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

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

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

Request for Comments: 3861 Category: Standards Track August 2004

Network Working Group. Category: Informational January 2006

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

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

vcard Extensions for Instant Messaging (IM)

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

Network Working Group. Category: Standards Track June 2005

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

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

Ericsson D. Willis. Cisco Systems. April 2006

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

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

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

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

Network Working Group. February 2005

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

Request for Comments: 3959 Category: Standards Track December 2004

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

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

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

Category: Standards Track October 2006

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

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

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

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

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

Category: Standards Track Cisco Systems, Inc. March 2005

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

Request for Comments: 4571 Category: Standards Track July 2006

Request for Comments: 4715 Category: Informational NTT November 2006

Request for Comments: May 2007

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

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

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

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

Expires: October 9, 2005 April 7, 2005

Category: Informational October Common Format and MIME Type for Comma-Separated Values (CSV) Files

Request for Comments: 5179 Category: Standards Track May 2008

Request for Comments: K. Norrman Ericsson June 2006

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

Category: Standards Track October 2006

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

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

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

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

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

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

Network Working Group. Category: Standards Track DENIC eg January 2005

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

Request for Comments: Category: Standards Track January 2008

Category: Standards Track December 2007

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

Columbia University G. Camarillo Ericsson October 2005

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

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

Category: Standards Track June 2006

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

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

Category: Standards Track May Transport Layer Security Protocol Compression Methods

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

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

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

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

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

Network Working Group Request for Comments: February 2006

Network Working Group. Cisco Systems June 2007

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

Request for Comments: Ericsson February 2004

Jabber, Inc. August 20, 2004

Network Working Group. Category: Standards Track July 2007

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

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

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

Network Working Group. Category: Standards Track September 2006

Category: Experimental April BinaryTime: An Alternate Format for Representing Date and Time in ASN.1

Network Working Group Request for Comments: December 2004

Network Working Group. February Media Gateway Control Protocol (MGCP) Redirect and Reset Package

Network Working Group Request for Comments: A. Zinin Alcatel-Lucent March OSPF Out-of-Band Link State Database (LSDB) Resynchronization

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

Network Working Group. Obsoletes: 3555 March 2007 Category: Standards Track

Request for Comments: 4755 Category: Standards Track December 2006

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

Network Working Group. Juniper Networks January Maximum Transmission Unit Signalling Extensions for the Label Distribution Protocol

Request for Comments: 4633 Category: Experimental August 2006

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

Request for Comments: Columbia U. November 2000

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

Category: Experimental June 2006

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

Request for Comments: 3578 Category: Standards Track dynamicsoft J. Peterson NeuStar L. Ong Ciena August 2003

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

Network Working Group. N. Williams Sun Microsystems June 2006

Isode Limited March 2008

Request for Comments: 4329 April 2006 Category: Informational

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

Network Working Group Request for Comments: 4060 Category: Standards Track May 2005

Category: Standards Track August 2002

Network Working Group. Category: Informational October 2005

Transcription:

Network Working Group H. Schulzrinne Request for Comments: 3994 Columbia U. Category: Standards Track January 2005 Indication of Message Composition for Instant Messaging 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 (2005). Abstract In instant messaging (IM) systems, it is useful to know during an IM conversation whether the other party is composing a message; e.g., typing or recording an audio message. This document defines a new status message content type and XML namespace that conveys information about a message being composed. The status message can indicate the composition of a message of any type, including text, voice, or video. The status messages are delivered to the instant messaging recipient in the same manner as the instant messages themselves. Schulzrinne Standards Track [Page 1]

Table of Contents 1. Introduction......................... 2 2. Terminology and Conventions................. 3 3. Description......................... 3 3.1. Overview........................ 3 3.2. Message Composer Behavior............... 4 3.3. Status Message Receiver Behavior............ 5 3.4. Message Content.................... 6 3.5. Additional Status Information............. 6 4. Using the Status Message................... 7 5. Examples........................... 8 6. XML Document Format..................... 8 6.1. XML Schema....................... 9 7. Security Considerations................... 9 8. IANA Considerations..................... 10 8.1. Content-Type Registration for application/im-iscomposing+xml............ 10 8.2. URN Sub-Namespace Registration for urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:im-iscomposing........ 11 8.3. Schema Registration.................. 11 9. Acknowledgements....................... 11 10. References.......................... 12 10.1. Normative References.................. 12 10.2. Informative References................. 12 Author s Address......................... 12 Full Copyright Statement..................... 13 1. Introduction By definition, instant messaging (IM) is message based: A user composes a message by, for example, typing, speaking, or recording a video clip. This message is then sent to one or more recipients. Unlike email, instant messaging is often conversational, so the other party is waiting for a response. If no response is forthcoming, a participant in an instant messaging conversation may erroneously assume either that the communication partner has left or that it is her turn to type again, leading to two messages "crossing on the wire". To avoid this uncertainty, a number of commercial instant messaging systems feature an "is-typing" indication sent as soon as one party starts typing a message. In this document, we describe a generalized version of this indication, called the iscomposing status message. As described in Section 3 in more detail, a status message is delivered to the instant message recipient in the same manner as are the messages themselves. The iscomposing status messages can announce the composition of any media type, not just text. For Schulzrinne Standards Track [Page 2]

