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

Versions: 00

INTERNET-DRAFT                             J. Ott/D. Kutscher/C. Bormann
Expires: December 1999                               Universitaet Bremen
                                                               June 1999

              Capability description for group cooperation
                      draft-ott-mmusic-cap-00.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."

   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.

Abstract

   This document presents a notation for describing potential and
   specific configurations of end systems in multiparty collaboration
   sessions. The objective is to define a configuration description
   framework that can be used to define end system capabilities, to
   calculate a set of appropriate common capabilities based on the
   descriptions of all (end) systems and to express a selected media
   description for use in session descriptions. One application for this
   framework would be multiparty multimedia conferencing, an application
   area where multiple tools have to be configured on conference startup
   (and/or during the conference) concerning media encoding types and
   other parameters. Other applications are IP Telephony and media
   gateway control.

   This document is intended for discussion in 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.

Ott/Kutscher/Bormann                                            [Page 1]


INTERNET-DRAFTCapability description for group cooperation     June 1999

1.  Introduction

1.1.  Background

1.1.1.  Motivation

   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. Currently the parameter
   negotiation is either done by out of band means or, for loosely
   coupled conferences, parameters are simply fixed by the initiator of
   a conference. In the latter 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 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 easiliy 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: 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 exclude the main source from media
   sessions. But conferences with equal ``rights'' for participants that
   are open for new participants do need dynamic capability negotiation,
   for example a telephone call that is extented to a 3-parties
   conference at some time during the session.

1.1.2.  Current practices in the IETF community

   Capability and session descriptions play different roles in
   applications of IETF conferencing standards and are currently almost
   always specified as SDP (Session Description Protocol) [11] session
   descriptions. In session announcements with SAP (Session Announcement
   Protocol) [12] they are used to define media encodings and parameters
   for conferences and thus at least reflect the system capabilities of

Ott/Kutscher/Bormann                                            [Page 2]


INTERNET-DRAFTCapability description for group cooperation     June 1999

   the participants or the active source.

   Within the context of SIP (Session Initiation Protocol) capability
   descriptions can be expressed in different session description
   languages, one of them SDP. For example, in a SIP-INVITE message for
   a unicast session, the session description enumerates the media types
   and formats that the caller is willing to use and thus expresses the
   capabilities of the caller's end system. The SDP content is however
   not only used to express a caller's preferences but is also used to
   configure communication channels in a somewhat crude way. For
   example, if a callee does not want to send or receive data on a
   offered stream he has to set the port number of that stream to zero
   in its media description that he sends as a reply to the caller. The
   use of SDP as a capability description and negotiation mechanism has
   lead to a whole set of conventions and requirements that have to be
   considered by implementations because SDP itself is not powerful
   enough for this purpose. This is clearly not a defect of SDP which
   has never been designed to be a complete capability description and
   negotiation mechanism. SDP has been developed in the context of SAP
   to describe simple static media sets.

   The misuse of SDP reveals a lack of a powerful, yet simple way to
   perform capability description and negotiation in a conference setup
   or reconfiguration phase in the current IETF conferencing model.

1.2.  Purpose

   The configuration negotiation framework consists of three components:

   o    A language that allows expressing capability descriptions,
        potential configurations, unambiguously;

   o    an algorithm that compares different capability descriptions and
        produces an appropriate ``collapsed'' subset that can be used as
        a common set of potential configurations; and

   o    a concrete capability name and value range specification for
        specific applications.

   This documents specifies ways to express potential and concrete
   configurations as well as rules to combine, constrain, and collaps
   these configurations.  How a particular component's potential
   configurations are gained, what relationship exists to system
   capabilities, and similar meta-discussions are beyond the scope of
   this dcoument.

   It is also not the purpose of this document to specify a complete
   framework including mandatory protocols for capability exchange.
   Names and value ranges for different applications should be defined
   in a follow-up document and registered with the IANA.

   Besides modeling and rules, this document specifies a syntax for

Ott/Kutscher/Bormann                                            [Page 3]


INTERNET-DRAFTCapability description for group cooperation     June 1999

   expressing configurations and describes a basic and a concise
   representation format as well as an XML-based notation.  A number of
   appendices provide mappings to other specification formats (in
   particular SDP and H.245) as far as possible and also give an
   overview of semantic definitions for configurations for audio codecs.

1.3.  Relation to other Developments

   A few other generic or application specific models have been
   developed that deal with capability description and/or capability
   negotiation.

