Network Working Group M. Mohali
Internet-Draft France Telecom
Intended status: Informational June 24, 2009
Expires: December 26, 2009
Mapping and interworking of Diversion information Between Diversion and
History-Info Headers in the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)
draft-mohali-diversion-history-info-04
Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on December 26, 2009.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2009 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 in effect on the date of
publication of this document (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info).
Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
and restrictions with respect to this document.
Mohali Expires December 26, 2009 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Mapping Diversion and History-Info June 2009
Abstract
The Diversion header is not standardized but widely used to convey
diverting information in Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) signaling.
This informational document proposes a way to interwork call
diversion information contained in Diversion header with a History-
Info header. In addition, an interworking policy is proposed to
manage the headers coexistence.
The History-Info header is described in [RFC4244] and the Diversion
header is described in [draft-levy-sip-diversion-09].
Note to the RFC-Editor: The reference to this draft should be
replaced by the Historic RFC reference (work in progress).
Since the Diversion header is used in many existing networks
implementations for transport of diversion information and its
interworking with standardized solutions is not obvious, an
interworking recommendation is needed.
Requirements Language
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].
Mohali Expires December 26, 2009 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Mapping Diversion and History-Info June 2009
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.1. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.2. Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. Problem Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.1. Interworking requirements and scope . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.2. Interworking recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.2.1. SIP network/terminal using Diversion to SIP
network/terminal using History-Info header . . . . . . 7
2.2.2. SIP network/terminal using History-Info header to
SIP network/terminal using Diversion header . . . . . 8
3. Headers syntaxes reminder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.1. History-Info header syntax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.2. Diversion header syntax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4. Headers in SIP Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5. Diversion header to History-Info header . . . . . . . . . . . 13
6. History-Info header to Diversion header . . . . . . . . . . . 16
7. Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
7.1. Example with Diversion header changed into
History-Info header . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
7.2. Example with History-Info header changed into
Diversion header . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
7.3. Example with two SIP networks using History-Info
header interworking with a SIP network using Diversion
header . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
7.4. Additional interworking Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
10. Acknowlegements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Appendix A. Interworking between Diversion header and
Voicemail URI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Mohali Expires December 26, 2009 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Mapping Diversion and History-Info June 2009
1. Introduction
1.1. Overview
For some network services (eg. Voicemail, IVR or automatic call
distribution), it is helpful for the called SIP user agent to
identify from whom and why the session was diverted. For this
information to be used in various service providers or by various
applications, this redirection information needs to pass through the
network.
This is possible with two different SIP headers: History-Info
header [RFC4244] and Diversion header which are both able to
transport diversion information in SIP signaling. Although the
Diversion header is not standardized, it is widely used. Therefore,
it is useful to have guidelines to make this header interwork with
the standard History-Info header.
This document provides a mechanism of translation between the
Diversion header and the History-Info header.
1.2. Background
The History-Info header [RFC4244] and the URI extension (including
Voicemail URI) [RFC4458] are recommended by IETF to convey
redirection information. They are also recommended in the
"Communication Diversion (CDIV) service" 3GPP specification
[TS_24.604].
At first, the Diversion header was described in
[draft-levy-sip-diversion-09], which is today discarded.
Note to the RFC-Editor: The reference to this draft should be
replaced by the Historic RFC reference (work in progress).
This header contains a list of the diverting URIs with associated
information providing specific information as to why a call was
diverted. Most of implementations have implemented the Diversion
header when the History-Info header was not a standard. The IETF has
chosen to standardize the History-Info header in part because it can
transport general "request history" information which allows the
receiving application to determine how and why the session arrived at
the application/user. As History-Info header information is larger
than call diversion information, it is really important to be sure of
not losing information and be able to extract the relevant data using
the retargeting cause URI parameter described in [RFC4458] for the
transport of the diversion reason.
Those headers have different syntaxes described below. Note that the
main difference is that the History-Info header is a chronological
writing header whereas the Diversion header is the opposite (i.e. the
first diversion entry read correspond to the last diverting user).
Mohali Expires December 26, 2009 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Mapping Diversion and History-Info June 2009
The Appendix provides an interworking guideline between the Diversion
header and the Voicemail URI which is another way to convey diversion
information described in [RFC4458].
2. Problem Statement
2.1. Interworking requirements and scope
This section provides the baseline terminology used in the rest of
the document and defines the scope of interworking between these two
headers that need to be addressed.
They are many ways in which SIP signaling can be used to modify a
session destination before it is established and many reasons for
doing so. The behavior of the SIP entities that will have to further
process the session downstream will sometimes vary depending on the
reasons that lead to changing the destination, for example whether it
is for simple proxy to route the session or for an application server
to provide a supplementary service.
