SIPPING J. Rosenberg
Internet-Draft dynamicsoft
Expires: August 16, 2004 February 16, 2004
A Framework for Application Interaction in the Session Initiation
Protocol (SIP)
draft-ietf-sipping-app-interaction-framework-01
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.
This Internet-Draft will expire on August 16, 2004.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). All Rights Reserved.
Abstract
This document describes a framework for the interaction between users
and Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) based applications. By
interacting with applications, users can guide the way in which they
operate. The focus of this framework is stimulus signaling, which
allows a user agent to interact with an application without knowledge
of the semantics of that application. Stimulus signaling can occur to
a user interface running locally with the client, or to a remote user
interface, through media streams. Stimulus signaling encompasses a
wide range of mechanisms, ranging from clicking on hyperlinks, to
pressing buttons, to traditional Dual Tone Multi Frequency (DTMF)
input. In all cases, stimulus signaling is supported through the use
of markup languages, which play a key role in this framework.
Rosenberg Expires August 16, 2004 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft App Interaction Framework February 2004
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. A Model for Application Interaction . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.1 Functional vs. Stimulus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.2 Real-Time vs. Non-Real Time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.3 Client-Local vs. Client-Remote . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.4 Presentation Capable vs. Presentation Free . . . . . . . . . 10
3.5 Interaction Scenarios on Telephones . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.5.1 Client Remote . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.5.2 Client Local . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.5.3 Flip-Flop . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4. Framework Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5. Application Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
5.1 Client Local Interfaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
5.1.1 Discovering Capabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
5.1.2 Pushing an Initial Interface Component . . . . . . . . . . . 16
5.1.3 Updating an Interface Component . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
5.1.4 Terminating an Interface Component . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
5.2 Client Remote Interfaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
5.2.1 Originating and Terminating Applications . . . . . . . . . . 19
5.2.2 Intermediary Applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
6. User Agent Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
6.1 Advertising Capabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
6.2 Receiving User Interface Components . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
6.3 Mapping User Input to User Interface Components . . . . . . 23
6.4 Receiving Updates to User Interface Components . . . . . . . 23
6.5 Terminating a User Interface Component . . . . . . . . . . . 23
7. Inter-Application Feature Interaction . . . . . . . . . . . 25
7.1 Client Local UI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
7.2 Client-Remote UI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
8. Intra Application Feature Interaction . . . . . . . . . . . 27
9. Example Call Flow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
10. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
11. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . 37
Rosenberg Expires August 16, 2004 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft App Interaction Framework February 2004
1. Introduction
The Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) [1] provides the ability for
users to initiate, manage, and terminate communications sessions.
Frequently, these sessions will involve a SIP application. A SIP
application is defined as a program running on a SIP-based element
(such as a proxy or user agent) that provides some value-added
function to a user or system administrator. Examples of SIP
applications include pre-paid calling card calls, conferencing, and
presence-based [10] call routing.
In order for most applications to properly function, they need input
from the user to guide their operation. As an example, a pre-paid
calling card application requires the user to input their calling
card number, their PIN code, and the destination number they wish to
reach. The process by which a user provides input to an application
is called "application interaction".
Application interaction can be either functional or stimulus.
Functional interaction requires the user agent to understand the
semantics of the application, whereas stimulus interaction does not.
Stimulus signaling allows for applications to be built without
requiring modifications to the client. Stimulus interaction is the
subject of this framework. The framework provides a model for how
users interact with applications through user interfaces, and how
user interfaces and applications can be distributed throughout a
network. This model is then used to describe how applications can
instantiate and manage user interfaces.
Rosenberg Expires August 16, 2004 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft App Interaction Framework February 2004
2. Definitions
SIP Application: A SIP application is defined as a program running on
a SIP-based element (such as a proxy or user agent) that provides
some value-added function to a user or system administrator.
Examples of SIP applications include pre-paid calling card calls,
conferencing, and presence-based [10] call routing.
Application Interaction: The process by which a user provides input
to an application.
Real-Time Application Interaction: Application interaction that takes
place while an application instance is executing. For example,
when a user enters their PIN number into a pre-paid calling card
application, this is real-time application interaction.
Non-Real Time Application Interaction: Application interaction that
takes place asynchronously with the execution of the application.
Generally, non-real time application interaction is accomplished
through provisioning.
Functional Application Interaction: Application interaction is
functional when the user device has an understanding of the
semantics of the interaction with the application.
Stimulus Application Interaction: Application interaction is
considered to be stimulus when the user device has no
understanding of the semantics of the interaction with the
application.
User Interface (UI): The user interface provides the user with
context in order to make decisions about what they want. The user
enters information into the user interface. The user interface
interprets the information, and passes it to the application.
User Interface Component: A piece of user interface which operates
independently of other pieces of the user interface. For example,
a user might have two separate web interfaces to a pre-paid
calling card application - one for hanging up and making another
call, and another for entering the username and PIN.
User Device: The software or hardware system that the user directly
interacts with in order to communicate with the application. An
example of a user device is a telephone. Another example is a PC
with a web browser.
Rosenberg Expires August 16, 2004 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft App Interaction Framework February 2004
User Input: The "raw" information passed from a user to a user
interface. Examples of user input include a spoken word or a click
on a hyperlink.
Client-Local User Interface: A user interface which is co-resident
with the user device.
Client Remote User Interface: A user interface which executes
remotely from the user device. In this case, a standardized
interface is needed between the user device and the user
interface. Typically, this is done through media sessions - audio,
video, or application sharing.
Media Interaction: A means of separating a user and a user interface
by connecting them with media streams.
Interactive Voice Response (IVR): An IVR is a type of user interface
that allows users to speak commands to the application, and hear
responses to those commands prompting for more information.
Prompt-and-Collect: The basic primitive of an IVR user interface. The
user is presented with a voice option, and the user speaks their
choice.
Barge-In: In an IVR user interface, a user is prompted to enter some
information. With some prompts, the user may enter the requested
information before the prompt completes. In that case, the prompt
ceases. The act of entering the information before completion of
the prompt is referred to as barge-in.
Focus: A user interface component has focus when user input is
provided fed to it, as opposed to any other user interface
components. This is not to be confused with the term focus within
the SIP conferencing framework, which refers to the center user
agent in a conference [12].
Focus Determination: The process by which the user device determines
which user interface component will receive the user input.
Focusless User Interface: A user interface which has no ability to
perform focus determination. An example of a focusless user
interface is a keypad on a telephone.
Presentation Capable UI: A user interface which can prompt the user
with input, collect results, and then prompt the user with new
information based on those results.
Rosenberg Expires August 16, 2004 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft App Interaction Framework February 2004
Presentation Free UI: A user interface which cannot prompt the user
with information.
Feature Interaction: A class of problems which result when multiple
applications or application components are trying to provide
services to a user at the same time.
Inter-Application Feature Interaction: Feature interactions that
occur between applications.
