Internet DRAFT - draft-penar-ietf-sipcore

draft-penar-ietf-sipcore



draft-penar-ietf-sipcore-00
SIPCORE                                                        R. Penar                                    
Internet-Draft                                                Microsoft
Expires: January, 2021                                     June 02, 2020


      A Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Response Code for Call Rating

Abstract

   This document defines the 184 (Rated) Session Initiation Protocol
   (SIP) response code. This response code enables calling parties to
   learn an intermediary rated their call attempt.  Depending on 
   rating (e.g. Likely Scam), the call may be rejected or go unanswered. 
   Through a 1xx code, the caller?s network may become aware future 
   attempts to contact the same User Agent Server will likely go 
   unanswered. The initial use case driving the need for a 184 response 
   code is when the intermediary is an analytics engine. In this case,  
   the rating is constructed via machine or other process. This 
   contrasts with 607 (Unwanted) & 608 (Rejected) SIP response codes in
   which a human at target User Agent Server, or terminating network
   analytics,indicate the call may not completed.  This document also 
   defines use of a Call-Info header field in 184 responses to enable 
   negatively rated callers to contact entities that rated their calls 
   in error. This provides a remediation mechanism for legal callers 
   who find their calls going unanswered (not necessarily blocked).


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 https://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 4, 2021.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2020 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
   (https://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 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.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction
   2.  Terminology
   3.  Protocol Operation
     3.1.  Intermediary Operation
     3.2.  JWS Construction
       3.2.1.  JOSE Header
       3.2.2.  JWT Payload
       3.2.3.  JWS Signature
     3.3.  UAC Operation
     3.4.  Legacy Interoperation
     3.5.  Announcement Requirements
   4.  Examples
     4.1.  Full Exchange
     4.2.  Web Site jCard
     4.3.  Multi-modal jCard
     4.4.  Legacy Interoperability
   5.  IANA Considerations
     5.1.  SIP Response Code
     5.2.  SIP Feature-Capability Indicator
     5.3.  JSON Web Token Claim
     5.4.  Call-Info Purpose
   6.  Security Considerations
   7.  References
     7.1.  Normative References
     7.2.  Informative References
   Acknowledgements
   Authors' Addresses

1.  Introduction

   The IETF has been addressing numerous issues surrounding how to
   handle unwanted and, depending on the jurisdiction, illegal calls
   [RFC5039].  Secure Telephone Identity Revisited (STIR) [RFC7340] and
   Signature-based Handling of Asserted information using toKENs
   (SHAKEN) [SHAKEN] address the cryptographic signing and attestation,
   respectively, of signaling to ensure the integrity and authenticity
   of the asserted caller identity.

   This document describes a new Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)
   [RFC3261] response code, 184, which allows calling parties to learn
   that an intermediary rated their call.  As described below, we
   need a distinct indicator to signal how a call?s rating is being 
   presented to the called party. 

   For example, a legitimate caller may call a user who observes the 
   call is rated poorly, ?Likely Scam?. Thus, instead of answering the
   call, the called party simply does not answer the call. 

   The 184 response code addresses this need of remediating incorrectly
   rated calls. Specifically, this code informs the SIP User Agent
   Client (UAC) an intermediary rated the call and provides a
   redress mechanism allowing callers (or their operator) to contact 
   the operator of the intermediary.

   For calls rated poorly from a legitimate caller, receiving a
   184 response code can inform the caller to evaluate their calling 
   procedures & patterns. Moreover, if a legitimate caller believes the 
   user is ignoring their calls in error, they can use redress channels 
   to contact the intermediary. For example, a pharmacy calls a user to
   alert them a prescription is available for pickup and the user
   mistakenly thinks the call is a scam, the pharmacy has a means of 
   communicating with the intermediary to update the rating to increase 
   chances of the specific pharmacy calls being answered in the future. 

   Many systems allow the user to mark the call unwanted (e.g.,
   with the 607 response code) also allow the user to change their mind
   and unmark such calls. This mechanism is relatively easy to
   implement as the user usually has a direct relationship with the
   service provider that is blocking calls.

   However, things become more complicated if an intermediary, such as 
   a third-party provider of call management services that classifies
   calls based on the relative likelihood that the call is unwanted,
   misidentifies the call as unwanted.  Figure 1 shows this case.  Note
   that the UAS typically does receive an INVITE as the called
   party proxy rates the call on behalf of the user or network.  In 
   this situation, it would be beneficial for the caller to learn who
   rejected the call so they can correct the misidentification.
   
                         +--------+         +-----------+
                         | Called |         |   Call    |
        +-----+          | Party  |         | Analytics |   +-----+
        | UAC |          | Proxy  |         |  Engine   |   | UAS |
        +-----+          +--------+         +-----------+   +-----+
           |  INVITE         |                    |            |
           | --------------> |  Is call OK?       |            |
           |                 |------------------->|            |
           |                 |                    |            |
           |                 |        Maybe Scam  |            |
           |                 |<-------------------|            |
           |            184  |                    |            |
           | <-------------- | INVITE w/scam likely display    |    
           |                 | ------------------------------> |
           |                 |                    |            |
       	
           Caller either cancels request or leaves voicemail.     
           
