[Docs] [txt|pdf] [Tracker] [Email] [Nits] [IPR]
Versions: 00
MMUSIC Working Group M. Garcia-Martin
Internet-Draft Nokia Siemens Networks
Intended status: Standards Track J. Ott
Expires: August 21, 2008 Helsinki University of Technology
February 18, 2008
Session Description Protocol (SDP) Extensions and Conventions for
Collaboration Applications
draft-garcia-mmusic-sdp-collaboration-00.txt
Status of this Memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on August 21, 2008.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008).
Abstract
The Session Description Protocol (SDP) is typically used in
conjunction with the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) for
establishing multimedia sessions on the Internet. Typically these
sessions include audio, video or messaging streams. Rich
collaboration applications can complete these multimedia sessions,
including view sharing with remote manipulation, co-web browsing, and
Garcia-Martin & Ott Expires August 21, 2008 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft SDP Collaboration February 2008
file transfer.This document discusses rich collaboration between two
endpoints and provides conventions and extension to SDP to enable
these applications.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. View Sharing with Remote Manipulation Media Transport
Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1. Overview of the Remote Frame Buffer (RFB) protocol . . . . 4
3.2. Overview of T.120 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. Collaboration applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.1. SDP Extensions for View Sharing with Remote
Manipulation Applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.1.1. View Sharing with Remote Manipulation with RFB . . . . 7
4.1.2. View Sharing with Remote Manipulation with T.120 . . . 8
4.2. Co-Web Browsing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.2.1. Example of a Co-Web Browsing document . . . . . . . . 12
4.3. File Transfer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.4. Further Sharing Applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5. Formal syntax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
5.1. SDP extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
5.2. Co-Web browsing XML schema . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
5.2.1. XML Schema . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
6. Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
8.1. Registration of new SDP attributes . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
8.1.1. Registration of the t120apps attribute . . . . . . . . 16
8.1.2. Registration of the confname attribute . . . . . . . . 16
8.2. Registration of new SDP 'proto' values . . . . . . . . . . 17
8.3. MIME type registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
8.4. URN Sub-Namespace Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
8.5. XML Schema Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
9. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 23
Garcia-Martin & Ott Expires August 21, 2008 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft SDP Collaboration February 2008
1. Introduction
The Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) [RFC3261] is used for
establishing and tearing down multimedia sessions in the Internet.
Typically a SIP INVITE request carries an Session Description
Protocol (SDP) [RFC4566] offer that describes the set of media
streams that the caller wants to establish. The SDP offer gets
answered with an SDP answer, as per procedures of the SDP offer/
answer model [RFC3264], and the multimedia session is eventually
established. A session, according to RFC 4566, is a set of
multimedia senders and receives and the data streams flowing from
senders to receivers.
Media descriptions in SDP are signaled in the "m=" line. Each "m="
line contains a media type. SDP currently defines "audio", "video",
"text", "application", and "message" media types. While establishing
a session that contains audio, video, text, or message is straight
forward, there are certain media streams that cannot be established
without further specification. This memo tries to fill this gap.
Let us take a look at some use cases. Alice has already setup a
multimedia session with Bob and they are exchanging audio and video.
Then Alice requests Bob to help her setting up her computer. This is
sometimes called "remote assistance". In practice, the use case can
be implemented with a view sharing with remote manipulation protocol.
It is not the scope of this memo to define a new view sharing with
remote manipulation protocol, but instead, to re-use the rendezvous
capabilities that SIP and SDP provide for setting up such media
stream. Then Alice sends a re-INVITE request to Bob where she adds
the description for a view sharing with remote manipulation protocol
in the SDP. Once Bob accepts the session, an view sharing with
remote manipulation application is launched at both endpoints. They
exchange data over a given protocol. Then, Bob can assist Alice in
setting up her computer.
In another scenario, Alice has established a multimedia session with
Bob. That session includes audio and video media streams. Alice
would like to browse a few web pages together, essentially, share
with Bob the addresses of the web pages that she is visiting. This
is sometimes referred to as co-web browsing.
Another common feature in rich collaboration includes the transfer of
file. The file can include, for example, a screen shot, an image
file, a document, etc.
NOTE: We are looking at a few examples of sharing content between
two users. The list of examples and use cases might not be
comprehensive enough at this stage. We need to find other
Garcia-Martin & Ott Expires August 21, 2008 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft SDP Collaboration February 2008
relevant formats.
The rest of this document is organized as follows: Section 3 provides
an introduction to view sharing with remote manipulation media
transport protocols. Section 4 provides the procedures to describe
collaboration applications in SDP. Section 5 contains the format
syntax.
2. Terminology
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14, RFC 2119
[RFC2119] and indicate requirement levels for compliant
implementations.
