Internet Engineering Task Force SIP WG
Internet Draft Jonathan Rosenberg
dynamicsoft
Henning Schulzrinne
Columbia U.
Gonzalo Camarillo
Ericsson
Alan Johnston
Worldcom
Jon Peterson
Neustar
Robert Sparks
dynamicsoft
Mark Handley
ACIRI
Eve Schooler
AT&T
draft-ietf-sip-rfc2543bis-06.txt
January 28, 2002
Expires: July 2002
SIP: Session Initiation Protocol
STATUS OF THIS MEMO
This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts.
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".
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt
To view the list Internet-Draft Shadow Directories, see
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
Abstract
The Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) is an application-layer control
(signaling) protocol for creating, modifying and terminating sessions
with one or more participants. These sessions include Internet
telephone calls, multimedia distribution and multimedia conferences.
SIP invitations used to create sessions carry session descriptions
which allow participants to agree on a set of compatible media types.
SIP makes use of elements called proxy servers to help route requests
to the users current location, authenticate and authorize users for
services, implement provider call routing policies, and provide
features to users. SIP also provides a registration function that
allows them to upload their current location for use by proxy
servers. SIP runs ontop of several different transport protocols.
Various Authors [Page a]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
Table of Contents
1 Introduction ........................................ 2
2 Overview of SIP Functionality ....................... 2
3 Terminology ......................................... 3
4 Overview of Operation ............................... 4
5 Structure of the Protocol ........................... 11
6 Definitions ......................................... 13
7 SIP Messages ........................................ 19
7.1 Requests ............................................ 20
7.2 Responses ........................................... 20
7.3 Header Fields ....................................... 21
7.3.1 Header Field Format ................................. 22
7.3.2 Header Field Classification ......................... 24
7.3.3 Compact Form ........................................ 25
7.4 Bodies .............................................. 25
7.4.1 Message Body Type ................................... 25
7.4.2 Message Body Length ................................. 25
7.5 Framing SIP messages ................................ 26
8 General User Agent Behavior ......................... 26
8.1 UAC Behavior ........................................ 27
8.1.1 Generating the Request .............................. 27
8.1.1.1 Request-URI ......................................... 27
8.1.1.2 To .................................................. 27
8.1.1.3 From ................................................ 28
8.1.1.4 Call-ID ............................................. 29
8.1.1.5 CSeq ................................................ 30
8.1.1.6 Max-Forwards ........................................ 30
8.1.1.7 Via ................................................. 31
8.1.1.8 Contact ............................................. 31
8.1.1.9 Supported and Require ............................... 32
8.1.1.10 Additional Message Components ....................... 32
8.1.2 Sending the Request ................................. 33
8.1.3 Loose Routing Policies .............................. 33
8.1.3.1 Modifying the Route header field .................... 33
8.1.3.2 Modifying the Request-URI ........................... 34
8.1.3.3 Destination Choice .................................. 34
8.1.3.4 Loop Avoidance ...................................... 34
8.1.4 Processing Responses ................................ 35
8.1.4.1 Transaction Layer Errors ............................ 35
8.1.4.2 Unrecognized Responses .............................. 35
8.1.4.3 Vias ................................................ 36
8.1.4.4 Processing Reliable 1xx Responses ................... 36
Various Authors [Page b]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
8.1.4.5 Processing 3xx responses ............................ 36
8.1.4.6 Processing 4xx responses ............................ 38
8.2 UAS Behavior ........................................ 39
8.2.1 Method Inspection ................................... 39
8.2.2 Header Inspection ................................... 39
8.2.2.1 To and Request-URI .................................. 39
8.2.2.2 Merged Requests ..................................... 40
8.2.2.3 Require ............................................. 40
8.2.3 Content Processing .................................. 41
8.2.4 Applying Extensions ................................. 42
8.2.5 Processing the Request .............................. 42
8.2.6 Generating the Response ............................. 42
8.2.6.1 Sending a Provisional Response ...................... 42
8.2.6.2 Headers and Tags .................................... 43
8.2.7 Stateless UAS Behavior .............................. 43
8.3 Redirect Servers .................................... 44
9 Canceling a Request ................................. 45
9.1 Client Behavior ..................................... 46
9.2 Server Behavior ..................................... 47
10 Registrations ....................................... 48
10.1 Overview ............................................ 48
10.2 Constructing the REGISTER Request ................... 49
10.2.1 Adding Bindings ..................................... 52
10.2.1.1 Setting the Expiration Interval of Contact
Addresses ...................................................... 52
10.2.1.2 Preferences among Contact Addresses ................. 53
10.2.2 Removing Bindings ................................... 53
10.2.3 Fetching Bindings ................................... 53
10.2.4 Refreshing Bindings ................................. 53
10.2.5 Setting the Internal Clock .......................... 54
10.2.6 Discovering a Registrar ............................. 54
10.2.7 Transmitting a Request .............................. 55
10.2.8 Error Responses ..................................... 55
10.3 Processing REGISTER Requests ........................ 55
11 Querying for Capabilities ........................... 58
11.1 Construction of OPTIONS Request ..................... 59
11.2 Processing of OPTIONS Request ....................... 59
12 Dialogs ............................................. 61
12.1 Creation of a Dialog ................................ 62
12.1.1 UAS behavior ........................................ 62
12.1.2 UAC behavior ........................................ 63
12.2 Requests within a Dialog ............................ 64
12.2.1 UAC Behavior ........................................ 65
12.2.1.1 Generating the Request .............................. 65
12.2.1.2 Processing the Responses ............................ 66
12.2.2 UAS behavior ........................................ 67
12.3 Termination of a Dialog ............................. 69
13 Initiating a Session ................................ 69
Various Authors [Page c]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
13.1 Overview ............................................ 69
13.2 Caller Processing ................................... 70
13.2.1 Creating the Initial INVITE ......................... 70
13.2.2 Processing INVITE Responses ......................... 72
13.2.2.1 1xx responses ....................................... 72
13.2.2.2 3xx responses ....................................... 72
13.2.2.3 4xx, 5xx and 6xx responses .......................... 72
13.2.2.4 2xx responses ....................................... 73
13.3 Callee Processing ................................... 74
13.3.1 Processing of the INVITE ............................ 74
13.3.1.1 Progress ............................................ 75
13.3.1.2 The INVITE is redirected ............................ 75
13.3.1.3 The INVITE is rejected .............................. 76
13.3.1.4 The INVITE is accepted .............................. 76
14 Modifying an Existing Session ....................... 77
14.1 UAC Behavior ........................................ 77
14.2 UAS Behavior ........................................ 79
15 Terminating a Session ............................... 80
15.1 Terminating a Dialog with a BYE Request ............. 81
15.1.1 UAC Behavior ........................................ 81
15.1.2 UAS Behavior ........................................ 82
16 Proxy Behavior ...................................... 82
16.1 Overview ............................................ 82
16.2 Stateful Proxy ...................................... 83
16.3 Request Validation .................................. 84
16.4 Making a Routing Decision ........................... 87
16.5 Request Processing .................................. 90
16.6 Response Processing ................................. 97
16.7 Processing Timer C .................................. 105
16.8 Handling Transport Errors ........................... 105
16.9 CANCEL Processing ................................... 105
16.10 Stateless Proxy ..................................... 106
16.11 Record-Route Example ................................ 108
17 Transactions ........................................ 109
17.1 Client Transaction .................................. 111
17.1.1 INVITE Client Transaction ........................... 112
17.1.1.1 Overview of INVITE Transaction ...................... 112
17.1.1.2 Formal Description .................................. 113
17.1.1.3 Construction of the ACK Request ..................... 116
17.1.2 non-INVITE Client Transaction ....................... 117
17.1.2.1 Overview of the non-INVITE Transaction .............. 117
17.1.2.2 Formal Description .................................. 117
17.1.3 Matching Responses to Client Transactions ........... 118
17.1.4 Handling Transport Errors ........................... 120
17.2 Server Transaction .................................. 120
17.2.1 INVITE Server Transaction ........................... 120
17.2.2 non-INVITE Server Transaction ....................... 123
17.2.3 Matching Requests to Server Transactions ............ 124
Various Authors [Page d]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
17.2.4 Handling Transport Errors ........................... 126
17.3 RTT Estimation ...................................... 126
18 Reliability of Provisional Responses ................ 127
18.1 UAS Behavior ........................................ 128
18.2 UAC Behavior ........................................ 130
19 Transport ........................................... 131
19.1 Clients ............................................. 132
19.1.1 Sending Requests .................................... 132
19.1.2 Receiving Responses ................................. 134
19.2 Servers ............................................. 134
19.2.1 Receiving Requests .................................. 134
19.2.2 Sending Responses ................................... 135
19.3 Framing ............................................. 136
19.4 Error Handling ...................................... 136
20 Usage of HTTP Authentication ........................ 137
20.1 Framework ........................................... 137
20.2 User-to-User Authentication ......................... 139
20.3 Proxy to User Authentication ........................ 141
20.4 The Digest Authentication Scheme .................... 143
20.4.1 HTTP Digest ......................................... 143
21 S/MIME .............................................. 145
21.1 S/MIME Certificates ................................. 145
21.2 S/MIME Key Exchange ................................. 146
21.3 Securing MIME bodies ................................ 148
21.4 Tunneling SIP in MIME ............................... 149
21.4.1 Tunneling Integrity and Authentication .............. 149
21.4.2 Tunneling Encryption ................................ 151
22 Security Considerations ............................. 152
22.1 Threat Models ....................................... 153
22.1.1 Registration Hijacking .............................. 153
22.1.2 Impersonating a Server .............................. 154
22.1.3 Tampering with Message Bodies ....................... 154
22.1.4 Tearing Down Sessions ............................... 155
22.1.5 Denial of Service and Amplification ................. 156
22.2 Security Mechanisms ................................. 156
22.2.1 Transport and Network Layer Security ................ 157
22.2.2 HTTP Authentication ................................. 158
22.2.3 S/MIME .............................................. 158
22.3 Implementing Security Mechanisms .................... 159
22.3.1 Requirements for Implementers of SIP ................ 159
22.3.2 Security Solutions .................................. 160
22.3.2.1 Registration ........................................ 160
22.3.2.2 Requests and Transitive Trust ....................... 161
22.3.2.3 Peer to Peer Requests ............................... 163
22.3.2.4 DoS Protection ...................................... 164
22.4 Limitations ......................................... 165
22.4.1 HTTP Digest ......................................... 165
22.4.2 S/MIME .............................................. 166
Various Authors [Page e]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
22.4.3 TLS ................................................. 167
22.5 Privacy ............................................. 167
23 Common Message Components ........................... 168
23.1 SIP Uniform Resource Indicators ..................... 168
23.1.1 SIP URI Components .................................. 168
23.1.2 Character Escaping Requirements ..................... 172
23.1.3 Example SIP URIs .................................... 172
23.1.4 SIP URI Comparison .................................. 173
23.1.5 Forming Requests from a SIP URI ..................... 175
23.1.6 Relating SIP URIs and tel URLs ...................... 176
23.2 Option Tags ......................................... 178
23.3 Tags ................................................ 179
24 Header Fields ....................................... 179
24.1 Accept .............................................. 181
24.2 Accept-Encoding ..................................... 181
24.3 Accept-Language ..................................... 184
24.4 Alert-Info .......................................... 184
24.5 Allow ............................................... 184
24.6 Authentication-Info ................................. 185
24.7 Authorization ....................................... 185
24.8 Call-ID ............................................. 186
24.9 Call-Info ........................................... 186
24.10 Contact ............................................. 186
24.11 Content-Disposition ................................. 187
24.12 Content-Encoding .................................... 188
24.13 Content-Language .................................... 189
24.14 Content-Length ...................................... 189
24.15 Content-Type ........................................ 189
24.16 CSeq ................................................ 190
24.17 Date ................................................ 190
24.18 Error-Info .......................................... 191
24.19 Expires ............................................. 191
24.20 From ................................................ 191
24.21 In-Reply-To ......................................... 192
24.22 Max-Forwards ........................................ 192
24.23 Min-Expires ......................................... 193
24.24 MIME-Version ........................................ 193
24.25 Organization ........................................ 193
24.26 Priority ............................................ 194
24.27 Proxy-Authenticate .................................. 194
24.28 Proxy-Authorization ................................. 195
24.29 Proxy-Require ....................................... 195
24.30 RAck ................................................ 195
24.31 Record-Route ........................................ 196
24.32 Reply-To ............................................ 196
24.33 Require ............................................. 196
24.34 Retry-After ......................................... 197
24.35 Route ............................................... 197
Various Authors [Page f]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
24.36 RSeq ................................................ 198
24.37 Server .............................................. 198
24.38 Subject ............................................. 198
24.39 Supported ........................................... 199
24.40 Timestamp ........................................... 199
24.41 To .................................................. 199
24.42 Unsupported ......................................... 200
24.43 User-Agent .......................................... 200
24.44 Via ................................................. 200
24.45 Warning ............................................. 201
24.46 WWW-Authenticate .................................... 203
25 Response Codes ...................................... 203
25.1 Provisional 1xx ..................................... 204
25.1.1 100 Trying .......................................... 204
25.1.2 180 Ringing ......................................... 204
25.1.3 181 Call Is Being Forwarded ......................... 204
25.1.4 182 Queued .......................................... 204
25.1.5 183 Session Progress ................................ 204
25.2 Successful 2xx ...................................... 205
25.2.1 200 OK .............................................. 205
25.3 Redirection 3xx ..................................... 205
25.3.1 300 Multiple Choices ................................ 205
25.3.2 301 Moved Permanently ............................... 205
25.3.3 302 Moved Temporarily ............................... 206
25.3.4 305 Use Proxy ....................................... 206
25.3.5 380 Alternative Service ............................. 206
25.4 Request Failure 4xx ................................. 206
25.4.1 400 Bad Request ..................................... 206
25.4.2 401 Unauthorized .................................... 207
25.4.3 402 Payment Required ................................ 207
25.4.4 403 Forbidden ....................................... 207
25.4.5 404 Not Found ....................................... 207
25.4.6 405 Method Not Allowed .............................. 207
25.4.7 406 Not Acceptable .................................. 207
25.4.8 407 Proxy Authentication Required ................... 207
25.4.9 408 Request Timeout ................................. 208
25.4.10 410 Gone ............................................ 208
25.4.11 413 Request Entity Too Large ........................ 208
25.4.12 414 Request-URI Too Long ............................ 208
25.4.13 415 Unsupported Media Type .......................... 208
25.4.14 416 Unsupported URI Scheme .......................... 208
25.4.15 420 Bad Extension ................................... 208
25.4.16 421 Extension Required .............................. 209
25.4.17 423 Registration Too Brief .......................... 209
25.4.18 480 Temporarily Unavailable ......................... 209
25.4.19 481 Call/Transaction Does Not Exist ................. 209
25.4.20 482 Loop Detected ................................... 210
25.4.21 483 Too Many Hops ................................... 210
Various Authors [Page g]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
25.4.22 484 Address Incomplete .............................. 210
25.4.23 485 Ambiguous ....................................... 210
25.4.24 486 Busy Here ....................................... 211
25.4.25 487 Request Terminated .............................. 211
25.4.26 488 Not Acceptable Here ............................. 211
25.4.27 491 Request Pending ................................. 211
25.4.28 493 Undecipherable .................................. 211
25.5 Server Failure 5xx .................................. 211
25.5.1 500 Server Internal Error ........................... 211
25.5.2 501 Not Implemented ................................. 212
25.5.3 502 Bad Gateway ..................................... 212
25.5.4 503 Service Unavailable ............................. 212
25.5.5 504 Server Time-out ................................. 212
25.5.6 505 Version Not Supported ........................... 212
25.5.7 513 Message Too Large ............................... 213
25.6 Global Failures 6xx ................................. 213
25.6.1 600 Busy Everywhere ................................. 213
25.6.2 603 Decline ......................................... 213
25.6.3 604 Does Not Exist Anywhere ......................... 213
25.6.4 606 Not Acceptable .................................. 213
26 Examples ............................................ 214
26.1 Registration ........................................ 214
26.2 Session Setup ....................................... 215
27 Augmented BNF for the SIP Protocol ................. 220
27.1 Basic Rules ......................................... 222
28 IANA Considerations ............................ 239
28.1 Option Tags ......................................... 239
28.1.1 Registration of 100rel .............................. 240
28.2 Warn-Codes .......................................... 241
28.3 Header Field Names .................................. 241
28.4 Method and Response Codes ........................... 242
29 Changes Made in Version 00 .......................... 242
30 Changes Made in Version 01 .......................... 249
31 Changes Made in Version 02 .......................... 249
32 Changes Made in Version 03 .......................... 251
33 Changes Made in Version 04 .......................... 254
34 Changes Made in Version 05 .......................... 256
35 Changes Made in Version 06 .......................... 260
36 Acknowledgments ..................................... 272
37 Authors' Addresses .................................. 272
38 Bibliography ........................................ 274
EOTOC
Various Authors [Page h]
1 Introduction
There are many applications of the Internet that require the creation
and management of a session, where a session is considered an
exchange of data between an association of participants. The
implementation of these services is complicated by the practices of
participants; users may move between endpoints, they may be
addressable by multiple names, and they may communicate in several
different media - sometimes simultaneously. Numerous protocols have
been authored that carry various forms of real-time multimedia
session data such as voice, video, or text messages. SIP works in
concert with these protocols by enabling Internet endpoints (called
"user agents") to discover one another and to agree on a
characterization of a session they would like to share. For locating
prospective session participants, and for other functions, SIP
enables creation of an infrastructure of network hosts (called "proxy
servers") to which user agents can send registrations, invitations to
sessions and other requests. SIP is an agile, general-purpose tool
for creating, modifying and terminating sessions that works
independently of underlying transport protocols and without
dependency on the type of session that is being established.
2 Overview of SIP Functionality
The Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) is an application-layer control
protocol that can establish, modify, and terminate multimedia
sessions (conferences) such as Internet telephony calls. SIP can also
invite participants to already existing sessions, such as multicast
conferences. Media can be added to (and removed from) an existing
session. SIP transparently supports name mapping and redirection
services, which supports personal mobility [1] - users can maintain a
single externally visible identifier (SIP URI) regardless of their
network location.
SIP supports five facets of establishing and terminating multimedia
communications:
User location: determination of the end system to be used for
communication;
User availability: determination of the willingness of the
called party to engage in communications;
User capabilities: determination of the media and media
parameters to be used;
Session setup: "ringing", establishment of session parameters at
both called and calling party;
Various Authors [Page 2]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
Session management: including transfer and termination of
sessions, modifying session parameters, and invoking
services.
SIP is not a vertically integrated communications system. SIP is
rather a component that can be used with other IETF protocols to
build a complete multimedia architecture. Typically, these
architectures will include protocols such as the real-time transport
protocol (RTP) (RFC 1889 [2]) for transporting real-time data and
providing QoS feedback, the real-time streaming protocol (RTSP) (RFC
2326 [3]) for controlling delivery of streaming media, the Media
Gateway Control Protocol (MEGACO) (RFC 3015 [4]) for controlling
gateways to the Public Switched Telephone Network (PSTN), and the
session description protocol (SDP) (RFC 2327 [5]) for describing
multimedia sessions. Therefore, SIP should be used in conjunction
with other protocols in order to provide complete services to the
users. However, the basic functionality and operation of SIP does not
depend on any of these protocols.
SIP does not provide services. SIP rather provides primitives that
can be used to implement different services. For example, SIP can
locate a user and deliver an opaque object to his current location.
If this primitive is used to deliver a session description written in
SDP, for instance, the parameters of a session can be agreed between
endpoints. If the same primitive is used to deliver a photo of the
caller as well as the session description, a "caller ID" service can
be easily implemented. As this example shows, a single primitive is
typically used to provide several different services.
SIP does not offer conference control services such as floor control
or voting and does not prescribe how a conference is to be managed.
SIP can be used to initiate a session that uses some other conference
control protocol. Since SIP messages and the sessions they establish
can pass through entirely different networks, SIP cannot, and does
not, provide any kind of network resource reservation capabilities.
The nature of the services provided by SIP make security particularly
important. To that end, SIP provides a suite of security services,
which include denial-of-service prevention, authentication (both user
to user and proxy to user), integrity protection, and encryption and
privacy services.
SIP works with both IPv4 and IPv6.
3 Terminology
In this document, the key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED",
"SHALL", "SHALLNOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY",
Various Authors [Page 3]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
and "OPTIONAL" are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [6] and
indicate requirement levels for compliant SIP implementations.
4 Overview of Operation
This section introduces the basic operations of SIP using simple
examples. This section is tutorial in nature and does not contain any
normative statements.
The first example shows the basic functions of SIP: location of an
end point, signal of a desire to communicate, negotiation of session
parameters to establish the session, and teardown of the session once
established.
Figure 1 shows a typical example of a SIP message exchange between
two users, Alice and Bob. (Each message is labeled with the letter
"F" and a number for reference by the text.) In this example, Alice
uses a SIP application on her PC (referred to as a softphone) to call
Bob on his SIP phone over the Internet. Also shown are two SIP proxy
servers that act on behalf of Alice and Bob to facilitate the session
establishment. This typical arrangement is often referred to as the
"SIP trapezoid" as shown by the geometric shape of the dashed lines
in Figure 1.
Alice "calls" Bob using his SIP identity, a type of Uniform Resource
Identifier (URI) called a SIP URI and defined in Section 23.1. It has
a similar form to an email address, typically containing a username
and a host name. In this case, it is sip:bob@biloxi.com, where
biloxi.com is the domain of Bob's SIP service provider (which can be
an enterprise, retail provider, etc). Alice also has a SIP URI of
sip:alice@atlanta.com. Alice might have typed in Bob's URI or perhaps
clicked on a hyperlink or an entry in an address book.
SIP is based on an HTTP-like request/response transacton model. Each
transaction consists of a request that invokes a particular "Method",
or function, on the server, and at least one response. In this
example, the transaction begins with Alice's softphone sending an
INVITE request addressed to Bob's SIP URI. INVITE is an example of a
SIP method which specifies the action that the requestor (Alice)
wants the server (Bob) to take. The INVITE request contains a number
of header fields. Header fields are named attributes that provide
additional information about a message. The ones present in an INVITE
include a unique identifier for the call, the destination address,
Alice's address, and information about the type of session that Alice
wishes to establish with Bob. The INVITE (message F1 in Figure 1)
might look like this:
Various Authors [Page 4]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
atlanta.com . . . biloxi.com
. proxy proxy .
. .
Alice's . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bob's
softphone SIP Phone
| | | |
| INVITE F1 | | |
|--------------->| INVITE F2 | |
| 100 Trying F3 |--------------->| INVITE F4 |
|<---------------| 100 Trying F5 |--------------->|
| |<-------------- | 180 Ringing F6 |
| | 180 Ringing F7 |<---------------|
| 180 Ringing F8 |<---------------| 200 OK F9 |
|<---------------| 200 OK F10 |<---------------|
| 200 OK F11 |<---------------| |
|<---------------| | |
| ACK F12 |
|------------------------------------------------->|
| Media Session |
|<================================================>|
| BYE F13 |
|<-------------------------------------------------|
| 200 OK F14 |
|------------------------------------------------->|
| |
Figure 1: SIP session setup example with SIP trapezoid
INVITE sip:bob@biloxi.com SIP/2.0
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP pc33.atlanta.com;branch=z9hG4bK776asdhds
To: Bob <sip:bob@biloxi.com>
From: Alice <sip:alice@atlanta.com>;tag=1928301774
Call-ID: a84b4c76e66710
CSeq: 314159 INVITE
Contact: <sip:alice@pc33.atlanta.com>
Content-Type: application/sdp
Content-Length: 142
(Alice's SDP not shown)
Various Authors [Page 5]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
The first line of the text-encoded message contains the method name
(INVITE). The lines that follow are a list of header fields. This
example contains a minimum required set. The headers are briefly
described below:
Via contains the address (pc33.atlanta.com) on which Alice is
expecting to receive responses to this request.It also contains a
branch parameter that contains an identifier for this transaction.
To contains a display name (Bob) and a SIP URI (sip:bob@biloxi.com)
towards which the request was originally directed. Display names are
described in RFC 2822 [7].
From also contains a display name (Alice) and a SIP URI
(sip:alice@atlanta.com) that indicate the originator of the request.
This header field also has a tag parameter containing a pseudorandom
string (1928301774) that was added to the URI by the softphone. It is
used for identification purposes.
Call-ID contains a globally unique identifier for this call,
generated by the combination of a pseudorandom string and the
softphone's IP address. The combination of the To, From, and Call-ID
completely define a peer-to-peer SIP relationship betwee Alice and
Bob, and is referred to as a "dialog".
CSeq or Command Sequence contains an integer and a method name. The
CSeq number is incremented for each new request, and is a traditional
sequence number.
Contact contains a SIP URI that represents a direct route to reach or
contact Alice, usually composed of a username at an FQDN. While a
FQDN is preferred, many end systems do not have registered domain
names, so IP addresses are permitted. While the Via header field
tells other elements where to send the response, the Contact header
field tells other elements where to send future requests for this
dialog.
Content-Type contains a description of the message body (not shown).
Content-Length contains an octet (byte) count of the message body.
The complete set of SIP header fields is defined in Section 24.
The details of the session, type of media, codec, sampling rate, etc.
are not described using SIP. Rather, the body of a SIP message
contains a description of the session, encoded in some other protocol
format. One such format is Session Description Protocol (SDP) [5].
This SDP message (not shown in the example) is carried by the SIP
Various Authors [Page 6]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
message in a way that is analogous to a document attachment being
carried by an email message, or a web page being carried in an HTTP
message.
Since the softphone does not know the location of Bob or the SIP
server in the biloxi.com domain, the softphone sends the INVITE to
the SIP server that serves Alice's domain, atlanta.com. The IP
address of the atlanta.com SIP server could have been configured in
Alice's softphone, or it could have been discovered by DHCP, for
example.
The atlanta.com SIP server is a type of SIP server known as a proxy
server. A proxy server receives SIP requests and forwards them on
behalf of the requestor. In this example, the proxy server receives
the INVITE request and sends a 100 (Trying) response back to Alice's
softphone. The 100 (Trying) response indicates that the INVITE has
been received and that the proxy is working on her behalf to route
the INVITE to the destination. Responses in SIP use a three-digit
code followed by a descriptive phrase. This response contains the
same To, From, Call-ID, and CSeq as the INVITE, which allows Alice's
softphone to correlate this response to the sent INVITE. The
atlanta.com proxy server locates the proxy server at biloxi.com,
possibly by performing a particular type of DNS (Domain Name Service)
lookup to find the SIP server that serves the biloxi.com domain.
This is described in [8]. As a result, it obtains the IP address of
the biloxi.com proxy server and forwards, or proxies, the INVITE
request there. Before forwarding the request, the atlanta.com proxy
server adds an additional Via header field that contains its own IP
address (the INVITE already contains Alice's IP address in the first
Via). The biloxi.com proxy server receives the INVITE and responds
with a 100 (Trying) response back to the Atlanta.com proxy server to
indicate that it has received the INVITE and is processing the
request. The proxy server consults a database, generically called a
location service, that contains the current IP address of Bob. (We
shall see in the next section how this database can be populated.)
The biloxi.com proxy server adds another Via header with its own IP
address to the INVITE and proxies it to Bob's SIP phone.
Bob's SIP phone receives the INVITE and alerts Bob to the incoming
call from Alice so that Bob can decide whether or not to answer the
call, i.e., Bob's phone rings. Bob's SIP phone sends an indication of
this in a 180 (Ringing) response, which is routed back through the
two proxies in the reverse direction. Each proxy uses the Via header
to determine where to send the response and removes its own address
from the top. As a result, although DNS and location service lookups
were required to route the initial INVITE, the 180 (Ringing) response
can be returned to the caller without lookups or without state being
maintained in the proxies. This also has the desirable property that
Various Authors [Page 7]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
each proxy that sees the INVITE will also see all responses to the
INVITE.
When Alice's softphone receives the 180 (Ringing) response, it passes
this information to Alice, perhaps using an audio ringback tone or by
displaying a message on Alice's screen.
In this example, Bob decides to answer the call. When he picks up the
handset, his SIP phone sends a 200 (OK) response to indicate that the
call has been answered. The 200 (OK) contains a message body with the
SDP media description of the type of session that Bob is willing to
establish with Alice. As a result, there is a two-phase exchange of
SDP messages; Alice sent one to Bob, and Bob sent one back to Alice.
This two-phase exchange provides basic negotiation capabilities and
is based on a simple offer/answer model of SDP exchange. If Bob did
not wish to answer the call or was busy on another call, an error
response would have been sent instead of the 200 (OK), which would
have resulted in no media session being established. The complete
list of SIP response codes is in Section 25. The 200 (OK) (message F9
in Figure 1) might look like this as Bob sends it out:
SIP/2.0 200 OK
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP pc33.atlanta.com;branch=z9hG4bK776asdhds
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP bigbox3.site3.atlanta.com;branch=z9hG4bK77ef4c2312983.1
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP pc33.atlanta.com;branch=z9hG4bKnashds8
To: Bob <sip:bob@biloxi.com>;tag=a6c85cf
From: Alice <sip:alice@atlanta.com>;tag=1928301774
Call-ID: a84b4c76e66710
CSeq: 314159 INVITE
Contact: <sip:bob@192.0.2.8>
Content-Type: application/sdp
Content-Length: 131
(Bob's SDP not shown)
The first line of the response contains the response code (200) and
the reason phrase (OK). The remaining lines contain header fields.
The Via header fields, To, From, Call- ID, and CSeq are all copied
from the INVITE request. (There are three Via headers - one added by
Alice's SIP phone, one added by the atlanta.com proxy, and one added
by the biloxi.com proxy.) Bob's SIP phone has added a tag parameter
to the To header field. This tag will be incorporated by both User
Agents into the dialog and will be included in all future requests
and responses in this call. The Contact header field contains a URI
at which Bob can be directly reached at his SIP phone. The Content-
Various Authors [Page 8]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
Type and Content-Length refer to the message body (not shown) that
contains Bob's SDP media information.
In additon to DNS and location service lookups shown in this example,
proxy servers can make flexible "routing decisions" to decide where
to send a request. For example, if Bob's SIP phone returned a 486
(Busy Here) response, the biloxi.com proxy server could proxy the
INVITE to Bob's voicemail server. A proxy server can also send an
INVITE to a number of locations at the same time. This type of
parallel search is known as "forking".
In this case, the 200 (OK) is routed back through the two proxies and
is received by Alice's softphone which then stops the ringback tone
and indicates that the call has been answered. Finally, an
acknowledgement message, ACK, is sent by Alice to Bob to confirm the
reception of the final response (200 (OK)). In this example, the ACK
is sent directly from Alice to Bob, bypassing the two proxies. This
is because, through the INVITE/200 (OK) exchange, the two SIP user
agents have learned each other's IP address through the Contact
header fields, which was not known when the initial INVITE was sent.
The lookups performed by the two proxies are no longer needed, so
they drop out of the call flow. This completes the INVITE/200/ACK
three-way handshake used to establish SIP sessions and is the end of
the transaction. Full details on session setup are in Section 13.
Alice and Bob's media session has now begun, and they send media
packets using the format agreed to in the exchange of SDP. In
general, the end-to-end media packets take a different path from the
SIP signaling messages.
During the session, either Alice or Bob may decide to change the
characteristics of the media session. This is accomplished by sending
a re-INVITE containing a new media description. If the change is
accepted by the other party, a 200 (OK) is sent, which is itself
responded to with an ACK. This re-INVITE references the existing
dialog so the other party knows that it is to modify an existing
session instead of establishing a new session. If the change is not
accepted, an error response, such as a 406 (Not Acceptable), is sent,
which also receives an ACK. However, the failure of the re-INVITE
does not cause the existing call to fail - the session continues
using the previously negotiated characteristics. Full details on
session modification are in Section 14.
At the end of the call, Bob disconnects (hangs up) first, and
generates a BYE message. This BYE is routed directly to Alice's
softphone, again bypassing the proxies. Alice confirms receipt of the
BYE with a 200 (OK) response, which terminates the session and the
BYE transaction. No ACK is sent - an ACK is only sent in response to
Various Authors [Page 9]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
a response to an INVITE request. The reasons for this special
handling for INVITE will be discussed later, but relate to the
reliability mechanisms in SIP, the length of time it can take for a
ringing phone to be answered, and forking. For this reason, request
handling in SIP is often classified as either INVITE or non- INVITE,
referring to all other methods besides INVITE. Full details on
session termination are in Section 15.
Full details of all the messages shown in the example of Figure 1 are
shown in Section 26.2.
In some cases, it may be useful for proxies in the SIP signaling path
to see all the messaging between the endpoints for the duration of
the session. For example, if the biloxi.com proxy server wished to
remain in the SIP messaging path beyond the initial INVITE, it would
add to the INVITE a required routing header field known as Record-
Route that contained a URI resolving to the proxy. This information
would be received by both Bob's SIP phone and (due to the Record-
Route header field being passed back in the 200 (OK)) Alice's
softphone and stored for the duration of the dialog. The biloxi.com
proxy server would then receive and proxy the ACK, BYE, and 200 (OK)
to the BYE. Each proxy can independently decide to receive subsequent
messaging, and that messaging will go through all proxies that elect
to receive it. This capability is frequently used for proxies that
are providing mid-call features.
Registration is another common operation in SIP. Registration is one
way that the biloxi.com server can learn the current location of Bob.
Upon initialization, and at periodic intervals, Bob's SIP phone sends
REGISTER messages to a server in the biloxi.com domain known as a SIP
registrar. The REGISTER messages associate Bob's SIP URI
(sip:bob@biloxi.com) with the machine he is currently logged in at
(conveyed as a SIP URI in the Contact header). The registrar writes
this association, also called a binding, to a database, called the
location service , where it can be used by the proxy in the
biloxi.com domain. Often, a registrar server for a domain is co-
located with the proxy for that domain. It is an important concept
that the distinction between types of SIP servers is logical, not
physical.
Bob is not limited to registering from a single device. For example,
both his SIP phone at home and the one in the office could send
registrations. This information is stored together in the location
service and allows a proxy to perform various types of searches to
locate Bob. Similarly, more than one user can be registered on a
single device at the same time.
The location service is just an abstract concept. It generally
Various Authors [Page 10]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
contains information that allows a proxy to input a URI and get back
a translated URI that tells the proxy where to send the request.
Registrations are one way to create this information, but not the
only way. Arbitrary mapping functions can be programmed, at the
discretion of the administrator.
Finally, it is important to note that in SIP, registration is used
for routing incoming SIP requests and has no role in authorizing
outgoing requests. Authorization and authentication are handled in
SIP either on a request-by-request, challenge/response mechanism, or
using a lower layer scheme as discussed in Section 22.
The complete set of SIP message details for this registration example
is in Section 26.1.
Additional operations in SIP, such as querying for the capabilities
of a SIP server or client using OPTIONS, canceling a pending request
using CANCEL, or supporting reliability of provisional responses
using PRACK will be introduced in later sections.
5 Structure of the Protocol
SIP is structured as a layered protocol, which means that its
behavior is described in terms of a set of fairly independent
processing stages with only a loose coupling between each stage. The
protocol is structured into layers for the purpose of presentation
and conciseness; it allows the grouping of functions common across
elements into a single place. It does not dictate an implementation
in any way. When we say that an element "contains" a layer, we mean
it is compliant to the set of rules defined by that layer.
Not every element specified by the protocol contains every layer.
Furthermore, the elements specified by SIP are logical elements, not
physical ones. A physical realization can choose to act as different
logical elements, perhaps even on a transaction-by-transaction basis.
The lowest layer of SIP is its syntax and encoding. Its encoding is
specified using a BNF. The complete BNF is specified in Section 27.
However, a basic overview of the structure of a SIP message can be
found in Section 7. This section provides enough understanding of the
format of a SIP message to facilitate understanding the remainder of
the protocol.
The next higher layer is the transport layer. This layer defines how
a client takes a request and physically sends it over the network,
and how a response is sent by a server and then received by a client.
All SIP elements contain a transport layer. The transport layer is
described in Section 19.
Various Authors [Page 11]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
The next higher layer is the transaction layer. Transactions are a
fundamental component of SIP. A transaction is a request, sent by a
client transaction (using the transport layer), to a server
transaction, along with all responses to that request sent from the
server transaction back to the client. The transaction layer handles
application layer retransmissions, matching of responses to requests,
and application layer timeouts. Any task that a UAC accomplishes
takes place using a series of transactions. Discussion of
transactions can be found in Section 17. User agents contain a
transaction layer, as do stateful proxies. Stateless proxies do not
contain a transaction layer.
The transaction layer has a client component (referred to as a client
transaction), and a server component (referred to as a server
transaction), each of which are represented by an FSM that is
constructed to process a particular request. The layer on top of the
transaction layer is called the transaction user (TU), of which there
are several types. When a TU wishes to send a request, it creates a
client transaction instance and passes it the request along with the
destination IP address, port, and transport to which to send the
request.
A TU which creates a client transaction can also cancel it. When a
client cancels a transaction, it requests that the server stop
further processing, revert to the state that existed before the
transaction was initiated, and generate a specific error response to
that transaction. This is done with a CANCEL request, which
constitutes its own transaction, but references the transaction to be
cancelled. Cancellation is described in Section 9.
There are several different types of transaction users. A UAC
contains a UAC core, a UAS contains a UAS core, and a proxy contains
a proxy core. The behavior of the UAC and UAS cores depend largely on
the method. However, there are some common rules for all methods.
These rules are captured in Section 8. They primarily deal with
construction of a request, in the case of a UAC, and processing of
that request and generation of a response, in the case of a UAS.
UAC and UAS core behavior for the REGISTER method is described in
Section 10. Registrations play an important role in SIP. In fact, a
UAS that handles a REGISTER is given a special name - a registrar -
and it is described in that section.
UAC and UAS core behavior for the OPTIONS method, used for
determining the capabilities of a UA, are described in Section 11.
Certain other requests are sent within a dialog. A dialog is a
peer-to-peer SIP relationship between two user agents that persists
Various Authors [Page 12]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
for some time. The dialog facilitates sequencing of messages and
proper routing of requests between the user agents. The INVITE method
is the only way defined in this specification to establish a dialog.
When a UAC sends a request that is within the context of a dialog, it
follows the common UAC rules as discussed in Section 8, but also the
rules for mid-dialog requests. Section 12 discusses dialogs and
presents the procedures for their construction, and maintenance, in
addition to construction of requests within a dialog.
The UAS core can generate provisional responses to requests, which
are responses that provide additional information about the request
processing but do not indicate completion. Normally, provisional
responses are not transmitted reliably. However, an optional
mechanism exists for them to be transmitted reliably. This mechanism
makes use of a method called PRACK, sent as a separate transaction
within the dialog between the UAC and UAS, which is used to
acknowledge a reliable provisional response.
The most important method in SIP is the INVITE method, which is used
to establish a session between participants. A session is a
collection of participants, and streams of media between them, for
the purposes of communication. Section 13 discusses how sessions are
initiated, resulting in one or more SIP dialogs. Section 14 discusses
how characteristics of that session are modified through the use of
an INVITE request within a dialog. Finally, section 15 discusses how
a session is terminated.
The procedures of Sections 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15 deal
entirely with the UA core (Section 9 describes cancellation, which
applies to both UA core and proxy core). Section 16 discusses the
proxy element, which facilitates routing of messages between user
agents.
6 Definitions
This specification uses a number of terms to refer to the roles
played by participants in SIP communications. The terms and generic
syntax of URI and URL are defined in RFC 2396 [9]. The following
terms have special significance for SIP.
Back-to-Back user agent: A back-to-back user agent (B2BUA) is a
logical entity that receives a request and processes it as
an user agent server (UAS). In order to determine how the
request should be answered, it acts as an user agent client
(UAC) and generates requests. Unlike a proxy server, it
maintains dialog state and must participate in all requests
sent on the dialogs it has established. Since it is a
concatenation of a UAC and UAS, no explicit definitions are
Various Authors [Page 13]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
needed for its behavior.
Call: A call is an informal term that refers to a dialog between
peers generally set up for the purposes of a multimedia
conversation.
Call leg: Another name for a dialog.
Call stateful: A proxy is call stateful if it retains state for
a dialog from the initiating INVITE to the terminating BYE
request. A call stateful proxy is always stateful, but the
converse is not true.
Client: A client is any network element that sends SIP requests
and receives SIP responses. Clients may or may not interact
directly with a human user. User agent clients and proxies
are clients.
Conference: A multimedia session (see below) that contains
multiple participants.
Dialog: A dialog is a peer-to-peer SIP relationship between a
UAC and UAS that persists for some time. A dialog is
established by SIP messages, such as a 2xx response to an
INVITE request. A dialog is identified by a call
identifier, local address, and remote address. A dialog
was formerly known as a call leg in RFC 2543.
Downstream: A direction of message forwarding within a
transaction that refers to the direction that requests flow
from the user agent client to user agent server.
Final response: A response that terminates a SIP transaction, as
opposed to a provisional response that does not. All 2xx,
3xx, 4xx, 5xx and 6xx responses are final.
Header: A header is a component of a sip message that conveys
information about the message. It is structured as a header
name, followed by a colon, followed by its value.
Home Domain: The domain providing service to a SIP user.
Typically, this is the domain present in the URI in the
address-of-record of a registration.
Informational Response: Same as a provisional response.
Initiator, calling party, caller: The party initiating a session
(and dialog) with an INVITE request. A caller retains this
Various Authors [Page 14]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
role from the time it sends the initial INVITE which
established a dialog, until the termination of that dialog.
Invitation: An INVITE request.
Invitee, invited user, called party, callee: The party that
receives an INVITE request for the purposes of establishing
a new session. A callee retains this role from the time it
receives the INVITE until the termination of the dialog
established by that INVITE.
Location service: A location service is used by a SIP redirect
or proxy server to obtain information about a callee's
possible location(s). It contains a list of bindings of
adress-of-record keys to zero or more contact addresses.
The bindings can be created and removed in many ways; this
specification defines a REGISTER method that updates the
bindings.
Loop: A request that arrives at a proxy, is forwarded, and later
arrives back at the same proxy. When it arrives the second
time, its Request-URI is identical to the first time, and
other headers that affect proxy operation are unchanged, so
that the proxy would make the same processing decision on
the request it made the first time around. Looped requests
are errors, and the procedures for detecting them and
handling them are described by the protocol.
Message: Data sent between SIP elements as part of the the
protocol. SIP messages are either requests or responses.
Method: The method is the primary function that a request is
meant to invoke on a server. The method is carried in the
request message itself. Example methods are INVITE and BYE.
Outbound proxy: A proxy that receives all requests from a
client, even though it is not the server resolved by the
Request-URI. The outbound proxy sends these requests, after
any local processing, to the address indicated in the
Request-URI, or to another outbound proxy. Typically, a UA
is manually configured with its outbound proxy, or can
learn it through auto-configuration protocols.
Parallel search: In a parallel search, a proxy issues several
requests to possible user locations upon receiving an
incoming request. Rather than issuing one request and then
waiting for the final response before issuing the next
request as in a sequential search , a parallel search
Various Authors [Page 15]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
issues requests without waiting for the result of previous
requests.
Provisional response: A response used by the server to indicate
progress, but that does not terminate a SIP transaction.
1xx responses are provisional, other responses are
considered final. Normally, provisional responses are not
sent reliably. A provisional response that is sent reliably
is referred to as a reliable provisional response
Proxy, proxy server: An intermediary entity that acts as both a
server and a client for the purpose of making requests on
behalf of other clients. A proxy server primarily plays the
role of routing, which means its job is to ensure that a
request is passed on to another entity "closer" to the
targeted user. Proxies are also useful for enforcing policy
(for example, making sure a user is allowed to make a
call). A proxy interprets, and, if necessary, rewrites
specific parts of a request message before forwarding it.
Recursion: A client recurses on a 3xx response when it generates
a new request to the URIs in the Contact headers in the
response.
Redirect Server: A redirect server is a server that generates
3xx responses to requests it receives, directing the client
to contact an alternate URI.
Registrar: A registrar is a server that accepts REGISTER
requests, and places the information it receives in those
requests into the location service for the domain it
handles.
Regular Transaction: A regular transaction is any transaction
with a method other than INVITE, ACK, or CANCEL.
Reliable Provisional Response: A provisional response that is
sent reliably from the UAS to UAC.
Request: A SIP message sent from a client to a server, for the
purpose of invoking a particular operation.
Response: A SIP message sent from a server to a client, for
indicating the status of a request sent from the client to
the server.
Ringback: Ringback is the signaling tone produced by the calling
party's application indicating that a called party is being
Various Authors [Page 16]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
alerted (ringing).
Route Refresh Request: A route refresh request sent within a
dialog is defined as a request that can modify the route
set of the dialog.
Server: A server is a network element that receives requests in
order to service them and sends back responses to those
requests. Examples of servers are proxies, user agent
servers, redirect servers, and registrars.
Sequential search: In a sequential search, a proxy server
attempts each contact address in sequence, proceeding to
the next one only after the previous has generated a non-
2xx final response.
Session: From the SDP specification: "A multimedia session is a
set of multimedia senders and receivers and the data
streams flowing from senders to receivers. A multimedia
conference is an example of a multimedia session." (RFC
2327 [5]) (A session as defined for SDP can comprise one or
more RTP sessions.) As defined, a callee can be invited
several times, by different calls, to the same session. If
SDP is used, a session is defined by the concatenation of
the user name , session id , network type , address type ,
and address elements in the origin field.
(SIP) transaction: A SIP transaction occurs between a client and
a server and comprises all messages from the first request
sent from the client to the server up to a final (non-1xx)
response sent from the server to the client, and the ACK
for the response in the case the response was a non-2xx.
The ACK for a 2xx response is a separate transaction.
Spiral: A spiral is a SIP request that is routed to a proxy,
forwarded onwards, and arrives once again at that proxy,
but this time, differs in a way that will result in a
different processing decision than the original request.
Typically, this means that the request's Request-URI
differs from its previous arrival. A spiral is not an error
condition, unlike a loop. A typical cause for this is call
forwarding. A user calls joe@example.com. The example.com
proxy forwards it to Joe's PC, which in turn, forwards it
to bob@example.com. This request is proxied back to the
example.com proxy. However, this is not a loop. Since the
request is targeted at a different user, it is considered a
spiral, and is a valid condition.
Various Authors [Page 17]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
Stateful proxy: A logical entity that maintains the client and
server transaction state machines defined by this
specification during the processing of a request. Also
known as a transaction stateful proxy. The behavior of a
stateful proxy is further defined in Section 16. A stateful
proxy is not the same as a call stateful proxy.
Stateless proxy: A logical entity that does not maintain the
client or server transaction state machines defined in this
specification when it processes requests. A stateless proxy
forwards every request it receives downstream and every
response it receives upstream.
Transaction User (TU): The layer of protocol processing that
resides above the transaction layer. Transaction users
include the UAC core, UAS core, and proxy core.
Upstream: A direction of message forwarding within a transaction
that refers to the direction that responses flow from the
user agent server to user agent client.
URL-encoded: A character string encoded according to RFC 1738,
Section 2.2 [10].
User agent client (UAC): A user agent client is a logical entity
that creates a new request, and then uses the client
transaction state machinery to send it. The role of UAC
lasts only for the duration of that transaction. In other
words, if a piece of software initiates a request, it acts
as a UAC for the duration of that transaction. If it
receives a request later on, it assumes the role of a user
agent server for the processing of that transaction.
UAC Core: The set of processing functions required of a UAC that
reside above the transaction and transport layers.
User agent server (UAS): A user agent server is a logical entity
that generates a response to a SIP request. The response
accepts, rejects or redirects the request. This role lasts
only for the duration of that transaction. In other words,
if a piece of software responds to a request, it acts as a
UAS for the duration of that transaction. If it generates a
request later on, it assumes the role of a user agent
client for the processing of that transaction.
UAS Core: The set of processing functions required at a UAS that
reside above the transaction and transport layers.
Various Authors [Page 18]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
User agent (UA): A logical entity that can act as both a user
agent client and user agent server for the duration of a
dialog.
The role of UAC and UAS as well as proxy and redirect servers are
defined on a transaction-by-transaction basis. For example, the user
agent initiating a call acts as a UAC when sending the initial INVITE
request and as a UAS when receiving a BYE request from the callee.
Similarly, the same software can act as a proxy server for one
request and as a redirect server for the next request.
Proxy, location, and registrar servers defined above are logical
entities; implementations MAY combine them into a single application.
7 SIP Messages
SIP is a text-based protocol and uses the ISO 10646 character set in
UTF-8 encoding (RFC 2279 [11]).
A SIP message is either a request from a client to a server, or a
response from a server to a client.
Both Request (section 7.1) and Response (section 7.2) messages use
the basic format of RFC 2822 [7], even though the syntax differs in
character set and syntax specifics. (SIP allows header fields that
would not be valid RFC 2822 header fields, for example.) Both types
of messages consist of a start-line, one or more header fields (also
known as "headers"), an empty line indicating the end of the header
fields, and an optional message-body.
generic-message = start-line
*message-header
CRLF
[ message-body ]
The start-line, each message-header line, and the empty line MUST be
terminated by a carriage-return line-feed sequence (CRLF). Note that
the empty line MUST be present even if the message-body is not.
Except for the above difference in character sets, much of SIP's
message and header field syntax is identical to HTTP/1.1. Rather than
repeating the syntax and semantics here, we use [HX.Y] to refer to
Section X.Y of the current HTTP/1.1 specification (RFC 2616 [12]).
However, SIP is not an extension of HTTP.
Various Authors [Page 19]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
7.1 Requests
SIP requests are distinguished by having a Request-Line for a start-
line. A Request-Line contains a method name, a Request-URI, and the
protocol version separated by a single space (SP) character. The
Request-Line ends with CRLF. No CR or LF are allowed except in the
end-of-line CRLF sequence. No LWS is allowed in any of the elements.
Method Request-URI SIP-Version
Method:
This specification defines seven methods: REGISTER for
registering contact information, INVITE, ACK, PRACK and
CANCEL for setting up sessions, BYE for terminating
sessions and OPTIONS for querying servers about their
capabilities. SIP extensions, documented in standards track
RFCs, may define additional methods.
Request-URI: The Request-URI is a SIP URI as described in
Section 23.1 or a general URI (RFC 2396 [9]). It indicates
the user or service to which this request is being
addressed. The Request-URI MUST NOT contain unescaped
spaces or control characters and MUST NOT be enclosed in
"<>".
SIP elements MAY support Request-URIs with schemes other
than "sip", for example the "tel" URI scheme of RFC 2806
[13]. SIP elements MAY translate non-SIP URIs using any
mechanism at their disposal, resulting in either a SIP URI
or some other scheme.
SIP-Version: Both request and response messages include the
version of SIP in use, and follow [H3.1] (with HTTP
replaced by SIP, and HTTP/1.1 replaced by SIP/2.0)
regarding version ordering, compliance requirements, and
upgrading of version numbers. To be compliant with this
specification, applications sending SIP messages MUST
include a SIP-Version of "SIP/2.0". The SIP-Version string
is case-insensitive, but implementations MUST send upper-
case.
Unlike HTTP/1.1, SIP treats the version number as a
literal string. In practice, this should make no
difference.
7.2 Responses
Various Authors [Page 20]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
SIP responses are distinguished from requests by having a Status-Line
as their start-line. A Status-Line consists of the protocol version
followed by a numeric Status-Code and its associated textual phrase,
with each element separated by a single SP character. No CR or LF is
allowed except in the final CRLF sequence.
SIP-version Status-Code Reason-Phrase
The Status-Code is a 3-digit integer result code that indicates the
outcome of an attempt to understand and satisfy a request. The
Reason-Phrase is intended to give a short textual description of the
Status-Code. The Status-Code is intended for use by automata, whereas
the Reason-Phrase is intended for the human user. A client is not
required to examine or display the Reason-Phrase. While this
specification suggests specific wording for the reason phrase,
implementations MAY choose other text, e.g., in the language
indicated in the Accept-Language header field of the request.
The first digit of the Status-Code defines the class of response. The
last two digits do not have any categorization role. For this reason,
any response with a status code between 100 and 199 is referred to as
a "1xx response", any response with a status code between 200 and 299
as a "2xx response", and so on. SIP/2.0 allows six values for the
first digit:
1xx: Provisional -- request received, continuing to process the
request;
2xx: Success -- the action was successfully received,
understood, and accepted;
3xx: Redirection -- further action needs to be taken in order to
complete the request;
4xx: Client Error -- the request contains bad syntax or cannot
be fulfilled at this server;
5xx: Server Error -- the server failed to fulfill an apparently
valid request;
6xx: Global Failure -- the request cannot be fulfilled at any
server.
Section 25 defines these classes and describes the individual codes.
7.3 Header Fields
SIP header fields are similar to HTTP header fields in both syntax
Various Authors [Page 21]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
and semantics. In particular, SIP header fields follow the [H4.2]
definitions of syntax for message-header, the rules for extending
header fields over multiple lines, the use of multiple message-header
fields with the same field-name, and the rules regarding ordering of
header fields.
7.3.1 Header Field Format
Header fields follow the same generic header format as that given in
Section 2.2 of RFC 2822 [7]. Each header field consists of a field
name followed by a colon (":") and the field value.
field-name: field-value
The formal grammar for a message-header specified in Section 27
allows for an arbitrary amount of whitespace on either side of the
colon; however, implementations should avoid spaces between the field
name and the colon and use a single space (SP) between the colon and
the field-value. Thus,
Subject: lunch
Subject : lunch
Subject :lunch
Subject: lunch
are all valid and equivalent, but the last is the preferred form.
Header fields can be extended over multiple lines by preceding each
extra line with at least one SP or horizontal tab (HT). The line
break and the whitespace at the beginning of the next line are
treated as a single SP character. Thus, the following are equivalent:
Subject: I know you're there, pick up the phone and talk to me!
Subject: I know you're there,
pick up the phone
and talk to me!
The relative order of header fields with different field names is not
significant. However, it is RECOMMENDED that headers which are
needed for proxy processing (Via, Route, Record-Route, Proxy-Require,
Max-Forwards, and Proxy-Authorization, for example) appear towards
the top of the message, to facilitate rapid parsing. The relative
order of header fields with the same field name is important.
Multiple header fields with the same field-name MAY be present in a
message if and only if the entire field-value for that header field
is defined as a comma-separated list (that is, #(values)). It MUST be
Various Authors [Page 22]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
possible to combine the multiple header fields into one "field-name:
field-value" pair, without changing the semantics of the message, by
appending each subsequent field-value to the first, each separated by
a comma.
Implementations MUST be able to process multiple header fields with
the same name in any combination of the single-value-per-line or
comma-separated value forms.
The following groups of header fields are valid and equivalent:
Route: <sip:alice@atlanta.com>
Subject: Lunch
Route: <sip:bob@biloxi.com>
Route: <sip:carol@chicago.com>
Route: <sip:alice@atlanta.com>, <sip:bob@biloxi.com>
Route: <sip:carol@chicago.com>
Subject: Lunch
Subject: Lunch
Route: <sip:alice@atlanta.com>, <sip:bob@biloxi.com>, <sip:carol@chicago.com>
Each of the following blocks is valid but not equivalent to the
others:
Route: <sip:alice@atlanta.com>
Route: <sip:bob@biloxi.com>
Route: <sip:carol@chicago.com>
Route: <sip:bob@biloxi.com>
Route: <sip:alice@atlanta.com>
Route: <sip:carol@chicago.com>
Route: <sip:alice@atlanta.com>,<sip:carol@chicago.com>,<sip:bob@biloxi.com>
The format of a header field-value is defined per header-name. It
will always be either an opaque sequence of TEXT-UTF8 octets, or a
combination of whitespace, tokens, separators, and quoted strings.
Many existing headers will adhere to the general form of a value
followed by a semi-colon separated sequence of parameter-name,
parameter-value pairs:
field-name: field-value *(;parameter-name=parameter-value)
Various Authors [Page 23]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
Even though an arbitrary number of parameter pairs may be attached to
a header field value, any given parameter-name MUST NOT appear more
than once.
All new header fields MUST follow this generic format unless they
have been inherited from other RFC 2822-like specifications.
When comparing header fields, field names are always case-
insensitive. Unless otherwise stated in the definition of a
particular header field, field values, parameter names, and parameter
values are case-insensitive. Tokens are always case-insensitive.
Unless specified otherwise, values expressed as quoted strings are
case-sensitive.
For example,
Contact: <sip:alice@atlanta.com>;expires=3600
is equivalent to
CONTACT: <sip:alice@atlanta.com>;ExPiReS=3600
and
Content-Disposition: session;handling=optional
is equivalent to
content-disposition: Session;HANDLING=OPTIONAL
The following two header fields are not equivalent:
Warning: 370 devnull "Choose a bigger pipe"
Warning: 370 devnull "CHOOSE A BIGGER PIPE"
7.3.2 Header Field Classification
Some header fields only make sense in requests or responses. These
are called request header fields and response header fields,
respectively. If a header appears in a message not matching its
category (such as a request header field in a response), it MUST be
Various Authors [Page 24]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
ignored. Section 24 defines the classification of each header field.
7.3.3 Compact Form
SIP provides a mechanism to represent common header fields in an
abbreviated form. This may be useful when messages would otherwise
become too large to be carried on the transport available to it
(exceeding the maximum transmission unit (MTU) when using UDP, for
example). These compact forms are defined in Section 24. A compact
form MAY be substituted for the longer form of a header name at any
time without changing the semantics of the message. The same type of
header field MAY appear in both long and short forms within the same
message. Implementations MUST accept both the long and short forms of
each header name.
7.4 Bodies
Requests, including new requests defined in extensions to this
specification, MAY contain message bodies unless otherwise noted.
The interpretation of the body depends on the request method.
For response messages, the request method and the response status
code determine the type and interpretation of any message body. All
responses MAY include a body.
7.4.1 Message Body Type
The Internet media type of the message body MUST be given by the
Content-Type header field. If the body has undergone any encoding
such as compression, then this MUST be indicated by the Content-
Encoding header field; otherwise, Content-Encoding MUST be omitted.
If applicable, the character set of the message body is indicated as
part of the Content-Type header-field value.
