path: root/doc/rfc/rfc7118.txt

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)                   I. Baz Castillo
Request for Comments: 7118                            J. Millan Villegas
Category: Standards Track                                      Versatica
ISSN: 2070-1721                                               V. Pascual
                                                                  Quobis
                                                            January 2014


             The WebSocket Protocol as a Transport for the
                   Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)

Abstract

   The WebSocket protocol enables two-way real-time communication
   between clients and servers in web-based applications.  This document
   specifies a WebSocket subprotocol as a reliable transport mechanism
   between Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) entities to enable use of
   SIP in web-oriented deployments.

Status of This Memo

   This is an Internet Standards Track document.

   This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
   (IETF).  It represents the consensus of the IETF community.  It has
   received public review and has been approved for publication by the
   Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG).  Further information on
   Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 5741.

   Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
   and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
   http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7118.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.




Baz Castillo, et al.         Standards Track                    [Page 1]
^L
RFC 7118            WebSocket as a Transport for SIP        January 2014


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   2.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     2.1.  Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  The WebSocket Protocol  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   4.  The WebSocket SIP Subprotocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     4.1.  Handshake . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     4.2.  SIP Encoding  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   5.  SIP WebSocket Transport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     5.1.  Via Transport Parameter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     5.2.  SIP URI Transport Parameter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     5.3.  Via "received" Parameter  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     5.4.  SIP Transport Implementation Requirements . . . . . . . .   7
     5.5.  Locating a SIP Server . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   6.  Connection Keep-Alive . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   7.  Authentication  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   8.  Examples  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     8.1.  Registration  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     8.2.  INVITE Dialog through a Proxy . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   9.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
     9.1.  Secure WebSocket Connection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
     9.2.  Usage of "sips" Scheme  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
   10. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
     10.1.  Registration of the WebSocket SIP Subprotocol  . . . . .  16
     10.2.  Registration of New NAPTR Service Field Values . . . . .  17
     10.3.  SIP/SIPS URI Parameters Subregistry  . . . . . . . . . .  17
     10.4.  Header Fields Subregistry  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
     10.5.  Header Field Parameters and Parameter Values Subregistry  17
     10.6.  SIP Transport Subregistry  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
   11. Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
   12. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
     12.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
     12.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
   Appendix A.  Authentication Use Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  21
     A.1.  Just SIP Authentication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  21
     A.2.  Just Web Authentication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  21
     A.3.  Cookie-Based Authentication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  22
   Appendix B.  Implementation Guidelines  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  22
     B.1.  SIP WebSocket Client Considerations . . . . . . . . . . .  23
     B.2.  SIP WebSocket Server Considerations . . . . . . . . . . .  24










Baz Castillo, et al.         Standards Track                    [Page 2]
^L
RFC 7118            WebSocket as a Transport for SIP        January 2014


1.  Introduction

   The WebSocket protocol [RFC6455] enables message exchange between
   clients and servers on top of a persistent TCP connection (optionally
   secured with Transport Layer Security (TLS) [RFC5246]).  The initial
   protocol handshake makes use of HTTP [RFC2616] semantics, allowing
   the WebSocket protocol to reuse existing HTTP infrastructure.

   Modern web browsers include a WebSocket client stack complying with
   the WebSocket API [WS-API] as specified by the W3C.  It is expected
   that other client applications (those running in personal computers
   and devices such as smartphones) will also make a WebSocket client
   stack available.  The specification in this document enables use of
   SIP in these scenarios.

   This specification defines a WebSocket subprotocol (as defined in
   Section 1.9 of [RFC6455]) for transporting SIP messages between a
   WebSocket client and server, a reliable and message-boundary-
   preserving transport for SIP, and DNS Naming Authority Pointer
   (NAPTR) [RFC3403] service values and procedures for SIP entities
   implementing the WebSocket transport.  Media transport is out of the
   scope of this document.

   Section 3 in this specification relaxes the requirement in [RFC3261]
   by which the SIP server transport MUST add a "received" parameter in
   the top Via header in certain circumstances.

2.  Terminology

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].

2.1.  Definitions

   SIP WebSocket Client:  A SIP entity capable of opening outbound
         connections to WebSocket servers and communicating using the
         WebSocket SIP subprotocol as defined by this document.

   SIP WebSocket Server:  A SIP entity capable of listening for inbound
         connections from WebSocket clients and communicating using the
         WebSocket SIP subprotocol as defined by this document.

3.  The WebSocket Protocol

   The WebSocket protocol [RFC6455] is a transport layer on top of TCP
   (optionally secured with TLS [RFC5246]) in which both client and
   server exchange message units in both directions.  The protocol



Baz Castillo, et al.         Standards Track                    [Page 3]
^L
RFC 7118            WebSocket as a Transport for SIP        January 2014


   defines a connection handshake, WebSocket subprotocol and extensions
   negotiation, a frame format for sending application and control data,
   a masking mechanism, and status codes for indicating disconnection
   causes.

   The WebSocket connection handshake is based on HTTP [RFC2616] and
   utilizes the HTTP GET method with an "Upgrade" request.  This is sent
   by the client and then answered by the server (if the negotiation
   succeeded) with an HTTP 101 status code.  Once the handshake is
   completed, the connection upgrades from HTTP to the WebSocket
   protocol.  This handshake procedure is designed to reuse the existing
   HTTP infrastructure.  During the connection handshake, the client and
   server agree on the application protocol to use on top of the
   WebSocket transport.  Such an application protocol (also known as a
   "WebSocket subprotocol") defines the format and semantics of the
   messages exchanged by the endpoints.  This could be a custom protocol
   or a standardized one (as defined by the WebSocket SIP subprotocol in
   this document).  Once the HTTP 101 response is processed, both the
   client and server reuse the underlying TCP connection for sending
   WebSocket messages and control frames to each other.  Unlike plain
   HTTP, this connection is persistent and can be used for multiple
   message exchanges.

