Internet Engineering Task Force SIPPING WG
Internet Draft J. Rosenberg
dynamicsoft
draft-rosenberg-sipping-conferencing-framework-00.txt
October 28, 2002
Expires: April 2003
A Framework for Conferencing with the Session Initiation Protocol
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
To view the list Internet-Draft Shadow Directories, see
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
Abstract
The Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) supports the initiation,
modification, and termination of media sessions between user agents.
These sessions are managed by SIP dialogs, which represent a SIP
relationship between a pair of user agents. Because dialogs are
between pairs of user agents, SIP's usage for two-party
communications (such as a phone call), is obvious. Communications
sessions with multiple participants, generally known as conferencing,
is more complicated. This document defines a framework for how such
conferencing can occur. This framework describes the overall
architecture, terminology, and protocol components needed for multi-
party conferencing.
J. Rosenberg [Page 1]
Internet Draft Conferencing Framework October 28, 2002
Table of Contents
1 Introduction ........................................ 3
2 Terminology ......................................... 3
3 Basic Architecture .................................. 7
4 Usage of URIs ....................................... 11
5 Functions of the Elements ........................... 12
5.1 Focus ............................................... 12
5.2 Conference Policy Server ............................ 13
5.3 Mixers .............................................. 14
5.4 Media Policy Server ................................. 14
5.5 Conference Notification Service ..................... 15
5.6 Participants ........................................ 16
5.7 Conference Policy ................................... 16
5.8 Media Policy ........................................ 17
6 Physical Realization ................................ 17
6.1 Centralized Server .................................. 17
6.2 Endpoint Server ..................................... 17
6.3 Media Server Component .............................. 18
6.4 Distributed Mixing .................................. 21
6.5 Cascaded Mixers ..................................... 22
7 Common Operations ................................... 22
7.1 Creating Conferences ................................ 22
7.2 Adding Participants ................................. 25
7.3 Removing Participants ............................... 27
7.4 Approving Policy Changes ............................ 27
7.5 Creating Sidebars ................................... 28
8 Security Considerations ............................. 28
9 Contributors ........................................ 29
10 Authors Addresses ................................... 29
11 Normative References ................................ 29
12 Informative References .............................. 29
J. Rosenberg [Page 2]
Internet Draft Conferencing Framework October 28, 2002
1 Introduction
The Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) [1] supports the initiation,
modification, and termination of media sessions between user agents.
These sessions are managed by SIP dialogs, which represent a SIP
relationship between a pair of user agents. Because dialogs are
between pairs of user agents, SIP's usage for two-party
communications (such as a phone call), is obvious. Communications
sessions with multiple participants, however, are more complicated.
SIP can support many models of multi-party communications. One,
referred to as loosely coupled conferences, makes use of multicast
media groups. In the loosely coupled model, there is no signaling
relationship between participants in the conference. There is no
central point of control or conference server. Participation is
gradually learned through control information that is passed as part
of the conference (using the Real Time Control Protocol (RTCP) [2],
for example). Loosely coupled conferences are easily supported in SIP
by using multicast addresses within its session descriptions.
In another model, referred to as fully distributed multiparty
conferencing, each participant maintains a signaling relationship
with each other participant, using SIP. There is no central point of
control; it is completely distributed amongst the participants. SIP
does not yet support this model.
In another model, sometimes referrred to as the tightly coupled
conference, there is a central point of control. Each participant
connects to this central point. It provides a variety of conference
functions, and may possibly perform media mixing functions as well.
Tightly coupled conferences are not directly addressed by the SIP
specification, although basic ones are possible without any
additional protocol support.
This document is one of a series of specifications that discusses
tightly coupled conferences. Here, we present the overall framework
for tightly coupled conferencing, referred to simply as
"conferencing" from this point forward. This framework presents a
general architectural model for these conferences, presents
terminology used to discuss such conferences, and describes the sets
of protocols involved in a conference. The aim of the framework is to
meet the general requirements for conferencing that are outlined in
[3].
2 Terminology
Conference: Sadly, conference is an overused term which has
different meanings in different contexts. In SIP, a
conference is an instance of a multi-party conversation.
J. Rosenberg [Page 3]
Internet Draft Conferencing Framework October 28, 2002
Within the context of this specification, a conference is
always a tightly coupled conference.
Loosely Coupled Conference: A loosely coupled conference is a
conference without coordinated signaling relationships
amongst participants. Loosely coupled conferences use
multicast for distribution of conference memberships.
Tightly Coupled Conference: A tightly coupled conference is a
conference in which a single user agent, referred to as a
focus, maintains a dialog with each participant. The focus
plays the role of the centralized manager of the
conference, and is addressed by a conference URI.
Focus: The focus is a SIP user agent that is addressed by a
conference URI. The focus maintains a SIP signaling
relationship with each participant in the conference. The
focus is responsible for insuring, in some way, that each
participant receives the media that make up the conference.
The focus also implements conference policies. The focus is
a logical role.
Conference URI: A URI, usually a SIP URI, which identifies the
focus of a conference.
Participants: The set of user agents, each identified by a URI,
which are connected to the focus for a particular
conference.
Conference Notification Service: A conference notification
service is a logical function provided by the focus. The
focus can act as a notifier [4], accepting subscriptions to
the conference state, and notifying subscribers about
changes to that state. The state includes the state
maintained by the focus itself, the conference policy, and
the media policy.
Conference Policy Server: A conference policy server is a
logical function which can store and manipulate rules
associated with participation in a conference. These rules
include directives on the lifespan of the conference, who
can and cannot join the conference, definitions of roles
available in the conference and the responsibilities
associated with those roles, and policies on who is allowed
to request which roles. The conference policy server is a
logical role.
Media Policy Server: A media policy server is a logical function
J. Rosenberg [Page 4]
Internet Draft Conferencing Framework October 28, 2002
which can store and manipulate rules associated with the
media distribution of the conference. These rules can
specify which participants receive media from which other
participants, and the ways in which that media is combined
for each participant. In the case of audio, these rules can
include the relative volumes at which each participant is
mixed. In the case of video, these rules can indicate
whether the video is tiled, whether the video indicates the
loudest speaker, and so on.
