SIPPING Working Group M. Garcia-Martin
Internet-Draft Nokia
Intended status: Standards Track G. Camarillo
Expires: September 28, 2007 Ericsson
March 27, 2007
Extensible Markup Language (XML) Format Extension for Representing Copy
Control Attributes in Resource Lists
draft-ietf-sipping-capacity-attribute-04.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 September 28, 2007.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).
Abstract
In certain types of multimedia communications, a Session Initiation
Protocol (SIP) request is distributed to a group of SIP User Agents
(UAs). The sender sends a single SIP request to a server which
further distributes the request to the group. This SIP request
contains a list of Uniform Resource Identifiers (URIs), which
identify the recipients of the SIP request. This URI-list is
Garcia-Martin & Camarillo Expires September 28, 2007 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Copy Control Attribute in Resource Lists March 2007
expressed as a resource list XML document. This specification
defines an XML extension to the XML resource list format that allows
the sender of the request to qualify a recipient with a copy control
level similar to the copy control level of existing e-mail systems.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Overview of operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. Extension to the resource lists data format . . . . . . . . . 6
5. XML Schema . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6. Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7. Carrying URI-lists in SIP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
9.1. Disposition Type Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
9.2. XML Namespace Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
9.3. XML Schema Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
10. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
11.2. Informational References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 17
Garcia-Martin & Camarillo Expires September 28, 2007 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Copy Control Attribute in Resource Lists March 2007
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 [4]
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 all 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
describing a list of resources, there is a need for a copy control
attribute to determine whether a resource is receiving a SIP request
as a primary recipient, a carbon copy, or a blind carbon copy. This
is similar to common e-mail systems, where the sender can categorize
each recipient as To, Cc, or Bcc recipient.
This document addresses this problem by providing an extension to the
XML resource list [7] that enables the sender to supply a copy
control attribute that labels each recipient as a "to", "cc", or
"bcc" recipient. This attribute indicates whether the recipient is
receiving a primary copy of the SIP request, a carbon copy, or a
blind carbon copy. Additionally, we provide the sender with the
capability of indicating in the URI-list that one or more resources
should be anonymized, so that some recipients' URIs are not disclosed
to the other recipients. Instead, these URIs are replaced with
anonymous URIs.
The remainder of this document is organized as follows: Section 2
introduces the terminology used throughout this specification.
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
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
Garcia-Martin & Camarillo Expires September 28, 2007 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Copy Control Attribute in Resource Lists March 2007
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14, RFC 2119 [1]
and indicate requirement levels for 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.
Copy control: An attribute assigned by the sender to a URI in a XML
resource list. Its purpose is to indicate to the recipient
whether he is getting a primary, carbon, or blind carbon copy of
the SIP request.
Recipient list or recipient XML resource list: An XML resource list
containing the list of intended recipients. The sender sets this
list in the SIP request he sends to the URI-list server.
Recipient-history list or recipient-history XML resource list: An
XML resource list containing the visible list of recipients (i.e.,
those non-anonymous non-bcc). The URI-list server creates this
list, based on the recipient list, and includes it in each of the
SIP requests it sends to each recipient.
3. Overview of operation
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 containing a recipient list. The URI-list
server generates a SIP request to each recipient, according to the
specific SIP method. Each of these SIP requests contains a
recipient-history list that indicates the visible list of recipients
of the SIP request.
