Marking SIP Messages to be Logged
draft-ietf-insipid-logme-marking-09
The information below is for an old version of the document.
| Document | Type |
This is an older version of an Internet-Draft that was ultimately published as RFC 8497.
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Peter Dawes , Chidambaram Arunachalam | ||
| Last updated | 2018-05-08 (Latest revision 2017-12-19) | ||
| Replaces | draft-dawes-insipid-logme-marking | ||
| RFC stream | Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Reviews | |||
| Additional resources | Mailing list discussion | ||
| Stream | WG state | Submitted to IESG for Publication | |
| Document shepherd | Gonzalo Salgueiro | ||
| Shepherd write-up | Show Last changed 2018-02-11 | ||
| IESG | IESG state | Became RFC 8497 (Proposed Standard) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Yes | ||
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | Ben Campbell | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
draft-ietf-insipid-logme-marking-09
Internet Engineering Task Force P. Dawes
Internet-Draft Vodafone Group
Intended status: Standards Track C. Arunachalam
Expires: June 22, 2018 Cisco Systems
December 19, 2017
Marking SIP Messages to be Logged
draft-ietf-insipid-logme-marking-09
Abstract
SIP networks use signaling monitoring tools to diagnose user reported
problems and for regression testing if network or user agent software
is upgraded. As networks grow and become interconnected, including
connection via transit networks, it becomes impractical to predict
the path that SIP signaling will take between user agents, and
therefore impractical to monitor SIP signaling end-to-end.
This document describes an indicator for the SIP protocol which can
be used to mark signaling as being of interest to logging. Such
marking will typically be applied as part of network testing
controlled by the network operator and not used in normal user agent
signaling. However, such marking can be carried end-to-end including
the originating and terminating SIP user agents, even if a session
originates and terminates in different networks.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
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."
This Internet-Draft will expire on June 22, 2018.
Dawes & Arunachalam Expires June 22, 2018 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft log me marking December 2017
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. "Log Me" Marking Protocol Aspects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1. Session-ID logme Parameter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.2. Starting and Stopping Logging . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.3. Identifying Test Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.4. Passing the Marker . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.4.1. To and From a User Device . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.4.2. To and From an External Network . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.5. Logging Multiple Simultaneous Dialogs . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.6. Format of Logged Signaling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.7. Marking Related Dialogs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.8. Forked Requests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4. SIP Entity Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.1. Endpoints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.2. SIP Intermediaries Acting on Behalf of Endpoints . . . . 12
4.3. B2BUAs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4.4. "Log me" Marker Processing by SIP Intermediaries . . . . 14
4.4.1. Stateless processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
4.4.2. Stateful processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
4.4.2.1. "Log Me" marking not supported by Originating UA 15
4.4.2.2. "Log Me" marking removed by Originating Network . 19
4.4.2.3. "Log Me" marking not supported by Terminating UA 22
4.4.2.4. "Log Me" marking removed by Supporting
Terminating Network . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
4.4.2.5. "Log Me" marking removed by Non-Supporting
Terminating Network . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
5. Error Handling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
5.1. Missing "Log me" Marker in Dialog Being Logged . . . . . 27
5.1.1. Missing "Log me" Marker Error Cases . . . . . . . . . 28
5.2. "Log Me" Marker Appears Mid-Dialog . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Dawes & Arunachalam Expires June 22, 2018 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft log me marking December 2017
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
6.1. "Log Me" Authorization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
6.2. "Log Me" Marker Removal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
6.3. Denial of Service Attacks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
6.4. Privacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
6.4.1. Personal Identifiers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
6.4.2. Data Stored at SIP Intermediaries . . . . . . . . . . 33
6.4.3. Data Visible at Network Elements . . . . . . . . . . 33
6.4.4. Preventing Fingerprinting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
6.4.5. Retaining Logs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
6.4.6. User Control of Logging . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
6.4.7. Recommended Defaults . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
6.5. Data Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
7. Augmented BNF for the "logme" Parameter . . . . . . . . . . . 34
8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
8.1. Registration of the "logme" Parameter . . . . . . . . . . 35
9. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
1. Introduction
When users experience problems with setting up sessions using SIP,
enterprise or service provider network operators need to identify
root cause by examining the SIP signaling. Also, when network or
user agent software or hardware is upgraded, regression testing is
needed. Such diagnostics apply to a small proportion of network
traffic and can apply end-to-end, even if signaling crosses several
networks possibly belonging to several different network operators.
It may not be possible to predict the path through those networks in
advance, therefore a mechanism is needed to mark a session as being
of interest so that SIP entities along the signaling path can provide
diagnostic logging. [RFC8123] illustrates this motivating scenario.
This document describes a solution that meets the requirements for
such 'log me' marking of SIP signaling also defined in [RFC8123].
This document defines a new header field parameter "logme" for the
"Session-ID" header field. Implementations of this document MUST
implement session identity specified in [RFC7989].
2. Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119], except that
rather than describing interoperability requirements, they are used
Dawes & Arunachalam Expires June 22, 2018 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft log me marking December 2017
to describe requirements to be satisfied by the "log me" marking
solution.
3. "Log Me" Marking Protocol Aspects
3.1. Session-ID logme Parameter
Logging is most effective when it is applied end-to-end in a
communication session. This ability requires a "log me" marker to be
passed through SIP intermediaries. The Session-ID header defined in
([RFC7989]) was chosen to carry the "log me" marker as a "log me"
parameter since the session identifier is passed through SIP B2BUAs
or other intermediaries. The "logme" parameter shown in Figure 1
does not introduce any device-specific or user-specific information
and MUST be passed unchanged through SIP B2BUAs or other
intermediaries. (See Section 3.4.2 where this normative behavior may
be relaxed for intermediaries in an external network.)
Alice Proxy Registrar
u1.example.com p1.example.com r1.example.com
| | |
|(1) INVITE | |
| Session-ID: ab30317f1a784dc48ff824d0d3715d86;
| remote=47755a9de7794ba387653f2099600ef2;logme
|----------------->| |
| | |
Figure 1: "Log Me" marking using the "logme" Session-ID header field
parameter
3.2. Starting and Stopping Logging
As indicated in [RFC8123] REQ111, marking starts with a dialog-
initiating request and continues for the lifetime of the dialog, and
applies to each request and response in that dialog.
A user agent or proxy adds a "log me" marker in a request or response
in two cases: firstly because it is configured to do so, or secondly
because it has detected that a dialog is being "log me" marked,
causing it to maintain state to ensure that all requests and
responses in the dialog are similarly "log me" marked. Once the "log
me" marking is started for a dialog, all subsequent requests and
responses in this dialog are "log me" marked and marking is stopped
when this dialog and it's related dialogs end. It is considered an
error if "log me" marking is started in a mid-dialog request or
response.
Dawes & Arunachalam Expires June 22, 2018 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft log me marking December 2017
If a request or response is "log me" marked, then all re-
transmissions of the request or response MUST be similarly "log me"
marked. Likewise, re-transmissions of a request or response that was
not "log me" marked MUST NOT be "log me" marked.
