[Docs] [txt|pdf] [Tracker] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: 00 01 02

XCON                                                            M. Dolly
Internet-Draft                                                 G. Munson
Expires: August 16, 2006                                       AT&T Labs
                                                             J. Rafferty
                                                       February 12, 2006

                    Media Control Protocol Framework

Status of this Memo

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

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

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at

   This Internet-Draft will expire on August 16, 2006.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).


   This document provides requirements for a protocol, that will enable
   one physical entity that includes the media policy server,
   notification server and the focus to interact with one or more
   physical entities that serves as mixer or media server.  It will
   address all phases and aspects of media handling in a conferencing
   service including announcements and IVR functionality.

Dolly, et al.            Expires August 16, 2006                [Page 1]

Internet-Draft      Media Control Protocol Framework       February 2006

Table of Contents

   1.  Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   2.  Terminology  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   3.  Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     3.1.  Media Control Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     3.2.  Operational Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
   4.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
   5.  Changes from previous  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
   6.  References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     6.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     6.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
   Appendix A.  Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
   Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 10

Dolly, et al.            Expires August 16, 2006                [Page 2]

Internet-Draft      Media Control Protocol Framework       February 2006

1.  Overview

   The IETF XCON conferencing framework presents an architecture that is
   built of several functional entities.  The framework document does
   not specify the protocols between the functional entities since it is
   considered out of scope.

   There is an interest to work on a protocol that will enable one
   physical entity that includes the media policy server, notification
   server and the focus to interact with one or more physical entities
   that serves as mixer or media server.

   The document will present the requirements for such a protocol.  It
   will address all phases and aspects of media handling in a enhanced
   conferencing service including announcements and IVR functionality.
   The following items are out of scope of this document:
      Media session establishment.
      Mechanism for MS to advertise its capabilities.
      Mechanism for the AS to discsover a MS.
      Ability to move an existing conference from the current Media
      Servers supporting it to other Media Servers, where the latter
      have been identified to the AS.

2.  Terminology

   The Media Server work uses when appropriate and expands on the
   terminology introduced in the SIP conferencing framework and XCON
   conferencing framework.  The following additional terms are defined
   for use within the Media Server work.

   Application Server (AS) - The application server includes the
   conference policy server, the focus and the conference notification
   server as defined in draft-ietf-sipping-conferencing-framework.

   Media Server (MS) - The media server includes the mixer as defined in
   draft-ietf-sipping-conferencing-framework.  The media server source
   media streams for announcements, it process media streams for
   functions like DTMF detection and transcoding.  The media server may
   also record media streams for supporting IVR functions like
   announcing participants

   Notification - A notification is used when there is a need to report
   event related information from the MS to the AS.

   Request - A request is sent from the controlling entity, such as an
   Application Server, to another resource, such as a Media Server,
   asking that a particular type of operation be executed.

Dolly, et al.            Expires August 16, 2006                [Page 3]

Internet-Draft      Media Control Protocol Framework       February 2006

   Response - A response is used to signal information such as an
   acknowledgement or error code in reply to a previously issued

3.  Requirements

3.1.  Media Control Requirements

   The following are the media control requirements:

   REQ-MCP-01 - There MUST be a requirement for a control protocol that
      will enable one or more Application Servers to control a media

   REQ-MCP-02 The protocol MUST be independent from the transport

   REQ-MCP-03 The protocol MUST use a reliable transport protocol.

   REQ-MCP-04 - The application scope of the protocol shall include
      Enhanced Conferencing Control and Interactive Voice Response.
      Though the protocol enables these services, the functionality is
      invoked through other mechanisms.

   REQ-MCP-05 - The protocol will utilize an XML markup language.

   REQ-MCP-06 - A Media Server SHOULD be application/service
      independent.  It should be possible to have a many-to-many
      relationship between Application Servers and Media Servers that
      use this protocol.

   REQ-MCP-07 - Media types that are supported in the context of the
      applications shall include audio, tones and video.

   REQ-MCP-08 - The protocol should allow, but must not require, a media
      server resource broker or intermediate proxy to exist between the
      Application Server and Media Server.

   REQ-MCP-09 - One channel could control multiple conferences, but you
      could have multiple channels controlling one or more conferences.
      There can be a connection per conference or one connection from
      the AS to MS for controlling many conferences

Dolly, et al.            Expires August 16, 2006                [Page 4]

Internet-Draft      Media Control Protocol Framework       February 2006

   REQ-MCP-10 - On the control channel, there shall be requests to the
      MS, responses from the MS and notifications to the AS.

   REQ-MCP-11 - SIP SHALL be used to establish and modify RTP
      connections to a Media Server.

   REQ-MCP-12 - It should be possible to support a single conference
      spanning multiple Media Servers.
      Note: The previous draft used "must".  It is probably true that
      spanning multiple MSes can be accomplished by the AS and does not
      require anything in the protocol for the scenarios we have in
      mind.  However, the concern is that if this requirement is treated
      too lightly, one may end up with a protocol that precludes its
      support.  Therefore, we are reluctant to weaken this requirement
      any further than "should".

   REQ-MCP-13 - It must be possible to split call legs individually or
      in groups away from a main conference on a given Media Server,
      without performing SIP re-establishment of the call legs to the MS
      (e.g., for purposes such as performing IVR with a single call leg
      or creating sub-conferences, not for creating entirely new

   REQ-MCP-14 - The protocol should be extendable, facilitating forward
      and backward compatability.

