Skip to main content

Requirements for Consent-Based Communications in the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)
RFC 4453

Document Type RFC - Informational (April 2006)
Authors Jonathan Rosenberg , Dean Willis , Gonzalo Camarillo
Last updated 2015-10-14
RFC stream Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)
Additional resources Mailing list discussion
IESG Responsible AD Allison J. Mankin
Send notices to (None)
RFC 4453
Network Working Group                                       J. Rosenberg
Request for Comments: 4453                                 Cisco Systems
Category: Informational                                G. Camarillo, Ed.
                                                               D. Willis
                                                           Cisco Systems
                                                              April 2006

             Requirements for Consent-Based Communications
                in the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)

Status of This Memo

   This memo provides information for the Internet community.  It does
   not specify an Internet standard of any kind.  Distribution of this
   memo is unlimited.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).


   The Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) supports communications across
   many media types, including real-time audio, video, text, instant
   messaging, and presence.  In its current form, it allows session
   invitations, instant messages, and other requests to be delivered
   from one party to another without requiring explicit consent of the
   recipient.  Without such consent, it is possible for SIP to be used
   for malicious purposes, including spam and denial-of-service attacks.
   This document identifies a set of requirements for extensions to SIP
   that add consent-based communications.

Table of Contents

   1. Introduction ....................................................2
   2. Problem Statement ...............................................2
   3. Requirements ....................................................4
   4. Security Considerations .........................................5
   5. References ......................................................6
      5.1. Normative References .......................................6
      5.2. Informational References ...................................6

Rosenberg, et al.            Informational                      [Page 1]
RFC 4453                  Consent Requirements                April 2006

1.  Introduction

   The Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) [1] supports communications
   across many media types, including real-time audio, video, text,
   instant messaging, and presence.  This communication is established
   by the transmission of various SIP requests (such as INVITE and
   MESSAGE [3]) from an initiator to the recipient, with whom
   communication is desired.  Although a recipient of such a SIP request
   can reject the request, and therefore decline the session, a SIP
   network will deliver a SIP request to the recipient without their
   explicit consent.

   Receipt of these requests without explicit consent can cause a number
   of problems in SIP networks.  These include amplification attacks.
   These problems have plagued email.  At the time of this writing, most
   SIP services are not interconnected, so the incidence of
   amplification attacks directed at SIP services is low compared to the
   same attacks on email services.  The SIPPING working group believes
   it is necessary to address these attacks proactively so the attacks
   do not become as burdensome as attacks on email have become.

   This document elaborates on the problems posed by the current open
   model in which SIP was designed, and then goes on to define a set of
   requirements for adding a consent framework to SIP.

2.  Problem Statement

   In SIP networks designed according to the principles of RFC 3261 [1]
   and RFC 3263 [2], anyone on the Internet can create and send a SIP
   request to any other SIP user, by identifying that user with a SIP
   Uniform Resource Identifier (URI).  The SIP network will usually
   deliver this request to the user identified by that URI.  It is
   possible, of course, for network services, such as call screening, to
   block such messaging from occurring, but this is not widespread and
   certainly not a systematic solution to the problem under
   consideration here.

   Once the SIP request is received by the recipient, the user agent
   typically takes some kind of automated action to alert the user about
   receipt of the message.  For INVITE requests, this usually involves
   delivering an audible alert (e.g., "ringing the phone"), or a visual
   alert (e.g., creating a screen pop-up window).  These indicators
   frequently convey the subject of the call and the identity of the
   caller.  Due to the real-time nature of the session, these alerts are
   typically disruptive in nature, so as to get the attention of the

Rosenberg, et al.            Informational                      [Page 2]
RFC 4453                  Consent Requirements                April 2006

   For MESSAGE requests, the content of the message is usually rendered
   to the user.

