Presence Information Data Format (PIDF) Extension for Partial Presence
RFC 5262
|
| Document |
Type |
|
RFC - Proposed Standard
(September 2008; No errata)
|
|
Last updated |
|
2015-10-14
|
|
Stream |
|
IETF
|
|
Formats |
|
plain text
pdf
html
bibtex
|
| Stream |
WG state
|
|
(None)
|
|
Document shepherd |
|
No shepherd assigned
|
| IESG |
IESG state |
|
RFC 5262 (Proposed Standard)
|
|
Consensus Boilerplate |
|
Unknown
|
|
Telechat date |
|
|
|
Responsible AD |
|
Jon Peterson
|
|
Send notices to |
|
(None)
|
Network Working Group M. Lonnfors
Request for Comments: 5262 Nokia
Category: Standards Track E. Leppanen
Individual
H. Khartabil
Ericsson Australia
J. Urpalainen
Nokia
September 2008
Presence Information Data Format (PIDF) Extension for Partial Presence
Status of This Memo
This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the
Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for
improvements. Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet
Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the standardization state
and status of this protocol. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
Abstract
The Presence Information Document Format (PIDF) specifies the
baseline XML-based format for describing presence information. One
of the characteristics of the PIDF is that the document always needs
to carry all presence information available for the presentity. In
some environments where low bandwidth and high latency links can
exist, it is often beneficial to limit the amount of transported
information over the network. This document introduces a new MIME
type that enables transporting of either only the changed parts or
the full PIDF-based presence information.
Lonnfors, et al. Standards Track [Page 1]
RFC 5262 Partial PIDF September 2008
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ....................................................2
2. Conventions .....................................................3
3. Structure of PIDF Diff Documents ................................3
3.1. 'version' Attribute ........................................4
3.2. 'entity' Attribute .........................................4
4. Usage of 'application/pidf-diff+xml' ............................4
5. IANA Considerations .............................................5
5.1. URN Sub-Namespace Registration for
'urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:pidf-diff' .........................5
5.2. application/pidf-diff+xml MIME Type ........................6
5.3. XML Schema Registration ....................................7
6. Examples ........................................................8
7. XML Schema .....................................................11
8. Interoperability Considerations ................................12
9. Security Considerations ........................................13
10. Internationalization Considerations ...........................13
11. Error Handling ................................................13
12. Acknowledgments ...............................................13
13. References ....................................................13
13.1. Normative references .....................................13
13.2. Informative references ...................................14
1. Introduction
The Presence Information Document Format (PIDF) [RFC3863] specifies
the baseline XML-based format for describing presence information.
One of the characteristics of the PIDF is that the document always
needs to carry all presence information available for the presentity.
In some environments where low bandwidth and high latency links can
exist, it is often beneficial to limit the amount of transported
information over the network.
This document introduces a new MIME-Type 'application/pidf-diff+xml',
which enables transporting of either only the changed parts or the
full PIDF based presence information. The root element of the
document distinguishes whether the partial or full PIDF document
content was transported.
Note: With this new MIME-Type, applications can easily negotiate
the support of partial updates of presence by using the Accept
header. If PIDF had initially been designed for partial updates,
a new separate MIME-Type would have been unnecessary.
Lonnfors, et al. Standards Track [Page 2]
RFC 5262 Partial PIDF September 2008
2. Conventions
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
Show full document text