[Docs] [txt|pdf|xml|html] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 RFC 5567

MediaCtrl                                              T. Melanchuk, Ed.
Internet-Draft                                Rain Willow Communications
Intended status: Informational                         November 27, 2008
Expires: May 31, 2009


          An Architectural Framework for Media  Server Control
                  draft-ietf-mediactrl-architecture-04

Status of this Memo

   By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
   applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
   have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
   aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups.  Note that
   other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
   Drafts.

   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."

   The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.

   This Internet-Draft will expire on May 31, 2009.


















Melanchuk                 Expires May 31, 2009                  [Page 1]

Internet-Draft           Mediactrl Architecture            November 2008


Abstract

   This document describes an Architectural Framework for Media Server
   Control.  The primary focus will be to define logical entities that
   exist within the context of Media Server control, and define the
   appropriate naming conventions and interactions between them.


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   2.  Terminology  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   3.  Architecture Overview  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
   4.  SIP Usage  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
   5.  Media Control for IVR Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
     5.1.  Basic IVR Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
     5.2.  IVR Services with Mid-call Controls  . . . . . . . . . . . 14
     5.3.  Advanced IVR Services  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
   6.  Media Control for Conferencing Services  . . . . . . . . . . . 15
     6.1.  Creating a New Conference  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
     6.2.  Adding a Participant To a Conference . . . . . . . . . . . 17
     6.3.  Media Controls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
     6.4.  Floor Control  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
   7.  Acknowledgments  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
   8.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
   9.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
   10. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
   11. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
   Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
   Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 33





















Melanchuk                 Expires May 31, 2009                  [Page 2]

Internet-Draft           Mediactrl Architecture            November 2008


1.  Introduction

   Application Servers host one or more instances of a communications
   application.  Media Servers provide real time media processing
   functions.  This documents presents the core architectural framework
   to allow Application Servers to control Media Servers.  An overview
   of the architecture describing the core logical entities and their
   interactions is presented in Section 3.  The requirements for Media
   Server control are defined in [RFC5167].

   The Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) [RFC3261] is used as the
   session establishment protocol within this architecture.  Application
   Servers use it both to terminate media streams on Media Servers and
   to create and manage control channels for Media Server control
   between themselves and Media Servers.  The detailed model for Media
   Server control together with a description of SIP usage is presented
   in Section 4.

   Several services are described using the framework defined in this
   document.  Use cases for Inter-Active Voice Response (IVR) services
   are described in Section 5 and conferencing use cases are described
   in Section 6.





























Melanchuk                 Expires May 31, 2009                  [Page 3]

Internet-Draft           Mediactrl Architecture            November 2008


2.  Terminology

   The following terms are defined for use in this document in the
   context of Media Server control:

   Application Server (AS):  A functional entity that hosts one or more
      instances of a communication application.  The application server
      may include the conference policy server, the focus, and the
      conference notification server, as defined in [RFC4353].  Also, it
      may include communication applications that use IVR or
      announcement services.

   Media Functions:  Functions available on a Media Server that are used
      to supply media services to the AS.  Some examples are Dual-Tone
      Multi-Frequency (DTMF) detection, mixing, transcoding, playing
      announcement, recording, etc.

   Media Resource Broker (MRB):  A logical entity that is responsible
      for both the collection of appropriate published Media Server (MS)
      information and supplying of appropriate MS information to
      consuming entities.  The MRB is an optional entity and will be
      discussed in a separate document.

   Media Server (MS):  The media server includes the mixer as defined in
      [RFC4353].  The media server plays announcements, it processes
      media streams for functions like Dual Tone Multi-Frequency (DTMF)
      detection and transcoding.  The media server may also record media
      streams for supporting IVR functions like announcing conference
      participants.  In the architecture for the 3GPP IP Multimedia
      Subsystem (IMS) a Media Server is referred to as a Media Resource
      Function (MRF).

   Media Services:  Application service requiring media functions such
      as Interactive Voice Response (IVR) or Media conferencing.

   Media Session:  From the Session Description Protocol (SDP)
      specification [RFC4566]: "A multimedia session is a set of
      multimedia senders and receivers and the data streams flowing from
      senders to receivers.  A multimedia conference is an example of a
      multimedia session."

   MS Control Channel:  A reliable transport connection between the AS
      and MS used to exchange MS Control PDUs.  Implementations must
      support the Transport Control Protocol (TCP) [RFC0793] and may
      support the Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP) [RFC4960].
      Implementations must support TLS [RFC4346] as a transport-level
      security mechanism although its use in deployments is optional.




Melanchuk                 Expires May 31, 2009                  [Page 4]

Internet-Draft           Mediactrl Architecture            November 2008


   MS Control Dialog:  A SIP dialog that is used for establishing a
      control channel between the UA and the MS.

   MS Control Protocol:  The protocol used for by an AS to control a MS.
      The MS Control Protocol assumes a reliable underlying transport
      protocol for the MS Control Channel.

   MS Media Dialog:  A SIP dialog between the AS and Media Server that
      is used for establishing media sessions between a user device such
      as a SIP phone and the Media Server.

   The definitions for AS, MS, and MRB above are taken from [RFC5167].







































Melanchuk                 Expires May 31, 2009                  [Page 5]

Internet-Draft           Mediactrl Architecture            November 2008


3.  Architecture Overview

   A Media Server (MS) is a network device that processes media streams.
   Examples of media processing functionality may include:

   o  Control of the Real-Time Protocol (RTP) [RFC3550] streams such as
      video fast update and flow control using Real-Time Control
      Protocol (RTCP) feedback [RFC4585].

   o  Mixing of incoming media streams.

   o  Media stream source (for multimedia announcements).

   o  Media stream processing (e.g. transcoding, DTMF detection).

   o  Media stream sink (for multimedia recordings)

   A MS supplies one or more media processing functionalities, which may
   include others than those illustrated above, to an Application Server
   (AS).  An AS is able to send a particular call to a suitable MS,
   either through discovery of the capabilities that a specific MS
   provides or through the use of a Media Resource Broker.

