[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: Informational                                   E. Aoki
Expires: January 6, 2008                                         AOL LLC
                                                           S. Parameswar
                                                  Microsoft  Corporation
                                                            July 5, 2007


             Presence & Instant Messaging Peering Use Cases
     draft-ietf-speermint-consolidated-presence-im-usecases-02.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 January 6, 2008.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).

Abstract

   The document describes several use cases of peering of non-VoIP
   services between two or more Service Providers (SP).  These Service
   Providers create a peering relationship between themselves thus
   enabling their users to collaborate with users on the other Service
   Provider network.  The target of the document is to drive



Houri, et al.            Expires January 6, 2008                [Page 1]

Internet-Draft       Presence & IM Peering Use Cases           July 2007


   requirements for peering between domains that provide the non-VoIP
   based collaboration services and presence and Instant Messaging (IM)
   in particular.


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
   2.  Use Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
     2.1.  Simple Interdomain Subscription . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
     2.2.  List Based Interdomain Subscription . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
     2.3.  Authorization Migration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
     2.4.  Page Mode IM  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
     2.5.  Session Based IM  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
     2.6.  Other Services  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
     2.7.  Federation & Clearing House . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
   3.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
   4.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
   5.  Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
   6.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
     6.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
     6.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
   Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements  . . . . . . . . . . 9



























Houri, et al.            Expires January 6, 2008                [Page 2]

Internet-Draft       Presence & IM Peering Use Cases           July 2007


1.  Introduction

   The document uses the terminology as defined in [2] unless otherwise
   stated.

   Real Time Collaboration (RTC) services become as prevalent and
   essential for users on the Internet as email.  While RTC services can
   be implemented directly by users in a point-to-point fashion, they
   are often provided for or on behalf of a Peer Network 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 Peer Network but with those in other Peer Networks as well
   (similar to the old PSTN that enabled global reachabilty).  In
   practice, each Peer Network is controlled by some domain, and so
   there is a need to provide for easier establishment of connectivity
   between Peer Networks, and the management of the relationships
   between the Peer Networks.  This document describes a set of use
   cases that describe how peering between Peer Networks may be used in
   non Voice over IP (VoIP) Real Time Collaboration (RTC) services.  The
   use cases are intended to help in identifying and capturing
   requirements that will guide and then enable a secure and easier
   peering between Peer Networks that provide non-VoIP RTC services.
   The use cases for the VoIP RTC services are described in [3].


2.  Use Cases

2.1.  Simple Interdomain Subscription

   Assume two Peer Networks [2], peer network A and peer network B. User
   Alice@example.com wants to subscribe to user Bob@.example.net and get
   his presence information.  In order to do so, Alice@
   domainA.example.com may connect directly to example.net 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.

2.2.  List Based Interdomain Subscription

   This is similar to the simple interdomain subscription use case
   except in this case Alice subscribes to a Uniform Resource Identifier
   (URI) [8] that represents a list of users in peer network B [9] [4]



Houri, et al.            Expires January 6, 2008                [Page 3]

Internet-Draft       Presence & IM Peering Use Cases           July 2007


   There are two sub use cases here:

   o  The list that Alice subscribes to is a list that is configured by
      the administrator and it is used to host the names of a group of
      specific people, e.g. the support group of a company.
   o  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 SUBSCRIBE [6] sessions.

2.3.  Authorization Migration

   If many users from one Peer Network watch presentities [5] in another
   Peer Network, it may be possible that many watchers [5] from one Peer
   Network will subscribe to the same user in the other Peer Network.
   However, due to privacy constraints, each Peer Network will have to
   send multiple copies of the watched presence document.  The privacy
   constraints enable a user to provide different presence documents to
   friends, co-workers etc.  The need to send multiple copies between
   the Peer Networks is very inefficient and causes redundant traffic
   between the Peer Networks.

   In order to make the subscription between Peer Networks more
   efficient there needs to be a way to enable Peer Networks to agree to
   share privacy information between them.  This will enable sending a
   single copy (the full copy) of the presence document of the watched
   user and letting the receiving Peer Network to be responsible to send
   the right values to the right watchers according to the privacy
   definitions of the watched users who were delegated to it from the
   Peer Network where the watched user resides.

