[Search] [txt|pdfized|bibtex] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 05                                             
SIPPING Working Group                                       G. Camarillo
Internet-Draft                                                  Ericsson
Expires: October 10, 2004                                    A. Johnston
                                                           April 8, 2004

 Conference Establishment Using Request-Contained Lists in the Session
                       Initiation Protocol (SIP)

Status of this Memo

   By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
   applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
   have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
   aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups.  Note that
   other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-

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

   The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at

   This Internet-Draft will expire on October 10, 2004.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004).


   This document describes how to create a conference using SIP URI-list
   services.  In particular, it describes a mechanism that allows a
   client to provide a conference server with the initial list of
   participants using an INVITE-contained URI-list.

Camarillo & Johnston    Expires October 10, 2004                [Page 1]

Internet-Draft           INVITE-Contained Lists               April 2004

Table of Contents

   1.   Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   2.   Terminology  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.   Providing a Conference Server with a URI-List  . . . . . . .   3
   4.   URI-List Format  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   5.   Conference Server Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   6.   Re-INVITEs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   7.   Option-tag . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   8.   Example  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   9.   Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   10.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   11.  Acknowledges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   12.  References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     12.1   Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     12.2   Informational References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
        Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
        Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . .  10

Camarillo & Johnston    Expires October 10, 2004                [Page 2]

Internet-Draft           INVITE-Contained Lists               April 2004

1.  Introduction

   Section 4.5 of [3] describes how to create a conference using ad-hoc
   SIP [2] methods.  The client sends an INVITE request to a conference
   factory URI and receives the actual conference URI, which contains
   the "isfocus" feature tag, in the Contact header field of a response
   (typically a 200 OK).

   Once the client obtains the conference URI, it can add participants
   to the newly created conference in several ways, which are described
   in [3].

   Some environments have tough requirements regarding conference
   establishment time.  They require the client to be able to request
   the creation of an ad-hoc conference and to provide the server with
   the initial set of participants in a single operation.  This document
   describes how to meet this requirement using the mechanism to
   transport URI-lists in SIP messages described in [4].

2.  Terminology

   In this document, the key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED",
   RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" are to be interpreted as
   described in BCP 14, RFC 2119 [1] and indicate requirement levels for
   compliant implementations.

3.  Providing a Conference Server with a URI-List

   A client that wants to include the set of initial participants in its
   initial INVITE to create an ad-hoc conference, adds a body whose
   disposition type is recipient-list, as defined in [4], with a URI-
   list that contains the participants that the client wants the server
   to INVITE.  The client sends this INVITE to the conference factory

4.  URI-List Format

   As described in [4], specifications of individual URI-list services,
   like the conferencing service described here, need to specify a
   default format for recipient-list bodies used within the particular

   The default format for recipient-list bodies for conferencing UAs
   (User Agents) and servers is the resource list format defined in [5].
   So, conferencing UAs and servers handling recipient-list bodies MUST
   support this format and MAY support other formats.

Camarillo & Johnston    Expires October 10, 2004                [Page 3]

Internet-Draft           INVITE-Contained Lists               April 2004

   Nevertheless, the Extensible Markup Language (XML) Configuration
   Access Protocol (XCAP) resource list document provides features, such
   as hierarchical lists and the ability to include entries by reference
   relative to the XCAP root URI, that are not needed by the
   conferencing service defined in this document, which only needs to
   transfer a flat list of URIs between a UA and the conference server.
   Therefore, when using the default resource list document,
   conferencing UAs SHOULD use flat lists (i.e., no hierarchical lists)
   and SHOULD NOT use <entry-ref> elements.

   A conference factory application receiving a URI-list with more
   information than what has just been described MAY discard all the
   extra information.

   Figure 1 shows an example of a flat list that follows the resource
   list document.

   <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
   <resource-lists xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:resource-lists"
       <entry uri="sip:bill@example.com" />
       <entry uri="sip:joe@example.org" />
       <entry uri="sip:ted@example.net" />

                            Figure 1: URI-List

5.  Conference Server Behavior

   On reception of an INVITE with a recipient-list body as described in
   Section 3, a conference server MUST follow the rules described in [3]
   to create ad-hoc conferences.  Once the ad-hoc conference is created,
   the conference server SHOULD attempt to add the participants in the
   URI-list to the conference as if their addition had been requested
   using any of the methods described in [3].