The approach and scope in which the Diversion header and the History-
Info header address this problem are different. For clarity, the
following vocabulary is used in this document:
Retargeting/redirecting:
Retargeting/redirecting refer to the process of a Proxy Server/User
Agent Client (UAC) changing a Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) in a
request and thus changing the target of the request. These terms are
defined in [RFC4244]. The History-Info header is used to store
retargeting information.
Call forwarding/call diversion/communication diversion:
These terms are equivalent and refer to the Communications Diversion
(CDIV) supplementary services, based on the ISDN Communication
diversion supplementary services and defined in 3GPP [TS_24.604].
They are applicable to entities which are intended to modify the
original destination of an IP multimedia session prior to or during
the session establishment.
This document does not describe when or how History-Info or Diversion
headers are used. The following is offered to clarify the context in
which this interworking is used.
The History-Info header is used in practice to convey call diversion
related information by using a cause URI parameter [RFC4458] in the
relevant entry.
Mohali Expires December 26, 2009 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Mapping Diversion and History-Info June 2009
The Diversion header has exactly the same scope as the call diversion
service and each header entry reflects a call diversion invocation.
The Diversion header is used for recording communication diversion
information which could be useful to network entities downstream.
Today, this SIP header is implemented by several manufacturers and
deployed in several networks.
The History-Info header is used to store all retargeting information
including call diversion information.
Note, however, that the use of cause URI parameter [RFC4458] in a
History-Info entry for a call diversion is specific to the 3GPP
specifications. RFC4458 focuses on retargeting toward voicemail
server and does not specify whether the cause URI parameter should be
added or not in a URI for other cases. As a consequence,
implementations that do not use the cause URI parameter for call
forwarding information, are not considered for the mapping described
in this document. Nevertheless, some recommendations are given in
the next sections on how not to lose non-mapped information at the
boundary between a network region using History-Info header and one
using the Diversion header.
Since both headers addresses call forwarding needs, diverting
information could be mixed-up or be inconsistent if both headers are
present in an uncoordinated fashion in the INVITE request. So,
Diversion and History-Info headers MUST NOT independently coexist for
the session signaling. This specific address how to convert
information between the two, and when and how to preserve both
headers to cover additional cases.
For the transportation of consistent diversion information
downstream, it is necessary to make the two headers interwork.
Interworking between the Diversion header and the History-Info header
is introduced in sections 5 and 6. Since coexistence scenario may
vary from one use case to another, guidelines regarding headers
interaction are proposed.
2.2. Interworking recommendations
Interworking function:
In a normal case, the network topology assumption is that the
interworking described in this document should be performed by a
specific SIP border device which by configuration is aware that it is
at the border between two regions, one using History-Info header and
one using Diversion header.
History-Info header is a standardized solution, so a network using
the Diversion header MUST be able to provide information to a network
Mohali Expires December 26, 2009 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Mapping Diversion and History-Info June 2009
using the History-Info header. In this case, to avoid both headers
coexistence it is recommended as often as possible to replace the
Diversion header with the History-Info header in the INVITE request
during the interworking.
Since, the History-Info header has a boarder scope than the Diversion
header and may be used for services other than call diversion. In
addition to tracing call diversion information, History-Info header
also acts as a session history and could store all successive R-URI
values. Consequently, even if it should be better to remove the
History-Info header after the Diversion header has been created to
avoid any confusion; if the History-Info header contains
supplementary (non-diversion) information it MUST be retained as is
and passed transparently in this network. It is possible to have
History-Info headers that do not have values that can be mapped into
the Diversion header. In this case, no interworking with Diversion
header should be performed and implementations will have to decide
what to do. This point is out of this document scope.
As a conclusion, it is recommended to have local policies minimizing
the loss of information and find the best way to keep it up to the
terminating user agent.
This section describes the basic and commonly used use case. More
unusual interworking cases, are described in section 7.5.
2.2.1. SIP network/terminal using Diversion to SIP network/terminal
using History-Info header
When the Diversion header is used to create a History-Info header,
the Diversion header MUST be removed in the outgoing INVITE. It is
considered that all information present in the Diversion header is
transferred in the History-Info header.
If a History-Info header is present in the incoming INVITE (in
addition to Diversion header), the Diversion header and History-Info
header present MUST be mixed and only the diversion information not
yet present in the History-Info header MUST be inserted as a last
entry (more recent) in the existing History-Info header as
recommended in [RFC4244].
