Internet DRAFT - draft-boulton-xcon-session-chat
draft-boulton-xcon-session-chat
XCON Working Group M. Barnes
Internet-Draft Polycom
Intended status: Standards Track C. Boulton
Expires: January 17, 2013 NS-Technologies
S. Loreto
Ericsson
July 16, 2012
Chatrooms within a Centralized Conferencing (XCON) System
draft-boulton-xcon-session-chat-08
Abstract
The document "A Framework for Centralized Conferencing" defines a
centralized conference as both signaling and protocol agnostic. The
primary examples within this framework focus on audio and video as
the media types for the session. This document provides an overview
of the mechanisms defined in the centralized conferencing framework
that can be used to support multi-user chat. In addition, the
document describes additional functionality and requirements
necessary to provide feature rich functionality.
Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
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."
This Internet-Draft will expire on January 17, 2013.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2012 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
Barnes, et al. Expires January 17, 2013 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft XCON Chat July 2012
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Conventions and Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1. Basic Protocol Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2. Chat Session and Conferencing Identifiers . . . . . . . . 7
4. Advanced Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5. Additional Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.1. Nicknames . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.2. Logging . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.3. History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.4. Indicating Alternate Venue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.5. File Transfer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.6. Real Time Collaboration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
8. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Barnes, et al. Expires January 17, 2013 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft XCON Chat July 2012
1. Introduction
A Centralized Conference as defined by the "A Framework for
Centralized Conferencing" (XCON Framework) [RFC5239] is both
signaling and protocol agnostic. The primary examples within the
framework focus on audio and video as the media types for the
session. This document provides an overview of the mechanisms and
associated framework elements involved when text is the media for the
conference. This functionality is often referred to as a "multi-user
chat" as it enables a participant to join a chatroom (e.g. hosted by
the conference server) for the exchange of messages between multiple
participants. The message can be plain text or can contain different
format for more advanced functionality.
Several existing protocols support this multi-user chat
functionality, such as Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol
(XMPP) [RFC6120], [RFC6121] and Internet Relay Chat (IRC) defined in
[RFC1459] and its successors: [RFC2810],[RFC2811],[RFC2812],
[RFC2813]. In addition, [I-D.ietf-simple-chat] provides multi-user
chat functionality for a purely SIP signaling based solution option
using Message Session Relay Protocol (MSRP) [RFC4975].
The focus of this document is to describe the interface and provide
guidelines for the the support of existing multi-user chat
functionality on a conferencing system based on the XCON framework
using the Conference Control Manipulation Protocol (CCMP) independent
of the specific media type used by the chat client.
The functionality described in this document is not intended to
replace any of the existing chat protocols, nor is it specifying a
new chat protocol. The motivation for this document is to allow
clients that use the conferencing framework model for other media
types (e.g. voice/video) to utilize the same conference control
mechanisms and conferencing system to establish, update and delete a
chatroom associated with a conference instance, independent of the
chat protocol. This approach also allows the conferencing system to
provide a natural interworking point for various chat protocols - the
details of the interworking are outside the scope of this document.
2. Conventions and 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 [RFC2119].
This document reuses the terminology defined in the Centralized
Conferencing Framework [RFC5239] and related protocol document
Barnes, et al. Expires January 17, 2013 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft XCON Chat July 2012
[RFC6503].
Additional terminology used in this document:
Chat Client: a Conferencing Client as defined in [RFC5239] that
participates in a "chatroom".
Chatroom: A virtual space that users figuratively enter in order to
participate in real-time, text-based conferencing with other
users.
Multi-user chat: The functionality that allows multiple users to
exchange messages in the context of a room or channel, similar to
Internet Relay Chat (IRC).
Private message: A message sent from one participant directly to
another participant - i.e., not to the chatroom itself to all
participants.
3. Overview
Figure 1 provides a general illustration of chat clients having a
direct, 1:1 connection to the conferencing system. Participants can
use the chat clients to join a room associated with a conference
instance and send messages. The conferencing system receives the
messages sent from a client participating in a conference instance
and then distributes them to the other clients associated with the
conference instance, that are also present in the chatroom.
