Difference between revisions of "RFC7329"

From RFC-Wiki
imported>Admin
(Created page with " Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) H. KaplanRequest for Comments: 7329 OracleCategory: Informational ...")
 
 
Line 1: Line 1:
 +
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)                        H. Kaplan
 +
Request for Comments: 7329                                        Oracle
 +
Category: Informational                                      August 2014
 +
ISSN: 2070-1721
  
 +
  A Session Identifier for the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)
  
 
+
'''Abstract'''
 
 
 
 
 
 
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)                        H. KaplanRequest for Comments: 7329                                        OracleCategory: Informational                                      August 2014ISSN: 2070-1721
 
 
 
  A Session Identifier for the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)
 
Abstract
 
  
 
There is a need for having a globally unique session identifier for
 
There is a need for having a globally unique session identifier for
Line 20: Line 18:
 
Standards Track document produced by the INSIPID Working Group.
 
Standards Track document produced by the INSIPID Working Group.
  
Status of This Memo
+
'''Status of This Memo'''
  
 
This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is
 
This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is
Line 36: Line 34:
 
http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7329.
 
http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7329.
  
 
+
'''Copyright Notice'''
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Copyright Notice
 
  
 
Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
 
Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
Line 77: Line 58:
 
new Standards Track document produced by the INSIPID Working Group.
 
new Standards Track document produced by the INSIPID Working Group.
  
The SIP [RFC3261] Call-ID header value is a globally unique
+
The SIP [[RFC3261]] Call-ID header value is a globally unique
 
identifier, which is mandatory in all requests/responses and
 
identifier, which is mandatory in all requests/responses and
 
identifies SIP messages belonging to the same dialog or registration.
 
identifies SIP messages belonging to the same dialog or registration.
 
It provides a portion of the SIP message dialog-matching criteria and
 
It provides a portion of the SIP message dialog-matching criteria and
is used in such things as "Replaces" headers [RFC3891] and dialog-
+
is used in such things as "Replaces" headers [[RFC3891]] and dialog-
event packages [RFC4235] for matching to dialogs, and in SIP Identity
+
event packages [[RFC4235]] for matching to dialogs, and in SIP Identity
[RFC4474] and Connected Identity [RFC4916] as one of the inputs for
+
[[RFC4474]] and Connected Identity [[RFC4916]] as one of the inputs for
 
signing.
 
signing.
  
Line 112: Line 93:
 
Servers, softswitches, Private Branch Exchanges (PBXs), Session
 
Servers, softswitches, Private Branch Exchanges (PBXs), Session
 
Border Controllers (SBCs), feature servers, etc.
 
Border Controllers (SBCs), feature servers, etc.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
=== Requirements ===
 
=== Requirements ===
Line 152: Line 125:
 
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
 
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
 
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
 
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
+
document are to be interpreted as described in [[RFC2119]].
  
 
This document uses the terms "header field" and "header field value"
 
This document uses the terms "header field" and "header field value"
following the definition of those terms in [RFC3261]; they are not
+
following the definition of those terms in [[RFC3261]]; they are not
 
interchangeable.  The "header field" is the entire SIP header's
 
interchangeable.  The "header field" is the entire SIP header's
 
contents, including any parameters.  The "header field value" is only
 
contents, including any parameters.  The "header field value" is only
Line 169: Line 142:
 
then reflect this header field value in all messages for the duration
 
then reflect this header field value in all messages for the duration
 
of the dialog.  In other words, the Session-ID provides a value
 
of the dialog.  In other words, the Session-ID provides a value
 
 
 
 
  
 
similar in nature to Call-ID, except one that crosses B2BUAs and that
 
similar in nature to Call-ID, except one that crosses B2BUAs and that
Line 205: Line 174:
  
 
The Session-ID value is generated by taking the Call-ID header value
 
The Session-ID value is generated by taking the Call-ID header value
and SHA-1 hashing it based on HMAC (as defined in [RFC2104]) using a
+
and SHA-1 hashing it based on HMAC (as defined in [[RFC2104]]) using a
 
locally generated pseudorandom 128-bit system secret key to create a
 
locally generated pseudorandom 128-bit system secret key to create a
 
128-bit resultant HMAC value.  The secret key makes the resultant
 
128-bit resultant HMAC value.  The secret key makes the resultant
Line 213: Line 182:
 
in order to hide the fact that they changed the Call-ID.
 
in order to hide the fact that they changed the Call-ID.
  
Per [RFC2104], the algorithm is thus HMAC-SHA-1-128(Call-ID_value,
+
Per [[RFC2104]], the algorithm is thus HMAC-SHA-1-128(Call-ID_value,
 
secret_key), and the 128-bit result is encoded using lowercase
 
secret_key), and the 128-bit result is encoded using lowercase
 
alphanumeric hex representation, as defined in Section 7.1
 
alphanumeric hex representation, as defined in Section 7.1
Line 222: Line 191:
 
duration of a given dialog(s).  This is described in more detail in
 
duration of a given dialog(s).  This is described in more detail in
 
the subsequent sections of this document.
 
the subsequent sections of this document.
 
 
 
 
  
 
=== UAC Behavior ===
 
=== UAC Behavior ===
Line 235: Line 200:
 
Registration.  The exception to this rule is for out-of-dialog REFER
 
Registration.  The exception to this rule is for out-of-dialog REFER
 
requests or for an INVITE with a Replaces header field (see
 
requests or for an INVITE with a Replaces header field (see
[RFC3891]), as described in Section 5.
+
[[RFC3891]]), as described in Section 5.
  
 
The UAC MUST reuse the same Session-ID value for in-dialog messages
 
The UAC MUST reuse the same Session-ID value for in-dialog messages
Line 241: Line 206:
 
dialog request that it retransmits or re-generates in response to a
 
dialog request that it retransmits or re-generates in response to a
 
3xx that it reformulates due to failure responses.  This follows the
 
3xx that it reformulates due to failure responses.  This follows the
rules in [RFC3261] for Call-ID generation.
+
rules in [[RFC3261]] for Call-ID generation.
  
