idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-simple-xcap-list-usage-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 : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** There are 5 instances of too long lines in the document, the longest one being 7 characters in excess of 72. 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 (June 23, 2003) is 7613 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) -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. '2' ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 2141 (ref. '3') (Obsoleted by RFC 8141) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 3023 (ref. '4') (Obsoleted by RFC 7303) ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 2648 (ref. '5') -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 3265 (ref. '9') (Obsoleted by RFC 6665) == Outdated reference: A later version (-07) exists of draft-ietf-simple-event-list-04 == Outdated reference: A later version (-04) exists of draft-ietf-impp-pres-03 Summary: 5 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 5 warnings (==), 4 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 SIMPLE J. Rosenberg 3 Internet-Draft dynamicsoft 4 Expires: December 22, 2003 June 23, 2003 6 An Extensible Markup Language (XML) Configuration Access Protocol 7 (XCAP) Usage for Presence Lists 8 draft-ietf-simple-xcap-list-usage-00 10 Status of this Memo 12 This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with 13 all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026. 15 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 16 Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other 17 groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. 19 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 20 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 21 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 22 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 24 The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at http:// 25 www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. 27 The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at 28 http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. 30 This Internet-Draft will expire on December 22, 2003. 32 Copyright Notice 34 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003). All Rights Reserved. 36 Abstract 38 This document describes a usage of the Extensible Markup Language 39 (XML) Configuration Access Protocol (XCAP) for manipulating lists of 40 presentities (also known as buddy lists or rosters). It does so by 41 specifying an XML Schema that contains a list of presentities that a 42 user is interested in watching. 44 Table of Contents 46 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 47 2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 48 3. Application Unique ID . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 49 4. Structure of a Presence List . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 50 5. Computed Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 51 6. Additional Constraints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 52 7. Naming Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 53 8. Authorization Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 54 9. XML Schema . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 55 10. Example Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 56 11. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 57 12. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 58 12.1 XCAP Application Usage ID . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 59 12.2 application/presence-lists+xml MIME Type . . . . . . . . . . 15 60 12.3 URN Sub-Namespace Registration for 61 urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:presence-lists . . . . . . . . . . . 16 62 Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 63 Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 64 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 65 Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . 19 67 1. Introduction 69 The Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) for Instant Messaging and 70 Presence (SIMPLE) specifications allow a user, called a watcher, to 71 subscribe to another user, called a presentity [7], in order to learn 72 their presence information [8]. In many cases, a watcher will be 73 interested in not just a single presentity, but a list of 74 presentities. Such a list of presentities is called a presence list. 76 When a user wants to subscribe to their presence list, the procedures 77 in [8] require the watcher to create and manage a subscription for 78 each presentity in their list. For large lists, the bandwidth 79 required to do this can be a problem, particularly for wireless 80 networks. An extension to the SIP events framework [9] has been 81 defined. The extension allows a watcher to subscribe to a list of 82 resources, using a single subscription [10]. This mechanism assumes 83 that a server, called the Resource List Server (RLS) has a copy of 84 the presence list that the user wishes to subscribe to. By using 85 protocols such as the XML Configuration Access Protocol (XCAP) [12], 86 a client can place this list on the server, and manipulate it as 87 needed. 89 XCAP requires application usages to standardize several pieces of 90 information, including an application unique ID (AUID), an XML 91 schema, and various other pieces of information. This specification 92 fulfills those requirements. 94 The XML schema defined here has several other usages outside of XCAP: 96 1. A PC client application will need to know the users in the 97 presence list, so that it can generate a subscription to each 98 one. This information represents user provisioned data for the 99 application. Typically, this information is stored on local disk 100 in a proprietary file format. By defining a standard format, the 101 same list can be used by a multiplicity of different client 102 applications, providing portability across them. 104 2. It is common for users to share presence lists. As an example, 105 user A may have three people in their list that they wish to tell 106 user B about. User A would like to send an email to user B with 107 an attachment describing these three people. Should user B open 108 the attachment, the three people can be added to their own 109 presence list. Doing this requires a standardized format for 110 exchanging lists over email, instant messaging, and other 111 communications protocols. 113 2. Terminology 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] and 118 indicate requirement levels for compliant implementations. 120 3. Application Unique ID 122 XCAP requires application usages to define a unique application usage 123 ID (AUID) in either the IETF tree or a vendor tree. This 124 specification defines the "presence-lists" AUID within the IETF tree, 125 via the IANA registration in Section 12. 