RFC 9248: Interoperability Profile for Relay User Equipment
- B. Rosen
Abstract
Video Relay Service (VRS) is a term used to describe a method by which a hearing person can communicate with a sign language speaker who is deaf, deafblind, or hard of hearing (HoH) or has a speech disability using an interpreter (i.e., a Communications Assistant (CA)) connected via a videophone to the sign language speaker and an audio telephone call to the hearing user. The CA interprets using sign language on the videophone link and voice on the telephone link. Often the interpreters may be employed by a company or agency, termed a "provider" in this document. The provider also provides a video service that allows users to connect video devices to their service and subsequently to CAs and other sign language speakers. It is desirable that the videophones used by the sign language speaker conform to a standard so that any device may be used with any provider and that direct video calls between sign language speakers work. This document describes the interface between a videophone and a provider.¶
Status of This Memo
This is an Internet Standards Track document.¶
This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has received public review and has been approved for publication by the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 7841.¶
Information about the current status of this document, any
errata, and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
https://
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2022 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
(https://
1. Introduction
Video Relay Service (VRS) is a form of Telecommunicati
This interoperabilit
Both subscriber
The following illustrates a typical relay call. The RUE device and the communications assistant (sign language interpreter) have videophones. The hearing user has a telephone (mobile or fixed).¶
2. Terminology
- Communications Assistant (CA):
- A sign-language interpreter working for a VRS provider, providing functionally equivalent phone service.¶
- Communication modality (modality):
- A specific form of communication that may be employed by two users, e.g., English voice, Spanish voice, American Sign Language, English lipreading, or French real-time text. Here, one communication modality is assumed to encompass both the language and the way that language is exchanged. For example, English voice and French voice are two different communication modalities.¶
- Default video relay service:
- The video relay service operated by a subscriber's default VRS provider.¶
- Default video relay service provider (default provider):
- The VRS provider that registers and assigns a telephone number to a specific subscriber and, by default, provides the VRS for incoming voice calls to the user. The default provider, also by default, provides the VRS for outgoing relay calls. The user can have more than one telephone number, and each has a default provider.¶
- Outbound dial-around call:
- A relay call where the subscriber specifies the use of a VRS provider other than the default VRS provider. This can be accomplished by the user dialing a "front-door" number for a VRS provider and signing or texting a phone number to call ("two-stage"). Alternatively, this can be accomplished by the user's RUE software instructing the server of its default VRS provider to automatically route the call through the alternate provider to the desired Public Switched Telephone Network (PSTN) directory number ("one-stage"). Dial-around is per call; for any call, a user can use the default VRS provider or any dial-around VRS provider.¶
- Full Intra Request (FIR):
- A request to a video media sender, requiring that media sender to send a decoder refresh point at the earliest opportunity. FIR is sometimes known as "instantaneous decoder refresh request", "video fast update request", or "fast update request".¶
- Point-to-Point Call (P2P Call):
- A call between two RUEs, without including a CA.¶
- Relay call:
- A call that allows people with hearing or speech disabilities to use a RUE to talk to users of conventional voice services with the aid of a CA to relay the communication.¶
- Relay service (RS):
- A service that allows a registered subscriber to use a RUE to make and receive relay calls, point-to-point calls, and relay-to-relay calls. The functions provided by the relay service include the provision of media links supporting the communication modalities used by the caller and callee, user registration and validation, authentication, authorization, automatic call distributor (ACD) platform functions, routing (including emergency call routing), call setup, mapping, call features (such as call forwarding and video mail), and assignment of CAs to relay calls.¶
- Relay service provider (provider):
- An organization that operates a relay service. A subscriber selects a relay service provider to assign and register a telephone number for their use, to register with for receipt of incoming calls, and to provide the default service for outgoing calls.¶
- Relay user:
- Please refer to "subscriber".¶
- Relay user E.164 Number (user E.164):
- The telephone number (in ITU-T E.164 format) assigned to the user.¶
- Relay User Equipment (RUE):
- A SIP user agent (UA) enhanced with extra features to support a subscriber in requesting, receiving, and using relay calls. A RUE may take many forms, including a stand-alone device; an application running on a general-purpose computing device, such as a laptop, tablet, or smartphone; or proprietary equipment connected to a server that provides the RUE interface.¶
- RUE interface:
- The interfaces described in this document between a RUE and a VRS provider who supports it.¶
- Sign language:
- A language that uses hand gestures and body language to convey meaning, including, but not limited to, American Sign Language (ASL).¶
- Subscriber:
- An individual who has registered with a provider and who obtains service by using a RUE. This is the conventional telecom term for an end-user customer, which in this case is a relay user. A user may be a subscriber to more than one VRS provider.¶
- Video Relay Service (VRS):
- A relay service for people with hearing or speech disabilities who use sign language to communicate using video equipment (video RUE) with other people in real time. The video link allows the CA to view and interpret the subscriber's signed conversation and relay the conversation back and forth with the other party.¶
3. Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here. Lower- or mixed-case uses of these key words are not to be interpreted as carrying special significance.¶
4. General Requirements
All HTTP/HTTPS [RFC9110] [RFC9112] connections specified throughout this document MUST use HTTPS. Both HTTPS and all SIP connections MUST use TLS conforming to at least [RFC7525] and MUST support [RFC8446].¶
All text data payloads not otherwise constrained by a specification in another standards document MUST be encoded as Unicode UTF-8.¶
Implementations MUST support IPv4 and IPv6. Dual-stack support is NOT required, and provider implementations MAY support separate interfaces for IPv4 and IPv6 by having more than one server in the appropriate SRV record where there is either an A or AAAA record in each server DNS record but not both. The same version of IP MUST be used for both signaling and media of a call unless Interactive Connectivity Establishment (ICE) [RFC8445] is used; in which case, candidates may explicitly offer IPv4, IPv6, or both for any media stream.¶
5. SIP Signaling
Implementations of the RUE interface MUST conform to the following core SIP standards:¶
In the above documents, the RUE device conforms to the requirements of a SIP user agent, and the provider conforms to the requirements of the registrar and proxy server where the document specifies different behavior for different roles. For providers offering a video mail service, [RFC6665] (SIP Events) MUST be implemented to support the Message-Waiting Indicator (MWI) (see Section 8).¶
In addition, implementations MUST conform to:¶
Implementations MUST implement full ICE, although they MAY interwork with user agents that implement ICE-lite.¶
Implementations MUST include a "User-Agent" header field uniquely identifying the RUE application, platform, and version in all SIP requests and MUST include a "Server" header field with the same content in SIP responses.¶
Implementations intended to support mobile platforms MUST support [RFC8599] and MUST use it as at least one way to support waking up the client from the background state.¶
The SIP signaling for registration and placing
5.1. Registration
The RUE MUST register with a SIP registrar, following [RFC3261] and [RFC5626], at a provider it has an account with. If the configuration (see Section 9.2) contains multiple "outbound
The Request-URI for the REGISTER request MUST contain the "provider
The RUE determines the URI to resolve by initially determining if one or more "outbound
If the RUE receives a 439 (First Hop Lacks Outbound Support) response to a REGISTER request, it MUST reattempt registration without using the outbound mechanism.¶
The registrar MAY authenticate the RUE using SIP digest authentication. The credentials to be used MUST come from the configuration in Section 9.2: "user-name" if provided or "phone-number" if user-name is not provided, and "sip-password". This "user
If the registration request fails with an indication that credentials from the configuration are invalid, then the RUE MUST retrieve a fresh version of the configuration. If credentials from a freshly retrieved configuration are found to be invalid, then the RUE MUST cease attempts to register and inform the RUE user of the problem.¶
Support for multiple simultaneous registrations with multiple providers by the RUE is OPTIONAL for the RUE (and providers do not need any support for this option).¶
Multiple simultaneous RUE SIP registrations from different RUE devices with the same SIP URI SHOULD be permitted by the provider. The provider MAY limit the total number of simultaneous registrations. When a new registration request is received that results in exceeding the limit on simultaneous registrations, the provider MAY then prematurely terminate another registration; however, it SHOULD NOT do this if it would disconnect an active call.¶
If a provider prematurely terminates a registration to reduce the total number of concurrent registrations with the same URI, it SHOULD take some action to prevent the affected RUE from automatically re-registering and re-triggering the condition.¶
5.2. Session Establishment
5.2.1. Normal Call Origination
After initial SIP registration, the RUE adheres to SIP [RFC3261] basic call flows, as documented in [RFC3665].¶
A RUE device MUST route all outbound calls through an outbound proxy if configured.¶
The SIP URIs in the To field and the Request-URI MUST be formatted as specified in Section 5.4 using the destination phone number or as SIP URIs as provided in the configuration (Section 9.2). The domain field of the URIs SHOULD be the "provider
Anonymous calls MUST be supported by all implementations
The From URI MUST be formatted as specified in Section 5.4, using the "phone-number" and "provider
Negotiated media MUST follow the requirements specified in Section 6 of this document.¶
To allow time for an unanswered call to time out and direct it to a videomail server, the User Agent Client MUST NOT impose a time limit less than the default SIP INVITE transaction timeout of 3 minutes.¶
5.2.2. Dial-Around Origination
Providers and RUE devices MUST support both one-stage and two-stage dial-around.¶
Outbound dial-around calls allow a RUE user to select any provider to provide interpreting services for any call.
