[Search] [txt|ps|pdf|bibtex] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Nits]

Versions: 00 01 rfc2824                                                 
Internet Engineering Task Force                                 IPTEL WG
Internet Draft                                        Lennox/Schulzrinne
draft-ietf-iptel-cpl-framework-00.txt                Columbia University
June 25, 1999
Expires: December 1999


          Call Processing Language Framework and Requirements

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

   A large number of the services we wish to make possible for Internet
   telephony require fairly elaborate combinations of signalling
   operations, often in network devices, to complete. We want a simple
   and standardized way to create such services to make them easier to
   implement and deploy.  This document describes an architectural
   framework for such a mechanism, which we call a call processing
   language. It also outlines requirements for such a language.


1 Introduction

   Recently, several protocols have been created to allow telephone
   calls to be made over IP networks, notably SIP [1] and H.323 [2].
   These emerging standards have opened up the possibility of a broad
   and dramatic decentralization of the provisioning of telephone
   services so they can be under the user's control.

   Many Internet telephony services can, and should, be implemented



Lennox/Schulzrinne                                            [Page 1]


Internet Draft                   CPL-F                     June 25, 1999


   entirely on end devices. Multi-party calls, for instance, or call
   waiting alert tones, or camp-on services, depend heavily on end-
   system state and on the specific content of media streams,
   information which often is only available to the end system. A
   variety of services, however -- those involving user location, call
   distribution, behavior when end systems are busy, and the like -- are
   independent of a particular end device, or need to be operational
   even when an end device is unavailable. These services are still best
   located in a network device, rather than in an end system.

   Traditionally, network-based services have been created only by
   service providers. Service creation typically involved using
   proprietary or restricted tools, and there was little range for
   customization or enhancement by end users. Internet telephony,
   however, provides an opportunity to open up the service creation
   process to end users or third-party service designers. To accomplish
   this however, we need a standardized, safe way for these new service
   creators to describe the desired behavior of network servers.

   This document describes an architecture in which network devices
   respond to call signalling events by triggering user-created programs
   written in a simple, static, non-expressively-complete language. We
   call this language a call processing language

2 Motivating examples

   To motivate the subsequent discussion, this section gives some
   specific examples of services which we want users to be able to
   create programmatically.  Note that some of these examples are
   deliberately somewhat complicated, so as to demonstrate the level of
   decision logic that should be possible.

        o Call forward on busy/no answer

        When a new call comes in, the call should ring at the user's
        desk telephone.  If it is busy, the call should always be
        redirected to the user's voicemail box. If, instead, there's no
        answer after four rings, it should also be redirected to his or
        her voicemail, unless it's from a supervisor, in which case it
        should be proxied to the user's cell phone if it is currently
        registered.

        o Information address

        A company advertises a general "information" address for
        prospective customers.  When a call comes in to this address, if
        it's currently working hours, the caller should be given a list
        of the people currently willing to accept general information



Lennox/Schulzrinne                                            [Page 2]


Internet Draft                   CPL-F                     June 25, 1999


        calls. If it's outside of working hours, the caller should get a
        webpage indicating what times they can call.

        o Intelligent user location

        When a call comes in, the list of locations where the user has
        registered should be consulted. Depending on the type of call
        (work, personal, etc.), the call should ring at an appropriate
        subset of the registered locations, depending on information in
        the registrations. If the user picks up from more than one
        station, the pick-ups should be reported back separately to the
        calling party.

        o Intelligent user location with media knowledge

        When a call comes in, the call should be proxied to the station
        the user has registered from whose media capabilities best match
        those specified in the call request. If the user does not pick
        up from that station within four rings, the call should be
        proxied to the other stations from which he or she has
        registered, sequentially, in order of decreasing closeness of
        match.

        o Client billing allocation -- lawyer's office

        When a call comes in, the calling address is correlated with the
        corresponding client, and client's name, address, and the time
        of the call is logged. If no corresponding client is found, the
        call is forwarded to the lawyer's secretary.

3 Architecture

   The Call Processing Language operates on a generalized model of an
   Internet telephony network. While the details of various protocols
   differ, on an abstract level all major Internet telephony
   architectures are sufficiently similar that their major features can
   be described commonly.

