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

Versions: (draft-niemi-simple-chat) 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 RFC 7701

Network Working Group                                           A. Niemi
Internet-Draft                                                     Nokia
Intended status: Standards Track                        M. Garcia-Martin
Expires: June 18, 2012                                          Ericsson
                                                      G. Sandbakken, Ed.
                                                           Cisco Systems
                                                       December 16, 2011


    Multi-party Chat Using the Message Session Relay Protocol (MSRP)
                       draft-ietf-simple-chat-12

Abstract

   The Message Session Relay Protocol (MSRP) defines a mechanism for
   sending instant messages within a peer-to-peer session, negotiated
   using the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) and the Session
   Description Protocol (SDP).  This document defines the necessary
   tools for establishing multi-party chat sessions, or chat rooms,
   using MSRP.

Status of this Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   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."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on June 18, 2012.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect



Niemi, et al.             Expires June 18, 2012                 [Page 1]


Internet-Draft            Multi-party Chat MSRP            December 2011


   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

   This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF
   Contributions published or made publicly available before November
   10, 2008.  The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this
   material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow
   modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process.
   Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling
   the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified
   outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may
   not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format
   it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other
   than English.



































Niemi, et al.             Expires June 18, 2012                 [Page 2]


Internet-Draft            Multi-party Chat MSRP            December 2011


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   2.  Terminology  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   3.  Motivations and Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
   4.  Overview of Operation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
   5.  Creating, Joining, and Deleting a Chat Room  . . . . . . . . . 10
     5.1.  Creating a Chat Room . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
     5.2.  Joining a Chat Room  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
     5.3.  Deleting a Chat Room . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
   6.  Sending and Receiving Instant Messages . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
     6.1.  Regular Messages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
     6.2.  Private Messages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
     6.3.  MSRP reports and responses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
   7.  Nicknames  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
     7.1.  Using Nicknames within a Conference  . . . . . . . . . . . 16
     7.2.  Modifying a Nickname . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
     7.3.  Removing a Nickname  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
     7.4.  Nicknames in Conference Event Packages . . . . . . . . . . 18
   8.  The SDP 'chatroom' attribute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
   9.  Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
     9.1.  Joining a chat room  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
     9.2.  Setting up a nickname  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
     9.3.  Sending a regular message to the chat room . . . . . . . . 24
     9.4.  Sending a private message to a participant . . . . . . . . 26
     9.5.  Chunked private message  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
     9.6.  Nickname in a conference information document  . . . . . . 28
   10. IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
     10.1. New MSRP Method  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
     10.2. New MSRP Header  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
     10.3. New MSRP Status Codes  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
     10.4. New SDP Attribute  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
   11. Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
   12. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
   13. Acknowledgments  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
   14. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
     14.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
     14.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34












Niemi, et al.             Expires June 18, 2012                 [Page 3]


Internet-Draft            Multi-party Chat MSRP            December 2011


1.  Introduction

   The Message Session Relay Protocol (MSRP) [RFC4975] defines a
   mechanism for sending a series of instant messages within a session.
   The Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) [RFC3261] in combination with
   the Session Description Protocol (SDP) [RFC4566] allows for two peers
   to establish and manage such sessions.

   In another application of SIP, a user agent can join in a multi-party
   conversation called a conference that is hosted by a specialized user
   agent called a focus [RFC4353].  Such a conference can naturally
   involve MSRP sessions.  It is the responsibility of an entity
   handling the media to relay instant messages received from one
   participant to the rest of the participants in the conference.

   Several such systems already exist in the Internet.  Participants in
   a chat room can be identified with a pseudonym or nickname, and
   decide whether their real identity is disclosed to other
   participants.  Participants can also use a rich set of features such
   as the ability to send private instant messages to other
   participants.

   Similar conferences supporting chat rooms are already available
   today.  For example, Internet Relay Chat (IRC) [RFC2810], Extensible
   Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP): Core [RFC6120] based chat
   rooms, and many other proprietary systems provide chat room
   functionality.  Specifying equivalent functionality for MSRP-based
   systems provides competitive features and enables interworking
   between the systems.

   This document defines requirements, conventions, and extensions for
   providing private messages and nickname management in centralized
   conferences with MSRP.  Participants in a chat room can be identified
   by a pseudonym, and decide if their real identity is disclosed to
   other participants.  This memo uses the SIP Conferencing Framework
   [RFC4353] as a design basis.  It also aims to be compatible with the
   A Framework for Centralized Conferencing [RFC5239].  Should
   requirements arise, future mechanisms for providing similar
   functionality in generic conferences might be developed, for example,
   where the media is not only restricted to MSRP.  The mechanisms
   described in this document provide a future compatible short-term
   solution for MSRP centralized conferences.


2.  Terminology

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this



Niemi, et al.             Expires June 18, 2012                 [Page 4]


Internet-Draft            Multi-party Chat MSRP            December 2011


   document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119, BCP 14
   [RFC2119], and indicate requirement levels for compliant
   implementations.

   This memo deals with tightly coupled SIP conferences defined in SIP
   Conferencing Framework [RFC4353] and adopts the terminology from that
   document.  In addition to that terminology, we introduce some new
   terms:

   Nickname:   a pseudonym or descriptive name associated to a
      participant.  See Section 7 for details

   Multi-party chat:   an instance of a tightly coupled conference, in
      which the media exchanged between the participants consist of MSRP
      based instant messages.  Also known as a chat room.

   Chat Room:   a synonym for a multi-party chat.

   Chat Room URI:   a URI that identifies a particular chat room, and is
      a synonym of a Conference URI defined in RFC 4353 [RFC4353].

   Sender:   the conference participant that originally created an
      instant message and sent it to the chat room for delivery.

   Recipient:   the destination conference participant(s).  This
      defaults to the full conference participant list, minus the IM
      Sender.

   MSRP switch:   a media level entity that is a MSRP endpoint.  It is a
      special MSRP endpoint that receives MSRP messages, and delivers
      them to the other conference participants.  The MSRP switch has a
      similar role to a conference mixer with the exception that the
      MSRP switch does not actually "mix" together different input media
      streams; it merely relays the messages between participants.

   Private Instant Message:   an instant message sent in a chat room
      intended for a single participant.  A private IM is usually
      rendered distinctly from the rest of the IMs, indicating that the
      message was a private communication.

   Anonymous URI:  a URI concealing the participant's SIP AOR from the
      other participants in the conference.  The allocation of such a
      URI is out of scope of this specification.  An anonymous URI must
      be valid for the length of the conference, and will be utilized by
      the MSRP switch to forward messages to and from anonymous
      participants.





Niemi, et al.             Expires June 18, 2012                 [Page 5]


Internet-Draft            Multi-party Chat MSRP            December 2011


   Conference Event Package:  a notification mechanism that allows
      conference participants to learn conference information including
      roster and state changes in a conference.  This would typically be
      A Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Event Package for Conference
      State [RFC4575] or Conference Event Package Data Format Extension
      for Centralized Conferencing [I-D.ietf-xcon-event-package].


3.  Motivations and Requirements

   Although conference frameworks describing many types of conferencing
   applications already exist, such as the Framework for Centralized
   Conferencing [RFC5239] and the SIP Conferencing Framework [RFC4353],
   the exact details of session-based instant messaging conferences are
   not well-defined at the moment.

   To allow interoperable chat implementations, for both conference-
   aware, and conference-unaware user agents, certain conventions for
   MSRP conferences need to be defined.  It also seems beneficial to
   provide a set of features that enhance the baseline multi-party MSRP
   in order to be able to create systems that have functionality on par
   with existing chat systems, as well as enable building interworking
   gateways to these existing chat systems.

   We define the following requirements:

   REQ-1:  A basic requirement is the existence of a multi-party
           conference, where participants can join and leave the
           conference and get instant messages exchanged to the rest of
           the participants.

