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

Versions: (draft-stucker-sip-publish) 00 01 02 03 04 RFC 3903

SIP WG                                                     A. Niemi, Ed.
Internet-Draft                                                     Nokia
Expires: November 26, 2004                                  May 28, 2004


     An Event State Publication Extension to the Session Initiation
                             Protocol (SIP)
                       draft-ietf-sip-publish-04

Status of this Memo

   This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
   all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026.

   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 November 26, 2004.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004).  All Rights Reserved.

Abstract

   This document describes an extension to the Session Initiation
   Protocol (SIP) for publishing event state used within the SIP Events
   framework.  The first application of this extension is for the
   publication of presence information.

   The mechanism described in this document can be extended to support
   publication of any event state for which there exists an appropriate
   event package.  It is not intended to be a general-purpose mechanism
   for transport of arbitrary data, as there are better-suited
   mechanisms for this purpose.




Niemi                  Expires November 26, 2004                [Page 1]

Internet-Draft        SIP Event State Publication               May 2004


Table of Contents

   1.   Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   2.   Definitions and Document Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   3.   Overall Operation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   4.   Constructing PUBLISH Requests  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     4.1  Identification of Published Event State  . . . . . . . . .   7
     4.2  Creating Initial Publication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     4.3  Refreshing Event State . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     4.4  Modifying Event State  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     4.5  Removing Event State . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   5.   Processing PUBLISH Responses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   6.   Processing PUBLISH Requests  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   7.   Processing OPTIONS Requests  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   8.   Use of Entity-tags in PUBLISH  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
     8.1  General Notes  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
     8.2  Client Usage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
     8.3  Server Usage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
   9.   Controlling the Rate of Publication  . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
   10.  Considerations for Event Packages using PUBLISH  . . . . . .  16
     10.1   PUBLISH Bodies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
     10.2   PUBLISH Response Bodies  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
     10.3   Multiple Sources for Event State . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
     10.4   Event State Segmentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
     10.5   Rate of Publication  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
   11.  Protocol Element Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
     11.1   New Methods  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
       11.1.1   PUBLISH Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
     11.2   New Response Codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  20
       11.2.1   "412 Conditional Request Failed" Response Code . . .  20
     11.3   New Header Fields  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  20
       11.3.1   "SIP-ETag" Header Field  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  21
       11.3.2   "SIP-If-Match" Header Field  . . . . . . . . . . . .  21
   12.  Augmented BNF Definitions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  21
   13.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  22
     13.1   Methods  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  22
     13.2   Response Codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  22
     13.3   Header Field Names . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  22
   14.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  23
     14.1   Access Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  23
     14.2   Denial of Service Attacks  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  23
     14.3   Replay Attack  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  23
     14.4   Man in the Middle Attacks  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  24
     14.5   Confidentiality  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  24
   15.  Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  25
   16.  Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  32
   17.  Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  33
   18.  Document Change History  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  33



Niemi                  Expires November 26, 2004                [Page 2]

Internet-Draft        SIP Event State Publication               May 2004


     18.1   Changes since "draft-ietf-sip-publish-03"  . . . . . . .  33
     18.2   Changes since "draft-ietf-sip-publish-02"  . . . . . . .  34
     18.3   Changes since "draft-ietf-sip-publish-01"  . . . . . . .  34
     18.4   Changes since "draft-ietf-sip-publish-00"  . . . . . . .  35
     18.5   Changes since "draft-ietf-simple-publish-01" . . . . . .  35
     18.6   Changes since "draft-ietf-simple-publish-00" . . . . . .  36
   19.  References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  37
   19.1   Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  37
   19.2   Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  37
        Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  38
        Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . .  39








































Niemi                  Expires November 26, 2004                [Page 3]

Internet-Draft        SIP Event State Publication               May 2004


1.  Introduction

   This specification provides a framework for the publication of event
   state from a user agent to an entity that is responsible for
   compositing this event state and distributing it to interested
   parties through the SIP Events [1] framework.

   In addition to defining an event publication framework, this
   specification defines a concrete usage of that framework for the
   publication of presence state [2] by a presence user agent [3] to a
   presence compositor, which has a tightly coupled relationship with
   the presence agent [1].

   The requirements and model for presence publication are documented in
   [10].  This specification will address each of those requirements.

   The mechanism described in this document can be extended to support
   publication of any event state for which there exists an appropriate
   event package as defined in [1].  For instance, an application of SIP
   events for message waiting indications [11] might choose to collect
   the statuses of voice-mail boxes across a set of user agents using
   the PUBLISH mechanism.  The compositor in such an application would
   then be responsible for collecting and distributing this state to the
   subscribers of the event package.

   Each application that makes use of the PUBLISH mechanism in the
   publication of event state will need to adhere to the guidelines set
   in Section 10.  The mechanism described in this document is not
   intended to be a general-purpose mechanism for transport of arbitrary
   data, as there are better-suited mechanisms for this purpose.

2.  Definitions and Document Conventions

   In addition to the definitions of RFC 2778 [3], RFC 3265 [1], and RFC
   3261 [4], this document introduces some new concepts:

   Event State: State information for a resource, associated with an
      event package and an address-of-record.

   Event Publication Agent (EPA): The User Agent Client (UAC) that
      issues PUBLISH requests to publish event state.

   Event State Compositor (ESC): The User Agent Server (UAS) that
      processes PUBLISH requests, and is responsible for compositing
      event state into a complete, composite event state of a resource.






Niemi                  Expires November 26, 2004                [Page 4]

Internet-Draft        SIP Event State Publication               May 2004


   Presence Compositor: A type of Event State Compositor that is
      responsible for compositing presence state for a presentity.

   Publication: The act of an EPA sending a PUBLISH request to an ESC to
      publish event state.

   Event Hard State: The steady-state or default event state of a
      resource, which the ESC may use in the absence of, or in addition
      to, soft state publications.

   Event Soft State: Event state published by an EPA using the PUBLISH
      mechanism.  A protocol element (i.e., an entity-tag) is used to
      identify a specific soft state entity at the ESC.  Soft state has
      a defined lifetime and will expire after a negotiated amount of
      time.

   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 BCP 14, RFC 2119 [5]
   and indicate requirement levels for compliant implementations.

      Indented passages such as this one are used in this document to
      provide additional information and clarifying text.  They do not
      contain descriptions of normative protocol behavior.


3.  Overall Operation

   This document defines a new SIP method, PUBLISH, for publishing event
   state.  PUBLISH is similar to REGISTER in that it allows a user to
   create, modify, and remove state in another entity which manages this
   state on behalf of the user.  Addressing a PUBLISH request is
   identical to addressing a SUBSCRIBE request.  The Request-URI of a
   PUBLISH request is populated with the address of the resource for
   which the user wishes to publish event state.  The user may in turn
   have multiple User Agents or endpoints that publish event state.
   Each endpoint may publish its own unique state, out of which the
   event state compositor generates the composite event state of the
   resource.  In addition to a particular resource, all published event
   state is associated with a specific event package.  Through a
   subscription to that event package, the user is able to discover the
   composite event state of all of the active publications.

   A User Agent Client (UAC) that publishes event state is labeled an
   Event Publication Agent (EPA).  For presence, this is the familiar
   Presence User Agent (PUA) role as defined in [2].  The entity that
   processes the PUBLISH request is known as an Event State Compositor
   (ESC).  For presence, this is the familiar Presence Agent (PA) role



Niemi                  Expires November 26, 2004                [Page 5]

Internet-Draft        SIP Event State Publication               May 2004


   as defined in [2].

   PUBLISH requests create soft state in the ESC.  This event soft state
   has a defined lifetime and will expire after a negotiated amount of
   time, requiring the publication to be refreshed by subsequent PUBLISH
   requests.  There may also be event hard state provisioned for each
   resource for a particular event package.  This event state represents
   the resource state that is present at all times, and does not expire.
   The ESC may use event hard state in the absence of, or in addition
   to, event soft state provided through the PUBLISH mechanism.  Setting
   this event hard state or configuring the ESC policy regarding the
   aggregation of different event state is out of the scope of this
   specification.