   WebSocket defines message units to be used by applications for the
   exchange of data, so it provides a message-boundary-preserving
   transport layer.  These message units can contain either UTF-8 text
   or binary data and can be split into multiple WebSocket text/binary
   transport frames as needed by the WebSocket stack.

      The WebSocket API [WS-API] for web browsers only defines callbacks
      to be invoked upon receipt of an entire message unit, regardless
      of whether it was received in a single WebSocket frame or split
      across multiple frames.

4.  The WebSocket SIP Subprotocol

   The term WebSocket subprotocol refers to an application-level
   protocol layered on top of a WebSocket connection.  This document
   specifies the WebSocket SIP subprotocol for carrying SIP requests and
   responses through a WebSocket connection.

4.1.  Handshake

   The SIP WebSocket Client and SIP WebSocket Server negotiate usage of
   the WebSocket SIP subprotocol during the WebSocket handshake
   procedure as defined in Section 1.3 of [RFC6455].  The client MUST





Baz Castillo, et al.         Standards Track                    [Page 4]
^L
RFC 7118            WebSocket as a Transport for SIP        January 2014


   include the value "sip" in the Sec-WebSocket-Protocol header in its
   handshake request.  The 101 reply from the server MUST contain "sip"
   in its corresponding Sec-WebSocket-Protocol header.

      The WebSocket client initiates a WebSocket connection when
      attempting to send a SIP request (unless there is an already
      established WebSocket connection for sending the SIP request).  In
      case there is no HTTP 101 response during the WebSocket handshake,
      it is considered a transaction error as per [RFC3261],
      Section 8.1.3.1., "Transaction Layer Errors".

   Below is an example of a WebSocket handshake in which the client
   requests the WebSocket SIP subprotocol support from the server:

     GET / HTTP/1.1
     Host: sip-ws.example.com
     Upgrade: websocket
     Connection: Upgrade
     Sec-WebSocket-Key: dGhlIHNhbXBsZSBub25jZQ==
     Origin: http://www.example.com
     Sec-WebSocket-Protocol: sip
     Sec-WebSocket-Version: 13

   The handshake response from the server accepting the WebSocket SIP
   subprotocol would look as follows:

     HTTP/1.1 101 Switching Protocols
     Upgrade: websocket
     Connection: Upgrade
     Sec-WebSocket-Accept: s3pPLMBiTxaQ9kYGzzhZRbK+xOo=
     Sec-WebSocket-Protocol: sip

   Once the negotiation has been completed, the WebSocket connection is
   established and can be used for the transport of SIP requests and
   responses.  Messages other than SIP requests and responses MUST NOT
   be transmitted over this connection.

4.2.  SIP Encoding

   WebSocket messages can be transported in either UTF-8 text frames or
   binary frames.  SIP [RFC3261] allows both text and binary bodies in
   SIP requests and responses.  Therefore, SIP WebSocket Clients and SIP
   WebSocket Servers MUST accept both text and binary frames.

      If there is at least one non-UTF-8 symbol in the whole SIP message
      (including headers and the body), then the whole message MUST be
      sent within a WebSocket binary message.  Given the nature of




Baz Castillo, et al.         Standards Track                    [Page 5]
^L
RFC 7118            WebSocket as a Transport for SIP        January 2014


      JavaScript and the WebSocket API, it is RECOMMENDED to use UTF-8
      encoding (or ASCII, which is a subset of UTF-8) for SIP messages
      carried over a WebSocket connection.

5.  SIP WebSocket Transport

   WebSocket [RFC6455] is a reliable protocol; therefore, the SIP
   WebSocket subprotocol defined by this document is a reliable SIP
   transport.  Thus, client and server transactions using WebSocket for
   transport MUST follow the procedures and timer values for reliable
   transports as defined in [RFC3261].

   Each SIP message MUST be carried within a single WebSocket message,
   and a WebSocket message MUST NOT contain more than one SIP message.
   Because the WebSocket transport preserves message boundaries, the use
   of the Content-Length header in SIP messages is not necessary when
   they are transported using the WebSocket subprotocol.

      This simplifies the parsing of SIP messages for both clients and
      servers.  There is no need to establish message boundaries using
      Content-Length headers between messages.  Other SIP transports,
      such as UDP and the Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP)
      [RFC4168], also provide this benefit.

5.1.  Via Transport Parameter

   Via header fields in SIP messages carry a transport protocol
   identifier.  This document defines the value "WS" to be used for
   requests over plain WebSocket connections and "WSS" for requests over
   secure WebSocket connections (in which the WebSocket connection is
   established using TLS [RFC5246] with TCP transport).

   The updated augmented BNF (Backus-Naur Form) [RFC5234] for this
   parameter is the following (the original BNF for this parameter can
   be found in [RFC3261], which was then updated by [RFC4168]):

     transport  =/  "WS" / "WSS"

5.2.  SIP URI Transport Parameter

   This document defines the value "ws" as the transport parameter value
   for a SIP URI [RFC3986] to be contacted using the SIP WebSocket
   subprotocol as transport.

   The updated augmented BNF for this parameter is the following (the
   original BNF for this parameter can be found in [RFC3261]):

     transport-param  =/  "transport=" "ws"



Baz Castillo, et al.         Standards Track                    [Page 6]
^L
RFC 7118            WebSocket as a Transport for SIP        January 2014


5.3.  Via "received" Parameter

   The following is stated in [RFC3261], Section 18.2.1, "Receiving
   Requests":

      When the server transport receives a request over any transport,
      it MUST examine the value of the "sent-by" parameter in the top
      Via header field value.  If the host portion of the "sent-by"
      field contains a domain name, or if it contains an IP address that
      differs from the packet source address, the server MUST add a
      "received" parameter to that Via header field value.  This
      parameter MUST contain the source address from which the packet
      was received.