3.1 Network components

   In the view of the Call Processing Language, an Internet telephony
   network consists of two types of components. End systems originate
   and/or receive signalling information and media; network systems
   relay or control signalling information.  While in actual networks
   other devices exist, such as mixers, media gateways, or firewalls,
   the CPL does not deal with them directly, and they will not be
   discussed here.




Lennox/Schulzrinne                                            [Page 3]


Internet Draft                   CPL-F                     June 25, 1999


   Network systems, in SIP, are proxy servers, redirect servers, or
   registrars; in H.323 they are gatekeepers. On the abstract level the
   CPL deals with, the functionality of two protocols is largely
   equivalent, and this document will generally use SIP terminology.
   Network systems can perform three types of actions on call setup
   information. They can:

   proxy it: forward it on to one or more other network or end systems,
        returning one of the responses received.

   redirect it: return a response informing the sending system of a
        different address to which it should send the request.

   reject it: inform the sending system that the setup request could not
        be completed.  See RFC 2543 [1] for illustrations of proxy and
        redirect functionality. End systems may also be able to perform
        some of these actions: almost certainly rejection, and possibly
        redirection.

3.2 Network model


   An Internet telephony network contains a number of network systems
   and a number of user agents. Call establishment requests can pass
   through a series of network systems, and user agents can be contacted
   by any of a number of network systems, or directly by other user
   agents.

   For example, in figure 1, there are two paths the call establishment
   request information may take. For Route 1, the originator knows only
   a user address for the user it is trying to contact, and it is
   configured to send outgoing calls through a local outgoing proxy
   server.  Therefore, it forwards the request to its local server,
   which finds the server of record for that address, and forwards it on
   to that server.

   In this case, the organization the destination user belongs to uses a
   multi-stage setup to find users. The corporate server identifies
   which department a user is part of, then forwards the request to the
   appropriate departmental server, which actually locates the user.
   (This is similar to the way e-mail forwarding is often configured.)
   The response to the request will travel back along the same path.

   For route 2, however, the originator knows the specific device
   address it is trying to contact, and it is not configured to use a
   local outgoing proxy.  In this case, the originator can directly
   contact the destination without having to communicate with any
   network servers at all.



Lennox/Schulzrinne                                            [Page 4]


Internet Draft                   CPL-F                     June 25, 1999





       Outgoing                           Corporate        Departmental
         Proxy                              Server            Server
        _______  Outgoing proxy contacts   _______            _______
        |     |     corporate server       |     |            |     |
        |     | -------------------------> |     | ---------> |     |
        |_____|                            |_____|            |_____|
 Route 1   ^                                                     \  Searches
          /                                                       \   for
 Sends to/                                                         \  User
  proxy /                                                          _|
    _______                                                       _______
    |     |   Route 2                                             |     |
    |     | ----------------------------------------------------> |     |
    |_____|      Originator directly contacts destination         |_____|

   Originator                                                   Destination







   Figure 1: Possible paths of call setup messages


   We see, then, that in Internet telephony network systems cannot in
   general know the state of end systems they "control," since
   signalling information may have bypassed them. This architectural
   limitation implies a number of restrictions on how some services can
   be implemented. For instance, a network system cannot reliably know
   if an end system is currently busy or not; a call may have been
   placed to the end system without traversing that network system.
   Thus, signalling messages must explicitly travel to end systems to
   find out their state; in the example, the end system must explicitly
   return a "busy" indication.

   Users can have CPL scripts on any network server which their call
   establishment requests pass through and with which they have a trust
   relationship. For instance, in the example above the destination user
   could have scripts on both the corporate server and the departmental
   server.  These scripts would typically perform different functions,
   related to the role of the server on which they reside; a script on
   the corporate-wide server could be used to customize which department
   the user wishes to be found at, for instance, whereas a script at the



Lennox/Schulzrinne                                            [Page 5]


Internet Draft                   CPL-F                     June 25, 1999


   departmental server could be used for more fine-grained location
   customization. Some services, such as filtering out unwanted calls,
   could be located at either server. See section 3.6.3 for some
   implications of a scenario like this.

