Signaling Compression dictionary for SIP
draft-lei-rohc-sigcomp-static-dictionary-00.txt
Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full
conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF
Contributions published or made publicly available before November
10, 2008. The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this
material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow
modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process.
Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling
the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified
outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may
not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format
it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other
than English.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups.
Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as
Internet-Drafts.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time.
It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite
them other than as “work in progress.”
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on December 21, 2009.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2009 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 in effect on the date of
publication of this document (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info).
Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your
rights and restrictions with respect to this document.
Abstract
The SigComp static dictionary for Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) signalling was done by first version RFC3485. SIP protocol related extensions were completed and published in a series IETF documents. Those SIP protocol extensions had been used in 3GPP IMS and IMS based applications. The new extensions to SIP protocol weaken the intention of static dictionary for SIP signalling compressing which is to reduce overload risks in radio access network and core network involving wireless network
Table of Contents
1.
Introduction
2.
Requirements Language
3.
Discussions
3.1.
How these extra strings selected
3.2.
How many extensions need to be added
3.3.
How the developer think about new static dictionary
4.
Basic concept static dictionary expanding
5.
SIP input strings to the SIP/SDP static dictionary
6.
Acknowledgements
7.
IANA Considerations
8.
Security Considerations
9.
References
9.1.
Normative References
9.2.
Informative References
§
Author's Address
1.
Introduction
SIP RFC3261 (Rosenberg, J., “SIP: Session Initiation Protocol,” June 2002.) [1] and SDP RFC4566 (Handley, M., “SDP: Session Description Protocol,” July 2006.) [2] are text-based protocols that use the UTF-8 charset (RFC3629 (Yergeau, F., “UTF-8, a transformation format of ISO 10646,” November 2003.) [3]). SIP and SDP were designed for rich bandwidth links. However, when SIP/SDP is run over narrow bandwidth links, such as radio interfaces. Session setup time using this kind of bandwidth-limited link is a critical indication to satisfy users' expectations.
The session setup time can be decreased obviously if the SIP signalling with SDP body is compressed. In addition, the signalling compress with very high compressing ratio is expected to help radio access layer save radio resouces which are critical to operators. The signaling compression mechanisms specified in SigComp RFC3320 (Price, R., “Signaling Compression (SigComp),” January 2003.) [4] provide a multiple compression/decompression algorithm framework to compress and decompress text-based protocols such as SIP and SDP.
SIP UAC and UAS behaviors supporting SigComp mechanism to compress SIP signalling are specified in RFC3486 (Camarillo, G., “Compressing the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP ),” February 2003.) [7]. The static dictionary are SIP and SDP are introduced by RFC3485 (Garcia-Martin, M., “The Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) and Session Description Protocol (SDP) Static Dictionary for Signaling Compression (SigComp),” February 2003.) [6] which defined static SIP/SDP dictionary as a SigComp state that can be referenced in the first SIP message.
At this moment, the SIP protocol related extensions are likely to publish by IETF. This submitted IETF draft intents to summarize the other SIP protocol extensions which are also expected to be included in static dictionary. In the period of processing this IETF draft, the most of SIP protocol related method, header field, Option-tag and parameters can be finalized to include based on author's understanding.
2.
Requirements Language
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 (Bradner, S., “Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels,” March 1997.) [5].
3.
Discussions
This section is to introduce the background of selecting strings, constructive questions and thinking for further considerations. The intention of the author is to delete those discussion unrelated to the core purpose of this draft if this draft is recognized as helpful input for further development in working group.
3.1.
How these extra strings selected
The strings to be added in static dictionary are widely and directly selected in published extensions to SIP protocol involving SIP WG and SIPPING WG. These selected strings should be already registered in IANA. Some working group drafting are possibly in review process or queuing process have not been added yet, but are highly expected to present this dictionary. The SDP parameters which are defined in MMUSIC working group are also necessary extension to be added in dictionary.
Some strings are connected to already defined string (e.g. application/****), the rest part of strings (****) are picked up and added in dictionary
If it is correct, the author expected these seeing strings registered in IANA would be included in static dictionary for SIP signalling compression during discussion of this draft. Therefore, the most of registered strings would be covered by this new static dictionary.
