SIMPLE Working Group C. Holmberg
Internet-Draft S. Blau
Intended status: Standards Track Ericsson
Expires: March 1, 2012 E. Burger
Georgetown University
August 29, 2011
Connection Establishment for Media Anchoring (CEMA) for the Message
Session Relay Protocol (MSRP)
draft-ietf-simple-msrp-cema-01.txt
Abstract
This document defines an Message Session Relay Protocol (MSRP)
extension, Connection Establishment for Media Anchoring (CEMA).
Support of the extension is optional. The extension allows
Middleboxes to anchor the MSRP connection, without the need for
Middleboxes to modify the MSRP messages, and thus also enables a
secure end-to-end MSRP communication in networks where such
Middleboxes are deployed. The document also defines a Session
Description Protocol (SDP) attribute, a=msrp-cema, that MSRP
endpoints use to indicate support of the CEMA extension.
Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF 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 http://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 March 1, 2012.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2011 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
Holmberg, et al. Expires March 1, 2012 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft MRSP August 2011
(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. Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Applicability Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. Connection Establishment for Media Anchoring Mechanism . . . . 5
4.1. General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.2. MSRP Offer Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.3. MSRP Answer Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.4. Usage With the Alternative Connection Model . . . . . . . 9
5. Middlebox Assumptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.1. General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.2. MSRP Awareness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.3. TCP Connection Reuse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.4. SDP Integrity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.5. TLS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6.1. Man in the Middle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6.2. TLS Usage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6.3. TLS and Insecure Signaling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7.1. IANA Registration of the SDP a=msrp-cema Attribute . . . . 12
8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
9. Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Holmberg, et al. Expires March 1, 2012 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft MRSP August 2011
1. Introduction
The Message Session Relay Protocol (MSRP) [RFC4975] expects to use
MSRP relays [RFC4976] as a means for Network Address Translation
(NAT) traversal and policy enforcement. However, many Session
Initiation Protocol (SIP) [RFC3261] networks, which deploy MSRP,
contain Middleboxes. These Middleboxes anchor and control media,
perform tasks such as NAT traversal, performance monitoring, lawful
intercept, address domain bridging, interconnect Service Layer
Agreement (SLA) policy enforcement, and so on. One example is the
Interconnection Border Control Function (IBCF) [GPP23228], defined by
the 3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP). The IBCF controls a
media relay that handles all types of SIP session media such as
voice, video, MSRP, etc.
MSRP, as defined in RFC 4975 [RFC4975] and RFC 4976 [RFC4976], cannot
anchor through Middleboxes. The reason is that MSRP messages have
routing information embedded in the message. Without an extension
such as CEMA, Middleboxes must read the message to change the routing
information. This occurs because Middleboxes modify the address:port
information in the Session Description Protocol (SDP) [RFC4566] c/m-
line in order to anchor media. Since the active MSRP UA establishes
the MSRP TCP or TLS connection based on the MSRP URI of the SDP
a=path attribute, this means that the MSRP connection will not,
unless the Middlebox also modifies the MSRP URI of the topmost SDP
a=path attribute, be routed through the Middlebox. In many scenarios
this will prevent the MSRP connection from being established. In
addition, if the Middlebox modifies the MSRP URI of the SDP a=path
attribute, then the MSRP URI comparison procedure [RFC4975], which
requires consistency between the address information in the MSRP
messages and the address information carried in the MSRP URI of the
SDP a=path attribute, will fail. Also the matching will fail if
Middleboxes modify the address information in the MSRP URI of the SDP
a=path attribute.
The only way to achieve interoperability in this situation is for the
Middlebox to act as a MSRP back-to-back User Agent (B2BUA). Here the
MSRP B2BUA acts as the endpoint for the MSRP signaling and media,
performs the corresponding modification in the associated MSRP
messages, and originates a new MSRP session towards the actual remote
endpoint. However, the enabling of MSRP B2BUA functionality requires
substantially more resource usage in the Middlebox, that normally
result in negative performance impact. In addition, the MSRP message
needs to be exposed in clear text to the MSRP B2BUA, which violates
the end-to-end principle [RFC3724] .
