SIMPLE J. Rosenberg
Internet-Draft S. Donovan
Intended status: Standards Track K. McMurry
Expires: May 7, 2009 Cisco
November 3, 2008

Optimizing Federated Presence with View Sharing
draft-ietf-simple-view-sharing-02

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 May 7, 2009.

Abstract

Presence federation refers to the exchange of presence information
between systems. One of the primary challenges in presence
federation is scale. With a large number of watchers in one domain
obtaining presence for many presentities in another, the amount of
notification traffic is large. This document describes an extension
to the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) event framework, called view
sharing. View sharing can substantially reduce the amount of

Rosenberg, et al. Expires May 7, 2009 [Page 1]

Internet-Draft Presence View Sharing November 2008

traffic, but requires a certain level of trust between domains. View
sharing allows the amount of presence traffic between domains to
achieve the theoretical lower bound on information exchange in any
presence system.

Table of Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Overview of Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. RLS Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.1. On Receipt of a Resource List Subscription Request . . . . 8
3.1.1. Find a Matching Back-End Subscription . . . . . . . . 8
3.1.2. Generating a Back-End Subscription . . . . . . . . . 9
3.2. Processing NOTIFY Requests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.2.1. Processing ACL-Infos . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.2.2. Processing State Documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.2.3. Processing Back-End Terminations . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4. Notifier Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.1. Authentication and Authorization . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.2. Processing Initial SUBSCRIBE Requests . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.3. SUBSCRIBE Refreshes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4.4. Policy Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4.5. Event State Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
5. ACL Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
5.1. Document Structure and Semantics . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
5.2. Trust Considerations when Construcing ACLs . . . . . . . . 17
5.3. Example Documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
5.4. Rule Determination Algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
5.5. XML Schema . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
6. Performance Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
7. Requirements Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
8.1. Privacy Considerations of the Serving Domain . . . . . . . 24
8.2. Privacy Considerations of the Watched Resource . . . . . . 25
8.3. Interactions with S/MIME . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
9.1. MIME Type Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
9.2. URN Sub-Namespace Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
9.3. Schema Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
10. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 32

Rosenberg, et al. Expires May 7, 2009 [Page 2]

Internet-Draft Presence View Sharing November 2008

1. Introduction

Presence refers to the ability, willingness and desire to communicate
across differing devices, mediums and services [RFC2778]. Presence
is described using presence documents [RFC3863] [RFC4479], exchanged
using a SIP-based event package [RFC3856].

Presence federation refers to the interconnection of disparate
systems for the purposes of sharing presence information. This
interconnection involves passing of subscriptions from one system to
another, and then the passing of notifications in the opposite
direction. Federation can be occur between different domains, where
it is referred to as inter-domain federation. However, federation
can also occur within a domain, where it is referred to as intra-
domain federation [I-D.ietf-simple-intradomain-federation].

[I-D.ietf-simple-interdomain-scaling-analysis] has analyzed the
amount of traffic, in terms of messages and in terms of bytes, which
flow between systems in various federated use cases. These numbers
demonstrate that presence traffic can be a substantial source of
overhead. The root cause of this scale challenge is the so-called
multiplicative effect of presence data. If there are N users, each
of which have B buddies on their buddy list, and each buddy changes
state L times per hour, the amount of notification traffic is
proportional to N*B*L. For example, in the case of two extremely
large public IM providers that federate with each other (each with 20
million users), [I-D.ietf-simple-interdomain-scaling-analysis] shows
that the amount of traffic due to these steady state notifications is
18.4 billion messages per day, an astoundingly large number.
Overhead for subscription maintenance and refreshes brings the total
to 25.6 billion per day.

The overhead for SIP-based presence can be reduced using SIP
optimizations. In particular, [I-D.ietf-sip-subnot-etags] can reduce
the amount of traffic due to refreshes and polls. However, this
optimization targets the overhead, and doesn't address the core
scaling problem - the multiplicative effect of presence data.

For this reason, there is a clear need to improve the scale of SIMPLE
in federated envrionments.
[I-D.ietf-sipping-presence-scaling-requirements] has laid out a set
of requirements for optimizations. The essence of these requirements
are that the extension should improve performance, while being
backwards compatible and supporting the privacy and policy
requirements of users.

This document defines a mechanism called view sharing in support of
those requirements. The key idea with view sharing is that when

Rosenberg, et al. Expires May 7, 2009 [Page 3]

Internet-Draft Presence View Sharing November 2008

there are many watchers in one system to a single presentity in
another system, each of which is actually going to get the exact same
presence document, the watcher's system extends a single subscription
to the system of the presentity, and the system of the presentity
sends a single copy of the presence document back to the system of
the watcher. Consequently, a "view" is a particular sequence of
presence documents that come about as a consequence of a particular
composition, authorization and privacy policy. Two watchers which
share the same view will always receive the same presence document
when the state of the presentity changes.

Though this mechanism can be applied intra-domain as well as inter-
domain, the specification considers only the inter-domain case. In
addition, though the principal application of view sharing is for
presence, it is a general extension to the SIP events framework and
specified in that way.

In the case of a pair of large providers that are peering with each
other, this mechanism can result in a significant savings. Assuming
a symmetrical system whereby the average buddies per watcher is B and
the average number of watchers for a user is also B, if most buddies
are in one domain or the other, this optimization can reduce the
overall subscription overhead and notification traffic by a factor of
B/2. In cases where there are a large number of small domains, this
mechanism is less useful. Of course, in such cases, the amount of
traffic between any pair of domains is small anyway.

2. Overview of Operation

The extension works in the environment shown in Figure 1. For
explanatory purposes, the environment assumes two domains. There are
some number of subscribers (W1 - W3) in the domain on the left, which
we call the subscribing domain. All of those subscribers are
interested in the state of a single resource P1 in the domain on the
right, which we call the serving domain. The subscribers all make
use of a resource list server (RLS) [RFC4662] which stores their
resource lists and performs the list expansion. Consequently, when
each subscriber subscribes to their resource list on the RLS, in
absence of any optimizations, the RLS will generate three separate
subscriptions to P1, each of which reaches the notifier in the
serving domain.

Rosenberg, et al. Expires May 7, 2009 [Page 4]

Internet-Draft Presence View Sharing November 2008

.
+--------------+ . +--------------+
| | . | |
| | SUB . | |
| | -------.---> | |
| RLS | NOT . | Notifier |
| | <------.---- | |
| | . | |
| | . | |
+--------------+ . +--------------+
^ ^ ^ . ^
List | | | . | PUB
SUB | | | . |
| | | . |
+----+ +----+ +----+ . +----+
| | | | | | . | |
| W1 | | W2 | | W3 | . | P1 |
| | | | | | . | |
+----+ +----+ +----+ . +----+
.
.
.
Subscribing . Serving
Domain . Domain
.

