


SIPPING Working Group                                            V. Hilt
Internet-Draft                                  Bell Labs/Alcatel-Lucent
Intended status: Standards Track                            G. Camarillo
Expires: August 23, 2011                                        Ericsson
                                                            J. Rosenberg
                                                             jdrosen.net
                                                       February 19, 2011


   A Framework for Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Session Policies
               draft-ietf-sip-session-policy-framework-10

Abstract

   Proxy servers play a central role as an intermediary in the Session
   Initiation Protocol (SIP) as they define and impact policies on call
   routing, rendezvous, and other call features.  This document
   specifies a framework for SIP session policies that provides a
   standard mechanism by which a proxy can define or influence policies
   on sessions, such as the codecs or media types to be used.  It
   defines a model, an overall architecture and new protocol mechanisms
   for session policies.

Status of this Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   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."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on August 23, 2011.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2011 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



Hilt, et al.             Expires August 23, 2011                [Page 1]

Internet-Draft          Session Policy Framework           February 2011


   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.


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   2.  Terminology  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
   3.  Session-Independent Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
     3.1.  Architecture and Overview  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
     3.2.  Policy Subscription  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
       3.2.1.  UAC Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
       3.2.2.  UAS Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
   4.  Session-Specific Policies  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
     4.1.  Architecture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
     4.2.  Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
     4.3.  Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
       4.3.1.  Offer in Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
       4.3.2.  Offer in Response  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
     4.4.  UA/Policy Server Rendezvous  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
       4.4.1.  UAC Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
       4.4.2.  Proxy Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
       4.4.3.  UAS Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
       4.4.4.  Caching the Local Policy Server URI  . . . . . . . . . 21
       4.4.5.  Header Field Definition and Syntax . . . . . . . . . . 22
     4.5.  Policy Channel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
       4.5.1.  Creation and Management  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
       4.5.2.  Contacting the Policy Server . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
       4.5.3.  Using Session Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
   5.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
   6.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
     6.1.  Registration of the "Policy-Id" Header Field . . . . . . . 29
     6.2.  Registration of the "Policy-Contact" Header Field  . . . . 30
     6.3.  Registration of the "non-cacheable" Policy-Contact
           Header Field Parameter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
     6.4.  Registration of the "policy" SIP Option-Tag  . . . . . . . 30
   7.  References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
     7.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
     7.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
   Appendix A.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
   Appendix B.  Session-Specific Policies - Call Flows  . . . . . . . 33
     B.1.  Offer in Invite  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
     B.2.  Offer in Response  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
     B.3.  Multiple Policy Servers for UAS  . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36



Hilt, et al.             Expires August 23, 2011                [Page 2]

Internet-Draft          Session Policy Framework           February 2011


   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37


















































Hilt, et al.             Expires August 23, 2011                [Page 3]

Internet-Draft          Session Policy Framework           February 2011


1.  Introduction

   The Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) [RFC3261] is a signaling
   protocol for creating, modifying and terminating multimedia sessions.
   A central element in SIP is the proxy server.  Proxy servers are
   intermediaries that are responsible for request routing, rendezvous,
   authentication and authorization, mobility, and other signaling
   services.  However, proxies are divorced from the actual sessions -
   audio, video, and session-mode messaging - that SIP establishes.
   Details of the sessions are carried in the payload of SIP messages,
   and are usually described with the Session Description Protocol (SDP)
   [RFC4566].

   Experience has shown that there is a need for SIP intermediaries to
   impact aspects of a session.  For example, SIP can be used in a
   wireless network, which has limited resources for media traffic.
   During periods of high activity, the wireless network provider could
   want to restrict the amount of bandwidth available to each user.
   With session policies, an intermediary in the wireless network can
   inform the user agent about the bandwidth it has available.  This
   information enables the user agent to make an informed decision about
   the number of streams, the media types, and the codecs it can
   successfully use in a session.  Similarly, a network provider can
   have a service level agreement with a user that defines the set of
   media types the user can use.  With session policies, the network can
   convey the current set of policies to user agents, enabling them to
   set up sessions without inadvertently violating any of the network
   policies.

   In another example, a SIP user agent is using a network which is
   connected to the public Internet through a firewall or a network
   border device.  The network provider would like to tell the user
   agent that it needs to send its media streams to a specific IP
   address and port on the firewall or border device to reach the public
   Internet.  Knowing this policy enables the user agent to set up
   sessions across the firewall or the network border.  In contrast to
   other methods for inserting a media intermediary, the use of session
   policies does not require the inspection or modification of SIP
   message bodies.

   Domains often have the need to enforce the session policies they have
   in place.  For example, a domain might have a policy that disallows
   the use of video and can have an enforcement mechanism that drops all
   packets containing a video encoding.  Unfortunately, these
   enforcement mechanisms usually do not inform the user about the
   policies they are enforcing.  Instead, they silently keep the user
   from doing anything against them.  This can lead to a malfunctioning
   of devices that is incomprehensible to the user.  With session



Hilt, et al.             Expires August 23, 2011                [Page 4]

Internet-Draft          Session Policy Framework           February 2011


   policies, the user knows about the current network policies and can
   set up policy-compliant sessions or simply connect to a domain with
   less stringent policies.  Thus, session policies provide an important
   combination of consent coupled with enforcement.  That is, the user
   becomes aware of the policy and needs to act on it, but the provider
   still retains the right to enforce the policy.

   Two types of session policies exist: session-specific policies and
   session-independent policies.  Session-specific policies are policies
   that are created for one particular session, based on the session
   description of this session.  They enable a network intermediary to
   examine the session description a UA is proposing and to return a
   policy specifically for this session description.  For example, an
   intermediary could open pinholes in a firewall/NAT for each media
   stream in the proposed session description.  It can then return a
   policy for the session description that replaces the IP addresses and
   ports of the UA with the ones opened in the firewall/NAT that are
   reachable from external.  Session-specific policies provide
   information about a specific session to a domain, which can be used
   to implement policies for opening pinholes on a firewall/NAT.  Since
   session-specific policies are tailored to a session, they only apply
   to the session they are created for.  Session-specific policies are
   created on a session-by-session basis at the time the session is
   established.

   Session-independent policies on the other hand are policies that are
   created independent of a session and generally apply to all SIP
   sessions set up by a user agent.  A session-independent policy can,
   for example, be used to inform user agents about an existing
   bandwidth limit or media type restrictions.  Since these policies are
   not based on a specific session description, they can be created
   independent of an attempt to set up a session and only need to be
   conveyed to the user agent when it initializes (e.g., at the time the
   device is powered on) and when policies are changed.

   This specification defines a framework for SIP session policies.  It
   specifies a model, the overall architecture and new protocol
   mechanisms that are needed for session-independent and session-
   specific policies.  Since session-specific and session-independent
   policies have different requirements, this specification defines two
   different mechanisms to deliver them to user agents.  These
   mechanisms are independent of each other and, depending on whether
   one or both types of session policies are needed, it is possible to
   use the session-specific or the session-independent mechanism or both
   to deliver policies to user agents.

   It is RECOMMENDED that UAs and intermediaries use the mechanisms
   defined in this specification for signaling session policies to



Hilt, et al.             Expires August 23, 2011                [Page 5]

Internet-Draft          Session Policy Framework           February 2011


   endpoints.  To ensure backwards compatibility with UAs that do not
   support this specification, intermediaries may choose to resort to
   existing mechanisms such as rejecting sessions that are not policy
   compliant with a 488 response as a fallback solution if a UA does not
   indicate support for session policies.  UAs that do not support
   session policies will receive the same user experience as they would
   today.  As these techniques are known to have many drawbacks it is
   RECOMMENDED that UAs and intermediaries use explicit signaling of
   policies using the mechanisms defined in this specification.


2.  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 RFC 2119 [RFC2119].


3.  Session-Independent Policies

   Session-independent policies are policies that are created
   independent of a session and generally apply to all sessions a user
   agent is setting up.  They typically remain stable for a longer
   period of time and apply to any session set up while they are valid.
   However, it is possible for session-independent policies to change
   over time.  For example, a policy that defines a bandwidth limit for
   a user can change during the day, defining a lower limit during peak
   hours and allow more bandwidth off-peak.  The policy server informs a
   UA when session-independent policies change.

3.1.  Architecture and Overview

                        +-------------+
                 /------|   policy    |
      +----+    /       |  server 1   |
      |    |---/        +-------------+
      | UA |                 ...
      |    |---\        +-------------+
      +----+    \       |   policy    |
                 \------|  server n   |
                        +-------------+


                                 Figure 1

   A SIP UA can receive session-independent policies from one or more
   policy servers.  In a typical configuration, a UA receives session-
   independent policies from a policy server in the local network domain



Hilt, et al.             Expires August 23, 2011                [Page 6]

Internet-Draft          Session Policy Framework           February 2011


   (i.e., the domain from which the UA receives IP service) and possibly
   the SIP service provider domain (i.e., the domain the UA registers
   at).  The local network can have policies that support the access
   network infrastructure.  For example, in a wireless network where
   bandwidth is scarce, a provider can restrict the bandwidth available
   to an individual user.  The SIP service provider can have policies
   that are needed to support services or policies that reflect the
   service level agreement with the user.  Thus, in most cases, a UA
   will receive session-independent policies from one or two policy
   servers.

