Network Working Group M.T. Rose
Internet-Draft Invisible Worlds, Inc.
Expires: March 2, 2001 G. Klyne
Content Technologies Limited
D.H. Crocker
Brandenburg Consulting
September 2000
The IMXP
draft-mrose-imxp-core-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 March 2, 2001.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2000). All Rights Reserved.
Abstract
This memo describes IMXP, an extensible, asynchronous message
relaying service for application layer programs.
Rose, et. al. Expires March 2, 2001 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft The IMXP September 2000
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.1 Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1.2 Architecture at a Glance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2. Service Principles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.1 Modes of Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.2 Naming of Entities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3. Service Provisioning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.1 Connection Establishment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.2 Authentication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.3 Authorization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.4 Confidentiality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.5 Routing Integrity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.6 Traffic Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4. The IMXP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.1 Use of XML and MIME . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.2 Profile Identification and Initialization . . . . . . . . 14
4.3 Message Syntax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
4.4 Message Semantics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
4.4.1 The Attach Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
4.4.2 The Bind Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
4.4.3 The Terminate Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
4.4.4 The Data Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
4.4.4.1 Relay Processing of Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
4.4.4.2 Application Processing of Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
4.5 IMXP Access Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
4.5.1 Use of Access Policies in the Endpoint-Relay Mode . . . . 25
4.5.2 Use of Access Policies in the Relay-Relay Mode . . . . . . 26
5. IMXP Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
5.1 The statusRequest Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
6. IMXP Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
6.1 Use of the IMXP Core DTD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
6.1.1 Transaction-Identifiers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
6.1.2 The Reply Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
6.2 The Report Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
7. Registration Templates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
7.1 IMXP Option Registration Template . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
7.2 IMXP Service Registration Template . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
8. Initial Registrations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
8.1 Registration: The IMXP Profile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
8.2 Registration: The IMXP Service-Selector for GSTN . . . . . 39
8.3 Registration: The statusRequest Option . . . . . . . . . . 40
8.4 Registration: The Report Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
9. DTDs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
9.1 The IMXP Core DTD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
9.2 The Report Service DTD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
10. Reply Codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
11. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
Rose, et. al. Expires March 2, 2001 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft The IMXP September 2000
12. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
A. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
B. Changes from draft-mrose-imxp-core-00 . . . . . . . . . . 51
Full Copyright Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
Rose, et. al. Expires March 2, 2001 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft The IMXP September 2000
1. Introduction
Network applications can be broadly distinguished by five
operational characteristics:
o server push or client pull;
o synchronous (interactive) or asynchronous (batch);
o time-assured or time-insensitive;
o best-effort or reliable; and,
o stateful or stateless.
For example:
o the world-wide web is a pull, synchronous, time-insensitive,
reliable, stateless service; whilst
o Internet mail is a push, asynchronous, time-insensitive,
best-effort (without DSN), stateless service.
Messaging applications vary considerably in their operational
requirements. For example, some messaging applications require
assurance of timeliness and reliability, whilst others do not.
These features come at a cost, in terms of both infrastructural and
configuration complexity. Accordingly, the underlying service must
be extensible to support different requirements in a consistent
manner.
This memo defines a core messaging service that supports a range of
operational characteristics. The core service supports a variety of
tailored services for both user-based and programmatic exchanges.
Rose, et. al. Expires March 2, 2001 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft The IMXP September 2000
1.1 Overview
IMXP provides an extensible, asynchronous message relaying service
for application layer programs.
IMXP, at its core, provides a best-effort datagram service. Each
datagram, simply termed "data", is originated and received by IMXP
"endpoints" -- applications that dynamically attach to the IMXP
"relaying mesh".
The data transmitted specifies:
o an originating endpoint;
o an opaque content (via a URI-reference);
o one or more recipient endpoints; and,
o zero or more options.
Options are used to alter the semantics of the the service, may
occur on a per-recipient or per-data basis, and may be processed by
either a single or multiple relays.
Additional IMXP services are provided on top of the relaying mesh;
e.g., access control and presence information. Typically these
services are provided by servers that are co-resident with one or
more relays within an administrative domain.
IMXP is specified as a BEEP[1] "profile". Accordingly, many aspects
of IMXP (e.g., authentication) are provided within the BEEP
framework. Throughout this memo, the terms "peer", "initiator",
"listener", "client", and "server" are used in the context of BEEP.
In particular, Section 2.1 of the BEEP framework memo discusses the
roles that a BEEP peer may perform.
When reading this memo, note that the terms "endpoint" and "relay"
are specific to IMXP, they do not exist in the context of BEEP.
Rose, et. al. Expires March 2, 2001 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft The IMXP September 2000
1.2 Architecture at a Glance
The IMXP stack:
+-------------+
| IMXP | an IMXP process is either:
| process |
+-------------+ - an application attached as an IMXP
| | endpoint; or,
| IMXP |
| | - an IMXP relay
+-------------+
| | IMXP services are realized as applications
| BEEP | having a special relationship with the IMXP
| | relays in their administrative domain
+-------------+
| TCP/IP |
+-------------+
| ... |
+-------------+
Rose, et. al. Expires March 2, 2001 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft The IMXP September 2000
The IMXP entities:
administrative domain #1 administrative domain #2
+----------------------------+ +----------------------------+
| +------+ | | +------+ |
| | | | | | | |
| | appl | | | | appl | |
| | | | | | | |
| +......+ +------+ | | +------+ +......+ |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| |end- | |relay | | | |relay | |end- | |
| | point| | | | | | | | point| |
| +------+ +------+ | | +------+ +------+ |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | IMXP | | IMXP | | | | IMXP | | IMXP | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| +------+ +------+ | | +------+ +------+ |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | BEEP | | BEEP | | | | BEEP | | BEEP | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| +------+ +------+ | | +------+ +------+ |
| || || || | | || || || |
| ============= ================ ============= |
+----------------------------+ +----------------------------+
| <---- IMXP relaying mesh ----> |
Note: routing between administrative domains is configured
using SRV RRs. Accordingly, the actual number of
relays between two endpoints is not fixed.
