Network Working Group P. Saint-Andre Internet-Draft Jabber Software Foundation Expires: October 27, 2004 A. Houri IBM J. Hildebrand Jabber, Inc. April 28, 2004 Interoperability between the Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP) and Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Extensions for Instant Messaging and Presence draft-saintandre-xmpp-simple-01 Status of this Memo This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026. 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 October 27, 2004. Copyright Notice Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). All Rights Reserved. Abstract This document defines a bi-directional protocol mapping for use by gateways that enable the exchange of instant messages and presence information between systems that implement the Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP) and those that implement the basic extensions to the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) for instant messaging and presence. Saint-Andre, et al. Expires October 27, 2004 [Page 1] Internet-Draft XMPP SIMPLE Interop April 2004 Table of Contents 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.1 Architectural Assumptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.2 Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2. Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2.1 Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2.2 XMPP to SIP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 2.3 SIP to XMPP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3. Instant Messages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3.1 Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3.2 XMPP to SIP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3.3 SIP to XMPP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 4. Presence Notifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 4.1 Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 4.2 XMPP to SIP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 4.3 SIP to XMPP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 5. Presence Subscriptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 5.1 Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 5.2 XMPP to SIP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 5.3 SIP to XMPP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 8. Open Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 9. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 10.1 Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 10.2 Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 A. Revision History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 A.1 Changes from draft-saintandre-xmpp-simple-00 . . . . . . . 24 Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . 25 Saint-Andre, et al. Expires October 27, 2004 [Page 2] Internet-Draft XMPP SIMPLE Interop April 2004 1. Introduction In order to help ensure interoperability between instant messaging and presence systems that conform to the requirements of RFC 2779 [IMP-REQS], it is important to clearly define mappings between such protocols. Within the IETF, work has proceeded on two such protocols: o Various extensions to the Session Initiation Protocol ([SIP]) for instant messaging and presence, work on which has been formalized under the SIP for Instant Messaging and Presence Leveraging Extensions (SIMPLE) Working Group o The Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP), which consists of a formalization of the core XML streaming protocols developed originally by the Jabber open-source community One approach to helping ensure interoperability between such protocols is to map each protocol to the abstract semantics described in [CPIM] and [CPP]; that is the approach taken by [SIMPLE-CPIM] and [XMPP-CPIM]. Another approach is that taken by [DRAFT-UMPP]. The approach taken in this document is to directly map semantics from one protocol to another (i.e., from SIP to XMPP and vice-versa), mainly for use by gateways between systems that implement one or the other of these protocols. (These approaches describe concepts that are complementary in many ways, and a future draft may provide a more substantive merger between them.) The mappings specified in this document cover three main areas: o Mapping of addresses o Mapping of instant messages o Mapping of presence notifications o Mapping of presence subscriptions 1.1 Architectural Assumptions This document assumes that the mapping between protocols will most likely occur by means of a gateway between an XMPP network and a SIP network being used for instant messaging and presence. Such a gateway is a dedicated translator between the XMPP and SIP protocols. Although such a gateway could use the [CPIM] and [CPP] specifications to define the common formats into which the protocols are translated for purposes of interworking (as specified in [SIMPLE-CPIM] and [XMPP-CPIM]), this document assumes that a gateway will translate directly from one protocol to the other. Naturally, a gateway need not be a distinct entity on the network and may be co-resident with an XMPP server or a SIMPLE "server" (although there is no such thing as a SIMPLE server, we use the term here to refer to a SIP proxy, Saint-Andre, et al. Expires October 27, 2004 [Page 3] Internet-Draft XMPP SIMPLE Interop April 2004 redirect, or registrar server that supports the SIP extensions for instant messaging and/or presence). Within this document, we refer to a gateway from an XMPP network to a SIP network being used for instant messaging and presence as an "XMPP-SIMPLE gateway", and we refer to a gateway from a SIP network being used for instant messaging and presence to an XMPP network as a "SIMPLE-XMPP gateway". 