Internet DRAFT - draft-ietf-mimi-content
draft-ietf-mimi-content
MIMI R. Mahy
Internet-Draft Unaffiliated
Intended status: Informational 4 March 2024
Expires: 5 September 2024
More Instant Messaging Interoperability (MIMI) message content
draft-ietf-mimi-content-02
Abstract
This document describes content semantics common in Instant Messaging
(IM) systems and describes a profile suitable for instant messaging
interoperability of messages end-to-end encrypted inside the MLS
(Message Layer Security) Protocol.
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 https://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 5 September 2024.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2024 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 (https://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 Revised BSD License text as
described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.
Mahy Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft MIMI Content March 2024
Table of Contents
1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1. Naming schemes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.2. Message ID and Accepted Timestamp . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.3. Message Container . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.4. Message Status Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. MIMI Content Container Message Semantics . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.1. Message Behavior Fields . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.2. Message Ordering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.3. Message Bodies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.4. External content . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.5. Derived Data Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5. Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5.1. Original Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5.2. Reply . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5.3. Reaction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
5.4. Mentions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
5.5. Edit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
5.6. Delete . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
5.7. Unlike . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
5.8. Expiring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
5.9. Attachments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
5.10. Conferencing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
5.11. Topics / Threading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
5.12. Delivery Reporting and Read Receipts . . . . . . . . . . 19
6. Support for Specific Media Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
6.1. MIMI Required and Recommended media types . . . . . . . . 20
6.2. Use of proprietary media types . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
7.1. MIME subtype registration of application/mimi-content . . 21
7.2. MIME subtype registration of application/
mimi-message-status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
8.1. General handling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
8.2. Validation of timestamp . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
8.3. Alternate content rendering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
8.4. Link and Mention handling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
8.5. Delivery and Read Receipts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Appendix A. Multipart examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
A.1. Proprietary and Common formats sent as alternatives . . . 30
A.2. Mulitple Reactions Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
A.3. Complicated Nested Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Mahy Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft MIMI Content March 2024
A.4. TLS Presentation Language multipart container format . . 31
Appendix B. Changelog . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
B.1. Changes between draft-mahy-mimi-content-01 and
draft-mahy-mimi-content-02 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
B.2. Changes between draft-mahy-mimi-content-02 and
draft-ietf-mimi-content-00 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
B.3. Changes between draft-ietf-mimi-content-00 and
draft-ietf-mimi-content-01 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
B.4. Changes between draft-ietf-mimi-content-01 and
draft-ietf-mimi-content-02 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
1. Terminology
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 BCP
14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.
The terms MLS client, MLS group, and KeyPackage have the same
meanings as in the MLS protocol [RFC9420]. Other relevant
terminology may be found in [I-D.barnes-mimi-arch] and
[I-D.ralston-mimi-terminology].
2. Introduction
RFC EDITOR: PLEASE REMOVE THE FOLLOWING PARAGRAPH. The source for
this draft is maintained in GitHub. Suggested changes should be
submitted as pull requests at https://github.com/ietf-wg-mimi/draft-
ietf-mimi-content (https://github.com/ietf-wg-mimi/draft-ietf-mimi-
content). Editorial changes can be managed in GitHub, but any
substantive change should be discussed on the MIMI mailing list
(mimi@ietf.org).
MLS [RFC9420] is a group key establishment protocol motivated by the
desire for group chat with efficient end-to-end encryption. While
one of the motivations of MLS is interoperable standards-based secure
messaging, the MLS protocol does not define or prescribe any format
for the encrypted "application messages" encoded by MLS. The
development of MLS was strongly motivated by the needs of a number of
Instant Messaging (IM) systems, which encrypt messages end-to-end
using variations of the Double Ratchet protocol [DoubleRatchet].
End-to-end encrypted instant messaging was also a motivator for the
Common Protocol for Instant Messaging (CPIM) [RFC3862], however the
model used at the time assumed standalone encryption of each message
using a protocol such as S/MIME [RFC8551] or PGP [RFC3156] to
Mahy Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft MIMI Content March 2024
interoperate between IM protocols such as SIP [RFC3261] and XMPP
[RFC6120]. For a variety of practical reasons, interoperable end-to-
end encryption between IM systems was never deployed commercially.
There are now several instant messaging vendors implementing MLS, and
the MIMI (More Instant Messaging Interoperability) Working Group is
chartered to standardize an extensible interoperable messaging format
for common features to be conveyed "inside" MLS application messages.
This document assumes that MLS clients advertise media types they
support and can determine what media types are required to join a
specific MLS group using the content advertisement extensions in
Section 2.3 of [I-D.ietf-mls-extensions]. It allows implementations
to define MLS groups with different media type requirements and
allows MLS clients to send extended or proprietary messages that
would be interpreted by some members of the group while assuring that
an interoperable end-to-end encrypted baseline is available to all
members, even when the group spans multiple systems or vendors.
Below is a list of some features commonly found in IM group chat
systems:
* plain text and rich text messaging
* mentions
* replies
* reactions
* edit or delete previously sent messages
* expiring messages
* delivery notifications
* read receipts
* shared files/audio/videos
* calling / conferencing
* message threading
3. Overview
3.1. Naming schemes
IM systems have a number of types of identifiers. These are
described in detail in [I-D.mahy-mimi-identity]. A few of these used
in this document are:
* handle identifier (external, friendly representation). This is
the type of identifier described later as the senderUserUrl in the
examples, which is analogous to the From header in email.
* client/device identifier (internal representation). This is the
type of identifier described as the senderClientUrl in the
examples.
Mahy Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft MIMI Content March 2024
* group or room or conversation or channel name (either internal or
external representation). This is the type of identifier
described as the MLS group URL in the examples.
This proposal relies on URIs for naming and identifiers. All the
example use the im: URI scheme (defined in [RFC3862]), but any
instant messaging scheme could be used.