Rose, et. al. Expires March 2, 2001 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft The IMXP September 2000
2. Service Principles
2.1 Modes of Operation
IMXP is used in two modes:
endpoint-relay: in which the endpoint is always the BEEP initiator
of the service, whilst relays are always the BEEP listeners. In
this context, applications attach as endpoints, and then the
transmission of data occurs.
relay-relay: in which relays typically, though not necessarily,
reside in different administrative domains. In this context,
applications bind as relays, and then the transmission of data
occurs.
In the endpoint-relay mode, an endpoint (BEEP initiator) may:
o attach as one or more endpoints;
o send data to other endpoints;
o receive data from other endpoints; and,
o terminate any of its attachments.
A relay (BEEP listener), in addition to servicing requests from a
BEEP initiator, may:
o terminate any of the endpoint's attachments;
o deliver data from other endpoints; and,
o indicate the delivery status of data sent earlier by the endpoint.
In the relay-relay mode, a relay (BEEP listener or initiator) may:
o bind as one or more administrative domains;
o send data;
o receive data; and,
o terminate any bindings.
Rose, et. al. Expires March 2, 2001 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft The IMXP September 2000
2.2 Naming of Entities
Endpoints are named using the "addr-spec" syntax of RFC 822[2],
i.e., "local@domain".
Using the service-selector convention of RFC 2846[3], all endpoint
identities having a local-part starting with "imxp=" are reserved
for use by IMXP services registered with the IANA.
Relays, although not named, serve of behalf of administrative
domains, as identified by a FQDN, e.g., "example.com".
In IMXP, "endpoints" and "relays" are the fundamental entities. IMXP
is carried over BEEP, which has the "peer" as its fundamental
entity. The relationship between BEEP peer entities and IMXP
endpoint and relay entities are defined by IMXP's Access Policies
(Section 4.5).
Rose, et. al. Expires March 2, 2001 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft The IMXP September 2000
3. Service Provisioning
3.1 Connection Establishment
The SRV algorithm[4] is used to determine the IP/TCP addressing
information assigned to the relays for an administrative domain:
service: "imxp-edge" (for the endpoint-relay mode), or "imxp-mesh"
(for the relay-relay mode);
protocol: "tcp"; and,
domain: the administrative domain.
3.2 Authentication
Authentication is a matter of provisioning for each BEEP peer (c.f.,
Section 4.5).
An IMXP relay might be provisioned to allow a BEEP peer identity to
coincide with a given endpoint identity. For example, a relay in the
"example.com" administrative domain may be configured to allow a
BEEP peer identified as "fred@example.com" to be authorized to
attach as the IMXP endpoint "fred@example.com".
3.3 Authorization
Authorization is a matter of provisioning for each BEEP peer (c.f.,
Section 4.5).
Typically, a relay requires that its BEEP peer authenticate as a
prelude to authorization, but an endpoint usually does not require
the same of its BEEP peer.
3.4 Confidentiality
Confidentiality is a matter of provisioning for each BEEP peer.
Typically, any data considered sensitive by an originating endpoint
will have its content encrypted for the intended recipient
endpoint(s), rather than relying on hop-by-hop encryption.
Similarly, an originating endpoint will sign the content if
end-to-end authentication is desired.
Rose, et. al. Expires March 2, 2001 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft The IMXP September 2000
3.5 Routing Integrity
Data are routed according to SRV entries in the DNS. Accordingly,
routing integrity is a function of the DNS and the applications
making use of the DNS. Additional assurance is provided if the BEEP
initiator requires that the BEEP listener authenticate itself.
3.6 Traffic Analysis
Hop-by-hop protection of data transmitted through the relaying mesh
(endpoint identities and content) is afforded at the BEEP level
through the use of a transport security profile. Other traffic
characteristics, e.g., volume and timing of transmissions, is not
protected from third-party analysis.
Rose, et. al. Expires March 2, 2001 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft The IMXP September 2000
4. The IMXP
Section 8.1 contains the BEEP profile registration for IMXP.
4.1 Use of XML and MIME
Each BEEP payload exchanged via IMXP consists of an XML document and
possibly an arbitrary MIME content.
If only an XML document is sent in the BEEP payload, then the
mapping to a BEEP payload is straight-forward, e.g.,
C: MSG 1 2 . 111 27
C: Content-Type: text/xml
C:
C: <terminate transID='1' />
C: END
Otherwise, if an arbitrary MIME content is present, it is indicated
by a URI-reference[5] in the XML control document. The URI-reference
may contain an absolute-URI (and possibly a fragment-identifier), or
it may be a relative-URI consisting only of a fragment-identifier.
Arbitrary MIME content is included in the BEEP payload by using a
"multipart/related"[6], identified using a "cid" URL[7], and the XML
control document occurs as the start of the "multipart/related",
e.g.,
C: MSG 1 1 . 42 1234
C: Content-Type: multipart/related; boundary="boundary";
C: start="<1@example.com>";
C: type="text/xml"
C:
C: --boundary
C: Content-Type: text/xml
C: Content-ID: <1@example.com>
C:
C: <data originator='fred@example.com'
C: content='cid:2@example.com'>
C: <recipient identity='barney@example.com' />
C: </data>
C: --boundary
C: Content-Type: image/gif
C: Content-Transfer-Encoding: binary
C: Content-ID: <2@example.com>
C:
C: ...
C: --boundary--
C: END
Rose, et. al. Expires March 2, 2001 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft The IMXP September 2000
Because BEEP provides an 8bit-wide path, a "transformative"
Content-Transfer-Encoding (e.g., "base64" or "quoted-printable")
should not be used. Further, note that MIME[8] requires that the
value of the "Content-ID" header be globally unique.
If the arbitrary MIME content is itself an XML document, it may be
contained with the control document directly, and identified using a
URI-reference consisting of only a fragment-identifier, e.g.,
C: MSG 1 1 . 42 283
C: Content-Type: text/xml
C:
C: <data originator='fred@example.com' content='#Content'>
C: <recipient identity='barney@example.com' />
C: <data-content Name='Content'>
C: <statusResponse transID='86'>
C: <destination identity='barney@example.com'>
C: <reply code='250' />
C: </destination>
C: <statusResponse>
C: </data-content>
C: </data>
C: END
Rose, et. al. Expires March 2, 2001 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft The IMXP September 2000
4.2 Profile Identification and Initialization
The IMXP is identified as
http://xml.resource.org/profiles/IMXP
in the BEEP "profile" element during channel creation.