1.2 Terminology The capitalized key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [TERMS]. 2. Addresses 2.1 Overview The address formats used to identify XMPP entities are different from those used to identify SIP entities. The XMPP address format is specified in [XMPP-CORE]; as specified in [XMPP-IM], instant messaging and presence applications of XMPP must also support 'im:' and 'pres:' URIs as specified in [CPIM] and [CPP] respectively, although such support may simply involve leaving resolution of such addresses up to an XMPP server. The SIP address format for instant messaging is specified in [SIP-IM]; it may use either 'sip:' or 'sips:' URIs as specified in [SIP] or an 'im:' URI as specified in [CPIM]. The SIP address format for presence is specified in [SIP-PRES]; it may use either 'sip:' or 'sips:' URIs as specified in [SIP] or a 'pres:' URI as specified in [CPP]. In this document we describe mappings for addresses of the form only, ignoring any protocol-specific extensions such as XMPP resource identifiers or SIP telephone numbers and passwords. In addition, we have ruled the mapping of domain names as out of scope for now since that is a matter for the Domain Name System; specifically, the issue for interworking between SIP and XMPP relates to the translation of fully internationalized domain names (which the SIP address format does not allow, but which the XMPP address format does allow via [IDNA]) into non-internationalized domain names. Therefore, in the following sections we discuss local-part addresses only (these are called variously "usernames", "instant inboxes", "presentities", and "node identifiers" in the protocols at issue). The sip:/sips:, im:/pres:, and XMPP address schemes allow different sets of characters. In some cases, characters allowed in one scheme are disallowed in others; these characters must be mapped appropriately in order to ensure interoperable communications across Saint-Andre, et al. Expires October 27, 2004 [Page 4] Internet-Draft XMPP SIMPLE Interop April 2004 systems. The table below summarizes our findings regarding the complement of allowable US-ASCII characters in each addressing scheme when compared individually to the other schemes. Table 1: Partial complements of allowable US-ASCII characters +----------+----------+-----------+-------+ | | SIP/SIPS | IM/PRES | XMPP | +----------+----------+-----------+-------+ | SIP/SIPS | N/A | (),; | &'/ | +----------+----------+-----------+-------+ | IM/PRES | #%^`{|} | N/A | &'/ | +----------+----------+-----------+-------+ | XMPP | none | none | N/A | +----------+----------+-----------+-------+ Note: Each cell shows US-ASCII characters that are disallowed in the column protocol but allowed in the row protocol; e.g., the last cell of the third row shows that the characters &'/ are allowed in sip:/ sips: URIs but disallowed in XMPP addresses. The table below is another way of looking at the same issue, since it shows the intersection of allowable US-ASCII characters in each addressing scheme when compared individually to the other schemes. Table 2: Partial intersections of allowable US-ASCII characters +-------------------+------------------+----------------------+ | SIP/SIPS & XMPP | IM/PRES & XMPP | SIP/SIPS & IM/PRES | +-------------------+------------------+----------------------+ | a-z A-Z 0-9 | a-z A-Z 0-9 | a-z A-Z 0-9 | | !$()*+,-.;=?_~ | !#$%*+-.=?^_` | !$*+-.=?_~ | | %hexhex | {|}~ | | +-------------------+------------------+----------------------+ Therefore the following US-ASCII characters are allowed in all three addressing schemes (i.e., the intersection of all three sets of allowable characters): a-z A-Z 0-9 ! $ * + - . = ? In addition to the US-ASCII characters described above, many non-US-ASCII (specifically, UTF-8) characters are allowed in XMPP addresses but not allowed in sip:/sips: or im:/pres: URIs, since XMPP allows internationalized local-part addresses. A straightforward mapping of these characters to US-ASCII characters is provided in Section 2.2.5 of [URL-GUIDE], namely to encode unsafe octets using the %hexhex encoding. Saint-Andre, et al. Expires October 27, 2004 [Page 5] Internet-Draft XMPP SIMPLE Interop April 2004 2.2 XMPP to SIP The following is a high-level algorithm for mapping an XMPP address to a sip:, sips:, im:, or pres: URI: 1. Split XMPP address into node identifier (local-part; mapping described in remaining steps), domain identifier (hostname; mapping is out of scope), and resource identifier (specifier for particular device or connection; discard this for cross-system interoperability) 2. Apply Nodeprep profile of [STRINGPREP] (as specified in [XMPP-CORE]) for canonicalization (OPTIONAL) 3. Translate #26; to &, #27; to ', and #2f; to / respectively 4. For each byte, if the byte is not in the set -A-Za-z0-9!$*.?