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

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 RFC 7058

MEDIACTRL                                                    A. Amirante
Internet-Draft                                      University of Napoli
Expires: January 12, 2012                                    T. Castaldi
                                                              L. Miniero
                                                                Meetecho
                                                             S P. Romano
                                                    University of Napoli
                                                           July 11, 2011


        Media Control Channel Framework (CFW) Call Flow Examples
                   draft-ietf-mediactrl-call-flows-07

Abstract

   This document provides a list of typical Media Control Channel
   Framework [RFC6230] call flows.  It aims at being a simple guide to
   the use of the interface between Application Servers and MEDIACTRL-
   based Media Servers, as well as a base reference documentation for
   both implementors and protocol researchers.

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 http://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 January 12, 2012.

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



Amirante, et al.        Expires January 12, 2012                [Page 1]

Internet-Draft           CFW Call Flow Examples                July 2011


   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.















































Amirante, et al.        Expires January 12, 2012                [Page 2]

Internet-Draft           CFW Call Flow Examples                July 2011


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   2.  Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   3.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   4.  A Practical Approach  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     4.1.  State Diagrams  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   5.  Control Channel Establishment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     5.1.  COMEDIA Negotiation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     5.2.  SYNC  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     5.3.  K-ALIVE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
     5.4.  Wrong behaviour . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
   6.  Use-case scenarios and examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  20
     6.1.  Echo Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  27
       6.1.1.  Direct Echo Test  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  28
       6.1.2.  Echo Test based on Recording  . . . . . . . . . . . .  30
     6.2.  Phone Call  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  38
       6.2.1.  Direct Connection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  40
       6.2.2.  Conference-based Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  42
       6.2.3.  Recording a conversation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  48
     6.3.  Conferencing  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  54
       6.3.1.  Simple Bridging . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  60
       6.3.2.  Rich Conference Scenario  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  64
       6.3.3.  Coaching Scenario . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  73
       6.3.4.  Sidebars  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  80
       6.3.5.  Floor Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  89
     6.4.  Additional Scenarios  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  95
       6.4.1.  Voice Mail  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  95
       6.4.2.  Current Time  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
       6.4.3.  DTMF-driven Conference Manipulation . . . . . . . . . 106
   7.  Media Resource Brokering  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118
     7.1.  Publishing Interface  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119
     7.2.  Consumer Interface  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127
       7.2.1.  Query Mode  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128
       7.2.2.  Inline-aware Mode . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132
       7.2.3.  Inline-unaware Mode . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146
     7.3.  Handling call legs  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148
       7.3.1.  Query/IAMM  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148
       7.3.2.  IUMM  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151
       7.3.3.  CFW Protocol Bhaviour . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155
   8.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158
   9.  Change Summary  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166
   10. Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168
   11. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170






Amirante, et al.        Expires January 12, 2012                [Page 3]

Internet-Draft           CFW Call Flow Examples                July 2011


1.  Introduction

   This document provides a list of typical MEDIACTRL Media Control
   Channel Framework [RFC6230] call flows.  The motivation for this
   comes from our implementation experience with the framework and its
   protocol.  This drove us to writing a simple guide to the use of the
   several interfaces between Application Servers and MEDIACTRL-based
   Media Servers and a base reference documentation for other
   implementors and protocol researchers.

   Following this spirit, this document covers several aspects of the
   interaction between Application Servers and Media Servers.  However,
   in the context of this document, the call flows almost always depict
   the interaction between a single Application Server (which, for the
   sake of conciseness, is called AS from now on) and a single Media
   Server (MS).  In Section 7 some flows involving more entities by
   means of a Media Resource Broker compliant with
   [I-D.ietf-mediactrl-mrb] are presented.  To ease the understanding of
   all the flows (for what concerns both SIP dialogs and CFW
   transactions), the domains hosting the AS and the MS in all the
   scenarios are called, respectively, 'as.example.com' and
   'ms.example.net'.

   In the next paragraphs a brief overview of our implementation
   approach is described, with particular focus on protocol-related
   aspects.  This involves state diagrams for what concerns both the
   client side (the AS) and the server side (the MS).  Of course, this
   section is not at all to be considered a mandatory approach to the
   implementation of the framework.  It is only meant to ease the
   understanding of how the framework works from a practical point of
   view.

   Once done with these preliminary considerations, in the subsequent
   sections real-life scenarios are faced.  In this context, first of
   all, the establishment of the Control Channel is dealt with: after
   that, some use case scenarios, involving the most typical multimedia
   applications, are depicted and described.

   It is worth pointing out that this document is not meant in any way
   to be a self-sustained guide to implementing a MEDIACTRL-compliant
   framework.  The specifications are a mandatory read for all
   implementors, especially considering that this document by itself
   follows their guidelines but does not delve into the details of every
   aspect of the protocol.







Amirante, et al.        Expires January 12, 2012                [Page 4]

Internet-Draft           CFW Call Flow Examples                July 2011


2.  Conventions

   In this document, the key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED",
   "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT
   RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" are to be interpreted as
   described in BCP 14, RFC 2119 [RFC2119] and indicate requirement
   levels for compliant implementations.

   Besides, note that due to RFC formatting conventions, this document
   often splits SIP/SDP and CFW across lines whose content would exceed
   72 characters.  A backslash character marks where this line folding
   has taken place.  This backslash and its trailing CRLF and whitespace
   would not appear in the actual protocol contents.  Besides, also note
   that the indentation of the XML content is only provided for
   readability: actual messages will follow strict XML syntax, which
   allows for, but does not require, indentation.


3.  Terminology

   This document makes use of the same terminology as the one that can
   be found in the referenced documents.  The following terms are only a
   summarization of the most commonly used ones in this context, mostly
   derived from the terminology used in the related documents:

   Application Server:  an entity that requests media processing and
      manipulation from a Media Server; typical examples are Back to
      Back User Agents (B2BUA) and endpoints requesting manipulation of
      a third-party's media stream.

   Media Server:  an entity that performs a service, such as media
      processing, on behalf of an Application Server; typical provided
      functions are mixing, announcement, tone detection and generation,
      and play and record services.

   Control Channel:  a reliable connection between an Application Server
      and a Media Server that is used to exchange Framework messages.


4.  A Practical Approach

   In this document we embrace an engineering approach to the
   description of a number of interesting scenarios that can be realized
   through the careful orchestration of the Media Control Channel
   Framework entities, namely the Application Server and the Media
   Server.  We will demonstrate, through detailed call flows, how a
   variegated bouquet of services (ranging from very simple scenarios to
   much more complicated ones) can be implemented with the functionality



Amirante, et al.        Expires January 12, 2012                [Page 5]

Internet-Draft           CFW Call Flow Examples                July 2011


   currently offered, within the main MEDIACTRL framework, by the
   control packages that have been made available to date.  The document
   aims at representing a useful guide for those interested in
   investigating the inter-operation among MEDIACTRL components, as well
   as for application developers willing to build advanced services on
   top of the base infrastructure made available by the framework.

4.1.  State Diagrams

   In this section we present an "informal" view of the main MEDIACTRL
   protocol interactions, in the form of state diagrams.  Each diagram
   is indeed a classical representation of a Mealy automaton, comprising
   a number of possible protocol states, indicated with rectangular
   boxes.  Transitions between states are indicated through edges, with
   each edge labeled with a slash-separated pair representing a specific
   input together with the associated output (a dash in the output
   position means that, for that particular input, no output is
   generated from the automaton).  Some of the inputs are associated
   with MEDIACTRL protocol messages arriving at a MEDIACTRL component
   while it is in a certain state: this is the case of 'CONTROL',
   'REPORT' (in its various "flavors" -- pending, terminate, etc.),
   '200', '202', as well as 'Error'.  Further inputs represent triggers
   arriving at the MEDIACTRL automaton from the upper layer, namely the
   Application Programming Interface used by programmers while
   implementing MEDIACTRL-enabled services: such inputs have been
   indicated with the term 'API' followed by the message that the API
   itself is triggering (as an example, 'API terminate' is a request to
   send a 'REPORT' message with a status of 'terminate' to the peering
   component).  Four diagrams are provided, which can be divided in two
   main categories, associated, respectively, with normal operation of
   the framework (Figure 1 and Figure 2) and with asynchronous event
   notifications (Figure 3).  As to the former category, in Figure 1 we
   embrace the MS perspective, whereas in Figure 2 we stand on the AS
   side.  The latter category is dealt with in Figure 3, which
   illustrates how notifications are managed.  In particular, the upper
   part of the figure shows how events are generated, on the MS side, by
   issuing a CONTROL message addressed to the AS; events are
   acknowledged by the AS through standard 200 responses.  Hence, the
   behavior of the AS, which mirrors that of the MS, is depicted in the
   lower part of the picture.  Coming back to Figure 1, the diagram
   shows that the MS activates upon reception of CONTROL messages coming
   from the AS, which typically instruct it about the execution of a
   specific command, belonging to one of the available control packages.
   The execution of the received command can either be quick, or require
   some time.  In the former case, right after completing its operation,
   the MS sends back to the AS a 200 message, which basically
   acknowledges correct termination of the invoked task.  In the latter
   case, the MS first sends back an interlocutory 202 message, which



Amirante, et al.        Expires January 12, 2012                [Page 6]

Internet-Draft           CFW Call Flow Examples                July 2011


   lets it enter a different state ('202' sent).  While in the new
   state, the MS keeps on performing the invoked task: if such task does
   not complete in a predefined timeout, the server will update the AS
   on the other side of the control channel by periodically issuing
   'REPORT/update' messages; each such message has to be acknowledged by
   the AS (through a '200' response).  Eventually, when the MS is done
   with the required service, it sends to the AS a 'REPORT/terminate'
   message, whose acknowledgment receipt concludes a transaction.
   Again, the AS behavior, depicted in Figure 2, mirrors the above
   described actions undertaken at the MS side.  Figures also show the
   cases in which transactions cannot be successfully completed due to
   abnormal conditions, which always trigger the creation and expedition
   of a specific 'Error' message.



   +------------------+  CONTROL/-  +------------------+ API 202/202
   | Idle/'terminate' |------------>| CONTROL received |---------+
   +------------------+             +------------------+         |
     ^          ^   ^   API 200/200    |     |                   |
     |          |   |                  |     |                   |
     |          |   +------------------+     |                   |
     | 200/-    |      API Error/Error       |                   |
     |          +----------------------------+                   |
     |                                                           |
   +-------------+                                               |
   | Waiting for |                                               v
   |  last 200   |<------------------------+             +------------+
   +-------------+                         |             | '202' sent |
        ^                                  |             +------------+
        |                                  |               |     |
        |                                  +---------------+     |
        | API terminate/                     API terminate/      |
        | REPORT terminate                   REPORT termnate     |
        |                                                        |
      +--------------------+                                     |
      | 'update' confirmed |------+                  API update/ |
      +--------------------+      |                REPORT update |
                ^                 | API update/                  |
                |                 | REPORT update                |
                |                 v                              |
                |   200/-      +---------------+                 |
                +--------------| 'update' sent |<----------------+
                               +---------------+


                 Figure 1: Media Server CFW State Diagram




Amirante, et al.        Expires January 12, 2012                [Page 7]

Internet-Draft           CFW Call Flow Examples                July 2011


                 +--------------+   202/-   +--------------+
             +-->| CONTROL sent |---------->| 202 received |
             |   +--------------+           +--------------+
             |        |       |                 |     |
             |        |       |                 |     |
API CONTROL/ |        | 200/- |                 |     |
send CONTROL |        |       |                 |     |
             |        |       | Error/          |     |
+------------------+  |       | Error           |     |
| Idle/'terminate' |<-+       |                 |     |
+------------------+<---------+                 |     |
    ^          ^                                |     |
    |          |            REPORT 'terminate'/ |     |
    |          |                       send 200 |     |
    |          +--------------------------------+     | REPORT 'update'/
    |                                                 | send 200
    | REPORT 'terminate'/                             |
    | send 200                                        |
    |                     +-----------+               |
    +---------------------| 'update ' |<--------------+
                          +-----------+
                            ^      |
                            |      | REPORT 'update'/
                            +------+ send 200


              Figure 2: Application Server CFW State Diagram
























Amirante, et al.        Expires January 12, 2012                [Page 8]

Internet-Draft           CFW Call Flow Examples                July 2011


                                    +--------------+
                                +-->| CONTROL sent |
                                |   +--------------+
                                |           |
                                |           |
                   API CONTROL/ |           | 200/-
                   send CONTROL |           |
                                |           |
                   +------------------+     |
                   | Idle/'terminate' |<----+
                   +------------------+

                          (Media Server perspective)



           +------------------+  CONTROL/-  +------------------+
           | Idle/'terminate' |------------>| CONTROL received |
           +------------------+             +------------------+
                        ^       API 200/200          |
                        |                            |
                        +----------------------------+

                       (Application Server perspective)


                       Figure 3: Event Notifications


5.  Control Channel Establishment

   As specified in [RFC6230], the preliminary step to any interaction
   between an AS and a MS is the establishment of a control channel
   between the two.  As explained in the next subsection, this is
   accomplished by means of a so-called COMEDIA [RFC4145] negotiation.
   This negotiation allows for a reliable connection to be created
   between the AS and the MS: it is here that the AS and the MS agree on
   the transport level protocol to use (TCP/SCTP) and whether any
   application level security is needed or not (e.g.  TLS).  For the
   sake of simplicity, we assume that an unencrypted TCP connection is
   negotiated between the two involved entities.  Once they have
   connected, a SYNC message sent by the AS to the MS consolidates the
   control channel.  An example of how a keep-alive message is triggered
   is also presented in the following paragraphs.  For the sake of
   completeness, this section also includes a couple of common mistakes
   that can occur when dealing with the Control Channel establishment.





Amirante, et al.        Expires January 12, 2012                [Page 9]

Internet-Draft           CFW Call Flow Examples                July 2011


             AS                              MS
             |                               |
             | INVITE (COMEDIA)              |
             |------------------------------>|
             |                  100 (Trying) |
             |<------------------------------|
             |              200 OK (COMEDIA) |
             |<------------------------------|
             | ACK                           |
             |------------------------------>|
             |                               |
             |==============================>|
             | TCP CONNECT (CTRL CHANNEL)    |
             |==============================>|
             |                               |
             | SYNC (Dialog-ID, etc.)        |
             |+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++>>|
             |                               |--+
             |                               |  | Check SYNC
             |                               |<-+
             |                        200 OK |
             |<<+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++|
             |                               |
             .                               .
             .                               .


                  Figure 4: Control Channel Establishment

5.1.  COMEDIA Negotiation

   As a first step, the AS and the MS establish a Control SIP dialog.
   This is usually originated by the AS itself.  The AS generates a SIP
   INVITE message containing in its SDP body information about the TCP
   connection it wants to establish with the MS.  In the provided
   example (see Figure 5 and the attached call flow), the AS wants to
   actively open a new TCP connection, which on his side will be bound
   to port 5757.  If the request is fine, the MS answers with its own
   offer, by communicating to the AS the transport address to connect to
   in order to establish the TCP connection.  In the provided example,
   the MS will listen on port 7575.  Once this negotiation is over, the
   AS can effectively connect to the MS.

   The negotiation includes additional attributes, the most important
   being the 'cfw-id' attribute, since it specifies the Dialog-ID which
   will be subsequently referred to by both the AS and the MS, as
   specified in the core framework draft.




Amirante, et al.        Expires January 12, 2012               [Page 10]

Internet-Draft           CFW Call Flow Examples                July 2011


   Note that the provided example also includes the indication, from
   both the AS and the MS, of the supported control packages.  This is
   achieved by means of a series of 'ctrl-package' attributes as
   specified in [I-D.boulton-mmusic-sdp-control-package-attribute].  In
   the example, the AS supports (or is only interested to) two packages:
   IVR (Interactive Voice Response) and Mixer (Conferencing and
   Bridging).  The MS replies with the list of packages it supports, by
   adding a dummy example package to the list provided by the AS.  It is
   worth noting that this exchange of information is not meant as a
   strict or formal negotiation of packages: in case the AS realizes
   that one or more packages it needs are not supported according to the
   indications sent by the MS, it may, or may not, choose not to open a
   control channel with the MS at all, if its application logic leads to
   such a decision.  The actual negotiation of control packages is done
   subsequenty through the use of the framework SYNC transaction.



                     AS                              MS
                     |                               |
                     | 1. INVITE (COMEDIA)           |
                     |------------------------------>|
                     |               2. 100 (Trying) |
                     |<------------------------------|
                     |           3. 200 OK (COMEDIA) |
                     |<------------------------------|
                     | 4. ACK                        |
                     |------------------------------>|
                     |                               |
                     |==============================>|
                     | TCP CONNECT (CTRL CHANNEL)    |
                     |==============================>|
                     |                               |
                     .                               .
                     .                               .


              Figure 5: COMEDIA Negotiation: Sequence Diagram



1. AS -> MS (SIP INVITE)
------------------------
   INVITE sip:MediaServer@ms.example.net:5060 SIP/2.0
   Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 1.2.3.4:5060;\
           branch=z9hG4bK-d8754z-9b07c8201c3aa510-1---d8754z-;rport=5060
   Max-Forwards: 70
   Contact: <sip:ApplicationServer@1.2.3.4:5060>



Amirante, et al.        Expires January 12, 2012               [Page 11]

Internet-Draft           CFW Call Flow Examples                July 2011


   To: <sip:MediaServer@ms.example.net:5060>
   From: <sip:ApplicationServer@as.example.com:5060>;tag=4354ec63
   Call-ID: MDk2YTk1MDU3YmVkZjgzYTQwYmJlNjE5NTA4ZDQ1OGY.
   CSeq: 1 INVITE
   Allow: INVITE, ACK, CANCEL, OPTIONS, BYE, UPDATE, REGISTER
   Content-Type: application/sdp
   Content-Length: 263

   v=0
   o=lminiero 2890844526 2890842807 IN IP4 as.example.com
   s=MediaCtrl
   c=IN IP4 as.example.com
   t=0 0
   m=application 5757 TCP cfw
   a=connection:new
   a=setup:active
   a=cfw-id:5feb6486792a
   a=ctrl-package:msc-ivr/1.0
   a=ctrl-package:msc-mixer/1.0


2. AS <- MS (SIP 100 Trying)
----------------------------
   SIP/2.0 100 Trying
   Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 1.2.3.4:5060; \
           branch=z9hG4bK-d8754z-9b07c8201c3aa510-1---d8754z-;rport=5060
   To: <sip:MediaServer@ms.example.net:5060>;tag=499a5b74
   From: <sip:ApplicationServer@as.example.com:5060>;tag=4354ec63
   Call-ID: MDk2YTk1MDU3YmVkZjgzYTQwYmJlNjE5NTA4ZDQ1OGY.
   CSeq: 1 INVITE
   Content-Length: 0


3. AS <- MS (SIP 200 OK)
------------------------
   SIP/2.0 200 OK
   Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 1.2.3.4:5060; \
           branch=z9hG4bK-d8754z-9b07c8201c3aa510-1---d8754z-;rport=5060
   Contact: <sip:MediaServer@ms.example.net:5060>
   To: <sip:MediaServer@ms.example.net:5060>;tag=499a5b74
   From: <sip:ApplicationServer@as.example.com:5060>;tag=4354ec63
   Call-ID: MDk2YTk1MDU3YmVkZjgzYTQwYmJlNjE5NTA4ZDQ1OGY.
   CSeq: 1 INVITE
   Allow: INVITE, ACK, CANCEL, OPTIONS, BYE, UPDATE, REGISTER
   Content-Type: application/sdp
   Content-Length: 296

   v=0



Amirante, et al.        Expires January 12, 2012               [Page 12]

Internet-Draft           CFW Call Flow Examples                July 2011


   o=lminiero 2890844526 2890842808 IN IP4 ms.example.net
   s=MediaCtrl
   c=IN IP4 ms.example.net
   t=0 0
   m=application 7575 TCP cfw
   a=connection:new
   a=setup:passive
   a=cfw-id:5feb6486792a
   a=ctrl-package:msc-ivr/1.0
   a=ctrl-package:msc-example-pkg/1.0
   a=ctrl-package:msc-mixer/1.0


4. AS -> MS (SIP ACK)
---------------------
   ACK sip:MediaServer@ms.example.net:5060 SIP/2.0
   Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 1.2.3.4:5060; \
                branch=z9hG4bK-d8754z-22940f5f4589701b-1---d8754z-;rport
   Max-Forwards: 70
   Contact: <sip:ApplicationServer@1.2.3.4:5060>
   To: <sip:MediaServer@ms.example.net:5060>;tag=499a5b74
   From: <sip:ApplicationServer@as.example.com:5060>;tag=4354ec63
   Call-ID: MDk2YTk1MDU3YmVkZjgzYTQwYmJlNjE5NTA4ZDQ1OGY.
   CSeq: 1 ACK
   Content-Length: 0


5.2.  SYNC

   Once the AS and the MS have successfully established a TCP
   connection, an additional step is needed before the control channel
   can be used.  In fact, as seen in the previous subsection, the first
   interaction between the AS and the MS happens by means of a SIP
   dialog, which in turns allows for the creation of the TCP connection.
   This introduces the need for a proper correlation between the above
   mentioned entities (SIP dialog and TCP connection), so that the MS
   can be sure the connection came from the AS which requested it.  This
   is accomplished by means of a dedicated framework message called
   SYNC.  This SYNC message makes use of a unique identifier called
   Dialog-ID to validate the control channel.  This identifier, as
   introduced in the previous paragrah, is meant to be globally unique
   and as such is properly generated by the caller (the AS in the call
   flow), and added as an SDP media attribute (cfw-id) to the COMEDIA
   negotiation in order to make both entities aware of its value:



                       a=cfw-id:5feb6486792a



Amirante, et al.        Expires January 12, 2012               [Page 13]

Internet-Draft           CFW Call Flow Examples                July 2011


                                ^^^^^^^^^^^^


   Besides, it offers an additional negotiation mechanism.  In fact, the
   AS uses the SYNC not only to properly correlate as explained before,
   but also to negotiate with the MS the control packages it is
   interested in, as well as to agree on a Keep-Alive timer needed by
   both the AS and the MS to understand if problems on the connection
   occur.  In the provided example (see Figure 6 and the related call
   flow), the AS sends a SYNC with a Dialog-ID constructed as needed
   (using the 'cfw-id' attribute from the SIP dialog) and requests
   access to two control packages, specifically the IVR and the Mixer
   package (the same packages the AS previously indicated in its SDP as
   specified in [I-D.boulton-mmusic-sdp-control-package-attribute], with
   the difference that this time they are reported in the context of a
   binding negotiation).  Besides, it instructs the MS that a 100
   seconds timeout is to be used for Keep-Alive messages.  The MS
   validates the request by matching the received Dialog-ID with the SIP
   dialog values and, assuming it supports the control packages the AS
   requested access to (and for the sake of this document we assume it
   does), it answers with a 200 message.  Additionally, the MS provides
   the AS with a list of other unrequested packages it supports (in this
   case just a dummy package providing testing functionality).



             AS                              MS
             .                               .
             .                               .
             |                               |
             | 1. SYNC (Dialog-ID, etc.)     |
             |+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++>>|
             |                               |--+
             |                               |  | Check SYNC
             |                               |<-+
             |                     2. 200 OK |
             |<<+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++|
             |                               |
             .                               .
             .                               .


                     Figure 6: SYNC: Sequence Diagram








Amirante, et al.        Expires January 12, 2012               [Page 14]

Internet-Draft           CFW Call Flow Examples                July 2011


   1. AS -> MS (CFW SYNC)
   ----------------------
      CFW 6e5e86f95609 SYNC
      Dialog-ID: 5feb6486792a
      Keep-Alive: 100
      Packages: msc-ivr/1.0,msc-mixer/1.0


   2. AS <- MS (CFW 200)
   ---------------------
      CFW 6e5e86f95609 200
      Keep-Alive: 100
      Packages: msc-ivr/1.0,msc-mixer/1.0
      Supported: msc-example-pkg/1.0


   The framework level transaction identifier is obviously the same in
   both the request and the response (6e5e86f95609), since the AS needs
   to be able to match the response to the original request.  At this
   point, the control channel is finally established, and it can be used
   by the AS to request services from the MS.

5.3.  K-ALIVE

   The Control Framework provides a mechanism for implementing a keep-
   alive functionality.  Such a mechanism is especially useful whenever
   any NAT or firewall sits in the path between an AS and a MS.  In
   fact, NATs and firewalls may have timeout values for the TCP
   connections they handle, which means that, if no traffic is detected
   on these connections within a specific time, they could be shut down.
   This could be the case of a Control Channel established between an AS
   and a MS but not used for some time.  For this reason, the Control
   Framework specifies a dedicated framework message (K-ALIVE) that the
   AS and MS can make use of in order to generate traffic on the TCP
   connection and keep it alive.

   In the previous section it has been described how a timeout value for
   the keep alive mechanism is negotiated.  Specifically, in the example
   the AS and the MS agreed on a value of 100 seconds.  This is
   compliant with how NATs and firewalls are usually implemented, since
   in most cases the timeout value they use before shutting TCP
   connections down is around 2 minutes.  Such value has a strong
   meaning within the context of this mechanism.  In fact, it means that
   the active role (in this case the AS) has to send a K-ALIVE message
   before those 100 seconds pass, otherwise the passive role (the MS)
   will tear down the connection treating it like a timeout.  The
   Control Framework document suggests a more conservative approach
   towards handling this timeout value, suggesting to trigger the



Amirante, et al.        Expires January 12, 2012               [Page 15]

Internet-Draft           CFW Call Flow Examples                July 2011


   K-ALIVE message before 80% of the negotiated time passes (in this
   case, 80 seconds).  This is exactly the case presented in Figure 7.



                   AS                              MS
                   .                               .
                   .                               .
                   |                               |
     ~80s have  +--|                               |
   passed since |  |                               |
   last k-alive +->|                               |
                   | 1. K-ALIVE                    |
                   |+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++>>|
                   |                               |--+
                   |                               |  | Reset the local
                   |                               |<-+ keep-alive timer
                   |                     2. 200 OK |
                   |<<+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++|
      Reset the +--|                               |
          local |  |                               |
     keep-alive +->|                               |
          timer    |                               |
                   .                               .
                   .                               .


                    Figure 7: K-ALIVE: Sequence Diagram

   After the Control Channel has been established (COMEDIA+SYNC) both
   the AS and the MS start local keep-alive timers mapped to the
   negotiated keep alive timeout value (100 seconds).  When about 80
   seconds have passed since the start of the timer (80% of 100
   seconds), the AS sends the MS a framework level K-ALIVE message.  As
   it can be seen in the protocol message dump, the message is very
   lightweight, since it only includes a single line with no additional
   header.  When the MS receives the K-ALIVE message, it resets its
   local keep-alive timer and sends a 200 message back as confirmation.
   As soon as the AS receives the 200 message, it resets its local keep-
   alive timer as well and the mechanism starts over again.

   The actual transaction steps are presented in the next figure.









Amirante, et al.        Expires January 12, 2012               [Page 16]

Internet-Draft           CFW Call Flow Examples                July 2011


   1. AS -> MS (K-ALIVE)
   ---------------------
      CFW 518ba6047880 K-ALIVE


   2. AS <- MS (CFW 200)
   ---------------------
      CFW 518ba6047880 200


   In case the timer expired either in the AS or in the MS (i.e. the
   K-ALIVE or the 200 arrived after the 100 seconds) the connection and
   the associated SIP Control Dialog would be torn down by the entity
   detecting the timeout, thus ending the interaction between the AS and
   the MS.

5.4.  Wrong behaviour

   This section will briefly address some of those which could represent
   the most common mistakes when dealing with the establishment of a
   Control Channel between an AS and a MS.  These scenarios are
   obviously of interest, since they result in the AS and the MS being
   unable to interact with each other.  Specifically, these simple
   scenarios will be described:

   1.  an AS providing the MS with a wrong Dialog-ID in the initial
       SYNC;
   2.  an AS sending a generic CONTROL message instead of SYNC as a
       first transaction.

   The first scenario is depicted in Figure 8.




















Amirante, et al.        Expires January 12, 2012               [Page 17]

Internet-Draft           CFW Call Flow Examples                July 2011


             AS                              MS
             .                               .
             .                               .
             |                               |
             | 1. SYNC (Dialog-ID, etc.)     |
             |+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++>>|
             |                               |--+
             |                               |  | Check SYNC (wrong!)
             |                               |<-+
             |                        2. 481 |
             |<<+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++|
             |                               |
             |<-XX- CLOSE TCP CONNECTION -XX-|
             |                               |
             | SIP BYE                       |
             |------------------------------>|
             |                               |
             .                               .
             .                               .


           Figure 8: SYNC with wrong Dialog-ID: Sequence Diagram

   The scenario is similar to the one presented in Section 5.2 but with
   a difference: instead of using the correct, expected, Dialog-ID in
   the SYNC message (5feb6486792a, the one negotiated via COMEDIA), the
   AS uses a wrong value (4hrn7490012c).  This causes the SYNC
   transaction to fail.  First of all, the MS sends a framework level
   481 message.  This response, when given in reply to a SYNC message,
   means that the SIP dialog associated with the provided Dialog-ID (the
   wrong identifier) does not exist.  Besides, the Control Channel must
   be torn down as a consequence, and so the MS also closes the TCP
   connection it received the SYNC message from.  The AS at this point
   is supposed to tear down its SIP Control Dialog as well, and so sends
   a SIP BYE to the MS.

   The actual transaction is presented in the next picture.














Amirante, et al.        Expires January 12, 2012               [Page 18]

Internet-Draft           CFW Call Flow Examples                July 2011


   1. AS -> MS (CFW SYNC with wrong Dialog-ID)
   -------------------------------------------
      CFW 2b4dd8724f27 SYNC
      Dialog-ID: 4hrn7490012c
      Keep-Alive: 100
      Packages: msc-ivr/1.0,msc-mixer/1.0


   2. AS <- MS (CFW 481)
   ---------------------
      CFW 2b4dd8724f27 481


   The second scenario instead is depicted in Figure 9.



             AS                              MS
             .                               .
             .                               .
             |                               |
             | 1. CONTROL                    |
             |+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++>>|
             |                               |--+ First transaction
             |                               |  | is not a SYNC
             |                               |<-+
             |                        2. 403 |
             |<<+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++|
             |                               |
             |<-XX- CLOSE TCP CONNECTION -XX-|
             |                               |
             | SIP BYE                       |
             |------------------------------>|
             |                               |
             .                               .
             .                               .


          Figure 9: Incorrect first transaction: Sequence Diagram

   This scenario is another common mistake that could occur when trying
   to setup a Control Channel.  In fact, the Control Framework mandates
   that the first transaction after the COMEDIA negotiation be a SYNC to
   conclude the setup.  In case the AS, instead of triggering a SYNC
   message as expected, sends a different message to the MS (in the
   example, it tries to send an <audit> message addressed to the IVR
   Control Package), the MS treats it like an error.  As a consequence,
   the MS replies with a framework level 403 message (Forbidden) and,



Amirante, et al.        Expires January 12, 2012               [Page 19]

Internet-Draft           CFW Call Flow Examples                July 2011


   just as before, closes the TCP connection and waits for the related
   SIP Control Dialog to be torn down.

   The actual transaction is presented in the next picture.



   1. AS -> MS (CFW CONTROL instead of SYNC)
   -----------------------------------------
      CFW 101fbbd62c35 CONTROL
      Control-Package: msc-ivr/1.0
      Content-Type: application/msc-ivr+xml
      Content-Length: 78

      <mscivr version="1.0" xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:msc-ivr">
         <audit/>
      </mscivr>


   2. AS <- MS (CFW 403 Forbidden)
   -------------------------------
      CFW 101fbbd62c35 403



6.  Use-case scenarios and examples

   The following scenarios have been chosen for their common presence in
   many rich real-time multimedia applications.  Each scenario is
   depicted as a set of call flows, involving both the SIP/SDP signaling
   (UACs<->AS<->MS) and the Control Channel communication (AS<->MS).

   All the examples assume that a Control Channel has already been
   correctly established and SYNCed between the reference AS and MS.
   Besides, unless stated otherwise, the same UAC session is referenced
   in all the above mentioned examples.  The UAC session is assumed to
   have been created as the described Figure 10:














Amirante, et al.        Expires January 12, 2012               [Page 20]

Internet-Draft           CFW Call Flow Examples                July 2011


  UAC                  AS                          MS
   |                   |                           |
   | INVITE (X)        |                           |
   |------------------>|                           |
   |     180 (Ringing) |                           |
   |<------------------|                           |
   |                   |--+                        |
   |                   |  | Handle app(X)          |
   |                   |<-+                        |
   |                   | INVITE (X) as 3PCC        |
   |                   |-------------------------->|
   |                   |              100 (Trying) |
   |                   |<--------------------------|
   |                   |                           |--+ Negotiate media
   |                   |                           |  | with UAC and map
   |                   |                           |<-+ tags and labels
   |                   |                    200 OK |
   |                   |<--------------------------|
   |            200 OK |                           |
   |<------------------|                           |
   | ACK               |                           |
   |------------------>|                           |
   |                   | ACK                       |
   |                   |-------------------------->|
   |                   |                           |
   |<<###########################################>>|
   |         RTP Media Stream(s) flowing           |
   |<<###########################################>>|
   |                   |                           |
   .                   .                           .
   .                   .                           .


                     Figure 10: 3PCC Sequence Diagram

   Note well: this is only an example of a possible approach involving a
   3PCC negotiation among the UAC, the AS and the MS, and as such is not
   at all to be considered as the mandatory way or as best common
   practice either in the presented scenario.  [RFC3725] provides
   several different solutions and many details about how 3PCC can be
   realized, with pros and cons.

   The UAC first places a call to a SIP URI the AS is responsible of.
   The specific URI is not relevant to the examples, since the
   application logic behind the mapping between a URI and the service it
   provides is a matter that is important only to the AS: so, a generic
   'sip:mediactrlDemo@as.example.com' is used in all the examples,
   whereas the service this URI is associated with in the AS logic is



Amirante, et al.        Expires January 12, 2012               [Page 21]

Internet-Draft           CFW Call Flow Examples                July 2011


   mapped scenario by scenario to the case under exam.  The UAC INVITE
   is treated as envisaged in [RFC5567]: the INVITE is forwarded by the
   AS to the MS in a 3PCC fashion, without the SDP provided by the UAC
   being touched, so to have the session fully negotiated by the MS for
   what concerns its description.  The MS matches the UAC's offer with
   its own capabilities and provides its answer in a 200 OK.  This
   answer is then forwarded, again without the SDP contents being
   touched, by the AS to the UAC it is intended for.  This way, while
   the SIP signaling from the UAC is terminated in the AS, all the media
   would start flowing directly between the UAC and the MS.

   As a consequence of this negotiation, one or more media connections
   are created between the MS and the UAC.  They are then addressed,
   when needed, by the AS and the MS by means of the tags concatenation
   as specified in [RFC6230].  How the identifiers are created and
   addressed is explained by making use of the sample signaling provided
   in Figure 11.



