faqs.org - Internet FAQ Archives

RFC 3313 - Private Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Extensions


Or Display the document by number




Network Working Group                                   W. Marshall, Ed.
Request for Comments: 3313                                          AT&T
Category: Informational                                     January 2003

          Private Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Extensions
                        for Media Authorization

Status of this Memo

   This memo provides information for the Internet community.  It does
   not specify an Internet standard of any kind.  Distribution of this
   memo is unlimited.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003).  All Rights Reserved.

Abstract

   This document describes the need for Quality of Service (QoS) and
   media authorization and defines a Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)
   extension that can be used to integrate QoS admission control with
   call signaling and help guard against denial of service attacks.  The
   use of this extension is only applicable in administrative domains,
   or among federations of administrative domains with previously
   agreed-upon policies, where both the SIP proxy authorizing the QoS,
   and the policy control of the underlying network providing the QoS,
   belong to that administrative domain or federation of domains.

Table of Contents

   1. Scope of Applicability.........................................  2
   2. Conventions Used in this Document..............................  3
   3. Background and Motivation......................................  3
   4. Overview.......................................................  4
   5. Changes to SIP to Support Media Authorization..................  4
      5.1 SIP Header Extension.......................................  5
      5.2 SIP Procedures.............................................  5
        5.2.1 User Agent Client (UAC)................................  6
        5.2.2 User Agent Server (UAS)................................  6
        5.2.3 Originating Proxy (OP).................................  7
        5.2.4 Destination Proxy (DP).................................  7
   6. Examples.......................................................  8
      6.1 Requesting Bandwidth via RSVP Messaging....................  8
        6.1.1 User Agent Client Side.................................  8
        6.1.2 User Agent Server Side................................. 10
   7. Advantages of the Proposed Approach............................ 12
   8. Security Considerations........................................ 13
   9. IANA Considerations............................................ 13
   10. Notice Regarding Intellectual Property Rights................. 13
   11. Normative References.......................................... 14
   12. Informative References........................................ 14
   13. Contributors.................................................. 15
   14. Acknowledgments............................................... 15
   15. Editor's Address.............................................. 15
   16. Full Copyright Statement...................................... 16

1. Scope of Applicability

   This document defines a SIP extension that can be used to integrate
   QoS admission control with call signaling and help guard against
   denial of service attacks.  The use of this extension is only
   applicable in administrative domains, or among federations of
   administrative domains with previously agreed-upon policies, where
   both the SIP proxy authorizing the QoS, and the policy control of the
   underlying network providing the QoS, belong to that administrative
   domain or federation of domains.  Furthermore, the mechanism is
   generally incompatible with end-to-end encryption of message bodies
   that describe media sessions.

   This is in contrast with general Internet principles, which separate
   data transport from applications.  Thus, the solution described in
   this document is not applicable to the Internet at large.  Despite
   these limitations, there are sufficiently useful specialized
   deployments that meet the assumptions described above, and can accept
   the limitations that result, to warrant informational publication of
   this mechanism.  An example deployment would be a closed network,

   which emulates a traditional circuit switched telephone network.
   This document specifies a private header, facilitating use in these
   specialized configurations.

2. Conventions Used in this Document

   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 RFC 2119 [2].

3. Background and Motivation

   Current IP telephony systems assume a perfect world in which there is
   either an unlimited amount of bandwidth, or network layer Quality of
   Service (QoS) is provided without any kind of policy control.
   However, the reality is that end-to-end bandwidth is not unlimited
   and uncontrolled access to QoS, in general, is unlikely.  The primary
   reason for this is that QoS provides preferential treatment of one
   flow, at the expense of another.  Consequently, it is important to
   have policy control over whether a given flow should have access to
   QoS.  This will not only enable fairness in general, but can also
   prevent denial of service attacks.

