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

Versions: (draft-kutscher-mmusic-sdpng-req) 00 01

Network Working Group                                           Kutscher
Internet-Draft                                                       Ott
Expires: October 16, 2001                                        Bormann
                                                TZI, Universitaet Bremen
                                                                  Curcio
                                                     Nokia Mobile Phones
                                                          April 17, 2001


    Requirements for Session Description and Capability Negotiation
                   draft-ietf-mmusic-sdpng-req-01.txt

Status of this Memo

   This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
   all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026.

   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."

   To view the entire list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories, see
   http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.

   This Internet-Draft will expire on October 16, 2001.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2001). All Rights Reserved.

Abstract

   This document defines some terminology and lists a set of
   requirements that are relevant for a framework for session
   description and endpoint capability negotiation in multiparty
   multimedia conferencing scenarios.

   This document is a product of the Multiparty Multimedia Session
   Control (MMUSIC) working group of the Internet Engineering Task
   Force. Comments are solicited and should be addressed to the working
   group's mailing list at confctrl@isi.edu and/or the authors.

Document Revision



Kutscher, et. al.       Expires October 16, 2001                [Page 1]


Internet-Draft             SDPng requirements                 April 2001


   $Revision: 2.1 $

Table of Contents

   1.       Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   2.       Use Cases  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   3.       Terminology  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   4.       General Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   4.1      Simplicity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   4.2      Extensibility  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   4.3      Firewall Friendliness  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   4.4      Authentication, Authorization, Media Keys  . . . . . . .   9
   4.5      Text encoding  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   4.6      Session vs. Media Description  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   4.7      Mapping (of a Subset) to SDP . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   5.       Session Description Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   5.1      Media Description  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   5.1.1    Medium Type  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   5.1.2    Media Stream Packetization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   5.1.3    Transport  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   5.1.4    QoS  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   5.1.5    Resource Utilization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   5.1.6    Dependencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   5.1.7    Other parameters (media-specific)  . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   5.1.7.1  Media Codec Bit Rates  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   5.1.7.2  Advanced codec modes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   5.1.8    Naming Hierarchy and/or Scoping  . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   5.1.9    Profiles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   5.1.10   Registrations of Names . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   5.1.11   Meta-Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   5.1.11.1 Scheduling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   5.1.11.2 Optional Meta-Information Packages . . . . . . . . . . .  15
   6.       Requirements for Capability Description and Negotiation   16
   6.1      Capability Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
   6.2      Capability Constraints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
   6.3      Processing Rules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
   7.       Open Issues  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
   8.       Remarks  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  20
            References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  21
            Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  22
            Full Copyright Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  24










Kutscher, et. al.       Expires October 16, 2001                [Page 2]


Internet-Draft             SDPng requirements                 April 2001


1. Introduction

   Multiparty multimedia conferencing is one application that requires
   the dynamic interchange of end system capabilities and the
   negotiation of a parameter set that is appropriate for all sending
   and receiving end systems in a conference. For some applications,
   e.g., for loosely coupled conferences, it may be sufficient to
   simply have session parameters be fixed by the initiator of a
   conference. In such a scenario no negotiation is required because
   only those participants with media tools that support the predefined
   settings can join a media session and/or a conference.

   This approach is applicable for conferences that are announced some
   time ahead of the actual start date of the conference. Potential
   participants can check the availability of media tools in advance
   and tools like session directories can configure media tools on
   startup. This procedure however fails to work for conferences
   initiated spontaneously like Internet phone calls or ad-hoc
   multiparty conferences. Fixed settings for parameters like media
   types, their encoding etc. can easily inhibit the initiation of
   conferences, for example in situations where a caller insists on a
   fixed audio encoding that is not available at the callee's end
   system.

   To allow for spontaneous conferences, the process of defining a
   conference's parameter set must therefore be performed either at
   conference start (for closed conferences) or maybe (potentially)
   even repeatedly every time a new participant joins an active
   conference. The latter approach may not be appropriate for every
   type of conference without applying certain policies: For
   conferences with TV-broadcast or lecture characteristics (one main
   active source) it is usually not desired to re-negotiate parameters
   every time a new participant with an exotic configuration joins
   because it may inconvenience existing participants or even exclude
   the main source from media sessions. But conferences with equal
   "rights" for participants that are open for new participants on the
   other hand would need a different model of dynamic capability
   negotiation, for example a telephone call that is extended to a
   3-parties conference at some time during the session.