   The body of a PUBLISH request carries the published event state.  In
   the response to every successful PUBLISH request, the ESC assigns an
   identifier to the publication in the form of an entity-tag.  This
   identifier is then used by the EPA in any subsequent PUBLISH request
   that modifies, refreshes or removes the event state of that
   publication.  When event state expires or is explicitly removed, the
   entity-tag associated with it becomes invalid.  A publication for an
   invalid entity-tag will naturally fail, and the EPA needs to start
   anew and resend its event state without referencing a previous
   entity-tag.

4.  Constructing PUBLISH Requests

   PUBLISH requests create, modify, and remove event state associated
   with an address-of-record.  A suitably authorized third party may
   also perform publication on behalf of a particular address-of-record.

   Except as noted, the construction of the PUBLISH request and the
   behavior of clients sending a PUBLISH request are identical to the
   general UAC behavior described in Section 8.1 and Section 17.1 of RFC
   3261 [4].

   If necessary, clients may probe for the support of PUBLISH using the
   OPTIONS request defined in SIP [4].  The presence of "PUBLISH" in the
   "Allow" header field in a response to an OPTIONS request indicates
   support for the PUBLISH method.  In addition, the "Allow-Events"
   header field indicates the supported event packages.

      Note that it is possible for the OPTIONS request to fork, and
      consequently return a response from a User Agent other than the
      ESC.  In that case, support for the PUBLISH method may not be
      appropriately represented for that particular Request-URI.

   A PUBLISH request does not establish a dialog.  A UAC MAY include a



Niemi                  Expires November 26, 2004                [Page 6]

Internet-Draft        SIP Event State Publication               May 2004


   Route header field in a PUBLISH request based on a pre-existing route
   set as described in Section 8.1 of RFC 3261 [4].  The Record-Route
   header field has no meaning in PUBLISH requests or responses, and
   MUST be ignored if present.  In particular, the UAC MUST NOT create a
   new route set based on the presence or absence of a Record-Route
   header field in any response to a PUBLISH request.

   The PUBLISH request MAY contain a Contact header field, but including
   one in a PUBLISH request has no meaning in the event publication
   context and will be ignored by the ESC.  An EPA MAY send a PUBLISH
   request within an existing dialog.  In that case, the request is
   received in the context of any media session or sessions associated
   with that dialog.

      Note that while sending a PUBLISH request within an existing
      dialog is not prohibited, it will typically not result in the
      expected behavior.  Unless the other end of the dialog is also an
      ESC, it will probably reject the request.

   EPAs MUST NOT send a new PUBLISH request (not a re-transmission) for
   the same Request-URI, until they have received a final response from
   the ESC for the previous one or the previous PUBLISH request has
   timed out.

4.1  Identification of Published Event State

   Identification of published event state is provided by three pieces
   of information: Request-URI, event type, and (optionally) an
   entity-tag.

   The Request-URI of a PUBLISH request contains enough information to
   route the request to the appropriate entity per the request routing
   procedures outlined in RFC 3261 [4].  It also contains enough
   information to identify the resource whose event state is to be
   published, but not enough information to determine the type of the
   published event state.

   For determining the type of the published event state, the EPA MUST
   include a single Event header field in PUBLISH requests.  The value
   of this header field indicates the event package for which this
   request is publishing event state.

   For each successful PUBLISH request, the ESC will generate and assign
   an entity-tag and return it in the SIP-ETag header field of the 2xx
   response.

   When updating previously published event state, PUBLISH requests MUST
   contain a single SIP-If-Match header field identifying the specific



Niemi                  Expires November 26, 2004                [Page 7]

Internet-Draft        SIP Event State Publication               May 2004


   event state that the request is refreshing, modifying or removing.
   This header field MUST contain a single entity-tag that was returned
   by the ESC in the SIP-ETag header field of the response to a previous
   publication.

   The PUBLISH request MAY contain a body, which contains event state
   that the client wishes to publish.  The content format and semantics
   are dependent on the event package identified in the Event header
   field.

   The presence of a body and the SIP-If-Match header field determine
   the specific operation that the request is performing, as described
   in Table 1.

         +-----------+-------+---------------+---------------+
         | Operation | Body? | SIP-If-Match? | Expires Value |
         +-----------+-------+---------------+---------------+
         | Initial   | yes   | no            | > 0           |
         | Refresh   | no    | yes           | > 0           |
         | Modify    | yes   | yes           | > 0           |
         | Remove    | no    | yes           | 0             |
         +-----------+-------+---------------+---------------+

                    Table 1: Publication Operations

   An 'Initial' publication sets the initial event state for a
   particular EPA.  A 'Refresh' publication refreshes the lifetime of a
   previous publication, whereas a 'Modify' publication modifies the
   event state of a previous publication.  A 'Remove' publication
   requests immediate removal of event state.  These operations are
   described in more detail in the following sections.

4.2  Creating Initial Publication

   An initial publication is a PUBLISH request created by the EPA and
   sent to the ESC that establishes soft state for the event package
   indicated in the Event header field of the request, and bound to the
   address in the Request-URI of the request.

   An initial PUBLISH request MUST NOT contain a SIP-If-Match header
   field.  However, if the EPA expects an appropriate, locally stored
   entity-tag to still be valid, it SHOULD first try to modify that
   event state as described in Section 4.4, instead of submitting an
   initial publication.

   An initial PUBLISH request MUST contain a body that contains the
   published event state.




Niemi                  Expires November 26, 2004                [Page 8]

Internet-Draft        SIP Event State Publication               May 2004


   An initial PUBLISH request MAY contain a single Expires header field.
   This value indicates the suggested lifetime of the event state
   publication.

   If an Expires header is not present, the EPA is indicating its desire
   for the ESC to choose.  The ESC may lower the suggested lifetime of
   the publication, but it will never extend it.  The Expires header
   field in a 2xx response to the initial PUBLISH indicates the actual
   duration for which the publication will remain active.  Unless
   refreshed before this lifetime is exceeded, the publication will
   expire.

4.3  Refreshing Event State

   An EPA is responsible for refreshing its previously established
   publications before their expiration interval has elapsed.  To
   refresh a publication, the EPA MUST create a PUBLISH request that
   includes in a SIP-If-Match header field the entity-tag of the
   publication to be refreshed.

   The SIP-If-Match header field containing an entity-tag conditions the
   PUBLISH request to refresh a specific event state established by a
   prior publication.  If the entity-tag matches previously published
   event state at the ESC, the refresh succeeds, and the EPA receives a
   2xx response.

   Like the 2xx response to an initial PUBLISH request, the 2xx response
   to a refresh PUBLISH request will contain a SIP-ETag header field
   with an entity-tag.  The EPA MUST store this entity-tag, replacing
   any existing entity-tag for the refreshed event state.  See Section
   8.2 for more information on the EPA handling of entity-tags.

   If there is no matching event state, e.g., the event state to be
   refreshed has already expired, the EPA receives a 412 (Conditional
   Request Failed) response to the PUBLISH request.

   A publication refresh MAY contain a single Expires header field.
   This value indicates the suggested lifetime of the event state.

   If an Expires header is not present, the EPA is indicating its desire
   for the ESC to choose.  The ESC may lower the suggested lifetime of
   the publication refresh, but it will never extend it.  The Expires
   header field in a 2xx response to the publication refresh indicates
   the actual duration for which the publication will remain active.

   A publication refresh only extends the expiration time of already
   existing event state.  It does not affect that event state in any
   other way.  Therefore, a PUBLISH request that refreshes event state



Niemi                  Expires November 26, 2004                [Page 9]

Internet-Draft        SIP Event State Publication               May 2004


   MUST NOT have a body.

4.4  Modifying Event State

   Modifying event state closely resembles the creation of initial event
   state.  However, instead of establishing completely new event state
   at the ESC, already existing event state is updated with modified
   event state.  The nature of this update depends on the content of the
   body, and the semantics associated with the format of that body.

   To modify event state, the EPA MUST construct a PUBLISH request that
   includes in a SIP-If-Match header field the entity-tag of the event
   state publication to be modified.  A PUBLISH request that modifies
   event state MUST contain a body that includes the modified event
   state.

   The SIP-If-Match header field conditions the PUBLISH request to
   modify a specific event state established by a prior publication, and
   identified by the entity-tag.  If the entity-tag matches previously
   published event state at the ESC, that event state is replaced by the
   event state carried in the PUBLISH request, and the EPA receives a
   2xx response.

