1. Slide #1 Boston, Jan 5 – 6, 2005XCON WG Interim draft-levin-xcon-cccp-01.txt By Orit Levin oritl@microsoft.com

2. Slide #2 Boston, Jan 5 – 6, 2005XCON WG Interim Agenda Working assumptions Syntax questions –From “Data Manipulation” to pure “Semantics” –Can the requests be expressed using the same types as the resulted state? ………..........……………………………………....… CCCP scope –Instance/Occurrence, Reservation. Also, Template? –Resulting Naming Conventions –Querying the conferencing information Transaction Model Details

3. Slide #3 Boston, Jan 5 – 6, 2005XCON WG Interim Working Assumptions Must run over reliable transport, but transport agnostic “Controlling a conference” (i.e. creating and managing it) means “changing the state of the conference object”

4. Slide #4 Boston, Jan 5 – 6, 2005XCON WG Interim Choosing a preferred syntax From “Data Manipulation” to “Semantics Oriented”

5. Slide #5 Boston, Jan 5 – 6, 2005XCON WG Interim Options What would be the best way to express the desired changes or the resulted next stage of the conference object? –A-la draft-levin-xcon-cccp-00.txt –A-la TBD simple-partial-notifications –A-la draft-levin-xcon-cccp-01.txt –RPC-like with explicit parameters Let’s take a look at the example: –“Add user BOB and DIAL OUT to its PC4 with Main Audio only”

6. Slide #6 Boston, Jan 5 – 6, 2005XCON WG Interim A-la draft-levin-xcon-cccp-00.txt Operation is included in the object schema Included XML document needs to be parsed in order to parse the required operation Supposedly not limited to data manipulations

7. Slide #7 Boston, Jan 5 – 6, 2005XCON WG Interim A-la draft-levin-xcon-cccp-00.txt (cont.) <request requestId="1“ from="sip:someone@example.com“ to="conf1@mcu.example.com"> to="conf1@mcu.example.com"> <users> Bob Hoskins Bob's Laptop dialed-out main audio audio <operator><code>add</code></operator></user></users></content></request>

8. Slide #8 Boston, Jan 5 – 6, 2005XCON WG Interim A-la deprecated draft-simple-tbd-02.txt Operation is explicit and is (supposedly) limited to “data manipulation” type Key is expressed in XPATH and MUST point to an existing XML document CDATA is used as a part of XML (which is not a valid XML schema construction)

9. Slide #9 Boston, Jan 5 – 6, 2005XCON WG Interim A-la deprecated draft-simple-tbd-02.txt (cont.) <request requestId="1“ from="sip:someone@example.com“ to="conf1@mcu.example.com"> to="conf1@mcu.example.com"> <![CDATA[ <![CDATA[ Bob Hoskins Bob's Laptop dialed-out main audio audio ]]>

10. Slide #10 Boston, Jan 5 – 6, 2005XCON WG Interim A-la draft-levin-xcon-cccp-01.txt Operation is explicit and not limited to “data manipulations” Keys are “strong typed”

11. Slide #11 Boston, Jan 5 – 6, 2005XCON WG Interim A-la draft-levin-xcon-cccp-01.txt (cont.) CONFERENCE KEYS TYPE USER KEYS TYPE ENDPOINT KEYS TYPE MEDIA KEYS TYPE

12. Slide #12 Boston, Jan 5 – 6, 2005XCON WG Interim A-la draft-levin-xcon-cccp-01.txt (cont.) <request requestId="1“ from="sip:someone@example.com“ to="conf1@mcu.example.com"> to="conf1@mcu.example.com"> Bob Hoskins Bob's Laptop dialed-out main audio audio

13. Slide #13 Boston, Jan 5 – 6, 2005XCON WG Interim Advantages of syntax as in CCCP-01 Not a Data Manipulation protocol. Any explicit requests can be added and their semantics well- defined Strong type keys allow for automatic syntax validity check of a primitive No XPATH processing is required Conference-info-type and its subtypes can be used as is Additional types (from multiple.xsd) can be used

14. Slide #14 Boston, Jan 5 – 6, 2005XCON WG Interim Choosing a preferred syntax Can the requests be expressed using the same types as the resulted state?

15. Slide #15 Boston, Jan 5 – 6, 2005XCON WG Interim Can the requests be expressed using the same types as the resulted state? Advantages of using common types –No double specification work –Adding primitives with new semantics and keys is easy if needed –In implementation terms, minimum mapping is required from the “request” to the “new state” Advantages of defining new types –More explicit, e.g. “dial-out” vs. “dialed-out”

16. Slide #16 Boston, Jan 5 – 6, 2005XCON WG Interim CCCP Scope

17. Slide #17 Boston, Jan 5 – 6, 2005XCON WG Interim CCCP Scope Works on Instance/Occurrence and Reservation –Also, on Template? Resulting Naming Conventions –URI parameters? –Primitive attributes? –Separate primitives? Querying of conferencing information –System: get the list of patterns, reservations, or occurrences –Conference: get specific conference data elements

18. Slide #18 Boston, Jan 5 – 6, 2005XCON WG Interim Transaction Model

19. Slide #19 Boston, Jan 5 – 6, 2005XCON WG Interim Proposed Transaction Model CCCP is a transaction client-server protocol Two types of operations: request and response A client issues requests to a server. A server MAY reply with multiple provisional responses before replying with the final response The server MUST reply with a single final response Two final responses are defined: "failure" and "success"

20. Slide #20 Boston, Jan 5 – 6, 2005XCON WG Interim Proposed Transaction Model (Cont.) Transaction ID –requestId: A string generated by the CCCP client and unique for each CCCP request generated by the client – from:A URI which identifies the CCCP client – to:A URI which identifies the CCCP server Each operation MAY include an 'aaId' attribute – holds a secured identity of the issuer of the CCCP request –Its value is being used by the CCCP server for authorization purposes

21. Slide #21 Boston, Jan 5 – 6, 2005XCON WG Interim Proposed Transaction Model (Cont.) A single CCCP operation MAY include multiple primitives Multiple primitives within the same request MUST be executed as an atomic operation. The primitives within the request operation MUST be performed by the CCCP server one-by-one in the order they appear in the request body. The corresponding response operation MUST include the response primitive for each of the issued primitives in the exact same order. Note, that for this reason, the primitives inside the operation bodies are not numbered.

22. Slide #22 Boston, Jan 5 – 6, 2005XCON WG Interim Thanks…