No elements are required to be exchanged during channel creation;
however, in the endpoint-relay mode, the BEEP initiator will
typically include an "attach" element during channel creation, e.g.,
<start number='1'>
<profile uri='http://xml.resource.org/profiles/IMXP'>
<![CDATA[<attach endpoint='fred@example.com'
transID='1' />]]>
</profile>
</start>
Similarly, in the relay-relay mode, the BEEP initiator will
typically include an "bind" element during channel creation, e.g.,
<start number='1'>
<profile uri='http://xml.resource.org/profiles/IMXP'>
<![CDATA[<bind relay='example.com'
transID='1' />]]>
</profile>
</start>
4.3 Message Syntax
Section 9.1 defines the BEEP payloads that are used in the IMXP.
Rose, et. al. Expires March 2, 2001 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft The IMXP September 2000
4.4 Message Semantics
4.4.1 The Attach Operation
When an application wants to attach to the relaying mesh as a given
endpoint, it sends an "attach" element to a relay, e.g.,
+-------+ +-------+
| | -- attach -----> | |
| appl. | | relay |
| | <--------- ok -- | |
+-------+ +-------+
C: <attach endpoint='fred@example.com' transID='1' />
S: <ok />
or
+-------+ +-------+
| | -- attach -----> | |
| | | |
| | <--------- ok -- | |
| appl. | | relay |
| | -- attach -----> | |
| | | |
| | <--------- ok -- | |
+-------+ +-------+
C: <attach endpoint='fred@example.com' transID='1' />
S: <ok />
C: <attach endpoint='wilma@example.com' transID='2' />
S: <ok />
or
+-------+ +-------+
| | -- attach -----> | |
| appl. | | relay |
| | <------ error -- | |
+-------+ +-------+
C: <attach endpoint='fred@example.com' transID='1' />
S: <error code='537'>access denied</error>
Rose, et. al. Expires March 2, 2001 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft The IMXP September 2000
The "attach" element has an "endpoint" attribute, a "transID"
attribute, and contains zero or more "option" elements:
o the "endpoint" attribute specifies the endpoint that the
application wants to attach as;
o the "transID" attribute specifies the transaction-identifier
associated with this operation; and,
o the "option" elements, if any, specify additional processing
options (Section 5).
When a relay receives an "attach" element, it performs these steps:
1. If the transaction-identifier refers to a previous,
non-terminated operation on this BEEP channel, an "error"
element having code 555 is returned.
2. If the relay is in a different administrative domain than this
endpoint, an "error" element having code 553 is returned.
3. If the application is not authorized to attach as this endpoint,
an "error" element having code 537 is returned.
4. If any options are present, they are examined.
5. If another application has already attached as this endpoint, an
"error" element having code 554 is returned.
6. Otherwise, the application is bound as this endpoint, and an
"ok" element is returned.
Rose, et. al. Expires March 2, 2001 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft The IMXP September 2000
4.4.2 The Bind Operation
When an application wants to identify itself as a relay, it sends a
"bind" element to another relay, e.g.,
+-------+ +-------+
| | -- bind -------> | |
| relay | | relay |
| #1 | <--------- ok -- | #2 |
+-------+ +-------+
C: <bind relay='example.com' transID='1' />
S: <ok />
or
+-------+ +-------+
| | -- bind -------> | |
| | | |
| | <--------- ok -- | |
| relay | | relay |
| #1 | -- bind -------> | #2 |
| | | |
| | <--------- ok -- | |
+-------+ +-------+
C: <bind relay='example.com' transID='1' />
S: <ok />
C: <bind relay='rubble.com' transID='1' />
S: <ok />
or
+-------+ +-------+
| | -- bind -------> | |
| relay | | relay |
| #1 | <------ error -- | #2 |
+-------+ +-------+
C: <bind relay='example.com' transID='1' />
S: <error code='537'>access denied</error>
Rose, et. al. Expires March 2, 2001 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft The IMXP September 2000
The "bind" element has a "relay" attribute, a "transID" attribute,
and contains zero or more "option" elements:
o the "relay" attribute specifies the administrative domain on
whose behalf the application wants to serve;
o the "transID" attribute specifies the transaction-identifier
associated with this operation; and,
o the "option" elements, if any, specify additional processing
options (Section 5).
When a relay receives an "bind" element, it performs these steps:
1. If the transaction-identifier refers to a previous,
non-terminated operation on this BEEP channel, an "error"
element having code 555 is returned.
2. The relay performs the SRV algorithm[4] for the desired
administrative domain (i.e., using a service of "imxp-mesh" and
a protocol of "tcp"). For each domain name returned by the
algorithm, the corresponding IP address(es) are retrieved using
the DNS. The relay compares the application's IP address and TCP
port number to the corresponding IP addresses and TCP port
numbers found using the SRV algorithm. If none match, an "error"
element having code 537 is returned.
3. If the application is not authorized to bind on behalf of this
administrative domain, an "error" element having code 537 is
returned.
4. If any options are present, they are examined.
5. Otherwise, the application is accepted as serving this
administrative domain, and an "ok" element is returned.
Rose, et. al. Expires March 2, 2001 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft The IMXP September 2000
4.4.3 The Terminate Operation
When an application or relay wants to release an attachment or
binding, it sends a "terminate" element, e.g.,
+-------+ +-------+
| | -- terminate --> | |
| appl. | | relay |
| | <--------- ok -- | |
+-------+ +-------+
C: <terminate transID='1' />
S: <ok />
or
+-------+ +-------+
| | -- terminate --> | |
| appl. | | relay |
| | <------ error -- | |
+-------+ +-------+
C: <terminate transID='13' />
S: <error code='550'>unknown transaction-identifier</error>
or
+-------+ +-------+
| | <-- terminate -- | |
| appl. | | relay |
| | -- ok ---------> | |
+-------+ +-------+
C: <terminate transID='1' />
S: <ok />
The "terminate" element has a "transID" attribute that specifies the
transaction-identifier associated a previous attach or bind
operation, and has no content.
When an application or relay receives a "terminate" element, it
performs these steps:
1. If the transaction-identifier does not refer to a previous
unterminated operation on this BEEP channel, an "error" element
having code 550 is returned.
2. Otherwise, the application is no longer bound as an endpoint or
a relay, and an "ok" element is returned.
