Network Working Group P. Saint-Andre
Internet-Draft Cisco Systems, Inc.
Intended status: Informational A. Houri
Expires: April 18, 2013 IBM
J. Hildebrand
Cisco Systems, Inc.
October 15, 2012
Interworking between the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) and the
Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP): Core
draft-saintandre-sip-xmpp-core-02
Abstract
As a foundation for the definition of application-specific, bi-
directional protocol mappings between the Session Initiation Protocol
(SIP) and the Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP), this
document specifies the architectural assumptions underlying such
mappings as well as the mapping of addresses and error conditions.
Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on April 18, 2013.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2012 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
Saint-Andre, et al. Expires April 18, 2013 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft SIP-XMPP Interworking: Core October 2012
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF
Contributions published or made publicly available before November
10, 2008. The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this
material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow
modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process.
Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling
the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified
outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may
not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format
it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other
than English.
Saint-Andre, et al. Expires April 18, 2013 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft SIP-XMPP Interworking: Core October 2012
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Architectural Assumptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. Address Mapping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.1. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.2. SIP to XMPP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.3. XMPP to SIP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5. Error Condition Mapping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.1. XMPP to SIP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.2. SIP to XMPP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Saint-Andre, et al. Expires April 18, 2013 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft SIP-XMPP Interworking: Core October 2012
1. Introduction
The IETF has worked on two signalling technologies that can be used
for multimedia session negotiation, messaging, presence, capabilities
discovery, notifications, and other application-level functionality:
o The Session Initiation Protocol [RFC3261], along with various SIP
extensions developed within the SIP for Instant Messaging and
Presence Leveraging Extensions (SIMPLE) Working Group.
o The Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol [RFC6120], along
with various XMPP extensions developed by the IETF as well as by
the XMPP Standards Foundation.
Because these technologies are widely deployed, it is important to
clearly define mappings between them for the sake of interworking.
This document inaugurates a series of SIP-XMPP interworking
specifications by defining the architectural assumptions underlying
such mappings as well as the mapping of addresses and error
conditions.
2. Terminology
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
[RFC2119].
3. Architectural Assumptions
Protocol translation between SIP and XMPP could occur in a number of
different entities, depending on the architecture of presence and
messaging deployments. For example, protocol translation could occur
within a multi-protocol server, within a multi-protocol client, or
within a gateway that acts as a dedicated protocol translator.
This document assumes that the protocol translation will occur within
a gateway. (This assumption not meant to discourage protocol
translation within multi-protocol clients or servers; instead, this
assumption is followed mainly to clarify the discussion and examples
so that the protocol translation principles can be more easily
understood and can be applied by client and server implementors with
appropriate modifications to the examples and terminology.)
Specifically, we assume that the protocol translation will occur
within an "XMPP-to-SIP gateway" that translates XMPP syntax and
semantics on behalf of an XMPP service when communicating with SIP
services and/or within a "SIP-to-XMPP gateway" that translates SIP
Saint-Andre, et al. Expires April 18, 2013 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft SIP-XMPP Interworking: Core October 2012
syntax and semantics on behalf of a SIP service when communicating
with XMPP services.
This document assumes that a gateway will translate directly from one
protocol to the other. We further assume that protocol translation
will occur within a gateway in the source domain, so that messages
and presence information generated by the user of an XMPP service
will be translated by a gateway within the trust domain of that XMPP
service, and messages and presence information generated by the user
of a SIP service will be translated by a gateway within the trust
domain of that SIP service.
An architectural diagram for a typical gateway deployment is shown
below, where the entities have the following significance and the "#"
character is used to show the boundary of a trust domain:
o romeo@example.net -- a SIP user.
o example.net -- a SIP service.
o s2x.example.net -- a SIP-to-XMPP gateway.
o juliet@example.com -- an XMPP user.
o example.com -- an XMPP service.
o x2s.example.com -- an XMPP-to-SIP gateway.
#####################################################################
# # #
# +-- s2x.example.net---#------------- example.com #
# | # | | #
# example.net -----------------#--- x2s.example.com | #
# | # | #
# | # | #
# romeo@example.net # juliet@example.com #
# # #
#####################################################################
4. Address Mapping
4.1. Overview
The basic SIP address format is a "sip:" or "sips:" URI as specified
in [RFC3261]. When a SIP entity supports extensions for instant
messageing it may be identified by an 'im:' URI as specified in the
Common Profile for Instant Messaging [RFC3860] (see [RFC3428]) and
when a SIP entity spports extensions for presence it may be
identified by a 'pres:' URI as specified in the Common Profile for
Presence [RFC3859] (see [RFC3856]).
