path: root/doc/rfc/rfc4474.txt

Network Working Group                                        J. Peterson
Request for Comments: 4474                                       NeuStar
Category: Standards Track                                    C. Jennings
                                                           Cisco Systems
                                                             August 2006


       Enhancements for Authenticated Identity Management in the
                   Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)

Status of This Memo

   This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the
   Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for
   improvements.  Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet
   Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the standardization state
   and status of this protocol.  Distribution of this memo is unlimited.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).

Abstract

   The existing security mechanisms in the Session Initiation Protocol
   (SIP) are inadequate for cryptographically assuring the identity of
   the end users that originate SIP requests, especially in an
   interdomain context.  This document defines a mechanism for securely
   identifying originators of SIP messages.  It does so by defining two
   new SIP header fields, Identity, for conveying a signature used for
   validating the identity, and Identity-Info, for conveying a reference
   to the certificate of the signer.



















Peterson & Jennings         Standards Track                     [Page 1]
^L
RFC 4474                      SIP Identity                   August 2006


Table of Contents

   1. Introduction ....................................................3
   2. Terminology .....................................................3
   3. Background ......................................................3
   4. Overview of Operations ..........................................6
   5. Authentication Service Behavior .................................7
      5.1. Identity within a Dialog and Retargeting ..................10
   6. Verifier Behavior ..............................................11
   7. Considerations for User Agent ..................................12
   8. Considerations for Proxy Servers ...............................13
   9. Header Syntax ..................................................13
   10. Compliance Tests and Examples .................................16
      10.1. Identity-Info with a Singlepart MIME body ................17
      10.2. Identity for a Request with No MIME Body or Contact ......20
   11. Identity and the TEL URI Scheme ...............................22
   12. Privacy Considerations ........................................23
   13. Security Considerations .......................................24
      13.1. Handling of digest-string Elements .......................24
      13.2. Display-Names and Identity ...............................27
      13.3. Securing the Connection to the Authentication Service ....28
      13.4. Domain Names and Subordination ...........................29
      13.5. Authorization and Transitional Strategies ................30
   14. IANA Considerations ...........................................31
      14.1. Header Field Names .......................................31
      14.2. 428 'Use Identity Header' Response Code ..................32
      14.3. 436 'Bad Identity-Info' Response Code ....................32
      14.4. 437 'Unsupported Certificate' Response Code ..............32
      14.5. 438 'Invalid Identity Header' Response Code ..............33
      14.6. Identity-Info Parameters .................................33
      14.7. Identity-Info Algorithm Parameter Values .................33
   Appendix A. Acknowledgements ......................................34
   Appendix B. Bit-Exact Archive of Examples of Messages .............34
      B.1. Encoded Reference Files ...................................35
   Appendix C. Original Requirements .................................38
   References ........................................................39
      Normative References ...........................................39
      Informative References .........................................39













Peterson & Jennings         Standards Track                     [Page 2]
^L
RFC 4474                      SIP Identity                   August 2006


1.  Introduction

   This document provides enhancements to the existing mechanisms for
   authenticated identity management in the Session Initiation Protocol
   (SIP, RFC 3261 [1]).  An identity, for the purposes of this document,
   is defined as a SIP URI, commonly a canonical address-of-record (AoR)
   employed to reach a user (such as 'sip:alice@atlanta.example.com').

   RFC 3261 stipulates several places within a SIP request where a user
   can express an identity for themselves, notably the user-populated
   From header field.  However, the recipient of a SIP request has no
   way to verify that the From header field has been populated
   appropriately, in the absence of some sort of cryptographic
   authentication mechanism.

   RFC 3261 specifies a number of security mechanisms that can be
   employed by SIP user agents (UAs), including Digest, Transport Layer
   Security (TLS), and S/MIME (implementations may support other
   security schemes as well).  However, few SIP user agents today
   support the end-user certificates necessary to authenticate
   themselves (via S/MIME, for example), and furthermore Digest
   authentication is limited by the fact that the originator and
   destination must share a prearranged secret.  It is desirable for SIP
   user agents to be able to send requests to destinations with which
   they have no previous association -- just as in the telephone network
   today, one can receive a call from someone with whom one has no
   previous association, and still have a reasonable assurance that the
   person's displayed Caller-ID is accurate.  A cryptographic approach,
   like the one described in this document, can probably provide a much
   stronger and less-spoofable assurance of identity than the telephone
   network provides today.

2.  Terminology

   In this document, the key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED",
   "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT
   RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" are to be interpreted as
   described in RFC 2119 [2] and indicate requirement levels for
   compliant SIP implementations.

3.  Background

   The usage of many SIP applications and services is governed by
   authorization policies.  These policies may be automated, or they may
   be applied manually by humans.  An example of the latter would be an
   Internet telephone application that displays the Caller-ID of a
   caller, which a human may review before answering a call.  An example
   of the former would be a presence service that compares the identity



Peterson & Jennings         Standards Track                     [Page 3]
^L
RFC 4474                      SIP Identity                   August 2006


   of potential subscribers to a whitelist before determining whether it
   should accept or reject the subscription.  In both of these cases,
   attackers might attempt to circumvent these authorization policies
   through impersonation.  Since the primary identifier of the sender of
   a SIP request, the From header field, can be populated arbitrarily by
   the controller of a user agent, impersonation is very simple today.
   The mechanism described in this document aspires to provide a strong
   identity system for SIP in which authorization policies cannot be
   circumvented by impersonation.

   All RFC 3261-compliant user agents support Digest authentication,
   which utilizes a shared secret, as a means for authenticating
   themselves to a SIP registrar.  Registration allows a user agent to
   express that it is an appropriate entity to which requests should be
   sent for a particular SIP AoR URI (e.g.,
   'sip:alice@atlanta.example.com').

   By the definition of identity used in this document, registration is
   a proof of the identity of the user to a registrar.  However, the
   credentials with which a user agent proves its identity to a
   registrar cannot be validated by just any user agent or proxy server
   -- these credentials are only shared between the user agent and their
   domain administrator.  So this shared secret does not immediately
   help a user to authenticate to a wide range of recipients.
   Recipients require a means of determining whether or not the 'return
   address' identity of a non-REGISTER request (i.e., the From header
   field value) has legitimately been asserted.

   The AoR URI used for registration is also the URI with which a UA
   commonly populates the From header field of requests in order to
   provide a 'return address' identity to recipients.  From an
   authorization perspective, if you can prove you are eligible to
   register in a domain under a particular AoR, you can prove you can
   legitimately receive requests for that AoR, and accordingly, when you
   place that AoR in the From header field of a SIP request other than a
   registration (like an INVITE), you are providing a 'return address'
   where you can legitimately be reached.  In other words, if you are
   authorized to receive requests for that 'return address', logically,
   it follows that you are also authorized to assert that 'return
   address' in your From header field.  This is of course only one
   manner in which a domain might determine how a particular user is
   authorized to populate the From header field; as an aside, for other
   sorts of URIs in the From (like anonymous URIs), other authorization
   policies would apply.

   Ideally, then, SIP user agents should have some way of proving to
   recipients of SIP requests that their local domain has authenticated
   them and authorized the population of the From header field.  This



Peterson & Jennings         Standards Track                     [Page 4]
^L
RFC 4474                      SIP Identity                   August 2006


   document proposes a mediated authentication architecture for SIP in
   which requests are sent to a server in the user's local domain, which
   authenticates such requests (using the same practices by which the
   domain would authenticate REGISTER requests).  Once a message has
   been authenticated, the local domain then needs some way to
   communicate to other SIP entities that the sending user has been
   authenticated and its use of the From header field has been
   authorized.  This document addresses how that imprimatur of
   authentication can be shared.

   RFC 3261 already describes an architecture very similar to this in
   Section 26.3.2.2, in which a user agent authenticates itself to a
   local proxy server, which in turn authenticates itself to a remote
   proxy server via mutual TLS, creating a two-link chain of transitive
   authentication between the originator and the remote domain.  While
   this works well in some architectures, there are a few respects in
   which this is impractical.  For one, transitive trust is inherently
   weaker than an assertion that can be validated end-to-end.  It is
   possible for SIP requests to cross multiple intermediaries in
   separate administrative domains, in which case transitive trust
   becomes even less compelling.

   One solution to this problem is to use 'trusted' SIP intermediaries
   that assert an identity for users in the form of a privileged SIP
   header.  A mechanism for doing so (with the P-Asserted-Identity
   header) is given in [12].  However, this solution allows only hop-
   by-hop trust between intermediaries, not end-to-end cryptographic
   authentication, and it assumes a managed network of nodes with strict
   mutual trust relationships, an assumption that is incompatible with
   widespread Internet deployment.

   Accordingly, this document specifies a means of sharing a
   cryptographic assurance of end-user SIP identity in an interdomain or
   intradomain context that is based on the concept of an
   'authentication service' and a new SIP header, the Identity header.
   Note that the scope of this document is limited to providing this
   identity assurance for SIP requests; solving this problem for SIP
   responses is more complicated and is a subject for future work.

   This specification allows either a user agent or a proxy server to
   provide identity services and to verify identities.  To maximize
   end-to-end security, it is obviously preferable for end-users to
   acquire their own certificates and corresponding private keys; if
   they do, they can act as an authentication service.  However, end-
   user certificates may be neither practical nor affordable, given the
   difficulties of establishing a Public Key Infrastructure (PKI) that
   extends to end-users, and moreover, given the potentially large
   number of SIP user agents (phones, PCs, laptops, PDAs, gaming



Peterson & Jennings         Standards Track                     [Page 5]
^L
RFC 4474                      SIP Identity                   August 2006


   devices) that may be employed by a single user.  In such
   environments, synchronizing keying material across multiple devices
   may be very complex and requires quite a good deal of additional
   endpoint behavior.  Managing several certificates for the various
   devices is also quite problematic and unpopular with users.
   Accordingly, in the initial use of this mechanism, it is likely that
   intermediaries will instantiate the authentication service role.

4.  Overview of Operations

   This section provides an informative (non-normative) high-level
   overview of the mechanisms described in this document.

   Imagine the case where Alice, who has the home proxy of example.com
   and the address-of-record sip:alice@example.com, wants to communicate
   with sip:bob@example.org.

   Alice generates an INVITE and places her identity in the From header
   field of the request.  She then sends an INVITE over TLS to an
   authentication service proxy for her domain.

   The authentication service authenticates Alice (possibly by sending a
   Digest authentication challenge) and validates that she is authorized
   to assert the identity that is populated in the From header field.
   This value may be Alice's AoR, or it may be some other value that the
   policy of the proxy server permits her to use.  It then computes a
   hash over some particular headers, including the From header field
   and the bodies in the message.  This hash is signed with the
   certificate for the domain (example.com, in Alice's case) and
   inserted in a new header field in the SIP message, the 'Identity'
   header.

   The proxy, as the holder of the private key of its domain, is
   asserting that the originator of this request has been authenticated
   and that she is authorized to claim the identity (the SIP address-
   of-record) that appears in the From header field.  The proxy also
   inserts a companion header field, Identity-Info, that tells Bob how
   to acquire its certificate, if he doesn't already have it.

   When Bob's domain receives the request, it verifies the signature
   provided in the Identity header, and thus can validate that the
   domain indicated by the host portion of the AoR in the From header
   field authenticated the user, and permitted the user to assert that
   From header field value.  This same validation operation may be
   performed by Bob's user agent server (UAS).






Peterson & Jennings         Standards Track                     [Page 6]
^L
RFC 4474                      SIP Identity                   August 2006


5.  Authentication Service Behavior

   This document defines a new role for SIP entities called an
   authentication service.  The authentication service role can be
   instantiated by a proxy server or a user agent.  Any entity that
   instantiates the authentication service role MUST possess the private
   key of a domain certificate.  Intermediaries that instantiate this
   role MUST be capable of authenticating one or more SIP users that can
   register in that domain.  Commonly, this role will be instantiated by
   a proxy server, since these entities are more likely to have a static
   hostname, hold a corresponding certificate, and have access to SIP
   registrar capabilities that allow them to authenticate users in their
   domain.  It is also possible that the authentication service role
   might be instantiated by an entity that acts as a redirect server,
   but that is left as a topic for future work.