DTMF: Dual-Tone Multi-Frequency. DTMF refer to a class of tones
generated by circuit switched telephony devices when the user
presses a key on the keypad. As a result, DTMF and keypad input
are often used synonymously, when in fact one of them (DTMF) is
merely a means of conveying the other (the keypad input) to a
client-remote user interface (the switch, for example).
Application Instance: A single execution path of a SIP application.
Originating Application: A SIP application which acts as a UAC,
calling the user.
Terminating Application: A SIP application which acts as a UAS,
answering a call generated by a user. IVR applications are
terminating applications.
Intermediary Application: A SIP application which is neither the
caller or callee, but rather, a third party involved in a call.
Rosenberg Expires August 16, 2004 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft App Interaction Framework February 2004
3. A Model for Application Interaction
+---+ +---+ +---+ +---+
| | | | | | | |
| | | U | | U | | A |
| | Input | s | Input | s | Results | p |
| | ---------> | e | ---------> | e | ----------> | p |
| U | | r | | r | | l |
| s | | | | | | i |
| e | | D | | I | | c |
| r | Output | e | Output | f | Update | a |
| | <--------- | v | <--------- | a | <.......... | t |
| | | i | | c | | i |
| | | c | | e | | o |
| | | e | | | | n |
| | | | | | | |
+---+ +---+ +---+ +---+
Figure 1: Model for Real-Time Interactions
Figure 1 presents a general model for how users interact with
applications. Generally, users interact with a user interface through
a user device. A user device can be a telephone, or it can be a PC
with a web browser. Its role is to pass the user input from the user,
to the user interface. The user interface provides the user with
context in order to make decisions about what they want. The user
enters information into the user interface. The user interface
interprets the information, and passes it to the application. The
application may be able to modify the user interface based on this
information. Whether or not this is possible depends on the type of
user interface.
User interfaces are fundamentally about rendering and interpretation.
Rendering refers to the way in which the user is provided context.
This can be through hyperlinks, images, sounds, videos, text, and so
on. Interpretation refers to the way in which the user interface
takes the "raw" data provided by the user, and returns the result to
the application in a meaningful format, abstracted from the
particulars of the user interface. As an example, consider a pre-paid
calling card application. The user interface worries about details
such as what prompt the user is provided, whether the voice is male
or female, and so on. It is concerned with recognizing the speech
that the user provides, in order to obtain the desired information.
In this case, the desired information is the calling card number, the
PIN code, and the destination number. The application needs that
data, and it doesn't matter to the application whether it was
collected using a male prompt or a female one.
Rosenberg Expires August 16, 2004 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft App Interaction Framework February 2004
User interfaces generally have real-time requirements towards the
user. That is, when a user interacts with the user interface, the
user interface needs to react quickly, and that change needs to be
propagated to the user right away. However, the interface between the
user interface and the application need not be that fast. Faster is
better, but the user interface itself can frequently compensate for
long latencies there. In the case of a pre-paid calling card
application, when the user is prompted to enter their PIN, the prompt
should generally stop immediately once the first digit of the PIN is
entered. This is referred to as barge-in. After the user-interface
collects the rest of the PIN, it can tell the user to "please wait
while processing". The PIN can then be gradually transmitted to the
application. In this example, the user interface has compensated for
a slow UI to application interface by asking the user to wait.
The separation between user interface and application is absolutely
fundamental to the entire framework provided in this document. Its
importance cannot be overstated.
With this basic model, we can begin to taxonomize the types of
systems that can be built.
3.1 Functional vs. Stimulus
The first way to taxonomize the system is to consider the interface
between the UI and the application. There are two fundamentally
different models for this interface. In a functional interface, the
user interface has detailed knowledge about the application, and is,
in fact, specific to the application. The interface between the two
components is through a functional protocol, capable of representing
the semantics which can be exposed through the user interface.
Because the user interface has knowledge of the application, it can
be optimally designed for that application. As a result, functional
user interfaces are almost always the most user friendly, the
fastest, the and the most responsive. However, in order to allow
interoperability between user devices and applications, the details
of the functional protocols need to be specified in standards. This
slows down innovation and limits the scope of applications that can
be built.
An alternative is a stimulus interface. In a stimulus interface, the
user interface is generic, totally ignorant of the details of the
application. Indeed, the application may pass instructions to the
user interface describing how it should operate. The user interface
translates user input into "stimulus" - which are data understood
only by the application, and not by the user interface. Because they
are generic, and because they require communications with the
application in order to change the way in which they render
Rosenberg Expires August 16, 2004 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft App Interaction Framework February 2004
information to the user, stimulus user interfaces are usually slower,
less user friendly, and less responsive than a functional
counterpart. However, they allow for substantial innovation in
applications, since no standardization activity is needed to build a
new application, as long as it can interact with the user within the
confines of the user interface mechanism. The web is an example of a
stimulus user interface to applications.
In SIP systems, functional interfaces are provided by extending the
SIP protocol to provide the needed functionality. For example, the
SIP caller preferences specification [13] provides a functional
interface that allows a user to request applications to route the
call to specific types of user agents. Functional interfaces are
important, but are not the subject of this framework. The primary
goal of this framework is to address the role of stimulus interfaces
to SIP applications.
3.2 Real-Time vs. Non-Real Time
Application interaction systems can also be real-time or
non-real-time. Non-real interaction allows the user to enter
information about application operation in asynchronously with its
invocation. Frequently, this is done through provisioning systems. As
an example, a user can set up the forwarding number for a
call-forward on no-answer application using a web page. Real-time
interaction requires the user to interact with the application at the
time of its invocation.
3.3 Client-Local vs. Client-Remote
Another axis in the taxonomization is whether the user interface is
co-resident with the user device (which we refer to as a client-local
user interface), or the user interface runs in a host separated from
the client (which we refer to as a client-remote user interface). In
a client-remote user interface, there exists some kind of protocol
between the client device and the UI that allows the client to
interact with the user interface over a network.
The most important way to separate the UI and the client device is
through media interaction. In media interaction, the interface
between the user and the user interface is through media - audio,
video, messaging, and so on. This is the classic mode of operation
for VoiceXML [3], where the user interface (also referred to as the
voice browser) runs on a platform in the network. Users communicate
with the voice browser through the telephone network (or using a SIP
session). The voice browser interacts with the application using HTTP
to convey the information collected from the user.
Rosenberg Expires August 16, 2004 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft App Interaction Framework February 2004
In the case of a client-local user interface, the user interface runs
co-located with the user device. The interface between them is
through the software that interprets the users input and passes them
to the user interface. The classic example of this is the web. In the
web, the user interface is a web browser, and the interface is
defined by the HTML document that it's rendering. The user interacts
directly with the user interface running in the browser. The results
of that user interface are sent to the application (running on the
web server) using HTTP.