1. UAC -> AS (SIP INVITE)
-------------------------
   INVITE sip:mediactrlDemo@as.example.com SIP/2.0
   Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 4.3.2.1:5063;rport;branch=z9hG4bK1396873708
   From: <sip:lminiero@users.example.com>;tag=1153573888
   To: <sip:mediactrlDemo@as.example.com>
   Call-ID: 1355333098
   CSeq: 20 INVITE
   Contact: <sip:lminiero@4.3.2.1:5063>
   Content-Type: application/sdp
   Max-Forwards: 70
   User-Agent: Linphone/2.1.1 (eXosip2/3.0.3)
   Subject: Phone call
   Expires: 120
   Content-Length: 330

   v=0
   o=lminiero 123456 654321 IN IP4 4.3.2.1
   s=A conversation
   c=IN IP4 4.3.2.1
   t=0 0
   m=audio 7078 RTP/AVP 0 3 8 101
   a=rtpmap:0 PCMU/8000/1
   a=rtpmap:3 GSM/8000/1
   a=rtpmap:8 PCMA/8000/1
   a=rtpmap:101 telephone-event/8000
   a=fmtp:101 0-11
   m=video 9078 RTP/AVP 98



Amirante, et al.        Expires January 12, 2012               [Page 22]

Internet-Draft           CFW Call Flow Examples                July 2011


   a=rtpmap:98 H263-1998/90000
   a=fmtp:98 CIF=1;QCIF=1


2. UAC <- AS (SIP 180 Ringing)
------------------------------
   SIP/2.0 180 Ringing
   Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 4.3.2.1:5063;rport=5063; \
                                                branch=z9hG4bK1396873708
   Contact: <sip:mediactrlDemo@as.example.com>
   To: <sip:mediactrlDemo@as.example.com>;tag=bcd47c32
   From: <sip:lminiero@users.example.com>;tag=1153573888
   Call-ID: 1355333098
   CSeq: 20 INVITE
   Content-Length: 0


3. AS -> MS (SIP INVITE)
------------------------
   INVITE sip:MediaServer@ms.example.net:5060;transport=UDP SIP/2.0
   Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 1.2.3.4:5060; \
                branch=z9hG4bK-d8754z-8723e421ebc45f6b-1---d8754z-;rport
   Max-Forwards: 70
   Contact: <sip:ApplicationServer@1.2.3.4:5060>
   To: <sip:MediaServer@ms.example.net:5060>
   From: <sip:ApplicationServer@as.example.com:5060>;tag=10514b7f
   Call-ID: NzI0ZjQ0ZTBlMTEzMGU1ZjVhMjk5NTliMmJmZjE0NDQ.
   CSeq: 1 INVITE
   Allow: INVITE, ACK, CANCEL, OPTIONS, BYE, UPDATE, REGISTER
   Content-Type: application/sdp
   Content-Length: 330

   v=0
   o=lminiero 123456 654321 IN IP4 4.3.2.1
   s=A conversation
   c=IN IP4 4.3.2.1
   t=0 0
   m=audio 7078 RTP/AVP 0 3 8 101
   a=rtpmap:0 PCMU/8000/1
   a=rtpmap:3 GSM/8000/1
   a=rtpmap:8 PCMA/8000/1
   a=rtpmap:101 telephone-event/8000
   a=fmtp:101 0-11
   m=video 9078 RTP/AVP 98
   a=rtpmap:98 H263-1998/90000
   a=fmtp:98 CIF=1;QCIF=1





Amirante, et al.        Expires January 12, 2012               [Page 23]

Internet-Draft           CFW Call Flow Examples                July 2011


4. AS <- MS (SIP 100 Trying)
----------------------------
   SIP/2.0 100 Trying
   Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 1.2.3.4:5060; \
           branch=z9hG4bK-d8754z-8723e421ebc45f6b-1---d8754z-;rport=5060
   To: <sip:MediaServer@ms.example.net:5060>;tag=6a900179
   From: <sip:ApplicationServer@as.example.com:5060>;tag=10514b7f
   Call-ID: NzI0ZjQ0ZTBlMTEzMGU1ZjVhMjk5NTliMmJmZjE0NDQ.
   CSeq: 1 INVITE
   Content-Length: 0


5. AS <- MS (SIP 200 OK)
------------------------
   SIP/2.0 200 OK
   Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 1.2.3.4:5060; \
           branch=z9hG4bK-d8754z-8723e421ebc45f6b-1---d8754z-;rport=5060
   Contact: <sip:MediaServer@ms.example.net:5060>
   To: <sip:MediaServer@ms.example.net:5060>;tag=6a900179
   From: <sip:ApplicationServer@as.example.com:5060>;tag=10514b7f
   Call-ID: NzI0ZjQ0ZTBlMTEzMGU1ZjVhMjk5NTliMmJmZjE0NDQ.
   CSeq: 1 INVITE
   Allow: INVITE, ACK, CANCEL, OPTIONS, BYE, UPDATE, REGISTER
   Content-Type: application/sdp
   Content-Length: 374

   v=0
   o=lminiero 123456 654322 IN IP4 ms.example.net
   s=MediaCtrl
   c=IN IP4 ms.example.net
   t=0 0
   m=audio 63442 RTP/AVP 0 3 8 101
   a=rtpmap:0 PCMU/8000
   a=rtpmap:3 GSM/8000
   a=rtpmap:8 PCMA/8000
   a=rtpmap:101 telephone-event/8000
   a=fmtp:101 0-15
   a=ptime:20
   a=label:7eda834
   m=video 33468 RTP/AVP 98
   a=rtpmap:98 H263-1998/90000
   a=fmtp:98 CIF=2
   a=label:0132ca2


6. UAC <- AS (SIP 200 OK)
-------------------------
   SIP/2.0 200 OK



Amirante, et al.        Expires January 12, 2012               [Page 24]

Internet-Draft           CFW Call Flow Examples                July 2011


   Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 4.3.2.1:5063;rport=5063; \
                                                branch=z9hG4bK1396873708
   Contact: <sip:mediactrlDemo@as.example.com>
   To: <sip:mediactrlDemo@as.example.com>;tag=bcd47c32
   From: <sip:lminiero@users.example.com>;tag=1153573888
   Call-ID: 1355333098
   CSeq: 20 INVITE
   Allow: INVITE, ACK, CANCEL, OPTIONS, BYE, UPDATE, REGISTER
   Content-Type: application/sdp
   Content-Length: 374

   v=0
   o=lminiero 123456 654322 IN IP4 ms.example.net
   s=MediaCtrl
   c=IN IP4 ms.example.net
   t=0 0
   m=audio 63442 RTP/AVP 0 3 8 101
   a=rtpmap:0 PCMU/8000
   a=rtpmap:3 GSM/8000
   a=rtpmap:8 PCMA/8000
   a=rtpmap:101 telephone-event/8000
   a=fmtp:101 0-15
   a=ptime:20
   a=label:7eda834
   m=video 33468 RTP/AVP 98
   a=rtpmap:98 H263-1998/90000
   a=fmtp:98 CIF=2
   a=label:0132ca2


7. UAC -> AS (SIP ACK)
----------------------
   ACK sip:mediactrlDemo@as.example.com SIP/2.0
   Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 4.3.2.1:5063;rport;branch=z9hG4bK1113338059
   From: <sip:lminiero@users.example.com>;tag=1153573888
   To: <sip:mediactrlDemo@as.example.com>;tag=bcd47c32
   Call-ID: 1355333098
   CSeq: 20 ACK
   Contact: <sip:lminiero@4.3.2.1:5063>
   Max-Forwards: 70
   User-Agent: Linphone/2.1.1 (eXosip2/3.0.3)
   Content-Length: 0


8. AS -> MS (SIP ACK)
---------------------
   ACK sip:MediaServer@ms.example.net:5060;transport=UDP SIP/2.0
   Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 1.2.3.4:5060; \



Amirante, et al.        Expires January 12, 2012               [Page 25]

Internet-Draft           CFW Call Flow Examples                July 2011


                branch=z9hG4bK-d8754z-5246003419ccd662-1---d8754z-;rport
   Max-Forwards: 70
   Contact: <sip:ApplicationServer@1.2.3.4:5060>
   To: <sip:MediaServer@ms.example.net:5060;tag=6a900179
   From: <sip:ApplicationServer@as.example.com:5060>;tag=10514b7f
   Call-ID: NzI0ZjQ0ZTBlMTEzMGU1ZjVhMjk5NTliMmJmZjE0NDQ.
   CSeq: 1 ACK
   Content-Length: 0


                       Figure 11: 3PCC SIP Signaling

   As a result of the 3PCC negotiation depicted in Figure 11, the
   following relevant information is retrieved:

   1.  The 'From' and 'To' tags (10514b7f and 6a900179 respectively) of
       the AS<->MS session:


     From: <sip:ApplicationServer@as.example.com:5060>;tag=10514b7f
                                                           ^^^^^^^^
     To: <sip:MediaServer@ms.example.net:5060>;tag=6a900179
                                                   ^^^^^^^^


   2.  the labels associated with the negotiated media connections, in
       this case an audio stream (7eda834) and a video stream (0132ca2).


      m=audio 63442 RTP/AVP 0 3 8 101
      [..]
      a=label:7eda834
              ^^^^^^^
      m=video 33468 RTP/AVP 98
      [..]
      a=label:0132ca2
              ^^^^^^^


   These three identifiers allow the AS and MS to univocally and
   unambiguously address to each other the connections associated with
   the related UAC, specifically:

   1.  10514b7f:6a900179, the concatenation of the 'From' and 'To' tags
       through a colon (':') token, addresses all the media connections
       between the MS and the UAC;





Amirante, et al.        Expires January 12, 2012               [Page 26]

Internet-Draft           CFW Call Flow Examples                July 2011


   2.  10514b7f:6a900179 <-> 7eda834, the association of the previous
       value with the label attribute, addresses only one of the media
       connections of the UAC session (in this case, the audio stream);
       since, as it will be clearer in the scenario examples, the
       explicit identifiers in requests can only address 'from:tag'
       connections, additional mechanism will be required to have a
       finer control upon individual media streams (i.e. by means of the
       <stream> element in package level requests).

   The mapping the AS makes between the UACs<->AS and the AS<->MS SIP
   dialogs is instead out of scope for this document: we just assume
   that the AS knows how to address the right connection according to
   the related session it has with a UAC (e.g. to play an announcement
   to a specific UAC), which is obviously very important considering the
   AS is responsible for all the business logic of the multimedia
   application it provides.

6.1.  Echo Test

   The echo test is the simpliest example scenario that can be achieved
   by means of a Media Server.  It basically consists of a UAC directly
   or indirectly "talking" to itself.  A media perspective of such a
   scenario is depicted in Figure 12.



              +-------+  A (RTP)                 +--------+
              |  UAC  |=========================>| Media  |
              |   A   |<=========================| Server |
              +-------+                 A (RTP)  +--------+


                  Figure 12: Echo Test: Media Perspective

   From the framework point of view, when the UAC's leg is not attached
   to anything yet, what appears is described in Figure 13: since
   there's no connection involving the UAC yet, the frames it might be
   sending are discarded, and nothing is sent to it (except for silence,
   if it is requested to be transmitted).












Amirante, et al.        Expires January 12, 2012               [Page 27]

Internet-Draft           CFW Call Flow Examples                July 2011


                                           MS
                                        +------+
                           UAC          |      |
                            o----->>-------x   |
                            o.....<<.......x   |
                                        |      |
                                        +------+


             Figure 13: Echo Test: UAC Media Leg not attached

   Starting from these considerations, two different approaches to the
   Echo Test scenario are explored in this document in the following
   paragraphs:

   1.  a Direct Echo Test approach, where the UAC directly talks to
       itself;
   2.  a Recording-based Echo Test approach, where the UAC indirectly
       talks to itself.

6.1.1.  Direct Echo Test

   In the Direct Echo Test approach, the UAC is directly connected to
   itself.  This means that, as depicted in Figure 14, each frame the MS
   receives from the UAC is sent back to it in real-time.



                                           MS
                                        +------+
                           UAC          |      |
                            o----->>-------@   |
                            o-----<<-------@   |
                                        |      |
                                        +------+


            Figure 14: Echo Test: Direct Echo (self connection)

   In the framework this can be achieved by means of the conference
   control package, which is in charge of joining connections and
   conferences.

   A sequence diagram of a potential transaction is depicted in
   Figure 15:






Amirante, et al.        Expires January 12, 2012               [Page 28]

Internet-Draft           CFW Call Flow Examples                July 2011


   UAC                      AS                                 MS
    |                       |                                  |
    |                       | 1. CONTROL (join UAC to itself)  |
    |                       |++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++>>|
    |                       |                                  |--+ self
    |                       |                                  |  | join
    |                       |                        2. 200 OK |<-+ UAC
    |                       |<<++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++|
    |                       |                                  |
    |<<######################################################>>|
    |           Now the UAC is echoed back everything          |
    |<<######################################################>>|
    |                       |                                  |
    .                       .                                  .
    .                       .                                  .


             Figure 15: Self Connection: Framework Transaction

   All the transaction steps have been numbered to ease the
   understanding.  A reference to the above numbered messages is in fact
   made in the following explanation lines:

   o  The AS requests the joining of the connection to itself by sending
      a CONTROL request (1), specifically meant for the conferencing
      control package (msc-mixer/1.0), to the MS: since the connection
      must be attached to itself, both id1 and id2 attributes are set to
      the same value, i.e. the connectionid;
   o  The MS, having checked the validity of the request, enforces the
      joining of the connection to itself; this means that all the
      frames sent by the UAC are sent back to it; to report the result
      of the operation, the MS sends a 200 OK (2) in reply to the AS,
      thus ending the transaction; the transaction ended successfully,
      as testified by the body of the message (the 200 status code in
      the <response> tag).

   The complete transaction, that is the full bodies of the exchanged
   messages, is provided in the following lines:













Amirante, et al.        Expires January 12, 2012               [Page 29]

Internet-Draft           CFW Call Flow Examples                July 2011


   1. AS -> MS (CFW CONTROL)
   -------------------------
      CFW 4fed9bf147e2 CONTROL
      Control-Package: msc-mixer/1.0
      Content-Type: application/msc-mixer+xml
      Content-Length: 130

      <mscmixer version="1.0" xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:msc-mixer">
         <join id1="10514b7f:6a900179" id2="10514b7f:6a900179"/>
      </mscmixer>


   2. AS <- MS (CFW 200 OK)
   ------------------------
      CFW 4fed9bf147e2 200
      Timeout: 10
      Content-Type: application/msc-mixer+xml
      Content-Length: 125

      <mscmixer version="1.0" xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:msc-mixer">
         <response status="200" reason="Join successful"/>
      </mscmixer>


6.1.2.  Echo Test based on Recording

   In the Recording-based Echo Test approach, instead, the UAC is NOT
   directly connected to itself, but rather indirectly.  This means
   that, as depicted in Figure 16, each frame the MS receives from the
   UAC is first recorded: then, when the recording process is ended, the
   whole recorded frames are played back to the UAC as an announcement.



                                MS
                             +------+
                UAC          |      |
                 o----->>-------+~~~~~> (recording.wav) ~~+
                 o-----<<-------+   |                     |
                             |  ^   |                     v
                             +--|---+                     |
                                +~~~~~~~~~~~<<~~~~~~~~~~~~+


                 Figure 16: Echo Test: Recording involved

   In the framework this can be achieved by means of the IVR control
   package, which is in charge of both the recording and the playout



Amirante, et al.        Expires January 12, 2012               [Page 30]

Internet-Draft           CFW Call Flow Examples                July 2011


   phases.  However, the whole scenario cannot be accomplished in a
   single transaction; at least two steps, in fact, need to be
   performed:

   1.  first, a recording (preceded by an announcement, if requested)
       must take place;
   2.  then, a playout of the previously recorded media must occur.

   This means that two separate transactions need to be invoked.  A
   sequence diagram of a potential multiple transaction is depicted in
   Figure 17:








































Amirante, et al.        Expires January 12, 2012               [Page 31]

Internet-Draft           CFW Call Flow Examples                July 2011


 UAC                      AS                                 MS
  |                       |                                  |
  |                       | A1. CONTROL (record for 10s)     |
  |                       |++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++>>|
  |                       |                          A2. 202 |
  |                       |<<++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++| prepare &
  |                       |                                  |--+ start
  |                       |                                  |  | the
  |                       |           A3. REPORT (terminate) |<-+ dialog
  |                       |<<++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++|
  |                       | A4. 200 OK                       |
  |                       |++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++>>|
  |                       |                                  |
  |<<########################################################|
  |           "This is an echo test: tell something"         |
  |<<########################################################|
  |                       |                                  |
  |########################################################>>|
  |           10s of audio from the UAC are recorded         |--+ save
  |########################################################>>|  | in a
  |                       |                                  |<-+ file
  |                       |       B1. CONTROL (<recordinfo>) |
  |                       |<<++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++|
  |       Use recorded +--| B2. 200 OK                       |
  |       file to play |  |++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++>>|
  |       announcement +->|                                  |
  |                       | C1. CONTROL (play recorded)      |
  |                       |++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++>>|
  |                       |                          C2. 202 |
  |                       |<<++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++| prepare &
  |                       |                                  |--+ start
  |                       |                                  |  | the
  |                       |           C3. REPORT (terminate) |<-+ dialog
  |                       |<<++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++|
  |                       | C4. 200 OK                       |
  |                       |++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++>>|
  |                       |                                  |
  |<<########################################################|
  |         "Can you hear me? It's me, UAC, talking"         |
  |<<########################################################|
  |                       |                                  |
  |                       |       D1. CONTROL (<promptinfo>) |
  |                       |<<++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++|
  |                       | D2. 200 OK                       |
  |                       |++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++>>|
  |                       |                                  |
  .                       .                                  .
  .                       .                                  .



Amirante, et al.        Expires January 12, 2012               [Page 32]

Internet-Draft           CFW Call Flow Examples                July 2011


        Figure 17: Recording-based Echo: Two Framework Transactions

   The first, obvious difference that comes out when looking at the
   diagram is that, unlike what happened in the Direct Echo example, the
   MS does not reply with a 200 message to the CONTROL request
   originated by the AS.  Instead, a 202 provisional message is sent
   first, followed by a REPORT message.  The 202+REPORT(s) mechanism is
   used whenever the MS wants to tell the AS that the requested
   operation might take some more time than expected.  So, while the
   <join> operation in the Direct Echo scenario was expected to be
   fulfilled in a very short time, the IVR request was assumed to last
   longer instead.  A 202 message provides a timeout value and tells the
   AS to wait a bit, since the preparation of the dialog might not be an
   immediate task.  In this example, the preparation ends before the
   timeout, and so the transaction is concluded with a 'REPORT
   terminate', which acts as the 200 message in the previous example.
   In case the preparation took longer than the timeout, an additional
   'REPORT update' would have been sent with a new timeout value, and so
   on until completion by means of a 'REPORT terminate'.

   Notice that the REPORT mechanism depicted is only shown to clarify
   its behaviour.  In fact, the 202+REPORT mechanism is assumed to be
   involved only when the requested transaction is expected to take a
   long time (e.g. retrieving a large media file for a prompt from an
   external server).  In this scenario the transaction would be prepared
   in much less time, and as a consequence would very likely be
   completed within the context of a simple CONTROL+200 request/
   response.  The following scenarios will only involve 202+REPORTs when
   they are strictly necessary.

   About the dialog itself, notice how the AS-originated CONTROL
   transactions are terminated as soon as the requested dialogs start:
   as specified in [RFC6231], the MS makes use of a framework CONTROL
   message to report the result of the dialog and how it has proceeded.
   The two transactions (the AS-generated CONTROL request and the MS-
   generated CONTROL event) are correlated by means of the associated
   dialog identifier, as it will be clearer from the following lines.
   As before, all the transaction steps have been numbered to ease the
   understanding and the following of the subsequent explanation lines.
   Besides, the two transactions are distinguished by the preceding
   letter (A,B=recording, C,D=playout).

   o  The AS, as a first transaction, invokes a recording on the UAC
      connection by means of a CONTROL request (A1); the body is for the
      IVR package (msc-ivr/1.0), and requests the start (dialogstart) of
      a new recording context (<record>); the recording must be preceded
      by an announcement (<prompt>), must not last longer than 10s
      (maxtime), and cannot be interrupted by a DTMF tone



Amirante, et al.        Expires January 12, 2012               [Page 33]

Internet-Draft           CFW Call Flow Examples                July 2011


      (dtmfterm=false); this has only to be done once (repeatCount),
      which means that if the recording does not succeed the first time,
      the transaction must fail; a video recording is requested
      (considering the associated connection includes both audio and
      video and no restriction is enforced on streams to record), which
      is to be fed by both the negotiated media streams; a beep has to
      be played (beep) right before the recording starts to notify the
      UAC;
   o  As seen before, the MS sends a provisional 202 response, to let
      the AS know the operation might need some time;
   o  In the meanwhile, the MS prepares the dialog (e.g. by retrieving
      the announcement file, for which a HTTP URL is provided, and by
      checking that the request is well formed) and if all is fine it
      starts it, notifying the AS about it with a new REPORT (A3) with a
      terminated status; as explained previously, interlocutory REPORT
      messages with an update status would have been sent in case the
      preparation took longer than the timeout provided in the 202
      message (e.g. if retrieving the resource via HTTP took longer than
      expected); once the dialog has been prepared and started, the UAC
      connection is then passed to the IVR package, which first plays
      the announcement on the connection, followed by a beep, and then
      records all the incoming frames to a buffer; the MS also provides
      the AS with an unique dialog identifier (dialogid) which will be
      used in all subsequent event notifications concerning the dialog
      it refers to;
   o  The AS acks the latest REPORT (A4), thus terminating this
      transaction, waiting for the result to come;
   o  Once the recording is over, the MS prepares a notification CONTROL
      (B1); the <event> body is prepared with an explicit reference to
      the previously provided dialogid identifier, in order to make the
      AS aware of the fact that the notification is related to that
      specific dialog; the event body is then completed with the
      recording related information (<recordinfo>) , in this case the
      path to the recorded file (here a HTTP URL) which can be used by
      the AS for whatever it needs to; the payload also contains
      information about the prompt (<promptinfo>), which is however not
      relevant to the scenario;
   o  The AS concludes this first recording transaction by acking the
      CONTROL event (B2).

   Now that the first transaction has ended, the AS has the 10s
   recording of the UAC talking.  It can let the UAC hear it by having
   the MS play it to the MS as an announcement:

   o  The AS, as a second transaction, invokes a playout on the UAC
      connection by means of a new CONTROL request (C1); the body is
      once againg for the IVR package (msc-ivr/1.0), but this time it
      requests the start (dialogstart) of a new announcement context



Amirante, et al.        Expires January 12, 2012               [Page 34]

Internet-Draft           CFW Call Flow Examples                July 2011


      (<prompt>); the file to be played is the one recorded before
      (prompts), and has only to be played once (iterations);
   o  Again, the usual provisional 202 (C2) takes place;
   o  In the meanwhile, the MS prepares the new dialog and starts it,
      notifying the AS about it with a new REPORT (C3) with a terminated
      status: the connection is then passed to the IVR package, which
      plays the file on it;
   o  The AS acks the terminating REPORT (C4), now waiting for the
      announcement to end;
   o  Once the playout is over, the MS sends a CONTROL event (D1) which
      contains in its body (<promptinfo>) information about the just
      concluded announcement; as before, the proper dialogid is used as
      a reference to the correct dialog;
   o  The AS concludes this second and last transaction by acking the
      CONTROL event (D2).

   As in the previous paragraph, the whole CFW interaction is provided
   for a more in depth evaluation of the protocol interaction.



   A1. AS -> MS (CFW CONTROL, record)
   ----------------------------------
      CFW 796d83aa1ce4 CONTROL
      Control-Package: msc-ivr/1.0
      Content-Type: application/msc-ivr+xml
      Content-Length: 265

      <mscivr version="1.0" xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:msc-ivr">
        <dialogstart connectionid="10514b7f:6a900179">
          <dialog>
            <prompt>
              <media \
                loc="http://www.example.com/demo/echorecord.mpg"/>
            </prompt>
            <record beep="true" maxtime="10s"/>
          </dialog>
        </dialogstart>
      </mscivr>


   A2. AS <- MS (CFW 202)
   ----------------------
      CFW 796d83aa1ce4 202


   A3. AS <- MS (CFW REPORT terminate)
   -----------------------------------



Amirante, et al.        Expires January 12, 2012               [Page 35]

Internet-Draft           CFW Call Flow Examples                July 2011


      CFW 796d83aa1ce4 REPORT
      Seq: 1
      Status: terminate
      Timeout: 25
      Content-Type: application/msc-ivr+xml
      Content-Length: 137

      <mscivr version="1.0" xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:msc-ivr">
         <response status="200" reason="Dialog started" \
                   dialogid="68d6569"/>
      </mscivr>


   A4. AS -> MS (CFW 200, ACK to 'REPORT terminate')
   -------------------------------------------------
      CFW 796d83aa1ce4 200
      Seq: 1


   B1. AS <- MS (CFW CONTROL event)
   --------------------------------
      CFW 0eb1678c0bfc CONTROL
      Control-Package: msc-ivr/1.0
      Content-Type: application/msc-ivr+xml
      Content-Length: 403

      <mscivr version="1.0" xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:msc-ivr">
        <event dialogid="68d6569">
          <dialogexit status="1" reason="Dialog successfully completed">
            <promptinfo duration="9987" termmode="completed"/>
            <recordinfo duration="10017" termmode="maxtime">
              <mediainfo \
     loc="http://www.example.net/recordings/recording-68d6569.mpg" \
     type="video/mpeg" size="591872"/>
            </recordinfo>
          </dialogexit>
        </event>
      </mscivr>


   B2. AS -> MS (CFW 200, ACK to 'CONTROL event')
   ----------------------------------------------
      CFW 0eb1678c0bfc 200


   C1. AS -> MS (CFW CONTROL, play)
   --------------------------------
      CFW 1632eead7e3b CONTROL



Amirante, et al.        Expires January 12, 2012               [Page 36]

Internet-Draft           CFW Call Flow Examples                July 2011


      Control-Package: msc-ivr/1.0
      Content-Type: application/msc-ivr+xml
      Content-Length: 241

      <mscivr version="1.0" xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:msc-ivr">
        <dialogstart connectionid="10514b7f:6a900179">
          <dialog>
            <prompt>
              <media \
     loc="http://www.example.net/recordings/recording-68d6569.mpg"/>
            </prompt>
          </dialog>
        </dialogstart>
      </mscivr>


   C2. AS <- MS (CFW 202)
   ----------------------
      CFW 1632eead7e3b 202


   C3. AS <- MS (CFW REPORT terminate)
   -----------------------------------
      CFW 1632eead7e3b REPORT
      Seq: 1
      Status: terminate
      Timeout: 25
      Content-Type: application/msc-ivr+xml
      Content-Length: 137

      <mscivr version="1.0" xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:msc-ivr">
         <response status="200" reason="Dialog started" \
                   dialogid="5f5cb45"/>
      </mscivr>


   C4. AS -> MS (CFW 200, ACK to 'REPORT terminate')
   -------------------------------------------------
      CFW 1632eead7e3b 200
      Seq: 1


   D1. AS <- MS (CFW CONTROL event)
   --------------------------------
      CFW 502a5fd83db8 CONTROL
      Control-Package: msc-ivr/1.0
      Content-Type: application/msc-ivr+xml
      Content-Length: 230



Amirante, et al.        Expires January 12, 2012               [Page 37]

Internet-Draft           CFW Call Flow Examples                July 2011


      <mscivr version="1.0" xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:msc-ivr">
        <event dialogid="5f5cb45">
          <dialogexit status="1" reason="Dialog successfully completed">
            <promptinfo duration="10366" termmode="completed"/>
          </dialogexit>
        </event>
      </mscivr>


   D2. AS -> MS (CFW 200, ACK to 'CONTROL event')
   ----------------------------------------------
      CFW 502a5fd83db8 200


6.2.  Phone Call

   Another scenario that might involve the interaction between an AS and
   a MS is the classic phone call between two UACs.  In fact, even
   though the most straightforward way to achieve this would be to let
   the UACs negotiate the session and the media to make use of between
   themselves, there are cases when the services provided by a MS might
   prove useful for phone calls as well.

   One of these cases is when the two UACs have no common supported
   codecs: having the two UACs directly negotiate the session would
   result in a session with no available media.  Involving the MS as a
   transcoder would instead allow the two UACs to communicate anyway.
   Another interesting case is when the AS (or any other entity the AS
   is working in behalf of) is interested in manipulating or monitoring
   the media session between the UACs, e.g. to record the conversation:
   a similar scenario will be dealt with in Section 6.2.2.

   Before proceeding in looking at how such a scenario might be
   accomplished by means of the Media Control Channel Framework, it is
   worth spending a couple of words upon how the SIP signaling involving
   all the interested parties might look like.  In fact in such a
   scenario a 3PCC approach is absolutely needed.  An example is
   provided in Figure 18.  Again, the presented example is not at all to
   be considered best common practice when 3PCC is needed in a
   MediaCtrl-based framework.  It is only described in order to let the
   reader more easily understand what are the requirements on the MS
   side, and as a consequence which information might be required.
   [RFC3725] provides a much more detailed overview on 3PCC patterns in
   several use cases.  Only an explanatory sequence diagram is provided,
   without delving into the details of the exchanged SIP messages.






Amirante, et al.        Expires January 12, 2012               [Page 38]

Internet-Draft           CFW Call Flow Examples                July 2011


   UAC(1)        UAC(2)                  AS                          MS
     |             |                     |                           |
     | INVITE (offer A)                  |                           |
     |---------------------------------->|                           |
     |             |          100 Trying |                           |
     |<----------------------------------|                           |
     |             |   INVITE (no offer) |                           |
     |             |<--------------------|                           |
     |             | 180 Ringing         |                           |
     |             |-------------------->|                           |
     |             |         180 Ringing |                           |
     |<----------------------------------| INVITE (offer A)          |
     |             |                     |-------------------------->|
     |             |                     |         200 OK (offer A') |
     |             |                     |<--------------------------|
     |             |                     | ACK                       |
     |             |                     |-------------------------->|
     |             | 200 OK (offer B)    |                           |
     |             |-------------------->| INVITE (offer B)          |
     |             |                     |-------------------------->|
     |             |                     |         200 OK (offer B') |
     |             |                     |<--------------------------|
     |             |                     | ACK                       |
     |             |      ACK (offer B') |-------------------------->|
     |             |<--------------------|                           |
     |             |   200 OK (offer A') |                           |
     |<----------------------------------|                           |
     | ACK         |                     |                           |
     |---------------------------------->|                           |
     |             |                     |                           |
     .             .                     .                           .
     .             .                     .                           .


                  Figure 18: Phone Call: Example of 3PCC

   In the example, the UAC1 wants to place a phone call to UAC2.  To do
   so, it sends an INVITE to the AS with its offer A. The AS sends an
   offerless INVITE to UAC2.  When the UAC2 responds with a 180, the
   same message is forwarded by the AS to the UAC1 to notify it the
   callee is ringing.  In the meanwhile, the AS also adds a leg to the
   MS for UAC1, as explained in the previous sections: to do so it of
   course makes use of the offer A the UAC1 made.  Once the UAC2 accepts
   the call, by providing its own offer B in the 200, the AS adds a leg
   for it too to the MS.  At this point, the negotiation can be
   completed by providing the two UACs with the SDP answer negotiated by
   the MS with them (A' and B' respectively).




Amirante, et al.        Expires January 12, 2012               [Page 39]

Internet-Draft           CFW Call Flow Examples                July 2011


   This is only one way to deal with the signaling, and shall not
   absolutely be considered as a mandatory approach of course.

   Once the negotiation is over, the two UACs are not in communication
   yet.  In fact, it's up to the AS now to actively trigger the MS into
   attaching their media streams to each other someway, by referring to
   the connection identifiers associated with the UACs as explained
   previously.  This document presents two different approaches that
   might be followed, according to what needs to be accomplished.  A
   generic media perspective of the phone call scenario is depicted in
   Figure 19: the MS is basically in the media path between the two
   UACs.



   +-------+  UAC1 (RTP)        +--------+  UAC1 (RTP)        +-------+
   |  UAC  |===================>| Media  |===================>|  UAC  |
   |   1   |<===================| Server |<===================|   2   |
   +-------+        UAC2 (RTP)  +--------+        UAC2 (RTP)  +-------+


                 Figure 19: Phone Call: Media Perspective

   From the framework point of view, when the UACs' legs are not
   attached to anything yet, what appears is described in Figure 20:
   since there are no connections involving the UACs yet, the frames
   they might be sending are discarded, and nothing is sent to them
   (except for silence, if it is requested to be transmitted).



                                     MS
                              +--------------+
                UAC 1         |              |         UAC 2
                  o----->>-------x        x.......>>.....o
                  o.....<<.......x        x-------<<-----o
                              |              |
                              +--------------+


             Figure 20: Phone Call: UAC Media Leg not attached

6.2.1.  Direct Connection

   The Direct Connection is the easiest and more straightforward
   approach to get the phone call between the two UACs to work.  The
   idea is basically the same as the one in the Direct Echo approach: a
   <join> directive is used to directly attach one UAC to the other, by



Amirante, et al.        Expires January 12, 2012               [Page 40]

Internet-Draft           CFW Call Flow Examples                July 2011


   exploiting the MS to only deal with the transcoding/adaption of the
   flowing frames, if needed.

   This approach is depicted in Figure 21.



                                     MS
                              +--------------+
                UAC 1         |              |         UAC 2
                  o----->>-------+~~~>>~~~+------->>-----o
                  o-----<<-------+~~~<<~~~+-------<<-----o
                              |              |
                              +--------------+


                 Figure 21: Phone Call: Direct Connection



  UAC1       UAC2         AS                                   MS
   |           |          |                                    |
   |           |          | 1. CONTROL (join UAC1 to UAC2)     |
   |           |          |++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++>>|
   |           |          |                                    |--+ join
   |           |          |                                    |  | UAC1
   |           |          |                          2. 200 OK |<-+ UAC2
   |           |          |<<++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++|
   |           |          |                                    |
   |<<#######################################################>>|
   |                UAC1 can hear UAC2 talking                 |
   |<<#######################################################>>|
   |           |          |                                    |
   |           |<<###########################################>>|
   |           |          UAC2 can hear UAC1 talking           |
   |           |<<###########################################>>|
   |           |          |                                    |
   |<*talking*>|          |                                    |
   .           .          .                                    .
   .           .          .                                    .


           Figure 22: Direct Connection: Framework Transactions

   The framework transactions needed to accomplish this scenario are
   very trivial and easy to understand.  They basically are the same as
   the ones presented in the Direct Echo Test scenario, with the only
   difference being in the provided identifiers.  In fact, this time the



Amirante, et al.        Expires January 12, 2012               [Page 41]

Internet-Draft           CFW Call Flow Examples                July 2011


   MS is not supposed to attach the UACs' media connections to
   themselves, but has to join the media connections of two different
   UACs, i.e.  UAC1 and UAC2.  This means that, in this transaction, id1
   and i2 will have to address the media connections of UAC1 and UAC2.
   In case of a successful transaction, the MS takes care of forwarding
   all media coming from UAC1 to UAC2 and vice versa, transparently
   taking care of any required transcoding steps, if necessary.



   1. AS -> MS (CFW CONTROL)
   -------------------------
      CFW 0600855d24c8 CONTROL
      Control-Package: msc-mixer/1.0
      Content-Type: application/msc-mixer+xml
      Content-Length: 130

      <mscmixer version="1.0" xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:msc-mixer">
         <join id1="10514b7f:6a900179" id2="e1e1427c:1c998d22"/>
      </mscmixer>


   2. AS <- MS (CFW 200 OK)
   ------------------------
      CFW 0600855d24c8 200
      Timeout: 10
      Content-Type: application/msc-mixer+xml
      Content-Length: 125

      <mscmixer version="1.0" xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:msc-mixer">
         <response status="200" reason="Join successful"/>
      </mscmixer>


   Such a simple approach has its drawbacks.  For instance, with such an
   approach recording a conversation between two users might be tricky
   to accomplish.  In fact, since no mixing would be involved, only the
   single connections (UAC1<->MS and UAC2<->MS) could be recorded.  If
   the AS wants a conversation recording service to be provided anyway,
   it needs additional business logic on its side.  An example of such a
   use case is provided in Section 6.2.3.

6.2.2.  Conference-based Approach

   The approach described in Section 6.2.1 surely works for a basic
   phone call, but as already explained might have some drawbacks
   whenever more advanced features are needed.  For intance, you can't
   record the whole conversation, only the single connections, since no



Amirante, et al.        Expires January 12, 2012               [Page 42]

Internet-Draft           CFW Call Flow Examples                July 2011


   mixing is involved.  Besides, even the single task of playing an
   announcement over the conversation could be complex, especially if
   the MS does not support implicit mixing over media connections.  For
   this reason, in more advanced cases a different approach might be
   taken, like the conference-based approach described in this section.

   The idea is to make use of a mixing entity in the MS that acts as a
   bridge between the two UACs: the presence of this entity allows for
   more customization on what needs to be done on the conversation, like
   the recording of the conversation that has been provided as an
   example.  The approach is depicted in Figure 23.  The mixing
   functionality in the MS will be described in more detail in the
   following section (which deals with many conference-related
   scenarios), so only some hints will be provided here for a basic
   comprehension of the approach.



                                      MS
                              +---------------+
                UAC A         |               |         UAC B
                  o----->>-------+~~>{#}::>+:::::::>>:::::o
                  o:::::<<:::::::+<::{#}<~~+-------<<-----o
                              |       :       |
                              |       :       |
                              +-------:-------+
                                      :
                                      +::::> (conversation.wav)


             Figure 23: Phone Call: Conference-based Approach

   To identify a single sample scenario, let's consider a phone call the
   AS wants to be recorded.

   Figure 24 shows how this could be accomplished in the Media Control
   Channel Framework: the example, as usual, hides the previous
   interaction between the UACs and the AS, and instead focuses on the
   control channel operations and what follows.












Amirante, et al.        Expires January 12, 2012               [Page 43]

Internet-Draft           CFW Call Flow Examples                July 2011


 UAC1        UAC2       AS                                 MS
  |           |         |                                  |
  |           |         | A1. CONTROL (create conference)  |
  |           |         |++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++>>|
  |           |         |                                  |--+ create
  |           |         |                                  |  | conf and
  |           |         |      A2. 200 OK (conferenceid=Y) |<-+ its ID
  |           |         |<<++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++|
  |           |         |                                  |
  |           |         | B1. CONTROL (record for 1800s)   |
  |           |         |++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++>>|
  |           |         |                                  |--+ start
  |           |         |                                  |  | the
  |           |         |                       B2. 200 OK |<-+ dialog
  |           |         |<<++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++|
  |        Recording +--|                                  |
  |       of the mix |  |                                  |
  |      has started +->|                                  |
  |           |         | C1. CONTROL (join UAC1<->confY)  |
  |           |         |++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++>>|
  |           |         |                                  |--+  join
  |           |         |                                  |  | UAC1 &
  |           |         |                       C2. 200 OK |<-+ conf Y
  |           |         |<<++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++|
  |           |         |                                  |
  |<<####################################################>>|
  |        Now the UAC1 is mixed in the conference         |
  |<<####################################################>>|
  |           |         |                                  |
  |           |         | D1. CONTROL (join UAC2<->confY)  |
  |           |         |++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++>>|
  |           |         |                                  |--+  join
  |           |         |                                  |  | UAC2 &
  |           |         |                       D2. 200 OK |<-+ conf Y
  |           |         |<<++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++|
  |           |         |                                  |
  |           |<<########################################>>|
  |           |         Now the UAC2 is mixed too          |
  |           |<#########################################>>|
  |           |         |                                  |
  |<*talking*>|         |                                  |
  |           |         |                                  |
  .           .         .                                  .
  .           .         .                                  .


