RFC3863 Presence Information Data Format (PIDF)
3863 Presence Information Data Format (PIDF). H. Sugano, S. Fujimoto,G. Klyne, A. Bateman, W. Carr, J. Peterson. August 2004. (Format: TXT=56956 bytes) (Status: PROPOSED STANDARD)
日本語訳
RFC一覧
参照
Network Working Group H. Sugano
Request for Comments: 3863 S. Fujimoto
Category: Standards Track Fujitsu
G. Klyne
Nine by Nine
A. Bateman
VisionTech
W. Carr
Intel
J. Peterson
NeuStar
August 2004
Presence Information Data Format (PIDF)
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.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004).
Abstract
This memo specifies the Common Profile for Presence (CPP) Presence
Information Data Format (PIDF) as a common presence data format for
CPP-compliant Presence protocols, and also defines a new media type
"application/pidf+xml" to represent the XML MIME entity for PIDF.
Table of Content
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1. Terminology and Conventions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Design Decisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1. Minimal Model. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.2. Added Features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.3. XML Encoding Decision. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. Overview of Presence Information Data Format . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1. The 'application/pidf+xml' Content Type. . . . . . . . . 5
3.2. Presence Information Contents. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. XML-encoded Presence Data Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.1. XML Format Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Sugano, et al. Standards Track [Page 1]
RFC 3863 Presence Information Data Format August 2004
4.1.1. The element. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.1.2. The element . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.1.3. The element. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.1.4. The element . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.1.5. The element . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.1.6. The element. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.1.7. The element . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.2. Presence Information Extensibility . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.2.1. XML Namespaces Background . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.2.2. XML Namespaces In Presence Information. . . . . . 11
4.2.3. Handling Of Unrecognized Element Names. . . . . . 12
4.2.4. Status Value Extensibility. . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.2.5. Standardizing Status Extensions . . . . . . . . . 13
4.3. Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
4.3.1. Default Namespace with Status Extensions. . . . . 14
4.3.2. Presence with Other Extension Elements. . . . . . 15
4.3.3. Example Mandatory To Understand Elements. . . . . 16
4.4. XML Schema Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
5. IANA Considerations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
5.1. Content-type registration for 'application/pidf+xml' . . 18
5.2. URN sub-namespace registration for
'urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:pidf'. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
5.3. URN sub-namespace registration for
'urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:pidf:status' . . . . . . . . . . 20
6. Security Considerations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
7. Internationalization Considerations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Appendix A. Document Type Definitions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Full Copyright Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
1. Introduction
The Common Profiles for Instant Messaging (CPIM) [CPIM] and Presence
(CPP) [CPP] specifications define a set of operations and parameters
to achieve interoperability between different Instant Messaging and
Presence protocols which meet RFC 2779 [RFC2779].
This memo further defines the Presence Information Data Format (PIDF)
as a common presence data format for CPP-compliant presence
protocols, allowing presence information to be transferred across
CPP-compliant protocol boundaries without modification, with
attendant benefits for security and performance.
Sugano, et al. Standards Track [Page 2]
RFC 3863 Presence Information Data Format August 2004
The format specified in this memo defines the base presence format
and extensibility required by RFC 2779. It defines a minimal set of
presence status values defined by the IMPP Model document [RFC2778].
However, a presence application is able to define its own status
values using the extensibility framework provided by this memo.
Defining such extended status values is beyond the scope of this
memo.
Note also that this memo defines only the format for a presence data
payload and the extensibility framework for it. How the presence
data is transferred within a specific protocol frame would be defined
separately in a protocol specification.
1.1. Terminology and Conventions
This memo makes use of the vocabulary defined in the IMPP Model
document [RFC2778]. Terms such as CLOSED, INSTANT MESSAGE, OPEN,
PRESENCE SERVICE, PRESENTITY, WATCHER, and WATCHER USER AGENT in the
memo are used in the same meaning as defined therein.