   RFC 2295 (Transparent Content Negotiation in HTTP) [3] proposes a
   negotiation mechanism layered on top of HTTP that allows for
   automatically selecting the ``best'' version of documents that are
   accessible by a single URI. A server can describe the properties of
   each variant of a document associated with ``quality degration
   factors''. The content negotiation process will either allow the
   client to select the appropriate version according a variant list
   provided by the server or the server itself may choose a document
   version relying on Accept-headers that are included in the client's
   request.

   The Resource Description Framework (RDF) [4] provides a specification
   model for properties of Web resources and aims at automating
   processing Web resources with respect to resource discovery,
   cataloging, resource selection and other applications.

   CC/PP [5] is an on-going development that is creating a framework for
   describing user preferences and device capabilities that uses RDF to
   express those descriptions. In the CC/PP model a user agent can
   provide capability profiles that enable servers and proxies to
   customize content accordingly.

   The IETF Content Negotiation (conneg) working group is developing a
   collection of media features for display, print and fax [6], a
   registration procedure for feature tags (the names of capability
   properties) [7] as well as description and negotiation models [8] [9]
   for media features and capabilities. One of conneg's goals is to
   develop a ``tag independent negotiation'' process that can work
   without knowing the meaning of feature tags.

   Whereas TCN, RDF and CC/PP focus on describing/negotiating
   capabilities for client/server scenarios such as the WWW, where a
   server provides content with certain properties and a client has
   certain preferences/capabilities, the conneg approach is more
   general. The conneg framework provides the abstraction of ``feature
   sets'' that are media feature collections. Feature sets can either be
   interpreted as a set of variants that a server can provide as data
   formats or as a set of capabilities of a receiver. Content
   negotiation in this model would be to find a non-empty feature set
   that is compatible with both the sender's and the receiver's original

Ott/Kutscher/Bormann                                            [Page 4]


INTERNET-DRAFTCapability description for group cooperation     June 1999

   feature set.

   H.245, the multimedia control protocol employed across all newer
   H.32x Recommendations for tightly-coupled multimedia conferencing
   (particularly included H.323) provides the concept of capability
   specification and exchange between terminals and uses the same
   description mechanisms to define particular instantiations of media
   streams in a conference.  For capability description purposes, H.245
   provides means to express all the capabilities supported by a system
   (``AlternativeCapabilitySets'') as well as to describe permitted
   combinations of these capability sets to be instantiated at the same
   time.  Capability exchange is defined on a peer-to-peer basis, common
   (``collapsed'') capabilities are calculated by some central entity
   that controls the mode of operation in a multipoint conference.  This
   calculation requires the central entity to understand the (semantics
   of) the individual endpoints' capability descriptions.

   T.124 specifies a framework for exchanging and collapsing
   capabilities.  This framework specifies a core set of rules (minimum,
   maximum, logical AND) and capability types as well as a naming
   scheme, but leaves definition of specific semantics to the
   application protocols.  This concept makes the framework extensible
   and enables entities to calculate a common set of supported
   capabilities without having to understand their semantics.  Also,
   T.124 distinguishes between capability descriptions and particular
   instantiations for application sessions.  In addition to these
   collapsing capabilities, T.124 supports the notion of non- collapsing
   capabilities to which the collapsing process is not applied.

   Capability negotiation for groups of senders and receivers as
   presented in this document can be viewed as a specialization of the
   general conneg approach that focuses on simplicity for capability
   descriptions. Some expressional power of the conneg framework is
   abandoned in favor of simplicity.

1.4.  Terminology for requirement specifications

   In this document, the key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED",
   "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY",
   and "OPTIONAL" are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [1] and
   indicate requirement levels for compliant implementations.

2.  Requirements and Concepts

2.1.  System Model

   Any (computer) system has 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 machine.  We term features enabled and

Ott/Kutscher/Bormann                                            [Page 5]


INTERNET-DRAFTCapability description for group cooperation     June 1999

   restricted by these resources "system capabilities".

        Example: System capabilities may include the 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 that are
        different components in a conference.

   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 an copy of the slides into a distributed eletronic
        whiteboard.  For each of these cases, additional parameters may
        exist, leading to additional configurations (see below).

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

   Each component's configurations are limited by the system
   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

Ott/Kutscher/Bormann                                            [Page 6]


INTERNET-DRAFTCapability description for group cooperation     June 1999

        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.

   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.

   A configuration consists of any number of properties and is uniquely
   identified by a tag.  Potential configurations can be grouped into
   alternatives each of which indicates a possible mode of operation of
   a component.

   In a conference, each involved peer contributes to the formation of a
   component's configuration -- by specifying its its own features and
   limitations during the capability exchange process.  Based upon all
   systems' input, a set of common capbilities -- potential
   configurations -- is calculated through the collapsing process.

