IMPP WG D. Crocker
Internet-Draft Brandenburg
Expires: April 27, 2003 A. Diacakis
F. Mazzoldi
Net Proj
C. Huitema
Microsoft
G. Klyne
Baltimore
J. Rosenberg
R. Sparks
dynamicsoft
H. Sugano
Fujitsu
J. Peterson
NeuStar
October 27, 2002
Common Profile: Instant Messaging
draft-ietf-impp-im-00
Status of this Memo
This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts.
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."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at http://
www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on April 27, 2003.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2002). All Rights Reserved.
Crocker, et al. Expires April 27, 2003 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Common Profile: Instant Messaging October 2002
Abstract
Instant messaging is defined in RFC2778 [12]. Today, numerous
instant messaging protocols are in use, and little interoperability
between services based on these protocols has been achieved. This
specification defines common semantics and data formats for instant
messaging to facilitate the creation of gateways between instant
messaging services.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Abstract Instant Messaging Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1 Overview of Instant Messaging Service . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.2 Identification of INSTANT INBOXes . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2.1 Address Resolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.3 Format of Instant Messages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.4 The Messaging Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.4.1 The Message Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.4.2 Looping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5.1 The IM URI Scheme . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
A. IM URL IANA Registration Template . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
A.1 URL scheme name . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
A.2 URL scheme syntax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
A.3 Character encoding considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
A.4 Intended usage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
A.5 Applications and/or protocols which use this URL scheme
name . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
A.6 Interoperability considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
A.7 Security considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
A.8 Relevant publications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
A.9 Person & email address to contact for further information . 12
A.10 Author/Change controller . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
A.11 Applications and/or protocols which use this URL scheme
name . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
B. Issues of Interest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
B.1 Address Mapping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
B.2 Source-Route Mapping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
C. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Full Copyright Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Crocker, et al. Expires April 27, 2003 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Common Profile: Instant Messaging October 2002
1. Introduction
Instant messaging is defined in RFC2778 [12]. Today, numerous
instant messaging protocols are in use, and little interoperability
between services based on these protocols has been achieved. This
specification defines semantics and data formats for common services
of Instant Messaging to facilitate the creation of gateways between
instant messaging services.
Service behavior is described abstractly in terms of operations
invoked between the consumer and provider of a service. Accordingly,
each IM service must specify how this behavior is mapped onto its own
protocol interactions. The choice of strategy is a local matter,
providing that there is a clear relation between the abstract
behaviors of the service (as specified in this memo) and how it is
faithfully realized by a particular instant messaging service.
The attributes for each operation are defined using an abstract
syntax. Although the syntax specifies the range of possible data
values, each IM service must specify how well-formed instances of the
abstract representation are encoded as a concrete series of bits.
For example, one strategy might transmit an instant message as
textual key/value pairs, another might use a compact binary
representation, and a third might use nested containers. The choice
of strategy is a local matter, providing that there is a clear
relation between the abstract syntax (as specified in this memo) and
how it is faithfully encoded by an particular instant messaging
service.
In order to provide a means for the preservation of end-to-end
features (especially security) to pass through instant messaging
interoperability gateways, this specification also provides
recommendations for instant messaging document formats that could be
employed by presence protocols.
2. Terminology
In this document, the key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED",
"SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT
RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" are to be interpreted as
described in RFC2119 [1] and indicate requirement levels for
compliant implementations.
This memos makes use of the vocabulary defined in RFC 2778[9]. Terms
such as CLOSED, INSTANT INBOX, INSTANT MESSAGE, and OPEN are used in
the same meaning as defined therein.
Crocker, et al. Expires April 27, 2003 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Common Profile: Instant Messaging October 2002
This document defines operations and attributes of an instant
messaging service. In order for a protocol to interface with an
instant messaging gateway, it must support all of the operations
described in this document (i.e. the instant messaging protocol must
have some message or capability that provides the function described
by this operation). Similarly, the attributes defined for these
operations must correspond to information available in the instant
messaging protocol in order for the protocol to interface with
gateways defined by this specification. Note that these attributes
provide only the minimum possible information that needs to be
specified for interoperability - the functions in an instant
messaging protocol that correspond to the operations described in
this document can contain additional information that will not be
mapped by CPIM.