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT",
"RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be
interpreted as described in BCP 14, RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
2. Design Decisions
We have adopted the IMPP Model and Requirements documents [RFC2778,
RFC2779] as the starting point of our discussion. The two RFCs
contain a number of statements about presence information, which can
be regarded as a basic set of constraints for the format design.
Also, we took the minimalist approach to the design based on them.
Starting from the minimal model, only the features that are necessary
to solve particular problems have been included.
2.1. Minimal Model
This specification is based on the minimal model extracted from the
IMPP Model and Requirements documents. The model consists of the
following items. Each of them is accompanied with the corresponding
RFCs and their section numbers as its grounds, e.g.,
(RFC2778:Sec.2.4) refers to Section 2.4 of RFC 2778.
(a) PRESENCE INFORMATION consists of one or more PRESENCE TUPLES,
where a PRESENCE TUPLE consists of a STATUS, an optional
COMMUNICATION ADDRESS, and optional OTHER PRESENCE MARKUP. Note
that the CONTACT ADDRESS in a COMMUNICATIONS ADDRESS is
understood in this document to refer only to a URI
(RFC2778:Sec.3).
Sugano, et al. Standards Track [Page 3]
RFC 3863 Presence Information Data Format August 2004
(b) STATUS has at least the mutually-exclusive values OPEN and
CLOSED, which have meaning for the acceptance of INSTANT
MESSAGES, and may have meaning for other COMMUNICATION MEANS.
There may be other values of STATUS that do not imply anything
about INSTANT MESSAGE acceptance. These other values of STATUS
may be combined with OPEN and CLOSED or they may be mutually-
exclusive with those values (RFC2778:Sec.3, RFC2779:Sec.4.4.1-
4.4.3).
(c) STATUS may consist of single or multiple values.(RFC2778:Sec.2.4)
(d) There must be a means of extending the common presence format to
represent additional information not included in the common
format. The extension and registration mechanisms must be
defined for presence information schema, including new STATUS
conditions and new forms for OTHER PRESENCE MARKUP
(RFC2779:Sec.3.1.4-3.1.5).
(e) The common presence format must include a means to uniquely
identify the PRESENTITY whose PRESENCE INFORMATION is reported
(RFC2779:Sec.3.1.2).
(f) The common presence format must allow the PRESENTITY to secure
presence information sent to a WATCHER. The format must allow
integrity, confidentiality and authentication properties to be
applied to presence information (RFC2779:Sec5.2.1, 5.2.4, 5.3.1,
5.3.3).
2.2. Added Features
In addition to the minimal model described above, the format
specified in this specification has the following features.
(a) Relative priorities of contact addresses are specifiable in order
to allow the source of PRESENCE INFORMATION to tell the receiver
(WATCHER USER AGENTS) its preference over multiple contact
means.
(b) The presence format is able to contain the timestamp of the
creation of the PRESENCE INFORMATION. The timestamp in the
presence document lets the receiver know the time of the
creation of the data even if the message containing it is
delayed. It can also be used to detect a replay attack,
independent of the underlying signature mechanism. Note that
this mechanism does not assume any global time synchronization
system for watchers and presentities (see Appendix A of RFC2779,
8.1.4 A7), but rather assumes that the minimum length of time
that might pass before presence information is considered stale
Sugano, et al. Standards Track [Page 4]
RFC 3863 Presence Information Data Format August 2004
is long enough that minor variations among system clocks will
not lead to misjudgments of the freshness of presence
information.
2.3. XML Encoding Decision
The Presence Information Data Format encodes presence information in
XML (eXtensible Markup Language [XML]). Regarding the features of
PRESENCE INFORMATION discussed above, such that it has a hierarchical
structure and it should be fully extensible, XML is considered as the
most desirable framework over other candidates such as vCard [vCard].
3. Overview of Presence Information Data Format
This section describes an overview of the presence data format
defined in this memo.
3.1. The 'application/pidf+xml' Content Type
This memo defines a new content type "application/pidf+xml" for an
XML MIME entity that contains presence information. This
specification follows the recommendations and conventions described
in [RFC3023], including the naming convention of the type ('+xml'
suffix) and the usage of the 'charset' parameter.
