draft-ietf-sipping-uri-list-message-05.txt   draft-ietf-sipping-uri-list-message-06.txt 
SIPPING Working Group M. Garcia-Martin SIPPING Working Group M. Garcia-Martin
Internet-Draft Nokia Internet-Draft Nokia
Expires: July 21, 2006 G. Camarillo Expires: August 4, 2006 G. Camarillo
Ericsson Ericsson
January 17, 2006 January 31, 2006
Multiple-Recipient MESSAGE Requests in the Session Initiation Protocol Multiple-Recipient MESSAGE Requests in the Session Initiation Protocol
(SIP) (SIP)
draft-ietf-sipping-uri-list-message-05.txt draft-ietf-sipping-uri-list-message-06.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 36 skipping to change at page 1, line 36
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 July 21, 2006. This Internet-Draft will expire on August 4, 2006.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006). Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).
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 MESSAGE URI-list service, MESSAGE request with a URI-list to the MESSAGE URI-list service,
which sends a similar MESSAGE request to each of the URIs included in which sends a similar MESSAGE request to each of the URIs included in
the list. the list.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. URI-List document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4. URI-List document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.1. Extension to the resource lists data format . . . . . . . 6 4.1. Extension to the resource lists data format . . . . . . . 6
4.1.1. XML Schema . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.2. URI-list example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4.2. URI-list example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5. Option-tag . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 5. Option-tag . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6. Procedures at the User Agent Client . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 6. Procedures at the User Agent Client . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
7. Procedures at the MESSAGE URI-List Service . . . . . . . . . . 9 7. Procedures at the MESSAGE URI-List Service . . . . . . . . . . 9
7.1. Determining the intended recipient . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 7.1. Determining the intended recipient . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7.2. Creating an outgoing MESSAGE request . . . . . . . . . . . 9 7.2. Creating an outgoing MESSAGE request . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7.3. Composing bodies in the outgoing MESSAGE request . . . . . 11 7.3. Composing bodies in the outgoing MESSAGE request . . . . . 11
8. Procedures at the UAS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 8. Procedures at the UAS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
9. Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 9. Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
10. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 10. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
11. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 11. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
11.1. Disposition Type Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 11.1. Disposition Type Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
11.2. Option-Tag Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 11.2. Option-Tag Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
12. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 11.3. URN Sub-Namespace Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
13. Change control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 11.3.1. urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:capacity . . . . . . . . . . . 16
13.1. Changes from draft-ietf-sipping-uri-list-message-02.txt . 17 11.4. Schema Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
13.2. Changes from draft-ietf-sipping-uri-list-message-01.txt . 17 11.4.1. urn:ietf:params:xml:schema:capacity . . . . . . . . . 17
13.3. Changes from draft-ietf-sipping-uri-list-message-00.txt . 17 12. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
13.4. Changes from 13. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
draft-ietf-sipping-message-exploder-00.txt to 13.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
draft-ietf-sipping-uri-list-message-00.txt . . . . . . . . 17 13.2. Informational References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
13.5. Changes from
draft-garcia-simple-message-exploder-00.txt to
draft-garcia-sipping-message-exploder-00.txt . . . . . . . 18
14. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
14.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
14.2. Informational References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 20 Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 19
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
SIP [5] can carry instant messages in MESSAGE [8] requests. The SIP [5] can carry instant messages in MESSAGE [8] requests. The
Advanced Instant Messaging Requirements for SIP [12] 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 page-mode other situations the sending user just wants to send a small page-
instant message to an ad-hoc group, without entering the burden of mode instant message to an ad-hoc group without the burden of setting
setting up a session. This document focuses on sending a page-mode up a session. This document focuses on sending a page-mode instant
instant message to a number of intended recipients. message to a number of intended recipients.
To meet the requirement with a page-mode instant message, we allow To meet the requirement with a page-mode instant message, we allow
SIP MESSAGE requests carry URI-lists in body parts whose Content- SIP MESSAGE requests carry URI-lists in body parts whose Content-
Disposition [2] is 'recipient-list', as specified in the Framework Disposition [2] is 'recipient-list', as specified in the Framework
and Security Considerations for SIP URI-List Services [11]. A SIP and Security Considerations for SIP URI-List Services [12]. A SIP
MESSAGE URI-list service, which is a specialized application service, MESSAGE URI-list service, which is a specialized application service,
receives the request and sends a similar MESSAGE request to each of receives the request and sends a similar MESSAGE request to each of
the URIs in the list. Each of these MESSAGE requests contains a copy the URIs in the list. Each of these MESSAGE requests contains a copy
of the body included in the original MESSAGE request. of the body included in the original MESSAGE request.