   SDP [1] allows to specify multimedia sessions (i.e. conferences,
   "session" as used here is not to be confused with "RTP session"!)
   by providing general information about the session as a whole and
   specifications for all the media streams (RTP sessions and others)
   to be used to exchange information within the multimedia session.

   Currently, media descriptions in SDP are used for two purposes:

   o  to describe session parameters for announcements and invitations


Kutscher, et. al.       Expires October 16, 2001                [Page 3]


Internet-Draft             SDPng requirements                 April 2001


      (the original purpose of SDP)

   o  to describe the capabilities of a system (and possibly provide a
      choice between a number of alternatives). Note that SDP was not
      designed to facilitate this.

   A distinction between these two "sets of semantics" is only made
   implicitly.

   In the following we first introduce a model for session description
   and capability negotiation and define some terms that are later used
   to express some requirements. Note that this list of requirements is
   possibly incomplete. The purpose of this document is to initiate the
   development of a session description and capability negotiation
   framework.




































Kutscher, et. al.       Expires October 16, 2001                [Page 4]


Internet-Draft             SDPng requirements                 April 2001


2. Use Cases

   This is an initial list of use cases:

   And endpoint is a device attached to an IP network via a fixed or
   wireless connection (LAN, WLAN, GPRS, IMT-2000, etc.).

   Case 1: Point-to-point connection

   Case 2: Point-to-point connection with use of proxy/CPS

   Case 3: 1-to-n connection (multicast distribution such as a lecture
      or video streaming or music)

   Case 4: n-party connection (such as a speech and/or video and/or
      data call with a variable number of participants over time)



































Kutscher, et. al.       Expires October 16, 2001                [Page 5]


Internet-Draft             SDPng requirements                 April 2001


3. Terminology

   Any (computer) system has, at a time, a number of rather fixed
   hardware as well as software resources. These resources ultimately
   define the limitations on what can be captured, displayed, rendered,
   replayed, etc. with this particular device. We term features enabled
   and restricted by these resources "system capabilities".

      Example: System capabilities may include: a limitation of the
      screen resolution for true color by the graphics board; available
      audio hardware or software may offer only certain media encodings
      (e.g. G.711 and G.723.1 but not GSM); and CPU processing power
      and quality of implementation may constrain the possible video
      encoding algorithms.

   In multiparty multimedia conferences, participants employ different
   "components" in conducting the conference.

      Example: In lecture multicast conferences one component might be
      the voice transmission for the lecturer, another the transmission
      of video pictures showing the lecturer and the third the
      transmission of presentation material.

   Depending on system capabilities, user preferences and other
   technical and political constraints, different configurations can be
   chosen to accomplish the ``deployment'' of these components.

   Each component can be characterized at least by (a) its intended use
   (i.e. the function it shall provide) and (b) a one or more possible
   ways to realize this function. Each way of realizing a particular
   function is referred to as a "configuration".

      Example: A conference component's intended use may be to make
      transparencies of a presentation visible to the audience on the
      Mbone. This can be achieved either by a video camera capturing
      the image and transmitting a video stream via some video tool or
      by loading a copy of the slides into a distributed electronic
      whiteboard. For each of these cases, additional parameters may
      exist, variations of which lead to additional configurations (see
      below).

   Two configurations are considered different regardless of whether
   they employ entirely different mechanisms and protocols (as in the
   previous example) or they choose the same and differ only in a
   single parameter.

      Example: In case of video transmission, a JPEG-based still image
      protocol may be used, H.261 encoded CIF images could be sent as
      could H.261 encoded QCIF images. All three cases constitute


Kutscher, et. al.       Expires October 16, 2001                [Page 6]


Internet-Draft             SDPng requirements                 April 2001


      different configurations. Of course there are many more detailed
      protocol parameters.