_~+= then change to %hexhex 5. Combine resulting local-part with mapped hostname to form local@domain address 6. Prepend with 'im:' scheme (for XMPP stanzas) or 'pres:' scheme (for XMPP stanzas) if foreign domain supports these (discovered via [SRV] lookup as specified in [XMPP-IM]), else prepend with 'sip:' or 'sips:' scheme according to local service policy 2.3 SIP to XMPP The following is a high-level algorithm for mapping a sip:, sips:, im:, or pres: URI to an XMPP address: 1. Remove URI scheme 2. Split at the first '@' character into local-part and hostname (mapping the latter is out of scope) 3. Translate %hexhex to equivalent octets 4. Treat result as a UTF-8 string 5. Translate & to #26;, ' to #27;, and / to #2f respectively 6. Apply Nodeprep profile of [STRINGPREP] (as specified in [XMPP-CORE]) for canonicalization (OPTIONAL) 7. Recombine local-part with mapped hostname to form local@domain address 3. Instant Messages 3.1 Overview Both XMPP and IM-aware SIP systems enable entities (often but not necessarily human users) to send "instant messages" to other entities. The term "instant message" usually refers to messages sent between two entities for delivery in close to real time (rather than messages that are stored and forwarded to the intended recipient upon Saint-Andre, et al. Expires October 27, 2004 [Page 6] Internet-Draft XMPP SIMPLE Interop April 2004 request). Generally there are three kinds of instant message: o Single messages, which are sent from the sender to the recipient outside the context of any one-to-one chat session or multi-user text conference. o Chat messages, which are sent from the sender to the recipient in the context of a "message session" between the two entities. o Groupchat messages, which are sent from a sender to multiple recipients in the context of a text conference (along the lines of [IRC]). This document addresses single messages only, since they form the "lowest common denominator" for instant messaging on the Internet. It is likely that future versions of this document will address chat messages as well, especially once the SIMPLE WG completes its work on one-to-one message sessions (a likely candidate for finalization is [MSRP]). Instant messaging using XMPP message stanzas of type "normal" is specified in [XMPP-IM]. Instant messaging using SIP requests of type MESSAGE (often called "pager-model" messaging) is specified in [SIP-IM]. As described in [XMPP-IM], a single instant message is an XML stanza of type "normal" sent over an XML stream (since "normal" is the default for the 'type' attribute of the stanza, the attribute is often omitted). In this document we will assume that such a message is sent from an XMPP client to an XMPP server over an XML stream negotiated between the client and the server, and that the client is controlled by a human user (this is a simplifying assumption introduced for explanatory purposes only; the XMPP sender could be a bot-controlled client, a component such as a workflow application, a server, etc.). Continuing the tradition of Shakespeare examples in XMPP documentation, we will say that the XMPP user has an XMPP address of . As described in [SIP-IM], a single instant message is a SIP MESSAGE request sent from a SIP user agent to an intended recipient who is most generally referenced by an Instant Message URI of the form "im:user@domain" but who may be referenced by a SIP or SIPS URI of the form "sip:user@domain" or "sips:user@domain". Here again we introduce the simplifying assumption that the user agent is controlled by a human user, whom we shall dub . 3.2 XMPP to SIP When Juliet wants to send an instant message to Romeo, she interacts with her XMPP client, which generates an XMPP stanza. The Saint-Andre, et al. Expires October 27, 2004 [Page 7] Internet-Draft XMPP SIMPLE Interop April 2004 syntax of the stanza, including required and optional elements and attributes, is defined in [XMPP-IM]. The following is an example of such a stanza: Example: XMPP user sends message: | | Art thou not Romeo, and a Montague? | Upon receiving such a stanza, the XMPP server to which Juliet has connected either delivers it to a local recipient (if the hostname in the 'to' attribute matches one of the hostnames serviced by the XMPP server) or attempts to route it to the foreign domain that services the hostname in the 'to' attribute. Naturally, in this document we assume that the hostname in the 'to' attribute is an IM-aware SIP service hosted by a separate server. As specified in [XMPP-IM], the XMPP server needs to determine the identity of the foreign domain, which it does by performing one or more [SRV] lookups. For message stanzas, the order of lookups recommended by [XMPP-IM] is to first try the "_xmpp-server" service as specified in [XMPP-CORE] and to then try the "_im" service as specified in [IMP-SRV]. Here we assume that the first lookup will fail but that the second lookup will succeed and return a resolution "_im._simple.example.net.", since we have already assumed that the example.net hostname is running a SIP instant messaging service. (Note: The XMPP server may have previously determined that the foreign domain is a SIMPLE server, in which case it would not need to perform the SRV lookups; the caching of such information is a matter of implementation and local service policy, and is therefore out of scope for this document.) Once the XMPP server has determined that the foreign domain is serviced by a SIMPLE server, it must determine how to proceed. We here assume that the XMPP server contains or has available to it an XMPP-SIMPLE gateway. The XMPP server would then deliver the message stanza to the XMPP-SIMPLE gateway. The XMPP-SIMPLE gateway is then responsible for translating the XMPP message stanza into a SIP MESSAGE request from the XMPP user to the SIP user: Saint-Andre, et al. Expires October 27, 2004 [Page 8] Internet-Draft XMPP SIMPLE Interop April 2004 Example: XMPP user sends message (SIP