Figure 1: Deployment Model

Of course, in practice each domain will act as both a subscribing
domain and a serving domain, thus implementing both sides of the
system.

The initial SUBSCRIBE generated by the RLS includes a SIP option tag
"view-share" in the Supported header field, indicating that the RLS
supports the view sharing extension. If the notifier also supports
the extension, it makes use of it and includes an indication of this
fact in the Require header field in the SUBSCRIBE response and in
NOTIFY requests it generates.

Rosenberg, et al. Expires May 7, 2009 [Page 5]

Internet-Draft Presence View Sharing November 2008

View sharing requires a level of trust between the two domains.
Typically, TLS will be deployed between them, and the notifier uses
it to determine if the subscribing domain is authorized.

If this is the first subscription from domain 1 for that particular
resource, the notifier accepts the subscription (assuming the
subscriber is authorized of course). The notifications sent to the
RLS include two separate pieces of state. One is the actual state
for the resource. The other is an Access Control List (ACL)
document. This document describes the set of other subscribers from
the originating domain, if any, who are authorized to see exactly the
same document - in other words, the set of users that share the same
view. Should one of those subscribers seek the state of that
resource for the same event package, the RLS from the originating
domain does not need to generate a back-end subscription; rather, it
just uses the document it is receiving from the original
subscription, and passes it to both subscribers. The ACL can also
list users in the originating domain that are authorized to subscribe
to that resource, but who will end up receiving a different view.
Should one of those subscribers subscribe, the RLS knows that it must
perform a back-end subscription to obtain that view. The ACL can
also list subscribers in the originating domain that are not
authorized at all, in which case the RLS could immediately reject
their subscriptions. Finally, if the ACL says nothing about a
particular subscriber, it means that the notifier has elected to say
nothing about what view this subscriber will receive. Consequently,
the RLS must perform a back-end subscription should that subscriber
subscribe to the resource.

Other subsequent subscriptions to the same resource from the same
originating domain are processed in a similar way. However, the
notifier in the serving domain will keep track of the set of
subscriptions to the same resource for the same event package from
the same RLS which are to receive the same view. When a presence
notification is to be sent, instead of sending it on all such
subscriptions, the notification is sent on just a single
subscription.

Should the authorization policies in the serving domain change, an
updated ACL is sent, informing the subscribing domain of the new
policies. This may require the subscribing domain to extend a back-
end subscription to obtain a view, or may change the view an existing
subscriber is receiving, and so on.

The ACL allows the serving domain a great deal of flexibility in the
level of trust it imparts to the watching domain. The following are
all possible approaches that the serving domain can utilize:

Rosenberg, et al. Expires May 7, 2009 [Page 6]

Internet-Draft Presence View Sharing November 2008

No Trust: When a notifier receives the subscription, it elects not
to use this mechanism at all using the negotiation techniques
defined here.

Minimal Trust: When a subscriber subscribes to a resource, the ACL
generated for that subscription includes only that subscriber,
along with an identifier for their view. Consequently, for each
subscriber in domain 1 there will be a backend subscription to
domain 2. However, should multiple subscribers share the same
view, the notifier in domain 2 sends a single document on one of
the subscriptions, and the RLS uses this for all of the other
subscribers with the same view. With this approach, domain 2
never discloses the list of authorized subscribers ahead of time,
and it has full knowledge of each subscriber that is subscribed.
However, it gets the performance benefits of reducing the amount
of notification traffic.

Partial Trust: When a subscriber subscribes to a resource, the ACL
generated for that subscription includes that subscriber and all
other subscribers authorized for that same view. Consequently,
there will only be one backend subscription from the RLS to the
notifier for each view. However, the full set of authorized
subscribers is not disclosed ahead of time, only those that will
get the same view. With partial trust, the notifier will not know
the full set of subscribers currently subscribed.

Full Trust: When a subscriber subscribes to a resource, the ACL
generated for that subscription includes that subscriber and all
other subscribers that are authorized for that view, and all other
views, along with a rule that says that all other subscribers get
rejected. In this case, as with partial trust, there is only one
backend subscription from the RLS to the notifier for each view.
The full set of subscribers is disclosed ahead of time as well.
The notifier will not know the full set of subscribers currently
subscribed.

Depending on the level of trust, the mechanism trades off inter-
domain messaging traffic for increased processing load in the RLS to
handle the ACL documents.

3. RLS Behavior

This section defines the procedures that are to be followed by the
RLS. It is important to note that, even though this specification
defines an extension to the SIP events framework, the extension is
only useful for the back-end subscriptions generated by an RLS. The
extension defined here is not applicable or useful for individual

Rosenberg, et al. Expires May 7, 2009 [Page 7]

Internet-Draft Presence View Sharing November 2008

users generating subscriptions. Indeed, if it were utilized by
individual users, it has the potential for violations of user
privacy. See Section 8 for a discussion.

3.1. On Receipt of a Resource List Subscription Request

When the RLS receives a subscription to a resource list which
includes some resource P in another domain or system, it follows the
rules defined here. The processing depends on whether the RLS
already has a backend subscription to the resource that is in the
active state, and for which an ACL has been received.

3.1.1. Find a Matching Back-End Subscription

First, the RLS determines if it has a back-end subscription in place
whose view corresponds to that of the new subscriber. Let P be the
target resource, E the desired event package, and W the identity of
the subscriber.

Based on the procedures of Section 3.2.1, the RLS will keep, for each
resource and event package, the list of the most recent ACLs received
on each back-end subscription currently in place. This is called the
current ACL list. Using this ACL list, the RLS performs the rule
determination algorithm of Section 5.4 to compute the rule ID R for
the subscriber W. This represents the view that the subscriber is
supposed to receive.

Next, the RLS goes through all subscriptions it currently has for
resource P and event package E. For each one, it takes the identity
of the subscriber for that actual subscription. The identity for the
subscriber for that actual subscription is equal to the asserted
identity included in the back-end subscription. For example, if SIP
Identity [RFC4474] is utilized, this would be the URI present in the
From header field of the back-end SUBSCRIBE. Call the subscriber
identity for each subscription Wj.

Next, the RLS computes the rule determination algorithm of
Section 5.4 to compute the rule ID Rj for the subscriber Wj on each
subscription j. This represents the rule ID for the view being
delivered on that subscription.

