diff options
| author | Thomas Voss <mail@thomasvoss.com> | 2024-11-27 20:54:24 +0100 |
|---|---|---|
| committer | Thomas Voss <mail@thomasvoss.com> | 2024-11-27 20:54:24 +0100 |
| commit | 4bfd864f10b68b71482b35c818559068ef8d5797 (patch) | |
| tree | e3989f47a7994642eb325063d46e8f08ffa681dc /doc/rfc/rfc6665.txt | |
| parent | ea76e11061bda059ae9f9ad130a9895cc85607db (diff) | |
doc: Add RFC documents
Diffstat (limited to 'doc/rfc/rfc6665.txt')
| -rw-r--r-- | doc/rfc/rfc6665.txt | 2971 |
1 files changed, 2971 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/doc/rfc/rfc6665.txt b/doc/rfc/rfc6665.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..5af09fd --- /dev/null +++ b/doc/rfc/rfc6665.txt @@ -0,0 +1,2971 @@ + + + + + + +Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) A.B. Roach +Request for Comments: 6665 Tekelec +Obsoletes: 3265 July 2012 +Updates: 3261, 4660 +Category: Standards Track +ISSN: 2070-1721 + + + SIP-Specific Event Notification + +Abstract + + This document describes an extension to the Session Initiation + Protocol (SIP) defined by RFC 3261. The purpose of this extension is + to provide an extensible framework by which SIP nodes can request + notification from remote nodes indicating that certain events have + occurred. + + Note that the event notification mechanisms defined herein are NOT + intended to be a general-purpose infrastructure for all classes of + event subscription and notification. + + This document represents a backwards-compatible improvement on the + original mechanism described by RFC 3265, taking into account several + years of implementation experience. Accordingly, this document + obsoletes RFC 3265. This document also updates RFC 4660 slightly to + accommodate some small changes to the mechanism that were discussed + in that document. + +Status of This Memo + + This is an Internet Standards Track document. + + This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force + (IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has + received public review and has been approved for publication by the + Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on + Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 5741. + + Information about the current status of this document, any errata, + and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at + http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6665. + + + + + + + + + +Roach Standards Track [Page 1] + +RFC 6665 SIP-Specific Event Notification July 2012 + + +Copyright Notice + + Copyright (c) 2012 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 Simplified BSD License. + +Table of Contents + + 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 + 1.1. Overview of Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 + 1.2. Documentation Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 + 2. Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 + 3. SIP Methods for Event Notification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 + 3.1. SUBSCRIBE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 + 3.1.1. Subscription Duration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 + 3.1.2. Identification of Subscribed Events and Event + Classes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 + 3.1.3. Additional SUBSCRIBE Header Field Values . . . . . . . 9 + 3.2. NOTIFY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 + 3.2.1. Identification of Reported Events, Event Classes, + and Current State . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 + 4. Node Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 + 4.1. Subscriber Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 + 4.1.1. Detecting Support for SIP Events . . . . . . . . . . . 10 + 4.1.2. Creating and Maintaining Subscriptions . . . . . . . . 10 + 4.1.3. Receiving and Processing State Information . . . . . . 14 + 4.1.4. Forking of SUBSCRIBE Requests . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 + 4.2. Notifier Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 + 4.2.1. Subscription Establishment and Maintenance . . . . . . 17 + 4.2.2. Sending State Information to Subscribers . . . . . . . 20 + 4.2.3. PSTN/Internet Interworking (PINT) Compatibility . . . 23 + 4.3. Proxy Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 + 4.4. Common Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 + 4.4.1. Dialog Creation and Termination . . . . . . . . . . . 24 + 4.4.2. Notifier Migration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 + 4.4.3. Polling Resource State . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 + 4.4.4. "Allow-Events" Header Field Usage . . . . . . . . . . 26 + 4.5. Targeting Subscriptions at Devices . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 + 4.5.1. Using GRUUs to Route to Devices . . . . . . . . . . . 27 + + + +Roach Standards Track [Page 2] + +RFC 6665 SIP-Specific Event Notification July 2012 + + + 4.5.2. Sharing Dialogs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 + 4.6. CANCEL Requests for SUBSCRIBE and NOTIFY Transactions . . 29 + 5. Event Packages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 + 5.1. Appropriateness of Usage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 + 5.2. Event Template-Packages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 + 5.3. Amount of State to Be Conveyed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 + 5.3.1. Complete State Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 + 5.3.2. State Deltas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 + 5.4. Event Package Responsibilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 + 5.4.1. Event Package Name . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 + 5.4.2. Event Package Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 + 5.4.3. SUBSCRIBE Request Bodies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 + 5.4.4. Subscription Duration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 + 5.4.5. NOTIFY Request Bodies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 + 5.4.6. Notifier Processing of SUBSCRIBE Requests . . . . . . 34 + 5.4.7. Notifier generation of NOTIFY requests . . . . . . . . 34 + 5.4.8. Subscriber Processing of NOTIFY Requests . . . . . . . 34 + 5.4.9. Handling of Forked Requests . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 + 5.4.10. Rate of Notifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 + 5.4.11. State Aggregation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 + 5.4.12. Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 + 5.4.13. Use of URIs to Retrieve State . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 + 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 + 6.1. Access Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 + 6.2. Notifier Privacy Mechanism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 + 6.3. Denial-of-Service Attacks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 + 6.4. Replay Attacks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 + 6.5. Man-in-the-Middle Attacks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 + 6.6. Confidentiality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 + 7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 + 7.1. Event Packages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 + 7.1.1. Registration Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 + 7.1.2. Registration Template . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 + 7.2. Reason Codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 + 7.3. Header Field Names . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 + 7.4. Response Codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 + 8. Syntax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 + 8.1. New Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 + 8.1.1. SUBSCRIBE Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 + 8.1.2. NOTIFY Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 + 8.2. New Header Fields . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 + 8.2.1. "Event" Header Field . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 + 8.2.2. "Allow-Events" Header Field . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 + 8.2.3. "Subscription-State" Header Field . . . . . . . . . . 43 + 8.3. New Response Codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 + 8.3.1. 202 (Accepted) Response Code . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 + 8.3.2. 489 (Bad Event) Response Code . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 + 8.4. Augmented BNF Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 + + + +Roach Standards Track [Page 3] + +RFC 6665 SIP-Specific Event Notification July 2012 + + + 9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 + 9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 + 9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 + Appendix A. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 + Appendix B. Changes from RFC 3265 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 + B.1. Bug 666: Clarify use of "expires=xxx" with "terminated" . 48 + B.2. Bug 667: Reason code for unsub/poll not clearly + spelled out . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 + B.3. Bug 669: Clarify: SUBSCRIBE for a duration might be + answered with a NOTIFY/expires=0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 + B.4. Bug 670: Dialog State Machine needs clarification . . . . 49 + B.5. Bug 671: Clarify timeout-based removal of subscriptions . 49 + B.6. Bug 672: Mandate "expires" in NOTIFY . . . . . . . . . . . 49 + B.7. Bug 673: INVITE 481 response effect clarification . . . . 49 + B.8. Bug 677: SUBSCRIBE response matching text in error . . . . 49 + B.9. Bug 695: Document is not explicit about response to + NOTIFY at subscription termination . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 + B.10. Bug 696: Subscription state machine needs clarification . 49 + B.11. Bug 697: Unsubscription behavior could be clarified . . . 49 + B.12. Bug 699: NOTIFY and SUBSCRIBE are target refresh + requests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 + B.13. Bug 722: Inconsistent 423 reason phrase text . . . . . . . 50 + B.14. Bug 741: Guidance needed on when to not include + "Allow-Events" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 + B.15. Bug 744: 5xx to NOTIFY terminates a subscription, but + should not . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 + B.16. Bug 752: Detection of forked requests is incorrect . . . . 50 + B.17. Bug 773: Reason code needs IANA registry . . . . . . . . . 50 + B.18. Bug 774: Need new reason for terminating subscriptions + to resources that never change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 + B.19. Clarify Handling of "Route"/"Record-Route" in NOTIFY . . . 50 + B.20. Eliminate Implicit Subscriptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 + B.21. Deprecate Dialog Reuse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 + B.22. Rationalize Dialog Creation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 + B.23. Refactor Behavior Sections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 + B.24. Clarify Sections That Need to Be Present in Event + Packages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 + B.25. Make CANCEL Handling More Explicit . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 + B.26. Remove "State Agent" Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 + B.27. Miscellaneous Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 + + + + + + + + + + + +Roach Standards Track [Page 4] + +RFC 6665 SIP-Specific Event Notification July 2012 + + +1. Introduction + + The ability to request asynchronous notification of events proves + useful in many types of SIP services for which cooperation between + end-nodes is required. Examples of such services include automatic + callback services (based on terminal state events), buddy lists + (based on user presence events), message waiting indications (based + on mailbox state change events), and PSTN and Internet + Internetworking (PINT) [RFC2848] status (based on call state events). + + The methods described in this document provide a framework by which + notification of these events can be ordered. + + The event notification mechanisms defined herein are NOT intended to + be a general-purpose infrastructure for all classes of event + subscription and notification. Meeting requirements for the general + problem set of subscription and notification is far too complex for a + single protocol. Our goal is to provide a SIP-specific framework for + event notification that is not so complex as to be unusable for + simple features, but that is still flexible enough to provide + powerful services. Note, however, that event packages based on this + framework may define arbitrarily elaborate rules that govern the + subscription and notification for the events or classes of events + they describe. + + This document does not describe an extension that may be used + directly; it must be extended by other documents (herein referred to + as "event packages"). In object-oriented design terminology, it may + be thought of as an abstract base class that must be derived into an + instantiable class by further extensions. Guidelines for creating + these extensions are described in Section 5. + +1.1. Overview of Operation + + The general concept is that entities in the network can subscribe to + resource or call state for various resources or calls in the network, + and those entities (or entities acting on their behalf) can send + notifications when those states change. + + A typical flow of messages would be: + + Subscriber Notifier + |-----SUBSCRIBE---->| Request state subscription + |<-------200--------| Acknowledge subscription + |<------NOTIFY----- | Return current state information + |--------200------->| + |<------NOTIFY----- | Return current state information + |--------200------->| + + + +Roach Standards Track [Page 5] + +RFC 6665 SIP-Specific Event Notification July 2012 + + + Subscriptions are expired and must be refreshed by subsequent + SUBSCRIBE requests. + +1.2. Documentation Conventions + + There are several paragraphs throughout this document that provide + motivational or clarifying text. Such passages are non-normative and + are provided only to assist with reader comprehension. These + passages are set off from the remainder of the text by being indented + thus: + + This is an example of non-normative explanatory text. It does not + form part of the specification and is used