   In this document, we are concerned with providing QoS for media
   streams established via the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) [3].
   We assume an architecture that integrates call signaling with media
   authorization, as illustrated in the Figure below.  The solid lines
   (A and B) show interfaces, whereas the dotted line (C) illustrates
   the QoS enabled media flow:

                               +---------+
                               |  Proxy  |
                    +--------->|         |
                    |          +---------+
                    |               ^
                  A)|            B) |
                    |              { }
                    |               |
                    |               v
                    v           +------+
                +------+   C)   | Edge |
                |  UA  |........|router|......
                +------+        +------+

                       Figure 1 - Basic Architecture

   In this architecture, we assume a SIP UA connected to a QoS enabled
   network with an edge router acting as a Policy Enforcement Point
   (PEP) [6].  We further assume that a SIP UA that wishes to obtain QoS
   initiates sessions through a proxy which can interface with the QoS
   policy control for the data network being used.  We will refer to
   such a proxy as a QoS enabled proxy.  We assume that the SIP UA needs
   to present an authorization token to the network in order to obtain
   Quality of Service (C).  The SIP UA obtains this authorization token
   via SIP (A) from the QoS enabled proxy by means of an extension SIP
   header, defined in this document.  The proxy, in turn, communicates
   either directly with the edge router or with a Policy Decision Point
   (PDP - not shown) [6] in order to obtain a suitable authorization
   token for the UA.

   Examples of access data networks, where such a QoS enabled proxy
   could be used, include DOCSIS based cable networks and 3rd generation
   (3G) wireless networks.

4. Overview

   A session that needs to obtain QoS for the media streams in
   accordance with our basic architecture described above goes through
   the following steps.

   The SIP UA sends an INVITE to the QoS enabled proxy, which for each
   resulting dialog includes one or more media authorization tokens in
   all unreliable provisional responses (except 100), the first reliable
   1xx or 2xx response, and all retransmissions of that reliable
   response for the dialog.  When the UA requests QoS, it includes the
   media authorization tokens with the resource reservation.

   A SIP UA may also receive an INVITE from its QoS enabled proxy which
   includes one or more media authorization tokens.  In that case, when
   the UA requests QoS, it includes the media authorization tokens with
   the resource reservation.  The resource reservation mechanism is not
   part of SIP and is not described within the scope of this document.

5. Changes to SIP to Support Media Authorization

   This document defines a private SIP header extension to support a
   media authorization scheme.  In this architecture, a QoS enabled SIP
   proxy supplies the UA with one or more authorization tokens which are
   to be used in QoS requests.  The extension defined allows network QoS
   resources to be authorized by the QoS enabled SIP proxy.

5.1 SIP Header Extension

   A new P-Media-Authorization general header field is defined.  The P-
   Media-Authorization header field contains one or more media
   authorization tokens which are to be included in subsequent resource
   reservations for the media flows associated with the session, that
   is, passed to an independent resource reservation mechanism, which is
   not specified here.  The media authorization tokens are used for
   authorizing QoS for the media stream(s).  The P-Media-Authorization
   header field is described by the following ABNF [4]:

      P-Media-Authorization   = "P-Media-Authorization" HCOLON
                                  P-Media-Authorization-Token
                                  *(COMMA P-Media-Authorization-Token)

      P-Media-Authorization-Token = 1*HEXDIG

   Table 1 below is an extension of tables 2 and 3 in [3] for the new
   header field defined here.  For informational purposes, this table
   also includes relevant entries for standards track extension methods
   published at the time this document was published.  The INFO, PRACK,
   UPDATE, and SUBSCRIBE and NOTIFY methods are defined respectively in
   [11], [9], [12], and [10].

                              Where  proxy  ACK  BYE  CAN  INV  OPT  REG
      P-Media-Authorization     R      ad    o    -    -    o    -    -
      P-Media-Authorization    2xx     ad    -    -    -    o    -    -
      P-Media-Authorization  101-199   ad    -    -    -    o    -    -

                              Where  proxy  INF  PRA  UPD  SUB  NOT
      P-Media-Authorization     R      ad    -    o    o    -    -
      P-Media-Authorization    2xx     ad    -    o    o    -    -

                      Table 1: Summary of header fields.

