One document matched: draft-ren-sipping-replace-instant-message-01.txt
Differences from draft-ren-sipping-replace-instant-message-00.txt
Network Working Group D. Q. Ren
Internet-Draft Q. Sun
Expires: January 3, 2008 L. Tian
Huawei Technologies
July 2, 2007
Replace Instant Message in the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)
draft-ren-sipping-replace-instant-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 January 3, 2008.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).
Ren, et al. Expires January 3, 2008 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Replace Instant Message July 2007
Abstract
This document specifies a SIP User Agent Client (UAC) requirement to
allow the UAC to have the functions to replace or recall an instant
message previously sent by itself.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. UAC Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5. UAS Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6. Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
9. Acknowledges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Appendix A. History of change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 15
Ren, et al. Expires January 3, 2008 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Replace Instant Message July 2007
1. Introduction
RFC 3261 [1] is extended by RFC 3428 [2] with Instant Messaging
protocol. However it hasn't been defined in RFC 3428 [2] for a UAC
to support the functions for replacing or recalling a previous page-
mode instant message sent by itself. For example, Alice intents to
send a meeting notice to Bob, but there is a typo in the message.
Alice may want to either recall the message or replace the message
with a new one.
The requirement can be expressed as:
REQ-1: It MUST be possible for a user to replace a previous
instant message sent by itself with a new instant message, or
recall the previous instant message.
Note that, the similar requirements have been existed and considered
in many messaging services (e.g., Email, SMS and MMS). In this
draft, we approach similar mechanisms for UAC in order to enhance its
functionality to meet the requirement we described above.
In this draft we would like to initiate discussions on this open
issue in an early stage, next we will provide the solution(s) to this
problem in order to meet the UAC requirements.
Ren, et al. Expires January 3, 2008 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Replace Instant Message July 2007
2. Terminology
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 [3]
Ren, et al. Expires January 3, 2008 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Replace Instant Message July 2007
3. Overview
There are some basic ideas to be considered in this discussion.
OPEN ISSUE 1: Currently two approaches are considered as the
possible solutions to the replace / recall requirements: one is to
create an extension to CPIM (Common Presence and Instant
Messaging); another is to create an extension to SIP MESSAGE.
There are some intersections in between these two approaches, and
each of them have advantages and disadvantages. A topic for
discussion is which approach can be the best? Or they are
applicable depending on different cases?
OPEN ISSUE 2: As of the approach on extension to SIP MESSAGE, is
the "REPLACES" header defined in RFC 3891 can be applicable for
this extension?
OPEN ISSUE 3: A precise identification method to locate the
previous page-mode instant message is one of the key issues. We
realized the counterpart mechanism in email is Message-ID, then
what is the one for MESSAGE?
Ren, et al. Expires January 3, 2008 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Replace Instant Message July 2007
4. UAC Procedure
TBD
Ren, et al. Expires January 3, 2008 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Replace Instant Message July 2007
5. UAS Procedure
TBD
Ren, et al. Expires January 3, 2008 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Replace Instant Message July 2007
6. Examples
TBD
Ren, et al. Expires January 3, 2008 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Replace Instant Message July 2007
7. Security Considerations
TBD
Ren, et al. Expires January 3, 2008 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Replace Instant Message July 2007
8. IANA Considerations
TBD
Ren, et al. Expires January 3, 2008 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Replace Instant Message July 2007
9. Acknowledges
TBD
Ren, et al. Expires January 3, 2008 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Replace Instant Message July 2007
10. References
10.1. Normative References
[1] 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.
[2] Campbell, B., Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., Huitema, C., and
D. Gurle, "Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Extension for
Instant Messaging", RFC 3428, December 2002.
[3] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement
Levels", RFC 2119, March 1997.
10.2. Informative References
Ren, et al. Expires January 3, 2008 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Replace Instant Message July 2007
Appendix A. History of change
This is the second version of this draft. We made few wording changes.
Ren, et al. Expires January 3, 2008 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Replace Instant Message July 2007
Authors' Addresses
Da Qi Ren
Huawei Technologies
Bantian Longgang
Shenzhen, Guandong 518129
P.R China
Phone: +86 755 28974126
Email: dren@huawei.com
Qian Sun
Huawei Technologies
Bantian Longgang
Shenzhen, Guandong 518129
P.R China
Phone: +86 755 28780808
Email: sunqian@huawei.com
Linyi Tian
Huawei Technologies
Bantian Longgang
Shenzhen, Guandong 518129
P.R China
Phone: +86 755 28780808
Email: tianlinyi@huawei.com
Ren, et al. Expires January 3, 2008 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Replace Instant Message July 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).
Ren, et al. Expires January 3, 2008 [Page 15]
| PAFTECH AB 2003-2026 | 2026-04-23 14:21:11 |