                  Figure 1: Rated (184) Ladder Diagram

   It is useful for rated callers to have a redress mechanism.  One
   can imagine some jurisdictions will require it.  However, we
   must be mindful most of the calls intermediaries rate
   will, in fact, be illegal and should not be answered.

   Why do we not use the same mechanism an analytics service provider
   offers their customers?  Specifically, why not have the analytics
   service provider allow a calling party to correct calls rated in
   error?  The reason is while there is an existing relationship
   between the customer (called party) and the analytics service
   provider, it is unlikely there is a relationship between the caller
   and the analytics service provider.  Moreover, there are numerous
   call rating providers in the ecosystem.  Therefore, we need a
   mechanism for indicating an intermediary rated a call that also
   provides contact information for the operator of that intermediary
   without exposing the target user's contact information.

   The protocol described in this document uses existing SIP protocol
   mechanisms for specifying the rating and redress mechanism. In the 
   Call-Info header field passed back to the UAC, we send additional 
   information specifying rating and redress address.  We choose to 
   encode redress address using jCard [RFC7095].  As we will see later 
   in this document, this information needs to have its own 
   application-layer integrity protection.  Thus, we use jCard rather 
   than vCard [RFC6350], as we have a marshaling mechanism for creating 
   a JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) [RFC8259] object, such as a jCard
   ,and a standard integrity format for such an object, namely, JSON Web
   Signature (JWS) [RFC7515].  The SIP community is familiar with this
   concept as it is the mechanism used by STIR [RFC8224].

   Integrity protecting the jCard with a cryptographic signature might
   seem unnecessary at first, but it is essential to preventing
   potential network attacks.  Section 6 describes the attack and why 
   we sign the jCard in more detail.

2.  Terminology

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
   "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
   BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
   capitals, as shown here.

3.  Protocol Operation

   This section uses the term "intermediary" to mean the entity that
   acts as a SIP UAS on behalf of the user in the network as opposed to
   the user's UAS (usually, but not necessarily, their phone).  The
   intermediary could be a back-to-back user agent (B2BUA) or a SIP
   Proxy.

   Figure 4 shows an overview of the call flow for a rated call.

                         +--------+         +-----------+
                         | Called |         |   Call    |
        +-----+          | Party  |         | Analytics |   +-----+
        | UAC |          | Proxy  |         |  Engine   |   | UAS |
        +-----+          +--------+         +-----------+   +-----+
           |  INVITE         |                    |            |
           | --------------> |  Is call OK?       |            |
           |                 |------------------->|            |
           |                 |                    |            |
           |                 |        Maybe Scam  |            |
           |                 |<-------------------|            |
           |            184  |                    |            |
           |  <-------------- |                    |            |
           |                 | INVITE ?maybe scam?|            |
           |                 | ------------------------------> |
           |                 |                    |            |
           |                 |                    |       180  |
           |                 | <------------------------------ |
           |                 |                    |            |
           Caller either cancels request or leaves voicemail. 

                  Figure 2: Rated (184) Ladder Diagram

3.1.  Intermediary Operation

   An intermediary MAY issue the 184 response code in a failure response
   for an INVITE request to indicate an intermediary rated the offered 
   communication negatively (e.g. likely scam) or positively 
   (e.g. verified caller or Calling Name).  An intermediary MAY
   issue the 184 as the value of the "cause" parameter of a SIP reason-
   value in a Reason header field [RFC3326].

   If an intermediary issues a 184 code and there are no indicators the
   calling party will use the contents of the Call-Info header field for
   malicious purposes (see Section 6), the intermediary MUST include a
   Call-Info header field in the response.

   If there is a Call-Info header field, it MUST have the "purpose"
   parameter of "jwscard".  The value of the Call-Info header field MUST
   refer to a valid JSON Web Signature (JWS) [RFC7515] encoding of a
   jCard [RFC7095] object.  The following section describes the
   construction of the JWS.

3.2.  JWS Construction

   The intermediary constructs the JWS of the jCard as follows.

3.2.1.  JOSE Header

   The Javascript Object Signing and Encryption (JOSE) header MUST
   include the typ, alg, and x5u parameters from JWS [RFC7515].  The 
   typ parameter MUST have the value "vcard+json".  Implementations 
   MUST support ES256 as JSON Web Algorithms (JWA) [RFC7518] defines it 
   and MAY support other registered signature algorithms.  Finally, the 
   x5u parameter MUST be a URI that resolves to the public key 
   certificate corresponding to the key used to digitally sign the JWS.

3.2.2.  JWT Payload

   The payload contains two JSON values.  The first JSON Web Token (JWT)
   claim which MUST be present is the "iat" (issued at) claim [RFC7519].
   The "iat" MUST be set to the date and time of the issuance of the 184
   response.  This mandatory component protects the response from replay
   attacks.

   The second JWT claim which MUST be present is the "jcard" claim.  
   The value of the jcard [RFC7095] claim is a JSON array conforming to 
   the JSON jCard data format defined in [RFC7095].  Section 5.3 
   describes the registration.  In the construction of the jcard claim, 
   the "jcard" MUST include at least one of the URL, EMAIL, TEL, or ADR
   Properties.  The Integer Property, specifically used to signal 
   rating class, MUST also be included.  Integer values are defined as; 
   ?1?(negative rating) and ?2?(positive rating). UACs supporting this 
   specification MUST be prepared to receive a full jCard.  Call 
   originators (at the UAC) can use the information returned by the 
   jCard to contact the intermediary which rejected the call and appeal 
   the intermediary's rating of the call attempt.  What the intermediary 
   does if the rated caller contacts the intermediary is outside the 
   scope of this document.

