diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'doc/rfc/rfc5002.txt')
-rw-r--r-- | doc/rfc/rfc5002.txt | 395 |
1 files changed, 395 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/doc/rfc/rfc5002.txt b/doc/rfc/rfc5002.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..a05bb9c --- /dev/null +++ b/doc/rfc/rfc5002.txt @@ -0,0 +1,395 @@ + + + + + + +Network Working Group G. Camarillo +Request for Comments: 5002 G. Blanco +Category: Informational Ericsson + August 2007 + + + The Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) + P-Profile-Key Private Header (P-Header) + +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. + +Abstract + + This document specifies the SIP P-Profile-Key P-header. This header + field is used in the 3rd-Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) IMS + (IP Multimedia Subsystem) to provide SIP registrars and SIP proxy + servers with the key of the profile corresponding to the destination + SIP URI of a particular SIP request. + +Table of Contents + + 1. Introduction ....................................................2 + 2. Terminology .....................................................2 + 3. Scenario ........................................................2 + 4. Requirements ....................................................3 + 5. P-Profile-Key Header Field Definition ...........................3 + 6. Applicability ...................................................4 + 7. IANA Considerations .............................................4 + 8. Security Considerations .........................................5 + 9. Acknowledgements ................................................5 + 10. References .....................................................5 + 10.1. Normative References ......................................5 + 10.2. Informative References ....................................6 + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Author* Informational [Page 1] + +RFC 5002 P-Profile-Key P-Header August 2007 + + +1. Introduction + + The 3rd-Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) IMS (IP Multimedia + Subsystem) uses SIP [RFC3261] as its main signalling protocol. (For + more information on the IMS, a detailed description can be found in + 3GPP TS 23.228 [3GPP.23.228] and 3GPP TS 24.229 [3GPP.24.229]). 3GPP + has identified a set of requirements that can be met, according to + the procedures in [RFC3427], by defining a new SIP P-header. + + The remainder of this document is organized as follows. Section 3 + describes the scenario considered by 3GPP and Section 4 discusses the + requirements derived from this scenario. Section 5 defines the P- + Profile-Key header field, which meets those requirements, and Section + 6 discusses the applicability and scope of this new header field. + Section 7 registers the P-Profile-Key header field with the IANA and + Section 8 discusses the security properties of the environment where + this header field is intended to be used. + +2. Terminology + + HSS: Home Subscriber Server. + + I-CSCF: Interrogating - Call/Session Control Function. + + Public Service Identity: + A SIP URI that refers to a service instead of a user. + + S-CSCF: Serving - Call/Session Control Function. + + Wildcarded Public Service Identity: + A set of Public Service Identities that match a regular + expression and share the same profile. + +3. Scenario + + In the 3GPP IMS, there are scenarios where a set of proxies handling + a request need to consult the same user database, as described in + [RFC4457]. Those proxies typically use the destination SIP URI of + the request as the key for their database queries. Nevertheless, + when a proxy handles a Wildcarded Public Service Identity, the key to + be used in its database query is not the destination SIP URI of the + request, but a regular expression instead. + + Public Service Identities are SIP URIs that refer to services instead + of users. That is, they address a specific application in an + Application Server. Wildcarded Public Service Identities are a set + of Public Service Identities that match a regular expression and + share the same profile. For example, the Public Service Identities + + + +Author* Informational [Page 2] + +RFC 5002 P-Profile-Key P-Header August 2007 + + + 'sip:chatroom-12@example.com' and 'sip:chatroom-657@example.com' + would match the Wildcarded Public Service Identity + 'sip:chatroom-!.*!@example.com'. For a description of Wildcarded + Public Service Identities, see 3GPP TS 23.003 [3GPP.23.003]. + + When a proxy queries the user database for a Public Service Identity + for which there is no profile in the user database, the user database + needs to find its matching Wildcarded Public Service Identity. For + example, if the user database receives a query for + 'sip:chatroom-657@example.com', the user database needs to go through + all the Wildcarded Public Service Identity it has until it finds a + matching one; in this case, 'sip:chatroom-!.*!@example.com'. The + process to find a matching Wildcarded Public Service Identity can be + computationally expensive, time consuming, or both. + + When two proxies query the user database for the same Public Service + Identity, which matches a Wildcarded Public Service Identity, the + user database needs to perform the matching process twice. Having to + perform that process twice can be avoided by having the first proxy + obtain the Wildcarded Public Service Identity from the user database + and transfer it, piggy-backed in the SIP message, to the second + proxy. This way, the second proxy can query the user database using + the Wildcarded Public Service Identity directly. + + An alternative, but undesirable, solution would consist of having the + user database store every Public Service Identity and its matching + Wildcarded Public Service Identity. The scalability and + manageability properties of this approach are considerably worse than + those of the approach described earlier. + +4. Requirements + + This section lists the requirements derived from the previous + scenario: + + 1. It is necessary to optimize the response time for session + establishment in the 3GPP IMS. + + 2. It is necessary to keep the user database's size and maintenance + manageable (e.g., storing individual Public Service Identities + matching a Wildcarded Public Service Identity in the user + database is not believed to be an acceptable solution). + +5. P-Profile-Key Header Field Definition + + This document defines the SIP P-Profile-Key P-header. The P- + Profile-Key P-header contains the key to be used by a proxy to query + the user database for a given profile. + + + +Author* Informational [Page 3] + +RFC 5002 P-Profile-Key P-Header August 2007 + + + The augmented Backus-Naur Form (BNF) [RFC4234] syntax of the + P-Profile-Key header field is the following: + + P-Profile-Key = "P-Profile-Key" HCOLON (name-addr / addr-spec) + *( SEMI generic-param ) + + The format of HCOLON, name-addr, addr-spec, and generic-param are + defined in [RFC3261]. The format of Wildcarded Public Service + Identities is defined in 3GPP TS 23.003 [3GPP.23.003]. They take the + form of Extended Regular Expressions (ERE) as defined in Chapter 9 of + IEEE 1003.1-2004 Part 1 [IEEE.1003.1-2004]. + + The following is an example of a P-Profile-Key header field that + contains a Wildcarded Public Service Identity: + + P-Profile-Key: <sip:chatroom-!.