idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-simple-pres-filter-reqs-00.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** Looks like you're using RFC 2026 boilerplate. This must be updated to follow RFC 3978/3979, as updated by RFC 4748. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == No 'Intended status' indicated for this document; assuming Proposed Standard Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** The document seems to lack an IANA Considerations section. (See Section 2.2 of https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist for how to handle the case when there are no actions for IANA.) ** The document seems to lack separate sections for Informative/Normative References. All references will be assumed normative when checking for downward references. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the RFC 3978 Section 5.4 Copyright Line does not match the current year == The document seems to lack the recommended RFC 2119 boilerplate, even if it appears to use RFC 2119 keywords. (The document does seem to have the reference to RFC 2119 which the ID-Checklist requires). -- The document seems to lack a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work, but may have content which was first submitted before 10 November 2008. If you have contacted all the original authors and they are all willing to grant the BCP78 rights to the IETF Trust, then this is fine, and you can ignore this comment. If not, you may need to add the pre-RFC5378 disclaimer. (See the Legal Provisions document at https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info for more information.) -- The document date (May 11, 2003) is 7646 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) == Outdated reference: A later version (-08) exists of draft-ietf-impp-cpim-pidf-07 -- Possible downref: Normative reference to a draft: ref. '3' == Outdated reference: A later version (-03) exists of draft-kiss-simple-presence-wireless-reqs-02 -- Possible downref: Normative reference to a draft: ref. '4' ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 3265 (ref. '6') (Obsoleted by RFC 6665) Summary: 4 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 5 warnings (==), 4 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 SIMPLE WG T. Moran 3 Internet-Draft 4 Expires: November 9, 2003 S. Addagatla 5 E. Leppanen 6 Nokia 7 May 11, 2003 9 Requirements for Presence Specific Event Notification Filtering 10 draft-ietf-simple-pres-filter-reqs-00 12 Status of this Memo 14 This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with 15 all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026. 17 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 18 Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other 19 groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. 21 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 22 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 23 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 24 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 26 The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at http:// 27 www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. 29 The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at 30 http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. 32 This Internet-Draft will expire on November 9, 2003. 34 Copyright Notice 36 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003). All Rights Reserved. 38 Abstract 40 This document defines a set of structured requirements whereby a 41 presence information subscriber may select specific information to be 42 received in the presence infomation notification sent by the 43 notifier. The purpose is to limit the content and frequency of 44 notifications so that only essential information on a need basis is 45 delivered by the server. 47 Table of Contents 49 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 50 2. Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 51 3. Requirements for Specification of Filters . . . . . . . . . 4 52 3.1 Common Syntax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 53 3.2 Package Identification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 54 3.3 Target URI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 55 3.4 Notification Triggering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 56 3.5 Notification Content Limiting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 57 4. Requirements for Uploading Rules (Operational Rules) . . . . 5 58 4.1 SUBSCRIBE Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 59 4.1.1 Retention of Filter Settings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 60 4.1.2 Changing Filter Settings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 61 4.2 Server does not Support Filters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 62 4.3 Server does not Support Filter Settings . . . . . . . . . . 6 63 4.4 Server can no Longer Support Filter Settings . . . . . . . . 6 64 5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 65 6. Example Applications for Notification Filtering . . . . . . 6 66 7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 67 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 68 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 69 Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . 9 71 1. Introduction 73 SIP event notification is described in [6]. It defines a general 74 framework for subscriptions and notifications for SIP event packages. 75 Concrete applications of the general event framework to a specific 76 group of events are described in [5] (user presence) and [7] (watcher 77 information). 79 The presence information refers to a set of presence attributes 80 describing the availability and willingness of the user (presentity) 81 for communication. The user makes his presence information available 82 for other users (watchers). 