idnits 2.17.1 draft-saintandre-xmpp-pidf-01.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 16. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3978, Section 5.5 on line 229. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 1 on line 206. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 2 on line 213. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 3 on line 219. ** 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 == The page length should not exceed 58 lines per page, but there was 6 longer pages, the longest (page 5) being 67 lines == It seems as if not all pages are separated by form feeds - found 0 form feeds but 7 pages 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.) 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 (October 12, 2004) is 7128 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. 'XML' -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'XML-NAMES' ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 3920 (ref. 'XMPP-CORE') (Obsoleted by RFC 6120) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 3921 (ref. 'XMPP-IM') (Obsoleted by RFC 6121) == Outdated reference: A later version (-10) exists of draft-ietf-simple-rpid-03 Summary: 8 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 6 warnings (==), 9 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 Network Working Group P. Saint-Andre 2 Internet-Draft Jabber Software Foundation 3 Expires: April 12, 2005 October 12, 2004 5 Transporting Presence Information Data Format (PIDF) over the 6 Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP) 7 draft-saintandre-xmpp-pidf-01 9 Status of this Memo 11 This document is an Internet-Draft and is subject to all provisions 12 of section 3 of RFC 3667. By submitting this Internet-Draft, each 13 author represents that any applicable patent or other IPR claims of 14 which he or she is aware have been or will be disclosed, and any of 15 which he or she become aware will be disclosed, in accordance with 16 RFC 3668. 18 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 19 Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that 20 other groups may also distribute working documents as 21 Internet-Drafts. 23 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 24 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 25 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 26 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 28 The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at 29 http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. 31 The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at 32 http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. 34 This Internet-Draft will expire on April 12, 2005. 36 Copyright Notice 38 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). 40 Abstract 42 This document defines how to send information encoded in the CPIM 43 Presence Information Data Format (PIDF) over the Extensible Messaging 44 and Presence Protocol (XMPP). 46 Table of Contents 48 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 49 2. Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 50 3. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 51 4. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 52 4.1 Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 53 4.2 Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 54 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 55 Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . 7 57 1. Introduction 59 1.1 Overview 61 The Presence Information Data Format ([PIDF]) defines a common data 62 format for presence protocols that conform to the Common Profile for 63 Presence ([CPP]), enabling presence information to be transferred 64 across CPP-compliant protocol boundaries without modification, with 65 attendant benefits for security and performance. Because the syntax 66 for PIDF is Extensible Markup Language [XML], it should be 67 straightforward to send PIDF data over the Extensible Messaging and 68 Presence Protocol (XMPP) [XMPP-CORE], since XMPP is simply an XML 69 streaming protocol. This memo defines a mechanism for encapsulating 70 PIDF data within an "extended namespace" contained in an XMPP 71 presence stanza. 73 1.2 Terminology 75 This document inherits terminology defined in [PIDF], [XMPP-CORE], 76 and [XMPP-IM]. 78 The capitalized key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", 79 "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and 80 "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 81 2119 [TERMS]. 83 2. Protocol 85 The PIDF format is defined in [PIDF]. Briefly, the XML namespace 86 name is 'urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:pidf', the root element is , the element must possess an 'entity' attribute, and 88 the element may contain any number of child 89 elements specifying information about an entity. 