idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-sip-uri-parameter-reg-02.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** It looks like you're using RFC 3978 boilerplate. You should update this to the boilerplate described in the IETF Trust License Policy document (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info), which is required now. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3667, Section 5.1 on line 18. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3978, Section 5.5 on line 251. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 2 on line 235. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 3 on line 241. ** The document seems to lack an RFC 3978 Section 5.1 IPR Disclosure Acknowledgement -- however, there's a paragraph with a matching beginning. Boilerplate error? ** This document has an original RFC 3978 Section 5.4 Copyright Line, instead of the newer IETF Trust Copyright according to RFC 4748. ** This document has an original RFC 3978 Section 5.5 Disclaimer, instead of the newer disclaimer which includes the IETF Trust according to RFC 4748. ** The document seems to lack an RFC 3979 Section 5, para. 1 IPR Disclosure Acknowledgement -- however, there's a paragraph with a matching beginning. Boilerplate error? ** The document uses RFC 3667 boilerplate or RFC 3978-like boilerplate instead of verbatim RFC 3978 boilerplate. After 6 May 2005, submission of drafts without verbatim RFC 3978 boilerplate is not accepted. The following non-3978 patterns matched text found in the document. That text should be removed or replaced: By submitting this Internet-Draft, I certify that any applicable patent or other IPR claims of which I am aware have been disclosed, or will be disclosed, and any of which I become aware will be disclosed, in accordance with RFC 3668. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == No 'Intended status' indicated for this document; assuming Proposed Standard == It seems as if not all pages are separated by form feeds - found 0 form feeds but 7 pages Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the RFC 3978 Section 5.4 Copyright Line does not match the current year == The document seems to lack the recommended RFC 2119 boilerplate, even if it appears to use RFC 2119 keywords. (The document does seem to have the reference to RFC 2119 which the ID-Checklist requires). -- The document seems to lack a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work, but may have content which was first submitted before 10 November 2008. If you have contacted all the original authors and they are all willing to grant the BCP78 rights to the IETF Trust, then this is fine, and you can ignore this comment. If not, you may need to add the pre-RFC5378 disclaimer. (See the Legal Provisions document at https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info for more information.) -- The document date (June 16, 2004) is 7247 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 3427 (ref. '2') (Obsoleted by RFC 5727) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 2434 (ref. '4') (Obsoleted by RFC 5226) Summary: 8 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 4 warnings (==), 6 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Internet Engineering Task Force SIP WG 3 Internet Draft G. Camarillo 4 Ericsson 5 draft-ietf-sip-uri-parameter-reg-02.txt 6 June 16, 2004 7 Expires: December 2004 9 The Internet Assigned Number Authority (IANA) Universal 10 Resource Identifier (URI) Parameter Registry for the Session 11 Initiation Protocol (SIP) 13 STATUS OF THIS MEMO 15 By submitting this Internet-Draft, I certify that any applicable 16 patent or other IPR claims of which I am aware have been disclosed, 17 and any of which I become aware will be disclosed, in accordance with 18 RFC 3668. 20 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 21 Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other 22 groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. 24 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 25 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 26 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 27 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 29 The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at 30 http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. 32 The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at 33 http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. 35 Abstract 37 This document creates an IANA registry for SIP and SIPS URI 38 parameters, and their values. It also lists the already existing 39 parameters to be used as initial values for that registry. 41 Table of Contents 43 1 Introduction ........................................ 3 44 2 Terminology ......................................... 3 45 3 Use of the Registry ................................. 3 46 4 IANA Considerations ................................. 4 47 4.1 SIP and SIPS URI Parameters Sub-Registry ............ 4 48 4.2 Registration Policy for SIP and SIPS URI Parameters . 5 49 5 Security Considerations ............................. 5 50 6 Acknowledgements .................................... 5 51 7 Authors' Addresses .................................. 5 52 8 Normative References ................................ 6 53 9 Informative References .............................. 6 55 1 Introduction 57 RFC3261 [1] allows new SIP URI and SIPS URI parameters, and new 58 parameter values to be defined. However, RFC3261 omitted an IANA 59 registry for them. This document creates such a registry. 61 RFC 3427 [2] documents the process to extend SIP. This document 62 updates RFC 3427 by specifying how to define and register new SIP and 63 SIP URI parameters and their values. 65 2 Terminology 67 In this document, the key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", 68 "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", 69 and "OPTIONAL" are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [3] and 70 indicate requirement levels for compliant SIP implementations. 72 3 Use of the Registry 74 SIP and SIPS URI parameters and values for these parameters MUST be 75 documented in a standards-track RFC in order to be registered by 76 IANA. This documentation MUST fully explain the syntax, intended 77 usage, and semantics of the parameter. The intent of this requirement 78 is to assure inetroperability between independent implementations, 79 and to prevent accidental namespace collisions between 80 implementations of dissimilar features. 82 Note that this registry, unlike other protocol registries, 83 only deals with parameters and parameter values defined in 84 RFCs (i.e., it lacks a vendor-extension tree). RFC 3427 [2] 85 documents concerns with regards to new SIP extensions which 86 may be damaging towards security, greatly increase the 87 complexity of the protocol, or both. New parameters and 88 parameter values need to be documented in RFCs as a result 89 of these concerns. 91 RFCs defining SIP URI, SIPS URI parameters, or parameter values MUST 92 register them with IANA as described below. 