Conference Policy: The set of rules manipulated by the
conference policy server.
Conference Policy Control Protocol: The client-server protocol
used by clients to manipulate the conference policy.
Media Policy: The set of rules manipulated by the media policy
server. The media policy is used by the focus to determine
the mixing characteristics for the conference.
Media Policy Control Protocol: The client-server protocol used
by clients to manipulate the media policy.
Mixer: As defined in the Real Time Transport Protocol [2], a
mixer receives a set of media streams, and combines their
media in a type-specific manner, redistributing the result
to each participant. We use the term here to include
combining of non-RTP media streams as well, such as instant
messaging sessions [5].
Basic Conference: A basic conference is one where there is no
conference policy server, media policy server, or
conference subscription server - only a focus.
Basic Participant: A basic participant is a participant in a
conference that is not aware that it is actually in a
conference. As far as the UA is concerned, it is a point-
to-point call.
Cascaded Conference: A conference in which a participant is the
focus of another conference.
Complex Conference: A complex conference includes at least one
of a conference policy server, media policy server, or
conference subscription server, in addition to the focus.
Complex Participant: A complex participant is a participant in a
conference that has learned, through automated means, that
J. Rosenberg [Page 5]
Internet Draft Conferencing Framework October 28, 2002
it is in a conference, and that can use a conference policy
control protocol, media policy control protocol, or
conference subscription, to implement advanced
functionality.
Conference Server: A conference server is a physical server
which contains, at a minimum, the focus. It may also
include a media policy server, a conference policy server,
and a mixer.
Singleton: In this context, a singleton is a conference
participant that is not a focus. A singleton represents a
single user in a conference.
Conference Topology: The conference topology is a graph that
defines the connectivity amongst participants connected
through conferences. Each node in the graph represents a
user agent, whether it is a focus or a singleton. Each leaf
node in the tree represents an singleton, and an internal
node represents a focus. An edge between two nodes implies
that there is a SIP dialog between them. Ideally,
conference topologies are trees, not arbitrary graphs.
Conversation Space: For each conference URI, there is a unique
conversation space. The conversation space is defined as
the set of singleton in the conference topology associated
with that URI. The conference topology associated with a
conference URI is the one that is constructed by starting
with the focus for that URI. Under normal circumstances,
the set of singleton in a conversation space will all
receive each others media.
Instant Conference: A conference in which the focus is
constructed the instant the first INVITE for a URI is
received, and then destroyed in which the last participant
has left.
Mass Invitation: A conference policy control protocol request to
invite a large number of users into the conference.
Mass Ejection: A conference policy control protocol request to
remove a large number of users from the conference.
Sidebar: A sidebar appears to the users as a "conference within
the conference". It is a dicsussion amongst a subset of the
participants, not heard by the remaining participants in
the conference.
J. Rosenberg [Page 6]
Internet Draft Conferencing Framework October 28, 2002
Anonymous Participant: An anonymous participant is one that is
known to other participants (through the conference
notification service), but whose identity is being
withheld.
Invisible Participant: An invisible participant is one that is
not known to other participants in the conference. They may
be known to the moderator, depending on conference policy.
3 Basic Architecture
A SIP conference is represented by a URI. This URI identifies the
focus, which is the user agent at the center of the conference. Any
participant that is involved in the conference is connected to the
focus by a SIP dialog. The result is a star topology, shown in Figure
1.
The focus has access to a conference policy and media policy, an
instance of which exist for each focus. In a basic SIP conference,
these policies are administratively defined.
Users join the conference by sending an INVITE to the conference URI.
As long as the conference policy allows, the INVITE is accepted by
the focus and the user is brought into the conference. Users can
leave the conference by sending a BYE, as they would in a normal
call. Indeed, a participant in a basic conference does not need to
know that the focus is anything other than a normal SIP user agent.
Similarly, the focus can terminate a dialog with a participant,
should the conference policy change to indicate that the participant
is no longer allowed in the conference. A focus can also initiate an
INVITE, should the conference policy indicate that the focus needs to
bring a participant into the conference.
The focus is responsible for making sure that the media streams which
constitute the conference are available to the participants in the
conference. It does that through the use of one or more mixers, each
of which combines a number of input media streams to produce one or
more output media streams. The focus uses the media policy to
determine the proper configuration of the mixers.
With these basic capabilities, a large number of common conferencing
applications can be built. None of them require any extensions to
SIP; they merely require that the focus is aware of its role and
responsibilities in maintaining the conference. However, basic
conferences do not allow for the participants to control the way in
which the conference operates.
J. Rosenberg [Page 7]
Internet Draft Conferencing Framework October 28, 2002
+-----------+
| |
| |
|Participant|
| |
| |
+-----------+
|
|SIP
|Dialog
|
|
+-----------+ +-----------+ +-----------+
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
|Participant|-----------| Focus |------------|Participant|
| | SIP | | SIP | |
| | Dialog | | Dialog | |
+-----------+ +-----------+ +-----------+
|
|
|SIP
|Dialog
|
|
+-----------+
| |
| |
|Participant|
| |
| |
+-----------+
Figure 1: Basic SIP Conference
A complex SIP conference is one in which additional interfaces are
exposed, allowing for a richer set of controls and information on the
conference. In particular, a complex SIP conference can include a
J. Rosenberg [Page 8]
Internet Draft Conferencing Framework October 28, 2002
conference policy server and a media policy server, and the focus can
expose a conference notification service. The model for these
conferences is shown in Figure 2. This figure shows the view from one
participant. The conference now encompasses an additional set of
functions. In addition to maintaining the dialog with the focus, the
participant now has access to these other functions. It can, using a
conference event package [6], SUBSCRIBE to the conference URI, and be
connected to the conference notification service provided by the
focus. Through this package, it can learn about changes in
participants (effectively, the state of the dialogs), the media
policy, and the conference policy.