   REQ-2:  A conference participant must be able to determine the
           identities of the sender and recipient of the received IMs.

   REQ-3:  A conference participant must be able to determine the
           recipient of the received message.  For instance, the
           recipient of the message might be the entire conference or a
           single participant of the conference (i.e., a private
           message).

   REQ-4:  It must be possible to send a message to a single participant
           within the conference (i.e., a private instant message).

   REQ-5:  A conference participant may have a nickname or pseudonym
           associated with their real identity.






Niemi, et al.             Expires June 18, 2012                 [Page 6]


Internet-Draft            Multi-party Chat MSRP            December 2011


   REQ-6:  It must be possible for a participant to change their
           nickname during the progress of the conference.

   REQ-7:  It must be possible that a participant is only known by an
           anonymous identity and not their real identity to the rest of
           the conference.

   REQ-8:  It must be possible for the conference participants to learn
           the chat room capabilities described in this document.


4.  Overview of Operation

   In order to set up a conference, one must first be created.  Users
   wishing to host a conference themselves can of course do just that;
   their User Agent (UA) simply morphs from an ordinary UA into a
   special purpose one called a Focus UA.  Another, commonly used setup
   is one where a dedicated node in the network functions as a Focus UA.

   Each chat room has an identity of its own: a SIP URI that
   participants use to join the conference, e.g. by sending an INVITE
   request.  The conference focus processes the invitations, and as
   such, maintains SIP dialogs with each participant.  In a multi-party
   chat, or chat room, MSRP is one of the established media streams.
   Each conference participant establishes an MSRP session with the MSRP
   switch, which is a special purpose MSRP application.  The MSRP
   sessions can be relayed by one or more MSRP relays, which are
   specified in RFC 4976 [RFC4976].  This is illustrated in Figure 1























Niemi, et al.             Expires June 18, 2012                 [Page 7]


Internet-Draft            Multi-party Chat MSRP            December 2011


                               MSRP Sessions
                       +---------------------------+
                       |           +-----------+   |
                   +---+--+    +---+--+        |   |
                   | SIP  |    | SIP  |        |   |
                   | MSRP |    | MSRP |     +--+---+----+
                   |Client|    |Client|     |  MSRP     |
                   +---+--+    ++-----+     |  Relay    |
                       |        |           +-----+-----+
           SIP Dialogs |       /                  |
                       |      |                   | MSRP Sessions
                  +----+------+--+                |
                  | Conference   |        +-------+-----+
                  | Focus UA     |        |    MSRP     |
                  |              |........|   Switch    |
                  |              |        |             |
                  +---+--------+-+        +-------+-----+
                      |        \                  |
          SIP Dialogs |         |                 |  MSRP Sessions
                      |         \                 |
                   +--+---+    +-+----+     +-----+------+
                   | SIP  |    | SIP  |     |   MSRP     |
                   | MSRP |    | MSRP |     |   Relay    |
                   |Client|    |Client|     +-+-------+--+
                   +---+--+    +--+---+       |       |
                       |          +-----------+       |
                       +------------------------------+
                                  MSRP sessions


     Figure 1: Multi-party chat overview shown with MSRP Relays and a
                            conference Focus UA

   The MSRP switch is similar to a conference mixer in that it handles
   media sessions with each of the participants and bridges these
   streams together.  However, unlike a conference mixer, the MSRP
   switch merely forwards messages between participants but doesn't
   actually mix the streams in any way.  The system is illustrated in
   Figure 2.












Niemi, et al.             Expires June 18, 2012                 [Page 8]


Internet-Draft            Multi-party Chat MSRP            December 2011


                                 +------+
                                 | MSRP |
                                 |Client|
               +------+          +--.---+          +------+
               | MSRP |             |              | MSRP |
               |Client|             |             _|Client|
               +------._            |           ,' +------+
                        `._         |         ,'
                           `.. +----------+ ,'
                              `|          |'
                               |   MSRP   |
                               |  Switch  |
                              ,|          |_
                         _,-'' +----------+ ``-._
               +------.-'            |           `--+------+
               | MSRP |              |              | MSRP |
               |Client|              |              |Client|
               +------+              |              +------+
                                 +---'--+
                                 | MSRP |
                                 |Client|
                                 +------+

          Figure 2: Multi-party chat in a Centralized Conference

   Typically conference participants also subscribe to a conference
   event package to gather information about the conference roster in
   the form of conference state notifications.  For example,
   participants can learn about other participants' identities,
   including their nicknames.

   All messages in the chat room use the 'Message/CPIM' wrapper content
   type [RFC3862], so that it is possible to distinguish between private
   and regular messages.  When a participant wants to send an instant
   message to the conference, it constructs an MSRP SEND request and
   submits it to the MSRP switch including a regular payload (e.g. a
   Message/CPIM message that contains a text, HTML, an image, etc.).
   The Message/CPIM To header is set to the chat room URI.  The switch
   then fans out the SEND request to all of the other participants using
   their existing MSRP sessions.

   A participant can also send a private instant message addressed to a
   participant whose identity has been learned, e.g. via a conference
   event package.  In this case the sender creates an MSRP SEND request
   with a Message/CPIM wrapper whose To header contains not the chat
   room URI but the recipient's URI.  The MSRP switch then forwards the
   SEND request to that recipient.  This specification supports the
   sending of private messages to one and only one recipient.  However,



Niemi, et al.             Expires June 18, 2012                 [Page 9]


Internet-Draft            Multi-party Chat MSRP            December 2011


   if the recipient is logged from different endpoints, the MSRP switch
   will distribute the private message to each endpoint the recipient is
   logged.

   We extend the current MSRP negotiation that takes place in SDP
   [RFC4566] to allow participants to learn whether the chat room
   supports and is willing to accept (e.g. due to local policy
   restrictions) certain MSRP functions defined in this memo, such as
   nicknames or private messaging.

   Naturally, when a participant wishes to leave a chat room, it sends a
   SIP BYE request to the Focus UA and terminates the SIP dialog with
   the focus and MSRP sessions with the MSRP switch.

   This document assumes that each chat room is allocated its own SIP
   URI.  A user joining a chat room sends an INVITE request to that SIP
   URI, and as a result, a new MSRP session is established between the
   user and the MSRP switch.  It is assumed that an MSRP session is
   mapped to a chat room.  If a user wants to join a second chat room,
   he creates a different INVITE request, through a different SIP
   dialog, which leads to the creation of a second MSRP session between
   the user and the MSRP switch.  Notice that these two MSRP sessions
   can still be multiplexed over the same TCP connection as per regular
   MSRP procedures.  However, each chat room is associated to a unique
   MSRP session and a unique SIP dialog.


5.  Creating, Joining, and Deleting a Chat Room

5.1.  Creating a Chat Room

   Since we consider a chat room a particular type of conference having
   MSRP media, the methods defined by the SIP Conference Framework
   [RFC4353] for creating conferences are directly applicable to a chat
   room.

   Once a chat room is created, it is identified by a SIP URI, like any
   other conference.

5.2.  Joining a Chat Room

   Participants usually join the conference by sending an INVITE request
   to the conference URI.  As long as the conference policy allows, the
   INVITE request is accepted by the focus and the user is brought into
   the conference.

   The MSRP switch needs to be aware of the URIs of the participant
   (SIP, Tel, or IM URIs) in order to validate messages sent from this



Niemi, et al.             Expires June 18, 2012                [Page 10]


Internet-Draft            Multi-party Chat MSRP            December 2011


   participant prior to their forwarding.  This information is known to
   the focus of the conference.  Therefore an interface between the
   focus and the MSRP switch is assumed.  However, the interface between
   the focus and the MSRP switch is outside the scope of this document.

