





Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)                         R. George
Request for Comments: 6132                                      B. Leiba
Category: Standards Track                            Huawei Technologies
ISSN: 2070-1721                                                July 2011


             Sieve Notification Using Presence Information

Abstract

   This is a further extension to the Sieve mail filtering language
   Notification extension, defining presence information that may be
   checked through the notify_method_capability feature.

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/rfc6132.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2011 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.









George & Leiba               Standards Track                    [Page 1]

RFC 6132                 Sieve Notify: Presence                July 2011


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
     1.1.  Terminology Used in This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
   2.  Testing Presence Information  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
   3.  Examples  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
   4.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
   5.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
   6.  Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
   7.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
     7.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
     7.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

1.  Introduction

   Sometimes, it's desirable to tailor Sieve [RFC5228] notifications to
   a user's current situation.  Presence information provides some
   information about the user that would be useful to have access to in
   these cases.  The Notification extension [RFC5435] defines a
   mechanism to test for presence (the notify_method_capability
   feature), and defines one test for presence (the "online"
   notification-capability, described in Section 5 of RFC 5435).  This
   extension defines more presence tests by registering additional
   notification-capability parameters in the IANA registry, allowing
   testing of a wider variety of presence information.

1.1.  Terminology Used in This Document

   The upper-case key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL",
   "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
   "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
   [RFC2119].

2.  Testing Presence Information

   This extension uses the notify_method_capability test, as defined in
   the Sieve [RFC5228] Notify extension [RFC5435], to test presence
   information.  When a Sieve event occurs (mail arrives) for a user, a
   Sieve script running on behalf of that user can present the user's
   presence URI (in the "notification-uri" parameter) and test a
   specific item of notification presence as defined below (in the
   "notification-capability" parameter) against one or more values (in
   the "key-list" parameter).








George & Leiba               Standards Track                    [Page 2]

RFC 6132                 Sieve Notify: Presence                July 2011


   This document defines an initial set of items of notification
   presence, which may be specified in the notification-capability
   parameter.  It is expected that future extensions will add additional
   presence items derived from diverse sources, including calendar
   information, geographic location, and so on.

   Note that, while the items below are documented as similar to items
   in Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP) [RFC6121], it is
   not the intent that this extension be tied to XMPP, nor to any
   particular source of presence, and flexible implementations will be
   ready for future extensions.  Useful informational references for
   presence data and formats include Presence Information Data Format
   (PIDF) [RFC3863], RPID: Rich Presence Extensions to PIDF [RFC4480],
   and GEOPRIV Presence Information Data Format Location Object
   (PIDF-LO) [RFC5491].

   The script tests the values of notification presence items in the
   key-list parameter.  The values that each item may have are specified
   in the list below.  Note that in addition to the presence values, any
   item may have the value "unknown" if it is not possible to determine
   the correct presence value of the item.

   If a particular presence item is tested multiple times within the
   same script execution context, implementations MUST present the same
   value each time (for example, by caching the value on first use).
   This provides consistency within a single execution.

   Supported presence items are as follows:

   busy:    An indication of whether the user is considered "busy" now
            (the value "yes") or not (the value "no"), or "unknown" if
            it cannot be determined.  The meaning of "busy" is left to
            the implementation, and may be a state that's synthesized
            from other information (including "show", below).

   show:    The availability status of the user, formally specified.
            Note that this is similar to the presence element with the
            same name that's defined in Section 4.7.2.1 of RFC 6121
            [RFC6121].  The value of this item is one of the following:

            away:    The user is temporarily away.

            chat:    The user is online and actively interested in
                     chatting.

            dnd:     Do Not Disturb; the user does not wish to be
                     disturbed now.




George & Leiba               Standards Track                    [Page 3]

RFC 6132                 Sieve Notify: Presence                July 2011


            offline: The user is offline.

            xa:      The user is away for an extended period (xa =
                     "eXtended Away").

            unknown: The correct presence value could not be determined.

   status:  A human-readable description of the user's availability
            status, in natural language.  There is no formal definition
            for the values this item may take.  It is free-form, and may
            be in any language.  Direct comparisons against the value of
            this field are unlikely to be useful; rather, it is provided
            to enable extraction of the value into a variable [RFC5229]
            for use elsewhere (see example 3 in Section 3).  Note that
            this is similar to the presence element with the same name
            that's defined in Section 4.7.2.2 of RFC 6121 [RFC6121], and
            to the <note> element defined in section 4.1.6 of PIDF
            [RFC3863].

