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

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 05 RFC 5344

SPEERMINT WG                                                    A. Houri
Internet-Draft                                                       IBM
Intended status: Standards Track                                 E. Aoki
Expires: November 10, 2007                                       AOL LLC
                                                           S. Parameswar
                                                  Microsoft  Corporation
                                                             May 9, 2007


                        Presence & IM Use Cases
     draft-ietf-speermint-consolidated-presence-im-usecases-01.txt

Status of this Memo

   By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
   applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
   have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
   aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.

   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 10, 2007.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).











Houri, et al.           Expires November 10, 2007               [Page 1]

Internet-Draft           Presence & IM Use Cases                May 2007


Abstract

   The document describes several use cases of peering between two or
   more service providers that provide none VOIP based collaboration
   services and presence and IM in particular.  These service providers
   create a peering relationship between themselves thus enabling their
   users to collaborate with users on other communities.  The target of
   the document is to drive requirements for peering between domains
   that provide the none VOIP based collaboration services.


Table of Contents

   1.  Requirements notation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   2.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   3.  Use Cases  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     3.1.  Simple Interdomain Subscription  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     3.2.  List Interdomain Subscription  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     3.3.  Authorization Migration  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     3.4.  Page mode IM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
     3.5.  Session based IM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
     3.6.  Other services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
     3.7.  Federation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
   4.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
   5.  Acknowledgments  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
   6.  References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
     6.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
     6.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
   Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 12





















Houri, et al.           Expires November 10, 2007               [Page 2]

Internet-Draft           Presence & IM Use Cases                May 2007


1.  Requirements notation

   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 [1].














































Houri, et al.           Expires November 10, 2007               [Page 3]

Internet-Draft           Presence & IM Use Cases                May 2007


2.  Introduction

   Real Time Collaboration (RTC) services are becoming as prevalent and
   essential for users on the Internet as email.  While RTC services
   can, like email, be implemented directly by users in a point-to-point
   fashion, they are often provided for or on behalf of a community of
   users within an administrative domain.  As the use of these services
   grows, users increasingly have the need to communicate with users not
   only within their own community but with those in other communities
   as well.  In practice, each community is controlled by some
   authority, and so there is a need to provide for easier establishment
   of connectivity between communities, and the management of the inter-
   community link.  This document contains a set of use cases that
   describe how peering between communities may be used in none VOIP RTC
   services.  The use cases are intended to help in creating
   requirements that will enable more secure and easier peering between
   communities that provide none VOIP RTC services.

   This document will use the terminology as defined in [2] unless
   otherwise is stated.

   The following sections provide several use cases followed by a
   discussion on what these use cases may imply regarding the
   functionalities that need to be provided for in order to implement
   those use cases


























Houri, et al.           Expires November 10, 2007               [Page 4]

Internet-Draft           Presence & IM Use Cases                May 2007


3.  Use Cases

3.1.  Simple Interdomain Subscription

   Assume that we have two peer networks [2], peer network A and peer
   network B. User Alice@A.com wants to subscribe to user Bob@B.com and
   get his presence information.  In order to do so, Alice@A.com may
   connect directly to B.com and subscribe to Bob's presence
   information.  However, peer network B is not willing to support
   subscriptions from any user in the network and is willing only to
   support its users and users that are coming from other peer networks
   that peer network B trusts.

   In reality what will happen is that peer network A will connect to
   peer network B and will send Alice's subscription on Bob to peer
   network B. When peer network B has new information on Bob it will
   send notifications to peer network A that will pass them to Alice.

3.2.  List Interdomain Subscription

   This is the same as the simple interdomain subscription use case but
   in this case Alice subscribes to a URI that represents a list of
   users in peer network B [3]

   There are two sub use cases here.  One use case is when the list that
   Alice subscribes to is a list that is configured by e.g. the
   administrator and it is used to host the names of a group of specifc
   people e.g. the support group of a company.  The other usage is a
   private group of Alice's friends and the reason that Alice will be
   using the list instead of doing separate subscriptions is to save on
   the number of the SUBSCRIBE sessions.

3.3.  Authorization Migration

   if many users from one peering network watch presentities in another
   peering network, it may be possible that many watchers from one
   peering network will subscribe to the same user in the peering
   network.  However, due to privacy constraints, each peering network
   will have to send multiple copies of the watched presence document.
   The privacy constraints enable a user to provide different persence
   document to e.g. friends, co-workers etc.  The need to send multiple
   copies between the peering networks is very inefficient and causes
   redundant traffic between the peering networks.

   In order to make the subscription between peering networks more
   efficient there needs to be a way to enable peering networks to agree
   to share privacy information between them.  This will enabble sending
   a single copy (the full copy) of the presence document of of the



Houri, et al.           Expires November 10, 2007               [Page 5]

Internet-Draft           Presence & IM Use Cases                May 2007


   watched user and letting the receiving peering network to be
   responsible to send the right values to the right watchers according
   to the privacy definitions of the watched user that were delegated to
   it from the peering network where the watched user resides.

