diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'doc/rfc/rfc3455.txt')
| -rw-r--r-- | doc/rfc/rfc3455.txt | 1907 |
1 files changed, 1907 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/doc/rfc/rfc3455.txt b/doc/rfc/rfc3455.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..131f0a4 --- /dev/null +++ b/doc/rfc/rfc3455.txt @@ -0,0 +1,1907 @@ + + + + + + +Network Working Group M. Garcia-Martin +Request for Comments: 3455 Ericsson +Category: Informational E. Henrikson + Lucent + D. Mills + Vodafone + January 2003 + + + Private Header (P-Header) Extensions to the Session Initiation + Protocol (SIP) for the 3rd-Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) + +Status of this Memo + + This memo provides information for the Internet community. It does + not specify an Internet standard of any kind. Distribution of this + memo is unlimited. + +Copyright Notice + + Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003). All Rights Reserved. + +Abstract + + This document describes a set of private Session Initiation Protocol + (SIP) headers (P-headers) used by the 3rd-Generation Partnership + Project (3GPP), along with their applicability, which is limited to + particular environments. The P-headers are for a variety of purposes + within the networks that the partners use, including charging and + information about the networks a call traverses. + +Table of Contents + + 1. Overall Applicability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 + 2. Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 + 3. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 + 4. SIP Private Headers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 + 4.1 The P-Associated-URI header. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 + 4.1.1 Applicability statement for the + P-Associated-URI header. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 + 4.1.2 Usage of the P-Associated-URI header . . . . . . . . 4 + 4.2 The P-Called-Party-ID header . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 + 4.2.1 Applicability statement for the + P-Called-Party-ID header. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 + 4.2.2 Usage of the P-Called-Party-ID header. . . . . . . . 10 + 4.3 The P-Visited-Network-ID header. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 + 4.3.1 Applicability statement for the + P-Visited-Network-ID header. . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 + + + +Garcia-Martin, et. al. Informational [Page 1] + +RFC 3455 3GPP SIP P-Header Extensions January 2003 + + + 4.3.2 Usage of the P-Visited-Network-ID header . . . . . . 12 + 4.4 The P-Access-Network-Info header . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 + 4.4.1 Applicability Statement for the + P-Access-Network-Info header . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 + 4.4.2 Usage of the P-Access-Network-Info header . . . . . 17 + 4.5 The P-Charging-Function-Addresses header . . . . . . . . . 18 + 4.5.1 Applicability Statement for the + P-Charging-Function-Addresses header . . . . . . . . 18 + 4.5.2 Usage of the P-Charging-Function-Addresses + headerd. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 + 4.6 The P-Charging-Vector header . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 + 4.6.1 Applicability Statement for the + P-Charging-Vector header . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 + 4.6.2 Usage of the P-Charging-Vector header . . . . . . . 23 + 5. Formal Syntax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 + 5.1 P-Associated-URI header syntax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 + 5.2 P-Called-Party-ID header syntax. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 + 5.3 P-Visited-Network-ID header syntax . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 + 5.4 P-Access-Network-Info header syntax. . . . . . . . . . . . 25 + 5.5 P-Charging-Function-Addresses header syntax. . . . . . . . 26 + 5.6 P-Charging-Vector header syntax. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 + 5.7 Table of new headers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 + 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 + 6.1 P-Associated-URI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 + 6.2 P-Called-Party-ID. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 + 6.3 P-Visited-Network-ID . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 + 6.4 P-Access-Network-Info. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 + 6.5 P-Charging-Function-Addresses. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 + 6.6 P-Charging-Vector. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 + 7. IANA Considerations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 + 8. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 + 9. Acknowledgments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 + 10. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 + 11. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 + Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 + Full Copyright Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Garcia-Martin, et. al. Informational [Page 2] + +RFC 3455 3GPP SIP P-Header Extensions January 2003 + + +1. Overall Applicability + + The SIP extensions specified in this document make certain + assumptions regarding network topology, linkage between SIP and lower + layers, and the availability of transitive trust. These assumptions + are generally NOT APPLICABLE in the Internet as a whole. The + mechanisms specified here were designed to satisfy the requirements + specified in the 3GPP Release 5 requirements on SIP [4] for which + either no general-purpose solution was planned, where insufficient + operational experience was available to understand if a general + solution is needed, or where a more general solution is not yet + mature. For more details about the assumptions made about these + extensions, consult the Applicability subsection for each extension. + +2. Conventions + + The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", + "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this + document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14, RFC 2119 [2]. + +3. Overview + + The Third Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) has selected SIP as + the protocol used to establish and tear down multimedia sessions in + the context of its IP Multimedia Subsystem (IMS). (For more + information on the IMS, a detailed description can be found in 3GPP + TS 23.228 [14] and 3GPP TS 24.229 [15]). 3GPP notified the IETF SIP + and SIPPING working groups that existing SIP documents provided + almost all the functionality needed to satisfy the requirements of + the IMS, but that they required some additional functionality in + order to use SIP for this purpose. These requirements [4] are + documented in an Internet Draft which was submitted to the SIPPING + Working Group. Some of these requirements are satisfied by chartered + extensions, while other requirements were applicable to SIP, but not + sufficiently general for the SIP Working Group to adopt. This + document describes private extensions to address those requirements. + Each extension, or set of related extensions is described in its own + section below. + +4. SIP Private Headers + +4.1 The P-Associated-URI header + + This extension allows a registrar to return a set of associated URIs + for a registered address-of-record. We define the P-Associated-URI + header field, used in the 200 OK response to a REGISTER request. The + P-Associated-URI header field transports the set of Associated URIs + to the registered address-of-record. + + + +Garcia-Martin, et. al. Informational [Page 3] + +RFC 3455 3GPP SIP P-Header Extensions January 2003 + + + An associated URI is a URI that the service provider has allocated to + a user for his own usage. A registrar contains information that + allows an address-of-record URI to be associated with zero or more + URIs. Usually, all these URIs (the address-of-record URI and the + associated URIs) are allocated for the usage of a particular user. + This extension to SIP allows the UAC to know, upon a successful + authenticated registration, which other URIs, if any, the service + provider has associated to an address-of-record URI. + + Note that, generally speaking, the registrar does not register the + associated URIs on behalf of the user. Only the address-of-record + which is present in the To header field of the REGISTER is registered + and bound to the contact address. The only information conveyed is + that the registrar is aware of other URIs to be used by the same + user. + + It may be possible, however, that an application server (or even the + registrar itself) registers any of the associated URIs on behalf of + the user by means of a third party registration. However, this third + party registration is out of the scope of this document. A UAC MUST + NOT assume that the associated URIs are registered. + + If a UAC wants to check whether any of the associated URIs is + registered, it can do so by mechanisms specified outside this + document, e.g., the UA may send a REGISTER request with the To header + field value set to any of the associated URIs and without a Contact + header. The 200 OK response will include a Contact header with the + list of registered contact addresses. If the associated URI is not + registered, the UA