As an example, this could be the case of an INVITE coming from
network_2 using Diversion header but has previously passed through
network_1 using History-Info header (or the network_2 uses History-
Info header to transport successive URI information) and going to
network_3 using History-Info header.
Mohali Expires December 26, 2009 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Mapping Diversion and History-Info June 2009
IWF* IWF*
network1 | network_2 |network_3
History-Info | Diversion |using
| |Hist-Info
| |
UA A P1 AS B | P2 AS C UA C AS D | UA E
| | | | | | | | | |
|INVITE | | | | | | | | |
|------>| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
| |INVITE | | | | | | | |
| |------>| | | | | | | |
| |Supported: histinfo | | | | | |
| | History-Info: | | | | | |
| | <sip:proxyP1>; index=1, | | | | |
| | <sip:userB >; index=1.1 | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
| | |INVITE | | | | | | |
| | |------>| | | | | | |
| | |History-Info: | | | | | |
| | |<sip:proxyP1>; index=1,| | | | |
| | |<sip:userB>; index=1.1 | | | | |
| | |<sip:userC>; cause=302; index=1.1.1 | | |
In this case, the incoming INVITE contains a Diversion header and a
History-Info header. So that, it is necessary to create, for
network_3, a single History-Info header gathering existing
information from both the History-Info and the Diversion headers
received. Then network_3 could use call forwarding information that
is present in a single header and add its own diversion information
if necessary.
Note: if a network is not able either to use only one header each
time, or to maintain both headers up to date, the chronological order
could not be certified.
Note: it is not possible to have only Diversion header when the
History-Info header contains more than call diversion information.
If previous policy recommendations are applied, the chronological
order is respected as Diversion entries are inserted at the end of
the History-Info header taking into account the Diversion internal
chronology.
2.2.2. SIP network/terminal using History-Info header to SIP network/
terminal using Diversion header
When the History-Info header is interpreted to create a Diversion
header, some precautions MUST be taken.
If the History-Info header contains only communication diversion
Mohali Expires December 26, 2009 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Mapping Diversion and History-Info June 2009
information, then it MUST be suppressed after the interworking.
If the History-Info header contains other information, then only the
information of concern to the diverting user MUST be used to create
entries in the Diversion header and the History-Info header MUST be
kept as received in the INVITE and forwarded downstream.
Note: The History-Info header could be used for other reasons than
CDIV services, for example by a service which need to know if a
specific AS had yet been invoked in the signaling path. If the call
is later forwarded to a network using History-Info header, it would
be better to not lose history information due to passing though the
network which only support Diversion header. A recommended solution
MUST NOT disrupt the standard behavior and networks which do not
implement the History-Info header MUST be transparent to a received
History-Info header.
If a Diversion header is present in the incoming INVITE (in addition
to History-Info header), only diversion information present in the
History-Info header but not in the Diversion header MUST be inserted
from the last entry (more recent) into the existing Diversion header
as recommended in the Diversion draft [draft-levy-sip-diversion-09].
Note to the RFC-Editor: The reference to this draft should be
replaced by the Historic RFC reference (work in progress).
Note that the chronological order could not be certified. If
previous policy recommendations are respected, this case SHOULD NOT
happen.
Forking case:
The History-Info header enables the recording of sequential forking
for the same served-user. During a interworking from the History-
Info header to Diversion header, the History-Info entries containing
a forking situation (with an incremented "index" parameter) could be
either mapped for each entry with a call forwarding "cause"
parameter, the interworking entity could choose to create only one
Diversion entry or to not apply the interworking. The choice could
be done according a local policy.
The same logic is applied for an interworking with Voicemail URI (see
the Appendix).
3. Headers syntaxes reminder
3.1. History-Info header syntax
History-Info = "History-Info" HCOLON hi-entry *(COMMA hi-entry)
hi-entry = hi-targeted-to-uri *( SEMI hi-param )
Mohali Expires December 26, 2009 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Mapping Diversion and History-Info June 2009
hi-targeted-to-uri= name-addr
hi-param = hi-index / hi-extension
hi-index = "index" EQUAL 1*DIGIT *(DOT 1*DIGIT)
hi-extension = generic-param
The History-Info header is specified in [RFC4244]. The top-most
History-Info entry (first in the list) corresponds to the oldest
history information. A hi-entry may contain a cause URI parameter
expressing the diversion reason. This optional cause URI parameter
is defined in [RFC4458] with the following syntax: cause-param =
"cause" EQUAL Status-Code. This parameter is also named cause-param
and should be inserted in the History-Info entry (URI) of the
diverted-to user in case of call diversion as recommended in the 3GPP
CDIV specification [TS_24.604]. The cause values used in the cause-
param for the diverting reason are listed in the RFC and because it
is a parameter dedicated to call forwarding service, its presence is
used to determine that a hi-entry is a diverting user. More exactly,
each diverting user is located in the hi-entry before the one
containing a cause-param with cause value as listed in RFC 4458.