3. View Sharing with Remote Manipulation Media Transport Protocols
Many of the collaboration activities require some sort of view
sharing with remote manipulation media protocol that is able to
provide the required functionality. The approach taken by this memo
is to re-use existing view sharing with remote manipulation media
protocols whenever possible. On doing so, the scope is mostly
reduced to specify the conventions for describing view sharing with
remote manipulation protocols for the different use cases.
This section provides an overview of two set of protocols for which
we provide descriptions in SDP later. These are the Remote Frame
Buffer (RFB) protocol and ITU-T recommendation T.120 [ITU.T120.2007].
3.1. Overview of the Remote Frame Buffer (RFB) protocol
The Remote Frame Buffer (RFB) protocol [RFB] is a simple protocol for
remote access to graphical user interfaces. RFB is used by Virtual
Network Computing (VNC) applications and their successors. It works
at the frame-buffer level, which roughly corresponds to the rendered
screen image, which means that it can be applied to a variety of
graphical systems. Remote Frame Buffer applications exist for many
platforms, and can often be freely re-distributed.
The protocol operates with the classical client-server architecture.
The application that runs on the machine where the user sits
(containing the display, keyboard and pointer) is called the client.
The application that runs on the machine where the framebuffer is
located (which is running the windowing system and applications that
the user is remotely controlling) is called the server. The client
Garcia-Martin & Ott Expires August 21, 2008 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft SDP Collaboration February 2008
accesses the remote graphical user interface and provides input
events (keyboard, mouse), and the server provides the screen results.
RFB display protocol is based on a single primitive "put a rectangle
of pixel data at a given x,7 position". The protocol allows
different encodings for the pixel data, providing a large degree of
flexibility in how to trade off various parameters, such as network
bandwidth, client drawing speed and server processing speed.
A sequence of rectangles makes a framebuffer update, which represents
a change from one valid framebuffer state to another. A sequence of
framebuffer updates gives the user a perception similar to video.
The input side of the protocol is based on a standard workstation
model of a keyboard an multi-button pointing device. Input events
are simply sent to the server b the client whenever the user presses
a key o pointer button, or whenever the pointing device is moved.
These input events can also be synthesised from other non-standard
input/output devices, for example, a pen-base handwriting device.
RFB includes a client server negotiation process that leads on the
agreement of the format and encoding of the pixel data. Pixel format
refers to the representation of individual colours by pixel values.
The most common pixel formats are 24-bit or 16-bit "true colour",
where 8-bit pixel format is typically used in scenarios with low
bandwidth connectivity.
Encoding refers to how a rectangle of pixel data is sent on the wire.
Every rectangle of pixel data is prefixed by a header giving the X,Y
position of the rectangle on the screen, the width and height of the
rectangle, and en encoding type which specifies the encoding of the
pixel data. The data itself then follows using the specific
encoding, for example, Raw, CopyRect, RRE, Hextile, and ZRLE.
RFB typically runs over TCP [RFC0793]. Once a TCP connection is
establish, the client-server initialization takes place, followed by
an authentication and authorization. Then the actual transfer of
framebuffer updates can take place.
The protocol is extensible. New encoding, new pseudo-encoding, and
new security types can be added when need arises.
3.2. Overview of T.120
T.120 [ITU.T120.2007] defines multipoint conferencing protocols and
services for data applications including whiteboard (T.126
[ITU.T126.2007]), file transfer (T.127 [ITU.T127.2007]), application
sharing (T.128 [ITU.T128.1998]), and text conversation (T.134
Garcia-Martin & Ott Expires August 21, 2008 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft SDP Collaboration February 2008
[ITU.T134.1998], T.140 [ITU.T135.2007]), among others.
In T.120, communication takes place in a hierarchical structure of
T.120 entities interconnected by T.120 connections. In the simplest
case, this may be just two entities interconnected via a T.120
connection, in a slightly more sophisticated one a single conference
bridge (MCU) may be used to interconnect more than two entities.
Each point-to-point T.120 connection uses TCP as underlying transport
and TPKT (RFC 1006 [RFC1006]) framing on top. Up to four TCP
connections may be established between any two T.120 entities to
provide independent flow control for different transmission
priorities.
The lowest layer above the point-to-point transport is the Multipoint
Communication Service (MCS) (T.122 [ITU.T122.1998] and T.125
[ITU.T125.1998]). The MCS defines a connection setup procedure that
allows to associate different transport connections with the same MCS
Domain and to organize the MCS "providers" in a tree structure during
connection setup. In the resulting tree, the MCS provides a
multiplex for application data (using up to 64K channels) and simple
means for synchronizations (tokens).
