draft-ietf-sieve-notify-presence-03.txt   draft-ietf-sieve-notify-presence-04.txt 
Sieve working group R. George Sieve working group R. George
Internet-Draft B. Leiba Internet-Draft B. Leiba
Intended status: Standards Track Huawei Technologies Intended status: Standards Track Huawei Technologies
Expires: June 1, 2011 November 28, 2010 Expires: June 18, 2011 December 15, 2010
Sieve Notification Using Presence Information Sieve Notification Using Presence Information
draft-ietf-sieve-notify-presence-03 draft-ietf-sieve-notify-presence-04
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 32 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 June 1, 2011. This Internet-Draft will expire on June 18, 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 16 skipping to change at page 2, line 16
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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3. Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 6. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
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
skipping to change at page 3, line 36 skipping to change at page 3, line 36
This extension uses the notify_method_capability test, as defined in This extension uses the notify_method_capability test, as defined 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 an initial set of items of notification
may be specified in the notification-capability parameter. The presence, which may be specified in the notification-capability
script tests the values of notification presence items in the key- parameter. It is expected that future extensions will add additional
list parameter. The values that each item may have are specified in presence items derived from diverse sources, including calendar
the list below. Note that in addition to the presence values, any information, geographic location, and so on.
item may have the value "unknown" if it is not possible to determine
the correct presence value of the item. Note that, while the items below are documented as similar to items
in XMPP, it is not the intent that this extension be tied to XMPP,
nor to any particular source of presence, and flexible
implementations will be ready for future extensions. Useful
informational references for presence data and formats include
Presence Information Data Format (PIDF) [RFC3863], RPID: Rich
Presence Extensions to PIDF [RFC4480], and GEOPRIV Presence
Information Data Format Location Object (PIDF-LO) [RFC5491].
The script tests the values of notification presence items in the
key- list parameter. The values that each item may have are
specified in 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 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:
busy - An indication of whether the user is considered "busy" now busy - An indication of whether the user is considered "busy" now
(the value "yes") or not (the value "no"), or "unknown" if it (the value "yes") or not (the value "no"), or "unknown" if it
skipping to change at page 4, line 20 skipping to change at page 4, line 31
show - The availability status of the user, formally specified. Note show - The availability status of the user, formally specified. Note
that this is similar to the presence element with the same name that this is similar to the presence element with the same name
that's defined in Section 2.2.2.1 of RFC 3921.[RFC3921] The that's defined in Section 2.2.2.1 of RFC 3921.[RFC3921] The
value of this item is one of the following: value of this item is one of the following:
away - The user is temporarily away. away - The user is temporarily away.
chat - The user is online and actively interested in chatting. chat - The user is online and actively interested in chatting.
dnd - Do Not Disturb; the user should not be disturbed now. dnd - Do Not Disturb; the user does not wish to be disturbed
now.
offline - The user is offline. offline - The user is offline.
xa - The user is away for an extended period (xa = "eXtended xa - The user is away for an extended period (xa = "eXtended
Away"). Away").
unknown - The correct presence value could not be determined. unknown - The correct presence value could not be determined.
status - A human-readable description of the user's availability status - A human-readable description of the user's availability
status. There is no formal definition for the values this item status, in natural language. There is no formal definition for
may take. It is free-form, and may be in any language. Direct the values this item may take. It is free-form, and may be in
comparisons against the value of this field are unlikely to be any language. Direct comparisons against the value of this
useful; rather, it is provided to enable extraction of the value field are unlikely to be useful; rather, it is provided to
into a variable [RFC5229] for use elsewhere (see example 3 in enable extraction of the value into a variable [RFC5229] for use
Section 3). Note that this is similar to the presence element elsewhere (see example 3 in Section 3). Note that this is
with the same name that's defined in Section 2.2.2.2 of RFC similar to the presence element with the same name that's
3921.[RFC3921] defined in Section 2.2.2.2 of RFC 3921 [RFC3921], and to the
<note> element defined in section 4.1.6 of PIDF [RFC3863].
Because this is a free-form value that might be created directly
by a user, no value, including "unknown", can have any special
meaning. If the Sieve processor is unable to determine the
value of this item, it might be best to leave it as an empty
string. In any case, it is not meant for machine-readable
processing, beyond possible XML interpretation.
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 (that is, the specified does not support the item being tested (that is, the specified
notification-capability item is not known to the Sieve interpreter), notification-capability item is not known to the Sieve interpreter),
RFC 5435 already specifies that the test fail without an error. 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
skipping to change at page 8, line 33 skipping to change at page 9, line 5
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.
[RFC3863] Sugano, H., Fujimoto, S., Klyne, G., Bateman, A., Carr,
W., and J. Peterson, "Presence Information Data Format
(PIDF)", RFC 3863, August 2004.
[RFC4480] Schulzrinne, H., Gurbani, V., Kyzivat, P., and J.
Rosenberg, "RPID: Rich Presence Extensions to the Presence
Information Data Format (PIDF)", RFC 4480, July 2006.
[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.
[RFC5491] Winterbottom, J., Thomson, M., and H. Tschofenig, "GEOPRIV
Presence Information Data Format Location Object (PIDF-LO)
Usage Clarification, Considerations, and Recommendations",
RFC 5491, March 2009.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Robins George Robins George
Huawei Technologies Huawei Technologies
Bangalore, Karnataka 560071 Bangalore, Karnataka 560071
India India
Phone: +91-080-41117676 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. 12 change blocks. 
22 lines changed or deleted 58 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/