draft-ietf-sieve-notify-presence-02.txt   draft-ietf-sieve-notify-presence-03.txt 
Sieve working group R. George Sieve working group R. George
Internet-Draft Internet-Draft B. Leiba
Intended status: Standards Track B. Leiba Intended status: Standards Track Huawei Technologies
Expires: April 17, 2011 Huawei Technologies Expires: June 1, 2011 November 28, 2010
October 14, 2010
Sieve Notification Using Presence Information Sieve Notification Using Presence Information
draft-ietf-sieve-notify-presence-02 draft-ietf-sieve-notify-presence-03
Abstract Abstract
This is a further extension to the Sieve mail filtering language This is a further extension to the Sieve mail filtering language
Notification extension, defining presence information that may be Notification extension, defining presence information that may be
checked through the notify_method_capability feature. checked through the notify_method_capability feature.
Status of this Memo Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
skipping to change at page 1, line 33 skipping to change at page 1, line 32
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on April 17, 2011. This Internet-Draft will expire on June 1, 2011.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2010 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2010 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
skipping to change at page 2, line 12 skipping to change at page 2, line 12
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License. described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. Terminology Used in This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.1. Terminology Used in This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Testing presence information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Testing presence information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3. Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 6. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
Sometimes, it's desirable to tailor Sieve [RFC5228] notifications to Sometimes, it's desirable to tailor Sieve [RFC5228] notifications to
a user's current situation. Presence information provides some a user's current situation. Presence information provides some
information about the user that would be useful to have access to in information about the user that would be useful to have access to in
these cases. The Notification extension [RFC5435] defines a these cases. The Notification extension [RFC5435] defines a
mechanism to test for presence (the notify_method_capability mechanism to test for presence (the notify_method_capability
feature), and defines one test for presence (the "online" feature), and defines one test for presence (the "online"
notification-capability, described in Section 5 of RFC 5435). This notification-capability, described in Section 5 of RFC 5435). This
extension specifies testing of a wider variety of presence extension defines more presence tests by registering additional
information. notification-capability parameters in the IANA registry, allowing
testing of a wider variety of presence information.
1.1. Terminology Used in This Document 1.1. Terminology Used in This Document
The upper-case key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", The upper-case key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL",
"SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
[RFC2119]. [RFC2119].
2. Testing presence information 2. Testing presence information
This extension uses the "notify_method_capability" test, as defined This extension uses the notify_method_capability test, as defined in
in the Sieve [RFC5228] Notify extension [RFC5435], to test presence the Sieve [RFC5228] Notify extension [RFC5435], to test presence
information. When a Sieve event occurs (mail arrives) for a user, a information. When a Sieve event occurs (mail arrives) for a user, a
Sieve script running on behalf of that user can present the user's Sieve script running on behalf of that user can present the user's
presence URI (in the "notification-uri" parameter) and test a presence URI (in the "notification-uri" parameter) and test a
specific item of notification presence as defined below (in the specific item of notification presence as defined below (in the
"notification-capability" parameter) against one or more values (in "notification-capability" parameter) against one or more values (in
the "key-list" parameter). the "key-list" parameter).
This document defines a set of items of notification presence, which This document defines a set of items of notification presence, which
may be specified in the notification-capability parameter. The may be specified in the notification-capability parameter. The
script tests the values of notification presence items in the key- script tests the values of notification presence items in the key-
list parameter. The values that each item may have are specified in list parameter. The values that each item may have are specified in
the list below; Note that in addition to the presence values, any the list below. Note that in addition to the presence values, any
item may have the value "unknown" if it is not possible to determine item may have the value "unknown" if it is not possible to determine
the correct presence value of the item. the correct presence value of the item.
If a particular presence item is tested multiple times within the If a particular presence item is tested multiple times within the
same script execution context, implementations MUST present the same same script execution context, implementations MUST present the same
value each time (for example, by caching the value on first use). value each time (for example, by caching the value on first use).
This provides consistency within a single execution. This provides consistency within a single execution.