It is important to note that whether or not the user interface is
local, or remote (in the case of media interaction), is not a
property of the modality of the interface, but rather a property of
the system. As an example, it is possible for a web-based user
interface to be provided with a client-remote user interface. In such
a scenario, video and application sharing media sessions can be used
between the user and the user interface. The user interface, still
guided by HTML, now runs "in the network", remote from the client.
Similarly, a VoiceXML document can be interpreted locally by a client
device, with no media streams at all. Indeed, the VoiceXML document
can be rendered using text, rather than media, with no impact on the
interface between the user interface and the application.
It is also important to note that systems can be hybrid. In a hybrid
user interface, some aspects of it (usually those associated with a
particular modality) run locally, and others run remotely.
3.4 Presentation Capable vs. Presentation Free
A user interface can be capable of presenting information to the user
(a presentation capable UI), or it can be capable only of collecting
user input (a presentation free UI). These are very different types
of user interfaces. A presentation capable UI can provide the user
with feedback after every input, providing the context for collecting
the next input. As a result, presentation capable user interfaces
require an update to the information provided to the user after each
input. The web is a classic example of this. After every input (i.e.,
a click), the browser provides the input to the application and
fetches the next page to render. In a presentation free user
interface, this is not the case. Since the user is not provided with
feedback, these user interfaces tend to merely collect information as
its entered, and pass it to the application.
Another difference is that a presentation-free user interface cannot
support the concept of a focus. As a result, if multiple applications
wish to gather input from the user, there is no way for the user to
select which application the input is destined for. The input
provided to applications through presentation-free user interfaces is
Rosenberg Expires August 16, 2004 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft App Interaction Framework February 2004
more of a broadcast or notification operation, as a result.
3.5 Interaction Scenarios on Telephones
This same model can apply to a telephone. In a traditional telephone,
the user interface consists of a 12-key keypad, a speaker, and a
microphone. Indeed, from here forward, the term "telephone" is used
to represent any device that meets, at a minimum, the characteristics
described in the previous sentence. Circuit-switched telephony
applications are almost universally client-remote user interfaces. In
the Public Switched Telephone Network (PSTN), there is usually a
circuit interface between the user and the user interface. The user
input from the keypad is conveyed used Dual-Tone Multi-Frequency
(DTMF), and the microphone input as Pulse Code Modulated (PCM)
encoded voice.
In an IP-based system, there is more variability in how the system
can be instantiated. Both client-remote and client-local user
interfaces to a telephone can be provided.
In this framework, a PSTN gateway can be considered a "user proxy".
It is a proxy for the user because it can provide, to a user
interface on an IP network, input taken from a user on a circuit
switched telephone. The gateway may be able to run a client-local
user interface, just as an IP telephone might.
3.5.1 Client Remote
The most obvious instantiation is the "classic" circuit-switched
telephony model. In that model, the user interface runs remotely from
the client. The interface between the user and the user interface is
through media, set up by SIP and carried over the Real Time Transport
Protocol (RTP) [14]. The microphone input can be carried using any
suitable voice encoding algorithm. The keypad input can be conveyed
in one of two ways. The first is to convert the keypad input to DTMF,
and then convey that DTMF using a suitance encoding algorithm for it
(such as PCMU). An alternative, and generally the preferred approach,
is to transmit the keypad input using RFC 2833 [15], which provides
an encoding mechanism for carrying keypad input within RTP.
In this classic model, the user interface would run on a server in
the IP network. It would perform speech recognition and DTMF
recognition to derive the user intent, feed them through the user
interface, and provide the result to an application.
3.5.2 Client Local
An alternative model is for the entire user interface to reside on
Rosenberg Expires August 16, 2004 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft App Interaction Framework February 2004
the telephone. The user interface can be a VoiceXML browser, running
speech recognition on the microphone input, and feeding the keypad
input directly into the script. As discussed above, the VoiceXML
script could be rendered using text instead of voice, if the
telephone had a textual display.
3.5.3 Flip-Flop
A middle-ground approach is to flip back and forth between a
client-local and client-remote user interface. Many voice
applications are of the type which listen to the media stream and
wait for some specific trigger that kicks off a more complex user
interaction. The long pound in a pre-paid calling card application is
one example. Another example is a conference recording application,
where the user can press a key at some point in the call to begin
recording. When the key is pressed, the user hears a whisper to
inform them that recording has started.
The ideal way to support such an application is to install a
client-local user interface component that waits for the trigger to
kick off the real interaction. Once the trigger is received, the
application connects the user to a client-remote user interface that
can play announements, collect more information, and so on.
The benefit of flip-flopping between a client-local and client-remote
user interface is cost. The client-local user interface will
eliminate the need to send media streams into the network just to
wait for the user to press the pound key on the keypad.
The Keypad Markup Language (KPML) was designed to support exactly
this kind of need [6]. It models the keypad on a phone, and allows an
application to be informed when any sequence of keys have been
pressed. However, KPML has no presentation component. Since user
interfaces generally require a response to user input, the
presentation will need to be done using a client-remote user
interface that gets instantiated as a result of the trigger.
It is tempting to use a hybrid model, where a prompt-and-collect
application is implemented by using a client-remote user interface
that plays the prompts, and a client-local user interface, described
by KPML, that collects digits. However, this only complicates the
application. Firstly, the keypad input will be sent to both the media
stream and the KPML user interface. This requires the application to
sort out which user inputs are duplicates, a process that is very
complicated. Secondly, the primary benefit of KPML is to avoid having
a media stream towards a user interface. However, there is already a
media stream for the prompting, so there is no real savings.
Rosenberg Expires August 16, 2004 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft App Interaction Framework February 2004
4. Framework Overview
In this framework, we use the term "SIP application" to refer to a
broad set of functionality. A SIP application is a program running on
a SIP-based element (such as a proxy or user agent) that provides
some value-added function to a user or system administrator. SIP
applications can execute on behalf of a caller, a called party, or a
multitude of users at once.
Each application has a number of instances that are executing at any
given time. An instance represents a single execution path for an
application. Each instance has a well defined lifecycle. It is
established as a result of some event. That event can be a SIP event,
such as the reception of a SIP INVITE request, or it can be a non-SIP
event, such as a web form post or even a timer. Application instances
also have a specific end time. Some instances have a lifetime that is
coupled with a SIP transaction or dialog. For example, a proxy
application might begin when an INVITE arrives, and terminate when
the call is answered. Other applications have a lifetime that spans
multiple dialogs or transactions. For example, a conferencing
application instance may exist so long as there are any dialogs
connected to it. When the last dialog terminates, the application
instance terminates. Other applications have a liftime that is
completely decoupled from SIP events.
It is fundamental to the framework described here that multiple
application instances may interact with a user during a single SIP
transaction or dialog. Each instance may be for the same application,
or different applications. Each of the applications may be completely
independent, in that they may be owned by different providers, and
may not be aware of each others existence. Similarly, there may be
application instances interacting with the caller, and instances
interacting with the callee, both within the same transaction or
dialog.
