Network Working Group G. Camarillo Request for Comments: 3969 Ericsson Updates: 3427 December 2004 BCP: 99 Category: Best Current Practice
The Internet Assigned Number Authority (IANA) Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) Parameter Registry for the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)
Status of This Memo
This document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices for the Internet Community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004).
Abstract
This document creates an Internet Assigned Number Authority (IANA) registry for the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) and SIPS Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) parameters, and their values. It also lists the already existing parameters to be used as initial values for that registry.
RFC 3261 [1] allows new SIP URI and SIPS URI parameters, and new parameter values to be defined. However, RFC 3261 omitted an IANA registry for them. This document creates such a registry.
RFC 3427 [2] documents the process to extend SIP. This document updates RFC 3427 by specifying how to define and register new SIP and SIP URI parameters and their values.
In this document, the key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14, RFC 2119 [3] and indicate requirement levels for compliant SIP implementations.
SIP and SIPS URI parameters and values for these parameters MUST be documented in a standards-track RFC in order to be registered by IANA. This documentation MUST fully explain the syntax, intended usage, and semantics of the parameter. The intent of this requirement is to assure interoperability between independent implementations, and to prevent accidental namespace collisions between implementations of 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 [2] documents concerns with regards to new SIP extensions which may damage 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 URI, SIPS URI parameters, or parameter values MUST register them with IANA as described below.
Registered SIP and SIPS URI parameters and their values are to be considered "reserved words". In order to preserve interoperability, registered parameters MUST be used in a manner consistent with that described in their defining RFC. Implementations MUST NOT utilize "private" or "locally defined" URI parameters that conflict with registered parameters.
Camarillo Best Current Practice [Page 2]
RFC 3969 IANA URI Parameter Registry for SIP December 2004
Note that although unregistered SIP and SIPS URI parameters may be used in implementations, developers are cautioned that usage of such parameters is risky. New SIP and SIPS URI parameters and new values for them may be registered at any time, and there is no assurance that these new registered URI parameters will not conflict with unregistered parameters currently in use.
Some SIP and SIPS URI parameters only accept a set of predefined parameter values. For example, a parameter indicating the transport protocol in use may only accept the predefined tokens TCP, UDP, and SCTP as valid values. Registering all parameter values for all SIP and SIPS URI parameters of this type would require a large number of subregistries. Instead, we have chosen to register URI parameter values by reference. That is, the entry in the URI parameter registry for a given URI parameter contains references to the RFCs defining new values of that parameter. References to RFCs defining parameter values appear in double brackets in the registry.
So, the SIP and SIPS URI 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.
Section 27 of RFC 3261 [1] creates an IANA registry for method names, header field names, warning codes, status codes, and option tags. This specification creates a new sub-registry under the SIP Parameters registry.
New SIP and SIPS URI parameters and new parameter values are registered by the IANA. When registering a new SIP or SIPS parameter or a new value for a parameter, the following information MUST be provided.
o Name of the parameter.
o Whether the parameter only accepts a set of predefined values.
o Reference to the RFC defining the parameter and to any RFC that defines new values for the parameter. References to RFCs defining parameter values appear in double brackets in the registry.
Camarillo Best Current Practice [Page 3]
RFC 3969 IANA URI Parameter Registry for SIP December 2004
Table 1 contains the initial values for this sub-registry.
Parameter Name Predefined Values Reference ____________________________________________ comp Yes [RFC 3486] lr No [RFC 3261] maddr No [RFC 3261] method Yes [RFC 3261] transport Yes [RFC 3261] ttl No [RFC 3261] user Yes [RFC 3261]
Table 1: IANA SIP and SIPS URI parameter sub-registry
Note that any given parameter name is registered both as a SIP and as a SIPS URI parameter. Still, some parameters may not apply to one of the schemes. We have chosen to register any parameter as both a SIP and SIPS URI parameter anyway to avoid having two parameters with the same name, one applicable to SIP URIs and one to SIPS URIs, but with different semantics. Implementors are urged to read the parameter specifications for a detailed description of the semantics of any parameter.
4.2. Registration Policy for SIP and SIPS URI Parameters
As per the terminology in RFC 2434 [4], the registration policy for SIP and SIPS URI parameters shall be "Specification Required".
For the purposes of this registry, the parameter for which IANA registration is requested MUST be defined by a standards-track RFC.
The registry in this document does not in itself have security considerations. However, as mentioned in RFC 3427, an important reason for the IETF to manage the extensions of SIP is to ensure that all extensions and parameters are able to provide secure usage. The supporting RFC publications for parameter registrations described this specification MUST provide detailed security considerations for them.
[1] 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.
[2] Mankin, A., Bradner, S., Mahy, R., Willis, D., Ott, J., and B. Rosen, "Change Process for the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)", BCP 67, RFC 3427, December 2002.
[3] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[4] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 2434, October 1998.
Author's Address
Gonzalo Camarillo Ericsson Advanced Signalling Research Lab. FIN-02420 Jorvas Finland
EMail: Gonzalo.Camarillo@ericsson.com
Camarillo Best Current Practice [Page 5]
RFC 3969 IANA URI Parameter Registry for SIP December 2004
Full Copyright Statement
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.
This document and the information contained herein 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 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.
Intellectual Property
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any Intellectual Property Rights 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; nor does it 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 BCP 79.
Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat 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 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 attention any copyrights, patents or 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.
Acknowledgement
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the Internet Society.