3.2.
How many extensions need to be added
The first version RFC3485 (Roach, A., “A Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Event Notification Extension for Resource Lists,” August 2006.) [8] of static dictionary of Signaling Compression for SIP finalized the basic strings which include SIP protocol and SDP parameters.
Recently IMS and IMS based applications still growth in 3GPP and OMA which lead the usage of SIP protocol in telecommunication level. SigComp with static dictionary helps operator improve user's experiences served by operator's applications. Those IMS core specs and applications (Conferencing, PoC, Sample IM, Presence etc.) are still expanded continuously by some quite important extensions like GRUU, conference state event, early media precondition, resource-list MIME body and resource priority etc.
At the same time, MMUSIC WG is refining SDP parameters for some other business models.
As an example, I have some experiences in OMA (Open Mobile Alliance) PoC specifications. OMA PoC version v2.1 control plane contains a typical SIP signalling like following.
Request-URI sip:FactoryURI.networkA.net
SIP HEADERS
...
P-Preferred-Identity: "PoC User A" sip:PoC-UserA@networkA.net
Accept-Contact: *;+g.poc.talkburst; require;explicit
User-Agent: PoC-client/OMA2.0 Acme-Talk5000/v1.01
Privacy: id
Contact: +sip.instance="urn:uuid:0000-1000-8000-000A95A0E128"
Supported: timer
Session-Expires:1800
Allow:INVITE,ACK,CANCEL,BYE,REFER,OPTIONS,MESSAGE
Content-Type:multipart/mixed
Require:recipient-list-invite
Priv-Answer-Mode: Auto
Accept-Language: en
Subject: Let's talk
Content-Type: application/sdp
c=IN IP6 5555::aaa:bbb:ccc:ddd
m=audio 3456 RTP/AVP 97
a=rtpmap:97 AMR
a=rtcp:5560
i=speech
b=AS:25.4
a=label:aa
m=application 2000 udp TBCP
a=floorid:0 mstrm:aa bb
m=video 5678 RTP/AVP 99
a=rtpmap:99 MP4V-ES
b=AS:75
a=label:bb
m=message 12345 TCP/MSRP *
a=path:msrp://[5555::aaa:bbb:ccc:ddd]:12345/kjhd37s2s20w2a;tcp
a=max-size:10000
Content-Type: application/resource-lists+xml
Content-Disposition: recipient-list
This example contains some recent extension to SIP and SDP strings. The author of this document estimated about up to 10 percentage strings of a SIP signaling which have been registered but not defiend in static dictionary. It was understood that the extension to static dictionary would bring some extra implementation to existing protocol stack. Considering the basic element leads the compressing ratio to not satisfy the needs, the ideal static dictionary for SIP signaling compression is still possibly necessary.
3.3.
How the developer think about new static dictionary
The opinions on how to implement the new static dictionary based on the existing system could be considered as two kind of concerns. One of them is that the SigComp was launched some time ago and was quite complicated mechanism to SIP protocol based network entities. The new static dicationary will result in more needs to extent existing implentation of SigComp. The cost is obviously high.
Another question needs to be considered is that the two static dictionaries were made out for SIP protocol. The third static dictionary should evalute the possibily to coexit with dictionaries.
4.
Basic concept static dictionary expanding
This document MUST follow the design principles and extent the static dictionary directly.
The columns in the tables are described as follows:
String: represents the UTF-8 string that is inserted into the dictionary. Note that the quotes (") are not part of the string itself. Note also that the notation [CRLF] represents a Carriage Return character (ASCII code 0x0D) followed by a Line Feed character (ASCII code 0x0A).
Pr: indicates the priority of this string within the dictionary. Some compression algorithms, such as DEFLATE, offer an increased efficiency when the most commonly used strings are located at the bottom of the dictionary. To facilitate generating a dictionary that has the most frequently occurring strings further down at the bottom, we have decided to allocate a priority to each string in the dictionary. Priorities range from 1 until 5. A low number in the priority column (e.g., 1) indicates that we believe in a high probability of finding the string in SIP or SDP messages. A high number in the priority column (e.g., 5) indicates lower probability of finding the string in a SIP or SDP message. This is typically the case for less frequent error codes or optional infrequent tags.
