[Docs] [txt|pdf] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: (draft-ietf-simple-presencelist-package) 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 RFC 4662

Network Working Group                                        A. B. Roach
Internet-Draft                                               B. Campbell
Expires: June 15, 2005                                  Estacado Systems
                                                            J. Rosenberg
                                                           Cisco Systems
                                                       December 15, 2004


  A Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Event Notification Extension for
                             Resource Lists
                    draft-ietf-simple-event-list-07

Status of this Memo

   This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
   all provisions of Section 4 of RFC3667.  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 become aware will be disclosed, in
   accordance with RFC 3668.

   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 June 15, 2005.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004).

Abstract

   This document presents an extension to the Session Initiation
   Protocol (SIP)-Specific Event Notification mechanism for subscribing
   to a homogeneous list of resources.  Instead of the subscriber
   sending a SUBSCRIBE for each resource individually, the subscriber



Roach, et al.            Expires June 15, 2005                  [Page 1]

Internet-Draft              SIP Event Lists                December 2004


   can subscribe to an entire list, and then receive notifications when
   the state of any of the resources in the list changes.

Table of Contents

   1.    Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   2.    Terminology  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
   3.    Overview of Operation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
   4.    Operation of List Subscriptions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
   4.1   Negotiation of Support for Resource Lists  . . . . . . . . .  7
   4.2   Subscription Duration  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
   4.3   NOTIFY Bodies  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
   4.4   RLS Processing of SUBSCRIBE Requests . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
   4.5   RLS Generation of NOTIFY requests  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
   4.6   Subscriber Processing of NOTIFY Requests . . . . . . . . . . 10
   4.7   Handling of Forked Requests  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
   4.8   Rate of Notifications  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
   5.    Using multipart/related to Convey Aggregate State  . . . . . 13
   5.1   XML Syntax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
   5.2   List Attributes  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
   5.3   Resource Attributes  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
   5.4   Name Attributes  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
   5.5   Instance Attributes  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
   5.6   Constructing Coherent Resource State . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
   5.6.1 Processing Full State Notifications  . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
   5.6.2 Processing Partial State Notifications . . . . . . . . . . . 19
   6.    Example  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
   7.    Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
   7.1   Authentication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
   7.1.1 RLS and Subscriber in the Same Domain  . . . . . . . . . . . 34
   7.1.2 RLS and Subscriber in Different Domains  . . . . . . . . . . 35
   7.2   Risks of Improper Aggregation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
   7.3   Signing and Sealing  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
   7.4   Infinite Loops . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
   8.    IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
   8.1   New SIP Option Tag: eventlist  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
   8.2   New MIME type for Resource List Meta-Information . . . . . . 38
   8.3   URN Sub-Namespace  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
   9.    Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
         Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
         Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
         Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
   A.    Changes  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
   A.1   Changes since -06  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
   A.2   Changes since -05  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
   A.3   Changes since -04  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
   A.4   Changes since -03  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
   A.5   Changes since -02  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46



Roach, et al.            Expires June 15, 2005                  [Page 2]

Internet-Draft              SIP Event Lists                December 2004


   A.6   Changes since -01  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
   A.7   Changes since -00  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
   B.    Intellectual Property Statement  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
         Full Copyright Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48















































Roach, et al.            Expires June 15, 2005                  [Page 3]

Internet-Draft              SIP Event Lists                December 2004


1. Introduction

   The SIP-specific event notification mechanism [2] allows a user (the
   subscriber) to request to be notified of changes in the state of a
   particular resource.  This is accomplished by having the subscriber
   generate a SUBSCRIBE request for the resource, which is processed by
   a notifier that represents the resource.

   In many cases, a subscriber has a list of resources they are
   interested in.  Without some aggregating mechanism, this will require
   the subscriber generate a SUBSCRIBE request for each resource about
   which they want information.  For environments in which bandwidth is
   limited, such as wireless networks, subscribing to each resource
   individually is problematic.  Some specific problems are:

   o  Doing so generates substantial message traffic, in the form of the
      initial SUBSCRIBE requests for each resource, and the refreshes of
      each individual subscription.

   o  The notifier may insist on low refresh intervals, in order to
      avoid long lived subscription state.  This means that the
      subscriber may need to generate SUBSCRIBE refreshes faster than it
      would like to, or has the capacity to.

   o  The notifier may generate NOTIFY requests more rapidly than the
      subscriber desires, causing NOTIFY traffic at a greater volume
      than is desired by the subscriber.

   To solve these problems, this specification defines an extension to
   RFC 3265 [2] that allows for requesting and conveying notifications
   for lists of resources.  A resource list is identified by a URI and
   it represents a list of zero or more URIs.  Each of these URIs is an
   identifier for an individual resource for which the subscriber wants
   to receive information.  In many cases, the URI used to identify the
   resource list will be a SIP URI [1]; however, the use of other
   schemes (such as pres: [10]) is also foreseen.

   The notifier for the list is called a "resource list server", or RLS.
   In order to determine the state of the entire list, the RLS will act
   as if it has generated a subscription to each resource in the list.

   The resource list is not restricted to be inside the domain of the
   subscriber.  Similarly, the resources in the list are not constrained
   to be in the domain of the resource list server.







Roach, et al.            Expires June 15, 2005                  [Page 4]

Internet-Draft              SIP Event Lists                December 2004


2. Terminology

   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 RFC 2119 [5].

   The following terms are used throughout the remainder of this
   document.

   Back-End Subscription: Any subscription (SIP or otherwise) that an
      RLS creates to learn of the state of a resource.  An RLS will
      create back-end subscriptions to learn of the state of a resource
      about which the RLS is not an authority.  For back-end
      subscriptions, RLSes act as a subscriber.

   List Subscription: A subscription to a resource list.  In list
      subscriptions, RLSes act a the notifier.

   Resource: A resource is any logical entity that has a state or states
      that can be subscribed to.  Resources are identified by URIs.

   Resource List: A list of zero or more resources that can have their
      individual states subscribed to with a single subscription.

   RLMI: Resource List Meta-Information.  RLMI is a document that
      describes the state of the virtual subscriptions associated with a
      list subscription.

   RLS: Resource List Server.  RLSes accept subscriptions to resource
      lists and send notifications to update subscribers of the state of
      the resources in a resource list.

   Virtual Subscription: Virtual Subscriptions are a logical construct
      within an RLS that represent subscriptions to the resources in a
      resource list.  For each list subscription it services, an RLS
      creates at least one virtual subscription for every resource in
      the resource list being subscribed to.  In some cases, such as
      when the RLS is not the authority for the state of the resource,
      this virtual subscription will be associated with a back-end
      subscription.  In other cases, such as when the RLS is the
      authority for the state of the resource, the virtual subscription
      will not have a corresponding back-end subscription.









Roach, et al.            Expires June 15, 2005                  [Page 5]

Internet-Draft              SIP Event Lists                December 2004


3. Overview of Operation

   This section provides an overview of the typical mode of operation of
   this extension.  It is not normative.

   When users wish to subscribe to the resource of a list of resources,
   they can use the mechanisms described in this specification.  The
   first step is creation of a resource list.  This resource list is
   represented by a SIP URI.  The list contains a set of URIs, each of
   which represents a resource for which the subscriber wants to receive
   information.  The resource list can exist in any domain.  The list
   could be manipulated through a web page, through a voice response
   system, or through some other protocol.  The specific means by which
   the list is created and maintained is outside of the scope of this
   specification.

   To learn the resource state of the set of elements on the list, the
   user sends a single SUBSCRIBE request targeted to the URI of the
   list.  This will be routed to an RLS for that URI.  The RLS acts as a
   notifier, authenticates the subscriber, and accepts the subscription.

   The RLS may have direct information about some or all of the
   resources specified by the list.  If it does not, it could subscribe
   to any non-local resources specified by the list resource.

   Note that subscriptions to non-local resources may or may not be SIP
   subscriptions; any mechanism for determining such information may be
   employed.  This document uses the term "back-end subscription" to
   refer to such a subscription, regardless of whether SIP is used to
   establish and service it.

   As the state of resources in the list change, the RLS generates
   notifications to the list subscribers.  The RLS can, at its
   discretion, buffer notifications of resource changes, and send the
   resource information to the subscriber in batches, rather than
   individually.  This allows the RLS to provide rate limiting for the
   subscriber.

   The list notifications contain a body of type multipart/related.  The
   root section of the multipart/related content is an XML document that
   provides meta-information about each resource present in the list.
   The remaining sections contain the actual state information for each
   resource.








Roach, et al.            Expires June 15, 2005                  [Page 6]

Internet-Draft              SIP Event Lists                December 2004


4. Operation of List Subscriptions

   The event list extension acts, in many ways, like an event template
   package.  In particular, any single list subscription must be
   homogeneous with respect to the underlying event package.  In other
   words, a single list subscription can apply only one event package to
   all of the resources in the resource list.

   It is worth noting that it is perfectly valid, for an RLS to allow
   multiple subscriptions to the same list to use differing event
   packages.

   The key difference between a list subscription and templates in
   general is that support for list subscriptions indicates support for
   arbitrary nesting of list subscriptions.  In other words, elements
   within the list may be atomic elements, or they may be lists
   themselves.