   The type of processing that a Media Server performs on media streams
   is specified and controlled by an Application Server.  Application
   Servers are logical entities that are capable of running one or more
   instances of a communications application.  Examples of Application
   Servers that may interact with a Media Server are an AS acting as a
   Conference 'Focus' as defined in [RFC4353] or an IVR application
   using a Media Server to play announcements and detect DTMF key
   presses.

   Application servers use SIP to establish control channels between
   themselves and MSs.  A MS Control Channel implements a reliable
   transport protocol that is is used to carry the MS Control Protocol.
   A SIP dialog used to establish a control channel is referred to as a
   MS Control Dialog.

   Application Servers terminate SIP [RFC3261] signaling from SIP User
   Agents and may terminate other signaling outside the scope of this
   document.  They use SIP Third Party Call Control [RFC3725] (3PCC) to
   establish, maintain, and tear down media streams from those SIP UAs
   to a Media Server.  A SIP dialog used by an AS to establish a media
   session on an MS is referred to as a MS Media Dialog.

   Media streams go directly between SIP User Agents and Media Servers.
   Media Servers support multiple types of media.  Common supported RTP
   media types include audio and video but others such as text and the



Melanchuk                 Expires May 31, 2009                  [Page 6]

Internet-Draft           Mediactrl Architecture            November 2008


   Binary Floor Control Protocol (BFCP) [RFC4583] are also possible.
   This basic architecture, showing session establishment signaling
   between a single AS and MS is shown in Figure 1 below.


                +-------------+                         +--------------+
                |             | SIP (MS Control Dialog) |              |
                | Application |<----------------------->|     Media    |
                |   Server    |                         |    Server    |
                |             |<----------------------->|              |
                +-------------+ SIP (MS Media Dialog)   +--------------+
                            ^                               ^
                             \                              | RTP/SRTP
                              \                             |  audio/
                               \                            | video/etc)
                                \                           |
                                 \                          v
                                  \                 +--------------+
                                   \     SIP        |              |
                                    +-------------->|      SIP     |
                                                    |  User Agent  |
                                                    |              |
                                                    +--------------+

                  Figure 1: Basic Signalling Architecture

   The architecture must support a many-to-many relationship between
   Application Servers and Media Servers.  In real world deployments, an
   Application Server may interact with multiple Media Servers and/or a
   Media Server may be controlled by more than one Application Server.

   Application Servers can use the SIP URI as described in [RFC4240] to
   request basic functions from Media Servers.  Basic functions are
   characterized as requiring no mid-call interactions between the AS
   and MS.  Examples of these functions are simple announcement playing
   or basic conference mixing where the AS does not need to explicitly
   control the mixing.

   Most services however have interactions between the AS and MS during
   a call or conference.  The type of interactions can be generalized as
   follows:

   o  commands from an AS to an MS to request the application or
      configuration of a function.  The request may apply to a single
      media stream, multiple media streams associated with multiple SIP
      dialogs, or to properties of a conference mix.





Melanchuk                 Expires May 31, 2009                  [Page 7]

Internet-Draft           Mediactrl Architecture            November 2008


   o  responses from an MS to an AS reporting on the status of
      particular command.

   o  notifications from an MS to an AS that report results from
      commands or notify changes to subscribed status.

   Commands, responses, and notifications are transported using one or
   more dedicated control channels between the Application Server and
   the Media Server.  Dedicated control channels provide reliable,
   sequenced, peer to peer transport for Media Server control
   interactions.  Implementations must support the Transport Control
   Protocol (TCP) [RFC0793] and may support the Stream Control
   Transmission Protocol (SCTP) [RFC4960].  Because MS control requires
   sequenced reliable delivery of messages, unreliable protocols such as
   the User Datagram Protocol (UDP) are not suitable.  Implementations
   must support TLS [RFC4346] as a transport-level security mechanism
   although its use in deployments is optional.  A dedicated control
   channel is shown in Figure 2 below.


             +-------------+                     +--------------+
             |             |                     |              |
             | Application |   MS ctrl channel   |     Media    |
             |   Server    |<------------------->|    Server    |
             |             |                     |              |
             +-------------+                     +--------------+
                                                         ^ ^ ^
                                                RTP/SRTP | | |
                                                (audio/  | | |
                                              video/etc) | | |
                                                         | | v
                                                     +---|-v-------+
                                                   +-|---v-------+ |
                                                 +-|-----------+ | |
                                                 |             | | |
                                                 |     SIP     | | |
                                                 | User Agent  | |-+
                                                 |             |-+
                                                 +-------------+



                Figure 2: Media Server Control Architecture

   Both Application Servers and Media Servers may interact with other
   servers for specific purposes beyond the scope of this document.  For
   example Application Servers will often communicate with other
   infrastructure components that are usually based on deployment



Melanchuk                 Expires May 31, 2009                  [Page 8]

Internet-Draft           Mediactrl Architecture            November 2008


   requirements with links to back-office data stores and applications.
   Media Servers will often retrieve announcements from external file
   servers.  Also, many Media Servers support IVR dialog services using
   VoiceXML [W3C.REC-voicexml20-20040316].  In this case the MS
   interacts with other servers using HTTP during standard VoiceXML
   processing.  VoiceXML Media Servers may also interact with speech
   engines, for example using MRCPv2, for speech recognition and
   generation purposes.

   Some specific types of interactions between Application and Media
   servers are also out of scope this document.  MS resource reservation
   is one such interaction.  Also, any interactions between Application
   Servers, or between Media Servers, are also out of scope.






































Melanchuk                 Expires May 31, 2009                  [Page 9]

Internet-Draft           Mediactrl Architecture            November 2008


4.  SIP Usage

   The Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) [RFC3261] was developed by the
   IETF for the purposes of initiating, managing and terminating
   multimedia sessions.  The popularity of SIP has grown dramatically
   since its inception and is now the primary Voice over IP (VoIP)
   protocol.  This includes being selected as the basis for
   architectures such as the IP Multimedia Subsystem (IMS) in 3GPP and
   included in many of the early live deployments of VoIP related
   systems.  Media servers are not a new concept in IP telephony
   networks and there have been numerous signaling protocols and
   techniques proposed for their control.  The most popular techniques
   to date have used a combination of SIP and various markup languages
   to convey media service requests and responses.