   The P-Media-Authorization header field can be used only in SIP
   requests or responses that can carry a SIP offer or answer.  This
   naturally keeps the scope of this header field narrow.

5.2 SIP Procedures

   This section defines SIP [3] procedures for usage in media
   authorization compatible systems, from the point of view of the
   authorizing QoS.

5.2.1 User Agent Client (UAC)

   The initial SIP INVITE message, mid-call messages that result in
   network QoS resource changes, and mid-call changes in call
   destination should be authorized.  These SIP messages are sent
   through the QoS enabled proxies to receive this authorization.  In
   order to authorize QoS, the QoS enabled SIP proxy MAY need to inspect
   message bodies that describe the media streams (e.g., SDP).  Hence,
   it is recommended (as may be appropriate within the applicability
   scope in Section 1 of this document) that such message bodies not be
   encrypted end-to-end.

   The P-Media-Authorization-Token, which is contained in the P-Media-
   Authorization header, is included for each dialog in all unreliable
   provisional responses (except 100), the first reliable 1xx or 2xx
   response, and all retransmissions of that reliable response for the
   dialog sent by the QoS enabled SIP proxy to the UAC.

   The UAC should use all the P-Media-Authorization-Tokens from the most
   recent request/response that contained the P-Media-Authorization
   header when requesting QoS for the associated media stream(s).  This
   applies to both initial and subsequent refresh reservation messages
   (for example, in an RSVP-based reservation system).  A reservation
   function within the UAC should convert each string of hex digits into
   binary, and utilize each result as a Policy-Element, as defined in
   RFC 2750 [5] (excluding Length, but including P-Type which is
   included in each token).  These Policy-Elements would typically
   contain the authorizing entity and credentials, and be used in an
   RSVP request for media data stream QoS resources.

5.2.2 User Agent Server (UAS)

   The User Agent Server receives the P-Media-Authorization-Token in an
   INVITE (or other) message from the QoS enabled SIP proxy.  If the
   response contains a message body that describes media streams for
   which the UA desires QoS, it is recommended (as may be appropriate
   within the applicability scope in Section 1 of this document) that
   this message body not be encrypted end-to-end.

   The UAS should use all the P-Media-Authorization-Tokens from the most
   recent request/response that contained the P-Media-Authorization
   header when requesting QoS for the associated media stream(s).  This
   applies both to initial and subsequent refresh reservation messages
   (for example, in an RSVP-based reservation system).  A reservation
   function within the UAS should convert each string of hex digits into
   binary, and utilize each result as a Policy-Element, as defined in
   RFC 2750 [5] (excluding Length, but including P-Type which is
   included in each token).  These Policy-Elements would typically

   contain the authorizing entity and credentials, and be used in an
   RSVP request for media data stream QoS resources.

5.2.3 Originating Proxy (OP)

   When the originating QoS enabled proxy (OP) receives an INVITE (or
   other) message from the UAC, the proxy authenticates the caller, and
   verifies that the caller is authorized to receive QoS.

   In cooperation with an originating Policy Decision Point (PDP-o), the
   OP obtains and/or generates one or more media authorization tokens.
   These contain sufficient information for the UAC to get the
   authorized QoS for the media streams.  Each media authorization token
   is formatted as a Policy-Element, as defined in RFC 2750 [5]
   (excluding Length, but including P-Type which is included in each
   token), and then converted to a string of hex digits to form a P-
   Media-Authorization-Token.  The proxy's resource management function
   may inspect message bodies that describe the media streams (e.g.,
   SDP), in both requests and responses in order to decide what QoS to
   authorize.

   For each dialog that results from the INVITE (or other) message
   received from the UAC, the originating proxy must add a P-Media-
   Authorization header with the P-Media-Authorization-Token in all
   unreliable provisional responses (except 100), the first reliable 1xx
   or 2xx response, and all retransmissions of that reliable response
   the proxy sends to the UAC, if that response may result in network
   QoS changes.  A response with an SDP may result in such changes.