MAY register it prior to its utilization. + +4.1.1 Applicability statement for the P-Associated-URI header + + The P-Associated-URI header is applicable in SIP networks where the + SIP provider is allocating the set of identities that a user can + claim (in headers like the From field) in requests that the UA + generates. It furthermore assumes that the provider knows the entire + set of identities that a user can legitimately claim, and that the + user is willing to restrict its claimed identities to that set. This + is in contrast to normal SIP usage, where the From field is + explicitly an end-user specified field. + +4.1.2 Usage of the P-Associated-URI header + + The registrar inserts the P-Associated-URI header field into the 200 + OK response to a REGISTER request. The header field value is + populated with a list containing zero or more URIs that are + associated to the address-of-record. + + + + +Garcia-Martin, et. al. Informational [Page 4] + +RFC 3455 3GPP SIP P-Header Extensions January 2003 + + + If the registrar supports the P-Associated-URI header extension, then + the registrar MUST always insert the P-Associated-URI header field in + all the 200 OK responses to a REGISTER request, regardless of whether + the REGISTER was an initial registration, re-registration, or + de-registration and regardless of whether there are zero or more + associated URIs. + +4.1.2.1 Procedures at the UA + + A UAC may receive a P-Associated-URI header field in the 200 OK + response for a REGISTER. The presence of the header field in the 200 + OK response for a REGISTER request implies that the extension is + supported at the registrar. + + The header value contains a list of zero or more associated URIs to + the address-of-record URI. The UAC MAY use any of the associated + URIs to populate the From header value, or any other SIP header value + that provides information of the identity of the calling party, in a + subsequent request. + + The UAC MAY check whether the associated URI is registered or not. + This check can be done, e.g., by populating the To header value in a + REGISTER sent to the registrar and without a Contact header. The 200 + OK response will include a Contact header with the list of registered + contact addresses. As described in SIP [1], the 200 OK response may + contain a Contact header field with zero or more values (zero meaning + the address-of-record is not registered). + +4.1.2.2 Procedures at the registrar + + A registrar that receives and authorizes a REGISTER request, may + associate zero or more URIs with the address-of-record. + + A registrar that supports this specification MUST include a + P-Associated-URI header field in the 200 OK response to a REGISTER + request. The header MUST be populated with a comma-separated list of + SIP or SIPS URIs which are associated to the address-of-record under + registration. + + In case the address-of-record under registration does not have any + other SIP or SIPS URIs associated, the registrar MUST include an + empty P-Associated-URI header value. + +4.1.2.3 Procedures at the proxy + + This memo does not define any procedure at the proxy. + + + + + +Garcia-Martin, et. al. Informational [Page 5] + +RFC 3455 3GPP SIP P-Header Extensions January 2003 + + +4.2 The P-Called-Party-ID header + + A proxy server inserts a P-Called-Party-ID header, typically in an + INVITE request, en-route to its destination. The header is populated + with the Request-URI received by the proxy in the request. The UAS + identifies which address-of-record, out of several registered + address-of-records, the invitation was sent to (for example, the user + may be simultaneously using a personal and a business SIP URIs to + receive invitation to sessions). The UAS may use the information to + render different distinctive audiovisual alerting tones, depending on + the URI used to receive the invitation to the session. + + Users in the 3GPP IP Multimedia Subsystem (IMS) may get one or + several SIP URIs (address-of-record) to identify the user. For + instance, a user may get a business SIP URI and a personal one. As + an example of utilization, the user may make available the business + SIP URI to co-workers and may make available the personal SIP URI to + members of the family. + + At a certain point in time, both the business SIP URI and the + personal SIP URI are registered in the SIP registrar, so both URIs + can receive invitations to new sessions. When the user receives an + invitation to join a session, he/she should be aware of which of the + several registered SIP URIs this session was sent to. + + This requirement is stated in the 3GPP Release 5 requirements on SIP + [4]. + + The problem arises during the terminating side of a session + establishment, when the SIP proxy that is serving a UA gets an + INVITE, and the SIP server retargets the SIP URI which is present in + the Request-URI field, and replaces it by the SIP URI published by + the user in the Contact header field of the REGISTER request at + registration time. When the UAS receives the SIP INVITE, it cannot + determine which address-of-record the request was sent to. + + One can argue that the To header field conveys the semantics of the + called user, and therefore, this extension to SIP is not needed. + Although the To header field in SIP may convey the called party ID in + most situations, there are two particular cases when the above + assumption is not correct: + + 1. The session has been forwarded, redirected, etc., by previous SIP + proxies, before arriving to the proxy which is serving the called + user. + + 2. The UAC builds an INVITE request and the To header field is not + the same as the Request-URI. + + + +Garcia-Martin, et. al. Informational [Page 6] + +RFC 3455 3GPP SIP P-Header Extensions January 2003 + + + The problem of using the To header field is that this field is + populated by the UAC and not modified by proxies in the path. If the + UAC, for any reason, did not populate the To header field with the + address-of-record of the destination user, then the destination user + is not able to distinguish which address-of-record the session was + destined. + + Another possible solution to the problem is built upon the + differentiation of the Contact header value between different + address-of-record at registration time. The UA can differentiate + each address-of-record it registers by assigning a different Contact + header value. For instance, when the UA registers the address-of- + record sip:id1, the Contact header value can be sip:id1@ua; the + registration of sip:id2 can be bound to the Contact value sip:id2@ua. + + The solution described above assumes that the UA explicitly registers + each of its address-of-record URIs, and therefore, it has full + control over the contact address values assigned to each + registration. However, in the case the UA does not have full control + of its registered address-of-record, because of, e.g., a third party + registration, the solution does not work. This may be the case of + the 3GPP registration, where the UA may have previously indicated the + network, by means outside of SIP, that some other address-of-record + URIs may be automatically registered when the UA registers a + particular address-of-record. The requirement is covered in the 3GPP + Release 5 requirements on SIP [4]. + + In the next paragraphs we show an example of the problem, in the case + there has been some sort of call forwarding in the session, so that + the UAC is not aware of the intended destination URI in the current + INVITE. + + We assume that a User Agent (UA) is registering to his proxy (P1). + + Scenario UA --- P1 + + F1 Register UA -> P1 + REGISTER sip:example.com SIP/2.0 + Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 192.0.2.4:5060;branch=z9hG4bKnashds7 + To: sip:user1-business@example.com + From: sip:user1-business@example.com;tag=456248 + Call-ID: 843817637684230998sdasdh09 + CSeq: 1826 REGISTER + Contact: <sip:user1@192.0.2.4> + + The user also registers his personal URI to his/her registrar. + + + + + +Garcia-Martin, et. al. Informational [Page 7] + +RFC 3455 3GPP SIP P-Header Extensions January 2003 + + + F2 Register UA -> P1 + REGISTER sip:example.com SIP/2.0 + Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 192.0.2.4:5060;branch=z9hG4bKnashdt8 + To: sip:user1-personal@example.com + From: sip:user1-personal@example.com;tag=346249 + Call-ID: 2Q3817637684230998sdasdh10 + CSeq: 1827 REGISTER + Contact: <sip:user1@192.0.2.4> + + Later, the proxy/registrar (P1) receives an INVITE from another proxy + (P2) destined to the user's business SIP address-of-record. We + assume that this SIP INVITE has undergone some sort of forwarding in + the past, and as such, the To header field is not populated with the + SIP URI of the user. In this case we assume that the session was + initially addressed to sip:other-user@othernetwork.com. The SIP + server at othernetwork.com has forwarded this session to + sip:user1-business@example.com + + Scenario UA --- P1 --- P2 + + F3 Invite P2 -> P1 + INVITE sip:user1-business@example.com SIP/2.0 + Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 192.0.2.20:5060;branch=z9hG4bK03djaoe1 + To: sip:other-user@othernetwork.com + From: sip:another-user@anothernetwork.com;tag=938s0 + Call-ID: 843817637684230998sdasdh09 + CSeq: 101 INVITE + + The proxy P1 retargets the user and