idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-sipping-content-indirect-02.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: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == No 'Intended status' indicated for this document; assuming Proposed Standard Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** The document seems to lack an IANA Considerations section. (See Section 2.2 of https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist for how to handle the case when there are no actions for IANA.) ** The document seems to lack separate sections for Informative/Normative References. All references will be assumed normative when checking for downward references. 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 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 (September 23, 2002) is 7885 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 2396 (ref. '3') (Obsoleted by RFC 3986) Summary: 4 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 2 warnings (==), 2 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 SIPPING S. Olson 3 Internet-Draft Microsoft 4 Expires: March 24, 2003 September 23, 2002 6 Requirements for Content Indirection in Session Initiation Protocol 7 (SIP) Messages 8 draft-ietf-sipping-content-indirect-02 10 Status of this Memo 12 This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with 13 all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026. 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 http:// 26 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 March 24, 2003. 33 Copyright Notice 35 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2002). All Rights Reserved. 37 Abstract 39 This specification defines requirements for a mechanism to indirectly 40 specify the content of a SIP message for the purpose of transferring 41 the content via a non-SIP channel. 43 1. Terminology 45 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 46 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 47 document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [1]. 49 2. Introduction 51 The purpose of the Session Initiation Protocol [2] (SIP) is to 52 create, modify, or terminate sessions with one or more participants. 53 SIP messages, like HTTP, are sytnactically composed of a start line, 54 one or more headers, and an optional body. Unlike HTTP, SIP is not 55 designed as a general purpose transport of data. 57 There are numerous reasons why it might be desirable to indirectly 58 specify the content of a SIP message body. For bandwidth limited 59 applications such as cellular wireless, indirection provides a means 60 to annotate the (indirect) content with meta-data which may be used 61 by the recipient to determine whether or not to retrieve the content 62 over the resource limited link. 64 It is also possible that the content size to be transferred might 65 potentially overwhelm intermediate signaling proxies, thereby 66 unnecessarily increasing network latency. For time-sensitive SIP 67 applications, this may be unacceptable. Indirect content can remedy 68 this by moving the transfer of this content out of the SIP signaling 69 network and into a potentially separate data transfer channel. 71 There may also be scenarios where the session related data (body) 72 that needs to be conveyed does not directly reside on the endpoint or 73 User Agent. In such scenarios, it is desirable to have a mechanism 74 whereby the SIP message can contain an indirect reference to the 75 desired content. The receiving party would then use this indirect 76 reference to retrieve the content via a non-SIP transfer channel such 77 as HTTP, FTP, or LDAP. 79 The purpose of content indirection is purely to provide an 80 alternative transport mechanism for SIP MIME body parts. With the 81 exception of the transport mechanism, indirected body parts are 82 equivalent, and should have the same treatment, as in-line body 83 parts. 85 3. Example Use Cases 87 There are several example users of such a content indirection 88 mechanism. These are examples only and are not intended to limit the 89 scope or applicability of the mechanism. 91 3.1 Presence Notification 93 The information carried in a presence document could potentially 94 exceed the recommended size for a SIP (NOTIFY) request, particularly 95 if the document carries aggregated information from multiple 96 endpoints. In such a situation, it would be desirable to send the 97 NOTIFY request with an indirect pointer to the presence document 98 which could then be retrieved by, for example, HTTP. 100 Figure 1: Example information flow for presence notification 102 Watcher Presence Server 103 | | 104 | SUBSCRIBE | 105 |-------------------------->| 106 | 200 OK | 107 |<--------------------------| 108 | | 109 | NOTIFY | 110 |-------------------------->| 111 | 200 OK | 112 |<--------------------------| 113 | | 114 | NOTIFY (w/URI) | 115 |<--------------------------| 116 | 200 | 117 |-------------------------->| 118 | | 119 | HTTP GET | 120 |-------------------------->| 121 | | 122 | application/cpim-pidf+xml | 123 |<--------------------------| 124 | | 126 In this example, the presence server returns an HTTP URI pointing to 127 a presence document on the presence server which the watcher can then 128 fetch using an HTTP GET. 130 3.2 Document Sharing 132 During an instant messaging conversation, a useful service is 133 document sharing wherein one party sends an IM (MESSAGE request) with 134 an indirect pointer to a document which is meant to be rendered by 135 the remote party. Carrying such a document directly in the MESSAGE 136 request is not appropriate for most documents. Furthermore, the 137 document to be shared may reside on a completely independent server 138 from the originating party. 