draft-ietf-sipping-uri-list-message-01.txt   draft-ietf-sipping-uri-list-message-02.txt 
SIPPING Working Group M. Garcia-Martin SIPPING Working Group M. Garcia-Martin
Internet-Draft Nokia Internet-Draft Nokia
Expires: April 14, 2005 G. Camarillo Expires: May 31, 2005 G. Camarillo
Ericsson Ericsson
October 14, 2004 November 30, 2004
Multiple-Recipient MESSAGE Requests in the Session Initiation Multiple-Recipient MESSAGE Requests in the Session Initiation
Protocol (SIP) Protocol (SIP)
draft-ietf-sipping-uri-list-message-01.txt draft-ietf-sipping-uri-list-message-02
Status of this Memo Status of this Memo
This document is an Internet-Draft and is subject to all provisions This document is an Internet-Draft and is subject to all provisions
of section 3 of RFC 3667. By submitting this Internet-Draft, each of section 3 of RFC 3667. By submitting this Internet-Draft, each
author represents that any applicable patent or other IPR claims of author represents that any applicable patent or other IPR claims of
which he or she is aware have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she is aware have been or will be disclosed, and any of
which he or she become aware will be disclosed, in accordance with which he or she become aware will be disclosed, in accordance with
RFC 3668. RFC 3668.
skipping to change at page 1, line 38 skipping to change at page 1, line 37
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 April 14, 2005. This Internet-Draft will expire on May 31, 2005.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004).
Abstract Abstract
This document specifies how to request a SIP URI-list service to send This document specifies how to request a SIP URI-list service to send
a copy of a MESSAGE to a set of destinations. The client sends a SIP a copy of a MESSAGE to a set of destinations. The client sends a SIP
MESSAGE request with a URI-list to the URI-list service, which sends MESSAGE request with a URI-list to the MESSAGE URI-list service,
a similar MESSAGE request to each of the URIs included in the list. which sends a similar MESSAGE request to each of the URIs included in
the list.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. URI-List document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4. URI-List document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.1 Extension to the resource lists data format . . . . . . . 5 4.1 Extension to the resource lists data format . . . . . . . 6
4.2 URI-list example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4.2 URI-list example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5. Procedures at the User Agent Client . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 5. Procedures at the User Agent Client . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6. Procedures at the MESSAGE URI-List Service . . . . . . . . . 8 6. Procedures at the MESSAGE URI-List Service . . . . . . . . . 9
6.1 Determining the intended recipient . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 6.1 Determining the intended recipient . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6.2 Creating an outgoing MESSAGE request . . . . . . . . . . . 8 6.2 Creating an outgoing MESSAGE request . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6.3 Composing bodies in the outgoing MESSAGE request . . . . . 9 6.3 Composing bodies in the outgoing MESSAGE request . . . . . 10
7. Procedures at the UAS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 7. Procedures at the UAS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
8. Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 8. Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
10. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 10. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
11. Change control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 11. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
11.1 Changes from 12. Change control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
draft-ietf-sipping-uri-list-message-00.txt . . . . . . . 15 12.1 Changes from
11.2 Changes from draft-ietf-sipping-uri-list-message-01.txt . . . . . . . 16
12.2 Changes from
draft-ietf-sipping-uri-list-message-00.txt . . . . . . . 17
12.3 Changes from
draft-ietf-sipping-message-exploder-00.txt to draft-ietf-sipping-message-exploder-00.txt to
draft-ietf-sipping-uri-list-message-00.txt . . . . . . . 15 draft-ietf-sipping-uri-list-message-00.txt . . . . . . . 17
11.3 Changes from 12.4 Changes from
draft-garcia-simple-message-exploder-00.txt to draft-garcia-simple-message-exploder-00.txt to
draft-garcia-sipping-message-exploder-00.txt . . . . . . 15 draft-garcia-sipping-message-exploder-00.txt . . . . . . 17
12. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 13. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
12.1 Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 13.1 Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
12.2 Informational References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 13.2 Informational References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . 18 Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . 20
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
SIP [4] can carry instant messages in MESSAGE [7] requests. The SIP [6] can carry instant messages in MESSAGE [9] requests. The
Advanced Instant Messaging Requirements for SIP [11] mentions the Advanced Instant Messaging Requirements for SIP [13] mentions the
need for sending a MESSAGE request to multiple recipients: need for sending a MESSAGE request to multiple recipients:
"REQ-GROUP-3: It MUST be possible for a user to send to an ad-hoc "REQ-GROUP-3: It MUST be possible for a user to send to an ad-hoc
group, where the identities of the recipients are carried in the group, where the identities of the recipients are carried in the
message itself." message itself."
One possibility to fulfill the above requirement is to establish a One possibility to fulfill the above requirement is to establish a
session of instant messages with an instant messaging conference session of instant messages with an instant messaging conference
server. While this option seems to be reasonable in many cases, in server. While this option seems to be reasonable in many cases, in
other situations the sending user just want to send a small other situations the sending user just want to send a small
pager-mode instant message to an ad-hoc group, without entering the pager-mode instant message to an ad-hoc group, without entering the
burden of setting up a session. This document focuses on sending a burden of setting up a session. This document focuses on sending a
pager-mode instant message to a number of intended recipients. pager-mode instant message to a number of intended recipients.
To meet the requirement with a pager-mode instant message, we allow To meet the requirement with a pager-mode instant message, we allow
SIP MESSAGE requests carry URI-lists in 'recipient-list- body parts, SIP MESSAGE requests carry URI-lists in body parts whose
as specified in the framework for URI-list services [10]. A SIP Content-Disposition [2] is 'recipient-list', as specified in
URI-list service, which is a specialized application service, Framework and Security Considerations for SIP URI-List Services [12].
receives the request and sends a similar MESSAGE request to each of A SIP MESSAGE URI-list service, which is a specialized application
the URIs in the list. Each of these MESSAGE requests contains a copy service, receives the request and sends a similar MESSAGE request to
of the body included in the original MESSAGE request. each of the URIs in the list. Each of these MESSAGE requests
contains a copy of the body included in the original MESSAGE request.
The UAC (User Agent Client) that sends a MESSAGE request to a URI The Advanced Instant Messaging Requirements for SIP [13] also
list service needs to be configured with the SIP URI of the service includes a requirement that allows to provide a "Reply-to-All"
that provides the functionality. Discovering and provisioning of functionality:
this URI to the UAC is outside the scope of this document.