"Two-stage" dial-around calls involve the RUE calling a telephone number that reaches the dial-around provider and
using signing or dual-tone multi-frequency (DTMF) to provide the called party's telephone number. In two-stage dial-around, the To URI is the "front-door" URI (see Section 9.2) in "Provider
One-stage dial-around is a method where the called party's telephone number is provided in the To URI and the Request-URI, using the domain of the dial-around provider.¶
For one-stage dial-around, the RUE MUST follow the procedures in Section 5.2.1 with the following exception: the domain part of the SIP URIs in the To field and the Request-URI MUST be the domain of the dial-around provider discovered as described in Section 9.1.¶
The following is a partial example of a one-stage dial-around call from VRS user +1-555-222-0001 hosted by red.example.com
to a hearing user +1-555-123-4567 using dial-around to green
5.2.3. RUE Contact Information
To identify the owner of a RUE, the initial INVITE for a call from a RUE, or the 200 OK the RUE uses to accept a call,
identifies the owner by sending a Call-Info header field with a purpose parameter of "rue-owner".
The URI MAY be an HTTPS URI or Content-ID URL. The latter is defined by [RFC2392] to locate
message body parts. This URI type is present in a SIP message to convey the RUE ownership information as a
MIME body. The form of the RUE ownership information is an xCard [RFC6351].
Please refer to [RFC6442] for an example of using content indirection URLs in SIP messages. Note that use of the content indirection URL
usually implies multiple message bodies
5.2.4. Incoming Calls
The RUE MUST only accept inbound calls sent to it by a proxy mentioned in the configuration.¶
If multiple simultaneous RUE SIP registrations from different RUE devices with the same SIP URI exist, the provider MUST parallel fork the call to all registered RUEs so that they ring at the same time. The first RUE to reply with a 200 OK answers the call, and the provider MUST cancel other call branches using a CANCEL request.¶
5.2.5. Emergency Calls
Implementations MUST conform to [RFC6881] for handling of emergency calls, except that if the device is unable to determine its own location, it MAY send the emergency call without a Geolocation header field and without a Route header field (since it would be unable to query the Location
If the emergency call is to be handled using existing country
Implementations MUST implement additional data [RFC7852]. RUE devices MUST implement data provider information, device information, and owner
5.3. Mid-Call Signaling
Implementations MUST support re-INVITE to renegotiate media session parameters (among other uses). Per Section 6.8, implementations MUST be able to support an INFO message for full frame refresh for devices that do not support SRTCP (please refer to Section 6.1). Implementations MUST support an in-dialog REFER (as described in [RFC3515] and updated by [RFC7647], and including support for norefersub per [RFC4488]) with the Replaces header field [RFC3891] to enable call transfer.¶
5.4. URI Representation of Phone Numbers
SIP URIs constructed from non-URI sources (dial strings) and sent to SIP proxies by the RUE MUST be represented as follows, depending on whether they can be represented as an E.164 number. In this section, "expressed as an E.164 number" includes numbers, such as toll-free numbers that are not actually E.164 numbers but have the same format.¶
A dial string that can be expressed as an E.164 phone number MUST be represented as a SIP URI with a URI ";user=phone" tag. The user part of the URI MUST be in conformance with "global
Dial strings that cannot be expressed as E.164 numbers MUST be represented as dialstring URIs, as specified by [RFC4967], e.g., sip
The domain part of relay service URIs and User Address of Records (AoR) MUST resolve (per [RFC3263]) to globally routable IPv4 and/or IPv6 addresses.¶
5.5. Transport
Implementations MUST conform to [RFC8835], except for its guidance on the WebRTC data channel, which this specification does not use. See Section 6.2 for how RUE supports real-time text without the data channel.¶
Implementations MUST support SIP outbound [RFC5626] (please also refer to Section 5.1).¶
6. Media
This specification adopts the media specifications for WebRTC [RFC8825]. Where WebRTC defines how interactive media communications may be established using a browser as a client, this specification assumes a normal SIP call. Various RTPs, RTCPs, SDPs, and specific media requirements specified for WebRTC are adopted for this document. Explicit requirements from the WebRTC suite of documents are described below .¶