transformation): | MESSAGE sip:romeo@example.net SIP/2.0 | Via: SIP/2.0/TCP julietpc.example.com;branch=z9hG4bK776sgdkse | Max-Forwards: 70 | From: sip:juliet@example.com;tag=49583 | To: sip:romeo@example.net | Call-ID: Hr0zny9l3@example.com | CSeq: 1 MESSAGE | Content-Type: text/plain | Content-Length: 37 | | Art thou not Romeo, and a Montague? The mapping of XMPP syntax elements to SIP syntax elements SHOULD be as follows (mappings for elements not mentioned are undefined): Table 3: Message syntax mapping from XMPP to SIP +-----------------------------+--------------------------+ | XMPP Element or Attribute | SIP Header or Contents | +-----------------------------+--------------------------+ | | body of MESSAGE | | | Subject | | | Call-ID | | from | From | | id | CSeq [1] | | to | To | | type | (no mapping) | | xml:lang | Content-Language | +-----------------------------+--------------------------+ Note the following regarding these mappings: 1. According to Section 8.1.1.5 of RFC 3261, a SIP CSeq header must be expressible as a 32-bit unsigned integer. However, the only restriction on the XMPP 'id' attribute is that it shall conform to the XML NMTOKEN datatype. If an XMPP 'id' attribute is not expressible as a 32-bit unsigned integer, it SHOULD NOT be mapped. 3.3 SIP to XMPP When Romeo wants to send an instant message to Juliet, he interacts with his SIP user agent, which generates a SIP MESSAGE request. The syntax of the MESSAGE request is defined in [SIP-IM]. The following is an example of such a request: Saint-Andre, et al. Expires October 27, 2004 [Page 9] Internet-Draft XMPP SIMPLE Interop April 2004 Example: SIP user sends message: | MESSAGE sip:juliet@example.com SIP/2.0 | Via: SIP/2.0/TCP romeopc.example.com;branch=eskdgs677Kb4Ghz9 | Max-Forwards: 70 | From: sip:romeo@example.net;tag=38594 | To: sip:juliet@example.com | Call-ID: M4spr4vdu@example.net | CSeq: 1 MESSAGE | Content-Type: text/plain | Content-Length: 26 | | Neither, fair saint, if either thee dislike. Section 5 of [SIP-IM] stipulates that a SIP User Agent presented with an im: URI should resolve it to a sip: or sips: URI. Therefore we assume that the To header of a request received by a SIMPLE-XMPP gateway will contain a sip: or sips: URI. The gateway SHOULD resolve that address to an im: URI for SIP MESSAGE requests, then follow the rules in [IMP-SRV] regarding the "_im" SRV service for the target domain contained in the To header. If SRV address resolution fails for the "_im" service, the gateway MAY attempt a lookup for the "_xmpp-server" service as specified in [XMPP-CORE] or MAY return an error to the sender (the SIP "502 Bad Gateway" error seems most appropriate). If SRV address resolution succeeds, the gateway is responsible for translating the request into an XMPP message stanza from the SIP user to the XMPP user and returning a SIP "200 OK" message to the sender: Example: SIP user sends message (XMPP transformation): | | Neither, fair saint, if either thee dislike. | The mapping of SIP syntax elements to XMPP syntax elements SHOULD be as follows (mappings for elements not mentioned are undefined): Saint-Andre, et al. Expires October 27, 2004 [Page 10] Internet-Draft XMPP SIMPLE Interop April 2004 Table 4: Message syntax mapping from SIP to XMPP +--------------------------+-----------------------------+ | SIP Header or Contents | XMPP Element or Attribute | +--------------------------+-----------------------------+ | Call-ID | | | Content-Language | xml:lang | | CSeq | id | | From | from | | Subject | | | To | to | | body of MESSAGE | | +--------------------------+-----------------------------+ 4. Presence Notifications 4.1 Overview Both XMPP and presence-aware SIP systems enable entities (often but not necessarily human users) to send presence notifications to other entities. At a minimum, the term "presence" refers to information about an entity's availability for communication on a network (on/ off), often supplemented by information that further specifies the entity's communications context (e.g., "do not disturb"). Some systems and protocols extend this notion even further and refer to any relatively ephemeral information about an entity as a kind of presence; categories of such "extended presence" include geographical location (e.g., GPS coordinates), user mood (e.g., grumpy), user activity (e.g., walking), and ambient environment (e.g., noisy). In this document, we focus on the "least common denominator" of network availability only, although future revisions of this document may address broader notions of presence. (Presence subscriptions are described in the following section.) Presence using XMPP presence stanzas of type "available" or "unavailable" is specified in [XMPP-IM]. SIP presence using a SIP event package for presence is specified in [SIP-PRES]. As described in [XMPP-IM], presence information about an entity is communicated by means of an XML stanza sent over an XML stream. In this document we will assume that such a presence stanza is sent from an XMPP client to an XMPP server over an XML stream negotiated between the client and the server, and that the client is controlled by a human user (again, this is a simplifying assumption introduced for explanatory purposes only). In general, XMPP presence is sent by the user to the user's server and then broadcasted to all entities who are subscribed to the user's presence information. Saint-Andre, et al. Expires October 27, 2004 [Page 11] Internet-Draft XMPP SIMPLE Interop April 2004 As described in [SIP-PRES], presence information about an entity is communicated by means of a SIP NOTIFY event sent from a SIP user agent to an intended recipient who is most generally referenced by an Instant Message URI of the form "pres:user@domain" but who may be referenced by a SIP or SIPS URI of the form "sip:user@domain" or "sips:user@domain". Here again we introduce the simplifying assumption that the user agent is controlled by a human user. 4.2 XMPP to SIP When Juliet interacts with her XMPP client to modify her presence information (or when her client automatically updates her presence information, e.g. via an "auto-away" feature), her client generates an XMPP stanza. The syntax of the stanza, including required and optional elements and attributes, is defined in [XMPP-IM]. The following is an example of such a stanza: Example: XMPP user sends presence notification: | Upon receiving such a stanza, the XMPP server to which Juliet has connected broadcasts it to all subscribers who are authorized to receive presence notifications from Juliet. For each subscriber, broadcasting the presence notification involves either delivering it to a local recipient (if the hostname in the subscriber's address matches one of the hostnames serviced by the XMPP server) or attempting to route it to the foreign domain that services the hostname in the subscriber's address. Naturally, in this document we assume that the hostname is a SIP presence service hosted by a separate server. As specified in [XMPP-IM], the XMPP server needs to determine the identity of the foreign domain, which it does by performing one or more [SRV] lookups. For presence stanzas, the order of lookups recommended by [XMPP-IM] is to first try the "_xmpp-server" service as specified in [XMPP-CORE] and to then try the "_pres" service as specified in [IMP-SRV]. Here we assume that the first lookup will fail but that the second lookup will succeed and return a resolution "_pres._simple.example.net.", since we have already assumed that the example.net hostname is running a SIP presence service. (Note: The XMPP server may have previously determined that the foreign domain is a SIMPLE server, in which case it would not need to perform the SRV lookups; the caching of such information is a matter of implementation and local service policy, and is therefore out of scope for this document.) Once the XMPP server has determined that the foreign domain is serviced by a SIMPLE server, it must determine how to proceed. We here assume that the XMPP server contains or has available to it an Saint-Andre, et al. Expires October 27, 2004 [Page 12] Internet-Draft XMPP SIMPLE Interop April 2004 XMPP-SIMPLE gateway. The XMPP server would then deliver the presence stanza to the XMPP-SIMPLE gateway. The XMPP-SIMPLE gateway is then responsible for translating the XMPP presence stanza into a SIP NOTIFY request and included PIDF document from the XMPP user to the SIP user: Example: XMPP user sends presence notification (SIP transformation): | NOTIFY sip:romeo@example.net SIP/2.0 | Via: SIP/2.0/TCP simple.example.net;branch=z9hG4bKna998sk | From: ;tag=ffd2 | To: ;tag=xfg9 | Call-ID: j4s0h4vny@example.com | Event: presence | Subscription-State: active;expires=599 | Max-Forwards: 70 | CSeq: 8775 NOTIFY | Contact: sip:simple.example.net | Content-Type: application/cpim-pidf+xml | Content-Length: 192 | | | | | | open | | | The mapping of XMPP syntax elements to SIP syntax elements SHOULD be as follows (mappings for elements not mentioned are undefined): Saint-Andre, et al. Expires October 27, 2004 [Page 13] Internet-Draft XMPP SIMPLE Interop April 2004 Table 5: Presence syntax mapping from XMPP to SIP +-----------------------------+---------------------------+ | XMPP Element or Attribute | SIP Header or PIDF Data | +-----------------------------+---------------------------+ | | PIDF priority for tuple | | | TBD | | | TBD | | from | From | | id | CSeq [1] | | to | To | | type | basic status [2] | | xml:lang | Content-Language | | --- | "Event: presence" | +-----------------------------+---------------------------+ Note the following regarding these mappings: 1. According to Section 8.1.1.5 of [SIP], a SIP CSeq header must be expressible as a 32-bit unsigned integer. However, the only restriction on the XMPP 'id' attribute is that it shall conform to the XML NMTOKEN datatype. If an XMPP 'id' attribute is not expressible as a 32-bit unsigned integer, it SHOULD NOT be mapped. 2. Only a presence stanza which lacks a 'type' attribute or whose 'type' attribute has a value of "unavailable" SHOULD be mapped by an XMPP-SIMPLE gateway to a SIP NOTIFY request. Because the lack of a 'type' attribute indicates that an XMPP entity is available for communications, the gateway SHOULD map that information to a PIDF status of "open". Because a 'type' attribute with a value of "unavailable" indicates that an XMPP entity is not available for communications, the gateway SHOULD map that information to a PIDF status of "closed". 