"REQ-GROUP-4: It MUST be possible for the recipient of a group IM
to send a message to all other participants that received the same
group IM (i.e., Reply-To-All)."
To meet this requirement, we provide a mechanism whereby the MESSAGE
URI-list service can include the received URI-list along the instant
message payload in each of the instant messages sent to the
recipients.
The UAC (User Agent Client) that sends a MESSAGE request to a MESSAGE
URI-list service needs to be configured with the SIP URI of the
service that provides the functionality. Discovering and
provisioning of this URI to the UAC is outside the scope of this
document.
2. Terminology 2. Terminology
In this document, the key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", In this document, the key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED",
"SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT
RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" are to be interpreted as RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" are to be interpreted as
described in BCP 14, RFC 2119 [1] and indicate requirement levels for described in BCP 14, RFC 2119 [1] and indicate requirement levels for
compliant implementations. compliant implementations.
MESSAGE URI-list service: SIP application service that receives a MESSAGE URI-list service: SIP application service that receives a
skipping to change at page 4, line 26 skipping to change at page 4, line 43
Intended recipient: The intended final recipient of the request to be Intended recipient: The intended final recipient of the request to be
generated by MESSAGE URI-list service. generated by MESSAGE URI-list service.
3. Overview 3. Overview
A UAC creates a MESSAGE request that contains a multipart body A UAC creates a MESSAGE request that contains a multipart body
including a list of URIs (intended recipients) and an instant including a list of URIs (intended recipients) and an instant
message. The UAC sends this MESSAGE request to the MESSAGE URI-List message. The UAC sends this MESSAGE request to the MESSAGE URI-List
service. On reception of this incoming MESSAGE request, the MESSAGE service. On reception of this incoming MESSAGE request, the MESSAGE
URI-list service creates a MESSAGE request per intended recipient URI-list service creates a MESSAGE request per intended recipient
(listed in the URI list) and copies the instant message payload to (listed in the URI-list) and copies the instant message payload to
each of those MESSAGES. Then the MESSAGE URI-list service sends each each of those MESSAGES. Then the MESSAGE URI-list service sends each
of the created outgoing MESSAGE request to the respective receiver. of the created outgoing MESSAGE request to the respective receiver.
The mechanism reuses the XML format for representing resource lists The mechanism reuses the XML format for representing resource lists
[8] to include the list of intended recipients. We define an [10] to include the list of intended recipients. We define an
extension to that list to indicate the capacity of each resource, extension to that list to indicate the capacity of each resource,
which can be To, Cc or Bcc (in an analogy to e-mail). The MESSAGE which can be To, Cc or Bcc (in an analogy to e-mail). The MESSAGE
URI list service can include a resource list in the outgoing MESSAGE URI-list service can include a resource list in the outgoing MESSAGE
request that contain those resources tagged with a To or Cc request that contain those resources tagged with a To or Cc
capacities (and not Bcc capacities). This allows the creator of the capacities (and not Bcc capacities). This allows the creator of the
incoming MESSAGE request to identify if a resource should be incoming MESSAGE request to identify if a resource should be
receiving a copy of the MESSAGE request as a capacity of recipient receiving a copy of the MESSAGE request as a capacity of recipient
(to), carbon copy (cc) or blind carbon copy (bcc). It also allows (to), carbon copy (cc) or blind carbon copy (bcc). It also allows
some the intended recipients to reply to the initial sender and all some the intended recipients to reply to the initial sender and all
the visible recipients of the MESSAGE request. the visible recipients of the MESSAGE request.
4. URI-List document 4. URI-List document
As described in the framework for URI-list services [10], As described in the Framework and Security Considerations for SIP
specifications of individual URI-list services, like the MESSAGE URI-List Services [12], specifications of individual URI-list
URI-list service described here, need to specify a default format for services, like the MESSAGE URI-list service described here, need to
'recipient-list' bodies used within the particular service. specify a default format for 'recipient-list' bodies used within the
particular service.
The default format for recipient-list bodies for MESSAGE URI-list The default format for recipient-list bodies for MESSAGE URI-list
services is the resource list document format [8] . UAs (User services is the resource list document format [10] . UAs (User
Agents) and servers handling recipient-list bodies MUST support this Agents) and servers handling recipient-list bodies MUST support this
format and MAY support other formats. format and MAY support other formats.
Nevertheless, the Extensible Markup Language (XML) Configuration Nevertheless, the Extensible Markup Language (XML) Configuration
Access Protocol (XCAP) resource list document provides features, such Access Protocol (XCAP) resource list document provides features, such
as hierarchical lists and the ability to include entries by reference as hierarchical lists and the ability to include entries by reference
relative to the XCAP root URI, that are not needed by the MESSAGE relative to the XCAP root URI, that are not needed by the MESSAGE
URI-list service defined in this document, which only needs to URI-list service defined in this document, which only needs to
transfer a flat list of URIs between a UA and the server. Therefore, transfer a flat list of URIs between a UA and the server. Therefore,
when using the default resource list document, UAs SHOULD use flat when using the default resource list document, UAs SHOULD use flat
lists (i.e., no hierarchical lists) and SHOULD NOT use <entry-ref> lists (i.e., no hierarchical lists) and SHOULD NOT use <entry-ref>
elements. elements.
Section 4.1 defines an extension to the XML format for representing Section 4.1 defines an extension to the XML format for representing
resource lists [8]. This extension allows to provide an 'capacity' resource lists [10]. This extension allows us to characterize a
attribute to a resource. UAs (User Agents) and servers handling resource with a 'capacity' attribute. UACs (User Agent Clients) and
'recipient-list' bodies MUST support that extension. MESSAGE URI-list services handling 'recipient-list' bodies MUST
support 'capacity' extension.
A MESSAGE URI-list service receiving a URI-list with more information A MESSAGE URI-list service receiving a URI-list with more information
than what has just been described MAY discard all the extra than what has just been described MAY discard all the extra
information. information.
Additionally, this document defines a new mail disposition type value
to be included in a Content-Disposition [2] header field of a SIP
MESSAGE request. The value of this new disposition type is
'recipient-list-history' and its purpose is to indicate a list of
recipients that a MESSAGE was sent to. A body whose
Content-Disposition type is 'recipient-list-history' contains a
URI-list with the visible recipients of the MESSAGE. The <entry>
element in the URI-list MAY also include a 'capacity' attribute, as
specified in Section 4.1. MESSAGE URI-list services MUST implement
support for this Content-Disposition type. User Agent Servers (UAS)
MAY implement support for the resource-list document format [10] and
the 'recipient-list-history' Content-Disposition type.