3.2.3.  JWS Signature

   JWS [RFC7515] specifies the procedure for calculating the signature
   over the jCard JWT.  Section 4 of this document has a detailed
   example on constructing the JWS, including the signature.

3.3.  UAC Operation

   A UAC conforming to this specification MUST include the sip.184
   feature-capability indicator in the Feature-Caps header field of the
   INVITE request.

   Upon receiving a 184 response, UACs perform normal SIP processing for
   1xx responses.

   As for the disposition of the jCard itself, the UAC MUST check the
   "iat" claim in the JWT.  As noted in Section 3.2.2, we are concerned
   about replay attacks.  Therefore, the UAC MUST reject jCards that
   come with an expired "iat".  The definition of "expired" is a matter
   of local policy.  A reasonable value would be on the order of one
   minute due to account for clock drift.

3.4.  Legacy Interoperation

   If the UAC indicates support for 184 and the intermediary issues a
   184, life is good, as the UAC will receive all the information it
   needs to remediate an erroneous rating by an intermediary.  However,
   what if the UAC does not understand 184?  For example, how can we
   support callers from a legacy, non-SIP, public-switched network
   connecting to the SIP network via a media gateway?

   We address this situation by having the first network element that
   conforms with this specification play an announcement for negatively 
   rated call attempts.  See Section 3.5 for requirements on the 
   announcement.  The simple rule is a network element that inserts the 
   sip.184 feature capability MUST be able to convey at a minimum the 
   call was rated negatively and how to contact the operator of the 
   intermediary that rated the call attempt.

   The degenerate case is the intermediary is the only element that
   understands the semantics of the 184 response code.  Obviously, any
   SIP device will understand that a 184 response code is a 1xx 
   response. However, there are no other elements in the call path that 
   understand the meaning of the value of the Call-Info header field.  
   The intermediary knows this is the case as the INVITE request will 
   not have the sip.184 feature capability.  In this case, one can 
   consider the intermediary to be the element "inserting" a virtual 
   sip.184 feature capability.  If the caveats described in Sections 3.5 
   and 6 do not hold, the intermediary MUST play the announcement.
   
   Now we take the case where a network element that understands the 
   184 response code receives an INVITE for further processing.  A 
   network element conforming with this specification MUST insert the 
   sip.184 feature capability per the behaviors described in Section 4.2 
   of [RFC6809].

   Note even if a network element plays an announcement describing the 
   contents of the 184 response message, the network element MUST 
   forward the 184 response code message as a progress response to the 
   INVITE.

   One aspect of using a feature capability is that only the network
   elements that will either consume (UAC) or play an announcement
   (media gateway, session border controller (SBC) [RFC7092], or proxy)
   need to understand the sip.184 feature capability.  If the other
   network elements conform to Section 16.6 of [RFC3261], they will 
   pass header fields such as "Feature-Caps: *;+sip.184" unmodified 
   and without need for upgrade.

   Because the ultimate disposition of the call attempt MAY be a
   100-class response (assuming call goes unanswered due to negative 
   rating), the network element conveying the announcement in
   the legacy direction MUST use the 183 Session Progress response to
   establish the media session.  The 183 to provide the announcement 
   SHOULD be performed prior to forwarding 180 ringing.  While playing 
   the announcement, the intermediary MUST suppress additional 180 and 
   183 progress messages. Because of the small chance the UAC is an 
   extremely old legacy device and is using UDP, the UAC MUST include 
   support for 100rel [RFC3262] in its INVITE, the network element 
   conveying the announcement MUST Require 100rel in the 183, and the 
   UAC MUST issue a Provisional Response ACKnowledgement(PRACK) to 
   which the network element MUST respond 200 OK PRACK.

3.5.  Announcement Requirements

   There are a few requirements on the element handling the
   announcement for legacy interoperation.

   As noted above, the element inserting the sip.184 feature
   capability is responsible for conveying the information referenced 
   by the Call-Info header field in the 184 response message.  However,
   this specification does not mandate how to convey that information.

   Let us take the case where a telecommunications service provider
   controls the element inserting the sip.184 feature capability.  It
   would be reasonable to expect the service provider would play an
   announcement in the media path towards the UAC (caller).  It is
   important to note the network element should be mindful of the media
   type requested by the UAC as it formulates the announcement.  For
   example, it would make sense for an INVITE that only indicated audio
   codecs in the Session Description Protocol (SDP) [RFC4566] to result
   in an audio announcement.  Likewise, if the INVITE only indicated
   real-time text [RFC4103] and the network element can render the
   information in the requested media format, the network element 
   should send the information in a text format.

   It is also possible for the network element inserting the sip.184
   feature capability to be under the control of the same entity that
   controls the UAC.  For example, a call center might have legacy
   UACs, but have a modern outbound calling proxy that understands the
   full semantics of the 184 response code.  In this case, it is enough
   for the outbound calling proxy to digest the Call-Info information
   and handle the information digitally rather than "transcoding" the
   Call-Info information for presentation to the caller.

4.  Examples

   These examples are not normative, do not include all protocol
   elements, and may have errors.  Review the protocol documents for
   actual syntax and semantics of the protocol elements.