This specification defines an MSRP extension, Connection
Establishment for Media Anchoring (CEMA). CEMA in most cases allows
Holmberg, et al. Expires March 1, 2012 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft MRSP August 2011
MSRP endpoints to communicate through Middleboxes without a need for
the Middleboxes to be a MSRP B2BUA. In such cases, Middleboxes that
want to anchor the MSRP connection simply modify the SDP c/m-line
address information, similar to what it does for non-MSRP media
types. MSRP endpoints that support the CEMA extension will use the
SDP c/m-line address information for establishing the TCP or TLS
connection for sending and receiving MSRP messages.
The CEMA extension is fully backward compatible. In scenarios where
MSRP endpoints do not support the CEMA extension, an MSRP endpoint
that supports the CEMA extension behaves in the same way as an MSRP
endpoint that does not support it. The CEMA extension only provides
an alternative mechanism for negotiating and providing address
information for the MSRP TCP connection. After the creation of the
MSRP connection, an MSRP endpoint that supports the CEMA extension
acts according to the procedures for creating MSRP messages,
performing checks when receiving MSRP messages defined in RFC 4975
and, when it is using a relay for MSRP communications, RFC 4976.
2. Conventions
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 BCP 14, RFC 2119
[RFC2119].
Definitions:
Fingerprint Based TLS Authentication: An MSRP endpoint that uses a
self-signed TLS certificate and sends a certificate fingerprint in
SDP.
Name Based TLS Authentication: An MSRP endpoint that uses a
certificate from a well known certificate authority and the other
endpoint matches the hostname in the received TLS communication
SubjectAltName parameter towards the hostname received in the MSRP
URI in SDP.
B2BUA: This is an abbreviation for back-to-back user agent.
MSRP B2BUA: A network element that terminates a MSRP connection from
one MSRP endpoint and reoriginates that connection towards another
MSRP endpoint. Note the MSRP B2BUA is distinct from a SIP B2BUA. A
SIP B2BUA terminates a SIP session and reoriginates that session
towards another SIP endpoint. In the context of MSRP, a SIP endpoint
initiates a SIP session towards another SIP endpoint. However, that
INVITE may go through, for example, an outbound Proxy or inbound
Holmberg, et al. Expires March 1, 2012 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft MRSP August 2011
Proxy to route to the remote SIP endpoint. As part of that SIP
session a MSRP session, that may follow the SIP session path, is
negotiated. However, there is no requirement to co-locate the SIP
network elements with the MSRP network elements.
Middlebox: A SIP network device that modifies SDP media address:port
information in order to steer or anchor media flows described in the
SDP, including TCP and TLS connections used for MSRP communication,
through a media proxy function controlled by the SIP endpoint. In
most cases the media proxy function relays the MSRP messages without
modification, while in some circumstances it acts as a MSRP B2BUA.
Other SIP related functions, such as related to routing, modification
of SIP information etc., performed by the Middlebox, and whether it
acts a SIP B2BUA or not, is outside the scope of this document.
Section 5 describes additional assumptions regarding how the
Middlebox handles MSRP in order to support the extension defined in
this document.
3. Applicability Statement
This document defines an Message Session Relay Protocol (MSRP)
extension, Connection Establishment for Media Anchoring (CEMA).
Support of the extension is optional. The extension allows
Middleboxes to anchor the MSRP connection, without the need for
Middleboxes to modify the MSRP messages, and thus also enables a
secure end-to-end MSRP communication in networks where such
Middleboxes are deployed. The document also defines a Session
Description Protocol (SDP) attribute, a=msrp-cema, that MSRP
endpoints use to indicate support of the CEMA extension.