   Like the 2xx response to an initial PUBLISH request, the 2xx response
   to a modifying PUBLISH request will contain a SIP-ETag header field
   with an entity-tag.  The EPA MUST store this entity-tag, replacing
   any existing entity-tag for the modified event state.  See Section
   8.2 for more information on the EPA handling of entity-tags.

   If there is no matching event state at the ESC, e.g., the event state
   to be modified has already expired, the EPA receives a 412
   (Conditional Request Failed) response to the PUBLISH request.

   A modifying PUBLISH request MAY contain a single Expires header
   field.  This value indicates the suggested lifetime of the event
   state publication.

   If an Expires header is not present, the EPA is indicating its desire
   for the ESC to choose.  The ESC may lower the suggested lifetime of
   the publication, but it will never extend it.  The Expires header
   field in a 2xx response to the modifying PUBLISH indicates the actual
   duration for which the publication will remain active.  Unless
   refreshed before this lifetime is exceeded, the publication will
   expire.

4.5  Removing Event State

   Event state established by a prior publication may also be explicitly



Niemi                  Expires November 26, 2004               [Page 10]

Internet-Draft        SIP Event State Publication               May 2004


   removed.

   To request the immediate removal of event state, an EPA MUST create a
   PUBLISH request with an Expires value of "0", and set the
   SIP-If-Match header field to contain the entity-tag of the event
   state publication to be removed.

      Note that removing event state is effectively a publication
      refresh suggesting an infinitesimal expiration interval.
      Consequently, the refreshed event state expires immediately after
      being refreshed.

   Similar to an event state refresh, the removal of event state only
   affects the expiry of the event state.  Therefore, a PUBLISH request
   that removes event state MUST NOT contain a body.

5.  Processing PUBLISH Responses

   When processing responses to PUBLISH requests, the steps in Section
   8.1.2 of RFC 3261 [4] apply.

   If an EPA receives a 412 (Conditional Request Failed) response, it
   MUST NOT reattempt the PUBLISH request.  Instead, to publish event
   state, the EPA SHOULD perform an initial publication, i.e., a PUBLISH
   request without a SIP-If-Match header field, as described in Section
   4.2.  The EPA MUST also discard the entity-tag that produced this
   error resoponse.

   If an EPA receives a 423 (Interval Too Brief) response to a PUBLISH
   request, it MAY retry the publication after changing the expiration
   interval in the Expires header field to be equal to or greater than
   the expiration interval within the Min-Expires header field of the
   423 (Interval Too Brief) response.

6.  Processing PUBLISH Requests

   The Event State Compositor (ESC) is a User Agent Server (UAS) that
   processes and responds to PUBLISH requests, and maintains a list of
   publications for a given address-of-record.  The ESC has to know
   (e.g., through configuration) the set of addresses for which it
   maintains event state.

   The ESC MUST ignore the Record-Route header field if it is included
   in a PUBLISH request.  The ESC MUST NOT include a Record-Route header
   field in any response to a PUBLISH request.  The ESC MUST ignore the
   Contact header field if one is present in a PUBLISH request.

   PUBLISH requests with the same Request-URI MUST be processed in the



Niemi                  Expires November 26, 2004               [Page 11]

Internet-Draft        SIP Event State Publication               May 2004


   order that they are received.  PUBLISH requests MUST also be
   processed atomically, meaning that a particular PUBLISH request is
   either processed completely or not at all.

   When receiving a PUBLISH request, the ESC follows the steps defining
   general UAS behavior in Section 8.2 of RFC 3261 [4].  In addition,
   for PUBLISH specific behavior the ESC follows these steps:

   1.  The ESC inspects the Request-URI to determine whether this
       request is targeted to a resource for which the ESC is
       responsible for maintaining event state.  If not, the ESC MUST
       return a 404 (Not Found) response and skip the remaining steps.

          It may also be that the Request-URI points to a domain that
          the ESC is not responsible for.  In that case, the UAS
          receiving the request can assume the role of a proxy server
          and forward the request to a more appropriate target.

   2.  The ESC examines the Event header field of the PUBLISH request.
       If the Event header field is missing or contains an event package
       which the ESC does not support, the ESC MUST respond to the
       PUBLISH request with a 489 (Bad Event) response, and skip the
       remaining steps.

   3.  The ESC examines the SIP-If-Match header field of the PUBLISH
       request for the presence of a request precondition.

       *  If the request does not contain a SIP-If-Match header field,
          the ESC MUST generate and store a locally unique entity-tag
          for identifying the publication.  This entity-tag is
          associated with the event-state carried in the body of the
          PUBLISH request.

       *  Else, if the request has a SIP-If-Match header field, the ESC
          checks whether the header field contains a single entity-tag.
          If not, the request is invalid, and the ESC MUST return with a
          400 (Invalid Request) response and skip the remaining steps.

       *  Else, the ESC extracts the entity-tag contained in the
          SIP-If-Match header field and matches that entity-tag against
          all locally stored entity-tags for this resource and event
          package.  If no match is found, the ESC MUST reject the
          publication with a response of 412 (Conditional Request
          Failed), and skip the remaining steps.

   4.  The ESC processes the Expires header field value from the PUBLISH
       request.




Niemi                  Expires November 26, 2004               [Page 12]

Internet-Draft        SIP Event State Publication               May 2004


       *  If the request has an Expires header field, that value MUST be
          taken as the requested expiration.

       *  Else, a locally-configured default value MUST be taken as the
          requested expiration.

       *  The ESC MAY choose an expiration less than the requested
          expiration interval.  Only if the requested expiration
          interval is greater than zero and less than a
          locally-configured minimum, the ESC MAY reject the publication
          with a response of 423 (Interval Too Brief), and skip the
          remaining steps.  This response MUST contain a Min-Expires
          header field that states the minimum expiration interval the
          ESC is willing to honor.

   5.  The ESC processes the published event state contained in the body
       of the PUBLISH request.  If the content type of the request does
       not match the event package, or is not understood by the ESC, the
       ESC MUST reject the request with an appropriate response, such as
       415 (Unsupported Media Type), and skip the remainder of the
       steps.

       *  If present, the ESC stores the event state delivered in the
          PUBLISH request and identified by the associated entity-tag,
          updating any existing event state for that entity-tag.

       *  Else, the event state identified by the entity-tag is
          refreshed, setting the expiration value to the chosen
          expiration interval.  If the chosen expiration interval has a
          special value of "0", the event state identified by the
          entity-tag MUST be immediately removed.

       The processing of the PUBLISH request MUST be atomic.  If
       internal errors (such as the inability to access a back-end
       database) occur before processing is complete, the publication
       MUST NOT succeed, and the ESC MUST fail with an appropriate error
       response, such as 504 (Server Time-out), and skip the last step.

   6.  The ESC returns a 200 (OK) response.  The response MUST contain
       an Expires header field indicating the expiration interval chosen
       by the ESC.  The response MUST also contain a SIP-ETag header
       field that contains a single entity-tag identifying the
       publication.  The ESC MUST generate a new entity-tag for each
       successful publication, replacing any previous entity-tag
       associated with that event state.  See Section 8.3 for more
       information on the ESC handling of entity-tags.





Niemi                  Expires November 26, 2004               [Page 13]

Internet-Draft        SIP Event State Publication               May 2004


7.  Processing OPTIONS Requests

   A client may probe the ESC for the support of PUBLISH using the
   OPTIONS request defined in SIP [4].  The ESC processes OPTIONS
   requests as defined in Section 11.2 of RFC 3261 [4].  In the response
   to an OPTIONS request, the ESC SHOULD include "PUBLISH" to the list
   of allowed methods in the Allow header field.  Also, it SHOULD list
   the supported event packages in an Allow-Events header field.

      The Allow header field may also be used to specifically announce
      support for PUBLISH messages when registering.  (See SIP
      Capabilities [12] for details).


8.  Use of Entity-tags in PUBLISH

   This section makes a general overview of the entity-tags usage in
   PUBLISH.  It is informative in nature and thus contains no normative
   protocol description.