 
Session-ID values in Registration "refreshes" -- REGISTER requests
 
Session-ID values in Registration "refreshes" -- REGISTER requests
Line 272: Line 237:
 
receives, if one is in the message.  By definition, a Proxy that is
 
receives, if one is in the message.  By definition, a Proxy that is
 
compliant with [[RFC3261|RFC 3261]] would not modify or remove such a header.
 
compliant with [[RFC3261|RFC 3261]] would not modify or remove such a header.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
If the Proxy forks a request, it MUST copy the same Session-ID header
 
If the Proxy forks a request, it MUST copy the same Session-ID header
Line 326: Line 284:
 
NOT remove, modify, or replace it as it "forwards" the message on the
 
NOT remove, modify, or replace it as it "forwards" the message on the
 
other logical UA "side" of itself.
 
other logical UA "side" of itself.
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
==== B2BUA Generation of New Session-ID ====
 
==== B2BUA Generation of New Session-ID ====
Line 375: Line 327:
 
In order to do so, the Session-ID of the "original" session is
 
In order to do so, the Session-ID of the "original" session is
 
transferred as well, in the Refer-To URI of a REFER request as
 
transferred as well, in the Refer-To URI of a REFER request as
described in [RFC3515].  Furthermore, out-of-dialog REFER and INVITE
+
described in [[RFC3515]].  Furthermore, out-of-dialog REFER and INVITE
with Replaces requests as described in [RFC3891] use the appropriate
+
with Replaces requests as described in [[RFC3891]] use the appropriate
 
Session-ID values.  This assumes, of course, that the UAs involved
 
Session-ID values.  This assumes, of course, that the UAs involved
 
support the Session-ID mechanism.  If they do not, then it is
 
support the Session-ID mechanism.  If they do not, then it is
 
possible for the Session-ID to not be "carried forward" to the new
 
possible for the Session-ID to not be "carried forward" to the new
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
SIP dialog.  Unfortunately, this means troubleshooting such dialogs
 
SIP dialog.  Unfortunately, this means troubleshooting such dialogs
Line 425: Line 372:
  
 
When generating an out-of-dialog INVITE with a Replaces header field
 
When generating an out-of-dialog INVITE with a Replaces header field
as described in [RFC3891], a UA compliant with this document MUST use
+
as described in [[RFC3891]], a UA compliant with this document MUST use
 
the same Session-ID header field value for the INVITE request as that
 
the same Session-ID header field value for the INVITE request as that
 
used for the dialog it is replacing, if it knows the value.
 
used for the dialog it is replacing, if it knows the value.
Line 433: Line 380:
 
Charlie, and Bob sends a REFER request to Alice to refer her to
 
Charlie, and Bob sends a REFER request to Alice to refer her to
 
Charlie, the Session-ID header field value embedded in the Refer-To
 
Charlie, the Session-ID header field value embedded in the Refer-To
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
URI of the REFER request would be the one used in dialog Y, which
 
URI of the REFER request would be the one used in dialog Y, which
Line 480: Line 422:
 
eventually only accept one of the dialogs, and only one Session-ID
 
eventually only accept one of the dialogs, and only one Session-ID
 
would remain.
 
would remain.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
== New 'Session-ID' Header ==
 
== New 'Session-ID' Header ==
Line 538: Line 469:
 
There is no known security issue with viewing or modifying the
 
There is no known security issue with viewing or modifying the
 
Session-ID, other than to hamper troubleshooting efforts.
 
Session-ID, other than to hamper troubleshooting efforts.
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
=== Security Considerations for Administrators ===
 
=== Security Considerations for Administrators ===
Line 557: Line 482:
  
 
The Session-ID's value is created from the Call-ID using a hashing
 
The Session-ID's value is created from the Call-ID using a hashing
mechanism based on [RFC2104], using SHA-1 and a secret key known only
+
mechanism based on [[RFC2104]], using SHA-1 and a secret key known only
 
to the system generating the Session-ID.  Because the algorithm is
 
to the system generating the Session-ID.  Because the algorithm is
 
defined in this document, it should be fairly secure from detecting
 
defined in this document, it should be fairly secure from detecting
Line 587: Line 512:
 
this document's value restrictions.  Any Session-ID header parameters
 
this document's value restrictions.  Any Session-ID header parameters
 
MUST be registered with IANA and documented in RFCs from the IETF
 
MUST be registered with IANA and documented in RFCs from the IETF
stream, pursuant to the requirements of [RFC3968].
+
stream, pursuant to the requirements of [[RFC3968]].
  
 
+
10.  IANA Considerations
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
== IANA Considerations ==
 
  
 
IANA has registered a new SIP header field named 'Session-ID',
 
IANA has registered a new SIP header field named 'Session-ID',
pursuant to the registration policies for such in [RFC5727].  This is
+
pursuant to the registration policies for such in [[RFC5727]].  This is
 
a single-instance header field and is appropriate for any SIP
 
a single-instance header field and is appropriate for any SIP
 
message, of any Method type, in any request or response.
 
message, of any Method type, in any request or response.
  
The ABNF rules [RFC5234] for this new header allow for header
+
The ABNF rules [[RFC5234]] for this new header allow for header
 
parameters; however, they must be registered following the rules of
 
parameters; however, they must be registered following the rules of
[RFC3968], as required by [RFC5727].
+
[[RFC3968]], as required by [[RFC5727]].
  
 
This registration is intended to be temporary.  The author expects
 
This registration is intended to be temporary.  The author expects
Line 615: Line 531:
 
this document will no longer be referenced by IANA.
 
this document will no longer be referenced by IANA.
  
== Acknowledgments ==
+
11.  Acknowledgments
  
 
Thanks to Raphael Coeffic, Bob Penfield, Dale Worley, Paul Kyzivat,
 
Thanks to Raphael Coeffic, Bob Penfield, Dale Worley, Paul Kyzivat,
Line 621: Line 537:
 
and Adam Roach for their input.
 
and Adam Roach for their input.
  
== References ==
+
12.  References
  
=== Normative References ===
+
12.1.  Normative References
  
[RFC2104]  Krawczyk, H., Bellare, M., and R. Canetti, "HMAC: Keyed-           Hashing for Message Authentication", [[RFC2104|RFC 2104]], February           1997.
+
[[RFC2104]]  Krawczyk, H., Bellare, M., and R. Canetti, "HMAC: Keyed-
[RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate          Requirement Levels", [[BCP14|BCP 14]], [[RFC2119|RFC 2119]], March 1997.
+
          Hashing for Message Authentication", [[RFC2104|RFC 2104]], February
[RFC3261]  Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., Camarillo, G., Johnston,          A., Peterson, J., Sparks, R., Handley, M., and E.          Schooler, "SIP: Session Initiation Protocol", [[RFC3261|RFC 3261]],          June 2002.
+
          1997.
[RFC3515]  Sparks, R., "The Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Refer          Method", [[RFC3515|RFC 3515]], April 2003.
 
[RFC3891]  Mahy, R., Biggs, B., and R. Dean, "The Session Initiation          Protocol (SIP) "Replaces" Header", [[RFC3891|RFC 3891]], September          2004.
 
  
 +
[[RFC2119]]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
 +
          Requirement Levels", [[BCP14|BCP 14]], [[RFC2119|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", [[RFC3261|RFC 3261]],
 +
          June 2002.
  