   Once the conference server has created the ad-hoc conference and has
   attempted to add the initial set of participants, the conference
   server behaves as a regular conference server and MUST follow the
   rules in [3].

   Note that the status code in the response to the INVITE does not
   provide any information about whether or not the conference server
   was able to bring the users in the URI-list into the conference.

Camarillo & Johnston    Expires October 10, 2004                [Page 4]

Internet-Draft           INVITE-Contained Lists               April 2004

   That is, a 200 (OK) means that the conference was created
   successfully, that the client that generated the INVITE is in the
   conference, and that the server understood the URI-list.  If the
   client wishes to obtain information about the status of other users
   in the conference it SHOULD use general conference mechanisms, such
   as the conference package [6].

6.  Re-INVITEs

   The previous Sections have specified how to include a URI-list in an
   initial INVITE request to a conference server.  Once the INVITE-
   initiated dialog between the client and the conference server has
   been established, the client may need to send subsequent INVITE
   requests (typically referred to as re-INVITEs) to the conference
   server to, for example, modify the characteristics of the media
   exchanged with the server.

   At this point, there are no semantics associated with resource-list
   bodies in re-INVITEs (although future extensions may define them).
   Therefore, clients SHOULD NOT include resource-list bodies in re-
   INVITEs sent to a conference server.

   A conference server receiving a re-INVITE with a resource-list body,
   following standard SIP procedures, rejects it with a 415 (Unsupported
   Media Type) response.

      Note that a difference between an initial INVITE request and a re-
      INVITE is that while the initial INVITE is sent to the conference
      factory URI, the re-INVITE is sent to the URI provided by the
      server in a Contact header field when the dialog was established.
      Therefore, from the client's point of view, the resource
      identified by the former URI supports recipient-list bodies while
      the resource identified by the latter does not support them.

7.  Option-tag

   This document defines the 'recipient-list-invite' option-tag for use
   in the Require and Supported SIP header fields.

   User agent clients generating an INVITE with a recipient-list body,
   as described in previous sections, MUST include this option-tag in a
   Require header field.  User agents that are able to receive and
   process INVITEs with a recipient-list body, as described in previous
   sections, SHOULD include this option-tag in a Supported header field
   when responding to OPTIONS requests.

Camarillo & Johnston    Expires October 10, 2004                [Page 5]

Internet-Draft           INVITE-Contained Lists               April 2004

      Note that according to Section 6, requests and responses coming
      from the URI of an ongoing conference would not carry this option-
      tag in a Supported header field.  This is because the resource
      identified by the conference URI does not actually support this
      extension.  On the other hand, the resource identified by the
      conference factory URI does support this extension and,
      consequently, would include this option-tag in, for example,
      responses to OPTIONS requests.

8.  Example

   The following is an example of an INVITE request, which carries a
   URI-list in a recipient-list body part, sent by a UA to a conference
   factory application.  Note that since the INVITE carries an SDP
   description as well, it contains a multipart body.

Camarillo & Johnston    Expires October 10, 2004                [Page 6]

Internet-Draft           INVITE-Contained Lists               April 2004

   INVITE sip:conf-fact@example.com SIP/2.0
   Via: SIP/2.0/TCP client.chicago.example.com
   Max-Forwards: 70
   To: Conf Factory <sip:conf-fact@example.com>
   From: Carol <sip:carol@chicago.example.com>;tag=32331
   Call-ID: d432fa84b4c76e66710
   CSeq: 1 INVITE
   Contact: <sip:carol@client.chicago.example.com>
   Allow-Events: dialog
   Accept: application/sdp, message/sipfrag
   Require: recipient-list-invite
   Conten-Type: multipart/mixed;boundary="boundary1"
   Content-Length: 690