   The requirement of adding the "received" parameter does not fit well
   into the WebSocket protocol design.  The WebSocket connection
   handshake reuses the existing HTTP infrastructure in which there
   could be an unknown number of HTTP proxies and/or TCP load balancers
   between the SIP WebSocket Client and Server, so the source address
   the server would write into the Via "received" parameter would be the
   address of the HTTP/TCP intermediary in front of it.  This could
   reveal sensitive information about the internal topology of the
   server's network to the client.

   Given the fact that SIP responses can only be sent over the existing
   WebSocket connection, the Via "received" parameter is of little use.
   Therefore, in order to allow hiding possible sensitive information
   about the SIP WebSocket Server's network, this document updates
   [RFC3261], Section 18.2.1 by stating:

      When a SIP WebSocket Server receives a request, it MAY decide not
      to add a "received" parameter to the top Via header.  Therefore,
      SIP WebSocket Clients MUST accept responses without such a
      parameter in the top Via header regardless of whether the Via
      "sent-by" field contains a domain name.

5.4.  SIP Transport Implementation Requirements

   The following is stated in [RFC3261], Section 18, "Transport":

      All SIP elements MUST implement UDP and TCP.  SIP elements MAY
      implement other protocols.

   The specification of this transport enables SIP to be used as a
   session establishment protocol in scenarios where none of the other
   transport protocols defined for SIP can be used.  Since some





Baz Castillo, et al.         Standards Track                    [Page 7]
^L
RFC 7118            WebSocket as a Transport for SIP        January 2014


   environments do not enable SIP elements to use UDP and TCP as SIP
   transport protocols, a SIP element acting as a SIP WebSocket Client
   is not mandated to implement support of UDP and TCP.

5.5.  Locating a SIP Server

   [RFC3263] specifies the procedures that should be followed by SIP
   entities for locating SIP servers.  This specification defines the
   NAPTR service value "SIP+D2W" for SIP WebSocket Servers that support
   plain WebSocket connections and "SIPS+D2W" for SIP WebSocket Servers
   that support secure WebSocket connections.

      At the time this document was written, DNS NAPTR/Service Record
      (SRV) queries could not be performed by commonly available
      WebSocket client stacks (in JavaScript engines and web browsers).

   In the absence of DNS SRV resource records or an explicit port, the
   default port for a SIP URI using the "sip" scheme and the "ws"
   transport parameter is 80, and the default port for a SIP URI using
   the "sips" scheme and the "ws" transport parameter is 443.

6.  Connection Keep-Alive

   SIP WebSocket Clients and Servers may keep their WebSocket
   connections open by sending periodic WebSocket "Ping" frames as
   described in [RFC6455], Section 5.5.2.

      The WebSocket API [WS-API] does not provide a mechanism for
      applications running in a web browser to control whether or not
      periodic WebSocket "Ping" frames are sent to the server.  The
      implementation of such a keep-alive feature is the decision of
      each web browser manufacturer and may also depend on the
      configuration of the web browser.

   The indication and use of the CRLF NAT keep-alive mechanism defined
   for SIP connection-oriented transports in [RFC5626], Section 3.5.1 or
   [RFC6223] are, of course, usable over the transport defined in this
   specification.

7.  Authentication

   This section describes how authentication is achieved through the
   requirements in [RFC6455], [RFC6265], [RFC2617], and [RFC3261].

   The WebSocket protocol [RFC6455] does not define an authentication
   mechanism; instead, it exposes the following text in Section 10.5,
   "WebSocket Client Authentication":




Baz Castillo, et al.         Standards Track                    [Page 8]
^L
RFC 7118            WebSocket as a Transport for SIP        January 2014


      This protocol doesn't prescribe any particular way that servers
      can authenticate clients during the WebSocket handshake.  The
      WebSocket server can use any client authentication mechanism
      available to a generic HTTP server, such as cookies, HTTP
      authentication, or TLS authentication.

   The following list exposes mandatory-to-implement and optional
   mechanisms for SIP WebSocket Clients and Servers in order to get
   interoperability at the WebSocket authentication level:

   o  A SIP WebSocket Client MUST be ready to add a session cookie when
      it runs in a web browser (or behaves like a browser navigating a
      website) and has previously retrieved a session cookie from the
      web server whose URL domain matches the domain in the WebSocket
      URI.  This mechanism is defined by [RFC6265].

   o  A SIP WebSocket Client MUST be ready to be challenged with an HTTP
      401 status code [RFC2617] by the SIP WebSocket Server when
      performing the WebSocket handshake.

   o  A SIP WebSocket Client MAY use TLS client authentication (when in
      a secure WebSocket connection) as an optional authentication
      mechanism.

         Note, however, that TLS client authentication in the WebSocket
         protocol is governed by the rules of the HTTP protocol rather
         than the rules of SIP.

   o  A SIP WebSocket Server MUST be ready to read session cookies when
      present in the WebSocket handshake request and use such a cookie
      value for determining whether the WebSocket connection has been
      initiated by an HTTP client navigating a website in the same
      domain (or subdomain) as the SIP WebSocket Server.

   o  A SIP WebSocket Server SHOULD be able to reject a WebSocket
      handshake request with an HTTP 401 status code by providing a
      Basic/Digest challenge as defined for the HTTP protocol.

   Regardless of whether or not the SIP WebSocket Server requires
   authentication during the WebSocket handshake, authentication MAY be
   requested at the SIP level.

   Some authentication use cases are exposed in Appendix A.