replaces the Request-URI with the + SIP URI published during registration time in the Contact header + value. + + F4 Invite P1 -> UA + INVITE sip:user1@192.0.2.4 SIP/2.0 + Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 192.0.2.10:5060;branch=z9hG4bKg48sh128 + Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 192.0.2.20:5060;branch=z9hG4bK03djaoe1 + To: sip:other-user@othernetwork.com + From: sip:another-user@anothernetwork.com;tag=938s0 + Call-ID: 843817637684230998sdasdh09 + CSeq: 101 INVITE + + When the UAS receives the INVITE, it cannot determine whether it got + the session invitation due to his registration of the business or the + personal address-of-record. Neither the UAS nor proxies or + application servers can provide this user a service based on the + destination address-of-record of the session. + + + + + +Garcia-Martin, et. al. Informational [Page 8] + +RFC 3455 3GPP SIP P-Header Extensions January 2003 + + + We solve this problem by allowing the proxy that is responsible for + the home domain (as defined in SIP) of the user to insert a + P-Called-Party-ID header that identifies the address-of-record to + which this session is destined. + + If this SIP extension is used, the proxy serving the called user will + get the message flow F5, it will populate the P-Called-Party-ID + header in message flow F6 with the contents of the Request-URI in F4. + This is show in flows F5 and F6 below: + + F5 Invite P2 -> P1 + INVITE sip:user1-business@example.com SIP/2.0 + Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 192.0.2.20:5060;branch=z9hG4bK03djaoe1 + To: sip:other-user@othernetwork.com + From: sip:another-user@anothernetwork.com;tag=938s0 + Call-ID: 843817637684230998sdasdh09 + CSeq: 101 INVITE + + F6 Invite P1 -> UA + INVITE sip:user1@192.0.2.4 SIP/2.0 + Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 192.0.2.10:5060;branch=z9hG4bKg48sh128 + Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 192.0.2.20:5060;branch=z9hG4bK03djaoe1 + To: sip:other-user@othernetwork.com + From: sip:another-user@anothernetwork.com;tag=938s0 + Call-ID: 843817637684230998sdasdh09 + P-Called-Party-ID: sip:user1-business@example.com + CSeq: 101 INVITE + + When the UA receives the INVITE request F6 it can determine the + intended address-of-record of the session, and apply whatever service + is needed for that address-of-record. + +4.2.1 Applicability statement for the P-Called-Party-ID header + + The P-Called-Party-ID is applicable when the UAS needs to be aware of + the intended address-of-record that was present in the Request-URI of + the request, before the proxy retargets to the contact address. The + UAS may be interested in applying different audiovisual alerting + effects or other filtering services, depending on the intended + destination of the request. It is specially valuable when the UAS + has registered several address-of-record URIs to his registrar, and + therefore, the UAS is not aware of the address-of-record that was + present in the INVITE request when it hit his proxy/registrar, unless + this extension is used. + + Requirements for a more general solution are proposed in [12], but + have not been adopted by SIP, nor a solution has been developed. + + + + +Garcia-Martin, et. al. Informational [Page 9] + +RFC 3455 3GPP SIP P-Header Extensions January 2003 + + +4.2.2 Usage of the P-Called-Party-ID header + + The P-Called-Party-ID header field provides proxies and the UAS with + the address-of-record that was present in the Request-URI of the + request, before a proxy retargets the request. This information is + intended to be used by subsequent proxies in the path or by the UAS. + + Typically, a SIP proxy inserts the P-Called-Party-ID header prior to + retargetting the Request-URI in the SIP request. The header value is + populated with the contents of Request-URI, prior to replacing it + with the Contact address. + +4.2.2.1 Procedures at the UA + + A UAC MUST NOT insert a P-Called-Party-ID header field in any SIP + request or response. + + A UAS may receive a SIP request that contains a P-Called-Party-ID + header field. The header will be populated with the address-of- + record received by the proxy in the Request-URI of the request, prior + to its forwarding to the UAS. + + The UAS may use the value in the P-Called-Party-ID header field to + provide services based on the called party URI, such as, e.g., + filtering of calls depending on the date and time, distinctive + presentation services, distinctive alerting tones, etc. + +4.2.2.2 Procedures at the proxy + + A proxy that has access to the Contact information of the user, MAY + insert a P-Called-Party-ID header field in any of the requests + indicated in the Table 1 (Section 5.7). The proxy MUST populate the + header value with the contents of the Request-URI present in the SIP + request that the proxy received. + + It is necessary that the proxy which inserts the P-Called-Party-ID + header has information about the user, in order to prevent a wrong + delivery of the called party ID. This information may have been + learned through a registration process, for instance. + + A proxy or application server that receives a request containing a + P-Called-Party-ID header may use the contents of the header to + provide a service to the user based on the URI of that header value. + + A SIP proxy MUST NOT insert a P-Called-Party-ID header in REGISTER + requests. + + + + + +Garcia-Martin, et. al. Informational [Page 10] + +RFC 3455 3GPP SIP P-Header Extensions January 2003 + + +4.3 The P-Visited-Network-ID header + + 3GPP networks are composed of a collection of so called home + networks, visited networks and subscribers. A particular home + network may have roaming agreements with one or more visited + networks. This has the effect that when a mobile terminal is + roaming, it can use resources provided by the visited network in a + transparent fashion. + + One of the conditions for a home network to accept the registration + of a UA roaming to a particular visited network, is the existence of + a roaming agreement between the home and the visited network. There + is a need to indicate to the home network which one is the visited + network that is providing services to the roaming UA. + + 3GPP user agents always register to the home network. The REGISTER + request is proxied by one or more proxies located in the visited + network towards the home network. For the sake of a simple approach, + it seems sensible that the visited network includes an identification + that is known at the home network. This identification should be + globally unique, and takes the form of a quoted text string or a + token. The home network may use this identification to verify the + existence of a roaming agreement with the visited network, and to + authorize the registration through that visited network. + +4.3.1 Applicability statement for the P-Visited-Network-ID header + + The P-Visited-Network-ID is applicable whenever the following + circumstances are met: + + 1. There is transitive trust in intermediate proxies between the UA + and the home network proxy via established relationships between + the home network and the visited network, and generally supported + by the use of standard security mechanisms, e.g., IPsec, AKA, or + TLS. + + 2. An endpoint is using resources provided by one or more visited + networks (a network to which the user does not have a direct + business relationship). + + 3. A proxy that is located in one of the visited networks wants to be + identified at the user's home network. + + 4. There is no requirement that every visited network needs to be + identified at the home network. Those networks that want to be + identified make use of the extension defined in this document. + Those networks that do not want to be identified do nothing. + + + + +Garcia-Martin, et. al. Informational [Page 11] + +RFC 3455 3GPP SIP P-Header Extensions January 2003 + + + 5. A commonly pre-agreed text string or token identifies the visited + network at the home network. + + 6. The UAC sends a REGISTER or dialog-initiating request (e.g., + INVITE) or a standalone request outside a dialog (e.g., OPTIONS) + to a proxy in a visited network. + + 7. The request traverses, en route to its destination, a first proxy + located in the visited network, and a second proxy located in the + home network or its destination is the registrar in the home + network. + + 8. The registrar or home proxy verifies and authorizes the usage of + resources (e.g., proxies) in the visited network. + +4.3.2 Usage of the P-Visited-Network-ID header + + The P-Visited-Network-ID header field is used to convey to the + registrar or home proxy in the home network the identifier of a + visited network. The identifier is a text string or token that is + known by both the registrar or the home proxy at the home network and + the proxies in the visited network. + + Typically, the home network authorizes the UA to roam to a particular + visited network. This action requires an existing roaming agreement + between the home and the visited network. + + While it is possible for a home network to identify one or more + visited networks by inspecting the domain name in the Via header + fields, this approach has a heavy dependency on DNS. It is an option + for a proxy to populate the via header with an IP address, for + example, and in the absence