Then, processing depends on the values of R and Rj:

o If R is null, it means that no ACL in the list specifies the view
for this subscriber. The RLS MUST generate a back-end
subscription to resource P and event package E, and MUST use
subscriber W as the identity in the back-end subscription.

Rosenberg, et al. Expires May 7, 2009 [Page 8]

Internet-Draft Presence View Sharing November 2008

o If R is not null, but the associated rule is blocked, it means
that the subscriber will be rejected. The RLS SHOULD NOT perform
another back-end subscription, and must act as if it had created a
back-end subscription which was rejected.

o If R is not null, and there is at least one subscription j for
which Rj = R, it means that subscription j is already generating
notifications for the view that subscriber W is supposed to
receive. In that case, the RLS SHOULD NOT generate a back-end
subscription for P on behalf of W. Rather, it should treat the
existing back end subscription j as if it were the back-end
subscription for W, and follow the guidelines of RFC 4662
[RFC4662] based on that. Subscription j is called the generating
subscription for subscriber W, and the actual subscriber
associated with subscription j, Wj, is called the generating
subscriber Wgen for subscriber W.

o If R is not null, but there is no subscription j for which Rj=R,
it means that the RLS is not yet receiving the view that
subscriber W requires. The RLS MUST generate a back-end
subscription to resource P, and MUST use subscriber W as the
identity in the back-end subscription.

3.1.2. Generating a Back-End Subscription

If, based on the processing of the previous section, a new back-end
subscription is needed, the rules in this section are followed.

The RLS MUST include a Supported header field in the request with the
option tag "view-share". The Accept header field MUST be present in
the request and MUST include the "application/viewshare-acl+xml" MIME
type amongst the list of supported types. The RLS MUST include an
+sip.instance Contact header field parameter [I-D.ietf-sip-outbound]
to uniquely identify the RLS instance.

Note that it is possible that two subscribers, in a short period of
time, both subscribe to their resource lists, both of which include
resource P. This will cause the RLS to generate two back-end
subscriptions at around the same time. The RLS is forced to generate
the second back-end subscription because it doesn't have an active
back-end subscription that has yet generated an ACL. Once both
subscriptions become active and generate ACLs, if the subscribers are
receiving the same view and both ACLs contain both subscribers, the
RLS SHOULD terminate one of the back-end subscriptions.

Rosenberg, et al. Expires May 7, 2009 [Page 9]

Internet-Draft Presence View Sharing November 2008

3.2. Processing NOTIFY Requests

If a NOTIFY request arrives with a Require header field that includes
the "view-share" option tag, it MUST be processed according to the
rules of this specification.

3.2.1. Processing ACL-Infos

If the contents of the NOTIFY are of type "application/
viewshare-acl+xml", the subscriber processes the body as described
here.

For each resource that the RLS has at least one back-end subscription
for, the RLS MUST remember the most recent viewshare-acl received on
each back-end subscription. This is called the current ACL list for
the resource. This set of viewshare-acl is used in the processing of
subscription requests, as described in Section 3.1.1.

The serving domain can change policies at any time. When it does, it
sends an updated ACL on one or more subscriptions. The RLS MUST
store this ACL, replacing any previous ACL's received on this
subscription. Furthermore, the ACL might impact the views being
received by subscribers, and may impact the state of the back-end
subscriptions.

The RLS computes the set of subscribers Wi which have a resource list
subscription that includes the resource P for whom an updated ACL has
just been received. For each Wi, it performs the view determination
algorithm (see Section 5.4 on the current ACL set. Let Ri be the
view associated with subscriber Wi. If Ri has not changed from prior
to the receipt of the new ACL, no action is taken. However, if it
has changed, the RLS takes the set of current back-end subscriptions,
and for each subscription j, computes the view determination
algorithm for its associated subscriber Wj, to produce Rj. The
action to take depends on what has changed:

o If Ri is now null, it means that the serving domain has changed
the views associated with subscriber Wi, and this new view is not
known to the RLS. The RLS MUST generate a new back-end
subscription on behalf of subscriber Wi for resource P to obtain
this view.

o If Ri is now a blocked rule, it means that the serving domain has
now blocked Wi from obtaining the presence of the resource. The
RLS must act as if it had a back-end subscription on behalf of
subscriber Wi which was terminated.

Rosenberg, et al. Expires May 7, 2009 [Page 10]

Internet-Draft Presence View Sharing November 2008

o If Ri is not null and not blocked, and if there is an Rj which
matches the new Ri, it means that the serving domain has changed
the views associated with subscriber Wi, and changed them to
another view already being received by the RLS. The RLS MUST
treat this back-end subscription j as if it were the back-end
subscription to resource P for subscriber Wi. If the most recent
presence document received on this back-end subscription is not a
semantic match for the presence document most recently delivered
to Wi for resource P, the RLS MUST send this most recent presence
document to subscriber Wi.

o If Ri is not null and not blocked, but there is no Rj which
matches the new Ri, it means that the serving domain has changed
the views associated with subscriber Wi, and this new view is not
one currently being delivered to the RLS. The RLS MUST generate a
new back-end subscription on behalf of subscriber Wi for resource
P to obtain this view.

Furthermore, if there are now two back-end subscriptions j1 and j2
which have identical ACLs, RLS SHOULD terminate one of those two
subscriptions. Two ACL documents are considered equal if they
enumerate the same set of rules with the same members for each rule.

3.2.2. Processing State Documents

If the contents of the NOTIFY is a state document for the given event
package, the RLS follows the procedures defined here.

Let Wj be the subscriber on the subscription j on which the document
was just received. Let Rj be the results of running the rule
determination algorithm on Wj using the current ACL set. Next, the
RLS takes the set of subscribers Wi which have resource P on their
resource lists. The RLS then runs the rule determination algorithm
on each Wi using the current ACL set, producting Ri for each
subscriber Wi. For each Ri that is equal to Rj, the RLS MUST utilize
the document just received as if the back-end subscription j was in
fact for subscriber Wi. This will typically cause that document to
be sent in a NOTIFY request to each such subscriber, though each
subscriber may have some kind of filtering policy which causes the
RLS to modify the document prior to delivery.

3.2.3. Processing Back-End Terminations

If the NOTIFY request from the serving domain terminates the back-end
subscription, it may be because the subscriber Wj associated with
that subscription is no longer permitted to view the state of the
resource.

Rosenberg, et al. Expires May 7, 2009 [Page 11]

Internet-Draft Presence View Sharing November 2008

The ACL associated with the subscription MUST be removed from the
current ACL set. The procedures of Section 3.2.1 MUST be performed
to adjust back-end subscriptions, if needed.