4.1 Extension to the resource lists data format 4.1 Extension to the resource lists data format
An extension to indicate the capacity of a resource is included. We This document defines an extension to indicate the capacity of a
define a new <capacity> element that can take the values "to", "cc" resource. We define a new 'capacity' attribute to the <entry>
and "bcc". A "to" value indicates that the resource is considered element. The 'capacity' attribute has similar semantics to the type
the recipient of the MESSAGE request. A "cc" value indicates that of destination address in e-mail systems. It can take the values
the resource receives a carbon copy of the MESSAGE request. A "bcc" "to", "cc" and "bcc". A "to" value of the 'capacity' attribute
value indicates that the resource receives a blind carbon copy of the indicates that the resource is considered the recipient of the
MESSAGE request. The default capacity value is "bcc", that is, the MESSAGE request. A "cc" value indicates that the resource receives a
absence of a <capacity> element MUST be treated as if the capacity carbon copy of the MESSAGE request. A "bcc" value indicates that the
was set to "bcc". resource receives a blind carbon copy of the MESSAGE request. The
default 'capacity' value is "bcc", that is, the absence of a
'capacity' attribute MUST be treated as if the 'capacity' was set to
"bcc".
The <capacity> element SHOULD be included as a child element of any The 'capacity' attribute SHOULD be included as a modifier of any of
of the elements included in the <list> element of a resource list. the child elements included in the <list> element of a resource list
(e.g., an attribute of the <entry> or <external> elements).
Figure 1 describes the format of the capacity element. Figure 1 describes the format of the 'capacity' attribute.
Implementations according to this specification MUST support this XML Implementations according to this specification MUST support this XML
Schema. Schema.
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?> <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<xs:schema targetNamespace="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:capacity" <xs:schema targetNamespace="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:capacity"
xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:capacity" xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:capacity"
xmlns:rls="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:resource-lists" xmlns:rls="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:resource-lists"
xmlns:xs="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema" xmlns:xs="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema"
elementFormDefault="qualified" elementFormDefault="qualified"
attributeFormDefault="unqualified"> attributeFormDefault="unqualified">
<xs:annotation> <xs:annotation>
<xs:documentation xml:lang="en"> <xs:documentation xml:lang="en">
Adds the capacity element to a resource list. Adds the capacity attribute to URIs included
in a resource list.
</xs:documentation> </xs:documentation>
</xs:annotation> </xs:annotation>
<xs:element name="capacity"> <xs:attribute name="capacity">
<xs:simpleType> <xs:simpleType>
<xs:restriction base="xs:string"> <xs:restriction base="xs:string">
<xs:enumeration value="to"/> <xs:enumeration value="to"/>
<xs:enumeration value="cc"/> <xs:enumeration value="cc"/>
<xs:enumeration value="bcc"/> <xs:enumeration value="bcc"/>
</xs:restriction> </xs:restriction>
</xs:simpleType> </xs:simpleType>
</xs:element> </xs:attribute>
</xs:schema> </xs:schema>
Figure 1: Extension to the resource lists data format Figure 1: Extension to the resource lists data format
4.2 URI-list example 4.2 URI-list example
Figure 2 shows an example of a flat list that follows the resource Figure 2 shows an example of a flat list that follows the resource
list data format. Each resource indicates the capacity of a list data format. Each resource indicates the capacity of a
resource. resource.
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?> <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<resource-lists xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:resource-lists" <resource-lists xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:resource-lists"
xmlns:cp="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:capacity" xmlns:cp="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:capacity"
xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance"> xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance">
<list> <list>
<entry uri="sip:bill@example.com"> <entry uri="sip:bill@example.com" cp:capacity="to" />
<cp:capacity>to</cp:capacity> <entry uri="sip:joe@example.org" cp:capacity="cc" />
</entry> <entry uri="sip:ted@example.net" cp:capacity="bcc" />
<entry uri="sip:joe@example.org">
<cp:capacity>cc</cp:capacity>
</entry>
<entry uri="sip:ted@example.net">
<cp:capacity>bcc</cp:capacity>
</entry>
</list> </list>
</resource-lists> </resource-lists>
Figure 2: URI-List Figure 2: URI-List
5. Procedures at the User Agent Client 5. Procedures at the User Agent Client
A UAC that wants to create a multiple-recipient MESSAGE request MUST A UAC that wants to create a multiple-recipient MESSAGE request MUST
create a MESSAGE request according to RFC 3428 [7] Section 4. The create a MESSAGE request according to RFC 3428 [9] Section 4. The
UAC SHOULD add a body part, whose Content-Disposition type is UAC SHOULD populate the Request-URI with the SIP or SIPS URI of the
"recipient-list", which contains a URI-list with the recipients of MESSAGE URI-list service. In addition to the regular instant message
the MESSAGE. The URI-list MAY also include the "capacity" extension body, the UAC SHOULD add a URI-list body whose Content-Disposition
to the URI-list specified in Section 4.1. type is 'recipient-list', specifed in the Framework and Security
Considerations for SIP URI-list Services [12]. This body contains a
URI-list with the recipients of the MESSAGE. The URI-list body MAY
also include the 'capacity' extension to the URI-list specified in
Section 4.1.
Multiple-recipient MESSAGE requests contain a multipart body that Multiple-recipient MESSAGE requests contain a multipart body that
contains the body carrying the list and the actual instant message contains the body carrying the list and the actual instant message
payload. In some cases, the MESSAGE request may contain bodies other payload. In some cases, the MESSAGE request may contain bodies other
than the text and the list bodies (e.g., when the request is than the text and the list bodies (e.g., when the request is
protected with S/MIME [9]). protected with S/MIME [11]).
Typically, the MESSAGE URI-list service will copy all the significant Typically, the MESSAGE URI-list service will copy all the significant
header fields in the outgoing MESSAGE request. However, there might header fields in the outgoing MESSAGE request. However, there might
be cases where the SIP UA wants the MESSAGE URI-list service to add a be cases where the SIP UA wants the MESSAGE URI-list service to add a
particular header field with a particular value, even if the header particular header field with a particular value, even if the header
field wasn't present in the MESSAGE request sent by the UAC. In this field wasn't present in the MESSAGE request sent by the UAC. In this
case, the UAC MAY use the "?" mechanism described in Section 19.1.1 case, the UAC MAY use the "?" mechanism described in Section 19.1.1
of RFC 3261 [4] to encode extra information in any URI in the list. of RFC 3261 [6] to encode extra information in any URI in the list.
