1 / 22

draft-levin-xcon-cccp-01.txt

draft-levin-xcon-cccp-01.txt. By Orit Levin oritl@microsoft.com. 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

utsey
Download Presentation

draft-levin-xcon-cccp-01.txt

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. draft-levin-xcon-cccp-01.txt By Orit Levin oritl@microsoft.com XCON WG Interim

  2. 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 XCON WG Interim

  3. 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” XCON WG Interim

  4. Choosing a preferred syntax From “Data Manipulation” to “Semantics Oriented” XCON WG Interim

  5. 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” XCON WG Interim

  6. 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 XCON WG Interim

  7. A-la draft-levin-xcon-cccp-00.txt (cont.) <request requestId="1“ from="sip:someone@example.com“ to="conf1@mcu.example.com"> <content entity="sips:conf233@example.com"> <users> <user entity="sip:bob@example.com"> <display-text>Bob Hoskins</display-text> <endpoint entity="sip:bob@pc4.example.com"> <display-text>Bob's Laptop</display-text> <joining-method>dialed-out</joining-method> <media id="1"> <display-text>main audio</display-text> <proto>audio</proto> </media> </endpoint> <operator><code>add</code></operator> </user> </users> </content> </request> XCON WG Interim

  8. 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) XCON WG Interim

  9. A-la deprecated draft-simple-tbd-02.txt (cont.) <request requestId="1“ from="sip:someone@example.com“ to="conf1@mcu.example.com"> <add parent=“conference-state[@entity=&sips:conf233@example.com]"> <![CDATA[ <user entity="sip:bob@example.com"> <display-text>Bob Hoskins</display-text> <endpoint entity="sip:bob@pc4.example.com"> <display-text>Bob's Laptop</display-text> <joining-method>dialed-out</joining-method> <media id="1"> <display-text>main audio</display-text> <proto>audio</proto> </media> </endpoint> </user> ]]> </add> </request> XCON WG Interim

  10. A-la draft-levin-xcon-cccp-01.txt • Operation is explicit and not limited to “data manipulations” • Keys are “strong typed” XCON WG Interim

  11. A-la draft-levin-xcon-cccp-01.txt (cont.) CONFERENCE KEYS TYPE <xs:complexType name="conference-keys-type"> <xs:attribute name="confEntity" type="xs:anyURI"/> <xs:anyAttribute namespace="##other"/> </xs:complexType> USER KEYS TYPE <xs:complexType name="user-keys-type"> <xs:attribute name="confEntity" type="xs:anyURI"/> <xs:attribute name="userEntity" type="xs:anyURI"/> <xs:anyAttribute namespace="##other"/> </xs:complexType> ENDPOINT KEYS TYPE <xs:complexType name="endpoint-keys-type"> <xs:attribute name="confEntity" type="xs:anyURI"/> <xs:attribute name="userEntity" type="xs:anyURI"/> <xs:attribute name="endpointEntity" type="xs:anyURI"/> <xs:anyAttribute namespace="##other"/> </xs:complexType> MEDIA KEYS TYPE <xs:complexType name="media-keys-type"> <xs:attribute name="confEntity" type="xs:anyURI"/> <xs:attribute name="userEntity" type="xs:anyURI"/> <xs:attribute name="endpointEntity" type="xs:anyURI"/> <xs:attribute name="mediaId" type="xs:string"/> <xs:anyAttribute namespace="##other"/> </xs:complexType> XCON WG Interim

  12. A-la draft-levin-xcon-cccp-01.txt (cont.) <request requestId="1“ from="sip:someone@example.com“ to="conf1@mcu.example.com"> <addUser> <conferenceKeys confEntity="sip:conf233@example.com"/> <user entity="sip:bob@example.com"> <display-text>Bob Hoskins</display-text> <endpoint entity="sip:bob@pc4.example.com"> <display-text>Bob's Laptop</display-text> <joining-method>dialed-out</joining-method> <media id="1"> <display-text>main audio</display-text> <proto>audio</proto> </media> </endpoint> </user> </addUser> </request> XCON WG Interim

  13. Advantages of syntax as inCCCP-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 XCON WG Interim

  14. Choosing a preferred syntax Can the requests be expressed using the same types as the resulted state? XCON WG Interim

  15. 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” XCON WG Interim

  16. CCCP Scope XCON WG Interim

  17. 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 XCON WG Interim

  18. Transaction Model XCON WG Interim

  19. 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" XCON WG Interim

  20. 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 XCON WG Interim

  21. 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. XCON WG Interim

  22. Thanks… XCON WG Interim

More Related