   SIP entities that act as an authentication service MUST add a Date
   header field to SIP requests if one is not already present (see
   Section 9 for information on how the Date header field assists
   verifiers).  Similarly, authentication services MUST add a Content-
   Length header field to SIP requests if one is not already present;
   this can help verifiers to double-check that they are hashing exactly
   as many bytes of message-body as the authentication service when they
   verify the message.

   Entities instantiating the authentication service role perform the
   following steps, in order, to generate an Identity header for a SIP
   request:

   Step 1:

   The authentication service MUST extract the identity of the sender
   from the request.  The authentication service takes this value from
   the From header field; this AoR will be referred to here as the
   'identity field'.  If the identity field contains a SIP or SIP Secure
   (SIPS) URI, the authentication service MUST extract the hostname
   portion of the identity field and compare it to the domain(s) for
   which it is responsible (following the procedures in RFC 3261,
   Section 16.4, used by a proxy server to determine the domain(s) for
   which it is responsible).  If the identity field uses the TEL URI
   scheme, the policy of the authentication service determines whether
   or not it is responsible for this identity; see Section 11 for more
   information.  If the authentication service is not responsible for
   the identity in question, it SHOULD process and forward the request
   normally, but it MUST NOT add an Identity header; see below for more
   information on authentication service handling of an existing
   Identity header.




Peterson & Jennings         Standards Track                     [Page 7]
^L
RFC 4474                      SIP Identity                   August 2006


   Step 2:

   The authentication service MUST determine whether or not the sender
   of the request is authorized to claim the identity given in the
   identity field.  In order to do so, the authentication service MUST
   authenticate the sender of the message.  Some possible ways in which
   this authentication might be performed include:

         If the authentication service is instantiated by a SIP
         intermediary (proxy server), it may challenge the request with
         a 407 response code using the Digest authentication scheme (or
         viewing a Proxy-Authentication header sent in the request,
         which was sent in anticipation of a challenge using cached
         credentials, as described in RFC 3261, Section 22.3).  Note
         that if that proxy server is maintaining a TLS connection with
         the client over which the client had previously authenticated
         itself using Digest authentication, the identity value obtained
         from that previous authentication step can be reused without an
         additional Digest challenge.

         If the authentication service is instantiated by a SIP user
         agent, a user agent can be said to authenticate its user on the
         grounds that the user can provision the user agent with the
         private key of the domain, or preferably by providing a
         password that unlocks said private key.

   Authorization of the use of a particular username in the From header
   field is a matter of local policy for the authentication service, one
   that depends greatly on the manner in which authentication is
   performed.  For example, one policy might be as follows: the username
   given in the 'username' parameter of the Proxy-Authorization header
   MUST correspond exactly to the username in the From header field of
   the SIP message.  However, there are many cases in which this is too
   limiting or inappropriate; a realm might use 'username' parameters in
   Proxy-Authorization that do not correspond to the user-portion of SIP
   From headers, or a user might manage multiple accounts in the same
   administrative domain.  In this latter case, a domain might maintain
   a mapping between the values in the 'username' parameter of Proxy-
   Authorization and a set of one or more SIP URIs that might
   legitimately be asserted for that 'username'.  For example, the
   username can correspond to the 'private identity' as defined in Third
   Generation Partnership Project (3GPP), in which case the From header
   field can contain any one of the public identities associated with
   this private identity.  In this instance, another policy might be as
   follows: the URI in the From header field MUST correspond exactly to
   one of the mapped URIs associated with the 'username' given in the
   Proxy-Authorization header.  Various exceptions to such policies
   might arise for cases like anonymity; if the AoR asserted in the From



Peterson & Jennings         Standards Track                     [Page 8]
^L
RFC 4474                      SIP Identity                   August 2006


   header field uses a form like 'sip:anonymous@example.com', then the
   'example.com' proxy should authenticate that the user is a valid user
   in the domain and insert the signature over the From header field as
   usual.

   Note that this check is performed on the addr-spec in the From header
   field (e.g., the URI of the sender, like
   'sip:alice@atlanta.example.com'); it does not convert the display-
   name portion of the From header field (e.g., 'Alice Atlanta').
   Authentication services MAY check and validate the display-name as
   well, and compare it to a list of acceptable display-names that may
   be used by the sender; if the display-name does not meet policy
   constraints, the authentication service MUST return a 403 response
   code.  The reason phrase should indicate the nature of the problem;
   for example, "Inappropriate Display Name".  However, the display-name
   is not always present, and in many environments the requisite
   operational procedures for display-name validation may not exist.
   For more information, see Section 13.2.

   Step 3:

   The authentication service SHOULD ensure that any preexisting Date
   header in the request is accurate.  Local policy can dictate
   precisely how accurate the Date must be; a RECOMMENDED maximum
   discrepancy of ten minutes will ensure that the request is unlikely
   to upset any verifiers.  If the Date header contains a time different
   by more than ten minutes from the current time noted by the
   authentication service, the authentication service SHOULD reject the
   request.  This behavior is not mandatory because a user agent client
   (UAC) could only exploit the Date header in order to cause a request
   to fail verification; the Identity header is not intended to provide
   a source of non-repudiation or a perfect record of when messages are
   processed.  Finally, the authentication service MUST verify that the
   Date header falls within the validity period of its certificate.  For
   more information on the security properties associated with the Date
   header field value, see Section 9.

   Step 4:

   The authentication service MUST form the identity signature and add
   an Identity header to the request containing this signature.  After
   the Identity header has been added to the request, the authentication
   service MUST also add an Identity-Info header.  The Identity-Info
   header contains a URI from which its certificate can be acquired.
   Details on the generation of both of these headers are provided in
   Section 9.





Peterson & Jennings         Standards Track                     [Page 9]
^L
RFC 4474                      SIP Identity                   August 2006


   Finally, the authentication service MUST forward the message
   normally.

5.1.  Identity within a Dialog and Retargeting

   Retargeting is broadly defined as the alteration of the Request-URI
   by intermediaries.  More specifically, retargeting supplants the
   original target URI with one that corresponds to a different user, a
   user that is not authorized to register under the original target
   URI.  By this definition, retargeting does not include translation of
   the Request-URI to a contact address of an endpoint that has
   registered under the original target URI, for example.

   When a dialog-forming request is retargeted, this can cause a few
   wrinkles for the Identity mechanism when it is applied to requests
   sent in the backwards direction within a dialog.  This section
   provides some non-normative considerations related to this case.

   When a request is retargeted, it may reach a SIP endpoint whose user
   is not identified by the URI designated in the To header field value.
   The value in the To header field of a dialog-forming request is used
   as the From header field of requests sent in the backwards direction
   during the dialog, and is accordingly the header that would be signed
   by an authentication service for requests sent in the backwards
   direction.  In retargeting cases, if the URI in the From header does
   not identify the sender of the request in the backwards direction,
   then clearly it would be inappropriate to provide an Identity
   signature over that From header.  As specified above, if the
   authentication service is not responsible for the domain in the From
   header field of the request, it MUST NOT add an Identity header to
   the request, and it should process/forward the request normally.

   Any means of anticipating retargeting, and so on, is outside the
   scope of this document, and likely to have equal applicability to
   response identity as it does to requests in the backwards direction
   within a dialog.  Consequently, no special guidance is given for
   implementers here regarding the 'connected party' problem;
   authentication service behavior is unchanged if retargeting has
   occurred for a dialog-forming request.  Ultimately, the
   authentication service provides an Identity header for requests in
   the backwards dialog when the user is authorized to assert the
   identity given in the From header field, and if they are not, an
   Identity header is not provided.

   For further information on the problems of response identity and the
   potential solution spaces, see [15].





Peterson & Jennings         Standards Track                    [Page 10]
^L
RFC 4474                      SIP Identity                   August 2006


6.  Verifier Behavior

   This document introduces a new logical role for SIP entities called a
   server.  When a verifier receives a SIP message containing an
   Identity header, it may inspect the signature to verify the identity
   of the sender of the message.  Typically, the results of a
   verification are provided as input to an authorization process that
   is outside the scope of this document.  If an Identity header is not
   present in a request, and one is required by local policy (for
   example, based on a per-sending-domain policy, or a per-sending-user
   policy), then a 428 'Use Identity Header' response MUST be sent.

   In order to verify the identity of the sender of a message, an entity
   acting as a verifier MUST perform the following steps, in the order
   here specified.

   Step 1:

   The verifier MUST acquire the certificate for the signing domain.
   Implementations supporting this specification SHOULD have some means
   of retaining domain certificates (in accordance with normal practices
   for certificate lifetimes and revocation) in order to prevent
   themselves from needlessly downloading the same certificate every
   time a request from the same domain is received.  Certificates cached
   in this manner should be indexed by the URI given in the Identity-
   Info header field value.

   Provided that the domain certificate used to sign this message is not
   previously known to the verifier, SIP entities SHOULD discover this
   certificate by dereferencing the Identity-Info header, unless they
   have some more efficient implementation-specific way of acquiring
   certificates for that domain.  If the URI scheme in the Identity-Info
   header cannot be dereferenced, then a 436 'Bad Identity-Info'
   response MUST be returned.  The verifier processes this certificate
   in the usual ways, including checking that it has not expired, that
   the chain is valid back to a trusted certification authority (CA),
   and that it does not appear on revocation lists.  Once the
   certificate is acquired, it MUST be validated following the
   procedures in RFC 3280 [9].  If the certificate cannot be validated
   (it is self-signed and untrusted, or signed by an untrusted or
   unknown certificate authority, expired, or revoked), the verifier
   MUST send a 437 'Unsupported Certificate' response.

   Step 2:

   The verifier MUST follow the process described in Section 13.4 to
   determine if the signer is authoritative for the URI in the From
   header field.



Peterson & Jennings         Standards Track                    [Page 11]
^L
RFC 4474                      SIP Identity                   August 2006


   Step 3:

   The verifier MUST verify the signature in the Identity header field,
   following the procedures for generating the hashed digest-string
   described in Section 9.  If a verifier determines that the signature
   on the message does not correspond to the reconstructed digest-
   string, then a 438 'Invalid Identity Header' response MUST be
   returned.

   Step 4:

   The verifier MUST validate the Date, Contact, and Call-ID headers in
   the manner described in Section 13.1; recipients that wish to verify
   Identity signatures MUST support all of the operations described
   there.  It must furthermore ensure that the value of the Date header
   falls within the validity period of the certificate whose
   corresponding private key was used to sign the Identity header.

7.  Considerations for User Agent

   This mechanism can be applied opportunistically to existing SIP
   deployments; accordingly, it requires no change to SIP user agent
   behavior in order for it to be effective.  However, because this
   mechanism does not provide integrity protection between the UAC and
   the authentication service, a UAC SHOULD implement some means of
   providing this integrity.  TLS would be one such mechanism, which is
   attractive because it MUST be supported by SIP proxy servers, but is
   potentially problematic because it is a hop-by-hop mechanism.  See
   Section 13.3 for more information about securing the channel between
   the UAC and the authentication service.

   When a UAC sends a request, it MUST accurately populate the From
   header field with a value corresponding to an identity that it
   believes it is authorized to claim.  In a request, it MUST set the
   URI portion of its From header to match a SIP, SIPS, or TEL URI AoR
   that it is authorized to use in the domain (including anonymous URIs,
   as described in RFC 3323 [3]).  In general, UACs SHOULD NOT use the
   TEL URI form in the From header field (see Section 11).

   Note that this document defines a number of new 4xx response codes.
   If user agents support these response codes, they will be able to
   respond intelligently to Identity-based error conditions.

   The UAC MUST also be capable of sending requests, including mid-call
   requests, through an 'outbound' proxy (the authentication service).
   The best way to accomplish this is using pre-loaded Route headers and
   loose routing.  For a given domain, if an entity that can instantiate
   the authentication service role is not in the path of dialog-forming



Peterson & Jennings         Standards Track                    [Page 12]
^L
RFC 4474                      SIP Identity                   August 2006


   requests, identity for mid-dialog requests in the backwards direction
   cannot be provided.

   As a recipient of a request, a user agent that can verify signed
   identities should also support an appropriate user interface to
   render the validity of identity to a user.  User agent
   implementations SHOULD differentiate signed From header field values
   from unsigned From header field values when rendering to an end-user
   the identity of the sender of a request.