The "multipart" MIME type defined in RFC 2046 [14] MAY be used within
the body of the message. Implementations that send requests
containing multipart message bodies MUST send a session description
as a non-multipart message body if the remote implementation requests
this through an Accept header field that does not contain multipart.
Note that SIP messages MAY contain binary bodies or body parts.
7.4.2 Message Body Length
The body length in bytes is provided by the Content-Length header
field. Section 24.14 describes the necessary contents of this header
in detail.
Various Authors [Page 25]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
The "chunked" transfer encoding of HTTP/1.1 MUST NOT be used for SIP.
(Note: The chunked encoding modifies the body of a message in order
to transfer it as a series of chunks, each with its own size
indicator.)
7.5 Framing SIP messages
Unlike HTTP, SIP implementations can use UDP or other unreliable
datagram protocols. Each such datagram carries one request or
response. See Section 19 on constraints on usage of unreliable
transports.
Likewise, implementations processing SIP messages over stream-
oriented transports MUST ignore any CRLF appearing before the start-
line [H4.1]
8 General User Agent Behavior
A user agent represents an end system. It contains a User Agent
Client (UAC), which generates requests, and a User Agent Server (UAS)
which responds to them. A UAC is capable of generating a request
based on some external stimulus (the user clicking a button, or a
signal on a PSTN line), and processing a response. A UAS is capable
of receiving a request, and generating a response, based on user
input, external stimulus, the result of a program execution, or some
other mechanism.
When a UAC sends a request, it will pass through some number of proxy
servers, which forward the request towards the UAS. When the UAS
generates a response, the response is forwarded towards the UAC.
UAC and UAS procedures depend strongly on two factors. First, whether
the request or response is inside or outside of a dialog, and second,
based on the method of a request. Dialogs are discussed thoroughly in
Section 12; they represent a peer-to-peer relationship between user
agents, and are established by specific SIP methods, such as INVITE.
In this section, we discuss the method independent rules for UAC and
UAS behavior when processing requests that are outside of a dialog.
This includes, of course, the requests which themselves establish a
dialog.
Security procedures for requests and responses outside of a dialog
are described in Section 22. Specifically, mechanisms exist for the
UAS and UAC to mutually authenticate. A limited set of privacy
features are also supported through encryption of bodies using
S/MIME.
Various Authors [Page 26]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
8.1 UAC Behavior
This section covers UAC behavior outside of a dialog.
8.1.1 Generating the Request
A valid SIP request formulated by a UAC MUST at a minimum contain the
following headers: To, From, CSeq, Call-ID, Max-Forwards, and Via;
all of these headers are mandatory in all SIP messages. These six
headers are the fundamental building blocks of a SIP message, as they
jointly provide for most of the critical message routing services
including the addressing of messages, the routing of responses,
limiting message propagation, ordering of messages, and the unique
identification of transactions. These headers are in addition to the
mandatory request line, which contains the method, Request-URI and
SIP version.
Examples of requests sent outside of a dialog include an INVITE to
establish a session (Section 13) and an OPTIONS to query for
capabilities (Section 11).
8.1.1.1 Request-URI
The initial Request-URI of the message SHOULD be set to the value of
the URI in the To field. One notable exception is the REGISTER
method; behavior for setting the Request-URI of register is given in
Section 10.
Another exception is the case of pre-existing Route headers; in that
case, the procedures of Section 12.2.1.1 as they pertain to the
Request-URI are followed, even though there is no dialog. Pre-
existing Route headers are an ordered set of URIs that identify a
chain of servers to which outgoing requests from a UAC will be sent.
Commonly, they are configured on the user agent by a user or service
provider manually, or through some non-SIP mechanism. They are most
often used to identify a local outbound proxy server through which a
UAC will send all requests, which in turn allows service providers to
maintain a common point of policy enforcement for requests.
8.1.1.2 To
The To general-header field first and foremost specifies the desired
"logical" recipient of the request, or the address of record of the
user or resource that is the target of this request. This may or may
not be the ultimate recipient of the request. The To header MAY
contain a SIP URI, but it may also make use of other URI schemes (the
tel URL [13], for example) when appropriate. All SIP implementations
MUST support the SIP URI. The To header field allows for a display
Various Authors [Page 27]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
name.
A UAC may learn how to populate the To header field for a particular
request in a number of ways. Usually the user will suggest the To
header field through a human interface, perhaps inputting the URI
manually or selecting it from some sort of address book. Frequently,
the user will not enter a complete URI, but rather, a string of
digits or letters (i.e., "bob"). It is at the discretion of the UA to
choose how to interpret this input. Using it to form the user part of
a SIP URL implies that the UA wishes the name to be resolved in the
domain the right hand side (RHS) of the at-sign in the SIP URI (i.e.,
sip:bob@example.com). The RHS will frequently be the home domain of
the user, which allows for the home domain to process the outgoing
request. This is useful for features like "speed dial" which require
interpretation of the user part in the home domain. The tel URL is
used when the UA does not wish to specify the domain that should
interpret the user input. Rather, each domain that the request passes
through would be given that opportunity. As an example, a user in an
airport might log in, and send requests through an outbound proxy in
the airport. If they enter "411" (this is the phone number for local
directory assistance in the United States), that needs to be
interpreted and processed by the outbound proxy in the airport, not
the user's home domain. In this case, tel:411 would be the right
choice.
A request outside of a dialog MUST NOT contain a tag; the tag in the
To field of a request identifies the peer of the dialog. Since no
dialog is established, no tag is present.
For further information on the To header see Section 24.41.
The following is an example of valid To header:
To: Carol <sip:carol@chicago.com>
8.1.1.3 From
The From general-header field indicates the logical identity of the
initiator of the request, possibly the user's address of record. Like
the To field, it contains a URI and optionally a display name. It is
used by SIP elements to determine processing rules to apply to a
request (for example, automatic call rejection). As such, it is very
important that the From URI not contain IP addresses or the FQDN of
the host the UA is running on, since these are not logical names.
The From header field allows for a display name. A UAC SHOULD use the
Various Authors [Page 28]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
display name "Anonymous", along with a syntactically correct, but
otherwise meaningless URI (like sip:988776a@ahhs.aa), if the identity
of the client is to remain hidden.
Usually the value that populates the From header field in requests
generated by a particular user agent is pre-provisioned by the user
or by the administrators of the user's local domain. If a particular
user agent is used by multiple users, it might have switchable
profiles that include a URI corresponding to the identity of the
profiled user. Recipients of requests can authenticate the originator
of a request in order to ascertain that they are who their From
header field claims they are (see Section 20 for more on
authentication).
The From field MUST contain a new "tag" parameter, chosen by the UAC.
See Section 23.3 for details on choosing a tag.
For further information on the From header see Section 24.20.
Examples:
From: "Bob" <sip:bob@biloxi.com> ;tag=a48s
From: sip:+12125551212@server.phone2net.com;tag=887s
From: Anonymous <sip:c8oqz84zk7z@privacy.org>;tag=hyh8
8.1.1.4 Call-ID
The Call-ID general-header field acts as a unique identifier to group
together a series of messages. It MUST be the same for all requests
and responses sent by either UA in a dialog. It SHOULD be the same in
each registration from a UA.
In a new request created by a UAC outside of any dialog, the Call-ID
header MUST be selected by the UAC as a globally unique identifier
over space and time unless overridden by method specific behavior.
All SIP user agents must have a means to guarantee that the Call-ID
headers they produce will not be inadvertently generated by any other
user agent. Note that when requests are retried after certain
failure responses that solicit an amendment to a request (for
example, a challenge for authentication), these retried requests are
not considered new requests, and therefore do not need new Call-ID
headers; see Section 8.1.4.6.
Use of cryptographically random identifiers [15] in the generation of
Call-IDs is RECOMMENDED. Implementations MAY use the form
Various Authors [Page 29]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
"localid@host". Call-IDs are case-sensitive and are simply compared
byte-by-byte.
Using cryptographically random identifiers provides some
protection against session hijacking and reduces the
likelihood of unintentional Call-ID collisions.
No provisioning or human interface is required for the selection of
the Call-ID header field value for a request.
For further information on the Call-ID header see Section 24.8.
Example:
Call-ID: f81d4fae-7dec-11d0-a765-00a0c91e6bf6@foo.bar.com
8.1.1.5 CSeq
The Cseq header serves as a way to identify and order transactions.
It consists of a sequence number and a method. The method MUST match
that of the request. For requests outside of a dialog, the sequence
number value is arbitrary, but MUST be expressible as a 32-bit
unsigned integer and MUST be less than 2**31. As long as it follows
the above guidelines, a client may use any mechanism it would like to
select CSeq header field values.
Section 12.2.1.1 discusses construction of the CSeq for requests
within a dialog.
Example:
CSeq: 4711 INVITE
8.1.1.6 Max-Forwards
The Max-Forwards header serves to limit the number of hops a request
can transit on the way to its destination. It consists of an integer
that is decremented by one at each hop. If the Max-Forwards value
reaches 0 before the request reaches its destination, it will be
rejected with a 483 Too Many Hops error response.
A UAC MUST insert a Max-Forwards header field into each request it
Various Authors [Page 30]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
originates with a value of 70.
8.1.1.7 Via
The Via header is used to indicate the transport used for the
transaction, and to identify the location where the response is to be
sent.
When the UAC creates a request, it MUST insert a Via into that
request. The protocol and version in the header MUST be SIP and 2.0,
respectively. The Via header it inserts MUST contain a branch
parameter. This parameter is used to uniquely identify the
transaction created by that request. This parameter is used by both
the client, and the server.
The branch parameter value MUST be unique across time for all
requests sent by the UA. The exception to this rule is CANCEL. As
discussed below, a CANCEL request will have the same value of the
branch parameter as the request it cancels.
The uniqueness property of the branch ID parameter, to
facilitate its use as a transaction ID, was not part of RFC
2543
The branch ID inserted by an element compliant with this
specification MUST always begin with the characters "z9hG4bK". These
7 characters are used as a magic cookie (7 is deemed sufficient to
ensure that an older RFC 2543 implementation would not pick such a
value), so that servers receiving the request can determine that the
branch ID was constructed in the fashion described by this
specification (i.e., globally unique). Beyond this requirement, the
precise format of the branch token is implementation-defined.
The Via header maddr, ttl, and sent-by components will be set when
the request is processed by the transport layer (Section 19).
Via processing for proxies is described in Sections 3 and sec:proxy-
response-processing-via.
8.1.1.8 Contact
The Contact header provides a SIP URI that can be used to contact
that specific instance of the user agent for subsequent requests. The
Contact header MUST be present in any request that can result in the
establishment of a dialog. For the methods defined in this
specification, that includes only the INVITE request. For these
requests, the scope of the Contact is the dialog. That is, the
Various Authors [Page 31]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
Contact header refers to the URI at which the UA would like to
receive requests, for requests that are part of that dialog only.
Only a single URI MUST be present.
For further information on the Contact header, see Section 24.10.
8.1.1.9 Supported and Require
If the UAC supports extensions to SIP that can be applied by the
server to the response, the UAC SHOULD include a Supported header in
the request listing the option tags (Section 23.2) for those
extensions. This includes support for reliability for provisional
responses, which is an extension even though it is defined within
this specification. The option tag for reliability of provisional
responses is 100rel
The option-tags listed MUST only refer to extensions defined in
standards-track RFCs. This is to prevent servers from insisting that
clients implement non-standard, vendor-defined features in order to
receive service. Extensions defined by experimental and informational
RFCs are explicitly excluded from usage with the Supported header in
a request, since they too are often used to document vendor-defined
extensions.
If the UAC wishes to insist that a UAS understand an extension that
the UAC will apply to the request in order to process the request, it
MUST insert a Require header into the request listing the option tag
for that extension. If the UAC wishes to apply an extension to the
request and insist that any proxies that are traversed understand
that extension, it MUST insert a Proxy-Require header into the
request listing the option tag for that extension.
As with the Supported header, the option-tags in the Require header
MUST only refer to extensions defined in standards-track RFCs.
A Require header in a request with the option tag 100rel means that
the UAC wishes for all provisional responses to this request to be
transmitted reliably. This header MUST NOT be present in any requests
excepting INVITE, although extensions to SIP may allow its usage with
other request methods.
8.1.1.10 Additional Message Components
After a new request has been created, and the headers described above
have been properly constructed, any additional optional headers are
added, as are any headers specific to the method.
SIP requests MAY contain a MIME-encoded message-body. Regardless of
Various Authors [Page 32]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
the type of body that a request contains, certain headers must be
formulated to characterize the contents of the body. For further
information on these headers see Sections 24.14, 24.15 and 24.12.
8.1.2 Sending the Request
The destination for the request is then computed. A loose-routing
element MAY use local policy to determine the IP address, port, and
transport used to reach the destination. One example of such a policy
is an element configured to send requests to a default outbound
proxy. Section 8.1.3 discusses restrictions on loose-routing
policies. For other elements, the destination can be determined by
applying the DNS proceedures described in [8] to the Request-URI.
These procedures yield an ordered set of address, port, and
transports to attempt. The UAC SHOULD follow the procedures defined
there for stateful elements, trying each address until a server is
contacted. Each try constitutes a new transaction, and therefore each
carries a different Via header with a new branch parameter.
Furthermore, the transport value in the Via header is set to whatever
transport was determined for the target server.
8.1.3 Loose Routing Policies
An element MAY apply a local loose-routing policy when preparing and
sending a request. This policy MAY affect the Request-URI and Route
header field values in the request as well as where the request is
sent, and what transport mechanism is used to send it.
Elements SHOULD use the strict-routing policy of removing the topmost
value from a route set, placing it in the Request-URI and sending the
request to the location indicated by that URI.
This is the behavior of elements implementing earlier
strict versions of Route/Record-Route.
Where appropriate, elements MAY deviate from the strict-routing
policy as long as the following restrictions are met:
8.1.3.1 Modifying the Route header field
A loose-routing element MAY remove the topmost Route header field
value. It MUST remove the topmost Route header field value if that
value indicates a resource this element is responsible for. The
element MUST NOT modify or remove any subsequent Route header field
values. The element MAY place additional Route header field values
into the Route header field before any existing values (effectivly
pushing values onto the top of the Route set).
Various Authors [Page 33]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
A loose-routing element may chose to not remove the first
Route header field value. For example, elements configured
to use default outbound proxies in liu of using the DNS
resolution proceedures will leave the topmost Route header
field value in the message.
When the topmost Route header field value indicates a
resource this element is responsible for, the message has
reached the element indicated by the route, and that value
must be removed from the Route header field. This assures
that Route header field values are consumed when the
destination they indicate has been reached.
8.1.3.2 Modifying the Request-URI
If the Request-URI identifies a resource for which this element is
responsible, the loose-route policy SHOULD include modifying the
Request-URI before sending the request.
This restriction ensures that a Request-URI is modified
once the resource it indicates has been reached.
8.1.3.3 Destination Choice
A loose-routing policy MUST direct the request to or the resource
indicated in the first Route header field value, or to a proxy it
trusts to ensure this property.
This restriction ensures the resource indicated by the
topmost Route header field value is actually visited.
8.1.3.4 Loop Avoidance
The Request-URI of a request emitted by a loose-routing element MUST
differ from the URI in the first Route header field value.
This restriction is necessary to avoid triggering false loop
detections in older systems. The following algorithm can be applied
to ensure sufficient difference in otherwise matching Request-URIs
and first Route header field values.
For each of these items, D is the address of the next hop (which may
or may not be equivalent to A).
If the topmost element in the received Route header field is
Various Authors [Page 34]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
<sip:a@A>, the outgoing request will contain
METHOD sip:a@A;maddr=D
Route: <sip:a@A>
If the topmost element in the received Route header field is
<sip:a@A;maddr=D>, the outgoing request will contain
METHOD sip:a@A
Route: <sip:a@A;maddr=D>
If the topmost element in the received Route header field is
<sip:a@A;maddr=B> and D!=B, the outgoing request will contain
METHOD sip:a@A;maddr=D
Route: <sip:a@A;maddr=B>
8.1.4 Processing Responses
Responses are first processed by the transport layer and then passed
up to the transaction layer. The transaction layer performs its
processing and then passes it up to the TU. The majority of response
processing in the TU is method specific. However, there are some
general behaviors independent of the method.
8.1.4.1 Transaction Layer Errors
In some cases, the response returned by the transaction layer will
not be a SIP message, but rather a transaction layer event. The only
event that the TU will encounter is the timeout event. When the
timeout event is received from the transaction layer, it MUST be
treated as if a 408 (Request Timeout) status code has been received.
8.1.4.2 Unrecognized Responses
A UAC MUST treat any response it does not recognize as being
equivalent to the x00 response code of that class, and MUST be able
to process the x00 response code for all classes. For example, if a
UAC receives an unrecognized response code of 431, it can safely
assume that there was something wrong with its request and treat the
response as if it had received a 400 (Bad Request) response code.
Various Authors [Page 35]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
8.1.4.3 Vias
If more than one Via header field is present in a response, the UAC
SHOULD discard the message.
The presence of additional Via header fields that precede
the originator of the request suggests that the message was
misrouted or possibly corrupted.
8.1.4.4 Processing Reliable 1xx Responses
A 1xx response that contains a Require header with the option tag
100rel is a reliable provisional response. The UA core follows the
procedures in Section 18.2 to process the response, which will result
in the generation of a PRACK request to acknowledge the reliable
provisional response.
8.1.4.5 Processing 3xx responses
Upon receipt of a redirection response (for example, a 3xx response
status code), clients SHOULD use the URI(s) in the Contact header
field to formulate one or more new requests based on the redirected
request.
If more than one URI is present in Contact header fields within the
3xx response, the UA MUST determine an order in which these contact
addresses should be processed. UAs MUST consult the "q" parameter
value of the Contact header fields (see Section 22.10) if available.
Contact addresses MUST be ordered from highest qvalue to lowest. If
no qvalue is present, a contact address is considered to have a
qvalue of 1.0. Note that two or more contact addresses might have an
equal qvalue - these URIs are eligible to be tried in parallel.
Once an ordered list has been established, UACs MUST try to contact
each URI in the ordered list in turn until a server responds. If
there are contact addresses with an equal qvalue, the UAC MAY decide
randomly on an order in which to process these addresses, or it MAY
attempt to process contact addresses of equal qvalue in parallel.
Note that for example, the UAC may effectively divide the ordered
list into groups, processing the groups serially and processing the
destinations in each group in parallel.
If contacting an address in the list results in a failure, as defined
in the next paragraph, the element moves to the next address in the
list, until the list is exhausted. If the list is exhausted, then the
request has failed.
Various Authors [Page 36]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
Failures SHOULD be detected through failure response codes (codes
greater than 399) or network timeouts. Client transaction will report
any transport layer failures to the transaction user.
When a failure for a particular contact address is recieved, the
client SHOULD try the next contact address. This will involve
creating a new client transaction to deliver a new request.
In order to create a request based on a contact address in a 3xx
response, a UAC MUST copy the entire URI from the Contact header into
the Request-URI, except for the "method-param" and "header" URI
parameters (see Section 23.1.1 for a definition of these parameters).
It uses the "header" parameters to create headers for the new
request, overwriting headers associated with the redirected request
in accordance with the guidelines in Section 23.1.5.
Note that in some instances, headers that have been communicated in
the contact address may instead append to existing request headers in
the original redirected request. As a general rule, if the header can
accept a comma-separated list of values, then the new header value
MAY be appended to any existing values in the original redirected
request. If the header does not accept multiple values, the value in
the original redirected request MAY be overwritten by the header
value communicated in the contact address.
For example, if a contact address is returned with the following
value:
sip:user@host?Subject=foo&Call-Info=<http://www.foo.com>
Then any Subject header in the original redirected request is
overwritten, but the HTTP URL is merely appended to any existing
Call-Info header field values.
It is RECOMMENDED that the UAC reuse the same To, From, and Call-ID
used in the original redirected request, but the UAC MAY also choose
to update for example the Call-ID header field value for new
requests.
Finally, once the new request has been constructed, it is sent using
a new client transaction, and therefore MUST have a new branch ID in
the top Via field as discussed in Section 8.1.1.7.
In all other respects, requests sent upon receipt of a redirect
response SHOULD re-use the headers and bodies of the original
Various Authors [Page 37]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
request.
In some instances, Contact header values may be cached at UAC
temporarily or permanently depending on the status code received and
the presence of an expiration interval; see Sections 25.3.2 and
25.3.3.
8.1.4.6 Processing 4xx responses
Certain 4xx response codes require specific UA processing,
independent of the method.
If a 401 (Unauthorized) or 407 (Proxy Authentication Required)
response is received, the UAC SHOULD follow the authorization
procedures of Section 20.2 and Section 20.3 to retry the request with
credentials.
If a 413 (Request Entity Too Large) response is received (Section
25.4.11), the request contained a body that was longer than the UAS
was willing to accept. If possible, the UAC SHOULD retry the request,
either omitting the body or using one of a smaller length.
If a 415 (Unsupported Media Type) response is received (Section
25.4.13), the request contained media types not supported by the UAS.
The UAC SHOULD retry sending the request, this time only using
content with types listed in the Accept header in the response, with
encodings listed in the Accept-Encoding header in the response, and
with languages listed in the Accept-Language in the response.
If a 416 (Unsupported URI Scheme) response is received (Section
25.4.14, the Request-URI used a URI scheme not supported by the
server. The client SHOULD retry the request, this time, using a SIP
URI.
If a 420 (Bad Extension) response is received (Section 25.4.15), the
request contained a Require or Proxy-Require header listing an
option-tag for a feature not supported by a proxy or UAS. The UAC
SHOULD retry the request, this time omitting any extensions listed in
the Unsupported header in the response.
In all of the above cases, the request is retried by creating a new
request with the appropriate modifications. This new request SHOULD
have the same value of the Call-ID, To, and From of the previous
request, but the CSeq should contain a new sequence number that is
one higher than the previous.
With other 4xx responses, including those yet to be defined, a
retry may or may not be possible depending on the method and the use
Various Authors [Page 38]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
case.
8.2 UAS Behavior
When a request outside of a dialog is processed by a UAS, there is a
set of processing rules which are followed, independent of the
method. Section 12 gives guidance on how a UAS can tell whether a
request is inside or outside of a dialog.
Note that request processing is atomic. If a request is accepted, all
state changes associated with it MUST be performed. If it is
rejected, all state changes MUST NOT be performed.
8.2.1 Method Inspection
Once a request is authenticated (or no authentication was desired),
the UAS MUST inspect the method of the request. If the UAS does not
support the method of a request it MUST generate a 405 (Method Not
Allowed) response. Procedures for generation of responses are
described in Section 8.2.6. The UAS MUST also add an Allow header to
the 405 (Method Not Allowed) response. The Allow header field MUST
list the set of methods supported by the UAS generating the message.
The Allow header field is presented in Section 24.5.
If the method is one supported by the server, processing continues.
8.2.2 Header Inspection
If a UAS does not understand a header field in a request (that is,
the header is not defined in this specification or in any supported
extension), the server MUST ignore that header and continue
processing the message. A UAS SHOULD ignore any malformed headers
that are not necessary for processing requests.
8.2.2.1 To and Request-URI
The To header field identifies the original recipient of the request
designated by the user identified in the From field. The original
recipient may or may not be the UAS processing the request, due to
call forwarding or other proxy operations. A UAS MAY apply any policy
it wishes in determination of whether to accept requests when the To
field is not the identity of the UAS. However, it is RECOMMENDED that
a UAS accept requests even if they do not recognize the URI scheme
(for example, a tel: URI) in the To header, or if the To header field
does not address a known or current user of this UAS. If, on the
other hand, the UAS decides to reject the request, it SHOULD generate
a response with a 403 (Forbidden) status code and pass it to the
Various Authors [Page 39]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
server transaction layer for transmission.
However, the Request-URI identifies the UAS that is to process the
request. If the Request-URI uses a scheme not supported by the UAS,
it SHOULD reject the request with a 416 (Unsupported URI Scheme)
response. If the Request-URI does not identify an address that the
UAS is willing to accept requests for, it SHOULD reject the request
with a 404 (Not Found) response. Typically, a UA that uses the
REGISTER method to bind its address of record to a specific contact
address will see requests whose Request-URI equals those contact
addressess. Other potential sources of received Request-URIs include
the Contact headers of requests and responses sent by the UA that
establish or refresh dialogs.
8.2.2.2 Merged Requests
If the request has no tag in the To, the TU checks ongoing
transactions. If the To, From, Call-ID, CSeq exactly match (including
tags) those of any request received previously, but the branch-ID in
the topmost Via is different from those received previously, the TU
SHOULD generate a 482 (Loop Detected) response and pass it to the
server transaction.
The same request has arrived at the UAS more than once,
following different paths, most likely due to forking. The
UAS processes the first such request received and responds
with a 482 (Loop Detected) to the rest of them.
8.2.2.3 Require
Assuming the UAS decides that it is the proper element to process the
request, it examines the Require header field, if present.
The Require general-header field is used by a UAC to tell a UAS about
SIP extensions that the UAC expects the UAS to support in order to
process the request properly. Its format is described in Section
24.33. If a UAS does not understand an option-tag listed in a Require
header field, it MUST respond by generating a response with status
code 420 (Bad Extension). The UAS MUST add an Unsupported header
field, and list in it those options it does not understand amongst
those in the Require header of the request. Upon receipt of the 420
(Bad Extension) the client SHOULD retry the request, this time
without using those extensions listed in the Unsupported header field
in the response.
Note that Require and Proxy-Require MUST NOT be used in a SIP CANCEL
request, or in an ACK request sent for a non-2xx response. These
headers should be ignored if they are present in these requests.
Various Authors [Page 40]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
An ACK request for a 2xx response MUST contain only those Require and
Proxy-Require values that were present in the initial request.
Example:
UAC->UAS: INVITE sip:watson@bell-telephone.com SIP/2.0
Require: 100rel
UAS->UAC: SIP/2.0 420 Bad Extension
Unsupported: 100rel
This is to make sure that the client-server interaction
will proceed without delay when all options are understood
by both sides, and only slow down if options are not
understood (as in the example above). For a well-matched
client-server pair, the interaction proceeds quickly,
saving a round-trip often required by negotiation
mechanisms. In addition, it also removes ambiguity when the
client requires features that the server does not
understand. Some features, such as call handling fields,
are only of interest to end systems.
8.2.3 Content Processing
Assuming the UAS understands any extensions required by the client,
the UAS examines the body of the message, and the headers that
describe it. If there are any bodies whose type (indicated by the
Content-Type), language (indicated by the Content-Language) or
encoding (indicated by the Content-Encoding) are not understood, and
that body part is not optional (as indicated by the Content-
Disposition header), the UAS MUST reject the request with a 415
(Unsupported Media Type) response. The response MUST contain an
Accept header listing the types of all bodies it understands, in the
event the request contained bodies of types not supported by the UAS.
If the request contained content encodings not understood by the UAS,
the response MUST contain an Accept-Encoding header listing the
encodings understood by the UAS. If the request contained content
with languages not understood by the UAS, the response MUST contain
an Accept-Language header indicating the languages understood by the
UAS.
Beyond these checks, body handling depends on the method and type.
For further information on the processing of Content-specific headers
Various Authors [Page 41]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
see Section 7.4 as well as Section 24.11 through 24.15.
8.2.4 Applying Extensions
A UAS that wishes to apply some extension when generating the
response MUST only do so if support for that extension is indicated
in the Supported header in the request. If the desired extension is
not supported, the server SHOULD rely only on baseline SIP and any
other extensions supported by the client. To ensure that the SHOULD
can be fulfilled, any specification of a new extension MUST include
discussion of how to return gracefully to baseline SIP when the
extension is not present. In rare circumstances, where the server
cannot process the request without the extension, the server MAY send
a 421 (Extension Required) response. This response indicates that the
proper response cannot be generated without support of a specific
extension. The needed extension(s) MUST be included in a Require
header in the response. This behavior is NOT RECOMMENDED, as it will
generally break interoperability.
Any extensions applied to a non-421 response MUST be listed in a
Require header included in the response. Of course, the server MUST
NOT apply extensions not listed in the Supported header in the
request. As a result of this, the Require header in a response will
only ever contain option tags defined in standards-track RFCs.
8.2.5 Processing the Request
Assuming all of the checks in the previous subsections are passed,
the UAS processing becomes method-specific. Section 10 covers the
REGISTER request, section 11 covers the OPTIONS request, section 13
covers the INVITE request, and section 15 covers the BYE request.
8.2.6 Generating the Response
When a UAS wishes to construct a response to a request, it follows
these procedures. Additional procedures may be needed depending on
the status code of the response and the circumstances of its
construction. These additional procedures are documented elsewhere.
8.2.6.1 Sending a Provisional Response
One largely non-method-specific guideline for the generation of
responses is that UASs SHOULD NOT issue a provisional response for a
non-INVITE request. Rather, UASs SHOULD generate a final response to
a non-INVITE request as sooon as possible.
When a 100 (Trying) response is generated, any Timestamp header
present in the request MUST be copied into this 100 (Trying)
Various Authors [Page 42]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
response.
8.2.6.2 Headers and Tags
The From field of the response MUST equal the From field of the
request. The Call-ID field of the response MUST equal the Call-ID
field of the request. The Cseq field of the response MUST equal the
Cseq field of the request. The Via headers in the response MUST equal
the Via headers in the request and MUST maintain the same ordering.
If a request contained a To tag in the request, the To field in the
response MUST equal that of the request. However, if the To field in
the request did not contain a tag, the URI in the To field in the
response MUST equal the URI in the To field in the request;
additionally, the UAS MUST add a tag to the To field in the response
(with the exception of the 100 (Trying) response, in which a tag MAY
be present). This serves to identify the UAS that is responding,
possibly resulting in a component of a dialog ID. The same tag MUST
be used for all responses to that request, both final and provisional
(again excepting the 100 (Trying)). Procedures for generation of
tags are defined in Section 23.3.
8.2.7 Stateless UAS Behavior
A stateless UAS is a UAS that does not maintain transaction state. It
replies to requests normally, but discards any state that would
ordinarily be retained by a UAS after a response has been sent. If a
stateless UAS receives a retransmission of a request, it regenerates
the response and resends it, just as if it were the replying to the
first instance of the request. Stateless UASs do not use a
transaction layer; they receive requests directly from the transport
layer amd send responses directly to the transport layer.
The stateless UAS role is needed primarily to handle unauthenticated
requests for which a challenge response is issued. If unauthenticated
requests were handled statefully, then malicious floods of
unauthenticated requests could create massive amounts of transaction
state that might slow or complete halt call processing in a UAS,
effectively creating a denial of service condition; for more
information see Section 22.1.5.
The most important behaviors of a stateless UAS are the following:
o A stateless UAS MUST NOT send provisional (1xx) responses.
o A stateless UAS MUST NOT retransmit responses.
o A stateless UAS MUST ignore ACK requests.
Various Authors [Page 43]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
o A stateless UAS MUST ignore CANCEL requests.
o To header tags MUST be generated for responses in a stateless
manner - in a manner that will generate the same tag for the
same request consistently. For information on tag
construction see Section 23.3.
In all other respects, a stateless UAS behaves in the same manner as
a stateful UAS. A UAS can operate in either a stateful or stateless
mode for each new request.
8.3 Redirect Servers
In some architectures it may be desirable to reduce the processing
load on proxy servers that are responsible for routing requests, and
improve signaling path robustness, by relying on redirection.
Redirection allows servers to push routing information for a request
back in a response to the client, thereby taking themselves out of
the loop of further messaging for this transaction while still aiding
in locating the target of the request. When the originator of the
request receives the redirection, it will send a new request based on
the URI it has received. By propagating URIs from the core of the
network to its edges, redirection allows for considerable network
scalability.
A redirect server is logically constituted of a server transaction
layer and a transaction user that has access to a location service of
some kind (see Section 10 for more on registrars and location
services). This location service is effectively a database containing
mappings between a single URI and a set of one or more alternative
locations at which the target of that URI can be found.
A redirect server does not issue any SIP requests of its own. After
receiving a request other than CANCEL, the server gathers the list of
alternative locations from the location service and either returns a
final response of class 3xx or it refuses the request. For well-
formed CANCEL requests, it SHOULD return a 2xx response. This
response ends the SIP transaction. The redirect server maintains
transaction state for an entire SIP transaction. It is the
responsibility of clients to detect forwarding loops between redirect
servers.
When a redirect server returns a 3xx response to a request, it
populates the list of (one or more) alternative locations into
Contact headers. An "expires" parameter to the Contact header may
also be supplied to indicate the lifetime of the Contact data.
The Contact header field contains URIs giving the new locations or
Various Authors [Page 44]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
user names to try, or may simply specify additional transport
parameters. A 301 (Moved Permanently) or 302 (Moved Temporarily)
response may also give the same location and username that was
targeted by the initial request but specify additional transport
parameters such as a different server or multicast address to try, or
a change of SIP transport from UDP to TCP or vice versa.
However, redirect servers MUST NOT redirect a request to a URI equal
to the one in the Request-URI; instead, provided that the URI does
not point to itself, the redirect server SHOULD proxy the request to
the destination URI.
If a client is using an outbound proxy, and that proxy
actually redirects requests, a potential arises for
infinite redirection loops.
Note that the Contact header field MAY also refer to a different
entity than the one originally called. For example, a SIP call
connected to GSTN gateway may need to deliver a special informational
announcement such as "The number you have dialed has been changed."
A Contact response header field can contain any suitable URI
indicating where the called party can be reached, not limited to SIP
URIs. For example, it could contain URIs for phones, fax, or irc (if
they were defined) or a mailto: (RFC 2368, [16]) URL.
The "expires" parameter of the Contact header field indicates how
long the URI is valid. The value of the parameter is a number
indicating seconds. If this parameter is not provided, the value of
the Expires header field determines how long the URI is valid.
Implementations MAY treat values larger than 2**32-1 (4294967295
seconds or 136 years) as equivalent to 2**32-1. Malformed values
should be treated as equivalent to 3600.
Redirect servers MUST ignore features that are not understood
(including unrecognized headers, Required extensions, or even method
names) and proceed with the redirection of the session in question.
If a particular extension requires that intermediate devices support
it, the extension MUST be tagged in the Proxy-Require field as well
(see Section 24.29).
9 Canceling a Request
The previous section has discussed general UA behavior for generating
requests, and processing responses, for requests of all methods. In
this section, we discuss a general purpose method, called CANCEL.
The CANCEL request, as the name implies, is used to cancel a previous
Various Authors [Page 45]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
request sent by a client. Specifically, it asks the UAS to cease
processing the request and to generate an error response to that
request. CANCEL has no effect on a request to which a UAS has already
responded. Because of this, it is most useful to CANCEL requests to
which can take a long time to respond. For this reason, CANCEL is
most useful for INVITE requests, which can take a long time to
generate a response. In that usage, a UAS that receives a CANCEL
request for an INVITE, but has not yet sent a response, would "stop
ringing", and then respond to the INVITE with a specific error
response (a 487).
CANCEL requests can be constructed and sent by any type of client,
including both proxies and user agent clients. Section 15 discusses
under what conditions a UAC would CANCEL an INVITE request, and
Section 16.9 discusses proxy usage of CANCEL.
Because a stateful proxy can generate its own CANCEL, a stateful
proxy also responds to a CANCEL, rather than simply forwarding a
response it would receive from a downstream element. For that reason,
CANCEL is referred to as a "hop-by-hop" request, since it is
responded to at each stateful proxy hop.
9.1 Client Behavior
A CANCEL request SHOULD NOT be sent to cancel a request other than
INVITE.
Since requests other than INVITE are responded to
immediately, sending a CANCEL for a non-INVITE request
would always create a race condition.
The following procedures are used to construct a CANCEL request. The
Request-URI, Call-ID, To, the numeric part of CSeq and From header
fields in the CANCEL request MUST be identical to those in the
request being cancelled, including tags. A CANCEL constructed by a
client MUST have only a single Via header, whose value matches the
top Via in the request being cancelled. Using the same values for
these headers allows the CANCEL to be matched with the request it
cancels (Section 9.2 indicates how such matching occurs). However,
the method part of the Cseq header MUST have a value of CANCEL. This
allows it to be identified and processed as a transaction in its own
right (See Section 17). If the request being cancelled contains
Route header fields, the CANCEL request MUST include these Route
header fields.
This is needed so that stateless proxies are able to route
CANCEL requests properly.
Various Authors [Page 46]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
The CANCEL request MUST NOT contain any Require or Proxy-Require
header fields.
Once the CANCEL is constructed, the client SHOULD check whether any
response (provisional or final) has been received for the request
being cancelled (herein referred to as the "original request"). The
CANCEL request MUST NOT be sent if no provisional response has been
received, rather, the client MUST wait for the arrival of a
provisional response before sending the request. If the original
request has generated a final response, the CANCEL SHOULD NOT be
sent, as it is an effective no-op, since CANCEL has no effect on
requests that have already generated a final response. When the
client decides to send the CANCEL, it creates a client transaction
for the CANCEL and passes it the CANCEL request along with the
destination address, port, and transport. The destination address,
port, and transport for the CANCEL MUST be identical to those used to
send the original request.
If it was allowed to send the CANCEL before receiving a
response for the previous request, the server could receive
the CANCEL before the original request.
Note that both the transaction corresponding to the original request
and the CANCEL transaction will complete independently. However, a
UAC canceling a request cannot rely on receiving a 487 (Request
Terminated) response for the original request, as an RFC 2543-
compliant UAS will not generate such a response. If there is no
final response for the original request in 64*T1 seconds (T1 is
defined in Section 17.1.1.1), the client SHOULD then consider the
original transaction cancelled and SHOULD destroy the client
transaction handling the original request.
9.2 Server Behavior
The CANCEL method requests that the TU at the server side cancel a
pending transaction. The transaction to be canceled is determined by
taking the CANCEL request, and then assuming that the request method
were anything but CANCEL, apply the transaction matching procedures
of Section 17.2.3. The matching transaction is the one to be
canceled.
The processing of a CANCEL request at a server depends on the type of
server. A stateless proxy will forward it, a stateful proxy might
respond to it and generate some CANCEL requests of its own, and a UAS
will respond to it. See Section 16.9 for proxy treatment of CANCEL.
A UAS first processes the CANCEL request according to the general UAS
Various Authors [Page 47]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
processing described in Section 8.2. However, since CANCEL requests
are hop-by-hop and cannot be resubmitted, they cannot be challenged
by the server in order to get proper credentials in an Authorization
header field. Note also that CANCEL requests do not contain Require
header fields.
If the CANCEL did not find a matching transaction according to the
procedure above, the CANCEL SHOULD be responded to with a 481 (Call
Leg/Transaction Does Not Exist). If the transaction for the original
request still exists, the behavior of the UAS on receiving a CANCEL
request depends on whether it has already sent a final response for
the original request. If it has, the CANCEL request has no effect on
the processing of the original request, no effect on any session
state, and no effect on the responses generated for the original
request. If the UAS has not issued a final response for the original
request, its behavior depends on the method of the original request.
If the original request was an INVITE, the UAS SHOULD immediately
respond to the INVITE with a 487 (Request Terminated). The behavior
upon reception of a CANCEL request for any other method defined in
this specification is effectively no-op. Extensions to this
specification that define new methods MUST define the behavior of a
UAS upon reception of a CANCEL for those methods.
Regardless of the method of the original request, as long as the
CANCEL matched an existing transaction, the CANCEL request itself is
answered with a 200 (OK) response. This response is constructed
following the procedures described in Section 8.2.6 noting that the
To tag of the response to the CANCEL and the To tag in the response
to the original request SHOULD be the same. The response to CANCEL is
passed to the server transaction for transmission.
10 Registrations
10.1 Overview
SIP offers a discovery capability. If a user wants to initiate a
session with another user, SIP must discover the current host(s) that
the destination user is reachable at. This discovery process is
accomplished by SIP proxy servers, which are responsible for
receiving a request, determining where to send it based on knowledge
of the location of the user, and then sending it there. To do this,
proxies consult an abstract service known as a location service ,
which provides address bindings for a particular domain. These
address bindings map an incoming SIP URI, sip:bob@Biloxi.com , for
example, to one or more SIP URIs which are somehow "closer" to the
desired user, sip:bob@engineering.Biloxi.com , for example.
Ultimately, a proxy will consult a location service which maps a
received URI to the current host(s) that a user is logged in to.
Various Authors [Page 48]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
Registration creates bindings in a location service for a particular
domain that associate an address-of-record URI with one or more
contact addresses. This means that when a proxy for that domain
receives a request whose request URI matches the address-of-record,
the proxy will forward the request to the contact addresses
registered to that address-of-record. Generally, it only makes sense
to register an address-of-record at a location service for a domain
when requests for that address-of-record would be routed to that
domain. In most cases, this means that the domain of the registration
will need to match the domain in the URI of the address-of-record.
There are many ways by which the contents of the location service can
be established. One way is administratively. In the above example,
Bob is known to be a member of the engineering department through
access to a corporate database. SIP provides a mechanism, however,
for a user agent to explicitly create a binding. This mechanism is
known as registration.
Registration entails sending a REGISTER request to a special type of
UAS known as a registrar. The registrar acts as a front end to the
location service for a domain, reading and writing mappings based on
the contents of the REGISTER requests. This location service will
then be consulted by a proxy server that is responsible for routing
requests for that domain.
SIP does not mandate a particular mechanism for implementing the
location service. The only requirement is that a registrar for some
domain MUST be able to read and write data to the location service,
and a proxy for that domain MUST be capable of reading that same
data. A registrar MAY be co-located with a particular SIP proxy
server for the same domain.
10.2 Constructing the REGISTER Request
REGISTER requests add, remove and query bindings. A REGISTER request
may add a new binding between an address-of-record and one or more
contact addresses. Registration on behalf of a particular address-
of-record may be performed by a suitably authorized third party. A
client may also remove previous bindings, or query to determine which
bindings are currently in place for an address-of-record.
Except as noted, the construction of the REGISTER request and the
behavior of clients sending a REGISTER request is identical to the
general UAC behavior described in Section 8.1 and Section 17.1. The
following header fields MUST be included:
Request-URI: The Request-URI names the domain of the location
Various Authors [Page 49]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
service that the registration is meant for (e.g.,
"sip:chicago.com"). The "userinfo" and "@" components of
the SIP URI MUST NOT be present.
To: The To header field contains the address of record whose
registration is to be created, queried or modified. The To
header field and the Request-URI field typically differ, as
the former contains a user name. This address-of-record
MUST be a SIP URI.
From: The From header field contains the address-of-record of
the person responsible for the registration. The value is
the same as the To header field unless the request is a
third-party registration.
Call-ID: All registrations from a user agent client SHOULD use
the same Call-ID header value for registrations sent to a
particular registrar.
If the same client were to use different Call-ID
values, a registrar could not detect whether a delayed
REGISTER request might have arrived out of order.
CSeq: The CSeq value guarantees proper ordering of REGISTER
requests. A UA MUST increment the CSeq value by one for
each REGISTER request with the same Call-ID.
Contact: REGISTER requests contain zero or more Contact header
fields, containing address bindings.
User agents MUST NOT send a new registration (i.e., containing new
Contact header fields, as opposed to a retransmission) until they
have received a final response from the registrar for the previous
one or the previous REGISTER request has timed out.
The following Contact header parameters have a special meaning in
REGISTER requests:
action: The "action" parameter from RFC 2543 has been
deprecated. UACs SHOULD NOT use the "action" parameter.
expires: The "expires" parameter indicates how long the UA would
like the binding to be valid. The value is a number
indicating seconds. If this parameter is not provided, the
value of the Expires header field is used instead.
Implementations MAY treat values larger than 2**32-1
(4294967295 seconds or 136 years) as equivalent to 2**32-1.
Various Authors [Page 50]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
bob
+----+
| UA |
| |
+----+
|
|3)INVITE
| carol@chicago.com
chicago.com +--------+ V
+---------+ 2)Store|Location|4)Query +-----+
|Registrar|=======>| Service|<=======|Proxy|sip.chicago.com
+---------+ +--------+=======>+-----+
A 5)Resp |
| |
| |
1)REGISTER| |
| |
+----+ |
| UA |<-------------------------------+
cube2214a| | 6)INVITE
+----+ carol@cube2214a.chicago.com
carol
Figure 2: REGISTER example
Various Authors [Page 51]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
Malformed values should be treated as equivalent to 3600.
10.2.1 Adding Bindings
The REGISTER request sent to a registrar includes contact addresses
to which SIP requests for the address-of-record should be forwarded.
The address-of-record is included in the To header field of the
REGISTER request.
The Contact header fields of the request typically contain SIP URIs
that identify particular SIP endpoints (for example,
"sip:carol@cube2214a.chicago.com"), but they MAY use any URI scheme.
A SIP UA can choose to register telephone numbers (with the tel URL,
[13]) or email addresses (with a mailto URL, [16]) as Contacts for an
address-of-record.
For example, Carol, with address-of-record "sip:carol@chicago.com",
would register with the SIP registrar of the domain chicago.com. Her
registrations would then be used by a proxy server in the chicago.com
domain to route requests for Carol's address-of-record to her SIP
endpoint.
Once a client has established bindings at a registrar, it MAY send
subsequent registrations containing new bindings or modifications to
existing bindings as necessary. The 2xx response to the REGISTER
request will contain, in Contact header fields, a complete list of
bindings that have been registered for this address-of-record at this
registrar.
Registrations do not need to update all bindings. Typically, a UA
only updates its own SIP URI as well as any non-SIP URIs.
10.2.1.1 Setting the Expiration Interval of Contact Addresses
When a client sends a REGISTER request, it MAY suggest an expiration
interval that indicates how long the client would like the
registration to be valid. (As described in Section 10.3, the
registrar selects the actual time interval based on its local
policy.)
There are two ways in which a client can suggest an expiration
interval for a binding: through an Expires header field, or an
"expires" Contact header parameter. The latter allows expiration
intervals to be suggested on a per-binding basis when more than one
binding is given in a single REGISTER request, whereas the former
suggests an expiration interval for all Contact header fields that do
not contain the "expires" parameter.
Various Authors [Page 52]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
If neither mechanism for expressing a suggested expiration time is
present in a REGISTER, a default suggestion of one hour is assumed.
10.2.1.2 Preferences among Contact Addresses
If more than one Contact is sent in a REGISTER request, the
registering UA intends to associate all of the URIs given in these
Contact headers with the address-of-record present in the To field.
This list can be prioritized with the "q" parameter in the Contact
header fields. The "q" parameter indicates a relative preference for
the particular Contact header field compared to other bindings
present in this REGISTER message or existing within the location
service of the registrar. Section 16.5 describes how a proxy server
uses this preference indication.
10.2.2 Removing Bindings
Registrations are soft state and expire unless refreshed, but can
also be explicitly removed. A client can attempt to influence the
expiration interval selected by the registrar as described in Section
10.2.1. A user agent requests the immediate removal of a binding by
specifying an expiration interval of "0" for that contact address in
a REGISTER request. User agents SHOULD support this mechanism so that
bindings can be removed before their expiration interval has passed.
The REGISTER-specific Contact header field value of "*" applies to
all registrations, but it MUST only be used when the Expires header
field is present with a value of "0".
Use of the "*" Contact header field value allows a
registering user agent to remove all of its bindings
without knowing their precise values.
If no Contact header fields are present in a REGISTER request, the
list of bindings is left unchanged.
10.2.3 Fetching Bindings
A success response to any REGISTER request contains the complete list
of existing bindings, regardless of whether the request contained a
Contact header field or not.
10.2.4 Refreshing Bindings
Each UA is responsible to refresh the bindings that it has previously
established. A UA SHOULD NOT refresh bindings set up by other UAs.
Various Authors [Page 53]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
The 200 (OK) response from the registrar contains a list of Contact
fields enumerating all current bindings. The UA compares each contact
address to see if it created the contact address, using. comparison
rules in Section 23.1.4. If so, it updates the expiration time
interval according to the expires parameter or, if absent, the
Expires field value. The UA then issues a REGISTER request for each
of its bindings before the expiration interval has elapsed. It MAY
combine several updates into one REGISTER request.
A UA SHOULD use the same Call-ID for all registrations during a
single boot cycle. Registration refreshes SHOULD be sent to the same
network address as the original registration, unless redirected.
10.2.5 Setting the Internal Clock
If the response for REGISTER request contains a Date header, the
client MAY use this header field to learn the current time in order
to set any internal clocks.
10.2.6 Discovering a Registrar
UAs can use three ways to determine the address to send registrations
to: by configuration, using the address-of-record and multicast. A UA
can be configured, in ways beyond the scope of this specification,
with a registrar address. If there is no configured registrar
address, the UA SHOULD use the host part of the address-of-record as
the Request-URI and address the request there, using the normal SIP
server location mechanisms [8]. For example, the UA for the user
"sip:carol@chicago.com" addresses the REGISTER request to
"chicago.com".
Finally, a UA can be configured to use multicast. Multicast
registrations are addressed to the well-known "all SIP servers"
multicast address "sip.mcast.net" (224.0.1.75 for IPv4). No well-
known IPv6 multicast address has been allocated; such an allocation
will be documented separately when needed. This request MUST be
scoped to ensure it is not forwarded beyond the boundaries of the
administrative system. This MAY be done with either TTL or
administrative scopes (see [17]), depending on what is implemented in
the network. SIP user agents MAY listen to that address and use it to
become aware of the location of other local users (see [18]);
however, they do not respond to the request.
Multicast registration may be inappropriate in some
environments, for example, if multiple businesses share the
same local area network.
Various Authors [Page 54]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
10.2.7 Transmitting a Request
Once the REGISTER method has been constructed, and the destination of
the message identified, UACs should follow the procedures described
in Section 8.1.2 to hand off the REGISTER to the transaction layer.
If the transaction layer returns a timeout error because the REGISTER
yielded no response, the UAC SHOULD wait some reasonable time
interval before re-attempting a registration to the same registrar;
no specific interval is mandated.
10.2.8 Error Responses
If a UA receives a 423 (Registration Too Brief) response, it MAY
retry the registration after making the expiration interval of all
contact addresses in the REGISTER request equal to or greater than
the expiration interval within the Min-Expires header of the 423
(Registration Too Brief) response.
10.3 Processing REGISTER Requests
A registrar is a UAS that responds to REGISTER requests and maintains
a list of bindings that are accessible to proxy servers within its
administrative domain. A registrar handles requests according to
Section 8.2 and Section 17.2, but it accepts only REGISTER requests.
A registrar does not generate 6xx responses. If a registrar listens
at a multicast interface, it MAY redirect multicast REGISTER requests
to its own unicast interface with a 302 (Moved Temporarily) response.
A REGISTER request MUST NOT contain Record-Route or Route header
fields; registrars MUST ignore them if they appear.
A registrar must know (e.g., through configuration) the set of
domain(s) for which it maintains bindings. REGISTER requests MUST be
processed by a registrar in the order that they are received.
REGISTER requests MUST also be processed atomically, meaning that
REGISTER requests are either processed completely or not at all. Each
REGISTER message must be processed independently of any other
registration or binding changes.
When receiving a REGISTER request, a registrar follows these steps:
1. The registrar inspects the Request-URI to determine whether
it has access to bindings for the domain identified in the
Request-URI. If not and if the server also acts as a proxy
server, the server SHOULD forward the request to the
addressed domain, following the general behavior for
proxying messages described in Section 16.
Various Authors [Page 55]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
2. To guarantee that the registrar supports any necessary
extensions, the registrar processes Require header fields
as described for UASs in Section 8.2.2.
3. A registrar SHOULD authenticate the UAC. Mechanisms for the
authentication of SIP user agents are described in Section
20; registration behavior in no way overrides the generic
authentication framework for SIP. If no authentication
mechanism is available, the registrar MAY take the From
address as the asserted identity of the originator of the
request.
4. The registrar SHOULD determine if the authenticated user is
authorized to modify registrations for this address-of-
record. For example, a registrar might consult a
authorization database that maps user names to a list of
addresses-of-record for which this identity is authorized
to modify bindings. If not, the registrar returns 403
(Forbidden) and skips the remaining steps.
In architectures that support third-party
registration, one entity may be responsible for
updating the registrations associated with multiple
addresses-of-record.
5. The registrar extracts the address-of-record from the To
header field of request. If the address-of-record is not
valid for the domain in the Request-URI, the registrar
sends a 404 (Not Found) response and skips the remaining
steps. The URI MUST then converted to a canonical form. To
do that, all URI parameters are removed (including the user
param), and any escaped characters are converted to their
unescaped form. The result serves as an index into the list
of bindings.
6. The registrar checks whether the request contains any
Contact header fields. If not, it skips to the last step.
Next, the registrar checks if there is one Contact field
that contains the special value "*" and a Expires field. If
the request has additional Contact fields or an expiration
time other than zero, the request is invalid and the server
returns 400 (Invalid Request) and skips the remaining
steps. If not, the registrar checks whether the Call-ID
agrees with the value stored for each binding. If not, it
removes the binding. If it does agree, it only removes the
binding if the CSeq in the request is higher than the value
Various Authors [Page 56]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
stored for that binding and leaves the binding as is
otherwise. It then skips to the last step.
7. The registrar now processes each contact address in the
Contact header field in turn. For each address, it
determines the expiration interval as follows:
- If the field value has an "expires" parameter, that value
is used.
- If there is no such parameter, but the request has an
Expires header field, that value is used.
- If there is neither, a locally-configured default value
is used.
The registrar MAY shorten the expiration interval. If and
only if the expiration interval is greater than zero AND
smaller than one hour AND less than a registrar-configured
minimum, the registrar MAY reject the registration with a
response of 423 (Registration Too Brief). This response
MUST contain a Min-Expires header field that states the
minimum expiration interval the registrar is willing to
honor. It then skips the remaining steps.
Allowing the registrar to set the registration
interval protects it against excessively frequent
registration refreshes while limiting the state that
it needs to maintain and decreasing the likelihood of
registrations going stale. The expiration interval of
a registration is frequently used in the creation of
services. An example is a follow-me service, where the
user may only be available at a terminal for a brief
period. Therefore, registrars should accept brief
registrations; a request should only be rejected if
the interval is so short that the refreshes would
degrade registrar performance.
For each address, it then searches the list of current
bindings using the URI comparison rules. If the binding
does not exist, it is tentatively added. If the binding
does exist, the registrar checks the Call-ID value. If the
existing binding has the same Call-ID value differs from
the request, the binding is removed if the expiration time
is zero and updated otherwise. If they are the same, the
registrar compares the CSeq value. If the value is higher
than that of the existing binding, it updates or removes
Various Authors [Page 57]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
the binding as above. If not, the update is aborted and the
request fails.
This algorithm ensures that out-of-order requests from
the same UA are ignored.
Each binding record records the Call-ID and CSeq values
from the request.
The binding updates are committed (i.e., made visible to
the proxy) if and only if all binding updates and additions
succeed. If any one of them fails, the request fails with
500 (Server Error) response and all tentative binding
updates are removed.
8. The registrar returns a 200 (OK) response. The response
MUST contain Contact header fields enumerating all current
bindings. Each Contact value MUST feature an "expires"
parameter indicating its expiration interval chosen by the
registrar. The response SHOULD include a Date header
field.
11 Querying for Capabilities
The SIP method OPTIONS allows a UA to query another UA or a proxy
server as to its capabilities. This allows a client to discover
information about the methods, content types, extensions, codecs etc.
supported without actually "ringing" the other party. For example,
before a client inserts a Require header field into an INVITE listing
an option that it is not certain the destination UAS supports, the
client can query the destination UAS with an OPTIONS to see if this
option is returned in a Supported header field.
The target of the OPTIONS request is identified by the Request-URI,
which could identify another User Agent or a SIP Server. If the
OPTIONS is addressed to a proxy server, the Request-URI is set
without a user part, similar to the way a Request-URI is set for a
REGISTER request. Alternatively, a server receiving an OPTIONS
request with a Max-Forwards header value of 0 MAY respond to the
request regardless of the Request-URI.
This behavior is common with HTTP/1.1. This behavior can be
used as a "traceroute" functionality to check the
capabilities of individual hop servers by sending a series
of OPTIONS requests with incremented Max-Forwards values.
As is the case for general UA behavior, the transaction layer can
Various Authors [Page 58]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
return a timeout error if the OPTIONS yields no response. This may
indicate that the target is unreachable and hence unavailable.
An OPTIONS request MAY be sent as part of an established dialog to
query the peer on capabilities that may be utilized later in the
dialog.
11.1 Construction of OPTIONS Request
An OPTIONS request is constructed using the standard rules for a SIP
request as discussed Section 8.1.1.
A Contact header field MAY be present in an OPTIONS.
An Accept header field SHOULD be included to indicate the type of
message body the UAC wishes to receive in the response. Typically,
this is set to a format that is used to describe the media
capabilities of a UA, such as SDP (application/sdp).
The response to an OPTIONS request is assumed to be scoped to the
Request-URI in the original request. However, only when an OPTIONS is
sent as part of an established dialog is it guaranteed that future
requests will be received by the server which generated the OPTIONS
response.
Example OPTIONS request:
OPTIONS sip:carol@chicago.com SIP/2.0
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 192.0.2.4;branch=z9hG4bKhjhs8ass877
To: <sip:carol@chicago.com>
From: Alice <sip:alice@atlanta.com>;tag=1928301774
Call-ID: a84b4c76e66710
CSeq: 63104 OPTIONS
Contact: <sip:alice@192.0.2.4>
Accept: application/sdp
Content-Length: 0
11.2 Processing of OPTIONS Request
The response to an OPTIONS is constructed using the standard rules
for a SIP response as discussed in Section 8.2.6. The response code
chosen is the same that would have been chosen had the request been
an INVITE. That is, a 200 (OK) would be returned if the UAS is ready
to accept a call, a 486 (Busy Here) would be returned if the UAS is
busy, etc. This allows an OPTIONS request to be used to determine the
Various Authors [Page 59]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
basic state of a UAS, which can be an indication of whether the UAC
will accept an INVITE request.
An OPTIONS request received within a dialog generates a 200 (OK)
response which is identical to one constructed outside a dialog and
does not have any impact on the dialog. This use of OPTIONS has
limitations due the differences in proxy handling of OPTIONS and
INVITE requests. While a forked INVITE can result in multiple 200
(OK) responses being returned, a forked OPTIONS will only result in a
single 200 (OK) response, since it is treated by proxies using the
non-INVITE handling. See Section 13.2.1 for the normative details.