   Setting up session-independent policies involves the following steps:

   1.  A user agent discovers session-independent policy servers in the
       local network and SIP service provider domain
   2.  A user agent requests session-independent policies from the
       discovered policy servers.  A user agent typically requests these
       policies when it starts up or connects to a new network domain.
   3.  The policy server selects the policies that apply to this user
       agent.  The policy server can have general policies that apply to
       all users or maintain separate policies for each individual user.
       The selected policies are returned to the user agent.
   4.  The policy server can update the policies, for example, when
       network conditions change.

3.2.  Policy Subscription

3.2.1.  UAC Behavior

   A UA that supports session-independent policies compliant to this
   specification MUST attempt to retrieve session-independent policies
   from the local network and the SIP service provider domain, unless
   the UA knows (e.g., through configuration) that a domain does not
   provide session-independent policies (in which case the UA SHOULD NOT
   retrieve session-independent policies from this specific domain).

   A UA that supports session-independent policies compliant to this
   specification MUST support the retrieval of session-independent
   policies from the local network and the SIP service provider domain
   using the "ua-profile" event package defined in the Framework for SIP
   User Agent Profile Delivery [I-D.ietf-sipping-config-framework].  The
   UA MAY support other methods of retrieving session-independent
   policies from local network and SIP service provider domain.

   The "ua-profile" event package [I-D.ietf-sipping-config-framework]
   provides a mechanism to subscribe to session-independent policies.  A
   UA subscribes to the policy server in the local network domain using
   the procedures defined for the "local-network" profile-type.  The UA



Hilt, et al.             Expires August 23, 2011                [Page 7]

Internet-Draft          Session Policy Framework           February 2011


   uses the procedures defined for the "user" profile type to subscribe
   to the policy server in the SIP service provider domain.

   A UA (re-)subscribes to session-independent policies when the
   following events occur:

   o  The UA registers a new address-of-record (AoR) or removes a AoR
      from the set of AoRs it has registered.  In these cases, the UA
      MUST establish subscriptions for each new AoR using the "user" and
      the "local-network" profile-types.  The UA MUST terminate all
      subscriptions for AoRs it has removed.
   o  The UA changes the domain it is connected to.  The UA MUST
      terminate all existing subscriptions for the "local-network"
      profile-type.  The UA MUST then create a new subscription for each
      AoR it maintains using the "local-network" profile-type.  This
      way, the UA stops receiving policies from the previous local
      domain and starts to receive the policies of the new local domain.
      The UA does not need to change the subscriptions for "user"
      profiles.

   If a UA is unable to establish a subscription, the UA SHOULD NOT
   attempt to re-try this subscription, unless one of the above events
   occurs again.  This is to limit the number of SUBSCRIBE requests sent
   within domains that do not support session-independent policies.
   However, a UA SHOULD retry the subscription with a longer time
   interval (e.g., once every 24 hours).  This enables UAs to detect new
   policies that are deployed in a network that previously did not have
   policies.

   A UA that supports session-independent policies compliant to this
   specification MUST support the User Agent Profile Data Set for Media
   Policy [I-D.ietf-sipping-media-policy-dataset].  To indicate that the
   UA wants to receive session-independent policies, the UA includes the
   MIME type "application/media-policy-dataset+xml" in the Accept header
   field of a SUBSCRIBE request.

   A UA MUST apply the session-independent policies it has received and
   use these policies in the session descriptions it creates.  If the UA
   decides not to use the received policies, then the UA MUST NOT set up
   a session unless it changes the domain that provided these policies.
   A UA MAY try to connect to another local network and/or SIP service
   provider domain with a different set of policies.

   If a UA receives both session-independent and session-specific
   policies, the UA MUST apply the session-independent policies to the
   session description before the session description is sent to the
   session-specific policy server (see Section 4).  Thus, session-
   independent policies are always applied before session-specific



Hilt, et al.             Expires August 23, 2011                [Page 8]

Internet-Draft          Session Policy Framework           February 2011


   policies are retrieved.

3.2.2.  UAS Behavior

   A policy server MAY send a notification to the UA every time the
   session-independent policies covered by the subscription change.  The
   definition of what causes a policy to change is at the discretion of
   the administrator.  A change in the policy can be triggered, for
   example, by a change in the network status, by the change in the time
   of day or by an update of the service level agreement with the
   customer.


4.  Session-Specific Policies

   Session-specific policies are policies that are created specifically
   for one particular session of a UA.  Thus, session-specific policies
   will typically be different for different sessions.  The session-
   specific policies for a session can change during the course of the
   session.  For example, a user can run out of credit during a session,
   which will cause the network to disallow the transmission all media
   streams from this point on.

4.1.  Architecture

                           domain 1
                        +-----------+
                 /------|   proxy   |----...
      +----+    /       +-----------+
      |    |---/        +-----------+
      |    |            |  policy   |
      | UA |============|  server   |
      |    |            +-----------+
      |    |****        +-----------+
      +----+    *       |  policy   |
                 *******|enforcement|****...
                        +-----------+

      --- SIP Signaling
      === Policy Channel
      *** Media

                                 Figure 2

   The following entities are needed for session-specific policies (see
   Figure 2): a user agent (UA), a proxy, a policy server and possibly a
   policy enforcement entity.




Hilt, et al.             Expires August 23, 2011                [Page 9]

Internet-Draft          Session Policy Framework           February 2011


   The role of the proxy is to provide a rendezvous mechanism for UAs
   and policy servers.  It ensures that each UA has the URI [RFC3986] of
   the policy server in its domain and knows where to retrieve policies
   from.  The proxy conveys the policy server URI to UAs in case they
   have not yet received it (e.g., in a previous call or through
   configuration).  The proxy does not deliver the actual policies to
   UAs.

   The policy server is a separate logical entity that can be physically
   co-located with the proxy.  The role of the policy server is to
   deliver session policies to UAs.  The policy server receives session
   information from the UA, uses this information to determine the
   policies that apply to the session and returns these policies to the
   UA.  The mechanism for generating policies (i.e., making policy
   decisions) is outside of the scope of this specification.  A policy
   server can, for example, query an external entity to get policies or
   it can directly incorporate a policy decision point and generate
   policies locally.

   A UA receives the URI of a policy server from a proxy.  It uses this
   URI to contact the policy server.  It provides information about the
   current session to the policy server and receives session policies in
   response.  The UA can also receive policy updates from the policy
   server during the course of a session.

   A network can have a policy enforcement infrastructure in place.
   However, this specification does not make any assumptions about the
   enforcement of session policies and the mechanisms defined here are
   orthogonal to a policy enforcement infrastructure.

   In principle, each domain that is traversed by SIP signaling messages
   can define session-specific policies for a session.  Each domain
   needs to run a policy server and a proxy that is able to rendezvous a
   UA with the policy server (as shown in Figure 2).  However, it is
   expected that session-specific policies will often only be provided
   by the local domain of the user agent.

4.2.  Overview

   The protocol defined in this specification clearly separates SIP
   signaling and the exchange of policies.  SIP signaling is only used
   to rendezvous the UA with the policy server.  From this point on, UA
   and policy server communicate directly with each other over a
   separate policy channel.  This is opposed to a piggyback model, where
   the exchange of policy information between endpoint and a policy
   server in the network is piggybacked onto the SIP signaling messages
   that are exchanged between endpoints.




Hilt, et al.             Expires August 23, 2011               [Page 10]

Internet-Draft          Session Policy Framework           February 2011


   The main advantage of using a separate policy channel is that it
   decouples signaling between endpoints from the policy exchange
   between an endpoint and a policy server.  This decoupling has a
   number of desirable properties.  It enables the use of separate
   encryption mechanisms on the signaling path to secure the
   communication between endpoints, and on the policy channel to secure
   the communication between endpoint and policy server.  Policies can
   be submitted directly from the policy server to the endpoint and do
   not travel along the signaling path, possibly crossing many domains.
   Endpoints set up a separate policy channel to each policy server and
   can disclose the information requested by the specific policy server
   (e.g., offer or offer/answer).  Finally, policy servers do not need
   to rely on a SIP signaling message flowing by to send policies or
   policy updates to an endpoint.  A policy server can use the policy
   channel at any time to update session policies as needed.  A
   disadvantage of the separate channel model is that it requires
   additional messages for the exchange of policy information.

   Following this model, signaling for session-specific policies
   involves the following two fundamental tasks:

   1.  UA/policy server rendezvous: a UA setting up a session needs to
       be able to discover the policy servers that are relevant to this
       session.
   2.  Policy channel: once the UA has discovered the relevant policy
       servers for a session, it needs to connect to these servers,
       disclose session information and retrieve the policies that apply
       to this session.