example, it might be used if somebody is recording an audio or video clip. In addition, it can be extended to convey other instant messaging user states in the future. Below, we will call these messages "status messages" for brevity. The status messages are carried as XML, as instances of the XML schema defined in Section 6, and labeled as an application/im-iscomposing+xml content type. These status messages can be considered somewhat analogous to the comfort noise packets that are transmitted in silence-suppressed interactive voice conversations. Events and extensions to presence, such as PIDF [6], were also considered but have a number of disadvantages. They add more overhead, as an explicit and periodic subscription is required. For page-mode delivery, subscribing to the right user agent and set of messages may not be easy. An in-band, message-based mechanism is also easier to translate across heterogeneous instant messaging systems. The mechanism described here aims to satisfy the requirements in [7]. 2. Terminology and Conventions This memo makes use of the vocabulary defined in the IMPP Model document [1]. In this memo, terms such as CLOSED, INSTANT MESSAGE, OPEN, PRESENCE SERVICE, PRESENTITY, WATCHER, and WATCHER USER AGENT are used with the same meaning defined therein. 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 [2]. This document discusses two kinds of messages; namely, the instant message (IM) conveying actual content between two or more users engaged in an instant messaging conversation, and the status message, described in this document, which indicates the current composing status to the other participants in a conversation. We use the terms "content message" and "status message" for these two message types. 3. Description 3.1. Overview We model the user of an instant messaging system as being in one of several states, in this document limited to "idle" and "active". By default, the user is in "idle" state, both before starting to compose a message and after sending it. Schulzrinne Standards Track [Page 3]

3.2. Message Composer Behavior Only the instant messaging user agent actively composing a content message generates status messages indicating the current state. When the user starts composing a content message (the actual instant message), the state becomes "active", and an iscomposing status message containing a <state> element indicating "active" is sent to the recipient of the content message being composed. As long as the user continues to produce instant message content, the user remains in state "active". There are two sender timers: the active-state refresh interval, and the idle time-out interval. The active-state refresh interval determines how often "active" state messages are sent while the composer remains in "active" state. The interval is chosen by the composing user and indicated in the <refresh> element in the status message, expressed in integer seconds. Each transmission of the iscomposing message resets the timer. The interval SHOULD be no shorter than 60 seconds. A message composer MAY decide not to send active-state refresh messages at all. This is indicated by omitting the refresh interval; this will cause the receiver to assume that it has gone idle after 120 seconds. (In most cases, the content message will have been sent by then.) No refresh messages are sent in "idle" state. The active-state refresh mechanism deals with the case in which the user logs off or the application crashes before the content message is completed. If the user stops composing for more than a configured time interval, the idle timeout, the state transitions to "idle", and an "idle" status message is sent. If the user starts composing again while in "idle" state, the state transitions to "active", and the corresponding status message is sent. Unless otherwise configured by the user, the idle timeout SHOULD have a default value of 15 seconds. If a content message is sent before the idle threshold expires, no "idle" state indication is needed. Thus, in most cases, only one status message is generated for each content message. In any event, the message rate is limited to one status message per refresh threshold interval. Schulzrinne Standards Track [Page 4]

The state transitions are shown in Figure 1. +-------------+ +-----------+ +------> idle <--------+ +-----------+ +------+------+ content idle timeout msg. sent composing w/o activity ----------- ------------- ------------------ -- "active" msg. "idle" status msg. +------V------+ +------+ active +--------+ ------+ +------^------+ refresh timeout -------------------- "active" status msg. +-------------+ Figure 1. Sender State Diagram 3.3. Status Message Receiver Behavior The status message receiver uses the status messages to determine the state of the content message sender. If the most recent "active" status message contained a <refresh> value, the refresh time-out is set to that value; otherwise, it is 120 seconds. The state at the receiver transitions from "active" to "idle" under three conditions: 1. A status message with status "idle" is received. 2. A content message is received. 3. The refresh interval expires. Receivers MUST be able to handle multiple consecutive iscomposing messages with "active" state, regardless of the refresh interval. Schulzrinne Standards Track [Page 5]

