Request for Comments: 4481 Columbia U. Category: Standards Track July 2006

Similar documents
Request for Comments: 4482 Columbia U. Category: Standards Track July CIPID: Contact Information for the Presence Information Data Format

Request for Comments: 3994 Columbia U. Category: Standards Track January Indication of Message Composition for Instant Messaging

Network Working Group Internet-Draft August 2005 Expires: February 2, Atom Link No Follow draft-snell-atompub-feed-nofollow-00.

Network Working Group Internet-Draft August 2005 Expires: February 2, Atom Link No Follow draft-snell-atompub-feed-nofollow-03.

Network Working Group Internet-Draft January 25, 2006 Expires: July 29, Feed Rank draft-snell-atompub-feed-index-05.txt. Status of this Memo

Network Working Group. Category: Informational January 2006

Network Working Group Internet-Draft October 27, 2007 Intended status: Experimental Expires: April 29, 2008

Request for Comments: 3861 Category: Standards Track August 2004

Network Working Group. Category: Standards Track August Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6) Relay Agent Remote-ID Option

Request for Comments: 4759 Category: Standards Track Neustar Inc. L. Conroy Roke Manor Research November 2006

Category: Standards Track October 2006

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments: Nokia Siemens Networks M. Thomson Andrew Corporation September 2010

Category: Standards Track September MIB Textual Conventions for Uniform Resource Identifiers (URIs)

Network Working Group. Intended status: Standards Track Columbia U. Expires: March 5, 2009 September 1, 2008

September The Internet Assigned Number Authority (IANA) tel Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) Parameter Registry. Status of This Memo

Request for Comments: 5079 Category: Standards Track December Rejecting Anonymous Requests in the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)

Category: Standards Track Cisco H. Tschofenig Nokia Siemens Networks August 2008

Network Working Group Request for Comments: 4913 Category: Experimental July 2007

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments: 6915 Updates: 6155 April 2013 Category: Standards Track ISSN:

Network Working Group Request for Comments: 4424 February 2006 Updates: 4348 Category: Standards Track

Ericsson D. Willis. Cisco Systems. April 2006

Category: Standards Track June Requesting Attributes by Object Class in the Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (LDAP) Status of This Memo

Network Working Group. Category: Standards Track June Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6) Relay Agent Subscriber-ID Option

Category: Standards Track June 2006

Request for Comments: 4661 Category: Standards Track M. Lonnfors J. Costa-Requena Nokia September 2006

Expires: October 9, 2005 April 7, 2005

Request for Comments: 3934 Updates: 2418 October 2004 BCP: 94 Category: Best Current Practice

Category: Standards Track December 2007

vcard Extensions for Instant Messaging (IM)

Request for Comments: 4633 Category: Experimental August 2006

Request for Comments: May 2007

Request for Comments: 5179 Category: Standards Track May 2008

Request for Comments: 3764 Category: Standards Track April enumservice registration for Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Addresses-of-Record

Request for Comments: 3968 Updates: 3427 December 2004 BCP: 98 Category: Best Current Practice

Request for Comments: 4680 Updates: 4346 September 2006 Category: Standards Track

Request for Comments: 5010 Category: Standards Track Cisco Systems, Inc. September 2007

Category: Standards Track Cisco Systems, Inc January The Secure Shell (SSH) Session Channel Break Extension

Network Working Group Request for Comments: 4143 Category: Standards Track Brandenburg November 2005

Category: Standards Track May Transport Layer Security Protocol Compression Methods

Network Working Group Request for Comments: 4573 Category: Standard Track July MIME Type Registration for RTP Payload Format for H.

Network Working Group Request for Comments: 4603 Category: Informational Cisco Systems July Additional Values for the NAS-Port-Type Attribute

Network Working Group. February 2005

Network Working Group Request for Comments: 3937 Category: Informational October 2004

Request for Comments: Category: Standards Track January 2008

Network Working Group. Category: Informational May OSPF Database Exchange Summary List Optimization

Network Working Group. BCP: 131 July 2007 Category: Best Current Practice

Request for Comments: 3932 October 2004 BCP: 92 Updates: 3710, 2026 Category: Best Current Practice

Request for Comments: 5076 Category: Standards Track December 2007

Network Working Group. Cisco Systems June 2007

Request for Comments: 5115 Category: Standards Track UCL January Telephony Routing over IP (TRIP) Attribute for Resource Priority

Network Working Group Request for Comments: 4869 Category: Informational May Suite B Cryptographic Suites for IPsec. Status of This Memo