 +
[[RFC3515]]  Sparks, R., "The Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Refer
 +
          Method", [[RFC3515|RFC 3515]], April 2003.
  
 +
[[RFC3891]]  Mahy, R., Biggs, B., and R. Dean, "The Session Initiation
 +
          Protocol (SIP) "Replaces" Header", [[RFC3891|RFC 3891]], September
 +
          2004.
  
 +
[[RFC3968]]  Camarillo, G., "The Internet Assigned Number Authority
 +
          (IANA) Header Field Parameter Registry for the Session
 +
          Initiation Protocol (SIP)", [[BCP98|BCP 98]], [[RFC3968|RFC 3968]], December
 +
          2004.
  
 +
[[RFC5234]]  Crocker, D., Ed., and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for
 +
          Syntax Specifications: ABNF", [[STD68|STD 68]], [[RFC5234|RFC 5234]], January
 +
          2008.
  
[RFC3968]  Camarillo, G., "The Internet Assigned Number Authority          (IANA) Header Field Parameter Registry for the Session          Initiation Protocol (SIP)", [[BCP98|BCP 98]], [[RFC3968|RFC 3968]], December          2004.
+
[[RFC5727]]  Peterson, J., Jennings, C., and R. Sparks, "Change Process
[RFC5234]  Crocker, D., Ed., and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for          Syntax Specifications: ABNF", STD 68, [[RFC5234|RFC 5234]], January          2008.
+
          for the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) and the Real-
[RFC5727]  Peterson, J., Jennings, C., and R. Sparks, "Change Process           for the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) and the Real-           time Applications and Infrastructure Area", [[BCP67|BCP 67]], RFC           5727, March 2010.
+
          time Applications and Infrastructure Area", [[BCP67|BCP 67]], RFC
=== Informative References ===
+
          5727, March 2010.
  
[RFC4235]  Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., and R. Mahy, Ed., "An          INVITE-Initiated Dialog Event Package for the Session          Initiation Protocol (SIP)", [[RFC4235|RFC 4235]], November 2005.
+
12.2Informative References
[RFC4474]  Peterson, J. and C. Jennings, "Enhancements for          Authenticated Identity Management in the Session          Initiation Protocol (SIP)", [[RFC4474|RFC 4474]], August 2006.
 
[RFC4916] Elwell, J., "Connected Identity in the Session Initiation          Protocol (SIP)", [[RFC4916|RFC 4916]], June 2007.
 
  
 +
[[RFC4235]]  Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., and R. Mahy, Ed., "An
 +
          INVITE-Initiated Dialog Event Package for the Session
 +
          Initiation Protocol (SIP)", [[RFC4235|RFC 4235]], November 2005.
  
 +
[[RFC4474]]  Peterson, J. and C. Jennings, "Enhancements for
 +
          Authenticated Identity Management in the Session
 +
          Initiation Protocol (SIP)", [[RFC4474|RFC 4474]], August 2006.
  
 +
[[RFC4916]]  Elwell, J., "Connected Identity in the Session Initiation
 +
          Protocol (SIP)", [[RFC4916|RFC 4916]], June 2007.
  
 +
Appendix A.  Use Cases Not in Scope for Session-ID
  
 +
It is very tempting to use a header field value such as that provided
 +
by Session-ID, for other purposes than troubleshooting.  In a
 +
previous document for this same Session-ID concept, the proposal
 +
included other uses; however, these were removed because any use case
 +
other than troubleshooting can easily lead to a B2BUA needing to
 +
change the value, in certain cases.  That would defeat the
 +
troubleshooting value of Session-ID.  This section discusses such use
 +
cases and explains why they are potentially harmful.
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Appendix A.  Use Cases Not in Scope for Session-ID
 
It is very tempting to use a header field value such as that providedby Session-ID, for other purposes than troubleshooting.  In aprevious document for this same Session-ID concept, the proposalincluded other uses; however, these were removed because any use caseother than troubleshooting can easily lead to a B2BUA needing tochange the value, in certain cases.  That would defeat thetroubleshooting value of Session-ID.  This section discusses such usecases and explains why they are potentially harmful.
 
 
A.1.  Dialog Correlation for SIP
 
A.1.  Dialog Correlation for SIP
Although Session-ID does provide a means to correlate separate SIPdialogs, messages, and transactions, it does so at a higher layerthan SIP.  It does not replace the mechanics of SIP using the Call-IDand To/From tags of SIP messages to correlate SIP dialogs, nor inother uses such as Replaces headers or dialog-event packages.  It istempting, however, to use it for exactly that purpose in certaincases.
 
For example, suppose a call transfer case where Alice calls Bobthrough B2BUA-1.  Bob then calls Charlie and sends Charlie a REFERwith embedded Replaces to make Charlie send an INVITE with a Replacesheader to Alice, to replace the Alice-Bob session.  If Charlie uses adifferent B2BUA-2 to reach Alice, the INVITE with Replaces will failbecause the Call-ID/tags won't match anything B2BUA-2 or Alice knowsabout.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 +
Although Session-ID does provide a means to correlate separate SIP
 +
dialogs, messages, and transactions, it does so at a higher layer
 +
than SIP.  It does not replace the mechanics of SIP using the Call-ID
 +
and To/From tags of SIP messages to correlate SIP dialogs, nor in
 +
other uses such as Replaces headers or dialog-event packages.  It is
 +
tempting, however, to use it for exactly that purpose in certain
 +
cases.
  
 +
For example, suppose a call transfer case where Alice calls Bob
 +
through B2BUA-1.  Bob then calls Charlie and sends Charlie a REFER
 +
with embedded Replaces to make Charlie send an INVITE with a Replaces
 +
header to Alice, to replace the Alice-Bob session.  If Charlie uses a
 +
different B2BUA-2 to reach Alice, the INVITE with Replaces will fail
 +
because the Call-ID/tags won't match anything B2BUA-2 or Alice knows
 +
about.
  