The state transitions are shown in Figure 2. +-------------+ +-----------+ +------> idle <------+ +-----------+ +------+------+ "idle" recd. "active" msg. refresh timeout or content recd. or 120s +------V------+ +------+ active +------+ +-------------+ 3.4. Message Content Figure 2. Receiver State Diagram We briefly describe the message content to summarize the discussion above. This description is non-normative. The schema (Section 6) should be consulted for the normative message format. The message consists of an <iscomposing> element, with a mandatory <state> element indicating the composer state; i.e., idle or active. In addition, there are three optional elements: <lastactive>, indicating the time of last activity; <contenttype>, the type of message being created; and <refresh>, the time interval after which the receiver can expect an update from the composer. Details are given in the following section. 3.5. Additional Status Information The status message contains additional optional elements to provide further details on the composition activity. Any of these can appear in both "active" and "idle" state messages. Schulzrinne Standards Track [Page 6]

The optional <lastactive> element describes the absolute time when the user last added or edited content. The optional <contenttype> element indicates the type of medium in which the messaging terminal is currently composing. It can contain either just a MIME media type, such as "audio" or "text", or a media type and subtype, such as "text/html". It is best understood as a hint to the user, not a guarantee, that the actual content message will indeed contain only the content indicated. It allows the human recipient to be prepared for the likely message format. To further describe message composition, the XML schema or the set of allowable state names can be extended in future documents. Recipients of status messages implementing this specification without extensions MUST treat state tokens other than "idle" and "active" as "idle". Additional elements MUST use their own namespaces and MUST be designed so that receivers can safely ignore such extensions. Adding elements to the namespace defined in this document is not permitted. The iscomposing status message MAY be carried in CPIM messages [3]. Such a wrapper is particularly useful if messages are relayed by a conference server since the CPIM message maintains the identity of the original composer. 4. Using the Status Message The iscomposing status message can be used with either page mode or session mode, although session mode is a more natural fit. In session mode, the status message is sent as part of the messaging stream. Its usage is negotiated just like any other media type in that stream, with details depending on the session mode protocol. Sending the status messages within the session-mode messaging stream has at least three benefits. First, it ensures proper ordering and synchronization with the actual content messages being composed. In messaging systems that guarantee in-order delivery of messages, this approach avoids having an active indication appear at the receiver after the actual message has been delivered, due to message reordering across two delivery mechanisms. Secondly, end-to-end security can be applied to the messages. Thirdly, session negotiation mechanisms can be used to turn it on and off at any time, and even to negotiate its use in a single direction at a time. Schulzrinne Standards Track [Page 7]

Usage with page mode is also straightforward: The status message is carried as the body of a page mode message. In SIP-based IM, The composer MUST cease transmitting status messages if the receiver returned a 415 status code (Unsupported Media Type) in response to a MESSAGE request containing the status indication. The sender cannot be assured that the status message is delivered before the actual content being composed arrives. However, SIP page mode is limited to one unacknowledged message, so out-of-order delivery is unlikely, albeit still possible if proxies are involved. 5. Examples <?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?> <iscomposing xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:im-iscomposing" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/xmlschema-instance" xsi:schemalocation="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:im-composing iscomposing.xsd"> <state>active</state> <contenttype>text/plain</contenttype> <refresh>90</refresh> </iscomposing> <?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?> <iscomposing xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:im-iscomposing" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/xmlschema-instance" xsi:schemalocation="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:im-composing iscomposing.xsd"> <state>idle</state> <lastactive>2003-01-27t10:43:00z</lastactive> <contenttype>audio</contenttype> </iscomposing> 6. XML Document Format An iscomposing document is an XML document that MUST be well formed and SHOULD be valid. iscomposing documents MUST be based on XML 1.0 and MUST be encoded by using UTF-8. This specification makes use of XML namespaces for identifying iscomposing documents. The namespace URI for elements defined for this purpose is a URN using the namespace identifier ietf. This URN is: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:im-iscomposing Schulzrinne Standards Track [Page 8]