8.  Considerations for Proxy Servers

   Domain policy may require proxy servers to inspect and verify the
   identity provided in SIP requests.  A proxy server may wish to
   ascertain the identity of the sender of the message to provide spam
   prevention or call control services.  Even if a proxy server does not
   act as an authentication service, it MAY validate the Identity header
   before it makes a forwarding decision for a request.  Proxy servers
   MUST NOT remove or modify an existing Identity or Identity-Info
   header in a request.

9.  Header Syntax

   This document specifies two new SIP headers: Identity and Identity-
   Info.  Each of these headers can appear only once in a SIP message.
   The grammar for these two headers is (following the ABNF [6] in RFC
   3261 [1]):

   Identity = "Identity" HCOLON signed-identity-digest
   signed-identity-digest = LDQUOT 32LHEX RDQUOT

   Identity-Info = "Identity-Info" HCOLON ident-info
                    *( SEMI ident-info-params )
   ident-info = LAQUOT absoluteURI RAQUOT
   ident-info-params = ident-info-alg / ident-info-extension
   ident-info-alg = "alg" EQUAL token
   ident-info-extension = generic-param

   The signed-identity-digest is a signed hash of a canonical string
   generated from certain components of a SIP request.  To create the
   contents of the signed-identity-digest, the following elements of a
   SIP message MUST be placed in a bit-exact string in the order
   specified here, separated by a vertical line, "|" or %x7C, character:

   o  The AoR of the UA sending the message, or addr-spec of the From
      header field (referred to occasionally here as the 'identity
      field').




Peterson & Jennings         Standards Track                    [Page 13]
^L
RFC 4474                      SIP Identity                   August 2006


   o  The addr-spec component of the To header field, which is the AoR
      to which the request is being sent.
   o  The callid from Call-Id header field.
   o  The digit (1*DIGIT) and method (method) portions from CSeq header
      field, separated by a single space (ABNF SP, or %x20).  Note that
      the CSeq header field allows linear whitespace (LWS) rather than
      SP to separate the digit and method portions, and thus the CSeq
      header field may need to be transformed in order to be
      canonicalized.  The authentication service MUST strip leading
      zeros from the 'digit' portion of the Cseq before generating the
      digest-string.
   o  The Date header field, with exactly one space each for each SP and
      the weekday and month items case set as shown in BNF in RFC 3261.
      RFC 3261 specifies that the BNF for weekday and month is a choice
      amongst a set of tokens.  The RFC 2234 rules for the BNF specify
      that tokens are case sensitive.  However, when used to construct
      the canonical string defined here, the first letter of each week
      and month MUST be capitalized, and the remaining two letters must
      be lowercase.  This matches the capitalization provided in the
      definition of each token.  All requests that use the Identity
      mechanism MUST contain a Date header.
   o  The addr-spec component of the Contact header field value.  If the
      request does not contain a Contact header, this field MUST be
      empty (i.e., there will be no whitespace between the fourth and
      fifth "|" characters in the canonical string).
   o  The body content of the message with the bits exactly as they are
      in the Message (in the ABNF for SIP, the message-body).  This
      includes all components of multipart message bodies.  Note that
      the message-body does NOT include the CRLF separating the SIP
      headers from the message-body, but does include everything that
      follows that CRLF.  If the message has no body, then message-body
      will be empty, and the final "|" will not be followed by any
      additional characters.

   For more information on the security properties of these headers, and
   why their inclusion mitigates replay attacks, see Section 13 and [5].
   The precise formulation of this digest-string is, therefore
   (following the ABNF [6] in RFC 3261 [1]):

   digest-string = addr-spec "|" addr-spec "|" callid "|"
                   1*DIGIT SP Method "|" SIP-date "|" [ addr-spec ] "|"
                   message-body

   Note again that the first addr-spec MUST be taken from the From
   header field value, the second addr-spec MUST be taken from the To
   header field value, and the third addr-spec MUST be taken from the
   Contact header field value, provided the Contact header is present in
   the request.



Peterson & Jennings         Standards Track                    [Page 14]
^L
RFC 4474                      SIP Identity                   August 2006


   After the digest-string is formed, it MUST be hashed and signed with
   the certificate for the domain.  The hashing and signing algorithm is
   specified by the 'alg' parameter of the Identity-Info header (see
   below for more information on Identity-Info header parameters).  This
   document defines only one value for the 'alg' parameter: 'rsa-sha1';
   further values MUST be defined in a Standards Track RFC, see Section
   14.7 for more information.  All implementations of this specification
   MUST support 'rsa-sha1'.  When the 'rsa-sha1' algorithm is specified
   in the 'alg' parameter of Identity-Info, the hash and signature MUST
   be generated as follows: compute the results of signing this string
   with sha1WithRSAEncryption as described in RFC 3370 [7] and base64
   encode the results as specified in RFC 3548 [8].  A 1024-bit or
   longer RSA key MUST be used.  The result is placed in the Identity
   header field.  For detailed examples of the usage of this algorithm,
   see Section 10.

   The 'absoluteURI' portion of the Identity-Info header MUST contain a
   URI which dereferences to a resource containing the certificate of
   the authentication service.  All implementations of this
   specification MUST support the use of HTTP and HTTPS URIs in the
   Identity-Info header.  Such HTTP and HTTPS URIs MUST follow the
   conventions of RFC 2585 [10], and for those URIs the indicated
   resource MUST be of the form 'application/pkix-cert' described in
   that specification.  Note that this introduces key lifecycle
   management concerns; were a domain to change the key available at the
   Identity-Info URI before a verifier evaluates a request signed by an
   authentication service, this would cause obvious verifier failures.
   When a rollover occurs, authentication services SHOULD thus provide
   new Identity-Info URIs for each new certificate, and SHOULD continue
   to make older key acquisition URIs available for a duration longer
   than the plausible lifetime of a SIP message (an hour would most
   likely suffice).

   The Identity-Info header field MUST contain an 'alg' parameter.  No
   other parameters are defined for the Identity-Info header in this
   document.  Future Standards Track RFCs may define additional
   Identity-Info header parameters.














Peterson & Jennings         Standards Track                    [Page 15]
^L
RFC 4474                      SIP Identity                   August 2006


   This document adds the following entries to Table 2 of RFC 3261 [1]:

      Header field         where   proxy   ACK  BYE  CAN  INV  OPT  REG
      ------------         -----   -----   ---  ---  ---  ---  ---  ---
      Identity               R       a      o    o    -    o    o    o

                                           SUB  NOT  REF  INF  UPD  PRA
                                           ---  ---  ---  ---  ---  ---
                                            o    o    o    o    o    o


      Header field         where   proxy   ACK  BYE  CAN  INV  OPT  REG
      ------------         -----   -----   ---  ---  ---  ---  ---  ---
      Identity-Info          R       a      o    o    -    o    o    o

                                           SUB  NOT  REF  INF  UPD  PRA
                                           ---  ---  ---  ---  ---  ---
                                            o    o    o    o    o    o

   Note, in the table above, that this mechanism does not protect the
   CANCEL method.  The CANCEL method cannot be challenged, because it is
   hop-by-hop, and accordingly authentication service behavior for
   CANCEL would be significantly limited.  Note as well that the
   REGISTER method uses Contact header fields in very unusual ways that
   complicate its applicability to this mechanism, and the use of
   Identity with REGISTER is consequently a subject for future study,
   although it is left as optional here for forward-compatibility
   reasons.  The Identity and Identity-Info header MUST NOT appear in
   CANCEL.

10.  Compliance Tests and Examples

   The examples in this section illustrate the use of the Identity
   header in the context of a SIP transaction.  Implementers are advised
   to verify their compliance with the specification against the
   following criteria:

   o  Implementations of the authentication service role MUST generate
      identical base64 identity strings to the ones shown in the
      Identity headers in these examples when presented with the source
      message and utilizing the appropriate supplied private key for the
      domain in question.
   o  Implementations of the verifier role MUST correctly validate the
      given messages containing the Identity header when utilizing the
      supplied certificates (with the caveat about self-signed
      certificates below).





Peterson & Jennings         Standards Track                    [Page 16]
^L
RFC 4474                      SIP Identity                   August 2006


   Note that the following examples use self-signed certificates, rather
   than certificates issued by a recognized certificate authority.  The
   use of self-signed certificates for this mechanism is NOT
   RECOMMENDED, and it appears here only for illustrative purposes.
   Therefore, in compliance testing, implementations of verifiers SHOULD
   generate appropriate warnings about the use of self-signed
   certificates.  Also, the example certificates in this section have
   placed their domain name subject in the subjectAltName field; in
   practice, certificate authorities may place domain names in other
   locations in the certificate (see Section 13.4 for more information).

   Note that all examples in this section use the 'rsa-sha1' algorithm.

   Bit-exact reference files for these messages and their various
   transformations are supplied in Appendix B.

10.1.  Identity-Info with a Singlepart MIME body

   Consider the following private key and certificate pair assigned to
   'atlanta.example.com' (rendered in OpenSSL format).

   -----BEGIN RSA PRIVATE KEY-----
   MIICXQIBAAKBgQDPPMBtHVoPkXV+Z6jq1LsgfTELVWpy2BVUffJMPH06LL0cJSQO
   aIeVzIojzWtpauB7IylZKlAjB5f429tRuoUiedCwMLKblWAqZt6eHWpCNZJ7lONc
   IEwnmh2nAccKk83Lp/VH3tgAS/43DQoX2sndnYh+g8522Pzwg7EGWspzzwIDAQAB
   AoGBAK0W3tnEFD7AjVQAnJNXDtx59Aa1Vu2JEXe6oi+OrkFysJjbZJwsLmKtrgtt
   PXOU8t2mZpi0wK4hX4tZhntiwGKkUPC3h9Bjp+GerifP341RMyMO+6fPgjqOzUDw
   +rPjjMpwD7AkcEcqDgbTrZnWv/QnCSaaF3xkUGfFkLx5OKcRAkEA7UxnsE8XaT30
   tP/UUc51gNk2KGKgxQQTHopBcew9yfeCRFhvdL7jpaGatEi5iZwGGQQDVOVHUN1H
   0YLpHQjRowJBAN+R2bvA/Nimq464ZgnelEDPqaEAZWaD3kOfhS9+vL7oqES+u5E0
   J7kXb7ZkiSVUg9XU/8PxMKx/DAz0dUmOL+UCQH8C9ETUMI2uEbqHbBdVUGNk364C
   DFcndSxVh+34KqJdjiYSx6VPPv26X9m7S0OydTkSgs3/4ooPxo8HaMqXm80CQB+r
   xbB3UlpOohcBwFK9mTrlMB6Cs9ql66KgwnlL9ukEhHHYozGatdXeoBCyhUsogdSU
   6/aSAFcvWEGtj7/vyJECQQCCS1lKgEXoNQPqONalvYhyyMZRXFLdD4gbwRPK1uXK
   Ypk3CkfFzOyfjeLcGPxXzq2qzuHzGTDxZ9PAepwX4RSk
   -----END RSA PRIVATE KEY-----
   -----BEGIN CERTIFICATE-----
   MIIC3TCCAkagAwIBAgIBADANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQUFADBZMQswCQYDVQQGEwJVUzEL
   MAkGA1UECAwCR0ExEDAOBgNVBAcMB0F0bGFudGExDTALBgNVBAoMBElFVEYxHDAa
   BgNVBAMME2F0bGFudGEuZXhhbXBsZS5jb20wHhcNMDUxMDI0MDYzNjA2WhcNMDYx
   MDI0MDYzNjA2WjBZMQswCQYDVQQGEwJVUzELMAkGA1UECAwCR0ExEDAOBgNVBAcM
   B0F0bGFudGExDTALBgNVBAoMBElFVEYxHDAaBgNVBAMME2F0bGFudGEuZXhhbXBs
   ZS5jb20wgZ8wDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEBBQADgY0AMIGJAoGBAM88wG0dWg+RdX5nqOrU
   uyB9MQtVanLYFVR98kw8fTosvRwlJA5oh5XMiiPNa2lq4HsjKVkqUCMHl/jb21G6
   hSJ50LAwspuVYCpm3p4dakI1knuU41wgTCeaHacBxwqTzcun9Ufe2ABL/jcNChfa
   yd2diH6DznbY/PCDsQZaynPPAgMBAAGjgbQwgbEwHQYDVR0OBBYEFNmU/MrbVYcE
   KDr/20WISrG1j1rNMIGBBgNVHSMEejB4gBTZlPzK21WHBCg6/9tFiEqxtY9azaFd
   pFswWTELMAkGA1UEBhMCVVMxCzAJBgNVBAgMAkdBMRAwDgYDVQQHDAdBdGxhbnRh