4. Notifier Behavior

When a notifier receives a SUBSCRIBE request containing a Supported
header with the value "view-share", and it wishes to utilize view
sharing for this subscription, it follows the procedures defined
here.

4.1. Authentication and Authorization

The principle concern of the notifier is to determine the domain of
the RLS, and assess whether the subscribing entity is an RLS
authorized to operate on behalf of that domain. In order to utilize
view sharing, a notifier MUST determine both. This information is
necessary in order to compute the ACL to be sent to that domain, and
if done incorrectly, may reveal sensitive information to the watching
domain.

To determine the domain of the subscribing RLS, TLS with mutual
authentication SHOULD be used. In such a case, the notifier can
determine the domain of the RLS from the subjectAltName in the
certificate presented from its peer.

This specification does not define any automated mechanism for a
notifier to determine whether the subscribing entity is, in fact, an
RLS authorized to operate on behalf of the watching domain.
Section 8 discusses why this determination is important. Absent an
automated mechanism, notifiers SHOULD support a configuration option
which allows the administrator to enumerate a set of domains for
which it is known that an entity holding a certificate for that
domain is an authorized RLS. In such a case, the subject from the
certificate can be compared against that list, and if a match is
found, view sharing can be utilized for this subscription.

4.2. Processing Initial SUBSCRIBE Requests

First, the subscription is processed as it normally would be,
including authorization and policy around the document to be
delivered to the subscriber. Furthermore, if the notifier wishes to
utilize view sharing for this subscription, it MUST include a Require
header field in the first NOTIFY request (and indeed any subsequent
ones) it sends confirming this subscription, and that NOTIFY MUST
contain the "view-share" option tag. That option tag MUST NOT be
present in the Require header field of notifications unless the

Rosenberg, et al. Expires May 7, 2009 [Page 12]

Internet-Draft Presence View Sharing November 2008

corresponding dialog-forming SUBSCRIBE contained it in a Supported
header field.

Furthermore, the initial state sent by the notifier MUST include an
ACL document. It is formatted according to the rules and
considerations in Section 5.

The initial state sent by the notifier might include an actual state
document. In particular, a state document MUST be sent if one of the
following is true:

o There is only one subscription from the watching domain to this
resource that has the view associated with the subscriber.

o There is more than one subscription from the watching domain to
this resource with the same view, but the +sip.instance parameter
for the remote target (as conveyed in the Contact header field of
the SUBSCRIBE) differs. In other words, these subscriptions are
from the same domain, but from different RLS in the watching
domain. Each RLS in the watching domain needs to get their own
copy of the view for a particular resource.

If one of these conditions is not true, the notifier SHOULD NOT send
an initial state document on this subscription.

If an ACL and a state document are to be delivered, they MUST be
delivered separate NOTIFY requests unless the subscriber indicated
support for multipart, in which case the content MAY be included in a
single NOTIFY with mulitpart content.

4.3. SUBSCRIBE Refreshes

When the notifier receives a SUBSCRIBE refresh, it MUST send the most
recent ACL document, and if state documents are being sent for this
subscription, the most recent state document.

4.4. Policy Changes

There are several different types of policy changes that can occur:

o If the definitions for a particular rule change, the notifier MUST
assign a new rule ID for that rule. For each subscription to a
resource which contained that rule, the notifier MUST send an
updated ACL which includes a rule with this new rule ID.

o If some subscriber W was previously associated with rule X and is
now associated with rule Y, the notifier checks if it has any
subscriptions from subscriber W. If it does, it MUST send an

Rosenberg, et al. Expires May 7, 2009 [Page 13]

Internet-Draft Presence View Sharing November 2008

updated ACL on that subscription. Based on the rules in
Section 5, this ACL will contain rule Y and will at least include
W amongst the list of members. Furthermore, if there were
subscriptions from other subscribers, but the notifier had
previously sent an ACL on the subscription which was a match for
W, it MUST send an updated ACL on that subscription. This updated
ACL MAY omit a statement about rule Y or MAY include it. However,
the updated ACL MUST NOT claim that subscriber W will receive rule
X.

o If some subscriber W was previously associated with rule X and is
now blocked, the notifier checks if it has any subscriptions from
subscriber W. If it does, it MUST terminate the back-end
subscription. If it doesn't, but it has a subscription from some
other subscriber which had included a rule that was a match for W,
the notifier MUST send an updated ACL on that subscription. This
updated ACL MAY omit any statement about subscriber W, or MAY
include them as part of a blocked rule in that ACL.

o If some subscriber W was previously blocked and is now permitted
and associated with some rule X, the notifier checks if it had any
subscriptions from some other subscriber which included a blocked
rule that matched subscriber W. If it had, it MUST send an updated
ACL on that subscription. That updated ACL MAY omit any statement
about subscriber W, or MAY indicate that subscriber W is now
associated with rule X.

Of course, a policy change will also potentially alter the state
documents that are associated with a view. If so, the notifier MUST
send an updated document on a subscription if one of the following is
true:

o There is only one subscription from the watching domain to this
resource that has the view associated with the subscriber.

o There is more than one subscription from the watching domain to
this resource with the same view, but the +sip.instance Contact
header field in the request differs between them.

If neither is true, the notifier MUST select one subscription amongst
the several which share the same resource, view, and Contact
+sip.instance header field parameter, and sent an updated
notification on that subscription. The choice of subscriptions is
arbitrary and MAY change for each notification.

Rosenberg, et al. Expires May 7, 2009 [Page 14]

Internet-Draft Presence View Sharing November 2008

4.5. Event State Changes

If the state of some resource changes, the notifier may need to send
an updated notification on a subscription. The notifier MUST send an
update on a subscription if one of the following is true:

o There is only one subscription from the watching domain to this
resource that has the view associated with the subscriber.

o There is more than one subscription from the watching domain to
this resource with the same view, but the +sip.instance Contact
header field in the request differs between them.

5. ACL Format

An ACL document is an XML [W3C.REC-xml-20001006] document that MUST
be well-formed and MUST be valid according to schemas, including
extension schemas, available to the validater and applicable to the
XML document. ACL documents MUST be based on XML 1.0 and MUST be
encoded using UTF-8. This specification makes use of XML namespaces
for identifying ACL documents and document fragments. The namespace
URI for elements defined by this specification is a URN [RFC2141],
using the namespace identifier 'ietf' defined by RFC 2648 [RFC2648]
and extended by RFC 3688 [RFC3688]. This URN is:

urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:viewshare-acl

5.1. Document Structure and Semantics

An ACL document informs a watching domain of the set of views that
can be received by that domain, and associates specific subscribers
with specific views. It is very important to understand that the ACL
document does not convey the actual processing that will be applied
by the serving domain. It does not indicate, for example, whether
geolocation is present in a presence document, or which rich presence
[RFC4480] data elements will be conveyed. It merely provides
grouping - indicating which subscribers from the subscribing domain
will receive the same view.