For the first case, "log me" marking trigger condition configurations
that define whether a user agent or proxy can initiate "log me"
marking for a given dialog is out of scope of this document. As
example trigger condition configurations, the user agent or proxy
could be configured to add a "log me" marker for all dialogs
initiated during a specific time period (e.g., 9:00 am - 10:00 am
every day), for specific dialogs that have a particular "User-Agent"
header value, or for a specific set of called party numbers for which
users are experiencing call setup failures.
For the second case of a user agent or proxy detecting that a dialog-
initiating request is being "log me" marked, the scope of such
marking extends to the lifetime of the dialog. In addition, as
discussed in Section 3.7, "log me" marked dialogs that create related
dialogs (REFER) may transfer the marking to the related dialogs. In
such cases, the entire "session", identified by the Session-ID
header, is "log me" marked.
3.3. Identifying Test Cases
The local Universally Unique Identifier (UUID) portion of Session-ID
[RFC7989] in the initial SIP request of a dialog is used as a random
test case identifier. This provides the ability to collate all
logged SIP requests and responses to the initial SIP request in a
dialog or standalone transaction.
3.4. Passing the Marker
3.4.1. To and From a User Device
When a user device inserts the "log me" marker, the marker MUST be
passed unchanged in the Session-ID header across an edge proxy or a
B2BUA adjacent to the user device.
3.4.2. To and From an External Network
An external network is a peer network connected at a network boundary
as defined in [RFC8123].
External networks may be connected directly or via a peering network
and such networks SHOULD have specific connection agreements.
Whether "log me" marking is removed depends upon the policy applied
at the network to network interface. Peer networks SHOULD endeavor
Dawes & Arunachalam Expires June 22, 2018 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft log me marking December 2017
to make agreements to pass "log me" marking unchanged. However,
since a "log me" marker may cause a SIP entity to log the SIP header
and body of a request or response, if no agreement exists between
peer networks then the "log me" marker MUST be removed at a network
boundary.
3.5. Logging Multiple Simultaneous Dialogs
An originating or terminating user agent and SIP entities on the
signaling path can log multiple SIP dialogs simultaneously. These
dialogs are differentiated by their test case identifier (the local
UUID of the Session-ID header field at the originating device).
3.6. Format of Logged Signaling
The entire SIP message (SIP headers and message body) MUST be logged.
Logging SHOULD use common standard formats such as the SIP CLF
defined in [RFC6873] and Libpcap. If SIP CLF format is used, the
entire message is logged using Vendor-ID = 00000000 and Tag = 02 in
the <OptionalFields> portion of the SIP CLF record (see [RFC6873]
clause 4.4). Header fields SHOULD be logged in the form in which
they appear in the message, they SHOULD NOT be converted between long
and compact forms described in [RFC3261] clause 7.3.3.
3.7. Marking Related Dialogs
"Log me" marking is done per-dialog and typically begins at dialog
creation and ends when the dialog ends. However, dialogs related to
a "log me" marked dialog MAY also be "log me" marked. An example is
call transfer described in section 6.1 of [RFC5589] and the logged
signalling for related dialogs can be correlated using Session-ID
values as described in section 10.9 of [RFC7989].
In the example shown in Figure 2 below, Alice has reported problems
making call transfers. Her terminal is configured to log signalling
and the network administrator Bob, who is troubleshooting the
problem, arranges to make a call that Alice can attempt to transfer.
Bob calls Alice, which creates initial dialog1, and then Alice
transfers the call to connect Bob to Carol. Logged signalling is
correlated using the test case identifier, which is the local UUID
ab30317f1a784dc48ff824d0d3715d86 in the Session-ID header field of
INVITE request F1. Logging by Alice's terminal begins when it
receives and echoes the "logme" marker in INVITE F1 and ends when the
last request or response in the dialog is sent or received (200 OK F7
of dialog1). Also during dialog1, Alice's terminal logs related
REFER dialog2 that it initiates and terminates as part of the call
transfer. Both dialog1 and dialog2 have the same test case
identifier.
Dawes & Arunachalam Expires June 22, 2018 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft log me marking December 2017
Logging by Bob's terminal begins when it sends INVITE F1, which
includes the "logme" marker, and ends when dialog3, initiated by Bob,
ends. Logging by Carol's terminal begins when it receives the INVITE
F5 with the "log me" marker and ends when dialog3 ends.
dialog3 is not logged by Alice's terminal, however the test case
identifier ab30317f1a784dc48ff824d0d3715d86 is also the test case
identifier local-uuid) in INVITE F5. Also, the test case identifier
of dialog2, which is logged by Alice's terminal, can be linked to
dialog1 and dialog3 because the remote-uuid component of dialog2 is
the test case identifier ab30317f1a784dc48ff824d0d3715d86.
F1 - Bob's UA inserts "logme" parameter in the Session-ID header of
the INVITE request that creates dialog1.
F3 - Alice's UA inserts "logme" parameter in the Session-ID header of
the REFER request that creates dialog2 which is related to dialog1.
F5 - Bob's UA inserts "logme" parameter in the Session-ID header of
the INVITE request that creates dialog3 which is related to dialog1.
Dawes & Arunachalam Expires June 22, 2018 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft log me marking December 2017
Alice Bob Carol
Transferor Transferee Transfer
| | Target
| INVITE F1 | |
dialog1 |<-------------------| |
| 200 OK F2 | |
dialog1 |------------------->| |
| ACK | |
dialog1 |<-------------------| |
| INVITE (hold) | |
dialog1 |------------------->| |
| 200 OK | |
dialog1 |<-------------------| |
| ACK | |
dialog1 |------------------->| |
| REFER F3 (Target-Dialog:1) |
dialog2 |------------------->| |
| 202 Accepted | |
dialog2 |<-------------------| |
| NOTIFY (100 Trying) F4 |
dialog2 |<-------------------| |
| 200 OK | |
dialog2 |------------------->| |
| | INVITE F5 |
dialog3 | |------------------->|
| | 200 OK |
dialog3 | |<-------------------|
| | ACK |
dialog3 | |------------------->|
| NOTIFY (200 OK) F6| |
dialog2 |<-------------------| |
| 200 OK | |
dialog2 |------------------->| |
| BYE | |
dialog1 |------------------->| |
| 200 OK F7 | |
dialog1 |<-------------------| |
| | BYE |
dialog3 | |<-------------------|
| | 200 OK |
dialog3 | |------------------->|
Figure 2: "Log me" marking related dialogs in call transfer
F1 INVITE Transferee -> Transferor
Dawes & Arunachalam Expires June 22, 2018 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft log me marking December 2017
INVITE sips:transferor@atlanta.example.com SIP/2.0
Via: SIP/2.0/TLS 192.0.2.4;branch=z9hG4bKnas432
Max-Forwards: 70
To: <sips:transferor@atlanta.example.com>
From: <sips:transferee@biloxi.example.com>;tag=7553452
Call-ID: 090459243588173445
Session-ID: ab30317f1a784dc48ff824d0d3715d86
;remote=00000000000000000000000000000000;logme
CSeq: 29887 INVITE
Allow: INVITE, ACK, CANCEL, OPTIONS, BYE, REFER, NOTIFY
Supported: replaces, gruu, tdialog
Contact: <sips:3ld812adkjw@biloxi.example.com;gr=3413kj2ha>
Content-Type: application/sdp
Content-Length: ...