   As discussed in Section 3 and illustrated in Figure 1, the logical
   architecture described by this document involves interactions between
   an Application Server (AS) and a Media Server (MS).  The SIP
   interactions can be broken into 'MS media dialogs' - used between an
   AS and a MS to establish media sessions between an endpoint and a
   Media Server, and 'MS control dialogs' - which are used to establish
   and maintain MS control channels.

   SIP is the primary signaling protocol for session signaling and is
   used for all media sessions directed towards a Media Server as
   described in this document.  Media Servers may support other
   signaling protocols but this type of interaction is not considered
   here.  Application Servers may terminate non-SIP signaling protocols
   but must gateway those requests to SIP when interacting with a Media
   Server.

   SIP will also be used for the creation, management and termination of
   the dedicated MS control channel(s).  Control channel(s) provide
   reliable sequenced delivery of MS Control Protocol messages.  The
   Application and Media Servers use the SDP attributes defined in
   [RFC4145] to allow SIP negotiation of the control channel.  A control
   channel is closed when SIP terminates the corresponding MS control
   dialog.  Further details and example flows are provided in the SIP
   Control Framework [I-D.ietf-mediactrl-sip-control-framework].  The
   SIP Control Framework also includes basic control message semantics
   corresponding to the types of interactions identified in Section 3.
   It uses the concept of "packages" to allow domain specific protocols
   to be defined using the Extensible Markup Language (XML)
   [W3C.REC-xml-20060816] format.  The MS Control Protocol is made up of
   one or more packages for the SIP Control Framework.

   Using SIP for both media and control dialogs provides a number of
   inherent benefits over other potential techniques.  These include:



Melanchuk                 Expires May 31, 2009                 [Page 10]

Internet-Draft           Mediactrl Architecture            November 2008


   1.  The use of SIP location and rendezvous capabilities, as defined
       in [RFC3263].  This provides core mechanisms for routing a SIP
       request based on techniques such as DNS SRV and NAPTR records.
       The SIP infrastructure makes heavy use of such techniques.

   2.  The security and identity properties of SIP.  For example, using
       TLS for reliably and securely connecting to another SIP based
       entity.  The SIP protocol has a number of Identity mechanisms
       that can be used.  [RFC3261] provides an intra-domain digest-
       based mechanism and [RFC4474] defines a certificate based inter-
       domain identity mechanism.  SIP with S/MIME provides the ability
       to secure payloads using encrypted and signed certificate
       techniques.

   3.  SIP has extremely powerful and dynamic media negotiation
       properties as defined in [RFC3261] and [RFC3264].

   4.  The ability to select an appropriate SIP entity based on
       capability sets as discussed in [RFC3840].  This provides a
       powerful function that allows Media Servers to convey a specific
       capability set.  An AS is then free to select an appropriate MS
       based on its requirements.

   5.  Using SIP also provides consistency with IETF protocols and
       usages.  SIP was intended to be used for the creation and
       management of media sessions and this provides a correct usage of
       the protocol.

   As mentioned previously in this section, Media services using SIP are
   fairly well understood.  Some previous proposals suggested using the
   SIP INFO [RFC2976] method as the transport vehicle between the AS and
   MS.  Using SIP INFO in this way is not advised for a number of
   reasons which include:

   o  INFO is an opaque request with no specific semantics.  A SIP
      endpoint that receives an INFO request does not know what to do
      with it based on SIP signaling.

   o  SIP INFO was not created to carry generic session control
      information along the signaling path and it should only really be
      used for optional application information e.g. carrying mid-call
      PSTN signaling messages between PSTN gateways.

   o  SIP INFO traverses the signaling path which is an inefficient use
      for control messages which can be routed directly between the AS
      and MS.





Melanchuk                 Expires May 31, 2009                 [Page 11]

Internet-Draft           Mediactrl Architecture            November 2008


   o  [RFC3261] contains rules when using an un-reliable protocol such
      as UDP.  When a packet reaches a size close to the Maximum
      Transmission Unit (MTU) the protocol should be changed to TCP.
      This type of operation is not ideal when constantly dealing with
      large payloads such as XML formatted MS control messages.














































Melanchuk                 Expires May 31, 2009                 [Page 12]

Internet-Draft           Mediactrl Architecture            November 2008


5.  Media Control for IVR Services

   One of the functions of a Media Server is to assist an Application
   Server implementing IVR services by performing media processing
   functions on media streams.  Although IVR is somewhat generic
   terminology, the scope of media functions provided by a MS addresses
   the needs for user interaction dialogs.  These functions include
   media transcoding, basic announcements, user input detection (via
   DTMF or speech) and media recording.

   A particular IVR or user dialog application typically requires the
   use of several specific media functions, as described above.  The
   range and complexity of IVR dialogs can vary significantly, from a
   simple single announcement play-back to complex voice mail
   applications.

   As previously discussed, an AS uses SIP [RFC3261] and SDP [RFC4566]
   to establish and configure media sessions to a Media Server.  An AS
   uses the MS control channel, established using SIP, to invoke IVR
   requests and to receive responses and notifications.  This topology
   is shown in Figure 3 below.


      +-------------+             SIP              +-------------+
      | Application |<---------------------------->|   Media     |
      |    Server   | (media & MS Control dialogs) |   Server    |
      |             |                              |             |
      |             |  MS Control Protocol (IVR)   |             |
      |             |<---------------------------->| (IVR media  |
      | (App logic) |       (CtrlChannel)          | functions)  |
      +-------------+                              +-------------+
             ^                                            ^^
              \                                           ||  R
               \                                          ||  T
                \                                         ||  P
                 \                                        ||  /
                  \                                       ||  S
                   \                                      ||  R
                    \                                     ||  T
                     \                                    ||  P
                      \                                   vv
                       \    call signaling           +-----------+
                        ---------------------------->|     UE    |
                             (e.g. SIP)              +-----------+



                          Figure 3: IVR Topology



Melanchuk                 Expires May 31, 2009                 [Page 13]

Internet-Draft           Mediactrl Architecture            November 2008


   The variety in complexity of Application Server IVR services requires
   support for different levels of media functions from the Media Server
   as described in the following sub-sections.

