[Search] [txt|pdf|bibtex] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Nits]

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 rfc5364                               
SIPPING Working Group                                   M. Garcia-Martin
Internet-Draft                                                     Nokia
Expires: August 26, 2006                                    G. Camarillo
                                                                Ericsson
                                                       February 22, 2006


   Extensible Markup Language (XML) Format Extension for Representing
                 Capacity Attributes in Resource Lists
              draft-ietf-sipping-capacity-attribute-00.txt

Status of this Memo

   By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
   applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
   have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
   aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.

   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 August 26, 2006.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).

Abstract

   This document specifies an XML extension to the resource list format
   for qualifiying resources with the capacity in which they are
   included in the resource list.






Garcia-Martin & Camarillo  Expires August 26, 2006              [Page 1]


Internet-Draft         Capacity in Resource Lists          February 2006


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   2.  Terminology  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   3.  Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   4.  Extension to the resource lists data format  . . . . . . . . .  5
   5.  XML Schema . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
   6.  Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
   7.  Carrying URI-lists in SIP  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
   8.  Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
   9.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
   10. IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
     10.1.  Disposition Type Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
     10.2.  XML Namespace Registration  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
     10.3.  XML Schema Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
   11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
     11.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
     11.2.  Informational References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
   Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 13































Garcia-Martin & Camarillo  Expires August 26, 2006              [Page 2]


Internet-Draft         Capacity in Resource Lists          February 2006


1.  Introduction

   The Framework and Security Considerations for Session Initiation
   Protocol (SIP) URI-List Services [9] describes a generic framework
   for carrying Uniform Resource Identifier (URI)-lists in SIP [5]
   messages.  Specifically the document provides a common framework for
   specific implementations of URI-list services, such as conferences
   initiated with INVITE requests [10] or Multiple-recipient MESSAGE
   requests [11].

   Common to a multiple of URI-list services is the presence of a SIP
   request that contains a collection of resources, typically expressed
   as an XML resource list [7].  SIP requests carrying resource lists
   can appear either in requests received by the URI-list server,
   indicating the list of intended recipients; or in each of the
   requests that the URI-list server sends to recipients, indicating the
   list of recipients of the same SIP request.

   Although the XML resource list [7] provides a powerful mechanism for
   indicating list of resources, it is usually beneficial to indicate
   the capacity in which a resource is receiving a SIP request.  This is
   similar to common e-mail where the sender can assign each recipient
   the capacity of To, Cc, or Bcc, in which they are receiving an e-mail
   message.

   This document addresses this problem by providing an extension to the
   XML resource list [7] that enables the sender to tag the capacity of
   the recipients, as 'to', 'cc', or 'bcc'.  Additionally, we provide
   the sender with the capability of indicating in the URI-list that one
   or more resources should be anonymized, so that their URIs are not
   disclosed to the other recipients, but instead, they are replaced
   with anonymous URIs.

   The rest of this document is organized as follows: Section 2
   introduces a few new terms.  Section 3 gives an overview of
   operation.  Section 4 formally defines an extension to URI-lists.
   The XML schema definition is provided in Section 5.  Section 6 shows
   examples of the URI-lists with the extensions defined in this
   document.  Section 7 discusses the implications of carrying URI-lists
   in SIP messages.


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 BCP 14, RFC 2119 [1] and indicate requirement levels for



Garcia-Martin & Camarillo  Expires August 26, 2006              [Page 3]


Internet-Draft         Capacity in Resource Lists          February 2006


   compliant implementations.

   URI-list service:  SIP application service that receives a SIP
      request containing a URI-list and sends a similar SIP request to
      each URI in the list.

   Intended recipient:  The intended final recipient of the request to
      be generated by URI-list service.

   Capacity:   The role assigned by the sender to a recipient.  The
      sender is able to tag recipients with the 'to', 'cc', and 'bcc'
      capacity, which indicate, respectively, whether the recipients get
      a primary, carbon copy, or blind carbon copy of the SIP request.



