RE: [Sipping] Requirements for the identification of IMS communic ation services.
"Drage, Keith (Keith)" <drage@lucent.com> Sun, 26 March 2006 16:25 UTC
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FNY3B-0002j4-C8; Sun, 26 Mar 2006 11:25:09 -0500
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FNY3A-0002iz-Ux for sipping@ietf.org; Sun, 26 Mar 2006 11:25:08 -0500
Received: from hoemail2.lucent.com ([192.11.226.163]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FNY39-0006TC-9M for sipping@ietf.org; Sun, 26 Mar 2006 11:25:08 -0500
Received: from uk0006exch001h.wins.lucent.com (h135-221-14-69.lucent.com [135.221.14.69]) by hoemail2.lucent.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id k2QGOxVl017367; Sun, 26 Mar 2006 10:25:00 -0600 (CST)
Received: by uk0006exch001h.uk.lucent.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72) id <G058KD2X>; Sun, 26 Mar 2006 17:24:59 +0100
Message-ID: <475FF955A05DD411980D00508B6D5FB0127491C7@en0033exch001u.uk.lucent.com>
From: "Drage, Keith (Keith)" <drage@lucent.com>
To: Jonathan Rosenberg <jdrosen@cisco.com>, "Stephen Terrill (E2/EEM)" <stephen.terrill@ericsson.com>
Subject: RE: [Sipping] Requirements for the identification of IMS communic ation services.
Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2006 17:24:56 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by hoemail2.lucent.com id k2QGOxVl017367
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 2c6813ed945e40b4b5bea39da243c669
Cc: Rohan Mahy <rohan@ekabal.com>, sipping <sipping@ietf.org>, "Gonzalo Camarillo (JO/LMF)" <gonzalo.camarillo@ericsson.com>, Dean Willis <dean.willis@softarmor.com>
X-BeenThere: sipping@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: "SIPPING Working Group \(applications of SIP\)" <sipping.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipping>, <mailto:sipping-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:sipping@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sipping-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipping>, <mailto:sipping-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: sipping-bounces@ietf.org
It is worth noting that the document quoted by Jonathan is normatively referenced in its entirety as part of both the OMA and 3GPP presence stage 3 specifications. regards Keith > -----Original Message----- > From: Jonathan Rosenberg [mailto:jdrosen@cisco.com] > Sent: 22 March 2006 15:53 > To: Stephen Terrill (E2/EEM) > Cc: Rohan Mahy; sipping; Gonzalo Camarillo (JO/LMF); Dean Willis > Subject: Re: [Sipping] Requirements for the identification of IMS > communication services. > > > Here are my thoughts on this topic. > > Firstly, you are correct that there is a fairly extensive > discussion on > this topic in terms of presence. I'd strongly suggest that > folks take a > look at: > > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-simple-presence > -data-model-07.txt > > and in particular, Section 3.3 on Services and Section 3.3.2, which > describes Reach Information. I'll quote three paragraphs that are > particularly relevant to this discussion: > > > > It is difficult to give a precise definition for service. One > > reasonable approach is to model each software or > hardware agent in > > the system as a service. If a user starts a softphone > application on > > their PC, then that represents a service. If a user has > a videophone > > device, then that represents another service. This is > effectively a > > physical view of services. This definition, however, > starts to fall > > apart when a service is spread across multiple software agents or > > devices. For example, a SIP URI representing an > address-of-record > > can be routed to a softphone or a videophone, or both. > In that case, > > one might attempt instead to define a service based on > its address on > > the network. This definition also falls apart when > modeling devices > > or applications that receive calls and dispatch them to different > > "helpers" based on potentially complex logic. For example, a > > cellular telephone might house multiple SIP applications, each of > > which can "register" different handlers based on the > method or even > > body type of the request. Each of those applications or > handlers can > > rightfully be considered a service, but it doesn't have > an address on > > the network distinct from the others. > > > > Because of this inherent difficulty in precisely > defining a service, > > the data model doesn't try to constrain what can be considered a > > service. Rather, anything can be considered a service > so long as it > > exhibits a set of key properties defined by this model. In > > particular, Each service is associated with characteristics which > > identify the nature and capabilities of that service, with reach > > information that indicates how to connect to the > service, with status > > information representing the state of that service, and relative > > information that describes the ways in which that > service relates to > > others associated with the presentity. > > > > As a consequence, in this model, services are not explicitly > > enumerated. There is no central