F2 200 OK Transferor -> Transferee
SIP/2.0 200 OK
Via: SIP/2.0/TLS 192.0.2.4;branch=z9hG4bKnas432
To: <sips:transferor@atlanta.example.com>;tag=31kdl4i3k
From: <sips:transferee@biloxi.example.com>;tag=7553452
Call-ID: 090459243588173445
Session-ID: 47755a9de7794ba387653f2099600ef2
;remote=ab30317f1a784dc48ff824d0d3715d86;logme
CSeq: 29887 INVITE
Allow: INVITE, ACK, CANCEL, OPTIONS, BYE, REFER, NOTIFY
Supported: replaces, gruu, tdialog
Contact: <sips:4889445d8kjtk3@atlanta.example.com;gr=723jd2d>
Content-Type: application/sdp
Content-Length: ...
F3 REFER Transferor -> Transferee
REFER sips:3ld812adkjw@biloxi.example.com;gr=3413kj2ha SIP/2.0
Via: SIP/2.0/TLS pc33.atlanta.example.com;branch=z9hG4bKna9
Max-Forwards: 70
To: <sips:3ld812adkjw@biloxi.example.com;gr=3413kj2ha>
From: <sips:transferor@atlanta.example.com>;tag=1928301774
Call-ID: a84b4c76e66710
Session-ID: 47755a9de7794ba387653f2099600ef2
;remote=ab30317f1a784dc48ff824d0d3715d86;logme
CSeq: 314159 REFER
Allow: INVITE, ACK, CANCEL, OPTIONS, BYE, REFER, NOTIFY
Supported: gruu, replaces, tdialog
Require: tdialog
Refer-To: <sips:transfertarget@chicago.example.com>
Dawes & Arunachalam Expires June 22, 2018 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft log me marking December 2017
Target-Dialog: 090459243588173445;local-tag=7553452
;remote-tag=31kdl4i3k
Contact: <sips:4889445d8kjtk3@atlanta.example.com;gr=723jd2d>
Content-Length: 0
F4 NOTIFY Transferee -> Transferor
NOTIFY sips:4889445d8kjtk3@atlanta.example.com;gr=723jd2d SIP/2.0
Via: SIP/2.0/TLS 192.0.2.4;branch=z9hG4bKnas432
Max-Forwards: 70
To: <sips:transferor@atlanta.example.com>;tag=1928301774
From: <sips:3ld812adkjw@biloxi.example.com;gr=3413kj2ha>
;tag=a6c85cf
Call-ID: a84b4c76e66710
Session-ID: ab30317f1a784dc48ff824d0d3715d86
;remote=47755a9de7794ba387653f2099600ef2;logme
CSeq: 73 NOTIFY
Contact: <sips:3ld812adkjw@biloxi.example.com;gr=3413kj2ha>
Allow: INVITE, ACK, CANCEL, OPTIONS, BYE, REFER, NOTIFY
Supported: replaces, tdialog
Event: refer
Subscription-State: active;expires=60
Content-Type: message/sipfrag
Content-Length: ...
F5 INVITE Transferee -> Transfer Target
INVITE sips:transfertarget@chicago.example.com SIP/2.0
Via: SIP/2.0/TLS 192.0.2.4;branch=z9hG4bKnas41234
Max-Forwards: 70
To: <sips:transfertarget@chicago.example.com>
From: <sips:transferee@biloxi.example.com>;tag=j3kso3iqhq
Call-ID: 90422f3sd23m4g56832034
Session-ID: ab30317f1a784dc48ff824d0d3715d86
;remote=00000000000000000000000000000000;logme
CSeq: 521 REFER
Allow: INVITE, ACK, CANCEL, OPTIONS, BYE, REFER, NOTIFY
Supported: replaces, gruu, tdialog
Contact: <sips:3ld812adkjw@biloxi.example.com;gr=3413kj2ha>
Content-Type: application/sdp
Content-Length: ...
F6 NOTIFY Transferee -> Transferor
NOTIFY sips:4889445d8kjtk3@atlanta.example.com;gr=723jd2d SIP/2.0
Dawes & Arunachalam Expires June 22, 2018 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft log me marking December 2017
Via: SIP/2.0/TLS 192.0.2.4;branch=z9hG4bKnas432
Max-Forwards: 70
To: <sips:transferor@atlanta.example.com>;tag=1928301774
From: <sips:3ld812adkjw@biloxi.example.com;gr=3413kj2ha>
;tag=a6c85cf
Call-ID: a84b4c76e66710
Session-ID: ab30317f1a784dc48ff824d0d3715d86
;remote=47755a9de7794ba387653f2099600ef2;logme
CSeq: 74 NOTIFY
Contact: <sips:3ld812adkjw@biloxi.example.com;gr=3413kj2ha>
Allow: INVITE, ACK, CANCEL, OPTIONS, BYE, REFER, NOTIFY
Supported: replaces, tdialog
Event: refer
Subscription-State: terminated;reason=noresource
Content-Type: message/sipfrag
Content-Length: ...
3.8. Forked Requests
The "log me" marker MUST be copied into forked requests.
4. SIP Entity Behavior
"Log me" marking is initiated on a dialog creating side controlled by
configuration. The dialog terminating side detects an incoming "log
me" marker and reacts accordingly.
4.1. Endpoints
A common scenario is to have both originating and terminating
endpoints support "log me" marking specification with the originating
endpoint configured to initiate "log me" marking. In this simplest
use case, the originating user agent inserts a "log me" marker in the
dialog-creating SIP request and all subsequent SIP requests within
that dialog. The "log me" marker is passed through the SIP
intermediaries and arrives at the terminating user agent which echoes
the "log me" marker in the corresponding responses. If the
terminating user agent sends an in-dialog request on a dialog that is
being "log me" marked, it inserts a "log me" marker and the
originating user agent echoes the "log me" marker in responses. The
terminating user agent logs the "log me" marked SIP requests and
responses if it is allowed as per policy defined in the termination
network. This basic use case suggests the following principles:
Dawes & Arunachalam Expires June 22, 2018 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft log me marking December 2017
o The originating user agent configured for "log me" marking MUST
insert a "log me" marker into the dialog-creating SIP request and
subsequent in-dialog SIP requests.
o The originating user agent itself logs signaling.
o The terminating user agent detects that a dialog is of interest to
logging by the existence of a "log me" marker in an incoming
dialog-creating SIP request.
o The terminating user agent itself logs marked requests and
corresponding responses if allowed as per policy.
o The terminating user agent MUST echo a "log me" marker in
responses to a SIP request that included a "log me" marker.
o If the terminating user agent has detected that a dialog is being
"log me" marked, it MUST insert a "log me" marker in any in-dialog
SIP requests that it sends.
o The terminating user agent itself logs any in-dialog SIP requests
that it sends if allowed as per policy.
o The originating user agent echoes, in responses, the "log me"
marker received in in-dialog requests from the terminating side.
o The originating user agent logs the SIP responses that it sends in
response to received "log me" marked in-dialog requests.