 +
+-----+    +-------+    +-------+    +-----+    +-------+
 +
|Alice|    |B2BUA-1|    |B2BUA-2|    | Bob |    |Charlie|
 +
+-----+    +-------+    +-------+    +-----+    +-------+
 +
  |            |            |          |            |
 +
  |INVITE      |            |          |            |
 +
  |callid:1a  |callid:1b  |          |            |
 +
  |----------->|----------------------->|INVITE      |
 +
  |sessid:1    |sessid:1    |          |callid:2a  |
 +
  |            |            |          |----------->|
 +
  |            |            |          |sessid:2    |
 +
  |            |            |          |            |
 +
  |            |            |          |REFER      |
 +
  |            |            |          |referto:1b  |
 +
  |            |            |          |----------->|
 +
  |            |            |          |            |
 +
  |            |            |          |      INVITE|
 +
  |            |            |          | replaces:1b|
 +
  |            |            X<-----------------------|
 +
  |            |      INVITE|          |    sessid:1|
 +
  |            | replaces:1b|          |            |
 +
  X<------------------------|          |            |
 +
  |            |    sessid:1|          |            |
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
+-----+    +-------+    +-------+    +-----+    +-------+|Alice|    |B2BUA-1|    |B2BUA-2|    | Bob |    |Charlie|+-----+    +-------+    +-------+    +-----+    +-------+  |            |            |          |            |  |INVITE      |            |          |            |  |callid:1a  |callid:1b  |          |            |  |----------->|----------------------->|INVITE      |  |sessid:1    |sessid:1    |          |callid:2a  |  |            |            |          |----------->|  |            |            |          |sessid:2    |  |            |            |          |            |  |            |            |          |REFER      |  |            |            |          |referto:1b  |  |            |            |          |----------->|  |            |            |          |            |  |            |            |          |      INVITE|  |            |            |          | replaces:1b|  |            |            X<-----------------------|  |            |      INVITE|          |    sessid:1|  |            | replaces:1b|          |            |  X<------------------------|          |            |  |            |    sessid:1|          |            |
 
 
               Example 1: Call Transfer Case
 
               Example 1: Call Transfer Case
If, on the other hand, Alice were to use the Session-ID value forcorrelation, she would see it matches her dialog with Bob (assumingthe Session-ID were passed along in the Refer-To and Replaces info).
 
There are problems with this approach, however.  The first problemis, by not sending the INVITE with Replaces to B2BUA-1, B2BUA-1 is inan incorrect state; the dialog is getting replaced, and the B2BUAdoesn't know it.
 
A second issue is the Session-ID doesn't identify enough informationto replace a dialog.  Imagine there were a third B2BUA, such as asoftswitch, between Alice and B2BUA-1 and B2BUA-2, and the INVITEwith Replaces reached the softswitch before Alice.  The softswitchwon't know which "side" the INVITE is replacing.  The To/From tags nolonger match anything the softswitch knows about, so it can't figureout if the INVITE with Replaces is replacing the dialog fromsoftswitch to Alice, or the one to Bob.  If we try to fix this bycreating a tag-type value pair for Session-ID, we're back to deviceschanging those tag values and defeating the matching property.
 
  
 +
If, on the other hand, Alice were to use the Session-ID value for
 +
correlation, she would see it matches her dialog with Bob (assuming
 +
the Session-ID were passed along in the Refer-To and Replaces info).
  
 +
There are problems with this approach, however.  The first problem
 +
is, by not sending the INVITE with Replaces to B2BUA-1, B2BUA-1 is in
 +
an incorrect state; the dialog is getting replaced, and the B2BUA
 +
doesn't know it.
  
 +
A second issue is the Session-ID doesn't identify enough information
 +
to replace a dialog.  Imagine there were a third B2BUA, such as a
 +
softswitch, between Alice and B2BUA-1 and B2BUA-2, and the INVITE
 +
with Replaces reached the softswitch before Alice.  The softswitch
 +
won't know which "side" the INVITE is replacing.  The To/From tags no
 +
longer match anything the softswitch knows about, so it can't figure
 +
out if the INVITE with Replaces is replacing the dialog from
 +
softswitch to Alice, or the one to Bob.  If we try to fix this by
 +
creating a tag-type value pair for Session-ID, we're back to devices
 +
changing those tag values and defeating the matching property.
  
 +
Another example is based on 3GPP 24.605 Annex A.2.2.  Alice has a
 +
call with Bob through multiple B2BUAs and an Application Server.  The
 +
dialogs of that call all have the same Session-ID, but unique
 +
Call-ID/tags.
  
 +
Alice wants to invoke a third-party conference facility in the AS and
 +
to reference the call she has with Bob for that.  In this particular
 +
3GPP scenario, to do that Alice sends a new INVITE to the AS with a
 +
resource-list body (a la [[RFC5366|RFC 5366]]) containing the call information
 +
for the original call.  This is the "RL<sessid:1>" piece in the
 +
diagram.  It has the Call-ID/tags as well, but they'll be wrong when
 +
received at the AS.
  
 +
The AS processes that list, can't match the Call-ID/tags in the
 +
resource-lit but does match the Session-ID, and sends a re-INVITE to
 +
party B within the original call's dialog.
  
 +
+-----+    +-------+      +----+    +-------+    +-----+
 +
|Alice|    |B2BUA-1|      | AS |    |B2BUA-2|    | Bob |
 +
+-----+    +-------+      +----+    +-------+    +-----+
 +
  |            |            |          |            |
 +
  |INVITE      |            |          |            |
 +
  |callid:1a  |callid:1b  |callid:1c  |callid:1d  |
 +
  |----------->|----------->|---------->|----------->|
 +
  |sessid:1    |sessid:1    |sessid:1  |sessid:1    |
 +
  |            |            |          |            |
 +
  |INVITE      |            |          |            |
 +
  |callid:2a  |callid:2b  |          |            |
 +
  |----------->|----------->|          |            |
 +
  |sessid:2    |sessid:2    |re-INVITE  |            |
 +
  |RL<sessid:1>|RL<sessid:1>|callid:1c  |callid:1d  |
 +
  |            |            |---------->|----------->|
 +
  |            |            |sessid:1  |sessid:1    |
 +
  |            |            |          |            |
  
Another example is based on 3GPP 24.605 Annex A.2.2.  Alice has acall with Bob through multiple B2BUAs and an Application Server.  Thedialogs of that call all have the same Session-ID, but uniqueCall-ID/tags.
 
Alice wants to invoke a third-party conference facility in the AS andto reference the call she has with Bob for that.  In this particular3GPP scenario, to do that Alice sends a new INVITE to the AS with aresource-list body (a la [[RFC5366|RFC 5366]]) containing the call informationfor the original call.  This is the "RL<sessid:1>" piece in thediagram.  It has the Call-ID/tags as well, but they'll be wrong whenreceived at the AS.
 
The AS processes that list, can't match the Call-ID/tags in theresource-lit but does match the Session-ID, and sends a re-INVITE toparty B within the original call's dialog.
 
