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
|
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) R. Sparks
Request for Comments: 7647 Oracle
Updates: 3515 A.B. Roach
Category: Standards Track Mozilla
ISSN: 2070-1721 September 2015
Clarifications for the Use of REFER with RFC 6665
Abstract
The SIP REFER method relies on the SIP-Specific Event Notification
framework. That framework was revised by RFC 6665. This document
highlights the implications of the requirement changes in RFC 6665,
and updates the definition of the REFER method described in RFC 3515
to clarify and disambiguate the impact of those changes.
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/rfc7647.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2015 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.
Sparks & Roach Standards Track [Page 1]
^L
RFC 7647 Refer Clarifications September 2015
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Conventions Used in This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
3. Use of GRUU Is Mandatory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. Dialog Reuse Is Prohibited . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
5. The 202 Response Code Is Deprecated . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1. Introduction
The SIP REFER method relies on the SIP-Specific Event Notification
framework. That framework was revised by [RFC6665]. This document
highlights the implications of the requirement changes in RFC 6665,
and updates [RFC3515] to clarify and disambiguate the impact of those
changes.
Accepting a REFER request (without invoking extensions) results in an
implicit SIP-Events subscription. If that REFER was part of an
existing dialog, the implicit subscription creates a new, problematic
dialog usage within that dialog [RFC5057]. The "norefersub"
extension defined in [RFC4488] asks to suppress this implicit
subscription, but cannot prevent its creation.
There are implementations in some known specialized environments
(such as 3GPP) that use out-of-signaling agreements to ensure that
in-dialog REFER requests using the RFC 4488 extension do not create a
new subscription inside that dialog. In the 3GPP environment, the
behavior is based on capabilities advertised using media feature
tags. That mechanism does not, however, prevent additional dialog
usages when interoperating with implementations that do not support
the mechanism. The extensions in [RFC7614] provide a standardized
mechanism that allows avoiding any additional dialog usage.
2. Conventions Used in This Document
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].
Sparks & Roach Standards Track [Page 2]
^L
RFC 7647 Refer Clarifications September 2015
3. Use of GRUU Is Mandatory
Section 4.5.1 of [RFC6665] makes GRUU [RFC5627] mandatory for
notifiers to implement and use as the local target in the
subscription created by the REFER request.
A user agent (UA) accepting a REFER that creates a subscription MUST
populate its Contact header field with a GRUU.
A UA that might possibly become a notifier (e.g., by accepting a
REFER request that creates a subscription) needs to include a GRUU in
the Contact header field of dialog-forming and target-refresh methods
(such as INVITE) [RFC7621]. This ensures that out-of-dialog REFER
requests corresponding to any resulting INVITE dialogs arrive at this
UA. Extensions can relax this requirement by defining a REFER
request that cannot create an implicit subscription, thus not causing
the accepting UA to become an RFC 6665 notifier in the context of
this dialog. [RFC7614] is an example of such an extension.
4. Dialog Reuse Is Prohibited
If a peer in an existing dialog has provided a GRUU as its Contact,
sending a REFER that might result in an additional dialog usage
within that dialog is prohibited. This is a direct consequence of
[RFC6665] requiring the use of GRUU and the requirements in
Section 4.5.2 of that document.
A user agent constructing a REFER request that could result in an
implicit subscription in a dialog MUST build it as an out-of-dialog
message as defined in [RFC3261], unless the remote endpoint is an
older implementation of RFC 3515 that has not been updated to conform
to RFC 6665 (as determined by the absence of a GRUU in the remote
target). Thus, the REFER request will have no tag parameter in its
To: header field.
Using the "norefersub" option tag [RFC4488] does not change this
requirement, even if used in a "Require" header field. Even if the
recipient supports the "norefersub" mechanism, and accepts the
request with the option tag in the "Require" header field, it is
allowed to return a "Refer-Sub" header field with a value of "true"
in the response, and create an implicit subscription.
A user agent wishing to identify an existing dialog (such as for call
transfer as defined in [RFC5589]) MUST use the "Target-Dialog"
extension defined in [RFC4538] to do so, and user agents accepting
REFER MUST be able to process that extension in requests they
receive.
