GENWiki

Premier IT Outsourcing and Support Services within the UK

User Tools

Site Tools


rfc:rfc6914

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) J. Rosenberg Request for Comments: 6914 jdrosen.net Category: Informational April 2013 ISSN: 2070-1721

     SIMPLE Made Simple: An Overview of the IETF Specifications
              for Instant Messaging and Presence Using
               the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)

Abstract

 The IETF has produced many specifications related to Presence and
 Instant Messaging with the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP).
 Collectively, these specifications are known as SIP for Instant
 Messaging and Presence Leveraging Extensions (SIMPLE).  This document
 serves as a guide to the SIMPLE suite of specifications.  It
 categorizes the specifications, explains what each is for, and how
 they relate to each other.

Status of This Memo

 This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is
 published for informational purposes.
 This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
 (IETF).  It represents the consensus of the IETF community.  It has
 received public review and has been approved for publication by the
 Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG).  Not all documents
 approved by the IESG are a candidate for any level of Internet
 Standard; see Section 2 of RFC 5741.
 Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
 and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
 http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6914.

Rosenberg Informational [Page 1] RFC 6914 Simple Made Simple April 2013

Copyright Notice

 Copyright (c) 2013 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
 document authors.  All rights reserved.
 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
 publication of this document.  Please review these documents
 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
 to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
 described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

 1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  2
 2.  Presence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   2.1.  Core Protocol Machinery  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   2.2.  Presence Documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
   2.3.  Privacy and Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
   2.4.  Provisioning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
   2.5.  Federation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
   2.6.  Optimizations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
 3.  Instant Messaging  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
   3.1.  Page Mode  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
   3.2.  Session Mode . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
   3.3.  IM Chat Rooms  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
   3.4.  IM Features  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
 4.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
 5.  Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
 6.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

1. Introduction

 The IETF has produced many specifications related to Presence and
 Instant Messaging with the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)
 [RFC3261].  Collectively, these specifications are known as SIP for
 Instant Messaging and Presence Leveraging Extensions (SIMPLE).  These
 specifications cover topics ranging from protocols for subscription
 and publication to presence document formats to protocols for
 managing privacy preferences.  The large number of specifications can
 make it hard to figure out exactly what SIMPLE is, what
 specifications cover it, what functionality it provides, and how
 these specifications relate to each other.

Rosenberg Informational [Page 2] RFC 6914 Simple Made Simple April 2013

 This document serves to address these problems.  It provides an
 enumeration of the protocols that make up the SIMPLE suite of
 specifications from IETF.  It categorizes them into related areas of
 functionality, briefly explains the purpose of each, and how the
 specifications relate to each other.  Each specification also
 includes a letter that designates its category [RFC2026].  These
 values are:
 S: Standards Track
 E: Experimental
 B: Best Current Practice
 I: Informational

2. Presence

 SIMPLE provides for both presence and instant messaging (IM)
 capabilities.  Though both of these fit underneath the broad SIMPLE
 umbrella, they are well separated from each other and are supported
 by different sets of specifications.  That is a key part of the
 SIMPLE story; presence is much broader than just IM, and it enables
 communications using voice and video along with IM.
 The SIMPLE presence specifications can be broken up into:
 o  The core protocol machinery, which provides the actual SIP
    extensions for subscriptions, notifications, and publications
 o  Presence documents, which are XML documents that provide for rich
    presence and are carried by the core protocol machinery
 o  Privacy and policy, which are documents for expressing privacy
    preferences about how those presence documents are to be shown (or
    not shown) to other users
 o  Provisioning, which describes how users manage their privacy
    policies, buddy lists, and other pieces of information required
    for SIMPLE presence to work
 o  Optimizations, which are improvements in the core protocol
    machinery that were defined to improve the performance of SIMPLE,
    particularly on wireless links