+-----+    +-------+      +----+    +-------+    +-----+|Alice|    |B2BUA-1|      | AS |    |B2BUA-2|    | Bob |+-----+    +-------+      +----+    +-------+    +-----+  |            |            |          |            |  |INVITE      |            |          |            |  |callid:1a  |callid:1b  |callid:1c  |callid:1d  |  |----------->|----------->|---------->|----------->|  |sessid:1    |sessid:1    |sessid:1  |sessid:1    |  |            |            |          |            |  |INVITE      |            |          |            |  |callid:2a  |callid:2b  |          |            |  |----------->|----------->|          |            |  |sessid:2    |sessid:2    |re-INVITE  |            |  |RL<sessid:1>|RL<sessid:1>|callid:1c  |callid:1d  |  |            |            |---------->|----------->|  |            |            |sessid:1  |sessid:1    |  |            |            |          |            |
 
 
                 Example 2: Resource List
 
                 Example 2: Resource List
 +
 
Author's Address
 
Author's Address
Hadriel KaplanOracleEMail: [email protected]
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 +
Hadriel Kaplan
 +
Oracle
 +
  
 
[[Category:Informational]]
 
[[Category:Informational]]

Latest revision as of 05:31, 2 October 2020

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) H. Kaplan Request for Comments: 7329 Oracle Category: Informational August 2014 ISSN: 2070-1721

 A Session Identifier for the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)

Abstract

There is a need for having a globally unique session identifier for the same SIP session that can be consistently maintained across SIP Proxies, Back-to-Back User Agents (B2BUAs), and other SIP middleboxes, for the purpose of troubleshooting. This document proposes a new SIP header to carry such a value: Session-ID.

The mechanism defined in this document has been widely deployed, and is being followed in a backward-compatible fashion for a new Standards Track document produced by the INSIPID Working Group.

Status of This Memo

This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is published for informational purposes.

This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has received public review and has been approved for publication by the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Not all documents approved by the IESG are a candidate for any level of Internet Standard; see Section 2 of RFC 5741.

Information about the current status of this document, any errata, and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7329.

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 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.

Introduction

This RFC, which contains the text of an individual Internet-Draft that was submitted originally to the DISPATCH Working Group, is being published now as an Informational document to provide a reference for later RFCs. The mechanism defined in this document has been widely deployed and is being followed in a backward-compatible fashion for a new Standards Track document produced by the INSIPID Working Group.

The SIP RFC3261 Call-ID header value is a globally unique identifier, which is mandatory in all requests/responses and identifies SIP messages belonging to the same dialog or registration. It provides a portion of the SIP message dialog-matching criteria and is used in such things as "Replaces" headers RFC3891 and dialog- event packages RFC4235 for matching to dialogs, and in SIP Identity RFC4474 and Connected Identity RFC4916 as one of the inputs for signing.

In practice, the Call-ID is often changed by SIP Back-to-Back User Agents (B2BUAs) and other such middleboxes in the logical end-to-end message path. A B2BUA logically represents a SIP User Agent Server (UAS) and User Agent Client (UAC), and as such generates a new Call-ID value for the dialog it creates on its UAC side; in fact, for some B2BUA scenarios the Call-ID *must* be changed for SIP to function properly.

At the same time, there is a need for a unique, common, consistent end-to-end identifier to help troubleshoot SIP sessions and message flows as they cross SIP nodes. Troubleshooting is more complicated if multiple legs of the session are on different sides of B2BUAs, due to the lack of a common identifier such as a Call-ID to tie the legs together. Proprietary mechanisms are currently used to achieve this goal.

Therefore, in order to provide an identifier that will not be modified/replaced by B2BUAs, this document proposes a new SIP Header "Session-ID" and mandatory rules for the value of such a header. The rules are designed to be such that the value in the Session-ID header is not considered unsafe or private and does not have any property that would cause B2BUAs to change it. The goal of this document is to enable troubleshooting by providing a unique identifier for a given session that can successfully cross B2BUAs, such as Application Servers, softswitches, Private Branch Exchanges (PBXs), Session Border Controllers (SBCs), feature servers, etc.

Requirements

The following requirements drive the need for Session-ID:

REQ1: It must be possible for an administrator to use the identifier

     to identify a set of dialogs that have a direct correlation
     with each other such that they represent the same SIP session,
     with as high a probability as possible.

REQ2: It must be possible to pass the identifier through SIP B2BUAs,

     with as high a probability as possible.  This requirement
     drives the following requirements:
     REQ2a: The identifier must not reveal any information related
            to any SIP device or domain identity, including IP
            address, port, hostname, domain name, username, Address-
            of-Record (AoR), MAC address, IP address family,
            transport type, etc.
     REQ2b: The identifier must not reveal to the receiver of it
            that the Call-ID, tags, or any other SIP header or body
            portion have been changed by middleboxes, with as high a
            probability as possible.
     REQ2c: The identifier must not be used for anything at a SIP
            layer to change the behavior of the SIP protocol.

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.

This document uses the terms "header field" and "header field value" following the definition of those terms in RFC3261; they are not interchangeable. The "header field" is the entire SIP header's contents, including any parameters. The "header field value" is only the field-value portion, which does not include header parameters.

Overview of Operation

The general concept is that the UAC generating an out-of-dialog request generates a new, pseudorandom, unique value that remains constant for the duration of the transaction, any dialog created from that request, or for a registration. The value is inserted in a new Session-ID header field defined in this document. The UAC and UAS then reflect this header field value in all messages for the duration of the dialog. In other words, the Session-ID provides a value

similar in nature to Call-ID, except one that crosses B2BUAs and that has no sensitive information in it.

To aid in migration of deployments, a B2BUA or Proxy MAY also generate and/or insert the value on behalf of a UAC or UAS, if one or the other does not support this document's mechanism.

Although the Session-ID concept is similar to that of Call-ID, it is not used for message dialog-matching rules in RFC 3261, nor does it change the Call-ID usage, nor does it replace the Call-ID value. Instead, this new header field provides an identifier for troubleshooting uses only.

The format of the Session-ID value is restricted, both to avoid detection of the system type that generated it and to keep it a hexadecimal representation such that it can be stored as a 128-bit binary value in log records.

Session-ID Behavior

Generating a Session-ID Value

This document proposes the Session-ID header value be generated based on a defined hash mechanism for creating a 128-bit pseudorandom value and be encoded as its lowercase hex representation. The reason for specifying the mechanism is twofold: to make it impossible to determine the manufacturer of the device that generated it by looking at its format or value, and to allow devices to generate the same value if they have the same private key.

The Session-ID value is generated by taking the Call-ID header value and SHA-1 hashing it based on HMAC (as defined in RFC2104) using a locally generated pseudorandom 128-bit system secret key to create a 128-bit resultant HMAC value. The secret key makes the resultant HMAC value not re-creatable by other parties; this is necessary to prevent detection of Call-IDs being changed, as required by REQ2b. Otherwise, middleboxes may have motivation to remove the Session-ID in order to hide the fact that they changed the Call-ID.