   The collapsing process may be influenced by additional constraints
   that may be expressed on the possible combinations of alternatives --
   between multiple instances of the same component as well as across
   (instances of) different components.  Also, user preferences may be
   taken into account -- during the collapsing process as well as when
   deciding on which potential configuration is to be instantiated as
   the actual configuration for a component.

2.2.  Definition of terms

   From the system model described above, the following core terms can
   be extracted:

   o    conference component

        An element of a multiparty multimedia conference that can appear

Ott/Kutscher/Bormann                                            [Page 7]


INTERNET-DRAFTCapability description for group cooperation     June 1999

        as a media stream and has a set of potential configurations.

   o    configuration

        A set of named attributes, expressing constraints to a system's
        capabilities.

   o    capability

        Resources or system features that influence the selection of
        useful configurations for components.

   o    alternative

        When comparing different potential configurations, one potential
        configuration is an alternative to other configurations.

   o    property

        A property is a label-value pair.

   The capability description language specified in this document is
   called CAP.

2.3.  Description language

   The objective of a capability description language is to allow the
   definition of supported media types, encodings and features of an end
   system. The language must be unambiguous, easily parsable and allow
   for concise definitions to minimize the transport overhead for a
   capability negotiation phase during a conference. It should also be
   extensible and not fixed to certain features, because new encodings
   must be supported without changes to the language definition.

   To ensure the unambiguousness it is however required to have a common
   understanding on the meaning of identifiers and values. E.g. if two
   end systems used different names for the audio encoding ``GSM'' a
   capability negotiation would not lead to the desired result.  The
   need for well-known identifiers and the need for extensibility
   require to seperate the definition of identifiers and values from the
   definition of the description language itself. Identifiers and values
   should therefore be standardized and registered.

2.4.  Collapsing Algorithm

   The objective of the collapsing algorithm is to take capability
   description sets from each end system in order to find a set of
   media-types, encodings and features that are supported by all end
   system, or, if this is not possible, to find a subset that would
   exclude as few systems as possible.

Ott/Kutscher/Bormann                                            [Page 8]


INTERNET-DRAFTCapability description for group cooperation     June 1999

   The procedure described above would be the default algorithm. In
   certain scenarios where some end systems are priveleged it must be
   possible to ensure that the result of the collapsing process does not
   exclude those privileged systems. It must therefore be possible to
   parameterize the process with the policy to be applied.

3.  Specification of the Decription Language

   Two, semantically equivalent, notations are introduced. The first
   notation is simple but leads to verbose capability descriptions and
   the second notation is more complex but allows for concise
   descriptions.[1] This specification also defines how to translate
   descriptions using the concise notation to the other, simpler,
   format.

   Please note that all tags and values are just examples and not a
   subject of this specification.

3.1.  Basic Description Language

   In the basic description language a end system's capability
   description is a set of alternatives.  An alternative is a set of
   constraints for certain parameters. A constraint can be understood as
   a restriction because it limits the capability alternative according
   to the constraint's meaning.

   A constraint is constituted of three components:

             +---------+-------------------------------------+
             |tag      | name of the constraint              |
             |operator | defines the type of the constraint  |
             |value    | a value for the constraint operator |
             +---------+-------------------------------------+
                    Table 1: Components of a Constraint

   A constraint that limits the capability of an end system to a maximum
   transfer rate of 64 kbit/s (say in a description of audio receiver
   capabilities) would be written as follows:

           bps <= 64000;

   with bps as the tag, <= as the operator and 64000 as the value of
   this constraint (plus a semicolon as a end-of-statement-symbol).

   A complete alternative (a set of constraints) would be written as:

_________________________
  [1] A third, XML-based notation is included in appendix A.

Ott/Kutscher/Bormann                                            [Page 9]


INTERNET-DRAFTCapability description for group cooperation     June 1999

           media = audio;
           mode = receive | send;
           channels = 1;
           encoding = g711;
           compression = mulaw;
           sampling_rate = 8000 | 11025 | 16000;

   This example exhibits another way of expressing constraints using the
   = operator. The = operator can be used to define a set of supported
   values in a single constraint. The value of the = operator's value is
   actually a list of names seperated by ``|''. In the definition of the
   media constraint it is shown how a single name is used as a value for
   the = operator, which has the meaning that (for the respective
   alternative ) only the media-type audio is supported.