3.3 Role of a CPL script

   A CPL script runs in a network system, and controls that system's
   proxy, redirect, or rejection actions for the set-up of a particular
   call. It does not attempt to co-ordinate the behavior of multiple
   network systems, or to describe features on a "Global Functional
   Plane" as in the Intelligent Network architecture.

   CPL scripts are associated with a particular Internet telephony
   address.  When a call establishment request arrives at a network
   system which is a CPL server, that server associates the address
   specified in the request with its database of CPL scripts; if one
   matches, that corresponding script is executed. CPL scripts may be
   associated either with the originator address or the destination
   address of the call establishment request. For some discussion of
   what happens if, for instance, a server has scripts for both an
   originating and destination address, see section 3.6.2.

   In general, in an Internet telephony network, an address will denote
   one of two things: either a user, or a device. A user address refers
   to a particular individual, for example sip:joe@example.com,
   regardless of where that user actually is or what kind of device he
   or she is using. A device address, by contrast, refers to a
   particular physical device, such as sip:x26063@phones.example.com.
   Other, intermediate sorts of addresses are also possible, and have
   some use (such as an address for "my cell phone, wherever it
   currently happens to be registered"), but we expect them to be less
   common. A CPL script is agnostic to the type of address it is
   associated with; while scripts associated with user addresses are
   probably the most useful for most services, there is no reason that a
   script could not be associated with any other type of address as
   well.

   By controlling basic call set-up actions, a user can achieve a number
   of services. Many common services are implemented using a CPL script
   for incoming calls to a user address. These include: searching for
   the user's current location in some specialized way; specifying what
   happens when this initial search fails, either because it received
   some sort of negative response (e.g., busy) or did not receive any
   definitive response within a fixed time period (e.g., no answer); or
   handling certain originating addresses specifically, for instance by
   informing the caller that the call was refused. Services that can be
   implemented by a script triggered by an outgoing user address are



Lennox/Schulzrinne                                            [Page 6]


Internet Draft                   CPL-F                     June 25, 1999


   somewhat more limited, but one example is to translate a user's
   abbreviated addresses into addresses specified with a fully-qualified
   domain name.

3.4 Creation and transport of a call processing language script

   Users create call processing language scripts, typically on end
   devices, and transmit them through the network to network systems.
   Scripts persist in network systems until changed or deleted, unless
   they are specifically given an expiration time; a network system
   which supports CPL scripting will need stable storage.

   The exact means by which the end device transmits the script to the
   server remains to be determined; it is likely that many solutions
   will be able to co-exist. This method will need to be authenticated
   in almost all cases.  The methods that have been suggested include
   web file upload, SIP REGISTER message payloads, remote method
   invocation, SNMP, ACAP, LDAP, and remote file systems such as NFS.

   Creation of a CPL script may be through the creation of a text file;
   or for a simpler user experience, a graphical user interface which
   allows the manipulation of some basic rules.

   The end device on which the user creates the CPL script need not bear
   any relationship to the end devices to which calls are actually
   placed. For example, a CPL script might be created on a PC, whereas
   calls might be intended to be received on a simple audio-only
   telephone. The CPL also might not necessarily be created on a device
   near either the end device or the signalling server in network terms;
   a user might, for example, decide to forward his or her calls to a
   remote location only after arriving at that location.

   Users can also retrieve their current script from the network to an
   end system so it can be edited. The signalling server should also be
   able to report errors related to the script to the user, both static
   errors that could be detected at upload time, and any run-time errors
   that occur.

   If a user's calls can pass through multiple local signalling servers
   which know about that user (as discussed in section 3.2), the user
   may choose to upload scripts to any or all of those servers. These
   scripts can be entirely independent.

3.5 Execution process of a CPL script

   When a call event arrives, a CPL server considers the information in
   the request and determines if any of the scripts it has stored are
   applicable to the call in question. If so, it performs the actions



Lennox/Schulzrinne                                            [Page 7]


Internet Draft                   CPL-F                     June 25, 1999


   corresponding to the matching scripts.