Per RFC2104, the algorithm is thus HMAC-SHA-1-128(Call-ID_value, secret_key), and the 128-bit result is encoded using lowercase alphanumeric hex representation, as defined in Section 7.1 ("Augmented BNF Definitions").

In order to enable troubleshooting of in-dialog messages, a generator needs to remember or re-create the same Session-ID value for the duration of a given dialog(s). This is described in more detail in the subsequent sections of this document.

UAC Behavior

The rules for when a UAC generates a new Session-ID value are similar as those for Call-ID value: a UAC supporting this document's mechanism MUST generate a new unique Session-ID value when it generates an out-of-dialog request or when there is a new Registration. The exception to this rule is for out-of-dialog REFER requests or for an INVITE with a Replaces header field (see RFC3891), as described in Section 5.

The UAC MUST reuse the same Session-ID value for in-dialog messages as that of the original dialog-creating request, and for any out-of- dialog request that it retransmits or re-generates in response to a 3xx that it reformulates due to failure responses. This follows the rules in RFC3261 for Call-ID generation.

Session-ID values in Registration "refreshes" -- REGISTER requests that are used to update the expiry time but not to register a new contact -- MUST use the same Session-ID value as previous REGISTER requests. New Registrations, which add or change the Contact URI for the AoR, but do not simply delete them, MUST use a new Session-ID value. This follows the behavior of Call-ID per RFC 3261; it is reiterated here because some devices incorrectly change their Call-ID value for every re-Registration, and they MUST NOT do the same to the Session-ID.

The UAC MUST include the Session-ID header field in every SIP message it transmits.

UAS Behavior

A UAS compliant with this document MUST copy a Session-ID header field (received in a request) into responses and subsequent upstream requests sent within the dialog.

If an out-of-dialog request is received without a Session-ID header field, the UAS SHOULD generate a new one for subsequent use in the transaction and dialog, as defined for a UAC, and use the same value in all responses and upstream in-dialog requests for the same dialog.

Proxy Behavior

A Proxy MUST NOT remove or modify the Session-ID header field it receives, if one is in the message. By definition, a Proxy that is compliant with RFC 3261 would not modify or remove such a header.

If the Proxy forks a request, it MUST copy the same Session-ID header field into all the forked request copies. If the Proxy recurses requests due to 3xx redirection, or regenerates requests due to failures, it MUST use the same Session-ID header field as the original request, just as the UAC does.

If the Proxy locally generates any response or request based on a received request, including 100 Trying, it MUST insert any received Session-ID header field from the original request into the response message it locally creates. This is necessary for troubleshooting purposes.

A Proxy compliant with this document MAY generate a new Session-ID or insert a previously saved one if and only if none existed in a received message, following the rules for doing so as a B2BUA as defined in Section 4.5.

B2BUA Behavior

A B2BUA compliant with this document MUST copy:

- the Session-ID header field it receives in requests as a UAS into

  the related requests it generates as a UAC, and

- any Session-ID header field it receives in responses as a UAC into

  the correlated responses it generates as a UAS.

If the B2BUA forks or creates multiple requests as a UAC, from a request it received as a UAS, the B2BUA MUST copy the same Session-ID header field it received into all the forks/requests. If the B2BUA recurses on 3xx responses, or regenerates requests due to failures, it MUST use the same Session-ID field, just as the UAC does.

If the B2BUA locally generates any response or request based on a received request, including 100 Trying, it MUST insert any received Session-ID field from the original request into the response message it locally creates.

A B2BUA MAY remember the received Session-ID value for the duration of the transaction and dialog, for the purpose of reinsertion, in case the far end does not support this document.

In all cases, if the SIP message received by a B2BUA contains a Session-ID header field, a B2BUA compliant with this document MUST NOT remove, modify, or replace it as it "forwards" the message on the other logical UA "side" of itself.

B2BUA Generation of New Session-ID

If an out-of-dialog request is received by a B2BUA compliant with this document, and the request does *not* contain a Session-ID header field, the B2BUA MAY generate a new one. The new Session-ID value MUST be calculated based on the received Call-ID of the received request, even if the B2BUA uses a different Call-ID value for requests generated on its other "side(s)". It MUST then insert the new Session-ID in any requests or responses it generates, as if it had actually received the new Session-ID from the UAC, following the rules previously defined for a B2BUA. This allows for a B2BUA to provide a migration to Session-ID deployment, on behalf of upstream nodes that do not yet support it.

As defined previously, if any received message already had a Session-ID, a B2BUA compliant with this document would not replace it.

B2BUA Insertion of Saved Session-ID

If a Session-ID was received in an out-of-dialog request, or the B2BUA locally generated one because none existed, the B2BUA SHOULD insert the same Session-ID field into all responses and upstream in-dialog requests if and only if a Session-ID is not already in them. This allows for a B2BUA to provide a migration to Session-ID deployment on behalf of downstream nodes that do not yet support it.

Handling SIP Transfer Scenarios

The transfer or movement of SIP sessions represents a complication for a mechanism like Session-ID. On the one hand, the replacement SIP session represents a new one and could reasonably be expected to use a new Session-ID value; on the other hand, from a troubleshooting and human-user perspective, it is clearly related to, if not just a continuation of, the previous session. Since the purpose of this document's mechanism is to aid monitoring and troubleshooting, and it's not used for actual SIP protocol mechanics, the behavior defined in this section is to reuse the same Session-ID value for the replacement SIP session.

In order to do so, the Session-ID of the "original" session is transferred as well, in the Refer-To URI of a REFER request as described in RFC3515. Furthermore, out-of-dialog REFER and INVITE with Replaces requests as described in RFC3891 use the appropriate Session-ID values. This assumes, of course, that the UAs involved support the Session-ID mechanism. If they do not, then it is possible for the Session-ID to not be "carried forward" to the new

SIP dialog. Unfortunately, this means troubleshooting such dialogs is not improved or aided by this document's mechanism; but, it would not "break" anything at a SIP layer.

It should also be noted that using the same Session-ID for the transferred-to dialog means the same Session-ID now exists in two independent dialogs, because the original one may well continue due to the implicit Subscription usage created by a REFER. That implicit Subscription-based usage will continue to use the same Session-ID as the new dialog created to the transferred-to party.

In the following subsections, the term "UA" is used for User Agent. The language applies to the SIP device that creates the request, whether it be a UA or B2BUA.

Out-of-Dialog REFER

A UA compliant with this document MUST use the same Session-ID header field value for an out-of-dialog REFER request it generates, as the original dialog the REFER is targeted to (i.e., as if the REFER had been in-dialog). For example, if UA Bob has a SIP dialog X to Alice, and Bob sends an out-of-dialog REFER to Alice to refer her to Charlie, the Session-ID header field value of the REFER request would be the same as that used in dialog X.

