SIPPING Working Group V. Hilt
Internet-Draft Bell Labs/Lucent Technologies
Expires: April 19, 2006 G. Camarillo
Ericsson
J. Rosenberg
Cisco Systems
October 16, 2005
A Framework for Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Session Policies
draft-hilt-sipping-session-policy-framework-00
Status of this Memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.
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 April 19, 2006.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005).
Abstract
Proxy servers play a central role as an intermediary in the Session
Initiation Protocol (SIP) as they define and impact policies on call
routing, rendezvous, and other call features. However, there is
currently no standard mechanism by which a proxy can influence
session policies, such as the codecs or media types to be used. This
Hilt, et al. Expires April 19, 2006 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Session Policy Framework October 2005
document specifies a framework for SIP session policies. It defines
two types of session policies, session-specific and session-
independent policies, and introduces a model, an overall architecture
and the protocol components needed for session policies.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Session-Independent Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1. Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.2. Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2.1. Subscription . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2.2. Content . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. Session-Specific Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.1. Architecture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.2. Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.3. Overview of Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.3.1. Offer in Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.3.2. Offer in Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.4. UA/Policy Server Rendezvous . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.4.1. UAC Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.4.2. Caching of Policy Server URIs . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4.4.3. UAS Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
4.4.4. Proxy Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
4.4.5. Header Definition and Syntax . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
4.5. Policy Channel Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Appendix A. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 19
Hilt, et al. Expires April 19, 2006 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Session Policy Framework October 2005
1. Introduction
The Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) [6] is a signaling protocol for
creating, modifying and terminating multimedia sessions. A central
element in SIP is the proxy server. Proxy servers are intermediaries
that are responsible for request routing, rendezvous, authentication
and authorization, mobility, and other signaling services. However,
proxies are divorced from the actual sessions - audio, video, and
messaging - that SIP establishes. Details of the sessions are
carried in the payload of SIP messages, and are usually described
with the Session Description Protocol (SDP) [7]. Indeed, SIP
provides end-to-end encryption features using S/MIME, so that all
information about the sessions can be hidden from eavesdroppers and
proxies alike.
However, experience has shown that there is a need for SIP
intermediaries to impact aspects of a session. For example, SIP may
be used in a wireless network, which has limited resources for media
traffic. During periods of high activity, the wireless network
provider wants to restrict the amount of bandwidth available to each
individual user. With session policies, an intermediary in the
wireless network can inform the user agent about the bandwidth it
currently has available. This information enables the user agent to
make an informed decision about the number of streams, the media
types, and the codecs it can successfully use in a session.
In another example, a SIP user agent is using a network which is
connected to the public Internet through a firewall or a network
border device. The network provider would like to tell the user
agent that it needs to send its media streams to a specific IP
address and port on the firewall or border device to reach the public
Internet. Knowing this policy enables the user agent to set up
sessions across the firewall or the network border. In contrast to
other methods for inserting a media intermediary, the use of session
policies does not require the inspection or modification of SIP
message bodies. Other user cases for session policies are described
in [8].
Domains sometimes enforce policies they have in place. For example,
a domain might have a configuration in which all packets containing a
certain audio codec are dropped. Unfortunately, enforcement
mechanisms usually do not inform the user about the policies they are
enforcing and silently keep the user from doing anything against
them. This may lead to the malfunctioning of devices that is
incomprehensible to the user. With session policies, the user knows
about the restricted codecs and can use a different codec or simply
connect to a domain with less stringent policies. Session policies
provide an important combination of consent coupled with enforcement.
Hilt, et al. Expires April 19, 2006 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Session Policy Framework October 2005
That is, the user becomes aware of the policy and needs to act on it,
but the provider still retains the right to enforce the policy.
Two types of session policies exist: session-specific policies and
session-independent policies. Session-specific policies are policies
that are created for one particular session, in response to (certain
aspects of) the session description for this session (e.g. the IP
addresses and ports that are used for media). Since session-specific
policies are tailored to a session, they only apply to the session
they are created for. They are created on a session-by-session basis
during the establishment of the session at the time the session
description is known.