5.1.  Basic IVR Services

   For simple basic announcement requests the MS control channel, as
   depicted in Figure 3 above, is not required.  Simple announcement
   requests may be invoked on the Media Server using the SIP URI
   mechanism defined in [RFC4240].  This interface allows no user input
   digit detection and collection and no mid-call dialog control.
   However, many applications only require basic media services and the
   processing burden on the Media Server to support more complex
   interactions with the AS would not be needed in this case.

5.2.  IVR Services with Mid-call Controls

   For more complex IVR dialogs which require mid-call interaction and
   control between the Application Server and the Media Server, the MS
   control channel (as shown in Figure 3 above) is used to invoke
   specific media functions on the Media Server.  These functions
   include, but are not limited to, complex announcements with barge-in
   facility, user input detection and reporting (e.g.  DTMF) to an
   Application Server, DTMF and speech activity controlled recordings,
   etc.  Composite services, such as play-collect and play-record, are
   also addressed by this model.

   Mid-call control also allows Application Servers to subscribe to IVR
   related events and for the Media Server to notify these events when
   they occur.  Examples of such events are announcement completion
   events, record completion events, and reporting of collected DTMF
   digits.

5.3.  Advanced IVR Services

   Although IVR Services with Mid-call Control, as described above,
   provides a comprehensive set of media functions expected from a Media
   Server, the Advanced IVR Services model allows a higher level of
   abstraction describing application logic, as provided by VoiceXML, to
   be executed on the Media Server.  Invocation of VoiceXML IVR dialogs
   may be via the 'Prompt and Collect' mechanism of [RFC4240].
   Additionally, the IVR control protocol can be extended to allow
   VoiceXML requests to also be invoked over the MS control channel.
   VoiceXML IVR services invoked on the Media Server may require an HTTP
   interface (not shown in Figure 3) between the Media Server and one or
   more back-end servers that host or generate VoiceXML documents.
   These server(s) may or may not be physically separate from the
   Application Sever.



Melanchuk                 Expires May 31, 2009                 [Page 14]

Internet-Draft           Mediactrl Architecture            November 2008


6.  Media Control for Conferencing Services

   [RFC4353] describes the overall architecture and protocol components
   needed for multipoint conferencing using SIP.  The framework for
   centralized conferencing [I-D.ietf-xcon-framework]
   [draft-ietf-xcon-framework-08] extends the framework to include a
   protocol between the user and the conferencing server.  [RFC4353]
   describes the conferencing server decomposition but leaves the
   specifics open.

   This section describes the decomposition and discusses the
   functionality of the decomposed functional units.  The conferencing
   factory and the conference focus are part of the Application Server
   described in this document.

   An Application Server uses SIP Third Party Call Control [RFC3725] to
   establish media sessions from SIP user agents to a Media Server.  The
   same mechanism is used by the Application Server as described in this
   section to add/remove participants to/from a conference, as well as
   to handle the involved media streams set up on a per-user basis.
   Since the XCON framework has been conceived as protocol-agnostic when
   talking about the Call Signaling Protocol used by users to join a
   conference, an XCON-compliant Application Server will have to take
   care of gatewaying non-SIP signaling negotiations, in order to set up
   and make available valid SIP media sessions between itself and the
   Media Server, while still keeping the non-SIP interaction with the
   user in a transparent way.
























Melanchuk                 Expires May 31, 2009                 [Page 15]

Internet-Draft           Mediactrl Architecture            November 2008


                +------------+             +------------+
                |            | SIP (2m+1c) |            |
                | Application|-------------|   Media    |
                |   Server   |             |   Server   |
                |  (Focus)   |-------------|  (Mixer)   |
                |            | CtrlChannel |            |
                +------------+             +------------+
                    |      \                    .. .
                    |       \\            RTP...   .
                    |         \\           ..      .
                    |     H.323  \\      ...       .
                SIP |             \\ ...           .RTP
                    |              ..\             .
                    |           ...   \\           .
                    |        ...        \\         .
                    |      ..             \\       .
                    |   ...                 \\     .
                    | ..                      \    .
               +-----------+              +-----------+
               |Participant|              |Participant|
               +-----------+              +-----------+


                       Figure 4: Conference Topology

   To complement the functionality provided by 3PCC and by XCON control
   protocol, the Application Server makes use of a dedicated Media
   Server control channel in order to set up and manage media
   conferences on the Media Server.  Figure 4 shows the signaling and
   media paths for a two participant conference.  The three SIP dialogs
   between the AS and MS establish two media sessions (2m) from
   participants, one originally signaled using H.323 and then gatewayed
   into SIP and one signaled directly in SIP, and one control session
   (1c).

   As a conference focus, the Application Server is responsible for
   setting up and managing a media conference on the Media Servers, in
   order to make sure that the all media streams provided in a
   conference are available to its participants.  This is achieved by
   using the services of one or more mixer entities, as described in
   RFC4353, whose role as part of the Media Server is described in this
   section.  Services required by the Application Server include, but
   are not limited to, means to set up, handle and destroy a new media
   conference, adding and removing participants from a conference,
   managing media streams in a conference, controlling the layout and
   the mixing configuration for each involved media, allowing per-user
   custom media profiles and so on.




Melanchuk                 Expires May 31, 2009                 [Page 16]

Internet-Draft           Mediactrl Architecture            November 2008


   As a mixer entity, in such a multimedia conferencing scenario the
   Media Server receives a set of media streams of the same type (after
   transcoding if needed) and then takes care of combining the received
   media in a type-specific manner, redistributing the result to each
   authorized participant.  The way each media stream is combined, as
   well as the media-related policies, is properly configured and
   handled by the Application Server by means of a dedicated MS control
   channel.

   To summarize the AS needs to be able to manage Media Servers at a
   conference and participant level.

6.1.  Creating a New Conference

   When a new conference is created, as a result of a previous
   conference scheduling or of first participant dialing in to a
   specified URI, the Application Server must take care of appropriately
   creating a media conference on the Media Server.  It does so by
   sending an explicit request to the Media Server.  This can be by
   means of a MS control channel message.  This request may contain
   detailed information upon the desired settings and policies for the
   conference (e.g. the media to involve, the mixing configuration for
   them, relevant identifiers, etc.).  The Media Server validates such a
   request and takes care of allocating the needed resources to set up
   the media conference.