+--------+
| Chat |
| Client |
+--------+
|
|
|
v
+--------+ +------------+ +--------+
| Chat | |Conferencing| | Chat |
| Client |----------->| System |<-----------| Client |
+--------+ +------------+ +--------+
^
|
|
|
+--------+
| Chat |
| Client |
+--------+
Barnes, et al. Expires January 17, 2013 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft XCON Chat July 2012
Figure 1: Client Connection
The approach in this document is to have no impact on the existing
chat protocols, while taking full advantage of the functionality
provided by the centralized conferencing framework.
A basic solution for MSRP based IM chat sessions is documented in
[I-D.ietf-simple-chat]. It uses the concept of an "MSRP switch" as
the centralized component, whose role is very similar to the
Conferencing Server in this document. The solution in
[I-D.ietf-simple-chat] doesn't explicitly take advantage of the
centralized conferencing framework model, as it primarily intends to
make use of the basic SIP conferencing framework to provide the basic
chat functionality. The MSRP based IM chat solution is compatible
with the solution components described in this document, with no
impact on that basic solution proposal. One of the advantages of
applying the two solutions in concert would be to take advantage of
the centralized conferencing framework model for advanced features,
such as sidebars and private conferences, and manipulation of the
conference data.
XMPP assumes a decentralized client-server architecture similar to
the one shown in Figure 1, wherein a client utilizing XMPP accesses a
server and servers can also communicate with each other over TCP
connections, similar to the email network. The XMPP server can
provide as additional functionality the multi-user conferencing
services [XEP-0045]. The XMPP multi-user conferencing service is
also compatible with the solution components described in this
document with no impact on the basic solution proposal. Indeed, the
centralized conferencing framework model is perfectly able to manage
the XMPP strong room control model, including the ability to kick and
ban users, to name room moderators and administrators, to require
membership or passwords in order to join the room. However it is
worth noting that the centralized conferencing framework does not
encompass the communication between servers, as XMPP does. Thus, for
the solution proposal in this document, the XMPP client SHOULD only
have a direct connection with the server hosting the chatroom
instance, and federations between servers SHOULD NOT be allowed.
3.1. Basic Protocol Operations
The multi-user chat protocol operations, such as create, join and
delete can be performed using both non-signaling specific mechanisms
or protocol specific mechanisms, if defined. Non-signaling specific
mechanisms are defined in the Centralized Conferencing Framework
[RFC5239] and related Conference Control Manipulation Protocol (CCMP)
document [RFC6503]. This document provides the details for the non-
signaling specific mechanisms using CCMP with detailed examples
Barnes, et al. Expires January 17, 2013 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft XCON Chat July 2012
provided in [RFC6504]. Protocol specific mechanisms are defined in
other documents such as for SIP in the SIPPING Conference Framework
[RFC4353] and for XMPP in Multi-User Chat [XEP-0045].
The privilege to create a chatroom associated with a conference
instance can be restricted to certain users or can be reserved to an
administrator of the conference. The room creation can be performed
using non-signaling mechanism or protocol specific mechanism if
defined. In the case of CCMP, a confRequest message with a "create"
operation is sent by the chat client.
A participant can query the conferencing system to discover the list
of the chat rooms associated with a hosted conference instance. In
the case of CCMP, a blueprintsRequest message for the chatrooms
supported by a conferencing system or a confsRequest message for the
active chatrooms can be sent by the chat client.
In order to participate in the discussions held in a multi-user chat
room, a participant MUST first enter the room. A chat client wishing
to enter a chatroom associated with a conference instance MAY use a
non-signaling or protocol specific mechanism if defined. In the case
of CCMP, a participant MUST join a conference instance using the
mechanisms which are described in [RFC6503] - e.g., userRequest
message with a "create" operation to be added to a conference
instance.
The request to send a message is specific to the chat protocol (e.g.,
MSRP SEND). Upon receipt of a request to send a message, the
conferencing system replicates and forwards the message to all other
chat clients that are participants of the chat room. Depending upon
policy, a conferencing system MAY ignore or reject messages, in which
case they are not distributed to the other chat room participants.
A participant MAY send a "private message" to a selected participant
or a group of participant. This privilege SHOULD be allowed for all
participants unless local policy dictates otherwise.