3.2. Message ID and Accepted Timestamp
Every MIMI content message has a message ID which is calculated from
the hash of the ciphertext of the message. When the content is end-
to-encrypted with MLS for a specific MLS group, the cipher suite for
the group specifies a hash algorithm. The message ID is the first 32
octets of the hash of the MLSMessage struct using that hash
algorithm.
As described in the the MIMI architecture {{?I-D.barnes-mimi-arch}},
one provider, called the hub, is responsible for ordering messages.
The hub is also responsible for recording the time that any
application message is accepted, and conveying it to any "follower"
providers which receive messages from the group. It is represented
as the whole number of milliseconds since the start of the UNIX epoch
(01-Jan-1970 00:00:00 UTC). To the extent that the accepted
timestamp is available to a MIMI client, the client can use it for
fine grain sorting of messages into a consistent order.
3.3. Message Container
Most common instant messaging features are expressed as individual
messages. A plain or rich text message is obviously a message, but a
reaction (ex: like), a reply, editing a previous message, deleting an
earlier message, and read receipts are all typically modeled as
another message with different properties.
This document describes the semantics of a message container, which
can represent most of these previously mentioned message types. The
container typically carries one or more body parts with the actual
message content (for example, an emoji used in a reaction, a plain
text or rich text message or reply, a link, or an inline image).
Mahy Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft MIMI Content March 2024
3.4. Message Status Report
This document also describes the semantics of a status report of
other messages. Because some messaging systems deliver messages in
batches and allow a user to mark several messages read at a time, the
report format allows a single report to convey the read/delivered
status of multiple messages (by message ID) within the same MLS group
at a time.
4. MIMI Content Container Message Semantics
Each MIMI Content message is a container format with two categories
of information:
* the message behavior fields (which can have default or empty
values), and
* the body part(s) and associated parameters
To focus on the semantics of a MIMI Content message, we use C/C++
struct notation to describe its data fields. These fields are
numbered in curly braces for reference in the text. We do not
propose any specific syntax for the format, but two reasonable
constraints are:
* we do not want to scan body parts to check for boundary marker
collisions. This rules out using multipart MIME types.
* we do not want to base64 encode body parts with binary media types
(ex: images). This rules out using JSON to carry the binary data.
4.1. Message Behavior Fields
typedef Octets[32] MessageId;
typedef uint64 Timestamp; // milliseconds since 01-Jan-1970
struct MimiContent {
MessageId replaces; // {1}
Octets topicId; // {2}
uint32 expires; // 0 = does not expire {3}
ReplyToInfo inReplyTo; // {4}
std::vector<MessageId> lastSeen; // {5}
NestablePart body; // {6}
};
The replaces {1} data field indicates that the current message is a
replacement or update to a previous message whose message ID is in
the replaces data field. It is used to edit previously-sent
messages, delete previously-sent messages, and adjust reactions to
messages to which the client previously reacted. If the replaces
Mahy Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft MIMI Content March 2024
field is empty (i.e. both the message ID localPart and the domain are
zero length), the receiver assumes that the current message has not
identified any special relationship with another previous message.
The topicId {2} data field indicates that the current message is part
of a logical grouping of messages which all share the same value in
the topicId data field. If the topicId is zero length, there is no
such grouping.
The expires {3} data field is a hint from the sender to the receiver
that the message should be locally deleted and disregarded at a
specific timestamp in the future. Indicate a message with no
specific expiration time with the value zero. The data field is an
unsigned integer number of seconds after the start of the UNIX epoch.
Using an 32-bit unsigned integer allows expiration dates until the
year 2106. Note that specifying an expiration time provides no
assurance that the client actually honors or can honor the expiration
time, nor that the end user didn't otherwise save the expiring
message (ex: via a screenshot).
The inReplyTo {4} data field indicates that the current message is a
related continuation of another message sent in the same MLS group.
It contains the message ID of the referenced message and the SHA-256
hash [RFC6234] of its MimiContent structure. If the message field is
empty (i.e. both the message ID localPart and the domain are zero
length), the receiver assumes that the current message has not
identified any special relationship with another previous message; in
that case the hash-alg is none and the replyToHash is zero length.
The inReplyTo hash is a message digest used to make sure that a MIMI
message cannot refer to a sequence of referred messages which refers
back to itself. When replying a client checks if the referenced
message is itself a Reply. It compares the hash
When receiving a message, the client verifies that the hash is
correct. Next it checks if the referenced message is itself a Reply.
If so, it continues following the referenced messages, checking that
neither the messageId nor the hash of any of referenced messages
indicates a Reply which "loops" back to a message later in the
inReplyTo chain.
Mahy Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft MIMI Content March 2024
enum HashAlgorithm {
none = 0,
sha256 = 1
};
struct ReplyToInfo {
MessageId message;
HashAlgorithm hashAlg;
Octets replyToHash; // empty or hash of body.content
};
Note that a inReplyTo always references a specific message ID. Even
if the original message was edited several times, a reply always
refers to a specific version of that message, and SHOULD refer to the
most current version at the time the reply is sent.
4.2. Message Ordering
The lastSeen {5} data field indicates the latest message the sender
was aware of in the group. It is a list of message ids.
If the sender recently joined the group and has not yet seen any
messages, the list is empty.
If the sender identifies a single message as unambiguously the latest
message in the group, the lastSeen list contains a single message id
from that message.
Imagine however that two users (Bob and Cathy) see a message from
Alice offering free Hawaiian pizza, and reply at the same time. Bob
and Cathy both send messages with their lastSeen including a single
message id (Alice's) message about pizza. Their messages don't need
to be replies or reactions. Bob might just send a message saying he
doesn't like pineapple on pizza. Now Doug receives all these
messages and replies as well. Doug's message contains a lastSeen
including the message id list of both Bob's and Cathy's replies,
effectively "merging" the order of messages.
The next message after Doug's message contains a lastSeen containing
only the message id of Doug's message.
4.3. Message Bodies
Every MIMI content message has a body {6} which can have multiple,
possibly nested parts. A body with zero parts is permitted when
deleting or unliking {7}. When there is a single body, its IANA media
type, subtype, and parameters are included in the contentType field
{8}.
