Network Working Group                                         C. Perkins
Internet-Draft                                     University of Glasgow
Expires: January 25, 2007                                  July 24, 2006


                        The SDP 'txp' Attribute
                  draft-perkins-mmusic-sdp-txp-00.txt

Status of this Memo

   By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
   applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
   have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
   aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups.  Note that
   other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
   Drafts.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.

   This Internet-Draft will expire on January 25, 2007.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).

Abstract

   This memo defines a new Session Description Protocol (SDP) attribute
   'txp'.  This is used to indicate that a text device has limited
   presentation capabilities.









Perkins                 Expires January 25, 2007                [Page 1]


Internet-Draft           The SDP 'txp' Attribute               July 2006


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
   2.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
   3.  The SDP 'txp' Attribute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
   4.  The 'txp' Attribute in the Offer/Answer Model . . . . . . . . . 4
   5.  Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
   6.  Relation to the SDP Content Attribute . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
   7.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
   8.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
   9.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
   10. Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
   Author's Address  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
   Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements  . . . . . . . . . . 8





































Perkins                 Expires January 25, 2007                [Page 2]


Internet-Draft           The SDP 'txp' Attribute               July 2006


1.  Introduction

   *** This draft is a strawman proposal for discussion purposes ***

   The Session Description Protocol (SDP) is a protocol that is intended
   for describing multimedia sessions for the purposes of session
   announcement, session invitation, and other forms of multimedia
   session initiation.  One of the most typical use cases of SDP is the
   one where it is used with the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP).

   When interworking with legacy devices through a gateway, an IP based
   text phone using SIP/SDP may be required to limit its capabilities to
   match those devices.  For example, V.21 textphones are full duplex in
   transport, but have varying handling of the presentation.  Some
   merges the two sources in one window.  Some have a kind of irc-like
   display with labels in front of the parties text.  And yet some do a
   split in two windows of real-time text from each direction.

   In order for an IP-based text phone to display an appropriate user
   interface when interacting with one of these legacy devices, it is
   necessary to convey a parameter indicating the limited capability of
   the legacy device.  This memo defines such a parameter.


2.  Terminology

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [1].


3.  The SDP 'txp' Attribute

   This specification defines a new media-level value attribute, 'txp'.
   Its formatting in SDP is described by the following BNF:

       txp-attribute = "a=txp"

   The 'txp' attribute indicates that the media stream is originated
   from a textphone with some presentation limitation.  This limited
   device capability makes it probable that the user should apply formal
   turntaking habits that are common among text telephone users in the
   PSTN.  The indication should be used for an indication in the user
   interface.

   A typical use case is a connection where one endpoint is an analog
   textphone of a kind that merges text from both ends in the same
   window, and the other one is a native IP based real time text capable



Perkins                 Expires January 25, 2007                [Page 3]


Internet-Draft           The SDP 'txp' Attribute               July 2006


   terminal.  The human user of the IP terminal need to change behaviour
   when this indication is received, and apply formal turn-taking
   habits.  They may also need to figure out to what extent it is
   possible to interrupt the other party if the need arises, because
   that possibility varies between textphone types.


4.  The 'txp' Attribute in the Offer/Answer Model

   When it is interacting with a legacy device, an IP text phone may
   receive an offer that contains the 'txp' attribute.  That attribute
   then acts as a cue to configure the user interface appropriately,
   although there is nothing in the generated answer to indicate that
   this has been done (*** should there be? ***).  Similiarly, if an
   answer is received that contains a 'txp' attribute, that indicates
   that the remote device has limited capabilities, and the user-
   interface should present some indication of this to the user.

   This specification does not define a means to discover whether or not
   the peer endpoint understands the 'txp' attribute.  Indeed, the 'txp'
   attribute is informative only at the offer/answer model level.  The
   fact that the peer endpoint does not understand the 'txp' attribute
   does not keep the media session from being established.  The only
   consequence is that user interaction may be initially disrupted,
   since the user interface will not be configured to match the
   capabilities of legacy devices, and users will have to intuit that
   turn taking is needed.

   Since the 'txp' attribute does not have to be understood, an SDP
   answer MAY contain 'txp' attributes even if none were present in the
   offer.  Similarly, the answer MAY contain no 'txp' attributes even if
   they were present in the offer.

   Use of the 'txp' attribute where SDP is used in the declarative
   style, for example with the Session Announcement Protocol, is for
   further study.


5.  Example

   The following example shows the use of the 'txp' attribute with SDP.










Perkins                 Expires January 25, 2007                [Page 4]


Internet-Draft           The SDP 'txp' Attribute               July 2006


          v=0
          o=Alice 292742730 29277831 IN IP4 131.163.72.4
          s=-
          c=IN IP4 131.164.74.2
          t=0 0
          m=text 52886 RTP/AVP 100
          a=rtpmap:100 t140/8000
          a=txp


6.  Relation to the SDP Content Attribute

   There is a proposal to use the SDP Content Attribute to signal that a
   text device has limited capabilities, using "a=content:txp".  This is
   not an appropriate use of the content attribute, since the content
   attribute is intended to describe only the content of a media stream,
   not to define the capabilities of the device that is generating that
   stream.


7.  Security Considerations

   An attacker may attempt to add, modify, or remove 'txp' attributes
   from a session description.  This could result in an application
   behaving in an undesirable way.  So, it is strongly RECOMMENDED that
   integrity protection be applied to the SDP session descriptions.  For
   session descriptions carried in SIP, S/MIME is the natural choice to
   provide such end-to-end integrity protection, as described in RFC
   3261.  Other applications MAY use a different form of integrity
   protection.


8.  IANA Considerations

   The new SDP attribute "txp" is registered (see Section 3).  This is a
   media level attribute and is not dependent on charset.


9.  Acknowledgements

   Most of the text in this draft is taken from the SDP Content
   Attribute draft (draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-media-content-04.txt).  Other
   text comes from suggestions on the MMUSIC mailing list by Gunnar
   Hellstrom and Arnoud van Wijk.







Perkins                 Expires January 25, 2007                [Page 5]


Internet-Draft           The SDP 'txp' Attribute               July 2006


10.  Normative References

   [1]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement
        Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.















































Perkins                 Expires January 25, 2007                [Page 6]


Internet-Draft           The SDP 'txp' Attribute               July 2006


Author's Address

   Colin Perkins
   University of Glasgow
   Department of Computing Science
   17 Lilybank Gardens
   Glasgow  G12 8QQ
   UK

   Email: csp@csperkins.org









































Perkins                 Expires January 25, 2007                [Page 7]


Internet-Draft           The SDP 'txp' Attribute               July 2006


Intellectual Property Statement

   The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
   Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
   pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
   this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
   might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
   made any independent effort to identify any such rights.  Information
   on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
   found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
   assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
   attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
   such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
   specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
   http://www.ietf.org/ipr.

   The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
   copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
   rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
   this standard.  Please address the information to the IETF at
   ietf-ipr@ietf.org.


Disclaimer of Validity

   This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
   "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
   OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET
   ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
   INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE
   INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
   WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.


Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).  This document is subject
   to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and
   except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights.


Acknowledgment

   Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
   Internet Society.




Perkins                 Expires January 25, 2007                [Page 8]