   Conference aware participants will detect that the peer is a focus
   due to the presence of the "isfocus" feature tag [RFC3840] in the
   Contact header field of the 200-class response to the INVITE request.
   Conference unaware participants will not notice it is a focus, and
   can not apply the additional mechanisms defined in this document.
   Participants are also aware that the mixer is an MSRP switch due to
   the presence of a 'message' media type and either TCP/MSRP or TCP/
   TLS/MSRP as the protocol field in the media line of SDP [RFC4566].

   The conference focus of a chat room MUST include support for a
   Message/CPIM [RFC3862] top-level wrapper for the MSRP messages by
   setting the 'accept-types' MSRP media line attribute in the SDP offer
   or answer to include 'Message/CPIM'.

      Note that the 'Message/CPIM' wrapper is used to carry the sender
      information that, otherwise, it will not be available to the
      recipient.  Additionally, 'Message/CPIM' wrapper carries the
      recipient information (e.g.  To and Cc: headers).

   If a participant wants to remain anonymous to the rest of the
   participants in the conference, the participant's UA must provide an
   anonymous URI to the conference focus.  The URI will be used in the
   From and To headers in the 'Message/CPIM' wrapper, and can be learned
   by the other participants of the conference.  Notice that in order
   for the anonymity mechanism to work, the anonymous URI must not
   reveal the participant's SIP AOR.  The mechanism for acquiring an
   anonymous URI is outside the scope of this specification.

   The conference focus of a chat room MUST learn the chat room
   capabilities of each participant that joins the chat room.  The
   conference focus MUST inform the MSRP switch of such support in order
   to prevent the MSRP switch from distributing private messages to
   participants who do not support private messaging.  The recipient
   would not be able to render the message as private, and any potential
   reply would be sent to the whole chat room.

5.3.  Deleting a Chat Room

   As with creating a conference, the methods defined by the SIP
   Conference Framework [RFC4353] for deleting a conference are directly
   applicable to a chat room.  The MSRP switch will terminate the MSRP
   sessions with all the participants.




Niemi, et al.             Expires June 18, 2012                [Page 11]


Internet-Draft            Multi-party Chat MSRP            December 2011


   Deleting a chat room is an action that heavily depends on the policy
   of the chat room.  The policy can determine that the chat room is
   deleted when the creator leaves the conference, or with any out of
   band mechanism.


6.  Sending and Receiving Instant Messages

6.1.  Regular Messages

   This section describes the conventions used to send and receive
   instant messages that are addressed to all the participants in the
   chat room.  These are sent over a regular MSRP SEND request that
   contains a Message/CPIM wrapper [RFC3862] that in turn contains the
   desired payload (e.g. text, image, video-clip, etc.).

   When a chat room participant wishes to send an instant message to all
   the other participants in the chat room, it constructs an MSRP SEND
   request according to the procedures specified in RFC 4975 [RFC4975].
   The sender MAY choose the desired MSRP report model (e.g., populate
   the Success-Report and Failure-Report MSRP header fields).

   The SEND request MUST contain a top-level wrapper of type 'Message/
   CPIM' according to RFC 3862 [RFC3862].  The actual instant message
   payload MUST be included as payload of the 'Message/CPIM' wrapper and
   MAY be of any type negotiated in the SDP 'accept-types' attribute
   according to the MSRP rules.

   On sending a regular message the sender MUST populate the To header
   of the Message/CPIM wrapper with the URI of the chat room.  The
   sender SHOULD populate the From header of the Message/CPIM wrapper
   with a proper identity by which the user is recognized in the
   conference.  Identities that can be used (among others) are:

   o  A SIP URI [RFC3261] representing the participant's address-of-
      record

   o  A tel URI [RFC3966] representing the participant's telephone
      number

   o  An IM URI [RFC3860] representing the participant's instant
      messaging address

   o  An Anonymous URI representing the participant's anonymous address

   An MSRP switch that receives a SEND request from a participant SHOULD
   first verify that the From header field of the Message/CPIM wrapper
   is correctly populated with a valid URI of a participant.  This



Niemi, et al.             Expires June 18, 2012                [Page 12]


Internet-Draft            Multi-party Chat MSRP            December 2011


   imposes a requirement for the focus of the conference to inform the
   MSRP switch of the URIs by which the participant is known, in order
   for the MSRP switch to validate messages.  Section 6.3 provides
   further information with the actions to be taken in case this
   validation fails.

   Then the MSRP switch should inspect the To header field of the
   Message/CPIM wrapper.  If the MSRP switch receives a message
   containing several To header fields in the Message/CPIM wrapper the
   MSRP switch MUST reject the MSRP SEND request with a 403 response, as
   per procedures in RFC 4975 [RFC4975].  Then, if the To header field
   of the Message/CPIM wrapper contains the chat room URI and there are
   no other To header fields, the MSRP switch can generate a copy of the
   SEND request to each of the participants in the conference except the
   sender.  The MSRP switch MUST NOT modify the content received in the
   SEND request.  However, the MSRP switch MAY re-chunk any of the
   outbound MSRP SEND requests.

   Note that the MSRP switch does not need to wait for the reception of
   the complete MSRP chunk or MSRP message before it starts the
   distribution to the rest of the participants.  Instead, once the MSRP
   switch has received the headers of the Message/CPIM wrapper it SHOULD
   start the distribution process.  Having the header of the Message/
   CPIM wrapper only in the first chunk, the MSRP switch MUST track the
   Message-Id until the last chunk of the message has been distributed.

   An MSRP endpoint that receives a SEND request from the MSRP switch
   containing a Message/CPIM wrapper SHOULD first inspect the To header
   field of the Message/CPIM wrapper.  If the To header field is set to
   the chat room URI, it should render it as a regular message that has
   been distributed to all the participants in the conference.  Then the
   MSRP endpoint SHOULD inspect the From header field of the Message/
   CPIM wrapper to identify the sender.  The From header field will
   include a URI that identifies the sender.  The endpoint might have
   also received further identity information through a subscription to
   a conference event package.

6.2.  Private Messages

   This section describes the conventions used to send and receive
   private instant messages, i.e., instant messages that are addressed
   to one participant of the chat room rather to all of them.  A chat
   room can signal support for private messages using the 'chatroom'
   attribute in SDP (see Section 8 for details).

   When a chat room participant wishes to send a private instant message
   to a participant in the chat room, it follows the same procedures for
   creating a SEND request as for regular messages (Section 6.1).  The



Niemi, et al.             Expires June 18, 2012                [Page 13]


Internet-Draft            Multi-party Chat MSRP            December 2011


   only difference is that the MSRP endpoint MUST populate a single To
   header of the Message/CPIM wrapper with the identity of the intended
   recipient.  The identity can be SIP, TEL, and IM URIs typically
   learned from the information received in notifications of a
   conference event package.

   As for regular messages, an MSRP switch that receives a SEND request
   from a participant SHOULD first verify that the From header field of
   the Message/CPIM wrapper is correctly populated with a valid URI
   (i.e., the URI is a participant of this chat room).  Section 6.3
   provides further information with the actions to be taken in case
   this validation fails.

   Then the MSRP switch MUST inspect the To header field of the Message/
   CPIM wrapper.  If the MSRP switch receives a message containing
   several To header fields in the Message/CPIM wrapper the MSRP switch
   MUST reject the MSRP SEND request with a 403 response, as per
   procedures in RFC 4975 [RFC4975].  Then the MSRP switch MUST verify
   that the To header of the Message/CPIM wrapper matches the URI of a
   participant of the chat room.  If this To header field does not
   contain the URI of a participant of the chat room or if the To header
   field cannot be resolved (e.g., caused by a mistyped URI), the MSRP
   switch MUST reject the request with a 404 response.  This new 404
   status code indicates a failure to resolve the recipient URI in the
   To header field of the Message/CPIM wrapper.

