idnits 2.17.1 draft-camarillo-sipping-consent-format-01.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 3978, Section 5.1 on line 13. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3978, Section 5.5 on line 513. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 1 on line 490. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 2 on line 497. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 3 on line 503. ** 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. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == No 'Intended status' indicated for this document; assuming Proposed Standard Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** There are 2 instances of too long lines in the document, the longest one being 11 characters in excess of 72. 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 12, 2006) is 6528 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 2617 (ref. '2') (Obsoleted by RFC 7235, RFC 7615, RFC 7616, RFC 7617) ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 3325 (ref. '5') == Outdated reference: A later version (-05) exists of draft-ietf-sipping-consent-framework-04 ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational draft: draft-ietf-sipping-consent-framework (ref. '8') == Outdated reference: A later version (-11) exists of draft-ietf-geopriv-common-policy-10 Summary: 7 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 5 warnings (==), 7 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 SIPPING G. Camarillo 2 Internet-Draft Ericsson 3 Expires: December 14, 2006 June 12, 2006 5 A Document Format for Requesting Consent 6 draft-camarillo-sipping-consent-format-01.txt 8 Status of this Memo 10 By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any 11 applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware 12 have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes 13 aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79. 15 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 16 Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that 17 other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- 18 Drafts. 20 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 21 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 22 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 23 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 25 The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at 26 http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. 28 The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at 29 http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. 31 This Internet-Draft will expire on December 14, 2006. 33 Copyright Notice 35 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006). 37 Abstract 39 This document defines an Extensible Markup Language (XML) format for 40 requesting consent. A permission document written in this format 41 asks a recipient for permission to perform a particular translation, 42 which is described in the document. 44 Table of Contents 46 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 47 2. Definitions and Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 48 3. Permission Document Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 49 3.1. Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 50 3.1.1. Identity Condition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 51 3.1.2. Sender Condition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 52 3.1.3. Target Condition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 53 3.2. Actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 54 3.2.1. Translation Handling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 55 4. Example Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 56 5. XML Schema . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 57 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 58 6.1. XML Namespace Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 59 6.2. XML Schema Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 60 7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 61 8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 62 9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 63 9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 64 9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 65 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 66 Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 14 68 1. Introduction 70 The framework for consent-based communications in SIP [8] identifies 71 the need for a format to create permission documents. Such 72 permission documents are used by SIP [3] relays to request permission 73 to perform translations. A relay is defined as any SIP server, be it 74 a proxy, B2BUA (Back-to-Back User Agent), or some hybrid, which 75 receives a request and translates the request URI into one or more 76 next hop URIs to which it then delivers a request. 78 The format for permission documents specified in this document is 79 based on the XML document format for expressing Privacy Preferences 80 [9]. 82 2. Definitions and Terminology 84 In this document, the key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", 85 "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT 86 RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" are to be interpreted as 87 described in BCP 14, RFC 2119 [1] and indicate requirement levels for 88 compliant implementations. 