of a reverse DNS entry, the IP address + will not convey the desired information. + + Any SIP proxy that receives any of the requests indicated in Table 1 + (Section 5.7) MAY insert a P-Visited-Network-ID header when it + forwards the request. In case a REGISTER or other request is + traversing different administrative domains (e.g., different visited + networks), a SIP proxy MAY insert a new P-Visited-Network-ID header + if the request does not contain a P-Visited-Network-ID header with + the same network identifier as its own network identifier (e.g., if + the request has traversed other different administrative domains). + + Note also that, there is not requirement for the header value to be + readable in the proxies. Therefore, a first proxy may insert an + encrypted header that only the registrar can decrypt. If the request + traverses a second proxy located in the same administrative domain as + the first proxy, the second proxy may not be able to read the + + + +Garcia-Martin, et. al. Informational [Page 12] + +RFC 3455 3GPP SIP P-Header Extensions January 2003 + + + contents of the P-Visited-Network-ID header. In this situation, the + second proxy will consider that its visited network identifier is not + already present in the value of the header, and therefore, it will + insert a new P-Visited-Network-ID header value (hopefully with the + same identifier that the first proxy inserted, although perhaps, not + encrypted). When the request arrives at the registrar or proxy in + the home network, it will notice that the header value is repeated + (both the first and the second proxy inserted it). The decrypted + values should be the same, because both proxies where part of the + same administrative domain. While this situation is not desirable, + it does not create any harm at the registrar or proxy in the home + network. + + The P-Visited-Network-ID is normally used at registration. However, + this extension does not preclude other usages. For instance, a proxy + + located in a visited network that does not maintain registration + state may insert a P-Visited-Network-ID header into any standalone + request outside a dialog or a request that creates a dialog. At the + time of writing this document, the only requests that create dialogs + are INVITE [1], SUBSCRIBE [6] and REFER [11]. + + In order to avoid conflicts with identifiers, especially when the + number of roaming agreements between networks increase, care must be + taken when selecting the value of the P-Visited-Network-ID. The + identifier should be a globally unique to avoid duplications. + Although there are many mechanism to create globally unique + identifiers across networks, one of such as mechanisms is already in + operation, and that is DNS. The P-Visited-Network-ID does not have + any connection to DNS, but the values in the header can be chosen + from the own DNS entry representing the domain name of the network. + This guarantees the uniqueness of the value. + +4.3.2.1 Procedures at the UA + + User agent clients SHOULD NOT insert a P-Visited-Network-ID header in + any SIP message. + +4.3.2.2 Procedures at the registrar and proxy + + A SIP proxy which is located in a visited network MAY insert a + P-Visited-Network-ID header field in any of the requests indicated in + the Table 1 (Section 5.7). The header MUST be populated with the + contents of a text string or a token that identifies the + administrative domain of the network where the proxy is operating at + the user's home network. + + + + + +Garcia-Martin, et. al. Informational [Page 13] + +RFC 3455 3GPP SIP P-Header Extensions January 2003 + + + A SIP proxy or registrar which is located in the home network may use + the contents of the P-Visited-Network-ID as an identifier of one or + more visited networks that the request traversed. The proxy or + registrar in the home network may take local policy driven actions + based on the existence or not of a roaming agreement between the home + and the visited networks. This means, for instance, authorize the + actions of the request based on the contents of the + P-Visited-Network-ID header. + + A SIP proxy which is located in the home network MUST delete this + header when forwarding the message outside the home network + administrative domain, in order to retain the user's privacy. + + A SIP proxy which is located in the home network SHOULD delete this + header when the home proxy has used the contents of the header or the + request is routed based on the called party, even when the request is + not forwarded outside the home network administrative domain. + +4.3.2.3 Examples of Usage + + We present example in the context of the scenario presented in the + following network diagram: + + Scenario UA --- P1 --- P2 --- REGISTRAR + + This example shows the message sequence for an REGISTER transaction + originating from UA1 eventually arriving at REGISTRAR. P1 is an + outbound proxy for UA1. In this case P1 also inserts the + P-Visited-Network-ID header. P1 then routes the REGISTER request to + the Registrar via P2. + + Message sequence for REGISTER using P-Visited-Network-ID header: + + F1 Register UA -> P1 + REGISTER sip:example.com SIP/2.0 + Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 192.0.2.4:5060;branch=z9hG4bKnashds7 + To: sip:user1-business@example.com + From: sip:user1-business@example.com;tag=456248 + Call-ID: 843817637684230998sdasdh09 + CSeq: 1826 REGISTER + Contact: <sip:user1@192.0.2.4> + + In flow F2, proxy P2 adds its own identifier to the + P-Visited-Network-ID header. + + + + + + + +Garcia-Martin, et. al. Informational [Page 14] + +RFC 3455 3GPP SIP P-Header Extensions January 2003 + + + F2 Register P1 -> P2 + REGISTER sip:example.com SIP/2.0 + Via: SIP/2.0/UDP p1.visited.net;branch=z9hG4bK203igld + Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 192.0.2.4:5060;branch=z9hG4bKnashdt8 + To: sip:user1-personal@example.com + From: sip:user1-personal@example.com;tag=346249 + Call-ID: 2Q3817637684230998sdasdh10 + CSeq: 1826 REGISTER + Contact: <sip:user1@192.0.2.4> + P-Visited-Network-ID: "Visited network number 1" + + Finally, in flow F3, proxy P2 decides to insert his own identifier, + derived from its own domain name. + + F3 Register P2 -> REGISTRAR + REGISTER sip:example.com SIP/2.0 + Via: SIP/2.0/UDP p2.other.net;branch=z9hG4bK2bndnvk + Via: SIP/2.0/UDP p1.visited.net;branch=z9hG4bK203igld + Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 192.0.2.4:5060;branch=z9hG4bKnashdt8 + To: sip:user1-personal@example.com + From: sip:user1-personal@example.com;tag=346249 + Call-ID: 2Q3817637684230998sdasdh10 + CSeq: 1826 REGISTER + Contact: <sip:user1@192.0.2.4> + P-Visited-Network-ID: other.net, "Visited network number 1" + +4.4 The P-Access-Network-Info header + + This section describes the P-Access-Network-Info header. This header + is useful in SIP-based networks that also provide layer 2/layer 3 + connectivity through different access technologies. SIP User Agents + may use this header to relay information about the access technology + to proxies that are providing services. The serving proxy may then + use this information to optimize services for the UA. For example, a + 3GPP UA may use this header to pass information about the access + network such as radio access technology and radio cell identity to + its home service provider. + + For the purpose of this extension, we define an access network as the + network providing the layer 2/layer 3 IP connectivity which in turn + provides a user with access to the SIP capabilities and services + provided. + + In some cases, the SIP server that provides the user with services + may wish to know information about the type of access network that + the UA is currently using. Some services are more suitable or less + + + + + +Garcia-Martin, et. al. Informational [Page 15] + +RFC 3455 3GPP SIP P-Header Extensions January 2003 + + + suitable depending on the access type, and some services are of more + value to subscribers if the access network details are known by the + SIP proxy which provides the user with services. + + In other cases, the SIP server that provides the user with services + may simply wish to know crude location information in order to + provide certain services to the user. For example, many of the + location based services available in wireless networks today require + the home network to know the identity of the cell the user is being + served by. + + Some regulatory requirements exist mandating that for cellular radio + systems, the identity of the cell where an emergency call is + established is made available to the emergency authorities. + + The SIP server that provides services to the user may desire + knowledge about the access network. This is achieved by defining a + new private SIP extension header, P-Access-Network-Info. This header + carries information relating to the access network between the UAC + and its serving proxy in the home network. + +4.4.1 Applicability Statement for the P-Access-Network-Info header + + This mechanism is appropriate in environments where SIP services are + dependent on SIP elements knowing details about the IP and lower + layer technologies used by a UA to connect to the SIP network. + Specifically, the extension requires that the UA know the access + technology it is using, and that a proxy desires such information to + provide services. Generally, SIP