Network Working Group P. Saint-Andre
Internet-Draft &yet
Intended status: Standards Track A. Houri
Expires: December 12, 2014 IBM
J. Hildebrand
Cisco Systems, Inc.
June 10, 2014

Interworking between the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) and the Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP): Instant Messaging
draft-ietf-stox-im-09

Abstract

This document defines a bidirectional protocol mapping for the exchange of single instant messages between the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) and the Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP).

Status of This Memo

This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

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."

This Internet-Draft will expire on December 12, 2014.

Copyright Notice

Copyright (c) 2014 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

In order to help ensure interworking between instant messaging (IM) systems that conform to the instant messaging / presence requirements [RFC2779], it is important to clearly define protocol mappings between such systems. Within the IETF, work has proceeded on two instant messaging technologies:

One approach to helping ensure interworking between these protocols is to map each protocol to the abstract semantics described in [RFC3860]; that is the approach taken by [I-D.ietf-simple-cpim-mapping] and [RFC3922]. By contrast, the approach taken in this document is to directly map semantics from one protocol to another (i.e., from SIP/SIMPLE to XMPP and vice-versa), since that is how existing systems solve the interworking problem.

Both XMPP and IM-capable SIP systems enable entities to exchange "instant messages". The term "instant message" usually refers to a message sent between two entities for delivery in close to real time (rather than a message that is stored and forwarded to the intended recipient upon request). This document covers single messages only (sometimes called "pager-mode" messaging), since they form the lowest common denominator for IM. Separate documents cover one-to-one chat sessions [I-D.ietf-stox-chat] and multi-party groupchat [I-D.ietf-stox-groupchat].

The architectural assumptions underlying such direct mappings are provided in [RFC7247], including mapping of addresses and error conditions. The mappings specified in this document cover basic instant messaging functionality, i.e., the exchange of a single instant message between a SIP user and an XMPP user in either direction. Mapping of more advanced functionality is out of scope for this document, but other documents in this "series" cover such topics.

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 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 IM-related specifications:

3. Terminology

A number of terms used here are explained in [RFC3261], [RFC3428], [RFC6120], and [RFC6121].

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 SIP

As described in [RFC6121], a single instant message is an XML <message/> stanza of type "normal" sent over an XML stream (since "normal" is the default for the 'type' attribute of the <message/> stanza, the attribute is often omitted).

When the XMPP user Juliet <juliet@example.com> wants to send an instant message to Romeo, she interacts with her XMPP client, which generates an XMPP <message/> stanza. The syntax of the <message/> stanza, including required and optional elements and attributes, is defined in [RFC6121] (for single instant messages, the value of the 'to' address SHOULD be a "bare JID" of the form "localpart@domainpart"). The following is an example of such a stanza:

Example 1: XMPP user sends message

|  <message from='juliet@example.com/balcony'
|           to='romeo@example.net'>
|    <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 that natively communicates with IM-aware SIP servers.

The XMPP-to-SIP gateway is then responsible for translating the XMPP message stanza into a SIP MESSAGE request from the XMPP user to the SIP user:

Example 2: XMPP user sends message (SIP transformation)

|  MESSAGE sip:romeo@example.net SIP/2.0
|  Via: SIP/2.0/TCP x2s.example.com;branch=z9hG4bK776sgdkse
|  Max-Forwards: 70
|  To: sip:romeo@example.net
|  From: <sip:juliet@example.com;gr=balcony>;tag=12345
|  Call-ID: D9AA95FD-2BD5-46E2-AF0F-6CFAA96BDDFA
|  CSeq: 1 MESSAGE
|  Content-Type: text/plain
|  Content-Length: 35
|
|  Art thou not Romeo, and a Montague?

The destination SIP server is responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, and the recipient is responsible for generating a response (e.g., 200 OK).