4.3 SIP to XMPP When Romeo changes his presence, his SIP user agent generates a SIP NOTIFY request. The syntax of the NOTIFY request is defined in [SIP-PRES]. The following is an example of such a request: Saint-Andre, et al. Expires October 27, 2004 [Page 14] Internet-Draft XMPP SIMPLE Interop April 2004 Example: SIP user sends presence notification: | NOTIFY sip:juliet@example.com SIP/2.0 | Via: SIP/2.0/TCP simple.example.net;branch=z9hG4bKna998sk | From: ;tag=ffd2 | To: ;tag=xfg9 | Call-ID: j0sj4sv1m@example.net | Event: presence | Subscription-State: active;expires=499 | Max-Forwards: 70 | CSeq: 8775 NOTIFY | Contact: sip:simple.example.net | Content-Type: application/cpim-pidf+xml | Content-Length: 193 | | | | | | closed | | | Upon receiving such a request, a SIMPLE-XMPP gateway is responsible for translating it into an XMPP presence stanza from the SIP user to the XMPP user: Example: SIP user sends presence notification (XMPP transformation): | The mapping of SIP syntax elements to XMPP syntax elements SHOULD be as follows (mappings for elements not mentioned are undefined): Saint-Andre, et al. Expires October 27, 2004 [Page 15] Internet-Draft XMPP SIMPLE Interop April 2004 Table 6: Presence syntax mapping from SIP to XMPP +---------------------------+-----------------------------+ | SIP Header or PIDF Data | XMPP Element or Attribute | +---------------------------+-----------------------------+ | basic status | type [1] | | Content-Language | xml:lang | | CSeq | id | | From | from | | priority for tuple | | | To | to | | body of MESSAGE | | +---------------------------+-----------------------------+ Note the following regarding these mappings: 1. A PIDF basic status of "open" SHOULD be mapped to no 'type' attribute, and a PIDF basic status of "closed" SHOULD be mapped to a 'type' attribute whose value is "unavailable". 5. Presence Subscriptions 5.1 Overview Both XMPP and presence-aware SIP systems enable entities (often but not necessarily human users) to subscribe to the presence of other entities. XMPP presence subscriptions are specified in [XMPP-IM]. Presence subscriptions using a SIP event package for presence are specified in [SIP-PRES]. As described in [XMPP-IM], XMPP presence subscriptions are managed using XMPP presence stanzas of type "subscribe", "subscribed", "unsubscribe", and "unsubscribed". The main subscription states are "none" (neither the user nor the contact is subscribed to the other's presence information), "from" (the user has a subscription from the contact), "to" (the user has a subscription to the contact's presence information), and "both" (both user and contact are subscribed to each other's presence information). As described in [SIP-PRES], SIP presence subscriptions are managed through the use of SIP SUBSCRIBE events sent from a SIP user agent to an intended recipient who is most generally referenced by an Instant Message URI of the form "pres:user@domain" but who may be referenced by a SIP or SIPS URI of the form "sip:user@domain" or "sips:user@domain". The subscription models underlying XMPP and SIP are quite different. For instance, XMPP presence subscriptions are long-lived (indeed Saint-Andre, et al. Expires October 27, 2004 [Page 16] Internet-Draft XMPP SIMPLE Interop April 2004 permanent if not explicitly cancelled), whereas SIP presence subscriptions are short-lived (the default time to live of a SIP presence subscription is 3600 seconds, as specified in Section 6.4 of [SIP-PRES]). These differences are addressed below. 5.2 XMPP to SIP An XMPP user initiates a subscription by sending a subscription request to another entity (conventionally called a "contact"), which the contact either accepts or declines. If the contact accepts the request, the user will have a subscription to the contact's presence information until (1) the user unsubscribes or (2) the contact cancels the subscription. The subscription request is encapsulated in a presence stanza of type "subscribe": Example: XMPP user subscribes to SIP contact: | Upon receiving such a stanza, the XMPP server to which Juliet has connected needs to determine the identity of the foreign domain, which it does by performing one or more [SRV] lookups. For presence stanzas, the order of lookups recommended by [XMPP-IM] is to first try the "_xmpp-server" service as specified in [XMPP-CORE] and to then try the "_pres" service as specified in [IMP-SRV]. Here we assume that the first lookup will fail but that the second lookup will succeed and return a resolution "_pres._simple.example.net.", since we have already assumed that the example.net hostname is running a SIP presence service. Once the XMPP server has determined that the foreign domain is serviced by a SIMPLE server, it must determine how to proceed. We here assume that the XMPP server contains or has available to it an XMPP-SIMPLE gateway. The XMPP server would then deliver the presence stanza to the XMPP-SIMPLE gateway. The XMPP-SIMPLE gateway is then responsible for translating the XMPP subscription request into a SIP SUBSCRIBE request from the XMPP user to the SIP user: Saint-Andre, et al. Expires October 27, 2004 [Page 17] Internet-Draft XMPP SIMPLE Interop April 2004 Example: XMPP user subscribes to SIP contact (SIP transformation): | SUBSCRIBE sip:romeo@example.net SIP/2.0 | Via: SIP/2.0/TCP simple.example.net;branch=z9hG4bKna998sk | From: ;tag=ffd2 | To: ;tag=xfg9 | Call-ID: 1h4t3s1p@example.com | Event: presence | Max-Forwards: 70 | CSeq: 8776 SUBSCRIBE | Contact: sip:simple.example.net | Accept: application/cpim-pidf+xml | Expires: 3600 | Content-Length: 0 Note: It is the responsibility of the XMPP-SIMPLE gateway to set the value of the Expires header and to renew the subscription accordingly so that the subscription appears to be permanent to the XMPP user. At any time after subscribing, the XMPP user may unsubscribe from the contact's presence. This is done by sending a presence stanza of type "unsubscribe": Example: XMPP user unsubscribes from SIP contact: | The XMPP-SIMPLE gateway is