is built on the "Everything over IP + and IP over everything" principle, where the access technology is not + relevant for the operation of SIP. Since SIP systems generally + should not care or even know about the access technology, this SIP + extension is not for general SIP usage. + + The information revealed in the P-Access-Network-Info header is + potentially very sensitive. Proper protection of this information + depends on the existence of specific business and security + relationships amongst the proxies that will see SIP messages + containing this header. It also depends on explicit knowledge of the + UA of the existence of those relationships. Therefore, this + mechanism is only suitable in environments where the appropriate + relationships are in place, and the UA has explicit knowledge that + they exist. + + + + + + + + +Garcia-Martin, et. al. Informational [Page 16] + +RFC 3455 3GPP SIP P-Header Extensions January 2003 + + +4.4.2 Usage of the P-Access-Network-Info header + + When a UA generates a SIP request or response which it knows is going + to be securely sent to its SIP proxy that is providing services, the + UA inserts a P-Access-Network-Info header into the SIP message. This + header contains information on the access network that the UA is + using to get IP connectivity. The header is typically ignored by + intermediate proxies between the UA and the SIP proxy that is + providing services. The proxy providing services can inspect the + header and make use of the information contained there to provide + appropriate services, depending on the value of the header. Before + proxying the request onwards, this proxy strips the header from the + message. + +4.4.2.1 UA behavior + + A UA that supports this extension and is willing to disclose the + related parameters MAY insert the P-Access-Network-Info header in any + SIP request or response. + + The UA inserting this information MUST trust the proxy that is + providing services to protect its privacy by deleting the header + before forwarding the message outside of the proxy's domain. This + proxy is typically located in the home network. + + In order to do the deletion of the header, there must also be a + transitive trust in intermediate proxies between the UA and the proxy + that provides the services. This trust is established by business + agreements between the home network and the access network, and + generally supported by the use of standard security mechanisms, e.g., + IPsec, AKA, and TLS. + +4.4.2.2 Proxy behavior + + A proxy MUST NOT insert or modify the value of the + P-Access-Network-Info header. + + A proxy which is providing services to the UA, may act upon any + information present in the P-Access-Network-Info header value, if is + present, to provide a different service depending on the network or + the location through which the UA is accessing the server. For + example, for cellular radio access networks the SIP proxy located in + the home network may use the cell ID to provide basic localized + services. + + A proxy that provides services to the user, the proxy typically + located in the home network, and therefore trusted, MUST delete the + header when the SIP signaling is forwarded to a SIP server located in + + + +Garcia-Martin, et. al. Informational [Page 17] + +RFC 3455 3GPP SIP P-Header Extensions January 2003 + + + a non-trusted administrative network domain. The SIP server + providing services to the UA uses the access network information and + is of no interest to other proxies located in different + administrative domains. + +4.5 The P-Charging-Function-Addresses header + + 3GPP has defined a distributed architecture that results in multiple + network entities becoming involved in providing access and services. + There is a need to inform each SIP proxy involved in a transaction + about the common charging functional entities to receive the + generated charging records or charging events. + + The solution provided by 3GPP is to define two types of charging + functional entities: Charging Collection Function (CCF) and Event + Charging Function (ECF). CCF is used for off-line charging (e.g., + for postpaid account charging). ECF is used for on-line charging + (e.g., for pre-paid account charging). There may be more than a + single instance of CCF and ECF in a network, in order to provide + redundancy in the network. In case there are more than a single + instance of either the CCF or the ECF addresses, implementations + SHOULD attempt sending the charging data to the ECF or CCF address, + starting with the first address of the sequence (if any) in the + P-Charging-Function-Addresses header. The CCF and ECF addresses may + be passed during the establishment of a dialog or in a standalone + transaction. More detailed information about charging can be found + in 3GPP TS 32.200 [16] and 3GPP TS 32.225 [17]. + + We define the SIP private header P-Charging-Function-Addresses. A + proxy MAY include this header, if not already present, in either the + initial request or response for a dialog, or in the request and + response of a standalone transaction outside a dialog. Only one + instance of the header MUST be present in a particular request or + response. + + The mechanisms by which a SIP proxy collects the values to populate + the P-Charging-Function-Addresses header values are outside the scope + of this document. However, as an example, a SIP proxy may have + preconfigured these addresses, or may obtain them from a subscriber + database. + +4.5.1 Applicability Statement for the P-Charging-Function-Addresses + header + + The P-Charging-Function-Addresses header is applicable within a + single private administrative domain where coordination of charging + is required, for example, according to the architecture specified in + 3GPP TS 32.200 [16]. + + + +Garcia-Martin, et. al. Informational [Page 18] + +RFC 3455 3GPP SIP P-Header Extensions January 2003 + + + The P-Charging-Function-Addresses header is not included in a SIP + message sent outside of the own administrative domain. The header is + not applicable if the administrative domain does not provide a + charging function. + + The P-Charging-Function-Addresses header is applicable whenever the + following circumstances are met: + + 1. A UA sends a REGISTER or dialog-initiating request (e.g., INVITE) + or a standalone transaction request outside a dialog to a proxy + located in the administrative domain of a private network. + + 2. A registrar, proxy or UA that is located in the administrative + domain of the private network wants to generate charging records. + + 3. A registrar, proxy or UA that is located in the private network + has access to the addresses of the charging function entities for + that network. + + 4. There are other proxies located in the same administrative domain + of the private network, that are generated charging records or + charging events. The proxies want to send, by means outside SIP, + the charging information to the same charging collecting entities + than the first proxy. + +4.5.2 Usage of the P-Charging-Function-Addresses header + + A SIP proxy that receives a SIP request may insert a + P-Charging-Function-Addresses header prior to forwarding the request, + if the header was not already present in the SIP request. The header + value contains one or more parameters that contain the hostnames or + IP addresses of the nodes that are willing to receive charging + information. + + A SIP proxy that receives a SIP request that includes a + P-Charging-Function-Addresses may use the hostnames or IP addresses + included in the value, as the destination of charging information or + charging events. The means to send those charging information or + events are outside the scope of this document, and usually, do not + use SIP for that purpose. + +4.5.2.1 Procedures at the UA + + This document does not specify any procedure at the UA, with regard + to the P-Charging-Function-Addresses header. UAs need not understand + this header. + + + + + +Garcia-Martin, et. al. Informational [Page 19] + +RFC 3455 3GPP SIP P-Header Extensions January 2003 + + + However, it might be possible that a UA is located within the + administrative domain of a private network (e.g., a PSTN gateway, or + conference mixer), and it may have access to the addresses of the + charging entities. In this cases, a UA MAY insert the + P-Charging-Function-Addresses header in a SIP request or response + when the next hop for the message is a proxy located in the same + administrative domain. + +4.5.2.2 Procedures at the Proxy + + A SIP proxy that supports this extension and receives a request or + response without the P-Charging-Function-Addresses MAY insert a + P-Charging-Function-Addresses header prior to forwarding the message. + The header is populated with a list of the addresses of one or more + charging entities where the proxy should send charging related + information. + + If a proxy that supports this extension receives a request or + response with the P-Charging-Function-Addresses, it may retrieve the + information from the header value to use with application specific + logic, i.e., charging. If the next hop for the message is within the + administrative domain of the proxy, then the proxy SHOULD include the + P-Charging-Function-Addresses header in the outbound message. + However, if the next hop for the message