On top of MCS, the Generic Conference Control (GCC) [ITU.T124.2007]
is responsible for controlling the connection setup and their
association with a conference. Furthermore, GCC manages conference
resources, provides capability exchange, allows for floor control,
and provides some kind of a conference-wide registry. In GCC,
conferences are identified by means of an octet string that is mapped
to the MCS Domain identifier. GCC allows to create and destroy
conferences as well as to inquire for, join, and leave existing ones.
T.120 data applications make use of the MCS communication platform to
exchange information and of the GCC services to learn about each
others existence and to find each other. In particular, GCC's
capability exchange mechanism is used to discover commonly available
applications and their respective features (with many tiny details
being negotiable).
This memo is concerned with the definition of media stream
descriptions in SDP that allows two nodes to learn about their
respective T.120 capabilities and enable them to set up a single
T.120 connection. Whether a single or more TCP connections are used
and how those are associated if entirely left up to the respective
T.120 entities, as is most of the T.120-specific capability exchange.
Garcia-Martin & Ott Expires August 21, 2008 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft SDP Collaboration February 2008
4. Collaboration applications
4.1. SDP Extensions for View Sharing with Remote Manipulation
Applications
According to SDP [RFC4566], the media descriptions line is defined as
follows:
m=<media> <port> <proto> <fmt> ...
Protocols used for view sharing with remote manipulation MUST use the
media type "application" in the "m=" line. Several protocols for
view sharing with remote manipulation are available today. We
provide the means to describe the Remote Frame Buffer (RFB) protocol
[RFB] and ITU-T T.120 [ITU.T120.2007] series of recommendations, in
particular, application sharing as defined by ITU-T T.128
[ITU.T128.1998] recommendation. Other protocols can be added at a
later time when need arises.
Both RFB and T.120 typically run over TCP [RFC0793], so, for the
purpose of describing an RFB or T.120 session in SDP, it is required
to use the TCP-based media transport extensions for SDP specified in
RFC 4145 [RFC4145] for negotiating which endpoint establishes the TCP
connection. Both protocols can also use TLS [RFC4346] as a secure
transport protocol.
4.1.1. View Sharing with Remote Manipulation with RFB
An application that wants to describe a session where RFB is the
protocol creates an SDP offer that contains a media description line
"m=". The media type is set to "application". The port number is
set to the client or server port number with the considerations
indicated in RFC 4145 [RFC4145]. The <proto> MUST be set to the
transport protocol mnemonic (e.g., "TCP") followed by a slash "/" and
the mnemonic "RFB". The defined values in the protocol field are
"TCP/RFB" for and "TCP/TLS/RFB" for TLS [RFC4346] over TCP. Since
RFB contains built-in negotiation mechanisms for the different
encodings, there is no need to signal a media format description, but
for compatibility issues, the SDP offerer MUST include an asterisk
sign "*" as a media format description at the end of the "m=" line.
If TCP or other connection-oriented transport is used, the SDP
offerer MUST add a 'setup' and 'connection' attributes as per
procedures of RFC 4145 [RFC4145].
4.1.1.1. Example of RFB descriptions in SDP
The following is an example of an SDP offer for the RFB protocol:
Garcia-Martin & Ott Expires August 21, 2008 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft SDP Collaboration February 2008
v=0
o=alice 2890844526 2890844526 IN IP4 host.atlanta.example.com
s=
c=IN IP4 host.atlanta.example.com
t=0 0
m=application 42034 TCP/RFB *
a=setup:active
a=connection:new
Figure 1: Example of an SDP offer for setting up an RFB media stream
An example of an SDP answer to the above offer is:
v=0
o=bob 2890844527 2890844527 IN IP4 host.biloxy.example.com
s=
c=IN IP4 host.biloxy.example.com
t=0 0
m=application 5900 TCP/RFB *
a=setup:passive
a=connection:new
Figure 2: Example of an SDP answer for setting up an RFB media stream
4.1.2. View Sharing with Remote Manipulation with T.120
An application that wants to describe a session with T.120 as the
protocol for view sharing with remote manipulation creates an SDP
offer that contains a media description line "m=". The media type is
set to "application". The port number is set to the client or server
port number with the considerations indicated in RFC 4145 [RFC4145].
The <proto> MUST be set to the transport protocol mnemonic (e.g.,
"TCP"), followed by a slash "/" and the mnemonic "T120". The defined
protocol field values are "TCP/T120" for TCP transport and "TCP/TLS/
T120" for TLS [RFC4346] over TCP.
