Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) P. Saint-Andre
Request for Comments: 7573 &yet
Category: Standards Track S. Loreto
ISSN: 2070-1721 Ericsson
May
June 2015
Interworking between the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) and the
Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP):
One-to-One Text Chat Sessions
Abstract
This document defines a bidirectional protocol mapping for the
exchange of instant messages in the context of a one-to-one chat
session between a user of the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) and a
user of the Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP).
Specifically for SIP text chat, this document specifies a mapping to
the Message Session Relay Protocol (MSRP).
Status of This Memo
This is an Internet Standards Track document.
This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
(IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
received public review and has been approved for publication by the
Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on
Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 5741.
Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7573.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Intended Audience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. XMPP to MSRP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5. MSRP to XMPP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6. Composing Events . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7. Delivery Reports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
8. Message Size . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
9. Internationalization Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
10. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 18
11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
1. Introduction
Both the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) [RFC3261] and the
Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP) [RFC6120] can be
used for the purpose of one-to-one text chat over the Internet. To
ensure interworking between these technologies, it is important to
define bidirectional protocol mappings.
The architectural assumptions underlying such protocol mappings are
provided in [RFC7247], including mapping of addresses and error
conditions. This document specifies mappings for one-to-one text
chat sessions (sometimes called "session-mode" messaging); in
particular, this document specifies mappings between XMPP messages of
type "chat" and the Message Session Relay Protocol (MSRP) [RFC4975],
which is commonly used in SIP-based systems for chat functionality
(although note that MSRP is not conjoined to SIP, and can be used by
non-SIP technologies). Mappings for single instant messages and
groupchat are provided in separate documents. [RFC7572] and [GROUPCHAT].
The approach taken here is to directly map syntax and semantics from
one protocol to another. The mapping described herein depends on the
protocols defined in the following specifications:
o XMPP chat sessions using message stanzas of type "chat" are
specified in [RFC6121].
o MSRP chat sessions using the SIP INVITE and SEND request types are
specified in [RFC4975].
In SIP-based systems that use MSRP, a chat session is formally
negotiated (just as any other session type is negotiated when using
SIP). By contrast, a one-to-one chat "session" in XMPP is an
informal construct and is not formally negotiated: a user simply
sends a message of type "chat" to a contact, the contact then replies
to the message, and the sum total of such messages exchanged during a
defined period of time is considered to be a chat session (ideally
tied together using an XMPP <thread/> element as described in
Section 5.1 of [RFC6121]). To overcome the disparity between these
approaches, a gateway that wishes to map between SIP/MSRP and XMPP
for one-to-one chat sessions needs to maintain some additional state,
as described below.
2. Intended Audience
The documents in this series are intended for use by software
developers who have an existing system based on one of these
technologies (e.g., SIP) and who would like to enable communication
from that existing system to systems based on the other technology
(e.g., XMPP). We assume that readers are familiar with the core
specifications for both SIP [RFC3261] and XMPP [RFC6120], with the
base document for this series [RFC7247], and with the following chat-
related specifications:
o "The Message Session Relay Protocol (MSRP)" [RFC4975]
o "Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP): Instant
Messaging and Presence" [RFC6121]
o "Indication of Message Composition for Instant Messaging"
[RFC3994]
o "Chat State Notifications" [XEP-0085]
Note well that not all protocol-compliant messages are shown (such as
SIP 100 TRYING messages), in order to focus the reader on the
essential aspects of the protocol flows.
3. Terminology
A number of terms used here are explained in [RFC3261], [RFC4975],
[RFC6120], and [RFC6121].
In flow diagrams, SIP/MSRP traffic is shown using arrows such as
"***>" whereas XMPP traffic is shown using arrows such as "...>".
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
[RFC2119].
4. XMPP to MSRP
In XMPP, the "informal session" approach is to simply send someone a
<message/> of type "chat" without starting any session negotiation
ahead of time (as described in [RFC6121]). The XMPP "informal
session" approach maps very well into a SIP MESSAGE request, as
described in [RFC7247]. [RFC7572]. However, the XMPP informal session approach
can also be mapped to MSRP if the XMPP-to-SIP gateway maintains
additional state. The order of events is as follows.
