A Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Response Code for Rejected Calls
draft-ietf-sipcore-rejected-00

The information below is for an old version of the document
Document Type Active Internet-Draft (sipcore WG)
Last updated 2018-08-21
Stream IETF
Intended RFC status (None)
Formats pdf htmlized bibtex
Reviews
Stream WG state WG Document
Document shepherd No shepherd assigned
IESG IESG state I-D Exists
Consensus Boilerplate Unknown
Telechat date
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to (None)
SIPCORE                                                        E. Burger
Internet-Draft                                     Georgetown University
Intended status: Standards Track                         August 21, 2018
Expires: February 22, 2019

  A Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Response Code for Rejected Calls
                     draft-ietf-sipcore-rejected-00

Abstract

   This document defines the 608 (Rejected) SIP response code.  This
   response code enables calling parties to learn their call was
   rejected by an intermediary and will not be answered.  As a 6xx code,
   the caller will be aware that future attempts to contact the same UAS
   will be likely to fail.  The present use case driving the need for
   the 608 response code is when the intermediary is an analytics
   engine.  In this case, the rejection is by a machine or other
   process.  This contrasts with the 607 (Unwanted) SIP response code,
   which a human at the target UAS indicated the call was not wanted.
   In some jurisdictions this distinction is important and may have
   additional requirements beyond the 607 response code.  Specifically,
   this document defines the use of the Call-Info header in 608
   responses to enable rejected callers to contact entities that blocked
   their calls in error.

Status of This Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on February 22, 2019.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

Burger                  Expires February 22, 2019               [Page 1]
Internet-Draft               Status Rejected                 August 2018

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (https://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.

1.  Introduction

   The IETF has been addressing numerous issues surrounding how to
   handle unwanted and, depending on the jurisdiction, illegal calls
   [RFC5039].  Technologies such as STIR [RFC7340] and SHAKEN [SHAKEN]
   address cryptographic signing and attestation, respectively, of
   signaling to ensure the integrity and authenticity of the asserted
   identity.

   This document describes a new SIP response code, 608, which allows
   calling parties to learn an intermediary rejected their call.  As
   described below, we need a distinct indicator to differentiate
   between a user rejection and an intermediary's rejection of a call.
   In some jurisdictions, calls, even if unwanted by the user, may not
   be blocked unless there is an explicit user request.  Moreover, users
   may misidentify the nature of a caller.  For example, a legitimate
   caller may call a user who finds the call to be unwanted.  However,
   instead of marking the call as unwanted, the user may mark the call
   as illegal.  With that information, an analytics engine may determine
   that all calls from that source should be blocked.  However, in some
   jurisdictions blocking calls from that source for other users may not
   be legal.  Likewise, one can envision jurisdictions that allow an
   operator to block such calls, but only if there is a remediation
   mechanism in place to address false positives.

   Some call blocking services may return responses such as 604 (Does
   Not Exist Anywhere).  This might be a strategy to attempt to get a
   destination's address removed from a calling database.  However,
   other network elements might interpret this to mean the user truly
   does not exist and result in the user not being able to receive calls
   from anyone, even if wanted.  As well, in many jurisdictions,
   providing false signaling is illegal.

   The 608 response code addresses this need of remediating falsely
   blocked calls.  Specifically, this code informs the UAC an
   intermediary blocked the call and, to satisfy some jurisdictional
   requirements for providing a redress mechanism, how to contact the
Show full document text