   Instead of sharing privacy between the Peer Networks, 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
   example, if there is a set of watchers in the other Peer Network that
   may see the location of the presentity and another set of users in
   the other Peer Network that may not see the location information, two
   presence documents will be sent, each one associated with a list of
   users that should receive it.  One presence document will contain the
   location information and will be associated with a list of users that
   may see it and the other presence document will not contain the
   location information and will be associated with a list of users that
   may not see the location information.

2.4.  Page Mode IM

   In this use case a user from one peer network sends a page mode [7]
   IM to a user on another peer network.  As with subscription, the
   message will pass between the users through the Signaling path Border



Houri, et al.            Expires January 6, 2008                [Page 4]

Internet-Draft       Presence & IM Peering Use Cases           July 2007


   Elements (SBE) [2] of the peer networks.

2.5.  Session Based IM

   In this use case a user from one peer network creates a Message
   Session Relay Protocol (MSRP) [10] 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.

2.6.  Other Services

   In addition to VoIP sessions which are out of scope for this document
   only presence and IM are nearing standardization completion.  In
   addition to presence and IM, 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 multiple 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.
   o
      *  Note: Document sharing is mentioned in this document only for
         completeness of use cases.  It is not standardized by the IETF
         and will not be included the requirements draft that will
         result from this document.

   The list above is of course not exhaustive as new developments in the
   world of non-VOIP RTC will surface new services.  Enabling peering
   between networks for some of the services will create a basis for
   enabling peeering also for future services.

2.7.  Federation & Clearing House

   Federation as defined in [2] enables peering between multiple Peer
   Networks.  One enablement of a federation can be via a central server
   that provides services to the Peer Networks or using a peer to peer
   model that enables many Peer Networks to connect to each other via
   the peer to peer network.  These services can be an N-way chat
   server, security, lawful interception, logging and more.  This type
   of federation is known also known as a "clearing house".

   Non-VoIP services as being usually more text based and consuming less
   bandwidth may benefit from having a central service that will do
   central services as logging for them.  For example, instead of
   requiring each Peer- Network to log all messages that are being sent



Houri, et al.            Expires January 6, 2008                [Page 5]

Internet-Draft       Presence & IM Peering Use Cases           July 2007


   to the other Peer-Network, this service can be done by the clearing
   house.


3.  IANA Considerations

   This document has no actions for IANA.


4.  Security Considerations

   This document discusses use cases for peering between Peer Networks.
   It is very clear that the protocols that will enable and make such
   peering easier will have significant security considerations.  The
   solutions for the security issues is out of scope for this document
   but here are some examples of security issues that are implied by
   this document:

      When a message is received from a user on another Peer Network,
      the receiving user, should trust that the other Peer Network have
      authenticated the user and it is really the user he or she claim
      to be.
      In order to enable peering between big Peer Networks there are
      some optimizations that will require users of one Peer Network to
      trust the other Peer Network with respect to their privacy.


5.  Acknowledgments

   We would like to thank Jonathan Rosenberg, Rohan Mahy, Jason
   Livingood, Alexander Mayhorfer, Henry Sinnreich and Mohamed Boucadir
   for their valuable input.


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]   Malas, D. and D. Meyer, "SPEERMINT Terminology",
         draft-ietf-speermint-terminology-07 (work in progress),
         June 2007.

   [3]   Uzelac, A., "VoIP SIP Peering Use Cases",



Houri, et al.            Expires January 6, 2008                [Page 6]

Internet-Draft       Presence & IM Peering Use Cases           July 2007


         draft-ietf-speermint-voip-consolidated-usecases-02 (work in
         progress), June 2007.

   [4]   Camarillo, G. and A. Roach, "Framework and Security
         Considerations for Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)  Uniform
         Resource Identifier (URI)-List Services",
         draft-ietf-sipping-uri-services-06 (work in progress),
         September 2006.

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

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

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

   [8]   Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform
         Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax", STD 66, RFC 3986,
         January 2005.

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

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


Authors' Addresses

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

   Email: avshalom@il.ibm.com










Houri, et al.            Expires January 6, 2008                [Page 7]

Internet-Draft       Presence & IM Peering Use Cases           July 2007


   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 January 6, 2008                [Page 8]

Internet-Draft       Presence & IM Peering Use Cases           July 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 January 6, 2008                [Page 9]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.109, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/