   The communication between UA and policy server on the policy channel
   involves the following steps:

   1.  A user agent submits information about the session it is trying
       to establish to the policy server and asks whether a session
       using these parameters is permissible.
   2.  The policy server generates a policy decision for this session
       and returns the decision to the user agent.  Possible policy
       decisions are (1) to deny the session, (2) to propose changes to
       the session parameters with which the session would be
       acceptable, or (3) to accept the session as it was proposed.
   3.  The policy server can update the policy decision at a later time.
       A policy decision update can, for example, propose additional
       changes to the session (e.g., change the available bandwidth) or
       deny a previously accepted session (i.e., disallow the
       continuation of a session).

   In many cases, the mechanism for session-specific policies will be
   used to disclose session information and return session policies.



Hilt, et al.             Expires August 23, 2011               [Page 11]

Internet-Draft          Session Policy Framework           February 2011


   However, some scenarios only involve the disclosure of session
   information to a network intermediary.  If an intermediary does not
   intend to return a policy, it can simply accept the session as it was
   proposed.  Similarly, some session-specific policies only apply to
   the offer (and therefore only require the disclosure of the offer)
   whereas others apply to offer and answer.  Both types of policies are
   supported by session-specific policy mechanism.

4.3.  Examples

   This section provides two examples to illustrate the overall
   operation of session-specific policies.  The call flows depict the
   rendezvous mechanism between UA and policy server and indicate the
   points at which the UA exchanges policy information with the policy
   server.

   The example is based on the following scenario: there are two domains
   (domain A and domain B), which both have session-specific policies
   for the UAs in their domain.  Both domains do not provide policies to
   the UAs outside of their domain.  The two domains have a proxy (P A
   and P B) and a policy server (PS A and PS B).  The policies in both
   domains involve the session description offer and answer.

4.3.1.  Offer in Request

   The first call flow shown in Figure 3 depicts an INVITE transaction
   with the offer in the request.  It is assumed that this is the first
   INVITE request the UAC creates in this domain and that it therefore
   does not have previous knowledge about the policy server URIs in this
   domain.

   (1) UA A sends an INVITE request to proxy P A. P A knows that
   policies apply to this session and (2) returns a 488 (Not Acceptable
   Here) response to UA A. P A includes the URI of PS A in the 488 (Not
   Acceptable Here) response.  This step is needed since the UAC has no
   prior knowledge about the URI of PS A. (3) UA A uses the URI to
   contact PS A, discloses the session description offer to PS A and (4)
   receives policies for the offer. (5) UA A reformulates the INVITE
   request under consideration of the received policies and includes a
   Policy-Id header field to indicate that it has already contacted PS
   A. P A does not reject the INVITE request this time and removes the
   Policy-Id header field when forwarding the INVITE request.  P B adds
   a Policy-Contact header field containing the URI of PS B. (6) UA B
   uses this URI to contact PS B and disclose the offer and the answer
   it is about to send. (7) UA B receives policies from PS B and applies
   them to the offer and answer respectively. (8) UA B returns the
   updated answer in the 200 (OK) response. (9) UA A contacts PS A again
   with the current offer and answer and (10) retrieves the policies for



Hilt, et al.             Expires August 23, 2011               [Page 12]

Internet-Draft          Session Policy Framework           February 2011


   both from PS A.

    UA A              P A              P B             UA B
     |                 |                |                 |
     | INVITE offer    |                |                 |
     |---------------->|                |                 | (1)
     | 488             |                |                 |
     | + Policy-Contact|                |                 |
     |<----------------|                |                 | (2)
     | ACK             |                |                 |
     |---------------->|                |                 |
     |                 | PS A           |                 |
     |                    |             |                 |
     | PolicyChannel      |             |                 |
     | + InfoOffer        |             |                 |
     |------------------->|             |                 | (3)
     | PolicyChannel      |             |                 |
     | + PolicyOffer      |             |                 |
     |<-------------------|             |                 | (4)
     |                    |             |                 |
     |                 |                |                 |
     | INVITE offer'   | INVITE offer'  | INVITE offer'   |
     | + Policy-Id     |                | + Policy-Contact|
     |---------------->|--------------->|---------------->| (5)
     |                 |                |                 |
     |                 |           PS B |                 |
     |                 |             |                    |
     |                 |             | PolicyChannel      |
     |                 |             | + InfoOffer'       |
     |                 |             | + InfoAnswer       |
     |                 |             |<-------------------| (6)
     |                 |             | PolicyChannel      |
     |                 |             | + PolicyOffer      |
     |                 |             | + PolicyAnswer     |
     |                 |             |------------------->| (7)
     |                 |             |                    |
     |                 |                |                 |
     | OK answer'      | OK answer'     | OK answer'      |
     |<----------------|<---------------|<----------------| (8)
     | ACK                                                |
     |--------------------------------------------------->|
     |                 |                |                 |
     |                    |             |                 |
     | PolicyChannel      |             |                 |
     | + InfoOffer'       |             |                 |
     | + InfoAnswer'      |             |                 |
     |------------------->|             |                 | (9)
     | PolicyChannel      |             |                 |



Hilt, et al.             Expires August 23, 2011               [Page 13]

Internet-Draft          Session Policy Framework           February 2011


     | + PolicyOffer      |             |                 |
     | + PolicyAnswer     |             |                 |
     |<-------------------|             |                 | (10)
     |                    |             |                 |

                                 Figure 3

4.3.2.  Offer in Response

   The call flow shown in Figure 4 depicts an INVITE transaction with
   the offer in the response.

   (1) UA A sends an INVITE request without an offer to proxy P A and
   (2) P A returns a 488 (Not Acceptable Here) response containing the
   URI of PS A. (3),(4) UA A uses this policy server URI to set up the
   policy channel.  At this time, UA A does not disclose a session
   description since it does not have the offer yet. (5) UA A re-sends
   the INVITE request and includes a Policy-Id header field to indicate
   that it has contacted PS A. P A does not reject the INVITE request
   this time and removes the Policy-Id header field when forwarding the
   INVITE request.  P B adds a Policy-Contact header field containing
   the URI of PS B. (6) UA B uses this URI to discloses the offer to PS
   B. (7) UA B receives policies from PS B and applies them to the
   offer. (8) UA B returns the updated offer the 200 (OK) response.
   (9),(10) UA A contacts PS and discloses the offer and the answer it
   is about to send.  An important difference to the flow in the
   previous example is that UA A performs steps (9) and (10) before
   returning the answer in step (11).  This enables UA A to return the
   final answer in the ACK request, which includes all applicable
   policies.  However, it requires that PS A immediately returns a
   policy to avoid a delay in the transmission of the ACK request.
   (12),(13) UA B again sends the current offer and answer to PS B and
   applies the policies it receives to both before using them.

    UA A              P A              P B             UA B
     |                 |                |                 |
     | INVITE          |                |                 |
     |---------------->|                |                 | (1)
     | 488             |                |                 |
     | + Policy-Contact|                |                 |
     |<----------------|                |                 | (2)
     | ACK             |                |                 |
     |---------------->|                |                 |
     |                 | PS A           |                 |
     |                    |             |                 |
     | PolicyChannel      |             |                 |
     |------------------->|             |                 | (3)
     | PolicyChannel      |             |                 |



Hilt, et al.             Expires August 23, 2011               [Page 14]

Internet-Draft          Session Policy Framework           February 2011


     |<-------------------|             |                 | (4)
     |                    |             |                 |
     |                 |                |                 |
     | INVITE          | INVITE         | INVITE          |
     | + Policy-Id     |                | + Policy-Contact|
     |---------------->|--------------->|---------------->| (5)
     |                 |                |                 |
     |                 |           PS B |                 |
     |                 |             |                    |
     |                 |             | PolicyChannel      |
     |                 |             | + InfoOffer        |
     |                 |             |<-------------------| (6)
     |                 |             | PolicyChannel      |
     |                 |             | + PolicyOffer      |
     |                 |             |------------------->| (7)
     |                 |             |                    |
     |                 |                |                 |
     | OK offer'       | OK offer'      | OK offer'       |
     |<----------------|<---------------|<----------------| (8)
     |                 |                |                 |
     |                    |             |                 |
     | PolicyChannel      |             |                 |
     | + InfoOffer'       |             |                 |
     | + InfoAnswer       |             |                 |
     |------------------->|             |                 | (9)
     | PolicyChannel      |             |                 |
     | + PolicyOffer      |             |                 |
     | + PolicyAnswer     |             |                 |
     |<-------------------|             |                 | (10)
     |                    |             |                 |
     | ACK answer'                                        |
     |--------------------------------------------------->| (11)
     |                 |                |                 |
     |                 |             |                    |
     |                 |             | PolicyChannel      |
     |                 |             | + InfoOffer'       |
     |                 |             | + InfoAnswer'      |
     |                 |             |<-------------------| (12)
     |                 |             | PolicyChannel      |
     |                 |             | + PolicyOffer      |
     |                 |             | + PolicyAnswer     |
     |                 |             |------------------->| (13)
     |                 |             |                    |

                                 Figure 4






Hilt, et al.             Expires August 23, 2011               [Page 15]

Internet-Draft          Session Policy Framework           February 2011


4.4.  UA/Policy Server Rendezvous

   The first step in setting up session-specific policies is to
   rendezvous the UAs with the relevant policy servers.  This is
   achieved by providing the URIs of all policy servers relevant for a
   session to the UAs.