*!@example.com> + +6. Applicability + + According to [RFC3427], P-headers have a limited applicability. + Specifications of P-headers such as this RFC need to clearly document + the useful scope of the proposal, and explain its limitations and why + it is not suitable for the general use of SIP on the Internet. + + The P-Profile-Key header field is intended to be used in 3GPP IMS + networks. This header field carries the key of a service profile, + that is stored in a user database referred to as HSS, between two + proxies, which are referred to as I-CSCF and S-CSCF. The I-CSCF and + the S-CSCF belong to the same administrative domain and share a + common frame of reference to the user database. The I-CSCF inserts + the P-Profile-Key header field into a SIP request and the S-CSCF + removes it before routing the request further. (For a description of + how an I-CSCF and an S-CSCF query the same user database for a single + request, see [RFC4457].) + + Typically, when SIP is used on the Internet, there are not multiple + proxies with a trust relationship between them querying the same user + database. Consequently, the P-Profile-Key header field does not seem + useful in a general Internet environment. + +7. IANA Considerations + + This document defines a new SIP header field: P-Profile-Key. This + header field has been registered by the IANA in the SIP Parameters + registry under the Header Fields subregistry. + + + + + + +Author* Informational [Page 4] + +RFC 5002 P-Profile-Key P-Header August 2007 + + +8. Security Considerations + + The P-Profile-Key defined in this document is to be used in an + environment where elements are trusted and where attackers are not + supposed to have access to the protocol messages between those + elements. Traffic protection between network elements is sometimes + achieved by using IPsec and sometimes by physically protecting the + network. In any case, the environment where the P-Profile-Key header + field will be used ensures the integrity and the confidentiality of + the contents of this header field. The P-Profile-Key header field + MUST NOT be used in environments that do not have these + characteristics. + + The P-Profile-Key header field needs to be integrity protected to + keep attackers from modifying its contents. An attacker able to + modify the contents of this header field could make the network apply + a different service than the one corresponding to the request + carrying the P-Profile-Key header field. + + The contents of the P-Profile-Key field need to be kept confidential. + An attacker able to access the contents of this header field would + obtain certain knowledge about the way services are structured in a + given domain. + +9. Acknowledgements + + Alf Heidermark and Timo Forsman provided input to this document. + Miguel Angel Garcia-Martin performed an expert review on this + document on behalf of the SIPPING working group. Jon Peterson + provided comments on this document. + +10. References + +10.1. Normative References + + [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. + + [RFC3427] 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. + + [RFC4234] Crocker, D. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for + Syntax Specifications: ABNF", RFC 4234, October + 2005. + + + +Author* Informational [Page 5] + +RFC 5002 P-Profile-Key P-Header August 2007 + + + [3GPP.23.003] 3GPP, "Numbering, addressing and identification", + 3GPP TS 23.003 3.15.0, October 2006. + + [IEEE.1003.1-2004] "Standard for information technology - portable + operating system interface (POSIX). Base + definitions", IEEE 1003.1-2004, 2004. + +10.2. Informative References + + [RFC4457] Camarillo, G. and G. Blanco, "The Session + Initiation Protocol (SIP) P-User-Database + Private-Header (P-Header)", RFC 4457, April 2006. + + [3GPP.23.228] 3GPP, "IP Multimedia Subsystem (IMS); Stage 2", + 3GPP TS 23.228 5.15.0, June 2006. + + [3GPP.24.229] 3GPP, "Internet Protocol (IP) multimedia call + control protocol based on Session Initiation + Protocol (SIP) and Session Description Protocol + (SDP); Stage 3", 3GPP TS 24.229 5.18.0, October + 2006. + +Authors' Addresses + + Gonzalo Camarillo + Ericsson + Hirsalantie 11 + Jorvas 02420 + Finland + + EMail: Gonzalo.Camarillo@ericsson.com + + + German Blanco + Ericsson + Via de los Poblados 13 + Madrid 28033 + Spain + + EMail: German.Blanco@ericsson.com + + + + + + + + + + + +Author* Informational [Page 6] + +RFC 5002 P-Profile-Key P-Header August 2007 + + +Full Copyright Statement + + Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007). + + This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions + contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors + retain all their rights. + + This document and the information contained herein are provided on an + "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS + OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND + THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS + OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF + THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED + WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. + +Intellectual Property + + The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any + Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to + pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in + this document or the extent to which any license under such rights + might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has + made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information + on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be + found in BCP 78 and BCP 79. + + Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any + assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an + attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of + such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this + specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at + http://www.ietf.org/ipr. + + The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any + copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary + rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement + this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at + ietf-ipr@ietf.org. + + + + + + + + + + + + +Author* Informational [Page 7] + |