6.1. XML Schema <?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?> <xs:schema targetnamespace="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:im-iscomposing" elementformdefault="qualified" attributeformdefault="unqualified" xmlns:xs="http://www.w3.org/2001/xmlschema" xmlns:tns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:im-iscomposing"> <xs:element name="iscomposing"> <xs:complextype> <xs:sequence> <xs:element name="state" type="xs:string"/> <xs:element name="lastactive" type="xs:datetime" minoccurs="0"/> <xs:element name="contenttype" type="xs:string" minoccurs="0"/> <xs:element name="refresh" type="xs:positiveinteger" minoccurs="0"/> <xs:any namespace="##other" processcontents="lax" minoccurs="0" maxoccurs="unbounded"/> </xs:sequence> </xs:complextype> </xs:element> </xs:schema> 7. Security Considerations The iscomposing indication provides a fine-grained view of the activity of the entity composing and thus deserves particularly careful confidentiality protection so that only the intended recipient of the message will receive the iscomposing indication. Since the status messages are carried by using the IM protocol itself, all security considerations of the underlying IM protocol also apply to the iscomposing status messages. There are potential privacy issues in sending iscomposing status messages before an actual conversation has been established between the communicating users. A status message may be sent even if the user later abandons the message. It is RECOMMENDED that iscomposing indications in page mode are only sent when a message is being composed as a reply to an earlier message. This document does not prescribe how an implementation detects whether a message is in response to an earlier one in page mode, but elapsed time or user interface behavior might be used as hints. Schulzrinne Standards Track [Page 9]

8. IANA Considerations 8.1. Content-Type Registration for application/im-iscomposing+xml To: ietf-types@iana.org Subject: Registration of MIME media type application/ im-iscomposing+xml MIME media type name: application MIME subtype name: im-iscomposing+xml Required parameters: (none) Optional parameters: charset; Indicates the character encoding of enclosed XML. Default is UTF-8. Encoding considerations: Uses XML, which can employ 8-bit characters, depending on the character encoding used. See RFC 3023 [4], section 3.2. Security considerations: This content type is designed to carry information about current user activity, which may be considered private information. Appropriate precautions should be adopted to limit disclosure of this information. Interoperability considerations: This content type provides a common format for exchange of composition activity information. Published specification: RFC 3994 Applications which use this media type: Instant messaging systems. Additional information: none Person & email address to contact for further information: Henning Schulzrinne, hgs@cs.columbia.edu Intended usage: LIMITED USE Author/Change controller: This specification is a work item of the IETF SIMPLE working group, with the mailing list address simple@ietf.org. Other information: This media type is a specialization of application/xml RFC 3023 [4], and many of the considerations described there also apply to application/im-iscomposing+xml. Schulzrinne Standards Track [Page 10]

8.2. URN Sub-Namespace Registration for urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:im-iscomposing URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:im-iscomposing Description: This is the XML namespace for XML elements defined by RFC 3994 to describe composition activity by an instant messaging client using the application/im-iscomposing+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>is-composing Indication for Instant Messaging</title> </head> <body> <h1>namespace for SIMPLE iscomposing extension</h1> <h2>urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:im-composing</h2> <p>see <a href="[url of published RFC]">RFC3994</a>.</p> </body> </html> END 8.3. Schema Registration This section registers a new XML schema per the procedures in [5]. URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:schema:im-composing Registrant Contact: IETF, SIMPLE working group, (simple@ietf.org), Henning Schulzrinne (hgs@cs.columbia.edu). The XML for this schema can be found as the sole content of Section 6.1. 9. Acknowledgements Ben Campbell, Miguel Garcia, Scott Hollenbeck, Christian Jansson, Cullen Jennings, Hisham Khartabil, Allison Mankin, Aki Niemi, Jonathan Rosenberg, and Xiaotao Wu provided helpful comments. Schulzrinne Standards Track [Page 11]

10. References 10.1. Normative References [1] Day, M., Rosenberg, J., and H. Sugano, "A Model for Presence and Instant Messaging", RFC 2778, February 2000. [2] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. [3] Klyne, G. and D. Atkins, "Common Presence and Instant Messaging (CPIM): Message Format", RFC 3862, August 2004. [4] Murata, M., St. Laurent, S., and D. Kohn, "XML Media Types", RFC 3023, January 2001. [5] Mealling, M., "The IETF XML Registry", BCP 81, RFC 3688, January 2004. 10.2. Informative References [6] Sugano, H., Fujimoto, S., Klyne, G., Bateman, A., Carr, W., and J. Peterson, "Presence Information Data Format (PIDF)", RFC 3863, August 2004. [7] Rosenberg, J., "Advanced Instant Messaging Requirements for the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)", Work in Progress, February 2004. 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@cs.columbia.edu URI: http://www.cs.columbia.edu/ hgs Schulzrinne Standards Track [Page 12]

Full Copyright Statement Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005). 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 IETF s procedures with respect to rights in IETF 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 ietfipr@ietf.org. Acknowledgement Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the Internet Society. Schulzrinne Standards Track [Page 13]