Although it is defined as optional, use of the 'charset' parameter is
RECOMMENDED. If the 'charset' parameter is not specified, conforming
XML processors MUST follow the requirements in section 4.3.3 of
[XML].
3.2. Presence Information Contents
This subsection outlines the information in an "application/pidf+xml"
document. A full definition of the PIDF content is in Section 4.
o PRESENTITY URL: specifies the "pres" URL of the PRESENTITY.
o List of PRESENCE TUPLES
- Identifier: token to identify this tuple within the presence
information.
- STATUS: OPEN/CLOSED and/or extension status values.
- COMMUNICATION ADDRESS: COMMUNICATION MEANS and CONTACT
ADDRESS of this tuple. (optional)
- Relative priority: numerical value specifying the priority
of this COMMUNICATION ADDRESS. (optional)
- Timestamp: timestamp of the change of this tuple.(optional)
- Human readable comment: free text memo about this tuple
(optional)
Sugano, et al. Standards Track [Page 5]
RFC 3863 Presence Information Data Format August 2004
o PRESENTITY human readable comment: free text memo about the
PRESENTITY (optional).
4. XML-encoded Presence Data Format
This section defines an XML-encoded presence information data format
(PIDF) for use with CPP compliant systems. A presence payload in
this format is expected to be produced by the PRESENTITY (the source
of the PRESENCE INFORMATION) and transported to the WATCHERS by the
presence servers or gateways without any interpretation or
modification.
4.1. XML Format Definitions
A PIDF object is a well formed XML document.
It MUST have the XML declaration and it SHOULD contain an encoding
declaration in the XML declaration, e.g., "". If the charset parameter of the MIME content
type declaration is present and it is different from the encoding
declaration, the charset parameter takes precedence.
Every application conformant to this specification MUST accept the
UTF-8 character encoding to ensure the minimal interoperability.
4.1.1. The element
PIDF elements are associated with the XML namespace name
'urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:pidf', declared using an xmlns attribute, per
[XML-NS]. The namespace may be a default namespace, or may be
associated with some namespace prefix (see section 4.2.2 for
examples).
The root of an "application/pidf+xml" object is a element
associated with the presence information namespace. This contains
any number (including 0) of elements, followed by any number
(including 0) of elements, followed by any number of OPTIONAL
extension elements from other namespaces.
The element MUST have an 'entity' attribute. The value of
the 'entity' attribute is the 'pres' URL of the PRESENTITY publishing
this presence document.
The element MUST contain a namespace declaration ('xmlns')
to indicate the namespace on which the presence document is based.
The presence document compliant to this specification MUST have the
namespace 'urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:pidf:'.
Sugano, et al. Standards Track [Page 6]
RFC 3863 Presence Information Data Format August 2004
It MAY contain other namespace declarations for the extensions used
in the presence XML document.
4.1.2. The element
The element carries a PRESENCE TUPLE, consisting of a
mandatory element, followed by any number of OPTIONAL
extension elements (possibly from other namespaces), followed by an
OPTIONAL element, followed by any number of OPTIONAL
elements, followed by an OPTIONAL element.
Tuples provide a way of segmenting presence information. Protocols
or applications may choose to segment the presence information
associated with a presentity for any number of reasons - for example,
because components of the full presence information for a presentity
have come from distinct devices or different applications on the same
device, or have been generated at different times. Tuples should be
preferred over other manners of segmenting presence information such
as creating multiple PIDF instances.
The element MUST contain an 'id' attribute which is used to
distinguish this tuple from other tuples in the same PRESENTITY. The
value of an 'id' attribute MUST be unique within 'id' attribute
values of other tuples for the same PRESENTITY. An 'id' value is
used by applications processing the presence document to identify the
corresponding tuple in the previously acquired PRESENCE INFORMATION
of the same PRESENTITY. The value of the 'id' attribute is an
arbitrary string, and has no significance beyond providing a means to
distinguish values, as noted above.