Refer-To URI

A UA compliant with this document MUST add the Session-ID header field as an embedded header in the Refer-To header field URI of any REFER request it generates, using the value of the session it is referring to. For example, if UA Bob has a SIP dialog X to Alice and dialog Y to Charlie, and Bob sends a REFER request to Alice to refer her to Charlie, the Session-ID header field value embedded in the Refer-To URI of the REFER request would be the same as that used in dialog Y.

Out-of-Dialog INVITE with Replaces

When generating an out-of-dialog INVITE with a Replaces header field as described in RFC3891, a UA compliant with this document MUST use the same Session-ID header field value for the INVITE request as that used for the dialog it is replacing, if it knows the value. Typically, the UA would know the value by having received it in the Refer-To header field of a REFER, as described previously. For example, if UA Bob has a SIP dialog X to Alice and dialog Y to Charlie, and Bob sends a REFER request to Alice to refer her to Charlie, the Session-ID header field value embedded in the Refer-To

URI of the REFER request would be the one used in dialog Y, which Alice would use as the Session-ID header field value for her INVITE to Charlie.

If the UA does not know the Session-ID of the dialog it is replacing, for example, because it is not embedded in the Refer-To URI of a received REFER, then it MUST use a new Session-ID value, calculated using the mechanism as defined in Section 4.1 with the Call-ID of the INVITE.

Session-ID Migration and Failure Scenarios

SIP is already widely deployed on the Internet, and it is impractical to expect all UAs to be upgraded to support this document's mechanism in the near future. A solution for gradual migration is necessary and is provided by this document by allowing B2BUAs or Proxies to perform the Session-ID generator and inserter role. Even within those device types, it is impractical to expect all B2BUAs to support this mechanism all at once or any time in the near future. Therefore, it is expected that some B2BUAs and/or UAs will support generating and inserting Session-ID, while others will not support Session-ID at all.

Due to the varying types of B2BUAs (such as PBXs, SBCs, Application Servers, feature servers, and softswitches of various flavors) and the numerous SIP deployment models in use, there are going to be cases in which Session-ID will fail to be a consistent value for all related dialogs or fail to successfully match. The goal of this document is to improve troubleshooting of current deployments as much as possible -- and, in this author's opinion, that is the best that can be done given the constraints.

One example is for forked requests: if a UAC that does not support this mechanism sends a request to a Proxy or B2BUA that also does not support this mechanism, each fork could reach B2BUAs or UASs that

  • do* support this mechanism. In such a case, each of those forked-to

B2BUA/UAS will generate unique Session-IDs and put them in their responses, temporarily leading to multiple, different Session-ID values for the same related early dialogs. Typically, the UAC would eventually only accept one of the dialogs, and only one Session-ID would remain.

New 'Session-ID' Header

This document adds the "Session-ID" token to the definition of the element "message-header" in the SIP message grammar. The Session-ID header is a single-instance header.

Augmented BNF Definitions

Session-ID           =  "Session-ID" HCOLON sess-id
                        *( SEMI generic-param )
sess-id              =  32(DIGIT / %x61-66)  ; 32 chars of [0-9a-f]

NOTE: The sess-id value is technically case-INSENSITIVE, but only lowercase characters are allowed.

See the Security Considerations section for discussion about using header parameters in Session-ID header fields.

Example Exchange

In the following example, Alice initiates a call to Bob. Alice generates a Session-ID header in the out-of-dialog INVITE.

Alice generates the following. (Note: much has been left out for simplicity.)

  INVITE sip:[email protected] SIP/2.0
  Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 192.0.2.1:5060;branch=z9hG4bKnashds10
  From: Alice <sip:[email protected]>;tag=1234567
  To: Bob <sip:[email protected]>
  Call-Id: [email protected]
  Session-ID: f81d4fae7dec11d0a76500a0c91e6bf6
  CSeq: 1 INVITE
  Contact: <sip:[email protected]>

Security Considerations

There are several security considerations surrounding this document's mechanism.

The Session-ID generation algorithm should provide a reasonably random 32-character Session-ID value to avoid collisions and should not let one re-create the original Call-ID.

There is no known security issue with viewing or modifying the Session-ID, other than to hamper troubleshooting efforts.

Security Considerations for Administrators

The requirement for the Session-ID is to be an identifier which cannot be used by a recipient to identify if the Call-ID has been changed by middleboxes. As such, a UAS/UAC cannot detect the original Call-ID, nor whether it has been changed; thus, administrators should not be concerned if the Session-ID header field is "passed through".

Security Considerations for Session-ID Extensions

The Session-ID's value is created from the Call-ID using a hashing mechanism based on RFC2104, using SHA-1 and a secret key known only to the system generating the Session-ID. Because the algorithm is defined in this document, it should be fairly secure from detecting the generator of the Session-ID, in terms of manufacturer or code base.

The Session-ID generation algorithm should provide a reasonably random 128-bit Session-ID value, to avoid collisions, and should not let one re-create the original Call-ID. The secret key MUST only be used for the Session-ID mechanism, in case a weakness is found that reveals the key. One such weakness may be that a UAC generates one or more Call-IDs that have a property that makes determining the key more likely.

In general, B2BUA behavior cannot be dictated by standards. They do whatever their owners/operators wish them to do, or whatever is necessary to make their applications work. This document attempts to normatively specify some B2BUA behavior, by creating a SIP header value for which the properties are such that B2BUAs should have no legitimate reason to interfere. This effectively creates a "promise" that future uses of this Session-ID header field, including its value

  • and* any future defined parameters, maintain this benign property.

Any future extensions to the Session-ID mechanism and header field MUST maintain this property, or else B2BUAs will begin to modify it again or remove it, and its value will be lost.

Manufacturers of SIP devices should note that a B2BUA may inspect the Session-ID header field and may remove it if it does not comply with this document's value restrictions. Any Session-ID header parameters MUST be registered with IANA and documented in RFCs from the IETF stream, pursuant to the requirements of RFC3968.

10. IANA Considerations

IANA has registered a new SIP header field named 'Session-ID', pursuant to the registration policies for such in RFC5727. This is a single-instance header field and is appropriate for any SIP message, of any Method type, in any request or response.

The ABNF rules RFC5234 for this new header allow for header parameters; however, they must be registered following the rules of RFC3968, as required by RFC5727.

This registration is intended to be temporary. The author expects that a Standards Track definition of Session-ID will be published at a future date. Assuming such a document is published, it will replace this registration with a reference to itself, at which point this document will no longer be referenced by IANA.