only for clarification. + + 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 [RFC2119]. + + In particular, implementors need to take careful note of the meaning + of "SHOULD" defined in RFC 2119. To rephrase: violation of "SHOULD"- + strength requirements requires careful analysis and clearly + enumerable reasons. It is a protocol violation to fail to comply + with "SHOULD"-strength requirements whimsically or for ease of + implementation. + +2. Definitions + + Event Package: An event package is an additional specification that + defines a set of state information to be reported by a notifier to + a subscriber. Event packages also define further syntax and + semantics that are based on the framework defined by this document + and are required to convey such state information. + + Event Template-Package: An event template-package is a special kind + of event package that defines a set of states that may be applied + to all possible event packages, including itself. + + Notification: Notification is the act of a notifier sending a NOTIFY + request to a subscriber to inform the subscriber of the state of a + resource. + + Notifier: A notifier is a user agent that generates NOTIFY requests + for the purpose of notifying subscribers of the state of a + resource. Notifiers typically also accept SUBSCRIBE requests to + create subscriptions. + + + + + + +Roach Standards Track [Page 6] + +RFC 6665 SIP-Specific Event Notification July 2012 + + + Subscriber: A subscriber is a user agent that receives NOTIFY + requests from notifiers; these NOTIFY requests contain information + about the state of a resource in which the subscriber is + interested. Subscribers typically also generate SUBSCRIBE + requests and send them to notifiers to create subscriptions. + + Subscription: A subscription is a set of application state + associated with a dialog. This application state includes a + pointer to the associated dialog, the event package name, and + possibly an identification token. Event packages will define + additional subscription state information. By definition, + subscriptions exist in both a subscriber and a notifier. + + Subscription Migration: Subscription migration is the act of moving + a subscription from one notifier to another notifier. + +3. SIP Methods for Event Notification + +3.1. SUBSCRIBE + + The SUBSCRIBE method is used to request current state and state + updates from a remote node. SUBSCRIBE requests are target refresh + requests, as that term is defined in [RFC3261]. + +3.1.1. Subscription Duration + + SUBSCRIBE requests SHOULD contain an "Expires" header field (defined + in [RFC3261]). This expires value indicates the duration of the + subscription. In order to keep subscriptions effective beyond the + duration communicated in the "Expires" header field, subscribers need + to refresh subscriptions on a periodic basis using a new SUBSCRIBE + request on the same dialog as defined in [RFC3261]. + + If no "Expires" header field is present in a SUBSCRIBE request, the + implied default MUST be defined by the event package being used. + + 200-class responses to SUBSCRIBE requests also MUST contain an + "Expires" header field. The period of time in the response MAY be + shorter but MUST NOT be longer than specified in the request. The + notifier is explicitly allowed to shorten the duration to zero. The + period of time in the response is the one that defines the duration + of the subscription. + + An "expires" parameter on the "Contact" header field has no semantics + for the SUBSCRIBE method and is explicitly not equivalent to an + "Expires" header field in a SUBSCRIBE request or response. + + + + + +Roach Standards Track [Page 7] + +RFC 6665 SIP-Specific Event Notification July 2012 + + + A natural consequence of this scheme is that a SUBSCRIBE request with + an "Expires" of 0 constitutes a request to unsubscribe from the + matching subscription. + + In addition to being a request to unsubscribe, a SUBSCRIBE request + with "Expires" of 0 also causes a fetch of state; see + Section 4.4.3. + + Notifiers may also wish to cancel subscriptions to events; this is + useful, for example, when the resource to which a subscription refers + is no longer available. Further details on this mechanism are + discussed in Section 4.2.2. + +3.1.2. Identification of Subscribed Events and Event Classes + + Identification of events is provided by three pieces of information: + Request URI, Event Type, and (optionally) message body. + + The Request URI of a SUBSCRIBE request, most importantly, contains + enough information to route the request to the appropriate entity per + the request routing procedures outlined in [RFC3261]. It also + contains enough information to identify the resource for which event + notification is desired, but not necessarily enough information to + uniquely identify the nature of the event (e.g., + "sip:adam@example.com" would be an appropriate URI to subscribe to + for my presence state; it would also be an appropriate URI to + subscribe to the state of my voice mailbox). + + Subscribers MUST include exactly one "Event" header field in + SUBSCRIBE requests, indicating to which event or class of events they + are subscribing. The "Event" header field will contain a token that + indicates the type of state for which a subscription is being + requested. This token will be registered with the IANA and will + correspond to an event package that further describes the semantics + of the event or event class. + + If the event package to which the event token corresponds defines + behavior associated with the body of its SUBSCRIBE requests, those + semantics apply. + + Event packages may also define parameters for the "Event" header + field; if they do so, they must define the semantics for such + parameters. + + + + + + + + +Roach Standards Track [Page 8] + +RFC 6665 SIP-Specific Event Notification July 2012 + + +3.1.3. Additional SUBSCRIBE Header Field Values + + Because SUBSCRIBE requests create a dialog usage as defined in + [RFC3261], they MAY contain an "Accept" header field. This header + field, if present, indicates the body formats allowed in subsequent + NOTIFY requests. Event packages MUST define the behavior for + SUBSCRIBE requests without "Accept" header fields; usually, this will + connote a single, default body type. + + Header values not described in this document are to be interpreted as + described in [RFC3261]. + +3.2. NOTIFY + + NOTIFY requests are sent to inform subscribers of changes in state to + which the subscriber has a subscription. Subscriptions are created + using the SUBSCRIBE method. In legacy implementations, it is + possible that other means of subscription creation have been used. + However, this specification does not allow the creation of + subscriptions except through SUBSCRIBE requests and (for backwards- + compatibility) REFER requests [RFC3515]. + + NOTIFY is a target refresh request, as that term is defined in + [RFC3261]. + + A NOTIFY request does not terminate its corresponding subscription; + in other words, a single SUBSCRIBE request may trigger several NOTIFY + requests. + +3.2.1. Identification of Reported Events, Event Classes, and Current + State + + Identification of events being reported in a notification is very + similar to that described for subscription to events (see + Section 3.1.2). + + As in SUBSCRIBE requests, NOTIFY request "Event" header fields MUST + contain a single event package name for which a notification is being + generated. The package name in the "Event" header field MUST match + the "Event" header field in the corresponding SUBSCRIBE request. + + Event packages may define semantics associated with the body of their + NOTIFY requests; if they do so, those semantics apply. NOTIFY + request bodies are expected to provide additional details about the + nature of the event that has occurred and the resultant resource + state. + + + + + +Roach Standards Track [Page 9] + +RFC 6665 SIP-Specific Event Notification July 2012 + + + When present, the body of the NOTIFY request MUST be formatted into + one of the body formats specified in the "Accept" header field of the + corresponding SUBSCRIBE request (or the default type according to the + event package description, if no "Accept" header field was + specified). This body will contain either the state of the + subscribed resource or a pointer to such state in the form of a URI + (see Section 5.4.13). + +4. Node Behavior + +4.1. Subscriber Behavior + +4.1.1. Detecting Support for SIP Events + + The extension described in this document does not make use of the + "Require" or "Proxy-Require" header fields; similarly, there is no + token defined for "Supported" header fields. Potential subscribers + may probe for the support of SIP events using the OPTIONS request + defined in [RFC3261]. + + The presence of "SUBSCRIBE" in the "Allow" header field of any + request or response indicates support for SIP events; further, in the + absence of an "Allow" header field, the simple presence of an "Allow- + Events" header field is sufficient to indicate that the node that + sent the message is capable of acting as a notifier (see + Section 4.4.4). + + The "methods" parameter for Contact may also be used to + specifically announce support for SUBSCRIBE and NOTIFY requests + when registering. (See [RFC3840] for details on the "methods" + parameter.) + +4.1.2. Creating and Maintaining Subscriptions + + From the subscriber's perspective, a subscription proceeds according + to the following state diagram. Events that result in a transition + back to the same state are not represented in this diagram. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Roach Standards Track [Page 10] + +RFC 6665 SIP-Specific Event Notification July 2012 + + + +-------------+ + | init |<-----------------------+ + +-------------+ | + | Retry-after + Send SUBSCRIBE expires + | | + V Timer N Fires; | + +-------------+ SUBSCRIBE failure | + +------------| notify_wait |-- response; --------+ | + | +-------------+ or NOTIFY, | | + | | state=terminated | | + | | | | + ++========|===================|============================|==|====++ + || | | V | || + || Receive NOTIFY, Receive NOTIFY, +-------------+ || + || state=active state=pending | terminated | || + || | | +-------------+ || + || | | Re-subscription A A || + || | V times out; | | || + || | +-------------+ Receive NOTIFY, | | || + || | | pending |-- state=terminated; --+ | || + || | +-------------+ or 481 response | || + || | | to SUBSCRIBE | || + || | Receive NOTIFY, refresh | || + || | state=active | || + || | | Re-subscription | || + || | V times out; | || + || | +-------------+ Receive NOTIFY, | || + || +----------->| active |-- state=terminated; -----+ || + || +-------------+ or 481 response || + || to SUBSCRIBE || + || Subscription refresh || + ++=================================================================++ + + In the state diagram, "Re-subscription times out" means that an + attempt to refresh or update the subscription using a new SUBSCRIBE + request does not result in a NOTIFY request before the corresponding + Timer N expires. + + Any transition from "notify_wait" into a "pending" or "active" state + results in a new subscription. Note that multiple subscriptions can + be generated as the result of a single SUBSCRIBE request (see + Section 4.4.1). Each of these new subscriptions exists in its own + independent state machine and runs its own set of timers. + + + + + + + +Roach Standards Track [Page 11] + +RFC 6665 SIP-Specific Event Notification July 2012 + + +4.1.2.1. Requesting a Subscription + + SUBSCRIBE is a dialog-creating method, as described in [RFC3261]. + + When a subscriber wishes to subscribe to a particular state for a + resource, it forms a SUBSCRIBE request. If the initial SUBSCRIBE + request represents a request outside of a dialog (as it typically + will), its construction follows the procedures outlined in [RFC3261] + for User Agent Client (UAC) request generation outside of a dialog. + + This SUBSCRIBE request will be confirmed with a final response. + 200-class responses indicate that the subscription has been accepted + and that a NOTIFY request will be sent immediately. + + The "Expires" header field in a 200-class response to SUBSCRIBE + request indicates the actual duration for which the subscription will + remain active (unless refreshed). The received value might be + smaller than the value indicated in the SUBSCRIBE request but cannot + be larger; see Section 4.2.1 for details. + + Non-200-class final responses indicate that no subscription or new + dialog usage has been created, and no subsequent NOTIFY request will + be sent. All non-200-class responses (with the exception of 489 (Bad + Event), described herein) have the same meanings and handling as + described in [RFC3261]. For the sake of clarity: if a SUBSCRIBE + request contains an "Accept" header field, but that field does not + indicate a media type that the notifier is capable of generating in + its NOTIFY requests, then the proper error response is 406 (Not + Acceptable). + +4.1.2.2. Refreshing of Subscriptions + + At any time before a subscription expires, the subscriber may refresh + the timer on such a subscription by sending another SUBSCRIBE request + on the same dialog as the existing subscription. The handling for + such a request is the same as for the initial creation of a + subscription except as described below. + + If a SUBSCRIBE request to refresh a subscription receives a 404, 405, + 410, 416, 480-485, 489, 501, or 604 response, the subscriber MUST + consider the subscription terminated. (See [RFC5057] for further + details and notes about the effect of error codes on dialogs and + usages within dialog, such as subscriptions). If the subscriber + wishes to re-subscribe to the state, he does so by composing an + unrelated initial SUBSCRIBE request with a freshly generated Call-ID + and a new, unique "From" tag (see Section 4.1.2.1). + + + + + +Roach Standards Track [Page 12] + +RFC 6665 SIP-Specific Event Notification July 2012 + + + If a SUBSCRIBE request to refresh a subscription fails with any error + code other than those listed above, the original subscription is + still considered valid for the duration of the most recently known + "Expires" value as negotiated by the most recent successful SUBSCRIBE + transaction, or as communicated by a NOTIFY request in its + "Subscription-State" header field "expires" parameter. + + Note that many such errors indicate that there may be a problem + with the network