However, the UAC MUST NOT use the special "body" hname (see Section However, the UAC MUST NOT use the special "body" hname (see Section
19.1.1 of RFC 3261 [4]) to encode a body, since the body is present 19.1.1 of RFC 3261 [6]) to encode a body, since the body is present
in the MESSAGE request itself. in the MESSAGE request itself.
The following is an example of a URI that uses the "?" mechanism: The following is an example of a URI that uses the "?" mechanism:
sip:bob@example.com?Accept-Contact=*%3bmobility%3d%22mobile%22 sip:bob@example.com?Accept-Contact=*%3bmobility%3d%22mobile%22
The previous URI requests the MESSAGE URI-list service to add the The previous URI requests the MESSAGE URI-list service to add the
following header field to a MESSAGE request to be sent to following header field to a MESSAGE request to be sent to
bob@example.com: bob@example.com:
Accept-Contact: *;mobility="mobile" Accept-Contact: *;mobility="mobile"
6. Procedures at the MESSAGE URI-List Service 6. Procedures at the MESSAGE URI-List Service
On reception of a MESSAGE request with a URI-list, a MESSAGE URI-list On reception of a MESSAGE request with a URI-list, a MESSAGE URI-list
service SHOULD answer to the UAC with a 202 Accepted response. Note service SHOULD answer to the UAC with a 202 Accepted response. Note
skipping to change at page 8, line 30 skipping to change at page 9, line 27
That is, a 202 Accepted means that the MESSAGE URI-list service has That is, a 202 Accepted means that the MESSAGE URI-list service has
received the MESSAGE and that it will try to send a similar MESSAGE received the MESSAGE and that it will try to send a similar MESSAGE
to the URIs in the list. Designing a mechanism to inform a client to the URIs in the list. Designing a mechanism to inform a client
about the delivery status of an instant message is outside the scope about the delivery status of an instant message is outside the scope
of this document. of this document.
6.1 Determining the intended recipient 6.1 Determining the intended recipient
On reception of a MESSAGE request with a URI-list, a MESSAGE URI-list On reception of a MESSAGE request with a URI-list, a MESSAGE URI-list
service SHOULD determine the list of intended recipients, by service SHOULD determine the list of intended recipients, by
inspecting the URI list contained in the body. In case two of those inspecting the URI-list contained in the body. In case two of those
URIs are equivalent (section 19.1.4 of RFC 3261 [4] defines URIs are equivalent (section 19.1.4 of RFC 3261 [6] defines
equivalent URIs), the MESSAGE URI-list SHOULD consider a single equivalent URIs), the MESSAGE URI-list SHOULD consider a single
intended recipient. intended recipient.
6.2 Creating an outgoing MESSAGE request 6.2 Creating an outgoing MESSAGE request
Since the MESSAGE URI-list behaves as a UAC for outgoing MESSAGE Since the MESSAGE URI-list behaves as a UAC for outgoing MESSAGE
requests, for each of the intended recipients, the MESSAGE URI-list requests, for each of the intended recipients, the MESSAGE URI-list
service creates a new MESSAGE request according to the procedures service creates a new MESSAGE request according to the procedures
described in Section 4 of RFC 3428 [7] and the following procedures: described in Section 4 of RFC 3428 [9] and the following procedures:
o A MESSAGE URI-list service MUST include a From header field whose o A MESSAGE URI-list service MUST include a From header field whose
value is the same as the From header field included in the value is the same as the From header field included in the
incoming MESSAGE request, subject to the privacy requirements (see incoming MESSAGE request, subject to the privacy requirements (see
RFC 3323 [5] and RFC 3325 [6]) expressed in the incoming MESSAGE RFC 3323 [7] and RFC 3325 [8]) expressed in the incoming MESSAGE
request. Note that this does not apply to the "tag" parameter. request. Note that this does not apply to the "tag" parameter.
o A MESSAGE URI-list service SHOULD generate a new To header field o A MESSAGE URI-list service SHOULD generate a new To header field
value set to the intended recipient URI. According to the value set to the intended recipient URI. According to the
procedures of RFC 3261 Section 8.1.1.1, this value should also be procedures of RFC 3261 Section 8.1.1.1, this value should also be
equal to the Request-URI of the outgoing MESSAGE request equal to the Request-URI of the outgoing MESSAGE request.
o A MESSAGE URI-list service SHOULD create a new Call-ID header o A MESSAGE URI-list service SHOULD create a new Call-ID header
field value. field value.
o If a P-Asserted-Identity header field was present in the incoming o If a P-Asserted-Identity header field was present in the incoming
MESSAGE request and the request was received from a trusted MESSAGE request and the request was received from a trusted
source, as specified in RFC 3325 [6], and the first hop of the source, as specified in RFC 3325 [8], and the first hop of the
outgoing MESSAGE request is also trusted, a MESSAGE URI-list outgoing MESSAGE request is also trusted, a MESSAGE URI-list
service MUST include a P-Asserted-Identity header field in the service MUST include a P-Asserted-Identity header field in the
outgoing MESSAGE request with the same received value. However, outgoing MESSAGE request with the same received value. However,
if the first hop of the outgoing MESSAGE request is not trusted if the first hop of the outgoing MESSAGE request is not trusted
and the incoming MESSAGE request included a Privacy header field and the incoming MESSAGE request included a Privacy header field
with a value different than 'none', the MESSAGE URI-list service with a value different than 'none', the MESSAGE URI-list service
MUST NOT include a P-Asserted-Identity header field in the MUST NOT include a P-Asserted-Identity header field in the
outgoing MESSAGE request. outgoing MESSAGE request.
