Network Working Group A. Melnikov
Internet-Draft Isode Limited
Intended status: Standards Track H. Schulzrinne
Expires: August 20, 2008 Columbia U.
Q. Sun
Huawei Technologies
February 17, 2008
Sieve Notification Mechanism: SIP MESSAGE
draft-melnikov-sieve-notify-sip-message-01
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 20, 2008.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008).
Abstract
This document describes a profile of the Sieve extension for
notifications, to allow notifications to be sent over the SIP
MESSAGE.
Melnikov, et al. Expires August 20, 2008 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Sieve Notification: SIP MESSAGE February 2008
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 [RFC2119].
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1. Notify parameter "method" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.2. Notify tag ":from" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.3. Notify tag ":options" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.4. Notify tag ":importance" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.5. Notify tag ":message" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.6. Other Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.7. Test notify_method_capability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. Requirements Conformance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
8. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . 10
Melnikov, et al. Expires August 20, 2008 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Sieve Notification: SIP MESSAGE February 2008
1. Introduction
1.1. Overview
The NOTIFY [NOTIFY] extension to the SIEVE [SIEVE] mail filtering
language is a framework for providing notifications by employing URIs
to specify the notification mechanism. This document defines how SIP
URIs (see RFC 3261 [SIP]) are used to generate notifications via the
SIP MESSAGE (see RFC 3428 [RFC3428]).
1.2. Terminology
This document inherits terminology from NOTIFY [NOTIFY], SIEVE
[SIEVE], and RFC 3261 [SIP].
2. Definition
The sip message mechanism results in the sending of a SIP MESSAGE
request to notify a recipient about an email message.
2.1. Notify parameter "method"
The "method" parameter MUST be a URI that conforms to the SIP (or
SIPS) URI scheme (as specified in RFC 3261 [SIP]) and that identifies
a SIP (or SIPS) recipient of the notification. The URI MAY include
the resource identifier portion of a SIP address and URI parameters.
The URI parameter "method" MUST be ignored, because only the MESSAGE
method is allowed by this specification. The processing application
MUST extract a SIP address from the URI in accordance with the
processing rules specified in RFC 3261 [SIP]. The resulting SIP
address MUST be encapsulated in SIP URI syntax as Request-URI and the
value of the "To" header field of the SIP MESSAGE request.
2.2. Notify tag ":from"
The value of the ":from" tag MUST use the SIP "Reply-To" syntax; if
the :from value is specified and has valid syntax, the notification
MUST include the "Reply-To" SIP header field containing the value of
the :from notify tag. If the value has invalid syntax, this is
considered a Sieve script processing error. [[anchor6: Should the
value be ignored instead?]]
2.3. Notify tag ":options"
Handling of the ":options" tag is implementation specific. This
document doesn't require presence of any option and doesn't define
how options are processed.
Melnikov, et al. Expires August 20, 2008 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Sieve Notification: SIP MESSAGE February 2008
2.4. Notify tag ":importance"
The value of the ":importance" tag MAY be transformed into SIP
"Priority" header field (in addition to or instead of including in
the default message); if specified, the value of the "Priority"
header field MUST be "urgent" if the value of the ":importance" tag
is "1", "normal" if the value of the ":importance" tag is "2", or
"non-urgent" if the value of the ":importance" tag is "3".
2.5. Notify tag ":message"
If included, the ":message" tag MUST be transformed into the message-
body of a SIP MESSAGE, which MUST have Content-Type value of "text/
plain" with CHARSET="UTF-8". [[anchor10: Should application/
sieve-notification+xml Content type from draft-mahy-sieve-notify-sip
be used instead?]] If not included, the default message body SHOULD
contain values of the "From" and "Subject" header fields of the
triggering email message (and MAY include the value of the
":importance" tag, if one is specified), as shown in one of the
examples below.
2.6. Other Definitions
The value of the SIP "From" header field specified in the SIP
notification message MUST be the SIP address of the notification
service itself.
An implementation MUST ignore any URI parameter it does not
understand (i.e., the URI MUST be processed as if the parameter were
not present). It is RECOMMENDED not to use the hname "body"
parameter value as the message-body of the SIP MESSAGE request. If
hname "body" parameter and ":message" tag are present at the same
time, the "body" parameter MUST be ignored.[[anchor11: Any other SIP
URI parameters that should be used?]]
The policy of retry delivery of a notification is a matter of
implementation and is not specified herein. But it SHOULD follow the
suggestion for retry in RFC 3261 [SIP].
2.7. Test notify_method_capability
The notify_method_capability test for "online" may return "yes" or
"no" only if the Sieve processor can determine with certainty whether
or not the recipient of the notification message is can receive the
notification immediately. Otherwise, the test returns "maybe" for
this notification method. [[anchor12: Add some specific details
regarding determining online status of the recipient. Also need to
add some text about presence leak?]]
Melnikov, et al. Expires August 20, 2008 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Sieve Notification: SIP MESSAGE February 2008
3. Examples
In the following examples, the sender of the email has an address of
juliet@example.org, the entity to be notified has a SIP address of
<sip:romeo@example.com>, and the notification service has a SIP
address <sip:notifier@example.com>.
The following is a basic Sieve notify action with only a method:
notify "sip:romeo@example.com"
The resulting SIP MESSAGE request might be as follows:
MESSAGE sip:romeo@example.com SIP/2.0
Via: SIP/2.0/TCP notifier.example.com;branch=z9hG4bK776sgdkse
Max-Forwards: 70
From: sip:notifier@example.com;tag=32328
To: sip:romeo@example.com
Call-ID: asd88asd77a@1.2.3.4
CSeq: 1 MESSAGE
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Length: 53
<juliet@example.com> wrote: Contact me immediately!