Session-independent policies on the other hand are policies that are
created independent of a session and generally apply to the SIP
sessions set up by a user agent. Since these policies are not based
on a specific session description, they can be created and conveyed
to the user agent at any time, independent of an attempt to set up a
session.
This specification defines a framework for SIP session policies. It
specifies a model, the overall architecture, and the protocol
components that are needed for session-independent and session-
specific policies.
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. Session-Independent Policies
This section defines a model and the protocol components for session-
independent policies.
3.1. Model
Setting up session-independent policies involves the following steps:
1. A user agent requests session-independent policies from the
policy servers in the local network and home domain. These two
domains most likely have session-independent policies for a user
agent. A user agent typically request these policies when it
Hilt, et al. Expires April 19, 2006 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Session Policy Framework October 2005
starts up or connects to a new network domain.
2. The policy server selects the policies that apply to this user
agent. The policy server may have general policies that apply to
all users or maintain separate policies for each individual user.
The selected policies are returned to the user agent.
3. The policy server may update the policies, for example, when
network conditions change.
4. The user agent considers the policies received when creating or
managing session descriptions for SIP sessions.
3.2. Protocol
A UA subscribes to session-independent policies using the "ua
profile" event package defined in the Framework for SIP User Agent
Profile Delivery [4]. This event package has been designed to
support subscriptions to user agent configuration information as well
as to session-specific policies. A server can provide session-
independent policies and configuration information through the same
subscription. However, it is expected that session-independent
policies and configuration information will often be provided by
different servers, which may even be in different domains. In
addition, session-independent policies may change more frequently
than configuration information since they may consider external
information, such as the network status or simply the time of day.
3.2.1. Subscription
Session-independent policies are usually provided by the network
domain the UA is physically connected to (i.e. the local network
domain). This domain may, for example, have policies needed to
support the network infrastructure (e.g. by limiting the bandwidth
available to a user). Frequently, the domain a user registers at
(i.e., the domain in the address-of-record (AoR)) will also provides
session-independent policies. This domain may, for example, provide
policies needed for services the user has subscribed to.
The "ua profile" event package [4] provides a mechanism to discover
policy servers in these two domains. The "localnetwork" profile-type
enables a UA to discover a servers in the local network domain; the
"user" profile type enables the discovery of a server in the AoR
domain. A UA SHOULD attempt to discover and subscribe to the policy
servers in these two domains.
A UA SHOULD create a SUBSCRIBE request in the following events:
o The UA registers a AoR for the first time or removes a AoR from
the set of AoRs it has registered. In these cases, the UA SHOULD
establish subscriptions for each new AoR using the "user" and the
Hilt, et al. Expires April 19, 2006 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Session Policy Framework October 2005
"localnetwork" profile-types. It SHOULD terminate all
subscriptions for the AoRs that have been removed.
o The UA changes the domain it is connected to. The UA SHOULD
create a new subscription for each AoR using the "localnetwork"
profile-type. It SHOULD terminate all existing subscriptions for
the "localnetwork" profile-type. It does not need to change the
subscriptions for "user" profiles.
If a subscriber is unable to establish a subscription, it SHOULD NOT
attempt to re-try this subscription, unless one of the above events
occurs again. This is to limit the number of SUBSCRIBE requests sent
within domains that do not support session-independent policies.
3.2.2. Content
The "ua profile" event package is an abstract event package that does
not define a default content type for subscriptions. A user agent
subscribing to session-independent policies SHOULD include the MIME
type for the Schema for SIP User Agent Profile Data Sets [9] and the
"application/session-policy+xml" format [3] in the Accept header of a
SUBSCRIBE request. The Schema for SIP User Agent Profile Data Sets
is an abstract format for configuration data that is extended by the
"application/session-policy+xml" format for media-related policies.
These are the default formats for subscriptions to session-
independent policies and MUST be supported by a user agent compliant
to this specification.
