draft-ietf-sipping-pending-additions-02.txt   draft-ietf-sipping-pending-additions-03.txt 
SIPPING G. Camarillo SIPPING G. Camarillo
Internet-Draft Ericsson Internet-Draft Ericsson
Intended status: Standards Track April 2, 2007 Intended status: Standards Track November 13, 2007
Expires: October 4, 2007 Expires: May 16, 2008
The Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Pending Additions Event Package The Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Pending Additions Event Package
draft-ietf-sipping-pending-additions-02.txt draft-ietf-sipping-pending-additions-03.txt
Status of this Memo Status of this Memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79. aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
skipping to change at page 1, line 34 skipping to change at page 1, line 34
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."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on October 4, 2007. This Internet-Draft will expire on May 16, 2008.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007). Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).
Abstract Abstract
This document defines the SIP Pending Additions event package. This This document defines the SIP Pending Additions event package. This
event package is used by SIP relays to inform user agents about the event package is used by SIP relays to inform user agents about the
consent-related status of the entries to be added to a resource list. consent-related status of the entries to be added to a resource list.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Overview of Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. Overview of Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. XML Schema Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 4. XML Schema Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5. Pending Additions Event Package Definition . . . . . . . . . . 5 5. Pending Additions Event Package Definition . . . . . . . . . . 5
5.1. Event Package Name . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 5.1. Event Package Name . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5.1.1. Event Package Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 5.1.1. Event Package Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5.1.2. SUBSCRIBE Bodies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 5.1.2. SUBSCRIBE Bodies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5.1.3. Subscription Duration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 5.1.3. Subscription Duration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5.1.4. NOTIFY Bodies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 5.1.4. NOTIFY Bodies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5.1.5. Notifier Processing of SUBSCRIBE Requests . . . . . . 6 5.1.5. Notifier Processing of SUBSCRIBE Requests . . . . . . 6
5.1.6. Notifier Generation of NOTIFY Requests . . . . . . . . 6 5.1.6. Notifier Generation of NOTIFY Requests . . . . . . . . 6
5.1.7. Subscriber Processing of NOTIFY Requests . . . . . . . 6 5.1.7. Subscriber Processing of NOTIFY Requests . . . . . . . 6
5.1.8. Handling of Forked Requests . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 5.1.8. Handling of Forked Requests . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5.1.9. Rate of Notifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 5.1.9. Rate of Notifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5.1.10. State Agents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 5.1.10. State Agents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5.1.11. Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 5.1.11. Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6. Usage of the Pending Additions Event Package with the XCAP 6. Usage of the Pending Additions Event Package with the XCAP
Diff Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Diff Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7.1. SIP Event Package Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 7.1. SIP Event Package Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7.2. URN Sub-Namespace Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 7.2. URN Sub-Namespace Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7.3. XML Schema Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 7.3. XML Schema Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
9. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 9. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 10. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 13
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 12
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
The framework for consent-based communications in SIP [8] identifies The framework for consent-based communications in SIP
the need for users manipulating the translation logic at a relay [I-D.ietf-sip-consent-framework] identifies the need for users
(e.g., adding a new recipient) to be informed about the consent- manipulating the translation logic at a relay (e.g., adding a new
related status of the recipients of a given translation. That is, recipient) to be informed about the consent-related status of the
the user manipulating the translation logic needs to know which recipients of a given translation. That is, the user manipulating
recipients have given the relay permission to send them SIP requests. the translation logic needs to know which recipients have given the
relay permission to send them SIP requests.
This document defines a SIP event package whereby user agents can This document defines a SIP event package whereby user agents can
subscribe to the consent-related state of the resources that are subscribe to the consent-related state of the resources that are
being added to a resource list that defines a translation. being added to a resource list that defines a translation.
2. Terminology 2. Terminology
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [1]. document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
Relay: Any SIP server, be it a proxy, B2BUA (Back-to-Back User Relay: Any SIP server, be it a proxy, B2BUA (Back-to-Back User
Agent), or some hybrid, that receives a request, translates its Agent), or some hybrid, that receives a request, translates its
Request-URI into one or more next-hop URIs (i.e., recipient URIs), Request-URI into one or more next-hop URIs (i.e., recipient URIs),
and delivers the request to those URIs. and delivers the request to those URIs.