o If a MESSAGE URI-list service is able to assert the identity of a o If a MESSAGE URI-list service is able to assert the identity of a
user (e.g., using HTTP Digest authentication scheme [3], S/MIME user (e.g., using HTTP Digest authentication scheme [4], S/MIME
[9], etc.) and the service implements a mechanism where it can map [11], etc.) and the service implements a mechanism where it can
that authentication scheme to a user's SIP or SIPS URI, and map that authentication scheme to a user's SIP or SIPS URI, and
subject to the privacy requirements expressed in the incoming subject to the privacy requirements expressed in the incoming
MESSAGE request (see RFC 3323 [5], the MESSAGE URI list MAY insert MESSAGE request (see RFC 3323 [7], the MESSAGE URI-list MAY insert
a P-Asserted-Identity header with the value of the user's asserted a P-Asserted-Identity header with the value of the user's asserted
URI. URI.
o If the incoming MESSAGE request contains an Authorization or o If the incoming MESSAGE request contains an Authorization or
Proxy-Authorization header fields whose realm is set to the Proxy-Authorization header fields whose realm is set to the
MESSAGE URI-List server's realm, then the MESSAGE URI-List service MESSAGE URI-list server's realm, then the MESSAGE URI-list service
SHOULD NOT copy it to the outgoing MESSAGE request; otherwise SHOULD NOT copy it to the outgoing MESSAGE request; otherwise
(i.e., if the Authorization or Proxy-Authorization header field of (i.e., if the Authorization or Proxy-Authorization header field of
incoming MESSAGE request contains a different realm), the MESSAGE incoming MESSAGE request contains a different realm), the MESSAGE
URI-List service MUST copy the value to the respective header URI-list service MUST copy the value to the respective header
field of the outgoing MESSAGE request. field of the outgoing MESSAGE request.
o A MESSAGE URI-List service SHOULD create a separate count for the o A MESSAGE URI-list service SHOULD create a separate count for the
CSeq header field of the outgoing MESSAGE request. CSeq header field of the outgoing MESSAGE request.
o A MESSAGE URI-list service SHOULD initialize the value of the o A MESSAGE URI-list service SHOULD initialize the value of the
Max-Forward header field of the outgoing MESSAGE request. Max-Forward header field of the outgoing MESSAGE request.
o A MESSAGE URI-list service MUST include its own value in the Via o A MESSAGE URI-list service MUST include its own value in the Via
header field. header field.
o A MESSAGE URI-List service SHOULD include any other header field o A MESSAGE URI-list service SHOULD include any other header field
expressed with the "?" mechanism described in Section 19.1.1 of expressed with the "?" mechanism described in Section 19.1.1 of
RFC 3261 [4] and encoded in the intended recipient URI of the URI RFC 3261 [6] and encoded in the intended recipient URI of the
list. URI-list.
o A MESSAGE URI-List service SHOULD preserve to the outgoing MESSAGE o A MESSAGE URI-list service SHOULD preserve to the outgoing MESSAGE
request any other header field not explicitly indicated in the request any other header field not explicitly indicated in the
above paragraphs. above paragraphs.
6.3 Composing bodies in the outgoing MESSAGE request 6.3 Composing bodies in the outgoing MESSAGE request
When creating the body of each of the outgoing MESSAGE requests, the When creating the body of each of the outgoing MESSAGE requests, the
MESSAGE URI-list service tries to keep the relevant bodies of the MESSAGE URI-list service tries to keep the relevant bodies of the
incoming MESSAGE request and copies them to the outgoing MESSAGE incoming MESSAGE request and copies them to the outgoing MESSAGE
request. The following guidelines are provided: request. The following guidelines are provided:
o A MESSAGE request received at a MESSAGE URI-list service can o A MESSAGE request received at a MESSAGE URI-list service can
contain one or more security bodies (e.g., S/MIME [9]) encrypted contain one or more security bodies (e.g., S/MIME [11]) encrypted
with the public key of the MESSAGE URI-list service. These bodies with the public key of the MESSAGE URI-list service. These bodies
are deemed to be read by the URI-list service rather than the are deemed to be read by the URI-list service rather than the
recipient of the outgoing MESSAGE request (which will not be able recipient of the outgoing MESSAGE request (which will not be able
to decrypt them). Therefore, a MESSAGE URI-list service MUST NOT to decrypt them). Therefore, a MESSAGE URI-list service MUST NOT
copy any security body (such as an S/MIME [9] encrypted body) copy any security body (such as an S/MIME [11] encrypted body)
addressed to the MESSAGE URI-list service to the outgoing MESSAGE addressed to the MESSAGE URI-list service to the outgoing MESSAGE
request. This includes bodies encrypted with the public key of request. This includes bodies encrypted with the public key of
the URI-list service. the URI-list service.
o If the URI-list of the incoming MESSAGE request include resources o If the URI-list of the incoming MESSAGE request include resources
tagged with the <capacity> value of "to" or "cc", the URI-list tagged with the 'capacity' attribute set with a value of "to" or
service SHOULD include a URI-list in each of the outgoing MESSAGE "cc", the URI-list service SHOULD include a URI-list in each of
requests. The format of such list SHOULD BE according to the XML the outgoing MESSAGE requests. The format of such list SHOULD BE
format for representing resource lists [8] and the capacity according to the XML format for representing resource lists [10]
extension specified in Section 4.1. This resource list MUST and the capacity extension specified in Section 4.1. This
contain those elements categorized with the "to" or "cc" capacity resource list MUST contain those elements categorized with the
and MUST NOT contain those resources categorized are "bcc" or "to" or "cc" capacity attribute and MUST NOT contain those
lacking the capacity element. resources categorized with the "bcc" or lacking the capacity
attribute.
o If the MESSAGE URI-list service includes a URI-list in an outgoing
MESSAGE request, it MUST include a Content-Disposition header
field [2] with the value set to 'recipient-list-history' and a
'handling' parameter [5] set to "optional".
o If a MESSAGE URI-list service includes a URI-list in an outgoing o If a MESSAGE URI-list service includes a URI-list in an outgoing
MESSAGE request, it SHOULD use S/MIME [9] to encrypt the URI-list MESSAGE request, it SHOULD use S/MIME [11] to encrypt the URI-list
with the public key of the receiver. with the public key of the receiver.
o The incoming MESSAGE request typically contains a URI-list body or o The incoming MESSAGE request typically contains a URI-list body or
reference [10] with the actual list of recipients. Section 6.2 reference [12] with the actual list of recipients. Section 6.2
contains procedures that determine when the MESSAGE URI-list contains procedures that determine when the MESSAGE URI-list
service should include a URI-list body in the outgoing MESSAGE service should include a URI-list body in the outgoing MESSAGE
request. request.
o The MESSAGE URI-list service SHOULD copy all the rest of the o The MESSAGE URI-list service SHOULD copy all the rest of the
message bodies (e.g., text messages, images, etc.) to the outgoing message bodies (e.g., text messages, images, etc.) to the outgoing
MESSAGE request. MESSAGE request.
o If there is only one body left, the MESSAGE URI-list service MUST o If there is only one body left, the MESSAGE URI-list service MUST
remove the multipart/mixed wrapper in the outgoing MESSAGE remove the multipart/mixed wrapper in the outgoing MESSAGE
request. request.