Supported presence items are as follows: Supported presence items are as follows:
skipping to change at page 4, line 41 skipping to change at page 4, line 41
may take. It is free-form, and may be in any language. Direct may take. It is free-form, and may be in any language. Direct
comparisons against the value of this field are unlikely to be comparisons against the value of this field are unlikely to be
useful; rather, it is provided to enable extraction of the value useful; rather, it is provided to enable extraction of the value
into a variable [RFC5229] for use elsewhere (see example 3 in into a variable [RFC5229] for use elsewhere (see example 3 in
Section 3). Note that this is similar to the presence element Section 3). Note that this is similar to the presence element
with the same name that's defined in Section 2.2.2.2 of RFC with the same name that's defined in Section 2.2.2.2 of RFC
3921.[RFC3921] 3921.[RFC3921]
There is no capability string associated with this extension, but There is no capability string associated with this extension, but
this requires support for "enotify".[RFC5435] If the implementation this requires support for "enotify".[RFC5435] If the implementation
does not support the item being tested, RFC 5435 already specifies does not support the item being tested (that is, the specified
that the test fail without an error. notification-capability item is not known to the Sieve interpreter),
RFC 5435 already specifies that the test fail without an error.
Although this feature was conceived to assist in notifications, and Although this feature was conceived to assist in notifications, and
the test requires support of the Sieve Notify feature, it is only a the test requires support of the Sieve Notify feature, it is only a
condition test, and any Sieve action can appear inside it. There are condition test, and any Sieve action can appear inside it. There are
no Sieve actions that conflict with this extension. no Sieve actions that conflict with this extension.
3. Examples 3. Examples
1. This example will send a notification only if the recipient is 1. This example will send a notification only if the recipient is
not "busy". If the test for "busy" is not supported, this not "busy". If the test for "busy" is not supported, this
example will not send a notification. example will not send a notification.
require ["enotify"]; require ["enotify"];
if notify_method_capability "xmpp:tim@example.com" "busy" "no" if notify_method_capability "xmpp:tim@example.com" "busy" "no"
{ {
notify :message "You got mail" notify :message "You got mail"
"xmpp:tim@example.com?message;subject=SIEVE"; "xmpp:tim@example.com?message;subject=SIEVE";
skipping to change at page 6, line 28 skipping to change at page 6, line 28
vacation :handle "ext-away" "${resp_msg}"; vacation :handle "ext-away" "${resp_msg}";
} }
4. Security Considerations 4. Security Considerations
Security considerations for Sieve [RFC5228] and the Notify extension Security considerations for Sieve [RFC5228] and the Notify extension
[RFC5435] apply equally here. In addition, implementations MUST [RFC5435] apply equally here. In addition, implementations MUST
ensure that users can not create scripts that access the presence ensure that users can not create scripts that access the presence
information of others without the proper access controls. information of others without the proper access controls.
In some situations, scripts may act on some of the recipient's
presence information that the sender of the triggering message is not
allowed to see. This can be a benefit to the recipient in many
cases, but it can also present an opportunity for a sender to use
messages to probe the recipient's presence (if, for example, messages
sometimes result in auto-replies, and sometimes do not). Script
authors should take care in considering this aspect of presence-
triggered actions.
It's possible for a large number of messages to arrive at or around
the same time and be processed by Sieve scripts that all test
presence. If many of the users share the same presence server, such
a burst could put an unexpectedly heavy load on the presence server.
Implementations might consider providing options for rate limiting,
or for caching presence tests for periods of time, even across Sieve
script instances.
5. IANA Considerations 5. IANA Considerations
This registers each presence item as a notification-capability This registers each presence item as a notification-capability
parameter. Future extensions that add new presence items should parameter. Future extensions that add new presence items should
register those items similarly, using the instructions in Section 9.3 register those items similarly, using the instructions in Section 9.3
of RFC 5435.[RFC5435] of RFC 5435.[RFC5435]
To: iana@iana.org To: iana@iana.org
Subject: Registration of a new notification-capability parameter Subject: Registration of a new notification-capability parameter
Capability name: busy Capability name: busy
skipping to change at page 7, line 19 skipping to change at page 7, line 31
Subject: Registration of a new notification-capability parameter Subject: Registration of a new notification-capability parameter
Capability name: show Capability name: show
Description: The availability status of the user. This is similar Description: The availability status of the user. This is similar
to the presence element with the same name that's defined in to the presence element with the same name that's defined in
Section 2.2.2.1 of RFC 3921. Section 2.2.2.1 of RFC 3921.