   The consequence of this is that subscription to a URI that represents
   a list actually results in a several virtual subscriptions to a tree
   of resources.  The leaf nodes of this tree are virtual subscriptions
   of the event type given in the "Event" header field; all other nodes
   in the tree are list subscriptions that are serviced as described in
   this section and its subsections.

   It is important to keep in mind that these virtual subscriptions are
   not literal SIP subscriptions (although they may result in SIP
   subscriptions, depending on the RLS implementation).

4.1 Negotiation of Support for Resource Lists

   This specification uses the SIP option tag mechanism for negotiating
   support for the extension defined herein.  Refer to RFC3261 [1] for
   the normative description of processing of the "Supported" and
   "Require" header fields and the 421 (Extension Required) response
   code.

      A non-normative description of the implications of the use of
      option tags follows.

      Any client that supports the event list extension will include an
      option tag of "eventlist" in a "Supported" header field of every
      SUBSCRIBE message for a subscription for which it is willing to
      process a list.  If the subscription is made to a URI that
      represents a list, the RLS will include "eventlist" in a "Require"
      header field of the response to the SUBSCRIBE, and in all NOTIFY
      messages within that subscription.




Roach, et al.            Expires June 15, 2005                  [Page 7]

Internet-Draft              SIP Event Lists                December 2004


      Use of "Require: eventlist" in NOTIFY messages is applied by the
      notifier to satisfy the RFC3261 requirement that a UAC MUST insert
      a Require header field into a request if the UAC wishes to insist
      that a UAS understand an extension in order to process the
      request.  Because the NOTIFY would not be usable without applying
      the eventlist option, the notifier is obligated to include it.

   Including "eventlist" in a "Require" header field in a SUBSCRIBE
   request serves no purpose except breaking interoperability in certain
   cases, and is consequently NOT RECOMMENDED.

   Sending of "Supported: eventlist" in a NOTIFY message is meaningless
   and silly.  Implementations SHOULD NOT include "Supported: eventlist"
   in any requests except for SUBSCRIBE.

   There is nothing in a SIP URI which indicates whether it represents a
   list of resources or a single resource.  Therefore, if a subscriber
   sends a request to a URI that represents a list resource, but does
   not include a Supported header field listing the "eventlist" token,
   the notifier will typically return a 421 (Extension Required)
   response code.  RFC 3261 [1] advises servers to avoid returning a
   421, and instead, attempt to process the request without the
   extension.  However, in this case, the URI fundamentally represents a
   list resource, and therefore, the subscription cannot proceed without
   this extension.

4.2 Subscription Duration

   Since the primary benefit of the resource list server is to reduce
   the overall messaging volume to a subscriber, it is RECOMMENDED that
   the subscription duration to a list be reasonably long.  The default,
   when no duration is specified, is taken from the underlying event
   package.  Of course, the standard techniques [2] can be used to
   increase or reduce this amount.

4.3 NOTIFY Bodies

   An implementation compliant to this specification MUST support the
   multipart/related and application/rlmi+xml MIME types.  These types
   MUST be included in an Accept header sent in SUBSCRIBE message, in
   addition to any other types supported by the client (including any
   types required by the event package being used).

4.4 RLS Processing of SUBSCRIBE Requests

   Once the subscriber is authenticated, the RLS performs authorization
   per its local policy.  In many cases, each resource list is
   associated with a particular user (the one who created it and manages



Roach, et al.            Expires June 15, 2005                  [Page 8]

Internet-Draft              SIP Event Lists                December 2004


   the set of elements in it), and only that user will be allowed to
   subscribe.  Of course, this mode of operation is not inherent in the
   use of resource lists, and an RLS can use any authorization policy it
   chooses.

4.5 RLS Generation of NOTIFY requests

   This specification leaves the choice about how and when to generate
   NOTIFY requests at the discretion of the implementor.  One of the
   value propositions of the RLS is the means by which it aggregates,
   rate limits, or optimizes the way in which notifications are
   generated.  As a baseline behavior, the RLS MAY generate a NOTIFY to
   the RLS subscriber whenever the state of any resource on the list
   changes.

   It is important to understand that any given subscription is a
   subscription to either a single resource, or to a list of resources.
   This nature (single resource versus list of resources) cannot change
   during the duration of a single subscription.  In particular, this
   means that RLSes MUST NOT send NOTIFY messages which do not contain
   RLMI for a subscription if they have previously sent NOTIFY messages
   in that subscription containing RLMI.  Similarly, RLSes MUST NOT send
   NOTIFY messages which do contain RLMI for a subscription if they have
   previously sent NOTIFY messages in that subscription which do not.

      List representations necessarily contain RLMI documents for two
      reasons.  Importantly, they identify the resource to which event
      state corresponds.  Many state syntaxes do not fully identify the
      resource to which the state applies, or may identify the resource
      in a different way than it is represented in the list; for
      example, PIDF documents may contain resource URIs which are not
      identical to the URI used to retrieve them.  Further, RLMI
      documents serve to disambiguate multiple instances of a single
      resource.

   See Section 5 for a detailed definition of the syntax used to convey
   the state of resource lists.  For the purposes of the following
   discussion, it is important to know that the overall list contains
   zero or more resources, and that the resources contains zero or more
   instances.  Each instance has a state associated with it (pending,
   active, or terminating), representing the state of the virtual
   subscription.

   Notifications contain a multipart document, the first part of which
   always contains meta-information about the list (e.g.  membership,
   state of the virtual subscription to the resource).  Remaining parts
   are used to convey the actual state of the resources listed in the
   meta-information.



Roach, et al.            Expires June 15, 2005                  [Page 9]

Internet-Draft              SIP Event Lists                December 2004


   The "state" attribute of each instance of a resource in the meta-
   information is set according to the state of the virtual
   subscription.  The meanings of the "state" attribute are described in
   RFC 3265 [2].

   If an instance of a resource was previously reported to the
   subscriber but is no longer available (i.e.  the virtual subscription
   to that instance has been terminated), the resource list server
   SHOULD include that resource instance in the meta-information in the
   first NOTIFY message sent to the subscriber following the instance's
   unavailability.  The RLS MAY continue to do so for future
   notifications.

   When sending information for a terminated resource instance, the RLS
   indicates a state of "terminated" and an appropriate reason value.
   Valid reason values and their meanings are described in RFC 3265 [2].
   If the RLS will attempt to recover the resource state again at some
   point in the future (e.g.  when the reason in the meta-information is
   "probation"), then the instance of the resource SHOULD remain in the
   meta-information until the instance state is available, or until the
   RLS gives up on making such state available.

   When the first SUBSCRIBE message for a particular subscription is
   received by a RLS, the RLS will often not know state information for
   all of the resources specified by the resource list.  For any
   resource for which state information is not known, the corresponding
   "uri" attribute will be set appropriately, and no <instance> elements
   will be present for the resource.

   For an initial notification, sections corresponding to resources for
   which the RLS does have state will be populated with appropriate data
   (subject, of course, to local policy decisions).  This will often
   occur if the resource list server is co-located with the server for
   one or more of the resources specified on the list.

   Immediate notifications triggered as a result of subsequent SUBSCRIBE
   messages SHOULD include an RLMI document with full state indicated.
   The RLS SHOULD also include state information for all resources in
   the list for which the RLS has state, subject to policy restrictions.
   This allows the subscriber to refresh their state, and to recover
   from lost notifications.

4.6 Subscriber Processing of NOTIFY Requests

   Notifications for a resource list can convey information about a
   subset of the list elements.  This means that an explicit algorithm
   needs to be defined in order to construct coherent and consistent
   state.



Roach, et al.            Expires June 15, 2005                 [Page 10]

Internet-Draft              SIP Event Lists                December 2004


   The XML document present in the root of the multipart/related
   document contains a <resource> element for some or all of the
   resources in the list.  Each <resource> element contains a URI which
   uniquely identifies the resource to which that section corresponds.
   When a NOTIFY arrives, it can contain full or partial state (as
   indicated by the "fullState" attribute of the top-level <list>
   element).  If full state is indicated, then the recipient replaces
   all state associated with the list with the entities in the NOTIFY
   body.  If full state is not indicated, the recipient of the NOTIFY
   updates information for each identified resource.  Information for
   any resources that are not identified in the NOTIFY are not changed,
   even if they were indicated in previous NOTIFY messages.  See Section
   5.6 for more information.

      When full state is indicated, note that it applies only to the
      RLMI document in which it occurs.  In particular, one of the
      <resource> elements in the document may in turn refer to another
      list of resources.  Any such sub-lists will be detailed in their
      own RLMI documents, which may or may not have full state
      indicated.

      Further note that underlying event package may have its own rules
      for compositing partial state notification.  When processing data
      related to those packages, their rules apply (i.e.  the fact that
      they were reported as part of a list does not change their partial
      notification semantics).

      Finally, note that a consequence of the way in which resource list
      subscriptions work is that polling of resource state may not be
      particularly useful.  While such polls will retrieve the resource
      list, they will not necessarily contain state for some or all of
      the resources on the list.


4.7 Handling of Forked Requests

   Forking makes little sense with subscriptions to event lists, since
   the whole idea is a centralization of the source of notifications.
   Therefore, a subscriber to a list MUST NOT install multiple
   subscriptions when the initial request is forked.  If multiple
   responses are received, they are handled using the techniques
   described in section 4.4.9 of RFC 3265[2].