The Advanced Instant Messaging Requirements for SIP [12] also The Advanced Instant Messaging Requirements for SIP [13] also
includes a requirement that allows to provide a "Reply-to-All" includes a requirement that allows to provide a "Reply-to-All"
functionality: functionality:
"REQ-GROUP-4: It MUST be possible for the recipient of a group IM "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 to send a message to all other participants that received the same
group IM (i.e., Reply-To-All)." group IM (i.e., Reply-To-All)."
To meet this requirement, we provide a mechanism whereby the MESSAGE To meet this requirement, we provide a mechanism whereby the MESSAGE
URI-list service can include the received URI-list along the instant URI-list service can include the received URI-list along with the
message payload in each of the instant messages sent to the instant message payload in each of the instant messages sent to the
recipients. recipients. Further more, we provide an extension to the URI-list
format that allows the sender to tag each recipient with the role or
'capacity' in which he is receiving an instant message.
The UAC (User Agent Client) that sends a MESSAGE request to a MESSAGE 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 URI-list service needs to be configured with the SIP URI of the
service that provides the functionality. Discovering and service that provides the functionality. Discovering and
provisioning of this URI to the UAC is outside the scope of this provisioning of this URI to the UAC is outside the scope of this
document. 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",
skipping to change at page 4, line 36 skipping to change at page 4, line 36
instant message payload, an incoming MESSAGE request contains a instant message payload, an incoming MESSAGE request contains a
URI-list. URI-list.
Outgoing MESSAGE request: A SIP MESSAGE request that a MESSAGE URI- Outgoing MESSAGE request: A SIP MESSAGE request that a MESSAGE URI-
list service creates and addresses to a UAS (User Agent Server). list service creates and addresses to a UAS (User Agent Server).
It contains the regular instant message payload. It contains the regular instant message payload.
Intended recipient: The intended final recipient of the request to Intended recipient: The intended final recipient of the request to
be generated by MESSAGE URI-list service. be generated by MESSAGE URI-list service.
Capacity: The role assigned by the sender to a recipient. The
sender is able to tag recipients with the 'to', 'cc', and 'bcc'
capacity, which indicate, respectively, whether the recipients get
a primary, carbon copy, or blind carbon copy of the message.
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 MESSAGE URI-list mechanism allows a sender to specify multiple
[9] to include the list of intended recipients. We define an targets for a MESSAGE request by including a resource list in the
extension to that list to indicate the capacity of each resource, body of the MESSAGE request. This resource list includes the URIs of
which can be To, Cc or Bcc (in an analogy to e-mail). The MESSAGE the targets. Each target URI may also be marked to indicate in what
URI-list service can include a resource list in the outgoing MESSAGE capacity (or role) the URI-list service will place the target. he
request that contain those resources tagged with a To or Cc available capacities include "to", "cc", and "bcc". When the MESSAGE
capacities (and not Bcc capacities). This allows the creator of the URi-list server expands the request for each recipient, it includes a
incoming MESSAGE request to identify if a resource should be new URI-list that contains only the targets originally listed in the
receiving a copy of the MESSAGE request as a capacity of recipient "to" and "cc" capacities, and excludes those listed in the "bcc"
(to), carbon copy (cc) or blind carbon copy (bcc). It also allows capacity. this allows recipients to both see and reply to the "to"
some the intended recipients to reply to the initial sender and all and "cc" targets, but not to the "bcc" targets. The default capacity
the visible recipients of the MESSAGE request. assumed if one is not specified by the sender is "bcc". This is
discussed in greater detailed in Section 4.1 of this document. The
mechanism reuses the XML format for representing resource lists [10]
to include the list of intended recipients. We define an 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 URI-list
service can include a resource list in the outgoing MESSAGE request
that contain those resources tagged with a To or Cc capacities (and
not Bcc capacities). This allows the creator of the incoming MESSAGE
request to identify if a resource should be receiving a copy of the
MESSAGE request as a capacity of recipient (to), carbon copy (cc) or
blind carbon copy (bcc). It also allows some the intended recipients
to reply to the initial sender and all the visible recipients of the
MESSAGE request.
