wdiff draft-ietf-sip-parameter-registry-01.txt draft-ietf-sip-parameter-registry-02.txt

Internet Engineering Task Force
SIP WG
Internet Draft Working Group G. Camarillo
Internet-Draft Ericsson
draft-ietf-sip-parameter-registry-01.txt
November 24, 2003
Expires: May December 15, 2004 June 16, 2004

The Internet Assigned Number Authority (IANA) Header Field Parameter
Registry for the Session Initiation Protocol

STATUS OF THIS MEMO

This document is an Internet-Draft (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 is any of which I become aware will be disclosed, in full conformance accordance with
all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026.
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.

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". progress."

The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt

To view the http://
www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.

The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories, see Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.

This Internet-Draft will expire on December 15, 2004.

Abstract

This document creates an IANA registry for SIP header field
parameters.
parameters and parameter values. It also lists the already existing
parameters and parameter values to be used as the initial values entries for that
this registry.

Table of Contents

1. Introduction ........................................ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2
2. Terminology ......................................... 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Use of the Registry ................................. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4
4. IANA Considerations ................................. 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4.1 Header Field Parameters Sub-Registry ................ . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4.2 Registration Policy for SIP Header Field Parameters .......................................... 4
5 . . . 7
5. Security Considerations ............................. 4
6 Acknowledgements .................................... 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Authors' Addresses .................................. 4
6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
7. Normative References ................................ 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . 9 Informative References .............................. 5

1. Introduction

RFC3261 [1]

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 [2] [1] and indicate requirement levels for
compliant SIP 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.
parameter or parameter value. The intent of this requirement is to
assure inetroperability interoperability between independent implementations, and to
prevent accidental namespace collisions between implementations of dissimialr
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.

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 URI
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 [1] [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:

o Header Field 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, 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 parameter. header field parameter being registered.
o Whether the parameter only accepts a set of predefined values.
o A reference to the RFC were where the parameter is defined. defined and to any
RFC that defines new values for the parameter. References to RFCs
defining parameter values appear in brackets in the registry.

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.

Table 1 contains

The following are the initial values for this sub-registry.

4.2 Registration Policy for SIP Header Field Parameters

As per the terminology in RFC 2434 [3], the registration policy for
SIP header field parameters shall be "Specification Required".

For the purposes of this registry, the parameter 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.

6 Acknowledgements

Jonathan Rosenberg, Henning Schulzrinne, Rohan Mahy, Dean Willis, Aki
Niemi, and Bill Marshall provided useful comments.

7 Authors' Addresses

Gonzalo Camarillo
Ericsson
Advanced Signalling Research Lab.
FIN-02420 Jorvas
Finland
electronic mail: Gonzalo.Camarillo@ericsson.com

8 Normative References

[1] J. Rosenberg, H. Schulzrinne, G. Camarillo, A. R. Johnston, J.
Peterson, R. Sparks, M. Handley, and E. Schooler, "SIP: session
initiation protocol," RFC 3261, Internet Engineering Task Force, June
2002.

[2] S. Bradner, "Key words for use in RFCs to indicate requirement
levels," RFC 2119, Internet Engineering Task Force, Mar. 1997.

[3] T. Narten and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for writing an IANA
considerations section in RFCs," RFC 2434, Internet Engineering Task
Force, Oct. 1998.

9 Informative References

The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
intellectual property 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; neither does it represent that it
has made any effort to identify any such rights. Information on the
IETF's procedures with respect to rights in standards-track and
standards-related documentation can be found in BCP-11. Copies of
claims of rights made available for publication 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 implementors or users of this specification can
be obtained from the IETF Secretariat.

The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights which may cover technology that may be required to practice
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF Executive
Director.

Full Copyright Statement

This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published
and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any
kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are
included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this
document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other

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
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
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

Table 1: IANA
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 sub-registry

Internet organizations, except as needed for values shall be
"Specification Required".

For the purpose purposes of
developing Internet standards in which case this registry, the procedures parameter or the parameter
value for
copyrights 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.

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 Internet Standards process must 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

Intellectual Property Statement

The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be
followed, claimed to
pertain to the implementation or as required use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to translate which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; nor does it into languages other than
English.

The limited permissions granted above are perpetual 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 will not BCP 79.

Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
assurances of licenses to be
revoked by made available, or the Internet Society 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 successors attention any
copyrights, patents or assigns. 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 is 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 DISCLAIMS 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 (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.