3.  Overview

   Figure 1 depicts a general overview of the operation of a URI-list
   server.  A SIP User Agent Client (UAC) issuer sends a SIP request
   (F1) to a URI-list server.  The URI-list server generates a SIP
   request to each of the recipients, according to the specific method.

   +--------+        +---------+      +--------+ +--------+ +--------+
   |SIP UAC |        | URI-list|      |intended| |intended| |intended|
   | issuer |        |  server |      | recip. | | recip. | | recip. |
   |        |        |         |      |   1    | |   2    | |   n    |
   +--------+        +---------+      +--------+ +--------+ +--------+
       |                  |               |          |          |
       | F1. SIP request  |               |          |          |
       | ---------------->|               |          |          |
       | F2. 2xx response |               |          |          |
       |<---------------- |  F3. SIP request         |          |
       |                  | ------------->|          |          |
       |                  |  F4. SIP request         |          |
       |                  | ------------------------>|          |
       |                  |  F5. SIP request         |          |
       |                  | ----------------------------------->|
       |                  |  F6. 2xx response        |          |
       |                  |<------------- |          |          |
       |                  |  F7. 2xx response        |          |
       |                  |<------------------------ |          |
       |                  |  F8. 2xx response        |          |
       |                  |<----------------------------------- |
       |                  |               |          |          |
       |                  |               |          |          |
       |                  |               |          |          |




Garcia-Martin & Camarillo  Expires August 26, 2006              [Page 4]


Internet-Draft         Capacity in Resource Lists          February 2006


                      Figure 1: Example of operation

   The URI-list mechanism allows a sender to specify multiple targets
   for a SIP request by including an XML resource list [7] in the body
   of the SIP request.  This XML resource list includes the URIs of the
   targets of the SIP request (the actual procedures are method specific
   and outside the scope of this document).  Each target URI may also be
   marked to indicate in what capacity (or role) the recipient is
   receiving the SIP request.  The available capacities include 'to',
   'cc', and 'bcc' (analogous to e-mail).  Each target URI may also be
   marked with the 'anonymize' attribute.  This allows the sender of the
   SIP request to indicate to the URI-list service that an intended
   recipient should receive the SIP request, but his URI should not be
   disclosed (for example, in a URI-list that the URI-list service could
   send to the recipients of the SIP request).

   When the URI-list server expands the request for each recipient, it
   includes a new URI-list that contains only the targets originally
   listed in the "to" and "cc" capacities, excludes those listed in the
   'bcc' capacity.  Further more, those URIs tagged with the 'anonymize'
   attribute are replaced by an anonymous URI.

   In case of multiple identical URIs the size of URI-list can be
   compressed by adding a 'count' attribute to a URI.  The 'count'
   attribute indicates the number of repeated URIs.  This is
   particularly useful with anonymized URIs.  It is not expected to have
   value other than with anonymous URIs, although technically, it is
   possible to include the 'count' attribute to any URI.

   The presence of a URI-list in each of the expanded SIP requests
   allows recipients to both see and reply to the non-anonymous "to" and
   "cc" targets, but not to the "bcc" or anonymous targets.  The default
   capacity assumed, if one is not specified by the sender, is "bcc".
   This is discussed in greater detailed in Section 4


4.  Extension to the resource lists data format

   This document defines an extension to the XML resource list data
   format [7] that allows the sender to indicate the capacity or role in
   which a recipient is receiving a message.  We define a new 'capacity'
   attribute to the <entry> element of the resource list document format
   [7].  The 'capacity' attribute has similar semantics to the type of
   destination address in e-mail systems.  It can take the values "to",
   "cc", and "bcc".  A "to" value of the 'capacity' attribute indicates
   that the resource is considered a primary recipient of the SIP
   request.  A "cc" value indicates that the resource receives a carbon
   copy of the SIP request.  A "bcc" value indicates that the resource



Garcia-Martin & Camarillo  Expires August 26, 2006              [Page 5]


Internet-Draft         Capacity in Resource Lists          February 2006


   receives a blind carbon copy of the SIP request, i.e., this URI is
   not disclosed in a URI-list sent to the recipients.  The default
   'capacity' value is "bcc", that is, the absence of a 'capacity'
   attribute MUST be treated as if the 'capacity' was set to "bcc".
   URI-list servers can use URIs tagged with the "bcc" 'capacity'
   attribute for routing SIP requests, but MUST delete them if the URI-
   list service includes a URI-list in outgoing requests.

