Network Working Group K. Kiss
Internet-Draft E. Leppanen
Expires: August 25, 2003 H. Khartabil
Nokia
February 24, 2003
Requirements for Filtering of Watcher Information
draft-kiss-simple-winfo-filter-reqs-00
Status of this Memo
This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003). All Rights Reserved.
Abstract
This document defines a set of structured requirements whereby a
watcher information subscriber (client) may select specific
information to be received in the watcherinfo notification sent by
the notifier (server). The purpose is to limit the content so that
only essential information is delivered by the server.
Also the preference for full or partial state information is
considered in requirements.
Internet-Draft Expires: August 25, 2003 [Page 1]
Kiss et al. Winfo filtering requirements February 2003
Table of Contents
1 Introduction 3
2 Conventions used in this document 3
3.1 Common syntax 3
3.2 Package Identification 3
3.3 Target URI 3
3.4 Notification Content Limiting 3
3.4.1 Logical Expressions 4
3.4.2 Status 4
3.4.3 Event causing the transition 4
3.4.4 Expiration 4
3.4.5 Duration of subscription 4
3.4.6 Selected watchers 4
3.4.7 Partial or full state 4
4.1 SUBSCRIBE method 4
4.1.1 Retention of filter settings 5
4.1.2 Changing filter settings 5
4.2 Server does not support filters 5
4.3 Server does not support filter settings 5
4.4 Server can no longer support filter settings 5
5 Security considerations 5
6 Example Applications for Notification Filtering 5
7 Acknowledgements 6
8 Normative References 6
9 Informative References 6
10 Author's Addresses 6
1 Introduction
SIP event notification is described in [2]. It defines a general
framework for subscriptions and notifications for SIP event packages.
Concrete applications of the general event framework to a specific
group of events are described in [3] (user presence) and [4] (watcher
information).
The watcher information refers to the set of users subscribed to a
particular resource within a particular event package. Watcher
information changes dynamically as users subscribe, unsubscribe, are
approved, or rejected. A client can subscribe to this information.
As the inherent usage of event packages grows, the client needs some
mechanisms for controlling the event notifications at the source.
Evidence of this need is found in [6].
The Internet Draft describing the watcher information template
package [4] mentions the possibility for filtering. Accordingly, the
SUBSCRIBE request may contain a body for filtering the watcher
information subscription. However, the definition of filtering has
been left out of the scope of the Internet Draft. As an example, the
body of the SUBSCRIBE request may include an indication whether the
notifications should contain partial or full state information.
Internet-Draft Expires: August 25, 2003 [Page 2]
Kiss et al. Winfo filtering requirements February 2003
These mechanisms are expected to be particularly valuable to users of
wireless devices. The characteristics of these devices typically
include low bandwidth, low data processing capabilities, small
display and limited battery power. Such devices can benefit from the
ability to filter the amount of information generated at the source
of the event notification.
However, it is expected that the control mechanisms for event
notifications add value for all users irrespectively of their device
or network access characteristics.
Sections 3 and 4 of this draft propose a set of requirements whereby
a client may specify which notifications it is interested in. That
is, a means to specify filtering rules to be executed by the server.
Section 6 provides a few example applications of notification
filtering.
2 Conventions used in this document
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 RFC 2119 [5].
3 Requirements for Specification of Filters
The following requirements relate to the creation of filters (rules).
3.1 Common syntax
A common set of constructs MUST be defined for the creation of rules.
There MUST be a common set of operations that follow a common syntax.
The client MUST be possible to define different rules for different
purposes using a common filtering mechanism.
3.2 Package Identification
A means is REQUIRED whereby the client may specify the package the
rules apply to.
3.3 Target URI
It MUST be possible for the client to indicate the target user to
which a certain filter criteria is applied.
3.4 Notification Content Limiting
This chapter presents requirements for specifying the content to be
sent in the notifications.
It MUST be possible for the client to specify the watcher XML
elements [5] to be delivered in the notification.
Internet-Draft Expires: August 25, 2003 [Page 3]
Kiss et al. Winfo filtering requirements February 2003
3.4.1 Logical Expressions
It MUST be possible to specify logical expressions based on the value
of elements defined in the template-package for the purpose of
determining what to send in the notification.
It MUST be possible to construct expressions that combine multiple
tests.
3.4.2 Status
The client MUST be able to indicate to the server to include only
those watchers in the notifications which are in a specific status.