Rosenberg Informational [Page 3] RFC 6914 Simple Made Simple April 2013

2.1. Core Protocol Machinery

 RFC 6665, SIP-Specific Event Notification (S):  [RFC6665] defines the
    SUBSCRIBE and NOTIFY methods for SIP, forming the core of the SIP
    event notification framework.  To actually use the framework,
    extensions need to be defined for specific event packages.
    Presence is defined as an event package [RFC3856] within this
    framework.  Packages exist for other, non-presence related
    functions, such as message waiting indicators and dialog state
    changes.
 RFC 3856, A Presence Event Package for the Session Initiation
    Protocol (SIP) (S):  [RFC3856] defines an event package for
    indicating user presence through SIP.  Through this package, a SIP
    user agent (UA) can ask to be notified of the presence state of a
    presentity (presence entity).  The contents of the NOTIFY messages
    in this package are presence documents discussed in Section 2.2.
 RFC 4662, A Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Event Notification
    Extension for Resource Lists (S):  [RFC4662] defines an extension
    to [RFC3265] (which has now been obsoleted by RFC 6665) that
    allows a client to subscribe to a list of resources using a single
    subscription.  The server, called a Resource List Server (RLS),
    will "expand" the subscription and subscribe to each individual
    member of the list.  Its primary usage with presence is to allow
    subscriptions to "buddy lists".  Without RFC 4662, a UA would need
    to subscribe to each presentity individually.  With RFC 4662, they
    can have a single subscription to all buddies.  A user can manage
    the entries in their buddy list using the provisioning mechanisms
    in Section 2.4.
 RFC 5367, Subscriptions to Request-Contained Resource Lists in the
    Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) (S):  [RFC5367] is very similar
    to RFC 4662.  It allows a client to subscribe to a list of
    resources using a single subscription.  However, with this
    mechanism, the list is included within the body of the SUBSCRIBE
    request.  In RFC 4662, it is provisioned ahead of time on the
    server.
 RFC 3903, Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Extension for Event State
    Publication (S):  [RFC3903] defines the PUBLISH method.  With this
    method, a UA can publish its current state for any event package,
    including the presence event package.  Once an agent publishes its
    presence state, the presence server would send notifications of
    this state change using RFC 3856.

Rosenberg Informational [Page 4] RFC 6914 Simple Made Simple April 2013

2.2. Presence Documents

 Once a user has generated a subscription to presence using the core
 protocol machinery, they will receive notifications (SIP NOTIFY
 requests) that contain presence information.  That presence
 information is in the form of an XML presence document.  Several
 specifications have been defined to describe this document format,
 focusing on rich, multimedia presence.
 RFC 3863, Presence Information Data Format (PIDF) (S):  [RFC3863]
    defines the baseline XML format for a presence document.  It
    defines the concept of a tuple as representing a basic
    communication modality and defines a simple status for it (open or
    closed).
 RFC 4479, A Data Model for Presence (S):  [RFC4479] extends the basic
    model in RFC 3863.  It introduces the concepts of device and
    person status and explains how these relate to each other.  It
    describes how presence documents are used to represent
    communications systems states in a consistent fashion.  More than
    RFC 3863, it defines what a presence document is and what it
    means.
 RFC 4480, RPID: Rich Presence Extensions to the Presence Information
    Data Format (PIDF) (S):  [RFC4480] adds many more attributes to
    the presence document schema, building upon the model in RFC 4479.
    It allows for indications of activities, moods, places and place
    types, icons, and indications of whether or not a user is idle.
 RFC 4481, Timed Presence Extensions to the Presence Information Data
    Format (PIDF) to Indicate Status Information for Past and Future
    Time Intervals (S):  [RFC4481] adds attributes to the presence
    document schema, again building upon the model in RFC 4479.  It
    allows documents to indicate status for the future or the past.
    For example, a user can indicate that they will be unavailable for
    voice communications from 2 p.m. to 3 p.m. due to a meeting.
 RFC 4482, CIPID: Contact Information for the Presence Information
    Data Format (S):  [RFC4482] adds attributes to the presence
    document schema for contact information, such as a vCard, display
    name, homepage, icon, or sound (such as the pronunciation of their
    name).
 RFC 5196, Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) User Agent Capability
    Extension to Presence Information Data Format (PIDF) (S):
    [RFC5196] adds even more attributes to the presence document
    schema, this time to allow indication of capabilities for the user

Rosenberg Informational [Page 5] RFC 6914 Simple Made Simple April 2013

    agent.  For example, the extensions can indicate whether a UA
    supports audio and video, what SIP methods it supports, and so on.