4.4.1.  UAC Behavior

   A UAC compliant to this specification MUST include a Supported header
   field with the option tag "policy" into all requests that can
   initiate an offer/answer exchange [RFC3264] (e.g., INVITE, UPDATE
   [RFC3311] and PRACK [RFC3262] requests).  The UAC MUST include the
   "policy" option tag into these requests even if the particular
   request does not contain an offer or answer (e.g., an INVITE request
   without an offer).  A UAC MAY include the "policy" option tag into
   all requests.

   A UAC can receive a 488 (Not Acceptable Here) response that contains
   a Policy-Contact header field.  The Policy-Contact header field is a
   new header field defined in this specification.  It contains one (or
   multiple alternative) URIs for a policy server.  A 488 (Not
   Acceptable Here) response with this header field is generated by a
   proxy to convey an URI of the local policy server to the UAC.  After
   receiving a 488 (Not Acceptable Here) response with a Policy-Contact
   header field, a UAC compliant to this specification needs to decide
   if it wants to continue with the session now knowing that there is a
   policy server.  If the UAC decides to continue, the UAC MUST use one
   of the policy server URIs to contact the policy server using the
   mechanism defined in Section 4.5.

   The Policy-Contact header can contain multiple URIs each with a
   different URI scheme and containing an "alt-uri" parameter with
   identical values.  These URIs represent alternative policy channel
   mechanisms for obtaining the same policy.  The UAC chooses one of the
   alternative URIs to use to obtain the policy.  The UAC MAY take as a
   hint the order of the alternative URIs as indicating a preference as
   to which URI to use.  The topmost URI in the list might be more
   preferred by the domain of the proxy for use to obtain the policy.

   After receiving policies from the policy server, the UAC decides if
   it wants to accept these policies or not.  If the UAC accepts these
   policies, the UAC MUST apply them to the current request and resend
   the updated request.  If no changes are required by policies or no
   policies have been received, the request can be resent without any
   policy-induced changes.  If the UAC decides that the list of policy
   servers or the received session policies are unacceptable, then the
   UAC MUST NOT resend the request.



Hilt, et al.             Expires August 23, 2011               [Page 16]

Internet-Draft          Session Policy Framework           February 2011


   To protect the integrity of the policy server URI in a Policy-Contact
   header field, the UAC SHOULD use a secured transport protocol such as
   Transport Layer Security (TLS) [RFC5246] between UAC and proxy.

   The UAC MUST insert a Policy-Id header field into requests for which
   it has contacted a policy server and accepted the policies received.
   The Policy-Id header field is a new header field that is defined in
   this specification.  The UA MUST create a Policy-Id header field
   value for each policy server it has contacted during the preparation
   of the request.  A Policy-Id header field value contains two pieces
   of information: the policy server URI and an optional token.  The
   policy server URI is the URI the UA has used to contact the policy
   server.  The token is an opaque string the UAC can receive from the
   policy server.  A token can, for example, be contained in the policy
   document [I-D.ietf-sipping-media-policy-dataset].  If the UAC has
   received a token from the policy server the UAC MUST include the
   token in the Policy-Id header field.  The format of the Policy-Id
   header field is defined in Section 4.4.5.

   The main purpose of the Policy-Id header field is to enable a proxy
   to determine if the UAC already knows an URI of the local policy
   server.  If the policy server URI is not yet known to the UAC, the
   proxy can convey this URI to the UAC by rejecting the request with a
   488 (Not Acceptable Here) response.

   In some cases, a request can traverse multiple domains with a
   session-policy server.  Each of these domains can return a 488 (Not
   Acceptable Here) response containing a policy server URI.  A UAC
   contacts a policy server after receiving a 488 (Not Acceptable Here)
   response from a domain and before re-sending the request.  This
   creates an implicit order between the policy servers in multiple
   domains.  I.e., a UAC contacts the first policy server, re-sends the
   modified request, contacts the second policy server, re-sends the
   modified request and so on.  This way, session policies are always
   applied to a request in the order in which the request traverses
   through the domains.  The UAC MUST NOT change this implicit order
   among policy servers.

   A UAC frequently needs to contact the policy server in the local
   domain before setting up a session.  To avoid the retransmission of
   the local policy server URI in a 488 (Not Acceptable Here) response
   for each new request, a UA SHOULD maintain a cache that contains the
   URI of the policy server in the local domain (see Section 4.4.4).
   The UAC SHOULD use the cached policy server URI to contact the local
   policy server before sending a request that initiates the offer/
   answer exchange for a new session (e.g., an INVITE request).  The UAC
   SHOULD NOT cache a policy server URI that is in a different domain
   than the UAC even if it is the first policy server URI returned.  The



Hilt, et al.             Expires August 23, 2011               [Page 17]

Internet-Draft          Session Policy Framework           February 2011


   first policy server URI returned can be from another domain if the
   local domain does not have a policy server.  Note that UACs perform
   exact domain comparisons.  That is, foo.example.com and example.com
   are not considered equivalent.

   UAs can re-negotiate the session description during a session by
   initiating a subsequent offer/answer exchange, e.g., in an INVITE,
   UPDATE or PRACK request.  When creating such a mid-dialog request, a
   UA SHOULD contact all policy servers to which it has established a
   policy channel during the initial offer/answer exchange (see
   Section 4.5) before sending the request.  This avoids the
   retransmission of all policy server URIs in 488 (Not Acceptable Here)
   responses for mid-dialog requests.

4.4.2.  Proxy Behavior

   A proxy provides rendezvous functionalities for UAs and policy
   server.  This is achieved by conveying the URI of a policy server to
   the UAC or the UAS (or both) when processing INVITE, UPDATE or PRACK
   requests (or any other request that can initiate an offer/answer
   exchange).

   If an offer/answer exchange initiating request contains a Supported
   header field with the option tag "policy", the proxy MAY reject the
   request with a 488 (Not Acceptable Here) response to provide the
   local policy server URI to the UAC.  Before rejecting a request, the
   proxy MUST verify that the request does not contain a Policy-Id
   header field with the local policy server URI as a value.  If the
   request does not contain such a header field or a local policy server
   URI is not present in this header field, then the proxy MAY reject
   the request with a 488 (Not Acceptable Here) response.  The proxy
   MUST insert a Policy-Contact header field in the 488 (Not Acceptable
   Here) response that contains one (or multiple) URIs of its associated
   policy server.  The proxy MAY add the header field parameter "non-
   cacheable" to prevent the UAC from caching this policy server URI
   (see Section 4.4.4).

   More than one URI for the policy server using different URI schemes
   MAY be provided by the proxy as alternative URIs to contact the
   policy.  If a proxy includes multiple URIs for the same policy, the
   proxy MUST include an "alt-uri" parameter for all policy server URIs
   that are alternatives for obtaining the same policy.  The "alt-uri"
   parameter MUST contain either the domain name of the domain for which
   all the alternative policy server URIs relate to or a FQDN (e.g., the
   hostname of a policy server).  All URIs that are alternatives for the
   same policy MUST have the same value for the "alt-uri" parameter.
   The value used for the "alt-uri" parameter MUST be such that the same
   value will not be included with other policy server URIs that a UA



Hilt, et al.             Expires August 23, 2011               [Page 18]

Internet-Draft          Session Policy Framework           February 2011


   needs to contact by any other proxy within the same domain or another
   domain.  A method to create a new unique "alt-uri" parameter value is
   to examine the value of existing "alt-uri" parameters and to make
   sure that the new value differs.  A proxy MAY hint to a UA at a
   preference as to which URI to use by including the more preferred URI
   higher in the list than the other alternative URIs.  URIs with the
   same "alt-uri" parameter MUST use different URI schemes.  A SIP or
   SIPS URI MUST be included even if other URI schemes are defined and
   used in the future.

   If a local policy server URI is present in a Policy-Id header field
   value of a request, then the proxy MUST NOT reject the request as
   described above (it can still reject the request for other reasons).
   The proxy SHOULD remove the Policy-Id header field value of its
   associated policy server from the Policy-Id header field before
   forwarding the request.  Not removing the Policy-Id header field
   value will not cause harm, however, the value is not relevant to any
   other proxy on the path and only increases message size.  It also
   would disclose the policy server URI to subsequent proxies.

   The Policy-Id header field serves two main purposes: first and most
   importantly, it enables the proxy to determine if a UAC already knows
   the URI of the local policy server.  The second purpose of the
   Policy-Id header field is to enable a domain to route all requests
   that belong to the same session (i.e., the initial request and
   requests a UA retransmits after contacting the policy server) to the
   same proxy and policy server.  This is important if a domain has
   multiple proxy/policy server combinations (e.g., in a proxy/policy
   server farm that receives requests through a load balancer), which
   create per-session state in the network.  An example for such a
   scenario is a policy server that is associated with a session border
   device.  The policy server configures the session border device after
   receiving a session description from the UAC via the policy channel.
   Retransmitted requests for such a session need to be routed to the
   same proxy/policy server as the initial request since this proxy/
   policy server combination has configured the associated border device
   for the session.