Garcia-Martin & Camarillo Expires September 28, 2007 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Copy Control Attribute in Resource Lists March 2007
+--------+ +---------+ +--------+ +--------+ +--------+
|SIP UAC | | URI-list| |intended| |intended| |intended|
| issuer | | server | | recip. | | recip. | | recip. |
| | | | | 1 | | 2 | | 3 |
+--------+ +---------+ +--------+ +--------+ +--------+
| | | | |
| F1. SIP request | | | |
| (recipt. list) | | | |
| ---------------->| | | |
| F2. 2xx response | | | |
|<---------------- | F3. SIP request | | |
| | (recp-hist.list)| | |
| | --------------->| | |
| | F4. SIP request | | |
| | (recp-hist.list)| | |
| | -------------------------->| |
| | F5. SIP request | | |
| | (recp-hist.list)| | |
| | ------------------------------------->|
| | F6. 200 OK | | |
| |<--------------- | | |
| | F7. 200 OK | | |
| |<-------------------------- | |
| | F8. 200 OK | | |
| |<------------------------------------- |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
Figure 1: Example of operation
The URI-list mechanism allows a sender to specify multiple targets
for a SIP request by including a recipient XML resource list [7] in
the body of the SIP request. This recipient list includes the target
URIs of the SIP request (the actual procedures are method specific
and outside the scope of this document). Each target URI may also be
marked with a copy control attribute to indicate the copy level in
which the recipient is receiving the SIP request. This is achieved
by the sender qualifying each URI in the URI-list with a
'copyControl' attribute. The available values of the 'copyControl'
attribute include "to", "cc", and "bcc" (analogous to e-mail). This
is discussed in greater detailed in Section 4. When the URI-list
server expands the request to each recipient, the URI-list server
includes a recipient-history XML resource list built upon the
recipient list received from the sender. The recipient-history XML
resource list replaces the recipient list in the SIP requests
generated by the URI-list server towards each recipient. The URI-
list server copies from the recipient list those targets which are
Garcia-Martin & Camarillo Expires September 28, 2007 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Copy Control Attribute in Resource Lists March 2007
marked with the "to" and "cc" copy control level, and pastes them in
the recipient-history list. The URI-list server explicitly excludes
from the copy those URIs marked with a "bcc" copy control. When a
recipient receives the SIP request containing the recipient-history
XML resource list, he is able to determine which other visible
recipients are getting the same SIP requests, and whether they are
marked with the "to" or "cc" copy control level. Later, if needed,
the recipient can generate a reply to those visible recipients.
In addition to the 'copyControl' attribute for a URI in an XML
resource list, we define a second boolean attribute called
'anonymize'. The sender of a SIP request can mark a URI in a
recipient XML resource list with the 'anonymize' attribute to
indicate the URI-list server that the URI marked with that attribute
is to be replaced with an anonymous URI in the recipient-history XML
resource list. This provides a knowledge to recipients of a SIP
request of a number of additional recipients whose URIs have not been
disclosed.
There are cases when the sender marks several URIs with the
'anonymize' attribute. The URI-list server can group the anonymized
URIs in a single anonymized URI within its copy control level, and
provide a count of the number of anonymized URIs. To support this
scenario, we define a new 'count' attribute to a URI in the
recipient-history XML resource list. It is expected that the 'count'
attribute is only used with anonymous URIs, although syntactically it
is possible to add a 'count' attribute to any URI in any XML resource
list.
Initially, it may be thought that the 'anonymize' attribute overlaps
with the "bcc" value of the 'copyControl' attribute. However, there
are differences between them. If the sender qualifies a URI with a
'copyControl' attribute of "bcc" in the recipient XML resource list,
the URI-list server will completely remove that URI from the
recipient-history XML resource list. Recipients of the SIP request
will not notice that one or more extra URIs also received the
request. However, if the sender qualifies a URI with the 'anonymize'
attribute in the recipient XML resource list, the URI-list server
will replace the URI with an anonymous one in the recipient-history
list. Recipients of the SIP request will notice that there have been
one or more additional recipients of the same request, but their URIs
have not been disclosed.
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 a copy control
Garcia-Martin & Camarillo Expires September 28, 2007 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Copy Control Attribute in Resource Lists March 2007
attribute that qualifies a recipient with a copy control level. We
define a new 'copyControl' attribute to the <entry> element of the
resource list document format [7]. The 'copyControl' 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 'copyControl' 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 receives a blind
carbon copy of the SIP request (i.e., this URI is not disclosed in
the recipient-history list). The default 'copyControl' value is
"bcc". That is, the absence of a 'copyControl' attribute MUST be
treated as if the 'copyControl' was set to "bcc". URI-list servers
use URIs marked with the "bcc" 'copyControl' attribute to route SIP
requests, but MUST NOT include them in recipient-history lists.
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, to
anonymize the URI (i.e., making it bogus in the recipient-history XML
resource list). 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) in
recipient-history lists. The default value of the 'anonymize'
attribute is "false".
There are occasions where the URI-list server encounters the same URI
entry duplicated in a resource list, where duplicated URI entries are
tagged with the same or different values of the 'copyControl'
attribute. There are no reasonable usages that justify duplicated
URIs in resource lists, thus, this is considered an error. URI-list
servers MUST NOT send duplicated copies of the same SIP request to
the same intended recipient. In case the URI-list server encounters
the same URI entry in a resource list, it MUST send at most a single
copy of the request to that intended recipient. The URI-list server
MUST select the highest precedence value of the 'copyControl'
attribute of the duplicated entries for the same intended recipient.
The order of precedence of the values of the 'copyControl' attribute
is: "to", "cc", and "bcc". Once the URI-list server has selected a
value for the 'copyControl' attribute of an intended recipient, the
URI-list can continue processing the request.