11. Acknowledgments

Thanks to Raphael Coeffic, Bob Penfield, Dale Worley, Paul Kyzivat, Ian Elz, Marco Stura, Martin Dolly, Martin Huelsemann, Laura Liess, and Adam Roach for their input.

12. References

12.1. Normative References

RFC2104 Krawczyk, H., Bellare, M., and R. Canetti, "HMAC: Keyed-

          Hashing for Message Authentication", RFC 2104, February
          1997.

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.

RFC3515 Sparks, R., "The Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Refer

          Method", RFC 3515, April 2003.

RFC3891 Mahy, R., Biggs, B., and R. Dean, "The Session Initiation

          Protocol (SIP) "Replaces" Header", RFC 3891, September
          2004.

RFC3968 Camarillo, G., "The Internet Assigned Number Authority

          (IANA) Header Field Parameter Registry for the Session
          Initiation Protocol (SIP)", BCP 98, RFC 3968, December
          2004.

RFC5234 Crocker, D., Ed., and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for

          Syntax Specifications: ABNF", STD 68, RFC 5234, January
          2008.

RFC5727 Peterson, J., Jennings, C., and R. Sparks, "Change Process

          for the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) and the Real-
          time Applications and Infrastructure Area", BCP 67, RFC
          5727, March 2010.

12.2. Informative References

RFC4235 Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., and R. Mahy, Ed., "An

          INVITE-Initiated Dialog Event Package for the Session
          Initiation Protocol (SIP)", RFC 4235, November 2005.

RFC4474 Peterson, J. and C. Jennings, "Enhancements for

          Authenticated Identity Management in the Session
          Initiation Protocol (SIP)", RFC 4474, August 2006.

RFC4916 Elwell, J., "Connected Identity in the Session Initiation

          Protocol (SIP)", RFC 4916, June 2007.

Appendix A. Use Cases Not in Scope for Session-ID

It is very tempting to use a header field value such as that provided by Session-ID, for other purposes than troubleshooting. In a previous document for this same Session-ID concept, the proposal included other uses; however, these were removed because any use case other than troubleshooting can easily lead to a B2BUA needing to change the value, in certain cases. That would defeat the troubleshooting value of Session-ID. This section discusses such use cases and explains why they are potentially harmful.

A.1. Dialog Correlation for SIP

Although Session-ID does provide a means to correlate separate SIP dialogs, messages, and transactions, it does so at a higher layer than SIP. It does not replace the mechanics of SIP using the Call-ID and To/From tags of SIP messages to correlate SIP dialogs, nor in other uses such as Replaces headers or dialog-event packages. It is tempting, however, to use it for exactly that purpose in certain cases.

For example, suppose a call transfer case where Alice calls Bob through B2BUA-1. Bob then calls Charlie and sends Charlie a REFER with embedded Replaces to make Charlie send an INVITE with a Replaces header to Alice, to replace the Alice-Bob session. If Charlie uses a different B2BUA-2 to reach Alice, the INVITE with Replaces will fail because the Call-ID/tags won't match anything B2BUA-2 or Alice knows about.

+-----+ +-------+ +-------+ +-----+ +-------+ |Alice| |B2BUA-1| |B2BUA-2| | Bob | |Charlie| +-----+ +-------+ +-------+ +-----+ +-------+

  |            |            |           |            |
  |INVITE      |            |           |            |
  |callid:1a   |callid:1b   |           |            |
  |----------->|----------------------->|INVITE      |
  |sessid:1    |sessid:1    |           |callid:2a   |
  |            |            |           |----------->|
  |            |            |           |sessid:2    |
  |            |            |           |            |
  |            |            |           |REFER       |
  |            |            |           |referto:1b  |
  |            |            |           |----------->|
  |            |            |           |            |
  |            |            |           |      INVITE|
  |            |            |           | replaces:1b|
  |            |            X<-----------------------|
  |            |      INVITE|           |    sessid:1|
  |            | replaces:1b|           |            |
  X<------------------------|           |            |
  |            |    sessid:1|           |            |
             Example 1: Call Transfer Case

If, on the other hand, Alice were to use the Session-ID value for correlation, she would see it matches her dialog with Bob (assuming the Session-ID were passed along in the Refer-To and Replaces info).

There are problems with this approach, however. The first problem is, by not sending the INVITE with Replaces to B2BUA-1, B2BUA-1 is in an incorrect state; the dialog is getting replaced, and the B2BUA doesn't know it.

A second issue is the Session-ID doesn't identify enough information to replace a dialog. Imagine there were a third B2BUA, such as a softswitch, between Alice and B2BUA-1 and B2BUA-2, and the INVITE with Replaces reached the softswitch before Alice. The softswitch won't know which "side" the INVITE is replacing. The To/From tags no longer match anything the softswitch knows about, so it can't figure out if the INVITE with Replaces is replacing the dialog from softswitch to Alice, or the one to Bob. If we try to fix this by creating a tag-type value pair for Session-ID, we're back to devices changing those tag values and defeating the matching property.

Another example is based on 3GPP 24.605 Annex A.2.2. Alice has a call with Bob through multiple B2BUAs and an Application Server. The dialogs of that call all have the same Session-ID, but unique Call-ID/tags.

Alice wants to invoke a third-party conference facility in the AS and to reference the call she has with Bob for that. In this particular 3GPP scenario, to do that Alice sends a new INVITE to the AS with a resource-list body (a la RFC 5366) containing the call information for the original call. This is the "RL<sessid:1>" piece in the diagram. It has the Call-ID/tags as well, but they'll be wrong when received at the AS.

The AS processes that list, can't match the Call-ID/tags in the resource-lit but does match the Session-ID, and sends a re-INVITE to party B within the original call's dialog.

+-----+ +-------+ +----+ +-------+ +-----+ |Alice| |B2BUA-1| | AS | |B2BUA-2| | Bob | +-----+ +-------+ +----+ +-------+ +-----+

  |            |            |           |            |
  |INVITE      |            |           |            |
  |callid:1a   |callid:1b   |callid:1c  |callid:1d   |
  |----------->|----------->|---------->|----------->|
  |sessid:1    |sessid:1    |sessid:1   |sessid:1    |
  |            |            |           |            |
  |INVITE      |            |           |            |
  |callid:2a   |callid:2b   |           |            |
  |----------->|----------->|           |            |
  |sessid:2    |sessid:2    |re-INVITE  |            |
  |RL<sessid:1>|RL<sessid:1>|callid:1c  |callid:1d   |
  |            |            |---------->|----------->|
  |            |            |sessid:1   |sessid:1    |
  |            |            |           |            |
                Example 2: Resource List

Author's Address

Hadriel Kaplan Oracle EMail: [email protected]