The element is OPTIONAL because a PRESENTITY might need to
hide its COMMUNICATION ADDRESS or there might be tuples not related
to any COMMUNICATION MEANS. Tuples that contain a status
element SHOULD contain a address. Tuples MAY contain
conflicting presence status - one might provide a
of OPEN, and another in the same PIDF could contain
a of CLOSED, even if they both contain the same
address.
The manner in which segmented presence information is understood by
the WATCHER USER AGENT is highly dependent on the capabilities of the
WATCHER USER AGENT and the presence application in question. In the
absence of any application-specific or protocol-specific
understanding of the meaning of tuples, WATCHER USER AGENTS MAY obey
the following guidelines. WATCHER USER AGENTS should note which
tuples in the PIDF have changed their state since the last
Sugano, et al. Standards Track [Page 7]
RFC 3863 Presence Information Data Format August 2004
notification by correlating the 'id' of each with those
received in previous notifications and comparing both values
and elements in the tuples, if any are present.
4.1.3. The element
The element contains one OPTIONAL element, followed
by any number of OPTIONAL extension elements (possibly from other
namespaces), under the restriction that at least one child element
appears in the element. These children elements of
contain status values of this tuple. By allowing multiple status
values in a single element, different types of status values,
e.g., reachability and location, can be represented by a .
See Section 4.3 for an example with multiple status values.
This memo only defines the status value element. Other
status values may be included using the standard extensibility
framework (see Section 4.2.4). Applications encountering
unrecognized elements within may ignore them, unless they
carry a mustUnderstand="true" or mustUnderstand="1" attribute (see
section 4.2.3).
Note that, while the element MUST have at least one status
value element, this status value might not be the element.
4.1.4. The element
The element contains one of the following strings: "open" or
"closed".
The values "open" and "closed" indicate availability to receive
INSTANT MESSAGES if the is for an instant messaging address.
They also indicate general availability for other communication
means, but this memo does not specify these in detail.
open: In the context of INSTANT MESSAGES, this value means that the
associated element, if any, corresponds to an INSTANT
INBOX that is ready to accept an INSTANT MESSAGE.
closed: In the context of INSTANT MESSAGES, this value means that
the associated element, if any, corresponds to an
INSTANT INBOX that is unable to accept an INSTANT MESSAGE.
4.1.5. The element
The element contains a URL of the contact address. It
optionally has a 'priority' attribute, whose value means a relative
priority of this contact address over the others. The value of the
Sugano, et al. Standards Track [Page 8]
RFC 3863 Presence Information Data Format August 2004
attribute MUST be a decimal number between 0 and 1 inclusive with at
most 3 digits after the decimal point. Higher values indicate higher
priority. Examples of priority values are 0, 0.021, 0.5, 1.00. If
the 'priority' attribute is omitted, applications MUST assign the
contact address the lowest priority. If the 'priority' value is out
of the range, applications just SHOULD ignore the value and process
it as if the attribute was not present.
Applications SHOULD handle contacts with a higher priority as they
have precedence over those with lower priorities. How they are
actually treated is beyond this specification. Also, how to handle
contacts with the same priority is up to implementations.
4.1.6. The element
The element contains a string value, which is usually used for
a human readable comment. A element MAY appear as a child
element of or as a child element of the element.
In the former case the comment is about the PRESENTITY and in the
latter case the comment is regarding the particular tuple.
Note that, wherever it appears, a element SHOULD NOT be used,
and interpreted, as a non-interoperable substitute for status of its
parent element.
The element SHOULD have a special attribute 'xml:lang' to
specify the language used in the contents of this element as defined
in Section 2.12 of [XML]. The value of this attribute is the
language identifier as defined by [RFC3066]. It MAY be omitted when
the language used is implied by the larger context such as the
encoding information of the contents, such as an xml:lang attribute
on an enclosing XML element, or a Content-language header [RFC3282]
on an enclosing MIME wrapper.