Baz Castillo, et al.         Standards Track                    [Page 9]
^L
RFC 7118            WebSocket as a Transport for SIP        January 2014


8.  Examples

8.1.  Registration

   Alice    (SIP WSS)    proxy.example.com
   |                             |
   |HTTP GET (WS handshake) F1   |
   |---------------------------->|
   |101 Switching Protocols F2   |
   |<----------------------------|
   |                             |
   |REGISTER F3                  |
   |---------------------------->|
   |200 OK F4                    |
   |<----------------------------|
   |                             |

   Alice loads a web page using her web browser and retrieves JavaScript
   code implementing the WebSocket SIP subprotocol defined in this
   document.  The JavaScript code (a SIP WebSocket Client) establishes a
   secure WebSocket connection with a SIP proxy/registrar (a SIP
   WebSocket Server) at proxy.example.com.  Upon WebSocket connection,
   Alice constructs and sends a SIP REGISTER request, including Outbound
   [RFC5626] and Globally Routable User Agent URI (GRUU) [RFC5627]
   support.  Since the JavaScript stack in a browser has no way to
   determine the local address from which the WebSocket connection was
   made, this implementation uses a random ".invalid" domain name for
   the Via header "sent-by" parameter and for the hostport of the URI in
   the Contact header (see Appendix B.1).

   Message details (authentication and Session Description Protocol
   (SDP) bodies are omitted for simplicity):

   F1 HTTP GET (WS handshake)  Alice -> proxy.example.com (TLS)

   GET / HTTP/1.1
   Host: proxy.example.com
   Upgrade: websocket
   Connection: Upgrade
   Sec-WebSocket-Key: dGhlIHNhbXBsZSBub25jZQ==
   Origin: https://www.example.com
   Sec-WebSocket-Protocol: sip
   Sec-WebSocket-Version: 13








Baz Castillo, et al.         Standards Track                   [Page 10]
^L
RFC 7118            WebSocket as a Transport for SIP        January 2014


   F2 101 Switching Protocols  proxy.example.com -> Alice (TLS)

   HTTP/1.1 101 Switching Protocols
   Upgrade: websocket
   Connection: Upgrade
   Sec-WebSocket-Accept: s3pPLMBiTxaQ9kYGzzhZRbK+xOo=
   Sec-WebSocket-Protocol: sip


   F3 REGISTER  Alice -> proxy.example.com (transport WSS)

   REGISTER sip:proxy.example.com SIP/2.0
   Via: SIP/2.0/WSS df7jal23ls0d.invalid;branch=z9hG4bKasudf
   From: sip:alice@example.com;tag=65bnmj.34asd
   To: sip:alice@example.com
   Call-ID: aiuy7k9njasd
   CSeq: 1 REGISTER
   Max-Forwards: 70
   Supported: path, outbound, gruu
   Contact: <sip:alice@df7jal23ls0d.invalid;transport=ws>
     ;reg-id=1
     ;+sip.instance="<urn:uuid:f81-7dec-14a06cf1>"


   F4 200 OK  proxy.example.com -> Alice (transport WSS)

   SIP/2.0 200 OK
   Via: SIP/2.0/WSS df7jal23ls0d.invalid;branch=z9hG4bKasudf
   From: sip:alice@example.com;tag=65bnmj.34asd
   To: sip:alice@example.com;tag=12isjljn8
   Call-ID: aiuy7k9njasd
   CSeq: 1 REGISTER
   Supported: outbound, gruu
   Contact: <sip:alice@df7jal23ls0d.invalid;transport=ws>
     ;reg-id=1
     ;+sip.instance="<urn:uuid:f81-7dec-14a06cf1>"
     ;pub-gruu="sip:alice@example.com;gr=urn:uuid:f81-7dec-14a06cf1"
     ;temp-gruu="sip:87ash54=3dd.98a@example.com;gr"
     ;expires=3600












Baz Castillo, et al.         Standards Track                   [Page 11]
^L
RFC 7118            WebSocket as a Transport for SIP        January 2014


8.2.  INVITE Dialog through a Proxy

   Alice    (SIP WSS)    proxy.example.com    (SIP UDP)       Bob
   |                             |                             |
   |INVITE F1                    |                             |
   |---------------------------->|                             |
   |100 Trying F2                |                             |
   |<----------------------------|                             |
   |                             |INVITE F3                    |
   |                             |---------------------------->|
   |                             |200 OK F4                    |
   |                             |<----------------------------|
   |200 OK F5                    |                             |
   |<----------------------------|                             |
   |                             |                             |
   |ACK F6                       |                             |
   |---------------------------->|                             |
   |                             |ACK F7                       |
   |                             |---------------------------->|
   |                             |                             |
   |                 Bidirectional RTP Media                   |
   |<=========================================================>|
   |                             |                             |
   |                             |BYE F8                       |
   |                             |<----------------------------|
   |BYE F9                       |                             |
   |<----------------------------|                             |
   |200 OK F10                   |                             |
   |---------------------------->|                             |
   |                             |200 OK F11                   |
   |                             |---------------------------->|
   |                             |                             |

   In the same scenario, Alice places a call to Bob's Address of Record
   (AOR).  The SIP WebSocket Server at proxy.example.com acts as a SIP
   proxy, routing the INVITE to Bob's contact address (which happens to
   be using SIP transported over UDP).  Bob answers the call and then
   terminates it.