XMPP XMPP XMPP-to-MSRP SIP SIP
User Server Gateway Server User
| | | | |
| (F1) XMPP | | | |
| message | | | |
|..............>| | | |
| | (F2) XMPP | | |
| | message | | |
| |..............>| | |
| | | (F3) SIP | |
| | | INVITE | |
| | |**************>| |
| | | | (F4) SIP |
| | | | INVITE |
| | | |**************>|
| | | | (F5) SIP |
| | | | 200 OK |
| | | |<**************|
| | | (F6) SIP | |
| | | 200 OK | |
| | |<**************| |
| | | (F7) SIP ACK | |
| | |**************>| |
| | | | (F8) SIP ACK |
| | | |**************>|
| | | (F9) MSRP SEND |
| | |******************************>|
. . . . .
. . . . .
| | | (F10) MSRP SEND |
| | |<******************************|
| | (F11) XMPP | | |
| | message | | |
| |<..............| | |
| (F12) XMPP | | | |
| message | | | |
|<..............| | | |
. . . . .
. . . . .
| | | | (F13) SIP BYE |
| | | |<**************|
| | | (F14) SIP BYE | |
| | |<**************| |
| | | (F15) SIP | |
| | | 200 OK | |
| | |**************>| |
| | | | (F16) SIP |
| | | | 200 OK |
| | | |**************>|
Figure 1: XMPP to MSRP Order of Events
The mapping of XMPP syntax to SIP syntax MUST be as specified in
[RFC7572].
First, the XMPP user would generate an XMPP chat message.
Example 1: Juliet Sends XMPP Message (F1)
| <message from='juliet@example.com/yn0cl4bnw0yr3vym'
| to='romeo@example.net'
| id='a786hjs2'
| type='chat'>
| <thread>29377446-0CBB-4296-8958-590D79094C50</thread>
| <body>Art thou not Romeo, and a Montague?</body>
| </message>
Upon receiving such a message stanza, the XMPP server needs to
determine the identity of the domainpart in the 'to' address, which
it does by following the procedures explained in Section 5 of
[RFC7247]. If the domain is a SIP domain, the XMPP server will hand
off the message stanza to an XMPP-to-SIP gateway or connection
manager that natively communicates with MSRP-aware SIP servers.
The XMPP-to-SIP gateway at the XMPP server would then initiate an
MSRP session with Romeo on Juliet's behalf (since there is no
reliable way for the gateway to determine whether Romeo's client
supports MSRP, if that is not the case then MSRP session initiation
might result in an error).
Example 2: Gateway Starts SIP Session on Behalf of Juliet (F3)
| INVITE sip:romeo@example.net SIP/2.0
| To: <sip:romeo@example.net>
| From: <sip:juliet@example.com>
| Contact: <sip:juliet@example.com>;gr=yn0cl4bnw0yr3vym
| Subject: Open chat with Juliet?
| Call-ID: 29377446-0CBB-4296-8958-590D79094C50
| CSeq: 1 INVITE
| Content-Type: application/sdp
|
| c=IN IP4 x2s.example.com
| m=message 7654 TCP/MSRP *
| a=accept-types:text/plain
| a=path:msrp://x2s.example.com:7654/jshA7weztas;tcp
Here we assume that Romeo's client supports MSRP and that Romeo
accepts the MSRP session request.
Example 3: Romeo Accepts Session Request (F5)
| SIP/2.0 200 OK
| From: <sip:juliet@example.com>
| To: <sip:romeo@example.net>
| Contact: <sip:romeo@example.net>;gr=dr4hcr0st3lup4c
| Call-ID: 29377446-0CBB-4296-8958-590D79094C50
| CSeq: 1 INVITE
| Content-Type: application/sdp
|
| c=IN IP4 s2x.example.net
| m=message 12763 TCP/MSRP *
| a=accept-types:text/plain
| a=path:msrp://s2x.example.net:12763/kjhd37s2s20w2a;tcp
The XMPP-to-SIP gateway then acknowledges the session acceptance on
behalf of Juliet.
