Media Server Control (mediactrl)

Last Modified: 2007-12-19

Additional information is available at tools.ietf.org/wg/mediactrl

Chair(s):

  • Eric Burger <eburger@bea.com>

  • Spencer Dawkins <spencer@wonderhamster.org>

    Real-time Applications and Infrastructure Area Director(s):

  • Jon Peterson <jon.peterson@neustar.biz>
  • Cullen Jennings <fluffy@cisco.com>

    Real-time Applications and Infrastructure Area Advisor:

  • Jon Peterson <jon.peterson@neustar.biz>

    Mailing Lists:

    General Discussion: mediactrl@ietf.org
    To Subscribe: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mediactrl
    Archive: http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mediactrl

    Description of Working Group:

    Real-time multi-media applications often need the services of media

    processing elements. It is true that modern endpoints are capable of

    media processing. However, the physics of some media processing

    applications dictate that it is much more efficient for the media

    processing to occur at a centralized location. By media processing, we

    mean media mixing, recording and playing media, and interacting with a

    user in the audio or video domains. The commercial market calls these

    media processing network elements "media servers."



    Some services achieve significant efficiencies when a central node

    performs media processing. Because of these efficiencies, media

    servers are widely used for conference mixing, multimedia messaging,

    content rendering, and speech, voice, key press, and other audio and

    video input and output user interface modalities. Given the wide

    acceptance of the media server, we need a standard way to control them.



    Since the media server is a centralized component, the work group will

    not investigate distributed media processing algorithms or control

    protocols.



    A media server contains media processing components that are able to

    manipulate RTP streams. Typical processing includes mixing multiple

    streams, transcoding a stream (e.g., from G.711 to MS-GSM), storing or

    retrieving a stream (e.g., from RTP to HTTP), detecting tones (e.g.,

    DTMF), converting text to speech, and performing speech recognition.

    Note that an MRCPv2 server may offer the low-level processing for the

    last two services, where the media server is a client to the MRCPv2

    server. Also note it is common to call the package of detecting user

    input, recording media, and playing media "Interactive Voice 

    Response," or IVR. Media services offered by the media server are

    addressed using SIP mechanisms, such as described in RFC 4240. Media

    servers commonly have a built-in VoiceXML interpreter. VoiceXML

    describes the elements of the user interaction, and is a proven model

    for separating application logic (which run on the clients of the

    media server) from the user interface (which the media server

    renders). Note this is a fundamentally different interaction model from

    MRCPv2, where media processing engines offer raw, low-level speech

    services.



    The work group will examine protocol extensions between media servers

    and their clients. However, modifying existing standard protocols,

    such as VoiceXML or SIP towards clients or MRCPv2 towards servers, is

    not in the work group's charter. The model of interest to this group

    is where the endpoint solely plays audio or video, transmits audio or

    video towards the server, and possibly transmits key press information

    towards the server. Alternate architectures, where the endpoint

    executes user interface commands, is outside the scope of the

    work group. For example, WIDEX/BEEP, with its distributed user

    interface description, is not in scope.



    The only model of user interface processing the work group will

    consider is where the media server performs all of the media

    processing. A caveat here is the media server, in interpreting a

    VoiceXML page, may make requests to a server for speech services.

    However, to the media server client and the media end point, the

    single point of signaling and media interaction is the media server.



    Any protocol developed by this group will meet the requirements for

    Internet deployment. This includes addressing Internet security,

    privacy, congestion control (or at least congestion safe), operational

    and manageability considerations, and scale. The protocol will not

    assume a private administrative domain. There is broad market

    acceptance of the stimulus/markup application design model for the

    application server - media server protocol interface. Thus this work

    group will focus on the use of SIP and XML for the protocol suite.



    The work product of this group includes the following:



    1. A requirements document. This document will identify and enumerate

    requirements for a suite of media server control protocols. Given that

    one of the common media server clients is a conference application

    server, we will consider the application server - media server

    requirements developed by the XCON work group. Likewise, we will

    consider media server control requirements from other standards

    groups, such as 3GPP SA2 and CT1.



    2. A framework document. This document will describe the different

    network elements, their interrelationship, and the broad set of

    message flows between them.



    3. A protocol suite describing the embodiment of the framework

    document. There may be separate protocol PDU's for audio conference

    control, video conference control, interactive audio (voice) response,

    and interactive video (multimedia) response. The separation and

    negotiation of different PDU's is a working group topic. However,

    there will be one and only one (class) of PDU's defined by the work

    group.



    4. Means for locating, and possibly establishing sessions to, media

    servers with appropriate resources at the request of clients. By

    appropriate, we mean the characteristics of a given media server

    required or desired for handling a given request. The expectation is

    such a means would build upon existing SIP, SNMP, and other protocol

    facilities. Such a means may or may not be an integral part of the

    item 3 deliverables above. This deliverable is an operational protocol

    that may rely on management protocols such as SNMP. We are neither

    creating a new management protocol nor a new provisioning protocol.



    Given the above-mentioned conferencing example, the work of this group

    is of interest to the XCON work group, as this protocol will describe

    the "Protocol used between the conference controller and the mixer

    (s)." Thus we expect to work closely with XCON. The protocol suite

    also is a possible embodiment of the ISC/Mr interface from the 3GPP

    IMS architecture. Thus we expect to gather requirements from, 3GPP,

    notably SA2, CT1, and CT4. ATIS and ETSI TISPAN have considered a

    functional element known as a media resource broker. The media

    resource broker provides the functionality described by deliverable

    #4, above. Thus we expect to gather requirements from ATIS and ETSI

    TISPAN. The Java Community Process has chartered work on a Java Media

    Server Control (JMSC) API, known as JSR 309. We expect to gather

    requirements from JCP, as well.



    Because of the vast experience with conferencing protocols and

    payloads, we expect considerable interaction with AVT and MMUSIC. If

    the work group requires extensions to SIP, the work group will forward

    those extensions to the SIP work group for consideration and

    refinement.

    Goals and Milestones:

    Done  Requirements Document WGLC
    Done  Framework Document WGLC
    Done  Requirements Document to IESG (Informational)
    Nov 2007  Framework Document to IESG (Informational)
    Jan 2008  IVR Control Protocol WGLC
    Feb 2008  IVR Control Protocol to IESG (Standards Track)
    Mar 2008  Mixer Control Protocol WGLC
    Apr 2008  Mixer Control Protocol to IESG (Standards Track)
    Jun 2008  Broker Protocol WGLC
    Jul 2008  Broker Protocol (Standards Track or BCP, TBD)

    Internet-Drafts:

    A Control Framework for the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) (90188 bytes)
    An Architectural Framework for Media Server Control (64089 bytes)
    Media Server Control Protocol Requirements (16920 bytes)
    SIP Interface to VoiceXML Media Services (88092 bytes)

    No Request For Comments


    IETF Secretariat - Please send questions, comments, and/or suggestions to ietf-web@ietf.org.

    Return to working group directory.

    Return to IETF home page.