Off: indicates the hexadecimal offset of the entry with respect to the first octet in the dictionary. Note that several strings in the collections can share space in the dictionary if they exhibit suitable common substrings.
Len: the length of the string (in octets, in hexadecimal).
Reference: the IETF document referenced by this draft and section(s) to define the syntax of strings.
5.
SIP input strings to the SIP/SDP static dictionary
number strings Priority Offset Length and References:
This is the static dictionary of SIP extension summary
| num. | strings | Pri | off | len | reference |
|---|
| 1 |
"eventlist" |
5 |
n/a |
n/a |
[8] (Roach, A., “A Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Event Notification Extension for Resource Lists,” August 2006.) 8.1 |
| 2 |
"rlmi+xml" |
5 |
n/a |
n/a |
[8] (Roach, A., “A Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Event Notification Extension for Resource Lists,” August 2006.) 8.2 |
| 3 |
"recipient-list" |
5 |
n/a |
n/a |
[9] (Camarillo, G., “Framework and Security Considerations for Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) URI-List Services,” Octber 2008.) 4.1 |
| 4 |
"recipient-list-subscribe" |
5 |
n/a |
n/a |
[10] (Camarillo, G., “Subscriptions to Request-Contained Resource Listsin the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP),” Octber 2008.) 5 |
| 5 |
"list-management" |
5 |
n/a |
n/a |
[10] (Camarillo, G., “Subscriptions to Request-Contained Resource Listsin the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP),” Octber 2008.) 6 |
| 6 |
"resource-list" |
5 |
n/a |
n/a |
[10] (Camarillo, G., “Subscriptions to Request-Contained Resource Listsin the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP),” Octber 2008.) 6 |
| 7 |
"recipient-list-message " |
5 |
n/a |
n/a |
[11] (Garcia-Martin, M., “Subscriptions to Request-Contained Resource Listsin the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP),” Octber 2008.) 5 |
| 8 |
"recipient-list-invite" |
5 |
n/a |
n/a |
[12] (Camarillo, G., “Conference Establishment Using Request-Contained Lists in the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP),” Octber 2008.) 3 |
| 9 |
"[CRLF]Target-Dialog: " |
5 |
n/a |
n/a |
[13] (Rosenberg, J., “Request Authorization through Dialog Identification in the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP),” June 2006.) 7 |
| 10 |
"local-tag" |
5 |
n/a |
n/a |
[13] (Rosenberg, J., “Request Authorization through Dialog Identification in the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP),” June 2006.) 7 |
| 11 |
"remote-tag" |
5 |
n/a |
n/a |
[13] (Rosenberg, J., “Request Authorization through Dialog Identification in the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP),” June 2006.) 7 |
| 12 |
"tdialog" |
5 |
n/a |
n/a |
[13] (Rosenberg, J., “Request Authorization through Dialog Identification in the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP),” June 2006.) 7 |
| 13 |
"rport" |
5 |
n/a |
n/a |
[14] (Rosenberg, J., “An Extension to the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) for Symmetric Response Routing,” August 2003.) 5 |
| 14 |
"[CRLF]Service-Route: " |
5 |
n/a |
n/a |
[15] (Willis, D., “Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Extension Header Field for Service Route Discovery During Registration,” October 2003.) 3 |
| 15 |
"eventlist" |
5 |
n/a |
n/a |
[8] (Roach, A., “A Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Event Notification Extension for Resource Lists,” August 2006.) 8.1 |
| 16 |
"[CRLF]Resource-Priority: " |
4 |
n/a |
n/a |
[16] (Schulzrinne, H., “Communications Resource Priority for the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP),” October 2003.) 3.1 |
| 17 |
"[CRLF]Accept-Resource-Priority: " |
5 |
n/a |
n/a |
[16] (Schulzrinne, H., “Communications Resource Priority for the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP),” October 2003.) 3.2 |