The first step in the interaction with the user is to instantiate one
of more user interface components for the application instance. A
user interface component is a single piece of the user interface that
is defined by a logical flow that is not synchronously coupled with
any other component. In other words, each component runs more or less
independently.
A user interface component can be instantiated in one of the user
agents in a dialog (for a client-local user interface), or within a
network element (for a client-remote user interface). If a
client-local user interface is to be used, the application needs to
determine whether or not the user agent is capable of supporting a
client-local user interface, and in what format. In this framework,
Rosenberg Expires August 16, 2004 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft App Interaction Framework February 2004
all client-local user interface components are described by a markup
language. A markup language describes a logical flow of presentation
of information to the user, collection of information from the user,
and transmission of that information to an application. Examples of
markup languages include HTML, WML, VoiceXML, and the Keypad Markup
Language (KPML) [6].
Unlike an application instance, which has very flexible lifetimes, a
user interface component has a very fixed lifetime. A user interface
component is always associated with a dialog. The user interface
component can be created at any point after the dialog (or early
dialog) is created. However, the user interface component terminates
when the dialog terminates. The user interface component can be
terminated earlier by the user agent, and possibly by the
application, but its lifetime never exceeds that of its associated
dialog.
There are two ways to create a client local interface component. For
interface components that are presentation capable, the application
sends a REFER [5] request to the user agent. The Refer-To header
field contains an HTTP URI that points to the markup for the user
interface. For interface components that are presentation free (such
as those defined by KPML), the application sends a SUBSCRIBE request
to the user agent. The body of the SUBSCRIBE request contains a
filter, which, in this case, is the markup that defines when
information is to be sent to the application in a NOTIFY.
If a user interface component is to be instantiated in the network,
there is no need to determine the capabilities of the device on which
the user interface is instantiated. Presumably, it is on a device on
which the application knows a UI can be created. However, the
application does need to connect the user device to the user
interface. This will require manipulation of media streams in order
to establish that connection.
The interface between the user interface component and the
application depends on the type of user interface. For presentation
capable user interfaces, such as those described by HTML and
VoiceXML, HTTP form POST operations are used. For presentation free
user interfaces, a SIP NOTIFY is used. The differing needs and
capabilities of these two user interfaces, as described in Section
3.4, is what drives the different choices for the interactions. Since
presentation capable user interfaces require an update to the
presentation every time user data is entered, they are a good match
for HTTP. Since presentation free user interfaces merely transmit
user input to the application, a NOTIFY is more appropriate.
Indeed, for presentation free user interfaces, there are two
Rosenberg Expires August 16, 2004 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft App Interaction Framework February 2004
different modalities of operation. The first is called "one shot". In
the one-shot role, the markup waits for a user to enter some
information, and when they do, reports this event to the application.
The application then does something, and the markup is no longer
used. In the other modality, called "monitor", the markup stays
permanently resident, and reports information back to an application
until termination of the associated dialog.
Rosenberg Expires August 16, 2004 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft App Interaction Framework February 2004
5. Application Behavior
The behavior of an application within this framework depends on
whether it seeks to use a client-local or client-remote user
interface.
5.1 Client Local Interfaces
One key component of this framework is support for client local user
interfaces.
5.1.1 Discovering Capabilities
A client local user interface can only be instantiated on a user
agent if the user agent supports that type of user interface
component. Support for client local user interface components is
declared by both the UAC and a UAS in its Accept, Allow, Contact and
Allow-Event header fields of dialog-initiating requests and
responses. If the Allow header field indicates support for the SIP
SUBSCRIBE method, and the Allow-Event header field indicates support
for the kpml package [6], and the Contact header field indicates that
its URI is a GRUU [9] it means that the UA can instantiate
presentation free user interface components. In this case, the
application MAY push presentation free user interface components
according to the rules of Section 5.1.2. The specific markup
languages that can be supported are indicated in the Accept header
field.
If the Allow header field indicates support for the SIP REFER method,
and the Contact header field contains UA capabilities [4] that
indicate support for the HTTP URI scheme, it means that the UA
supports presentation capable user interface components. In this
case, the application MAY push presentation capable user interface
components to the client according to the rules of Section 5.1.2. The
specific markups that are supported are indicated in the Accept
header field.
5.1.2 Pushing an Initial Interface Component
Generally, we anticipate that interface components will need to be
created at various different points in a SIP session. Clearly, they
will need to be pushed during session setup, or after the session is
established. A user interface component is always associated with a
specific dialog, however.
An application MUST NOT attempt to push a user interface component to
a user agent until it has determined that the user agent has the
neccesary capabilities and a dialog has been created. In the case of
Rosenberg Expires August 16, 2004 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft App Interaction Framework February 2004
a UAC, this means that an application MUST NOT push a user interface
component for an INVITE initiated dialog until the application has
seen a 200 OK followed by an ACK. For SUBSCRIBE initiated dialogs, it
MUST NOT push a user interface component until the application has
seen a 200 OK to the NOTIFY request. For a user interface component
on a UAS, the application MUST NOT push a user interface component
for an INVITE initiated dialog until it has seen a 200 OK from the
UAS. For a SUBSCRIBE initiated dialog, it MUST NOT push a user
interface component until it has seen a NOTIFY request from the
notifier.
To create a presentation capable UI component on the UA, the
application sends a REFER request to the UA. This REFER MUST be sent
to the Globally Routable UA URI (GRUU) [9] advertised by that UA in
the Contact header field of the dialog initiating request or response
sent by that UA. Note that this REFER request creates a separate
dialog between the application and the UA. The Refer-To header field
of the REFER request MUST contain an HTTP URI that references the
markup document to be fetched.
OPEN ISSUE: The refer needs to provide a context to the UA, and in
particular, identify the specific dialog that this component is
associated with. There is no obvious candidate for this when REFER
is used. The former proposal, of using a grid, cannot work because
of forking.
To create a presentation free user interface component, the
application sends a SUBSCRIBE request to the UA. The SUBSCRIBE MUST
be sent to the GRUU advertised by the UA. This SUBSCRIBE request
creates a separate dialog. The SUBSCRIBE request MUST use the KPML
[6] event package. The Event header field MUST contain parameters
which identify the particular dialog that the interface component is
being instantiated against. The body of the SUBSCRIBE request
contains the markup document that defines the conditions under which
the application wishes to be notified of user input.
In both cases, the REFER or SUBSCRIBE request SHOULD include a
display name in the From header field which identifies the name of
the application. For example, a prepaid calling card might include a
From header field which looks like:
From: "Prepaid Calling Card" <sip:prepaid@example.com>
To authenticate themselves, it is RECOMMENDED that applications use
the SIP identity mechanism [7] in the REFER or SUBSCRIBE requests
they generate. This mechanism has the benefit that the signature is
over an authenticated identity body [8], which includes the From
Rosenberg Expires August 16, 2004 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft App Interaction Framework February 2004
header field. As such, the client can obtain cryptographic assurances
about the service provider (the domain in the From header field)
along with the name of the application.