OPEN ISSUE: Do we need a separate MIME type for the policy format
or is it sufficient to use the MIME type of the UA data set
schema? It is unclear how the user agent indicates that it
supports the session policy format and that it wants to receive
session policies.
A policy server MAY send a notification to the subscriber every time
the session-independent policy covered by the subscription changes.
The definition of what causes a policy to change is at the discretion
of the administrator. A change in the policy may be triggered, for
example, by a change in the network status or simply by an update of
the service level agreement with the customer. The session-
independent policy contained in notification MUST represent a
complete session-independent policy. Deltas to previous policies or
partial policies are not supported.
4. Session-Specific Policies
This section defines a model, an architecture and the protocol
components for session-specific policies.
Hilt, et al. Expires April 19, 2006 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Session Policy Framework October 2005
4.1. Architecture
+-------------+
/------| Proxy |----...
+----+ / +-------------+
| |---/ +-------------+
| | | Policy |
| UA |============| Server |
| | +-------------+
| |**** +-------------+
+----+ * | Router w/ |
*******| Policy |****...
| Enforcement |
+-------------+
--- SIP Signaling
=== Policy Channel
*** Media
Figure 1
The following entities are involved in setting up session-specific
policies (see Figure 1): a user agent (UA), a proxy, a policy server
and possibly a router with policy enforcement functionality.
The role of the proxy is to provide a rendezvous mechanism for UA and
policy server. It conveys the URI of the policy server in its domain
to UAs and ensures that UAs know where to retrieve policies from. It
does not deliver the actual policies to UAs.
The policy server is a separate logical entity that may be physically
co-located with the proxy. Each domain has at most one policy
server. The role of the policy server is to generate session
policies for a session. It receives session information from a UA,
generates a policy and returns that policy back to the UA. The way
policies are generated is outside the scope of this specification. A
policy server could, for example, use local rules, query external
sources for additional information or retrieve policies from a
separate policy infrastructure.
A UA receives the URI of a policy server from the proxy. It uses
this URI to establish a policy channel to the policy server. It
provides information about the current session to the policy server
and receives session policies in response. The UA may also receive
policy updates from the policy server during the course of a session.
A network may have a policy enforcement infrastructure in place.
However, this specification does not make any assumptions about the
Hilt, et al. Expires April 19, 2006 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Session Policy Framework October 2005
enforcement of session policies and the mechanisms defined here are
orthogonal a policy enforcement infrastructure. Their goal is to
provide a means for the UA to convey session information to a policy
server and to receive the policies that apply to this session in
response.
4.2. Model
The protocol defined in this specification follows a separate channel
model. SIP signaling is only used to rendezvous the UA with the
policy server. From this point on, UA and policy server communicate
directly with each other over a separate policy channel. This is
opposed to a piggyback model, where the exchange of session and
policy information between the user agent and the policy server is
piggybacked onto SIP signaling messages exchanged between the two
user agents.
A disadvantage of the separate channel model is that it requires
additional messages for the exchange of policy information. The
advantages of using a separate policy channel is that it decouples
the exchange of signaling messages between endpoints from the
exchange of policy information between endpoint and policy server.
This decoupling enables the use of encryption on the signaling path
(to secure the communication between endpoints) and on the policy
channel (to secure the communication between endpoint and policy
server). Existing schemes for authorization, authentication, signing
and encryption can be used on the policy channel. This is not
possible if policies are piggybacked onto the signaling messages.
Another advantage of the separate channel model is that policies do
not travel along the signaling path possibly crossing may domains.
If policy server and UA are in the same network, policy information
never leaves this network. In addition, endpoints can specifically
decide which aspects of a session they want to disclose to a certain
policy server. Finally, a policy server does not rely on a SIP
signaling message flowing by to provide a session policy to an
endpoint. A policy server can use the separate channel at any time
to update session policies as needed.
The communication on the policy channel between a UA and a policy
server involves the following steps:
1. A user agent submits a session description to the policy server
and asks whether a session using this session description is
permissible.