Peterson & Jennings         Standards Track                    [Page 17]
^L
RFC 4474                      SIP Identity                   August 2006


   MQ0wCwYDVQQKDARJRVRGMRwwGgYDVQQDDBNhdGxhbnRhLmV4YW1wbGUuY29tggEA
   MAwGA1UdEwQFMAMBAf8wDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEFBQADgYEADdQYtswBDmTSTq0mt211
   7alm/XGFrb2zdbU0vorxRdOZ04qMyrIpXG1LEmnEOgcocyrXRBvq5p6WbZAcEQk0
   DsE3Ve0Nc8x9nmvljW7GsMGFCnCuo4ODTf/1lGdVr9DeCzcj10YUQ3MRemDMXhY2
   CtDisLWl7SXOORcZAi1oU9w=
   -----END CERTIFICATE-----

   A user of atlanta.example.com, Alice, wants to send an INVITE to
   bob@biloxi.example.org.  She therefore creates the following INVITE
   request, which she forwards to the atlanta.example.org proxy server
   that instantiates the authentication service role:

         INVITE sip:bob@biloxi.example.org SIP/2.0
         Via: SIP/2.0/TLS pc33.atlanta.example.com;branch=z9hG4bKnashds8
         To: Bob <sip:bob@biloxi.example.org>
         From: Alice <sip:alice@atlanta.example.com>;tag=1928301774
         Call-ID: a84b4c76e66710
         CSeq: 314159 INVITE
         Max-Forwards: 70
         Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2002 13:02:03 GMT
         Contact: <sip:alice@pc33.atlanta.example.com>
         Content-Type: application/sdp
         Content-Length: 147

         v=0
         o=UserA 2890844526 2890844526 IN IP4 pc33.atlanta.example.com
         s=Session SDP
         c=IN IP4 pc33.atlanta.example.com
         t=0 0
         m=audio 49172 RTP/AVP 0
         a=rtpmap:0 PCMU/8000

   When the authentication service receives the INVITE, it authenticates
   Alice by sending a 407 response.  As a result, Alice adds an
   Authorization header to her request, and resends to the
   atlanta.example.com authentication service.  Now that the service is
   sure of Alice's identity, it calculates an Identity header for the
   request.  The canonical string over which the identity signature will
   be generated is the following (note that the first line wraps because
   of RFC editorial conventions):

   sip:alice@atlanta.example.com|sip:bob@biloxi.example.org|
   a84b4c76e66710|314159 INVITE|Thu, 21 Feb 2002 13:02:03 GMT|
   sip:alice@pc33.atlanta.example.com|v=0
   o=UserA 2890844526 2890844526 IN IP4 pc33.atlanta.example.com
   s=Session SDP
   c=IN IP4 pc33.atlanta.example.com
   t=0 0



Peterson & Jennings         Standards Track                    [Page 18]
^L
RFC 4474                      SIP Identity                   August 2006


   m=audio 49172 RTP/AVP 0
   a=rtpmap:0 PCMU/8000

   The resulting signature (sha1WithRsaEncryption) using the private RSA
   key given above, with base64 encoding, is the following:

   ZYNBbHC00VMZr2kZt6VmCvPonWJMGvQTBDqghoWeLxJfzB2a1pxAr3VgrB0SsSAa
   ifsRdiOPoQZYOy2wrVghuhcsMbHWUSFxI6p6q5TOQXHMmz6uEo3svJsSH49thyGn
   FVcnyaZ++yRlBYYQTLqWzJ+KVhPKbfU/pryhVn9Yc6U=

   Accordingly, the atlanta.example.com authentication service will
   create an Identity header containing that base64 signature string
   (175 bytes).  It will also add an HTTPS URL where its certificate is
   made available.  With those two headers added, the message looks like
   the following:

   INVITE sip:bob@biloxi.example.org SIP/2.0
   Via: SIP/2.0/TLS pc33.atlanta.example.com;branch=z9hG4bKnashds8
   To: Bob <sip:bob@biloxi.example.org>
   From: Alice <sip:alice@atlanta.example.com>;tag=1928301774
   Call-ID: a84b4c76e66710
   CSeq: 314159 INVITE
   Max-Forwards: 70
   Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2002 13:02:03 GMT
   Contact: <sip:alice@pc33.atlanta.example.com>
   Identity:
     "ZYNBbHC00VMZr2kZt6VmCvPonWJMGvQTBDqghoWeLxJfzB2a1pxAr3VgrB0SsSAa
      ifsRdiOPoQZYOy2wrVghuhcsMbHWUSFxI6p6q5TOQXHMmz6uEo3svJsSH49thyGn
      FVcnyaZ++yRlBYYQTLqWzJ+KVhPKbfU/pryhVn9Yc6U="
   Identity-Info: <https://atlanta.example.com/atlanta.cer>;alg=rsa-sha1
   Content-Type: application/sdp
   Content-Length: 147

   v=0
   o=UserA 2890844526 2890844526 IN IP4 pc33.atlanta.example.com
   s=Session SDP
   c=IN IP4 pc33.atlanta.example.com
   t=0 0
   m=audio 49172 RTP/AVP 0
   a=rtpmap:0 PCMU/8000

   atlanta.example.com then forwards the request normally.  When Bob
   receives the request, if he does not already know the certificate of
   atlanta.example.com, he dereferences the URL in the Identity-Info
   header to acquire the certificate.  Bob then generates the same
   canonical string given above, from the same headers of the SIP
   request.  Using this canonical string, the signed digest in the
   Identity header, and the certificate discovered by dereferencing the



Peterson & Jennings         Standards Track                    [Page 19]
^L
RFC 4474                      SIP Identity                   August 2006


   Identity-Info header, Bob can verify that the given set of headers
   and the message body have not been modified.

10.2.  Identity for a Request with No MIME Body or Contact

   Consider the following private key and certificate pair assigned to
   "biloxi.example.org".

   -----BEGIN RSA PRIVATE KEY-----
   MIICXgIBAAKBgQC/obBYLRMPjskrAqWOiGPAUxI3/m2ti7ix4caqCTAuFX5cLegQ
   7nmquLOHfIhxVIqT2f06UA0lOo2NVofK9G7MTkVbVNiyAlLYUDEj7XWLDICf3ZHL
   6Fr/+CF7wrQ9r4kv7XiJKxodVCCd/DhCT9Gp+VDoe8HymqOW/KsneriyIwIDAQAB
   AoGBAJ7fsFIKXKkjWgj8ksGOthS3Sn19xPSCyEdBxfEm2Pj7/Nzzeli/PcOaic0k
   JALBcnqN2fHEeIGK/9xUBxTufgQYVJqvyHERs6rXX/iT4Ynm9t1905EiQ9ZpHsrI
   /AMMUYA1QrGgAIHvZLVLzq+9KLDEZ+HQbuCLJXF+6bl0Eb5BAkEA636oMANp0Qa3
   mYWEQ2utmGsYxkXSfyBb18TCOwCty0ndBR24zyOJF2NbZS98Lz+Ga25hfIGw/JHK
   nD9bOE88UwJBANBRSpd4bmS+m48R/13tRESAtHqydNinX0kS/RhwHr7mkHTU3k/M
   FxQtx34I3GKzaZxMn0A66KS9v/SHdnF+ePECQQCGe7QshyZ8uitLPtZDclCWhEKH
   qAQHmUEZvUF2VHLrbukLLOgHUrHNa24cILv4d3yaCVUetymNcuyTwhKj24wFAkAO
   z/jx1EplN3hwL+NsllZoWI58uvu7/Aq2c3czqaVGBbb317sHCYgKk0bAG3kwO3mi
   93/LXWT1cdiYVpmBcHDBAkEAmpgkFj+xZu5gWASY5ujv+FCMP0WwaH5hTnXu+tKe
   PJ3d2IJZKxGnl6itKRN7GeRh9PSK0kZSqGFeVrvsJ4Nopg==
   -----END RSA PRIVATE KEY-----
   -----BEGIN CERTIFICATE-----
   MIIC1jCCAj+gAwIBAgIBADANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQUFADBXMQswCQYDVQQGEwJVUzEL
   MAkGA1UECAwCTVMxDzANBgNVBAcMBkJpbG94aTENMAsGA1UECgwESUVURjEbMBkG
   A1UEAwwSYmlsb3hpLmV4YW1wbGUuY29tMB4XDTA1MTAyNDA2NDAyNloXDTA2MTAy
   NDA2NDAyNlowVzELMAkGA1UEBhMCVVMxCzAJBgNVBAgMAk1TMQ8wDQYDVQQHDAZC
   aWxveGkxDTALBgNVBAoMBElFVEYxGzAZBgNVBAMMEmJpbG94aS5leGFtcGxlLmNv
   bTCBnzANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQEFAAOBjQAwgYkCgYEAv6GwWC0TD47JKwKljohjwFMS
   N/5trYu4seHGqgkwLhV+XC3oEO55qrizh3yIcVSKk9n9OlANJTqNjVaHyvRuzE5F
   W1TYsgJS2FAxI+11iwyAn92Ry+ha//ghe8K0Pa+JL+14iSsaHVQgnfw4Qk/RqflQ
   6HvB8pqjlvyrJ3q4siMCAwEAAaOBsTCBrjAdBgNVHQ4EFgQU0Z+RL47W/APDtc5B
   fSoQXuEFE/wwfwYDVR0jBHgwdoAU0Z+RL47W/APDtc5BfSoQXuEFE/yhW6RZMFcx
   CzAJBgNVBAYTAlVTMQswCQYDVQQIDAJNUzEPMA0GA1UEBwwGQmlsb3hpMQ0wCwYD
   VQQKDARJRVRGMRswGQYDVQQDDBJiaWxveGkuZXhhbXBsZS5jb22CAQAwDAYDVR0T
   BAUwAwEB/zANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQUFAAOBgQBiyKHIt8TXfGNfpnJXi5jCizOxmY8Y
   gln8tyPFaeyq95TGcvTCWzdoBLVpBD+fpRWrX/II5sE6VHbbAPjjVmKbZwzQAtpp
   P2Fauj28t94ZeDHN2vqzjfnHjCO24kG3Juf2T80ilp9YHcDwxjUFrt86UnlC+yid
   yaTeusW5Gu7v1g==
   -----END CERTIFICATE-----

   Bob (bob@biloxi.example.org) now wants to send a BYE request to Alice
   at the end of the dialog initiated in the previous example.  He
   therefore creates the following BYE request, which he forwards to the
   'biloxi.example.org' proxy server that instantiates the
   authentication service role:




Peterson & Jennings         Standards Track                    [Page 20]
^L
RFC 4474                      SIP Identity                   August 2006


   BYE sip:alice@pc33.atlanta.example.com SIP/2.0
   Via: SIP/2.0/TLS 192.0.2.4;branch=z9hG4bKnashds10
   Max-Forwards: 70
   From: Bob <sip:bob@biloxi.example.org>;tag=a6c85cf
   To: Alice <sip:alice@atlanta.example.com>;tag=1928301774
   Call-ID: a84b4c76e66710
   CSeq: 231 BYE
   Content-Length: 0

   When the authentication service receives the BYE, it authenticates
   Bob by sending a 407 response.  As a result, Bob adds an
   Authorization header to his request, and resends to the
   biloxi.example.org authentication service.  Now that the service is
   sure of Bob's identity, it prepares to calculate an Identity header
   for the request.  Note that this request does not have a Date header
   field.  Accordingly, the biloxi.example.org will add a Date header to
   the request before calculating the identity signature.  If the
   Content-Length header were not present, the authentication service
   would add it as well.  The baseline message is thus:

   BYE sip:alice@pc33.atlanta.example.com SIP/2.0
   Via: SIP/2.0/TLS 192.0.2.4;branch=z9hG4bKnashds10
   Max-Forwards: 70
   From: Bob <sip:bob@biloxi.example.org>;tag=a6c85cf
   To: Alice <sip:alice@atlanta.example.com>;tag=1928301774
   Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2002 14:19:51 GMT
   Call-ID: a84b4c76e66710
   CSeq: 231 BYE
   Content-Length: 0