The XMPP address format is specified in [RFC6122]; as specified in
Saint-Andre, et al. Expires April 18, 2013 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft SIP-XMPP Interworking: Core October 2012
[RFC6121], instant messaging and presence applications of XMPP must
also support 'im:' and 'pres:' URIs as specified in [RFC3860] and
[RFC3859] respectively, although such support may simply involve
leaving resolution of such addresses up to an XMPP server.
In this document we describe mappings for addresses of the form
<user@domain> only, ignoring (for the purpose of address mapping) any
protocol-specific extensions such as SIP telephone numbers and
passwords or XMPP resource identifiers. In addition, we have ruled
the mapping of domain names as out of scope for now since that is a
matter for the Domain Name System; specifically, the issue for
interworking between SIP and XMPP relates to the translation of fully
internationalized domain names (which the SIP address format does not
allow, but which the XMPP address format does allow via
Internationalized Domain Names in Applications, see [RFC6122] and
[I-D.ietf-xmpp-6122bis]) into non-internationalized domain names.
Therefore, in the following sections we discuss local-part addresses
only (these are called variously "usernames", "instant inboxes",
"presentities", and "node identifiers" in the protocols at issue).
The sip:/sips:, im:/pres:, and XMPP address schemes allow different
sets of characters (although all three allow alphanumeric characters
and disallow both spaces and control characters). In some cases,
characters allowed in one scheme are disallowed in others; these
characters must be mapped appropriately in order to ensure
interworking across systems.
The local-part address in sip:/sips: URIs inherits from the
"userinfo" rule in [RFC3986] with several changes; here we discuss
the SIP "user" rule only:
user = 1*( unreserved / escaped / user-unreserved )
user-unreserved = "&" / "=" / "+" / "$" / "," / ";" / "?" / "/"
unreserved = alphanum / mark
mark = "-" / "_" / "." / "!" / "~" / "*" / "'"
/ "(" / ")"
Here we make the simplifying assumption that the local-part address
in im:/pres: URIs inherits from the "dot-atom-text" rule in [RFC5322]
rather than the more complicated "local-part" rule:
Saint-Andre, et al. Expires April 18, 2013 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft SIP-XMPP Interworking: Core October 2012
dot-atom-text = 1*atext *("." 1*atext)
atext = ALPHA / DIGIT / ; Any character except controls,
"!" / "#" / ; SP, and specials.
"$" / "%" / ; Used for atoms
"&" / "'" /
"*" / "+" /
"-" / "/" /
"=" / "?" /
"^" / "_" /
"`" / "{" /
"|" / "}" /
"~"
The local-part address in XMPP addresses allows any US-ASCII
character except space, controls, and the " & ' / : < > @ characters.
Therefore, following table lists the allowed and disallowed
characters in the local-part addresses of each protocol (aside from
the alphanumeric, space, and control characters), in order by
hexadecimal character number (where the "A" row shows the allowed
characters and the "D" row shows the disallowed characters).
Table 1: Allowed and disallowed characters
+---+----------------------------------+
| SIP/SIPS CHARACTERS |
+---+----------------------------------+
| A | ! $ &'()*+,-./ ; = ? _ ~ |
| D | "# % : < > @[\]^ `{|} |
+---+----------------------------------+
| IM/PRES CHARACTERS |
+---+----------------------------------+
| A | ! #$%&' *+ - / = ? ^_`{|}~ |
| D | " () , . :;< > @[\] |
+---+----------------------------------+
| XMPP CHARACTERS |
+---+----------------------------------+
| A | ! #$% ()*+,-. ; = ? [\]^_`{|}~ |
| D | " &' /: < > @ |
+---+----------------------------------+
When transforming a local-part address from one scheme to another, an
application SHOULD proceed as follows:
1. Unescape any escaped characters in the source address (e.g., from
SIP to XMPP unescape "%2F" to "/" and from XMPP to SIP unescape
"\27" to "'").
Saint-Andre, et al. Expires April 18, 2013 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft SIP-XMPP Interworking: Core October 2012
2. Leave unmodified any characters that are allowed in the
destination scheme.
3. Escape any characters that are allowed in the source scheme but
reserved in the destination scheme, as escaping is defined for
the destination scheme. In particular:
* Where the destination scheme is a URI (i.e., an im:, pres:,
sip:, or sips: URI), each reserved character MUST be percent-
encoded to "%hexhex" as specified in Section 2.6 of [RFC4395]
(e.g., when transforming from XMPP to SIP, encode "/" as
"%2F").
* Where the destination scheme is a native XMPP address, each
reserved character MUST be encoded to "\hexhex" as specified
in [XEP-0106] (e.g., when transforming from SIP to XMPP,
encode "'" as "\27").
4.2. SIP to XMPP
The following is a high-level algorithm for mapping a sip:, sips:,
im:, or pres: URI to an XMPP address:
1. Remove URI scheme.
2. Split at the first '@' character into local-part and hostname
(mapping the latter is out of scope).