Moreover, the Reason header defined in [RFC3326]SHOULD be escaped in
the hi-entry of the diverting user when the call diversion is due to
a SIP response received. The Reason header contains a cause
parameter set to the true SIP response code received (Status-Code).
Therefore, in case of call diversion due to a SIP response, both
cause parameters should be used. The complexity is that these
parameters could be used at the same time in the History-Info header
but not in the same hi-entry and not with the same meaning. Only the
cause-param is dedicated to call diversion service. The 'cause'
Reason header parameter is not taken into account in the mapping with
a Diversion header.
[RFC4458] also defines the 'target' URI parameter which could be
inserted in a R-URI and consequently in the hi-targeted-to-uri. This
parameter is used to keep the diverting user address in the
downstream INVITE request in Voicemail URI implementation. As this
information is yet present in the hi-entries, the 'target' URI
parameter is not taken into account regarding the interworking with
the Diversion header. From the Diversion header, it could be
possible to create the 'target' URI parameter in the hi-entries
and/or in the R-URI but this possibility is on local policies
responsabilty and not described in this document.
A Privacy header as defined in [RFC3323] could also be included in
hi-entries with the 'history' value defined in the RFC4244.
The index parameter is a string of digits, separated by dots to
Mohali Expires December 26, 2009 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Mapping Diversion and History-Info June 2009
indicate the number of forward hops and retargets. first one is
Note: A history entry could contain the "gr" parameter. Regardless
the rules concerning "gr" parameter defined in [TS_24.604] which must
be applied, this parameter has no impact on the mapping and must only
be copied with the served user address.
Example:
History-Info:
<sip: diverting_user1_addr?Privacy=none?Reason=SIP%3Bcause%
3D302>;index=1,
<sip: diverting_user2_addr;cause=480?Privacy=history>;index=1.1,
<sip:last_diversion_target;cause=486>; index=1.1.1,
Policy concerning "histinfo" option tag in Supported header:
According to [RFC4244], a proxy that receives a Request with the
"histinfo" option tag in the Supported header should return captured
History-Info in subsequent, provisional and final responses to the
Request. The behavior depends upon whether the local policy supports
the capture of History-Info or not.
3.2. Diversion header syntax
The current document is not written to define again the Diversion
header and its use but to be sure that the syntax is interpreted in
the same way by everyone. So that, the Diversion syntax is here a
little changed to correspond to the current ABNF [RFC4234]:
Diversion = "Diversion" HCOLON diversion-params *(COMMA diversion-
params)
diversion-params = name-addr *(SEMI (diversion-reason / diversion-
counter / diversion-limit / diversion-privacy / diversion-screen /
diversion-extension))
diversion-reason = "reason" EQUAL ("unknown" / "user-busy" / "no-
answer" / "unavailable" / "unconditional" / "time-of-day" / "do-not-
disturb" / "deflection" / "follow-me" / "out-of-service" / "away" /
token / quoted-string)
diversion-counter = "counter" EQUAL 1*2DIGIT
diversion-limit = "limit" EQUAL 1*2DIGIT
diversion-privacy = "privacy" EQUAL ("full" / "name" / "uri" / "off"
/ token / quoted-string)
diversion-screen = "screen" EQUAL ("yes" / "no" / token / quoted-
string)
Mohali Expires December 26, 2009 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Mapping Diversion and History-Info June 2009
diversion-extension = token [EQUAL (token / quoted-string)]
Note: The Diversion header could be used in the comma-separated
format as described below and in a header-separated format. Both
formats could be combined a received INVITE as RECOMMENDED in
[RFC3261].
Example:
Diversion:
diverting_user2_addr; reason="user-busy"; counter=1; privacy=full,
diverting_user1_addr; reason="unconditional"; counter=1; privacy=off
4. Headers in SIP Method
You can find here a reminder of History-Info header field and
Diversion header field in relation to methods. As those headers do
not have the same capabilities, it is necessary to clarify the
interworking.
Use of History-Info header field:
Header field where proxy ACK BYE CAN INV OPT REG MSG
------------ ----- ----- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
History-Info amdr - - - o o o o
SUB NOT REF INF UPD PRA PUB
--- --- --- --- --- --- ---
History-Info amdr o o o - - - o
Use of Diversion header field:
Header field where enc. e-e ACK BYE CAN INV OPT REG
------------ ----- ----- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Diversion R h - - - o - -
Diversion 3xx h - - - o - -
The recommended interworking presented in this document SHOULD apply
only for INVITE requests.