   Message details (authentication and SDP bodies are omitted for
   simplicity):










Baz Castillo, et al.         Standards Track                   [Page 12]
^L
RFC 7118            WebSocket as a Transport for SIP        January 2014


   F1 INVITE  Alice -> proxy.example.com (transport WSS)

   INVITE sip:bob@example.com SIP/2.0
   Via: SIP/2.0/WSS df7jal23ls0d.invalid;branch=z9hG4bK56sdasks
   From: sip:alice@example.com;tag=asdyka899
   To: sip:bob@example.com
   Call-ID: asidkj3ss
   CSeq: 1 INVITE
   Max-Forwards: 70
   Supported: path, outbound, gruu
   Route: <sip:proxy.example.com:443;transport=ws;lr>
   Contact: <sip:alice@example.com
    ;gr=urn:uuid:f81-7dec-14a06cf1;ob>
   Content-Type: application/sdp


   F2 100 Trying  proxy.example.com -> Alice (transport WSS)

   SIP/2.0 100 Trying
   Via: SIP/2.0/WSS df7jal23ls0d.invalid;branch=z9hG4bK56sdasks
   From: sip:alice@example.com;tag=asdyka899
   To: sip:bob@example.com
   Call-ID: asidkj3ss
   CSeq: 1 INVITE


   F3 INVITE  proxy.example.com -> Bob (transport UDP)

   INVITE sip:bob@203.0.113.22:5060 SIP/2.0
   Via: SIP/2.0/UDP proxy.example.com;branch=z9hG4bKhjhjqw32c
   Via: SIP/2.0/WSS df7jal23ls0d.invalid;branch=z9hG4bK56sdasks
   Record-Route: <sip:proxy.example.com;transport=udp;lr>,
     <sip:h7kjh12s@proxy.example.com:443;transport=ws;lr>
   From: sip:alice@example.com;tag=asdyka899
   To: sip:bob@example.com
   Call-ID: asidkj3ss
   CSeq: 1 INVITE
   Max-Forwards: 69
   Supported: path, outbound, gruu
   Contact: <sip:alice@example.com
     ;gr=urn:uuid:f81-7dec-14a06cf1;ob>
   Content-Type: application/sdp









Baz Castillo, et al.         Standards Track                   [Page 13]
^L
RFC 7118            WebSocket as a Transport for SIP        January 2014


   F4 200 OK  Bob -> proxy.example.com (transport UDP)

   SIP/2.0 200 OK
   Via: SIP/2.0/UDP proxy.example.com;branch=z9hG4bKhjhjqw32c
     ;received=192.0.2.10
   Via: SIP/2.0/WSS df7jal23ls0d.invalid;branch=z9hG4bK56sdasks
   Record-Route: <sip:proxy.example.com;transport=udp;lr>,
     <sip:h7kjh12s@proxy.example.com:443;transport=ws;lr>
   From: sip:alice@example.com;tag=asdyka899
   To: sip:bob@example.com;tag=bmqkjhsd
   Call-ID: asidkj3ss
   CSeq: 1 INVITE
   Contact: <sip:bob@203.0.113.22:5060;transport=udp>
   Content-Type: application/sdp


   F5 200 OK  proxy.example.com -> Alice (transport WSS)

   SIP/2.0 200 OK
   Via: SIP/2.0/WSS df7jal23ls0d.invalid;branch=z9hG4bK56sdasks
   Record-Route: <sip:proxy.example.com;transport=udp;lr>,
     <sip:h7kjh12s@proxy.example.com:443;transport=ws;lr>
   From: sip:alice@example.com;tag=asdyka899
   To: sip:bob@example.com;tag=bmqkjhsd
   Call-ID: asidkj3ss
   CSeq: 1 INVITE
   Contact: <sip:bob@203.0.113.22:5060;transport=udp>
   Content-Type: application/sdp


   F6 ACK  Alice -> proxy.example.com (transport WSS)

   ACK sip:bob@203.0.113.22:5060;transport=udp SIP/2.0
   Via: SIP/2.0/WSS df7jal23ls0d.invalid;branch=z9hG4bKhgqqp090
   Route: <sip:h7kjh12s@proxy.example.com:443;transport=ws;lr>,
     <sip:proxy.example.com;transport=udp;lr>,
   From: sip:alice@example.com;tag=asdyka899
   To: sip:bob@example.com;tag=bmqkjhsd
   Call-ID: asidkj3ss
   CSeq: 1 ACK
   Max-Forwards: 70










Baz Castillo, et al.         Standards Track                   [Page 14]
^L
RFC 7118            WebSocket as a Transport for SIP        January 2014


   F7 ACK  proxy.example.com -> Bob (transport UDP)

   ACK sip:bob@203.0.113.22:5060;transport=udp SIP/2.0
   Via: SIP/2.0/UDP proxy.example.com;branch=z9hG4bKhwpoc80zzx
   Via: SIP/2.0/WSS df7jal23ls0d.invalid;branch=z9hG4bKhgqqp090
   From: sip:alice@example.com;tag=asdyka899
   To: sip:bob@example.com;tag=bmqkjhsd
   Call-ID: asidkj3ss
   CSeq: 1 ACK
   Max-Forwards: 69


   F8 BYE  Bob -> proxy.example.com (transport UDP)

   BYE sip:alice@example.com;gr=urn:uuid:f81-7dec-14a06cf1;ob SIP/2.0
   Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 203.0.113.22;branch=z9hG4bKbiuiansd001
   Route: <sip:proxy.example.com;transport=udp;lr>,
     <sip:h7kjh12s@proxy.example.com:443;transport=ws;lr>
   From: sip:bob@example.com;tag=bmqkjhsd
   To: sip:alice@example.com;tag=asdyka899
   Call-ID: asidkj3ss
   CSeq: 1201 BYE
   Max-Forwards: 70


   F9 BYE  proxy.example.com -> Alice (transport WSS)

   BYE sip:alice@example.com;gr=urn:uuid:f81-7dec-14a06cf1;ob SIP/2.0
   Via: SIP/2.0/WSS proxy.example.com:443;branch=z9hG4bKmma01m3r5
   Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 203.0.113.22;branch=z9hG4bKbiuiansd001
   From: sip:bob@example.com;tag=bmqkjhsd
   To: sip:alice@example.com;tag=asdyka899
   Call-ID: asidkj3ss
   CSeq: 1201 BYE
   Max-Forwards: 69