   Each component's configurations are limited by the participating
   system's capabilities. In addition, the intended use of a component
   may constrain the possible configurations further to a subset
   suitable for the particular component's purpose.

      Example: In a system for highly interactive audio communication
      the component responsible for audio may decide not to use the
      available G.723.1 audio codec to avoid the additional latency but
      only use G.711. This would be reflected in this component only
      showing configurations based upon G.711. Still, multiple
      configurations are possible, e.g. depending on the use of A-law
      or u-Law, packetization and redundancy parameters, etc.

   In this system model, we distinguish two types of configurations:

   o  potential configurations
      (a set of any number of configurations per component) indicating
      a system's functional capabilities as constrained by the intended
      use of the various components;

   o  actual configurations
      (exactly one per instance of a component) reflecting the mode of
      operation of this component's particular instantiation.

      Example: The potential configuration of the aforementioned video
      component may indicate support for JPEG, H.261/CIF, and
      H.261/QCIF. A particular instantiation for a video conference may
      use the actual configuration of H.261/CIF for exchanging video
      streams.

   In summary, the key terms of this model are:

   o  A multimedia session (streaming or conference) consists of one or
      more conference components for multimedia "interaction".

   o  A component describes a particular type of interaction (e.g.
      audio conversation, slide presentation) that can be realized by
      means of different applications (possibly using different
      protocols).

   o  A configuration is a set of parameters that are required to
      implement a certain variation (realization) of a certain
      component. There are actual and potential configurations.

      *  Potential configurations describe possible configurations that
         are supported by an end system.



Kutscher, et. al.       Expires October 16, 2001                [Page 7]


Internet-Draft             SDPng requirements                 April 2001


      *  An actual configuration is an "instantiation" of one of the
         potential configurations, i.e. a decision how to realize a
         certain component.

      In less abstract words, potential configurations describe what a
      system can do ("capabilities") and actual configurations describe
      how a system is configured to operate at a certain point in time
      (media stream spec).

   To decide on a certain actual configuration, a negotiation process
   needs to take place between the involved peers:

   1.  to determine which potential configuration(s) they have in
       common, and

   2.  to select one of this shared set of common potential
       configurations to be used for information exchange (e.g. based
       upon preferences, external constraints, etc.).

   In SAP [11] based session announcements on the Mbone, for which SDP
   was originally developed, the negotiation procedure is non-existent.
   Instead, the announcement contains the media stream description sent
   out (i.e. the actual configurations) which implicitly describe what
   a receiver must understand to participate.

   In point-to-point scenarios, the negotiation procedure is typically
   carried out implicitly: each party informs the other about what it
   can receive and the respective sender chooses from this set a
   configuration that it can transmit.

   Capability negotiation must not only work for 2-party conferences
   but is also required for multi-party conferences. Especially for the
   latter case it is required that the process of determining the
   subset of allowable potential configurations is deterministic to
   reduce the number of required round trips before a session can be
   established.

   In the following, we elaborate on requirements for an SDPng
   specification, subdivided into general requirements and requirements
   for session descriptions, potential and actual configurations as
   well as negotiation rules.










Kutscher, et. al.       Expires October 16, 2001                [Page 8]


Internet-Draft             SDPng requirements                 April 2001


4. General Requirements

   Note that the order in which these requirements are presented does
   not imply their relative importance.

4.1 Simplicity

   The SDPng syntax shall be simple to parse and the protocol rules
   shall be easy to implement.

4.2 Extensibility

   SDPng shall be extensible in a backward compatible fashion.
   Extensions should be doable without modifying the SDPng
   specification itself. The spec should preclude two independent
   extensions from clashing with each other (e.g. in the naming of
   attributes).

   Along with extensibility comes the requirement to identify certain
   extensions as mandatory in a given context while others as optional.

   It should be possible to define subsets or profiles of the SDPng so
   that simple implementations understands only minimal parts of SDPng,
   and are able to interwork with more refined and complex SDPng
   implementations.

4.3 Firewall Friendliness

   It should be theoretically possible for firewalls (and other network
   infrastructure elements) to process announcements etc. that contain
   SDPng content. The concrete procedures have to be defined but if
   possible the processing of the SDPng content should be doable
   without interpretation of the textual descriptions.

