SIP Working Group G. Camarillo Internet-Draft Ericsson Expires: December 15, 2004 June 16, 2004 The Internet Assigned Number Authority (IANA) Header Field Parameter Registry for the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) draft-ietf-sip-parameter-registry-02.txt Status of this Memo By submitting this Internet-Draft, I certify that any applicable patent or other IPR claims of which I am aware have been disclosed, and any of which I become aware will be disclosed, in accordance with RFC 3668. 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 15, 2004. Copyright Notice Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). All Rights Reserved. Abstract This document creates an IANA registry for SIP header field parameters and parameter values. It also lists the already existing parameters and parameter values to be used as the initial entries for this registry. Camarillo Expires December 15, 2004 [Page 1] Internet-Draft SIP Parameter Registry June 2004 Table of Contents 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. Use of the Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4.1 Header Field Parameters Sub-Registry . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4.2 Registration Policy for SIP Header Field Parameters . . . 7 5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 7. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . 9 Camarillo Expires December 15, 2004 [Page 2] Internet-Draft SIP Parameter Registry June 2004 1. Introduction RFC 3261 [3] allows new header field parameters and new parameter values to be defined. However, RFC3261 omitted an IANA registry for them. This document creates such a registry. RFC 3427 [4] documents the process to extend SIP. This document updates RFC 3427 by specifying how to define and register new SIP header field parameters and parameter values. 2. Terminology In this document, the key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14, RFC 2119 [1] and indicate requirement levels for compliant implementations. 3. Use of the Registry SIP header field parameters and parameter values MUST be documented in an RFC in order to be registered by IANA. This documentation MUST fully explain the syntax, intended usage and semantics of the parameter or parameter value. The intent of this requirement is to assure interoperability between independent implementations, and to prevent accidental namespace collisions between implementations of dissimilar features. Note that this registry, unlike other protocol registries, only deals with parameters and parameter values defined in RFCs (i.e., it lacks a vendor-extension tree). RFC 3427 [4] documents concerns with regards to new SIP extensions which may be damaging towards security, greatly increase the complexity of the protocol, or both. New parameters and parameter values need to be documented in RFCs as a result of these concerns. RFCs defining SIP header field parameters or parameter values MUST register them with IANA as described below. Registered SIP header field parameters and parameter values are to be considered "reserved words". In order to preserve interoperability, registered parameters and parameter values MUST be used in a manner consistent with that described in their defining RFC. Implementations MUST NOT utilize "private" or "locally defined" SIP header field parameters or parameter values that conflict with registered parameters. Camarillo Expires December 15, 2004 [Page 3] Internet-Draft SIP Parameter Registry June 2004 Note that although unregistered SIP header field parameters and parameter values may be used in implementations, developers are cautioned that usage of such parameters is risky. New SIP header field parameters and parameter values may be registered at any time, and there is no assurance that these new registered parameters or parameter values will not conflict with unregistered parameters currently in use. Some SIP header field parameters only accept a set of predefined parameter values. For example, a parameter indicating the transport protocol in use may only accept as valid values the predefined tokens TCP, UDP, and