Identity Header Errors Handling

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 https://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 19 March 2023.¶

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://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 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 Revised BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.¶

Table of Contents

1. Introduction

[RFC8224] in Section 6.2.2 discusses future specifications for enhancement of how errors are communicated and the handling of multiple Identity header fields. This specification provides some additional mechanisms for solutions to address these problems.¶

In some deployments of STIR and specifically using SIP [RFC3261] as defined by [RFC8224], one issue with the current error handling, specifically with the use of the defined 4xx error responses, is that when an error occurs with the verification of the Identity header field or the PASSporT contained in the Identity header field and a 4xx response is returned, the call is then terminated. It may be the case that the policy for handling errors dictates that calls should continue even if there is a verification error, in the case of, for example inadvertent errors, however the authentication service should still be notified of the error so that corrective action can be taken. This specification will discuss the use of the Reason header field in subsequent provisional (1xx) responses in order to accomplish this.¶

For the handling of multiple Identity header fields and the potential situation that some of the Identity header fields in a call may pass verification but others may have errors, this document provides a mechanism to add an identifier so that the authentication service can identify which Identity header field is being referred to in the case of an error.¶

2. Terminology

The keywords "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.¶

3. Reason header field protocol "STIR"

This document defines a new Reason header field [RFC3326] protocol "STIR" for STIR applications using SIP as defined in [RFC8224]. The use of "STIR" as a reason header field protocol with the [RFC8224] defined error cause codes allows the use of multiple Reason header fields defined in [RFC3326] and updated in [I-D.ietf-sipcore-multiple-reasons]. Any SIP Response message, with the exception of a 100 (Trying), MAY contain one or more Reason header fields with a STIR related cause code defined in [RFC8224] or future specifications. The use of multiple Reason header field is discussed in more detail later in the document.¶

4. Use of provisional error responses to signal errors without terminating the call

In cases where local policy dictates that a call should continue regardless of any verification errors that may have occured, including 4XX errors described in [RFC8224] Section 6.2.2, then the verification service SHOULD NOT send the 4XX as a response, but rather include the error response code and reason phrase in a Reason header field, defined in [RFC3326], in the next provisional or final responses sent to the authentication service.¶

Example Reason header field:¶

Reason: STIR ;cause=436 ;text="Bad Identity Info"

5. Handling of a verification error when there are multiple Identity header fields

In cases where a SIP message includes multiple Identity header fields and one of those Identity header fields has an error, the verification service SHOULD include the error response code and reason phrase associated with the error in a Reason header field, defined in [RFC3326], in the next provisional or final responses sent to the authentication service. The reason cause in the Reason header field SHOULD represent the error that occurred when verifying the contents of the Identity header field. The association of a Reason header field and error to a specific Identity header field is accomplished by adding a PASSporT identifier, "ppi", parameter containing the PASSporT string as an identifier for the identity header and corresponding PASSporT that generated the error to the Reason header field. The "ppi" parameter for the Reason header field is optional, but RECOMMENDED, in particular for cases that a SIP INVITE contains multiple Identity header fields. As implied and defined in [RFC8224], error codes associated with STIR targeted at authentication services that produced a specific identity header represent a single error occurring with the verification and processing of that identity header. Therefore the association of a "ppi" parameter with a Reason header using "STIR" protocol MUST only identify a single cause code in the context of a call dialog defined in [RFC8224] or in future documents defining STIR related errors. The PASSporT can be included in full form or in compact form, where only the signature of the PASSporT is included with two periods as a prefix as defined in [RFC8225] Section 7 to identify the reported Identity header field with an error. Compact form is the recommended form as full form may include information that could have privacy or security implications in some call scenarios as discussed in Section 9.¶