Network Working Group. Category: Standards Track Cisco Systems May 2007

Request for Comments: 4715 Category: Informational NTT November 2006

Network Working Group. Category: Informational April A Uniform Resource Name (URN) Namespace for the Open Geospatial Consortium (OGC)

Network Working Group Request for Comments: August Address-Prefix-Based Outbound Route Filter for BGP-4

Columbia University G. Camarillo Ericsson October 2005

Network Working Group. N. Williams Sun Microsystems June 2006

Category: Standards Track October Vendor-Identifying Vendor Options for Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol version 4 (DHCPv4)

Network Working Group. Category: Standards Track Juniper Networks August 2008

Intended status: Standards Track August 15, 2008 Expires: February 16, 2009

Network Working Group. Category: Standards Track Samsung S. Kumar Tech Mahindra Ltd S. Madanapalli Samsung May 2008

Network Working Group. Category: Standards Track June 2005

Network Working Group Request for Comments: 4242 Category: Standards Track University of Southampton B. Volz Cisco Systems, Inc.

Network Working Group. Category: Informational October 2005

Network Working Group Request for Comments: Cisco Systems, Inc. December 2005

Jabber, Inc. August 20, 2004

Category: Standards Track October 2006

Request for Comments: 4255 Category: Standards Track SPARTA January Using DNS to Securely Publish Secure Shell (SSH) Key Fingerprints

Request for Comments: 4393 Category: Standards Track March MIME Type Registrations for 3GPP2 Multimedia Files

Request for Comments: 4571 Category: Standards Track July 2006

Updates: 2409 May 2005 Category: Standards Track. Algorithms for Internet Key Exchange version 1 (IKEv1)

Network Working Group. Category: Standards Track July 2007

Category: Standards Track Cisco Systems, Inc. March 2005

Request for Comments: K. Norrman Ericsson June 2006

Request for Comments: 4142 Category: Standards Track Nine by Nine November 2005

October Network News Transfer Protocol (NNTP) Extension for Streaming Feeds

C. Martin ipath Services February A Policy Control Mechanism in IS-IS Using Administrative Tags

Expires in six months 24 October 2004 Obsoletes: RFC , , 3377, 3771

Network Working Group Request for Comments: Cisco Systems, Inc. June 2006

Network Working Group. Updates: 3463, 4468, 4954 June 2008 Category: Best Current Practice. A Registry for SMTP Enhanced Mail System Status Codes

Isode Limited March 2008

Network Working Group. Category: Standards Track Cisco Systems, Inc. April 2004

Category: Standards Track LabN Consulting, LLC July 2008

Category: Best Current Practice February Early IANA Allocation of Standards Track Code Points

Network Working Group Request for Comments: 4432 March 2006 Category: Standards Track

February T11 Network Address Authority (NAA) Naming Format for iscsi Node Names

Network Working Group Request for Comments: 4147 Category: Informational August Proposed Changes to the Format of the IANA IPv6 Registry

Request for Comments: 4509 Category: Standards Track May Use of SHA-256 in DNSSEC Delegation Signer (DS) Resource Records (RRs)

Request for Comments: 5369 Category: Informational October Framework for Transcoding with the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)

Network Working Group Request for Comments: February 2006

Request for Comments: 4315 December 2005 Obsoletes: 2359 Category: Standards Track. Internet Message Access Protocol (IMAP) - UIDPLUS extension

Network Working Group Request for Comments: A. Zinin Alcatel-Lucent March 2007

Request for Comments: 3905 Category: Informational September A Template for IETF Patent Disclosures and Licensing Declarations

Network Working Group Request for Comments: 5235 January 2008 Obsoletes: 3685 Category: Standards Track

Network Working Group Request for Comments: 5167 Category: Informational Polycom March 2008

Intended status: Informational. B. Wyman October 2, 2007

Category: Standards Track March Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP) Transport Over TCP

Request for Comments: 3959 Category: Standards Track December 2004

Network Working Group. Obsoletes: 2717, Category: Best Current Practice Adobe Systems February 2006

Network Working Group. Category: Standards Track DENIC eg February 2008

Transcription:

Network Working Group H. Schulzrinne Request for Comments: 4481 Columbia U. Category: Standards Track July 2006 Timed Presence Extensions to the Presence Information Data Format (PIDF) to Indicate Status Information for Past and Future Time Intervals Status of This Memo This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements. Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the standardization state and status of this protocol. Distribution of this memo is unlimited. Copyright Notice Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006). Abstract The Presence Information Data Format (PIDF) defines a basic XML format for presenting presence information for a presentity. This document extends PIDF, adding a timed status extension (<timed-status> element) that allows a presentity to declare its status for a time interval fully in the future or the past. Table of Contents 1. Introduction...2 2. Terminology and Conventions...2 3. Timed-Status Element...3 4. Example...4 5. The XML Schema Definition...5 6. IANA Considerations...6 6.1. URN Sub-Namespace Registration for urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:pidf:timed-status...6 6.2. Schema Registration for Schema urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:pidf:timed-status...7 7. Security Considerations...7 8. References...7 8.1. Normative References...7 8.2. Informative References...7 Contributor s Address...8 Acknowledgements...8 Schulzrinne Standards Track [Page 1]

1. Introduction Traditionally, presence information, e.g., represented as Presence Information Data Format [3] (PIDF) and augmented by Rich Presence Information Data format [9] (RPID), describes the current state of the presentity. However, a watcher can better plan communications if it knows about the presentity s future plans. For example, if a watcher knows that the presentity is about to travel, it might place a phone call earlier. In this document, we use terms defined in RFC 2778 [7]. In particular, a "presentity", abbreviating presence entity, provides presence information to a presence service. It is typically a uniquely-identified person. RPID already allows a presentity to indicate the period when a particular aspect of its presence is valid. However, the <status> element in the PIDF <tuple> does not have this facility, so that it is not possible to indicate that a presentity will be OPEN or CLOSED in the future, for example. It is also occasionally useful to represent past information since it may be the only known presence information; it may give watchers an indication of the current status. For example, indicating that the presentity was at an off-site meeting that ended an hour ago indicates that the presentity is likely in transit at the current time. It is unfortunately not possible to simply add time range attributes to the PIDF <status> element, as PIDF parsers without this capability would ignore these attributes and thus not be able to distinguish current from future presence status information. This document defines the <timed-status> element that describes the status of a presentity that is either no longer valid or covers some future time period. 2. Terminology and Conventions The key words MUST, MUST NOT, REQUIRED, SHOULD, SHOULD NOT, RECOMMENDED, MAY, and OPTIONAL in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14, RFC 2119 [1]. Schulzrinne Standards Track [Page 2]

3. Timed-Status Element The <timed-status> element is a child of the <tuple> element and MUST NOT appear as a child of a PIDF <status> element or another <timed-status> element. More than one such element MAY appear within a PIDF <tuple> element. Sources of <timed-status> information should avoid elements that overlap in time, but since overlapping appointments are common in calendars, for example, receivers MUST be able to render such overlapping <timed-status> indications. The <timed-status> element MUST be qualified with the from attribute and MAY be qualified with an until attribute to describe the time when the status assumed this value and the time until which this element is expected to be valid. If the until attribute is missing, the information is assumed valid until the tuple is explicitly overridden or expires as defined by the publication mechanism used. The time range MUST NOT encompass the present time, i.e., the PIDF <timestamp> value, as that would provide an unnecessary and confusing alternate mechanism to describe presence. Thus, the from attribute for tuples without an until attribute MUST refer to the future. During composition, a presence agent (PA) may encounter a stored <timed-status> element that covers the present time. The PA MAY either discard that element or MAY convert it to a regular <status> element if it considers that information more credible. The <timed-status> element may contain the <basic> and <note> elements, as well as any other element that is appropriate as a PIDF <status> extension and that has a limited validity period. Examples include the PIDF-LO [8] extensions for location objects. This extension chose absolute rather than relative times, since relative times would be too hard to keep properly updated when spacing notifications, for example. Originators of presence information MUST generate time values in the <timed-status> elements that are fully in the past or future relative to local real (wallclock) time and the time information contained in the optional PIDF <timestamp> element. Schulzrinne Standards Track [Page 3]

4. Example An example combining PIDF and timed-status is shown below: <presence xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:pidf" xmlns:ts="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:pidf:timed-status" entity="pres:someone@example.com"> <tuple id="c8dqui"> <status> <basic>open</basic> </status> <ts:timed-status from="2005-08-15t10:20:00.000-05:00" until="2005-08-22t19:30:00.000-05:00"> <ts:basic>closed</ts:basic> </ts:timed-status> <contact>sip:someone@example.com</contact> </tuple> <note>i ll be in Tokyo next week</note> </presence> Schulzrinne Standards Track [Page 4]