3. Abstract Instant Messaging Service
3.1 Overview of Instant Messaging Service
When an application wants to send a message to an INSTANT INBOX, it
invokes the message operation, e.g.,
+-------+ +-------+
| | | |
| appl. | -- message ------> | IM |
| | | svc. |
+-------+ +-------+
The message operation has the following attributes: source,
destination, and TransID. 'source' and 'destination' identity the
originator and destination of an instant message, respectively, and
consist of an INSTANT INBOX identifier (as described in Section 3.2).
The TransID is a unique identifier used to correlate message
operations to response operations.
The message operation also has some content, the instant message
itself, which may be textual, or which may consist of other data.
Some further information on content is provided in Section 3.3.
Upon receiving a message operation, the service immediately responds
by invoking the response operation containing the same transaction-
identifier, e.g.,
Crocker, et al. Expires April 27, 2003 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Common Profile: Instant Messaging October 2002
+-------+ +-------+
| | | |
| appl. | <----- response -- | IM |
| | | svc. |
+-------+ +-------+
The response operation contains the following attributes: TransID and
status. The TransID is used to correlate the response to a
particular instant message. Status indicates whether the delivery of
the message succeeded or failed.
3.2 Identification of INSTANT INBOXes
An INSTANT INBOX is specified using an instant messaging URI with the
'im:' URI scheme. The full syntax of the IM URI scheme is given in
Appendix A. An example would be: "im:fred@example.com"
3.2.1 Address Resolution
A client determines the address of an appropriate system running a
server by resolving the destination domain name that is part of the
identifier to either an intermediate relay system or a final target
system.
Compliant implementations SHOULD follow the guidelines for
dereferencing URIs given in [2].
3.3 Format of Instant Messages
This specification defines an abstract interoperability mechanism for
instant messaging protocols; the message content definition given
here pertains to semantics rather than syntax. However, some
important properties for interoperability can only be provided if a
common end-to-end format for instant messaging is employed by the
interoperating instant messaging protocols. Implementations
therefore SHOULD support the format defined in MSGFMT [9].
3.4 The Messaging Service
Note that the transaction-identifier parameters used with the instant
messaging service are potentially long-lived. Accordingly, the
values generated for this parameter should be unique across a
significant duration of time.
3.4.1 The Message Operation
When an application wants to send an INSTANT MESSAGE, it invokes the
Crocker, et al. Expires April 27, 2003 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Common Profile: Instant Messaging October 2002
message operation.
When the service is informed of the message operation, it performs
these steps:
1. If the source or destination does not refer to a valid INSTANT
INBOX, a response operation having status "failure" is invoked.
2. If access control does not permit the application to request this
operation, a response operation having status "failure" is
invoked.
3. Otherwise:
If the service is able to successfully deliver the message, a
response operation having status "success" is invoked.
If the service is unable to successfully deliver the message,
a response operation having status "failure" is invoked.
If the service must delegate responsibility for delivery, and
if the delegation will not result in a future authoritative
indication to the service, a response operation having status
"indeterminant" is invoked.
If the service must delegate responsibility for delivery, and
if the delegation will result in a future authoritative
indication to the service, then a response operation is
invoked immediately after the indication is received.
When the service invokes the response operation, the transID
parameter is identical to the value found in the message operation
invoked by the application.
3.4.2 Looping
The dynamic routing of instant messages can result in looping of a
message through a relay. Detection of loops is not always obvious,
since aliasing and group list expansions can legitimately cause a
message to pass through a relay more than one time.
Instant messaging protocols may implement a hop counter or similar
mechanism that gateways can use to detect loops, but CPIM does not
require protocols to support any corresponding attribute. If
possible, CPIM gateways should translate between such loop-detection
mechanisms.
Crocker, et al. Expires April 27, 2003 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Common Profile: Instant Messaging October 2002
4. Security Considerations
Detailed security considerations for instant messaging protocols are
given in RFC2779 (in particular, requirements are given in section
5.4 and some motivating discussion in 8.1).