4. URI-List document 4. URI-List document
As described in the Framework and Security Considerations for SIP As described in the Framework and Security Considerations for SIP
URI-List Services [11], specifications of individual URI-list URI-List Services [12], specifications of individual URI-list
services, like the MESSAGE URI-list service described here, need to services, like the MESSAGE URI-list service described here, need to
specify a default format for 'recipient-list' bodies used within the specify a default format for 'recipient-list' bodies used within the
particular service. 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 [9] . 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 [9]. This extension allows us to characterize a resource lists [10]. This extension allows us to characterize a
resource with a 'capacity' attribute. UACs (User Agent Clients) and resource with a 'capacity' attribute. UACs (User Agent Clients) and
MESSAGE URI-list services handling 'recipient-list' bodies MUST MESSAGE URI-list services handling 'recipient-list' bodies MUST
support 'capacity' extension. 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 Additionally, this document defines a new mail disposition type value
to be included in a Content-Disposition [2] header field of a SIP to be included in a Content-Disposition [2] header field of a SIP
MESSAGE request. The value of this new disposition type is MESSAGE request. The value of this new disposition type is
'recipient-list-history' and its purpose is to indicate a list of 'recipient-list-history' and its purpose is to indicate a list of
recipients that a MESSAGE was sent to. A body whose Content- recipients that a MESSAGE was sent to. A body whose Content-
Disposition type is 'recipient-list-history' contains a URI-list with Disposition type is 'recipient-list-history' contains a URI-list with
the visible recipients of the MESSAGE. The <entry> element in the the visible recipients of the MESSAGE. The <entry> element in the
URI-list MAY also include a 'capacity' attribute, as specified in URI-list MAY also include a 'capacity' attribute, as specified in
Section 4.1. MESSAGE URI-list services MUST implement support for Section 4.1. MESSAGE URI-list services MUST implement support for
this Content-Disposition type. User Agent Servers (UAS) MAY this Content-Disposition type. User Agent Servers (UAS) MAY
implement support for the resource-list document format [9] and the implement support for the resource-list document format [10] and the
'recipient-list-history' Content-Disposition type. 'recipient-list-history' Content-Disposition type.
4.1. Extension to the resource lists data format 4.1. Extension to the resource lists data format
This document defines an extension to indicate the capacity of a This document defines an extension that allows the sender to indicate
resource. We define a new 'capacity' attribute to the <entry> the capacity of role in which a recipient is receiving a message. We
element. The 'capacity' attribute has similar semantics to the type define a new 'capacity' attribute to the <entry> element of the
of destination address in e-mail systems. It can take the values resource list document format [10]. The 'capacity' attribute has
"to", "cc" and "bcc". A "to" value of the 'capacity' attribute similar semantics to the type of destination address in e-mail
indicates that the resource is considered the recipient of the systems. It can take the values "to", "cc" and "bcc". A "to" value
MESSAGE request. A "cc" value indicates that the resource receives a of the 'capacity' attribute indicates that the resource is considered
carbon copy of the MESSAGE request. A "bcc" value indicates that the the recipient of the MESSAGE request. A "cc" value indicates that
resource receives a blind carbon copy of the MESSAGE request. The the resource receives a carbon copy of the MESSAGE request. A "bcc"
default 'capacity' value is "bcc", that is, the absence of a value indicates that the resource receives a blind carbon copy of the
'capacity' attribute MUST be treated as if the 'capacity' was set to MESSAGE request. The default 'capacity' value is "bcc", that is, the
"bcc". absence of a 'capacity' attribute MUST be treated as if the
'capacity' was set to "bcc".
The 'capacity' attribute SHOULD be included as a modifier of any of The 'capacity' attribute SHOULD be included as a modifier of any of
the child 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). (e.g., an attribute of the <entry> or <external> elements).
Figure 1 describes the format of the 'capacity' attribute. Figure 1 in Section 4.1.1 describes the format of the 'capacity'
Implementations according to this specification MUST support this XML attribute. Implementations according to this specification MUST
Schema. support this XML Schema.