   SUBSCRIBE [4] requests do not normally get delivered to the user
   agents residing on a user's devices.  Rather, they are normally
   processed by network-based state agents.  The watcher information
   event package allows a user to find out that such requests were
   generated for them, affording the user the opportunity to approve or
   deny the request.  As a result, SUBSCRIBE processing, and most
   notably presence, already has a consent-based operation.
   Nevertheless, this already-existing consent mechanism for SIP
   subscriptions does not protect network agents against denial-of-
   service (DoS) attacks.

   A problem that arises when requests can be delivered to user agents
   directly, without their consent, is amplification attacks.  SIP
   proxies provide a convenient relay point for targeting a message to a
   particular user or IP address and, in particular, forwarding to a
   recipient that is often not directly reachable without usage of the
   proxy.  Some SIP proxy servers forward a single request to several
   instances or contacts for the same user or resource.  This process is
   called "forking".  Another type of SIP server provides the SIP URI-
   list service [5], which sends a new copy of the same request to each
   recipient in the URI-list.  Examples of URI-list services are
   subscriptions to resource lists [6], dial-out conference servers [8],
   and MESSAGE URI-list services [7].  A SIP URI-list service could be
   used as an amplifier, allowing a single SIP request to flood a single
   target host or network.  For example, a user can create a resource
   list with 100 entries, each of which is a URI of the form
   "sip:identifier@target-IP", where target-IP is the IP address to
   which the attack is to be directed.  Sending a single SIP SUBSCRIBE
   request to such a list will cause the resource list server to
   generate 100 SUBSCRIBE requests, each to the IP address of the
   target, which does not even need to be a SIP node.

      Note that the target-IP does not need to be the same in all the
      URIs in order to attack a single machine.  For example, the
      target-IP addresses may all belong to the same subnetwork, in
      which case the target of the attack would be the access router of
      the subnetwork.

   In addition to launching DoS attacks, attackers could also use SIP
   URI-list servers as amplifiers to deliver spam.  For INVITE requests,
   this takes the form of typical "telemarketer" calls.  A user might
   receive a stream of never-ending requests for communications, each of
   them disrupting the user and demanding their attention.  For MESSAGE

Rosenberg, et al.            Informational                      [Page 3]
RFC 4453                  Consent Requirements                April 2006

   requests, the problem is even more severe.  The user might receive a
   never-ending stream of visual alerts (e.g., screen pop-up windows)
   that deliver unwanted, malicious, or otherwise undesired content.

   Both amplification attacks related to spam and DoS can be alleviated
   by adding a consent-based communications framework to SIP.  Such a
   framework keeps servers from relaying messages to users without their

      The framework for SIP URI-list services [5] identifies
      amplification attacks as a problem in the context of URI-list
      services.  That framework mandates the use of opt-in lists, which
      are a form of consent-based communications.  The reader can find
      an analysis on how a consent-based framework helps alleviate
      spam-related problems in [9].

3.  Requirements

   The following identify requirements for a solution that provides
   consent-based communications in SIP.  A relay is defined as any SIP
   server, be it a proxy, Back-to-Back User Agent (B2BUA), or some
   hybrid, that receives a request and translates the request URI into
   one or more next-hop URIs to which it then delivers a request.

   REQ 1:  The solution must keep relays from delivering a SIP request
      to a recipient unless the recipient has explicitly granted
      permission to the relay using appropriately authenticated

   REQ 2:  The solution shall prevent relays from generating more than
      one outbound request in response to an inbound request, unless
      permission to do so has been granted by the resource to whom the
      outbound request was to be targeted.  This requirement avoids the
      consent mechanism itself becoming the focus of DoS attacks.

   REQ 3:  The permissions shall be capable of specifying that messages
      from a specific user, identified by a SIP URI that is an Address-
      of-Record (AOR), are permitted.

   REQ 4:  Each recipient AOR must be able to specify permissions
      separately for each SIP service that forwards messages to the
      recipient.  For example, Alice may authorize forwarding to her
      from domain A, but not from domain B.