Sparks & Roach Standards Track [Page 3]
^L
RFC 7647 Refer Clarifications September 2015
If a user agent can be certain that no implicit subscription will be
created as a result of sending a REFER request (such as by requiring
an extension that disallows any such subscription [RFC7614]), the
REFER request MAY be sent within an existing dialog (whether or not
the remote target is a GRUU). Such a REFER will be constructed with
its Contact header field populated with the dialog's local URI as
specified in Section 12 of [RFC3261].
As described in Section 4.5.2 of [RFC6665], there are cases where a
user agent may fall back to sharing existing dialogs for backwards-
compatibility purposes. This applies to a REFER only when the peer
has not provided a GRUU as its Contact in the existing dialog (i.e.,
when the peer is an implementation of RFC 3515 that has not been
updated to conform with RFC 6665).
5. The 202 Response Code Is Deprecated
Section 8.3.1 of [RFC6665] requires that elements not send a 202
response code to a subscribe request, but use the 200 response code
instead. Any 202 response codes received to a subscribe request are
treated as 200s. These changes also apply to REFER. Specifically,
an element accepting a REFER request MUST NOT reply with a 202
response code and MUST treat any 202 responses received as identical
to a 200 response. Wherever [RFC3515] requires sending a 202
response code, a 200 response code MUST be sent instead.
6. Security Considerations
This document introduces no new security considerations directly.
The updated considerations in [RFC6665] apply to the implicit
subscription created by an accepted REFER request.
7. References
7.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC3261] Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., Camarillo, G., Johnston,
A., Peterson, J., Sparks, R., Handley, M., and
E. Schooler, "SIP: Session Initiation Protocol", RFC 3261,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3261, June 2002,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3261>.
Sparks & Roach Standards Track [Page 4]
^L
RFC 7647 Refer Clarifications September 2015
[RFC3515] Sparks, R., "The Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Refer
Method", RFC 3515, DOI 10.17487/RFC3515, April 2003,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3515>.
[RFC4538] Rosenberg, J., "Request Authorization through Dialog
Identification in the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)",
RFC 4538, DOI 10.17487/RFC4538, June 2006,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4538>.
[RFC5627] Rosenberg, J., "Obtaining and Using Globally Routable User
Agent URIs (GRUUs) in the Session Initiation Protocol
(SIP)", RFC 5627, DOI 10.17487/RFC5627, October 2009,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5627>.
[RFC6665] Roach, A.B., "SIP-Specific Event Notification", RFC 6665,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6665, July 2012,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6665>.
[RFC7621] Roach, A.B., "A Clarification on the Use of Globally
Routable User Agent URIs (GRUUs) in the SIP Event
Notification Framework", RFC 7621, DOI 10.17487/RFC7621,
August 2015, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7621>.
7.2. Informative References
[RFC4488] Levin, O., "Suppression of Session Initiation Protocol
(SIP) REFER Method Implicit Subscription", RFC 4488,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4488, May 2006,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4488>.
[RFC5057] Sparks, R., "Multiple Dialog Usages in the Session
Initiation Protocol", RFC 5057, DOI 10.17487/RFC5057,
November 2007, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5057>.
[RFC5589] Sparks, R., Johnston, A., Ed., and D. Petrie, "Session
Initiation Protocol (SIP) Call Control - Transfer",
BCP 149, RFC 5589, DOI 10.17487/RFC5589, June 2009,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5589>.
[RFC7614] Sparks, R., "Explicit Subscriptions for the REFER Method",
RFC 7614, DOI 10.17487/RFC7614, August 2015,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7614>.
Sparks & Roach Standards Track [Page 5]
^L
RFC 7647 Refer Clarifications September 2015
Acknowledgements
Christer Holmberg provided the formulation for the final paragraph of
the introduction. Christer Holmberg and Ivo Sedlacek provided
detailed comments during working group discussion of the document.
Authors' Addresses
Robert Sparks
Oracle
7460 Warren Parkway
Suite 300
Frisco, Texas 75034
United States
Email: rjsparks@nostrum.com
Adam Roach
Mozilla
Dallas, TX
United States
Phone: +1 650 903 0800 x863
Email: adam@nostrum.com
Sparks & Roach Standards Track [Page 6]
^L
|