   F10 200 OK  Alice -> proxy.example.com (transport WSS)

   SIP/2.0 200 OK
   Via: SIP/2.0/WSS proxy.example.com:443;branch=z9hG4bKmma01m3r5
   Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 203.0.113.22;branch=z9hG4bKbiuiansd001
   From: sip:bob@example.com;tag=bmqkjhsd
   To: sip:alice@example.com;tag=asdyka899
   Call-ID: asidkj3ss
   CSeq: 1201 BYE





Baz Castillo, et al.         Standards Track                   [Page 15]
^L
RFC 7118            WebSocket as a Transport for SIP        January 2014


   F11 200 OK  proxy.example.com -> Bob (transport UDP)

   SIP/2.0 200 OK
   Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 203.0.113.22;branch=z9hG4bKbiuiansd001
   From: sip:bob@example.com;tag=bmqkjhsd
   To: sip:alice@example.com;tag=asdyka899
   Call-ID: asidkj3ss
   CSeq: 1201 BYE

9.  Security Considerations

9.1.  Secure WebSocket Connection

   It is RECOMMENDED that the SIP traffic transported over a WebSocket
   communication be protected by using a secure WebSocket connection
   (using TLS [RFC5246] over TCP).

   When establishing a connection using SIP over secure WebSocket
   transport, the client MUST authenticate the server using the server's
   certificate according to the WebSocket validation procedure in
   [RFC6455].

      Server operators should note that this authentication procedure is
      different from the procedure for SIP domain certificates defined
      in [RFC5922].  Certificates that are appropriate for SIP over TLS
      over TCP will probably not be appropriate for SIP over secure
      WebSocket connections.

9.2.  Usage of "sips" Scheme

   The "sips" scheme in a SIP URI dictates that the entire request path
   to the target be secure.  If such a path includes a WebSocket
   connection, it MUST be a secure WebSocket connection.

10.  IANA Considerations

10.1.  Registration of the WebSocket SIP Subprotocol

   IANA has registered the WebSocket SIP subprotocol under the
   "WebSocket Subprotocol Name" registry with the following data:

   Subprotocol Identifier:  sip

   Subprotocol Common Name:  WebSocket Transport for SIP (Session
      Initiation Protocol)

   Subprotocol Definition:  [RFC7118]




Baz Castillo, et al.         Standards Track                   [Page 16]
^L
RFC 7118            WebSocket as a Transport for SIP        January 2014


10.2.  Registration of New NAPTR Service Field Values

   This document defines two new NAPTR service field values (SIP+D2W and
   SIPS+D2W) and IANA has registered these values under the "Registry
   for the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) NAPTR Resource Record
   Services Field".  The entries are as follows:

   Services Field   Protocol   Reference
   --------------   --------   ---------
   SIP+D2W          WS         [RFC7118]
   SIPS+D2W         WS         [RFC7118]

10.3.  SIP/SIPS URI Parameters Subregistry

   IANA has added a reference to this document under the "SIP/SIPS URI
   Parameters" subregistry within the "Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)
   Parameters" registry:

   Parameter Name   Predefined Values   Reference
   --------------   -----------------   ---------
   transport        Yes                 [RFC3261][RFC7118]

10.4.  Header Fields Subregistry

   IANA has added a reference to this document under the "Header Fields"
   subregistry within the "Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Parameters"
   registry:

   Header Name   compact   Reference
   -----------   -------   ---------
   Via           v         [RFC3261][RFC7118]

10.5.  Header Field Parameters and Parameter Values Subregistry

   IANA has added a reference to this document under the "Header Field
   Parameters and Parameter Values" subregistry within the "Session
   Initiation Protocol (SIP) Parameters" registry:

                                 Predefined
   Header Field  Parameter Name  Values  Reference
   ------------  --------------  ------  ---------
   Via           received        No      [RFC3261][RFC7118]









Baz Castillo, et al.         Standards Track                   [Page 17]
^L
RFC 7118            WebSocket as a Transport for SIP        January 2014


10.6.  SIP Transport Subregistry

   This document adds a new subregistry, "SIP Transport", to the
   "Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Parameters" registry.  Its format
   and initial values are as shown in the following table:

   +------------+------------------------+
   | Transport  | Reference              |
   +------------+------------------------+
   | UDP        | [RFC3261]              |
   | TCP        | [RFC3261]              |
   | TLS        | [RFC3261]              |
   | SCTP       | [RFC3261], [RFC4168]   |
   | TLS-SCTP   | [RFC4168]              |
   | WS         | [RFC7118]              |
   | WSS        | [RFC7118]              |
   +------------+------------------------+

   The policy for registration of values in this registry is "Standards
   Action" [RFC5226].

11.  Acknowledgements

   Special thanks to the following people who participated in
   discussions on the SIPCORE and RTCWEB WG mailing lists and
   contributed ideas and/or provided detailed reviews (the list is
   likely to be incomplete): Hadriel Kaplan, Paul Kyzivat, Robert
   Sparks, Adam Roach, Ranjit Avasarala, Xavier Marjou, Nataraju A. B.,
   Martin Vopatek, Alexey Melnikov, Alan Johnston, Christer Holmberg,
   Salvatore Loreto, Kevin P. Fleming, Suresh Krishnan, Yaron Sheffer,
   Richard Barnes, Barry Leiba, Stephen Farrell, Ted Lemon, Benoit
   Claise, Pete Resnick, Binod P.G., and Saul Ibarra Corretge.

12.  References

12.1.  Normative References

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

   [RFC2617]  Franks, J., Hallam-Baker, P., Hostetler, J., Lawrence, S.,
              Leach, P., Luotonen, A., and L. Stewart, "HTTP
              Authentication: Basic and Digest Access Authentication",
              RFC 2617, June 1999.