5. The XML Schema Definition The XML [4] schema [5][6] is shown below. <?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?> <xs:schema xmlns:ts="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:pidf:timed-status" xmlns:pidf="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:pidf" xmlns:xs="http://www.w3.org/2001/xmlschema" targetnamespace="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:pidf:timed-status" elementformdefault="qualified" attributeformdefault="unqualified"> <xs:import namespace="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:pidf"/> <xs:annotation> <xs:documentation> Describes timed-status tuple extensions for PIDF. </xs:documentation> </xs:annotation> <xs:element name="timed-status" type="ts:timed-status"/> <xs:complextype name="timed-status"> <xs:sequence> <xs:element name="basic" type="pidf:basic" minoccurs="0"/> <xs:element name="note" type="pidf:note" minoccurs="0"/> <xs:any namespace="##other" processcontents="lax" minoccurs="0" maxoccurs="unbounded"/> </xs:sequence> <xs:attribute name="from" type="xs:datetime" use="required"/> <xs:attribute name="until" type="xs:datetime"/> </xs:complextype> </xs:schema> Schulzrinne Standards Track [Page 5]

6. IANA Considerations This document calls for IANA to register a new XML namespace URN and schema per [2]. 6.1. URN Sub-Namespace Registration for urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:pidf:timed-status URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:pidf:timed-status Description: This is the XML namespace for XML elements defined by RFC 4481 to describe timed-status presence information extensions for the status element in the PIDF presence document format in the application/pidf+xml content type. Registrant Contact: IETF, SIMPLE working group, simple@ietf.org; Henning Schulzrinne, hgs@cs.columbia.edu XML: BEGIN <?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>timed Presence Extensions to the Presence Information Data Format (PIDF) to Indicate Status Information for Past and Future Time Intervals</title> </head> <body> <h1>namespace for timed-status presence extension</h1> <h2>urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:pidf:timed-status</h2> <p>see <a href="http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4481.txt"> RFC4481</a>.</p> </body> </html> END Schulzrinne Standards Track [Page 6]

6.2. Schema Registration for Schema urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:pidf:timed-status URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:pidf:timed-status Registrant Contact: IESG XML: See Section 5 7. Security Considerations The security issues are similar to those for RPID [9]. 8. References 8.1. Normative References [1] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. [2] Mealling, M., "The IETF XML Registry", BCP 81, RFC 3688, January 2004. [3] Sugano, H., Fujimoto, S., Klyne, G., Bateman, A., Carr, W., and J. Peterson, "Presence Information Data Format (PIDF)", RFC 3863, August 2004. [4] Yergeau, F., Paoli, J., Sperberg-McQueen, C., Bray, T., and E. Maler, "Extensible Markup Language (XML) 1.0 (Third Edition)", W3C REC REC-xml-20040204, February 2004. [5] Maloney, M., Beech, D., Thompson, H., and N. Mendelsohn, "XML Schema Part 1: Structures Second Edition", W3C REC RECxmlschema-1-20041028, October 2004. [6] Malhotra, A. and P. Biron, "XML Schema Part 2: Datatypes Second Edition", W3C REC REC-xmlschema-2-20041028, October 2004. 8.2. Informative References [7] Day, M., Rosenberg, J., and H. Sugano, "A Model for Presence and Instant Messaging", RFC 2778, February 2000. [8] Peterson, J., "A Presence-based GEOPRIV Location Object Format", RFC 4119, December 2005. Schulzrinne Standards Track [Page 7]

[9] Schulzrinne, H., Gurbani, V., Kyzivat, P., and J. Rosenberg, "RPID: Rich Presence Extensions to the Presence Information Data Format (PIDF)", RFC 4480, July 2006. Contributor s Address Jonathan Rosenberg dynamicsoft 600 Lanidex Plaza Parsippany, NJ 07054-2711 USA EMail: jdrosen@dynamicsoft.com Acknowledgements This document is based on the discussions within the IETF SIMPLE working group. Mary Barnes, Avri Doria, Miguel Garcia, Vijay Gurbani, Hisham Khartabil, Paul Kyzivat, Mikko Lonnfors, Yannis Pavlidis and Jon Peterson provided helpful comments. Author s Address Henning Schulzrinne Columbia University Department of Computer Science 450 Computer Science Building New York, NY 10027 US Phone: +1 212 939 7004 EMail: hgs+simple@cs.columbia.edu URI: http://www.cs.columbia.edu Schulzrinne Standards Track [Page 8]

Full Copyright Statement Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006). This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights. This document and the information contained herein are provided on an "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Intellectual Property The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in this document or the extent to which any license under such rights might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be found in BCP 78 and BCP 79. Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at http://www.ietf.org/ipr. The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at ietf-ipr@ietf.org. Acknowledgement Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF Administrative Support Activity (IASA). Schulzrinne Standards Track [Page 9]