4.8 Rate of Notifications

   One potential role of the RLS is to perform rate limitations on
   behalf of the subscriber.  As such, this specification does not
   mandate any particular rate limitation, and rather leaves that to the



Roach, et al.            Expires June 15, 2005                 [Page 11]

Internet-Draft              SIP Event Lists                December 2004


   discretion of the implementation.


















































Roach, et al.            Expires June 15, 2005                 [Page 12]

Internet-Draft              SIP Event Lists                December 2004


5. Using multipart/related to Convey Aggregate State

   In order to convey the state of multiple resources, the list
   extension uses the "multipart/related" mime type.  The syntax for
   multipart/related is defined in "The MIME Multipart/Related Content-
   type" [4].

5.1 XML Syntax

   The root document of the multipart/related body MUST be a Resource
   List Meta-Information (RLMI) document.  It is of type "application/
   rlmi+xml".  This document contains the meta-information for the
   resources contained in the notification.  The schema for this XML
   document is given below.


   <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
   <xs:schema targetNamespace="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:rlmi"
              elementFormDefault="qualified"
              xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:rlmi"
              xmlns:xs="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema">
     <xs:element name="list">
       <xs:complexType>
         <xs:sequence>
           <xs:element ref="name" minOccurs="0"
                       maxOccurs="unbounded" />
           <xs:element ref="resource" minOccurs="0"
                       maxOccurs="unbounded" />
         </xs:sequence>
         <xs:attribute name="uri" type="xs:anyURI" use="required" />
         <xs:attribute name="version" type="xs:unsignedInt"
                       use="required" />
         <xs:attribute name="fullState" type="xs:boolean"
                       use="required" />
         <xs:attribute name="cid" type="xs:string" use="optional" />
         <xs:anyAttribute />
       </xs:complexType>
     </xs:element>
     <xs:element name="resource">
       <xs:complexType>
         <xs:sequence>
           <xs:element ref="name" minOccurs="0"
                       maxOccurs="unbounded" />
           <xs:element ref="instance" minOccurs="0"
                       maxOccurs="unbounded" />
         </xs:sequence>
         <xs:attribute name="uri" type="xs:anyURI" use="required" />
         <xs:anyAttribute />



Roach, et al.            Expires June 15, 2005                 [Page 13]

Internet-Draft              SIP Event Lists                December 2004


       </xs:complexType>
     </xs:element>
     <xs:element name="instance">
       <xs:complexType>
         <xs:sequence>
           <xs:any minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="unbounded" />
         </xs:sequence>
         <xs:attribute name="id" type="xs:string" use="required" />
         <xs:attribute name="state" use="required">
           <xs:restriction base="xs:string">
             <xs:enumeration value="active" />
             <xs:enumeration value="pending" />
             <xs:enumeration value="terminated" />
           </xs:restriction>
         </xs:attribute>
         <xs:attribute name="reason" type="xs:string"
                       use="optional" />
         <xs:attribute name="cid" type="xs:string" use="optional" />
         <xs:anyAttribute />
       </xs:complexType>
     </xs:element>
     <xs:element name="name">
       <xs:complexType>
         <xs:simpleContent>
           <xs:extension base="xs:string">
             <xs:attribute name="language" type="xs:string"
                           use="optional" />
           </xs:extension">
         </xs:simpleContent>
       </xs:complexType>
     </xs:element>
   </xs:schema>


   An example of a document formatted using this schema follows.
















Roach, et al.            Expires June 15, 2005                 [Page 14]

Internet-Draft              SIP Event Lists                December 2004


   <?xml version="1.0"?>
   <list xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:rlmi"
         uri="sip:adam-friends@lists.vancouver.example.com"
         version="7" fullState="true">
     <name language="en">Buddy List</name>
     <name language="fr">Liste d'amis</name>
     <resource uri="sip:bob@vancouver.example.com>
       <name>Bob Smith</name>
       <instance id="juwigmtboe" state="active"
                 cid="12345.aaa@vancouver.example.com"/>
     </resource>
     <resource uri="sip:dave@vancouver.example.com">
       <name>Dave Jones</name>
       <instance id="hqzsuxtfyq" state="active"
                 cid="12345.aab@vancouver.example.com"/>
     </resource>
     <resource uri="sip:jim@vancouver.example.com">
       <name>Jim</name>
       <instance id="oflzxqzuvg" state="terminated"
                 reason="rejected" />
     </resource>
     <resource uri="sip:ed@vancouver.example.com">
       <name>Ed</name>
       <instance id="grqhzsppxb" state="pending"/>
     </resource>
   </list>


5.2 List Attributes

   The <list> element present in a list notification MUST contain three
   attributes.

   The first mandatory <list> attribute is "uri", which contains the uri
   that corresponds to the list.  Typically, this is the URI to which
   the SUBSCRIBE request was sent.

   The second mandatory <list> attribute is "version", which contains a
   number from 0 to 2^32-1.  This version number MUST be 0 for the first
   NOTIFY message sent within a subscription, and MUST increase by
   exactly one for each subsequent NOTIFY sent within a subscription.

   The third mandatory attribute is "fullState".  The "fullState"
   attribute indicates whether the NOTIFY message contains information
   for every resource in the list.  If it does, the value of the
   attribute is "true" (or "1"); otherwise, it is "false" (or "0").  The
   first NOTIFY sent in a subscription MUST contain full state, as must
   the first NOTIFY sent after receipt of a SUBSCRIBE request for the



Roach, et al.            Expires June 15, 2005                 [Page 15]

Internet-Draft              SIP Event Lists                December 2004


   subscription.

   Finally, <list> elements MAY contain a "cid" attribute.  If present,
   the "cid" attribute identifies a section within the multipart/related
   body that contains aggregate state information for the resources
   contained in the list.  The definition of such aggregate information
   is outside the scope of this document, and will be defined on a per-
   package basis as needed.  The cid attribute is the Content-ID for the
   corresponding section in the multipart body.

   The cid attribute MUST refer only to top-level parts of the
   multipart/related document for which the RLMI document in which it
   appears is the root.  See Section 5.5 for an example.

5.3 Resource Attributes

   The resource list contains one <resource> element for each resource
   being reported in the notification.  These resource elements contain
   attributes that identify meta-data associated with each resource.

   The "uri" attribute identifies the resource to which the <resource>
   element corresponds.  Typically, this will be a SIP URI which, if
   subscribed to, would return the state of the resource.  This
   attribute MUST be present.

5.4 Name Attributes

   Each list and resource element contains zero or more name elements.
   These name elements contain human readable descriptions or names for
   the resource list or resource.  The contents of these elements are
   somewhat analogous to the "Display Name" present in the SIP name-addr
   element.

   Name elements contain an optional attribute, called "language".  The
   "language" attribute, if present, specifies the language of the
   human-readable name.  If this attribute is present, is MUST contain a
   valid language tag.  Language tags are defined in RFC 1766 [6].  The
   language tag assists applications in determining which of potentially
   several name elements should be rendered to the user.

5.5 Instance Attributes

   Each resource element contains zero or more instance elements.  These
   instance elements are used to represent a single notifier for the
   resource.  For event packages that allow forking, multiple virtual
   subscriptions may exist for a given resource.  Multiple virtual
   subscriptions are represented as multiple instance elements in the
   corresponding resource element.  For subscriptions in which forking



Roach, et al.            Expires June 15, 2005                 [Page 16]

Internet-Draft              SIP Event Lists                December 2004


   does not occur, at most one instance will be present for a given
   resource.

   The "id" attribute contains an opaque string used to uniquely
   identify the instance of the resource.  The "id" attribute is unique
   only within the context of a resource.  Construction of this string
   is an implementation decision.  Any mechanism for generating this
   string is valid, as long as uniqueness within the resource is
   assured.

   The "state" attribute contains the subscription state for the
   identified instance of the resource.  This attribute contains one of
   the values "active", "pending", or "terminated".  The meanings for
   these values are as defined for the "Subscription-State" header field
   in RFC 3265 [2].

   If the "state" attribute indicates "terminated", then a "reason"
   attribute MUST also be present.  This "reason" attribute has the same
   values and meanings as given for the "reason" parameter on the
   "Subscription-State" header field in RFC 3265 [2].  Note that the
   "reason" attribute is included for informational purposes; the list
   subscriber is not expected to take any automated actions based on the
   reason value.

   Finally, the "cid" attribute, which MUST be present if the "state"
   attribute is "active", identifies the section within the multipart/
   related body that contains the actual resource state.  This state is
   expressed in the content type defined by the event package for
   conveying state.  The cid attribute is the Content-ID for the
   corresponding section in the multipart body.

   The cid attribute MUST refer only to top-level parts of the
   multipart/related document for which the RLMI document in which it
   appears is the root.

      For example, consider a multipart/related document containing
      three parts; we'll label these parts A, B, and C.  Part A is type
      application/rlmi+xml, part B is type multipart/related, and part C
      is type application/pidf+xml.  Part B is in turn a document
      containing three parts: D, E, and F.  Part D is of type
      application/rlmi+xml, and parts E and F are of type application/
      pidf+xml.