   The most common type of script defines a set of actions to be taken
   for the entire process of call set-up -- from the time a call request
   is initially received, to the time that (from the point of view of
   this device) the call is either definitively accepted or definitively
   rejected. This could be near-instantaneous, if, for instance, the
   script decides to reject the call; or it could be an arbitrarily long
   time, if the server allows calls to wait for a call pick-up without
   imposing a timeout.

   Abstractly, a script can be considered as a list of condition/action
   pairs; if an incoming invitation matches a given condition, then the
   corresponding action (or more properly set of actions) will be taken.
   In some circumstances, additional actions can be taken based on the
   consequences of the first action, and possibly on additional
   conditions. If no condition matches the invitation, the signalling
   server's standard action should be taken.

   While many of the uses of a CPL script are specific to one particular
   user, there are a number of circumstances in which an administrator
   of a signalling server would wish to provide a script which applies
   to all users of the server, or a large set of them. For instance, a
   system might be configured to prevent calls from or to a list of
   banned incoming or outgoing addresses; these should presumably be
   configured for everyone, but users still need to be able to have
   their own custom scripts as well. Similarly, an administrative script
   might perform the necessary operations to allow media to traverse a
   firewall; but individual users' scripts should not have permission to
   perform these operations. See the next section for some implications
   of this.

3.6 Feature interaction behavior

   Feature interaction is the term used in telephony systems when two or
   more requested features produce ambiguous or conflicting behavior
   [3]. Feature interaction issues for features implemented with a call
   processing language can be roughly divided into three categories:
   feature-to-feature in one server, script-to-script in one server, and
   server-to-server.

3.6.1 Feature-to-feature interactions

   Due to the explicit nature of event conditions discussed in the
   previous section, feature-to-feature interaction is not likely to be
   a problem in a call processing language environment. Whereas a
   subscriber to traditional telephone features might unthinkingly
   subscribe to both "call waiting" and "call forward on busy," a user



Lennox/Schulzrinne                                            [Page 8]


Internet Draft                   CPL-F                     June 25, 1999


   creating a CPL script would only be able to trigger one action in
   response to the condition "a call arrives while the line is busy."
   Given a good user interface for creation, or a CPL server which can
   check for unreachable code in an uploaded script, contradictory
   condition/action pairs can be avoided.

3.6.2 Script-to-script interactions

   Script-to-script interactions can arise if multiple scripts are
   invoked for a single call. This can occur in a number of possible
   cases: if both the call originator and the destination have scripts
   specified on a single server; if a script forwards a request to
   another address which also has a script; or if an administrative
   script is specified as well as a user's individual script.

   In the first two of these cases, the correct behavior is fairly
   obvious: the server should first execute the actions specified by the
   "first" script.  In the first case, this is the originator's script;
   in the second case, this is the script which triggered the request.
   When the first script says to forward the request to some other
   address, those actions are considered as new requests which arrive at
   the second script. When the second script sends back a final
   response, that response arrives at the first script in the same
   manner as if a script arrived over the network. Note that for the
   second type of these interactions, script forwarding can be
   recursive; a CPL server much be careful to prevent forwarding loops.

   The correct behavior for the third type of script-to-script
   interaction depends on the scope of the administrative script.
   Typically, the administrator's script should run after origination
   scripts, intercepting any proxy or redirection decisions, and before
   recipient scripts, to avoid a user's script evading administrative
   restrictions.

3.6.3 Server-to-server interactions

   The third case of feature interactions, server-to-server
   interactions, is the most complex of these three. The canonical
   example of this type of interaction is the combination of Originating
   Call Screening and Call Forwarding: a user (or administrator) may
   wish to prevent calls from being placed to a particular address, but
   the local script has no way of knowing if a call placed to some
   other, legitimate address will be proxied, by a remote server, to the
   banned address. This type of problem is unsolvable in an
   administratively heterogeneous network, even a "lightly"
   heterogeneous network such as current telephone systems. CPL does not
   claim to solve it, but the problem is not any worse for CPL scripts
   than for any other means of deploying services.