A chat client wishing to exit a chat room uses a non-signaling
mechanism or protocol specific mechanism, if defined. If the chat
client is the last to exit, the conferencing system can be
responsible for deleting the room or the originator/owner/moderator
The privilege to delete a chatroom associated with a conference
instance can be restricted to certain users or can be reserved to an
administrator of the conference. The room deletion can be performed
using non-signaling mechanism or protocol specific mechanism if
defined. In the case of CCMP, the client MUST send a CCMP
confRequest message with an operation of "delete".
Barnes, et al. Expires January 17, 2013 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft XCON Chat July 2012
3.2. Chat Session and Conferencing Identifiers
As highlighted in the overview section, a chat client connecting to a
conferencing system has a 1:1 relationship with the chat signaling
entity, each having a unique protocol specific chat session
identifier (chat-ID). When referring to chat-IDs the document is
making reference to the locally (at conferencing system) generated
chat-ID used for session signaling identification. An important
concept in this proposal is the creation and management of Group Chat
sessions. It is important that each chat session created, as
identified by a unique chat-ID, is explicitly tied to an associated
conference. The Centralized Conferencing Framework [RFC5239]
introduces the concept of a conference user identifier which is
defined in [RFC6501]. When a user joins a conference instance
through the signaling protocol, the user is allocated an appropriate
conference user identifier either through authentication or system
allocation. The conference user identifier is represented by the
'entity' attribute of a <user> element in the <users> element in the
conference information. The association of the chat-IDs is
accomplished by including each of the chat-IDs in the conference
information in the 'entity' attribute of an <endpoint> element in the
<user> element. The conference information as a whole is uniquely
identified within the conferencing system by an XCON-URI, thus
providing the relevant association between a chat session and a
centralized conference. Figure 2 shows the logical repesentation of
the chat-IDs with the conf-userIDs, with each row in the table
representing a single entry.
+-------------------------------------------------+
| XCON-URI: 711331@example.com |
+-----------------------+-------------------------+
| Chat-ID=8asjdhk | xcon-userid: 839ULjj |
| Chat-ID=38iuhds | xcon-userid: 0283hHu |
| Chat-ID=djiowid | xcon-userid: ncH37Hs |
| Chat-ID=389hewu | xcon-userid: pakdjjH |
+-----------------------+-------------------------+
Figure 2: Session Association
A more complex session association is necessary due to potential for
a user to have multiple group chats in a single conference instance,
such as multi-lingual conference support. In an example with SIP and
MSRP, the conference representation in Figure 2 allows for such
functionality when separate SIP dialogs represent MSRP sessions.
Barnes, et al. Expires January 17, 2013 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft XCON Chat July 2012
This process becomes complex in the case that multiple SDP MSRP media
sessions (m=) are defined in a single payload. This internal
representation needs expanding to enable a conferencing system to
explicitly associate a media session (m=). This involves including
the media label, as defined in [RFC4574], to maintain the internal
conference association. An example is illustrated in Figure 3.
+----------------------------------------------------------------+
| XCON-URI: 711331@example.com |
+----------------------------------------------------------------+
| Chat-ID=8asjdhk | xcon-userid: 839ULjj | Label=iede3 |
| Chat-ID=38iuhds | xcon-userid: 0283hHu | Label=8heus |
| Chat-ID=838unaH | xcon-userid: 0283hHu | Label=3cnu7 |
| Chat-ID=djiowid | xcon-userid: ncH37Hs | Label=jd38J |
| Chat-ID=389hewu | xcon-userid: pakdjjH | Label=U83hd |
| Chat-ID=Ko03jdk | xcon-userid: pakdj7H | Label=ehy3h |
+----------------------------------------------------------------+
Figure 3: Advanced Session Association + Media Label
In Figure 3, conference user identifiers '0283hHu' and 'pakdj7H'
appear twice. The combination of multiple conference user
identifiers and a unique chat-ID enables the conference system to
clearly identify a specific Group Chat instance. Even in the
simplest conferencing system, where users are allowed to enter
anonymously, the internal representation described in this section
should be observed. In this case, the conferencing system would
still internally create a conference user identifier for participant
reference purposes.
4. Advanced Operations
Advanced chat features, such as sidebars and private messages can
also be supported within the context of the centralized conferencing
framework using CCMP. Additional protocol details for these advanced
features are provided in [RFC6504].
