DISPATCH Working Group G. Salgueiro Internet-Draft Cisco Updates: 6873 (if approved) V. Pascual Intended status: Standards Track A. Roman Expires: December 28, 2014 S. Garcia Quobis June 26, 2014 Indicating WebSocket Protocol as a Transport in the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Common Log Format (CLF) draft-salgueiro-dispatch-websocket-sipclf-02 Abstract RFC 7118 [RFC7118] specifies a WebSocket sub-protocol as a reliable real-time transport mechanism between SIP (Session Initiation Protocol) entities to enable usage of SIP in web-oriented deployments. This document updates the SIP Common Log Format (CLF), defined in RFC 6873 [RFC6873], with a new "Transport Flag" for such SIP WebSocket transport. 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 December 28, 2014. Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2014 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 Salgueiro, et al. Expires December 28, 2014 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft WebSocket Transport in SIP CLF June 2014 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License. Table of Contents 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 3. Document Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 4. Usage of the Websocket Transport Flag . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 5. Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 5.1. SIP over WebSocket (WS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 5.2. SIP over Secure WebSocket (WSS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 1. Introduction The WebSocket protocol [RFC6455] enables bi-directional message exchange between clients and servers on top of a persistent TCP connection (optionally secured with TLS [RFC5246]). The initial protocol handshake makes use of HTTP [RFC7230] semantics, allowing the WebSocket protocol to reuse existing transport connections. RFC 7118 [RFC7118] defines a WebSocket sub-protocol for transporting SIP messages between a WebSocket client and server. SIP messages can be logged using the Common Log Format defined in RFC 6873 [RFC6873]. In order to make such SIP CLF logging possible for SIP messages transported over the WebSocket protocol, a new WebSocket "Transport Flag" ('W') must be added to the "Transport Flags" already defined in RFC 6873 [RFC6873] (i.e., UDP, TCP and SCTP). This document updates RFC 6873 [RFC6873] by defining a new SIP CLF "Transport Flag" value for WebSocket. 2. Terminology The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. Salgueiro, et al. Expires December 28, 2014 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft WebSocket Transport in SIP CLF June 2014 3. Document Conventions This document contains several examples of SIP CLF records showing messages over plain and secure WebSocket connections. The formatting described in this document does not permit the examples to be unambiguously rendered due to the constraints imposed by the formatting rules for RFCs. To avoid ambiguity and to meet the RFC layout requirements, this document uses the <allOneLine/> markup convention established in [RFC4475]. This markup convention is described in detail in Section 3 of RFC 6873 [RFC6873] and used throughout that document for representing the syntax of SIP CLF records. 4. Usage of the Websocket Transport Flag Section 4.2 of RFC6873 [RFC6873] specifies the mandatory fields in a SIP CLF record. The fourth and fifth bytes of the five byte "Flags Field" are the "Transport Flag" and the "Encryption Flag" respectively. SIP messages transported over both a plain and secure WebSocket connection can be clearly distinguished by appropriately setting these two flag fields. The currently registered values of the "Transport Flag" (Section 9.2 of RFC 6873) are [UDP ('U'), TCP ('T'), and SCTP ('S')]. This document defines and registers a new "Transport Flag" value 'W' for WebSocket transport of SIP messages and consequently updates RFC 6873 [RFC6873] and the IANA "SIP CLF Transport Flag Values" registry. SIP CLF records of messages transported over a plain WebSocket connection (WS) MUST set the "Transport Flag" to this new 'W' value and the "Encryption Flag" value to 'U' (Unencrypted). SIP CLF records of messages transported over a secure WebSocket (WSS) connection (i.e. WS over TLS) MUST set the "Transport Flag" to this new 'W' value and the "Encryption Flag" value to 'E' (Encrypted). 