Lennox/Schulzrinne                                            [Page 9]


Internet Draft                   CPL-F                     June 25, 1999


   Another class of server-to-server interactions are best resolved by
   the underlying signalling protocol, since they can arise whether the
   signalling servers are being controlled by a call processing language
   or by some entirely different means. One example of this is
   forwarding loops, where user X may have calls forwarded to Y, who has
   calls forwarded back to X. SIP has a mechanism to detect such loops.
   A call processing language server thus does not need to define any
   special mechanisms to prevent such occurrences; it should, however,
   be possible to trigger a different set of call processing actions in
   the event that a loop is detected, and/or to report back an error to
   the owner of the script through some standardized run-time error
   reporting mechanism.

3.6.4 Signalling ambiguity

   As an aside, [3] discusses a fourth type of feature interaction for
   traditional telephone networks, signalling ambiguity. This can arise
   when several features overload the same operation in the limited
   signal path from an end station to the network: for example, flashing
   the switch-hook can mean both "add a party to a three-way call" and
   "switch to call waiting." Because of the explicit nature of
   signalling in both the Internet telephony protocols discussed here,
   this issue does not arise.

3.7 Relationship with existing languages

   This document's description of the CPL as a "language" is not
   intended to imply that a new language necessarily needs to be
   implemented from scratch.  A server could potentially implement all
   the functionality described here as a library or set of extensions
   for an existing language; Java, or the various freely-available
   scripting languages (Tcl, Perl, Python, Guile), are obvious
   possibilities.

   However, there are motivations for creating a new language. All the
   existing languages are, naturally, expressively complete; this has
   two inherent disadvantages. The first is that any function
   implemented in them can take an arbitrarily long time, use an
   arbitrarily large amount of memory, and may never terminate. For call
   processing, this sort of resource usage is probably not necessary,
   and as described in section 5.1, may in fact be undesirable. One
   model for this is the electronic mail filtering language Sieve [4],
   which deliberately restricts itself from being Turing-complete. The
   second disadvantage with expressively complete languages is that they
   make automatic generation and parsing very difficult; an analogy can
   be drawn with the difference between markup languages like HTML or
   XML, which can easily be manipulated by smart editors, and powerful
   document programming languages such as Latex or Postscript which



Lennox/Schulzrinne                                           [Page 10]


Internet Draft                   CPL-F                     June 25, 1999


   usually cannot be.

4 Related work

4.1 IN service creation environments

   The ITU's IN series describe, on an abstract level, service creation
   environments [5]. These describe services in a traditional circuit-
   switched telephone network as a series of decisions and actions
   arranged in a directed acyclic graph. Many vendors of IN services use
   modified and extended versions of this for their proprietary service
   creation environments.

4.2 SIP CGI

   SIP CGI [6] is an interface for implementing services on SIP servers.
   Unlike a CPL, it is a very low-level interface, and would not be
   appropriate for services written by non-trusted users.

5 Necessary language features

   This section lists those properties of a call processing language
   which we believe to be necessary to have in order to implement the
   motivating examples, in line with the described architecture.

5.1 Language characteristics

   These are some abstract attributes which any proposed call processing
   language should possess.

        o Light-weight, efficient, easy to implement

        In addition to the general reasons why this is desirable, a
        network server might conceivably handle very large call volumes,
        and we don't want CPL execution to be a major bottleneck. One
        way to achieve this might be to compile scripts before
        execution.

        o Easily verifiable for correctness

        For a script which runs in a server, mis-configurations can
        result in a user becoming unreachable, making it difficult to
        indicate run-time errors to a user (though a second-channel
        error reporting mechanism such as e-mail could ameliorate this).
        Thus, it should be possible to verify, when the script is
        committed to the server, that it is at least syntactically
        correct, does not have any obvious loops or other failure modes,
        and does not use too many server resources.



Lennox/Schulzrinne                                           [Page 11]


Internet Draft                   CPL-F                     June 25, 1999


        o Executable in a safe manner

        No action the CPL script takes should be able to subvert
        anything about the server which the user shouldn't have access
        to, or affect the state of other users without permission.
        Additionally, since CPL scripts will typically run on a server
        on which users cannot normally run code, either the language or
        its execution environment must be designed so that scripts
        cannot use unlimited amounts of network resources, server CPU
        time, storage, or memory.

        o Easily writeable and parseable by both humans and machines.