In 3xx responses, both headers could be present.
When a proxy wants to interwork with a network supporting the other
header field, it SHOULD apply the interworking between Diversion
Mohali Expires December 26, 2009 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Mapping Diversion and History-Info June 2009
header and History-Info header in the 3xx response.
When a recursing proxy redirects an initial INVITE after receiving a
3xx response, it SHOULD add as a last entry either a Diversion header
or History-Info header (according to its capabilities) in the
forwarded INVITE. Local policies could apply to send the received
header in the next INVITE or not.
Other messages where History-Info could be present are not used for
the Call Forwarding service and SHOULD NOT be changed into Diversion
header. The destination network MUST be transparent the received
History-Info header.
Note : the following mapping is inspired from the ISUP to SIP
interworking described in [TS_29.163].
5. Diversion header to History-Info header
The following text is valid only if no History-Info is present in the
INVITE request. If at least one History-Info header is present, the
interworking function shall adapt its behavior to respect the
chronological order. See section 2.2.
For N Diversion entries N+1 History-Info entries MUST be created. To
create the History-Info entries in the same order than during a
session establishment, the Diversion entries MUST be mapped from the
bottom-most until the top-most. Each Diversion entry shall be mapped
into a History-Info entry. An additional (the last one) History-Info
entry must be created with the diverted-to party address present in
the R-URI of the received INVITE, The mapping is described below.
The first entry created in the History-Info header contains:
- a hi-target-to-uri with the name-addr parameter of the bottom-
most Diversion header
- if a privacy parameter is present in the bottom-most Diversion
entry, then a Privacy header could be escaped in the History-Info
header as described below,
- an index set to 1.
For each following Diversion entry (from bottom to top), the History-
info entries are created as following (from top to bottom):
Mohali Expires December 26, 2009 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Mapping Diversion and History-Info June 2009
Source Destination
Diversion header component: History-Info header component:
=======================================================================
Name-addr Hi-target-to-uri
=======================================================================
Reason of the previous cause-param (not present in
Diversion entry the first created hi-entry)
"unknown"---------------------------------404 (default 'cause' value)
"unconditional"---------------------------302
"user-busy"-------------------------------486
"no-answer"-------------------------------408
"deflection "-----------------------------480 or 487
"unavailable"-----------------------------404
"time-of-day"-----------------------------404 (default)
"do-not-disturb"--------------------------404 (default)
"follow-me"-------------------------------404 (default)
"out-of-service"--------------------------404 (default)
"away"------------------------------------404 (default)
=======================================================================
Counter Hi-index
"1" or parameter -------------------------The previous created index
no present is incremented with ".1"
Superior to "1" --------------------------Create N-1 placeholder History
(i.e. N) entry with the previous index
incremented with ".1"
Then the History-Info header
created with the Diversion
entry with the previous index
incremented with ".1"
=======================================================================
Privacy Privacy header escaped in the
hi-targeted-to-uri
"full"------------------------------------"history"
"Off"-------------------------------------Privacy header field
absent or "none"
"name"------------------------------------"history"
"uri"-------------------------------------"history"
=======================================================================
A last History-Info entry is created and contains:
- a hi-target-to-uri with the Request-URI of the INVITE request.
- a cause-param from the top-most Diversion entry, mapped from the
diversion-reason as described above.
Mohali Expires December 26, 2009 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Mapping Diversion and History-Info June 2009
- if a privacy parameter is present in the top-most Diversion
entry, then a Privacy header could be escaped in the History-Info
header as described above,
- an index set to the previous created index and incremented with
".1"
Note: For other optional Diversion parameters, there is no
recommendation as History-Info header does not provide equivalent
parameters.
Note: For values of the diversion-reason values which are mapped with
a recommended default value, it could also be possible to choose
another value. The cause-param URI parameter offers less possible
values than the diversion-reason parameter. However, it has been
considered that cause-param values list was sufficient to implement
CDIV service as defined in 3GPP as it cover a large portion of cases.
Note : The Diversion header could contain a Tel:URI in the name-addr
parameter but it seems to not be possible to have a Tel:URI in the
History-Info header. RFC3261 gives an indication as to the mapping
between sip: and tel: URIs but in this particular case it is
difficult to assign a valid hostport as the diversion has occurred in
a previous network and a valid hostport is difficult to determine.
So, it is suggested that in case of Tel:URI in the Diversion header,
the History-Info header should be created with a SIP URI with
user=phone.
