Internet DRAFT - draft-mahy-mmusic-mbus-remotecc
draft-mahy-mmusic-mbus-remotecc
MMUSIC WG R. Mahy
Internet-Draft SIP Edge
Expires: January 16, 2006 July 15, 2005
Remote Call Control via Mbus and SIP
draft-mahy-mmusic-mbus-remotecc-01.txt
Status of this Memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on January 16, 2006.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005).
Abstract
Mbus (Message Bus for Local Coordination) was designed with remote
call control in mind as an Mbus profile. This document discusses
changes necessary to the long abandoned call control profile to
address recent requrirement, and conditions of use to make the core
Mbus appropriate for use among SIP systems on the Internet.
Mahy Expires January 16, 2006 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Mbus remote call control July 2005
Table of Contents
1. Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Proposed changes to the Mbus call control profile . . . . . . 3
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
6. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . 6
Mahy Expires January 16, 2006 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Mbus remote call control July 2005
1. Conventions
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC-2119 [2].
2. Introduction
A long-standing charter item of the SIP and SIPPING working groups
was to design extensions to SIP [1] for call control [10]. In this
vein, remote call control [5], the cooperation of a handful of
loosely coupled user agents was extensively discussed, and several
suggestions investigated.
Mbus (Message Bus for Local Coordination) - RFC 3259 [3], is a
lightweight message-oriented coordination protocol designed for
inter-application communication. Mbus was designed to run primarily
over IP multicast, but also runs over unicast UDP datagrams.
Unfortunately Mbus was not designed to work in settings where the
Mbus applications are geographically local, but not topologically
local. (For example, a mobile phone with IP connectivity could be
used as a remote control for a SIP-based video conferencing system
which happens to be in the same room, but are in very different
networks and addressing realms).
Mbus control streams setup via SIP and SDP [9] addresses many of
these limitations. This companion document evaluates the possibility
of resurrecting the long expired Mbus call control profile [11].
3. Proposed changes to the Mbus call control profile
The expired call control profile has many events for monitoring
status which are a close duplicate of the dialog package [6], which
is more expressive in a SIP environment. In order to get the best of
both worlds, the commands and events in the current profile should be
split into two different profiles. Note that this also can
dramatically improve the congestion safety of the overall solution,
as SIP message over 1300 bytes MUST be sent over congestion-safe
transports such as TCP.
The following list proposes a refactoring of the control primitives
listed in the call control profile. Several commands are combined or
eliminated. In addition, four new commands are added which complete
a transfer, join two parties, and add and delete parties in an adhoc
conference.
Mahy Expires January 16, 2006 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Mbus remote call control July 2005
make-call (sends an INVITE)
end-call (sends a BYE, CANCEL, or 603 Declined as appropriate)
accept (accepts an incoming call)
alert (returns a 180 Ringing provisional response) - is this needed?
reject (reject an incoming call with a specific response/reason)
move (redirect or single-step transfer a call to specific target URI)
complete-transfer (replaces two active or held calls with one call
directly between to two targets -- REFER 1st call to INVITE with
Replaces the 2nd call)
hold (invoke the locally defined hold mechanism)
retrieve (retrieve a call from hold)
join (merge two calls into one conference)
add-party (add a party to a conference)
drop-party (remove a party from a conference)
In addition to these changes there are some additional features for
consideration that should probably be in separate profiles. For
example, setting volume setting, selected audio device, and Do Not
Disturb or Forwarding status. For example, it is unclear if Do Not
Disturb should be configured via Mbus or via a presence [7]
publication [8].
4. Security Considerations
To Be Written.
5. IANA Considerations
This document introduces no requirements for IANA.
6. Normative References
[1] Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., Camarillo, G., Johnston, A.,
Peterson, J., Sparks, R., Handley, M., and E. Schooler, "SIP:
Session Initiation Protocol", RFC 3261, June 2002.
[2] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement
Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[3] Ott, J., Perkins, C., and D. Kutscher, "A Message Bus for Local
Coordination", RFC 3259, April 2002.
[4] Handley, M. and V. Jacobson, "SDP: Session Description
Protocol", RFC 2327, April 1998.
Mahy Expires January 16, 2006 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Mbus remote call control July 2005
[5] Mahy, R., "Remote Call Control in SIP using the REFER method and
the session-oriented dialog package",
draft-mahy-sip-remote-cc-01 (work in progress), February 2004.
[6] Rosenberg, J., "An INVITE Inititiated Dialog Event Package for
the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)",
draft-ietf-sipping-dialog-package-06 (work in progress),
April 2005.
[7] Rosenberg, J., "A Presence Event Package for the Session
Initiation Protocol (SIP)", RFC 3856, August 2004.
[8] Niemi, A., "Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Extension for
Event State Publication", RFC 3903, October 2004.
[9] Mahy, R., "Setting up Mbus Control Sessions with SIP and SDP",
draft-mahy-mmusic-mbus-sdp-01.txt (work in progress), July 2005.
[10] <http://www.softarmor.com/wgdb/docs/
draft-ietf-sipping-cc-framework-03.txt>
[11] <http://www.mbus.org/drafts/
draft-ietf-mmusic-mbus-call-control-00.html>
Author's Address
Rohan Mahy
SIP Edge
Email: rohan@cisco.com
Mahy Expires January 16, 2006 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Mbus remote call control July 2005
Intellectual Property Statement
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at
ietf-ipr@ietf.org.
Disclaimer of Validity
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET
ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE
INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005). This document is subject
to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and
except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights.
Acknowledgment
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society.
Mahy Expires January 16, 2006 [Page 6]