   Instead of sharin privacy between the communities, it is also
   possible to send different copies of the presence document with a
   list of the watchers that the presence document is intended to.  For
   exeample, if there is a set of watchers in the other community that
   may see the location of the presentity and another set of users in
   the other community that may not see the location informaiton, two
   presence documents will be sent, each one associaed with a list of
   users that should get it.  One presence doucment will contain the
   location infomrmation and will be associated with a list of users
   that may see it and the otehr presence document will not contain the
   location information and will be associated with a list of users that
   may not see the location information.

3.4.  Page mode IM

   In this use case a user from one peer network sends a page mode [4]
   IM to a user on another peer network.  As with subscription, the
   message will pass between the users through the SBEs [2] of the peer
   networks.

3.5.  Session based IM

   In this use case a user from one peer network creates an MSRP [5]
   session with a user from another peer network.  The session
   establishment and the messages will pass between the users through
   the SBEs [2] of the peer networks.

3.6.  Other services

   In addition to VOIP sessions which are out of scope for this document
   only presence and IM are more or less fully standardized.  However
   there are many other services that are being standardized or may be
   implemented using minimal extensions to existing standards.  These
   include:

   o  N-way chat - Enable a multi participant chat that will include
      users from many peer networks.

   o  File transfer - Send files from a user in one peer network to a
      user in another peer network.

   o  Document sharing - Sharing and editing a document between users in
      different peer networks.  Note that document sharing is included



Houri, et al.           Expires November 10, 2007               [Page 6]

Internet-Draft           Presence & IM Use Cases                May 2007


      in this document more

   There are many more collaboration services that can be thought about.
   Enabling peering between networks for some of the services will
   create a basis for defining many more services

3.7.  Federation

   Federation as defined in [2] is a use case also in real time
   collaboration.

   The none VOIP collaboration features as presence, IM and chat rooms
   may benefit even more then VOIP services from federation.
   Collaboration by its definition is something that is stronger where
   there many more parties collaborating and federation is certainly a
   good way to achieve greater collaboration.

   Additional "side" services as security, lawful interception, logging
   and more may be provided to the peer networks that are members of the
   federation.

   Note that federation is also known as clearing house in the real time
   collaboration industry.




























Houri, et al.           Expires November 10, 2007               [Page 7]

Internet-Draft           Presence & IM Use Cases                May 2007


4.  Security Considerations

   This document discusses use cases for peering between communities.
   It is very clear that the protocols that will enable and make such
   peering easier will have significant security considerations, there
   are out of scope for a use case document.













































Houri, et al.           Expires November 10, 2007               [Page 8]

Internet-Draft           Presence & IM Use Cases                May 2007


5.  Acknowledgments

   We would like to thank Jonathan Rosenberg and Roahn Mahy for their
   input.















































Houri, et al.           Expires November 10, 2007               [Page 9]

Internet-Draft           Presence & IM Use Cases                May 2007


6.  References

6.1.  Normative References

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

6.2.  Informative References

   [2]  Meyer, D., "SPEERMINT Terminology",
        draft-ietf-speermint-terminology-06 (work in progress),
        September 2006.

   [3]  Roach, A., Campbell, B., and J. Rosenberg, "A Session Initiation
        Protocol (SIP) Event Notification Extension for Resource Lists",
        RFC 4662, August 2006.

   [4]  Campbell, B., Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., Huitema, C., and
        D. Gurle, "Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Extension for
        Instant Messaging", RFC 3428, December 2002.

   [5]  Campbell, B., "The Message Session Relay Protocol",
        draft-ietf-simple-message-sessions-19 (work in progress),
        February 2007.



























Houri, et al.           Expires November 10, 2007              [Page 10]

Internet-Draft           Presence & IM Use Cases                May 2007


Authors' Addresses

   Avshalom Houri
   IBM
   Science Park Building 18/D
   Rehovot,
   Israel

   Email: avshalom@il.ibm.com


   Edwin Aoki
   AOL LLC
   360 W.  Caribbean Drive
   Sunnyvale, CA  94089
   USA

   Email: aoki@aol.net


   Sriram Parameswar
   Microsoft  Corporation
   One Microsoft  Way
   Redmond, WA  98052
   USA

   Email: Sriram.Parameswar@microsoft.com
























Houri, et al.           Expires November 10, 2007              [Page 11]

Internet-Draft           Presence & IM Use Cases                May 2007


Full Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).

   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, THE IETF TRUST 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.


Intellectual Property

   The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
   Intellectual Property Rights 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; nor does it represent that it has
   made any independent effort to identify any such rights.  Information
   on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
   found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat 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 implementers or users of this
   specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
   http://www.ietf.org/ipr.

   The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
   copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
   rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
   this standard.  Please address the information to the IETF at
   ietf-ipr@ietf.org.


Acknowledgment

   Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF
   Administrative Support Activity (IASA).





Houri, et al.           Expires November 10, 2007              [Page 12]


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