[Search] [txt|pdfized|bibtex] [Tracker] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]
Versions: 00 01 02                                                      
dispatch                                                       R. Jesske
Internet-Draft                                                  L. Liess
Intended status: Informational                          Deutsche Telekom
Expires: July 14, 2011                                  January 10, 2011


     Requirements for the use of the Reason header filed in Session
                  Initiation Protocol (SIP) responses
            draft-jesske-dispatch-req-reason-in-responses-02

Abstract

   Although the use of the Reason header field in responses is
   considered in RFC3326, doing so is not specified for any existing
   response code.  Nonetheless, the Reason header field has been widely
   used in responses to carry Q.850 reason codes for failure responses
   to INVITEs that have been gatewayed to PSTN systems.  This document
   specifies and formally permits the use of the Reason header field in
   SIP responses to carry Q.850 reason codes for this and other
   purposes.

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 July 14, 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



Jesske & Liess            Expires July 14, 2011                 [Page 1]


Internet-Draft                Reason Header                 January 2011


   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.



































Jesske & Liess            Expires July 14, 2011                 [Page 2]


Internet-Draft                Reason Header                 January 2011


Table of Contents

   1.  Terminology  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   2.  Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   3.  Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
   4.  Overall Applicability  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
   5.  Example  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
   6.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
   7.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
   8.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10








































Jesske & Liess            Expires July 14, 2011                 [Page 3]


Internet-Draft                Reason Header                 January 2011


1.  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].

   This document uses terms from [RFC3261].


2.  Overview

   With introducing the Session Initiation Protocol [RFC3261]into the IP
   Multimedia Subsystem (IMS) which is defined by the 3rd Generation
   Partnership Project the it was required to interoperate with the
   PSTN/ISDN.  The European Telecommunication Standards Institute (ETSI)
   has defined a Next Generation Network (NGN) where a substantial part
   of it is based on the IMS.

   ETSI has developed a number of requirements to support the usage of
   SIP in Next Generation Networks that interoperate, at the service
   level, with the Public Switched Telephone Network (PSTN), the
   Integrated Services Digital Network (ISDN), the 3GPP IP Multimedia
   Subsystem (IMS), and SIP networks and terminals that implement the
   service logic.

   Also ITU-T has specified an interworking between SIP and PSTN/ISDN
   networks [ITU.Q1912.5.2004] and [TS29.163] where reason within
   responses are already supported.

   In order to provide full support in SIP of existing services,
   extensions to SIP are needed.

   This document proposes the use of the Reason header field in
   responses.  This is needed for creating services that must be
   interoperable with the PSTN/ISDN network and the interoperability of
   traversing communications through SIP not using SIP-I.

   The main used case for reason header within responses are
   interworking situations with PSTN/ISDN networks where the ISUP cause
   In many cases the mapping of specific cause values will result in a
   generic SIP Response like it is shown below.

   [RFC3398] and other Interworking specifications like [RFC3326] are
   describing the mapping of ISUP Cause Values to SIP and vice versa.
   Looking on the specific mapping shows that information will be lost
   when the call traverses ISUP without using SIP-T.

   Example:



Jesske & Liess            Expires July 14, 2011                 [Page 4]


Internet-Draft                Reason Header                 January 2011


   [RFC3398] describes the mapping of following ISUP Causes to 503 and
   408 like follows.


      ISUP Cause value                        SIP response
      ----------------                        ------------
      34 no circuit available                 503 Service unavailable
      38 network out of order                 503 Service unavailable
      41 temporary failure                    503 Service unavailable
      42 switching equipment congestion       503 Service unavailable
      47 resource unavailable                 503 Service unavailable
      58 bearer capability not presently      503 Service unavailable
         Available
      88 incompatible destination             503 Service unavailable

      18 no user responding                   408 Request Timeout

   The mapping back is shown as follows:

      Response received                        Cause value in the REL
      -----------------                        ----------------------
      503 Service unavailable                  41 Temporary failure

      408 Request timeout                      102 Recovery on timer
                                                   expiry


   The Example with 503 shows that a couple of different ISUP Cause
   values are interworked to only one SIP response.  With 408 the
   meaning of the release cause is changed when interworked back to
   ISUP.  Also Services built on Cause 18 (e.G. a 2nd call attempt on an
   other number, this service is like a sequential forking) will not
   work.