registry where one > finds identifiers > > for each service. Consequently, each service does not > have a single > > "service" attribute with values such as "ptt" or > "telephony". That > > doesnt mean that these consolidated monikers aren't > useful; indeed, > > they represent an essential summary of what the service is. Such > > summarization is useful in creating icons that allow a > user to choose > > one service over another. > > Regardless of whether you use presence or not, the discussion and > guidance here are directly applicable to this topic. > > They key takeaway is that there are many dangers to interoperability > associated with the explicit enumeration of services; they require > global definition and agreement, and they result in (when > taken to the > extreme), a separation of SIP communications into multiple parallel, > non-interoperable SIP networks, one for each vendor or > service providers > definition of what the service is. I believe others have commented on > this within this thread. Nothing would be a greater crime to global > interoperability for 3gpp to define a service called 'voip' and then > require that only calls tagged with this service be processed > and routed > to the 'voip' client on each phone. This would inhibit the ability of > clients outside of 3gpp to ever communicate with 3gpp endpoints, and > that is something I am sure we all want to avoid. > > That said, the text above recognizes that there are cases > where you need > to reach a specific instance of software in an endpoint because the > communications is in the context of that application, and is truly > meangingless outside of it. One example is voice > communications that are > part of a multiplayer game, where the voice is in concert > with non-sip > protocols that facilitate the game. In such a case, when I > start a game, > and try and connect with another user, unless that user is > also running > the game software, the voice communications should not take place. It > would be non-sensical to connect to, for example, a regular > telephone or > voice-capable softphone that lacks the game. > > The presence data model recognizes this, but strongly recommends that > the URI itself be distinct for each of these. Distinct URI > are readily > obtained through presence. Each presence document would have > a number of > 'tuples', each of which identifies a unique service. Each > unique service > has a unique service URI, which represents the mechanism I use to > contact someone for that service. In the case of the game, the ideal > solution is that I, in invoking this game, would subscribe to the > presence of sip:joe@example.com, get back their presence, > find the one > matching the game I'm interested in, and the select that URI. All of > that can happen automatically. > > The data model further states that there are cases where the > URI cannot > be used as a unique identifier for services, and indeed it > calls out the > use case of a cellular phone, which is the exact case I > believe you are > worried about. In that case, it recommends tecnologies like > caller prefs > for this purpose. However, I will restate an important > sentence in the > above: > > > Since the reach > > information has to be understood in order for the service to be > > utilized, reach information beyond the URI should be > defined and used > > sparingly. > > > With an emphasis on SPARINGLY. > > Your text below has me quite worried that these guidelines > are not being > adequately followed, and that will result in substantial > interoperability problems. > > > Thanks, > Jonathan R. > > Stephen Terrill (E2/EEM) wrote: > > > Hello All, > > > > I am of the understanding that there have been some > questions regarding > > the requirements for the identification of IMS services. I > would like > > to provide an understanding of the 3GPP discussions on this > topic. As I > > see it, the need to identify the IMS communication services > stems from > > that we have/are devloping different services on IMS as a SIP > > infrastructure, such as push-to-talk over cellular (PoC) or > messaging. > > As there are different services and as it is not safe to > rely on the > > expressed media as the media may be used in different services then > > there is the need to identify the service that is > requisted. This could > > be seen as a means to identify the context upon which to > interpret the > > SIP signalling. This is required to e.g. Identify the application > > server that supports this communication service and to identify the > > client to invoke in the terminating network. While > writting this, I > > seem to recall a parrallel discussion in relation to > presence, and that > > was along the lines that was that it was required to identify the > > service that was used to communicate in the presence, as > otherwise two > > if the same presence information appeared for two > incompatabile services > > (e.g. two incomptable versions of push to talk) which > fulfulled the same > > end-user expectation appeared the same in presence, then > the end-user > > would get confused as to why s/he could communicate with > some users but > > not with others. > > > > Please note that this is not intended to identify service that are > > routed to, such as train time tables etc. For these services, the > > communication services is a means to route to and reach the > ultimtate > > end-user service. This discussion is about how to identify the > > communication service. > > > > This has been discussed at an architectural level within 3GPP and a > > Technical Report has been produced. The Technical report > can be found > > at > _http://www.3gpp.org/ftp/Specs/Latest-drafts/23816-110.zip_. This > > has been moved to approved status this week. The essence of this > > technical report has been included in specification text > which can be > > captured in > > > _http://www.3gpp.org/ftp/tsg_sa/WG2_Arch/TSGS2_50_Budapest/Doc > s/S2-060468.ZIP_ > > and > > > _http://www.3gpp.org/ftp/tsg_sa/WG2_Arch/TSGS2_50_Budapest/Doc > s/S2-060469.ZIP_ > > . Note that the changes included in S2-060468.ZIP are > changes to what > > was already included in the specification text last year. These > > documents represent the approved requirements within 3GPP. > > > > I can appreciate that a number of readers prefer to read > this in text > > instead of word, as such the approved 3GPP text that has > been included > > in the specifications is included below. As such, the text > below are > > the 3GPP stage 2 representation of the requirements. It is worth > > keeping in mind that the text below represensts archtectural > > requirements and not the protocol realisation of these requirements. > > > > Please don't hesitate to contact me if you have any questions. > > > > I apologies in advance to the references to the 3GPP > interfaces, they > > are retained as I though it was better to avoid modifying > any of the > > agreed text when copying it into this email. > > > > Best Regards, > > > > Stephen Terrill > > > > <Specification Text> > > 4.13.2 Identification of IMS communication Services > > A communication service identifier provides a framework for the > > identification of IMS communication services utilising the IMS > > enablers. An IMS communication service is provided via the > use of the > > IMS enablers. At terminals, the use of a communication service > > identifier is similar to the use of the port concept in > TCP/IP, in that > > it allows applications in a terminal and the network that > use SIP for > > communication purposes to be identified. In the terminal this means > > dispatching a SIP message to the correct application, and > in the network > > it means selection of the correct application server over > ISC. Examples > > of IMS based applications and communication services are > OMA messaging > > and OMA PoC. > > > > The communication service is an aggregation of one or several media > > components and the service logic managing the aggregation, > represented > > in the protocols used. Its behaviour and characteristics may be > > standardized as done for the two examples above, or proprietary and > > specific for e.g. an operator or an enterprise. > > > > A service description specifies this behaviour and states e.g. the > > allowed media combinations and state transitions as a > consequence of > > signalling and use of IMS enablers in the network and terminals. > > > > The need of applying a service identifier is to be taken within the > > specification of each individual service. > > The communication service identifier identifies IMS communication > > services and shall be included in the relevant SIP methods. > > > > The IMS communication service identifier shall fulfil the following > > requirements: > > 1. It shall be possible for the UE and an Application > Server (AS) to set > > the > > IMS communication service identifier in a SIP request, > e.g. in the > > REGISTER and INVITE request. > > 2. Based on operator policy the S-CSCF or an AS shall be able to > > validate an > > IMS communication service identifier in a SIP request. > This includes > > e.g. > > to check the syntactical correctness of a service > identifier, and > > policing > > the usage of a communication service identifier. > > 3. It shall be possible, e.g. for the UE, S-CSCF and AS, to > identify an > > IMS service uniquely by the IMS communication service identifier. > > 4. It shall be possible for the S-CSCF to invoke appropriate service > > logic based on the IMS communication service identifier contained > > in a SIP request, e.g. route a SIP request containing a service > > identifier > > based on initial filter criteria to the correct AS. > > 5. It shall be possible for the UE to invoke appropriate application > > based on the IMS communication service identifier contained in a > > received SIP request. > > 6. It shall be possible for the UE to indicate its service > capabilities > > to the network, e.g. during registration, using the > > IMS communication service identifier. > > 7. The structure of the IMS communication service > identifier shall be as > > simple as possible, i.e. the IMS communication service > identifier shall > > be limited to identify a service. > > 8. Based on operator policy S-CSCF and AS shall consider the > > IMS communication