2. The policy server creates a policy decision for this particular
session and returns the decision to the user agent. Possible
policy decisions are to (1) deny the session, (2) propose changes
to the session description with which the session is acceptable,
Hilt, et al. Expires April 19, 2006 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Session Policy Framework October 2005
or (3) accept the session as it was proposed.
3. The policy server may update the policy decision at any time.
4. The user agent applies the policy decision to the session it is
establishing or managing.
4.3. Overview of Operation
This section provides example call flows to illustrate the
establishment of session-specific policies.
In the following scenario, there are two domains (domain A and domain
B), which both have session-specific policies for the UAs in their
domain. Both domains do not provide policies to the UAs outside of
their domain. The two domains have a proxy (P A and P B) and a
policy server (PS A and PS B). The policies in both domains involve
the session description offer and answer.
4.3.1. Offer in Request
The first call flow depicts an INVITE transaction with the offer in
the request. It is assumed that the UAC does not have previous
knowledge about the policy server in its domain.
(1) UA A sends an INVITE to proxy P A. P A knows that policies apply
to this session and (2) returns a 488 to UA A. P A includes the URI
of PS A in the 488 response. (3) UA A contacts PS A, discloses the
session description offer to PS A and (4) receives policies for the
offer. (5) UA A reformulates the INVITE request under consideration
of the received policies and includes a Policy-Id header to indicate
that it has already contacted PS A. P A does not reject the INVITE
this time and removes the Policy-Id header when forwarding the
INVITE. P B adds a Policy-Contact header containing the URI of PS B.
(6) UA B uses this URI to contact PS B and discloses the offer and
the answer it is about to send. (7) UA B receives policies from PS B
and applies them to the offer and answer respectively. (8) UA B
returns the updated answer in the 200 OK. (9) UA A contacts PS A with
the answer and (10) retrieves answer policies from PS A.
Hilt, et al. Expires April 19, 2006 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Session Policy Framework October 2005
UA A P A P B UA B
| | | |
| INVITE offer | | |
|---------------->| | | (1)
| 488 | | |
| + Policy-Contact| | |
|<----------------| | | (2)
| ACK | | |
|---------------->| | |
| | PS A | |
| | | |
| PolicyChannel | | |
| + InfoOffer | | |
|------------------->| | | (3)
| PolicyChannel | | |
| + PolicyOffer | | |
|<-------------------| | | (4)
| | | |
| | | |
| INVITE offer' | INVITE offer' | INVITE offer |
| + Policy-Id | | + Policy-Contact|
|---------------->|--------------->|---------------->| (5)
| | | |
| | PS B | |
| | | |
| | | PolicyChannel |
| | | + InfoOffer |
| | | + InfoAnswer |
| | |<-------------------| (6)
| | | PolicyChannel |
| | | + PolicyOffer |
| | | + PolicyAnswer |
| | |------------------->| (7)
| | | |
| | | |
| OK answer | OK answer | OK answer |
|<----------------|<---------------|<----------------| (8)
| ACK |
|--------------------------------------------------->|
| | | |
| | | |
| PolicyChannel | | |
| + InfoAnswer | | |
|------------------->| | | (9)
| PolicyChannel | | |
| + PolicyAnswer | | |
|<-------------------| | | (10)
| | | |
Hilt, et al. Expires April 19, 2006 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Session Policy Framework October 2005
Figure 2
4.3.2. Offer in Response
This call flow depicts an INVITE transaction with the offer in the
response.
Steps (1) - (8) are analogous to steps (1) - (8) in the above flow.
An important difference is that in steps (9) and (10) UA A contacts
PS A after receiving the offer in the 200 OK but before returning the
answer in step (11). This enables UA A to return the final answer,
which includes all applicable policies, in the ACK. However, it
requires that PS A immediately returns a policy to avoid a delay in
the transmission of the ACK. This is similar to Flow I in [10].