   Content-Type: application/sdp

   o=carol 2890844526 2890842807 IN IP4 chicago.example.com
   c=IN IP4
   t=0 0
   m=audio 20000 RTP/AVP 0
   a=rtpmap:0 PCMU/8000
   m=video 20002 RTP/AVP 31
   a=rtpmap:31 H261/90000

   Content-Type: application/resource-lists+xml
   Content-Disposition: recipient-list

   <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
   <resource-lists xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:resource-lists"
       <entry uri="sip:bill@example.com" />
       <entry uri="sip:joe@example.org" />
       <entry uri="sip:ted@example.net" />

                         Figure 2: INVITE request

Camarillo & Johnston    Expires October 10, 2004                [Page 7]

Internet-Draft           INVITE-Contained Lists               April 2004

9.  Security Considerations

   This document discusses setup of SIP conferences using a request-
   contained URI-list.  Both conferencing and URI-lists services have
   specific security requirements which will be summarized here.
   Conferences generally have authorization rules about who may or may
   not join a conference, what type of media may or may not be used,
   etc.  This information is used by the focus to admit or deny
   participation in a conference.  It is RECOMMENDED that these types of
   authorization rules be used to provide security for a SIP conference.

   For this authorization information to be used, the focus needs to be
   able to authenticate potential participants.  Normal SIP mechanisms
   including Digest authentication and certificates can be used.  These
   conference specific security requirements are discussed further in
   the requirements and framework documents.

   For conference creation using a list, there are some additional
   security considerations.  The Framework and Security Considerations
   for SIP URI-List Services [4] discusses issues related to SIP URI-
   list services.  Given that a conference server sending INVITEs to a
   set of users acts as an URI-list service, implementations of
   conference servers that handle lists MUST follow the security-related
   rules in [4].  These rules include mandatory authentication and
   authorization of clients, and opt-in lists.

10.  IANA Considerations

   This document defines the 'recipient-list-invite' SIP option-tag in
   Section 7.  It should be registered in the Option Tags subregistry
   under the SIP parameter registry.  The following is the description
   to be used in the registration.

      This option-tag is used to ensure that a server can process the
      'recipient-list' body used in an INVITE request.

11.  Acknowledges

   Cullen Jennings, Hisham Khartabil, and Jonathan Rosenberg provided
   useful comments on this document.

12.  References

12.1  Normative References

   [1]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement
        Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

Camarillo & Johnston    Expires October 10, 2004                [Page 8]

Internet-Draft           INVITE-Contained Lists               April 2004

   [2]  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.

   [3]  Johnston, A. and O. Levin, "Session Initiation Protocol Call
        Control - Conferencing for User Agents",
        draft-ietf-sipping-cc-conferencing-06 (work in progress),
        November 2004.

   [4]  Camarillo, G. and A. Roach, "Requirements and Framework for
        Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)Uniform  Resource Identifier
        (URI)-List Services", draft-ietf-sipping-uri-services-02 (work
        in progress), December 2004.

   [5]  Rosenberg, J., "Extensible Markup Language (XML) Formats for
        Representing Resource Lists",
        draft-ietf-simple-xcap-list-usage-05 (work in progress),
        February 2005.

12.2  Informational References

   [6]  Rosenberg, J., "A Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Event
        Package for Conference State",
        draft-ietf-sipping-conference-package-10 (work in progress),
        March 2005.

Authors' Addresses

   Gonzalo Camarillo
   Hirsalantie 11
   Jorvas  02420

   Email: Gonzalo.Camarillo@ericsson.com

   Alan Johnston
   100 South 4th Street
   St. Louis, MO  63102

   Email: alan.johnston@mci.com

Camarillo & Johnston    Expires October 10, 2004                [Page 9]

Internet-Draft           INVITE-Contained Lists               April 2004

Intellectual Property Statement

   The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
   Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
   pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
   this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
   might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
   made any independent effort to identify any such rights.  Information
   on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
   found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
   assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
   attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
   such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
   specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at

   The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
   copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
   rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
   this standard.  Please address the information to the IETF at

Disclaimer of Validity

   This document and the information contained herein are provided on an

Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004).  This document is subject
   to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and
   except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights.


   Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
   Internet Society.

Camarillo & Johnston    Expires October 10, 2004               [Page 10]