If the response to an OPTIONS is generated by a proxy server, the
proxy returns a 200 (OK) listing the capabilities of the server. The
response does not contain a message body.
Allow, Accept, Accept-Encoding, Accept-Language, and Supported header
fields SHOULD be present in a 200 (OK) response to an OPTIONS
request. If the response is generated by a proxy, the Allow header
field SHOULD be omitted as it is ambiguous since a proxy is method
agnostic.
Contact header fields MAY be present in a 200 (OK) response and have
the same semantics as in a redirect. That is, they may list a set of
alternative names and methods of reaching the user.
A Warning header field MAY be present.
A message body MAY be sent, the type of which is determined by the
Accept header in the OPTIONS request (application/sdp if the Accept
header was not present). If the types include one that can describe
media capabilities, the UA SHOULD include a body in the response for
that purpose. Details on construction of such a body in the case of
application/sdp are described in [19].
Example OPTIONS response generated by a UAS (corresponding to the
request in Section 11.1):
SIP/2.0 200 OK
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 192.0.2.4;branch=z9hG4bKhjhs8ass877
To: <sip:carol@chicago.com>;tag=93810874
From: Alice <sip:alice@atlanta.com>;tag=1928301774
Call-ID: a84b4c76e66710@100.1.3.3
CSeq: 63104 OPTIONS
Contact: <sip:carol@chicago.com>
Contact: <mailto:carol@chicago.com>
Allow: INVITE, ACK, CANCEL, OPTIONS, BYE
Various Authors [Page 60]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
Accept: application/sdp
Accept-Encoding: gzip
Accept-Language: en
Supported: foo
Content-Type: application/sdp
Content-Length: 274
(SDP not shown)
12 Dialogs
A key concept for a user agent is that of a dialog. A dialog
represents a peer-to-peer SIP relationship between a two user agents
that persists for some time. The dialog facilitates sequencing of
messages between the user agents and proper routing of requests
between both of them. The dialog represents a context in which to
interpret SIP messages. Section 8 discussed method- independent UA
processing for requests and responses outside of a dialog. This
section discusses how those requests and responses are used to
construct a dialog, and then how subsequent requests and responses
are sent within a dialog.
A dialog is identified at each UA with a dialog ID, which consists of
a Call-ID value, a local URI and local tag (together called the local
address), and a remote URI and remote tag (together called the remote
address). The dialog ID at each UA involved in the dialog is not the
same. Specifically, the local URI and local tag at one UA are
identical to the remote URI and remote tag at the peer UA. The tags
are opaque tokens that facilitate the generation of unique dialog
IDs.
A dialog ID is also associated with all responses and with any
request that contains a tag in the To field. The rules for computing
the dialog ID of a message depend on whether the entity is a UAC or
UAS. For a UAC, the Call-ID value of the dialog ID is set to the
Call-ID of the message, the remote address is set to the To field of
the message, and the local address is set to the From field of the
message (these rules apply to both requests and responses). As one
would expect, for a UAS, the Call-ID value of the dialog ID is set to
the Call-ID of the message, the remote address is set to the From
field of the message, and the local address is set to the To field of
the message.
A dialog contains certain pieces of state needed for further message
transmissions within the dialog. This state consists of the dialog
ID, a local sequence number (used to order requests from the UA to
Various Authors [Page 61]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
its peer), a remote sequence number (used to order requests from its
peer to the UA), and a route set, which is an ordered list of URIs.
The route set is the set of servers that need to be traversed to send
a request to the peer. A dialog can also be in the "early" state,
which occurs when it is created with a provisional response, and then
transition to the "confirmed" state when the final response comes.
12.1 Creation of a Dialog
Dialogs are created through the generation of non-failure responses
to requests with specific methods. Within this specification, only
2xx and 101-199 responses with a To tag to INVITE establish a dialog.
A dialog established by a non-final response to a request is in the
"early" state and it is called an early dialog. Extensions MAY define
other means for creating dialogs. Section 13 gives more details that
are specific to the INVITE method. Here, we describe the process for
creation of dialog state that is not dependent on the method.
A dialog is identified by a dialog ID. A dialog ID consists of three
components, namely a call identifier component, a local address
component and a remote address component. UAs MUST assign values to
these components as described below.
12.1.1 UAS behavior
When a UAS responds to a request with a response that establishes a
dialog (such as a 2xx to INVITE), the UAS MUST copy all Record-Route
headers from the request into the response (including the URIs, URI
parameters, and any Record-Route header parameters, whether they are
known or unknown to the UAS) and MUST maintain the order of those
headers. The UAS MUST add a Contact header field to the response.
The Contact header field contains an address where the UAS would like
to be contacted for subsequent requests in the dialog (which includes
the ACK for a 2xx response in the case of an INVITE). Generally, the
host portion of this URI is the IP address or FQDN of the host. The
URI provided in the Contact header field MUST be a SIP URI and have
global scope (i.e., the same SIP URI can be used outside this dialog
to contact the UAS). The same way, the scope of the SIP URI in the
Contact header field of the INVITE is not limited to this dialog
either. It can therefore be used to contact the UAC even outside this
dialog.
The UAS then constructs the state of the dialog. This state MUST be
maintained for the duration of the dialog. First, the route set MUST
be computed by following these steps:
1. The list of URIs in the Record-Route headers in the
request, if present, are taken, including any URI
Various Authors [Page 62]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
parameters.
2. The URI in the Contact header from the request if present,
is taken, including any URI parameters. The URI is appended
to the bottom of the list of URIs from the previous step.
Contact was not mandatory in RFC 2543. Thus, if the
UAS is communicating with an older UAC, the UAC might
not have inserted the Contact header field.
3. The resulting list of URIs is called the route set
These rules clearly imply that a UA MUST be able to parse
and process Record-Route header fields. This is a change
from RFC 2543, where all record-route and route processing
was optional for user agents.
It is possible for the route set to be empty. This will occur if
neither Record-Route headers nor a Contact header were present in the
request. The UAS MUST also remember whether the bottom-most entry in
the route set was constructed from a Contact header. This is
effectively a boolean value, which we refer to as CONTACT_SET. From
this value the UA can determine whether the bottom-most value can be
updated from subsequent requests; if it was constructed from a
Contact, it can be updated.
The remote sequence number MUST be set to the value of the sequence
number in the Cseq header of the request. The local sequence number
MUST be empty. The call identifier component of the dialog ID MUST be
set to the value of the Call-ID in the request. The local address
component of the dialog ID MUST be set to the To field in the
response to the request (which therefore includes the tag), and the
remote address component of the dialog ID MUST be set to the From
field in the request. A UAS MUST be prepared to receive a request
without a tag in the From field, in which case the tag is considered
to have a value of null.
This is to maintain backwards compatibility with RFC 2543,
which did not mandate From tags.
12.1.2 UAC behavior
When a UAC receives a response that establishes a dialog, it
constructs the state of the dialog. This state MUST be maintained for
the duration of the dialog. First, the route set MUST be computed by
following these steps:
Various Authors [Page 63]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
1. The list of URIs present in the Record-Route headers in the
response are taken, if present, including all URI
parameters, and their order is reversed.
2. The URI in the Contact header from the response, if
present, is taken, including all URI parameters, and
appended to the end of the list from the previous step.
3. The list of URIs resulting from the above two operations is
referred to as the route set
It is possible for the route set to be empty. This will occur if
neither Record-Route headers nor a Contact header were present in the
response. The UAC MUST also remember whether the bottom-most entry in
the route set was constructed from a Contact header. This is
effectively a boolean value, which we refer to as CONTACT_SET. From
this value the UA can determine whether the bottom-most value can be
updated from subsequent requests; if it was constructed from a
Contact, it can be updated.
The local sequence number MUST be set to the value of the sequence
number in the Cseq header of the request. The remote sequence number
MUST be empty (it is established when the UA sends a request within
the dialog). The call identifier component of the dialog ID MUST be
set to the value of the Call-ID in the request. The local address
component of the dialog ID MUST be set to the From field in the
request, and the remote address component of the dialog ID MUST be
set to the To field of the response. A UAC MUST be prepared to
receive a response without a tag in the To field, in which case the
tag is considered to have a value of null.
This is to maintain backwards compatibility with RFC 2543,
which did not mandate To tags.
12.2 Requests within a Dialog
Once a dialog has been established between two UAs, either of them
MAY initiate new transactions as needed within the dialog. However, a
dialog imposes some restrictions on the use of simultaneous
transactions.
A TU MUST NOT initiate a new regular transaction within a dialog
while a regular transaction is in progress (in either direction)
within that dialog. If there is a non-INVITE client or server
transaction in progress the TU MUST wait until this transaction
enters the completed or the terminated state to initiate the new
transaction.
Various Authors [Page 64]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
OPEN ISSUE #113: Should we relax the constraint on non-
overlapping regular transactions?
A route refresh request sent within a dialog is defined as a request
that can modify the route set of the dialog. For dialogs that have
been established with an INVITE, the only route refresh request
defined is re-INVITE (see Section 14). Other extensions may define
different route refresh requests for dialogs established in other
ways.
Note that an ACK is NOT a route refresh request.
12.2.1 UAC Behavior
12.2.1.1 Generating the Request
A request within a dialog is constructed by using many of the
components of the state stored as part of the dialog.
The To header field of the request MUST be set to the remote address,
and the From header field MUST be set to the local address (both
including tags, assuming the tags are not null).
The Call-ID of the request MUST be set to the Call-ID of the dialog.
Requests within a dialog MUST contain strictly monotonically
increasing and contiguous CSeq sequence numbers (increasing-by-one)
in each direction. Therefore, if the local sequence number is not
empty, the value of the local sequence number MUST be incremented by
one, and this value MUST placed into the Cseq header. If the local
sequence number is empty, an initial value MUST be chosen using the
guidelines of Section 8.1.1.5. The method field in the Cseq header
MUST match the method of the request.
With a length of 32 bits, a client could generate, within a
single call, one request a second for about 136 years
before needing to wrap around. The initial value of the
sequence number is chosen so that subsequent requests
within the same call will not wrap around. A non-zero
initial value allows clients to use a time-based initial
sequence number. A client could, for example, choose the 31
most significant bits of a 32-bit second clock as an
initial sequence number.
The Request-URI of requests is determined according to the following
rules:
The UAC takes the list of URI in the route set MUST be inserted into
Various Authors [Page 65]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
the Request-URI of the request, including all URI parameters. Any URI
parameters not allowed in the Request-URI MUST then be stripped. Each
of the remaining URIs (if any) from the route set , including all URI
parameters, MUST be placed into a Route header field into the
request, in order.
A TU SHOULD follow the rules just mentioned to build the Request-URI
of the request, regardless of whether the UA uses an outbound proxy
server or not. However, in some instances, a UA may not be willing or
capable of sending the request to the top element in the route set
and therefore may not be able to follow those procedures. to use a
loose-routing policy to send the request to its outbound proxy server
(see section 8.1.3). This policy MUST include placing the topmost
element in the route set as the first value in the message's Route
header field as well as in the Request-URI. The loop-detection
avoidance algorithm described in section 8.1.3 SHOULD be applied to
the message before sending.
A UAC SHOULD include a Contact header in any route refresh requests
within a dialog, and unless there is a need to change it, the URI
SHOULD be the same as used in previous requests within the dialog. As
discussed in Section 12.2.2, a Contact header in a route refresh
request updates the route set its address change during the duration
of the dialog.
However, requests that are not route refresh requests do not affect
the route set for the dialog.
Once the request has been constructed, the address of the server is
computed and the request is sent, using the same procedures for
requests outside of a dialog (Section 8.1.1).
12.2.1.2 Processing the Responses
The UAC will receive responses to the request from the transaction
layer. If the client transaction returns a timeout this is treated as
a 408 (Request Timeout) response.
The behavior of a UAC that receives a 3xx response for a request sent
within a dialog is the same as if the request had been sent outside a
dialog. This behavior is described in Section 13.2.2.
Note, however, that when the UAC tries alternative
locations, it still uses the route set for the dialog to
build the Route header of the request.
If a UAC has a route set for a dialog and receives a 2xx response to
a route refresh it sent, the Contact header field of the response is
Various Authors [Page 66]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
examined. If not present, the route set remains unchanged. If the
response had a Contact header field, and the boolean variable
CONTACT_SET is false, the URI in the Contact header field in the
response is added to the bottom of the route set , and CONTACT_SET is
set to true. If the route refresh request response had a Contact
header field, and CONTACT_SET is true, the URI in the Contact header
field of the response to the route refresh request replaces the
bottom value in the route set If a route refresh request is responded
with a non-2xx final response the route set remains unchanged as if
no route refresh request had been issued.
If the response for the a request within a dialog is a 481
(Call/Transaction Does Not Exist) or a 408 (Request Timeout), the UAC
SHOULD terminate the dialog. A UAC SHOULD also terminate a dialog if
no response at all is received for the request (the client
transaction would inform the TU about the timeout.)
For INVITE initiated dialogs, terminating the dialog
consists of sending a BYE.
12.2.2 UAS behavior
Requests sent within a dialog, as any other requests, are atomic. If
a particular request is accepted by the UAS, all the state changes
associated with it are performed. If the request is rejected, none of
the state changes is performed.
Note that some requests such as INVITEs affect several
pieces of state.
The UAS will receive the request from the transaction layer. If the
request has a tag in the To header field, the UAS core computes the
dialog identifier corresponding to the request and compares it with
existing dialogs. If there is a match, this is a mid-dialog request.
In that case, the UAS applies the same processing rules for requests
outside of a dialog, discussed in Section 8.2.
If the request has a tag in the To header field, but the dialog
identifier does not match any existing dialogs, the UAS may have
crashed and restarted, or it may have received a request for a
different (possibly failed) UAS (the UASs can construct the To tags
so that a UAS can identify that the tag was for a UAS for which it is
providing recovery). Another possibility is that the incoming request
has been simply missrouted. Based on the To tag, the UAS MAY either
accept or reject the request. Accepting the request for acceptable To
tags provides robustness, so that dialogs can persist even through
crashes. UAs wishing to support this capability must take into
consideration some issues such as choosing monotonically increasing
Various Authors [Page 67]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
CSeq sequence numbers even across reboots, reconstructing the route
set , and accepting out-of-range RTP timestamps and sequence numbers.
If the UAS wishes to reject the request, because it does not wish to
recreate the dialog, it MUST respond to the request with a 481
(Call/Transaction Does Not Exist) status code and pass that to the
server transaction.
Requests that do not change in any way the state of a dialog may be
received within a dialog (for example, an OPTIONS request). They are
processed as if they had been received outside the dialog.
Requests within a dialog MAY contain Record-Route and Contact header
fields. However, requests that are not route refresh requests do not
update the route set for the dialog. This specification only defines
one route refresh request: re-INVITE (see Section 14).
Special rules apply when updated Record-Route or Contact header
fields are received inside a route refresh request. If a UAS has a
route set for a dialog and receives a route refresh for that dialog
containing Record-Route header fields, it MUST copy those header
fields into any 2xx response to that request. If the boolean variable
CONTACT_SET is true, the Contact header field in the request (if
present) replaces the last entry in the route set is false, the UAS
MUST add the URI in the Contact header field in the route refresh
request to the bottom of the route set , and then set CONTACT_SET to
true. If the request did not contain a Contact header field, the
route-set at the UAS remains unchanged.
Route refresh requests only update the Contact of the route
set and not the elements formed from Record-Route. Updating
the latter would introduce severe backwards compatibility
problems with RFC 2543-compliant systems.
If the remote sequence number is empty, it MUST be set to the value
of the sequence number in the Cseq header in the request. If the
remote sequence number was not empty, but the sequence number of the
request is lower than the remote sequence number, the request is out
of order and MUST be rejected with a 500 (Server Internal Error)
response. If the remote sequence number was not empty, and the
sequence number of the request is greater than the remote sequence
number, the request is in order. It is possible for the CSeq header
to be higher than the remote sequence number by more than one. This
is not an error condition, and a UAS SHOULD be prepared to receive
and process requests with CSeq values more than one higher than the
previous received request. The UAS MUST then set the remote sequence
number to the value of the sequence number in the Cseq header in the
Various Authors [Page 68]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
request.
If a proxy challenges a request generated by the UAC, the
UAC has to resubmit the request with credentials. The
resubmitted request will have a new Cseq number. The UAS
will never see the first request, and thus, it will notice
a gap in the Cseq number space. Such a gap does not
represent any error condition.
12.3 Termination of a Dialog
Dialogs can end in several different ways, depending on the method.
When a dialog is established with INVITE, it is terminated with a
BYE. No other means to terminate a dialog are described in this
specification, but extensions can define other ways.
13 Initiating a Session
13.1 Overview
When a user agent client desires to initiate a session (for example,
audio, video, or a game), it formulates an INVITE request. The INVITE
request asks a server to establish a session. This request is
forwarded by proxies, eventually arriving at one or more UAS that can
potentially accept the invitation. These UASs will frequently need to
query the user about whether to accept the invitation. After some
time, those UAS can accept the invitation (meaning the session is to
be established) by sending a 2xx response. If the invitation is not
accepted, a 3xx, 4xx, 5xx or 6xx response is sent, depending on the
reason for the rejection. Before sending a final response, the UAS
can also send a provisional response (1xx), either reliably or
unreliably, to advise the UAC of progress in contacting the called
user.
After possibly receiving one or more provisional responses, the UA
will get one or more 2xx responses or one non-2xx final response.
Because of the protracted amount of time it can take to receive final
responses to INVITE, the reliability mechanisms for INVITE
transactions differ from those of other requests (like OPTIONS). Once
it receives a final response, the UAC needs to send an ACK for every
final response it receives. The procedure for sending this ACK
depends on the type of response. For final responses between 300 and
699, the ACK processing is done in the transaction layer and follows
one set of rules (See Section 17). For 2xx responses, the ACK is
generated by the UAC core.
A 2xx response to an INVITE establishes a session, and it also
creates a dialog between the UA that issued the INVITE and the UA
Various Authors [Page 69]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
that generated the 2xx response. Therefore, when multiple 2xx
responses are received from different remote UAs (because the INVITE
forked), each 2xx establishes a different dialog. All these dialogs
are part of the same call.
This section provides details on the establishment of a session using
INVITE.
13.2 Caller Processing
13.2.1 Creating the Initial INVITE
Since the initial INVITE represents a request outside of a dialog,
its construction follows the procedures of Section 8.1.1. Additional
processing is required for the specific case of INVITE.
An Allow header field (Section 24.5) SHOULD be present in the
INVITE. It indicates what methods can be invoked within a dialog, on
the UA sending the INVITE, for the duration of the dialog. For
example, a UA capable of receiving INFO requests within a dialog [20]
SHOULD include an Allow header listing the INFO method.
A Supported header field (Section 24.39) SHOULD be present in the
INVITE. It enumerates all the extensions understood by the UAC.
An Accept (Section 24.1) header field MAY be present in the INVITE.
It indicates which content-types are acceptable to the UA, in both
the response received by it, and in any subsequent requests sent to
it within dialogs established by the INVITE. The Accept header is
especially useful for indicating support of various session
description formats.
The UA MAY add an Expires header field (Section 24.19) to limit the
validity of the invitation. If the time indicated in the Expires
header field is reached and no final answer for the INVITE has been
received the UAC core SHOULD generate a CANCEL request for the
original INVITE.
A UAC MAY also find useful to add, among others, Subject (Section
24.38), Organization (Section 24.25) and User-Agent (Section 24.43)
header fields. They all contain information related to the INVITE.
The UAC MAY choose to add a message body to the INVITE. Section
8.1.1.10 deals with how to construct the header fields -- Content-
Type among others -- needed to describe the message body.
There are special rules for message bodies that contain a session
description - their corresponding Content-Disposition is "session".
Various Authors [Page 70]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
SIP uses an offer/answer model where one UA sends a session
description, called the offer, which contains a proposed description
of the session. The offer indicates the desired communications means
(audio, video, games), parameters of those means (such as codec
types) and addresses for receiving media from the answerer. The other
UA responds with another session description, called the answer,
which indicates which communications means are accepted, the
parameters which apply to those means, and addresses for receiving
media from the offerer. The offer/answer model can be mapped into the
INVITE transaction in two ways. The first, which is the most
intuitive, is that the INVITE contains the offer, the 2xx response
contains the answer, and no session description is provided in the
ACK. In this model, the UAC is the offerer, and the UAS is the
answerer. A second model is that the INVITE contains no session
description, the 2xx response contains the offer, and the ACK
contains the answer. In this model, the UAS is the offerer, and the
UAC is the answerer. The second model is useful for gateways from
H.323v1 to SIP, where the H.323 media characteristics are not known
until the call is established. This is also useful for sessions that
use third-party call control. As a result of these models, if the
INVITE contains a session description, the ACK MUST NOT contain one.
Conversely, if the caller chooses to omit the session description in
the INVITE, the ACK MUST contain one (if a 2xx response is received).
2xx responses to an INVITE MUST always contain a session description.
All user agents that support INVITE MUST support both models.
The Session Description Protocol (SDP) [5] MUST be supported by all
user agents as a means to describe sessions, and its usage for
construction offers and answers MUST follow the procedures defined in
[19].
The restrictions of the offer-answer model (session description only
in the INVITE OR in the ACK, but not in both) just described only
apply to bodies whose Content-Disposition header field is "session".
Therefore, it is possible that both the INVITE and the ACK contain a
body message (e.g., the INVITE carries a photo (Content-Disposition:
render) and the ACK a session description (Content-Disposition:
session) ).
If the Content-Disposition header field is missing, bodies
of Content-Type application/sdp imply the disposition
"session", while other content types imply "render".
Once the INVITE has been created, the UAC follows the procedures
defined for sending requests outside of a dialog (Section 8). This
results in the construction of a client transaction that will
ultimately send the request and deliver responses to the UAC.
Various Authors [Page 71]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
13.2.2 Processing INVITE Responses
Once the INVITE has been passed to the INVITE client transaction, the
UAC waits for responses for the INVITE. Responses are matched to
their corresponding INVITE because they have the same Call-ID, the
same From header field, the same To header field, excluding the tag,
and the same CSeq. Rules for comparisons of these headers are
described in Section 24. If the INVITE client transaction returns a
timeout rather than a response the TU acts as if a 408 (Request
Timeout) response had been received.
13.2.2.1 1xx responses
Zero, one or multiple provisional responses may arrive before one or
more final responses are received. Provisional responses for an
INVITE request can create "early dialogs". If a provisional response
has a tag in the To field, and if the dialog ID of the response does
not match an existing dialog, one is constructed using the procedures
defined in Section 12.1.2.
The early dialog will only be needed if the UAC needs to send a
request to its peer within the dialog before the initial INVITE
transaction completes. Header fields present in a provisional
response are applicable as long as the dialog is in the early state
(e.g., an Allow header field in a provisional response contains the
methods that can be used in the dialog while this is in the early
state).
13.2.2.2 3xx responses
A 3xx response may contain a Contact header field providing new
addresses where the callee might be reachable. Depending on the
status code of the 3xx response (see Section 25.3) the UAC MAY
choose to try those new addresses.
13.2.2.3 4xx, 5xx and 6xx responses
A single non-2xx final response may be received for the INVITE. 4xx,
5xx and 6xx responses may contain a Contact header field indicating
the location where additional information about the error can be
found.
All early dialogs are considered terminated upon reception of the
non-2xx final response.
After having received the non-2xx final response the UAC core
considers the INVITE transaction completed. The INVITE client
transaction handles generation of ACKs for the response (see Section
Various Authors [Page 72]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
17).
13.2.2.4 2xx responses
Multiple 2xx responses may arrive at the UAC for a single INVITE
request due to a forking proxy. Each response is distinguished by the
tag parameter in the To header field, and each represents a distinct
dialog, with a distinct dialog identifier.
If the dialog identifier in the 2xx response matches the dialog
identifier of an existing dialog, the dialog MUST be transitioned to
the "confirmed" state, and the route set for the dialog MUST be
recomputed based on the 2xx response using the procedures of Section
12.1.2. Otherwise, a new dialog in the "confirmed" state is
constructed in the same fashion.
The route set only is recomputed for backwards
compatibility. RFC 2543 did not mandate mirroring of
Record-Route headers in a 1xx, only 2xx. However, we cannot
update the entire state of the dialog, since mid-dialog
requests may have been sent within the early call leg,
modifying the sequence numbers, for example.
The UAC core MUST generate an ACK request for each 2xx received from
the transaction layer. The header fields of the ACK are constructed
in the same way as for any request sent within a dialog (see Section
12) with the exception of the CSeq and the header fields related to
authentication. The sequence number of the CSeq header field MUST be
the same as the INVITE being acknowledged, but the CSeq method MUST
be ACK. The ACK MUST contain the same credentials as the INVITE. If
the INVITE did not contain an offer, the 2xx will contain one, and
therefore the ACK MUST carry an answer in its body. If the offer in
the 2xx response is not acceptable the UAC core MUST generate a valid
answer in the ACK and then send a BYE immediately.
Once the ACK has been constructed, the procedures of [8] are used to
determine the destination address, port and transport. However, the
request is passed to the transport layer directly for transmission,
rather than a client transaction. This is because the UAC core
handles retransmissions of the ACK, not the transaction layer. The
ACK MUST be passed to the client transport every time a
retransmission of the 2xx final response that triggered the ACK
arrives.
The UAC core considers the INVITE transaction completed 64*T1 seconds
after the reception of the first 2xx response. At this point all the
early dialogs that have not transitioned to established dialogs are
Various Authors [Page 73]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
terminated. Once the INVITE transaction is considered completed by
the UAC core, no more new 2xx responses are expected to arrive.
If, after acknowledging any 2xx response to an INVITE, the caller
does not want to continue with that dialog, then the caller MUST
terminate the dialog by sending a BYE request as described in Section
15.
13.3 Callee Processing
13.3.1 Processing of the INVITE
The UAS core will receive INVITE requests from the transaction layer.
It first performs the request processing procedures of Section 8.2,
which are applied for both requests inside and outside of a dialog.
Assuming these processing states complete without generating a
response, the UAS core performs the additional processing steps:
1. If the request is an INVITE that contains an Expires header
field the UAS core inspects this header field. If the
INVITE has already expired a 487 (Request Terminated)
response SHOULD be generated. In any case, if the INVITE
expires before the UAS has generated a final response a 487
(Request Terminated) response SHOULD be generated.
2. If the request is a mid-dialog request, the method-
independent processing described in Section 12.2.2 is first
applied. It might also modify the session; Section 14
provides details.
3. If the request has a tag in the To header field but the
dialog identifier does not match any of the existing
dialogs, the UAS may have crashed and restarted, or may
have received a request for a different (possibly failed)
UAS. Section 12.2.2 provides guidelines to achieve a robust
behaviour under such a situation.
Processing from here forward assumes that the INVITE is outside of a
dialog, and is thus for the purposes of establishing a new session.
The INVITE may contain a session description, in which case the UAS
is being presented with an offer for that session. It is possible
that the user is already a participant in that session, even though
the INVITE is outside of a dialog. This can happen when a user is
invited to the same multicast conference by multiple other
participants. If desired, the UAS MAY use identifiers within the
session description to detect this duplication. For example, SDP
Various Authors [Page 74]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
contains a session id and version number in the origin (o) field. If
the user is already a member of the session, and the session
parameters contained in the session description have not changed, the
UAS MAY silently accept the INVITE (that is, send a 2xx response
without prompting the user).
The INVITE may not contain a session description at all, in which
case the UAS is being asked to participate in a session, but the UAC
has asked that the UAS provide the offer of the session.
The callee can indicate progress, accept, redirect, or reject the
invitation. In all of these cases, it formulates a response using the
procedures described in Section 8.2.6.
13.3.1.1 Progress
The UAS may not be able to answer the invitation immediately, and
might choose to indicate some kind of progress to the caller (for
example, an indication that a phone is ringing). This is accomplished
with a provisional response between 101 and 199. These provisional
responses establish early dialogs and therefore follow the procedures
of Section 12.1.1 in addition to those of Section 8.2.6. A UAS MAY
send as many provisional responses as it likes. Each of these MUST
indicate the same dialog ID. However, these will not be delivered
reliably unless reliable provisional responses are used.
If the UAS will require an extended period of time to answer the
INVITE, it will need to ask for an "extension" in order to prevent
proxies from cancelling the transaction. A proxy has the option of
canceling a transaction when there is a gap of 3 minutes between
messages in a transaction. To prevent cancellation, the UAS MUST send
a non-100 provisional response at least that often. This response
SHOULD be sent reliably, if supported by the UAC. If not, the UAS
SHOULD send provisional responses every minute, to handle the
possibility of lost provisional responses.
An INVITE transaction can go on for extended durations when
the user is placed on hold, or when interworking with PSTN
systems which allow communications to take place without
answering the call. The latter is common in Interactive
Voice Response (IVR) systems.
13.3.1.2 The INVITE is redirected
If the UAS decides to redirect the call, a 3xx response is sent. A
300 (Multiple Choices), 301 (Moved Permanently) or 302 (Moved
Temporarily) response SHOULD contain a Contact header field
Various Authors [Page 75]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
containing URIs of new addresses to be tried. The response is passed
to the INVITE server transaction, which will deal with its
retransmissions.
13.3.1.3 The INVITE is rejected
A common scenario occurs when the callee is currently not willing or
able to take additional calls at this end system. A 486 (Busy Here)
SHOULD be returned in such scenario. If the UAS knows that no other
end system will be able to accept this call a 600 (Busy Everywhere)
response SHOULD be sent instead. However, it is unlikely that a UAS
will be able to know this in general, and thus this response will not
usually be used. The response is passed to the INVITE server
transaction, which will deal with its retransmissions.
A UAS rejecting an offer contained in an INVITE SHOULD return a 488
(Not Acceptable Here) response. Such a response SHOULD include a
Warning header field explaining why the offer was rejected.
13.3.1.4 The INVITE is accepted
The UAS core generates a 2xx response. This response establishes a
dialog, and therefore follows the procedures of Section 12.1.1 in
addition to those of Section 8.2.6.
A 2xx response to an INVITE SHOULD contain the Allow header field and
the Supported header field, and MAY contain the Accept header field.
Including these header fields allows the UAC to determine the
features and extensions supported by the UAS for the duration of the
call, without probing.
If the INVITE request contained an offer, the 2xx MUST contain an
answer. If the INVITE did not contain an offer, the 2xx MUST contain
an offer.
Once the response has been constructed it is passed to the INVITE
server transaction. Note, however, that the INVITE server transaction
will be destroyed as soon as it receives this final response.
Therefore, it is necessary to pass periodically the response to the
transport until the ACK arrives. The 2xx response is passed to the
transport with an interval that starts at T1 seconds and doubles for
each retransmission until it reaches T2 seconds (T1 and T2 are
defined in Section 17). Response retransmissions cease when an ACK
request is received with the same dialog ID as the response. This is
independent of whatever transport protocols are used to send the
response.
Various Authors [Page 76]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
Since 2xx is retransmitted end-to-end, there may be hops
between UAS and UAC which are UDP. To ensure reliable
delivery across these hops, the response is retransmitted
periodically even if the transport at the UAS is reliable.
If the server retransmits the 2xx response for 64*T1 seconds without
receiving an ACK, it considers the dialog completed, the session
terminated, and therefore it SHOULD send a BYE.
14 Modifying an Existing Session
A successful INVITE request (see Section 13) establishes both a
dialog between two user agents and a session (using the offer/answer
model). Section 12 explains how to modify an existing dialog using a
route refresh request (e.g., changing the route set of the dialog).
This section describes how to modify the actual session. This
modification can involve changing addresses or ports, adding a media
stream, deleting a media stream, and so on. This is accomplished by
sending a new INVITE request within the same dialog that established
the session. An INVITE request sent within an existing dialog is
known as a re-INVITE.
Note that a single re-INVITE can modify at the same time
the dialog and the parameters of the session.
Either the caller or callee can modify an existing session.
The behaviour of a UA on detection of media failure is a matter of
local policy. However, automated generation of re-INVITE or BYE is
NOT RECOMMENDED to avoid flooding the network with traffic when there
is congestion. In any case, if these messages are sent automatically,
they SHOULD be sent after some randomized interval.
Note that the paragraph above refers to automatically
generated BYEs and re-INVITEs. If the user hangs up upon
media failure the UA would send a BYE request as usual.
14.1 UAC Behavior
The same offer-answer model that applies to session descriptions in
INVITEs (Section 13.2.1) applies to re-INVITEs. As a result, a UAC
that wants to add a media stream, for example, will create a new
offer that contains this media stream, and send that in an INVITE
request to its peer. It is important to note that the full
description of the session, not just the change, is sent. This
maintains the idempotency of SIP, supports stateless session
processing in various elements, and supports failover and recovery
Various Authors [Page 77]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
capabilities. Of course, a UAC MAY send a re-INVITE with no session
description, in which case the response to the re-INVITE will contain
the offer.
If the session description format has the capability for version
numbers, the offerer SHOULD indicate that the version of the session
description has changed.
The To, From, Call-ID, CSeq, and Request-URI of a re-INVITE are set
following the same rules as for regular requests within an existing
dialog, described in Section 12.
A UAC MAY choose not to add Alert-Info header fields or bodies with
Content-Disposition "alert" to re-INVITEs because UASs do not
typically alert the user upon reception of a re-INVITE.
Note that, as opposed to initial INVITEs (see Section 13), re-INVITEs
contain tags in the To header field and are sent using the route set
for the dialog. Therefore, a single final (2xx or non-2xx) response
is received for re-INVITEs.
Note that a UAC MUST NOT initiate a new INVITE transaction within a
dialog while another transaction (INVITE or non-INVITE) is in
progress in either direction.
1. If there is an ongoing INVITE client transaction the TU
MUST wait until the transaction reaches the completed or
terminated state before initiating the new INVITE.
2. If there is an ongoing INVITE server transaction the TU
MUST wait until the transaction reaches the confirmed or
terminated state before initiating the new INVITE.
3. If there is an ongoing non-INVITE client or server
transaction the TU MUST wait until the transaction reaches
the completed or terminated state before initiating the new
INVITE.
However, a UA MAY initiate a regular transaction while an INVITE
transaction is in progress.
If a re-INVITE is responded with a non-2xx final response the session
parameters MUST remain unchanged, as if no re-INVITE had been issued.
Note that, as stated in Section 12.2.1.2, if the non-2xx final
response is a 481 (Call/Transaction Does Not Exist) or a 408 (Request
Timeout) or no response at all is received for the re-INVITE (a
timeout is returned by the INVITE client transaction) the UAC will
terminate the dialog.
Various Authors [Page 78]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
The rules for transmitting a re-INVITE and for generating an ACK for
a 2xx response to re-INVITE are the same as for an INVITE (Section
13.2.1).
14.2 UAS Behavior
Section 13.3.1 describes the steps to follow in order to distinguish
incoming re-INVITEs from incoming initial INVITEs. This Section
describes the procedures to follow upon reception of a re-INVITE for
an existing dialog.
A UAS that receives a second INVITE before it sent the final response
to a first INVITE with a lower CSeq sequence number on the same
dialog MUST return a 500 (Server Internal Error) response to the
second INVITE and MUST include a Retry-After header field with a
randomly chosen value of between 0 and 10 seconds.
A UAS that receives an INVITE on a dialog while an INVITE it had sent
on that dialog is in progress MUST return a 491 (Request Pending)
response to the received INVITE and MUST include a Retry-After header
field with a value chosen as follows:
1. If the UAS is the owner of the Call-ID of the dialog ID the
Retry-After header field has a randomly chosen value of
between 2.1 and 4 seconds in units of 10 ms.
2. If the UAS is not the owner of the Call-ID of the dialog ID
the Retry-After header field has a randomly chosen value of
between 0 and 2 seconds in units of 10 ms.
If a user agent receives a re-INVITE for an existing dialog it MUST
check any version identifiers in the session description or, if there
are no version identifiers, the content of the session description to
see if it has changed. If the session description has changed, the
user agent server MUST adjust the session parameters accordingly,
possibly after asking the user for confirmation.
Versioning of the session description can be used to
accommodate the capabilities of new arrivals to a
conference, add or delete media or change from a unicast to
a multicast conference. If the new session description is
not acceptable the UAS can reject it by returning a 488
(Not Acceptable Here) response for the re-INVITE. This
response SHOULD include a Warning header field.
If a UAS generates a 2xx response and never receives an ACK, it
SHOULD generate a BYE to terminate the dialog.
Various Authors [Page 79]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
A UAS MAY choose not to generate 180 (Ringing) responses for a re-
INVITE because UACs do not typically render this information to the
user. For the same reason UASs MAY choose not to use Alert-Info
header fields or bodies with Content-Disposition "alert" in responses
to a re-INVITE either.
A UAS providing an offer in a 2xx (because the INVITE did not contain
an offer) MUST offer the same session description as last provided to
the peer, with the exception of being able to change the IP
address/port if so desired.
Under error conditions (e.g., the UAS has crashed and
restarted) the session description in the 2xx response for
an empty re-INVITE may be different than the one in use at
that moment. If the new session description is not
acceptable for the UAC it SHOULD then send a BYE (after
ACKing the 2xx response).
15 Terminating a Session
This section describes the procedures to be followed in order to
terminate a SIP dialog. For two-party sessions that are otherwise
unbound in time the termination of the dialog implies the termination
of the session. Other types of sessions such as multicast sessions
are not terminated when a participant terminates the SIP dialog that
he used to join the session. However, the SIP dialog SHOULD be
terminated even though its termination does not imply the termination
of the session. A UA joining a multicast session MAY terminate the
SIP dialog immediately after the INVITE transaction used to join the
session has completed.
Either the caller or callee may terminate a dialog for any reason. A
caller terminates a dialog either with BYE of CANCEL depending on the
state of the dialog. A callee uses BYE to terminate a confirmed
dialog.
If the callee wants to terminate an early dialog it just
returns a non-2xx final response for the INVITE. Sections
13 and 12 document some cases where dialog termination is
normative behavior. As a general rule, if a UA decides that
the dialog is to be terminated, it MUST follow the
procedures here to initiate signaling action to convey
that.
When a UAC sends an INVITE request to create a session, if a 1xx
response with a tag in the To field is received, an early dialog is
created. When a 2xx response is received, the dialog becomes
confirmed. For a confirmed dialog, if the UAC desires to terminate
Various Authors [Page 80]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
the session, the UAC SHOULD follow the procedures described in
Section 15.1.1 to terminate the session. If the callee for a new
session wishes to terminate the dialog, it uses the procedures of
Section 15.1.1, but MUST NOT do so until it has received an ACK or
until the server transaction times out.
This does not mean a user can't hang up right away; it just
means that the software in their phone needs to maintain
state for a short while in order to properly clean up.
If the UAC desires to end the session before a confirmed dialog has
been created, it SHOULD send a CANCEL for the INVITE request that
requested establishment of the session that is to be terminated. The
UAC constructs and sends the CANCEL following the procedures
described in Section 9. This CANCEL will normally result in a 487
(Request Terminated) response to be returned to the INVITE,
indicating successful cancellation. However, it is possible that the
CANCEL and a 2xx response to the INVITE "pass on the wire". In this
case, the UAC will receive a 2xx to the INVITE. It SHOULD then
terminate the call by following the procedures described in Section
15.1.1.
A UAC can terminate a specific early dialog by following the
procedures described in Section 15.1.1. This would only terminate one
particular early dialog.
15.1 Terminating a Dialog with a BYE Request
15.1.1 UAC Behavior
A user agent client uses BYE request, sent within a dialog, to
indicate to the server that it wishes to terminate the session. This
will also terminate the dialog. A BYE request MAY be issued by either
caller or callee. A BYE request SHOULD NOT be sent before the
creation of a dialog (either early or confirmed). In that case the
UAC SHOULD follow the procedures described in Section 9 instead.
Proxies ensure that a CANCEL request is routed in the same
way as the INVITE was. However, a proxy performing load
balancing may route a BYE without a Route header field in a
different way than the INVITE, since both requests have
different CSeq sequence numbers.
The To, From, Call-ID, CSeq, and Request-URI of a BYE are set
following the same rules as for regular requests sent within a
dialog, described in Section 12.
Once the BYE is constructed, it creates a new non-INVITE client
Various Authors [Page 81]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
transaction, and passes it the BYE request. The user agent SHOULD
stop sending media as soon as the BYE request is passed to the client
transaction. If the response for the BYE is a a 481
(Call/Transaction Does Not Exist) or a 408 (Request Timeout) or no
response at all is received for the BYE (a timeout is returned by the
client transaction) the UAC considers the dialog down anyway.
15.1.2 UAS Behavior
A UAS first processes the BYE request according to the general UAS
processing described in Section 8.2. A UAS core receiving a BYE
request checks to see if it matches an existing dialog. If the BYE
does not match an existing dialog, the UAS core SHOULD generate a 481
(Call/Transaction Does Not Exist) response and pass that to the
server transaction.
This rule means that a BYE sent without tags by a UAC will
be rejected. This is a change from RFC 2543, which allowed
BYE without tags.
A UAS core receiving a BYE request for an existing dialog MUST follow
the procedures of Section 12.2.2 to process the request. Once done,
the UAS MUST cease transmitting media streams for the session being
terminated. The UAS core MUST generate a 2xx response to the BYE, and
MUST pass that to the server transaction for transmission.
The UAS MUST still respond to any pending requests received for that
dialog, (which can only be an INVITE). It is RECOMMENDED that a 487
(Request Terminated) response is generated to those pending requests.
16 Proxy Behavior
16.1 Overview
SIP proxies are elements that route SIP requests to user agent
servers and SIP responses to user agent clients. A request may
traverse several proxies on its way to a UAS. Each will make routing
decisions, modifying the request before forwarding it to the next
element. Responses will route through the same set of proxies
traversed by the request in the reverse order.
Being a proxy is a logical role for a SIP element. When a request
arrives, an element that can play the role of a proxy must first
decide if it needs to respond to the request on its own. For
instance, the request could be malformed or the element may need
credentials from the client before acting as a proxy. The element MAY
respond with any appropriate error code. When responding directly to
Various Authors [Page 82]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
a request, the element is playing the role of a UAS and MUST behave
as described in Section 8.2.
A proxy can operate in either a stateful or stateless mode for each
new request. When stateless, a proxy acts as a simple forwarding
element. It forwards each request downstream to a single element
determined by making a routing decision based on the request. It
simply forwards every response it receives upstream. A stateless
proxy discards information about a message once it has been
forwarded.
On the other hand, a stateful proxy remembers information
(specifically, transaction state) about each incoming request and any
requests it sends as a result of processing the incoming request. It
uses this information to affect the processing of future messages
associated with that request. A stateful proxy MAY chose to "fork" a
request, routing it to multiple destinations. Any request that is
forwarded to more than one location MUST be handled statefully. Any
request processed using TCP (or any other mechanism that is
inherently stateful), MUST be handled statefully.
A stateful proxy MAY transition to stateless operation at any time
during the processing of a request, so long as it did not do anything
that would otherwise prevent it from being stateless initially
(forking, for example, or generation of a 100 response). When
performing such a transition, all state is simply discarded. The
proxy SHOULD NOT send a CANCEL.
Much of the processing involved when acting statelessly or statefully
for a request is identical. The next several subsections are written
from the point of view of a stateful proxy. The last section calls
out those places where a stateless proxy behaves differently.
16.2 Stateful Proxy
When stateful, a proxy is purely a SIP transaction processing engine.
Its behavior is modeled here in terms of the Server and Client
Transactions defined in Section 17. A stateful proxy has a server
transaction associated with one or more client transactions by a
higher layer proxy processing component (see figure 3), known as a
proxy core. An incoming request is processed by a server transaction.
Requests from the server transaction are passed to a proxy core. The
proxy core determines where to route the request, choosing one or
more next-hop locations. An outgoing request for each next-hop
location is processed by its own associated client transaction. The
proxy core collects the responses from the client transactions and
uses them to send responses to the server transaction.
Various Authors [Page 83]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
A stateful proxy creates a new server transaction for each new
request received. Any retransmissions of the request will then be
handled by that server transaction per Section 17.
This is a model of proxy behavior, not of software. An implementation
is free to take any approach that replicates the external behavior
this model defines.
For all new requests, including any with unknown methods, an element
intending to proxy the request MUST:
1. Validate the request (Section 16.3) .IP 2. Make a routing
decision (Section 16.4) .IP 3. Forward the request to each
chosen destination (Section 16.5) .IP 4. Process all
responses (Section 16.6)
16.3 Request Validation
Before an element can proxy a request, it MUST verify the message's
validity. A valid message must pass the following checks:
1. Reasonable Syntax
2. Max-Forwards
3. (Optional) Loop Detection
4. Proxy-Require
5. Proxy-Authorization
If any of these checks fail, the element MUST behave as a user agent
server (see Section 8.2) and respond with an error code.
Notice that a proxy is not required to detect merged requests and
MUST NOT treat merged requests as an error condition. The endpoints
receiving the requests will resolve the merge as described in Section
8.2.2.2.
1. Reasonable Syntax check
The request MUST be well-formed enough to be handled with a
server transaction. Any components involved in the
remainder of these Request Validation steps or the Request
Processing section MUST be well-formed. Any other
components, well-formed or not, SHOULD be ignored and
remain unchanged when the message is forwarded. For
Various Authors [Page 84]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
+------------------------------+
| | +---+
| | | T|
| | | r|
| | |C a|
| | |l n|
| | |i s|
| | |e a|
| | |n c|
| | |t t|
| | | i|
| | | o|
| | | n|
| | +---+
+---+ | | +---+
| T| | | | T|
| r| | | | r|
|S a| | | |C a|
|e n| | Proxy | |l n|
|r s| | "Higher" Layer | |i s|
|v a| | | |e a|
|e c| | | |n c|
|r t| | | |t t|
| i| | | | i|
| o| | | | o|
| n| | | | n|
+---+ | | +---+
| | +---+
| | | T|
| | | r|
| | |C a|
| | |l n|
| | |i s|
| | |e a|
| | |n c|
| | |t t|
| | | i|
| | | o|
| | | n|
| | +---+
+------------------------------+
Figure 3: Stateful Proxy Model
instance, an element SHOULD NOT reject a request because of
a malformed Date header field. Likewise, a proxy SHOULD
NOT remove a malformed Date header before forwarding a
Various Authors [Page 85]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
This protocol is designed to be extended. Future extensions
may define new methods and header fields at any time. An
element MUST NOT refuse to proxy a request because it
contains a method or header field it does not know about.
2. Max-Forwards check
The Max-Forwards header (Section 24.22) is used to limit
the number of elements a SIP request can traverse.
If the request does not contain a Max-Forwards header
field, this check is passed.
If the request contains a Max-Forwards header field with a
field value greater than zero, the check is passed.
If the request contains a Max-Forwards header field with a
field value of zero (0), the element MUST NOT forward the
request. If the request was for OPTIONS, the element MAY
act as the final recipient and respond per Section 11.
Otherwise, the element MUST return a 483 (Too many hops)
response.
3. Optional Loop Detection check
An element MAY check for forwarding loops before forwarding
a
request. If the request contains a Via header field value
with A sent-by value that equals a value placed into
previous requests by the proxy, the request has been
forwarded by this element before. The request has either
looped or is legitimately spiraling through the element. To
determine if the request has looped, the element
MAY perform the branch parameter calculation
described in Step 3 of Section 16.5 on this message and
compare it to the parameter received in that Via field
value. If the parameters match, the request has looped. If
they differ, the request is spiraling, and processing
continues. If a loop is detected, the element MAY return a
482 (Loop Detected) response.
In earlier versions of this memo, loop detection was
REQUIRED. This requirement has been relaxed in favor
of the Max-Forwards mechanism.
Various Authors [Page 86]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
4. Proxy-Require check
Future extensions to this protocol may introduce features
that require special handling by proxies. Endpoints will
include a Proxy-Require header in requests that use these
features, telling the proxy it should not process the
request unless the feature is understood.
If the request contains a Proxy-Require header (Section
24.29) with one or more option-tags this element does not
understand, the element MUST return a 420 (Bad Extension)
response. The response MUST include an Unsupported (Section
24.42) header field listing those option-tags the element
did not understand.
5. Proxy-Authorization check
If an element requires credentials before forwarding a
request, the request MUST be inspected as described in
Section 20.3. That section also defines what the element
must do if the inspection fails.
16.4 Making a Routing Decision
At this point, the proxy must decide where to forward the request.
This can be modeled as computing a set of destinations for the
request. This set will either be predetermined by the contents of the
request or will be obtained from an abstract location service. Each
destination is represented as a URI and an optional IP address, port
and transport. This combination is referred to as a "next-hop
location".
First, the proxy core checks the received request for Route headers.
If any Route header fields are present in the request, the proxy MUST
choose a single next-hop location to place in the destination set.
The proxy SHOULD choose to use a strict-routing policy, placing the
URI (including all of its parameters) from the topmost Route header
field as the only next hop URI in the destination set, with no IP
address, port and transport set for that next hop. The proxy MAY
choose to use a loose-routing policy, selecting a URI, address, port
and transport based on that policy. A loose-routing policy MAY use
any information in or about the request in determining where to route
it. Restrictions on the a loose-routing proxy's policy are discussed
in Section 8.1.3.
Once the single next-hop location is placed into the destination set,
the set is complete, and the proxy MUST proceed to the Request
Processing of Section 16.5.
Various Authors [Page 87]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
The Route mechanism is used to affect the path a request takes
through SIP elements. A strict-routing policy results in behaviour
much like strict IP source routing. Loose-routing policies will
result in the specified URIs being reached, possibly visiting
additional elements in the process. A UAC will insert Route header
fields (see Section 12), based on information provided by proxies
through Record-Route header fields or by policy obtained through
configuration. (see Step 6 of Section 16.5).
Assuming there were no Route headers in the received request, the
proxy checks the Request-URI of the received request. If the
Request-URI has a URI whose scheme is not understood by the proxy,
the proxy SHOULD reject the request with a 416 (Unsupported URI
Scheme) response. If the Request-URI contains an maddr parameter,
the proxy MUST check to see if its value is in the set of addresses
or domains the proxy is configured to be responsible for. If the
Request-URI has an maddr parameter with a value the proxy is
responsible for, and the request was received using the port and
transport indicated (explicitly or by default) in the Request-URI,
the proxy MUST strip the maddr and any non-default port or transport
parameter and continue processing as if those values had not been
present in the request. Otherwise, if the Request-URI contains an
maddr parameter, the Request-URI MUST be placed into the destination
set as the only next hop URI, with no IP address, port and transport
set for that next hop, and the proxy MUST proceed to Section 16.5.
A request may arrive with an maddr matching the proxy, but
on a port or transport different from that indicated in the
URI. Such a request needs to be forwarded to the proxy
using the indicated port and transport.
If the domain of the Request-URI indicates a domain this element is
not responsible for, it SHOULD set the next hop URI to the Request-
URI, and leave the IP address, port and transport of the next hop
empty. That next hop MUST be placed into the destination set as the
only next hop, and the element MUST proceed to the task of Request
Processing (Section 16.5.
There are many circumstances in which a proxy might receive
a request for a domain it is not responsible for. A
firewall proxy handling outgoing calls (the way HTTP
proxies handle outgoing requests) is an example of where
this is likely to occur.
If the destination set for the request has not been predetermined as
described above, this implies that the element is responsible for the
Various Authors [Page 88]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
domain in the Request-URI, and the element MAY use whatever mechanism
it desires to determine where to send the request. Any of these
mechanisms can be modeled as accessing an abstract Location Service.
This may consist of obtaining information from a location service
created by a SIP Registrar, reading a database, consulting a presence
server, utilizing other protocols, or simply performing an
algorithmic substitution on the Request-URI. When accessing the
location service constructed by the registrar, the Request-URI MUST
first be canonicalized as described in Section 10.3 before being used
as an index. The output of these mechanisms is used to construct the
destination set.
If the Request-URI does not provide sufficient information for the
proxy to determine the destination set, it SHOULD return a 485
(Ambiguous) response. This response SHOULD contain a Contact header
field containing URIs of new addresses to be tried. For example, an
INVITE to sip:John.Smith@company.com may be ambiguous at a proxy
whose location service has multiple John Smiths listed. See Section
25.4.23 for details.
Any information in or about the request or the current environment of
the element MAY be used in the construction of the destination set.
For instance, different sets may be constructed depending on contents
or the presence of header fields and bodies, the time of day of the
request's arrival, the interface on which the request arrived,
failure of previous requests, or even the element's current level of
utilization.
As potential destinations are located through these services, their
next hops are added to the destination set. Next-hop locations may
only be placed in the destination set once. If a next-hop location is
already present in the set (based on the definition of equality for
the URI type and equality of the optional parameters), it MUST NOT be
added again.
If the recieved request contained no Route headers, a proxy MAY
continue to add destinations to the set after beginning Request
Processing. It MAY use any information obtained during that
processing to determine new locations. For instance, a proxy may
choose to incorporate contacts obtained in a redirect response (3xx
class) into the destination set. If a proxy uses a dynamic source of
information while building the destination set (for instance, if it
consults a SIP Registrar), it SHOULD monitor that source for the
duration of processing the request. New locations SHOULD be added to
the destination set as they become available. As above, any given URI
MUST NOT be added to the set more than once.
Various Authors [Page 89]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
Allowing a URI to be added to the set only once reduces
unnecessary network traffic, and in the case of
incorporating contacts from redirect requests prevents
infinite recursion.
An example trivial location service is achieved by configuring an
element with a default outbound destination. All requests are
forwarded to this location. The Request-URI of the request is placed
in the destination set with the optional next-hop IP address, port
and transport parameters set to the default outbound destination. The
destination set is complete, containing only this URI, and the
element proceeds to the task of Request Processing.
If the Request-URI indicates a resource at this proxy that does not
exist, the proxy MUST return a 404 (Not Found) response.
If the destination set remains empty after applying all of the above,
the proxy MUST return an error response, which SHOULD be the 480
(Temporarily Unavailable) response.
16.5 Request Processing
As soon as the destination set is non-empty, a proxy MAY begin
forwarding the request. A stateful proxy MAY process the set in any
order. It MAY process multiple destinations serially, allowing each
client transaction to complete before starting the next. It MAY start
client transactions with every destination in parallel. It also MAY
arbitrarily divide the set into groups, processing the groups
serially and processing the destinations in each group in parallel.
A common ordering mechanism is to use the qvalue parameter of
destinations obtained from Contact header fields (see Section 24.10).
Destinations are processed from highest qvalue to lowest.
Destinations with equal qvalues may be processed in parallel.
A stateful proxy must have a mechanism to maintain the destination
set as responses are received and associate the responses to each
forwarded request with the original request. For the purposes of this
model, this mechanism is a "response context" created by the proxy
layer before forwarding the first request.
For each destination, the proxy forwards the request following these
steps:
1. Make a copy of the received request
2. Update the Request-URI
Various Authors [Page 90]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
3. Add a Via header field value
4. Update the Max-Forwards field
5. Update the Route header field if present
6. Optionally add a Record-route header field value
7. Optionally add additional headers
8. send the new request
9. Set timer C
Each of these steps is detailed below:
1. Copy request
The proxy starts with a copy of the received request. The
copy MUST initially contain all of the header fields from
the received request. Only those fields detailed in the
processing described below may be removed. The copy SHOULD
maintain the ordering of the header fields as in the
received request. The proxy MUST NOT reorder field values
with a common field name (See Section 7.3.1).
An actual implementation need not perform a copy; the
primary requirement is that the processing of each
next hop begin with the same request.
2. Request-URI
The Request-URI in the copy's start line MUST be replaced
with the URI for this destination. If the URI contains any
parameters not allowed in a Request-URI, they MUST be
removed.
This is the essence of a proxy's role. This is the
mechanism through which a proxy routes a request toward its
destination.
3. Via
The proxy MUST insert a Via header field into the copy
before the existing Via header fields. The construction of
this header follows the same guidelines of Section 8.1.1.7.
This implies that the proxy will compute its own branch
Various Authors [Page 91]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
parameter, which will be globally unique for that branch,
and contain the requisite magic cookie.
Proxies choosing to detect loops have an additional
constraint in the value they use for construction of the
branch parameter. A proxy choosing to detect loops SHOULD
create a branch parameter separable into two parts by the
implementation. The first part MUST satisfy the constraints
of Section 8.1.1.7 as described above. The second is used
to perform loop detection and distinguish loops from
spirals.
Loop detection is performed by verifying that, when a
request returns to a proxy, those fields having an impact
on the processing of the request have not changed. The
value placed in this part of the branch parameter SHOULD
reflect all of those fields (including any Proxy-Require
and Proxy-Authorization headers). This is to ensure that if
the request is routed back to the proxy and one of those
fields changes, it is treated as a spiral and not a loop
(Section 16.3 item 2) A common way to create this value is
to compute a cryptographic hash of the To, From, Call-ID
header fields, the Request-URI of the request received
(before translation) and the sequence number from the CSeq
header field, in addition to any Proxy-Require and Proxy-
Authorization fields that may be present. The algorithm
used to compute the hash is implementation-dependent, but
MD5 [21], expressed in hexadecimal, is a reasonable choice.
(Base64 is not permissible for a token.)
If a proxy wishes to detect loops, the "branch"
parameter it supplies MUST depend on all information
affecting processing of a request, including the
incoming request-URI and any header values affecting
the request's admission or routing. This is necessary
to distinguish looped requests from requests whose
routing parameters have changed before returning to
this server.
The request method MUST NOT be included in the calculation
of the branch parameter. In particular, CANCEL and ACK
requests (for non-2xx responses) MUST have the same branch
value as the corresponding request they cancel or
acknowledge. The branch parameter is used in correlating
those requests at the server handling them (see Section
17.2.3 and 9.2).
Various Authors [Page 92]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
4. Max-Forwards
If the copy does not contain a Max-Forwards header field,
the proxy must add one with a field value of 70.
Some existing UAs will not provide a Max-Forwards
header field in a request.
If the copy contains a Max-Forwards header field, the proxy
must decrement its value by one (1).