is outside the + administrative domain of the proxy, then the proxy MUST remove the + P-Charging-Function-Addresses header. + +4.5.2.3 Examples of Usage + + We present example in the context of the scenario presented in the + following network diagram: + + Scenario UA1 --- P1 --- P2 --- UA2 + + In the scenario we assume that P1 and P2 belong to the same + administrative domain. + + The example below shows the message sequence for an INVITE + transaction originating from UA1 eventually arriving at UA2. P1 is + an outbound proxy for UA1. In this case P1 also inserts charging + information. P1 then routes the call via P2 to UA2. + + Message sequence for INVITE using P-Charging-Function-Addresses: + + + + + + + + +Garcia-Martin, et. al. Informational [Page 20] + +RFC 3455 3GPP SIP P-Header Extensions January 2003 + + + F1 Invite UA1 -> P1 + INVITE sip:ua2@home1.net SIP/2.0 + Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 192.0.2.4:5060;branch=z9hG4bKnashds7 + To: sip:ua2@home1.net + From: sip:ua1@home1.net;tag=456248 + Call-ID: 843817637684230998sdasdh09 + CSeq: 18 INVITE + Contact: sip:ua1@192.0.2.4 + + F2 Invite P1 -> P2 + INVITE sip:ua2@home1.net SIP/2.0 + Via: SIP/2.0/UDP p1.home1.net:5060;branch=z9hG4bK34ghi7ab04 + Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 192.0.2.4:5060;branch=z9hG4bKnashds7 + To: sip:ua2@home1.net + From: sip:ua1home1.net;tag=456248 + Call-ID: 843817637684230998sdasdh09 + CSeq: 18 INVITE + Contact: sip:ua1@192.0.2.4 + P-Charging-Function-Addresses: ccf=192.1.1.1; ccf=192.1.1.2; + ecf=192.1.1.3; ecf=192.1.1.4 + + Now both P1 and P2 are aware of the IP addresses of the entities that + collect charging record or charging events. Both proxies can send + the charging information to the same entities. + +4.6 The P-Charging-Vector header + + 3GPP has defined a distributed architecture that results in multiple + network entities becoming involved in providing access and services. + Operators need the ability and flexibility to charge for the access + and services as they see fit. This requires coordination among the + network entities (e.g., SIP proxies), which includes correlating + charging records generated from different entities that are related + to the same session. + + The correlation information includes, but it is not limited to, a + globally unique charging identifier that makes easy the billing + effort. + + A charging vector is defined as a collection of charging information. + The charging vector may be filled in during the establishment of a + dialog or standalone transaction outside a dialog. The information + inside the charging vector may be filled in by multiple network + entities (including SIP proxies) and retrieved by multiple network + entities. There are three types of correlation information to be + transferred: the IMS Charging Identity (ICID) value, the address of + the SIP proxy that creates the ICID value, and the Inter Operator + Identifiers (IOI). + + + +Garcia-Martin, et. al. Informational [Page 21] + +RFC 3455 3GPP SIP P-Header Extensions January 2003 + + + ICID is a charging value that identifies a dialog or a transaction + outside a dialog. It is used to correlate charging records. ICID + MUST be a globally unique value. One way to achieve globally + uniqueness is to generate the ICID using two components: a locally + unique value and the host name or IP address of the SIP proxy that + generated the locally unique value. + + The IOI identifies both the originating and terminating networks + involved in a SIP dialog or transaction outside a dialog. There may + an IOI generated from each side of the dialog to identify the network + associated with each side. + + There is also expected to be access network charging information, + which consists of network specific identifiers for the access level + (e.g., UMTS radio access network or IEEE 802.11b). The details of + the information for each type of network are not described in this + memo. + + We define the SIP private header P-Charging-Vector. A proxy MAY + include this header, if not already present, in either the initial + request or response for a dialog, or in the request and response of a + standalone transaction outside a dialog. Only one instance of the + header MUST be present in a particular request or response. + + The mechanisms by which a SIP proxy collects the values to populate + in the P-Charging-Vector are outside the scope of this document. + +4.6.1 Applicability Statement for the P-Charging-Vector header + + The P-Charging-Vector header is applicable within a single private + administrative domain or between different administrative domains + where there is a trust relationship between the domains. + + The P-Charging-Vector header is not included in a SIP message sent to + another network if there is no trust relationship. The header is not + applicable if the administrative domain manages charging in a way + that does not require correlation of records from multiple network + entities (e.g., SIP proxies). + + The P-Charging-Vector header is applicable whenever the following + circumstances are met: + + 1. A UA sends a REGISTER or dialog-initiating request (e.g., INVITE) + or a standalone transaction request outside a dialog to a proxy + located in the administrative domain of a private network. + + 2. A registrar, proxy or UA that is located in the administrative + domain of the private network wants to generate charging records. + + + +Garcia-Martin, et. al. Informational [Page 22] + +RFC 3455 3GPP SIP P-Header Extensions January 2003 + + + 3. A proxy or UA that is located in the administrative domain of the + private network has access to the charging correlation information + for that network. + + 4. Optionally, a registrar, proxy or UA that is part of a second + administrative domain in another private network, whose SIP + request and responses are traversed through, en-route to the first + private network, wants to generate charging records and correlate + those records with those of the first private network. This + assumes that there is a trust relationship between both private + networks. + +4.6.2 Usage of the P-Charging-Vector header + + The P-Charging-Vector header is used to convey charging related + information, such as the globally unique IMS charging identifier + (ICID) value. + + Typically, a SIP proxy that receives a SIP request that does not + contain a P-Charging-Vector header may insert it, with those + parameters that are available at the SIP proxy. + + A SIP proxy that receives a SIP request that contains a + P-Charging-Vector header may use the values, such as the globally + unique ICID, to produce charging records. + +4.6.2.1 Procedures at the UA + + This document does not specify any procedure at the UA, with regard + to the P-Charging-Vector header. UAs need not understand this + header. + +4.6.2.2 Procedures at the Proxy + + A SIP proxy that supports this extension and receives a request or + response without the P-Charging-Vector header MAY insert a + P-Charging-Vector header prior to forwarding the message. The header + is populated with one ore more parameters, as described in the + syntax, including but not limited to, a globally unique charging + identifier. + + If a proxy that supports this extension receives a request or + response with the P-Charging-Vector header, it may retrieve the + information from the header value to use with application specific + logic, i.e., charging. If the next hop for the message is within the + trusted domain, then the proxy SHOULD include the P-Charging-Vector + + + + + +Garcia-Martin, et. al. Informational [Page 23] + +RFC 3455 3GPP SIP P-Header Extensions January 2003 + + + header in the outbound message. If the next hop for the message is + outside the trusted domain, then the proxy MAY remove the + P-Charging-Function-Addresses header. + + Per local application specific logic, the proxy MAY modify the + contents of the P-Charging-Vector header prior to sending the + message. + +4.6.2.3 Examples of Usage + + We present example in the context of the scenario presented in the + following network diagram: + + Scenario UA1 --- P1 --- P2 --- UA2 + + This example shows the message sequence for an INVITE transaction + originating from UA1 eventually arriving at UA2. P1 is an outbound + proxy for UA1. In this case P1 also inserts charging information. + P1 then routes the call via P2 to UA2. + + Message sequence for INVITE using P-Charging-Vector: + + F1 Invite UA1 -> P1 + INVITE sip:joe@example.com SIP/2.0 + Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 192.0.2.4:5060;branch=z9hG4bKnashds7 + To: sip:joe@example.com + From: sip:ua1@home1.net;tag=456248 + Call-ID: 843817637684230998sdasdh09 + CSeq: 18 INVITE + Contact: sip:ua1@192.0 + + F2 Invite P1 -> P2 + INVITE sip:joe@example.com SIP/2.0 + Via: SIP/2.0/UDP P1.home1.net:5060;branch=z9hG4bK34ghi7a + Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 192.0.2.4:5060;branch=z9hG4bKnashds7 + To: sip:joe@example.com + From: sip:ua1@home1.net;tag=456248 + Call-ID: 843817637684230998sdasdh09 + CSeq: 18 INVITE + Contact: sip:ua1@192.0.2.4 + P-Charging-Vector: icid-value=1234bc9876e; + icid-generated-at=192.0.6.8; + orig-ioi=home1.net + + + + + + + + +Garcia-Martin, et. al. Informational [Page 24] + +RFC 3455 3GPP SIP P-Header Extensions January 2003 + + +5. Formal Syntax + + All of the mechanisms specified in this