        For maximum flexibility, we want to allow humans to write their
        own scripts, or to use and customize script libraries provided
        by others. However, most users will want to have a more
        intuitive user-interface for the same functionality, and so will
        have a program which creates scripts for them.  Both cases
        should be easy; in particular, it should be easy for script
        editors to read human-generated scripts, and vice-versa.

        o Extensible

        It should be possible to add additional features to a language
        in a way that existing scripts continue to work, and existing
        servers can easily recognize features they don't understand and
        safely inform the user of this fact.

        o Independent of underlying signalling details

        The same scripts should be usable whether the underlying
        protocol is SIP, H.323, a traditional telephone network, or any
        other means of setting up calls. It should also be agnostic to
        address formats. (We use SIP terminology in our descriptions of
        requirements, but this should map fairly easily to other
        systems.) It may also be useful to have the language extend to
        processing of other sorts of communication, such as e-mail or
        fax.

5.2 Base features -- call signalling

   To be useful, a call processing language obviously should be able to
   react to and initiate call signalling events.

        o Should execute actions when a call request arrives

        See section 3, particularly 3.5.




Lennox/Schulzrinne                                           [Page 12]


Internet Draft                   CPL-F                     June 25, 1999


        o Should be able to make decisions based on event properties

        A number of properties of a call event are relevant for a
        script's decision process. These include, roughly in order of
        importance:

             - Destination address

             We want to be able to do destination-based routing or
             screening.  Note that in SIP we want to be able to filter
             on either or both of the addresses in the To header and the
             Request-URI.

             - Originator address

             Similarly, we want to be able to do originator-based
             screening or routing.

             - Caller Preferences

             In SIP, a caller can express preferences about the type of
             device to be reached -- see [7]. The script should be able
             to make decisions based on this information.

             - Information about caller or call

             SIP has textual fields such as Subject, Organization,
             Priority, etc., and a display name for addresses; users can
             also add non-standard additional headers. H.323 has a
             single Display field.

             - Media description

             Requests specify the types of media that will flow, their
             bandwidth usage, their network destination addresses, etc.

             - Authentication/encryption status

             Requests can be authenticated. Many properties of the
             authentication are relevant: the method of
             authentication/encryption, who performed the
             authentication, which specific fields were encrypted, etc.

           o Should be able to take action based on a request

           There are a number of actions we can take in response to an
           incoming request. We can:




Lennox/Schulzrinne                                           [Page 13]


Internet Draft                   CPL-F                     June 25, 1999


                - reject it

                We should be able to indicate that the call is not
                acceptable or not able to be completed. We should also
                be able to send more specific rejection codes
                (including, for SIP, the associated textual string,
                warning codes, or message payload).

                - send a provisional response to it

                While a call request is being processed, provisional
                responses such as "Trying," "Ringing," and "Queued" are
                sent back to the caller. It is not clear whether the
                script should specify the sending of such responses
                explicitly, or whether they should be implicit in other
                actions performed.

                - redirect it

                We should be able to tell the request sender to try a
                different location.

                - proxy it

                We should be able to send the request on to another
                location, or to several other locations ("branching" the
                request), and await the responses. It should also be
                possible to specify a timeout value after which we give
                up on receiving any definitive responses.

              o Should be able to take action based a response to a
                proxied or branched request

              Once we have proxied requests, we need to be able to make
              decisions based on the responses we receive to those
              requests (or the lack thereof).  We should be able to:

                   - consider its message fields

                   We should be able to consider the same fields of a
                   response as we consider in the initial request.

                   - relay it on to the requestor

                   If the response is satisfactory, it should be
                   returned to the sender.

                   - for a branch, choose one of several responses to



Lennox/Schulzrinne                                           [Page 14]


Internet Draft                   CPL-F                     June 25, 1999


                     relay back

                   If we branched a request, we obviously expect to
                   receive several responses.  There are several issues
                   here -- choosing among the responses, and how long to
                   wait if we've received responses from some but not
                   all destinations.

                   - initiate other actions

                   If we didn't get a response, or any we liked, we
                   should be able to try something else instead (e.g.,
                   call forward on busy).

5.3 Base features -- non-signalling

   A number of other features that a call processing language should
   have do not refer to call signalling per se; however, they are still
   extremely desirable to implement many useful features.