Example 3: SIP user agent indicates receipt of message

|  SIP/2.0 200 OK
|  Via: SIP/2.0/TCP x2s.example.com;branch=z9hG4bK776sgdkse
|  From: sip:romeo@example.net;tag=vwxyz
|  To: sip:juliet@example.com;tag=12345
|  Call-ID: D9AA95FD-2BD5-46E2-AF0F-6CFAA96BDDFA
|  CSeq: 1 MESSAGE
|  Content-Length: 0

As described in [RFC3428], a downstream proxy could fork a MESSAGE request, but it would return only one 200 OK to the gateway.

The mapping of XMPP syntax to SIP syntax SHOULD be as shown in the following table. (Mappings for several aspects not mentioned here are specified in [I-D.ietf-stox-chat].)

Table 1: Message syntax mapping from XMPP to SIP

   +-----------------------------+--------------------------+
   |  XMPP Element or Attribute  |  SIP Header or Contents  |
   +-----------------------------+--------------------------+
   |  <body/>                    |  body of MESSAGE         |
   |  <subject/>                 |  Subject                 |
   |  <thread/>                  |  Call-ID                 |
   |  from                       |  From (1)                |
   |  id                         |  (no mapping)            |
   |  to                         |  To or Request-URI       |
   |  type                       |  (no mapping) (2)        | 
   |  xml:lang                   |  Content-Language        |
   +-----------------------------+--------------------------+

  1. As shown in the foregoing example and described in [RFC7247], the XMPP-to-SIP gateway SHOULD map the bare JID ("localpart@domainpart") of the XMPP sender to the SIP From header and include the resourcepart of the full JID as the GRUU portion [RFC5627] of the SIP URI.
  2. Because there is no SIP header field that matches the meaning of the XMPP message 'type' values ("normal", "chat", "groupchat", "headline", "error"), no general mapping is possible here.

5. SIP to XMPP

As described in [RFC3428], a single instant message is a SIP MESSAGE request sent from a SIP user agent to an intended recipient who is most generally referenced by an Instant Message URI of the form <im:user@domain> but who might be referenced by a SIP or SIPS URI of the form <sip:user@domain> or <sips:user@domain>.

When the SIP user Romeo <sip:romeo@example.net> wants to send an instant message to Juliet, he interacts with his SIP user agent, which generates a SIP MESSAGE request. The syntax of the MESSAGE request is defined in [RFC3428]. The following is an example of such a request:

Example 4: SIP user sends message

|  MESSAGE sip:juliet@example.com SIP/2.0
|  Via: SIP/2.0/TCP s2x.example.net;branch=z9hG4bKeskdgs677
|  Max-Forwards: 70
|  To: sip:juliet@example.com
|  From: sip:romeo@example.net;tag=vwxyz
|  Call-ID: 9E97FB43-85F4-4A00-8751-1124FD4C7B2E
|  CSeq: 1 MESSAGE
|  Content-Type: text/plain
|  Content-Length: 44
|
|  Neither, fair saint, if either thee dislike.

Section 5 of [RFC3428] stipulates that a SIP User Agent presented with an im: URI should resolve it to a sip: or sips: URI. Therefore we assume that the Request-URI of a request received by an IM-capable SIP-to-XMPP gateway will contain a sip: or sips: URI. Upon receiving the MESSAGE, the SIP 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 MESSAGE to an associated SIP-to-XMPP gateway that natively communicates with XMPP servers.

The SIP-to-XMPP gateway is then responsible for translating the request into an XMPP message stanza from the SIP user to the XMPP user and returning a SIP "200 OK" message to the sender:

Example 5: SIP user sends message (XMPP transformation)

|  <message from='romeo@example.net/orchard'
|           to='juliet@example.com'>
|    <body>Neither, fair saint, if either thee dislike.</body>
|  </message>

Note that the stanza handling rules specified in [RFC6121] allow the receiving XMPP server to deliver a message stanza whose 'to' address is a bare JID ("localpart@domainpart") to multiple connected devices. This is similar to the "forking" of messages in SIP.