UA A P A P B UA B
| | | |
| INVITE | | |
|---------------->| | | (1)
| 488 | | |
| + Policy-Contact| | |
|<----------------| | | (2)
| ACK | | |
|---------------->| | |
| | PS A | |
| | | |
| PolicyChannel | | |
|------------------->| | | (3)
| PolicyChannel | | |
|<-------------------| | | (4)
| | | |
| | | |
| INVITE | INVITE | INVITE |
| + Policy-Id | | + Policy-Contact|
|---------------->|--------------->|---------------->| (5)
| | | |
| | PS B | |
| | | |
| | | PolicyChannel |
| | | + InfoOffer |
| | |<-------------------| (6)
| | | PolicyChannel |
| | | + PolicyOffer |
| | |------------------->| (7)
| | | |
| | | |
| OK offer | OK offer | OK offer |
|<----------------|<---------------|<----------------| (8)
Hilt, et al. Expires April 19, 2006 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Session Policy Framework October 2005
| | | |
| | | |
| PolicyChannel | | |
| + InfoOffer | | |
| + InfoAnswer | | |
|------------------->| | | (9)
| PolicyChannel | | |
| + PolicyOffer | | |
| + PolicyAnswer | | |
|<-------------------| | | (10)
| | | |
| ACK answer |
|--------------------------------------------------->| (11)
| | | |
| | | |
| | | PolicyChannel |
| | | + InfoAnswer |
| | |<-------------------| (12)
| | | PolicyChannel |
| | | + PolicyAnswer |
| | |------------------->| (13)
| | | |
Figure 3
4.4. UA/Policy Server Rendezvous
The first step in setting up session-specific policies is to
rendezvous the UAs with the relevant policy servers. This is
achieved by providing the URIs of all policy servers relevant for a
session to the UAs.
4.4.1. UAC Behavior
When a UA compliant to this specification generates an INVITE or
UPDATE request, it MUST include a Supported header field with the
option tag "policy" in the request.
A UAC may receive a 488 in response to an INVITE or UPDATE request,
which contains a Policy-Contact header field. This is a new header
defined in this specification that contains the URI of a policy
server. A 488 response with this header is generated by a proxy to
convey the URI of the local policy server to the UAC. The UAC SHOULD
use this URI to contact the policy server and ask for policies for
current session. The UAC SHOULD apply the policies received and
resend the updated request.
The UAC MUST a Policy-Id header into the updated request. The
Hilt, et al. Expires April 19, 2006 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Session Policy Framework October 2005
Policy-Id header MUST include the URIs of all policy servers the UAC
has contacted during the processing of the request. The Policy-Id
header enables a proxy to determine whether the URI of its policy
server is already known to the UAC (and thus the request can be
passed through) or whether the URI still needs to be conveyed to the
UAC in a 488 response.
In some cases, a request may traverse multiple domains with session-
policies in place. Each of these domains may return a 488 response
containing a policy server URI. Since the UAC contacts the policy
server URI received in a 488 response before it resends the request,
session policies are always applied to a session in the order in
which the request traverses through these domains. The UAC SHOULD
NOT change this implicit order among policy servers.
Session policies may apply to the offer, the answer or both session
descriptions. Depending on the type of session policies, a UAC may
need to submit the offer and/or the answer to the policy server. If
offer and answer are submitted separately, they MUST be submitted to
the same policy servers. If the UAC receives an answer in the
response to an INVITE request (i.e. the request contained the offer),
it MUST send the ACK before retrieving the policies for the answer
from the policy server. If the UAC receives a response with an offer
(i.e. the INVITE request did not contain an offer), the UAC MUST
first contact the policy server to retrieve session policies and
apply these policies before sending the answer in the ACK. The
answer in the ACK will therefore already consider the relevant
policies.
This approach assumes that the policy server immediately responds
to a policy request and does not require manual intervention to
create a policy. A delay in the response from the policy server
would delay the transmission of the ACK and could trigger
retransmissions of the INVITE response (also see the
recommendations for Flow I in [10]).