The participant can also communicate with the conference policy
server, using a conference policy control protocol. This is a
strictly client-server transactional protocol. This protocol might
not be a protocol at all; it can be performed using a web interface.
In this case, no standardized protocols or policies are needed.
However, the web interface can only be manipulated by humans, not
automata. For this reason, the participant can use a protocol
designed specifically for this purpose.
The participant can also communicate with the media policy server,
using a media policy control protocol. This is a strictly client-
server transactional operation. This can also be through a web
interface, or through an explicit protocol.
The focus will access the media and conference policies. There is a
tight coupling between these policies and the focus. Not only does it
need read access to these policies, but it needs to know when they
have changed. Such changes might result in SIP signaling (for
example, the ejection of a user from the conference using BYE), and
most changes will require a notification to be sent to subscribers to
the conference notification service.
The conference policy and media policy servers need not be available
in any particular conference. Even when available, they need not be
used by all participants. A participant in a conference that does not
access any of these functions, and which doesn't even know that the
focus is a focus, is called a basic participant. A conference
participant that can discover and access these additional function is
a complex participant. Any conference can include basic and complex
participants.
The interfaces between (1) the focus and the media policy, (2) the
focus and the conference policy, (3) the conference policy server and
the conference policy, and (4) the media policy server and the media
policy are not subject to standardization at the time of this
writing. They are intended primarily to show the logical roles
J. Rosenberg [Page 9]
Internet Draft Conferencing Framework October 28, 2002
Conference .....................................
Policy . +-----------+ .
Control . | | .
Protocol . |Participant| .
+------------------->| Policy | .
| . | Server | .
| . | | \ .
| Media . +-----------+ \ .
| Policy . +-----------+ \ //-----\\ .
| Control . | | > || || .
| Protocol . | Media | \\-----// .
| +------------->| Policy | | | .
| | . | Server |----> |Conference .
| | . | | | | .
| | . +-----------+ | & | .
| | . | | .
| | . | Media | .
+-----------+ . +-----------+ | Policy| .
| | . | | \ // .
| | . | | \-----/ .
|Participant|<--------->| Focus | | .
| | SIP . | | | .
| | Dialog . | |<-----------+ .
+-----------+ . |...........| .
^ . | Conference| .
| . |Notification .
+------------>| Service | .
Subscription. +-----------+ .
. .
. .
. .
. .
.....................................
Conference
Functions
Figure 2: Complex SIP Conference
J. Rosenberg [Page 10]
Internet Draft Conferencing Framework October 28, 2002
to encourage clarity in the requirements and to allow individual
implementations the flexibility to compose a conferencing system in a
scalable and robust manner.
4 Usage of URIs
It is fundamental to this framework that a conference is uniquely
identified by a URI, and that this URI identify the focus which is
responsible for the conference. This URI is always a SIP or SIPS URI.
The conference URI is opaque to any participants which might use it.
There is no way to look at the URI, and know for certain whether it
identifies a focus, as opposed to a user or an interface on a PSTN
gateway. This is in line with the general philosophy of URI usage
[7]. However, contextual information surrounding the URI (for
example, SIP header parameters) may indicate that the URI represents
a conference.
The conference URI can represent a long-lived conference or interest
group, such as "sip:discussion-on-dogs@example.com". The focus
identified by this URI would always exist, and always be managing the
conference for whatever participants are currently joined. The
conference URI can also represent an "instant" conference, for
example, "sip:a8sd9998as-9s8daa@example.com". An instant conference
is one where the focus is instantiated when the first URI for it
arrives, and then destroyed when the last participant leaves. Both of
these represent variations in the policies implemented by the focus,
and cannot be determined from inspection of the URI.
Ideally, a conference URI is never constructed or guessed by a user.
Rather, conference URIs are learned through many mechanisms. A
conference URI can be emailed or sent in an instant message. A
conference URI can be linked on a web page. A conference URI can be
obtained from a conference policy control protocol, which can be used
to create conferences and the policies associated with them.
To determine that a SIP URI does represent a focus, standard
techniques for URI capability discovery can be used. First, a
participant can send an OPTIONS to a SIP URI, and if it represents a
focus, the response will indicate such [TBD]. The response will also
indicate whether or not the focus has implemented the subscription
notification service. This is known by the presence of an Allow
header in the response, indicating support for the SUBSCRIBE method,
along with an Allow-Events header, indicating support for the
conferencing package. A second method for determining that a URI
represents a focus is through a refresh request. The Allow and
Allow-Events headers, along with the caller preferences specification
[8] can indicate the same information that would be learned through
J. Rosenberg [Page 11]
Internet Draft Conferencing Framework October 28, 2002
an OPTIONS query.
The other functions in a conference are also represented by URIs. If
the conference policy and media policy servers are implemented
through web pages, these servers are regular HTTP URIs. If they are
accessed using an explicit protocol, they are the URIs defined for
those protocols.
Starting with the conference URI, the URIs for the other logical
entities in the conference can be learned using [TBD].
OPEN ISSUE: I suppose we cannot say more until the protocol
work is done. But, we have a requirement here - that there
be a way to learn these URIs starting only with the
conference URI.
5 Functions of the Elements
This section gives a more detailed description of the functions
typically implemented in each of the elements.
5.1 Focus
As its name implies, the focus is the center of the conference. All
participants in the conference are connected to it using a SIP
dialog. The focus is responsible for maintaining the dialogs
connected to it. It insures that the dialogs are connected to a set
of participants who are allowed to participate in the conference, as
defined by the conference policy. The focus also uses SIP to
manipulate the media sessions, in order to make sure each participant
obtains all the media for the conference. To do that, the focus makes
use of the services of a mixer.
When a focus receives an INVITE, it checks the conference policy. The
conference policy might indicate that this participant is not allowed
to join, in which case the call can be rejected. It might indicate
that another participant, acting as a moderator, needs to approve
this new participant. In that case, the INVITE might be parked on a
music-on-hold server, or a 183 response might be sent to indicate
progress. A notification, using the conference notification service,
would be sent to the moderator. The moderator then has the ability to
manipulate the policies using the conference policy control protocol.