5. Additional Operations
This section discusses additional operations or features required to
provide chat room functionality. Most of the operations are not
explicitly defined in the centralized conferencing framework. While
Barnes, et al. Expires January 17, 2013 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft XCON Chat July 2012
most of the features and operations are achievable using the XCON
data model [RFC6501] and data maintained by a conferencing system per
the XCON framework, some advanced features require extensions to the
XCON data model and may be optimized with more discrete CCMP
messages.
5.1. Nicknames
Nicknames allow a user to define a text string that uniquely
identifies the user within a particular chatroom without necessarily
reflecting any protocol specific identity (e.g., SIP URI, Conference
User Identifier, etc.). It is also important to note that the
functionality to provide nicknames is not limited to users involved
in chatrooms, thus it should be a general feature of the conferencing
system.
Within a conferencing system, all nicknames MUST map to a conference
user identifier. The nicknames are unique only to the specific
conferencing system. To ensure uniqueness of nicknames, any new
'nickname' created MUST be compared with nicknames already in use or
reserved following the rules defined in Preparation and Comparison of
Nicknames [I-D.saintandre-precis-nickname].
There may be multiple nicknames associated with a single conference
user identifier (e.g., a user that has different nicknames for
different chat rooms and/or voice/video conferences). In order to
support nicknames, a 'nickname' attribute is defined in the XCON data
model within the <user> element. A 'nickname' can be assigned to the
conference user when an XCON-USERID is assigned to the user. The
conferencing client MAY include a preferred nickname in the CCMP
userRequest with a "create" operation.
The conferencing system allocates a conference user identifier and a
nickname using system specific mechanisms, which can also include
authentication. The conferencing system MUST associate the assigned
nickname with the specific conference user identifier that has been
allocated by updating the conference information. Another option
would be to define a new CCMP message to just manipulate the
'nickname' element, but that is not necessary.
As described Section 3.2, the XCON-userid identifier is used in
conjunction with a chat-ID to internally represent a participant in a
conference instance. This association is created when a conferencing
client requests to create or join a specific chatroom. The nickname
allocated for the specific conferencing user identifier MUST also be
associated with the chat session ID. Figure 4 provides an example of
the association between the chat session identifier, the conference
user identifier and conference nickname for a specific Group Chat
Barnes, et al. Expires January 17, 2013 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft XCON Chat July 2012
represented by the conference identifier.
+-----------------------------------------------------------------+
| XCON-URI: 711331@example.com |
+-------------------+---------------------------------------------+
| Chat-ID=8asjdhk | xcon-userid: 839ULjj | nickname=Alice |
| Chat-ID=38iuhds | xcon-userid: 0283hHu | nickname=Bob |
| Chat-ID=838unaH | xcon-userid: 0283hHu | nickname=CliffyBob |
| Chat-ID=djiowid | xcon-userid: ncH37Hs | nickname=Dude |
| Chat-ID=389hewu | xcon-userid: pakdjjH | nickname=Elliott |
| Chat-ID=Ko03jdk | xcon-userid: pakdj7H | nickname=Fluffy |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------+
Figure 4: Nickname Associations for a Group Chat
Depending upon the conferencing system, the conference system either
allocates the preferred nickname for that user or allocates a
different nickname. The nickname MUST be included in the CCMP
userResponse message.
In the future, if a more generic nickname mechanism is available,
rather than provide nicknames that are specific to the conferencing
system, a conferencing system may interface with a nickname registry,
for example, in order to allocate a new nickname for a specific
conferencing client. This change in how a conferencing system
allocates nicknames should not impact the CCMP protocol interface to
support nicknames.
5.2. Logging
A common chat feature involves logging the history of a chat room.
This provides a record of a chat room that can be used when a user
first joins a chat room as discussed in Section 5.3. It can also be
used to provide a complete capture of a specific chat room session.
When a participant enters a room in which the discussions are logged,
the conferencing system MUST warn the participant that the
discussions are logged.