Rose, et. al. Expires March 2, 2001 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft The IMXP September 2000
4.4.4 The Data Operation
When an application or relay wants to transmit data over the
relaying mesh, it sends a "data" element, e.g.,
+-------+ +-------+
| | -- data -------> | |
| appl. | | relay |
| #1 | <--------- ok -- | |
+-------+ +-------+
C: <data originator='fred@example.com' content='cid:1@example.com'>
<recipient identity='barney@example.com' />
</data>
S: <ok />
or
+-------+ +-------+
| | -- data -------> | |
| appl. | | relay |
| #1 | <------ error -- | |
+-------+ +-------+
C: <data originator='fred@example.com' content='cid:1@example.com'>
<recipient identity='barney@example.com' />
</data>
S: <error code='450'>barney@example.com not attached</error>
or
+-------+ +-------+
| | -- data -------> | |
| relay | | appl. |
| | <--------- ok -- | #2 |
+-------+ +-------+
C: <data originator='fred@example.com' content='cid:1@example.com'>
<recipient identity='barney@example.com' />
</data>
S: <ok />
Rose, et. al. Expires March 2, 2001 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft The IMXP September 2000
The "data" element has an "originator" and a "content" attribute,
and contains one or more "recipient" elements, zero or more "option"
elements, and, optionally, a "data-content" element:
o the "originator" attribute specifies the endpoint sending the
data;
o the "content" attribute is a URI-reference that specifies the
contents of the data (c.f., Section 4.1);
o each "recipient" element refers to an endpoint destination for
the data;
o the "option" elements, if any, specify additional processing
options (Section 5), termed per-data options; and,
o the "data-content" element, if present, specifies a nested XML
entity using a URI fragment-identifier as the value of the
"content" attribute.
Each "recipient" element has an "identity" attribute, and contains
zero or more option elements:
o the "identity" attribute specifies the destination endpoint; and
o the "option" elements, if any, specify additional processing
options for this recipient, termed per-recipient options.
Rose, et. al. Expires March 2, 2001 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft The IMXP September 2000
4.4.4.1 Relay Processing of Data
When a relay receives a "data" element, it performs these steps:
1. If the BEEP client is not authorized to originate or relay data
on behalf of the "originator" endpoint, an "error" element
having code 537 is returned.
2. If any per-data options are present, they are examined.
3. For each recipient:
1. If any per-recipient options are present, they are examined.
2. If the recipient endpoint is not in the administrative
domain associated with the relay, then an IMXP session is
established to a relay that accepts data for the recipient's
administrative domain, and a new "data" element, containing
only that "recipient" element (and all applicable options),
is sent to that relay.
If no errors (e.g., an IMXP session can not be established)
occur during processing, and if the recipient's relay
returns an "ok" element, then the recipient is considered to
be successfully processed.
3. Otherwise, the IMXP access service must check that the
originator endpoint is allowed to communicate with the
recipient endpoint (the recipient's access entry[9] must
contain a "core:data" token for the originator), and the
recipient endpoint must be currently attached.
If so, a new "data" element (containing only that
"recipient" element) is sent to the corresponding
application, and the recipient is considered to be
successfully processed.
4. If no recipients could be successfully processed, an "error"
element is returned; otherwise, an "ok" element is returned.
Note that an implementation may choose to optimize its behavior by
grouping multiple recipients in a single "data" element that is
subsequently transmitted. It may do so providing that the
optimization retains these semantics and any other semantics related
to per-data and per-recipient options.
Finally, note that a relay receiving a "data" element from an
application may be configured to add domain-specific options.
Rose, et. al. Expires March 2, 2001 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft The IMXP September 2000
4.4.4.2 Application Processing of Data
When an application receives a "data" element, it performs these
steps:
1. If any per-data options are present, they are not processed (but
may be noted).
2. For each recipient:
1. If any per-recipient options are present, they are not
processed (but may be noted).
2. If the application is not attached as the recipient
endpoint, then an error in processing has occurred.
3. Otherwise, the "data" element is further processed in an
application-specific manner, and the recipient is considered
to be successfully processed.
3. If no recipients could be successfully processed, an "error"
element is returned; otherwise, an "ok" element is returned.
Rose, et. al. Expires March 2, 2001 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft The IMXP September 2000
4.5 IMXP Access Policies
Access to IMXP is provided by the juxtaposition of:
o authenticating as a BEEP peer;
o attaching as an IMXP endpoint or binding as an IMXP relay; and,
o being listed as an actor by the IMXP access service (c.f., [9]).
Each of these activities occurs according to the policies of the
relevant administrative domain:
o each administrative domain is responsible for keeping its own
house in order through "local provisioning"; and,
o each administrative domain decides the level of trust to
associate with other administrative domains.
Rose, et. al. Expires March 2, 2001 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft The IMXP September 2000
4.5.1 Use of Access Policies in the Endpoint-Relay Mode
o When an application wants to attach to the relaying mesh, local
provisioning maps BEEP peer identities to allowed IMXP endpoints
(c.f., Step 3 of Section 4.4.1).
Typically, the identity function is used, e.g., if an application
authenticates itself as the BEEP peer named as
"fred@example.com", it is allowed to attach as the IMXP endpoint
named as "fred@example.com".
Using the subaddress-specification convention of RFC 2846[3], an
application authorized to attach as a given IMXP endpoint is also
authorized to attach as any sub-address of that IMXP endpoint,
e.g., an application authorized to attach as the IMXP endpoint
"fred@example.com" is also authorized to attach as the IMXP
endpoint "fred/appl=wb@example.com".
o When an application wants to send data, local provisioning maps
attached endpoints to allowed originators (c.f., Step 1 of
Section 4.4.4.1).
Typically, the identity function is used, e.g., if an application
attaches as the IMXP endpoint named as "fred@example.com", it is
allowed to send data originating from the same IMXP endpoint.
However, other policies are permissible, for example, the
administrative domain may allow the application attached as the
IMXP endpoint named as "wilma@example.com" to send data
originating as either "wilma@example.com" or "fred@example.com".
o Finally, when a relay is delivering to an endpoint within its own
administrative domain, it consults the recipient's access entry
looking for an entry having the originator as an actor (c.f.,
Step 3.3 of Section 4.4.4.1).