      Notice the importance of the From and To headers in the Message/
      CPIM wrapper.  If an intermediary modifies these values, the MSRP
      switch might not be able to identify the source or intended
      destination of the message, resulting in a rejection of the
      message.

   Finally, the MSRP switch MUST verify that the recipient supports
   private messages.  If the recipient does not support private
   messages, the MSRP switch MUST reject the request with a 428
   response.  This new response 428 indicates that the recipient does
   not support private messages.  Any potential REPORT request that the
   MSRP switch sends to the sender MUST include a Message/CPIM wrapper
   containing the original From header field included in the SEND
   request and the To header field of the original Message/CPIM wrapper.
   The MSRP switch MUST NOT forward private messages to a recipient that
   does not support private messaging.

   If successful, the MSRP switch should search its mapping table to
   find the MSRP sessions established towards the recipient.  If a match
   is found the MSRP switch MUST create a SEND request and MUST copy the
   contents of the sender's message to it.




Niemi, et al.             Expires June 18, 2012                [Page 14]


Internet-Draft            Multi-party Chat MSRP            December 2011


   An MSRP endpoint that receives a SEND request from the MSRP switch
   does the same validations as for regular messages (Section 6.1).  If
   the To header field is different from the chat room URI, the MSRP
   endpoints knows that this is a private message.  The endpoint should
   render who it is from based on the value of the From header of the
   Message/CPIM wrapper.  The endpoint can also use the sender's
   nickname, possibly learned via a conference event package, to render
   such nickname rather than the sender's actual URI.

   It is possible that a participant, identified by a SIP Address of
   Record or other valid URI, joins a conference of instant messages
   from two or more different SIP UAs.  It is RECOMMENDED that the MSRP
   switch can map a URI to two or more MSRP sessions.  If the policy of
   the server allows for this, the MSRP switch MUST copy all messages
   intended to the recipient through each MSRP session mapped to the
   recipient's URI.

6.3.  MSRP reports and responses

   This section discusses the common procedures for regular and private
   messages with respect to MSRP reports and responses.  Any particular
   procedure affecting only regular messages or only private messages is
   discussed in the previous Section 6.1 or Section 6.2, respectively.

   MSRP switches MUST follow the success report and failure report
   handling described in section 7 of RFC 4975 [RFC4975], complemented
   with the procedures described in this section.  The MSRP switch MUST
   act as an MSRP endpoint receiver of the request according to section
   5.3.3RFC 4975 [RFC4975].

   If the MSRP switch receives an MSRP SEND request that does not
   contain a Message/CPIM wrapper, the MSRP switch MUST reject the
   request with a 415 response (specified in RFC 4975 [RFC4975]).

   If the MSRP switch receives an MSRP SEND request where the URI
   included in the From header field of the Message/CPIM wrapper is not
   valid, (e.g, because it does not "belong" to the sender of the
   message or is not a valid participant of the chat room), the MSRP
   switch MUST reject the request with a 403 response.  In non-error
   cases, the MSRP switch MUST construct responses according to section
   7.2.2RFC 4975 [RFC4975].

   When the MSRP switch forwards a SEND request, it MAY use any report
   model in the copies intended for the recipients.  The receiver
   reports from the recipients MUST NOT be forwarded to the originator
   of the original SEND request.  This could lead to having the sender
   receiving multiple reports for a single MSRP request.




Niemi, et al.             Expires June 18, 2012                [Page 15]


Internet-Draft            Multi-party Chat MSRP            December 2011


7.  Nicknames

   A common characteristic of existing chat room services is that
   participants have the ability to present themselves with a nickname
   to the rest of the participants of the conference.  It is used for
   easy reference of participants in the chat room, and can also provide
   anonymous participants with a meaningful descriptive name.

   A nickname is a useful construct in many use cases, of which MSRP
   chat is but one example.  It is associated with a URI of which the
   participant is known to the focus.  Therefore, if a user joins the
   chat room under the same URI from multiple devices, he or she may
   request the same nickname across all these devices.

   A nickname is a user selectable appearance of which the participant
   wants to be known to the other participants.  It is not a 'display-
   name', but it is used somewhat like a display name.  A main
   difference is that a nickname is unique inside a chat room to allow
   an unambiguous reference to a participant in the chat.  Nicknames may
   be long lived, or may be temporary.  Users also need to reserve a
   nickname prior to its utilization.

   This memo specifies the nickname as a string.  The nickname string
   MUST be unambiguous within the scope of the chat room (conference
   instance).  This scope is similar to having a nickname unique inside
   a chat room from Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol
   [RFC6120].  The chat room may have policies associated with
   nicknames.  It may not accept nickname strings at all, or a it may
   provide a wider unambiguous scope like a domain or server, similar to
   Internet Relay Chat (IRC) [RFC2810].

7.1.  Using Nicknames within a Conference

   This memo provides a mechanism to reserve a nickname for a
   participant for as long as the participant is logged into the chat
   room.  The mechanism is based on a NICKNAME MSRP method (see below)
   and a new "Use-Nickname" header.  Note that other mechanisms may
   exist (for example, a web page reservation system), although they are
   outside the scope of this document.

   A conference participant who has established an MSRP session with the
   MSRP switch, where the MSRP switch has indicated the support and
   availability of nicknames with the 'nicknames' token in the
   'chatroom' SDP attribute, MAY send a NICKNAME request to the MSRP
   switch.  The NICKNAME request MUST include a new Use-Nickname header
   that contains the nickname string that the participant wants to
   reserve.  MSRP NICKNAME requests MUST NOT include Success-Report or
   Failure-Report header fields.



Niemi, et al.             Expires June 18, 2012                [Page 16]


Internet-Draft            Multi-party Chat MSRP            December 2011


   An MSRP switch that receives a NICKNAME request containing a nickname
   in the Use-Nickname header field SHOULD first verify whether the
   policy of the chat room allows the nickname functionality.  If not
   allowed, the MSRP switch MUST reject the request with a 501 response,
   as per RFC 4975 [RFC4975].

   If the policy of the chat room allows the usage of nicknames, the
   MSRP switch SHOULD validate that the SIP AOR is entitled to reserve
   the nickname.  This may include, e.g., allowing that the
   participant's URI may use the same nickname when the participant has
   joined the chat room from different devices under the same URI.  The
   participant's authenticated identity can be derived after a
   successful SIP Digest Authentication [RFC3261], be included in a
   trusted SIP P-Asserted-Identity header field [RFC3325], be included
   in a valid SIP Identity header field [RFC4474], or be derived from
   any other present or future SIP authentication mechanism.  Once the
   MSRP switch has validated that the participant is entitled to reserve
   the requested nickname, the MSRP switch MUST answer the NICKNAME
   request with a 200 response as per regular MSRP procedures.

   The reservation of a nickname can fail, e.g. if the NICKNAME request
   contains a malformed or non-existent Use-Nickname header field, or if
   the same nickname has already been reserved by another participant
   (i.e., by another URI) in the chat room.  The validation can also
   fail where the sender of the message is not entitled to reserve the
   nickname.  In any of these cases the MSRP switch MUST answer the
   NICKNAME request with a 423 response.  The semantics of the 423
   response are: "Nickname usage failed; the nickname is not allocated
   to this user".

   As indicated earlier, this specification defines a new MSRP header
   field: "Use-Nickname".  The Use-Nickname header field carries a
   nickname string, and SHOULD be included in the NICKNAME requests.