8.1  General Notes

   The PUBLISH mechanism makes use of entity-tags, as defined in HTTP/
   1.1 [13].  While the main functionality is preserved, the syntax and
   semantics for entity-tags and the corresponding header fields is
   adapted specifically for use with the PUBLISH method.  The main
   differences are:

   o  The syntax for entity-tags is a token instead of quoted-string.
      There is also no prefix defined for indicating a weak entity-tag.

   o  A PUBLISH precondition can only apply to a single entity-tag, so
      request preconditions with multiple entity-tags are not allowed.

   o  A request precondition can't apply to "any" entity, namely there
      is no special "*" entity-tag value defined for PUBLISH.

   o  Whereas in HTTP/1.1 returning an entity-tag is optional for origin
      servers, in PUBLISH ESCs are required to always return an
      entity-tag for a successful publication.

   The main motivation for the above adaptation is that PUBLISH is
   conceptually an HTTP PUT, for which only a subset of the features in
   cache validation using entity-tags is allowed in HTTP/1.1.  It makes
   little sense to enable features other than this subset for event
   state publication.

   To make it apparent that the entity-tags usage in PUBLISH is similar



Niemi                  Expires November 26, 2004               [Page 14]

Internet-Draft        SIP Event State Publication               May 2004


   but not identical to HTTP/1.1, we have not adopted the header field
   names directly from HTTP/1.1, but rather have created similar but
   distinct names, as can be seen in Section 11.

8.2  Client Usage

   Each successful publication will get assigned an entity-tag which is
   then delivered to the EPA in the response to the PUBLISH request.
   The EPA needs to store that entity-tag, replacing any previous
   entity-tag for that event state.  If a request fails with a 412
   (Conditional Request Failed) response, the EPA discards the
   entity-tag that caused the failure.

   Entity-tags are opaque tokens to the EPA.  The EPA cannot infer any
   further semantics from an entity-tag beyond a simple identifier, or
   assume a specific formatting.  An entity-tag may be a monotonically
   increasing counter, but it may also be a totally random token.  It is
   up to the ESC implementation as to what the formatting of an
   entity-tag is.

8.3  Server Usage

   Entity-tags are generated and maintained by the ESC.  They are part
   of the state maintained by the ESC that also includes the actual
   event state and its remaining expiration interval.  An entity-tag is
   generated and stored for each successful event state publication, and
   returned to the EPA in a 200 (OK) response.  Each event state
   publication from the EPA that updates a previous publication will
   include an entity-tag that the ESC can use as a search key in the set
   of active publications.

   The way in which an entity-tag is generated is an implementation
   decision.  One possible way to generate an entity-tag is to implement
   it as an integer counter that is incremented by one for each
   successfully processed publication.  Other, equally valid ways for
   generating entity-tags exist, and this document makes no
   recommendations or preference for a single way.

9.  Controlling the Rate of Publication

   As the aggregator of state information from potentially many sources,
   the ESC can be subject to considerable amounts of publication
   traffic.  There are ways to reduce the amount of PUBLISH requests
   that the ESC receives:

   o  Choice of the expiration interval for a publication can be
      affected by the ESC.  It can insist that an EPA chooses a longer
      expiration value to what it suggests, in case the ESC's local



Niemi                  Expires November 26, 2004               [Page 15]

Internet-Draft        SIP Event State Publication               May 2004


      default minimum expiration value is not reached.  Maintaining a
      longer default minimum expiration value at the ESC reduces the
      rate at which publications are refreshed.

   o  Another way of reducing publication traffic is to use a SIP-level
      push-back to quench a specific source of publication traffic.  To
      push back on publications from a particular source, the ESC MAY
      respond to a PUBLISH request with a 503 (Service Unavailable), as
      defined in RFC 3261 [4].  This response SHOULD contain a
      Retry-After header field indicating the time interval that the
      publication source is required to wait until sending another
      PUBLISH request.

   At the time of writing this specification, work on managing load in
   SIP is starting, which may be able to provide further tools for
   managing load in event state publication systems.

10.  Considerations for Event Packages using PUBLISH

   This section discusses several issues which should be taken into
   consideration when applying the PUBLISH mechanism to event packages.
   It also demonstrates how these issues are handled when using PUBLISH
   for presence publication.

   Any future event package specification SHOULD include a discussion of
   its considerations for using PUBLISH.  At a minimum those
   considerations SHOULD address the issues presented in this chapter,
   and MAY include additional considerations.

10.1  PUBLISH Bodies

   The body of the PUBLISH request typically carries the published event
   state.  Any application of the PUBLISH mechanism for a given event
   package MUST define what content type or types are expected in
   PUBLISH requests.  Each event package MUST also describe the
   semantics associated with that content type, and MUST prescribe a
   default, mandatory to implement MIME type.

   This document defines the semantics of the presence publication
   requests (event package "presence") when the CPIM PIDF [6] presence
   document format is used.  A PUA that uses PUBLISH to publish presence
   state to the PA MUST support the CPIM PIDF presence format.  It MAY
   support other formats.

10.2  PUBLISH Response Bodies

   The response to a PUBLISH request indicates whether the request was
   successful or not.  In general, the body of such a response will be



Niemi                  Expires November 26, 2004               [Page 16]

Internet-Draft        SIP Event State Publication               May 2004


   empty unless the event package defines explicit meaning for such a
   body.

   There is no such meaning for the body of a response to a presence
   publication.

10.3  Multiple Sources for Event State

   For some event packages, the underlying model is that of a single
   aggregator of event state (ESC), and multiple sources, out of which
   only some may be using the PUBLISH mechanism.

      Note that sources for event state other than those using the
      PUBLISH mechanism are explicitly allowed.  However, it is beyond
      the scope of this document to define such interfaces.

   Event packages that make use of the PUBLISH mechanism SHOULD describe
   whether this model for event state publication is applicable, and MAY
   describe specific mechanisms used for aggregating publications from
   multiple sources.

   For presence, a PUA can publish presence state for just a subset of
   the tuples that may be composited into the presence document that
   watchers receive in a NOTIFY.  The mechanism by which the ESC
   aggregates this information is a matter of local policy and out of
   the scope of this specification.

10.4  Event State Segmentation

   For some event packages, there exists a natural decomposition of
   event state into segments.  Each segment is defined as one of
   potentially many identifiable sections in the published event state.
   Any event package whose content type supports such segmentation of
   event state, SHOULD describe the way in which these event state
   segments are identified by the ESC.

   In presence publication, the EPA MUST keep the "id" attributes of
   tuples consistent in the context of an entity-tag.  If a publication
   modifies the contents of a tuple, that tuple MUST maintain its
   original "id".  The ESC will interpret each tuple in the context of
   the entity-tag with which the request arrived.  A tuple whose "id" is
   missing compared to the original publication will be considered as
   being removed.  Similarly, a tuple is interpreted as being added if
   its "id" attribute is one that the original publication did not
   contain.






Niemi                  Expires November 26, 2004               [Page 17]

Internet-Draft        SIP Event State Publication               May 2004


10.5  Rate of Publication

   Controlling the rate of publication is discussed in Section 9.
   Individual event packages MAY in turn define recommendations (SHOULD
   or MUST strength) on absolute maximum rates at which publications are
   allowed to be generated by a single EPA.

   There are no rate limiting recommendations for presence publication.

11.  Protocol Element Definitions

   This section describes the extensions required for event publication
   in SIP.

11.1  New Methods

11.1.1  PUBLISH Method

   "PUBLISH" is added to the definition of the element "Method" in the
   SIP message grammar.  As with all other SIP methods, the method name
   is case sensitive.  PUBLISH is used to publish event state to an
   entity responsible for compositing this event state.

   Table 2 and Table 3 extend Tables 2 and 3 of RFC 3261 [4] by adding
   an additional column, defining the header fields that can be used in
   PUBLISH requests and responses.  The keys in these tables are
   specified in Section 20 of RFC 3261 [4].
