Example 4: Gateway Sends ACK to Romeo (F7)
| ACK sip:juliet@example.com SIP/2.0
| To: <sip:romeo@example.net>;gr=dr4hcr0st3lup4c
| From: <sip:juliet@example.com>
| Contact: <sip:juliet@example.com>;gr=yn0cl4bnw0yr3vym
| Call-ID: 29377446-0CBB-4296-8958-590D79094C50
| CSeq: 2 ACK
The XMPP-to-SIP gateway then transforms the original XMPP chat
message into MSRP.
Example 5: Gateway Maps XMPP Message to MSRP (F9)
| MSRP a786hjs2 SEND
| From-Path: msrp://x2s.example.com:7654/jshA7weztas;tcp
| To-Path: msrp://s2x.example.net:12763/kjhd37s2s20w2a;tcp
| Message-ID: 54C6F4F1-A39C-47D6-8718-FA65B3D0414A
| Byte-Range: 1-25/25
| Content-Type: text/plain
|
| Art thou not Romeo, and a Montague?
| -------a786hjs2$
Romeo can then send a reply using his MSRP client.
Example 6: Romeo Sends Reply (F10)
| MSRP di2fs53v SEND
| To-Path: msrp://x2s.example.com:7654/jshA7weztas;tcp
| From-Path: msrp://s2x.example.net:12763/kjhd37s2s20w2a;tcp
| Message-ID: 6480C096-937A-46E7-BF9D-1353706B60AA
| Byte-Range: 1-25/25
| Failure-Report: no
| Content-Type: text/plain
|
| Neither, fair saint, if either thee dislike.
| -------di2fs53v$
The SIP-to-XMPP gateway would then transform that message into
appropriate XMPP syntax for routing to the intended recipient.
Example 7: Gateway Maps MSRP Message to XMPP (F11)
| <message from='romeo@example.net/dr4hcr0st3lup4c'
| to='juliet@example.com/yn0cl4bnw0yr3vym'
| id='di2fs53v'
| type='chat'>
| <thread>29377446-0CBB-4296-8958-590D79094C50</thread>
| <body>Neither, fair saint, if either thee dislike.</body>
| </message>
When the MSRP user wishes to end the chat session, the user's MSRP
client sends a SIP BYE.
Example 8: Romeo Terminates Chat Session (F13)
| BYE juliet@example.com sip: SIP/2.0
| From: <sip:juliet@example.com>;tag=786
| To: <sip:romeo@example.net>;tag=087js
| Call-ID: 29377446-0CBB-4296-8958-590D79094C50
| CSeq: 3 BYE
| Content-Length: 0
The BYE is then acknowledged by the XMPP-to-SIP gateway.
Example 9: Gateway Acknowledges Termination (F15)
| SIP/2.0 200 OK
| From: <sip:juliet@example.com>;tag=786
| To: <sip:romeo@example.net>;tag=087js
| Call-ID: 29377446-0CBB-4296-8958-590D79094C50
| CSeq: 3 BYE
| Content-Length: 0
Because there is no formal session on the XMPP side, there is no
corresponding communication from the gateway to the XMPP user.
However, it is reasonable for the gateway to send a "gone" chat state
notification [XEP-0085], as described under Section 6.1.
In addition, there is no explicit method defined in [RFC6121] for an
XMPP user to formally terminate a chat session, so a gateway would
need to listen for a "gone" chat state notification from the XMPP
user or institute a timer that considers the XMPP informal chat
session to be ended after some amount of time has elapsed ([XEP-0085]
suggests generating a "gone" chat state if a user has not interacted
with the chat session interface, system, or device for a relatively
long period of time, e.g., 10 minutes).
5. MSRP to XMPP
When an MSRP client sends messages through a gateway to an XMPP
client, the order of events is as follows.