4.1.7. The element
The element contains a string indicating the date and
time of the status change of this tuple. The value of this element
MUST follow the IMPP datetime format [RFC3339]. Timestamps that
contain 'T' or 'Z' MUST use the capitalized forms.
As a security measure, the element SHOULD be included in
all tuples unless the exact time of the status change cannot be
determined. For security guidelines for watchers receiving presence
information with timestamps, see the Security Considerations.
A PRESENTITY MUST NOT generate successive elements
containing the same timestamp.
Sugano, et al. Standards Track [Page 9]
RFC 3863 Presence Information Data Format August 2004
4.2. Presence Information Extensibility
The presence information extensibility framework is based on XML
namespaces [XML-NS].
RFC 2779 requires that PIDF have a means of extending values
beyond . These extensions MUST NOT modify how is to
be understood, nor change the structure or semantics of PIDF bodies
themselves. These extensions merely allow protocols and applications
to define richer presence data.
4.2.1. XML Namespaces Background
All elements and some attributes are associated with a "namespace",
which is in turn associated with a globally unique URI. Any
developer can introduce their own element names, avoiding conflict by
choosing an appropriate namespace URI.
Within the presence data, element or attribute names are associated
with a particular namespace by a namespace prefix, which is a leading
part of the name, followed by a colon (":"); e.g.,
...
Where, 'prefix' is the header name prefix, 'element-name' is a name
which is scoped by the namespace associated with 'prefix'. Note that
the choice of 'prefix' is quite arbitrary; it is the corresponding
URI that defines the naming scope. Two different prefixes associated
with the same namespace URI refer to the same namespace.
A default namespace can be declared for XML elements without a
namespace prefix. The default namespace does NOT apply to attribute
names, but interpretation of an unprefixed attribute can be
determined by the containing element.
A namespace is identified by a URI. In this usage, the URI is used
simply as a globally unique identifier, and there is no requirement
that it can be used to retrieve a web resource, or for any other
purpose. Any legal globally unique URI MAY be used to identify a
namespace. (By "globally unique", we mean constructed according to
some set of rules so that it is reasonable to expect that nobody else
will use the same URI for a different purpose.)
For further details, see the XML namespace specification [XML-NS].
Sugano, et al. Standards Track [Page 10]
RFC 3863 Presence Information Data Format August 2004
4.2.2. XML Namespaces In Presence Information
A URI used as a namespace identifier in PRESENCE INFORMATION data
MUST be a full absolute-URI, per RFC 2396 [URI]. (Relative URIs and
URI-references containing fragment identifiers MUST NOT be used for
this purpose.)
The namespace URI for elements defined by this specification is a URN
[URN], using the namespace identifier 'ietf' defined by [URN-NS-IETF]
and extended by [XML-Registry]:
urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:pidf
Thus, simple presence data might be thus:
open
tel:+09012345678
, using a default XML namespace:
open
tel:+09012345678
As is generally the case in XML with namespaces, the xmlns attribute
can be used on any element in the presence information to define
either the default namespace or a namespace associated with a
namespace prefix.
Sugano, et al. Standards Track [Page 11]
RFC 3863 Presence Information Data Format August 2004
4.2.3. Handling Of Unrecognized Element Names
Except as noted below, a processor of PRESENCE INFORMATION MUST
ignore any XML element with an unrecognized name (i.e., having an
unrecognized namespace URI, or an unrecognized local name within that
namespace). This includes all of the element content, even if it
appears to contain elements with recognized names.
Extensions to PIDF are informational in nature - they provide
additional information beyond status. However, in order to
understand a complex extension, nested elements within an extension
element might need to be marked as mandatory. In such cases, the
element name is qualified with a mustUnderstand='true' or
mustUnderstand='1' attribute. See section 4.3.3 for an example.
NOTE: a mustUnderstand='true' or mustUnderstand='1' attribute
within an element that is being ignored is itself ignored. The
writer of nested mandatory-to-understand information is
responsible for ensuring that any enclosing element is also
labelled with a mustUnderstand='true' or mustUnderstand='1'
attribute, if necessary.