CPIM defines an interoperability function that is employed by
gateways between instant messaging protocols. CPIM gateways MUST be
compliant with the minimum security requirements of the instant
messaging protocols with which they interface.
Note that end-to-end security properties (especially confidentiality
and integrity) between instant messaging user agents that interface
through a CPIM gateway can only be provided if a common instant
message format (such as the format described in [9]) is supported by
the protocols interfacing with the CPIM gateway.
5. IANA Considerations
The IANA assigns the "im" scheme.
5.1 The IM URI Scheme
The Instant Messaging (IM) URI scheme designates an Internet
resource, namely an INSTANT INBOX.
The syntax of an IM URL is given in Appendix A.
References
[1] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to indicate requirement
levels", RFC 2119, March 1997.
[2] Crocker, D., Diacakis, A., Mazzoldi, F., Huitema, C., Klyne,
G., Rosenberg, J., Sparks, R., Sugano, H. and J. Peterson,
"Address resolution for Instant Messaging and Presence", draft-
ietf-impp-srv-00 (work in progress), October 2002.
[3] Crocker, D., "Standard for the format of ARPA Internet text
Messages", RFC 822, STD 11, August 1982.
[4] Resnick, P., "Internet Message Format", RFC 2822, STD 11, April
2001.
[5] Mockapetris, P., "Domain Names - Concepts and Facilities", RFC
1034, STD 13, November 1987.
[6] Freed, N. and N. Borenstein, "Multipurpose Internet Mail
Crocker, et al. Expires April 27, 2003 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Common Profile: Instant Messaging October 2002
Extensions (MIME) Part One: Format of Internet Message Bodies",
RFC 2045, November 1996.
[7] Callas, J., Donnerhacke, L., Finney, H. and R. Thayer, "OpenPGP
Message Format", RFC 2440, November 1998.
[8] Klyne, G., "XML Coding of RFC822 Messages", draft-klyne-
message-rfc822-xml-00 (work in progress), November 2001.
[9] Atkins, D. and G. Klyne, "Common Presence and Instant
Messaging: Message Format", draft-ietf-impp-cpim-msgfmt-05
(work in progress), December 2001.
[10] Sugano, H., "CPIM Presence Information Data Format", draft-
ietf-impp-cpim-pidf-00 (work in progress), August 2001.
[11] Ramsdell, B., "S/MIME Version 3 Certificate Handlng", RFC 2632,
June 1999.
[12] Day, M., Rosenberg, J. and H. Sugano, "A Model for Presence and
Instant Messaging", RFC 2778, February 2000.
[13] Day, M., Aggarwal, S. and J. Vincent, "Instant Messaging /
Presence Protocol Requirements", RFC 2779, February 2000.
[14] Gulbrandsen, A., Vixie, P. and L. Esibov, "A DNS RR for
Specifying the Location of Services (SRV)", RFC 2782, February
2000.
[15] Allocchio, C., "GSTN Address Element Extensions in Email
Services", RFC 2846, June 2000.
Authors' Addresses
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
675 Spruce Drive
Sunnyvale, CA 94086
US
Phone: +1 408/246-8253
EMail: dcrocker@brandenburg.com
Crocker, et al. Expires April 27, 2003 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Common Profile: Instant Messaging October 2002
Athanassios Diacakis
Network Projects Inc.
4516 Henry Street
Suite 113
Pittsburgh, PA 15213
US
Phone: +1 412/681-6950 x202
EMail: thanos@networkprojects.com
Florencio Mazzoldi
Network Projects Inc.
4516 Henry Street
Suite 113
Pittsburgh, PA 15213
US
Phone: +1 412/681-6950
EMail: flo@networkprojects.com
Christian Huitema
Microsoft Corporation
One Microsoft Way
Redmund, WA 98052-6399
US
EMail: huitema@microsoft.com
Graham Klyne
Baltimore Technologies
1310 Waterside
Arlington Business Park
Theale, Reading RG7 4SA
UK
Phone: +44 118 903 8000
EMail: gk@acm.org
Crocker, et al. Expires April 27, 2003 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Common Profile: Instant Messaging October 2002
Jonathan Rosenberg
dynamicsoft
200 Executive Drive
Suite 120
West Orange, NJ 07052
US
EMail: jdrosen@dynamicsoft.com
Robert Sparks
dynamicsoft
200 Executive Drive
Suite 120
West Orange, NJ 07052
US
EMail: rsparks@dynamicsoft.com
Hiroyasu Sugano
Fujitsu Laboratories Ltd.