| 18 |
"resource-priority" |
5 |
n/a |
n/a |
[16] (Schulzrinne, H., “Communications Resource Priority for the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP),” October 2003.) 3.4 |
| 19 |
"417 " |
5 |
n/a |
n/a |
[16] (Schulzrinne, H., “Communications Resource Priority for the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP),” October 2003.) 3.3 |
| 20 |
"417 Unknown Resource-Priority" |
5 |
n/a |
n/a |
[16] (Schulzrinne, H., “Communications Resource Priority for the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP),” October 2003.) 3.3 |
| 21 |
"dsn" |
5 |
n/a |
n/a |
[16] (Schulzrinne, H., “Communications Resource Priority for the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP),” October 2003.) 10.2 |
| 22 |
"drsn" |
5 |
n/a |
n/a |
[16] (Schulzrinne, H., “Communications Resource Priority for the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP),” October 2003.) 10.3 |
| 23 |
"q735" |
5 |
n/a |
n/a |
[16] (Schulzrinne, H., “Communications Resource Priority for the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP),” October 2003.) 10.4 |
| 24 |
"ets" |
5 |
n/a |
n/a |
[16] (Schulzrinne, H., “Communications Resource Priority for the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP),” October 2003.) 10.5 |
| 25 |
"wps" |
5 |
n/a |
n/a |
[16] (Schulzrinne, H., “Communications Resource Priority for the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP),” October 2003.) 10.5 |
| 26 |
"rts" |
5 |
n/a |
n/a |
[17] (Polk, J., “IANA Registration of New Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Resource-Priority Namespaces,” March 2009.) 2 |
| 27 |
"crts" |
5 |
n/a |
n/a |
[17] (Polk, J., “IANA Registration of New Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Resource-Priority Namespaces,” March 2009.) 2 |
| 28 |
"-000000" |
5 |
n/a |
n/a |
[17] (Polk, J., “IANA Registration of New Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Resource-Priority Namespaces,” March 2009.) 2 |
| 29 |
"-000002" |
5 |
n/a |
n/a |
[17] (Polk, J., “IANA Registration of New Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Resource-Priority Namespaces,” March 2009.) 2 |
| 30 |
"-000003" |
5 |
n/a |
n/a |
[17] (Polk, J., “IANA Registration of New Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Resource-Priority Namespaces,” March 2009.) 2 |
| 31 |
"-000004" |
5 |
n/a |
n/a |
[17] (Polk, J., “IANA Registration of New Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Resource-Priority Namespaces,” March 2009.) 2 |
| 32 |
"-000005" |
5 |
n/a |
n/a |
[17] (Polk, J., “IANA Registration of New Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Resource-Priority Namespaces,” March 2009.) 2 |
| 33 |
"-000006" |
5 |
n/a |
n/a |
[17] (Polk, J., “IANA Registration of New Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Resource-Priority Namespaces,” March 2009.) 2 |
| 34 |
"-000007" |
5 |
n/a |
n/a |
[17] (Polk, J., “IANA Registration of New Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Resource-Priority Namespaces,” March 2009.) 2 |
| 35 |
"-000008" |
5 |
n/a |
n/a |
[17] (Polk, J., “IANA Registration of New Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Resource-Priority Namespaces,” March 2009.) 2 |
| 36 |
"-000009" |
5 |
n/a |
n/a |
[17] (Polk, J., “IANA Registration of New Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Resource-Priority Namespaces,” March 2009.) 2 |
| 37 |
"Publish" |
5 |
n/a |
n/a |
[19] (Niemi, A., “Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Extension for Event State Publication,” October 2004.) 11.1 |
| 38 |
"Publish " |
5 |
n/a |
n/a |
[19] (Niemi, A., “Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Extension for Event State Publication,” October 2004.) 11.1 |
| 39 |
"412 " |
5 |
n/a |
n/a |