SIP SIP MSRP-to-XMPP XMPP XMPP
User Server Gateway Server User
| | | | |
| (F17) SIP | | | |
| INVITE | | | |
|**************>| | | |
| | (F18) SIP | | |
| | INVITE | | |
| |**************>| | |
| | (F19) SIP | | |
| | 200 OK | | |
| |<**************| | |
| (F20) SIP | | | |
| 200 OK | | | |
|<**************| | | |
| (F21) SIP ACK | | | |
|**************>| | | |
| | (F22) SIP ACK | | |
| |**************>| | |
| (F23) MSRP SEND | | |
|******************************>| | |
| | | (F24) XMPP | |
| | | message | |
| | |..............>| |
| | | | (F25) XMPP |
| | | | message |
| | | |..............>|
. . . . .
. . . . .
| | | | (F26) XMPP |
| | | | message |
| | | |<..............|
| | | (F27) XMPP | |
| | | message | |
| | |<..............| |
| (F28) MSRP SEND | | |
|<******************************| | |
. . . . .
. . . . .
| | | | |
| | | | |
| (F29) SIP BYE | | | |
|**************>| | | |
| | (F30) SIP BYE | | |
| |**************>| | |
| | (F31) SIP | | |
| | 200 OK | | |
| |<**************| | |
| (F32) SIP | | | |
| 200 OK | | | |
|<**************| | | |
Figure 2: MSRP to XMPP Order of Events
The mapping of SIP syntax to XMPP syntax MUST be as specified in
[RFC7572].
The protocol flow begins when Romeo starts a chat session with
Juliet.
Example 10: Romeo Starts Chat Session (F17)
| INVITE sip:juliet@example.com SIP/2.0
| From: <sip:romeo@example.net>
| To: <sip:juliet@example.com>
| Contact: <sip:romeo@example.net>;gr=dr4hcr0st3lup4c
| Subject: Open chat with Romeo?
| Call-ID: F6989A8C-DE8A-4E21-8E07-F0898304796F
| CSeq: 1 INVITE
| Content-Type: application/sdp
|
| c=IN IP4 s2x.example.net
| m=message 7313 TCP/MSRP *
| a=accept-types:text/plain
| a=path:msrp://s2x.example.net:7313/ansp71weztas;tcp
Upon receiving the INVITE, the SIP (MSRP) server needs to determine
the identity of the domain portion of the Request-URI or To header,
which it does by following the procedures explained in Section 5 of
[RFC7247]. If the domain is an XMPP domain, the SIP server will hand
off the INVITE to an associated MSRP-to-XMPP gateway or connection
manager that natively communicates with XMPP servers.
Example 11: Gateway Accepts Session on Juliet's Behalf (F19)
| SIP/2.0 200 OK
| From: <sip:romeo@example.net>;gr=dr4hcr0st3lup4c
| To: <sip:juliet@example.com>
| Contact: <sip:juliet@example.com>;gr=yn0cl4bnw0yr3vym
| Call-ID: F6989A8C-DE8A-4E21-8E07-F0898304796F
| CSeq: 1 INVITE
| Content-Type: application/sdp
|
| c=IN IP4 x2s.example.com
| m=message 8763 TCP/MSRP *
| a=accept-types:text/plain
| a=path:msrp://x2s.example.com:8763/lkjh37s2s20w2a;tcp
Example 12: Romeo Sends ACK (F21)
| ACK sip:juliet@example.com SIP/2.0
| To: <sip:juliet@example.com>;gr=yn0cl4bnw0yr3vym
| From: <sip:romeo@example.net>
| Contact: <sip:romeo@example.net>;gr=dr4hcr0st3lup4c
| Call-ID: F6989A8C-DE8A-4E21-8E07-F0898304796F
| CSeq: 2 ACK
Example 13: Romeo Sends Message (F23)
| MSRP ad49kswow SEND
| To-Path: msrp://x2s.example.com:8763/lkjh37s2s20w2a;tcp
| From-Path: msrp://s2x.example.net:7313/ansp71weztas;tcp
| Message-ID: 676FDB92-7852-443A-8005-2A1B9FE44F4E
| Byte-Range: 1-32/32
| Failure-Report: no
| Content-Type: text/plain
|
| I take thee at thy word ...