4.1.2.1. T.120-specific Attributes
T.120 connections established within the context of an SDP offer/
answer exchange may need to be associated with a SIP dialog or a SIP
conference. Therefore, the media-level 'confname' attribute is
introduced. The content of the 'confname' attribute MUST be copied
to the ConferenceName field used by the GCC entity. For a simple SIP
dialog, the 'confname' attribute SHOULD be created with the
concatenation of the SIP From tag, the To tag, the value of the
Call-ID header field. For a SIP dialog in a conference, the
'confname' attribute SHOULD contain the focus URI. Whenever a
character cannot be written according to the syntax of the 'confname'
Garcia-Martin & Ott Expires August 21, 2008 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft SDP Collaboration February 2008
attribute, that character should be percent encoded.
T.120 defines a number of applications. To determine from the offer/
answer exchange whether or not at least the target application(s) are
available at a peer, the optional "t120apps" attribute is introduced.
If present, this attribute SHOULD contain a list of T.120 application
protocols supported by the respective peer. The following
application protocols are defined:
"t126": it indicates whiteboard sharing according to ITU-T T.126
[ITU.T126.2007].
"t127": it indicates file transfer according to ITU-T T.127
[ITU.T127.2007].
"t128": it indicates view sharing and remote manipulation
according to ITU-T T.128 [ITU.T128.1998].
"t134": it indicates text conversation according to ITU-T T.134
[ITU.T134.1998].
"t136": it indicates remote device control according to ITU-T
T.136 [ITU.T136.1999].
"t137": it indicates virtual room management according to ITU-T
T.137 [ITU.T137.2000].
The fine-grained negotiation of capabilities within these application
protocols is left up to the GCC operation after setup of a T.120
connection.
4.1.2.2. Example of T.120 descriptions in SDP
In the following example, an SDP offerer wants to set up an view
sharing with remote manipulation stream.
v=0
o=alice 2890844526 2890844526 IN IP4 host.atlanta.example.com
s=
c=IN IP4 host.atlanta.example.com
t=0 0
m=application 23093 TCP/T120 *
a=setup:active
a=connection:new
a=confname:623847692,789234789,78687afded278bd@example.com
a=t120apps:t128
Figure 3: Example of an SDP offer for setting up a T.120 media stream
Garcia-Martin & Ott Expires August 21, 2008 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft SDP Collaboration February 2008
4.1.2.3. SDP Offer/Answer Operation with T.120
An SDP offerer wishing to set up a T.120 session MUST include an m=
line according to Section 4.1 and include an appropriate c= line.
The offerer MUST apply the procedures of RFC 4145 [RFC4145] for
managing connection oriented protocols. The offerer MUST provide the
'confname' attribute as specified in Section 4.1.2.1 and SHOULD
include the list of supported T.120 application protocols in a
't120apps' attribute.
An SDP answerer that receives an SDP offer for setting up a T.120
session MUST first examine that it supports T.120 protocol indicated
in the 't120apps' attribute. If it does not support T.120 or does
not wish to use T.120 in the present communication relationship, it
MUST refuse the offered media stream by applying the procedures
specified in RFC 3264 [RFC3264] Section 6. If the answerer supports
T.120, it MUST validate the "confname" attribute. If no matching SIP
dialog or focus URI can be found, the media stream offer SHOULD be
refused by applying the procedures specified in RFC 3264 [RFC3264]
Section 6. If a matching conference is found and the "t120apps"
attribute is not present, the answerer MAY decide whether to accept
the session and proceed with the transport connection setup as per
RFC 4145 [RFC4145] or whether to refuse the media section. If the
"t120apps" attribute is present, the answerer MUST examine its
contents and match the applications listed by the offerer against its
own capabilities. If the intersection of capabilities is empty, the
answerer SHOULD refuse the media stream. If the intersection is not
empty, the answerer SHOULD return the intersecting capabilities (in
the order provided by the offerer) and then proceed with the
transport connection setup as per RFC 4145 [RFC4145].
After successful establishment of a TCP connection as per RFC 4145
[RFC4145], the respective entities MUST proceed with the T.120
connection setup as defined in ITU-T T.123 [ITU.T123.2007], ITU-T
T.124 [ITU.T124.2007], and ITU-T T.125 [ITU.T125.1998].
4.2. Co-Web Browsing
Co-web browsing allows endpoints in a multimedia session to visit the
same web pages in nearly real-time. Co-web browsing could be
implemented by sharing the web application, e.g., Alice could share
her web browser or entire screen with Bob. However, this has some
disadvantages. For example, since Bob is not running locally his web
browser, he cannot save bookmarks, acquire cookies, record history of
visited pages, etc. Bob might not be familiar with the exact web
browser that Alice is using to surf the net, the size of the font
might not be appropriate for Bob, or the color scheme that Alice is
using. In some cases a better option might be more efficient and
Garcia-Martin & Ott Expires August 21, 2008 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft SDP Collaboration February 2008
convenient to just share the URL of the page that both either Alice
or Bob are visiting, so that each endpoint becomes responsible for
independently of each other downloading the content, and for
rendering the web page in their respective web browser. This has
advantages, such as the possibility of Alice and Bob to render the
content in the capabilities of their browsers and according to the
user preferences (size of font, colors) and also according to the
capabilities of their devices (size of screen, number of colors of
the screen, bandwidth, etc.). It also allows Alice and Bob to
operate in their respective web browsers, such as record history,
save bookmarks, acquire cookies, etc.