   A new 'anonymize' attribute can be included in a <entry> element of
   the resource list document format [7].  If set to a "true" value, it
   provides an indication to the URI-list server for not disclosing the
   URI itself in a URI-list sent to the recipient, but instead,
   anonymize the URI.  URI-list servers can use URIs tagged with the
   'anonymize' attribute for routing SIP requests, but MUST convert them
   to an anonymized URI (such as sip:anonymous@anonymous.invalid) if the
   URI-list server includes a URI-list in outgoing requests.  The
   default value of the 'anonymize' attribute is "false".

   Processing of URIs tagged with a "bcc" 'capacity' has higher
   precedence of the 'anonymize' attribute, thus, if the 'capacity' of a
   URI is set to "bcc", the URI-list service will remove the URI from
   the list and the 'anonymize' attribute will be ignored.  Therefore,
   the 'anonymize' attribute is only useful for those URIs tagged with a
   'capacity' of "to" or "cc".

   A new 'count' attribute can be also included in a <entry> element of
   the resource list document format [7].  It provides the number of
   equal URIs.  Typically URI-lists created by UACs will not have equal
   (or duplicated) URI entries, thus, it is not expected to contain URIs
   tagged with the 'count' attributes.  However, URI-lists created by
   URI-list servers can contain duplicated anonymized URIs, thus, it is
   expected that URI-list created by URI-list servers will contain
   'count' attributes.  The default value of the 'count' attribute is
   "1".

   The 'capacity', 'anonymize', and 'count' attributes SHOULD be
   included as modifiers of any of the child elements included in the
   <list> element of a resource list (e.g., attribute of the <entry> or
   <external> elements).

   Section 5 describes the format of the 'capacity', 'anonymize', and
   'count' attributes.  Implementations according to this specification
   MUST support this XML Schema.








Garcia-Martin & Camarillo  Expires August 26, 2006              [Page 6]


Internet-Draft         Capacity in Resource Lists          February 2006


5.  XML Schema

  <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
  <xs:schema targetNamespace="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:capacity"
      xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:capacity"
      xmlns:rls="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:resource-lists"
      xmlns:xs="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema"
      elementFormDefault="qualified"
      attributeFormDefault="unqualified">

      <xs:annotation>
        <xs:documentation xml:lang="en">
           Adds the capacity, anonymize, and count attributes
           to URIs included in a resource list.
        </xs:documentation>
      </xs:annotation>

     <xs:import namespace="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:resource-lists"
            schemaLocation="urn:ietf:params:xml:schema:resource-lists"/>

      <xs:attribute name="capacity">
         <xs:simpleType>
            <xs:restriction base="xs:string">
               <xs:enumeration value="to"/>
               <xs:enumeration value="cc"/>
               <xs:enumeration value="bcc"/>
            </xs:restriction>
         </xs:simpleType>
      </xs:attribute>

     <xs:attribute name="anonymize" type="xs:boolean" default="false"/>
     <xs:attribute name="count" type="xs:nonNegativeInteger"
                                default="1"/>

  </xs:schema>

     Figure 2: XML Schema of the extension to the resource list format


6.  Examples

   This section shows two examples of URI-lists that can be included in
   SIP requests.  The first example in Figure 3 shows a URI-list that
   the UAC sends to the URI-list server.  This corresponds to a list
   that will be included in the flow F2 in Figure 1.  The list contains
   a flat list according to the resource list data format [7].  Each
   resource indicates the capacity of a resource.  Some of the resources
   are also attributed with the 'anonymize' attribute.  This provides an



Garcia-Martin & Camarillo  Expires August 26, 2006              [Page 7]


Internet-Draft         Capacity in Resource Lists          February 2006


   indication to the URI-list service for not disclosing their URIs in a
   URI-list.  The last two <entry> elements are attributed with a "bcc"
   'capacity'.  This provides an indication to the URI-list service for
   removing these URIs from the outgoing URI-lists.

