Network Working Group R. Sparks Internet-Draft Tekelec Intended status: Informational Feb 28, 2009 Expires: September 1, 2009 Status of Normative References in RFC3261 draft-sparks-sip-3261-norm-ref-status-00 Status of this Memo This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- Drafts. Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. This Internet-Draft will expire on September 1, 2009. Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2009 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved. This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents in effect on the date of publication of this document (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info). Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Abstract This document captures the current status of the normative references in RFC3261. It is intended to inform continuing discussions on how to maintain the SIP protocol. Sparks Expires September 1, 2009 [Page 1] Internet-Draft Status of Normative References in RFC3261 Feb 2009 Table of Contents 1. Understanding the normative dependencies in RFC3261 . . . . . . 3 2. Survey of RFC3261 Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. Other dependencies to track . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 5. IANA considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 6. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Sparks Expires September 1, 2009 [Page 2] Internet-Draft Status of Normative References in RFC3261 Feb 2009 1. Understanding the normative dependencies in RFC3261 While discussing how to move forward with the maintenance of the SIP protocol, it will be useful to understand the scope and status of the normative dependencies in the core documents ([RFC3261] in particular). The kind of work needed to move the protocol to Draft Standard is different than the work that would be done refining the protocol with the intent to remain at Proposed Standard for another interval. [RFC2026] states: Note: Standards track specifications normally must not depend on other standards track specifications which are at a lower maturity level or on non standards track specifications other than referenced specifications from other standards bodies. In other words, any normative references from a Draft Standard must be to other Draft or full Standard documents, or come with a strong explanation of why a "downref" or an external reference is acceptable [RFC3967]. RFC 3261 normatively depends on SDP (literally [RFC2327], but any work would reference the current standard at the time - at the moment, that is [RFC4566]). This is likely to be one of the harder dependencies to resolve. We would either have to progress SDP as a prerequisite, find a way to construct the documents to avoid a normative reference to SDP, or discover some sort of compromise between those extremes. RFC 3261 also normatively depends on TLS (again the literal reference, [RFC2246], no longer makes sense - the current authority is [RFC4346]). There is precedent for a downref in cases where the parts of the referenced documents that are used by the standard are believed to be of adequate quality. In this case, we could make the argument that the parts of TLS that are used by this specification are well enough specified and of adequate quality to qualify for draft standard. Furthermore, we anticipate being able to demonstrate interoperability of SIP's use of TLS with entirely discrete implementations (including the implementation of TLS). 2. Survey of RFC3261 Normative References RFC 3261 has 26 direct normative references in the categories detailed below. We will, as part of this exercise, also need to understand the indirect references (the normative references in the documents below that are not at Draft or above, and the normative Sparks Expires September 1, 2009 [Page 3] Internet-Draft Status of Normative References in RFC3261 Feb 2009 references those references contain and so on), but this version of this document does not attempt to enumerate that closure. o Items already at Draft or above - RFC 2396 : (as RFC 3986 aka STD 66) : Uniform Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax - RFC 2279 : (as RFC 3629 aka STD 63) : UTF-8 - RFC 2616 : (at Draft) : HTTP - RFC 2234 : (as RFC 5234 aka STD 68) : ABNF - RFC 2822 : (as RFC 5322) : Internet Message Format - RFC 2046 : (at Draft) : MIME Part Two - RFC 768 : STD 6 : UDP - RFC 761 : This is an error in RFC3261 - The reference should point instead to RFC793 : STD 7 : TCP - RFC 2617 : (at Draft) : Digest authentication - RFC 1123 : STD 3 : Requirements for Internet Hosts - Application and Support o Items at Proposed - RFC 2327 : SDP (now RFC 4566) - RFC 3263 : Locating SIP Servers - RFC 3268 : (now 5246 : TLS) Advanced Encryption Standard (AES) Ciphersuites for Transport Layer Security (TLS) - RFC 2806 : (now RFC 3966) : tel URIs - RFC 3264 : Offer/Answer - RFC 2960 : (now RFC 4960) : SCTP - RFC 2183 : Content-Disposition - RFC 3204 : MIME for ISUP and QSIG - RFC 1847 : Security Multiparts for MIME - RFC 2630 : (now RFC 3370 and 3852) : Cryptographic Message Syntax - RFC 2633 : (now RFC 3851) : S/MIME Message Specification - RFC 2246 : (now RFC 5246) : TLS - RFC 2401 : (now RFC 4301) : IPSec Architecture o Items at BCP - RFC 2119: BCP 14: Key words for use in RFCs - RFC 1750: (now RFC 4086 aka BCP 106) : Randomness Recommendations for Security - RFC 2277: BCP 18 : IETF Policy on Character Sets and Languages 3. Other dependencies to track This survey does not include the dependencies of other RFCs defining widely implemented small updates, such as rport [RFC3581] and the non-INVITE fixes [RFC4320], that will likely be merged into the core specification of SIP however we move forward. Sparks Expires September 1, 2009 [Page 4] Internet-Draft Status of Normative References in RFC3261 Feb 2009 4. Security Considerations This document is not known to introduce any new security issues for consideration. 5. IANA considerations None 6. Informative References [RFC2026] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, October 1996. [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. [RFC2246] Dierks, T. and C. Allen, "The TLS Protocol Version 1.0", RFC 2246, January 1999. [RFC2327] Handley, M. and V. Jacobson, "SDP: Session Description Protocol", RFC 2327, April 1998. [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. [RFC3263] Rosenberg, J. and H. Schulzrinne, "Session Initiation Protocol (SIP): Locating SIP Servers", RFC 3263, June 2002. [RFC3581] Rosenberg, J. and H. Schulzrinne, "An Extension to the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) for Symmetric Response Routing", RFC 3581, August 2003. [RFC3967] Bush, R. and T. Narten, "Clarifying when Standards Track Documents may Refer Normatively to Documents at a Lower Level", BCP 97, RFC 3967, December 2004. [RFC4320] Sparks, R., "Actions Addressing Identified Issues with the Session Initiation Protocol's (SIP) Non-INVITE Transaction", RFC 4320, January 2006. [RFC4346] Dierks, T. and E. Rescorla, "The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol Version 1.1", RFC 4346, April 2006. Sparks Expires September 1, 2009 [Page 5] Internet-Draft Status of Normative References in RFC3261 Feb 2009 [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. [RFC5322] Resnick, P., Ed., "Internet Message Format", RFC 5322, October 2008. Author's Address Robert Sparks Tekelec 17210 Campbell Road Suite 250 Dallas, Texas 75252 USA Email: RjS@nostrum.com Sparks Expires September 1, 2009 [Page 6]