SCTP. Registering all parameter values for all SIP header field parameters of this type would require a large number of subregistries. Instead, we have chosen to register parameter values by reference. That is, the entry in the parameter registry for a given header field parameter contains references to the RFCs defining new values of the parameter. References to RFCs defining parameter values appear in brackets in the registry. So, the header field parameter registry contains a column that indicates whether or not each parameter only accepts a set of predefined values. Implementers of parameters with a "yes" in that column need to find all the valid parameter values in the RFCs provided as references. 4. IANA Considerations Section 27 of RFC 3261 [3] creates an IANA registry for method names, header field names, warning codes, status codes, and option tags. This specification instructs the IANA to create a new sub-registry for header field parameters under http://www.iana.org/assignments/sip-parameters: 4.1 Header Field Parameters Sub-Registry The majority of the SIP header fields can be extended by defining new parameters. New SIP header field parameters are registered by the IANA. When registering a new parameter for a header field or a new value for a parameter, the following information MUST be provided. o Header field in which the parameter can appear. o Name of the header field parameter being registered. o Whether the parameter only accepts a set of predefined values. o A reference to the RFC where the parameter is defined and to any RFC that defines new values for the parameter. References to RFCs defining parameter values appear in brackets in the registry. Camarillo Expires December 15, 2004 [Page 4] Internet-Draft SIP Parameter Registry June 2004 Parameters that can appear in different header fields MAY have the same name. However, parameters that can appear in the same header field MUST have different names. The following are the initial values for this sub-registry. Header Field Parameter Name Predefined Reference Values ___________________________________________________________ Accept q No RFC 3261 Accept-Encoding q No RFC 3261 Accept-Language q No RFC 3261 Authorization algorithm Yes RFC 3261 [RFC 3310] Authorization auts No RFC 3310 Authorization cnonce No RFC 3261 Authorization nc No RFC 3261 Authorization nonce No RFC 3261 Authorization opaque No RFC 3261 Authorization qop Yes RFC 3261 Authorization realm No RFC 3261 Authorization response No RFC 3261 Authorization uri No RFC 3261 Authorization username No RFC 3261 Authentication-Info cnonce No RFC 3261 Authentication-Info nc No RFC 3261 Authentication-Info nextnonce No RFC 3261 Authentication-Info qop Yes RFC 3261 Authentication-Info rspauth No RFC 3261 Call-Info purpose Yes RFC 3261 Contact expires No RFC 3261 Contact q No RFC 3261 Content-Disposition handling Yes RFC 3261 Event id No RFC 3265 From tag No RFC 3261 P-Access-Network-Info cgi-3gpp No RFC 3455 P-Access-Network-Info utran-cell-id-3gpp No RFC 3455 P-Charging-Function-Addresses ccf No RFC 3455 P-Charging-Function-Addresses ecf No RFC 3455 P-Charging-Vector icid-value No RFC 3455 P-Charging-Vector icid-generated-at No RFC 3455 P-Charging-Vector orig-ioi No RFC 3455 P-Charging-Vector term-ioi No RFC 3455 P-DCS-Billing-Info called No RFC 3603 P-DCS-Billing-Info calling No RFC 3603 P-DCS-Billing-Info charge No RFC 3603 P-DCS-Billing-Info locroute No RFC 3603 Camarillo Expires December 15, 2004 [Page 5] Internet-Draft SIP Parameter Registry June 2004 P-DCS-Billing-Info rksgroup No RFC 3603 P-DCS-Billing-Info routing No RFC 3603 P-DCS-LAES content No RFC 3603 P-DCS-LAES key No RFC 3603 P-DCS-Redirect count No RFC 3603 P-DCS-Redirect redirector-uri No RFC 3603 Proxy-Authenticate algorithm Yes RFC 3261 [RFC 3310] Proxy-Authenticate domain No RFC 3261 Proxy-Authenticate nonce No RFC 3261 Proxy-Authenticate opaque No RFC 3261 Proxy-Authenticate qop Yes RFC 3261 Proxy-Authenticate realm No RFC 3261 Proxy-Authenticate stale Yes RFC 3261 Proxy-Authorization algorithm Yes RFC 3261 [RFC 3310] Proxy-Authorization auts No RFC 3310 Proxy-Authorization