draft-ietf-sipcore-name-addr-guidance-01.txt   draft-ietf-sipcore-name-addr-guidance-02.txt 
Network Working Group R. Sparks Network Working Group R. Sparks
Internet-Draft Oracle Internet-Draft Oracle
Updates: 3261, 3325, 3515, 3892, 4508, May 10, 2017 Updates: 3261, 3325, 3515, 3892, 4508, June 01, 2017
5002, 5318, 5360, 5502 (if 5002, 5318, 5360, 5502 (if
approved) approved)
Intended status: Standards Track Intended status: Standards Track
Expires: November 11, 2017 Expires: December 3, 2017
Clarifications for when to use the name-addr production in SIP messages Clarifications for when to use the name-addr production in SIP messages
draft-ietf-sipcore-name-addr-guidance-01 draft-ietf-sipcore-name-addr-guidance-02
Abstract Abstract
RFC3261 constrained several SIP header fields whose grammar contains RFC3261 constrained several SIP header fields whose grammar contains
the "name-addr / addr-spec" alternative to use name-addr when certain the "name-addr / addr-spec" alternative to use name-addr when certain
characters appear. Unfortunately it expressed the constraints with characters appear. Unfortunately it expressed the constraints with
prose copied into each header field definition, and at least one prose copied into each header field definition, and at least one
header field was missed. Further, the constraint has not been copied header field was missed. Further, the constraint has not been copied
into documents defining extension headers whose grammar contains the into documents defining extension headers whose grammar contains the
alternative. alternative.
skipping to change at page 1, line 46 skipping to change at page 1, line 46
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on November 11, 2017. This Internet-Draft will expire on December 3, 2017.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License. described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Updates to RFC3261 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Updates to RFCs defining SIP Extension header fields . . . . 4 3. Updates to RFC3261 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4. Updates to RFCs defining SIP Extension header fields . . . . 4
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
6. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
7. Instructions to the RFC Editor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 7. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
8. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 8. Instructions to the RFC Editor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
9. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
[RFC3261] defines several header fields that contain URIs to allow [RFC3261] defines several header fields that contain URIs to allow
both a form that contains the bare URI (addr-spec) and one that both a form that contains the bare URI (addr-spec) and one that
provides a name and the URI (name-addr). This subset, taken from the provides a name and the URI (name-addr). This subset, taken from the
ABNF [RFC5234] specified in [RFC3261] shows the relevant part of the ABNF [RFC5234] specified in [RFC3261] shows the relevant part of the
definition of the syntax of the "From" header field: definition of the syntax of the "From" header field:
skipping to change at page 3, line 39 skipping to change at page 3, line 39
It is important to note that a message formed without honoring the It is important to note that a message formed without honoring the
constraint will still be syntactically valid, but would very likely constraint will still be syntactically valid, but would very likely
be interpreted differently. The characters after the comma, question be interpreted differently. The characters after the comma, question
mark, or semicolon will, in most cases, be interpreted as header mark, or semicolon will, in most cases, be interpreted as header
field parameters or additional header field values as discussed in field parameters or additional header field values as discussed in
section 7.3.1 of [RFC3261]. (An exception is the degenerate case of section 7.3.1 of [RFC3261]. (An exception is the degenerate case of
a URL like sip:10.0.0.1,@10.0.0.0 where it is possible to parse the a URL like sip:10.0.0.1,@10.0.0.0 where it is possible to parse the
comma via the 'user' production). comma via the 'user' production).
2. Updates to RFC3261 2. Terminology
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.
3. Updates to RFC3261
This text from the introduction to section 20 of [RFC3261]: This text from the introduction to section 20 of [RFC3261]:
The Contact, From, and To header fields contain a URI. If the URI The Contact, From, and To header fields contain a URI. If the URI
contains a comma, question mark or semicolon, the URI MUST be contains a comma, question mark or semicolon, the URI MUST be
enclosed in angle brackets (< and >). Any URI parameters are enclosed in angle brackets (< and >). Any URI parameters are
contained within these brackets. If the URI is not enclosed in contained within these brackets. If the URI is not enclosed in
angle brackets, any semicolon-delimited parameters are angle brackets, any semicolon-delimited parameters are
header-parameters, not URI parameters. header-parameters, not URI parameters.
skipping to change at page 4, line 19 skipping to change at page 4, line 28
or question mark. or question mark.
When a URI appears in such a header field, any URI parameters MUST When a URI appears in such a header field, any URI parameters MUST
be contained within angle brackets (< and >). If the URI is not be contained within angle brackets (< and >). If the URI is not
enclosed in angle brackets, any semicolon-delimited parameters are enclosed in angle brackets, any semicolon-delimited parameters are
header-parameters, not URI parameters. header-parameters, not URI parameters.