127 4. Structure of a Presence List 129 A presence list is an XML [2] document that MUST be well-formed and 130 SHOULD be valid. Presence list documents MUST be based on XML 1.0 and 131 MUST be encoded using UTF-8. This specification makes use of XML 132 namespaces for identifying presence list documents and document 133 fragments. The namespace URI for elements defined by this 134 specification is a URN [3], using the namespace identifier 'ietf' 135 defined by [5] and extended by [6]. This URN is: 137 urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:presence-lists 139 A presence list document begins with the root element tag 140 ``presence-lists''. It consists of any number of ``list'' 141 sub-elements, each of which is a presence list. Other elements from 142 different namespaces MAY be present for the purposes of 143 extensibility; elements or attributes from unknown namespaces MUST be 144 ignored. There are three attributes associated with this element. The 145 first two, "name", and "subscribable" MUST be present: 147 name: This attribute is a descriptive name for the list. It MUST 148 be unique amongst all other list elements within the same parent 149 element. 151 subscribable: This boolean attribute indicates whether or not the 152 list is subscribable or not. 154 The other attribute, "uri" MAY be present: 156 uri: This attribute provides a URI that can be used to subscribe 157 to the list, using the SIP event notification extension for lists 158 [10]. As a result, the URI MUST be either a SIP URI or a pres URI 159 [11]. [[OPEN ISSUE: Do we want this to be a comma separated list, 160 so that a presence list can have any number of valid aliases?]] 162 [[OPEN ISSUE: We also need to define policy about who is allowed to 163 subscribe to the list. We can either integrate that into the list 164 definition described here, or handle that as a separate policy 165 specification. The SEACAP proposal kept them together. I believe now 166 that they should be kept separate.]] 168 Each list element is composed of a sequence of entry elements or list 169 elements. The ability of a list element to contain other list 170 elements means that a presence list can be hierarchically structured. 171 An entry element describes a single presentity that is part of the 172 list. A list element can also contain elements from other namespaces, 173 for the purposes of extensibility. 175 The entry element describes a single presentity. The entry element 176 has two attributes: 178 name: This mandatory attribute is a unique identifier amongst all 179 other entry elements of the same parent. 181 uri: This optional attribute is a URI that is used to subscribe to 182 the presentity. It MUST be either a SIP or pres URI. 184 The entry element contains a sequence of other elements. Only one 185 such element is defined at this time, which is the display-name. This 186 element provides a UTF-8 encoded string, meant for consumption by the 187 user, that describes the presentity. Unlike the "name" attribute of 188 the entry element, the display-name has no uniqueness requirements. 189 [[OPEN ISSUE: Do we need this in addition to the name attribute?]]. 190 Other elements from other namespaces MAY be included. This is meant 191 to support the inclusion of other information about the entry, such 192 as a phone number or postal address. 194 5. Computed Data 196 An XCAP server supporting this application usage need only worry 197 about a single piece of computed data - the "uri" attribute of the 198 list element. 200 If the "uri" attribute is absent in a document written to an XCAP 201 server, but the "subscribable" flag is true, the XCAP server MUST 202 allocate a URI for this list. This allocated URI MUST be globally 203 unique, and MUST route to an RLS which will handle list subscriptions 204 for the list defined by the document. The server MUST set the uri 205 attribute of the document with this URI. 207 A server MUST NOT delete the "uri" attribute, however, should a 208 client change the subscribable flag to false after the server has 209 allocated a URI. 211 6. Additional Constraints 213 There are no constraints on the document beyond those described in 214 the schema. 216 7. Naming Conventions 218 There are no naming conventions that need to be defined for this 219 application usage. A subscription to a presence list will be to a 220 specific URI. That URI will be one of the "uri" attributes defined in 221 a list within one of the documents managed by an XCAP server. 223 8. Authorization Policies 225 This application usage does not modify the default XCAP authorization 226 policy, which is that only a user can read, write or modify their own 227 documents. A server can allow priveleged users to modify documents 228 that they don't own, but the establishment and indication of such 229 policies is outside the scope of this document. 231 9. XML Schema 233 The following is the XML schema definition of the presence list: 235 236 239 240 241 242 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 252 254 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 276 10. Example Document 278 The following is an example of a document compliant to the schema: 280 281 282 283 284 Bill Doe 285 286 288 289 Joe Smith 290 291 292 Nancy Gross 293 294 295 296 298 11. Security Considerations 300 The configuration information defined by this application usage is 301 particularly sensitive. It represents the principle set of people 302 with whom a user would like to communicate. As a result, clients 303 SHOULD use TLS when contacting servers in order to fetch this 304 information. Note that this does not represent a change in 305 requirement strength from XCAP. 307 12. IANA Considerations 309 There are several IANA considerations associated with this 310 specification. 312 12.1 XCAP Application Usage ID 314 This section registers a new XCAP Application Usage ID (AUID) 315 according to the IANA procedures defined in [12]. 317 Name of the AUID: presence-lists 319 Description: A presence list application is a usage of the SIP 320 events framework (RFC 3265) [9] along with its list extension 321 [10], for subscribing to a list of presentities (RFC2778) [7] 322 stored at a server. 324 12.2 application/presence-lists+xml MIME Type 326 MIME media type name: application 328 MIME subtype name: presence-lists+xml 330 Mandatory parameters: none 332 Optional parameters: Same as charset parameter application/xml as 333 specified in RFC 3023 [4]. 335 Encoding considerations: Same as encoding considerations of 336 application/xml as specified in RFC 3023 [4]. 338 Security considerations: See Section 10 of RFC 3023 [4] and 339 Section 11 of this specification. 341 Interoperability considerations: none. 343 Published specification: This document. 345 Applications which use this media type: This document type has 346 been used to support subscriptions to lists of users [10] for 347 SIP-based presence [8]. 349 Additional Information: 351 Magic Number: None 352 File Extension: .pl or .xml 354 Macintosh file type code: "TEXT" 356 Personal and email address for further information: Jonathan 357 Rosenberg, jdrosen@jdrosen.net 359 Intended usage: COMMON 361 Author/Change controller: The IETF. 363 12.3 URN Sub-Namespace Registration for 364 urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:presence-lists 366 This section registers a new XML namespace, as per the guidelines in 367 [6] 369 URI: The URI for this namespace is 370 urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:presence-lists. 372 Registrant Contact: IETF, SIMPLE working group, 373 (simple@mailman.dynamicsoft.com), Jonathan Rosenberg 374 (jdrosen@jdrosen.net). 376 XML: 378 BEGIN 379 380 382 383 384 386 Presence Lists Namespace 387 388 389