3.4.3 Event causing the transition
The client MUST be able to indicate to the server to include only
those watchers in the notifications which are transitioned in their
current status because of a specific event.
3.4.4 Expiration
The client MUST be able to indicate to the server to include only
those watchers in the notifications which have subscription lifetime
higher than (less than) a specific amount of seconds.
3.4.5 Duration of subscription
The client MUST be able to indicate to the server to include only
those watchers in the notifications which are subscribed for a
duration higher than (less than) a specific amount of seconds.
3.4.6 Selected watchers
The client MUST be able to indicate to the server to include only
certain watchers (e.g. watchers from a particular domain, specific
watchers defined by the filters) in the notifications.
3.4.7 Partial or full state
It MUST be possible for the client to be able to select whether full
or partial state of the watcher information is delivered.
4 Requirements for uploading rules (Operational Rules)
It MUST be possible for the client to upload the rules to the server
and know the status - accepted or rejected.
4.1 SUBSCRIBE method
Placing filtering rules in the body of the subscription MUST be
supported.
Internet-Draft Expires: August 25, 2003 [Page 4]
Kiss et al. Winfo filtering requirements February 2003
4.1.1 Retention of filter settings
The server MUST retain the uploaded filter setting for the duration
of the subscription.
4.1.2 Changing filter settings
It MUST be possible to change the filter settings during a
subscription.
It MUST be possible for the client to reset the filter settings to
the service (server) defined default.
4.2 Server does not support filters
If the server does not support filters (the content type) then it
MUST be able to indicate so in a response.
4.3 Server does not support filter settings
If the server does not support or understand the filter settings, it
MUST explicitly indicate so in a response to the SUBSCRIBE request
or in the NOTIFY request.
The server MAY indicate the general reason the request is not
supported or understood, e.g. by returning a specific reason value
for the event.
4.4 Server can no longer support filter settings
The server MUST be able to terminate the subscription if the active
filter is no longer applicable due to a policy in the server.
5 Security considerations
Further security requirements over [3] have not yet been identified.
6 Example Applications for Notification Filtering
* A presentity wishes to see who has subscribed to their presence.
The presentity only wishes to see information for subscribers who
are co-workers.
* A presentity makes subscription to get information about active
watchers.
* A presentity makes subscription to get information about
defined, new or unauthorised watchers.
* A presentity requests history information of watchers.
* A user requests full state information every time something
changes.
Internet-Draft Expires: August 25, 2003 [Page 5]
Kiss et al. Winfo filtering requirements February 2003
7 Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Jonathan Rosenberg, Tim Moran and
Juha Kalliokulju for their valuable input.
8 Normative References
[1] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement
Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997
9 Informative References
[2] Roach, A., "Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)-Specific Event
Notification", RFC 3265, June 2002
[3] Rosenberg, J., "A Presence Event package for the Session
Initiation Protocol (SIP)", draft-ietf-simple-presence-10, Internet
Draft, January 2003, work in progress
[4] Rosenberg, J., "A Watcher Information Event Template-Package for
the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)",
draft-ietf-simple-winfo-package-05, Internet Draft, January 2003,
work in progress
[5] Rosenberg, J., "An Extensible Markup Language (XML) Based Format
for Watcher Information", draft-ietf-simple-winfo-format-04,
Internet Draft, January 2003, work in progress
[6] Kiss, K., "Requirements for Presence Service in 3GPP Wireless
Systems", draft-kiss-simple-presence-wireless-reqs-02.txt,
February 2003
10 Author's Addresses
Krisztian Kiss
Nokia
P.O. Box 100
FIN-33721 Tampere
FINLAND
Tel: +358 50 4835363
E-mail: krisztian.kiss@nokia.com
Eva Leppanen
Nokia
P.O Box 785
FIN-33101 Tampere
FINLAND
Tel: +358 7180 77066
E-mail: eva-maria.leppanen@nokia.com
Internet-Draft Expires: August 25, 2003 [Page 6]
Kiss et al. Winfo filtering requirements February 2003
Hisham Khartabil
Nokia
P.O. Box 321
FIN-00045 NOKIA GROUP
FINLAND
Tel: + 358 7180 76161
E-mail: hisham.khartabil@nokia.com
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003). All Rights Reserved.
This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published
and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any
kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph
are included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this
document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of
developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for
copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be
followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than
English.
The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.
This document and the information contained herein is provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING
TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING
BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION
HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Acknowledgement
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society.
Internet-Draft Expires: August 25, 2003 [Page 7]