4.1.  Full Exchange

   Given an INVITE, shamelessly taken from [SHAKEN], with the line
   breaks in the Identity header field for display purposes only:

   INVITE sip:+12155550113@tel.one.example.net SIP/2.0
   Max-Forwards: 69
   Contact: <sip:+12155550112@[2001:db8::12]:50207;rinstance=9da3088f3>
   To: <sip:+12155550113@tel.one.example.net>
   From: "Alice" <sip:+12155550112@tel.two.example.net>;tag=614bdb40
   Call-ID: 79048YzkxNDA5NTI1MzA0OWFjOTFkMmFlODhiNTI2OWQ1ZTI
   P-Asserted-Identity: "Alice"<sip:+12155550112@tel.two.example.net>,
       <tel:+12155550112>
   CSeq: 2 INVITE
   Allow: SUBSCRIBE, NOTIFY, INVITE, ACK, CANCEL, BYE, REFER, INFO,
       MESSAGE, OPTIONS
   Content-Type: application/sdp
   Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2016 19:23:38 GMT
   Feature-Caps: *;+sip.184
   Identity: eyJhbGciOiJFUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6InBhc3Nwb3J0IiwicHB0Ijoic2hha2V
   uIiwieDV1IjoiaHR0cDovL2NlcnQuZXhhbXBsZTIubmV0L2V4YW1wbGUuY2VydCJ9.eyJ
   hdHRlc3QiOiJBIiwiZGVzdCI6eyJ0biI6IisxMjE1NTU1MDExMyJ9LCJpYXQiOiIxNDcx
   Mzc1NDE4Iiwib3JpZyI6eyJ0biI6IisxMjE1NTU1MDExMiJ9LCJvcmlnaWQiOiIxMjNlN
   DU2Ny1lODliLTEyZDMtYTQ1Ni00MjY2NTU0NDAwMCJ9.QAht_eFqQlaoVrnEV56Qly-OU
   tsDGifyCcpYjWcaR661Cz1hutFH2BzIlDswTahO7ujjqsWjeoOb4h97whTQJg;info=
   <http://cert.example2.net/example.cert>;alg=ES256
   Content-Length: 153

   v=0
   o=- 13103070023943130 1 IN IP6 2001:db8::177
   c=IN IP6 2001:db8::177
   t=0 0
   m=audio 54242 RTP/AVP 0
   a=sendrecv

   An intermediary could reply:

   SIP/2.0 184 Rated
   Via: SIP/2.0/UDP [2001:db8::177]:60012;branch=z9hG4bK-524287-1
   From: "Alice" <sip:+12155550112@tel.two.example.net>;tag=614bdb40
   To: <sip:+12155550113@tel.one.example.net>
   Call-ID: 79048YzkxNDA5NTI1MzA0OWFjOTFkMmFlODhiNTI2OWQ1ZTI
   CSeq: 2 INVITE
   Call-Info: <https://rated.example.net/complaint-jws>;purpose=jwscard

   The location https://rated.example.net/complaint-jws resolves to a
   JWS.  One would construct the JWS as follows.

   The JWS header of this example jCard could be:

   { "alg":"ES256",
     "typ":"vcard+json",
     "x5u":"https://certs.example.net/rated_key.cer"
   }

   Now, let us construct a minimal jCard.  For this example, the jCard
   refers the caller to an email address,
   remediation@rated.example.net:

   ["vcard",
     [
       ["version", {}, "text", "4.0"],
       ["fn", {}, "text", "Call Rating Adjudication"],
       ["email", {"type":"work"}, "text",
        "remediation@rated.example.net"]
     ]
   ]

   With this jCard, we can now construct the JWT:

   {
     "iat":1546008698,
     "jcard":["vcard",
       [
         ["version", {}, "text", "4.0"],
         ["fn", {}, "text", "Call Rating Adjudication"],
         ["email", {"type":"work"},
          "text", "remediation@rated.example.net"],
         ["rating-class",{},"integer", 1]
       ]
     ]
   }

   To calculate the signature, we need to encode the JSON Object 
   Signing and Encryption (JOSE) header and JWT using base64url 
   encoding.  As an implementation note, one can trim whitespace 
   in the JSON objects to save a few bytes.  UACs MUST be prepared 
   to receive pretty-printed,compact, or bizarrely formatted JSON.  
   For the purposes of this example, we leave the objects with pretty 
   whitespace.  Speaking of pretty vs. machine formatting, these 
   examples have line breaks in the base64url encodings for ease of 
   publication in the RFC format.  The specification of base64url 
   allows for these line breaks, and the decoded text works just fine.  
   However, those extra line-break octets would affect the calculation 
   of the signature.  Implementations MUST NOT insert line breaks into 
   the base64url encodings of the JOSE header or JWT.  This also means 
   UACs MUST be prepared to receive arbitrarily long octet streams from 
   the URI referenced by the Call-Info header field.

