RFC 4481 PROPOSED STANDARD PRESENCE · XML · SIMPLE

Timed Presence Extensions to the Presence Information Data Format (PIDF) to Indicate Status Information for Past and Future Time Intervals

A PIDF extension that lets a presentity announce its status for a time span that is entirely in the past or the future.

On rfc-editor.org ↗
PUBLISHED
July 2006
AUTHORS
H. Schulzrinne
STREAM
IETF
ELEMENT
timed-status, child of tuple
REQUIRED ATTRIBUTE
from
OPTIONAL ATTRIBUTE
until
NAMESPACE
urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:pidf:timed-status
DOI
10.17487/RFC4481

RFC text

Contents
Original text · RFC Editor View on rfc-editor.org ↗
Network Working Group                                     H. Schulzrinne
Request for Comments: 4481                                   Columbia U.
Category: Standards Track                                      July 2006


                    Timed Presence Extensions to the
               Presence Information Data Format (PIDF) to
     Indicate Status Information for Past and Future Time Intervals

Status of This Memo

   This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the
   Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for
   improvements.  Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet
   Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the standardization state
   and status of this protocol.  Distribution of this memo is unlimited.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).

Abstract

   The Presence Information Data Format (PIDF) defines a basic XML
   format for presenting presence information for a presentity.  This
   document extends PIDF, adding a timed status extension
   (<timed-status> element) that allows a presentity to declare its
   status for a time interval fully in the future or the past.

Table of Contents

   1. Introduction ....................................................2
   2. Terminology and Conventions .....................................2
   3. Timed-Status Element ............................................3
   4. Example .........................................................4
   5. The XML Schema Definition .......................................5
   6. IANA Considerations .............................................6
      6.1. URN Sub-Namespace Registration for
           'urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:pidf:timed-status' .................6
      6.2. Schema Registration for Schema
           'urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:pidf:timed-status' .................7
   7. Security Considerations .........................................7
   8. References ......................................................7
      8.1. Normative References .......................................7
      8.2. Informative References .....................................7
   Contributor's Address ..............................................8
   Acknowledgements ...................................................8

1.  Introduction

   Traditionally, presence information, e.g., represented as Presence
   Information Data Format [3] (PIDF) and augmented by Rich Presence
   Information Data format [9] (RPID), describes the current state of
   the presentity.  However, a watcher can better plan communications if
   it knows about the presentity's future plans.  For example, if a
   watcher knows that the presentity is about to travel, it might place
   a phone call earlier.

   In this document, we use terms defined in RFC 2778 [7].  In
   particular, a "presentity", abbreviating presence entity, provides
   presence information to a presence service.  It is typically a
   uniquely-identified person.

   RPID already allows a presentity to indicate the period when a
   particular aspect of its presence is valid.  However, the <status>
   element in the PIDF <tuple> does not have this facility, so that it
   is not possible to indicate that a presentity will be OPEN or CLOSED
   in the future, for example.

   It is also occasionally useful to represent past information since it
   may be the only known presence information; it may give watchers an
   indication of the current status.  For example, indicating that the
   presentity was at an off-site meeting that ended an hour ago
   indicates that the presentity is likely in transit at the current
   time.

   It is unfortunately not possible to simply add time range attributes
   to the PIDF <status> element, as PIDF parsers without this capability
   would ignore these attributes and thus not be able to distinguish
   current from future presence status information.

   This document defines the <timed-status> element that describes the
   status of a presentity that is either no longer valid or covers some
   future time period.

2.  Terminology and Conventions

   The key words MUST, MUST NOT, REQUIRED, SHOULD, SHOULD NOT,
   RECOMMENDED, MAY, and OPTIONAL in this document are to be interpreted
   as described in BCP 14, RFC 2119 [1].

3.  Timed-Status Element

   The <timed-status> element is a child of the <tuple> element and MUST
   NOT appear as a child of a PIDF <status> element or another
   <timed-status> element.  More than one such element MAY appear within
   a PIDF <tuple> element.