Niemi                  Expires November 26, 2004               [Page 18]

Internet-Draft        SIP Event State Publication               May 2004


              +---------------------+---------+---------+
              | Header Field        |  where  | PUBLISH |
              +---------------------+---------+---------+
              | Accept              |    R    |    o    |
              | Accept              |   2xx   |    -    |
              | Accept              |   415   |    m*   |
              | Accept-Encoding     |    R    |    o    |
              | Accept-Encoding     |   2xx   |    -    |
              | Accept-Encoding     |   415   |    m*   |
              | Accept-Language     |    R    |    o    |
              | Accept-Language     |   2xx   |    -    |
              | Accept-Language     |   415   |    m*   |
              | Alert-Info          |         |    -    |
              | Allow               |    R    |    o    |
              | Allow               |    r    |    o    |
              | Allow               |   405   |    m    |
              | Allow-Events        |    R    |    o    |
              | Allow-Events        |   489   |    m    |
              | Authentication-Info |   2xx   |    o    |
              | Authorization       |    R    |    o    |
              | Call-ID             |    c    |    m    |
              | Call-Info           |         |    o    |
              | Contact             |    R    |    -    |
              | Contact             |   1xx   |    -    |
              | Contact             |   2xx   |    -    |
              | Contact             |   3xx   |    o    |
              | Contact             |   485   |    o    |
              | Content-Disposition |         |    o    |
              | Content-Encoding    |         |    o    |
              | Content-Language    |         |    o    |
              | Content-Length      |         |    t    |
              | Content-Type        |         |    *    |
              | CSeq                |    c    |    m    |
              | Date                |         |    o    |
              | Event               |    R    |    m    |
              | Error-Info          | 300-699 |    o    |
              | Expires             |         |    o    |
              | Expires             |   2xx   |    m    |
              | From                |    c    |    m    |
              | In-Reply-To         |    R    |    -    |
              | Max-Forwards        |    R    |    m    |
              | Min-Expires         |   423   |    m    |
              | MIME-Version        |         |    o    |
              | Organization        |         |    o    |
              +---------------------+---------+---------+

                Table 2: Summary of header fields, A--O




Niemi                  Expires November 26, 2004               [Page 19]

Internet-Draft        SIP Event State Publication               May 2004


          +---------------------+-----------------+---------+
          | Header Field        |      where      | PUBLISH |
          +---------------------+-----------------+---------+
          | Priority            |        R        |    o    |
          | Proxy-Authenticate  |       407       |    m    |
          | Proxy-Authenticate  |       401       |    o    |
          | Proxy-Authorization |        R        |    o    |
          | Proxy-Require       |        R        |    o    |
          | Record-Route        |                 |    -    |
          | Reply-To            |                 |    -    |
          | Require             |                 |    o    |
          | Retry-After         | 404,413,480,486 |    o    |
          | Retry-After         |     500,503     |    o    |
          | Retry-After         |     600,603     |    o    |
          | Route               |        R        |    c    |
          | Server              |        r        |    o    |
          | Subject             |        R        |    o    |
          | Supported           |        R        |    o    |
          | Supported           |       2xx       |    o    |
          | Timestamp           |                 |    o    |
          | To                  |       c(1)      |    m    |
          | Unsupported         |       420       |    o    |
          | User-Agent          |                 |    o    |
          | Via                 |        R        |    m    |
          | Via                 |        rc       |    m    |
          | Warning             |        r        |    o    |
          | WWW-Authenticate    |       401       |    m    |
          | WWW-Authenticate    |       407       |    o    |
          +---------------------+-----------------+---------+

                Table 3: Summary of header fields, P--Z


11.2  New Response Codes

11.2.1  "412 Conditional Request Failed" Response Code

   The 412 (Conditional Request Failed) response is added to the
   "Client-Error" header field definition.  412 (Conditional Request
   Failed) is used to indicate that the precondition given for the
   request has failed.

11.3  New Header Fields

   Table 4, Table 5, and Table 6 expand on Table 3 in SIP [4], as
   amended by the changes in Section 11.1.





Niemi                  Expires November 26, 2004               [Page 20]

Internet-Draft        SIP Event State Publication               May 2004


     +--------------+-------+-------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
     | Header Field | where | proxy | ACK | BYE | CAN | INF | INV |
     +--------------+-------+-------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
     | SIP-ETag     |  2xx  |       |  -  |  -  |  -  |  -  |  -  |
     | SIP-If-Match |   R   |       |  -  |  -  |  -  |  -  |  -  |
     +--------------+-------+-------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+

                Table 4: Summary of header fields, P--Z

     +--------------+-------+-------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
     | Header Field | where | proxy | NOT | OPT | PRA | REG | SUB |
     +--------------+-------+-------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
     | SIP-ETag     |  2xx  |       |  -  |  -  |  -  |  -  |  -  |
     | SIP-If-Match |   R   |       |  -  |  -  |  -  |  -  |  -  |
     +--------------+-------+-------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+

                Table 5: Summary of header fields, P--Z

      +--------------+-------+-------+-----+-----+-----+---------+
      | Header Field | where | proxy | UPD | MSG | REF | PUBLISH |
      +--------------+-------+-------+-----+-----+-----+---------+
      | SIP-ETag     |  2xx  |       |  -  |  -  |  -  |    m    |
      | SIP-If-Match |   R   |       |  -  |  -  |  -  |    o    |
      +--------------+-------+-------+-----+-----+-----+---------+

                Table 6: Summary of header fields, P--Z


11.3.1  "SIP-ETag" Header Field

   SIP-ETag is added to the definition of the element "general-header"
   in the SIP message grammar.  Usage of this header is described in
   Section 4 and Section 6.

11.3.2  "SIP-If-Match" Header Field

   SIP-If-Match is added to the definition of the element
   "general-header" in the SIP message grammar.  Usage of this header is
   described in Section 4 and Section 6.

12.  Augmented BNF Definitions

   This section describes the syntax extensions required for event
   publication in SIP.  The formal syntax definitions described in this
   section are expressed in the Augmented BNF [7] format used in SIP
   [4], and contain references to elements defined therein.





Niemi                  Expires November 26, 2004               [Page 21]

Internet-Draft        SIP Event State Publication               May 2004


      PUBLISHm           = %x50.55.42.4C.49.53.48 ; PUBLISH in caps.
      extension-method   = PUBLISHm / token
      SIP-ETag           = "SIP-ETag" HCOLON entity-tag
      SIP-If-Match       = "SIP-If-Match" HCOLON entity-tag
      entity-tag         = token



13.  IANA Considerations

   This document registers a new method name, a new response code and
   two new header field names.

13.1  Methods

   This document registers a new SIP method, defined by the following
   information, which is to be added to the method and response-code
   sub-registry under http://www.iana.org/assignments/sip-parameters.

       Method Name:   PUBLISH
       Reference:     [RFCYYYY]

      (Note to RFC Editor: Replace YYYY with the RFC number of this
      document when published).


13.2  Response Codes

   This document registers a new response code.  This response code is
   defined by the following information, which is to be added to the
   method and response-code sub-registry under http://www.iana.org/
   assignments/sip-parameters.

       Response Code Number:   412
       Default Reason Phrase:  Conditional Request Failed


13.3  Header Field Names

   This document registers two new SIP header field names.  These
   headers are defined by the following information, which is to be
   added to the header sub-registry under
   http://www.iana.org/assignments/ sip-parameters.

       Header Name:    SIP-ETag
       Compact Form:   (none)

       Header Name:    SIP-If-Match



Niemi                  Expires November 26, 2004               [Page 22]

Internet-Draft        SIP Event State Publication               May 2004


       Compact Form:   (none)


14.  Security Considerations

14.1  Access Control

   Since event state may be considered sensitive information, the ESC
   should have the ability to selectively accept publications from
   authorized sources only, based on the identity of the EPA.

   The state agent SHOULD authenticate the EPA, and SHOULD apply its
   authorization policies (e.g., based on access control lists) to all
   requests.  The composition model makes no assumptions that all input
   sources for an ESC are on the same network, or in the same
   administrative domain.

   ESCs and EPAs MUST implement Digest for authenticating PUBLISH
   requests, as defined in RFC 3261 [4].  The exact methods for creating
   and manipulating access control policies in the ESC are outside the
   scope of this document.

14.2  Denial of Service Attacks

   The creation of state at the ESC upon receipt of a PUBLISH request
   can be used by attackers to consume resources on a victim's machine,
   possibly rendering it unusable.

   To reduce the chances of such an attack, implementations of ESCs
   SHOULD require authentication of PUBLISH requests.  Implementations
   MUST support Digest authentication, as defined in RFC 3261 [4].

   Also, the ESC SHOULD throttle incoming publications and the
   corresponding notifications resulting from the changes in event
   state.  As a first step, careful selection of default minimum Expires
   header field values for the supported event packages at an ESC can
   help limit refreshes of event state.

