Distribution of this memo is unlimited. It also lists the already existing parameters and parameter values to be used as the initial entries for this registry. Table of Contents 1. Use of the Registry. IANA Considerations. Header Field Parameters Sub-Registry.
|Published (Last):||4 July 2008|
|PDF File Size:||12.6 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||9.91 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Distribution of this memo is unlimited. It also lists the already existing parameters and parameter values to be used as the initial entries for this registry.
Table of Contents 1. Use of the Registry. IANA Considerations. Header Field Parameters Sub-Registry. Security Considerations. Normative References. Introduction RFC [ 3 ] allows new header field parameters and new parameter values to be defined.
This document creates such a registry. This document updates RFC by specifying how to define and register new SIP header field parameters and parameter values. This documentation MUST fully explain the syntax, intended usage, and semantics of the parameter or parameter value. The intent of this requirement is to assure interoperability between independent implementations, and to prevent accidental namespace collisions between implementations of dissimilar features.
Note that this registry, unlike other protocol registries, only deals with parameters and parameter values defined in RFCs i. RFC [ 4 ] documents concerns with regards to new SIP extensions which may damage security, greatly increase the complexity of the protocol, or both. New parameters and parameter values need to be documented in RFCs as a result of these concerns. Registered SIP header field parameters and parameter values are to be considered "reserved words".
In order to preserve interoperability, registered parameters and parameter values MUST be used in a manner consistent with that described in their defining RFC. New SIP header field parameters and parameter values may be registered at any time, and there is no assurance that these new registered parameters or parameter values will not conflict with unregistered parameters currently in use. Some SIP header field parameters only accept a set of predefined parameter values.
Registering all parameter values for all SIP header field parameters of this type would require a large number of subregistries. Instead, we have chosen to register parameter values by reference.
That is, the entry in the parameter registry for a given header field parameter contains references to the RFCs defining new values of the parameter. References to RFCs defining parameter values appear in double brackets in the registry. So, the header field parameter registry contains a column that indicates whether or not each parameter only accepts a set of predefined values.
Implementers of parameters with a "yes" in that column need to find all the valid parameter values in the RFCs provided as references. This specification creates a new sub-registry for header field parameters under the SIP Parameters registry.
When registering a new parameter for a header field or a new value for a parameter, the following information MUST be provided. Parameters that can appear in different header fields MAY have the same name.
However, parameters that can appear in the same header field MUST have different names. The following are the initial values for this sub-registry. There is no requirement that this RFC be standards-track. Security Considerations The registry in this document does not in itself have security considerations. The supporting RFC publications for parameter registrations described this specification MUST provide detailed security considerations for them. Normative References [ 1 ] Bradner, S.
Camarillo ericsson. This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78 , and except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights.
Intellectual Property The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in this document or the extent to which any license under such rights might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has made any independent effort to identify any such rights.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement this standard.
Please address the information to the IETF at ietf- ipr ietf.
Shakagami Retrieved November 15, Relationship with other existing or emerging documents: Service Discovery XEP In that case, user agents or oetf use the Allow header to state which methods they support. ITU-T A. To require the use of a particular method in a particular dialog, they must use an option tag associated to that method. However, in such an scenario as the IMS framework, it is necessary to extend this reliability to provisional responses to INVITE requests for session establishment, this is, to start a call. There is also an allow-events header to indicate event notification capabilities, and the accepted and bad event response codes to indicate if a subscription request has been preliminary accepted or has been turned down because the notifier does not understand the kind of event requested. Relationship with other existing or emerging documents:. For customers interested in purchasing units or less of our Bria softphone clients, please visit our online store.
References from rfc6035
IETF RFC 6665