   The syntax of the NICKNAME method and the "Use-Nickname" header field
   is built upon the MSRP formal syntax [RFC4975]

               ext-method =/ NICKNAMEm
               NICKNAMEm = %x4E.49.43.4B.4E.41.4D.45 ; NICKNAME in caps
               ext-header =/ Use-Nickname
               ; ext-header defined in RFC 4975
               Use-Nickname = "Use-Nickname:" SP nickname
               nickname = quoted-string
               ; quoted-string defined in RFC 4975

   Once the MSRP switch has reserved a nickname and has bound it to a
   URI (e.g., a SIP Address-of-Record), the MSRP server MAY allow the
   usage of the same nickname by the same user (identified by the same



Niemi, et al.             Expires June 18, 2012                [Page 17]


Internet-Draft            Multi-party Chat MSRP            December 2011


   URI, such as a SIP AoR) over a second MSRP session.  This might be
   the case if the user joins the same chat room from a different SIP
   User Agent.  In this case, the user MAY request the same or a
   different nickname than that used in conjunction with the first MSRP
   session; the MSRP server MAY accept the usage of the same nickname by
   the same user.  The MSRP switch MUST NOT automatically assign the
   same nickname to more than one MSRP session established from the same
   URI, because this can create confusion to the user as whether the
   same nickname is bound to the second MSRP session.

7.2.  Modifying a Nickname

   Typically a participant will reserve a nickname as soon as the
   participant joins the chat room.  But it is also possible for a
   participant to modify his/her own nickname and replace it with a new
   one at any time during the duration of the MSRP session.
   Modification of the nickname is not different from the initial
   reservation and usage of a nickname, thus the NICKNAME method is used
   as described in Section 7.1.

   If a NICKNAME request that attempts to modify the current nickname of
   the user for some reason fails, the current nickname stays in effect.
   A new nickname comes into effect and the old one is released only
   after a NICKNAME request is accepted with a 200 response.

7.3.  Removing a Nickname

   If the participant no longer wants to be known by a nickname in the
   conference, the participant can follow the method described in
   Section 7.2.  The nickname element of the Use-Nickname header MUST be
   set to an empty quoted string.

7.4.  Nicknames in Conference Event Packages

   Typically the conference focus acts as a notifier of the conference
   event package.  To notify subscribers of the nickname reserved for a
   given participant, it is RECOMMENDED that conference focus and
   endpoints support Conference Event Package Data Format Extension for
   Centralized Conferencing [I-D.ietf-xcon-event-package].  The
   Conference Information Data Model for Centralized Conferencing
   [I-D.ietf-xcon-common-data-model] extends the user element from RFC
   4575 [RFC4575] with a 'nickname' attribute.


8.  The SDP 'chatroom' attribute

   There are a handful of use cases where a participant would like to
   learn the chat room capabilities supported by the MSRP switch and the



Niemi, et al.             Expires June 18, 2012                [Page 18]


Internet-Draft            Multi-party Chat MSRP            December 2011


   chat room.  For example, a participant would like to learn if the
   MSRP switch supports private messaging, otherwise, the participant
   may send what he believes is a private instant message addressed to a
   participant, but since the MSRP switch does not support the functions
   specified in this memo, the message gets eventually distributed to
   all the participants of the chat room.

   The reverse case also exists.  A participant, say Alice, whose user
   agent does not support the extensions defined by this document joins
   the chat room.  The MSRP switch learns that Alice's application does
   not support private messaging nor nicknames.  If another participant,
   say Bob, sends a private message to Alice, the MSRP switch does not
   distribute it to Alice, because Alice is not able to differentiate it
   from a regular message sent to the whole roster.  Furthermore, if
   Alice replied to this message, she would do it to the whole roster.
   Because of this, the MSRP switch also keeps track of users who do not
   support the extensions defined in this document.

   In another scenario, the policy of a chat room may indicate that
   certain functions are not allowed.  For example, the policy may
   indicate that nicknames or private messages are not allowed.

   In order to provide the user with a good chat room experience, we
   define a new 'chatroom' SDP attribute.  The 'chatroom' attribute is a
   media-level value attribute [RFC4566] that MAY be included in
   conjunction with an MSRP media stream (i.e., when an m= line in SDP
   indicates "TCP/MSRP" or "TCP/TLS/MSRP").  The 'chatroom' attribute
   without further modifiers (e.g., chat-tokens) indicates that the
   endpoint supports the procedures described in this document for
   transferring MSRP messages to/from a multi-party conference.  The
   'chatroom' attribute can be complemented with additional modifiers
   that further indicate the intersection of support and chat room local
   policy allowance for a number of functions specified in this
   document.  Specifically, we provide the means for indicating support
   to use nicknames and private messaging.

   The 'chatroom' SDP attribute has the following Augmented BNF (ABNF)
   [RFC5234] syntax:













Niemi, et al.             Expires June 18, 2012                [Page 19]


Internet-Draft            Multi-party Chat MSRP            December 2011


             attribute         =/ chatroom-attr
                                       ; attribute defined in RFC 4566
             chatroom-attr     = chatroom-label [":" chat-token
                                 *(SP chat-token)]
             chatroom-label    = "chatroom"
             chat-token        = (nicknames-token / private-msg-token /
                                  ext-token)
             nicknames-token   = "nickname"
             private-msg-token = "private-messages"
             ext-token         = private-token / standard-token
             private-token     = toplabel "." *(domainlabel ".") token
                                       ; toplabel defined in RFC 3261
                                       ; domainlabel defined in RFC 3261
                                       ; token defined in RFC 3261
             standard-token    = token

   A given 'chat-token' value MUST NOT appear more than once in a
   'chatroom' attribute.

   A conference focus that includes the 'nicknames' token in the session
   description is signaling that the MSRP switch supports and the chat
   room allows to use the procedures specified in Section 7.  A
   conference focus that includes the 'private-messages' in the SDP
   description is signaling that the MSRP switch supports and the chat
   room allows to use the procedures specified in Section 6.2.

   Example of the 'chatroom' attribute for an MSRP media stream that
   indicates the acceptance of nicknames and private messages:

             a=chatroom:nickname private-messages

   An example of a 'chatroom' attribute for an MSRP media stream where
   the endpoint, e.g., an MSRP switch, does not allow either nicknames
   nor private messages.

             a=chatroom

   The 'chatroom' attribute allows extensibility with the addition of
   new tokens.  No IANA registry is provided at this time, since no
   extensions are expected at the time of this writing.  Extensions to
   the 'chatroom' attribute can be defined in IETF documents or as
   private vendor extensions.

   Extensions defined in IETF document MUST follow the 'standard-token'
   ABNF previously defined.  In this type of extensions, are must be
   taken in the selection of the token to avoid a clash with any of the
   tokens previously defined.




Niemi, et al.             Expires June 18, 2012                [Page 20]


Internet-Draft            Multi-party Chat MSRP            December 2011


   Private extensions MUST follow the 'private-token' ABNF previously
   defined.  The 'private-token' MUST include the DNS name of the vendor
   in reverse order in the token, in order to avoid clashes of tokens.
   The following is an example of a "chat.foo" extension by vendor
   "example.com"

           a=chatroom:nickname private-messages com.example.chat.foo


9.  Examples

9.1.  Joining a chat room

   Figure 3 presents a flow diagram where Alice joins a chat room by
   sending an INVITE request.  This INVITE request contains a session
   description that includes the chatroom extensions defined in this
   document.

                    Alice               Conference focus
                      |                        |
                      |F1: (SIP) INVITE        |
                      |----------------------->|
                      |F2: (SIP) 200 OK        |
                      |<-----------------------|
                      |F3: (SIP) ACK           |
                      |----------------------->|
                      |                        |

           Figure 3: Flow diagram of a user joining a chat room

   F1: Alice constructs an SDP description that includes an MSRP media
   stream.  She also indicates her support for the chatroom extensions
   defined in this document.  She sends the INVITE request to the chat
   room server.

