5. Route
If the copy contains a Route header field, the proxy's
routing policy will determine whether that field should be
modified. A proxy with a strict-routing policy MUST remove
the first (topmost) Route header field value. (The strict-
routing policy would have already placed that value into
the Request-URI of this copy.) A proxy with a loose-routing
policy MAY remove the topmost value. Restrictions on a
loose-routing proxy's policy with respect to the topmost
Route header are described in Section 8.1.3.
6. Record-Route
If this proxy wishes remain on the path of future requests
in a dialog created by this request, it MUST insert a
Record-Route header value into the copy before any existing
Record-Route header values, even if a Route field is
already present.
Requests establishing a dialog may contain preloaded
Route header fields.
If this request is already part of a dialog, the proxy
SHOULD insert a Record-Route header field value if it
wishes to remain on the path of future requests in the
dialog. In normal endpoint operation as described in
Section 12 these Record-Route header field values will not
have any effect on the route sets used by the endpoints.
The proxy will remain on the path if it choses to not
insert a Record-Route header field value into requests
that are already part of a dialog. However, it would
be removed from the path when an endpoint that has
Various Authors [Page 93]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
failed reconstitutes the dialog.
A proxy MAY insert a Record-Route header value into any
request. If the request does not initiate a dialog, the
endpoints will ignore the value. See Section 12 for details
on how endpoints use the Record-Route header field values
to construct Route header fields.
Each proxy in the path of a request chooses whether to add
a Record-Route header field value independently - the
presence of a Record-Route header field in a request does
not obligate this proxy to add a value.
The URI placed in the Record-Route header value MUST be a
SIP URI. This URI MAY be different for each destination the
request is forwarded to. The URI SHOULD NOT contain the
transport parameter unless the proxy has knowledge (such as
in a private network) that the next downstream element that
will be in the path of subsequent requests supports that
transport.
The URI this proxy provides will be used by some other
element to make a routing decision. This proxy, in
general, has no way to know what the capabilities of
that element are, so it must restrict itself to the
mandatory elements of a SIP implementation: SIP URIs
and UDP transports.
The URI placed in the Record-Route header value MUST
resolve to this element when the server location procedures
of [8] are applied to it. This ensures subsequent requests
are routed back to this element.
The URI placed in the Record-Route header value SHOULD be
such that if a subsequent request is received with this URI
in the Request-URI, the proxy's normal request processing
will cause it to be forwarded to one of the previous
elements, including the originating client, traversed by
the original request. This improves robustness, ensuring
that the Request-URI contains enough information to forward
subsequent requests to a reasonable destination even in the
absence of Route headers.
The URI placed in the Record-Route header value MUST vary
with the Request-URI in the received request. A request may
legitimately pass through this proxy more than once on the
way to its final destination (this is called a spiraling
Various Authors [Page 94]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
request). The Request-URI will be different each time the
request passes through. If this proxy places the same URI
in the Record-Route header field each time, subsequent
requests will be rejected as looped requests. It is
insufficient to simply copy the Request-URI from each
request into the Record-Route header. Some modification,
such as adding an maddr parameter, is necessary.
URIs satisfying the above paragraphs can be constructed in
many ways. One way is to use a URI that is nearly the same
as the Contact header in the initial request (if present,
else the From field), but with the maddr and port set to
resolve to the proxy, and with a transaction identifier
added to the user part of the request-URI (in order to meet
the requirement that the URI in the Record-Route be
different for each distinct Request-URI). A call stateful
proxy could use a URI of the form sip:proxy.example.com and
use information from the stored call state to meet the
requirements.
The proxy MAY include Record-Route header parameters in the
value it provides. These will be returned in some responses
to the request (200 (OK) responses to INVITE for example)
and may be useful for pushing state into the message.
The Record-Route process is designed to work for any SIP
request that initiates a dialog. The only such request in
this specification is INVITE. Extensions to the protocol
MAY define others, and the mechanisms described here will
apply.
If a proxy needs to be in the path of any type of dialog
(such as one straddling a firewall), it SHOULD add a
Record-Route header value to every request with a method it
does not understand since that method may have dialog
semantics.
The URI a proxy places into a Record-Route value is only
valid for the lifetime of any dialog created by transaction
in which it occurs. A dialog-stateful proxy, for example,
MAY refuse to accept future requests with that value in the
Request-URI after the dialog has terminated. Non-dialog-
stateful proxies, of course, have no concept of when the
dialog has terminated, but they MAY encode enough
information in the value to compare it against the dialog
identifier of future requests and MAY reject requests not
matching that information. Endpoints MUST NOT use a URI
obtained from a Record-Route header value outside the
Various Authors [Page 95]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
dialog in which it was provided. See Section 12 for more
information on an endpoint's use of Record-Route header
values.
Generally, the choice about whether to record-route or not
is a tradeoff of features vs. performance. Faster request
processing and higher scalability is achieved when proxies
do not record route. However, provision of certain services
may require a proxy to observe all messages in a dialog. It
is RECOMMENDED that proxies do not automatically record
route. They should do so only if specifically required.
7. Adding Additional Headers
The proxy MAY add any other appropriate headers to the copy
at this point.
8. Forward Request
A stateful proxy creates a new client transaction for this
request as described in Section 17.1. If the next-hop
location used in building this request contains the
optional addressing parameters, the transaction is
instructed to send the request based on those parameters.
Otherwise, the proxy uses the procedures of Section [8] to
compute an ordered set of addresses from the Request-URI,
and as described there, attempts to contact the first one
by instructing the client transaction to send the request
there. If the client transaction reports failure to send
the request or a timeout from its state machine, the
stateful proxy continues to the next address that ordered
set. Each attempt is a new client transaction, and
therefore represents a new branch, so that the processing
described above for each branch would need to be repeated.
This results in a requirement to use a different branch ID
parameter for each attempt. If the ordered set is
exhausted, the request cannot be forwarded to this element
in the destination set. The proxy does not need to place
anything in the response context, but otherwise acts as if
this element of the destination set returned a 408 (Request
Timeout) final response.
9. Set timer C
In order to handle the case where an INVITE request never
generates a final response, a transaction timeout value is
used. This is accomplished through a timer, called timer C,
which MUST set for each client transaction when an INVITE
Various Authors [Page 96]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
request is proxied. The timer MUST be larger than 3
minutes. Section 16.6 bullet 2 discusses how this timer is
updated with provisional responses, and Section 16.7
discusses processing when it fires.
16.6 Response Processing
When a response is received by an element, it first tries to locate a
client transaction (Section 17.1.3) matching the response. If none is
found, the element MUST process the response (even if it is an
informational response) as a stateless proxy (described below). If a
match is found, the response is handed to the client transaction.
Forwarding responses for which a client transaction (or
more generally any knowledge of having sent an associated
request) is not found improves robustness. In particular,
it ensures that "late" 2xx class responses to INVITE
requests are forwarded properly.
As client transactions pass responses to the proxy layer, the
following processing MUST take place:
1. Find the appropriate response context
2. Update timer C for provisional responses
3. Remove the topmost Via
4. Add the response to the response context
5. Check to see if this response should be forwarded
The following processing MUST be performed on each response that is
forwarded. It is likely that more than one response to each request
will be forwarded: at least each provisional and one final response.
1. Aggregate authorization header fields if necessary;
2. forward the response;
3. generate any necessary CANCEL requests.
If no final response has been forwarded after every client
transaction associated with the response context has been terminated,
the proxy must choose and forward the "best" response from those it
has seen so far.
Various Authors [Page 97]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
Each of the above steps are detailed below:
1. Find Context
The proxy locates the "response context" it created before
forwarding the original request using the key described in
Section 16.5. The remaining processing steps take place in
this context.
2. Update timer C for provisional responses
For an INVITE transaction, if the response is a provisional
response with status codes 101 to 199 inclusive (i.e.,
anything but 100), the proxy MUST reset timer C for that
client transaction. The timer MAY be reset to a different
value, but this value MUST be greater than 3 minutes.
3. Via
The proxy removes the topmost Via field value from the
response.
If no Via field values remain in the response, the response
was meant for this element and MUST NOT be forwarded. The
remainder of the processing described in this section is
not performed on this message, the UAC processing rules
described in Section 8.1.4 are followed instead (transport
layer processing has already occurred).
This will happen, for instance, when the element generates
CANCEL requests as described in Section 10.
4. Add response to context ;
Final responses received are stored in the response context
until a final response is generated on the server
transaction associated with this context. The response may
be a candidate for the best final response to be returned
on that server transaction. Information from this response
may be needed in forming the best response even if this
response is not chosen.
If the proxy chooses to recurse on any contacts in a 3xx
class response by adding them to the destination set, it
MUST remove them from the response before adding the
response to the response context. If the proxy recurses on
all of the contacts in a 3xx class response, the proxy
SHOULD NOT add the resulting contactless response to the
Various Authors [Page 98]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
response context.
Removing the contact before adding the response to the
response contact prevents the next element upstream
from retrying a location this proxy has already
attempted.
3xx class responses may contain a mixture of SIP and non-
SIP URIs. A proxy may choose to recurse on the SIP URIs and
place the remainder into the response context to be
returned potentially in the final response.
If a proxy receives a 416 (Unsupported URI Scheme) response
to a request whose Request-URI scheme was not SIP, but the
scheme in the original received request was SIP (that is,
the proxy changed the scheme from SIP to something else
when it proxied a request), the proxy SHOULD add a new URI
to the destination set. This URI SHOULD be a SIP URI
version of the non-SIP URI that was just tried. In the case
of the tel URL, this is accomplished by placing the
telephone-subscriber part of the tel URL into the user part
of the SIP URI, and setting the hostpart to the domain
where the prior request was sent.
As with a 3xx response, if a proxy "recurses" on the 416 by
trying a SIP URI instead, the 416 response SHOULD NOT be
added to the response context.
5. Check response for forwarding
Until a final response has been sent on the server
transaction, the following responses MUST be forwarded
immediately:
- Any provisional response other than 100 (Trying)
- Any 2xx response
If a 6xx response is received, it is not immediately
forwarded, but the stateful proxy SHOULD cancel all pending
transactions as described in Section 10.
This is a change from RFC 2543, which mandated that
the proxy was to forward the 6xx response immediately.
For an INVITE transaction, this approach had the
problem that a 2xx response could arrive on another
Various Authors [Page 99]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
branch, in which case the proxy would have to forward
the 2xx. The result was that the UAC could receive a
6xx response followed by a 2xx response, which should
never be allowed to happen. Under the new rules, upon
receiving a 6xx, a proxy will issue a CANCEL request,
which will generally result in 487 responses from all
outstanding client transactions, and then at that
point the 6xx is forwarded upstream.
After a final response has been sent on the server
transaction, the following responses MUST be forwarded
immediately:
- Any 2xx class response to an INVITE request
A stateful proxy MUST NOT immediately forward any other
responses. In particular, a stateful proxy MUST NOT forward
any 100 (Trying) response. Those responses that are
candidates for forwarding later as the "best" response have
been gathered as described in step "Add Response to
Context".
Any response chosen for immediate forwarding MUST be
processed as described in steps "Aggregate authorization
headers" through "Record-Route".
This step, combined with the next, ensures that a stateful
proxy will forward exactly one final response to a non-
INVITE request, and either exactly one non-2xx class
response or one or more 2xx-class responses to an INVITE
request.
6. Choosing the best response
A stateful proxy MUST send a final response to a response
context's server transaction if no final responses have
been immediately forwarded by the above rules and all
client transactions in this response context have been
terminated.
The stateful proxy MUST choose the "best" final response
among those received and stored in the response context.
If there are no final responses in the context, the proxy
MUST send a 408 (Request Timeout) response to the server
transaction.
Otherwise, the proxy MUST forward one of the responses from
Various Authors [Page 100]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
the lowest response class stored in the response context.
The proxy MAY select any response within that lowest class.
The proxy SHOULD give preference to responses that provide
information affecting resubmission of this request, such as
401, 407, 415, 420, and 484.
A proxy which receives a 503 (Service Unavailable) response
SHOULD NOT forward it upstream unless it can determine that
any subsequent requests it might proxy will also generate a
503. In other words, forwarding a 503 means that the proxy
knows it cannot service any requests, not just the one for
the Request-URI in the request which generated the 503.
The forwarded response MUST be processed as described in
steps "Aggregate authorization headers" through "Record-
Route".
For example, if a proxy forwarded a request to 4 locations,
and received 503, 407, 501, and 404 responses, it may
choose to forward the 407 (Proxy Authentication Required)
response.
1xx and 2xx class responses may be involved in the
establishment dialogs. When a request does not contain a To
tag, the To tag in the response is used by the UAC to
distinguish multiple responses to a dialog creating
request. A proxy MUST NOT insert a tag into the To header
of a 1xx or 2xx class response if the request did not
contain one. A proxy MUST NOT modify the tag in the To
header of a 1xx or 2xx class response.
Since a proxy may not insert a tag into the To header of a
1xx class response to a request that did not contain one,
it cannot issue non-100 provisional responses on its own.
However, it can branch the request to a UAS sharing the
same element as the proxy. This UAS can return its own
provisional responses, entering into an early dialog with
the initator of the request. The UAS does not have to be a
discreet process from the proxy. It could be a virtual UAS
implemented in the same code space as the proxy.
3-6xx class responses are delivered hop-hop. When issuing a
3-6xx class response, the element is effectivly acting as a
UAS, issuing its own response, usually based on the
responses received from downstream elements. An element
SHOULD preserve the To tag when simply forwarding a 3-6xx
class response to a request that did not contain a To tag.
Various Authors [Page 101]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
A proxy MUST NOT modify the To tag in any forwarded
response to a request that contains a To tag.
While it makes no difference to the upstream elements
if the proxy replaced the To tag in a forwarded 3-6xx
class response, preserving the original tag may assist
with debugging.
When the proxy is aggregating information from several
responses, choosing a To tag from among them is arbitrary,
and generating a new To tag may make debugging easier. This
happens, for instance, when combining 401 (Unauthorized)
and 407 (Proxy Authentication Required) challenges, or
combining Contact values from unencrypted and
unauthenticated 3xx class responses.
7. Aggregate authorization headers
If the selected response is a 401 (Unauthorized) or 407
(Proxy Authentication Required), the proxy MUST collect any
WWW-Authenticate and Proxy-Authenticate header fields from
all other 401 (Unauthorized) and 407 (Proxy Authentication
Required) responses received so far in this response
context and add them to this response before forwarding.
Each WWW-Authenticate and Proxy-Authenticate header field
added to the response MUST preserve that header field
value. The resulting 401 (Unauthorized) or 407 (Proxy
Authenication Required) response may have several WWW-
Authenticate AND Proxy-Authenticate headers.
This is necessary because any or all of the destinations
the request was forwarded to may have requested
credentials. The client must receive all of those
challenges and supply credentials for each of them when it
retries the request. Motivation for this behavior is
provided in Section 22.
8. Record-Route
If the selected response contains a Record-Route header
field value originally provided by this proxy, the proxy
MAY chose to rewrite the value before forwarding the
response. This allows the proxy to provide different URIs
for itself to the next upstream and downstream elements. A
proxy may choose to use this mechanism for any reason. For
instance, it is useful for multi-homed hosts.
Various Authors [Page 102]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
The new URI provided by the proxy MUST satisfy the same
constraints on URIs placed in Record-Route header fields in
requests (see Step 6 of Section 16.5) with the following
modifications:
The URI SHOULD NOT contain the transport parameter unless
the proxy has knowledge that the next upstream (as opposed
to downstream) element that will be in the path of
subsequent requests supports that transport.
The URI placed in the Record-Route header value SHOULD be
such that if a subsequent request is received with this URI
in the Request-URI, the proxy's normal request processing
will cause it to be forwarded to the same next-hop element
(as opposed to some previous element) as the originally
forwarded request.
When a proxy does decide to modify the Record-Route header
in the response, one of the operations it must perform is
to locate the Record-Route that it had inserted. If the
request spiraled, and the proxy inserted a Record-Route in
each iteration of the spiral, locating the correct header
in the response (which must be the proper iteration in the
reverse direction) is tricky. The rules above dictate that
a proxy insert a different URI into the Record-Route for
each distinct Request-URI received. The two issues can be
solved jointly. A RECOMMENDED mechanism is for the proxy to
append a piece of data to the user portion of the URI.
This piece of data is a hash of the transaction key (those
peices of data used to match a request against existing
transactions as discussed in section 17.2.3) for the
incoming request, concatenated with a unique identifier for
the proxy instance. Since the transaction key either
contains Request-URI or depends on it (when the key is
encoded in the branch parameter of the topmost Via header),
this key will be unique for each distinct Request-URI.
When the response arrives, the proxy modifies the first
Record-Route whose identifier matches the proxy instance.
The modification results in a URI without this piece of
data appended to the user portion of the URI. Upon the next
iteration, the same algorithm (find the topmost Record-
Route header with the parameter) will correctly extract the
next Record-Route header inserted by that proxy.
9. Forward response
After performing the processing described in steps
"Aggregate authorization headers" through "Record-Route",
Various Authors [Page 103]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
the proxy may perform any feature specific manipulations on
the selected response. Unless otherwise specified, the
proxy MUST NOT remove the message body or any header values
other than the Via header value discussed in Section 3. In
particular, the proxy MUST NOT remove any "received"
parameter it may have added to the next Via header value
while processing the request associated with this response.
The proxy MUST pass the response to the server transaction
associated with the response context. This will result in
the response being sent to the location now indicated in
the topmost Via field value. If the server transaction is
no longer available to handle the transmission, the element
MUST forward the response statelessly by sending it to the
server transport.
The server transaction may indicate failure to send the
response or signal a timeout in its state machine. These
errors should be logged for diagnostic purposes as
appropriate, but the protocol requires no remedial action
from the proxy.
The proxy MUST maintain the response context until all of
its associated transactions have been terminated, even
after forwarding a final response.
10. Generate CANCELs
OPEN ISSUE #7: If CANCEL is restricted to INVITE only, this
behavior must restrict itself to INVITE requests.
If the forwarded response was a final response, the proxy
MUST generate a CANCEL request for all pending client
transactions associated with this response context. A proxy
SHOULD also generate a CANCEL request for all pending
client transactions associated with this response context
when it receives a 6xx response. A pending client
transaction is one that has received a provisional
response, but no final response and has not had an
associated CANCEL generated for it. Generating CANCEL
requests is described in Section 9.1.
The requirement to CANCEL pending client transactions upon
forwarding a final response does not guarantee that an
endpoint will not receive multiple 200 (OK) responses to an
INVITE. 200 (OK) responses on more than one branch may be
generated before the CANCEL requests can be sent and
processed. Further, it is reasonable to expect that a
future extension may override this requirement to issue
Various Authors [Page 104]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
CANCEL requests.
16.7 Processing Timer C
If timer C should fire, the proxy MUST either reset the timer with
any value it chooses, or generate a CANCEL for that particular
request.
16.8 Handling Transport Errors
If the transport layer notifies a proxy of an error when it tries to
forward a request (see Section 19.4), the proxy MUST behave as if the
forwarded request received a 400 (Bad Request) response.
If the proxy is notified of an error when forwarding a response, it
drops the response. The proxy SHOULD NOT cancel any outstanding
client transactions associated with this response context due to this
notification.
If a proxy cancels its outstanding client transactions, a
single malicious or misbehaving client can cause all
transactions to fail through its Via header field.
16.9 CANCEL Processing
A stateful proxy may generate a CANCEL to any other request it has
generated at any time (subject to receiving a provisional response
to that request as described in section 9.1). A proxy MUST cancel
any pending client transactions associated with a response context
when it receives a matching CANCEL request.
A stateful proxy MAY generate CANCEL requests for pending INVITE
client transactions based on the period specified in the INVITEs
Expires header field elapsing. However, this is generally unnecessary
since the endpoints involved will take care of signaling the end of
the transaction.
While a CANCEL request is handled in a stateful proxy by its own
server transaction, a new response context is not created for it.
Instead, the proxy layer searches its existing response contexts for
the server transaction handling the request associated with this
CANCEL. If a matching response context is found, the element MUST
immediately return a 200 (OK) response to the CANCEL request. In this
case, the element is acting as a user agent server as defined in
Section 8.2. Furthermore, the element MUST generate CANCEL requests
for all pending client transactions in the context as described in
Section 10.
Various Authors [Page 105]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
If a response context is not found, the element does not have any
knowledge of the request to apply the CANCEL to. It MUST forward the
CANCEL request (it may have statelessly forwarded the associated
request previously).
16.10 Stateless Proxy
When acting statelessly, a proxy is a simple message forwarder. Much
of the processing performed when acting statelessly is the same as
when behaving statefully. The differences are detailed here.
A stateless proxy does not have any notion of a transaction, or of
the response context used to describe stateful proxy behavior.
Instead, the stateless proxy takes messages, both requests and
responses, directly from the transport layer (See section 19). As a
result, stateless proxies do not retransmit messages on their own.
They do, however, forward all retransmission they receive (they do
not have the ability to distinguish a retransmission from the
original message). Furthermore, when handling a request statelessly,
an element MUST NOT generate its own 100 (Trying) or any other
provisional response.
A stateless proxy must validate a request as described in Section
16.3
A stateless proxy must make a routing decision as described in
Section 16.4 with the following exception:
o A stateless proxy MUST choose one and only one destination
from the destination set. This choice MUST only rely on fields
in the message and time-invariant properties of the server. In
particular, a retransmitted request MUST be forwarded to the
same destination each time it is processed. Furthermore,
CANCEL and non-Routed ACK requests MUST generate the same
choice as their associated INVITE.
A stateless proxy must process the request before forwarding as
described in Section 16.5 with the following exceptions:
o The requirement for unique branch IDs across time applies to
stateless proxies as well. However, a stateless proxy cannot
simply use a random number generator to compute the first
component of the branch ID, as described in Section 16.5
bullet 3. This is because retransmissions of a request need to
have the same value, and a stateless proxy cannot tell a
retransmission from the original request. Therefore, the
component of the branch parameter that makes it unique MUST be
the same each time a retransmitted request is forwarded. Thus
Various Authors [Page 106]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
for a stateless proxy, the branch parameter MUST be computed
as a combinatoric function of message parameters which are
invariant on retransmission.
o The stateless proxy MAY use any technique it likes to
guarantee uniqueness of its branch IDs across transactions.
However, the following procedure is RECOMMENDED. The proxy
examines the branch ID of the received request. If it begins
with the magic cookie, the first component of the branch ID of
the outgoing request is computed as a hash of the received
branch ID. Otherwise, the first component of the branch ID is
computed as a hash of the topmost Via, the To header, the From
header , the Call-ID header, the CSeq number (but not method),
and the Request-URI from the received request. One of these
fields will always vary across two different transactions.
o The request is sent directly to the transport layer instead of
through a client transaction. If the next-hop destination
parameters don't provide an explicit destination, the element
applies the procedures of [8] to the Request-URI to determine
where to send the request.
Since a stateless proxy must forward retransmitted requests
to the same destination and add identical branch parameters
to each of them, it can only use information from the
message itself and time-invariant configuration data for
those calculations. If the configuration state is not
time-invariant (for example, if a routing table is updated)
any requests that could be affected by the change may not
be forwarded statelessly during an interval equal to the
transaction timeout window before or after the change. The
method of processing the affected requests in that interval
is an implementation decision. A common solution is to
forward them transaction statefully.
Stateless proxies MUST NOT perform special processing for CANCEL
requests. They are processed by the above rules as any other
requests. In particular, a stateless proxy applies the same Route
header processing to CANCEL requests that it applies to any other
request.
Response processing as described in Section 16.6 does not apply to a
proxy behaving statelessly. When a response arrives at a stateless
proxy, the proxy inspects the sent-by value in the first (topmost)
Via header value. If that address matches the proxy (it equals a
value this proxy has inserted into previous requests) the proxy MUST
remove that value from the response and forward the result to the
Various Authors [Page 107]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
location indicated in the next Via header value. Unless specified
otherwise, the proxy MUST NOT remove any other header values or the
message body. If the address does not match the proxy, the message
MUST be silently discarded.
16.11 Record-Route Example
This example demonstrates one way Record-Route header values can be
constructed to satisfy the requirements described in section 16.5
item 6 and section 16.6 item 8.
Consider a proxy at server12.atlanta.com listening on port 5061 which
receives the following request (many headers are omitted for
brevity):
INVITE sip:user@example.com SIP/2.0
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP callerspc.univ.edu
Contact: sip:caller@callerspc.univ.edu
The proxy forwards this request to a UAS at
sip:j_user@div11.example.com, and record-routes:
INVITE sip:j_user@div11.example.com SIP/2.0
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP server12.atlanta.com:5061
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP callerspc.univ.edu
Record-Route: <sip:caller.8jjs@callerspc.univ.edu:5061;
maddr=server12.atlanta.com>
Contact: sip:caller@callerspc.univ.edu
The 200 (OK) response received by the proxy will look like, in part:
SIP/2.0 200 OK
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP server12.atlanta.com:5061
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP callerspc.univ.edu
Record-Route: <sip:caller.8jjs@callerspc.univ.edu:5061;
maddr=server12.atlanta.com>
Contact: sip:j_user@host32.div11.example.com
The proxy modifies its Record-Route header in the response, resulting
Various Authors [Page 108]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
in the new response forwarded upstream:
SIP/2.0 200 OK
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP callerspc.univ.edu
Record-Route: <sip:user@example.com:5061;maddr=server12.atlanta.com>
Contact: sip:j_user@host32.div11.example.com
The route set computed by the UAS is:
sip:caller.8jjs@callerspc.univ.edu:5061;maddr=server12.atlanta.com
sip:caller@callerspc.univ.edu
and the route set computed by the UAC is:
sip:j_user@example.com:5061;maddr=server12.atlanta.com
sip:j_user@host32.div11.example.com
17 Transactions
SIP is a transactional protocol: interactions between components take
place in a series of independent message exchanges. Specifically, a
SIP transaction consists of a single request, and any responses to
that request (which include zero or more provisional responses and
one or more final responses). In the case of a transaction where the
request was an INVITE (known as an INVITE transaction), the
transaction also includes the ACK only if the final response was not
a 2xx response. If the response was a 2xx, the ACK is not considered
part of the transaction.
The reason for this separation is rooted in the importance
of delivering all 200 (OK) responses to an INVITE to the
UAC. To deliver them all to the UAC, the UAS alone takes
responsibility for retransmitting them, and the UAC alone
takes responsibility for acknowledging them with ACK. Since
this ACK is retransmitted only by the UAC, it is
effectively considered its own transaction.
Transactions have a client side and a server side. The client side is
known as a client transaction, and the server side, as a server
Various Authors [Page 109]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
transaction. The client transaction sends the request, and the server
transaction sends the response. The client and server transactions
are logical functions that are embedded in any number of elements.
Specifically, they exist within user agents and stateful proxy
servers. Consider the example of Section 4. In this example, the UAC
executes the client transaction, and its outbound proxy executes the
server transaction. The outbound proxy also executes a client
transaction, which sends the request to a server transaction in the
inbound proxy. That proxy also executes a client transaction, which
in turn, sends the request to a server transaction in the UAS. This
is shown pictorially in Figure 4.
+---------+ +---------+ +---------+ +---------+
| +-+|Request |+-+ +-+|Request |+-+ +-+|Request |+-+ |
| |C||------->||S| |C||------->||S| |C||------->||S| |
| |l|| ||e| |l|| ||e| |l|| ||e| |
| |i|| ||r| |i|| ||r| |i|| ||r| |
| |e|| ||v| |e|| ||v| |e|| ||v| |
| |n|| ||e| |n|| ||e| |n|| ||e| |
| |t|| ||r| |t|| ||r| |t|| ||r| |
| | || || | | || || | | || || | |
| |T|| ||T| |T|| ||T| |T|| ||T| |
| |r|| ||r| |r|| ||r| |r|| ||r| |
| |a|| ||a| |a|| ||a| |a|| ||a| |
| |n|| ||n| |n|| ||n| |n|| ||n| |
| |s||Response||s| |s||Response||s| |s||Response||s| |
| +-+|<-------|+-+ +-+|<-------|+-+ +-+|<-------|+-+ |
+---------+ +---------+ +---------+ +---------+
UAC Outbound Inbound UAS
Proxy Proxy
Figure 4: Transaction relationships
A stateless proxy does not contain a client or server transaction.
The transaction exists between the UA or stateful proxy on one side
of the stateless proxy, and the UA or stateful proxy on the other
Various Authors [Page 110]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
side. As far as SIP transactions are concerned, stateless proxies are
effectively transparent. The purpose of the client transaction is to
receive a request from the element the client is embedded in (call
this element the "Transaction User" or TU; it can be a UA or a
stateful proxy), and reliably deliver the request to that server
transaction. The client transaction is also responsible for receiving
responses, and delivering them to the TU, filtering out any
retransmissions or disallowed responses (such as a response to ACK).
In the case of an INVITE transaction, that includes generation of the
ACK request for any final response excepting a 2xx response.
Similarly, the purpose of the server transaction is to receive
requests from the transport layer, and deliver them to the TU. The
server transaction filters any request retransmissions from the
network. The server transaction accepts responses from the TU, and
delivers them to the transport layer for transmission over the
network. In the case of an INVITE transaction, it absorbs the ACK
request for any final response excepting a 2xx response.
The 2xx response, and the ACK for it, have special treatment. This
response is retransmitted only by a UAS, and its ACK generated only
by the UAC. This end-to-end treatment is needed so that a caller
knows the entire set of users that have accepted the call. Because of
this special handling, retransmissions of the 2xx response are
handled by the UA core, not the transaction layer. Similarly,
generation of the ACK for the 2xx is handled by the UA core. Each
proxy along the path merely forwards each 2xx response to INVITE, and
its corresponding ACK.
A reliable provisional response, and the PRACK for it, also have
special treatment. Reliable provisional responses are also only
retransmitted by the UAS core, and the PRACK generated by the UAC
core. Unlike ACK, however, PRACK is a normal non-INVITE transaction,
which means that it will generate its own final response. The reason
for this seemingly inexplicable difference between PRACK and ACK is
that reliability of provisional responses was added on later as an
extra feature, and therefore needed to be done within the confines of
SIP extensibility. SIP extensibility only allowed the additions of
new methods which behaved like any other non-INVITE method.
17.1 Client Transaction
The client transaction provides its functionality through the
maintenance of a state machine.
The TU communicates with the client transaction through a simple
interface. When the TU wishes to initiate a new transaction, it
creates a client transaction, and passes it the SIP request to send,
Various Authors [Page 111]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
and an IP address, port, and transport to send it to. The client
transaction begins execution of its state machine. Valid responses
are passed up to the TU from the client transaction.
There are two types of client transaction state machines, depending
on the method of the request passed by the TU. One handles client
transactions for INVITE request. This type of machine is referred to
as an INVITE client transaction. Another type handles client
transactions for all requests except INVITE and ACK. This is referred
to as a non-INVITE client transaction. There is no client transaction
for ACK. If the TU wishes to send an ACK, it passes one directly to
the transport layer for transmission.
The INVITE transaction is different from those of other methods
because of its extended duration. Normally, human input is required
in order to respond to an INVITE. The long delays expected for
sending a response argue for a three way handshake. Requests of other
methods, on the other hand, are expected to completely rapidly. In
fact, because of its reliance on just a two way handshake, TUs SHOULD
respond immediately to non-INVITE requests. Protocol extensions which
require longer durations for generation of a response (such as a new
method that does require human interaction) SHOULD instead use two
transactions - one to send the request, and another in the reverse
direction to convey the result of the request.
17.1.1 INVITE Client Transaction
17.1.1.1 Overview of INVITE Transaction
The INVITE transaction consists of a three-way handshake. The client
transaction sends an INVITE, the server transaction sends responses,
and the client transaction sends an ACK. For unreliable transports
(such as UDP), the client transaction will retransmit requests at an
interval that starts at T1 seconds and doubles after every
retransmission. T1 is an estimate of the RTT, and it defaults to 500
ms. Nearly all of the transaction timers described here scale with
T1, and changing T1 is how their values are adjusted. The request is
not retransmitted over reliable transports. After receiving a 1xx
response, any retransmissions cease altogether, and the client waits
for further responses. The server transaction can send additional
1xx responses, which are not transmitted reliably by the server
transaction. If the provisional response needs to be sent reliably,
this is handled by the TU. Eventually, the server transaction
decides to send a final response. For unreliable transports, that
response is retransmitted periodically, and for reliable transports,
its sent once. For each final response that is received at the
client transaction, the client transaction sends an ACK, the purpose
of which is to quench retransmissions of the response.
Various Authors [Page 112]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
17.1.1.2 Formal Description
The state machine for the INVITE client transaction is shown in
Figure 5. The initial state, "calling", MUST be entered when the TU
initiates a new client transaction with an INVITE request. The client
transaction MUST pass the request to the transport layer for
transmission (see Section 19). If an unreliable transport is being
used, the client transaction SHOULD start timer A with a value of T1,
and SHOULD NOT start timer A when a reliable transport is being used
(Timer A controls request retransmissions). For any transport, the
client transaction MUST start timer B with a value of 64*T1 seconds
(Timer B controls transaction timeouts).
When timer A fires, the client transaction SHOULD retransmit the
request by passing it to the transport layer, and SHOULD reset the
timer with a value of 2*T1. The formal definition of retransmit
within the context of the transaction layer, is to take the message
previously sent to the transport layer, and pass it to the transport
layer once more.
When timer A fires 2*T1 seconds later, the request SHOULD be
retransmitted again (assuming the client transaction is still in this
state). This process SHOULD continue, so that the request is
retransmitted with intervals that double after each transmission.
These retransmissions SHOULD only be done while the client
transaction is in the "calling" state.
The default value for T1 is 500 ms. T1 is an estimate of the RTT
between the client and server transactions. The optional RTT
estimation procedure of Section 17.3 MAY be followed, in which case
the resulting estimate MAY be used instead of 500 ms. If no RTT
estimation is used, other values MAY be used in private networks
where it is known that RTT has a different value. On the public
Internet, T1 MAY be chosen larger, but SHOULD NOT be smaller.
If the client transaction is still in the "calling"state when timer B
fires, the client transaction SHOULD inform the TU that a timeout has
occurred. The client transaction MUST NOT generate an ACK. The value
of 64*T1 is equal to the amount of time required to send seven
requests in the case of an unreliable transport.
If the client transaction receives a provisional response while in
the "calling" state, it transitions to the "proceeding" state. In the
"proceeding" state, the client transaction SHOULD NOT retransmit the
request any longer. Furthermore, the provisional response MUST be
passed to the TU. Any further provisional responses MUST be passed up
to the TU while in the "proceeding" state. Passing of all provisional
Various Authors [Page 113]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
responses is necessary since the TU will handle reliability of these
messages, and therefore even retransmissions of a provisional
response must be passed upwards.
When in either the "calling" or "proceeding" states, reception of a
response with status code from 300-699 MUST cause the client
transaction to transition to "completed". The client transaction MUST
pass the received response up to the TU, and the client transaction
MUST generate an ACK request, even if the transport is reliable
(guidelines for constructing the ACK from the response are given in
Section 17.1.1.3) and then pass the ACK to the transport layer for
transmission. The ACK MUST be sent to the same address, port and
transport that the original request was sent to. The client
transaction SHOULD start timer D when it enters the "completed"
state, with a value of at least 32 seconds for unreliable transports,
and a value of zero seconds for reliable transports. Timer D is a
reflection of the amount of time that the server transaction can
remain in the "completed" state when unreliable transports are used.
This is equal to Timer H in the INVITE server transaction, whose
default is 64*T1. However, the client transaction does not know the
value of T1 in use by the server transaction, so an absolute minimum
of 32s is used instead of basing Timer D on T1.
Any retransmissions of the final response that are received while in
the "completed" state SHOULD cause the ACK to be re-passed to the
transport layer for retransmission, but the newly received response
MUST NOT be passed up to the TU. A retransmission of the response is
defined as any response which would match the same client
transaction, based on the rules of Section 17.1.3.
If timer D fires while the client transaction is in the "completed"
state, the client transaction MUST move to the terminated state, and
it MUST inform the TU of the timeout.
When in either the "calling" or "proceeding" states, reception of a
2xx response MUST cause the client transaction to enter the
terminated state, and the response MUST be passed up to the TU. The
handling of this response depends on whether the TU is a proxy core
or a UAC core. A UAC core will handle generation of the ACK for this
response, while a proxy core will always forward the 200 (OK)
upstream. The differing treatment of 200 (OK) between proxy and UAC
is the reason that handling of it does not take place in the
transaction layer.
The client transaction MUST be destroyed the instant it enters the
terminated state. This is actually necessary to guarantee correct
operation. The reason is that 2xx responses to an INVITE are treated
differently; each one is forwarded by proxies, and the ACK handling
Various Authors [Page 114]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
|INVITE from TU
Timer A fires |INVITE sent
Reset A, V Timer B fires
INVITE sent +-----------+ or Transport Err.
+---------| |---------------+inform TU
| | Calling | |
+-------->| |-------------->|
+-----------+ 2xx |
| | 2xx to TU |
| |1xx |
300-699 +---------------+ |1xx to TU |
ACK sent | | |
resp. to TU | 1xx V |
| 1xx to TU -----------+ |
| +---------| | |
| | |Proceeding |-------------->|
| +-------->| | 2xx |
| +-----------+ 2xx to TU |
| 300-699 | |
| ACK sent, | |
| resp. to TU| |
| | | NOTE:
| 300-699 V |
| ACK sent +-----------+Transport Err. | transitions
| +---------| |Inform TU | labeled with
| | | Completed |-------------->| the event
| +-------->| | | over the action
| +-----------+ | to take
| ^ | |
| | | Timer D fires |
+--------------+ | - |
| |
V |
+-----------+ |
| | |
| Terminated|<--------------+
| |
+-----------+
Figure 5: INVITE client transaction
Various Authors [Page 115]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
in a UAC is different. Thus, each 2xx needs to be passed to a proxy
core (so that it can be forwarded) and to a UAC core (so it can be
acknowledged). No transaction layer processing takes place. Whenever
a response is received by the transport, if the transport layer finds
no matching client transaction (using the rules of Section 17.1.3),
the response is passed directly to the core. Since the matching
client transaction is destroyed by the first 2xx, subsequent 2xx will
find no match and therefore be passed to the core.
17.1.1.3 Construction of the ACK Request
The ACK request constructed by the client transaction MUST contain
values for the Call-ID, From, and Request-URI which are equal to the
values of those headers in the request passed to the transport by the
client transaction (call this the "original request"). The To field
in the ACK MUST equal the To field in the response being
acknowledged, and will therefore usually differ from the To field in
the original request by the addition of the tag parameter. The ACK
MUST contain a single Via header, and this MUST be equal to the top
Via header of the original request. The ACK request MUST contain the
same Route headers as the request whose response it is acknowledging
. The CSeq header in the ACK MUST contain the same value for the
sequence number as was present in the original request, but the
method parameter MUST be equal to "ACK".
If the INVITE request whose response is being acknowledged had Route
headers, those headers MUST appear in the ACK. This is to ensure
that the ACK can be routed properly through any downstream stateless
proxies.
Although any request MAY contain a body, a body in an ACK is special
since the request cannot be rejected if the body is not understood.
Therefore, placement of bodies in ACK for non-2xx is NOT RECOMMENDED,
but if done, the body types are restricted to any that appeared in
the INVITE, assuming that that the response to the INVITE was not
415. If it was, the body in the ACK MAY be any type listed in the
Accept header in the 415.
These rules for construction of ACK only apply to the client
transaction. A UAC core which generates an ACK for 2xx MUST instead
follow the rules described in Section 13.
For example, consider the following request:
INVITE sip:bob@biloxi.com SIP/2.0
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP pc33.atlanta.com;branch=z9hG4bKkjshdyff
To: Bob <sip:bob@biloxi.com>
Various Authors [Page 116]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
From: Alice <sip:alice@atlanta.com>;tag=88sja8x
Call-ID: 987asjd97y7atg
CSeq: 986759 INVITE
The ACK request for a non-2xx final response to this request would
look like this:
ACK sip:bob@biloxi.com SIP/2.0
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP pc33.atlanta.com;branch=z9hG4bKkjshdyff
To: Bob <sip:bob@biloxi.com>;tag=99sa0xk
From: Alice <sip:alice@atlanta.com>;tag=88sja8x
Call-ID: 987asjd97y7atg
CSeq: 986759 ACK
17.1.2 non-INVITE Client Transaction
17.1.2.1 Overview of the non-INVITE Transaction
Non-INVITE transactions do not make use of ACK. They are a simple
request-response interaction. For unreliable transports, requests are
retransmitted at an interval which starts at T1, and doubles until it
hits T2. If a provisional response is received, retransmissions
continue for unreliable transports, but at an interval of T2. The
server transaction retransmits the last response it sent (which can
be a provisional or final response) only when a retransmission of the
request is received. This is why request retransmissions need to
continue even after a provisional response, they are what ensure
reliable delivery of the final response.
Unlike an INVITE transaction, a non-INVITE transaction has no special
handling for the 2xx response. The result is that only a single 2xx
response to a non-INVITE is ever delivered to a UAC.
17.1.2.2 Formal Description
The state machine for the non-INVITE client transaction is shown in
Figure 6. It is very similar to the state machine for INVITE.
The "Trying" state is entered when the TU initiates a new client
transaction with a request. When entering this state, the client
transaction SHOULD set timer F to fire in 64*T1 seconds. The request
MUST be passed to the transport layer for transmission. If an
Various Authors [Page 117]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
unreliable transport is in use, the client transaction MUST set timer
E to fire in T1 seconds. If timer E fires while still in this state,
the timer is reset, but this time with a value of MIN(2*T1, T2). When
the timer fires again, it is reset to a MIN(4*T1, T2). This process
continues, so that retransmissions occur with an exponentially
increasing inverval that caps at T2. The default value of T2 is 4s,
and it represents the amount of time a non-INVITE server transaction
will take to respond to a request, if it does not respond
immediately. For the default values of T1 and T2, this results in
intervals of 500 ms, 1 s, 2 s, 4 s, 4 s, 4s, etc.
If Timer F fires while the client transaction is still in the
"Trying" state, the client transaction SHOULD inform the TU about the
timeout, and then it SHOULD enter the "Terminated" state. If a
provisional response is received while in the "Trying" state, the
response MUST be passed to the TU, and then the client transaction
SHOULD move to the "Proceeding" state. If a final response (status
codes 200-699) is received while in the "Trying" state, the response
MUST be passed to the TU, and the client transaction MUST transition
to the "Completed" state.
If Timer E fires while in the "Proceeding" state, the request MUST be
passed to the transport layer for retransmission, and Timer E MUST be
reset with a value of T2 seconds. If timer F fires while in the
"Proceeding" state, the TU MUST be informed of a timeout, and the
client transaction MUST transition to the terminated state. If a
final response (status codes 200-699) is received while in the
"Proceeding" state, the response MUST be passed to the TU, and the
client transaction MUST transition to the "Completed" state.
Once the client transaction enters the "Completed" state, it MUST set
Timer K to fire in T4 seconds for unreliable transports, and zero
seconds for reliable transports. The "Completed" state exists to
buffer any additional response retransmissions that may be received
(which is why the client transaction remains there only for
unreliable transports). T4 represents the amount of time the network
will take to clear messages between client and server transactions.
The default value of T4 is 5s. A response is a retransmission when it
matches the same transaction, using the rules specified in Section
17.1.3. If Timer K fires while in this state, the client transaction
MUST transition to the "Terminated" state.
Once the transaction is in the terminated state, it MUST be
destroyed. As with client transactions, this is needed to ensure
reliability of the 2xx responses to INVITE.
17.1.3 Matching Responses to Client Transactions
Various Authors [Page 118]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
|Request from app
|send request
Timer E V
send request +-----------+
+---------| |-------------------+
| | Trying | Timer F |
+-------->| | or Transport Err.|
+-----------+ inform TU |
200-699 | | |
resp. to TU | |1xx |
+---------------+ |resp. to TU |
| | |
| Timer E V Timer F |
| send req +-----------+ or Transport Err. |
| +---------| | inform TU |
| | |Proceeding |------------------>|
| +-------->| |-----+ |
| +-----------+ |1xx |
| | ^ |resp to TU |
| 200-699 | +--------+ |
| resp. to TU | |
| | |
| V |
| +-----------+ |
| | | |
| | Completed | |
| | | |
| +-----------+ |
| ^ | |
| | | Timer K |
+--------------+ | - |
| |
V |
NOTE: +-----------+ |
| | |
transitions | Terminated|<------------------+
labeled with | |
the event +-----------+
over the action
to take
Figure 6: non-INVITE client transaction
Various Authors [Page 119]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
When the transport layer in the client receives a response, it has to
figure out which client transaction will handle the response, so that
the processing of Sections 17.1.1 and 17.1.2 can take place.
The branch parameter in the top Via header is used for this purpose.
A response matches a client transaction under two conditions. First,
if the response has the same value of the branch parameter in the top
Via header as the branch parameter in the top Via header of the
request that created the transaction. Second, if the method parameter
in the CSeq header matches the method of the request that created the
transaction. The method is needed since a CANCEL request constitutes
a different transaction, but shares the same value of the branch
parameter.
A response which matches a transaction matched by a previous response
is considered a retransmission of that response.
17.1.4 Handling Transport Errors
When the client transaction sends a request to the transport layer to
be sent, the following procedures are followed if the transport layer
indicates a failure.
The client transaction SHOULD inform the TU that a transport failure
has occurred, and the client transaction SHOULD transition directly
to the terminated state.
17.2 Server Transaction
The server transaction is responsible for the delivery of requests to
the TU, and the reliable transmission of responses. It accomplishes
this through a state machine. Server transactions are created by the
core when a request is received, and transaction handling is desired
for that request (this won't always be the case).
As with the client transactions, the state machine depends on whether
the received request is an INVITE request or not.
17.2.1 INVITE Server Transaction
The state diagram for the INVITE server transaction is shown in
Figure 7.
When a server transaction is constructed with a request, it enters
the "Proceeding" state. The server transaction MUST generate a 100
response (not any status code -- the specific value of 100) unless it
knows that the TU will generate a provisional or final response
Various Authors [Page 120]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
withpin 200 ms, in which case it MAY generate a 100 (Trying)
response. This provisional response is needed to rapidly quench
request retransmissions in order to avoid network congestion. The
100 response is constructed according to the procedures in Section
8.2.6, except that insertion of tags in the To field of the response
(when none was present in the request), is downgraded from MAY to
SHOULD NOT. The request MUST be passed to the TU.
The TU passes any number of provisional responses to the server
transaction. So long as the server transaction is in the "Proceeding"
state, each of these MUST be passed to the transport layer for
transmission. They are not sent reliably by the transaction layer
(they are not retransmitted by it), and do not cause a change in the
state of the server transaction. When provisional responses need to
be delivered reliably, it is handled by the TU, which will retransmit
the provisional responses itself, and pass downwards each
retransmission to the server transaction. If a request
retransmission is received while in the "Proceeding" state, the most
recent provisional response that was received from the TU MUST be
passed to the transport layer for retransmission. A request is a
retransmission if it matches the same server transaction based on the
rules of Section 17.2.3.
If, while in the "proceeding" state, the TU passes a 2xx Response to
the server transaction, the server transaction MUST pass this
response to the transport layer for transmission. It is not
retransmitted by the server transaction; retransmissions of 2xx
responses are handled by the TU. The server transaction MUST then
transition to the "terminated" state.
While in the "Proceeding" state, if the TU passes a response with
status code from 300 to 699 to the server transaction, the response
MUST be passed to the transport layer for transmission, and the state
machine MUST enter the "Completed" state. For unreliable transports,
timer G is set to fire in T1 seconds, and is not set to fire for
reliable transports.
This is a change from RFC 2543, where responses were always
retransmitted, even over reliable transports.
When the "Completed" state is entered, timer H MUST be set to fire in
64*T1 seconds, for all transports. Timer H determines when the server
transaction gives up retransmitting the response. Its value is chosen
to equal Timer B, the amount of time a client transaction will
continue to retry sending a request. If timer G fires, the response
is passed to the transport layer once more for retransmission, and
timer G is set to fire in MIN(2*T1, T2) seconds. From then on, when
Various Authors [Page 121]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
|INVITE
|pass INV to TU
INVITE V send 100 if TU won't in 200ms
send response+-----------+
+--------| |--------+101-199 from TU
| | Proceeding| |send response
+------->| |<-------+
| | Transport Err.
| | Inform TU
| |--------------->+
+-----------+ |
300-699 from TU | |2xx from TU |
send response | |send response |
| +------------------>+
| |
INVITE V Timer G fires |
send response+-----------+ send response |
+--------| |--------+ |
| | Completed | | |
+------->| |<-------+ |
+-----------+ |
| | |
ACK | | |
- | +------------------>+
| Timer H fires |
V or Transport Err.|
+-----------+ Inform TU |
| | |
| Confirmed | |
| | |
+-----------+ |
| |
|Timer I fires |
|- |
| |
V |
+-----------+ |
| | |
| Terminated|<---------------+
| |
+-----------+
Figure 7: INVITE server transaction
Various Authors [Page 122]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
timer G fires, the response is passed to the transport again for
transmission, and timer G is reset with a value that doubles, unless
that value exceeds T2, in which case it is reset with the value of
T2. This is identical to the retransmit behavior for requests in the
"Trying" state of the non- INVITE client transaction. Furthermore,
while in the "completed" state, if a request retransmission is
received, the server SHOULD pass the response to the transport for
retransmission.
If an ACK is received while the server transaction is in the
"Completed" state, the server transaction MUST transition to the
"confirmed" state. As Timer G is ignored in this state, any
retransmissions of the response will cease.
If timer H fires while in the "Completed" state, it implies that the
ACK was never received. In this case, the server transaction MUST
transition to the terminated state, and MUST indicate to the TU that
a transaction failure has occurred.
The purpose of the "confirmed" state is to absorb any additional ACK
messages that arrive, triggered from retransmissions of the final
response. When this state is entered, timer I is set to fire in T4
seconds for unreliable transports, and zero seconds for reliable
transports. Once timer I fires, the server MUST transition to the
"Terminated" state.
Once the transaction is in the terminated state, it MUST be
destroyed. As with client transactions, this is needed to ensure
reliability of the 2xx responses to INVITE.
17.2.2 non-INVITE Server Transaction
The state machine for the non-INVITE server transaction is shown in
Figure 8.
The state machine is initialized in the "Trying" state, and is passed
a request other than INVITE or ACK when initialized. This request is
passed up to the TU. Once in the "Trying" state, any further request
retransmissions are discarded. A request is a retransmission if it
matches the same server transaction, using the rules specified in
Section 17.2.3.
While in the "Trying" state, if the TU passes a provisional response
to the server transaction, the server transaction MUST enter the
"Proceeding" state. The response MUST be passed to the transport
layer for transmission. Any further provisional responses that are
received from the TU while in the "Proceeding" state MUST be passed
Various Authors [Page 123]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
to the transport layer for transmission. If a retransmission of the
request is received while in the "Proceeding" state, the most
recently sent provisional response MUST be passed to the transport
layer for retransmission. If the TU passes a final response (status
codes 200-699) to the server while in the "Proceeding" state, the
transaction MUST enter the "Completed" state, and the response MUST
be passed to the transport layer for transmission.
When the server transaction enters the "Completed" state, it MUST set
Timer J to fire in 64*T1 seconds for unreliable transports, and zero
seconds for reliable transports. While in the "Completed" state, the
server transaction MUST pass the final response to the transport
layer for retransmission whenever a retransmission of the request is
received. Any other final responses passed by the TU to the server
transaction MUST be discarded while in the "Completed" state. The
server transaction remains in this state until Timer J fires, at
which point it MUST transition to the "Terminated" state.
The server transaction MUST be destroyed the instant it enters the
"Terminated" state.
17.2.3 Matching Requests to Server Transactions
When a request is received from the network by the server, it has to
be matched to an existing transaction. This is accomplished in the
following manner.
The branch parameter in the topmost Via header the request is
examined. If it is present, and begins with the magic cookie
"z9hG4bK", the request was generated by a client transaction
compliant to this specification. Therefore, the branch parameter will
be unique across all transactions sent by that client. The request
matches a transaction if the branch parameter in the request is equal
to the one in the top Via header of the request that created the
transaction, the source address and port of the request are the same
as the source address and port of the the request that created the
transaction, and in the case of a CANCEL request, the method of the
request that created the transaction was also CANCEL. This matching
rule applies to both INVITE and non-INVITE transactions alike.
Source address and port are used as part of the matching
process because there could be duplication of branch
parameters from different clients; uniqueness in time is
mandated for construction of the parameter, but not
uniqueness in space.
If the branch parameter in the top Via header is not present, or does
Various Authors [Page 124]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
|Request received
|pass to TU
V
+-----------+
| |
| Trying |-------------+
| | |
+-----------+ |200-699 from TU
| |send response
|1xx from TU |
|send response |
| |
Request V 1xx from TU |
send response+-----------+send response|
+--------| |--------+ |
| | Proceeding| | |
+------->| |<-------+ |
+<--------------| | |
|Trnsprt Err +-----------+ |
|Inform TU | |
| | |
| |200-699 from TU |
| |send response |
| Request V |
| send response+-----------+ |
| +--------| | |
| | | Completed |-------------+
| +------->| |
+<--------------| |
|Trnsprt Err +-----------+
|Inform TU |
| |Timer J fires
| |-
| |
| V
| +-----------+
| | |
+-------------->| Terminated|
| |
+-----------+
Figure 8: non-INVITE server transaction
Various Authors [Page 125]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
not contain the magic cookie, the following procedures are used.
These exist to handle backwards compatibility with RFC 2543 compliant
implementations.
The INVITE request matches a transaction if the Request-URI, To,
From, Call-ID, CSeq, and top Via header match those of the INVITE
request which created the transaction. In this case, the INVITE is a
retransmission of the original one that created the transaction. The
ACK request matches a transaction if the Request-URI, From, Call-ID,
CSeq number (not the method), and top Via header match those of the
INVITE request which created the transaction, and the To field of the
ACK matches the To field of the response sent by the server
transaction (which then includes the tag). Matching is done based on
the matching rules defined for each of those headers. The usage of
the tag in the To field helps disambiguate ACK for 2xx from ACK for
other responses at a proxy which may have forwarded both responses
(which can occur in unusual conditions). An ACK request that matches
an INVITE transaction matched by a previous ACK is considered a
retransmission of that previous ACK.
For all other request methods, a request is matched to a transaction
if the Request-URI, To, From, Call-ID and Cseq (including the method)
and top Via header match those of the request which created the
transaction. Matching is done based on the matching rules defined for
each of those headers. When a non-INVITE request matches an existing
transaction, it is a retransmission of the request which created that
transaction.
Because the matching rules include the Request-URI, the server cannot
match a response to a transaction. When the TU passes a response to
the server transaction, it must pass it to the specific server
transaction for which the response is targeted.
17.2.4 Handling Transport Errors
When the server transaction sends a response to the transport layer
to be sent, the following procedures are followed if the transport
layer indicates a failure.
First, the procedures in [8] are followed, which attempt to deliver
the response to a backup. If those should all fail, such that all
elements generate ICMP errors, or no SRV records are present, the
server transaction SHOULD inform the TU that a failure has occurred,
and SHOULD transition to the terminated state.
17.3 RTT Estimation
Most of the timeouts used in the transaction state machines derive
Various Authors [Page 126]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
from T1, which is an estimate of the RTT between the client and
server transactions. This subsection defines optional procedures that
a client can use to build up estimates of the RTT to a particular IP
address. To perform this procedure, the client MUST maintain a table
of variables for each destination IP address to which an RTT estimate
is being made.
If a client wishes to measure RTT for a particular IP address, it
MUST include a Timestamp header into a request containing the time
when the request is initially created and passed to a new client
transaction, which transmits the request. If a 100 (Trying) response
(not any 1xx, only the 100 (Trying) response) is received before the
client transaction generates a retransmission, an RTT estimate is
made. This is consistent with the RFC 2988 requirements on TCP for
using Karn's algorithm in RTT estimation.
The estimate, called R, is made by computing the difference between
the current time and the value of Timestamp header in the 100
response. The value of R is applied to the estimation of RTO as
described in Section 2 of RFC 2988 [22], with the following
differences. First, the initial value of RTO is 500 ms for SIP, not 3
s as is used for TCP. Second, there is no minimum value for the RTO,
as there is for TCP, if SIP is being run on a private network. When
run on the public Internet, the minimum is 500 ms, as opposed to 1 s
for TCP. This difference is because of the expected usage of SIP in
private networks where rapid call setup times are service critical.
Once RTO is computed, the timer T1 is set to the value of RTO, and
all other timers scale proportionally as described above.
This value of T1 would be used for scaling all of the client and
server transaction timers described above, when a request or
response, respectively, is sent to that IP address.
If the IP address is that of a stateless proxy, the actual round trip
time that is measured will be the average to all transaction stateful
proxies or UAs that are reached through the stateless proxy. This
estimate may therefore be too low or too high for a specific
transactional element being communicated with through the stateless
proxy.
18 Reliability of Provisional Responses
Normally, provisional responses are not transmitted reliably. The TU
generates a single provisional response, and passes it to the server
transaction, which sends it once. RFC 2543 provided no means for
reliable transmission of these messages.
It was later observed that reliability was important in several
Various Authors [Page 127]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
cases, including interoperability scenarios with the PSTN. Therefore,
an optional capability was added in this specification to support
reliable transmission of provisional responses.
The reliability mechanism works by mirroring the current reliability
mechanisms for 2xx final responses to INVITE. Those requests are
transmitted periodically by the TU, until a separate transaction,
ACK, is received, that indicates reception of the 2xx by the UAC. The
reliability for the 2xx to INVITE and ACK messages are end-to-end. In
order to achieve reliability for provisional responses, we do nearly
the same thing. Reliable provisional responses are retransmitted by
the TU with an exponential backoff. Those retransmisions cease when a
PRACK message is received. The PRACK request plays the same role as
ACK, but for provisional responses. There is an important difference,
however. PRACK is a normal SIP message, like BYE. As such, its own
reliability is ensured hop-by-hop through each stateful proxy.
Similarly, PRACK has its own response. If this were not the case, the
PRACK message could not traverse existing proxy servers.
Each provisional response is given a sequence number, carried in the
RSeq header in the response. The PRACK messages contain an RAck
header, which indicates the sequence number of the provisional
response which is being acknowledged. The acknowledgements are not
cumulative, and the specifications recommend a single outstanding
provisional response at a time, for purposes of congestion control.