84 As the inherent usage of event packages grows, the client needs some 85 mechanisms for controlling the event notifications at the source. 86 Evidence of this need is found in [4]. 88 The Internet Draft describing the Presence event package [5] mentions 89 the possibility for a filtering. Accordingly, the SUBSCRIBE request 90 may contain a body for filtering the presence information 91 subscription. However, the definition of the filtering has been left 92 out of the scope of the Internet Draft. As an example, the body of 93 the SUBSCRIBE request may include a restriction on the set of data 94 returned in NOTIFY requests. 96 These mechanisms are expected to be particularly valuable to users of 97 wireless devices. The characteristics of these devices typically 98 include low bandwidth, low data processing capabilities, small 99 display and limited battery power. Such devices can benefit from the 100 ability to filter the amount of information generated at the source 101 of the event notification. 103 However, it is expected that the control mechanisms for event 104 notifications add value for all users irrespectively of their device 105 or network access characteristics. 107 Section 3 and Section 4 of this draft propose a set of requirements 108 whereby a client may specify which notifications it is interested in. 109 That is, a means to specify filtering rules to be executed by the 110 server. Section 6 provides a few example applications of notification 111 filtering. 113 2. Conventions 115 In this document, the key words 'MUST', 'MUST NOT', 'REQUIRED', 116 'SHALL', 'SHALL NOT', 'SHOULD', 'SHOULD NOT', 'RECOMMENDED', 'MAY', 117 and 'OPTIONAL' are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [1] 118 and indicate requirement levels for compliant implementations. 120 3. Requirements for Specification of Filters 122 The following requirements relate to the creation of filters (rules). 124 3.1 Common Syntax 126 A common set of constructs MUST be defined for the creation of rules. 127 There MUST be a common set of operations that follow a common syntax. 128 The user MUST be possible to define different rules for different 129 purposes using a common filtering mechanism. 131 3.2 Package Identification 133 A means is REQUIRED whereby the user may specify the package the 134 rules apply to. 136 3.3 Target URI 138 It MUST be possible for the watcher to indicate the target presentity 139 or presentity list to which a certain filter criteria is applied. 141 It MUST be possible to support filtering also in presence list 142 subscriptions. 144 Is MUST be possible to specify different filter criteria for 145 individual presentities than the other presence list members in a 146 presence list subscription case. 148 3.4 Notification Triggering 150 This chapter presents requirements for specifying the desired 151 conditions for when notifications are to be sent to the client. 153 The scope of the 'when' part is to allow a possibility for the user 154 to specify such rules for the notification triggering where the 155 criteria is based on the presence information, e.g., the value of the 156 status element. 158 The notification triggering criteria would override the default 159 trigger conditions of the server/service as defined in the package 160 when they are within the server's local policy constraints. 162 It MUST be possible to specify logical expressions based on the value 163 of elements defined in the package for the purpose of when to send 164 notifications. This covers expressions (tests) related to the change 165 of an element's value, and reaching a certain value of an element. 167 It MUST be possible to construct expressions that combine multiple 168 tests. 170 3.5 Notification Content Limiting 172 This chapter presents requirements for specifying the content to be 173 sent in the notifications. 175 It MUST be possible for the watcher to specify the presence 176 information elements [2] (XML elements and/or attributes) to be 177 delivered in the notification. The specified elements MUST be able to 178 cover also extensions to PIDF formated presence information, see for 179 example [3]. 181 E.g. the following two cases must be possible: 183 o The watcher MUST be able to define a criteria which allows the 184 complete tuple and all information within a tuple to be 185 transmitted. 187 o The watcher MUST be able to define a criteria which result 188 notifies to contain values only for defined attributes. 190 It MUST be possible to specify logical expressions based on the value 191 of elements defined in the package for the purpose of determining 192 what to send in the notification. The existence of an element SHOULD 193 be considered as a criterion. 195 It MUST be possible to construct expressions that combine multiple 196 tests. 198 4. Requirements for Uploading Rules (Operational Rules) 200 It MUST be possible for the watcher to upload the rules to the server 201 (notifier) and know the status - accepted or rejected. 203 4.1 SUBSCRIBE Method 205 Placing filtering rules in the body of the subscription MUST be 206 supported. Other means of delivering the filtering rules to the event 207 server MAY be supported. E.g. it should be possible for the rules to 208 be (permanently) stored in the server, as in a presence list case. 210 4.1.1 Retention of Filter Settings 212 The server MUST retain the uploaded filter setting for the duration 213 of the subscription. 215 4.1.2 Changing Filter Settings 217 It MUST be possible to change the filter settings during a 218 subscription. 220 It MUST be possible for the watcher to reset the filter settings to 221 the service (server) defined default. 223 4.2 Server does not Support Filters 225 If the server does not support filters (the content type) then it 226 MUST be able to indicate so in a response. 