SPEERMINT WG A. Houri
Internet-Draft IBM
Intended status: Informational E. Aoki
Expires: May 19, 2008 AOL LLC
S. Parameswar
Microsoft Corporation
November 16, 2007
Presence & Instant Messaging Peering Use Cases
draft-ietf-speermint-consolidated-presence-im-usecases-03.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 May 19, 2008.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).
Abstract
The document describes several use cases of peering of non-VoIP
services between two or more Service Providers (SP). These Service
Providers create a peering relationship between themselves thus
enabling their users to collaborate with users on the other Service
Provider network. The target of the document is to drive
Houri, et al. Expires May 19, 2008 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Presence & IM Peering Use Cases November 2007
requirements for peering between domains that provide the non-VoIP
based collaboration services and presence and Instant Messaging (IM)
in particular.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Use Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1. Simple Interdomain Subscription . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.2. List Based Interdomain Subscription . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.3. Authorization Migration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.4. Page Mode IM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.5. Session Based IM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.6. Other Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.7. Federation & Clearing House . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 9
Houri, et al. Expires May 19, 2008 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Presence & IM Peering Use Cases November 2007
1. Introduction
The document uses the terminology as defined in [2] unless otherwise
stated.
Real Time Collaboration (RTC) services become as prevalent and
essential for users on the Internet as email. While RTC services can
be implemented directly by users in a point-to-point fashion, they
are often provided for or on behalf of a Peer Network 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 Peer Network but with those in other Peer Networks as well
(similar to the old PSTN that enabled global readability). In
practice, each Peer Network is controlled by some domain, and so
there is a need to provide for easier establishment of connectivity
between Peer Networks, and the management of the relationships
between the Peer Networks. This document describes a set of use
cases that describe how peering between Peer Networks may be used in
non Voice over IP (VoIP) Real Time Collaboration (RTC) services. The
use cases are intended to help in identifying and capturing
requirements that will guide and then enable a secure and easier
peering between Peer Networks that provide non-VoIP RTC services.
The use cases for the VoIP RTC services are described in [3].
2. Use Cases
2.1. Simple Interdomain Subscription
Assume two Peer Networks, Peer Network A and Peer Network B. User
Alice@example.com wants to subscribe to user Bob@example.net and get
his presence information. In order to do so, Alice@example.com could
connect directly to example.net and subscribe to Bob's presence
information. However, Peer Network B is willing to accept
subscriptions and route IMs only when they are coming from its users
or 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 to Bob via 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.
2.2. List Based Interdomain Subscription
This is similar to the simple interdomain subscription use case
except that in this case Alice subscribes to a Uniform Resource
Identifier (URI) [10] that represents a list of users in Peer Network
B [11] [4]
Houri, et al. Expires May 19, 2008 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Presence & IM Peering Use Cases November 2007
There are several types of lists that Alice may subscribe to:
o Personal group - A list that was created and maintained by Alice
and includes Alice's watch list.
o Public group - A list that is created and maintained by an
administrator and is typically referred to as a public group.
Public groups usually contains a list of specific people that have
some common characteristic e.g. support group of a company.
o Ad-hock group - A list that is short lived and is usually created
in a context of some activity that Alice is doing. A public group
may be created by Alice or by some application. Typical examples
may be the list of people that participate with Alice in a
conference or a game.
2.3. Authorization Migration
If many users from one Peer Network watch presentities [7] in another
Peer Network, it may be possible that many watchers [7] from one Peer
Network will subscribe to the same user in the other Peer Network.
However, due to privacy constraints that enable a user to provide
different presence documents to different watchers, each Peer Network
will have to send multiple copies of the watched presence document.
The need to send multiple copies between the Peer Networks is very
inefficient and causes redundant traffic between the Peer Networks.
In order to make the subscription between Peer Networks more
efficient there needs to be a way to enable Peer Networks to agree to
share privacy information between them. This will enable sending a
single copy (the full copy) of the presence document of the watched
user and letting the receiving Peer Network to be responsible for
sending the right values to the right watchers according to the
delegated privacy policies of the watched users.
Instead of sharing watcher's privacy policies between the Peer
Networks, it is also possible to send different copies of the
presence document with a list of the watchers that the presence
document is intended for. For example, if there is a set of watchers
in the other Peer Network that may see the location of the presentity
and another set of users in the other Peer Network that may not see
the location information, two presence documents will be sent, each
one is associated with a list of watchers that should receive it.
One presence document will contain the location information and will
be associated with a list of users that may see it and the other
presence document will not contain the location information and will
be associated with a list of users that may not see the location
information.
Houri, et al. Expires May 19, 2008 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Presence & IM Peering Use Cases November 2007
2.4. Page Mode IM
In this use case a user from one Peer Network sends a page mode [9]
IM to a user on another Peer Network.
2.5. Session Based IM
In this use case a user from one Peer Network creates a Message
Session Relay Protocol (MSRP) [12] session with a user from another
Peer Network.
