XCON Working Group M. Barnes
Internet-Draft Polycom
Intended status: Standards Track C. Boulton
Expires: January 13, 2011 NS-Technologies
S. Loreto
Ericsson
July 12, 2010
Chatrooms within a Centralized Conferencing (XCON) System
draft-boulton-xcon-session-chat-05
Abstract
The document "A Framework for Centralized Conferencing" defines a
centralized conference as both signaling and protocol agnostic. The
primary examples within this framework focus on audio and video as
the media types for the session. This document provides an overview
of the mechanisms defined in the centralized conferencing framework
that can be used to support multi-user chat. In addition, the
document describes additional functionality and requirements
necessary to provide feature rich functionality.
Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on January 13, 2011.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2010 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
Barnes, et al. Expires January 13, 2011 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft XCON Chat July 2010
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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Conventions and Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1. Basic Protocol Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2. Chat Session and Conferencing Identifiers . . . . . . . . 7
4. Advanced Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5. Additional Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.1. Nicknames . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.2. Logging . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.3. History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.4. Indicating Alternate Venue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.5. File Transfer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5.6. Real Time Collaboration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
8. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Barnes, et al. Expires January 13, 2011 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft XCON Chat July 2010
1. Introduction
A Centralized Conference as defined by the "A Framework for
Centralized Conferencing" (XCON Framework) [RFC5239] is both
signaling and protocol agnostic. The primary examples within the
framework focus on audio and video as the media types for the
session. This document provides an overview of the mechanisms and
associated framework elements involved when text is the media for the
conference. This functionality is often referred to as a "multi-user
chat" as it enables a participant to join a chatroom (e.g. hosted by
the conference server) for the exchange of messages between multiple
participants. The message can be plain text or can contain different
format for more advanced functionality.
Several existing protocols support this multi-user chat
functionality, such as Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol
(XMPP) [I-D.ietf-xmpp-3920bis], [I-D.ietf-xmpp-3921bis] and Internet
Relay Chat (IRC) defined in [RFC1459] and its successors:
[RFC2810],[RFC2811],[RFC2812], [RFC2813]. In addition,
[I-D.ietf-simple-chat] provides multi-user chat functionality for a
purely SIP signaling based solution option using Message Session
Relay Protocol (MSRP) [RFC4975].
The focus of this document is to describe the interface and provide
guidelines for the the support of existing multi-user chat
functionality on a conferencing system based on the XCON framework
using the Conference Control Manipulation Protocol (CCMP) independent
of the specific media type used by the chat client.
The functionality described in this document is not intended to
replace any of the existing chat protocols, nor is it specifying a
new chat protocol. The motivation for this document is to allow
clients that use the conferencing framework model for other media
types (e.g. voice/video) to utilize the same conference control
mechanisms and conferencing system to establish, update and delete a
chatroom associated with a conference instance, independent of the
chat protocol. This approach also allows the conferencing system to
provide a natural interworking point for various chat protocols - the
details of the interworking are outside the scope of this document.
2. Conventions and Terminology
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
This document reuses the terminology defined in the Centralized
Barnes, et al. Expires January 13, 2011 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft XCON Chat July 2010
Conferencing Framework [RFC5239] and related protocol document
[I-D.ietf-xcon-ccmp].
Additional terminology used in this document:
Chat Client: a Conferencing Client as defined in [RFC5239] that
participates in a "chatroom".
Chatroom: A virtual space that users figuratively enter in order to
participate in real-time, text-based conferencing with other
users.
Multi-user chat: The functionality that allows multiple users to
exchange messages in the context of a room or channel, similar to
Internet Relay Chat (IRC).
Private message: A message sent from one participant directly to
another participant - i.e., not to the chatroom itself to all
participants.
3. Overview
Figure 1 provides a general illustration of chat clients having a
direct, 1:1 connection to the conferencing system. Participants can
use the chat clients to join a room associated with a conference
instance and send messages. The conferencing system receives the
messages sent from a client participating in a conference instance
and then distributes them to the other clients associated with the
conference instance, that are also present in the chatroom.