   Routing all requests that belong to the same session to the same
   proxy can be achieved by using the Policy-Id header field token.  It
   requires that the policy server returns a token to the UAC that
   uniquely identifies the specific proxy/policy server combination.
   The UAC includes this token in the Policy-Id header field and it can
   be used (together with the policy server URI) by the proxies in this
   domain to route the request along the desired path.  The format of
   this token does not require standardization.  The only requirement is
   that the token provides sufficient information for proxies to route
   the message inside a domain to the desired proxy/policy server.  The



Hilt, et al.             Expires August 23, 2011               [Page 19]

Internet-Draft          Session Policy Framework           February 2011


   token can, for example, be a numeric identifier or an IP address.

      Note: it has been proposed to use the Policy-Id header field to
      provide a hint for a proxy that the UAC has actually contacted the
      policy server.  This usage also requires the policy server to
      return a token to the UA.  In addition, the policy server needs to
      share valid tokens with the proxy.  After receiving a request with
      a Policy-Id header field, the proxy can determine if the token in
      the Policy-Id header field is valid.  If it is valid, the proxy
      knows that the UA has contacted the policy server for this
      session.  However, this token does not provide any proof that the
      UA has actually used the policies it has received from the policy
      server.  A malicious UA can simply contact the policy server,
      discard all policies it receives but still use the token in the
      Policy-Id header field.

   The proxy MAY insert a Policy-Contact header field into INVITE,
   UPDATE or PRACK requests (or any other request that can initiate an
   offer/answer exchange) in order to convey the policy server URI to
   the UAS.  If the request already contains a Policy-Contact header
   field, the proxy MUST insert the URI after all existing values at the
   end of the list.  A proxy MUST NOT change the order of existing
   Policy-Contact header field values.

   A proxy MUST use the Record-Route mechanism [RFC3261] if its
   associated policy server has session policies that apply to mid-
   dialog requests.  The Record-Route header field enables a proxy to
   stay in the signaling path and re-submit the policy server URIs to
   UAs during mid-dialog requests that initiate an offer/answer
   exchange.  Re-submitting the policy server URI to UAs ensures that
   UAs keep contacting the policy server for mid-dialog requests.

   A proxy can find out if the UAS supports this extension by examining
   the Supported header field of responses.  The proxy knows that the
   UAS supports this extension if the Supported header field of a
   response contains the option tag "policy".  A proxy can use this
   information to determine if the UAS has understood the Policy-Contact
   header field it has inserted into the request.

   To protect the integrity of the policy server URI in a Policy-Contact
   header field, the proxy SHOULD use a secured transport protocol such
   as TLS [RFC5246] between proxy and UAs.

4.4.3.  UAS Behavior

   A UAS can receive an INVITE, UPDATE or PRACK request (or another
   request that can initiate offer/answer exchanges) that contains a
   Policy-Contact header field with a list of policy server URIs.  A UAS



Hilt, et al.             Expires August 23, 2011               [Page 20]

Internet-Draft          Session Policy Framework           February 2011


   that receives such a request needs to decide if it wants to accept
   the session knowing that there are policy servers involved.  If the
   Policy-Contact header contains multiple URIs each with a different
   URI scheme and containing an "alt-uri" parameter with identical
   values these URI schemes represent alternative policy channel
   mechanisms for obtaining the same policy.  If the UAS accepts the
   session, the UAS MUST contact one URI out of each group of URIs with
   identical "alt-uri" parameter values to obtain the policy.  The UAS
   MAY take as a hint the order of the alternative URIs as indicating a
   preference as to which URI to use.  The topmost URI in the list might
   be more preferred by the domain of the proxy for use to obtain the
   policy.  The UAS MUST contact all policy server URIs in a Policy-
   Contact header field that are not part of a group of alternative URIs
   and MUST contact one URI in each group of alternative URIs.  The UAS
   MUST contact these policy server URIs in the order in which they were
   contained in the Policy-Contact header field, starting with the
   topmost value (i.e., the value that was inserted first).

   If a UAS decides that it does not want to accept a session because
   there are policy servers involved or because one of the session
   policies received from a policy server is not acceptable, the UAS
   MUST reject the request with a 488 (Not Acceptable Here) response.

   The UAS MAY accept a request and continue with setting up a session
   if it cannot setup a policy channel to the policy server, for
   example, because the policy server is unreachable or returns an error
   condition that cannot be resolved by the UAS (i.e., error conditions
   other than, for example, a 401 (Unauthorized) response).  This is to
   avoid that the failure of a policy server prevents a UA from
   communicating.  Since this session might not be policy compliant
   without the policy subscription, it can be blocked by policy
   enforcement mechanisms if they are in place.

   A UAS can receive a token from a policy server via the policy
   channel.  Since the UAS does not create a Policy-ID header field, it
   can simply ignore this token.

   A UAS compliant to this specification MUST include a Supported header
   field with the option tag "policy" into responses to requests that
   can initiate an offer/answer exchange.  The UAS MAY include this
   option tag in all responses.  This way, a proxy that has inserted the
   Policy-Contact header field can know that the header field was
   understood by the UAS.

4.4.4.  Caching the Local Policy Server URI

   A UAC frequently needs to contact the policy server in the local
   domain before setting up a session.  To avoid the retransmission of



Hilt, et al.             Expires August 23, 2011               [Page 21]

Internet-Draft          Session Policy Framework           February 2011


   the local policy server URI for each session, a UA SHOULD maintain a
   cache that contains the URI of the local policy server.

   A UA can receive this URI in a Policy-Contact header field of a
   request or a 488 (Not Acceptable Here) response.  The UA can also
   receive the local policy server URI through configuration, for
   example, via the configuration framework
   [I-D.ietf-sipping-config-framework].  If a UA has received a local
   policy server URI through configuration and receives another local
   policy server URI in a Policy-Contact header field, the UA SHOULD
   overwrite the configured URI with the most recent one received in a
   Policy-Contact header field.  A policy server URI received in a
   Policy-Contact header field expires if it has not been refreshed
   before it reaches the maximum cached URI validity.  The default
   maximum cached URI validity is 24 hours.

   Domains can prevent a UA from caching the local policy server URI.
   This is useful, for example, if the policy server does not need to be
   involved in all sessions or the policy server URI changes from
   session to session.  A proxy can mark the URI of such a policy server
   as "non-cacheable".  A UA MUST NOT cache a non-cacheable policy
   server URI.  The UA SHOULD remove the current URI from the cache when
   receiving a local policy server URI that is marked as "non-
   cacheable".  This is to avoid the use of policy server URIs that are
   outdated.

   The UA SHOULD NOT cache policy server URIs it has received from
   proxies outside of the local domain.  These policy servers need not
   be relevant for subsequent sessions, which can go to a different
   destination, traversing different domains.

   The UA MUST NOT cache tokens it has received from a policy server.  A
   token is only valid for one request.

4.4.5.  Header Field Definition and Syntax

4.4.5.1.  Policy-Id Header Field

   The Policy-Id header field is inserted by the UAC into INVITE, UPDATE
   or PRACK requests (or any other request that can be used to initiate
   an offer/answer exchange).  The Policy-Id header field identifies all
   policy servers the UAC has contacted for this request.

   The value of a Policy-Id header field consists of a policy server URI
   and an optional token parameter.  The token parameter contains a
   token the UA might have received from the policy server.

   The syntax of the Policy-Id header field is described below in ABNF,



Hilt, et al.             Expires August 23, 2011               [Page 22]

Internet-Draft          Session Policy Framework           February 2011


   according to RFC5234 [RFC5234], as an extension to the ABNF for SIP
   in RFC3261 [RFC3261]:

     Policy-Id        = "Policy-Id" HCOLON policyURI
                        *(COMMA  policyURI)
     policyURI        = ( SIP-URI / SIPS-URI / absoluteURI )
                        [ SEMI token-param ] *( SEMI generic-param )
     token-param      = "token=" token

4.4.5.2.  Policy-Contact Header Field

   The Policy-Contact header field can be inserted by a proxy into a 488
   (Not Acceptable Here) response to INVITE, UPDATE or PRACK requests
   (or other requests that initiate an offer/answer exchange).  The
   value of a Policy-Contact header field consists of a policy server
   URI and an optional "non-cacheable" header field parameter.  The
   policy server URI identifies the policy server that needs to be
   contacted by a UAC.  The "non-cacheable" header field parameter
   indicates that the policy server URI is not intended to be cached by
   the UAC.

   The Policy-Contact header field can also be inserted by a proxy into
   INVITE, UPDATE and PRACK requests (or other requests that can be used
   to initiate an offer/answer exchange).  It contains an ordered list
   of policy server URIs that need to be contacted by the UAS.  The
   topmost value of this list identifies the policy server that is
   contacted first.  New header field values are inserted at the end.
   With this, the Policy-Contact header field effectively forms a fist-
   in-first-out queue.