       Figure 24: Conference-based Approach: Framework Transactions




Amirante, et al.        Expires January 12, 2012               [Page 44]

Internet-Draft           CFW Call Flow Examples                July 2011


   The AS makes use of two different packages to accomplish this
   scenario: the mixer package (to create the mixing entity and join the
   UACs) and the IVR package (to record what happens in the conference).
   The framework transaction steps can be described as follows:

   o  First of all, the AS creates a new hidden conference by means of a
      'createconference' request (A1); this conference is properly
      configured according to the use it is assigned to; in fact, since
      only two participants will be joined to it, both 'reserved-
      talkers' and 'reserved-listeners' are set to 2, just as the 'n'
      value for the N-best audio mixing algorithm; besides, the video
      layout as well is set accordingly (single-view/dual-view);
   o  the MS notifies the successful creation of the new conference in a
      200 framework message (A2); the identifier assigned to the
      conference, which will be used in subsequent requests addressed to
      it, is 6013f1e;
   o  the AS requests a new recording upon the newly created conference;
      to do so, it places a proper request to the IVR package (B1); the
      AS is interested in a video recording (type=video/mpeg), which
      must not last longer than 3 hours (maxtime=1800s), after which the
      recording must end; besides, no beep must be played on the
      conference (beep=false), and the recording must start immediately
      whether or not any audio activity has been reported
      (vadinitial=false);
   o  the transaction is handled by the MS, and when the dialog has been
      successfully started, a 200 OK is issued to the AS (B2); the
      message contains the dialogid associated with the dialog
      (00b29fb), which the AS must refer to for later notifications;
   o  at this point, the AS attaches both UACs to the conference with
      two separate 'join' directives (C1/D1); when the MS confirms the
      success of both operations (C2/D2), the two UACs are actually in
      contact with each other (even though indirectly, since a hidden
      conference they're unaware of is on their path) and their media
      contribution is recorded.



A1. AS -> MS (CFW CONTROL, createconference)
--------------------------------------------
   CFW 238e1f2946e8 CONTROL
   Control-Package: msc-mixer
   Content-Type: application/msc-mixer+xml
   Content-Length: 395

   <mscmixer version="1.0" xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:msc-mixer">
      <createconference reserved-talkers="2" reserved-listeners="2">
         <audio-mixing type="nbest" n="2"/>
         <video-layouts>



Amirante, et al.        Expires January 12, 2012               [Page 45]

Internet-Draft           CFW Call Flow Examples                July 2011


            <video-layout min-participants='1'>
               <single-view/>
            </video-layout>
            <video-layout min-participants='2'>
               <dual-view/>
            </video-layout>
         </video-layouts>
         <video-switch>
            <controller/>
         </video-switch>
      </createconference>
   </mscmixer>


A2. AS <- MS (CFW 200 OK)
-------------------------
   CFW 238e1f2946e8 200
   Timeout: 10
   Content-Type: application/msc-mixer+xml
   Content-Length: 151

   <mscmixer version="1.0" xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:msc-mixer">
      <response status="200" reason="Conference created" \
                conferenceid="6013f1e"/>
   </mscmixer>


B1. AS -> MS (CFW CONTROL, record)
----------------------------------
   CFW 515f007c5bd0 CONTROL
   Control-Package: msc-ivr
   Content-Type: application/msc-ivr+xml
   Content-Length: 207

   <mscivr version="1.0" xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:msc-ivr">
      <dialogstart conferenceid="6013f1e">
         <dialog>
            <record beep="false" maxtime="1800s"/>
         </dialog>
      </dialogstart>
   </mscivr>


B2. AS <- MS (CFW 200 OK)
-------------------------
   CFW 515f007c5bd0 200
   Timeout: 10
   Content-Type: application/msc-ivr+xml



Amirante, et al.        Expires January 12, 2012               [Page 46]

Internet-Draft           CFW Call Flow Examples                July 2011


   Content-Length: 137

   <mscivr version="1.0" xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:msc-ivr">
     <response status="200" reason="Dialog started" dialogid="00b29fb"/>
   </mscivr>


C1. AS -> MS (CFW CONTROL, join)
--------------------------------
   CFW 0216231b1f16 CONTROL
   Control-Package: msc-mixer
   Content-Type: application/msc-mixer+xml
   Content-Length: 123

   <mscmixer version="1.0" xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:msc-mixer">
      <join id1="10514b7f:6a900179" id2="6013f1e"/>
   </mscmixer>


C2. AS <- MS (CFW 200 OK)
-------------------------
   CFW 0216231b1f16 200
   Timeout: 10
   Content-Type: application/msc-mixer+xml
   Content-Length: 125

   <mscmixer version="1.0" xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:msc-mixer">
      <response status="200" reason="Join successful"/>
   </mscmixer>


D1. AS -> MS (CFW CONTROL, join)
--------------------------------
   CFW 140e0f763352 CONTROL
   Control-Package: msc-mixer
   Content-Type: application/msc-mixer+xml
   Content-Length: 124

   <mscmixer version="1.0" xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:msc-mixer">
      <join id1="219782951:0b9d3347" id2="6013f1e"/>
   </mscmixer>


D2. AS <- MS (CFW 200 OK)
-------------------------
   CFW 140e0f763352 200
   Timeout: 10
   Content-Type: application/msc-mixer+xml



Amirante, et al.        Expires January 12, 2012               [Page 47]

Internet-Draft           CFW Call Flow Examples                July 2011


   Content-Length: 125

   <mscmixer version="1.0" xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:msc-mixer">
      <response status="200" reason="Join successful"/>
   </mscmixer>


   The recording of the conversation can subsequently be accessed by the
   AS by waiting for an event notification from the MS: this event,
   which will be associated with the previously started recording
   dialog, will contain the URI to the recorded file.  Such an event may
   be triggered either by a natural completion of the dialog (e.g. the
   dialog has reached its programmed 3 hours) or by any interruption of
   the dialog itself (e.g. the AS actively requests the recording to be
   interrupted since the call between the UACs ended).

6.2.3.  Recording a conversation

   The previous section described how to take advantage of the
   conferencing functionality of the mixer package in order to allow the
   recording of phone calls in a simple way.  However, making use of a
   dedicated mixer just for a phone call might be considered overkill.
   This section shows how recording a conversation and playing it out
   subsequently can be accomplished without a mixing entity involved in
   the call, that is by using the direct connection approach as
   described in Section 6.2.1.

   As already explained previously, in case the AS wants to record a
   phone call between two UACs, the use of just the <join> directive
   without a mixer forces the AS to just rely on separate recording
   commands.  That is, the AS can only instruct the MS to separately
   record the media flowing on each media leg: a recording for all the
   data coming from UAC1, and a different recording for all the data
   coming from UAC2.  In case someone wants to access the whole
   conversation subsequently, the AS may take at least two different
   approaches:

   1.  it may mix the two recordings itself (e.g. by delegating it to an
       offline mixing entity) in order to obtain a single file
       containing the combination of the two recordings; this way, a
       simple playout as described in Section 6.1.2 would suffice;
   2.  alternatively, it may take advantage of the mixing functionality
       provided by the MS itself; a way to do so is to create a hidden
       conference on the MS, attach the UAC as a passive participant to
       it, and play the separate recordings on the conference as
       announcements; this way, the UAC accessing the recording would
       experience both the recordings at the same time.




Amirante, et al.        Expires January 12, 2012               [Page 48]

Internet-Draft           CFW Call Flow Examples                July 2011


   It is of course option 2 that is considered in this section.  The
   framework transaction as described in Figure 25 assumes that a
   recording has already been requested for both UAC1 and UAC2, that the
   phone call has ended and that the AS has successfully received the
   URIs to both the recordings from the MS.  Such steps are not
   described again since they would be quite similar to the ones
   described in Section 6.1.2.  As anticipated, the idea is to make use
   of a properly constructed hidden conference to mix the two separate
   recordings on the fly and present them to the UAC.  It is of course
   up to the AS to subsequently unjoin the user from the conference and
   destroy the conference itself once the playout of the recordings ends
   for any reason.



 UAC                      AS                                 MS
  |                       |                                  |
  | (UAC1 and UAC2 have previously been recorded: the AS has |
  |  the two different recordings available for playout).    |
  |                       |                                  |
  |                       | A1. CONTROL (create conference)  |
  |                       |++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++>>|
  |                       |                                  |--+ create
  |                       |                                  |  | conf &
  |                       |      A2. 200 OK (conferenceid=Y) |<-+ its ID
  |                       |<<++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++|
  |                       |                                  |
  |                       | B1. CONTROL (join UAC & confY)   |
  |                       |++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++>>|
  |                       |                                  |--+ join
  |                       |                                  |  | UAC &
  |                       |                       B2. 200 OK |<-+ conf Y
  |                       |<+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++|
  |                       |                                  |
  |<<######################################################>>|
  |    UAC is now a passive participant in the conference    |
  |<<######################################################>>|
  |                       |                                  |
  |                       | C1. CONTROL (play UAC1 on confY) |
  |                       |++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++>>|
  |                       | D1. CONTROL (play UAC2 on confY) |
  |                       |++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++>>|
  |                       |                                  |--+ Start
  |                       |                                  |  | both
  |                       |                                  |  | the
  |                       |                                  |  |dialogs
  |                       |                       C2. 200 OK |<-+
  |                       |<<++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++|



Amirante, et al.        Expires January 12, 2012               [Page 49]

Internet-Draft           CFW Call Flow Examples                July 2011


  |                       |                       D2. 200 OK |
  |                       |<<++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++|
  |                       |                                  |
  |<<########################################################|
  |  The two recordings are mixed and played together to UAC |
  |<<########################################################|
  |                       |                                  |
  |                       |       E1. CONTROL (<promptinfo>) |
  |                       |<<++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++|
  |                       | E2. 200 OK                       |
  |                       |++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++>>|
  |                       |       F1. CONTROL (<promptinfo>) |
  |                       |<<++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++|
  |                       | F2. 200 OK                       |
  |                       |++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++>>|
  |                       |                                  |
  .                       .                                  .
  .                       .                                  .


         Figure 25: Phone Call: Playout of a Recorded Conversation

   The diagram above assumes a recording of both the channels has
   already taken place.  It may have been requested by the AS either
   shortly before joining UAC1 and UAC2, or shortly after that
   transaction.  Whenever that happened, a recording is assumed to have
   taken place, and so the AS is supposed to have both the recordings
   available for playback.  Once a new user, UAC, wants to access the
   recorded conversation, the AS takes care of the presented
   transactions.  The framework transaction steps are only apparently
   more complicated than the ones presented so far.  The only
   difference, in fact, is that transactions C and D are concurrent,
   since the recordings must be played together.

   o  First of all, the AS creates a new conference to act as a mixing
      entity (A1); the settings for the conference are chosen according
      to the use case, e.g. the video layout which is fixed to 'dual-
      view' and the switching type to 'controller'; when the conference
      has been successfully created (A2) the AS takes note of the
      conference identifier;
   o  At this point, the UAC is attached to the conference as a passive
      user (B1); there would be no point in letting the user contribute
      to the conference mix, since he will only need to watch a
      recording; in order to specify his passive status, both the audio
      and video streams for the user are set to 'recvonly'; in case the
      transaction succeeds, the MS notifies it to the AS (B2);





Amirante, et al.        Expires January 12, 2012               [Page 50]

Internet-Draft           CFW Call Flow Examples                July 2011


   o  Once the conference has been created and UAC has been attached to
      it, the AS can request the playout of the recordings; in order to
      do so, it requests two concurrent <prompt> directives (C1 and D1),
      addressing respectively the recording of UAC1 and UAC2; both the
      prompts must be played on the previously created conference and
      not to UAC directly, as can be deduced from the 'conferenceid'
      attribute of the <dialog> element;
   o  The transactions live their life exactly as explained for previous
      <prompt> examples; the originating transactions are first prepared
      and started (C2, D2), and then, as soon as any of the playout
      ends, a realted CONTROL message to notify this is triggered by the
      MS (E1, F1); the notification may contain a <promptinfo> element
      with information about how the playout proceeded (e.g. whether the
      playout completed normally, or interrupted by a DTMF tone, etc.).



 A1. AS -> MS (CFW CONTROL, createconference)
 --------------------------------------------
    CFW 506e039f65bd CONTROL
    Control-Package: msc-mixer/1.0
    Content-Type: application/msc-mixer+xml
    Content-Length: 312

    <mscmixer version="1.0" xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:msc-mixer">
       <createconference reserved-talkers="0" reserved-listeners="1">
          <audio-mixing type="controller"/>
          <video-layouts>
             <video-layout min-participants='1'>
                <dual-view/>
             </video-layout>
          </video-layouts>
          <video-switch>
             <controller/>
          </video-switch>
       </createconference>
    </mscmixer>


 A2. AS <- MS (CFW 200 OK)
 -------------------------
    CFW 506e039f65bd 200
    Timeout: 10
    Content-Type: application/msc-mixer+xml
    Content-Length: 151

    <mscmixer version="1.0" xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:msc-mixer">
       <response status="200" reason="Conference created" \



Amirante, et al.        Expires January 12, 2012               [Page 51]

Internet-Draft           CFW Call Flow Examples                July 2011


                 conferenceid="2625069"/>
    </mscmixer>


 B1. AS -> MS (CFW CONTROL, join)
 --------------------------------
    CFW 09202baf0c81 CONTROL
    Control-Package: msc-mixer/1.0
    Content-Type: application/msc-mixer+xml
    Content-Length: 214

    <mscmixer version="1.0" xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:msc-mixer">
       <join id1="aafaf62d:0eac5236" id2="2625069">
          <stream media="audio" direction="recvonly"/>
          <stream media="video" direction="recvonly"/>
       </join>
    </mscmixer>


 B2. AS <- MS (CFW 200 OK)
 -------------------------
    CFW 09202baf0c81 200
    Timeout: 10
    Content-Type: application/msc-mixer+xml
    Content-Length: 125

    <mscmixer version="1.0" xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:msc-mixer">
       <response status="200" reason="Join successful"/>
    </mscmixer>


 C1. AS -> MS (CFW CONTROL, play recording from UAC1)
 ----------------------------------------------------
    CFW 3c2a08be4562 CONTROL
    Control-Package: msc-ivr/1.0
    Content-Type: application/msc-ivr+xml
    Content-Length: 229

    <mscivr version="1.0" xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:msc-ivr">
       <dialogstart conferenceid="2625069">
          <dialog>
             <prompt>
                <media \
   loc="http://www.example.net/recordings/recording-4ca9fc2.mpg"/>
             </prompt>
          </dialog>
       </dialogstart>
    </mscivr>



Amirante, et al.        Expires January 12, 2012               [Page 52]

Internet-Draft           CFW Call Flow Examples                July 2011


 D1. AS -> MS (CFW CONTROL, play recording from UAC2)
 ----------------------------------------------------
    CFW 1c268d810baa CONTROL
    Control-Package: msc-ivr/1.0
    Content-Type: application/msc-ivr+xml
    Content-Length: 229

    <mscivr version="1.0" xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:msc-ivr">
       <dialogstart conferenceid="2625069">
          <dialog>
             <prompt>
                <media \
   loc="http://www.example.net/recordings/recording-39dfef4.mpg"/>
             </prompt>
          </dialog>
       </dialogstart>
    </mscivr>


 C2. AS <- MS (CFW 200 OK)
 -------------------------
    CFW 1c268d810baa 200
    Timeout: 10
    Content-Type: application/msc-ivr+xml
    Content-Length: 137

    <mscivr version="1.0" xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:msc-ivr">
       <response status="200" reason="Dialog started" \
                 dialogid="7a457cc"/>
    </mscivr>


 D2. AS <- MS (CFW 200 OK)
 -------------------------
    CFW 3c2a08be4562 200
    Timeout: 10
    Content-Type: application/msc-ivr+xml
    Content-Length: 137

    <mscivr version="1.0" xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:msc-ivr">
       <response status="200" reason="Dialog started" \
                 dialogid="1a0c7cf"/>
    </mscivr>


 E1. AS <- MS (CFW CONTROL event, playout of recorded UAC1 ended)
 ----------------------------------------------------------------
    CFW 77aec0735922 CONTROL



Amirante, et al.        Expires January 12, 2012               [Page 53]

Internet-Draft           CFW Call Flow Examples                July 2011


    Control-Package: msc-ivr/1.0
    Content-Type: application/msc-ivr+xml
    Content-Length: 230

    <mscivr version="1.0" xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:msc-ivr">
       <event dialogid="7a457cc">
          <dialogexit status="1" reason="Dialog successfully completed">
             <promptinfo duration="10339" termmode="completed"/>
          </dialogexit>
       </event>
    </mscivr>


 E2. AS -> MS (CFW 200, ACK to 'CONTROL event')
 ----------------------------------------------
    CFW 77aec0735922 200


 F1. AS <- MS (CFW CONTROL event, playout of recorded UAC2 ended)
 ----------------------------------------------------------------
    CFW 62726ace1660 CONTROL
    Control-Package: msc-ivr/1.0
    Content-Type: application/msc-ivr+xml
    Content-Length: 230

    <mscivr version="1.0" xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:msc-ivr">
       <event dialogid="1a0c7cf">
          <dialogexit status="1" reason="Dialog successfully completed">
             <promptinfo duration="10342" termmode="completed"/>
          </dialogexit>
       </event>
    </mscivr>


 F2. AS -> MS (CFW 200, ACK to 'CONTROL event')
 ----------------------------------------------
    CFW 62726ace1660 200


6.3.  Conferencing

   One of the most important services the MS must be able to provide is
   mixing.  This involves mixing media streams from different sources,
   and delivering the resulting mix(es) to each interested party, often
   according to per-user policies, settings and encoding.  A typical
   scenario involving mixing is of course media conferencing.  In such a
   scenario, the media sent by each participant is mixed, and each
   participant typically receives the overall mix excluding its own



Amirante, et al.        Expires January 12, 2012               [Page 54]

Internet-Draft           CFW Call Flow Examples                July 2011


   contribtion and encoded in the format it negotiated.  This example
   points out in a quite clear way how mixing must take care of the
   profile of each involved entity.

   A media perspective of such a scenario is depicted in Figure 26.



                                +-------+
                                |  UAC  |
                                |   C   |
                                +-------+
                                   " ^
                           C (RTP) " "
                                   " "
                                   " " A+B (RTP)
                                   v "
   +-------+  A (RTP)           +--------+  A+C (RTP)         +-------+
   |  UAC  |===================>| Media  |===================>|  UAC  |
   |   A   |<===================| Server |<===================|   B   |
   +-------+         B+C (RTP)  +--------+           B (RTP)  +-------+


                 Figure 26: Conference: Media Perspective

   From the framework point of view, when the UACs' legs are not
   attached to anything yet, what appears is described in Figure 27:
   since there are no connections involving the UACs yet, the frames
   they might be sending are discarded, and nothing is sent back to them
   either (except for silence, if it is requested to be transmitted).





















Amirante, et al.        Expires January 12, 2012               [Page 55]

Internet-Draft           CFW Call Flow Examples                July 2011


                                     MS
                             +----------------+
               UAC A         |                |         UAC B
                 o----->>-------x          x.......>>.....o
                 o.....<<.......x          x-------<<-----o
                             |                |
                             |                |
                             |       xx       |
                             |       |.       |
                             +-------|.-------+
                                     |.
                                     ^v
                                     ^v
                                     |.
                                     oo
                                   UAC C


               Figure 27: Conference: UAC Legs not attached

   The next subsections will cover several typical scenarios involving
   mixing and conferencing as a whole, specifically:

   1.  Simple Bridging, where the scenario will be a very basic (i.e. no
       "special effects", just mixing involved) conference involving one
       or more participants;
   2.  Rich Conference Scenario, which enriches the Simple Bridging
       scenario by adding additional features typically found in
       conferencing systems (e.g.  DTMF collection for PIN-based
       conference access, private and global announcements, recordings
       and so on);
   3.  Coaching Scenario, a more complex scenario which involves per-
       user mixing (customers, agents and coaches don't get all the same
       mixes);
   4.  Sidebars Scenario, which adds more complexity to the previous
       conferencing scenarios by involving sidebars (i.e. separate
       conference instances that only exist within the context of a
       parent conference instance) and the custom media delivery that
       follows;
   5.  Floor Control Scenario, which provides some guidance on how floor
       control could be involved in a MEDIACTRL-based media conference.

   All of the above mentioned scenarios depend on the availability of a
   mixing entity.  Such an entity is provided in the Media Control
   Channel Framework by the conferencing package.  This package in fact,
   besides allowing for the interconnection of media sources as seen in
   the Direct Echo Test section, enables the creation of abstract
   connections that can be joined to multiple connections: these



Amirante, et al.        Expires January 12, 2012               [Page 56]

Internet-Draft           CFW Call Flow Examples                July 2011


   abstract connections, called conferences, mix the contribution of
   each attached connection and feed them accordingly (e.g. a connection
   with 'sendrecv' property would be able to contribute to the mix and
   to listen to it, while a connection with a 'recvonly' property would
   only be able to listen to the overall mix but not to actively
   contribute to it).

   That said, each of the above mentioned scenarios will start more or
   less in the same way: by the creation of a conference connection (or
   more than one, as needed in some cases) to be subsequently referred
   to when it comes to mixing.  A typical framework transaction to
   create a new conference instance in the Media Control Channel
   Framework is depicted in Figure 28:



                    AS                                 MS
                    |                                  |
                    | 1. CONTROL (create conference)   |
                    |++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++>>|
                    |                                  |--+ create
                    |                                  |  | conf and
                    |       2. 200 OK (conferenceid=Y) |<-+ its ID
                    |<<++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++|
         map URI +--|                                  |
          X with |  |                                  |
          conf Y +->|                                  |
                    |                                  |
                    .                                  .
                    .                                  .


               Figure 28: Conference: Framework Transactions

   The call flow is quite straightforward, and can typically be
   summarized in the following steps:

   o  The AS invokes the creation of a new conference instance by means
      of a CONTROL request (1); this request is addressed to the
      conferencing package (msc-mixer/1.0) and contains in the body the
      directive (createconference) with all the desired settings for it;
      in the example, the mixing policy is to mix the five (reserved-
      talkers) loudest speakers (nbest), while ten listeners at max are
      allowed; video settings are configured, including the mechanism
      used to select active video sources (controller, meaning the AS
      will explicitly instruct the MS about it) and details about the
      video layouts to make available; in this example, the AS is
      instructing the MS to use a single-view layout when only one video



Amirante, et al.        Expires January 12, 2012               [Page 57]

Internet-Draft           CFW Call Flow Examples                July 2011


      source is active, to pass to a quad-view layout when at least two
      video sources are active, and to use a 5x1 layout whenever the
      number of sources is at least five; finally, the AS also
      subscribes to the "active-talkers" event, which means it wants to
      be informed (at a rate of 4 seconds) whenever an active
      participant is speaking;
   o  The MS creates the conference instance assigning a unique
      identifier to it (6146dd5), and completes the transaction with a
      200 response (2);
   o  At this point, the requested conference instance is active and
      ready to be used by the AS; it is then up to the AS to integrate
      the use of this identifier in its application logic.







































Amirante, et al.        Expires January 12, 2012               [Page 58]

Internet-Draft           CFW Call Flow Examples                July 2011


   1. AS -> MS (CFW CONTROL)
   -------------------------
      CFW 3032e5fb79a1 CONTROL
      Control-Package: msc-mixer/1.0
      Content-Type: application/msc-mixer+xml
      Content-Length: 489

      <mscmixer version="1.0" xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:msc-mixer">
        <createconference reserved-talkers="5" reserved-listeners="10">
           <audio-mixing type="nbest"/>
           <video-layouts>
             <video-layout min-participants='1'>
                <single-view/>
             </video-layout>
             <video-layout min-participants='2'>
                <quad-view/>
             </video-layout>
             <video-layout min-participants='5'>
                <multiple-5x1/>
             </video-layout>
           </video-layouts>
           <video-switch>
              <controller/>
           </video-switch>
           <subscribe>
              <active-talkers-sub interval="4"/>
           </subscribe>
        </createconference>
      </mscmixer>


   2. AS <- MS (CFW 200)
   ---------------------
      CFW 3032e5fb79a1 200
      Timeout: 10
      Content-Type: application/msc-mixer+xml
      Content-Length: 151

      <mscmixer version="1.0" xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:msc-mixer">
         <response status="200" reason="Conference created" \
                   conferenceid="6146dd5"/>
      </mscmixer>









Amirante, et al.        Expires January 12, 2012               [Page 59]

Internet-Draft           CFW Call Flow Examples                July 2011


6.3.1.  Simple Bridging

   As already introduced before, the simplest use an AS can make of a
   conference instance is simple bridging.  In this scenario, the
   conference instance just acts as a bridge for all the participants
   that are attached to it.  The bridge takes care of transcoding, if
   needed (in general, different participants may make use of different
   codecs for their streams), echo cancellation (each participant will
   receive the overall mix excluding its own contribution) and per-
   participant mixing (each participant may receive different mixed
   streams, according to what it needs/is allowed to send/receive).
   This assumes of course that each interested participant must be
   joined somehow to the bridge in order to indirectly communicate with
   the other paricipants.  From the media perspective, the scenario can
   be seen as depicted in Figure 29.



                                      MS
                             +-----------------+
               UAC A         |                 |         UAC B
                 o----->>-------+~~~>{##}:::>+:::::::>>:::::o
                 o:::::<<:::::::+<:::{##}<~~~+-------<<-----o
                             |        ^:       |
                             |        |v       |
                             |        ++       |
                             |        |:       |
                             +--------|:-------+
                                      |:
                                      ^v
                                      ^v
                                      |:
                                      oo
                                    UAC C


                  Figure 29: Conference: Simple Bridging

   In the framework, the first step is obviously to create a new
   conference instance as seen in the introductory section (Figure 28).
   Assuming a conference instance has already been created, bridging
   participants to it is quite straightforward, and can be accomplished
   as already seen in the Direct Echo Test Scenario: the only difference
   here is that each participant is not directly connected to itself
   (Direct Echo) or another UAC (Direct Connection) but to the bridge
   instead.  Figure 30 shows the example of two different UACs joining
   the same conference: the example, as usual, hides the previous
   interaction between each of the two UACs and the AS, and instead



Amirante, et al.        Expires January 12, 2012               [Page 60]

Internet-Draft           CFW Call Flow Examples                July 2011


   focuses on what the AS does in order to actually join the
   participants to the bridge so that they can interact in a conference.



 UAC1      UAC2         AS                                   MS
  |          |          |                                    |
  |          |          | A1. CONTROL (join UAC1 and confY)  |
  |          |          |++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++>>|
  |          |          |                                    |--+  join
  |          |          |                                    |  | UAC1 &
  |          |          |                         A2. 200 OK |<-+ conf Y
  |          |          |<<++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++|
  |          |          |                                    |
  |<<######################################################>>|
  |            Now UAC1 is mixed in the conference           |
  |<<######################################################>>|
  |          |          |                                    |
  |          |          | B1. CONTROL (join UAC2 and confY)  |
  |          |          |++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++>>|
  |          |          |                                    |--+  join
  |          |          |                                    |  | UAC2 &
  |          |          |                         B2. 200 OK |<-+ conf Y
  |          |          |<<++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++|
  |          |          |                                    |
  |          |<<###########################################>>|
  |          |    Now UAC2 too is mixed in the conference    |
  |          |<<###########################################>>|
  |          |          |                                    |
  .          .          .                                    .
  .          .          .                                    .


          Figure 30: Simple Bridging: Framework Transactions (1)

   The framework transaction steps are actually quite trivial to
   understand, since they're very similar to some previously described
   scenarios.  What the AS does is just joining both UAC1 (id1 in A1)
   and UAC2 (id1 in B1) to the conference (id2 in both transactions).
   As a result of these two operations, both UACs are mixed in the
   conference.  Since no <stream> is explicitly provided in any of the
   transactions, all the media from the UACs (audio/video) are attached
   to the conference (as long as the conference has been properly
   configured to support both, of course).







Amirante, et al.        Expires January 12, 2012               [Page 61]

Internet-Draft           CFW Call Flow Examples                July 2011


   A1. AS -> MS (CFW CONTROL)
   --------------------------
      CFW 434a95786df8 CONTROL
      Control-Package: msc-mixer/1.0
      Content-Type: application/msc-mixer+xml
      Content-Length: 120

      <mscmixer version="1.0" xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:msc-mixer">
         <join id1="e1e1427c:1c998d22" id2="6146dd5"/>
      </mscmixer>


   A2. AS <- MS (CFW 200 OK)
   -------------------------
      CFW 434a95786df8 200
      Timeout: 10
      Content-Type: application/msc-mixer+xml
      Content-Length: 125

      <mscmixer version="1.0" xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:msc-mixer">
         <response status="200" reason="Join successful"/>
      </mscmixer>


   B1. AS -> MS (CFW CONTROL)
   --------------------------
      CFW 5c0cbd372046 CONTROL
      Control-Package: msc-mixer/1.0
      Content-Type: application/msc-mixer+xml
      Content-Length: 120

      <mscmixer version="1.0" xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:msc-mixer">
         <join id1="10514b7f:6a900179" id2="6146dd5"/>
      </mscmixer>


   B2. AS <- MS (CFW 200 OK)
   -------------------------
      CFW 5c0cbd372046 200
      Timeout: 10
      Content-Type: application/msc-mixer+xml
      Content-Length: 125

      <mscmixer version="1.0" xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:msc-mixer">
         <response status="200" reason="Join successful"/>
      </mscmixer>





Amirante, et al.        Expires January 12, 2012               [Page 62]

Internet-Draft           CFW Call Flow Examples                July 2011


   Once one or more participants have been attached to the bridge, their
   connections and how their media are handled by the bridge can be
   dynamically manipulated by means of another directive, called
   <modifyjoin>: a typical use case for this directive is the change of
   direction of an existing media (e.g. a previously speaking
   participant is muted, which means its media direction changes from
   'sendrecv' to 'recvonly').  Figure 31 shows how a framework
   transaction requesting such a directive might appear.



 UAC1      UAC2         AS                                 MS
  |          |          |                                  |
  |          |          | 1. CONTROL (modifyjoin UAC1)     |
  |          |          |++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++>>|
  |          |          |                                  |--+ modify
  |          |          |                                  |  | join
  |          |          |                        2. 200 OK |<-+ settings
  |          |          |<<++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++|
  |          |          |                                  |
  |<<######################################################|
  |      Now UAC1 can receive but not send (recvonly)      |
  |<<######################################################|
  |          |          |                                  |
  .          .          .                                  .
  .          .          .                                  .


          Figure 31: Simple Bridging: Framework Transactions (2)

   The directive used to modify an existing join configuration is
   <modifyjoin>, and its syntax is exactly the same as the one required
   in <join> instructions.  In fact, the same syntax is used for
   identifiers (id1/id2).  Whenever a modifyjoin is requested and id1
   and id2 address one or more joined connections, the AS is requesting
   a change of the join configuration.  In this case, the AS instructs
   the MS to mute (stream=audio, direction=recvonly) UAC1 (id1=UAC1) in
   the conference (id2) it has been attached to previously.  Any other
   connection existing between them is left untouched.

   It is worth noticing that the <stream> settings are enforced
   according to both the provided direction AND the id1 and id2
   identifiers.  For instance, in this example id1 refers to UAC1, while
   id2 to the conference in the MS.  This means that the required
   modifications have to be applied to the stream specified in the
   <stream> element of the message, along the direction which goes from
   'id1' to 'id2' (as specified in the <modifyjoin> element of the
   message).  In the provided example, the AS wants to mute UAC1 with



Amirante, et al.        Expires January 12, 2012               [Page 63]

Internet-Draft           CFW Call Flow Examples                July 2011


   respect to the conference.  To do so, the direction is set to
   'recvonly', meaning that, for what concerns id1, the media stream is
   only to be received.  If id1 referred to the conference and id2 to
   the UAC1, to achieve the same result the direction would have to be
   set to 'sendonly', meaning 'id1 (the conference) can only send to id2
   (UAC1), and no media stream must be received'.  Additional settings
   upon a <stream> (e.g. audio volume, region assignments and so on)
   follow the same approach, as it is presented in subsequent sections.



   1. AS -> MS (CFW CONTROL)
   -------------------------
      CFW 57f2195875c9 CONTROL
      Control-Package: msc-mixer/1.0
      Content-Type: application/msc-mixer+xml
      Content-Length: 182

      <mscmixer version="1.0" xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:msc-mixer">
         <modifyjoin id1="e1e1427c:1c998d22" id2="6146dd5">
            <stream media="audio" direction="recvonly"/>
         </modifyjoin>
      </mscmixer>


   2. AS <- MS (CFW 200 OK)
   ------------------------
      CFW 57f2195875c9 200
      Timeout: 10
      Content-Type: application/msc-mixer+xml
      Content-Length: 123

      <mscmixer version="1.0" xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:msc-mixer">
         <response status="200" reason="Join modified"/>
      </mscmixer>


6.3.2.  Rich Conference Scenario

   The previous scenario can be enriched with additional features often
   found in existing conferencing systems.  Typical examples include
   IVR-based menus (e.g. the DTMF collection for PIN-based conference
   access), partial and complete recordings in the conference (e.g. for
   the "state your name" functionality and recording of the whole
   conference), private and global announcements and so on.  All of this
   can be achieved by means of the functionality provided by the MS.  In
   fact, even if the conferencing and IVR features come from different
   packages, the AS can interact with both of them and achieve complex



Amirante, et al.        Expires January 12, 2012               [Page 64]

Internet-Draft           CFW Call Flow Examples                July 2011


   results by correlating the effects of different transactions in its
   application logic.

   From the media and framework perspective, a typical rich conferencing
   scenario can be seen as it is depicted in Figure 32.



                                      MS
                                       +-------- (announcement.wav)
     (conference_recording.wav) <:::::+|
                                      :|
                             +--------:|--------+
               UAC A         |        :v        |         UAC B
                 o----->>-------+~~~>{##}:::>+:::::::>>:::::o
                 o:::::<<:::::::+<:::{##}<~~~+-------<<-----o
                             |        ^:     |  |
                             |        |v     v  |
                             |        ++     * (collect DTMF, get name)
                             |        |:        |
                             +--------|:--------+
                                      |:
                                      ^v
                                      ^v
                                      |:
                                      oo
                                    UAC C


              Figure 32: Conference: Rich Conference Scenario

   To identify a single sample scenario, let's consider this sequence
   for a participant joining a conference (which again we assume has
   already been created):

   1.  The UAC as usual INVITEs a URI associated with a conference, and
       the AS follows the already explained procedure to have the UAC
       negotiate a new media session with the MS;
   2.  The UAC is presented with an IVR menu, in which it is requested
       to digit a PIN code to access the conference;
   3.  If the PIN is correct, the UAC is asked to state its name so that
       it can be recorded;
   4.  The UAC is attached to the conference, and the previously
       recorded name is announced globally to the conference to
       advertise its arrival.

   Figure 33 shows a single UAC joining a conference: the example, as
   usual, hides the previous interaction between the UAC and the AS, and



Amirante, et al.        Expires January 12, 2012               [Page 65]

Internet-Draft           CFW Call Flow Examples                July 2011


   instead focuses on what the AS does to actually interact with the
   participant and join it to the conference bridge.