   Sources of <timed-status> information should avoid elements that
   overlap in time, but since overlapping appointments are common in
   calendars, for example, receivers MUST be able to render such
   overlapping <timed-status> indications.


   The <timed-status> element MUST be qualified with the 'from'
   attribute and MAY be qualified with an 'until' attribute to describe
   the time when the status assumed this value and the time until which
   this element is expected to be valid.  If the 'until' attribute is
   missing, the information is assumed valid until the tuple is
   explicitly overridden or expires as defined by the publication
   mechanism used.  The time range MUST NOT encompass the present time,
   i.e., the PIDF <timestamp> value, as that would provide an
   unnecessary and confusing alternate mechanism to describe presence.
   Thus, the 'from' attribute for tuples without an 'until' attribute
   MUST refer to the future.

   During composition, a presence agent (PA) may encounter a stored
   <timed-status> element that covers the present time.  The PA MAY
   either discard that element or MAY convert it to a regular <status>
   element if it considers that information more credible.

   The <timed-status> element may contain the <basic> and <note>
   elements, as well as any other element that is appropriate as a PIDF
   <status> extension and that has a limited validity period.  Examples
   include the PIDF-LO [8] extensions for location objects.

   This extension chose absolute rather than relative times, since
   relative times would be too hard to keep properly updated when
   spacing notifications, for example.  Originators of presence
   information MUST generate time values in the <timed-status> elements
   that are fully in the past or future relative to local real
   (wallclock) time and the time information contained in the optional
   PIDF <timestamp> element.

4.  Example

   An example combining PIDF and timed-status is shown below:

   <presence xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:pidf"
     xmlns:ts="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:pidf:timed-status"
       entity="pres:someone@example.com">

     <tuple id="c8dqui">
       <status>
         <basic>open</basic>
       </status>
       <ts:timed-status from="2005-08-15T10:20:00.000-05:00"
          until="2005-08-22T19:30:00.000-05:00">
          <ts:basic>closed</ts:basic>
       </ts:timed-status>
       <contact>sip:someone@example.com</contact>
     </tuple>
     <note>I'll be in Tokyo next week</note>
   </presence>

5.  The XML Schema Definition

   The XML [4] schema [5][6] is shown below.

   <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
   <xs:schema xmlns:ts="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:pidf:timed-status"
   xmlns:pidf="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:pidf"
   xmlns:xs="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema"
   targetNamespace="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:pidf:timed-status"
   elementFormDefault="qualified" attributeFormDefault="unqualified">

     <xs:import namespace="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:pidf"/>

     <xs:annotation>
        <xs:documentation>
          Describes timed-status tuple extensions for PIDF.
        </xs:documentation>
     </xs:annotation>
     <xs:element name="timed-status" type="ts:timed-status"/>
     <xs:complexType name="timed-status">
       <xs:sequence>
         <xs:element name="basic" type="pidf:basic" minOccurs="0"/>
         <xs:element name="note" type="pidf:note" minOccurs="0"/>
         <xs:any namespace="##other" processContents="lax" minOccurs="0"
           maxOccurs="unbounded"/>
       </xs:sequence>
       <xs:attribute name="from" type="xs:dateTime" use="required"/>
       <xs:attribute name="until" type="xs:dateTime"/>
     </xs:complexType>
   </xs:schema>

6.  IANA Considerations

   This document calls for IANA to register a new XML namespace URN and
   schema per [2].

6.1.  URN Sub-Namespace Registration for
      'urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:pidf:timed-status'

   URI:  urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:pidf:timed-status

   Description:  This is the XML namespace for XML elements defined by
      RFC 4481 to describe timed-status presence information extensions
      for the status element in the PIDF presence document format in the
      application/pidf+xml content type.