Roach, et al.            Expires June 15, 2005                 [Page 17]

Internet-Draft              SIP Event Lists                December 2004


       +-------------------------------------------+
       | Top Level Document: multipart/related     |
       |                                           |
       | +---------------------------------------+ |
       | | Part A: application/rlmi+xml          | |
       | +---------------------------------------+ |
       | | Part B: multipart/related             | |
       | |                                       | |
       | | +-----------------------------------+ | |
       | | | Part D: application/rlmi+xml      | | |
       | | +-----------------------------------+ | |
       | | | Part E: application/pidf+xml      | | |
       | | +-----------------------------------+ | |
       | | | Part F: application/pidf+xml      | | |
       | | +-----------------------------------+ | |
       | |                                       | |
       | +---------------------------------------+ |
       | | Part C: application/pidf+xml          | |
       | +---------------------------------------+ |
       |                                           |
       +-------------------------------------------+

      Any "cid" attributes in document A must refer only to parts B or
      C.  Referring to parts D, E, or F would be illegal.  Similarly,
      Any "cid" attributes in document D must refer only to parts E or
      F.  Referring to any other parts would be illegal.

      Also note that the subscription durations of any back-end
      subscriptions are not propagated into the meta-information state
      in any way.


5.6 Constructing Coherent Resource State

   The resource list subscriber maintains a table for each resource
   list.  The table contains a row for each resource in the resource
   list.  Each row is indexed by the URI for that resource.  That URI is
   obtained from the "uri" attribute on each <resource> element.  The
   contents of each row contain the state of that resource as conveyed
   in the resource document.

   For resources that provide versioning information (which is mandated
   by [2] for any formats that allow partial notification), each row
   also contains a resource state version number.  The version number of
   the row is initialized with the version specified in the first
   document received, as defined by the corresponding event package.
   This value is used when comparing versions of partial notifications
   for a resource.



Roach, et al.            Expires June 15, 2005                 [Page 18]

Internet-Draft              SIP Event Lists                December 2004


   The processing of the resource list notification depends on whether
   it contains full or partial state.

5.6.1 Processing Full State Notifications

   If a notification contains full state, indicated by the <list>
   attribute "fullState" set to "true", the notification is used to
   update the table.  A check is first made to ensure that the "version"
   attribute of the <list> attribute in the received message is greater
   than the local version number.  If not, the received document is
   discarded without any further processing.  Otherwise, the contents of
   the resource-list table are flushed, and repopulated from the
   contents of the document.  A new row in the table is created for each
   "resource" element.

5.6.2 Processing Partial State Notifications

   If a notification contains partial state, indicated by the <list>
   attribute "fullState" set to "false", a check is made to ensure that
   no list notifications have been lost.  The value of the local version
   number (the "version" attribute of the <list> element) is compared to
   the version number of the new document.

   o  If the value in the new document is exactly one higher than the
      local version number, the local version number is increased by
      one, and the document is processed, as described below.

   o  If the version in the document is more than one higher than the
      local version number, the local version number is set to the value
      in the new document, and the document is processed as described
      below.  The list subscriber SHOULD also generate a refresh request
      to trigger a full state notification.

   o  If the version in the document is less than or equal to the local
      version, the document is discarded without any further processing.

   For each resource listed in the document, the subscriber checks to
   see whether a row exists for that resource.  This check is done by
   comparing the Resource-URI value with the URI associated with the
   row.  If the resource doesn't exist in the table, a row is added, and
   its state is set to the information from that "resource" element.  If
   the resource does exist, its state is updated to be the information
   from that "resource" element, as described in the definition of the
   event package.  If a row is updated or created such that its state is
   now "terminated," that entry MAY be removed from the table at any
   time.





Roach, et al.            Expires June 15, 2005                 [Page 19]

Internet-Draft              SIP Event Lists                December 2004


6. Example

   This section gives an example call flow.  It is not normative.  If a
   conflict arises between this call flow and the normative behavior
   described in this or any other document, the normative descriptions
   are to be followed.

   In this particular example, we request a subscription to a nested
   presence list.  The subscriber's address-of-record is
   "sip:adam@vancouver.example.com", and the name of the nested list
   resource that we are subscribing to is called "sip:adam-
   buddies@pres.vancouver.example.com".  The underlying event package is
   "presence", described by [8].

   In this example, the RLS has information to service some of the
   resources on the list, but must consult other servers to retrieve
   information for others.  The implementation of the RLS in this
   example uses the SIP SUBSCRIBE/NOTIFY mechanism to retrieve such
   information.

   Terminal   pres.vancouver.example.com   pres.stockholm.example.org
     |                |        pres.dallas.example.net  |
   1 |---SUBSCRIBE--->|                |                |
   2 |<-----200-------|                |                |
   3 |<----NOTIFY-----|                |                |
   4 |------200------>|                |                |
   5 |                |---SUBSCRIBE--->|                |
   6 |                |<-----200-------|                |
   7 |                |<----NOTIFY-----|                |
   8 |                |------200------>|                |
   9 |                |------------SUBSCRIBE----------->|
   10|                |<--------------200---------------|
   11|                |<-------------NOTIFY-------------|
   12|                |---------------200-------------->|
   13|<----NOTIFY-----|                |                |
   14|------200------>|                |                |

   1.   We initiate the subscription by sending a SUBSCRIBE message to
        our local RLS.  (There is no reason that the RLS we contact has
        to be in our domain, of course).  Note that we must advertise
        support for application/rlmi+xml and multipart/related because
        we support the eventlist extension, and we must advertise
        application/pidf+xml because we are requesting a subscription to
        presence.







Roach, et al.            Expires June 15, 2005                 [Page 20]

Internet-Draft              SIP Event Lists                December 2004


   Terminal -> Local RLS

   SUBSCRIBE sip:adam-buddies@pres.vancouver.example.com SIP/2.0
   Via: SIP/2.0/TCP terminal.vancouver.example.com;
     branch=z9hG4bKwYb6QREiCL
   Max-Forwards: 70
   To: <sip:adam-buddies@pres.vancouver.example.com>
   From: <sip:adam@vancouver.example.com>;tag=ie4hbb8t
   Call-ID: cdB34qLToC@terminal.vancouver.example.com
   CSeq: 322723822 SUBSCRIBE
   Contact: <sip:terminal.vancouver.example.com>
   Event: presence
   Expires: 7200
   Supported: eventlist
   Accept: application/pidf+xml
   Accept: application/rlmi+xml
   Accept: multipart/related
   Accept: multipart/signed
   Accept: application/pkcs7-mime
   Content-Length: 0



   2.   The Local RLS completes the SUBSCRIBE transaction.  Note that
        authentication and authorization would normally take place at
        this point in the call flow.  Those steps are omitted for
        brevity.

   Local RLS -> Terminal

   SIP/2.0 200 OK
   Via: SIP/2.0/TCP terminal.vancouver.example.com;
     branch=z9hG4bKwYb6QREiCL
   To: <sip:adam-buddies@pres.vancouver.example.com>;tag=zpNctbZq
   From: <sip:adam@vancouver.example.com>;tag=ie4hbb8t
   Call-ID: cdB34qLToC@terminal.vancouver.example.com
   CSeq: 322723822 SUBSCRIBE
   Contact: <sip:pres.vancouver.example.com>
   Expires: 7200
   Require: eventlist
   Content-Length: 0



   3.   As is required by RFC 3265 [2], the RLS sends a NOTIFY
        immediately upon accepting the subscription.  In this example,
        we are assuming that the local RLS is also an authority for
        presence information for the users in the



Roach, et al.            Expires June 15, 2005                 [Page 21]

Internet-Draft              SIP Event Lists                December 2004


        "vancouver.example.com" domain.  The NOTIFY contains an RLMI
        document describing the entire buddy list (initial notifies
        require full state), as well as presence information for the
        users about which it already knows.  Note that, since the RLS
        has not yet retrieved information for some of the entries on the
        list, those <resource> elements contain no <instance> elements.

   Local RLS -> Terminal

   NOTIFY sip:terminal.vancouver.example.com SIP/2.0
   Via: SIP/2.0/TCP pres.vancouver.example.com;
     branch=z9hG4bKMgRenTETmm
   Max-Forwards: 70
   From: <sip:adam-buddies@pres.vancouver.example.com>;tag=zpNctbZq
   To: <sip:adam@vancouver.example.com>;tag=ie4hbb8t
   Call-ID: cdB34qLToC@terminal.vancouver.example.com
   CSeq: 997935768 NOTIFY
   Contact: <sip:pres.vancouver.example.com>
   Event: presence
   Subscription-State: active;expires=7200
   Require: eventlist
   Content-Type: multipart/related;type="application/rlmi+xml";
       start="<nXYxAE@pres.vancouver.example.com>";
       boundary="50UBfW7LSCVLtggUPe5z"
   Content-Length: 1560

   --50UBfW7LSCVLtggUPe5z
   Content-Transfer-Encoding: binary
   Content-ID: <nXYxAE@pres.vancouver.example.com>
   Content-Type: application/rlmi+xml;charset="UTF-8"

   <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
   <list xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:rlmi"
         uri="sip:adam-friends@pres.vancouver.example.com"
         version="1" fullState="true">
     <name language="en">Buddy List at COM</name>
     <name language="de">Liste der Freunde an COM</name>
     <resource uri="sip:bob@vancouver.example.com"">
       <name>Bob Smith</name>
       <instance id="juwigmtboe" state="active"
                 cid="bUZBsM@pres.vancouver.example.com"/>
     </resource>
     <resource uri="sip:dave@vancouver.example.com">
       <name>Dave Jones</name>
       <instance id="hqzsuxtfyq" state="active"
                 cid="ZvSvkz@pres.vancouver.example.com"/>
     </resource>
     <resource uri="sip:ed@dallas.example.net">



