<?xml version="1.0"?>
<!DOCTYPE rfc SYSTEM "rfc2629.dtd" [
]>

<?rfc toc="yes" ?>
<?rfc compact="yes" ?>
<?rfc subcompact="no" ?>
<?rfc sortrefs="yes" ?>
<?rfc strict="yes" ?>
<?rfc comments="yes" ?>
<?rfc inline="yes" ?>
<?rfc symrefs="yes" ?>

<rfc number="7647" category="std" updates="3515" submissionType="IETF" consensus="yes"
  ipr="trust200902">


<front>

<title abbrev="Refer Clarifications">
Clarifications for the use of REFER with RFC 6665
</title>

<author initials="R." surname="Sparks" fullname="Robert Sparks" >
 <organization>Oracle</organization>
 <address>
 <postal>
 <street>7460 Warren Parkway</street>
 <street>Suite 300</street>
 <city>Frisco</city>
 <region>Texas</region>
 <code>75034</code>
 <country>US</country>
 </postal>
 <email>rjsparks@nostrum.com</email>
 </address>
</author>

    <author fullname="Adam Roach" initials="A. B." surname="Roach">
      <organization>Mozilla</organization>
      <address>
        <postal>
          <street></street>
          <city>Dallas</city>
          <region>TX</region>
          <code></code>
          <country>US</country>
        </postal>
        <phone>+1 650 903 0800 x863</phone>
        <email>adam@nostrum.com</email>
      </address>
    </author>

<date month="September" year="2015"/>

<abstract>
<t>
The SIP REFER method relies on the SIP-Specific Event Notification framework.
That framework was revised by RFC 6665. This document highlights
the implications of the requirement changes in RFC 6665, and updates the definition of
the REFER method described in RFC 3515 to clarify and disambiguate the impact of those changes.
</t>
</abstract>

</front>

<middle>

<section anchor="intro" title="Introduction">
<t>
The SIP REFER method relies on the SIP-Specific Event Notification framework.
That framework was revised by <xref target="RFC6665"/>. This document highlights
the implications of the requirement changes in RFC 6665, and updates <xref target="RFC3515"/> to 
clarify and disambiguate the impact of those changes.
</t><t>

Accepting a REFER request (without invoking extensions) results in an implicit
SIP-Events subscription.  If that REFER was part of an existing dialog, the
implicit subscription creates a new, problematic dialog usage within that
dialog <xref target="RFC5057"/>. The "norefersub" extension defined in <xref
target="RFC4488"/> asks to suppress this implicit subscription, but cannot
prevent its creation. 

</t>

<t>
There are implementations in some known specialized environments (such as 3GPP) that use out-of-signaling agreements to
ensure that in-dialog REFER requests using the RFC 4488 extension do not create a new subscription inside that dialog. In the 3GPP
environment, the behavior is based on capabilities advertised using media feature tags. That mechanism does not, however, prevent
additional dialog usages when interoperating with implementations that do not support the mechanism. The extensions in
<xref target="RFC7614"/>
provide a standardized mechanism that allows avoiding any additional dialog usage.
</t>
</section>

<section anchor="conventions" title="Conventions Used in This Document" >
<t>
        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 <xref target= "RFC2119"/>.
</t>
</section>


<section anchor="GRUU" title="Use of GRUU Is Mandatory">
<t>
Section 4.5.1 of <xref target="RFC6665"/> makes GRUU <xref target="RFC5627"/> mandatory
for notifiers to implement and use as the local target in the subscription created by the REFER request. 
</t><t>
A user agent (UA) accepting a REFER that creates a subscription MUST populate its Contact header field with a GRUU. 
</t>
<t>
A UA that might possibly become a notifier (e.g., by accepting a REFER 
request that creates a subscription) needs to include a GRUU in the 
Contact header field of dialog-forming and target-refresh methods (such as INVITE) 
<xref target="RFC7621"/>.  This
ensures that out-of-dialog REFER requests corresponding to any
resulting INVITE dialogs arrive at this UA. Extensions can relax this
requirement by defining a REFER request that cannot create an implicit
subscription, thus not causing the accepting UA to become an RFC 6665 notifier
in the context of this dialog.  <xref target="RFC7614"/> is an example of such
an extension. 
</t>