service identifier for online and > offline charging, > > e.g. put appropriate data into call detailed records. > > 9. The communication service identifier shall be capable of being an > > input into the policy control and charging rules. > > 10. It shall be possible to use the IMS communication > service identifier as > > a means to authorise whether a subscriber is allowed to > initiate or > > receive request for a communication service. > > 11. The communication service identifier shall be taken into account > > when selecting the correct UE(s), if multiple UEs are registered > > for the same Public User Identity(s). > > 12. The usage of communication service identifiers shall > not adversely > > affect interoperability between IMS networks and > interoperability > > with external SIP networks and CS networks. The > behaviour of a network > > receiving the IMS requests without an IMS communication service > > identifier is a matter of operator policy. Usage of > communication > > service identifiers shall not decrease the level of > interoperability > > with networks and UEs that are unaware of the > communication service > > identifier. > > 13. It shall be possible for the IMS network and UE to support > > communications > > that do not use a communication service identifier. In > the case that an > > IMS communication service identifier is not present > then the network > > may > > assume a particular IMS communication service. > > 14. The usage of communication service identifiers shall > not restrict > > the inherent > > capabilities of SIP. > > 15. The usage of communication service identifiers shall > not require > > additional user > > interaction, i .e. the communication service identifier > is assumed > > to be added by the UE that initiates the communication. > > > > The network and the terminal shall be able to continue operation as > > defined in 3GPP Release 5 and 3GPP Release 6. > > > > The communication service identifier shall be available at > least in the > > following interfaces: > > - ISC; Gm; Mi, Mj, Mk, Mw; Mg; Mr; > > - Cx; Dx (e.g as part of the iFC); > > - Rx; > > - Rf, Ro. > > > > NOTE: The communication service identifier does not replace the > > public service identity (PSI). The communication service identifier > > would be used to indicate the communication service used to > access the > > service addressed via a PSI, and is required to identify the > > communication service even when SIP requests are sent > towards another > > entity without using a PSI. > > > > 4.13.2 Identification of IMS applications > > > > An IMS application is an application that uses an IMS communication > > service(s) in order to provide a specific service to the > end-user. The > > IMS application uses specific IMS Communication Service(s) > and provides > > the end user service through the reuse of the SIP > communication part of > > service. The IMS application does not extend the definition > of the IMS > > communication service. The IMS application reference > identifies the > > application utilising the IMS communication service. > > > > << removed figure >> > > > > Figure 4.13-1: IMS applications on top of an IMS > communication service > > The IMS application reference is used to identify the IMS > applications > > other than the default for the IMS communication service. The IMS > > application reference has significance at the UE and the > SIP AS behaving > > as SIP endpoints. The means to transport the IMS > application reference > > is defined within the IMS communication services. When > used, it shall > > be possible to transport the IMS application reference on > at least on > > the following interfaces: > > > > ISC; Gm; Mi, Mj, Mk, Mw; Mg; Mr; Ro, Rx, Rf > > > > > > </Specification Text> > > > > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------- > ---------- > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Sipping mailing list https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipping > > This list is for NEW development of the application of SIP > > Use sip-implementors@cs.columbia.edu for questions on current sip > > Use sip@ietf.org for new developments of core SIP > > -- > Jonathan D. Rosenberg, Ph.D. 600 Lanidex Plaza > Cisco Fellow Parsippany, NJ > 07054-2711 > Cisco Systems > jdrosen@cisco.com FAX: (973) 952-5050 > http://www.jdrosen.net PHONE: (973) 952-5000 > http://www.cisco.com > > _______________________________________________ > Sipping mailing list https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipping > This list is for NEW development of the application of SIP > Use sip-implementors@cs.columbia.edu for questions on current sip > Use sip@ietf.org for new developments of core SIP > _______________________________________________ Sipping mailing list https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipping This list is for NEW development of the application of SIP Use sip-implementors@cs.columbia.edu for questions on current sip Use sip@ietf.org for new developments of core SIP
- RE: [Sipping] Requirements for the identification… Drage, Keith (Keith)
- Re: [Sipping] Requirements for the identification… Paul Kyzivat