idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-sipping-uri-list-subscribe-02.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** It looks like you're using RFC 3978 boilerplate. You should update this to the boilerplate described in the IETF Trust License Policy document (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info), which is required now. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3978, Section 5.1.a on line 21. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3978, Section 5.5 on line 356. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 1 on line 333. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 2 on line 340. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 3 on line 346. ** The document seems to lack an RFC 3978 Section 5.1 IPR Disclosure Acknowledgement. ** This document has an original RFC 3978 Section 5.4 Copyright Line, instead of the newer IETF Trust Copyright according to RFC 4748. ** This document has an original RFC 3978 Section 5.5 Disclaimer, instead of the newer disclaimer which includes the IETF Trust according to RFC 4748. ** The document uses RFC 3667 boilerplate or RFC 3978-like boilerplate instead of verbatim RFC 3978 boilerplate. After 6 May 2005, submission of drafts without verbatim RFC 3978 boilerplate is not accepted. The following non-3978 patterns matched text found in the document. That text should be removed or replaced: This document is an Internet-Draft and is subject to all provisions of Section 3 of RFC 3667. 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. 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 2 instances of too long lines in the document, the longest one being 1 character 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 (November 27, 2004) is 7090 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) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 3265 (ref. '3') (Obsoleted by RFC 6665) == Outdated reference: A later version (-07) exists of draft-ietf-simple-event-list-06 == Outdated reference: A later version (-07) exists of draft-ietf-sipping-uri-services-01 == Outdated reference: A later version (-05) exists of draft-ietf-simple-xcap-list-usage-04 Summary: 7 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 6 warnings (==), 7 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 SIPPING Working Group G. Camarillo 3 Internet-Draft Ericsson 4 Expires: May 28, 2005 A. Roach 5 Estacado Systems 6 O. Levin 7 Microsoft Corporation 8 November 27, 2004 10 Subscriptions to Request-Contained Resource Lists in the Session 11 Initiation Protocol (SIP) 12 draft-ietf-sipping-uri-list-subscribe-02.txt 14 Status of this Memo 16 This document is an Internet-Draft and is subject to all provisions 17 of section 3 of RFC 3667. By submitting this Internet-Draft, each 18 author represents that any applicable patent or other IPR claims of 19 which he or she is aware have been or will be disclosed, and any of 20 which he or she become aware will be disclosed, in accordance with 21 RFC 3668. 23 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 24 Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that 25 other groups may also distribute working documents as 26 Internet-Drafts. 28 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 29 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 30 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 31 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 33 The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at 34 http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. 36 The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at 37 http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. 39 This Internet-Draft will expire on May 28, 2005. 41 Copyright Notice 43 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). 45 Abstract 47 This document specifies a way to create subscription to a list of 48 resources in SIP. This is achieved by including the list of 49 resources in the body of a SUBSCRIBE. Instead of having a subscriber 50 send a SUBSCRIBE for each resource individually, the subscriber 51 defines the resource list, subscribes to it, and gets notifications 52 about changes in the resources' state using a single SUBSCRIBE 53 dialog. 55 Table of Contents 57 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 58 2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 59 3. Providing a Resource List Server with a URI-List . . . . . . . 3 60 4. URI-List Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 61 5. Resource List Server Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 62 6. Subsequent SUBSCRIBEs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 63 7. Providing a URI to Manipulate a Resource List . . . . . . . . 5 64 8. Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 65 9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 66 10. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 67 11. Acknowledges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 68 12. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 69 12.1 Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 70 12.2 Informational References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 71 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 72 Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . 9 74 1. Introduction 76 RFC xxxx [4] specifies how to establish subscriptions to a 77 homogeneous resource list in SIP [2] and defines the procedures for 78 getting notifications about changes in the state of the associated 79 resources. Yet, list creation is outside the scope of [4]. 