   Also note that this request contains no Contact header field.
   Accordingly, biloxi.example.org will place no value in the canonical
   string for the addr-spec of the Contact address.  Also note that
   there is no message body, and accordingly, the signature string will
   terminate, in this case, with two vertical bars.  The canonical
   string over which the identity signature will be generated is the
   following (note that the first line wraps because of RFC editorial
   conventions):

   sip:bob@biloxi.example.org|sip:alice@atlanta.example.com|
   a84b4c76e66710|231 BYE|Thu, 21 Feb 2002 14:19:51 GMT||

   The resulting signature (sha1WithRsaEncryption) using the private RSA
   key given above for biloxi.example.org, with base64 encoding, is the
   following:






Peterson & Jennings         Standards Track                    [Page 21]
^L
RFC 4474                      SIP Identity                   August 2006


   sv5CTo05KqpSmtHt3dcEiO/1CWTSZtnG3iV+1nmurLXV/HmtyNS7Ltrg9dlxkWzo
   eU7d7OV8HweTTDobV3itTmgPwCFjaEmMyEI3d7SyN21yNDo2ER/Ovgtw0Lu5csIp
   pPqOg1uXndzHbG7mR6Rl9BnUhHufVRbp51Mn3w0gfUs=

   Accordingly, the biloxi.example.org authentication service will
   create an Identity header containing that base64 signature string.
   It will also add an HTTPS URL where its certificate is made
   available.  With those two headers added, the message looks like the
   following:

   BYE sip:alice@pc33.atlanta.example.com SIP/2.0
   Via: SIP/2.0/TLS 192.0.2.4;branch=z9hG4bKnashds10
   Max-Forwards: 70
   From: Bob <sip:bob@biloxi.example.org>;tag=a6c85cf
   To: Alice <sip:alice@atlanta.example.com>;tag=1928301774
   Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2002 14:19:51 GMT
   Call-ID: a84b4c76e66710
   CSeq: 231 BYE
   Identity:
     "sv5CTo05KqpSmtHt3dcEiO/1CWTSZtnG3iV+1nmurLXV/HmtyNS7Ltrg9dlxkWzo
      eU7d7OV8HweTTDobV3itTmgPwCFjaEmMyEI3d7SyN21yNDo2ER/Ovgtw0Lu5csIp
      pPqOg1uXndzHbG7mR6Rl9BnUhHufVRbp51Mn3w0gfUs="
   Identity-Info: <https://biloxi.example.org/biloxi.cer>;alg=rsa-sha1
   Content-Length: 0

   biloxi.example.org then forwards the request normally.

11.  Identity and the TEL URI Scheme

   Since many SIP applications provide a Voice over IP (VoIP) service,
   telephone numbers are commonly used as identities in SIP deployments.
   In the majority of cases, this is not problematic for the identity
   mechanism described in this document.  Telephone numbers commonly
   appear in the username portion of a SIP URI (e.g.,
   'sip:+17005551008@chicago.example.com;user=phone').  That username
   conforms to the syntax of the TEL URI scheme (RFC 3966 [13]).  For
   this sort of SIP address-of-record, chicago.example.com is the
   appropriate signatory.

   It is also possible for a TEL URI to appear in the SIP To or From
   header field outside the context of a SIP or SIPS URI (e.g.,
   'tel:+17005551008').  In this case, it is much less clear which
   signatory is appropriate for the identity.  Fortunately for the
   identity mechanism, this form of the TEL URI is more common for the
   To header field and Request-URI in SIP than in the From header field,
   since the UAC has no option but to provide a TEL URI alone when the
   remote domain to which a request is sent is unknown.  The local
   domain, however, is usually known by the UAC, and accordingly it can



Peterson & Jennings         Standards Track                    [Page 22]
^L
RFC 4474                      SIP Identity                   August 2006


   form a proper From header field containing a SIP URI with a username
   in TEL URI form.  Implementations that intend to send their requests
   through an authentication service SHOULD put telephone numbers in the
   From header field into SIP or SIPS URIs whenever possible.

   If the local domain is unknown to a UAC formulating a request, it
   most likely will not be able to locate an authentication service for
   its request, and therefore the question of providing identity in
   these cases is somewhat moot.  However, an authentication service MAY
   sign a request containing a TEL URI in the From header field.  This
   is permitted in this specification strictly for forward compatibility
   purposes.  In the longer-term, it is possible that ENUM [14] may
   provide a way to determine which administrative domain is responsible
   for a telephone number, and this may aid in the signing and
   verification of SIP identities that contain telephone numbers.  This
   is a subject for future work.

12.  Privacy Considerations

   The identity mechanism presented in this document is compatible with
   the standard SIP practices for privacy described in RFC 3323 [3].  A
   SIP proxy server can act both as a privacy service and as an
   authentication service.  Since a user agent can provide any From
   header field value that the authentication service is willing to
   authorize, there is no reason why private SIP URIs that contain
   legitimate domains (e.g., sip:anonymous@example.com) cannot be signed
   by an authentication service.  The construction of the Identity
   header is the same for private URIs as it is for any other sort of
   URIs.

   Note, however, that an authentication service must possess a
   certificate corresponding to the host portion of the addr-spec of the
   From header field of any request that it signs; accordingly, using
   domains like 'anonymous.invalid' will not be possible for privacy
   services that also act as authentication services.  The assurance
   offered by the usage of anonymous URIs with a valid domain portion is
   "this is a known user in my domain that I have authenticated, but I
   am keeping its identity private".  The use of the domain
   'anonymous.invalid' entails that no corresponding authority for the
   domain can exist, and as a consequence, authentication service
   functions are meaningless.

   The "header" level of privacy described in RFC 3323 requests that a
   privacy service alter the Contact header field value of a SIP
   message.  Since the Contact header field is protected by the
   signature in an Identity header, privacy services cannot be applied
   after authentication services without a resulting integrity
   violation.



Peterson & Jennings         Standards Track                    [Page 23]
^L
RFC 4474                      SIP Identity                   August 2006


   RFC 3325 [12] defines the "id" priv-value token, which is specific to
   the P-Asserted-Identity header.  The sort of assertion provided by
   the P-Asserted-Identity header is very different from the Identity
   header presented in this document.  It contains additional
   information about the sender of a message that may go beyond what
   appears in the From header field; P-Asserted-Identity holds a
   definitive identity for the sender that is somehow known to a closed
   network of intermediaries that presumably the network will use this
   identity for billing or security purposes.  The danger of this
   network-specific information leaking outside of the closed network
   motivated the "id" priv-value token.  The "id" priv-value token has
   no implications for the Identity header, and privacy services MUST
   NOT remove the Identity header when a priv-value of "id" appears in a
   Privacy header.

   Finally, note that unlike RFC 3325, the mechanism described in this
   specification adds no information to SIP requests that has privacy
   implications.

13.  Security Considerations

13.1.  Handling of digest-string Elements

   This document describes a mechanism that provides a signature over
   the Contact, Date, Call-ID, CSeq, To, and From header fields of SIP
   requests.  While a signature over the From header field would be
   sufficient to secure a URI alone, the additional headers provide
   replay protection and reference integrity necessary to make sure that
   the Identity header will not be used in cut-and-paste attacks.  In
   general, the considerations related to the security of these headers
   are the same as those given in RFC 3261 for including headers in
   tunneled 'message/sip' MIME bodies (see Section 23 in particular).
   The following section details the individual security properties
   obtained by including each of these header fields within the
   signature; collectively, this set of header fields provides the
   necessary properties to prevent impersonation.

   The From header field indicates the identity of the sender of the
   message, and the SIP address-of-record URI in the From header field
   is the identity of a SIP user, for the purposes of this document.
   The To header field provides the identity of the SIP user that this
   request targets.  Providing the To header field in the Identity
   signature serves two purposes: first, it prevents cut-and-paste
   attacks in which an Identity header from legitimate request for one
   user is cut-and-pasted into a request for a different user; second,
   it preserves the starting URI scheme of the request, which helps
   prevent downgrade attacks against the use of SIPS.




Peterson & Jennings         Standards Track                    [Page 24]
^L
RFC 4474                      SIP Identity                   August 2006


   The Date and Contact headers provide reference integrity and replay
   protection, as described in RFC 3261, Section 23.4.2.
   Implementations of this specification MUST NOT deem valid a request
   with an outdated Date header field (the RECOMMENDED interval is that
   the Date header must indicate a time within 3600 seconds of the
   receipt of a message).  Implementations MUST also record Call-IDs
   received in valid requests containing an Identity header, and MUST
   remember those Call-IDs for at least the duration of a single Date
   interval (i.e., commonly 3600 seconds).  Because a SIP-compliant UA
   never generates the same Call-ID twice, verifiers can use the Call-ID
   to recognize cut-and-paste attacks; the Call-ID serves as a nonce.
   The result of this is that if an Identity header is replayed within
   the Date interval, verifiers will recognize that it is invalid
   because of a Call-ID duplication; if an Identity header is replayed
   after the Date interval, verifiers will recognize that it is invalid
   because the Date is stale.  The CSeq header field contains a numbered
   identifier for the transaction, and the name of the method of the
   request; without this information, an INVITE request could be cut-
   and-pasted by an attacker and transformed into a BYE request without
   changing any fields covered by the Identity header, and moreover
   requests within a certain transaction could be replayed in
   potentially confusing or malicious ways.

   The Contact header field is included to tie the Identity header to a
   particular user agent instance that generated the request.  Were an
   active attacker to intercept a request containing an Identity header,
   and cut-and-paste the Identity header field into its own request
   (reusing the From, To, Contact, Date, and Call-ID fields that appear
   in the original message), the attacker would not be eligible to
   receive SIP requests from the called user agent, since those requests
   are routed to the URI identified in the Contact header field.
   However, the Contact header is only included in dialog-forming
   requests, so it does not provide this protection in all cases.

   It might seem attractive to provide a signature over some of the
   information present in the Via header field value(s).  For example,
   without a signature over the sent-by field of the topmost Via header,
   an attacker could remove that Via header and insert its own in a
   cut-and-paste attack, which would cause all responses to the request
   to be routed to a host of the attacker's choosing.  However, a
   signature over the topmost Via header does not prevent attacks of
   this nature, since the attacker could leave the topmost Via intact
   and merely insert a new Via header field directly after it, which
   would cause responses to be routed to the attacker's host "on their
   way" to the valid host, which has exactly the same end result.
   Although it is possible that an intermediary-based authentication
   service could guarantee that no Via hops are inserted between the
   sending user agent and the authentication service, it could not



Peterson & Jennings         Standards Track                    [Page 25]
^L
RFC 4474                      SIP Identity                   August 2006


   prevent an attacker from adding a Via hop after the authentication
   service, and thereby preempting responses.  It is necessary for the
   proper operation of SIP for subsequent intermediaries to be capable
   of inserting such Via header fields, and thus it cannot be prevented.
   As such, though it is desirable, securing Via is not possible through
   the sort of identity mechanism described in this document; the best
   known practice for securing Via is the use of SIPS.

   This mechanism also provides a signature over the bodies of SIP
   requests.  The most important reason for doing so is to protect
   Session Description Protocol (SDP) bodies carried in SIP requests.
   There is little purpose in establishing the identity of the user that
   originated a SIP request if this assurance is not coupled with a
   comparable assurance over the media descriptors.  Note, however, that
   this is not perfect end-to-end security.  The authentication service
   itself, when instantiated at a intermediary, could conceivably change
   the SDP (and SIP headers, for that matter) before providing a
   signature.  Thus, while this mechanism reduces the chance that a
   replayer or man-in-the-middle will modify SDP, it does not eliminate
   it entirely.  Since it is a foundational assumption of this mechanism
   that the users trust their local domain to vouch for their security,
   they must also trust the service not to violate the integrity of
   their message without good reason.  Note that RFC 3261, Section 16.6,
   states that SIP proxy servers "MUST NOT add to, modify, or remove the
   message body."

   In the end analysis, the Identity and Identity-Info headers cannot
   protect themselves.  Any attacker could remove these headers from a
   SIP request, and modify the request arbitrarily afterwards.  However,
   this mechanism is not intended to protect requests from men-in-the-
   middle who interfere with SIP messages; it is intended only to
   provide a way that SIP users can prove definitively that they are who
   they claim to be.  At best, by stripping identity information from a
   request, a man-in-the-middle could make it impossible to distinguish
   any illegitimate messages he would like to send from those messages
   sent by an authorized user.  However, it requires a considerably
   greater amount of energy to mount such an attack than it does to
   mount trivial impersonations by just copying someone else's From
   header field.  This mechanism provides a way that an authorized user
   can provide a definitive assurance of his identity that an
   unauthorized user, an impersonator, cannot.

