the user's earpiece which is
   currently being heard on the phone's speaker.

   In addition to the level of privacy of a session, a participant may
   also be concerned about its recording.  This document proposes a way
   for a user to allow or disallow recording of the session.

2.  Device privacy levels

   This document proposes a three-level system for characterizing the
   privacy of a device based on who can see or hear its output.  The
   levels, in descending order of privacy are "user", "organization",
   "public".  The privacy level "user" indicates that the communication
   between the participants cannot be heard or seen by any other person.
   A loudspeaker may still be on if the user is in the room alone.  The
   level "organization" means that the communication may only be
   perceived by those with whom the device user shares an affiliation,
   such as a company, an institution or a group of friends.  The other
   participant need not have any affiliation with the organization.  The
   level "public" indicates that there are no restrictions on privacy.
   The device may change its level based on circumstances in its
   environment.  For instance, a speakerphone in a company conference
   room may have privacy level "user" as long as nobody besides the user
   is present.  Once other users are detected through a mechanism such
   as an identification card reader (which detects specific users) or a
   sensor at the door (which simply detects traffic), the phone would
   update its privacy level to "organization".  If, after the change,
   the device no longer provides a level of privacy sufficient for the
   session, based on previously conveyed information as described in
   Section 1, it should either take the proper action to make itself
   more private, notify its user, or notify the other participant.

3.  Caller preferences for privacy

   Caller preferences [2] are a set of extensions to SIP which allow a
   caller to specify how his request should be handled by a server.  The
   extensions consist of three headers, "Request-Disposition", "Reject-
   Contact", "Accept-Contact".  "Request-Disposition" is used to specify
   the process by which the server should choose the contact of the
   recipient to which to route the call, while the other two headers are
   used to require specific attributes in the chosen contact or give
   preference to contacts with certain attributes.  This document
   proposes extending the framework to include a new feature preference
   called "privacy" which may take any of the three values mentioned



Shacham, et al.         Expires December 29, 2005               [Page 3]

Internet-Draft            Media Privacy in SIP                 June 2005


   above in Section 2.  The caller may include this parameter in the
   "Reject-Contact" header to disallow the call being routed to any
   device with a privacy level lower than or equal to that specified.
   For example, including the following header would keep the request
   from being routed to any device which would allow others to see or
   hear the output:

   Reject-Contact: *;privacy="organization"

   Alternatively, the use of the "Accept-Contact" header can be used to
   give preference to a device higher than or equal to a given privacy
   level.  Using the "require" parameter will ensure that the call will
   only be proxied to such a device.  The same selection criteria
   conveyed in the above header can be conveyed as follows:

   The registration of a user's contact must include the privacy level
   of the device using the specifications in [5] in order to allow the
   proxy to match the correct contact with the caller's request.  A
   device which has multiple modes with different privacy levels, such
   as a phone with a speakerphone capability, should specify the highest
   privacy level that it provides.  Once it has received the request, it
   should limit the use of the device in accordance with the information
   contained therein.  For example, the registration sent for a user on
   an IP phone that has a speakerphone capability would include the
   following header:

   Contact: <sip:bob@phone1.example.com>;privacy="user"


4.  SDP attributes for privacy

   We specify an extension to SDP to allow a session to be negotiated
   based on privacy requirements.  Two attributes are defined,
   "provided-privacy" and "required-privacy", each a value attribute
   which may take any of the values specified in Section 2.  An SDP
   description may include either or both of the attributes.  We
   currently define this attribute as being only session-level, for the
   sake of simplicity and since that granularity is likely to suffice
   for most uses.  An example fragment of an SDP body follows:

      c=IN IP4 212.78.32.6
      a=provided-privacy:user
      a=required-privacy:user

   Here, the sender notifies the other party that he is able to provide
   user-level privacy, and requires the same level from the other device
   in order to establish a session.  This attribute is treated as any
   other in the offer/answer exchange, in that the recipient must be



Shacham, et al.         Expires December 29, 2005               [Page 4]

Internet-Draft            Media Privacy in SIP                 June 2005


   able to provide privacy at least at the specified level in order to
   establish the session.

5.  Providing privacy

   The two extensions described may be used concurrently to provide the
   privacy services in Section 1.  Including the "Reject-Contact" or
   "Accept-Contact" headers in a request will route the call to an
   appropriate device.  Since caller preferences are only defined for
   the initiator of a session, the callee must use, in its response, the
   SDP extensions described in order to require that the caller use a
   device that is sufficiently private.

   Once the two user devices have established a session between them,
   the information exchanged during call setup is also used to limit the
   use of the device.  If a device has received a request with either
   the "Reject-Contact" header, the "Accept-Contact" header or a
   response that includes a "a=required-privacy" line, it must not, for
   the duration of the session, allow the user to make any adjustments
   to the session that violate whatever privacy requirements are
   contained therein.  If the other participant has required "user"
   level privacy, the device must not allow the user to turn on the
   speakerphone at any time unless it has a way of knowing that there is
   no other user in the area.  Likewise, it must not allow the user to
   transfer the call to a device where the media may be seen or heard by
   others.