5.2.4 Destination Proxy (DP)

   The Destination QoS Enabled Proxy (DP) verifies that the called party
   is authorized to receive QoS.

   In cooperation with a terminating Policy Decision Point (PDP-t), the
   DP obtains and/or generates a media authorization token that contains
   sufficient information for the UAS to get the authorized QoS for the
   media streams.  The media authorization token is formatted as a
   Policy-Element, as defined in RFC 2750 [5] (excluding Length, but
   including P-Type which is included in each token), and then converted
   to a string of hex digits to form a P-Media-Authorization-Token.  The
   proxy's resource management function may inspect message bodies that
   describe the media streams (e.g., SDP), in both requests and
   responses in order to decide what QoS to authorize.

   The Destination Proxy must add the P-Media-Authorization header with
   the P-Media-Authorization-Token in the INVITE (or other) request that
   it sends to the UAS if that message may result in network QoS
   changes.  A message with an SDP body may result in such changes.

6. Examples

6.1 Requesting Bandwidth via RSVP Messaging

   Below we provide an example of how the P-Media-Authorization header
   field can be used in conjunction with the Resource Reservation
   Protocol (RSVP) [7].  The example assumes that an offer arrives in
   the initial INVITE and an answer arrives in a reliable provisional
   response [9], which contains an SDP description of the media flow.

6.1.1 User Agent Client Side

   Figure 2 presents a high-level overview of a basic call flow with
   media authorization from the viewpoint of the UAC.  Some policy
   interactions have been omitted for brevity.

   When a user goes off-hook and dials a telephone number, the UAC
   collects the dialed digits and sends the initial (1)INVITE message to
   the originating SIP proxy.

   The originating SIP proxy (OP) authenticates the user/UAC and
   forwards the (2)INVITE message to the proper SIP proxy.

   Assuming the call is not forwarded, the terminating end-point sends a
   (3)18x response to the initial INVITE via OP.  Included in this
   response is an indication of the negotiated bandwidth requirement for
   the connection (in the form of an SDP description [8]).

   When OP receives the (3)18x, it has sufficient information regarding
   the end-points, bandwidth and characteristics of the media exchange.
   It initiates a Policy-Setup message to PDP-o, (4)AuthProfile.

   The PDP-o stores the authorized media description in its local store,
   generates an authorization token that points to this description, and
   returns the authorization token to the OP, (5)AuthToken.

   UAC         ER-o            PDP-o           OP
   |(1)INVITE   |               |               | Client Authentication
   |------------------------------------------->| and Call Authoriz.
   |            |               |               | (2)INVITE
   |            |               |               |-------------->
   |            |               |               | (3)18x
   |            |               |(4)AuthProfile |<--------------
   |            |               |<--------------|
   |            |               |(5)AuthToken   |
   |            |               |-------------->| Auth. Token put into
   |            |               |        (6)18x | P-Media-Authorization
   |<-------------------------------------------| header extension.
   |---(7)PRACK-------------------------------->|
   |                                            |--(8)PRACK---->
   |                                            |<-(9)200 (PRACK)
   |<--(10)200 (PRACK)--------------------------|
   |            |               |               |
   |Copies the RSVP policy object               |
   |from the P-Media-Authorization              |
   |(11)RSVP-PATH               |               |
   |----------->| (12)REQ       |               |
   |            |-------------->| Using the Auth-Token and Authorized
   |            |       (13)DEC | Profile that is set by the SIP Proxy
   |            |<--------------| the PDP makes the decision
   |            |               |               |(14)RSVP-PATH
   |            |------------------------------------------------>
   |            |               |               |(15)RSVP-PATH
   |<--------------------------------------------------------------
   |Copies the RSVP policy object               |
   |from the P-Media-Authorization              |
   |(16)RSVP-RESV               |               |
   |----------->|   (17)REQ     |               |
   |            |-------------->| Using the Auth-Token and Authorized
   |            |   (18)DEC     | Profile that is set by the SIP Proxy
   |            |<--------------| the PDP makes the decision
   |            |               |               |(19)RSVP-RESV
   |            |--------------------------------------------------->
   |            |               |               |(20)RSVP-RESV
   |<----------------------------------------------------------------
   |            |               |               |

             Figure 2 - Media Authorization with RSVP (UAC)

   The OP includes the authorization token in the P-Media-Authorization
   header extension of the (6)18x message.