   In general, there should not be any problem for a gateway or a proxy
   server to execute the capability computation, and this operation has
   not to be limited to the endpoints only.

4.4 Authentication, Authorization, Media Keys

   SDPng should allow independent security attributes for parts of a
   session description. In particular, signing and/or encrypting parts
   of a session description should be supported.

   The originator of the session may authenticate the session
   description or parts of it, or encrypt it so that only authorized
   users may access it.

   In addition to the media encryption keys, the session description


Kutscher, et. al.       Expires October 16, 2001                [Page 9]


Internet-Draft             SDPng requirements                 April 2001


   should include also authentication keys, or include ways for
   authorized session participants to derive these keys.

   In order to support rapid re-keying, the session description should
   include way to specify multiple encryption contexts and indicate how
   and when these encryption contexts will be used. For instance, the
   session description would indicate the current key and destination
   group, and then that the key will be changed at 20010401Z084000, and
   the media encoded with the new key will be sent to group
   243.243.12.8.

4.5 Text encoding

   A concise text representation is desirable in order to enhance
   portability and allow for simple implementations. At run time, size
   of encoded packets should be minimized, processing as well.

   A language that allows specifications to be formally validated is
   desirable.

4.6 Session vs. Media Description

   In many application scenarios (particularly with SIP and
   MEGACO/H.248), only media descriptions are needed and there is no
   need for session description parameters. SDPng should make parameter
   sets optional where it is conceivable that not all application will
   need them.

4.7 Mapping (of a Subset) to SDP

   It shall be possible to translate a subset of SDPng into standard
   SDP session description to enable a certain minimal degree of
   interoperability between SDP-based and SDPng-based systems. However,
   as SDPng will provide enhanced functionality compared to SDP, a full
   mapping to SDP is not possible.

   Note: Backwards compatibility to the SDP syntax has been discussed
   and it was found that this is not goal for SDPng, as it is felt that
   RFC 2327 is too limiting.

   Since several flavors of SDP have been developed (e.g., the MEGACO
   WG uses certain non-SDP enhancements) it needs to be discussed which
   of these flavors need to be considered for some kind of mapping.








Kutscher, et. al.       Expires October 16, 2001               [Page 10]


Internet-Draft             SDPng requirements                 April 2001


5. Session Description Requirements

   For now, we only consider requirements for media (stream)
   descriptions.

5.1 Media Description

   It must be possible to express the following information with SDPng:

5.1.1 Medium Type

   Payload types and format parameters for audio and video are
   well-defined and the basic semantics are clear (as defined in
   RFC1889 [2] and RFC2327 [1]).

   Format descriptions for text and whiteboard are currently only
   defined in the context of specific applications, this is probably
   going to change in the future (not an SDPng work item).

   Non-standard (in terms of defined as a non-standard payload type)
   codecs and format parameters can be accomplished by using dynamic
   payload type mappings. This is a crucial feature of SDP that needs
   to be preserved for RTP applications.

   Current SDP only provides a= (a=fmtp) as means to specify codec
   parameters but actually gives little support on how to do this.
   Schemes for expressing more sophisticated parameters (e.g.
   supporting nesting) may be necessary. Nevertheless, it is imperative
   to keep the overall structure of a codec description manageable.

   Note that there is a conflict between the desire to be able to use
   any old SDP and translate it in SDPng and the desire to have a
   useful structure in the SDPng data.

5.1.2 Media Stream Packetization

   SDPng needs to be able to take care of more sophisticated payload
   descriptions than simple payload type assignment. Audio/video
   redundancy coding schemes need to be supported as need other
   mechanisms for FEC (RFC 2733 [7]) and media stream repair (RFC 2354
   [8]). Also, layered coding schemes need to be supported.

   Finally, a separation of the media encoding scheme, the
   packetization format, and possible repair schemes (and their
   respective parameters) is required.