Note:
The Diversion header allows the carrying of a counter which had
retained the information about the number of redirections which have
occurred. History-Info does not have an equivalent because to trace
and count diversion occurred it is necessary to count cause parameter
containing a value associated to a call diversion. To read the index
value is not enough. With the use of the "placeholder" entry the
History-info header entries could reflect the real number of
diversion occurred.
Example of placeholder entry in the History-Info header:
<sip:unknown@unknown.invalid;cause=xxx>;index=1.1
<sip:bob_addr;cause=404>;index=1.1.1
cause=xxx reflects the diverting reason of a previous diverting user.
For a placeholder hi-entry the value "404" shall be taken for the
cause-param and so, located in the next hi-entry.
Concerning local policies recommendations about headers coexistence
in the INVITE request, see sections 2.2 and 7.5.
Mohali Expires December 26, 2009 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft Mapping Diversion and History-Info June 2009
6. History-Info header to Diversion header
To create the Diversion entries in the same order than during a
session establishment, the History-Info entries MUST be mapped from
the top-most until the bottom-most. The first History-Info header
entry selected will be mapped into the last Diversion header entry
and so on. One Diversion header entry MUST be created for each
History-Info entry with a cause-param reflecting a diverting reason
as listed in the [RFC4458].
In this case, the History-Info header MUST be mapped into the
Diversion header as following:
Source Destination
History-Info header component: Diversion header component:
=====================================================================
Hi-target-to-uri of the Name-addr
History-Info which precedes the one
containing a diverting cause-param
=====================================================================
Cause-param Reason
404---------------------------------------"unknown" (default value)
302---------------------------------------"unconditional"
486---------------------------------------"user-busy"
408---------------------------------------"no-answer"
480 or 487--------------------------------"deflection "
503---------------------------------------"unavailable"
=====================================================================
Hi-index Counter
Mandatory parameter for--------------------The counter is set to "1".
History-Info reflecting
the chronological order
of the information.
=====================================================================
Privacy header [RFC3323]escaped in the Privacy
hi-targeted-to-uri of the
History-Info which precedes the one
containing a diverting cause-param.
Optional parameter for History-Info,
this Privacy indicates that this
specific History-Info header SHOULD
not be forwarded.
"history"----------------------------------"full"
Privacy header field ----------------------"Off"
Absent or "none"
Mohali Expires December 26, 2009 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft Mapping Diversion and History-Info June 2009
=====================================================================
Note: For other optional History-Info parameters, there is no
recommendation as Diversion header does not provide equivalent
parameters.
Concerning local policies recommendations about headers coexistence
in the INVITE request, see section 2.2.
7. Examples
7.1. Example with Diversion header changed into History-Info header
INVITE last_diverting_target
Diversion:
diverting_user3_address;reason=unconditional;counter=1;privacy=off,
diverting_user2_address;reason=user-busy;counter=1;privacy=full,
diverting_user1_address;reason=no-answer;counter=1;privacy=off
Mapped into:
History-Info:
<sip: diverting_user1_address; privacy=none >; index=1,
<sip: diverting_user2_address; cause=408?privacy=history>;index=1.1,
<sip: diverting_user3_address; cause=486?privacy=none>;index=1.1.1,
<sip: last_diverting_target; cause=302>;index=1.1.1.1,
7.2. Example with History-Info header changed into Diversion header
History-Info:
<sip: diverting_user1_address?privacy=history >; index=1,
<sip: diverting_user2_address; cause=302? privacy=none>;index=1.1,
<sip: last_diverting_target; cause=486>;index=1.1.1
Mapped into:
Diversion:
diverting_user2_address; reason=user-busy; counter=1; privacy=off,
diverting_user1_address; reason=unconditional; counter=1;
privacy=full
7.3. Example with two SIP networks using History-Info header
interworking with a SIP network using Diversion header
A -> P1 -> B -> C -> P2 -> D-> E
Mohali Expires December 26, 2009 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft Mapping Diversion and History-Info June 2009
A, B, C, D and E are users.
B, C and D have Call Forwarding service invoked.
P1 and P2 are proxies.
Only relevant information is shown on the following call flow.
IWF* IWF*
SIP network using | SIP network using |SIP net.