Each ACL document starts with the enclosing root element <acl-list>.
This contains the list of rules defined by the ACL. Each rule is

Rosenberg, et al. Expires May 7, 2009 [Page 15]

Internet-Draft Presence View Sharing November 2008

represented by the <rule> element. Each rule represents a specific
view, which is generated by the notifier based on its authorization,
composition and filtering policies. Each rule is associated with a
rule ID, which is a mandatory attribute of the <rule> element. This
ID is scoped within a single resource. That is, the IDs for two
rules for different presentities are unrelated.

The <rule> element also contains an optional "blocked" boolean
attribute. If "true", it means that the rule specifies that the
associated set of subscribers will be rejected, should they
subscribe. This can be used by the watching domain to avoid
performing back-end subscriptions to users which will only be blocked
anyway.

Each <rule> contains the set of users that will receive the
corresponding view. This can be described by an enumerated set or by
a default. If it is an enumerated set, the <rule> is followed by a
sequence of <member> elements, each of which contains a SIP URI for
the subscriber that will receive that view.

The default view is specified by including a single child element for
<rule> - <other>. The default view applies to all subscribers except
those enumerated by other rules. For this reason, an ACL document
which contains a default view MUST include the rule IDs and
associated members for all other views that are delivered to
subscribers. For example, consider a resource that has three views.
View 1 is delivered to subscribers A and B. View 2 is delivered to
subscriber C. View 3 is delivered to everyone else. An ACL document
that includes the default view must also include views 1 and 2 with
subscribers A, B, and C.

In contrast, an ACL document that does not include a default does not
need to include all views, and it does not need to include all
members for a particular view. Using the example above, it is valid
to include an ACL document which includes only view 1 with subscriber
1.

If two URI are present within <member> elements within the same
<rule>, it represents an indication by the notifier that both users
MUST get the same view. Formally, if the notifier were to receive a
subscription from each subscriber, both subscriptions would be
accepted or both would be rejected, and if accepted, each
subscription would receive semantically identical presence documents
at approximately the same time.

Even if two users will receive the same view, a notifier MAY assign
each to a different view ID. There is no requirement that two unique
views actually contain different presence data. The only requirement

Rosenberg, et al. Expires May 7, 2009 [Page 16]

Internet-Draft Presence View Sharing November 2008

is that, if two users are listed within the same rule, that they do
in fact receive the same view.

An ACL document delivered in a subscription from subscriber W MUST
include the view associated with subscriber W and MUST include
subscriber W explicitly in a <member> element or implicitly by
presence of an <other> element.

5.2. Trust Considerations when Construcing ACLs

The semantics above give very little guidance about what a notifier
should include in an ACL. The amount of information to convey
depends on the level of trust between the subscribing and serving
domains.

Firstly, in all cases, any subscriber listed in a rule MUST be one
that the subscribing RLS is authorized to perform subscriptions for.
Typically, this is all of the subscribers in the domain of the RLS.
For example, if a view-sharing subscription is received from
example.com, only subscribers whose domain is example.com should be
included in the ACL. However, in cases where view sharing is used
between a clearinghouse provider and clearinghouse members, the ACL
could include subscribers in other domains, based on the policy of
the serving domain.

Optimal performance is achieved when the ACL document for a resource
includes all views that the server might ever deliver to subscribers
from the watching domain, and includes all members from that domain
for each view, including any defaults and blocked rules. However,
this informs the watching domain of the set of allowed and blocked
subscribers from its own domain, and associated groupings amongst
subscribers.

Slightly worse performance is achieved when the ACL document for a
resource sent in a subscription from subscriber W includes only a
single view - the one for subscriber W - along with the full set of
subscribers from that domain which will also receive that view,
assuming it is not the default view. If the view is the default
view, the document can include just subscriber W. This approach will
cause back-end subscriptions from every subscriber that will receive
the default, but it discloses less information to the watching
domain. In particular, the full set and number of views is never
known by the watching domain. The fact that a view is default is
never known by the watching domain. The full set of users that are
permitted to view the state of the resource is never disclosed to the
watching domain. The performance of this approach is still
reasonably good when the default rule is blocked. However it is much
less effective when the default is not blocked, and many subscribers

Rosenberg, et al. Expires May 7, 2009 [Page 17]

Internet-Draft Presence View Sharing November 2008

receive the default.

Another choice for construction of ACL documents is to include, in a
subscription from subscriber W, a single rule containing the rule ID
for the view that subscriber W will receive, along with a single
member - W. This approach will still result in a back-end
subscription from each subscriber. However, a single notification is
sent for each view, rather than one per subscriber. The benefit of
this construction is that it provides the watching domain no
additional information about the authorization policies of the
resource than if this extension were not in use at all.

5.3. Example Documents

The example document in Figure 2 shows the case when there is maximum
trust between domains. The full set of subscribers, include a
blocked default, is included.

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>

<acl-list xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance">
<rule id="6228">
<member>sip:user1@example.com</member>
<member>sip:user2@example.com</member>
<member>sip:user3@example.com</member>
<member>sip:user4@example.com</member>
<member>sip:user5@example.com</member>
</rule>
<rule id="3584">
<member>sip:user6@example.com</member>
</rule>
<rule id="1735">
<member>sip:user7@example.com</member>
<member>sip:user8@example.com</member>
<member>sip:user9@example.comm</member>
<member>sip:user10@example.com</member>
<member>sip:user11@example.com</member>
</rule>
<rule blocked="true" id="9433">
<other />
</rule>
</acl-list>

Figure 2: Example with Maximum Trust

The example in Figure 3 shows a moderate level of trust. This ACL
only shows the view associated with the subscriber user1.

Rosenberg, et al. Expires May 7, 2009 [Page 18]

Internet-Draft Presence View Sharing November 2008

Figure 3: Example with Partial Trust

The example in Figure 4 shows the minimal level of trust. This ACL
would be sent in a subscription to user1.

Figure 4: Example with Minimal Trust

5.4. Rule Determination Algorithm

Several steps in the processing of the ACL require that the RLS in
the watching domain execute the rule determination algorithm for
subscriber W on an ACL set. This algorithm is a simple algorithm
which takes, as input, a subscriber W with a given SIP URI, and a set
of ACL documents Ai, and returns as output, a rule ID R, which is the
rule ID for the view that, according to the set of ACLs, subscriber W
should receive.