If the policies are changed to allow this new participant, the focus
can accept the INVITE (or unpark it from the music-on-hold server).
The interpretation of the conference policy by the focus is, itself,
a matter of local policy, and not subject to standardization.
J. Rosenberg [Page 12]
Internet Draft Conferencing Framework October 28, 2002
If a participant manipulated the conference policy to indicate that a
certain other participant was no longer allowed in the conference,
the focus would send a BYE to that other participant to remove them.
This is often referred to as "ejecting" a user from the conference.
The process of ejecting fundamentally constitutes these two steps -
the establishment of the policy through the conference policy
protocol, and the implementation of that policy (using a BYE) by the
focus.
Similarly, if a participant manipulated the conference policy to
indicate that a number of users need to be added to the conference,
the focus would send an INVITE to those participants. This is often
referred to as the "mass invitation" function. As with ejection, it
is fundamentally composed of the policy functions that specify the
participants which should be present, and the implementation of those
functions using SIP. A policy request to add a set of users might not
require an INVITE to execute it; those users might already be
participants in the conference.
A similar model exists for media policy. If the media policy
indicates that a participant should not receive any video, the focus
might implement that policy by sending a re-INVITE, removing the
media stream to that participant. Alternatively, if the video is
being centrally mixed, it could inform the mixer to send a black
screen to that participant. The means by which the policy is
implemented are not subject to specification.
5.2 Conference Policy Server
The conference policy server allows clients to manipulate and
interact with the conference policy. The conference policy is used by
the focus to make authorization decisions and guide its overall
behavior. Logically speaking, there is a one-to-one mapping between a
conference policy and a focus.
The conference policy is represented by a URI. There is a unique
conference policy for each focus. The conference policy URI points to
a conference policy server which can manipulate that conference
policy. A conference policy server also has a "top level" URI which
can be used to access functions that are independent of any
conference. Perhaps the most important of these functions is the
creation of a new conference. This will result in the construction of
a new conference URI, which can then be used to join the conference
itself.
The conference policy server is accessed using a client-server
transactional protocol. The client can be a participant in the
conference, or it can be a third party. Access control lists for who
J. Rosenberg [Page 13]
Internet Draft Conferencing Framework October 28, 2002
can modify a conference policy are themselves part of the conference
policy. The conference policy server also allows clients to create
new conferences. This would result in the instantiation of a focus
(and therefore, a conference URI associated with that focus), a
conference policy, and a media policy. The conference policy server
will also have rules about who can create conferences.
The conference policy also includes per-participant policies that
specify how the focus is to handle a particular participant. These
include whether or not the participant is anonymous, for example.
5.3 Mixers
A mixer is responsible for combining the media streams that make up
the conference, and generating one or more output streams that are
distributed to recipients (which could be participants or other
mixers). The combination process is specific to the media type, and
is directed by the focus, under the guidance of the rules described
in the media policy.
A mixer is not aware of a "conference" as an entity, per se. A mixer
receives media streams as inputs, and based on directions provided by
the focus, generates media streams as outputs. There is no grouping
of media streams beyond the policies that describe the ways in which
the streams are mixed.
A mixer is always under the control of a focus. The focus is
responsible for interpreting the media policy, and then installing
the appropriate rules in the mixer. If the focus is directly
controlling a mixer, the mixer can either be co-resident with the
focus, or can be controlled through a protocol like Megaco [9].
However, a focus need not directly control a mixer. Rather, a focus
can delegate the mixing to the participants, each of which has their
own mixer. This is described in Section 6.4.
5.4 Media Policy Server
The media policy server is similar to the conference policy server.
It is accessed using a transactional client-server protocol. It
manipulates a media policy, identified by a URI. The focus has the
responsibility of acting on that media policy, implementing it
through direct or indirect control of mixers.
The media policy describes the way in which the set of inputs to the
mixer are combined to generate the set of outputs. Media policies can
span media types. In other words, the policy on how one media stream
is mixed can be based on characteristics of other media streams.
J. Rosenberg [Page 14]
Internet Draft Conferencing Framework October 28, 2002
Media policies can be based on any quantifiable characteristic of the
media stream (its source, volume, codecs, speaking/silence, etc.),
and they can be based on internal or external variables accessible by
the media policy.
The media policy server is responsible for reconciliation of
potentially conflicting requests regarding the media policy for the
conference.
The client of the media policy protocol can be any entity interested
in manipulating media policies. Clearly, participants might be
interested in manipulating them. A participant might want to raise or
lower the volume for one of the other participants it is hearing. Or,
a participant might want to switch from a tiled video view, to just
viewing the active speaker. A client of the media policy protocol
could also be another server whose job is to determine the media
policy. As an example, a floor control server is responsible for
determining which participant(s) in a conference are allowed to speak
at any given time, based on participant requests and access rules.
The floor control server would act as a client of the media policy
server, and inform the media policy server about who is allowed to
speak.
The client of the media policy protocol could also be another media
policy server, as described in Section 6.4.
Some examples of media policies include:
o The video output is the picture of the loudest speaker (video
follows audio).
o The audio from each participant will be mixed with equal
weight, and distributed to all other participants.
o The audio and video that is distributed is the one selected by
the floor control server.
5.5 Conference Notification Service
The focus can provide a conference notification service. In this
role, it acts as a notifier, as defined in RFC 3265 [4]. It accepts
subscriptions from clients for the conference URI, and generates
notifications to them as the state of the conference changes.
This state is composed of three separate pieces. The first is the
state of the focus, the second is the conference policy, and the
third is the media policy.
J. Rosenberg [Page 15]
Internet Draft Conferencing Framework October 28, 2002
The state of the focus includes the participants connected to the
focus, and information about the dialogs associated with them. As new
participants join, this state would change, allowing subscribers to
learn about them. Similarly, when someone leaves, this state also
changes, allowing subscribers to learn about this fact.