5.1.3 Transport

   Since session descriptions are not only used to describe sessions


Kutscher, et. al.       Expires October 16, 2001               [Page 11]


Internet-Draft             SDPng requirements                 April 2001


   that use IPv4/RTP for media transport it must be possible to specify
   different transport protocols (and their corresponding mandatory
   parameters). This means SDPng must support different address formats
   (IPv4, IPv6, E.164, NSAP, ...), multiplexing schemes (e.g. to
   identify a channel on a TDM link), and different transport protocol
   stacks (RTP/UDP/IP, RTP/AAL5/ATM, ...). Potential further parameters
   and interdependencies for multiplexed transports should be
   considered.

   Additionally the requirement for expressing multiple addresses per
   actual configuration (layered coding support) has emerged, as well
   as the requirement for expressing multiple addresses per potential
   configuration (one port per payload type to simplify processing at
   the receiver). See also Section 6.1 for a requirement to separate
   alternative configurations and simultaneous media sessions.

   In multi-unicast-scenarios it must be possible to specify more than
   one transport address for a single media stream in an actual
   configuration, i.e. by specifying address lists.

   In "broadcast"- or "lecture"-like sessions source filters might be
   needed that allow receivers to verify the source and apply filters
   in multicast sessions. Similarly, for SSM, the transport address
   includes an (Sender,Group) pair of IP addresses.

   The definition of codecs and the definitions of transport parameters
   should be strictly separated from each other. See also Section
   5.1.9.

5.1.4 QoS

   QoS-Parameters for different protocol domains (e.g. traffic
   specification and flow specification or TOS bits for IP QoS) need to
   be specified. draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-qos-00.txt [10] has provided a
   proposal for a syntax that can be used with SDP to describe network
   and security preconditions that have to be met in order to establish
   a session.

5.1.5 Resource Utilization

   Capability descriptions should not be based on available resources
   and resource requirements (in terms of CPU cycles, DSPs, etc.) for
   the following reasons:

   o  Device manufacturers might not like to let hardware information
      go out from their devices.

   o  The resource utilization function is not bijective since, for
      example, to support a certain media, a device A could require a


Kutscher, et. al.       Expires October 16, 2001               [Page 12]


Internet-Draft             SDPng requirements                 April 2001


      quantity X of resources, while another device B of a different
      manufacturer could require a quantity Y of resource, where X <>
      Y. This is an implementation dependent issue, and it is related
      with how efficiently/inefficiently a manufacturer is able to
      implement a feature in its device.

5.1.6 Dependencies

   Certain codes may depend on other resources being available (e.g. a
   G.723.1 audio codec may need a DTMF codec as well while a G.711
   codec does not). Such interdependencies need to be expressed.

5.1.7 Other parameters (media-specific)

   Extension mechanisms that allow to describe arbitrary other
   parameters of media codecs and formats are mandatory. It is possibly
   required to distinguish between mandatory and optional extension
   parameters.

   In particular, it must be possible to introduce new (optional)
   parameters for a payload format and have old implementations still
   parse the parameters correctly.

   Some audio/video specific parameters can be defined as suggested in
   [16].

5.1.7.1 Media Codec Bit Rates

   There should be the possibility to configure ranges of bit rates
   (for example 32-64 kbps) or a discrete set of rates (i.e. 24, 32,
   48, 64, 128, ...  kbps).  This is to allow an efficient resource
   allocation and allow as well interworking with systems where only a
   number of discrete bit rates is available. Resource reservation and
   QoS configuration mechanisms in general should available as optional
   packages (see Section 5.1.4). It is conceivable that there be a
   separation into generic and transport specific QoS packages.

5.1.7.2 Advanced codec modes

   Special advanced codec modes may be announced depending, for
   example, on the network conditions, to activate special settings in
   order to preserve good quality of media and to reduce the
   probability of call dropping.

5.1.8 Naming Hierarchy and/or Scoping

   Parameter names should be constructed in a way to avoid clashes and
   thereby simplify independent development of e.g. codec parameter
   descriptions in different groups.