91 The recommended method for encapsulating PIDF data within an XMPP 92 presence stanza is by including the PIDF element as a 93 child of the XMPP stanza. Although it may appear that 94 this is potentially confusing, the inclusion of the 95 'urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:pidf' namespace ensures that PIDF data is 96 kept separate from XMPP presence data (in accordance with 97 [XML-NAMES]). The following is a simple example of encapsulating 98 PIDF data within an "extended namespace" in XMPP: 100 A basic example of PIDF over XMPP: 102 103 dnd 104 Wooing Juliet 105 107 108 109 open 110 111 112 113 115 Because base PIDF data does not encapsulate any additional 116 information over and above XMPP presence stanzas, there is little 117 point to including it in native XMPP systems when it is not encrypted 118 (obviously, encrypting PIDF data can help to ensure end-to-end 119 encryption of presence information, as described in [XMPP-E2E]). The 120 power of PIDF in the context of XMPP derives from PIDF extensions, 121 such as the rich presence formats described in [RPID] and the 122 geographical location formats described in [GEOLOC]. Any such 123 extension to PIDF can be included in an XMPP presence stanza, since, 124 according to the definition of "extended namespaces" in [XMPP-IM], 125 the format of such extended data is defined by the extension rather 126 than by the base XMPP specification itself. Thus the ability to 127 include PIDF data and PIDF data extensions in XMPP enables XMPP-aware 128 applications to include any PIDF-compatible data that is currently 129 defined or that may be defined in the future. Naturally, there is no 130 guarantee that all XMPP entities will be able to understand such PIDF 131 data, and entities that do not understand the data MUST ignore it (in 132 accordance with [XMPP-CORE]). However, this memo at least defines a 133 mechanism for including PIDF data, which XMPP applications are 134 encouraged to implement if they desire to make use of PIDF data 135 extensions for rich presence, geographical location, and other kinds 136 of presence-related information. 138 3. Security Considerations 140 This memo introduces no new security considersations above and beyond 141 those provided for PIDF in [PIDF] and for XMPP in [XMPP-CORE]. 143 4. References 145 4.1 Normative References 147 [CPP] Peterson, J., "Common Profile for Presence (CPP)", RFC 148 3859, August 2004. 150 [PIDF] Sugano, H., Fujimoto, S., Klyne, G., Bateman, A., Carr, W. 151 and J. Peterson, "Presence Information Data Format 152 (PIDF)", RFC 3863, August 2004. 154 [TERMS] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 155 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. 157 [XML] Bray, T., Paoli, J., Sperberg-McQueen, C. and E. Maler, 158 "Extensible Markup Language (XML) 1.0 (2nd ed)", W3C 159 REC-xml, October 2000, . 161 [XML-NAMES] 162 Bray, T., Hollander, D. and A. Layman, "Namespaces in 163 XML", W3C REC-xml-names, January 1999, 164 . 166 [XMPP-CORE] 167 Saint-Andre, P., "Extensible Messaging and Presence 168 Protocol (XMPP): Core", RFC 3920, October 2004. 170 [XMPP-E2E] 171 Saint-Andre, P., "End-to-End Signing and Object Encryption 172 for the Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol 173 (XMPP)", RFC 3923, October 2004. 175 [XMPP-IM] Saint-Andre, P., "Extensible Messaging and Presence 176 Protocol (XMPP): Instant Messaging and Presence", RFC 177 3921, October 2004. 179 4.2 Informative References 181 [GEOLOC] Peterson, J., "A Presence-based GEOPRIV Location Object 182 Format", draft-ietf-geopriv-pidf-lo-03 (work in progress), 183 September 2004. 185 [RPID] Schulzrinne, H., Gurbani, V., Kyzivat, P. and J. Rosenberg, 186 "RPID: Rich Presence Extensions to the Presence Information 187 Data Format (PIDF)", draft-ietf-simple-rpid-03 (work in 188 progress), March 2004. 190 Author's Address 192 Peter Saint-Andre 193 Jabber Software Foundation 195 EMail: stpeter@jabber.org 197 Intellectual Property Statement 199 The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any 200 Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to 201 pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in 202 this document or the extent to which any license under such rights 203 might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has 204 made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information 205 on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be 206 found in BCP 78 and BCP 79. 208 Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any 209 assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an 210 attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of 211 such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this 212 specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at 213 http://www.ietf.org/ipr. 215 The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any 216 copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary 217 rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement 218 this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at 219 ietf-ipr@ietf.org. 221 Disclaimer of Validity 223 This document and the information contained herein are provided on an 224 "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS 225 OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET 226 ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, 227 INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE 228 INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED 229 WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. 231 Copyright Statement 233 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). This document is subject 234 to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and 235 except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights. 237 Acknowledgment 239 Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the 240 Internet Society.