or the notifier such that no further NOTIFY + requests will be received. + + When refreshing a subscription, a subscriber starts Timer N, set to + 64*T1, when it sends the SUBSCRIBE request. If this Timer N expires + prior to the receipt of a NOTIFY request, the subscriber considers + the subscription terminated. If the subscriber receives a success + response to the SUBSCRIBE request that indicates that no NOTIFY + request will be generated -- such as the 204 response defined for use + with the optional extension described in [RFC5839] -- then it MUST + cancel Timer N. + +4.1.2.3. Unsubscribing + + Unsubscribing is handled in the same way as refreshing of a + subscription, with the "Expires" header field set to "0". Note that + a successful unsubscription will also trigger a final NOTIFY request. + + The final NOTIFY request may or may not contain information about the + state of the resource; subscribers need to be prepared to receive + final NOTIFY requests both with and without state. + +4.1.2.4. Confirmation of Subscription Creation + + The subscriber can expect to receive a NOTIFY request from each node + which has processed a successful subscription or subscription + refresh. To ensure that subscribers do not wait indefinitely for a + subscription to be established, a subscriber starts a Timer N, set to + 64*T1, when it sends a SUBSCRIBE request. If this Timer N expires + prior to the receipt of a NOTIFY request, the subscriber considers + the subscription failed, and cleans up any state associated with the + subscription attempt. + + Until Timer N expires, several NOTIFY requests may arrive from + different destinations (see Section 4.4.1). Each of these requests + establishes a new dialog usage and a new subscription. After the + expiration of Timer N, the subscriber SHOULD reject any such NOTIFY + requests that would otherwise establish a new dialog usage with a 481 + (Subscription does not exist) response code. + + + + +Roach Standards Track [Page 13] + +RFC 6665 SIP-Specific Event Notification July 2012 + + + Until the first NOTIFY request arrives, the subscriber should + consider the state of the subscribed resource to be in a neutral + state. Event package specifications MUST define this "neutral state" + in such a way that makes sense for their application (see + Section 5.4.7). + + Due to the potential for out-of-order messages, packet loss, and + forking, the subscriber MUST be prepared to receive NOTIFY requests + before the SUBSCRIBE transaction has completed. + + Except as noted above, processing of this NOTIFY request is the same + as in Section 4.1.3. + +4.1.3. Receiving and Processing State Information + + Subscribers receive information about the state of a resource to + which they have subscribed in the form of NOTIFY requests. + + Upon receiving a NOTIFY request, the subscriber should check that it + matches at least one of its outstanding subscriptions; if not, it + MUST return a 481 (Subscription does not exist) response unless + another 400- or 500-class response is more appropriate. The rules + for matching NOTIFY requests with subscriptions that create a new + dialog usage are described in Section 4.4.1. Notifications for + subscriptions that were created inside an existing dialog match if + they are in the same dialog and the "Event" header fields match (as + described in Section 8.2.1). + + If, for some reason, the event package designated in the "Event" + header field of the NOTIFY request is not supported, the subscriber + will respond with a 489 (Bad Event) response. + + To prevent spoofing of events, NOTIFY requests SHOULD be + authenticated using any defined SIP authentication mechanism, such as + those described in Sections 22.2 and 23 of [RFC3261]. + + NOTIFY requests MUST contain "Subscription-State" header fields that + indicate the status of the subscription. + + If the "Subscription-State" header field value is "active", it means + that the subscription has been accepted and (in general) has been + authorized. If the header field also contains an "expires" + parameter, the subscriber SHOULD take it as the authoritative + subscription duration and adjust accordingly. The "retry-after" and + "reason" parameters have no semantics for "active". + + + + + + +Roach Standards Track [Page 14] + +RFC 6665 SIP-Specific Event Notification July 2012 + + + If the "Subscription-State" value is "pending", the subscription has + been received by the notifier, but there is insufficient policy + information to grant or deny the subscription yet. If the header + field also contains an "expires" parameter, the subscriber SHOULD + take it as the authoritative subscription duration and adjust + accordingly. No further action is necessary on the part of the + subscriber. The "retry-after" and "reason" parameters have no + semantics for "pending". + + If the "Subscription-State" value is "terminated", the subscriber + MUST consider the subscription terminated. The "expires" parameter + has no semantics for "terminated" -- notifiers SHOULD NOT include an + "expires" parameter on a "Subscription-State" header field with a + value of "terminated", and subscribers MUST ignore any such + parameter, if present. If a reason code is present, the client + should behave as described below. If no reason code or an unknown + reason code is present, the client MAY attempt to re-subscribe at any + time (unless a "retry-after" parameter is present, in which case the + client SHOULD NOT attempt re-subscription until after the number of + seconds specified by the "retry-after" parameter). The reason codes + defined by this document are: + + deactivated: The subscription has been terminated, but the + subscriber SHOULD retry immediately with a new subscription. One + primary use of such a status code is to allow migration of + subscriptions between nodes. The "retry-after" parameter has no + semantics for "deactivated". + + probation: The subscription has been terminated, but the client + SHOULD retry at some later time (as long as the resource's state + is still relevant to the client at that time). If a "retry-after" + parameter is also present, the client SHOULD wait at least the + number of seconds specified by that parameter before attempting to + re-subscribe. + + rejected: The subscription has been terminated due to change in + authorization policy. Clients SHOULD NOT attempt to re-subscribe. + The "retry-after" parameter has no semantics for "rejected". + + timeout: The subscription has been terminated because it was not + refreshed before it expired. Clients MAY re-subscribe + immediately. The "retry-after" parameter has no semantics for + "timeout". This reason code is also associated with polling of + resource state, as detailed in Section 4.4.3. + + giveup: The subscription has been terminated because the notifier + could not obtain authorization in a timely fashion. If a "retry- + after" parameter is also present, the client SHOULD wait at least + + + +Roach Standards Track [Page 15] + +RFC 6665 SIP-Specific Event Notification July 2012 + + + the number of seconds specified by that parameter before + attempting to re-subscribe; otherwise, the client MAY retry + immediately, but will likely get put back into pending state. + + noresource: The subscription has been terminated because the + resource state that was being monitored no longer exists. Clients + SHOULD NOT attempt to re-subscribe. The "retry-after" parameter + has no semantics for "noresource". + + invariant: The subscription has been terminated because the resource + state is guaranteed not to change for the foreseeable future. + This may be the case, for example, when subscribing to the + location information of a fixed-location land-line telephone. + When using this reason code, notifiers are advised to include a + "retry-after" parameter with a large value (for example, 31536000 + -- or one year) to prevent older clients that are RFC 3265 + compliant from periodically re-subscribing. Clients SHOULD NOT + attempt to re-subscribe after receiving a reason code of + "invariant", regardless of the presence of or value of a "retry- + after" parameter. + + Other specifications may define new reason codes for use with the + "Subscription-State" header field. + + Once the notification is deemed acceptable to the subscriber, the + subscriber SHOULD return a 200 response. In general, it is not + expected that NOTIFY responses will contain bodies; however, they + MAY, if the NOTIFY request contained an "Accept" header field. + + Other responses defined in [RFC3261] may also be returned, as + appropriate. In no case should a NOTIFY transaction extend for any + longer than the time necessary for automated processing. In + particular, subscribers MUST NOT wait for a user response before + returning a final response to a NOTIFY request. + +4.1.4. Forking of SUBSCRIBE Requests + + In accordance with the rules for proxying non-INVITE requests as + defined in [RFC3261], successful SUBSCRIBE requests will receive only + one 200-class response; however, due to forking, the subscription may + have been accepted by multiple nodes. The subscriber MUST therefore + be prepared to receive NOTIFY requests with "From:" tags that differ + from the "To:" tag received in the SUBSCRIBE 200-class response. + + + + + + + + +Roach Standards Track [Page 16] + +RFC 6665 SIP-Specific Event Notification July 2012 + + + If multiple NOTIFY requests are received in different dialogs in + response to a single SUBSCRIBE request, each dialog represents a + different destination to which the SUBSCRIBE request was forked. + Subscriber handling in such situations varies by event package; see + Section 5.4.9 for details. + +4.2. Notifier Behavior + +4.2.1. Subscription Establishment and Maintenance + + Notifiers learn about subscription requests by receiving SUBSCRIBE + requests from interested parties. Notifiers MUST NOT create + subscriptions except upon receipt of a SUBSCRIBE request. However, + for historical reasons, the implicit creation of subscriptions as + defined in [RFC3515] is still permitted. + + [RFC3265] allowed the creation of subscriptions using means other + than the SUBSCRIBE method. The only standardized use of this + mechanism is the REFER method [RFC3515]. Implementation + experience with REFER has shown that the implicit creation of a + subscription has a number of undesirable effects, such as the + inability to signal the success of a REFER request while signaling + a problem with the subscription, and difficulty performing one + action without the other. Additionally, the proper exchange of + dialog identifiers is difficult without dialog reuse (which has + its own set of problems; see Section 4.5). + +4.2.1.1. Initial SUBSCRIBE Transaction Processing + + In no case should a SUBSCRIBE transaction extend for any longer than + the time necessary for automated processing. In particular, + notifiers MUST NOT wait for a user response before returning a final + response to a SUBSCRIBE request. + + This requirement is imposed primarily to prevent the non-INVITE + transaction timeout timer F (see [RFC3261]) from firing during the + SUBSCRIBE transaction, since interaction with a user would often + exceed 64*T1 seconds. + + The notifier SHOULD check that the event package specified in the + "Event" header field is understood. If not, the notifier SHOULD + return a 489 (Bad Event) response to indicate that the specified + event/event class is not understood. + + The notifier SHOULD also perform any necessary authentication and + authorization per its local policy. See Section 4.2.1.3. + + + + + +Roach Standards Track [Page 17] + +RFC 6665 SIP-Specific Event Notification July 2012 + + + The notifier MAY also check that the duration in the "Expires" header + field is not too small. If and only if the expiration interval is + greater than zero AND smaller than one hour AND less than a notifier- + configured minimum, the notifier MAY return a 423 (Interval Too + Brief) error that contains a "Min-Expires" header field. The + "Min-Expires" header field is described in [RFC3261]. + + Once the notifier determines that it has enough information to create + the subscription (i.e., it understands the event package, the + subscription pertains to a known resource, and there are no other + barriers to creating the subscription), it creates the subscription + and a dialog usage, and returns a 200 (OK) response. + + When a subscription is created in the notifier, it stores the event + package name as part of the subscription information. + + The "Expires" values present in SUBSCRIBE 200-class responses behave + in the same way as they do in REGISTER responses: the server MAY + shorten the interval but MUST NOT lengthen it. + + If the duration specified in a SUBSCRIBE request is unacceptably + short, the notifier may be able to send a 423 response, as + described earlier in this section. + + 200-class responses to SUBSCRIBE requests will not generally contain + any useful information beyond subscription duration; their primary + purpose is to serve as a reliability mechanism. State information + will be communicated via a subsequent NOTIFY request from the + notifier. + + The other response codes defined in [RFC3261] may be used in response + to SUBSCRIBE requests, as appropriate. + +4.2.1.2. Confirmation of Subscription Creation/Refreshing + + Upon successfully accepting or refreshing a subscription, notifiers + MUST send a NOTIFY request immediately to communicate the current + resource state to the subscriber. This NOTIFY request is sent on the + same dialog as created by the SUBSCRIBE response. If the resource + has no meaningful state at the time that the SUBSCRIBE request is + processed, this NOTIFY request MAY contain an empty or neutral body. + See Section 4.2.2 for further details on NOTIFY request generation. + + Note that a NOTIFY request is always sent immediately after any + 200-class response to a SUBSCRIBE request, regardless of whether the + subscription has already been authorized. + + + + + +Roach Standards Track [Page 18] + +RFC 6665 SIP-Specific Event Notification July 2012 + + +4.2.1.3. Authentication/Authorization of SUBSCRIBE Requests + + Privacy concerns may require that notifiers apply policy to determine + whether a particular subscriber is authorized to subscribe to a + certain set of events. Such policy may be defined by mechanisms such + as access control lists or real-time interaction with a user. In + general, authorization of subscribers prior to authentication is not + particularly