Network Working Group M. Barnes
Internet-Draft Polycom
Obsoletes: 4244 (if approved) F. Audet
Intended status: Standards Track Skype
Expires: August 18, 2011 S. Schubert
NTT
J. van Elburg
Detecon International Gmbh
C. Holmberg
Ericsson
February 14, 2011
An Extension to the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) for Request
History Information
draft-ietf-sipcore-rfc4244bis-03.txt
Abstract
This document defines a standard mechanism for capturing the history
information associated with a Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)
request. This capability enables many enhanced services by providing
the information as to how and why a SIP request arrives at a specific
application or user. This document defines an optional SIP header
field, History-Info, for capturing the history information in
requests. The document also defines SIP header field parameters for
the History-Info and Contact header fields to tag the method by which
the target of a request is determined. In addition, this document
defines a value for the Privacy header field specific to the History-
Info header field.
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 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 August 18, 2011.
Barnes, et al. Expires August 18, 2011 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft History-Info February 2011
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
(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.
This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF
Contributions published or made publicly available before November
10, 2008. The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this
material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow
modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process.
Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling
the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified
outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may
not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format
it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other
than English.
Barnes, et al. Expires August 18, 2011 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft History-Info February 2011
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. Conventions and Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5. History-Info Header Field Protocol Structure . . . . . . . . . 7
5.1. History-Info Header Field Example Scenario . . . . . . . . 9
6. User Agent Handling of the History-Info Header Field . . . . . 12
6.1. User Agent Client (UAC) Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
6.2. User Agent Server (UAS) Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
6.2.1. Processing of Requests with History-Info . . . . . . . 12
6.2.2. Generation of Responses with History-Info . . . . . . 13
7. Proxy/Intermediary Handling of History-Info Header Fields . . 13
7.1. Adding the History-Info Header Field to Requests . . . . . 13
7.1.1. Forwarding a Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
7.1.2. Retargeting based on failure or 3xx response . . . . . 14
7.2. Sending History-Info in Responses . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
8. Redirect Server Handling of History-Info Header Fields . . . . 16
9. Processing the History-Info Header Field Parameters . . . . . 16
9.1. Privacy in the History-Info Header Field . . . . . . . . . 16
9.1.1. Indicating Privacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
9.1.2. Applying Privacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
9.2. Reason in the History-info Header Field . . . . . . . . . 18
9.3. Indexing in the History-Info Header Field . . . . . . . . 19
9.4. Mechanism for Target Determination in the History-Info
Header Field . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
10. Application Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
11. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
12. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
12.1. Registration of New SIP History-Info Header Field . . . . 24
12.2. Registration of "history" for SIP Privacy Header Field . . 24
12.3. Registration of Header Field Parameters . . . . . . . . . 25
13. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
14. Changes from RFC 4244 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
14.1. Backwards compatibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
15. Changes since last Version . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
16. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
16.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
16.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Appendix A. Request History Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
A.1. Security Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
A.2. Privacy Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Appendix B. Example call flows . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
B.1. Sequentially Forking (History-Info in Response) . . . . . 37
B.2. History-Info with Privacy Header Field . . . . . . . . . . 44
B.3. Privacy for a Specific History-Info Entry . . . . . . . . 46
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
Barnes, et al. Expires August 18, 2011 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft History-Info February 2011
1. Introduction
Many services that SIP is anticipated to support require the ability
to determine why and how a SIP requests arrived at a specific
application. Examples of such services include (but are not limited
to) sessions initiated to call centers via "click to talk" SIP
Uniform Resource Locators (URLs) on a web page, "call history/
logging" style services within intelligent "call management" software
for SIP User Agents (UAs), and calls to voicemail servers. Although
SIP implicitly provides the retarget capabilities that enable SIP
requests to be routed to chosen applications, there is a need for a
standard mechanism within SIP for communicating the retargeting
history of the requests. This "request history" information allows
the receiving application to determine hints about how and why the
SIP request arrived at the application/user.
This document defines a SIP header field, History-Info, to provide a
standard mechanism for capturing the request history information to
enable a wide variety of services for networks and end-users. SIP
header field parameters are defined for the History-Info and Contact
header fields to tag the method by which the target of a request is
determined. In addition, this document defines a value for the
Privacy header field specific to the History-Info header.
The History-info header field provides a building block for
development of SIP based applications and services. The requirements
for the solution described in this document are included in
Appendix A. Example scenarios using the History-info header field
are included in Appendix B.
2. Conventions and Terminology
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].
The term "retarget" is used in this document to refer to the process
of a SIP entity changing a Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) in a
request based on the rules for determining request targets as
described in Section 16.5 of [RFC3261] and of the subsequent
forwarding of that request as described in step 2 in section 16.6 of
[RFC3261]. This includes changing the Request-URI due to a location
service lookup and redirect processing. This also includes internal
(to a proxy/SIP intermediary) changes of the URI prior to forwarding
of the request.
The terms "location service", "forward", "redirect" and "AOR" are
Barnes, et al. Expires August 18, 2011 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft History-Info February 2011
used consistent with the terminology in [RFC3261].
The references to "domain for which the SIP entity/Proxy/Intermediary
is responsible" are consistent with and intended to convey the same
context as the usage of that terminology in [RFC3261]. The
applicability of History-Info to architectures or models outside the
context of [RFC3261] is outside the scope of this specification.
3. Background
SIP implicitly provides retargeting capabilities that enable SIP
requests to be routed to specific applications as defined in
[RFC3261]. The motivation for capturing the request history is that
in the process of retargeting a request, old routing information can
be forever lost. This lost information may be important history that
allows elements to which the request is retargeted to process the
request in a locally defined, application-specific manner. This
document defines a mechanism for transporting the request history.
Application-specific behavior is outside the scope of this
specification.
Current network applications provide the ability for elements
involved with the request to obtain additional information relating
to how and why the request was routed to a particular destination.
The following are examples of such applications:
1. Web "referral" applications, whereby an application residing
within a web server determines that a visitor to a website has
arrived at the site via an "associate" site that will receive
some "referral" commission for generating this traffic
2. Email forwarding whereby the forwarded-to user obtains a
"history" of who sent the email to whom and at what time
3. Traditional telephony services such as voicemail, call-center
"automatic call distribution", and "follow-me" style services
Several of the aforementioned applications currently define
application-specific mechanisms through which it is possible to
obtain the necessary history information.
In addition, request history information could be used to enhance
basic SIP functionality by providing the following:
o Some diagnostic information for debugging SIP requests.
Barnes, et al. Expires August 18, 2011 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft History-Info February 2011
o Capturing aliases and Globally Routable User Agent URIs (GRUUs)
[RFC5627], which can be overwritten by a home proxy upon receipt
of the initial request.
o Facilitating the use of limited use addresses (minted on demand)
and sub-addressing.
o Preserving service specific URIs that can be overwritten by a
downstream proxy, such as those defined in [RFC3087], and control
of network announcements and IVR with SIP URI [RFC4240].
4. Overview
The fundamental functionality provided by the request history
information is the ability to inform proxies and UAs involved in
processing a request about the history or progress of that request.
The solution is to capture the Request-URIs as a request is
retargeted, in a SIP header field: History-Info. This allows for the
capturing of the history of a request that would be lost with the
normal SIP processing involved in the subsequent retargeting of the
request.
The History-info header field is added to a Request when a new
request is created by a UAC or forwarded by a Proxy, or when the
target of a request is changed. It is possible for the target of a
request to be changed by the same proxy/SIP Intermediary multiple
times (referred to as 'internal retargeting'). A SIP entity changing
the target of a request in response to a redirect also propagates any
History-info header field from the initial request in the new
request. The ABNF and detailed description of the History-Info
header field parameters, along with examples is provided in
Section 5. Section 6, Section 7 and Section 8 provide the detailed
handling of the History-Info header field by SIP User Agents, Proxies
and Redirect Servers respectively.
This specification also defines two new SIP header field parameters,
"rc" and "mp", for the History-Info and Contact header fields, to tag
the method by which the target of a request is determined. Further
detail on the use of these header field parameters is provided in
Section 9.4.
In addition, this specification defines a priv-value for the Privacy
header, "history", that applies to all the History-info header field
entries in a Request or to a specific History-info header field hi-
entry as described above. Further detail is provided in Section 9.1.
Barnes, et al. Expires August 18, 2011 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft History-Info February 2011
5. History-Info Header Field Protocol Structure
The History-info header field can appear in any request not
associated with an early or established dialog (e.g., INVITE,
REGISTER, MESSAGE, REFER and OPTIONS, PUBLISH and SUBSCRIBE, etc.)
and any non-100 provisional or final responses to these requests
(ISSUER-req, see Appendix A).
The following provides details for the information that is captured
in the History-Info header field entries for each target used for
forwarding a request:
o hi-targeted-to-uri: A mandatory parameter for capturing the
Request-URI for the specific request as it is forwarded.
o hi-index: A mandatory parameter for History-Info reflecting the
chronological order of the information, indexed to also reflect
the forking and nesting of requests. The format for this
parameter is a string of digits, separated by dots to indicate the
number of forward hops and retargets. This results in a tree
representation of the history of the request, with the lowest-
level index reflecting a branch of the tree. By adding the new
entries in order (i.e., following existing entries per the details
in Section 9.3), including the index and securing the header, the
ordering of the History-info header fields in the request is
assured. In addition, applications may extract a variety of
metrics (total number of retargets, total number of retargets from
a specific branch, etc.) based upon the index values.
o hi-target-param: An optional parameter reflecting the mechanism by
which the Request URI captured in the hi-targeted-to-uri in the
hi-entry was determined. This parameter contains either an "rc"
or "mp" header field parameter, which is interpreted as follows:
"rc": The hi-targeted-to-URI is a contact for the Request-URI,
in the incoming request, that is bound to an AOR in an abstract
location service. The AOR-to-contact binding has been placed
into the location service by a SIP Registrar that received a
SIP REGISTER request. The "rc" header field parameter contains
the value of the hi-index in the hi-entry with an
hi-targeted-to- uri that reflects the Request-URI that was
retargeted
"mp": The hi-targeted-to-URI represents a user other than the
user associated with the Request-URI in the incoming request
that was retargeted. This occurs when a request is to
statically or dynamically retargeted to another user. The
value of the index in the "mp" header field parameter
Barnes, et al. Expires August 18, 2011 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft History-Info February 2011
represents the value of the hi-index in the hi-entry with an
hi-targeted-to- uri that reflects the Request-URI that was
retargeted, thus identifying the "mapped from" target.
o Extension (hi-extension): A parameter to allow for future optional
extensions. As per [RFC3261], any implementation not
understanding an extension MUST ignore it.