The CEMA extension is primarily intended for MSRP endpoints that
operate in networks in which Middleboxes that want to anchor media
connections are deployed, without the need for the Middleboxes to
enable MSRP B2BUA functionality. An example of such network is the
IP Multimedia Subsystem (IMS) defined by the 3rd Generation
Partnership Project (3GPP), which also has the capability for all
endpoints to use Name-based TLS Authentication. The extension is
also useful for other MSRP endpoints operating in other networks, but
that communicate with MSRP endpoints in networks with such
Middleboxes, unless there is a gateway between the networks that by
default always enable MSRP B2BUA functionality.
4. Connection Establishment for Media Anchoring Mechanism
Holmberg, et al. Expires March 1, 2012 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft MRSP August 2011
4.1. General
This section defines how an MSRP endpoint that supports the CEMA
extension generates SDP offers and answers for MSRP, and what SDP
information elements the MSRP endpoint uses when creating the TCP or
TLS connection for the MSRP messages.
In the following cases, where there is a Middlebox in the network,
the CEMA extension can not be used, and there will be a fallback to
the MSRP connection establishment procedures defined in RFC 4975 and
RFC 4976:
- A non-CEMA-enabled MSRP endpoint becomes "active".
- A non-CEMA-enabled MSRP endpoint uses a relay for its MSRP
communication.
- A CEMA-enabled MSRP endpoint that uses a relay for its MSRP
communication becomes "active".
4.2. MSRP Offer Procedures
When a CEMA-enabled MSRP endpoint sends an SDP offer for MSRP, it
generates the SDP offer according to the procedures in RFC 4975. In
addition, the endpoint follows RFC 4976 if it is using a relay for
MSRP communication. The endpoint also performs the following
additions and modifications:
1. The MSRP endpoint MUST include an SDP a=msrp-cema attribute in
the MSRP media description of the SDP offer.
2. If the MSRP endpoint is not using a relay for MSRP communication,
it MUST include an SDP a=setup attribute in the MSRP media
description of the SDP offer, according to the procedures in RFC 6135
[RFC6135].
3. If the MSRP endpoint is using a relay for MSRP communication, it
MUST include the address information of the relay (the MSRP URI of
the topmost SDP a=path attribute), rather than the address
information of itself, in the SDP c/m-line associated with the MSRP
media description. In addition, it MUST include an SDP a=setup:
actpass attribute in the MSRP media description of the SDP offer.
When the MSRP endpoint receives the associated SDP answer, the SDP
answer indicates that the remote MSRP endpoint accepted the offered
MSRP media if the port number of the MSRP media description is not
zero.
Holmberg, et al. Expires March 1, 2012 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft MRSP August 2011
If the MSRP media description of the SDP answer does not contain an
SDP a=msrp-cema attribute, the MSRP endpoint MUST check the criteria
below. If either or both of the criteria is met, the MSRP endpoint
MUST fallback to RFC 4975 behavior, by sending a new SDP offer
according to the procedures in RFC 4975 and RFC 4976. The new offer
MUST NOT contain an SDP a=msrp-cema attribute.
1. The SDP c/m-line address information associated with the MSRP
media description does not match the information in the MSRP URI of
the topmost SDP a=path attribute, and the MSRP media description
contains an SDP a=setup:active attribute (indicating that the remote
MSRP endpoint is "active").
2. The MSRP media description contains multiple SDP a=path
attributes, indicating the use of MSRP relays.
NOTE: In the absence of the SDP a=msrp-cema attribute in the new
offer, it is assumed that a Middlebox will act as an MSRP B2BUA in
order to anchor MSRP media.
The MSRP endpoint MAY choose to terminate the session establishment
if it can detect that a Middlebox acting as a MSRP B2BUA is not the
desired remote endpoint.
The MSRP endpoint can send the new offer within the existing early
dialog [RFC3261], or it can terminate the early dialog and establish
a new dialog by sending the new offer in a new initial INVITE
request.
In all other cases, where the MSRP endpoint becomes "active", it MUST
use the SDP c/m-line for establishing the MSRP TCP or TLS connection.
If the MSRP endpoint becomes "passive", it will wait for the remote
MSRP endpoint to establish the connection, according to the
procedures in RFC 4975.