History-Info | Diversion |using
| |Hist-Info
| |
UA A P1 AS B | P2 AS C UA C AS D | UA E
| | | | | | | | | |
|INV B | | | | | | | | |
|------>| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
| |INV B | | | | | | | |
| |------>| | | | | | | |
| |Supported: histinfo | | | | | |
| | History-Info: | | | | | |
| | <sip:proxyP1>; index=1, | | | | |
| | <sip:userB >; index=1.1 | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
| | |INV C | | | | | | |
| | |------>| | | | | | |
| | |History-Info: | | | | | |
| | |<sip:proxyP1>; index=1,| | | | |
| | |<sip:userB>; index=1.1 | | | | |
| | |<sip:userC; cause=302>; index=1.1.1 | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | |INV C | | | | | |
| | | |------>| | | | | |
| | | |Diversion: | | | | |
| | | |B reason= unconditional counter=1 | |
| | | |History-Info: | | | | |
| | | |<sip:proxyP1>; index=1,| | | |
| | | |<sip:userB>; index=1.1 | | | |
| | | |<sip:proxyP2; cause=302>; index=1.1.1| |
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | |INV C | | | | |
| | | | |------>| | | | |
| | | | |No modification of Diversion due to P2|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | |INV C | | | |
| | | | | |------>| | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | |<--180-| | | |
Mohali Expires December 26, 2009 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft Mapping Diversion and History-Info June 2009
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | No response timer expire | |
| | | | | |---INV D --->| | |
| | | Diversion: | | |
| | | userC; reason=no-answer; counter=1; privacy=full,
| | | userB; reason=unconditional; counter=1; privacy=off,
| | | History-Info: | | |
| | | <sip:proxyP1>; index=1, | | |
| | | <sip:userB>; index=1.1 | | |
| | | <sip:proxyP2; cause=302>; index=1.1.1 | |
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |INV E | |
| | | | | | | |------>| |
| | | Diversion: | |
| | | userD; reason=time-of-day; counter=1; privacy=off|
| | | userC; reason=no-answer; counter=1; privacy=full,|
| | | userB; reason=unconditional; counter=1; privacy=off,
| | | History-Info: | |
| | | <sip:proxyP1>; index=1, | |
| | | <sip:userB>; index=1.1 | |
| | | <sip:proxyP2; cause=302>; index=1.1.1 | |
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | INV E |
| | | | | | | | |------->|
| | | History-Info: |
| | | <sip:proxyP1>; index=1, |
| | | <sip:userB ?privacy=none>; index=1.1, |
| | | <sip:proxyP2; cause=302>; index=1.1.1, |
| | | <sip:userC ?privacy=history>; index=1.1.1.1, |
| | | <sip:userD; cause=408 ?privacy=none>; index=1.1.1.1.1,
| | | <sip:userE; cause=404>; index=1.1.1.1.1.1 |
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
* Note: The IWF is an interworking function which could be a stand-alone
equipment not defined in this draft (it could be a proxy).
7.4. Additional interworking Cases
Even if for particular cases in which both headers could coexist it
should be the network local policy responsibility to make it work
together, here are described some situations and some recommendations
on the behavior to follow.
In the case where there is one network which includes different
nodes, some of which support Diversion header and some which support
History-info header, the problem is when any node handling a message
does not know which node will next handle the message. This case can
Mohali Expires December 26, 2009 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft Mapping Diversion and History-Info June 2009
occur when the network has new and old nodes, the older ones using
Diversion header and the more recent History-Info header.
While a network replacement may be occurring there will be a time
when both nodes exist in the network. If the different nodes are
being used to support different subscriber types due to different
node capabilities then the problem is more important. In this case
there is a need to pass both History-Info header and Diversion header
within the network core.
These headers need to be equivalent to ensure that whatever node
receives the message the correct diversion information is received.
This requires that whichever header is received there is a
requirement to be able to compare the headers and to convert the
headers. Depending upon node capability then it may be possible to
make assumptions as to how this is handled.
If it is known that the older Diversion header supporting nodes do
not pass on any received History-Info header then the interworking
becomes easier. If a message is received with only Diversion headers
then it has originated from an 'old' node. The equivalent History-
Info entries can be created and these can then be passed as well as
the Diversion header.
If the node creates a new History-Info header for a call diversion,
then an additional Diversion header must be created.
If the next node is an 'old' node then the Diversion header will be
used by that node and the History-Info entries will be removed from
the message when it is passed on.
If the next node is a new node then the presence of both Diversion
header and History-Info header means that interworking has already
occurred and the Diversion and History-Info entries must be
considered equivalent.
If both nodes pass on both History-Info header and Diversion header
but only actively use one, then both types of node need to perform
the interworking and must maintain equivalence between the headers.
This will eventually result in the use of Diversion header being
deprecated when all nodes in the network support History-Info header.
8. IANA Considerations
This document makes no request of IANA.
9. Security Considerations
The use of Diversion header or History-Info header require to apply
the requested privacy and integrity asked by each diverting user or
entity. Without integrity, the requested privacy functions could be
downgraded or eliminated, potentially exposing identity information.