Kutscher, et. al.       Expires October 16, 2001               [Page 13]


Internet-Draft             SDPng requirements                 April 2001


5.1.9 Profiles

   The configuration options for the different aspects of session
   descriptions (codec definitions, transport parameters etc.) should
   be defined in different orthogonal profiles ("packages"). Two
   different types of profiles are required:

   o  A profile can define the data structures and collapsing rules for
      a specific function, e.g., for transport parameters. Capability
      and session descriptions can refer to such a profile and define
      concrete values for the profile parameters.

   o  Instantiations of such profiles, that already contain concrete
      parameters, say for specific codec definitions, can be referenced
      by capability and session descriptions in order to allow for
      combining different aspects to a final description that is
      synthetic and of lower computational complexity.

   An open issue is the question whether profiles should be referenced
   by name, i.e., by creating a well-known registry, or whether
   profiles should be referenced by address, i.e., by creating the
   possibility to retrieve them on demand. It is conceivable that a
   combination of both is useful: Some basic definitions are registered
   and well known and some other, uncommon definitions can be
   referenced by URIs.

5.1.10 Registrations of Names

   SDP uses top-level MIME content types [15] for media names. These
   convention should be adopted in order to avoid the unneccessary
   creation of a new namespace.

   SDP also defines a registration procedure that allows to register
   new names for "media", "proto", "fmt", "bwtype", "nettype", or
   "addrtype" field names (defined in [1]). If possible, the names that
   are already defined should be re-used. The definition of SDPng
   should contain a specification that states the registration
   procedures for SDPng.

5.1.11 Meta-Information

5.1.11.1 Scheduling

   In order to be usable for conference announcements, e.g. by means of
   SAP [11] it also required to provide a means for expressing
   scheduling information, i.e. to express the date (or the recurring
   dates) when a conference is taking place.

   Two alternatives for implementing scheduling functions are


Kutscher, et. al.       Expires October 16, 2001               [Page 14]


Internet-Draft             SDPng requirements                 April 2001


   conceivable:

   o  SDP-style (using the SDP model that is implemented as t= and r=
      lines); and

   o  Using ICalender [14].

5.1.11.2 Optional Meta-Information Packages

   Location Meta-Information: In case of usage of SAP [11] as content
      or channel directory, the session description should include the
      location information, including physical location and the L1/L2
      addressing information required to access the session.  L1/L2
      info may include things like transmission media used,
      frequencies, L2 multiplexing information etc. This makes it
      possible to broadcast session descriptions sent using broadband
      radio on, e.g., narrowband radio network.  The recipients can
      derive their location from the location sent in the SAP session
      description, and then decide if and how they can receive the
      media sessions.

   Pricing Information: The session description need to specify the
      pricing information for the session, if participating in the
      session requires payment.



























Kutscher, et. al.       Expires October 16, 2001               [Page 15]


Internet-Draft             SDPng requirements                 April 2001


6. Requirements for Capability Description and Negotiation

6.1 Capability Description

   When describing the capabilities of endsystem by providing a list of
   different potential configurations, it must be possible to
   distinguish alternatives (different potential configuration) from
   different simlutaneous sessions of a conference. A clear separation
   of these two concepts must be made that should also be realized in
   the description language.

6.2 Capability Constraints

   Capability negotiation is used to gain a session description (an
   actual configuration) that is compatible with the different end
   system capabilities and user preferences of the potential
   participants of a conference.

   A media capability description is the same as a potential
   configuration, as it contains a set of allowable configurations for
   different components that could be used to implement the
   corresponding component. A capability description should allow
   specifying a number of interdependencies among capabilities.
   Traditional SDP only supports alternative capabilities and the
   specification implicitly assumed that all capabilities could be
   combined and basically used at the same time (looking at the pure
   session description, at least).

   Processing power, hardware, link, or other resources may preclude
   the simultaneous use of certain configurations and/or limit the
   number of simultaneous instantiations of one or more configurations.
   This has led to a need to express in more detail constraints on
   combinations of configurations including the following constraints:

   o  grouping capabilities (-> capability set);

   o  expressing simultaneous capability sets;

   o  expressing alternative capability sets; and

   o  constraining the number of uses of a certain capability (set).

   It needs to be carefully investigated how much more sophistication
   (if any) than simply listing alternatives needs to go into a base
   specification of SDPng (and which extension mechanisms for certain
   applications or for future revisions should be allowed).