3. Overview of Operation 3. Overview of Operation
A user agent subscribes to a relay using the Pending Additions event A user agent subscribes to a relay using the Pending Additions event
package. NOTIFY requests within this event package can carry an XML package. NOTIFY requests within this event package can carry an XML
document in the "application/resource-lists+xml" format [6] or in the document in the "application/resource-lists+xml" format [RFC4826] or
"application/xcap-diff+xml" format [7]. in the "application/xcap-diff+xml" format
[I-D.ietf-simple-xcap-diff].
A document in the "application/resource-lists+xml" format provides A document in the "application/resource-lists+xml" format provides
the user agent with the whole list of resources being added to a the user agent with the whole list of resources being added to a
resource list along with the consent-related status of those resource list along with the consent-related status of those
resources. resources.
A document in the "application/xcap-diff+xml" format informs the user A document in the "application/xcap-diff+xml" format informs the user
agent that the document that describes the resources being added to agent that the document that describes the resources being added to
the resource list has changed. The user agent can then download the the resource list has changed. The user agent can then download the
document in the "application/resource-lists+xml" format from the document in the "application/resource-lists+xml" format from the
relay using XCAP [5]. relay using XCAP [RFC4825].
4. XML Schema Definition 4. XML Schema Definition
This section defines the <consent-status> element, which provides This section defines the <consent-status> element, which provides
consent-related information about a resource to be added to a relay's consent-related information about a resource to be added to a relay's
translation logic. translation logic.
A consent-status document is an XML document that MUST be well-formed A consent-status document is an XML document that MUST be well-formed
and SHOULD be valid. Consent-status documents MUST be based on XML and SHOULD be valid. Consent-status documents MUST be based on XML
1.0 and MUST be encoded using UTF-8. This specification makes use of 1.0 and MUST be encoded using UTF-8. This specification makes use of
skipping to change at page 5, line 13 skipping to change at page 5, line 19
be delivered to the resource. be delivered to the resource.
Denied: the resource has denied the relay permission to add the Denied: the resource has denied the relay permission to add the
resource to the relay's translation logic. resource to the relay's translation logic.
Granted: the resource has granted the relay permission to add the Granted: the resource has granted the relay permission to add the
resource to the relay's translation logic. resource to the relay's translation logic.
5. Pending Additions Event Package Definition 5. Pending Additions Event Package Definition
This section provides the details for defining a SIP [2] event This section provides the details for defining a SIP [RFC3261] event
notification package, as specified by RFC 3265 [3]. notification package, as specified by [RFC3265].
5.1. Event Package Name 5.1. Event Package Name
The name of this event package is "consent-pending-additions". This The name of this event package is "consent-pending-additions". This
package name is carried in the Event and Allow-Events header, as package name is carried in the Event and Allow-Events header, as
defined in RFC 3265 [3]. defined in [RFC3265].
5.1.1. Event Package Parameters 5.1.1. Event Package Parameters
This package does not define any event package parameters. This package does not define any event package parameters.
5.1.2. SUBSCRIBE Bodies 5.1.2. SUBSCRIBE Bodies
A SUBSCRIBE for Pending Additions events MAY contain a body. This A SUBSCRIBE for Pending Additions events MAY contain a body. This
body would serve the purpose of filtering the subscription. The body would serve the purpose of filtering the subscription. The
definition of such a body is outside the scope of this specification. definition of such a body is outside the scope of this specification.
skipping to change at page 5, line 49 skipping to change at page 6, line 11
The default expiration time for a subscription is one hour (3600 The default expiration time for a subscription is one hour (3600
seconds). seconds).
5.1.4. NOTIFY Bodies 5.1.4. NOTIFY Bodies
In this event package, the body of the notifications contains a In this event package, the body of the notifications contains a
resource list document. This document describes the resources being resource list document. This document describes the resources being
added as recipients to a translation operation. All subscribers and added as recipients to a translation operation. All subscribers and
notifiers MUST support the "application/resource-lists+xml" data notifiers MUST support the "application/resource-lists+xml" data
format [6] and its extension to carry consent-related state format [RFC4826] and its extension to carry consent-related state
information, which is specified in Section 4. The SUBSCRIBE request information, which is specified in Section 4. The SUBSCRIBE request
MAY contain an Accept header field. If no such header field is MAY contain an Accept header field. If no such header field is
present, it has a default value of "application/resource-lists+xml". present, it has a default value of "application/resource-lists+xml".
If the header field is present, it MUST include "application/ If the header field is present, it MUST include "application/
resource-lists+xml", and MAY include any other types capable of resource-lists+xml", and MAY include any other types capable of
representing consent-related state. representing consent-related state.