 UAC                      AS                                 MS
  |                       |                                  |
  |                       | A1. CONTROL (request DTMF PIN)   |
  |                       |++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++>>|
  |                       |                                  |--+ start
  |                       |                                  |  | the
  |                       |                       A2. 200 OK |<-+ dialog
  |                       |<<++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++|
  |                       |                                  |
  |<<########################################################|
  |   "Please digit the PIN number to join the conference"   |
  |<<########################################################|
  |                       |                                  |
  |########################################################>>|
  |                   DTMF digits are collected              |--+ get
  |########################################################>>|  | DTMF
  |                       |                                  |<-+ digits
  |                       |      B1. CONTROL (<collectinfo>) |
  |                       |<<++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++|
  |       Compare DTMF +--| B2. 200 OK                       |
  |        digits with |  |++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++>>|
  |     the PIN number +->|                                  |
  |                       | C1. CONTROL (record name)        |
  |                       |++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++>>|
  |                       |                                  |--+ start
  |                       |                                  |  | the
  |                       |                       C2. 200 OK |<-+ dialog
  |                       |<<++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++|
  |                       |                                  |
  |<<########################################################|
  |          "Please state your name after the beep"         |
  |<<########################################################|
  |                       |                                  |
  |########################################################>>|
  |  Audio from the UAC is recorded (until timeout or DTMF)  |--+ save
  |########################################################>>|  | in a
  |                       |                                  |<-+ file
  |                       |       D1. CONTROL (<recordinfo>) |
  |                       |<<++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++|
  |     Store recorded +--| D2. 200 OK                       |
  |       file to play |  |++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++>>|
  |    announcement in +->|                                  |
  |   conference later    |                                  |



Amirante, et al.        Expires January 12, 2012               [Page 66]

Internet-Draft           CFW Call Flow Examples                July 2011


  |                       | E1. CONTROL (join UAC & confY)   |
  |                       |++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++>>|
  |                       |                                  |--+ join
  |                       |                                  |  | UAC &
  |                       |                       E2. 200 OK |<-+ conf Y
  |                       |<+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++|
  |                       |                                  |
  |<<######################################################>>|
  |     UAC is now included in the mix of the conference     |
  |<<######################################################>>|
  |                       |                                  |
  |                       | F1. CONTROL (play name on confY) |
  |                       |++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++>>|
  |                       |                                  |--+ start
  |                       |                                  |  | the
  |                       |                       F2. 200 OK |<-+ dialog
  |                       |<<++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++|
  |                       |                                  |
  |<<########################################################|
  |  Global announcement: "Simon has joined the conference"  |
  |<<########################################################|
  |                       |                                  |
  |                       |       G1. CONTROL (<promptinfo>) |
  |                       |<<++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++|
  |                       | G2. 200 OK                       |
  |                       |++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++>>|
  |                       |                                  |
  .                       .                                  .
  .                       .                                  .


        Figure 33: Rich Conference Scenario: Framework Transactions

   As it can be deduced from the sequence diagram above, the AS, in its
   business logic, correlates the results of different transactions,
   addressed to different packages, to implement a more complex
   conferencing scenario than the Simple Bridging previously described.
   The framework transaction steps are the following:

   o  Since this is a private conference, the UAC is to be presented
      with a request for a password, in this case a PIN number; to do
      so, the AS instructs the MS (A1) to collect a series of DTMF
      digits from the specified UAC (connectionid=UAC); the request
      includes both a voice message (<prompt>) and the described digit
      collection context (<collect>); the PIN is assumed to be a 4-digit
      number, and so the MS has to collect at max 4 digits
      (maxdigits=4); the DTMF digit buffer must be cleared before
      collecting (cleardigitbuffer=true) and the UAC can make use of the



Amirante, et al.        Expires January 12, 2012               [Page 67]

Internet-Draft           CFW Call Flow Examples                July 2011


      star key to restart the collection (escapekey=*), e.g. in case it
      is aware he miswrote any of the digits and wants to start again;
   o  the transaction goes on as usual (A2), with the transaction being
      handled, and the dialog start being notified in a 200 OK; after
      that, the UAC is actually presented with the voice message, and is
      subsequently requested to insert the required PIN number;
   o  we assume UAC wrote the correct PIN number (1234), which is
      reported by the MS to the AS by means of the usual MS-generated
      CONTROL event (B1); the AS correlates this event to the previously
      started dialog by checking the referenced dialogid (06d1bac) and
      acks the event (B2); it then extracts the information it needs
      from the event (in this case, the digits provided by the MS) from
      the <controlinfo> container (dtmf=1234) and verifies if it is
      correct;
   o  since the PIN is correct, the AS can proceed towards the next
      step, that is asking the UAC to state his name, in order to play
      the recording subsequently on the conference to report the new
      participant; again, this is done with a request to the IVR package
      (C1); the AS instructs the MS to play a voice message ("say your
      name after the beep"), to be followed by a recording of only the
      audio from the UAC (in stream, media=audio/sendonly, while
      media=video/inactive); a beep must be played right before the
      recording starts (beep=true), and the recording must only last 3
      seconds (maxtime=3s) since it is only needed as a brief
      announcement;
   o  without delving again into the details of a recording-related
      transaction (C2), the AS finally gets an URI to the requested
      recording (D1, acked in D2);
   o  at this point, the AS attaches the UAC (id1) to the conference
      (id2) just as explained for Simple Bridging (E1/E2);
   o  finally, to notify the other participants that a new participant
      has arrived, the AS requests a global announcement on the
      conference; this is a simple <prompt> request to the IVR package
      (F1) just as the ones explained in previous sections, but with a
      slight difference: the target of the prompt is not a connectionid
      (a media connection) but the conference itself
      (conferenceid=6146dd5); as a result of this transaction, the
      announcement would be played on all the media connections attached
      to the conference which are allowed to receive media from it; the
      AS specifically requests two media files to be played:
      1.  the media file containing the recorded name of the new user as
          retrieved in D1 ("Simon...");
      2.  a pre-recorded media file explaining what happened ("... has
          joined the conference");
      the transaction then takes its usual flow (F2), and the event
      notifying the end of the announcement (G1, acked in G2) concludes
      the scenario.




Amirante, et al.        Expires January 12, 2012               [Page 68]

Internet-Draft           CFW Call Flow Examples                July 2011


A1. AS -> MS (CFW CONTROL, collect)
-----------------------------------
   CFW 50e56b8d65f9 CONTROL
   Control-Package: msc-ivr/1.0
   Content-Type: application/msc-ivr+xml
   Content-Length: 311

   <mscivr version="1.0" xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:msc-ivr">
     <dialogstart connectionid="10514b7f:6a900179">
        <dialog>
          <prompt>
              <media \
           loc="http://www.example.net/prompts/conf-getpin.wav" \
           type="audio/x-wav"/>
          </prompt>
          <collect maxdigits="4" escapekey="*" cleardigitbuffer="true"/>
        </dialog>
     </dialogstart>
   </mscivr>


A2. AS <- MS (CFW 200 OK)
-------------------------
   CFW 50e56b8d65f9 200
   Timeout: 10
   Content-Type: application/msc-ivr+xml
   Content-Length: 137

   <mscivr version="1.0" xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:msc-ivr">
     <response status="200" reason="Dialog started" dialogid="06d1bac"/>
   </mscivr>


B1. AS <- MS (CFW CONTROL event)
--------------------------------
   CFW 166d68a76659 CONTROL
   Control-Package: msc-ivr/1.0
   Content-Type: application/msc-ivr+xml
   Content-Length: 272

   <mscivr version="1.0" xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:msc-ivr">
      <event dialogid="06d1bac">
         <dialogexit status="1" reason="Dialog successfully completed">
            <promptinfo duration="2312" termmode="completed"/>
            <collectinfo dtmf="1234" termmode="match"/>
         </dialogexit>
      </event>
   </mscivr>



Amirante, et al.        Expires January 12, 2012               [Page 69]

Internet-Draft           CFW Call Flow Examples                July 2011


B2. AS -> MS (CFW 200, ACK to 'CONTROL event')
----------------------------------------------
   CFW 166d68a76659 200


C1. AS -> MS (CFW CONTROL, record)
----------------------------------
   CFW 61fd484f196e CONTROL
   Control-Package: msc-ivr/1.0
   Content-Type: application/msc-ivr+xml
   Content-Length: 373

   <mscivr version="1.0" xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:msc-ivr">
      <dialogstart connectionid="10514b7f:6a900179">
         <dialog>
            <prompt>
               <media \
         loc="http://www.example.net/prompts/conf-rec-name.wav" \
         type="audio/x-wav"/>
            </prompt>
            <record beep="true" maxtime="3s"/>
         </dialog>
         <stream media="audio" direction="sendonly"/>
         <stream media="video" direction="inactive"/>
      </dialogstart>
   </mscivr>


C2. AS <- MS (CFW 200 OK)
-------------------------
   CFW 61fd484f196e 200
   Timeout: 10
   Content-Type: application/msc-ivr+xml
   Content-Length: 137

   <mscivr version="1.0" xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:msc-ivr">
     <response status="200" reason="Dialog started" dialogid="1cf0549"/>
   </mscivr>


D1. AS <- MS (CFW CONTROL event)
--------------------------------
   CFW 3ec13ab96224 CONTROL
   Control-Package: msc-ivr/1.0
   Content-Type: application/msc-ivr+xml
   Content-Length: 402

   <mscivr version="1.0" xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:msc-ivr">



Amirante, et al.        Expires January 12, 2012               [Page 70]

Internet-Draft           CFW Call Flow Examples                July 2011


     <event dialogid="1cf0549">
       <dialogexit status="1" reason="Dialog successfully completed">
         <promptinfo duration="4988" termmode="completed"/>
         <recordinfo duration="3000" termmode="maxtime">
           <mediainfo
  loc="http://www.example.net/recordings/recording-1cf0549.wav" \
  type="audio/x-wav" size="48044"/>
         </recordinfo>
       </dialogexit>
     </event>
   </mscivr>


D2. AS -> MS (CFW 200, ACK to 'CONTROL event')
----------------------------------------------
   CFW 3ec13ab96224 200


E1. AS -> MS (CFW CONTROL, join)
--------------------------------
   CFW 261d188b63b7 CONTROL
   Control-Package: msc-mixer/1.0
   Content-Type: application/msc-mixer+xml
   Content-Length: 120

   <mscmixer version="1.0" xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:msc-mixer">
      <join id1="10514b7f:6a900179" id2="6146dd5"/>
   </mscmixer>


E2. AS <- MS (CFW 200 OK)
-------------------------
   CFW 261d188b63b7 200
   Timeout: 10
   Content-Type: application/msc-mixer+xml
   Content-Length: 125

   <mscmixer version="1.0" xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:msc-mixer">
      <response status="200" reason="Join successful"/>
   </mscmixer>


F1. AS -> MS (CFW CONTROL, play)
--------------------------------
   CFW 718c30836f38 CONTROL
   Control-Package: msc-ivr/1.0
   Content-Type: application/msc-ivr+xml
   Content-Length: 334



Amirante, et al.        Expires January 12, 2012               [Page 71]

Internet-Draft           CFW Call Flow Examples                July 2011


   <mscivr version="1.0" xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:msc-ivr">
     <dialogstart conferenceid="6146dd5">
       <dialog>
         <prompt>
           <media
  loc="http://www.example.net/recordings/recording-1cf0549.wav" \
  type="audio/x-wav"/>
               <media \
  loc="http://www.example.net/prompts/conf-hasjoin.wav" \
  type="audio/x-wav"/>
         </prompt>
       </dialog>
     </dialogstart>
   </mscivr>


F2. AS <- MS (CFW 200 OK)
-------------------------
   CFW 718c30836f38 200
   Timeout: 10
   Content-Type: application/msc-ivr+xml
   Content-Length: 137

   <mscivr version="1.0" xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:msc-ivr">
     <response status="200" reason="Dialog started" dialogid="5f4bc7e"/>
   </mscivr>


G1. AS <- MS (CFW CONTROL event)
--------------------------------
   CFW 6485194f622f CONTROL
   Control-Package: msc-ivr/1.0
   Content-Type: application/msc-ivr+xml
   Content-Length: 229

   <mscivr version="1.0" xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:msc-ivr">
      <event dialogid="5f4bc7e">
         <dialogexit status="1" reason="Dialog successfully completed">
            <promptinfo duration="1838" termmode="completed"/>
         </dialogexit>
      </event>
   </mscivr>


G2. AS -> MS (CFW 200, ACK to 'CONTROL event')
----------------------------------------------
   CFW 6485194f622f 200




Amirante, et al.        Expires January 12, 2012               [Page 72]

Internet-Draft           CFW Call Flow Examples                July 2011


6.3.3.  Coaching Scenario

   Another typical conference-based use case is the so called Coaching
   Scenario.  In such a scenario, a customer (called A in the following
   example) places a call to a business call center.  An agent (B) is
   assigned to the customer.  Besides, a coach (C), unheard from the
   customer, provides the agent with whispered suggestions about what to
   say.  This scenario is also described in RFC4597 [RFC4597].

   As it can be deduced from the scenario description, per-user policies
   for media mixing and delivery, i.e who can hear what, are very
   important.  The MS must make sure that only the agent can hear the
   coach's suggestions.  Since this is basically a multiparty call
   (despite what the customer might be thinking), a mixing entity is
   needed in order to accomplish the scenario requirements.  To
   summarize:

   o  the customer (A) must only hear what the agent (B) says;
   o  the agent (B) must be able to hear both the customer (A) and the
      coach (C);
   o  the coach (C) must be able to hear both the customer (A), in order
      to give the right suggestions, and the agent (B), in order to be
      aware of the whole conversation.

   From the media and framework perspective, such a scenario can be seen
   as it is depicted in Figure 34.



    **************              +-------+
    * A=Customer *              |  UAC  |
    * B=Agent    *              |   C   |
    * C=Coach    *              +-------+
    **************                 " ^
                           C (RTP) " "
                                   " "
                                   " " A+B (RTP)
                                   v "
   +-------+  A (RTP)           +--------+  A+C (RTP)         +-------+
   |  UAC  |===================>| Media  |===================>|  UAC  |
   |   A   |<===================| Server |<===================|   B   |
   +-------+           B (RTP)  +--------+           B (RTP)  +-------+


              Figure 34: Coaching Scenario: Media Perspective

   From the framework point of view, when the mentioned legs are not
   attached to anything yet, what appears is described in Figure 35.



Amirante, et al.        Expires January 12, 2012               [Page 73]

Internet-Draft           CFW Call Flow Examples                July 2011


                                    MS
                      +---------------------------+
                      |                           |
        UAC A         |                           |         UAC B
          o.....<<.......x                     x-------<<-----o
          o----->>-------x                     x.......>>.....o
                      |                           |
                      |                           |
                      |                           |
                      |                           |
                      |            xx             |
                      |            .|             +
                      +------------v^-------------+
                                   v^
                                   .|
                                   .|
                                   oo
                                  UAC C


            Figure 35: Coaching Scenario: UAC Legs not attached

   What the scenario should look like is instead depicted in Figure 36.
   The customer receives media directly from the agent (recvonly), while
   all the three involved participants contribute to a hidden
   conference: of course the customer is not allowed to receive the
   mixed flows from the conference (sendonly), unlike the agent and the
   coach which must both be aware of the whole conversation (sendrecv).























Amirante, et al.        Expires January 12, 2012               [Page 74]

Internet-Draft           CFW Call Flow Examples                July 2011


                                    MS
                      +---------------------------+
                      |                           |
        UAC A         |                           |         UAC B
          o-----<<-------+----<<----+----<<----+-------<<-----o
          o----->>-------+          |          +------->>-----o
                      |  |          v          ^  |
                      |  +~~~~~~~>[##]::::>::::+  |
                      |            v^             |
                      |            ||             |
                      |            ++             |
                      |            :|             +
                      +------------v^-------------+
                                   v^
                                   :|
                                   :|
                                   oo
                                  UAC C


         Figure 36: Coaching Scenario: UAC Legs mixed and attached

   In the framework this can be achieved by means of the mixer control
   package, which, as already explained in previous sections, can be
   exploited whenever mixing and joining entities are needed.  The
   needed steps can be summarized in the following list:

   1.  first of all, a hidden conference is created;
   2.  then, all the three participants are attached to it, each with a
       custom mixing policy, specifically:
       *  the customer (A) as 'sendonly';
       *  the agent (B) as 'sendrecv';
       *  the coach (C) as 'sendrecv' and with a -3dB gain to halve the
          volume of its own contribution (so that the agent actually
          hears the customer louder, and the coach whispering);
   3.  finally, the customer is joined to the agent as a passive
       receiver (recvonly).

   A sequence diagram of such a sequence of transactions is depicted in
   Figure 37:



  A      B      C       AS                                 MS
  |      |      |       |                                  |
  |      |      |       | A1. CONTROL (create conference)  |
  |      |      |       |++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++>>|
  |      |      |       |                                  |--+ create



Amirante, et al.        Expires January 12, 2012               [Page 75]

Internet-Draft           CFW Call Flow Examples                July 2011


  |      |      |       |                                  |  | conf and
  |      |      |       |      A2. 200 OK (conferenceid=Y) |<-+ its ID
  |      |      |       |<<++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++|
  |      |      |       |                                  |
  |      |      |       | B1. CONTROL (join A-->confY)     |
  |      |      |       |++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++>>|
  |      |      |       |                                  |--+ join A
  |      |      |       |                                  |  | & confY
  |      |      |       |                       B2. 200 OK |<-+ sendonly
  |      |      |       |<<++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++|
  |      |      |       |                                  |
  |######################################################>>|
  |    Customer A is mixed (sendonly) in the conference    |
  |######################################################>>|
  |      |      |       |                                  |
  |      |      |       | C1. CONTROL (join B<->confY)     |
  |      |      |       |++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++>>|
  |      |      |       |                                  |--+ join B
  |      |      |       |                                  |  | & confY
  |      |      |       |                       C2. 200 OK |<-+ sendrecv
  |      |      |       |<<++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++|
  |      |      |       |                                  |
  |      |<<#############################################>>|
  |      |  Agent B is mixed (sendrecv) in the conference  |
  |      |<##############################################>>|
  |      |      |       |                                  |
  |      |      |       | D1. CONTROL (join C<->confY)     |
  |      |      |       |++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++>>|
  |      |      |       |                                  |--+ join C
  |      |      |       |                                  |  | & confY
  |      |      |       |                       D2. 200 OK |<-+ sendrecv
  |      |      |       |<<++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++|
  |      |      |       |                                  |
  |      |      |<<######################################>>|
  |      |      |   Coach C is mixed (sendrecv) as well    |
  |      |      |<<######################################>>|
  |      |      |       |                                  |
  |      |      |       | E1. CONTROL (join A<--B)         |
  |      |      |       |++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++>>|
  |      |      |       |                                  |--+ join
  |      |      |       |                                  |  | A & B
  |      |      |       |                       E2. 200 OK |<-+ recvonly
  |      |      |       |<<++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++|
  |      |      |       |                                  |
  |<<######################################################|
  |   Finally, Customer A is joined (recvonly) to Agent B  |
  |<<######################################################|
  |      |      |       |                                  |



Amirante, et al.        Expires January 12, 2012               [Page 76]

Internet-Draft           CFW Call Flow Examples                July 2011


  .      .      .       .                                  .
  .      .      .       .                                  .



           Figure 37: Coaching Scenario: Framework Transactions

   o  First of all, the AS creates a new hidden conference by means of a
      'createconference' request (A1); this conference is properly
      configured according to the use it is assigned to, that is to mix
      all the involved parties accordingly; since only three
      participants will be joined to it, 'reserved-talkers' is set to 3;
      'reserved-listeners', instead, is set to 2, since only the agent
      and the coach must receive a mix, while the customer must be
      unaware of the coach; finally, the video layout is set to dual-
      view for the same reason, since only the customer and the agent
      must appear in the mix;
   o  the MS notifies the successful creation of the new conference in a
      200 framework message (A2); the identifier assigned to the
      conference, which will be used in subsequent requests addressed to
      it, is 1df080e;
   o  now that the conference has been created, the AS joins the three
      actors to it with different policies, namely: (i) the customer A
      is joined as sendonly to the conference (B1), (ii) the agent B is
      joined as sendrecv to the conference (C1) and (iii) the coach is
      joined as sendrecv (but audio only) to the conference and with a
      lower volume (D1); the custom policies are enforced by means of
      properly constructed <stream> elements;
   o  the MS takes care of the requests and acks them (B2, C2, D2); at
      this point, the conference will receive media from all the actors,
      but only provide the agent and the coach with the resulting mix;
   o  to complete the scenario, the AS joins the customer A with the
      agent B directly as recvonly (E1); the aim of this request is to
      provide customer A with media too, namely the media contributed by
      agent B; this way, customer A is unaware of the fact that its
      media are accessed by coach C by means of the hidden mixer;
   o  the MS takes care of this request too and acks it (E2), concluding
      the scenario.



   A1. AS -> MS (CFW CONTROL, createconference)
   --------------------------------------------
      CFW 238e1f2946e8 CONTROL
      Control-Package: msc-mixer
      Content-Type: application/msc-mixer+xml
      Content-Length: 329




Amirante, et al.        Expires January 12, 2012               [Page 77]

Internet-Draft           CFW Call Flow Examples                July 2011


      <mscmixer version="1.0" xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:msc-mixer">
         <createconference reserved-talkers="3" reserved-listeners="2">
            <audio-mixing type="nbest"/>
            <video-layouts>
               <video-layout min-participants='1'>
                  <dual-view/>
               </video-layout>
            </video-layouts>
            <video-switch>
               <controller/>
            </video-switch>
         </createconference>
      </mscmixer>


   A2. AS <- MS (CFW 200 OK)
   -------------------------
      CFW 238e1f2946e8 200
      Timeout: 10
      Content-Type: application/msc-mixer+xml
      Content-Length: 151

      <mscmixer version="1.0" xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:msc-mixer">
         <response status="200" reason="Conference created" \
                   conferenceid="1df080e"/>
      </mscmixer>


   B1. AS -> MS (CFW CONTROL, join)
   --------------------------------
      CFW 2eb141f241b7 CONTROL
      Control-Package: msc-mixer
      Content-Type: application/msc-mixer+xml
      Content-Length: 226

      <mscmixer version="1.0" xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:msc-mixer">
         <join id1="10514b7f:6a900179" id2="1df080e">
            <stream media="audio" direction="sendonly"/>
            <stream media="video" direction="sendonly"/>
         </join>
      </mscmixer>


   B2. AS <- MS (CFW 200 OK)
   -------------------------
      CFW 2eb141f241b7 200
      Timeout: 10
      Content-Type: application/msc-mixer+xml



Amirante, et al.        Expires January 12, 2012               [Page 78]

Internet-Draft           CFW Call Flow Examples                July 2011


      Content-Length: 125

      <mscmixer version="1.0" xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:msc-mixer">
         <response status="200" reason="Join successful"/>
      </mscmixer>


   C1. AS -> MS (CFW CONTROL, join)
   --------------------------------
      CFW 515f007c5bd0 CONTROL
      Control-Package: msc-mixer
      Content-Type: application/msc-mixer+xml
      Content-Length: 122

      <mscmixer version="1.0" xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:msc-mixer">
         <join id1="756471213:c52ebf1b" id2="1df080e"/>
      </mscmixer>


   C2. AS <- MS (CFW 200 OK)
   -------------------------
      CFW 515f007c5bd0 200
      Timeout: 10
      Content-Type: application/msc-mixer+xml
      Content-Length: 125

      <mscmixer version="1.0" xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:msc-mixer">
         <response status="200" reason="Join successful"/>
      </mscmixer>


   D1. AS -> MS (CFW CONTROL, join)
   --------------------------------
      CFW 0216231b1f16 CONTROL
      Control-Package: msc-mixer
      Content-Type: application/msc-mixer+xml
      Content-Length: 221

      <mscmixer version="1.0" xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:msc-mixer">
         <join id1="z9hG4bK19461552:1353807a" id2="1df080e">
            <stream media="audio">
               <volume controltype="setgain" value="-3"/>
            </stream>
         </join>
      </mscmixer>


   D2. AS <- MS (CFW 200 OK)



Amirante, et al.        Expires January 12, 2012               [Page 79]

Internet-Draft           CFW Call Flow Examples                July 2011


   -------------------------
      CFW 0216231b1f16 200
      Timeout: 10
      Content-Type: application/msc-mixer+xml
      Content-Length: 125

      <mscmixer version="1.0" xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:msc-mixer">
         <response status="200" reason="Join successful"/>
      </mscmixer>


   E1. AS -> MS (CFW CONTROL, join)
   --------------------------------
      CFW 140e0f763352 CONTROL
      Control-Package: msc-mixer
      Content-Type: application/msc-mixer+xml
      Content-Length: 236

      <mscmixer version="1.0" xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:msc-mixer">
         <join id1="10514b7f:6a900179" id2="756471213:c52ebf1b">
            <stream media="audio" direction="recvonly"/>
            <stream media="video" direction="recvonly"/>
         </join>
      </mscmixer>


   E2. AS <- MS (CFW 200 OK)
   -------------------------
      CFW 140e0f763352 200
      Timeout: 10
      Content-Type: application/msc-mixer+xml
      Content-Length: 125

      <mscmixer version="1.0" xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:msc-mixer">
         <response status="200" reason="Join successful"/>
      </mscmixer>


6.3.4.  Sidebars

   Within the context of conferencing, there could be the need for the
   so-called sidebars, or side conferences.  It is the case, for
   instance, of two or more participants of a conference willing to
   create a side conference among each others, while still receiving
   part of the original conference mix in the background.  Motivations
   for such an use case can be found in both [RFC4597] and [RFC5239].
   It is clear that, in such a case, the side conference is actually a
   separate conference, which however must be related somehow to the



Amirante, et al.        Expires January 12, 2012               [Page 80]

Internet-Draft           CFW Call Flow Examples                July 2011


   original conference.  While the application level relationship is out
   of scope to this document (this belongs to XCON), the media stream
   relationship is, and it is consequently interesting to analyse how
   the mixes could be constructed in order to allow for such a feature
   making use of the MEDIACTRL specification.

   The scenario presented in this section is a conference hosting four
   different participants: A, B, C and D. All these participants are
   attached to the conference as active senders and receivers of the
   existing media streams.  At a certain point in time, two participants
   (B and D) decide to create a sidebar just for them.  The sidebar they
   want to create is constructed so that only audio is involved.
   Besides, the audio mix of the sidebar must not be made available to
   the main conference.  The mix of the conference, instead, must be
   attached to the sidebar, but with a lower volume (50%), being just a
   background to the actual conversation.  This would allow both B and D
   to talk to each other without A and C listening to them, while B and
   D could still have an overview of what's happening in the main
   conference.

   From the media and framework perspective, such a scenario can be seen
   as it is depicted in Figure 38.



                                 +-------+
                                 |  UAC  |
                                 |   C   |
                                 +-------+
                                    " ^
                            C (RTP) " "
                                    " "
                                    " " A (RTP)
                                    v "
    +-------+  A (RTP)           +--------+  D+[a+c] (RTP)     +-------+
    |  UAC  |===================>| Media  |===================>|  UAC  |
    |   A   |<===================| Server |<===================|   B   |
    +-------+           C (RTP)  +--------+           B (RTP)  +-------+
                                    ^ "
                                    " " B+[a+c] (RTP)
                                    " "
                            D (RTP) " "
                                    " v
                                 +-------+
                                 |  UAC  |
                                 |   D   |
                                 +-------+




Amirante, et al.        Expires January 12, 2012               [Page 81]

Internet-Draft           CFW Call Flow Examples                July 2011


                  Figure 38: Sidebars: Media Perspective

   From the framework point of view, when all the participants are
   attached to the main conference, what appears is described in
   Figure 39.



                                       UAC C
                                         oo
                                         :|
                                         ^v
                                         ^v
                                         :|
                                +--------:|-------+
                                |        :|       |
                                |        ++       |
                  UAC A         |        ^|       |         UAC B
                    o----->>-------+~~~>{##}:::>+:::::::>>:::::o
                    o:::::<<:::::::+<:::{##}<~~~+-------<<-----o
                                |        ^:       |
                                |        |v       |
                                |        ++       |
                                |        |:       |
                                +--------|:-------+
                                         |:
                                         ^v
                                         ^v
                                         |:
                                         oo
                                       UAC D


             Figure 39: Sidebars: UAC Legs in main conference

   What the scenario should look like is instead depicted in Figure 40.
   A new mixer is created to host the sidebar.  The main mix is then
   attached as 'sendonly' to the sidebar mix at a lower volume (in order
   to provide the sidebar users with a background of the main
   conference).  The two interested participants (B and D) have their
   audio leg detached from the main conference and attached to the
   sidebar.  This detach can be achieved either by actually detaching
   the leg or by just modifying the status of the leg to inactive.
   Notice that this only affects the audio stream: the video of the two
   users is still attached to the main conference, and what happens at
   the application level may or may not have been changed accordingly
   (e.g.  XCON protocol interactions).




Amirante, et al.        Expires January 12, 2012               [Page 82]

Internet-Draft           CFW Call Flow Examples                July 2011


   Please notice that the main conference is assumed to be already in
   place, and the involved participants (A, B, C and D) to be already
   attached (sendrecv) to it.



                                 UAC C
                                   oo
                                   :|
                                   ^v
                                   ^v
                                   :|
                          +--------:|----------------+
                          |        :|                |
                          |        ++                |
            UAC A         |        ^|                |          UAC B
              o----->>-------+~~~>{##}:::>{##}:::>+:::::::>>:::::o
              o:::::<<:::::::+<:::{##}    {##}<~~~+-------<<-----o
                          |                ^:        |
                          |                ++        |
                          |                |v        |
                          +----------------|:--------+
                                           |:
                                           ^v
                                           ^v
                                           |:
                                           oo
                                          UAC D


             Figure 40: Sidebars: UAC Legs mixed and attached

   The situation may subsequently be reverted (e.g. destroying the
   sidebar conference and reattaching B and D to the main conference
   mix) in the same way.  The AS would just need to unjoin B and D from
   the hidden conference and change their connection with the main
   conference back to 'sendrecv'.  After unjoining the main mix and the
   sidebar mix, the sidebar conference could then be destroyed.  Anyway,
   these steps are not described for brevity, considering similar
   transactions have already been presented.

   In the framework the presented scenario can be achieved by means of
   the mixer control package, which, as already explained in previous
   sections, can be exploited whenever mixing and joining entities are
   needed.  The needed steps can be summarized in the following list:






Amirante, et al.        Expires January 12, 2012               [Page 83]

Internet-Draft           CFW Call Flow Examples                July 2011


   1.  first of all, a hidden conference is created (the sidebar mix);
   2.  then, the main conference mix is attached to it as 'sendonly' and
       with a -5dB gain to limit the volume of its own contribution to
       30% (so that B and D can hear each other louder, while still
       listening to what's happening in the main conference in
       background);
   3.  B and D are detached from the main mix for what concerns audio
       (modifyjoin with inctive status);
   4.  B and D are attached to the hidden sidebar mixfor what concerns
       audio.

   Note that for detaching B and D from the main mix, a <modifyjoin>
   with an 'inactive' status is used, instead of an <unjoin>.  The
   motivation for this is related to how a subsequent rejoining of B and
   D to the main mix could take place.  In fact, by using <modifyjoin>
   the resources created when first joining B and D to the main mix
   remain in place, even if marked as unused at the moment.  An
   <unjoin>, instead, would actually free those resources, which could
   be granted to other participants joining the conference in the
   meanwhile.  This means that, when needing to reattach B and D to the
   main mix, the MS could not have the resources to do so, resulting in
   an undesired failure.

   A sequence diagram of such a sequence of transactions (where confX is
   the identifier of the pre-existing main conference mix) is depicted
   in Figure 41:



  B         D         AS                                 MS
  |         |         |                                  |
  |         |         | A1. CONTROL (create conference)  |
  |         |         |++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++>>|
  |         |         |                                  |--+ create
  |         |         |                                  |  | conf and
  |         |         |      A2. 200 OK (conferenceid=Y) |<-+ its ID
  |         |         |<<++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++|
  |         |         |                                  |
  |         |         | B1. CONTROL (join confX-->confY) |
  |         |         |++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++>>|
  |         |         |                                  |--+ join confX
  |         |         |                                  |  | & confY
  |         |         |                       B2. 200 OK |<-+ sendonly
  |         |         |<<++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++|    (50% vol)
  |         |         |                                  |
  |         |         | C1. CONTROL (modjoin B---confX)  |
  |         |         |++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++>>|
  |         |         |                                  |--+ modjoin B



Amirante, et al.        Expires January 12, 2012               [Page 84]

Internet-Draft           CFW Call Flow Examples                July 2011


  |         |         |                                  |  | & confX
  |         |         |                       C2. 200 OK |<-+ (inactive)
  |         |         |<<++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++|
  |         |         |                                  |
  |         |         | D1. CONTROL (join B<-->confY)    |
  |         |         |++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++>>|
  |         |         |                                  |--+ join B
  |         |         |                                  |  | & confY
  |         |         |                       D2. 200 OK |<-+ sendrecv
  |         |         |<<++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++|    (audio)
  |         |         |                                  |
  |<<##################################################>>|
  |   Participant B is mixed (sendrecv) in the sidebar   |
  |     (A, C and D can't listen to her/him anymore)     |
  |<<##################################################>>|
  |         |         |                                  |
  |         |         | E1. CONTROL (modjoin D---confX)  |
  |         |         |++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++>>|
  |         |         |                                  |--+ modjoin D
  |         |         |                                  |  | & confX
  |         |         |                       E2. 200 OK |<-+ (inactive)
  |         |         |<<++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++|
  |         |         |                                  |
  |         |         | F1. CONTROL (join D<-->confY)    |
  |         |         |++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++>>|
  |         |         |                                  |--+ join D
  |         |         |                                  |  | & confY
  |         |         |                       F2. 200 OK |<-+ sendrecv
  |         |         |<<++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++|    (audio)
  |         |         |                                  |
  |         |<<########################################>>|
  |         |  D is mixed (sendrecv) in the sidebar too  |
  |         |  (A and C can't listen to her/him anymore) |
  |         |<<########################################>>|
  |         |                                            |
  .         .                                            .
  .         .                                            .


                Figure 41: Sidebars: Framework Transactions

   o  First of all, the hidden conference mix is created (A1); the
      request is basically the same already presented in previous
      sections, that is a <createconference> request addressed to the
      Mixer package; the request is very lightweight, and asks the MS to
      only reserve two listener seats (reserved-listeners, since only B
      and D have to hear something) and three talker seats (reserved-
      listeners, considering that besides B and D also the main mix is



Amirante, et al.        Expires January 12, 2012               [Page 85]

Internet-Draft           CFW Call Flow Examples                July 2011


      an active contributor to the sidebar); the mixing will be driven
      by directives from the AS (mix-type=controller); when the mix is
      successfully created, the MS provides the AS with its identifier
      (519c1b9);
   o  as a first transaction after that, the AS joins the audio from the
      main conference and the newly created sidebar conference mix (B1);
      only audio needs to be joined (media=audio), with a sendonly
      direction (i.e. only flowing from the main conference to the
      sidebar and not viceversa) and at a 30% volume with respect to the
      original stream (setgain=-5dB); a successful completion of the
      transaction is reported to the AS (B2);
   o  at this point, the AS makes the connection of B (2133178233:
      18294826) and the main conference (2f5ad43) inactive by means of a
      <modifyjoin> directive (C1); the request is taken care of by the
      MS (C2) and B is actually excluded from the mix for what concerns
      both sending and receiving;
   o  after that, the AS (D1) joins B (2133178233:18294826) to the
      sidebar mix created previously (519c1b9); the MS attaches the
      requested connections and sends confirmation to the AS (D2);
   o  the same transactions already done for B are placed for D as well
      (id1=1264755310:2beeae5b), that is the <modifyjoin> to make the
      connection in the main conference inactive (E1-2) and the <join>
      to attach D to the sidebar mix (F1-2); at the end of these
      transactions, A and C will only listen to each other, while B and
      D will listen to each other and to the conference mix as a
      comfortable background.