[19] (Niemi, A., “Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Extension for Event State Publication,” October 2004.) 11.2 |
| 40 |
"412 Conditional Request Failed" |
5 |
n/a |
n/a |
[19] (Niemi, A., “Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Extension for Event State Publication,” October 2004.) 11.2 |
| 41 |
"[CRLF]SIP-Etag: " |
5 |
n/a |
n/a |
[19] (Niemi, A., “Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Extension for Event State Publication,” October 2004.) 11.3 |
| 42 |
"[CRLF]SIP-If-Match: " |
5 |
n/a |
n/a |
[19] (Niemi, A., “Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Extension for Event State Publication,” October 2004.) 11.3 |
| 43 |
"multiple-refer" |
5 |
n/a |
n/a |
[20] (Camarillo, G., “Referring to Multiple Resources in the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP),” October 2008.) 4 |
| 44 |
"470 " |
5 |
n/a |
n/a |
[21] (Rosenberg, J., “A Framework for Consent-Based Communications in the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP),” October 2008.) 5.9.2 |
| 45 |
"470 Consent Needed" |
5 |
n/a |
n/a |
[21] (Rosenberg, J., “A Framework for Consent-Based Communications in the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP),” October 2008.) 5.9.2 |
| 46 |
"[CRLF]Trigger-Consent: " |
5 |
n/a |
n/a |
[21] (Rosenberg, J., “A Framework for Consent-Based Communications in the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP),” October 2008.) 5.11.2 |
| 47 |
"[CRLF]Permission-Missing: " |
5 |
n/a |
n/a |
[21] (Rosenberg, J., “A Framework for Consent-Based Communications in the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP),” October 2008.) 5.9.3 |
| 48 |
";target-uri=" |
5 |
n/a |
n/a |
[21] (Rosenberg, J., “A Framework for Consent-Based Communications in the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP),” October 2008.) 5.11.1 |
| 49 |
"from-change" |
5 |
n/a |
n/a |
[22] (Elwell, J., “Connected Identity in the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP),” June 2007.) 3 |
| 50 |
"[CRLF]P-Media-Authorization: " |
5 |
n/a |
n/a |
[35] (Marshall, W., “Private Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Extensions for Media Authorization,” January 2003.) 5.1 |
| 51 |
"aib" |
5 |
n/a |
n/a |
[23] (Peterson, J., “Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Authenticated Identity Body (AIB) Format,” September 2004.) 2 |
| 52 |
"[CRLF]P-Asserted-Identity: " |
5 |
n/a |
n/a |
[36] (Jennings, C., “Private Extensions to the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) for Asserted Identity within Trusted Networks,” November 2002.) 9.1 |
| 53 |
"id" |
5 |
n/a |
n/a |
[36] (Jennings, C., “Private Extensions to the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) for Asserted Identity within Trusted Networks,” November 2002.) 9.3 |
| 54 |
"[CRLF]Answer-Mode: " |
5 |
n/a |
n/a |
[24] (Willis, D., “Requesting Answering Modes for the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP),” November 2008.) 3 |
| 55 |
"[CRLF]Priv-Answer-Mode: " |
5 |
n/a |
n/a |
[24] (Willis, D., “Requesting Answering Modes for the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP),” November 2008.) 3 |
| 56 |
"answermode" |
5 |
n/a |
n/a |
[24] (Willis, D., “Requesting Answering Modes for the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP),” November 2008.) 4.3 |
| 57 |
"sdp-anat" |
5 |
n/a |
n/a |
[25] (Camarillo, G., “Usage of the Session Description Protocol (SDP) Alternative Network Address Types (ANAT) Semantics in the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP),” June 2005.) 3 |
| 58 |
"433 " |
5 |
n/a |
n/a |
[26] (Rosenberg, J., “Rejecting Anonymous Requests in the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP),” December 2007.) 5 |
| 59 |
"433 Anonymity Disallowed" |
5 |
n/a |
n/a |
[26] (Rosenberg, J., “Rejecting Anonymous Requests in the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP),” December 2007.) 5 |