Syntax: Has one of the values "away", "chat", "dnd", "offline", Syntax: Has one of the values "away", "chat", "dnd", "offline",
"xa", or "unknown". The value MUST be in lower case. "xa", or "unknown". The value MUST be in lower case.
Permanent and readily available reference(s): this RFC Permanent and readily available reference(s): this RFC
Contact information: The Sieve discussion list, <sieve@ietf.org> Contact information: The Sieve discussion list, <sieve@ietf.org>
To: iana@iana.org
Subject: Registration of a new notification-capability parameter
Capability name: status
Description: A human-readable description of the user's availability
status. This is similar to the presence element with the same
name that's defined in Section 2.2.2.2 of RFC 3921.
Syntax: There is no formal definition for the values this item may
take. It is free-form and may be in any language, and is meant
for human consumption.
Permanent and readily available reference(s): this RFC
Contact information: The Sieve discussion list, <sieve@ietf.org>
6. Acknowledgments 6. Acknowledgments
The authors thank Alexey Melnikov for significant early feedback and The authors thank Alexey Melnikov for significant early feedback and
suggestions. suggestions.
7. References 7. References
7.1. Normative References 7.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC3921] Saint-Andre, P., Ed., "Extensible Messaging and Presence
Protocol (XMPP): Instant Messaging and Presence",
RFC 3921, October 2004.
[RFC5228] Guenther, P. and T. Showalter, "Sieve: An Email Filtering [RFC5228] Guenther, P. and T. Showalter, "Sieve: An Email Filtering
Language", RFC 5228, January 2008. Language", RFC 5228, January 2008.
[RFC5435] Melnikov, A., Leiba, B., Segmuller, W., and T. Martin, [RFC5435] Melnikov, A., Leiba, B., Segmuller, W., and T. Martin,
"Sieve Email Filtering: Extension for Notifications", "Sieve Email Filtering: Extension for Notifications",
RFC 5435, January 2009. RFC 5435, January 2009.
7.2. Informative References 7.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-sieve-autoreply] [I-D.ietf-sieve-autoreply]
George, R., Leiba, B., and A. Melnikov, "Sieve Email George, R., Leiba, B., and A. Melnikov, "Sieve Email
Filtering: Use of Presence Information with Auto Responder Filtering: Use of Presence Information with Auto Responder
functionality", draft-ietf-sieve-autoreply-02 (work in functionality", draft-ietf-sieve-autoreply-02 (work in
progress), October 2010. progress), October 2010.
[I-D.ietf-sieve-external-lists] [I-D.ietf-sieve-external-lists]
Melnikov, A. and B. Leiba, "Sieve Extension: Externally Melnikov, A. and B. Leiba, "Sieve Extension: Externally
Stored Lists", draft-ietf-sieve-external-lists-02 (work in Stored Lists", draft-ietf-sieve-external-lists-02 (work in
progress), May 2010. progress), May 2010.
[RFC3921] Saint-Andre, P., Ed., "Extensible Messaging and Presence
Protocol (XMPP): Instant Messaging and Presence",
RFC 3921, October 2004.
[RFC5229] Homme, K., "Sieve Email Filtering: Variables Extension", [RFC5229] Homme, K., "Sieve Email Filtering: Variables Extension",
RFC 5229, January 2008. RFC 5229, January 2008.
[RFC5230] Showalter, T. and N. Freed, "Sieve Email Filtering: [RFC5230] Showalter, T. and N. Freed, "Sieve Email Filtering:
Vacation Extension", RFC 5230, January 2008. Vacation Extension", RFC 5230, January 2008.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Robins George Robins George
Huawei Technologies
Bangalore, Karnataka 560071
India
Phone: +91-080-41117676
Email: robinsgv@gmail.com Email: robinsgv@gmail.com
Barry Leiba Barry Leiba
Huawei Technologies Huawei Technologies
Phone: +1 646 827 0648 Phone: +1 646 827 0648
Email: barryleiba@computer.org Email: barryleiba@computer.org
URI: http://internetmessagingtechnology.org/ URI: http://internetmessagingtechnology.org/
 End of changes. 18 change blocks. 
23 lines changed or deleted 56 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.40. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/