4.2. SIP Intermediaries Acting on Behalf of Endpoints
A network operator may know that some of the user agents connected to
the network do not support "log me" marking. In order to test
sessions involving such user agents, the SIP intermediary closest to
the user agent (e.g. edge proxies, B2BUA) on the originating and
terminating sides insert the "log me" marker instead. If the
terminating user agent does not echo this "log me" marker in
responses to that request then the the SIP intermediary closest to
the terminating user agent inserts a "log me" marker in responses to
the request. Likewise, if the terminating user agent sends an in-
dialog request, the SIP intermediary at the termination side inserts
a "log me" marker and the SIP intermediary at the origination side
echoes the "log me" marker in responses to that request. The SIP
intermediary at the terminating side logs the "log me" marked SIP
requests and responses if it is allowed as per policy defined in the
termination network. The originating SIP intermediary is the first
one to be traversed by a SIP request sent by the originating
endpoint. Similarly, the terminating SIP intermediary is last
Dawes & Arunachalam Expires June 22, 2018 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft log me marking December 2017
intermediary traversed before the terminating endpoint is reached.
The originating and terminating SIP intermediaries are designated and
explicitly configured by the network administrator to "log me" mark
on behalf of endpoints. The intermediaries that are known to be
closest to the terminals can be configured to "log me" mark on behalf
of terminals that do not support "log me" marking. This scenario
suggests the following principles when a SIP intermediary is
configured to initiate or handle "log me" marking on behalf of a user
agent:
o The originating SIP intermediary MUST insert a "log me" marker
into the dialog-creating SIP request and subsequent in-dialog SIP
requests.
o The originating SIP intermediary itself logs signaling.
o The terminating SIP intermediary detects that a dialog is of
interest to logging by the existence of a "log me" marker in an
incoming dialog-creating SIP request.
o The terminating SIP intermediary itself logs marked requests and
corresponding responses if allowed as per policy.
o The terminating SIP intermediary MUST echo a "log me" marker in
responses to a SIP request that included a "log me" marker.
o If terminating SIP intermediary has detected that a dialog is
being "log me" marked, it MUST insert a "log me" marker in any in-
dialog SIP requests from the terminating user agent.
o The terminating SIP intermediary itself logs any in-dialog SIP
requests that it sends if allowed as per policy.
o The originating SIP intermediary detects the "log me" marker
received in in-dialog requests and echoes the "log me" marker in
the corresponding SIP responses.
o The originating SIP intermediary logs the SIP responses that it
sends in response to "log me" marked in-dialog requests.
4.3. B2BUAs
B2BUA "log me" behavior is specified based on its different signaling
plane roles described in [RFC7092].
A Proxy-B2BUA SHOULD copy "log me" marking in requests and responses
from its terminating to the originating side without needing explicit
configuration to do so.
Dawes & Arunachalam Expires June 22, 2018 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft log me marking December 2017
A dialog on one "side" of the B2BUA may or may not be coupled to a
related dialog on the other "side" for "log me" purposes. To allow
end-to-end troubleshooting of user problems and regression testing, a
signaling-only and SDP-modifying signaling-only B2BUA [RFC7092]
SHOULD couple related dialogs for "log me" marking purposes and pass
on the received "log me" parameter from the originating side to
terminating side and vice versa. For example, a SIP B2BUA handling
end-to-end session between an external caller and an agent in a
contact center environment can couple the dialog between itself and
an agent with the dialog between itself and external caller and pass
on the "log me" marking from originating side to terminating side to
enable end-to-end logging of specific sessions of interest.
For dialogs that are being "log me" marked, all B2BUAs MUST "log me"
mark in-dialog SIP requests that they generate on their own, without
needing explicit configuration to do so. This rule applies to both
the originating and terminating sides of a B2BUA.
4.4. "Log me" Marker Processing by SIP Intermediaries
4.4.1. Stateless processing
Typically, "log me" marking will be done by an originating UA and
echoed by a terminating UA. Any SIP intermediary on the signalling
path between these UAs MAY be stateless and simply log any SIP
request or response that contains a "log me" marker, if configured to
do so.
4.4.2. Stateful processing
It is possible that some or all user agents connected to a SIP
network do not support "log me" marking, or that "log me" marking is
removed from SIP messages by the originating or terminating network.
These scenarios require SIP intermediaries to maintain state to
enable "log me" marking:
o The originating UA does not support "log me" marking.
o The originating network removes "log me" marking from SIP requests
and responses before forwarding them from its network edge to
external network.
o The terminating UA does not support "log me" marking.
o The terminating network removes "log me" marking from SIP requests
and responses received from its network edge to internal network.
Dawes & Arunachalam Expires June 22, 2018 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft log me marking December 2017
The sections below illustrate SIP intermediary behavior in these
scenarios using [RFC3665] example call flow "Session Establishment
Through Two Proxies".
4.4.2.1. "Log Me" marking not supported by Originating UA
Alice's user agent does not support "log me" marking and hence Proxy
1 which is the SIP intermediary closest to Alice is configured to act
on behalf of Alice's user agent to "log me" mark dialogs created by
Alice.
In Figure 3 below, Proxy 1 in the originating network maintains state
of which dialogs are being logged in order to "log me" mark all SIP
requests and responses that it receives from Alice's user agent
before forwarding them to Proxy 2.
Dawes & Arunachalam Expires June 22, 2018 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft log me marking December 2017
[ NETWORK A ] [ NETWORK B ]
Alice Proxy 1 Proxy 2 Bob
| | | |
| INVITE F1 | | |
| (no logme) | | |
|--------------->| | |
| | INVITE F2 | |
| | (logme) | |
| |--------------->| |
| | | |
| | | |
| 100 F3 | | INVITE F4 |
| (logme) | | (logme) |
|<---------------| 100 F5 |--------------->|
| | (logme) | |
| |<---------------| |
| | | 180 F6 |
| | | (logme) |
| | 180 F7 |<---------------|
| | (logme) | |
| 180 F8 |<---------------| |
| (logme) | | |
|<---------------| | 200 F9 |
| | | (logme) |
| | 200 F10 |<---------------|
| | (logme) | |
| 200 F11 |<---------------| |
| (logme) | | |
|<---------------| | |
| ACK F12 | | |
| (no logme) | | |
|--------------->| | |
| | | |
| | ACK F13 | |
| | (logme) | |
| |--------------->| |
| | | |
| | | ACK F14 |
| | | (logme) |
| | |--------------->|
| Both Way RTP Media |
|<================================================>|
| | | BYE F15 |
| | | (logme) |
| | BYE F16 |<---------------|
| | (logme) | |
| BYE F17 |<---------------| |
| (logme) | | |
Dawes & Arunachalam Expires June 22, 2018 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft log me marking December 2017
|<---------------| | |
| 200 F18 | | |
| (no logme) | | |
|--------------->| | |
| | 200 F19 | |
| | (logme) | |
| |--------------->| |
| | | |
| | | 200 F20 |
| | | (logme) |
| | |--------------->|
| | | |
Figure 3: Case 1: The originating UA does not support "log me"
marking
F1 - Alice's UA does not insert a "log me" marker in the dialog-
creating INVITE request F1. Nevertheless, Proxy 1 is configured to
initiate logging on behalf of Alice. Proxy 1 logs INVITE request F1
and maintains state that this dialog is being logged.
F2 - Proxy 1 inserts a "log me" marker in INVITE request F2 before
forwarding it to Proxy 2 and also logs this request.