5.1.3 Updating an Interface Component
Once a user interface component has been created on a client, it can
be updated. The means for updating it depends on the type of UI
component.
Presentation capable UI components are updated using techniques
already in place for those markups. In particular, user input will
cause an HTTP POST operation to push the user input to the
application. The result of the POST operation is a new markup that
the UI is supposed to use. This allows the UI to updated in response
to user action. Some markups, such as HTML, provide the ability to
force a refresh after a certain period of time, so that the UI can be
updated without user input. Those mechanisms can be used here as
well. However, there is no support for an asynchronous push of an
updated UI component from the appliciation to the user agent. A new
REFER request to the same GRUU would create a new UI component rather
than updating any components already in place.
For presentation free UI, the story is different. The application MAY
update the filter at any time by generating a SUBSCRIBE refresh with
the new filter. The UA will immediately begin using this new filter.
5.1.4 Terminating an Interface Component
User interface components have a well defined lifetime. They are
created when the component is first pushed to the client. User
interface components are always associated with the SIP dialog on
which they were pushed. As such, their lifetime is bound by the
lifetime of the dialog. When the dialog ends, so does the interface
component.
However, there are some cases where the application would like to
terminate the user interface component before its natural termination
point. For presentation capable user interfaces, this is not
possible. For presentation free user interfaces, the application MAY
terminate the component by sending a SUBSCRIBE with Expires equal to
zero. This terminates the subscription, which removes the UI
component.
A client can remove a UI component at any time. For presentation
aware UI, this is analagous to the user dismissing the web form
window. There is no mechanism provided for reporting this kind of
event to the application. The applicatio MUST be prepared to time
Rosenberg Expires August 16, 2004 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft App Interaction Framework February 2004
out, and never receive input from a user. For presentation free user
interfaces, the UA can explicitly terminate the subscription. This
will result in the generation of a NOTIFY with a Subscription-State
header field equal to "terminated".
5.2 Client Remote Interfaces
As an alternative to, or in conjunction with client local user
interfaces, an application can make use of client remote user
interfaces. These user interfaces can execute co-resident with the
application itself (in which case no standardized interfaces between
the UI and the application need to be used), or it can run
separately. This framework assumes that the user interface runs on a
host that has a sufficient trust relationship with the application.
As such, the means for instantiating the user interface is not
considered here.
The primary issue is to connect the user device to the remote user
interface. Doing so requires the manipulation of media streams
between the client and the user interface. Such manipulation can only
be done by user agents. There are two types of user agent
applications within this framework - originating/terminating
applications, and intermediary applications.
5.2.1 Originating and Terminating Applications
Originating and terminating applications are applications which are
themselves the originator or the final recipient of a SIP invitation.
They are "pure" user agent applications - not back-to-back user
agents. The classic example of such an application is an interactive
voice response (IVR) application, which is typically a terminating
application. Its a terminating application because the user
explicitly calls it; i.e., it is the actual called party. An example
of an originating application is a wakeup call application, which
calls a user at a specified time in order to wake them up.
Because originating and terminating applications are a natural
termination point of the dialog, manipulation of the media session by
the application is trivial. Traditional SIP techniques for adding and
removing media streams, modifying codecs, and changing the address of
the recipient of the media streams, can be applied. Similarly, the
application can directly authenticate itself to the user through S/
MIME, since it is the peer UA in the dialog.
5.2.2 Intermediary Applications
Intermediary applications are, at the same time, more common than
originating/terminating applications, and more complex. Intermediary
Rosenberg Expires August 16, 2004 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft App Interaction Framework February 2004
applications are applications that are neither the actual caller or
called party. Rather, they represent a "third party" that wishes to
interact with the user. The classic example is the ubiquitous
pre-paid calling card application.
In order for the intermediary application to add a client remote user
interface, it needs to manipulate the media streams of the user agent
to terminate on that user interface. This also introduces a
fundamental feature interaction issue. Since the intermediary
application is not an actual participant in the call, how does the
user interact with the intermediary application, and its actual peer
in the dialog, at the same time? This is discussed in more detail in
Section 7.
Rosenberg Expires August 16, 2004 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft App Interaction Framework February 2004
6. User Agent Behavior
6.1 Advertising Capabilities
In order to participate in applications that make use of stimulus
interfaces, a user agent needs to advertise its interaction
capabilities.
If a user agent supports presentation capable user interfaces, it
MUST support the REFER method. It MUST include, in all dialog
initiating requests and responses, an Allow header field that
includes the REFER method. Furthermore, the UA MUST support the SIP
user agent capabilities specification [4]. The UA MUST be capable of
being REFER'd to an HTTP URI. It MUST include, in the Contact header
field of its dialog initiating requests and responses, a "schemes"
Contact header field parameter include the http URI scheme. The UA
MUST include, in all dialog initiating requests and responses, an
Accept header field listing all of those markups supported by the UA.
It is RECOMMENDED that all user agents that support presentation
capable user interfaces support HTML.
If a user agent supports presentation free user interfaces, it MUST
support the SUBSCRIBE [2] method. It MUST support the KPML [6] event
package. It MUST include, in all dialog initiating requests and
responses, an Allow header field that includes the SUBSCRIBE method.
It MUST include, in all dialog initiating requests and responses, an
Allow-Events header field that lists the KPML event package. The UA
MUST include, in all dialog initiating requests and responses, an
Accept header field listing those event filters it supports. At a
minimum, a UA MUST support the "application/kpml+xml" MIME type.
For either presentation free or presentation capable user interfaces,
the user agent MUST support the GRUU [9] specification. The Contact
header field in all dialog initiating requests and responses MUST
contain a GRUU. The UA MUST include a Supported header field which
contains the gruu option tag.
Because these headers are examined by proxies which may be executing
applications, a UA that wishes to support client local user
interfaces should not encrypt them.
6.2 Receiving User Interface Components
Once the UA has created a dialog (in either the early or confirmed
states), it MUST be prepared to receive a SUBSCRIBE or REFER request
against its GRUU. If the UA receives such a request prior to the
establishment of a dialog, the UA MUST reject the request.
Rosenberg Expires August 16, 2004 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft App Interaction Framework February 2004
A user agent SHOULD attempt to authenticate the sender of the
request. The sender will generally be an application, and therefore
the user agent is unlikely to ever have a shared secret with it,
making digest authentication useless. However, the REFER or SUBSCRIBE
request should have a SIP authenticated identity body [8] that
conveys the identity of the application [7]. If such a body is not
present, and no alternative means of identification (such as
P-Asserted-ID [11]) is present, the user agent MAY reject the request
with a 403 response.