   The syntax of the Policy-Contact header field is described below in
   ABNF, according to RFC5234 [RFC5234], as an extension to the ABNF for
   SIP in RFC3261 [RFC3261]:

  Policy-Contact         = "Policy-Contact" HCOLON
                           policyContact-info *(COMMA policyContact-info)

  policyContact-info     = LAQUOT policyContact-uri RAQUOT
                           *( SEMI policyContact-param )

  policyContact-uri      = ( SIP-URI / SIPS-URI / absoluteURI )

  policyContact-param    = ( "non-cacheable" / policyContact-alt-uri
                           / generic-param )

  policyContact-alt-uri  = "alt-uri" EQUAL hostname

   Tables 1 and 2 are extensions of Tables 2 and 3 in RFC 3261



Hilt, et al.             Expires August 23, 2011               [Page 23]

Internet-Draft          Session Policy Framework           February 2011


   [RFC3261].  The column "INF" is for the INFO method [RFC2976], "PRA"
   is for the PRACK method [RFC3262], "UPD" is for the UPDATE method
   [RFC3311], "SUB" is for the SUBSCRIBE method [RFC3265], "NOT" is for
   the NOTIFY method [RFC3265], "MSG" is for the MESSAGE method
   [RFC3428], "REF" is for the REFER method [RFC3515], and "PUB" is for
   the PUBLISH method [RFC3903].

     Header field          where   proxy ACK BYE CAN INV OPT REG UPD
     _______________________________________________________________
     Policy-Id               R       rd   -   -   -   c   -   -   c
     Policy-Contact          R       a    -   -   -   c   -   -   c
     Policy-Contact         488      a    -   -   -   c   -   -   c
           Table 1: Policy-Id and Policy-Contact Header Fields


     Header field          where   proxy PRA PUB SUB NOT INF MSG REF
     _______________________________________________________________
     Policy-Id               R       rd   c   -   -   -   -   -   -
     Policy-Contact          R       a    c   -   -   -   -   -   -
     Policy-Contact         488      a    c   -   -   -   -   -   -
           Table 1: Policy-Id and Policy-Contact Header Fields

4.5.  Policy Channel

   The main task of the policy channel is to enable a UA to submit
   information about the session it is trying to establish (i.e., the
   offer and the answer) to a policy server and to receive the resulting
   session-specific policies and possible updates to these policies in
   response.

   The Event Package for Session-Specific Session Policies
   [I-D.ietf-sipping-policy-package] defines a SUBSCRIBE/NOTIFY-based
   [RFC3265] policy channel mechanism.  A UA compliant to this
   specification MUST support the Event Package for Session-Specific
   Session Policies [I-D.ietf-sipping-policy-package].  The UA MUST use
   this event package to contact a policy server if the policy server
   URI is a SIP-URI or SIPS-URI.  A UA MAY support other policy channel
   mechanisms.

4.5.1.  Creation and Management

   A UA discovers the list of policy servers relevant for a session
   during the initial offer/answer exchange (see Section 4.4).  A UA
   compliant to this specification MUST set up a policy channel to each
   of the discovered policy server.  If the UA does not want to set up a
   policy channel to one of the policy servers provided, the UA MUST
   cancel or reject a pending INVITE transaction for the session or
   terminate the session if it is already in progress.



Hilt, et al.             Expires August 23, 2011               [Page 24]

Internet-Draft          Session Policy Framework           February 2011


   A UA MUST maintain the policy channel to each discovered policy
   server during the lifetime of a session, unless the policy channel is
   closed by the policy server or the UA discovers that the policy
   server is no longer relevant for the session as described below.

   A UAC can receive a 488 (Not Acceptable Here) response with a Policy-
   Contact header field containing a new policy server URI in response
   to a mid-dialog request.  This indicates that the set of policy
   servers relevant for the current session has changed.  If this
   occurs, the UAC MUST retry sending the request as if it was the first
   request in a dialog (i.e., without applying any policies except the
   policies from the local policy server).  This way, the UAC will re-
   discover the list of policy servers for the current session.  This is
   necessary since the UAC has no other way of knowing when to contact
   the newly discovered policy server relative to the existing policy
   servers and if any of the existing policy servers does not need to be
   contacted any more.  The UAC MUST set up a policy channel to each new
   policy server.  The UAC SHOULD close policy channels to policy server
   that are not listed any more.  If the policy channel to these servers
   is not closed, the UAC can receive policies that do not apply to the
   session any more.  The UAC MUST contact policy servers in the order
   in which they were discovered in the most recent request.

   If a UAS receives a mid-dialog request with a Policy-Contact header
   field containing a list of policy server URIs that is different from
   the list of policy servers to which the UAS has currently established
   a policy channel, then the UAS MUST set up a policy channel to all
   new policy servers and contact them.  The UAS SHOULD close policy
   channels to servers that are not listed any more.  If the policy
   channel to these servers is not closed, the UAS can receive policies
   that do not apply to the session any more.  The UAS MUST use policy
   servers in the order in which they were contained in the most recent
   Policy-Contact header field.

   A UA MUST inform the policy server when a session is terminated
   (e.g., when the UA has either sent or received a BYE) via the policy
   channel, unless a policy server indicates via the policy channel that
   it does not need to be contacted at the end of the session.  This
   enables a policy server to free all resources it has allocated for
   this session.

4.5.2.  Contacting the Policy Server

   A UA MUST contact all policy servers to which it has established a
   policy channel before sending or after receiving a mid-dialog
   request.  The UA MUST contact the policy servers in the order in
   which they were discovered most recently.




Hilt, et al.             Expires August 23, 2011               [Page 25]

Internet-Draft          Session Policy Framework           February 2011


   A UA that receives a SIP message containing an offer or answer SHOULD
   completely process the message (e.g., according to RFC3261 [RFC3261])
   before contacting the policy server.  The SIP processing of the
   message includes, for example, updating dialog state and timers as
   well as creating ACK or PRACK requests as necessary.  This ensures
   that contacting a policy server does not interfere with SIP message
   processing and timing (e.g., by inadvertently causing timers to
   expire).  This implies, for example, that a UAC which has received a
   response to an INVITE request would normally finish the processing of
   the response including transmitting the ACK request before it
   contacts the policy server.  An important exception to this rule is
   discussed in the next paragraph.

   In some cases, a UA needs to use the offer/answer it has received in
   a SIP message to create an ACK or PRACK request for this message,
   i.e., it needs to use the offer/answer before finishing the SIP
   machinery for this message.  For example, a UAC that has received an
   offer in the response to an INVITE request needs to apply policies to
   the offer and the answer before it can send the answer in an ACK
   request.  In these cases, a UA SHOULD contact the policy server even
   if this is during the processing of a SIP message.  This implies that
   a UA, which has received an offer in the response of an INVITE
   request, would normally contact the policy server and apply session
   policies before sending the answer in the ACK request.

      Note: this assumes that the policy server can always respond
      immediately to a policy request and does not require manual
      intervention to create a policy.  This will be the case for most
      policy servers.  If, however, a policy server cannot respond with
      a policy right away, it can return a policy that temporarily
      denies the session and update this policy as the actual policy
      decision becomes available.  A delay in the response from the
      policy server to the UA would delay the transmission of the ACK
      request and could trigger retransmissions of the INVITE response
      (also see the recommendations for Flow I in RFC3725 [RFC3725]).

   The case of multiple policy servers providing policies to the same UA
   requires additional considerations.  A policy returned by one policy
   server can contain information that needs to be shared with the other
   policy servers.  For example, two policy servers can have the policy
   to insert a media intermediary by modifying the IP addresses and
   ports of media streams.  In order for media streams to pass through
   both intermediaries, each intermediary needs to know the IP address
   and port on which the other media intermediary is expecting the
   stream to arrive.  If media streams are flowing in both directions,
   this means that each intermediary needs to know IP addresses and
   ports of the other intermediary.




Hilt, et al.             Expires August 23, 2011               [Page 26]

Internet-Draft          Session Policy Framework           February 2011


   UACs usually contact a policy server twice during an offer/answer
   exchange (unless a policy server indicates that it only needs to be
   contacted once).  Therefore the case of multiple policy servers
   providing policies to a single UAC does not require additional steps
   in most cases.  However, a UAS usually contacts each policy server
   only once (see Figure 4).  If a session policy returned by one of the
   policy servers requires that information is shared between multiple
   servers and the UAS receives policies from more than one policy
   server, then the UAS MUST contact all policy servers a second time
   after contacting all servers the first time.  Whether or not a second
   round is required is determined by the type of information returned
   by the policy server.  A data format for session policies (e.g.,
   [I-D.ietf-sipping-media-policy-dataset]) needs to explicitly state if
   a second round is needed for a particular data element.  If a UA
   receives such an element, it knows that is expected to contact policy
   servers a second time.  If such a data element is modified during a
   mid-call offer/answer exchange and multiple policy servers are
   providing policies to a UA then all UAs MUST contact policy servers
   in a first and second round.  An example call flow is shown in
   Appendix B.3.

   A UA that supports session-specific policies compliant to this
   specification MUST support the User Agent Profile Data Set for Media
   Policy [I-D.ietf-sipping-media-policy-dataset] as data format for
   session policies.