   There is another way using SIP-based mechanisms such as [RFC4240] or
   [RFC4579] using pre-defined conference profiles and then using the MS
   control channel afterwards to control the conference if needed.

   Once done, the MS informs the Application Server about the result of
   the request.  Each conference will be referred to by a specific
   identifier, which both the Application Server and the Media Server
   will include in subsequent transactions related to the same
   conference (e.g. to modify the settings of an extant conference).

6.2.  Adding a Participant To a Conference

   As stated before, an Application Server uses SIP 3PCC to establish
   media sessions from SIP user agents to a Media Server.  The URI that
   the AS uses in the INVITE to the MS may be one associated with the
   conference on the MS.  More likely however, the media sessions are
   first established to the Media Server using a URI for the Media
   Server and then subsequently joined to the conference using the MS
   Control Protocol.  This allows IVR dialogs to be performed prior to
   joining the conference.

   The AS as a 3PCC correlates the media session negotiation between the



Melanchuk                 Expires May 31, 2009                 [Page 17]

Internet-Draft           Mediactrl Architecture            November 2008


   UA and the MS, in order to appropriately establish all the needed
   media streams based on the conference policies.

6.3.  Media Controls

   The XCON Common Data Model [I-D.ietf-xcon-common-data-model]
   currently defines some basic media-related controls, which
   conference-aware participants can take advantage of in several ways,
   e.g. by means of a XCON conference control protocol or IVR dialogs.
   These controls include the possibility to modify the participants'
   own volume for audio in the conference, configure the desired layout
   for incoming video streams, mute/unmute oneself and pause/unpause
   one's own video stream.  Such controls are exploited by conference-
   aware participants through the use of dedicated conference control
   protocol requests to the Application Server.  The Application Server
   takes care of validating such requests and translates them into the
   Media Server Control Protocol, before forwarding them over the MS
   Control Channel to the MS.  According to the directives provided by
   the Application Server, the Media Server manipulates the involved
   media streams accordingly.


                  +------------+                  +------------+
                  |            | 'Include audio   |            |
                  | Application|  sent by user X  |   Media    |
                  |   Server   |  in conf Y mix'  |   Server   |
                  |  (Focus)   |----------------->|  (Mixer)   |
                  |            |   (MS CtrlChn)   |            |
                  +------^-----+                  +------------+
                         |                          ..
                         |                       ...
                         | 'Unmute me'        ... RTP
                         |   (XCON)        ...
                         |              ...
                         |           ...
                  +-----------+   ...
                  |Participant|...
                  +-----------+


          Figure 5: Conferencing Example: Unmuting A Participant

   The Media Server may need to inform the AS of events like in-band
   DTMF tones during the conference.







Melanchuk                 Expires May 31, 2009                 [Page 18]

Internet-Draft           Mediactrl Architecture            November 2008


6.4.  Floor Control

   The XCON framework introduces "floor control" functionality as an
   enhancement upon [RFC4575].  Floor control is a means to manage joint
   or exclusive access to shared resources in a (multiparty)
   conferencing environment.  Floor control is not a mandatory mechanism
   for a conferencing system implementation, but it provides advanced
   media input control features for conference-aware users.  Such
   mechanism allows for a coordinated and moderated access to any set of
   resources provided by the conferencing system.  To do so, a so-called
   floor is associated to a set of resources, thus representing for
   users the right to access and manipulate the related resources
   themselves.  In order to take advantage of the floor control
   functionality, a specific protocol, the Binary Floor Control
   Protocol, has been specified [RFC4582].  [RFC4583] provides a way for
   SIP UAs to set up a BFCP connection towards the Floor Control Server
   and exploit floor control by means of a COMEDIA [RFC4145]
   negotiation.

   In the context of the AS-MS interaction, floor control constitutes a
   further means to control users' media streams.  A typical example is
   a floor associated with the right to access the shared audio channel
   in a conference.  A user who is granted such a floor is granted by
   the conferencing system the right to talk, which means that its audio
   frames are included by the MS in the overall audio conference mix.
   Similarly, when the floor is revoked the user is muted in the
   conference, and its audio is excluded from the final mix.

   The BFCP defines a Floor Control Server (FCS) and the Floor chair.
   It is clear that the floor chair making decisions about floor
   requests is part of the application logic.  This implies that when
   the floor chair role in a conference is automated, it will normally
   be part of the AS.

   The example makes it clear that there can be a direct or indirect
   interaction between the Floor Control Server and the Media Server, in
   order to correctly bind each floor to its related set of media
   resources.  Besides, a similar interaction is needed between the
   Floor Control Server and the Application Server as well, since the
   latter must be aware of all the associations between floors and
   resources, in order to opportunely orchestrate the related bindings
   with the element responsible for such resources (e.g. the Media
   Server when talking about audio and/or video streams) and the
   operations upon them (e.g. mute/unmute a user in a conference).  For
   this reason, the Floor Control Server can be co-located with either
   the Media Server or the Application Server, as long as both elements
   are allowed to interact with the Floor Control Server by means of
   some kind of protocol.



Melanchuk                 Expires May 31, 2009                 [Page 19]

Internet-Draft           Mediactrl Architecture            November 2008


   In the following lines, both the approaches will be described, in
   order to better explain the interactions between the involved
   components in both the topologies.

   When the AS and the FCS are co-located, the scenario is quite
   straightforward.  In fact it can be considered as a variation of the
   case depicted in Figure 5.  The only relevant difference is that in
   this case the action the AS commands on the control channel is
   triggered by a change in the floor control status instead of a
   specific control requested by a participant himself.  The sequence
   diagram in Figure 6 describes the interaction between the involved
   parties in a typical scenario.  It assumes that a BFCP connection
   between the UA and the FCS (which as we assume is co-located with the
   AS) has already been negotiated and established, and that the UA has
   been made aware of all the relevant identifiers and floors-resources-
   associations (e.g. by means of [RFC4583]).  It also assumes that the
   AS has previously configured the media mixing on the MS using the MS
   control channel.  Every frame the UA might be sending on the related
   media stream is currently being dropped by the MS, since the UA still
   isn't authorized to use the resource.  For a SIP UA, this state could
   be consequent to a 'sendonly' field associated to the media stream in
   a re-INVITE originated by the MS.  It is worth pointing out that the
   AS has to make sure that no user-provided control mechanism, e.g. the
   CCP mixing controls, can override the floor control, when it is
   exploited.


























