SIP Working Group G. Camarillo
Internet-Draft Ericsson
Expires: December 15, 2004 June 16, 2004
The Internet Assigned Number Authority (IANA) Header Field Parameter
Registry for the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)
draft-ietf-sip-parameter-registry-02.txt
Status of this Memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, I certify that any applicable
patent or other IPR claims of which I am aware have been disclosed,
and any of which I become aware will be disclosed, in accordance with
RFC 3668.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other
groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts.
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."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at http://
www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on December 15, 2004.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). All Rights Reserved.
Abstract
This document creates an IANA registry for SIP header field
parameters and parameter values. It also lists the already existing
parameters and parameter values to be used as the initial entries for
this registry.
Camarillo Expires December 15, 2004 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft SIP Parameter Registry June 2004
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Use of the Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4.1 Header Field Parameters Sub-Registry . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4.2 Registration Policy for SIP Header Field Parameters . . . 7
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
7. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . 9
Camarillo Expires December 15, 2004 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft SIP Parameter Registry June 2004
1. Introduction
RFC 3261 [3] allows new header field parameters and new parameter
values to be defined. However, RFC3261 omitted an IANA registry for
them. This document creates such a registry.
RFC 3427 [4] documents the process to extend SIP. This document
updates RFC 3427 by specifying how to define and register new SIP
header field parameters and parameter values.
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 BCP 14, RFC 2119 [1] and indicate requirement levels for
compliant implementations.
3. Use of the Registry
SIP header field parameters and parameter values MUST be documented
in an RFC in order to be registered by IANA. This documentation MUST
fully explain the syntax, intended usage and semantics of the
parameter or parameter value. The intent of this requirement is to
assure interoperability between independent implementations, and to
prevent accidental namespace collisions between implementations of
dissimilar features.
Note that this registry, unlike other protocol registries, only
deals with parameters and parameter values defined in RFCs (i.e.,
it lacks a vendor-extension tree). RFC 3427 [4] documents concerns
with regards to new SIP extensions which may be damaging towards
security, greatly increase the complexity of the protocol, or
both. New parameters and parameter values need to be documented in
RFCs as a result of these concerns.
RFCs defining SIP header field parameters or parameter values MUST
register them with IANA as described below.
Registered SIP header field parameters and parameter values are to be
considered "reserved words". In order to preserve interoperability,
registered parameters and parameter values MUST be used in a manner
consistent with that described in their defining RFC. Implementations
MUST NOT utilize "private" or "locally defined" SIP header field
parameters or parameter values that conflict with registered
parameters.
Camarillo Expires December 15, 2004 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft SIP Parameter Registry June 2004
Note that although unregistered SIP header field parameters and
parameter values may be used in implementations, developers are
cautioned that usage of such parameters is risky. New SIP header
field parameters and parameter values may be registered at any
time, and there is no assurance that these new registered
parameters or parameter values will not conflict with unregistered
parameters currently in use.
Some SIP header field parameters only accept a set of predefined
parameter values. For example, a parameter indicating the transport
protocol in use may only accept as valid values the predefined tokens
TCP, UDP, and SCTP. Registering all parameter values for all SIP
header field parameters of this type would require a large number of
subregistries. Instead, we have chosen to register parameter values
by reference. That is, the entry in the parameter registry for a
given header field parameter contains references to the RFCs defining
new values of the parameter. References to RFCs defining parameter
values appear in brackets in the registry.
So, the header field parameter registry contains a column that
indicates whether or not each parameter only accepts a set of
predefined values. Implementers of parameters with a "yes" in that
column need to find all the valid parameter values in the RFCs
provided as references.
4. IANA Considerations
Section 27 of RFC 3261 [3] creates an IANA registry for method names,
header field names, warning codes, status codes, and option tags.