90 Any SIP server, be it a proxy, B2BUA (Back-to-Back User Agent), or 91 some hybrid, that receives a request, translates its Request-URI 92 into one or more next-hop URIs (i.e., recipient URIs), and 93 delivers the request to those URIs. 95 Recipient URI: The Request-URI of an outgoing request sent by an 96 entity (e.g., a user agent or a proxy). The sending of such 97 request may have been the result of a translation operation. 99 Target URI: The Request-URI of an incoming request that arrives to an 100 entity (e.g., a proxy) that will perform a translation operation. 102 Translation operation: Operation by which an entity (e.g., a proxy) 103 translates the request URI of an incoming request (i.e., the 104 target URI) into one or more URIs (i.e., recipient URIs) which are 105 used as the request URIs of one or more outgoing requests. 107 3. Permission Document Structure 109 A permission document is an XML document, formatted according to the 110 schema defined in [9]. Permission documents inherit the MIME type of 111 common policy documents, 'application/auth-policy+xml'. As described 112 in [9], this document is composed of three parts: conditions, 113 actions, and transformations. 115 This section defines the new conditions and actions defined by this 116 specification. This specification does not define any new 117 transformation. 119 3.1. Conditions 121 Note that, as discussed in [9], a permission document applies to a 122 translation if all the expressions in its conditions part evaluate to 123 TRUE. 125 3.1.1. Identity Condition 127 The identity condition, defined in [9], is matched against the 128 recipient URI of a translation. 130 When performing a translation, a relay matches the identity condition 131 of the permission document that was used to request permission for 132 that translation against the destination URI of the outgoing request. 133 When receiving a request granting or denying permissions (e.g., a SIP 134 PUBLISH request as described in [8]), the relay matches the identity 135 condition of the permission document that was used to request 136 permission against the identity of the entity granting or denying 137 permissions (i.e., the sender of the PUBLISH request). 139 The element is defined in [9], which indicates that the 140 specific usages of the framework document need to define details that 141 are protocol and usage specific. In particular, this section defines 142 acceptable means of authentication. 144 The elements and MUST contain a scheme when they 145 appear in a permission document. 147 When used with SIP, a recipient granting or denying a relay 148 permissions is considered authenticated if one of the following 149 techniques is used: 151 SIP Identity [7], as described in [8]. For PUBLISH requests that are 152 authenticated using the SIP Identity mechanism, the identity of 153 the sender of the PUBLISH request is equal to the SIP URI in the 154 From header field of the request, assuming that the signature in 155 the Identity header field has been validated. 157 P-Asserted-Identity [5], as described in [8]. For PUBLISH requests 158 that are authenticated using the P-Asserted-Identity mechanism, 159 the identity of the sender of the PUBLISH request is equal to the 160 P-Asserted-Identity header field of the request. 162 Return Routability Test, as described in [8]. 164 3.1.2. Sender Condition 166 The sender condition is matched against the URI of the sender of the 167 request that is used as input for a translation. Sender conditions 168 can contain the same elements and attributes as identity conditions. 170 When performing a translation, a relay matches the sender condition 171 against the identity of the sender of the incoming request. 173 The following subsections define acceptable means of authentication, 174 the procedure for representing the identity of the sender as a URI, 175 and the procedure for converting an identifier of the form 176 user@domain, present in the 'id' attribute of the and 177 elements, into a URI. 179 3.1.2.1. Acceptable Means of Authentication 181 When used with SIP, a request sent by a sender is considered 182 authenticated if one of the following techniques is used: 184 SIP Digest: the relay authenticates the sender using SIP digest 185 authentication [2]. However, if the anonymous authentication 186 described on page 194 of RFC 3261 [3] is used, the sender is not 187 considered authenticated. 189 Asserted Identity: if a request contains a P-Asserted-ID header field 190 [5] and the request is coming from a trusted element, the sender 191 is considered authenticated. 193 Cryptographically Verified Identity: if a request contains an 194 Identity header field as defined in [7], and it validates the From 195 header field of the request, the request is considered to be 196 authenticated. Note that this is true even if the request 197 contained a From header field of the form 198 sip:anonymous@example.com. As long as the signature verifies that 199 the request legitimately came from this identity, it is considered 200 authenticated. 