SPEERMINT WG A. Houri
Internet-Draft IBM
Intended status: Standards Track E. Aoki
Expires: November 10, 2007 AOL LLC
S. Parameswar
Microsoft Corporation
May 9, 2007
Presence & IM Use Cases
draft-ietf-speermint-consolidated-presence-im-usecases-01.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 November 10, 2007.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).
Houri, et al. Expires November 10, 2007 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Presence & IM Use Cases May 2007
Abstract
The document describes several use cases of peering between two or
more service providers that provide none VOIP based collaboration
services and presence and IM in particular. These service providers
create a peering relationship between themselves thus enabling their
users to collaborate with users on other communities. The target of
the document is to drive requirements for peering between domains
that provide the none VOIP based collaboration services.
Table of Contents
1. Requirements notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Use Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1. Simple Interdomain Subscription . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2. List Interdomain Subscription . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.3. Authorization Migration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.4. Page mode IM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.5. Session based IM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.6. Other services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.7. Federation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 12
Houri, et al. Expires November 10, 2007 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Presence & IM Use Cases May 2007
1. Requirements notation
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 [1].
Houri, et al. Expires November 10, 2007 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Presence & IM Use Cases May 2007
2. Introduction
Real Time Collaboration (RTC) services are becoming as prevalent and
essential for users on the Internet as email. While RTC services
can, like email, be implemented directly by users in a point-to-point
fashion, they are often provided for or on behalf of a community of
users within an administrative domain. As the use of these services
grows, users increasingly have the need to communicate with users not
only within their own community but with those in other communities
as well. In practice, each community is controlled by some
authority, and so there is a need to provide for easier establishment
of connectivity between communities, and the management of the inter-
community link. This document contains a set of use cases that
describe how peering between communities may be used in none VOIP RTC
services. The use cases are intended to help in creating
requirements that will enable more secure and easier peering between
communities that provide none VOIP RTC services.
This document will use the terminology as defined in [2] unless
otherwise is stated.
The following sections provide several use cases followed by a
discussion on what these use cases may imply regarding the
functionalities that need to be provided for in order to implement
those use cases
Houri, et al. Expires November 10, 2007 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Presence & IM Use Cases May 2007
3. Use Cases
3.1. Simple Interdomain Subscription
Assume that we have two peer networks [2], peer network A and peer
network B. User Alice@A.com wants to subscribe to user Bob@B.com and
get his presence information. In order to do so, Alice@A.com may
connect directly to B.com and subscribe to Bob's presence
information. However, peer network B is not willing to support
subscriptions from any user in the network and is willing only to
support its users and users that are coming from other peer networks
that peer network B trusts.
In reality what will happen is that peer network A will connect to
peer network B and will send Alice's subscription on Bob to peer
network B. When peer network B has new information on Bob it will
send notifications to peer network A that will pass them to Alice.
3.2. List Interdomain Subscription
This is the same as the simple interdomain subscription use case but
in this case Alice subscribes to a URI that represents a list of
users in peer network B [3]
There are two sub use cases here. One use case is when the list that
Alice subscribes to is a list that is configured by e.g. the
administrator and it is used to host the names of a group of specifc
people e.g. the support group of a company. The other usage is a
private group of Alice's friends and the reason that Alice will be
using the list instead of doing separate subscriptions is to save on
the number of the SUBSCRIBE sessions.
3.3. Authorization Migration
if many users from one peering network watch presentities in another
peering network, it may be possible that many watchers from one
peering network will subscribe to the same user in the peering
network. However, due to privacy constraints, each peering network
will have to send multiple copies of the watched presence document.
The privacy constraints enable a user to provide different persence
document to e.g. friends, co-workers etc. The need to send multiple
copies between the peering networks is very inefficient and causes
redundant traffic between the peering networks.
In order to make the subscription between peering networks more
efficient there needs to be a way to enable peering networks to agree
to share privacy information between them. This will enabble sending
a single copy (the full copy) of the presence document of of the
Houri, et al. Expires November 10, 2007 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Presence & IM Use Cases May 2007
watched user and letting the receiving peering network to be
responsible to send the right values to the right watchers according
to the privacy definitions of the watched user that were delegated to
it from the peering network where the watched user resides.