document are described in + both prose and an augmented Backus-Naur Form (BNF) defined in RFC + 2234 [3]. Further, several BNF definitions are inherited from SIP + and are not repeated here. Implementors need to be familiar with the + notation and contents of SIP [1] and RFC 2234 [3] to understand this + document. + +5.1 P-Associated-URI header syntax + + The syntax of the P-Associated-URI header is described as follows: + + P-Associated-URI = "P-Associated-URI" HCOLON + (p-aso-uri-spec) + *(COMMA p-aso-uri-spec) + p-aso-uri-spec = name-addr *(SEMI ai-param) + ai-param = generic-param + +5.2 P-Called-Party-ID header syntax + + The syntax of the P-Called-Party-ID header is described as follows: + + P-Called-Party-ID = "P-Called-Party-ID" HCOLON + called-pty-id-spec + called-pty-id-spec = name-addr *(SEMI cpid-param) + cpid-param = generic-param + +5.3 P-Visited-Network-ID header syntax + + The syntax of the P-Visited-Network-ID header is described as + follows: + + P-Visited-Network-ID = "P-Visited-Network-ID" HCOLON + vnetwork-spec + *(COMMA vnetwork-spec) + vnetwork-spec = (token / quoted-string) + *(SEMI vnetwork-param) + vnetwork-param = generic-param + +5.4 P-Access-Network-Info header syntax + + The syntax of the P-Access-Network-Info header is described as + follows: + + P-Access-Network-Info = "P-Access-Network-Info" HCOLON + access-net-spec + access-net-spec = access-type *(SEMI access-info) + + + +Garcia-Martin, et. al. Informational [Page 25] + +RFC 3455 3GPP SIP P-Header Extensions January 2003 + + + access-type = "IEEE-802.11a" / "IEEE-802.11b" / + "3GPP-GERAN" / "3GPP-UTRAN-FDD" / + "3GPP-UTRAN-TDD" / + "3GPP-CDMA2000" / token + access-info = cgi-3gpp / utran-cell-id-3gpp / + extension-access-info + extension-access-info = gen-value + cgi-3gpp = "cgi-3gpp" EQUAL + (token / quoted-string) + utran-cell-id-3gpp = "utran-cell-id-3gpp" EQUAL + (token / quoted-string) + + The access-info may contain additional information relating to the + access network. The values for "cgi-3gpp" and "utran-cell-id-3gpp" + are defined in 3GPP TS 24.229 [15]. + +5.5 P-Charging-Function-Addresses header syntax + + The syntax for the P-Charging-Function-Addresses header is described + as follows: + + P-Charging-Addr = "P-Charging-Function-Addresses" HCOLON + charge-addr-params + *(SEMI charge-addr-params) + charge-addr-params = ccf / ecf / generic-param + ccf = "ccf" EQUAL gen-value + ecf = "ecf" EQUAL gen-value + +5.6 P-Charging-Vector header syntax + + The syntax for the P-Charging-Vector header is described as + follows: + + P-Charging-Vector = "P-Charging-Vector" HCOLON icid-value + *(SEMI charge-params) + charge-params = icid-gen-addr / orig-ioi / + term-ioi / generic-param + icid-value = "icid-value" EQUAL gen-value + icid-gen-addr = "icid-generated-at" EQUAL host + orig-ioi = "orig-ioi" EQUAL gen-value + term-ioi = "term-ioi" EQUAL gen-value + + The P-Charging-Vector contains icid-value mandatory parameter. The + icid-value represents the IMS charging ID, and contains an identifier + used for correlating charging records and events. The first proxy + that receives the request generates this value. + + + + + +Garcia-Martin, et. al. Informational [Page 26] + +RFC 3455 3GPP SIP P-Header Extensions January 2003 + + + The icid-gen-addr parameter contains the host name or IP address of + the proxy that generated the icid-value. + + The orig-ioi and term-ioi parameters represent, respectively, the + originating and terminating interoperator identifiers. They are used + to correlate charging records between different operators. The + originating ioi represents the network responsible for the charging + records in the originating part of the session or standalone request. + Similarly, the terminating ioi represents the network responsible for + the charging records in the terminating part of the session or + standalone request. + +5.7 Table of new headers + + Table 1 extends the headers defined in this document to Table 2 in + SIP [1], section 7.1 of the SIP-specific event notification [6], + tables 1 and 2 in the SIP INFO method [8], tables 1 and 2 in + Reliability of provisional responses in SIP [7], tables 1 and 2 in + the SIP UPDATE method [9], tables 1 and 2 in the SIP extension for + Instant Messaging [10], and table 1 in the SIP REFER method [11]: + + Header field where proxy ACK BYE CAN INV OPT REG + ___________________________________________________________ + P-Associated-URI 2xx - - - - - o + P-Called-Party-ID R amr - - - o o - + P-Visited-Network-ID R ad - - - o o o + P-Access-Network-Info dr - o - o o o + P-Charging-Vector admr - o - o o o + P-Charging-Function- adr - o - o o o + Addresses + + Header field SUB NOT PRA INF UPD MSG REF + ___________________________________________________________ + P-Associated-URI - - - - - - - + P-Called-Party-ID o - - - - o o + P-Visited-Network-ID o - - - - o o + P-Access-Network-Info o o o o o o o + P-Charging-Vector o o o o o o o + P-Charging-Function- o o o o o o o + Addresses + + Table 1: Header field support + + + + + + + + + +Garcia-Martin, et. al. Informational [Page 27] + +RFC 3455 3GPP SIP P-Header Extensions January 2003 + + +6. Security Considerations + +6.1 P-Associated-URI + + The information returned in the P-Associated-URI header is not viewed + as particularly sensitive. Rather, it is simply informational in + nature, providing openness to the UAC with regard to the automatic + association performed by the registrar. If end-to-end protection is + not used at the SIP layer, it is possible for proxies between the + registrar and the UA to modify the contents of the header value. + This attack, while potentially annoying, should not have significant + impacts. + + The lack of encryption, either end-to-end or hop-by-hop, may lead to + leak some privacy regarding the list of authorized identities. For + instance, a user who registers an address-of-record of + sip:user1@example.com may get another SIP URI associated as + sip:first.last@example.com returned in the P-Associated-URI header + value. An eavesdropper could collect this information. If the user + does not want to disclose the associated URIs, the eavesdropper could + have gain access to private URIs. Therefore it is RECOMMENDED that + this extension is used in a secured environment, where encryption of + SIP messages is provided either end-to-end or hop-by-hop. + +6.2 P-Called-Party-ID + + Due to the nature of the P-Called-Party-ID header, this header does + not introduce any significant security concern. It is possible for + an attacker to modify the contents of the header. However, this + modification will not cause any harm to the session establishment. + + An eavesdropper may collect the list of identities a user is + registered. This may have privacy implications. To mitigate this + problem, this extension SHOULD only be used in a secured environment, + where encryption of SIP messages is provided either end-to-end or + hop-by-hop. + +6.3 P-Visited-Network-ID + + The P-Visited-Network-ID header assumes that there is trust + relationship between a home network and one or more transited visited + networks. It is possible for other proxies between the proxy in the + visited network that inserts the header, and the registrar or the + home proxy, to modify the value of P-Visited-Network-ID header. + Therefore intermediaries participating in this mechanism MUST apply a + hop-by-hop integrity protection mechanism such us IPsec or other + available mechanisms in order to prevent such attacks. + + + + +Garcia-Martin, et. al. Informational [Page 28] + +RFC 3455 3GPP SIP P-Header Extensions January 2003 + + +6.4 P-Access-Network-Info + + A Trust Domain is formally defined in the Short term requirements for + Network Asserted Identity [13] document. For the purpose of this + document, we refer to the 3GPP trust domain as the collection of SIP + proxies and application servers that are operated by a 3GPP network + operator and are compliant with the requirements expressed in 3GPP TS + 24.229 [15]. + + This extension assumes that the access network is trusted by the UA + (because the UA's home network has a trust relationship with the + access network), as described earlier in this document. + + This extension assumes that the information added to the header by + the UAC should be sent only to trusted entities and should not be + used outside of the trusted administrative network domain. + + The SIP proxy that provides services to the user, utilizes the + information contained in this header to provide additional services + and UAs are expected to provide correct information. However, there + are no security problems resulting from a UA inserting incorrect + information. Networks providing services based on the information + carried in the P-Access-Network-Info header will therefore need to + trust the UA sending the information. A rogue UA sending false + access network information will do no more harm than to restrict the + user from using certain services. + + The mechanism provided in this document is designed primarily for + private systems like 3GPP. Most security requirements are met by way + of private standardized solutions. + + For instance, 3GPP will use the P-Access-Network-Info header to carry + relatively sensitive information like the cell ID. Therefore the + information MUST NOT be sent outside of the 3GPP domain. + + The UA is aware - if