We acknowledge the fact that there is no guarantee that the same
content is rendered equally in both web browsers. We merely try to
achieve an automatic mechanism that simulates the fact that a user
reads out or spells a URL, or copies the URL in a text messaging
windows, sends it to the remote user, which also copies the URL and
pastes it in their browser. If exact pixel-by-pixel copy of the
display is needed, users should use the view sharing with remote
manipulation feature described in Section 4.1.
To implement this use case we need to be able to signal the co-web
browsing application in SDP. Additionally, we need a mechanism to
transfer URLs in real-time between the two endpoints. This memo
proposes to reuse Message Session Relay Protocol (MSRP) [RFC4975].
MSRP SEND messages can carry an XML document that includes the HTTP
URL of the web page that Alice is visiting. Whenever Alice or Bob
load a new web page, an MSRP SEND request conveys the URL to the
remote endpoint. The co-web browsing application instructs then the
web browser to load the received URL.
The co-web browsing application requires a protocol for transferring
real-time messages that contain the URL that one of the endpoints is
loading in the web browser. We use the Message Session Relay
Protocol (MSRP) [RFC4975] as the real-time text message transport
protocol. We define a new MIME body, using Extensible Data Format
(XML), for wrapping the URL together with a time-stamp that indicates
when the web XML document was created.
Since text messaging media streams established with MSRP can be
already described in MSRP, this document does not introduce
extensions to SDP to signal them.
This document introduces a new Co-Web Browsing XML document that
encodes the URL linked to the web page rendered in a participant's
web browser. Co-Web Browsing is an XML document
[W3C.REC-xml-20060816] that MUST be well-formed and SHOULD be valid.
Co-Web Browsing documents MUST be based on XML 1.0 and MUST be
Garcia-Martin & Ott Expires August 21, 2008 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft SDP Collaboration February 2008
encoded using UTF-8 [RFC3628]. This specification makes use of XML
namespaces for identifying Co-Web Browsing documents. The namespace
URI for elements defined by this specification is a URN [RFC2141],
using the namespace identifier 'ietf' defined by RFC 2648 [RFC2648]
and extended by RFC 3688 [RFC3688]. This URN is:
urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:co-web-browsing
Co-web browsing XML documents have an associated MIME content type of
"application/co-web-browsing+xml". When a Co-web browsing XML
document is included in an MSRP SEND message, the Content-Type header
of the MSRP SEND request MUST be set to "application/
co-web-browsing+xml".
A Co-Web Browser document begins with the root element tag <co-web-
browsing>. It has two children elements. A <timestamp> element
contains the time and date when the content was acquired. The
recipient of the Co-web browsing document can use the <timestamp>
element for correlation purposes, such as avoiding to download
existing content that has not changed. For example, if the recipient
has already downloaded the content, it can use a conditional HTTP
request using the value in the <timestamp> in the If-Modified-Since
and If-Unmodified-Since HTTP headers.
Last, a <url> element contains the URL of the content as seen from
the sender.
Implementations according to the co-web browsing feature described in
this memo MUST comply with the XML schema included in Section 5.2.1.
4.2.1. Example of a Co-Web Browsing document
The following is an example of a Co-Web Browsing document.
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<co-web-browsing>
<timestamp>2008-01-27T16:49:29Z</timestamp>
<url>http://wwww.example.com/index.html</url>
</co-web-browsing>
Figure 4: Example of a Co-Web Browsing document
4.3. File Transfer
The file transfer feature allows a user to offer a file to the remote
user. The file is parametrized by its name, size, creation and
modification dates, etc. The file offer can also include a small
preview icon, for example, in case the file is an image or video
Garcia-Martin & Ott Expires August 21, 2008 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft SDP Collaboration February 2008
file. If the remote user accepts, then the file transfer operation
takes place, typically using MSRP as the real-time transport
protocol. The file transfer feature can be used, for example, to
transfer screen shots that one user takes in his computer, or
documents that the user wants to share with their correspondent.
File transfer is described in the memo SDP offer/answer to enable
file transfer [I-D.ietf-mmusic-file-transfer-mech]. No further
considerations are needed in this document.
Additionally, the T.120 group of specifications provides a file
transfer capability: T.127 [ITU.T127.2007]. T.127 file transfer
operations can be described in SDP as per procedures for T.120
applications.