2.3. Privacy and Policy

 The rich presence capabilities defined by the specifications in
 Section 2.2 introduces a strong need for privacy preferences.  Users
 must be able to approve or deny subscriptions to their presence and
 indicate what information such watchers can see.  In SIMPLE, this is
 accomplished through policy documents uploaded to the presence server
 using the provisioning mechanisms in Section 2.4.
 RFC 4745, Common Policy: A Document Format for Expressing Privacy
    Preferences (S):  [RFC4745] defines a general XML framework for
    expressing privacy preferences for both geolocation information
    and presence information.  It introduces the concepts of
    conditions, actions, and transformations that are applied to
    privacy-sensitive data.  The common policy framework provides
    privacy safety, a property by which network error or version
    incompatibilities can never cause more information to be revealed
    to a watcher than the user would otherwise desire.
 RFC 5025, Presence Authorization Rules (S):  [RFC5025] uses the
    framework of RFC 4745 to define a policy document format for
    describing presence-privacy policies.  Besides basic yes/no
    approvals, this format allows a user to control what kind of
    information a watcher is allowed to see.
 RFC 3857, A Watcher Information Event Template-Package for the
    Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) (S):  [RFC3857], also known as
    watcherinfo, provides a mechanism for a user agent to find out
    what subscriptions are in place for a particular event package.
    Though it was defined to be used for any event package, it has
    particular applicability for presence.  It is used to provide
    reactive authorization.  With reactive authorization, a user gets
    alerted if someone tries to subscribe to their presence, so that
    they may provide an authorization decision.  Watcherinfo is used
    to provide the alert that someone has subscribed to a user's
    presence.
 RFC 3858, An Extensible Markup Language (XML) Based Format for
    Watcher Information (S):  [RFC3858] is the companion to RFC 3857.
    It specifies the XML format of watcherinfo that is carried in
    notifications for the event template package in RFC 3857.

Rosenberg Informational [Page 6] RFC 6914 Simple Made Simple April 2013

2.4. Provisioning

 Proper operation of a SIMPLE presence system requires that several
 pieces of data are correctly managed by the users and provisioned
 into the system.  These include buddy lists (used by the resource
 list subscription mechanism in RFC 4662) and privacy policies (such
 as those described by the XML format in [RFC5025]).
 In SIMPLE, management of this data is handled by the Extensible
 Markup Language (XML) Configuration Access Protocol (XCAP) [RFC4825].
 XCAP is used by the user agent to manipulate buddy lists, privacy
 policy, and other data that is represented by XML documents stored on
 a server.
 RFC 4825, The Extensible Markup Language (XML) Configuration Access
    Protocol (XCAP) (S):  [RFC4825] specifies XCAP, a usage of HTTP
    that allows a user agent to manipulate the contents of XML
    documents stored on a server.  It can be used to manipulate any
    kind of XML, and the protocol itself is independent of the
    particular schema of the data it is modifying.  XML schemas have
    been defined for buddy lists, privacy policies, and offline
    presence status, allowing all of those to be managed by a user
    with XCAP.
 RFC 5875, An Extensible Markup Language (XML) Configuration Access
    Protocol (XCAP) Diff Event Package (S):  [RFC5875] defines an
    extension to the SIP user agent configuration profile, allowing a
    user agent to learn about changes in its documents on an XCAP
    server.  With this mechanism, there can be a change made by
    someone else to a buddy list or privacy policy document, and a UA
    will find out that a new version is available.
 RFC 5874, An Extensible Markup Language (XML) Document Format for
    Indicating a Change in XML Configuration Access Protocol (XCAP)
    Resources (S):  [RFC5874] defines an XML format for indicating
    changes in XCAP documents.  It makes use of an XML diff format
    defined in [RFC5261].  It is used in conjunction with [RFC5875] to
    alert a user agent of changes made by someone else to their
    provisioned data.
 RFC 4826, Extensible Markup Language (XML) Formats for Representing
    Resource Lists (S):  [RFC4826] defines two XML document formats
    used to represent buddy lists.  One is simply a list of users (or
    more generally, resources), and the other defines a buddy list
    whose membership is composed of a list of users or resources.
    These lists can be manipulated by XCAP, allowing a user to add or
    remove members from their buddy lists.  The buddy list is also

Rosenberg Informational [Page 7] RFC 6914 Simple Made Simple April 2013

    accessed by the resource list server specified in RFC 4662 for
    processing resource list subscriptions.
 RFC 4827, An Extensible Markup Language (XML) Configuration Access
    Protocol (XCAP) Usage for Manipulating Presence Document Contents
    (S):  [RFC4827] defines an XCAP usage that allows a user to store
    an "offline" presence document.  This is a presence status that is
    used by a presence server when there are no presence documents
    published for that user by any user agents currently running.