F3 - Proxy 1 inserts a "log me" marker in 100 response F3 before
forwarding it to Alice's UA since this is a response sent on a dialog
that is being "log me" marked and also logs this response.
F4 - Bob's UA detects the "log me" marker and logs the INVITE request
F4 if allowed as per policy.
F6 - Bob's UA echoes the "log me" marker in INVITE request F4 into
180 response F6. It logs this response if allowed as per policy.
F7 and F8 - Proxy 1 logs the received the "180" response F7 and
passes the "log me" marker to Alice's UA in F8.
F12 - Proxy 1 receives ACK with with no "log me" marker. It doesn't
consider this as an error since it is configured to "log me" mark on
behalf of Bob's UA.
F13 - Proxy 1 inserts a "log me" marker in ACK request F13 before
forwarding it to Proxy 2 and also logs this request.
Dawes & Arunachalam Expires June 22, 2018 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft log me marking December 2017
F15 - Bob's UA inserts a "log me" marker in the in-dialog BYE request
and this "log me" marker is carried back to Alice's UA in F16 and
F17. Bob's UA logs this request if allowed as per policy.
F18 - Alice's UA does not echo the "log me" marker from BYE request
F17 into 200 response F18.
F19 - Proxy 1 inserts a "log me" marker in 200 response F19 before
forwarding it to Proxy 2 and also logs this response.
4.4.2.1.1. Missing "Log me" Marker Non-Error Cases
The following figure illustrates a non-error case.
Figure 4 shows Proxy 2 receiving a response with no "log me" marker
that is not an error case. Proxy 2 is configured by network B to
perform "log me" marking on behalf of Bob's UA, which does not
support "log me" marking. Proxy 2 does not therefore expect
responses from Bob to include a "log me" marker.
Dawes & Arunachalam Expires June 22, 2018 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft log me marking December 2017
[ NETWORK A ] [ NETWORK B ]
Alice Proxy 1 Proxy 2 Bob
| | | |
| INVITE F1 | | |
| (log me) | | |
|--------------->| | |
| | INVITE F2 | |
| | (log me) | |
| |--------------->| |
| | | |
| | | |
| 100 F3 | | |
| (log me) | | |
|<---------------| | |
| | | INVITE F4 |
| | | (log me) |
| | 100 F5 |--------------->|
| | (log me) | |
| |<---------------| |
| | | 180 F6 |
| | | (no log me) |
| | |<---------------|
| | 180 F7 | |
| | (log me) | |
| |<---------------| |
| | | |
Figure 4: Non-error case: missing "log me" marker
F2 - Proxy 2 detects the "log me" marker and maintains state that
this dialog is to be logged. Proxy 2 inserts "log me" markers on
behalf of Bob's user agent such as in F7.
F6 - Proxy 2 detects that the "log me" marker is missing from the
response but considers "log me" marking to be ongoing as a marker was
not expected.
F7 - Proxy 2 continues to "log me" mark requests and responses on
behalf of Bob's user agent.
4.4.2.2. "Log Me" marking removed by Originating Network
If network A in Figure 5 below is performing testing independently of
network B then network A removes "log me" marking from SIP requests
and responses forwarded to network B to prevent triggering unintended
logging in network B. Proxy 1 removes "log me" marking from requests
Dawes & Arunachalam Expires June 22, 2018 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft log me marking December 2017
and responses that it forwards to Proxy 2 and maintains state of
which dialogs are being "log me" marked in order to "log me" mark
requests and responses that it forwards from Proxy 2 to Alice's user
agent. For troubleshooting purposes, Proxy 1 MAY also log the
requests and responses sent to or received from Proxy 2 even though
it removed "log me" marker prior to forwarding the messages to Proxy
2.
[ NETWORK A ] [ NETWORK B ]
Alice Proxy 1 Proxy 2 Bob
| | | |
| INVITE F1 | | |
| (logme) | | |
|--------------->| | |
| | INVITE F2 | |
| | (no logme) | |
| |--------------->| |
| | | |
| | | |
| 100 F3 | | |
| (logme) | | INVITE F4 |
| | | (no logme) |
|<---------------| 100 F5 |--------------->|
| | (no logme) | |
| |<---------------| |
| | | 180 F6 |
| | | (no logme) |
| | 180 F7 |<---------------|
| | (no logme) | |
| 180 F8 |<---------------| |
| (logme) | | |
|<---------------| | 200 F9 |
| | | (no logme) |
| | 200 F10 |<---------------|
| | (no logme) | |
| 200 F11 |<---------------| |
| (logme) | | |
|<---------------| | |
| ACK F12 | | |
| (logme) | | |
|--------------->| | |
| | | |
| | ACK F13 | |
| | (no logme) | |
| |--------------->| |
| | | |
| | | ACK F14 |
| | | (no logme) |
Dawes & Arunachalam Expires June 22, 2018 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft log me marking December 2017
| | |--------------->|
| Both Way RTP Media |
|<================================================>|
| | | BYE F15 |
| | | (no logme) |
| | BYE F16 |<---------------|
| | (no logme) | |
| BYE F17 |<---------------| |
| (logme) | | |
|<---------------| | |
| 200 F18 | | |
| (logme) | | |
|--------------->| | |
| | 200 F19 | |
| | (no logme) | |
| |--------------->| |
| | | |
| | | 200 F20 |
| | | (no logme) |
| | |--------------->|
| | | |
Figure 5: Case 2: The originating network removes "log me" marking
from outgoing SIP messages at its network edge.
F1 - Alice's UA inserts a "log me" marker in the dialog-creating
INVITE request and Proxy 1 therefore maintains state that this dialog
is to be logged.
F2 - Proxy 1 removes "log me" marking from INVITE request before
forwarding it to Proxy 2. Proxy 1 logs INVITE request F2.
F3 - Proxy 1 inserts a "log me" marker in 100 response sent to
Alice's user agent and logs this response.
F8 - Proxy 1 inserts a "log me" marker in 180 response before
forwarding it to Alice's user agent and logs this response. The same
applies to responses F11, F17.
F13 - Proxy 1 removes "log me" marking from ACK request and logs this
request before forwarding it to Proxy 2.
F19 - Proxy 1 removes "log me" marking from the 200 response of the
BYE request and logs this response before forwarding it to Proxy 2.
Dawes & Arunachalam Expires June 22, 2018 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft log me marking December 2017
4.4.2.3. "Log Me" marking not supported by Terminating UA
In Figure 6 below Bob's UA does not support "log me" marking, so
Proxy 2 in the terminating network maintains state to ensure "log me"
marking of SIP requests and responses from Bob's UA.