useful. + + SIP authentication mechanisms are discussed in [RFC3261]. Note that, + even if the notifier node typically acts as a proxy, authentication + for SUBSCRIBE requests will always be performed via a 401 + (Unauthorized) response, not a 407 (Proxy Authentication Required). + Notifiers always act as user agents when accepting subscriptions and + sending notifications. + + Of course, when acting as a proxy, a node will perform normal + proxy authentication (using 407). The foregoing explanation is a + reminder that notifiers are always user agents and, as such, + perform user agent authentication. + + If authorization fails based on an access list or some other + automated mechanism (i.e., it can be automatically authoritatively + determined that the subscriber is not authorized to subscribe), the + notifier SHOULD reply to the request with a 403 (Forbidden) or 603 + (Decline) response, unless doing so might reveal information that + should stay private; see Section 6.2. + + If the notifier owner is interactively queried to determine whether a + subscription is allowed, a 200 (OK) response is returned immediately. + Note that a NOTIFY request is still formed and sent under these + circumstances, as described in the previous section. + + If subscription authorization was delayed and the notifier wishes to + convey that such authorization has been declined, it may do so by + sending a NOTIFY request containing a "Subscription-State" header + field with a value of "terminated" and a reason parameter of + "rejected". + +4.2.1.4. Refreshing of Subscriptions + + When a notifier receives a subscription refresh, assuming that the + subscriber is still authorized, the notifier updates the expiration + time for subscription. As with the initial subscription, the server + MAY shorten the amount of time until expiration but MUST NOT increase + it. The final expiration time is placed in the "Expires" header + + + + + +Roach Standards Track [Page 19] + +RFC 6665 SIP-Specific Event Notification July 2012 + + + field in the response. If the duration specified in a SUBSCRIBE + request is unacceptably short, the notifier SHOULD respond with a 423 + (Interval Too Brief) response. + + If no refresh for a notification address is received before its + expiration time, the subscription is removed. When removing a + subscription, the notifier SHOULD send a NOTIFY request with a + "Subscription-State" value of "terminated" to inform it that the + subscription is being removed. If such a request is sent, the + "Subscription-State" header field SHOULD contain a "reason=timeout" + parameter. + + Clients can cause a subscription to be terminated immediately by + sending a SUBSCRIBE request with an "Expires" header field set to + '0'. Notifiers largely treat this the same way as any other + subscription expiration: they send a NOTIFY request containing a + "Subscription-State" of "terminated", with a reason code of + "timeout." For consistency with state polling (see Section 4.4.3) + and subscription refreshes, the notifier may choose to include + resource state in this final NOTIFY request. However, in some cases, + including such state makes no sense. Under such circumstances, the + notifier may choose to omit state information from the terminal + NOTIFY request. + + The sending of a NOTIFY request when a subscription expires allows + the corresponding dialog usage to be terminated, if appropriate. + +4.2.2. Sending State Information to Subscribers + + Notifiers use the NOTIFY method to send information about the state + of a resource to subscribers. The notifier's view of a subscription + is shown in the following state diagram. Events that result in a + transition back to the same state are not represented in this + diagram. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Roach Standards Track [Page 20] + +RFC 6665 SIP-Specific Event Notification July 2012 + + + +-------------+ + | init | + +-------------+ + | + Receive SUBSCRIBE, + Send NOTIFY + | + V NOTIFY failure, + +-------------+ subscription expires, + +------------| resp_wait |-- or terminated ----+ + | +-------------+ per local policy | + | | | + | | | + | | V + Policy grants Policy needed +-------------+ + permission | | terminated | + | | +-------------+ + | | A A + | V NOTIFY failure, | | + | +-------------+ subscription expires,| | + | | pending |-- or terminated -------+ | + | +-------------+ per local policy | + | | | + | Policy changed to | + | grant permission | + | | | + | V NOTIFY failure, | + | +-------------+ subscription expires, | + +----------->| active |-- or terminated ---------+ + +-------------+ per local policy + + When a SUBSCRIBE request is answered with a 200-class response, the + notifier MUST immediately construct and send a NOTIFY request to the + subscriber. When a change in the subscribed state occurs, the + notifier SHOULD immediately construct and send a NOTIFY request, + unless the state transition is caused by a NOTIFY transaction + failure. The sending of this NOTIFY message is also subject to + authorization, local policy, and throttling considerations. + + If the NOTIFY request fails due to expiration of SIP Timer F + (transaction timeout), the notifier SHOULD remove the subscription. + + This behavior prevents unnecessary transmission of state + information for subscribers who have crashed or disappeared from + the network. Because such transmissions will be sent multiple + times, per the retransmission algorithm defined in [RFC3261] + (instead of the typical single transmission for functioning + clients), continuing to service them when no client is available + + + +Roach Standards Track [Page 21] + +RFC 6665 SIP-Specific Event Notification July 2012 + + + to acknowledge them could place undue strain on a network. Upon + client restart or reestablishment of a network connection, it is + expected that clients will send SUBSCRIBE requests to refresh + potentially stale state information; such requests will reinstall + subscriptions in all relevant nodes. + + If the NOTIFY transaction fails due to the receipt of a 404, 405, + 410, 416, 480-485, 489, 501, or 604 response to the NOTIFY request, + the notifier MUST remove the corresponding subscription. See + [RFC5057] for further details and notes about the effect of error + codes on dialogs and usages within dialog (such as subscriptions). + + A notify error response would generally indicate that something + has gone wrong with the subscriber or with some proxy on the way + to the subscriber. If the subscriber is in error, it makes the + most sense to allow the subscriber to rectify the situation (by + re-subscribing) once the error condition has been handled. If a + proxy is in error, the periodic sending of SUBSCRIBE requests to + refresh the expiration timer will reinstall subscription state + once the network problem has been resolved. + + NOTIFY requests MUST contain a "Subscription-State" header field with + a value of "active", "pending", or "terminated". The "active" value + indicates that the subscription has been accepted and has been + authorized (in most cases; see Section 6.2). The "pending" value + indicates that the subscription has been received, but that policy + information is insufficient to accept or deny the subscription at + this time. The "terminated" value indicates that the subscription is + not active. + + If the value of the "Subscription-State" header field is "active" or + "pending", the notifier MUST also include in the "Subscription-State" + header field an "expires" parameter that indicates the time remaining + on the subscription. The notifier MAY use this mechanism to shorten + a subscription; however, this mechanism MUST NOT be used to lengthen + a subscription. + + Including expiration information for active and pending + subscriptions is necessary in case the SUBSCRIBE request forks, + since the response to a forked SUBSCRIBE request may not be + received by the subscriber. [RFC3265] allowed the notifier some + discretion in the inclusion of this parameter, so subscriber + implementations are warned to handle the lack of an "expires" + parameter gracefully. Note well that this "expires" value is a + parameter on the "Subscription-State" header field NOT the + "Expires" header field. + + + + + +Roach Standards Track [Page 22] + +RFC 6665 SIP-Specific Event Notification July 2012 + + + The period of time for a subscription can be shortened to zero by + the notifier. In other words, it is perfectly valid for a + SUBSCRIBE request with a non-zero expires to be answered with a + NOTIFY request that contains "Subscription-Status: + terminated;reason=expired". This merely means that the notifier + has shortened the subscription timeout to zero, and the + subscription has expired instantaneously. The body may contain + valid state, or it may contain a neutral state (see + Section 5.4.7). + + If the value of the "Subscription-State" header field is + "terminated", the notifier SHOULD also include a "reason" parameter. + The notifier MAY also include a "retry-after" parameter, where + appropriate. For details on the value and semantics of the "reason" + and "retry-after" parameters, see Section 4.1.3. + +4.2.3. PSTN/Internet Interworking (PINT) Compatibility + + The "Event" header field is considered mandatory for the purposes of + this document. However, to maintain compatibility with PINT (see + [RFC2848]), notifiers MAY interpret a SUBSCRIBE request with no + "Event" header field as requesting a subscription to PINT events. If + a notifier does not support PINT, it SHOULD return 489 (Bad Event) to + any SUBSCRIBE requests without an "Event" header field. + +4.3. Proxy Behavior + + Proxies need no additional behavior beyond that described in + [RFC3261] to support SUBSCRIBE and NOTIFY transactions. If a proxy + wishes to see all of the SUBSCRIBE and NOTIFY requests for a given + dialog, it MUST add a "Record-Route" header field to the initial + SUBSCRIBE request and all NOTIFY requests. It MAY choose to include + "Record-Route" in subsequent SUBSCRIBE requests; however, these + requests cannot cause the dialog's route set to be modified. + + Proxies that did not add a "Record-Route" header field to the initial + SUBSCRIBE request MUST NOT add a "Record-Route" header field to any + of the associated NOTIFY requests. + + Note that subscribers and notifiers may elect to use Secure/ + Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (S/MIME) encryption of + SUBSCRIBE and NOTIFY requests; consequently, proxies cannot rely + on being able to access any information that is not explicitly + required to be proxy-readable by [RFC3261]. + + + + + + + +Roach Standards Track [Page 23] + +RFC 6665 SIP-Specific Event Notification July 2012 + + +4.4. Common Behavior + +4.4.1. Dialog Creation and Termination + + Dialogs usages are created upon completion of a NOTIFY transaction + for a new subscription, unless the NOTIFY request contains a + "Subscription-State" of "terminated." + + Because the dialog usage is established by the NOTIFY request, the + route set at the subscriber is taken from the NOTIFY request itself, + as opposed to the route set present in the 200-class response to the + SUBSCRIBE request. + + NOTIFY requests are matched to such SUBSCRIBE requests if they + contain the same "Call-ID", a "To" header field "tag" parameter that + matches the "From" header field "tag" parameter of the SUBSCRIBE + request, and the same "Event" header field. Rules for comparisons of + the "Event" header fields are described in Section 8.2.1. + + A subscription is destroyed after a notifier sends a NOTIFY request + with a "Subscription-State" of "terminated", or in certain error + situations described elsewhere in this document. The subscriber will + generally answer such final requests with a 200 (OK) response (unless + a condition warranting an alternate response has arisen). Except + when the mechanism described in Section 4.5.2 is used, the + destruction of a subscription results in the termination of its + associated dialog. + + A subscriber may send a SUBSCRIBE request with an "Expires" header + field of 0 in order to trigger the sending of such a NOTIFY + request; however, for the purposes of subscription and dialog + lifetime, the subscription is not considered terminated until the + NOTIFY transaction with a "Subscription-State" of "terminated" + completes. + +4.4.2. Notifier Migration + + It is often useful to allow migration of subscriptions between + notifiers. Such migration may be effected by sending a NOTIFY + request with a "Subscription-State" header field of "terminated" and + a reason parameter of "deactivated". This NOTIFY request is + otherwise normal and is formed as described in Section 4.2.2. + + Upon receipt of this NOTIFY request, the subscriber SHOULD attempt to + re-subscribe (as described in the preceding sections). Note that + this subscription is established on a new dialog, and does not reuse + the route set from the previous subscription dialog. + + + + +Roach Standards Track [Page 24] + +RFC 6665 SIP-Specific Event Notification July 2012 + + + The actual migration is effected by making a change to the policy + (such as routing decisions) of one or more servers to which the + SUBSCRIBE request will be sent in such a way that a different node + ends up responding to the SUBSCRIBE request. This may be as simple + as a change in the local policy in the notifier from which the + subscription is migrating so that it serves as a proxy or redirect + server instead of a notifier. + + Whether, when, and why to perform notifier migrations may be + described in individual event packages; otherwise, such decisions are + a matter of local notifier policy and are left up to individual + implementations. + +4.4.3. Polling Resource State + + A natural consequence of the behavior described in the preceding + sections is that an immediate fetch without a persistent subscription + may be effected by sending a SUBSCRIBE with an "Expires" of 0. + + Of course, an immediate fetch while a subscription is active may be + effected by sending a SUBSCRIBE request with an "Expires" equal to + the number of seconds remaining in the subscription. + + Upon receipt of this SUBSCRIBE request, the notifier (or notifiers, + if the SUBSCRIBE request was forked) will send a NOTIFY request + containing resource state in the same dialog. + + Note that the NOTIFY requests triggered by SUBSCRIBE requests with + "Expires" header fields of 0 will contain a "Subscription-State" + value of "terminated" and a "reason" parameter of "timeout". + + Polling of event state can cause significant increases in load on the + network and notifiers; as such, it should be used only sparingly. In + particular, polling SHOULD NOT be used in circumstances in which it + will typically result in more network messages than long-running + subscriptions. + + When polling is used, subscribers SHOULD attempt to cache + authentication credentials between polls so as to reduce the number + of messages sent. + + Due to the requirement on notifiers to send a NOTIFY request + immediately upon receipt of a SUBSCRIBE request, the state + provided by polling is limited to the information that the + notifier has immediate local access to when it receives the + SUBSCRIBE request. If, for example, the notifier generally needs + to retrieve state from another network server, then that state + will be absent from the NOTIFY request that results from polling. + + + +Roach Standards Track [Page 25] + +RFC 6665 SIP-Specific Event Notification July 2012 + + +4.4.4. "Allow-Events" Header Field Usage + + The "Allow-Events" header field, if present, MUST include a + comprehensive and inclusive list of tokens that indicates the event + packages for which the user agent can act as a notifier. In other + words, a user agent sending an "Allow-Events" header field is + advertising that it can process SUBSCRIBE requests and generate + NOTIFY requests for all of the event packages listed in that header + field. + + Any user agent that can act as a notifier for one or more event + packages SHOULD include an appropriate "Allow-Events" header field + indicating all supported events in all methods which initiate dialogs + and their responses (such as INVITE) and OPTIONS responses. + + This information is very useful, for example, in allowing user + agents to render particular interface elements appropriately + according to whether the events required to implement the features + they represent are supported by the appropriate nodes. + + On the other hand, it doesn't necessarily make much sense to + indicate supported events inside a dialog established by a NOTIFY + request if the only event package supported is the one associated + with that subscription. + + Note that "Allow-Events" header fields MUST NOT be inserted by + proxies. + + The "Allow-Events" header field does not include a list of the event + template-packages supported by an implementation. If a subscriber + wishes to determine which event template-packages are supported by a + notifier, it can probe for such support by attempting to subscribe to + the event template-packages it wishes to use. + + For example: to check for support for the templatized package + "presence.winfo", a client may attempt to subscribe to that event + package for a known resource, using an "Expires" header value of + 0. If the response is a 489 error code, then the client can + deduce that "presence.winfo" is unsupported. + +4.5. Targeting Subscriptions at Devices + + [RFC3265] defined a mechanism by which subscriptions could share + dialogs with invite usages and with other subscriptions. The purpose + of this behavior was to allow subscribers to ensure that a + subscription arrived at the same device as an established dialog. + Unfortunately, the reuse of dialogs has proven to be exceedingly + confusing. [RFC5057] attempted to clarify proper behavior in a + + + +Roach Standards Track [Page 26] + +RFC 6665 SIP-Specific Event Notification July 2012 + + + variety of circumstances; however, the ensuing rules remain confusing + and prone to implementation error. At the same time, the mechanism + described in [RFC5627] now provides a far more elegant and + unambiguous means to achieve the same goal. + + Consequently, the dialog reuse technique described in RFC 3265 is now + deprecated. + + This dialog-sharing technique has also historically been used as a + means for targeting an event package at a dialog. This usage can be + seen, for example, in certain applications of the REFER method + [RFC3515]. With the removal of dialog reuse, an alternate (and more + explicit) means of targeting dialogs needs to be used for this type + of correlation. The appropriate means of such targeting is left up + to the actual event packages. Candidates include the "Target-Dialog" + header field [RFC4538], the "Join" header field [RFC3911], and the + "Replaces" header field [RFC3891], depending on the semantics + desired. Alternately, if the semantics of those header fields do not + match the event package's purpose for correlation, event packages can + devise their own means of identifying dialogs. For an example of + this approach, see the Dialog Event Package [RFC4235]. + +4.5.1. Using GRUUs to Route to Devices + + Notifiers MUST implement the Globally Routable User Agent URI (GRUU) + extension defined in [RFC5627], and MUST use a GRUU as their local + target. This allows subscribers to explicitly target desired + devices. + + If a subscriber wishes to subscribe to a resource on the same device + as an established dialog, it should check whether the remote contact + in that dialog is a GRUU (i.e., whether it contains a "gr" URI + parameter). If so, the subscriber creates a new dialog, using the + GRUU as the Request URI for the new SUBSCRIBE request. + + Because GRUUs are guaranteed to route to a specific device, this + ensures that the subscription will be routed to the same place as + the established dialog. + +4.5.2. Sharing Dialogs + + For compatibility with older clients, subscriber and notifier + implementations may choose to allow dialog sharing. The behavior of + multiple usages within a dialog are described in [RFC5057]. + + Subscribers MUST NOT attempt to reuse dialogs whose remote target is + a GRUU. + + + + +Roach Standards Track [Page 27] + +RFC 6665 SIP-Specific Event Notification July 2012 + + + Note that the techniques described in this section are included + for backwards-compatibility purposes only. Because subscribers + cannot reuse dialogs with a GRUU for their remote target, and + because notifiers must use GRUUs as their local target, any two + implementations that conform to this specification will + automatically use the mechanism described in Section 4.5.1. + + Further note that the prohibition on reusing dialogs does not + exempt implicit subscriptions created by the REFER method. This + means that implementations complying with this specification are + required to use the "Target-Dialog" mechanism described in + [RFC4538] when the remote target is a GRUU. + + If a subscriber wishes to subscribe to a resource on the same device + as an established dialog and the remote contact is not a GRUU, it MAY + revert to dialog-sharing behavior. Alternately, it MAY choose to + treat the remote party as incapable of servicing the subscription + (i.e., the same way it would behave if the remote party did not + support SIP events at all). + + If a notifier receives a SUBSCRIBE request for a new subscription on + an existing dialog, it MAY choose to implement dialog sharing + behavior. Alternately, it may choose to fail the SUBSCRIBE request + with a 403 (Forbidden) response. The error text of such 403 + responses SHOULD indicate that dialog sharing is not supported. + + To implement dialog sharing, subscribers and notifiers perform the + following additional processing: + + o When subscriptions exist in dialogs associated with INVITE-created + application state and/or other subscriptions, these sets of + application state do not interact beyond the behavior described + for a dialog (e.g., route set handling). In particular, multiple + subscriptions within a dialog expire independently and require + independent subscription refreshes. + + o If a subscription's destruction leaves no other application state + associated with the dialog, the dialog terminates. The + destruction of other application state (such as that created by an + INVITE) will not terminate the dialog if a subscription is still + associated with that dialog. This means that, when dialogs are + reused, a dialog created with an INVITE does not necessarily + terminate upon receipt of a BYE. Similarly, in the case that + several subscriptions are associated with a single dialog, the + dialog does not terminate until all the subscriptions in it are + destroyed. + + + + + +Roach Standards Track [Page 28] + +RFC 6665 SIP-Specific Event Notification July 2012 + + + o Subscribers MAY include an "id" parameter in a SUBSCRIBE request's + "Event" header field to allow differentiation between multiple + subscriptions in the same dialog. This "id" parameter, if + present, contains an opaque token that identifies the specific + subscription within a dialog. An "id" parameter is only valid + within the scope of a single dialog. + + o If an "id" parameter is present in the SUBSCRIBE request used to + establish a subscription, that "id" parameter MUST also be present + in all corresponding NOTIFY requests. + + o When a subscriber refreshes the subscription timer, the SUBSCRIBE + request MUST contain the same "Event" header field "id" parameter + as was present in the SUBSCRIBE request that created the + subscription. (Otherwise, the notifier will interpret the + SUBSCRIBE request as a request for a new subscription in the same + dialog.) + + o When a subscription is created in the notifier, it stores any + "Event" header field "id" parameter as part of the subscription + information (along with the event package name). + + o If an initial SUBSCRIBE request is sent on a pre-existing dialog, + a matching NOTIFY request merely creates a new subscription + associated with that dialog. + +4.6. CANCEL Requests for SUBSCRIBE and NOTIFY Transactions + + Neither SUBSCRIBE nor NOTIFY requests can be canceled. If a User + Agent Server (UAS) receives a CANCEL request that matches a known + SUBSCRIBE or NOTIFY transaction, it MUST respond to the CANCEL + request, but otherwise ignore it. In particular, the CANCEL request + MUST NOT affect processing of the SUBSCRIBE or NOTIFY request in any + way. + + UACs SHOULD NOT send CANCEL requests for SUBSCRIBE or NOTIFY + transactions. + +5. Event Packages + + This section covers several issues that should be taken into + consideration when event packages based on the SUBSCRIBE and NOTIFY + methods are proposed. + +5.1. Appropriateness of Usage + + When designing an event package using the methods described in this + document for event notification, it is important to consider: is SIP + + + +Roach Standards Track [Page 29] + +RFC 6665 SIP-Specific Event Notification July 2012 + + + an appropriate mechanism for the problem set? Is SIP being selected + because of some unique feature provided by the protocol (e.g., user + mobility) or merely because "it can be done"? If you find yourself + defining event packages for notifications related to, for example, + network management or the temperature inside your car's engine, you + may want to reconsider your selection of protocols. + + Those interested in extending the mechanism defined in this + document are urged to follow the development of "Guidelines for + Authors of SIP Extensions" [RFC4485] for further guidance + regarding appropriate uses of SIP. + + Further, it is expected that this mechanism is not to be used in + applications where the frequency of reportable events is excessively + rapid (e.g., more than about once per second). A SIP network is + generally going to be provisioned for a reasonable signaling volume; + sending a notification every time a user's GPS position changes by + one hundredth of a second could easily overload such a network. + +5.2. Event Template-Packages + + Normal event packages define a set of state applied to a specific + type of resource, such as user presence, call state, and messaging + mailbox state. + + Event template-packages are a special type of package that define a + set of state applied to other packages, such as statistics, access + policy, and subscriber lists. Event template-packages may even be + applied to other event template-packages. + + To extend the object-oriented analogy made earlier, event template- + packages can be thought of as templatized C++ packages that must be + applied to other packages to be useful. + + The name of an event template-package as applied to a package is + formed by appending a period followed by the event template-package + name to the end of the package. For example, if a template-package + called "winfo" were being applied to a package called "presence", the + event token used in the "Event" header field would be + "presence.winfo". + + This scheme may be arbitrarily extended. For example, application + of the "winfo" package to the "presence.winfo" state of a resource + would be represented by the name "presence.winfo.winfo". It + naturally follows from this syntax that the order in which + templates are specified is significant. + + + + + +Roach Standards Track [Page 30] + +RFC 6665 SIP-Specific Event Notification July 2012 + + + For example: consider a theoretical event template-package called + "list". The event "presence.winfo.list" would be the application + of the "list" template to "presence.winfo", which would presumably + be a list of winfo state associated with presence. On the other + hand, the event "presence.list.winfo" would represent the + application of winfo to "presence.list", which would be represent + the winfo state of a list of presence information. + + Event template-packages must be defined so that they can be applied + to any arbitrary package. In other words, event template-packages + cannot be specifically tied to one or a few "parent" packages in such + a way that they will not work with other packages. + +5.3. Amount of State to Be Conveyed + + When designing event packages, it is important to consider the type + of information that will be conveyed during a notification. + + A natural temptation is to convey merely the event (e.g., "a new + voice message just arrived") without accompanying state (e.g., "7 + total voice messages"). This complicates implementation of + subscribing entities (since they have to maintain complete state for + the entity to which they have subscribed), and also is particularly + susceptible to synchronization problems. + + This problem has two possible solutions that event packages may + choose to implement. + +5.3.1. Complete State Information + + In general, event packages need to be able to convey a well-defined + and complete state, rather than just a stream of events. If it is + not possible to describe complete system state for