4.3. MSRP Answer Procedures
If any of the criteria below is met, the MSRP endpoint MUST fallback
to RFC 4975 behavior and generate the associated SDP answer according
to the procedures in RFC 4975 and RFC 4976. The MSRP endpoint MUST
NOT insert an SDP a=msrp-cema attribute in the MSRP media description
of the SDP answer.
1. Both MSRP endpoints are using relays for MSRP communication. An
endpoint can detect the remote MSRP endpoint is using a relay for
MSRP communication if the MSRP media description of the SDP offer
contains multiple SDP a=path attributes.
Holmberg, et al. Expires March 1, 2012 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft MRSP August 2011
2. The remote MSRP endpoint uses a relay for MSRP communication, and
will become "active" either by default or if the MSRP media
description of the SDP offer contains an SDP a=setup:active
attribute. Note that a CEMA-enabled endpoint would include an SDP
a=setup:actpass attribute in the SDP offer, as described in Section
4.2.
3. The MSRP endpoint uses a relay for MSRP communication and is not
able to become "passive". The indication for this is the MSRP media
description of the offer contains an SDP a=setup:passive attribute.
Note that an MSRP endpoint is now allowed to include an SDP a=setup:
passive attribute in an SDP offer, as described in RFC 6135.
4. The MSRP media description of the SDP offer does not contain an
SDP a=msrp-cema attribute, the SDP c/m-line address information
associated with the MSRP media description does not match the
information in the MSRP URI of the topmost SDP a=path attribute, and
the remote MSRP endpoint will become "active", either by default, or
if the MSRP media description of the SDP offer contains an SDP
a=setup:active attribute.
In all other cases, the MSRP endpoint generates the associated SDP
answer according to the procedures in RFC 4975 and RFC 4976, with the
following additions and modifications:
1. The MSRP endpoint MUST include an SDP a=msrp-cema attribute in
the MSRP media description of the SDP answer.
2. If the MSRP endpoint is not using a relay for MSRP communication,
it MUST include an SDP a=setup attribute in the MSRP media
description of the answer, according to the procedures in RFC 6135.
3. If the MSRP endpoint is using a relay for MSRP communication, it
MUST include the address information on the relay (the MSRP URI of
the topmost SDP a=path attribute), rather than the address
information of itself, in the SDP c/m-line associated with the MSRP
media description. In addition, it MUST include an SDP a=setup:
passive attribute in the MSRP media description of the SDP answer.
If the MSRP endpoint included an SDP a=msrp-cema attribute in the
MSRP media description of the SDP answer, and if the MSRP endpoint
becomes "active", it MUST use the received SDP c/m-line for
establishing the MSRP TLS connection. If the MSRP endpoint becomes
"passive", it will wait for the remote MSRP endpoint to establish the
TCP or TLS connection, according to the procedures in RFC 4975.
Holmberg, et al. Expires March 1, 2012 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft MRSP August 2011
4.4. Usage With the Alternative Connection Model
An MSRP endpoint that supports the CEMA extension MUST support the
mechanism defined in RFC 6135, as it extends the number of scenarios
where one can use the CEMA extension. An example is where a MSRP
endpoint is using a relay for MSRP communication, and it needs to be
"passive" in order to use the CEMA extension, instead of doing a
fallback to RFC 4975 behavior.
5. Middlebox Assumptions
5.1. General
This document does not specify explicit Middlebox behavior, even
though Middleboxes enable some of the procedures described here.
However, as MSRP endpoints are expected to operate in networks where
Middleboxes that want to anchor media are present, this document
makes certain assumptions regarding to how such Middleboxes behave.
5.2. MSRP Awareness
In order to support interoperability between UAs that support the
CEMA extension and UAs that do not support the extension, the
Middlebox is MSRP aware. This means that it implements MSRP B2BUA
functionality. The Middlebox enables that functionality in cases
where the remote endpoint does not support the CEMA extension. In
cases where the SDP offer indicates support of the CEMA extension,
the Middlebox can simply modify the SDP c/m-line address information
for the MSRP connection.