3. Translate %hexhex to equivalent octets.
4. Treat result as a UTF-8 string.
5. Translate "&" to "\26", "'" to "\27", and "/" to "\2f"
respectively in order to properly handle the characters
disallowed in XMPP addresses but allowed in sip:/sips: URIs and
im:/pres: URIs as shown in Column 3 of Table 3 above (this is
consistent with [XEP-0106]).
6. Apply Nodeprep profile of Stringprep [RFC3454] or its replacement
(see [RFC6122] and [I-D.ietf-xmpp-6122bis]) for canonicalization
(OPTIONAL).
7. Recombine local-part with mapped hostname to form local@domain
address.
4.3. XMPP to SIP
The following is a high-level algorithm for mapping an XMPP address
to a sip:, sips:, im:, or pres: URI:
1. Split XMPP address into node identifier (local-part; mapping
described in remaining steps), domain identifier (hostname;
mapping is out of scope), and resource identifier (specifier for
particular device or connection; discard this for cross-system
interworking).
Saint-Andre, et al. Expires April 18, 2013 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft SIP-XMPP Interworking: Core October 2012
2. Apply Nodeprep profile of [RFC3454] or its replacement (see
[RFC6122] and [I-D.ietf-xmpp-6122bis]) for canonicalization
(OPTIONAL).
3. Translate "\26" to "&", "\27" to "'", and "\2f" to "/"
respectively (this is consistent with [XEP-0106]).
4. Determine if the foreign domain supports im: and pres: URIs
(discovered via [RFC2782] lookup as specified in [RFC6121]), else
assume that the foreign domain supports sip:/sips: URIs.
5. If converting into im: or pres: URI, for each byte, if the byte
is in the set (),.;[\] (i.e., the partial complement from Row 3,
Column 2 of Table 3 above) or is a UTF-8 character outside the
US-ASCII range then transform that byte to %hexhex. If
converting into sip: or sips: URI, for each byte, if the byte is
in the set #%[\]^`{|} (i.e., the partial complement from Row 3,
Column 1 of Table 3 above) or is a UTF-8 character outside the
US-ASCII range then transform that byte to %hexhex.
6. Combine resulting local-part with mapped hostname to form
local@domain address.
7. Prepend with 'im:' scheme (for XMPP <message/> stanzas) or
'pres:' scheme (for XMPP <presence/> stanzas) if foreign domain
supports these, else prepend with 'sip:' or 'sips:' scheme
according to local service policy.
5. Error Condition Mapping
SIP response codes are specified in [RFC3261] and XMPP error
conditions are specified in [RFC6120].
Saint-Andre, et al. Expires April 18, 2013 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft SIP-XMPP Interworking: Core October 2012
5.1. XMPP to SIP
Table 8: Mapping of XMPP error conditions to SIP response codes
+------------------------------+---------------------+
| XMPP Error Condition | SIP Response Code |
+------------------------------+---------------------+
| <bad-request/> | 400 |
| <conflict/> | 400 |
| <feature-not-implemented/> | 501 |
| <forbidden/> | 403 |
| <gone/> | 410 |
| <internal-server-error/> | 500 |
| <item-not-found/> | 404 |
| <jid-malformed/> | 484 |
| <not-acceptable/> | 406 |
| <not-allowed/> | 405 |
| <not-authorized/> | 401 |
| <payment-required/> | 402 |
| <recipient-unavailable/> | 480 |
| <redirect/> | 300 |
| <registration-required/> | 407 |
| <remote-server-not-found/> | 502 |
| <remote-server-timeout/> | 504 |
| <resource-constraint/> | 500 |
| <service-unavailable/> | 503 |
| <subscription-required/> | 407 |
| <undefined-condition/> | 400 |
| <unexpected-request/> | 491 |
+------------------------------+---------------------+
5.2. SIP to XMPP
The mapping of SIP response codes to XMPP error conditions SHOULD be
as follows (note that XMPP does not include 100-series or 200-series
response codes, only error conditions):
Table 9: Mapping of SIP response codes to XMPP error conditions
Saint-Andre, et al. Expires April 18, 2013 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft SIP-XMPP Interworking: Core October 2012
+---------------------+------------------------------+
| SIP Response Code | XMPP Error Condition |
+---------------------+------------------------------+
| 300 | <redirect/> |
| 301 | <gone/> |
| 302 | <redirect/> |
| 305 | <redirect/> |
| 380 | <not-acceptable/> |
| 400 | <bad-request/> |
| 401 | <not-authorized/> |
