1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
|
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) G. Salgueiro
Request for Comments: 7355 Cisco
Updates: 6873 V. Pascual
Category: Informational A. Roman
ISSN: 2070-1721 S. Garcia
Quobis
September 2014
Indicating WebSocket Protocol as a Transport
in the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Common Log Format (CLF)
Abstract
RFC 7118 specifies a WebSocket subprotocol as a reliable real-time
transport mechanism between Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)
entities to enable usage of SIP in web-oriented deployments. This
document updates the SIP Common Log Format (CLF), defined in RFC
6873, with a new "Transport Flag" for such SIP WebSocket transport.
Status of This Memo
This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is
published for informational purposes.
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). Not all documents
approved by the IESG are a candidate for any level of Internet
Standard; see 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/rfc7355.
Salgueiro, et al. Informational [Page 1]
^L
RFC 7355 WebSocket Transport in SIP CLF September 2014
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.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Document Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. Usage of the WebSocket Transport Flag . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
5. Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5.1. SIP over WebSocket (WS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5.2. SIP over Secure WebSocket (WSS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Salgueiro, et al. Informational [Page 2]
^L
RFC 7355 WebSocket Transport in SIP CLF September 2014
1. Introduction
The WebSocket protocol [RFC6455] enables bidirectional message
exchange between clients and servers on top of a persistent TCP
connection (optionally secured with TLS [RFC5246]). The initial
protocol handshake makes use of HTTP [RFC7230] semantics, allowing
the WebSocket protocol to reuse existing transport connections.
RFC 7118 [RFC7118] defines a WebSocket subprotocol for transporting
SIP messages between a WebSocket client and server.
SIP messages can be logged using the Common Log Format defined in RFC
6873 [RFC6873]. In order to make such SIP CLF logging possible for
SIP messages transported over the WebSocket protocol, a new WebSocket
"Transport Flag" ('W') must be added to the "Transport Flags" already
defined in RFC 6873 [RFC6873] (i.e., UDP, TCP, and SCTP).
This document updates RFC 6873 [RFC6873] by defining a new SIP CLF
"Transport Flag" value for WebSocket.
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].
3. Document Conventions
This document contains several examples of SIP CLF records showing
messages over plain and secure WebSocket connections. The formatting
described in this document does not permit the examples to be
unambiguously rendered due to the constraints imposed by the
formatting rules for RFCs. To avoid ambiguity and to meet the RFC
layout requirements, this document uses the <allOneLine/> markup
convention established in [RFC4475]. This markup convention is
described in detail in Section 3 of RFC 6873 [RFC6873] and used
throughout that document for representing the syntax of SIP CLF
records.
4. Usage of the WebSocket Transport Flag
Section 4.2 of RFC6873 [RFC6873] specifies the mandatory fields in a
SIP CLF record. The fourth and fifth bytes of the five-byte "Flags
Field" are the "Transport Flag" and the "Encryption Flag",
respectively. SIP messages transported over both a plain and secure
WebSocket connection can be clearly distinguished by appropriately
setting these two flag fields.
Salgueiro, et al. Informational [Page 3]
^L
RFC 7355 WebSocket Transport in SIP CLF September 2014
The currently registered values of the "Transport Flag" (Section 9.2
of RFC 6873) are UDP ('U'), TCP ('T'), and SCTP ('S'). This document
defines and registers a new "Transport Flag" value 'W' for WebSocket
transport of SIP messages and consequently updates RFC 6873 [RFC6873]
and the IANA "SIP CLF Transport Flag Values" registry.
SIP CLF records of messages transported over a plain WebSocket
connection (WS) MUST set the "Transport Flag" to this new 'W' value
and the "Encryption Flag" value to 'U' (Unencrypted). SIP CLF
records of messages transported over a secure WebSocket (WSS)
connection (i.e., WS over TLS) MUST set the "Transport Flag" to this
new 'W' value and the "Encryption Flag" value to 'E' (Encrypted).
5. Examples
The following examples show sample SIP CLF records logged for SIP
messages transported over both plain and secure WebSocket
connections.
5.1. SIP over WebSocket (WS)
The following example represents a SIP INVITE request sent over a
plain WebSocket connection. For the sake of brevity, the Session
Description Protocol (SDP) [RFC4566] body is omitted.