Instead of sharin privacy between the communities, it is also
possible to send different copies of the presence document with a
list of the watchers that the presence document is intended to. For
exeample, if there is a set of watchers in the other community that
may see the location of the presentity and another set of users in
the other community that may not see the location informaiton, two
presence documents will be sent, each one associaed with a list of
users that should get it. One presence doucment will contain the
location infomrmation and will be associated with a list of users
that may see it and the otehr presence document will not contain the
location information and will be associated with a list of users that
may not see the location information.
3.4. Page mode IM
In this use case a user from one peer network sends a page mode [4]
IM to a user on another peer network. As with subscription, the
message will pass between the users through the SBEs [2] of the peer
networks.
3.5. Session based IM
In this use case a user from one peer network creates an MSRP [5]
session with a user from another peer network. The session
establishment and the messages will pass between the users through
the SBEs [2] of the peer networks.
3.6. Other services
In addition to VOIP sessions which are out of scope for this document
only presence and IM are more or less fully standardized. However
there are many other services that are being standardized or may be
implemented using minimal extensions to existing standards. These
include:
o N-way chat - Enable a multi participant chat that will include
users from many peer networks.
o File transfer - Send files from a user in one peer network to a
user in another peer network.
o Document sharing - Sharing and editing a document between users in
different peer networks. Note that document sharing is included
Houri, et al. Expires November 10, 2007 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Presence & IM Use Cases May 2007
in this document more
There are many more collaboration services that can be thought about.
Enabling peering between networks for some of the services will
create a basis for defining many more services
3.7. Federation
Federation as defined in [2] is a use case also in real time
collaboration.
The none VOIP collaboration features as presence, IM and chat rooms
may benefit even more then VOIP services from federation.
Collaboration by its definition is something that is stronger where
there many more parties collaborating and federation is certainly a
good way to achieve greater collaboration.
Additional "side" services as security, lawful interception, logging
and more may be provided to the peer networks that are members of the
federation.
Note that federation is also known as clearing house in the real time
collaboration industry.
Houri, et al. Expires November 10, 2007 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Presence & IM Use Cases May 2007
4. Security Considerations
This document discusses use cases for peering between communities.
It is very clear that the protocols that will enable and make such
peering easier will have significant security considerations, there
are out of scope for a use case document.
Houri, et al. Expires November 10, 2007 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Presence & IM Use Cases May 2007
5. Acknowledgments
We would like to thank Jonathan Rosenberg and Roahn Mahy for their
input.
Houri, et al. Expires November 10, 2007 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Presence & IM Use Cases May 2007
6. References
6.1. Normative References
[1] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement
Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
6.2. Informative References
[2] Meyer, D., "SPEERMINT Terminology",
draft-ietf-speermint-terminology-06 (work in progress),
September 2006.
[3] Roach, A., Campbell, B., and J. Rosenberg, "A Session Initiation
Protocol (SIP) Event Notification Extension for Resource Lists",
RFC 4662, August 2006.
[4] Campbell, B., Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., Huitema, C., and
D. Gurle, "Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Extension for
Instant Messaging", RFC 3428, December 2002.
[5] Campbell, B., "The Message Session Relay Protocol",
draft-ietf-simple-message-sessions-19 (work in progress),
February 2007.
Houri, et al. Expires November 10, 2007 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Presence & IM Use Cases May 2007
Authors' Addresses
Avshalom Houri
IBM
Science Park Building 18/D
Rehovot,
Israel
Email: avshalom@il.ibm.com
Edwin Aoki
AOL LLC
360 W. Caribbean Drive
Sunnyvale, CA 94089
USA
Email: aoki@aol.net
Sriram Parameswar
Microsoft Corporation
One Microsoft Way
Redmond, WA 98052
USA
Email: Sriram.Parameswar@microsoft.com
Houri, et al. Expires November 10, 2007 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Presence & IM Use Cases May 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).
Houri, et al. Expires November 10, 2007 [Page 12]