Without confidentiality, eavesdroppers on the network (or any
Mohali Expires December 26, 2009 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft Mapping Diversion and History-Info June 2009
intermediaries between the user and the privacy service) could see
the very personal information that the user has asked the privacy
service to obscure. Unauthorised insertion, deletion of modification
of those headers can provide misleading information to users and
applications. A SIP entity that can provide a redirection reason in
a History-Info header or Diversion header SHOULD be able to suppress
this in accordance with privacy requirements of the user concerned.
10. Acknowlegements
The editor would like to acknowledge the constructive feedback and
support provided by Steve Norreys, Jan Van Geel, Martin Dolly,
Francisco Silva, Guiseppe. Sciortino, Cinza Amenta, Christer
Holmberg, Ian Elz, Jean-Francois Mule, Lionel Morand, Xavier Marjou,
Philippe Fouquart, Mary Barnes, Francois Audet, Erick Sasaki, Shida
Schubert and Joel M. Halpern.
11. References
11.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement
Levels", RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC3261] "SIP: Session Initiation Protocol", RFC 3261, June 2002.
[RFC3323] "A Privacy Mechanism for the Session Initiation Protocol
(SIP)", RFC 3323, November 2002.
[RFC3326] "The Reason Header Field for the Session Initiation
Protocol (SIP)", RFC 3326, December 2002.
[RFC3969] "The Internet Assigned Number Authority (IANA) Uniform
Resource Identifier (URI) Parameter Registry for the
Session Initiation Protocol (SIP), BCP 99", RFC 3969,
December 2004.
[RFC4234] "Augmented BNF for Syntax Specifications: ABNF", RFC 4234,
October 2005.
[RFC4244] "An Extension to the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) for
Request History Information", RFC 4244, November 2005.
Mohali Expires December 26, 2009 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft Mapping Diversion and History-Info June 2009
11.2. Informative References
[RFC4458] "Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) URIs for Applications
such as Voicemail and Interactive Voice Response (IVR)",
RFC 4458, April 2006.
[TS_24.604]
3rd Generation Partnership Project, "Technical
Specification Group Core Network and Terminals ;
Communication Diversion (CDIV) using IP Multimedia
(IM)Core Network (CN) subsystem ; Protocol specification
(Release 8), 3GPP TS 24.604", December 2008.
[TS_29.163]
3rd Generation Partnership Project, "Technical
Specification Group Core Network and Terminals ;
Interworking between the IP Multimedia (IM) Core Network
(CN) Subsystem and Circuit Switched (CS) networks (Release
8)", December 2008.
[draft-levy-sip-diversion-09]
"Diversion Indication in SIP,
draft-levy-sip-diversion-09", May 2009.
Appendix A. Interworking between Diversion header and Voicemail URI
Voicemail URI is a mechanism described in RFC4458 to provide a simple
way to transport only one redirecting user address and the reason why
the diversion occurred in the R-URI of the INVITE request. This
mechanism is mainly used for call diversion to a voicemail.
Diversion header to Voicemail URI:
Received:
Diversion: userA-address;reason=user-busy;counter=1;privacy=full
Sent (Voicemail URI created in the R-URI line of the INVITE):
sip: voicemail@example.com;target=userA-address;cause=486 SIP/2.0
Mapping of the Redirection Reason is the same as for History-Info
header with a default value set to 404.
If the Diversion header contains more than one Diversion entry, the
choice of the redirecting user information inserted in the URI is in
charge of the network local policy. For example, the choice
criterion of the redirecting information inserted in the URI could be
the destination of forwarded INVITE request (if the voicemail serves
Mohali Expires December 26, 2009 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft Mapping Diversion and History-Info June 2009
this user or not).
Note: This interworking could be done in addition to the interworking
of the Diversion header into the History-Info header.
Voicemail URI to Diversion header:
In case of real Voicemail, this way of interworking should not
happen. However, if for any reason it occurs, it is recommended to
do it as following:
Received:
INVITE sip: voicemail@example.com;\
target=sip:+33145454500%40example.com;user=phone;\
cause=302 SIP/2.0
Sent in the forwarded INVITE:
Diversion: sip:+
33145454500%40example.com;user=phone;reason=unconditional;counter=1
Author's Address
Marianne Mohali
France Telecom
38-40 rue du General Leclerc
Issy-Les-Moulineaux Cedex 9 92794
France
Phone: +33 1 45 29 45 14
Email: marianne.mohali@orange-ftgroup.com
Mohali Expires December 26, 2009 [Page 23]