4.4.2. Caching of Policy Server URIs
A UAC SHOULD cache the URI of the local policy server. It receives
this URI in a 488 from the proxy in the local domain. The UAC SHOULD
use this URI to retrieve session policies for a new INVITE or UPDATE
request before it is sent. Caching the local policy server URI
avoids the retransmission of this URI for each new INVITE or UPDATE
request. Domains can prevent the UAC from caching the local policy
server URI. This is useful, for example, if the policy server does
not need to be involved in all sessions or the policy server URI
changes from session to session. A proxy can mark the URI of such a
policy server as "non-cacheable". The UA SHOULD NOT cache a non-
Hilt, et al. Expires April 19, 2006 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Session Policy Framework October 2005
cacheable policy server URI. It SHOULD remove the current URI from
the cache when receiving a "non-cacheable" URI.
The UAC SHOULD NOT cache policy server URIs it has received from
proxies outside of the local domain. These policy servers may not be
relevant for subsequent sessions, which may go to a different
destination and may traverse different domains.
The UAC SHOULD store the list of policy server URIs is has contacted
for a session. The UAC should keep this list until the session is
terminated. The UAC SHOULD contact the policy server URIs in this
list for each mid-dialog INVITE or UPDATE request. This avoids the
retransmission of policy server URIs for each mid-dialog requests.
4.4.3. UAS Behavior
An incoming INVITE or UPDATE request may contain a Policy-Contact
header with a list of policy server URIs. The UAS SHOULD use these
URIs to ask for session policies. The UAS MUST use the policy server
URIs in the order in which they were contained in the Policy-Contact
header, starting with the topmost value.
If the UAS receives an ACK with an answer, it may need to contact the
policy servers again depending on the policy type. In this case, it
MUST contact the same policy servers it has contacted for the offer.
4.4.4. Proxy Behavior
A proxy may provide the URI of the local policy server to the UAC or
the UAS when processing an INVITE or UPDATE request.
If an INVITE or UPDATE request contains a Supported header field with
the option tag "policy", the proxy MAY reject the request with a 488
response to provide the local policy server URI to the UAC. Before
rejecting a request, the proxy MUST check whether the request has a
Policy-Id header field that already contains this policy server URI.
If the request does not have such a header or the local policy server
URI is not present in that header, then the proxy MAY reject the
request with a 488. The proxy MUST insert a Policy-Contact header in
the 488 response that contains the URI of the local policy server.
The proxy MAY add the header field parameter "non-cacheable" to
prevent the UAC from caching this policy server URI.
If the local policy server URI is already present in the Policy-Id
header of an INVITE or UPDATE request, the proxy MUST NOT reject the
request as described above. The proxy SHOULD remove this policy
server URI from the Policy-Id header field before forwarding the
request.
Hilt, et al. Expires April 19, 2006 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Session Policy Framework October 2005
The proxy MAY insert a Policy-Contact header field into an INVITE or
UPDATE request in order to convey the policy server URI to the UAS.
If the request already contains a Policy-Contact header field, the
proxy MUST insert the URI before all existing values at the beginning
of the list. A proxy MUST NOT change the order of existing Policy-
Contact header values.
4.4.5. Header Definition and Syntax
The Policy-Id header field is inserted into an INVITE or UPDATE
request by the UAC. It identifies all policy servers the UAC has
contacted for the request. A Policy-Id header value is the URI of a
policy server.
The syntax of the Policy-Id header field is:
Policy-Id = "Policy-Id" HCOLON absoluteURI
*(COMMA absoluteURI)
The Policy-Contact header field can be inserted into INVITE and
UPDATE requests by a proxy. It contains an ordered list of policy
server URIs that need to be contacted by the UAS. The UAS starts to
process the header field at the topmost value of this list. New
header field values are inserted at the top. The Policy-Contact
header field effectively forms a stack. The "non-cacheable" header
field parameter MUST NOT be used in a request.
The Policy-Contact header field can also be inserted into a 488
response to an INVITE or UPDATE request by a proxy. It contains a
policy server URI that needs to be contacted by the UAC. A proxy MAY
add the "non-cacheable" header field parameter to indicate that the
UAC should not cache the policy server URI.