   <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
   <resource-lists xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:resource-lists"
             xmlns:cp="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:capacity">
     <list>
       <entry uri="sip:bill@example.com" cp:capacity="to" />
       <entry uri="sip:randy@example.net" cp:capacity="to"
                                          cp:anonymize="true"/>
       <entry uri="sip:eddy@example.com" cp:capacity="to"
                                         cp:anonymize="true"/>
       <entry uri="sip:joe@example.org" cp:capacity="cc" />
       <entry uri="sip:carol@example.net" cp:capacity="cc"
                                          cp:anonymize="true"/>
       <entry uri="sip:ted@example.net" cp:capacity="bcc" />
       <entry uri="sip:andy@example.com" cp:capacity="bcc" />
     </list>
   </resource-lists>

        Figure 3: URI-list sent from the UAC to the URI-list server

   Upon reception of the SIP request containing the URI-list of Figure 3
   the URI-list service creates a SIP request for each of the URIs
   listed in the URI-list (so, in our example, it creates 7 SIP
   requests).  Each outgoing SIP request contains a copy of the same
   processed outgoing URI-list.  The process is as follows: the URI-list
   service creates a new URI-list, based on the received one, but with
   changes.  First it copies all the URIs (<entry> elements) tagged with
   the "to" or "cc" 'capacity' which do not contain an 'anonymize'
   attribute (or when the 'anonymize' attribute is set to "false").
   Then all the URIs tagged with a 'capacity' attribute set to "to" and
   'anonymize' set to "true" are replaced by an anonymous URI, such as
   "sip:anonymous@anonymous.invalid".  In this entry it also adds the
   original 'capacity' attribute ("to" in our example), and it adds a
   'count' attribute with the number of anonymous entries with this
   capacity ("2" in our example).  Then the URI-list service does the
   same operation to the URIs tagged with the 'capacity' attribute set
   to "cc" and 'anonymize' attribute set to "true", adding also the
   'count' attribute containing the number of anonymous attributes with
   this capacity ("1" in the example).  Last, the URI-list service
   completely removes URIs tagged with the "bcc" 'capacity'.  The result
   URI-list if shown in Figure 4.






Garcia-Martin & Camarillo  Expires August 26, 2006              [Page 8]


Internet-Draft         Capacity in Resource Lists          February 2006


   <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
   <resource-lists xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:resource-lists"
             xmlns:cp="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:capacity">
     <list>
       <entry uri="sip:bill@example.com" cp:capacity="to" />
       <entry uri="sip:anonymous@anonymous.invalid" cp:capacity="to"
                                                    cp:count="2"/>
       <entry uri="sip:joe@example.org" cp:capacity="cc" />
       <entry uri="sip:anonymous@anonymous.invalid" cp:capacity="cc"
                                                    cp:count="1"/>
     </list>
   </resource-lists>

    Figure 4: URI-List sent from the URI-list server to each recipient


7.  Carrying URI-lists in SIP

   A SIP User Agent Client (UAC) that composes a SIP request can include
   a URI-list with the extensions specified in this document to indicate
   the list of intended recipients.  On doing so, as specified in the
   Framework and Security Considerations for SIP URI-List Services [9],
   the UAC adds a Content-Disposition [2] header field set to the value
   'recipient-list'.  Typically UACs send these 'recipient-list' bodies
   to URI-list services (this corresponds to flow F1 in Figure 1).  A
   body whose Content-Disposition type is 'recipient-list' contains a
   URI-list with list of intended recipients of the SIP request.  The
   <entry> element in the URI-list MAY also include a 'capacity' and
   'anonymize' attributes, as specified in Section 4.