   One additional respect in which the Identity-Info header cannot
   protect itself is the 'alg' parameter.  The 'alg' parameter is not
   included in the digest-string, and accordingly, a man-in-the-middle
   might attempt to modify the 'alg' parameter.  However, it is
   important to note that preventing men-in-the-middle is not the
   primary impetus for this mechanism.  Moreover, changing the 'alg'



Peterson & Jennings         Standards Track                    [Page 26]
^L
RFC 4474                      SIP Identity                   August 2006


   would at worst result in some sort of bid-down attack, and at best
   cause a failure in the verifier.  Note that only one valid 'alg'
   parameter is defined in this document and that thus there is
   currently no weaker algorithm to which the mechanism can be bid down.
   'alg' has been incorporated into this mechanism for forward-
   compatibility reasons in case the current algorithm exhibits
   weaknesses, and requires swift replacement, in the future.

13.2.  Display-Names and Identity

   As a matter of interface design, SIP user agents might render the
   display-name portion of the From header field of a caller as the
   identity of the caller; there is a significant precedent in email
   user interfaces for this practice.  As such, it might seem that the
   lack of a signature over the display-name is a significant omission.

   However, there are several important senses in which a signature over
   the display-name does not prevent impersonation.  In the first place,
   a particular display-name, like "Jon Peterson", is not unique in the
   world; many users in different administrative domains might
   legitimately claim that name.  Furthermore, enrollment practices for
   SIP-based services might have a difficult time discerning the
   legitimate display-name for a user; it is safe to assume that
   impersonators will be capable of creating SIP accounts with arbitrary
   display-names.  The same situation prevails in email today.  Note
   that an impersonator who attempted to replay a message with an
   Identity header, changing only the display-name in the From header
   field, would be detected by the other replay protection mechanisms
   described in Section 13.1.

   Of course, an authentication service can enforce policies about the
   display-name even if the display-name is not signed.  The exact
   mechanics for creating and operationalizing such policies is outside
   the scope of this document.  The effect of this policy would not be
   to prevent impersonation of a particular unique identifier like a SIP
   URI (since display-names are not unique identifiers), but to allow a
   domain to manage the claims made by its users.  If such policies are
   enforced, users would not be free to claim any display-name of their
   choosing.  In the absence of a signature, man-in-the-middle attackers
   could conceivably alter the display-names in a request with impunity.
   Note that the scope of this specification is impersonation attacks,
   however, and that a man-in-the-middle might also strip the Identity
   and Identity-Info headers from a message.

   There are many environments in which policies regarding the display-
   name aren't feasible.  Distributing bit-exact and internationalizable
   display-names to end-users as part of the enrollment or registration
   process would require mechanisms that are not explored in this



Peterson & Jennings         Standards Track                    [Page 27]
^L
RFC 4474                      SIP Identity                   August 2006


   document.  In the absence of policy enforcement regarding domain
   names, there are conceivably attacks that an adversary could mount
   against SIP systems that rely too heavily on the display-name in
   their user interface, but this argues for intelligent interface
   design, not changes to the mechanisms.  Relying on a non-unique
   identifier for identity would ultimately result in a weak mechanism.

13.3.  Securing the Connection to the Authentication Service

   The assurance provided by this mechanism is strongest when a user
   agent forms a direct connection, preferably one secured by TLS, to an
   intermediary-based authentication service.  The reasons for this are
   twofold:

      If a user does not receive a certificate from the authentication
      service over this TLS connection that corresponds to the expected
      domain (especially when the user receives a challenge via a
      mechanism such as Digest), then it is possible that a rogue server
      is attempting to pose as an authentication service for a domain
      that it does not control, possibly in an attempt to collect shared
      secrets for that domain.

      Without TLS, the various header field values and the body of the
      request will not have integrity protection when the request
      arrives at an authentication service.  Accordingly, a prior
      legitimate or illegitimate intermediary could modify the message
      arbitrarily.

   Of these two concerns, the first is most material to the intended
   scope of this mechanism.  This mechanism is intended to prevent
   impersonation attacks, not man-in-the-middle attacks; integrity over
   the header and bodies is provided by this mechanism only to prevent
   replay attacks.  However, it is possible that applications relying on
   the presence of the Identity header could leverage this integrity
   protection, especially body integrity, for services other than replay
   protection.

   Accordingly, direct TLS connections SHOULD be used between the UAC
   and the authentication service whenever possible.  The opportunistic
   nature of this mechanism, however, makes it very difficult to
   constrain UAC behavior, and moreover there will be some deployment
   architectures where a direct connection is simply infeasible and the
   UAC cannot act as an authentication service itself.  Accordingly,
   when a direct connection and TLS are not possible, a UAC should use
   the SIPS mechanism, Digest 'auth-int' for body integrity, or both
   when it can.  The ultimate decision to add an Identity header to a





Peterson & Jennings         Standards Track                    [Page 28]
^L
RFC 4474                      SIP Identity                   August 2006


   request lies with the authentication service, of course; domain
   policy must identify those cases where the UAC's security association
   with the authentication service is too weak.

13.4.  Domain Names and Subordination

   When a verifier processes a request containing an Identity-Info
   header, it must compare the domain portion of the URI in the From
   header field of the request with the domain name that is the subject
   of the certificate acquired from the Identity-Info header.  While it
   might seem that this should be a straightforward process, it is
   complicated by two deployment realities.  In the first place,
   certificates have varying ways of describing their subjects, and may
   indeed have multiple subjects, especially in 'virtual hosting' cases
   where multiple domains are managed by a single application.
   Secondly, some SIP services may delegate SIP functions to a
   subordinate domain and utilize the procedures in RFC 3263 [4] that
   allow requests for, say, 'example.com' to be routed to
   'sip.example.com'.  As a result, a user with the AoR
   'sip:jon@example.com' may process its requests through a host like
   'sip.example.com', and it may be that latter host that acts as an
   authentication service.

   To meet the second of these problems, a domain that deploys an
   authentication service on a subordinate host MUST be willing to
   supply that host with the private keying material associated with a
   certificate whose subject is a domain name that corresponds to the
   domain portion of the AoRs that the domain distributes to users.
   Note that this corresponds to the comparable case of routing inbound
   SIP requests to a domain.  When the NAPTR and SRV procedures of RFC
   3263 are used to direct requests to a domain name other than the
   domain in the original Request-URI (e.g., for 'sip:jon@example.com',
   the corresponding SRV records point to the service
   'sip1.example.org'), the client expects that the certificate passed
   back in any TLS exchange with that host will correspond exactly with
   the domain of the original Request-URI, not the domain name of the
   host.  Consequently, in order to make inbound routing to such SIP
   services work, a domain administrator must similarly be willing to
   share the domain's private key with the service.  This design
   decision was made to compensate for the insecurity of the DNS, and it
   makes certain potential approaches to DNS-based 'virtual hosting'
   unsecurable for SIP in environments where domain administrators are
   unwilling to share keys with hosting services.

   A verifier MUST evaluate the correspondence between the user's
   identity and the signing certificate by following the procedures
   defined in RFC 2818 [11], Section 3.1.  While RFC 2818 deals with the
   use of HTTP in TLS, the procedures described are applicable to



Peterson & Jennings         Standards Track                    [Page 29]
^L
RFC 4474                      SIP Identity                   August 2006


   verifying identity if one substitutes the "hostname of the server" in
   HTTP for the domain portion of the user's identity in the From header
   field of a SIP request with an Identity header.

   Because the domain certificates that can be used by authentication
   services need to assert only the hostname of the authentication
   service, existing certificate authorities can provide adequate
   certificates for this mechanism.  However, not all proxy servers and
   user agents will be able to support the root certificates of all
   certificate authorities, and moreover there are some significant
   differences in the policies by which certificate authorities issue
   their certificates.  This document makes no recommendations for the
   usage of particular certificate authorities, nor does it describe any
   particular policies that certificate authorities should follow, but
   it is anticipated that operational experience will create de facto
   standards for authentication services.  Some federations of service
   providers, for example, might only trust certificates that have been
   provided by a certificate authority operated by the federation.  It
   is strongly RECOMMENDED that self-signed domain certificates should
   not be trusted by verifiers, unless some previous key exchange has
   justified such trust.

   For further information on certificate security and practices, see
   RFC 3280 [9].  The Security Considerations of RFC 3280 are applicable
   to this document.

13.5.  Authorization and Transitional Strategies

   Ultimately, the worth of an assurance provided by an Identity header
   is limited by the security practices of the domain that issues the
   assurance.  Relying on an Identity header generated by a remote
   administrative domain assumes that the issuing domain used its
   administrative practices to authenticate its users.  However, it is
   possible that some domains will implement policies that effectively
   make users unaccountable (e.g., ones that accept unauthenticated
   registrations from arbitrary users).  The value of an Identity header
   from such domains is questionable.  While there is no magic way for a
   verifier to distinguish "good" from "bad" domains by inspecting a SIP
   request, it is expected that further work in authorization practices
   could be built on top of this identity solution; without such an
   identity solution, many promising approaches to authorization policy
   are impossible.  That much said, it is RECOMMENDED that
   authentication services based on proxy servers employ strong
   authentication practices such as token-based identifiers.

   One cannot expect the Identity and Identity-Info headers to be
   supported by every SIP entity overnight.  This leaves the verifier in
   a compromising position; when it receives a request from a given SIP



Peterson & Jennings         Standards Track                    [Page 30]
^L
RFC 4474                      SIP Identity                   August 2006


   user, how can it know whether or not the sender's domain supports
   Identity?  In the absence of ubiquitous support for identity, some
   transitional strategies are necessary.

      A verifier could remember when it receives a request from a domain
      that uses Identity, and in the future, view messages received from
      that domain without Identity headers with skepticism.

      A verifier could query the domain through some sort of callback
      system to determine whether or not it is running an authentication
      service.  There are a number of potential ways in which this could
      be implemented; use of the SIP OPTIONS method is one possibility.
      This is left as a subject for future work.

   In the long term, some sort of identity mechanism, either the one
   documented in this specification or a successor, must become
   mandatory-to-use for the SIP protocol; that is the only way to
   guarantee that this protection can always be expected by verifiers.

   Finally, it is worth noting that the presence or absence of the
   Identity headers cannot be the sole factor in making an authorization
   decision.  Permissions might be granted to a message on the basis of
   the specific verified Identity or really on any other aspect of a SIP
   request.  Authorization policies are outside the scope of this
   specification, but this specification advises any future
   authorization work not to assume that messages with valid Identity
   headers are always good.

14.  IANA Considerations

   This document requests changes to the header and response-code sub-
   registries of the SIP parameters IANA registry, and requests the
   creation of two new registries for parameters for the Identity-Info
   header.

14.1.  Header Field Names

   This document specifies two new SIP headers: Identity and Identity-
   Info.  Their syntax is given in Section 9.  These headers are defined
   by the following information, which has been added to the header
   sub-registry under http://www.iana.org/assignments/sip-parameters.

         Header Name: Identity
         Compact Form: y
         Header Name: Identity-Info
         Compact Form: n





Peterson & Jennings         Standards Track                    [Page 31]
^L
RFC 4474                      SIP Identity                   August 2006


14.2.  428 'Use Identity Header' Response Code

   This document registers a new SIP response code, which is described
   in Section 6.  It is sent when a verifier receives a SIP request that
   lacks an Identity header in order to indicate that the request should
   be re-sent with an Identity header.  This response code is defined by
   the following information, which has been added to the method and
   response-code sub-registry under
   http://www.iana.org/assignments/sip-parameters.

         Response Code Number: 428
         Default Reason Phrase: Use Identity Header

14.3.  436 'Bad Identity-Info' Response Code

   This document registers a new SIP response code, which is described
   in Section 6.  It is used when the Identity-Info header contains a
   URI that cannot be dereferenced by the verifier (either the URI
   scheme is unsupported by the verifier, or the resource designated by
   the URI is otherwise unavailable).  This response code is defined by
   the following information, which has been added to the method and
   response-code sub-registry under
   http://www.iana.org/assignments/sip-parameters.