This specification defines (section 4.1) elements within the
'urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:pidf' namespace that MUST be recognized in
CPP presence data. Processors MUST handle these as described, even
if they do not carry a mustUnderstand attribute. The XML Schema
Definition (section 4.4) indicates those elements that MUST be
present in a valid presence information document.
If an agent receives PRESENCE INFORMATION with a block
containing an unrecognized element with a mustUnderstand='true' (or
'1') attribute, it should treat that entire element and any content
as unrecognized and not attempt to process it.
In order to ensure that minimal implementations can correctly process
basic PIDF information the mustUnderstand attribute MUST be used only
within optional elements nested in a element. This will
ensure that problems processing an extension are restricted to that
extension and do not affect the processing of the basic PIDF
information defined in this specification.
4.2.4. Status Value Extensibility
This memo defines only the status value with values of "open"
and "closed". Other status values are possible using the standard
namespace-based extensibility rules defined above.
Sugano, et al. Standards Track [Page 12]
RFC 3863 Presence Information Data Format August 2004
For example, a location status value might be included thus:
open
home
im:someone@example.com
Some new status values will 'extend' the value of the
element. For example, a status value defined for use with instant
messaging may include values such as 'away', 'busy' and 'offline'.
In order that some level of interoperability be maintained with user
agents that don't recognize the new extension, the status
value must also be included. This means that extensions are not
obligated to define a mapping from each of their values to OPEN or
CLOSED.
4.2.5. Standardizing Status Extensions
Although the existing PIDF definition allows arbitrary elements to
appear in the element, it may be sometimes desirable to
standardize extension status elements and their semantics (the
meanings of particular statuses, how they should be interpreted).
The URN 'urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:pidf:status' has been specified as an
umbrella namespace under which extensions to the PIDF
element should be specified (e.g.,
urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:pidf:status:my-extension). New values under
this namespace MUST be defined by a standards-track RFC.
The following example XML Schema defines an extension for
presence information, which can have the values of 'home', 'office',
or 'car'. If the element were standardized, this document
would be made available in an RFC along with information about the
use of the extension. These extensions should use the namespace
'urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:pidf:status', and each RFC defining an
extension should register an extension name within that namespace
with IANA.
In addition to the XML Schema to validate the extension, registration
of the extension name with IANA, RFCs defining extensions MUST
discuss:
- The domain of applicability of the extension. Is this extension
exclusively valuable to IM clients, telephones, geolocators, etc?
What sorts of presence applications would use this extension and
under what circumstances?
- Semantics for the presence states defined in the extension. What
disposition provokes an automated presentity to declare that it is
in state X, or does a human select X from a drag-down menu? Is
there any general guidance for watchers of presence information
with state Y (for example, how they should best attempt to
communicate with the presentity, if at all, when the principal is
in state Y).
Extensions SHOULD also discuss:
- How, if at all, any presence states defined in the extension
related to , or to any relevant extension previously
published in an RFC. For example, "state Z implies OPEN, so it
MUST NOT be used if a basic state of CLOSED is expressed", or
"you should use the extension in this document, not the extension
in RFC QQQQ, if your circumstances are as follows...."
4.3. Examples
4.3.1. Default Namespace with Status Extensions
The following instance document uses a hypothetical 'pidf:im' XML
namespace as an example of the sort of status extension that might be
developed for PIDF.
Sugano, et al. Standards Track [Page 14]
RFC 3863 Presence Information Data Format August 2004
open
busy
home
im:someone@mobilecarrier.net
Don't Disturb Please!
Ne derangez pas, s'il vous plait
2001-10-27T16:49:29Z
open
mailto:someone@example.com
I'll be in Tokyo next week
4.3.2. Presence with Other Extension Elements
open
Extended value in tuple
tel:+09012345678
open
im:someone@mobilecarrier.net
My extended presentity information
Sugano, et al. Standards Track [Page 15]
RFC 3863 Presence Information Data Format August 2004
4.3.3. Example Mandatory To Understand Elements
open
val1
val2
tel:+09012345678
My extended presentity information
Here, must be understood and, if it is not recognized,
MUST be ignored. and
MAY be ignored if they are not recognized.