   REQ 5:  It shall be possible for a user to revoke permissions at any

Rosenberg, et al.            Informational                      [Page 4]
RFC 4453                  Consent Requirements                April 2006

   REQ 6:  It shall not be required for a user or user agent to store
      information in order to be able to revoke permissions that were
      previously granted for a relay resource.

   REQ 7:  The solution shall work in an inter-domain context, without
      requiring preestablished relationships between domains.

   REQ 8:  The solution shall work for all current and future SIP

   REQ 9:  The solution shall be applicable to forking proxies.

   REQ 10:  The solution shall be applicable to URI-list services, such
      as resource list servers [5], MESSAGE URI-list services [7], and
      conference servers performing dial-out functions [8].

   REQ 11:  In SIP, URI-lists can be stored on the URI-list server or
      provided in a SIP request.  The consent framework must work in
      both cases.

   REQ 12:  The solution shall allow anonymous communications, as long
      as the recipient is willing to accept anonymous communications.

   REQ 13:  If the recipient of a request wishes to be anonymous with
      respect to the original sender, it must be possible for the
      recipient to grant permission for the sender without the original
      sender learning the recipient's identity.

   REQ 14:  The solution shall prevent attacks that seek to undermine
      the underlying goal of consent.  That is, it should not be
      possible to "fool" the system into delivering a request for which
      permission was not, in fact, granted.

   REQ 15:  The solution shall not require the recipient of the
      communications to be connected to the network at the time
      communications are attempted.

   REQ 16:  The solution shall not require the sender of a SIP request
      to be connected at the time that a recipient provides permission.

   REQ 17:  The solution should scale to Internet-wide deployment.

4.  Security Considerations

   Security has been discussed throughout this document.

Rosenberg, et al.            Informational                      [Page 5]
RFC 4453                  Consent Requirements                April 2006

5.  References

5.1.  Normative References

   [1]  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.

   [2]  Rosenberg, J. and H. Schulzrinne, "Session Initiation Protocol
        (SIP): Locating SIP Servers", RFC 3263, June 2002.

   [3]  Campbell, B., Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., Huitema, C., and
        D. Gurle, "Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Extension for
        Instant Messaging", RFC 3428, December 2002.

5.2.  Informational References

   [4]  Roach, A.B., "Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)-Specific Event
        Notification", RFC 3265, June 2002.

   [5]  Camarillo, G. and A.B. Roach, "Framework and Security
        Considerations for Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Uniform
        Resource Identifier (URI)-List Services", Work in Progress,
        January 2006.

   [6]  Roach, A.B., Rosenberg, J., and B. Campbell, "A Session
        Initiation Protocol (SIP) Event Notification Extension for
        Resource Lists", Work in Progress, January 2005.

   [7]  Garcia-Martin, M. and G. Camarillo, "Multiple-Recipient MESSAGE
        Requests in the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)", Work in
        Progress, February 2006.

   [8]  Camarillo, G. and A. Johnston, "Conference Establishment Using
        Request-Contained Lists in the Session Initiation Protocol
        (SIP)", Work in Progress, February 2006.

   [9]  Rosenberg, J., "The Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) and Spam",
        Work in Progress, July 2005.

Rosenberg, et al.            Informational                      [Page 6]
RFC 4453                  Consent Requirements                April 2006

Authors' Addresses

   Jonathan Rosenberg
   Cisco Systems
   600 Lanidex Plaza
   Parsippany, NJ  07054

   Phone: +1 973 952-5000

   Gonzalo Camarillo (Editor)
   Hirsalantie 11
   Jorvas  02420


   Dean Willis
   Cisco Systems
   2200 E. Pres. George Bush Turnpike
   Richardson, TX  75082


Rosenberg, et al.            Informational                      [Page 7]
RFC 4453                  Consent Requirements                April 2006

Full Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).

   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.

   This document and the information contained herein are provided on an

Intellectual Property

   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


   Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF
   Administrative Support Activity (IASA).

Rosenberg, et al.            Informational                      [Page 8]