The centralized conferencing framework does not fully describe the
role of recording or logging of active conferences. However, this
functionality can be realized with the manipulation of the
appropriate elements in the data model using the general conference
control protocol operations. One approach for implementing this
function would be to have it be based on specific manipulation of the
Barnes, et al. Expires January 17, 2013 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft XCON Chat July 2012
conference by a user with the appropriate permissions (i.e.,
confRequest messaage with an "update" operation to start and stop
recording). Another mechanism for implementing this function would
be to have a specific user as part of the conference to perform this
function, and having the media proxied to a logging device. In the
case of systems that support the Media Control archictecture
[RFC5567] and SIP Control Framework [RFC6230] along with the specific
Mixer control package [RFC6505], the addition of a user to proxy the
media for recording is described in section 6.2.3 in
[I-D.ietf-mediactrl-call-flows]
5.3. History
A common chat feature allows users to view the past history of chat
rooms. This operation is common when a user first joins a chat room
that is underway. A user is often offered the option to review a
specific number of past messages.
Conferencing systems that maintain the history associated with
specific chat rooms through logging, as described in Section 5.2,
should provide a mechanism, using the conference identifier, to
access the specific information requested by a user based on a
specific timestamp. The user request for the information and the
rendering of the information is specific to the user's session based
messaging protocol and may not be supported by all the messaging
protocols.
5.4. Indicating Alternate Venue
Another chat room feature provides the details of an alternate chat
room venue for previously active chat rooms that have been closed,
with a related topic. While not detailed in the centralized
conferencing framework, this functionality can be accomplished by
creating the new chat room as a child or sibling of the previous chat
room and providing the Active chat conference object identifier to
any valid users that attempt to join a previous chat room. The
information about the new chat room can also be provided at the end
of a chat room that is being de-activated at the end of the session.
5.5. File Transfer
The ability to send files to a selected participant or group of
participants is another common functionality, supported by messaging
protocols. This functionality also enables the exchange of
information (e.g. name, size, and date) about the file to be
transferred and usually provides a mechanism to show an image
thumbnail for files such as photos. This capability could be
reflected in the conference data (in the conference instance) and
Barnes, et al. Expires January 17, 2013 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft XCON Chat July 2012
requires at least an extension to the "available-media" element. The
thumbnail rendering of the image is outside the scope of the data
model and is specific to the client application. Additional
functionality to support this capability requires further study.
5.6. Real Time Collaboration
The messaging protocols can be used, and are being used, in
applications quite different from a simple exchange of text messages
between two participants in the context of a chatroom. Real-time
collaboration tools (e.g. Whiteboarding, screen-share, co-browse or
document-share) are some of these applications.
The Conferencing Systems are usually bound to Real-time collaboration
tools to increase the productivity of distributed teams. In terms of
correlating this functionality with CCMP, the mechanisms for
manipulating the conference are the same in terms of updating the
data associated with the conference with the additional attributes to
reflect the multiple sources of media for the chatroom. This
capability could be reflected in the conference data (in the
conference instance) with an extension to the "available-media"
element. Some current systems using SIP embed the attributes in the
media stream. Overall, supporting this functionality requires
further study, in particular with regards to the RTCWeb initiative as
described in documents such as
[I-D.ietf-rtcweb-use-cases-and-requirements]
6. Security Considerations
As discussed in the Centralized Conferencing Framework, there are a
wide variety of potential attacks related to conferencing, due to the
natural involvement of multiple endpoints and the many, often user-
invoked, capabilities provided by the conferencing system. Examples
of attacks associated with chatrooms includes the following: an
endpoint attempting to receive the messages for conferences in which
it is not authorized to participate, an endpoint attempting to
disconnect other users, and theft of service, by an endpoint, in
attempting to create conferences it is not allowed to create.
Since this document describes the use of existing protocols (i.e.,
MSRP/SIP, CCMP, XMPP, etc.), it depends on the security solutions for
those protocols and the associated authorization mechanisms. This
solution is based on the Centralized Conferencing framework and makes
use of the policy associated with the conference object to ensure
that only authorized entities are able to manipulate the data to
access the capabilities. This solution also makes use of the privacy
and security of the identity of a user in the conference, as
Barnes, et al. Expires January 17, 2013 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft XCON Chat July 2012
discussed in the Centralized Conferencing Framework.
7. IANA Considerations
This document requires no IANA registrations.
8. Acknowledgments
The authors appreciate the input and comments from Miguel Garcia-
Martin and Dave Morgan.