The syntax of the Policy-Contact header field is:
Policy-Contact = "Policy-Contact" HCOLON policyURI
*(COMMA policyURI)
policyURI = absoluteURI [ SEMI "non-cacheable" ]
The BNF for absoluteURI is defined in [6].
Table 1 is an extension of Tables 2 and 3 in [6]. The column 'UPD'
is for the UPDATE method [5].
Hilt, et al. Expires April 19, 2006 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft Session Policy Framework October 2005
Header field where proxy ACK BYE CAN INV OPT REG UPD
_______________________________________________________________
Policy-Id R rd - - - o - - o
Policy-Contact R a - - - o - - o
Policy-Contact 488 a - - - o - - o
Table 1: Policy-Id and Policy-Contact Header Fields
Figure 6
4.5. Policy Channel Protocol
The policy channel is implemented by the "session-spec-policy" event
package defined in [2]. When a UA needs to contact a policy server
it creates (or refreshes) a subscription to the policy server using
the above event package. All implementations MUST support this event
package as a policy channel implementation.
A UA may receive policy updates through the policy channel. The UA
SHOULD apply these policies to the current session. It may need to
generate a re-INVITE or UPDATE request to communicate the changes in
the session to the peer UA.
5. Security Considerations
In particular authentication and authorization are critical issues
that need to be addressed here.
[TBD.]
6. IANA Considerations
[TBD.]
Appendix A. Acknowledgements
Many thanks to Allison Mankin for the discussions and the suggestions
for this draft. Many thanks also to everyone who contributed by
providing feedback on the mailing list and in IETF meetings.
7. References
Hilt, et al. Expires April 19, 2006 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft Session Policy Framework October 2005
7.1. Normative References
[1] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement
Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[2] Hilt, V. and G. Camarillo, "A Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)
Event Package for Session-Specific Session Policies.",
draft-hilt-sipping-session-policy-package-00 (work in progress),
October 2005.
[3] Hilt, V., Camarillo, G., and J. Rosenberg, "A User Agent Profile
Data Set for Media Policy",
draft-hilt-sipping-media-policy-dataset-00 (work in progress),
October 2005.
[4] Petrie, D., "A Framework for Session Initiation Protocol User
Agent Profile Delivery", draft-ietf-sipping-config-framework-07
(work in progress), July 2005.
[5] Rosenberg, J., "The Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) UPDATE
Method", RFC 3311, October 2002.
[6] 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.
7.2. Informative References
[7] Handley, M. and V. Jacobson, "SDP: Session Description
Protocol", RFC 2327, April 1998.
[8] Hilt, V. and G. Camarillo, "Use Cases for Session-Specific
Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Session Policies",
draft-hilt-sipping-policy-usecases-00 (work in progress),
June 2005.
[9] Petrie, D., Lawrence, S., Dolly, M., and V. Hilt, "A Schema and
Guidelines for Defining Session Initiation Protocol User Agent
Profile Data Sets", draft-petrie-sipping-profile-datasets-02
(work in progress), October 2005.
[10] Rosenberg, J., Peterson, J., Schulzrinne, H., and G. Camarillo,
"Best Current Practices for Third Party Call Control (3pcc) in
the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)", BCP 85, RFC 3725,
April 2004.
Hilt, et al. Expires April 19, 2006 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft Session Policy Framework October 2005
Authors' Addresses
Volker Hilt
Bell Labs/Lucent Technologies
101 Crawfords Corner Rd
Holmdel, NJ 07733
USA
Email: volkerh@bell-labs.com
Gonzalo Camarillo
Ericsson
Hirsalantie 11
Jorvas 02420
Finland
Email: Gonzalo.Camarillo@ericsson.com
Jonathan Rosenberg
Cisco Systems
600 Lanidex Plaza
Parsippany, NJ 07054
USA
Email: jdrosen@cisco.com
Hilt, et al. Expires April 19, 2006 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft Session Policy Framework October 2005
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 procedures with respect to rights in RFC 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 (2005). 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.
Hilt, et al. Expires April 19, 2006 [Page 19]