Niemi, et al.             Expires June 18, 2012                [Page 21]


Internet-Draft            Multi-party Chat MSRP            December 2011


   INVITE sip:chatroom22@chat.example.com SIP/2.0
   Via: SIP/2.0/TCP client.atlanta.example.com:5060;branch=z9hG4bK74bf9
   Max-Forwards: 70
   From: Alice <sip:alice@atlanta.example.com>;tag=9fxced76sl
   To: Chatroom 22 <sip:chatroom22@chat.example.com>
   Call-ID: 3848276298220188511@atlanta.example.com
   CSeq: 1 INVITE
   Contact: <sip:alice@client.atlanta.example.com;transport=tcp>
   Content-Type: application/sdp
   Content-Length: 290

   v=0
   o=alice 2890844526 2890844526 IN IP4 client.atlanta.example.com
   s=-
   c=IN IP4 client.atlanta.example.com
   m=message 7654 TCP/MSRP *
   a=accept-types:message/cpim text/plain text/html
   a=path:msrp://client.atlanta.example.com:7654/jshA7weztas;tcp
   a=chatroom:nickname private-messages

   F2: The chat room server accepts the session establishment.  It
   includes the 'isfocus' and other relevant feature tags in the Contact
   header field of the response.  The chat room server also builds an
   SDP answer that forces the reception of messages wrapped in Message/
   CPIM wrappers.  It also includes the 'chatroom' attribute with the
   allowed extensions.

   SIP/2.0 200 OK
   Via: SIP/2.0/TCP client.atlanta.example.com:5060;branch=z9hG4bK74bf9
    ;received=192.0.2.101
   From: Alice <sip:alice@atlanta.example.com>;tag=9fxced76sl
   To: Chatroom 22 <sip:chatroom22@chat.example.com>;tag=8321234356
   Call-ID: 3848276298220188511@atlanta.example.com
   CSeq: 1 INVITE
   Contact: <sip:chatroom22@chat.example.com;transport=tcp> \
             ;methods="INVITE,BYE,OPTIONS,ACK,CANCEL,SUBSCRIBE,NOTIFY" \
             ;automata;isfocus;message;event="conference"
   Content-Type: application/sdp
   Content-Length: 290

   v=0
   o=chat 2890844527 2890844527 IN IP4 chat.example.com
   s=-
   c=IN IP4 chat.example.com
   m=message 12763 TCP/MSRP *
   a=accept-types:message/cpim
   a=accept-wrapped-types:text/plain text/html *
   a=path:msrp://chat.example.com:12763/kjhd37s2s20w2a;tcp



Niemi, et al.             Expires June 18, 2012                [Page 22]


Internet-Draft            Multi-party Chat MSRP            December 2011


   a=chatroom:nickname private-messages

   F3: The session established is acknowledged (details not shown).

9.2.  Setting up a nickname

   Figure 4 shows an example of Alice setting up a nickname using the
   conference as provider.  Her first proposal is not accepted because
   that proposed nickname is already in use.  Then, she makes a second
   proposal with a new nickname.  This second proposal is accepted.

                     Alice                  MSRP switch
                       |                        |
                       |F1: (MSRP) NICKNAME     |
                       |----------------------->|
                       |F2: (MSRP) 423          |
                       |<-----------------------|
                       |F3: (MSRP) NICKNAME     |
                       |----------------------->|
                       |F4: (MSRP) 200          |
                       |<-----------------------|
                       |                        |

         Figure 4: Flow diagram of a user setting up her nickname

   F1: Alice sends an MSRP NICKNAME request that contains her proposed
   nicknames in the Use-Nickname header field.

   MSRP d93kswow NICKNAME
   To-Path: msrp://chat.example.com:12763/kjhd37s2s20w2a;tcp
   From-Path: msrp://client.atlanta.example.com:7654/jshA7weztas;tcp
   Use-Nickname: "Alice the great"
   -------d93kswow$

   F2: The MSRP switch analyzes the existing allocation of nicknames and
   detects that the nickname "Alice the great" is already provided to
   another participant in the chat room.  The MSRP switch answers with a
   423 response.

   MSRP d93kswow 423 Nickname usage failed
   To-Path: msrp://client.atlanta.example.com:7654/jshA7weztas;tcp
   From-Path: msrp://chat.example.com:12763/kjhd37s2s20w2a;tcp
   -------d93kswow$

   F3: Alice receives the response.  She proposes a new nickname in a
   second NICKNAME request.





Niemi, et al.             Expires June 18, 2012                [Page 23]


Internet-Draft            Multi-party Chat MSRP            December 2011


   MSRP 09swk2d NICKNAME
   To-Path: msrp://chat.example.com:12763/kjhd37s2s20w2a;tcp
   From-Path: msrp://client.atlanta.example.com:7654/jshA7weztas;tcp
   Use-Nickname: "Alice in Wonderland"
   -------09swk2d$

   F4: The MSRP switch accepts the nickname proposal and answers with a
   200 response.

   MSRP 09swk2d 200 OK
   To-Path: msrp://client.atlanta.example.com:7654/jshA7weztas;tcp
   From-Path: msrp://chat.example.com:12763/kjhd37s2s20w2a;tcp
   -------09swk2d$

9.3.  Sending a regular message to the chat room

   Figure 5 depicts a flow diagram where Alice is sending a regular
   message addressed to the chat room.  The MSRP switch distributes the
   message to the rest of the participants.

      Alice               MSRP switch                   Bob   Charlie
        |                      |                        |       |
        | F1: (MSRP) SEND      |                        |       |
        |--------------------->|  F3: (MSRP) SEND       |       |
        | F2: (MSRP) 200       |----------------------->|       |
        |<---------------------|  F4: (MSRP) SEND       |       |
        |                      |------------------------------->|
        |                      |  F5: (MSRP) 200 OK     |       |
        |                      |<-----------------------|       |
        |                      |  F6: (MSRP) 200 OK     |       |
        |                      |<------------------------------ |
        |                      |                        |       |
        |                      |                        |       |

           Figure 5: Sending a regular message to the chat room

   F1: Alice builds a text message and wraps it in a Message/CPIM
   wrapper.  She addresses the message to the chat room.  She encloses
   the resulting Message/CPIM wrapper in an MSRP SEND request and sends
   it to the MSRP switch via the existing TCP connection.











Niemi, et al.             Expires June 18, 2012                [Page 24]


Internet-Draft            Multi-party Chat MSRP            December 2011


   MSRP 3490visdm SEND
   To-Path: msrp://chat.example.com:12763/kjhd37s2s20w2a;tcp
   From-Path: msrp://client.atlanta.example.com:7654/jshA7weztas;tcp
   Message-ID: 99s9s2
   Byte-Range: 1-*/*
   Content-Type: message/cpim

   To: <sip:chatroom22@chat.example.com;transport=tcp>
   From: <sip:alice@atlanta.example.com>
   DateTime: 2009-03-02T15:02:31-03:00
   Content-Type: text/plain

   Hello guys, how are you today?
   -------3490visdm$

   F2: The MSRP switch acknowledges the reception of the SEND request
   with a 200 (OK) response.

   MSRP 3490visdm 200 OK
   To-Path: msrp://client.atlanta.example.com:7654/jshA7weztas;tcp
   From-Path: msrp://chat.example.com:12763/kjhd37s2s20w2a;tcp
   Message-ID: 99s9s2
   -------3490visdm$

   F3: The MSRP switch creates a new MSRP SEND request that contains the
   received Message/CPIM wrapper and sends it to Bob.