4.4. Further Sharing Applications
The two application sharing approaches discussed above offer
identical views to a single application or the entire remote desktop
and hence are sensible for remote maintenance activities. However,
they are inherently limited by offering only a single cursor, single
undo history, etc. If collaboration inside a single document shall
take place beyond this limited experience (e.g., allowing users to
independently manipulate different parts of a document at the same
time), the applications themselves must support sharing. Traditional
examples have been the Mbone tools whiteboard (wb) and network text
editor (nte) used with multicasting in the 1990s and the emacs
support for multiple windows into a single buffer ("make-frame-on-
display"). Also, presentation tools have offered "remote
presentation" mechanisms in the past. Recent shared applications
have been web-based, using a server as rendezvous point.
Note: In the following, we only give examples we are well aware of.
The authors seek further input to expand this section and give proper
coverage of other open tools.
Shared whiteboards have probably been among the most popular sharing
applications. While a lot of research has gone into shared
whiteboard applications particularly in the 1990s, not many open
(standardized) solutions exist. ITU-T T.126 offers sophisticated
image sharing, annotation, and pointing facilities and specifies a --
quite complex -- standardized protocol which requires the entire
T.120 protocol suite underneath. T.126 is covered as per the above
definition.
Web-based shared editors and similar tools (which run over HTTP) can
use the mechanisms of co-web browsing described in the previous
section.
Garcia-Martin & Ott Expires August 21, 2008 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft SDP Collaboration February 2008
Note: The use of web-based sharing applications raises an issue
concerning the notion of a session in the context of a dialog. SDP
usually uses m= lines to describe sessions and can hence open and
close them as part of the offer/answer signaling. Conveying a URI of
a shared editing application in an MSRP session, to a certain extent,
also initiates a session in its own right which may be considered
independent of a particular call.
5. Formal syntax
5.1. SDP extensions
We define a number of new SDP [RFC4566] attributes that provide the
required information to describe the transfer of a file with MSRP.
These are all media level only attributes in SDP. The following is
the formal ABNF syntax [RFC5234] of these new attributes. It is
built above the SDP [RFC4566] grammar.
attribute = t120apps / confname
;attribute is defined in RFC 4566
t120apps = "t120apps:" t120appid *(SP t120appid)
t120appid = "t126" / "t127" / "t128" / "t134" /
"t136" / "t137" / token
confname = "confname:" token ; token defined in RFC 4566
Figure 5: Syntax of the SDP extension
5.2. Co-Web browsing XML schema
Section 5.2.1 contains the XML schema of Co-web browsing XML
documents. Implementations of such XML document MUST be compliant
with that XML schema.
Garcia-Martin & Ott Expires August 21, 2008 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft SDP Collaboration February 2008
5.2.1. XML Schema
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<xs:schema
targetNamespace="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:co-web-browsing"
xmlns:xs="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema"
xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:co-web-browsing"
elementFormDefault="qualified"
attributeFormDefault="unqualified">
<xs:import namespace="http://www.w3.org/XML/1998/namespace"/>
<xs:annotation>
<xs:documentation xml:lang="en">
XML Schema Definition for Co-Web Browsing
</xs:documentation>
</xs:annotation>
<xs:element name="co-web-browsing"
type="co-web-browsingType"/>
<xs:complexType name="co-web-browsingType">
<xs:sequence>
<xs:element name="timestamp"
type="xs:dateTime" minOccurs="0"/>
<xs:element name="url" type="xs:anyURI" />
</xs:sequence>
</xs:complexType>
</xs:schema>
Figure 6: XML schema of Co-Web Browsing
6. Examples
TBD.
7. Security Considerations
This document defines additional attributes for SDP and conventions
for using these with the offer/answer mechanism. The security
considerations of SDP [RFC4566] and the offer/answer model [RFC3264]
apply as do those for setting up TCP and TLS connections with SDP
(RFC 4572 [RFC4572] and RFC 4145 [RFC4145].
Running (additional) application protocols inside a SIP dialog
creates additonal targets for attack or potential leaks of private
information. The security of the application part of the session
depends on the security of the application protocols being used.
Garcia-Martin & Ott Expires August 21, 2008 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft SDP Collaboration February 2008
They may not only reveal information about the applications
themselves, but may additionally leak information about other
sessions inside the dialog and about the peers involved. Hence, it
is suggested to use TLS protection for the application protocols if
possible or turn on application-specific protocol mechanisms if
available.
Furthermore, application sharing systems grant access to at least
some parts (if not all) of the local environment (read-only, read/
write). Co-web-browsing and whiteboard sessions may also do so to a
limited extent. Therefore, security mechanisms (such as TLS) should
be applied to application protocols and each peer should ensure that
the respective connection truly originates and terminates at the
intended remote party.