140 Figure 2: Example information flow for document sharing 142 UAC UAS Web Server 143 | | | 144 | MESSAGE w/URI | | 145 |------------------->| | 146 | 200 | | 147 |<-------------------| | 148 | | | 149 | | HTTP GET | 150 | |--------------->| 151 | | image/jpeg | 152 | |<---------------| 153 | | | 155 In this example, a user wishes to exchange a JPEG image that she has 156 stored on her web server with another user she has a IM conversation 157 with. The JPEG is intended to be rendered inline in the IM 158 conversation. The recepient of the MESSAGE request launches a HTTP 159 GET request to the web server to retrieve the JPEG image. 161 4. Requirements 163 It MUST be possible to specify the location of content via a URI 164 [3]. 166 It MUST be possible to specify the disposition of each URI 167 independently. 169 It MUST be possible to label each URI to identify if and when the 170 content referred to by that URI has changed. Applications of this 171 mechanism may send the same URI more than once. The intention of 172 this requirement is to allow the receiving party to determine if 173 the content referenced by the URI has changed without having to 174 actually retrieve that content. Example ways the URI could be 175 labelled include a sequence number, timestamp, version number, 176 etc. 178 It MUST be possible to specify the timespan for which a given URI 179 is valid. This may or may not be the same as the lifetime for the 180 content itself. 182 It MUST be possible for the UAC and the UAS to indicate support of 183 this content indirection mechanism. A fallback mechanism SHOULD 184 be specified in the event that one of the parties is unable to 185 support content indirection. 187 It MUST be possible for the UAC and UAS to negotiate the type of 188 the indirect content when using the content indirection mechanism. 190 It MUST be possible for the UAC and UAS to negotiate support for 191 URI scheme(s) to be used in the content indirection mechanism. 192 This is in addition to the ability to negotiate the content type. 194 It SHOULD be possible to ensure the integrity of the URI when it 195 is received by the remote party. 197 It MUST be possible to process the content indirection without 198 human intervention. 200 It MUST allow for indirect transference of content in any SIP 201 message which would otherwise carry that content as a body. 203 5. Security Considerations 205 Any content indirection mechanism introduces additional security 206 concerns. By its nature, content indirection requires an extra 207 processing step and information transfer. There are a number of 208 potential abuses of a content indirection mechanism: 210 Content indirection allows the initiator to choose an alternative 211 protocol with weaker security or known vulnerabilities for the 212 content transfer. For example, asking the recipient to issue an 213 HTTP request which results in a Basic authentication challenge. 215 Content indirection allows the initiator to ask the recipient to 216 consume additional resources in the information transfer and 217 content processing, potentially creating an avenue for denial of 218 service attacks. For example, an active FTP URL consuming 2 219 connections for every indirect content message. 221 Content indirection could be used as a form of port scanning 222 attack where the indirect content URL is actually a bogus URL 223 pointing to an internal resource of the recipient. The response 224 to the content indirection request could reveal information about 225 open (and vulnerable) ports on these internal resources. 227 A content indirection URL can disclose sensitive information about 228 the initiator such as an internal user name (as part of an HTTP 229 URL) or possibly geolocation information. 231 Fortunately, all of these potential threats can be mitigated through 232 careful screening of both the indirect content URIs that are received 233 as well as those that are sent. The clear requirement is that 234 integrity and potentially privacy protection SHOULD be applied to the 235 content indirection URI(s) in a SIP message. 237 References 239 [1] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement 240 Levels", RFC 2119, March 1997. 242 [2] Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, Camarillo, Johnston, Peterson, 243 Sparks, Handley and Schooler, "SIP: Session Initiation 244 Protocol", RFC 3261, June 2002. 246 [3] Berners-Lee, Fielding and Masinter, "Uniform Resource 247 Identifiers (URI): Generic Syntax", RFC 2396, August 1996. 249 Author's Address 251 Sean Olson 252 Microsoft 253 One Microsoft Way 254 Redmond, WA 98052 255 US 257 Phone: +1-425-707-2846 258 EMail: seanol@microsoft.com 259 URI: http://www.microsoft.com/rtc 261 Full Copyright Statement 263 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2002). All Rights Reserved. 265 This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to 266 others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it 267 or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published 268 and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any 269 kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are 270 included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this 271 document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing 272 the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other 273 Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of 274 developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for 275 copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be 276 followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than 277 English. 279 The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be 280 revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns. 282 This document and the information contained herein is provided on an 283 "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING 284 TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING 285 BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION 286 HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF 287 MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. 289 Acknowledgement 291 Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the 292 Internet Society.