The rest of the MESSAGE request corresponding to a given URI in the The rest of the MESSAGE request corresponding to a given URI in the
list MUST be created following the rules in Section 19.1.5 "Forming URI-list MUST be created following the rules in Section 19.1.5
Requests from a URI" of RFC 3261 [4]. In particular, Section 19.1.5 "Forming Requests from a URI" of RFC 3261 [6]. In particular,
of RFC 3261 [4] states: Section 19.1.5 of RFC 3261 [6] states:
"An implementation SHOULD treat the presence of any headers or body "An implementation SHOULD treat the presence of any headers or body
parts in the URI as a desire to include them in the message, and parts in the URI as a desire to include them in the message, and
choose to honor the request on a per-component basis." choose to honor the request on a per-component basis."
SIP allows to append a "method" parameter to a URI. Therefore, it is SIP allows to append a "method" parameter to a URI. Therefore, it is
legitimate that an the "uri" attribute of the "entry" element in the legitimate that an the 'uri' attribute of the <entry> element in the
XCAP resource list contains a "method" parameter. MESSAGE URI-list XCAP resource list contains a 'method' parameter. MESSAGE URI-list
services MUST generate only MESSAGE requests, regardless of the services MUST generate only MESSAGE requests, regardless of the
"method" parameter that the URIs in the list indicate. Effectively, 'method' parameter that the URIs in the list indicate. Effectively,
MESSAGE URI-list services MUST ignore the "method" parameter in each MESSAGE URI-list services MUST ignore the 'method' parameter in each
of the URIs present in the URI-list. of the URIs present in the URI-list.
7. Procedures at the UAS 7. Procedures at the UAS
A UAS (in this specification, also known as intended recipient UAS) A UAS (in this specification, also known as intended recipient UAS)
that receives a MESSAGE request from the URI-list service behaves as that receives a MESSAGE request from the URI-list service behaves as
specified in RFC 3428 [7] Section 7. specified in RFC 3428 [9] Section 7.
If the UAS supports this specification and the MESSAGE request If the UAS supports this specification and the MESSAGE request
contains a body with a Content-Disposition header set to contains a body with a Content-Disposition header field [2] set to
'recipient-list', then the UAS will be able to determine who are the 'recipient-list-history', then the UAS will be able to determine who
other intended recipients (visible) of the MESSAGE request. This are the other intended visible recipients of the MESSAGE request.
allows the user to create a reply request (e.g., MESSAGE, INVITE) to This allows the user to create a reply request (e.g., MESSAGE,
the sender and the rest of the visible recipients. INVITE) to the sender and the rest of the visible recipients.
8. Examples 8. Examples
Figure 5 shows an example of operation. A SIP UAC issuer sends a Figure 5 shows an example of operation. A SIP UAC issuer sends a
MESSAGE request. The MESSAGE URI-list service answers with a 202 MESSAGE request. The MESSAGE URI-list service answers with a 202
Accepted message and sends a MESSAGE request to each of the intended Accepted message and sends a MESSAGE request to each of the intended
recipients. recipients.
+--------+ +---------+ +--------+ +--------+ +--------+ +--------+ +---------+ +--------+ +--------+ +--------+
|SIP UAC | | MESSAGE | |intended| |intended| |intended| |SIP UAC | | MESSAGE | |intended| |intended| |intended|
skipping to change at page 13, line 9 skipping to change at page 14, line 9
| | | | | | | | | |
Figure 5: Example of operation Figure 5: Example of operation
The MESSAGE request F1 is as follows: The MESSAGE request F1 is as follows:
MESSAGE sip:list-service.example.com SIP/2.0 MESSAGE sip:list-service.example.com SIP/2.0
Via: SIP/2.0/TCP uac.example.com Via: SIP/2.0/TCP uac.example.com
;branch=z9hG4bKhjhs8ass83 ;branch=z9hG4bKhjhs8ass83
Max-Forwards: 70 Max-Forwards: 70
To: MESSAGE URI-List Service <sip:list-service.example.com> To: MESSAGE URI-list Service <sip:list-service.example.com>
From: Carol <sip:carol@example.com>;tag=32331 From: Carol <sip:carol@example.com>;tag=32331
Call-ID: d432fa84b4c76e66710 Call-ID: d432fa84b4c76e66710
CSeq: 1 MESSAGE CSeq: 1 MESSAGE
Content-Type: multipart/mixed;boundary="boundary1" Content-Type: multipart/mixed;boundary="boundary1"
Content-Length: 501 Content-Length: 501
--boundary1 --boundary1
Content-Type: text/plain Content-Type: text/plain
Hello World! Hello World!
--boundary1 --boundary1
Content-Type: application/resource-lists+xml Content-Type: application/resource-lists+xml
Content-Disposition: recipient-list Content-Disposition: recipient-list
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?> <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<resource-lists xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:resource-lists" <resource-lists xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:resource-lists"
xmlns:cp="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:capacity" xmlns:cp="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:capacity"
xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance"> xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance">
<list> <list>
<entry uri="sip:bill@example.com"> <entry uri="sip:bill@example.com" cp:capacity="to" />
<cp:capacity>to</cp:capacity> <entry uri="sip:joe@example.org" cp:capacity="cc />
</entry> <entry uri="sip:ted@example.net" cp:capacity="bcc" />
<entry uri="sip:joe@example.org">
<cp:capacity>cc</cp:capacity>
</entry>
<entry uri="sip:ted@example.net">
<cp:capacity>bcc</cp:capacity>
</entry>
</list> </list>
</resource-lists> </resource-lists>
--boundary1-- --boundary1--
Messages F4, F4 and F5 are similar in nature. Especially the bodies Messages F4, F4 and F5 are similar in nature. Especially the bodies
are exactly the same for all of them, since they include the instant are exactly the same for all of them, since they include the instant
message payload and a URI-list that contains the resources tagged message payload and a URI-list that contains the resources tagged
with the "to" and "cc " capacity. We show an example of F3: with the "to" and "cc" capacity attribute. We show an example of F3:
MESSAGE sip:bill@example.com SIP/2.0 MESSAGE sip:bill@example.com SIP/2.0
Via: SIP/2.0/TCP list-service.example.com Via: SIP/2.0/TCP list-service.example.com
;branch=z9hG4bKhjhs8as34sc ;branch=z9hG4bKhjhs8as34sc
Max-Forwards: 70 Max-Forwards: 70
To: <sip:bill@example.com> To: <sip:bill@example.com>
From: Carol <sip:carol@uac.example.com>;tag=210342 From: Carol <sip:carol@uac.example.com>;tag=210342
Call-ID: 39s02sdsl20d9sj2l Call-ID: 39s02sdsl20d9sj2l
CSeq: 1 MESSAGE CSeq: 1 MESSAGE
Content-Type: multipart/mixed;boundary="boundary1" Content-Type: multipart/mixed;boundary="boundary1"
Content-Length: 501 Content-Length: 501
--boundary1 --boundary1
Content-Type: text/plain Content-Type: text/plain
Hello World! Hello World!