202 3.1.2.2. Computing a URI for the Sender 204 For requests that are authenticated using SIP Digest, the identity of 205 the sender is set equal to the user and domain part of the SIP 206 Address of Record (AOR) for the user that has authenticated 207 themselves. For example, consider the following "user record" in a 208 database: 210 SIP AOR: sip:alice@example.com 211 digest username: ali 212 digest password: f779ajvvh8a6s6 213 digest realm: example.com 215 If the relay receives a request, challenges it with the realm set to 216 "example.com", and the subsequent request contains an Authorization 217 header field with a username of "ali" and a digest response generated 218 with the password "f779ajvvh8a6s6", the identity used in matching 219 operations is "sip:alice@example.com". 221 For requests that are authenticated using RFC 3325 [5], the identity 222 of the sender is equal to the username and domain parts of the SIP 223 URI in the P-Asserted-ID header field. If there are multiple values 224 for the P-Asserted-ID header field (there can be one sip URI and one 225 tel URI [10]), then each of them is used for the comparisons outlined 226 in [9], and if either of them match a or element, it 227 is considered a match. 229 For requests that are authenticated using the SIP Identity mechanism 230 [7], identity of the sender is equal to the SIP URI in the From 231 header field of the request, assuming that the signature in the 232 Identity header field has been validated. 234 SIP also allows for anonymous requests. If a request is anonymous 235 because the digest challenge/response used the "anonymous" username, 236 the request is considered unauthenticated and will not match the 237 condition. If a request is anonymous because it contains a 238 Privacy header field [4], but still contains a P-Asserted-ID header 239 field, the identity in the P-Asserted-ID header field is still used 240 in the authorization computations; the fact that the request was 241 anonymous has no impact on the identity processing. However, if the 242 request had traversed a trust boundary and the P-Asserted-ID header 243 field and the Privacy header field had been removed, the request will 244 be considered unauthenticated when it arrives at the presence server, 245 and thus not match the condition. Finally, if a request 246 contained an Identity header field that was validated, and the From 247 header field contained a URI of the form sip:anonymous@example.com, 248 then the watcher is considered authenticated, and it will have an 249 identity equal to sip:anonymous@example.com. Had such an identity 250 been placed into a or element, there will be a match. 252 3.1.2.3. Computing a SIP URI from the id Attribute 254 If the or condition does not contain a scheme, 255 conversion of the value in the 'id' attribute to a SIP URI is done 256 trivially. If the characters in the 'id' attribute are valid 257 characters for the user and hostpart components of the SIP URI, a 258 'sip:' is appended to the contents of the 'id' attribute, and the 259 result is the SIP URI. If the characters in the 'id' attribute are 260 not valid for the user and hostpart components of the SIP URI, 261 conversion is not possible. This happens, for example, when the user 262 portion of the 'id' attribute contain UTF-8 characters. 264 3.1.3. Target Condition 266 The target condition is matched against the target URI of a 267 translation. Target conditions can contain the same elements and 268 attributes as identity conditions. 270 When performing a translation, a relay matches the target condition 271 against the destination of the incoming request, which is typically 272 contained in the Request-URI. 274 3.2. Actions 276 The actions in a permission document provide URIs to grant or deny 277 permission to perform the translation described in the document. 279 3.2.1. Translation Handling 281 The provides URIs for a recipient to grant or deny 282 the relay permission to perform a translation. The defined values 283 are: 285 deny: this action tells the relay not to perform the translation. 287 grant: this action tells the server to perform the translation. 289 The 'perm-uri' attribute in the element provides a 290 URI to grant or deny permission to perform a translation. 292 4. Example Document 294 The following permission document is generated by the relay handling 295 'sip:alices-friends@example.com' in order to ask for permission to 296 relay requests sent to that URI to 'sip:bob@example.org'. 298 299 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 grant 319 deny 321 322 323 324 326 5. XML Schema 327 328 336 337 338 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 358 360 6. IANA Considerations 362 This section registers a new XML namespace and a new XML schema per 363 the procedures in [6]. 365 6.1. XML Namespace Registration 367 URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:common-policy 369 Registrant Contact: IETF SIPPING working group, 370 , Gonzalo Camarillo 371 372 XML: 374 BEGIN 375 376 378 379 380 382 Consent Rules Namespace 383 384 385

Namespace for Permission Documents

386

urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:consent-rules

387

See RFCXXXX 388 [NOTE TO IANA/RFC-EDITOR: 389 Please replace XXXX with the RFC number of this 390 specification.].