This specification instructs the IANA to create a new sub-registry
for header field parameters under
http://www.iana.org/assignments/sip-parameters:
4.1 Header Field Parameters Sub-Registry
The majority of the SIP header fields can be extended by defining new
parameters. New SIP header field parameters are registered by the
IANA. When registering a new parameter for a header field or a new
value for a parameter, the following information MUST be provided.
o Header field in which the parameter can appear.
o Name of the header field parameter being registered.
o Whether the parameter only accepts a set of predefined values.
o A reference to the RFC where the parameter is defined and to any
RFC that defines new values for the parameter. References to RFCs
defining parameter values appear in brackets in the registry.
Camarillo Expires December 15, 2004 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft SIP Parameter Registry June 2004
Parameters that can appear in different header fields MAY have the
same name. However, parameters that can appear in the same header
field MUST have different names.
The following are the initial values for this sub-registry.
Header Field Parameter Name Predefined Reference
Values
___________________________________________________________
Accept q No RFC 3261
Accept-Encoding q No RFC 3261
Accept-Language q No RFC 3261
Authorization algorithm Yes RFC 3261
[RFC 3310]
Authorization auts No RFC 3310
Authorization cnonce No RFC 3261
Authorization nc No RFC 3261
Authorization nonce No RFC 3261
Authorization opaque No RFC 3261
Authorization qop Yes RFC 3261
Authorization realm No RFC 3261
Authorization response No RFC 3261
Authorization uri No RFC 3261
Authorization username No RFC 3261
Authentication-Info cnonce No RFC 3261
Authentication-Info nc No RFC 3261
Authentication-Info nextnonce No RFC 3261
Authentication-Info qop Yes RFC 3261
Authentication-Info rspauth No RFC 3261
Call-Info purpose Yes RFC 3261
Contact expires No RFC 3261
Contact q No RFC 3261
Content-Disposition handling Yes RFC 3261
Event id No RFC 3265
From tag No RFC 3261
P-Access-Network-Info cgi-3gpp No RFC 3455
P-Access-Network-Info utran-cell-id-3gpp No RFC 3455
P-Charging-Function-Addresses ccf No RFC 3455
P-Charging-Function-Addresses ecf No RFC 3455
P-Charging-Vector icid-value No RFC 3455
P-Charging-Vector icid-generated-at No RFC 3455
P-Charging-Vector orig-ioi No RFC 3455
P-Charging-Vector term-ioi No RFC 3455
P-DCS-Billing-Info called No RFC 3603
P-DCS-Billing-Info calling No RFC 3603
P-DCS-Billing-Info charge No RFC 3603
P-DCS-Billing-Info locroute No RFC 3603
Camarillo Expires December 15, 2004 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft SIP Parameter Registry June 2004
P-DCS-Billing-Info rksgroup No RFC 3603
P-DCS-Billing-Info routing No RFC 3603
P-DCS-LAES content No RFC 3603
P-DCS-LAES key No RFC 3603
P-DCS-Redirect count No RFC 3603
P-DCS-Redirect redirector-uri No RFC 3603
Proxy-Authenticate algorithm Yes RFC 3261
[RFC 3310]
Proxy-Authenticate domain No RFC 3261
Proxy-Authenticate nonce No RFC 3261
Proxy-Authenticate opaque No RFC 3261
Proxy-Authenticate qop Yes RFC 3261
Proxy-Authenticate realm No RFC 3261
Proxy-Authenticate stale Yes RFC 3261
Proxy-Authorization algorithm Yes RFC 3261
[RFC 3310]
Proxy-Authorization auts No RFC 3310
Proxy-Authorization cnonce No RFC 3261
Proxy-Authorization nc No RFC 3261
Proxy-Authorization nonce No RFC 3261
Proxy-Authorization opaque No RFC 3261
Proxy-Authorization qop Yes RFC 3261
Proxy-Authorization realm No RFC 3261
Proxy-Authorization response No RFC 3261
Proxy-Authorization uri No RFC 3261
Proxy-Authorization username No RFC 3261
Reason cause Yes RFC 3326
Reason text No RFC 3326
Retry-After duration No RFC 3261
Security-Client alg Yes RFC 3329