The ABNF syntax for the History-info header field and header field
parameters is as follows:
History-Info = "History-Info" HCOLON hi-entry *(COMMA hi-entry)
hi-entry = hi-targeted-to-uri *(SEMI hi-param)
hi-targeted-to-uri = name-addr
hi-param = hi-index / hi-target / hi-extension
index-val = 1*DIGIT *("." 1*DIGIT)
hi-index = "index" EQUAL index-val
hi-target-param = rc-param / mp-param
rc-param = "rc" EQUAL index-val
mp-param = "mp" EQUAL index-val
hi-extension = generic-param
The ABNF definitions for "generic-param" and "name-addr" are from
[RFC3261].
This document also extends the "contact-params" for the Contact
header field as defined in [RFC3261] with the "rc" and "mp" header
field parameters defined above.
In addition to the parameters defined by the ABNF, an hi-entry may
also include a Reason header field and a Privacy header field, which
are both escaped in the hi-targeted-to-uri as described below:
o Reason: An optional parameter for History-Info, reflected in the
History-info header field by including the Reason header field
[RFC3326] escaped in the hi-targeted-to-uri. A reason is included
for the hi-targeted-to-uri that was retargeted as opposed to the
hi-targeted-to-uri to which it was retargeted.
Barnes, et al. Expires August 18, 2011 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft History-Info February 2011
o Privacy: An optional parameter for History-Info, reflected in the
History-Info header field values by including the Privacy Header
[RFC3323] escaped in the hi- targeted-to-uri or by adding the
Privacy header field to the request. The latter case indicates
that the History-Info entries for the domain MUST be anonymized
prior to forwarding, whereas the use of the Privacy header field
escaped in the hi-targeted-to-uri means that a specific hi-entry
MUST be anonymized.
Note that since both the Reason and Privacy parameters are escaped in
the hi-targeted-to-uri, these fields will not be available in the
case that the hi-targeted-to-uri is a Tel-URI [RFC3966]. In such
cases, the Tel-URI SHOULD be transformed into a SIP URI per section
19.1.6 of [RFC3261].
The following provides examples of the format for the History-info
header field. Note that the backslash and CRLF between the fields in
the examples below are for readability purposes only.
History-Info: <sip:UserA@ims.example.com>;index=1;foo=bar
History-Info: <sip:UserA@ims.example.com?Reason=SIP%3B\
cause%3D302>;index=1.1,\
<sip:UserB@example.com?Privacy=history&Reason=SIP%3B\
cause%3D486>;index=1.2;mp=1.1,\
<sip:45432@192.168.0.3>;index=1.3;rc=1.2
5.1. History-Info Header Field Example Scenario
The following is an illustrative example of usage of History-Info.
In this example, Alice (sip:alice@atlanta.example.com) calls Bob
(sip:bob@biloxi.example.com). Alice's proxy in her home domain (sip:
atlanta.example.com) forwards the request to Bob's proxy (sip:
biloxi.example.com). When the request arrives at sip:
biloxi.example.com, it does a location service lookup for
bob@biloxi.example.com and changes the target of the request to Bob's
Contact URIs provided as part of normal SIP registration. In this
example, Bob is simultaneously contacted on a PC client and on a
phone, and Bob answers on the PC client.
One important thing illustrated by this call flow is that without
History-Info, Bob would "lose" the target information, including any
parameters in the request URI. Bob can recover that information by
locating the last hi-entry with an "rc" header field parameter. This
"rc" parameter contains the index of the hi-entry containing the lost
target information - i.e., the sip:bob@biloxi.example.com hi-entry
Barnes, et al. Expires August 18, 2011 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft History-Info February 2011
with index=1.1. Note that an hi-entry is not included for the fork
to sip:bob@192.0.2.7 since there was no response at the time the 200
OK is sent to Alice.
The formatting in this scenario is for visual purposes; thus,
backslash and CRLF are used between the fields for readability and
the headers in the URI are not shown properly formatted for escaping.
Refer to Section 5.1 for the proper formatting. Additional detailed
scenarios are available in Appendix B.
Note: This example uses loose routing procedures.
Barnes, et al. Expires August 18, 2011 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft History-Info February 2011
Alice atlanta.example.com biloxi.example.com Bob@pc Bob@phone
| | | | |
| INVITE sip:bob@biloxi.example.com;p=x | |
|--------------->| | | |
| Supported: histinfo | | |
| | | | |
| | INVITE sip:bob@biloxi.example.com;p=x |
| |--------------->| | |
| History-Info: <sip:bob@biloxi.example.com;p=x>;index=1
| History-Info: <sip:bob@biloxi.example.com;p=x>;index=1.1 |
| | | | |
| | | INVITE sip:bob@192.0.2.3|
| | |--------------->| |
| History-Info: <sip:bob@biloxi.example.com;p=x>;index=1
| History-Info: <sip:bob@biloxi.example.com;p=x>;index=1.1
| History-Info: <sip:bob@192.0.2.3>;index=1.1.1;rc=1.1
| | | | |
| | | INVITE sip:bob@192.0.2.7|
| | |-------------------------->|
| History-Info: <sip:bob@biloxi.example.com;p=x>;index=1
| History-Info: <sip:bob@biloxi.example.com;p=x>;index=1.1
| History-Info: <sip:bob@192.0.2.7>;index=1.1.2;rc=1.1
| | | 200 | |
| | |<---------------| |
| History-Info: <sip:bob@biloxi.example.com;p=x>;index=1
| History-Info: <sip:bob@biloxi.example.com;p=x>;index=1.1
| History-Info: <sip:bob@192.0.2.3>;index=1.1.1;rc=1.1
| | | | |
| | 200 | | |
| |<---------------| | |
| History-Info: <sip:bob@biloxi.example.com;p=x>;index=1
| History-Info: <sip:bob@biloxi.example.com;p=x>;index=1.1
| History-Info: <sip:bob@192.0.2.3>;index=1.1.1;rc=1.1
| | | | |
| | | Proxy Cancels INVITE |
| | |<=========================>|
| | | | |
| 200 | | | |
|<---------------| | | |
| History-Info: <sip:bob@biloxi.example.com;p=x>;index=1
| History-Info: <sip:bob@biloxi.example.com;p=x>;index=1.1
| History-Info: <sip:bob@192.0.2.3;index=1.1.1;rc=1.1
| | | | |
| ACK | | | |
|--------------->| ACK | | |
| |--------------->| ACK | |
| | |--------------->| |
Barnes, et al. Expires August 18, 2011 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft History-Info February 2011
Figure 1: Basic Call
6. User Agent Handling of the History-Info Header Field
This section describes the processing specific to UAs for the
History-info header field.
6.1. User Agent Client (UAC) Behavior
The UAC MUST include the "histinfo" option tag in the Supported
header in any new or out-of-dialog request for which the UAC would
like the History-info header field in the response. In addition, the
UAC MUST add a History-info header field, using the Request-URI of
the request as the hi-targeted-to-uri. The hi-index MUST be set to a
value of 1 in the hi-entry. This allows intermediaries and the UAS
to at least know the original Request-URI. In the case of a B2BUA, a
UAC MAY add the hi-entries received in the incoming request at the
UAS to the subsequent outgoing request.
In the case where a UAC receives a 3xx response with a Contact header
field and sends a new request in response to it, the UAC MAY include
in the outgoing request the previous hi-entry(s) received in the
response. In this case, the UAC MUST escape the Reason header field
in the previous (last) hi-entry, as described in Section 9.2. The
UAC MUST add an hi-entry using the Request-URI of the outgoing
request as the hi-targeted-to-uri. An hi-index MUST be added to the
hi-entry. The value for the index is determined following the rules
for "Retargeting based upon a Response" as prescribed in Section 9.3.
If the Contact header field contains an "rc" or "mp" header field
parameter, the UAC MUST add the header field parameter to the new hi-
entry as described in Section 9.4. The procedures defined in
Section 9.1 are followed to indicate any privacy that the UAC wants
applied to the hi-targeted-to-uri.
6.2. User Agent Server (UAS) Behavior
6.2.1. Processing of Requests with History-Info
Once the request terminates at the UAS, the UAS evaluates the
History-info header field. The last hi-entry reflects the most
recent target and contains the Request-URI for the received request,
unless the previous entity that forwarded the request does not
support the History-info header field. If the Request-URI of the
incoming request does not match the last hi-entry (e.g., the previous
entity does not support History-Info), the UAS MUST insert an hi-
entry. The UAS MUST set the hi-targeted-to-uri based to the value of
Request-URI in the incoming request. If privacy is required for the
Barnes, et al. Expires August 18, 2011 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft History-Info February 2011
hi-entry in the response, the UAS MUST escape a Privacy header field
with a value of "history" in the hi-entry. The UAS MUST include an
hi-index parameter as described in Section 9.3. The UAS MUST NOT
include a hi-target attribute, since the UAS has no way to know the
mechanism by which the Request-URI was determined. The addition of
the missing hi-entry ensures that the most complete information can
be provided in the response and provides consistency in the
information presented to applications. The information can also be
useful for implementations with B2BUAs that include the History-Info,
received in the incoming request, in the outgoing request.
Prior to any application usage of the information, the UAS ascertains
the validity of the information as described in Section 10.