2.5. Federation

 Federation refers to the interconnection of different presence and
 instant messaging systems for the purposes of communications.
 Federation can be between domains or within a domain.  A document has
 been developed that describes how presence and IM federation works.
 RFC 5344, Presence and Instant Messaging Peering Use Cases (I):
    [RFC5344] describes a basic set of presence and instant messaging
    use cases for federating between providers.

2.6. Optimizations

 When running over wireless links, presence can be a very expensive
 service.  Notifications often get sent when the change is not really
 relevant to the watcher.  Furthermore, when a notification is sent,
 it contains the full presence state of the watcher, rather than just
 an indication of what changed.  Optimizations have been defined to
 address both of these cases.
 RFC 4660, Functional Description of Event Notification Filtering
    (S):  [RFC4660] defines a mechanism that allows a watcher to
    include filters in its subscription.  These filters limit the
    cases in which notifications are sent.  It is used in conjunction
    with RFC 4661, which specifies the XML format of the filters
    themselves.  The mechanism, though targeted for presence, can be
    applied to any SIP event package.
 RFC 4661, An Extensible Markup Language (XML)-Based Format for Event
    Notification Filtering (S):  [RFC4661] defines an XML format used
    with the event notification filtering mechanism defined in RFC
    4660 [RFC4660].
 RFC 5262, Presence Information Data Format (PIDF)  Extension for
    Partial Presence (S):  [RFC5262] defines a new XML format for
    representing changes in presence documents, called a partial PIDF
    document.  This format contains an XML patch operation [RFC5261]
    that, when applied to the previous presence document, yields the

Rosenberg Informational [Page 8] RFC 6914 Simple Made Simple April 2013

    new presence document.  The partial PIDF document is included in
    presence notifications when a watcher indicates that they support
    the format.
 RFC 5263, Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Extension for Partial
    Notification of Presence Information (S):  [RFC5263] defines a
    mechanism for receiving notifications that contain partial
    presence documents.
 RFC 5264, Publication of Partial Presence Information (S):  [RFC5264]
    defines a mechanism for publishing presence status using a partial
    PIDF document.
 RFC 5261, An Extensible Markup Language (XML) Patch Operations
    Framework Utilizing XML Path Language (XPath) Selectors (S):
    [RFC5261] defines an XML structure for representing changes in XML
    documents.  It is a form of "diff" but specifically for XML
    documents.  It is used by several of the optimization mechanisms
    defined for SIMPLE.
 RFC 5112, The Presence-Specific Static Dictionary for Signaling
    Compression (Sigcomp) (S):  [RFC5112] defines a dictionary for
    usage with Signaling Compression (Sigcomp) [RFC3320] to improve
    the compressibility of presence documents.
 RFC 6446, Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Event Notification
    Extension for Notification Rate Control (S):  [RFC6446] specifies
    mechanisms for adjusting the rate of SIP event notifications.
    These mechanisms can be applied in subscriptions to all SIP event
    packages.

3. Instant Messaging

 SIMPLE defines two modes of instant messaging.  These are page mode
 and session mode.  In page mode, instant messages are sent by sending
 a SIP request that contains the contents of the instant message.  In
 session mode, IM is viewed as another media type -- along with audio
 and video -- and an INVITE request is used to set up a session that
 includes IM as a media type.  While page mode is more efficient for
 one or two message conversations, session mode is more efficient for
 longer conversations since the messages are not sent through the SIP
 servers.  Furthermore, by viewing IM as a media type, all of the
 features available in SIP signaling -- third party call control,
 forking, and so on, are available for IM.