INVITE sip:bob@example.com SIP/2.0
Via: SIP/2.0/WS 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
Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2014 15:02:03 GMT
Supported: path, outbound, gruu
Route: <sip:proxy.example.com:80;transport=ws;lr>
Contact: <sip:alice@example.com;gr=urn:uuid:f81-7dec-14a06cf1;ob>
Content-Type: application/sdp
Content-Length: 418
Shown below is approximately how this message would appear as a
single record in a SIP CLF logging file if encoded according to the
syntax described in [RFC6873]. Due to RFC conventions, this log
entry has been split into five lines, instead of the two lines that
actually appear in a log file; and the tab characters have been
padded out using spaces to simulate their appearance in a text
terminal.
Salgueiro, et al. Informational [Page 4]
^L
RFC 7355 WebSocket Transport in SIP CLF September 2014
A0000E7,0053005C005E00720080009200A600A800BE00C800D200DE00E7
<allOneLine>
1328821153.010 RORWU 1 INVITE - sip:bob@example.com
192.0.2.10:80 192.0.2.200:56485 sip:bob@example.com -
sip:alice@example.com asdyka899 asidkj3ss S1781761-88
C67651-11
</allOneLine>
A bit-exact version of the actual log entry is provided here, Base64
encoded [RFC4648], using the uuencode utility.
begin-base64 644 clf_ws_record
QTAwMDBFNywwMDUzMDA1QzAwNUUwMDcyMDA4MDAwOTIwMEE2MDBBODAwQkUwMEM4MDBE
MjAwREUwMEU3CjEzMjg4MjExNTMuMDEwCVJPUldVCTEgSU5WSVRFCS0Jc2lwOmJvYkBl
eGFtcGxlLmNvbQkxOTIuMC4yLjEwOjgwCTE5Mi4wLjIuMjAwOjU2NDg1CXNpcDpib2JA
ZXhhbXBsZS5jb20JLQlzaXA6YWxpY2VAZXhhbXBsZS5jb20JYXNkeWthODk5CWFzaWRr
ajNzcwlTMTc4MTc2MS04OAlDNjc2NTEtMTEKCg==
====
The original SIP CLF format can be obtained by reversing the effects
of uuencode by simply applying the uudecode transform. Additionally,
to recover the unencoded file, the Base64 text above may be passed as
input to the following perl script (the output should be redirected
to a file).
<CODE BEGINS>
#!/usr/bin/perl
use strict;
my $bdata = "";
use MIME::Base64;
while(<>)
{
if (/begin-base64 644 clf_ws_record/ .. /-- ==== --/)
{
if ( m/^\s*[^\s]+\s*$/)
{
$bdata = $bdata . $_;
}
}
}
print decode_base64($bdata);
<CODE ENDS>
Salgueiro, et al. Informational [Page 5]
^L
RFC 7355 WebSocket Transport in SIP CLF September 2014
5.2. SIP over Secure WebSocket (WSS)
The following example represents a SIP INVITE request sent over a
secure WebSocket connection (i.e., WebSocket over TLS [RFC5246]).
For the sake of brevity, the SDP body is omitted.
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
Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2014 15:02:03 GMT
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
Content-Length: 439
Shown below is approximately how this message would appear as a
single record in a SIP CLF logging file if encoded according to the
syntax described in [RFC6873]. Due to RFC conventions, this log
entry has been split into five lines, instead of the two lines that
actually appear in a log file; and the tab characters have been
padded out using spaces to simulate their appearance in a text
terminal.
A0000E8,0053005C005E00720081009300A700A900BF00C900D300DF00E8
<allOneLine>
1328821153.010 RORWE 1 INVITE - sip:bob@example.com
192.0.2.10:443 192.0.2.200:56485 sip:bob@example.com -
sip:alice@example.com:5060 asdyka899 asidkj3ss S1781761-88
C67651-11
</allOneLine>
A bit-exact version of the actual log entry is provided here, Base64
encoded.