   base64encoding of JOSE header:

   eyAiYWxnIjoiRVMyNTYiLAogICAgICJ0eXAiOiJ2Y2FyZCtqc29uIiwKICAgICAieDV1
   IjoiaHR0cHM6Ly9jZXJ0cy5leGFtcGxlLm5ldC9yYXRlZF9rZXkuY2VyIgogICB9Cg==

   base64encoding of JWT:

   ewogICAgICJpYXQiOjE1NDYwMDg2OTgsCiAgICAgImpjYXJkIjpbInZjYXJkIiwKICAg
   ICAgIFsKICAgICAgICAgWyJ2ZXJzaW9uIiwge30sICJ0ZXh0IiwgIjQuMCJdLAogICAg
   ICAgICBbImZuIiwge30sICJ0ZXh0IiwgIkNhbGwgUmF0aW5nIEFkanVkaWNhdGlvbiJd
   LAogICAgICAgICBbImVtYWlsIiwgeyJ0eXBlIjoid29yayJ9LAogICAgICAgICAgInRl
   eHQiLCAicmVtZWRpYXRpb25AcmF0ZWQuZXhhbXBsZS5uZXQiXSwKCSAgW+KAnHJhdGlu
   Zy1jbGFzc+KAnSx7fSzigJxpbnRlZ2Vy4oCdLCAxXQogICAgICAgXQogICAgIF0KICAg
   fQ==   

   Note the object to sign is a single long line. Above line breaks are 
   for ease of review and do not appear in actual object to sign.

   We use the X.509 PKCS #8-encoded Elliptic Curve Digital
   Signature Algorithm (ECDSA) key, also shamelessly taken from
   [SHAKEN], as an example key for signing the hash of the above text.
   
   Please do NOT use this key in real life! It is for example 
   purposes only. We strongly recommend encrypting your key at rest.
   
   -----Example object to sign / Base 64 Jose + JWT-----
    eyAiYWxnIjoiRVMyNTYiLAogICAgICJ0eXAiOiJ2Y2FyZCtqc29uIiwKICAgICAieDV
    1IjoiaHR0cHM6Ly9jZXJ0cy5leGFtcGxlLm5ldC9yYXRlZF9rZXkuY2VyIgp9CnsKIC
    AgICAiaWF0IjoxNTQ2MDA4Njk4LAogICAgICJqY2FyZCI6WyJ2Y2FyZCIsCiAgICAgI
    CBbCiAgICAgICAgIFsidmVyc2lvbiIsIHt9LCAidGV4dCIsICI0LjAiXSwKICAgICAg
    ICAgWyJmbiIsIHt9LCAidGV4dCIsICJDYWxsIFJhdGluZyBBZGp1ZGljYXRpb24iXSw
    KICAgICAgICAgWyJlbWFpbCIsIHsidHlwZSI6IndvcmsifSwKICAgICAgICAgICJ0ZX
    h0IiwgInJlbWVkaWF0aW9uQHJhdGVkLmV4YW1wbGUubmV0Il0sCgkgIFvigJxyYXRpb
    mctY2xhc3PigJ0se30s4oCcaW50ZWdlcuKAnSwgMV0KICAgICAgIF0KICAgICBdCiAg
    IH0=

   -----BEGIN PRIVATE KEY-----
   MIGHAgEAMBMGByqGSM49AgEGCCqGSM49AwEHBG0wawIBAQQgi7q2TZvN9VDFg8Vy
   qCP06bETrR2v8MRvr89rn4i+UAahRANCAAQWfaj1HUETpoNCrOtp9KA8o0V79IuW
   ARKt9C1cFPkyd3FBP4SeiNZxQhDrD0tdBHls3/wFe8++K2FrPyQF9vuh
   -----END PRIVATE KEY-----

   -----BEGIN PUBLIC KEY-----
   MFkwEwYHKoZIzj0CAQYIKoZIzj0DAQcDQgAE8HNbQd/TmvCKwPKHkMF9fScavGeH
   78YTU8qLS8I5HLHSSmlATLcslQMhNC/OhlWBYC626nIlo7XeebYS7Sb37g==
   -----END PUBLIC KEY-----

   The resulting JWS, using the above key on the above object, renders
   the following ECDSA P-256 SHA-256 digital signature.

    3045022100d6ac15779808d4d6c99082a85fd129ff5faac25ba96dbef5d615f3586
    a7c5060022077e450ebd83cf04a9e74a4858b592fe92cf682d487ead8e74c8d624a
    f8f2c5a4

   The JWS would be stored at https://rated.example.net/complaint-jws
  
4.2.  Web Site jCard

   For an intermediary that provides a Web site for adjudication, the
   jCard could contain the following.  Note that we do not show the
   calculation of the JWS; the URI reference in the Call-Info header
   field would be to the JWS of the signed jCard.

   ["vcard",
     [
       ["version", {}, "text", "4.0"],
       ["fn", {}, "text", "Rated Call Adjudication"],
       ["url", {"type":"work"},
        "text", "https://rated.example.net/adjudication-form"],
       [?rating-class?,{},?integer?, 1]
     ]
   ]

4.3.  Multi-modal jCard

   For an intermediary that provides a telephone number and a postal
   address, the jCard could contain the following.  Note that we do not
   show the calculation of the JWS; the URI reference in the Call-Info
   header field would be to the JWS of the signed jCard.

   ["vcard",
     [
       ["version", {}, "text", "4.0"],
       ["fn", {}, "text", "Rated Call Adjudication"],
       ["adr", {"type":"work"}, "text",
         ["Argument Clinic",
          "12 Main St","Anytown","AP","000000","Somecountry"]
       ]
       ["tel", {"type":"work"}, "uri", "tel:+1-555-555-0112"],
     [?rating-class?,{},?integer?, 1]
     ]
   ]

   Note that it is up to the UAC to decide which jCard contact modality,
   if any, it will use.