18.1 UAS Behavior
A UAS MAY send any non-100 provisional response to INVITE reliably,
so long as the initial INVITE request (the request whose provisional
response is being sent reliably) contained a Supported header with
the option tag 100rel specification does not allow reliable
provisional responses for any method but INVITE, extensions that
define new methods which can establish dialogs may make use of the
mechanism.
The UAS MUST send any non-100 provisional response reliably if the
initial request contained a Require header with the option tag 100rel
initial request with a 420 (Bad Extension) and include a Unsupported
header containing the option tag 100rel
A UAS MUST NOT attempt to send a 100 (Trying) response reliably. Only
provisional responses numbered 101 to 199 may be sent reliably. If
the request did not include either a Supported or Require header
indicating this feature, the UAS MUST NOT send the provisional
response reliably.
Various Authors [Page 128]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
100 (Trying) responses are hop-by-hop only. For this
reason, the reliability mechanisms described here, which
are end-to-end, cannot be used.
An element which can act as a proxy can also send reliable
provisional responses; in that case, it acts as a UAS for purposes of
that transaction. However, it MUST NOT attempt to do so for any
request that contains a tag in the To field. That is, a proxy cannot
generate reliable provisional responses to requests sent within the
context of a dialog. Of course, unlike a UAS, when the proxy element
receives a PRACK that does not match any outstanding reliable
provisional response, the PRACK MUST be proxied.
The rest of this discussion assumes that the initial request
contained a Supported or Require header listing 100rel , and that
there is a provisional response to be sent reliably.
The provisional response to be sent reliably is constructed by the
UAS core according to the procedures of Section 8.2.6 and Section 12.
Specifically, the provisional response MUST establish a dialog if one
is not yet created. In addition, it MUST contain Require header
containing the option tag 100rel , and MUST include an RSeq header.
The value of the header for the first reliable provisional response
in a transaction MUST be between 1 and 2**31 - 1. It is RECOMMENDED
that it be chosen uniformly in this range. The RSeq numbering space
is within a single transaction. This means that provisional responses
for different requests MAY use the same values for the RSeq number.
The reliable provisional response is passed to the transaction layer
periodically with an interval that starts at T1 seconds and doubles
for each retransmission (T1 is defined in Section 17). Once passed to
the server transaction, it is added to an internal list of
unacknowledged reliable provisional responses.
This differs from retransmissions of 2xx responses, which
cap at T2 seconds. This is because retransmissions of ACK
are triggered on receipt of a 2xx, but retransmissions of
PRACK take place independently of reception of 1xx.
Retransmissions cease when a matching PRACK is received. PRACK is
like any other request within a dialog, and the UAS core processes it
according to the procedures of Sections 8.2 and 12.2.2. A matching
PRACK is defined as one within the same dialog as the response, and
whose method, CSeq-num, and response-num in the RAck header match,
respectively, the method and sequence number from the CSeq and
sequence number from the RSeq of the reliable provisional response.
Various Authors [Page 129]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
If a PRACK request is received that does not match any unacknowledged
reliable provisional response, the UAS MUST respond to the PRACK with
a 481 response. If the PRACK does match an unacknowledged reliable
provisional response, it MUST be responded to with a 2xx response.
The UAS can be certain at this point that the provisional response
has been received in order. It SHOULD cease retransmissions of the
reliable provisional response, and MUST remove it from the list of
unacknowledged provisional responses.
If a reliable provisional response is retransmitted for 64*T1 seconds
without reception of a corresponding PRACK, the UAS SHOULD reject the
original request with a 5xx response.
If the PRACK contained a body, the body is treated in the same way a
body in an ACK is treated.
After the first reliable provisional response for a request has been
acknowledged, the UAS MAY send additional reliable provisional
responses. The UAS MUST NOT send a second reliable provisional
response until the first is acknowledged. After the first, it is
RECOMMENDED that the UAS not send an additional reliable provisional
response until the previous is acknowledged. The first reliable
provisional response receives special treatment because it conveys
the intitial sequence number. If additional reliable provisional
responses were sent before the first was acknowledged, the UAS could
not be certain these were received in order.
The value of the RSeq in each subsequent reliable provisional
response for the same request MUST be greater by exactly one. RSeq
numbers MUST NOT wrap around. Because the initial one is chosen to be
less than 2**31 - 1, but the maximum is 2**32 - 1, there can be up to
2**31 reliable provisional responses per request, which is more than
sufficient.
Note that the UAS MAY send a final response to the initial request
before having received PRACKs for all unacknowledged reliable
provisional responses. In that case, it SHOULD NOT continue to
retransmit the unacknowledged reliable provisional responses, but it
MUST be prepared to process PRACK requests for those outstanding
responses. A UAS MUST NOT send new reliable provisional responses (as
opposed to retransmissions of unacknowledged ones) after sending a
final response to a request.
18.2 UAC Behavior
If a provisional response is received for the initial request, and
that response contains a Require header containing the option tag
100rel , the response is to be sent reliably. If the response is a
Various Authors [Page 130]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
100 (Trying) (as opposed to 101 to 199), this option tag MUST be
ignored, and the procedures below MUST NOT be used.
Assuming the response is to be transmitted reliably, the UAC MUST
create a new request with method PRACK. This request is sent within
the dialog associated with the provisional response (indeed, the
provisional response may have created the dialog). PRACK requests MAY
contain bodies, which are interpreted according to their type and
disposition.
Note that the PRACK is like any other non-INVITE request within a
dialog. In particular, a UAC SHOULD NOT retransmit the PRACK request
when it receives a retransmission of the provisional response being
acknowledged, although doing so does not create a protocol error.
Once a reliable provisional response is received, retransmissions of
that response MUST be discarded. A response is a retransmission when
its dialog ID, CSeq and RSeq match the original response. The UAC
MUST maintain a sequence number which indicates the most recently
received in-order reliable provisional response for the initial
request. This sequence number MUST be maintained until a final
response is received for the initial request. Its value MUST be
initialized to the RSeq header in the first reliable provisional
response received for the initial request.
Handling of subsequent reliable provisional responses for the same
initial request follows the same rules as above, with the following
difference. Reliable provisional responses are guaranteed to be in
order. As a result, if the UAC receives another reliable provisional
response to the same request, and its RSeq value isn't one higher
than the value of the sequence number, that response MUST NOT be
acknowledged with a PRACK, and MUST NOT be processed further by the
TU. An implementation MAY discard the response, or MAY cache the
response in the hopes of receiving the missing responses.
The UAC MAY acknowledge reliable provisional responses received after
the final response, or MAY discard them.
19 Transport
The transport layer is responsible for the actual transmission of
requests and responses over network transports. This includes
determination of the connection to use for a request or response, in
the case of connection oriented transports.
The transport layer is responsible for managing any persistent
connections (for transports like TCP, TLS and SCTP) including ones it
opened, as well as ones opened to it. This includes connections
Various Authors [Page 131]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
opened by the client or server transports, so that connections are
shared between client and server transport functions. These
connections are indexed by the [address, port, transport] at the far
end of the connection. When a connection is opened by the transport
layer, this index is set to the destination IP, port and transport.
When the connection is accepted by the transport layer, this index is
set to the source IP, port and transport. Note that, because the
source port is often ephemeral, connections accepted by the transport
layer will frequently not be reused. The result is that two proxies
in a "peering" relationship using a connection oriented transport
will frequently have two connections in use, one for transactions
initiated in each direction.
It is RECOMMENDED that connections be kept open for some
implementation defined duration after the last message was sent or
received over that connection. This duration SHOULD at least equal
the longest amount of time the element would need in order to bring a
transaction from instantiation to the terminated state. This is to
insure that transactions complete over the same connection they are
initiated on (i.e., request, response, and in the case of INVITE, ACK
for non-2xx responses)). This usually means at least the maximum of
T3 and 64*T1. However, it could be larger in an element that has a TU
that is using a large value for timer C, for example.
All SIP elements MUST implement UDP and TCP. Other transports MAY be
implemented by any entity.
Making TCP mandatory for UA is a substantial change from
RFC 2543. It has arisen out of the need to handle larger
messages, which MUST use TCP, as discussed below. Thus,
even if an element never sends large messages, it may
receive one, and needs to be able to do that.
19.1 Clients
19.1.1 Sending Requests
The client side of the transport layer is responsible for sending the
request and receiving responses. The user of the transport layer
passes the client transport the request, an IP address, port,
transport, and possibly TTL for multicast destinations.
If a request is within 500 bytes of the path MTU, or if it is larger
than 1000 bytes when the path MTU is unknown, it MUST be sent using
TCP. This is to prevent fragmentation of messages over UDP, and to
provide congestion control for larger messages. However,
implementations MUST be able to handle messages up to the maximum
Various Authors [Page 132]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
datagram packet size. For UDP, this size is 65,535 bytes, including
headers.
The 500 byte "buffer" between the message size and the MTU
accomodates the fact that the response in SIP can be larger
than the request. This happens due to the addition of
Record-Route headers to the responses to INVITE, for
example. With the extra buffer, the response can be 500
bytes larger than the request, and still not be fragmented.
1000 is chosen when path MTU is not known, based on the
assumption of a 1500 byte ethernet MTU
A client that sends a request to a multicast address MUST add the
"maddr" parameter to its Via header field, and SHOULD add the "ttl"
parameter. (In that case, the maddr parameter SHOULD contain the
destination multicast address, although under exceptional
circumstances it MAY contain a unicast address.) Requests sent to
multicast groups SHOULD be scoped to ensure that they are not
forwarded beyond the administrative domain to which they were
targeted. This scoping MAY be done with either TTL or administrative
scopes [17], depending on what is implemented in the network.
It is important to note that the layers above the transport layer do
not operate differently for multicast as opposed to unicast requests.
This means that SIP treats multicast more like anycast, assuming that
there is a single recipient generating responses to requests. If this
is not the case, the first response will end up "winning", based on
the client transaction rules. Any other responses from different UA
will appear as retransmissions and be discarded. This limits the
utility of multicast to cases where an anycast type of function is
desired, such as registrations.
Before a request is sent, the client transport MUST insert a value of
the sent-by field into the Via header. This field contains an IP
address or host name, and port. The usage of an FQDN is RECOMMENDED.
This field is used for sending responses under certain conditions.
For reliable transports, the response is normally sent on the
connection the request was received on. Therefore, the client
transport MUST be prepared to receive the response on the same
connection used to send the request. Under error conditions, the
server may attempt to open a new connection to send the response. To
handle this case, the transport layer MUST also be prepared to
receive an incoming connection on the source IP address that the
request was sent from, and port number in the sent-by field. It also
MUST be prepared to receiving incoming connections on any address and
port which would be selected by a server based on the procedures
Various Authors [Page 133]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
described in Section 5 of [8].
For unreliable unicast transports, the client transport MUST be
prepared to receive responses on the source IP address that the
request is sent from (as responses are sent back to the source
address), but the port number in the sent-by field. Furthermore, as
with reliable transports, in certain cases the response will be sent
elsewhere. The client MUST be prepared to receive responses on any
address and port which would be selected by a server based on the
procedures described in Section 5 of [8].
For multicast, the client transport MUST be prepared to receive
responses on the same multicast group and port that the request is
sent to (e.g., it needs to be a member of the multicast group it
sent the request to.)
If a request is destined to an IP address, port, and transport to
which an existing connection is open, it is RECOMMENDED that this
connection be used to send the request, but another connection MAY be
opened and used.
If a request is sent using multicast, it is sent to the group
address, port, and TTL provided by the transport user. If a request
is sent using unicast unreliable transports, it is sent to the IP
address and port provided by the transport user.
19.1.2 Receiving Responses
When a response is received, the client transport examines the top
Via header. If the value of the sent-by parameter in that header does
not correspond to a value that the client transport is configured to
insert into requests, the response MUST be rejected.
If there are any client transactions in existence, the client
transport uses the matching procedures of Section 17.1.3 to attempt
to match the response to an existing transaction. If there is a
match, the response MUST be passed to that transaction. Otherwise,
the response MUST be passed to the core (whether it be stateless
proxy, stateful proxy, or UA) for further processing. Handling of
these "stray" responses is dependent on the core (a stateless proxy
will forward all responses, for example).
19.2 Servers
19.2.1 Receiving Requests
When the server transport receives a request over any transport, it
MUST examine the value of the sent-by parameter in the top Via header
Various Authors [Page 134]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
field. If the host portion of the sent-by parameter contains a domain
name, or if it contains an IP address that differs from the packet
source address, the server MUST add a "received" attribute to that
Via header field. This attribute MUST contain the source address that
the packet was received from. This is to assist the server transport
layer in sending the response, since it must be sent to the source IP
address that the request came from.
Consider a request received by the server transport which looks like,
in part:
INVITE sip:bob@Biloxi.com SIP/2.0
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP bobspc.biloxi.com:5060
The request is received with a source IP address of 1.2.3.4. Before
passing the request up, the transport would add a received parameter,
so that the request would look like, in part:
INVITE sip:bob@Biloxi.com SIP/2.0
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP bobspc.biloxi.com:5060;received=1.2.3.4
Next, the server transport attempts to match the request to the
server transaction. It does so using the matching rules described in
Section 17.2.3. If a matching server transaction is found, the
request is passed to that transaction for processing. If no match is
found, the request is passed to the core, which may decide to
construct a new server transaction for that request. Note that when
a UAS core sends a 2xx response to INVITE, the server transaction is
destroyed. This means that when the ACK arrives, there will be no
matching server transaction, and based on this rule, the ACK is
passed to the UAS core, where it is processed.
19.2.2 Sending Responses
The server transport uses the value of the top Via header in order to
determine where to send a response. It MUST follow the following
process:
o If the "sent-protocol" is a reliable transport protocol such
as TCP, TLS or SCTP, the response MUST be sent using the
existing connection to the source of the original request that
created the transaction, if that connection is still open.
Various Authors [Page 135]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
This does require the server transport to maintain an
association between server transactions and transport
connections. If that connection is no longer open, the server
MAY open a connection to the IP address in the received
parameter, if present, using the port in the sent-by value, or
the default port for that transport, if no port is specified
(5060 for UDP and TCP, 5061 for TLS and SSL). If that
connection attempt fails, the server SHOULD use the procedures
in [8] for servers in order to determine the IP address and
port to open the connection and send the response to.
o Otherwise, if the Via header field contains a "maddr"
parameter, forward the response to the address listed there,
using the port indicated in "sent-by", or port 5060 if none is
present. If the address is a multicast address, the response
SHOULD be sent using the TTL indicated in the "ttl" parameter,
or with a TTL of 1 if that parameter is not present.
o Otherwise (for unreliable unicast transports), if the top Via
has a received parameter, send the response to the address in
the "received" parameter, using the port indicated in the
"sent-by" value, or using port 5060 if none is specified
explicitly. If this fails, e.g., elicits an ICMP "port
unreachable" response, send the response to the address in the
"sent-by" parameter. The address to send to is determined by
following the procedures defined in Section 5 of [8].
o Otherwise, if it is not receiver-tagged, send the response to
the address indicated by the "sent-by" value, using the
procedures in Section 5 of [8].
19.3 Framing
In the case of message oriented transports (such as UDP), if the
message has a Content-Length header, the message body is assumed to
contain that many bytes. If there are additional bytes in the
transport packet below the end of the body, they MUST be discarded.
If the transport packet ends before the end of the message body, this
is considered an error. If the message is a response, it MUST be
discarded. If its a request, the element SHOULD generate a 400 class
response. If the message has no Content-Length header, the message
body is assumed to end at the end of the transport packet.
In the case of stream oriented transports (such as TCP), the
Content-Length header indicates the size of the body. The Content-
Length header MUST be used with stream oriented transports.
19.4 Error Handling
Various Authors [Page 136]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
Error handling is independent of whether the message was a request or
response.
If the transport user asks for a message to be sent over an
unreliable transport, and the result is an ICMP error, the behavior
depends on the type of ICMP error. A host, network, port or protocol
unreachable errors, or parameter problem errors SHOULD cause the
transport layer to inform the transport user of a failure in sending.
Source quench and TTL exceeded ICMP errors SHOULD be ignored.
If the transport user asks for a request to be sent over a reliable
transport, and the result is a connection failure, the transport
layer SHOULD inform the transport user of a failure in sending.
20 Usage of HTTP Authentication
SIP provides a stateless challenged-based mechanism for
authentication that is based on authentication in HTTP. Any time that
a proxy server or user agent receives a request (with the exceptions
given in Section 20.1), it MAY challenge the initiator of the
request to provide assurance of its identity. Once the originator has
been identified, the recipient of the request SHOULD ascertain
whether or not this user is authorized to make the request in
question. No authorization systems are recommended or discussed in
this document.
The "Digest" authentication mechanism described in this section
provides message authentication and replay protection only, without
message integrity or confidentiality. Protective measures above and
beyond those provided by Digest need to be taken to prevent active
attackers from modifying SIP requests and responses.
Note that due to its weak security, the usage of "Basic"
authentication has been deprecated. Servers MUST NOT accept
credentials using the "Basic" authorization scheme, and servers also
MUST NOT challenge with "Basic". This is a change from RFC 2543.
20.1 Framework
The framework for SIP authentication closely parallels that of HTTP
(RFC 2617 [23]). In particular, the BNF for auth- scheme, auth-param,
challenge, realm, realm-value, and credentials is identical (although
the usage of "Basic" as a scheme is not permitted). The 401
(Unauthorized) response is used by user agent servers in SIP to
challenge the identity of a user agent client. Additionally,
registrars and redirect servers MAY make use of 401 (Unauthorized)
responses for authentication, but proxies MUST NOT, and instead MAY
use the 407 (Proxy Authentication Required) response. The
Various Authors [Page 137]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
requirements for inclusion of the Proxy-Authenticate, Proxy-
Authorization, WWW-Authenticate, and Authorization in the various
messages are identical to those described in RFC 2617 [23].
Since SIP does not have the concept of a canonical root URL, the
notion of protection spaces is interpreted differently in SIP. The
realm string alone defines the protection domain. This is a change
from RFC 2543, in which the Request-URI and the realm together
defined the protection domain; this definition gave rise to some
amount of confusion since the Request-URI sent by the UAC and the
Request-URI received by the server issuing a challenge might be
different, and indeed the final form of the Request-URI might not be
known to the UAC. Also, the previous definition depended on the
presence of a SIP URI in the Request-URI, and seemed to rule out
alternative URI schemes (like for example the tel URL).
Operators of user agents or proxy servers that will authenticate
received requests MUST adhere to the following guidelines for
creation of a realm string for their server:
o Realm strings MUST be globally unique. It is RECOMMENDED that
a realm string contain a hostname or domain name, following
the recommendation in Section 3.2.1 of RFC 2617 [[23]].
o Realm strings SHOULD present a human-readable identifier that
can be rendered to a user.
For example:
INVITE sip:bob@biloxi.com SIP/2.0
WWW-Authenticate: Digest realm="biloxi.com", <...>
Generally, SIP authentication is meaningful for a specific realm, a
protection domain. Thus, for Digest authentication, each such
protection domain has its own set of user names and secrets. If a
server does not care about authenticating individual users, it may
make sense to establish a "global" user name and secret for its realm
as a default challenge if a particular Request-URI does not have its
own realm or set of user names, For example, an INVITE to gateways,
MAY have their own device-specific credentials for particular realms.
While a server can legitimately challenge most SIP requests, there
are two requests defined by the SIP standard today that require
special handling for authentication: ACK and CANCEL.
Various Authors [Page 138]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
Complications of the ACK method arise because it requires no
response. Under an authentication scheme that uses responses to carry
values used to compute nonces (such as Digest), some problems come up
for any requests that take no response (including ACK). For this
reason any credentials in the INVITE that were accepted by a server
MUST be accepted by that server for the ACK. UACs creating an ACK
message should duplicate all of the Authorization and Proxy-
Authorization headers that appeared in the INVITE to which the ACK
corresponds. Servers MUST NOT attempt to challenge an ACK.
Although the CANCEL method does take a response (a 2xx), servers MUST
NOT attempt to challenge CANCEL requests since these requests cannot
be resubmitted. Generally, a CANCEL request SHOULD be accepted by a
server if it comes from the same host that sent the request being
cancelled (provided that some sort of transport or network layer
security association, as described in Section 22.2.1, is in place).
When a challenge is received by a UAC, it SHOULD render to the user
the contents of the "realm" parameter in the challenge (which appears
in either a WWW-Authenticate header or Proxy-Authenticate header) if
the UAC device does not already know of a credential for the realm in
question. A service provider that pre-configures UAs with credentials
for its realm should be aware that users will not have the
opportunity to present their own credentials for this realm when
challenged at a pre-configured device.
Finally, note that even if a UAC can locate credentials that are
associated with the proper realm, there is always a potential that
these credentials may no longer be valid, or that for whatever reason
the challenging server will not accept these credentials. In this
instance a server will commonly repeat its challenge. A UAC MUST NOT
reattempt requests with the credentials that have just been rejected
(unless the request was rejected because of a stale nonce).
20.2 User-to-User Authentication
When a UAS receives a request from a UAC, the UAS MAY authenticate
the originator before the request is processed. If no credentials (in
the Authorization header field) are provided in the request, the UAS
can challenge the originator to provide credentials by rejecting the
request with a 401 (Unauthorized) status code.
The WWW-Authenticate response-header field MUST be included in 401
(Unauthorized) response messages. The field value consists of at
least one challenge that indicates the authentication scheme(s) and
parameters applicable to the Request-URI. See [H14.47] for a
definition of the syntax.
Various Authors [Page 139]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
An example of the WWW-Authenticate header field in a 401 challenge
is:
WWW-Authenticate: Digest
realm="biloxi.com",
qop="auth,auth-int",
nonce="dcd98b7102dd2f0e8b11d0f600bfb0c093",
opaque="5ccc069c403ebaf9f0171e9517f40e41"
When the originating UAC receives the 401 (Unauthorized), it SHOULD,
if it is able, re-originate the request with the proper credentials.
The UAC may require input from the originating user before
proceeding. Once authentication credentials have been supplied
(either directly by the user, or discovered in an internal keyring),
user agents SHOULD cache the credentials for a given value of the To
header and "realm" and attempt to re-use these values on the next
request for that destination. UAs MAY cache credentials in any way
they would like.
Once credentials have been located, any user agent that wishes to
authenticate itself with a UAS or registrar -- usually, but not
necessarily, after receiving a 401 (Unauthorized) response -- MAY do
so by including an Authorization header field with the request. The
Authorization field value consists of credentials containing the
authentication information of the user agent for the realm of the
resource being requested as well as parameters required in support
of authentication and replay protection.
An example of the Authorization header is:
Authorization: Digest username="bob",
realm="biloxi.com",
nonce="dcd98b7102dd2f0e8b11d0f600bfb0c093",
uri=sip:alice@atlanta.com,
qop=auth,
nc=00000001,
cnonce="0a4f113b",
response="6629fae49393a05397450978507c4ef1",
opaque="5ccc069c403ebaf9f0171e9517f40e41"
Various Authors [Page 140]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
When a UAC resubmits a request with its credentials after receiving a
401 (Unauthorized) or 407 (Proxy Authentication Required) response,
it MUST increment the CSeq header field as it would normally when
sending an updated request.
20.3 Proxy to User Authentication
Similarly, when a UAC sends a request to a proxy server, the proxy
server MAY authenticate the originator before the request is
processed. If no credentials (in the Proxy-Authorization header
field) are provided in the request, the UAS can challenge the
originator to provide credentials by rejecting the request with a 407
(Proxy Authentication Required) status code. The proxy MUST populate
the 407 (Proxy Authentication Required) message with a Proxy-
Authenticate header applicable to the proxy for the requested
resource.
The use of the Proxy-Authentication and Proxy-Authorization parallel
that described in [23], with one difference. Proxies MUST NOT add the
Proxy-Authorization header. 407 (Proxy Authentication Required)
responses MUST be forwarded upstream towards the UAC following the
procedures for any other response. It is the client's responsibility
to add the Proxy-Authorization header containing credentials for the
realm of the proxy which has asked for authentication.
If a proxy were to resubmit a request with a Proxy-
Authorization header field, it would need to increment the
CSeq in the new request. However, this would mean that the
UAC which submitted the original request would discard a
response from the UAS, as the CSeq value would be
different.
When the originating UAC receives the 407 (Proxy Authentication
Required) it SHOULD, if it is able, re-originate the request with the
proper credentials. It should follow the same procedures for the
display of the "realm" parameter that are given above for responding
to 401. The UAC SHOULD also cache the credentials used in the re-
originated request.
The following rule is RECOMMENDED for proxy credential caching:
If a UA receives a Proxy-Authenticate header in a 401/407 response to
a request with a particular Call-ID, it should incorporate
credentials for that realm in all subsequent requests that contain
the same Call-ID. These credentials MUST NOT be cached across
dialogs; however, if a UA is configured with the realm of its local
outbound proxy, when one exists, then the UA MAY cache credentials
Various Authors [Page 141]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
for that realm across dialogs. Note that this does mean a future
requests in a dialog could contain credentials that are not needed by
any proxy along the Route header path.
Any user agent that wishes to authenticate itself to a proxy server
-- usually, but not necessarily, after receiving a 407 (Proxy
Authentication Required) response -- MAY do so by including a Proxy-
Authorization header field with the request. The Proxy-Authorization
request-header field allows the client to identify itself (or its
user) to a proxy which requires authentication. The Proxy-
Authorization header field value consists of credentials containing
the authentication information of the user agent for the proxy and/or
realm of the resource being requested.
A Proxy-Authorization header field applies only to the proxy whose
realm is identifier in the "realm" parameter (this proxy may
previously have demanded authentication using the Proxy-Authenticate
field). When multiple proxies are used in a chain, the Proxy-
Authorization header field MUST NOT be consumed by any proxy whose
realm does not match the "realm" parameter specified in the Proxy-
Authorization header.
Note that if an authentication scheme is used in the Proxy-
Authorization that does not support realms, a proxy server MUST
attempt to parse all Proxy-Authorization headers to determine whether
or not one of them has what it considers to be valid credentials.
Because this is potentially very time consuming in large networks,
proxy servers SHOULD use an authentication scheme that supports
realms in the Proxy-Authorization header.
If a request is forked (as described in Section 16.6, various proxy
servers and/or user agents may wish to challenge the UAC. In this
case the forking proxy server is responsible for aggregating these
challenges into a single response. Each WWW-Authenticate and Proxy-
Authenticate received in responses to the forked request MUST be
placed into the single response that is sent by the forking proxy to
the user agent; the ordering of these headers is not significant.
When a proxy server issues a challenge in response to a
request, it will not proxy the request until the UAC has
provided valid credentials. A forking proxy may forward a
request simultaneously to multiple proxy servers that
require authentication, each of which in turn will not
forward the request until the originating UAC has
authenticated itself in their respective realm. If the UAC
does not provide credentials for each of these challenges,
then the proxy servers that issued the challenges will not
Various Authors [Page 142]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
forward requests to user agents where the destination user
might be located, and therefore, the virtues of forking are
largely lost.
If at least one UAS responds to a forked request with a challenge,
than a 401 (Unauthorized) MUST be sent as the aggregated response by
the forking proxy to the UAC; otherwise, if only proxy servers
respond, a 407 MUST be used.
When resubmitting its request in response to a 401 (Unauthorized) or
407 (Proxy Authentication Required) that contains multiple
challenges, a UAC MAY include an Authorization for each WWW-
Authenticate and Proxy-Authorization for each Proxy-Authenticate for
which the UAC wishes to supply a credential. As noted above, multiple
credentials in a request SHOULD be differentiated by the "realm"
parameter.
It is possible for multiple challenges associated with the same realm
to appear in the same 401 (Unauthorized) or 407 (Proxy Authentication
Required). This can occur, for example, when multiple proxies within
the same administrative domain, which use a common realm, are reached
by a forking request.
See [H14.34] for a definition of the syntax of Proxy- Authentication
and Proxy-Authorization.
20.4 The Digest Authentication Scheme
This section describes the modifications and clarifications required
to apply the HTTP Digest authentication scheme to SIP. The SIP scheme
usage is almost completely identical to that for HTTP [23]. Since
RFC 2543 is based on HTTP Digest as defined in RFC 2069 [24], SIP
servers supporting RFC 2617 MUST ensure they are backwards compatible
with RFC 2069. Procedures for this backwards compatibility are
specified in RFC 2617. Note however that servers MUST NOT accept or
request Basic authentication.
20.4.1 HTTP Digest
The rules for Digest authentication follow those defined in [23],
with "HTTP 1.1" replaced by "SIP/2.0" in addition to the following
differences:
1. The URI included in the challenge has the following BNF:
URI = SIP-URI
Various Authors [Page 143]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
2. The BNF in RFC 2617 has an error in that the 'uri'
parameter of the Authorization header for HTTP Digest
authentication is not enclosed in quotation marks. (The
example in Section 3.5 of RFC 2617 is correct.) For SIP,
the 'uri' MUST be enclosed in quotation marks.
3. The BNF for digest-uri-value is:
digest-uri-value = Request-URI ; as defined in
Section 27
4. The example procedure for choosing a nonce based on Etag
does not work for SIP.
5. The text in RFC 2617 [23] regarding cache operation does
not apply to SIP.
6. RFC 2617 [23] requires that a server check that the URI in
the request line, and the URI included in the Authorization
header, point to the same resource. In a SIP context, these
two URI's may actually refer to different users, due to
forwarding at some proxy. Therefore, in SIP, a server MAY
check that the Request-URI in the Authorization header
corresponds to a user for whom that the server is willing
to accept forwarded or direct requests.
7. As a clarification to the calculation of the A2 value for
message integrity assurance in the Digest authentication
scheme, implementers should assume, when the entity-body is
empty (i.e. when SIP messages have no body) that the hash
of the entity-body resolves to the MD5 hash of an empty
string, or:
H(entity-body) = MD5("") = "d41d8cd98f00b204e9800998ecf8427e"
8. RFC 2617 notes that a cnonce value MUST NOT be sent in an
Authorization (and by extension Proxy-Authorization) header
if no qop directive as been sent. Therefore, any algorithms
that have a dependency on the cnonce (including "MD5-Sess")
require that the qop directive be sent. Use of the "qop"
parameter is optional in RFC 2617 for the purposes of
backwards compatibility with RFC 2069; since RFC 2543 was
based on RFC 2069, the "qop" parameter must unfortunately
Various Authors [Page 144]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
remain optional for clients and servers to receive.
However, servers MUST always send a "qop" parameter in
WWW-Authenticate and Proxy-Authenticate headers. If a
client receives a "qop" parameter in a challenge header, it
MUST send the "qop" parameter in any resulting
authorization header.
RFC 2543 did not allow usage of the Authentication-Info header (it
effectively used RFC 2069). However, we now allow usage of this
header, since it provides integrity checks over the bodies and
provides mutual authentication. RFC 2617 [23] defines mechanisms for
backwards compatibility using the qop attribute in the request. These
mechanisms MUST be used by a server to determine if the client
supports the new mechanisms in RFC 2617 that were not specified in
RFC 2069.
21 S/MIME
SIP messages carry MIME bodies and the MIME standard includes
mechanisms for securing MIME contents to ensure both integrity and
confidentiality (including the 'multipart/signed/' and 2630 [26] and
RFC 2633 [27]). Implementers should note, however, that there may be
rare network intermediaries (not typical proxy servers) that rely on
viewing or modifying the bodies of SIP messages (especially SDP), and
that secure MIME may prevent these sorts of intermediaries from
functioning.
This applies particularly to certain types of firewalls.
Note that the PGP mechanism for encrypting the headers and
bodies of SIP messages described in RFC 2543 has been
deprecated.
21.1 S/MIME Certificates
The certificates that are used to identify an end-user for the
purposes of S/MIME differ from those used by servers in one important
respect - rather than asserting that the identity of the holder
corresponds to a particular hostname, these certificates assert that
the holder is identified by an end-user address - this address is
composed of the concatenation of the "userinfo" "@" and "domainname"
portions of a SIP URI (in other words, an email address of the form
"bob@biloxi.com"), most commonly corresponding to a user's address of
record.
These certificates are used to sign or encrypt bodies of SIP
messages. Bodies are signed with the private key of the sender (who
Various Authors [Page 145]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
may include their public key with the message as appropriate), but
bodies are encrypted with the public key of the intended recipient.
Obviously, senders must have foreknowledge of the public key of
recipients in order to encrypt message bodies. Public keys can be
stored within a user agent on a virtual keyring.
Each user agent that supports S/MIME MUST contain a keyring
specifically for end-users certificates. This keyring should map
between addresses of record and corresponding certificates, including
any associated with the owner or operator of the user agent, when
appropriate. Over time, users SHOULD use the same certificate when
they populate the originating URI of signaling (the From header) with
the same address of record.
Any mechanisms that depend on the existence of end-user certificates,
however, have a serious limitation in that there is virtually no
consolidated authority today that provides certificates for end-user
applications. But if at all possible, users SHOULD acquire
certificates from known public certificate authorities. As an
alternative, users MAY create self-signed certificates. The
implications of self-signed certificates are explored further in
Section 22.4.2.
Above and beyond the problem of acquiring an end-user certificate,
there are few well-known centralized directories that distribute
end-user certificates. However, the holder of a certificate SHOULD
publish their certificate in any public directories as appropriate.
Similarly, UACs SHOULD support a mechanism for importing (manually or
automatically) certificates discovered in public directories
corresponding to the target URIs of SIP requests.
21.2 S/MIME Key Exchange
SIP itself can also be used as a means to distribute public keys in
the following manner.
Whenever the CMS SignedData message is used in S/MIME for SIP, it
MUST contain the certificate bearing the public key necessary to
verify the signature.
When a UAC sends a request containing an S/MIME body that initiates a
dialog, or sends a non-INVITE request outside the context of a
dialog, the UAC SHOULD structure the body as an S/MIME EnvelopedData,
the UAC should send the EnvelopedData message encapsulated within a
SignedData message.
When a UAS receives a request containing an S/MIME CMS body which
includes a certificate, the UAS SHOULD first verify the certificate,
Various Authors [Page 146]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
if possible, with any available certificate authority. The UAS SHOULD
also determine the subject of the certificate and compare this value
to the From field of the request. If the certificate cannot be
verified, because it is self-signed, or signed by no known authority,
the UAS SHOULD notify the user of the status of the certificate
(including the subject of the certificate, its signator, and any key
fingerprint information) and request explicit permission before
proceeding. If the certificate was successfully verified and the
subject of the certificate corresponds to the From header field of
the SIP request, or if the user (after notification) explicitly
authorizes the use of the certificate, the UAS SHOULD add this
certificate to a local keyring, indexed by the address of record of
the holder of the certificate.
When a UAS sends a response containing an S/MIME body that answers
the first request in a dialog, or a response to a non-INVITE request
outside the context of a dialog, the UAS SHOULD structure the body as
a S/MIME 'multipart/signed' CMS SignedData body; if the desired CMS
service is EnvelopedData, the UAS SHOULD send the EnvelopedData
message encapsulated within a SignedData message. If the S/MIME body
received by the UAS was encrypted with a public key recognized by the
UAS, it MAY opt not to sign its response when appropriate.
When a UAC receives a response containing an S/MIME CMS body which
includes a certificate, the UAC SHOULD first verify the certificate,
if possible, with any available certificate authority. The UAC SHOULD
also determine the subject of the certificate and compare this value
to the To field of the response; although the two may very well be
different, and this is not necessarily indicative of a security
breach. If the certificate cannot be verified, because it is self-
signed, or signed by no known authority, the UAC SHOULD notify the
user of the status of the certificate (including the subject of the
certificate, its signator, and any key fingerprint information) and
request explicit permission before proceeding. If the certificate was
successfully verified and the subject of the certificate corresponds
to the To header in the response, or if the user (after notification)
explicitly authorizes the use of the certificate, the UAC SHOULD add
this certificate to a local keyring, indexed by the address of record
of the holder of the certificate. If the UAC had not transmitted its
own certificate to the UAS in any previous transaction, it SHOULD use
a CMS SignedData body for its next request or response.
On future occasions, when the UA receives requests or responses that
contain a From header field corresponding to a value in its keyring,
the UA SHOULD compare the certificate offered in these messages with
the existing certificate in its keyring. If there is a discrepancy,
the UA SHOULD notify the user of a change of the certificate
(preferably in terms that indicate that this is a potential security
Various Authors [Page 147]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
breach) and acquire the user's permission before continuing to
process the signaling. If the user authorizes this certificate, it
MUST be added to the keyring alongside any previous value(s) for this
address of record.
Note well however, that this key exchange mechanism does not
guarantee the secure exchange of keys when self-signed certificates,
or certificates signed by an obscure authority, are used - it is
vulnerable to well-known attacks. In the opinion of the authors,
however, the security it provides is proverbially better than
nothing; it is in fact comparable to the widely used SSH application.
These limitations are explored in greater detail in Section 22.4.2.
If a user agent receives an S/MIME body that has been encrypted with
a public key unknown to the recipient, it MUST reject the request
with a 493 (Undecipherable) response. This response SHOULD contain a
valid certificate for the respondent (corresponding, if possible, to
any address of record given in the To header of the rejected request)
within a MIME body. A 493 (Undecipherable) sent without any
certificate indicates that the respondent cannot or will not utilize
S/MIME.
Finally, if during the course of a dialog a user agent receives a
certificate in a CMS SignedData message that does not correspond with
the certificates previously exchanged during a dialog, the user agent
MUST notify its user of the change, preferably in terms that indicate
that this is a potential security breach.
21.3 Securing MIME bodies
There are two types of secure MIME bodies that are of interest to
SIP: use of these bodies should follow the S/MIME specification
([27]) with a few variations.
o signatures.
This allows backwards compatibility with non-S/MIME-
compliant recipients.
o If a UAC has no certificate on its keyring associated with the
address of record to which it wants to send a request, it
cannot send an encrypted 'application/pkcs7-mime' MIME
message. UACs MAY send an initial request such as an OPTIONS
message with a CMS detached signature in order to solicit the
certificate of the remote side (the signature SHOULD be over a
'message/sip' body of the type described in Section 21.4).
Various Authors [Page 148]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
o Senders of S/MIME bodies SHOULD use the 'SMIMECapabilities'
(see Section 2.5.2 of [27]) attribute to express their
capabilities and preferences for further communications. Note
especially that senders MAY use the 'preferSignedData'
capability to encourage receivers to respond with CMS
SignedData messages (for example, when sending an OPTIONS
request as described above).
o S/MIME implementations MUST at a minimum support SHA1 as a
digital signature algorithm, and 3DES as an encryption
algorithm; all other signature and encryption algorithms MAY
be supported. Implementations can negotiate support for these
algorithms with the
21.4 Tunneling SIP in MIME
As a means of providing some degree of end-to-end authentication,
integrity or confidentiality for SIP headers, S/MIME can encapsulate
entire SIP messages within MIME bodies of type "message/sip" and then
apply MIME security to these bodies in the same manner employed for
typical SIP bodies.
Note that these "message/sip" bodies can be sent as a part of a MIME
"multipart/mixed" body if another MIME types (such as SDP) should
also be used in the request.
21.4.1 Tunneling Integrity and Authentication
Tunneling SIP messages within S/MIME bodies can provide integrity for
SIP headers if the headers which the sender wishes to secure are
replicated in a "message/sip" MIME body signed with a CMS detached
signature.
Provided that the "message/sip" body contains at least the
fundamental dialog identifiers (To, From, Call-ID, CSeq), then a
signed MIME body can provide limited authentication. At the very
least, if the certificate used to sign the body is unknown to the
recipient and cannot be verified, the signature can be used to
ascertain that a later request in a dialog was transmitted by the
same certificate-holder that initiated the dialog. If the recipient
of the signed MIME body has some stronger incentive to trust the
certificate (they were able to verify it, acquire it from a trusted
repository, or they've used it frequently) then the signature can be
taken as a stronger assertion of the identity of the subject of the
certificate.
In order to eliminate possible confusions about the addition or
subtraction of entire headers, senders SHOULD replicate all headers
Various Authors [Page 149]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
from the request within the signed body. Any message bodies that
require integrity protection SHOULD be attached to the "inner"
message.
Upon receipt of a SIP message with a signed "message/sip" body,
recipients may compare headers in the "outer" message with headers in
the "inner" message. At the discretion of the recipient, if
significant discrepancies between the two exist, the message MAY be
rejected with a 403 (Forbidden) response if it is a request, or any
existing dialog MAY be terminated if a security violation has
occurred. User agents SHOULD notify users of this circumstance and
request explicit guidance on how to proceed. Provided that the
signature is valid for the "inner" message, headers in the inner
message SHOULD be preferred to headers in the "outer" message.
Many SIP headers are altered of necessity as messages are routed
through proxy servers. These include, but are not necessarily limited
to, the Request-URI, Via headers, Record-Route and Route headers, the
Max-Forwards header, and the Proxy-Authorization header; note that
extensions to SIP, or nonstandard (X-) headers, may also result in
headers that are added or subtracted from messages as they traverse
the network. A variation in these headers SHOULD NOT be interpreted
as a breach of integrity by the recipient of a signed message.
The following is an example of the use of a tunneled "message/sip"
body:
INVITE sip:bob@biloxi.com SIP/2.0
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP pc33.atlanta.com;branch=z9hG4bKnashds8
To: Bob <bob@biloxi.com>
From: Alice <alice@atlanta.com>;tag=1928301774
Call-ID: a84b4c76e66710
CSeq: 314159 INVITE
Contact: <sip:alice@pc33.atlanta.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed;
protocol="application/pkcs7-signature";
micalg=sha1; boundary=boundary42
--boundary42
Content-Type: message/sip
INVITE sip:bob@biloxi.com SIP/2.0
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP pc33.atlanta.com;branch=z9hG4bKnashds8
To: Bob <bob@biloxi.com>
From: Alice <alice@atlanta.com>;tag=1928301774
Call-ID: a84b4c76e66710
Various Authors [Page 150]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
CSeq: 314159 INVITE
Contact: <sip:alice@pc33.atlanta.com>
Content-Type: application/sdp
Content-Length: 147
v=0
o=UserA 2890844526 2890844526 IN IP4 here.com
s=Session SDP
c=IN IP4 pc33.atlanta.com
t=0 0
m=audio 49172 RTP/AVP 0
a=rtpmap:0 PCMU/8000
--boundary42
Content-Type: application/pkcs7-signature; name=smime.p7s
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=smime.p7s
ghyHhHUujhJhjH77n8HHGTrfvbnj756tbB9HG4VQpfyF467GhIGfHfYT6
4VQpfyF467GhIGfHfYT6jH77n8HHGghyHhHUujhJh756tbB9HGTrfvbnj
n8HHGTrfvhJhjH776tbB9HG4VQbnj7567GhIGfHfYT6ghyHhHUujpfyF4
7GhIGfHfYT64VQbnj756
--boundary42-
21.4.2 Tunneling Encryption
It may also be desirable to use this mechanism to encrypt a
"message/sip" MIME body within a CMS EnvelopedData message S/MIME
body, but in practice, most headers are of at least some use to the
network; the general use of encryption with S/MIME is to secure
message bodies like SDP rather than message headers. Some
informational headers, such as the Subject or Organization could
perhaps warrant end-to-end security. Headers defined by future SIP
applications might also require obfuscation.
Another possible application of encrypting headers is selective
anonymity. A request could be constructed with a From header field
that contains no personal information (e.g.,
sip:anonymous@anonymizer.com). However, a second From header field
containing the genuine address of record of the originator could be
encrypted within a "message/sip" MIME body where it will only be
visible to the endpoints of a dialog.
In the following example, the text boxed in asterisks ("*") is
encrypted:
Various Authors [Page 151]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
INVITE sip:bob@biloxi.com SIP/2.0
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP pc33.atlanta.com;branch=z9hG4bKnashds8
To: Bob <bob@biloxi.com>
From: Alice <alice@atlanta.com>;tag=1928301774
Call-ID: a84b4c76e66710
CSeq: 314159 INVITE
Contact: <sip:alice@pc33.atlanta.com>
Content-Type: application/pkcs7-mime; smime-type=enveloped-data;
name=smime.p7m
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=smime.p7m
*******************************************************
* Content-Type: application/sdp *
* *
* v=0 *
* o=alice 53655765 2353687637 IN IP4 pc33.atlanta.com *
* s=- *
* t=0 0 *
* c=IN IP4 pc33.atlanta.com *
* m=audio 3456 RTP/AVP 0 1 3 99 *
* a=rtpmap:0 PCMU/8000 *
*******************************************************
22 Security Considerations
SIP is not an easy protocol to secure. Its use of intermediaries, its
multi-faceted trust relationships, its expected usage between
elements with no trust at all, and its user-to-user operation make
security far from trivial. Security solutions are needed that are
deployable today, without extensive coordination, in a wide variety
of environments and usages. In order to meet these diverse needs,
several distinct mechanisms applicable to different aspects and
usages of SIP will be required.
Note that the security of SIP signaling itself has no bearing on the
security of protocols used in concert with SIP such as RTP, or with
the security implications of any specific bodies SIP might carry
(although MIME security plays a substantial role in securing SIP).
Any media associated with a session can be encrypted end-to-end
independently of any associated SIP signaling. Media encryption is
outside the scope of this document.
The considerations that follow first examine a set of classic threat
models which broadly identify the security needs of the SIP protocol.
Various Authors [Page 152]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
The set of security services required to address these threats is
then detailed, followed by an explanation of several security
mechanisms that can be used to provide these services. Next, the
requirements for implementers of SIP are enumerated, along with
exemplary deployments in which these security mechanisms could be
used to improve the security of SIP. Some notes on privacy conclude
this section.
22.1 Threat Models
This section details some threats that should be common to most
deployments of SIP. These threats have been chosen specifically to
illustrate each of the security services that SIP requires.
The following examples by no means provide an exhaustive list of the
threats against the SIP protocol; rather, these are "classic" threats
that demonstrate the need for particular security services which can
potentially prevent whole categories of threats.
22.1.1 Registration Hijacking
The SIP registration mechanism allows a user agent to identify itself
to a registrar as a device at which a user (designated by an address
of record) is located. A registrar assesses the identity asserted in
the From header field of a REGISTER message to determine whether or
not this request can modify the contact addresses associated with the
address of record in the To header field; while these two fields are
frequently the same, there are many valid deployments in which a
third-party may register contacts on a user's behalf.
The From header of a SIP request, however, can essentially be
modified arbitrarily by the owner of a user agent, and this opens the
door to malicious registrations. An attacker that successfully
impersonates a party authorized to change contacts associated with an
address of record could, for example, de-register all existing
contacts for a URI and then register their own device as the
appropriate contact address, thereby directing all requests for the
affected user to the attacker's device.
This threat belongs to a family of threats that rely on the absence
of cryptographic assurance of a request's originator. Any SIP UAS
that represents a valuable service (a gateway that interworks SIP
requests with traditional telephone calls, for example) might want to
control access to its resources by authenticating requests that it
receives. Even end-user UAs, for example SIP phones, have an
interest in ascertaining the identities of originators of requests.
This threat demonstrates the need for security services that enable
Various Authors [Page 153]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
SIP entities to authenticate the originators of requests.
22.1.2 Impersonating a Server
The domain to which a request is destined is generally specified in
the Request-URI; user agents commonly contact a server in this domain
directly in order to deliver a request. However, there is always a
possibility that an attacker could impersonate the remote server, and
that the user agent's request could be intercepted by some other
party.
For example, consider a case in which a redirect server at one
domain, chicago.com, impersonates a redirect server at another
domain, biloxi.com. A user agent sends a request to biloxi.com, but
the redirect server at chicago.com answers with a forged response
that has appropriate SIP headers for a response from biloxi.com. The
forged contact addresses in the redirection response could direct the
originating user agent to inappropriate or insecure resources, or
simply prevent requests for biloxi.com from succeeding.
This family of threats has a vast membership, many of which are
critical. As a converse to the registration hijacking threat,
consider the case in which a registration sent to biloxi.com is
intercepted by chicago.com, which replies to the intercepted
registration with a forged 301 (Moved Permanently) response. This
response might seem to come from biloxi.com yet designate chicago.com
as the appropriate registrar. All future REGISTER requests from the
originating user agent would then go to chicago.com.
Prevention of this threat requires a means by which user agents can
authenticate the servers to whom they send requests.
22.1.3 Tampering with Message Bodies
As a matter of course, SIP user agents route requests through trusted
proxy servers. Regardless of how that trust is established
(authentication of proxies is discussed elsewhere in this section), a
user agent may trust a proxy server to route a request, but not to
inspect or possibly modify the bodies contained in that request.
Consider a UA that is using SIP message bodies to communicate session
encryption keys for a media session. Although it trusts the proxy
server of the domain it is contacting to deliver signaling properly,
it may not be desirable for the administrators of that domain to be
capable of decrypting any subsequent media session. Worse yet, if the
proxy server were actively malicious, it could modify the session
key, either acting as a man-in-the-middle, or perhaps changing the
security characteristics requested by the originating user agent.
Various Authors [Page 154]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
This family of threats applies not only to session keys, but to most
conceivable forms of content carried end-to-end in SIP. These might
include MIME bodies that should be rendered to the user, SDP, or
encapsulated telephony signals among others.
Also note that some headers in SIP are meaningful end-to-end, for
example, the Subject. User agents might be protective of these
headers as well as bodies (a malicious intermediary changing the
Subject header might make an important request appear to be spam, for
example). However, since many headers are legitimately inspected or
altered by proxy servers as a request is routed, not all headers
should be secured end-to-end.
For these reasons, the UA might want to secure SIP message bodies,
and in some limited cases headers, end-to-end. The security services
required for bodies include confidentiality, integrity, and
authentication. These end-to-end services should be independent of
the means used to secure interactions with intermediaries such as
proxy servers.
22.1.4 Tearing Down Sessions
Once a dialog has been established by initial messaging, subsequent
requests can be sent that modify the state of the dialog and/or
session. It is critical that principals in a session can be certain
that such requests are not forged by attackers.
Consider a case in which a third-party attacker captures some initial
messages in a dialog shared by two parties in order to learn the
parameters of the session (To, From, and so forth) and then inserts a
BYE request into the session. The attacker could opt to forge the
request such that it seemed to come from either participant. Once the
BYE is received by its target, the session will be torn down
prematurely.
Similar mid-session threats include the transmission of forged re-
INVITEs that alter the session (possibly to reduce session security
or redirect media streams as part of a wiretapping attack).
The most effective countermeasure to this threat is the
authentication of the sender of the BYE - in this instance, the
recipient needs only know that the BYE came from the same party with
whom the corresponding dialog was established (as opposed to
ascertaining the absolute identity of the sender). Also, if the
attacker is unable to learn the parameters of the session due to
confidentiality, it would not be possible to forge the BYE; however,
some intermediaries (like proxy servers) will need to inspect those
parameters as the session is established.
Various Authors [Page 155]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
22.1.5 Denial of Service and Amplification
Denial of service attacks focus on rendering a particular network
element unavailable, usually by directing an excessive amount of
network traffic at its interfaces. A distributed denial of service
attack allows one network user to cause multiple network hosts to
flood a target host with a large amount of network traffic.
In many architectures SIP proxy servers face the public Internet in
order to accept requests from worldwide IP endpoints. SIP creates a
number of potential opportunities for distributed denial of service
attacks that must be recognized and addressed by the implementers and
operators of SIP systems.
Attackers can create bogus requests that contain a falsified source
IP address and a corresponding Via header field which identify a
targeted host as the originator of the request and then send this
request to a large number of SIP network elements, thereby using
hapless SIP UAs or proxies to generate denial of service traffic
aimed at the target.
Similarly, attackers might use falsified Route headers in a request
that identify the target host and then send such messages to forking
proxies that will amplify messaging sent to the target. Record-Route
could be used to similar effect when the attacker is certain that the
SIP dialog initiated by the request will result in numerous
transactions originating in the backwards direction.
A number of denial of service attacks open up if REGISTER requests
are not properly authenticated and authorized by registrars.
Attackers could de-register some or all users in an administrative
domain, thereby preventing these users from being invited to new
sessions. An attacker could also register a large number of contacts
designating the same host for a given address of record in order to
use the registrar and any associated proxy servers as amplifiers in a
denial of service attack. Attackers might also attempt to deplete
available memory and disk resources of a registrar by registering
huge numbers of bindings.
The use of multicast to transmit SIP requests can greatly increase
the potential for denial of service attacks.
These problems demonstrate a general need to define architectures
that minimize the risks of denial of service, and the need to be
mindful in recommendations for security mechanisms of this class of
attacks.
22.2 Security Mechanisms
Various Authors [Page 156]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
From the threats described above, we gather that the fundamental
security services required for the SIP protocol are: preserving the
confidentiality and integrity of messaging, preventing replay attacks
or message spoofing, providing for the authentication and privacy of
the participants in a session, and preventing denial of service
attacks. Bodies within SIP messages separately require the security
services of: confidentiality, integrity, and authentication.
Rather than defining new security mechanisms specific to SIP, SIP
reuses wherever possible existing security models derived from the
HTTP and SMTP space.
Full encryption of messages provides the best means to preserve the
confidentiality of signaling - it can also guarantee that messages
are not modified by any malicious intermediaries. However, SIP
requests and responses cannot be naively encrypted end-to-end in
their entirety because, in most network architectures, message fields
such as the Request-URI, Route and Via need to be visible to proxies
so that SIP requests are routed correctly. Note that proxy servers
need to modify some features of messages as well (such as adding Via
headers) in order for SIP to function. Proxy servers must therefore
be trusted, to some degree, by SIP user agents. To this purpose, low
layer security mechanisms for SIP are recommended, which encrypt the
entire SIP requests or responses on the wire on a hop-by-hop basis,
and which allow endpoints to verify the identity of proxy servers to
whom they send requests.
SIP entities also have a need to identify one another in a secure
fashion. When a SIP endpoint asserts the identity of its user to a
peer user agent or to a proxy server, that identity should in some
way be verifiable. A cryptographic authentication mechanism is
provided in SIP to address this requirement.
An independent security mechanism for SIP message bodies supplies an
alternative means of end-to-end mutual authentication, as well as
providing a limit on the degree to which user agents must trust
intermediaries.
22.2.1 Transport and Network Layer Security
Transport or network layer security encrypts signaling traffic,
guaranteeing message confidentiality and integrity (note however that
the originator and recipient of a session may be deducible by
observers performing a network traffic analysis). The certificates
used to encrypt traffic can also be used to provide a means of
authentication in many architectures.
Two popular alternatives for providing security at the transport and
Various Authors [Page 157]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
network layer are, respectively, TLS [28] and IPSec [29].
IPSec is a set of network-layer protocol tools that can collectively
be used as a secure replacement for traditional IP (Internet
Protocol). IPSec is most suited to architectures in which a set of
SIP hosts (mingled user agents and proxy servers) or bridged
administrative domains (possibly using security gateways) have an
existing trust relationship with one another, although IPSec can also
be used on a per-hop basis.
IPSec is generally implemented at an operating-system level within a
host, and in many architectures it does not require integration with
SIP applications. Any deployment of IPSec for SIP would require an
IPSec profile describing the protocols tools that would be required
to secure SIP and the modes in which they would operate. No such
profile is given in this document.
TLS provides transport-layer security over connection-oriented
protocols (for the purposes of this document, TCP); "tls" (signifying
TLS over TCP) can be specified as the desired transport protocol
within a Via header field or a SIP-URI. TLS is most suited to
architectures in which a chain of trust joins together a set of
hosts. For example, Alice trusts her local proxy server, which in
turn trust Bob's local proxy server, which Bob trusts, hence Bob and
Alice can communicate securely.
TLS must be tightly coupled with a SIP application. Note that
transport mechanisms are specified on a hop-by-hop basis in SIP, and
that in some deployments TLS might be used for only certain portions
of the signaling path.
When TLS is used in a SIP application, implementers MUST minimally
support the TLS_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA ciphersuite. For purposes of
backwards compatibility, proxy servers, redirect servers and
registrars SHOULD support TLS_RSA_WITH_3DES_EDE_CBC_SHA. Implementers
MAY also support any other ciphersuite.
22.2.2 HTTP Authentication
SIP provides a challenge capability, based on HTTP authentication,
that relies on the 401 and 407 response codes as well as headers for
carrying challenges and credentials. Without significant
modification, the reuse of the HTTP Digest authentication scheme in
SIP allows for replay protection and one-way authentication.
The usage of Digest authentication in SIP is detailed in Section 20.
22.2.3 S/MIME
Various Authors [Page 158]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
As is discussed above, encrypting entire SIP messages end-to-end for
the purpose of confidentiality is not appropriate because network
intermediaries (like proxy servers) need to view certain headers in
order to route messages correctly, and if these intermediaries are
excluded from security associations then SIP messages will
essentially be unroutable.
However, S/MIME allows SIP user agents to encrypt MIME bodies within
SIP, securing these bodies end-to-end without affecting message
headers. S/MIME can provide end-to-end confidentiality and integrity
for message bodies, as well as mutual authentication. It is also
possible to use S/MIME to provide a form of integrity and
confidentiality for SIP headers through SIP message tunneling.
The usage of S/MIME in SIP is detailed in Section 21.
22.3 Implementing Security Mechanisms
22.3.1 Requirements for Implementers of SIP
Proxy servers, redirect servers, and registrars MUST implement TLS,
and MUST support both mutual and one-way authentication. It is
strongly RECOMMENDED that user agents be capable initiating TLS; user
agents MAY also be capable of acting as a TLS server. Proxy servers,
redirect servers, and registrars SHOULD possess a site certificate
whose subject corresponds to their hostname. User agents MAY have
certificates of their own for mutual authentication with TLS, but no
provisions are set forth in this document for their use. User agents
MUST support a mechanism for verifying certificates they receive
during TLS negotiation.
Proxy servers, redirect servers, registrars and user agents MAY also
implement IPSec, or other lower-layer security protocols.
When a user agent attempts to contact a proxy server, redirect server
or registrar, the UAC SHOULD initiate a TLS connection over which it
will send SIP messages. In some architectures UACs MAY receive
requests over such TLS connections as well.