4.5.3.  Using Session Policies

   A UA MUST disclose the session description(s) for the current session
   to policy servers through the policy channel.  The UA MUST apply
   session policies it receives to the offer and, if one is received, to
   the answer before using the offer/answer.  If these policies are
   unacceptable, the UA MUST NOT continue with the session.  This means
   that, the UA MUST cancel or reject a pending INVITE transaction for
   the session or terminate the session if it is already in progress.
   If the UA receives an unacceptable policy in an INVITE response, the
   UA MUST complete the INVITE transaction and then terminate the
   session.

   When a UA receives a notification about a change in the current
   policies, the UA MUST apply the updated policies to the current
   session or the UA MUST terminate the session.  If the policy update
   causes a change in the session description of a session, then the UA
   needs to re-negotiate the modified session description with its peer
   UA, for example, using a re-INVITE or UPDATE request.  For example,
   if a policy update disallows the use of video and video is part of
   the current session description, then the UA will need to create an
   new session description offer without video.  After receiving this



Hilt, et al.             Expires August 23, 2011               [Page 27]

Internet-Draft          Session Policy Framework           February 2011


   offer, the peer UA knows that video can't be used any more and
   responds with the corresponding answer.


5.  Security Considerations

   Policy enforcement mechanisms can prevent a UA from communicating
   with another UA if the UAs are not aware of the policies that are
   enforced.  Policy enforcement mechanisms without policy signaling can
   therefore create a denial of service condition for UAs.  This
   specification provides a mechanism for intermediaries to signal the
   policies that are enforced to UAs.  It enables UAs to establish
   sessions that are conform and pass through policy enforcement.

   Session policies can significantly change the behavior of a UA and
   can be used by an attacker to compromise a UA.  For example, session
   policies can be used to prevent a UA from successfully establishing a
   session (e.g., by setting the available bandwidth to zero).  Such a
   policy can be submitted to the UA during a session, which causes the
   UA to terminate the session.

   A UA transmits session information to a policy server for session-
   specific policies.  This session information can contain sensitive
   data the user does not want an eavesdropper or an unauthorized policy
   server to see.  Vice versa, session policies can contain sensitive
   information about the network or service level agreements the service
   provider does not want to disclose to an eavesdropper or an
   unauthorized UA.

   It is important to secure the communication between the proxy and the
   UA (for session-specific policies) as well as the UA and the policy
   server.  The following four discrete attributes need to be protected:

   1.  integrity of the policy server URI (for session-specific
       policies),
   2.  authentication of the policy server and, if needed, the user
       agent,
   3.  confidentiality of the messages exchanged between the user agent
       and the policy server and
   4.  ensuring that private information is not exchanged between the
       two parties, even over an confidentiality-assured and
       authenticated session.

   To protect the integrity of the policy server URI, a UA SHOULD use a
   secured transport protocol such as TLS [RFC5246] between proxies and
   the UA.  Protecting the integrity of the policy server URI is
   important since an attacker could intercept SIP messages between the
   UA and the proxy and remove the policy header fields needed for



Hilt, et al.             Expires August 23, 2011               [Page 28]

Internet-Draft          Session Policy Framework           February 2011


   session-specific policies.  This would impede the rendezvous between
   UA and policy server and, since the UA would not contact the policy
   server, can prevent a UA from setting up a session.

   Instead of removing a policy server URI, an attacker can also modify
   the policy server URI and point the UA to a compromised policy
   server.  It is RECOMMENDED that a UA authenticates policy servers to
   prevent such an attack from being effective.

   It is RECOMMENDED that the UA only accepts session-independent
   policies from trustworthy policy servers as these policies affect all
   sessions of a UA.  A list of trustworthy session-independent policy
   servers can be provided to the UA through configuration.  As SIP
   messages can be affected by any proxy on a path and session-specific
   policies only apply to a single session, a UA MAY choose to accept
   session-specific policies from other policy servers as well.

   Policy servers SHOULD authenticate UAs to protect the information
   that is contained in a session policy.  However, a policy server can
   also frequently encounter UAs it cannot authenticate.  In these
   cases, the policy server MAY provide a generic policy that does not
   reveal sensitive information to these UAs.

   It is RECOMMENDED that administrators use SIPS URIs as policy server
   URIs so that subscriptions to session policies are transmitted over
   TLS.

   The above security attributes are important to protect the
   communication between the UA and policy server.  This document does
   not define the protocol used for the communication between UA and
   policy server and merely refers to other specifications for this
   purpose.  The security considerations of these specifications need to
   address the above security aspects.


6.  IANA Considerations

6.1.  Registration of the "Policy-Id" Header Field

      Name of Header Field: Policy-Id

      Short form: none

      Normative description: Section 4.4.5 of this document







Hilt, et al.             Expires August 23, 2011               [Page 29]

Internet-Draft          Session Policy Framework           February 2011


6.2.  Registration of the "Policy-Contact" Header Field

      Name of Header Field: Policy-Contact

      Short form: none

      Normative description: Section 4.4.5 of this document

6.3.  Registration of the "non-cacheable" Policy-Contact Header Field
      Parameter

   Registry Name: Header Field Parameters and Parameter Values
   Reference: RFC3968 [RFC3968]

   Registry:

   Header Field               Parameter Name   Predefined  Reference
                                                 Values
   _____________________________________________________________________
   Policy-Contact             non-cacheable       Yes      this document

6.4.  Registration of the "policy" SIP Option-Tag

   This specification registers a new SIP option tag, as per the
   guidelines in Section 27.1 of RFC3261 [RFC3261].

   This document defines the SIP option tag "policy".

   The following row has been added to the "Option Tags" section of the
   SIP Parameter Registry:

   +------------+------------------------------------------+-----------+
   | Name       | Description                              | Reference |
   +------------+------------------------------------------+-----------+
   | policy     | This option tag is used to indicate that | this      |
   |            | a UA can process policy server URIs for  | document  |
   |            | and subscribe to session-specific        |           |
   |            | policies.                                |           |
   +------------+------------------------------------------+-----------+

      Name of option: policy

      Description: Support for the Policy-Contact and Policy-Id header
      fields.

      SIP header fields defined: Policy-Contact, Policy-Id





Hilt, et al.             Expires August 23, 2011               [Page 30]

Internet-Draft          Session Policy Framework           February 2011


      Normative description: This document


7.  References

7.1.  Normative References

   [I-D.ietf-sipping-config-framework]
              Channabasappa, S., "A Framework for Session Initiation
              Protocol User Agent Profile Delivery",
              draft-ietf-sipping-config-framework-18 (work in progress),
              October 2010.

   [I-D.ietf-sipping-media-policy-dataset]
              Hilt, V., Worley, D., Camarillo, G., and J. Rosenberg, "A
              User Agent Profile Data Set for Media Policy",
              draft-ietf-sipping-media-policy-dataset-11 (work in
              progress), February 2011.

   [I-D.ietf-sipping-policy-package]
              Hilt, V. and G. Camarillo, "A Session Initiation Protocol
              (SIP) Event Package for Session-Specific Session
              Policies.", draft-ietf-sipping-policy-package-08 (work in
              progress), March 2010.

   [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.

   [RFC3262]  Rosenberg, J. and H. Schulzrinne, "Reliability of
              Provisional Responses in Session Initiation Protocol
              (SIP)", RFC 3262, June 2002.

   [RFC3264]  Rosenberg, J. and H. Schulzrinne, "An Offer/Answer Model
              with Session Description Protocol (SDP)", RFC 3264,
              June 2002.

   [RFC3265]  Roach, A., "Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)-Specific
              Event Notification", RFC 3265, June 2002.

   [RFC3311]  Rosenberg, J., "The Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)
              UPDATE Method", RFC 3311, October 2002.

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



Hilt, et al.             Expires August 23, 2011               [Page 31]

Internet-Draft          Session Policy Framework           February 2011


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

   [RFC5234]  Crocker, D. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax
              Specifications: ABNF", STD 68, RFC 5234, January 2008.

7.2.  Informative References

   [RFC2976]  Donovan, S., "The SIP INFO Method", RFC 2976,
              October 2000.

   [RFC3428]  Campbell, B., Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., Huitema, C.,
              and D. Gurle, "Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Extension
              for Instant Messaging", RFC 3428, December 2002.

   [RFC3515]  Sparks, R., "The Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Refer
              Method", RFC 3515, April 2003.

   [RFC3725]  Rosenberg, J., Peterson, J., Schulzrinne, H., and G.
              Camarillo, "Best Current Practices for Third Party Call
              Control (3pcc) in the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)",
              BCP 85, RFC 3725, April 2004.

   [RFC3903]  Niemi, A., "Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Extension
              for Event State Publication", RFC 3903, October 2004.

   [RFC3986]  Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform
              Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax", STD 66,
              RFC 3986, January 2005.

   [RFC4566]  Handley, M., Jacobson, V., and C. Perkins, "SDP: Session
              Description Protocol", RFC 4566, July 2006.

   [RFC5246]  Dierks, T. and E. Rescorla, "The Transport Layer Security
              (TLS) Protocol Version 1.2", RFC 5246, August 2008.