Next, the user agent authorizes the application. An application is
authorized to instantiate a user interface component if the
application was resident within an element on the path of the dialog
initiating request. An application proves to the user agent that it
was on the path by presenting it with the dialog identifiers in the
SUBSCRIBE or REFER request. In the case of SUBSCRIBE, those
identifiers are present in the Event header field [6]. [[EDITORS
NOTE: Fill in here once we know how this is done for REFER.]]
Because of the dialog identifiers serve as a tool for authorization,
a user agent compliant to this framework MUST use dialog identifiers
that are cryptographically random, with at least 128 bits of
randomness. It is recommended that this randomness be split between
the Call-ID and From header field tag in the case of a UAC.
Furthermore, to ensure that only applications resident in on-path
elements can instantiate a user interface component, a user agent
compliant to this specification SHOULD use the sips URI scheme for
all dialogs it initiates. This will guarantee secure links between
all of the elements on the signaling path.
If an application does not present a valid dialog identifier in its
REFER or SUBSCRIBE request, the user agent MUST reject the request
with a 403 response. A user agent MAY apply any other policies in
addition to (but not instead of) the ones specified here in order to
authorize the creation of the user interface component. One such
mechanism would be to prompt the user, informing them of the identity
of the application. If an authorization policy requires user
interaction, the user agent SHOULD respond to the SUBSCRIBE or REFER
request with a 202. In the case of SUBSCRIBE, if authorization is not
granted, the user agent SHOULD generate a NOTIFY to terminate the
subscription. In the case of REFER, the user agent MUST NOT act upon
the URI in the Refer-To header field until user authorization was
obtained.
If a REFER request to an HTTP URI was authorized, the UA executes the
URI and fetches the content to be rendered to the user. This
instantiates a presentation capable user interface component. If a
Rosenberg Expires August 16, 2004 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft App Interaction Framework February 2004
SUBSCRIBE was authorized, a presentation free user interface
component was instantiated.
6.3 Mapping User Input to User Interface Components
Once the user interface components are instantiated, the user agent
must direct user input to the appropriate component. In the case of
presentation capable user interfaces, this process is known as focus
selection. It is done by means that are specific to the user
interface on the device. In the case of a PC, for example, the window
manager would allow the user to select the appropriate user interface
component that their input is directed to.
For presentation free user interfaces, the situation is more
complicated. In some cases, the device may support a mechanism that
allows the user to select a "line", and thus the associated dialog.
Any user input on the keypad while this line is selected are fed to
the user interface components associated with that dialog.
TODO: Need to consider the case where the user interface is
co-resident with the UAC, but the user device is separated from
the UAC, and occurs through some other protocol, and the user
interface and application are semi-trusted. Classic case is when
the UAC is a PSTN gateway.
6.4 Receiving Updates to User Interface Components
For presentation capable user interfaces, updates to the user
interface occur in ways specific to that user interface component. In
the case of HTML, for example, the document can tell the client to
fetch a new document periodically. However, this framework does not
provide any additional machinery to asynchronously push a new user
interface component to the client.
For presentation free user interfaces, an application can push an
update to a component by sending a SUBSCRIBE refresh with a new
filter. The user agent will process these according to the rules of
the event package.
6.5 Terminating a User Interface Component
Termination of a presentation capable user interface component is a
trivial procedure. The user agent merely dismisses the window (or
equivalent). The fact that the component is dismissed is not
communicated to the application. As such, it is purely a local
matter.
Rosenberg Expires August 16, 2004 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft App Interaction Framework February 2004
In the case of a presentation free user interface, if the user wishes
to cease interacting with the application, it SHOULD generate a
NOTIFY request with a Subscription-State equal to "terminated" and a
reason of "rejected". This tells the application that the component
has been removed, and that it should not attempt to re-subscribe.
Rosenberg Expires August 16, 2004 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft App Interaction Framework February 2004
7. Inter-Application Feature Interaction
The inter-application feature interaction problem is inherent to
stimulus signaling. Whenever there are multiple applications, there
are multiple user interfaces. When the user provides an input, to
which user interface is the input destined? That question is the
essence of the inter-application feature interaction problem.
Inter-application feature interaction is not an easy problem to
resolve. For now, we consider separately the issues for client-local
and client-remote user interface components.
7.1 Client Local UI
When the user interface itself resides locally on the client device,
the feature interaction problem is actually much simpler. The end
device knows explicitly about each application, and therefore can
present the user with each one separately. When the user provides
input, the client device can determine to which user interface the
input is destined. The user interface to which input is destined is
referred to as the application in focus, and the means by which the
focused application is selected is called focus determination.
Generally speaking, focus determination is purely a local operation.
In the PC universe, focus determination is provided by window
managers. Each application does not know about focus, it merely
receives the user input that has been targeted to it when its in
focus. This basic concept applies to SIP-based applications as well.
Focus determination will frequently be trivial, depending on the user
interface type. Consider a user that makes a call from a PC. The call
passes through a pre-paid calling card application, and a call
recording application. Both of these wish to interact with the user.
Both push an HTML-based user interface to the user. On the PC, each
user interface would appear as a separate window. The user interacts
with the call recording application by selecting its window, and with
the pre-paid calling card application by selecting its window. Focus
determination is literally provided by the PC window manager. It is
clear to which application the user input is targeted.
As another example, consider the same two applications, but on a
"smart phone" that has a set of buttons, and next to each button, an
LCD display that can provide the user with an option. This user
interface can be represented using the Wireless Markup Language
(WML).
The phone would allocate some number of buttons to each application.
The prepaid calling card would get one button for its "hangup"
Rosenberg Expires August 16, 2004 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft App Interaction Framework February 2004
command, and the recording application would get one for its "start/
stop" command. The user can easily determine which application to
interact with by pressing the appropriate button. Pressing a button
determines focus and provides user input, both at the same time.
Unfortunately, not all devices will have these advanced displays. A
PSTN gateway, or a basic IP telephone, may only have a 12-key keypad.
The user interfaces for these devices are provided through the Keypad
Markup Language (KPML). Considering once again the feature
interaction case above, the pre-paid calling card application and the
call recording application would both pass a KPML document to the
device. When the user presses a button on the keypad, to which
document does the input apply? The user interface does not allow the
user to select. A user interface where the user cannot provide focus
is called a focusless user interface. This is quite a hard problem to
solve. This framework does not make any explicit normative
recommendation, but concludes that the best option is to send the
input to both user interfaces unless the markup in one interface has
indicated that it should be suppressed from others. This is a
sensible choice by analogy - its exactly what the existing circuit
switched telephone network will do. It is an explicit non-goal to
provide a better mechanism for feature interaction resolution than
the PSTN on devices which have the same user interface as they do on
the PSTN. Devices with better displays, such as PCs or screen phones,
can benefit from the capabilities of this framework, allowing the
user to determine which application they are interacting with.