   A1. AS -> MS (CFW CONTROL, createconference)
   --------------------------------------------
      CFW 7fdcc2331bef CONTROL
      Control-Package: msc-mixer/1.0
      Content-Type: application/msc-mixer+xml
      Content-Length: 198

      <mscmixer version="1.0" xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:msc-mixer">
         <createconference reserved-talkers="3" reserved-listeners="2">
            <audio-mixing type="controller"/>
         </createconference>
      </mscmixer>


   A2. AS <- MS (CFW 200 OK)
   -------------------------
      CFW 7fdcc2331bef 200
      Timeout: 10
      Content-Type: application/msc-mixer+xml



Amirante, et al.        Expires January 12, 2012               [Page 86]

Internet-Draft           CFW Call Flow Examples                July 2011


      Content-Length: 151

      <mscmixer version="1.0" xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:msc-mixer">
         <response status="200" reason="Conference created" \
                   conferenceid="519c1b9"/>
      </mscmixer>


   B1. AS -> MS (CFW CONTROL, join with setgain)
   ---------------------------------------------
      CFW 4e6afb6625e4 CONTROL
      Control-Package: msc-mixer/1.0
      Content-Type: application/msc-mixer+xml
      Content-Length: 226

      <mscmixer version="1.0" xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:msc-mixer">
         <join id1="2f5ad43" id2="519c1b9">
            <stream media="audio" direction="sendonly">
               <volume controltype="setgain" value="-5"/>
            </stream>
         </join>
      </mscmixer>


   B2. AS <- MS (CFW 200 OK)
   -------------------------
      CFW 4e6afb6625e4 200
      Timeout: 10
      Content-Type: application/msc-mixer+xml
      Content-Length: 125

      <mscmixer version="1.0" xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:msc-mixer">
         <response status="200" reason="Join successful"/>
      </mscmixer>


   C1. AS -> MS (CFW CONTROL, modifyjoin with inactive status)
   -----------------------------------------------------------
      CFW 3f2dba317c83 CONTROL
      Control-Package: msc-mixer/1.0
      Content-Type: application/msc-mixer+xml
      Content-Length: 193

      <mscmixer version="1.0" xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:msc-mixer">
         <modifyjoin id1="2133178233:18294826" id2="2f5ad43">
            <stream media="audio" direction="inactive"/>
         </modifyjoin>
      </mscmixer>



Amirante, et al.        Expires January 12, 2012               [Page 87]

Internet-Draft           CFW Call Flow Examples                July 2011


   C2. AS <- MS (CFW 200 OK)
   -------------------------
      CFW 3f2dba317c83 200
      Timeout: 10
      Content-Type: application/msc-mixer+xml
      Content-Length: 123

      <mscmixer version="1.0" xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:msc-mixer">
         <response status="200" reason="Join modified"/>
      </mscmixer>


   D1. AS -> MS (CFW CONTROL, join to sidebar)
   -------------------------------------------
      CFW 2443a8582d1d CONTROL
      Control-Package: msc-mixer/1.0
      Content-Type: application/msc-mixer+xml
      Content-Length: 181

      <mscmixer version="1.0" xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:msc-mixer">
         <join id1="2133178233:18294826" id2="519c1b9">
            <stream media="audio" direction="sendrecv"/>
         </join>
      </mscmixer>


   D2. AS <- MS (CFW 200 OK)
   -------------------------
      CFW 2443a8582d1d 200
      Timeout: 10
      Content-Type: application/msc-mixer+xml
      Content-Length: 125

      <mscmixer version="1.0" xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:msc-mixer">
         <response status="200" reason="Join successful"/>
      </mscmixer>


   E1. AS -> MS (CFW CONTROL, modifyjoin with inactive status)
   -----------------------------------------------------------
      CFW 436c6125628c CONTROL
      Control-Package: msc-mixer/1.0
      Content-Type: application/msc-mixer+xml
      Content-Length: 193

      <mscmixer version="1.0" xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:msc-mixer">
         <modifyjoin id1="1264755310:2beeae5b" id2="2f5ad43">
            <stream media="audio" direction="inactive"/>



Amirante, et al.        Expires January 12, 2012               [Page 88]

Internet-Draft           CFW Call Flow Examples                July 2011


         </modifyjoin>
      </mscmixer>


   E2. AS <- MS (CFW 200 OK)
   -------------------------
      CFW 436c6125628c 200
      Timeout: 10
      Content-Type: application/msc-mixer+xml
      Content-Length: 123

      <mscmixer version="1.0" xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:msc-mixer">
         <response status="200" reason="Join modified"/>
      </mscmixer>


   F1. AS -> MS (CFW CONTROL, join to sidebar)
   -------------------------------------------
      CFW 7b7ed00665dd CONTROL
      Control-Package: msc-mixer/1.0
      Content-Type: application/msc-mixer+xml
      Content-Length: 181

      <mscmixer version="1.0" xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:msc-mixer">
         <join id1="1264755310:2beeae5b" id2="519c1b9">
            <stream media="audio" direction="sendrecv"/>
         </join>
      </mscmixer>


   F2. AS <- MS (CFW 200 OK)
   -------------------------
      CFW 7b7ed00665dd 200
      Timeout: 10
      Content-Type: application/msc-mixer+xml
      Content-Length: 125

      <mscmixer version="1.0" xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:msc-mixer">
         <response status="200" reason="Join successful"/>
      </mscmixer>


6.3.5.  Floor Control

   As described in [RFC4597], floor control is a feature typically
   needed and employed in most conference scenarios.  In fact, while not
   a mandatory feature to implement when realizing a conferencing
   application, it provides additional control on the media streams



Amirante, et al.        Expires January 12, 2012               [Page 89]

Internet-Draft           CFW Call Flow Examples                July 2011


   contributed by participants, thus allowing for moderation of the
   available resources.  The Centralized Conferencing (XCON) framework
   [RFC5239] suggests the use of the Binary Floor Control Protocol
   (BFCP) [RFC4582] to achieve the aforementioned functionality.  That
   said, a combined use of floor control functionality and the tools
   made available by the MEDIACTRL specification for conferencing would
   definitely be interesting to investigate.  [RFC5567] introduces two
   different approaches to integrating floor control with the MEDIACTRL
   architecture: (i) a topology where the floor control server is co-
   located with the AS; (ii) a topology where the floor control server
   is instead co-located with the MS.  The two approaches are obviously
   different with respect to the amount of information the AS and the MS
   have to deal with, especially when thinking about the logic behind
   the floor queues and automated decisions.  Nevertheless, considering
   how the Media Control Channel Framework is conceived, the topology
   (ii) would need a dedicated package (be it an extension or a totally
   new package) in order to make the MS aware of floor control, and
   allow it to interact with the interested UAC accordingly.  At the
   time of writing such a package doesn't exist yet, and as a
   consequence only the topology (i) will be dealt with in the presented
   scenario.

   The scenario will then assume the Floor Control Server (FCS) to be
   co-located with the AS.  This means that all the BFCP requests will
   be sent by Floor Control Participants (FCP) to the FCS, which will
   make the AS directly aware of the floor statuses.  The scenario for
   simplicity assumes the involved participants are already aware of all
   the identifiers needed in order to make BFCP requests for a specific
   conference.  Such information may have been carried according to the
   COMEDIA negotiation as specified in [RFC4583].  It is important to
   notice that such information must not reach the MS: this means that,
   within the context of the 3PCC mechanism that may have been used in
   order to attach a UAC to the MS, all the BFCP-related information
   negotiated by the AS and the UAC must be removed before making the
   negotiation available to the MS, which may be unable to understand
   the specification.  A simplified example of how this could be
   achieved is presented in Figure 42.














Amirante, et al.        Expires January 12, 2012               [Page 90]

Internet-Draft           CFW Call Flow Examples                July 2011


 UAC                               AS                                 MS
  |                                 |                                 |
  | INVITE (SDP: RTP+BFCP)          |                                 |
  |-------------------------------->|                                 |
  |                                 | INVITE (SDP: RTP)               |
  |                                 |-------------------------------->|
  |                                 |          200 (SDP: RTP'+labels) |
  |                                 |<--------------------------------|
  |                        match +--|                                 |
  |                       floors |  |                                 |
  |                     & labels +->|                                 |
  |                                 |                                 |
  |    200 (SDP: RTP'+BFCP'+labels) |                                 |
  |<--------------------------------|                                 |
  | ACK                             |                                 |
  |-------------------------------->|                                 |
  |                                 | ACK                             |
  |                                 |-------------------------------->|
  |                                 |                                 |
  |<<###################### RTP MEDIA STREAMS ######################>>|
  |                                 |                                 |
  |<<******** BFCP CHANNEL *******>>|                                 |
  |                                 |                                 |
  .                                 .                                 .
  .                                 .                                 .


             Figure 42: Floor Control: Example of Negotiation

   From the media and framework perspective, such a scenario doesn't
   differ much from the already presented conferencing scenarios.  It is
   more interesting to focus on the chosen topology for the scenario,
   which can seen as it is depicted in Figure 43.



   +-------+                    +--------+                     +-------+
   |  UAC  |                    |   AS   |                     |  UAC  |
   | (FCP) |<****** BFCP ******>|  (FCS) |<****** BFCP *******>| (FCC) |
   +-------+                    +--------+                     +-------+
       ^                             ^
       |                             |
       |                         CFW |
       |                             |
       |                             v
       |                        +--------+
       +----------RTP---------->|   MS   |
                                +--------+



Amirante, et al.        Expires January 12, 2012               [Page 91]

Internet-Draft           CFW Call Flow Examples                July 2011


               Figure 43: Floor Control: Overall Perspective

   The AS, besides mantaining the already known SIP signaling among the
   involved parties, also acts as FCS for the participants in the
   conferences it is responsible of.  In the scenario, two Floor Control
   Participants are involved: a basic Participant (FCP) and a Chair
   (FCC).

   In the framework this can be achieved by means of the mixer control
   package, which, as already explained in previous sections, can be
   exploited whenever mixing and joining entities are needed.  Assuming
   the conference has already been created, the participant has already
   been attached (recvonly) to it, and that the participant is aware of
   the involved BFCP identifiers, the needed steps can be summarized in
   the following list:

   1.  the assigned chair, FCC, sends a subscription for events related
       to the floor it is responsible of (FloorQuery);
   2.  the FCP sends a BFCP request (FloorRequest) to get access to the
       audio resource ("I want to speak");
   3.  the FCS (AS) sends a provisional response to the FCP
       (FloorRequestStatus PENDING), and handles the request in its
       queue; since a chair is assigned to this floor, the request is
       forwarded to the FCC for a decision (FloorStatus);
   4.  the FCC takes a decision and sends it to the FCS (ChairAction
       ACCEPTED);
   5.  the FCS takes note of the decision and updates the queue
       accordingly; the decision is sent to the FCP (FloorRequestStatus
       ACCEPTED); anyway, the floor has not been granted yet;
   6.  as soon as the queue allows it, the floor is actually granted to
       FCP; the AS, which is co-located with the FCS, understands in its
       business logic that such an event is associated with the audio
       resource being granted to FCP; as a consequence, a <modifyjoin>
       (sendrecv) is sent through the Control Channel to the MS in order
       to unmute the FCP UAC in the conference;
   7.  the event is notified to FCP (FloorRequestStatus GRANTED), thus
       ending the scenario.

   A sequence diagram of such a sequence of transactions (also involving
   the BFCP message flow at a higher level) is depicted in Figure 44:



 UAC1      UAC2       AS
 (FCP)     (FCC)     (FCS)                               MS
  |         |         |                                  |
  |<<####################################################|
  |   UAC1 is muted (recvonly stream) in the conference  |



Amirante, et al.        Expires January 12, 2012               [Page 92]

Internet-Draft           CFW Call Flow Examples                July 2011


  |<<####################################################|
  |         |         |                                  |
  |         | FloorQuery                                 |
  |         |*******>>|                                  |
  |         |         |--+ handle                        |
  |         |         |  | subscription                  |
  |         |         |<-+                               |
  |         | FloorStatus                                |
  |         |<<*******|                                  |
  |         |         |                                  |
  | FloorRequest      |                                  |
  |*****************>>|                                  |
  |         |         |--+ handle                        |
  |         |         |  | request                       |
  |           Pending |<-+ (queue)                       |
  |<<*****************|                                  |
  |         |         |                                  |
  |         | FloorStatus                                |
  |         |<<*******|                                  |
  |         |         |                                  |
  |         | ChairAction (ACCEPT)                       |
  |         |*******>>|                                  |
  |         | ChairActionAck                             |
  |         |<<*******|                                  |
  |         |         |--+ handle                        |
  |         |         |  | decision                      |
  |         |         |<-+ (queue)                       |
  |          Accepted |                                  |
  |<<*****************|                                  |
  |         | FloorStatus                                |
  |         |<<*******|                                  |
  |         |         |                                  |
  |         |         |--+ queue                         |
  |         |         |  | grants                        |
  |         |         |<-+ floor                         |
  |         |         |                                  |
  |         |         | 1. CONTROL (modjoin UAC<->conf)  |
  |         |         |++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++>>|
  |         |         |                                  |--+ modjoin
  |         |         |                                  |  | UAC & conf
  |         |         |                        2. 200 OK |<-+ (sendrecv)
  |         |         |<<++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++|
  |         |         |                                  |
  |<<##################################################>>|
  |   UAC1 is now unmuted (sendrecv) in the conference   |
  |        and can speak contributing to the mix         |
  |<<##################################################>>|
  |         |         |                                  |



Amirante, et al.        Expires January 12, 2012               [Page 93]

Internet-Draft           CFW Call Flow Examples                July 2011


  |           Granted |                                  |
  |<<*****************|                                  |
  |         | FloorStatus                                |
  |         |<<*******|                                  |
  |         |         |                                  |
  .         .                                            .
  .         .                                            .


             Figure 44: Floor Control: Framework Transactions

   As it can easily be evinced from the above diagram, the complex
   interaction at the BFCP level only results in a single transaction at
   the MEDIACTRL level.  In fact, the purpose of the BFCP transactions
   is to moderate access to the audio resource, which means providing
   the event trigger to MEDIACTRL-based conference manipulation
   transactions.  Before being granted the floor, the FCP UAC is
   excluded from the conference mix at the MEDIACTRL level (recvonly).
   As soon as the floor has been granted, the FCP UAC is included in the
   mix.  In MEDIACTRL words:

   o  since the FCP UAC must be included in the audio mix, a
      <modifyjoin> is sent to the MS in a CONTROL directive; the
      <modifyjoin> has as identifiers the connectionid associated with
      the FCP UAC (e1e1427c:1c998d22) and the conferenceid of the mix
      (cf45ee2); the <stream> element tells the MS that the audio media
      stream between the two must become bidirectional (sendrecv),
      changing the previous status (recvonly); please notice that in
      this case only audio was involed in the conference; in case video
      was involved as well, and video had not to be changed, a <stream>
      directive for video had to be placed in the request as well in
      order to mantain its current status.



















Amirante, et al.        Expires January 12, 2012               [Page 94]

Internet-Draft           CFW Call Flow Examples                July 2011


   1. AS -> MS (CFW CONTROL)
   -------------------------
      CFW gh67ffg56w21 CONTROL
      Control-Package: msc-mixer/1.0
      Content-Type: application/msc-mixer+xml
      Content-Length: 182

      <mscmixer version="1.0" xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:msc-mixer">
         <modifyjoin id1="e1e1427c:1c998d22" id2="cf45ee2">
            <stream media="audio" direction="sendrecv"/>
         </modifyjoin>
      </mscmixer>


   2. AS <- MS (CFW 200 OK)
   ------------------------
      CFW gh67ffg56w21 200
      Timeout: 10
      Content-Type: application/msc-mixer+xml
      Content-Length: 123

      <mscmixer version="1.0" xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:msc-mixer">
         <response status="200" reason="Join modified"/>
      </mscmixer>


6.4.  Additional Scenarios

   This section includes additional scenarios that can be of interest
   when dealing with AS<->MS flows.  The aim of the following
   subsections is to present the use of peculiar features provided by
   the IVR package, specifically variable announcements, VCR prompts,
   parallel playback, recurring dialogs and custom grammars.  To
   describe how call flows involving such features might happen, three
   sample scenarios have been chosen:

   1.  Voice Mail (variable announcements for digits, VCR controls);
   2.  Current Time (variable announcements for date and time, parallel
       playback).
   3.  DTMF-driven Conference Manipulation (recurring dialogs, custom
       grammars).

6.4.1.  Voice Mail

   An application that typically makes use of the services an MS can
   provide is Voice Mail.  In fact, while it is clear that many of its
   features are part of the application logic (e.g. the mapping of a URI
   with a specific user's voice mailbox, the list of messages and their



Amirante, et al.        Expires January 12, 2012               [Page 95]

Internet-Draft           CFW Call Flow Examples                July 2011


   properties, and so on), the actual media work is accomplished through
   the MS.  Features needed by a VoiceMail application include the
   ability to record a stream and play it back anytime later, give
   verbose announcements regarding the status of the application,
   control the playout of recorded messages by means of VCR controls and
   so on, all features which are supported by the MS through the IVR
   package.

   Without delving into the details of a full VoiceMail application and
   all its possible use cases, this section will cover a specific
   scenario, trying to deal with as many interactions as possible that
   may happen between the AS and the MS in such a context.  The covered
   scenario, depicted as a sequence diagram in Figure 45, will be the
   following:

   1.  The UAC INVITEs a URI associated with his mailbox, and the AS
       follows the already explained procedure to have the UAC negotiate
       a new media session with the MS;
   2.  The UAC is first prompted with an announcement giving him the
       amount of available new messages in the mailbox; after that, the
       UAC can choose which message to access by sending a DTMF tone;
   3.  The UAC is then presented with a VCR controlled announcement, in
       which the chosen received mail is played back to him; VCR
       controls allow him to navigate through the prompt.

   This is a quite oversimplified scenario, considering it doesn't even
   allow the UAC to delete old messages or organize them, but just to
   choose which received message to play.  Nevertheless, it gives us the
   chance to deal with variable announcements and VCR controls, two
   typical features a Voice Mail application would almost always take
   advantage of.  Besides, other features a Voice Mail application would
   rely upon (e.g. recording streams, event driven IVR menus and so on)
   have aready been introduced in previous sections, and so representing
   them would be redundant.  This means the presented call flows assume
   that some messages have already been recorded, and that they are
   available at reachable locations.  The example also assumes that the
   AS has placed the recordings in its own storage facilities,
   considering it is not safe to rely upon the internal MS storage which
   is likely to be temporary.



 UAC                      AS                                 MS
  |                       |                                  |
  |                       | A1. CONTROL (play variables and  |
  |                       |      collect the user's choice)  |
  |                       |++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++>>|
  |                       |                                  | prepare &



Amirante, et al.        Expires January 12, 2012               [Page 96]

Internet-Draft           CFW Call Flow Examples                July 2011


  |                       |                                  |--+ start
  |                       |                                  |  | the
  |                       |                       A2. 200 OK |<-+ dialog
  |                       |<<++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++|
  |                       |                                  |
  |<<########################################################|
  |                "You have five messages ..."              |
  |<<########################################################|
  |                       |                                  |
  |                       |      B1. CONTROL (<collectinfo>) |
  |                       |<<++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++|
  |                       | B2. 200 OK                       |
  |                       |++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++>>|
  |                       |                                  |
  |                       | C1. CONTROL (VCR for chosen msg) |
  |                       |++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++>>|
  |                       |                                  | prepare &
  |                       |                                  |--+ start
  |                       |                                  |  | the
  |                       |                       C2. 200 OK |<-+ dialog
  |                       |<<++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++|
  |                       |                                  |
  |<<########################################################|
  |          "Hi there, I tried to call you but..."          |--+
  |<<########################################################|  | handle
  |                       |                                  |  | VCR-
  |########################################################>>|  | driven
  |        The UAC controls the playout using DTMF           |  | (DTMF)
  |########################################################>>|  |playout
  |                       |                                  |<-+
  |                       |       D1. CONTROL (<dtmfnotify>) |
  |                       |<<++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++|
  |                       | D2. 200 OK                       |
  |                       |++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++>>|
  |                       |                                  |
  .                       .                                  .
  .       (other events are received in the meanwhile)       |
  .                       .                                  .
  |                       |      E1. CONTROL (<controlinfo>) |
  |                       |<<++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++|
  |                       | E2. 200 OK                       |
  |                       |++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++>>|
  |                       |                                  |
  .                       .                                  .
  .                       .                                  .


               Figure 45: Voice Mail: Framework Transactions



Amirante, et al.        Expires January 12, 2012               [Page 97]

Internet-Draft           CFW Call Flow Examples                July 2011


   The framework transaction steps are described in the following:

   o  The first transaction (A1) is addressed to the IVR package (msc-
      ivr); it is basically a 'promptandcollect' dialog, but with a
      slight difference: some of the prompts to play are actual audio
      files, for which a URI is provided (media loc="xxx"), while others
      are so-called 'variable' prompts; these 'variable' prompts are
      actually constructed by the MS itself according to the directives
      provided by the AS; in this example, this is the sequence of
      prompts that is requested by the AS:
      1.  play a wav file ("you have...");
      2.  play a digit ("five..."), by building it (variable: digit=5);
      3.  play a wav file ("messages...");
      a DTMF collection is requested as well (<collect>) to be taken
      after the prompts have been played; the AS is only interested in a
      single digit (maxdigits=1);
   o  the transaction is handled by the MS and, in case everything works
      fine (i.e. the MS retrieved all the audio files and successfully
      built the variable ones), the dialog is started; its start is
      reported, together with the associated identifier (5db01f4) to the
      AS in a terminating 200 OK message (A2);
   o  the AS then waits for the dialog to end in order to retrieve the
      results it is interested in (in this case, the DTMF tone the UAC
      chooses, since it will affect which message will have to be played
      subsequently);
   o  the UAC hears the prompts and chooses a message to play; in this
      example, he wants to listen to the first message, and so digits 1;
      the MS intercepts this tone, and notifies it to the AS in a newly
      created CONTROL event message (B1); this CONTROL includes
      information about how each single requested operation ended
      (<promptinfo> and <collectinfo>); specifically, the event states
      that the prompt ended normally (termmode=completed) and that the
      subsequently collected tone is 1 (dtmf=1); the AS acks the event
      (B2), since the dialogid provided in the message is the same as
      the one of the previously started dialog;
   o  at this point, the AS makes use of the value retrieved from the
      event to proceed in its business logic; it decides to present the
      UAC with a VCR-controllable playout of the requested message; this
      is done with a new request to the IVR package (C1), which contains
      two operations: <prompt> to address the media file to play (an old
      recording), and <control> to instruct the MS about how the playout
      of this media file shall be controlled via DTMF tones provided by
      the UAC (in this example, different DTMF digits are associated
      with different actions, e.g. pause/resume, fast forward, rewind
      and so on); besides, the AS also subscribes to DTMF events related
      to this control operation (matchmode=control), which means that
      the MS is to trigger an event anytime a DTMF associated with a
      control operation (e.g. 7=pause) is intercepted;



Amirante, et al.        Expires January 12, 2012               [Page 98]

Internet-Draft           CFW Call Flow Examples                July 2011


   o  the MS prepares the dialog and, when the playout starts, notifies
      it in a terminating 200 OK message (C2); at this point, the UAC is
      presented with the prompt, and can make use of DTMF digits to
      control the playback;
   o  as explained previously, any DTMF associated with a VCR operation
      is then reported to the AS, together with a timestamp stating when
      the event happened; an example is provided (D1) in which the UAC
      pressed the fast forward key (6) at a specific time; of course, as
      for any other MS-generated event, the AS acks it (D2);
   o  when the playback ends (whether because the media reached its
      termination, or because any other interruption occurred), the MS
      triggers a concluding event with information about the whole
      dialog (E1); this event, besides including information about the
      prompt itself (<promptinfo>), also includes information related to
      the VCR operations (<controlinfo>), that is, all the VCR controls
      the UAC made use of (in the example fastforward/rewind/pause/
      resume) and when it happened; the final ack by the AS (E2)
      concludes the scenario.



A1. AS -> MS (CFW CONTROL, play and collect)
--------------------------------------------
   CFW 2f931de22820 CONTROL
   Control-Package: msc-ivr/1.0
   Content-Type: application/msc-ivr+xml
   Content-Length: 429

   <mscivr version="1.0" xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:msc-ivr">
      <dialogstart connectionid="10514b7f:6a900179">
         <dialog>
            <prompt>
               <media \
            loc="http://www.example.net/prompts/vm-youhave.wav" \
            type="audio/x-wav"/>
               <variable value="5" type="digits"/>
               <media \
           loc="http://www.example.net/prompts/vm-messages.wav" \
           type="audio/x-wav"/>
            </prompt>
            <collect maxdigits="1" escapekey="*" \
                     cleardigitbuffer="true"/>
         </dialog>
      </dialogstart>
   </mscivr>


A2. AS <- MS (CFW 200 OK)



Amirante, et al.        Expires January 12, 2012               [Page 99]

Internet-Draft           CFW Call Flow Examples                July 2011


-------------------------
   CFW 2f931de22820 200
   Timeout: 10
   Content-Type: application/msc-ivr+xml
   Content-Length: 137

   <mscivr version="1.0" xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:msc-ivr">
     <response status="200" reason="Dialog started" dialogid="5db01f4"/>
   </mscivr>


B1. AS <- MS (CFW CONTROL event)
--------------------------------
   CFW 7c97adc41b3e CONTROL
   Control-Package: msc-ivr/1.0
   Content-Type: application/msc-ivr+xml
   Content-Length: 270

   <mscivr version="1.0" xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:msc-ivr">
      <event dialogid="5db01f4">
         <dialogexit status="1" reason="Dialog successfully completed">
            <promptinfo duration="11713" termmode="completed"/>
            <collectinfo dtmf="1" termmode="match"/>
         </dialogexit>
      </event>
   </mscivr>


B2. AS -> MS (CFW 200, ACK to 'CONTROL event')
----------------------------------------------
   CFW 7c97adc41b3e 200


C1. AS -> MS (CFW CONTROL, VCR)
-------------------------------
   CFW 3140c24614bb CONTROL
   Control-Package: msc-ivr/1.0
   Content-Type: application/msc-ivr+xml
   Content-Length: 423

   <mscivr version="1.0" xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:msc-ivr">
      <dialogstart connectionid="10514b7f:6a900179">
         <dialog>
            <prompt bargein="false">
               <media \
  loc="http://www.example.com/messages/recording-4ca9fc2.mpg"/>
            </prompt>
            <control gotostartkey="1" gotoendkey="3" \



Amirante, et al.        Expires January 12, 2012              [Page 100]

Internet-Draft           CFW Call Flow Examples                July 2011


                     ffkey="6" rwkey="4" pausekey="7" resumekey="9" \
                     volupkey="#" voldnkey="*"/>
            </dialog>
         <subscribe>
            <dtmfsub matchmode="control"/>
         </subscribe>
      </dialogstart>
   </mscivr>


C2. AS <- MS (CFW 200 OK)
-------------------------
   CFW 3140c24614bb 200
   Timeout: 10
   Content-Type: application/msc-ivr+xml
   Content-Length: 137

   <mscivr version="1.0" xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:msc-ivr">
     <response status="200" reason="Dialog started" dialogid="3e936e0"/>
   </mscivr>


D1. AS <- MS (CFW CONTROL event, dtmfnotify)
--------------------------------------------
   CFW 361840da0581 CONTROL
   Control-Package: msc-ivr/1.0
   Content-Type: application/msc-ivr+xml
   Content-Length: 179

   <mscivr version="1.0" xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:msc-ivr">
      <event dialogid="3e936e0">
         <dtmfnotify matchmode="control" dtmf="6" \
                     timestamp="2008-12-16T12:58:36Z"/>
      </event>
   </mscivr>


D2. AS -> MS (CFW 200, ACK to 'CONTROL event')
----------------------------------------------
   CFW 361840da0581 200


      [..] The other VCR DTMF notifications are skipped for brevity [..]


E1. AS <- MS (CFW CONTROL event, dialogexit)
--------------------------------------------
   CFW 3ffab81c21e9 CONTROL



Amirante, et al.        Expires January 12, 2012              [Page 101]

Internet-Draft           CFW Call Flow Examples                July 2011


   Control-Package: msc-ivr/1.0
   Content-Type: application/msc-ivr+xml
   Content-Length: 485

   <mscivr version="1.0" xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:msc-ivr">
      <event dialogid="3e936e0">
         <dialogexit status="1" reason="Dialog successfully completed">
            <promptinfo duration="10270" termmode="completed"/>
            <controlinfo>
               <controlmatch dtmf="6" timestamp="2008-12-16T12:58:36Z"/>
               <controlmatch dtmf="4" timestamp="2008-12-16T12:58:37Z"/>
               <controlmatch dtmf="7" timestamp="2008-12-16T12:58:38Z"/>
               <controlmatch dtmf="9" timestamp="2008-12-16T12:58:40Z"/>
            </controlinfo>
         </dialogexit>
      </event>
   </mscivr>


E2. AS -> MS (CFW 200, ACK to 'CONTROL event')
----------------------------------------------
   CFW 3ffab81c21e9 200


6.4.2.  Current Time

   An interesting scenario to realize with the help of the MS provided
   features is what is typically called 'Current Time'.  A UAC calls a
   URI, which presents the caller with the current date and time.  As it
   can easily be deduced by the very nature of the application, variable
   announcements play an important role in this scenario.  In fact,
   rather than having the AS build different framework messages
   according to the current time to build an announcement, it is much
   easier to rely upon the variable announcements mechanism provided by
   the IVR package, which includes ways to deal with dates and times in
   several fashions.

   To make the scenario more interesting and have it cover more
   functionality, the application is also assumed to have a background
   music played during the announcement.  Considering that most of the
   announcements will be variable, a means is needed to have more
   streams played in parallel on the same connection.  This can be
   achieved in two different ways:

   1.  two separate and different dialogs, playing respectively the
       variable announcements and the background track;





Amirante, et al.        Expires January 12, 2012              [Page 102]

Internet-Draft           CFW Call Flow Examples                July 2011


   2.  a single dialog implementing a parallel playback.

   The first approach assumes the available MS implements implicit
   mixing, which may or may not be supported, since it's a recommended
   feature but not a mandatory one.  The second approach instead assumes
   the MS implements support for more streams of the same media type (in
   this case audio) in the same dialog, which, exactly as implicit
   mixing, is not to be given for granted.  Considering the first
   approach is quite straightforward to understand, the presented
   scenario makes use of the second one, and assumes the available MS
   supports parallel playback of more audio tracks within the context of
   the same dialog.

   That said, the covered scenario, depicted as a sequence diagram in
   Figure 46, will be the following:

   1.  The UAC INVITEs a URI associated with the Current Time
       application, and the AS follows the already explained procedure
       to have the UAC negotiate a new media session with the MS;
   2.  The UAC is presented with an announcement including: (i) a voice
       stating the current date and time; (ii) a background music track;
       (iii) a mute background video track.



 UAC                      AS                                 MS
  |                       |                                  |
  |                       | A1. CONTROL (play variables)     |
  |                       |++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++>>|
  |                       |                                  | prepare &
  |                       |                                  |--+ start
  |                       |                                  |  | the
  |                       |                       A2. 200 OK |<-+ dialog
  |                       |<<++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++|
  |                       |                                  |
  |<<########################################################|
  |            "16th of december 2008, 5:31 PM..."           |
  |<<########################################################|
  |                       |                                  |
  |                       |       B1. CONTROL (<promptinfo>) |
  |                       |<<++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++|
  |                       | B2. 200 OK                       |
  |                       |++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++>>|
  |                       |                                  |
  .                       .                                  .
  .                       .                                  .





Amirante, et al.        Expires January 12, 2012              [Page 103]

Internet-Draft           CFW Call Flow Examples                July 2011


              Figure 46: Current Time: Framework Transactions

   The framework transaction steps are described in the following:

   o  The first transaction (A1) is addressed to the IVR package (msc-
      ivr); it is basically a 'playannouncement' dialog, but, unlike all
      the scenarios presented so far, it includes directives for a
      parallel playback, as indicated by the 'par' element; there are
      three flows to play in parallel:
      *  a sequence ('seq') of variable and static announcements (the
         actual time and date);
      *  a music track ('media=music.wav') to be played in background at
         a lower volume (soundLevel=50%);
      *  a mute background video track (media=clock.mpg).
      The global announcement ends when the longest of the three
      parallel steps ends (endsync=last); this means that, if one of the
      steps ends before the others, the step is muted for the rest of
      the playback.  About the series of static and variable
      announcements, in this example this is requested by the AS:
      *  play a wav file ("Tuesday...");
      *  play a date ("16th of december 2008..."), by building it
         (variable: date with a ymd=year/month/day format);
      *  play a time ("5:31 PM..."), by building it (variable: time with
         a t12=12 hour day format, am/pm).
   o  the transaction is extended by the MS (A2) and, in case everything
      went fine (i.e. the MS retrieved all the audio files and
      successfully built the variable ones, and it supports parallel
      playback as requested), the dialog is started; its start is
      reported, together with the associated identifier (415719e) to the
      AS in a terminating REPORT message (A3);
   o  the AS acks the REPORT (A4), and waits for the dialog to end in
      order to conclude the application, or proceed to further steps if
      required by the application itself;
   o  when the last of the three parallel announcements ends, the dialog
      terminates, and an event (B1) is triggered to the AS with the
      relevant information (promptinfo); the AS acks (B2) and terminates
      the scenario.



A1. AS -> MS (CFW CONTROL, play)
--------------------------------
   CFW 0c7680191bd2 CONTROL
   Control-Package: msc-ivr/1.0
   Content-Type: application/msc-ivr+xml
   Content-Length: 506

   <mscivr version="1.0" xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:msc-ivr">



Amirante, et al.        Expires January 12, 2012              [Page 104]

Internet-Draft           CFW Call Flow Examples                July 2011


     <dialogstart connectionid="21c8e07b:055a893f">
       <dialog>
         <prompt bargein="true">
           <par endsync="last">
             <seq>
               <media loc="http://www.example.com/day-2.wav"/>
               <variable value="2008-12-16" type="date" format="ymd"/>
               <variable value="17:31" type="time" format="t12"/>
             </seq>
             <media loc="http://www.example.com/music.wav" \
                    soundLevel="50%"/>
             <media loc="http://www.example.com/clock.mpg"/>
           </par>
         </prompt>
       </dialog>
     </dialogstart>
   </mscivr>


A2. AS <- MS (CFW 200 OK)
-------------------------
   CFW 0c7680191bd2 200
   Timeout: 10
   Content-Type: application/msc-ivr+xml
   Content-Length: 137

   <mscivr version="1.0" xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:msc-ivr">
     <response status="200" reason="Dialog started" dialogid="415719e"/>
   </mscivr>


B1. AS <- MS (CFW CONTROL event)
--------------------------------
   CFW 4481ca0c4fca CONTROL
   Control-Package: msc-ivr/1.0
   Content-Type: application/msc-ivr+xml
   Content-Length: 229

   <mscivr version="1.0" xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:msc-ivr">
      <event dialogid="5db01f4">
         <dialogexit status="1" reason="Dialog successfully completed">
            <promptinfo duration="8046" termmode="completed"/>
         </dialogexit>
      </event>
   </mscivr>


B2. AS -> MS (CFW 200, ACK to 'CONTROL event')



Amirante, et al.        Expires January 12, 2012              [Page 105]

Internet-Draft           CFW Call Flow Examples                July 2011


----------------------------------------------
   CFW 4481ca0c4fca 200


6.4.3.  DTMF-driven Conference Manipulation

   To complete the scenarios presented in Section 6.3, this section
   deals with how the AS can make use of the MS in order to detect DTMF
   tones from conference participants, and take actions on the
   conference accordingly.  A typical example is when participants in a
   conference are provided with specific codes to:

   o  mute/unmute themselves in the conference;
   o  change their volume in the conference, or the volume of the
      conference itself;
   o  change the video layout in the conference, if allowed;
   o  kick abusing users from the conference;

   and so on.  To achieve all this, the simpliest thing an AS can do is
   to prepare a recurring DTMF collection for each participant with
   specific grammars to match.  In case the collected tones match the
   grammar, the MS would notify them to the AS, and start the collection
   again.  Upon receival of <collectinfo> events, the AS would in turn
   originate the proper related request, e.g. a <modifyjoin> on the
   participant's stream with the conference.  This is made possible by
   three features provided by the IVR package:

   1.  the 'repeatCount' attribute;
   2.  the subscription mechanism;
   3.  the Speech Recognition Grammar Specification (SRGS) [SRGS].

   The first allows for recurring instances of the same dialog without
   the need of additional requests upon completion of the dialog itself.
   In fact, the 'repeatCount' attribute indicates how many times the
   dialog has to be repeated: when the attribute has the value 0, it
   means that the dialog has to be repeated indefinitely, meaning that
   it's up to the AS to destroy it by means of a <dialogterminate>
   request when the dialog isn't needed anymore.  The second, instead,
   allows the AS to subscribe to events related to the IVR package
   without waiting for the dialog to end, e.g. matching DTMF collections
   in this case.  The last, finally, allows for custom matching grammars
   to be specified: this way, only a subset of the possible DTMF strings
   can be specified, so that only the matches the AS is interested in
   are reported.  Different grammars other than SRGS may be supported by
   the MS, which achieve the same result: anyway, this document will
   only describe the use of an SRGS grammar, since support for SRGS is
   mandated in the IVR package specification.




Amirante, et al.        Expires January 12, 2012              [Page 106]

Internet-Draft           CFW Call Flow Examples                July 2011


   To identify a single sample scenario, we assume a participant has
   already successfully joined a conference, e.g. as detailed in
   Figure 33.  Besides, we assume the following codes are to be provided
   within the conference to participants in order to let them take
   advantage of advanced features:

   1.  *6 to mute/unmute themselves (on/off trigger);
   2.  *1 to lower their own volume in the conference, and *3 to raise
       it;
   3.  *7 to lower the volume of the conference stream they are
       receiving, and *9 to raise it;
   4.  *0 to leave the conference.

   This means that six different codes are supported, and are to be
   matched in the requested DTMF collection.  All other codes are
   collected by the MS, but discarded, and no event is triggered to the
   AS.  Considering all the codes have the '*' (star) DTMF code in
   common, the following is an example of an SRGS grammar that may be
   used in the request by the AS:



     <grammar mode="dtmf" version="1.0" \
              xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2001/06/grammar">
       <rule id="digit">
         <one-of>
           <item>0</item>
           <item>1</item>
           <item>3</item>
           <item>6</item>
           <item>7</item>
           <item>9</item>
         </one-of>
       </rule>
       <rule id="action" scope="public">
         <item>
           *
           <item><ruleref uri="#digit"/></item>
         </item>
       </rule>
     </grammar>


   As it can be deduced by looking at the grammar, the presented SRGS
   XML code specifies exactly the requirements for the collections to
   match: the rule is to match any string which has a star ('*')
   followed by just one of any supported digit (0, 1, 3, 6, 7, 9).  Such
   grammar, as stated in the IVR package specification, may be provided



Amirante, et al.        Expires January 12, 2012              [Page 107]

Internet-Draft           CFW Call Flow Examples                July 2011


   either inline in the request itself or referenced externally by means
   of the 'src' attribute.  In the scenario example, we'll put it
   inline, but an external reference to the same document would achieve
   exactly the same result.

   Figure 47 shows how the AS might request the recurring collection for
   a UAC: as already anticipated before, the example assumes the UAC is
   already a participant in the conference.