responsible for translating the unsubscribe command into a SIP SUBSCRIBE request with the Expires header set to a value of zero: Example: XMPP user unsubscribes from SIP contact (SIP transformation): | SUBSCRIBE sip:romeo@example.net SIP/2.0 | Via: SIP/2.0/TCP simple.example.net;branch=z9hG4bKna998sk | From: ;tag=ffd2 | To: ;tag=xfg9 | Call-ID: 1ckm32@example.com | Event: presence | Max-Forwards: 70 | CSeq: 18776 SUBSCRIBE | Contact: sip:simple.example.net | Accept: application/cpim-pidf+xml | Expires: 0 | Content-Length: 0 Saint-Andre, et al. Expires October 27, 2004 [Page 18] Internet-Draft XMPP SIMPLE Interop April 2004 5.3 SIP to XMPP A SIP user initiates a subscription to a contact's presence information by sending a SIP SUBSCRIBE request to the contact. The following is an example of such a request: Example: SIP user subscribes to XMPP contact: | SUBSCRIBE sip:juliet@example.com SIP/2.0 | Via: SIP/2.0/TCP simple.example.net;branch=z9hG4bKna998sk | From: ;tag=ffd2 | To: ;tag=xfg9 | Call-ID: 4wcm0n@example.net | Event: presence | Max-Forwards: 70 | CSeq: 17263 NOTIFY | Contact: sip:simple.example.net | Accept: application/cpim-pidf+xml | Content-Length: 0 Upon receiving such a request, a SIMPLE-XMPP gateway is responsible for translating it into an XMPP subscription request from the SIP user to the XMPP user: Example: SIP user subscribes to XMPP contact (XMPP transformation): | Notice that the Expires header was not included in the SUBSCRIBE request; this means that the default value of 3600 (i.e., 3600 seconds = 1 hour) applies. It is the responsibility of the SIMPLE-XMPP gateway to properly handle the difference between short-lived SIP presence subscriptions and long-lived XMPP presence subscriptions. The gateway has two options when the SIP user's subscription expires: o Send an XMPP presence stanza of type "unsubscribe" to the XMPP contact; this honors the SIP semantic but will seem rather odd to the XMPP contact. o Send a SIP NOTIFY request to the SIP user containing a PIDF document specifying that the XMPP contact now has a basic status of closed; this violates the letter of the SIP semantic but will seem more natural to the XMPP contact. Which of these the SIMPLE-XMPP gateway chooses is up to the Saint-Andre, et al. Expires October 27, 2004 [Page 19] Internet-Draft XMPP SIMPLE Interop April 2004 implementation. At any time, the SIP user may cancel the subscription by sending a SUBSCRIBE request whose Expires header is set to a value of zero: Example: SIP user cancels subscription: | SUBSCRIBE sip:juliet@example.com SIP/2.0 | Via: SIP/2.0/TCP simple.example.net;branch=z9hG4bKna998sk | From: ;tag=ffd2 | To: ;tag=xfg9 | Call-ID: 1tsn1ce@example.net | Event: presence | Max-Forwards: 70 | CSeq: 17987 NOTIFY | Contact: sip:simple.example.net | Expires: 0 | Accept: application/cpim-pidf+xml | Content-Length: 0 Upon receiving such a request, a SIMPLE-XMPP gateway is responsible for translating it into an XMPP presence stanza of type "unsubscribe" from the SIP user to the XMPP user: Example: SIP user cancels subscription (XMPP transformation): | 6. IANA Considerations This document requires no action on the part of the IANA. 7. Security Considerations Detailed security considerations for instant messaging and presence protocols are given in [IMP-REQS], specifically in Sections 5.1 through 5.4. Detailed security considerations for XMPP are given in XMPP Core [XMPP-CORE]. Detailed security considerations for SIP-based messaging are given in [SIP-IM] and for SIP-based presence are given in [SIP-PRES] (see also the security considerations for the Session Initiation Protocol given in [SIP]). This document specifies methods for exchanging instant messages and presence information through a gateway that translates between SIP and XMPP. Such a gateway MUST be compliant with the minimum security Saint-Andre, et al. Expires October 27, 2004 [Page 20] Internet-Draft XMPP SIMPLE Interop April 2004 requirements of the instant messaging and presence protocols for which it translates (i.e., SIP and XMPP). The introduction of gateways to the security model of instant messaging and presence specified in [IMP-REQS] introduces some new risks. In particular, end-to-end security properties (especially confidentiality and integrity) between instant messaging and presence user agents that interface through a SIMPLE-XMPP gateway can be provided only if common formats are supported. Specification of those common formats is out of scope for this document, although it is recommended to use [MSGFMT] for instant messages and [PIDF] for presence. [IMP-REQS] requires that conformant technologies shall include methods for blocking communications from unwanted addresses. Such blocking is the responsibility of conformant technology (e.g., XMPP or SIP) and is out of scope for this memo. 8. Open Issues This document has made certain simplifying assumptions and has ruled a number of issues out of scope for now. Future revisions of this document will attempt to address these issues, which include: o Chat messages / instant messaging sessions o End-to-end object encryption using common formats (e.g., PIDF for presence) 9. Acknowledgements The authors wish to thank Nathaniel Borenstein and Rohan Mahy for suggestions and encouragement. Thanks also to Daniel-Constantin Mierla for earlier work on SIMPLE-XMPP interworking. 