The state of the conference policy includes the set of participants
that are allowed, or not allowed, to join the conference, and the set
of participants who are to be explicitly added to the conference. It
includes the roles which are assigned to each participant, such as
whether they are a moderator. If there was a change in role, for
example, a new moderator was selected, the focus would inform
subscribers.
The state of the media policy includes the media streams being
received by each participant, the audio or video modalities, and so
on.
5.6 Participants
A participant in a conference is any SIP user agent that has a dialog
with the focus. This SIP user agent can be a PC application, a SIP
hardphone, or a PSTN gateway. It can also be another focus. A
conference which has a participant that is the focus of another
conference is called a cascaded conference. They can also be used to
provide scalable conferences where there are regional sub-
conferences, each of which is connected to the main conference. A
conference topology refers to a graph which shows each focus and each
participant as a vertex, with a connection between each participant
and its focus.
5.7 Conference Policy
The conference policy contains the rules that guide the operation of
the focus. These rules can be simple, such as an access list that
defines the set of allowed participants in a conference. The rules
can also be incredibly complex, specifying time-of-day based rules on
participation conditional on the presence of other participants. It
is important to understand that there is no restriction on the type
of rules that can be encapsulated in a conference policy.
However, there does exist a protocol means by which a client can
request a change in the conference policy. This is done by
communicating with the conference policy server, which manipulates
the conference policy. By the nature of conference policies, not all
aspects of the policy can be manipulated with the conference policy
control protocol. It is the responsibility of the conference policy
server to reconcile the various requests with the conference policy.
J. Rosenberg [Page 16]
Internet Draft Conferencing Framework October 28, 2002
5.8 Media Policy
The media policy contains the rules that guide the operation of the
mixer. The focus uses these rules to interact with the mixer to
implement them. These rules can be simple (mix all media from all
participants), or they can be incredibly complex. It is important to
understand that there is no restriction on the type of rules that can
be encapsulated in a media policy.
However, there does exist a protocol means by which a client can
request a change in the media policy. This is done by communicating
with the media policy server, which manipulates the media policy. By
the nature of media policies, not all aspects of the policy can be
manipulated with the media policy control protocol. It is the
responsibility of the media policy server to reconcile the various
requests with the media policy.
6 Physical Realization
In this section, we present several physical instantiations of these
components, to show how these basic functions can be combined to
solve a variety of problems.
6.1 Centralized Server
In the most simplistic realization of this framework, there is a
single physical server in the network which implements the focus, the
conference policy server, the media policy server, and the mixer.
This is the classic "one box" solution, shown in Figure 3.
6.2 Endpoint Server
Another important model is that of a locally-mixed ad-hoc conference.
In this scenario, two users (A and B) are in a regular point-to-point
call. One of the participants (A) decides to conference in a third
participant, C. To do this, A begins acting as a focus. Its existing
dialog with B becomes the first dialog attached to the focus. B would
re-INVITE A on that dialog, changing its Contact URI to a new value
which identifies the focus. In essence, A "mutates" from a single-
user UA to a focus plus a single user UA, and in the process of such
a mutation, its URI changes. Then, the focus makes an outbound INVITE
to C. When C accepts, it mixes the media from A and C together,
redistributing the results. The mixed media is also played locally.
Figure 4 shows a diagram of this transition.
It is important to note that the external interfaces in this model,
J. Rosenberg [Page 17]
Internet Draft Conferencing Framework October 28, 2002
Conference Server
...................................
. .
. +------+ +------------+ .
. |Media | | Conference | .
. |Policy| |Notification| .
. |Server| | Server | .
. +------+ +------------+ .
. +----------+ .
. |Conference| .
. | Policy | +-------+ +-----+ .
. | Server | | Focus | |Mixer| .
. +----------+ +-------+ +-----+ .
................//.\.......--./....
// \ ---- /
// -\- /RTP
SIP // ---- \ /
// --- \SIP /
// ---- RTP \ /
/ -- \ /
+-----------+ +-----------+
|Participant| |Participant|
+-----------+ +-----------+
Figure 3: Centralized server architecture
between A and B, and between B and C, are exactly the same to those
that would be used in a centralized server model. B could also
include a media policy server and conference subscription server too,
allowing the participants to have access to them if they so desired.
Just because the focus is co-resident with a participant does not
mean any aspect of the behaviors and external interfaces will change.
6.3 Media Server Component
J. Rosenberg [Page 18]
Internet Draft Conferencing Framework October 28, 2002
B B
+------+ +------+
| | | |
| UA | | UA |
| | | |
+------+ +------+
| . | .
| . | .
| . | .
| . Transition | .
| . ------------> | .
SIP| .RTP SIP| .RTP
| . | .
| . | .
| . | .
| . | .
| . +----------+
+------+ | +------+ | SIP +------+
| | | |Focus | |----------| |
| UA | | |M.Pol.| | | UA |
| | | |C.Pol.| |..........| |
+------+ | |Mixer | | RTP +------+
| +------+ |
A | + | C
| + <..|.......
| + | .
| +------+ | .
| |Parti-| | .
| |cipant| | .
| | | | .
| +------+ | .
+----------+ .
B .
.
Internal
Interface
Figure 4: Transition from two-party call to conference
J. Rosenberg [Page 19]
Internet Draft Conferencing Framework October 28, 2002
+------------+ +------------+
| App Server| SIP |Conf. Cmpnt.|
| |-------------| |
| Focus | Conf. Proto | Focus |
| C.Pol |-------------| M.Pol |
| M.Pol | Media Proto | Mixer |
|Notification|-------------| |
| | | |
+------------+ +------------+
| \ .. .
| \\ RTP... .
| \\ .. .
| SIP \\ ... .
SIP | \\ ... .RTP
| ..\ .
| ... \\ .
| ... \\ .
| .. \\ .
| ... \\ .
| .. \ .
+-----------+ +-----------+
|Participant| |Participant|
+-----------+ +-----------+
Figure 5: Media server component model
In this model, shown in Figure 5, each conference involves two
centralized servers. One of these servers, referred to as the
"application server" owns and manages the conference and media
policies, and maintains a dialog with each participant. As a result,
it represents the focus seen by all participants in a conference.