5.3. TCP Connection Reuse
Middleboxes do not need to parse and modify the MSRP payload when
endpoints use the CEMA extension. A Middlebox that does not parse
the MSRP payload probably will not be able to reuse TCP connections
for multiple MSRP sessions. Instead, in order to associate an MSRP
message with a specific session, the Middlebox often assigns a unique
local address:port combination for each MSRP session.
5.4. SDP Integrity
This document assumes that Middleboxes are able to modify the SDP
address information associated with the MSRP media. Middleboxes
cannot be deployed in environments that require end-to-end SDP
protection using SIP identity [RFC4916].
Holmberg, et al. Expires March 1, 2012 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft MRSP August 2011
5.5. TLS
When UAs use the CEMA extension, Middleboxes relay MSRP media packets
at the transport layer. The TLS handshake and resulting security
association (SA) are established peer-to-peer between the MSRP
endpoints. The Middlebox will see encrypted MSRP media packets, but
is unable to inspect the clear text content.
When UAs fallback to RFC 4975 behavior Middleboxes act as TLS B2BUAs,
meaning that separate SAs are established between the Middlebox and
each MSRP endpoint. The Middlebox decrypts MSRP media packets
received from one MSRP endpoint, and then re-encrypts them before
sending them toward the other MSRP endpoint. Middleboxes can inspect
and modify the MSRP message content.
6. Security Considerations
6.1. Man in the Middle
In some cases, where MSRP B2BUA functionality does not need to be
enabled, the CEMA extension makes it easier for a man in the middle
(MiTM) to transparently insert itself in the communication between
MSRP endpoints in order to monitor or record unprotected MSRP
communication. It does not however make it easier for a MiTM to
monitor TLS protected MSRP, or in any significant way modify TLS
protected MSRP content or even find out that the packets contain MSRP
messages, since that would require the MiTM to implement MSRP B2BUA
functionality, no matter if UAs support the CEMA extension or not.
It would thus require the MiTM to terminate the TCP/TLS/MSRP
connection in both directions. MSRP endpoints SHOULD use encrypted
channels, if possible. For backward compability, a CEMA-enabled MSRP
endpoint MUST implement TLS.
6.2. TLS Usage
The CEMA extension supports the usage of name-based authentication
for TLS in the presence of Middleboxes.
If a Middlebox acts as a TLS B2BUA, MSRP endpoints will be able to
use fingerprint based authentication for TLS, no matter if they
support the CEMA extension or not. In such cases, as the Middlebox
acts as TLS endpoints, MSRP endpoints might be given an incorrect
impression that there is an end-to-end security association (SA)
between the MSRP endpoints.
If a Middlebox does not act as a TLS B2BUA, fingerprint based
authentication will not work, as the "SIP Identity" based integrity
Holmberg, et al. Expires March 1, 2012 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft MRSP August 2011
protection of SDP will break. Therefore, in addition to the
authentication mechanisms defined in RFC 4975, it is RECOMMENDED that
a CEMA-enabled MSRP endpoint also supports an authentication
mechanism that does not rely on peer-to-peer SDP integrity.
It is RECOMMENDED that an MSRP endpoint support one of the following
authentication mechanisms:
1. TLS certificates together with support of interacting with a
Certificate Management Service [RFC6072], to which it publishes the
public version of its own self-signed certificate and from which it
fetches on demand the public certificates of other endpoints.
2. TLS-PSK managed by MIKEY-TICKET Based Key Management and Key
Management Service [RFC6043]. Note that 3GPP has specified the
MIKEY-TICKET based Key Management and Key Management Service
authentication mechanism for the IP Multimedia Subsystem (IMS). Thus
it will be available in that environment.
When an MSRP endpoint generates an SDP offer for MSRPS, in addition
to the SDP attributes associated with the TLS authentication
mechanisms described in RFC 4975, it MUST include any information
elements associated with the other authentication mechanisms that it
supports.