Indeed, when a user provides input on a focusless device, the input
must be passed to all client local user interfaces, AND all client
remote user interfaces, unless the markup tells the UI to suppress
the media. In the case of KPML, key events are passed to remote user
interfaces by encoding them in RFC 2833 [15]. Of course, since a
client cannot determine if a media stream terminates in a remote user
interface or not, these key events are passed in all audio media
streams unless the "Q" digit is used to suppress.
7.2 Client-Remote UI
When the user interfaces run remotely, the determination of focus can
be much, much harder. There are many architectures that can be
deployed to handle the interaction. None are ideal. However, all are
beyond the scope of this specification.
Rosenberg Expires August 16, 2004 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft App Interaction Framework February 2004
8. Intra Application Feature Interaction
An application can instantiate a multiplicity of user interface
components. For example, a single application can instantiate two
separate HTML components and one WML component. Furthermore, an
application can instantiate both client local and client remote user
interfaces.
The feature interaction issues between these components within the
same application are less severe. If an application has multiple
client user interface components, their interaction is resolved
identically to the inter-application case - through focus
determination. However, the problems in focusless user interfaces
(such as a keypad) generally won't exist, since the application can
generate user interfaces which do not overlap in their usage of an
input.
The real issue is that the optimal user experience frequently
requires some kind of coupling between the differing user interface
components. This is a classic problem in multi-modal user interfaces,
such as those described by Speech Application Language Tags (SALT).
As an example, consider a user interface where a user can either
press a labeled button to make a selection, or listen to a prompt,
and speak the desired selection. Ideally, when the user presses the
button, the prompt should cease immediately, since both of them were
targeted at collecting the same information in parallel. Such
interactions are best handled by markups which natively support such
interactions, such as SALT, and thus require no explicit support from
this framework.
Rosenberg Expires August 16, 2004 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft App Interaction Framework February 2004
9. Example Call Flow
This section shows the operation of a call recording application.
This application allows a user to record the media in their call by
clicking on a button in a web form. The application uses a
presentation capable user interface component that is pushed to the
caller.
A Recording App B
|(1) INVITE | |
|----------------------->| |
| |(2) INVITE |
| |----------------------->|
| |(3) 200 OK |
| |<-----------------------|
|(4) 200 OK | |
|<-----------------------| |
|(5) ACK | |
|----------------------->| |
| |(6) ACK |
| |----------------------->|
|(7) REFER | |
|<-----------------------| |
|(8) 200 OK | |
|----------------------->| |
|(9) NOTIFY | |
|----------------------->| |
|(10) 200 OK | |
|<-----------------------| |
|(11) HTTP GET | |
|----------------------->| |
|(12) 200 OK | |
|<-----------------------| |
|(13) HTTP POST | |
|----------------------->| |
|(14) 200 OK | |
|<-----------------------| |
Figure 3
First, the caller, A, sends an INVITE to setup a call (message 1).
Since the caller supports the framework, and can handle presentation
capable user interface components, it includes the Supported header
field indicating the GRUU is understood, Allow indicating that REFER
is understood, and a Contact header field that includes the "schemes"
header field parameter.
Rosenberg Expires August 16, 2004 [Page 28]
Internet-Draft App Interaction Framework February 2004
INVITE sip:B@example.com SIP/2.0
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP host.example.com;branch=z9hG4bK9zz8
From: Caller <sip:A@example.com>;tag=kkaz-
To: Callee <sip:B@example.com>
Call-ID: faif9a@host.example.com
CSeq: 1 INVITE
Supported: gruu
Allow: INVITE, OPTIONS, BYE, CANCEL, ACK, REFER
Contact: <sip:bad998asd8asd0000a@example.com>;schemes="http,sip"
Content-Length: ...
Content-Type: application/sdp
--SDP not shown--
The proxy acts as a recording server, and forwards the INVITE to the
called party (message 2):
INVITE sip:B@pc.example.com SIP/2.0
Record-Route: <sip:app.example.com;lr>
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP app.example.com;branch=z9hG4bK97sh
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP host.example.com;branch=z9hG4bK9zz8
From: Caller <sip:A@example.com>;tag=kkaz-
To: Callee <sip:B@example.com>
Call-ID: faif9a@host.example.com
CSeq: 1 INVITE
Supported: gruu
Allow: INVITE, OPTIONS, BYE, CANCEL, ACK, REFER
Contact: <sip:bad998asd8asd0000a@example.com>;schemes="http,sip"
Content-Length: ...
Content-Type: application/sdp
--SDP not shown--
B accepts the call with a 200 OK (message 3). It does not support the
framework, and so the various header fields are not present.
SIP/2.0 200 OK
Record-Route: <sip:app.example.com;lr>
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP app.example.com;branch=z9hG4bK97sh
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP host.example.com;branch=z9hG4bK9zz8
From: Caller <sip:A@example.com>;tag=kkaz-
To: Callee <sip:B@example.com>;tag=7777
Call-ID: faif9a@host.example.com
CSeq: 1 INVITE
Contact: <sip:B@pc.example.com>
Content-Length: ...
Rosenberg Expires August 16, 2004 [Page 29]
Internet-Draft App Interaction Framework February 2004
Content-Type: application/sdp
--SDP not shown--
This 200 OK is passed back to the caller (message 4):
SIP/2.0 200 OK
Record-Route: <sip:app.example.com;lr>
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP host.example.com;branch=z9hG4bK9zz8
From: Caller <sip:A@example.com>;tag=kkaz-
To: Callee <sip:B@example.com>;tag=7777
Call-ID: faif9a@host.example.com
CSeq: 1 INVITE
Contact: <sip:B@pc.example.com>
Content-Length: ...
Content-Type: application/sdp
--SDP not shown--
The caller generates an ACK (message 5).
ACK sip:B@pc.example.com
Route: <sip:app.example.com;lr>
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP host.example.com;branch=z9hG4bK9zz9
From: Caller <sip:A@example.com>;tag=kkaz-
To: Callee <sip:B@example.com>;tag=7777
Call-ID: faif9a@host.example.com
CSeq: 1 ACK
The ACK is forwarded to the called party (message 6).
ACK sip:B@pc.example.com
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP app.example.com;branch=z9hG4bKh7s
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP host.example.com;branch=z9hG4bK9zz9
From: Caller <sip:A@example.com>;tag=kkaz-
To: Callee <sip:B@example.com>;tag=7777
Call-ID: faif9a@host.example.com
CSeq: 1 ACK
Now, the application decides to push a user interface component to
user A. So, it sends it a REFER request (message 7):
Rosenberg Expires August 16, 2004 [Page 30]
Internet-Draft App Interaction Framework February 2004
REFER sip:bad998asd8asd0000a@example.com SIP/2.0
Refer-To: http://app.example.com/script.pl
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP app.example.com;branch=z9hG4bK9zh6
From: Recorder Application <sip:app.example.com>;tag=jhgf
To: Caller <sip:A@example.com>
Call-ID: 66676776767@app.example.com
CSeq: 1 REFER
Event: refer
Contact: <sip:sip:app.example.com>
The REFER is answered by a 200 OK (message 8).