To use WebRTC with this document, a gateway that presents a WebRTC server interface towards a browser and a RUE client interface towards a provider is assumed. The gateway would interwork signaling and, as noted below, interwork at least any real-time text media in order to allow a standard browser-based WebRTC client to be a VRS client. The combination of the browser client and the gateway would be a RUE user. This document does not specify the gateway.¶
The following sections specify the WebRTC documents to which conformance is required. "Mandatory to Implement" means a conforming implementation MUST implement the
specified capability. It does not mean that the capability must be used in every session. For example, Opus is a Mandatory
6.1. SRTP and SRTCP
Implementations MUST support [RFC8834], except that Media
6.2. Text-Based Communication
Implementations MUST support real-time text [RFC4102] [RFC4103] via T.140 media. One original and two redundant generations MUST be transmitted and supported with a 300 ms transmission interval. Implementations MUST support [RFC9071], especially for emergency calls. Note that [RFC4103] is not how real-time text is transmitted in WebRTC, and some form of transcoder would be required to interwork real-time text in the data channel of WebRTC to [RFC4103] real-time text.¶
Transport of T.140 real-time text in WebRTC is specified in [RFC8865], using
the WebRTC data channel. [RFC8865] also has some advice on how gateways
between [RFC4103] and [RFC8865] should operate. It is RECOMMENDED that
[RFC8865], including multiparty support, be used for communication with browser-based WebRTC implementations
6.3. Video
Implementations MUST conform to [RFC7742] with the following exceptions: only H.264, as specified in [RFC7742], is Mandatory to Implement, and VP8 support is OPTIONAL at both the device and providers. This is because backwards compatibility is desirable, and older devices do not support VP8.¶
6.5. DTMF Digits
Implementations MUST support the "audio
6.6. Session Description Protocol
The SDP offers and answers MUST conform to the SDP rules in [RFC8829] except that the RUE interface uses SIP transport for SDP. The SDP for real-time text MUST specify the T.140 payload type [RFC4103].¶
6.7. Privacy
The RUE MUST provide for user privacy by implementing a local one-way mute, without signaling, for both audio and video. However, RUE MUST maintain any states in the network (e.g., NAT bindings) by periodically sending media packets on all active media sessions containing silence, comfort noise, blank screen, etc., per [RFC6263].¶
6.8. Negative Acknowledgement, Picture Loss Indicator, and Full Intraframe Request Features
The NACK, FIR, and Picture Loss Indicator (PLI) features, as described in [RFC4585] and [RFC5104], MUST be implemented. Availability of these features MUST be announced with the "ccm" feedback value. NACK should be used when negotiated and conditions warrant its use and the other end supports it. Signaling picture losses as a PLI should be preferred. FIR should be used only in situations where not sending a decoder refresh point would render the video unusable for the users, as per Section 4.3.1.2 of [RFC5104].¶
For backwards compatibility with calling devices that do not support the foregoing methods, implementations MUST implement SIP INFO messages to send and receive XML-encoded Picture Fast Update messages according to [RFC5168].¶
7. Contacts
7.1. CardDAV Login and Synchronization
Support of vCard Extensions to WebDAV (CardDAV) by providers is OPTIONAL.¶
The RUE MUST and providers MAY be able to synchronize the user's contact directory between the RUE endpoint and one maintained by the user's VRS provider using CardDAV [RFC6352] [RFC6764].¶
The configuration (see Section 9.2) Rue
To access the CardDAV server and address book, the RUE MUST follow Section 6 of [RFC6764], using the configured carddav
Synchronization using CardDAV MUST be a two-way synchronization service, with proper handling of asynchronous adds, changes, and deletes at either end of the transport channel.¶
The RUE MAY support other CardDAV services.¶
7.2. Contacts Import/Export Service
Implementations MUST be able to export/import the list of contacts in xCard [RFC6351] XML format.¶
The RUE accesses this service via the "contacts-uri" in the configuration. The URL MUST resolve to identify a web server resource that imports/exports contact lists for authorized users.¶
The RUE stores
8. Video Mail
Support for video mail includes a retrieval mechanism and a Message-Waiting Indicator (MWI). Message storage is not specified by this document. RUE devices MUST support message retrieval using a SIP call to a specified SIP URI using DTMF to manage the mailbox, as well as a browser-based interface reached at a specified HTTPS URI. If a provider supports video mail, at least one of these mechanisms MUST be supported. RUE devices MUST support both. See Section 9.2 for how the URI to reach the retrieval interface is obtained.¶