Rosenberg Informational [Page 9] RFC 6914 Simple Made Simple April 2013

3.1. Page Mode

 RFC 3428, Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Extension for Instant
    Messaging (S):  [RFC3428] introduces the MESSAGE method, which can
    be used to send an instant message through SIP signaling.
 RFC 5365, Multiple-Recipient MESSAGE Requests in the Session
    Initiation Protocol (SIP) (S):  [RFC5365] defines a mechanism
    whereby a client can send a single SIP MESSAGE to multiple
    recipients.  This is accomplished by including the list of
    recipients as an object in the body and having a network server
    send a copy to each recipient.

3.2. Session Mode

 RFC 4975, The Message Session Relay Protocol (MSRP) (S):  [RFC4975]
    defines a small text-based protocol for exchanging arbitrarily
    sized content of any kind between users.  An MSRP session is set
    up by exchanging certain information, such as an MSRP URI, within
    SIP and Session Description Protocol (SDP) signaling.
 RFC 3862, Common Presence and Instant Messaging (CPIM): Message
    Format (S):  [RFC3862] defines a wrapper around instant message
    content providing metadata, such as the sender and recipient
    identity.  The CPIM format is carried in MSRP.
 RFC 4976, Relay Extensions for the Message Sessions Relay Protocol
    (MSRP) (S):  [RFC4976] adds support for relays to MSRP.  These
    relay servers receive MSRP messages and send them towards the
    destination.  They provide support for firewall and NAT traversal
    and allow for features such as recording and inspection to be
    implemented.
 RFC 6135, An Alternative Connection Model for the Message Session
    Relay Protocol (MSRP) (S):  [RFC6135] allows clients to negotiate
    which endpoint in a session will establish the MSRP connection.
    Without this specification, the client generating the SDP offer
    would initiate the connection.
 RFC 6714, Connection Establishment for Media Anchoring (CEMA) for the
    Message Session Relay Protocol (MSRP) (S):  [RFC6714] allows
    middleboxes to anchor the MSRP connection, without the need for
    middleboxes to modify the MSRP messages; thus, it also enables a
    secure end-to-end MSRP communication in networks where such
    middleboxes are deployed.

Rosenberg Informational [Page 10] RFC 6914 Simple Made Simple April 2013

3.3. IM Chat Rooms

 In SIMPLE, IM multi-user chat (also known as chat-rooms) are provided
 using regular SIP conferencing mechanisms.  The framework for SIP
 conferencing [RFC4353] and conference control [RFC5239] describe how
 all SIP-based conferencing works; including joining and leaving,
 persistent and temporary conferences, floor control and moderation,
 and learning of conference membership, amongst other functions.  All
 that is necessary are extensions to provide features that are
 specific to IM.
 Multi-party Chat Using the Message Session Relay Protocol (MSRP)
    (Work in Progress):  [SIMPCHAT] defines how MSRP is used to
    provide support for nicknames and private chat within an IM
    conference.

3.4. IM Features

 Several specifications have been written to provide IM-specific
 features for SIMPLE.  These include "is-typing" indications, allowing
 a user to know when their messaging peer is composing a response and
 allowing a user to know when their IM has been received via delivery
 notifications.
 RFC 3994, Indication of Message Composition for Instant Messaging
    (S):  [RFC3994] defines an XML format that can be sent in instant
    messages that indicates the status of message composition.  This
    provides the familiar "is-typing" indication in IM systems, but
    also supports voice, video, and other message types.
 RFC 5438, Instant Message Disposition Notification (IMDN) (S):
    [RFC5438] provides delivery notifications of IM receipt.  This
    allows a user to know with certainty that a message has been
    received.

4. Security Considerations

 This specification is an overview of existing specifications and does
 not introduce any security considerations on its own.

5. Acknowledgements

 Thanks to Vijay Gurbani, Barry Leiba, Stephen Hanna, and Salvatore
 Loreto for their review and comments.