Roach, et al.            Expires June 15, 2005                 [Page 22]

Internet-Draft              SIP Event Lists                December 2004


       <name>Ed at NET</name>
     </resource>
     <resource uri="sip:adam-friends@stockholm.example.org">
       <name language="en">My Friends at ORG</name>
       <name language="de">Meine Freunde an ORG</name>
     </resource>
   </list>

   --50UBfW7LSCVLtggUPe5z
   Content-Transfer-Encoding: binary
   Content-ID: <bUZBsM@pres.vancouver.example.com>
   Content-Type: application/pidf+xml;charset="UTF-8"

   <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
   <presence xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:pidf"
       entity="sip:bob@vancouver.example.com">
     <tuple id="sg89ae">
       <status>
         <basic>open</basic>
       </status>
       <contact priority="1.0">sip:bob@vancouver.example.com</contact>
     </tuple>
   </presence>

   --50UBfW7LSCVLtggUPe5z
   Content-Transfer-Encoding: binary
   Content-ID: <ZvSvkz@pres.vancouver.example.com>
   Content-Type: application/pidf+xml;charset="UTF-8"

   <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
   <presence xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:pidf"
       entity="sip:dave@vancouver.example.com">
     <tuple id="slie74">
       <status>
         <basic>closed</basic>
       </status>
     </tuple>
   </presence>

   --50UBfW7LSCVLtggUPe5z--



   4.   The terminal completes the transaction.







Roach, et al.            Expires June 15, 2005                 [Page 23]

Internet-Draft              SIP Event Lists                December 2004


   Terminal -> Local RLS

   SIP/2.0 200 OK
   Via: SIP/2.0/TCP pres.vancouver.example.com;
     branch=z9hG4bKMgRenTETmm
   From: <sip:adam-buddies@pres.vancouver.example.com>;tag=zpNctbZq
   To: <sip:adam@vancouver.example.com>;tag=ie4hbb8t
   Call-ID: cdB34qLToC@terminal.vancouver.example.com
   CSeq: 997935768 NOTIFY
   Contact: <sip:terminal.vancouver.example.com>
   Content-Length: 0



   5.   In order to service the subscription, the local RLS subscribes
        to the state of the resources.  In this step, the RLS attempts
        to subscribe to the presence state of the resource
        "sip:ed@dallas.example.net".  Since the local RLS knows how to
        receive notifications for list subscriptions, it includes the
        "Supported: eventlist" header field in its request.  Although
        the linkage between this subscription and the one sent by the
        terminal is left up to the application, this message
        demonstrates some reasonable behavior by including "Accept"
        header fields for all of the body types it knows the subscriber
        (Terminal) supports.  This is safe to do, since the local RLS
        will only pass these formats through to the subscriber, and does
        not need to actually understand them.
























Roach, et al.            Expires June 15, 2005                 [Page 24]

Internet-Draft              SIP Event Lists                December 2004


   Local RLS -> Presence Server in dallas.example.net

   SUBSCRIBE sip:ed@dallas.example.net SIP/2.0
   Via: SIP/2.0/TCP pres.vancouver.example.com;
     branch=z9hG4bKMEyGjdG1LH
   Max-Forwards: 70
   To: <sip:ed@dallas.example.net>
   From: <sip:adam@vancouver.example.com>;tag=aM5icQu9
   Call-ID: Ugwz5ARxNw@pres.vancouver.example.com
   CSeq: 870936068 SUBSCRIBE
   Contact: <sip:pres.vancouver.example.com>
   Identity: Tm8sIHRoaXMgaXNuJ3QgYSByZWFsIGNlcnQuIFlvdSBvn
             Zpb3VzbHkgaGF2ZSB0aW1lIHRvIGtpbGwuIEkKc3VnZ2V
             zdCBodHRwOi8vd3d3LmhvbWVzdGFycnVubmVyLmNvbS8K
   Identity-Info: https://vancouver.example.com/cert
   Event: presence
   Expires: 3600
   Supported: eventlist
   Accept: application/pidf+xml
   Accept: application/rlmi+xml
   Accept: multipart/related
   Accept: multipart/signed
   Accept: application/pkcs7-mime
   Content-Length: 0



   6.   The Presence Server in dallas.example.net completes the
        SUBSCRIBE transaction.  Note that authentication would normally
        take place at this point in the call flow.  Those steps are
        omitted for brevity.

   Presence Server in dallas.example.net -> Local RLS

   SIP/2.0 200 OK
   Via: SIP/2.0/TCP pres.vancouver.example.com;
     branch=z9hG4bKMEyGjdG1LH
   To: <sip:ed@dallas.example.net>;tag=e45TmHTh
   From: <sip:adam@vancouver.example.com>;tag=aM5icQu9
   Call-ID: Ugwz5ARxNw@pres.vancouver.example.com
   CSeq: 870936068 SUBSCRIBE
   Contact: <sip:dallas.example.net>
   Expires: 3600
   Content-Length: 0



   7.   In this example, we assume that the server at dallas.example.net



Roach, et al.            Expires June 15, 2005                 [Page 25]

Internet-Draft              SIP Event Lists                December 2004


        doesn't have enough authorization information to reject or
        accept our subscription.  The initial notify, therefore,
        contains a "Subscription-State" of "pending".  Presumably, the
        party responsible for accepting or denying authorization for the
        resource is notified of this change; however, those steps are
        not included in this call flow for brevity.

   Presence Server in dallas.example.net -> Local RLS

   NOTIFY sip:pres.vancouver.example.com SIP/2.0
   Via: SIP/2.0/TCP pres.dallas.example.net;
     branch=z9hG4bKfwpklPxmrW
   Max-Forwards: 70
   From: <sip:ed@dallas.example.net>;tag=e45TmHTh
   To: <sip:adam@vancouver.example.com>;tag=aM5icQu9
   Call-ID: Ugwz5ARxNw@pres.vancouver.example.com
   CSeq: 1002640632 NOTIFY
   Contact: <sip:dallas.example.net>
   Subscription-State: pending;expires=3600
   Event: presence
   Require: eventlist
   Content-Length: 0



   8.   The local RLS completes the NOTIFY transaction.  Note that, at
        this point, the Local RLS has new information to report to the
        subscriber.  Whether it chooses to report the information
        immediately or spool it up for later delivery is completely up
        to the application.  For this example, we assume that the RLS
        will wait for a short period of time before doing so, in order
        to allow the subscriptions it sent out sufficient time to
        provide useful data.

   Local RLS -> Presence Server in dallas.example.net

   SIP/2.0 200 OK
   Via: SIP/2.0/TCP pres.dallas.example.net;
     branch=z9hG4bKfwpklPxmrW
   From: <sip:ed@dallas.example.net>;tag=e45TmHTh
   To: <sip:adam@vancouver.example.com>;tag=aM5icQu9
   Call-ID: Ugwz5ARxNw@pres.vancouver.example.com
   CSeq: 1002640632 NOTIFY
   Contact: <sip:pres.vancouver.example.com>
   Content-Length: 0






Roach, et al.            Expires June 15, 2005                 [Page 26]

Internet-Draft              SIP Event Lists                December 2004


   9.   The Local RLS subscribes to the state of the other non-local
        resource.

   Local RLS -> RLS in stockholm.example.org

   SUBSCRIBE sip:adam-friends@stockholm.example.org SIP/2.0
   Via: SIP/2.0/TCP pres.vancouver.example.com;
     branch=z9hG4bKFSrAF8CZFL
   Max-Forwards: 70
   To: <sip:adam-friends@stockholm.example.org>
   From: <sip:adam@vancouver.example.com>;tag=a12eztNf
   Call-ID: kBq5XhtZLN@pres.vancouver.example.com
   CSeq: 980774491 SUBSCRIBE
   Contact: <sip:pres.vancouver.example.com>
   Identity: Tm90IGEgcmVhbCBzaWduYXR1cmUsIGVpdGhlci4gQ2VydGFp
             bmx5IHlvdSBoYXZlIGJldHRlcgp0aGluZ3MgdG8gYmUgZG9p
             bmcuIEhhdmUgeW91IGZpbmlzaGVkIHlvdXIgUkxTIHlldD8K
   Identity-Info: https://vancouver.example.com/cert
   Event: presence
   Expires: 3600
   Supported: eventlist
   Accept: application/pidf+xml
   Accept: application/rlmi+xml
   Accept: multipart/related
   Accept: multipart/signed
   Accept: application/pkcs7-mime
   Content-Length: 0



   10.  The RLS in stockholm.example.org completes the SUBSCRIBE
        transaction.  Note that authentication and would normally take
        place at this point in the call flow.  Those steps are omitted
        for brevity.

