4.1.1. XML 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>
skipping to change at page 7, line 31 skipping to change at page 7, line 33
<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:attribute> </xs:attribute>
</xs:schema> </xs:schema>
Figure 1: Extension to the resource lists data format Figure 1: XML Schema of the Capacity Attribute Extension
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">
<list> <list>
<entry uri="sip:bill@example.com" cp:capacity="to" /> <entry uri="sip:bill@example.com" cp:capacity="to" />
<entry uri="sip:joe@example.org" cp:capacity="cc" /> <entry uri="sip:joe@example.org" cp:capacity="cc" />
<entry uri="sip:ted@example.net" cp:capacity="bcc" /> <entry uri="sip:ted@example.net" cp:capacity="bcc" />
</list> </list>
</resource-lists> </resource-lists>
Figure 2: URI-List Figure 2: URI-List
5. Option-tag 5. Option-tag
This document defines the 'recipient-list-message' option-tag for use This document defines the 'recipient-list-message' option-tag for use
in the Require and Supported SIP header fields. in the Require and Supported SIP header fields.
User agent clients generating a MESSAGE with a recipient-list body, User agent clients generating a MESSAGE with a recipient-list body,
as described in previous sections, MUST include this option-tag in a as described in previous sections, MUST include this option-tag in a
Require header field. User agents that are able to receive and Require header field. User agents that are able to receive and
skipping to change at page 8, line 19 skipping to change at page 8, line 20
User agent clients generating a MESSAGE with a recipient-list body, User agent clients generating a MESSAGE with a recipient-list body,
as described in previous sections, MUST include this option-tag in a as described in previous sections, MUST include this option-tag in a
Require header field. User agents that are able to receive and Require header field. User agents that are able to receive and
process MESSAGEs with a recipient-list body, as described in previous process MESSAGEs with a recipient-list body, as described in previous
sections, SHOULD include this option-tag in a Supported header field sections, SHOULD include this option-tag in a Supported header field
when responding to OPTIONS requests. when responding to OPTIONS requests.
6. Procedures at the User Agent Client 6. 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
create a MESSAGE request according to RFC 3428 [8] Section 4. The creates a MESSAGE request that MUST be formatted according to RFC
UAC SHOULD populate the Request-URI with the SIP or SIPS URI of the 3428 [8] Section 4. The UAC populates the Request-URI with the SIP
MESSAGE URI-list service. In addition to the regular instant message or SIPS URI of the MESSAGE URI-list service. In addition to the
body, the UAC SHOULD add a URI-list body whose Content-Disposition regular instant message body, the UAC adds a URI-list body whose
type is 'recipient-list', specifed in the Framework and Security Content-Disposition type is 'recipient-list', specified in the
Considerations for SIP URI-list Services [11]. This body contains a Framework and Security Considerations for SIP URI-list Services [12].
URI-list with the recipients of the MESSAGE. The URI-list body MAY This body contains a URI-list with the recipients of the MESSAGE.
also include the 'capacity' extension to the URI-list specified in The URI-list body MAY also include the 'capacity' extension to the
Section 4.1. The UAC MUST also include the 'recipient-list-message' URI-list specified in Section 4.1. The UAC MUST also include the
option-tag, defined in Section 5, in a Require header field. 'recipient-list-message' option-tag, defined in Section 5, in a
Require header field.
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 [10]). 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 [5] to encode extra information in any URI in the list. of RFC 3261 [5] 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 [5]) to encode a body, since the body is present 19.1.1 of RFC 3261 [5]) to encode a body, since the body is present
skipping to change at page 9, line 4 skipping to change at page 9, line 8
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 [5] to encode extra information in any URI in the list. of RFC 3261 [5] 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 [5]) to encode a body, since the body is present 19.1.1 of RFC 3261 [5]) 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"
7. Procedures at the MESSAGE URI-List Service 7. 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 answer to the UAC with a 202 Accepted response. Note that
that the status code in the response to the MESSAGE does not provide the status code in the response to the MESSAGE does not provide any
any information about whether or not the MESSAGEs generated by the information about whether or not the MESSAGEs generated by the URI-
URI-list service were successfully delivered to the URIs in the list. list service were successfully delivered to the URIs in the list.
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.
