Internet DRAFT - draft-ietf-lemonade-notification-protocol
draft-ietf-lemonade-notification-protocol
<Lemonade Notification Protocol> June 2006
Lemonade
Internet Draft: Lemonade Notifications and S. H. Maes
Filters
Document: draft-ietf-lemonade-notification-
protocol-00.txt
Expires: December 2006 June 2006
Lemonade Notification protocol
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 November 30, 2006.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).
Abstract
This document introduces a notification protocol as a specified
particular case of the notification mechanisms used by the Lemonade
profile [LEMONADEPROFILEBIS] in [NOTIFICATIONS].
This document also discusses the use of Lemonade notifications to
implement server to server notifications.
Conventions used in this document
Maes Expires December 2006 [Page 1]
<Lemonade Notification Protocol> June 2006
In examples, "C:" and "S:" indicate lines sent by the client and
server respectively.
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].
An implementation is not compliant if it fails to satisfy one or more
of the MUST or REQUIRED level requirements for the protocol(s) it
implements. An implementation that satisfies all the MUST or REQUIRED
level and all the SHOULD level requirements for a protocol is said to
be "unconditionally compliant" to that protocol; one that satisfies
all the MUST level requirements but not all the SHOULD level
requirements is said to be "conditionally compliant." When
describing the general syntax, some definitions are omitted as they
are defined in [RFC3501].
Table of Contents
Status of this Memo...............................................1
Copyright Notice..................................................1
Abstract..........................................................1
Conventions used in this document.................................1
Table of Contents.................................................2
1. Introduction...................................................2
2. Usage Model....................................................3
2.1. Notification protocol in Lemonade Profile Bis.............3
2.2. Notification protocol for generic server to server
notifications..................................................4
3. Notification protocol..........................................5
3.1. Protocol details and guidelines...........................6
Security Considerations...........................................6
References........................................................6
Future Work.......................................................6
Acknowledgments...................................................6
Authors Addresses.................................................7
Intellectual Property Statement...................................7
Disclaimer of Validity............................................7
Copyright Statement...............................................8
Acknowledgement...................................................8
1.
Introduction
This draft provides a notification protocols for [NOTIFICATIONS] and
the Lemonade profile.
Maes Expires December 2006 [Page 2]
<Lemonade Notification Protocol> June 2006
2.
Usage Model
2.1.
Notification protocol in Lemonade Profile Bis
The target logical architectures involving the LEMONADE Profile and
notifications are discussed in [LEMONADEPROFILEBIS].
Figure 1 illustrates how notification and filtering can be introduced
in the context of LEMONADE profile bis.
+--------------+_____________
Maes Expires December 2006 [Page 3]
<Lemonade Notification Protocol> June 2006
| |
+---------| Notification |
| | Mechanism |
| +----------^---+
|Notif. |
|Protocol -------\ +|-+_
| ______| +---\>|NF|----+____
| | | +--+ | +-----+ _____
__v__| IMAP +--+_LEMONADE +---+__ESMTP +--+ |
+-----+<-------->|VF| IMAP |DF |<--------|AF| MTA |
| MUA |\ ME-2a +--+ Store +-^-+ +--+_____|
|_____| \ +-------------+ | +-----+
+-----+--\---------------|-------+
\ |URLAUTH
\SUBMIT |
\ +----v-----+_____
\ | | +-----+ _____
\ | LEMONADE | ESMTP | |
---->| Submit |--------------->| MTA |
ME-2b | Server | |_____|
|__________| +-----+
+----------+
Figure 1: Filtering mechanism defined in LEMONADE Profile bis
architecture.
In Figure 1, the notification protocol MAY be used between NF in the
Lemonade IMAP Store and a compliant Notification mechanism.
Note that in general [LEMONADEPROFILEBIS] does not mandate the use of
the present notification protocol. It is also possible that NF
interacts with the notification mechanisms via protocols specific to
each of the notification mechanisms. The present draft solely
provides a generic protocol to do so that the notification mechanism
MAY support.
2.2.
Notification protocol for generic server to server
notifications
As discussed in [NOTIFICATIONS], with server to server notifications,
a messaging system (e.g. email server, voice mail system, etc.)
submits alerts, which describe potential notification events,
regarding an end user mailbox status change (e.g. new message has
arrived, mailbox is full, etc.).