Example Reason header field with full form PASSporT:¶

Reason: STIR ;cause=436 ;text="Bad Identity Info" ;ppi= \
"eyJhbGciOiJFUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6InBhc3Nwb3J0IiwieDV1I \
joiaHR0cHM6Ly9jZXJ0LmV4YW1wbGUub3JnL3Bhc3Nwb3J0LmNlciJ9.eyJ \
kZXN0Ijp7InVyaSI6WyJzaXA6YWxpY2VAZXhhbXBsZS5jb20iXX0sImlhdC \
I6IjE0NDMyMDgzNDUiLCJvcmlnIjp7InRuIjoiMTIxNTU1NTEyMTIifX0.r \
q3pjT1hoRwakEGjHCnWSwUnshd0-zJ6F1VOgFWSjHBr8Qjpjlk-cpFYpFYs \
ojNCpTzO3QfPOlckGaS6hEck7w"

Example Reason header field with compact form PASSporT:¶

Reason: STIR ;cause=436 ;text="Bad Identity Info" ;ppi= \
"..rq3pjT1akEGjHCnWSwUnshd0-zJ6F1VOgFWSjHBr8Qjpjlk-cpFYpFYs \
ojNCpTzO3QfPOlckGaS6hEck7w"

6. Handling multiple verification errors

If there are multiple Identity header field verification errors being reported the verification service SHOULD include corresponding Reason header fields with "ppi" parameters including full or compact form of the PASSporT with cause and text parameters identifying each error. As mentioned previously, the potential use of multiple Reason header fields defined in [RFC3326] is updated in [I-D.ietf-sipcore-multiple-reasons] allowing multiple Reason header fields with the same protocol value, for this specification being "STIR".¶

Example Reason header fields for two identity info errors:¶

Reason: STIR ;cause=436 ;text="Bad Identity Info" ;ppi=     \
"..rq3pjT1hoRwakEGjHCnWSwUnshd0-zJ6F1VOgFWSjHBr8Qjpjlk-cpFY \
pFYsojNCpTzO3QfPOlckGaS6hEck7w"

Reason: STIR ;cause=436 ; text="Bad Identity Info" ;ppi=    \
"..rJ6F1VOgFWSjHBr8Qjpjlk-cpFYpFYsq3pjT1hoRwakEGjHCnWSwUnsh \
d0-zckGaS6hEck7wojNCpTzO3QfPOl"

7. Removal of the Reason header field by Authentication Service

When an Authentication Service [RFC8224] receives the Reason header field with a PASSporT it generated as part of an Identity header field and the authentication of a call, it should first follow local policy to recognize and acknowledge the error (e.g. perform operational actions like logging or alarming), but then MUST remove the identified Reason header field to avoid the PASSporT information from going upstream to a UAC or UAS that may not be authorized to see claim information contained in the PASSporT for privacy or other reasons.¶

8. IANA Considerations

This document requests the definition of a new protocol value (and associated protocol cause) to be registered by the IANA into the "Reason Protocols" sub-registry under http://www.iana.org/assignments/sip-parameters as follows:¶

Protocol Value   Protocol Cause            Reference
--------------   ---------------           -----------
STIR             STIR Error code           RFC 8224

This document also requests the definition of a new header field parameter name to be registered by IANA into the Header Field Parameters and Parameter Values sub-registry under https://www.iana.org/assignments/sip-parameters as follows:¶

Header Field   Parameter Name   Predefined Values  Reference
------------   --------------   -----------------  ---------
Reason         ppi               No                RFC THIS

9. Security Considerations

This specification discusses the use of a PASSporT as an identifier for cases where there is multiple identity header errors occuring as part of the Reason header field response. For some call scenarios (e.g. diversion based call flows) the signer of the PASSporT(s) may not be the first hop initiator of the call. In those cases, there may be some security or privacy concerns associated with PASSporT information that is passed beyond the authentication service that originally signed the PASSporT(s) in the resulting error Reason header field. This specification states the authentication service MUST remove the Reason header field with the PASSporT to protect the security (e.g. use of potentially still fresh PASSporT for replay attacks) and privacy of any potential information that could be passed beyond the authentication service response back in the direction of the call initiator. While this specification allows for both full and compact form of the PASSporT to be used as the error identifier, use of the compact form can avoid many of the security and privacy concerns.¶

Appendix A. Acknowledgements

Would like to thank David Hancock for help to identify these error scenarios and Jon Peterson, Roman Shpount, Robert Sparks and STIR working group for helpful feedback and discussion.¶

Author's Address