   Additional throttling and debounce logic at the ESC is advisable to
   further reduce the notification traffic produced as a result of a
   PUBLISH request.

14.3  Replay Attack

   Replaying a PUBLISH request can have detrimental effects.  An
   attacker may be able to perform any event state publication it
   witnessed being performed at some point in the past, by replaying
   that PUBLISH request.  Among other things, such a replay message may



Niemi                  Expires November 26, 2004               [Page 23]

Internet-Draft        SIP Event State Publication               May 2004


   be used to spoof old event state information, although a versioning
   mechanism, e.g., a timestamp, in the state information may help
   mitigate such an attack.

   To prevent replay attacks, implementations MUST support Digest
   authentication with replay protection, as defined in RFC 3261 [4].
   Further mechanisms for countering replay attacks are discussed in SIP
   [4].

14.4  Man in the Middle Attacks

   Even with authentication, man-in-the-middle attacks using PUBLISH may
   be used to install arbitrary event state information, modify or
   remove existing event state information in publications, or even
   remove event state altogether at an ESC.

   To prevent such attacks, implementations SHOULD, at a minimum,
   provide integrity protection across the To, From, Event,
   SIP-If-Match, Route, and Expires headers and the bodies of PUBLISH
   requests.

   If the ESC receives event state in a PUBLISH request which is
   integrity protected using a security association that is not with the
   ESC (e.g., integrity protection is applied end-to-end, from publisher
   to subscriber), the state agent coupled with the ESC MUST NOT modify
   the event state before exposing it to the subscribers of this event
   state in NOTIFY requests.  This is to preserve the end-to-end
   integrity of the event state.

   For integrity protection, ESCs MUST implement TLS [8], and MUST
   support both mutual and one-way authentication, and MUST also support
   the SIPS URI scheme defined in SIP [4].  EPAs SHOULD be capable of
   initiating TLS and SHOULD support the SIPS URI scheme.  ESCs and EPAs
   MAY support S/MIME [9] for integrity protection, as defined in SIP
   [4].

14.5  Confidentiality

   The state information contained in a PUBLISH message may potentially
   contain sensitive information.  Implementations MAY encrypt such
   information to ensure confidentiality.

   For providing confidentiality, ESCs MUST implement TLS [8], MUST
   support both mutual and one-way authentication, and MUST also support
   the SIPS URI scheme defined in SIP [4].  EPAs SHOULD be capable of
   initiating TLS and SHOULD support the SIPS URI scheme.  ESCs and EPAs
   MAY support S/MIME [9] for encryption of event state information, as
   defined in SIP [4].



Niemi                  Expires November 26, 2004               [Page 24]

Internet-Draft        SIP Event State Publication               May 2004


15.  Examples

   This section shows an example of the usage of the PUBLISH method in
   the case of publishing the presence document from a presence user
   agent to a presence agent.  The watcher in this case is watching the
   PUA's presentity.  The PUA may also SUBSCRIBE to its own presence to
   see the composite presence state exposed by the PA.  This is an
   optional but likely step for the PUA, and is not shown in this
   example.

          PUA                     PA                      WATCHER
         (EPA)                   (ESC)
           |                       |                         |
           |                       | <---- M1: SUBSCRIBE --- |
           |                       |                         |
           |                       | ----- M2: 200 OK -----> |
           |                       |                         |
           |                       | ----- M3: NOTIFY -----> |
           |                       |                         |
           |                       | <---- M4: 200 OK ------ |
           |                       |                         |
           |                       |                         |
           | ---- M5: PUBLISH ---> |                         |
           |                       |                         |
           | <--- M6: 200 OK ----  |                         |
           |                       |                         |
           |                       | ----- M7: NOTIFY -----> |
           |                       |                         |
           |                       | <---- M8: 200 OK ------ |
           |                       |                         |
           | ---- M9: PUBLISH ---> |                         |
           |                       |                         |
           | <--- M10: 200 OK ---  |                         |
           |                       |                         |
           |                       |                         |
           | --- M11: PUBLISH ---> |                         |
           |                       |                         |
           | <-- M12: 200 OK ----  |                         |
           |                       |                         |
           |                       | ----- M13: NOTIFY ----> |
           |                       |                         |
           |                       | <---- M14: 200 OK ----- |
           |                       |                         |


   Message flow:





Niemi                  Expires November 26, 2004               [Page 25]

Internet-Draft        SIP Event State Publication               May 2004


   M1: The watcher initiates a new subscription to the
      presentity@example.com's presence agent.

      SUBSCRIBE sip:presentity@example.com SIP/2.0
      Via: SIP/2.0/UDP host.example.com;branch=z9hG4bKnashds7
      To: <sip:presentity@example.com>
      From: <sip:watcher@example.com>;tag=12341234
      Call-ID: 12345678@host.example.com
      CSeq: 1 SUBSCRIBE
      Max-Forwards: 70
      Expires: 3600
      Event: presence
      Contact: sip:user@host.example.com
      Content-Length: 0

   M2: The presence agent for presentity@example.com processes the
      subscription request and creates a new subscription.  A 200 (OK)
      response is sent to confirm the subscription.

      SIP/2.0 200 OK
      Via: SIP/2.0/UDP host.example.com;branch=z9hG4bKnashds7
       ;received=192.0.2.1
      To: <sip:presentity@example.com>;tag=abcd1234
      From: <sip:watcher@example.com>;tag=12341234
      Call-ID: 12345678@host.example.com
      CSeq: 1 SUBSCRIBE
      Contact: sip:pa.example.com
      Expires: 3600
      Content-Length: 0

   M3: In order to complete the process, the presence agent sends the
      watcher a NOTIFY with the current presence state of the
      presentity.


















Niemi                  Expires November 26, 2004               [Page 26]

Internet-Draft        SIP Event State Publication               May 2004


      NOTIFY sip:user@host.example.com SIP/2.0
      Via: SIP/2.0/UDP pa.example.com;branch=z9hG4bK8sdf2
      To: <sip:watcher@example.com>;tag=12341234
      From: <sip:presentity@example.com>;tag=abcd1234
      Call-ID: 12345678@host.example.com
      CSeq: 1 NOTIFY
      Max-Forwards: 70
      Event: presence
      Subscription-State: active; expires=3599
      Contact: sip:pa.example.com
      Content-Type: application/pidf+xml
      Content-Length: ...

      <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
      <presence xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:pidf"
                entity="pres:presentity@example.com">
         <tuple id="mobile-phone">
            <status>
               <basic>open</basic>
            </status>
            <timestamp>2003-02-01T16:49:29Z</timestamp>
         </tuple>
         <tuple id="gwewg991">
            <status>
               <basic>open</basic>
            </status>
            <timestamp>2003-02-01T12:21:29Z</timestamp>
         </tuple>
      </presence>

   M4: The watcher confirms receipt of the NOTIFY request.

      SIP/2.0 200 OK
      Via: SIP/2.0/UDP pa.example.com;branch=z9hG4bK8sdf2
       ;received=192.0.2.2
      To: <sip:watcher@example.com>;tag=12341234
      From: <sip:presentity@example.com>;tag=abcd1234
      Call-ID: 12345678@host.example.com
      CSeq: 1 NOTIFY

   M5: A presence user agent for the presentity initiates a PUBLISH to
      the presentity's presence agent in order to update it with new
      presence information.  The Expires header indicates the desired
      duration of this soft state.







Niemi                  Expires November 26, 2004               [Page 27]

Internet-Draft        SIP Event State Publication               May 2004


      PUBLISH sip:presentity@example.com SIP/2.0
      Via: SIP/2.0/UDP pua.example.com;branch=z9hG4bK652hsge
      To: <sip:presentity@example.com>
      From: <sip:presentity@example.com>;tag=1234wxyz
      Call-ID: 81818181@pua.example.com
      CSeq: 1 PUBLISH
      Max-Forwards: 70
      Expires: 3600
      Event: presence
      Content-Type: application/pidf+xml
      Content-Length: ...