| 402 | <payment-required/> |
| 403 | <forbidden/> |
| 404 | <item-not-found/> |
| 405 | <not-allowed/> |
| 406 | <not-acceptable/> |
| 407 | <registration-required/> |
| 408 | <service-unavailable/> |
| 410 | <gone/> |
| 413 | <bad-request/> |
| 414 | <bad-request/> |
| 415 | <bad-request/> |
| 416 | <bad-request/> |
| 420 | <bad-request/> |
| 421 | <bad-request/> |
| 423 | <bad-request/> |
| 480 | <recipient-unavailable/> |
| 481 | <item-not-found/> |
| 482 | <not-acceptable/> |
| 483 | <not-acceptable/> |
| 484 | <jid-malformed/> |
| 485 | <item-not-found/> |
| 486 | <service-unavailable/> |
| 487 | <service-unavailable/> |
| 488 | <not-acceptable/> |
| 491 | <unexpected-request/> |
| 493 | <bad-request/> |
| 500 | <internal-server-error/> |
| 501 | <feature-not-implemented/> |
| 502 | <remote-server-not-found/> |
| 503 | <service-unavailable/> |
| 504 | <remote-server-timeout/> |
| 505 | <not-acceptable/> |
| 513 | <bad-request/> |
| 600 | <service-unavailable/> |
| 603 | <service-unavailable/> |
| 604 | <item-not-found/> |
| 606 | <not-acceptable/> |
+---------------------+------------------------------+
Saint-Andre, et al. Expires April 18, 2013 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft SIP-XMPP Interworking: Core October 2012
6. Security Considerations
Detailed security considerations for SIP are given in [RFC3261] and
for XMPP in [RFC6120].
7. IANA Considerations
This document requests no actions of IANA.
8. References
8.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC3261] Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., Camarillo, G., Johnston,
A., Peterson, J., Sparks, R., Handley, M., and E.
Schooler, "SIP: Session Initiation Protocol", RFC 3261,
June 2002.
[RFC3986] Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform
Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax", STD 66,
RFC 3986, January 2005.
[RFC4395] Hansen, T., Hardie, T., and L. Masinter, "Guidelines and
Registration Procedures for New URI Schemes", RFC 4395,
February 2006.
[RFC6120] Saint-Andre, P., "Extensible Messaging and Presence
Protocol (XMPP): Core", RFC 6120, March 2011.
[RFC6122] Saint-Andre, P., "Extensible Messaging and Presence
Protocol (XMPP): Address Format", RFC 6122, March 2011.
8.2. Informative References
[RFC2782] Gulbrandsen, A., Vixie, P., and L. Esibov, "A DNS RR for
specifying the location of services (DNS SRV)", RFC 2782,
February 2000.
[RFC3428] Campbell, B., Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., Huitema, C.,
and D. Gurle, "Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Extension
for Instant Messaging", RFC 3428, December 2002.
[RFC3454] Hoffman, P. and M. Blanchet, "Preparation of
Saint-Andre, et al. Expires April 18, 2013 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft SIP-XMPP Interworking: Core October 2012
Internationalized Strings ("STRINGPREP")", RFC 3454,
December 2002.
[RFC3856] Rosenberg, J., "A Presence Event Package for the Session
Initiation Protocol (SIP)", RFC 3856, August 2004.
[RFC3859] Peterson, J., "Common Profile for Presence (CPP)",
RFC 3859, August 2004.
[RFC3860] Peterson, J., "Common Profile for Instant Messaging
(CPIM)", RFC 3860, August 2004.
[RFC5322] Resnick, P., Ed., "Internet Message Format", RFC 5322,
October 2008.
[RFC6121] Saint-Andre, P., "Extensible Messaging and Presence
Protocol (XMPP): Instant Messaging and Presence",
RFC 6121, March 2011.
[I-D.ietf-xmpp-6122bis]
Saint-Andre, P., "Extensible Messaging and Presence
Protocol (XMPP): Address Format",
draft-ietf-xmpp-6122bis-04 (work in progress),
September 2012.
[XEP-0106]
Saint-Andre, P. and J. Hildebrand, "JID Escaping", XSF
XEP 0106, May 2005.
Authors' Addresses
Peter Saint-Andre
Cisco Systems, Inc.
1899 Wynkoop Street, Suite 600
Denver, CO 80202
USA
Phone: +1-303-308-3282
Email: psaintan@cisco.com
Saint-Andre, et al. Expires April 18, 2013 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft SIP-XMPP Interworking: Core October 2012
Avshalom Houri
IBM
Building 18/D, Kiryat Weizmann Science Park
Rehovot 76123
Israel
Email: avshalom@il.ibm.com
Joe Hildebrand
Cisco Systems, Inc.
1899 Wynkoop Street, Suite 600
Denver, CO 80202
USA
Email: jhildebr@cisco.com
Saint-Andre, et al. Expires April 18, 2013 [Page 14]