[ NETWORK A ] [ NETWORK B ]
Alice Proxy 1 Proxy 2 Bob
| | | |
| INVITE F1 | | |
| (log me) | | |
|--------------->| | |
| | INVITE F2 | |
| | (log me)
| |--------------->| |
| | | |
| | | |
| 100 F3 | | |
| (log me) | | |
|<---------------| | |
| | | INVITE F4 |
| | | (log me) |
| | 100 F5 |--------------->|
| | (log me) | |
| |<---------------| |
| | | 180 F6 |
| | | (no log me) |
| | |<---------------|
| | | |
| | | |
| | 180 F7 | |
| | (log me) | |
| |<---------------| |
| | | |
| | | |
| 180 F8 | | |
| (log me) | | |
|<---------------| | 200 F9 |
| | | (no log me) |
| | 200 F10 |<---------------|
| | (log me) | |
| 200 F11 |<---------------| |
| (log me) | | |
|<---------------| | |
| ACK F12 | | |
| (log me) | | |
|--------------->| | |
| | ACK F13 | |
Dawes & Arunachalam Expires June 22, 2018 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft log me marking December 2017
| | (log me) | |
| |--------------->| ACK F14 |
| | | (log me) |
| | |--------------->|
| Both Way RTP Media |
|<================================================>|
| | | BYE F15 |
| | | (no log me) |
| | BYE F16 |<---------------|
| | (log me) | |
| BYE F17 |<---------------| |
| (log me) | | |
|<---------------| | |
| 200 F18 | | |
| (log me) | | |
|--------------->|
| | 200 F19 | |
| | (log me) | |
| |--------------->| 200 F20 |
| | | (log me) |
| | |--------------->|
| | | |
Figure 6: Case 3: The terminating UA does not support "log me"
marking.
F1 - Alice's UA inserts a "log me" marker in the the dialog-creating
INVITE request F1.
F2 - INVITE F2 is "log me" marked and Proxy 2 therefore maintains
state that this dialog is to be logged. Proxy 2 logs the request and
responses of this dialog if allowed per policy.
F5 - Proxy 2 inserts a "log me" marker in the 100 response it sends
to Proxy 1.
F6 - Bob's UA does not support "log me" marking, therefore the 180
response to the INVITE request doesn't have a "log me" marker.
F7 - Proxy 2 inserts a "log me" marker in the 180 response on behalf
of Bob's UA before forwarding it. The same applies to response F10
and the BYE request in F16.
Dawes & Arunachalam Expires June 22, 2018 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft log me marking December 2017
4.4.2.4. "Log Me" marking removed by Supporting Terminating Network
In Figure 7 below Proxy 2 removes "log me" marking from all SIP
requests and responses entering network B. However, Proxy 2 supports
maintains the marking state of the dialog and "log me" marks requests
and responses that it sends towards Proxy 1. For troubleshooting
purposes, Proxy 2 MAY also log the requests and responses received
from or sent to Bob even though it removed "log me" marker prior to
forwarding the messages to Bob.
[ NETWORK A ] [ NETWORK B ]
Alice Proxy 1 Proxy 2 Bob
| | | |
| INVITE F1 | | |
| (log me) | | |
|--------------->| | |
| | INVITE F2 | |
| | (log me) | |
| |--------------->| |
| | | |
| | | |
| 100 F3 | | |
| (log me) | | |
|<---------------| | |
| | | INVITE F4 |
| | | (no log me) |
| | 100 F5 |--------------->|
| | (log me) | |
| |<---------------| |
| | | 180 F6 |
| | | (no log me) |
| | |<---------------|
| | 180 F7 | |
| | (log me) | |
| |<---------------| |
| | | |
| | | |
| 180 F8 | | |
| (log me) | | |
|<---------------| | 200 F9 |
| | | (no log me) |
| | 200 F10 |<---------------|
| | (log me) | |
| 200 F11 |<---------------| |
| (log me) | | |
|<---------------| | |
| ACK F12 | | |
Dawes & Arunachalam Expires June 22, 2018 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft log me marking December 2017
| (log me) | | |
|--------------->| | |
| | ACK F13 | |
| | (log me) | |
| |--------------->| ACK F14 |
| | | (no log me) |
| | |--------------->|
| Both Way RTP Media |
|<================================================>|
| | | BYE F15 |
| | | (no log me) |
| | BYE F16 |<---------------|
| | (log me) | |
| BYE F17 |<---------------| |
| (log me) | | |
|<---------------| | |
| 200 F18 | | |
| (log me) | | |
|--------------->| | |
| | 200 F19 | |
| | (log me) | |
| |--------------->| 200 F20 |
| | | (no log me) |
| | |--------------->|
| | | |
Figure 7: Case 2: The terminating network removes "log me" marking
from incoming SIP messages at its network edge.
F1 - Alice's UA inserts a "log me" marker in the dialog-creating
INVITE request F1. Proxy 1 detects the "log me" marker, logs the
request and maintains state that this dialog is to be logged.
F2 - Proxy 2 removes "log me" marker in the INVITE request F2 before
forwarding it as F7.
F6 - Proxy 2 inserts a "log me" marker in 180 response to the INVITE
request and logs the request before forwarding it as F7. The same
applies to response F9 and the BYE request in F15.
4.4.2.5. "Log Me" marking removed by Non-Supporting Terminating Network
In Figure 7 below Proxy 2 removes "log me" marking from all SIP
requests and responses entering network B and Proxy 2 does not
support "log me" marking. Proxy 2 does not log requests and
responses in the dialog. Proxy 1 maintains the marking state of the
Dawes & Arunachalam Expires June 22, 2018 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft log me marking December 2017
dialog. When Proxy 1 observes that requests and responses received
from Proxy 2 are not marked it adds the marking.
For troubleshooting purposes, Proxy 1 MAY also log the requests and
responses received from or sent to Proxy 2 even though Proxy 2 didn't
add "log me" to messages sent to Proxy 1.
[ NETWORK A ] [ NETWORK B ]
Alice Proxy 1 Proxy 2 Bob
| | | |
| INVITE F1 | | |
| (log me) | | |
|--------------->| | |
| | INVITE F2 | |
| | (log me) | |
| |--------------->| |
| | | |
| | | |
| 100 F3 | | |
| (log me) | | |
|<---------------| | |
| | | INVITE F4 |
| | | (no log me) |
| | 100 F5 |--------------->|
| | (no log me) | |
| |<---------------| |
| | | 180 F6 |
| | | (no log me) |
| | |<---------------|
| | 180 F7 | |
| | (no log me) | |
| |<---------------| |
| | | |
| | | |
| 180 F8 | | |
| (log me) | | |
|<---------------| | 200 F9 |
| | | (no log me) |
| | 200 F10 |<---------------|
| | (no log me) | |
| 200 F11 |<---------------| |
| (log me) | | |
|<---------------| | |
| ACK F12 | | |
| (log me) | | |
|--------------->| | |
| | ACK F13 | |
Dawes & Arunachalam Expires June 22, 2018 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft log me marking December 2017
| | (log me) | |
| |--------------->| ACK F14 |
| | | (no log me) |
| | |--------------->|
| Both Way RTP Media |
|<================================================>|
| | | BYE F15 |
| | | (no log me) |
| | BYE F16 |<---------------|
| | (no log me) | |
| BYE F17 |<---------------| |
| (log me) | | |
|<---------------| | |
| 200 F18 | | |
| (log me) | | |
|--------------->| | |
| | 200 F19 | |
| | (log me) | |
| |--------------->| 200 F20 |
| | | (no log me) |
| | |--------------->|
| | | |
Figure 8: Case 2: The terminating network removes "log me" marking
from incoming SIP messages at its network edge.
F1 - Alice's UA inserts a "log me" marker in the dialog-creating
INVITE request F1. Proxy 1 detects the "log me" marker, logs the
request and maintains state that this dialog is to be logged.