However, this server doesn't provide any media support. To perform
the actual media mixing function, it makes use of a second server,
called the "mixing server". This server includes a focus, but has no
J. Rosenberg [Page 20]
Internet Draft Conferencing Framework October 28, 2002
conference policy server or conference notification service. It has a
default conference policy, which accepts all invitations from the
top-level focus. Its media policy server accepts any controls made by
the application server. The focus in the application server uses
third party call control to connect the media streams of each user to
the mixing server, as needed. If the focus in the application server
receives a media policy control command from a client, it delegates
that to the media server by making the same media policy control
command to it.
This model allows for the mixing server to be used as a resource for
a variety of different conferencing applications. This is because it
is unaware of any conference or media policies; it is merely a
"slave" to the top-level server, doing whatever it asks. This is
consistent with the SIP Application Server Component Model [10].
6.4 Distributed Mixing
In a distributed mixed conference, there is still a centralized
server which implements the focus, conference policy server, and
media policy server. However, there is no centralized mixer. Rather,
there is a mixer in each endpoint, along with a media policy server.
The focus distributes the media by using third party call control
[11] to move a media stream between each participant and each other
participant. As a result, if there are N participants in the
conference, there will be a single dialog between each participant
and the focus, but the session description associated with that
dialog will be constructed to allow media to be distributed amongst
the participants. This is shown in Figure 6.
There are several ways in which the media can be distributed to each
participant for mixing. In a multi-unicast model, each participant
sends a copy of its media to each other participant. In this case,
the session description manages N-1 media streams. In a multicast
model, each participant joins a common multicast group, and each
participant sends a single copy of its media stream to that group.
The underlying multicast infrastructure then distributes the media,
so that each participant gets a copy. In a single-source multicast
model (SSM), each participant sends its media stream to a central
point, using unicast. The central point then redistributes the media
to all participants using multicast. The focus is responsible for
selecting the modality of media distribution, and for handling any
hybrids that would be necessitated from clients with mixed
capabilities.
When a new participant joins or is added, the focus will perform the
necessary third party call control to distribute the media from the
J. Rosenberg [Page 21]
Internet Draft Conferencing Framework October 28, 2002
new participant to all the other participants, and vice-a-versa.
The central conference server also includes a media policy server. Of
course, the central conference server cannot implement any of the
media policies directly. Rather, it would delegate the implementation
to the media policy servers co-resident with a participant. As an
example, if a participant decides to switch the overall conference
mode from "video follows audio" to "tiled video", they would
communicate with the central media policy server. This media policy
server, in turn, would communicate with the media policy servers co-
resident with each participant, using the same media policy control
protocol, and instruct them to use "tiled video".
This model requires additional functionality in user agents, which
may or may not be present. The participants, therefore, must be able
to advertise this capability to the focus.
6.5 Cascaded Mixers
In very large conferences, it may not be possible to have a single
mixer that can handle all of the media. A solution to this is to use
cascaded mixers. In this architecture, there is a centralized focus,
but the mixing function is implemented by a multiplicity of mixers,
scattered throughout the network. Each participant is connected to
one, and only one of the mixers. The focus uses some kind of control
protocol (such as MEGACO [9]) to connect the mixers together, so that
all of the participants can hear each other.
This architecture is shown in Figure 7.
7 Common Operations
There are a large number of ways in which users can interact with a
conference. They can join, leave, set policies, approve members, and
so on. This section is meant as an overview of the basic primitives,
summarizing how they operate. More detailed examples with complete
call flows can be found in [12].
7.1 Creating Conferences
There are many ways in which a conference can be created. Ultimately,
all of them result in the establishment of a conference URI which
identifies a focus. In all cases, a conference URI must be created by
the focus itself, or an element which is responsible for managing
URIs that are used by the focus. Otherwise, the uniqueness of
conference URIs could not be guaranteed.
J. Rosenberg [Page 22]
Internet Draft Conferencing Framework October 28, 2002
+---------+
|Partcpnt |
media | | media
...............| |..................
. | Mixer | .
. |M.Pol.Srv| .
. +---------+ .
. | .
. | .
. | .
. dialog | .
. | .
. | .
. | .
. +---------+ .
. |Cnf.Srvr.| .
. | | .
. | Focus | .
. |M.Pol.Srv| .
. / |C.Pol.Srv| \ .
. / +---------+ \ .
. / \ .
. / \ .
. / dialog \ .
. / \ .
. /dialog \ .
. / \ .
. / \ .
. / \ .
. .
+---------+ +---------+
|Partcpnt | |Partcpnt |
| | | |
| | ......................... | |
| Mixer | | Mixer |
|M.Pol.Srv| media |M.Pol.Srv|
+---------+ +---------+
Figure 6: Dialog and media streams in a distributed mixed conference
J. Rosenberg [Page 23]
Internet Draft Conferencing Framework October 28, 2002
+---------+
+-----------------------| |------------------------+
| ++++++++++++++++++++| |++++++++++++++++++ |
| + +------| Focus |---------+ + |
| + | | | | + |
| + | +-| |--+ | + |
| + | | +---------+ | | + |
| + | | + | | + |
| + | | + | | + |
| + | | + | | + |
| + | | +---------+ | | + |
| + | | | | | | + |
| + | | | Mixer 2 | | | + |
| + | | | | | | + |
| + | | +---------+ | | + |
| + | |... . .... | | + |
| + .|....| . .|.... | + |
| + ...... | | . | ..|... + |
| + ... | | . | | ....+ |
| +---------+ | | +---------+ | | +---------+ |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | Mixer 2 | | | | Mixer 3 | | | | Mixer 4 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| +---------+ | | +---------+ | | +---------+ |
| . . | | . . | | . . |
| . . | | .. . | | .. . |
| . . | | . . | | . . |
+---------+ . | +---------+ . | +---------+ . |
| Prtcpnt | . | | Prtcpnt | . | | Prtcpnt | . |
| 1 | . | | 1 | . | | 1 | . |
+---------+ . | +---------+ . | +---------+ . |
. | . | . |
+---------+ +---------+ +---------+
| Prtcpnt | | Prtcpnt | | Prtcpnt |
| 1 | | 1 | | 1 |
+---------+ +---------+ +---------+
------- SIP Dialog
....... Media Flow
+++++++ Control Protocol
J. Rosenberg [Page 24]
Internet Draft Conferencing Framework October 28, 2002
Figure 7: Cascaded Mixers
protocol, a client can instruct the conference policy server to
create a new conference. The result of this operation is a conference
URI, which is returned to the client.