   To enable the capability of the intended recipients to become aware
   of who else is receiving a copy of the SIP request, we define a new
   mail disposition type to be included in a Content-Disposition [2]
   header field of a SIP request.  The value of this new disposition
   type is 'recipient-list-history' and its purpose is to indicate a
   list of recipients that a SIP request was sent to.  A body whose
   Content-Disposition type is 'recipient-list-history' contains a URI-
   list with the visible (including anonymized) recipients of the SIP
   request.  The <entry> element in the URI-list MAY also include a
   'capacity' and 'count' attributes, as specified in Section 4.

   It is often desired that, if the intended recipient of the SIP
   request does not support this specification, still the SIP request
   does not fail.  In order to provide the maximum probability of
   success of those requests that include 'recipient-list-history'
   bodies, User Agents (such as URI-list services) that build SIP
   requests with the Content-Disposition header field set to 'recipient-
   list-history' SHOULD add a 'handling' parameter [4] set to



Garcia-Martin & Camarillo  Expires August 26, 2006              [Page 9]


Internet-Draft         Capacity in Resource Lists          February 2006


   "optional".


8.  Acknowledgements

   Thanks to Dean Willis, Jari Urpalainen, and Pekka Kuure for reviewing
   this document and providing helpful comments.


9.  Security Considerations

   The Framework and Security Considerations for SIP URI-List Services
   [9] discusses issues related to SIP URI-list services.
   Implementations of this specification MUST follow the security-
   related rules in the Framework and Security Considerations for SIP
   URI-List Services [9].  These rules include mandatory authentication
   and authorization of clients, and opt-in lists.

   User Agent Clients SHOULD NOT hand SIP requests containing URI-list
   services to unauthenticated and untrusted parties.  This is to avoid
   man-in-the-middle attacks or acquiring URI-lists for performing SPAM
   attacks.

   URI-lists may contain private information, such as SIP URIs.  It is
   therefore not desirable that these URI-lists are known by third
   parties.  Eavesdroppers are able to watch URI-lists contained in SIP
   requests unless the SIP message was sent over a secured channel with
   Transport Layer Security (TLS) [3] or unless the URI-list body itself
   is encrypted with S/MIME [8].  Therefore, it is RECOMMENDED that URI-
   list bodies are encrypted with S/MIME [8] or that the SIP request is
   encrypted with TLS [3].


10.  IANA Considerations

   The following sections instruct the IANA to register: a new
   disposition type, a new SIP option-tag, a new XML namespace, and a
   new XML schema.

10.1.  Disposition Type Registration

   Section 7 defines a new 'recipient-list-history' value of the Mail
   Content Disposition Values registry.  This value should be registered
   in the IANA registry of Mail Content Disposition Values with the
   following registration data:






Garcia-Martin & Camarillo  Expires August 26, 2006             [Page 10]


Internet-Draft         Capacity in Resource Lists          February 2006


   +------------------------+------------------------------+-----------+
   | Name                   | Description                  | Reference |
   +------------------------+------------------------------+-----------+
   | recipient-list-history | the body contains a list of  | [RFCXXXX] |
   |                        | URIs that indicates the      |           |
   |                        | recipients of the SIP        |           |
   |                        | request                      |           |
   +------------------------+------------------------------+-----------+

    Table 1: Registration of the 'recipient-list-history' Mail Content
                             Disposition Value

   Note to IANA and the RFC editor: replace RFCXXXX above with the RFC
   number of this specification.

10.2.  XML Namespace Registration

   This section registers a new XML namespace in the XML registry, as
   per the guidelines in RFC 3688 [6].

   URI: The URI for this namespace is urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:capacity.