| 60 |
"/reginfo+xml" |
5 |
n/a |
n/a |
[27] (Rosenberg, J., “A Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Event Package for Registrations,” March 2004.) 4.5 |
| 61 |
"reg" |
5 |
n/a |
n/a |
[27] (Rosenberg, J., “A Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Event Package for Registrations,” March 2004.) 4.1 |
| 62 |
"consent-pending-additions" |
5 |
n/a |
n/a |
[28] (Camarillo, G., “The Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Pending Additions Event Package,” October 2008.) 5.1 |
| 63 |
"resource-lists-diff+xml" |
5 |
n/a |
n/a |
[28] (Camarillo, G., “The Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Pending Additions Event Package,” October 2008.) 7.5 |
| 64 |
"message-summary" |
5 |
n/a |
n/a |
[29] (Mahy, R., “A Message Summary and Message Waiting Indication Event Package for the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP),” August 2004.) 3.1 |
| 65 |
"/simple-message-summary" |
5 |
n/a |
n/a |
[29] (Mahy, R., “A Message Summary and Message Waiting Indication Event Package for the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP),” August 2004.) 5.2 |
| 66 |
"sip.message" |
5 |
n/a |
n/a |
[37] (Camarillo, G., “Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Registration of the Message Media Feature Tag,” July 2006.) 1 |
| 67 |
"kpml" |
5 |
n/a |
n/a |
[30] (Burger, E., “A Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Event Package for Key Press Stimulus (KPML),” November 2006.) 2 |
| 68 |
"/kpml-request+xml" |
5 |
n/a |
n/a |
[30] (Burger, E., “A Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Event Package for Key Press Stimulus (KPML),” November 2006.) 4.5 |
| 69 |
"/kpml-response+xml" |
5 |
n/a |
n/a |
[30] (Burger, E., “A Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Event Package for Key Press Stimulus (KPML),” November 2006.) 4.5 |
| 70 |
"early-session" |
5 |
n/a |
n/a |
[31] (Camarillo, G., “The Early Session Disposition Type for the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP),” December 2004.) 4 |
| 71 |
"/dialog-info+xml" |
5 |
n/a |
n/a |
[32] (Rosenberg, J., “An INVITE-Initiated Dialog Event Package for the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP),” November 2005.) 3.5 |
| 72 |
"sip.byeless" |
5 |
n/a |
n/a |
[32] (Rosenberg, J., “An INVITE-Initiated Dialog Event Package for the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP),” November 2005.) 5.1 |
| 73 |
"sip.rendering" |
5 |
n/a |
n/a |
[32] (Rosenberg, J., “An INVITE-Initiated Dialog Event Package for the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP),” November 2005.) 5.2 |
| 74 |
"conference" |
5 |
n/a |
n/a |
[33] (Rosenberg, J., “A Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Event Package for Conference State,” August 2006.) 3.1 |
| 75 |
"/conference-info+xml" |
5 |
n/a |
n/a |
[33] (Rosenberg, J., “A Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Event Package for Conference State,” August 2006.) 3.4 |
| 76 |
"recipient-list-history" |
5 |
n/a |
n/a |
[34] (Garcia-Martin, M., “Extensible Markup Language (XML) Format Extension for Representing Copy Control Attributes in Resource Lists,” October 2008.) 7 |
| 77 |
"[CRLF]Refer-Sub: " |
5 |
n/a |
n/a |
[18] (Levin, O., “Suppression of Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) REFER Method Implicit Subscription,” May 2006.) 4 |
| 78 |
"norefersub" |
5 |
n/a |
n/a |
[18] (Levin, O., “Suppression of Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) REFER Method Implicit Subscription,” May 2006.) 4 |
static dictionary.
Table 1: static dictionary
|
6.
Acknowledgements
Remember, it's important to acknowledge people who have contributed to the work.
Attentions to SIP signaling compression related to this draft are expected.
7.
IANA Considerations
This memo includes no request to IANA.
8.
Security Considerations
The same as RFC3485.
9.