            Because this is a free-form value that might be created
            directly by a user, no value, including "unknown", can have
            any special meaning.  If the Sieve processor is unable to
            determine the value of this item, it might be best to leave
            it as an empty string.  In any case, it is not meant for
            machine-readable processing, beyond possible XML
            interpretation.

   There is no capability string associated with this extension, but
   this requires support for "enotify" [RFC5435].  If the implementation
   does not support the item being tested (that is, the specified
   notification-capability item is not known to the Sieve interpreter),
   RFC 5435 already specifies that the test fail without an error.

   Although this feature was conceived to assist in notifications, and
   the test requires support of the Sieve Notify feature, it is only a
   condition test, and any Sieve action can appear inside it.  There are
   no Sieve actions that conflict with this extension.

3.  Examples

   1.  This example will send a notification only if the recipient is
       not "busy".  If the test for "busy" is not supported, this
       example will not send a notification.








George & Leiba               Standards Track                    [Page 4]

RFC 6132                 Sieve Notify: Presence                July 2011


   require ["enotify"];

   if notify_method_capability "xmpp:tim@example.com" "busy" "no"
     {
       notify :message "You got mail"
           "xmpp:tim@example.com?message;subject=SIEVE";
     }


   2.  This example will send a notification only if the recipient is
       not "busy".  If the test for "busy" is not supported, this
       example will send a notification.

   require ["enotify"];

   if not notify_method_capability "xmpp:tim@example.com" "busy" "yes"
     {
       notify :message "You got mail"
           "xmpp:tim@example.com?message;subject=SIEVE";
     }


   3.  This example uses the vacation extension [RFC5230] to generate an
       auto-reply [RFC6133] if the sender is in the recipient's address
       book [RFC6134] and the recipient's presence shows "extended
       away".  The variables extension [RFC5229] is used to extract the
       value of the recipient's presence status message, which will be
       used in the response to the sender.  If the test for "show" is
       not supported, this example will not send an auto-reply.

   require ["extlists", "vacation", "enotify", "variables"];

   if allof (
       envelope :list "from" ":addrbook:default",
       notify_method_capability "xmpp:myjid@example.com" "show" "xa"
     ) {
       # :matches "*" is used here to extract the value
       if notify_method_capability :matches
           "xmpp:myjid@example.com" "status" "*" {
         set "resp_msg" "${1}";
       } else {
         set "resp_msg" "I'm away from email for a while."
       }
       vacation :handle "ext-away" "${resp_msg}";
     }






George & Leiba               Standards Track                    [Page 5]

RFC 6132                 Sieve Notify: Presence                July 2011


4.  Security Considerations

   Security considerations for Sieve [RFC5228] and the Notify extension
   [RFC5435] apply equally here.  In addition, implementations MUST
   ensure that users cannot create scripts that access the presence
   information of others without the proper access controls.

   In some situations, scripts may act on some of the recipient's
   presence information that the sender of the triggering message is not
   allowed to see.  This can be a benefit to the recipient in many
   cases, but it can also present an opportunity for a sender to use
   messages to probe the recipient's presence (if, for example, messages
   sometimes result in auto-replies, and sometimes do not).  Script
   authors should take care in considering this aspect of presence-
   triggered actions.

   It's possible for a large number of messages to arrive at or around
   the same time and be processed by Sieve scripts that all test
   presence.  If many of the users share the same presence server, such
   a burst could put an unexpectedly heavy load on the presence server.
   Implementations might consider providing options for rate limiting,
   or for caching presence tests for periods of time, even across Sieve
   script instances.  When caching presence tests, the server must be
   careful not to violate access controls that the presence server might
   have.  Thus, cached results MUST NOT be used outside the context in
   which they were retrieved.  If, for example, a script running on
   behalf of Adam requests presence information for Barbara, that
   information MAY be cached for a future script running on behalf of
   Adam, but MUST NOT be used to satisfy the same query in a script
   running on behalf of Cindy -- because the presence server will have
   to decide whether Cindy has access to that information.

5.  IANA Considerations

   This registers each presence item as a notification-capability
   parameter.  Future extensions that add new presence items should
   register those items similarly, using the instructions in Section 9.3
   of RFC 5435 [RFC5435].