Unless the MSRP endpoints are able to use name-based authentication,
and they support a common authentication mechanism, they MUST use
that mechanism. If the MSRP endpoints do not support such common
authentication mechanism, they MUST try fingerprint-based
authentication, which will succeed if there are no Middleboxes
present. If that also fails, the MSRP endpoints MUST either:
1. Consider the TLS authentication as failed, in accordance with RFC
4975; or
2. If something like SIPS protects the SIP signaling between the
MSRP endpoints, use fingerprint based authentication without
requiring peer-to-peer SDP integrity, and thus trust the network
endpoints in the signaling path for SDP integrity.
As defined in RFC 4975, if TLS authentication fails, the user needs
to be able to decide whether to try to establish an MSRP connection
in the likely scenario of intercepted, altered,
6.3. TLS and Insecure Signaling
One of the side effects of relieving Middleboxes from manipulating
message content is CEMA provides an environment necessary for end-to-
Holmberg, et al. Expires March 1, 2012 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft MRSP August 2011
end integrity of MSRP media. However, while CEMA provides a
prerequisite for end-to-end integrity, it is not sufficient.
CEMA recommends using an integrity-protected media channel, such as
TLS. As defined in RFC 4975, all MSRP endpoints MUST support TLS.
That applies also to CEMA-enabled endpoints.
One issue with usage of TLS is the availability of a certificate
infrastructure. Endpoints can always provide self-signed
certificates. However, this is problematic in that any endpoint can
masquerade as another, by providing a self-signed certificate with
the victim's information.
One of the target deployments for CEMA is the 3GPP IMS SIP network.
In this environment service providers provision signed certificates
or manage signed certificates on behalf of their subscribers. This
does require trusting the service provider, but those issues are
beyond the scope of this document.
Alternate key distribution mechanisms, such as DANE [DANE], PGP
[RFC6091], or some other technology, might become ubiquitous enough
to solve the key distribution problem in the future.
Even with seemingly end-to-end media integrity, at the time of the
publication of this document there are other vulnerabilities in MSRP,
due to vulnerabilities in the SIP signaling. If there are no
integrity protections on the SIP signaling, it is easy to insert
malicious Middleboxes to alter, record, or otherwise harm the media.
With insecure signaling, it can be difficult for an endpoint to even
be aware the remote endpoint has any relationship to the expected
endpoint. Securing the SIP signaling does not solve all problems.
For example, in a SIPS environment, the endpoints have no
cryptographic way of validating that one or more SIP Proxies in the
proxy chain are not, in fact, malicious.
7. IANA Considerations
7.1. IANA Registration of the SDP a=msrp-cema Attribute
This section registers a new SDP attribute, a=msrp-cema. The
required information for this registration, as specified in RFC 4566,
is:
Holmberg, et al. Expires March 1, 2012 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft MRSP August 2011
Contact name: Christer Holmberg
Contact e-mail: christer.holmberg@ericsson.com
Attribute name: a=msrp-cema
Type of attribute: media level
Purpose: This attribute is used to indicate support of
the MSRP Connection Establishment for Media
Anchoring (CEMA) extension defined in
RFC XXXX. When present in an MSRP media
description of an SDP body, it indicates
that the sending UA supports the CEMA
mechanism.
Values: The attribute does not carry a value
Charset dependency: none
8. Acknowledgements
Thanks to Ben Campbell, Remi Denis-Courmont, Nancy Greene, Hadriel
Kaplan, Adam Roach, Robert Sparks, Salvatore Loreto, Shida Schubert,
Ted Hardie, Richard L Barnes, Inaki Baz Castillo, Saul Ibarra
Corretge, Cullen Jennings, and Adrian Georgescu for their guidance
and input in order to produce this document.
9. Change Log
[RFC EDITOR NOTE: Please remove this section when publishing]
Changes from draft-ietf-simple-msrp-sessmatch-13
o Changed the draft name, as was suggested by our AD and work group.
o Clean up language use, clarify language, and clean up editorial
and style issues.
o Formally defined a MSRP B2BUA.