391 392 393 END 395 6.2. XML Schema Registration 397 URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:schema:common-policy 399 Registrant Contact: IETF SIPPING working group, 400 , Gonzalo Camarillo 401 403 XML: The XML schema to be registered is contained in Section 5. 405 7. Security Considerations 407 Permission documents can reveal sensitive information. Additionally, 408 attackers may attempt to modify them in order to have clients grant 409 or deny permissions different to the ones they think are granting or 410 denying. For this reason, it is RECOMMENDED that relays use strong 411 means for information integrity protection and confidentiality when 412 sending permission documents to clients. 414 The mechanism used for conveying information to clients SHOULD ensure 415 the integrity and confidentially of the information. In order to 416 achieve these, an end-to-end SIP encryption mechanism, such as 417 S/MIME, as described in RFC 3261 [3], SHOULD be used. 419 If strong end-to-end security means (such as above) is not available, 420 it is RECOMMENDED that hop-by-hop security based on TLS and SIPS 421 URIs, as described in [3], is used. 423 8. Acknowledgements 425 Jonathan Rosenberg provided useful ideas on this document. 427 9. References 429 9.1. Normative References 431 [1] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement 432 Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. 434 [2] Franks, J., Hallam-Baker, P., Hostetler, J., Lawrence, S., 435 Leach, P., Luotonen, A., and L. Stewart, "HTTP Authentication: 436 Basic and Digest Access Authentication", RFC 2617, June 1999. 438 [3] Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., Camarillo, G., Johnston, A., 439 Peterson, J., Sparks, R., Handley, M., and E. Schooler, "SIP: 440 Session Initiation Protocol", RFC 3261, June 2002. 442 [4] Peterson, J., "A Privacy Mechanism for the Session Initiation 443 Protocol (SIP)", RFC 3323, November 2002. 445 [5] Jennings, C., Peterson, J., and M. Watson, "Private Extensions 446 to the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) for Asserted Identity 447 within Trusted Networks", RFC 3325, November 2002. 449 [6] Mealling, M., "The IETF XML Registry", BCP 81, RFC 3688, 450 January 2004. 452 [7] Peterson, J. and C. Jennings, "Enhancements for Authenticated 453 Identity Management in the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)", 454 draft-ietf-sip-identity-06 (work in progress), October 2005. 456 [8] Rosenberg, J., "A Framework for Consent-Based Communications in 457 the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)", 458 draft-ietf-sipping-consent-framework-04 (work in progress), 459 March 2006. 461 [9] Schulzrinne, H., "Common Policy: An XML Document Format for 462 Expressing Privacy Preferences", 463 draft-ietf-geopriv-common-policy-10 (work in progress), 464 May 2006. 466 9.2. Informative References 468 [10] Schulzrinne, H., "The tel URI for Telephone Numbers", RFC 3966, 469 December 2004. 471 Author's Address 473 Gonzalo Camarillo 474 Ericsson 475 Hirsalantie 11 476 Jorvas 02420 477 Finland 479 Email: Gonzalo.Camarillo@ericsson.com 481 Intellectual Property Statement 483 The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any 484 Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to 485 pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in 486 this document or the extent to which any license under such rights 487 might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has 488 made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information 489 on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be 490 found in BCP 78 and BCP 79. 492 Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any 493 assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an 494 attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of 495 such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this 496 specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at 497 http://www.ietf.org/ipr. 499 The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any 500 copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary 501 rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement 502 this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at 503 ietf-ipr@ietf.org. 505 Disclaimer of Validity 507 This document and the information contained herein are provided on an 508 "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS 509 OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET 510 ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, 511 INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE 512 INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED 513 WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. 515 Copyright Statement 517 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006). This document is subject 518 to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and 519 except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights. 521 Acknowledgment 523 Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the 524 Internet Society.