4.4.  Legacy Interoperability

   Figure 5 depicts a call flow illustrating legacy interoperability.
   In this non-normative example, we see a UAC that does not support 
   the full semantics for 184.  However, there is an SBC that does 
   support 184.  Per [RFC6809], the SBC can insert "*;+sip.184" into 
   the Feature-Caps header field for the INVITE.  When the 
   intermediary, labeled "Called Party Proxy" in the figure, rates the 
   call, it knows it can simply perform the processing described in 
   this document.  Since the intermediary saw the sip.184 feature 
   capability, it knows it does not need to send any media describing 
   whom to contact in the event of an erroneous rating.  The SBC in 
   this case does not proxy additional progress messages to allow for 
   full announcement playback, unless/until a final response is 
   received and announcment is interupted if not complete. 
   For illustrative purposes, the figure shows generic SIP Proxies in 
   the flow. Their presence or absence or the number of proxies is not 
   relevant to the operation of the protocol.  They are in the figure 
   to show that proxies that do not understand the sip.184 feature 
   capability can still participate in a network offering 184 services.

                                                           +---------+
                                                           |  Call   |
                                                           |Analytics|
                                                           | Engine  |
                                                           +--+--+---+
                                                              ^  |
                                                              |  v
                                                            +-+--+-+
         +---+    +-----+    +---+    +-----+    +-----+    |Called|
         |UAC+----+Proxy+----+SBC+----+Proxy+----+Proxy+----+Party |
         +---+    +-----+    +---+    +-----+    +-----+    |Proxy |
           |                   |                            +------+
           | INVITE            |                               |
           |------------------>|                               |
           |                   | INVITE                        |
           |                   |------------------------------>|
           |                   | Feature-Caps: *;+sip.184      |
           |                   |                               |
           |         184 Rated |                     184 Rated |
           |<------------------|<------------------------------|
           |               183 |              Call-Info: <...> |
           |<------------------|    [path for Call-Info elided |
           |     SDP for media |     for illustration purposes]|
           |                   |                               |
           | PRACK             |                               |
           |------------------>|                   180 Ringing |
           |                   |<------------------------------|
           |      200 OK PRACK |                               |
           |<------------------|                               |
           |                   |                               |
           |<== Announcement ==|                               |
           |  Call-Info: <...> |                               |
            
                         Figure 3: Legacy Operation

   When the SBC receives the 184 response code, it correlates that with
   the original INVITE from the UAC.  The SBC remembers it inserted
   the sip.184 feature capability, which means it is responsible for
   somehow alerting the UAC the call is rated and disclosing whom to
   contact.  At this point, the SBC can play a prompt, either natively
   or through a mechanism such as NETANN [RFC4240], that sends the
   relevant information in the appropriate media to the UAC.  Since 
   this is a potentially long transaction and there is a chance the UAC 
   is using an unreliable transport protocol, the UAC will have 
   indicated support for provisional responses, the SBC will indicate 
   it requires a PRACK from the UAC in the 183 response, the UAC will 
   provide the PRACK, and the SBC will acknowledge receipt of the PRACK 
   before playing the announcement.

   As an example, the SBC could extract the FN and TEL jCard fields and
   play something like a special information tone (see Section 6.21.2.1
   of Telcordia [SR-2275] or Section 7 of ITU-T E.180 [ITU.E.180.1998]),
   followed by "Your call has been rated as spam by...", followed by a 
   text-to-speech translation of the FN text, followed by "You can 
   reach them on...", followed by a text-to-speech translation of the 
   telephone number in the TEL field.

   Note that the SBC also still sends the full 184 response code,
   including the Call-Info header field, towards the UAC.

5.  IANA Considerations

5.1.  SIP Response Code

   This document defines a new SIP response code, 184, in the "Response
   Codes" subregistry of the "Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)
   Parameters" registry defined in [RFC3261].

   Response code:    184
   Description:      Rated
   Reference:        TBD

5.2.  SIP Feature-Capability Indicator

   This document defines the feature capability, sip.184, in the "SIP
   Feature-Capability Indicator Registration Tree" registry defined in
   [RFC6809].

   Name:         sip.184
   Description:  This feature-capability indicator, when included in a
                 Feature-Caps header field of an INVITE request,
                 indicates the entity associated with the indicator
                 will be responsible for indicating to the caller any
                 information contained in the 184 SIP response code,
                 specifically, the value referenced by the Call-Info
                 header field.
   Reference:    TBD

5.3.  JSON Web Token Claim

   This document defines the new JSON Web Token claim in the "JSON Web
   Token Claims" subregistry created by [RFC7519].  Section 3.2.2
   defines the syntax.  The required information is:

   Claim Name:         jcard
   Claim Description:  jCard data
   Change Controller:  IESG
   Reference:          RFC 8688, [RFC7095]

5.4.  Call-Info Purpose

   This document defines the new predefined value "jwscard" for the
   "purpose" header field parameter of the Call-Info header field.  
   This modifies the "Header Field Parameters and Parameter Values"
   subregistry of the "Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Parameters"
   registry by adding this RFC as reference to the line for the header
   field "Call-Info" and parameter name "purpose":