--boundary1 --boundary1
Content-Type: application/resource-lists+xml Content-Type: application/resource-lists+xml
Content-Disposition: recipient-list Content-Disposition: recipient-list-history; handling=optional
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?> <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<resource-lists xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:resource-lists" <resource-lists xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:resource-lists"
xmlns:cp="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:capacity" xmlns:cp="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:capacity"
xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance"> xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance">
<list> <list>
<entry uri="sip:bill@example.com"> <entry uri="sip:bill@example.com" cp:capacity="to" />
<cp:capacity>to</cp:capacity> <entry uri="sip:joe@example.org" cp:capacity="cc" />
</entry>
<entry uri="sip:joe@example.org">
<cp:capacity>cc</cp:capacity>
</entry>
</list> </list>
</resource-lists> </resource-lists>
--boundary1-- --boundary1--
9. Security Considerations 9. IANA Considerations
Section 4 defines a new 'recipient-list-history' value of the Mail
Content Disposition Values registry. This value should be registered
in the IANA registry of Mail Content Disposition Values with the
following registration data:
+------------------------+------------------------------+-----------+
| Name | Description | Reference |
+------------------------+------------------------------+-----------+
| recipient-list-history | the body contains a list of | [RFCXXXX] |
| | URIs that indicates the | |
| | recipients of the message | |
+------------------------+------------------------------+-----------+
Table 1: Registration of the 'recipient-list-history' Mail Content
Disposition Value
Note to IANA and the RFC editor: replace RFCXXXX above with the RFC
number of this specification.
10. Security Considerations
The Framework and Security Considerations for SIP URI-List Services The Framework and Security Considerations for SIP URI-List Services
[10] discusses issues related to SIP URI-list services. [12] discusses issues related to SIP URI-list services.
Implementations of MESSAGE URI-list services MUST follow the Implementations of MESSAGE URI-list services MUST follow the
security-related rules in the framework for URI-list services [10]. security-related rules in the Framework and Security Considerations
These rules include mandatory authentication and authorization of for SIP URI-List Services [12]. These rules include mandatory
clients, and opt-in lists. authentication and authorization of clients, and opt-in lists.
If the contents of the instant message needs to be kept private, the If the contents of the instant message needs to be kept private, the
user agent client SHOULD use S/MIME [9] to prevent a third party from user agent client SHOULD use S/MIME [11] to prevent a third party
viewing this information. In this case, the user agent client SHOULD from viewing this information. In this case, the user agent client
encrypt the instant message body with a content encryption key. SHOULD encrypt the instant message body with a content encryption
Then, for each receiver in the list, the UAC SHOULD encrypt the key. Then, for each receiver in the list, the UAC SHOULD encrypt the
content encryption key with the public key of the receiver, and content encryption key with the public key of the receiver, and
attach it to the MESSAGE request. attach it to the MESSAGE request.
10. Acknowledgements 11. Acknowledgements
Duncan Mills supported the idea of having 1 to n MESSAGEs. Ben Duncan Mills supported the idea of having 1 to n MESSAGEs. Ben
Campbell, Paul Kyzivat, Cullen Jennings, and Jonathan Rosenberg Campbell, Paul Kyzivat, Cullen Jennings, and Jonathan Rosenberg
provided helpful comments. provided helpful comments.
11. Change control 12. Change control
11.1 Changes from draft-ietf-sipping-uri-list-message-00.txt 12.1 Changes from draft-ietf-sipping-uri-list-message-01.txt
Added a reference to missing REQ-GROUP-4 in the Advanced Instant
Messaging Requirements for SIP document.
Since the resource list allows now attribute extensibility, the
former <capacity> element has been replaced by a 'capacity'
attribute, which allows a more compact representation of the URI.
Added a new Content-Disposition disposition type
'recipient-list-history'. It is used in the MESSAGE request that the
MESSAGE URI-list service sends to each of the recipients. This
allows the UAS to differentiate it from a 'recipient-list', which has
a separate meaning.
12.2 Changes from draft-ietf-sipping-uri-list-message-00.txt
Revision of the treatment of headers the MESSAGE URI-list service, on Revision of the treatment of headers the MESSAGE URI-list service, on
a header by header basis. a header by header basis.
Added an overview section. Added an overview section.
Added functionality that allows the sender of the incoming MESSAGE Added functionality that allows the sender of the incoming MESSAGE
request to tag each of the intended recipients with the "to", "cc", request to tag each of the intended recipients with the "to", "cc",
or "bcc" capacity. If there are resources tagged as "to" or "cc", or "bcc" capacity. If there are resources tagged as "to" or "cc",
the URI-list service will include a URI-list in each of the outgoing the URI-list service will include a URI-list in each of the outgoing
MESSAGE request including those resources. MESSAGE request including those resources.
Procedures at the UAS included. Procedures at the UAS included.
Better example including a flow. Better example including a flow.
11.2 Changes from draft-ietf-sipping-message-exploder-00.txt to 12.3 Changes from draft-ietf-sipping-message-exploder-00.txt to
draft-ietf-sipping-uri-list-message-00.txt draft-ietf-sipping-uri-list-message-00.txt
Clarified that the MESSAGE exploder should not distribute a body that Clarified that the MESSAGE exploder should not distribute a body that
has been encrypted with the public key of the exploder. The has been encrypted with the public key of the exploder. The
exception is the URI-list, which can be distributed by the exploder, exception is the URI-list, which can be distributed by the exploder,
providing that is encrypted with the public key of the receiver. providing that is encrypted with the public key of the receiver.