| -------ad49kswow$
Example 14: MSRP-to-XMPP Gateway Maps MSRP Message to XMPP (F24)
| <message from='romeo@example.net'
| to='juliet@example.com'
| id='ad49kswow'
| type='chat'>
| <thread>F6989A8C-DE8A-4E21-8E07-F0898304796F</thread>
| <body>I take thee at thy word ...</body>
| </message>
Example 15: Juliet Sends Reply (F26)
| <message from='juliet@example.com'
| to='romeo@example.net'
| id='ms53b7z9'
| type='chat'>
| <thread>29377446-0CBB-4296-8958-590D79094C50</thread>
| <body>What man art thou ...?</body>
| </message>
Example 16: Gateway Maps XMPP Message to MSRP (F28)
| MSRP ms53b7z9 SEND
| To-Path: msrp://s2x.example.net:7313/jshA7weztas;tcp
| From-Path: msrp://x2s.example.com:8763/lkjh37s2s20w2a;tcp
| Message-ID: 17EBA17B-94C0-463B-AD84-DE405C4C9D41
| Byte-Range: 1-25/25
| Failure-Report: no
| Content-Type: text/plain
|
| What man art thou ...?
| -------ms53b7z9$
Example 17: Romeo Terminates Chat Session (F29)
| BYE juliet@example.com sip: SIP/2.0
| To: <sip:juliet@example.com>;gr=yn0cl4bnw0yr3vym
| From: <sip:romeo@example.net>
| Contact: <sip:romeo@example.net>;gr=dr4hcr0st3lup4c
| Call-ID: F6989A8C-DE8A-4E21-8E07-F0898304796F
| CSeq: 3 BYE
| Content-Length: 0
Example 18: Gateway Acknowledges Termination of Session on Behalf of
Juliet (F31)
| SIP/2.0 200 OK
| To: <sip:juliet@example.com>;gr=yn0cl4bnw0yr3vym
| From: <sip:romeo@example.net>
| Contact: <sip:romeo@example.net>;gr=dr4hcr0st3lup4c
| Call-ID: F6989A8C-DE8A-4E21-8E07-F0898304796F
| CSeq: 3 BYE
6. Composing Events
Both XMPP and MSRP enable a client to receive notifications when a
person's conversation partner is composing an instant message within
the context of a chat session.
For XMPP, the Chat State Notifications specification [XEP-0085]
defines five states: active, inactive, gone, composing, and paused.
Some of these states are related to the act of message composition
(composing, paused), whereas others are related to the sender's
involvement with the chat session (active, inactive, gone). Note
that the "gone" chat state is not to be confused with the <gone/>
stanza error condition defined in [RFC6120].
For MSRP (and SIP/SIMPLE (and, in general), general, for so-called SIP for Instant Messaging
and Presence Leveraging Extensions (SIMPLE) systems), the Indication
of Message Composition for Instant Messaging specification [RFC3994]
defines two states: idle and active. Here the idle state indicates
that the sender is not actively composing a message, and the active
state indicates that the sender is indeed actively composing a
message (the sending client simply toggles between the two states).
Because the XEP-0085 states can represent information that is not
captured in RFC 3994, gateways can either (a) map only the composing-
related states or (b) map all the XEP-0085 states.
The following mappings are suggested.
Table 3: Mapping of SIP/SIMPLE isComposing Events to XMPP Chat states
+-------------------+--------------------+
| isComposing Event | Chat State |
+-------------------+--------------------+
| active | composing |
| idle | active |
+-------------------+--------------------+
Table 4: Mapping of XMPP Chat States to SIP/SIMPLE isComposing Events
+-------------------+--------------------+
| Chat State | isComposing Event |
+-------------------+--------------------+
| active | idle |
| inactive | idle |
| gone | none (Section 6.1)|
| composing | active |
| paused | idle |
+-------------------+--------------------+
The XMPP Chat State Notifications specification [XEP-0085] allows the
sending of "standalone notifications" outside the context of a
message, theoretically even before any messages are exchanged;
although a gateway could thus send an <active/> notification to the
XMPP user when the SIP user accepts or initiates a chat session
(i.e., after F6 in Section 4 or after F22 in Section 5), this usage
might be unexpected by XMPP clients as a way to signal the beginning
of an informal chat session.