+--------+
| Chat |
| Client |
+--------+
|
|
|
v
+--------+ +------------+ +--------+
| Chat | |Conferencing| | Chat |
| Client |----------->| System |<-----------| Client |
+--------+ +------------+ +--------+
^
|
|
|
+--------+
| Chat |
| Client |
+--------+
Barnes, et al. Expires January 13, 2011 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft XCON Chat July 2010
Figure 1: Client Connection
The approach in this document is to have no impact on the existing
chat protocols, while taking full advantage of the functionality
provided by the centralized conferencing framework.
A basic solution for MSRP based IM chat sessions is documented in
[I-D.ietf-simple-chat]. It uses the concept of an "MSRP switch" as
the centralized component, whose role is very similar to the MSRP
Conferencing Server in this document. The solution in
[I-D.ietf-simple-chat] doesn't explicitly take advantage of the
centralized conferencing framework model, as it primarily intends to
make use of the basic SIP conferencing framework to provide the basic
chat functionality. The MSRP based IM chat solution is compatible
with the solution components described in this document, with no
impact on that basic solution proposal. One of the advantages of
applying the two solutions in concert would be to take advantage of
the centralized conferencing framework model for advanced features,
such as sidebars and private conferences, and manipulation of the
conference data.
XMPP assumes a decentralized client-server architecture similar to
the one showed in Figure 1, wherein a client utilizing XMPP accesses
a server and servers can also communicate with each other over TCP
connections, like in the email network. The XMPP server can provide
as additional functionality the multi-user conferencing services
[XEP-0045]. The XMPP multi-user conferencing service is also
compatible with the solution components described in this document,
with no impact on the basic solution proposal. Indeed the
centralized conferencing framework model is perfectly able to manage
the XMPP strong room control model, including the ability to kick and
ban users, to name room moderators and administrators, to require
membership or passwords in order to join the room. However it is
worth to note that the centralized conferencing framework does not
encompass the communication between servers, as XMPP does. Then when
used together the access to a XMPP chatroom SHOULD be only limited to
client having a direct connection with the server hosting the
chatroom instance, and the federation between servers SHOULD NOT be
allowed.
3.1. Basic Protocol Operations
The multi-user chat protocol operations, such as create, join and
delete a chat MAY be performed using both non-signaling specific
mechanisms or protocol specific mechanism if defined. Non-signaling
specific mechanisms are defined in the Centralized Conferencing
Framework [RFC5239] and related Conference Control Manipulation
Protocol (CCMP) document [I-D.ietf-xcon-ccmp]. This document
Barnes, et al. Expires January 13, 2011 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft XCON Chat July 2010
provides the details for the non-signaling specific mechanisms using
CCMP with detailed examples provided in [I-D.ietf-xcon-examples].
Protocol specific mechanisms are defined in other documents such as
for SIP in the SIPPING Conference Framework [RFC4353] and for XMPP in
Multi-User Chat [XEP-0045].
The privilege to create a chatroom associated with a conference
instance MAY be restricted to certain users or MAY be reserved to an
administrator of the conference. The room creation MAY be performed
using non-signaling mechanism or protocol specific mechanism if
defined. In the case of CCMP, a confRequest message with a "create"
operation is sent by the chat client.
A participant MAY query the conferencing system to discover the list
of the chat rooms associated to a hosted conference instance. In the
case of CCMP, a blueprintsRequest message for the chatrooms supported
by a conferencing system or a confsRequest message for the active
chatrooms can be sent by the chat client.
In order to participate in the discussions held in a multi-user chat
room, a participant MUST first enter the room. A chat client wishing
to enter a chatroom associated to a conference instance MAY use a
non-signaling or protocol specific mechanism if defined. In the case
of CCMP, a participant can join a conference instance using several
mechanisms which are described in [I-D.ietf-xcon-ccmp] - e.g.,
userRequest message with a "create" operation to be added to a
conference instance.
The request to send a message is specific to the chat protocol (e.g.,
MSRP SEND). Upon receipt of a request to send a message, the
conferencing system replicate and forwards the message to all other
chat clients that are participants of the chat room. Depending upon
policy, a conferencing system MAY ignore or reject messages, in which
case they are not distributed to the other chat room participants.