Melanchuk                 Expires May 31, 2009                 [Page 20]

Internet-Draft           Mediactrl Architecture            November 2008


     UA                                   AS                         MS
     (Floor Participant)                 (FCS)
     |                                     |                          |
     |<===================== One-way RTP stream ======================|
     |                                     |                          |
     | FloorRequest(BFCP)                  |                          |
     |------------------------------------>|                          |
     |                                     |                          |
     |   FloorRequestStatus[PENDING](BFCP) |                          |
     |<------------------------------------|                          |
     |                                     |--+ apply                 |
     |                                     |  | policies              |
     |                                     |<-+ to request            |
     |                                     |                          |
     |  FloorRequestStatus[ACCEPTED](BFCP) |                          |
     |<------------------------------------|                          |
     |                                     |                          |
     .                                     .                          .
     .                                     .                          .
     |                                     |                          |
     |   FloorRequestStatus[GRANTED](BFCP) |                          |
     |<------------------------------------|                          |
     |                                     | 'Unmute UA' (CtrlChn)    |
     |                                     |------------------------->|
     |                                     |                          |
     |<==================== Bidirectional RTP stream ================>|
     |                                     |                          |
     .                                     .                          .
     .                                     .                          .

          Figure 6: Conferencing Example: Floor Control Call Flow

   A UA, which also acts as a floor participant, sends a 'FloorRequest'
   to the floor control server (FCS, which is co-located with the AS),
   stating his will to be granted the floor associated with the audio
   stream in the conference.  The AS answers the UA with a
   'FloorRequestStatus' message with a PENDING status, meaning that a
   decision upon the request has not been taken yet.  The AS, according
   to the BFCP policies for this conference, takes a decision upon the
   request, i.e. accepting it.  Note that this decision might be relayed
   to another participant in case he has previously been assigned as
   chair of the floor.  Assuming the request has been accepted, the AS
   notifies the UA about the decision with a new 'FloorRequestStatus',
   this time with an ACCEPTED status in it.  The ACCEPTED status of
   course only means that the request has been accepted, which doesn't
   mean the floor has been granted yet.  Once the queue management in
   the FCS, according to the specified algorithms for scheduling, states
   that the floor request previously made by the UA can be granted, the



Melanchuk                 Expires May 31, 2009                 [Page 21]

Internet-Draft           Mediactrl Architecture            November 2008


   AS sends a new 'FloorRequestStatus' to the UA with a GRANTED status,
   and takes care of unmuting the user in the conference by sending a
   directive to the MS through the control channel.  Once the UA
   receives the notification stating his request has been granted, he
   can start sending its media, aware of the fact that now his media
   stream won't be dropped by the MS.  In case the session has been
   previously updated with a 'sendonly' associated to the media stream,
   the MS must originate a further re-INVITE stating that the media
   stream flow is now bidirectional ('sendrecv').

   As mentioned before, this scenario envisages an automated floor chair
   role, where it's the AS, according to some policies, which takes
   decisions upon floor requests.  The case of a chair role impersonated
   by a real person is exactly the same, with the difference that the
   incoming request is not directly handled by the AS according to its
   policies, but it is instead forwarded to the floor control
   participant the chair UA is exploiting.  The decision upon the
   request is then communicated by the chair UA to the AS-FCS by means
   of a ChairAction message.

   The rest of this section will instead explore the other scenario,
   which assumes the interaction between AS-FCS to happen through the MS
   control channel.  This scenario is compliant with the H.248.19
   document related to conferencing in 3GPP.  The following sequence
   diagram describes the interaction between the involved parties in the
   same use-case scenario that has been explored for the previous
   topology: consequently, the diagram makes exactly the same
   assumptions that have been made for the previously described
   scenario.  This means that it again assumes that a BFCP connection
   between the UA and the FCS has already been negotiated and
   established, and that the UA has been made aware of all the relevant
   identifiers and floors-resources-associations.  It also assumes that
   the AS has previously configured the media mixing on the MS using the
   MS control channel.  This time it includes identifying the BFCP
   moderated resources, establishing basic policies and instructions
   about chair identifiers for each resource, and subscribing to events
   of interest, considering the FCS is not co-located with the AS
   anymore.  Additionally, a BFCP session has been established between
   the AS (which in this scenario acts as a floor chair), and the FCS
   (MS).  Every frame the UA might be sending on the related media
   stream is currently being dropped by the MS, since the UA still isn't
   authorized to use the resource.  For a SIP UA, this state could be
   consequent to a 'sendonly' field associated to the media stream in a
   re-INVITE originated by the MS.  It is again worth pointing out that
   the AS has to make sure that no user-provided control mechanism, e.g.
   the CCP mixing controls, can override the floor control, when it is
   exploited.




Melanchuk                 Expires May 31, 2009                 [Page 22]

Internet-Draft           Mediactrl Architecture            November 2008


     UA                          AS                                  MS
     (Floor Participant)   (Floor Chair)                          (FCS)
     |                           |                                    |
     |<===================== One-way RTP stream ======================|
     |                           |                                    |
     | FloorRequest(BFCP)        |                                    |
     |--------------------------------------------------------------->|
     |                           |                                    |
     |                           |  FloorRequestStatus[PENDING](BFCP) |
     |<---------------------------------------------------------------|
     |                           |  FloorRequestStatus[PENDING](BFCP) |
     |                           |<-----------------------------------|
     |                           |                                    |
     |                           | ChairAction[ACCEPTED] (BFCP)       |
     |                           |----------------------------------->|
     |                           |       ChairActionAck (BFCP)        |
     |                           |<-----------------------------------|
     |                           |                                    |
     |                           | FloorRequestStatus[ACCEPTED](BFCP) |
     |<---------------------------------------------------------------|
     |                           |                                    |
     .                           .                                    .
     .                           .                                    .
     |                           |                                    |
     |                           |  FloorRequestStatus[GRANTED](BFCP) |
     |<---------------------------------------------------------------|
     |                           | 'Floor has been granted' (CtrlChn) |
     |                           |<-----------------------------------|
     |                           |                                    |
     |<==================== Bidirectional RTP stream ================>|
     |                           |                                    |
     .                           .                                    .
     .                           .                                    .