228 4.3 Server does not Support Filter Settings 230 It MUST be possible for the server to explicitly indicate that it 231 does not support or understand the filter settings. This indication 232 MAY include a reason about the refusal of the filter settings. 234 4.4 Server can no Longer Support Filter Settings 236 The server MUST be able to terminate the subscription if the active 237 filter is no longer applicable due to a policy in the server. 239 5. Security Considerations 241 Further security requirements over [5] have not yet been identified. 243 6. Example Applications for Notification Filtering 245 1. A watcher wishes to get to know presentity's availability and 246 willingness for messaging (e.g. IM and MMS). 248 2. A watcher is interested in getting information about the 249 communication means and contact addresses the presentity is 250 currently available for communication. 252 3. A watcher requires a notification if the state of a buddy has 253 changed to 'open'. 255 4. A Subscriber only wants to be notified when the presentity's 256 location is Dallas or Fort Worth. The notification should include 257 the vehicle license, driver name, and city. 259 5. A Basic location tracking service requires notification when the 260 presentity's cell id changes. The notification should include the 261 cell id. 263 7. Acknowledgements 265 The authors would like to thank Hisham Khartabil, Mikko Lonnfors, 266 Juha Kalliokulju, Aki Niemi, Jose Costa-Requena and Markus Isomaki 267 for their valuable input. 269 References 271 [1] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement 272 Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. 274 [2] Sugano, H., "CPIM Presence Information Data Format", 275 draft-ietf-impp-cpim-pidf-07.txt, December 2002. 277 [3] Schulzrinne, H., "RPIDS -- Rich Presence Information Data Format 278 for Presence Based on the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)", 279 draft-schulzrinne-simple-rpids-01.txt, February 2003. 281 [4] Kiss, K., "Requirements for Presence Service based on 3GPP 282 specifications and wireless environment characteristics", 283 draft-kiss-simple-presence-wireless-reqs-02, February 2003. 285 [5] Rosenberg, J., "Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Extensions for 286 Presence", draft-ietf-simple-presence-10.txt, January 2003. 288 [6] Roach, A., "Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)-Specific Event 289 Notification", RFC 3265, June 2002. 291 [7] Rosenberg, J., "A Watcher Information Event Template-Package for 292 the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)", 293 draft-ietf-simple-winfo-package-05.txt, January 2003. 295 Authors' Addresses 297 Tim Moran 298 2800 Britt Drive 299 Argyle, Texas 76226 300 USA 302 Phone: +1 972 849 8821 303 EMail: tl_moran@att.net 304 Sreenivas Addagatla 305 Nokia 306 6000 Connection Drive 307 Irving, Texas 75039 308 USA 310 Phone: +1 972 374 1917 311 EMail: sreenivas.addagatla@nokia.com 313 Eva Leppanen 314 Nokia 315 P.O BOX 785 316 Tampere 317 Finland 319 Phone: +358 7180 77066 320 EMail: eva-maria.leppanen@nokia.com 322 Intellectual Property Statement 324 The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any 325 intellectual property or other rights that might be claimed to 326 pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in 327 this document or the extent to which any license under such rights 328 might or might not be available; neither does it represent that it 329 has made any effort to identify any such rights. Information on the 330 IETF's procedures with respect to rights in standards-track and 331 standards-related documentation can be found in BCP-11. Copies of 332 claims of rights made available for publication and any assurances of 333 licenses to be made available, or the result of an attempt made to 334 obtain a general license or permission for the use of such 335 proprietary rights by implementors or users of this specification can 336 be obtained from the IETF Secretariat. 338 The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any 339 copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary 340 rights which may cover technology that may be required to practice 341 this standard. Please address the information to the IETF Executive 342 Director. 344 Full Copyright Statement 346 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003). All Rights Reserved. 348 This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to 349 others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it 350 or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published 351 and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any 352 kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are 353 included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this 354 document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing 355 the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other 356 Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of 357 developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for 358 copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be 359 followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than 360 English. 362 The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be 363 revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assignees. 365 This document and the information contained herein is provided on an 366 "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING 367 TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING 368 BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION 369 HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF 370 MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. 372 Acknowledgement 374 Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the 375 Internet Society.