SIPPING J. Rosenberg Internet-Draft dynamicsoft Expires: April 19, 2004 October 20, 2003 A Framework for Application Interaction in the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) draft-ietf-sipping-app-interaction-framework-00 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 April 19, 2004. Copyright Notice Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003). All Rights Reserved. Abstract This document describes a framework and requirements 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 Rosenberg Expires April 19, 2004 [Page 1] Internet-Draft App Interaction Framework October 2003 role in this framework. 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. Client Local Interfaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 5.1 Discovering Capabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 5.2 Pushing an Initial Interface Component . . . . . . . . . . . 16 5.3 Updating an Interface Component . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 5.4 Terminating an Interface Component . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 6. Client Remote Interfaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 6.1 Originating and Terminating Applications . . . . . . . . . . 19 6.2 Intermediary Applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 7. Inter-Application Feature Interaction . . . . . . . . . . . 21 7.1 Client Local UI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 7.2 Client-Remote UI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 8. Intra Application Feature Interaction . . . . . . . . . . . 23 9. Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 10. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 11. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . 29 Rosenberg Expires April 19, 2004 [Page 2] Internet-Draft App Interaction Framework October 2003 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 [3] 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 April 19, 2004 [Page 3] Internet-Draft App Interaction Framework October 2003 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 [3] 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 application that the user is interacting with. Stimulus Application Interaction: Application interaction is considered to be stimulus when the user device has no understanding of the semantics of the application that the user is interacting with. 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 April 19, 2004 [Page 4] Internet-Draft App Interaction Framework October 2003 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 them. 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 [4]. 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 April 19, 2004 [Page 5] Internet-Draft App Interaction Framework October 2003 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 April 19, 2004 [Page 6] Internet-Draft App Interaction Framework October 2003 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 April 19, 2004 [Page 7] Internet-Draft App Interaction Framework October 2003 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 April 19, 2004 [Page 8] Internet-Draft App Interaction Framework October 2003 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 built 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 [5] 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 [2], 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 April 19, 2004 [Page 9] Internet-Draft App Interaction Framework October 2003 We refer to the second sub-case as a client-local user interface. In this case, the user interface runs co-located with the user. 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 April 19, 2004 [Page 10] Internet-Draft App Interaction Framework October 2003 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 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) [7]. 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 [8], 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 the telephone. The user interface can be a VoiceXML browser, running Rosenberg Expires April 19, 2004 [Page 11] Internet-Draft App Interaction Framework October 2003 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 [10]. 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 April 19, 2004 [Page 12] Internet-Draft App Interaction Framework October 2003 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 April 19, 2004 [Page 13] Internet-Draft App Interaction Framework October 2003 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) [10]. 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 [9] 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 April 19, 2004 [Page 14] Internet-Draft App Interaction Framework October 2003 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 April 19, 2004 [Page 15] Internet-Draft App Interaction Framework October 2003 5. Client Local Interfaces One key component of this framework is support for client local user interfaces. 5.1 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. If the Allow header field indicates support for the SIP SUBSCRIBE method, and the Allow-Event header field indicates support for the [TBD] package, it means that the UA can instantiate presentation free user interface components. 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 [6] that indicate support for the HTTP URI scheme, it means that the UA supports presentation capable user interface components. The specific markups that are supported are indicated in the Allow header field. The Accept, Allow, Contact and Allow-Event header fields are sent in dialog initiating requests and responses. As a result, an application will generally need to wait for a dialog-initiating request or response to pass by before it can examine the contents of these headers and determine what kinds of user interface components the UA supports. Because these headers are examined by intermediaries, a UA that wishes to support client local user interfaces should not encrypt them. 5.2 Pushing an Initial Interface Component Once the application has determined that the UA is capable of supporting client local user interfaces, the next step is for the application to push an interface component to the user device. 