          Figure 7: Conferencing Example: Floor Control Call Flow

   A UA, which also acts as a floor participant, sends a 'FloorRequest'
   to the floor control server (FCS, which is collocated with the MS),
   stating his will to be granted the floor associated with the audio
   stream in the conference.  The MS answers the UA with a
   'FloorRequestStatus' message with a PENDING status, meaning that a
   decision upon the request has not been taken yet.  It then notifies
   the AS, which in this example handles the floor chair role, about the
   new request by forwarding there the received request.  The AS,
   according to the BFCP policies for this conference, takes a decision
   upon the request, i.e. accepting it.  It informs the MS about its
   decision through a BFCP 'ChairAction' message.  The MS then



Melanchuk                 Expires May 31, 2009                 [Page 23]

Internet-Draft           Mediactrl Architecture            November 2008


   acknowledges the 'ChairAction' message and then notifies the UA about
   the decision with a new 'FloorRequestStatus', this time with an
   ACCEPTED status in it.  The ACCEPTED status of course only means that
   the request has been accepted, which doesn't mean the floor has been
   granted yet.  Once the queue management in the MS, according to the
   specified algorithms for scheduling, states that the floor request
   previously made by the UA can be granted, the MS sends a new
   'FloorRequestStatus' to the UA with a GRANTED status, and takes care
   of unmuting the user in the conference.  Once the UA receives the
   notification stating his request has been granted, he can start
   sending its media, aware of the fact that now his media stream won't
   be dropped by the MS.  In case the session has been previously
   updated with a 'sendonly' associated to the media stream, the MS must
   originate a further re-INVITE stating that the media stream flow is
   now bidirectional ('sendrecv').

   This scenario envisages an automated floor chair role, where it's the
   AS, according to some policies, which takes decisions upon floor
   requests.  Again, the case of a chair role impersonated by a real
   person is exactly the same, with the difference that the incoming
   request is not forwarded to the AS but to the floor control
   participant the chair UA is exploiting.  The decision upon the
   request is communicated by means of a ChairAction message in the same
   way.

   Another typical scenario is a BFCP-moderated conference with no chair
   managing floor requests.  In such a scenario, the MS has to take care
   of incoming requests according to some predefined policies, e.g.
   always accepting new requests.  In this case, no decisions are
   required by external entities, since all is instantly decided by
   means of policies in the MS.

   As stated before, the case of the FCS co-located with the AS is much
   simpler to understand and exploit.  When the AS has full control upon
   the FCS, including its queues management, the AS directly instructs
   the MS according to the floor status changes, e.g. by instructing the
   MS through the control channel to unmute a user who has been granted
   the floor associated to the audio media stream.













Melanchuk                 Expires May 31, 2009                 [Page 24]

Internet-Draft           Mediactrl Architecture            November 2008


7.  Acknowledgments

   The authors would like to thank Spencer Dawkins for detailed reviews
   and comments, Gary Munson for suggestions, and Xiao Wang for review
   and feedback.














































Melanchuk                 Expires May 31, 2009                 [Page 25]

Internet-Draft           Mediactrl Architecture            November 2008


8.  IANA Considerations

   This document has no actions for IANA.
















































Melanchuk                 Expires May 31, 2009                 [Page 26]

Internet-Draft           Mediactrl Architecture            November 2008


9.  Security Considerations

   This document describes the architectural framework to be used for
   Media Server control.  Its focus is the interactions between
   Application Servers and Media Servers.  User Agents interact with
   Application Servers by means of signaling protocols such as SIP.
   These interactions are beyond the scope of this document.
   Applications Servers are responsible for utilizing the security
   mechanisms of their signaling protocols, combined with application
   specific policy, to insure they grant service only to authorized
   users.  Media interactions between User Agents and Media Servers are
   also outside the scope of this document.  Those interactions are at
   the behest of Application Servers which must ensure that appropriate
   security mechanisms are used.  For example, if the MS is acting as
   the FCS, then the BFCP connection between the User Agent and the MS,
   is established to the MS by the AS using SIP and the SDP mechanisms
   described in [RFC4583].  BFCP [RFC4582] strongly imposes the use of
   TLS for BFCP.

   Media Servers are valuable network resources and need to be protected
   against unauthorized access.  Application Servers use SIP and related
   standards to establish both control channels to Media Servers, and to
   establish media sessions, including BFCP sessions, between a MS and
   end users.  Media servers use the security mechanisms of SIP to
   authenticate requests from Application servers and to insure the
   integrity of those requests.  Leveraging the security mechanisms of
   SIP insures that only authorized Application Servers are allowed to
   establish sessions to a MS, and to access MS resources through those
   sessions.

   Control channels between an AS and MS carry the MS control protocol
   which affects both the service seen by end users and the resources
   used on a Media Server.  TLS [RFC4346] must be implemented as the
   transport-level security mechanism for control channels to guarantee
   the integrity of MS control interactions.

   The resources of a MS can be shared by more than one AS.  Media
   Servers must prevent one AS from accessing and manipulating the
   resources that have been assigned to another AS.  This may be
   achieved by an MS associating ownership of a resource to the AS that
   originally allocates it, and then insuring that future requests
   involving that resource correlate to the AS that owns and is
   responsible for it.








Melanchuk                 Expires May 31, 2009                 [Page 27]

Internet-Draft           Mediactrl Architecture            November 2008


10.  Contributors

   This document is a product of the Media Control Architecture Design
   Team.  In addition to the editor, the following individuals comprised
   the design team and made substantial textual contributions to this
   document:

      Chris Boulton: cboulton@ubiquity.net

      Martin Dolly: mdolly@att.com

      Roni Even: roni.even@polycom.co.il

      Lorenzo Miniero: lorenzo.miniero@unina.it

      Adnan Saleem: Adnan.Saleem@radisys.com



































Melanchuk                 Expires May 31, 2009                 [Page 28]

Internet-Draft           Mediactrl Architecture            November 2008


11.  Informative References

   [I-D.ietf-mediactrl-sip-control-framework]
              Boulton, C., Melanchuk, T., and S. McGlashan, "Media
              Control Channel Framework",
              draft-ietf-mediactrl-sip-control-framework-07 (work in
              progress), November 2008.