 UAC                  AS                                     MS
  |                   |                                      |
  |                   | A1. CONTROL (recurring collection)   |
  |                   |++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++>>|
  |                   |                                      |--+ start
  |                   |                                      |  | the
  |                   |                           A2. 200 OK |<-+ dialog
  |                   |<<++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++|
  |                   |                                      |
  |########################################################>>|
  |          Recurring DTMF digit collection starts          |--+ get
  |########################################################>>|  | DTMF
  |                   |                                      |<-+ digits
  |                   |            B1. CONTROL (dtmfinfo=*1) |
  |                   |<<++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++|
  |                   | B2. 200 OK                           |--+ get
  |                   |++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++>>|  | DTMF
  |                   |                                      |<-+ ditigs
  |                   | C1. CONTROL (modifyjoin UAC1-->conf) |
  |                   |++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++>>|
  |                   |                                      |--+ modify
  |                   |                                      |  | UAC
  |                   |                           C2. 200 OK |<-+ volume
  |                   |<<++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++|
  |                   |                                      |
  |########################################################>>|
  |          Volume of UAC in conference is lowered          |
  |########################################################>>|
  |                   |                                      |
  |                   |            D1. CONTROL (dtmfinfo=*9) |
  |                   |<<++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++|
  |                   | D2. 200 OK                           |--+ get
  |                   |++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++>>|  | DTMF
  |                   |                                      |<-+ ditigs
  |                   | E1. CONTROL (modifyjoin UAC1<--conf) |
  |                   |++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++>>|
  |                   |                                      |--+ modify



Amirante, et al.        Expires January 12, 2012              [Page 108]

Internet-Draft           CFW Call Flow Examples                July 2011


  |                   |                                      |  | conf
  |                   |                           E2. 200 OK |<-+ volume
  |                   |<<++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++|
  |                   |                                      |
  |<<########################################################|
  |  Now UAC can hear the conference mix at a higher volume  |
  |<<########################################################|
  |                   |                                      |
  |                   |            F1. CONTROL (dtmfinfo=*6) |
  |                   |<<++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++|
  |                   | F2. 200 OK                           |--+ get
  |                   |++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++>>|  | DTMF
  |                   |                                      |<-+ ditigs
  |                   | G1. CONTROL (modifyjoin UAC1-->conf) |
  |                   |++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++>>|
  |                   |                                      |--+ mute
  |                   |                                      |  | UAC in
  |                   |                           G2. 200 OK |<-+ conf
  |                   |<<++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++|
  |                   |                                      |
  |########################################################>>|
  |             UAC is now muted in the conference           |
  |########################################################>>|
  |                   |                                      |
  |                   |            H1. CONTROL (dtmfinfo=*0) |
  |                   |<<++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++|
  |                   | H2. 200 OK                           |--+ get
  |                   |++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++>>|  | DTMF
  |                   |                                      |<-+ ditigs
  |                   | I1. CONTROL (destroy DTMF dialog)    |
  |                   |++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++>>|
  |                   |                                      |--+ delete
  |                   |                                      |  | the
  |                   |                           I2. 200 OK |<-+ dialog
  |                   |<<++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++|    (DTMF
  |                   |                                      |collection
  |                   |                                      |    stops)
  |                   |             J1. CONTROL (dialogexit) |
  |                   |<<++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++|
  |                   | J2. 200 OK                           |
  |                   |++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++>>|
  |                   |                                      |
  |########################################################>>|
  |           No more tones from UAC are collected           |
  |########################################################>>|
  |                   |                                      |
  |                   | K1. CONTROL (unjoin UAC1<-X->conf)   |
  |                   |++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++>>|



Amirante, et al.        Expires January 12, 2012              [Page 109]

Internet-Draft           CFW Call Flow Examples                July 2011


  |                   |                                      |--+ unjoin
  |                   |                                      |  | UAC &
  |                   |                           K2. 200 OK |<-+ conf
  |                   |<<++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++|
  |                   |                                      |
  |                   |          L1. CONTROL (notify-unjoin) |
  |                   |<<++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++|
  |                   | L2. 200 OK                           |
  |                   |++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++>>|
  |                   |                                      |
  .                   .                                      .
  .                   .                                      .


         Figure 47: DTMF-driven Conference Manipulation: Framework
                               Transactions

   As it can be deduced from the sequence diagram above, the AS, in its
   business logic, correlates the results of different transactions,
   addressed to different packages, to implement a more complex
   conferencing scenario: in fact, 'dtmfnotify' events are used to take
   actions according to the purpose the DTMF codes are meant for.  The
   framework transaction steps are the following:

   o  The UAC is already in the conference, and so the AS starts a
      recurring collect with a grammar to match; this is done by placing
      a CONTROL request addressed to the IVR package (A1); the operation
      to implement is a <collect>, and we are only interested in two-
      digits DTMF strings (maxdigits); the AS is not interested in a
      DTMF terminator (termchar is set to a non-conventional DTMF
      character), and the DTMF escape key is set to '#' (the default is
      '*', which would conflict with the code syntax for the conference,
      and so needs to be changed); a custom SRGS grammar is provided
      inline (<grammar> with mode=dtmf); the whole dialog is to be
      repeated indefinitely (dialog has repeatCount=0), and the AS wants
      to be notified when matching collections occur (dtmfsub with
      matchmode=collect);
   o  the request is handled by the MS as already explained in previous
      sections (A2), and then successfully started (dialogid=01d1b38);
      this means the MS has started collecting DTMF tones from UAC;
   o  the MS collects a matching DTMF string from UAC (*1); since the AS
      subscribed to this kind of event, a CONTROL event notification
      (dtmfnotify) is triggered by the MS (B1), including the collected
      tones; since the dialog is recurring, the MS immediately restarts
      the collection;
   o  the AS acks the event (B2), and in its business logic understands
      that the code '*1' means that the UAC wants its own volume to be
      lowered in the conference mix; the AS is able to associate the



Amirante, et al.        Expires January 12, 2012              [Page 110]

Internet-Draft           CFW Call Flow Examples                July 2011


      event with the right UAC by referring to the attached dialogid
      (01d1b38); it then acts accordingly, by sending a <modifyjoin>
      (C1) which does exactly this: the provided <stream> child element
      instructs the MS into modifying the volume of the UAC-->conference
      audio flow (setgain=-5dB sendonly); notice how the request also
      includes directives upon the inverse direction; this verbose
      approach is needed, since otherwise the MS would not only change
      the volume in the requested direction, but also disable the media
      flow in the other direction; having a proper <stream> addressing
      the UAC<--conf media flow as well ensures that this doesn't
      happen;
   o  the MS successfully enforces the requested operation (C2),
      changing the volume;
   o  a new matching DTMF string from UAC is collected (*9); as before,
      an event is triggered to the AS (D1);
   o  the AS acks the event (D2), and matches the new code ('*9') with
      its related operation (raise the volume of the conference mix for
      UAC), taking the proper action; a different <modifyjoin> is sent
      (E1) with the new instructions (setgain=+3dB recvonly); notice how
      a <stream> for the inverse direction (sendonly) is provided again
      just as a placeholder, which basically instructs the MS that the
      settings for that direction are not to be changed, maintaining the
      previous directives of (C1);
   o  the MS successfully enforces this requested operation as well
      (E2), changing the volume in the specified direction;
   o  at this point, a further matching DTMF string from UAC is
      collected (*6), and sent to the AS (F1);
   o  after the rquired ack (F2), the AS reacts by implementing the
      action associated with the new code ('*6'), by which UAC requested
      to be muted within the conference; a new <modifyjoin> is sent (G1)
      with a properly constructed payload (setstate=mute sendonly), and
      the MS enforces it (G2);
   o  a last (in the scenario) matching DTMF string is collected by the
      MS (*0); as with all the previous codes, this string is notified
      to the AS (H1);
   o  the AS acks the event (H2), and understands the UAC wants to leave
      the conference now (since the code is *0); this means that a
      series of actions must be taken, namely:
      *  actually stopping the recurring collection, since it's not
         needed anymore;
      *  unjoin UAC from the conference it is in;
      *  additional operations might be considered, e.g. a global
         announcement stating UAC is leaving, but are left out for the
         sake of conciseness);
      the former is accomplished by means of a <dialogterminate> request
      (I1) to the IVR package (dialogid=01d1b38); the latter by means of
      an 'unjoin' request (K1) to the Mixer package instead;




Amirante, et al.        Expires January 12, 2012              [Page 111]

Internet-Draft           CFW Call Flow Examples                July 2011


   o  the <dialogterminate> request is handled by the MS (I2), and the
      dialog is terminated successfully; as soon as the dialog has
      actually been terminated, a 'dialogexit' event is triggered as
      well to the AS (J1); this event has no report upon the result of
      the last iteration (since the dialog was terminated abruptly with
      an immediate=true) and is acked by the AS (J2) to finally complete
      the dialog lifetime;
   o  the <unjoin> request, instead, is immediately enforced (K2); as a
      consequence of the unjoin operation, an 'unjoin-notify' event
      notification is triggered by the MS (L1) to confirm to the AS that
      the requested entities are not attached to each other anymore; the
      status in the event is set to 0 which, as stated in the
      specification, means the join has been terminated by an <unjoin>
      request; the ack of the AS (L2) concludes this scenario.



A1. AS -> MS (CFW CONTROL, recurring collect with grammar)
----------------------------------------------------------
   CFW 238e1f2946e8 CONTROL
   Control-Package: msc-ivr/1.0
   Content-Type: application/msc-ivr+xml
   Content-Length: 809

   <mscivr version="1.0" xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:msc-ivr">
     <dialogstart connectionid="14849028:37fc2523">
       <dialog repeatCount="0">
         <collect maxdigits="2" termchar="A" escapekey="#">
           <grammar>
             <grammar version="1.0" mode="dtmf" \
                      xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2001/06/grammar">
               <rule id="digit">
                 <one-of>
                   <item>0</item>
                   <item>1</item>
                   <item>3</item>
                   <item>6</item>
                   <item>7</item>
                   <item>9</item>
                 </one-of>
               </rule>
               <rule id="action" scope="public">
                 <example>*3</example>
                 <one-of>
                   <item>
                     *
                     <ruleref uri="#digit"/>
                   </item>



Amirante, et al.        Expires January 12, 2012              [Page 112]

Internet-Draft           CFW Call Flow Examples                July 2011


                 </one-of>
               </rule>
             </grammar>
           </grammar>
         </collect>
       </dialog>
       <subscribe>
         <dtmfsub matchmode="collect"/>
       </subscribe>
     </dialogstart>
   </mscivr>


A2. AS <- MS (CFW 200 OK)
-------------------------
   CFW 238e1f2946e8 200
   Timeout: 10
   Content-Type: application/msc-ivr+xml
   Content-Length: 137

   <mscivr version="1.0" xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:msc-ivr">
     <response status="200" reason="Dialog started" dialogid="01d1b38"/>
   </mscivr>


B1. AS <- MS (CFW CONTROL dtmfnotify event)
-------------------------------------------
   CFW 1dd62e043c00 CONTROL
   Control-Package: msc-ivr/1.0
   Content-Type: application/msc-ivr+xml
   Content-Length: 180

   <mscivr version="1.0" xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:msc-ivr">
     <event dialogid="01d1b38">
       <dtmfnotify matchmode="collect" dtmf="*1" \
                   timestamp="2008-12-17T17:20:53Z"/>
     </event>
   </mscivr>


B2. AS -> MS (CFW 200, ACK to 'CONTROL event')
----------------------------------------------
   CFW 1dd62e043c00 200


C1. AS -> MS (CFW CONTROL, modifyjoin with setgain)
---------------------------------------------------
   CFW 0216231b1f16 CONTROL



Amirante, et al.        Expires January 12, 2012              [Page 113]

Internet-Draft           CFW Call Flow Examples                July 2011


   Control-Package: msc-mixer/1.0
   Content-Type: application/msc-mixer+xml
   Content-Length: 290

   <mscmixer version="1.0" xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:msc-mixer">
     <modifyjoin id1="873975758:a5105056" id2="54b4ab3">
       <stream media="audio" direction="sendonly">
         <volume controltype="setgain" value="-3"/>
       </stream>
       <stream media="audio" direction="recvonly"/>
     </modifyjoin>
   </mscmixer>


C2. AS <- MS (CFW 200 OK)
-------------------------
   CFW 0216231b1f16 200
   Timeout: 10
   Content-Type: application/msc-mixer+xml
   Content-Length: 123

   <mscmixer version="1.0" xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:msc-mixer">
     <response status="200" reason="Join modified"/>
   </mscmixer>


D1. AS <- MS (CFW CONTROL dtmfnotify event)
-------------------------------------------
   CFW 4d674b3e0862 CONTROL
   Control-Package: msc-ivr/1.0
   Content-Type: application/msc-ivr+xml
   Content-Length: 180

   <mscivr version="1.0" xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:msc-ivr">
     <event dialogid="01d1b38">
       <dtmfnotify matchmode="collect" dtmf="*9" \
                   timestamp="2008-12-17T17:20:57Z"/>
     </event>
   </mscivr>


D2. AS -> MS (CFW 200, ACK to 'CONTROL event')
----------------------------------------------
   CFW 4d674b3e0862 200


E1. AS -> MS (CFW CONTROL, modifyjoin with setgain)
---------------------------------------------------



Amirante, et al.        Expires January 12, 2012              [Page 114]

Internet-Draft           CFW Call Flow Examples                July 2011


   CFW 140e0f763352 CONTROL
   Control-Package: msc-mixer/1.0
   Content-Type: application/msc-mixer+xml
   Content-Length: 292

   <mscmixer version="1.0" xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:msc-mixer">
     <modifyjoin id1="873975758:a5105056" id2="54b4ab3">
       <stream media="audio" direction="recvonly">
         <volume controltype="setgain" value="+3"/>
       </stream>
       <stream media="audio" direction="sendonly"/>
     </modifyjoin>
   </mscmixer>


E2. AS <- MS (CFW 200 OK)
-------------------------
   CFW 140e0f763352 200
   Timeout: 10
   Content-Type: application/msc-mixer+xml
   Content-Length: 123

   <mscmixer version="1.0" xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:msc-mixer">
     <response status="200" reason="Join modified"/>
   </mscmixer>


F1. AS <- MS (CFW CONTROL dtmfnotify event)
-------------------------------------------
   CFW 478ed6f1775b CONTROL
   Control-Package: msc-ivr/1.0
   Content-Type: application/msc-ivr+xml
   Content-Length: 180

   <mscivr version="1.0" xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:msc-ivr">
     <event dialogid="01d1b38">
       <dtmfnotify matchmode="collect" dtmf="*6" \
                   timestamp="2008-12-17T17:21:02Z"/>
     </event>
   </mscivr>


F2. AS -> MS (CFW 200, ACK to 'CONTROL event')
----------------------------------------------
   CFW 478ed6f1775b 200


G1. AS -> MS (CFW CONTROL, modifyjoin with setstate)



Amirante, et al.        Expires January 12, 2012              [Page 115]

Internet-Draft           CFW Call Flow Examples                July 2011


----------------------------------------------------
   CFW 7fdcc2331bef CONTROL
   Control-Package: msc-mixer/1.0
   Content-Type: application/msc-mixer+xml
   Content-Length: 295

   <mscmixer version="1.0" xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:msc-mixer">
     <modifyjoin id1="873975758:a5105056" id2="54b4ab3">
       <stream media="audio" direction="sendonly">
         <volume controltype="setstate" value="mute"/>
       </stream>
       <stream media="audio" direction="recvonly"/>
     </modifyjoin>
   </mscmixer>


G2. AS <- MS (CFW 200 OK)
-------------------------
   CFW 7fdcc2331bef 200
   Timeout: 10
   Content-Type: application/msc-mixer+xml
   Content-Length: 123

   <mscmixer version="1.0" xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:msc-mixer">
     <response status="200" reason="Join modified"/>
   </mscmixer>


H1. AS <- MS (CFW CONTROL dtmfnotify event)
-------------------------------------------
   CFW 750b917a5d4a CONTROL
   Control-Package: msc-ivr/1.0
   Content-Type: application/msc-ivr+xml
   Content-Length: 180

   <mscivr version="1.0" xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:msc-ivr">
     <event dialogid="01d1b38">
       <dtmfnotify matchmode="collect" dtmf="*0" \
                   timestamp="2008-12-17T17:21:05Z"/>
     </event>
   </mscivr>


H2. AS -> MS (CFW 200, ACK to 'CONTROL event')
----------------------------------------------
   CFW 750b917a5d4a 200





Amirante, et al.        Expires January 12, 2012              [Page 116]

Internet-Draft           CFW Call Flow Examples                July 2011


I1. AS -> MS (CFW CONTROL, dialogterminate)
-------------------------------------------
   CFW 515f007c5bd0 CONTROL
   Control-Package: msc-ivr/1.0
   Content-Type: application/msc-ivr+xml
   Content-Length: 128

   <mscivr version="1.0" xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:msc-ivr">
     <dialogterminate dialogid="01d1b38" immediate="true"/>
   </mscivr>


I2. AS <- MS (CFW 200 OK)
-------------------------
   CFW 515f007c5bd0 200
   Timeout: 10
   Content-Type: application/msc-ivr+xml
   Content-Length: 140

   <mscivr version="1.0" xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:msc-ivr">
     <response status="200" reason="Dialog terminated" \
               dialogid="01d1b38"/>
   </mscivr>


J1. AS <- MS (CFW CONTROL dialogexit event)
-------------------------------------------
   CFW 76adc41122c1 CONTROL
   Control-Package: msc-ivr/1.0
   Content-Type: application/msc-ivr+xml
   Content-Length: 155

   <mscivr version="1.0" xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:msc-ivr">
     <event dialogid="01d1b38">
       <dialogexit status="0" reason="Dialog terminated"/>
     </event>
   </mscivr>


J2. AS -> MS (CFW 200, ACK to 'CONTROL event')
----------------------------------------------
   CFW 76adc41122c1 200


K1. AS -> MS (CFW CONTROL, unjoin)
----------------------------------
   CFW 4e6afb6625e4 CONTROL
   Control-Package: msc-mixer/1.0



Amirante, et al.        Expires January 12, 2012              [Page 117]

Internet-Draft           CFW Call Flow Examples                July 2011


   Content-Type: application/msc-mixer+xml
   Content-Length: 127

   <mscmixer version="1.0" xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:msc-mixer">
     <unjoin id1="873975758:a5105056" id2="54b4ab3"/>
   </mscmixer>


K2. AS <- MS (CFW 200 OK)
-------------------------
   CFW 4e6afb6625e4 200
   Timeout: 10
   Content-Type: application/msc-mixer+xml
   Content-Length: 122

   <mscmixer version="1.0" xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:msc-mixer">
     <response status="200" reason="Join removed"/>
   </mscmixer>


L1. AS <- MS (CFW CONTROL unjoin-notify event)
----------------------------------------------
   CFW 577696293504 CONTROL
   Control-Package: msc-mixer/1.0
   Content-Type: application/msc-mixer+xml
   Content-Length: 157

   <mscmixer version="1.0" xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:msc-mixer">
     <event>
       <unjoin-notify status="0" \
                      id1="873975758:a5105056" id2="54b4ab3"/>
     </event>
   </mscmixer>


L2. AS -> MS (CFW 200, ACK to 'CONTROL event')
----------------------------------------------
   CFW 577696293504 200



7.  Media Resource Brokering

   All the flows presented so far describe the interaction between a
   single AS and a single MS.  This is the most simple topology that can
   be envisaged in a MEDIACTRL-compliant architecture, but it's not the
   only allowed one.  [RFC5567] presents several possible topologies,
   potentially involving several AS and several MS as well.  To properly



Amirante, et al.        Expires January 12, 2012              [Page 118]

Internet-Draft           CFW Call Flow Examples                July 2011


   allow for such topologies, an additional element has been introduced
   in the MEDIACTRL architecture, called Media Resource Broker (MRB).
   Such an entity, and the protocols needed to interact with it, has
   been standardized in [I-D.ietf-mediactrl-mrb].

   A MRB is basically a locator that is aware of a pool of MS, and makes
   them available to interested AS according to their requirements.  For
   this reason, two different interfaces have been introduced:

   o  Publishing Interface (Section 7.1), which allows an MRB to
      subscribe for notifications at the MS it is handling (e.g.
      available and occupied resources, current state, etc.);
   o  Consumer Interface (Section 7.2), which allows an interested AS to
      query an MRB for a MS capable to fulfill its requirements.

   The flows in the following sections will present some typical use
   case scenarios involving a MRB, and the different topologies it has
   been conceived to work in.

   Additionally, a few considerations on the handling of call legs
   whenever an MRB is involved are presented in Section 7.3.

7.1.  Publishing Interface

   Each MS makes use of the publishing interface to provide an MRB with
   relevant information.  This publishing interface, as specified in
   [I-D.ietf-mediactrl-mrb], is made available as a control package for
   the Media Control Channel Framework.  This means that, in order to
   receive information from a MS, an MRB must negotiate a control
   channel as explained in Section 5.  This package allows a MRB to
   request information from a MS, be it as a direct request/answer or by
   subscribing for events.

   Of course, considering the MRB is interested in the publishing
   interface, the already mentioned negotiation must be changed in order
   to take into account the need for the MRB control package.  The name
   of this package is 'mrb-publish/1.0', which means the SYNC might look
   like the following:













Amirante, et al.        Expires January 12, 2012              [Page 119]

Internet-Draft           CFW Call Flow Examples                July 2011


   1. MRB -> MS (CFW SYNC)
   -----------------------
      CFW 6b8b4567327b SYNC
      Dialog-ID: z9hG4bK-4542-1-0
      Keep-Alive: 100
      Packages: msc-ivr/1.0,msc-mixer/1.0,mrb-publish/1.0


   2. MRB <- MS (CFW 200)
   ----------------------
      CFW 6b8b4567327b 200
      Keep-Alive: 100
      Packages: msc-ivr/1.0,msc-mixer/1.0,mrb-publish/1.0
      Supported: msc-example-pkg/1.0


   The meaning of this negotiation has already been presented.  It is
   enough to point out that, in this case, the MRB adds a new voice to
   the 'Packages' it needs support for (mrb-publish/1.0).  In this case,
   the MS supports it, and in fact it is added to the negotiated
   packages in the reply:



           Packages: msc-ivr/1.0,msc-mixer/1.0,mrb-publish/1.0
                                               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


   The MS of Section 5, instead, did not have support for that package,
   since only 'msc-example-pkg/1.0' was part of the 'Supported' list.

   Figure 48 presents a ladder diagram of a typical interaction based on
   the MRB control package.


















Amirante, et al.        Expires January 12, 2012              [Page 120]

Internet-Draft           CFW Call Flow Examples                July 2011


         MRB                                            MS
          |                                              |
          | A1. CONTROL (MRB subscription)               |
          |--------------------------------------------->|
          |                                   A2. 200 OK |
          |<---------------------------------------------|
          |                                              |--+ collect
          |                                              |  | requested
          |                                              |<-+ info
          |               B1. CONTROL (MRB notification) |
          |<---------------------------------------------|
          | B2. 200 OK                                   |
          |--------------------------------------------->|
          |                                              |
          .                                              .
          .                                              .
          |                                              |
          |                                              |--+ collect
          |                                              |  | up-to-date
          |                                              |<-+ info
          |               C1. CONTROL (MRB notification) |
          |<---------------------------------------------|
          | C2. 200 OK                                   |
          |--------------------------------------------->|
          |                                              |
          .                                              .
          .                                              .
          |                                              |
          | D1. CONTROL (Update MRB subscription)        |
          |--------------------------------------------->|
          |                                   D2. 200 OK |
          |<---------------------------------------------|
          |                                              |
          .                                              .
          .                                              .


    Figure 48: Media Resource Brokering: Subscription and Notification

   In this example, the MRB subscribes for information at the specified
   MS, and events are triggered at a regular, negotiated, basis.  All
   this messages flow through the control channel as all the messages in
   this document.  The framework transaction steps are the following:

   o  The MRB sends a new CONTROL message (A1) addressed to the MRB
      package (mrb-publish/1.0); it is a subscribtion for information
      (<subscription>), and the MRB is asking to be notified at least
      every 10 minutes (<minfrequency>), or if required every 30 seconds



Amirante, et al.        Expires January 12, 2012              [Page 121]

Internet-Draft           CFW Call Flow Examples                July 2011


      at max; besides, the subscription must last 30 minutes (<expires>)
      after which no notification must be sent anymore;
   o  The MS acknowledges the request (A2), and notifies the success of
      the request in a 200 OK message (<mrbresponse>);
   o  The MS prepares and sends the first notification to the MRB (B1);
      as what happened with other packages as well, the notification has
      been sent as a MS-generated CONTROL message; it is a notification
      related to the request in the first message, considering the 'id'
      matches (p0T65U) that one; all the info the MRB subscribed for is
      provided in the payload;
   o  the MRB acknowledges the notification (B2), and uses the retrieved
      info to update its information as part of its business logic;
   o  the same happens at the required frequency, with up-to-date
      information;
   o  after a while, the MRB updates its subscription (D1) to get more
      frequent updates (minfrequency=1, an update every second at
      least); the MS accepts the update (D2), even if it adjusts the
      frequency in the reply according to its policies (minfrequency=30,
      lower rate); the notifications keep on going, but at the newer
      frequency rate; the expiration is also updated accordingly (600
      seconds again, since the update refreshes it).



A1. MRB -> MS (CONTROL, publish request)
----------------------------------------
   CFW lidc30BZObiC CONTROL
   Control-Package: mrb-publish/1.0
   Content-Type: application/mrb-publish+xml
   Content-Length: 337

   <mrbpublish version="1.0" xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:mrb-publish">
      <mrbrequest>
         <subscription action="create" seqnumber="1" id="p0T65U">
            <expires>60</expires>
            <minfrequency>600</minfrequency>
            <maxfrequency>30</maxfrequency>
         </subscription>
      </mrbrequest>
   </mrbpublish>


A2. MRB <- MS (200 to CONTROL, request accepted)
------------------------------------------------
   CFW lidc30BZObiC 200
   Timeout: 10
   Content-Type: application/mrb-publish+xml
   Content-Length: 139



Amirante, et al.        Expires January 12, 2012              [Page 122]

Internet-Draft           CFW Call Flow Examples                July 2011


   <mrbpublish version="1.0" xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:mrb-publish">
           <mrbresponse status="200" reason="OK: Request accepted"/>
   </mrbpublish>



B1. MRB <- MS (CONTROL, event notification from MS)
---------------------------------------------------
   CFW 03fff52e7b7a CONTROL
   Control-Package: mrb-publish/1.0
   Content-Type: application/mrb-publish+xml
   Content-Length: 4242

   <mrbpublish version="1.0" \
             xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:mrb-publish">
    <mrbnotification seqnumber="1" id="p0T65U">
        <media-server-id>a1b2c3d4</media-server-id>
        <supported-packages>
            <package name="msc-ivr/1.0"/>
            <package name="msc-mixer/1.0"/>
            <package name="mrb-publish/1.0"/>
            <package name="msc-example-pkg/1.0"/>
        </supported-packages>
        <active-rtp-sessions>
            <rtp-codec name="audio/basic">
                <decoding>10</decoding>
                <encoding>20</encoding>
            </rtp-codec>
        </active-rtp-sessions>
        <active-mixer-sessions>
            <active-mix conferenceid="7cfgs43">
                <rtp-codec name="audio/basic">
                    <decoding>3</decoding>
                    <encoding>3</encoding>
                </rtp-codec>
            </active-mix>
        </active-mixer-sessions>
        <non-active-rtp-sessions>
            <rtp-codec name="audio/basic">
                <decoding>50</decoding>
                <encoding>40</encoding>
            </rtp-codec>
        </non-active-rtp-sessions>
        <non-active-mixer-sessions>
            <non-active-mix available="15">
                <rtp-codec name="audio/basic">
                    <decoding>15</decoding>
                    <encoding>15</encoding>



Amirante, et al.        Expires January 12, 2012              [Page 123]

Internet-Draft           CFW Call Flow Examples                July 2011


                </rtp-codec>
            </non-active-mix>
        </non-active-mixer-sessions>
        <media-server-status>active</media-server-status>
        <supported-codecs>
            <supported-codec name="audio/basic">
                <supported-codec-package name="msc-ivr/1.0">
                    <supported-actions>encoding</supported-actions>
                    <supported-actions>decoding</supported-actions>
                </supported-codec-package>
                <supported-codec-package name="msc-mixer/1.0">
                    <supported-actions>encoding</supported-actions>
                    <supported-actions>decoding</supported-actions>
                </supported-codec-package>
            </supported-codec>
        </supported-codecs>
        <application-data>TestbedPrototype</application-data>
        <file-formats>
            <supported-format name="audio/x-wav">
                <supported-file-package>
                    msc-ivr/1.0
                </supported-file-package>
            </supported-format>
        </file-formats>
        <max-prepared-duration>
            <max-time max-time-seconds="3600">
                <max-time-package>msc-ivr/1.0</max-time-package>
            </max-time>
        </max-prepared-duration>
        <dtmf-support>
            <detect>
                <dtmf-type package="msc-ivr/1.0" name="RFC4733"/>
                <dtmf-type package="msc-mixer/1.0" name="RFC4733"/>
            </detect>
            <generate>
                <dtmf-type package="msc-ivr/1.0" name="RFC4733"/>
                <dtmf-type package="msc-mixer/1.0" name="RFC4733"/>
            </generate>
            <passthrough>
                <dtmf-type package="msc-ivr/1.0" name="RFC4733"/>
                <dtmf-type package="msc-mixer/1.0" name="RFC4733"/>
            </passthrough>
        </dtmf-support>
        <mixing-modes>
            <audio-mixing-modes>
                <audio-mixing-mode package="msc-ivr/1.0">
                     nbest
                </audio-mixing-mode>



Amirante, et al.        Expires January 12, 2012              [Page 124]

Internet-Draft           CFW Call Flow Examples                July 2011


            </audio-mixing-modes>
            <video-mixing-modes activespeakermix="true" vas="true">
                <video-mixing-mode package="msc-mixer/1.0">
                     single-view
                </video-mixing-mode>
                <video-mixing-mode package="msc-mixer/1.0">
                     dual-view
                </video-mixing-mode>
                <video-mixing-mode package="msc-mixer/1.0">
                     dual-view-crop
                </video-mixing-mode>
                <video-mixing-mode package="msc-mixer/1.0">
                     dual-view-2x1
                </video-mixing-mode>
                <video-mixing-mode package="msc-mixer/1.0">
                     dual-view-2x1-crop
                </video-mixing-mode>
                <video-mixing-mode package="msc-mixer/1.0">
                     quad-view
                </video-mixing-mode>
                <video-mixing-mode package="msc-mixer/1.0">
                     multiple-5x1
                </video-mixing-mode>
                <video-mixing-mode package="msc-mixer/1.0">
                     multiple-3x3
                </video-mixing-mode>
                <video-mixing-mode package="msc-mixer/1.0">
                     multiple-4x4
                </video-mixing-mode>
            </video-mixing-modes>
        </mixing-modes>
        <supported-tones>
            <supported-country-codes>
                <country-code package="msc-ivr/1.0">GB</country-code>
                <country-code package="msc-ivr/1.0">IT</country-code>
                <country-code package="msc-ivr/1.0">US</country-code>
            </supported-country-codes>
            <supported-h248-codes>
                <h248-code package="msc-ivr/1.0">cg/*</h248-code>
                <h248-code package="msc-ivr/1.0">biztn/ofque</h248-code>
                <h248-code package="msc-ivr/1.0">biztn/erwt</h248-code>
                <h248-code package="msc-mixer/1.0">conftn/*</h248-code>
            </supported-h248-codes>
        </supported-tones>
        <streaming-modes>
            <stream-mode package="msc-ivr/1.0" name="HTTP"/>
        </streaming-modes>
        <asr-tts-support>



Amirante, et al.        Expires January 12, 2012              [Page 125]

Internet-Draft           CFW Call Flow Examples                July 2011


            <asr-support>
                <language xml:lang="en"/>
            </asr-support>
            <tts-support>
                <language xml:lang="en"/>
            </tts-support>
        </asr-tts-support>
        <vxml-support support="true">
            <vxml-mode package="msc-ivr/1.0" support="IVR-Package"/>
        </vxml-support>
        <media-server-location>
            <civicAddress xml:lang="it">
                <country>IT</country>
                <A1>Campania</A1>
                <A3>Napoli</A3>
                <A6>Via Claudio</A6>
                <HNO>21</HNO>
                <LMK>University of Napoli Federico II</LMK>
                <NAM>Dipartimento di Informatica e Sistemistica</NAM>
                <PC>80210</PC>
            </civicAddress>
        </media-server-location>
        <label>TestbedPrototype-01</label>
        <media-server-address>
            sip:MediaServer@ms.example.net
        </media-server-address>
        <encryption>false</encryption>
    </mrbnotification>
   </mrbpublish>



B2. MRB -> MS (200 to CONTROL)
------------------------------
   CFW 03fff52e7b7a 200



(C1 and C2 omitted for brevity)



D1. MRB -> MS (CONTROL, publish request)
----------------------------------------
CFW pyu788fc32wa CONTROL
Control-Package: mrb-publish/1.0
Content-Type: application/mrb-publish+xml
Content-Length: 342



Amirante, et al.        Expires January 12, 2012              [Page 126]

Internet-Draft           CFW Call Flow Examples                July 2011


<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="yes"?>
<mrbpublish version="1.0" xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:mrb-publish">
    <mrbrequest>
        <subscription action="update" seqnumber="2" id="p0T65U">
            <expires>600</expires>
            <minfrequency>1</minfrequency>
        </subscription>
    </mrbrequest>
</mrbpublish>



D2. MRB <- MS (200 to CONTROL, request accepted)
------------------------------------------------
CFW pyu788fc32wa 200
Timeout: 10
Content-Type: application/mrb-publish+xml
Content-Length: 332

<mrbpublish version="1.0" xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:mrb-publish">
    <mrbresponse status="200" reason="OK: Request accepted">
        <subscription action="create" seqnumber="2" id="p0T65U">
            <expires>600</expires>
            <minfrequency>30</minfrequency>
        </subscription>
    </mrbresponse>
</mrbpublish>


7.2.  Consumer Interface

   While the Publishing interface is used by a MS to publish its
   functionality and up-to-date information to an MRB, the Consumer
   interface is used by an interested AS to get access to a resource.
   An AS can make use of the Consumer interface to contact an MRB and
   describe the resources it needs: the MRB then replies with the needed
   information, specifically the address of an MS that is capable to
   meet the requirements.

   However, unlike the Publishing interface, the Consumer interface is
   not specified as a Control Package.  It is, instead, conceived as an
   XML-based protocol that can be transported by means of either HTTP or
   SIP, as it will be shown in the following sections.

   As specified in [I-D.ietf-mediactrl-mrb], the Consumer interface can
   be involved in basically two topologies: a Query mode and an Inline
   mode.  In the Query mode (Section 7.2.1), the Consumer requests and
   responses are conveyed by means of HTTP: once the AS gets the answer,



Amirante, et al.        Expires January 12, 2012              [Page 127]

Internet-Draft           CFW Call Flow Examples                July 2011


   the usual MEDIACTRL interactions occur between the AS and the MS
   chosen by the MRB.  In the Inline mode, instead, the MRB is in the
   path between the AS and the pool of MSs it is handling.  In this
   case, an AS can place Consumer requests using SIP as a transport, by
   means of a multipart payload (Section 7.2.2) containing the Consumer
   request itself and an SDP related to related to either the creation
   of a control channel or to a UAC call leg.  This is called Inline-
   aware mode, since it assumes that the interested AS knows a MRB is in
   place and knows how to talk to it.  Anyway, the MRB is also conceived
   to work with ASs that are unaware of its functionality, i.e. which
   are not aware of the Consumer interface: in this kind of scenario,
   the Inline mode is still used, but with the AS thinking the MRB it is
   talking to is actually an MS.  This approach is called Inline-unaware
   mode (Section 7.2.3).

7.2.1.  Query Mode

   As anticipated in the previous section, in the Query mode the AS
   sends Consumer requests by means of HTTP.  Specifically, an HTTP POST
   is used to convey the request.  The MRB is assumed to send its
   response by means of an HTTP 200 OK reply.  Since a successfull
   Consumer response contains information to contact a specific MS (the
   MS the MRB has deemed better capable to fulfill the AS requirements),
   an AS can subsequently directly contact the MS as already described
   in the previous sections of the document.  This means that, in the
   Query mode, the MRB acts purely as a locator, and then the AS and the
   MS can talk 1:1.

   Figure 49 presents a ladder diagram of a typical Consumer request in
   the Query topology:





















Amirante, et al.        Expires January 12, 2012              [Page 128]

Internet-Draft           CFW Call Flow Examples                July 2011


     AS                                             MRB
      |                                              |
      | 1. HTTP POST (Consumer request)              |
      |--------------------------------------------->|
      |                                              |
      |                                              |
      |                                              |--+ Parse request
      |                                              |  | and see if any
      |                                              |<-+ MS applies
      |                                              |
      |                2. 200 OK (Consumer response) |
      |<---------------------------------------------|
      |                                              |
      |--+ Parse response and                        |
      |  | start session (SIP/COMEDIA/CFW)           |
      |<-+ with MS reported by MRB                   |
      |                                              |
      .                                              .
      .                                              .