Rosenberg Informational [Page 11] RFC 6914 Simple Made Simple April 2013

6. Informative References

 [RFC2026]   Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision
             3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, October 1996.
 [RFC3261]   Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., Camarillo, G., Johnston,
             A., Peterson, J., Sparks, R., Handley, M., and E.
             Schooler, "SIP: Session Initiation Protocol", RFC 3261,
             June 2002.
 [RFC3265]   Roach, A., "Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)-Specific
             Event Notification", RFC 3265, June 2002.
 [RFC3320]   Price, R., Bormann, C., Christoffersson, J., Hannu, H.,
             Liu, Z., and J. Rosenberg, "Signaling Compression
             (SigComp)", RFC 3320, January 2003.
 [RFC3428]   Campbell, B., Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., Huitema,
             C., and D. Gurle, "Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)
             Extension for Instant Messaging", RFC 3428,
             December 2002.
 [RFC3856]   Rosenberg, J., "A Presence Event Package for the Session
             Initiation Protocol (SIP)", RFC 3856, August 2004.
 [RFC3857]   Rosenberg, J., "A Watcher Information Event Template-
             Package for the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)",
             RFC 3857, August 2004.
 [RFC3858]   Rosenberg, J., "An Extensible Markup Language (XML) Based
             Format for Watcher Information", RFC 3858, August 2004.
 [RFC3862]   Klyne, G. and D. Atkins, "Common Presence and Instant
             Messaging (CPIM): Message Format", RFC 3862, August 2004.
 [RFC3863]   Sugano, H., Fujimoto, S., Klyne, G., Bateman, A., Carr,
             W., and J. Peterson, "Presence Information Data Format
             (PIDF)", RFC 3863, August 2004.
 [RFC3903]   Niemi, A., "Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Extension
             for Event State Publication", RFC 3903, October 2004.
 [RFC3994]   Schulzrinne, H., "Indication of Message Composition for
             Instant Messaging", RFC 3994, January 2005.
 [RFC4353]   Rosenberg, J., "A Framework for Conferencing with the
             Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)", RFC 4353,
             February 2006.

Rosenberg Informational [Page 12] RFC 6914 Simple Made Simple April 2013

 [RFC4479]   Rosenberg, J., "A Data Model for Presence", RFC 4479,
             July 2006.
 [RFC4480]   Schulzrinne, H., Gurbani, V., Kyzivat, P., and J.
             Rosenberg, "RPID: Rich Presence Extensions to the
             Presence Information Data Format (PIDF)", RFC 4480,
             July 2006.
 [RFC4481]   Schulzrinne, H., "Timed Presence Extensions to the
             Presence Information Data Format (PIDF) to Indicate
             Status Information for Past and Future Time Intervals",
             RFC 4481, July 2006.
 [RFC4482]   Schulzrinne, H., "CIPID: Contact Information for the
             Presence Information Data Format", RFC 4482, July 2006.
 [RFC4660]   Khartabil, H., Leppanen, E., Lonnfors, M., and J. Costa-
             Requena, "Functional Description of Event Notification
             Filtering", RFC 4660, September 2006.
 [RFC4661]   Khartabil, H., Leppanen, E., Lonnfors, M., and J. Costa-
             Requena, "An Extensible Markup Language (XML)-Based
             Format for Event Notification Filtering", RFC 4661,
             September 2006.
 [RFC4662]   Roach, A., Campbell, B., and J. Rosenberg, "A Session
             Initiation Protocol (SIP) Event Notification Extension
             for Resource Lists", RFC 4662, August 2006.
 [RFC4745]   Schulzrinne, H., Tschofenig, H., Morris, J., Cuellar, J.,
             Polk, J., and J. Rosenberg, "Common Policy: A Document
             Format for Expressing Privacy Preferences", RFC 4745,
             February 2007.
 [RFC4825]   Rosenberg, J., "The Extensible Markup Language (XML)
             Configuration Access Protocol (XCAP)", RFC 4825,
             May 2007.
 [RFC4826]   Rosenberg, J., "Extensible Markup Language (XML) Formats
             for Representing Resource Lists", RFC 4826, May 2007.
 [RFC4827]   Isomaki, M. and E. Leppanen, "An Extensible Markup
             Language (XML) Configuration Access Protocol (XCAP) Usage
             for Manipulating Presence Document Contents", RFC 4827,
             May 2007.
 [RFC4975]   Campbell, B., Mahy, R., and C. Jennings, "The Message
             Session Relay Protocol (MSRP)", RFC 4975, September 2007.