Proxy servers, redirect servers, registrars and user agents MUST
implement Digest Authorization. Proxy servers, redirect servers and
registrars SHOULD be configured with at least one Digest realm, and
at least one "realm" string supported by a given server SHOULD
corresponds to the server's hostname or domainname.
Proxy servers, redirect servers, registrars and user agents MAY also
implement enhancements to Digest or alternate header-level security
mechanisms.
Various Authors [Page 159]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
User agents SHOULD support S/MIME encryption and signing of SIP
message MIME bodies.
22.3.2 Security Solutions
The operation of these security mechanisms in concert can follow, to
some degree, the existing web and email security models. At a high
level, user agents authenticate themselves to servers (proxy servers,
redirect servers and registrars) with a Digest username and password;
servers authenticate themselves to user agents, and to one another,
with a site certificate delivered by TLS.
On a peer-to-peer level, user agents ordinarily transitively trust
the network to authenticate one another; however, S/MIME can also be
used to provide direct authentication when the network does not or if
the network itself is not trusted.
The following is an illustrative example in which these security
mechanisms are used by various user agents and servers to prevent the
sorts of threats described in Section 22.1. While implementers and
network administrators MAY follow the normative guidelines given in
the remainder of this section, these are provided only as example
implementations.
22.3.2.1 Registration
When a user agent comes on line and registers with its local
administrative domain, it SHOULD establish a TLS connection with its
registrar (the means by which the user agent determines how to reach
its registrar are described in Section 10). The registrar SHOULD
offer a certificate to the user agent, and the site identified by the
certificate MUST correspond with the domain in which the user agent
intends to register; for example, if the user agent intends to
register the address of record 'alice@atlanta.com', the site
certificate must identify a host within the atlanta.com domain (such
as user agent SHOULD verify the certificate and inspect the site
identified by the certificate. If the certificate is invalid,
revoked, or if it does not identify the appropriate party, the user
agent MUST NOT send the REGISTER message and otherwise proceed with
the registration.
When a valid certificate has been provided by the
registrar, the user agent knows that the registrar is not
an attacker who might redirect the user agent, steal
passwords, or attempt any similar attacks.
The user agent then creates a REGISTER request which SHOULD be
Various Authors [Page 160]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
addressed to a Request-URI corresponding to the site certificate
received from the registrar. When the REGISTER request is sent by the
user agent over the existing TLS connection, the registrar SHOULD
challenge the request with a 407 (Proxy Authentication Required)
response; the "realm" parameter within the Proxy-Authenticate header
of the response SHOULD correspond to the domain previously given by
the site certificate. When the UAC receives the challenge, it SHOULD
either prompt the user for credentials or take an appropriate
credential from a keyring corresponding to the "realm" parameter in
the challenge. The username of this credential SHOULD correspond with
the "userinfo" portion of the URI in the To header of the REGISTER
request. Once the Digest credentials have been inserted into an
appropriate Proxy-Authorization header, the REGISTER should be
resubmitted to the registrar.
Since the registrar requires the user agent to authenticate
itself, it would be difficult for an attacker to forge
REGISTER requests for the user's address of record. Also
note that since the REGISTER is sent over a confidential
TLS connection, attackers will not be able to intercept the
REGISTER to record credentials for any possible replay
attack.
Once the registration has been accepted by the registrar, the user
agent SHOULD leave this TLS connection open provided that the
registrar also acts as the proxy server to which requests are sent
for users in this administrative domain. The existing TLS connection
will be reused to deliver incoming requests to the user agent that
has just completed registration.
Because the user agent has already authenticated the server
on the other side of the TLS connection, all requests that
come over this connection are known to have passed through
the proxy server - attackers cannot create spoofed requests
that appear to have been sent through that proxy server.
22.3.2.2 Requests and Transitive Trust
Now let's say that Alice's user agent would like to initiate a
session with a user in a remote administrative domain, namely
'bob@biloxi.com'. We'll also say that the local administrative
domain ('atlanta.com') has a local outbound proxy.
The proxy server that handles inbound requests for an administrative
domain MAY also act as a local outbound proxy; for simplicity's sake
we'll assume this to be the case for 'atlanta.com' (otherwise the
Various Authors [Page 161]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
user agent would initiate a new TLS connection to a separate server
at this point). Assuming that the client has completed the
registration process described in the preceding section, it SHOULD
reuse the TLS connection to the local proxy server when it wishes to
send an INVITE request to another user. The user agent SHOULD reuse
cached credentials in the INVITE to avoid prompting the user
unnecessarily.
When the local outbound proxy server has validated the credentials
presented by the user agent in the INVITE, it SHOULD inspect the
Request-URI to determine how the message should be routed (see [8]).
If the "domainname" portion of the Request-URI had corresponded to
the local domain ('atlanta.com'), rather the "biloxi.com", then the
proxy server would have consulted its location service to determine
how best to reach the requested user.
Had 'alice@atlanta.com' been attempting to contact, say,
the TLS connection Alex had established with the register
when he registered. Since Alex would receive this request
over his authenticated channel, he would be assured that
Alice's request had been authorized by the proxy server of
the local administrative domain.
However, in this instance the Request-URI designates a remote domain.
The local outbound proxy server at 'atlanta.com' SHOULD therefore
establish a TLS connection with the remote proxy server at servers
that possess site certificates, mutual TLS authentication SHOULD
occur. Each side of the connection SHOULD verify and inspect the
certificate of the other, noting the domain name that appears in the
certificate for comparison with the headers of SIP messages. The
'atlanta.com' proxy server, for example, SHOULD verify at this stage
that the certificate received from the remote side corresponds with
the 'biloxi.com' domain. Once it has done so, and TLS negotiation has
completed, resulting in a secure channel between the two proxies, the
'atlanta.com' proxy can forward the INVITE request to
The proxy server at 'biloxi.com' SHOULD in turn inspect the
certificate of the proxy server at 'atlanta.com' and compare the
domain asserted by the certificate with the "domainname" portion of
the From header in the INVITE request. The biloxi proxy can thereby
ascertain whether or not it should consider Alice to be transitively
authenticated. The biloxi proxy MAY have a strict security policy
that requires it to reject requests that do not match the
administrative domain from which they have been proxied, or perhaps
even more strictly, requests that originate from administrative
domains that do not have some policy agreement with biloxi.
Various Authors [Page 162]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
Such security policies could be instituted to prevent the
SIP equivalent of SMTP 'open relays' which are frequently
exploited to generate spam.
Once the INVITE has been approved by the biloxi proxy, the proxy
server SHOULD identify the existing TLS channel, if any, associated
with the user targeted by this request (in this case
'bob@biloxi.com'). The INVITE should be proxied through this channel
to Bob; since the request is received over a TLS connection which had
previously been authenticated as the biloxi proxy, Bob transitively
trusts the identity asserted in the From header.
Before they forward the request, both proxy servers SHOULD add
Record-Route headers to the request so that all future requests in
this dialog will pass through the proxy servers. The proxy servers
can thereby continue to provide transitive authentication,
confidentiality, replay protection, and so forth for lifetime of this
dialog. If the proxy servers do not add themselves to the Record-
Route, future messages will pass directly end-to-end between Alice
and Bob without any security services (unless the two parties agree
on some independent end-to-end security).
An attacker preying on this architecture would, for
example, be unable to forge a BYE request and insert it
into the signaling stream between Bob and Alice because the
attacker has no way of ascertaining the parameters of the
session because of the use of confidentiality, and moreover
because the integrity mechanism transitively protects the
traffic all the way from Alice to Bob.
22.3.2.3 Peer to Peer Requests
Alternatively, consider a user agent asserting the identity to send
an INVITE to 'bob@biloxi.com', her user agent SHOULD initiate a TLS
connection with the biloxi proxy directly (using the mechanism
described in [8] to determine how to best to reach the given
Request-URI). When her user agent receives a certificate from the
biloxi proxy, it SHOULD be verified normally before she passes her
INVITE across the TLS connection. However, proxy; but she does have a
CMS detached signature over a "message/sip" body in the INVITE. It is
unlikely in this instance that Carol would have any credentials in
the 'biloxi.com' realm, since she has no formal association with
biloxi.com. The biloxi proxy MAY also have a strict policy that
precludes it from even bothering to challenge requests that do not
have 'biloxi.com' in the "domainname" portion of the From header - it
treats these users as unauthenticated.
Various Authors [Page 163]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
The biloxi proxy has a policy for Bob that all non-authenticated
requests should be redirected to the appropriate contact address
registered against 'bob@biloxi.com', namely <sip:bob@192.0.2.4>.
Carol receives the redirection response over the TLS connection she
established with the biloxi proxy, so she trusts the veracity of the
contact address.
Carol SHOULD then established a TCP connection with the designated
address and send a new INVITE with a Request-URI containing the
received contact address (recomputing the signature in the body as
the request is readied). Bob receives this INVITE on an insecure
interface, but his user agent inspects and in this instance
recognizes the From header of the request and subsequently matches a
locally cached certificate with the one presented in the signature of
the body of the INVITE. He replies in similar fashion, authenticating
himself to Carol, and a secure dialog begins.
Sometimes firewalls or NATs in an administrative domain
could preclude the establishment of a direct TCP connection
to a user agent. In these cases, proxy servers could also
potentially relay requests to user agents in a way that has
no trust implications (for example, forgoing an existing
TLS connection and forwarding the request over cleartext
TCP) as local policy dictates.
22.3.2.4 DoS Protection
In order to minimize the risk of a denial of service attack against
architectures using these security solutions, implementers should
take note of the following guidelines.
When the host on which a SIP proxy server is operating is routable
from the public Internet, it SHOULD be deployed in an administrative
domain with secure routing policies (blocking source-routed traffic,
preferably filtering ping traffic). Both TLS and IPSec can also make
use of bastion hosts at the edges of administrative domains that
participate in the security associations to aggregate secure tunnels
and sockets. These bastion hosts can also take the brunt of denial of
service attacks, ensuring that SIP hosts within the administrative
domain are not encumbered with superfluous messaging.
No matter what security solutions are deployed, floods of messages
directed at proxy servers can lock up proxy server resources and
prevent desirable traffic from reaching its destination. There is a
computational expense associated with processing a SIP transaction at
a proxy server, and that expense is greater for stateful proxy
servers than it is for stateless proxy servers. Therefore stateful
Various Authors [Page 164]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
proxies are more susceptible to flooding than stateless proxy
servers.
User agents and proxy servers SHOULD challenge questionable requests
with only a single 401 (Unauthorized) or 407 (Proxy Authentication
Required), forgoing the normal response retransmission algorithm,
and behaving statelessly towards unauthenticated requests.
Retransmitting the 401 (Unauthorized) or 407 (Proxy
Authentication Required) status response amplifies the
problem of an attacker using a falsified header (such as
Via) to direct traffic to a third party.
With either TCP or UDP, a denial of service attack exists by a rogue
proxy sending 6xx responses. Although a client SHOULD choose to
ignore such responses if it requested authentication, a proxy cannot
do so. It is obliged to forward the 6xx response back to the client.
The client can then ignore the response, but if it repeats the
request it will probably reach the same rogue proxy again, and the
process will repeat.
22.4 Limitations
Although these security mechanisms, when applied in a judicious
manner, can thwart many threats, there are limitations in the scope
of the mechanisms that must be understood by implementers and network
operators.
22.4.1 HTTP Digest
One of the primary limitations of using HTTP Digest in SIP is that
the integrity mechanisms in Digest do not work very well for SIP.
Specifically, they offer protection of the Request-URI and the method
of a message, but not for any of the headers that user agents would
most likely wish to secure.
The existing replay protection mechanisms described in RFC 2617 also
have some limitations for SIP. The next-nonce mechanism, for example,
does not support pipelined requests. The nonce-count mechanism should
be used for replay protection.
Another limitation of HTTP Digest is the scope of realms. Digest is
valuable when a user wants to authenticate themselves to a resource
with which they have a pre-existing association, like a service
provider of which the user is a customer. Consider that by contrast,
the scope of TLS is global, since certificates are globally
verifiable regardless of any pre-existing association between the
user agent and the server.
Various Authors [Page 165]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
Future enhancements to HTTP Digest could conceivably resolve some or
all of these limitations.
22.4.2 S/MIME
The largest outstanding defect with the S/MIME mechanism is the lack
of prevalent public key infrastructure for end users. If self-signed
certificates (or certificates that cannot be verified by one of the
participants in a dialog) are used, the SIP-based key exchange
mechanism described in Section 21.2 is susceptible to a man-in-the-
middle attack with which an attacker can potentially inspect and
modify S/MIME bodies. The attacker needs to intercept the first
exchange of keys between the two parties in a dialog, remove the
existing CMS detached signatures from the request and response, and
insert a different CMS detached signature containing a certificate
supplied by the attacker (but which seems to be a certificate for the
proper address of record). Each party will think they have exchanged
keys with the other, when in fact each has the public key of the
attacker.
It is important to note that the attacker can only leverage this
vulnerability on the first exchange of keys between two parties - on
subsequent occasions, the alteration of the key would be noticeable
to user agents. It would also be difficult for the attacker to remain
in the path of all future dialogs between the two parties over time
(as potentially days, weeks, or years pass).
SSH is susceptible to the same man-in-the-middle attack on the first
exchange of keys; however, it is widely acknowledged that while SSH
is not perfect, it does improve the security of connections. The use
of key fingerprints could provide some assistance to SIP, just as it
does for SSH. For example, if two parties use SIP to establish a
voice communications session, each could read off the fingerprint of
the key they received from the other, which could be compared against
the original; it would certainly be more difficult for the man-in-
the-middle to emulate the voices of the participants than their
signaling.
The S/MIME mechanism allows user agents to send encrypted requests
without preamble if they possess a certificate for the destination
address of record on their keyring. However, it is also possible that
a device which does not hold certificates, or at least not that
particular certificate, will be currently registered as the sole
contact address for that address of record, and it will therefore be
unable to properly process the encrypted request, which could lead to
some avoidable error signaling. This is especially likely when an
encrypted request is forked.
Various Authors [Page 166]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
The keys associated with S/MIME are most useful when associated with
a particular user (an address of record) rather than a device (a user
agent). When users move between devices, it may be difficult to
transport private keys securely between user agents; how such keys
might be acquired by a device is outside the scope of this document.
Another, more prosaic difficulty with the S/MIME mechanism is that it
can result in very large messages, especially when the SIP tunneling
mechanism described in Section 21.4 is used. For that reason, it is
RECOMMENDED that TCP should be used as a transport protocol when
S/MIME tunneling is employed.
22.4.3 TLS
The most commonly voiced concern about TLS is that it cannot run over
UDP; TLS requires a connection-oriented underlying transport
protocol, which for the purposes of this document means TCP. Even
running TCP, regardless of any additional overhead incurred by TLS,
is argued to be too intensive for some embedded devices.
It may also be arduous for a local outbound proxy server and/or
registrar to maintain many simultaneous long-lived TLS connections
with numerous user agents might. This introduces some valid
scalability concerns, especially for intensive ciphersuites.
Maintaining redundancy of long-lived TLS connections, especially when
a user agent is solely responsible for their establishment, could
also be cumbersome.
TLS only allows SIP entities to authenticate servers to which they
are adjacent; TLS offers strictly hop-by-hop security. Neither TLS,
nor any other mechanism specified in this document, allows clients to
authenticate proxy servers to whom they cannot form a direct TCP
connection.
22.5 Privacy
SIP messages frequently contain sensitive information about their
senders - not just what they have to say, but with whom they
communicate, when they communicate and for how long, and from where
they participate in sessions. Many applications and their users
require that this sort of private information be hidden from any
parties that do not need to know it.
Note that there are also less direct ways in which private
information can be divulged. If a user or service chooses to be
reachable at an address that is guessable from the person's name and
organizational affiliation (which describes most addresses of
record), the traditional method of ensuring privacy by having an
Various Authors [Page 167]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
unlisted "phone number" is compromised. A user location service can
infringe on the privacy of the recipient of a session invitation by
divulging their specific whereabouts to the caller; an implementation
consequently SHOULD be able to restrict, on a per-user basis, what
kind of location and availability information is given out to certain
classes of callers.
23 Common Message Components
There are certain components of SIP messages that appear in various
places within SIP messages (and sometimes, outside of them), which
merit separate discussion.
23.1 SIP Uniform Resource Indicators
A SIP URI identifies a communications resource. Like all URIs, SIP
URIs may be placed in web pages, email messages or printed
literature. They contain sufficient information to initiate and
maintain a communication session with the resource.
Examples of communications resources include
o a user of an online service;
o an appearance on a multiline phone;
o a mailbox on a messaging system
o a PSTN number at a gateway service;
o a group (such as "sales" or "helpdesk") in an organization.
23.1.1 SIP URI Components
The "sip:" scheme follows the guidelines in RFC 2396 [9]. It uses a
form similar to the mailto URL, allowing the specification of SIP
request-header fields and the SIP message-body. This makes it
possible to specify the subject, media type, or urgency of sessions
initiated by using a URI on a web page or in an email message. The
formal syntax for a SIP URI is presented in Section 27. Its general
form is
sip:user:password@host:port;url-parameters?headers
have the following meaning.
user: The identifier of a particular resource at the host being
addressed. Note that "host" as used here may, and
frequently does, refer to a domain. The "userpart" of a URI
consists of this user field, the password field and the @
Various Authors [Page 168]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
sign following them. The userpart of a URI is optional and
MAY be absent when the destination host does not have a
notion of users or when the host itself is the resource
being identified. If the @ sign is present in a SIP URI,
the user field MUST NOT be empty.
If the host being addressed is capable of processing
telephone numbers, an Internet telephony gateway for
instance, a telephone-subscriber field defined in RFC 2806
[13] MAY be used to populate the user field. There are
special escaping rules for encoding telephone-subscriber
fields in SIP URIs described in Section 23.1.2.
password: A password associated with the user. While the SIP
URI syntax allows this field to be present, its use is NOT
RECOMMENDED, because the passing of authentication
information in clear text (such as URIs) has proven to be a
security risk in almost every case where it has been used.
For instance, transporting a PIN number in this field
exposes the PIN. Note that the password field is just an
extension of user portion. Implementations not wishing to
give special significance to the password portion of the
field MAY simply treat "user:password" as a single string.
host: The entity hosting the SIP resource. The host part
contains either a fully-qualified domain name or numeric
IPv4 or IPv6 address. Using the fully-qualified domain name
form is RECOMMENDED whenever possible.
port: The port number where the request is to be sent.
URI parameters: Parameters affecting a request constructed from
the URI.
URI parameters are added after the hostport component and
are separated by semi-colons. URI parameters take the
form:
parameter-name "=" parameter-value
Even though an arbitrary number of URI parameters may be
included in a URI, any given parameter-name MUST NOT appear
more than once.
This extensible mechanism includes the transport, maddr,
ttl, user, and method parameters.
The transport parameter determines the transport mechanism
to be used for sending SIP messages, as specified in [8].
SIP can use any network transport protocol. Parameter
Various Authors [Page 169]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
names are defined for UDP [30], TCP [31], TLS [28] (note
that this is specifically TLS over TCP), and SCTP [32].
The maddr parameter indicates the server address to be
contacted for this user, overriding any address derived
from the host field. When an maddr parameter is present,
the port and transport components of the URI apply to the
address indicated in the maddr parameter value. [8]
describes the proper interpretation of the transport, maddr
and hostport in order to obtain the destination address,
port and transport for sending a request.
The maddr field can be used as a simple form of loose
source routing. It allows a URI to specify a specific
proxy that must be traversed en-route to the
destination. This capability is useful for a roaming
user that is forced to use an outbound proxy, but
wishes to force requests through their home proxy.
Alternatively, preloaded Route values can be used to
provide this capability (see item 8.1.1.1 in section
8.1.1).
The ttl parameter determines the time-to-live value of the
UDP multicast packet and MUST only be used if maddr is a
multicast address and the transport protocol is UDP. For
example, to specify to call alice@atlanta.com using
multicast to 239.255.255.1 with a ttl of 15, the following
URI would be used:
sip:alice@atlanta.com;maddr=239.255.255.1;ttl=15
The set of valid telephone-subscriber strings is a subset
of valid user strings. The user URI parameter exists to
distinguish telephone numbers from user names that happen
to look like telephone numbers. If the user string
contains a telephone number formatted as a telephone-
subscriber, the user parameter value "phone" SHOULD be
present. Even without this parameter, recipients of SIP
URIs MAY interpret the pre-@ part as a telephone number if
local restrictions on the name space for user name allow
it.
The method of the SIP request constructed from the URI can
be specified with the method parameter.
Various Authors [Page 170]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
Since the url-parameter mechanism is extensible, SIP
elements MUST silently ignore any url-parameters that they
do not understand.
Headers: Headers to be included in a request constructed from
the URI. Headers fields in the SIP request can be specified
with the "?" mechanism within a SIP URI. The header names
and values are encoded in ampersand separated hname =
hvalue pairs. The special hname "body" indicates that the
associated hvalue is the message-body of the SIP request.
Table 1 summarizes the use of SIP URI components based on the context
in which the URI appears. The external column describes URIs
appearing anywhere outside of a SIP message, for instance on a web
page or business card. Entries marked "m" are mandatory, those marked
"o" are optional, and those marked "-" are not allowed. Elements
processing URIs SHOULD ignore any disallowed components if they are
present. The second column indicates the default value of an optional
element if it is not present. "--" indicates that the element is
either not optional, or has no default value.
SIP URIs in Contact header fields have different restrictions
depending on the context in which the header field appears. One set
applies to messages that establish and maintain dialogs (INVITE and
its 200 (OK) response). The other applies to registration and
redirection messages (REGISTER, its 200 (OK) response, and 3xx class
responses to any method).
dialog
reg./redir. Contact/
default Req.-URI To From Contact R-R/Route external
user -- o o o o o o
password -- o o o o o o
host -- m m m m m m
port 5060 o - - o o o
user-param ip o o o o o o
method INVITE - - - - - o
maddr-param -- o - - o o o
ttl-param 1 o - - o - o
transp.-param udp o - - o o o
other-param -- o o o o o o
headers -- - - - o - o
Table 1: Use and default values of URI components for SIP headers,
Request-URI and references
Various Authors [Page 171]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
23.1.2 Character Escaping Requirements
SIP follows the requirements and guidelines of RFC 2396 [9] when
defining the set of characters that must be escaped in a SIP URI, and
uses its ""%" HEX HEX" mechanism for escaping. From RFC 2396:
The set of characters actually reserved within any given
URI component is defined by that component. In general, a
character is reserved if the semantics of the URI changes
if the character is replaced with its escaped US-ASCII
encoding. [9]. Excluded US-ASCII characters [9], such as
space and control characters and characters used as URI
delimiters, also MUST be escaped. URIs MUST NOT contain
unescaped space and control characters.
For each component, the set of valid BNF expansions defines exactly
which characters may appear unescaped. All other characters MUST be
escaped.
For example, "@" is not in the set of characters in the user
component, so the user "j@s0n" must have at least the @ sign encoded,
as in "j%40s0n".
Expanding the hname and hvalue tokens in Section 27 show that all URI
reserved characters in header names and values MUST be escaped.
The telephone-subscriber subset of the user component has special
escaping considerations. The set of characters not reserved in the
RFC 2806 [13] description of telephone-subscriber contains a number
of characters in various syntax elements that need to be escaped when
used in SIP URIs. Any characters occurring in a telephone-subscriber
that do not appear in an expansion of the BNF for the user rule MUST
be escaped.
Note that character escaping is not allowed in the host component of
a SIP URI (the % character is not valid in its expansion). This is
likely to change in the future as requirements for Internationalized
Domain Names are finalized. Current implementations MUST NOT attempt
to improve robustness by treating received escaped characters in the
host component as literally equivalent to their unescaped
counterpart. The behavior required to meet the requirements of IDN
may be significantly different.
23.1.3 Example SIP URIs
sip:alice@atlanta.com
Various Authors [Page 172]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
sip:alice:secretword@atlanta.com;transport=tcp
sip:alice@atlanta.com?subject=project
sip:+1-212-555-1212:1234@gateway.com;user=phone
sip:1212@gateway.com
sip:alice@192.0.2.4
sip:atlanta.com;method=REGISTER?to=alice
sip:alice;day=tuesday@atlanta.com
The last example URI above has a user field value of
"alice;day=tuesday". The escaping rules defined above allow a
semicolon to appear unescaped in this field. Note, however, that for
the purposes of this protocol, the field is opaque. The apparent
structure in that value is only useful to the entity responsible for
the resource.
23.1.4 SIP URI Comparison
SIP URIs are compared for equality according to the following rules:
o Comparison of the userpart of sip URIs is case-sensitive.
This includes userparts containing passwords or formatted as
telephone-subscribers. Comparison of all other components of
the URI is case-insensitive unless explicitly defined
otherwise.
o The ordering of parameters and headers is not significant in
comparing SIP URIs.
o Characters other than those in the "reserved" and "unsafe"
sets (see RFC 2396 [9]) are equivalent to their ""%" HEX HEX"
encoding.
o An IP address that is the result of a DNS lookup of a host
name does not match that host name.
o For two URIs to be equal, the user, password, host, and port
components must match. A URI omitting the optional port
component will match a URI explicitly declaring port 5060. A
URI omitting the user component will not match a URI that
includes one. A URI omitting the password component will not
match a URI that includes one.
o URI uri-parameter components are compared as follows
- Any uri-parameter appearing in both URIs must match.
Various Authors [Page 173]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
- A user, transport, ttl, or method url-parameter appearing in
only one URI must contain its default value or the URIs do
not match.
A URI that includes an maddr parameter will not match a URI
that contains no maddr parameter.
- All other url-parameters appearing in only one URI are
ignored when comparing the URIs.
o URI header components are never ignored. Any present header
component MUST be present in both URIs and match for the URIs
to match. The matching rules are defined for each header in
Section sec:header-fields.
The URIs within each of the following sets are equivalent:
sip:
sip:alice@AtLanTa.CoM;Transport=udp
sip:carol@chicago.com
sip:carol@chicago.com;newparam=5
sip:carol@chicago.com;security=on
sip:biloxi.com;transport=tcp;method=REGISTER?to=sip:bob
sip:biloxi.com;method=REGISTER;transport=tcp?to=sip:bob
sip:alice@atlanta.com?subject=project
sip:alice@atlanta.com?priority=urgent&subject=project
The URIs within each of the following sets are not equivalent:
SIP:ALICE@AtLanTa.CoM;Transport=udp (different usernames)
sip:alice@AtLanTa.CoM;Transport=UDP
Various Authors [Page 174]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
sip:bob@biloxi.com (different port and transport)
sip:bob@biloxi.com:6000;transport=tcp
sip:carol@chicago.com (different header component)
sip:carol@chicago.com?Subject=next
sip:bob@phone21.boxesbybob.com (even though that's what
sip:bob@192.0.2.4 phone21.boxesbybob.com resolves to)
Note that equality is not transitive:
o sip:carol@chicago.com and sip:carol@chicago.com;security=on
are equivalent
o sip:carol@chicago.com and sip:carol@chicago.com;security=off
are equivalent
o sip:carol@chicago.com;security=on and
sip:carol@chicago.com;security=off are not equivalent
Comparing URIs is a major part of comparing several SIP headers (see
Section 24).
23.1.5 Forming Requests from a SIP URI
An implementation must take care when forming requests directly from
a URI. URIs from business cards, web pages, and even from sources
inside the protocol such as registered contacts may contain
inappropriate header fields or body parts.
An implementation MUST include any provided transport, maddr, ttl, or
user parameter in the Request-URI of the formed request. If the URI
contains a method parameter, its value MUST be used as the method of
the request. The method parameter MUST NOT be placed in the Request-
URI. Unknown URI parameters MUST be placed in the message's Request-
URI.
An implementation SHOULD treat the presence of any headers or body
parts in the URI as a request to include them in the message, and
choose to honor the request on an per-component basis.
Various Authors [Page 175]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
An implementation SHOULD NOT honor these obviously dangerous header
fields: From, Call-ID, CSeq, Via, and Record-Route.
An implementation SHOULD take special care in honoring any requested
Route header field values in order to not be used as an unwitting
agent in malicious attacks.
An implementation SHOULD NOT honor requests to include headers that
may cause it to falsely advertise its location or capabilities. These
include: Accept, Accept-Encoding, Accept-Language, Allow, Contact
(in its dialog usage), Organization, Supported, and User-Agent.
An implementation SHOULD verify the accuracy of any requested
descriptive headers, including: Content-Disposition, Content-
Encoding, Content-Language, Content-Length, Content-Type, Date,
Mime-Version, and Timestamp.
If the request formed from constructing a message from a given URI is
not a valid SIP request, the URI is invalid. An implementation MUST
NOT proceed with transmitting the request. It should instead pursue
the course of action due an invalid URI in the context it occurs.
The constructed request can be invalid in many ways. These
include, but are not limited to, syntax error in header
fields, invalid combinations of URI parameters, or an
incorrect description of the message body.
Sending a request formed from a given URI may require capabilities
unavailable to the implementation. The URI might indicate use of an
unimplemented transport or extension for example. An implementation
SHOULD refuse to send these requests rather than modifying them to
match their capabilities. An implementation MUST NOT send a request
requiring an extension that it does not support.
For example, such a request can be formed through the
presence of a headerRequire header parameter or a method
URI parameter with an unknown or explicitly unsupported
value.
23.1.6 Relating SIP URIs and tel URLs
When a tel URL [13] is converted to a SIP URI, the entire telephone-
subscriber portion of the tel URL, including any paramters,is placed
into the userpart of the SIP URI.
Thus, tel:+358-555-1234567;postd=pp22 becomes
Various Authors [Page 176]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
sip:+358-555-1234567;postd=pp22@foo.com
not
sip:+358-555-1234567@foo.com;postd=pp22
In general, equivalent "tel" URLs converted to SIP URIs in this
fashion may not produce equivalent SIP URIs. The userpart of SIP URIs
is compared as a case-sensitive string. Variance in case-insensitive
portions of tel URLs and reordering of tel URL parameters does not
affect tel URL equivalence, but does affect the equivalence of SIP
URIs formed from them.
For example,
tel:+358-555-1234567;postd=pp22
tel:+358-555-1234567;POSTD=PP22
are equivalent, while
sip:+358-555-1234567;postd=pp22@foo.com
sip:+358-555-1234567;POSTD=PP22@foo.com
are not.
Likewise,
tel:+358-555-1234567;postd=pp22;isub=1411
tel:+358-555-1234567;isub=1411;postd=pp22
are equivalent, while
sip:+358-555-1234567;postd=pp22;isub=1411@foo.com
sip:+358-555-1234567;isub=1411;postd=pp22@foo.com
are not.
To mitigatate this problem, elements constructing telephone-
subscriber fields to place in the userpart of a SIP URI SHOULD fold
any case-insensitive portion of telephone-subscriber to lower case,
and order the telephone-subscriber parameters lexically by parameter
Various Authors [Page 177]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
name. (All components of a tel URL except for future-extension
parameters are defined to be compared case-insensitive.)
Following this suggestion, both
tel:+358-555-1234567;postd=pp22
tel:+358-555-1234567;POSTD=PP22
become
sip:+358-555-1234567;postd=pp22@foo.com
and both
tel:+358-555-1234567;postd=pp22;isub=1411
tel:+358-555-1234567;isub=1411;postd=pp22
become
sip:+358-555-1234567;isub=1411;postd=pp22
23.2 Option Tags
Option tags are unique identifiers used to designate new options
(extensions) in SIP. These tags are used in Require (Section 24.33),
Proxy-Require (Section 24.29, Supported (Section 24.39) and
Unsupported (Section 24.42) header fields. Note that these options
appear as parameters in those headers in an option-tag = token form
(see Section 27 for the definition of token).
The creator of a new SIP option MUST either prefix the option with
their reverse domain name or register the new option with the
Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) (See Section 28).
An example of a reverse-domain-name option is "com.foo.mynewfeature",
whose inventor can be reached at "foo.com". For these features,
individual organizations are responsible for ensuring that option
names do not collide within the same domain. The host name part of
the option MUST use lower-case; the option name is case-insensitive.
Options registered with IANA do not contain periods and are globally
unique. IANA option tags are case-insensitive.
Various Authors [Page 178]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
23.3 Tags
The "tag" parameter is used in the To and From fields of SIP
messages. It serves as a general mechanism to identify a particular
instance of a user agent for a particular SIP URI.
As proxies can fork requests, the same request can reach multiple
instances of a user (mobile and home phones, for example). Since each
can respond, there needs to be a means for the originator of a
session to distinguish the responses. Tag fields in the To and From
disambiguate these multiple instances of the same user.
This situation also arises with multicast requests.
When a tag is generated by a UA for insertion into a request or
response, it MUST be globally unique and cryptographically random
with at least 32 bits of randomness. A property of this selection
requirement is that a UA will place a different tag into the From
header of an INVITE as it would place into the To header of the
response to the same INVITE. This is needed in order for a UA to
invite itself to a session, a common case for "hairpinning" of calls
in PSTN gateways. Similarly, two INVITEs for different calls will
have different From tags.
Besides the requirement for global uniqueness, the algorithm for
generating a tag is implementation specific. Tags are helpful in
fault tolerant systems, where a dialog is to be recovered on an
alternate server after a failure. A UAS can select the tag in such a
way that a backup can recognize a request as part of a dialog on the
failed server, and therefore determine that it should attempt to
recover the dialog and any other state associated with it.
24 Header Fields
The general syntax for header fields is covered in Section 7.3. This
section lists the full set of header fields along with notes on
syntax, meaning, and usage. Throughout this section, we use [HX.Y]
to refer to Section X.Y of the current HTTP/1.1 specification RFC
2616 [12]. Examples of each header field are given.
Information about header fields in relation to methods and proxy
processing is summarized in Tables 2 and 3.
The "where" column describes the request and response types in which
the header field can be used. Values in this column are:
R: header fields may only appear in requests;
Various Authors [Page 179]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
r: header field may only appear in responses;
2xx, 4xx, etc.: A numerical value or range indicates response
codes with which the header field can be used;
c: header field is copied from the request to the response.
An empty entry in the "where" column indicates that the header
may be present in all requests and responses.
The "proxy" column describes the operations a proxy may perform on a
header:
c: A proxy can add (concatenate) comma-separated elements to the
header.
m: A proxy can modify the header.
a: A proxy can add the header if not present.
r: A proxy must be be able to read the header and thus this
header cannot be encrypted.
The next six columns relate to the presence of a header field in a
method:
o: The header field is optional.
m: The header field is mandatory.
m*: The header field SHOULD be sent, but servers need to be
prepared to receive messages without that header field.
t: The header field SHOULD be sent, but servers need to be
prepared to receive messages without that header field. If
TCP is used as transport, then the header field MUST be
sent.
*: The header field is required if the message body is not
empty. See sections 24.14, 24.15 and 7.4 for details.
-: The header field is ignored.
c: Conditional; the header field is either mandatory or
optional, depending on the presence of a route set or the
response code.
"Optional" means that a UA MAY include the header field in a request
Various Authors [Page 180]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
or response, and a UA MAY ignore the header field if present in the
request or response (The exception to this rule is the Require header
field discussed in 24.33). A "mandatory" header field MUST be present
in a request, and MUST be understood by the UAS receiving the
request. A mandatory response header field MUST be present in the
response, and the header field MUST be understood by the UAC
processing the response. "Not applicable" means that the header field
MUST NOT be present in a request. If one is placed in a request by
mistake, it MUST be ignored by the UAS receiving the request.
Similarly, a header field labeled "not applicable" for a response
means that the UAS MUST NOT place the header in the response, and the
UAC MUST ignore the header in the response. A UA SHOULD ignore
extension header parameters that are not understood.
A compact form of some common header fields is also defined for use
when overall message size is an issue.
The Contact, From, and To header fields contain a URI. If the URI
contains a comma, question mark or semicolon, the URI MUST be
enclosed in angle brackets (< and >). Any URI parameters are
contained within these brackets. If the URI is not enclosed in angle
brackets, any semicolon-delimited parameters are header-parameters,
not URI parameters.
24.1 Accept
The Accept header follows the syntax defined in [H14.1]. The
semantics are also identical, with the exception that if no Accept
header is present, the server SHOULD assume a default value of
application/sdp An empty Accept header means that no formats are
acceptable.
Example:
Accept: application/sdp;level=1, application/x-private, text/html
24.2 Accept-Encoding
The Accept-Encoding header field is similar to Accept, but restricts
the content-codings [H3.5] that are acceptable in the response. See
[H14.3]. The syntax of this header is defined in [H14.3]. The
semantics in SIP are identical to those defined in [H14.3].
Various Authors [Page 181]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
Header field where proxy ACK BYE CAN INV OPT REG PRA
_______________________________________________________________
Accept R - o - m* m* o o
Accept 2xx - - - m* m* o -
Accept 415 - o - o o o o
Accept-Encoding R - o - m* o o o
Accept-Encoding 2xx - - - m* m* o -
Accept-Encoding 415 - o - o o o o
Accept-Language R - o - m* o o o
Accept-Language 2xx - - - m* m* o -
Accept-Language 415 - o - o o o o
Alert-Info R am - - - o - - -
Alert-Info 180 am - - - o - - -
Allow R o o o o o o o
Allow 2xx - o o m* m* o o
Allow r - o o o o o o
Allow 405 - m m m m m m
Authentication-Info 2xx - o - o o o o
Authorization R o o o o o o o
Call-ID c r m m m m m m m
Call-Info am - - - o o o -
Contact R o - - m o o -
Contact 1xx - - - o o - -
Contact 2xx - - - m o o -
Contact 3xx - o - o o o o
Contact 485 - o - o o o o
Content-Disposition o o - o o o o
Content-Encoding o o - o o o o
Content-Language o o - o o o o
Content-Length r t t t t t t t
Content-Type * * - * * * *
CSeq c r m m m m m m m
Date a o o o o o o o
Error-Info 300-699 - o o o o o o
Expires - - - o - o -
From c r m m m m m m m
In-Reply-To R - - - o - - -
Max-Forwards R amr m m m m m m m
Min-Expires 423 - - - - - m -
MIME-Version o o o o o o o
Organization am - - - o o o -
Table 2: Summary of header fields, A--O
Various Authors [Page 182]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
Header field where proxy ACK BYE CAN INV OPT REG PRA
_______________________________________________________________________
Priority R a - - - o - - -
Proxy-Authenticate 407 - m m m m m m
Proxy-Authorization R r o o o o o o o
Proxy-Require R r - o - o o o o
RAck R - - - - - - m
Record-Route R amr o o o o o - o
Record-Route 2xx,401,484 - o o o o - o
Reply-To - - - o - - -
Require acr - o - o o o o
Retry-After 404,413,480,486 - o o o o o o
500,503 - o o o o o o
600,603 - o o o o o o
Route R r c c c c c - c
RSeq 1xx - o - o o o -
Server r - o o o o o o
Subject R - - - o - - -
Supported R - o o o o o o
Supported 2xx - o o o m* o o
Timestamp o o o o o o o
To c(1) r m m m m m m m
Unsupported 420 - o o o o o o
User-Agent o o o o o o o
Via c acmr m m m m m m m
Warning r - o o o o o o
WWW-Authenticate 401 - m m m m m m
Table 3: Summary of header fields, P--Z; (1): copied with possible
addition of tag
An empty Accept-Encoding header field is permissible, even though the
syntax in [H14.3] does not provide for it. It is equivalent to
Accept-Encoding: identity, that is, only the identity encoding,
meaning no encoding, is permissible. If no Accept-Encoding header is
present, the server SHOULD assume a default value of identity. This
differs slightly from the HTTP definition, which indicates that when
not present, any encoding can be used, but the identity encoding is
preferred.
Example:
Accept-Encoding: gzip
Various Authors [Page 183]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
24.3 Accept-Language
The Accept-Language header is used in requests to indicate the
preferred languages for reason phrases, session descriptions, or
status responses carried as message bodies in the response. If no
Accept-Language header is present, the server SHOULD assume all
languages are acceptable to the client. The Accept-Language header
follows the syntax defined in [H14.4]. The rules for ordering the
languages based on the "q" parameter apply to SIP as well.
Example:
Accept-Language: da, en-gb;q=0.8, en;q=0.7
24.4 Alert-Info
When present in an INVITE request, the Alert-Info header field
specifies an alternative ring tone to the UAS. When present in a 180
(Ringing) response, the Alert-Info header field specifies an
alternative ringback tone to the UAC. A typical usage is for a proxy
to insert this header to provide a distinctive ring feature.
The Alert-Info header can introduce security risks. These risks and
the ways to handle them are discussed in Section 24.9, which
discusses the Call-Info header since the risks are identical.
In addition, a user SHOULD be able to disable this feature
selectively.
This helps prevent disruptions that could result from the
use of this header by untrusted elements.
Example:
Alert-Info: <http://wwww.example.com/sounds/moo.wav>
24.5 Allow
The Allow header field lists the set of methods supported by the UA
generating the message.
All methods, including ACK and CANCEL, understood by the UA MUST be
Various Authors [Page 184]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
included in the list of methods in the Allow header, when present.
The absence of an Allow header MUST NOT be interpreted to mean that
the UA sending the message supports no methods. Rather, it implies
that the UA is not providing any information on what methods it
supports.
Supplying an Allow header in responses to methods other than OPTIONS
reduces the number of messages needed.
Example:
Allow: INVITE, ACK, OPTIONS, CANCEL, BYE
24.6 Authentication-Info
The Authentication-Info header provides for mutual authentication
with HTTP Digest. A UAS MAY include this header in a 2xx response to
a request that was successfully authenticated using digest based on
the Authorization header.
Syntax and semantics follow those specified in RFC 2617 [23].
Example:
Authentication-Info: nextnonce="47364c23432d2e131a5fb210812c"
24.7 Authorization
The Authorization header field contains authentication credentials of
a UA. Section 20.2 overviews the use of the Authorization header
field, and Section 20.4 describes the syntax and semantics when used
with HTTP authentication. This header field, along with Proxy-
Authorization, breaks the general rules about multiple header fields.
Although not a comma-separated list, this header field may be present
multiple times, and MUST NOT be combined into a single header using
the usual rules described in Section 7.3.
In the example below, there are no quotes around the Digest
parameter:
Authorization: Digest username="Alice", realm="Bob's Friends",
nonce="84a4cc6f3082121f32b42a2187831a9e",
response="7587245234b3434cc3412213e5f113a5432"
Various Authors [Page 185]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
24.8 Call-ID
The Call-ID header field uniquely identifies a particular invitation
or all registrations of a particular client. A single multimedia
conference can give rise to several calls with different Call-IDs,
for example, if a user invites a single individual several times to
the same (long-running) conference. Call-IDs are case- sensitive and
are simply compared byte-by-byte.
The compact form of the Call-ID header field is i.
Examples:
Call-ID: f81d4fae-7dec-11d0-a765-00a0c91e6bf6@biloxi.com
i:f81d4fae-7dec-11d0-a765-00a0c91e6bf6@192.0.2.4
24.9 Call-Info
The Call-Info header field provides additional information about the
caller or callee, depending on whether it is found in a request or
response. The purpose of the URI is described by the "purpose"
parameter. The "icon" parameter designates an image suitable as an
iconic representation of the caller or callee. The "info" parameter
describes the caller or callee in general, for example, through a web
page. The "card" parameter provides a business card, for example, in
vCard [33] or LDIF [34] formats. Additonal tokens can be registered
using IANA and the procedures in Section 28.
Use of the Call-Info header field can pose a security risk. If a
callee fetches the URIs provided by a malicious caller, the callee
may be at risk for displaying inappropriate or offensive content,
dangerous or illegal content, and so on. Therefore, it is RECOMMENDED
that a UA only render the information in the Call-Info header if it
can verify the authenticity of the element that originated the header
and trusts that element. This need not be the peer UA; a proxy can
insert this header into requests.
Example:
Call-Info: <http://wwww.example.com/alice/photo.jpg> ;purpose=icon,
<http://www.example.com/alice/> ;purpose=info
24.10 Contact
Various Authors [Page 186]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
The Contact header field provides a URI whose meaning depends on the
the type of request or response it is in.
A Contact header field can contain a display name, a URI with URI
parameters, and header parameters.
This document defines the Contact parameters "q" and "expires". These
parameters are only used when the Contact is present in a REGISTER
request or response, or in a 3xx response. Additional parameters may
be defined in other specifications.
When the header field contains a display name, the URI including all
URI parameters is enclosed in "<" and ">". If no "<" and ">" are
present, all parameters after the URI are header parameters, not URI
parameters. The display name can be tokens, or a quoted string, if a
larger character set is desired. Even if the "display-name" is
empty, the "name-addr" form MUST be used if the "addr-spec" contains
a comma, semicolon, or question mark. There may or may not be LWS
between the display-name and the "<". These rules for parsing a
display name, URI and URI parameters, and header parameters also
apply for the header fields To and From.
The Contact header has a role similar to the Location
header field in HTTP. However, the HTTP header field only
allows one address, unquoted. Since URIs can contain commas
and semicolons as reserved characters, they can be mistaken
for header or parameter delimiters, respectively.
The compact form of the Contact header field is m (for "moved").
The second example below shows a Contact header field containing both
a URI parameter (transport) and a header parameter (expires).
Contact: "Mr. Watson" <sip:watson@worcester.bell-telephone.com>
;q=0.7; expires=3600,
"Mr. Watson" <mailto:watson@bell-telephone.com> ;q=0.1
m: <sip:bob@192.0.2.4;transport=tcp>;expires=60
24.11 Content-Disposition
The Content-Disposition header field describes how the message body
or, for multipart messages, a message body part is to be interpreted
by the UAC or UAS. This SIP header field extends the MIME Content-
Type (RFC 1806 [35]).
Various Authors [Page 187]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
The value "session" indicates that the body part describes a session,
for either calls or early (pre-call) media. The value "render"
indicates that the body part should be displayed or otherwise
rendered to the user. For backward-compatibility, if the Content-
Disposition header is missing, the server SHOULD assume bodies of
Content-Type application/sdp are the disposition "session", while
other content types are "render".
The disposition type "icon" indicates that the body part contains an
image suitable as an iconic representation of the caller or callee.
The value "alert" indicates that the body part contains information,
such as an audio clip, that should be rendered instead of ring tone.
The handling parameter, handling-parm, describes how the UAS should
react if it receives a message body whose content type or disposition
type it does not understand. The parameter has defined values of
"optional" and "required". If the handling parameter is missing, the
value "required" SHOULD be assumed. If this header field is missing,
the MIME type determines the default content disposition. If there is
none, "render" is assumed.
Example:
Content-Disposition: session
24.12 Content-Encoding
The Content-Encoding header field is used as a modifier to the
"media-type". When present, its value indicates what additional
content codings have been applied to the entity-body, and thus what
decoding mechanisms MUST be applied in order to obtain the media-type
referenced by the Content-Type header field. Content-Encoding is
primarily used to allow a body to be compressed without losing the
identity of its underlying media type.
If multiple encodings have been applied to an entity, the content
codings MUST be listed in the order in which they were applied.
All content-coding values are case-insensitive. IANA acts as a
registry for content-coding value tokens. See [H3.5] for a definition
of the syntax for content-coding.
Clients MAY apply content encodings to the body in requests. A server
MAY apply content encodings to the bodies in responses. The server
MUST only use encodings listed in the Accept-Encoding header in the
request.
Various Authors [Page 188]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
The compact form of the Content-Encoding header field is e. Examples:
Content-Encoding: gzip
e: tar
24.13 Content-Language
See [H14.12]. Example:
Content-Language: fr
24.14 Content-Length
The Content-Length header field indicates the size of the message-
body, in decimal number of octets, sent to the recipient.
Applications SHOULD use this field to indicate the size of the
message-body to be transferred, regardless of the media type of the
entity. If TCP is used as transport, the header field MUST be used.
The size of the message-body does not include the CRLF separating
headers and body. Any Content-Length greater than or equal to zero is
a valid value. If no body is present in a message, then the Content-
Length header field MUST be set to zero.
The ability to omit Content-Length simplifies the creation
of cgi-like scripts that dynamically generate responses.
The compact form of the header is l.
Examples:
Content-Length: 349
l: 173
24.15 Content-Type
The Content-Type header field indicates the media type of the
message-body sent to the recipient. The "media-type" element is
defined in [H3.7]. The Content-Type header MUST be present if the
body is not empty. If the body is empty, and a Content-Type header
is present, it indicates that the body of the specific type has zero
length (for example, an empty audio file).
Various Authors [Page 189]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
The compact form of the header is c.
Examples:
Content-Type: application/sdp
c: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-4
24.16 CSeq
A CSeq header field in a request contains a single decimal sequence
number and the request method. The sequence number MUST be
expressible as a 32-bit unsigned integer. The CSeq header serves to
order transactions within a dialog, to provide a means to uniquely
identify transactions, and to differentiate between new requests and
request retransmissions.
Example:
CSeq: 4711 INVITE
24.17 Date
The Date header field contains an RFC 1123 date (see [H14.18]).
Unlike HTTP/1.1, SIP only supports the most recent RFC 1123 [36]
format for dates. As in [H3.3], SIP restricts the timezone in SIP-
date to "GMT", while RFC 1123 allows any timezone. rfc1123-date is
case-sensitive.
The Date header field reflects the time when the request or response
is first sent.
The Date header field can be used by simple end systems
without a battery-backed clock to acquire a notion of
current time. However, in its GMT form, it requires clients
to know their offset from GMT.
Example:
Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2010 23:29:00 GMT
Various Authors [Page 190]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
24.18 Error-Info
The Error-Info header field provides a pointer to additional
information about the error status response.
SIP UACs have user interface capabilities ranging from
pop-up windows and audio on PC softclients to audio-only on
"black" phones or endpoints connected via gateways. Rather
than forcing a server generating an error to choose between
sending an error status code with a detailed reason phrase
and playing an audio recording, the Error-Info header field
allows both to be sent. The UAC then has the choice of
which error indicator to render to the caller.
A UAC MAY treat a SIP URI in an Error-Info header field as if it were
a Contact in a redirect and generate a new INVITE, resulting in a
recorded announcement session being established. A non-SIP URI MAY be
rendered to the user.
Examples:
SIP/2.0 404 The number you have dialed is not in service
Error-Info: <sip:not-in-service-recording@atlanta.com>
24.19 Expires
The Expires header field gives the relative time after which the
message (or content) expires. The precise meaning of this is method
dependent.
The expiration time in an INVITE does not affect the duration of the
actual session that may result from the invitation. Session
description protocols may offer the ability to express time limits on
the session duration, however.
The value of this field is an integer number of seconds (in decimal),
measured from the receipt of the request.
Examples:
Expires: 5
24.20 From
Various Authors [Page 191]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
The From header field indicates the initiator of the request. This
may be different from the initiator of the dialog. Requests sent by
the callee to the caller use the callee's address in the From header
field.
The optional "display-name" is meant to be rendered by a human user
interface. A system SHOULD use the display name "Anonymous" if the
identity of the client is to remain hidden. Even if the "display-
name" is empty, the "name-addr" form MUST be used if the "addr-spec"
contains a comma, question mark, or semicolon. Syntax issues are
discussed in Section 7.3.1.
Section 12 describes how From header fields are compared for the
purpose of matching requests to dialogs. See Section 24.10 for the
rules for parsing a display name, URI and URI parameters, and header
parameters.
The compact form of the header is f.
Examples:
From: "A. G. Bell" <sip:agb@bell-telephone.com> ;tag=a48s
From: sip:+12125551212@server.phone2net.com;tag=887s
f: Anonymous <sip:c8oqz84zk7z@privacy.org>;tag=hyh8
24.21 In-Reply-To
The In-Reply-To header field enumerates the Call-IDs that this call
references or returns. These Call-IDs may have been cached by the
client then included in this header in a return call.
This allows automatic call distribution systems to route
return calls to the originator of the first call. This also
allows callees to filter calls, so that only return calls
for calls they originated will be accepted. This field is
not a substitute for request authentication.
Example:
In-Reply-To: 70710@saturn.bell-tel.com, 17320@saturn.bell-tel.com
24.22 Max-Forwards
Various Authors [Page 192]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
The Max-Forwards header field must be used with any SIP method to
limit the number of proxies or gateways that can forward the request
to the next downstream server. This can also be useful when the
client is attempting to trace a request chain that appears to be
failing or looping in mid-chain.
The Max-Forwards value is a decimal integer indicating the remaining
number of times this request message is allowed to be forwarded. This
count is decremented by each server that forwards the request.
This header field should be inserted by elements that can not
otherwise guarantee loop detection. For example, a B2BUA should
insert a Max-Forwards header field.
Example:
Max-Forwards: 6
24.23 Min-Expires
The Min-Expires header field conveys the minimum registration
expiration interval to a registrar. The header field contains a
decimal integer number of seconds. The use of the header field in a
423 (Registration Too Brief) response is described in Sections
10.2.8, 10.3, and 25.4.17.
Example:
Min-Expires: 60
24.24 MIME-Version
See [H19.4.1].
Example:
MIME-Version: 1.0
24.25 Organization
The Organization header field conveys the name of the organization to
which the entity issuing the request or response belongs.
Various Authors [Page 193]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
The field MAY be used by client software to filter calls.
Example:
Organization: Boxes by Bob
24.26 Priority
The Priority header field indicates the urgency of the request as
perceived by the client. The Priority header field describes the
priority that the SIP request should have to the receiving human or
its agent. For example, it may be factored into decisions about call
routing and acceptance. It does not influence the use of
communications resources such as packet forwarding priority in
routers or access to circuits in PSTN gateways. The header field can
have the values "non-urgent", "normal", "urgent", and "emergency",
but additional values can be defined elsewhere. It is RECOMMENDED
that the value of "emergency" only be used when life, limb, or
property are in imminent danger. Otherwise, there are no semantics
defined for this header field.
These are the values of RFC 2076 [37], with the addition of
"emergency".
Examples:
Subject: A tornado is heading our way!
Priority: emergency
or
Subject: Weekend plans
Priority: non-urgent
24.27 Proxy-Authenticate
The Proxy-Authenticate header field contains an authentication
challenge. The syntax for this header and its use is defined in
[H14.33]. See 20.3 for further details on its usage.
Example:
Various Authors [Page 194]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
Proxy-Authenticate: Digest realm="Carrier SIP",
domain="sip:ss1.carrier.com",
nonce="f84f1cec41e6cbe5aea9c8e88d359",
opaque="", stale=FALSE, algorithm=MD5
24.28 Proxy-Authorization
The Proxy-Authorization header field allows the client to identify
itself (or its user) to a proxy that requires authentication. The
Proxy-Authorization field value consists of credentials containing
the authentication information of the user agent for the proxy and/or
realm of the resource being requested.
See [H14.34] for a definition of the syntax, and section 20.3 for a
discussion of its usage.
This header field, along with Authorization, breaks the general rules
about multiple header fields. Although not a comma-separated list,
this header field may be present multiple times, and MUST NOT be
combined into a single header using the usual rules described in
Section 7.3.1.
Example:
Proxy-Authorization: Digest username="Alice", realm="Atlanta ISP",
nonce="c60f3082ee1212b402a21831ae",
response="245f23415f11432b3434341c022"
24.29 Proxy-Require
The Proxy-Require header field is used to indicate proxy-sensitive
features that must be supported by the proxy. See Section 24.33 for
more details on the mechanics of this message and a usage example.
Example:
Proxy-Require: foo
24.30 RAck
The RAck header is sent in a PRACK request to support reliability of
provisional responses. It contains two numbers and a method tag. The
Various Authors [Page 195]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
first number is the value from the RSeq header in the provisional
response that is being acknowledged. The next number, and the method,
are copied from the CSeq in the response that is being acknowledged.
The method name in the RAck header is case sensitive.
Example:
RAck: 776656 1 INVITE
24.31 Record-Route
The Record-Route is inserted by proxies in a request to force future
requests in the session to be routed through the proxy.
Details of its use with the Route header field are described in
Section 16.4.
Example:
Record-Route: <sip:bob@biloxi.com;maddr=192.0.2.4>,
<sip:bob@biloxi.com;maddr=192.0.6.1>
24.32 Reply-To
The Reply-To header field contains a logical return URI which may be
different from the From header field. For example, the URI MAY be
used to return missed calls or unestablished sessions.
If the user wished to remain anonymous, the header field SHOULD
either be omitted from the request or populated in such as way that
does not reveal any private information.
Even if the "display-name" is empty, the "name-addr" form MUST be
used if the "addr-spec" contains a comma, question mark, or
semicolon. Syntax issues are discussed in Section 7.3.1.
Example:
Reply-To: Bob <sip:bob@biloxi.com>
24.33 Require
Various Authors [Page 196]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
The Require header field is used by UACs to tell UASs about options
that the UAC expects the UAS to support in order to process the
request. Although an optional header, the Require MUST NOT be ignored
if it is present.
The Require header contains a list of option tags, described in
Section 23.2. Each option tag defines a SIP extension that MUST be
understood to process the request. Frequently, this is used to
indicate that a specific set of extension headers need to be
understood. A UAC compliant to this specification MUST only include
option tags corresponding to standards-track RFCs.
Example:
Require: 100rel
24.34 Retry-After
The Retry-After header field can be used with a 503 (Service
Unavailable) response to indicate how long the service is expected to
be unavailable to the requesting client and with a 404 (Not Found),
600 (Busy), or 603 (Decline) response to indicate when the called
party anticipates being available again. The value of this field is a
positive integer number of seconds (in decimal) after the time of the
response.
An optional comment can be used to indicate additional information
about the time of callback. An optional "duration" parameter
indicates how long the called party will be reachable starting at the
initial time of availability. If no duration parameter is given, the
service is assumed to be available indefinitely.
Examples:
Retry-After: 18000;duration=3600
Retry-After: 120 (I'm in a meeting)
24.35 Route
The Route is used to force routing for a request through the listed
set of proxies. Details of its use with the Record-Route header field
are described in Section 13.
Various Authors [Page 197]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
Example:
Route: <sip:bob@biloxi.com;maddr=192.0.2.4>, <sip:bob@pc33.atlanta.com>
24.36 RSeq
The RSeq header is used in provisional responses in order to transmit
them reliably. It contains a single numeric value from 1 to 2**32 -
1. For details on its usage, see Section 18.1.
Example:
RSeq: 988789
24.37 Server
The Server header field contains information about the software used
by the UAS to handle the request. The syntax for this field is
defined in [H14.38].