      <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
      <presence xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:pidf"
                entity="pres:presentity@example.com">
         <tuple id="efeef223">
            <status>
               <basic>closed</basic>
            </status>
            <timestamp>2003-02-01T17:00:19Z</timestamp>
         </tuple>
      </presence>

   M6: The presence agent receives, and accepts the presence
      information.  The published data is incorporated into the
      presentity's presence document.  A 200 (OK) response is sent to
      confirm the publication.  The 200 (OK) response contains an
      SIP-ETag header field with an entity-tag.  This is used to
      identify the published event state in subsequent PUBLISH requests.

      SIP/2.0 200 OK
      Via: SIP/2.0/UDP pua.example.com;branch=z9hG4bK652hsge
       ;received=192.0.2.3
      To: <sip:presentity@example.com>;tag=1a2b3c4d
      From: <sip:presentity@example.com>;tag=1234wxyz
      Call-ID: 81818181@pua.example.com
      CSeq: 1 PUBLISH
      SIP-ETag: dx200xyz
      Expires: 1800

   M7: The presence agent determines that a reportable change has been
      made to the presentity's presence document, and sends another
      notification to those watching the presentity to update their
      information regarding the presentity's current presence status.







Niemi                  Expires November 26, 2004               [Page 28]

Internet-Draft        SIP Event State Publication               May 2004


      NOTIFY sip:user@host.example.com SIP/2.0
      Via: SIP/2.0/UDP pa.example.com;branch=z9hG4bK4cd42a
      To: <sip:watcher@example.com>;tag=12341234
      From: <sip:presentity@example.com>;tag=abcd1234
      Call-ID: 12345678@host.example.com
      CSeq: 2 NOTIFY
      Max-Forwards: 70
      Event: presence
      Subscription-State: active; expires=3400
      Contact: sip:pa.example.com
      Content-Type: application/pidf+xml
      Content-Length: ...

      <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
      <presence xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:pidf"
                entity="pres:presentity@example.com">
         <tuple id="efeef223">
            <status>
               <basic>closed</basic>
            </status>
            <timestamp>2003-02-01T17:00:19Z</timestamp>
         </tuple>
         <tuple id="gwewg991">
            <status>
               <basic>open</basic>
            </status>
            <timestamp>2003-02-01T12:21:29Z</timestamp>
         </tuple>
      </presence>

   M8: The watcher confirms receipt of the NOTIFY request.

      SIP/2.0 200 OK
      Via: SIP/2.0/UDP pa.example.com;branch=z9hG4bK4cd42a
       ;received=192.0.2.2
      To: <sip:watcher@example.com>;tag=12341234
      From: <sip:presentity@example.com>;tag=abcd1234
      Call-ID: 12345678@host.example.com
      CSeq: 2 NOTIFY
      Content-Length: 0

   M9: The PUA determines that the event state it previously published
      is about to expire, and refreshes that event state.








Niemi                  Expires November 26, 2004               [Page 29]

Internet-Draft        SIP Event State Publication               May 2004


      PUBLISH sip:presentity@example.com SIP/2.0
      Via: SIP/2.0/UDP pua.example.com;branch=z9hG4bK771ash02
      To: <sip:presentity@example.com>
      From: <sip:presentity@example.com>;tag=1234kljk
      Call-ID: 98798798@pua.example.com
      CSeq: 1 PUBLISH
      Max-Forwards: 70
      SIP-If-Match: dx200xyz
      Expires: 3600
      Event: presence
      Content-Length: 0

   M10: The presence agent receives, and accepts the publication
      refresh.  The timers regarding the expiration of the specific
      event state identified by the entity-tag are updated.  As always,
      the ESC returns an entity-tag in the response to a successful
      PUBLISH.  Note that no actual state change has occured, so the
      watchers will receive no NOTIFYs.

      SIP/2.0 200 OK
      Via: SIP/2.0/UDP pua.example.com;branch=z9hG4bK771ash02
       ;received=192.0.2.3
      To: <sip:presentity@example.com>;tag=2affde434
      From: <sip:presentity@example.com>;tag=1234kljk
      Call-ID: 98798798@pua.example.com
      CSeq: 1 PUBLISH
      SIP-ETag: kwj449x
      Expires: 1800

   M11: The PUA of the presentity detects a change in the user's
      presence state.  It initiates a PUBLISH request to the presence
      agent to modify the published presence information with the recent
      change.


















Niemi                  Expires November 26, 2004               [Page 30]

Internet-Draft        SIP Event State Publication               May 2004


      PUBLISH sip:presentity@example.com SIP/2.0
      Via: SIP/2.0/UDP pua.example.com;branch=z9hG4bKcdad2
      To: <sip:presentity@example.com>
      From: <sip:presentity@example.com>;tag=54321mm
      Call-ID: 5566778@pua.example.com
      CSeq: 1 PUBLISH
      Max-Forwards: 70
      SIP-If-Match: kwj449x
      Expires: 3600
      Event: presence
      Content-Type: application/pidf+xml
      Content-Length: ...

      <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
      <presence xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:pidf"
                entity="pres:presentity@example.com">
         <tuple id="efeef223">
            <status>
               <basic>open</basic>
            </status>
            <timestamp>2003-02-01T19:15:15Z</timestamp>
         </tuple>
      </presence>

   M12: The presence agent receives, and accepts the publication
      modification.  The timers regarding the expiration of the specific
      event state identified by the entity-tag are updated, and the
      published data is incorporated into the presentity's presence
      document.  Note that the document delivered in this modification
      will replace the previous document.

      SIP/2.0 200 OK
      Via: SIP/2.0/UDP pua.example.com;branch=z9hG4bKcdad2
       ;received=192.0.2.3
      To: <sip:presentity@example.com>;tag=effe22aa
      From: <sip:presentity@example.com>;tag=54321mm
      Call-ID: 5566778@pua.example.com
      CSeq: 1 PUBLISH
      SIP-ETag: qwi982ks
      Expires: 3600

   M13: The presence agent determines that a reportable change has been
      made to the presentity's presence document, and sends another
      notification to those watching the presentity to update their
      information regarding the presentity's current presence status.






Niemi                  Expires November 26, 2004               [Page 31]

Internet-Draft        SIP Event State Publication               May 2004


      NOTIFY sip:user@host.example.com SIP/2.0
      Via: SIP/2.0/UDP pa.example.com;branch=z9hG4bK32defd3
      To: <sip:watcher@example.com>;tag=12341234
      From: <sip:presentity@example.com>;tag=abcd1234
      Call-ID: 12345678@host.example.com
      CSeq: 2 NOTIFY
      Max-Forwards: 70
      Event: presence
      Subscription-State: active; expires=3400
      Contact: sip:pa.example.com
      Content-Type: application/pidf+xml
      Content-Length: ...

      <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
      <presence xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:pidf"
                entity="pres:presentity@example.com">
         <tuple id="efeef223">
            <status>
               <basic>open</basic>
            </status>
            <timestamp>2003-02-01T19:15:15Z</timestamp>
         </tuple>
         <tuple id="gwewg991">
            <status>
               <basic>open</basic>
            </status>
            <timestamp>2003-02-01T12:21:29Z</timestamp>
         </tuple>
      </presence>

   M14: The watcher confirms receipt of the NOTIFY request.

      SIP/2.0 200 OK
      Via: SIP/2.0/UDP pa.example.com;branch=z9hG4bK32defd3
       ;received=192.0.2.3
      To: <sip:watcher@example.com>;tag=12341234
      From: <sip:presentity@example.com>;tag=abcd1234
      Call-ID: 12345678@host.example.com
      CSeq: 2 NOTIFY
      Content-Length: 0


16.  Contributors

   The original contributors to this specification are:

      Ben Campbell
      dynamicsoft



Niemi                  Expires November 26, 2004               [Page 32]

Internet-Draft        SIP Event State Publication               May 2004


      Sean Olson
      Microsoft

      Jon Peterson
      Neustar, Inc.

      Jonathan Rosenberg
      dynamicsoft

      Brian Stucker
      Nortel Networks, Inc.


17.  Acknowledgements

   The authors would like to thank the SIMPLE Working Group for their
   collective effort, and specifically the following people for their
   review and support of this work: Henning Schulzrinne, Paul Kyzivat,
   Hisham Khartabil, George Foti, Keith Drage, Samir Srivastava, Arun
   Kumar, Adam Roach, Pekka Pessi, Kai Wang, Cullen Jennings, Mikko
   Lonnfors, Eva-Maria Leppanen, Ernst Horvath, Thanos Diacakis, Oded
   Cnaan, Rohan Mahy and Dean Willis.