   Another operator that is not shown in the example is the operator >=
   that can be used to express minimum constraints. Table 2 provides an
   overview of the operators:

                     +---+---------------------------+
                     |<= | maximum                   |
                     |>= | minimum                   |
                     |=  | selection of fixed values |
                     +---+---------------------------+
               Table 2: Operators for Capability Constraints

   The reason why the sampling_rate constraint is expressed with a = and
   not with a <= operator is that defining the rate capability as a
   maximum constraint with a value of 16000 would allow any value less
   than 16000 as a valid parameter which would not match the application
   specific semantics in this case.[2]

   The example above contains one alternative of a capability
   description. It could be used as a complete description expressing
   that the end system does not support more than this specific
   alternative. Most end system however support more variants of audio
   parameters, requiring the definition of more alternatives. E.g.
   supporting ``GSM'' as a second encoding would lead to the following
   capability description:

           tag: audio/g711
           media = audio;
           mode = receive | send;
           channels = 1;
           encoding = g711;
           compression = mulaw;
           sampling_rate = 8000 | 11025 | 16000;

_________________________
  [2] Most codecs do not support arbitrary sampling rates.

Ott/Kutscher/Bormann                                           [Page 10]


INTERNET-DRAFTCapability description for group cooperation     June 1999

           tag: audio/gsm
           media = audio;
           mode = receive | send;
           channels = 1;
           encoding = gsm;
           compression = half | full | enhanced_full;

   This description expresses that the end system supports one media
   type ``audio'' and two audio encodings ``g711'' and ``gsm'', each
   with certain other constraints. This way of defining capabilities is
   very redundant as many constraints are the same for both
   alternatives. It is important to know all the constraints of an
   alternative for a later negotiation phase (see below) but for writing
   and transferring capability descriptions another notation that
   expresses common constraints and allows for more concise definition
   is useful.

   The = operator is actually already used to aggregate several
   constraints into one: A hypothetic even more primitive notation could
   translate each alternative containing a = constraint into a set of
   alternatives each containing a ``equality constraint'' for one value
   of the = value list.  E.g. for the GSM alternative there would be 3
   alternatives for each compression type (each variant again would
   require an alternative for receive and for send mode in this
   example). This has not been done in this example in order to avoid
   the obvious verbosity.  Every alternative containing a = constraint
   with n values can however unrolled to n different alternatives if
   this granularity is required.

   Each alternative also contains a tag that allows to reference it
   later in simultaneous capability specifications. Due to the
   possibility to aggregate alternatives with = constraints several
   specific codec parameters for a media codec can be subsumed under one
   common tag like in the example above. This allows to handle common
   cases, where this is desired, efficiently. Again, if more granularity
   is needed for specific applications, = constraints can be unrolled.

   The ABNF[2] specification for the basic description language is as
   follows:

Ott/Kutscher/Bormann                                           [Page 11]


INTERNET-DRAFTCapability description for group cooperation     June 1999

   +-------------------------------------------------------------------+
   |caps                 =    alternative *(CRLF CRLF alternative)     |
   |alternative          =    tag-definition CRLF *constraint          |
   |constraint           =    *WSP (min-constraint / max-constraint /  |
   |                          oneof-constraint) *WSP [CRLF *WSP]       |
   |tag-definition       =    *WSP "tag:" *WSP identifier *WSP ";"     |
   |min-constraint       =    label *WSP ">=" *WSP numval *WSP ";"     |
   |max-constraint       =    label *WSP "<=" *WSP numval *WSP ";"     |
   |oneof-constraint     =    label *WSP "=" *WSP  [oneof-list] *WSP   |
   |                          ";"                                      |
   |oneof-list           =    val / (oneof-list *WSP "|" *WSP val)     |
   |label                =    identifier                               |
   |val                  =    identifier                               |
   |numval               =    1*DIGIT                                  |
   |identifier           =    ALPHA, *(ALPHA / DIGIT)                  |
   +-------------------------------------------------------------------+

   Note that the specification does currently not provide ``non-
   collapsing'' attributes, i.e. attributes that are not considered in
   collapsing rules, except for tags. Another syntactic element for
   those attribute will be added in the future.

3.2.  Concise Description Language

3.2.1.  Syntax

   The goal of the concise description language is to express the same
   capability description more concisely by grouping shared constraints
   of alternatives. The concise language provides the same constraint
   operators but introduces the concept of alternative groups.  The
   above, verbose example can be expressed like this:

           media: audio {
                   mode = receive | send;
                   channels = 1;
                   encoding: g711 {
                           compression = mulaw;
                           sampling_rate = 8000 | 11025 | 16000;
                   } || encoding: gsm {
                           compression = half | full | enhanced_full;
                   };
           };

   An alternative group contains those constraints (and subgroups) that
   are specific to an alternative and cannot be expressed in the common
   part. A group is enclosed by curly brackets and follows a group-tag
   (like ``encoding: g711'' in the example). A group-tag is semantically
   a ``='' constraint (with one value) but is used in the concise
   notation to introduce a new subgroup of constraints.