Rose, et. al. Expires March 2, 2001 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft The IMXP September 2000
4.5.2 Use of Access Policies in the Relay-Relay Mode
o When an application wants to bind as a relay on behalf of an
administrative domain, in addition to Step 2 of Section 4.4.2,
local provisioning may map BEEP peer identities to allowed IMXP
relays (c.f., Step 4).
If so, then typically the identity function is used. e.g., if an
application authenticates itself as the BEEP peer named as
"example.com", it is allowed to bind as a relay on behalf of the
administrative domain "example.com".
o When a relay is sending data, no access policies, per se, are
applied.
o When a relay is receiving data, local provisioning maps BEEP peer
identities to allowed originators (c.f., Step 1 of Section
4.4.4.1).
Typically, the identity function is used, e.g., if a relay
authenticates itself as being from the same administrative domain
as the originator of the data, then the data is accepted.
In addition, some relays may also be configured as "trusted"
intermediaries, so that if a BEEP peer authenticates itself as
being from such a relay, then the data is accepted.
Rose, et. al. Expires March 2, 2001 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft The IMXP September 2000
5. IMXP Options
IMXP, at its core, provides a best-effort datagram service. Options
are used to alter the semantics of the core service.
The semantics of the IMXP "option" element are context-specific.
Accordingly, the specification of an IMXP option must define:
o the identity of the option;
o the context in which the option may appear;
o what content, if any, is contained within the option; and,
o the processing rules for the option.
An option registration template (Section 7.1) organizes this
information.
An "option" element is contained within either a "data" element or a
"recipient" element, either of which is termed the "containing
element". The "option" element has several attributes and contains
arbitrary content:
o the "internal" and the "external" attributes, exactly one of
which is present, uniquely identify the option;
o the "targetHop" attribute specifies which relays should process
the option;
o the "seeNoEvil" attribute specifies whether the option, if
unrecognized, may be safely ignored;
o the "transID" attribute specifies a transaction-identifier for
the option; and,
o the "localize" attribute, if present, specifies one or more
language tokens, each identifying a desirable language tag to be
used if textual diagnostics are returned to the originator.
The value of the "internal" attribute is the IANA-registered name
for the option. If the "internal" attribute is not present, then the
value of the "external" attribute is a URI or URI with a
fragment-identifier. Note that a relative-URI value is not allowed.
Rose, et. al. Expires March 2, 2001 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft The IMXP September 2000
The "targetHop" attribute specifies which relay(s) should process
the option:
this: the option applies to this relay, and must be removed prior
to transmitting the containing element.
final: the option applies to this relay, only if the the relay is
able to transmit the containing element directly to the recipient.
all: the option applies to this relay and is retained for the
next.
Note that a final relay does not remove any options as it transmits
the containing element directly to the recipient.
The "seeNoEvil" attribute specifies whether the relay may ignore the
option if it is unrecognized, and is consulted only if the
"targetHop" attribute indicates that the option applies to that
relay. If the option applies, and if the value of the "seeNoEvil"
attribute is "false", and if the relay does not "understand" the
option, then this is considered a processing error.
Rose, et. al. Expires March 2, 2001 [Page 28]
Internet-Draft The IMXP September 2000
5.1 The statusRequest Option
Section 8.3 contains the IMXP option registration for the
"statusRequest" option.
If this option is present, then each applicable relay sends a
"statusResponse" message to the originator. This is done by issuing
a data operation whose originator is the report service associated
with the issuing relay, whose recipient is the endpoint address of
the "statusRequest" originator, and whose content is a
"statusResponse" element.
A "statusRequest" option MUST NOT be present in any data operation
containing a "statusResponse" element.
Rose, et. al. Expires March 2, 2001 [Page 29]
Internet-Draft The IMXP September 2000
Consider these examples:
+-------+ +-------+
| | -- data -------> | |
| appl. | | relay |
| #1 | <--------- ok -- | |
+-------+ +-------+
C: <data originator='fred@example.com' content='cid:1@example.com'>
<recipient identity='barney@example.com' />
<option internal='statusRequest' targetHop='final'
seeNoEvil='false' transID='86' />
</data>
S: <ok />
+-------+ +-------+
| | -- data -------> | |
| relay | | appl. |
| | <--------- ok -- | #2 |
+-------+ +-------+
C: <data originator='fred@example.com' content='cid:1@example.com'>
<recipient identity='barney@example.com' />
</data>
S: <ok />
+-------+ +-------+
| | <------- data -- | |
| appl. | | relay |
| #1 | -- ok ---------> | |
+-------+ +-------+
C: <data originator='imxp=report@example.com' content='#Content'>
<recipient identity='fred@example.com' />
<data-content Name='Content'>
<statusResponse transID='86'>
<destination identity='barney@example.com'>
<reply code='250' />
</destination>
<statusResponse>
</data-content>
</data>
S: <ok />
Rose, et. al. Expires March 2, 2001 [Page 30]
Internet-Draft The IMXP September 2000
or
+-------+ +-------+
| | -- data -------> | |
| appl. | | relay |
| | <--------- ok -- | #1 |
+-------+ +-------+
C: <data originator='fred@example.com' content='cid:1@example.com'>
<recipient identity='barney@rubble.com' />
<option internal='statusRequest' targetHop='final'
seeNoEvil='false' transID='86' />
</data>
S: <ok />
+-------+ +-------+
| | -- data -------> | |
| relay | | relay |
| #1 | <------ error -- | #2 |
+-------+ +-------+
C: <data originator='fred@example.com' content='cid:1@example.com'>
<recipient identity='barney@rubble.com' />
<option internal='statusRequest' targetHop='final'
seeNoEvil='false' transID='86' />
</data>
S: <error code='550'>unknown endpoint identity</error>
+-------+ +-------+
| | <------- data -- | |
| appl. | | relay |
| | -- ok ---------> | #1 |
+-------+ +-------+
C: <data originator='imxp=report@example.com' content='#Content'>
<recipient identity='fred@example.com' />
<data-content Name='Content'>
<statusResponse transID='86'>
<destination identity='barney@example.com'>
<reply code='550'>unknown endpoint
identity</reply>
</destination>
<statusResponse>
</data-content>
</data>
S: <ok />
Rose, et. al. Expires March 2, 2001 [Page 31]
Internet-Draft The IMXP September 2000
or
+-------+ +-------+
| | -- data -------> | |
| appl. | | relay |
| | <--------- ok -- | #1 |
+-------+ +-------+
C: <data originator='fred@example.com' content='cid:1@example.com'>
<recipient identity='barney@rubble.com' />
<option internal='statusRequest' targetHop='final'
seeNoEvil='false' transID='86' />
</data>
S: <ok />
+-------+ +-------+
| | -- data -------> | |
| relay | | relay |
| #1 | <--------- ok -- | #2 |
+-------+ +-------+
C: <data originator='fred@example.com' content='cid:1@example.com'>
<recipient identity='barney@rubble.com' />
<option internal='statusRequest' targetHop='final'
seeNoEvil='false' transID='86' />
</data>
S: <ok />
+-------+ +-------+
| | <------- data -- | |
| relay | | relay |
| #1 | -- ok ---------> | #2 |
+-------+ +-------+
C: <data originator='imxp=report@rubble.com' content='#Content'>
<recipient identity='fred@example.com' />
<data-content Name='Content'>
<statusResponse transID='86'>
<destination identity='barney@rubble.com'>
<reply code='250' />
</destination>
<statusResponse>
</data-content>
</data>
S: <ok />
Rose, et. al. Expires March 2, 2001 [Page 32]
Internet-Draft The IMXP September 2000
+-------+ +-------+
| | -- data -------> | |
| appl. | | relay |
| | <--------- ok -- | #1 |
+-------+ +-------+
C: <data originator='imxp=report@rubble.com' content='#Content'>
<recipient identity='fred@example.com' />
<data-content Name='Content'>
<statusResponse transID='86'>
<destination identity='barney@rubble.com'>
<reply code='250' />
</destination>
<statusResponse>
</data-content>
</data>
S: <ok />
Note that a trace of a data's passage through the relaying mesh can
be achieved by setting the "targetHop" attribute to "all".