6.1. Use of the Gone Chat State
Although there is no direct mapping for the "gone" chat state to an
isComposing event, receipt of the "gone" state at an XMPP-to-MSRP
gateway can serve as a trigger for terminating the formal chat
session within MSRP, i.e., for sending a SIP BYE for the session from
the XMPP-to-MSRP gateway to the SIP user. The following examples
illustrate this indirect mapping (which would occur arise if, for example,
the XMPP user were to send a "gone" chat state notification after
step F14 F12 in Figure 1). 1 or step F28 in Figure 2; in either of these
cases, the session would be terminated by the XMPP user instead of by
the SIP user, as currently shown in Figures 1 and 2).
Example 19: Juliet Sends Gone Chat State
| <message from='juliet@example.com'
| id='nx62f197'
| to='romeo@example.net'
| type='chat'>
| <thread>29377446-0CBB-4296-8958-590D79094C50</thread>
| <gone xmlns='http://jabber.org/protocol/chatstates'/>
| </message>
Example 20: XMPP-to-MSRP Gateway Maps Gone Chat State to SIP BYE
| BYE romeo@example.net sip: SIP/2.0
| From: <sip:juliet@example.com>;tag=786
| To: <sip:romeo@example.net>;tag=087js
| Call-ID: 29377446-0CBB-4296-8958-590D79094C50
| CSeq: 3 BYE
| Content-Length: 0
Similarly, receipt of a SIP BYE message at an MSRP-to-XMPP gateway
can serve as a trigger for sending a "gone" chat state notification
to the XMPP user. The following examples illustrate this indirect
mapping (which would occur after step F14 in Figure 1 or step F30 in
Figure 2).
Example 21: Romeo Terminates Chat Session
| BYE juliet@example.com sip: SIP/2.0
| To: <sip:juliet@example.com>;gr=yn0cl4bnw0yr3vym
| From: <sip:romeo@example.net>
| Contact: <sip:romeo@example.net>;gr=dr4hcr0st3lup4c
| Call-ID: F6989A8C-DE8A-4E21-8E07-F0898304796F
| CSeq: 3 BYE
| Content-Length: 0
Example 22: MSRP-to-XMPP Gateway Generates Gone Chat State
| <message from='romeo@example.net'
| id='hs61v397'
| to='juliet@example.com'
| type='chat'>
| <thread>F6989A8C-DE8A-4E21-8E07-F0898304796F</thread>
| <gone xmlns='http://jabber.org/protocol/chatstates'/>
| </message>
To enable these uses, gateways that support chat state notifications
MUST support the "gone" state (which is merely recommended, not
required, by [XEP-0085]).
It is also reasonable for gateways to implement timers that
automatically trigger a "gone" chat state if the XMPP user has not
sent a message within the "session" for a given amount of time
([XEP-0085] suggests generating a "gone" chat state if a user has not
interacted with the chat session interface, system, or device for a
relatively long period of time, e.g., 10 minutes).
7. Delivery Reports
Both XMPP and MSRP enable a client to receive notifications when a
message has been received by the intended recipient.
For XMPP, the Message Receipts specification [XEP-0184] defines a
method and XML namespace for requesting and returning indications
that a message has been received by a client controlled by the
intended recipient.
For MSRP, a native reporting feature is included, in the form of
REPORT chunks (see Sections 7.1.2 and 7.1.3 of [RFC4975]).
An XMPP Message Receipts element of <request
xmlns='urn:xmpp:receipts'/> is to be mapped to an MSRP Success-Report
header field with a value of "yes", and an XMPP Message Receipts
element of <received xmlns='urn:xmpp:receipts'/> is to be mapped to
an MSRP REPORT request.
A Success-Report header field with a value of "yes" in an MSRP SEND
request is to be mapped to an XMPP Message Receipts element of
<request xmlns='urn:xmpp:receipts'/>, and an MSRP REPORT request is
to be mapped to an XMPP message containing only a Message Receipts
element of <received xmlns='urn:xmpp:receipts'/>.