References
9.1. Normative References
| [1] |
Rosenberg, J., “SIP: Session Initiation Protocol,” RFC 3261, June 2002. |
| [2] |
Handley, M., “SDP: Session Description Protocol,” RFC 4566, July 2006. |
| [3] |
Yergeau, F., “UTF-8, a transformation format of ISO 10646,” RFC 3629, November 2003. |
| [4] |
Price, R., “Signaling Compression (SigComp),” RFC 3320, January 2003. |
| [5] |
Bradner, S., “Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement
Levels,” BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997 (TXT, HTML, XML). |
| [6] |
Garcia-Martin, M., “The Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) and Session Description Protocol (SDP) Static Dictionary for Signaling Compression (SigComp),” RFC 3485, February 2003. |
| [7] |
Camarillo, G., “Compressing the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP ),” RFC 3486, February 2003. |
| [8] |
Roach, A., “A Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Event Notification Extension for Resource Lists,” RFC 4662, August 2006. |
| [9] |
Camarillo, G., “Framework and Security Considerations for Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) URI-List Services,” RFC 5363, Octber 2008. |
| [10] |
Camarillo, G., “Subscriptions to Request-Contained Resource Listsin the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP),” RFC 5367, Octber 2008. |
| [11] |
Garcia-Martin, M., “Subscriptions to Request-Contained Resource Listsin the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP),” RFC 5365, Octber 2008. |
| [12] |
Camarillo, G., “Conference Establishment Using Request-Contained Lists in the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP),” RFC 5366, Octber 2008. |
| [13] |
Rosenberg, J., “Request Authorization through Dialog Identification in the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP),” RFC 4538, June 2006. |
| [14] |
Rosenberg, J., “An Extension to the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) for Symmetric Response Routing,” RFC 3581, August 2003. |
| [15] |
Willis, D., “Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Extension Header Field for Service Route Discovery During Registration,” RFC 3608, October 2003. |
| [16] |
Schulzrinne, H., “Communications Resource Priority for the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP),” RFC 4412, October 2003. |
| [17] |
Polk, J., “IANA Registration of New Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Resource-Priority Namespaces,” RFC 5478, March 2009. |
| [18] |
Levin, O., “Suppression of Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) REFER Method Implicit Subscription,” RFC 4488, May 2006. |
| [19] |
Niemi, A., “Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Extension for Event State Publication,” RFC 3903, October 2004. |
| [20] |
Camarillo, G., “Referring to Multiple Resources in the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP),” RFC 5368, October 2008. |
| [21] |
Rosenberg, J., “A Framework for Consent-Based Communications in the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP),” RFC 5360, October 2008. |
| [22] |
Elwell, J., “Connected Identity in the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP),” RFC 4916, June 2007. |
| [23] |
Peterson, J., “Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Authenticated Identity Body (AIB) Format,” RFC 3893, September 2004. |
| [24] |
Willis, D., “Requesting Answering Modes for the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP),” RFC 5373, November 2008. |
| [25] |
Camarillo, G., “Usage of the Session Description Protocol (SDP) Alternative Network Address Types (ANAT) Semantics in the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP),” RFC 4092, June 2005. |
| [26] |
Rosenberg, J., “Rejecting Anonymous Requests in the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP),” RFC 5079, December 2007. |
| [27] |
Rosenberg, J., “A Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Event Package for Registrations,” RFC 3680, March 2004. |
| [28] |
Camarillo, G., “The Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Pending Additions Event Package,” RFC 5362, October 2008. |
| [29] |
Mahy, R., “A Message Summary and Message Waiting Indication Event Package for the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP),” RFC 3842, August 2004. |
| [30] |
Burger, E., “A Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Event Package for Key Press Stimulus (KPML),” RFC 4730, November 2006. |
| [31] |
Camarillo, G., “The Early Session Disposition Type for the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP),” RFC 3959, December 2004. |
| [32] |
Rosenberg, J., “An INVITE-Initiated Dialog Event Package for the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP),” RFC 4235, November 2005. |
| [33] |
Rosenberg, J., “A Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Event Package for Conference State,” RFC 4575, August 2006. |
| [34] |
Garcia-Martin, M., “Extensible Markup Language (XML) Format Extension for Representing Copy Control Attributes in Resource Lists,” RFC 5364, October 2008. |
9.2. Informative References
| [35] |
Marshall, W., “Private Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Extensions for Media Authorization,” RFC 3313, January 2003. |
| [36] |
Jennings, C., “Private Extensions to the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) for Asserted Identity within Trusted Networks,” RFC 3325, November 2002. |
| [37] |
Camarillo, G., “Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Registration of the Message Media Feature Tag,” RFC 4569, July 2006. |
Author's Address
| |
Lei Zhu |
| |
Huawei Technologies |
| |
Huaweil Bld., No.3 Xinxi Rd., Haidian District |
| |
Beijing |
| |
CN |
| Phone: |
+86-10-82836301/+86-13910157020 |
| Email: |
lei.zhu@huawei.com |