   Upon receipt of the (6)18x message, the UAC stores the media
   authorization token from the P-Media-Authorization header.  Also, the
   UAC acknowledges the 18x message by sending a (7)PRACK message, which
   is responded to with (10) 200.

   Before sending any media, the UAC requests QoS by sending an
   (11)RSVP-PATH message, which includes the previously stored P-Media-
   Authorization-Token as a Policy-Element.

   ER-o, upon receipt of the (11)RSVP-PATH message, checks the
   authorization through a PDP-o COPS message exchange, (12)REQ.  PDP-o
   checks the authorization using the stored authorized media
   description that was linked to the authorization token it returned to
   OP.  If authorization is successful, PDP-o returns an "install"
   Decision, (13)DEC.

   ER-o checks the admissibility for the request, and if admission
   succeeds, it forwards the (14)RSVP-PATH message.

   Once UAC receives the (15)RSVP-PATH message from UAS, it sends the
   (16)RSVP-RESV message to reserve the network resources.

   ER-o, upon receiving the (16)RSVP-RESV message checks the
   authorization through a PDP-o COPS message exchange, (17)REQ.  PDP-o
   checks the authorization using the stored authorized media
   description that was linked to the authorization token it returned to
   OP.  If authorization is successful, PDP-o returns an "install"
   Decision, (18)DEC.

   ER-o checks the admissibility for the request, and if admission
   succeeds, it forwards the (19)RSVP-RESV message.

   Upon receiving the (20)RSVP-RESV message, network resources have been
   reserved in both directions.

6.1.2 User Agent Server Side

   Figure 3 presents a high-level overview of a call flow with media
   authorization from the viewpoint of the UAS.  Some policy
   interactions have been omitted for brevity.

   Since the destination SIP proxy (DP) has sufficient information
   regarding the endpoints, bandwidth, and characteristics of the media
   exchange, it initiates a Policy-Setup message to the terminating
   Policy Decision Point (PDP-t) on receipt of the (1)INVITE.

   UAS         ER-t           PDP-t            DP
    |           |               |               | (1)INVITE
    |           |               |               |<--------------
    |           |               |               | Proxy Authentication
    |           |               | (2)AuthProfile| and Call Authoriz.
    |           |               |<--------------|
    |           |               | (3)AuthToken  |
    |           |               |-------------->| Auth. Token put into
    |           |               |     (4)INVITE | P-Media-Authorization
    |<------------------------------------------| header extension
    |  (5)18x   |               |               |
    |------------------------------------------>| (6)18x
    |Copies the RSVP policy object              |-------------->
    |from the P-Media-Authorization             |
    |(7)RSVP-PATH               |               |
    |---------->| (8)REQ        |               |
    |           |-------------->| Using the Auth-Token and Authorized
    |           |       (9)DEC  | Profile that is set by the SIP Proxy
    |           |<--------------| the PDP makes the decision
    |           |               |               |(10)RSVP-PATH
    |           |-------------------------------------------------->
    |           |               |               |(11)RSVP-PATH
    |<--------------------------------------------------------------
    |Copies the RSVP policy object              |
    |from the P-Media-Authorization             |
    | (12)RSVP-RESV             |               |
    |---------->|               |               |
    |           | (13)REQ       |               |
    |           |-------------->| Using the Auth-Token and Authorized
    |           |       (14)DEC | Profile that is set by the SIP Proxy
    |           |<--------------| the PDP makes the decision
    |           |               |               |(15)RSVP-RESV
    |           |--------------------------------------------------->
    |           |               |               |(16)RSVP-RESV
    |<---------------------------------------------------------------
    |           |               |               |<-(17)PRACK---------
    |<--(18)PRACK ------------------------------|
    |---(19)200 (PRACK) ----------------------->|
    |           |               |               |--(20)200 (PRACK)-->
    |           |               |               |

              Figure 3 - Media Authorization with RSVP (UAS)

   PDP-t stores the authorized media description in its local store,
   generates an authorization token that points to this description, and
   returns the authorization token to DP.  The token is placed in the
   (4)INVITE message and forwarded to the UAS.