Because the XMPP Message Receipts specification does not support
failure reports, there is no mapping for the MSRP Failure-Report
header field and gateways SHOULD set that header field to "no".
Examples follow.
First, the XMPP user sends a message containing a request for
delivery notification.
Example 23: Juliet Sends XMPP Message with Receipt Request
| <message from='juliet@example.com'
| id='bf9m36d5'
| to='romeo@example.net'
| type='chat'>
| <thread>29377446-0CBB-4296-8958-590D79094C50</thread>
| <body>What man art thou ...?</body>
| <request xmlns='urn:xmpp:receipts'/>
| </message>
Example 24: Gateway Maps XMPP Message to MSRP
| MSRP bf9m36d5 SEND
| To-Path: msrp://s2x.example.net:7313/jshA7weztas;tcp
| From-Path: msrp://x2s.example.com:8763/lkjh37s2s20w2a;tcp
| Message-ID: 6187CF9B-317A-41DA-BB6A-5E48A9C794EF
| Byte-Range: 1-25/25
| Success-Report: yes
| Failure-Report: no
| Content-Type: text/plain
|
| What man art thou ...?
| -------bf9m36d5$
Next, the recipient returns a report.
Example 25: Romeo Returns MSRP Receipt
| MSRP hx74g336 REPORT
| To-Path: msrp://x2s.example.com:8763/lkjh37s2s20w2a;tcp
| From-Path: msrp://s2x.example.net:7313/jshA7weztas;tcp
| Message-ID: 6187CF9B-317A-41DA-BB6A-5E48A9C794EF
| Byte-Range: 1-106/106
| Status: 000 200 OK
| -------hx74g336$
Example 26: MSRP-to-XMPP Gateway Maps Receipt to XMPP
| <message from='romeo@example.net'
| id='hx74g336'
| to='juliet@example.com'>
| <received xmlns='urn:xmpp:receipts' id='87652491'/>
| </message>
8. Message Size
Unlike page-mode messaging [RFC3428] (which specifies that the size
of a MESSAGE request is not allowed to exceed 1300 bytes), session-
mode messaging [RFC4975] can be used to send larger messages. MSRP
includes a chunking mechanism such that larger messages can be broken
up into multiple MSRP SEND requests. Because the MSRP gateway at an
XMPP service acts as an MSRP endpoint, it is responsible for
receiving chunked messages and reconstructing them into a single
message for delivery toward the XMPP recipient. (Naturally,
implementations need to be careful about accepting very large
messages; see Section 14.5 of [RFC4975].)
Although there is no hard limit on the size of an XMPP stanza, in
practice, most XMPP services (at least on the public Internet) are
configured with a maximum stanza size in order to help prevent
denial-of-service attacks. As specified in Section 13.12 of
[RFC6120], this maximum is not allowed to be less than 10,000 bytes.
The administrators of an XMPP service need to ensure that the
associated MSRP gateway is configured with the same or smaller
maximum MSRP message size as the maximum XMPP stanza size; this
enables the gateway to return an appropriate value for the Session
Description Protocol (SDP) "max-size" attribute (see Section 8.6 of
[RFC4975]) and to properly handle incoming messages larger than the
configured limits.
If an MSRP-to-XMPP gateway implementation receives an MSRP message
that exceeds its configured limit as just described, it MUST return
an MSRP 413 error (e.g., in response to the first SEND request whose
Byte-Range header field indicates a byte total exceeding the limit).
9. Internationalization Considerations
Relevant discussion of internationalized text in messages can be
found in [RFC7572].
10. Security Considerations
Detailed security considerations for are given in the following
documents:
o For instant messaging protocols are
given in [RFC2779], for general, see [RFC2779]
o For MSRP chat in [RFC4975] (see also [RFC3261] chat, see [RFC4975]; for when SIP is used to negotiate
MSRP sessions), and for sessions, see [RFC3261]
o For XMPP-based instant messaging in messaging, see [RFC6121] (see and also [RFC6120]). The security
considerations provided [RFC6120]
o For SIP-XMPP interworking in general, see [RFC7247] also apply.