4.4. XML Schema Definitions
This section gives the XML Schema Definition [XMLSchema1] of the
"application/pidf+xml" format. This is presented as a formal
definition of the "application/pidf+xml" format. Note that the XML
Schema definition is not intended to be used with on-the-fly
validation of the presence XML document.
Sugano, et al. Standards Track [Page 17]
RFC 3863 Presence Information Data Format August 2004
This attribute may be used on any element within an optional
PIDF extension to indicate that the corresponding element must
be understood by the PIDF processor if the enclosing optional
element is to be handled.
5. IANA Considerations
This memo calls for IANA to:
- register a new MIME content-type application/pidf+xml, per [MIME],
- register a new XML namespace URN per [XML-Registry].
- register a new XML namespace URN for status extensions per [XML-
Registry].
The registration templates for these are below. For more information
on status extensions, see section 4.2.5.
5.1. Content-type registration for 'application/pidf+xml'
To: ietf-types@iana.org
Subject: Registration of MIME media type application/pidf+xml
MIME media type name: application
MIME subtype name: pidf+xml
Required parameters: (none)
Sugano, et al. Standards Track [Page 18]
RFC 3863 Presence Information Data Format August 2004
Optional parameters: charset
Indicates the character encoding of enclosed XML. Default is
UTF-8.
Encoding considerations:
Uses XML, which can employ 8-bit characters, depending on the
character encoding used. See RFC 3023 [RFC 3023], section 3.2.
Security considerations:
This content type is designed to carry presence data, which may be
considered private information. Appropriate precautions should be
adopted to limit disclosure of this information.
Interoperability considerations:
This content type provides a common format for exchange of
presence information across different CPP compliant protocols.
Published specification:
RFC 3863
Applications which use this media type:
Presence and instant messaging systems.
Additional information:
Magic number(s): File extension(s): Macintosh File Type Code(s):
Person & email address to contact for further information:
Hiroyasu Sugano EMail: sugano.h@jp.fujitsu.com
Intended usage:
LIMITED USE
Author/Change controller:
This specification is a work item of the IETF IMPP working group,
with mailing list address .
Other information:
This media type is a specialization of application/xml [RFC 3023],
and many of the considerations described there also apply to
application/pidf+xml.
5.2. URN sub-namespace registration for 'urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:pidf'
URI
urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:pidf
Sugano, et al. Standards Track [Page 19]
RFC 3863 Presence Information Data Format August 2004
Description:
This is the XML namespace URI for XML elements defined by RFC 3863
to describe CPP presence information in application/pidf+xml
content type.
Registrant Contact
IETF, IMPP working group,
Hiroyasu Sugano,
XML
BEGIN
Namespace for CPP presence information
Namespace for CPP presence information
urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:pidf
See
RFC3863.
END
5.3. URN sub-namespace registration for
'urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:pidf:status'
URI
urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:pidf:status
Description:
This is the XML namespace URI for XML elements defined by
RFC 3863 to describe extensions to the status of CPP presence
information in application/pidf+xml content type.
Registrant Contact
IETF, IMPP working group,
Hiroyasu Sugano,
XML
BEGIN
Sugano, et al. Standards Track [Page 20]
RFC 3863 Presence Information Data Format August 2004
Namespace for CPP status extensions
Namespace for CPP presence information extensions
urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:pidf:status
See
RFC3863.
END
6. Security Considerations
Because presence is very privacy-sensitive information, the protocol
for the presence information MUST have capabilities to protect PIDF
from possible threats, such as eavesdropping, corruption, tamper and
replay attacks. These security mechanisms must be able to be used
end-to-end between presentities and watchers, even if the watcher and
the presentity employ different presence protocols and communicate
through a CPP gateway. Since the 'application/pidf+xml' MIME type is
defined for this PIDF document, staging security for PIDF at the MIME
level (with S/MIME [RFC3851]) seems appropriate. Therefore, PIDF
should follow the normative recommendations for the use of S/MIME
(including minimum ciphersuites) given in the core CPP specification.