18.  Document Change History

   (Note to RFC Editor: please remove this whole section prior to
   publication as an RFC.)

18.1  Changes since "draft-ietf-sip-publish-03"

   The following changes were made since the last version:

   o  Changed the default response phrase for 412 to avoid clashing with
      session preconditions

   o  Added explanations for columns and keys therein in tables 2 and 3
      for clarity

   o  Reworded passages in sections 4.3 and 4.4, and added a reference
      to chapter 8 to clarify the etags usage in refresh/modify
      publications.

   o  Added a reference to section 8 in the last step of section 6 to
      clarify the etags usage by the ESC.

   o  Small wording change in section 8.2, 1st paragraph to clarify the
      meaning of the 2nd sentence.




Niemi                  Expires November 26, 2004               [Page 33]

Internet-Draft        SIP Event State Publication               May 2004


18.2  Changes since "draft-ietf-sip-publish-02"

   The following changes were made since the last version:

   o  Changed title to be in line with draft-ietf-sip-guidelines.

   o  Added RFC 2779 reference, as well as a reference for
      draft-ietf-simple-presence.

   o  Added a definition for presence compositor.

   o  Cleaned up the message syntax in the examples section.

   o  Fixed typos and improved wording.


18.3  Changes since "draft-ietf-sip-publish-01"

   The following changes were made since the last version:

   o  Added new chapter discussing entity-tags in general.

   o  Added new chapter discussing rate control for publications,
      including SIP level push-back.

   o  Added back a considerations section for event segmentation (in
      Chapter 4), and clarified text in other parts.

   o  Clarified text on constructing a PUBLISH.  Added a table
      describing the operations and their properties.

   o  Changed syntax by adding a "SIP-" prefix to the header field
      names.  This is to indicate that the syntax/semantics of
      entity-tags is similar but different from the HTTP counterparts.

   o  Fixed the draft to consistently use Request-URI as identifying the
      target resource for the publication.

   o  Clarified Contact usage and in-dialog requests.

   o  Lots of fixes to various places in the draft based on review
      comments.

   o  Split the old Table 3 into two for better readability.

   o  Fixed examples to use correct PIDF XML namespace declarations and
      MIME type.




Niemi                  Expires November 26, 2004               [Page 34]

Internet-Draft        SIP Event State Publication               May 2004


   o  Added reference to ABNF.


18.4  Changes since "draft-ietf-sip-publish-00"

   The following changes were made since the last version:

   o  Specified the role of the Request-URI in identifying the
      publication target resource.  Also, clarified chapter 5 in this
      regard to explicitly talk about the identification of
      publications.

   o  Changed chapter 6 to use Request-URI in determining the
      publication target resource.  Also clarified language within the
      processing steps of an ESC.

   o  Added missing header fields and removed unneeded "proxy" column in
      Table 1 and Table 2.  Corrected Table 3 content.

   o  Corrected various nits in examples and in body text.


18.5  Changes since "draft-ietf-simple-publish-01"

   The following changes were made since the last version:

   o  Submitted as "draft-ietf-sip-publish-00".

   o  Changed title to better reflect the content.

   o  Removed event state segmentation and collision detection of
      segments, and simplified usage of entity-tags.

   o  Rewrote Ch 4 "Considerations for Event Packages Using PUBLISH" to
      mimic the way RFC 3265 defines considerations for event packages.
      Also, removed normative dependency to
      "draft-ietf-simple-publish-reqs".

   o  Rewrote Ch 9 "Security Considerations" to now include text about
      specific vulnerabilities and the security tools to counter those
      attacks.

   o  Clarified both UAC and UAS usage of entity-tags.  Moved common
      error handling of UACs to a separate sub-section.

   o  Improved description of UAS functionality of Ch 6 "Processing
      PUBLISH Requests", and alinged it with RFC 3261 Chapter 10 on
      processing registrations.



Niemi                  Expires November 26, 2004               [Page 35]

Internet-Draft        SIP Event State Publication               May 2004


   o  Changed entity-tag syntax from "quoted-string" to "token".  This
      is a deviation from RFC 2616 entity-tag syntax, but more aligned
      to how similar things are expressed in SIP.

   o  Restricted the If-Match header syntax to only allow a single
      entity-tag.  Multiple entity-tags are not applicable to PUBLISH.

   o  Added methods other than PUBLISH to Table 3.

   o  Rewrote Ch 10 "Examples" to better reflect actual PUBLISH usage.

   o  Changed reference [10] from caller-prefs to callee-caps.

   o  Overall language and structure tweaking.


18.6  Changes since "draft-ietf-simple-publish-00"

   The following changes were made since the last version:

   o  Merged with "draft-olson-simple-publish-02"

   o  Removed usage of Call-ID and CSeq for ordering

   o  Removed timestamp based versioning

   o  Added versioning based on entity-tag version information (ETag),
      and request precondition (If-Match)

   o  Changed reference to content-indirection as Informative

   o  Added section for ABNF definitions

   o  Editorial corrections, restructuring of document to improve
      readability

   o  Moved the original authors into a new "Contributors" section

   o  Added new definitions in Terminology, and clarified EPA and ESC
      definitions

   o  Strengthened the IANA considerations section.

   o  Added text for announcing/probing support for publish, namely
      OPTIONS and "methods" parameter usage.






Niemi                  Expires November 26, 2004               [Page 36]

Internet-Draft        SIP Event State Publication               May 2004


19.  References

19.1  Normative References

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

   [2]  Rosenberg, J., "A Presence Event Package for the Session
        Initiation Protocol (SIP)", draft-ietf-simple-presence-10 (work
        in progress), January 2003.

   [3]  Day, M., Rosenberg, J. and H. Sugano, "A Model for Presence and
        Instant Messaging", RFC 2778, February 2000.

   [4]  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.

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

   [6]  Sugano, H. and S. Fujimoto, "Presence Information Data Format
        (PIDF)", draft-ietf-impp-cpim-pidf-08 (work in progress), May
        2003.

   [7]  Crocker, D. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax
        Specifications: ABNF", RFC 2234, November 1997.

   [8]  Dierks, T. and C. Allen, "The TLS Protocol Version 1.0", RFC
        2246, January 1999.

   [9]  Ramsdell, B., "S/MIME Version 3 Message Specification", RFC
        2633, June 1999.

19.2  Informative References

   [10]  Campbell, B., "SIMPLE Presence Publication Requirements",
         draft-ietf-simple-publish-reqs-00 (work in progress), February
         2003.

   [11]  Mahy, R., "A Message Summary and Message Waiting Indication
         Event Package for the  Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)",
         draft-ietf-sipping-mwi-04 (work in progress), December 2003.

   [12]  Rosenberg, J., "Indicating User Agent Capabilities in the
         Session Initiation Protocol  (SIP)",
         draft-ietf-sip-callee-caps-03 (work in progress), January 2004.




Niemi                  Expires November 26, 2004               [Page 37]

Internet-Draft        SIP Event State Publication               May 2004


   [13]  Fielding, R., Gettys, J., Mogul, J., Frystyk, H., Masinter, L.,
         Leach, P. and T. Berners-Lee, "Hypertext Transfer Protocol --
         HTTP/1.1", RFC 2616, June 1999.


Author's Address

   Aki Niemi (editor)
   Nokia
   P.O. Box 100
   NOKIA GROUP, FIN  00045
   Finland

   Phone: +358 50 389 1644
   EMail: aki.niemi@nokia.com




































Niemi                  Expires November 26, 2004               [Page 38]

Internet-Draft        SIP Event State Publication               May 2004


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.


Full Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004).  All Rights Reserved.

   This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
   others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
   or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published
   and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any
   kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are
   included on all such copies and derivative works.  However, this
   document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
   the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
   Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of
   developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for
   copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be
   followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than
   English.

   The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
   revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assignees.

   This document and the information contained herein is provided on an
   "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING
   TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING
   BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION



Niemi                  Expires November 26, 2004               [Page 39]

Internet-Draft        SIP Event State Publication               May 2004


   HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
   MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.


Acknowledgment

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











































Niemi                  Expires November 26, 2004               [Page 40]


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