Mahy Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft MIMI Content March 2024
typedef std::monostate NullPart; // {7}
struct SinglePart {
String contentType; // An IANA media type {8}
Octets content; // The actual content
};
struct ExternalPart {
String contentType; // An IANA media type {8}
String url; // A URL where the content can be fetched
uint32 expires; // 0 = does not expire
uint64 size; // size of content in octets
uint16 encAlg; // An IANA AEAD Algorithm number, or zero
Octets key; // AEAD key
Octets nonce; // AEAD nonce
Octets aad; // AEAD additional authentiation data
String description; // an optional text description
};
typedef std::vector<NestablePart> MultiParts;
enum PartSemantics { // {9}
nullPart = 0,
singlePart = 1, // the bodyParts is a single part
chooseOne = 2, // receiver picks exactly one part to process
singleUnit = 3 // receiver processes all parts as single unit
processAll = 4 // receiver processes all parts individually
};
enum Disposition {
unspecified = 0,
render = 1,
reaction = 2,
profile = 3,
inline = 4,
icon = 5,
attachment = 6,
session = 7,
preview = 8
};
struct NestablePart {
Disposition disposition; // {10}
String language; // {11}
uint16 partIndex; // {12}
PartSemantics partSemantics;
std::variant<NullPart,SinglePart,ExternalPart,MultiParts> part;
};
Mahy Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft MIMI Content March 2024
With some types of message content, there are multiple media types
associated with the same message which need to be rendered together,
for example a rich-text message with an inline image. With other
messages, there are multiple choices available for the same content,
for example a choice among multiple languages, or between two
different image formats. The relationship semantics among the parts
is specified as an enumeration {9}.
The nullPart part semantic is used when there is no body part--for
deleting and unliking. The singlePart part semantic is used when
there is a single body part.
The chooseOne part semantic is roughly analogous to the semantics of
the multipart/alternative media type, except that the ordering of the
nested body parts is merely a preference of the sender. The receiver
can choose the body part among those provided according to its own
policy.
The singleUnit part semantic is roughly analogous to the semantics of
the multipart/related media type, in that all the nested body parts
at this level are part of a single entity (for example, a rich text
message with an inline image). If the receiver does not understand
even one of the nested parts at this level, the receiver should not
process any of them.
The processAll part semantic is roughly analogous to the semantics of
the multipart/mixed media type. The receiver should process as many
of the nested parts at this level as possible. For example, a rich
text document with a link, and a preview image of the link target
could be expressed using this semantic. Processing the preview image
is not strictly necessary for the correct rendering of the rich text
part.
The disposition {10} and language {11} of each part can be specified
for any part, including for nested parts. The disposition represents
the intended semantics of the body part or a set of nested parts. It
is inspired by the values in the Content-Disposition MIME header
[RFC2183]. The render disposition means that the content should be
rendered according to local policy. The inline dispositions means
that the content should be rendered "inline" directly in the chat
interface. The attachment disposition means that the content is
intended to be downloaded by the receiver instead of being rendered
immediately. The reaction disposition means that the content is a
single reaction to another message, typically an emoji, but which
could be an image, sound, or video. The reaction disposition was
originally published in [RFC9078], but was incorrectly placed in the
Content Disposition Parameters IANA registry instead of in the
Content Disposition Values registry. The session disposition means
Mahy Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft MIMI Content March 2024
that the content is a description of a multimedia session, or a URI
used to join one. The preview disposition means that the content is
a sender-generated preview of something, such as the contents of a
link. The value of the language data field is an empty string or a
comma-separated list of one or more Language-tags as defined in
[RFC5646].
Each part also has an part index {12}, which is a zero-indexed,
depth-first integer. It is used to efficiently refer to a specific
body part (for example, an inline image) within another part. See
{Nested body examples} for an example of how the part index is
calculated.
4.4. External content
It is common in Instant Messaging systems to reference external
content via URI that will be processed automatically, either to store
bulky content (ex: videos, images, recorded sounds) outside the the
messaging infrastructure, or to access a specific service URI, for
example, a media forwarding service for conferencing.
An ExternalPart is a convenient way to reference this content. It
provides a similar function to the message/external-body media type.
It optionally includes the size of the data in octets (or zero if the
length is not provided). It also includes an optional timestamp
after which the external content is invalid, expressed as seconds
since the start of the UNIX epoch (01-Jan-1970), or zero if the
content does not expire.
Typically, external content is encrypted with an ephemeral symmetric
key before it is uploaded, and whatever is necessary for decryption
is shared over the message channel.
It is a matter of local policy where the content is uploaded. Often
in federated messaging systems, the sender of the content stores the
external content in their own domain, but in some systems the content
is stored in the "owning" or "hub" domain of the MLS group.
Before being uploaded, external content is encrypted with an IANA-
registered Authenticated Encryption with Additional Data (AEAD)
algorithm as described in [RFC5116]. The key, nonce, and additional
authenticated data (aad) values are set to the values used during the
encryption. Unless modified by an extension, the default value of
the aad is empty.
If the external URL is a service, the encAlg is set to zero, and the
key, nonce, and aad fields are zero length.
Mahy Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft MIMI Content March 2024
Implementations of this specification MUST implement the AES-128-GCM
algorithm.
4.5. Derived Data Values
In addition to fields which are contained in a MIMI content message,
there are also two fields which the implementation can definitely
derive (the MLS group ID {13}, and the leaf index of the sender
{14}). Many implementations could also determine one or more of: the
sender's client identifier URL {15}, the user identifier URL of the
credential associated with the sender {16}, and the identifier URL
for the MIMI room {17}.
struct MessageDerivedValues {
MessageId messageId;
Timestamp hubAcceptedTimestamp;
Octets mlsGroupId; // value always available {13}
uint32 senderLeafIndex; // value always available {14}
IdUrl senderClientUrl; // {15}
IdUrl senderUserUrl; // "From" {16}
IdUrl roomUrl; // "To" {17}
};
5. Examples
In the following examples, we assume that an MLS group is already
established and that either out-of-band or using the MLS protocol or
MLS extensions that the following is known to every member of the
group:
* The membership of the group (via MLS).