94 Registered SIP and SIPS URI parameters and their values are to be 95 considered "reserved words". In order to preserve interoperability, 96 registered parameters MUST be used in a manner consistent with that 97 described in their defining RFC. Implementations MUST NOT utilize 98 "private" or "locally defined" URI parameters that conflict with 99 registered parameters. 101 Note that although unregistered SIP and SIPS URI parameters 102 may be used in implementations, developers are cautioned 103 that usage of such parameters is risky. New SIP and SIPS 104 URI parameters and new values for them may be registered at 105 any time, and there is no assurance that these new 106 registered URI parameters will not conflict with 107 unregistered parameters currently in use. 109 Some SIP and SIPS URI parameters only accept a set of predefined 110 parameter values. For example, a parameter indicating the transport 111 protocol in use may only accept as valid values the predefined tokens 112 TCP, UDP, and SCTP. Registering all parameter values for all SIP and 113 SIPS URI parameters of this type would require a large number of 114 subregistries. Instead, we have chosen to register URI parameter 115 values by reference. That is, the entry in the URI parameter registry 116 for a given URI parameter contains references to the RFCs defining 117 new values of the parameter. References to RFCs defining parameter 118 values appear in brackets in the registry. 120 So, the SIP and SIPS URI parameter registry contains a column that 121 indicates whether or not each parameter only accepts a set of 122 predefined values. Implementers of parameters with a "yes" in that 123 column need to find all the valid parameter values in the RFCs 124 provided as references. 126 4 IANA Considerations 128 Section 27 of RFC 3261 [1] creates an IANA registry for method names, 129 header field names, warning codes, status codes, and option tags. 130 This specification instructs the IANA to create a new sub-registry 131 under http://www.iana.org/assignments/sip-parameters: 133 o SIP/SIPS URI Parameters 135 4.1 SIP and SIPS URI Parameters Sub-Registry 137 New SIP and SIPS URI parameters and new parameter values are 138 registered by the IANA. When registering a new SIP or SIPS parameter 139 or a new value for a parameter, the following information MUST be 140 provided. 142 o Name of the parameter. 144 o Whether the parameter only accepts a set of predefined values. 146 o Reference to the RFC defining the parameter and to any RFC 147 that defines new values for the parameter. References to RFCs 148 defining parameter values appear in brackets in the registry. 150 Table 1 contains the initial values for this sub-registry. 152 Parameter Name Predefined Values Reference 153 ____________________________________________ 154 comp Yes RFC 3486 155 lr No RFC 3261 156 maddr No RFC 3261 157 method Yes RFC 3261 158 transport Yes RFC 3261 159 ttl No RFC 3261 160 user Yes RFC 3261 162 Table 1: IANA SIP and SIPS URI parameter sub-registry 164 Note that any given parameter name is registered both as a SIP and as 165 a SIPS URI parameter. Still, some parameters may not apply to one of 166 the schemes. We have chosen to register any parameter as both SIP and 167 SIPS URI parameter anyway to avoid having two parameters with the 168 same name, one applicable to SIP URIs and one to SIPS URIs, but with 169 different semantics. Implementors are urged to read the parameter 170 specifications for a detailed description of the semantics of any 171 parameter. 173 4.2 Registration Policy for SIP and SIPS URI Parameters 175 As per the terminology in RFC 2434 [4], the registration policy for 176 SIP and SIPS URI parameters shall be "Specification Required". 178 For the purposes of this registry, the parameter for which IANA 179 registration is requested MUST be defined by a standards-track RFC. 181 5 Security Considerations 183 There are no security considerations associated to this document. 185 6 Acknowledgements 187 Jonathan Rosenberg, Henning Schulzrinne, Rohan Mahy, Dean Willis, and 188 Allison Mankin provided useful comments. 190 7 Authors' Addresses 192 Gonzalo Camarillo 193 Ericsson 194 Advanced Signalling Research Lab. 195 FIN-02420 Jorvas 196 Finland 197 electronic mail: Gonzalo.Camarillo@ericsson.com 199 8 Normative References 201 [1] J. Rosenberg, H. Schulzrinne, G. Camarillo, A. R. Johnston, J. 202 Peterson, R. Sparks, M. Handley, and E. Schooler, "SIP: session 203 initiation protocol," RFC 3261, Internet Engineering Task Force, June 204 2002. 206 [2] A. Mankin, S. Bradner, R. Mahy, D. Willis, J. Ott, and B. Rosen, 207 "Change process for the session initiation protocol (SIP)," RFC 3427, 208 Internet Engineering Task Force, Dec. 2002. 210 [3] S. Bradner, "Key words for use in RFCs to indicate requirement 211 levels," RFC 2119, Internet Engineering Task Force, Mar. 1997. 213 [4] T. Narten and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for writing an IANA 214 considerations section in RFCs," RFC 2434, Internet Engineering Task 215 Force, Oct. 1998. 217 9 Informative References 219 Intellectual Property Statement 221 The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any 222 Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to 223 pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in 224 this document or the extent to which any license under such rights 225 might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has 226 made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information 227 on the IETF's procedures with respect to rights in IETF Documents can 228 be found in BCP 78 and BCP 79. 230 Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any 231 assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an 232 attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of 233 such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this 234 specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at 235 http://www.ietf.org/ipr. 237 The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any 238 copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary 239 rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement 240 this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at ietf- 241 ipr@ietf.org. 243 Disclaimer of Validity 245 This document and the information contained herein are provided on an 246 "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS 247 OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET 248 ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, 249 INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE 250 INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED 251 WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. 253 Copyright Statement 255 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). This document is subject 256 to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and 257 except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights. 259 Acknowledgment 261 Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the 262 Internet Society.