Rose, et. al. Expires March 2, 2001 [Page 33]
Internet-Draft The IMXP September 2000
6. IMXP Services
IMXP, at its core, provides a best-effort datagram service. Errors
are reported through the use of a co-resident IMXP report service.
All other IMXP services are provided on top of the relaying mesh,
e.g.,
+----------+ +----------+ +----------+
| IMXP | | IMXP | | |
| access | | presence | | ... |
| service | | service | | |
+----------+ +----------+ +----------+
| | |
| | |
+------------------------------------------------+---------+
| | IMXP |
| IMXP core | report |
| | service |
+------------------------------------------------+---------+
Applications communicate with IMXP services by sending data to a
"well-known endpoint" (WKE).
The specification of an IMXP service must define:
o the WKE of the service;
o the syntax of messages exchanged with the service;
o the sequence of messages exchanged with the service; and,
o what access control tokens are consulted by the service.
A service registration template (Section 7.2) organizes this
information.
Note that both the IMXP access[9] and presence[10] services are
logically layered above the IMXP core; however, implementers may
choose to physically co-reside these services with IMXP relay
software.
Finally, note that within a single administrative domain, the
relaying mesh makes use of the IMXP access service in order to
determine if an originator is allowed to transmit data to a
recipient (c.f., Step 3.3 of Section 4.4.4.1)
Rose, et. al. Expires March 2, 2001 [Page 34]
Internet-Draft The IMXP September 2000
6.1 Use of the IMXP Core DTD
The specification of an IMXP service may use definitions found in
the IMXP core DTD (Section 9.1). For example, the reply operation
(Section 6.1.2) is defined to provide a common format for responses.
6.1.1 Transaction-Identifiers
In using IMXP's transaction-identifiers, note the following:
o In the endpoint-relay and relay-relay modes,
transaction-identifiers are meaningful only during the lifetime
of a BEEP channel.
For example, when an application issues the attach operation, the
associated transaction-identifier has meaning only within the
context of the BEEP channel used for the attach operation. When
the BEEP connection is released, the channel no longer exists and
the application is no longer attached to the relaying mesh.
o In contrast, when an application communicates with an IMXP
service, transaction-identifiers are often embedded in the data
that is sent. This means that transaction-identifiers are
potentially long-lived.
For example, an application may attach as an endpoint, send data
(containing an embedded transaction-identifier) to a service,
and, some time later, detach from the relaying mesh. Later on, a
second application may attach as the same endpoint, and send data
of its own (also containing embedded transaction-identifiers).
Subsequently, the second application may receive data from the
service responding to the first application's request and
containing the transaction-identifier used by the first
application.
To minimize the likelihood of ambiguities with long-lived
transaction-identifiers, the values of transaction-identifiers
generated by applications should appear to be unpredictable.
Rose, et. al. Expires March 2, 2001 [Page 35]
Internet-Draft The IMXP September 2000
6.1.2 The Reply Operation
Many IMXP services make use of a reply operation. Accordingly,
Section 9.1 contains a definition of a "reply" element that can be
used for this purpose.
The "reply" element has a "code" attribute, a "transID" attribute,
an optional "xml:lang" attribute, and may contain arbitrary textual
content:
o the "code" element specifies a three-digit reply code (c.f.,
Section 10);
o the "transID" attribute specifies the transaction-identifier
corresponding to this reply;
o the "xml:lang" attribute, if present, specifies the language that
the element's content is written in; and,
o the textual content is a diagnostic (possibly multiline) which is
meaningful to implementers, perhaps administrators, and possibly
even users.
Rose, et. al. Expires March 2, 2001 [Page 36]
Internet-Draft The IMXP September 2000
6.2 The Report Service
Section 8.4 contains the IMXP service registration for the report
service:
o Within an administrative domain, the service is addressed using
the well-known endpoint of "imxp=report".
o Section 9.2 defines the syntax of the operations exchanged with
the service.
o A consumer of the service does not initiate communications with
the service.
o The service initiates communications by sending data containing
the "statusResponse" operation.
Unlike other IMXP services, the report service is co-resident with
the IMXP core -- the report service is provided by each and every
relay.
If a relay processes a "statusRequest" option (Section 5.1), then it
sends data to the originator containing a "statusResponse" element
(Section 9.2).
The "statusResponse" element has a "transID" attribute and contains
one or more "destination" elements:
o the "transID" attribute specifies the value contained in the
"statusRequest" option; and,
o each "destination" element has an "identity" attribute and
contains a "reply" element:
* the "identity" attribute specifies the recipient endpoint that
is being reported on; and,
* the "reply" element (Section 6.1.2) specifies the delivery
status of that recipient.