81 This document specifies a way to create a list with a set of 82 resources and subscribe to it using a single SIP request. This is 83 achieved by including the list of resources (as defined in [5]) in 84 the body of the SUBSCRIBE request. 86 2. Terminology 88 In this document, the key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", 89 "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT 90 RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" are to be interpreted as 91 described in BCP 14, RFC 2119 [1] and indicate requirement levels for 92 compliant implementations. 94 3. Providing a Resource List Server with a URI-List 96 A client that wants to create a resource list and subscribe to it, 97 using the mechanism described in this document, constructs a 98 SUBSCRIBE with at least one body, whose disposition is type 99 "recipient-list" as defined in [5], containing the URI-list. The 100 client MUST build the remaining of the SUBSCRIBE request following 101 the rules in RFC 3265 [3]. 103 The client MUST support the "rlmi+xml" format defined in [4] and 104 signal this by including "rlmi+xml" in the Accept header. The client 105 MAY support additional formats and include them in the Accept header 106 field of the SUBSCRIBE. 108 4. URI-List Format 110 The [5] mandates that each URI-list services specification, such as 111 the subscription service defined here, specifies the default format 112 for the recipient-list bodies used within the particular service. 114 The default format for the recipient-list bodies for the subscription 115 service defined in this document is the resource list format defined 116 in [6]. UAs (User Agents) and resource list servers handling 117 recipient-list bodies MUST support this format and MAY support other 118 formats. 120 The Extensible Markup Language (XML) Configuration Access Protocol 121 (XCAP) resource list document provides features, such as hierarchical 122 lists and the ability to include entries by reference relative to the 123 XCAP root URI, that are not needed by the subscription service 124 defined here, which only needs to transfer a flat list of URIs 125 between a UA and the resource list server. Therefore, when using the 126 default resource list document, UAs SHOULD use flat lists (i.e., no 127 hierarchical lists) and SHOULD NOT use elements. 129 A resource list server receiving a URI-list with more information 130 than what has just been described MAY discard all the extra 131 information. 133 Figure 1 shows an example of a flat list that follows the resource 134 list document. 136 137 139 140 141 142 143 144 146 Figure 1: URI-List 148 5. Resource List Server Behavior 150 On reception of a SUBSCRIBE with a URI-list, a resource list server, 151 which chooses to accept the "rlmi+xml" format, MUST comply with [4] 152 for creating the subscription and reporting the changes in the 153 resources within the created dialog. 155 Note that the status code in the response to the SUBSCRIBE does not 156 provide any information about whether or not the resource list server 157 was able to successfully subscribe to the URIs in the URI-list. The 158 client obtains this information in the notifications sent by the 159 server. 161 6. Subsequent SUBSCRIBEs 163 The previous Sections have specified how to include a URI-list in an 164 initial SUBSCRIBE request to a resource list server in order to 165 subscribe to the state of a set of resources. Once the subscription 166 has been created and a dialog between the client and the resource 167 list server has been established, the client may need to send 168 subsequent SUBSCRIBE requests to, for example, extend the duration of 169 the subscription. 171 At this point, there are no semantics associated with resource-list 172 bodies in subsequent SUBSCRIBE requests (although future extensions 173 may define them). Therefore, clients SHOULD NOT include 174 resource-list bodies in subsequent SUBSCRIBE requests to a resource 175 list server. 177 A resource list server receiving a subsequent SUBSCRIBE request with 178 a resource-list body, following standard SIP procedures, rejects it 179 with a 415 (Unsupported Media Type) response. 181 Note that a difference between an initial SUBSCRIBE request and 182 subsequent ones is that while the initial request is sent to the 183 public URI of the resource list, subsequent ones are sent to the 184 URI provided by the server when the dialog was established. 185 Therefore, from the client's point of view, the resource 186 identified by the former URI supports recipient-list bodies while 187 the resource identified by the latter does not support them. 189 7. Providing a URI to Manipulate a Resource List 191 A client may need to manipulate a resource list at a resource list 192 server. The resource list server MAY provide a URI to manipulate the 193 resource list associated with a subscription using the Call-Info 194 header field in the NOTIFY that establishes the subscription. The 195 "purpose" parameter of the Call-Info header field MUST have a value 196 of "list-management", which we register with the IANA in Section 10. 197 The following is an example of such a header field. 199 Call-Info: 200 ;purpose=list-management 202 The life-time of a resource list to be manipulated by the URI 203 provided by the server is blundled to the life-time of the 204 subscription. That is, the resource list SHOULD be destroyed when 205 the subscription expires or is otherwise terminated. 