   MSRP 490ej23 SEND
   To-Path: msrp://client.biloxi.example.com:4923/49dufdje2;tcp
   From-Path: msrp://chat.example.com:5678/jofofo3;tcp
   Message-ID: 304sse2
   Byte-Range: 1-*/*
   Content-Type: message/cpim

   To: <sip:chatroom22@chat.example.com;transport=tcp>
   From: <sip:alice@atlanta.example.com>
   DateTime: 2009-03-02T15:02:31-03:00
   Content-Type: text/plain

   Hello guys, how are you today?
   -------490ej23$

   Since the received message is addressed to the chat room URI in the
   From header of the Message/CPIM header, Bob knows that this is a
   regular message distributed all participants in the chat room, rather
   that a private message addressed to him.

   The rest of the message flows are analogous to the previous.  They



Niemi, et al.             Expires June 18, 2012                [Page 25]


Internet-Draft            Multi-party Chat MSRP            December 2011


   are not shown here.

9.4.  Sending a private message to a participant

   Figure 6 depicts a flow diagram where Alice is sending a private
   message addressed to Bob's SIP AOR.  The MSRP switch distributes the
   message only to Bob.

           Alice               MSRP switch                   Bob
             |                      |                        |
             | F1: (MSRP) SEND      |                        |
             |--------------------->|  F3: (MSRP) SEND       |
             | F2: (MSRP) 200       |----------------------->|
             |<---------------------|  F4: (MSRP) 200        |
             |                      |<-----------------------|
             |                      |                        |

                Figure 6: Sending a private message to Bob

   F1: Alice builds a text message and wraps it in a Message/CPIM
   wrapper.  She addresses the message to Bob's URI, which she learned
   from a notification in the conference event package.  She encloses
   the resulting Message/CPIM wrapper in an MSRP SEND request and sends
   it to the MSRP switch via the existing TCP connection.

   MSRP 6959ssdf SEND
   To-Path: msrp://chat.example.com:12763/kjhd37s2s20w2a;tcp
   From-Path: msrp://client.atlanta.example.com:7654/jshA7weztas;tcp
   Message-ID: okj3kw
   Byte-Range: 1-*/*
   Content-Type: message/cpim

   To: <sip:bob@example.com>
   From: <sip:alice@example.com>
   DateTime: 2009-03-02T15:02:31-03:00
   Content-Type: text/plain

   Hello Bob.
   -------6959ssdf$

   F2: The MSRP switch acknowledges the reception of the SEND request
   with a 200 (OK) response.

   MSRP 6959ssdfm 200 OK
   To-Path: msrp://client.atlanta.example.com:7654/jshA7weztas;tcp
   From-Path: msrp://chat.example.com:12763/kjhd37s2s20w2a;tcp
   Message-ID: okj3kw
   -------6959ssdfm$



Niemi, et al.             Expires June 18, 2012                [Page 26]


Internet-Draft            Multi-party Chat MSRP            December 2011


   F3: The MSRP switch creates a new MSRP SEND request that contains the
   received Message/CPIM wrapper and sends it only to Bob. Bob can
   distinguish the sender in the From header of the Message/CPIM
   wrapper.  He also identifies this as a private message due to the
   presence of his own SIP AOR in the To header field of the Message/
   CPIM wrapper.

   MSRP 9v9s2 SEND
   To-Path: msrp://client.biloxi.example.com:4923/49dufdje2;tcp
   From-Path: msrp://chat.example.com:5678/jofofo3;tcp
   Message-ID: d9fghe982
   Byte-Range: 1-*/*
   Content-Type: message/cpim

   To: <sip:bob@example.com>
   From: <sip:alice@atlanta.example.com>
   DateTime: 2009-03-02T15:02:31-03:00
   Content-Type: text/plain

   Hello Bob.
   -------9v9s2$

   F4: Bob acknowledges the reception of the SEND request with a 200
   (OK) response.

   MSRP 9v9s2 200 OK
   To-Path: msrp://chat.example.com:5678/jofofo3;tcp
   From-Path: msrp://client.biloxi.example.com:4923/49dufdje2;tcp
   Message-ID: d9fghe982
   -------9v9s2$

9.5.  Chunked private message

   The MSRP message below depicts the example of the same private
   message described in Section 9.4, but now the message is split in two
   chunks.  The MSRP switch must wait for the complete set of Message/
   CPIM headers before distributing the messages.














Niemi, et al.             Expires June 18, 2012                [Page 27]


Internet-Draft            Multi-party Chat MSRP            December 2011


   MSRP 7443ruls SEND
   To-Path: msrp://chat.example.com:12763/kjhd37s2s20w2a;tcp
   From-Path: msrp://client.atlanta.example.com:7654/jshA7weztas;tcp
   Message-ID: aft4to
   Byte-Range: 1-*/174
   Content-Type: message/cpim

   To: <sip:bob@example.com>
   From: <sip:alice@example.com>
   -------7443ruls$

   MSRP 7443ruls SEND
   To-Path: msrp://chat.example.com:12763/kjhd37s2s20w2a;tcp
   From-Path: msrp://client.atlanta.example.com:7654/jshA7weztas;tcp
   Message-ID: aft4to
   Byte-Range: 68-174/174
   Content-Type: message/cpim

   DateTime: 2009-03-02T15:02:31-03:00
   Content-Type: text/plain

   Hello Bob
   -------7443ruls$

9.6.  Nickname in a conference information document

   Figure 7 depicts two user elements in a conference information
   document both having the nickname element with a nickname string.























Niemi, et al.             Expires June 18, 2012                [Page 28]


Internet-Draft            Multi-party Chat MSRP            December 2011


       <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
         <conference-info
          xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:conference-info"
          entity="sip:chatroom22@chat.example.com"
          state="full" version="1">
         <!--
           CONFERENCE INFO
         -->
          <conference-description>
            <subject>MSRP nickname example</subject>
           </conference-description>
         <!--
            CONFERENCE STATE
         -->
          <conference-state>
           <user-count>2</user-count>
          </conference-state>
         <!--
           USERS
         -->
          <users>
            <user entity="sip:bob@example.com" state="full">
              <nickname>Dopey Donkey</nickname>
           </user>
         <!--
           USER
         -->
           <user entity="sip:alice@atlanta.example.com" state="full">
             <nickname>Alice the great</nickname>
           </user>
          </users>
         </conference-info>


          Figure 7: Nickname in a conference information document


10.  IANA Considerations

10.1.  New MSRP Method

   This specification defines a new MSRP method to be added to the
   Methods sub-registry of the Message Session Relay Protocol (MSRP)
   Parameters registry:

      NICKNAME

   See section Section 7 for details.



Niemi, et al.             Expires June 18, 2012                [Page 29]


Internet-Draft            Multi-party Chat MSRP            December 2011


10.2.  New MSRP Header

   This specification defines a new MSRP header to be added to the
   Header Field sub-registry of the Message Session Relay Protocol
   (MSRP) Parameters registry:

      Use-Nickname

   See Section 7 for details.

10.3.  New MSRP Status Codes

   This specification defines three new MSRP status codes to be added to
   the Status-Code sub-registry of the Message Session Relay Protocol
   (MSRP) parameters registry.

   The 404 status code indicates the failure to resolve the recipient
   URI in the To header field of the Message/CPIM wrapper in the SEND
   request, e.g, due to an unknown recipient.  See Section 6.2 for
   details.

   The 423 response indicates a failure in allocating the requested
   NICKNAME.  This can be caused by a malformed NICKNAME request (e.g.,
   no Use-Nickname header field), an already allocated nickname, or a
   policy that prevents the sender to use nicknames.  See Section 7 for
   details.

   The 428 status code indicates that the recipient of a SEND request
   does not support private messages.  See Section 6.2 for details.

