Network Working Group
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)                         R. Sparks
Internet-Draft
Request for Comments: 7647                                        Oracle
Updates: 3515 (if approved)                                     A.                                                 A.B. Roach
Intended status:
Category: Standards Track                                        Mozilla
Expires: October 24, 2015                                 April 22,
ISSN: 2070-1721                                           September 2015

           Clarifications for the use Use of REFER with RFC6665
               draft-ietf-sipcore-refer-clarifications-04 RFC 6665

Abstract

   The SIP REFER method relies on the SIP-Specific Event Notification
   Framework.
   framework.  That framework was revised by RFC6665. RFC 6665.  This document
   highlights the implications of the requirement changes in RFC6665, RFC 6665,
   and updates the definition of the REFER method, RFC3515, method described in RFC 3515
   to clarify and disambiguate the impact of those changes.

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 an Internet Standards Track document.

   This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
   (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list  It represents the consensus of current Internet-
   Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid the IETF community.  It has
   received public review and has been approved for a maximum publication by the
   Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG).  Further information on
   Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of six months RFC 5741.

   Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
   and how to provide feedback on it may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents obtained 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 October 24, 2015.
   http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7647.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   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.  Conventions and Definitions .  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Conventions Used in This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   3.  Use of GRUU is mandatory Is Mandatory  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   4.  Dialog reuse is prohibited Reuse Is Prohibited  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   5.  The 202 response code is deprecated Response Code Is Deprecated . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   6.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   7.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  References  . . . . .   4
   8.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   9.  Changelog . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   10.
     7.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     7.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . .   6
     10.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   Acknowledgements  . . . . . . .   6
     10.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7   6

1.  Conventions and Definitions

   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].

2.  Introduction

   The SIP REFER method relies on the SIP-Specific Event Notification
   Framework.
   framework.  That framework was revised by [RFC6665].  This document
   highlights the implications of the requirement changes in RFC6665, RFC 6665,
   and updates [RFC3515] to clarify and disambiguate the impact of those
   changes.

   Accepting a REFER request (without invoking extensions) results in an
   implicit SIP-Events subscription.  If that REFER was part of an
   existing dialog, the implicit subscription creates a new, problematic
   dialog-usage
   dialog usage within that dialog [RFC5057].  The "norefersub"
   extension defined in [RFC4488] asks to suppress this implicit
   subscription, but cannot prevent its creation.

   There are implementations in some known specialized environments
   (such as 3gpp) 3GPP) that use out-of-signalling out-of-signaling agreements to ensure that
   in-dialog REFER requests using the RFC4488 RFC 4488 extension do not create a
   new subscription inside that dialog.  In the 3gpp 3GPP environment, the
   behavior is based on capabilities advertised using media feature
   tags.  That mechanism does not, however, prevent additional dialog
   usages when interoperating with implementations that do not support
   the mechanism.  The extensions in
   [I-D.ietf-sipcore-refer-explicit-subscription] [RFC7614] provide a standardized
   mechanism that allows avoiding any additional dialog usage.

2.  Conventions Used in This Document

   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].

3.  Use of GRUU is mandatory Is Mandatory

   Section 4.5.1 of [RFC6665] makes GRUU [RFC5627] mandatory for
   notifiers to implement and use as the local target in the
   subscription created by the REFER request.

   A user agent (UA) accepting a REFER that creates a subscription MUST
   populate its Contact header field with a GRUU.

   A UA that might possibly become a notifier (e.g. (e.g., by accepting a
   REFER request that creates a subscription) needs to include a GRUU in
   the Contact header field of dialog-forming and target-refresh methods
   (such as INVITE) [I-D.roach-sipcore-6665-clarification]. [RFC7621].  This ensures that out-of-dialog REFER
   requests corresponding to any resulting INVITE dialogs arrive at this
   UA.  Future extensions (such
   as [I-D.ietf-sipcore-refer-explicit-subscription]) might  Extensions can relax this requirement by defining a REFER
   request that cannot create an implicit subscription, thus not causing
   the accepting UA to become an
   RFC6665 RFC 6665 notifier in the context of
   this dialog.  [RFC7614] is an example of such an extension.