* The identity of any MLS client which sends an application message
(via MLS).
* The MLS group ID (via MLS)
* The human readable name(s) of the MIMI room, if any (out-of-band
or extension).
* Which media types are mandatory to implement (MLS content
advertisement extensions).
* For each member, the media types each supports (MLS content
advertisement extensions).
Messages sent to an MLS group are delivered to every member of the
group active during the epoch in which the message was sent.
For the sake of readability, all message IDs will be shown using only
the first six octets of 32, for example: "\xe701beee59f9...".
Mahy Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft MIMI Content March 2024
5.1. Original Message
In this example, Alice Smith sends a rich-text (Markdown) [RFC7763]
message to the Engineering Team MLS group. The following values are
derived from the client:
* Sender leaf index: 4
* Sender client ID URL: im:3b52249d-68f9-45ce-
8bf5-c799f3cad7ec/0003@example.com
* Sender user handle URL: im:%40alice-smith@example.com
* MLS group ID: 7u4NEqe1tbeBFa0aHdsTgRyD/XOHxD5meZpZS+7aJr8=
* The MLS room URL: im:#engineering_team@example.com
* The MLS group name: "Engineering Team"
In addition, the messageId and timestamp are:
messageId = "\x28fd19857ad7...";
timestamp = 1644387225019; // 2022-02-08T22:13:45-00:00
Below are the relevant data fields set by the sender:
expires = 0;
body.disposition = render;
body.partIndex = 0;
body.contentType = "text/markdown;charset=utf-8";
body.content = "Hi everyone, we just shipped release 2.0." +
" __Good work__!";
5.2. Reply
A reply message looks similar, but contains the message ID of the
original message in the inReplyTo data field. The derived MLS group
ID, URL, and name do not change in this example. The derived
senderClientId and senderLeafIndex are not especially relevant so all
but the user handle URL will be omitted.
* Sender user handle URL: im:%40bob-jones@example.com
* messageId = "\xe701beee59f9...";
* timestamp = 1644387237492; // 2022-02-08T22:13:57-00:00
The data fields needed:
Mahy Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft MIMI Content March 2024
inReplyTo.message: "\x28fd19857ad7...";
inReplyTo.hash-alg: sha256;
inReplyTo.replyToHash: "\xd3c14744d1791d02548232c23d35efa9" +
"\x7668174ba385af066011e43bd7e51501";
expires = 0;
body.disposition = render;
body.partIndex = 0;
body.contentType = "text/markdown;charset=utf-8";
body.content = "Right on! _Congratulations_ 'all!";
5.3. Reaction
A reaction looks like a reply, but uses the Disposition token of
reaction. It is modeled on the reaction Content-Disposition token
defined in [RFC9078]. Both indicate that the intended disposition of
the contents of the message is a reaction.
The content in the sample message is a single Unicode heart character
(U+2665). Discovering the range of characters each implementation
could render as a reaction can occur out-of-band and is not within
the scope of this proposal. However, an implementation which
receives a reaction character string it does not recognize could
render the reaction as a reply, possibly prefixing with a localized
string such as "Reaction: ". Note that a reaction could
theoretically even be another media type (ex: image, audio, or
video), although not currently implemented in major instant messaging
systems. Note that many systems allow mutiple independent reactions
per sender.
* Sender user handle URL: im:cathy-washington@example.com
* messageId = "\x1a771ca1d84f...";
* timestamp = 1644387237728; // 2022-02-08T22:13:57-00:00
inReplyTo.message: "\x28fd19857ad7...";
inReplyTo.hash-alg: sha256;
inReplyTo.replyToHash: "\xd3c14744d1791d02548232c23d35efa9" +
"\x7668174ba385af066011e43bd7e51501";
expires = 0;
body.disposition = reaction;
body.partIndex = 0;
body.contentType = "text/plain;charset=utf-8";
body.content = "\u2665"; \\ ♥
Mahy Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft MIMI Content March 2024
5.4. Mentions
In instant messaging systems and social media, a mention allows
special formatting and behavior when a name, handle, or tag
associated with a known group is encountered, often when prefixed
with a commercial-at "@" character for mentions of users or a hash
"#" character for groups or tags. A message which contains a mention
may trigger distinct notifications on the IM client.
We can convey a mention by linking the user handle URI, or group URI
in Markdown or HTML rich content. For example, a mention using
Markdown is indicated below.
* Sender user handle URL: im:cathy-washington@example.com
* messageId = "\x4dcab7711a77...";
* timestamp = 1644387243008; // 2022-02-08T22:14:03-00:00
expires = 0;
body.disposition = render;
body.partIndex = 0;
body.contentType = "text/markdown;charset=utf-8";
body.content = "Kudos to [@Alice Smith](im:alice-smith@example.com)"
+ "for making the release happen!";
The same mention using HTML [W3C.CR-html52-20170808] is indicated
below.
body.contentType = "text/html;charset=utf-8";
body.content = "<p>Kudos to <a href='im:alice-smith@example.com'>" +
"@Alice Smith</a> for making the release happen!</p>"
5.5. Edit
Unlike with email messages, it is common in IM systems to allow the
sender of a message to edit or delete the message after the fact.
Typically the message is replaced in the user interface of the
receivers (even after the original message is read) but shows a
visual indication that it has been edited.
The replaces data field includes the message ID of the message to
edit/replace. The message included in the body is a replacement for
the message with the replaced message ID.