         Response Code Number: 436
         Default Reason Phrase: Bad Identity-Info

14.4.  437 'Unsupported Certificate' Response Code

   This document registers a new SIP response code, which is described
   in Section 6.  It is used when the verifier cannot validate the
   certificate referenced by the URI of the Identity-Info header,
   because, for example, the certificate is self-signed, or signed by a
   root certificate authority for whom the verifier does not possess a
   root certificate.  This response code is defined by the following
   information, which has been added to the method and response-code
   sub-registry under http://www.iana.org/assignments/sip-parameters.

         Response Code Number: 437
         Default Reason Phrase: Unsupported Certificate











Peterson & Jennings         Standards Track                    [Page 32]
^L
RFC 4474                      SIP Identity                   August 2006


14.5.  438 'Invalid Identity Header' Response Code

   This document registers a new SIP response code, which is described
   in Section 6.  It is used when the verifier receives a message with
   an Identity signature that does not correspond to the digest-string
   calculated by the verifier.  This response code is defined by the
   following information, which has been added to the method and
   response-code sub-registry under
   http://www.iana.org/assignments/sip-parameters.

         Response Code Number: 438
         Default Reason Phrase: Invalid Identity Header

14.6.  Identity-Info Parameters

   The IANA has created a new registry for Identity-Info headers.  This
   registry is to be prepopulated with a single entry for a parameter
   called 'alg', which describes the algorithm used to create the
   signature that appears in the Identity header.  Registry entries must
   contain the name of the parameter and the specification in which the
   parameter is defined.  New parameters for the Identity-Info header
   may be defined only in Standards Track RFCs.

14.7.  Identity-Info Algorithm Parameter Values

   The IANA has created a new registry for Identity-Info 'alg' parameter
   values.  This registry is to be prepopulated with a single entry for
   a value called 'rsa-sha1', which describes the algorithm used to
   create the signature that appears in the Identity header.  Registry
   entries must contain the name of the 'alg' parameter value and the
   specification in which the value is described.  New values for the
   'alg' parameter may be defined only in Standards Track RFCs.



















Peterson & Jennings         Standards Track                    [Page 33]
^L
RFC 4474                      SIP Identity                   August 2006


Appendix A.  Acknowledgements

   The authors would like to thank Eric Rescorla, Rohan Mahy, Robert
   Sparks, Jonathan Rosenberg, Mark Watson, Henry Sinnreich, Alan
   Johnston, Patrik Faltstrom, Paul Kyzviat, Adam Roach, John Elwell,
   Aki Niemi, and Jim Schaad for their comments.  Jonathan Rosenberg
   provided detailed fixes to innumerable sections of the document.  The
   bit-archive presented in Appendix B follows the pioneering example of
   RFC 4475 [16].  Thanks to Hans Persson and Tao Wan for thorough nit
   reviews.

Appendix B.  Bit-Exact Archive of Examples of Messages

   The following text block is an encoded, gzip-compressed TAR archive
   of files that represent the transformations performed on the examples
   of messages discussed in Section 10.  It includes for each example:

   o  (foo).message: the original message
   o  (foo).canonical: the canonical string constructed from that
      message
   o  (foo).sha1: the SHA1 hash of the canonical string (hexadecimal)
   o  (foo).signed: the RSA-signed SHA1 hash of the canonical string
      (binary)
   o  (foo).signed.enc: the base64 encoding of the RSA-signed SHA1 hash
      of the canonical string as it would appear in the request
   o  (foo).identity: the original message with the Identity and
      Identity-Info headers added

   Also included in the archive are two public key/certificate pairs,
   for atlanta.example.com and biloxi.example.org, respectively,
   including:

   o  (foo).cer: the certificate of the domain
   o  (foo).privkey: the private key of the domain
   o  (foo).pubkey: the public key of the domain, extracted from the
      cert file for convenience

   To recover the compressed archive file intact, the text of this
   document may be passed as input to the following Perl script (the
   output should be redirected to a file or piped to "tar -xzvf -").











Peterson & Jennings         Standards Track                    [Page 34]
^L
RFC 4474                      SIP Identity                   August 2006


   #!/usr/bin/perl
   use strict;
   my $bdata = "";
   use MIME::Base64;
   while(<>) {
    if (/-- BEGIN MESSAGE ARCHIVE --/ .. /-- END MESSAGE ARCHIVE --/) {
        if ( m/^\s*[^\s]+\s*$/) {
            $bdata = $bdata . $_;
        }
     }
   }
   print decode_base64($bdata);

   Alternatively, the base-64 encoded block can be edited by hand to
   remove document structure lines and fed as input to any base-64
   decoding utility.

B.1.  Encoded Reference Files

   -- BEGIN MESSAGE ARCHIVE --
   H4sICFfaz0QCA25ld2lkZW50LnRhcgDsW0us5NhZ7gUSwqiF2CAhFikiIQhFt992
   +U46it+u8qPK5Uc9WPlVfj/KdpXtomEDCxaAhFggISE2WSHCIoIFioQQC8gqAhRA
   QQTY8JJAbMgGIYTv7b7T09PT0xNl+mqS3F8qVd3jY/uc85//+87/nXOLoIv9oGjB
   B2/PIAiDSBwfv1GERInxG8EwAh6/37UHMIQRKIljCI4+gGCUGKtP8Ad3YKemderJ
   5EFSBW1QN2Xxmnp5GtblqXqUPfIffBdZcet/p82conUee0H9sfsfhiACw17nfwQa
   y+Dra+MkQGFkrI+TOPJgAt37/63bo2tjeHGuTVh+bc6FOUub/E0poM7nLGqyLJ06
   Id3NGTocPxytMWF6jNJYpDqIoXVLoDlmr+pNx+o7ztZ1ke8WtnXhFUClU5GGLZ6l
   O3YN8T3P0Usm1GyG9lQGEiBXFE6+yPecSSvPykuV4TPB5ne9xNEO8KxQVXnk3cqn
   /TaK3C3T7A08cRGokyJPUzmrV7k5pHK7i5bQyOambNcDLxUmH9zMD2sl8FGa+WGt
   BG6bGe5nHafvFnK5n0dnT6N1nmF0mgt3EK3OxQVdiuMzZrNOhPxNOF37W7w4LmsL
   OA0Mpeqt7RTKTrDX1CztZgezbM7rLlvQeBnhWzWOV5qDZEdMahLZTo8Wq0oZOL4X
   FgkgMhY4pNBdU53sHVvlaIX5TjqH0+JkYXAXmmzgSI7H9N3RvHingrIOAUIzCph4
   GhsdHGDwET+WCO5SuDtwxXKNvneGYrWiQ5WhaTEJXb0LXb6Trgd2DS0ZZscLWm6B
   au3aO48HZK4GEWgzN2oRTuBaG/vLXA+aZKh8kDBYyJj7bHWREXgjMWxIgFQrxPyx
   b3eUc3EEH6iEptuYL1zFRCpr22rPXujFs9EPx0s+o67pbhzRa/eOjvEZX+wjt1hH
   gKpDHdvdXJA5er1Y22tRXXed+KwyxzFadFtZyW1st4E7V7ROO4Rqw5Cnx6ncXb/Z
   5ztdUOmx34dX3Ck8cydPc76+a5uO4XLTMI9Q3iIwDJBOloNbUahd5OK7FnQu637t
   L/cQdlSHel5tRVjh84Jfhl7pDfV2zZyPeEVs3D3t8XoKAVzDo3YAad6sp4r8nCUb
   UmxUUWAL9lRiS848gHAm+nZNcQF78RIY2lk6qq6DnFO30Q4B2JaLG2WTkcZ2uVx7
   ezqGS4vqngA30c5r3KsI8ODevsvtFf6v6vicBsMd8j+ME+Qt/0PjAnCsT5AQes//
   d8z/a4OerNZze4z+iczvXqwBtvrI+7TMhDq3WqlMK9nlKt3a0z2RHGGlCQ8jMtub
   akAY2zocFupKgghFgbyFoS8BZx7Yl3mZXDZt5ZwYcj5kezmjEwY/YCO4rk+lFQc+
   26mK7GYb+rhviUDaVKy2X5DZUvOAOd8VeYQUtOfJ6QxVKtCW0DakDRBDOb3cIk3h
   F7toGs5wBFldupDkxU1TXS7dnKN1mgFumFWGNmhb8AJH0omt08VC23Jtj1O0A9sn
   ZMFvA6KMp8s6FYZmkbj7RdcoudzWYdsCq+3SmrVIvq9iqJOxaIu1+6ho406UU2vF
   ohHFJNVUDOr4sEIxeK0O6nJKHFZhclxeLK4DpvUqSdSqG1+eerx35ELXrPfF5gzq
   BWs4joD2qSUehFTp8aXsremUp0mrLxp+tnVMFALaFWhZHg6HWorIohz2um5KZcV4
   QUcNh4BdC9HZV8ikckSn5WM83neiONKavbQlS4MlANoplaQn67JbMLQ2XSPumQa1



Peterson & Jennings         Standards Track                    [Page 35]
^L
RFC 4474                      SIP Identity                   August 2006