F2 - Proxy 2 removes "log me" marker in the INVITE request F2 before
forwarding it as F7.
F7 - Proxy 1 inserts a "log me" marker in 180 response of the INVITE
request before forwarding it as F8. The same applies to response F10
and the BYE request in F16.
5. Error Handling
5.1. Missing "Log me" Marker in Dialog Being Logged
Since "log me" marking is per dialog, if a dialog is being marked and
marking is missing then this is an error.
Dawes & Arunachalam Expires June 22, 2018 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft log me marking December 2017
However, detecting such errors does not as simple as checking for
missing markers because of cases such as non-supporting terminals
where it is normal that marking is not done.
Detecting errors must be evaluated separately for each neighbor. It
is an error if a particular neighbor has previously sent logme in the
dialog and then stops, independently of what has been happening with
other neighbors.
User agents and proxies that are stateless with respect to "log me"
marking are not able detect such errors. User agents and proxies
that are stateful with respect to "log me" marking are able to detect
that a marker is missing from a dialog that has previously been "log
me" marked.
If a missing marker error is detected, then the user agent or proxy
SHOULD consider "log me" marking to have ended and MUST NOT mark the
forwarded request or response to the unmarked request, responses to
subsequent requests in the dialog, or in-dialog requests sent from
the terminating side.
5.1.1. Missing "Log me" Marker Error Cases
The following figures illustrate error cases.
Figure 9 shows an error detected at Proxy 1.
[ NETWORK A ] [ NETWORK B ]
Alice Proxy 1 Proxy 2 Bob
| | | |
| INVITE F1 | | |
| (log me) | | |
|--------------->| | |
| | | |
| | | |
| 200 F2 | | |
| (log me) | | |
|<---------------| | |
| | | |
| ACK F3 | | |
| (no log me) | | |
|--------------->| | |
Figure 9: Error cases: missing "log me" marker
Dawes & Arunachalam Expires June 22, 2018 [Page 28]
Internet-Draft log me marking December 2017
F1 - Proxy 1 detects the "log me" marker and maintains state that
this dialog is to be logged.
F3 - Proxy 1 detects that the expected "log me" marker is missing,
considers it as an error and stops "log me" marking in subsequent
requests and responses in this dialog.
Figure 10 shows an error detected at Proxy 2 and Bob's user agent.
Dawes & Arunachalam Expires June 22, 2018 [Page 29]
Internet-Draft log me marking December 2017
[ NETWORK A ] [ NETWORK B ]
Alice Proxy 1 Proxy 2 Bob
| INVITE F1 | | |
| (log me) | | |
|--------------->| | |
| | INVITE F2 | |
| | (log me) | |
| |--------------->| |
| | | |
| | | |
| 100 F3 | | |
| (log me) | | |
|<---------------| | |
| | | INVITE F4 |
| | | (log me) |
| | 100 F5 |--------------->|
| | (log me) | |
| |<---------------| |
| | | 180 F6 |
| | | (log me) |
| | |<---------------|
| | 180 F7 | |
| | (log me) | |
| |<---------------| |
| | | |
| | | |
| 180 F8 | | |
| (log me) | | |
|<---------------| | 200 F9 |
| | | (log me) |
| | 200 F10 |<---------------|
| | (log me) | |
| 200 F11 |<---------------| |
| (log me) | | |
|<---------------| | |
| ACK F12 | | |
| (no log me) | | |
|--------------->| | |
| | ACK F13 | |
| | (no log me) | |
| |--------------->| ACK F14 |
| | | (no log me) |
| | |--------------->|
Figure 10: Error cases: missing "log me" marker
Dawes & Arunachalam Expires June 22, 2018 [Page 30]
Internet-Draft log me marking December 2017
F2 - Proxy 2 detects the "log me" marker and maintains state that
this dialog is to be logged.
F4 - Bob's user agent detects the "log me" marker and maintains state
that this dialog is to be logged.
F12 - Proxy 1 detects that the expected "log me" marker is missing,
considers it as an error and stops "log me" marking in subsequent
requests and responses in this dialog. Hence it does not insert a
"log me" marker in F13.
F13 - Proxy 2 detects that the expected "log me" marker is missing,
considers it as an error and stops "log me" marking in subsequent
requests and responses in this dialog.
F14 - Proxy 2 does not insert a "log me" marker because it has
stopped "log me" marking due to an error observed in F13. Bob's UA
detects that the expected "log me" marker is missing, considers it as
an error and stops "log me" marking in subsequent requests and
responses in this dialog.
5.2. "Log Me" Marker Appears Mid-Dialog
"log me" marking that begins mid-dialog is an error case and the
terminating user agent or edge proxy MUST NOT "log me" mark responses
to the marked request, responses to subsequent requests in the
dialog, or in-dialog requests from the terminating side.
6. Security Considerations
6.1. "Log Me" Authorization
An end user or network administrator MUST give permission for a
terminal to perform "log me" marking. The configuration of a SIP
intermediary to perform "log me" marking on behalf of a terminal MUST
be authorized by the network administrator.
Activating a debug mode affects the operation of a terminal,
therefore debugging configuration MUST be supplied by an authorized
party to an authorized terminal through a secure communication
channel.
6.2. "Log Me" Marker Removal
The log me marker is not sensitive information, although it will
sometimes be inserted because a particular device is experiencing
problems.
Dawes & Arunachalam Expires June 22, 2018 [Page 31]
Internet-Draft log me marking December 2017
The presence of a log me marker will cause some SIP entities to log
signaling messages. Therefore, this marker MUST be removed at the
earliest opportunity if it has been incorrectly inserted, such as
appearing mid-dialog in a dialog that was not being logged or outside
the configured start and stop of logging.
If SIP requests and responses are exchanged with an external network
with which there is no agreement to pass "log me" marking, then the
"log me" marking is removed.
6.3. Denial of Service Attacks
Maliciously configuring a large number of terminals to simultaneously
"log me" mark dialogs will cause high processor load on SIP entities
that are logging signalling. Since "log me" marking is for the small
number of dialogs subject to troubleshooting or regression testing,
the number of dialogs that can be simultaneously logged can be
statically limited without adversely affecting the usefulness of "log
me" marking. Also, the SIP intermediary closest to the terminal and
SIP intermediary at network edge (e.g Session Border Controllers) can
be configured to screen-out "log me" markers when troubleshooting or
regression testing is not in progress.
6.4. Privacy
Logging includes all SIP header fields, the SIP privacy mechanisms
defined in [RFC3323] can be used to ensure that logs do not divulge
personal identity information.
6.4.1. Personal Identifiers
"Log me" marking is defined for the SIP Protocol, and SIP has header
fields such as From, Contact, P-Asserted-Identity that can carry
personal identifiers. Different protocol interactions can be
correlated using the Session-ID and Call-ID header fields, but such
correlation is limited to a single end-to-end session.
In order to protect user privacy during logging, privacy settings can
be enabled or requested by the terminal used by the end user.
[RFC3323] suggests two mechanisms:
o By using the value anonymous in the From header field
o By requesting privacy from SIP intermediaries using the Privacy
header
"Log me" marking is typically used for troubleshooting and regression
testing, and in some cases a service provider owned device with a
Dawes & Arunachalam Expires June 22, 2018 [Page 32]
Internet-Draft log me marking December 2017
dummy account can be used instead of a customer device. In such
cases, no personal identifiers are included in the logged signaling
messages.