Baz Castillo, et al.         Standards Track                   [Page 18]
^L
RFC 7118            WebSocket as a Transport for SIP        January 2014


   [RFC3261]  Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., Camarillo, G., Johnston,
              A., Peterson, J., Sparks, R., Handley, M., and E.
              Schooler, "SIP: Session Initiation Protocol", RFC 3261,
              June 2002.

   [RFC3263]  Rosenberg, J. and H. Schulzrinne, "Session Initiation
              Protocol (SIP): Locating SIP Servers", RFC 3263, June
              2002.

   [RFC3403]  Mealling, M., "Dynamic Delegation Discovery System (DDDS)
              Part Three: The Domain Name System (DNS) Database", RFC
              3403, October 2002.

   [RFC5226]  Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
              IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226,
              May 2008.

   [RFC5234]  Crocker, D. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax
              Specifications: ABNF", STD 68, RFC 5234, January 2008.

   [RFC5246]  Dierks, T. and E. Rescorla, "The Transport Layer Security
              (TLS) Protocol Version 1.2", RFC 5246, August 2008.

   [RFC6265]  Barth, A., "HTTP State Management Mechanism", RFC 6265,
              April 2011.

   [RFC6455]  Fette, I. and A. Melnikov, "The WebSocket Protocol", RFC
              6455, December 2011.

12.2.  Informative References

   [RFC2606]  Eastlake, D. and A. Panitz, "Reserved Top Level DNS
              Names", BCP 32, RFC 2606, June 1999.

   [RFC2616]  Fielding, R., Gettys, J., Mogul, J., Frystyk, H.,
              Masinter, L., Leach, P., and T. Berners-Lee, "Hypertext
              Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1", RFC 2616, June 1999.

   [RFC3327]  Willis, D. and B. Hoeneisen, "Session Initiation Protocol
              (SIP) Extension Header Field for Registering Non-Adjacent
              Contacts", RFC 3327, December 2002.

   [RFC3986]  Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform
              Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax", STD 66, RFC
              3986, January 2005.






Baz Castillo, et al.         Standards Track                   [Page 19]
^L
RFC 7118            WebSocket as a Transport for SIP        January 2014


   [RFC4168]  Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., and G. Camarillo, "The
              Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP) as a Transport
              for the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)", RFC 4168,
              October 2005.

   [RFC5626]  Jennings, C., Mahy, R., and F. Audet, "Managing Client-
              Initiated Connections in the Session Initiation Protocol
              (SIP)", RFC 5626, October 2009.

   [RFC5627]  Rosenberg, J., "Obtaining and Using Globally Routable User
              Agent URIs (GRUUs) in the Session Initiation Protocol
              (SIP)", RFC 5627, October 2009.

   [RFC5922]  Gurbani, V., Lawrence, S., and A. Jeffrey, "Domain
              Certificates in the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)",
              RFC 5922, June 2010.

   [RFC6223]  Holmberg, C., "Indication of Support for Keep-Alive", RFC
              6223, April 2011.

   [WS-API]   W3C and I. Hickson, Ed., "The WebSocket API", September
              2012.





























Baz Castillo, et al.         Standards Track                   [Page 20]
^L
RFC 7118            WebSocket as a Transport for SIP        January 2014


Appendix A.  Authentication Use Cases

   The sections below briefly describe some SIP over WebSocket scenarios
   in which authentication takes place in different ways.

A.1.  Just SIP Authentication

   SIP Private Branch Exchange (PBX) model A implements the SIP
   WebSocket transport defined by this specification.  Its
   implementation is 100% website agnostic as it does not share
   information with the web server providing the HTML code to browsers,
   meaning that the SIP WebSocket Server (here, PBX model A) has no
   knowledge about web login activity within the website.

   In this simple scenario, the SIP WebSocket Server does not inspect
   fields in the WebSocket handshake HTTP GET request such as the
   request URL, the Origin header value, the Host header value, or the
   Cookie header value (if present).  However, some of those fields
   could be inspected for a minimal validation (i.e., PBX model A could
   require that the Origin header value contains a specific URL so just
   users navigating such a website would be able to establish a
   WebSocket connection with PBX model A).

   Once the WebSocket connection has been established, SIP
   authentication is requested by PBX model A for each SIP request
   coming over that connection.  Therefore, SIP WebSocket Clients must
   be provisioned with their corresponding SIP password.

A.2.  Just Web Authentication

   A SIP-to-PSTN (Public Switched Telephone Network) provider offers
   telephony service for clients logged into its website.  The provider
   does not want to expose SIP passwords into the web for security/
   privacy reasons.

   Once the user is logged into the web, the web server provides him
   with a SIP identity (SIP URI) and a session temporary token string
   (along with the SIP WebSocket Client JavaScript application and SIP
   settings).  The web server stores the SIP identity and session token
   into a database.

   The web application adds the SIP identity and session token as URL
   query parameters in the WebSocket handshake request and attempts the
   connection.  The SIP WebSocket Server inspects the handshake request
   and validates that the session token matches the value stored in the
   database for the given SIP identity.  In case the value matches, the
   WebSocket connection gets "authenticated" for that SIP identity.  The
   SIP WebSocket Client can then register and make calls.  The SIP



Baz Castillo, et al.         Standards Track                   [Page 21]
^L
RFC 7118            WebSocket as a Transport for SIP        January 2014


   WebSocket Server would, however, verify that the identity in those
   SIP requests (i.e., the From URI value) matches the SIP identity the
   WebSocket connection is associated to (otherwise, the SIP request is
   rejected).

   When the user performs a logout action in the web, the web server
   removes the SIP identity and session token tuple from the database
   and notifies the SIP WebSocket Server, which revokes and closes the
   WebSocket connection.

   No SIP authentication takes place in this scenario.