   Registrant Contact:  IETF, SIMPLE working group, simple@ietf.org;
      Henning Schulzrinne, hgs@cs.columbia.edu

   XML:

    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>Timed Presence Extensions to the Presence
           Information Data Format (PIDF) to Indicate Status
           Information for Past and Future Time Intervals</title>
      </head>
      <body>
          <h1>Namespace for timed-status presence extension</h1>
          <h2>urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:pidf:timed-status</h2>
          <p>See <a href="http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4481.txt">
              RFC4481</a>.</p>
       </body>
       </html>
      END

6.2.  Schema Registration for Schema
      'urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:pidf:timed-status'

   URI:  urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:pidf:timed-status

   Registrant Contact:  IESG

   XML:  See Section 5

7.  Security Considerations

   The security issues are similar to those for RPID [9].

8.  References

8.1.  Normative References

   [1]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement
        Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

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

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

   [4]  Yergeau, F., Paoli, J., Sperberg-McQueen, C., Bray, T., and E.
        Maler, "Extensible Markup Language (XML) 1.0 (Third Edition)",
        W3C REC REC-xml-20040204, February 2004.

   [5]  Maloney, M., Beech, D., Thompson, H., and N. Mendelsohn, "XML
        Schema Part 1: Structures Second Edition", W3C REC REC-
        xmlschema-1-20041028, October 2004.

   [6]  Malhotra, A. and P. Biron, "XML Schema Part 2: Datatypes Second
        Edition", W3C REC REC-xmlschema-2-20041028, October 2004.

8.2.  Informative References

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

   [8]  Peterson, J., "A Presence-based GEOPRIV Location Object Format",
        RFC 4119, December 2005.

   [9]  Schulzrinne, H., Gurbani, V., Kyzivat, P., and J. Rosenberg,
        "RPID: Rich Presence Extensions to the Presence Information Data
        Format (PIDF)", RFC 4480, July 2006.

Contributor's Address

   Jonathan Rosenberg
   dynamicsoft
   600 Lanidex Plaza
   Parsippany, NJ 07054-2711
   USA
   EMail: jdrosen@dynamicsoft.com

Acknowledgements

   This document is based on the discussions within the IETF SIMPLE
   working group.  Mary Barnes, Avri Doria, Miguel Garcia, Vijay
   Gurbani, Hisham Khartabil, Paul Kyzivat, Mikko Lonnfors, Yannis
   Pavlidis and Jon Peterson provided helpful comments.

Author's Address

   Henning Schulzrinne
   Columbia University
   Department of Computer Science
   450 Computer Science Building
   New York, NY  10027
   US

   Phone: +1 212 939 7004
   EMail: hgs+simple@cs.columbia.edu
   URI:   http://www.cs.columbia.edu

Full Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).

   This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
   contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
   retain all their rights.

   This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
   "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
   OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET
   ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
   INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE
   INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
   WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.

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.

Acknowledgement

   Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF
   Administrative Support Activity (IASA).

AI ELI5

On this page
PROBLEMBasic presence data only describes the present. A presentity cannot say it will be CLOSED next week, and the PIDF status element element has no way to carry a time range.
MECHANISMRFC 4481 adds a timed-status element to the PIDF tuple. It carries a required 'from' attribute and an optional 'until' attribute, and the range must not include the present time.
WHY IT MATTERSWatchers can plan around a presentity's future plans and see recent past status. It is a Proposed Standard and has not been obsoleted or updated.

§1Why Presence Needs a Time Range

The Presence Information Data Format (PIDF) is a basic XML format for describing the presence of a presentity, short for presence entity, which is typically a uniquely identified person. Traditionally, PIDF and its rich extension RPID (RFC 4480) describe only the current state of the presentity.

The RFC argues that a watcher can plan better if it knows the presentity's future plans. For example, a watcher who knows the presentity is about to travel might place a phone call earlier. Past information can also help: knowing the presentity was at an off-site meeting that ended an hour ago suggests it is probably in transit now.

RPID can already say when one aspect of presence is valid, but the PIDF <status> element cannot, so there is no way to say a presentity will be OPEN or CLOSED in the future.