These alerts are sent to a notification mechanisms, which may, in
turn, generate an end user alert notification.
Maes Expires December 2006 [Page 4]
<Lemonade Notification Protocol> June 2006
The present notification protocol MAY be used as a generic way to
interface with each server to server notification mechanisms.
As described in {NOTIFICATIONS], it is also possible to interact with
the notification mechanisms via protocols specific to each of the
notification mechanism. The present draft solely provides a generic
protocol to do so that the notification mechanism MAY support.
The figure 2 depicts the server to server notification scope:
+--------+ +--------+
New | | | SMS |
Message | Email | \ |Gateway |
-------> |Server 1| \ _ | |
+--------+ \ /| +--------+
^ \ /
| \ / ^
| \ +--------------+ / | +--------+
+--------+ | _|+-------------|+ / | | MWI |
Read | Voice | | || |/ | |Gateway |
Message | Mail |-------->| Notification |------->| |
-------> | Server | | ^ _ +| Mechanisms |\ ^ | +--------+
+--------+ | | /| +--------------- \ | |
| |/ \ \| |
| / ^ \ ^ \ |
|/| | \ | |\|
+--------+ / | | \ | | \ +--------+
Mailbox | | /| | | \| | |\ | Wap |
Full | Email |/ | | | ^ \ | |_|| Push |
-------> |Server 2| | | | | |\| | |Gateway |
+--------+ | | | | | \ | +--------+
| | | | | |\|
| | | | | | \
| | | | | | |\
| | | | | | |_|+--------+
| | | | | | | | IM |
| | | | | | | |Gateway |
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | +--------+
| | | | | | |
Server to OTHER
Server PROTOCOLS
Notifications
Figure 2: Scope of server to server notifications
3.
Notification protocol
Maes Expires December 2006 [Page 5]
<Lemonade Notification Protocol> June 2006
The notification protocol MUST follow the [PARLAYXMULTIMEDIA]
protocol (over SOAP).
3.1.
Protocol details and guidelines
<Editors note: To be Done
Security Considerations
Notifications must be secured (when useful information is sent) and
integrity should be checkable.
It should be possible to authenticate sender and prevent Denial of
Service attack via notifications.
References
[LEMONADEPROFILE] Maes, S.H. and Melnikov A., "Lemonade Profile",
draft-ietf-lemonade-profile-XX.txt, (work in progress).
[LEMONADEPROFILEBIS] Maes, S.H., Melnikov A. and D. Cridland, "
LEMONADE profile bis", draft-ietf-lemonade-profile-bis-xx.txt,
(work in progress).
[NOTIFICATIONS] Maes, S.H. and all, "Lemonade Notifications and
Filtering", draft-maes-lemonade-notifications-server-to-client-
XX.txt, (work in progress).
[PARLAYXMULTIMEDIA] ETSI, Open Service Access (OSA); Parlay X Web
Services; Part 5: Multimedia Messaging - ETSI ES 202 391-5 V1.1.1
(2005-03), URL:
http://www.parlay.org/en/specifications/docs/es_20239105v010101p.z
ip
Future Work
[1] Determine WG views.
[2] Detail usage model and guidelines
[3] Clean up draft with respect to [NOTIFICATIONS]
Acknowledgments
Maes Expires December 2006 [Page 6]
<Lemonade Notification Protocol> June 2006
The authors want to thank the authors of the original work on Server
To Server Notification Protocol Requirements (draft-ietf-lemonade-
notify-s2s-00) whose material has been incorporated in the present
document, in particular: Gev Decktor.
Authors Addresses
Stephane H. Maes
Oracle Corporation
500 Oracle Parkway
M/S 4op634
Redwood Shores, CA 94065
USA
Phone: +1-650-607-6296
Email: stephane.maes@oracle.com
Intellectual Property Statement
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.
Disclaimer of Validity
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 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.
Maes Expires December 2006 [Page 7]
<Lemonade Notification Protocol> June 2006
Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006). 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.
Acknowledgement
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society.
Maes Expires December 2006 [Page 8]