The algorithm proceeds as follows. First, each Ai is matched to W.
ACL Ai is a match for subscriber W if:

o ACL Ai contains a <member> tag whose URI is a match, based on URI
equality, for W, or

o none of the <member> tags in Ai contain a URI that is a match,
based on URI equality, for W, but there is an <other> element in
Ai

Rosenberg, et al. Expires May 7, 2009 [Page 19]

Internet-Draft Presence View Sharing November 2008

If no ACL Ai matched, the algorithm returns a null result.

For each ACL Ai that matches based on the rules above, take the id of
the enclosing <rule> element that contained the <member> or <other>
element that caused the match. For ACL Ai, this is rule Ri. For
example, consider the following ACL:

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<acl-list "xmlns=urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:viewshare-acl">
<rule id="1">
<member>sip:user1@example.com</member>
<member>sip:user2@example.com</member>
</rule>
<rule id="2">
<member>sip:user3@example.com</member>
</rule>
<rule id="3">
<other/>
</rule>
</acl-list>

If this document is A1, and the subscriber is sip:user3@example.com,
the associated rule R1 is 2. If the subscriber is
sip:user1@example.com or sip:user2@example.com, the rule R1 is 1. If
the subscriber is anyone else from example.com, such as
sip:user4@example.com, the rule R1 is 3.

If all Ri are equal, denote R = Ri. Thus, R is the rule ID
associated with this subscriber. Normally, all Ri will be equal.
However, during transient periods of changes in authorization state,
it is possible that inconsistent ACL documents exist. In that case,
R is assigned the value Ri from the ACL Ai which is the most recently
received amonst all ACLs.

Rosenberg, et al. Expires May 7, 2009 [Page 20]

Internet-Draft Presence View Sharing November 2008

5.5. XML Schema

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>

<xs:schema elementFormDefault="qualified" xmlns:xs="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema">
<xs:element name="acl-list">
<xs:complexType>
<xs:sequence minOccurs="1" maxOccurs="unbounded">
<xs:element name="rule">
<xs:complexType>
<xs:choice>
<xs:element name="other" />
<xs:sequence minOccurs="1" maxOccurs="unbounded">
<xs:element name="member" type="xs:anyURI" />
</xs:sequence>
</xs:choice>
<xs:attribute name="id" type="xs:integer" use="required" />
<xs:attribute default="false" name="blocked" type="xs:boolean" use="optional" />
</xs:complexType>
</xs:element>
</xs:sequence>
</xs:complexType>
</xs:element>
</xs:schema>

6. Performance Analysis

This section considers the performance improvement of the mechanism
when it is maximally exercised. The performance is examined in the
context of an inter-domain presence federation. In this example, the
full ACL, including blocked senders, is returned in the first
subscription to a presentity. This analysis assumes there is a
single, monolithic notifier serving each domain.

The optimizations improve ramp-up, steady state, and termination
message loads. In particular, each of those loads, without the
optimization described here, is proportional to C04, the total number
of federated presentities per watcher. If we assume symmetry, such
that the number of federated presentities per watcher is equal to the
number of watchers per federated presentity, then each of the load
figures is reduced by C04. That is, the system behaves identically
to the case where there is a single subscriber per federated
presentity, and assuming symmetric, the same as if there is a single
federated presentity per subscriber - e.g., C04 = 1.

Rosenberg, et al. Expires May 7, 2009 [Page 21]

Internet-Draft Presence View Sharing November 2008

Consider then the very large network peering model in
[I-D.ietf-simple-interdomain-scaling-analysis]. In this model, the
assumption is two large peering domains with 20 million users each,
with a value of 10 for C04. With this optimization, the number of
steady state notifications due to presence state changes drops from
18.4 billion per day to 1.84 billion per day. The number of messages
per second overall is reduced from 654,167 per second to 65,417 per
second. Still a big number, of course, but it can't actually get
much smaller.

Indeed, it can be readily shown that, assuming the federated domains
do not actually share raw presence inputs and the actual policies
that govern operation of their servers, no protocol can do better
(constants, such as mesage size and the need for protocol responses
and acknowledgements aside). Consider a domain with N presentities.
Each resource changes state P times per hour. Every time the state
changes, the domain applies its authorization and composition
policies. The resulting presence document cannot be known to the
watching domain. Thus, there must be at least one message from the
serving to watching domain, per view, in order to inform it of that
view. This means that the steady state rate of messages can never be
better than N*P, and this is exactly the factor governing the rate of
messages when this optimization is applied.

7. Requirements Analysis

This section analyzes the requirements in
[I-D.ietf-sipping-presence-scaling-requirements] to show how they are
met by the mechanism proposed here.

REQ-001: The solution should not hinder the ability of existing
SIMPLE clients and/or servers from peering with a domain or client
implementing the solution. No changes may be required of existing
servers to interoperate. This requirement is met by usage of the
Supported and Require mechanisms and SIP which negotiate its
usage.

REQ-002: It does NOT constrain any existing RFC functional or
security requirements for presence. The mechanism does not change
anything that is possible without it. It does, however, introduce
new privacy considerations, described below in Section 8.

REQ-003: Systems that are not using the new additions to the
protocol should operate at the same level as they do today. This
requirement is met by usage of the Supported and Require
mechanisms in SIP.

Rosenberg, et al. Expires May 7, 2009 [Page 22]

Internet-Draft Presence View Sharing November 2008

REQ-004: The solution does not limit the ability for presentities to
present different views of presence to different watchers. This
requirement is met by usage of the ACL document, which allows the
serving domain to associate a subscriber with any view it likes,
and to change it over time.

REQ-005: The solution does not restrict the ability of a presentity
to obtain its list of watchers. The mechanism does allow a
presence server to know the list of subscribers, at the expense of
non-optimal performance. In particular, it will receive a
subscription from each subscriber. However, it only generates one
notification per view on presence changes. The fully optimized
solution will result in a loss of knowledge of the set of
watchers. However, it is a policy decision at the presence agent
about whether it would like to make this tradeoff.

REQ-006: The solution MUST NOT create any new or make worse any
existing privacy holes. This requirement is met, but only when
carefully provisioned. See Section 8.

REQ-007: It is highly desirable for any presence system (intra or
inter-domain) to scale linearly as number of watchers and
presentities increase linearly. When the most optimal technique
is used, there is always one subscription per view per presentity,
independent of the number of watchers in the remote domain or the
number of averages buddies per buddy list. Since the number of
views is not proportional to the number of users, the total
traffic volume in a domain is linear with its number of
presentities, and is independent of the number of users in the
peering domain.