The mapping of SIP syntax to XMPP syntax SHOULD be as shown in the following table. (Mappings for several aspects not mentioned here are specified in [I-D.ietf-stox-chat].)

Table 2: Message syntax mapping from SIP to XMPP

   +--------------------------+-----------------------------+
   |  SIP Header or Contents  |  XMPP Element or Attribute  |
   +--------------------------+-----------------------------+
   |  Call-ID                 |  <thread/>                  |
   |  Content-Language        |  xml:lang                   |
   |  CSeq                    |  (no mapping)               |
   |  From                    |  from (1)                   |
   |  Subject                 |  <subject/>                 |
   |  Request-URI or To       |  to                         |
   |  body of MESSAGE         |  <body/>                    |
   +--------------------------+-----------------------------+

  1. As shown in the foregoing example and described in [RFC7247], if the IM-capable SIP-to-XMPP gateway has information about the GRUU [RFC5627] of the particular endpoint that sent the SIP message then it SHOULD map the sender's address to a full JID ("localpart@domainpart/resourcepart") in the 'from' attribute of the XMPP stanza and include the GRUU as the resourcepart.

When transforming SIP pager-mode messages, an IM-capable SIP-to-XMPP gateway SHOULD specify no XMPP 'type' attribute or, equivalently, a 'type' attribute whose value is "normal" [RFC6121].

See Section 6 of this document about the handling of SIP message bodies that contain content types other than plain text.

6. Content Types

SIP requests of type MESSAGE are allowed to contain essentially any content type. The recommended procedures for SIP-to-XMPP gateways to use in handling these content types are as follows.

An IM-aware SIP-to-XMPP gateway MUST process SIP messages that contain message bodies of type "text/plain" and MUST encapsulate such message bodies as the XML character data of the XMPP <body/> element.

An IM-aware SIP-to-XMPP gateway SHOULD process SIP messages that contain message bodies of type "text/html"; if so, a gateway MUST transform the "text/html" content into XHTML content that conforms to the XHTML-IM Integration Set specified in [XEP-0071].

Although an IM-aware SIP-to-XMPP gateway MAY process SIP messages that contain message bodies of types other than "text/plain" and "text/html", the handling of such content types is a matter of implementation.

7. Internationalization Considerations

Both XMPP and SIP support the UTF-8 encoding [RFC3629] of Unicode characters [UNICODE] within messages, and signalling of the language for a particular message (in XMPP via the 'xml:lang' attribute and in SIP via the Content-Language header). Several examples follow, using the "XML Notation" [RFC3987] for Unicode characters outside the ASCII range.

Example 6: SIP user sends message

|  MESSAGE sip:juliet@example.com SIP/2.0
|  Via: SIP/2.0/TCP s2x.example.net;branch=z9hG4bKeskdgs677
|  Max-Forwards: 70
|  To: sip:juliet@example.com
|  From: sip:romeo@example.net;tag=vwxyz
|  Call-ID: 9E97FB43-85F4-4A00-8751-1124FD4C7B2E
|  CSeq: 1 MESSAGE
|  Content-Type: text/plain
|  Content-Length: 45
|  Content-Language: cs
|
|  Nic z ob&#xC3A9;ho, m&#xC3A1; d&#xC49B;vo spanil&#xC3A1;, 
|  nenavid&#xC3AD;&#xC5A1;-li jedno nebo druh&#xC3A9;.

Example 7: SIP user sends message (XMPP transformation)

|  <message from='romeo@example.net'
|           to='juliet@example.com'
|           xml:lang='cs'>
|    <body>
|  Nic z ob&#xC3A9;ho, m&#xC3A1; d&#xC49B;vo spanil&#xC3A1;, 
|  nenavid&#xC3AD;&#xC5A1;-li jedno nebo druh&#xC3A9;.
|    </body>
|  </message>

8. IANA Considerations

This document requests no actions of IANA.

9. Security Considerations

Detailed security considerations for instant messaging protocols are given in [RFC2779], for SIP-based instant messaging in [RFC3428] (see also [RFC3261]), and for XMPP-based instant messaging in [RFC6121] (see also [RFC6120]). The security considerations provided in [RFC7247] also apply.