Processing of URIs tagged with a 'copyControl' attribute set to a
"bcc" value has higher precedence over the 'anonymize' attribute.
Thus, if the 'copyControl' of a URI is set to "bcc", the URI-list
server MUST remove that URI from the recipient-history list, and the
'anonymize' attribute will be ignored. Therefore, the 'anonymize'
Garcia-Martin & Camarillo Expires September 28, 2007 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Copy Control Attribute in Resource Lists March 2007
attribute is only useful for those URIs tagged with a 'copyControl'
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, recipient lists created by UACs will not have
equal (or duplicate) URI entries, thus, it is not expected to contain
URIs tagged with 'count' attributes. However, recipient-history
lists can contain duplicated anonymized URIs, therefore, it is
expected that recipient-history lists will contain 'count'
attributes. The default value of the 'count' attribute is "1".
The 'copyControl', '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 'copyControl', 'anonymize', and
'count' attributes. Implementations according to this specification
MUST support this XML Schema.
Garcia-Martin & Camarillo Expires September 28, 2007 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Copy Control Attribute in Resource Lists March 2007
5. XML Schema
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<xs:schema targetNamespace="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:copycontrol"
xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:copycontrol"
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 copyControl, 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="copyControl">
<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 recipient 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 recipient
list contains a flat list according to the resource list data format
[7]. Each resource indicates the copy control of a resource with a
'copyControl' attribute. Some of the resources are also marked with
Garcia-Martin & Camarillo Expires September 28, 2007 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Copy Control Attribute in Resource Lists March 2007
the 'anonymize' attribute. This provides an indication to the URI-
list service for not disclosing their URIs in a recipient-history
list. The last two <entry> elements are marked with a 'copyControl'
attribute of "bcc". This provides an indication to the URI-list
server for removing these URIs in the recipient-history list.
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<resource-lists xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:resource-lists"
xmlns:cp="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:copycontrol">
<list>
<entry uri="sip:bill@example.com" cp:copyControl="to" />
<entry uri="sip:randy@example.net" cp:copyControl="to"
cp:anonymize="true"/>
<entry uri="sip:eddy@example.com" cp:copyControl="to"
cp:anonymize="true"/>
<entry uri="sip:joe@example.org" cp:copyControl="cc" />
<entry uri="sip:carol@example.net" cp:copyControl="cc"
cp:anonymize="true"/>
<entry uri="sip:ted@example.net" cp:copyControl="bcc" />
<entry uri="sip:andy@example.com" cp:copyControl="bcc" />
</list>
</resource-lists>
Figure 3: Recipient list sent from the UAC to the URI-list server
Upon receipt of the SIP request containing the recipient list of
Figure 3 the URI-list server creates a SIP request to each of the
URIs listed in the recipient list (so, in our example, it creates 7
SIP requests). The URI-list server processes the recipient list and
creates a recipient-history list that is included in each of the
outgoing SIP requests. The process is as follows: the URI-list
server creates a new recipient-history list, based on the recipient
list, but with changes. First it copies all the URIs (<entry>
elements) marked with the "to" or "cc" 'copyControl' attributes,
which do not contain an 'anonymize' attribute (or when the
'anonymize' attribute is set to "false"). Then all the URIs marked
with a 'copyControl' attribute set to "to" and 'anonymize' attribute
set to "true" are replaced with an anonymous URI, such as
"sip:anonymous@anonymous.invalid". In this entry the URI-list server
also adds the original value of the 'copyControl' attribute ("to" in
our example), and it adds a 'count' attribute containing the number
of anonymous entries in this group ("2" in our example). Then the
URI-list server does the same operation to the URIs tagged with the
'copyControl' attribute set to "cc" and 'anonymize' attribute set to
"true", adding also the 'count' attribute containing the number of
anonymous attributes in this group ("1" in the example). Last, the
URI-list server completely removes URIs marked with the "bcc"
'copyControl' attribute. The resulting recipient-history list is
Garcia-Martin & Camarillo Expires September 28, 2007 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Copy Control Attribute in Resource Lists March 2007
shown in Figure 4.