Implementations MUST support subscriptions to "message
The "videomail" and "mwi" properties in the configuration (see Rue
In notification bodies, if detailed message summaries are available, messages with video MUST be reported using "message
9. Provisioning and Provider Selection
To simplify how users interact with RUE devices, the RUE interface separates provisioning into two parts. One provides a directory of providers so that a user interface can allow easy provider selection either for registering or for dial-around. The other provides configuration data for the device for each provider.¶
9.1. RUE Provider Selection
To allow the user to select a relay service, the RUE MAY at any time obtain (typically on startup) a list of providers that provide service in a country. IANA has established a registry that contains a two-letter country code and a list entry point string (see Section 10.1). The entry point, when used with the following OpenAPI interface, returns a list of provider names for a country code suitable for display, with a corresponding entry point to obtain information about that provider. No mechanism to determine the country where the RUE is located is specified in this document. Typically, the country is the home country of the user but may be a local country while traveling. Some countries allow support from their home country when traveling abroad. Regardless, the RUE device will need to allow the user to choose the country.¶
Each country that supports VRS using this specification MAY support the provider list. This document does not specify who maintains the list. Some possibilities are a regulator or an entity designated by a regulator, an agreement among providers to provide the list, or a user group.¶
The interface to obtain the list of providers is described by an OpenAPI [OpenAPI] interface description. In that interface description, the "servers" component includes an occurrence of "localhost". The value from the registry of the "list entry point" string for the
desired country is substituted for "localhost" in the "servers"
component to obtain the server URI prefix of the interface to be
used to obtain the list of providers for that country. The "Providers" path then specifies the rest of the URI used to obtain the list. For example, if the list entryPoint is "example
The V1.0 "ProviderList" is a JSON object consisting of an array where each entry describes one provider. Each entry consists of the following items:¶
The VRS user interacts with the RUE to select from the provider list one or more providers with whom the user has already established an account, wishes to establish an account, or wishes to use the provider for a one-stage dial-around.¶
9.2. RUE Configuration Service
A RUE device may retrieve a provider configuration using a simple HTTPs web service. There are two entry points. One is used without user credentials, and the response includes configuration data for new user signup and dial-around. The other uses a locally stored username and password that results from a new user signup to authenticate to the interface and returns configuration data for the RUE.¶
The interface to obtain configuration data is described by an OpenAPI [OpenAPI] interface description. In that interface description, the "servers" component string includes an occurrence of "localhost". The entry point string obtained from the provider list (Section 9.1) is substituted for "localhost" to obtain the server prefix of the interface. The path then specifies the rest of the URI used to obtain the list. For example, if the entryPoint from the provider list is "red
In both the queries, an optional parameter may be provided to the interface, which is an API Key (apiKey). The implementation MAY have an apiKey obtained from the provider and specific to the implementation. The method used to obtain the apiKey is not specified in this document. The provider MAY refuse to provide service to an implementation presenting an apiKey it does not recognize.¶
Also in both queries, the RUE device provides a client
For example, a query for the RUE configuration could be
https://
The data returned is a JSON object consisting of key/value configuration parameters to be used by the RUE.¶
The configuration data payload includes the following data items. Items not noted as (OPTIONAL) are REQUIRED. If other unexpected items are found, they MUST be ignored.¶
9.2.3. Versions
Both web services also have a simple version mechanism that returns a list of versions of the web service it supports.
This document describes version 1.0.