transmission in + NOTIFY requests, then the problem set is not a good candidate for an + event package. + + For packages that typically convey state information that is + reasonably small (on the order of 1 KB or so), it is suggested that + event packages are designed so as to send complete state information + whenever an event occurs. + + In some circumstances, conveying the current state alone may be + insufficient for a particular class of events. In these cases, the + event packages should include complete state information along with + the event that occurred. For example, conveying "no customer service + representatives available" may not be as useful as conveying "no + customer service representatives available; representative + sip:46@cs.xyz.int just logged off". + + + +Roach Standards Track [Page 31] + +RFC 6665 SIP-Specific Event Notification July 2012 + + +5.3.2. State Deltas + + In the case that the state information to be conveyed is large, the + event package may choose to detail a scheme by which NOTIFY requests + contain state deltas instead of complete state. + + Such a scheme would work as follows: any NOTIFY request sent in + immediate response to a SUBSCRIBE request contains full state + information. NOTIFY requests sent because of a state change will + contain only the state information that has changed; the subscriber + will then merge this information into its current knowledge about the + state of the resource. + + Any event package that supports delta changes to states MUST include + a version number that increases by exactly one for each NOTIFY + transaction in a subscription. Note that the state version number + appears in the body of the message, not in a SIP header field. + + If a NOTIFY request arrives that has a version number that is + incremented by more than one, the subscriber knows that a state delta + has been missed; it ignores the NOTIFY request containing the state + delta (except for the version number, which it retains to detect + message loss), and re-sends a SUBSCRIBE request to force a NOTIFY + request containing a complete state snapshot. + +5.4. Event Package Responsibilities + + Event packages are not required to reiterate any of the behavior + described in this document, although they may choose to do so for + clarity or emphasis. In general, though, such packages are expected + to describe only the behavior that extends or modifies the behavior + described in this document. + + Note that any behavior designated with "SHOULD" or "MUST" in this + document is not allowed to be weakened by extension documents; + however, such documents may elect to strengthen "SHOULD" requirements + to "MUST" requirements if required by their application. + + In addition to the normal sections expected in Standards Track RFCs + and SIP extension documents, authors of event packages need to + address each of the issues detailed in the following subsections. + For clarity: well-formed event package definitions contain sections + addressing each of these issues, ideally in the same order and with + the same titles as these subsections. + + + + + + + +Roach Standards Track [Page 32] + +RFC 6665 SIP-Specific Event Notification July 2012 + + +5.4.1. Event Package Name + + This section, which MUST be present, defines the token name to be + used to designate the event package. It MUST include the information + that appears in the IANA registration of the token. For information + on registering such types, see Section 7. + +5.4.2. Event Package Parameters + + If parameters are to be used on the "Event" header field to modify + the behavior of the event package, the syntax and semantics of such + header fields MUST be clearly defined. + + Any "Event" header field parameters defined by an event package MUST + be registered in the "Header Field Parameters and Parameter Values" + registry defined by [RFC3968]. An "Event" header field parameter, + once registered in conjunction with an event package, MUST NOT be + reused with any other event package. Non-event-package + specifications MAY define "Event" header field parameters that apply + across all event packages (with emphasis on "all", as opposed to + "several"), such as the "id" parameter defined in this document. The + restriction of a parameter to use with a single event package only + applies to parameters that are defined in conjunction with an event + package. + +5.4.3. SUBSCRIBE Request Bodies + + It is expected that most, but not all, event packages will define + syntax and semantics for SUBSCRIBE request bodies; these bodies will + typically modify, expand, filter, throttle, and/or set thresholds for + the class of events being requested. Designers of event packages are + strongly encouraged to reuse existing media types for message bodies + where practical. See [RFC4288] for information on media type + specification and registration. + + This mandatory section of an event package defines what type or types + of event bodies are expected in SUBSCRIBE requests (or specify that + no event bodies are expected). It should point to detailed + definitions of syntax and semantics for all referenced body types. + +5.4.4. Subscription Duration + + It is RECOMMENDED that event packages give a suggested range of times + considered reasonable for the duration of a subscription. Such + packages MUST also define a default "Expires" value to be used if + none is specified. + + + + + +Roach Standards Track [Page 33] + +RFC 6665 SIP-Specific Event Notification July 2012 + + +5.4.5. NOTIFY Request Bodies + + The NOTIFY request body is used to report state on the resource being + monitored. Each package MUST define what type or types of event + bodies are expected in NOTIFY requests. Such packages MUST specify + or cite detailed specifications for the syntax and semantics + associated with such event bodies. + + Event packages also MUST define which media type is to be assumed if + none are specified in the "Accept" header field of the SUBSCRIBE + request. + +5.4.6. Notifier Processing of SUBSCRIBE Requests + + This section describes the processing to be performed by the notifier + upon receipt of a SUBSCRIBE request. Such a section is required. + + Information in this section includes details of how to authenticate + subscribers and authorization issues for the package. + +5.4.7. Notifier generation of NOTIFY requests + + This section of an event package describes the process by which the + notifier generates and sends a NOTIFY request. This includes + detailed information about what events cause a NOTIFY request to be + sent, how to compute the state information in the NOTIFY, how to + generate neutral or fake state information to hide authorization + delays and decisions from users, and whether state information is + complete or what the deltas are for notifications; see Section 5.3. + Such a section is required. + + This section may optionally describe the behavior used to process the + subsequent response. + +5.4.8. Subscriber Processing of NOTIFY Requests + + This section of an event package describes the process followed by + the subscriber upon receipt of a NOTIFY request, including any logic + required to form a coherent resource state (if applicable). + +5.4.9. Handling of Forked Requests + + Each event package MUST specify whether forked SUBSCRIBE requests are + allowed to install multiple subscriptions. + + If such behavior is not allowed, the first potential dialog- + establishing message will create a dialog. All subsequent NOTIFY + requests that correspond to the SUBSCRIBE request (i.e., have + + + +Roach Standards Track [Page 34] + +RFC 6665 SIP-Specific Event Notification July 2012 + + + matching "To", "From", "Call-ID", and "Event" header fields, as well + as "From" header field "tag" parameter and "Event" header field "id" + parameter) but that do not match the dialog would be rejected with a + 481 response. Note that the 200-class response to the SUBSCRIBE + request can arrive after a matching NOTIFY request has been received; + such responses might not correlate to the same dialog established by + the NOTIFY request. Except as required to complete the SUBSCRIBE + transaction, such non-matching 200-class responses are ignored. + + If installing of multiple subscriptions by way of a single forked + SUBSCRIBE request is allowed, the subscriber establishes a new dialog + towards each notifier by returning a 200-class response to each + NOTIFY request. Each dialog is then handled as its own entity and is + refreshed independently of the other dialogs. + + In the case that multiple subscriptions are allowed, the event + package MUST specify whether merging of the notifications to form a + single state is required, and how such merging is to be performed. + Note that it is possible that some event packages may be defined in + such a way that each dialog is tied to a mutually exclusive state + that is unaffected by the other dialogs; this MUST be clearly stated + if it is the case. + +5.4.10. Rate of Notifications + + Each event package is expected to define a requirement ("SHOULD" or + "MUST" strength) that defines an absolute maximum on the rate at + which notifications are allowed to be generated by a single notifier. + + Each package MAY further define a throttle mechanism that allows + subscribers to further limit the rate of notification. + +5.4.11. State Aggregation + + Many event packages inherently work by collecting information about a + resource from a number of other sources -- either through the use of + PUBLISH [RFC3903], by subscribing to state information, or through + other state-gathering mechanisms. + + Event packages that involve retrieval of state information for a + single resource from more than one source need to consider how + notifiers aggregate information into a single, coherent state. Such + packages MUST specify how notifiers aggregate information and how + they provide authentication and authorization. + + + + + + + +Roach Standards Track [Page 35] + +RFC 6665 SIP-Specific Event Notification July 2012 + + +5.4.12. Examples + + Event packages SHOULD include several demonstrative message flow + diagrams paired with several typical, syntactically correct, and + complete messages. + + It is RECOMMENDED that documents describing event packages clearly + indicate that such examples are informative and not normative, with + instructions that implementors refer to the main text of the document + for exact protocol details. + +5.4.13. Use of URIs to Retrieve State + + Some types of event packages may define state information that is + potentially too large to reasonably send in a SIP message. To + alleviate this problem, event packages may include the ability to + convey a URI instead of state information; this URI will then be used + to retrieve the actual state information. + + [RFC4483] defines a mechanism that can be used by event packages to + convey information in such a fashion. + +6. Security Considerations + +6.1. Access Control + + The ability to accept subscriptions should be under the direct + control of the notifier's user, since many types of events may be + considered private. Similarly, the notifier should have the ability + to selectively reject subscriptions based on the subscriber identity + (based on access control lists), using standard SIP authentication + mechanisms. The methods for creation and distribution of such access + control lists are outside the scope of this document. + +6.2. Notifier Privacy Mechanism + + The mere act of returning certain 400- and 600-class responses to + SUBSCRIBE requests may, under certain circumstances, create privacy + concerns by revealing sensitive policy information. In these cases, + the notifier SHOULD always return a 200 (OK) response. While the + subsequent NOTIFY request may not convey true state, it MUST appear + to contain a potentially correct piece of data from the point of view + of the subscriber, indistinguishable from a valid response. + Information about whether a user is authorized to subscribe to the + requested state is never conveyed back to the original user under + these circumstances. + + + + + +Roach Standards Track [Page 36] + +RFC 6665 SIP-Specific Event Notification July 2012 + + + Individual packages and their related documents for which such a mode + of operation makes sense can further describe how and why to generate + such potentially correct data. For example, such a mode of operation + is mandated by [RFC2779] for user presence information. + +6.3. Denial-of-Service Attacks + + The current model (one SUBSCRIBE request triggers a SUBSCRIBE + response and one or more NOTIFY requests) is a classic setup for an + amplifier node to be used in a smurf attack [CERT1998a]. + + Also, the creation of state upon receipt of a SUBSCRIBE request can + be used by attackers to consume resources on a victim's machine, + rendering it unusable. + + To reduce the chances of such an attack, implementations of notifiers + SHOULD require authentication. Authentication issues are discussed + in [RFC3261]. + +6.4. Replay Attacks + + Replaying of either SUBSCRIBE or NOTIFY requests can have detrimental + effects. + + In the case of SUBSCRIBE requests, an attacker may be able to install + any arbitrary subscription that it witnessed being installed at some + point in the past. Replaying of NOTIFY requests may be used to spoof + old state information (although a good versioning mechanism in the + body of the NOTIFY requests may help mitigate such an attack). Note + that the prohibition on sending NOTIFY requests to nodes that have + not subscribed to an event also aids in mitigating the effects of + such an attack. + + To prevent such attacks, implementations SHOULD require + authentication with anti-replay protection. Authentication issues + are discussed in [RFC3261]. + +6.5. Man-in-the-Middle Attacks + + Even with authentication, man-in-the-middle attacks using SUBSCRIBE + requests may be used to install arbitrary subscriptions, hijack + existing subscriptions, terminate outstanding subscriptions, or + modify the resource to which a subscription is being made. To + prevent such attacks, implementations SHOULD provide integrity + protection across "Contact", "Route", "Expires", "Event", and "To" + header fields (at a minimum) of SUBSCRIBE requests. If SUBSCRIBE + + + + + +Roach Standards Track [Page 37] + +RFC 6665 SIP-Specific Event Notification July 2012 + + + request bodies are used to define further information about the state + of the call, they SHOULD be included in the integrity protection + scheme. + + Man-in-the-middle attacks may also attempt to use NOTIFY requests to + spoof arbitrary state information and/or terminate outstanding + subscriptions. To prevent such attacks, implementations SHOULD + provide integrity protection across the "Call-ID", "CSeq", and + "Subscription-State" header fields and the bodies of NOTIFY requests. + + Integrity protection of message header fields and bodies is discussed + in [RFC3261]. + +6.6. Confidentiality + + The state information contained in a NOTIFY request has the potential + to contain sensitive information. Implementations MAY encrypt such + information to ensure confidentiality. + + While less likely, it is also possible that the information contained + in a SUBSCRIBE request contains information that users might not want + to have revealed. Implementations MAY encrypt such information to + ensure confidentiality. + + To allow the remote party to hide information it considers sensitive, + all implementations SHOULD be able to handle encrypted SUBSCRIBE and + NOTIFY requests. + + The mechanisms for providing confidentiality are detailed in + [RFC3261]. + +7. IANA Considerations + + With the exception of Section 7.2, the subsections here are for + current reference, carried over from the original specification (RFC + 3265). IANA has updated all registry references that pointed to RFC + 3265 to instead indicate this document and created the new "reason + code" registry described in Section 7.2. + +7.1. Event Packages + + This document defines an event-type namespace that requires a central + coordinating body. The body chosen for this coordination is the + Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA). + + + + + + + +Roach Standards Track [Page 38] + +RFC 6665 SIP-Specific Event Notification July 2012 + + + There are two different types of event-types: normal event packages + and event template-packages; see Section 5.2. To avoid confusion, + template-package names and package names share the same namespace; in + other words, an event template-package is forbidden from sharing a + name with a package. + + Policies for registration of SIP event packages and SIP event package + templates are defined in Section 4.1 of [RFC5727]. + + Registrations with the IANA are required to include the token being + registered and whether the token is a package or a template-package. + Further, packages must include contact information for the party + responsible for the registration and/or a published document that + describes the event package. Event template-package token + registrations are also required to include a pointer to the published + RFC that defines the event template-package. + + Registered tokens to designate packages and template-packages are + disallowed from containing the character ".", which is used to + separate template-packages from packages. + +7.1.1. Registration Information + + This document specifies no package or template-package names. All + entries in this table are added by other documents. The remainder of + the text in this section gives an example of the type of information + to be maintained by the IANA; it also demonstrates all four possible + permutations of package type, contact, and reference. + + The table below lists the event packages and template-packages + defined for use with the "SIP-Specific Event Notification" mechanism + [RFC 6665]. Each name is designated as a package or a template- + package under "Type". + + Package Name Type Contact Reference + ------------ ---- ------- --------- + example1 package [Doe] [RFCnnnn] + example2 package [RFCnnnn] + example3 template [Doe] [RFCnnnn] + example4 template [RFCnnnn] + + PEOPLE + ------ + [Doe] John Doe <john.doe@example.com> + + REFERENCES + ---------- + [RFCnnnn] Doe, J., "Sample Document", RFC nnnn, Month YYYY. + + + +Roach Standards Track [Page 39] + +RFC 6665 SIP-Specific Event Notification July 2012 + + +7.1.2. Registration Template + + To: ietf-sip-events@iana.org + Subject: Registration of new SIP event package + + Package name: + + (Package names must conform to the syntax described in + Section 8.2.1.) + + Is this registration for a Template-Package: + + (indicate yes or no) + + Published specification(s): + + (Template-packages require a published RFC. Other packages may + reference a specification when appropriate.) + + Person & email address to contact for further information: + + (self-explanatory) + +7.2. Reason Codes + + This document further defines "reason" codes for use in the + "Subscription-State" header field (see Section 4.1.3). + + Following the policies outlined in "Guidelines for Writing an IANA + Considerations Section in RFCs" [RFC5226], new reason codes require a + Standards Action. + + Registrations with the IANA include the reason code being registered + and a reference to a published document that describes the event + package. Insertion of such values takes place as part of the RFC + publication process or as the result of liaison activity between + standards development organizations (SDOs), the result of which will + be publication of an associated RFC. New reason codes must conform + to the syntax of the ABNF "token" element defined in [RFC3261]. + + [RFC4660] defined a new reason code prior to the establishment of an + IANA registry. We include its reason code ("badfilter") in the + initial list of reason codes to ensure a complete registry. + + The IANA registry for reason codes has been initialized with the + following values: + + + + + +Roach Standards Track [Page 40] + +RFC 6665 SIP-Specific Event Notification July 2012 + + + Reason Code Reference + ----------- --------- + deactivated [RFC6665] + probation [RFC6665] + rejected [RFC6665] + timeout [RFC6665] + giveup [RFC6665] + noresource [RFC6665] + invariant [RFC6665] + badfilter [RFC4660] + + REFERENCES + ---------- + [RFC6665] A.B. Roach, "SIP-Specific Event Notification", RFC 6665, + July 2012. + + [RFC4660] Khartabil, H., Leppanen, E., Lonnfors, M., and + J. Costa-Requena, "Functional Description of Event + Notification Filtering", September 2006. + +7.3. Header Field Names + + This document registers three new header field names, described + elsewhere in this document. These header fields are defined by the + following information, which is to be added to the header field sub- + registry under http://www.iana.org/assignments/sip-parameters. + + Header Name: Allow-Events + Compact Form: u + + Header Name: Subscription-State + Compact Form: (none) + + Header Name: Event + Compact Form: o + +7.4. Response Codes + + This document registers two new response codes. These response codes + are defined by the following information, which is to be added to the + method and response-code sub-registry under + http://www.iana.org/assignments/sip-parameters. + + Response Code Number: 202 + Default Reason Phrase: Accepted + + Response Code Number: 489 + Default Reason Phrase: Bad Event + + + +Roach Standards Track [Page 41] + +RFC 6665 SIP-Specific Event Notification July 2012 + + +8. Syntax + + This section describes the syntax extensions required for event + notification in SIP. Semantics are described in Section 4. Note + that the formal syntax definitions described in this document are + expressed in the ABNF format used in [RFC3261] and contain references + to elements defined therein. + +8.1. New Methods + + This document describes two new SIP methods: SUBSCRIBE and NOTIFY. + +8.1.1. SUBSCRIBE Method + + "SUBSCRIBE" is added to the definition of the element "Method" in the + SIP message grammar. + + Like all SIP method names, the SUBSCRIBE method name is case + sensitive. The SUBSCRIBE method is used to request asynchronous + notification of an event or set of events at a later time. + +8.1.2. NOTIFY Method + + "NOTIFY" is added to the definition of the element "Method" in the + SIP message grammar. + + The NOTIFY method is used to notify a SIP node that an event that has + been requested by an earlier SUBSCRIBE method has occurred. It may + also provide further details about the event. + +8.2. New Header Fields + +8.2.1. "Event" Header Field + + Event is added to the definition of the element "message-header + field" in the SIP message grammar. + + For the purposes of matching NOTIFY requests with SUBSCRIBE requests, + the event-type portion of the "Event" header field is compared byte + by byte, and the "id" parameter token (if present) is compared byte + by byte. An "Event" header field containing an "id" parameter never + matches an "Event" header field without an "id" parameter. No other + parameters are considered when performing a comparison. SUBSCRIBE + responses are matched per the transaction handling rules in + [RFC3261]. + + + + + + +Roach Standards Track [Page 42] + +RFC 6665 SIP-Specific Event Notification July 2012 + + + Note that the foregoing text means that "Event: foo; id=1234" + would match "Event: foo; param=abcd; id=1234", but not "Event: + foo" ("id" does not match) or "Event: Foo; id=1234" ("Event" + portion does not match). + + This document does not define values for event-types. These values + will be defined by individual event packages and MUST be registered + with the IANA. + + There MUST be exactly one event type listed per "Event" header field. + Multiple events per message are disallowed. + + The "Event" header field is defined only for use in SUBSCRIBE and + NOTIFY requests and other requests whose definition explicitly calls + for its use. It MUST NOT appear in any other SIP requests and MUST + NOT appear in responses. + +8.2.2. "Allow-Events" Header Field + + "Allow-Events" is added to the definition of the element "general- + header field" in the SIP message grammar. Its usage is described in + Section 4.4.4. + + User agents MAY include the "Allow-Events" header field in any + request or response, as long as its contents comply with the behavior + described in Section 4.4.4. + +8.2.3. "Subscription-State" Header Field + + "Subscription-State" is added to the definition of the element + "request-header" field in the SIP message grammar. Its usage is + described in Section 4.1.3. "Subscription-State" header fields are + defined for use in NOTIFY requests only. They MUST NOT appear in + other SIP requests or responses. + +8.3. New Response Codes + +8.3.1. 202 (Accepted) Response Code + + For historical purposes, the 202 (Accepted) response code is added to + the "Success" header field definition. + + This document does not specify the use of the 202 response code in + conjunction with the SUBSCRIBE or NOTIFY methods. Previous versions + of the SIP Events Framework assigned specific meaning to the 202 + response code. + + + + + +Roach Standards Track [Page 43] + +RFC 6665 SIP-Specific Event Notification July 2012 + + + Due to response handling in forking cases, any 202 response to a + SUBSCRIBE request may be absorbed by a proxy, and thus it can never + be guaranteed to be received by the UAC. Furthermore, there is no + actual processing difference for a 202 as compared to a 200; a NOTIFY + request is sent after the subscription is processed, and it conveys + the correct state. SIP interoperability tests found that + implementations were handling 202 differently from 200, leading to + incompatibilities. Therefore, the 202 response is being deprecated + to make it clear there is no such difference and 202 should not be + handled differently than 200. + + Implementations conformant with the current specification MUST treat + an incoming 202 response as identical to a 200 response and MUST NOT + generate 202 response codes to SUBSCRIBE or NOTIFY requests. + + This document also updates [RFC4660], which reiterates the 202-based + behavior in several places. Implementations compliant with the + present document MUST NOT send a 202 response to a SUBSCRIBE request + and will send an alternate success response (such as 200) in its + stead. + +8.3.2. 489 (Bad Event) Response Code + + The 489 event response is added to the "Client-Error" header field + definition. 489 (Bad Event) is used to indicate that the server did + not understand the event package specified in a "Event" header field. + +8.4. Augmented BNF Definitions + + The Augmented BNF [RFC5234] definitions for the various new and + modified syntax elements follows. The notation is as used in + [RFC3261], and any elements not defined in this section are as + defined in SIP and the documents to which it refers. + + SUBSCRIBEm = %x53.55.42.53.43.52.49.42.45 ; SUBSCRIBE in caps + NOTIFYm = %x4E.4F.54.49.46.59 ; NOTIFY in caps + extension-method = SUBSCRIBEm / NOTIFYm / token + + Event = ( "Event" / "o" ) HCOLON event-type + *( SEMI event-param ) + event-type = event-package *( "." event-template ) + event-package = token-nodot + event-template = token-nodot + token-nodot = 1*( alphanum / "-" / "!" / "%" / "*" + / "_" / "+" / "`" / "'" / "~" ) + + ; The use of the "id" parameter is deprecated; it is included + ; for backwards-compatibility purposes only. + + + +Roach Standards Track [Page 44] + +RFC 6665 SIP-Specific Event Notification July 2012 + + + event-param = generic-param / ( "id" EQUAL token ) + + Allow-Events = ( "Allow-Events" / "u" ) HCOLON event-type + *(COMMA event-type) + + Subscription-State = "Subscription-State" HCOLON substate-value + *( SEMI subexp-params ) + substate-value = "active" / "pending" / "terminated" + / extension-substate + extension-substate = token + subexp-params = ("reason" EQUAL event-reason-value) + / ("expires" EQUAL delta-seconds) + / ("retry-after" EQUAL delta-seconds) + / generic-param + event-reason-value = "deactivated" + / "probation" + / "rejected" + / "timeout" + / "giveup" + / "noresource" + / "invariant" + / event-reason-extension + event-reason-extension = token + +9. References + +9.1. Normative References + + [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate + Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. + + [RFC2848] Petrack, S. and L. Conroy, "The PINT Service Protocol: + Extensions to SIP and SDP for IP Access to Telephone + Call Services", RFC 2848, June 2000. + + [RFC3261] 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. + + [RFC3265] Roach, A., "Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)-Specific + Event Notification", RFC 3265, June 2002. + + [RFC3968] Camarillo, G., "The Internet Assigned Number Authority + (IANA) Header Field Parameter Registry for the Session + Initiation Protocol (SIP)", BCP 98, RFC 3968, + December 2004. + + + + +Roach Standards Track [Page 45] + +RFC 6665 SIP-Specific Event Notification July 2012 + + + [RFC4483] Burger, E., "A Mechanism for Content Indirection in + Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Messages", RFC 4483, + May 2006. + + [RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an + IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226, + May 2008. + + [RFC5234] Crocker, D. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax + Specifications: ABNF", STD 68, RFC 5234, January 2008. + + [RFC5627] Rosenberg, J., "Obtaining and Using Globally Routable + User Agent URIs (GRUUs) in the Session Initiation + Protocol (SIP)", RFC 5627, October 2009. + + [RFC5727] Peterson, J., Jennings, C., and R. Sparks, "Change + Process for the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) and + the Real-time Applications and Infrastructure Area", + BCP 67, RFC 5727, March 2010. + +9.2. Informative References + + [RFC2779] Day, M., Aggarwal, S., Mohr, G., and J. Vincent, + "Instant Messaging / Presence Protocol Requirements", + RFC 2779, February 2000. + + [RFC3515] Sparks, R., "The Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Refer + Method", RFC 3515, April 2003. + + [RFC3840] Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., and P. Kyzivat, + "Indicating User Agent Capabilities in the Session + Initiation Protocol (SIP)", RFC 3840, August 2004. + + [RFC3891] Mahy, R., Biggs, B., and R. Dean, "The Session + Initiation Protocol (SIP) "Replaces" Header", RFC 3891, + September 2004. + + [RFC3903] Niemi, A., "Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Extension + for Event State Publication", RFC 3903, October 2004. + + [RFC3911] Mahy, R. and D. Petrie, "The Session Initiation Protocol + (SIP) "Join" Header", RFC 3911, October 2004. + + [RFC4235] Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., and R. Mahy, "An INVITE- + Initiated Dialog Event Package for the Session + Initiation Protocol (SIP)", RFC 4235, November 2005. + + + + + +Roach Standards Track [Page 46] + +RFC 6665 SIP-Specific Event Notification July 2012 + + + [RFC4288] Freed, N. and J. Klensin, "Media Type Specifications and + Registration Procedures", BCP 13, RFC 4288, + December 2005. + + [RFC4485] Rosenberg, J. and H. Schulzrinne, "Guidelines for + Authors of Extensions to the Session Initiation Protocol + (SIP)", RFC 4485, May 2006. + + [RFC4538] Rosenberg, J., "Request Authorization through Dialog + Identification in the Session Initiation Protocol + (SIP)", RFC 4538, June 2006. + + [RFC4660] Khartabil, H., Leppanen, E., Lonnfors, M., and J. Costa- + Requena, "Functional Description of Event Notification + Filtering", RFC 4660, September 2006. + + [RFC5057] Sparks, R., "Multiple Dialog Usages in the Session + Initiation Protocol", RFC 5057, November 2007. + + [RFC5839] Niemi, A. and D. Willis, "An Extension to Session + Initiation Protocol (SIP) Events for Conditional Event + Notification", RFC 5839, May 2010. + + [CERT1998a] CERT, "CERT Advisory CA-1998-01: Smurf IP Denial-of- + Service Attacks", 1998, + <http://www.cert.org/advisories/CA-1998-01.html>. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Roach Standards Track [Page 47] + +RFC 6665 SIP-Specific Event Notification July 2012 + + +Appendix A. Acknowledgements + + Thanks to the participants in the Events BOF at the 48th IETF meeting + in Pittsburgh, as well as those who gave ideas and suggestions on the + SIP Events mailing list. In particular, I wish to thank Henning + Schulzrinne of Columbia University for coming up with the final + three-tiered event identification scheme, Sean Olson for + miscellaneous guidance, Jonathan Rosenberg for a thorough scrubbing + of the first draft version, and the authors of the "SIP Extensions + for Presence" document for their input to SUBSCRIBE and NOTIFY + request semantics. + + I also owe a debt of gratitude to all the implementors who have + provided feedback on areas of confusion or difficulty in the original + specification. In particular, Robert Sparks' Herculean efforts + organizing, running, and collecting data from the SIPit events have + proven invaluable in shaking out specification bugs. Robert Sparks + is also responsible for untangling the dialog usage mess, in the form + of RFC 5057 [RFC5057]. + +Appendix B. Changes from RFC 3265 + + This document represents several changes from the mechanism + originally described in RFC 3265. This section summarizes those + changes. Bug numbers refer to the identifiers for the bug reports + kept on file at http://bugs.sipit.net/. + +B.1. Bug 666: Clarify use of "expires=xxx" with "terminated" + + Strengthened language in Section 4.1.3 to clarify that "expires" + should not be sent with "terminated", and must be ignored if + received. + +B.2. Bug 667: Reason code for unsub/poll not clearly spelled out + + Clarified description of "timeout" in Section 4.1.3. (n.b., the text + in Section 4.4.3 is actually pretty clear about this). + +B.3. Bug 669: Clarify: SUBSCRIBE for a duration might be answered with + a NOTIFY/expires=0 + + Added clarifying text to Section 4.2.2 explaining that shortening a + subscription to zero seconds is valid. Also added sentence to + Section 3.1.1 explicitly allowing shortening to zero. + + + + + + + +Roach Standards Track [Page 48] + +RFC 6665 SIP-Specific Event Notification July 2012 + + +B.4. Bug 670: Dialog State Machine needs clarification + + The issues associated with the bug deal exclusively with the handling + of multiple usages with a dialog. This behavior has been deprecated + and moved to Section 4.5.2. This section, in turn, cites [RFC5057], + which addresses all of the issues in Bug 670. + +B.5. Bug 671: Clarify timeout-based removal of subscriptions + + Changed Section 4.2.2 to specifically cite Timer F (so as to avoid + ambiguity between transaction timeouts and retransmission timeouts). + +B.6. Bug 672: Mandate "expires" in NOTIFY + + Changed strength of including of "expires" in a NOTIFY from "SHOULD" + to "MUST" in Section 4.2.2. + +B.7. Bug 673: INVITE 481 response effect clarification + + This bug was addressed in [RFC5057]. + +B.8. Bug 677: SUBSCRIBE response matching text in error + + Fixed Section 8.2.1 to remove incorrect "...responses and..." -- + explicitly pointed to SIP for transaction response handling. + +B.9. Bug 695: Document is not explicit about response to NOTIFY at + subscription termination + + Added text to Section 4.4.1 indicating that the typical response to a + terminal NOTIFY is a 200 (OK). + +B.10. Bug 696: Subscription state machine needs clarification + + Added state machine diagram to Section 4.1.2 with explicit handling + of what to do when a SUBSCRIBE never shows up. Added definition of + and handling for new Timer N to Section 4.1.2.4. Added state machine + to Section 4.2.2 to reinforce text. + +B.11. Bug 697: Unsubscription behavior could be clarified + + Added text to Section 4.2.1.4 encouraging (but not requiring) full + state in final NOTIFY request. Also added text to Section 4.1.2.3 + warning subscribers that full state may or may not be present in the + final NOTIFY. + + + + + + +Roach Standards Track [Page 49] + +RFC 6665 SIP-Specific Event Notification July 2012 + + +B.12. Bug 699: NOTIFY and SUBSCRIBE are target refresh requests + + Added text to both Sections 3.1 and 3.2 explicitly indicating that + SUBSCRIBE and NOTIFY are target refresh methods. + +B.13. Bug 722: Inconsistent 423 reason phrase text + + Changed reason phrase to "Interval Too Brief" in Sections 4.2.1.1 and + 4.2.1.4, to match 423 reason phrase in SIP [RFC3261]. + +B.14. Bug 741: Guidance needed on when to not include "Allow-Events" + + Added non-normative clarification to Section 4.4.4 regarding + inclusion of "Allow-Events" in a NOTIFY for the one-and-only package + supported by the notifier. + +B.15. Bug 744: 5xx to NOTIFY terminates a subscription, but should not + + Issue of subscription (usage) termination versus dialog termination + is handled in [RFC5057]. The text in Section 4.2.2 has been updated + to summarize the behavior described by RFC 5057, and cites it for + additional detail and rationale. + +B.16. Bug 752: Detection of forked requests is incorrect + + Removed erroneous "CSeq" from list of matching criteria in + Section 5.4.9. + +B.17. Bug 773: Reason code needs IANA registry + + Added Section 7.2 to create and populate IANA registry. + +B.18. Bug 774: Need new reason for terminating subscriptions to + resources that never change + + Added new "invariant" reason code to Section 4.1.3 and to ABNF syntax + in Section 8.4. + +B.19. Clarify Handling of "Route"/"Record-Route" in NOTIFY + + Changed text in Section 4.3 in order to mandate "Record-Route" in + initial SUBSCRIBE and all NOTIFY requests, and add "MAY"-level + statements for subsequent SUBSCRIBE requests. + + + + + + + + +Roach Standards Track [Page 50] + +RFC 6665 SIP-Specific Event Notification July 2012 + + +B.20. Eliminate Implicit Subscriptions + + Added text to Section 4.2.1 explaining some of the problems + associated with implicit subscriptions, and added normative language + prohibiting them. Removed language from Section 3.2 describing "non- + SUBSCRIBE" mechanisms for creating subscriptions. Simplified + language in Section 4.2.2, now that the soft-state/non-soft-state + distinction is unnecessary. + +B.21. Deprecate Dialog Reuse + + Moved handling of dialog reuse and "id" handling to Section 4.5.2. + It is documented only for backwards-compatibility purposes. + +B.22. Rationalize Dialog Creation + + Section 4.4.1 has been updated to specify that dialogs should be + created when the NOTIFY arrives. Previously, the dialog was + established by the SUBSCRIBE 200 or by the NOTIFY transaction. This + was unnecessarily complicated; the newer rules are easier to + implement (and result in effectively the same behavior on the wire). + +B.23. Refactor Behavior Sections + + Reorganized Section 4 to consolidate behavior along role lines + (subscriber/notifier/proxy) instead of method lines. + +B.24. Clarify Sections That Need to Be Present in Event Packages + + Added sentence to Section 5 clarifying that event packages are + expected to include explicit sections covering the issues discussed + in this section. + +B.25. Make CANCEL Handling More Explicit + + Text in Section 4.6 now clearly calls out behavior upon receipt of a + CANCEL. We also echo the "...SHOULD NOT send..." requirement from + [RFC3261]. + +B.26. Remove "State Agent" Terminology + + As originally planned, we anticipated a fairly large number of event + packages that would move back and forth between end-user devices and + servers in the network. In practice, this has ended up not being the + case. Certain events, like dialog state, are inherently hosted at + end-user devices; others, like presence, are almost always hosted in + the network (due to issues like composition, and the ability to + deliver information when user devices are offline). Further, the + + + +Roach Standards Track [Page 51] + +RFC 6665 SIP-Specific Event Notification July 2012 + + + concept of State Agents is the most misunderstood by event package + authors. In my expert review of event packages, I have yet to find + one that got the concept of State Agents completely correct -- and + most of them start out with the concept being 100% backwards from the + way RFC 3265 described it. + + Rather than remove the ability to perform the actions previously + attributed to the widely misunderstood term "State Agent", we have + simply eliminated this term. Instead, we talk about the behaviors + required to create state agents (state aggregation, subscription + notification) without defining a formal term to describe the servers + that exhibit these behaviors. In effect, this is an editorial change + to make life easier for event package authors; the actual protocol + does not change as a result. + + The definition of "State Agent" has been removed from Section 2. + Section 4.4.2 has been retooled to discuss migration of subscription + in general, without calling out the specific example of state agents. + Section 5.4.11 has been focused on state aggregation in particular, + instead of state aggregation as an aspect of state agents. + +B.27. Miscellaneous Changes + + The following changes are relatively minor revisions to the document + that resulted primarily from review of this document in the working + group and IESG, rather than implementation reports. + + o Clarified scope of "Event" header field parameters. In RFC 3265, + the scope is ambiguous, which causes problems with the registry in + RFC 3968. The new text ensures that "Event" header field + parameters are unique across all event packages. + + o Removed obsoleted language around IANA registration policies for + event packages. Instead, we now cite RFC 5727, which updates RFC + 3265, and is authoritative on event package registration policy. + + o Several editorial updates after input from working group, + including proper designation of "dialog usage" rather than + "dialog" where needed. + + o Clarified two normative statements about subscription termination + by changing from plain English prose to RFC2119 language. + + o Removed "Table 2" expansions, per WG consensus on how SIP Table 2 + is to be handled. + + o Removed 202 response code. + + + + +Roach Standards Track [Page 52] + +RFC 6665 SIP-Specific Event Notification July 2012 + + + o Clarified that "Allow-Events" does not list event template- + packages. + + o Added clarification about proper response when the SUBSCRIBE + indicates an unknown media type in its "Accept" header field. + + o Minor clarifications to "Route" and "Record-Route" behavior. + + o Added non-normative warning about the limitations of state + polling. + + o Added information about targeting subscriptions at specific + dialogs. + + o Added RFC 3261 to list of documents updated by this one (rather + than the "2543" indicated by RFC 3265). + + o Clarified text in Section 3.1.1 explaining the meaning of + "Expires: 0". + + o Changed text in definition of "probation" reason code to indicate + that subscribers don't need to re-subscribe if the associated + state is no longer of use to them. + + o Specified that the termination of a subscription due to a NOTIFY + transaction failure does not require sending another NOTIFY + message. + + o Clarified how order of template application affects the meaning of + an "Event" header field value (e.g., "foo.bar.baz" is different + than "foo.baz.bar"). + +Author's Address + + Adam Roach + Tekelec + 17210 Campbell Rd. + Suite 250 + Dallas, TX 75252 + US + + EMail: adam@nostrum.com + + + + + + + + + +Roach Standards Track [Page 53] + |