A participant MAY send a "private message" to a selected participant
or a group of participant. This privilege SHOULD be allowed for all
participants unless local policy dictates otherwise.
A chat client wishing to exit a chat room MAY uses non-signaling
mechanism or protocol specific mechanism if defined. If the chat
client is the last to exit, the conferencing system MAY be
responsible for deleting the room or the originator/owner/moderator
The privilege to delete a chatroom associated with a conference
instance MAY be restricted to certain users or MAY be reserved to an
administrator of the conference. The room deletion MAY be performed
using non-signaling mechanism or protocol specific mechanism if
defined. In the case of CCMP, the client SHOULD send a CCMP
Barnes, et al. Expires January 13, 2011 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft XCON Chat July 2010
confRequest message with an operation of "delete".
3.2. Chat Session and Conferencing Identifiers
As highlighted in the overview section, a chat client connecting to a
conferencing system has a 1:1 relationship with the chat signaling
entity, each having a unique protocol specific Chat Session
identifier (ID). When referring to Chat Session IDs the document is
making reference to the locally (at conferencing system) generated
Chat Session ID used for session signaling identification. In the
case of MSRP, this Chat Session ID is inserted into the local path
SDP attribute. An important concept in this proposal is the creation
and management of Group Chats. It is important that each chat
session created, as identified by a unique chat session ID, is
explicitly tied to an associated conference, represented by the
conference identifier (as defined in the Centralized Conferencing
Framework [RFC5239]). This provides the relevant association between
a chat session and a centralized conference. A generic example
representation is illustrated by the rows contained in Figure 2.
+-----------------------------------------+
| Conference Identifier |
+-----------------------------------------+
| Chat Session ID=8asjdhk |
| Chat Session ID=38iuhds |
| Chat Session ID=djiowid |
| Chat Session ID=389hewu |
+-----------------------------------------+
Figure 2: Simple Session Association
The Centralized Conferencing Framework[RFC5239] introduces the
concept of a conference user identifier defined in
[I-D.ietf-xcon-common-data-model]. When a user joins a conference
instance through the signaling protocol, it is allocated an
appropriate conference user identifier either through authentication
or system allocation. The conference user identifier MUST be used in
conjunction with a chat session identifier to internally represent a
participant in a conference instance. Figure 2 is then expanded to
look like Figure 3. Again a row in the table representing a single
entry.
Barnes, et al. Expires January 13, 2011 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft XCON Chat July 2010
+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| Conference Identifier |
+--------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| Chat Session ID=8asjdhk | Conf User ID=839ULjj |
| Chat Session ID=38iuhds | Conf User ID=0283hHu |
| Chat Session ID=djiowid | Conf User ID=ncH37H |
| Chat Session ID=389hewu | Conf User ID=pakdjjH |
+--------------------------------+-----------------------------+
Figure 3: Advanced Session Association
A more complex session association is necessary due to potential for
a user to have multiple group chats in a single conference instance,
such as multi-lingual conference support. In an example with SIP and
MSRP, the conference representation in Figure 3 allows for such
functionality when separate SIP dialogs represent MSRP sessions.
This process becomes complex in the case that multiple SDP MSRP media
sessions (m=) are defined in a single payload. This internal
representation needs expanding to enable a conferencing system to
explicitly associate a media session (m=). This involves including
the media label, as defined in [RFC4574], to maintain the internal
conference association. An example is illustrated in Figure 4.
+-----------------------------------------------------------------+
| Conference Identifier |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------+
| Chat Session ID=8asjdhk | Conf User ID=839ULjj | Label=iede3 |
| Chat Session ID=38iuhds | Conf User ID=0283hHu | Label=8heus |
| Chat Session ID=838unaH | Conf User ID=0283hHu | Label=3cnu7 |
| Chat Session ID=djiowid | Conf User ID=ncH37Hs | Label=jd38J |
| Chat Session ID=389hewu | Conf User ID=pakdj7H | Label=U83hd |
| Chat Session ID=Ko03jdk | Conf User ID=pakdj7H | Label=ehy3h |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------+
Figure 4: Advanced Session Association + Media Label
In Figure 4, conference user identifiers '0283hHu' and 'pakdj7H'
appear twice. The combination of multiple conference user
identifiers and a unique Group Chat session ID enables the conference
system to clearly identify a specific Group Chat instance. Even in
the simplest conferencing system, where users are allowed to enter
anonymously, the internal representation described in this section
Barnes, et al. Expires January 13, 2011 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft XCON Chat July 2010
should be observed. In this case, the conferencing system would
still internally create a conference user identifier for participant
reference purposes.