Revealing the specific software version of the server might allow the
server to become more vulnerable to attacks against software that is
known to contain security holes. Implementors SHOULD make the Server
header field a configurable option.
Example:
Server: HomeProxy v2
24.38 Subject
The Subject header field provides a summary or indicates the nature
of the call, allowing call filtering without having to parse the
session description. The session description does not have to use the
same subject indication as the invitation.
The compact form of the header is s.
Example:
Subject: Need more boxes
Various Authors [Page 198]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
s: Tech Support
24.39 Supported
The Supported header field enumerates all the extensions supported by
the UAC or UAS.
The Supported header contains a list of option tags, described in
Section 23.2, that are understood by the UAC or UAS. A UA compliant
to this specification MUST only include option tags corresponding to
standards-track RFCs. If empty, it means that no extensions are
supported.
Example:
Supported: 100rel
24.40 Timestamp
The Timestamp header field describes when the UAC sent the request to
the UAS. See Section 8.2.6 for details on how to generate a response
to a request that contains the header field, and Section 17.3 for
usage in RTT estimation.
Example:
Timestamp: 54
24.41 To
The To header field specifies the logical recipient of the request.
The optional "display-name" is meant to be rendered by a human-user
interface. The "tag" parameter serves as a general mechanism to
distinguish multiple instances of a user identified by a single SIP
URI.
See Section 13 for details of the "tag" parameter.
Section 12 describes how To and From header fields are compared for
the purpose of matching requests to dialogs. See Section 24.10 for
the rules for parsing a display name, URI and URI parameters, and
Various Authors [Page 199]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
header parameters.
The compact form of the header is t.
The following are examples of valid To headers:
To: The Operator <sip:operator@cs.columbia.edu>;tag=287447
t: sip:+12125551212@server.phone2net.com
24.42 Unsupported
The Unsupported header field lists the features not supported by the
UAS. See Section 24.33 for motivation.
Example:
Unsupported: foo
24.43 User-Agent
The User-Agent header field contains information about the UAC
originating the request. The syntax and semantics are defined in
[H14.43].
Revealing the specific software version of the user agent might allow
the user agent to become more vulnerable to attacks against software
that is known to contain security holes. Implementors SHOULD make the
User-Agent header field a configurable option.
Example:
User-Agent: Softphone Beta1.5
24.44 Via
The Via field indicates the path taken by the request so far and
indicates the path that should be followed in routing responses. The
branch ID parameter in the Via header serves as a transaction
identifier, and is used by proxies to detect loops.
The Via header field contains the transport protocol used to send the
message, the client's host name or network address and, if not the
Various Authors [Page 200]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
default port number, the port number at which it wishes to receive
responses. The Via header field can also contain parameters such as
"maddr", "ttl", "received", and "branch", whose meaning and use are
described in other sections.
Transport protocols defined here are "UDP", "TCP", "TLS", and "SCTP".
"TLS" means TLS over TCP.
The host or network address and port number are not required to
follow the SIP URI syntax. Specifically, LWS on either side of the
":" or "/" is allowed, as shown in the second example below.
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP erlang.bell-telephone.com:5060;branch=z9hG4bK87asdks7
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 128.59.16.1:5060 ;received=128.59.19.3;branch=z9hG4bK77asjd
The compact form of the header is v.
In this example, the message originated from a multi-homed host with
two addresses, 128.59.16.1 and 128.59.19.3. The sender guessed wrong
as to which network interface would be used. Erlang.bell-
telephone.com noticed the mismatch and added a parameter to the
previous hop's Via header field, containing the address that the
packet actually came from.
Another example:
Via: SIP / 2.0 / UDP first.example.com: 4000;ttl=16
;maddr=224.2.0.1 ;branch=z9hG4bKa7c6a8dlze.1
Even though this specification mandates that the branch parameter be
present in all requests, the BNF for the header indicates that it is
optional. This allows interoperation with RFC 2543 elements, which
did not have to insert the branch parameter.
24.45 Warning
The Warning header field is used to carry additional information
about the status of a response. Warning headers are sent with
responses and contain a three-digit warning code, host name, and
warning text.
The "warn-text" should be in a natural language that is most likely
to be intelligible to the human user receiving the response. This
Various Authors [Page 201]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
decision can be based on any available knowledge, such as the
location of the user, the Accept-Language field in a request, or the
Content-Language field in a response. The default language is i-
default [38].
The currently-defined "warn-code"s are listed below, with a
recommended warn-text in English and a description of their meaning.
These warnings describe failures induced by the session description.
The first digit of warning codes beginning with "3" indicates
warnings specific to SIP. Warnings 300 through 329 are reserved for
indicating problems with keywords in the session description, 330
through 339 are warnings related to basic network services requested
in the session description, 370 through 379 are warnings related to
quantitative QoS parameters requested in the session description, and
390 through 399 are miscellaneous warnings that do not fall into one
of the above categories.
300 Incompatible network protocol: One or more network protocols
contained in the session description are not available.
301 Incompatible network address formats: One or more network
address formats contained in the session description are
not available.
302 Incompatible transport protocol: One or more transport
protocols described in the session description are not
available.
303 Incompatible bandwidth units: One or more bandwidth
measurement units contained in the session description were
not understood.
304 Media type not available: One or more media types contained
in the session description are not available.
305 Incompatible media format: One or more media formats
contained in the session description are not available.
306 Attribute not understood: One or more of the media
attributes in the session description are not supported.
307 Session description parameter not understood: A parameter
other than those listed above was not understood.
330 Multicast not available: The site where the user is located
does not support multicast.
331 Unicast not available: The site where the user is located
Various Authors [Page 202]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
does not support unicast communication (usually due to the
presence of a firewall).
370 Insufficient bandwidth: The bandwidth specified in the
session description or defined by the media exceeds that
known to be available.
399 Miscellaneous warning: The warning text can include
arbitrary information to be presented to a human user or
logged. A system receiving this warning MUST NOT take any
automated action.
1xx and 2xx have been taken by HTTP/1.1.
Additional "warn-code"s, as in the example below, can be defined
through IANA.
Examples:
Warning: 307 isi.edu "Session parameter 'foo' not understood"
Warning: 301 isi.edu "Incompatible network address type 'E.164'"
24.46 WWW-Authenticate
The WWW-Authenticate header field contains an authentication
challenge. The syntax for this header field and use is defined in
[H14.47]. See 20.2 for further details on its usage.
Example:
WWW-Authenticate: Digest realm="Bob's Friends",
domain="sip:boxesbybob.com",
nonce="f84f1cec41e6cbe5aea9c8e88d359",
opaque="", stale=FALSE, algorithm=MD5
25 Response Codes
The response codes are consistent with, and extend, HTTP/1.1 response
codes. Not all HTTP/1.1 response codes are appropriate, and only
those that are appropriate are given here. Other HTTP/1.1 response
codes SHOULD NOT be used. Response codes not defined by HTTP/1.1 have
codes x80 upwards to avoid clashes with future HTTP response codes.
Various Authors [Page 203]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
Also, SIP defines a new class, 6xx.
25.1 Provisional 1xx
Provisional responses, also known as informational responses,
indicate that the server or proxy contacted is performing some
further action and does not yet have a definitive response. A server
typically sends a 1xx response if it expects to take more than 200 ms
to obtain a final response. Note that 1xx responses are not
transmitted reliably, that is, they do not cause the client to send
an ACK. Provisional (1xx) responses MAY contain message bodies,
including session descriptions.
25.1.1 100 Trying
This response indicates that the request has been received by the
next hop server and that some unspecified action is being taken on
behalf of this call (e.g., a database is being consulted). This
response, like all other provisional responses, stops retransmissions
of an INVITE by a UAC. The 100 (Trying) response is different from
other provisional responses, in that it is never forwarded upstream
by a stateful proxy.
25.1.2 180 Ringing
The user agent receiving the INVITE is trying to alert the user. This
response MAY be used to initiate local ringback.
25.1.3 181 Call Is Being Forwarded
A proxy server MAY use this status code to indicate that the call is
being forwarded to a different set of destinations.
25.1.4 182 Queued
The called party is temporarily unavailable, but the callee has
decided to queue the call rather than reject it. When the callee
becomes available, it will return the appropriate final status
response. The reason phrase MAY give further details about the status
of the call, e.g., "5 calls queued; expected waiting time is 15
minutes". The server MAY issue several 182 (Queued) responses to
update the caller about the status of the queued call.
25.1.5 183 Session Progress
The 183 (Session Progress) response is used to convey information
about the progress of the call which is not otherwise classified. The
Reason-Phrase, header fields, or message body MAY be used to convey
Various Authors [Page 204]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
more details about the call progress.
25.2 Successful 2xx
The request was successful.
25.2.1 200 OK
The request has succeeded. The information returned with the response
depends on the method used in the request.
25.3 Redirection 3xx
3xx responses give information about the user's new location, or
about alternative services that might be able to satisfy the call.
25.3.1 300 Multiple Choices
The address in the request resolved to several choices, each with its
own specific location, and the user (or user agent) can select a
preferred communication end point and redirect its request to that
location.
The response MAY include a message body containing a list of resource
characteristics and location(s) from which the user or user agent can
choose the one most appropriate, if allowed by the Accept request
header. However, no MIME types have been defined for this message
body.
The choices SHOULD also be listed as Contact fields (Section 24.10).
Unlike HTTP, the SIP response MAY contain several Contact fields or a
list of addresses in a Contact field. User agents MAY use the Contact
header field value for automatic redirection or MAY ask the user to
confirm a choice. However, this specification does not define any
standard for such automatic selection.
This status response is appropriate if the callee can be
reached at several different locations and the server
cannot or prefers not to proxy the request.
25.3.2 301 Moved Permanently
The user can no longer be found at the address in the Request-URI and
the requesting client SHOULD retry at the new address given by the
Contact header field (Section 24.10). The requestor SHOULD update
any local directories, address books and user location caches with
this new value and redirect future requests to the address(es)
Various Authors [Page 205]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
listed.
25.3.3 302 Moved Temporarily
The requesting client SHOULD retry the request at the new address(es)
given by the Contact header field (Section 24.10). The Request-URI
of the new request uses the value of the Contact header in the
response.
The duration of the validity of the Contact URI can be indicated
through an Expires (Section 24.19) header field or an expires
parameter in the Contact header field. Both proxies and UAs MAY cache
this URI for the duration of the expiration time. If there is no
explicit expiration time, the address is only valid once for
recursing, and MUST NOT be cached for future transactions.
If the URI cached from the Contact header field fails, the Request-
URI from the redirected request MAY be tried again a single time.
The temporary URI may have become out of date sooner than
the expiration time, and a new temporary URI may be
available.
25.3.4 305 Use Proxy
The requested resource MUST be accessed through the proxy given by
the Contact field. The Contact field gives the URI of the proxy. The
recipient is expected to repeat this single request via the proxy.
305 (Use Proxy) responses MUST only be generated by user agent
servers.
25.3.5 380 Alternative Service
The call was not successful, but alternative services are possible.
The alternative services are described in the message body of the
response. Formats for such bodies are not defined here, and may be
the subject of future standardization.
25.4 Request Failure 4xx
4xx responses are definite failure responses from a particular
server. The client SHOULD NOT retry the same request without
modification (e.g., adding appropriate authorization). However, the
same request to a different server might be successful.
25.4.1 400 Bad Request
Various Authors [Page 206]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
The request could not be understood due to malformed syntax. The
Reason-Phrase SHOULD identify the syntax problem in more detail,
e.g., "Missing Call-ID header".
25.4.2 401 Unauthorized
The request requires user authentication. This response is issued by
user agent servers and registrars, while 407 (Proxy Authentication
Required) is used by proxy servers.
25.4.3 402 Payment Required
Reserved for future use.
25.4.4 403 Forbidden
The server understood the request, but is refusing to fulfill it.
Authorization will not help, and the request SHOULD NOT be repeated.
25.4.5 404 Not Found
The server has definitive information that the user does not exist at
the domain specified in the Request-URI. This status is also returned
if the domain in the Request-URI does not match any of the domains
handled by the recipient of the request.
25.4.6 405 Method Not Allowed
The method specified in the Request-Line is understood, but not
allowed for the address identified by the Request-URI. The response
MUST include an Allow header field containing a list of valid methods
for the indicated address.
25.4.7 406 Not Acceptable
The resource identified by the request is only capable of generating
response entities which have content characteristics not acceptable
according to the accept headers sent in the request.
25.4.8 407 Proxy Authentication Required
This code is similar to 401 (Unauthorized), but indicates that the
client MUST first authenticate itself with the proxy. SIP access
authentication is explained in section 22 and 20.3.
This status code can be used for applications where access to the
communication channel (e.g., a telephony gateway) rather than the
callee requires authentication.
Various Authors [Page 207]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
25.4.9 408 Request Timeout
The server could not produce a response within a suitable amount of
time, for example, if it could not determine the location of the user
in time. The client MAY repeat the request without modifications at
any later time.
25.4.10 410 Gone
The requested resource is no longer available at the server and no
forwarding address is known. This condition is expected to be
considered permanent. If the server does not know, or has no facility
to determine, whether or not the condition is permanent, the status
code 404 (Not Found) SHOULD be used instead.
25.4.11 413 Request Entity Too Large
The server is refusing to process a request because the request
entity is larger than the server is willing or able to process. The
server MAY close the connection to prevent the client from continuing
the request.
If the condition is temporary, the server SHOULD include a Retry-
After header field to indicate that it is temporary and after what
time the client MAY try again.
25.4.12 414 Request-URI Too Long
The server is refusing to service the request because the Request-URI
is longer than the server is willing to interpret.
25.4.13 415 Unsupported Media Type
The server is refusing to service the request because the message
body of the request is in a format not supported by the server for
the requested method. The server SHOULD return a list of acceptable
formats using the Accept, Accept-Encoding and Accept-Language header
fields. UAC processing of this response is described in Section
8.1.4.6.
25.4.14 416 Unsupported URI Scheme
The server cannot process the request because the scheme of the URI
in the Request-URI is unknown to the server. Client processing of
this response is described in Section 8.1.4.6.
25.4.15 420 Bad Extension
Various Authors [Page 208]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
The server did not understand the protocol extension specified in a
Proxy-Require (Section 24.29) or Require (Section 24.33) header
field. The server SHOULD include a list of the unsupported
extensions in an Unsupported header in the response. UAC processing
of this response is described in Section 8.1.4.6.
25.4.16 421 Extension Required
The UAS needs a particular extension to process the request, but this
extension is not listed in a Supported header in the request.
Responses with this status code MUST contain a Require header field
listing the required extensions.
A UAS SHOULD NOT use this response unless it truly cannot provide any
useful service to the client. Instead, if a desirable extension is
not listed in the Supported header field, servers SHOULD process the
request using baseline SIP capabilities and any extensions supported
by the client.
25.4.17 423 Registration Too Brief
The registrar is rejecting a registration request because a Contact
header field expiration time was too small. The use of this response
and the related Min-Expires header field are described in Sections
10.2.8, 10.3, and 24.23.
25.4.18 480 Temporarily Unavailable
The callee's end system was contacted successfully but the callee is
currently unavailable (e.g., is not logged in, logged in in such a
manner as to preclude communication with the callee or has activated
the "do not disturb" feature). The response MAY indicate a better
time to call in the Retry-After header. The user could also be
available elsewhere (unbeknownst to this host). The reason phrase
SHOULD indicate a more precise cause as to why the callee is
unavailable. This value SHOULD be setable by the user agent. Status
486 (Busy Here) MAY be used to more precisely indicate a particular
reason for the call failure.
This status is also returned by a redirect or proxy server that
recognizes the user identified by the Request-URI, but does not
currently have a valid forwarding location for that user.
25.4.19 481 Call/Transaction Does Not Exist
This status indicates that the UAS received a request that does not
match any existing dialog or transaction.
Various Authors [Page 209]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
25.4.20 482 Loop Detected
The server has detected a loop (Section 2).
25.4.21 483 Too Many Hops
The server received a request that contains a Max-Forwards (Section
24.22) header with the value zero.
25.4.22 484 Address Incomplete
The server received a request with a Request-URI that was incomplete.
Additional information SHOULD be provided in the reason phrase.
This status code allows overlapped dialing. With overlapped
dialing, the client does not know the length of the dialing
string. It sends strings of increasing lengths, prompting
the user for more input, until it no longer receives a 484
(Address Incomplete) status response.
25.4.23 485 Ambiguous
The Request-URI was ambiguous. The response MAY contain a listing of
possible unambiguous addresses in Contact header fields. Revealing
alternatives can infringe on privacy of the user or the organization.
It MUST be possible to configure a server to respond with status 404
(Not Found) or to suppress the listing of possible choices for
ambiguous Request-URIs.
Example response to a request with the Request-URI
sip:lee@example.com :
485 Ambiguous SIP/2.0
Contact: Carol Lee <sip:carol.lee@example.com>
Contact: Ping Lee <sip:p.lee@example.com>
Contact: Lee M. Foote <sip:lee.foote@example.com>
Some email and voice mail systems provide this
functionality. A status code separate from 3xx is used
since the semantics are different: for 300, it is assumed
that the same person or service will be reached by the
choices provided. While an automated choice or sequential
search makes sense for a 3xx response, user intervention is
required for a 485 (Ambiguous) response.
Various Authors [Page 210]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
25.4.24 486 Busy Here
The callee's end system was contacted successfully but the callee is
currently not willing or able to take additional calls at this end
system. The response MAY indicate a better time to call in the
Retry-After header. The user could also be available elsewhere, such
as through a voice mail service. Status 600 (Busy Everywhere) SHOULD
be used if the client knows that no other end system will be able to
accept this call.
25.4.25 487 Request Terminated
The request was terminated by a BYE or CANCEL request. This response
is never returned for a CANCEL request itself.
25.4.26 488 Not Acceptable Here
The response has the same meaning as 606 (Not Acceptable), but only
applies to the specific entity addressed by the Request-URI and the
request may succeed elsewhere. A message body containing a
description of media capabilities MAY be present in the response,
which is formatted according to the Accept header field in the INVITE
(or application/sdp if not present), the same as a message body in a
200 (OK) response to an OPTIONS request.
25.4.27 491 Request Pending
The request was received by a UAS which had a pending request within
the same dialog. Section 14.2 describes how such "glare" situations
are resolved.
25.4.28 493 Undecipherable
The request was received by a UAS which contained an encrypted MIME
body for which the recipient does not possess or will not provide an
appropriate decryption key. This response MAY have a single body
containing an appropriate public key that should be used to encrypt
MIME bodies sent to this user agent. Details of the usage of this
response codecan be found in Section 21.2.
25.5 Server Failure 5xx
5xx responses are failure responses given when a server itself has
erred.
25.5.1 500 Server Internal Error
The server encountered an unexpected condition that prevented it from
Various Authors [Page 211]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
fulfilling the request. The client MAY display the specific error
condition, and MAY retry the request after several seconds.
If the condition is temporary, the server MAY indicate when the
client may retry the request using the Retry-After header.
25.5.2 501 Not Implemented
The server does not support the functionality required to fulfill the
request. This is the appropriate response when a UAS does not
recognize the request method and is not capable of supporting it for
any user. (Proxies forward all requests regardless of method.) Note
that a 405 (Method Not Allowed) is sent when the server recognizes
the request method, but that method is not allowed or supported.
25.5.3 502 Bad Gateway
The server, while acting as a gateway or proxy, received an invalid
response from the downstream server it accessed in attempting to
fulfill the request.
25.5.4 503 Service Unavailable
The server is temporarily unable to process the request due to a
temporary overloading or maintenance of the server. The server MAY
indicate when the client should retry the request in a Retry-After
header. If no Retry-After is given, the client MUST act as if it had
received a 500 (Server Internal Error) response.
A client (proxy or UAC) receiving a 503 (Service Unavailable) SHOULD
attempt to forward the request to an alternate server. It SHOULD NOT
forward any other requests to that server for the duration specified
in the Retry-After header field, if present.
Servers MAY refuse the connection or drop the request instead of
responding with 503 (Service Unavailable).
25.5.5 504 Server Time-out
The server did not receive a timely response from an external server
it accessed in attempting to process the request. 408 (Request
Timeout) should be used instead if there was no response within the
period specified in the Expires header field from the upstream
server.
25.5.6 505 Version Not Supported
The server does not support, or refuses to support, the SIP protocol
Various Authors [Page 212]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
version that was used in the request. The server is indicating that
it is unable or unwilling to complete the request using the same
major version as the client, other than with this error message.
25.5.7 513 Message Too Large
The server was unable to process the request since the message length
exceeded its capabilities.
25.6 Global Failures 6xx
6xx responses indicate that a server has definitive information about
a particular user, not just the particular instance indicated in the
Request-URI.
25.6.1 600 Busy Everywhere
The callee's end system was contacted successfully but the callee is
busy and does not wish to take the call at this time. The response
MAY indicate a better time to call in the Retry-After header. If the
callee does not wish to reveal the reason for declining the call, the
callee uses status code 603 (Decline) instead. This status response
is returned only if the client knows that no other end point (such as
a voice mail system) will answer the request. Otherwise, 486 (Busy
Here) should be returned.
25.6.2 603 Decline
The callee's machine was successfully contacted but the user
explicitly does not wish to or cannot participate. The response MAY
indicate a better time to call in the Retry-After header. This
status response is returned only if the client knows that no other
end point will answer the request.
25.6.3 604 Does Not Exist Anywhere
The server has authoritative information that the user indicated in
the Request-URI does not exist anywhere.
25.6.4 606 Not Acceptable
The user's agent was contacted successfully but some aspects of the
session description such as the requested media, bandwidth, or
addressing style were not acceptable.
A 606 (Not Acceptable) response means that the user wishes to
communicate, but cannot adequately support the session described. The
606 (Not Acceptable) response MAY contain a list of reasons in a
Various Authors [Page 213]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
Warning header field describing why the session described cannot be
supported. A message body containing a description of media
capabilities MAY be present in the response, which is formatted
according to the Accept header field in the INVITE (or
application/sdp if not present), the same as a message body in a 200
(OK) response to an OPTIONS request. Reasons are listed in Section
24.45. It is hoped that negotiation will not frequently be needed,
and when a new user is being invited to join an already existing
conference, negotiation may not be possible. It is up to the
invitation initiator to decide whether or not to act on a 606 (Not
Acceptable) response. This status response is returned only if the
client knows that no other end point will answer the request.
26 Examples
In the following examples, we often omit the message body and the
corresponding Content-Length and Content-Type headers for brevity.
26.1 Registration
Bob registers on start-up. The message flow is shown in Figure 9.
biloxi.com Bob's
registrar softphone
| |
| REGISTER F1 |
|<---------------|
| 200 OK F2 |
|--------------->|
Figure 9: SIP Registration Example
F1 REGISTER Bob -> Registrar
REGISTER sip:registrar.biloxi.com SIP/2.0
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 192.0.2.4:5060;branch=z9hG4bKnashds7
To: Bob <sip:bob@biloxi.com>
From: Bob <sip:bob@biloxi.com>;tag=456248
Call-ID: 843817637684230@998sdasdh09
Various Authors [Page 214]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
CSeq: 1826 REGISTER
Contact: <sip:bob@192.0.2.4>
Expires: 7200
Content-Length: 0
The registration expires after two hours. The registrar responds with
a 200 OK:
F2 200 OK Registrar -> Bob
SIP/2.0 200 OK
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 192.0.2.4:5060;branch=z9hG4bKnashds7
To: Bob <sip:bob@biloxi.com>
From: Bob <sip:bob@biloxi.com>;tag=456248
Call-ID: 843817637684230@998sdasdh09
CSeq: 1826 REGISTER
Contact: <sip:bob@192.0.2.4>
Expires: 7200
Content-Length: 0
26.2 Session Setup
This example contains the full details of the example session setup
in Section 4. The message flow is shown in Figure 1.
F1 INVITE Alice -> atlanta.com proxy
INVITE sip:bob@biloxi.com SIP/2.0
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP pc33.atlanta.com;branch=z9hG4bKnashds8
To: Bob <sip:bob@biloxi.com>
From: Alice <sip:alice@atlanta.com>;tag=1928301774
Call-ID: a84b4c76e66710
CSeq: 314159 INVITE
Contact: <sip:alice@pc33.atlanta.com>
Content-Type: application/sdp
Content-Length: 142
(Alice's SDP not shown)
Various Authors [Page 215]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
F2 100 Trying atlanta.com proxy -> Alice
SIP/2.0 100 Trying
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP pc33.atlanta.com;branch=z9hG4bKnashds8
To: Bob <sip:bob@biloxi.com>
From: Alice <sip:alice@atlanta.com>;tag=1928301774
Call-ID: a84b4c76e66710
CSeq: 314159 INVITE
Content-Length: 0
F3 INVITE atlanta.com proxy -> biloxi.com proxy
INVITE sip:bob@biloxi.com SIP/2.0
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP bigbox3.site3.atlanta.com;branch=z9hG4bK77ef4c2312983.1
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP pc33.atlanta.com;branch=z9hG4bKnashds8
To: Bob <sip:bob@biloxi.com>
From: Alice <sip:alice@atlanta.com>;tag=1928301774
Call-ID: a84b4c76e66710
CSeq: 314159 INVITE
Contact: <sip:alice@pc33.atlanta.com>
Content-Type: application/sdp
Content-Length: 142
(Alice's SDP not shown)
F4 100 Trying biloxi.com proxy -> atlanta.com proxy
SIP/2.0 100 Trying
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP bigbox3.site3.atlanta.com;branch=z9hG4bK77ef4c2312983.1
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP pc33.atlanta.com;branch=z9hG4bKnashds8
To: Bob <sip:bob@biloxi.com>
From: Alice <sip:alice@atlanta.com>;tag=1928301774
Call-ID: a84b4c76e66710
CSeq: 314159 INVITE
Content-Length: 0
Various Authors [Page 216]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
F5 INVITE biloxi.com proxy -> Bob
INVITE sip:bob@192.0.2.4 SIP/2.0
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP server10.biloxi.com;branch=z9hG4bK4b43c2ff8.1
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP bigbox3.site3.atlanta.com;branch=z9hG4bK77ef4c2312983.1
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP pc33.atlanta.com;branch=z9hG4bKnashds8
To: Bob <sip:bob@biloxi.com>
From: Alice <sip:alice@atlanta.com>;tag=1928301774
Call-ID: a84b4c76e66710
CSeq: 314159 INVITE
Contact: <sip:alice@pc33.atlanta.com>
Content-Type: application/sdp
Content-Length: 142
(Alice's SDP not shown)
F6 180 Ringing Bob -> biloxi.com proxy
SIP/2.0 180 Ringing
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP server10.biloxi.com;branch=z9hG4bK4b43c2ff8.1
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP bigbox3.site3.atlanta.com;branch=z9hG4bK77ef4c2312983.1
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP pc33.atlanta.com;branch=z9hG4bKnashds8
To: Bob <sip:bob@biloxi.com>;tag=a6c85cf
From: Alice <sip:alice@atlanta.com>;tag=1928301774
Call-ID: a84b4c76e66710
CSeq: 314159 INVITE
Content-Length: 0
F7 180 Ringing biloxi.com proxy -> atlanta.com proxy
SIP/2.0 180 Ringing
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP bigbox3.site3.atlanta.com;branch=z9hG4bK77ef4c2312983.1
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP pc33.atlanta.com;branch=z9hG4bKnashds8
To: Bob <sip:bob@biloxi.com>;tag=a6c85cf
From: Alice <sip:alice@atlanta.com>;tag=1928301774
Call-ID: a84b4c76e66710
CSeq: 314159 INVITE
Content-Length: 0
Various Authors [Page 217]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
F8 180 Ringing atlanta.com proxy -> Alice
SIP/2.0 180 Ringing
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP pc33.atlanta.com;branch=z9hG4bKnashds8
To: Bob <sip:bob@biloxi.com>;tag=a6c85cf
From: Alice <sip:alice@atlanta.com>;tag=1928301774
Call-ID: a84b4c76e66710
CSeq: 314159 INVITE
Content-Length: 0
F9 200 OK Bob -> biloxi.com proxy
SIP/2.0 200 OK
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP server10.biloxi.com;branch=z9hG4bK4b43c2ff8.1
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP bigbox3.site3.atlanta.com;branch=z9hG4bK77ef4c2312983.1
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP pc33.atlanta.com;branch=z9hG4bKnashds8
To: Bob <sip:bob@biloxi.com>;tag=a6c85cf
From: Alice <sip:alice@atlanta.com>;tag=1928301774
Call-ID: a84b4c76e66710
CSeq: 314159 INVITE
Contact: <sip:bob@192.0.2.4>
Content-Type: application/sdp
Content-Length: 131
(Bob's SDP not shown)
F10 200 OK biloxi.com proxy -> atlanta.com proxy
SIP/2.0 200 OK
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP bigbox3.site3.atlanta.com;branch=z9hG4bK77ef4c2312983.1
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP pc33.atlanta.com;branch=z9hG4bKnashds8
To: Bob <sip:bob@biloxi.com>;tag=a6c85cf
From: Alice <sip:alice@atlanta.com>;tag=1928301774
Call-ID: a84b4c76e66710
CSeq: 314159 INVITE
Contact: <sip:bob@192.0.2.4>
Content-Type: application/sdp
Content-Length: 131
(Bob's SDP not shown)
Various Authors [Page 218]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
F11 200 OK atlanta.com proxy -> Alice
SIP/2.0 200 OK
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP pc33.atlanta.com;branch=z9hG4bKnashds8
To: Bob <sip:bob@biloxi.com>;tag=a6c85cf
From: Alice <sip:alice@atlanta.com>;tag=1928301774
Call-ID: a84b4c76e66710
CSeq: 314159 INVITE
Contact: <sip:bob@192.0.2.4>
Content-Type: application/sdp
Content-Length: 131
(Bob's SDP not shown)
F12 ACK Alice -> Bob
ACK sip:bob@192.0.2.4 SIP/2.0
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP pc33.atlanta.com;branch=z9hG4bKnashds9
To: Bob <sip:bob@biloxi.com>;tag=a6c85cf
From: Alice <sip:alice@atlanta.com>;tag=1928301774
Call-ID: a84b4c76e66710
CSeq: 314159 ACK
Content-Length: 0
The media session between Alice and Bob is now established.
Bob hangs up first. Note that Bob's SIP phone maintains its own CSeq
numbering space, which, in this example, begins with 231. Since Bob
is making the request, the To and From URIs and tags have been
swapped.
F13 BYE Bob -> Alice
BYE sip:alice@pc33.atlanta.com SIP/2.0
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 192.0.2.4;branch=z9hG4bKnashds10
From: Bob <sip:bob@biloxi.com>;tag=a6c85cf
To: Alice <sip:alice@atlanta.com>;tag=1928301774
Call-ID: a84b4c76e66710
CSeq: 231 BYE
Content-Length: 0
Various Authors [Page 219]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
F14 200 OK Alice -> Bob
SIP/2.0 200 OK
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 192.0.2.4;branch=z9hG4bKnashds10
From: Bob <sip:bob@biloxi.com>;tag=a6c85cf
To: Alice <sip:alice@atlanta.com>;tag=1928301774
Call-ID: a84b4c76e66710
CSeq: 231 BYE
Content-Length: 0
The SIP Call Flows document [39] contains further examples of SIP
messages.
;; This buffer is for notes you don't want to save, and for Lisp
evaluation. ;; If you want to create a file, first visit that file
with C-x C-f, ;; then enter the text in that file's own buffer.
27 Augmented BNF for the SIP Protocol
All of the mechanisms specified in this document are described in
both prose and an augmented Backus-Naur Form (BNF) similar to that
used by RFC 2234 [40]. Implementors need to be familiar with the
notation in order to understand this specification. The augmented BNF
includes the following constructs:
name = definition
The name of a rule is simply the name itself (without any enclosing
"<" and ">") and is separated from its definition by the equal "="
character. White space is only significant in that the indentation of
continuation lines indicates a rule definition that spans more than
one line. Certain basic rules are in uppercase, such as SP, LWS, HT,
CRLF, DIGIT, ALPHA, etc. Angle brackets are used within definitions
to clarify the use of rule names.
"literal"
Quotation marks surround literal text. Unless stated otherwise, the
text is case-insensitive.
Various Authors [Page 220]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
rule1 | rule2
Elements separated by a bar ("|") are alternatives, that is, "yes |
no" will accept yes or no.
(rule1 rule2)
Elements enclosed in parentheses are treated as a single element.
Thus, "(elem (foo | bar) elem)" allows the token sequences "elem foo
elem" and "elem bar elem".
*rule
The character "*" preceding an element indicates repetition. The full
form is "<n>*<m>element" indicating at least <n> and at most <m>
occurrences of element. Default values are 0 and infinity so that
"*(element)" allows any number, including zero; "1*element" requires
at least one; and "1*2element" allows one or two.
[rule]
Square brackets enclose optional elements; "[foo bar]" is equivalent
to "*1(foo bar)".
N rule
Specific repetition: "<n>(element)" is equivalent to
"<n>*<n>(element)"; that is, exactly <n> occurrences of (element).
Thus 2DIGIT is a 2-digit number, and 3ALPHA is a string of three
alphabetic characters.
; comment
A semi-colon, set off some distance to the right of rule text, starts
a comment that continues to the end of line. This is a simple way of
including useful notes in parallel with the specifications.
Various Authors [Page 221]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
27.1 Basic Rules
The following rules are used throughout this specification to
describe basic parsing constructs. The US-ASCII coded character set
is defined by ANSI X3.4-1986.
OCTET = %x00-ff ; any 8-bit sequence of data
CHAR = %x00-7f ; any US-ASCII character (octets 0 - 127)
upalpha = "A" | "B" | "C" | "D" | "E" | "F" | "G" | "H" | "I" |
"J" | "K" | "L" | "M" | "N" | "O" | "P" | "Q" | "R" |
"S" | "T" | "U" | "V" | "W" | "X" | "Y" | "Z"
lowalpha = "a" | "b" | "c" | "d" | "e" | "f" | "g" | "h" | "i" |
"j" | "k" | "l" | "m" | "n" | "o" | "p" | "q" | "r" |
"s" | "t" | "u" | "v" | "w" | "x" | "y" | "z"
alpha = lowalpha | upalpha
DIGIT = "0" | "1" | "2" | "3" | "4" | "5" | "6" | "7" |
"8" | "9"
alphanum = alpha | DIGIT
CTL = %x00-1f | %x7f ; (octets 0 -- 31) and DEL (127)
CR = %d13 ; US-ASCII CR, carriage return character
LF = %d10 ; US-ASCII LF, line feed character
SP = %d32 ; US-ASCII SP, space character
HT = %d09 ; US-ASCII HT, horizontal tab character
CRLF = CR LF ; typically the end of a line
The following are defined in RFC 2396 [9] for the SIP URI:
reserved = ";" | "/" | "?" | ":" | "@" | " " | "" | "+"
| "$" | ","
unreserved = alphanum | mark
mark = "-" | "_" | "." | "!" | "~" | "*" | "'"
|"(" | ")"
escaped = "%" hex hex
SIP header field values can be folded onto multiple lines if the
continuation line begins with a space or horizontal tab. All linear
white space, including folding, has the same semantics as SP. A
recipient MAY replace any linear white space with a single SP before
interpreting the field value or forwarding the message downstream.
This is intended to behave exactly as HTTP 1.1 as described in
RFC2615 [12]. The SWS construct is similar to LWS but allows zero
instances of space or tab
Various Authors [Page 222]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
LWS = *( SP | HT ) [CRLF] 1*( SP | HT ) ; linear whitespace
SWS = *( SP | HT ) [CRLF] *( SP | HT ) ; sep whitespace
To separate the header name from the rest of value, a colon is used,
which, by the above rule, allows whitespace before, but no line
break, and whitespace after, including a linebreak. The HCOLON
defines this construct.
HCOLON = *( SP | HT ) ":" SWS
The TEXT-UTF8 rule is only used for descriptive field contents and
values that are not intended to be interpreted by the message parser.
Words of *TEXT-UTF8 contain characters from the UTF-8 character set
(RFC 2279 [11]). The TEXT-UTF8-TRIM rule is used for descriptive
field contents that are not quoted strings, where leading and
trailing LWS is not meaningful. In this regard, SIP differs from
HTTP, which uses the ISO 8859-1 character set.
TEXT-UTF8 = *(TEXT-UTF8char | LWS)
TEXT-UTF8-TRIM = *TEXT-UTF8char *(*LWS TEXT-UTF8char)
TEXT-UTF8char = %x21-7e | UTF8-NONASCII
UTF8-NONASCII = %xc0-df 1UTF8-CONT
| %xe0-ef 2UTF8-CONT
| %xf0-f7 3UTF8-CONT
| %xf8-fb 4UTF8-CONT
| %xfc-fd 5UTF8-CONT
UTF8-CONT = %x80-bf
A CRLF is allowed in the definition of TEXT-UTF8 only as part of a
header field continuation. It is expected that the folding LWS will
be replaced with a single SP before interpretation of the TEXT-UTF8
value.
Hexadecimal numeric characters are used in several protocol elements.
Some elements (authentication) force hex alphas to be lower case.
LHEX = digit | "a" | "b" | "c" | "d" | "e" | "f"
Others allow mixed upper and lower case
Various Authors [Page 223]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
hex = LHEX | "A" | "B" | "C" | "D" | "E" | "F"
Many SIP header field values consist of words separated by LWS or
special characters. Unless otherwise stated, tokens are case-
insensitive. These special characters MUST be in a quoted string to
be used within a parameter value. The word construct is used in
Call-ID to allow most separators to be used.
token = 1*(alphanum | "-" | "." | "!" | "%" | "*"
| "_" | "+" | "`" | "'" | "~" )
separators = "(" | ")" | "<" | ">" | "@" |
"," | ";" | ":" | "\" | <"> |
"/" | "[" | "]" | "?" | "=" |
"{" | "}" | SP | HT
word = 1*(alphanum | "-" | "." | "!" | "%" | "*"
| "_" | "+" | "`" | "'" | "~"
"(" | ")" | "<" | ">"
":" | "\" | <"> |
"/" | "[" | "]" | "?" |
"{" | "}" | SP | HT )
When tokens are used or separators are used between elements,
whitespace is often allowed before or after these characters:
MINUS = SWS "-" SWS ; minus
DOT = SWS "." SWS ; period
PERCENT = SWS "%" SWS ; percent
BANG = SWS "!" SWS ; exclamation
PLUS = SWS "+" SWS ; plus
STAR = SWS "*" SWS ; asterisk
SLASH = SWS "/" SWS ; slash
TILDE = SWS "~" SWS ; tilde
EQUAL = SWS "=" SWS ; equal
LPAREN = SWS "(" SWS ; left parenthesis
RPAREN = SWS ")" SWS ; right parenthesis
LANGLE = SWS "<" SWS ; left angle bracket
RAQUOT = ">" SWS ; right angle quote
LAQUOT = SWS "<"; left angle quote
RANGLE = SWS ">" SWS ; right angle bracket
BAR = SWS "|" SWS ; vertical bar
ATSIGN = SWS "@" SWS ; atsign
COMMA = SWS "," SWS ; comma
Various Authors [Page 224]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
SEMI = SWS ";" SWS ; semicolon
COLON = SWS ":" SWS ; colon
DQUOT = SWS <"> SWS ; double quotation mark
LDQUOT = SWS <">; open double quotation mark
RDQUOT = <"> SWS ; close double quotation mark
LBRACK = SWS "{" SWS ; left square bracket
RBRACK = SWS "}" SWS ; right square bracket
Comments can be included in some SIP header fields by surrounding the
comment text with parentheses. Comments are only allowed in fields
containing "comment" as part of their field value definition. In all
other fields, parentheses are considered part of the field value.
comment = LPAREN *(ctext | quoted-pair | comment) RPAREN
; ctext includes all chars except left and right parens and backslash
ctext = %x21-27 | %x2a-5b | %x5d-7e | UTF8-NONASCII
| LWS
A string of text is parsed as a single word if it is quoted using
double-quote marks. In quoted strings, quotation marks (") and
backslashes (\) need to be escaped.
quoted-string = ( SWS <"> *(qdtext | quoted-pair ) <"> )
qdtext = LWS | %x21 | %x23-5b | %x5d-7e
| UTF8-NONASCII
The backslash character ("\") MAY be used as a single-character
quoting mechanism only within quoted-string and comment constructs.
Unlike HTTP/1.1, the characters CR and LF cannot be escaped by this
mechanism to avoid conflict with line folding and header separation.
quoted-pair = "\" (%x00 - %x09 | %x0b | %x0c
| %x0e - %x7f)
SIP-URI = "sip:" [ userinfo "@" ] hostport
url-parameters [ headers ]
Various Authors [Page 225]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
userinfo = [ user | telephone-subscriber [ ":" password ]]
user = *( unreserved | escaped | user-unreserved )
user-unreserved = " " | "=" | "+" | "$" | "," | ";" | "?" | "/"
telephone-subscriber __ ["+"] 1*(DIGIT | "-" | ".")
password = *( unreserved | escaped |
" " | "=" | "+" | "$" | "," )
hostport = host [ ":" port ]
host = hostname | IPv4address | IPv6reference
hostname = *( domainlabel "." ) toplabel [ "." ]
domainlabel = alphanum
| alphanum *( alphanum | "-" ) alphanum
toplabel = alpha | alpha *( alphanum | "-" ) alphanum
IPv4address = 1*3DIGIT "." 1*3DIGIT "." 1*3DIGIT "." 1*3DIGIT
IPv6reference = "[" IPv6address "]"
IPv6address = hexpart [ ":" IPv4address ]
hexpart = hexseq | hexseq "::" [ hexseq ] | "::" [ hexseq ]
hexseq = hex4 *( ":" hex4)
hex4 = 1*4HEX
port = 1*DIGIT
url-parameters = *( ";" url-parameter)
url-parameter = transport-param | user-param | method-param
|ttl-param | maddr-param | other-param
transport-param = "transport="
( "udp" | "tcp" | "sctp" | "tls"
| other-transport)
other-transport = token
user-param = "user=" ( "phone" | "ip" | other-user)
other-user = token
method-param = "method=" Method
ttl-param = "ttl=" ttl
maddr-param = "maddr=" host
other-param = pname [ "=" pvalue ]
pname = 1*paramchar
pvalue = 1*paramchar
paramchar = param-unreserved | unreserved | escaped
param-unreserved = "[" | "]" | "/" | ":" | " " | "+" | "$"
Various Authors [Page 226]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
headers = "?" header *( " " header )
header = hname "=" hvalue
hname = 1*( hnv-unreserved | unreserved | escaped )
hvalue = *( hnv-unreserved | unreserved | escaped )
hnv-unreserved = "[" | "]" | "/" | "?" | ":" | "+" | "$"
SIP-message = Request | Response
Request = Request-Line
*( message-header )
CRLF
[ message-body ]
Request-Line = Method SP Request-URI SP SIP-Version CRLF
Request-URI = SIP-URI | absoluteURI
absoluteURI = scheme COLON ( hier-part | opaque-part )
hier-part = ( net-path | abs-path ) [ "?" query ]
net-path = "//" authority [ abs-path ]
abs-path = "/" path-segments
opaque-part = uric-no-slash *uric
uric = reserved | unreserved | escaped
uric-no-slash = unreserved | escaped | ";" | "?" | ":" | "@"
| " " | "=" | "+" | "$" | ","
path-segments = segment *( "/" segment )
segment = *pchar *( SEMI param )
param = *pchar
pchar = unreserved | escaped |
":" | "@" | " " | "=" | "+" | "$" | ","
scheme = alpha *( alpha | digit | "+" | "-" | "." )
authority = server | reg-name
server = [ [ userinfo "@" ] hostport ]
reg-name = 1*( unreserved | escaped | "$" | ","
| ";" | ":" | "@" | " " | "=" | "+" )
query = *uric
SIP-Version = "SIP/2.0"
message-header
= Accept
| Accept-Encoding
| Accept-Language
| Alert-Info
| Allow
| Authentication-Info
| Authorization
Various Authors [Page 227]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
| Call-ID
| Call-Info
| Contact
| Content-Disposition
| Content-Encoding
| Content-Language
| Content-Length
| Content-Type
| CSeq
| Date
| Error-Info
| Expires
| From
| In-Reply-To
| Max-Forwards
| MIME-Version
| Min-Expires
| Organization
| Priority
| Proxy-Authenticate
| Proxy-Authorization
| Proxy-Require
| RAck
| Record-Route
| Reply-To
| Require
| Retry-After
| Route
| RSeq
| Server
| Subject
| Supported
| Timestamp
| To
| Unsupported
| User-Agent
| Via
| Warning
| WWW-Authenticate
Method = "INVITE" | "ACK" | "OPTIONS" | "BYE"
| "CANCEL | "REGISTER" | "PRACK"
| extension-method
extension-method = token
option-tag = token
Various Authors [Page 228]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
Response
= Status-Line
*( message-header )
CRLF
[ message-body ]
Status-Line = SIP-version SP Status-Code SP Reason-Phrase CRLF
Status-Code
= Informational
| Redirection
| Success
| Client-Error
| Server-Error
| Global-Failure
| extension-code
extension-code = 3DIGIT
Reason-Phrase = *(reserved | unreserved | escaped | SP | HT)
Informational
= "100" ; Trying
| "180" ; Ringing
| "181" ; Call Is Being Forwarded
| "182" ; Queued
| "183" ; Session Progress
Success = "200" ; OK
Redirection = "300" ; Multiple Choices
| "301" ; Moved Permanently
| "302" ; Moved Temporarily
| "305" ; Use Proxy
| "380" ; Alternative Service
Various Authors [Page 229]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
Client-Error = "400" ; Bad Request
| "401" ; Unauthorized
| "402" ; Payment Required
| "403" ; Forbidden
| "404" ; Not Found
| "405" ; Method Not Allowed
| "406" ; Not Acceptable
| "407" ; Proxy Authentication Required
| "408" ; Request Timeout
| "409" ; Conflict
| "410" ; Gone
| "413" ; Request Entity Too Large
| "414" ; Request-URI Too Large
| "415" ; Unsupported Media Type
| "416" ; Unsupported URI Scheme
| "420" ; Bad Extension
| "423" ; Registration Too Brief
| "480" ; Temporarily not available
| "481" ; Call Leg/Transaction Does Not Exist
| "482" ; Loop Detected
| "483" ; Too Many Hops
| "484" ; Address Incomplete
| "485" ; Ambiguous
| "486" ; Busy Here
| "487" ; Request Terminated
| "488" ; Not Acceptable Here
| "491" ; Request Pending
| "493" ; Undecipherable
Server-Error = "500" ; Internal Server Error
| "501" ; Not Implemented
| "502" ; Bad Gateway
| "503" ; Service Unavailable
| "504" ; Server Time-out
| "505" ; SIP Version not supported
Global-Failure = "600" ; Busy Everywhere
| "603" ; Decline
| "604" ; Does not exist anywhere
| "606" ; Not Acceptable
Various Authors [Page 230]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
Accept = "Accept" HCOLON ( accept-range *(COMMA accept-range) )
accept-range = media-range [ accept-params ]
media-range = ( "*/*"
| ( m-type SWS "/" "*" SWS )
| ( m-type SLASH m-subtype )
) *( SEMI parameter )
accept-params = SEMI "q" EQUAL qvalue *( accept-extension )
accept-extension = SEMI ae-name [ EQUAL ae-value ]
ae-name = token
ae-value = token | quoted-string
Accept-Encoding = "Accept-Encoding" HCOLON ( encoding *(COMMA encoding) )
encoding = codings [ SEMI "q" EQUAL qvalue ]
codings = content-coding | "*"
content-coding = token
qvalue = ( "0" [ "." 0*3DIGIT ] )
| ( "1" [ "." 0*3("0") ] )
Accept-Language = "Accept-Language" HCOLON ( language *(COMMA language) )
language = language-range [ SEMI "q" EQUAL qvalue ]
language-range = ( ( 1*8ALPHA *( MINUS 1*8ALPHA ) ) | "*" )
Alert-Info = "Alert-Info" HCOLON alert-param *(COMMA alert-param)
alert-param = LAQUOT URI RAQUOT *( SEMI generic-param )
generic-param = token [ EQUAL gen-value ]
gen-value = token | host | quoted-string
Allow = "Allow" HCOLON Method *(COMMA Method)
Authorization = "Authorization" HCOLON credentials
credentials = ("Digest" digest-response) | (token gen-resp))
digest-response = dig-resp *(COMMA dig-resp)
dig-resp = username | realm | nonce | digest-uri
Various Authors [Page 231]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
| dresponse | [ algorithm ] | [cnonce]
| [opaque] | [message-qop]
| [nonce-count] | [auth-param]
username = "username" EQUAL username-value
username-value = quoted-string
digest-uri = "uri" EQUAL digest-uri-value
digest-uri-value = request-uri ; As specified by HTTP/1.1
message-qop = "qop" EQUAL qop-value
cnonce = "cnonce" EQUAL cnonce-value
cnonce-value = nonce-value
nonce-count = "nc" EQUAL nc-value
nc-value = 8LHEX
dresponse = "response" EQUAL request-digest
request-digest = LDQUOT 32LHEX RDQUOT
auth-param = auth-param-name EQUAL ( token | quoted-string )
auth-param-name = token
gen-resp = *token *((COMMA *token) | (EQUAL
(*token | quoted-string))
AuthenticationInfo __ "Authentication-Info" COLON ainfo *(COMMA ainfo)
ainfo = nextnonce | [ message-qop ]
| [ response-auth ] | [ cnonce ]
| [nonce-count]
nextnonce "nextnonce" EQUAL nonce-value
response-auth = "rspauth" EQUAL response-digest
response-digest = LDQUOT *LHEX RDQUOT
Call-ID = ( "Call-ID" | "i" ) HCOLON callid
callid = word [ "@" word ]
Call-Info = "Call-Info" HCOLON info *(COMMA info)
info = LAQUOT URI RAQUOT *( SEMI info-param)
info-param = "purpose" EQUAL ( "icon" | "info"
| "card" | token ) | generic-param
Contact = ("Contact" | "m" ) HCOLON
Various Authors [Page 232]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
(STAR | contact-param *(COMMA contact-param))
contact-param = name-addr | addr-spec *(SEMI contact-params)
name-addr = [ display-name ] LAQUOT addr-spec RAQUOT
addr-spec = SIP-URI | URI
display-name = *(token LWS)| quoted-string)
contact-params = c-p-q | c-p-expires
| contact-extension
c-p-q = "q" EQUAL qvalue
c-p-expires = "expires" EQUAL delta-seconds
contact-extension = generic-param
qvalue = ( "0" [ "." 0*3DIGIT ] )
| ( "1" [ "." 0*3("0") ] )
delta-seconds = 1*DIGIT
Content-Disposition = "Content-Disposition" HCOLON
disposition-type *( SEMI disposition-param )
disposition-type = "render" | "session" | "icon" | "alert"
| disp-extension-token
disposition-param = "handling" EQUAL
( "optional" | "required"
| other-handling ) | generic-param
other-handling = token
disp-extension-token = token
Content-Encoding = ( "Content-Encoding" | "e" ) HCOLON
content-coding *(COMMA content-coding)
Content-Language = "Content-Language" HCOLON
language-tag *(COMMA language-tag)
language-tag = primary-tag *( MINUS subtag )
primary-tag = 1*8ALPHA
Various Authors [Page 233]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
subtag = 1*8ALPHA
Content-Length = ( "Content-Length" | "l" ) HCOLON 1*DIGIT
Content-Type = ( "Content-Type" | "c" ) HCOLON media-type
media-type = m-type SLASH m-subtype *(SEMI m-parameter)
m-type = discrete-type | composite-type
discrete-type = "text" | "image" | "audio" | "video"
| "application" | extension-token
composite-type "message" | "multipart" | extension-token
extension-token = ietf-token | x-token
ietf-token = token
x-token = ("X" | "x") "-" token
m-subtype = extension-token | iana-token
iana-token = token
m-parameter = m-attribute EQUAL m-value
m-attribute = token
m-value = token | quoted-string
CSeq = "CSeq" HCOLON 1*DIGIT LWS Method
Date = "Date" HCOLON SIP-date
SIP-date = rfc1123-date
rfc1123-date = wkday COMMA date1 SP time SP "GMT"
date1 = 2DIGIT SP month SP 4DIGIT
; day month year (e.g., 02 Jun 1982)
time = 2DIGIT ":" 2DIGIT ":" 2DIGIT
; 00:00:00 - 23:59:59
wkday = "Mon" | "Tue" | "Wed"
| "Thu" | "Fri" | "Sat" | "Sun"
month = "Jan" | "Feb" | "Mar" | "Apr"
| "May" | "Jun" | "Jul" | "Aug"
| "Sep" | "Oct" | "Nov" | "Dec"
Various Authors [Page 234]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
Error-Info = "Error-Info" HCOLON error-uri *(COMMA error-uri)
error-uri = LAQUOT URI RAQUOT *( SEMI generic-param )
Expires = "Expires" HCOLON delta-seconds
>From = ( "From" | "f" ) HCOLON from-spec
from-spec = ( name-addr | addr-spec )
*( SEMI from-param )
from-param = tag-param | generic-param
tag-param = "tag" EQUAL token
In-Reply-To = "In-Reply-To" HCOLON called *(COMMA called)
Max-Forwards = "Max-Forwards" HCOLON 1*DIGIT
MIME-Version = "MIME-Version" HCOLON 1*DIGIT "." 1*DIGIT
Min-Expires = "Min-Expires" HCOLON delta-seconds
Organization = "Organization" HCOLON TEXT-UTF8-TRIM
Priority = "Priority" HCOLON priority-value
priority-value = "emergency" | "urgent" | "normal"
| "non-urgent" | other-priority
other-priority = token
Various Authors [Page 235]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
Proxy-Authenticate = "Proxy-Authenticate" HCOLON
challenge *(COMMA challenge)
challenge = "Digest" digest-challenge
digest-challenge = digest-chlng *(COMMA digest-chlng)
digest-chlng = realm | [ domain ] | nonce
| [ opaque ] | [ stale ] | [ algorithm ]
| [ qop-options ] | [auth-param]
realm = "realm" EQUALS realm-value
realm-value = quoted-string
domain = "domain" EQUAL LDQUOT URI
( 1*SP URI ) RDQUOT
URI = absoluteURI | abs_path
nonce = "nonce" EQUAL nonce-value
nonce-value = quoted-string
opaque = "opaque" EQUAL quoted-string
stale = "stale" EQUAL ( "true" | "false" )
algorithm = "algorithm" EQUAL ( "MD5" | "MD5-sess"
| token )
qop-options = "qop" EQUAL LDQUOT qop-value *(COMMA qop-value) RDQUOT
qop-value = "auth" | "auth-int" | token
Proxy-Authorization = "Proxy-Authorization" HCOLON credentials
Proxy-Require = "Proxy-Require" HCOLON option-tag *(COMMA option-tag)
RAck = "RAck" HCOLON response-num LWS CSeq-num LWS Method
response-num = 1*DIGIT
CSeq-num = 1*DIGIT
response-num = 1*DIGIT
Record-Route = "Record-Route" HCOLON rec-route *(COMMA rec-route)
rec-route = name-addr *( SEMI rr-param )
rr-param = generic-param
Various Authors [Page 236]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
Reply-To = ( "Reply-To" | "f" ) HCOLON rplyto-spec
rplyto-spec = ( name-addr | addr-spec )
*( SEMI rplyto-param )
rplyto-param = generic-param
Require = "Require" HCOLON option-tag *(COMMA option-tag)
Retry-After = "Retry-After" HCOLON delta-seconds
[ comment ] *( SEMI retry-param )
retry-param = "duration" EQUAL delta-seconds
| generic-param
Route = "Route" HCOLON route=param *(COMMA route-param)
route-param = name-addr *( SEMI rr-param )
RSeq = "RSeq" HCOLON response-num
Server = "Server" HCOLON 1*( product | comment )
product = token [SLASH product-version]
product-version = token
Subject = ( "Subject" | "s" ) HCOLON TEXT-UTF8-TRIM
Supported = ( "Supported" | "k" ) HCOLON
(option-tag *(COMMA option-tag)
Timestamp = "Timestamp" HCOLON 1*(DIGIT)
[ "." *(DIGIT) ] [ delay ]
delay = *(DIGIT) [ "." *(DIGIT) ]
Various Authors [Page 237]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
To = ( "To" | "t" ) HCOLON ( name-addr
| addr-spec ) *( SEMI to-param )
to-param = tag-param | generic-param
Unsupported = "Unsupported" HCOLON option-tag *(COMMA option-tag)
User-Agent = "User-Agent" HCOLON 1*( product | comment )
Via = ( "Via" | "v" ) HCOLON via-parm *(COMMA via-parm)
via-parm = sent-protocol sent-by *( SEMI via-params )
via-params = via-ttl | via-maddr
| via-received | via-branch
| via-extension
via-ttl = "ttl" EQUAL ttl
via-maddr = "maddr" EQUAL host
via-received = "received" EQUAL (IPv4address | IPv6address)
via-branch = "branch" EQUAL token
via-extension = generic-param
sent-protocol = protocol-name SLASH protocol-version
SLASH transport
protocol-name = "SIP" | token
protocol-version = token
transport = "UDP" | "TCP" | "TLS" | "SCTP"
| other-transport
sent-by = host [ COLON port ]
ttl = 1*3DIGIT ; 0 to 255
Warning = "Warning" HCOLON warning-value *(COMMA warning-value)
warning-value = warn-code SP warn-agent SP warn-text
warn-code = 3DIGIT
warn-agent = ( host [ COLON port ] ) | pseudonym
; the name or pseudonym of the server adding
; the Warning header, for use in debugging
warn-text = quoted-string
pseudonym = token
Various Authors [Page 238]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
WWW-Authenticate = "WWW-Authenticate" HCOLON challenge
message-body = *OCTET
28 IANA Considerations
All new or experimental method names, header field names, and status
codes used in SIP applications SHOULD be registered with IANA in
order to prevent potential naming conflicts. It is RECOMMENDED that
new "option- tag"s and "warn-code"s also be registered. Before IANA
registration, new protcol elements SHOULD be described in an
Internet-Draft or, preferably, an RFC.
For Internet-Drafts, IANA is requested to make the draft available as
part of the registration database.