              Figure 49: Media Resource Brokering: Query Mode

   In this example, the AS is interested in an MS meeting a defined set
   of requirements:

   1.  it must support both the IVR and Mixer packages;
   2.  it must provide at least 10 G.711 encoding/decoding RTP sessions
       for IVR purposes;
   3.  it must support HTTP-based streaming and support for the audio/
       x-wav file format in the IVR package.

   These requirements are properly formatted according to the MRB
   Consumer syntax.  The framework transaction steps are the following:

   o  The AS sends an HTTP POST message to the MRB (1); the payload is,
      of course, the Consumer request, which is reflected by the
      Content-Type header (application/mrb-consumer+xml); the Consumer
      request (<mediaResourceRequest>) includes some general
      requirements (<generalInfo>) and some IVR-specific requirements
      (<ivrInfo>); the general part of the requests contains the set of
      required packages (<packages>); the IVR-specific section, instead,
      contains requirements concerning the number of required IVR
      sessions (<ivr-sessions>), the file formats that are to be
      supported (<file-formats>) and the required streaming capabilities
      (<streaming-modes>);





Amirante, et al.        Expires January 12, 2012              [Page 129]

Internet-Draft           CFW Call Flow Examples                July 2011


   o  the MRB gets the request and parses it; then, according to its
      business logic, it realizes it can't find a single MS capable of
      targeting the request, and as a consequence picks up two MS which
      can handle respectively 60 and 40 of the requested sessions; it
      prepares a Consumer response (2) to provide the AS with the
      requested information; the response (<mediaResourceResponse>) is a
      success (status=200), and includes the relevant information
      (<response-session-info>); specifically, the response includes
      transaction-related information (the same session-id and seq
      provided by the AS in its request, to allow proper request/
      response matching) together with information on the duration of
      the reservation (expires=3600, after an hour the request will
      expire) and the SIP addresses of the chosen MSs.



1. AS -> MRB (HTTP POST, Consumer request)
------------------------------------------
 POST /Mrb/Consumer HTTP/1.1
 Content-Length: 879
 Content-Type: application/mrb-consumer+xml
 Host: mrb.example.com:8080
 Connection: Keep-Alive
 User-Agent: Apache-HttpClient/4.0.1 (java 1.5)

 <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="yes"?>
 <mrbconsumer version="1.0" xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:mrb-consumer">
    <mediaResourceRequest>
        <generalInfo>
            <packages>
                <package>msc-ivr/1.0</package>
                <package>msc-mixer/1.0</package>
            </packages>
        </generalInfo>
        <ivrInfo>
            <ivr-sessions>
                <rtp-codec name="audio/basic">
                    <decoding>100</decoding>
                    <encoding>100</encoding>
                </rtp-codec>
            </ivr-sessions>
            <file-formats>
                <required-format name="audio/x-wav"/>
            </file-formats>
            <streaming-modes>
                <stream-mode package="msc-ivr/1.0" name="HTTP"/>
            </streaming-modes>
        </ivrInfo>



Amirante, et al.        Expires January 12, 2012              [Page 130]

Internet-Draft           CFW Call Flow Examples                July 2011


    </mediaResourceRequest>
 </mrbconsumer>


2. AS <- MRB (200 to POST, Consumer response)
---------------------------------------------
 HTTP/1.1 200 OK
 X-Powered-By: Servlet/2.5
 Server: Sun GlassFish Communications Server 1.5
 Content-Type: application/mrb-consumer+xml;charset=ISO-8859-1
 Content-Length: 1132
 Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2011 10:34:45 GMT

 <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="yes"?>
 <mrbconsumer version="1.0" xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:mrb-consumer">
    <mediaResourceResponse reason="Resource found" status="200">
        <response-session-info>
            <session-id>z603G3yaUzM8</session-id>
            <seq>1</seq>
            <expires>3600</expires>
            <media-server-address \
                              uri="sip:MediaServer@ms.example.com:5080">
                <ivr-sessions>
                    <rtp-codec name="audio/basic">
                        <decoding>60</decoding>
                        <encoding>60</encoding>
                    </rtp-codec>
                </ivr-sessions>
            </media-server-address>
            <media-server-address \
                       uri="sip:OtherMediaServer@pool.example.net:5080">
                <ivr-sessions>
                    <rtp-codec name="audio/basic">
                        <decoding>40</decoding>
                        <encoding>40</encoding>
                    </rtp-codec>
                </ivr-sessions>
            </media-server-address>
        </response-session-info>
    </mediaResourceResponse>
 </mrbconsumer>


   For the sake of conciseness, the subsequent steps are not presented.
   They are, however, very trivial, since they basically consist in the
   AS issuing a COMEDIA negotiation with either of the obtained MS, as
   already presented in the first part of the document.  The same can be
   said with respect to attaching UAC call legs: in fact, since after



Amirante, et al.        Expires January 12, 2012              [Page 131]

Internet-Draft           CFW Call Flow Examples                July 2011


   the Query the AS<->interaction becomes 1:1, UAC call legs can be
   redirected directly to the proper MS using the 3PCC approach, e.g. as
   in Figure 10.

7.2.2.  Inline-aware Mode

   Unlike the Query mode, in the Inline-aware mode the AS sends Consumer
   requests by means of SIP.  Of course, saying that the transport
   changes from HTTP to SIP is not as trivial as it seems.  In fact,
   HTTP and SIP behave in a very different way, and this is reflected in
   the way the Inline-aware mode is conceived.

   An AS willing to issue a Concumer request by means of SIP, has to do
   so by means of an INVITE.  As specified in [I-D.ietf-mediactrl-mrb],
   the payload of the INVITE can't only contain the Consumer request
   itself: in fact, the Consumer request is assumed to be carried within
   a SIP transaction.  Besides, a Consumer session is not strictly
   associated with the lifetime of any SIP transaction, meaning Consumer
   requests belonging to the same session may be transported over
   different SIP messages.  An hangup on any of these SIP dialogs would
   not affect the Consumer session by itself.

   That said, as documented in [RFC6230], [I-D.ietf-mediactrl-mrb]
   envisages two kind of SIP dialogs a Consumer request may be sent
   over: a SIP control dialog (a SIP dialog the AS sends in order to
   setup a control channel) or a UAC call leg (a SIP dialog the AS sends
   to attach a UAC to a MS).  In both cases, the AS would prepare a
   multipart/mixed payload to achieve both ends, i.e., receiving a reply
   to its Consumer request and effectively carrying on the negotiation
   described in the SDP payload.

   The behaviour in the two cases, which are called respectively CFW-
   based and Call leg-based approach, is only slightly different, but
   both will be presented to clarify how they could be exploited.  To
   make things clearer for the reader, the same consumer request as the
   one presented in the Query mode will be sent, in order to clarify how
   the behaviour of the involved parties may differ.

7.2.2.1.  Inline-aware Mode: CFW-based approach

   Figure 50 presents a ladder diagram of a typical Consumer request in
   the CFW-based Inline-aware topology:









Amirante, et al.        Expires January 12, 2012              [Page 132]

Internet-Draft           CFW Call Flow Examples                July 2011


   AS                      MRB                          MS
    |                       |                           |
    | 1. INVITE             |                           |
    | (multipart/mixed)     |                           |
    |---------------------->|                           |
    |       2. 100 (Trying) |                           |
    |<----------------------|                           |
    |                       |--+ Extract SDP and        |
    |                       |  | MRB payloads; handle   |
    |                       |<-+ Consumer request to    |
    |                       |    pick MS                |
    |                       |                           |
    |                       | 3. INVITE                 |
    |                       | (only copy SDP from 1.)   |
    |                       |-------------------------->|
    |                       |           4. 100 (Trying) |
    |                       |<--------------------------|
    |                       |                           |--+ Negotiate
    |                       |                           |  | CFW Control
    |                       |                           |<-+ Channel
    |                       |                 5. 200 OK |
    |                       |<--------------------------|
    |                       | 6. ACK                    |
    |                       |-------------------------->|
    |        Prepare new +--|                           |
    |       payload with |  |                           |
    |    SDP from MS and +->|                           |
    |     Consumer reply    |                           |
    |                       |                           |
    |             7. 200 OK |                           |
    |     (multipart/mixed) |                           |
    |<----------------------|                           |
    | 8. ACK                |                           |
    |---------------------->|                           |
    |                       |                           |
    |--+ Read Cons. reply   |                           |
    |  | and use SDP to     |                           |
    |<-+ create CFW Chn.    |                           |
    |                       |                           |
    |                                                   |
    |<<############## TCP CONNECTION #################>>|
    |                                                   |
    | CFW SYNC                                          |
    |++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++>|
    |                                                   |
    .                       .                           .
    .                       .                           .




Amirante, et al.        Expires January 12, 2012              [Page 133]

Internet-Draft           CFW Call Flow Examples                July 2011


     Figure 50: Media Resource Brokering: CFW-based Inline-aware Mode

   As anticipated, to make the understanding of the scenario easier we
   assume the AS is interested in exactly the same set of requirements
   as presented in Section 7.2.1.  This means that the Consumer request
   originated by the AS will be the same as before, with only the
   transport/topology changing.

   Please note that, to ease the reading of the protocol contents, a
   simple '=_Part' is used whenever a boundary for a 'multipart/mixed'
   payload is provided, instead of the actual boundary that would be
   inserted in the SIP messages.

   The framework transaction steps (for simplicity only the payloads and
   not the complete SIP transactions are reported) are the following:

   o



1. AS -> MRB (INVITE multipart/mixed)
-------------------------------------
   [..]
   Content-Type: multipart/mixed;boundary="=_Part"

   =_Part
   Content-Type: application/sdp

   v=0
   o=- 2890844526 2890842807 IN IP4 as.example.com
   s=MediaCtrl
   c=IN IP4 as.example.com
   t=0 0
   m=application 48035 TCP cfw
   a=connection:new
   a=setup:active
   a=cfw-id:vF0zD4xzUAW9
   a=ctrl-package:msc-mixer/1.0
   a=ctrl-package:msc-ivr/1.0

   =_Part
   Content-Type: application/mrb-consumer+xml

   <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="yes"?>
   <mrbconsumer version="1.0"
                xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:mrb-consumer">
     <mediaResourceRequest>
        <generalInfo>



Amirante, et al.        Expires January 12, 2012              [Page 134]

Internet-Draft           CFW Call Flow Examples                July 2011


            <packages>
                <package>msc-ivr/1.0</package>
                <package>msc-mixer/1.0</package>
            </packages>
        </generalInfo>
        <ivrInfo>
            <ivr-sessions>
                <rtp-codec name="audio/basic">
                    <decoding>100</decoding>
                    <encoding>100</encoding>
                </rtp-codec>
            </ivr-sessions>
            <file-formats>
                <required-format name="audio/x-wav"/>
            </file-formats>
            <streaming-modes>
                <stream-mode package="msc-ivr/1.0" name="HTTP"/>
            </streaming-modes>
        </ivrInfo>
     </mediaResourceRequest>
   </mrbconsumer>

   =_Part



3. MRB -> MS (INVITE sdp only)
------------------------------
   [..]
   Content-Type: application/sdp

   v=0
   o=- 2890844526 2890842807 IN IP4 as.example.com
   s=MediaCtrl
   c=IN IP4 as.example.com
   t=0 0
   m=application 48035 TCP cfw
   a=connection:new
   a=setup:active
   a=cfw-id:vF0zD4xzUAW9
   a=ctrl-package:msc-mixer/1.0
   a=ctrl-package:msc-ivr/1.0



5. MRB <- MS (200 OK sdp)
-------------------------
   [..]



Amirante, et al.        Expires January 12, 2012              [Page 135]

Internet-Draft           CFW Call Flow Examples                July 2011


   Content-Type: application/sdp

   v=0
   o=lminiero 2890844526 2890842808 IN IP4 ms.example.net
   s=MediaCtrl
   c=IN IP4 ms.example.net
   t=0 0
   m=application 7575 TCP cfw
   a=connection:new
   a=setup:passive
   a=cfw-id:vF0zD4xzUAW9
   a=ctrl-package:msc-mixer/1.0
   a=ctrl-package:msc-ivr/1.0
   a=ctrl-package:mrb-publish/1.0
   a=ctrl-package:msc-example-pkg/1.0



7. AS <- MRB (200 OK multipart/mixed)
-------------------------------------
   [..]
   Content-Type: multipart/mixed;boundary="=_Part"

   =_Part
   Content-Type: application/sdp

   v=0
   o=lminiero 2890844526 2890842808 IN IP4 ms.example.net
   s=MediaCtrl
   c=IN IP4 ms.example.net
   t=0 0
   m=application 7575 TCP cfw
   a=connection:new
   a=setup:passive
   a=cfw-id:vF0zD4xzUAW9
   a=ctrl-package:msc-mixer/1.0
   a=ctrl-package:msc-ivr/1.0
   a=ctrl-package:mrb-publish/1.0
   a=ctrl-package:msc-example-pkg/1.0

   =_Part
   Content-Type: application/mrb-consumer+xml

   <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="yes"?>
   <mrbconsumer version="1.0" \
                xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:mrb-consumer">
     <mediaResourceResponse reason="Resource found" status="200">
        <response-session-info>



Amirante, et al.        Expires January 12, 2012              [Page 136]

Internet-Draft           CFW Call Flow Examples                July 2011


            <session-id>z603G3yaUzM8</session-id>
            <seq>1</seq>
            <expires>3600</expires>
            <media-server-address \
                              uri="sip:MediaServer@ms.example.com:5080">
                <connection-id>32pbdxZ8:KQw677BF</connection-id>
                <ivr-sessions>
                    <rtp-codec name="audio/basic">
                        <decoding>60</decoding>
                        <encoding>60</encoding>
                    </rtp-codec>
                </ivr-sessions>
            </media-server-address>
            <media-server-address \
                       uri="sip:OtherMediaServer@pool.example.net:5080">
                <ivr-sessions>
                    <rtp-codec name="audio/basic">
                        <decoding>40</decoding>
                        <encoding>40</encoding>
                    </rtp-codec>
                </ivr-sessions>
            </media-server-address>
        </response-session-info>
     </mediaResourceResponse>
   </mrbconsumer>

   =_Part



   The sequence diagram and the dumps effectively show the different
   approach with respect with the Query mode: the SIP INVITE the AS
   sends (1.) includes both a Consumer request (the same as before), and
   an SDP to negotiate a CFW channel with a MS.  The MRB takes care of
   the request exactly as before (provisioning two MS instances) but
   with a remarkable difference: first of all it picks up one of the two
   MS on behalf of the AS (negotiating the control channel in steps 3 to
   6) and only then replies to the AS with both the MS-side of the SDP
   negotiation (with info on how to setup the control channel) and the
   Consumer response itself.

   The Consumer response is also slightly different by itself: in fact,
   as it can be seen in 7., there's an additional element
   (<connection-id>) the MRB has added to the message.  This element
   contains the 'connection-id' the AS and MS would have build out of
   the From and To tags as explained in the previous sections, had the
   AS contacted the MS directly: since the MRB has actually done the
   negotiation on the AS behalf, without this information the AS and MS



Amirante, et al.        Expires January 12, 2012              [Page 137]

Internet-Draft           CFW Call Flow Examples                July 2011


   would refer to dfferent connectionid attributes to target the same
   dialog, thus causing the CFW protocol not to behave as expected.
   This aspect will be more carefully described in the next section, for
   the call leg-based approach, since the 'connection-id' attribute is
   strictly related to media sessions.

   For the sake of conciseness, the following steps are not presented.
   Anyway, they are quite trivial: in fact, as shown in the flow, the
   SIP negotiation has resulted in both the AS and the chosen MS
   negotiating a Control Channel.  This means that the AS is only left
   to instantiate the Control Channel and sending CFW requests according
   to its application logic.

   Besides, it is worthwhile to highlight the fact that, as in the Query
   example, the AS gets the addresses of both the chosen MS in this
   example as well, since a Consumer transaction has taken place.  This
   means that, just as in the Query case, any UAC call leg can be
   redirected directly to the proper MS using the 3PCC approach, e.g. as
   in Figure 10, rather than using the MRB again as a Proxy/B2BUA.  Of
   course, a separate SIP control dialog would be needed before
   attempting to use the second MS instance.

7.2.2.2.  Inline-aware Mode: Call leg-based approach

   As anticipated, there's a second way to take advantage of the IAMM
   mode, that is exploiting SIP dialogs related to UAC call legs as
   'vessels' for Consumer messages.  As it will be clearer in the
   sequence diagram and protocol dumps, the scenario does not differ
   much from the one presented in Section 7.2.2.1 with respect to the
   Consumer request/response, but a dedicated paragraph may be useful in
   order to understand how they may differ with respect to the
   management of the call leg itself and any CFW control channel that
   may be involved.

   Figure 51 presents a ladder diagram of a typical Consumer request in
   the call leg-based Inline-aware topology:



  UAC              AS                     MRB                          MS
   |               |                       |                           |
   | 1. INVITE     |                       |                           |
   | (media SDP)   |                       |                           |
   |-------------->|                       |                           |
   | 2. 100 Trying |                       |                           |
   |<--------------|                       |                           |
   |               | 3. INVITE             |                           |
   |               | (multipart/mixed)     |                           |



Amirante, et al.        Expires January 12, 2012              [Page 138]

Internet-Draft           CFW Call Flow Examples                July 2011


   |               |---------------------->|                           |
   |               |       4. 100 (Trying) |                           |
   |               |<----------------------|                           |
   |               |                       |--+ Extract SDP and        |
   |               |                       |  | MRB payloads; handle   |
   |               |                       |<-+ Consumer request to    |
   |               |                       |    pick Media Servers     |
   |               |                       |                           |
   |               |                       | 5. INVITE                 |
   |               |                       | (only copy SDP from 3.)   |
   |               |                       |-------------------------->|
   |               |                       |           6. 100 (Trying) |
   |               |                       |<--------------------------|
   |               |                       |                        +--|
   |               |                       |        Handle call leg |  |
   |               |                       |        (connection-id) +->|
   |               |                       |                           |
   |               |                       |                 7. 200 OK |
   |               |                       |<--------------------------|
   |               |                       | 8. ACK                    |
   |               |                       |-------------------------->|
   |               |        Prepare new +--|                           |
   |               |       payload with |  |                           |
   |               |    SDP from MS and +->|                           |
   |               |     Consumer reply    |                           |
   |               |                       |                           |
   |               |             9. 200 OK |                           |
   |               |     (multipart/mixed) |                           |
   |               |<----------------------|                           |
   |               | 10. ACK               |                           |
   |               |---------------------->|                           |
   |               |                       |                           |
   |               |--+ Read Cons. reply   |                           |
   |               |  | and send SDP       |                           |
   |               |<-+ back to UAC        |                           |
   |    11. 200 OK |                       |                           |
   |<--------------|                       |                           |
   | 12. ACK       |                       |                           |
   |-------------->|                       |                           |
   |               |                       |                           |
   |<<*************************** RTP *******************************>>|
   |               |                       |                           |
   |               |--+ Negotiate          |                           |
   |               |  | CFW channel        |                           |
   |               |<-+ towards MS         |                           |
   |               |    (if needed)        |                           |
   .               .                       .                           .
   .               .                       .                           .



Amirante, et al.        Expires January 12, 2012              [Page 139]

Internet-Draft           CFW Call Flow Examples                July 2011


   |               |                       |                           |
   |               |<<############## TCP CONNECTION #################>>|
   |               |                                                   |
   |               | CFW SYNC                                          |
   |               |++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++>|
   |               |                                                   |
   .               .                       .                           .
   .               .                       .                           .


   Figure 51: Media Resource Brokering: Call leg-based Inline-aware Mode

   As anticipated, to make the understanding of the scenario easier we
   assume the AS is interested in exactly the same set of requirements
   as presented in Section 7.2.1.  This means that the Consumer request
   originated by the AS will be the same as before, with only the
   transport/topology changing.

   Again, please note that, to ease the reading of the protocol
   contents, a simple '=_Part' is used whenever a boundary for a
   'multipart/mixed' payload is provided, instead of the actual boundary
   that would be inserted in the SIP messages.

   The framework transaction steps (for simplicity only the the relevant
   headers and payloads, and not the complete SIP transactions, are
   reported) are the following:

   o



1. UAC -> AS (INVITE with media SDP)
------------------------------------
   [..]
   From: <sip:lminiero@users.example.com>;tag=1153573888
   To: <sip:mediactrlDemo@as.example.com>
   [..]
   Content-Type: application/sdp

   v=0
   o=lminiero 123456 654321 IN IP4 4.3.2.1
   s=A conversation
   c=IN IP4 4.3.2.1
   t=0 0
   m=audio 7078 RTP/AVP 0 3 8 101
   a=rtpmap:0 PCMU/8000/1
   a=rtpmap:3 GSM/8000/1
   a=rtpmap:8 PCMA/8000/1



Amirante, et al.        Expires January 12, 2012              [Page 140]

Internet-Draft           CFW Call Flow Examples                July 2011


   a=rtpmap:101 telephone-event/8000
   a=fmtp:101 0-11
   m=video 9078 RTP/AVP 98



3. AS -> MRB (INVITE multipart/mixed)
-------------------------------------
   [..]
   From: <sip:ApplicationServer@as.example.com>;tag=fd4fush5
   To: <sip:Mrb@mrb.example.org>
   [..]
   Content-Type: multipart/mixed;boundary="=_Part"

   =_Part
   Content-Type: application/sdp

   v=0
   o=lminiero 123456 654321 IN IP4 4.3.2.1
   s=A conversation
   c=IN IP4 4.3.2.1
   t=0 0
   m=audio 7078 RTP/AVP 0 3 8 101
   a=rtpmap:0 PCMU/8000/1
   a=rtpmap:3 GSM/8000/1
   a=rtpmap:8 PCMA/8000/1
   a=rtpmap:101 telephone-event/8000
   a=fmtp:101 0-11
   m=video 9078 RTP/AVP 98

   =_Part
   Content-Type: application/mrb-consumer+xml

   <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="yes"?>
   <mrbconsumer version="1.0" \
                xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:mrb-consumer">
    <mediaResourceRequest>
        <generalInfo>
            <packages>
                <package>msc-ivr/1.0</package>
                <package>msc-mixer/1.0</package>
            </packages>
        </generalInfo>
        <ivrInfo>
            <ivr-sessions>
                <rtp-codec name="audio/basic">
                    <decoding>100</decoding>
                    <encoding>100</encoding>



Amirante, et al.        Expires January 12, 2012              [Page 141]

Internet-Draft           CFW Call Flow Examples                July 2011


                </rtp-codec>
            </ivr-sessions>
            <file-formats>
                <required-format name="audio/x-wav"/>
            </file-formats>
            <streaming-modes>
                <stream-mode package="msc-ivr/1.0" name="HTTP"/>
            </streaming-modes>
        </ivrInfo>
    </mediaResourceRequest>
   </mrbconsumer>

   =_Part



5. MRB -> MS (INVITE sdp only)
------------------------------
   [..]
   From: <sip:Mrb@mrb.example.org:5060>;tag=32pbdxZ8
   To: <sip:MediaServer@ms.example.com:5080>
   [..]
   Content-Type: application/sdp

   v=0
   o=lminiero 123456 654321 IN IP4 4.3.2.1
   s=A conversation
   c=IN IP4 4.3.2.1
   t=0 0
   m=audio 7078 RTP/AVP 0 3 8 101
   a=rtpmap:0 PCMU/8000/1
   a=rtpmap:3 GSM/8000/1
   a=rtpmap:8 PCMA/8000/1
   a=rtpmap:101 telephone-event/8000
   a=fmtp:101 0-11
   m=video 9078 RTP/AVP 98



7. MRB <- MS (200 OK sdp)
-------------------------
   [..]
   From: <sip:Mrb@mrb.example.org:5060>;tag=32pbdxZ8
   To: <sip:MediaServer@ms.example.com:5080>;tag=KQw677BF
   [..]
   Content-Type: application/sdp

   v=0



Amirante, et al.        Expires January 12, 2012              [Page 142]

Internet-Draft           CFW Call Flow Examples                July 2011


   o=lminiero 123456 654322 IN IP4 1.2.3.4
   s=MediaCtrl
   c=IN IP4 1.2.3.4
   t=0 0
   m=audio 63442 RTP/AVP 0 3 8 101
   a=rtpmap:0 PCMU/8000
   a=rtpmap:3 GSM/8000
   a=rtpmap:8 PCMA/8000
   a=rtpmap:101 telephone-event/8000
   a=fmtp:101 0-15
   a=ptime:20
   a=label:7eda834
   m=video 33468 RTP/AVP 98
   a=rtpmap:98 H263-1998/90000
   a=fmtp:98 CIF=2
   a=label:0132ca2



9. AS <- MRB (200 OK multipart/mixed)
-------------------------------------
   [..]
   From: <sip:ApplicationServer@as.example.com>;tag=fd4fush5
   To: <sip:Mrb@mrb.example.org>;tag=117652221
   [..]
   Content-Type: multipart/mixed;boundary="=_Part"

   =_Part
   Content-Type: application/sdp

   v=0
   o=lminiero 123456 654322 IN IP4 1.2.3.4
   s=MediaCtrl
   c=IN IP4 1.2.3.4
   t=0 0
   m=audio 63442 RTP/AVP 0 3 8 101
   a=rtpmap:0 PCMU/8000
   a=rtpmap:3 GSM/8000
   a=rtpmap:8 PCMA/8000
   a=rtpmap:101 telephone-event/8000
   a=fmtp:101 0-15
   a=ptime:20
   a=label:7eda834
   m=video 33468 RTP/AVP 98
   a=rtpmap:98 H263-1998/90000
   a=fmtp:98 CIF=2
   a=label:0132ca2




Amirante, et al.        Expires January 12, 2012              [Page 143]

Internet-Draft           CFW Call Flow Examples                July 2011


   =_Part
   Content-Type: application/mrb-consumer+xml

   <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="yes"?>
   <mrbconsumer version="1.0" \
                xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:mrb-consumer" >
    <mediaResourceResponse reason="Resource found" status="200">
        <response-session-info>
            <session-id>z1skKYZQ3eFu</session-id>
            <seq>1</seq>
            <expires>3600</expires>
            <media-server-address \
                              uri="sip:MediaServer@ms.example.com:5080">
                <connection-id>32pbdxZ8:KQw677BF</connection-id>
                <ivr-sessions>
                    <rtp-codec name="audio/basic">
                        <decoding>60</decoding>
                        <encoding>60</encoding>
                    </rtp-codec>
                </ivr-sessions>
            </media-server-address>
            <media-server-address \
                       uri="sip:OtherMediaServer@pool.example.net:5080">
                <ivr-sessions>
                    <rtp-codec name="audio/basic">
                        <decoding>40</decoding>
                        <encoding>40</encoding>
                    </rtp-codec>
                </ivr-sessions>
            </media-server-address>
        </response-session-info>
    </mediaResourceResponse>
   </mrbconsumer>

   =_Part



11. UAC <- AS (200 OK sdp)
--------------------------
   [..]
   From: <sip:lminiero@users.example.com>;tag=1153573888
   To: <sip:mediactrlDemo@as.example.com>;tag=bcd47c32
   [..]
   Content-Type: application/sdp

   v=0
   o=lminiero 123456 654322 IN IP4 1.2.3.4



Amirante, et al.        Expires January 12, 2012              [Page 144]

Internet-Draft           CFW Call Flow Examples                July 2011


   s=MediaCtrl
   c=IN IP4 1.2.3.4
   t=0 0
   m=audio 63442 RTP/AVP 0 3 8 101
   a=rtpmap:0 PCMU/8000
   a=rtpmap:3 GSM/8000
   a=rtpmap:8 PCMA/8000
   a=rtpmap:101 telephone-event/8000
   a=fmtp:101 0-15
   a=ptime:20
   a=label:7eda834
   m=video 33468 RTP/AVP 98
   a=rtpmap:98 H263-1998/90000
   a=fmtp:98 CIF=2
   a=label:0132ca2


   The first obvious difference is that the first INVITE (1.) is not
   originated by the AS itself (willing to setup a control channel in
   the previous example) but by an authorized UAC (e.g., to take
   advantage of a media service provided by the AS).  As such, the first
   INVITE only contains an SDP to negotiate an audio and video channel.
   The AS in its business logic needs to attach this UAC to a MS
   according to some specific requirements (e.g., the called URI is
   associated to a specific service), and as such prepares a Consumer
   request to be sent to the MRB in order to obtain a valid MS for the
   purpose: as before, the Consumer request is sent together with the
   SDP to the MRB (3.).  The MRB extracts the Consumer payload and takes
   care of it as usual: it picks two MS instances, and attaches the UAC
   to the first one (5.).  Once the MS has successfully negotiated the
   audio and video streams (7.), the MRB takes note of the
   'connection-id' associated with this call (which will be needed
   afterwards in order to manipulate the audio and video streams for
   this user) and sends back to the AS both the SDP returned by the MS
   and the Consumer response (9.).  The AS extracts the Consumer
   response and takes note of both the MS instances it has been given
   and the connection-id information: it then completes the scenario by
   sending back to the UAC the MS returned by the MS (11.).

   At this point, the UAC has successfully been attached to a MS.  The
   AS only needs to setup a control channel to that MS, if needed; this
   step may not be required, especially if the Consumer request is an
   update to an existing session rather than the preparation of a new
   one.  Assuming a control channel towards that MS doesn't exist yet,
   the AS creates it as usual, by sending an INVITE directly to the MS
   it has the address of.  Once done with that, it can start
   manipulating the audio and video streams of the UAC: to do so, it
   refers to the 'connection-id' element as reported by the MRB, rather



Amirante, et al.        Expires January 12, 2012              [Page 145]

Internet-Draft           CFW Call Flow Examples                July 2011


   than relying on the one it is aware of.  In fact, the AS is aware of
   a connection-id (fd4fush5:117652221, built out of the messages
   exchanged with the MRB), while the MS is aware of another one
   (32pbdxZ8:KQw677BF, built out of the MRB-MS interaction).  The right
   one is of course the one the MS is aware of, and as such the AS
   refers to that one, which the MRB added to the Consumer response just
   for the purpose.

7.2.3.  Inline-unaware Mode

   While in the Inline-aware mode the AS knows it is sending an INVITE
   to a MRB and not to a MS, and acts accordingly (using the multipart/
   mixed payload to query for a MS able to fulfill its requirements) in
   the Inline-unaware mode it is not.  This means that a MRB-unaware AS
   having access to a MRB talks to it as if it were a generic MEDIACTRL
   MS: i.e. the AS negotiates a Control Channel directly with the MRB,
   and attaches its call legs there as well.  Of course, considering the
   MRB doesn't provide any MS functionality by itself, it must act as a
   Proxy/B2BUA between the AS and a MS for what concerns both the
   Control Channel Dialog and the Media Dialogs.  According to
   implementation or deployment choices, simple redirects could also be
   exploited for the purpose.

   The problem is that, without any Consumer request being placed by the
   MRB-unaware AS, the MRB can't rely on AS-originated directives to
   pick a MS rather than another.  In fact, the MRB can't know what the
   AS is looking for.  The MRB is then assumed to pick one according to
   its logic, which is implementation specific.

   Figure 52 presents a ladder diagram of a typical Consumer request in
   the Inline-unaware topology:




















Amirante, et al.        Expires January 12, 2012              [Page 146]

Internet-Draft           CFW Call Flow Examples                July 2011


   AS                      MRB                          MS
    |                       |                           |
    | 1. INVITE (COMEDIA)   |                           |
    |---------------------->|                           |
    |       2. 100 (Trying) |                           |
    |<----------------------|                           |
    |                       |--+ Pick a MS              |
    |                       |  | and redirect           |
    |                       |<-+ INVITE there           |
    |                       |                           |
    |                       | 3. INVITE                 |
    |                       | (copy SDP from 1.)        |
    |                       |-------------------------->|
    |                       |           4. 100 (Trying) |
    |                       |<--------------------------|
    |                       |                           |--+ Negotiate
    |                       |                           |  | CFW Control
    |                       |                           |<-+ Channel
    |                       |                 5. 200 OK |
    |                       |<--------------------------|
    |                       | 6. ACK                    |
    |                       |-------------------------->|
    |                       |                           |
    |             7. 200 OK |                           |
    |    (copy SDP from 5.) |                           |
    |<----------------------|                           |
    | 8. ACK                |                           |
    |---------------------->|                           |
    |                       |                           |
    |                                                   |
    |<<############## TCP CONNECTION #################>>|
    |                                                   |
    | CFW SYNC                                          |
    |++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++>|
    |                                                   |
    .                       .                           .
    .                       .                           .


         Figure 52: Media Resource Brokering: Inline-unaware Mode

   As it can be evinced from the diagram, in this topology the MRB
   basically acts as a 3PCC between the AS and the chosen MS.

   The same can be said with respect to attaching UAC call legs.  The
   MRB remembers the MS it has chosen for the AS and, for every UAC call
   leg the AS tries to attach to the MRB, it makes sure it is actually
   redirected to the MS somehow.



Amirante, et al.        Expires January 12, 2012              [Page 147]

Internet-Draft           CFW Call Flow Examples                July 2011


7.3.  Handling call legs

   It is worthwile to spend a few words to address how call legs would
   be managed whenever an MRB is involved in the scenarios.  In fact,
   the presence of an MRB may introduce an additional complexity
   compared to the quite straightforward 1:1 AS-MS topology.

7.3.1.  Query/IAMM

   Normally, especially in the Query and IAMM case, the MRB would only
   handle Consumer requests by an AS, and after that the AS and the
   Media Server picked by the MRB for a specific request would talk
   directly to each other by means of SIP.  This is made possible by the
   fact that the AS gets the MS SIP URI in reply to its request.  In
   this case, an AS can simply relay call legs associated with that
   session to the right MS to have them handled accordingly.

   An example of such scenario is presented in Figure 53.  Please notice
   that this diagram, as the ones that will follow in this section, is
   simplified with respect to the actual protocol interactions: for
   instance, the whole SIP transactions are not presented, and only the
   originating messages are presented in order to clarify the scenario
   in a simple way.



UAC              AS                           MRB                     MS
 |                |                            |                      |
 |                | 1. Consumer request        |                      |
 |                |--------------------------->|                      |
 |                |                            |                      |
 |                |       2. Consumer response |                      |
 |                |<---------------------------|                      |
 |                |                            |                      |
 |                | 3. COMEDIA negotiation to create CFW channel      |
 |                |-------------------------------------------------->|
 |                |                            |                      |
 |                |<<############## CFW CONNECTION #################>>|
 | 4. INVITE xyz  |                            |                      |
 |--------------->|                            |                      |
 |                | 5. Attach UAC to MS (3PCC)                        |
 |                |-------------------------------------------------->|
 |                |                            |                      |
 |<<++++++++++++++++++++++ RTP channels ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++>>|
 |                |                            |                      |
 .                .                            .                      .
 .                .                            .                      .




Amirante, et al.        Expires January 12, 2012              [Page 148]

Internet-Draft           CFW Call Flow Examples                July 2011


                Figure 53: Handling call legs in Query/IAMM

   As it can be evinced by looking at the diagram, the interactions
   among the components is quite straightforward: the AS knows which MS
   it has been assigned to (as a consequence of the MRB Consumer
   Request, whether it has been achieved by means of HTTP or SIP) and so
   it can easily attach any UAC accessing its functionality to the MS
   itself, and manipulate its media connections by making use of the CFW
   control channel as usual.

   In such a scenario, the MRB is only involved as a locator: once the
   MRB provides the AS with the URI to the required resource, it doesn't
   interfere with the following interactions, if not for monitoring
   (e.g., by exploiting the Publishing information reported by the MS).
   As a consequence, the scenario basically becomes 1:1 between the AS
   and the MS again.

   Nevertheless, there are cases when having an MRB in the signalling
   path as well might be a desired feature: e.g., for more control over
   the use of the resources.  Considering how the Consumer interface has
   been envisaged, this feature is easily achievable, with no change on
   the protocol required at all.  Specifically, in order to achieve such
   a functionality, in response to a Consumer request the MRB may reply
   with, instead of the MS SIP URI as before, a URI it is responsible
   for, and map it with the actual MS URI in its business logic,
   transparently to the AS itself.  This way the AS would interact with
   the MRB as if it were the MS itself.

   With respect to the previous figure, Figure 54 shows how the scenario
   would change in that case.





















Amirante, et al.        Expires January 12, 2012              [Page 149]

Internet-Draft           CFW Call Flow Examples                July 2011


 UAC              AS                           MRB                    MS
  |                |                            |                      |
  |                | 1. Consumer request        |                      |
  |                |--------------------------->|                      |
  |                |                            |                      |
  |                |       2. Consumer response |                      |
  |                |<---------------------------|                      |
  |                |                            |                      |
  |                | 3. COMEDIA negotiation     |                      |
  |                |--------------------------->|                      |
  |                |                            | 4. COMEDIA neg.      |
  |                |                            |--------------------->|
  |                |                            |                      |
  |                |<<############## CFW CONNECTION #################>>|
  | 5. INVITE xyz  |                            |                      |
  |--------------->|                            |                      |
  |                | 6. Attach UAC to MS (3PCC) |                      |
  |                |--------------------------->|                      |
  |                |                            | 7. Attach UAC (3PCC) |
  |                |                            |--------------------->|
  |                |                            |                      |
  |<<++++++++++++++++++++++ RTP channels ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++>>|
  |                |                            |                      |
  .                .                            .                      .
  .                .                            .                      .