4. Advanced Operations
Advanced chat features, such as sidebars and private messages can
also be supported within the context of the centralized conferencing
framework using CCMP. Additional protocol details for these advanced
features are provided in [I-D.ietf-xcon-examples].
5. Additional Operations
This section discusses additional operations or features required to
provide chat room functionality. Most of the operations are not
explicitly defined in the centralized conferencing framework. While
most of the features and operations are achievable using the XCON
data model [I-D.ietf-xcon-common-data-model] and data maintained by a
conferencing system per the XCON framework, some advanced features
require extensions to the XCON data model and may be optimized with
more discrete CCMP messages.
5.1. Nicknames
Nicknames allow a user to define a text string that uniquely
identifies the user within a particular chatroom without necessarily
reflecting any protocol specific identity (e.g., SIP URI, Conference
User Identifier, etc.). It is also important to note that the
functionality to provide nicknames is not limited to users involved
in chatrooms, thus it should be a general feature of the conferencing
system.
Within a conferencing system, all nicknames should map to a
conference user identifier. The nicknames are unique only to the
specific conferencing system. There may be multiple nicknames
associated with a single conference user identifier (e.g., a user
that has different nicknames for different chat rooms and/or voice/
video conferences). In order to support nicknames, a 'nickname'
attribute is defined in the XCON data model within the 'user'
element. A nickname can be assigned to the conference user when an
XCON-USERID is assigned to the user. The conferencing client MAY
include a preferred nickname in the CCMP userRequest with a "create"
operation.
The conferencing system allocates a conference user identifier and a
nickname using system specific mechanisms, which may also include
Barnes, et al. Expires January 13, 2011 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft XCON Chat July 2010
authentication. The conferencing system associates the assigned
nickname with the specific conference user identifier that has been
allocated. Another option would be to define a new CCMP message to
just manipulate the nickname element.
As described Section 3.2, the conference user identifier MUST be used
in conjunction with a chat session identifier to internally represent
a participant in a conference instance. This association is created
when a conferencing client requests to create or join a specific
chatroom. The nickname allocated for the specific conferencing user
identifier MUST also be associated with the chat session ID.
Figure 5 provides an example of the association between the chat
session identifier, the conference user identifier and conference
nickname for a specific Group Chat represented by the conference
identifier.
+-----------------------------------------------------------------+
| Conference Identifier |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------+
| Chat Session ID=8asjdhk | Conf User ID=839ULjj | Nick=Alice |
| Chat Session ID=38iuhds | Conf User ID=0283hHu | Nick=Bob |
| Chat Session ID=838unaH | Conf User ID=0283hHu | Nick=Cliff |
| Chat Session ID=djiowid | Conf User ID=ncH37Hs | Nick=Dude |
| Chat Session ID=389hewu | Conf User ID=pakdj7H | Nick=Elliott |
| Chat Session ID=Ko03jdk | Conf User ID=pakdj7H | Nick=Fluffy |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------+
Figure 5: Nickname Associations for a Group Chat
Depending upon the conferencing system, the conference system may
allocate the preferred nickname for that user or return a different
nickname in the CCMP userResponse message.
In the future, if a more generic nickname mechanism is available,
rather than provide nicknames that are specific to the conferencing
system, a conferencing system may interface with a nickname registry,
for example, in order to allocate a new nickname for a specific
conferencing client. This change in how a conferencing system
allocates nicknames should not impact the CCMP protocol interface to
support nicknames.
Barnes, et al. Expires January 13, 2011 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft XCON Chat July 2010
5.2. Logging
A common chat feature involves logging the history of a chat room.
This provides a record of a chat room that can be used when a user
first joins a chat room as discussed in Section 5.3. It can also be
used to provide a complete capture of a specific chat room session.