7.1. Determining the intended recipient 7.1. 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 determines the list of intended recipients by inspecting the
inspecting the URI-list contained in the body. In case two of those URI-list contained in the body. In case two of those URIs are
URIs are equivalent (section 19.1.4 of RFC 3261 [5] defines equivalent (section 19.1.4 of RFC 3261 [5] defines equivalent URIs),
equivalent URIs), the MESSAGE URI-list SHOULD consider a single the MESSAGE URI-list SHOULD consider a single intended recipient
intended recipient. rather than sending multiple copies of the MESSAGE to the same
destination.
7.2. Creating an outgoing MESSAGE request 7.2. 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 [8] and the following procedures: described in Section 4 of RFC 3428 [8] 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 [6] and RFC 3325 [7]) expressed in the incoming MESSAGE RFC 3323 [6] and RFC 3325 [7]) 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.
Failing to copy the From header field of the sender would
prevent the recipient to get a hint of the sender's identity.
Note also that this requirement does not intend to contradict
requirements for additional services running on the same
physical node. Specifically, a privacy service (see RFC 3323
[6]) can be co-located with the MESSAGE URI-list service, in
which case, the privacy service has precedence over the MESSAGE
URI-list service.
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's 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.
The MESSAGE URI-list service behaves as a User Agent Client,
thus, the To header field should be populated with the
recipient's URI.
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.
A Call-ID header field might contain addressing information
that the sender wants to remain private. Since there is no
need to keep the same Call-ID on both sides of the MESSAGE URI-
list service, and since the MESSAGE URI-list service behaves as
a User Agent Client, it is recommended to create a new Call-ID
header field value according to the regular SIP procedures.
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 [7], and the first hop of the source, as specified in RFC 3325 [7], 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 [3], S/MIME
[10], etc.) and the service implements a mechanism where it can [11], etc.) and the service implements a mechanism where it can
map 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 [6], the MESSAGE URI-list MAY insert MESSAGE request (see RFC 3323 [6], 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
skipping to change at page 10, line 45 skipping to change at page 11, line 19
Forward header field of the outgoing MESSAGE request. 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 [5] and encoded in the intended recipient URI of the URI- RFC 3261 [5] and encoded in the intended recipient URI of the URI-
list. 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.
o If the URI-list of the incoming MESSAGE request include resources o If the URI-list of the incoming MESSAGE request includes resources
tagged with the 'capacity' attribute set with a value of "to" or tagged with the 'capacity' attribute set with a value of "to" or
"cc", the URI-list service SHOULD include a URI-list in each of "cc", the URI-list service SHOULD include a URI-list in each of
the outgoing MESSAGE requests. the outgoing MESSAGE requests.
7.3. Composing bodies in the outgoing MESSAGE request 7.3. 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 [10]) 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 [10] 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 The incoming MESSAGE request typically contains a URI-list body or o The incoming MESSAGE request typically contains a URI-list body or
reference [11] with the actual list of recipients. Section 7.2 reference [12] with the actual list of recipients. Section 7.2
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 If the MESSAGE URI-list service includes a URI-list in an outgoing o If the MESSAGE URI-list service includes a URI-list in an outgoing
MESSAGE request, then the list SHOULD be formatted according to MESSAGE request, then the list SHOULD be formatted according to
the XML format for representing resource lists [9] and the the XML format for representing resource lists [10] and the
capacity extension specified in Section 4.1. This resource list capacity extension specified in Section 4.1. This resource list
MUST contain those elements categorized with the "to" or "cc" MUST contain those elements categorized with the "to" or "cc"
capacity attribute and MUST NOT contain those resources capacity attribute and MUST NOT contain those resources
categorized with the "bcc" or lacking the capacity attribute (the categorized with the "bcc" or lacking the capacity attribute (the
default value for the capacity of resources without a capacity default value for the capacity of resources without a capacity
attribute is "bcc"). attribute is "bcc").