Versions are displayed as a major version, followed by
a period ".", followed by a minor version, where the major and minor
versions are integers. A backwards compatible change within a major version MAY increment only the minor version number. A non-backwards, compatible change MUST increment the major version number. Backwards compatibility applies to both the server and the client. Either may have any higher or lower minor revision and interoperate with its counterpart with the same major version. To achieve backwards compatibility, implementations MUST ignore any object members they do not implement. Minor version definitions SHALL only add objects, optional members of existing objects, and non
Unless the per-country provider list service is operated by a provider at the same base URI as that provider's configuration service, the version of the configuration service MAY be different from the version of the provider list service.¶
9.2.4. Examples
9.2.5. Using the Provider Selection and RUE Configuration Services Together
One way to use these two services is:¶
9.3. OpenAPI Interface Descriptions
The interfaces in Sections 9.1 and 9.2 are formally specified with OpenAPI 3.0 [OpenAPI] descriptions in YAML form.¶
The OpenAPI description below is normative. If there is any conflict between the text or examples and this section, the OpenAPI description takes precedence.¶
10. IANA Considerations
10.1. RUE Provider List Registry
IANA has created the "RUE Provider List" registry. The registration policy is "Expert Review" [RFC8126]. A regulator operated or designated list interface operator is preferred. Otherwise, evidence that the proposed list interface operator will provide a complete list of providers is required to add the entry to the registry. Updates to the registry are permitted if the expert determines that the proposed URI provides a more accurate list than the existing entry. Each entry has two fields; values for both MUST be provided when registering or updating an entry:¶
10.2. Registration of Rue-Owner Value of the Purpose Parameter
This document defines the new predefined value "rue-owner" for the "purpose" header field parameter of the Call-Info header field. The use for rue-owner is defined in Section 5.2.3. IANA has added a reference to this document in the "Header Field Parameters and Parameter Values" subregistry of the "Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Parameters" for the header field "Call-Info" and parameter name "purpose".¶
11. Security Considerations
The RUE is required to communicate with servers on public IP addresses and specific ports to perform its required functions. If it is necessary for the RUE to function on a corporate or other network that operates a default-deny firewall between the RUE and these services, the user must arrange with their network manager for passage of traffic through such a firewall in accordance with the protocols and associated SRV records as exposed by the provider. Because VRS providers may use different ports for different services, these port numbers may differ from provider to provider.¶
This document requires implementation and use of a number of other specifications in order to fulfill the RUE profile; the security considerations described in those documents apply accordingly to the RUE interactions.¶
When a CA participates in a conversation, they have access to the content of the conversation even though it is nominally a conversation between the two endpoints. There is an expectation that the CA will keep the communication contents in confidence. This is usually defined by contractual or legal requirements.¶
Since different providers (within a given country) may have different policies, RUE implementations MUST include a user interaction step to select from available providers before proceeding to actually register with any given provider.¶
12. Normative References
- [OpenAPI]
-
Miller, D., Whitlock, J., Gardiner, M., Ralphson, M., Ratovsky, R., and U. Sarid, "OpenAPI Specification v3.0.1", , <https://
spec >..openapis .org /oas /v3 .0 .1 - [RFC2119]
-
Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC2119 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc2119 - [RFC2392]
-
Levinson, E., "Content-ID and Message-ID Uniform Resource Locators", RFC 2392, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC2392 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc2392 - [RFC3261]
-
Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., Camarillo, G., Johnston, A., Peterson, J., Sparks, R., Handley, M., and E. Schooler, "SIP: Session Initiation Protocol", RFC 3261, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC3261 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc3261 - [RFC3263]
-
Rosenberg, J. and H. Schulzrinne, "Session Initiation Protocol (SIP): Locating SIP Servers", RFC 3263, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC3263 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc3263 - [RFC3264]
-
Rosenberg, J. and H. Schulzrinne, "An Offer/Answer Model with Session Description Protocol (SDP)", RFC 3264, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC3264 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc3264 - [RFC3311]
-
Rosenberg, J., "The Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) UPDATE Method", RFC 3311, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC3311 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc3311 - [RFC3323]
-
Peterson, J., "A Privacy Mechanism for the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)", RFC 3323, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC3323 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc3323 - [RFC3326]
-
Schulzrinne, H., Oran, D., and G. Camarillo, "The Reason Header Field for the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)", RFC 3326, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC3326 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc3326 - [RFC3327]
-
Willis, D. and B. Hoeneisen, "Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Extension Header Field for Registering Non-Adjacent Contacts", RFC 3327, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC3327 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc3327 - [RFC3458]