   Examples are known where complex capability descriptions are
   available but are simply not used (at least not at the level of


Kutscher, et. al.       Expires October 16, 2001               [Page 16]


Internet-Draft             SDPng requirements                 April 2001


   sophistication that would be possible). This strongly calls for
   keeping requirements on capability constraints rather modest (KISS).

   The description of capabilities and the specification of capacity
   limits (maximum numbers of instantiations at a time) should be
   separated. This allows for greater modularity, since the common
   descriptions of capabilities can be referenced and imported, while
   the constraints (that are usually unique for a specific endsystem)
   can be provided inline and can be applied across singe capability
   definitions. In order to allow for simple basic implementations,
   this also allows to treat the constraints as optional sections that
   do not have to be processed by an implementations.

   The capabilities should be expressed as limitations on codec
   support, transport capability restrictions but not implicitely as
   limitations on machine resources, such as CPU type, clock rates,
   memory etc., that describe internal limitations in order to infer
   the supported capabilities.

6.3 Processing Rules

   The processing of potential configurations includes the process of
   "collapsing" sets of potential configurations offered by
   participants, i.e. the computation of the intersection of these
   potential configurations.

   The processing (i.e. collapsing, forwarding etc.) of different
   potential configurations in order to find a compatible subset must
   work without having to know the semantics of the individual
   parameters. This is a key requirement for extensibility. Endsystems,
   conference bridges, proxies and gateways are thus only required to
   understand the basic SDPng semantics of session and capability
   description in order to compute the supported subset of capablities
   for a conference.

   Additionally it must be possible to make use of different
   negotiation policies in order to reflect different conference types.
   For example in a lecture-style conference the policy might be to
   ensure that a capability collapsing process does not yield an actual
   configuration that excludes the main source (i.e. the lecturer and
   her end system) from the conference.

   Preferences may also be considered in the negotiation process. This
   may need to be considered at the SDPng level (e.g. to express
   preferences, priorities).

   Of course, the negotiation of configurations must not only work in
   peer-to-peer-conference scenarios but also be usable in multi party
   scenarios. The collapsing rules should work commutatively and


Kutscher, et. al.       Expires October 16, 2001               [Page 17]


Internet-Draft             SDPng requirements                 April 2001


   associatively, that means if given 3 end systems A,B,C the result
   for computing the supported configurations should be same when
   computing (A*B)*C and (B*C)*A (let "*" be the collapsing function).

   Negotiation of capabilities should take no longer than two or three
   message exchanges. The description format must enable such
   efficiency.

   In order to allow for concise capability specification it will
   probably be required to group descriptions of, say, codecs and to
   establish a kind of hierarchy that allows to attach a certain
   attribute or parameter to a whole group of codecs.

   It might then also be required to have a naming scheme that allows
   to name definitions in order to be able to later reference them in
   subsequent definitions. This is useful in situations where some
   definition extends a previous definition by just one parameter or in
   situations where codecs are combined, for example for expressing
   redundancy or layered codings. Different models of re-use are
   conceivable.































Kutscher, et. al.       Expires October 16, 2001               [Page 18]


Internet-Draft             SDPng requirements                 April 2001


7. Open Issues

   This section contains a list of items that need further work and/or
   discussion:

    It needs to distinguished more precisely between mandatory baseline
      functionality and optional extensions.












































Kutscher, et. al.       Expires October 16, 2001               [Page 19]


Internet-Draft             SDPng requirements                 April 2001


8. Remarks

   Explicitly addressing the issue of capability negotiation when
   drafting the new session description language generates new sets of
   requirements, some of which might conflict with other important
   goals, such as simplicity, conciseness and SDP-compatibility.

   However, we think that it's worthwhile to sketch a reasonably
   complete and powerful solution first and then later develop a
   migration path from today's technology instead of imposing
   limitations at the outset to minimize the possibly necessary
   changes.







































Kutscher, et. al.       Expires October 16, 2001               [Page 20]


Internet-Draft             SDPng requirements                 April 2001


References

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

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

   [3]  Schulzrinne, H., "RTP Profile for Audio and Video Conferences
        with Minimal Control", RFC 1890, January 1996.