8. IANA Considerations
This document instructs IANA to register a number of SDP attributes
according to the following:
8.1. Registration of new SDP attributes
This memo provides instructions to IANA to register a number of media
level only attributes in the Session Description Protocol Parameters
registry [1]. The registration data, according to RFC 4566 [RFC4566]
follows.
Note to the RFC Editor: replace "RFC XXXX" with the RFC number of
this specification.
8.1.1. Registration of the t120apps attribute
Contact: Miguel Garcia <miguel.garcia@nsn.com>
Phone: +358 71400 4000
Attribute name: t120apps
Long-form attribute name: T.120 Applications
Type of attribute: media level only
This attribute is subject to the charset attribute
Description: This attribute list the available T.120 applications.
Specification: RFC XXXX
8.1.2. Registration of the confname attribute
Contact: Miguel Garcia <miguel.garcia@nsn.com>
Phone: +358 71400 4000
Garcia-Martin & Ott Expires August 21, 2008 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft SDP Collaboration February 2008
Attribute name: confname
Long-form attribute name: Conference Name
Type of attribute: media level only
This attribute is subject to the charset attribute
Description: This attribute contains the conference name
identifier
Specification: RFC XXXX
8.2. Registration of new SDP 'proto' values
This memo defines the new SDP protocol field values "TCP/RFB", "TCP/
TLS/RFB", "TCP/T120", and "TCP/TLS/T120", which should be registered
in the sdp-parameters registry under "proto".
8.3. MIME type registration
This specification requests IANA to register a new MIME type
"application/co-web-browsing+xml" according to the procedures of RFC
4288 [RFC4288] and the guidelines in RFC 3023 [RFC3023].
MIME media type name: application
MIME subtype name: co-web-browsing+xml
Mandatory parameters: none
Optional parameters: Same as charset parameter application/xml as
specified in RFC 3023 [RFC3023].
Encoding considerations: Same as encoding considerations of
application/xml as specified in RFC 3023 [RFC3023].
Security considerations: See Section 10 of RFC 3023 [RFC3023].
Interoperability considerations: none
Published specification: RFC XXXX
Additional Information:
Magic Number: none
File Extension: none
Macintosh file type code: "TEXT"
Personal and email address for further information: Miguel Garcia,
miguel.garcia@nsn.com
Intended usage: not common, restricted to sharing applications
Garcia-Martin & Ott Expires August 21, 2008 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft SDP Collaboration February 2008
Author/Change controller: The IETF.
8.4. URN Sub-Namespace Registration
This specification registers a new new XML namespace, as per the
guidelines in RFC 3688 [RFC3688].
URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:co-web-browsing
Registrant contact: IETF.
XML:
BEGIN
<?xml version="1.0"?>
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML Basic 1.0//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-basic/xhtml-basic10.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type"
content="text/html;charset=iso-8859-1"/>
<title>Co-web browsing namespace</title>
</head>
<body>
<h1>Namespace for Co-web browsing XML Documents</h1>
<h2>urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:co-web-browsing</h2>
<p>See <a href="http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4825.txt">
RFC4825</a></p>
</body>
</html>
END
8.5. XML Schema Registration
This section registers a new XML schema per the procedures in RFC
3688 [RFC3688].
URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:schema:co-web-browsing
Registrant Contact: IETF
XML Schema: The XML for this schema can be found as the sole content
of Section 5.2.1.
9. Acknowledgements
10. References
Garcia-Martin & Ott Expires August 21, 2008 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft SDP Collaboration February 2008
10.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC2141] Moats, R., "URN Syntax", RFC 2141, May 1997.
[RFC3264] Rosenberg, J. and H. Schulzrinne, "An Offer/Answer Model
with Session Description Protocol (SDP)", RFC 3264,
June 2002.
[RFC3688] Mealling, M., "The IETF XML Registry", BCP 81, RFC 3688,
January 2004.
[RFC4145] Yon, D. and G. Camarillo, "TCP-Based Media Transport in
the Session Description Protocol (SDP)", RFC 4145,
September 2005.
[RFC4566] Handley, M., Jacobson, V., and C. Perkins, "SDP: Session
Description Protocol", RFC 4566, July 2006.
[RFC4572] Lennox, J., "Connection-Oriented Media Transport over the
Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol in the Session
Description Protocol (SDP)", RFC 4572, July 2006.
[RFC5234] Crocker, D. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax
Specifications: ABNF", STD 68, RFC 5234, January 2008.