Additionally, all subscribers and notifiers SHOULD support the Additionally, all subscribers and notifiers SHOULD support the
"application/xcap-diff+xml" format [7]. Section 6 discusses the "application/xcap-diff+xml" format [I-D.ietf-simple-xcap-diff].
usage of the Pending Additions event package with this format. Section 6 discusses the usage of the Pending Additions event package
with this format.
5.1.5. Notifier Processing of SUBSCRIBE Requests 5.1.5. Notifier Processing of SUBSCRIBE Requests
The state of the resources to be added to a relay's translation logic The state of the resources to be added to a relay's translation logic
can reveal sensitive information. Therefore, all subscriptions can reveal sensitive information. Therefore, all subscriptions
SHOULD be authenticated and then authorized before approval. SHOULD be authenticated and then authorized before approval.
Authorization policy is at the discretion of the administrator. Authorization policy is at the discretion of the administrator.
5.1.6. Notifier Generation of NOTIFY Requests 5.1.6. Notifier Generation of NOTIFY Requests
skipping to change at page 6, line 36 skipping to change at page 6, line 46
<any> element within the <entry> element. <any> element within the <entry> element.
Notifications SHOULD be generated for the Pending Additions package Notifications SHOULD be generated for the Pending Additions package
whenever there is a change in the consent-related state of a whenever there is a change in the consent-related state of a
resource. When a resource moves to the error, denied, or granted resource. When a resource moves to the error, denied, or granted
states, and once a NOTIFY request is sent, the resource is removed states, and once a NOTIFY request is sent, the resource is removed
from further notifications. from further notifications.
5.1.7. Subscriber Processing of NOTIFY Requests 5.1.7. Subscriber Processing of NOTIFY Requests
NOTIFY requests contain the full resource-list state. The subscriber NOTIFY requests contain full state. The subscriber does not need to
does not need to perform any type of information aggregation. perform any type of information aggregation.
5.1.8. Handling of Forked Requests 5.1.8. Handling of Forked Requests
The state of a given resource list is normally handled by a server The state of a given resource list is normally handled by a server
and stored in a repository. Therefore, there is usually a single and stored in a repository. Therefore, there is usually a single
place where the resource-list state is resident. This implies that a place where the resource-list state is resident. This implies that a
subscription for this information is readily handled by a single subscription for this information is readily handled by a single
element with access to this repository. There is, therefore, no element with access to this repository. There is, therefore, no
compelling need for a subscription to pending additions information compelling need for a subscription to pending additions information
to fork. As a result, a subscriber MUST NOT create multiple dialogs to fork. As a result, a subscriber MUST NOT create multiple dialogs
as a result of a single subscription request. The required as a result of a single subscription request. The required
processing to guarantee that only a single dialog is established is processing to guarantee that only a single dialog is established is
described in Section 4.4.9 of RFC 3265 [3]. described in Section 4.4.9 of [RFC3265].
5.1.9. Rate of Notifications 5.1.9. Rate of Notifications
For reasons of congestion control, it is important that the rate of For reasons of congestion control, it is important that the rate of
notifications not become excessive. As a result, it is RECOMMENDED notifications not become excessive. As a result, it is RECOMMENDED
that the server does not generate notifications for a single that the server does not generate notifications for a single
subscriber at a rate faster than once every 5 seconds. subscriber at a rate faster than once every 5 seconds.
5.1.10. State Agents 5.1.10. State Agents
skipping to change at page 7, line 49 skipping to change at page 8, line 12
</list> </list>
</resource-lists> </resource-lists>
6. Usage of the Pending Additions Event Package with the XCAP Diff 6. Usage of the Pending Additions Event Package with the XCAP Diff
Format Format
As discussed in Section 5.1.4, if a client subscribing to the Pending As discussed in Section 5.1.4, if a client subscribing to the Pending
Additions event package generates an Accept header field that Additions event package generates an Accept header field that
includes the MIME type "application/xcap-diff+xml", the relay has the includes the MIME type "application/xcap-diff+xml", the relay has the
option of returning documents in this format (instead of in the option of returning documents in this format (instead of in the
'application/consent-pending-additions+xml' format). 'application/resource-list+xml' format).
Upon initial subscription, the relay does not know which instance of Upon initial subscription, the relay does not know which instance of
the resource list document for the user (where each instance is the resource list document for the user (where each instance is
identified by an etag) the client currently possesses, if any. identified by an etag) the client currently possesses, if any.
Indeed, upon startup, the client will not have any documents. Indeed, upon startup, the client will not have any documents.