    Figure 54: Handling call legs in Query/IAMM: MRB in the signalling
                                   path

   This time, even though the MRB has picked a specific MS after a
   request from an AS, it replies with another SIP URI, an URI it would
   reply to itself: the AS would contact that URI in order to negotiate
   the control channel, and the MRB would proxy/forward the request to
   the actual MS transparently.  Eventually, the control channel would
   be instantiated between the AS and the MS.  The same happens for UACs
   handled by the AS: the AS would forward the calls to the URI it has
   been provided with, the one handled by the MRB, which would in turn
   relay the call to the MS in order to have the proper RTP channels
   created between the UAC and the MS.

   This scenario is not very different from the previous one: what
   changes is that the MRB is now on the signalling path for both the
   SIP control dialog and the SIP media dialogs, allowing it to have
   more control on the resources (e.g., triggering a BYE if a resource
   has expired).  There are several possible approaches an MRB might
   take to allocate URIs to map with a requested MS.  An example might
   be making use of SIP URI parameters to generate multiple SIP URIs



Amirante, et al.        Expires January 12, 2012              [Page 150]

Internet-Draft           CFW Call Flow Examples                July 2011


   that are unique but which all route to the same host and port, e.g.,
   sip:MrbToMs@mrb.example.com:5080;p=1234567890.  Alternatively, the
   MRB might simply allocate a pool of URIs it would be responsible of,
   and manage the associations with the requested MS services
   accordingly.

7.3.2.  IUMM

   As mentioned previously, in such a case the AS would interact with
   the MRB as if it were the MS itself.  One might argue that this would
   make the AS act as in the IUMM case: nevertheless, this is not the
   case, considering the AS actually provided the MRB with information
   about the resources it required, and as such a proper MS has been
   picked, while in the IUMM case the MRB would have to pick a MS with
   no help from the AS at all.

   That said, the IUMM case is also very interesting with respect to the
   call legs management.  In fact, in the MRB-unaware mode there would
   be no Consumer request and an AS would actually see the MRB as an MS.
   This means that, unlike the previous scenarios, there is actually no
   choice, meaning the MRB would likely be in the signaling path anyway.
   The MRB could either redirect the AS to a MS directly or
   transparently act a proxy/B2BUA and contact a MS (according to
   implementation-specific policies) on behalf of the unaware AS.

   While apparently not a problem, this raises an issue when the same
   unaware AS has several sessions with different MS: the AS would only
   see one "virtual" MS (the MRB) and so it would relay all calls there,
   making it hard for the MRB to understand where these call legs should
   belong: specifically, whether the UAC calling belongs to the AS
   application logic leading to MS1 or MS2, or wherever else.

   One possible approach to take care of this issue, is to always relay
   the SIP dialogs from the same unaware AS to the same MS.  It is
   depicted in Figure 55.
















Amirante, et al.        Expires January 12, 2012              [Page 151]

Internet-Draft           CFW Call Flow Examples                July 2011


UAC1  UAC2       AS                           MRB                     MS
 |     |          |                            |                      |
 |     |          | 1. COMEDIA negotiation (A) |                      |
 |     |          |--------------------------->|                      |
 |     |          |                            | 2. COMEDIA neg. (A)  |
 |     |          |                            |--------------------->|
 |     |          |                            |                      |
 |     |          |<<############## CFW CONNECTION #################>>|
 |     |          |                            |                      |
 |     |          | 3. COMEDIA negotiation (B) |                      |
 |     |          |--------------------------->|                      |
 |     |          |                            | 4. COMEDIA neg. (B)  |
 |     |          |                            |--------------------->|
 |     |          |                            |                      |
 |     |          |<<############## CFW CONNECTION #################>>|
 | 5. INVITE xyz  |                            |                      |
 |--------------->|                            |                      |
 |     |          | 6. Attach UAC to MS (3PCC) |                      |
 |     |          |--------------------------->|                      |
 |     |          |                            | 7. Attach UAC (3PCC) |
 |     |          |                            |--------------------->|
 |     |          |                            |                      |
 |<<++++++++++++++++++++++ RTP channels ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++>>|
 |     |          |                            |                      |
 |     | 8. INVITE|                            |                      |
 |     |    jkl   |                            |                      |
 |     |--------->|                            |                      |
 |     |          | 9. Attach UAC to MS (3PCC) |                      |
 |     |          |--------------------------->|                      |
 |     |          |                            | 10. Attach UAC (3PCC)|
 |     |          |                            |--------------------->|
 |     |          |                            |                      |
 |     |<<++++++++++++++++ RTP channels ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++>>|
 |     |          |                            |                      |
 .     .          .                            .                      .
 .     .          .                            .                      .


         Figure 55: Handling call legs in IUMM: always the same MS

   In this example, the AS creates two different Control Channels
   sessions (A and B) to address two different business logic
   implementations: e.g., the AS SIP URI 'xyz' (associated with CFW
   session A) may be an IVR pizza ordering application, while the AS SIP
   URI 'jkl' (associated with CFW session B) may be associated with a
   conference room.  It's quite clear, then, that if the MRB forwarded
   the two CFW sessions to two different MS, the handling of UAC call
   legs would prove troublesome, considering the MRB would have an hard



Amirante, et al.        Expires January 12, 2012              [Page 152]

Internet-Draft           CFW Call Flow Examples                July 2011


   way figuring out whether UAC1 should be attached to the MS managing
   CFW session A or the MS managing CFW session B. Forwarding all CFW
   sessions and UAC call legs coming from the same MRB-unaware AS to the
   same MS would instead work as expected: the MRB would in fact leave
   the mapping of call legs and CFW sessions up to the AS.

   This approach, while very simple and potentially not very scalable,
   would actually help take care of the issue: in fact, no matter how
   many separate control channels the AS might have with the MRB/MS (in
   this example, the control channel A would be mapped to application
   xyz, and B to application jkl), the termination point would still
   always be the same MS, which would consequently be the destination
   for all call legs as well.

   To overcome the scalability limitations of such an approach, the MRB
   could instead make use of redirection, as depicted in Figure 56.



UAC1             AS                           MRB                     MS
 |                |                            |                      |
 |                | 1. COMEDIA negotiation     |                      |
 |                |--------------------------->|                      |
 |                |                            |                      |
 |                |          2. 302 Moved (MS) |                      |
 |                |<---------------------------|                      |
 |                |                            |                      |
 |                | 3. COMEDIA negotiation     |                      |
 |                |-------------------------------------------------->|
 |                |                            |                      |
 |                |<<############## CFW CONNECTION #################>>|
 |                |                            |                      |
 | 4. INVITE xyz  |                            |                      |
 |--------------->|                            |                      |
 |                | 5. Attach UAC to MS (3PCC) |                      |
 |                |-------------------------------------------------->|
 |                |                            |                      |
 |<<++++++++++++++++++++++ RTP channels ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++>>|
 |                |                            |                      |
 .                .                            .                      .
 .                .                            .                      .


            Figure 56: Handling call legs in IUMM: redirection

   With this approach, the MRB might redirect the AS to a specific MS
   whenever a new control channel is to be created, and as a consequence
   the AS would redirect the related calls there.  This is similar to



Amirante, et al.        Expires January 12, 2012              [Page 153]

Internet-Draft           CFW Call Flow Examples                July 2011


   the first approach of the Query/IAMM case, with the difference that
   no Consumer request would be involved.  The scenario would again
   fallback to a 1:1 topology between the AS and the MS, making the
   interactions quite simple.

   Just as before, anyway, the MRB might be interested in being in the
   signalling path for the SIP dialogs, instead of just acting as a
   locator.  A third potential approach could be implementing the
   "virtual" URIs handled by the MRB, as described in the previous
   section.  Rather than recurring to explicit redirection, or always
   using the same MS, the MRB may redirect new SIP control dialogs to
   one of its own URIs, using the same approach previously presented in
   Figure 54.  Such an approach applied to the IUMM case is depicted in
   Figure 57.



UAC1             AS                              MRB                  MS
 |                |                               |                   |
 |                | 1. COMEDIA negotiation (MRB)  |                   |
 |                |------------------------------>|                   |
 |                |                               |                   |
 |                |           2. 302 Moved (MRB') |                   |
 |                |<------------------------------|                   |
 |                |                               |                   |
 |                | 3. COMEDIA negotiation (MRB') |                   |
 |                |------------------------------>|                   |
 |                |                               | 4. COMEDIA neg.   |
 |                |                               |------------------>
 |                |                               |                   |
 |                |<<############## CFW CONNECTION #################>>|
 |                |                               |                   |
 | 5. INVITE xyz  |                               |                   |
 |--------------->|                               |                   |
 |                | 6. Attach UAC to MRB' (3PCC)  |                   |
 |                |------------------------------>|                   |
 |                |                               | 7 Attach UAC (3PCC)
 |                |                               |------------------>
 |                |                               |                   |
 |<<++++++++++++++++++++++ RTP channels ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++>>|
 |                |                               |                   |
 .                .                               .                   .
 .                .                               .                   .


     Figure 57: Handling call legs in IUMM: MRB in the signalling path





Amirante, et al.        Expires January 12, 2012              [Page 154]

Internet-Draft           CFW Call Flow Examples                July 2011


7.3.3.  CFW Protocol Bhaviour

   As shown in the previous diagrams, no matter what the topology, the
   AS and MS usually end up with a direct connection with respect to the
   CFW control channel.  As such, it can be expected that the CFW
   protocol continue to work as it should, and as a consequence all the
   call flows presented in this document can easily be reproduced in
   those circumstances as well.

   One aspect needs to be taken in very good care, nevertheless.  It's
   worthwile to remind that both the AS and the MS make use of some SIP-
   related information to address the entities they manipulate.  It's
   the case, for instance, of the 'connectionid' element both the AS and
   the MS refer to when addressing a specific UAC: this 'connectionid',
   as explained at the beginning of this draft, is constructed by
   concatenating the From: and To: tags extracted from a SIP header,
   specifically from the headers of the AS<->MS leg that allows an UAC
   to be attached to the MS.  The presence of an additional component in
   the path between the AS and the MS, the MRB, might alter these tags,
   thus causing the AS to make use of tags (AS<->MRB) different than the
   ones used by the MS (MRB<->MS).  This would result in the AS and MS
   using different 'connectionid' identifiers to address actually the
   same UAC, thus preventing the protocol to work as expected.  As a
   consequence, it's very important that any MRB implementation take
   very good care of preserving the integrity of the involved SIP
   headers when proxying/forwarding SIP dialogs between AS and MS, in
   order not to break the protocol behaviour.

   Let's take, for instance, the scenario depicted in Figure 54,
   especially steps 6 and 7 which specifically address an UAC being
   attached by an AS to a MS via the MRB.  Let's assume that what is
   presented in Figure 58 is what happens to the From: and To: headers
   when dealing with the 3PCC approach to attach a specific UAC to the
   MS in that case.

















Amirante, et al.        Expires January 12, 2012              [Page 155]

Internet-Draft           CFW Call Flow Examples                July 2011


UAC              AS                         MRB                       MS
 |                |                          |                        |
 | INVITE xyz     |                          |                        |
 |--------------->|                          |                        |
 |                | SIP [..]                 |                        |
 |                | From: <..>;tag=a1b2c3    |                        |
 |                | To: <..>;tag=d4e5f6      |                        |
 |                |<------------------------>|                        |
 |                |                          | SIP [..]               |
 |                |                          | From: <..>;tag=aaabbb  |
 |                |                          | To: <..>;tag=cccddd    |
 |                |                          |<---------------------->|
 |                |                          |                        |
 |                | 1. CONTROL (play announcement to UAC)             |
 |                |-------------------------------------------------->|
 |                |                               2. 200 (IVR Error!) |
 |                |<--------------------------------------------------|
 |                |                          |                        |
 .                .                          .                        .
 .                .                          .                        .


       Figure 58: CFW protocol behaviour in case of manipulated tags

   In the example, once done with the 3PCC and the UAC being attached to
   the MS, the AS and the MS end up with different assumptions with
   respect to the 'connectionid' addressing UAC.  In fact, the AS builds
   a 'connectionid' using the tags it is aware of (a1b2c3:d4e5f6), while
   the MS builds a different one, considering it got different
   information from the MRB (aaabbb:cccddd).

   As a consequence, when the AS tries to play an announcement to the
   UAC using the connectionid it correctly constructed, the MS just as
   correctly replies with an error, since it doesn't know that
   identifier.  This is the correct protocol behaviour, caused by a
   misuse of the information needed for it to work as expected.















Amirante, et al.        Expires January 12, 2012              [Page 156]

Internet-Draft           CFW Call Flow Examples                July 2011


   1. AS -> MS (CFW CONTROL, play)
   -------------------------------
      CFW ffhg45dzf123 CONTROL
      Control-Package: msc-ivr/1.0
      Content-Type: application/msc-ivr+xml
      Content-Length: 284

      <mscivr version="1.0" xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:msc-ivr">
        <dialogstart connectionid="a1b2c3:d4e5f6">
          <dialog>
            <prompt>
              <media loc="http://www.example.net/hello.wav"/>
            </prompt>
          </dialog>
        </dialogstart>
      </mscivr>


   2. AS <- MS (CFW 200 OK)
   ------------------------
      CFW ffhg45dzf123 200
      Timeout: 10
      Content-Type: application/msc-ivr+xml
      Content-Length: 148

      <mscivr version="1.0" xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:msc-ivr">
        <response status="407" reason="connectionid does not exist" \
                  dialogid=""/>
      </mscivr>


   In an even worse scenario, the connectionid might actually exist but
   mapped to a different UAC: in such a case, the transaction would
   succeed, but a completely different UAC would be involved in the
   scenarios, thus causing a silent failure neither the AS nor the MS
   would be aware of.

   That said, a proper management of these sensitive pieces of
   information by the MRB would prevent such failure scenarios to
   happen.  It has aready been described how this issue is taken care of
   in the IAMM case (both CFW-based and Call leg-based).  Addressing
   this issue for the IUMM case is not documented in
   [I-D.ietf-mediactrl-mrb] as explicitly out of purpose, and as such
   may be implementation specific.

   The same applies to SDP fields as well: in fact, the AS and MS make
   use of ad-hoc SDP attributes to instantiate a control channel, as
   they make use of SDP labels to address specific media connections of



Amirante, et al.        Expires January 12, 2012              [Page 157]

Internet-Draft           CFW Call Flow Examples                July 2011


   a UAC call leg when a fine-grain approach is needed.  As a
   consequence, any MRB implementation should limit any SDP manipulation
   as much as possible, or at least take very good care in not causing
   changes that could break the expected CFW protocol behaviour.


8.  Security Considerations

   All the MEDIACTRL documents have strong statements regarding security
   considerations within the context of the interactions occurring at
   all the levels among the involved parties.  Considering the sensitive
   nature of the interaction between AS and MS, particular efforts have
   been devoted in providing guidance upon securing what flows through a
   Control Channel.  In fact, transactions concerning dialogs,
   connections and mixes are quite strongly related to resources
   actually being deployed and made use of in the MS.  This means that
   it is in the interest of both AS and MS that resources created and
   handled by an entity are not unwillingly manipulated by a potentially
   malicious third party.

   Considering that strong statements are already provided in the
   aforementioned documents, and that these documents already give good
   guidance to implementors with respect to these issues, this section
   will only provide the reader with some MEDIACTRL call flows, showing
   how a single secured MS is assumed to reply to different AS when
   receiving requests that may cross the bounds each AS is constrained
   into.  It is the case, for instance, of generic auditing requests, or
   explicit conference manipulation requests where the involved
   identifiers are not part of the context of the originating AS.

   To address a very specific scenario, let's assume that two different
   AS, AS1 and AS2, have established a Control Channel with the same MS.
   Let's also assume that AS1 has created a conference mix
   (confid=74b6d62) to which it has attached some participants within
   the context of its business logic, while AS2 has created a currently
   active IVR dialog (dialogid=dfg3252) with a user agent it is handling
   (237430727:a338e95f); besides, AS2 has also joined two connections to
   each other (1:75d4dd0d and 1:b9e6a659).  As it is clear, it is highly
   desirable that AS1 is not aware of what AS2 is doing with the MS and
   viceversa, and that they are not allowed to manipulate the other's
   resources.  The following transactions will occur, and it will be
   shown how the MS is assumed to reply in all the cases in order to
   avoid security issues:

   1.  AS1 places a generic audit request to both the mixer and IVR
       packages;





Amirante, et al.        Expires January 12, 2012              [Page 158]

Internet-Draft           CFW Call Flow Examples                July 2011


   2.  AS2 places a generic audit request to both the mixer and IVR
       packages;
   3.  AS1 tries to terminate the dialog created by AS2 (6791fee);
   4.  AS2 tries to join a user agent it handles (1:272e9c05) to the
       conference mix created by AS1 (74b6d62);

   A sequence diagram of the mentioned transactions is depicted in
   Figure 59:



      AS1                     AS2                                 MS
       |                       |                                  |
       | A1. CONTROL (IVR audit)                                  |
       |++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++>>|
       |                       |                       A2. 200 OK |
       |<<++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++|
       |                       |                                  |
       | B1. CONTROL (Mixer audit)                                |
       |++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++>>|
       |                       |                       B2. 200 OK |
       |<<++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++|
       |                       |                                  |
       |                       | C1. CONTROL (IVR audit)          |
       |                       |++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++>>|
       |                       |                       C2. 200 OK |
       |                       |<<++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++|
       |                       |                                  |
       |                       | D1. CONTROL (Mixer audit)        |
       |                       |++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++>>|
       |                       |                       D2. 200 OK |
       |                       |<<++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++|
       |                       |                                  |
       | E1. CONTROL (dialogterminate)                            |
       |++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++>>|
       |                       |                E2. 403 Forbidden |
       |<<++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++|
       |                       |                                  |
       |                       | F1. CONTROL (join UAC&conf[AS1]) |
       |                       |++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++>>|
       |                       |                F2. 403 Forbidden |
       |                       |<<++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++|
       |                       |                                  |
       .                       .                                  .
       .                       .                                  .


         Figure 59: Security Considerations: Framework Transaction



Amirante, et al.        Expires January 12, 2012              [Page 159]

Internet-Draft           CFW Call Flow Examples                July 2011


   The expected outcome of the transaction is the MS partially "lying"
   to both AS1 and AS2 when replying to the audit requests (not all the
   identifiers are reported, but only the ones each AS is directly
   involved in), and the MS denying the requests for the unauthorized
   operations (403).  Looking at each transaction separately:

   o  In the first transaction (A1), AS1 places a generic <audit>
      request to the IVR package; the request is generic since no
      attributes are passed as part of the request, meaning AS1 is
      interested to both the MS capabilities and all the dialogs the MS
      is currently handling; as it can be seen in the reply (A2), the MS
      only reports in the <auditresponse> the package capabilities,
      while the <dialogs> element is empty; this is because the only
      dialog the MS is handling has actually been created by AS2, which
      causes the MS not to report the related identifier (6791fee) to
      AS1; in fact, AS1 could use that identifier to manipulate the
      dialog, e.g. by tearing it down thus causing the service to be
      interrupted without AS2's intervention;
   o  In the second transaction, instead (B1), AS1 places an identical
      <audit> request to the mixer package; the request is again
      generic, meaning AS1 is interested to both the package
      capabilities and all the mixers and connections the package is
      handling at the moment; this time, the MS does not only report
      capabilities (B2), but information about mixers and connections as
      well; nevertheless, this information is not complete; in fact,
      only information about mixers and connections originated by AS1
      are reported (mixer 74b6d62 and its participants), while the ones
      originated by AS2 are omitted in the report; the motivation is the
      same as before;
   o  In the third and fourth transactions (C1 and D1), it's AS2 placing
      an <audit> request to both the IVR and mixer packages; just as for
      what happened in the previous transactions, the audit requests are
      generic; looking at the replies (C2 and D2), it's obvious that the
      capabilities section is identical to the replies given to AS1; in
      fact, the MS has no reason to "lie" about what it can do; the
      <dialogs> and <mixers> sections, instead, are totally different;
      AS2 in fact receives information about its own IVR dialog
      (6791fee), which was omitted in the reply to AS1, while it only
      receives information about the only connection it created
      (1:75d4dd0d and 1:b9e6a659) without any details related to the
      mixers and connections originated by AS1;
   o  In the fifth transaction (E1) AS1, instead of just auditing the
      packages, tries to terminate (<dialogterminate>) the dialog
      created by AS2 (6791fee); since the identifier has not been
      reported by the MS in the reply to the previous audit request, we
      assume AS1 got it by a different out of band mechanism; this is
      assumed to be an unauthorized operation, considering the mentioned
      dialog is outside the bounds of AS1; for this reason MS, instead



Amirante, et al.        Expires January 12, 2012              [Page 160]

Internet-Draft           CFW Call Flow Examples                July 2011


      of handling the syntactically correct request, replies (E2) with a
      framework level 403 message (Forbidden), leaving the dialog
      untouched;
   o  Similarly in the sixth and last transaction (F1) AS2 tries to
      attach (<join>) one of the UACs it is handling to the conference
      mix created by AS1 (74b6d62); just as in the previous transaction,
      the identifier is assumed to have been accessed by AS2 through
      some out of band mechanism, considering that MS didn't report it
      in the reply to the previous audit request; while one of the
      identifiers (the UAC) is actually handled by AS2, the other (the
      conference mix) is not, and this is again considered by the MS as
      AS2 stepping outside of its bounds; for the same reason as before,
      MS replies again (F2) with a framework level 403 message
      (Forbidden), leaving the mix and the UAC unjoined.



  A1. AS1 -> MS (CFW CONTROL, audit IVR)
  --------------------------------------
     CFW 140e0f763352 CONTROL
     Control-Package: msc-ivr/1.0
     Content-Type: application/msc-ivr+xml
     Content-Length: 81

     <mscivr version="1.0" xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:msc-ivr">
        <audit/>
     </mscivr>


  A2. AS1 <- MS (CFW 200, auditresponse)
  --------------------------------------
     CFW 140e0f763352 200
     Timeout: 10
     Content-Type: application/msc-ivr+xml
     Content-Length: 1419

     <mscivr version="1.0" xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:msc-ivr">
     <auditresponse status="200">
        <capabilities>
           <dialoglanguages/>
           <grammartypes/>
           <recordtypes>
              <mimetype>audio/x-wav</mimetype>
              <mimetype>video/mpeg</mimetype>
           </recordtypes>
           <prompttypes>
              <mimetype>audio/x-wav</mimetype>
              <mimetype>video/mpeg</mimetype>



Amirante, et al.        Expires January 12, 2012              [Page 161]

Internet-Draft           CFW Call Flow Examples                July 2011


           </prompttypes>
           <variables>
              <variabletype type="date" \
                            desc="value formatted as YYYY-MM-DD">
                 <format desc="month year day">mdy</format>
                 <format desc="year month day">ymd</format>
                 <format desc="day month year">dmy</format>
                 <format desc="day month">dm</format>
              </variabletype>
              <variabletype type="time" desc="value formatted as HH:MM">
                 <format desc="24 hour format">t24</format>
                 <format desc="12 hour format with am/pm">t12</format>
              </variabletype>
              <variabletype type="digits" desc="value formatted as D+">
                 <format desc="general digit string">gen</format>
                 <format desc="cardinal">crn</format>
                 <format desc="ordinal">ord</format>
              </variabletype>
           </variables>
           <maxpreparedduration>60s</maxpreparedduration>
           <maxrecordduration>1800s</maxrecordduration>
           <codecs>
              <codec name="audio"><subtype>basic</subtype></codec>
              <codec name="audio"><subtype>gsm</subtype></codec>
              <codec name="video"><subtype>h261</subtype></codec>
              <codec name="video"><subtype>h263</subtype></codec>
              <codec name="video"><subtype>h263-1998</subtype></codec>
              <codec name="video"><subtype>h264</subtype></codec>
           </codecs>
        </capabilities>
        <dialogs>
        </dialogs>
     </auditresponse>
     </mscivr>


  B1. AS1 -> MS (CFW CONTROL, audit mixer)
  ----------------------------------------
     CFW 0216231b1f16 CONTROL
     Control-Package: msc-mixer/1.0
     Content-Type: application/msc-mixer+xml
     Content-Length: 87

     <mscmixer version="1.0" xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:msc-mixer">
        <audit/>
     </mscmixer>





Amirante, et al.        Expires January 12, 2012              [Page 162]

Internet-Draft           CFW Call Flow Examples                July 2011


  B2. AS1 <- MS (CFW 200, auditresponse)
  --------------------------------------
     CFW 0216231b1f16 200
     Timeout: 10
     Content-Type: application/msc-mixer+xml
     Content-Length: 903

     <mscmixer version="1.0" xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:msc-mixer">
     <auditresponse status="200">
       <capabilities>
          <codecs>
             <codec name="audio"><subtype>basic</subtype></codec>
             <codec name="audio"><subtype>gsm</subtype></codec>
             <codec name="video"><subtype>h261</subtype></codec>
             <codec name="video"><subtype>h263</subtype></codec>
             <codec name="video"><subtype>h263-1998</subtype></codec>
             <codec name="video"><subtype>h264</subtype></codec>
          </codecs>
       </capabilities>
       <mixers>
         <conferenceaudit conferenceid="74b6d62">
           <participants>
             <participant id="1864574426:e2192766"/>
             <participant id="1:5a97fd79"/>
           </participants>
           <video-layout min-participants="1">
             <quad-view/>
           </video-layout>
         </conferenceaudit>
         <joinaudit id1="1864574426:e2192766" id2="74b6d62"/>
         <joinaudit id1="1:5a97fd79" id2="74b6d62"/>
       </mixers>
     </auditresponse>
     </mscmixer>


  C1. AS2 -> MS (CFW CONTROL, audit IVR)
  --------------------------------------
     CFW 0216231b1f16 CONTROL
     Control-Package: msc-ivr/1.0
     Content-Type: application/msc-ivr+xml
     Content-Length: 81

     <mscivr version="1.0" xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:msc-ivr">
        <audit/>
     </mscivr>





Amirante, et al.        Expires January 12, 2012              [Page 163]

Internet-Draft           CFW Call Flow Examples                July 2011


  C2. AS2 <- MS (CFW 200, auditresponse)
  --------------------------------------
     CFW 0216231b1f16 200
     Timeout: 10
     Content-Type: application/msc-ivr+xml
     Content-Length: 1502

     <mscivr version="1.0" xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:msc-ivr">
     <auditresponse status="200">
        <capabilities>
           <dialoglanguages/>
           <grammartypes/>
           <recordtypes>
              <mimetype>audio/wav</mimetype>
              <mimetype>video/mpeg</mimetype>
           </recordtypes>
           <prompttypes>
              <mimetype>audio/wav</mimetype>
              <mimetype>video/mpeg</mimetype>
           </prompttypes>
           <variables>
              <variabletype type="date" \
                            desc="value formatted as YYYY-MM-DD">
                 <format desc="month year day">mdy</format>
                 <format desc="year month day">ymd</format>
                 <format desc="day month year">dmy</format>
                 <format desc="day month">dm</format>
              </variabletype>
              <variabletype type="time" desc="value formatted as HH:MM">
                 <format desc="24 hour format">t24</format>
                 <format desc="12 hour format with am/pm">t12</format>
              </variabletype>
              <variabletype type="digits" desc="value formatted as D+">
                 <format desc="general digit string">gen</format>
                 <format desc="cardinal">crn</format>
                 <format desc="ordinal">ord</format>
              </variabletype>
           </variables>
           <maxpreparedduration>60s</maxpreparedduration>
           <maxrecordduration>1800s</maxrecordduration>
           <codecs>
              <codec name="audio"><subtype>basic</subtype></codec>
              <codec name="audio"><subtype>gsm</subtype></codec>
              <codec name="video"><subtype>h261</subtype></codec>
              <codec name="video"><subtype>h263</subtype></codec>
              <codec name="video"><subtype>h263-1998</subtype></codec>
              <codec name="video"><subtype>h264</subtype></codec>
           </codecs>



Amirante, et al.        Expires January 12, 2012              [Page 164]

Internet-Draft           CFW Call Flow Examples                July 2011


        </capabilities>
        <dialogs>
           <dialogaudit dialogid="6791fee" state="started" \
                        connectionid="237430727:a338e95f"/>
        </dialogs>
     </auditresponse>
     </mscivr>


  D1. AS2 -> MS (CFW CONTROL, audit mixer)
  ----------------------------------------
     CFW 515f007c5bd0 CONTROL
     Control-Package: msc-mixer/1.0
     Content-Type: application/msc-mixer+xml
     Content-Length: 87

     <mscmixer version="1.0" xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:msc-mixer">
        <audit/>
     </mscmixer>


  D2. AS2 <- MS (CFW 200, auditresponse)
  --------------------------------------
     CFW 515f007c5bd0 200
     Timeout: 10
     Content-Type: application/msc-mixer+xml
     Content-Length: 548

     <mscmixer version="1.0" xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:msc-mixer">
     <auditresponse status="200">
        <capabilities>
           <codecs>
              <codec name="audio"><subtype>basic</subtype></codec>
              <codec name="audio"><subtype>gsm</subtype></codec>
              <codec name="video"><subtype>h261</subtype></codec>
              <codec name="video"><subtype>h263</subtype></codec>
              <codec name="video"><subtype>h263-1998</subtype></codec>
              <codec name="video"><subtype>h264</subtype></codec>
           </codecs>
        </capabilities>
        <mixers>
           <joinaudit id1="1:75d4dd0d" id2="1:b9e6a659"/>
        </mixers>
     </auditresponse>
     </mscmixer>


  E1. AS1 -> MS (CFW CONTROL, dialogterminate)



Amirante, et al.        Expires January 12, 2012              [Page 165]

Internet-Draft           CFW Call Flow Examples                July 2011


  --------------------------------------------
     CFW 7fdcc2331bef CONTROL
     Control-Package: msc-ivr/1.0
     Content-Type: application/msc-ivr+xml
     Content-Length: 127

     <mscivr version="1.0" xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:msc-ivr">
        <dialogterminate dialogid="6791fee" immediate="true"/>
     </mscivr>


  E2. AS1 <- MS (CFW 403 Forbidden)
  ---------------------------------
     CFW 7fdcc2331bef 403


  F1. AS2 -> MS (CFW CONTROL, join to conference)
  -----------------------------------------------
     CFW 140e0f763352 CONTROL
     Control-Package: msc-mixer/1.0
     Content-Type: application/msc-mixer+xml
     Content-Length: 117

     <mscmixer version="1.0" xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:msc-mixer">
        <join id1="1:272e9c05" id2="74b6d62"/>
     </mscmixer>


  F2. AS2 <- MS (CFW 403 Forbidden)
  ---------------------------------
     CFW 140e0f763352 403



9.  Change Summary

   Note to RFC Editor: Please remove this whole section.

   The following are the major changes between the 06 and the 07
   versions of the draft:

   o  Updated references: RFC6230 (was control framework draft) and
      RFC6231 (was IVR package).
   o  Aligned all the examples to the latest package schemas (MRB in
      particular), and validated them.
   o  Modified Publish example by showing the use of the new
      minfrequency and maxfrequency elements.




Amirante, et al.        Expires January 12, 2012              [Page 166]

Internet-Draft           CFW Call Flow Examples                July 2011


   o  Modified IAMM Consumer example to show two different approaches,
      CFW-based and Call-leg based.
   o  Enriched the connection-id issue section, by providing examples on
      the Consumer connection-id element.
   o  Clarified that solving the connection-id issue in the IUMM case is
      implementation specific.

   The following are the major changes between the 05 and the 06
   versions of the draft:

   o  Aligned all the examples to the latest package schemas, and
      validated them.

   The following are the major changes between the 04 and the 05
   versions of the draft:

   o  Added the missing <encoding> and <decoding> elements to the <rtp-
      codec> instances, where needed (MRB section);
   o  Validated all the examples according to the schemas, and fixed
      implementation and snippets where needed.

   The following are the major changes between the 03 and the 04
   versions of the draft:

   o  corrected flow in Section 6.3.2;

   o  updated examples with respect to package names (version added) and
      codec names (MIME type);

   o  added a new Publishing request to the existing dump to address a
      subscription update;

   o  added a completely new section (Section 7.3) to address the call
      legs management in presence of MRBs;

   The following are the major changes between the 02 and the 03
   versions of the draft:

   o  enriched MRB section text;

   o  updated MRB Publishing scenario;

   o  added MRB Consumer scenarios, both Inline and Query (Section 7);

   The following are the major changes between the 01 and the 02
   versions of the draft:





Amirante, et al.        Expires January 12, 2012              [Page 167]

Internet-Draft           CFW Call Flow Examples                July 2011


   o  changed the m-line of COMEDIA negotiation according to [RFC6230];

   o  changed the token used to build connection identifiers from '~' to
      ':';

   o  corrected the flow presented in Section 6.4.3, where messages E1
      and G1 were more verbose than needed;

   o  added placeholder section for Media Resource Brokering (Section 7)

   The following are the major changes between the 00 and the 01
   versions of the draft:

   o  updated the flows according to the latest drafts;

   o  corrected the reference to the Conferencing Scenarios RFC (4597
      instead of 4579);

   o  added K-ALIVE example and some common mistakes in the Control
      Channel Establishment section;

   o  added text, diagrams and flows to the Sidebars scenario;

   o  added text, diagrams and flows to the Floor Control scenario;
      Floor Control scenario moved at the end of the conferencing
      section;

   o  added text to the Security Considerations;


10.  Acknowledgements

   The authors would like to thank...


11.  References

   [RFC2234]  Crocker, D., Ed. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax
              Specifications: ABNF", RFC 2234, November 1997.

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

   [RFC2434]  Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
              IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 2434,
              October 1998.

   [RFC2606]  Eastlake, D. and A. Panitz, "Reserved Top Level DNS



Amirante, et al.        Expires January 12, 2012              [Page 168]

Internet-Draft           CFW Call Flow Examples                July 2011


              Names", BCP 32, RFC 2606, June 1999.

   [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.

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

   [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.

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

   [RFC4574]  Levin, O. and G. Camarillo, "The Session Description
              Protocol (SDP) Label Attribute", RFC 4574, August 2006.

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

   [RFC4597]  Even, R. and N. Ismail, "Conferencing Scenarios",
              RFC 4597, August 2006.

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

   [RFC5567]  Melanchuk, T., "An Architectural Framework for Media
              Server Control", RFC 5567, June 2009.

   [RFC6230]  Boulton, C., Melanchuk, T., and S. McGlashan, "Media
              Control Channel Framework", RFC 6230, May 2011.

   [I-D.boulton-mmusic-sdp-control-package-attribute]
              Boulton, C., "A Session Description Protocol (SDP) Control
              Package Attribute",
              draft-boulton-mmusic-sdp-control-package-attribute-06
              (work in progress), February 2011.

   [RFC6231]  McGlashan, S., Melanchuk, T., and C. Boulton, "An
              Interactive Voice Response (IVR) Control Package for the
              Media Control Channel Framework", RFC 6231, May 2011.



Amirante, et al.        Expires January 12, 2012              [Page 169]

Internet-Draft           CFW Call Flow Examples                July 2011


   [I-D.ietf-mediactrl-mixer-control-package]
              McGlashan, S., Melanchuk, T., and C. Boulton, "A Mixer
              Control Package for the Media Control Channel Framework",
              draft-ietf-mediactrl-mixer-control-package-14 (work in
              progress), January 2011.

   [I-D.ietf-mediactrl-mrb]
              Boulton, C., Miniero, L., and G. Munson, "Media Resource
              Brokering", draft-ietf-mediactrl-mrb-09 (work in
              progress), May 2011.

   [RFC5239]  Barnes, M., Boulton, C., and O. Levin, "A Framework for
              Centralized Conferencing", RFC 5239, June 2008.

   [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.

   [SRGS]     Hunt, A. and S. McGlashan, "Speech Recognition Grammar
              Specification Version 1.0", W3C Recommendation,
              March 2004.


Authors' Addresses

   Alessandro Amirante
   University of Napoli
   Via Claudio 21
   Napoli  80125
   Italy

   Email: alessandro.amirante@unina.it


   Tobia Castaldi
   Meetecho
   Via Carlo Poerio 89
   Napoli  80100
   Italy

   Email: tcastaldi@meetecho.com







Amirante, et al.        Expires January 12, 2012              [Page 170]

Internet-Draft           CFW Call Flow Examples                July 2011


   Lorenzo Miniero
   Meetecho
   Via Carlo Poerio 89
   Napoli  80100
   Italy

   Email: lorenzo@meetecho.com


   Simon Pietro Romano
   University of Napoli
   Via Claudio 21
   Napoli  80125
   Italy

   Email: spromano@unina.it



































Amirante, et al.        Expires January 12, 2012              [Page 171]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.109, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/