o If the MESSAGE URI-list service includes a URI-list in an outgoing o If the MESSAGE URI-list service includes a URI-list in an outgoing
MESSAGE request, it MUST include a Content-Disposition header MESSAGE request, it MUST include a Content-Disposition header
field [2] with the value set to 'recipient-list-history' and a field [2] with the value set to 'recipient-list-history' and a
'handling' parameter [4] set to "optional". 'handling' parameter [4] 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 [10] 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 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
URI-list MUST be created following the rules in Section 19.1.5 URI-list MUST be created following the rules in Section 19.1.5
skipping to change at page 14, line 28 skipping to change at page 14, line 28
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">
<list> <list>
<entry uri="sip:bill@example.com" cp:capacity="to" /> <entry uri="sip:bill@example.com" cp:capacity="to" />
<entry uri="sip:joe@example.org" cp:capacity="cc" /> <entry uri="sip:joe@example.org" cp:capacity="cc" />
<entry uri="sip:ted@example.net" cp:capacity="bcc" /> <entry uri="sip:ted@example.net" cp:capacity="bcc" />
</list> </list>
</resource-lists> </resource-lists>
--boundary1-- --boundary1--
Messages F3, F4 and F5 are similar in nature. Especially the bodies Messages F3, 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
skipping to change at page 15, line 27 skipping to change at page 15, line 27
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-history; handling=optional 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">
<list> <list>
<entry uri="sip:bill@example.com" cp:capacity="to" /> <entry uri="sip:bill@example.com" cp:capacity="to" />
<entry uri="sip:joe@example.org" cp:capacity="cc" /> <entry uri="sip:joe@example.org" cp:capacity="cc" />
</list> </list>
</resource-lists> </resource-lists>
--boundary1-- --boundary1--
10. Security Considerations 10. Security Considerations
The Framework and Security Considerations for SIP URI-List Services The Framework and Security Considerations for SIP URI-List Services
[11] 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 and Security Considerations security-related rules in the Framework and Security Considerations
for SIP URI-List Services [11]. These rules include mandatory for SIP URI-List Services [12]. These rules include mandatory
authentication and authorization of 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 [10] to prevent a third party user agent client SHOULD use S/MIME [11] to prevent a third party
from viewing this information. In this case, the user agent client from viewing this information. In this case, the user agent client
SHOULD encrypt the instant message body with a content encryption SHOULD encrypt the instant message body with a content encryption
key. 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.
11. IANA Considerations 11. IANA Considerations
The following sections instruct the IANA to register a new The following sections instruct the IANA to register a new
disposition type and a new SIP option-tag. disposition type and a new SIP option-tag.
skipping to change at page 16, line 41 skipping to change at page 16, line 41
11.2. Option-Tag Registration 11.2. Option-Tag Registration
This document defines the 'recipient-list-message' SIP option-tag in This document defines the 'recipient-list-message' SIP option-tag in
Section 5. It should be registered in the Option Tags subregistry Section 5. It should be registered in the Option Tags subregistry
under the SIP parameter registry. The following is the description under the SIP parameter registry. The following is the description
to be used in the registration. to be used in the registration.
This option-tag is used to ensure that a server can process the This option-tag is used to ensure that a server can process the
'recipient-list' body used in a MESSAGE request. 'recipient-list' body used in a MESSAGE request.
12. Acknowledgements 11.3. URN Sub-Namespace Registration
Duncan Mills supported the idea of having 1 to n MESSAGEs. Ben
Campbell, Paul Kyzivat, Cullen Jennings, and Jonathan Rosenberg
provided helpful comments.
13. Change control
13.1. Changes from draft-ietf-sipping-uri-list-message-02.txt
Typos fixed.
'recipient-list-message' option-tag defined and registered with the
IANA.
13.2. 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.
13.3. Changes from draft-ietf-sipping-uri-list-message-00.txt
Revision of the treatment of headers the MESSAGE URI-list service, on This section registers a new XML namespace, as per the guidelines in
a header by header basis. RFC 3688 [9].
Added an overview section. 11.3.1. urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:capacity
Added functionality that allows the sender of the incoming MESSAGE URI: The URI for this namespace is urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:capacity.
request to tag each of the intended recipients with the "to", "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
MESSAGE request including those resources.
Procedures at the UAS included. Registrant Contact: IETF, SIPPING working group, (sipping@ietf.org),
Miguel Garcia-Martin (miguel.an.garcia@nokia.com).