Ott/Kutscher/Bormann                                           [Page 12]


INTERNET-DRAFTCapability description for group cooperation     June 1999

   The example above contains three groups: The top-level group ``media:
   audio'' and two second-level groups ``encoding: g711'' and
   ``encoding: gsm''. Groups on the same hierarchy level (siblings) are
   connected by ``||''. Groups can be nested to arbitrary levels and
   there is no limit for the number of siblings in a hierarchy. The next
   example shows how the ``encoding: g711'' group can be split-up into 2
   subgroups:

           media: audio {
                   mode = receive | send;
                   channels = 1;
                   encoding: g711 {
                           compression: mulaw {
                                   sampling_rate = 8000 | 11025 | 16000;
                           } || compression: alaw {
                                   sampling_rate = 8000 | 11025 | 32000;
                           };
                   } || encoding: gsm {
                           compression = half | full | enhanced_full;
                   };
           };

   Note that there are no explicit tags allowed for the concise
   notation. Instead group tags serve as implicit tags components that
   can be composed to unique tags for each expressed alternative. A
   alternative can be uniquely specified by joining the group tags of
   all enclosing groups. The specification example above would thus
   define three alternatives: audio/g711/mulaw, audio/g711/alaw and
   audio/gsm.  Tag concatenation uses "/" (slash) as a delimiting
   character.

   The ABNF[2] specification for the concise description language is as
   follows (as an extension to the ABNF of the basic language, see
   section 3.1):

       +------------------------------------------------------------+
       |caps          =    1*(group LWSP *("||" LWSP group) *WSP    |
       |                   ";")                                     |
       |group         =    group-tag *WSP "{" LWSP *constraint      |
       |                   [caps]  LWSP "}"                         |
       |group-tag     =    name ":" *WSP tag                        |
       +------------------------------------------------------------+

3.2.2.  Translation to Basic Notation

   Transforming a capability description from concise to basic notation
   MUST be done by applying the following algorithm, starting at the
   outermost hierarchy level and transforming subgroups recursively:

Ott/Kutscher/Bormann                                           [Page 13]


INTERNET-DRAFTCapability description for group cooperation     June 1999

           transform group-tag to = constraint;
           push group-tag to tag stack;
           adopt all other constraints within the group;

           for each group in this level {
                   add adopted constraints and transformed group-tag
                   to every alternative obtained from transforming the
subgroups
                   recursively resulting in a set of alternatives;
                   if (is innermost group) {
                           construct tag by concatenating all group-tags
from tag stack
                           and add it to alternative;
                   }
                   pop tag stack;
           }

   Two innermost subgroups at the same hierachy level are thus converted
   to two alternatives. An Example:

           A: B {
                           C <= 1;
                           D: E {
                                   F <= 2;
                                   G:H {
                                           I <= 3  ;
                                   } || J: K {
                                           L <=4;
                                   }
                           } || M: L {
                                   N <= 5;
                           }
           }

   would be transformed into the following set of alternatives:

           tag: B/E/H
           A = B;
           C <= 1;
           D = E;
           F <= 2;
           G = H;
           I <= 3;

           tag: B/E/K
           A = B;
           C <= 1;
           D = E;
           F <= 2;
           J = K;
           L <= 4;

Ott/Kutscher/Bormann                                           [Page 14]


INTERNET-DRAFTCapability description for group cooperation     June 1999

           tag: B/L
           A = B;
           C <= 1;
           M = L;
           N <= 5;

3.2.3.  Translation from Basic to Concise Format

   The mapping from basic to concise representation is not unique by
   itself: In principle, for all alternatives constraints with common
   values can be factored out. Depending on the constraints that are
   chosen for outer groups the results will differ. Nevertheless it
   would be possible to define an algorithm that will guarantee
   uniqueness, for example by defining certain tags as implicit outer-
   level tags (e.g. ``media'') and by demanding that those constraints
   with the largest number of equal values in many alternatives will
   appear in the outermost groups. Conflicts could be avoided by
   imposing a lexicographic ordering on the tags. Only ``='' constraints
   with one parameter can be chosen for group tags.

4.  Specification of constraints for simulataneous capabilities

   For some applications it is not sufficient to be able to express the
   capability to support a list of media types and codec parameters.
   Instead constraints of how many instances of codecs of different
   types can be active at a given time must also be specified as an
   input parameter for a negotiation/selection process.

   For example a gateway may be able to handle either 5 GSM streams or,
   alternatively, 5 G.711 streams at the same time but not both GSM and
   G.711 at the same time.