Your friends usually see only what you are doing this minute. This lets you also tell them what you will be doing later, or what you were doing a little while ago.

§2Why a New Element Instead of Attributes

The RFC explains why it does not just add time attributes to the existing <status> element. PIDF parsers that do not understand the new attributes would ignore them, and so could not tell current status from future status. A reader without the extension would treat a future CLOSED as the present.

Instead, the document defines a separate <timed-status> element for status that is either no longer valid or covers a future period. Old parsers simply do not see it as the current status.

The extension also chose absolute times rather than relative ones, because relative times would be too hard to keep properly updated when spacing notifications.

If you scribbled a date on an old sign, someone who could not read the scribble would think the sign was current. A separate new sign avoids the mix-up.

§3The timed-status Element

The <timed-status> element is a child of the PIDF <tuple>. It MUST NOT appear inside a PIDF <status> element or inside another <timed-status>. More than one may appear in a tuple.

It MUST carry a from attribute and MAY carry an until attribute. They give the time the status took on this value and the time until which it is expected to be valid. Without until, the information is assumed valid until the tuple is explicitly overridden or expires under the publication mechanism in use.

Inside the element can sit <basic> and <note>, plus any other element that suits a PIDF status extension and has a limited validity period. The PIDF-LO location extensions (RFC 4119) are given as an example.

Each note says when it starts and, if you want, when it ends. Inside it you write the status, like open or closed, and maybe a little message.

§4Rules for Time Ranges and Overlaps

The time range MUST NOT encompass the present time, meaning the PIDF <timestamp> value. Otherwise it would offer an unnecessary and confusing second way to describe current presence. So a <timed-status> without until must have a from that lies in the future. Originators MUST produce times fully in the past or future relative to local wallclock time and any PIDF timestamp.

Sources should avoid overlapping elements, but overlapping appointments are common in calendars, so receivers MUST be able to render overlapping indications.

While composing a document, a presence agent (PA) may find a stored <timed-status> that covers the present. It MAY discard it, or convert it to a regular <status> if it considers that information more credible.

A note must be about before or after now, never about right now, because right now already has its own place. If two calendar entries overlap, the viewer must still be able to show both.

§5An Example Document

The RFC's example is a PIDF document for pres:someone@example.com. The tuple has a normal <status> with <basic>open</basic>, so the person is open now. A <ts:timed-status> with from 2005-08-15T10:20:00.000-05:00 and until 2005-08-22T19:30:00.000-05:00 contains <ts:basic>closed</ts:basic>. The presence document's own note says "I'll be in Tokyo next week".

Read together: open today, closed for the week ahead.

Today the sign says open. A second sign says closed from one Monday to the next, and a note explains the person is traveling.

TIMED-STATUS EXAMPLE (ABRIDGED FROM RFC 4481)
Open now, closed next week
<tuple id="c8dqui">
  <status>
    <basic>open</basic>
  </status>
  <ts:timed-status from="2005-08-15T10:20:00.000-05:00"
     until="2005-08-22T19:30:00.000-05:00">
     <ts:basic>closed</ts:basic>
  </ts:timed-status>
  <contact>sip:someone@example.com</contact>
</tuple>

§6XML Schema and IANA Registrations

The schema defines timed-status in the namespace urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:pidf:timed-status. Its content is an optional basic, an optional note, and any number of elements from other namespaces. The from attribute is required and typed as an XML Schema dateTime; until is optional with the same type.

IANA is asked to register that namespace URN and the schema, following the IETF XML Registry (RFC 3688). The registrant contact is the IETF SIMPLE working group, and the schema registrant is the IESG.

The rules are written in a strict form computers can check, and the name of the extension is put on an official list so nobody else uses it.

§7Security Considerations

The RFC's whole security section is one sentence: the security issues are similar to those for RPID (RFC 4480). It adds no mechanisms of its own.

This note has the same safety worries as the other presence add-ons, so the authors point there instead of repeating them.

§8References