Changes from draft-ietf-simple-msrp-sessmatch-12
o Extension name changed to Connection Establishment for Media
Anchoring (CEMA).
o Middlebox definition added.
o ALG terminology replaced with Middlebox.
o SDP attribute name changed to a=msrp-cema.
Holmberg, et al. Expires March 1, 2012 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft MRSP August 2011
o Applicability Statement section expanded.
o Re-structuring of MSRP Answerer section.
o Changes based on comments from Saul Ibarra Corretge (1406111).
Changes from draft-ietf-simple-msrp-sessmatch-11
o Modification of the sessmatch mechanism.
o - Extension name changed to Alternative Connection Establishment
(ACE)
o - Session matching procedure no longer updated.
o - SDP c/m-line used for MSRP TCP connection.
o - sessmatch option-tag removed.
o - a=msrp-ace attribute defined.
o - Support of RFC 6135 mandatory.
Changes from draft-ietf-simple-msrp-sessmatch-10
o Sessmatch option-tag added, based on WG discussions and concensus.
Changes from draft-ietf-simple-msrp-sessmatch-08
o OPEN ISSUE regarding the need for a sessmatch option-tag removed.
Changes from draft-ietf-simple-msrp-sessmatch-07
o Sessmatch defined as an MSRP extension, rather than MSRP update
o Additional security considerations text added
10. References
10.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC3261] 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.
[RFC4566] Handley, M., Jacobson, V., and C. Perkins, "SDP: Session
Description Protocol", RFC 4566, July 2006.
[RFC4975] Campbell, B., Mahy, R., and C. Jennings, "The Message
Session Relay Protocol (MSRP)", RFC 4975, September 2007.
[RFC4976] Jennings, C., Mahy, R., and A. Roach, "Relay Extensions
for the Message Sessions Relay Protocol (MSRP)", RFC 4976,
September 2007.
[RFC6072] Jennings, C. and J. Fischl, "Certificate Management
Holmberg, et al. Expires March 1, 2012 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft MRSP August 2011
Service for the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)",
RFC 6072, February 2011.
[RFC6135] Holmberg, C. and S. Blau, "An Alternative Connection Model
for the Message Session Relay Protocol (MSRP)", RFC 6135,
February 2011.
10.2. Informative References
[RFC3724] Kempf, J., Austein, R., and IAB, "The Rise of the Middle
and the Future of End-to-End: Reflections on the Evolution
of the Internet Architecture", RFC 3724, March 2004.
[RFC4916] Elwell, J., "Connected Identity in the Session Initiation
Protocol (SIP)", RFC 4916, June 2007.
[RFC6043] Mattsson, J. and T. Tian, "MIKEY-TICKET: Ticket-Based
Modes of Key Distribution in Multimedia Internet KEYing
(MIKEY)", RFC 6043, March 2011.
[RFC6091] Mavrogiannopoulos, N. and D. Gillmor, "Using OpenPGP Keys
for Transport Layer Security (TLS) Authentication",
RFC 6091, February 2011.
[GPP23228]
3GPP, "IP Multimedia Subsystem (IMS); Stage 2", 3GPP
TS 23.228 10.5.0, June 2011.
[DANE] "DNS-based Authentication of Named Entities Work Group".
Authors' Addresses
Christer Holmberg
Ericsson
Hirsalantie 11
Jorvas 02420
Finland
Email: christer.holmberg@ericsson.com
Holmberg, et al. Expires March 1, 2012 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft MRSP August 2011
Staffan Blau
Ericsson
Stockholm 12637
Sweden
Email: staffan.blau@ericsson.com
Eric Burger
Georgetown University
Department of Computer Science
37th and O Streets, NW
Washington, DC 20057-1232
United States of America
Phone:
Fax: +1 530 267 7447
Email: eburger@standardstrack.com
URI: http://www.standardstrack.com
Holmberg, et al. Expires March 1, 2012 [Page 16]