   The specification presented here enables the definitions of such
   constraints by the tagging mechanism. Alternative capability can be
   refered to in rules expressing those simultaneous constraints using
   their tags. The specification of such a definition language is
   however not subject of this draft and will have to be defined
   elsewhere.

5.  Specification of the Collapsing Process

   The collapsing process generates a set of alternatives, according to
   the collapsing policy and the set of alternatives that are used as
   the input to this process.

5.1.  Finding compatible alternatives

Ott/Kutscher/Bormann                                           [Page 15]


INTERNET-DRAFTCapability description for group cooperation     June 1999

   The general collapsing process tries to find a set of alternatives
   that are supported by every end system. This must be accomplished by
   comparing each alternative of an end system's alternative set with
   each alternative of every other alternative set.

   The process of collapsing two alternatives works as follows:

           find intersection of constraints of the two alternatives by
           keeping all constraint with same names and operators;
           for all constraints in the intersection {
                   find according constraint (same name and operator) in
second set;
                   if(operator==''<='') {
                           calculate minimum of both constraint values and
add
                           maximum constraint with that value to result set;
                   }
                   if(operator==''>='') {
                           calculate maximum of both constraint values and
add
                           minimum constraint with that value to result set;
                   }
                   if(operator==''='') {
                           Build intersection of tags in both constraints;
                           add = constraint with a value of the
                           intersection to the result set;
                   }

           }

   Tags are ignored in the collapsing process. If the result set of
   alternatives contains = constraints with empty value lists the
   collapsing of these two alternatives has failed and the resulting set
   must be discarded.

5.2.  Other policies

   Other collapsing policies will have to be defined.

6.  Composed Configurations

   For certain configurations it is required to compose configurations
   by combining or referencing other configurations. Sample application
   could be redundant and FEC encodings. A full specification how this
   can be accomplished will have to be defined. The general outline
   would be to use the structuring and referencing mechanisms (tagged
   alternative) to express the required constraints for the respective
   encodings.

7.  Security Considerations

   Security considerations will also have to be defined.

Ott/Kutscher/Bormann                                           [Page 16]


INTERNET-DRAFTCapability description for group cooperation     June 1999

8.  Authors' Addresses

   Joerg Ott <jo@tzi.org>
   Universitaet Bremen, TZI, MZH 5180
   Bibliothekstr. 1
   D-28359 Bremen
   Germany
   voice +49 421 201-7028
   fax +49 421 218-7000

   Dirk Kutscher <dku@tzi.org>
   Universitaet Bremen, TZI, MZH 5160
   Bibliothekstr. 1
   D-28359 Bremen
   Germany
   voice +49 421 218-7595
   fax +49 421 218-7000

   Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
   Universitaet Bremen, TZI, MZH 5180
   Bibliothekstr. 1
   D-28359 Bremen
   Germany
   voice +49 421 218-7024
   fax +49 421 218-7000

9.  References

   [1]  S. Bradner, ``Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement
        Levels'' RFC 2119, March 1997

   [2]  D. Crocker, P. Overell, ``Augmented BNF for Syntax
        Specifications: ABNF'', RFC 2234, November 1997

   [3]  K. Holtman, A. Mutz, ``Transparent Content Negotiation in
        HTTP'', RFC 2295, March 1998

   [4]  O. Lassila, R.  Swick, ``Resource Description Framework (RDF)
        Model und Syntax Specification'', W3C Proposed Recommendation,
        January 1999, work in progress, http://www.w3.org/TR/1999

   [5]  F. Reynolds, J. Hjelm, S. Dawkins, S. Singhal, ``Composite
        Capability/Preference Profiles (CC/PP): A user side framework
        for content negotiation'', W3C Note 30, November 1998, work in
        progress, http://www.w3.org/TR/1998/NOTE-CPP-19981130

   [6]  L. Massinter, K. Holtman, A. Mutz, D. Wing, ``Media Features for

Ott/Kutscher/Bormann                                           [Page 17]


INTERNET-DRAFTCapability description for group cooperation     June 1999

        Display, Print, and Fax'', Internet Draft draft-ietf-conneg-
        media-features-05.txt, January 1998, Work in Progress

   [7]  K. Holtman, A. Mutz, T. Hardie, ``Media Feature Tag Registration
        Procedure'', Internet Draft draft-ietf-conneg-feature-
        reg-03.txt, July 1998, Work in Progress

   [8]  G. Klyne, ``A syntax for describing media feature sets'',
        Internet Draft draft-ietf-conneg-feature-syntax-04.txt, December
        1998, Work in Progress

   [9]  G. Klyne, ``An algebra for describing media feature sets'',
        Internet Draft draft-ietf-conneg-feature-algebra-03.txt, August
        1998, Work in Progress