When a participant enters a room in which the discussions are logged,
the conferencing system MUST warn the participant that the
discussions are logged.
The centralized conferencing framework does not fully describe the
role of recording or logging of active conferences. However, this
functionality can be realized with the manipulation of the
appropriate elements in the data model using the general conference
control protocol operations. One approach for implementing this
function would be to have it be based on specific manipulation of the
conference by a user with the appropriate permissions (i.e.,
confRequest messaage with an "update" operation to start and stop
recording). Another mechanism for implementing this function would
be to have a specific user as part of the conference to perform this
function, by defining a specific role such as "observer" and having
the media proxied to a logging device.
5.3. History
A common chat feature allows users to view the past history of chat
rooms. This operation is common when a user first joins a chat room
that is underway. A user is often offered the option to review a
specific number of past messages.
Conferencing systems that maintain the history associated with
specific chat rooms through logging, as described in Section 5.2,
should provide a mechanism, using the conference identifier, to
access the specific information requested by a user based on a
specific timestamp. The user request for the information and the
rendering of the information is specific to the user's session based
messaging protocol and may not be supported by all the messaging
protocols.
5.4. Indicating Alternate Venue
Another chat room feature provides the details of an alternate chat
room venue for previously active chat rooms that have been closed,
with a related topic. While not detailed in the centralized
conferencing framework, this functionality can be accomplished by
creating the new chat room as a child or sibling of the previous chat
room and providing the Active chat conference object identifier to
any valid users that attempt to join a previous chat room. The
Barnes, et al. Expires January 13, 2011 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft XCON Chat July 2010
information about the new chat room can also be provided at the end
of a chat room that is being de-activated at the end of the session.
5.5. File Transfer
The ability to send files to a selected participant or group of
participants is another common functionality, supported by messaging
protocols. This functionality also enables the exchange of
information (e.g. name, size, and date) about the file to be
transferred and usually provide a mechanism to show an image
thumbnail for files such as photos. This capability could be
reflected in the conference data (in the conference instance) and
requires at least an extension to the "available-media" element. The
thumbnail rendering of the image is outside the scope of the data
model and is specific to the client application. Additional
functionality to support this capability requires further study.
5.6. Real Time Collaboration
The messaging protocols can be used, and are being used, in
applications quite different from a simple exchange of text messages
between two participants in the context of a chatroom. Real-time
collaboration tools (e.g. Whiteboarding, screen-share, co-browse or
document-share) are some of these applications.
The Conferencing Systems are usually bound to Real-time collaboration
tools to increase the productivity of distributed teams. In terms of
correlating this functionality with CCMP, the mechanisms for
manipulating the conference are the same in terms of updating the
data associated with the conference with the additional attributes to
reflect the multiple sources of media for the chatroom. This
capability could be reflected in the conference data (in the
conference instance) with an extension to the "available-media"
element. Some current systems using SIP embed the attributes in the
media stream. Overall, supporting this functionality requires
further study.
6. Security Considerations
As discussed in the Centralized Conferencing Framework, there are a
wide variety of potential attacks related to conferencing, due to the
natural involvement of multiple endpoints and the many, often user-
invoked, capabilities provided by the conferencing system. Examples
of attacks associated with chatrooms includes the following: an
endpoint attempting to receive the messages for conferences in which
it is not authorized to participate, an endpoint attempting to
disconnect other users, and theft of service, by an endpoint, in
Barnes, et al. Expires January 13, 2011 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft XCON Chat July 2010
attempting to create conferences it is not allowed to create.
Since this document describes the use of existing protocols (e.g.
MSRP/SIP, CCMP, XMPP, etc.), it depends on the security solutions for
those protocols and the associated authorization mechanisms. This
solution is based on the Centralized Conferencing framework and makes
use of the policy associated with the conference object to ensure
that only authorized entities are able to manipulate the data to
access the capabilities. This solution also makes use of the privacy
and security of the identity of a user in the conference, as
discussed in the Centralized Conferencing Framework.
7. IANA Considerations
This document requires no IANA registrations.