6.2.2. Generation of Responses with History-Info
If the "histinfo" option tag is received in a request, the UAS MUST
include any History-Info received in the request and any hi-entries
added by the UAS. In addition, in the case of a B2BUA, the UAS MAY
include any hi-entries received by the UAC in the subsequent
response. If privacy is required, entries MUST be anonymized as
described in Section 9.1. The UAS MUST follow the rules for a
redirect server per Section 8 in generating a 3xx response.
7. Proxy/Intermediary Handling of History-Info Header Fields
This section describes the procedures for proxies and other SIP
intermediaries for adding History-Info headers when requests are
retargeted.
7.1. Adding the History-Info Header Field to Requests
This section describes the process of adding the History-Info header
to requests in the case of retargeting due to normal forwarding of
requests (Section 7.1.1) and in the case of failure or redirection
responses (Section 7.1.2). Retargeting is an iterative process,
i.e., an intermediary may retarget "internally " more than one time.
A typical example would be a proxy that retargets a request first to
a different user (i.e., it maps to a different AOR), and then
forwards to a registered contact bound to that new AOR. In cases of
internal retargeting, an intermediary MUST add multiple hi-entries.
For example, an intermediary that retargets bob@example.com to
office@example.com and then to office@192.0.2.5 adds hi-entries for
both office@example.com and office@192.0.2.5, in order to provide a
logical description of the retargeting process internal to the
intermediary. Thus, the intermediary MAY escape a Reason header
field in the hi-entry with the hi-targeted-to-uri that has been
Barnes, et al. Expires August 18, 2011 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft History-Info February 2011
retargeted as shown in the INVITE (F6) in the example in
Appendix B.1.
7.1.1. Forwarding a Request
Upon receipt of a request for a dialog, or a standalone request, a
proxy or intermediary forwarding the request performs the following
steps. Note that those steps below do not apply if the request is
being retargeted as a result of failure (i.e., timeout, reception of
an error response).
Step 1: Adding Entries on Behalf of Previous Hops
If an incoming request does not already have a History-Info header
field (i.e., the UAC does not include any History-info header
field and none of the previous SIP intermediaries support History-
Info) or if the Request-URI of the incoming request does not match
the hi-targeted-to-uri in the last hi-entry (i.e., the previous
intermediary does not support History-Info) an hi-entry MUST be
inserted on behalf of the UAC or intermediary. The SIP
intermediary MUST set the hi-targeted-to-uri to the value of the
Request-URI in the incoming request. If privacy is required, the
procedures of Section 9.1 are followed. The SIP intermediary MUST
NOT include an "rc" or "mp" header field parameter. The hi-index
parameter MUST be set to a value of "1", as described in
Section 9.3.
Step 2: Generating New Entries for Each Outgoing Request
The SIP intermediary then proceeds to request forwarding as per
16.6/[RFC3261]. For each outgoing request relating to a target in
the target set, the intermediary MUST add an hi-entry for the
specific target. The intermediary MUST set the hi-targeted-to-uri
in the hi-entry to the value of the Request-URI of the current
(outgoing) request. If privacy is required, the procedures of
Section 9.1 are followed. The proxy MUST include an hi-index for
the hi-entry as described in Section 9.3. The proxy then includes
an "rc" or "mp" header field parameter in the hi-entry, if
applicable, as described in Section 9.4.
7.1.2. Retargeting based on failure or 3xx response
When retargeting a request because of a failure (i.e., either
reception of error responses or a timeout which is considered to be
an implicit 408 error response) or receipt of a 3XX response, the SIP
entity performs the following steps:
Barnes, et al. Expires August 18, 2011 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft History-Info February 2011
Step 1: Including the Entries from Responses
Along with the History-Info header fields sent in the original
request that received an error or 3xx response or timed out, the
SIP entity MUST include any new History-Info header field(s)
contained in all responses received thus far (including any new
hi-entries in the error or 3xx response) in the new outgoing
request. The hi-entries MUST be added to the new outgoing request
in the order indicated by the values in the hi-index parameters of
the hi-entries.
Step 2: Tagging the Last Entries
The SIP entity then examines the History-Info header fields
generated in Step 1. For each of the branches that generated
failures or timeouts or received a 3xx response, the SIP entity
MUST add a Reason header field to the hi-entry for each of those
branches per the procedures of Section 9.2.
Step 3: Generating New Entries for Each Outgoing Requests
Same as per Step 2 above for the normal forwarding case
Section 7.1.1.
7.2. Sending History-Info in Responses
A SIP entity that receives a request with the "histinfo" option tag
in the Supported header, MUST forward captured History-Info in
subsequent, provisional, and final responses to the request sent by
the ultimate UAS (see Section 6.2), applying the privacy procedures
as described in Section 9.1.2. The captured History-Info includes
all hi-entries received in the request, as well as the hi-entries
that are generated by a SIP entity as a request is retargeted as
described in Section 7.1, which also includes hi-entries that are
received in other responses. Note that in the case of parallel
forking where one branch is successful, only the branches for which
responses have been received at the time the proxy sends the
successful response are included in that response. For example, an
intermediary receives a request with the last hi-entry having an hi-
index of 1.1. The intermediary forks three requests in parallel with
each request containing a unique hi-entry with the hi-targeted-to-
uris set to the value of the Request URI for the request. The hi-
entries each have unique hi-index values of 1.1.1, 1.1.2 and 1.1.3
respectively. If the processing entity receives a failure response
for the branch reflected by the hi-entry with the index of 1.1.2 and
a successful response for the branch reflected by the hi-entry with
the index of 1.1.3, but has not yet received a response for the
branch reflected by the hi-entry with an index of 1.1.1, it would
Barnes, et al. Expires August 18, 2011 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft History-Info February 2011
return only the 1.1.2 and 1.1.3 entries with indices of 1.1.2 and
1.1.3 to the entity that generated the hi-entry with index of 1.1.
See Appendix B.1 for an example.
The the addition of the History-Info header fields to responses
described above follows the methodology described in Section 16.7 of
[RFC3261] for the addition of header fields, with the inclusion of
History-info header fields adding an additional step, just before
Step 9, "Forwarding the Response".
8. Redirect Server Handling of History-Info Header Fields
A redirect server MUST include the History-info header fields
received in the request in the 3XX response that it sends. A
redirect server MUST add any new History-Info entries in cases of
retargeting (both internal and to other SIP entities) in the same
manner as prescribed for SIP intermediaries Section 7. In generating
the Contact header field in the 3xx response, the redirect server
adds the appropriate target header field parameter to each Contact
header field as described in Section 9.4.
9. Processing the History-Info Header Field Parameters
The following sections describe the procedures for processing
History-Info header field parameters and the header fields escaped in
the History-info header field. These procedures are applicable to
SIP entities such as Proxies/Intermediaries, Redirect Servers or User
Agents.
9.1. Privacy in the History-Info Header Field
The privacy requirements for this document are described in
Appendix A.2. Section 9.1.1 describes the use of the Privacy header
field defined in [RFC3323] to indicate the privacy to be applied to
the History-Info header field entries. Section 9.1.2 describes the
processing of the priv-values in the Privacy header field to privacy
protect the History-Info header field entries in the request or
response that is being forwarded.
9.1.1. Indicating Privacy
As with other SIP headers described in [RFC3323], the hi-targeted-to-
uris in the History-info header field can inadvertently reveal
information about the initiator of the request. Thus, the UAC needs
a mechanism to indicate that the hi-targeted-to-uris in the hi-
entries need to be privacy protected. The Privacy header field is
Barnes, et al. Expires August 18, 2011 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft History-Info February 2011
used by the UAC to indicate the privacy to be applied to all the hi-
entries in the request as follows:
o If the UAC is including a Privacy header field with a priv-value
of "header" in the request, then the UAC SHOULD NOT include a
priv-value of "history" in the the Privacy header field in the
Request.
o If the UAC is including any priv-values other than "header" in the
Privacy header field, then the UAC MUST also include a priv-value
of "history" in the Privacy header field in the Request.
o If the UAC is not including any priv-values in the Privacy header
field in the request, then the UAC MUST add a Privacy header
field, with a priv-value of "history", to the request. The UAC
MUST NOT include a priv-value of "critical" in the Privacy header
field in the Request in this case.
In addition, the History-info header field can reveal general routing
and diverting information within an intermediary, which the
intermediary wants to privacy protect. In this case, the
intermediary MUST set a Privacy header field to a priv-value of
"history" and escape the Privacy header field in the hi-targeted-to-
uri, for each hi-entry added by intermediary, as the request is
retargeted within the domain for which the SIP entity is responsible.
The intermediary MUST NOT include any other priv-values in this
Privacy header field. Note that the priv-value in the Privacy header
for the incoming request does not necessarily influence whether the
intermediary includes a Privacy header field in the hi-entries. For
example, even if the Privacy header for the incoming request
contained a priv-value of "none", the Proxy can still set a priv-
value of "history" in the Privacy header field escaped in the hi-
targeted-to-uri.
Finally, the terminator of the request may not want to reveal the
final reached target to the originator. In this case, the terminator
MUST include a Privacy header field with a priv-value of "history",
escaped in the hi-targeted-to-uri in the last hi-entry, in the
response. As noted above, the terminator of the request MUST NOT use
any other priv-values in the Privacy header field escaped in the hi-
entry.
9.1.2. Applying Privacy
When a request is retargeted to a URI associated with a domain for
which the SIP intermediary is not responsible or a response is
forwarded, a Privacy Service at the boundary of the domain applies
the appropriate privacy based on the value of the Privacy header
Barnes, et al. Expires August 18, 2011 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft History-Info February 2011
field in the request and in the individual hi-entries.