The initial NOTIFY request in this case MUST include a <document> The initial NOTIFY request in this case MUST include a <document>
element for the resource list. The "previous-etag" attribute MUST be element for the resource list. The "previous-etag" attribute MUST be
absent, and the "new-etag" attribute MUST be present and contain the absent, and the "new-etag" attribute MUST be present and contain the
entity tag for the current version of the document. An XCAP diff entity tag for the current version of the document. An XCAP diff
skipping to change at page 9, line 8 skipping to change at page 9, line 13
the most current version. the most current version.
7. IANA Considerations 7. IANA Considerations
There are three IANA considerations associated with this There are three IANA considerations associated with this
specification. specification.
7.1. SIP Event Package Registration 7.1. SIP Event Package Registration
This specification registers a SIP event package per the procedures This specification registers a SIP event package per the procedures
in [3]. in [RFC3265].
Package name: consent-pending-additions Package name: consent-pending-additions
Type: package Type: package
Contact: Gonzalo Camarillo <Gonzalo.Camarillo@ericsson.com> Contact: Gonzalo Camarillo <Gonzalo.Camarillo@ericsson.com>
Published Specification: RFC XXXX. (Note to the RFC Editor: Please Published Specification: RFC XXXX. (Note to the RFC Editor: Please
replace XXXX with the RFC Number of this specification.) replace XXXX with the RFC Number of this specification.)
7.2. URN Sub-Namespace Registration 7.2. URN Sub-Namespace Registration
This section registers a new XML namespace per the procedures in [4]. This section registers a new XML namespace per the procedures in
[RFC3688].
URI: The URI for this namespace is URI: The URI for this namespace is
urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:consent-status urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:consent-status
Registrant Contact: IETF SIPPING working group, <sipping@ietf.org>, Registrant Contact: IETF SIPPING working group, <sipping@ietf.org>,
Gonzalo Camarillo <Gonzalo.Camarillo@ericsson.com> Gonzalo Camarillo <Gonzalo.Camarillo@ericsson.com>
XML: XML:
<?xml version="1.0"?> <?xml version="1.0"?>
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML Basic 1.0//EN" <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML Basic 1.0//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-basic/xhtml-basic10.dtd"> "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-basic/xhtml-basic10.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"> <html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
<head> <head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" <meta http-equiv="content-type"
content="text/html;charset=iso-8859-1"/> content="text/html;charset=iso-8859-1"/>
<title>Pending Additions Extension Namespace</title> <title>Pending Additions Extension Namespace</title>
skipping to change at page 10, line 7 skipping to change at page 10, line 26
<h1>Namespace for Consent-related Status Information Extension</h1> <h1>Namespace for Consent-related Status Information Extension</h1>
<h2>urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:consent-status</h2> <h2>urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:consent-status</h2>
<p>See <a href="[URL of published RFC]">RFCXXXX [[NOTE TO <p>See <a href="[URL of published RFC]">RFCXXXX [[NOTE TO
RFC-EDITOR/IANA: Please replace XXXX with the RFC Number of RFC-EDITOR/IANA: Please replace XXXX with the RFC Number of
this specification]]</a>.</p> this specification]]</a>.</p>
</body> </body>
</html> </html>
7.3. XML Schema Registration 7.3. XML Schema Registration
This section registers an XML schema per the procedures in [4]. This section registers an XML schema per the procedures in [RFC3688].
URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:schema:consent-status. URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:schema:consent-status.
Registrant Contact: IETF SIPPING working group, <sipping@ietf.org>, Registrant Contact: IETF SIPPING working group, <sipping@ietf.org>,
Gonzalo Camarillo <Gonzalo.Camarillo@ericsson.com> Gonzalo Camarillo <Gonzalo.Camarillo@ericsson.com>
The XML for this schema can be found in Section 4. The XML for this schema can be found in Section 4.
8. Security Considerations 8. Security Considerations
The Framework for Consent-based Communications in the Session
Initiation Protocol (SIP) [I-D.ietf-sip-consent-framework] discusses
security-related issues that are related to this specification.
Subscriptions to the Pending Additions even package can reveal Subscriptions to the Pending Additions even package can reveal
sensitive information. For this reason, it is RECOMMENDED that sensitive information. For this reason, it is RECOMMENDED that
relays use strong means for authentication and information relays use strong means for authentication and information
confidentiality. Additionally, attackers may attempt to modify the confidentiality. Additionally, attackers may attempt to modify the
contents of the notifications sent by a relay to its clients. contents of the notifications sent by a relay to its clients.