begin-base64 644 clf_ws_record
QTAwMDBFOCwwMDUzMDA1QzAwNUUwMDcyMDA4MTAwOTMwMEE3MDBBOTAwQkYwMEM5MDBE
MzAwREYwMEU4CjEzMjg4MjExNTMuMDEwCVJPUldVCTEgSU5WSVRFCS0Jc2lwOmJvYkBl
eGFtcGxlLmNvbQkxOTIuMC4yLjEwOjQ0MwkxOTIuMC4yLjIwMDo1NjQ4NQlzaXA6Ym9i
QGV4YW1wbGUuY29tCS0Jc2lwOmFsaWNlQGV4YW1wbGUuY29tCWFzZHlrYTg5OQlhc2lk
a2ozc3MJUzE3ODE3NjEtODgJQzY3NjUxLTExCgo=
====
Salgueiro, et al. Informational [Page 6]
^L
RFC 7355 WebSocket Transport in SIP CLF September 2014
6. Security Considerations
This document merely adds a new "Transport Flag" value for the
WebSocket protocol. This value may be set in a SIP CLF record, but
its use does not intrinsically introduce any new security
considerations. When logging protocol information, such as with SIP
CLF, there are a myriad of security, privacy, and data protection
issues to consider. These are exhaustively described in RFC 6872
[RFC6872] and RFC 6873 [RFC6873].
Any security considerations specific to the WebSocket protocol or its
application as a transport for SIP are detailed in the relevant
specifications (the WebSocket protocol [RFC6455] and SIP over
WebSockets [RFC7118]) and are considered outside the scope of this
document.
7. IANA Considerations
This document defines a new value ('W') for SIP CLF "Transport Flag".
IANA has registered this value in the "SIP CLF Transport Flag Values"
registry, as shown in Table 1 below.
+-------+--------------------+--------------------+
| Value | Transport Protocol | Reference |
+-------+--------------------+--------------------+
| W | WebSocket | RFC 7118, RFC 7355 |
+-------+--------------------+--------------------+
Table 1: IANA-Registered SIP CLF Transport Flag
8. Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Vijay Gurbani for shepherding this
document and Area Director Richard Barnes for his sponsorship. This
work benefitted from the thorough review and constructive comments of
Richard Barnes, Barry Leiba, Benoit Claise, Pete Resnick, Stephen
Farrel, and Vijay Gurbani.
Salgueiro, et al. Informational [Page 7]
^L
RFC 7355 WebSocket Transport in SIP CLF September 2014
9. References
9.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC6455] Fette, I. and A. Melnikov, "The WebSocket Protocol", RFC
6455, December 2011.
[RFC6872] Gurbani, V., Burger, E., Anjali, T., Abdelnur, H., and O.
Festor, "The Common Log Format (CLF) for the Session
Initiation Protocol (SIP): Framework and Information
Model", RFC 6872, February 2013.
[RFC6873] Salgueiro, G., Gurbani, V., and A. Roach, "Format for the
Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Common Log Format
(CLF)", RFC 6873, February 2013.
[RFC7118] Baz Castillo, I., Millan Villegas, J., and V. Pascual,
"The WebSocket Protocol as a Transport for the Session
Initiation Protocol (SIP)", RFC 7118, January 2014.
9.2. Informative References
[RFC4475] Sparks, R., Hawrylyshen, A., Johnston, A., Rosenberg, J.,
and H. Schulzrinne, "Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)
Torture Test Messages", RFC 4475, May 2006.
[RFC4566] Handley, M., Jacobson, V., and C. Perkins, "SDP: Session
Description Protocol", RFC 4566, July 2006.
[RFC4648] Josefsson, S., "The Base16, Base32, and Base64 Data
Encodings", RFC 4648, October 2006.
[RFC5246] Dierks, T. and E. Rescorla, "The Transport Layer Security
(TLS) Protocol Version 1.2", RFC 5246, August 2008.
[RFC7230] Fielding, R. and J. Reschke, "Hypertext Transfer Protocol
(HTTP/1.1): Message Syntax and Routing", RFC 7230, June
2014.
Salgueiro, et al. Informational [Page 8]
^L
RFC 7355 WebSocket Transport in SIP CLF September 2014
Authors' Addresses
Gonzalo Salgueiro
Cisco Systems, Inc.
7200-12 Kit Creek Road
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709
US
EMail: gsalguei@cisco.com
Victor Pascual
Quobis
EMail: victor.pascual@quobis.com
Anton Roman
Quobis
EMail: anton.roman@quobis.com
Sergio Garcia Ramos
Quobis
EMail: sergio.garcia@quobis.com
Salgueiro, et al. Informational [Page 9]
^L
|