   If a device still allows the user to attempt a transfer, the remote
   device may stop it from taking place.  There are two session transfer
   modes mentioned in [4], Mobile Node Control (MNC) mode and Session
   Handoff (SH) mode.  In both, the flows involve a request/response
   interaction with the remote user's device.  The remote device may
   specify in the body of its response that it will only allow sessions
   with devices that have a specific level of privacy, thereby not
   allowing the session transfer to take place otherwise.

   If either party wishes to update the privacy of the call, the SDP
   attribute must be used, since caller preferences are not defined for
   mid-call messages.  As described in Section 1, this may simply make
   the other device aware of the increased privacy of the session or may
   actually remotely force a change on the other device.  For example,
   in order to update the session privacy to "user" level, a participant
   sends an INVITE request with the SDP "required-privacy" attribute set
   to "user".  If the call is currently on the user's own device, the
   device responds with its own SDP parameters, as it normally would.
   If the user is currently using the speakerphone, the device redirects
   the output to the earpiece.  If the user currently has part of the
   call on an external device which may be perceived by other users, his



Shacham, et al.         Expires December 29, 2005               [Page 5]

Internet-Draft            Media Privacy in SIP                 June 2005


   own device must retrieve the session in order to comply with the
   session update.  It responds with an acceptable SDP body, namely its
   own parameters, and subsequently terminates its own session with the
   local audio device in order to remove the remote participant's media
   from there.

6.  SDP attribures for recording

   Since the recording of a session is not an intrinsic attribute of a
   device and does not effect call routing, it is not useful to express
   it as a caller preference.  Rather, this document defines two SDP
   attributes that may be used to express information about session
   recording.  As in Section 4, we only define these attributes at the
   session level for the sake of simplicity.  An SDP description
   containing the "record" attribute conveys to the other participant
   that he would like to allow recording of the session, which is likely
   to mean that he will, in fact, record it.  The SDP may also contain
   the "norecord" attribute to convey that the user is requesting to
   disallow recording of the session.  These attributes may be used
   during call setup or in mid-call.

7.  Security Considerations

   This document, itself, is concerned with providing SIP session
   participants with their desired level of privacy.  It is only
   concerned with conveying to the other participant requirements for
   handling media streams once they are received.  It does not provide
   for the confidentiality or integrity of media streams, which are
   provided by the Secure Real-time Transport Protocol (SRTP) [6].

8.  IANA Considerations

   This document defines a new feature parameter called "privacy" whose
   use is governed by [2].  It must take one of the following values:
   "user", "organization", "public".

   It also defines four SDP attributes.  Two of these attributes serve
   to allow for negotiation based on the privacy level of the devices.
   The attributes, "required-privacy" and "provided-privacy", are
   session-level value attributes which must take one of the values
   listed above.  The other two attributes, "record" and "norecord"
   serve to allow and disallow the recording of the session.  They are
   session-level property attributes.

9.  References

   [1]  Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., Camarillo, G., Johnston, A.,
        Sparks, R., Handley, A., and E. Schooler, "SIP: Session



Shacham, et al.         Expires December 29, 2005               [Page 6]

Internet-Draft            Media Privacy in SIP                 June 2005


        Initiation Protocol", RFC 3261, June 2002.

   [2]  Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., and P. Kyzivat, "Caller
        Preferences for the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)",
        RFC 3841, August 2004.

   [3]  Handley, M. and V. Jacobson, "SDP: Session Description
        Protocol", RFC 2327, April 1998.

   [4]  Shacham, R., Schulzrinne, H., Thakolsri, S., and W. Kellerer,
        "Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Session Mobility,  IETF
        Internet Draft (Work in Progress)", February 2005.

   [5]  Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., and P. Kyzivat, "Indicating User
        Agent Capabilities in the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)",
        RFC 3840, August 2004.

   [6]  Baugher, M., McGrew, D., Naslund, M., Carrara, E., and K.
        Norrman, "The Secure Real-time Transport Protocol (SRTP)",
        RFC 3711, March 2004.


Authors' Addresses

   Ron Shacham
   Columbia University
   1214 Amsterdam Avenue, MC 0401
   New York, NY  10027
   USA

   Email: rs2194@cs.columbia.edu


   Henning Schulzrinne
   Columbia University
   1214 Amsterdam Avenue, MC 0401
   New York, NY  10027
   USA

   Email: hgs@cs.columbia.edu











Shacham, et al.         Expires December 29, 2005               [Page 7]

Internet-Draft            Media Privacy in SIP                 June 2005


   Wolfgang Kellerer
   DoCoMo Eurolabs
   Landsberger Str. 312
   Munich  80687
   Germany

   Email: kellerer@docomolab-euro.com


   Srisakul Thakolsri
   DoCoMo Eurolabs
   Landsberger Str. 312
   Munich  80687
   Germany

   Email: thakolsri@docomolab-euro.com



































Shacham, et al.         Expires December 29, 2005               [Page 8]

Internet-Draft            Media Privacy in SIP                 June 2005


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 (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
   Internet Society.




Shacham, et al.         Expires December 29, 2005               [Page 9]



PAFTECH AB 2003-20262026-04-23 15:08:07