This document specifies methods for exchanging instant messages through a gateway that translates between SIP and XMPP. Such a gateway MUST be compliant with the minimum security requirements of the instant messaging protocols for which it translates (i.e., SIP and XMPP). The addition of gateways to the security model of instant messaging specified in [RFC2779] introduces some new risks. In particular, end-to-end security properties (especially confidentiality and integrity) between instant messaging user agents that interface through an IM-capable SIP-to-XMPP gateway can be provided only if common formats are supported. Specification of those common formats is out of scope for this document, although it is preferred to use [RFC3862] for instant messages.

10. References

10.1. Normative References

[I-D.ietf-stox-chat] Saint-Andre, P. and S. Loreto, "Interworking between the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) and the Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP): One-to-One Text Chat Sessions", Internet-Draft draft-ietf-stox-chat-07, June 2014.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC3261] Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., Camarillo, G., Johnston, A., Peterson, J., Sparks, R., Handley, M. and E. Schooler, "SIP: Session Initiation Protocol", RFC 3261, June 2002.
[RFC3428] Campbell, B., Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., Huitema, C. and D. Gurle, "Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Extension for Instant Messaging", RFC 3428, December 2002.
[RFC5627] Rosenberg, J., "Obtaining and Using Globally Routable User Agent URIs (GRUUs) in the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)", RFC 5627, October 2009.
[RFC6120] Saint-Andre, P., "Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP): Core", RFC 6120, March 2011.
[RFC6121] Saint-Andre, P., "Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP): Instant Messaging and Presence", RFC 6121, March 2011.
[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, May 2014.
[XEP-0071] Saint-Andre, P., "XHTML-IM", XSF XEP 0071, November 2012.

10.2. Informative References

[I-D.ietf-simple-cpim-mapping] Rosenberg, J. and B. Campbell, "CPIM Mapping of SIMPLE Presence and Instant Messaging", Internet-Draft draft-ietf-simple-cpim-mapping-01, June 2002.
[I-D.ietf-stox-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", Internet-Draft draft-ietf-stox-groupchat-04, March 2014.
[RFC2779] Day, M., Aggarwal, S. and J. Vincent, "Instant Messaging / Presence Protocol Requirements", RFC 2779, February 2000.
[RFC3629] Yergeau, F., "UTF-8, a transformation format of ISO 10646", STD 63, RFC 3629, November 2003.
[RFC3860] Peterson, J., "Common Profile for Instant Messaging (CPIM)", RFC 3860, August 2004.
[RFC3862] Klyne, G. and D. Atkins, "Common Presence and Instant Messaging (CPIM): Message Format", RFC 3862, August 2004.
[RFC3922] Saint-Andre, P., "Mapping the Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP) to Common Presence and Instant Messaging (CPIM)", RFC 3922, October 2004.
[RFC3987] Duerst, M. and M. Suignard, "Internationalized Resource Identifiers (IRIs)", RFC 3987, January 2005.
[UNICODE] The Unicode Consortium, "The Unicode Standard, Version 6.3", 2013.

Appendix A. Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank the following individuals for their feedback: Mary Barnes, Dave Cridland, Dave Crocker, Adrian Georgescu, Christer Holmberg, Saul Ibarra Corretge, Olle Johansson, Paul Kyzivat, Salvatore Loreto, Daniel-Constantin Mierla, and Tory Patnoe.

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 versions of this document.

Authors' Addresses

Peter Saint-Andre &yet P.O. Box 787 Parker, CO 80134 USA EMail: peter@andyet.com
Avshalom Houri IBM Rorberg Building, Pekris 3 Rehovot, 76123 Israel EMail: avshalom@il.ibm.com
Joe Hildebrand Cisco Systems, Inc. 1899 Wynkoop Street, Suite 600 Denver, CO 80202 USA EMail: jhildebr@cisco.com