2.6. Other Services
In addition to VoIP sessions which are out of scope for this document
only presence and IM have been fully standardized (became RFCs). In
addition to presence and IM, 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 textual chat that will
include users from multiple Peer Networks. See [5] for more
details.
o File transfer - Send files from a user in one Peer Network to a
user in another Peer Network. See [6] for more details.
o Document sharing - Sharing and editing a document between users in
different Peer Networks.
Note: Document sharing is mentioned in this document only for
completeness of use cases. It is not being standardized by the
IETF and will not be included the requirements draft that will
result from this document.
The list above is of course not exhaustive as new developments in the
world of non-VOIP RTC will surface new services. Enabling peering
between networks for some of the services will create a basis for
enabling peering also for future services.
2.7. Federation & Clearing House
Federation as defined in [2] enables peering between multiple Peer
Networks. A federation may be implemented by means of a central
service providing a hub for the Peer Networks or, alternatively, Peer
Networks may connect each other via a peer-to-peer fashion. One of
the most important services that this type of federation should
provide is authorized interconnection that enables each Peering
Network to trust that the other Peering Network is who it claims to
be. Other services that might be provided include an N-way chat
server, lawful interception, logging and more. This type of
Houri, et al. Expires May 19, 2008 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Presence & IM Peering Use Cases November 2007
federation is also known as a "Clearing House".
As non-VoIP services are usually text-based and consume less
bandwidth, they may benefit from having a central service that will
do central services such as logging for them. For example, instead
of requiring each Peer Network to log all messages that are being
sent to the other Peer-Network, this service can be done by the
Clearing House.
3. IANA Considerations
This document has no actions for IANA.
4. Security Considerations
When Peer Network A peers with Peer Network B, there are several
security issues that the administrator of each Peer Network will need
mechanisms to verify:
o The other Peer Network is really the Peering Network that it
claims to be.
o The other Peer Network is secure and trustful such that
information that is passed to will not reach a third party.
o If there is a third party (e.g. a clearing house) involved in the
connection between the two Peering Networks that element is also
verified to be secure.
The same issues of security are even more important from the point of
view of the users of the Peer Networks. Users will have the concern
on how their privacy is being adhered to when their presence
information is being sent to the other Peer Network. We are seeing
today users are concerned with providing their email address to a
third party when they register to a domain. Presence contains much
more sensitive information and the concerns of the users here will be
much deeper.
The privacy issue is even harder if we take into account that in
order to enable scalable peering between big Peer Networks there are
some optimizations that may require migration of the privacy
definitions of users between Peer Network See Section 2.3. We can
imagine the fiasco if a user of one Peer Network will be able to see
the privacy information and will learn he/she are listed in a block
list of a close friend.
This document discusses use cases for peering between Peer Networks
and it is out of scope for the document to provide solutions for
Houri, et al. Expires May 19, 2008 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Presence & IM Peering Use Cases November 2007
security. Nevertheless, it is obvious that the protocols that will
enable the use cases that are described here will have to provide for
the security considerations described here.
5. Acknowledgments
We would like to thank Jonathan Rosenberg, Jon Peterson, Rohan Mahy,
Jason Livingood, Alexander Mayhorfer, Henry Sinnreich and Mohamed
Boucadir for their valuable input.
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] Malas, D. and D. Meyer, "SPEERMINT Terminology",
draft-ietf-speermint-terminology-13 (work in progress),
November 2007.
[3] Uzelac, A., "VoIP SIP Peering Use Cases",
draft-ietf-speermint-voip-consolidated-usecases-03 (work in
progress), November 2007.
[4] 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-07 (work in progress),
November 2007.
[5] Niemi, A. and M. Garcia-Martin, "Multi-party Instant Message
(IM) Sessions Using the Message Session Relay Protocol
(MSRP)", draft-ietf-simple-chat-00 (work in progress),
June 2007.
[6] Garcia-Martin, M., Isomaki, M., Camarillo, G., and S. Loreto,
"A Session Description Protocol (SDP) Offer/Answer Mechanism to
Enable File Transfer", draft-ietf-mmusic-file-transfer-mech-04
(work in progress), October 2007.
[7] Day, M., Rosenberg, J., and H. Sugano, "A Model for Presence
and Instant Messaging", RFC 2778, February 2000.
Houri, et al. Expires May 19, 2008 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Presence & IM Peering Use Cases November 2007
[8] Roach, A., "Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)-Specific Event
Notification", RFC 3265, June 2002.
[9] Campbell, B., Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., Huitema, C., and
D. Gurle, "Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Extension for
Instant Messaging", RFC 3428, December 2002.
[10] Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform
Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax", STD 66, RFC 3986,
January 2005.
[11] Roach, A., Campbell, B., and J. Rosenberg, "A Session
Initiation Protocol (SIP) Event Notification Extension for
Resource Lists", RFC 4662, August 2006.
[12] Campbell, B., "The Message Session Relay Protocol",
draft-ietf-simple-message-sessions-19 (work in progress),
February 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 May 19, 2008 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Presence & IM Peering Use Cases November 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 May 19, 2008 [Page 9]