   [4]  Perkins, C., Kouvelas, I., Hodson, O., Hardman, V., Handley,
        M., Bolot, J., Vega-Garcia, A. and S. Fosse-Parisis, "RTP
        Payload for Redundant Audio Data", RFC 2198, September 1997.

   [5]  Klyne, G., "A Syntax for Describing Media Feature Sets", RFC
        2533, March 1999.

   [6]  Klyne, G., "Protocol-independent Content Negotiation
        Framework", RFC 2703, September 1999.

   [7]  Rosenberg, J. and H. Schulzrinne, "An RTP Payload Format for
        Generic Forward Error Correction", RFC 2733, December 1999.

   [8]  Perkins, C. and O. Hodson, "Options for Repair of Streaming
        Media", RFC 2354, June 1998.

   [9]  Camarillo, G., Holler, J. and G. AP Eriksson, "SDP media
        alignment in SIP", Internet Draft
        draft-camarillo-sip-sdp-01.txt, November 2000.

   [10]  Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H. and S. Donovan, "Establishing
         QoS and Security Preconditions for SDP Sessions", Internet
         Draft draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-qos-00.txt, June 1999.

   [11]  Handley, M., Perkins, C. and E. Whelan, "Session Announcement
         Protocol", RFC 2974, October 2000.

   [12]  Kumar, R. and M. Mostafa, "Conventions for the use of the
         Session Description Protocol (SDP) for ATM Bearer
         Connections", Internet Draft draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-atm-05.txt,
         February 2001.

   [13]  Casner, S., "SDP Bandwidth Modifiers for RTCP Bandwidth",
         Internet Draft draft-ietf-avt-rtcp-bw-02.txt, November 2000.

   [14]  Dawson, F., Stenerson, D., MISSING ORGANIZATION and  ,
         "Internet Calendaring and Scheduling Core Object Specification


Kutscher, et. al.       Expires October 16, 2001               [Page 21]


Internet-Draft             SDPng requirements                 April 2001


         (iCalendar)", RFC 2445, November 1998.

   [15]  Freed, N., Klensin, J. and J. Postel, "Multipurpose Internet
         Mail Extensions (MIME) Part Four: Registration Procedures",
         BCP 13, RFC 2048, November 1996.

   [16]  Levin, O., "SIP Requirements for support of Multimedia and
         Video", Internet Draft draft-levin-sip-for-video-00.txt,
         February 2001.

Authors' Addresses

   Dirk Kutscher
   TZI, Universitaet Bremen
   Bibliothekstr. 1
   Bremen  28359
   Germany

   Phone: +49.421.218-7595
   Fax:   +49.421.218-7000
   EMail: dku@tzi.org

   Joerg Ott
   TZI, Universitaet Bremen
   Bibliothekstr. 1
   Bremen  28359
   Germany

   Phone: +49.421.201-7028
   Fax:   +49.421.218-7000
   EMail: jo@tzi.org

   Carsten Bormann
   TZI, Universitaet Bremen
   Bibliothekstr. 1
   Bremen  28359
   Germany

   Phone: +49.421.218-7024
   Fax:   +49.421.218-7000
   EMail: cabo@tzi.org










Kutscher, et. al.       Expires October 16, 2001               [Page 22]


Internet-Draft             SDPng requirements                 April 2001


   Igor Curcio
   Nokia Mobile Phones
   P.O. Box 83 (Visiokatu 1)
   33721 Tampere
   Finland

   Phone: +358.3.272.5372
   Fax:   +358.10.505.7662
   EMail: igor.curcio@nokia.com










































Kutscher, et. al.       Expires October 16, 2001               [Page 23]


Internet-Draft             SDPng requirements                 April 2001


Full Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2001). All Rights Reserved.

   This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
   others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
   or assist in its implmentation may be prepared, copied, published
   and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any
   kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph
   are included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this
   document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
   the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
   Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of
   developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for
   copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be
   followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than
   English.

   The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
   revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.

   This document and the information contained herein is provided on an
   "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING
   TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS 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.

Acknowledgement

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



















Kutscher, et. al.       Expires October 16, 2001               [Page 24]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.122, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/