The security considerations section describes how to encrypt the list The security considerations section describes how to encrypt the list
and how to encrypt the instant message payload. and how to encrypt the instant message payload.
Terminology aligned with the requirements and the framework for Terminology aligned with the requirements and the framework for
URI-list services (e.g., the term "exploder" has been deprecated). URI-list services (e.g., the term "exploder" has been deprecated).
11.3 Changes from draft-garcia-simple-message-exploder-00.txt to 12.4 Changes from draft-garcia-simple-message-exploder-00.txt to
draft-garcia-sipping-message-exploder-00.txt draft-garcia-sipping-message-exploder-00.txt
The MESSAGE exploder may or may not copy the URI-list body to the The MESSAGE exploder may or may not copy the URI-list body to the
outgoing MESSAGE request. This allows to extend the mechanism with a outgoing MESSAGE request. This allows to extend the mechanism with a
Reply-to-all feature. Reply-to-all feature.
It is clarified that the MESSAGE exploder must not include a list in It is clarified that the MESSAGE exploder must not include a list in
the outgoing MESSAGE requests. This avoids loops or requires a the outgoing MESSAGE requests. This avoids loops or requires a
MESSAGE exploder functionality in the next hop. MESSAGE exploder functionality in the next hop.
The MESSAGE exploder must remove the multipart/mixed wrapper if there The MESSAGE exploder must remove the multipart/mixed wrapper if there
is only one body left in the outgoing MESSAGE request. is only one body left in the outgoing MESSAGE request.
Filename changed due to focus on the SIPPING WG. Filename changed due to focus on the SIPPING WG.
12. References 13. References
12.1 Normative References 13.1 Normative References
[1] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement [1] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement
Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[2] Levinson, E., "Content-ID and Message-ID Uniform Resource [2] Troost, R., Dorner, S. and K. Moore, "Communicating
Presentation Information in Internet Messages: The
Content-Disposition Header Field", RFC 2183, August 1997.
[3] Levinson, E., "Content-ID and Message-ID Uniform Resource
Locators", RFC 2392, August 1998. Locators", RFC 2392, August 1998.
[3] Franks, J., Hallam-Baker, P., Hostetler, J., Lawrence, S., [4] Franks, J., Hallam-Baker, P., Hostetler, J., Lawrence, S.,
Leach, P., Luotonen, A. and L. Stewart, "HTTP Authentication: Leach, P., Luotonen, A. and L. Stewart, "HTTP Authentication:
Basic and Digest Access Authentication", RFC 2617, June 1999. Basic and Digest Access Authentication", RFC 2617, June 1999.
[4] Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., Camarillo, G., Johnston, A., [5] Zimmerer, E., Peterson, J., Vemuri, A., Ong, L., Audet, F.,
Watson, M. and M. Zonoun, "MIME media types for ISUP and QSIG
Objects", RFC 3204, December 2001.
[6] Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., Camarillo, G., Johnston, A.,
Peterson, J., Sparks, R., Handley, M. and E. Schooler, "SIP: Peterson, J., Sparks, R., Handley, M. and E. Schooler, "SIP:
Session Initiation Protocol", RFC 3261, June 2002. Session Initiation Protocol", RFC 3261, June 2002.
[5] Peterson, J., "A Privacy Mechanism for the Session Initiation [7] Peterson, J., "A Privacy Mechanism for the Session Initiation
Protocol (SIP)", RFC 3323, November 2002. Protocol (SIP)", RFC 3323, November 2002.
[6] Jennings, C., Peterson, J. and M. Watson, "Private Extensions [8] Jennings, C., Peterson, J. and M. Watson, "Private Extensions
to the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) for Asserted Identity to the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) for Asserted Identity
within Trusted Networks", RFC 3325, November 2002. within Trusted Networks", RFC 3325, November 2002.
[7] Campbell, B., Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., Huitema, C. and [9] Campbell, B., Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., Huitema, C. and
D. Gurle, "Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Extension for D. Gurle, "Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Extension for
Instant Messaging", RFC 3428, December 2002. Instant Messaging", RFC 3428, December 2002.
[8] Rosenberg, J., "Extensible Markup Language (XML) Formats for [10] Rosenberg, J., "Extensible Markup Language (XML) Formats for
Representing Resource Lists", Representing Resource Lists",
draft-ietf-simple-xcap-list-usage-03 (work in progress), July draft-ietf-simple-xcap-list-usage-04 (work in progress),
2004. October 2004.
[9] Ramsdell, B., "S/MIME Version 3.1 Message Specification", [11] Ramsdell, B., "S/MIME Version 3.1 Message Specification",
draft-ietf-smime-rfc2633bis-09 (work in progress), April 2004. draft-ietf-smime-rfc2633bis-09 (work in progress), April 2004.
[10] Camarillo, G., "Requirements and Framework for Session [12] Camarillo, G., "Requirements and Framework for Session
Initiation Protocol (SIP)Uniform Resource Identifier Initiation Protocol (SIP)Uniform Resource Identifier
(URI)-List Services", draft-ietf-sipping-uri-services-00 (work (URI)-List Services", draft-ietf-sipping-uri-services-01 (work
in progress), July 2004. in progress), October 2004.
12.2 Informational References 13.2 Informational References
[11] Rosenberg, J., "Advanced Instant Messaging Requirements for the [13] Rosenberg, J., "Advanced Instant Messaging Requirements for the
Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)", Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)",
draft-rosenberg-simple-messaging-requirements-01 (work in draft-rosenberg-simple-messaging-requirements-01 (work in
progress), February 2004. progress), February 2004.
[12] Peterson, J., "Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Authenticated [14] Peterson, J., "Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Authenticated
Identity Body (AIB) Format", RFC 3893, September 2004. Identity Body (AIB) Format", RFC 3893, September 2004.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Miguel A. Garcia-Martin Miguel A. Garcia-Martin
Nokia Nokia
P.O.Box 407 P.O.Box 407
NOKIA GROUP, FIN 00045 NOKIA GROUP, FIN 00045
Finland Finland
 End of changes. 

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.23, available from http://www.levkowetz.com/ietf/tools/rfcdiff/