Appendix A.  Acknowledgements

   Many thanks to Allison Mankin, Andrew Allen, Cullen Jennings and
   Vijay Gurbani for their contributions to this draft.  Many thanks to
   Roni Even, Bob Penfield, Mary Barnes, Shida Schubert, Keith Drage,
   Lisa Dusseault, Tim Polk and Pasi Eronen for their reviews and
   suggestions.






Hilt, et al.             Expires August 23, 2011               [Page 32]

Internet-Draft          Session Policy Framework           February 2011


Appendix B.  Session-Specific Policies - Call Flows

   The following call flows illustrate the overall operation of session-
   specific policies including the policy channel protocol as defined in
   the SIP Event Package for Session-Specific Session Policies
   [I-D.ietf-sipping-policy-package].

   The following abbreviations are used:

      o: offer
      o': offer modified by a policy
      po: offer policy
      a: answer
      a': answer modified by a policy
      pa: answer policy
      ps uri: policy server URI (in Policy-Contact header field)
      ps id: policy server id (in Policy-Id header field)

B.1.  Offer in Invite
































Hilt, et al.             Expires August 23, 2011               [Page 33]

Internet-Draft          Session Policy Framework           February 2011


   UA A       P A      PS A      PS B       P B      UA B
     |         |         |         |         |         |
     |(1) INV <o>        |         |         |         |
     |-------->|         |         |         |         |
     |(2) 488 <ps uri>   |         |         |         |
     |<--------|         |         |         |         |
     |(3) ACK  |         |         |         |         |
     |-------->|         |         |         |         |
     |(4) SUBSCRIBE <o>  |         |         |         |
     |------------------>|         |         |         |
     |(5) 200 OK         |         |         |         |
     |<------------------|         |         |         |
     |(6) NOTIFY <po>    |         |         |         |
     |<------------------|         |         |         |
     |(7) 200 OK         |         |         |         |
     |------------------>|         |         |         |
     |(8) INV <ps id, o'>|         |         |         |
     |-------->|         |         |         |         |
     |         |(9) INV <o'>       |         |         |
     |         |---------------------------->|         |
     |         |         |         |         |(10) INV <o', ps uri>
     |         |         |         |         |-------->|
     |         |         |         |(11) SUBSCRIBE <o', a>
     |         |         |         |<------------------|
     |         |         |         |(12) 200 OK        |
     |         |         |         |------------------>|
     |         |         |         |(13) NOTIFY <po, pa>
     |         |         |         |------------------>|
     |         |         |         |(14) 200 OK        |
     |         |         |         |<------------------|
     |         |         |         |         |(15) 200 OK <a'>
     |         |         |         |         |<--------|
     |         |(16) 200 OK <a'>   |         |         |
     |         |<----------------------------|         |
     |(17) 200 OK <a'>   |         |         |         |
     |<--------|         |         |         |         |
     |(18) ACK |         |         |         |         |
     |------------------------------------------------>|
     |(19) SUBSCRIBE <o', a'>      |         |         |
     |------------------>|         |         |         |
     |(20) 200 OK        |         |         |         |
     |<------------------|         |         |         |
     |(21) NOTIFY <po, pa>         |         |         |
     |<------------------|         |         |         |
     |(22) 200 OK        |         |         |         |
     |------------------>|         |         |         |
     |         |         |         |         |         |
     |         |         |         |         |         |



Hilt, et al.             Expires August 23, 2011               [Page 34]

Internet-Draft          Session Policy Framework           February 2011


B.2.  Offer in Response

   UA A       P A      PS A      PS B       P B      UA B
     |         |         |         |         |         |
     |(1) INV  |         |         |         |         |
     |-------->|         |         |         |         |
     |(2) 488 <ps uri>   |         |         |         |
     |<--------|         |         |         |         |
     |(3) ACK  |         |         |         |         |
     |-------->|         |         |         |         |
     |(4) SUBSCRIBE      |         |         |         |
     |------------------>|         |         |         |
     |(5) 200 OK         |         |         |         |
     |<------------------|         |         |         |
     |(6) NOTIFY         |         |         |         |
     |<------------------|         |         |         |
     |(7) 200 OK         |         |         |         |
     |------------------>|         |         |         |
     |(8) INV <ps id>    |         |         |         |
     |-------->|         |         |         |         |
     |         |(9) INV  |         |         |         |
     |         |---------------------------->|         |
     |         |         |         |         |(10) INV <ps uri>
     |         |         |         |         |-------->|
     |         |         |         |(11) SUBSCRIBE <o> |
     |         |         |         |<------------------|
     |         |         |         |(12) 200 OK        |
     |         |         |         |------------------>|
     |         |         |         |(13) NOTIFY <po>   |
     |         |         |         |------------------>|
     |         |         |         |(14) 200 OK        |
     |         |         |         |<------------------|
     |         |         |         |         |(15) 200 OK <o'>
     |         |         |         |         |<--------|
     |         |(16) 200 OK <o'>   |         |         |
     |         |<----------------------------|         |
     |(17) 200 OK <o'>   |         |         |         |
     |<--------|         |         |         |         |
     |(18) SUBSCRIBE <o', a>       |         |         |
     |------------------>|         |         |         |
     |(19) 200 OK        |         |         |         |
     |<------------------|         |         |         |
     |(20) NOTIFY <po, pa>         |         |         |
     |<------------------|         |         |         |
     |(21) 200 OK        |         |         |         |
     |------------------>|         |         |         |
     |(22) ACK <a'>      |         |         |         |
     |------------------------------------------------>|



Hilt, et al.             Expires August 23, 2011               [Page 35]

Internet-Draft          Session Policy Framework           February 2011


     |         |         |         |(23) SUBSCRIBE <o', a'>
     |         |         |         |<------------------|
     |         |         |         |(24) 200 OK        |
     |         |         |         |------------------>|
     |         |         |         |(25) NOTIFY <po, pa>
     |         |         |         |------------------>|
     |         |         |         |(26) 200 OK        |
     |         |         |         |<------------------|
     |         |         |         |         |         |
     |         |         |         |         |         |

B.3.  Multiple Policy Servers for UAS

UA A       P A      PS A      PS B       P B      UA B
  |         |         |         |         |         |
  |         |         |         |         |         |
  |         |         |         |         |         |
  |(1) INV <o>        |         |         |         |
  |-------->|         |         |         |         |
  |         |(2) INV <o, uri PSA>         |         |
  |         |---------------------------->|         |
  |         |         |         |         |(3) INV <o, uri PSA, uri PSB>
  |         |         |         |         |-------->|
  |         |         |(4) SUBSCRIBE <o, a>         |
  |         |         |<----------------------------|
  |         |         |(5) 200 OK         |         |
  |         |         |---------------------------->|
  |         |         |(6) NOTIFY <po, pa>|         |
  |         |         |---------------------------->|
  |         |         |(7) 200 OK         |         |
  |         |         |<----------------------------|
  |         |         |         |(8) SUBSCRIBE <o', a'>
  |         |         |         |<------------------|
  |         |         |         |(9) 200 OK         |
  |         |         |         |------------------>|
  |         |         |         |(10) NOTIFY <po, pa>
  |         |         |         |------------------>|
  |         |         |         |(11) 200 OK        |
  |         |         |         |<------------------|
  |         |         |(12) SUBSCRIBE <o", a">      |
  |         |         |<----------------------------|
  |         |         |(13) 200 OK        |         |
  |         |         |---------------------------->|
  |         |         |(14) NOTIFY <po, pa>         |
  |         |         |---------------------------->|
  |         |         |(15) 200 OK        |         |
  |         |         |<----------------------------|
  |         |         |         |(16) SUBSCRIBE <o", a">



Hilt, et al.             Expires August 23, 2011               [Page 36]

Internet-Draft          Session Policy Framework           February 2011


  |         |         |         |<------------------|
  |         |         |         |(17) 200 OK        |
  |         |         |         |------------------>|
  |         |         |         |(18) NOTIFY <po, pa>
  |         |         |         |------------------>|
  |         |         |         |(19) 200 OK        |
  |         |         |         |<------------------|
  |         |         |         |         |(20) 200 OK <a">
  |         |         |         |         |<--------|
  |         |(21) 200 OK <a">   |         |         |
  |         |<----------------------------|         |
  |(22) 200 OK <a">   |         |         |         |
  |<--------|         |         |         |         |
  |(23) ACK |         |         |         |         |
  |------------------------------------------------>|
  |         |         |         |         |         |
  |         |         |         |         |         |


Authors' Addresses

   Volker Hilt
   Bell Labs/Alcatel-Lucent
   791 Holmdel-Keyport Rd
   Holmdel, NJ  07733
   USA

   Email: volkerh@bell-labs.com


   Gonzalo Camarillo
   Ericsson
   Hirsalantie 11
   Jorvas  02420
   Finland

   Email: Gonzalo.Camarillo@ericsson.com


   Jonathan Rosenberg
   jdrosen.net
   Monmouth, NJ
   USA

   Email: jdrosen@jdrosen.net






Hilt, et al.             Expires August 23, 2011               [Page 37]