A.3.  Cookie-Based Authentication

   The Apache web server comes with a new module: mod_sip_websocket.  In
   port 80, the web server is configured to listen for both HTTP common
   requests and WebSocket handshake requests.  Therefore, both the web
   server and the SIP WebSocket Server are co-located within the same
   host and same domain.

   Once the user is logged into the web, he is provided with the SIP
   WebSocket Client JavaScript application and SIP settings.  The HTTP
   200 response after the login procedure also contains a session cookie
   [RFC6265].  The web application then attempts a WebSocket connection
   against the same URL/domain of the website, and thus the session
   cookie is automatically added by the browser into the WebSocket
   handshake request (as the WebSocket protocol [RFC6455] states).

   The web server inspects the cookie value (as it would do for a common
   HTTP request containing a session cookie so that the login procedure
   is not required again).  If the cookie is valid, the WebSocket
   connection is authorized.  And, as in the previous use case, the
   connection is also associated with a specific SIP identity that must
   be satisfied by every SIP request coming over that connection.

   No SIP authentication takes place in this scenario but just common
   cookie usage as widely deployed in the World Wide Web.

Appendix B.  Implementation Guidelines

   Let us assume a scenario in which the users access with their web
   browsers (probably behind NAT) an application provided by a server on
   an intranet, login by entering their user identifier and credentials,
   and retrieve a JavaScript application (along with the HTML)
   implementing a SIP WebSocket Client.






Baz Castillo, et al.         Standards Track                   [Page 22]
^L
RFC 7118            WebSocket as a Transport for SIP        January 2014


   Such a SIP stack connects to a given SIP WebSocket Server (an
   outbound SIP proxy that also implements classic SIP transports such
   as UDP and TCP).  The HTTP GET method request sent by the web browser
   for the WebSocket handshake includes a Cookie [RFC6265] header with
   the value previously provided by the server after the successful
   login procedure.  The cookie value is then inspected by the WebSocket
   server to authorize the connection.  Once the WebSocket connection is
   established, the SIP WebSocket Client performs a SIP registration to
   a SIP registrar server that is reachable through the proxy.  After
   registration, the SIP WebSocket Client and Server exchange SIP
   messages as would normally be expected.

   This scenario is quite similar to ones in which SIP user agents (UAs)
   behind NATs connect to a proxy and must reuse the same TCP connection
   for incoming requests (because they are not directly reachable by the
   proxy otherwise).  In both cases, the SIP UAs are only reachable
   through the proxy to which they are connected.

   The SIP Outbound extension [RFC5626] seems an appropriate solution
   for this scenario.  Therefore, these SIP WebSocket Clients and the
   SIP registrar implement both the Outbound and Path [RFC3327]
   extensions, and the SIP proxy acts as an Outbound Edge Proxy (as
   defined in [RFC5626], Section 3.4).

   SIP WebSocket Clients in this scenario receive incoming SIP requests
   via the SIP WebSocket Server to which they are connected.  Therefore,
   in some call transfer cases, the use of GRUU [RFC5627] (which should
   be implemented in both the SIP WebSocket Clients and SIP registrar)
   is valuable.

      If a REFER request is sent to a third SIP user agent including the
      Contact URI of a SIP WebSocket Client as the target in its
      Refer-To header field, such a URI will be reachable by the third
      SIP UA only if it is a globally routable URI.  GRUU (Globally
      Routable User Agent URI) is a solution for those scenarios and
      would cause the incoming request from the third SIP user agent to
      be sent to the SIP registrar, which would route the request to the
      SIP WebSocket Client via the Outbound Edge Proxy.

B.1.  SIP WebSocket Client Considerations

   The JavaScript stack in web browsers does not have the ability to
   discover the local transport address used for originating WebSocket
   connections.  A SIP WebSocket Client running in such an environment
   can construct a domain name consisting of a random token followed by
   the ".invalid" top-level domain name, as stated in [RFC2606], and
   uses it within its Via and Contact headers.




Baz Castillo, et al.         Standards Track                   [Page 23]
^L
RFC 7118            WebSocket as a Transport for SIP        January 2014


      The Contact URI provided by SIP UAs requesting (and receiving)
      Outbound support is not used for routing requests to those UAs,
      thus it is safe to set a random domain in the Contact URI
      hostport.

   Both the Outbound and GRUU specifications require a SIP UA to include
   a Uniform Resource Name (URN) in a "+sip.instance" parameter of the
   Contact header in which they include their SIP REGISTER requests.
   The client device is responsible for generating or collecting a
   suitable value for this purpose.

      In web browsers, it is difficult to generate or collect a suitable
      value to be used as an URN value from the browser itself.  This
      scenario suggests that value is generated according to [RFC5626],
      Section 4.1 by the web application running in the browser the
      first time it loads the JavaScript SIP stack code, and then it is
      stored as a cookie within the browser.

B.2.  SIP WebSocket Server Considerations

   The SIP WebSocket Server in this scenario behaves as a SIP Outbound
   Edge Proxy, which involves support for Outbound [RFC5626] and Path
   [RFC3327].

   The proxy performs loose routing and remains in the path of dialogs
   as specified in [RFC3261].  If it did not do this, in-dialog requests
   would fail since SIP WebSocket Clients make use of their SIP
   WebSocket Server in order to send and receive SIP messages.























Baz Castillo, et al.         Standards Track                   [Page 24]
^L
RFC 7118            WebSocket as a Transport for SIP        January 2014


Authors' Addresses

   Inaki Baz Castillo
   Versatica
   Barakaldo, Basque Country
   Spain

   EMail: ibc@aliax.net


   Jose Luis Millan Villegas
   Versatica
   Bilbao, Basque Country
   Spain

   EMail: jmillan@aliax.net


   Victor Pascual
   Quobis
   Spain

   EMail: victor.pascual@quobis.com




























Baz Castillo, et al.         Standards Track                   [Page 25]
^L