Considerations for
o For end-to-end encryption of instant messages are
provided in [RFC7572]. messages, see [RFC7572]
11. References
11.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/
RFC2119, March 1997,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC3261] Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., Camarillo, G., Johnston,
A., Peterson, J., Sparks, R., Handley, M., and E.
Schooler, "SIP: Session Initiation Protocol", RFC 3261,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3261, June 2002,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3261>.
[RFC3994] Schulzrinne, H., "Indication of Message Composition for
Instant Messaging", RFC 3994, DOI 10.17487/RFC3994,
January 2005, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3994>.
[RFC4975] Campbell, B., Ed., Mahy, R., Ed., and C. Jennings, Ed.,
"The Message Session Relay Protocol (MSRP)", RFC 4975, DOI
10.17487/RFC4975, September 2007,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4975>.
[RFC6120] Saint-Andre, P., "Extensible Messaging and Presence
Protocol (XMPP): Core", RFC 6120, DOI 10.17487/RFC6120,
March 2011, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6120>.
[RFC6121] Saint-Andre, P., "Extensible Messaging and Presence
Protocol (XMPP): Instant Messaging and Presence", RFC
6121, DOI 10.17487/RFC6121, March 2011,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6121>.
[RFC7247] Saint-Andre, P., Houri, A., and J. Hildebrand,
"Interworking between the Session Initiation Protocol
(SIP) and the Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol
(XMPP): Architecture, Addresses, and Error Handling", RFC
7247, DOI 10.17487/RFC7247, May 2014,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7247>.
[RFC7572] Saint-Andre, P., Houri, A., and J. Hildebrand,
"Interworking between the Session Initiation Protocol
(SIP) and the Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol
(XMPP): Instant Messaging", RFC 7572, DOI 10.17487/
RFC7572, May June 2015,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7572>.
[XEP-0085]
Saint-Andre, P. and D. Smith, "Chat State Notifications",
XSF XEP 0085, September 2009.
[XEP-0184]
Saint-Andre, P. and J. Hildebrand, "Message Delivery
Receipts", XSF XEP 0184, March 2011.
11.2. Informative References
[GROUPCHAT]
Saint-Andre, P., Corretge, S., and S. Loreto,
"Interworking between the Session Initiation Protocol
(SIP) and the Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol
(XMPP): Groupchat", Work in Progress, draft-ietf-stox-
groupchat-11, March 2015.
[RFC2779] Day, M., Aggarwal, S., Mohr, G., and J. Vincent, "Instant
Messaging / Presence Protocol Requirements", RFC 2779, DOI
10.17487/RFC2779, February 2000,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2779>.
[RFC3428] Campbell, B., Ed., Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H.,
Huitema, C., and D. Gurle, "Session Initiation Protocol
(SIP) Extension for Instant Messaging", RFC 3428, DOI
10.17487/RFC3428, December 2002,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3428>.
Acknowledgements
Special thanks to Eddy Gavita and Nazin Hossain for coauthoring an
early draft version of this document.
Thanks to Mary Barnes, Ben Campbell, Dave Crocker, Adrian Georgescu,
Philipp Hancke, Saul Ibarra Corretge, Tory Patnoe, and Matt Ryan for
their feedback.
Stephen Farrell, Brian Haberman, Joel Jaeggli, Barry Leiba, Kathleen
Moriarty, and Pete Resnick provided helpful input during IESG review.
The authors gratefully acknowledge the assistance of Markus Isomaki
and Yana Stamcheva as the working group chairs and Gonzalo Camarillo
and Alissa Cooper as the sponsoring Area Directors.
Peter Saint-Andre wishes to acknowledge Cisco Systems, Inc., for
employing him during his work on earlier draft versions of this
document.
Authors' Addresses
Peter Saint-Andre
&yet
EMail: peter@andyet.com
URI: https://andyet.com/
Salvatore Loreto
Ericsson
Hirsalantie 11
Jorvas 02420
Finland
EMail: Salvatore.Loreto@ericsson.com