10. References 10.1 Normative References [IMP-SRV] Peterson, J., "Address Resolution for Instant Messaging and Presence", draft-ietf-impp-srv-04 (work in progress), October 2003. [PIDF] Fujimoto, S., Sugano, H., Klyne, G., Bateman, A., Carr, W. and J. Peterson, "CPIM Presence Information Data Format", draft-ietf-impp-cpim-pidf-08 (work in progress), May 2003. [SIP] Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., Camarillo, G., Johnston, A., Peterson, J., Sparks, R., Handley, M. and E. Schooler, "SIP: Session Initiation Protocol", RFC 3261, June 2002. Saint-Andre, et al. Expires October 27, 2004 [Page 21] Internet-Draft XMPP SIMPLE Interop April 2004 [SIP-IM] Campbell, B., Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., Huitema, C. and D. Gurle, "Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Extension for Instant Messaging", RFC 3428, December 2002. [SIP-PRES] Rosenberg, J., "A Presence Event Package for the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)", draft-ietf-simple-presence-10 (work in progress), January 2003. [SRV] Gulbrandsen, A., Vixie, P. and L. Esibov, "A DNS RR for specifying the location of services (DNS SRV)", RFC 2782, February 2000. [STRINGPREP] Hoffman, P. and M. Blanchet, "Preparation of Internationalized Strings ("STRINGPREP")", RFC 3454, December 2002. [TERMS] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. [URL-GUIDE] Masinter, L., Alvestrand, H., Zigmond, D. and R. Petke, "Guidelines for new URL Schemes", RFC 2718, November 1999. [XMPP-CORE] Saint-Andre, P., "Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP): Core", draft-ietf-xmpp-core-23 (work in progress), April 2004. [XMPP-IM] Saint-Andre, P., "Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP): Instant Messaging and Presence", draft-ietf-xmpp-im-22 (work in progress), April 2004. 10.2 Informative References [CPIM] Peterson, J., "Common Profile for Instant Messaging (CPIM)", draft-ietf-impp-im-04 (work in progress), August 2003. [CPP] Peterson, J., "Common Profile for Presence (CPP)", draft-ietf-impp-pres-04 (work in progress), August 2003. [DRAFT-UMPP] Mahy, R., "A Unified Proposal for Server-to-Server Presence and Instant Messaging", draft-mahy-impp-unified-proposal-00 (work in progress), February 2004. Saint-Andre, et al. Expires October 27, 2004 [Page 22] Internet-Draft XMPP SIMPLE Interop April 2004 [IDNA] Faltstrom, P., Hoffman, P. and A. Costello, "Internationalizing Domain Names in Applications (IDNA)", RFC 3490, March 2003. [IMP-MODEL] Day, M., Rosenberg, J. and H. Sugano, "A Model for Presence and Instant Messaging", RFC 2778, February 2000. [IMP-REQS] Day, M., Aggarwal, S. and J. Vincent, "Instant Messaging / Presence Protocol Requirements", RFC 2779, February 2000. [IRC] Oikarinen, J. and D. Reed, "Internet Relay Chat Protocol", RFC 1459, May 1993. [MSGFMT] Atkins, D. and G. Klyne, "Common Presence and Instant Messaging: Message Format", draft-ietf-impp-cpim-msgfmt-08 (work in progress), January 2003. [MSRP] Campbell, B., Rosenberg, J., Sparks, R. and P. Kyzivat, "The Message Session Relay Protocol", draft-ietf-simple-message-sessions-04 (work in progress), March 2004. [SIMPLE-CPIM] Rosenberg, J. and B. Campbell, "CPIM Mapping of SIMPLE Presence and Instant Messaging", draft-ietf-simple-cpim-mapping-01 (work in progress), June 2002. [XMPP-CPIM] Saint-Andre, P., "Mapping the Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP) to Common Presence and Instant Messaging (CPIM)", draft-ietf-xmpp-cpim-04 (work in progress), March 2004. Authors' Addresses Peter Saint-Andre Jabber Software Foundation Avshalom Houri IBM Saint-Andre, et al. Expires October 27, 2004 [Page 23] Internet-Draft XMPP SIMPLE Interop April 2004 Joe Hildebrand Jabber, Inc. Appendix A. Revision History Note to RFC Editor: please remove this entire appendix, and the corresponding entries in the table of contents, prior to publication. A.1 Changes from draft-saintandre-xmpp-simple-00 o Defined handling of presence subscriptions. o Specified SRV lookups from SIP to XMPP. o Clarified syntax mappings. o Added communications blocking to security considerations. Saint-Andre, et al. Expires October 27, 2004 [Page 24] Internet-Draft XMPP SIMPLE Interop April 2004 Intellectual Property Statement The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any intellectual property 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; neither does it represent that it has made any effort to identify any such rights. Information on the IETF's procedures with respect to rights in standards-track and standards-related documentation can be found in BCP-11. Copies of claims of rights made available for publication 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 implementors or users of this specification can be obtained from the IETF Secretariat. The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary rights which may cover technology that may be required to practice this standard. Please address the information to the IETF Executive Director. Full Copyright Statement Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). All Rights Reserved. This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than English. The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assignees. This document and the information contained herein is provided on an "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION Saint-Andre, et al. Expires October 27, 2004 [Page 25] Internet-Draft XMPP SIMPLE Interop April 2004 HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Acknowledgment Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the Internet Society. Saint-Andre, et al. Expires October 27, 2004 [Page 26]