If there is a Privacy header field in the request with a priv-value
of "header" or "history", then the hi-targeted-to-uris in the hi-
entries, associated with the domain for which a SIP intermediary is
responsible, are anonymized. The Privacy Service MUST change any hi-
targeted-to-uris in the hi-entries that have not been anonymized to
anonymous URIs containing a domain of anonymous.invalid (e.g.,
anonymous@anonymous.invalid). If the hi-entry has an escaped Privacy
header field value, then the Privacy header field value MUST be
removed from the hi-entry. Once all the appropriate hi-entries have
been anonymized, the priv-value of "history" MUST be removed from the
Privacy header field. If there are no remaining priv-values in the
Privacy header field, the Privacy header field MUST be removed from
the request per [RFC3323].
If there is not a Privacy header field in the request or response
that is being forwarded, the Privacy Service MUST anonymize any hi-
entries, associated with the domain for which a SIP intermediary is
responsible, that contain a Privacy header field with a priv-value of
"history". The Privacy Service MUST populate the hi-targeted-to-uri
with an anonymous URI with a domain of anonymous.invalid (e.g.,
anonymous@anonymous.invalid). Any other priv-values in the Privacy
header field in the hi-entries MUST be ignored. In any case, the
Privacy Service MUST remove the Privacy header field from the hi-
entries prior to forwarding.
9.2. Reason in the History-info Header Field
If the retargeting is due to receipt of an explicit SIP response and
the response contains any Reason header fields (see [RFC3326]), then
the SIP entity MUST escape the Reason header fields in the hi-entry
with the hi-targeted-to-uri containing the URI of the request that
was retargeted. If the SIP response does not contain a Reason header
field, the SIP entity MUST include an escaped Reason header field,
containing the SIP Response Code that triggered the retargeting, in
the hi-entry with the hi-targeted-to-uri containing the URI of the
request that was retargeted.
If a request has timed out (instead of being explicitly rejected),
the SIP entity MUST escape a Reason header field, containing a SIP
error response code of 408 "Request Timeout" in in the hi-entry with
the hi-targeted-to-uri containing the URI of the request that was
retargeted. The SIP entity MAY also be escape a Reason header field
in the hi-entry with the hi-targeted-to-uri containing the URI of the
request that was retargeted as a result of internal retargeting.
If additional Reason headers are defined in the future per [RFC3326],
Barnes, et al. Expires August 18, 2011 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft History-Info February 2011
the use of these Reason headers for the History-Info header field
MUST follow the same rules as described above.
9.3. Indexing in the History-Info Header Field
In order to maintain ordering and accurately reflect the retargeting
of the request, the SIP entity MUST add an hi-index to each hi-entry.
Per the syntax in Section 5, the hi-index consists of a series of
digits separated by dots (e.g., 1.1.2). Each dot reflects a SIP
forwarding hop. The digit following each dot reflects the order in
which a request was retargeted at the hop. The highest digit at each
hop reflects the number of entities to which the request has been
retargeted at the specific hop (i.e., the number of branches). Thus,
the indexing results in a logical tree representation for the history
of the request.
The first index in a series of History-Info entries MUST be set to 1.
In the case that a SIP entity (intermediary or UAS) adds an hi-entry
on behalf of the previous hop, the hi-index MUST be set to 1. For
each forward hop (i.e., each new level of indexing), the hi-index
MUST start at 1. An increment of 1 MUST be used for advancing to a
new branch.
The basic rules for adding the hi-index are summarized as follows:
1. Basic Forwarding: In the case of a request that is being
forwarded, the hi-index reflects the increasing length of the
branch. In this case, the SIP entity MUST read the value from
the History-info header field in the received request and MUST
add another level of indexing by appending the dot delimiter
followed by an initial hi-index for the new level of 1. For
example, if the hi-index in the last History-info header field in
the received request is 1.1, a proxy would add an hi-entry with
an hi-index to 1.1.1 and forward the request.
2. Retargeting within a processing entity - 1st instance: For the
first instance of retargeting within a processing entity, the SIP
entity MUST calculate the hi-index as prescribed for basic
forwarding.
3. Retargeting within a processing entity - subsequent instance: For
each subsequent retargeting of a request by the same SIP entity,
the SIP entity MUST add another branch. The SIP entity MUST
calculate the hi-index for each new branch by incrementing the
value from the hi-index in the last hi-entry at the current
level. Per the example above, the hi-index in the next request
forwarded by this same SIP entity would be 1.1.2.
Barnes, et al. Expires August 18, 2011 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft History-Info February 2011
4. Retargeting based upon a Response: In the case of retargeting due
to a specific response (e.g., 302), the SIP entity MUST calculate
the hi-index calculated per rule 3. That is, the lowest/last
digit of the hi-index MUST be incremented (i.e., a new branch is
created), with the increment of 1. For example, if the hi-index
in the History-Info header of the sent request is 1.2 and the
response to the request is a 302, then the hi-index in the
History-Info header field for the new hi-targeted- to-URI would
be 1.3.
5. Forking requests: If the request forwarding is done in multiple
forks (sequentially or in parallel), the SIP entity MUST set the
hi-index for each hi-entry for each forked request per the rules
above, with each new request having a unique index. Each index
MUST be sequentially assigned. For example, if the index in the
last History-Info header field in the received request is 1.1,
this processing entity would initialize its index to 1.1.1 for
the first fork, 1.1.2 for the second, and so forth (see Figure 1
for an example). Note that for each individual fork, only the
hi-entry corresponding to that fork is included (e.g., the hi-
entry for fork 1.1.1 is not included in the request sent to fork
1.1.2, and vice-versa).
9.4. Mechanism for Target Determination in the History-Info Header
Field
This specification defines two header field parameters, "rc" and
"mp", indicating two non-inclusive mechanisms by which a new target
for a request is determined. Both parameters contain an index whose
value is the hi-index of the hi-entry with an hi-targeted-to-uri that
represents the Request-URI that was retargeted.
The SIP entity MUST determine the specific parameter field to be
included in the History-info header field as the targets are added to
the target set per the procedures in section 16.5 of [RFC3261] or per
section 8.1.3.4 [RFC3261] in the case of 3xx responses. In the
latter case, the specific header parameter field in the Contact
header becomes the header field parameter that is used in the hi-
entry when the request is retargeted. If the Contact header field
does not contain an "rc" or "mp" header field parameter, then the SIP
entity MUST NOT include an "rc" or "mp" in the hi-entry when the
request is retargeted.
The SIP entity (intermediary or redirect server) determines the
specific header field parameter to be used based on the following
criteria:
Barnes, et al. Expires August 18, 2011 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft History-Info February 2011
o "rc": The target was determined based on a contact that is bound
to an AOR in an abstract location service for the Request-URI
being retargeted.
o "mp": The target was determined based on a mapping to a user other
than the user associated with the Request-URI being retargeted.
Note that there are two scenarios by which the "mp" parameter can be
derived.
o The mapping was done by the receiving entity on its own authority,
in which case the mp-value is the parent index of the hi-entry's
index.
o The mapping was done due to receiving a 3xx response, in which
case the mp-value is an earlier sibling of the hi-entry's index,
that of the downstream request which received the 3xx response.
The SIP entity MUST add the "rc" or "mp" header field parameter to
the hi-entry when the request is forwarded to the target per step 2
in Section 7.1.1.
10. Application Considerations
History-Info provides a very flexible building block that can be used
by intermediaries and UAs for a variety of services. Prior to any
application usage of the History-Info header field parameters, the
SIP entity that processes the hi-entries MUST evaluate the hi-
entries. The SIP entity MUST determine if there are gaps in the
indices. Gaps are possible if the request is forwarded through
intermediaries that do not support the History-info header field and
are reflected by the existence of multiple hi-entries with an index
of "1". Gaps are also possible in the case of parallel forking if
there is an outstanding request at the time the SIP entity sends a
response as described in Section 7.2. Thus, if gaps are detected,
the SIP entity MUST NOT treat this as an error, but rather indicate
to any applications that there are gaps. The most complete
information available to the application is the History-Info entries
starting with the last hi-entry with an index of "1". The
interpretation of the information in the History-info header field
depends upon the specific application; an application might need to
provide special handling in some cases where there are gaps.
The following summarizes the categories of information that
applications can use:
Barnes, et al. Expires August 18, 2011 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft History-Info February 2011
1. Complete history information - e.g., for debug or other
operational and management aspects, optimization of determining
targets to avoid retargeting to the same URI, etc. This
information is relevant to proxies, UACs and UASs.
2. Hi-entry with the index that matches the value of the last hi-
entry with a "rc" header parameter in the Request received by a
UAS - i.e., the Request URI associated with the destination of
the request was determined based on an AOR-to-contact binding in
an abstract location service.
3. Hi-entry with the index that matches the value of the last hi-
entry with a "mp" header parameter in the Request received by a
UAS - i.e., the last Request URI that was mapped to reach the
destination.
4. Hi-entry with the index that matches the value of the first hi-
entry with a "rc" header parameter in the Request received by a
UAS. Note, this would be the original AoR if all the entities
involved support the History-info header field and there is
absence of a "mp" header parameter prior to the "rc" header
parameter in the History-info header field. However, there is no
guarantee that all entities will support History-Info, thus the
first hi-entry with an "rc" header parameter within the domain
associated with the target URI at the destination is more likely
to be useful.
5. Hi-entry with the index that matches the value of the first hi-
entry with a "mp" header parameter in the Request received by a
UAS. Note, this would be the original mapped URI if all entities
supported the History-info header field. However, there is no
guarantee that all entities will support History-Info, thus the
first hi-entry with an "mp" header parameter within the domain
associated with the target URI at the destination is more likely
to be useful.
In many cases, applications are most interested in the information
within a particular domain(s), thus only a subset of the information
is required.
Some applications may use multiple types of information. For
example, an Automatic Call Distribution (ACD)/Call center application
that utilizes the hi-entry who index matches the index of the first
History-Info entry with an hi-target value of "mp", may also display
other agents, reflected by other History-Info entries prior to
entries with hi-target values of "rc", to whom the call was targeted
prior to its arrival at the current agent. This could allow the
agent the ability to decide how they might forward or reroute the
Barnes, et al. Expires August 18, 2011 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft History-Info February 2011
call if necessary (avoiding agents that were not previously available
for whatever reason, etc.).