Roach, et al.            Expires June 15, 2005                 [Page 27]

Internet-Draft              SIP Event Lists                December 2004


   RLS in stockholm.example.org -> Local RLS

   SIP/2.0 200 OK
   Via: SIP/2.0/TCP pres.vancouver.example.com;
     branch=z9hG4bKFSrAF8CZFL
   To: <sip:adam-friends@stockholm.example.org>;tag=JenZ40P3
   From: <sip:adam@vancouver.example.com>;tag=a12eztNf
   Call-ID: kBq5XhtZLN@pres.vancouver.example.com
   CSeq: 980774491 SUBSCRIBE
   Contact: <sip:stockholm.example.org>
   Expires: 3600
   Content-Length: 0



   11.  In this example, we are assuming that the RLS in
        stockholm.example.org is also an authority for presence
        information for the users in the "stockholm.example.org" domain.
        The NOTIFY contains an RLMI document describing the contained
        buddy list, as well as presence information for those users.  In
        this particular case, the RLS in stockholm.example.org has
        chosen to sign [14] the body of the NOTIFY message.  As
        described in RFC 3851, signing is performed by creating a
        multipart/signed document which has two parts.  The first part
        is the document to be signed (in this example, the multipart/
        related document that describes the list resource states), while
        the second part is the actual signature.

   RLS in stockholm.example.org -> Local RLS

   NOTIFY sip:pres.vancouver.example.com SIP/2.0
   Via: SIP/2.0/TCP pres.stockholm.example.org;
     branch=z9hG4bKmGL1nyZfQI
   Max-Forwards: 70
   From: <sip:adam-friends@stockholm.example.org>;tag=JenZ40P3
   To: <sip:adam@vancouver.example.com>;tag=a12eztNf
   Call-ID: kBq5XhtZLN@pres.vancouver.example.com
   CSeq: 294444656 NOTIFY
   Contact: <sip:stockholm.example.org>
   Event: presence
   Subscription-State: active;expires=3600
   Require: eventlist
   Content-Type: multipart/signed;
       protocol="application/pkcs7-signature";
       micalg=sha1;boundary="l3WMZaaL8NpQWGnQ4mlU"
   Content-Length: 2038

   --l3WMZaaL8NpQWGnQ4mlU



Roach, et al.            Expires June 15, 2005                 [Page 28]

Internet-Draft              SIP Event Lists                December 2004


   Content-Transfer-Encoding: binary
   Content-ID: <ZPvJHL@stockholm.example.org>
   Content-Type: multipart/related;type="application/rlmi+xml";
       start="<Cvjpeo@stockholm.example.org>";
       boundary="tuLLl3lDyPZX0GMr2YOo"

   --tuLLl3lDyPZX0GMr2YOo
   Content-Transfer-Encoding: binary
   Content-ID: <Cvjpeo@stockholm.example.org>
   Content-Type: application/rlmi+xml;charset="UTF-8"

   <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
   <list xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:rlmi"
         uri="sip:adam-friends@stockholm.example.org" version="1"
         fullState="true">
     <name language="en">Buddy List at COM</name>
     <name language="de">Liste der Freunde an COM</name>
     <resource uri="sip:joe@stockholm.example.org">
       <name>Joe Thomas</name>
       <instance id="1" state="active"
                 cid="mrEakg@stockholm.example.org"/>
     </resource>
     <resource uri="sip:mark@stockholm.example.org">
       <name>Mark Edwards</name>
       <instance id="1" state="active"
                 cid="KKMDmv@stockholm.example.org"/>
     </resource>
   </list>

   --tuLLl3lDyPZX0GMr2YOo
   Content-Transfer-Encoding: binary
   Content-ID: <mrEakg@stockholm.example.org>
   Content-Type: application/pidf+xml;charset="UTF-8"

   <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
   <presence xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:pidf"
       entity="sip:joe@stockholm.example.org">
     <tuple id="7823a4">
       <status>
         <basic>open</basic>
       </status>
       <contact priority="1.0">sip:joe@stockholm.example.org</contact>
     </tuple>
   </presence>

   --tuLLl3lDyPZX0GMr2YOo
   Content-Transfer-Encoding: binary
   Content-ID: <KKMDmv@stockholm.example.org>



Roach, et al.            Expires June 15, 2005                 [Page 29]

Internet-Draft              SIP Event Lists                December 2004


   Content-Type: application/pidf+xml;charset="UTF-8"

   <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
   <presence xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:pidf"
       entity="sip:mark@stockholm.example.org">
     <tuple id="398075">
       <status>
         <basic>closed</basic>
       </status>
     </tuple>
   </presence>

   --tuLLl3lDyPZX0GMr2YOo--

   --l3WMZaaL8NpQWGnQ4mlU
   Content-Transfer-Encoding: binary
   Content-ID: <K9LB7k@stockholm.example.org>
   Content-Type: application/pkcs7-signature

   [PKCS #7 signature here]

   --l3WMZaaL8NpQWGnQ4mlU--



   12.  The Local RLS completes the NOTIFY transaction.

   Local RLS -> RLS in stockholm.example.org

   SIP/2.0 200 OK
   Via: SIP/2.0/TCP pres.stockholm.example.org;
     branch=z9hG4bKmGL1nyZfQI
   From: <sip:adam-friends@stockholm.example.org>;tag=JenZ40P3
   To: <sip:adam@vancouver.example.com>;tag=a12eztNf
   Call-ID: kBq5XhtZLN@pres.vancouver.example.com
   CSeq: 294444656 NOTIFY
   Contact: <sip:pres.vancouver.example.com>
   Content-Length: 0



   13.  At this point, the Local RLS decides it has collected enough
        additional information to warrant sending a new notification to
        the user.  Although sending a full notification would be
        perfectly acceptable, the RLS decides to send a partial
        notification instead.  The RLMI document contains only
        information for the updated resources, as indicated by setting
        the "fullState" parameter to "false".  To avoid corrupting the



Roach, et al.            Expires June 15, 2005                 [Page 30]

Internet-Draft              SIP Event Lists                December 2004


        S/MIME signature on the data received from the RLS in
        stockholm.example.org, the local RLS copies the entire
        multipart/signed body as-is into the notification that it sends.

   Local RLS -> Terminal

   NOTIFY sip:terminal.vancouver.example.com SIP/2.0
   Via: SIP/2.0/TCP pres.vancouver.example.com;
     branch=z9hG4bK4EPlfSFQK1
   Max-Forwards: 70
   From: <sip:adam-buddies@pres.vancouver.example.com>;tag=zpNctbZq
   To: <sip:adam@vancouver.example.com>;tag=ie4hbb8t
   Call-ID: cdB34qLToC@terminal.vancouver.example.com
   CSeq: 997935769 NOTIFY
   Contact: <sip:pres.vancouver.example.com>
   Event: presence
   Subscription-State: active;expires=7200
   Require: eventlist
   Content-Type: multipart/related;type="application/rlmi+xml";
       start="<2BEI83@pres.vancouver.example.com>";
       boundary="TfZxoxgAvLqgj4wRWPDL"
   Content-Length: 2862

   --TfZxoxgAvLqgj4wRWPDL
   Content-Transfer-Encoding: binary
   Content-ID: <2BEI83@pres.vancouver.example.com>
   Content-Type: application/rlmi+xml;charset="UTF-8"

   <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
   <list xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:rlmi"
         uri="sip:adam-friends@pres.vancouver.example.com" version="2"
         fullState="false">
     <name language="en">Buddy List at COM</name>
     <name language="de">Liste der Freunde an COM</name>
     <resource uri="sip:ed@dallas.example.net">
       <name>Ed at NET</name>
       <instance id="sdlkmeopdf" state="pending"/>
     </resource>
     <resource uri="sip:adam-friends@stockholm.example.org">
       <name language="en">My Friends at ORG</name>
       <name language="de">Meine Freunde an ORG</name>
       <instance id="cmpqweitlp" state="active"
                 cid="1KQhyE@pres.vancouver.example.com"/>
     </resource>
   </list>

   --TfZxoxgAvLqgj4wRWPDL
   Content-Transfer-Encoding: binary



Roach, et al.            Expires June 15, 2005                 [Page 31]

Internet-Draft              SIP Event Lists                December 2004


   Content-ID: <1KQhyE@pres.vancouver.example.com>
   Content-Type: multipart/signed;
       protocol="application/pkcs7-signature";
       micalg=sha1;boundary="l3WMZaaL8NpQWGnQ4mlU"

   --l3WMZaaL8NpQWGnQ4mlU
   Content-Transfer-Encoding: binary
   Content-ID: <ZPvJHL@stockholm.example.org>
   Content-Type: multipart/related;type="application/rlmi+xml";
       start="<Cvjpeo@stockholm.example.org>";
       boundary="tuLLl3lDyPZX0GMr2YOo"

   --tuLLl3lDyPZX0GMr2YOo
   Content-Transfer-Encoding: binary
   Content-ID: <Cvjpeo@stockholm.example.org>
   Content-Type: application/rlmi+xml;charset="UTF-8"

   <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
   <list xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:rlmi"
         uri="sip:adam-friends@stockholm.example.org" version="1"
         fullState="true">
     <name language="en">Buddy List at ORG</name>
     <name language="de">Liste der Freunde an ORG</name>
     <resource uri="sip:joe@stockholm.example.org">
       <name>Joe Thomas</name>
       <instance id="1" state="active"
                 cid="mrEakg@stockholm.example.org"/>
     </resource>
     <resource uri="sip:mark@stockholm.example.org">
       <name>Mark Edwards</name>
       <instance id="1" state="active"
                 cid="KKMDmv@stockholm.example.org"/>
     </resource>
   </list>