Rosenberg Informational [Page 13] RFC 6914 Simple Made Simple April 2013

 [RFC4976]   Jennings, C., Mahy, R., and A. Roach, "Relay Extensions
             for the Message Sessions Relay Protocol (MSRP)",
             RFC 4976, September 2007.
 [RFC5025]   Rosenberg, J., "Presence Authorization Rules", RFC 5025,
             December 2007.
 [RFC5112]   Garcia-Martin, M., "The Presence-Specific Static
             Dictionary for Signaling Compression (Sigcomp)",
             RFC 5112, January 2008.
 [RFC5196]   Lonnfors, M. and K. Kiss, "Session Initiation Protocol
             (SIP) User Agent Capability Extension to Presence
             Information Data Format (PIDF)", RFC 5196,
             September 2008.
 [RFC5239]   Barnes, M., Boulton, C., and O. Levin, "A Framework for
             Centralized Conferencing", RFC 5239, June 2008.
 [RFC5261]   Urpalainen, J., "An Extensible Markup Language (XML)
             Patch Operations Framework Utilizing XML Path Language
             (XPath) Selectors", RFC 5261, September 2008.
 [RFC5262]   Lonnfors, M., Leppanen, E., Khartabil, H., and J.
             Urpalainen, "Presence Information Data Format (PIDF)
             Extension for Partial Presence", RFC 5262,
             September 2008.
 [RFC5263]   Lonnfors, M., Costa-Requena, J., Leppanen, E., and H.
             Khartabil, "Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Extension
             for Partial Notification of Presence Information",
             RFC 5263, September 2008.
 [RFC5264]   Niemi, A., Lonnfors, M., and E. Leppanen, "Publication of
             Partial Presence Information", RFC 5264, September 2008.
 [RFC5344]   Houri, A., Aoki, E., and S. Parameswar, "Presence and
             Instant Messaging Peering Use Cases", RFC 5344,
             October 2008.
 [RFC5365]   Garcia-Martin, M. and G. Camarillo, "Multiple-Recipient
             MESSAGE Requests in the Session Initiation Protocol
             (SIP)", RFC 5365, October 2008.
 [RFC5367]   Camarillo, G., Roach, A., and O. Levin, "Subscriptions to
             Request-Contained Resource Lists in the Session
             Initiation Protocol (SIP)", RFC 5367, October 2008.

Rosenberg Informational [Page 14] RFC 6914 Simple Made Simple April 2013

 [RFC5438]   Burger, E. and H. Khartabil, "Instant Message Disposition
             Notification (IMDN)", RFC 5438, February 2009.
 [RFC5874]   Rosenberg, J. and J. Urpalainen, "An Extensible Markup
             Language (XML) Document Format for Indicating a Change in
             XML Configuration Access Protocol (XCAP) Resources",
             RFC 5874, May 2010.
 [RFC5875]   Urpalainen, J. and D. Willis, "An Extensible Markup
             Language (XML) Configuration Access Protocol (XCAP) Diff
             Event Package", RFC 5875, May 2010.
 [RFC6135]   Holmberg, C. and S. Blau, "An Alternative Connection
             Model for the Message Session Relay Protocol (MSRP)",
             RFC 6135, February 2011.
 [RFC6446]   Niemi, A., Kiss, K., and S. Loreto, "Session Initiation
             Protocol (SIP) Event Notification Extension for
             Notification Rate Control", RFC 6446, January 2012.
 [RFC6665]   Roach, A., "SIP-Specific Event Notification", RFC 6665,
             July 2012.
 [RFC6714]   Holmberg, C., Blau, S., and E. Burger, "Connection
             Establishment for Media Anchoring (CEMA) for the Message
             Session Relay Protocol (MSRP)", RFC 6714, August 2012.
 [SIMPCHAT]  Niemi, A., Garcia, M., and G. Sandbakken, "Multi-party
             Chat Using the Message Session Relay Protocol (MSRP)",
             Work in Progress, January 2013.

Author's Address

 Jonathan Rosenberg
 jdrosen.net
 EMail: jdrosen@jdrosen.net
 URI:   http://www.jdrosen.net

Rosenberg Informational [Page 15]

/data/webs/external/dokuwiki/data/pages/rfc/rfc6914.txt · Last modified: 2013/04/22 19:20 by 127.0.0.1

Donate Powered by PHP Valid HTML5 Valid CSS Driven by DokuWiki