Since support for History-info header field is optional, a service
MUST define default behavior for requests and responses not
containing History-Info headers. For example, an entity may receive
only partial History-Info entries or entries which are not tagged
appropriately with an hi-target parameter. This may not impact some
applications (e.g., debug), however, it could require some
applications to make some default assumptions in this case. For
example, in an ACD scenario, the application could select the oldest
hi-entry with the domain associated with the ACD system and display
that as the original called party. Depending upon how and where the
request may have been retargeted, the complete list of agents to whom
the call was targeted may not be available.
11. Security Considerations
The security requirements for this document are specified in
Appendix A.1.
This document defines a header for SIP. The use of the Transport
Layer Security (TLS) protocol [RFC5246] as a mechanism to ensure the
overall confidentiality of the History-Info headers (SEC-req-4) is
strongly RECOMMENDED. This results in History-Info having at least
the same level of security as other headers in SIP that are inserted
by intermediaries. With TLS, History-Info headers are no less, nor
no more, secure than other SIP headers, which generally have even
more impact on the subsequent processing of SIP sessions than the
History-info header field.
Note that while using the SIPS scheme (as per [RFC5630]) protects
History-Info from tampering by arbitrary parties outside the SIP
message path, all the intermediaries on the path are trusted
implicitly. A malicious intermediary could arbitrarily delete,
rewrite, or modify History-Info. This specification does not attempt
to prevent or detect attacks by malicious intermediaries.
12. IANA Considerations
This document requires several IANA registrations detailed in the
following sections.
This document updates [RFC4244] but uses the same SIP header field
name and option tag. The IANA registry needs to update the
references to [RFC4244] with [RFCXXXX].
Barnes, et al. Expires August 18, 2011 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft History-Info February 2011
12.1. Registration of New SIP History-Info Header Field
This document defines a SIP header field name: History-Info and an
option tag: histinfo. The following changes have been made to
http:///www.iana.org/assignments/sip-parameters The following row has
been added to the header field section:.
The following row has been added to the header field section:
Header Name Compact Form Reference
----------- ------------ ---------
History-Info none [RFCXXXX]
The following has been added to the Options Tags section:
Name Description Reference
---- ----------- ---------
histinfo When used with the Supported header, [RFCXXXX]
this option tag indicates the UAC
supports the History Information to be
captured for requests and returned in
subsequent responses. This tag is not
used in a Proxy-Require or Require
header field since support of
History-Info is optional.
Note to RFC Editor: Please replace RFC XXXX with the RFC number of
this specification.
12.2. Registration of "history" for SIP Privacy Header Field
This document defines a priv-value for the SIP Privacy header field:
history The following changes have been made to
http://www.iana.org/assignments/sip-priv-values The following has
been added to the registration for the SIP Privacy header field:
Name Description Registrant Reference
---- ----------- ---------- ---------
history Privacy requested for Mary Barnes [RFCXXXX]
History-info header mary.barnes@polycom.com
fields(s)
Note to RFC Editor: Please replace RFC XXXX with the RFC number of
this specification.
Barnes, et al. Expires August 18, 2011 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft History-Info February 2011
12.3. Registration of Header Field Parameters
This specification defines the following new SIP header field
parameters in the SIP Header Field parameter sub-registry in the SIP
Parameter Registry, http:/www.iana.org/assignments/sip-parameters.
Header Field Parameter Name Predefined Reference
Values
_____________________________________________________________________
History-Info mp No [RFC xxxx]
History-Info rc No [RFC xxxx]
Contact mp No [RFC xxxx]
Contact rc No [RFC xxxx]
Note to RFC Editor: Please replace RFC XXXX with the RFC number of
this specification.
13. Acknowledgements
Jonathan Rosenberg et al produced the document that provided
additional use cases precipitating the requirement for the new header
parameters to capture the method by which a Request URI is
determined. The authors would like to acknowledge the constructive
feedback provided by Ian Elz, Paul Kyzivat, John Elwell, Hadriel
Kaplan and Dale Worley.
Mark Watson, Cullen Jennings and Jon Peterson provided significant
input into the initial work that resulted in the development of of
[RFC4244]. The editor would like to acknowledge the constructive
feedback provided by Robert Sparks, Paul Kyzivat, Scott Orton, John
Elwell, Nir Chen, Palash Jain, Brian Stucker, Norma Ng, Anthony
Brown, Jayshree Bharatia, Jonathan Rosenberg, Eric Burger, Martin
Dolly, Roland Jesske, Takuya Sawada, Sebastien Prouvost, and
Sebastien Garcin in the development of [RFC4244].
The editor would like to acknowledge the significant input from Rohan
Mahy on some of the normative aspects of the ABNF for [RFC4244],
particularly around the need for and format of the index and around
the security aspects.
14. Changes from RFC 4244
This RFC replaces [RFC4244].
Barnes, et al. Expires August 18, 2011 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft History-Info February 2011
Deployment experience with [RFC4244] over the years has shown a
number of issues, warranting an update:
o In order to make [RFC4244] work in "real life", one needs to make
"assumptions" on how History-Info is used. For example, many
implementations filter out many entries, and only leave specific
entries corresponding, for example, to first and last redirection.
Since vendors uses different rules, it causes significant
interoperability isssues.
o [RFC4244] is overly permissive and evasive about recording
entries, causing interoperability issues.
o The examples in the call flows had errors, and confusing because
they often assume "loose routing".
o [RFC4244] has lots of repetitive and unclear text due to the
combination of requirements with solution.
o [RFC4244] gratuitously mandates the use of TLS on every hop. No
existing implementation enforces this rule, and instead, the use
of TLS or not is a general SIP issue, not an [RFC4244] issue per
se.
o [RFC4244] does not include clear procedures on how to deliver
current target URI information to the UAS when the Request-URI is
replaced with a contact.
o [RFC4244] does not allow for marking History-Info entries for easy
processing by User Agents.
The following summarizes the functional changes between this
specification and [RFC4244]:
1. Added header field parameters to capture the specific method by
which a target is determined to facilitate processing by users of
the History-info header field entries. A specific header field
parameter is captured for each of the target URIs as the target
set is determined (per section 16.5 of [RFC3261]). The header
field parameter is used in both the History-Info and the Contact
header fields.
2. Rather than recommending that entries be removed in the case of
certain values of the Privacy header field, the entries are
anonymized.
3. Updated the security section to be equivalent to the security
recommendations for other SIP headers inserted by intermediaries.
Barnes, et al. Expires August 18, 2011 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft History-Info February 2011
The first 2 changes are intended to facilitate application usage of
the History-info header field and eliminate the need to make
assumptions based upon the order of the entries and ensure that the
most complete set of information is available to the applications.
In addition, editorial changes were done to both condense and clarify
the text, moving the requirements to an appendix and removing the
inline references to the requirements. The examples were simplified
and updated to reflect the protocol changes. Several of the call
flows in the appendix were removed and put into a separate document
that includes additional use cases that require the new header
parameters.
14.1. Backwards compatibility
This specification is backwards compatible since [RFC4244] allows for
the addition of new optional parameters. This specification adds an
optional SIP header field parameter to the History-Info and Contact
headers. Entities that have not implemented this specification MUST
ignore these parameters, however, per [RFC4244] an entity MUST NOT
remove this parameter from an hi-entry.
15. Changes since last Version
NOTE TO THE RFC-Editor: Please remove this section prior to
publication as an RFC.
Changes from 02 to 03:
1. Lots of editorial:
A. Reorganized sections similar to the RFC 4244 order - i.e.,
introduce header field parameters and syntax first, then
describe how the functional entities use the header. This
removes redundant (and often inconsistent) text describing
the parameters.
B. Expanded use of "header" to "header field"
C. More precision in terms of "escaping" of the Privacy and
Reason headers in the hi-targeted-to-uri (versus
"adding"/"setting"/etc. them to the hi-entry).
D. Consistent use of parameter names (i.e., hi-entry versus
entry, hi-target versus target, etc.)
Barnes, et al. Expires August 18, 2011 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft History-Info February 2011
E. Moved item 6 in the Index section to the section on Response
handling
F. Removed last remaining vestiges of inline references to
requirements.
2. Clarifications of functionality/applicability including:
A. which messages may contain History-Info
B. removing security text with regards to being able to figure
out if there are missing entries when using TLS (issue #44)
C. More complete information on the new header field parameters
as they relate to the hi-target parameter.
D. Changed wording from passive to active for normative
statements in many cases and removed superfluous normative
language.
3. Rewrite of the Privacy section to address issues and splitting
into the setting of the Privacy header fields and the processing/
application of the privacy header field priv-values.
4. Rewrite of the Reason header field section - simplifying the text
and adding back the RFC 4244 text with regards to the use of the
Reason header field in cases of internal retargeting.
Changes from 01 to 02:
1. Editorial nits/clarifications. [Issues: 1,6,17,18,21-
23,25,26,30-33,35-37,39,40]
2. Removing extraneous 4244 text - e.g., errors in flows,
"stronger" security, "session" privacy. [Issues: 3,5,7,11 ]
3. Updated definition of "retarget" to be all encompassing - i.e.,
also includes internal changes of target URI. Clarified text
for "internal retarging" in proxy section. [Issues: 2,8,9]
4. Clarified that the processing for Proxies is equally applicable
to other SIP intermediaries. [Issue: 9].
5. Changed more SHOULDs to MUSTs. [Issue: 10]
6. Fixes to Application considerations section. [Issues: 12-15]
Barnes, et al. Expires August 18, 2011 [Page 28]
Internet-Draft History-Info February 2011
7. Changed language in the procedure for Indexing to normative
language.
8. Clarifications for UAC processing:
* MUST add hi-entry. [Issue: 28]
* Clarify applicability to B2BUA. [Issue: 29]
* Fixed text for indexing for UAC in case of 3xx.