3.  Requirements

   A UA may have the ability to display ISUP specific release causes or
   show a equivalent text.

   In SIP-to-PSTN gateway scenarios, it is desirable to provide the UAC
   with the specific call release reason provided by the PSTN.  To
   support this:

   REQ-1: Provide in SIP responses a way to carry PSTN call release
   codes, along with indication of any context or variant identification
   needed to interpret the code unambiguously.




Jesske & Liess            Expires July 14, 2011                 [Page 5]


Internet-Draft                Reason Header                 January 2011


   REQ-2: Provide an extensibility mechanism so that further information
   about the call release can be specified.


4.  Overall Applicability

   The SIP procedures specified in this document are foreseen for
   networks providing simulation services and/or interworking to the
   PSTN/ISDN.

   The document is describing the use of the Reason header in SIP
   responses.  These procedures are only valuable if the reason
   contained in the element "protocol" is "Q.850".  A inclusion of a SIP
   reason (protocol="SIP") is not helpful due to the fact that the
   response already provides the SIP reason.  The Release Causes are
   described within [Q.850].  (Note: The ETSI specifications can be
   downloaded under http://pda.etsi.org/pda/queryform.asp free of
   charge.)

   The appearance of the Reason header is applicable to final responses
   3xx, 4xx, 5xx and 6xx and 18x and 199 provisional responses
   [I-D.ietf-sipcore-199], the procedures for that are described within
   [draft-jesske-dispatch-reason-in-responses-02] .


5.  Example

   Figure 1 shows the example of SIP interworking with the PSTN/ISDN.
   Cause #87 is sent when the connecting user is not member of a Closed
   User Group.





















Jesske & Liess            Expires July 14, 2011                 [Page 6]


Internet-Draft                Reason Header                 January 2011


            A                Gateway             Proxy               AS
            |        IAM        |                  |                  |
            |------------------>|     INVITE       |                  |
            |                   |----------------->|      INVITE      |
            |                   |     100 Trying   |----------------->|
            |                   |<-----------------|    100 Trying    |
            |                   |                  |<-----------------|
            |   ACK  SDP held   |                  |                  |
            |<------------------|                  |  603 Decline     |
            |                   |  603 Decline     | Reason Q850 #87  |
            |                   |  Reason Q850 #87 |                  |
            |   REL Cause #87   |                  |<-----------------|
            |                   |<-----------------|                  |
            |<----------------- |                  |                  |
            |                   |                  |                  |
            |                   |                  |                  |
            |                   |                  |                  |



                          Figure 1: ISUP-SIP Call

   Figure 2 shows the example where the SIP network is used as transit
   between PSTN/ISDN networks.  This avoids that the Mapping back to the
   Q.850 cause within ISUP change the meaning of the reason for release
   of the call.


            A                Gateway             Gateway              B
            |        IAM        |                  |                  |
            |------------------>|     INVITE       |                  |
            |                   |----------------->|      IAM         |
            |                   |     100 Trying   |----------------->|
            |                   |<-----------------|    100 Trying    |
            |                   |   603 Decline    |                  |
            |                   |  Reason Q850 #87 |  REL Cause #87   |
            |   REL Cause #87   |                  |<-----------------|
            |                   |<-----------------|                  |
            |<----------------- |                  |                  |
            |                   |                  |                  |
            |                   |                  |                  |
            |                   |                  |                  |




                          Figure 2: Transit case




Jesske & Liess            Expires July 14, 2011                 [Page 7]


Internet-Draft                Reason Header                 January 2011


   Figure 3 shows the example where the SIP network puts an announcement
   towards the UAB.  The AS sends an announcement with a specific text
   back.  After some Time the Response will be sent back to the UA A and
   closes all open transactions.  With this possibility the SIP user can
   informed with more specific information than only the Response code.