200 Executive Drive
64 Nishiwaki, Ohkubo-cho
Akashi 674-8555
JP
EMail: suga@flab.fujitsu.co.jp
Jon Peterson
NeuStar, Inc.
1800 Sutter St
Suite 570
Concord, CA 94520
US
Phone: +1 925/363-8720
EMail: jon.peterson@neustar.biz
Appendix A. IM URL IANA Registration Template
This section provides the information to register the im: instant
messaging URL.
A.1 URL scheme name
im
Crocker, et al. Expires April 27, 2003 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Common Profile: Instant Messaging October 2002
A.2 URL scheme syntax
The syntax follows the existing mailto: URL syntax specified in
RFC2368. The ABNF is:
IM-URL = "im:" [ to ] [ headers ]
to = #mailbox
headers = "?" header *( "&" header )
header = hname "=" hvalue
hname = *urlc
hvalue = *urlc
A.3 Character encoding considerations
Representation of non-ASCII character sets in local-part strings is
limited to the standard methods provided as extensions to RFC 2822[1]
A.4 Intended usage
Use of the im: URL follows closely usage of the mailto: URL. That
is, invocation of an IM URL will cause the user's instant messaging
application to start, with destination address and message headers
fill-in according to the information supplied in the URL.
A.5 Applications and/or protocols which use this URL scheme name
It is anticipated that protocols compliant with RFC2779, and meeting
the interoperability requirements specified here, will make use of
this URL scheme name.
A.6 Interoperability considerations
The underlying exchange protocol used to send an instant message may
vary from service to service. Therefore complete, Internet-scale
interoperability cannot be guaranteed. However, a service conforming
to this specification permits gateways to achieve interoperability
sufficient to the requirements of RFC2779.
A.7 Security considerations
When IM URLs are placed in instant messaging protocols, they convey
the identity of the sender and/or the recipient. In some cases,
anonymous messaging may be desired. Such a capability is beyond the
scope of this specification.
Crocker, et al. Expires April 27, 2003 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Common Profile: Instant Messaging October 2002
A.8 Relevant publications
RFC2779, RFC2778
A.9 Person & email address to contact for further information
Jon Peterson [mailto:jon.peterson@neustar.biz]
A.10 Author/Change controller
This scheme is registered under the IETF tree. As such, IETF
maintains change control.
A.11 Applications and/or protocols which use this URL scheme name
Instant messaging service
Appendix B. Issues of Interest
This appendix briefly discusses issues that may be of interest when
designing an interoperation gateway.
B.1 Address Mapping
When mapping the service described in this memo, mappings that place
special information into the im: address local-part MUST use the
meta-syntax defined in RFC 2846[12].
B.2 Source-Route Mapping
The easiest mapping technique is a form of source- routing and
usually is the least friendly to humans having to type the string.
Source-routing also has a history of operational problems.
Use of source-routing for exchanges between different services is by
a transformation that places the entire, original address string into
the im: address local part and names the gateway in the domain part.
For example, if the destination INSTANT INBOX is "pepp://example.com/
fred", then, after performing the necessary character conversions,
the resulting mapping is:
im:pepp=example.com/fred@relay-domain
where "relay-domain" is derived from local configuration information.
Experience shows that it is vastly preferable to hide this mapping
from end-users - if possible, the underlying software should perform
Crocker, et al. Expires April 27, 2003 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Common Profile: Instant Messaging October 2002
the mapping automatically.
Appendix C. Acknowledgments
Crocker, et al. Expires April 27, 2003 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Common Profile: Instant Messaging October 2002
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2002). All Rights Reserved.
This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published
and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any
kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are
included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this
document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of
developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for
copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be
followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than
English.
The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.
This document and the information contained herein is provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING
TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS 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.
Acknowledgement
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society.
Crocker, et al. Expires April 27, 2003 [Page 14]