cnonce No RFC 3261 Proxy-Authorization nc No RFC 3261 Proxy-Authorization nonce No RFC 3261 Proxy-Authorization opaque No RFC 3261 Proxy-Authorization qop Yes RFC 3261 Proxy-Authorization realm No RFC 3261 Proxy-Authorization response No RFC 3261 Proxy-Authorization uri No RFC 3261 Proxy-Authorization username No RFC 3261 Reason cause Yes RFC 3326 Reason text No RFC 3326 Retry-After duration No RFC 3261 Security-Client alg Yes RFC 3329 Security-Client ealg Yes RFC 3329 Security-Client d-alg Yes RFC 3329 Security-Client d-qop Yes RFC 3329 Security-Client d-ver No RFC 3329 Security-Client mod Yes RFC 3329 Security-Client port1 No RFC 3329 Security-Client port2 No RFC 3329 Security-Client prot Yes RFC 3329 Security-Client q No RFC 3329 Security-Client spi No RFC 3329 Security-Server alg Yes RFC 3329 Security-Server ealg Yes RFC 3329 Security-Server d-alg Yes RFC 3329 Security-Server d-qop Yes RFC 3329 Security-Server d-ver No RFC 3329 Security-Server mod Yes RFC 3329 Security-Server port1 No RFC 3329 Security-Server port2 No RFC 3329 Camarillo Expires December 15, 2004 [Page 6] Internet-Draft SIP Parameter Registry June 2004 Security-Server prot Yes RFC 3329 Security-Server q No RFC 3329 Security-Server spi No RFC 3329 Security-Verify alg Yes RFC 3329 Security-Verify ealg Yes RFC 3329 Security-Verify d-alg Yes RFC 3329 Security-Verify d-qop Yes RFC 3329 Security-Verify d-ver No RFC 3329 Security-Verify mod Yes RFC 3329 Security-Verify port1 No RFC 3329 Security-Verify port2 No RFC 3329 Security-Verify prot Yes RFC 3329 Security-Verify q No RFC 3329 Security-Verify spi No RFC 3329 Subscription-State expires No RFC 3265 Subscription-State reason Yes RFC 3265 Subscription-State retry-after No RFC 3265 To tag No RFC 3261 Via branch No RFC 3261 Via comp Yes RFC 3486 Via maddr No RFC 3261 Via received No RFC 3261 Via rport No RFC 3581 Via ttl No RFC 3261 WWW-Authenticate algorithm Yes RFC 3261 [RFC 3310] WWW-Authenticate domain Yes RFC 3261 WWW-Authenticate nonce No RFC 3261 WWW-Authenticate opaque No RFC 3261 WWW-Authenticate qop Yes RFC 3261 WWW-Authenticate realm No RFC 3261 WWW-Authenticate stale Yes RFC 3261 4.2 Registration Policy for SIP Header Field Parameters As per the terminology in RFC 2434 [2], the registration policy for SIP header field parameters and parameter values shall be "Specification Required". For the purposes of this registry, the parameter or the parameter value for which IANA registration is requested MUST be defined by an RFC. There is no requirement that this RFC be standards-track. 5. Security Considerations There are no security considerations associated to this document. Camarillo Expires December 15, 2004 [Page 7] Internet-Draft SIP Parameter Registry June 2004 6. Acknowledgements Jonathan Rosenberg, Henning Schulzrinne, Rohan Mahy, Dean Willis, Aki Niemi, Bill Marshall, Miguel A. Garcia-Martin, Jean Francois Mule, and Allison Mankin provided useful comments. 7 Normative References [1] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. [2] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 2434, October 1998. [3] 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. [4] Mankin, A., Bradner, S., Mahy, R., Willis, D., Ott, J. and B. Rosen, "Change Process for the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)", BCP 67, RFC 3427, December 2002. Author's Address Gonzalo Camarillo Ericsson Hirsalantie 11 Jorvas 02420 Finland EMail: Gonzalo.Camarillo@ericsson.com Camarillo Expires December 15, 2004 [Page 8] Internet-Draft SIP Parameter Registry June 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 IETF's procedures with respect to rights in IETF 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 http://www.ietf.org/ipr. 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 ietf-ipr@ietf.org. Disclaimer of Validity This document and the information contained herein are provided on an "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. 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. Acknowledgment Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the Internet Society. Camarillo Expires December 15, 2004 [Page 9]