   [10] G. Klyne, ``W3C Composite Capability/Preference Profiles'',
        Internet-Draft draft-ietf-conneg-W3C-ccpp-01.txt, December 1998,
        Work in progress

   [11] M. Handley, ``SDP: Session Description Protocol'', RFC 2327,
        April 1998

   [12] M.Handley, C. Perkins, E. Whelan, ``Session Announcement
        Protocol'', Internet-Draft draft-ietf-mmusic-sap-v2-01.txt, June
        1999, Work in progress

Ott/Kutscher/Bormann                                           [Page 18]


INTERNET-DRAFTCapability description for group cooperation     June 1999

Appendix A: XML-DTD for the description language

   A XML-DTD for XML documents representing concise CAP descriptions:

           <!ELEMENT cap (media*)>
           <!ATTLIST cap
             version CDATA "1.0"
           >

           <!ELEMENT media (property|min|max|one.of|group)+>
           <!ATTLIST media
             type CDATA #REQUIRED
           >

           <!ELEMENT group (property|min|max|one.of|group)+>
           <!ATTLIST group
             name CDATA #REQUIRED
             val CDATA #REQUIRED
           >

           <!ELEMENT property (#PCDATA)>
           <!ATTLIST property
             name CDATA #IMPLIED
           >

           <!ELEMENT min EMPTY>
           <!ATTLIST min
             name CDATA #REQUIRED
             val CDATA #REQUIRED
           >

           <!ELEMENT max EMPTY>
           <!ATTLIST min
             name CDATA #REQUIRED
             val CDATA #REQUIRED
           >

           <!ELEMENT one.of (property)+>
           <!ATTLIST one.of
             name CDATA #REQUIRED
           >

   The example explained above represented in XML:

Ott/Kutscher/Bormann                                           [Page 19]


INTERNET-DRAFTCapability description for group cooperation     June 1999

           <?xml version="1.0"?>
           <cap version="1.0">
             <media type="audio">
               <one.of name="mode">
                 <property>receive</property>
                 <property>send</property>
               </one.of>
               <property name="channels">1</property>
               <group name="encoding" val="g711">
                 <group name="compression" val="mulaw">
                   <one.of name="sampling_rate">
                     <property>8000</property>
                     <property>11025</property>
                   </one.of>
                 </group>
                 <group name="compression" val="alaw">
                   <one.of name="sampling_rate">
                     <property>8000</property>
                     <property>11025</property>
                   </one.of>
                 </group>
               </group>
               <group name="encoding" val="gsm">
                 <one.of name="compression">
                 <property>half</property>
                 <property>full</property>
                 <property>enhanced_full</property>
                 </one.of>
               </group>
             </media>
           </cap>

   Note that = constraints with one alternative are represented as
   property elements for brevity while = constraints with multiple
   alternatives are represented as one.of elements with a property
   element (without name attribute) for each value.

Ott/Kutscher/Bormann                                           [Page 20]


INTERNET-DRAFTCapability description for group cooperation     June 1999

Appendix B: Mapping from/to SDP

   Note that this appendix is still prelimenary as it does not yet cover
   all the features provided by the capability description language
   presented in this document.

   SDP allows for describing all parameters required for establishing a
   conference. The media parameters that can be interpreted as a
   caller's capabilities are only a subset of the session desription.
   Other information like origin (``o='' field) or communication
   parameters are not related to a system's capability description
   (although they need to be expressable in a session description
   language, as well). An example SDP description:

           v=0
           o=mhandley 2890844526 2890842807 IN IP4 126.16.64.4
           s=SDP Seminar
           i=A Seminar on the session description protocol
           u=http://www.cs.ucl.ac.uk/staff/M.Handley/sdp.03.ps
           e=mjh@isi.edu (Mark Handley)
           c=IN IP4 224.2.17.12/127
           t=2873397496 2873404696
           a=recvonly
           m=audio 49170 RTP/AVP 0
           m=video 51372 RTP/AVP 31
           m=video 51374 RTP/AVP 98
           a=rtpmap:98 X-H.263+
           m=application 32416 udp wb
           a=orient:portrait

   Only the ``m='' and the respective ``a='' fields contain relevant
   information for a mapping to our capability description language.
   The first element of a ``m='' field is the media type that can be
   mapped to the tag of a top-level ``group-tag'' in the concise
   description language.  The second element of a ``m='' field, the
   transport port, is a communication parameter and can therefore be
   neglected for now. The third and fourth (and subsequent) elements
   define a transport protocol (that can be regarded as some kind of
   capability) and media formats (encodings). The ``m='' field may be
   followed by an ``a='' field that can contain arbitrary constraints on
   the media description, notably the rtpmap attribute, that maps a
   dynamic RTP payload type number to a media format (and additional
   encoding parameters, depending on the concrete encoding). Further
   encoding specific parameters are specified using a ``a=fmtp''
   attribute. All parameters of a ``a=fmtp'' attribute will be mapped to
   respective constraints in our description language. The concrete
   mapping is yet to be defined for some common uses of ``a=fmtp''.

