1 / 10

Update on IMPP and CPIM

Update on IMPP and CPIM. Jonathan Rosenberg dynamicsoft. History in Brief. IMPP Working group chartered to specify requirements and framework for IM and presence RFC2779: Requirements RFC2778: Model and Terminology End of 1999, discussions begin on protocol Little Progress

senta
Download Presentation

Update on IMPP and CPIM

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Update on IMPP and CPIM Jonathan Rosenberg dynamicsoft

  2. History in Brief • IMPP Working group chartered to specify requirements and framework for IM and presence • RFC2779: Requirements • RFC2778: Model and Terminology • End of 1999, discussions begin on protocol • Little Progress • Building a protocol from scratch by committee is impossible

  3. History in Brief • March IETF • AD’s make IMPP go dormant, solicit complete solutions for IMPP protocol • June 15 deadline • 9 protocols submitted! • Tons of discussion on list • Clear there are fundamental differences of opinion

  4. History in Brief • August IETF • Group of Nine (three from each of the three remaining camps) tasked to define common pieces • Development of CPIM – Common Framework for Presence and IM • Documentation of differences in approaches

  5. History in Brief • Consensus to move forward with CPIM in IMPP and then define separate groups to charter protocols • Let the market decide • Three camps are: • IMXP (based on BEEP) • PRIM (simple from-scratch protocol) • SIP for presence • We’re here to move SIP for presence forward

  6. Presence is about conveying communicates state SIP networks already know this state REGISTER Needed for call routing Routing of messages in real time is needed for call setup Also for IM Also for Presence Convergence of network for communications a good thing Integration of services Reduces operational costs Reduces infrastructure costs Good for consumer and provider Why do we think it’s a good idea?

  7. Specifies requirements on all IMPP protocols Systems that meet these requirements are easily gatewayed Specifies requirements as an abstract protocol Need to be able to map to this protocol Only things in RFC2779 Server to Server case only Not likely to see client-server inter-domain soon Formally defines pres and im URL formats Im:user@host Pres:user@host CPIM

  8. Defines DNS SRV procedures for gateway To send to domain foo.com with IMXP, look up _im._imxp.foo.com Each domain must have a DNS entry for all protocols Clients look up their native protocol Send to resulting host Allows for outsourcing of gateway services Hides gatewaying from clients CPIM DNS Processing

  9. Messaging Send a message Contains Sender Recipient Date Content Get a response verifying delivery Presence Subscribe to presentity Presentity ID Subscriber ID Expiration Subscribe response indicates results Immediate NOTIFY sent Presentity Subscriber Presence Data CPIM Abstract Services

  10. What other abstract data elements need to be defined Subject? Sender? Reply-To? End to end security Needs data syntax as well as semantics Which elements are to be signed or encrypted What is syntax? Some proposals better for certain transports than others CPIM Open Issues

More Related