REQ-008: The solution SHOULD NOT require significantly more state in
order to implement the solution. The mechanism requires storage
of the ACL, which has a size exactly equal to the number of
subscriptions that would be required if the extension were not in
place. Thus the memory usage is not worsened compared to the
baseline.

REQ-009: It MUST be able to scale to tens of millions of concurrent
users in each domain and in each peer domain. The analysis in
Section 6 shows that, when fully utilized, this mechanism is the
best that can possibly be achieved in any system that does not
actually share policies and raw presence data.

REQ-010: It MUST support a very high level of watcher/presentity
intersections in various intersection models. The mechanism is
optimized for this case.

Rosenberg, et al. Expires May 7, 2009 [Page 23]

Internet-Draft Presence View Sharing November 2008

REQ-011: Protocol changes MUST NOT prohibit optimizations in
different deployment models esp. where there is a high level of
cross subscriptions between the domains. Since standard SIP
techniques are utilized to negotiate the extension, other
mechansims can be defined in the future.

REQ-012: New functionalities and extensions to the presence protocol
SHOULD take into account scalability with respect to the number of
messages, state size and management and processing load. That is
exactly what this extension targets.

REQ-013: The solution SHOULD allow for arbitrary federation
topologies including direct peering and intermediary routing. The
mechanism is optimized for direct peering. It can work in
intermediary routing cases as well.

8. Security Considerations

The principal question with the specification is whether it alters
the privacy characteristics of a non-optimized federated system.
This can be considered for both the serving domain and the
subscribed-to resource. In all cases, view sharing requires secure
authentication and encryption between the domains that use it. This
is provided by TLS.

8.1. Privacy Considerations of the Serving Domain

Consider first the case where the serving domain is using the minimal
trust model. In that case, the ACL provided to the subscribing
domain does not carry any information that the subscribing domain
doesn't already know. It merely points out when two subscribers
share the same view. This is something that the subscribing domain
could have already ascertained by comparing presence documents
delivered to each subscriber. The ACL makes this task easier, but
nonetheless the subscribing domain could have already ascertained it.
Consequently, there is no change whatsoever in the level of privacy
afforded by the optimization when this mode is used.

However, when an ACL is provided that includes other users besides
the actual subscriber, this provides additional information to the
subscribing domain. This is, however, information that the
subscribing domain could find out anyway. If it generated a
subscription from each of its users to the resource it would be able
to determine who from its domain is allowed to subscribe and what
view they would receive. This would be an expensive operation to be
sure, but it is possible. Consequently, the optimization doesn't
really provide anything new to the originating domain, even in this

Rosenberg, et al. Expires May 7, 2009 [Page 24]

Internet-Draft Presence View Sharing November 2008

case.

However, there is an attack possible when the information is divulged
to an end user. Consider a subscribing domain that doesn't actually
implement this extension at all. A user within the domain uses a
client that generates a subscription to a resource in a remote
domain. This subscription uses an outbound proxy in the watching
domain. The outbound proxy is just a proxy, and therefore doesn't
remove or modify the Supported header field in the request. The
serving domain accepts the subscription and sends an ACL that
contains the full set of subscribers that are permitted in the
originating domain. The original subscriber now knows the set of
other authorized buddies within their own domain, and what views they
will see. While this is information that the domain overall would
have access to, it is not information an end user would normally have
access to. Consequently, this is a more serious privacy violation.

It is for this reason that this specification requires that both
sides of the federated link be explicitly provisioned to utilize this
optimization. In the attack above, the subscribing domain would not
have set up a peering relationship with the serving domain. If it
had, it would have an RLS and would not have permitted the user to
directly subscribe in this way. Thus, when the subscription is
received by the serving domain, it will find that it has no agreement
with the originating domain, and would not utilize view sharing.
This thwarts the attack.

This remedy is not optimal because it requires on provisioning to
prevent. There does not appear to be any easy cryptographic means to
prevent it, however.

8.2. Privacy Considerations of the Watched Resource

The principle security concern for the watched resource is whether
the documents shown to subscriber meet its privacy policies. This is
particularly a concern for presence. These privacy policies can be
violated if presence documents are shown to subscribers to whom the
resource has not granted permission, or if they contain content that
the resource has not allowed the subscriber to see.

Based on the mechanisms defined in this specification, view sharing
gives clear guidance to the watching RLS about which additional
subscribers can see a particular presence document. Consequently,
under normal operating conditions, the system ensures that the
privacy policies of the resource are met. It is possible that a
buggy implementation might accidentally redistribute presence
documents to unauthorized subscribers. Implementors SHOULD be
careful to implement the ACL mechanism carefully to avoid this. A

Rosenberg, et al. Expires May 7, 2009 [Page 25]

Internet-Draft Presence View Sharing November 2008

malicious RLS or domain could ignore the ACL documents defined by
this document, and distribute the presence documents to unauthorized
subscribers. However, such an attack is already possible in the
normal operation of an RLS, and is not worsened by the view sharing
mechanism defined here.

8.3. Interactions with S/MIME

The SIP and SIMPLE specifications do allow state documents to be
signed and/or encrypted with S/MIME. When S/MIME is used strictly
for message integrity, view sharing is fully compatible with S/MIME.
However, when presence documents are encrypted using S/MIME, this
causes an interaction with view sharing. The serving domain will
send out only a single document to the watching domain for each view.
This document needs to be decryptable by each authorized subscriber.
Consequently, that group must either share a single key, or the
serving domain needs to encrypt the content using the keys from each
of the authorized subscribers. In the latter case, view sharing and
S/MIME cannot be used together if the set of authorized subscribers
is wildcarded.

9. IANA Considerations

There are several IANA considerations associated with this
specification.

9.1. MIME Type Registration

This specification requests the registration of a new MIME type
according to the procedures of RFC 2048 [RFC2048] and guidelines in
RFC 3023 [RFC3023].

MIME media type name: application

MIME subtype name: viewshare-acl+xml

Mandatory parameters: none

Optional parameters: Same as charset parameter application/xml as
specified in RFC 3023 [RFC3023].

Encoding considerations: Same as encoding considerations of
application/xml as specified in RFC 3023 [RFC3023].

Rosenberg, et al. Expires May 7, 2009 [Page 26]

Internet-Draft Presence View Sharing November 2008

Security considerations: See Section 10 of RFC 3023 [RFC3023] and
Section 8 of RFC XXXX [[NOTE TO IANA/RFC-EDITOR: Please replace
XXXX with the RFC number of this specification]].