Consequently, it is RECOMMENDED that relays use a strong means for Consequently, it is RECOMMENDED that relays use a strong means for
information integrity protection. information integrity protection.
It is RECOMMENDED that relays authenticate subscribers using the It is RECOMMENDED that relays authenticate subscribers using the
normal SIP authentication mechanisms, such as Digest, as defined in normal SIP authentication mechanisms, such as Digest, as defined in
RFC 3261 [2]. [RFC3261].
The mechanism used for conveying information to clients SHOULD ensure The mechanism used for conveying information to clients SHOULD ensure
the integrity and confidentially of the information. In order to the integrity and confidentially of the information. In order to
achieve these, an end-to-end SIP encryption mechanism, such as achieve these, an end-to-end SIP encryption mechanism, such as
S/MIME, as described in RFC 3261 [2], SHOULD be used. S/MIME, as described in [RFC3261], SHOULD be used.
If strong end-to-end security means (such as above) is not available, If strong end-to-end security means (such as above) is not available,
it is RECOMMENDED that hop-by-hop security based on TLS and SIPS it is RECOMMENDED that hop-by-hop security based on TLS and SIPS
URIs, as described in [2], is used. URIs, as described in [RFC3261], is used.
9. Acknowledgements 9. Acknowledgements
Jonathan Rosenberg provided useful ideas on this document. Ben Jonathan Rosenberg provided useful ideas on this document. Ben
Campbell and Mary Barnes performed a thorough review of this Campbell and Mary Barnes performed a thorough review of this
document. document.
10. References 10. Normative References
10.1. Normative References
[1] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[2] Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., Camarillo, G., Johnston, A., [RFC3261] Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., Camarillo, G., Johnston,
Peterson, J., Sparks, R., Handley, M., and E. Schooler, "SIP: A., Peterson, J., Sparks, R., Handley, M., and E.
Session Initiation Protocol", RFC 3261, June 2002. Schooler, "SIP: Session Initiation Protocol", RFC 3261,
June 2002.
[3] Roach, A., "Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)-Specific Event [RFC3265] Roach, A., "Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)-Specific
Notification", RFC 3265, June 2002. Event Notification", RFC 3265, June 2002.
[4] Mealling, M., "The IETF XML Registry", BCP 81, RFC 3688, [RFC3688] Mealling, M., "The IETF XML Registry", BCP 81, RFC 3688,
January 2004. January 2004.
[5] Rosenberg, J., "The Extensible Markup Language (XML) [RFC4825] Rosenberg, J., "The Extensible Markup Language (XML)
Configuration Access Protocol (XCAP)", draft-ietf-simple-xcap-12 Configuration Access Protocol (XCAP)", RFC 4825, May 2007.
(work in progress), October 2006.
[6] Rosenberg, J., "Extensible Markup Language (XML) Formats for [RFC4826] Rosenberg, J., "Extensible Markup Language (XML) Formats
Representing Resource Lists", for Representing Resource Lists", RFC 4826, May 2007.
draft-ietf-simple-xcap-list-usage-05 (work in progress),
February 2005.
[7] Rosenberg, J., "An Extensible Markup Language (XML) Document [I-D.ietf-simple-xcap-diff]
Format for Indicating A Change in XML Configuration Access Rosenberg, J., "An Extensible Markup Language (XML)
Protocol (XCAP) Resources", draft-ietf-simple-xcap-diff-04 (work Document Format for Indicating A Change in XML
in progress), October 2006. Configuration Access Protocol (XCAP) Resources",
draft-ietf-simple-xcap-diff-05 (work in progress),
March 2007.
[8] Rosenberg, J., "A Framework for Consent-Based Communications in [I-D.ietf-sip-consent-framework]
the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)", Rosenberg, J., "A Framework for Consent-Based
Communications in the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)",
draft-ietf-sip-consent-framework-01 (work in progress), draft-ietf-sip-consent-framework-01 (work in progress),
November 2006. November 2006.
10.2. Informative References
Author's Address Author's Address
Gonzalo Camarillo Gonzalo Camarillo
Ericsson Ericsson
Hirsalantie 11 Hirsalantie 11
Jorvas 02420 Jorvas 02420
Finland Finland
Email: Gonzalo.Camarillo@ericsson.com Email: Gonzalo.Camarillo@ericsson.com
 End of changes. 36 change blocks. 
67 lines changed or deleted 69 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.34. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/