Network Working Group A. Melnikov
Internet-Draft Isode Limited
Intended status: Standards Track H. Schulzrinne
Expires: March 2, 2008 Columbia U.
Q. Sun
Huawei Technologies
August 30, 2007
Sieve Notification Mechanism: SIP MESSAGE
draft-melnikov-sieve-notify-sip-message-00
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 March 2, 2008.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).
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 March 2, 2008 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Sieve Notification: SIP MESSAGE August 2007
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" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.4. Notify tag ":importance" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.5. Notify tag ":message" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.6. Other Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. Internationalization Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
7. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . 8
Melnikov, et al. Expires March 2, 2008 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Sieve Notification: SIP MESSAGE August 2007
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 [RFC3261]) 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 [RFC3261].
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 [RFC3261]) and that
identifies a SIP (or SIPS) URI. The URI MAY include the resource
identifier portion of a SIP address and URI parameters. The URI
parameter "method" MUST be ignored, because only 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 [RFC3261]. 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 ":from" tag has no special meaning for this notification
mechanism, and this specification puts no restriction on its use. As
noted, the value of the SIP "From" header field specified in the SIP
notification message MUST be the SIP address of the notification
service itself. The value of the ":from" tag MUST use the SIP
"Reply-To" syntax; if the :from value is specified and has valid
syntax, it MUST be encapsulated as the value of a SIP header field
named "Reply-To". If the value has invalid syntax, this is
considered a Sieve script processing error.
Melnikov, et al. Expires March 2, 2008 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Sieve Notification: SIP MESSAGE August 2007
2.3. Notify tag ":options"
This tag is not used by this method.
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 SHOULD have Content-Type value of "text/
plain". If not included, the rule specified in NOTIFY [NOTIFY]
SHOULD be followed, as shown in the examples below.
2.6. Other Definitions
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 presented at the same
time, the "body" parameter MUST be ignored.
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 [RFC3261].
3. Examples
In the following examples, the sender of the email has an address of
<mailto: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:
Melnikov, et al. Expires March 2, 2008 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Sieve Notification: SIP MESSAGE August 2007
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: 43
juliet@example.com; Contact me immediately!
The following is a more advanced Sieve notify action with a method,
importance, subject, and message:
notify :importance "1"
:message "Contact Juliet immediately!"
"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: 27
Contact Juliet immediately!
4. Internationalization Considerations
TBD
5. Security Considerations
UAs that support the MESSAGE request MUST implement end-to-end
authentication, body integrity, and body confidentiality mechanisms.
6. Acknowledgements
TBD
Melnikov, et al. Expires March 2, 2008 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Sieve Notification: SIP MESSAGE August 2007
7. Normative References
[NOTIFY] Melnikov, A., "Sieve Extension: Notifications",
draft-ietf-sieve-notify-08 (work in progress),
February 2007.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", RFC 2119, BCP 14, March 1997.
[RFC3261] 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.
[RFC3428] Campbell, B., Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., Huitema, C.,
and D. Gurle, "Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Extension
for Instant Messaging", RFC 3428, December 2002.
[SIEVE] Guenther, P., "Sieve Extension: Notifications", Internet-
Draft Sieve: An Email Filtering Language, February 2007.
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 March 2, 2008 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Sieve Notification: SIP MESSAGE August 2007
Qian Sun
Huawei Technologies
Bantian Longgang
Shenzhen, Guandong 518129
P.R China
Phone: +86 755 28780808
Email: sunqian@huawei.com
Melnikov, et al. Expires March 2, 2008 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Sieve Notification: SIP MESSAGE August 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).
Melnikov, et al. Expires March 2, 2008 [Page 8]