In the example above the email message was received from
juliet@example.com and had "Subject: Contact me immediately!"
The following is a more advanced Sieve notify action with a method,
importance, subject, and message:
Melnikov, et al. Expires August 20, 2008 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Sieve Notification: SIP MESSAGE February 2008
notify :importance "1"
:message "You got new mail!"
"sip:romeo@example.com?subject=SIEVE"
MESSAGE sip:romeo@example.com SIP/2.0
Via: SIP/2.0/TCP notifier.example.com;branch=z9hG4bK776sgdkse
Max-Forwards: 70
From: sip:notifier@example.com;tag=32328
To: sip:romeo@example.com
Subject: SIEVE
Priority: urgent
Call-ID: asd88asd77a@1.2.3.4
CSeq: 1 MESSAGE
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Length: 19
You got new mail!
4. Requirements Conformance
Section 3.8 of [NOTIFY] specifies a set of requirements for Sieve
notification methods. The conformance of the SIP MESSAGE
notification mechanism is provided here.[[anchor15: This section
needs more work.]]
1. An implementation of the SIP MESSAGE notification method SHOULD
NOT modify the final notification text (e.g., to limit the
length); however, a given deployment MAY do so. Modification of
characters themselves should not be necessary, since SIP MESSAGE
body is encoded in UTF-8 [RFC3629].
2. An implementation MAY ignore parameters specified in the
":importance", and ":options" tags.
3. If not included, the default message body SHOULD contain values
of the "From" and "Subject" header fields of the triggering
email message (and MAY include the value of the ":importance"
tag, if one is specified), as shown in one of the examples
below.
4. A notification sent via the SIP message notification method MAY
include a timestamp in the textual message. [[anchor16: Should
the SIP Date header field be used for timestamp instead?]]
5. The value of the SIP "From" header field MUST be the SIP address
of the notification service associated with the SIEVE engine.
6. The value of the Sieve ":from" tag MUST be transformed into the
value of an SIP "Reply-To" header field.
7. The value of the SIP "To" header field MUST be the SIP address
specified in the SIP URI contained in the "method" parameter.
Melnikov, et al. Expires August 20, 2008 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Sieve Notification: SIP MESSAGE February 2008
8. An implementation MUST ignore any URI parameters it does not
understand (i.e., the URI MUST be processed as if the action or
parameter were not present). See Section 2.6 for more details.
9. An implementation MUST NOT include any other extraneous
information not specified in parameters to the notify action.
10. The notify_method_capability test for the "online" notification-
capability behaves as described in Section 2.7.
5. Security Considerations
[[anchor17: TBD]]
Depending on the information included, sending a notification can be
comparable to forwarding mail to the notification recipient. Care
must be taken when forwarding mail automatically, to ensure that
confidential information is not sent into an insecure environment or
over an insecure channel.
UAs that support the MESSAGE request MUST implement end-to-end
authentication, body integrity, and body confidentiality mechanisms.
Other security considerations given in [NOTIFY], [SIEVE] and [SIP]
are also relevant to this document.
6. IANA Considerations
The following template provides the IANA registration of the Sieve
notification mechanism specified in this document:
To: iana@iana.org
Subject: Registration of new Sieve notification mechanism
Mechanism name: sip-message
Mechanism URI: RFC 3261 [SIP]
Mechanism-specific options: none
Standards Track/IESG-approved experimental RFC number: [RFC XXXX]
Person and email address to contact for further information:
See authors of [RFC XXXX]
This information should be added to the list of Sieve notification
mechanisms maintained at
<http://www.iana.org/assignments/sieve-notification>.
7. Acknowledgements
This document borrows some text from draft-ietf-sieve-notify-xmpp.
Melnikov, et al. Expires August 20, 2008 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Sieve Notification: SIP MESSAGE February 2008
8. Normative References
[NOTIFY] Melnikov, A., Ed., Leiba, B., Ed., Segmuller, W., and T.
Martin, "Sieve Extension: Notifications",
draft-ietf-sieve-notify-12 (work in progress),
December 2007.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", RFC 2119, BCP 14, March 1997.
[RFC3428] Campbell, B., Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., Huitema, C.,
and D. Gurle, "Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Extension
for Instant Messaging", RFC 3428, December 2002.
[RFC3629] Yergeau, F., "UTF-8, a transformation format of ISO
10646", STD 63, RFC 3629, November 2003.
[SIEVE] Guenther, P., Ed. and T. Showalter, Ed., "Sieve: An Email
Filtering Language", RFC 5228, January 2008.
[SIP] 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.
Authors' Addresses
Alexey Melnikov
Isode Limited
5 Castle Business Village
36 Station Road
Hampton, Middlesex TW12 2BX
UK
Email: Alexey.Melnikov@isode.com
URI: http://www.melnikov.ca/
Henning Schulzrinne
Columbia U.
Columbia University Department of Computer Science
New York, NY 10027
US
Phone: +1 212 939 7004
Email: hgs@cs.columbia.edu
Melnikov, et al. Expires August 20, 2008 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Sieve Notification: SIP MESSAGE February 2008
Qian Sun
Huawei Technologies
Bantian Longgang
Shenzhen, Guandong 518129
P.R China
Phone: +86 755 28780808
Email: sunqian@huawei.com
Melnikov, et al. Expires August 20, 2008 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Sieve Notification: SIP MESSAGE February 2008
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008).
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).
Melnikov, et al. Expires August 20, 2008 [Page 10]