Here Bob Jones corrects a typo in his original message:
* Sender user handle URL: im:%40bob-jones@example.com
* messageId = "\x89d3472622a4...";
* timestamp = 1644387248621; // 2022-02-08T22:14:08-00:00
Mahy Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft MIMI Content March 2024
replaces: "\xe701beee59f9...";
expires = 0;
body.disposition = render;
body.partIndex = 0;
body.contentType = "text/markdown;charset=utf-8";
body.content = "Right on! _Congratulations_ y'all!";
Note that replies and reactions always refer to a specific message
id, and therefore a specific "version" of a message, which could have
been edited before and/or after the message id referenced in the
reply or reaction. It is a matter of local policy how to render (if
at all) a reaction to a subsequently edited message.
5.6. Delete
In IM systems, a delete means that the author of a specific message
has retracted the message, regardless if other users have read the
message or not. Typically a placeholder remains in the user
interface showing that a message was deleted. Replies which
reference a deleted message typically hide the quoted portion and
reflect that the original message was deleted.
If Bob deleted his message instead of modifying it, we would
represent it using the replaces data field, and using an empty body
(NullPart), as shown below.
* Sender user handle URL: im:%40bob-jones@example.com
* messageId = "\x89d3472622a4...";
* timestamp = 1644387248621; // 2022-02-08T22:14:08-00:00
replaces: "\xe701beee59f9...";
expires = 0;
body.disposition = render;
body.partSemantics = nullPart;
body.part = NullPart;
5.7. Unlike
In most IM systems, not only is it possible to react to a message
("Like"), but it is possible to remove a previous reaction
("Unlike"). This can be accomplished by deleting the message which
creates the original reaction
If Cathy removes her reaction, we would represent the removal using a
replaces data field with an empty body, referring to the message
which created the reaction, as shown below.
* Sender user handle URL: im:cathy-washington@example.com
Mahy Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft MIMI Content March 2024
* messageId = "\xd052cace46f8...";
* timestamp = 1644387250389; // 2022-02-08T22:14:10-00:00
replaces: "\x1a771ca1d84f...";
expires = 0;
body.disposition = reaction;
body.partIndex = 0;
body.partSemantics = nullPart;
body.part = NullPart;
5.8. Expiring
Expiring messages are designed to be deleted automatically by the
receiving client at a certain time whether they have been read or
not. As with manually deleted messages, there is no guarantee that
an uncooperative client or a determined user will not save the
content of the message, however most clients respect the convention.
The expires data field contains the timestamp when the message can be
deleted. The semantics of the header are that the message is
automatically deleted by the receiving clients at the indicated time
without user interaction or network connectivity necessary.
* Sender user handle URL: im:alice-smith@example.com
* messageId = "\x5c95a4dfddab...";
* timestamp = 1644389403227; // 2022-02-08T22:49:06-00:00
expires = 1644390004; // ~10 minutes later
body.disposition = render;
body.partIndex = 0;
body.contentType = "text/markdown;charset=utf-8";
body.content = "__*VPN GOING DOWN*__\n" +
"I'm rebooting the VPN in ten minutes unless anyone objects."
5.9. Attachments
An ExternalPart is a convenient way to present both "attachments" and
(possibly inline rendered) content which is too large to be included
in an MLS application message. The disposition data field is set to
inline if the sender recommends inline rendering, or attachment if
the sender intends the content to be downloaded or rendered
separately.
Mahy Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft MIMI Content March 2024
body.disposition = attachment;
body.expires = 0;
body.contentType = "video/mp4";
body.URL = "https://example.com/storage/bigfile.mp4";
body.size = 708234961;
body.encAlg = 0x0001; // AES-128-GCM
body.key = "\x21399320958a6f4c745dde670d95e0d8";
body.nonce = "\xc86cf2c33f21527d1dd76f5b";
body.aad = "";
body.description = "2 hours of key signing video";
Other dispositions of external content are also possible, for example
an external GIF animation of a rocket ship could be used with a
reaction disposition.
5.10. Conferencing
Joining a conference via an external URL is possible. The link could
be rendered to the user, requiring a click. Alternatively the URL
could be rendered the disposition could be specified as session which
could be processed differently by the client (for example, alerting
the user or presenting a dialog box). Further discussion of calling
and conferencing functionality is out-of-scope of this document.
body.expires = 0;
body.url = "https://example.com/join/12345";
body.description = "Join the Foo 118 conference";
body.expires = 1699671600; // 10-Nov-2023 19:00 UTC
body.contentType = ""; // contentType not relevant
body.size = 0; // no defined size
body.encAlg = 0; // no encryption
body.key = "";
body.nonce = "";
body.aad = "";
5.11. Topics / Threading
As popularized by the messaging application Slack, some messaging
applications have a notion of a Topic or message Thread (not to be
confused with message threading as used in email). Clients beginning
a new "topic" populate the topicId with a unique opaque octet string.
This could be the message ID of the first message sent related to the
topic. Subsequent messages may include the same topicId for those
messages to be associated with the same topic. The sort order for
messages within a thread uses the timestamp field. If more than one
message has the same timestamp, the lexically lowest message ID sorts
earlier.
Mahy Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft MIMI Content March 2024
5.12. Delivery Reporting and Read Receipts
In instant messaging systems, read receipts typically generate a
distinct indicator for each message. In some systems, the number of
users in a group who have read the message is subtly displayed and
the list of users who read the message is available on further
inspection.
Of course, Internet mail has support for read receipts as well, but
the existing message disposition notification mechanism defined for
email in [RFC8098] is completely inappropriate in this context:
* notifications can be sent by intermediaries
* only one notification can be sent about a single message per
recipient
* a human-readable version of the notification is expected
* each notification can refer to only one message
* it is extremely verbose
Instead we would like to be able to include status changes about
multiple messages in each report, the ability to mark a message
delivered, then read, then unread, then expired for example.
The proposed format below, application/mimi-message-status is sent by
one member of an MLS group to the entire group and can refer to
multiple messages in that group. The format contains its own
timestamp, and a list of message ID / status pairs. As the status at
the recipient changes, the status can be updated in a subsequent
notification.