-
Burger, E., Candell, E., Eliot, C., and G. Klyne, "Message Context for Internet Mail", RFC 3458, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC3458 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc3458 - [RFC3515]
-
Sparks, R., "The Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Refer Method", RFC 3515, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC3515 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc3515 - [RFC3605]
-
Huitema, C., "Real Time Control Protocol (RTCP) attribute in Session Description Protocol (SDP)", RFC 3605, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC3605 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc3605 - [RFC3840]
-
Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., and P. Kyzivat, "Indicating User Agent Capabilities in the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)", RFC 3840, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC3840 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc3840 - [RFC3842]
-
Mahy, R., "A Message Summary and Message Waiting Indication Event Package for the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)", RFC 3842, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC3842 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc3842 - [RFC3891]
-
Mahy, R., Biggs, B., and R. Dean, "The Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) "Replaces" Header", RFC 3891, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC3891 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc3891 - [RFC3892]
-
Sparks, R., "The Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Referred-By Mechanism", RFC 3892, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC3892 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc3892 - [RFC3960]
-
Camarillo, G. and H. Schulzrinne, "Early Media and Ringing Tone Generation in the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)", RFC 3960, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC3960 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc3960 - [RFC3966]
-
Schulzrinne, H., "The tel URI for Telephone Numbers", RFC 3966, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC3966 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc3966 - [RFC4102]
-
Jones, P., "Registration of the text/red MIME Sub-Type", RFC 4102, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC4102 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc4102 - [RFC4103]
-
Hellstrom, G. and P. Jones, "RTP Payload for Text Conversation", RFC 4103, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC4103 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc4103 - [RFC4488]
-
Levin, O., "Suppression of Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) REFER Method Implicit Subscription", RFC 4488, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC4488 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc4488 - [RFC4585]
-
Ott, J., Wenger, S., Sato, N., Burmeister, C., and J. Rey, "Extended RTP Profile for Real-time Transport Control Protocol (RTCP)-Based Feedback (RTP/AVPF)", RFC 4585, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC4585 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc4585 - [RFC4733]
-
Schulzrinne, H. and T. Taylor, "RTP Payload for DTMF Digits, Telephony Tones, and Telephony Signals", RFC 4733, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC4733 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc4733 - [RFC4967]
-
Rosen, B., "Dial String Parameter for the Session Initiation Protocol Uniform Resource Identifier", RFC 4967, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC4967 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc4967 - [RFC5104]
-
Wenger, S., Chandra, U., Westerlund, M., and B. Burman, "Codec Control Messages in the RTP Audio-Visual Profile with Feedback (AVPF)", RFC 5104, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC5104 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc5104 - [RFC5168]
-
Levin, O., Even, R., and P. Hagendorf, "XML Schema for Media Control", RFC 5168, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC5168 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc5168 - [RFC5393]
-
Sparks, R., Ed., Lawrence, S., Hawrylyshen, A., and B. Campen, "Addressing an Amplification Vulnerability in Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Forking Proxies", RFC 5393, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC5393 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc5393 - [RFC5626]
-
Jennings, C., Ed., Mahy, R., Ed., and F. Audet, Ed., "Managing Client
-Initiated Connections in the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)" , RFC 5626, DOI 10.17487 , , <https:///RFC5626 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc5626 - [RFC5658]
-
Froment, T., Lebel, C., and B. Bonnaerens, "Addressing Record-Route Issues in the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)", RFC 5658, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC5658 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc5658 - [RFC5954]
-
Gurbani, V., Ed., Carpenter, B., Ed., and B. Tate, Ed., "Essential Correction for IPv6 ABNF and URI Comparison in RFC 3261", RFC 5954, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC5954 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc5954 - [RFC6263]
-
Marjou, X. and A. Sollaud, "Application Mechanism for Keeping Alive the NAT Mappings Associated with RTP / RTP Control Protocol (RTCP) Flows", RFC 6263, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC6263 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc6263 - [RFC6351]
-
Perreault, S., "xCard: vCard XML Representation", RFC 6351, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC6351 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc6351 - [RFC6352]
-
Daboo, C., "CardDAV: vCard Extensions to Web Distributed Authoring and Versioning (WebDAV)", RFC 6352, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC6352 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc6352 - [RFC6442]
-
Polk, J., Rosen, B., and J. Peterson, "Location Conveyance for the Session Initiation Protocol", RFC 6442, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC6442 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc6442 - [RFC6665]
-