9. Changed "hit" URI parameter to header parameters: [Issues:4,40]
* Added index to all target header parameters. [Issues: 41]
* Updated all the relevant sections documenting setting and use
of new header parameters. [Issue: 40]
10. Updated/clarified privacy handling. [Issue: 16]
11. Updated Redirect Server section to allow adding History-info
header fields. [Issue: 24 ]
12. Added text around restrictions for Tel-URIs - i.e., no privacy
or reason. [Issues: 4, 12]
13. Updated text for forking - what goes in response. [Issues:
19,20]
Changes from 00 to 01:
1. Moved examples (except first) in appendix to a new
(informational) document.
2. Updated UAS and UAC sections to clarify and expand on the
handling of the History-info header field.
3. Updated the Application considerations section:
* Included more detail with regards to how applications can make
use of the information, in particular based on the new tags.
* Removed privacy consideration (2nd bullet) since privacy is
now accomplished by anonymizing rather than removal of
entries.
Changes from (individual) barnes-sipcore-4244bis-03 to (WG) ietf-
sipcore-4244bis-00:
Barnes, et al. Expires August 18, 2011 [Page 29]
Internet-Draft History-Info February 2011
1. Added a new SIP/SIPS URI parameter to tag the URIs as they are
added to the target list and those returned in the contact header
in a 3xx response.
2. Updated description of "target" parameter to use the new URI
parameter value in setting the value for the parameter.
3. Clarified privacy.
4. Changed handling at redirect server to include the use of the new
URI parameter and to remove the functionality of adding the
History-Info entries (basically reverting to core 4244
processing).
5. Additional text to clarify that a service such as voicemail can
be done in multiple ways.
6. Editorial changes including removal of some vestiges of tagging
all entries (including the "aor" tag).
Changes from barnes-sipcore-4244bis-02 to 03:
1. Fixed problem with indices in example in voicemail example.
2. Removed oc and rt from the Hi-target parameter.
3. Removed aor tag
4. Added index parameter to "mp"
5. Added use-cases and call-flows from target-uri into appendix.
Changes from barnes-sipcore-4244bis-01 to 02:
1. Added hi-aor parameter that gets marked on the "incoming" hi-
entry.
2. Hi-target parameter defined to be either rc, oc, mp, rt, and now
gets included when adding an hi-entry.
3. Added section on backwards compatibility, as well as added the
recognition and handling of requests that do not support this
specification in the appropriate sections.
4. Updated redirect server/3xx handling to support the new
parameters - i.e., the redirecting entity must add the new hi-
entry since the proxy does not have access to the information as
to how the Contact was determined.
Barnes, et al. Expires August 18, 2011 [Page 30]
Internet-Draft History-Info February 2011
5. Added section on normative differences between this document and
RFC 4244.
6. Restructuring of document to be more in line with current IETF
practices.
7. Moved Requirements section into an Appendix.
8. Fixed ABNF to remove unintended ordering requirement on hi-index
that was introduced in attempting to illustrate it was a
mandatory parameter.
Changes from barnes-sipcore-4244bis-00 to 01 :
1. Clarified "retarget" definition.
2. Removed privacy discussion from optionality section - just refer
to privacy section.
3. Removed extraneous text from target-parameter (leftover from sip-
4244bis). Changed the terminology from the "reason" to the
"mechanism" to avoid ambiguity with parameter.
4. Various changes to clarify some of the text around privacy.
5. Reverted proxy response handling text to previous form - just
changing the privacy aspects to anonymize, rather than remove.
6. Other editorial changes to condense and simplify.
7. Moved Privacy examples to Appendix.
8. Added forking to Basic call example.
Changes from barnes-sipcore-4244bis-00 to 01 :
1. Clarified "retarget" definition.
2. Removed privacy discussion from optionality section - just refer
to privacy section.
3. Removed extraneous text from target-parameter (leftover from sip-
4244bis). Changed the terminology from the "reason" to the
"mechanism" to avoid ambiguity with parameter.
4. Various changes to clarify some of the text around privacy.
Barnes, et al. Expires August 18, 2011 [Page 31]
Internet-Draft History-Info February 2011
5. Reverted proxy response handling text to previous form - just
changing the privacy aspects to anonymize, rather than remove.
6. Other editorial changes to condense and simplify.
7. Moved Privacy examples to Appendix.
8. Added forking to Basic call example.
Changes from barnes-sip-4244bis-00 to barnes-sipcore-4244bis-00:
1. Added tags for each type of retargeting including proxy hops,
etc. - i.e., a tag is defined for each specific mechanism by
which the new Request-URI is determined. Note, this is
extremely helpful in terms of backwards compatibility.
2. Fixed all the examples. Made sure loose routing was used in all
of them.
3. Removed example where a proxy using strict routing is using
History-Info for avoiding trying same route twice.
4. Remove redundant Redirect Server example.
5. Index is now mandated to start at "1" instead of recommended.
6. Updated 3xx behavior as the entity sending the 3XX response MUST
add the hi-target attribute to the previous hi-entry to ensure
that it is appropriately tagged (i.e., it's the only one that
knows how the contact in the 3xx was determined.)
7. Removed lots of ambiguity by making many "MAYs" into "SHOULDs"
and some "SHOULDs" into "MUSTs".
8. Privacy is now recommended to be done by anonymizing entries as
per RFC 3323 instead of by removing or omitting hi-entry(s).
9. Requirement for TLS is now same level as per RFC 3261.
10. Clarified behavior for "Privacy" (i.e., that Privacy is for Hi-
entries, not headers).
11. Removed "OPTIONALITY" as specific requirements, since it's
rather superflous.
12. Other editorial changes to remove redundant text/sections.
Changes from RFC4244 to barnes-sip-4244bis-00:
Barnes, et al. Expires August 18, 2011 [Page 32]
Internet-Draft History-Info February 2011
1. Clarified that HI captures both retargeting as well as cases of
just forwarding a request.
2. Added descriptions of the usage of the terms "retarget",
"forward" and "redirect" to the terminology section.
3. Added additional examples for the functionality provided by HI
for core SIP.
4. Added hi-target parameter values to HI header to ABNF and
protocol description, as well as defining proxy, UAC and UAS
behavior for the parameter.
5. Simplified example call flow in section 4.5. Moved previous call
flow to appendix.
6. Fixed ABNF per RFC4244 errata "dot" -> "." and added new
parameter.
16. References
16.1. Normative References
[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.
[RFC3326] Schulzrinne, H., Oran, D., and G. Camarillo, "The Reason
Header Field for the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)",
RFC 3326, December 2002.
[RFC3323] Peterson, J., "A Privacy Mechanism for the Session
Initiation Protocol (SIP)", RFC 3323, November 2002.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC5246] Dierks, T. and E. Rescorla, "The Transport Layer Security
(TLS) Protocol Version 1.2", RFC 5246, August 2008.
[RFC4244] Barnes, M., "An Extension to the Session Initiation
Protocol (SIP) for Request History Information", RFC 4244,
November 2005.
Barnes, et al. Expires August 18, 2011 [Page 33]
Internet-Draft History-Info February 2011
16.2. Informative References
[RFC5627] Rosenberg, J., "Obtaining and Using Globally Routable User
Agent URIs (GRUUs) in the Session Initiation Protocol
(SIP)", RFC 5627, October 2009.
[RFC5630] Audet, F., "The Use of the SIPS URI Scheme in the Session
Initiation Protocol (SIP)", RFC 5630, October 2009.
[RFC3087] Campbell, B. and R. Sparks, "Control of Service Context
using SIP Request-URI", RFC 3087, April 2001.
[RFC4240] Burger, E., Van Dyke, J., and A. Spitzer, "Basic Network
Media Services with SIP", RFC 4240, December 2005.
[RFC3969] Camarillo, G., "The Internet Assigned Number Authority
(IANA) Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) Parameter
Registry for the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)",
BCP 99, RFC 3969, December 2004.
[RFC3966] Schulzrinne, H., "The tel URI for Telephone Numbers",
RFC 3966, December 2004.
Appendix A. Request History Requirements
The following list constitutes a set of requirements for a "Request
History" capability.
1. CAPABILITY-req: The "Request History" capability provides a
capability to inform proxies and UAs involved in processing a
request about the history/progress of that request. Although
this is inherently provided when the retarget is in response to a
SIP redirect, it is deemed useful for non-redirect retargeting
scenarios, as well.
2. GENERATION-req: "Request History" information is generated when
the request is retargeted.
A. In some scenarios, it might be possible for more than one
instance of retargeting to occur within the same Proxy. A
proxy MUST also generate Request History information for the
'internal retargeting'.
B. An entity (UA or proxy) retargeting in response to a redirect
or REFER MUST include any Request History information from
the redirect/REFER in the new request.
Barnes, et al. Expires August 18, 2011 [Page 34]
Internet-Draft History-Info February 2011
3. ISSUER-req: "Request History" information can be generated by a
UA or proxy. It can be passed in both requests and responses.
4. CONTENT-req: The "Request History" information for each
occurrence of retargeting shall include the following:
A. The new URI or address to which the request is in the process
of being retargeted,
B. The URI or address from which the request was retargeted, and
wether the retarget URI was an AOR
C. The mechanism by which the new URI or address was determined,
D. The reason for the Request-URI or address modification,
E. Chronological ordering of the Request History information.
5. REQUEST-VALIDITY-req: Request History is applicable to requests
not sent within an early or established dialog (e.g., INVITE,
REGISTER, MESSAGE, and OPTIONS).
6. BACKWARDS-req: Request History information may be passed from the
generating entity backwards towards the UAC. This is needed to
enable services that inform the calling party about the dialog
establishment attempts.
7. FORWARDS-req: Request History information may also be included by
the generating entity in the request, if it is forwarded onwards.
A.1. Security Requirements
The Request History information is being inserted by a network
element retargeting a Request, resulting in a slightly different
problem than the basic SIP header problem, thus requiring specific
consideration. It is recognized that these security requirements can
be generalized to a basic requirement of being able to secure
information that is inserted by proxies.
