RFC 5364: Extensible Markup Language (XML) Format Extension for Representing Copy Control Attributes in Resource Lists
In plain English — editorial summary, not part of the RFC
In certain types of multimedia communications, a Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) request is distributed to a group of SIP User Agents (UAs). The sender sends a single SIP request to a server which further distributes the request to the group. This SIP request contains a list of Uniform Resource Identifiers (URIs), which identify the recipients of the SIP request. This URI list is expressed as a resource list XML document. This specification defines an XML extension to the XML resource list format that allows the sender of the request to qualify a recipient with a copy control level similar to the copy control level of existing email systems. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Document record
- Document ID
- RFC5364
- Published
- October 2008
- Authors
- M. Garcia-Martin; G. Camarillo
- Status
- PROPOSED STANDARD
- Stream
- IETF
- Area
- rai
- Pages
- 17
- Also known as
- —
- Updated by:
- RFC 8996
Topics
Referenced by
One later RFC formally updates or obsoletes part of this document.
Related documents
Ranked automatically by shared keywords, IETF area and stream — not by editorial selection.
- RFC 4314IMAP4 Access Control List (ACL) ExtensionCurrent
December 2005
- RFC 5361A Document Format for Requesting ConsentCurrent
October 2008
- RFC 5025Presence Authorization RulesCurrent
December 2007
- RFC 4826Extensible Markup Language (XML) Formats for Representing Resource ListsCurrent
May 2007
- RFC 4825The Extensible Markup Language (XML) Configuration Access Protocol (XCAP)Current
May 2007
- RFC 4375Emergency Telecommunications Services (ETS) Requirements for a Single Administrative DomainCurrent
January 2006
- RFC 3994Indication of Message Composition for Instant MessagingCurrent
February 2005
- RFC 3858An Extensible Markup Language (XML) Based Format for Watcher InformationCurrent
August 2004
Also filed under
About this page
The document record above — title, authors, date, status, stream, area, relationships, DOI and errata — is imported verbatim from the public RFC Editor index. The “in plain English” section is editorial: written by The metasystema editorial team, not part of the RFC. Where the two differ, the RFC text governs.
Last checked against the RFC Editor index on . RFCs are never revised after publication; changes are issued as new documents.
Data sources · Editorial policy · Report a correction · What is an RFC?