idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-sip-uri-parameter-reg-01.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** Looks like you're using RFC 2026 boilerplate. This must be updated to follow RFC 3978/3979, as updated by RFC 4748. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** The document seems to lack a 1id_guidelines paragraph about the list of Shadow Directories. == 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 6 pages Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == 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 (November 18, 2003) is 7464 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 2434 (ref. '3') (Obsoleted by RFC 5226) Summary: 3 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 3 warnings (==), 2 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-01.txt 6 November 18, 2003 7 Expires: May 2004 9 The Internet Assigned Number Authority Universal Resource 10 Identifier Parameter Registry for the Session Initiation Protocol 12 STATUS OF THIS MEMO 14 This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with 15 all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026. 17 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 18 Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that 19 other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- 20 Drafts. 22 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 23 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 24 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 25 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress". 27 The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at 28 http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt 30 To view the list Internet-Draft Shadow Directories, see 31 http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. 33 Abstract 35 This document creates an IANA registry for SIP URI and SIPS URI 36 parameters. It also lists the already existing parameters to be used 37 as initial values for that registry. 39 Table of Contents 41 1 Introduction ........................................ 3 42 2 Terminology ......................................... 3 43 3 Use of the Registry ................................. 3 44 4 IANA Considerations ................................. 3 45 4.1 SIP and SIPS URI Parameters Sub-Registry ............ 4 46 4.2 Registration Policy for SIP Request-URI Parameters .. 4 47 5 Security Considerations ............................. 4 48 6 Acknowledgements .................................... 4 49 7 Authors' Addresses .................................. 4 50 8 Normative References ................................ 5 51 9 Informative References .............................. 5 53 1 Introduction 55 RFC3261 [1] allows new SIP URI and SIPS URI parameters to be defined. 56 However, RFC3261 omitted an IANA registry for them. This document 57 creates such a registry. 59 2 Terminology 61 In this document, the key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", 62 "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", 63 and "OPTIONAL" are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [2] and 64 indicate requirement levels for compliant SIP implementations. 66 3 Use of the Registry 68 SIP and SIPS URI parameters MUST be documented in an RFC in order to 69 be registered by IANA. This documentation MUST fully explain the 70 syntax, intended usage, and semantics of the parameter. The intent of 71 this requirement is to assure interoperability between independent 72 implementations, and to prevent accidental namespace collisions 73 between implementations of dissimilar features. 75 RFCs defining SIP URI or SIPS URI parameters MUST register them with 76 IANA as described below. 78 Registered SIP or SIPS URI parameters are to be considered "reserved 79 words". In order to preserve interoperability, registered parameters 80 MUST be used in a manner consistent with that described in their 81 defining RFC. Implementations MUST NOT utilize "private" or "locally 82 defined" URI parameters that conflict with registered parameters. 84 Note that although unregistered SIP and SIPS URI parameters 85 may be used in implementations, developers are cautioned 86 that usage of such parameters is risky. New SIP and SIPS 87 URI parameters may be registered at any time, and there is 88 no assurance that these new registered URI parameters will 89 not conflict with unregistered parameters currently in use. 91 4 IANA Considerations 93 Section 27 of RFC 3261 [1] creates an IANA registry for method names, 94 header field names, warning codes, status codes, and option tags. 95 This specification instructs the IANA to create a new sub-registry 96 under http://www.iana.org/assignments/sip-parameters: 98 o SIP/SIPS URI Parameters 100 4.1 SIP and SIPS URI Parameters Sub-Registry 102 New SIP and SIPS URI parameters are registered by the IANA. When 103 registering a new SIP or SIPS parameter, the following information 104 MUST be provided. 106 o Name of the parameter. 108 o Reference to the RFC defining the parameter 110 Table 1 contains the initial values for this sub-registry. 112 Parameter Name Reference 113 __________________________ 114 comp RFC 3486 115 lr RFC 3261 116 maddr RFC 3261 117 method RFC 3261 118 transport RFC 3261 119 ttl RFC 3261 120 user RFC 3261 122 Table 1: IANA SIP and SIPS URI parameter sub-registry 124 4.2 Registration Policy for SIP Request-URI Parameters 126 As per the terminology in RFC 2434 [3], the registration policy for 127 SIP and SIPS URI parameters shall be "Specification Required". 129 For the purposes of this registry, the parameter for which IANA 130 registration is requested MUST be defined by an RFC. There is no 131 requirement that this RFC be standards-track. 133 5 Security Considerations 135 There are no security considerations associated to this document. 137 6 Acknowledgements 139 Jonathan Rosenberg, Henning Schulzrinne, Rohan Mahy, and Dean Willis 140 provided useful comments. 142 7 Authors' Addresses 144 Gonzalo Camarillo 145 Ericsson 146 Advanced Signalling Research Lab. 147 FIN-02420 Jorvas 148 Finland 149 electronic mail: Gonzalo.Camarillo@ericsson.com 151 8 Normative References 153 [1] J. Rosenberg, H. Schulzrinne, G. Camarillo, A. R. Johnston, J. 154 Peterson, R. Sparks, M. Handley, and E. Schooler, "SIP: session 155 initiation protocol," RFC 3261, Internet Engineering Task Force, June 156 2002. 158 [2] S. Bradner, "Key words for use in RFCs to indicate requirement 159 levels," RFC 2119, Internet Engineering Task Force, Mar. 1997. 161 [3] T. Narten and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for writing an IANA 162 considerations section in RFCs," RFC 2434, Internet Engineering Task 163 Force, Oct. 1998. 165 9 Informative References 167 The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any 168 intellectual property or other rights that might be claimed to 169 pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in 170 this document or the extent to which any license under such rights 171 might or might not be available; neither does it represent that it 172 has made any effort to identify any such rights. Information on the 173 IETF's procedures with respect to rights in standards-track and 174 standards-related documentation can be found in BCP-11. Copies of 175 claims of rights made available for publication and any assurances of 176 licenses to be made available, or the result of an attempt made to 177 obtain a general license or permission for the use of such 178 proprietary rights by implementors or users of this specification can 179 be obtained from the IETF Secretariat. 181 The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any 182 copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary 183 rights which may cover technology that may be required to practice 184 this standard. Please address the information to the IETF Executive 185 Director. 187 Full Copyright Statement 189 Copyright (c) The Internet Society (2003). All Rights Reserved. 191 This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to 192 others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it 193 or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published 194 and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any 195 kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are 196 included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this 197 document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing 198 the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other 199 Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of 200 developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for 201 copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be 202 followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than 203 English. 205 The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be 206 revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns. 208 This document and the information contained herein is provided on an 209 "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING 210 TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING 211 BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION 212 HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF 213 MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.