   [I-D.ietf-xcon-common-data-model]
              Novo, O., Camarillo, G., Morgan, D., Even, R., and J.
              Urpalainen, "Conference Information Data Model for
              Centralized Conferencing (XCON)",
              draft-ietf-xcon-common-data-model-12 (work in progress),
              October 2008.

   [I-D.ietf-xcon-framework]
              Barnes, M., Boulton, C., and O. Levin, "A Framework for
              Centralized Conferencing", draft-ietf-xcon-framework-11
              (work in progress), April 2008.

   [RFC0793]  Postel, J., "Transmission Control Protocol", STD 7,
              RFC 793, September 1981.

   [RFC2976]  Donovan, S., "The SIP INFO Method", RFC 2976,
              October 2000.

   [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.

   [RFC3263]  Rosenberg, J. and H. Schulzrinne, "Session Initiation
              Protocol (SIP): Locating SIP Servers", RFC 3263,
              June 2002.

   [RFC3264]  Rosenberg, J. and H. Schulzrinne, "An Offer/Answer Model
              with Session Description Protocol (SDP)", RFC 3264,
              June 2002.

   [RFC3550]  Schulzrinne, H., Casner, S., Frederick, R., and V.
              Jacobson, "RTP: A Transport Protocol for Real-Time
              Applications", STD 64, RFC 3550, July 2003.

   [RFC3725]  Rosenberg, J., Peterson, J., Schulzrinne, H., and G.
              Camarillo, "Best Current Practices for Third Party Call
              Control (3pcc) in the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)",
              BCP 85, RFC 3725, April 2004.




Melanchuk                 Expires May 31, 2009                 [Page 29]

Internet-Draft           Mediactrl Architecture            November 2008


   [RFC3840]  Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., and P. Kyzivat,
              "Indicating User Agent Capabilities in the Session
              Initiation Protocol (SIP)", RFC 3840, August 2004.

   [RFC4145]  Yon, D. and G. Camarillo, "TCP-Based Media Transport in
              the Session Description Protocol (SDP)", RFC 4145,
              September 2005.

   [RFC4240]  Burger, E., Van Dyke, J., and A. Spitzer, "Basic Network
              Media Services with SIP", RFC 4240, December 2005.

   [RFC4346]  Dierks, T. and E. Rescorla, "The Transport Layer Security
              (TLS) Protocol Version 1.1", RFC 4346, April 2006.

   [RFC4353]  Rosenberg, J., "A Framework for Conferencing with the
              Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)", RFC 4353,
              February 2006.

   [RFC4474]  Peterson, J. and C. Jennings, "Enhancements for
              Authenticated Identity Management in the Session
              Initiation Protocol (SIP)", RFC 4474, August 2006.

   [RFC4566]  Handley, M., Jacobson, V., and C. Perkins, "SDP: Session
              Description Protocol", RFC 4566, July 2006.

   [RFC4575]  Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., and O. Levin, "A Session
              Initiation Protocol (SIP) Event Package for Conference
              State", RFC 4575, August 2006.

   [RFC4579]  Johnston, A. and O. Levin, "Session Initiation Protocol
              (SIP) Call Control - Conferencing for User Agents",
              BCP 119, RFC 4579, August 2006.

   [RFC4582]  Camarillo, G., Ott, J., and K. Drage, "The Binary Floor
              Control Protocol (BFCP)", RFC 4582, November 2006.

   [RFC4583]  Camarillo, G., "Session Description Protocol (SDP) Format
              for Binary Floor Control Protocol (BFCP) Streams",
              RFC 4583, November 2006.

   [RFC4585]  Ott, J., Wenger, S., Sato, N., Burmeister, C., and J. Rey,
              "Extended RTP Profile for Real-time Transport Control
              Protocol (RTCP)-Based Feedback (RTP/AVPF)", RFC 4585,
              July 2006.

   [RFC4960]  Stewart, R., "Stream Control Transmission Protocol",
              RFC 4960, September 2007.




Melanchuk                 Expires May 31, 2009                 [Page 30]

Internet-Draft           Mediactrl Architecture            November 2008


   [RFC5167]  Dolly, M. and R. Even, "Media Server Control Protocol
              Requirements", RFC 5167, March 2008.

   [W3C.REC-voicexml20-20040316]
              Rehor, K., Danielsen, P., Burnett, D., McGlashan, S.,
              Ferrans, J., Porter, B., Lucas, B., Hunt, A., Carter, J.,
              and S. Tryphonas, "Voice Extensible Markup Language
              (VoiceXML) Version 2.0", World Wide Web Consortium
              Recommendation REC-voicexml20-20040316, March 2004,
              <http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-voicexml20-20040316>.

   [W3C.REC-xml-20060816]
              Yergeau, F., Paoli, J., Bray, T., Sperberg-McQueen, C.,
              and E. Maler, "Extensible Markup Language (XML) 1.0
              (Fourth Edition)", World Wide Web Consortium
              Recommendation REC-xml-20060816, August 2006,
              <http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/REC-xml-20060816>.


































Melanchuk                 Expires May 31, 2009                 [Page 31]

Internet-Draft           Mediactrl Architecture            November 2008


Author's Address

   Tim Melanchuk (editor)
   Rain Willow Communications

   Email: tim.melanchuk@gmail.com













































Melanchuk                 Expires May 31, 2009                 [Page 32]

Internet-Draft           Mediactrl Architecture            November 2008


Full Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008).

   This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
   contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
   retain all their rights.

   This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
   "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
   OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND
   THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS
   OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF
   THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
   WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.


Intellectual Property

   The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
   Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
   pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
   this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
   might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
   made any independent effort to identify any such rights.  Information
   on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
   found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
   assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
   attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
   such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
   specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
   http://www.ietf.org/ipr.

   The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
   copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
   rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
   this standard.  Please address the information to the IETF at
   ietf-ipr@ietf.org.











Melanchuk                 Expires May 31, 2009                 [Page 33]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.108, available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/