it is a 3GPP UA - that it is operating within a + trusted domain. + + The 3GPP UA is aware of whether or not a secure association to the + home network domain for transporting SIP signaling, is currently + available, and as such the sensitive information carried in the + P-Access-Network-Info header SHOULD NOT be sent in any initial + unauthenticated and unprotected requests (e.g., REGISTER). + + Any UA that is using this extension and is not part of a private + trusted domain should not consider the mechanism as secure and as + such SHOULD NOT send sensitive information in the + P-Access-Network-Info header. + + + +Garcia-Martin, et. al. Informational [Page 29] + +RFC 3455 3GPP SIP P-Header Extensions January 2003 + + + Any proxy that is operating in a private trust domain where the + P-Access-Network-Info header is supported is required to delete the + header, if it is present, from any message prior to forwarding it + outside of the trusted domain. + + Therefore, a network that requires its UA to send information in the + P-Access-Network-Info header must ensure that either that information + is not of a sensitive nature or that the information is not sent + outside of the trust domain. + + A proxy receiving a message containing the P-Access-Network-Info + header from a non-trusted entity is not able to guarantee the + validity of the contents. + +6.5 P-Charging-Function-Addresses + + It is expected as normal behavior that proxies within a closed + network will modify the values of the P-Charging-Function-Addresses + and insert it into a SIP request or response. However, these proxies + that share this information MUST have a trust relationship. + + If an untrusted entity were inserted between trusted entities, it + could potentially substitute a different charging function address. + Therefore, an integrity protection mechanism such as IPsec or other + available mechanisms MUST be applied in order to prevent such + attacks. Since each trusted proxy may need to view or modify the + values in the P-Charging-Function-Addresses header, the protection + should be applied on a hop-by-hop basis. + +6.6 P-Charging-Vector + + It is expected as normal behavior that proxies within a closed + network will modify the values of the P-Charging-Vector and insert it + into a SIP request or response. However, these proxies that share + this information MUST have a trust relationship. + + If an untrusted entity were inserted between trusted entities, it + could potentially interfere with the charging correlation mechanism. + Therefore, an integrity protection mechanism such as IPsec or other + available mechanisms MUST be applied in order to prevent such + attacks. Since each trusted proxy may need to view or modify the + values in the P-Charging-Vector header, the protection should be + applied on a hop-by-hop basis. + +7. IANA Considerations + + This document defines several private SIP extension header fields + (beginning with the prefix "P-" ). + + + +Garcia-Martin, et. al. Informational [Page 30] + +RFC 3455 3GPP SIP P-Header Extensions January 2003 + + + These extension headers have been included in the registry of SIP + header fields defined in SIP [1]. Expert review as required for this + process was provided by the SIP Working Group. + + The following extensions are registered as private extension header + fields: + + RFC Number: RFC3455 + Header Field Name: P-Associated-URI + Compact Form: none + + + RFC Number: RFC3455 + Header Field Name: P-Called-Party-ID + Compact Form: none + + + RFC Number: RFC3455 + Header Field Name: P-Visited-Network-ID + Compact Form: none + + + RFC Number: RFC3455 + Header Field Name: P-Access-Network-Info + Compact Form: none + + + RFC Number: RFC3455 + Header Field Name: P-Charging-Function-Addresses + Compact Form: none + + + RFC Number: RFC3455 + Header Field Name: P-Charging-Vector + Compact Form: none + +8. Contributors + + The extensions described in this document were originally specified + in several documents. Miguel Garcia-Martin authored the + P-Associated-URI, P-Called-Party-ID, and P-Visited-Network-ID + headers. Duncan Mills authored the P-Access-Network-Info header. + Eric Henrikson authored the P-Charging-Function-Addresses and + P-Charging-Vector headers. Rohan Mahy assisted in the incorporation + of these extensions into a single document. + + + + + + +Garcia-Martin, et. al. Informational [Page 31] + +RFC 3455 3GPP SIP P-Header Extensions January 2003 + + +9. Acknowledgments + + The authors would like to thank Andrew Allen, Gabor Bajko, Gonzalo + Camarillo, Keith Drage, Georg Mayer, Dean Willis, Rohan Mahy, + Jonathan Rosenberg, Ya-Ching Tan and the 3GPP CN1 WG members for + their comments on this document. + +10. Normative References + + [1] 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. + + [2] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement + Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. + + [3] Crocker, D. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax + Specifications: ABNF", RFC 2234, November 1997. + +11. Informative References + + [4] Garcia-Martin, M., "3rd-Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) + Release 5 requirements on the Session Initiation Protocol + (SIP)", Work in Progress. + + [5] Mankin, A., Bradner, S., Mahy, R., Willis, D., Ott, J. and B. + Rosen, "Change Process for the Session Initiation Protocol + (SIP)", BCP 67, RFC 3427, December 2002. + + [6] Roach, A., "Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)-Specific Event + Notification", RFC 3265, June 2002. + + [7] Rosenberg, J. and H. Schulzrinne, "Reliability of Provisional + Responses in Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)", RFC 3262, June + 2002. + + [8] Donovan, S., "The SIP INFO Method", RFC 2976, October 2000. + + [9] Rosenberg, J., "The Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) UPDATE + Method", RFC 3311, October 2002. + + [10] Campbell, B., Editor, Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., Huitema, + C. and D. Gurle, "Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Extension + for Instant Messaging", RFC 3428, December 2002. + + [11] Sparks, R., "The SIP Refer Method", Work in Progress. + + + + + +Garcia-Martin, et. al. Informational [Page 32] + +RFC 3455 3GPP SIP P-Header Extensions January 2003 + + + [12] Barnes, M., "SIP Generic Request History Capability + Requirements", Work in Progress. + + [13] Watson, M., "Short Term Requirements for Network Asserted + Identity", RFC 3324, November 2002. + + [14] 3GPP, "TS 23.228: IP Multimedia Subsystem (IMS); Stage 2 + (Release 5)", 3GPP 23.228, September 2002, <ftp://ftp.3gpp.org/ + Specs/archive/23_series/23.228/>. + + [15] 3GPP, "TS 24.229: IP Multimedia Call Control Protocol based on + SIP and SDP; Stage 3 (Release 5)", 3GPP 24.229, September 2002, + <ftp://ftp.3gpp.org/Specs/archive/24_series/24.229/>. + + [16] 3GPP, "TS 32.200: Telecommunication Management; Charging + management; Charging principles (Release 5)", 3GPP 32.200, June + 2002, <ftp://ftp.3gpp.org/Specs/archive/32_series/32.200/>. + + [17] 3GPP, "TS 32.225: Telecommunication Management; Charging + management; Charging Data Description for IP Multimedia + Subsystem (Release 5)", 3GPP 32.225, September 2002, <ftp:// + ftp.3gpp.org/Specs/archive/32_series/32.225/>. + +Authors' Addresses + + Miguel A. Garcia-Martin + Ericsson + Hirsalantie 11 + Jorvas FIN-02420 + Finland + EMail: miguel.a.garcia@ericsson.com + + Eric Henrikson + Lucent + 11601 Willows Rd, Suite 100 + Redmond, WA 98052 + USA + EMail: ehenrikson@lucent.com + + Duncan Mills + Vodafone + The Courtyard, 2-4 London Road + Newbury, Berkshire RG14 1JX + UK + EMail: duncan.mills@vf.vodafone.co.uk + + + + + + +Garcia-Martin, et. al. Informational [Page 33] + +RFC 3455 3GPP SIP P-Header Extensions January 2003 + + +Full Copyright Statement + + Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003). All Rights Reserved. + + This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to + others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it + or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published + and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any + kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are + included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this + document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing + the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other + Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of + developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for + copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be + followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than + English. + + The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be + revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns. + + This document and the information contained herein is provided on an + "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING + TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING + BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION + HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF + MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. + +Acknowledgement + + Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the + Internet Society. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Garcia-Martin, et. al. Informational [Page 34] + |