   Header Field:       Call-Info
   Parameter Name:     purpose
   Predefined Values:  Yes
   Reference:          TBD

6.  Security Considerations

   Intermediary operators need to be mindful to whom they are sending
   the 184 response.  The intermediary could be rating a truly
   malicious caller.  This raises two issues.  The first is the caller,
   now alerted that an intermediary is poorly rating their
   call attempts, may change their call behavior to defeat call-rating
   systems.  The second, and more significant risk, is by providing
   a contact in the Call-Info header field, the intermediary may be
   giving the malicious caller a vector for attack.  In other words, 
   intermediary will be publishing an address which a malicious actor 
   may use to launch an attack on the intermediary.  Because of this,
   we recommend intermediary operators configure their response to only
   include a Call-Info header field for signed INVITE passing 
   validation by STIR [RFC8224].

   Another risk is as follows.  Consider an attacker that floods a 
   proxy supporting sip.184 feature.  However, the SDP in the INVITE
   request refers to a victim device.  Moreover, the attacker somehow
   knows there is a 184-aware gateway connecting to the victim who is 
   on a segment that lacks the sip.184 feature capability.  Because the
   mechanism described here can result in sending an audio file to the
   target of the SDP, an attacker could use the mechanism described by
   this document as an amplification attack, given a SIP INVITE can be
   under 1 kilobyte and an audio file can be hundreds of kilobytes.  
   One remediation for this is for devices inserting a sip.184 feature
   capability to only transmit media to what is highly likely to be the
   actual source of the call attempt.  A method for this is to only play
   media in response to a STIR-signed INVITE which passes validation.
   Beyond requiring a valid STIR signature on the INVITE, the
   intermediary can also use remediation procedures such as performing
   connectivity checks specified by Interactive Connectivity
   Establishment [RFC8445].  If the target did not request the media,
   the checks will fail.

   Yet another risk is a malicious intermediary generating a
   malicious 184 response with a jCard referring to a malicious agent.
   For example, the recipient of a 184 may receive a TEL URI in the
   vCard.  When the recipient calls that address, the malicious agent
   could ask for personally identifying information.  Instead
   of using that information to verify the recipient's identity, they
   are phishing information for nefarious ends.  A similar scenario
   can unfold if the malicious agent inserts a URI which points to a
   phishing or other mal-intent site.  As such, we strongly recommend 
   the recipient validates to whom they are communicating with if 
   asking to adjudicate an erroneously rated call attempt.  Since we 
   may also be concerned about intermediate nodes modifying contact 
   information, we can address both issues with a single solution.  
   The remediation is to require the intermediary to sign the jCard.  
   Signing the jCard provides integrity protection.  In addition, 
   one can imagine mechanisms such as used by [SHAKEN].

   Similarly, one can imagine an adverse agent maliciously spoofs a
   184 response with a victim's contact address to many active callers
   who may then all send redress requests to the specified address (the
   basis for a denial-of-service attack).  The process would occur as
   follows: (1) a malicious agent senses INVITE requests from a variety
   of UACs and (2) spoofs 184 responses with an unsigned redress address
   before the intended receivers can respond, causing (3) the UACs to
   all contact the redress address at once.  The jCard encoding allows
   the UAC to verify the blocking intermediary's identity before
   contacting the redress address.  Specifically, because the sender
   signs the jCard, we can cryptographically trace the sender of the
   jCard.  Given the protocol machinery of having a signature, one can
   apply local policy to decide whether to believe that the sender of
   the jCard represents the owner of the contact information found in
   the jCard.  This guards against a malicious agent spoofing 184
   responses.

   Specifically, one could use policies around signing certificate
   issuance as a mechanism for traceback to the entity issuing the
   jCard.  One check could be verifying that the identity of the subject
   of the certificate relates to the To header field of the initial SIP
   request, similar to validating that the intermediary was vouching for
   the From header field of a SIP request with that identity.  Note that
   we are only protecting against a malicious intermediary and not a
   hidden intermediary attack (formerly known as a "man-in-the-middle
   attack").  Thus, we only need to ensure the signature is fresh, which
   is why we include "iat".  For most implementations, we assume that
   the intermediary has a single set of contact points and will generate
   the jCard on demand.  As such, there is no need to directly correlate
   HTTPS fetches to specific calls.  However, since the intermediary is
   in control of the jCard and Call-Info response, an intermediary may
   choose to encode per-call information in the URI returned in a given
   184 response.  However, if the intermediary does go that route, the
   intermediary MUST use a non-deterministic URI reference mechanism and
   be prepared to return dummy responses to URI requests referencing
   calls that do not exist so that attackers attempting to glean call
   metadata by guessing URIs (and thus calls) will not get any
   actionable information from the HTTPS GET.

   Since the decision of whether to include Call-Info in the 184
   response is a matter of policy, one thing to consider is whether a
   legitimate caller can ascertain whom to contact without including
   such information in the 184.  For example, in some jurisdictions, if
   only the terminating service provider can be the intermediary, the
   caller can look up who the terminating service provider is based on
   the routing information for the dialed number.  Thus, the Call-Info
   jCard could be redundant information.  However, the factors going
   into a particular service provider's or jurisdiction's choice of
   whether to include Call-Info is outside the scope of this document.

7.  References

7.1.  Normative References

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.