4.  Dialog reuse is prohibited Reuse Is Prohibited

   If a peer in an existing dialog has provided a GRUU as its Contact,
   sending a REFER that might result in an additional dialog usage
   within that dialog is prohibited.  This is a direct consequence of
   [RFC6665] requiring the use of GRUU, GRUU and the requirements in section
   Section 4.5.2 of that document.

   A user agent constructing a REFER request that could result in an
   implicit subscription in a dialog MUST build it as an out-of-dialog
   message as defined in [RFC3261], unless the remote endpoint is an
   older, pre-RFC6665
   older implementation of RFC 3515 that has not been updated to conform
   to RFC 6665 (as determined by the absence of a GRUU in the remote
   target).  Thus, the REFER request will have no tag parameter in its
   To: header field.

   Using the "norefersub" option tag [RFC4488] does not change this
   requirement, even if used in a "Require" header field.  Even if the
   recipient supports the "norefersub" mechanism, and accepts the
   request with the option tag in the "Require" header field, it is
   allowed to return a "Refer-Sub" header field with a value of "true"
   in the response, and create an implicit subscription.

   A user agent wishing to identify an existing dialog (such as for call
   transfer as defined in [RFC5589]) MUST use the "Target-Dialog"
   extension defined in [RFC4538] to do so, and user agents accepting
   REFER MUST be able to process that extension in requests they
   receive.

   If a user agent can be certain that no implicit subscription will be
   created as a result of sending a REFER request (such as by requiring
   an extension that disallows any such subscription
   [I-D.ietf-sipcore-refer-explicit-subscription]), [RFC7614]), the
   REFER request MAY be sent within an existing dialog (whether or not
   the remote target is a GRUU).  Such a REFER will be constructed with
   its Contact header field populated with the dialog's Local local URI as
   specified in
   section Section 12 of [RFC3261].

   As described in section Section 4.5.2 of [RFC6665], there are cases where a
   user agent may fall back to sharing existing dialogs for backwards-
   compatibility purposes.  This applies to a REFER only when the peer
   has not provided a GRUU as its Contact in the existing dialog (i.e. (i.e.,
   when the peer is a pre-RFC6665 implementation). an implementation of RFC 3515 that has not been
   updated to conform with RFC 6665).

5.  The 202 response code is deprecated Response Code Is Deprecated

   Section 8.3.1 of [RFC6665] requires that elements do not send a 202
   response code to a subscribe request, but use the 200 response code
   instead.  Any 202 response codes received to a subscribe request are
   treated as 200s.  These changes also apply to REFER.  Specifically,
   an element accepting a REFER request MUST NOT reply with a 202
   response code and MUST treat any 202 responses received as identical
   to a 200 response.  Wherever [RFC3515] requires sending a 202
   response code, a 200 response code MUST be sent instead.

6.  Security Considerations

   This document introduces no new security considerations directly.
   The updated considerations in [RFC6665] apply to the implicit
   subscription created by an accepted REFER request.

7.  IANA Considerations

   This document has no actions for IANA.

8.  Acknowledgements

   Christer Holmberg provided the formulation for the final paragraph of
   the introduction.  Christer Holmberg and Ivo Sedlacek provided
   detailed comments during working group discussion of the document.

9.  Changelog

   RFC Editor - please remove this section when formatting this document
   as an RFC

      -03 to -04

         Added section on deprecating 202.

      -02 to -03

         Reinforced that the MAY send in-dialog applied no matter what
         the remote target URI contained.