6.4.2. Data Stored at SIP Intermediaries
SIP endpoints and intermediaries that honor the "log me" request
store all the SIP messages that are exchanged within a given dialog.
SIP messages can contain the personal identifiers listed in
Section 6.4.1 and additionally a user identity, calling party number,
IP address, hostname, and other user and device related items. The
SIP message bodies describe the kind of session being set up by the
identified end user and device.
"Log me" marking does not introduce any additional user or device
data to SIP but might indicate that a specific user is experiencing a
problem.
6.4.3. Data Visible at Network Elements
SIP messages that are logged due to "log me" requests are stored only
by the SIP initiators, intermediaries and recipients. Enablers as
defined in section 3.1 of [RFC6973], such as firewalls and DNS
servers do not log messages due to the "log me" marking.
6.4.4. Preventing Fingerprinting
"Log me" functionality is typically used to troubleshoot a given
problem and hence it can be used as an method to identify users and
devices that are experiencing issues. The best way to prevent
fingerprinting is to enable or request SIP privacy for the logged
dialog.
6.4.5. Retaining Logs
The lifetime of "log me" marking is equivalent to the lifetime of the
dialog that initiated the "log me" request. When "log me" is
extended to related dialogs the lifetime is extended until there is
no more related dialog for the end-to-end session.
"log me" automatically expires at the end of the dialog and there is
no explicit mechanism to turn off logging within a dialog.
The scope of "log me" Marking is limited i.e. an user or the network
administrator has to enable it on a per session basis or for a
specific time period. This minimizes the risk of exposing user data
for an indefinite time.
Dawes & Arunachalam Expires June 22, 2018 [Page 33]
Internet-Draft log me marking December 2017
The retention time period for logged messages is out of scope for
this document and is expected to be configured based on the data
storage policies of service providers and enterprises.
6.4.6. User Control of Logging
Consent to turn on "log me" for a given session MUST be provided by
the end user or by the network administrator. It is handled outside
of the protocol through user interface or application programming
interfaces at the end point, call control elements and network
management systems.
SIP entities across the communication path can be configured to pass
through the "log me" marking but not honor the request i.e. not log
the data based on local policies.
6.4.7. Recommended Defaults
The recommended defaults for "log me" marking are:
o turn on SIP privacy as described in Section 6.4 or use a service
provider owned device with a dummy user identity for test calls
o use the local UUID of Session-ID header at the originating device
as the test case identifier as described in Section 3.3
6.5. Data Protection
A SIP entity that has logged information MUST protect the logs.
Storage of the log files are subject to the security considerations
specified in [RFC6872].
7. Augmented BNF for the "logme" Parameter
ABNF is described in [RFC5234]. This document introduces a new
"logme"parameter for the Session-ID header field defined in Section 5
of [RFC7989].
sess-id-param =/ logme-param
logme-param = "logme"
Figure 11: Augmented BNF for the "logme" Parameter
Dawes & Arunachalam Expires June 22, 2018 [Page 34]
Internet-Draft log me marking December 2017
8. IANA Considerations
8.1. Registration of the "logme" Parameter
The following parameter is to be added to the "Header Field
Parameters and Parameter Values" section of the SIP parameter
registry:
+-------------+---------------+-------------------------+-----------+
| Header | Parameter | Predefined Values | Reference |
| Field | Name | | |
+-------------+---------------+-------------------------+-----------+
| Session-ID | logme | No (no values are | [RFCXXXX] |
| | | allowed) | |
+-------------+---------------+-------------------------+-----------+
Table 1
9. Acknowledgments
The authors wish to thank Paul Giralt, Paul Kyzivat, Jorgen Axell,
Christer Holmberg and Vijay Gurbani for their constructive review
comments and guidance while developing this document.
10. References
10.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC3261] Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., Camarillo, G., Johnston,
A., Peterson, J., Sparks, R., Handley, M., and E.
Schooler, "SIP: Session Initiation Protocol", RFC 3261,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3261, June 2002,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3261>.
[RFC6872] Gurbani, V., Ed., Burger, E., Ed., Anjali, T., Abdelnur,
H., and O. Festor, "The Common Log Format (CLF) for the
Session Initiation Protocol (SIP): Framework and
Information Model", RFC 6872, DOI 10.17487/RFC6872,
February 2013, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6872>.
Dawes & Arunachalam Expires June 22, 2018 [Page 35]
Internet-Draft log me marking December 2017
[RFC6873] Salgueiro, G., Gurbani, V., and A. Roach, "Format for the
Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Common Log Format
(CLF)", RFC 6873, DOI 10.17487/RFC6873, February 2013,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6873>.
[RFC7206] Jones, P., Salgueiro, G., Polk, J., Liess, L., and H.
Kaplan, "Requirements for an End-to-End Session
Identification in IP-Based Multimedia Communication
Networks", RFC 7206, DOI 10.17487/RFC7206, May 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7206>.
[RFC7989] Jones, P., Salgueiro, G., Pearce, C., and P. Giralt, "End-
to-End Session Identification in IP-Based Multimedia
Communication Networks", RFC 7989, DOI 10.17487/RFC7989,
October 2016, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7989>.
10.2. Informative References
[RFC3323] Peterson, J., "A Privacy Mechanism for the Session
Initiation Protocol (SIP)", RFC 3323,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3323, November 2002,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3323>.
[RFC3665] Johnston, A., Donovan, S., Sparks, R., Cunningham, C., and
K. Summers, "Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Basic Call
Flow Examples", BCP 75, RFC 3665, DOI 10.17487/RFC3665,
December 2003, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3665>.
[RFC5234] Crocker, D., Ed. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax
Specifications: ABNF", STD 68, RFC 5234,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5234, January 2008,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5234>.
[RFC5589] Sparks, R., Johnston, A., Ed., and D. Petrie, "Session
Initiation Protocol (SIP) Call Control - Transfer",
BCP 149, RFC 5589, DOI 10.17487/RFC5589, June 2009,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5589>.
[RFC6973] Cooper, A., Tschofenig, H., Aboba, B., Peterson, J.,
Morris, J., Hansen, M., and R. Smith, "Privacy
Considerations for Internet Protocols", RFC 6973,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6973, July 2013,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6973>.
[RFC7092] Kaplan, H. and V. Pascual, "A Taxonomy of Session
Initiation Protocol (SIP) Back-to-Back User Agents",
RFC 7092, DOI 10.17487/RFC7092, December 2013,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7092>.
Dawes & Arunachalam Expires June 22, 2018 [Page 36]
Internet-Draft log me marking December 2017
[RFC8123] Dawes, P. and C. Arunachalam, "Requirements for Marking
SIP Messages to be Logged", RFC 8123,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8123, March 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8123>.
Authors' Addresses
Peter Dawes
Vodafone Group
The Connection
Newbury, Berkshire RG14 2FN
UK
Email: peter.dawes@vodafone.com
Chidambaram Arunachalam
Cisco Systems
7200-12 Kit Creek Road
Research Triangle Park, NC, NC 27709
US
Email: carunach@cisco.com
Dawes & Arunachalam Expires June 22, 2018 [Page 37]