Security-Client ealg Yes RFC 3329
Security-Client d-alg Yes RFC 3329
Security-Client d-qop Yes RFC 3329
Security-Client d-ver No RFC 3329
Security-Client mod Yes RFC 3329
Security-Client port1 No RFC 3329
Security-Client port2 No RFC 3329
Security-Client prot Yes RFC 3329
Security-Client q No RFC 3329
Security-Client spi No RFC 3329
Security-Server alg Yes RFC 3329
Security-Server ealg Yes RFC 3329
Security-Server d-alg Yes RFC 3329
Security-Server d-qop Yes RFC 3329
Security-Server d-ver No RFC 3329
Security-Server mod Yes RFC 3329
Security-Server port1 No RFC 3329
Security-Server port2 No RFC 3329
Camarillo Expires December 15, 2004 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft SIP Parameter Registry June 2004
Security-Server prot Yes RFC 3329
Security-Server q No RFC 3329
Security-Server spi No RFC 3329
Security-Verify alg Yes RFC 3329
Security-Verify ealg Yes RFC 3329
Security-Verify d-alg Yes RFC 3329
Security-Verify d-qop Yes RFC 3329
Security-Verify d-ver No RFC 3329
Security-Verify mod Yes RFC 3329
Security-Verify port1 No RFC 3329
Security-Verify port2 No RFC 3329
Security-Verify prot Yes RFC 3329
Security-Verify q No RFC 3329
Security-Verify spi No RFC 3329
Subscription-State expires No RFC 3265
Subscription-State reason Yes RFC 3265
Subscription-State retry-after No RFC 3265
To tag No RFC 3261
Via branch No RFC 3261
Via comp Yes RFC 3486
Via maddr No RFC 3261
Via received No RFC 3261
Via rport No RFC 3581
Via ttl No RFC 3261
WWW-Authenticate algorithm Yes RFC 3261
[RFC 3310]
WWW-Authenticate domain Yes RFC 3261
WWW-Authenticate nonce No RFC 3261
WWW-Authenticate opaque No RFC 3261
WWW-Authenticate qop Yes RFC 3261
WWW-Authenticate realm No RFC 3261
WWW-Authenticate stale Yes RFC 3261
4.2 Registration Policy for SIP Header Field Parameters
As per the terminology in RFC 2434 [2], the registration policy for
SIP header field parameters and parameter values shall be
"Specification Required".
For the purposes of this registry, the parameter or the parameter
value for which IANA registration is requested MUST be defined by an
RFC. There is no requirement that this RFC be standards-track.
5. Security Considerations
There are no security considerations associated to this document.
Camarillo Expires December 15, 2004 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft SIP Parameter Registry June 2004
6. Acknowledgements
Jonathan Rosenberg, Henning Schulzrinne, Rohan Mahy, Dean Willis, Aki
Niemi, Bill Marshall, Miguel A. Garcia-Martin, Jean Francois Mule,
and Allison Mankin provided useful comments.
7 Normative References
[1] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement
Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[2] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an IANA
Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 2434, October 1998.
[3] 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.
[4] Mankin, A., Bradner, S., Mahy, R., Willis, D., Ott, J. and B.
Rosen, "Change Process for the Session Initiation Protocol
(SIP)", BCP 67, RFC 3427, December 2002.
Author's Address
Gonzalo Camarillo
Ericsson
Hirsalantie 11
Jorvas 02420
Finland
EMail: Gonzalo.Camarillo@ericsson.com
Camarillo Expires December 15, 2004 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft SIP Parameter Registry June 2004
Intellectual Property Statement
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 IETF's procedures with respect to rights in IETF 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.
Disclaimer of Validity
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.
Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). 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.
Acknowledgment
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society.
Camarillo Expires December 15, 2004 [Page 9]