9. References
9.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC5239] Barnes, M., Boulton, C., and O. Levin, "A Framework for
Centralized Conferencing", RFC 5239, June 2008.
[RFC6501] Novo, O., Camarillo, G., Morgan, D., and J. Urpalainen,
"Conference Information Data Model for Centralized
Conferencing (XCON)", RFC 6501, March 2012.
[RFC6503] Barnes, M., Boulton, C., Romano, S., and H. Schulzrinne,
"Centralized Conferencing Manipulation Protocol",
RFC 6503, March 2012.
[I-D.saintandre-precis-nickname]
Saint-Andre, P., "Preparation and Comparison of
Nicknames", draft-saintandre-precis-nickname-00 (work in
progress), March 2012.
9.2. Informative References
[RFC6504] Barnes, M., Miniero, L., Presta, R., and SP. Romano,
"Centralized Conferencing Manipulation Protocol (CCMP)
Call Flow Examples", RFC 6504, March 2012.
[RFC1459] Oikarinen, J. and D. Reed, "Internet Relay Chat Protocol",
RFC 1459, May 1993.
[RFC2810] Kalt, C., "Internet Relay Chat: Architecture", RFC 2810,
April 2000.
Barnes, et al. Expires January 17, 2013 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft XCON Chat July 2012
[RFC2811] Kalt, C., "Internet Relay Chat: Channel Management",
RFC 2811, April 2000.
[RFC2812] Kalt, C., "Internet Relay Chat: Client Protocol",
RFC 2812, April 2000.
[RFC2813] Kalt, C., "Internet Relay Chat: Server Protocol",
RFC 2813, April 2000.
[RFC6120] Saint-Andre, P., "Extensible Messaging and Presence
Protocol (XMPP): Core", RFC 6120, March 2011.
[RFC6121] Saint-Andre, P., "Extensible Messaging and Presence
Protocol (XMPP): Instant Messaging and Presence",
RFC 6121, March 2011.
[RFC4353] Rosenberg, J., "A Framework for Conferencing with the
Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)", RFC 4353,
February 2006.
[RFC4975] Campbell, B., Mahy, R., and C. Jennings, "The Message
Session Relay Protocol (MSRP)", RFC 4975, September 2007.
[I-D.ietf-simple-chat]
Niemi, A., Garcia, M., and G. Sandbakken, "Multi-party
Chat Using the Message Session Relay Protocol (MSRP)",
draft-ietf-simple-chat-15 (work in progress), July 2012.
[RFC4574] Levin, O. and G. Camarillo, "The Session Description
Protocol (SDP) Label Attribute", RFC 4574, August 2006.
[RFC5567] Melanchuk, T., "An Architectural Framework for Media
Server Control", RFC 5567, June 2009.
[RFC6505] McGlashan, S., Melanchuk, T., and C. Boulton, "A Mixer
Control Package for the Media Control Channel Framework",
RFC 6505, March 2012.
[RFC6230] Boulton, C., Melanchuk, T., and S. McGlashan, "Media
Control Channel Framework", RFC 6230, May 2011.
[I-D.ietf-mediactrl-call-flows]
Amirante, A., Castaldi, T., Miniero, L., and S. Romano,
"Media Control Channel Framework (CFW) Call Flow
Examples", draft-ietf-mediactrl-call-flows-09 (work in
progress), July 2012.
[I-D.ietf-rtcweb-use-cases-and-requirements]
Barnes, et al. Expires January 17, 2013 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft XCON Chat July 2012
Holmberg, C., Hakansson, S., and G. Eriksson, "Web Real-
Time Communication Use-cases and Requirements",
draft-ietf-rtcweb-use-cases-and-requirements-09 (work in
progress), June 2012.
[XEP-0045]
Saint-Andre, P., "Multi-User Chat", XSF XEP 0045,
July 2007.
Authors' Addresses
Mary Barnes
Polycom
Email: mary.ietf.barnes@gmail.com
Chris Boulton
NS-Technologies
Email: chris@ns-technologies.com
Salvatore Loreto
Ericsson
Hirsalantie 11
Jorvas 02420, Finland
Email: salvatore.loreto@ericsson.com
Barnes, et al. Expires January 17, 2013 [Page 15]