Better example including a flow. XML:
13.4. Changes from draft-ietf-sipping-message-exploder-00.txt to BEGIN
draft-ietf-sipping-uri-list-message-00.txt <?xml version="1.0"?>
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML Basic 1.0//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-basic/xhtml-basic10.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type"
content="text/html;charset=iso-8859-1"/>
<title>Capacity Namespace</title>
</head>
<body>
<h1>Namespace for the Capacity Atttribute Extension
in Resource Lists</h1>
<h2>urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:capacity</h2>
<p>See <a href="[URL of published RFC]">RFCXXXX
[NOTE TO IANA/RFC-EDITOR: Please replace XXXX with
the RFC number of this specification.]</a>.</p>
</body>
</html>
END
Clarified that the MESSAGE exploder should not distribute a body that 11.4. Schema Registration
has been encrypted with the public key of the exploder. The
exception is the URI-list, which can be distributed by the exploder,
providing that is encrypted with the public key of the receiver.
The security considerations section describes how to encrypt the list This section registers a new XML schema per the procedures in RFC
and how to encrypt the instant message payload. 3688 [9].
Terminology aligned with the requirements and the framework for URI- 11.4.1. urn:ietf:params:xml:schema:capacity
list services (e.g., the term "exploder" has been deprecated).
13.5. Changes from draft-garcia-simple-message-exploder-00.txt to URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:schema:capacity
draft-garcia-sipping-message-exploder-00.txt
The MESSAGE exploder may or may not copy the URI-list body to the Registrant Contact: IETF, SIPPING working group, (sipping@ietf.org),
outgoing MESSAGE request. This allows to extend the mechanism with a Miguel Garcia-Martin (miguel.an.garcia@nokia.com).
Reply-to-all feature.
It is clarified that the MESSAGE exploder must not include a list in The XML for this schema can be found as the sole content of
the outgoing MESSAGE requests. This avoids loops or requires a Section 4.1.1.
MESSAGE exploder functionality in the next hop.
The MESSAGE exploder must remove the multipart/mixed wrapper if there 12. Acknowledgements
is only one body left in the outgoing MESSAGE request.
Filename changed due to focus on the SIPPING WG. Duncan Mills supported the idea of having 1 to n MESSAGEs. Ben
Campbell, Paul Kyzivat, Cullen Jennings, Jonathan Rosenberg, and Dean
Willis provided helpful comments.
14. References 13. References
14.1. 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] Troost, R., Dorner, S., and K. Moore, "Communicating [2] Troost, R., Dorner, S., and K. Moore, "Communicating
Presentation Information in Internet Messages: The Content- Presentation Information in Internet Messages: The Content-
Disposition Header Field", RFC 2183, August 1997. Disposition Header Field", RFC 2183, August 1997.
[3] Franks, J., Hallam-Baker, P., Hostetler, J., Lawrence, S., [3] 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:
skipping to change at page 19, line 13 skipping to change at page 18, line 39
Protocol (SIP)", RFC 3323, November 2002. Protocol (SIP)", RFC 3323, November 2002.
[7] Jennings, C., Peterson, J., and M. Watson, "Private Extensions [7] 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.
[8] Campbell, B., Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., Huitema, C., and [8] 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.
[9] Rosenberg, J., "Extensible Markup Language (XML) Formats for [9] Mealling, M., "The IETF XML Registry", BCP 81, RFC 3688,
January 2004.
[10] Rosenberg, J., "Extensible Markup Language (XML) Formats for
Representing Resource Lists", Representing Resource Lists",
draft-ietf-simple-xcap-list-usage-05 (work in progress), draft-ietf-simple-xcap-list-usage-05 (work in progress),
February 2005. February 2005.
[10] Ramsdell, B., "Secure/Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions [11] Ramsdell, B., "Secure/Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions
(S/MIME) Version 3.1 Message Specification", RFC 3851, (S/MIME) Version 3.1 Message Specification", RFC 3851,
July 2004. July 2004.
[11] Camarillo, G. and A. Roach, "Framework and Security [12] Camarillo, G. and A. Roach, "Framework and Security
Considerations for Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Uniform Considerations for Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Uniform
Resource Identifier (URI)-List Services", Resource Identifier (URI)-List Services",
draft-ietf-sipping-uri-services-04 (work in progress), draft-ietf-sipping-uri-services-04 (work in progress),
October 2005. October 2005.
14.2. Informational References 13.2. Informational References
[12] 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.
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
 End of changes. 68 change blocks. 
172 lines changed or deleted 188 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.28, available from http://www.levkowetz.com/ietf/tools/rfcdiff/