207 8. Example 209 The following is an example of a SUBSCRIBE request, which carries a 210 URI-list in its body, sent by a UA to a resource list server. 212 SUBSCRIBE sip:rls@example.com SIP/2.0 213 Via: SIP/2.0/TCP terminal.example.com;branch=z9hG4bKwYb6QREiCL 214 Max-Forwards: 70 215 To: RLS 216 From: ;tag=ie4hbb8t 217 Call-ID: cdB34qLToC@terminal.example.com 218 CSeq: 1 SUBSCRIBE 219 Contact: 220 Event: presence 221 Expires: 7200 222 Supported: eventlist 223 Accept: application/cpim-pidf+xml 224 Accept: application/rlmi+xml 225 Accept: multipart/related 226 Accept: multipart/signed 227 Accept: multipart/encrypted 228 Content-Type: application/resource-lists+xml 229 Content-Disposition: recipient-list 230 Content-Length: 337 232 233 235 236 237 238 239 240 242 Figure 2: SUBSCRIBE request 244 9. Security Considerations 246 The Security Considerations Section of [4] discusses security issues 247 related to resource list servers. Resource list servers accepting 248 request-contained URI-lists MUST also follow the security guidelines 249 given in [4]. 251 The Framework and Security Considerations for SIP URI-List Services 252 [5] discusses issues related to SIP URI-list services. Given that a 253 resource list server sending SUBSCRIBEs to a set of users acts as a 254 URI-list service, implementations of resource list servers that 255 handle request-contained URI-lists MUST follow the security-related 256 rules in [5]. These rules include mandatory authentication and 257 authorization of clients, and opt-in lists. 259 10. IANA Considerations 261 The document defines the "list-management" value for the purpose 262 parameter of the Call-Info header field. A reference to this RFC (in 263 double brackets) needs to be added to the purpose Call-Info parameter 264 entry in the SIP Parameters registry. 266 11. Acknowledges 268 Cullen Jennings and Jonathan Rosenberg provided useful comments on 269 this document. 271 12. References 273 12.1 Normative References 275 [1] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement 276 Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. 278 [2] Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., Camarillo, G., Johnston, A., 279 Peterson, J., Sparks, R., Handley, M. and E. Schooler, "SIP: 280 Session Initiation Protocol", RFC 3261, June 2002. 282 [3] Roach, A., "Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)-Specific Event 283 Notification", RFC 3265, June 2002. 285 [4] Roach, A., Rosenberg, J. and B. Campbell, "A Session Initiation 286 Protocol (SIP) Event Notification Extension for Resource 287 Lists", draft-ietf-simple-event-list-06 (work in progress), 288 October 2004. 290 [5] Camarillo, G., "Requirements and Framework for Session 291 Initiation Protocol (SIP)Uniform Resource Identifier (URI)-List 292 Services", draft-ietf-sipping-uri-services-01 (work in 293 progress), October 2004. 295 12.2 Informational References 297 [6] Rosenberg, J., "Extensible Markup Language (XML) Formats for 298 Representing Resource Lists", 299 draft-ietf-simple-xcap-list-usage-04 (work in progress), October 300 2004. 302 Authors' Addresses 304 Gonzalo Camarillo 305 Ericsson 306 Hirsalantie 11 307 Jorvas 02420 308 Finland 310 EMail: Gonzalo.Camarillo@ericsson.com 312 Adam Roach 313 Estacado Systems 315 EMail: adam@estacado.net 317 Orit Levin 318 Microsoft Corporation 319 One Microsoft Way 320 Redmond, WA 98052 322 EMail: oritl@microsoft.com 324 Intellectual Property Statement 326 The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any 327 Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to 328 pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in 329 this document or the extent to which any license under such rights 330 might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has 331 made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information 332 on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be 333 found in BCP 78 and BCP 79. 335 Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any 336 assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an 337 attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of 338 such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this 339 specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at 340 http://www.ietf.org/ipr. 342 The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any 343 copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary 344 rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement 345 this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at 346 ietf-ipr@ietf.org. 348 Disclaimer of Validity 350 This document and the information contained herein are provided on an 351 "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS 352 OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET 353 ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, 354 INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE 355 INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED 356 WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. 358 Copyright Statement 360 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). This document is subject 361 to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and 362 except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights. 364 Acknowledgment 366 Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the 367 Internet Society.