            A                   AS              Gateway               B
            |        INVITE     |                  |                  |
            |------------------>|     INVITE       |                  |
            |                   |----------------->|      IAM         |
            |                   |     100 Trying   |----------------->|
            |                   |<-----------------|                  |
            |                   |   503 Decline    |                  |
            |                   |  Reason Q850 #41 |  REL Cause #41   |
            |                   |                  |<-----------------|
            |  Announcement     |<-----------------|                  |
            |< ================ |                  |                  |
            |                   |                  |                  |
            |  503 after Timeout|                  |                  |
            |<----------------- |                  |                  |




                          Figure 3: Transit case

   Figure 3: Call Release within the PSTN with an announce played within
   the SIP network.


6.  Security Considerations

   The presence of the Reason header in a response does not affect the
   treatment of the response.

   Including such a header by an untrusted entity could adulterate the
   reactions of the originating entities.  E.G. sending back a cause
   value "87" can cause an announcement within the PSTN/ISDN saying that
   the call was rejected due to the Closed User Group service.

   Therefore it is RECOMMENDED to include the Reason header information
   in Responses only by trusted entities as it is described within
   [RFC3325].







Jesske & Liess            Expires July 14, 2011                 [Page 8]


Internet-Draft                Reason Header                 January 2011


7.  IANA Considerations

   This document does not have any implications for IANA.


8.  Normative References

   [I-D.ietf-sipcore-199]
              Holmberg, C., "Response Code for Indication of Terminated
              Dialog", draft-ietf-sipcore-199-00 (work in progress),
              April 2009.

   [ITU.Q1912.5.2004]
              International Telecommunications Union, "Interworking
              between Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) and Bearer
              Independent Call Control protocol or ISDN User Part [ITU-T
              Recommendation Q.1912.5 (2004)]", ITU Recommendation
              Q.1912.5, April 2004.

   [Q.850]    "Usage of cause and location in the Digital Subscriber
              Signalling System No. 1 and the Signalling System No. 7
              ISDN User Part [ITU-T Recommendation Q.850]",
              ITU Recommendation Q.850, April 1998.

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

   [RFC3261]  Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., Camarillo, G., Johnston,
              A., Peterson, J., Sparks, R., Handley, M., and E.
              Schooler, "SIP: Session Initiation Protocol", RFC 3261,
              June 2002.

   [RFC3325]  Jennings, C., Peterson, J., and M. Watson, "Private
              Extensions to the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) for
              Asserted Identity within Trusted Networks", RFC 3325,
              November 2002.

   [RFC3326]  Schulzrinne, H., Oran, D., and G. Camarillo, "The Reason
              Header Field for the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)",
              RFC 3326, December 2002.

   [RFC3398]  Camarillo, G., Roach, A., Peterson, J., and L. Ong,
              "Integrated Services Digital Network (ISDN) User Part
              (ISUP) to Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Mapping",
              RFC 3398, December 2002.

   [TS29.163]
              "3rd Generation Partnership Project; Technical



Jesske & Liess            Expires July 14, 2011                 [Page 9]


Internet-Draft                Reason Header                 January 2011


              Specification Group Core Network and Terminals;
              Interworking between the IP Multimedia (IM) Core Network
              (CN) subsystem and Circuit Switched (CS) networks (Release
              8)".

   [draft-jesske-dispatch-reason-in-responses-02]
              Jesske, R. and L. Liess, "Use of the Reason header filed
              in Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) responses",
              March 2010.


Authors' Addresses

   Roland Jesske
   Deutsche Telekom
   Heinrich-Hertz-Strasse 3-7
   Darmstadt,   64307
   Germany

   Phone: +4961516282766
   Email: r.jesske@telekom.de


   Laura Liess
   Deutsche Telekom
   Heinrich-Hertz-Strasse 3-7
   Darmstadt,   64307
   Germany

   Phone: +4961516282761
   Email: Laura.Liess@telekom.de




















Jesske & Liess            Expires July 14, 2011                [Page 10]