   Registrant Contact: IETF, SIPPING working group, (sipping@ietf.org),
   Miguel Garcia-Martin (miguel.an.garcia@nokia.com).

   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>Capacity Namespace</title>
         </head>
         <body>
           <h1>Namespace for the Capacity Attribute Extension
           in Resource Lists</h1>
           <h2>urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:capacity</h2>
           <p>See <a href="[URL of published RFC]">RFCXXXX
           [NOTE TO IANA/RFC-EDITOR: Please replace XXXX with
           the RFC number of this specification.]</a>.</p>
         </body>
         </html>
         END




Garcia-Martin & Camarillo  Expires August 26, 2006             [Page 11]


Internet-Draft         Capacity in Resource Lists          February 2006


10.3.  XML Schema Registration

   This section registers a new XML schema in the XML registry per the
   procedures in RFC 3688 [6].

   URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:schema:capacity

   Registrant Contact: IETF, SIPPING working group, (sipping@ietf.org),
   Miguel Garcia-Martin (miguel.an.garcia@nokia.com).

   The XML for this schema can be found as the sole content of
   Section 5.


11.  References

11.1.  Normative References

   [1]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement
        Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

   [2]  Troost, R., Dorner, S., and K. Moore, "Communicating
        Presentation Information in Internet Messages: The Content-
        Disposition Header Field", RFC 2183, August 1997.

   [3]  Dierks, T. and C. Allen, "The TLS Protocol Version 1.0",
        RFC 2246, January 1999.

   [4]  Zimmerer, E., Peterson, J., Vemuri, A., Ong, L., Audet, F.,
        Watson, M., and M. Zonoun, "MIME media types for ISUP and QSIG
        Objects", RFC 3204, December 2001.

   [5]  Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., Camarillo, G., Johnston, A.,
        Peterson, J., Sparks, R., Handley, M., and E. Schooler, "SIP:
        Session Initiation Protocol", RFC 3261, June 2002.

   [6]  Mealling, M., "The IETF XML Registry", BCP 81, RFC 3688,
        January 2004.

   [7]  Rosenberg, J., "Extensible Markup Language (XML) Formats for
        Representing Resource Lists",
        draft-ietf-simple-xcap-list-usage-05 (work in progress),
        February 2005.

   [8]  Ramsdell, B., "Secure/Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions
        (S/MIME) Version 3.1 Message Specification", RFC 3851,
        July 2004.




Garcia-Martin & Camarillo  Expires August 26, 2006             [Page 12]


Internet-Draft         Capacity in Resource Lists          February 2006


   [9]  Camarillo, G. and A. Roach, "Framework and Security
        Considerations for Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)  Uniform
        Resource Identifier (URI)-List Services",
        draft-ietf-sipping-uri-services-04 (work in progress),
        October 2005.

11.2.  Informational References

   [10]  Camarillo, G. and A. Johnston, "Conference Establishment Using
         Request-Contained Lists in the Session  Initiation Protocol
         (SIP)", draft-ietf-sipping-uri-list-conferencing-04 (work in
         progress), October 2005.

   [11]  Garcia-Martin, M. and G. Camarillo, "Multiple-Recipient MESSAGE
         Requests in the Session Initiation Protocol  (SIP)",
         draft-ietf-sipping-uri-list-message-04 (work in progress),
         October 2005.


Authors' Addresses

   Miguel A. Garcia-Martin
   Nokia
   P.O.Box 407
   NOKIA GROUP, FIN  00045
   Finland

   Email: miguel.an.garcia@nokia.com


   Gonzalo Camarillo
   Ericsson
   Hirsalantie 11
   Jorvas  02420
   Finland

   Email: Gonzalo.Camarillo@ericsson.com


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



Garcia-Martin & Camarillo  Expires August 26, 2006             [Page 13]


Internet-Draft         Capacity in Resource Lists          February 2006


   "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.


Acknowledgment

   Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
   Internet Society.














Garcia-Martin & Camarillo  Expires August 26, 2006             [Page 14]