Namespace for Presence Lists

390

application/presence-lists+xml

391

See RFCXXXX.

392 393 394 END 396 Normative References 398 [1] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement 399 Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. 401 [2] Bray, T., Paoli, J., Sperberg-McQueen, C. and E. Maler, 402 "Extensible Markup Language (XML) 1.0 (Second Edition)", W3C REC 403 REC-xml-20001006, October 2000. 405 [3] Moats, R., "URN Syntax", RFC 2141, May 1997. 407 [4] Murata, M., St. Laurent, S. and D. Kohn, "XML Media Types", RFC 408 3023, January 2001. 410 [5] Moats, R., "A URN Namespace for IETF Documents", RFC 2648, 411 August 1999. 413 [6] Mealling, M., "The IETF XML Registry", 414 draft-mealling-iana-xmlns-registry-05 (work in progress), June 415 2003. 417 Informative References 419 [7] Day, M., Rosenberg, J. and H. Sugano, "A Model for Presence and 420 Instant Messaging", RFC 2778, February 2000. 422 [8] Rosenberg, J., "A Presence Event Package for the Session 423 Initiation Protocol (SIP)", draft-ietf-simple-presence-10 (work 424 in progress), January 2003. 426 [9] Roach, A., "Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)-Specific Event 427 Notification", RFC 3265, June 2002. 429 [10] Rosenberg, J., Roach, A. and B. Campbell, "A Session Initiation 430 Protocol (SIP) Event Notification Extension for Resource 431 Lists", draft-ietf-simple-event-list-04 (work in progress), 432 June 2003. 434 [11] Peterson, J., "Common Profile for Presence (CPP)", 435 draft-ietf-impp-pres-03 (work in progress), May 2003. 437 [12] Rosenberg, J., "The Extensible Markup Language (XML) 438 Configuration Access Protocol (XCAP)", 439 draft-rosenberg-simple-xcap-00 (work in progress), May 2003. 441 Author's Address 443 Jonathan Rosenberg 444 dynamicsoft 445 600 Lanidex Plaza 446 Parsippany, NJ 07052 447 US 449 Phone: +1 973 952-5000 450 EMail: jdrosen@dynamicsoft.com 451 URI: http://www.jdrosen.net 453 Intellectual Property Statement 455 The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any 456 intellectual property or other rights that might be claimed to 457 pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in 458 this document or the extent to which any license under such rights 459 might or might not be available; neither does it represent that it 460 has made any effort to identify any such rights. Information on the 461 IETF's procedures with respect to rights in standards-track and 462 standards-related documentation can be found in BCP-11. Copies of 463 claims of rights made available for publication and any assurances of 464 licenses to be made available, or the result of an attempt made to 465 obtain a general license or permission for the use of such 466 proprietary rights by implementors or users of this specification can 467 be obtained from the IETF Secretariat. 469 The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any 470 copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary 471 rights which may cover technology that may be required to practice 472 this standard. Please address the information to the IETF Executive 473 Director. 475 Full Copyright Statement 477 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003). All Rights Reserved. 479 This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to 480 others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it 481 or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published 482 and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any 483 kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are 484 included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this 485 document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing 486 the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other 487 Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of 488 developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for 489 copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be 490 followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than 491 English. 493 The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be 494 revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assignees. 496 This document and the information contained herein is provided on an 497 "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING 498 TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING 499 BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION 500 HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF 501 MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. 503 Acknowledgement 505 Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the 506 Internet Society.