   Assuming that the call is not forwarded, the UAS sends a (5)18x
   response to the initial INVITE message, which is forwarded back to
   UAC.  At the same time, the UAS sends a (7)RSVP-PATH message which
   includes the previously stored P-Media-Authorization-Token as a
   Policy-Element.

   ER-t, upon receiving the (7)RSVP-PATH message checks the
   authorization through a PDP-t COPS message exchange.  PDP-t checks
   the authorization using the stored authorized media description that
   was linked to the authorization token it returned to DP.  If
   authorization is successful, PDP-t returns an "install" Decision,
   (9)DEC.

   ER-t checks the admissibility for the request, and if admission
   succeeds, it forwards the (10)RSVP-PATH message.

   Once the UAS receives the (11)RSVP-PATH message, it sends the
   (12)RSVP-RESV message to reserve the network resources.

   ER-t, upon reception of the (12)RSVP-RESV message, checks the
   authorization through a PDP-t COPS message exchange.  PDP-t checks
   the authorization using the stored authorized media description that
   was linked to the authorization token that it returned to DP.  If
   authorization is successful, PDP-t returns an "install" Decision,
   (14)DEC.

   ER-t checks the admissibility for the request and if admission
   succeeds, it forwards the (15)RSVP-RESV message.

   Upon receiving the (16)RSVP-RESV message, network resources have been
   reserved in both directions.

   For completeness, we show the (17)PRACK message for the (5) 18x
   response and the resulting (19) 200 response acknowledging the PRACK.

7. Advantages of the Proposed Approach

   The use of media authorization makes it possible to control the usage
   of network resources.  In turn, this makes IP Telephony more robust
   against denial of service attacks and various kinds of service
   frauds.  By using the authorization capability, the number of flows,
   and the amount of network resources reserved can be controlled,
   thereby making the IP Telephony system dependable in the presence of
   scarce resources.

8. Security Considerations

   In order to control access to QoS, a QoS enabled proxy should
   authenticate the UA before providing it with a media authorization
   token.  Both the method and policy associated with such
   authentication are outside the scope of this document, however it
   could, for example, be done by using standard SIP authentication
   mechanisms, as described in [3].

   Media authorization tokens sent in the P-Media-Authorization header
   from a QoS enabled proxy to a UA MUST be protected from eavesdropping
   and tampering.  This can, for example, be done through a mechanism
   such as IPSec or TLS.  However, this will only provide hop-by-hop
   security.  If there is one or more intermediaries (e.g., proxies),
   between the UA and the QoS enabled proxy, these intermediaries will
   have access to the P-Media-Authorization header field value, thereby
   compromising confidentiality and integrity.  This will enable both
   theft-of-service and denial-of-service attacks against the UA.
   Consequently, the P-Media-Authorization header field MUST NOT be
   available to any untrusted intermediary in the clear or without
   integrity protection.  There is currently no mechanism defined in SIP
   that would satisfy these requirements.  Until such a mechanism
   exists, proxies MUST NOT send P-Media-Authorization headers through
   untrusted intermediaries, which might reveal or modify the contents
   of this header.  (Note that S/MIME-based encryption in SIP is not
   available to proxy servers, as proxies are not allowed to add message
   bodies.)

   QoS enabled proxies may need to inspect message bodies describing
   media streams (e.g., SDP).  Consequently, such message bodies should
   not be encrypted.  In turn, this will prevent end-to-end
   confidentiality of the said message bodies, which lowers the overall
   security possible.