   For the sake of generality we must translate the implicit encoding
   paramters expressed in static RTP payload numbers to explicit
   descriptions and extract the relevant information from the ``a=''
   fields for dynamic payload types.

Ott/Kutscher/Bormann                                           [Page 21]


INTERNET-DRAFTCapability description for group cooperation     June 1999

   The example above could therefore be translated as:

           media: audio {
                   mode = receive | send
                   encoding: g711 {
                           transport = RTP
                           compression = mulaw
                           sampling_rate = 8000
                           channels = 1
                   }
           }
           media: video {
                   mode = receive | send
                   encoding: h261 {
                           transport = RTP
                   } || encoding: h263+ {
                           transport = RTP
                   }
           }
           media: application {
                   type: wb {
                           transport = UDP
                           orientation = portrait
                   }
           }

   The constraints inside the ``g711'' group have to be adopted from the
   payload types definition in RFC 1890. The ``transport'' constraint
   could also be factored-out to the outer groups ``audio'' and
   ``video'' -- this is not relevant to the semantics of the
   description. Note that the empty group for ``h261'' and ``h263+'' can
   also be abbreviated as a ``= constraint'' if no specific constraints
   exist for those encodings.

   The mapping process can thus defined as follows:

   1)   Each ``m=<media>'' format specification is mapped to a ``group''
        nested in a ``group'' for the respective media. The tag for that
        group is inferred either from the static payload type or in case
        of dynamic payload types looked up from a corresponding
        ``a=rtpmap'' field.  The corresponding registered payload type
        name leads to an encoding name (by a yet to be defined name
        map). A mapping for unregistered payload type names has to be
        defined, as well.

   2)   The transport of a ``m='' field becomes a ``='' constraint in
        the ``group'' for the encoding

   3)   For registered payload type names the additional parameters as
        defined in RFC 1890 such as sampling rate and number of channels
        are each translated into corresponding ``='' constraints of the
        encoding group.

Ott/Kutscher/Bormann                                           [Page 22]


INTERNET-DRAFTCapability description for group cooperation     June 1999

   4)   Translation of ``a=fmtp'' has to be defined...

   5)   All other ``a='' fields relating to a ``m='' and representing a
        single attribute-value mapping (like orient:portrait) are
        translated into single ``='' constraints with one value.

   Future versions of this specification will also define how integrate
   other SDP configuration parameters into CAP using non-collapsing
   parameters (see section xx) that are yet to be defined.

   Translating a description written in the concise decscription
   language (back) to SDP again would rely on a well-defined mapping of
   encoding names:

   1)   CAP names for video or audio that cannot be translated into
        registered payload type names will be translated as dynamic
        payload types with a corresponding ``a=rtpmap'' field.

   2)   CAP groups with encoding names that can be mapped are either
        translated into ``m='' fields with static payload types if the
        encoding parameters (sampling rate and number of channels)
        conform to the specification of a static payload type or, if one
        of these parameters differ are translated to ``m='' fields with
        a dynamic payload type that will be defined in a subsequent
        ``a=rtpmap'' field.

   3)   For other media types the encoding groups will be translated to
        ``m=application''fields with the encoding name as the fourth
        element.

   4)   The transport constraint of the CAP description is will be
        reflected in the ``m='' field, as well.

   5)   Other = constraints with one value will be translated to ``a=''
        fields.

Ott/Kutscher/Bormann                                           [Page 23]


INTERNET-DRAFTCapability description for group cooperation     June 1999

Appendix C: Integration into SDP

   Instead of translating a CAPs specification into SDP media
   descriptions it can be more efficient to directly add it to a SDP
   description and thus retain the original specification. This can be
   done by using dynamic payload types:

   m=audio <port> <transport-parameters> 98

   a=rtpmap:98 X-CAP

   a={ channels = 1; encoding: g711 { compression = mulaw);sampling_rate
   = 8000 | 11025 | 16000; } || encoding: gsm { compression = half |
   full | enhanced_full; }; }

Ott/Kutscher/Bormann                                           [Page 24]


INTERNET-DRAFTCapability description for group cooperation     June 1999

Appendix D: Mapping to H.245

   TBD.

Ott/Kutscher/Bormann                                           [Page 25]


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