      -01 to -02

         Tweaked the third paragraph of section 3 per list discussion.
         (Note the subject line of that discussion said -explicit-
         subscription)

      -00 to -01

         Added the 3rd paragraph to the introduction per extensive list
         discussion

      draft-sparks-sipcore-refer-clarifications-05 to draft-ietf-
      sipcore-refer-clarifications-00

         Attempted to improve the accuracy of the Abstract and
         Introduction without diluting the essential point of the
         document.

         Added an informative reference to RFC5057.

         Adjusted text to more reflect what RFC6665 (as clarified by
         draft-roach-sipcore-6665-clarification) actually requires, and
         added a normative reference to that clarification draft.

         Specifically, the requirement for the _sender_ of a REFER to
         use a GRUU as its local target was removed.

         Clarified why the explicit-subscription extensions relieve an
         in-dialog REFERer from the 6665 requirements for using GRUU as
         its contact in the INVITE dialog.

10.  References

10.1.

7.1.  Normative References

   [I-D.roach-sipcore-6665-clarification]
              Roach, A., "A clarification on the use of Globally
              Routable User Agent URIs (GRUUs) in the Session Initiation
              Protocol (SIP) Event Notification Framework", draft-roach-
              sipcore-6665-clarification-00 (work in progress), October
              2014.

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997. 1997,
              <http://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. 2002,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3261>.

   [RFC3515]  Sparks, R., "The Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Refer
              Method", RFC 3515, DOI 10.17487/RFC3515, April 2003. 2003,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3515>.

   [RFC4538]  Rosenberg, J., "Request Authorization through Dialog
              Identification in the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)",
              RFC 4538, DOI 10.17487/RFC4538, June 2006. 2006,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4538>.

   [RFC5627]  Rosenberg, J., "Obtaining and Using Globally Routable User
              Agent URIs (GRUUs) in the Session Initiation Protocol
              (SIP)", RFC 5627, DOI 10.17487/RFC5627, October 2009. 2009,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5627>.

   [RFC6665]  Roach, A., A.B., "SIP-Specific Event Notification", RFC 6665,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6665, July 2012.

10.2.  Informative References

   [I-D.ietf-sipcore-refer-explicit-subscription]
              Sparks, R., "Explicit Subscriptions for 2012,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6665>.

   [RFC7621]  Roach, A.B., "A Clarification on the REFER Method",
              draft-ietf-sipcore-refer-explicit-subscription-00 (work Use of Globally
              Routable User Agent URIs (GRUUs) in
              progress), November 2014. the SIP Event
              Notification Framework", RFC 7621, DOI 10.17487/RFC7621,
              August 2015, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7621>.

7.2.  Informative References

   [RFC4488]  Levin, O., "Suppression of Session Initiation Protocol
              (SIP) REFER Method Implicit Subscription", RFC 4488,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC4488, May
              2006. 2006,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4488>.

   [RFC5057]  Sparks, R., "Multiple Dialog Usages in the Session
              Initiation Protocol", RFC 5057, DOI 10.17487/RFC5057,
              November 2007. 2007, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5057>.

   [RFC5589]  Sparks, R., Johnston, A., Ed., and D. Petrie, "Session
              Initiation Protocol (SIP) Call Control - Transfer",
              BCP 149, RFC 5589, DOI 10.17487/RFC5589, June 2009. 2009,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5589>.

   [RFC7614]  Sparks, R., "Explicit Subscriptions for the REFER Method",
              RFC 7614, DOI 10.17487/RFC7614, August 2015,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7614>.

Acknowledgements

   Christer Holmberg provided the formulation for the final paragraph of
   the introduction.  Christer Holmberg and Ivo Sedlacek provided
   detailed comments during working group discussion of the document.

Authors' Addresses

   Robert Sparks
   Oracle
   7460 Warren Parkway
   Suite 300
   Frisco, Texas  75034
   US

   Email: rjsparks@nostrum.com

   Adam Roach
   Mozilla
   Dallas, TX
   US

   Phone: +1 650 903 0800 x863
   Email: adam@nostrum.com