8. Acknowledgments
The authors appreciate the input and comments from Miguel Garcia-
Martin and Dave Morgan.
9. References
9.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC5239] Barnes, M., Boulton, C., and O. Levin, "A Framework for
Centralized Conferencing", RFC 5239, June 2008.
[I-D.ietf-xcon-common-data-model]
Novo, O., Camarillo, G., Morgan, D., and J. Urpalainen,
"Conference Information Data Model for Centralized
Conferencing (XCON)", draft-ietf-xcon-common-data-model-19
(work in progress), May 2010.
[I-D.ietf-xcon-ccmp]
Barnes, M., Boulton, C., Romano, S., and H. Schulzrinne,
"Centralized Conferencing Manipulation Protocol",
draft-ietf-xcon-ccmp-09 (work in progress), July 2010.
Barnes, et al. Expires January 13, 2011 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft XCON Chat July 2010
9.2. Informative References
[I-D.roach-xcon-chatroom-analysis]
Roach, A., "An Analysis of Feature Parity Between XCON/
SIMPLE-Based Chatrooms and Other Chatrooms",
draft-roach-xcon-chatroom-analysis-00 (work in progress),
August 2007.
[I-D.ietf-xcon-examples]
Barnes, M., Miniero, L., Presta, R., and S. Romano,
"Centralized Conferencing Manipulation Protocol (CCMP)
Call Flow Examples", draft-ietf-xcon-examples-05 (work in
progress), July 2010.
[RFC2664] Plzak, R., Wells, A., and E. Krol, "FYI on Questions and
Answers - Answers to Commonly Asked "New Internet User"
Questions", RFC 2664, August 1999.
[RFC1459] Oikarinen, J. and D. Reed, "Internet Relay Chat Protocol",
RFC 1459, May 1993.
[RFC2810] Kalt, C., "Internet Relay Chat: Architecture", RFC 2810,
April 2000.
[RFC2811] Kalt, C., "Internet Relay Chat: Channel Management",
RFC 2811, April 2000.
[RFC2812] Kalt, C., "Internet Relay Chat: Client Protocol",
RFC 2812, April 2000.
[RFC2813] Kalt, C., "Internet Relay Chat: Server Protocol",
RFC 2813, April 2000.
[I-D.ietf-xmpp-3920bis]
Saint-Andre, P., "Extensible Messaging and Presence
Protocol (XMPP): Core", draft-ietf-xmpp-3920bis-10 (work
in progress), July 2010.
[I-D.ietf-xmpp-3921bis]
Saint-Andre, P., "Extensible Messaging and Presence
Protocol (XMPP): Instant Messaging and Presence",
draft-ietf-xmpp-3921bis-07 (work in progress), July 2010.
[RFC4353] Rosenberg, J., "A Framework for Conferencing with the
Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)", RFC 4353,
February 2006.
[RFC4975] Campbell, B., Mahy, R., and C. Jennings, "The Message
Barnes, et al. Expires January 13, 2011 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft XCON Chat July 2010
Session Relay Protocol (MSRP)", RFC 4975, September 2007.
[I-D.ietf-simple-chat]
Niemi, A., Garcia, M., and G. Sandbakken, "Multi-party
Chat Using the Message Session Relay Protocol (MSRP)",
draft-ietf-simple-chat-07 (work in progress), May 2010.
[RFC4574] Levin, O. and G. Camarillo, "The Session Description
Protocol (SDP) Label Attribute", RFC 4574, August 2006.
[RFC4579] Johnston, A. and O. Levin, "Session Initiation Protocol
(SIP) Call Control - Conferencing for User Agents",
BCP 119, RFC 4579, August 2006.
[XEP-0045]
Saint-Andre, P., "Multi-User Chat", XSF XEP 0045,
July 2007.
Authors' Addresses
Mary Barnes
Polycom
Email: mary.ietf.barnes@gmail.com
Chris Boulton
NS-Technologies
Email: chris@ns-technologies.com
Salvatore Loreto
Ericsson
Hirsalantie 11
Jorvas 02420, Finland
Email: salvatore.loreto@ericsson.com
Barnes, et al. Expires January 13, 2011 [Page 15]