[W3C.REC-xml-20060816]
Maler, E., Paoli, J., Bray, T., Sperberg-McQueen, C., and
F. Yergeau, "Extensible Markup Language (XML) 1.0 (Fourth
Edition)", World Wide Web Consortium Recommendation REC-
xml-20060816, August 2006,
<http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/REC-xml-20060816>.
10.2. Informative References
[RFC0793] Postel, J., "Transmission Control Protocol", STD 7,
RFC 793, September 1981.
[RFC1006] Rose, M. and D. Cass, "ISO transport services on top of
the TCP: Version 3", STD 35, RFC 1006, May 1987.
[RFC2648] Moats, R., "A URN Namespace for IETF Documents", RFC 2648,
August 1999.
[RFC3023] Murata, M., St. Laurent, S., and D. Kohn, "XML Media
Types", RFC 3023, January 2001.
Garcia-Martin & Ott Expires August 21, 2008 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft SDP Collaboration February 2008
[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.
[RFC3628] Pinkas, D., Pope, N., and J. Ross, "Policy Requirements
for Time-Stamping Authorities (TSAs)", RFC 3628,
November 2003.
[RFC4288] Freed, N. and J. Klensin, "Media Type Specifications and
Registration Procedures", BCP 13, RFC 4288, December 2005.
[RFC4346] Dierks, T. and E. Rescorla, "The Transport Layer Security
(TLS) Protocol Version 1.1", RFC 4346, April 2006.
[RFC4975] Campbell, B., Mahy, R., and C. Jennings, "The Message
Session Relay Protocol (MSRP)", RFC 4975, September 2007.
[I-D.ietf-mmusic-file-transfer-mech]
Garcia-Martin, M., Isomaki, M., Camarillo, G., Loreto, S.,
and P. Kyzivat, "A Session Description Protocol (SDP)
Offer/Answer Mechanism to Enable File Transfer",
draft-ietf-mmusic-file-transfer-mech-06 (work in
progress), December 2007.
[RFB] Richardson, T., "The Remote Frame Buffer Protocol version
3.8", June 2007,
<http://www.realvnc.com/docs/rfbproto.pdf>.
[ITU.T120.2007]
ITU-T, "Data Protocols for Multimedia Conferencing", ITU-
T Recommendation T.120, January 2007.
[ITU.T122.1998]
ITU-T, "Multipoint communication service protocol
specification - Service definition", ITU-T Recommendation
T.122, February 1998.
[ITU.T123.2007]
ITU-T, "Network-specific data protocol stacks for
multimedia conferencing", ITU-T Recommendation T.123,
January 2007.
[ITU.T124.2007]
ITU-T, "Generic Conference Control", ITU-T Recommendation
T.124, January 2007.
[ITU.T125.1998]
Garcia-Martin & Ott Expires August 21, 2008 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft SDP Collaboration February 2008
ITU-T, "Multipoint communication service protocol
specification", ITU-T Recommendation T.125, August 2007.
[ITU.T126.2007]
ITU-T, "Multipoint still image and annotation protocol",
ITU-T Recommendation T.126, August 2007.
[ITU.T127.2007]
ITU-T, "Multipoint binary file transfer protocol", ITU-
T Recommendation T.128, August 2007.
[ITU.T128.1998]
ITU-T, "Multipoint Application Sharing", ITU-
T Recommendation T.128, February 1998.
[ITU.T134.1998]
ITU-T, "Text chat application entity", ITU-
T Recommendation T.134, February 1998.
[ITU.T135.2007]
ITU-T, "User-to-reservation system transactions within
T.120 conferences", ITU-T Recommendation T.135,
August 1998.
[ITU.T136.1999]
ITU-T, "Remote device control application protocol", ITU-
T Recommendation T.136, May 1999.
[ITU.T137.2000]
ITU-T, "Virtual meeting room management for multimedia
conferencing audio-visual control", ITU-T Recommendation
T.137, February 2000.
URIs
[1] <http://www.iana.org/assignments/sdp-parameters>
Authors' Addresses
Miguel A. Garcia-Martin
Nokia Siemens Networks
P.O.Box 6
Nokia Siemens Networks, FIN 02022
Finland
Email: miguel.garcia@nsn.com
Garcia-Martin & Ott Expires August 21, 2008 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft SDP Collaboration February 2008
Joerg Ott
Helsinki University of Technology
Otakaari 5 A
Espoo, FIN 02150
Finland
Email: jo@netlab.hut.fi
Garcia-Martin & Ott Expires August 21, 2008 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft SDP Collaboration February 2008
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008).
This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
retain all their rights.
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND
THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS
OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF
THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Intellectual Property
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at
ietf-ipr@ietf.org.
Acknowledgment
Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF
Administrative Support Activity (IASA).
Garcia-Martin & Ott Expires August 21, 2008 [Page 23]
Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.119, available from
https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/