Mahy Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft MIMI Content March 2024
enum MessageStatus {
unread = 0,
delivered = 1,
read = 2,
expired = 3,
deleted = 4,
hidden = 5,
error = 6
};
struct PerMessageStatus {
MessageId messageId;
MessageStatus status;
};
struct MessageStatusReport {
unit64 timestamp;
// a vector of message statuses in the same MLS group
std::vector<PerMessageStatus> statuses;
};
* Sender user handle URL: im:bob-jones@example.com
timestamp = 1644284703227;
statuses[0].messageId = "\x4dcab7711a77...";
statuses[0].status = read;
statuses[1].messageId = "\x285f75c46430...";
statuses[1].status = read;
statuses[2].messageId = "\xc5e0cd6140e6...";
statuses[2].status = unread;
statuses[3].messageId = "\x5c95a4dfddab...";
statuses[3].status = expired;
6. Support for Specific Media Types
6.1. MIMI Required and Recommended media types
As the MIMI Content container is just a container, the plain text or
rich text messages sent inside, and any image or other formats needs
to be specified. Clients compliant with MIMI MUST be able to receive
the following media types:
* application/mimi-content -- the MIMI Content container format
(described in this document)
* text/plain;charset=utf-8
* text/markdown;variant=GFM -- Github Flavored Markdown [GFM])
Mahy Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft MIMI Content March 2024
Note that it is acceptable to render the contents of a received
markdown document as plain text.
The following MIME types are RECOMMENDED:
* text/markdown;variant=CommonMark -- CommonMark
(https://spec.commonmark.org/0.30)
* text/html
* application/mimi-message-status -- (described in this document)
* image/jpeg
* image/png
Clients compliant with this specification must be able to download
ExternalParts with http and https URLs, and decrypt downloaded
content encrypted with the AES-128-GCM AEAD algorithm.
6.2. Use of proprietary media types
As most messaging systems are proprietary, standalone systems, it is
useful to allow clients to send and receive proprietary formats among
themselves. Using the functionality in the MIMI Content container,
clients can send a message using the basic functionality described in
this document AND a proprietary format for same-vendor clients
simultaneously over the same group with end-to-end encryption. An
example is given in the Appendix.
7. IANA Considerations
7.1. MIME subtype registration of application/mimi-content
This document proposes registration of a media subtype with IANA.
Mahy Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft MIMI Content March 2024
Type name: application
Subtype name: mimi-content
Required parameters: none
Optional parameters: none
Encoding considerations:
This message type should be encoded as binary data
Security considerations:
See Section A of RFC XXXX
Interoperability considerations:
See Section Y.Z of RFC XXXX
Published specification: RFC XXXX
Applications that use this media type:
Instant Messaging Applications
Fragment identifier considerations: N/A
Additional information:
Deprecated alias names for this type: N/A
Magic number(s): N/A
File extension(s): N/A
Macintosh file type code(s): N/A
Person & email address to contact for further information:
IETF MIMI Working Group mimi@ietf.org
7.2. MIME subtype registration of application/mimi-message-status
This document proposes registration of a media subtype with IANA.
Mahy Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft MIMI Content March 2024
Type name: application
Subtype name: mimi-message-status
Required parameters: none
Optional parameters: none
Encoding considerations:
This message type should be encoded as binary data
Security considerations:
See Section A of RFC XXXX
Interoperability considerations:
See Section Y.Z of RFC XXXX
Published specification: RFC XXXX
Applications that use this media type:
Instant Messaging Applications
Fragment identifier considerations: N/A
Additional information:
Deprecated alias names for this type: N/A
Magic number(s): N/A
File extension(s): N/A
Macintosh file type code(s): N/A
Person & email address to contact for further information:
IETF MIMI Working Group mimi@ietf.org
8. Security Considerations
8.1. General handling
The following cases are examples of nonsensical values that most
likely represent malicious messages. These should be logged and
discarded.
* sender of the message
- where the apparent sender is not a member of the target MLS
group
* message IDs
- which duplicate another message ID already encountered
* timestamps
Mahy Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft MIMI Content March 2024
- received more than a few minutes in the future, or
- before the first concrete syntax of this document is published
- before the room containing them was created
* inReplyTo
- inReplyTo.hash-alg is none even when the inReplyTo.message is
present
- inReplyTo.hash-alg is an unknown value
- the length of inReplyTo.replyToHash does not correspond to the
algorithm specified in inReplyTo.hash-alg
* topicId
- the topicId is very long (greater than 4096 octets)
- a topic is specified, but an inReplyTo or replaces field refers
to a message outside of the topic
* expires
- refers to a date more than a year in the past
- refers to a date more than a year in the future
* lastSeen
- is empty, but the sender has previously sent messages in the
room
- results in a loop
- refers to an excessive number of lastSeen messages
simultaneously (contains more than 65535 message IDs). (Note
that a popular message sent in a large group can result in
thousands of reactions in a few hundred milliseconds.)
* body
- has too many body parts (more than 1024)
- is nested too deeply (more than 4 levels deep)
- is too large (according to local policy)
- has an unknown PartSemantics value
- contains partIndex values which are not continuous from zero
For the avoidance of doubt, the following cases may be examples of
legitimate use cases, and should not be considered the result of a
malicious sender.
* message IDs
- where inReplyTo.message or replaces refer to an unknown
message. Such a message could have been sent before the local
client joined.
* lastSeen
- refers to an unknown message
- is empty for the sender's first message sent in the room
* body
- where a body part contains an unrecognized Disposition value.
The unknown value should be treated as if it where render.
- where a contentType is unrecognized or unsupported.
- where a language tag is unrecognized or unsupported.
Mahy Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft MIMI Content March 2024
8.2. Validation of timestamp
The timestamp is the time a message is accepted by the hub provider.
As such, the hub provider can manipulate the timestamp, and the
sending provider can delay sending messages selectively to cause the
timestamp on a hub to be later.
| *TODO*: Discuss how to sanity check lastSeen, timestamp and the
| MLS epoch and generation, and the limitations of this approach.