   The servers which provide these features might reside in other
   Internet devices, or might be local to the server (or other
   possibilities). The language should be independent of the location of
   these servers, at least at a high level.

        o Logging

        In addition to the CPL server's natural logging of events, the
        user will also want to be able to log arbitrary other items. The
        actual storage for this logging information might live either
        locally or remotely.

        o Error reporting

        If an unexpected error occurs, the script should be able to
        report the error to the script's owner. This should use the same
        mechanism as the script server uses to report language errors to
        the user (see section 5.5).

        o Access to user-location info

        Proxies will often collect information on users' current
        location, either through SIP REGISTER messages, the H.323 RRQ
        family of RAS messages, or some other mechanism (see section
        3.2). The CPL should be able to refer to this information so a
        call can be forwarded to the registered locations or some subset
        of them.




Lennox/Schulzrinne                                           [Page 15]


Internet Draft                   CPL-F                     June 25, 1999


        o Database access

        Much information for CPL control might be stored in external
        databases, for example a wide-area address database, or
        authorization information, for a CPL under administrative
        control. The language could specify some specific database
        access protocols (such as SQL or LDAP), or could be more
        generic.

        o Other external information

        Other external information the script should be able to access
        includes web pages, which could be sent back in a SIP message
        body; or a clean interface to remote procedure calls such as
        Corba, RMI, or DCOM, for instance to access an external billing
        database.

5.4 Language features

   Some features do not involve any operations external to the CPL's
   execution environment, but are still necessary to allow some standard
   services to be implemented. (This list is not exhaustive.)

        o Pattern-matching

        It should be possible to give special treatment to addresses and
        other text strings based not only on the full string but also on
        more general or complex sub-patterns of them.

        o Address filtering

        Once a set of addresses has been retrieved through one of the
        methods in section 5.3, the user needs to be able to choose a
        sub-set of them, based on their address components or other
        parameters.

        o Randomization

        Some forms of call distribution are randomized as to where they
        actually end up.

        o Date/time information

        Users may wish to condition some services (e.g., call
        forwarding, call distribution) on the current time of day, day
        of the week, etc.

5.5 Control



Lennox/Schulzrinne                                           [Page 16]


Internet Draft                   CPL-F                     June 25, 1999


   As described in section 3.4, we must have a mechanism to send and
   retrieve CPL scripts, and associated data, to and from a signalling
   server. This method should support reporting upload-time errors to
   users; we also need some mechanism to report errors to users at
   script execution time. Authentication is vital, and encryption is
   very useful. The specification of this mechanism can be (and probably
   ought to be) a separate specification from that of the call
   processing language itself.

6 Security considerations

   The security considerations of transferring CPL scripts are discussed
   in sections 3.4 and 5.5. Some considerations about the execution of
   the language are discussed in section 5.1.

7 Changes from previous versions

7.1 Changes from draft-ietf-iptel-cpl-requirements-00

   The changebars in the Postscript version of this document indicate
   changes from this version.

        o Changed the title of the draft from "...Requirements" to
          "...Framework and Requirements," and changed the draft name,
          to better reflect the content.

        o Deleted a number of overambitious service examples that aren't
          supported in the CPL as it has developed.

        o Deleted discussion of end systems, media devices, and other
          items that aren't supported in the CPL as it has developed.

        o Reorganized the Architecture section.

        o Clarified the Network Model section.

        o Added Related Work section.

        o Added requirement to support caller preferences.

        o Deleted many requirements for higher-level and end-system
          features that are not supported in the CPL as it has
          developed.

        o Re-worded many sections for clarity.

        o Added To Do / Open Issues section.




Lennox/Schulzrinne                                           [Page 17]


Internet Draft                   CPL-F                     June 25, 1999


8 To Do / Open Issues

        o Add Terminology section.

        o How do users find out which servers they should upload their
          scripts to?

        o Flesh out the Related Work sections, particularly describing
          the different roles of CPL and SIP CGI. (As in [8].)

        o The Control section needs to be fleshed out considerably.

        o The entire document should be reorganized for clarity.

9 Acknowledgments

   We would like to thank Tom La Porta and Jonathan Rosenberg for their
   comments and suggestions.