   [RFC3261]  Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., Camarillo, G., Johnston,
              A., Peterson, J., Sparks, R., Handley, M., and E.
              Schooler, "SIP: Session Initiation Protocol", RFC 3261,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC3261, June 2002,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3261>.

   [RFC3262]  Rosenberg, J. and H. Schulzrinne, "Reliability of
              Provisional Responses in Session Initiation Protocol
              (SIP)", RFC 3262, DOI 10.17487/RFC3262, June 2002,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3262>.

   [RFC3326]  Schulzrinne, H., Oran, D., and G. Camarillo, "The Reason
              Header Field for the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)",
              RFC 3326, DOI 10.17487/RFC3326, December 2002,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3326>.

   [RFC6809]  Holmberg, C., Sedlacek, I., and H. Kaplan, "Mechanism to
              Indicate Support of Features and Capabilities in the
              Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)", RFC 6809,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6809, November 2012,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6809>.

   [RFC7095]  Kewisch, P., "jCard: The JSON Format for vCard", RFC 7095,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7095, January 2014,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7095>.

   [RFC7515]  Jones, M., Bradley, J., and N. Sakimura, "JSON Web
              Signature (JWS)", RFC 7515, DOI 10.17487/RFC7515, May
              2015, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7515>.

   [RFC7518]  Jones, M., "JSON Web Algorithms (JWA)", RFC 7518,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7518, May 2015,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7518>.

   [RFC7519]  Jones, M., Bradley, J., and N. Sakimura, "JSON Web Token
              (JWT)", RFC 7519, DOI 10.17487/RFC7519, May 2015,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7519>.

   [RFC8174]  Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
              2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
              May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.

7.2.  Informative References


   [ITU.E.180.1998]
              ITU-T, "Technical characteristics of tones for the
              telephone service", ITU-T Recommendation E.180/Q.35, March
              1998.

   [RFC4103]  Hellstrom, G. and P. Jones, "RTP Payload for Text
              Conversation", RFC 4103, DOI 10.17487/RFC4103, June 2005,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4103>.

   [RFC4240]  Burger, E., Ed., Van Dyke, J., and A. Spitzer, "Basic
              Network Media Services with SIP", RFC 4240,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC4240, December 2005,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4240>.

   [RFC4566]  Handley, M., Jacobson, V., and C. Perkins, "SDP: Session
              Description Protocol", RFC 4566, DOI 10.17487/RFC4566,
              July 2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4566>.

   [RFC5039]  Rosenberg, J. and C. Jennings, "The Session Initiation
              Protocol (SIP) and Spam", RFC 5039, DOI 10.17487/RFC5039,
              January 2008, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5039>.

   [RFC6350]  Perreault, S., "vCard Format Specification", RFC 6350,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6350, August 2011,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6350>.

   [RFC7092]  Kaplan, H. and V. Pascual, "A Taxonomy of Session
              Initiation Protocol (SIP) Back-to-Back User Agents",
              RFC 7092, DOI 10.17487/RFC7092, December 2013,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7092>.

   [RFC7340]  Peterson, J., Schulzrinne, H., and H. Tschofenig, "Secure
              Telephone Identity Problem Statement and Requirements",
              RFC 7340, DOI 10.17487/RFC7340, September 2014,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7340>.

   [RFC8197]  Schulzrinne, H., "A SIP Response Code for Unwanted Calls",
              RFC 8197, DOI 10.17487/RFC8197, July 2017,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8197>.
   
   [RFC8688]  Burger, E.W.,and Nagda, B. "A SIP Response Code for 
              Rejected Calls",
              RFC 8688, DOI 10.17487/RFC8688, December 2019,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8688>.

   [RFC8224]  Peterson, J., Jennings, C., Rescorla, E., and C. Wendt,
              "Authenticated Identity Management in the Session
              Initiation Protocol (SIP)", RFC 8224,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8224, February 2018,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8224>.

   [RFC8259]  Bray, T., Ed., "The JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) Data
              Interchange Format", STD 90, RFC 8259,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8259, December 2017,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8259>.

   [RFC8445]  Keranen, A., Holmberg, C., and J. Rosenberg, "Interactive
              Connectivity Establishment (ICE): A Protocol for Network
              Address Translator (NAT) Traversal", RFC 8445,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8445, July 2018,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8445>.

   [SHAKEN]   ATIS/SIP Forum IP-INNI Task Group, "Signature-based
              Handling of Asserted information using toKENs (SHAKEN)",
              ATIS 1000074, January 2017,
              <https://www.sipforum.org/download/sip-forum-twg-10-
              signature-based-handling-of-asserted-information-using-
              tokens-shaken-pdf/?wpdmdl=2813>.

   [SR-2275]  Telcordia, "Telcordia Notes on the Networks", Telcordia 
              SR-2275, October 2000.

Acknowledgements

   This document liberally lifts from [RFC8197] and [RFC8688] in its 
   text and structure.  However, the mechanism and purpose of 184 is 
   quite different than either 607 or 608.  Any errors are the current 
   editor's and not the editors of RFC 8197 or RFC 8688. 

Authors Addresses:

   Russ A. Penar
   Microsoft
   1 Microsoft Way
   Redmond, WA 98052
   United States of America

   Email: russp@microsoft.com

Expires: January, 2021
draft-penar-ietf-sipcore-00