9. IANA Considerations

   This document defines a new private SIP header for media
   authorization, "P-Media-Authorization".  This header has been
   registered by the IANA in the SIP header registry, using the RFC
   number of this document as its reference.

10. Notice Regarding Intellectual Property Rights

   The IETF has been notified of intellectual property rights claimed in
   regard to some or all of the specification contained in this
   document.  For more information consult the online list of claimed
   rights.

11. Normative References

   [1]  Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 3", BCP
        9, RFC 2026, October 1996.

   [2]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement
        Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

   [3]  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.

   [4]  Crocker, D. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax
        Specifications: ABNF", RFC 2234, November 1997.

   [5]  Herzog, S., "RSVP Extensions for Policy Control", RFC 2750,
        January 2000.

12. Informative References

   [6]  Yavatkar, R., Pendarakis, D. and R. Guerin, "A Framework for
        Policy-based Admission Control", RFC 2753, January 2000.

   [7]  Braden, R., Zhang, L., Berson, S., Herzog, S. and S. Jamin,
        "Resource Reservation Protocol (RSVP) -- Version 1 Functional
        Specification", RFC 2205, September 1997.

   [8]  Handley, M. and V. Jacobson, "SDP: Session Description
        Protocol", RFC 2327, April 1998.

   [9]  Rosenberg, J. and H. Schulzrinne, "Reliability of Provisional
        Responses in Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)", RFC 3262, June
        2002.

   [10] Roach, A. B., "Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)-Specific Event
        Notification", RFC 3265, June 2002.

   [11] Donovan, S., "The SIP INFO Method", RFC 2976, October 2000.

   [12] Rosenberg, J., "The Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) UPDATE
        Method", RFC 3311, September 2002.

13. Contributors

   The following people contributed significantly and were co-authors on
   earlier versions of this document:

      Bill Marshall (AT&T), K. K. Ramakrishnan (AT&T), Ed Miller
      (Terayon), Glenn Russell (CableLabs), Burcak Beser (Juniper
      Networks), Mike Mannette (3Com), Kurt Steinbrenner (3Com), Dave
      Oran (Cisco), Flemming Andreasen (Cisco), John Pickens (Com21),
      Poornima Lalwaney (Nokia), Jon Fellows (Copper Mountain Networks),
      Doc Evans (Arris), and Keith Kelly (NetSpeak).

14. Acknowledgments

   The Distributed Call Signaling work in the PacketCable project is the
   work of a large number of people, representing many different
   companies.  The contributors would like to recognize and thank the
   following for their assistance: John Wheeler, Motorola; David
   Boardman, Daniel Paul, Arris Interactive; Bill Blum, Jay Strater,
   Jeff Ollis, Clive Holborow, Motorola; Doug Newlin, Guido Schuster,
   Ikhlaq Sidhu, 3Com; Jiri Matousek, Bay Networks; Farzi Khazai,
   Nortel; John Chapman, Bill Guckel, Michael Ramalho, Cisco; Chuck
   Kalmanek, Doug Nortz, John Lawser, James Cheng, Tung-Hai Hsiao,
   Partho Mishra, AT&T; Telcordia Technologies; and Lucent Cable
   Communications.  Dean Willis and Rohan Mahy provided valuable
   feedback as well.

15. Editor's Address

   Bill Marshall
   AT&T
   Florham Park, NJ  07932

   EMail: wtm@research.att.com

16. Full Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003).  All Rights Reserved.

   This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
   others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
   or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published
   and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any
   kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are
   included on all such copies and derivative works.  However, this
   document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
   the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
   Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of
   developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for
   copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be
   followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than
   English.

   The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
   revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.

   This document and the information contained herein is provided on an
   "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING
   TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING
   BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION
   HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
   MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.

Acknowledgement

   Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
   Internet Society.

 

User Contributions:

Comment about this RFC, ask questions, or add new information about this topic:

CAPTCHA