June 2006 Lemonade Internet Draft: Lemonade Notifications and S. H. Maes Filters Document: draft-ietf-lemonade-notification- protocol-00.txt Expires: December 2006 June 2006 Lemonade Notification protocol Status of this Memo By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of 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 November 30, 2006. Copyright Notice Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006). Abstract This document introduces a notification protocol as a specified particular case of the notification mechanisms used by the Lemonade profile [LEMONADEPROFILEBIS] in [NOTIFICATIONS]. This document also discusses the use of Lemonade notifications to implement server to server notifications. Conventions used in this document Maes Expires – December 2006 [Page 1]  June 2006 In examples, "C:" and "S:" indicate lines sent by the client and server respectively. 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 [RFC2119]. An implementation is not compliant if it fails to satisfy one or more of the MUST or REQUIRED level requirements for the protocol(s) it implements. An implementation that satisfies all the MUST or REQUIRED level and all the SHOULD level requirements for a protocol is said to be "unconditionally compliant" to that protocol; one that satisfies all the MUST level requirements but not all the SHOULD level requirements is said to be "conditionally compliant." When describing the general syntax, some definitions are omitted as they are defined in [RFC3501]. Table of Contents Status of this Memo...............................................1 Copyright Notice..................................................1 Abstract..........................................................1 Conventions used in this document.................................1 Table of Contents.................................................2 1. Introduction...................................................2 2. Usage Model....................................................3 2.1. Notification protocol in Lemonade Profile Bis.............3 2.2. Notification protocol for generic server to server notifications..................................................4 3. Notification protocol..........................................5 3.1. Protocol details and guidelines...........................6 Security Considerations...........................................6 References........................................................6 Future Work.......................................................6 Acknowledgments...................................................6 Authors Addresses.................................................7 Intellectual Property Statement...................................7 Disclaimer of Validity............................................7 Copyright Statement...............................................8 Acknowledgement...................................................8 1. Introduction This draft provides a notification protocols for [NOTIFICATIONS] and the Lemonade profile. Maes Expires – December 2006 [Page 2]  June 2006 2. Usage Model 2.1. Notification protocol in Lemonade Profile Bis The target logical architectures involving the LEMONADE Profile and notifications are discussed in [LEMONADEPROFILEBIS]. Figure 1 illustrates how notification and filtering can be introduced in the context of LEMONADE profile bis. +--------------+_____________ Maes Expires – December 2006 [Page 3]  June 2006 | | +---------| Notification | | | Mechanism | | +----------^---+ |Notif. | |Protocol -------\ +|-+_ | ______| +---\>|NF|----+____ | | | +--+ | +-----+ _____ __v__| IMAP +--+_LEMONADE +---+__ESMTP +--+ | +-----+<-------->|VF| IMAP |DF |<--------|AF| MTA | | MUA |\ ME-2a +--+ Store +-^-+ +--+_____| |_____| \ +-------------+ | +-----+ +-----+--\---------------|-------+ \ |URLAUTH \SUBMIT | \ +----v-----+_____ \ | | +-----+ _____ \ | LEMONADE | ESMTP | | ---->| Submit |--------------->| MTA | ME-2b | Server | |_____| |__________| +-----+ +----------+ Figure 1: Filtering mechanism defined in LEMONADE Profile bis architecture. In Figure 1, the notification protocol MAY be used between NF in the Lemonade IMAP Store and a compliant Notification mechanism. Note that in general [LEMONADEPROFILEBIS] does not mandate the use of the present notification protocol. It is also possible that NF interacts with the notification mechanisms via protocols specific to each of the notification mechanisms. The present draft solely provides a generic protocol to do so that the notification mechanism MAY support. 2.2. Notification protocol for generic server to server notifications As discussed in [NOTIFICATIONS], with server to server notifications, a messaging system (e.g. email server, voice mail system, etc.) submits alerts, which describe potential notification events, regarding an end user mailbox status change (e.g. new message has arrived, mailbox is full, etc.). These alerts are sent to a notification mechanisms, which may, in turn, generate an end user alert notification. Maes Expires – December 2006 [Page 4]  June 2006 The present notification protocol MAY be used as a generic way to interface with each server to server notification mechanisms. As described in {NOTIFICATIONS], it is also possible to interact with the notification mechanisms via protocols specific to each of the notification mechanism. The present draft solely provides a generic protocol to do so that the notification mechanism MAY support. The figure 2 depicts the server to server notification scope: +--------+ +--------+ New | | | SMS | Message | Email | \ |Gateway | -------> |Server 1| \ _ | | +--------+ \ /| +--------+ ^ \ / | \ / ^ | \ +--------------+ / | +--------+ +--------+ | _|+-------------|+ / | | MWI | Read | Voice | | || |/ | |Gateway | Message | Mail |-------->| Notification |------->| | -------> | Server | | ^ _ +| Mechanisms |\ ^ | +--------+ +--------+ | | /| +--------------- \ | | | |/ \ \| | | / ^ \ ^ \ | |/| | \ | |\| +--------+ / | | \ | | \ +--------+ Mailbox | | /| | | \| | |\ | Wap | Full | Email |/ | | | ^ \ | |_|| Push | -------> |Server 2| | | | | |\| | |Gateway | +--------+ | | | | | \ | +--------+ | | | | | |\| | | | | | | \ | | | | | | |\ | | | | | | |_|+--------+ | | | | | | | | IM | | | | | | | | |Gateway | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | +--------+ | | | | | | | Server to OTHER Server PROTOCOLS Notifications Figure 2: Scope of server to server notifications 3. Notification protocol Maes Expires – December 2006 [Page 5]  June 2006 The notification protocol MUST follow the [PARLAYXMULTIMEDIA] protocol (over SOAP). 3.1. Protocol details and guidelines June 2006 The authors want to thank the authors of the original work on Server To Server Notification Protocol Requirements (draft-ietf-lemonade- notify-s2s-00) whose material has been incorporated in the present document, in particular: Gev Decktor. Authors Addresses Stephane H. Maes Oracle Corporation 500 Oracle Parkway M/S 4op634 Redwood Shores, CA 94065 USA Phone: +1-650-607-6296 Email: stephane.maes@oracle.com Intellectual Property Statement The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in this document or the extent to which any license under such rights might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be found in BCP 78 and BCP 79. Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at http://www.ietf.org/ipr. The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at ietf- ipr@ietf.org. Disclaimer of Validity This document and the information contained herein are provided on an "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Maes Expires – December 2006 [Page 7]  June 2006 Copyright Statement Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006). This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights. Acknowledgement Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the Internet Society. Maes Expires – December 2006 [Page 8]