   To:  iana@iana.org
   Subject:  Registration of a new notification-capability parameter
   Capability name:  busy
   Description:  An indication of whether the user is considered "busy"
        now (the value "yes") or not (the value "no").  The meaning of
        "busy" is left to the implementation, and may be a state that's
        synthesized from other information.
   Syntax:  Has one of the values "yes", "no", or "unknown".  The value
        MUST be in lower case.



George & Leiba               Standards Track                    [Page 6]

RFC 6132                 Sieve Notify: Presence                July 2011


   Permanent and readily available reference(s):  RFC 6132
   Contact information:  The Sieve discussion list, <sieve@ietf.org>

   To:  iana@iana.org
   Subject:  Registration of a new notification-capability parameter
   Capability name:  show
   Description:  The availability status of the user.  This is similar
        to the presence element with the same name that's defined in
        Section 4.7.2.1 of RFC 6121.
   Syntax:  Has one of the values "away", "chat", "dnd", "offline",
        "xa", or "unknown".  The value MUST be in lower case.
   Permanent and readily available reference(s):  RFC 6132
   Contact information:  The Sieve discussion list, <sieve@ietf.org>

   To:  iana@iana.org
   Subject:  Registration of a new notification-capability parameter
   Capability name:  status
   Description:  A human-readable description of the user's availability
        status.  This is similar to the presence element with the same
        name that's defined in Section 4.7.2.2 of RFC 6121.
   Syntax:  There is no formal definition for the values this item may
        take.  It is free-form and may be in any language, and is meant
        for human consumption.
   Permanent and readily available reference(s):  RFC 6132
   Contact information:  The Sieve discussion list, <sieve@ietf.org>

6.  Acknowledgments

   The authors thank Alexey Melnikov for significant early feedback and
   suggestions.

7.  References

7.1.  Normative References

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

   [RFC5228]  Guenther, P. and T. Showalter, "Sieve: An Email Filtering
              Language", RFC 5228, January 2008.

   [RFC5435]  Melnikov, A., Leiba, B., Segmuller, W., and T. Martin,
              "Sieve Email Filtering: Extension for Notifications",
              RFC 5435, January 2009.

   [RFC6121]  Saint-Andre, P., "Extensible Messaging and Presence
              Protocol (XMPP): Instant Messaging and Presence", RFC
              6121, March 2011.



George & Leiba               Standards Track                    [Page 7]

RFC 6132                 Sieve Notify: Presence                July 2011


7.2.  Informative References

   [RFC3863]  Sugano, H., Fujimoto, S., Klyne, G., Bateman, A., Carr,
              W., and J. Peterson, "Presence Information Data Format
              (PIDF)", RFC 3863, August 2004.

   [RFC4480]  Schulzrinne, H., Gurbani, V., Kyzivat, P., and J.
              Rosenberg, "RPID: Rich Presence Extensions to the Presence
              Information Data Format (PIDF)", RFC 4480, July 2006.

   [RFC5229]  Homme, K., "Sieve Email Filtering: Variables Extension",
              RFC 5229, January 2008.

   [RFC5230]  Showalter, T. and N. Freed, "Sieve Email Filtering:
              Vacation Extension", RFC 5230, January 2008.

   [RFC5491]  Winterbottom, J., Thomson, M., and H. Tschofenig, "GEOPRIV
              Presence Information Data Format Location Object (PIDF-LO)
              Usage Clarification, Considerations, and Recommendations",
              RFC 5491, March 2009.

   [RFC6133]  George, R., Leiba, B., and A. Melnikov, "Sieve Email
              Filtering: Use of Presence Information with Auto-Responder
              Functionality", RFC 6134, July 2011.

   [RFC6134]  Melnikov, A. and B. Leiba, "Sieve Extension: Externally
              Stored Lists", RFC 6134, July 2011.

Authors' Addresses

   Robins George
   Huawei Technologies
   Bangalore, Karnataka  560071
   India

   Phone: +91-080-41117676
   EMail: robinsgv@gmail.com


   Barry Leiba
   Huawei Technologies

   Phone: +1 646 827 0648
   EMail: barryleiba@computer.org
   URI:   http://internetmessagingtechnology.org/






George & Leiba               Standards Track                    [Page 8]