5. Examples The following examples show sample SIP CLF records logged for SIP messages transported over both plain and secure WebSocket connections. 5.1. SIP over WebSocket (WS) The following example represents a SIP INVITE request sent over a plain WebSocket connection. For the sake of brevity, the Session Description Protocol (SDP) [RFC4566] body is omitted. Salgueiro, et al. Expires December 28, 2014 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft WebSocket Transport in SIP CLF June 2014 INVITE sip:bob@example.com SIP/2.0 Via: SIP/2.0/WS df7jal23ls0d.invalid;branch=z9hG4bK56sdasks From: sip:alice@example.com;tag=asdyka899 To: sip:bob@example.com Call-ID: asidkj3ss CSeq: 1 INVITE Max-Forwards: 70 Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2014 15:02:03 GMT Supported: path, outbound, gruu Route: <sip:proxy.example.com:80;transport=ws;lr> Contact: <sip:alice@example.com;gr=urn:uuid:f81-7dec-14a06cf1;ob> Content-Type: application/sdp Content-Length: 418 Shown below is approximately how this message would appear as a single record in a SIP CLF logging file if encoded according to the syntax described in [RFC6873]. Due to RFC conventions, this log entry has been split into five lines, instead of the two lines that actually appear in a log file; and the Tab characters have been padded out using spaces to simulate their appearance in a text terminal. A0000E7,0053005C005E00720080009200A600A800BE00C800D200DE00E7 <allOneLine> 1328821153.010 RORWU 1 INVITE - sip:bob@example.com 192.0.2.10:80 192.0.2.200:56485 sip:bob@example.com - sip:alice@example.com asdyka899 asidkj3ss S1781761-88 C67651-11 </allOneLine> A bit-exact version of the actual log entry is provided here, Base64 encoded [RFC4648], using the uuencode utility. begin-base64 644 clf_ws_record QTAwMDBFNywwMDUzMDA1QzAwNUUwMDcyMDA4MDAwOTIwMEE2MDBBODAwQkUwMEM4MDBE MjAwREUwMEU3CjEzMjg4MjExNTMuMDEwCVJPUldVCTEgSU5WSVRFCS0Jc2lwOmJvYkBl eGFtcGxlLmNvbQkxOTIuMC4yLjEwOjgwCTE5Mi4wLjIuMjAwOjU2NDg1CXNpcDpib2JA ZXhhbXBsZS5jb20JLQlzaXA6YWxpY2VAZXhhbXBsZS5jb20JYXNkeWthODk5CWFzaWRr ajNzcwlTMTc4MTc2MS04OAlDNjc2NTEtMTEKCg== ==== The original SIP CLF format can be obtained by reversing the effects of uuencode by simply applying the uudecode transform. Additionally, Salgueiro, et al. Expires December 28, 2014 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft WebSocket Transport in SIP CLF June 2014 to recover the unencoded file, the Base64 text above may be passed as input to the following perl script (the output should be redirected to a file). <CODE BEGINS> #!/usr/bin/perl use strict; my $bdata = ""; use MIME::Base64; while(<>) { if (/begin-base64 644 clf_ws_record/ .. /-- ==== --/) { if ( m/^\s*[^\s]+\s*$/) { $bdata = $bdata . $_; } } } print decode_base64($bdata); <CODE ENDS> 5.2. SIP over Secure WebSocket (WSS) The following example represents a SIP INVITE request sent over a secure WebSocket connection (i.e., WebSocket over TLS [RFC5246]). For the sake of brevity, the SDP body is omitted. INVITE sip:bob@example.com SIP/2.0 Via: SIP/2.0/WSS df7jal23ls0d.invalid;branch=z9hG4bK56sdasks From: sip:alice@example.com;tag=asdyka899 To: sip:bob@example.com Call-ID: asidkj3ss CSeq: 1 INVITE Max-Forwards: 70 Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2014 15:02:03 GMT Supported: path, outbound, gruu Route: <sip:proxy.example.com:443;transport=ws;lr> Contact: <sip:alice@example.com;gr=urn:uuid:f81-7dec-14a06cf1;ob> Content-Type: application/sdp Content-Length: 439 Salgueiro, et al. Expires December 28, 2014 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft WebSocket Transport in SIP CLF June 2014 Shown below is approximately how this message would appear as a single record in a SIP CLF logging file if encoded according to the syntax described in [RFC6873]. Due to RFC conventions, this log entry has been split into five lines, instead of the two lines that actually appear in a log file; and the Tab characters have been padded out using spaces to simulate their appearance in a text terminal. A0000E8,0053005C005E00720081009300A700A900BF00C900D300DF00E8 <allOneLine> 1328821153.010 RORWE 1 INVITE - sip:bob@example.com 192.0.2.10:443 192.0.2.200:56485 sip:bob@example.com - sip:alice@example.com:5060 asdyka899 asidkj3ss S1781761-88 C67651-11 </allOneLine> A bit-exact version of the actual log entry is provided here, Base64 encoded. begin-base64 644 clf_ws_record QTAwMDBFOCwwMDUzMDA1QzAwNUUwMDcyMDA4MTAwOTMwMEE3MDBBOTAwQkYwMEM5MDBE MzAwREYwMEU4CjEzMjg4MjExNTMuMDEwCVJPUldVCTEgSU5WSVRFCS0Jc2lwOmJvYkBl eGFtcGxlLmNvbQkxOTIuMC4yLjEwOjQ0MwkxOTIuMC4yLjIwMDo1NjQ4NQlzaXA6Ym9i QGV4YW1wbGUuY29tCS0Jc2lwOmFsaWNlQGV4YW1wbGUuY29tCWFzZHlrYTg5OQlhc2lk a2ozc3MJUzE3ODE3NjEtODgJQzY3NjUxLTExCgo= ==== 6. Security Considerations This document merely adds a new "Transport Flag" value for the WebSocket protocol. This value may be set in a SIP CLF record, but its use does not intrinsically introduce and new security considerations. When logging protocol information, such as with SIP CLF, there are a myriad of security, privacy and data protection to consider. These are exhaustively described in RFC 6872 [RFC6872] and RFC 6873 [RFC6873]. Any security considerations specific to the WebSocket protocol or its application as a transport for SIP are detailed in the relevant specifications (the WebSocket protocol [RFC6455] and SIP over WebSockets [RFC7118]) and are considered outside the scope of this document. Salgueiro, et al. Expires December 28, 2014 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft WebSocket Transport in SIP CLF June 2014 7. IANA Considerations This document defines a new value ('W') for SIP CLF "Transport Flag" and requests IANA to register this value in the registry titled "SIP CLF Transport Flag Values", as shown in Table 1 below. +-------+--------------------+------------------+ | Value | Transport Protocol | Reference | +-------+--------------------+------------------+ | W | WebSocket | RFC7118, RFCXXXX | +-------+--------------------+------------------+ Table 1: IANA-Registered SIP CLF Transport Flag [[NOTE TO RFC EDITOR: Please change XXXX to the number assigned to this specification, and remove this paragraph on publication.]] 8. Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank Vijay Gurbani for shepherding this document and Area Director Richard Barnes for his sponsorship. This work benefitted from the thorough review and constructive comments of Richard Barnes, Barry Leiba, Benoit Claise, Pete Resnick, Stephen Farrel and Vijay Gurbani. 9. References 9.1. Normative References [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. [RFC6455] Fette, I. and A. Melnikov, "The WebSocket Protocol", RFC 6455, December 2011. [RFC6872] Gurbani, V., Burger, E., Anjali, T., Abdelnur, H., and O. Festor, "The Common Log Format (CLF) for the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP): Framework and Information Model", RFC 6872, February 2013. [RFC6873] Salgueiro, G., Gurbani, V., and A. Roach, "Format for the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Common Log Format (CLF)", RFC 6873, February 2013. [RFC7118] Baz Castillo, I., Millan Villegas, J., and V. Pascual, "The WebSocket Protocol as a Transport for the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)", RFC 7118, January 2014. Salgueiro, et al. Expires December 28, 2014 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft WebSocket Transport in SIP CLF June 2014 9.2. Informative References [RFC4475] Sparks, R., Hawrylyshen, A., Johnston, A., Rosenberg, J., and H. Schulzrinne, "Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Torture Test Messages", RFC 4475, May 2006. [RFC4566] Handley, M., Jacobson, V., and C. Perkins, "SDP: Session Description Protocol", RFC 4566, July 2006. [RFC4648] Josefsson, S., "The Base16, Base32, and Base64 Data Encodings", RFC 4648, October 2006. [RFC5246] Dierks, T. and E. Rescorla, "The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol Version 1.2", RFC 5246, August 2008. [RFC7230] Fielding, R. and J. Reschke, "Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Message Syntax and Routing", RFC 7230, June 2014. Authors' Addresses Gonzalo Salgueiro Cisco Systems, Inc. 7200-12 Kit Creek Road Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 US Email: gsalguei@cisco.com Victor Pascual Quobis Email: victor.pascual@quobis.com Anton Roman Quobis Email: anton.roman@quobis.com Sergio Garcia Ramos Quobis Email: sergio.garcia@quobis.com Salgueiro, et al. Expires December 28, 2014 [Page 8]