8.3. Alternate content rendering
This document includes a mechanism where the sender can offer
alternate versions of content in a single message. For example, the
sender could send:
* an plain text and an HTML version of a text message
* a thumbnail preview and link to a high-resolution image or video
* versions of the same message in multiple languages
* an PNG image and a scalable vector graphics version of a line
drawing
A malicious client could use this mechanism to send content that will
appear different to a subset of the members of a group and possibly
elicit an incorrect or misleading response.
Message as seen by Alice (manager)
Xavier: Do you want me to reserve a room for the review meeting?
Message as seen by Bob (Alice's assistant)
Xavier: @Bob I need to pickup Alice's Ferarri keys. She'll confirm
Reply sent by Alice
Alice: Yes please.
8.4. Link and Mention handling
Both Markdown and HTML support links. Using the example of an https
link, if the rendered text and the link target match exactly or are
canonically equivalent, there is no need for confirmation if the end
user selects the link.
[example.com/foobar](https://example.com/foobar)
[https://example.com/foobar](https://example.com/foobar)
[https://example.com:443/foobar](https://example.com/foobar)
Mahy Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft MIMI Content March 2024
However, if the link text is different, or the scheme is downgraded
from https to http, the user should be presented with an alert
warning that the text is not the same.
[https://example.com/foobar](https://spearphishers.example/foobar)
[https://example.com/foobar](http://example.com/foobar)
An IM URI link to a user who has a member client in the MLS group in
which the message was sent is considered a mention. Clients may
support special rendering of mentions instead of treating them like
any other type of link. In Markdown and HTML, the display text
portion of a link is considered a rendering hint from the sender to
the receiver of the message. The receiver should use local policy to
decide if the hint is an acceptable local representation of the user
represented by the link itself. If the hint is not an acceptable
representation, the client should instead display its canonical
representation for the user.
For example, in the first examples, the sender expresses no
preference about how to render the mention. In the second example,
the sender requests that the mention is rendered as the literal URI.
In the third example, the sender requests the canonical handle for
Alice. In the fourth example, the sender requests Alice's first
name.
<im:alice-smith@example.com>
[im:alice-smith@example.com](im:alice-smith@example.com)
[@AliceSmith](im:alice-smith@example.com)
[Alice](im:alice-smith@example.com)
Note that in some clients, presence of a mention for the local user
may result in a different notification policy.
If the client does not support special rendering of mentions, the
application, should render the text like any other link.
8.5. Delivery and Read Receipts
Delivery and Read Receipts can provide useful information inside a
group, or they can reveal sensitive private information. In many IM
systems there is are per-group policies for and/or delivery read
receipts:
* they are required
* they are permitted, but optional
* they are forbidden
Mahy Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft MIMI Content March 2024
In the first case, everyone in the group would have to claim to
support read receipts to be in the group and agree to the policy of
sending them whenever a message was read. A user who did not wish to
send read receipts could review the policy (automatically or
manually) and choose not to join the group. Of course, requiring
read receipts is a cooperative effort just like using self-deleting
messages. A malicious client could obviously read a message and not
send a read receipt, or send a read receipt for a message that was
never rendered. However, cooperating clients have a way to agree
that they will send read receipts when a message is read in a
specific group.
In the second case, sending a read receipt would be at the discretion
of each receiver of the message (via local preferences).
9. References
9.1. Normative References
[GFM] GitHub, "GitHub Flavored Markdown Spec, Version 0.29-gfm",
6 March 2019, <https://github.github.com/gfm/>.
[I-D.ietf-mls-extensions]
Robert, R., "The Messaging Layer Security (MLS)
Extensions", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-
mls-extensions-03, 23 October 2023,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-mls-
extensions-03>.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC3862] Klyne, G. and D. Atkins, "Common Presence and Instant
Messaging (CPIM): Message Format", RFC 3862,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3862, August 2004,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3862>.
[RFC5116] McGrew, D., "An Interface and Algorithms for Authenticated
Encryption", RFC 5116, DOI 10.17487/RFC5116, January 2008,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5116>.
[RFC5646] Phillips, A., Ed. and M. Davis, Ed., "Tags for Identifying
Languages", BCP 47, RFC 5646, DOI 10.17487/RFC5646,
September 2009, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5646>.
Mahy Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft MIMI Content March 2024
[RFC6234] Eastlake 3rd, D. and T. Hansen, "US Secure Hash Algorithms
(SHA and SHA-based HMAC and HKDF)", RFC 6234,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6234, May 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6234>.
[RFC7763] Leonard, S., "The text/markdown Media Type", RFC 7763,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7763, March 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7763>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
[W3C.CR-html52-20170808]
Faulkner, S., Eicholz, A., Leithead, T., Danilo, A., and
S. Moon, "HTML 5.2", World Wide Web Consortium CR CR-
html52-20170808, 8 August 2017,
<https://www.w3.org/TR/2017/CR-html52-20170808>.
9.2. Informative References
[DoubleRatchet]
Perrin, T. and M. Marlinspike, "The Double Ratchet
Algorithm", 20 November 2016,
<https://signal.org/docs/specifications/doubleratchet/>.
[I-D.barnes-mimi-arch]
Barnes, R. L., "An Architecture for More Instant Messaging
Interoperability (MIMI)", Work in Progress, Internet-
Draft, draft-barnes-mimi-arch-03, 4 March 2024,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/api/v1/doc/document/draft-
barnes-mimi-arch/>.
[I-D.mahy-mimi-identity]
Mahy, R., "More Instant Messaging Interoperability (MIMI)
Identity Concepts", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft,
draft-mahy-mimi-identity-02, 10 July 2023,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-mahy-mimi-
identity-02>.
[I-D.ralston-mimi-terminology]
Ralston, T., "MIMI Terminology", Work in Progress,
Internet-Draft, draft-ralston-mimi-terminology-03, 23
October 2023, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/
draft-ralston-mimi-terminology-03>.