The potential security problems include the following:
1. A rogue application could insert a bogus Request History-Info
entry either by adding an additional hi-entry as a result of
retargeting or entering invalid information.
2. A rogue application could re-arrange the Request History
information to change the nature of the end application or to
mislead the receiver of the information.
Barnes, et al. Expires August 18, 2011 [Page 35]
Internet-Draft History-Info February 2011
3. A rogue application could delete some or all of the Request
History information.
Thus, a security solution for "Request History" must meet the
following requirements:
1. SEC-req-1: The entity receiving the Request History must be able
to determine whether any of the previously added Request History
content has been altered.
2. SEC-req-2: The ordering of the Request History information must
be preserved at each instance of retargeting.
3. SEC-req-3: The entity receiving the information conveyed by the
Request History must be able to authenticate the entity providing
the request.
4. SEC-req-4: To ensure the confidentiality of the Request History
information, only entities that process the request SHOULD have
visibility to the information.
It should be noted that these security requirements apply to any
entity making use of the Request History information.
A.2. Privacy Requirements
Since the Request-URI that is captured could inadvertently reveal
information about the originator, there are general privacy
requirements that MUST be met:
1. PRIV-req-1: The entity retargeting the Request must ensure that
it maintains the network-provided privacy (as described in
[RFC3323]) associated with the Request as it is retargeted.
2. PRIV-req-2: The entity receiving the Request History must
maintain the privacy associated with the information. In
addition, local policy at a proxy may identify privacy
requirements associated with the Request-URI being captured in
the Request History information.
3. PRIV-req-3: Request History information subject to privacy shall
not be included in ougoing messages unless it is protected as
described in [RFC3323].
Barnes, et al. Expires August 18, 2011 [Page 36]
Internet-Draft History-Info February 2011
Appendix B. Example call flows
The scenarios in this section provide sample use cases for the
History-info header field for informational purposes only. They are
not intended to be normative. A basic forking use case is included,
along with two use cases illustrating the use of the privacy.
B.1. Sequentially Forking (History-Info in Response)
This scenario highlights an example where the History-Info in the
response is useful to an application or user that originated the
request.
Alice sends a call to Bob via sip:example.com. The proxy sip:
example.com sequentially tries Bob on a SIP UA that has bound a
contact with the sip:bob@example.com AOR, and then several alternate
addresses (Office and Home) unsuccessfully before sending a response
to Alice. The hi-entry containing the initial contact is the hi-
entry just prior to the first hi-entry tagged with an hi-target value
of "rc". In this example, the Office and Home are not the same AOR
as sip:bob@example.com, but rather different AORs that have been
configured as alternate addresses for Bob in the proxy. In other
words, Office and Bob are not bound through SIP Registration with
Bob's AOR. This type of arrangement is common for example when a
"routing" rule to a PSTN number is manually configured in a Proxy.
These hi-entries are identified by the index contained in the hi-
target "mp" parameter in the hi-entries.
This scenario illustrates that by providing the History-Info to
Alice, the end-user or an application at Alice could make a decision
on how best to attempt finding Bob without sending multiple requests
to the same destination. Upon receipt of the response containing the
History-Info entries, the Request URIs for the History-Info entries
tagged with "mp" are extracted. Those Request-URIs can be compared
to other URIs (if any) that might be attempted in order to establish
the session with Bob. Thus, avoiding another INVITE to Bob's home
phone. Without this mechanism, Alice might well attempt to reach Bob
at his office phone, which would then retarget the request to Bob's
home phone. When that attempt failed, then Alice might attempt to
reach Bob directly at his home phone, unknowingly for a third time.
Barnes, et al. Expires August 18, 2011 [Page 37]
Internet-Draft History-Info February 2011
Alice example.com Bob Office Home
| | | | |
| INVITE F1 | | | |
|----------->| INVITE F2 | | |
| |----------------->| | |
| 100 Trying F3 | | |
|<-----------| 302 Move Temporarily F4 | |
| |<-----------------| | |
| | ACK F5 | | |
| |----------------->| | |
| | INVITE F6 | |
| |-------------------------->| |
| | 180 Ringing F7 | |
| |<--------------------------| |
| 180 Ringing F8 | |
|<-----------| retransmit INVITE | |
| |-------------------------->| |
| | ( timeout ) | |
| | INVITE F9 |
| |----------------------------------->|
| | 100 Trying F10 |
| |<-----------------------------------|
| | 486 Busy Here F11 |
| |<-----------------------------------|
| 486 Busy Here F12 |
|<-----------| ACK F13 |
| |----------------------------------->|
| ACK F14 | |
|----------->| |
Message Details
F1 INVITE alice -> example.com
INVITE sip:alice@example.com SIP/2.0
Via: SIP/2.0/TCP 192.0.2.3:5060
From: Alice <sip:alice@example.com>
To: Bob <sip:bob@example.com>
Supported: histinfo
Call-Id: 12345600@example.com
CSeq: 1 INVITE
History-Info: <sip:bob@example.com>;index=1
Contact: Alice <sip:alice@192.0.2.3>
Content-Type: application/sdp
Content-Length: <appropriate value>
<!-- SDP Not Shown -->
Barnes, et al. Expires August 18, 2011 [Page 38]
Internet-Draft History-Info February 2011
F2 INVITE example.com -> Bob
INVITE sip:bob@192.0.2.4 SIP/2.0
Via: SIP/2.0/TCP proxy.example.com:5060
Via: SIP/2.0/TCP 192.0.2.3:5060
From: Alice <sip:alice@example.com>
To: Bob <sip:bob@example.com>
Supported: histinfo
Call-Id: 12345600@example.com
CSeq: 1 INVITE
Record-Route: <sip:proxy.example.com;lr>
History-Info: <sip:bob@example.com>;index=1
History-Info: <sip:bob@192.0.2.4>;index=1.1;rc=1
Contact: Alice <sip:alice@192.0.2.3>
Content-Type: application/sdp
Content-Length: <appropriate value>
<!-- SDP Not Shown -->
F3 100 Trying example.com -> alice
SIP/2.0 100 Trying
Via: SIP/2.0/TCP 192.0.2.3:5060
From: Alice <sip:alice@example.com>
To: Bob <sip:bob@example.com>
Call-Id: 12345600@example.com
CSeq: 1 INVITE
Content-Length: 0
F4 302 Moved Temporarily Bob -> example.com
SIP/2.0 302 Moved Temporarily
Via: SIP/2.0/TCP proxy.example.com:5060
Via: SIP/2.0/TCP 192.0.2.3:5060
From: Alice <sip:alice@example.com>
To: Bob <sip:bob@example.com>;tag=3
Call-Id: 12345600@example.com
CSeq: 1 INVITE
Record-Route: <sip:proxy.example.com;lr>
History-Info: <sip:bob@example.com>;index=1
History-Info: <sip:bob@192.0.2.4>;index=1.1;rc=1
Contact: <sip:office@example.com>;mp=1
Content-Length: 0
Barnes, et al. Expires August 18, 2011 [Page 39]
Internet-Draft History-Info February 2011
F5 ACK 192.0.2.4 -> Bob
ACK sip:home@example.com SIP/2.0
Via: SIP/2.0/TCP proxy.example.com:5060
From: Alice <sip:alice@example.com>
To: Bob <sip:bob@example.com>
Call-Id: 12345600@example.com
CSeq: 1 ACK
Content-Length: 0
F6 INVITE example.com -> office
INVITE sip:office@192.0.2.3.com SIP/2.0
Via: SIP/2.0/TCP proxy.example.com:5060;branch=2
Via: SIP/2.0/TCP 192.0.2.3:5060
From: Alice <sip:alice@example.com>
To: Bob <sip:bob@example.com>
Supported: histinfo
Call-Id: 12345600@example.com
Record-Route: <sip:proxy.example.com;lr>
History-Info: <sip:bob@example.com>;index=1
History-Info: <sip:bob@192.0.2.4?Reason=SIP%3Bcause%3D302>;\
index=1.1;rc=1
History-Info: <sip:office@example.com>;index=1.2;mp=1
History-Info: <sip:office@192.0.2.5>;index=1.2.1
CSeq: 1 INVITE
Contact: Alice <sip:alice@192.0.2.3>
Content-Type: application/sdp
Content-Length: <appropriate value>
<!-- SDP Not Shown -->
Barnes, et al. Expires August 18, 2011 [Page 40]
Internet-Draft History-Info February 2011
F7 180 Ringing office -> example.com
SIP/2.0 180 Ringing
Via: SIP/2.0/TCP proxy.example.com:5060;branch=2
Via: SIP/2.0/TCP 192.0.2.3:5060
From: Alice <sip:alice@example.com>
To: Bob <sip:bob@example.com>;tag=5
Supported: histinfo
Call-ID: 12345600@example.com
Record-Route: <sip:proxy.example.com;lr>
History-Info: <sip:bob@example.com>;index=1