10 Authors' Addresses

   Jonathan Lennox
   Dept. of Computer Science
   Columbia University
   1214 Amsterdam Avenue, MC 0401
   New York, NY 10027
   USA
   electronic mail: lennox@cs.columbia.edu

   Henning Schulzrinne
   Dept. of Computer Science
   Columbia University
   1214 Amsterdam Avenue, MC 0401
   New York, NY 10027
   USA
   electronic mail: schulzrinne@cs.columbia.edu

11 Bibliography

   [1] M. Handley, H. Schulzrinne, E. Schooler, and J. Rosenberg, "SIP:
   session initiation protocol," Request for Comments (Proposed
   Standard) 2543, Internet Engineering Task Force, Mar. 1999.

   [2] International Telecommunication Union, "Visual telephone systems
   and equipment for local area networks which provide a non-guaranteed
   quality of service," Recommendation H.323, Telecommunication
   Standardization Sector of ITU, Geneva, Switzerland, May 1996.




Lennox/Schulzrinne                                           [Page 18]


Internet Draft                   CPL-F                     June 25, 1999


   [3] E. J. Cameron, N. D. Griffeth, Y.-J. Lin, M. E. Nilson, W. K.
   Schure, and H. Velthuijsen, "A feature interaction benchmark for IN
   and beyond," Feature Interactions in Telecommunications Systems, IOS
   Press , pp. 1--23, 1994.

   [4] T. Showalter, "Sieve: A mail filtering language," Internet Draft,
   Internet Engineering Task Force, Mar. 1999.  Work in progress.

   [5] International Telecommunication Union, "General recommendations
   on telephone switching and signaling -- intelligent network:
   Introduction to intelligent network capability set 1," Recommendation
   Q.1211, Telecommunication Standardization Sector of ITU, Geneva,
   Switzerland, Mar. 1993.

   [6] J. Lennox, J. Rosenberg, and H. Schulzrinne, "Common gateway
   interface for SIP," Internet Draft, Internet Engineering Task Force,
   May 1999.  Work in progress.

   [7] H. Schulzrinne and J. Rosenberg, "SIP caller preferences and
   callee capabilities," Internet Draft, Internet Engineering Task
   Force, Mar. 1999.  Work in progress.

   [8] J. Rosenberg, J. Lennox, and H. Schulzrinne, "Programming
   internet telephony services," Technical Report CUCS-010-99, Columbia
   University, New York, New York, Mar. 1999.


   Full Copyright Statement

   Copyright (c) The Internet Society (1999). 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 implementation 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.




Lennox/Schulzrinne                                           [Page 19]


Internet Draft                   CPL-F                     June 25, 1999


   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.




                           Table of Contents



   1          Introduction ........................................    1
   2          Motivating examples .................................    2
   3          Architecture ........................................    3
   3.1        Network components ..................................    3
   3.2        Network model .......................................    4
   3.3        Role of a CPL script ................................    6
   3.4        Creation and transport of a call processing
   language script ................................................    7
   3.5        Execution process of a CPL script ...................    7
   3.6        Feature interaction behavior ........................    8
   3.6.1      Feature-to-feature interactions .....................    8
   3.6.2      Script-to-script interactions .......................    9
   3.6.3      Server-to-server interactions .......................    9
   3.6.4      Signalling ambiguity ................................   10
   3.7        Relationship with existing languages ................   10
   4          Related work ........................................   11
   4.1        IN service creation environments ....................   11
   4.2        SIP CGI .............................................   11
   5          Necessary language features .........................   11
   5.1        Language characteristics ............................   11
   5.2        Base features -- call signalling ....................   12
            5.3        Base features -- non-signalling ............   15
   5.4        Language features ...................................   16
   5.5        Control .............................................   16
   6          Security considerations .............................   17
   7          Changes from previous versions ......................   17
   7.1        Changes from draft-ietf-iptel-cpl-requirements-00
   ................................................................   17
   8          To Do / Open Issues .................................   18
   9          Acknowledgments .....................................   18
   10         Authors' Addresses ..................................   18
   11         Bibliography ........................................   18





Lennox/Schulzrinne                                           [Page 20]