   --tuLLl3lDyPZX0GMr2YOo
   Content-Transfer-Encoding: binary
   Content-ID: <mrEakg@stockholm.example.org>
   Content-Type: application/pidf+xml;charset="UTF-8"

   <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
   <presence xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:pidf"
       entity="sip:joe@stockholm.example.org">
     <tuple id="7823a4">
       <status>
         <basic>open</basic>
       </status>
       <contact priority="1.0">sip:joe@stockholm.example.org</contact>



Roach, et al.            Expires June 15, 2005                 [Page 32]

Internet-Draft              SIP Event Lists                December 2004


     </tuple>
   </presence>

   --tuLLl3lDyPZX0GMr2YOo
   Content-Transfer-Encoding: binary
   Content-ID: <KKMDmv@stockholm.example.org>
   Content-Type: application/pidf+xml;charset="UTF-8"

   <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
   <presence xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:pidf"
       entity="sip:mark@stockholm.example.org">
     <tuple id="398075">
       <status>
         <basic>closed</basic>
       </status>
     </tuple>
   </presence>

   --tuLLl3lDyPZX0GMr2YOo--

   --l3WMZaaL8NpQWGnQ4mlU
   Content-Transfer-Encoding: binary
   Content-ID: <K9LB7k@stockholm.example.org>
   Content-Type: application/pkcs7-signature

   [PKCS #7 signature here]

   --l3WMZaaL8NpQWGnQ4mlU--

   --TfZxoxgAvLqgj4wRWPDL--



   14.  The terminal completes the NOTIFY transaction.

   Terminal -> Local RLS

   SIP/2.0 200 OK
   Via: SIP/2.0/TCP pres.vancouver.example.com;
     branch=z9hG4bK4EPlfSFQK1
   From: <sip:adam-buddies@pres.vancouver.example.com>;tag=zpNctbZq
   To: <sip:adam@vancouver.example.com>;tag=ie4hbb8t
   Call-ID: cdB34qLToC@terminal.vancouver.example.com
   CSeq: 997935769 NOTIFY
   Contact: <sip:terminal.vancouver.example.com>
   Content-Length: 0





Roach, et al.            Expires June 15, 2005                 [Page 33]

Internet-Draft              SIP Event Lists                December 2004


7. Security Considerations

   Note that the mechanisms for obtaining state information for
   resources in a list are generally left to the RLS implementor.  Some
   of the security issues below are specific to the the circumstance
   that a SIP back-end subscription is used for such a purpose.  Non-SIP
   mechanisms for obtaining state information of resources in a list
   will typically have their own security issues associated with doing
   so; however, exhaustively enumerating such access methods is not
   possible in this document.  Implementors using such mechanisms must
   analyze their chosen access methods for relevant security issues.

7.1 Authentication

   If back-end subscriptions are required to retrieve resource state
   information, the end user is no longer the direct subscriber to the
   state of the resource.  This means that direct authentication of the
   user is no longer possible.

7.1.1 RLS and Subscriber in the Same Domain

   It is expected that the most common deployment of RLSes entails the
   subscribers to the RLS being in the same domain as the RLS.  When
   this is the case, the RLS then has the ability to act as an
   authenication service.  The role of authentication service is defined
   in "Enhancements for Authenticated Identity Management in the Session
   Initiation Protocol (SIP)" [7].

   At a high level, under this system, the RLS authenticates the
   subscriber, and then includes an "Identity" header field in all of
   the back-end subscriptions performed on behalf of that authenticated
   user; this "Identity" header field cryptographically asserts that the
   request has been authorized to be made on behalf of the user
   indicated in the "From" header field.

   Because the ability to authenticate requests is central to the proper
   functioning of the network, any RLS which uses SIP back-end
   subscriptions to acquire information about the resources in a
   resource list MUST be able to act as an authentication service as
   defined in [7], provided that local administrative policy allows them
   to do so.

      In other words, all RLS implementations that support back-end SIP
      subscriptions also must include the ability to be configured to
      act as an authentication service.  Whether any given administrator
      chooses to activate such a feature is completely up to them.  Of
      course, lacking the ability to act as an identity server, any RLS
      so configured will behave as described in the following section,



Roach, et al.            Expires June 15, 2005                 [Page 34]

Internet-Draft              SIP Event Lists                December 2004


      since it is effectively acting as if it were in a different domain
      than the user.


7.1.2 RLS and Subscriber in Different Domains

   In the general case, the SIP Authenticated Identity extensions do not
   provide a means for the RLS to securely assert that subscriptions are
   being performed on the end user's behalf.  Specifically, when the
   subscriber and the RLS are in different domains, the RLS will have no
   means by which it can vouch for the user's identity.  Mechanisms by
   which back-end subscriptions in such circumstances can be
   authenticated are left for future study.

   Until such general solutions are developed, RLSes which are in a
   different domain than the subscriber on whose behalf they are
   creating back-end susbcriptions SHOULD subscribe to the resources
   using their own identity.  By doing so, the RLS will generally obtain
   only the resource information which is made publicly available.

   Absent such general solutions, implemenations of subscriber user
   agents MAY attempt direct subscriptions to resources in the resouce
   list when subscribing to an RLS outside of their domain (either
   directly or by way of another resource list subscription).  The
   resouces to be subscribed to will be those indicated in the the "uri"
   attribute of the <resource> elements present in the RLMI document
   returned by the RLS.  Directly subscribing to the resources allows
   proper authentication of the user to take place, which will generally
   authorize them to receive more complete state information.
   Implementations which choose to perform such direct subscriptions
   SHOULD use the data retrieved directly to the exclusion of any
   information about the resource obtained via the list subscription.

7.2 Risks of Improper Aggregation

   A resource list server typically serves information to multiple
   subscribers at once.  In many cases, resources may be present in
   several lists; additionally, it is quite possible that resource list
   servers will have two users subscribe to the same list.

   In these cases, misguided RLS implementations may attempt to minimize
   network load by maintaining only one back-end subscription to a
   resource in a list, and presenting the result of such a subscription
   to more than one user.  Of course, doing so circumvents any
   authorization policy that the notifier for the resource maintains.
   It is important to keep in mind that authorization is often much more
   than a simple binary "allowed/not allowed" decision; resources may
   render very different -- and even conflicting -- resource states,



Roach, et al.            Expires June 15, 2005                 [Page 35]

Internet-Draft              SIP Event Lists                December 2004


   depending on the identity of the subscribing user.

   To prevent the transmission of event information to anyone other than
   the intended recipient, implementations MUST NOT present the result
   of one back-end subscription to more than one user unless:

   a.  The RLS has adequate access to the complete authorization policy
       associated with the resource to which the back-end subscription
       has been made, AND

   b.  The RLS can and has determined that presenting the information to
       more than one user does not violate such policy.

   Note that this is a very difficult problem to solve correctly.  Even
   in the cases that such access is believed possible, this mode of
   operation is NOT RECOMMENDED.

7.3 Signing and Sealing

   Implementors should keep in mind that any section of the MIME body
   may be signed and/or encrypted as necessary.  Resource List Servers
   should take care not to modify any MIME bodies they receive from any
   back-end subscriptions, and should not generally rely on being able
   to read them.

   In order to facilitate security, resource list servers SHOULD pass
   along indication for support of "multipart/signed" and "application/
   pkcs7-mime" content types to any SIP back-end subscriptions, if the
   subscriber includes them in the initial SUBSCRIBE message.  Not doing
   so may actually result in resources refusing to divulge state (if
   notifier policy requires encryption, but the RLS fails to convey
   support), or subscribers discarding valid state (if subscriber policy
   requires a signature, but the RLS fails to convey support).

   Note that actual implementation of encryption and signing by the RLS
   is not necessary to be able to pass through signed and/or encrypted
   bodies.

7.4 Infinite Loops

   One risk introduced by the ability to nest resource lists is the
   possibility of creating lists which ultimately contain themselves as
   a sub-list.  Detection and handling of such a case is trivial when
   the RLS services all of the virtual subscriptions internally.  When
   back-end subscriptions are created to service virtual subscriptions,
   however, detection of such situations becomes a more difficult
   problem.




Roach, et al.            Expires June 15, 2005                 [Page 36]

Internet-Draft              SIP Event Lists                December 2004


   Implementors of RLSes that create back-end subscriptions MUST
   implement safeguards to prevent such nestings from creating an
   infinite loop of subscriptions.  Typically, such mechanisms will
   require support in the back-end subscription protocol.  In
   particular, applying filters to the back-end subscriptions can be an
   effective way to preclude such problems.













































Roach, et al.            Expires June 15, 2005                 [Page 37]

Internet-Draft              SIP Event Lists                December 2004


8. IANA Considerations

8.1 New SIP Option Tag: eventlist

   This section defines a new option tag for the registry established by
   section 27.1 of RFC 3261[1].

   Option Tag Name: eventlist

   Description: Extension to allow subscriptions to lists of resources

   Published specification: RFC xxxx [[Note to RFC editor: replace xxxx
      with the RFC number of this document when published]]


8.2 New MIME type for Resource List Meta-Information

   MIME Media Type Name: application

   MIME subtype name: rlmi+xml

   Required parameters: None

   Optional parameters: charset

      See RFC 3023 [12] for a discussion of the charset parameter on
      XML-derived MIME types.  Since this MIME type is used exclusively
      in SIP, the use of UTF-8 encoding is strongly encouraged.