Mahy Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 28]
Internet-Draft MIMI Content March 2024
[RFC2046] Freed, N. and N. Borenstein, "Multipurpose Internet Mail
Extensions (MIME) Part Two: Media Types", RFC 2046,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2046, November 1996,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2046>.
[RFC2183] Troost, R., Dorner, S., and K. Moore, Ed., "Communicating
Presentation Information in Internet Messages: The
Content-Disposition Header Field", RFC 2183,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2183, August 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2183>.
[RFC3156] Elkins, M., Del Torto, D., Levien, R., and T. Roessler,
"MIME Security with OpenPGP", RFC 3156,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3156, August 2001,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3156>.
[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,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3261>.
[RFC6120] Saint-Andre, P., "Extensible Messaging and Presence
Protocol (XMPP): Core", RFC 6120, DOI 10.17487/RFC6120,
March 2011, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6120>.
[RFC8098] Hansen, T., Ed. and A. Melnikov, Ed., "Message Disposition
Notification", STD 85, RFC 8098, DOI 10.17487/RFC8098,
February 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8098>.
[RFC8551] Schaad, J., Ramsdell, B., and S. Turner, "Secure/
Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (S/MIME) Version 4.0
Message Specification", RFC 8551, DOI 10.17487/RFC8551,
April 2019, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8551>.
[RFC9078] Crocker, D., Signes, R., and N. Freed, "Reaction:
Indicating Summary Reaction to a Message", RFC 9078,
DOI 10.17487/RFC9078, August 2021,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9078>.
[RFC9420] Barnes, R., Beurdouche, B., Robert, R., Millican, J.,
Omara, E., and K. Cohn-Gordon, "The Messaging Layer
Security (MLS) Protocol", RFC 9420, DOI 10.17487/RFC9420,
July 2023, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9420>.
Mahy Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 29]
Internet-Draft MIMI Content March 2024
Appendix A. Multipart examples
A.1. Proprietary and Common formats sent as alternatives
Example of body needed to send this profile and a proprietary
messaging protocol simultaneously.
body = new NestablePart();
body.disposition = render;
body.language = "";
body.partIndex = 0;
body.partSemantics = chooseOne;
s = new SinglePart();
s.contentType = "application/mimi-content";
s.content = "\xabcdef0123456789....";
standardPart = new NestablePart()
standardPart.disposition = render;
standardPart.language = "";
standardPart.partIndex = 1;
standardPart.partSemantics = singlePart;
standardPart.part = s;
p = new SinglePart();
p.contentType =
"application/vnd.examplevendor-fancy-im-message";
p.content = "\x0123456789abcdef....";
proprietaryPart = new NestablePart()
proprietaryPart.disposition = render;
proprietaryPart.language = "";
proprietaryPart.partIndex = 2;
proprietaryPart.partSemantics = singlePart;
proprietaryPart.part = p;
body.part = new MultiParts();
body.part.push(standardPart);
body.part.push(proprietaryPart);
A.2. Mulitple Reactions Example
This shows sending a reaction with multiple separate emojis.
TBC
Mahy Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 30]
Internet-Draft MIMI Content March 2024
A.3. Complicated Nested Example
This example shows separate English and French versions of HTML
message with inline images. Each of the images is presented in
alternate formats: an animated GIF, and a single PNG.
TBC
A.4. TLS Presentation Language multipart container format
In a heterogenous group of IM clients, it is often desirable to send
more than one media type as alternatives, such that IM clients have a
choice of which media type to render. For example, imagine an IM
group containing a set of clients which support a common video format
and a subset which only support animated GIFs. The sender could use
a MultiParts NestablePart with chooseOne semantics containing both
media types. Every client in the group chat could render something
resembling the media sent. This is analogous to the multipart/
alternative [RFC2046] media type.
Likewise it is often desirable to send more than one media type
intended to be rendered together as in (for example a rich text
document with embedded images), which can be represented using a
MultiParts NestablePart with processAll semantics. This is analogous
to the multipart/mixed [RFC2046] media type.
Some implementors complain that the multipart types are unnatural to
use inside a binary protocol which requires explicit lengths such as
MLS [RFC9420]. Concretely, an implementation has to scan through the
entire content to construct a boundary token which is not contained
in the content.
Note that there is a minor semantic difference between multipart/
alternative and MultiParts with chooseOne semantics. In multipart/
alternative, the parts are presented in preference order by the
sender. With MultiParts the receiver chooses its "best" format to
render according to its own preferences.
Appendix B. Changelog
B.1. Changes between draft-mahy-mimi-content-01 and draft-mahy-mimi-
content-02
* made semantics abstract (C++ structs) instead of using CPIM or
MIME headers
Mahy Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 31]
Internet-Draft MIMI Content March 2024
B.2. Changes between draft-mahy-mimi-content-02 and draft-ietf-mimi-
content-00
* replaced threadId with topicId
* inReplyTo now has a hash of the referenced message
* clarified that replies are always to a specific version of a
modified message
* changed timestamp to a whole number of milliseconds since the
epoch to avoid confusion
* added Security Considerations section
* added IANA Considerations section
* added change log
B.3. Changes between draft-ietf-mimi-content-00 and draft-ietf-mimi-
content-01
* created new abstract format for attachment information, instead of
using message/external-body
* added discussion of encrypting external content
* clarified the difference between render and inline dispositions
* created a way for the messageId and timestamp to be shared in the
MLS additional authenticated data field
* expanded discussion of what can and should be rendered when a
mention is encountered; discussed how to prevent confusion attacks
with mentions.
* added a lastSeen field used to ensure a more consistent sort order
of messages in a room.
B.4. Changes between draft-ietf-mimi-content-01 and draft-ietf-mimi-
content-02
* consensus at IETF 118 was to use a hash of the ciphertext in lieu
of the message ID
* consensus at IETF 118 was to use the hub accepted timestamp for
protocol actions like sorting
* Updated author's address
Author's Address
Rohan Mahy
Unaffiliated
Email: rohan.ietf@gmail.com
Mahy Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 32]