Roach, A.B., "SIP-Specific Event Notification", RFC 6665, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC6665 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc6665 - [RFC6764]
-
Daboo, C., "Locating Services for Calendaring Extensions to WebDAV (CalDAV) and vCard Extensions to WebDAV (CardDAV)", RFC 6764, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC6764 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc6764 - [RFC6881]
-
Rosen, B. and J. Polk, "Best Current Practice for Communications Services in Support of Emergency Calling", BCP 181, RFC 6881, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC6881 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc6881 - [RFC7525]
-
Sheffer, Y., Holz, R., and P. Saint-Andre, "Recommendations for Secure Use of Transport Layer Security (TLS) and Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS)", BCP 195, RFC 7525, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC7525 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc7525 - [RFC7647]
-
Sparks, R. and A.B. Roach, "Clarifications for the Use of REFER with RFC 6665", RFC 7647, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC7647 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc7647 - [RFC7742]
-
Roach, A.B., "WebRTC Video Processing and Codec Requirements", RFC 7742, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC7742 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc7742 - [RFC7852]
-
Gellens, R., Rosen, B., Tschofenig, H., Marshall, R., and J. Winterbottom, "Additional Data Related to an Emergency Call", RFC 7852, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC7852 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc7852 - [RFC7874]
-
Valin, JM. and C. Bran, "WebRTC Audio Codec and Processing Requirements", RFC 7874, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC7874 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc7874 - [RFC8174]
-
Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC8174 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc8174 - [RFC8445]
-
Keranen, A., Holmberg, C., and J. Rosenberg, "Interactive Connectivity Establishment (ICE): A Protocol for Network Address Translator (NAT) Traversal", RFC 8445, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC8445 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc8445 - [RFC8446]
-
Rescorla, E., "The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol Version 1.3", RFC 8446, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC8446 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc8446 - [RFC8599]
-
Holmberg, C. and M. Arnold, "Push Notification with the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)", RFC 8599, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC8599 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc8599 - [RFC8760]
-
Shekh-Yusef, R., "The Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Digest Access Authentication Scheme", RFC 8760, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC8760 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc8760 - [RFC8825]
-
Alvestrand, H., "Overview: Real-Time Protocols for Browser-Based Applications", RFC 8825, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC8825 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc8825 - [RFC8827]
-
Rescorla, E., "WebRTC Security Architecture", RFC 8827, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC8827 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc8827 - [RFC8829]
-
Uberti, J., Jennings, C., and E. Rescorla, Ed., "JavaScript Session Establishment Protocol (JSEP)", RFC 8829, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC8829 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc8829 - [RFC8834]
-
Perkins, C., Westerlund, M., and J. Ott, "Media Transport and Use of RTP in WebRTC", RFC 8834, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC8834 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc8834 - [RFC8835]
-
Alvestrand, H., "Transports for WebRTC", RFC 8835, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC8835 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc8835 - [RFC8839]
-
Petit-Huguenin, M., Nandakumar, S., Holmberg, C., Keränen, A., and R. Shpount, "Session Description Protocol (SDP) Offer/Answer Procedures for Interactive Connectivity Establishment (ICE)", RFC 8839, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC8839 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc8839 - [RFC8865]
-
Holmberg, C. and G. Hellström, "T.140 Real-Time Text Conversation over WebRTC Data Channels", RFC 8865, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC8865 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc8865 - [RFC8866]
-
Begen, A., Kyzivat, P., Perkins, C., and M. Handley, "SDP: Session Description Protocol", RFC 8866, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC8866 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc8866 - [RFC9071]
-
Hellström, G., "RTP-Mixer Formatting of Multiparty Real-Time Text", RFC 9071, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC9071 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc9071 - [RFC9110]
-
Fielding, R., Ed., Nottingham, M., Ed., and J. Reschke, Ed., "HTTP Semantics", STD 97, RFC 9110, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC9110 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc9110 - [RFC9112]
-
Fielding, R., Ed., Nottingham, M., Ed., and J. Reschke, Ed., "HTTP/1.1", STD 99, RFC 9112, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC9112 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc9112
13. Informative References
- [RFC3665]
-
Johnston, A., Donovan, S., Sparks, R., Cunningham, C., and K. Summers, "Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Basic Call Flow Examples", BCP 75, RFC 3665, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC3665 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc3665 - [RFC8126]
-
Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 8126, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC8126 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc8126
Acknowledgements
Brett Henderson and Jim Malloy provided many helpful edits to prior draft versions of this document. Paul Kyzivat provided extensive reviews and comments.¶