Rose, et. al. Expires March 2, 2001 [Page 37]
Internet-Draft The IMXP September 2000
7. Registration Templates
7.1 IMXP Option Registration Template
When an IMXP option is registered, the following information is
supplied:
Option Identification: specify the NMTOKEN or the URI that
authoritatively identifies this option.
Present in: specify the IMXP elements in which the option may appear.
Contains: specify the XML content that is contained within the
"option" element.
Processing Rules: specify the processing rules associated with the
option.
Contact Information: specify the postal and electronic contact
information for the author of the profile.
7.2 IMXP Service Registration Template
When an IMXP service is registered, the following information is
supplied:
Well-Known Endpoint: specify the local-part of an endpoint identity,
starting with "imxp=".
Syntax of Messages Exchanged: specify the elements exchanged with
the service.
Sequence of Messages Exchanged: specify the order in which data is
exchanged with the service.
Access Control Tokens: specify the token(s) used to control access
to the service (c.f., [9]).
Contact Information: specify the postal and electronic contact
information for the author of the profile.
Rose, et. al. Expires March 2, 2001 [Page 38]
Internet-Draft The IMXP September 2000
8. Initial Registrations
8.1 Registration: The IMXP Profile
Profile Identification: http://xml.resource.org/profiles/IMXP
Messages exchanged during Channel Creation: "attach", "bind"
Messages starting one-to-one exchanges: "attach", "bind",
"terminate", or "data"
Messages in positive replies: "ok"
Messages in negative replies: "error"
Messages in one-to-many exchanges: none
Message Syntax: c.f., Section 9.1
Message Semantics: c.f., Section 4.4
Contact Information: c.f., the "Authors' Addresses" section of this
memo
8.2 Registration: The IMXP Service-Selector for GSTN
Service-Selector Name: IMXP
Description of Use: Specifies endpoints for registered IMXP services
on the host indicated by the address' domain name, c.f., Section 6
Security Considerations: The definition of a service-related
endpoint does not introduce security concerns, per se; however,
because the defined endpoints are service control points, the
nature of messages sent to them may introduce security concerns
Contact Information: c.f., the "Authors' Addresses" section of this
memo
Rose, et. al. Expires March 2, 2001 [Page 39]
Internet-Draft The IMXP September 2000
8.3 Registration: The statusRequest Option
Option Identification: statusRequest
Present in: IMXP's "data" and "recipient" elements
Contains: nothing
Processing Rules: c.f., Section 5.1
Contact Information: c.f., the "Authors' Addresses" section of this
memo
8.4 Registration: The Report Service
Well-Known Endpoint: imxp=report
Syntax of Messages Exchanged: c.f., Section 9.2
Sequence of Messages Exchanged: c.f., Section 6.2
Access Control Tokens: none
Contact Information: c.f., the "Authors' Addresses" section of this
memo
Rose, et. al. Expires March 2, 2001 [Page 40]
Internet-Draft The IMXP September 2000
9. DTDs
The IM COMMON DTD is defined in Section 6 of [11].
9.1 The IMXP Core DTD
<!--
DTD for the IMXP core, as of 2000-09-19
Refer to this DTD as:
<!ENTITY % IMXPCORE PUBLIC "-//Blocks//DTD IMXP CORE//EN"
"http://xml.resource.org/profiles/IMXP/imxp-core.dtd">
%IMXPCORE;
-->
<!ENTITY % IMCOMMON PUBLIC "-//Blocks//DTD IM COMMON//EN"
"http://xml.resource.org/syntaxes/IM/im-common.dtd">
%IMCOMMON;
<!--
DTD data types:
entity syntax/reference example
====== ================ =======
IMXP endpoint
ENDPOINT addr-spec, fred@example.com
c.f., [RFC-0822]
fully-qualified domain-name
FQDN c.f., [RFC-1034] example.com
zero or more language tags
LOCS NMTOKENS "en-US"
a 3-digit reply code
XYZ [1-5][1-9][1-9] 500
-->
<!ENTITY % ENDPOINT "CDATA">
<!ENTITY % FQDN "NMTOKEN">
<!ENTITY % LOCS "NMTOKEN">
<!ENTITY % XYZ "CDATA">
Rose, et. al. Expires March 2, 2001 [Page 41]
Internet-Draft The IMXP September 2000
<!--
BEEP profile http://xml.resource.org/profiles/IMXP
role MSG RSP ERR
====== === === ===
I attach ok error
I or L bind ok error
I or L terminate ok error
I or L data ok error
-->
<!ELEMENT attach (option*)>
<!ATTLIST attach
endpoint %ENDPOINT; #REQUIRED
transID %UNIQID; #REQUIRED>
<!ELEMENT bind (option*)>
<!ATTLIST bind
relay %FQDN; #REQUIRED
transID %UNIQID; #REQUIRED>
<!ELEMENT terminate EMPTY>
<!ATTLIST terminate
transID %UNIQID; #REQUIRED>
<!ELEMENT data (recipient+,option*,data-content?)>
<!ATTLIST data
originator %ENDPOINT; #REQUIRED
content %URI; #REQUIRED>
<!ELEMENT recipient (option*)>
<!ATTLIST recipient
identity %ENDPOINT; #REQUIRED>
<!ELEMENT data-content
ANY>
<!ATTLIST Name ID #REQUIRED>
Rose, et. al. Expires March 2, 2001 [Page 42]
Internet-Draft The IMXP September 2000
<!ELEMENT ok EMPTY>
<!ELEMENT error (#PCDATA)>
<!ATTLIST error
code %XYZ; #REQUIRED
xml:lang %LANG; #IMPLIED>
<!ELEMENT reply (#PCDATA)>
<!ATTLIST reply
code %XYZ; #REQUIRED
transID %UNIQID; #REQUIRED
xml:lang %LANG; #IMPLIED>
<!-- either the "internal" or the "external" attribute is present in
an option -->
<!ELEMENT option ANY>
<!ATTLIST option
internal NMTOKEN ""
external %URI; ""
targetHop (this|final|all) "final"
seeNoEvil (true|false) "true"
transID %UNIQID; #REQUIRED
localize %LOCS; "i-default">
Rose, et. al. Expires March 2, 2001 [Page 43]
Internet-Draft The IMXP September 2000
9.2 The Report Service DTD
<!--
DTD for the IMXP report service, as of 2000-06-11
Refer to this DTD as:
<!ENTITY % IMXPREPORT PUBLIC "-//Blocks//DTD IMXP REPORT//EN"
"http://xml.resource.org/profiles/IMXP/imxp-report.dtd">
%IMXPREPORT;
-->
<!ENTITY % IMXPCORE PUBLIC "-//Blocks//DTD IMXP CORE//EN"
"http://xml.resource.org/profiles/IMXP/imxp-core.dtd">
%IMXPCORE;
<!--
Synopsis of the IMXP report service
service WKE: imxp=report
message exchanges:
service initiates consumer replies
================= ================
statusResponse (nothing)
access control tokens: none
-->
<!ELEMENT statusResponse
(destination+)>
<!ATTLIST statusResponse
transID %TRANSID; #REQUIRED>
<!ELEMENT destination (reply)>
<!ATTLIST destination
identity %ENDPOINT; #REQUIRED>
Rose, et. al. Expires March 2, 2001 [Page 44]
Internet-Draft The IMXP September 2000
10. Reply Codes
code meaning
==== =======
250 transaction successful
421 service not available
450 requested action not taken
451 requested action aborted
454 temporary authentication failure
500 general syntax error (e.g., poorly-formed XML)
501 syntax error in parameters (e.g., non-valid XML)
504 parameter not implemented
530 authentication required
534 authentication mechanism insufficient
535 authentication failure
537 action not authorized for user
538 authentication mechanism requires encryption
550 requested action not taken
553 parameter invalid
554 transaction failed (e.g., policy violation)
555 transaction already in progress
Rose, et. al. Expires March 2, 2001 [Page 45]
Internet-Draft The IMXP September 2000
11. Security Considerations
Consult Section 3 and Section 4.5 for a discussion of security
issues, e.g., routing integrity. In addition, since IMXP is a
profile of the BEEP, consult [1]'s Section 8 for a discussion of
BEEP-specific security issues.
In addition, the statusRequest option (Section 5.1) may be used to
expose private network topology. Accordingly, administrators may
wish to choose to disable this option except at the ingress/egress
points for their domain.
Rose, et. al. Expires March 2, 2001 [Page 46]
Internet-Draft The IMXP September 2000
12. IANA Considerations
The IANA maintains a list of:
o IMXP options, c.f., Section 5 and Section 7.1; and,
o IMXP services, c.f., Section 6 and Section 7.2.
The IANA makes the registrations specified in Section 8.1, Section
8.2, Section 8.3, and Section 8.4.
Rose, et. al. Expires March 2, 2001 [Page 47]
Internet-Draft The IMXP September 2000
References
[1] Rose, M.T., "The Blocks Extensible Exchange Protocol
Framework", draft-ietf-beep-framework-02 (work in progress),
September 2000.
[2] Crocker, D., "Standard for the format of ARPA Internet text
messages", RFC 822, STD 11, Aug 1982.
[3] Allocchio, C., "GSTN Address Element Extensions in E-mail
Services", RFC 2846, June 2000.
[4] Gulbrandsen, A., Vixie, P. and L. Esibov, "A DNS RR for
specifying the location of services (DNS SRV)", RFC 2782,
February 2000.
[5] Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R.T. and L. Masinter, "Uniform
Resource Identifiers (URI): Generic Syntax", RFC 2396, August
1998.
[6] Levinson, E., "The MIME Multipart/Related Content-type", RFC
2387, August 1998.
[7] Levinson, E., "Content-ID and Message-ID Uniform Resource
Locators", RFC 2392, August 1998.
[8] Freed, N. and N. Borenstein, "Multipurpose Internet Mail
Extensions (MIME) Part One: Format of Internet Message
Bodies", RFC 2045, November 1996.
[9] Rose, M.T., Klyne, G. and D.H. Crocker, "The IMXP Access
Service", draft-mrose-imxp-access-01 (work in progress),
September 2000.
[10] Rose, M.T., Klyne, G. and D.H. Crocker, "The IMXP Presence
Service", draft-mrose-imxp-presence-01 (work in progress),
September 2000.
[11] Crocker, D.H., Diacakis, A., Mazzoldi, F., Huitema, C., Klyne,
G., Rose, M.T., Rosenberg, J., Sparks, R. and H. Sugano, "A
Common Profile for Instant Messaging (CPIM)",
draft-mrose-impp-common-00 (work in progress), August 2000.
Rose, et. al. Expires March 2, 2001 [Page 48]
Internet-Draft The IMXP September 2000
Authors' Addresses
Marshall T. Rose
Invisible Worlds, Inc.
1179 North McDowell Boulevard
Petaluma, CA 94954-6559
US
Phone: +1 707 789 3700
EMail: mrose@invisible.net
URI: http://invisible.net/
Graham Klyne
Content Technologies Limited
1220 Parkview
Arlington Business Park
Theale, Reading RG7 4SA
UK
Phone: +44 118 930 1300
EMail: gk@acm.org
David H. Crocker
Brandenburg Consulting
675 Spruce Drive
Sunnyvale, CA 94086
US
Phone: +1 408 246 8253
EMail: dcrocker@brandenburg.com
URI: http://www.brandenburg.com/
Rose, et. al. Expires March 2, 2001 [Page 49]
Internet-Draft The IMXP September 2000
Appendix A. Acknowledgements
The authors gratefully acknowledge the contributions of: Darren New
and Scott Pead.
Rose, et. al. Expires March 2, 2001 [Page 50]
Internet-Draft The IMXP September 2000
Appendix B. Changes from draft-mrose-imxp-core-00
o Updated to reflect the current BEEP framework[1].
o Relaying options passed to, but not interpreted by, endpoints.
o The Section 4.4.2 is introduced along with authorization via
reverse/forward DNS lookups.
o Section 4.5 includes an explicit discussion of sub-addreses.
Rose, et. al. Expires March 2, 2001 [Page 51]
Internet-Draft The IMXP September 2000
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2000). 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 assigns.
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
HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Acknowledgement
Funding for the RFC editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society.
Rose, et. al. Expires March 2, 2001 [Page 52]