Another way to obtain a conference URI is to literally guess. In an
instant conferencing server, there are literally an infinite number
of conference URIs which can be used. Each of them is a valid
conference URI, since it identifies a focus, and when an INVITE is
sent to it, will join the user into that conference. As a result, a
client can simply choose one of them at random, so long as it is
configured with the domain portion of the URI and any naming
conventions in use by the instant conferencing server.
OPEN ISSUE: Do we need to specify standards for this?
The previous two approaches are used to obtain conference URIs for
focuses that are hosted within centralized servers. Creation of
conferences where the focus resides in an endpoint operates
differently. There, the endpoint itself creates the conference URI,
and hands it out to other endpoints which are to be the participants.
What differs from case to case is how the endpoint decides to create
a conference.
One important case is the ad-hoc conference described in Section 6.2.
There, an endpoint unilaterally decides to create the conference
based on local policy. The dialogs that were connected to the UA are
migrated to the endpoint-hosted focus, using a re-INVITE to pass the
conference URI to the newly joined participants.
Alternatively, one UA can ask another UA to create an endpoint-hosted
conference. This is accomplished with the SIP Join header [13]. The
UA which receives the Join header in an invitation may need to create
a new conference URI (a new one is not needed if the dialog that is
being joined is already part of a conference). The conference URI is
then handed to the recently joined participants through a re-INVITE.
7.2 Adding Participants
There are two modes for adding participants to a conference - first
party additions, and third party additions. In a first party
addition, the participant that wishes to join makes a direct attempt
to join. In a third party addition, some other participant takes
action with the aim of causing a third party to be added to the
conference.
J. Rosenberg [Page 25]
Internet Draft Conferencing Framework October 28, 2002
First person additions are trivially accomplished with a standard
INVITE. A participant can send an INVITE request to the conference
URI, and if the conference policy allows them to join, they are added
to the conference.
If a UA does not know the conference URI, but has learned about a
dialog which is connected to a conference (by using the dialog event
package, for example [14]), the UA can join the conference by using
the Join header to join the dialog.
Third party invitations can be done in one of several ways. The first
approach is for the user to ask the third party to send an INVITE to
the conference URI. This can be done automatically through the usage
of REFER [15]. The participant would send a REFER request to the
third party. The Refer-To header field in that request would contain
the conference URI. There are countless non-automated means for
asking a participant to send an INVITE to the conference URI. A user
can send an instant message [16] to the third party, containing an
HTML document which requests the user to click on the hyperlink to
join the conference:
<html>
Hey, would you like to <a href="sip:9sf88fk-99sd@conferences.com">join
</a> the conference now?
</html>
The second approach for third party additions is for the participant
to ask the focus to add the third party to the conference. In this
case, however, a REFER cannot be used. REFER would have the effect of
telling the focus to send an INVITE to the new potential participant.
However, just sending this INVITE is not sufficient for adding the
new member. In more complex realizations, such as the distributed
mixing scenario of Section 6.4, a multiplicity of invitations will
need to be sent. This would require the focus to attach additional
meaning to REFER; it would have to be interpreted as a request to add
a participant to the conference. However, it is fundamental to the
concept of REFER that the recipient not attach specific application
semantics to it. Therefore, it cannot be used. Rather, the user would
use the conference policy control protocol to request that the focus
add the new participant. The conference policy control protocol can
also be used to add a multiplicity of new users. This is referred to
as mass invitation.
In many cases, a new participant will not wish to join the conference
unless they can join with a particicular set of policies. As an
J. Rosenberg [Page 26]
Internet Draft Conferencing Framework October 28, 2002
example, a participant may want to join anonymously, so that other
participants know that someone has joined, but not who. To accomplish
this, the conference policy control protocol is used to establish
these policies prior to the generation or acceptance of an invitation
to the conference. For example, if a user wishes to join a conference
with a known conference URI, the user would obtain the URI for the
conference policy, manipulate the policy to set themself as an
anonymous participant, and then actually join the conference by
sending an INVITE request to the conference URI.
OPEN ISSUE: Will this always work? Are there cases where
the conference policy cannot be manipulated until the
INVITE has been sent? This would require a preconditions-
style solution.
7.3 Removing Participants
As with additions, there are two modalities for departures - first
person (in which a user explicitly leaves), and third person, where
they are removed by a different user.
First person departures are trivially accomplished by terminating the
dialog that the participant is using to connect to the focus.
Third person departures can be done in one of two ways. First, a user
can make use of the REFER method to instruct the third party to send
a BYE to the conference server on the dialog that connects them to
the focus. This requires the user to have knowledge of the dialog
identifiers used by that participant. The second mechanism, which is
much cleaner, is to use the conference policy control protocol to
inform the focus that the participant is explicitly barred from the
conference. This will cause the focus to eject the user, sending them
a BYE in addition to whatever other signaling is needed to remove
them. The conference policy control protocol can also be used to
remove a large number of users. This is generally referred to as mass
ejection.
7.4 Approving Policy Changes
A conference policy for a particular conference may designate one or
more users as moderators for some set of media policy or conference
policy change requests. This means that those moderators need to
approve the specific policy change. Typically, moderators are used to
approve member additions and removals. However, the framework allows
for moderators to be associated with any policy change that can be
made.