   OD9iBLYPiyDjudXR4en9xuHQdHmIDGp6VsjyyBvTE85DwIJMty65T2PDtkJqa4Gz
   Va/KPcjRF8i38qUytVhdmrEUb1rqHDnx7lFyGd+2RC1FCYwFOMErfKO3oymKyceF
   n8Q7oyfs1eqMEFsqJw1oOfhmaoQNCmJluerLmeSox20+g1idmdZA7zKolVXLMvKY
   TpCp3KwzlSHYhjpmBCGHXZEp1CnlI0nalZdxHPxtUDLsEFlNGfqGBRCgY9CCd97w
   YpuQ4HlY8Kyus6wBZ3LIb0tNXx2XmpOdd9EwqPv1VlB8Dgvdbr2S4dNWBnZVirLp
   Qbgsh0MSKJ646reXI3K8nKSLaHL9nlrRQdVtsbWRviDVDwyrTzD+n9yPGf7fhP8j
   5kO3+I/AN/k/gZHYPf7fMf6vLEaZs++FfvGg0pDIGkfRmLsj2PLX6R5NY6JGcywT
   6x9OCcDrOOGjUgLwOk74qJQAvJYT3o3O93f6e3b958ZZ2cdvQ/55s/6DvEf/QbBr
   /YeAifv4/yToP3DCsnQyfZP+s32j/mOO6Tp3ub75uf6TLipXpDDH5DWVbp7VCzve
   sGxrnfDuWEEErgvprjN2eda4aFS9PzVXGWzLmTSsmvSgcTQyfgYtK6/LkOsy4D2F
   nX15k4AAm6p+k9Y/FxD2LOBs+nMgph+o/YgXev+u9pM/746BZ4EotJ7YZ0qunQHX
   ZJni8v5B4wWaXjKJTnfhLmWvRYMzIXYbFjI5jFzInZwlZZR0gmoAGoi39e6ENYEk
   HsO0UyJ7umXRkl/i+LGOLxE6zD3bkFOqoJYZrS3Mo5bYjjSc16cLjwvABjZ3Tbgw
   EIHu51MYjruBLihkPUwjBwTDKJjJ0MqZLpQpjMVG40i2HhaHDtNTcH08ZDpASGdm
   Vh2T7DzUC/SINbE6epSnaWfJNGP36oT2b+QcHeOFULeg/XStYOQGpFdc6+EMcDBK
   fXviBR7sukN3IxIljBR2fkm/UvlF3SHaEOu9Kng98MJNO5PObPM9s20E9IU2zrbV
   NVXduLbrRP35fLmVfYCXdZ9mrHGr+yzi5y5+n7CIsCNRdBx901oTYGirG/vMgJcP
   mP/XeqHOxIMszduZuT2I2qEqFtsYT9j4suzz3WwHhFkxa4eV4ATDkcJN0Tub7Obi
   l4xiVww3PVTrTb0F53O84Qlbcl16TBnsXHb33UWn26oCVojgnBJk1lLYPuAkDTkf
   L8mhkBJ2iWCpiC5OB8ScQXFWUTvJ47o+sYS6nRFWkbHTIfaBwTGDU7PBxRN5hsMn
   97rPvb3K/29B/nmz/kOit/wPI+NaYFz/49j9/s8nR/8Jb/UfFixdZqes1VXSpDV9
   3CxjcUVb/RwFc6SNybjHPOfImvRJ2OKeEoQ6QBb58aQspcM86u350UQOEGHRULYs
   Ec0uDzIlkqqZ2q6txQOdKTuL4xNyu1G4OXtA95ICEEINTlmB7GqdqrH0TG7jhdyX
   vs2yPshFrEmJ1dTmymAmDflxuQHlpgjqeJi/pP8syEMjzOWtnCabMJmljbhsIwM1
   CpjqVwY78D7TH/gcWSUkqF0uQRaDK2/pxB6UAouR+r3iqCEHiQ/mogxSvcX05ukQ
   6jt7cTwPEr9uiHq7BWMT2xU51cIUhPOxTu0rqannADguEKwdDeu1GNJz6bxXbOVy
   nFKywvH7qaS7J1ZZbIUp4WYQ7+LMtf5DoESp0loF6Q4K5LsNryOnNhebXZ9ujcPA
   uPDMZJcd2w5Q4TNrBLsMy4WAaO7eoGbKZSo6CB4d5mIHLiQZKDjKXfKzmXWj/zBr
   o/IxNzemOTZbgzDarnmDbqXj4GtxsYVSA1xHnVSTeSqZFpqCKiD0etuj2BwV5Yuz
   79UCoglCNqgzaEh+IUyD1Y2YIgak3kTDfnaKW2XV7jkvYzcRL0vAkdal3OL3Z0tA
   bEmp3VOqKMtQsmpJcxDMmytnzEcHh7WtoB1yzTsNZhfJCYJ1Ap3SS+ACJj3MV5mG
   Rp0y1Zos25ebOT47nU8kSB8RD/UuR8cWGddFYbKR2F0op5BLi2jaLdE8BigUVLYb
   E/b8eGdXOeNJ3M1I51WYCsm035/wcEMbO/yUnKcCq66gTedIeGQW29O0lQNgtUB9
   ZL7Yy71YZETcymuNFIN1RK0MGUr3Y5osBHZ9bhaYVlYvEewnVwN6Bf8/fvnnW9N/
   yBv9B8Wge/z/jtB/Xk8JwOs44aNSAvA6TviolAC8lhPu9Z9X4n8IHntOURax52R3
   G//jAvD5+S8MxbGb9R8K38f/nVgTV1du6X7+OfwHvZNXWfC4rMOn15ecLPaCz9/u
   Ddxe9cr8qTPDXMwjiYAgRtx+iqDwhNnxT83o9DMTBJ4IgTtBRkdPYOwKpq5weCKq
   5tOn9wnXJzn+b37F7cdM/2/M/2AUe3H+E7vZ/0eg+/2fO7ExZicvAr3yUPTxB0T7
   xJivQOQx9BCwY+fq9i/QVIwJTI2/HiOPsXfc2im86MmFikTMlQunifwGHm9Rnf6R
   UNadU/vN1YQcS4S6zK8mTOlOPvt6/PncO60TPnEIb4Z7h4eAWV5N6OtGPrvntcD0
   7LaxVTMUgkkSewhwThtcTT4UmB4CrJNlj+bc1eRlXBsvGMHxavIc3h4C8+chcjX5
   dHPGWbOEcPlYGXkrtajv8fEShNmNaezbQkRjewoX+alWtjYo5e2gGaTS1iHlZ326
   uZQPgckLCyzSJ5f2TOoC0+RK10bj1szDVccKicPn6sDPUZ80Bg2BB40rEX4NLs9h
   20HKCfeaefXSw6rVcRnCp23hXyRXJPM1sc4oprAi6XSw126Fw2qBdlB4sJonn37R
   p0fz4jCO8mejtq2aKxB81Sfv2SX63DtOFj6pG+dREznwOE5l0Y6PeaQERdhGV5Nx
   6O7R9TsM//OgaZwwuOP9Pwh7cf57hH7i5vw3gd/j/z3+fyz4/1Gh/XsSwV6K/2sk
   fwvveFP8QyRxm/9hY43r+Efg+/Ofd2KGRMM/9VLu/5knkwM5IyjUP6A4jPuI5wfU
   GEw4jsEocX2ghnQdGMbgA3bP8N9l8R+HReDfefwj7/7/H0ZCOPHs/A95H/93YV/6



Peterson & Jennings         Standards Track                    [Page 36]
^L
RFC 4474                      SIP Identity                   August 2006


   P0b7Veqnf3f9W3/5n9/42+/75f/65g/4f3X4+p/9w0/8wt8Mv/97f/jX/zt88Stf
   +/Ljv/unb379+OvZvw3aN/7jn59+6vt/Q7n6sU3/RS36oT/5cS+a/8pXGLL7gy+R
   eY1dET/8qa/+8Q9Wf/HlP6r/9DNf+J9f+8Wf/c3f/vs/z4p/Eb8Q/PePfu2Xfu53
   rB/59381fvIfH05+Xr6PwE9c/D8OCu9u4/+F/nt9BOBG/yXuz//djf77bYoYwLcr
   XADfilhxv+B4a/EfF+e4fTtbQG+Kfxy6Pv+D4SiMosTN+V9yzAnu4/9O4v9DN3k+
   ZHfoffs/6JgQ4NRkrtlz84N2gdArCLmC0JtdoDfrDU/PT8bsu3xiNUFN/3875/Pa
   NBiH8Yt6CBS0Q2SDYcYEkSl9k75Nmkmn7ebWde2WLm3646Jp2q7FtU2btq496EGc
   KMgu4sH5a4dN8NccCMLYP6AMwcv+Bg/e1NMuZimTdlvXyWxx4/s5pQ0N5SXPk/d9
   nrclaSuHrBhbaKb6cHiUHOYxWe8SBkK1CTFVTWbSpDDAGwjZ1vATeRvaWPWnbFIh
   msyQmKNYmhz38Sa7yG+ckGy5vJKSlF5E8v0ev8mq3bwHPCTYqv9mVEAN9//p+Z+m
   f9qCMMvqv/+k4fnfEiqCJbcJfVPnuyR/9XS0YxBorSR4jTK/zWywKUlfjUftlEvW
   a4qqzKsSE0pyvrf629Ubir6awigcGnVEnP0IiZ5wjr4ezjNiqr/IZ9IBl2eo6PU5
   BrITiUwg5p5yxcsOWqKUKXvOLE7kHEhQBbtU0/Ek4+p4NDnGZ7zh0FiJvpETJxKF
   hKx6Is6AXxicGmYUJmvxjXmDTk+qzBSuZMxq0aUKTszlE6WhdM3FBkU5XZLCPT2l
   8UlHKOT1ubOBsqtnREzwI5G436TkSgkxzYVkxr9bYbTDCFT/r0y9yshXUrRhlxRF
   G0sprxm2SY0q2/NYCrMGwkDAo6GZ/t+MCqhh/4/MVf2Pvv7DDMz/wP8Pg/+DyQEH
   yP+bUQE23P+JqD/zfxpZ9P5fewv8vwXo/d/W7OecjaRZhGWaZq04LtGUjCPIwkUQ
   krUXmI1xEstIUQmbOVD/IdN/EyrAPfZ/Ff2z+v5P7RD03wpit+2TyoevQvtisv3j
   fJz48e1pxN3xs+1I74vpO89MxqurnY/XnlxeLFx702lcIjvurZ8ods/MHQtevPD+
   bbBr+dR5amnN25XtflV+/fCLPbs62/fO+OD7yqzx9EzqbtfLk4GznxZurp+JHZ0+
   7l5+tPr8vtj2OfXr0sLKnHgrqM6DAv9H/f/bCnCP/Z+ufzOm9PyfhfVfS9hvJkXs
   N4ci/iZ7gtkGAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABAPX4DY+BfEQB4AAA=
   -- END MESSAGE ARCHIVE --




























Peterson & Jennings         Standards Track                    [Page 37]
^L
RFC 4474                      SIP Identity                   August 2006


Appendix C.  Original Requirements

   The following requirements were crafted throughout the development of
   the mechanism described in this document.  They are preserved here
   for historical reasons.

   o  The mechanism must allow a UAC or a proxy server to provide a
      strong cryptographic identity assurance in a request that can be
      verified by a proxy server or UAS.
   o  User agents that receive identity assurances must be able to
      validate these assurances without performing any network lookup.
   o  User agents that hold certificates on behalf of their user must be
      capable of adding this identity assurance to requests.
   o  Proxy servers that hold certificates on behalf of their domain
      must be capable of adding this identity assurance to requests; a
      UAC is not required to support this mechanism in order for an
      identity assurance to be added to a request in this fashion.
   o  The mechanism must prevent replay of the identity assurance by an
      attacker.
   o  In order to provide full replay protection, the mechanism must be
      capable of protecting the integrity of SIP message bodies (to
      ensure that media offers and answers are linked to the signaling
      identity).
   o  It must be possible for a user to have multiple AoRs (i.e.,
      accounts or aliases) that it is authorized to use within a
      domain, and for the UAC to assert one identity while
      authenticating itself as another, related, identity, as permitted
      by the local policy of the domain.























Peterson & Jennings         Standards Track                    [Page 38]
^L
RFC 4474                      SIP Identity                   August 2006


References

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]   Peterson, J., "A Privacy Mechanism for the Session Initiation
         Protocol (SIP)", RFC 3323, November 2002.

   [4]   Rosenberg, J. and H. Schulzrinne, "Session Initiation Protocol
         (SIP): Locating SIP Servers", RFC 3263, June 2002.

   [5]   Peterson, J., "Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Authenticated
         Identity Body (AIB) Format", RFC 3893, September 2004.

   [6]   Crocker, D. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax
         Specifications: ABNF", RFC 4234, October 2005.

   [7]   Housley, R., "Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS) Algorithms",
         RFC 3370, August 2002.

   [8]   Josefsson, S., "The Base16, Base32, and Base64 Data Encodings",
         RFC 3548, July 2003.

   [9]   Housley, R., Polk, W., Ford, W., and D. Solo, "Internet X.509
         Public Key Infrastructure Certificate and Certificate
         Revocation List (CRL) Profile", RFC 3280, April 2002.

   [10]  Housley, R. and P. Hoffman, "Internet X.509 Public Key
         Infrastructure Operational Protocols: FTP and HTTP", RFC 2585,
         May 1999.

   [11]  Rescorla, E., "HTTP Over TLS", RFC 2818, May 2000.

Informative References

   [12]  Jennings, C., Peterson, J., and M. Watson, "Private Extensions
         to the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) for Asserted Identity
         within Trusted Networks", RFC 3325, November 2002.

   [13]  Schulzrinne, H., "The tel URI for Telephone Numbers", RFC 3966,
         December 2004.




Peterson & Jennings         Standards Track                    [Page 39]
^L
RFC 4474                      SIP Identity                   August 2006


   [14]  Faltstrom, P. and M. Mealling, "The E.164 to Uniform Resource
         Identifiers (URI) Dynamic Delegation Discovery System (DDDS)
         Application (ENUM)", RFC 3761, April 2004.

   [15]  Peterson, J., "Retargeting and Security in SIP: A Framework and
         Requirements", Work in Progress, February 2005.

   [16]  Sparks, R., Ed., Hawrylyshen, A., Johnston, A., Rosenberg, J.,
         and H. Schulzrinne, "Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Torture
         Test Messages, RFC 4475, May 2006.

Authors' Addresses

   Jon Peterson
   NeuStar, Inc.
   1800 Sutter St
   Suite 570
   Concord, CA  94520
   US

   Phone: +1 925/363-8720
   EMail: jon.peterson@neustar.biz
   URI:   http://www.neustar.biz/


   Cullen Jennings
   Cisco Systems
   170 West Tasman Drive
   MS: SJC-21/2
   San Jose, CA  95134
   USA

   Phone: +1 408 902-3341
   EMail: fluffy@cisco.com

















Peterson & Jennings         Standards Track                    [Page 40]
^L
RFC 4474                      SIP Identity                   August 2006


Full Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).

   This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
   contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
   retain all their rights.

   This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
   "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
   OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET
   ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
   INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE
   INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
   WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.

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.

Acknowledgement

   Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF
   Administrative Support Activity (IASA).







Peterson & Jennings         Standards Track                    [Page 41]
^L