   Encoding considerations: 8-bit text

   Security considerations: Security considerations specific to uses of
      this this MIME type are discussed in RFC xxxx [[Note to RFC
      editor: replace xxxx with the RFC number of this document when
      published]].  RFC 1874 [11] and RFC 3023 [12] discuss security
      issues common to all uses of XML.

   Interoperability considerations: The use of this MIME body is
      intended to be generally interoperable.  No unique considerations
      have been identified.

   Published specification: RFC xxxx [[Note to RFC editor: replace xxxx
      with the RFC number of this document when published]]

   Applications which use this media type: This media type is used to
      convey meta-information for the state of lists of resources within
      a Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) subscription.




Roach, et al.            Expires June 15, 2005                 [Page 38]

Internet-Draft              SIP Event Lists                December 2004


   Additional information:

      Magic Number(s): None.

      File Extension(s): None.

      Macintosh File Type Code(s): None.

      Object Identifier(s) or OID(s): None.

   Intended usage: Limited Use

   Other Information/General Comment: None.

   Person to contact for further information:

      Name: Adam Roach

      E-Mail: adam@estacado.net

      Author/Change Controller: The specification of this MIME type is a
         work product of the SIMPLE working group, and was authored by
         Adam Roach, Jonathan Rosenberg, and Ben Campbell.  The IETF has
         change control over its specification.


8.3 URN Sub-Namespace

   URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:rlmi

   Description: This is the XML namespace URI for XML elements defined
      by [RFCXXXX] to describe information about subscriptions when such
      subscriptions are aggregated within a single SIP subscription.  It
      is used in the application/rlmi+xml body type.

   Registrant Contact:

      Name: Adam Roach

      E-Mail: adam@estacado.net

      Author/Change Controller: The specification of this MIME type is a
         work product of the SIMPLE working group, and was authored by
         Adam Roach, Jonathan Rosenberg, and Ben Campbell.  The IETF has
         change control over its specification.

   XML:




Roach, et al.            Expires June 15, 2005                 [Page 39]

Internet-Draft              SIP Event Lists                December 2004


         BEGIN
           <?xml version="1.0"?>
           <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML Basic 1.0//EN"
               "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-basic/xhtml-basic10.dtd">
           <html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
           <head>
             <meta http-equiv="content-type"
                content="text/html;charset=utf-8"/>
             <title>Namespace for SIP Event Resource List
                    Meta-Information</title>
           </head>
           <body>
             <h1>Namespace for SIP Event Resource List
                 Meta-Information</h1>
             <h2>application/rlmi+xml</h2>
             <p>See <a href="[[[URL of published RFC]]]">
                RFCXXXX</a>.</p>
           </body>
           </html>
         END































Roach, et al.            Expires June 15, 2005                 [Page 40]

Internet-Draft              SIP Event Lists                December 2004


9. Acknowledgements

   Thanks to Sean Olson for a review of and corrections to the usage of
   XML in this protocol.

   Thanks also to Hisham Khartabil, Paul Kyzivat, Keith Drage and Robert
   Sparks for their careful reviews of and comments on this document.












































Roach, et al.            Expires June 15, 2005                 [Page 41]

Internet-Draft              SIP Event Lists                December 2004


Normative References

   [1]  Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., Camarillo, G., Johnston, A.,
        Peterson, J., Sparks, R., Handley, M. and E. Schooler, "SIP:
        Session Initiation Protocol", RFC 3261, June 2002.

   [2]  Roach, A., "Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)-Specific Event
        Notification", RFC 3265, June 2002.

   [3]  Borenstein, N. and N. Freed, "MIME (Multipurpose Internet Mail
        Extensions) Part One: Mechanisms for Specifying and Describing
        the Format of Internet Message Bodies", RFC 1521, September
        1993.

   [4]  Levinson, E., "The MIME Multipart/Related Content-type", RFC
        2387, August 1998.

   [5]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement
        Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

   [6]  Alvestrand, H., "Tags for the Identification of Languages", RFC
        1766, March 1995.

   [7]  Peterson, J., "Enhancements for Authenticated Identity
        Management in the Session Initiation  Protocol (SIP)", draft-
        ietf-sip-identity-03 (work in progress), September 2004.

























Roach, et al.            Expires June 15, 2005                 [Page 42]

Internet-Draft              SIP Event Lists                December 2004


Informative References

   [8]   Rosenberg, J., "A Presence Event Package for the Session
         Initiation Protocol (SIP)", RFC 3856, August 2004.

   [9]   Olson, S., "A Mechanism for Content Indirection in Session
         Initiation Protocol (SIP)  Messages", draft-ietf-sip-content-
         indirect-mech-04 (work in progress), July 2004.

   [10]  Peterson, J., "Common Profile for Presence (CPP)", RFC 3859,
         August 2004.

   [11]  Levinson, E., "SGML Media Types", RFC 1874, December 1995.

   [12]  Murata, M., St. Laurent, S. and D. Kohn, "XML Media Types", RFC
         3023, January 2001.

   [13]  Ramsdell, B., "Secure/Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (S/
         MIME) Version 3.1 Message Specification", RFC 3851, July 2004.

   [14]  Galvin, J., Murphy, S., Crocker, S. and N. Freed, "Security
         Multiparts for MIME: Multipart/Signed and Multipart/Encrypted",
         RFC 1847, October 1995.

   [15]  Rescorla, E., "HTTP Over TLS", RFC 2818, May 2000.


Authors' Addresses

   Adam Roach
   Estacado Systems


   US

   EMail: adam@estacado.net


   Ben Campbell
   Estacado Systems


   US

   EMail: ben@estacado.net






Roach, et al.            Expires June 15, 2005                 [Page 43]

Internet-Draft              SIP Event Lists                December 2004


   Jonathan Rosenberg
   Cisco Systems
   600 Lanidex Plaza
   Parsippany, NJ  07054-2711
   US

   EMail: jdrosen@cisco.com












































Roach, et al.            Expires June 15, 2005                 [Page 44]

Internet-Draft              SIP Event Lists                December 2004


Appendix A. Changes

   Note that this section will be removed before publication as an RFC.

A.1 Changes since -06

   o  Substantial reworking of section on authentication; now requires
      SIP Identity extension for RLSes that use SIP back-end
      subscriptions.  Examples updated to reflect this change.

   o  Fixed CPIM mime type everywhere.


A.2 Changes since -05

   o  Added open issue regarding transfer of user secrets to the RLS.

   o  Removed all references to multipart/encrypted.  Replaced with
      application/pkcs7-mime, to align with RFC 3261 and RFC 3851.

   o  Formally restricted state attribute in schema to reflect the three
      valid values outlined in the text

   o  Changed "name" from an attribute to an element for both <list> and
      <resource> elements.  This allows for multiple names to be
      present, each with an appropriate language tag.

   o  Minor editorial updates.


A.3 Changes since -04

   o  Removed references to P-Asserted-Identity mechanism.

   o  Removed some leftover cruft from the section on constructing
      coherent resource state.


A.4 Changes since -03

   o  Changed Content-Encoding in examples from 8bit to binary.

   o  Adjusted formatting to comply with RFC 2223.








Roach, et al.            Expires June 15, 2005                 [Page 45]

Internet-Draft              SIP Event Lists                December 2004


A.5 Changes since -02

   o  Added discussion in security section about infinite loops.

   o  Fixed several places where the document said "one or more" instead
      of "zero or more", when referring to the number of resources that
      can appear in a list and the number of instances that can appear
      in a resource.

   o  Tiny editorial cleanup (mostly spelling gaffes).


A.6 Changes since -01

   o  Several editorial updates.  Change "collection" to "list"
      everywhere.

   o  Added terminology section.

   o  Added restriction that cid attributes can only point to documents
      at the same level as the RLMI document in which they appear.

   o  Clarified description of how to construct resource state by
      splitting discussion of full state notifications apart from
      discussion of partial-state notifications.


A.7 Changes since -00

   o  Removed text in several places which went into detail about
      specific implementations which used SIP SUB/NOT for back-end
      subscriptions.  Some of this text will probably be published later
      as part of an implementors' guide.

   o  Removed specific semantics for "Event" header field parameters and
      SUBSCRIBE bodies.  These will be defined on a per-package basis,
      probably by the filtering work.

   o  Added "cid" attribute to <list> elements.

   o  Reworked XML schema definition for meta-information.

   o  Added IANA registration for XML namespace.

   o  Minor editorial fixes






Roach, et al.            Expires June 15, 2005                 [Page 46]

Internet-Draft              SIP Event Lists                December 2004


Appendix B. Intellectual Property Statement

   The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
   intellectual property 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; neither does it represent that it
   has made any effort to identify any such rights.

   Information on the IETF's procedures with respect to rights in
   standards-track and standards-related documentation can be found in
   BCP-11.  Copies of claims of rights made available for publication
   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 implementors or users of this
   specification can be obtained from the IETF Secretariat.

   The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
   copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
   rights which may cover technology that may be required to practice
   this standard.  Please address the information to the IETF Executive
   Director.





























Roach, et al.            Expires June 15, 2005                 [Page 47]

Internet-Draft              SIP Event Lists                December 2004


Full Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004).  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.

   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.

Acknowledgement

   Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
   Internet Society.

































Roach, et al.            Expires June 15, 2005                 [Page 48]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.107, available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/