SIP/2.0 200 OK
Refer-To: http://app.example.com/script.pl
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP app.example.com;branch=z9hG4bK9zh6
From: Recorder Application <sip:app.example.com>;tag=jhgf
To: Caller <sip:A@example.com>;tag=pqoew
Call-ID: 66676776767@app.example.com
Supported: gruu
Allow: INVITE, OPTIONS, BYE, CANCEL, ACK, REFER
Contact: <sip:bad998asd8asd0000a@example.com>;schemes="http,sip"
CSeq: 1 REFER
User A sends a NOTIFY (message 9):
NOTIFY sip:app.example.com SIP/2.0
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP host.example.com;branch=z9hG4bK9320394238995
To: Recorder Application <sip:app.example.com>;tag=jhgf
From: Caller <sip:A@example.com>;tag=pqoew
Call-ID: 66676776767@app.example.com
CSeq: 1 NOTIFY
Max-Forwards: 70
Event: refer;id=93809824
Subscription-State: active;expires=3600
Contact: <sip:bad998asd8asd0000a@example.com>;schemes="http,sip"
Content-Type: message/sipfrag;version=2.0
Content-Length: 20
SIP/2.0 100 Trying
And the recording server responds with a 200 OK (message 10)
SIP/2.0 200 OK
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP host.example.com;branch=z9hG4bK9320394238995
To: Recorder Application <sip:app.example.com>;tag=jhgf
Rosenberg Expires August 16, 2004 [Page 31]
Internet-Draft App Interaction Framework February 2004
From: Caller <sip:A@example.com>;tag=pqoew
Call-ID: 66676776767@app.example.com
CSeq: 1 NOTIFY
The caller, A, authorizes the application. It then acts on the
Refer-To URI, fetching the script from app.example.com (message 11).
The response, message 12, contains a web application that the user
can click on to enable recording. When the user clicks on the link
(message 13), the results are posted to the server, and an updated
display is provided (message 14).
Rosenberg Expires August 16, 2004 [Page 32]
Internet-Draft App Interaction Framework February 2004
10. Security Considerations
There are many security considerations associated with this
framework. It allows applications in the network to instantiate user
interface components on a client device. Such instantiations need to
be from authenticated applications, and also need to be authorized to
place a UI into the client. Indeed, the stronger requirement is
authorization. It is not so important to know that name of the
provider of the application, but rather, that the provider is
authorized to instantiate components.
Generally, an application should be considered authorized if it was
an application that was legitimately part of the call setup path.
With this definition, authorization can be enforced using the sips
URI scheme when the call is initiated.
Rosenberg Expires August 16, 2004 [Page 33]
Internet-Draft App Interaction Framework February 2004
11. Contributors
This document was produced as a result of discussions amongst the
application interaction design team. All members of this team
contributed significantly to the ideas embodied in this document. The
members of this team were:
Eric Burger
Cullen Jennings
Robert Fairlie-Cuninghame
Rosenberg Expires August 16, 2004 [Page 34]
Internet-Draft App Interaction Framework February 2004
Normative References
[1] Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., Camarillo, G., Johnston, A.,
Peterson, J., Sparks, R., Handley, M. and E. Schooler, "SIP:
Session Initiation Protocol", RFC 3261, June 2002.
[2] Roach, A., "Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)-Specific Event
Notification", RFC 3265, June 2002.
[3] McGlashan, S., Lucas, B., Porter, B., Rehor, K., Burnett, D.,
Carter, J., Ferrans, J. and A. Hunt, "Voice Extensible Markup
Language (VoiceXML) Version 2.0", W3C CR CR-voicexml20-20030220,
February 2003.
[4] Rosenberg, J., "Indicating User Agent Capabilities in the
Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)",
draft-ietf-sip-callee-caps-03 (work in progress), January 2004.
[5] Sparks, R., "The Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Refer
Method", RFC 3515, April 2003.
[6] Burger, E., "Keypad Stimulus Protocol (KPML)",
draft-ietf-sipping-kpml-02 (work in progress), February 2004.
[7] Peterson, J., "Enhancements for Authenticated Identity
Management in the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)",
draft-ietf-sip-identity-01 (work in progress), March 2003.
[8] Peterson, J., "SIP Authenticated Identity Body (AIB) Format",
draft-ietf-sip-authid-body-02 (work in progress), July 2003.
[9] Rosenberg, J., "Obtaining and Using Globally Routable User Agent
(UA) URIs (GRUU) in the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)",
draft-ietf-sip-gruu-00 (work in progress), January 2004.
Rosenberg Expires August 16, 2004 [Page 35]
Internet-Draft App Interaction Framework February 2004
Informative References
[10] Day, M., Rosenberg, J. and H. Sugano, "A Model for Presence and
Instant Messaging", RFC 2778, February 2000.
[11] Jennings, C., Peterson, J. and M. Watson, "Private Extensions
to the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) for Asserted Identity
within Trusted Networks", RFC 3325, November 2002.
[12] Rosenberg, J., "A Framework for Conferencing with the Session
Initiation Protocol",
draft-ietf-sipping-conferencing-framework-01 (work in
progress), October 2003.
[13] Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H. and P. Kyzivat, "Caller
Preferences for the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)",
draft-ietf-sip-callerprefs-10 (work in progress), October 2003.
[14] Schulzrinne, H., Casner, S., Frederick, R. and V. Jacobson,
"RTP: A Transport Protocol for Real-Time Applications", RFC
3550, July 2003.
[15] Schulzrinne, H. and S. Petrack, "RTP Payload for DTMF Digits,
Telephony Tones and Telephony Signals", RFC 2833, May 2000.
Author's Address
Jonathan Rosenberg
dynamicsoft
600 Lanidex Plaza
Parsippany, NJ 07054
US
Phone: +1 973 952-5000
EMail: jdrosen@dynamicsoft.com
URI: http://www.jdrosen.net
Rosenberg Expires August 16, 2004 [Page 36]
Internet-Draft App Interaction Framework February 2004
Intellectual Property Statement
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
intellectual property or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; neither does it represent that it
has made any effort to identify any such rights. Information on the
IETF's procedures with respect to rights in standards-track and
standards-related documentation can be found in BCP-11. Copies of
claims of rights made available for publication and any assurances of
licenses to be made available, or the result of an attempt made to
obtain a general license or permission for the use of such
proprietary rights by implementors or users of this specification can
be obtained from the IETF Secretariat.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights which may cover technology that may be required to practice
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF Executive
Director.
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). 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 assignees.
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
Rosenberg Expires August 16, 2004 [Page 37]
Internet-Draft App Interaction Framework February 2004
HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Acknowledgment
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society.
Rosenberg Expires August 16, 2004 [Page 38]