</section>

<section anchor="dialog-sharing" title="Dialog Reuse Is Prohibited">
<t>
If a peer in an existing dialog has provided a GRUU as its Contact, sending
a REFER that might result in an additional dialog usage within that dialog
is prohibited. This is a direct consequence of <xref target="RFC6665"/> requiring the use 
of GRUU and the requirements in Section 4.5.2 of that document.
</t>
<t>
A user agent constructing a REFER request that could result in an implicit
subscription in a dialog MUST build it as an out-of-dialog message as defined
in <xref target="RFC3261"/>, unless the remote endpoint is an older
implementation of RFC 3515 that has not been updated to conform to RFC 6665
(as determined by the absence of a GRUU in the remote target). Thus, the REFER
request will have no tag parameter in its To: header field. 
</t>
<t>
Using the "norefersub"
option tag <xref target="RFC4488"/> does not change this requirement, even
if used in a "Require" header field. Even if the recipient supports the
"norefersub" mechanism, and accepts the request with the option tag in the 
"Require" header field, it is allowed to return a "Refer-Sub" header field
with a value of "true" in the response, and create an implicit subscription.
</t>
<t>
A user agent wishing to identify an existing dialog (such as for call transfer
as defined in <xref target="RFC5589"/>) MUST use the "Target-Dialog" extension
defined in <xref target="RFC4538"/> to do so, and user agents accepting REFER
MUST be able to process that extension in requests they receive. 
</t><t>
If a user agent can be certain that no implicit subscription will be created as a result of sending a REFER request (such as by requiring an extension that disallows any such subscription <xref target="RFC7614"/>), the REFER request MAY be sent within an existing dialog (whether or not the remote target is a GRUU). Such a REFER will be constructed with its Contact header field populated with the dialog's local URI as specified in Section 12 of <xref target="RFC3261"/>.
</t><t>
As described in Section 4.5.2 of <xref target="RFC6665"/>, there are cases
where a user agent may fall back to sharing existing dialogs for
backwards-compatibility purposes. This applies to a REFER only when the peer
has not provided a GRUU as its Contact in the existing dialog (i.e., when the
peer is an implementation of RFC 3515 that has not been updated to conform
with RFC 6665).
</t>
</section>

<section anchor="deprecated-202" title="The 202 Response Code Is Deprecated">
<t>
Section 8.3.1 of <xref target="RFC6665"/> requires that elements not send a 202 response code to a subscribe request, but use the 200 response code instead. Any 202 response codes received to a subscribe request are treated as 200s. These changes also apply to REFER. Specifically, an element accepting a REFER request MUST NOT reply
with a 202 response code and MUST treat any 202 responses received as identical to a 200 response. Wherever <xref target="RFC3515"/> requires sending a 202 response code, a 200 response code MUST be sent instead. 
</t></section>


<section title="Security Considerations">
<t>
This document introduces no new security considerations directly. The updated considerations in <xref target="RFC6665"/> apply to the implicit subscription created by an accepted REFER request.
</t>
</section>

</middle>
<back>

<references title="Normative References">

<?rfc include="reference.RFC.2119" ?>
<?rfc include="reference.RFC.3261" ?>
<?rfc include="reference.RFC.3515" ?>
<?rfc include="reference.RFC.4538" ?>
<?rfc include="reference.RFC.5627" ?>
<?rfc include="reference.RFC.6665" ?>

<!-- &I-D.roach-sipcore-6665-clarification; RFC 7621 --> 

<?rfc include="reference.RFC.7621" ?>

</references>

<references title="Informative References">

<?rfc include="reference.RFC.4488" ?>
<?rfc include="reference.RFC.5057" ?>
<?rfc include="reference.RFC.5589" ?>

<!-- I-D.ietf-sipcore-refer-explicit-subscription;  RFC 7614--> 
<?rfc include="reference.RFC.7614" ?>

</references>

<section title="Acknowledgements" numbered="no">
<t> Christer Holmberg provided the formulation for the final paragraph of the introduction. Christer Holmberg and Ivo Sedlacek provided detailed comments during working group discussion of the document. </t>
</section>


</back>
	
</rfc>