The header fields defined in this specification that allow this The header fields defined in this specification that allow this
choice are "To", "From", "Contact", and "Reply-To". choice are "To", "From", "Contact", and "Reply-To".
3. Updates to RFCs defining SIP Extension header fields 4. Updates to RFCs defining SIP Extension header fields
The following standards track RFCs: [RFC3515], [RFC3892], [RFC4508], The following standards track RFCs: [RFC3515], [RFC3892], [RFC4508],
and [RFC5360] and [RFC5360]
and the following informational RFCS: [RFC3325], [RFC5002], and the following informational RFCS: [RFC3325], [RFC5002],
[RFC5318], and [RFC5502] [RFC5318], and [RFC5502]
are updated to include: are updated to include:
This RFC contains the definition of one or more SIP header fields This RFC contains the definition of one or more SIP header fields
that allow choosing between addr-spec and name-addr when that allow choosing between addr-spec and name-addr when
constructing header field values. As specified in RFCxxxx, constructing header field values. As specified in RFCxxxx,
the "addr-spec" form MUST NOT be used if its value would contain the "addr-spec" form MUST NOT be used if its value would contain
a comma, semicolon, or question mark. a comma, semicolon, or question mark.
The status of the Informational RFCs remains Informational. The status of the Informational RFCs remains Informational.
4. IANA Considerations 5. IANA Considerations
This memo has no considerations for IANA. This memo has no considerations for IANA.
5. Security Considerations 6. Security Considerations
The updates specified in this memo clarify a constraint on the The updates specified in this memo clarify a constraint on the
grammar for producing SIP messages. It introduces no new security grammar for producing SIP messages. It introduces no new security
considerations. One pre-existing consideration is worth reiterating: considerations. One pre-existing consideration is worth reiterating:
messages produced without honoring the constraint will very likely be messages produced without honoring the constraint will very likely be
mis-interpreted by the receiving element. mis-interpreted by the receiving element.
6. Acknowledgments 7. Acknowledgments
Brett Tate identified this issue in several extension documents, Brett Tate identified this issue in several extension documents,
submitted several corresponding errata, and drove the discussion that submitted several corresponding errata, and drove the discussion that
led to this memo. Substantive comments leading to this text were led to this memo. Substantive comments leading to this text were
provided by Paul Kyzivat, Gonzalo Camarillo, Dale Worley, and provided by Paul Kyzivat, Gonzalo Camarillo, Dale Worley, and
Yehoshua Gev. Yehoshua Gev.
7. Instructions to the RFC Editor 8. Instructions to the RFC Editor
Please remove this section in its entirety before publication as an Please remove this section in its entirety before publication as an
RFC. RFC.
Please replace any instances of RFCxxxx with the RFC number assigned Please replace any instances of RFCxxxx with the RFC number assigned
to this memo. to this memo.
This memo, if it is approved, obviates Errata 3744, 3894, and This memo, if it is approved, obviates Errata 3744, 3894, and
4648-4652 inclusive. 4648-4652 inclusive.
8. Normative References 9. Normative References
[RFC3261] Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., Camarillo, G., Johnston, [RFC3261] Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., Camarillo, G., Johnston,
A., Peterson, J., Sparks, R., Handley, M., and E. A., Peterson, J., Sparks, R., Handley, M., and E.
Schooler, "SIP: Session Initiation Protocol", RFC 3261, Schooler, "SIP: Session Initiation Protocol", RFC 3261,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3261, June 2002, DOI 10.17487/RFC3261, June 2002,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3261>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3261>.
[RFC5234] Crocker, D., Ed. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax [RFC5234] Crocker, D., Ed. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax
Specifications: ABNF", STD 68, RFC 5234, Specifications: ABNF", STD 68, RFC 5234,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5234, January 2008, DOI 10.17487/RFC5234, January 2008,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5234>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5234>.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
[RFC3515] Sparks, R., "The Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Refer [RFC3515] Sparks, R., "The Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Refer
Method", RFC 3515, DOI 10.17487/RFC3515, April 2003, Method", RFC 3515, DOI 10.17487/RFC3515, April 2003,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3515>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3515>.
[RFC3892] Sparks, R., "The Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) [RFC3892] Sparks, R., "The Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)
Referred-By Mechanism", RFC 3892, DOI 10.17487/RFC3892, Referred-By Mechanism", RFC 3892, DOI 10.17487/RFC3892,
September 2004, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3892>. September 2004, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3892>.
[RFC4508] Levin, O. and A. Johnston, "Conveying Feature Tags with [RFC4508] Levin, O. and A. Johnston, "Conveying Feature Tags with
the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) REFER Method", the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) REFER Method",
 End of changes. 13 change blocks. 
18 lines changed or deleted 36 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.45. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/