   Table 1 summarizes the IANA registration data with respect to new
   MSRP status codes:

       +-------+---------------------------------------+-----------+
       | Value | Description                           | Reference |
       +-------+---------------------------------------+-----------+
       |  404  | Failure to resolve recipient's URI    |  RFC XXXX |
       |  423  | Unable to allocate requested nickname |  RFC XXXX |
       |  428  | Private messages not supported        |  RFC XXXX |
       +-------+---------------------------------------+-----------+

                         Table 1: New status codes

10.4.  New SDP Attribute

   This specification defines a new media-level attribute in the Session
   Description Protocol (SDP) Parameters registry.  The registration
   data is as follows:



Niemi, et al.             Expires June 18, 2012                [Page 30]


Internet-Draft            Multi-party Chat MSRP            December 2011


      Contact: Miguel Garcia <miguel.a.garcia@ericsson.com>

      Phone: +34 91 339 1000

      Attribute name: chatroom

      Long-form attribute name: Chat Room

      Type of attribute: media level only

      This attribute is not subject to the charset attribute

      Description: This attribute identifies support and local policy
      allowance for a number of chat room related functions

      Specification: RFC XXXX

   See section Section 8 for details.


11.  Security Considerations

   This document proposes extensions to the Message Session Relay
   Protocol [RFC4975].  Therefore, the security considerations of that
   document apply to this document as well.

   If the participant's SIP user agent doesn't understand the "isfocus"
   feature tag [RFC3840], it will not know that it is connected to a
   conference instance.  The participant might not be notified that the
   participant's MSRP client will try to send messages to the MSRP
   switch having potentially multiple recipients.  If the participant's
   MSRP client doesn't support the extensions of this specification, it
   is unlikely that it will try to send a message using 'Message/CPIM'
   wrapper content type [RFC3862], and the MSRP switch will reject the
   request with a 415 response [RFC4975].  Still if a participant's MSRP
   client does create a message with a valid 'Message/CPIM' wrapper
   content type [RFC3862] having the To header set to the URI of the
   chat room and the From header set to the URI of which the participant
   is known to the conference, the participant might be unaware that the
   message can be forwarded to multiple recipients.  Equally if the To
   header is set to a valid URI of a recipient known to the conference,
   the message can be forwarded as a private message without the
   participant knowing.

   If a participant wants to avoid eavesdropping, the participant's MSRP
   client can send the messages over a TLS [RFC5246] transport
   connection, as allowed by MSRP.  It's up to the policy of the MSRP
   switch if the messages are forwarded to the other participant's in



Niemi, et al.             Expires June 18, 2012                [Page 31]


Internet-Draft            Multi-party Chat MSRP            December 2011


   the chat room using TLS [RFC5246] transport.

   Nicknames will be used to show the appearances of the participants of
   the conference.  A successful take over of a nickname from a
   participant might lead to private messages to be sent to the wrong
   destination.  The recipient's URI will be different from the URI
   associated to the original owner of the nickname, but the sender
   might not notice this.  To avoid takeovers the MSRP switch MUST make
   sure that a nickname is unique inside a chat room.  Also the security
   consideration for any authenticated identity mechanisms used to
   validate the SIP AOR will apply to this document as well.  If a
   nickname can be reserved if it previously has been used by another
   participant in the chat room, is up to the policy of the chat room.


12.  Contributors

   This work would have never been possible without the fruitful
   discussions in the SIMPLE WG mailing list, specially with Brian Rosen
   (Neustar) and Paul Kyzivat (Cisco), who provided extensive review and
   improvements throughout the document.


13.  Acknowledgments

   The authors want to thank Eva Leppanen, Adamu Haruna, Adam Roach,
   Matt Lepinski, Mary Barnes, Ben Campbell, Paul Kyzivat, Adrian
   Georgescu, Nancy Greene, and Flemming Andreasen for providing
   comments.


14.  References

14.1.  Normative References

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

   [RFC3261]  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.

   [RFC3840]  Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., and P. Kyzivat,
              "Indicating User Agent Capabilities in the Session
              Initiation Protocol (SIP)", RFC 3840, August 2004.

   [RFC3860]  Peterson, J., "Common Profile for Instant Messaging



Niemi, et al.             Expires June 18, 2012                [Page 32]


Internet-Draft            Multi-party Chat MSRP            December 2011


              (CPIM)", RFC 3860, August 2004.

   [RFC3862]  Klyne, G. and D. Atkins, "Common Presence and Instant
              Messaging (CPIM): Message Format", RFC 3862, August 2004.

   [RFC4353]  Rosenberg, J., "A Framework for Conferencing with the
              Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)", RFC 4353,
              February 2006.

   [RFC4566]  Handley, M., Jacobson, V., and C. Perkins, "SDP: Session
              Description Protocol", RFC 4566, July 2006.

   [RFC4575]  Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., and O. Levin, "A Session
              Initiation Protocol (SIP) Event Package for Conference
              State", RFC 4575, August 2006.

   [RFC4975]  Campbell, B., Mahy, R., and C. Jennings, "The Message
              Session Relay Protocol (MSRP)", RFC 4975, September 2007.

   [RFC4976]  Jennings, C., Mahy, R., and A. Roach, "Relay Extensions
              for the Message Sessions Relay Protocol (MSRP)", RFC 4976,
              September 2007.

   [RFC5234]  Crocker, D. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax
              Specifications: ABNF", STD 68, RFC 5234, January 2008.

   [RFC5239]  Barnes, M., Boulton, C., and O. Levin, "A Framework for
              Centralized Conferencing", RFC 5239, June 2008.

   [RFC5246]  Dierks, T. and E. Rescorla, "The Transport Layer Security
              (TLS) Protocol Version 1.2", RFC 5246, August 2008.

   [I-D.ietf-xcon-common-data-model]
              Novo, O., Camarillo, G., Morgan, D., and J. Urpalainen,
              "Conference Information Data Model for Centralized
              Conferencing (XCON)", draft-ietf-xcon-common-data-model-32
              (work in progress), September 2011.

   [I-D.ietf-xcon-event-package]
              Camarillo, G., Srinivasan, S., Even, R., and J.
              Urpalainen, "Conference Event Package Data Format
              Extension for Centralized Conferencing (XCON)",
              draft-ietf-xcon-event-package-01 (work in progress),
              September 2008.







Niemi, et al.             Expires June 18, 2012                [Page 33]


Internet-Draft            Multi-party Chat MSRP            December 2011


14.2.  Informative References

   [RFC2810]  Kalt, C., "Internet Relay Chat: Architecture", RFC 2810,
              April 2000.

   [RFC3325]  Jennings, C., Peterson, J., and M. Watson, "Private
              Extensions to the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) for
              Asserted Identity within Trusted Networks", RFC 3325,
              November 2002.

   [RFC3966]  Schulzrinne, H., "The tel URI for Telephone Numbers",
              RFC 3966, December 2004.

   [RFC4474]  Peterson, J. and C. Jennings, "Enhancements for
              Authenticated Identity Management in the Session
              Initiation Protocol (SIP)", RFC 4474, August 2006.

   [RFC6120]  Saint-Andre, P., "Extensible Messaging and Presence
              Protocol (XMPP): Core", RFC 6120, March 2011.


Authors' Addresses

   Aki Niemi
   Nokia
   P.O. Box 407
   NOKIA GROUP, FIN  00045
   Finland

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


   Miguel A. Garcia-Martin
   Ericsson
   Calle Via de los Poblados 13
   Madrid, ES  28033
   Spain

   Email: miguel.a.garcia@ericsson.com











Niemi, et al.             Expires June 18, 2012                [Page 34]


Internet-Draft            Multi-party Chat MSRP            December 2011


   Geir A. Sandbakken (editor)
   Cisco Systems
   Philip Pedersens vei 20
   N-1366 Lysaker
   Norway

   Phone: +47 67 125 125
   Email: geirsand@cisco.com
   URI:   http://www.cisco.com










































Niemi, et al.             Expires June 18, 2012                [Page 35]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.121, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/