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. To create a presentation capable UI component on the UA, the application sends a REFER request to the UA. This REFER is sent to the Globally Routable UA URI (GRUU) [12] advertised by that UA in the Contact header field of the dialog initiating request or response Rosenberg Expires April 19, 2004 [Page 16] Internet-Draft App Interaction Framework October 2003 sent by that UA. This means that any UA which wants to support this framework has to support GRUUs. Note that this REFER request creates a separate dialog between the application and the UA. OPEN ISSUE: This document has evolved into one that really is describing normative behavior. We could split the document in half, one of which is an informational framework, and the other is a standards track mechanism document. Or, we could have a single framework document that just happens to be standards track. The Refer-To header field of the REFER request contains an HTTP URI that references the markup document to be fetched. The application should identify itself in the From header field of the request. Once the markup is fetched, the UA renders it and the user can interact with it as needed. To create a presentation free user interface component, the application sends a SUBSCRIBE request to the UA. The SUBSCRIBE is sent to the GRUU advertised by the UA. Note that this SUBSCRIBE request creates a separate dialog. The SUBSCRIBE request is for the [TBD] event package. 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. The application should identify itself in the From header field of the request. Since the UI components are bound to the lifetime of the dialog, the UA needs to know which dialog each component is associated with. To make this determination, a UA MUST use a unique GRUU in the Contact header field of each dialog. This uniqueness is across dialogs terminating at that UA. This uniqueness can be achieved by using the grid URI parameter defined in [12]. OPEN ISSUE: This would require a UA to always use a unique GRUU in each dialog, since it doesnt know whether an application will try to create a UI component. Is that OK? To authenticate themselves, it is RECOMMENDED that applications use the SIP identity mechanism [11] in the REFER or SUBSCRIBE requests they generate. A UA will need to authorize these subscriptions and refers. To do this, a UA SHOULD accept any REFER or SUBSCRIBE sent to the GRUU it used for that dialog. This would imply that only elements privy to the INVITE requests and responses could send a REFER or SUBSCRIBE to the UA. The usage of the sips URI scheme provides cryptographic assurances that only elements on the call setup path could see such information. Therefore, it is RECOMMENDED that UAs compliant to this specification use sips whenever possible. A client SHOULD use grid parameters with sufficient randomness to eliminate the possibility of an attacker guessing the GRUU. Rosenberg Expires April 19, 2004 [Page 17] Internet-Draft App Interaction Framework October 2003 5.3 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 can update the filter at any time by generating a SUBSCRIBE refresh with the new filter. The UA will immediately begin using this new filter. 5.4 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 can 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 needs to be prepared to time 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. Rosenberg Expires April 19, 2004 [Page 18] Internet-Draft App Interaction Framework October 2003 6. 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. 6.1 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 direclty authenticate itself to the user through S/ MIME, since it is the peer UA in the dialog. 6.2 Intermediary Applications Intermediary application are, at the same time, more common than originating/terminating applications, and more complex. Intermediary 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. Rosenberg Expires April 19, 2004 [Page 19] Internet-Draft App Interaction Framework October 2003 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 April 19, 2004 [Page 20] Internet-Draft App Interaction Framework October 2003 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 April 19, 2004 [Page 21] Internet-Draft App Interaction Framework October 2003 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 [8]. 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 April 19, 2004 [Page 22] Internet-Draft App Interaction Framework October 2003 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 April 19, 2004 [Page 23] Internet-Draft App Interaction Framework October 2003 9. Examples TODO. Rosenberg Expires April 19, 2004 [Page 24] Internet-Draft App Interaction Framework October 2003 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 April 19, 2004 [Page 25] Internet-Draft App Interaction Framework October 2003 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 April 19, 2004 [Page 26] Internet-Draft App Interaction Framework October 2003 Informative 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] 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. [3] Day, M., Rosenberg, J. and H. Sugano, "A Model for Presence and Instant Messaging", RFC 2778, February 2000. [4] Rosenberg, J., "A Framework for Conferencing with the Session Initiation Protocol", draft-ietf-sipping-conferencing-framework-00 (work in progress), May 2003. [5] Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H. and P. Kyzivat, "Caller Preferences for the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)", draft-ietf-sip-callerprefs-09 (work in progress), July 2003. [6] Rosenberg, J., "Indicating User Agent Capabilities in the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)", draft-ietf-sip-callee-caps-00 (work in progress), June 2003. [7] Schulzrinne, H., Casner, S., Frederick, R. and V. Jacobson, "RTP: A Transport Protocol for Real-Time Applications", RFC 1889, January 1996. [8] Schulzrinne, H. and S. Petrack, "RTP Payload for DTMF Digits, Telephony Tones and Telephony Signals", RFC 2833, May 2000. [9] Sparks, R., "The Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Refer Method", RFC 3515, April 2003. [10] Burger, E., "Keypad Stimulus Protocol (KPML)", draft-ietf-sipping-kpml-00 (work in progress), September 2003. [11] Peterson, J., "Enhancements for Authenticated Identity Management in the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)", draft-ietf-sip-identity-01 (work in progress), March 2003. [12] Rosenberg, J., "Obtaining and Using Globally Routable User Agent (UA) URIs (GRUU) in the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)", draft-rosenberg-sip-gruu-00 (work in progress), October 2003. Rosenberg Expires April 19, 2004 [Page 27] Internet-Draft App Interaction Framework October 2003 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 April 19, 2004 [Page 28] Internet-Draft App Interaction Framework October 2003 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 (2003). 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 April 19, 2004 [Page 29] Internet-Draft App Interaction Framework October 2003 HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Acknowledgement Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the Internet Society. Rosenberg Expires April 19, 2004 [Page 30]