History-Info: <sip:bob@192.0.2.4?Reason=SIP%3Bcause%3D302>;\
index=1.1;rc=1
History-Info: <sip:office@example.com>;index=1.2;mp=1
History-Info: <sip:office@192.0.2.5>;index=1.2.1
CSeq: 1 INVITE
Content-Length: 0
F8 180 Ringing example.com -> alice
SIP/2.0 180 Ringing
Via: SIP/2.0/TCP example.com:5060
From: Alice <sip:alice@example.com>
To: Bob <sip:bob@example.com>
Supported: histinfo
Call-Id: 12345600@example.com
History-Info: <sip:bob@example.com>;index=1
History-Info: <sip:bob@192.0.2.4?Reason=SIP%3Bcause%3D302>;\
index=1.1;rc=1
History-Info: <sip:office@example.com>;index=1.2;mp=1
History-Info: <sip:office@192.0.2.5>;index=1.2.1
CSeq: 1 INVITE
Content-Length: 0
Barnes, et al. Expires August 18, 2011 [Page 41]
Internet-Draft History-Info February 2011
F9 INVITE example.com -> home
INVITE sip:home@192.0.2.6 SIP/2.0
Via: SIP/2.0/TCP proxy.example.com:5060;branch=3
Via: SIP/2.0/TCP 192.0.2.3:5060
From: Alice <sip:alice@example.com>
To: Bob <sip:bob@example.com>
Supported: histinfo
Call-Id: 12345600@example.com
Record-Route: <sip:proxy.example.com;lr>
History-Info: <sip:bob@example.com>;index=1
History-Info: <sip:bob@192.0.2.4?Reason=SIP%3Bcause%3D302>;\
index=1.1;rc=1
History-Info: <sip:office@example.com>;index=1.2;mp=1
History-Info: <sip:office@192.0.2.5?Reason=SIP%3Bcause%3D408>;\
index=1.2.1>;index=1.2.1
History-Info: <sip:home@example.com>;index=1.3;mp=1
History-Info: <sip:home@192.0.2.6>;index=1.3.1
CSeq: 1 INVITE
Contact: Alice <sip:alice@192.0.2.3>
Content-Type: application/sdp
Content-Length: <appropriate value>
<!-- SDP Not Shown -->
F10 100 Trying home -> example.com
SIP/2.0 100 Trying
Via: SIP/2.0/TCP proxy.example.com:5060;branch=3
Via: SIP/2.0/TCP 192.0.2.3:5060
From: Alice <sip:alice@example.com>
To: Bob <sip:bob@example.com>
Call-Id: 12345600@example.com
CSeq: 1 INVITE
Content-Length: 0
Barnes, et al. Expires August 18, 2011 [Page 42]
Internet-Draft History-Info February 2011
F11 486 Busy Here home -> example.com
SIP/2.0 486 Busy Here
Via: SIP/2.0/TCP proxy.example.com:5060;branch=3
Via: SIP/2.0/TCP 192.0.2.3:5060
From: Alice <sip:alice@example.com>
To: Bob <sip:bob@example.com>
Call-Id: 12345600@example.com
Record-Route: <sip:proxy.example.com;lr>
History-Info: <sip:bob@example.com>;index=1
History-Info: <sip:bob@192.0.2.4?Reason=SIP%3Bcause%3D302>;\
index=1.1;rc=1
History-Info: <sip:office@example.com>;index=1.2;mp=1
History-Info: <sip:office@192.0.2.5?Reason=SIP%3Bcause%3D408>;\
index=1.2.1>;index=1.2.1
History-Info: <sip:home@example.com>;index=1.3;mp=1
History-Info: <sip:home@192.0.2.6>;index=1.3.1
CSeq: 1 INVITE
Content-Length: 0
F12 486 Busy Here example.com -> alice
SIP/2.0 486 Busy Here
Via: SIP/2.0/TCP 192.0.2.3:5060
From: Alice <sip:alice@example.com>
To: Bob <sip:bob@example.com>
Call-Id: 12345600@example.com
History-Info: <sip:bob@example.com>;index=1
History-Info: <sip:bob@192.0.2.4?Reason=SIP%3Bcause%3D302>;\
index=1.1;rc=1
History-Info: <sip:office@example.com>;index=1.2;mp=1
History-Info: <sip:office@192.0.2.5?Reason=SIP%3Bcause%3D408>;\
index=1.2.1>;index=1.2.1
History-Info: <sip:home@example.com>;index=1.3;mp=1
History-Info: <sip:home@192.0.2.6>;index=1.3.1
CSeq: 1 INVITE
Content-Length: 0
Barnes, et al. Expires August 18, 2011 [Page 43]
Internet-Draft History-Info February 2011
F13 ACK example.com -> home
ACK sip:home@example.com SIP/2.0
Via: SIP/2.0/TCP proxy.example.com:5060
From: Alice <sip:alice@example.com>
To: Bob <sip:bob@example.com>
Call-Id: 12345600@example.com
CSeq: 1 ACK
Content-Length: 0
F14 ACK alice -> example.com
ACK sip:bob@example.com SIP/2.0
Via: SIP/2.0/TCP 192.0.2.3:5060
From: Alice <sip:alice@example.com>
To: Bob <sip:bob@example.com>
Call-Id: 12345600@example.com
Route: <sip:proxy.example.com;lr>
CSeq: 1 ACK
Content-Length: 0
B.2. History-Info with Privacy Header Field
This example provides a basic call scenario without forking. Alice
has indicated that she wants Privacy associated with the History-Info
header field entries. In addition, sip:biloxi.example.com adds
Privacy header fields indicating that the History-info header field
information is anonymized outside the biloxi.example.com domain.
Note, that if the atlanta.example.com proxy had added privacy header
fields to all its hi-entries, then all the hi-entries in the response
would be anonymous.
Barnes, et al. Expires August 18, 2011 [Page 44]
Internet-Draft History-Info February 2011
Alice atlanta.example.com biloxi.example.com Bob
| | | |
| INVITE sip:bob@biloxi.example.com;p=x |
|--------------->| | |
| Supported: histinfo | |
| Privacy: History | |
| History-Info: <sip:bob@biloxi.example.com;p=x>;index=1
| | | |
| | INVITE sip:bob@biloxi.example.com;p=x
| |--------------->| |
| History-Info: <sip:anonymous@anonymous.invalid>;index=1
| History-Info: <sip:bob@biloxi.example.com;p=x>;index=1.1
| | | |
| | | INVITE sip:bob@192.0.2.3
| | |--------------->|
| History-Info: <sip:anonymous@anonymous.invalid>;index=1
| History-Info: <sip:bob@biloxi.example.com;p=x>;index=1.1
| History-Info: <sip:bob@192.0.2.3?Privacy=history>;index=1.1.1;rc=1.1
| | | |
| | | 200 |
| | |<---------------|
| History-Info: <sip:anonymous@anonymous.invalid>;index=1
| History-Info: <sip:bob@biloxi.example.com;p=x>;index=1.1
| History-Info: <sip:bob@192.0.2.3?Privacy=history>;index=1.1.1;rc=1.1
| | | |
| | 200 | |
| |<---------------| |
| History-Info: <sip:anonymous@anonymous.invalid>;index=1
| History-Info: <sip:bob@biloxi.example.com;p=x>;index=1.1
| History-Info: <sip:anonymous@anonymous.invalid>;index=1.1.1;rc=1.1
| | | |
| 200 | | |
|<---------------| | |
| History-Info: <sip:anonymous@anonymous.invalid>;index=1
| History-Info: <sip:bob@biloxi.example.com;p=x>;index=1.1
| History-Info: <sip:anonymous@anonymous.invalid>;index=1.1.1;rc=1.1
| | | |
| ACK | | |
|--------------->| ACK | |
| |--------------->| ACK |
| | |--------------->|
Figure 2: Example with Privacy Header Fields
Barnes, et al. Expires August 18, 2011 [Page 45]
Internet-Draft History-Info February 2011
B.3. Privacy for a Specific History-Info Entry
This example provides a basic call scenario similar to Appendix B.2,
however, due to local policy at sip:biloxi.example.com, only the
final hi-entry in the History-Info, which is Bob's local URI,
contains a privacy header field with a priv-value of "history", thus
providing Alice with some information about the history of the
request, but anonymizing Bob's local URI.
Barnes, et al. Expires August 18, 2011 [Page 46]
Internet-Draft History-Info February 2011
Alice atlanta.example.com biloxi.example.com Bob
| | | |
| INVITE sip:bob@biloxi.example.com;p=x |
|--------------->| | |
| Supported: histinfo | |
| | | |
| | INVITE sip:bob@biloxi.example.com;p=x
| |--------------->| |
| History-Info: <sip:bob@biloxi.example.com;p=x>;index=1
| History-Info: <sip:bob@biloxi.example.com;p=x>;index=1.1
| | | |
| | | INVITE sip:bob@192.0.2.3
| | |--------------->|
| History-Info: <sip:bob@biloxi.example.com;p=x>;index=1
| History-Info: <sip:bob@biloxi.example.com;p=x>;index=1.1
| History-Info: <sip:bob@192.0.2.3>;index=1.1.1;rc=1.1
| | | |
| | | 200 |
| | |<---------------|
| History-Info: <sip:bob@biloxi.example.com;p=x>;index=1
| History-Info: <sip:bob@biloxi.example.com;p=x>;index=1.1
| History-Info: <sip:bob@192.0.2.3?Privacy=history>;index=1.1.1;rc=1.1
| | | |
| | 200 | |
| |<---------------| |
| History-Info: <sip:bob@biloxi.example.com;p=x>;index=1
| History-Info: <sip:bob@biloxi.example.com;p=x>;index=1.1
| History-Info: <sip:anonymous@anonymous.invalid>;index=1.1.1;rc=1.1
| | | |
| 200 | | |
|<---------------| | |
| History-Info: <sip:bob@biloxi.example.com;p=x>;index=1
| History-Info: <sip:bob@biloxi.example.com;p=x>;index=1.1
| History-Info: <sip:anonymous@anynymous.invalid>;index=1.1.1;rc=1.1
| | | |
| ACK | | |
|--------------->| ACK | |
| |--------------->| ACK |
| | |--------------->|
Figure 3: Example with Privacy Header Field for Specific URI
Barnes, et al. Expires August 18, 2011 [Page 47]
Internet-Draft History-Info February 2011
Authors' Addresses
Mary Barnes
Polycom
TX
US
Email: mary.ietf.barnes@gmail.com
Francois Audet
Skype
Email: francois.audet@skype.net
Shida Schubert
NTT
Email: shida@agnada.com
Hans Erik van Elburg
Detecon International Gmbh
Oberkasseler str. 2
Bonn,
Germany
Email: ietf.hanserik@gmail.com
Christer Holmberg
Ericsson
Hirsalantie 11, Jorvas
Finland
Email: christer.holmberg@ericsson.com
Barnes, et al. Expires August 18, 2011 [Page 48]