3.2.  Operational Requirements

   REQ-MCP-15 - The AS-MS control protocol must allow the AS to audit
      the MS state.

4.  Security Considerations

   As an XML markup, all of the security considerations of RFC3023
   [RFC3023] and RFC3406 [RFC3406] must be met.  Pay particular
   attention to the robustness requirements of parsing XML.

5.  Changes from previous

6.  References

6.1.  Normative References

              Rosenberg, J., "Obtaining and Using Globally Routable User

Dolly, et al.            Expires August 16, 2006                [Page 5]

Internet-Draft      Media Control Protocol Framework       February 2006

              Agent (UA) URIs (GRUU) in the  Session Initiation Protocol
              (SIP)", draft-ietf-sip-gruu-01 (work in progress),
              February 2004.

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

   [RFC2234]  Crocker, D. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax
              Specifications: ABNF", RFC 2234, November 1997.

   [RFC3023]  Murata, M., St. Laurent, S., and D. Kohn, "XML Media
              Types", RFC 3023, January 2001.

   [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.

   [RFC3265]  Roach, A., "Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)-Specific
              Event Notification", RFC 3265, June 2002.

   [RFC3406]  Daigle, L., van Gulik, D., Iannella, R., and P. Faltstrom,
              "Uniform Resource Names (URN) Namespace Definition
              Mechanisms", BCP 66, RFC 3406, October 2002.

   [RFC3688]  Mealling, M., "The IETF XML Registry", BCP 81, RFC 3688,
              January 2004.

              Thompson, H., Beech, D., Maloney, M., and N. Mendelsohn,
              "XML Schema Part 1: Structures", W3C REC REC-xmlschema-1-
              20010502, May 2001.

6.2.  Informative References

              Roach, A., Rosenberg, J., and B. Campbell, "A Session
              Initiation Protocol (SIP) Event Notification Extension for
              Resource Lists", draft-ietf-simple-event-list-05 (work in
              progress), August 2004.

              Rosenberg, J., "A Framework for Application Interaction in
              the Session Initiation Protocol  (SIP)",
              draft-ietf-sipping-app-interaction-framework-01 (work in
              progress), February 2004.


Dolly, et al.            Expires August 16, 2006                [Page 6]

Internet-Draft      Media Control Protocol Framework       February 2006

              Rosenberg, J. and H. Schulzrinne, "An INVITE Inititiated
              Dialog Event Package for the Session Initiation  Protocol
              (SIP", draft-ietf-sipping-dialog-package-02 (work in
              progress), June 2003.

              Burger, E., Van Dyke, J., and A. Spitzer, "Media Server
              Control Markup Language (MSCML) and Protocol",
              draft-vandyke-mscml-04 (work in progress), March 2004.

              Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers,
              "Information Technology - Portable Operating System
              Interface (POSIX) - Part 1: Base Definitions, Chapter 9",
              IEEE Standard 1003.1, June 2001.

   [RFC1889]  Schulzrinne, H., Casner, S., Frederick, R., and V.
              Jacobson, "RTP: A Transport Protocol for Real-Time
              Applications", RFC 1889, January 1996.

   [RFC2327]  Handley, M. and V. Jacobson, "SDP: Session Description
              Protocol", RFC 2327, April 1998.

   [RFC2616]  Fielding, R., Gettys, J., Mogul, J., Nielsen, H.,
              Masinter, L., Leach, P., and T. Berners-Lee, "Hypertext
              Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1", RFC 2616, June 1999.

   [RFC2833]  Schulzrinne, H. and S. Petrack, "RTP Payload for DTMF
              Digits, Telephony Tones and Telephony Signals", RFC 2833,
              May 2000.

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

   [RFC3435]  Andreasen, F. and B. Foster, "Media Gateway Control
              Protocol (MGCP) Version 1.0", RFC 3435, January 2003.

   [RFC3525]  Groves, C., Pantaleo, M., Anderson, T., and T. Taylor,
              "Gateway Control Protocol Version 1", RFC 3525, June 2003.

              Bray, T., Paoli, J., Sperberg-McQueen, C., and E. Maler,
              "Extensible Markup Language (XML) 1.0 (Second Edition)",
              W3C REC REC-xml-20001006, October 2000.

Dolly, et al.            Expires August 16, 2006                [Page 7]

Internet-Draft      Media Control Protocol Framework       February 2006

Appendix A.  Acknowledgments

   The authors would like to thank Eric Burger for his guidance, and
   Roni Even for earlier requirements work in this area.

Dolly, et al.            Expires August 16, 2006                [Page 8]

Internet-Draft      Media Control Protocol Framework       February 2006

Authors' Addresses

   Martin Dolly
   AT&T Labs
   200 Laurel Avenue
   Middletown, NJ  07748

   Email: mdolly@att.com

   Gary Munson
   AT&T Labs
   200 Laurel Avenue
   Middletown, NJ  07748

   Email: gamunson@att.com

   James Rafferty
   410 First Avenue
   Needham, MA  02494

   Email: jraff@brooktrout.com

Dolly, et al.            Expires August 16, 2006                [Page 9]

Internet-Draft      Media Control Protocol Framework       February 2006

Intellectual Property Statement

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

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

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

Disclaimer of Validity

   This document and the information contained herein are provided on an

Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).  This document is subject
   to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and
   except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights.


   Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
   Internet Society.

Dolly, et al.            Expires August 16, 2006               [Page 10]

Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.129d, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/