Note that the use of timestamps in PIDF (see section 4.1.7) can
provide some rudimentary protection against replay attacks. If a
watcher receives presence information that is outdated, it SHOULD be
ignored. A watcher can determine that presence information is
outdated in a number of fashions. Most significantly, if the newest
timestamp in presence information is older than the newest timestamp
in the last received presence information, it should be considered
outdated. Applications and protocols also are advised to adopt their
own rules for determining how frequently presence information should
be refreshed. For example, if presence information appears to be
more than one hour old, it could be considered outdated (a
notification generated for this presence information will not take
such a long time to reach a watcher, and if a presentity has not
refreshed its presence state in the last hour, it is probably
offline).
Sugano, et al. Standards Track [Page 21]
RFC 3863 Presence Information Data Format August 2004
7. Internationalization Considerations
All the processors conformant to this specification MUST be able to
generate and accept UTF-8 encoding, this being one of the mandatory
character encodings for XML conforming processors, and also required
by the policies set out in RFC 2277 [RFC2277].
Other character encodings MAY be accepted (but CPP compliant
processors are strongly discouraged from emitting anything other than
UTF-8).
8. References
8.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", RFC 2119, BCP 14, March 1997.
[RFC3023] Murata, M., St. Laurent, S., and D. Kohn, "XML Media
Types", RFC 3023, January 2001.
[XML] Bray, T., Paoli, J., Sperberg-McQueen, C., and E.
Maler, "Extensible Markup Language (XML) 1.0 (Second
Edition)", W3C Recommendation, October 2000,
[MIME] Freed, N. and N. Borenstein, "Multipurpose Internet
Mail Extensions (MIME) Part One: Format of Internet
Message Bodies", RFC 2045, November 1996.
Freed, N. and N. Borenstein, "Multipurpose Internet
Mail Extensions (MIME) Part Two: Media Types", RFC
2046, November 1996.
Moore, K., "MIME (Multipurpose Internet Mail
Extensions) Part Three: Message Header Extensions for
Non-ASCII Text", RFC 2047, November 1996.
Freed, N., Klensin, J., and J. Postel, "Multipurpose
Internet Mail Extensions (MIME) Part Four:
Registration Procedures", BCP 13, RFC 2048, November
1996.
Freed, N. and N. Borenstein, "Multipurpose Internet
Mail Extensions (MIME) Part Five: Conformance Criteria
and Examples", RFC 2049, November 1996.
Sugano, et al. Standards Track [Page 22]
RFC 3863 Presence Information Data Format August 2004
[RFC3066] Alvestrand, H., "Tags for the Identification of
Languages", BCP 47, RFC 3066, March 1995.
[RFC3339] Klyne, G. and C. Newman, "Date and Time on the
Internet: Timestamps", RFC 3339, July 2002.
[XML-NS] Bray, T., Hollander, D., and A. Layman "Namespaces in
XML", W3C recommendation: xml-names, 14 January 1999,
[URI] Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter,
"Uniform Resource Identifiers (URI): Generic Syntax",
RFC 2396, August 1998.
[URN] Moats, R., "URN Syntax", RFC 2141, May 1997.
[URN-NS-IETF] Moats, R., "A URN Namespace for IETF Documents", RFC
2648, August 1999.
[XML-Registry] Mealling, M., "The IETF XML Registry", RFC 3688,
January 2004.
[RFC2277] Alvestrand, H., "IETF Policy on Character Sets and
Languages", BCP 18, RFC 2277, January 1998.
[XMLSchema1] Thompson, H., Beech, D., Maloney, M., and N.
Mendelsohn, "XML Schema Part 1: Structures", W3C REC-
xmlschema-1, May 2001,
一覧
スポンサーリンク