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<resource-lists xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:resource-lists"
xmlns:cp="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:copycontrol">
<list>
<entry uri="sip:bill@example.com" cp:copyControl="to" />
<entry uri="sip:anonymous@anonymous.invalid" cp:copyControl="to"
cp:count="2"/>
<entry uri="sip:joe@example.org" cp:copyControl="cc" />
<entry uri="sip:anonymous@anonymous.invalid" cp:copyControl="cc"
cp:count="1"/>
</list>
</resource-lists>
Figure 4: Recipient-history list sent from the URI-list server to
each recipient
7. Carrying URI-lists in SIP
A SIP UAC (User Agent Client) 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 that includes the intended recipients of the SIP request,
something known throughout this document as a recipient list. The
<entry> element in the URI-list MAY also include a 'copyControl' and
'anonymize' attributes, as specified in Section 4.
To be able to inform intended recipients 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, something known throughout this document as a
recipient-history list. 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 'copyControl' and 'count'
attributes, as specified in Section 4.
On sending a SIP request that contains a recipient-history list, if
the intended recipient does not support this specification, the SIP
Garcia-Martin & Camarillo Expires September 28, 2007 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Copy Control Attribute in Resource Lists March 2007
request should not fail. In order to ensure successful receipt of
the SIP requests that include 'recipient-list-history' bodies, User
Agents (such as URI-list servers) that build SIP requests with the
Content-Disposition header field set to 'recipient-list-history'
SHOULD add a 'handling' parameter [3] set to "optional". Otherwise,
the SIP request could fail and never be received by the intended
recipient.
8. 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 is sent over a secured channel, by
using any of the available SIP mechanisms, such as Transport Layer
Security (TLS) [6], or unless the URI-list body itself is encrypted
with, e.g., 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 [6] or any other suitable encryption mechanism.
Note that this URI-list does not indicate the actual participants in
the session. It indicates only the URIs invited and that might
accept the request. It does not assert that these parties actually
exist, that they are reachable at the given URI, or that they have
accepted the invitation. No inferences about billing should be made
from this information. It is subject to spoofing by loading the list
with falsified content.
9. IANA Considerations
The following sections instruct the IANA to register: a new
disposition type, a new XML namespace, and a new XML schema.
Garcia-Martin & Camarillo Expires September 28, 2007 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Copy Control Attribute in Resource Lists March 2007
9.1. 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:
+------------------------+------------------------------+-----------+
| 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.
9.2. XML Namespace Registration
This section registers a new XML namespace in the IANA XML registry,
as per the guidelines in RFC 3688 [5].
URI: The URI for this namespace is urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:copycontrol
Registrant Contact: IETF, SIPPING working group, (sipping@ietf.org),
Miguel Garcia-Martin (miguel.an.garcia@nokia.com).
XML:
Garcia-Martin & Camarillo Expires September 28, 2007 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Copy Control Attribute in Resource Lists March 2007
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>Copy Control Namespace</title>
</head>
<body>
<h1>Namespace for the Copy Control Attribute Extension
in Resource Lists</h1>
<h2>urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:copycontrol</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
9.3. XML Schema Registration
This section registers a new XML schema in the IANA XML registry per
the procedures in RFC 3688 [5].
URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:schema:copycontrol
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.
10. Acknowledgements
Thanks to Dean Willis, Jari Urpalainen, Pekka Kuure, Atsushi Sato,
Brian Rosen, Mary Barnes, and James Polk for reviewing this document
and providing helpful comments.
11. References
Garcia-Martin & Camarillo Expires September 28, 2007 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Copy Control Attribute in Resource Lists March 2007
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] 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.
[4] 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.
[5] Mealling, M., "The IETF XML Registry", BCP 81, RFC 3688,
January 2004.
[6] Dierks, T. and E. Rescorla, "The Transport Layer Security (TLS)
Protocol Version 1.1", RFC 4346, April 2006.
[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.
[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-06 (work in progress),
September 2006.
11.2. Informational References
[10] Camarillo, G. and A. Johnston, "Conference Establishment Using
Request-Contained Lists in the Session Initiation Protocol
(SIP)", draft-ietf-sip-uri-list-conferencing-01 (work in
progress), January 2007.
[11] Garcia-Martin, M. and G. Camarillo, "Multiple-Recipient MESSAGE
Requests in the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)",
draft-ietf-sip-uri-list-message-01 (work in progress),
Garcia-Martin & Camarillo Expires September 28, 2007 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft Copy Control Attribute in Resource Lists March 2007
January 2007.
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
Garcia-Martin & Camarillo Expires September 28, 2007 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft Copy Control Attribute in Resource Lists March 2007
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).
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, THE IETF TRUST 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 provided by the IETF
Administrative Support Activity (IASA).
Garcia-Martin & Camarillo Expires September 28, 2007 [Page 17]