J. Rosenberg [Page 27]
Internet Draft Conferencing Framework October 28, 2002
The general model to support moderator approval is through the
conference notification service. The moderator subscribes to the
notification service. They are authenticated by the focus, which
determines that they are a moderator for the conference. Whenever a
policy change request is made by a client that requires moderator
approval, the policy change is not actually committed. Rather, it is
marked as pending by the conference policy server. Any moderators for
that specific policy request who are subscribed to the conference
notification service will receive a notification of the pending
change. The moderators, using the conference policy control protocol,
can approve the specific change. This commits the new policy. All
participants are then notified of the new policy through the
notification service.
7.5 Creating Sidebars
A sidebar is a "conference within a conference", allowing a subset of
the participants to converse amongst themselves. Frequently,
participants in a sidebar will still receive media from the main
conference, but "in the background". For audio, this may mean that
the volume of the media is reduced, for example.
There are two ways to represent a sidebar in this framework. The
first is to treat it as a specific kind of media policy. It is a
media policy which would request that sidebar participants be "in the
foreground", and others "in the background". There are no additional
dialogs or conferences established. The media policy control protocol
would allow a user to explicitly request sidebars. The server would
alert users (through the notification service) that they have been
invited to the sidebar. They would use the media policy control
protocol to approve their participation in it.
An alternative view is that a sidebar truly is a conference within a
conference, and would be implemented that way. There would be a new
conference URI associated with the sidebar. Standard techniques would
be used to add users to the sidebar, approve their membership, and so
on. The sidebar would itself be a participant in the main conference.
Users would continue to receive their media stream only through the
main conference. They would have a dialog with the sidebar focus, but
no media would be exchanged on this dialog.
OPEN ISSUE: It is still unclear as to which model is
preferrable. We should pick one.
8 Security Considerations
Conferences frequently require security features in order to properly
J. Rosenberg [Page 28]
Internet Draft Conferencing Framework October 28, 2002
operate. The conference policy may dictate that only certain
participants can join, or that certain participants can create new
policies. Generally speaking, conference applications are very
concerned about authorization decisions. Mechanisms for establishing
and enforcing such authorization rules is a central concept
throughout this document.
Of course, authorization rules require authentication. Normal SIP
authentication mechanisms should suffice for the the conference
authorization mechanisms described here.
9 Contributors
This document is the result of discussions amongst the conferencing
design team. The members of this team include:
Brian Rosen
Rohan Mahy
Henning Schulzrinne
Orit Levin
Roni Even
Tom Taylor
Petri Koskelainen
Nermeen Ismail
Andy Zmolek
Joerg Ott
Dan Petrie
10 Authors Addresses
Jonathan Rosenberg
dynamicsoft
72 Eagle Rock Avenue
First Floor
East Hanover, NJ 07936
email: jdrosen@dynamicsoft.com
11 Normative References
12 Informative References
[1] J. Rosenberg, H. Schulzrinne, G. Camarillo, A. Johnston, J.
J. Rosenberg [Page 29]
Internet Draft Conferencing Framework October 28, 2002
Peterson, R. Sparks, M. Handley, and E. Schooler, "SIP: session
initiation protocol," RFC 3261, Internet Engineering Task Force, June
2002.
[2] H. Schulzrinne, S. Casner, R. Frederick, and V. Jacobson, "RTP: a
transport protocol for real-time applications," RFC 1889, Internet
Engineering Task Force, Jan. 1996.
[3] O. Levin et al. , "Requirements for tightly coupled SIP
conferencing," Internet Draft, Internet Engineering Task Force, July
2002. Work in progress.
[4] A. B. Roach, "Session initiation protocol (sip)-specific event
notification," RFC 3265, Internet Engineering Task Force, June 2002.
[5] B. Campbell and J. Rosenberg, "Instant message sessions in
simple," Internet Draft, Internet Engineering Task Force, Oct. 2002.
Work in progress.
[6] J. Rosenberg and H. Schulzrinne, "A session initiation protocol
(SIP) event package for conference state," Internet Draft, Internet
Engineering Task Force, June 2002. Work in progress.
[7] T. Berners-Lee, R. Fielding, and L. Masinter, "Uniform resource
identifiers (URI): generic syntax," RFC 2396, Internet Engineering
Task Force, Aug. 1998.
[8] H. Schulzrinne and J. Rosenberg, "Session initiation protocol
(SIP) caller preferences and callee capabilities," Internet Draft,
Internet Engineering Task Force, July 2002. Work in progress.
[9] F. Cuervo, N. Greene, A. Rayhan, C. Huitema, B. Rosen, and J.
Segers, "Megaco protocol version 1.0," RFC 3015, Internet Engineering
Task Force, Nov. 2000.
[10] J. Rosenberg, P. Mataga, and H. Schulzrinne, "An application
server component architecture for SIP," Internet Draft, Internet
Engineering Task Force, Mar. 2001. Work in progress.
[11] J. Rosenberg, J. Peterson, H. Schulzrinne, and G. Camarillo,
"Best current practices for third party call control in the session
initiation protocol," Internet Draft, Internet Engineering Task
Force, June 2002. Work in progress.
[12] A. Johnston and O. Levin, "Session initiation call control -
conferencing for user agents," Internet Draft, Internet Engineering
Task Force, Oct. 2002. Work in progress.
J. Rosenberg [Page 30]
Internet Draft Conferencing Framework October 28, 2002
[13] R. Mahy and D. Petrie, "The session initiation protocol (sip)
join header," Internet Draft, Internet Engineering Task Force, Oct.
2002. Work in progress.
[14] J. Rosenberg and H. Schulzrinne, "A session initiation protocol
(SIP) event package for dialog state," Internet Draft, Internet
Engineering Task Force, June 2002. Work in progress.
[15] R. Sparks, "The SIP refer method," Internet Draft, Internet
Engineering Task Force, July 2002. Work in progress.
[16] B. Campbell and J. Rosenberg, "Session initiation protocol
extension for instant messaging," Internet Draft, Internet
Engineering Task Force, Sept. 2002. Work in progress.
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (c) The Internet Society (2002). 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.
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.
J. Rosenberg [Page 31]