By the time an RFC is published, colliding names may have
already been implemented.
When a registration for either a new header field, new method, or new
status code is created based on an Internet-Draft, and that
Internet-Draft becomes an RFC, the person that performed the
registration MUST notify IANA to change the registration to point to
the RFC instead of the Internet-Draft.
Registrations should be sent to iana@iana.org
28.1 Option Tags
Option tags are used in header fields such as Require, Supported,
Proxy-Require, and Unsupported in support of SIP compatibility
mechanisms for extensions ( Section 23.2). The option tag itself is a
string that is associated with a particular SIP option (that is, an
extension). It identifies the option to SIP endpoints.
When registering a new SIP option with IANA, the following
information MUST be provided:
o Name and description of option. The name MAY be of any length,
but SHOULD be no more than twenty characters long. The name
MUST consist of alphanum (Section 27) characters only.
o A listing of any new SIP header fields, header parameter
fields, or parameter values defined by this option. A SIP
Various Authors [Page 239]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
option MUST NOT redefine header fields or parameters defined
in either RFC 2543, any standards-track extensions to RFC
2543, or other extensions registered through IANA.
o Indication of who has change control over the option (for
example, IETF, ISO, ITU-T, other international standardization
bodies, a consortium, or a particular company or group of
companies).
o A reference to a further description if available, for example
(in order of preference) an RFC, a published paper, a patent
filing, a technical report, documented source code, or a
computer manual.
o Contact information (postal and email address).
This procedure has been borrowed from RTSP [3] and the RTP
AVP [41].
28.1.1 Registration of 100rel
This specification registers a single option tag, "100rel". The
required information is:
Name: "100rel"
Description: This option tag is for reliability of provisional
responses. When present in a Supported header, it indicates
that the UA can send or receive reliable provisional
responses. When present in a Require header in a request,
it indicates that the UAS MUST send all provisional
responses reliably. When present in a Require header in a
reliable provisional response, it indicates that the
response is to be sent reliably.
New Headers: The RSeq and RAck header fieds are defined by this
optio.
Change Control: IETF.
Reference: RFCXXXX [Note to IANA: Fill in with the RFC number of
this specification.
Contact Information: Jonathan Rosenberg, jdrosen@jdrosen.net. 72
Eagle Rock Avenue, First Floor, East Hanover, NJ, 07936,
USA.
Various Authors [Page 240]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
28.2 Warn-Codes
Warning codes provide information supplemental to the status code in
SIP response messages when the failure of the transaction results
from a Session Description Protocol (SDP, [5]). New "warn-code"
values can be registered with IANA as they arise.
The "warn-code" consists of three digits. A first digit of "3"
indicates warnings specific to SIP.
Warnings 300 through 329 are reserved for indicating problems with
keywords in the session description, 330 through 339 are warnings
related to basic network services requested in the session
description, 370 through 379 are warnings related to quantitative QoS
parameters requested in the session description, and 390 through 399
are miscellaneous warnings that do not fall into one of the above
categories.
1xx and 2xx have been taken by HTTP/1.1.
28.3 Header Field Names
Header field names do not require working group or working group
chair review prior to IANA registration, but SHOULD be documented in
an RFC or Internet-Draft before IANA is consulted.
The following information needs to be provided to IANA in order to
register a new header field name:
o The name and email address of the individual performing the
registration;
o the name of the header field being registered;
o a compact form version for that header field, if one is
defined;
o the name of the draft or RFC where the header field is
defined;
o a copy of the draft or RFC where the header field is defined.
Header fields SHOULD NOT use the X prefix notation and MUST NOT
duplicate the names of header fields used by SMTP or HTTP unless the
syntax is a compatible superset and the semantics are similar. Some
common and widely used header fields MAY be assigned one-letter
compact forms (Section 7.3.3). Compact forms can only be assigned
Various Authors [Page 241]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
after SIP working group review. In the absence of this working group,
a designated expert reviews the request.
28.4 Method and Response Codes
Because the status code space is limited, they do require working
group or working group chair review, and MUST be documented in an RFC
or Internet draft. The same procedures apply to new method names.
The following information needs to be provided to IANA in order to
register a new response code or method:
o The name and email address of the individual performing the
registration;
o the number of the response code or name of the method being
registered;
o the default reason phrase for that status code, if applicable;
o the name of the draft or RFC where the method or status code
is defined;
o a copy of the draft or RFC where the method or status code is
defined.
29 Changes Made in Version 00
o Indicated that UAC should send both CANCEL and BYE after a
retransmission fails.
o Added semicolon and question mark to the list of unreserved
characters for the user part of SIP URLs to handle tel: URLs
properly.
o Uniform handling of if hop count Max-Forwards: return 483.
Note that this differs from HTTP/1.1 behavior, where only
OPTIONS and TRACE allow this header, but respond as the final
recipient when the value reaches zero.
o Clarified that a forking proxy sends ACKs only for INVITE
requests.
o Clarified wording of DNS caching. Added paragraph on "negative
caching", i.e., what to do if one of the hosts failed. It is
probably not a good idea to simply drop this host from the
list if the DNS ttl value is more than a few minutes, since
that would mean that load balancing may not work for quite a
Various Authors [Page 242]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
while after a server is brought back on line. This will be
true in particular if a server group receives a large number
of requests from a small number of upstream servers, as is
likely to be the case for calls between major consumer ISPs.
However, without getting into arbitrary and complicated retry
rules, it seems hard to specify any general algorithm. Might
it be worthwhile to simply limit the "black list" interval to
a few minutes?
o Added optional Call-Info and Alert-Info header fields that
describe the caller and information to be used in alerting.
(Currently, avoided use of "purpose" qualification since it is
not yet clear whether rendering content without understanding
its meaning is always appropriate. For example, if a UAS does
not understand that this header is to replace ringing, it
would mix both local ring tone and the indicated sound URL.)
TBD!
o SDP "s=" lines can't be empty, unfortunately.
o Noted that maddr could also contain a unicast address, but
SHOULD contain the multicast address if the request is sent
via multicast (Section 24.44.
o Clarified that responses are sent to port in Via sent-by
value.
o Added "other-*" to the user URL parameter and the Hide and
Content-Disposition headers.
o Clarified generation of timeout (408) responses in forking
proxies and mention the Expires header.
o Clarified that CANCEL and INVITE are separate transactions
(Fig. 7). Thus, the INVITE request generates a 487 (Request
Terminated) if a CANCEL or BYE arrives.
o Clarified that Record-Route SHOULD be inserted in every
request, but that the route, once established, persists. This
provides robustness if the called UAS crashes.
o Emphasized that proxy, redirect, registrar and location
servers are logical, not physical entities and that UAC and
UAS roles are defined on a request-by-request basis. (Section
6)
o In Section 24.44, noted that the maddr and received parameters
also need to be encrypted when doing Via hiding.
Various Authors [Page 243]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
o Simplified Fig. 7 to only show INVITE transaction.
o Added definition of the use of Contact (Section 24.10) for
OPTIONS.
o Added HTTP/RFC 822 headers Content-Language and MIME-Version.
o Added note in minimal section indicating that UAs need to
support UDP.
o Added explanation explaining what a UA should do when
receiving an initial INVITE with a tag.
o Clarified UA and proxy behavior for 302 responses.
o Added details on what a UAS should do when receiving a tagged
INVITE request for an unknown call leg. This could occur if
the UAS had crashed and the UAC sends a re-INVITE or if the
BYE got lost and the UAC still believes to be in the call.
o Added definition of Contact in 4xx, 5xx and 6xx to "redirect"
to more error details.
o Added note to forking proxy description to gather *-
Authenticate from responses. This allows several branches to
be authenticated simultaneously.
o Changed URI syntax to use URL escaping instead of quotation
marks.
o Changed SIP URL definition to reference RFC 2806 for
telephone-subscriber part.
o Clarified that the To URI should basically be ignored by the
receiving UAS except for matching requests to call legs. In
particular, To headers with a scheme or name unknown to the
callee should be accepted.
o Clarified that maddr is to be added by any client, either
proxy or UAC.
o Added response code 488 to indicate that there was no common
media at the particular destination. (606 indicates such
failure globally.)
o In Section 24.19, noted that registration updates can shorten
the validity period.
Various Authors [Page 244]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
o Added note to enclose the URI for digest in quotation marks.
The BNF in RFC 2617 is in error.
o Clarified that registrars use Authorization and WWW-
Authenticate, not proxy authentication.
o Added note in Section 24.10 that "headers" are copied from
Contact into the new request.
o Changed URL syntax so that port specifications have to have at
least one digit, in line with other URL formats such as
"http". Previously, an empty port number was permissible.
o In SDP section, added a section on how to add and delete
streams in re-INVITEs.
o IETF-blessed extensions now have short names, without
org.ietf. prefix.
o Cseq is unique within a call leg, not just within a call
(Section 24.16).
o Added IPv6 literal addresses to the SIP URL definition,
according to RFC 2732 [42]. Modified the IPv4 address to limit
segments to at most three digits.
o Modified registration procedure so that it explicitly
references the URL comparison. Updates with shorter expiration
time are now allowed.
o For send-only media, SDP still must indicate the address and
port, since these are needed as destinations for RTCP
messages.
o Changed references regarding DNS SRV records from RFC 2052 to
RFC 2782, which is now a Proposed Standard. Integrated SRV
into the search procedure and removed the SRV appendix. The
only visible change is that protocol and service names are now
prefixed by an underscore. Added wording that incorporates the
precedence of maddr.
o Allow parameters in Record-Route and Route headers.
o In Table 1, list udp as the default value for the transport
parameter in SIP URI.
o Removed sentence that From can be encrypted. It cannot, since
the header is needed for call-leg identification.
Various Authors [Page 245]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
o Added note that a UAC only copies a To tag into subsequent
transactions if it arrives in a 200 OK to an INVITE. This
avoids the problem that occurs when requests get resubmitted
after receiving, say, a 407 (or possibly 500, 503, 504, 305,
400, 411, 413, maybe even 408). Under the old rules, these
requests would have a tag, which would force the called UAS to
reject the request, since it doesn't have an entry for this
tag.
o Loop detection has been modified to take the request-URI into
account. This allows the same request to visit the server
twice, but with different request URIs ("spiral").
o Elaborated on URL comparison and comparison of From/To fields.
o Added np-queried user parameter.
o Changed tag syntax from UUID to token, since there's no reason
to restrict it to hex.
o Added Content-Disposition header based on earlier discussions
about labeling what to do with a message body (part).
o Clarification: proxies must insert To tags for locally
generated responses.
o Clarification: multicast may be used for subsequent
registrations.
o Feature: Added Supported header. Needed if client wants to
indicate things the server can usefully return in the
response.
o Bug: The From, To, and Via headers were missing extension
parameters. The Encryption and Response-Key header fields now
"officially" allow parameters consisting only of a token,
rather than just "token = value".
o Bug: Allow was listed as optional in 405 responses in Table 2.
It is mandatory.
o Added: "A BYE request from either called or calling party
terminates any pending INVITE, but the INVITE request
transaction MUST be completed with a final response."
o Clarified: "If an INVITE request for an existing session
fails, the session description agreed upon in the last
successful INVITE transaction remains in force."
Various Authors [Page 246]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
o Clarified what happens if two INVITE requests meet each other
on the wire, either traveling the same or in opposite
directions:
A UAC MUST NOT issue another INVITE request for the
same call leg before the previous transaction has
completed. A UAS that receives an INVITE before it
sent the final response to an INVITE with a lower CSeq
number MUST return a 400 (Bad Request) response and
MUST include a Retry-After header field with a
randomly chosen value of between 0 and 10 seconds. A
UA that receives an INVITE while it has an INVITE
transaction pending, returns a 500 (Internal Server
Error) and also includes a Retry-After header field.
o Expires header clarified: limits only duration of INVITE
transaction, not the actual session. SDP does the latter.
o The In-Reply-To header was added.
o There were two incompatible BNFs for WWW-Authenticate. One
defined for PGP, and the other borrowed from HTTP. For basic
or digest:
WWW-Authenticate: basic realm="Wallyworld"
and for pgp:
WWW-Authenticate: pgp; realm="Wallyworld"
The latter is incorrect and the semicolon has been removed.
o Added rules for Route construction from called to calling UA.
o We now allow Accept and Accept-Encoding in BYE and CANCEL
requests. There is no particular reason not to allow them, as
both requests could theoretically return responses,
particularly when interworking with other signaling systems.
o PGP "pgp-pubalgorithm" allows server to request the desired
public-key algorithm.
Various Authors [Page 247]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
o ABNF rules now describe tokens explicitly rather than by
subtraction; explicit character enumeration for CTL, etc.
o Registrars should be careful to check the Date header as the
expiration time may well be in the past, as seen by the
client.
o Content-Length is mandatory; Table 2 erroneously marked it as
optional.
o User-Agent was classified in a syntax definition as a request
header rather than a general header.
o Clarified ordering of items to be signed and include realm in
list.
o Allow Record-Route in 401 and 484 responses.
o Hop-by-hop headers need to precede end-to-end headers only if
authentication is used.
o 1xx message bodies MAY now contain session descriptions.
o Changed references to HTTP/1.1 and authentication to point to
the latest RFCs.
o Added 487 (Request terminated) status response. It is issued
if the original request was terminated via CANCEL or BYE.
o The spec was not clear on the identification of a call leg.
Section 1.3 says it's the combination of To, From, and Call-
ID. However, requests from the callee to the caller have the
To and From reversed, so this definition is not quite
accurate. Additionally, the "tag" field should be included in
the definition of call leg. The spec now says that a call leg
is defined as the combination of local-address, remote-
address, and call-id, where these addresses include tags.
Text was added to Section 6.21 to emphasize that the From and
To headers designate the originator of the request, not that
of the call leg.
o All URI parameters, except method, are allowed in a Request-
URI. Consequently, also updated the description of which
parameters are copied from 3xx responses in Sec. 24.10.
o The use of CRLF, CR,or LF to terminate lines was confusing.
Basically, each header line can be terminated by a CR, LF, or
Various Authors [Page 248]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
CRLF. Furthermore, the end of the headers is signified by a
"double return". Simplified to require sending of CRLF, but
require senders to receive CR and LF as well and only allow CR
CR, LF LF in addition to double CRLF as a header-body
separator.
o Round brackets in Contact header were part of the HTTP legacy,
and very hard to implement. They are also not that useful and
were removed.
o The spec said that a proxy is a back-to-back UAS/UAC. This is
almost, but not quite, true. For example, a UAS should insert
a tag into a provisional response, but a proxy should not.
This was clarified.
o Section 6.13 in the RFC begins mid-paragraph after the BNF.
The following text was misplaced in the conversion to ASCII:
Even if the "display-name" is empty, the "name-addr"
form MUST be used if the "addr-spec" contains a comma,
semicolon or question mark.
30 Changes Made in Version 01
o Uniform syntax specification for semicolon parameters:
Foo = "Foo" ":" something *( ";" foo-param )
foo-param = "bar" "=" token
| generic-param
o Removed np-queried user parameter since this is now part of a
tel URL extension parameter.
o In SDP section, noted that if the capabilities intersection is
empty, a dummy format list still has to be returned due to SDP
syntax constraints. Previously, the text had required that no
formats be listed. (Brian Rosen)
o Reorganized tables 2 and 3 to show proxy interaction with
headers rather than "end-to-end" or "hop-by-hop".
31 Changes Made in Version 02
o Added "or UAS" in description of received headers in Section
24.44. This makes the response algorithm work even if the last
IP address in the Via is incorrect.
Various Authors [Page 249]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
o Tentatively removed restriction that CANCEL requests cannot
have Route headers. (Billy Biggs)
o Tentatively added Also header for BYE requests, as it is
widely implemented and a simple means to implement
unsupervised call transfer. Subject to removal if there is
protest. (Billy Biggs)
o If a proxy sends a request by UDP (TCP), the spec did not
disallow placing TCP (UDP) in the transport parameter of the
Via field, which it should. Added a note that the transport
protocol actually used is included.
o No default value for the q parameter in Contact is defined.
This is not strictly needed, but is useful for consistent
behaviors at recursive proxies and at UAC's. Now 0.5.
o Clarified that To and From tag values should be different to
simplify request matching when calling oneself.
o Removed ability to carry multiple requests in a single UDP
packet (Section 24.14).
o Added note that Allow MAY be included in requests, to indicate
requestor capabilities for the same call ID.
o Added note to Section 24.17 indicating that registrars MUST
include the Date header to accomodate UAs that do not have a
notion of absolute time.
o Added note emphasizing that non-SIP URIs are permissible in
REGISTER.
o Rewrote the server lookup section to be more precise and more
like pseudo-code, with nesting instead of "gotos".
o Removed note
Note that the two URLs example.com and
example.com:5060, while considered equal, may not lead
to the same server, as the former causes a DNS SRV
lookup, while the latter only uses the A record.
since that is no longer the case.
o Emphasized that proxies have to forward requests with unknown
methods.
o Aligned definition of call leg with URI comparison rules.
Various Authors [Page 250]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
o Required that second branch parameter be globally unique, so
that a proxy can distinguish different branches in spiral
scenarios similar to the following, with record-routing in
place:
B ---> P1 -------> P2 ------------> P1 ----------------> A
BYE B B/1 P1/2,B/1 P2/3,P1/2,B/1 P1/4,P2/3,P1/2,B/1
Here, A/1 denotes the Via entry with host A and branch
parameter 1. Also, this requires updating the definition of
isomorphic requests, since the Request-URI is the same for all
BYE that are record-routed.
o Removed Via hiding from spec, for the following reasons:
- complexity, particularly hidden "gotchas" that surface at
various points (as in this instance);
- interference with loop detection and debugging;
- Unlike HTTP, where via-hiding makes sense since all data is
contained in the request or response, Via-hiding in SIP by
itself does nothing to hide the caller or callee, as address
information is revealed in a number of places:
- Contact;
- Route/Record-Route;
- SDP, including the o= and c= lines;
- possibly accidental leakage in User-Agent header and
Call-ID headers.
- Unless this is implemented everywhere, the feature is not
likely to be very useful, without the sender having any
recourse such as "don't route this request unless you can
hide". It appears that almost all existing proxies simply
ignore the Hide header.
o Added Error-Info header field.
32 Changes Made in Version 03
o Description of Route and Record-Route moved to separate
section, which is new. All UAs must now support this
mechanism.
Various Authors [Page 251]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
o Removed status code 411, since it cannot occur (Jonathan
Rosenberg, James Jack).
o Rewrote Record-Route section to reflect new mechanism. In
particular, requests from callee to caller now use the same
path as in the opposite direction, without substituting the
From header field values. The maddr parameter is now optional.
o Disallowed SIP URLs that only have a password, without a user
name. The prototype from RFC 1738 also doesn't allow this.
o Allow registrar to set the expiration time.
o CSeq (Section 24.16) is counted within a call leg, not a call.
o Removed wording that connection closing is equivalent to
CANCEL or 500. This does not work for connections that are
used for multiple transactions and has other problems.
o Cleaned up CSeq section. Removed text about inserting CSeq
method when it is absent. Clarified that CSeq increments for
all requests, not just INVITE. Clarified that all out of order
requests, not just out of order INVITE, are rejected with a
400 class response. Clarified the meaning of "initial"
sequence number. Clarified that after a request forks, each
200 OK is a separate call leg, and thus, separate CSeq space.
Clarified that CSeq numbers are independent for each direction
of a call leg.
o Massive reorganization and cleanup of the SDP section.
Introduced the concept of the offer-answer model. Clarified
that set of codecs in m line are usable all at the same time.
Inserted size restriction on representation of values in o
line. Explicitly describe forked media. New media lines for
adding streams appear at the bottom of the SDP (used to say
append).
o Removed Also.
o Added text to Require and Proxy-Require sections, making it a
SHOULD to retry the request without the unsupported extension.
o Added text to section on 415, saying that UAC SHOULD retry the
request without the unsupported body.
o Added text to section on CANCEL and ACK, clarifying much of
the behavior.
Various Authors [Page 252]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
o Modified Content-Type to indicate that it can be present even
if the body is empty.
o From tags mandatory
o Old text said that if you hang up before sending an ACK, you
need not send the ACK. That is wrong. Text fixed so that an
ACK is always sent.
o Old text said that if you never got a response to an INVITE,
the UAC should send both an INVITE and CANCEL. This doesn't
make sense. Rahter, it should do nothing and consider the call
terminated.
o Added text that says pending requests are responded to with a
487 if a BYE is received.
o Updated section 2.2, so that its clear that Contact is not
used with BYE.
o Clarified Via processing rules. Added text on handling loops
when proxies route on headers besides the request URI. Added
text on handling case when sent-by contains a domain name.
Added text to 6.47 on opening TCP connections to send
responses upstream.
o Clarified that a 1xx with an unknown xx is not the same as the
100 response.
o Removed usage of Retry-After in REGISTER.
o Clarified usage of persistent connections.
o Clarified that servers supporting HTTP basic or digest in
rfc2617 MUST be backwards compatible with RFC 2069.
o Clarified that ACK contains the same branch ID as the request
its acknowledging.
o Added definitions for spiral, B2BUA.
o Rephrased definitions for UAC, UAS, Call, call-leg, caller,
callee, making them more concrete.
o URL comparison ignores parameters not present in both URLs
only for unknown parameters.
o Clarified that * in Contact is used only in REGISTER with
Various Authors [Page 253]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
Expires header zero. Mentioned * case in section on Contact
syntax.
o Removed text that says a UA can insert a Contact in 2xx that
indicates the address of a proxy. Not likely to work in
general.
o Removed SDP text about aligning media streams within a media
type to handle certain crash and restart cases.
o Receiving a 481 to a mid-call request terminates that call
leg. Agreed upon at IETF 49.
o Introduced definition of regular transaction - non-INVITE
excepting ACK and CANCEL.
o Clarified rules for overlapping transactions.
o Forking proxies MUST be stateful (used to say SHOULD). Proxies
that send requests on multicast MUST be stateful (used to say
nothing)
o Text added recommending that registrars authorize that entity
in From field can register address-of-record in the To field.
o Forwarding of non-100 provisionals upstream in a proxy changed
from SHOULD to MUST.
o Removed PGP.
33 Changes Made in Version 04
o Removed Unsupported as a request header from Table 3.
o Clarified SDP procedures for changing IP address and port.
Specifically, spelled out the duration for which a UA needs to
received media on the old port and address.
o Added text in the SDP session which recommends that the
answerer use the same ordering of codecs as used on the offer,
in order to help ensure symmetric codec operation under normal
conditions.
o Fixed bug in the example in the SDP section, where the new
media line was listed at the top. Should have been the bottom.
o Authorization credentials are cached based on the URL of the
To header, not the entire To header as 10.48 implied.
Various Authors [Page 254]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
o Section 10.31, on Proxy-Authenticate, indicated that a server
responds with a 401 if the client guessed wrong. This is
incorrect. It should be 407.
o Section 10.14, removed motivational text about Contact
allowing an INVITE to be routed directly between end systems,
since its confusing. Some have interpreted to mean that
Record-Route is ignored when Contact is present.
o Added reference to SCTP RFC.
o Updated 2.2 to allow non-SIP URLs in OPTIONS and 2xx to
OPTIONS.
o Fixed example in 20.5. Added ACK for 487, and added To tag to
487 response.
o Clarified further URL comparisons. Its only URL parameters
without defaults that are ignored if not present in both URLs.
o Section 1.5.2, UDP mandatory for all. TCP is a SHOULD for UA,
MUST for proxy, registrar, redirect servers.
o Brought syntax for Contact, Via, and the SIP URL into
alignment between the text and postscript versions.
o Updated the text in section 6 which said that the ordering of
header fields follows HTTP, with the exception of Via, where
order matters. However, the HTTP spec says that order matters,
so this sentence is redundant and confusing. The sentence was
removed.
o Added e lines to SDP examples in the Examples section.
o Rewrote Allow discussion, more formally defining its semantics
and usage cases.
o Updated text on 604 status, to indicate that its based on the
Request-URI, not the To.
o Added response registrations to IANA considerations. Provided
more details on registration process.
o Clarified that only a UAS rejects a request because the To tag
doesn't match a local value.
o Clarified that stateless proxies need to route based on static
criteria only.
Various Authors [Page 255]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
o Proxy and UAC CANCEL generation upon 2xx, 6xx if it forked is
now a SHOULD; used to be a MAY.
o Added text saying that a UAS SHOULD send a BYE if it never
gets an ACK for a 2xx establishing a call leg.
o Added text saying that a UAS SHOULD send a re-INVITE if it
never gets an ACK for a 2xx to a re-INVITE.
o Added text on 503 processing, indicating that a client should
try a different server when receiving a 503, and that a proxy
shouldn't forward a 503 upstream unless it can't service any
other requests.
o Removed motivational text in Section 10.43 on Via headers
since its not consistent with the text before it.
o Changed IPSec reference to RFC 2401, from RFC 1825.
o Updated retransmission defininition in 17.3.4 to be consistent
with the rest of the spec.
o Softened the language for insertion of the transport param in
the record-route. Specifically, it can be inserted in private
networks where it is known apriori that the specific transport
is supported.
o Updated definition of B2BUA.
o Added text to section on 420 processing, which mandates that
the client retry the request without extensions listed in the
Unsupported header in the response.
o Allow Authentication-Info header to be used for HTTP digest.
34 Changes Made in Version 05
o Updated Table 2 to reflect that Error-Info is a response
header in 3xx-6xx responses (it was previously listed as a
request header).
o Removed WWW-Authenticate as a request header from Table 3.
Authentication of responses is now done according to RFC 2617.
o Updated the Accept, Accept-Encoding and Accept-Language
sections. More details on precise semantics for the various
requests and responses is now provided. Presence of these
headers is now a SHOULD for INVITE and 2xx to INVITE when a
Various Authors [Page 256]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
non-default value is present. Extra emphasis is placed on
including the Accept-Language in INVITE and 2xx in order to
support internationalization. Usage of these three headers in
CANCEL has been removed since it makes no sense.
o Generalized local outbound processing rules in Section 16.4.1
to cover the case where the UAS is using a local outbound
proxy which was not in the initial call setup path.
o Updated record-routing section, so that a proxy can insert a
transport param if it knows that the proxy on one side
supports the specific transport (the previous text required
the proxy to know whether the proxies on both sides supported
the specific transport).
o Added Authentication-Info to Section 10.
o Clarified the meaning of Table 2 for responses.
o Updated Table 1 to reflect that maddr is no longer mandatory
in Record-Route.
o Updated Table 3 so that header fields in responses to ACK are
never listed as optional, mandatory, etc. - only not
applicable. This is because responses to ACK are not allowed.
Also improved wording in Section 5.1.1 to clarify that there
MUST NOT be responses to ACK.
o Updated SRV procedures. Old text said to treat a failure to
contact a server as a 4xx, which would stop the SRV
processing. But, this is not so. Sentence was stricken.
o Updated 12.1 to clarify that 2xx INVITE responses MUST contain
session descriptions.
o Changed User-Agent to a request header in Table 3.
o Updated SDP section, so that a UA cannot change the SDP when
it gets a re-INVITE with no SDP.
o Clarified Appendix B that a unicast offer MUST have a unicast
response.
o Clarified that any request can be record-routed, but it may
not be used by the UA, depending on the method.
o non-2xx responses to INVITE no longer retransmitted over TCP.
Various Authors [Page 257]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
o Removed lower bound on T1 and T2 in private networks, which
can use lower values. Furthermore, T1 can be smaller on the
public Internet if proper RTT estimation is used.
o UAS Cannot send a BYE for a call leg until it receives ACK, in
order to eliminate a race condition between BYE and 200 OK.
o Support of CR or LF alone as line terminators, as opposed to
CRLF, is no longer required.
o Client behavior on receipt of a 3xx to re-INVITE is now
specified, and it is no longer forbidden to generate a 3xx.
This is needed to maintain the idempotency of INVITE, as a
proxy might redirect without knowing its a 3xx.
o CANCEL cannot be sent before a 1xx is received, in order to
eliminate race condition between request and CANCEL.
o Termination of the client and server transactions is now based
entirely on timeouts, rather than retransmission counters, in
order to unify TCP and UDP behavior. Timeout values scale as a
function of the RTT estimate, defined as T1. For reliable
transports, many of these timers are now set to zero. Many
timeouts differ than in bis-04.
o Added a working RTT estimation algorithm using the Timestamp
header, and specified it to be compliant to RFC 2988.
o UAS accepting requests with unknown schemes in the URI in the
To field is now a RECOMMENDED instead of SHOULD. This reflects
the fact that processing a request when the To field doesn't
match is a matter of policy.
o Bodies are now allowed in any request and response, including
CANCEL, although there may not be any semantics associated
with that.
o Supporting of INVITE without SDP is now a MUST (no strength
was previously specified).
o Registration procedures for visiting, which had a few
sentences in bis-04, have been removed. Roaming is a complex
issue, and should be treated elsewhere.
o Bis-04 mandated that a 2xx response to REGISTER contain
expires Contact parameters indicating the expiration time of a
contact. This behavior has now been made consistent with
requests, so that the expiration time of a contact is the same
Various Authors [Page 258]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
in either case: the expires param is used first if present,
then the Expires header if present, else one hour for SIP
URLs.
o Action parameter in contact registrations is deprecated.
o 2xx to REGISTER MUST contain current contacts. This was just a
SHOULD in bis-04.
o Multicast operation radically changed. Now, the treatment is
no different than unicast. That is, only the first non-1xx
response to a multicast request will be used. This is a
natural consequence of the layering now applied to the
protocol. This still enables anycast types of functions,
mirroring the real usage of registrar discovery.
o To completely separate transport rules from transaction rules,
the rule in bis-04 that said a UAC SHOULD keep a connection
opened until a response is received, has been turned into a
timer recommendation. Specifically, the spec now says that it
is RECOMMENDED that connections be kept opened for a minimum
interval of sufficient duration to guarantee, with high
probability, that responses are sent over the same connections
as a request.
o Re-use of existing connections for new requests to the same
address and port is now RECOMMENDED, it was only a MAY in
bis-04.
o Modification of headers below the Authorization header by
proxies is no longer disallowed, since the only mechanism that
used Authorization in that way, PGP, has been deprecated
previously.
o Authentication of registrations now RECOMMENDED; no strength
was defined previously.
o Registering of new headers with IANA is now SHOULD; no
strength was defined previously.
o Proxy aggregation of challenges now a SHOULD; no strength was
defined previously.
o Server support of basic authentication downgraded from SHOULD
to MAY.
o UAC resubmitting requests with credentials after a challenge
upgraded from MAY to SHOULD.
Various Authors [Page 259]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
o TLS is now RECOMMENDED as the transport layer security for SIP
signaling.
o UA recursion on a redirect is now SHOULD; no strength was
assigned previously.
o UA reuse of headers in a recursed request is now SHOULD; no
strength was assigned previously.
o Security considerations added for Call-Info and Alert-Info.
o Proxies no longer forward a 6xx immediately on receiving it.
Instead, they CANCEL pending branches immediately. This avoids
a potential race condition that would result in a UAC getting
a 6xx followed by a 2xx. In all cases except this race
condition, the result will be the same - the 6xx is forwarded
upstream.
o The term call-leg has been eliminated from the spec; a more
generic term, dialog, is used in its place.
o For SRV processing, subsequent requests with the same Call-ID
(as opposed to the same transaction in bis-04) are sent to the
same server.
o SRV processing generalized to deal with the fact that the
default port is transport dependent.
o Per IESG request, draft-ietf-sip-serverfeatures has been
integrated into bis.
o Per IESG request, draft-ietf-sip-100rel will be integrated
into bis. This is marked with a placeholder in this draft.
o The BNF has been converted from implicit LWS to explicit LWS.
o Caching of responses in a proxy to avoid redoing location
server lookups used to be a SHOULD. Caching behavior for
responses is now fully encapsulated in the transaction
processing.
o Proxy usage of SRV in processing Route headers upgraded from
SHOULD to MUST.
35 Changes Made in Version 06
o Made TCP mandatory for user agents.
Various Authors [Page 260]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
o The two states of a dialog are now called early and confirmed.
o CANCEL requests now carry Route header fields.
o Changes section in -05 forgot to mention the removal of the
Encryption and Response-Key headers. These were removed since
the only mechanism that used them, PGP, had already been
deprecated. As such, they were effectively "garbage
collected".
o Updated error in transaction definition. ACK-2xx is a separate
transaction, ACK for non-2xx is part of the same transaction.
o Changed Contact-Length typo to Content-Length in various
sections, including throughout the examples section.
o Changed Table 3 entry for Record-Route and Route for REGISTER
from "o" for optional to "-" for Not Allowed.
o Changed Table 3 entry for Route for ACK, BYE, CANCEL, INVITE,
and OPTIONS from "o" for optional to "c" for conditional,
depending on whether a route set has been defined for the
dialog or the response code.
o Updated Figure 5; adding missing label on "calling" to
"completed" transition.
o Fixed errored transport example from Section 19.2.1.
o Clarified that 17.2.3 and 17.1.3 are rules that define
retransmissions.
o fixed reported bugs in bnf (missing productions, bad tex
markup), etc. Added new SWS production to have an LWS which
allows zero spaces, and used that With any separators. Removed
the # rule.
o ACK for non-2xx has to have the same Route as the request its
acknowledging. The text formerly said that the ACK MUST NOT
contain Route, this has now radically changed to MUST have
Route if the request its cancelling had one.
o Clarified that stateless proxies apply Route processing logic
to CANCEL requests.
o Emphasized that escaping in the hostname portion of SIP URIs
is not currently allowed.
Various Authors [Page 261]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
o Added discussion on when configuration changes affect the
ability of a proxy to forward requests stateful or
statelessly.
o Explicitly stated that a proxy may add a Record-Route header
field value to any request.
o Added discussion on the use of To tags in hop-hop responses at
a proxy.
o Relaxed text concerning proxies forwarding CANCELs when a
matching response context can't be found to allow the CANCEL
to be processed statefully.
o Changed references to "short" form of SIP headers to "compact"
form.
o Changed Date example to a valid date.
o Clarified how ACK gets from transport to UAS core.
o Adding missing "SIP/2.0" to first REGISTER in the examples
section.
o Fixed bug in 17.2.3 which said that an ACK matched a server
transaction if the CSeq method (not number) matched that of
the INVITE. It should be the reverse; number, not method.
o Fixed bug in 22.15 where it said Content-Length instead of
Content-Type.
o Incorporated draft-ietf-sip-100rel-04 into bis.
o Reliability of provisional responses now only defined for
provisional responses to INVITE, although extension methods
can allow its usage. This is because PRACK needs to be sent
within the context of a dialog, and only responses to INVITE
establish dialogs.
o Can no longer send a reliable provisional response after a
final response; its not compatible with the transaction
machines, which generally assume no provisionals after a
final.
o Proxy behavior for reliable provisional responses no longer
defined separately; the spec states that it simply acts as a
uas.
Various Authors [Page 262]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
o Scope of Record-Route header fields for a reliable provisional
response is now the dialog rather than the particular request.
o Example PRACK flows were lost when incorporating into bis.
o Formal IANA registration of "100rel" option tag.
o If reliable provisional response gets no PRACK after 32*T1,
UAS sends 5xx to original request.
o Recommended UA behavior for caching credentials.
o Included guidelines for devices presenting pre-configured
credentials vs. prompting end users to provide credentials for
a specific realm.
o Added section on stateless UAS Behavior, clarifying secure
handling of unauthenticated requests to prevent potential DoS
threat.
o Provided motivation for aggregation of challenges in the
Security Considerations, and made the behavioral language
there more specific.
o Provided guidelines for the construction of realm strings for
authentication.
o Changed concept of protection domain for SIP so that it is no
longer defined by both a Request-URI and a realm; it is now
only defined by a realm.
o Put in some text encouraging UACs not to resubmit rejected
credentials when re-challenged.
o Added falsification of source IP address to the Via denial of
service attack case.
o Provided canonical MD5 hash for an empty message body to be
used in Digest integrity calculation.
o Added security considerations for the CANCEL and ACK methods.
o Deprecated and removed Basic auth scheme. Proxies MUST NOT
accept or request Basic.
o Strengthened language regarding the sending of the "qop"
parameter; receipt of cnonce is based on "qop".
Various Authors [Page 263]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
o Clarified the construction the URI in the Request-URI of
REGISTER requests.
o Noted that registrars SHOULD provide Date headers in 200 (OK)
responses to REGISTER, and that clients can use these Dates to
set their internal clocks.
o Processing of REGISTERs at a registrar now must be with
atomicity and isolation.
o Registrars now MUST process Require headers.
o Clarified CSeq increment over REGISTER messages for the same
Call-ID, and necessity of tracking Call-IDs and CSeqs for
contact addresses by a registrar
o Added registrar-side handling for
Contact: *
Expires: 0
o Added description generalizing processing of OPTIONS responses
to include proxies as well as UAS. Included language
describing use of Max-Forwards as a SIP capabilities
traceroute. Described construction of a Request-URI for an
OPTIONS sent to a proxy.
o Defined "Not Applicable" in Tables 2 and 3 to mean that the
header field is undefined and should be ignored if present.
o Removed old references to general headers in Table 3.
o Allowed a proxy to insert a Max-Forwards header field in Table
2. Also added description of the use of the header by elements
that can not otherwise guarantee loop detection.
o Fixed dialog matching reference in 22.37.
o Reinforced that all 6xx, including 603 and 606, are only sent
if the UAS knows that no other endpoint will accept the call.
o Clarified that for 302 responses, the Contact is used just
once to recurse a new transaction, unless an Expires header or
expires parameter is present.
o Clarified that 405 is sent when the server knows the method,
Various Authors [Page 264]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
but the method is not allowed for the resource in the
Request-URI. 501 is sent when the server has never heard of
the method at all.
o Included note that no MIME types for message bodies of 3xx
responses have been defined.
o Stated explicitly in Section 22.10 on Contact the rules for
parsing display names, URI and URI parameters, and header
parameters. Referenced this text in the sections on To and
From header fields.
o Corrected references in Timestamp section.
o Noted in Via section that the host or network address and port
part of the header does not follow the SIP URI syntax; spaces
around : are permitted. Also noted that spaces are permitted
around /. Modified an example to show this.
o Added text to describe the Contact header fields in a 2xx
response to an OPTIONS as having redirect semantics. Modified
example to show both a SIP and mailto Contact URI.
o Added text to describe the use of OPTIONS within a dialog to
query a peer for capabilities, and noted that the request has
no impact on the dialog.
o Added text to 302 (Moved Temporarily) section saying that if a
cached Contact URI fails, the request may be retried with the
original Request-URI. Removed recursion rules (moved to UA
section) and "call" specific language. Specifically stated
both proxies and Uas may cache URI for expiration interval.
o Added text to 488/606 section to allow SDP message bodies,
formatted the same as SDP in 200 (OK) responses to OPTIONS.
Removed text on SDP response message bodies from the Warning
section.
o Outbound server is now called outbound proxy
o Clarified that a transaction in the completed state is not "in
progress" when it comes to overlapping transactions.
o 488 response is used to reject an offer.
o Clarified how to reject an offer.
o Clarified that requests with To tag outside a dialog may have
Various Authors [Page 265]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
been simply missrouted.
o General UAS behaviour applies to CANCEL and BYE
o Clarified when to use BYE to terminate an early dialog.
o Explained when a UAS detects gaps in the Cseq space.
o Specified behavior for inclusion of bodies in ACK for non-2xx;
MUST be same type as request, or one of the types in Accept if
the response was 415.
o Updated the default value of timer D to be 32s, instead of T3.
o Clarified that RTT estimate of T1 applies to all requests and
responses sent to that IP address, and included a discussion
of how this is not quite right when there are stateless
proxies in the path.
o 180 (Ringing) responses for re-INVITEs are not typically
useful.
o ACKs MUST contain the same credentials as the INVITE.
o ACK for non-2xx responses needs to contain the same Route
headers as the request. Same reason CANCEL needs to.
o Increased minimum timer for holding persistent connections,
and clarified the reasoning behind the timer.
o Clarified that persistent connections are indexed by address,
port, transport, and that ephemeral source ports imply that
peering relationships will ususally involve two connections.
o Timer T3 no longer used; it was a dangling reference in bis-
05.
o Clarified Figure 7 to indicate that 100 is only sent if TU
won't respond in 200ms.
o Re-added text that said proxies MUST and UA SHOULD support
TCP, which somehow got accidentally deleted from bis-05.
o Clarified meaning of an empty Accept header field.
o Added RFC 2616 security warning about Server header field to
both Server and User-Agent header fields.
Various Authors [Page 266]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
o Added handling of transport failures to transaction state
machines, and added a section for server transactions.
o Disallowed port in To/From header URIs.
o Allowed password in both To and From header URIs.
o Disallowed the method URI parameter in REGISTER and Redirect
Contact header URIs.
o Absolved proxies from issuing CANCELs based on the Expires
header of an INVITE. Included text pointing out that they MAY
do so, but it is unnecessary.
o Clarified aggregating authentication challenges at a proxy.
o Added notice that even though proxies are required to CANCEL
outstanding client transactions upon forwarding a final
response, an endpoint may still receive multiple 200 (OK)
responses to an INVITE. Also noted that future extensions
could override the requirement to CANCEL.
o Reinforced that proxies must wait for provisional responses
before generating CANCEL requests.
o Request merging moved to general Ua behaviour section.
o Request processing is atomic.
o Clarified how to resolve glare conditions.
o Added UAs should ignore unknown extension header parameters.
o Clarified when quoted string vs. token can be used as a
display name.
o Explicitly stated that a header parameter name can appear at
most once per header field value.
o Noted that proxies no longer treat merged requests as an
error.
o Clarified that proxies can Record-Route header field values to
requests already in dialogs to improve robustness, but that
chosing not to do so will not normally cause them to be
removed from the path.
o Clarified that proxies do not remove any received parameters
Various Authors [Page 267]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
they may have added to Via header fields when forwarding
responses.
o Deprecated absolute time in Expires and Retry-After.
o Added pointer to what to do with responses that were meant for
a proxy
o Summarized stateful proxy forwarding behavior with respect to
what final responses get forwarded
o Clarified that elements on the start line of messages are
separated by a single SP character
o Explicitly stated that a SIP URI parameter name to occur at
most once in a URI.
o Changed Table 2 to show Accept, Accept-Encoding, Accept-
Language, and Supported as for a 2xx to an OPTIONS as m*
o Changed Table 2 to show Content-Length as "t", which is
defined to mean that it should be present, but must be present
if TCP is used.
o Added the notion that registrars that accept registrations on
a multicast interface might want to redirect registrations to
a unicast interface.
o Request merging now a behavior of the UA, rather than the
proxy server.
o Solidified the circumstances under which UAs should retry
rejected requests with the same Call-ID but a different CSeq.
o Corrected erroneous statement that contact addresses were not
cached across dialogs; now dependent on status code and
expiration interval.
o Tags are a MUST for non-100 provisionals, a MAY for 100
(Trying).
o Discouraged generation of 1xx respones to non-INVITE requests.
o Fixed references to Content handling headers in the UA
section.
o Timestamp headers must be copied from requests into a 100
Trying for RTT calculation.
Various Authors [Page 268]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
o Request processing is now said to be atomic.
o Potential infinite redirection loop problem fixed; redirect
servers MUST NOT send a redirect to the same URI they received
in the redirected request.
o Further specified which URIs servers can expect to see in
Request-URIs of requests (relationship to contact headers).
o Defined pre-loaded route headers.
o Clarified normative language of Accept-Encoding, Accept-
Language, and Content-Disposition in regard to no header being
present.
o Noted that "transport=TLS" in a SIP URI refers to TLS over
TCP.
o Refined discussion on forming requests based on a given SIP
URI.
o Clarified "matching the topmost Via" for stateless proxies.
o Added discussion of how proxies respond to transaction failure
and notification of state-machine timeouts.
o Corrected description of proxy behavior when recursing on 3xx
contacts to account for contacts not recursed on (such as
contacts containing non-SIP URIs).
o Added Reply-To header field.
o Clarified that responses to OPTIONS are scoped to the
Request-URI of the request.
o Added 491 (Request Pending) response code.
o Proxies should not remove malformed headers that it doesn't
care about when forwarding requests.
o Noted that proxies can't generate their own 1xx provisional
responses, but they can use a virutual colocated UAS to
achieve the same effect.
o Two SIP URIs which are identical with the exception of the
presence of an maddr parameter in one, and no maddr parameter
in the other are not equivalent.
Various Authors [Page 269]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
o Modified transaction, UA, and proxy sections so that branch ID
is now a unique transaction identifier. Updated all example
messages so that UAC insert branch ID, and magic cookie is
present in all branch ID values.
o CANCELs and ACKs MUST NOT contain Require or Proxy-Require
headers.
o A UA SHOULD NOT send re-INVITE or BYE upon media failure.
o Only SIP URIs can be used as addresses of record in REGISTER
requests.
o Registrars MUST NOT increase the expiration interval of
registrations. Intervals that are too short MAY be rejected
with a 423 w/ Min-Expires.
o Security Considerations substantially reorganized and
expanded.
o TLS support for proxy servers, registrars and redirect servers
now a MUST.
o Minimum ciphersuite for TLS now AES.
o S/MIME now slightly more implementable. S/MIME support is now
a SHOULD for UAs.
o S/MIME now relies on RFC 2633 CMS messages.
o Threat models against the SIP protocol are now provided.
o Example architectures in which security mechanisms might be
used are described.
o Limitations of security mechanisms are described.
o Added 493 (Undecipherable) response code.
o Fixed ACK column in Table 3 entry for Warning.
o Added text describing how to recurse on a 3xx as a UAC.
o SIP URIs are compared case-sensitive across the userpart,
case-insensitive everywhere else.
o Proxies strip transport and port when stripping maddr.
Various Authors [Page 270]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
o Port and transport apply to maddr when maddr is present in a
SIP URI.
o Restored record-route example from bis-04.
o Reinforced that SIP messages MAY contain binary bodies or body
parts.
o Added section discussing conversion of tel URLs to SIP URIs,
focusing on issues with maintaining equivalence.
o Clarified use of transaction key in building values to include
in Record-Route values.
o Clarified requirements on the inclusion of information in the
loop-detection hash used in branch parameters.
o Noted in the proxy section that Record-Route values are only
valid within the scope of the dialog in which they are
provided.
o Added definitions for redirect server, recursion, header,
message, request, response, and route refresh request.
o Placing headers needed by proxies (Via, Route, Record-Route,
etc.) at the top of messages is now RECOMMENDED.
o Reinforced that proxies processing messages do not fork, even
by recursingon returned 3xx responses.
o Removed restriction on proxies adding Record-Route to REGISTER
requests. Added that registrars ignore Record-Route if it
occurs.
o Allowed for loose-route policies, capturing use of default
outbound proxies as a loose route decision.
o The scope of Contact header fields is not limited to the
dialog.
o Added text saying that when the caller wishes to be anonymous,
the URI should be scrambled as well.
o Moved 485 response generation from UAS to proxy.
o Require MUST only reference standards track RFCs.
o Removed requirement on proxies to not forward a request to a
Various Authors [Page 271]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
multicast group that had already been visited.
o Deprecated loop-detection. Made Max-Forwards mandatory with an
initial value of 70. Proxies insert a Max-Forwards of 70 if
they find the header missing.
o Placed HTTP Digest and S/MIME in sections independent of the
security Considerations.
o Added 416 (Unsupported URI Scheme) and discussion on its
handling. Added guidance on how a UAC would select the URI in
the To/Request-URI based on user input.
o Noted that BYE without tags is now rejected, which is a
backwards compatibility break with RFC 2543.
o Reference offer-answer for formatting of SDP in OPTIONS
response, 488, 606.
o Timer C now managed by the TU. Proxies have a minimum of 3
minutes, but it is extended through provisional responses.
o Proxies can go stateless mid-transaction if they didn't do
anything that would have otherwise prevented them from being
stateless in the first place.
36 Acknowledgments
We wish to thank the members of the IETF MMUSIC and SIP WGs for their
comments and suggestions. Detailed comments were provided by Brian
Bidulock, Jim Buller, Neil Deason, Dave Devanathan, Cdric Fluckiger,
Yaron Goland, Bernie H÷neisen, Phil Hoffer, Christian Huitema, Jean
Jervis, Gadi Karmi, Peter Kjellerstedt, Anders Kristensen, Jonathan
Lennox, Gethin Liddell, Alison Mankin, Keith Moore, Vern Paxson,
Moshe J. Sambol, Chip Sharp, Igor Slepchin, Eric Tremblay., and Rick
Workman.
Brian Rosen provided the compiled BNF.
This work is based, inter alia, on [43,44].
37 Authors' Addresses
Authors addresses are listed alphabetically for the editors, the
writers, and then the original authors of RFC 2543. All listed
authors actively contributed large amounts of text to this document.
Jonathan Rosenberg
Various Authors [Page 272]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
dynamicsoft
72 Eagle Rock Ave
East Hanover, NJ 07936
USA
electronic mail: jdrosen@dynamicsoft.com
Henning Schulzrinne
Dept. of Computer Science
Columbia University
1214 Amsterdam Avenue
New York, NY 10027
USA
electronic mail: schulzrinne@cs.columbia.edu
Gonzalo Camarillo
Ericsson
Advanced Signalling Research Lab.
FIN-02420 Jorvas
Finland
electronic mail: Gonzalo.Camarillo@ericsson.com
Alan Johnston
WorldCom
100 South 4th Street
St. Louis, MO 63102
USA
electronic mail: alan.johnston@wcom.com
Jon Peterson
NeuStar, Inc
1800 Sutter Street, Suite 570
Concord, CA 94520
USA
electronic mail: jon.peterson@neustar.com
Robert Sparks
dynamicsoft, Inc.
5100 Tennyson Parkway
Suite 1200
Plano, Texas 75024
USA
electronic mail: rsparks@dynamicsoft.com
Mark Handley
ACIRI
electronic mail: mjh@aciri.org
Eve Schooler
Various Authors [Page 273]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
Computer Science Department 256-80
California Institute of Technology
Pasadena, CA 91125
USA
electronic mail: schooler@cs.caltech.edu
38 Bibliography
[1] R. Pandya, "Emerging mobile and personal communication systems,"
IEEE Communications Magazine , Vol. 33, pp. 44--52, June 1995.
[2] H. Schulzrinne, S. Casner, R. Frederick, and V. Jacobson, "RTP: a
transport protocol for real-time applications," Request for Comments
1889, Internet Engineering Task Force, Jan. 1996.
[3] H. Schulzrinne, A. Rao, and R. Lanphier, "Real time streaming
protocol (RTSP)," Request for Comments 2326, Internet Engineering
Task Force, Apr. 1998.
[4] F. Cuervo, N. Greene, A. Rayhan, C. Huitema, B. Rosen, and J.
Segers, "Megaco protocol version 1.0," Request for Comments 3015,
Internet Engineering Task Force, Nov. 2000.
[5] M. Handley and V. Jacobson, "SDP: session description protocol,"
Request for Comments 2327, Internet Engineering Task Force, Apr.
1998.
[6] S. Bradner, "Key words for use in RFCs to indicate requirement
levels," Request for Comments 2119, Internet Engineering Task Force,
Mar. 1997.
[7] P. Resnick and Editor, "Internet message format," Request for
Comments 2822, Internet Engineering Task Force, Apr. 2001.
[8] H. Schulzrinne and J. Rosenberg, "SIP: Session initiation
protocol -- locating SIP servers," Internet Draft, Internet
Engineering Task Force, Mar. 2001. Work in progress.
[9] T. Berners-Lee, R. Fielding, and L. Masinter, "Uniform resource
identifiers (URI): generic syntax," Request for Comments 2396,
Internet Engineering Task Force, Aug. 1998.
[10] T. Berners-Lee, L. Masinter, and M. McCahill, "Uniform resource
locators (URL)," Request for Comments 1738, Internet Engineering Task
Force, Dec. 1994.
[11] F. Yergeau, "UTF-8, a transformation format of ISO 10646,"
Request for Comments 2279, Internet Engineering Task Force, Jan.
Various Authors [Page 274]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
1998.
[12] R. Fielding, J. Gettys, J. Mogul, H. Frystyk, L. Masinter, P.
Leach, and T. Berners-Lee, "Hypertext transfer protocol -- HTTP/1.1,"
Request for Comments 2616, Internet Engineering Task Force, June
1999.
[13] A. Vaha-Sipila, "URLs for telephone calls," Request for Comments
2806, Internet Engineering Task Force, Apr. 2000.
[14] N. Freed and N. Borenstein, "Multipurpose internet mail
extensions (MIME) part two: Media types," Request for Comments 2046,
Internet Engineering Task Force, Nov. 1996.
[15] D. Eastlake, S. Crocker, and J. Schiller, "Randomness
recommendations for security," Request for Comments 1750, Internet
Engineering Task Force, Dec. 1994.
[16] P. Hoffman, L. Masinter, and J. Zawinski, "The mailto URL
scheme," Request for Comments 2368, Internet Engineering Task Force,
July 1998.
[17] D. Meyer, "Administratively scoped IP multicast," Request for
Comments 2365, Internet Engineering Task Force, July 1998.
[18] E. M. Schooler, "A multicast user directory service for
synchronous rendezvous," Master's Thesis CS-TR-96-18, Department of
Computer Science, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena,
California, Aug. 1996.
[19] J. Rosenberg and H. Schulzrinne, "An offer/answer model with
SDP," Internet Draft, Internet Engineering Task Force, Oct. 2001.
Work in progress.
[20] S. Donovan, "The SIP INFO method," Request for Comments 2976,
Internet Engineering Task Force, Oct. 2000.
[21] R. Rivest, "The MD5 message-digest algorithm," Request for
Comments 1321, Internet Engineering Task Force, Apr. 1992.
[22] V. Paxson and M. Allman, "Computing TCP's retransmission timer,"
Request for Comments 2988, Internet Engineering Task Force, Nov.
2000.
[23] J. Franks, P. Hallam-Baker, J. Hostetler, S. Lawrence, P. Leach,
A. Luotonen, and L. Stewart, "HTTP authentication: Basic and digest
access authentication," Request for Comments 2617, Internet
Engineering Task Force, June 1999.
Various Authors [Page 275]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
[24] J. Franks, P. Hallam-Baker, J. Hostetler, P. Leach, A. Luotonen,
E. Sink, and L. Stewart, "An extension to HTTP : Digest access
authentication," Request for Comments 2069, Internet Engineering Task
Force, Jan. 1997.
[25] J. Galvin, S. Murphy, S. Crocker, and N. Freed, "Security
multiparts for MIME: multipart/signed and multipart/encrypted,"
Request for Comments 1847, Internet Engineering Task Force, Oct.
1995.
[26] R. Housley, "Cryptographic message syntax," Request for Comments
2630, Internet Engineering Task Force, June 1999.
[27] B. Ramsdell and Ed, "S/MIME version 3 message specification,"
Request for Comments 2633, Internet Engineering Task Force, June
1999.
[28] T. Dierks and C. Allen, "The TLS protocol version 1.0," Request
for Comments 2246, Internet Engineering Task Force, Jan. 1999.
[29] S. Kent and R. Atkinson, "Security architecture for the internet
protocol," Request for Comments 2401, Internet Engineering Task
Force, Nov. 1998.
[30] J. Postel, "User datagram protocol," Request for Comments 768,
Internet Engineering Task Force, Aug. 1980.
[31] J. Postel, "DoD standard transmission control protocol," Request
for Comments 761, Internet Engineering Task Force, Jan. 1980.
[32] R. Stewart, Q. Xie, K. Morneault, C. Sharp, H. Schwarzbauer, T.
Taylor, I. Rytina, M. Kalla, L. Zhang, and V. Paxson, "Stream control
transmission protocol," Request for Comments 2960, Internet
Engineering Task Force, Oct. 2000.
[33] F. Dawson and T. Howes, "vcard MIME directory profile," Request
for Comments 2426, Internet Engineering Task Force, Sept. 1998.
[34] G. Good, "The LDAP data interchange format (LDIF) - technical
specification," Request for Comments 2849, Internet Engineering Task
Force, June 2000.
[35] R. Troost and S. Dorner, "Communicating presentation information
in internet messages: The content-disposition header," Request for
Comments 1806, Internet Engineering Task Force, June 1995.
[36] R. Braden and Ed, "Requirements for internet hosts - application
and support," Request for Comments 1123, Internet Engineering Task
Various Authors [Page 276]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
Force, Oct. 1989.
[37] J. Palme, "Common internet message headers," Request for
Comments 2076, Internet Engineering Task Force, Feb. 1997.
[38] H. Alvestrand, "IETF policy on character sets and languages,"
Request for Comments 2277, Internet Engineering Task Force, Jan.
1998.
[39] A. Johnston, S. Donovan, R. Sparks, C. Cunningham, D. Willis, J.
Rosenberg, K. Summers, and H. Schulzrinne, "SIP telephony call flow
examples," Internet Draft, Internet Engineering Task Force, Apr.
2001. Work in progress.
[40] D. Crocker, Ed., and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for syntax
specifications: ABNF," Request for Comments 2234, Internet
Engineering Task Force, Nov. 1997.
[41] H. Schulzrinne, "RTP profile for audio and video conferences
with minimal control," Request for Comments 1890, Internet
Engineering Task Force, Jan. 1996.
[42] R. Hinden, B. Carpenter, and L. Masinter, "Format for literal
IPv6 addresses in URL's," Request for Comments 2732, Internet
Engineering Task Force, Dec. 1999.
[43] E. M. Schooler, "Case study: multimedia conference control in a
packet-switched teleconferencing system," Journal of Internetworking:
Research and Experience , Vol. 4, pp. 99--120, June 1993. ISI
reprint series ISI/RS-93-359.
[44] H. Schulzrinne, "Personal mobility for multimedia services in
the Internet," in European Workshop on Interactive Distributed
Multimedia Systems and Services (IDMS) , (Berlin, Germany), Mar.
1996.
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (c) The Internet Society (2002). All Rights Reserved.
This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published
and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any
kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are
included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this
document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
Various Authors [Page 277]
Internet Draft SIP January 28, 2002
the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of
developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for
copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be
followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than
English.
The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.
This document and the information contained herein is provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING
TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS 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.
Various Authors [Page 278]