Interoperability considerations: none.

Published specification: RFC XXXX [[NOTE TO IANA/RFC-EDITOR:
Please replace XXXX with the RFC number of this specification]]

Applications which use this media type: This document type has
been used to support subscriptions to lists of users [RFC4662] for
SIP-based presence [RFC3856].

Additional Information:

Magic Number: None

File Extension: .acl

Macintosh file type code: "TEXT"

Personal and email address for further information: Jonathan
Rosenberg, jdrosen@jdrosen.net

Intended usage: COMMON

Author/Change controller: The IETF.

9.2. URN Sub-Namespace Registration

This section registers a new XML namespace, as per the guidelines in
RFC 3688 [RFC3688].

URI: The URI for this namespace is
urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:viewshare-acl.

Registrant Contact: IETF, SIMPLE working group, (simple@ietf.org),
Jonathan Rosenberg (jdrosen@jdrosen.net).

XML:

Rosenberg, et al. Expires May 7, 2009 [Page 27]

Internet-Draft Presence View Sharing November 2008

BEGIN
<?xml version="1.0"?>
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML Basic 1.0//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-basic/xhtml-basic10.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type"
content="text/html;charset=iso-8859-1"/>
<title>ACL Info Namespace</title>
</head>
<body>
<h1>Namespace for ACL Info</h1>
<h2>urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:viewshare-acl</h2>
<p>See <a href="[URL of published RFC]">RFCXXXX [NOTE
TO IANA/RFC-EDITOR: Please replace XXXX with the RFC number of this
specification.]</a>.</p>
</body>
</html>
END

9.3. Schema Registration

This section registers an XML schema per the procedures in [RFC3688].

URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:schema:viewshare-acl

Registrant Contact: IETF, SIMPLE working group, (simple@ietf.org),
Jonathan Rosenberg (jdrosen@jdrosen.net).

The XML for this schema can be found as the sole content of
Section 5.5.

10. Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Avshalom Houri, Richard Barnes, and
Michael Froman for their comments on this document.

11. References

11.1. Normative References

[RFC4662] Roach, A., Campbell, B., and J. Rosenberg, "A Session
Initiation Protocol (SIP) Event Notification Extension for
Resource Lists", RFC 4662, August 2006.

[RFC4474] Peterson, J. and C. Jennings, "Enhancements for

Rosenberg, et al. Expires May 7, 2009 [Page 28]

Internet-Draft Presence View Sharing November 2008

Authenticated Identity Management in the Session
Initiation Protocol (SIP)", RFC 4474, August 2006.

[RFC2141] Moats, R., "URN Syntax", RFC 2141, May 1997.

[RFC2648] Moats, R., "A URN Namespace for IETF Documents", RFC 2648,
August 1999.

[RFC3688] Mealling, M., "The IETF XML Registry", BCP 81, RFC 3688,
January 2004.

[RFC2048] Freed, N., Klensin, J., and J. Postel, "Multipurpose
Internet Mail Extensions (MIME) Part Four: Registration
Procedures", BCP 13, RFC 2048, November 1996.

[RFC3023] Murata, M., St. Laurent, S., and D. Kohn, "XML Media
Types", RFC 3023, January 2001.

[W3C.REC-xml-20001006]
Maler, E., Paoli, J., Bray, T., and C. Sperberg-McQueen,
"Extensible Markup Language (XML) 1.0 (Second Edition)",
World Wide Web Consortium FirstEdition REC-xml-20001006,
October 2000,
<http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/REC-xml-20001006>.

[I-D.ietf-sip-outbound]
Jennings, C. and R. Mahy, "Managing Client Initiated
Connections in the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)",
draft-ietf-sip-outbound-16 (work in progress),
October 2008.

11.2. Informative References

[RFC2778] Day, M., Rosenberg, J., and H. Sugano, "A Model for
Presence and Instant Messaging", RFC 2778, February 2000.

[RFC3863] Sugano, H., Fujimoto, S., Klyne, G., Bateman, A., Carr,
W., and J. Peterson, "Presence Information Data Format
(PIDF)", RFC 3863, August 2004.

[RFC4479] Rosenberg, J., "A Data Model for Presence", RFC 4479,
July 2006.

[RFC3856] Rosenberg, J., "A Presence Event Package for the Session
Initiation Protocol (SIP)", RFC 3856, August 2004.

[RFC4480] Schulzrinne, H., Gurbani, V., Kyzivat, P., and J.
Rosenberg, "RPID: Rich Presence Extensions to the Presence

Rosenberg, et al. Expires May 7, 2009 [Page 29]

Internet-Draft Presence View Sharing November 2008

Information Data Format (PIDF)", RFC 4480, July 2006.

[I-D.ietf-simple-interdomain-scaling-analysis]
Houri, A., Aoki, E., Parameswar, S., Rang, T., Singh, V.,
and H. Schulzrinne, "Presence Interdomain Scaling Analysis
for SIP/SIMPLE",
draft-ietf-simple-interdomain-scaling-analysis-05 (work in
progress), October 2008.

[I-D.ietf-simple-intradomain-federation]
Rosenberg, J., Houri, A., and C. Smyth, "Models for Intra-
Domain Presence and Instant Messaging (IM) Federation",
draft-ietf-simple-intradomain-federation-01 (work in
progress), July 2008.

[I-D.ietf-sip-subnot-etags]
Niemi, A., "An Extension to Session Initiation Protocol
(SIP) Events for Conditional Event Notification",
draft-ietf-sip-subnot-etags-03 (work in progress),
July 2008.

[I-D.ietf-sipping-presence-scaling-requirements]
Houri, A., Parameswar, S., Aoki, E., Singh, V., and H.
Schulzrinne, "Scaling Requirements for Presence in SIP/
SIMPLE",
draft-ietf-sipping-presence-scaling-requirements-01 (work
in progress), July 2008.

Authors' Addresses

Jonathan Rosenberg
Cisco
Iselin, NJ
US

Email: jdrosen@cisco.com
URI: http://www.jdrosen.net

Steve Donovan
Cisco
Richardson, TX
US

Email: stdonova@cisco.com

Rosenberg, et al. Expires May 7, 2009 [Page 30]

Internet-Draft Presence View Sharing November 2008

Kathleen McMurry
Cisco
Richardson, TX
US

Email: kmcmurry@cisco.com

Rosenberg, et al. Expires May 7, 2009 [Page 31]

Internet-Draft Presence View Sharing November 2008

Full Copyright Statement

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).

Rosenberg, et al. Expires May 7, 2009 [Page 32]